quote:

---

Originally posted by George Hoffman:
... One must use 150 gr bullets for the larger than deer animals....
George

---

I switched to the 150 grain Nosler Partition for everything out of my .270 that I want to eat. My first mule deer I hit in the shoulder with the .270-130 grain and it pulped everything in the shoulder, and then some. As well, where I was hunting then was griz country, and I wanted a bit heavier bullet than the 130 grain for emergencies. I've kinda stuck with that bullet as a good compromise between easier on meat and heavy enough for black bears, just to be safe. That way when I switch from deer to black bears, or encounter a black bear or elk, I don't have a bullet switching ritual to worry about.

Comments?

[This message has been edited by BBBruce (edited 10-29-2001).]

The European equivalent is 7x64 Brenneke another bastardisation of a fine calibre.

I'm not inexperienced merely prejudiced.

Now if 270 is so wonderfull why didn't someone commercialy stick it in a 308 case where it would be better suited than a 6.5 whose heavy bullets are too long. Oh I can't wait for the howls when everyone realises that just like 6.5x55 and 30-06 the 308 case will do all the 06 case ever did but with finer accuracy!

No doubt it's allready been done and no doubt I've shown my inexperience!

------------------
WyomingSwede

I like the 270 Win. It is my choice for the Weatherby Mark V Ultralight. I wouldn't hesitate to use it on anything, with the right bullet, and the right bullet placement, as others have said.

------------------
RAB

------------------
When in doubt, empty the magazine.

quote:

---

Originally posted by 1894:
I don't like the 270 Over loud, over hyped and over here :B I'm not inexperienced merely prejudiced.

Now if 270 is so wonderful why didn't someone commercially stick it in a 308 case where it would be better suited than a 6.5 whose heavy bullets are too long.

---

As you say, your personal bias. The .270 uses the 30-06 long case. Having a long case makes for easier reloading switches given the preponderance of 30-06 brass over here. 'Course nobody ever said you Brits lack brass.

Then why not use a 30-30 for all of your hunting?

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeremy w:
A dude that can barely kill an elk with an elephant gun is someone with "minimal hunting experience" or "minimal brain capacity". I haven't decided which just yet.

---

Shouldn't the rifle weigh enough that you could just stand on its head and beat the sh!t outta it?

Yes it has been done. It's the 7mm-08.

Okay, it's .284", not .277".

Mmmm, .007", Would that be the width of a "split hair"?

I found a 150 gr Partition load for my .270 and don't bother with anything else. It has better external and (I think more useful) terminal ballistics than the 130gr. I frankly don't see any use for the 130 gr. unless a rifle just won't group the 150s.

I think there is no appreciable improvement in long range effectiveness over the .270 150gr until the 7mag class and no medium range improvement until the 200gr + weights in the /06.

The debate over the 270 Win on the other side of the Big Pond is, I think, the same as we have here in Sweden over the 6.5x55. Some like it, some won�t use it and for some it seems to be part of their religion (worship/despise it, just pick a stand��.)!
Both these cartridges are adequate if applied properly PERIOD! It is really that simple�.

But let me be first to admit that if the person behind the stock doesn�t do his/her part it won�t be enough! It is just as simple as the other FACT! This applies, of course, to game big game as in elk, moose etc. Now I can hear the growls starting �If hit in the foot, a 470 whatever wouldn�t have downed it�� And, yes that is true! But that is not what I mean! I�m talking about those marginal hits that fail too put the animal down fast enough for it to be easy to retrieve. A hit through one corner of a lung that continues in to the paunch is lethal but it might take a while�.. There won�t be much blood on the scene nor in the tracks cause the paunch effectively stops most bullets or, if not, covers the exit hole so that no blood will come out. This might happen with a bigger cartridge but the chance is a lot bigger that there will be a blood trail to follow! Sometimes the animal will even leak through the entrance hole in the hide, which is nearly impossible with a 264/270 on a moose.

