Can someone enlighten me on why in factory ammo, the 270 Win. tops out at 150 gr.? I see in "Ammo & Ballistics 5" that there is just one load over that, the Norma Vulcan 156 gr.

The 6.5 caliber seems to top out at 160 gr. on many articles I've read on the old 264 caliber rounds.

If the 6.5 was factory loaded to 160 gr., it seems to me that the 270 should also be offered in 160 gr., if not a little more, as it's a larger caliber. I'd think at least a 160 gr. would appeal to elk hunters. Couldn't some ammo company make a lot of money by offering this round to elk/moose/bear hunters?

In 280 Rem., the highest factory loads go up to 170 gr. In 7mm Rem Mag, it goes up to 175 gr. and the 7mm WSM goes up to 180.

The 270 Weatherby Mag & 270 WSM both only go up to 150 gr.

What gives here?

270 twist rate of 1 in 10 normally will not stabilize a bullet heavier or actually longer than a 150.

I have shot 180grain woodleigh in my .270Wea which turns out fine. I have 1:10 twist(Lilja barrel).
VO= 912 m/sek.

Here at 200 meters:

I believe that swampshooter is correct...even 150gr. Tipped Trophy Bonded Bearclaw 150gr. bullets start to keyhole in my Sako A7 at 200yds.....I know of no other explaination....regards....bearit....

What the above members say about twist rate. The 7mm's just do heavier bullets BETTER not because they are, what, .007" larger but because of twist rate.

Same reason, back in the day, that 243 Winchester was better than 244 Remington with heavier bullets.

Twist rate.

Nosler makes a 160 grain partition for the 270. Very accurate in my 10" twist 270 WCF.

If you handload, A while back, Speer produced 170 gr. round nose bullets for the 270. Some are still around on the secondary market. I don't believe that any were ever load and offered by the ammo manufacturers.

I used these on caribou in Alaska with good results.

I hear the Matrix 165 bullets stabilize fine in a 270 Win. Though the new 150g Accubond LR bullets have great BCs. I've got a bunch I have to load up. Anyone tried them on game?

None on game, but Litz has the BC at .543 in a 1:10. Not .625

They shoot well enough though.

A bullet with more bearing surface contact, like a round nose, will stabilize at a heavier weight then one with less bearing surface like a spitzer Boat tail of the same weight.

quote:

Originally posted by geoff:
If you handload, A while back, Speer produced 170 gr. round nose bullets for the 270. Some are still around on the secondary market. I don't believe that any were ever load and offered by the ammo manufacturers.

I used these on caribou in Alaska with good results.

Back in the day, I shot these in my Pre-64 Mod. 70. Then, it was the most accurate bullet my rifle saw. I still have 20 or so of them.

That rifle shoots 160 NPs very accurately and 110 Sierras equally well.

quote:

Originally posted by Wstrnhuntr:
A bullet with more bearing surface contact, like a round nose, will stabilize at a heavier weight then one with less bearing surface like a spitzer Boat tail of the same weight.

It has nothing to do with bearing surface and everything to do with length. The spitzer will inevitably be longer than the round nose of the same weight.

The .277 160 gr. Nosler Partition was made in semi-spitzer (rounded and shortened nose) in order to assure that it would stabilize in the standard 1-10" barrel of most .270's.

But why would anyone want anything other than the good old stand-by 130 grainer in a .270? Jack O'connor, the unrivaled .270 expert, often took elk with a 130 grainer in his .270's, commenting that it seemed to put them down a little faster than 150's. I'm sure this was true with broadsides into the vitals where the faster and more quickly-expanding 130's would inflict more trauma than a slower, lesser expanding 150.

On a broadside shot at an elk, I'm sure the 130 gr. will work. If I were to shoot an elk at 300-400 yds., on a sharp quartering away presentation, I would simply prefer the heaviest bullet I could get.

If the .277 160 NP was designed to stabilize in the 1/10 twist of the 270, why is it do you suppose, that no ammo company loads this bullet in factory ammo?

And I have stated here before on AR, that I hunt elk with either a 338WM or a 35 Whelen, both with 250 gr. bullets. I use this for the reason stated above. And yes, I agree that elk can and are killed with much less power. I have two female friends that hunt their elk every year with a 257 Roberts and a 25.06. They are very small women (less than 100 lbs.), and they prefer the reduced recoil these cartridges offer. And they are successful. But they take broadside shots and get very close.

