270 winchester, Why not?

[garryc]

As I posted, I just loaded some 270 winchester loads. This was the first time with that round. Here's what I don't get. Why did they never develope a real good line of match bullets.

I figure this, if one of the top performers in the shooting world is the 140 grain class 6.5 bullet, then why not the .277? If we divide 140 by .264 we get 530.3, multiply that by .277 and we get 146.8 grains. So to match the 6.5's BC we only need a .277 bullet of 147 grains. That bullet weight runs pretty fast out of a 270 winchester. I think someone missed the boat. 6.5's seemed cursed in this country, a 270 match load would be popular. I think the only heavy barrel 270 I've ever seen was a Remington Sendarro.

[Christchild]

GarryC,

I shoot (and load for) .270 Winchester. I agree that the Cartridge has been overlooked for match use. I think the majority of the logic to use other cartridges is based on "there are many other better cartridges for match". While that IS valid, I agree 100% that the .270 Win. is grossly overlooked.

Berger and Sierra both have Match Grade/Style bullets in .277", and I believe that a rifle that "likes" the offered weights (Berger VLD...130, 140 and 150 gr.) (Sierra MatchKing...115 and 135 gr.), would be a force to be reckoned with.

My rifle in particular doesn't seem to like any 130-135 gr. bullets, but I believe that's not very common in a rifle chambered in .270 Win. Since I've rebarreled that rifle with a Douglas Air Gauge #4, I've held an interest for a match bullet that it likes. I bought 2 boxes of the 135 gr. MatchKings, but it was a No Go. 1 1/4" at best.

With all the usual cartridges used in Matches, I'd think the .270 Win. would really have a tough time (for reasons of popularity), but if someone stepped up with one, and was good with his rifle, the Love and Respect for the .270 Winchester would come back fast. Not that it isn't still one of the best and most popular/effective, there's just alot of other calibers and cartridges overshadowing it, especially the 7mm and .30 caliber Magnums.

I have 100% confidence in the .270 Win., and I refuse to be swayed... :cool:

[Horseman]

I've been impressed with my 270's too. If there were more cartridges in that caliber it would help legitimize 277's with the competition crowd IMO. Being right between 6.5's and 7mm's puts it in that sweet spot for accurate shooting.

[Pathfinder45]

I dunno. Maybe it's because it was never a service rifle cartridge. Sierra makes a 135 grain MatchKing bullet for .270's; but I've never bought them. It's essentially a hunting cartridge that never had a military application. I think there are plenty of excellent bullets for it anyway. It's a case of coulda-woulda-shoulda-didn't. Given a chance it would run with best of them.

[garryc]

135 grain is too light for real long range work. In that bore it would run between 140 and 150 grain, again matching the 6.5 BC's. When you build a rifle you may wish to use a specific bullet, but when it's done that bullet doesn't work well. With few options you are stuck.

As far as bench guns, compitition rifles, that is one of the most fad fixed groups I ever met. what s popular today, and winning matches, ain't worth spit tommorrow.

[Christchild]

Whenever things get better with the economy and work gets back to normal, I may follow through with a thought that's been around.

My rifle LOVES 90 gr., 110 gr. and 150 gr. bullets. Maybe the 150 grain Berger VLD would group right.... :rolleyes:

[Fat White Boy]

I reload for my .308 and .22-250. My Winchester Model 70 Walmart Special in .270 Win shoots clover leafs at 100 yards using Remington CoreLokt 130gr ammo. Who am I to question results?

[qwman68]

my .270 shoots 150 gr. very well.that is all i shoot out of it range or hunting.

[garryc]

my .270 shoots 150 gr. very well.that is all i shoot out of it range or hunting.

150 grain bullets in a 270 have a good long bearing surface. If you take that bullet and put a good boat tail on it and a good ogive you still have plenty of bearing surface. If you look at the Berger 6.5mm Match VLD and scale it up you see what I mean.

I think one problem would be that the typical 270 winchester twist rate is 1-10 and you would need a 1-8 or so. If you take a bullet of a given weight and make it a VLD you make it longer, then you need to spin it faster.

[knight79]

Just getting back into reloading after a 10 yr. leave(kids, sports,work). My pet load for .270 is the boat-tailed Sierra 130 gr. with 49.4 grs of 4064 with Fed. 210 primers. Consistently shoots around .600 3 shot groups @ 100 yds. I am shooting this in a factory 700 Classic that has only had the lugs lapped.

After being out of the loop for so long, I am amazed at the powder/Bullet innovations over the last 10-15 years. I'm now looking to build a custom .270 on another 7oo action with match-grade barrel that is not too heavy to carry deer hunting in the mountains of western Va. I love the looks of the Cooper custom Mtn rifles but think I can build one close to them for less money.

I also dont quite understand why the .270 has not been better utilized in the match arena, besides maybe the bullet selection and that has only been in the last few years (Bergers, etc...). If I can get the above acurracy with a factory 700, what is possible with alittle better componets and a decent gunsmith who is familiar with bench-gun building?