In Sweden, as well as in most European countries, there are people who are very knowledgeable about how to follow up bad shots and then to find the animal. Some of them don�t do much else�. If asked about caliber choice (for the person wounding the animal) they will all say the same thing: It�s easier for them if the shooter used a cartridge with a large diameter (as compared to the 264/270) bullet!

I�ve killed moose with the 6.5x55 and the 9.3x62. No problem at all!! But today I only use the 9.3x62 cause it just feels better!!!. A gun in a larger bore doesn�t have to be heavy. My 9.3 weighs 7 � pounds with a scope. That�s light enough for me to carry all day long (or the whole week for that matter). I know that there are people out there who can�t take the recoil of a larger round and have no quarrel with them at all!! If they choose to use a 6.5 etc. fine! Shooting a larger caliber bad isn�t gone help them at all! Much better to shoot a smaller bore with a greater comfort!

350RM
I think 1894 meant the caliber 7mm, not the cartridge 270 Win�

After writing this I understand why I don�t post more often: Takes to much time writing in English! I am however thankful that German is not the chosen language on this forum cause then I could as well stay in bed!

Cheers
K9

quote:

---

Originally posted by 1894:
I don't like the 270 Over loud, over hyped and over here :B

The European equivalent is 7x64 Brenneke another bastardisation of a fine calibre.

---

Sorry, 1894, but this is not true. The 7X64 is the equivalent of the 280 and the 7mm/06.

To the best of my knowledge, the 270 has no European equivalent.

There's something about the 270 that makes a certain contingent of riflemen bray and paw the earth. Their loss. The rest of us know that, when used within its proper limitations (i.e. things smaller than moose) the 270 is arguably the best caliber ever designed and built.

Recollections?

[This message has been edited by BBBruce (edited 11-07-2001).]

Vietnam Vet. 69/75 Been there done that.

------------------

[This message has been edited by Bear Claw (edited 11-09-2001).]

quote:

---

Originally posted by glenn:
I repeat a prior question - Who or what has anointed Mr. Alphin as a 'gun expert'?

---

Answer, the same guy that said that the 270 isn't enough gun for an elk.

BBBruce, If I remember right there were some M1 Garands made in 270. That would be a sweet rifle to shoot.

------------------
When in doubt, empty the magazine.

Pretty sure this info is correct, but I'm recalling it from Gun Digest articles read years ago.

[This message has been edited by Jim in Idaho (edited 11-09-2001).]

My comment about the 7x64 was indeed based on my understanding that Jack O Connors German partner in crime a certain Herr Brenneke created the 64 cased variant when the 57 case was allready around. Indeed as has been said it is my understanding that this preceeded the 270.

I would be the first to admit under duress that the 270 may be a fine cartridge it's just it's not for my type of stalking and actualy unless you are totaly hung up on long range etc I'm sure you can do nearly just as well with something that is a lot less loud and hence more pleasant to shoot.

quote:

---

Originally posted by steve y:

I think there is no appreciable improvement in long range effectiveness over the .270 150gr until the 7mag class

---

I did an external ballistics (Sierran89) short study once between the .270 and 7MM Rem Mag., using my fav load in .270/150 grain Nosler Partition and a factory loading of the 7MM. The diff between the two was somewhere in the region of +/- MOA out to 400 yards, meaning that the 7MM hit around 4" higher than the .270 at that distance. Both had elk killing power at that range, defined as more than 1200 psi if I recollect properly. The conclusion I reached was that although the 7MM had the potential to be loaded hotter, in actual hunting conditions using normal loads it was a toss-up to individual preference. Whatever fits you best.

[This message has been edited by BBBruce (edited 11-15-2001).]

I would hunt any animal on this earth with a 30-06 and a 220 gr. Nosler at 2500 FPS.......

------------------
Ray Atkinson

ray@atkinsonhunting.com
atkinsonhunting.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by Atkinson:
FACT: There is not a nickles worth of difference in the 270, 30-06, 7x64, 7x57, 308, 300 magnums, and a bunch of others from a practical point of view as to trajectory and killing power and not a hell of lot when you jump to 338 and 375 if the truth were known.....I like some better than others, but that means zilch.