So, I would certainly not discredit anyone's choice of caliber or bullet weight. But I do have my own preferences. Since I hunt elk in the Colorado mountains, I do not cherish tracking shot elk over mountain ranges and worse, having to haul them back to the truck. I used to do that when I was younger. I am simply too old/lazy to do that anymore. I am 63 years old. I hedge my bets with large caliber/heavy bullets. I want to take any reasonable shot (presentation) at any reasonable distance (for me, and my skills, that is 400 yds max). I also like exit wounds. At that maximum distance, I want the bullet to be able to enter the far end of an elk, pass through the vitals, and exit out the front. With energy to spare. But that's just me

quote:

If the .277 160 NP was designed to stabilize in the 1/10 twist of the 270, why is it do you suppose, that no ammo company loads this bullet in factory ammo?

It could be because they don't think they would sell enough of them to be profitable. Could be because who would buy a blunt looking bullet in the long range .270 cartridge. Unless you are an ammunition manufacturer, it is dangerous to "suppose" why they do anything.......



.

There are a lot of bullets not offered in factory rounds.

I have been playing with both the 160gr NP and 180gr Woodleigh.

I have not had any issues with either bullet.
Multiple loads with the 160 that shoot into an inch or less.

The 180's have been a little more finicky. Will play with the 180's some more after hunting season.

Tarbe: You just made my day. Thanks!!! I appreciate the information.

I know of several people who use the 180 Woodleigh in standard 270's with no problem.

I much preffer the 140 over the 130 grain bullets in the 270. They shot near as flat but hit a tad harde and give better penetration.

I have shot 160 grain Nosler Partitions for years with my four .270 WSM's. It is my go to load when I am after Elk and not using my larger rifles. At 2900 to 2950 fps I consider them excellent performers. I use the 130 grain Nosler Solidbase blems and 140 grain Ballistic Tips and Accubonds for Deer and will hunt Wolves with the Ballistic Tips in January in British Columbia. Good shooting.

Is that topped out in the WSM? Considering trying that bullet in my Montana

So, after I looked up DT's website, I see that they also offer a 180 Woodleigh as well as the 160 NP. I'm going to order one box of each and see how they perform in my rifle.

Thanks again tarbe!!

Their numbers for 160 NPT are a tad off compared to JBM:

DT-500yds - 41.7" low 2035fps / 1472ft/lbs
JBM-500yds --45.0"low 1877fps / 1251 FPE

2,850 seems smoking out of a 270 WIN for 160's

Thanks 16Bore. I'll keep that in mind. Still, the weight of the bullet will cover a few velocity sins I suppose.

I looked up the sectional density of the two bullets:
160--.299
180--.335

This is what I was looking for in 270. Again, I'm not saying lighter bullets won't work on elk, etc. I just have my preferences.

I am thinking of taking my 270 Win. to Africa some day as my light rifle. I usually take three rifles and a shotgun, as I always hunt with my wife, so we take two 2-rifle cases.

Of course, some of you are thinking, 'if a 140 gr. .277 bullet is too light, isn't that why you took along a medium bore?' Very true, however, I also take a few rounds of heavy bullets to replace the next higher rifle in case of loss/theft/breakage, etc.

This past summer hunting in Zambia, I hunted Buffalo and plainsgame, and for the first time, we only took two firearms: 404J and 338WM. In case the 404 went down, I packed some 275 gr. SAF for the 338 for Buffalo. So, if my medium goes down some day, and I am left with a 270 Win. and the heavy rifle, I want the 270 to step up and replace the medium.

I think these two heavy 270 bullets are just what I was looking for.

Thanks everyone for your contributions to this thread. I've learned a lot.

I'd never considered the 160's before this thread. As for the numbers, I take them ALL with a grain of salt. Sometimes the whole damn salt shaker. Monkey with twist, altitude, yada, yada and they change anyway.

Proof is on paper and fur.

and no one mentioned the king of .270 bullets?......it's the 150 grain A-Frame.....
just load them up and go elk hunting....

I rekon the 140gr Projectile is the Ducks Nutz in the .270 Winchester.

I do however see the advantage of being able to load 160s or so for larger game at moderate distances..

but I bought a 308 aswell

WL

quote:

Originally posted by surefire7:
So, after I looked up DT's website, I see that they also offer a 180 Woodleigh as well as the 160 NP. I'm going to order one box of each and see how they perform in my rifle.

Thanks again tarbe!!

sf7, Please post/mic length of those bullets.

I've been shooting only 150g Partitions out of our 270s for all big game, from javelina to elk. I used to squeeze just over 3000 fps out of my BDL with a 22" barrel, now that I load for my sons I've detuned the load to 2900 fps. They both shoot well under 1 MOA and are deadly on elk.

There isn't an absolute need for heavy for caliber bullets in the .270 or 25 caliber for that matter. This scenario does, however, facilitate greater versatility especially if it is done with tungsten inserts in the rear of the bullet and lead alloy in front. This construction yields a "shorter" bullet per any weight than the standard Cup & Core or partition bullet, allowing stability with standard twists and use in standard length magazines. It also permits bullets being seated without violation of powder room.
I came up with a a design program in Excel in 1995 for such a construction and will be glad to E-Mail it to anyone interested.May not be perfect but I was just learning how to use a computer back than. roger

Well, the ammo arrived the other day from Double Tap. I decided to first just try the 160NP. If my rifle didn't stabilize the bullet, I figured there was no sense ordering the 180s.

I went to the range yesterday and fired just six rounds, two three-round targets. The range was 100 meters, sunny day, no wind, 60 degrees. Rifle was a 270 Win., 22" barrel, Ruger Express. Bullet holes were perfectly round at this distance.

The best group, after the barrel was fouled, was 1.6". I wanted to go to the 200m range next but it was full. I will try more rounds and longer distance next time out.

Ray, I will pull a bullet and try to get it measured. I will get back to you after I do, unless someone here already has some of these bullets and the info Ray needs.

Always good to experiment. You should have no problem stabilizing 160 NPs with a 1 in 10 twist. Now the monolithic boat tail Matrix 165g bullets, they may be a problem. If I was going to use my 270 Weatherby for long range shooting, I would rebarrel it with a heavier 1 in 9" twist barrel barrel and a lighter synthetic stock

quote:

f I was going to use my 270 Weatherby for long range shooting, I would rebarrel it with a heavier 1 in 9" twist barrel barrel and a lighter synthetic stock


Regards,

Chuck

Chuck, or buy a 300 Wby! :-)

That too!

quote:

...You should have no problem stabilizing 160 NPs with a 1 in 10 twist....

Guys, it isn't the weight of the bullets, it's the length. The Nosler 160 is semi-pointed making it shorter. A 160-grain VLD bullet would probably not stabilize even though it is the same weight - it would be a lot longer.

Higher velocity also helps, that may help to explain why the earlier poster was able to stabilize 180s in a custom 1:10 .270 Weatherby barrel. Too, just because it says the twist is supposed to be 1:10 does not mean that it is.


,

130 NPT / 110 TTSX, 160NPT / 129 LRX, for conversation.

With the exception of the Barnes, I think I've shot all of the bullets mentioned in this thread, and even quite a few others, too.

I got 2850 (chronied) with RL 22 in a 22" post-70 winchester. Accuracy was good - say an inch or an inch and a quarter - at 100 yards. That was the summer of 2005, I believe.

I decided instead to load 150 gr. A-Frames over a stiff (in hindsight, too stiff) load of RL 22. Accuracy was a little less than an inch; terminal performance on moose was very good!

I think these two bullets, along with the 150 gr. partition, are the best heavies in the .270. I think the Win PP would probably be just as good.

With as much as bullets have advanced in the last 25 years, I think you could use almost any sensible bullet on elk or moose and have good results (in sensible shooting situations). I just had a new barrel put on the rifle (24"), but am going to stick with JUST ONE LOAD when I get dialed in...probably the 150 gr. Partition.

I'm tired of burning out barrels and the headache that goes along with it!

friar

Always liked the idea of a one-load-wonder, but alas you see 4 different bullets in that picture, and nary a one down the tube yet....

In a book wrote by Jack O'Conner late in his career he wrote that he was tending to use the 150 Nosler Partition exclusively for all his hunting.

We've (myself and my two sons) been using the 150g Partition in our 270s for everything except varmints since 1968 (for me) and 2000 (for my two sons) except my brown bear. Probably would've worked on that as well.