---

Ok, up to a point, but given your choice would you chase a griz with a .270 if a 30 cal. was to hand? Serious question, and please feel free to expand on it.

If you take a trip back in time to when the rifles most of us use were originally designed, you'll see they developed repeaters for a reason. Just read some of TR's books and you'll see what I mean. When that man saw an animal he wanted, he started shooting and didn't stop until the thing was down...and he didn't feel guilty about it afterward, either. By the way, that's also the way O'Connor took grizzlies with a .270 Win. firing 130-grainers...keep shooting until it's down.

One-shot kills are a great goal, but they are by no means a requirement; unless you're looking to get bad-breath close to a big bear, of course. But, who the hell would want to do that?

RSY

Well, just my little opinion. When it boils right down to it - who gives a shit what the so called "experts" say? Practical experience is far more valuable than anything a book writer can come up with. People like Atkinson and Bemanbeme(even though he's really old) have the jump on the writers because they are experienced, practical people. (that is not to say, that because they say it - it is correct!!) though at times I mildly disagree with some of their threads and answers. Most of the people writing to these forums are dumping a wealth of experience and practical knowledge onto them and well worth listening to. I have been hunting for 40yrs( still Pro. hunting) and I still learn something everytime I get near these forums. I have used a myriad of different calibers for deer Wapiti and pigs. Some are better than others but there isn't a single cal. that I would knock PROVIDED it is used for what it was designed. My favourite for the last 10 years is my BAR .270 with which I have killed numerous deer and Pigs.

Steve H

quote:

---

Originally posted by RSY:
By the way, that's also the way O'Connor took grizzlies with a .270 Win. firing 130-grainers...keep shooting until it's down.RSY

---

If I remember correctly, O'Connor once wrote that he had taken four grizzlies, two with the .270 with 130 grain bullets, and two with the 30-06; moreover he went on to write that the ones he took with the .270 were each one-shot kills, while those taken with the 30-06 each required multiple shots. He also wrote that the 130 grain bullet (I think it was a Remington bronze point, but I don't remember that for sure) from the .270 had broken both shoulders of the bear and, he said, "You don't need more penetration than that."

Yes, you are correct. Those accounts are in "The Big-Game Rifle," I believe.

RSY

Only I'd start even lower (smaller?); with the 6.5s and maybe not go as big (higher?) than the .375.

I would feel perfectly comfortable shooting any animal on the planet with my -06 with the proper bullet. It ain't no better than a .270. The only reason I'd take the -06 over the .270 is I have shot it tens of thousands of rounds since 1968 and it is like an extension of myself. Most people would simply be amazed at how fast I can hit all five times with that rifle. Nearly as fast and more accurately than most people could with a pump or auto shotgun.

The difference is the shooter, and in the shooters mind!

------------------
Say what you mean, and mean what you say.

[This message has been edited by Ol' Sarge (edited 11-17-2001).]

quote:

---

Originally posted by RSY:
LE270:

Yes, you are correct. Those accounts are in "The Big-Game Rifle," I believe.
RSY

---

Thank you.
I also remember that he said that sometime he's like to "smack into a nice fat grizzly, just above timberline, with a .257" He meant a .257 Roberts. I'm giving the quote from memory; I may not have it word-perfect.

quote:

Originally posted by Brad:
500... you must have some disorder?

Brad

quote:

Originally posted by LE270:

quote:

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by RSY:
By the way, that's also the way O'Connor took grizzlies with a .270 Win. firing 130-grainers...keep shooting until it's down.RSY</font>

If I remember correctly, O'Connor once wrote that he had taken four grizzlies, two with the .270 with 130 grain bullets, and two with the 30-06; moreover he went on to write that the ones he took with the .270 were each one-shot kills, while those taken with the 30-06 each required multiple shots. He also wrote that the 130 grain bullet (I think it was a Remington bronze point, but I don't remember that for sure) from the .270 had broken both shoulders of the bear and, he said, "You don't need more penetration than that."