[langenc]

A deer can only be killed so dead.

[preventec47]

The problem with competition is the action is too long and when
long they flex and you lose accuracy. That is why all the short
squat fat cartridges in bench rest shooting. The 270 is too long
and slender and you give up accuracy like that.
That said, if I lost all my guns and I could only get one to replace,
it would be the 270, Extra magazine capacity means more to me
than bench rest shooting. Plus it is in the top five most popular
selling ammo and guns and it will be around forever.
Note that three of the top five are popular because of military.
( 223, 308, 30-06)
Only the 270 and 30-30 earned the respect of the world
the hard way.

[rshanneck2002]

Has anybody ever shot 100 gr thru their .270s? I have been looking at some lately for purchase and also 125 gr in 30-06. If so what are generally the results? I know it increases speed,generally ive shot 130s thru mine but i just got the rifle(Vanguard) and have just started playing with it at the range. I would think it would be plenty for MI whitetails. My 30-06 i usually go with 150s,but man do they destroy alot of meat with soft points. I have litterly blown off the legs of deer on the opposing side with core-lokts with the 150s. Thinking of stepping down in weight and have no exspertise with the lighter rds.

[Clark]

I have shot (8) deer between 329 and 510 yards with 270 130 gr Ballistic tip.

I have rifles I could shoot a deer with in; 19 Badger .222,.223, 22-250 .243, 6mmBR,.243Win,.250/3000, 257 Roberts Ackley, 6.5 jap, 6.5x55, 270,7x57mm, 7mm Rem mag, 30-30, 303Sav, 300Sav,.308, 30-06, 300 Win Mag, 300RUM, 7.5 French, 7.5 Swiss, 7.62x39mm,303Brit, 7.62x54R, 8x57mm, 338WM, 35 Whelen, 44 mag, 45acp, 45Colt, and 45/70.

But the 270 gets it done.

Win pre64 M70 action
22" PacNor lightweight taper barrel
Bordon Rimrock stock
Weaver Aluminum scope mounts
Medium Aluminum 4 screw rings
Leupold 2x7x33 scope
Stoney point knob
Harris HBLS 8.5" - 12.5" type S bipod
Butler Creek stretchy sling
Butler Creek objective cover
Dvorak instruments soft eye cover
_____________________
8.9 pounds unloaded
0.9" 5 shot group at 100 yards.

[preventec47]

Holy cow Clark. All you have to do is get a sign made that
says "MUSEUM" and charge admission.

If I had a 270 I would be experimenting with the newer Barnes
tipped boat tail TTSX in 110 gr as that is exactly what I have
moved to in my 7mm Rem Mag. Due to the increased
allowed SAMMI bore pressure of the .270, it very nearly
overlaps the 7mm Rem Mag in performance.

[Pongo]

rshanneck2002

I used to hunt whitetails with someone who used 100gr softpoints in 270. Believe me they are not what you want for that job. He couldn't understand why he had so much blood shot meat in comparison to mine, I was using 140gr softpoints in 270. He liked the extra velocity but the wrong bullet weight for deer. Eventually he changed to 130gr and was happy.

To the original OPThe problem with competition is the action is too long and when
long they flex and you lose accuracy.
Good point.

[GeauxTide]

My first rifle was a 7mm Weatherby because the only LH choices in 1970 was Weatherby and Savage. I currently load 270W for a friend, but don't own one. My caliber preferences are 6.5 and 284. I own a 260, 6.5-06, 280, and 7mmRM. I think the 270W is a fine cartridge, but I just opted for something different.

[brewman]

An article I found some time ago.


Is Jack O'connor's pet cartridge simply inaccurate?
February 2007
The .270 Winchester will celebrate its 80th birthday in 2005. During its fourscore years of existence it has gained a worldwide popularity equaled by just a half dozen or so other calibers. While other, newer cartridges have blasted onto the hunting scene with great fanfare only to trickle into obscurity within a few years, the .270, if anything, has become even more steadfastly popular.
We at Outdoor Life take special pride in the ongoing success of the .270 because it was on these pages, through the romantic phrases and sound advice of Jack O’Connor, that the .270 became a hunting icon. Not before or since has any cartridge received such unstinting praise, and it was well deserved, for as O’Connor consistently reminded his readers, a good hunting cartridge is one you can hit with. The flat-shooting .270 reduces much of the guesswork associated with shots at often unknown distances and puts the bullet on target with a potent package of energy.
Yet despite its acclaim in hunting circles, there is one category of cartridge performance from which the .270 has been curiously absent: the hyper-charged area of pure accuracy. No question about it, the .270 has accuracy aplenty to take down an antelope at 300 yards, but that is a universe apart from the degree of accuracy needed to consistently drill five holes in a 1-inch circle at that same 300 yards.
Target shooters spend a lot of time talking about the accuracy potential of various cartridges In such discussions the .270 gets no respect. It is almost as if, at some point in the unknown past, it was decreed that the .270 would never be a contender in that arena. This becomes even more mysterious when we notice that calibers on both sides of the .270—the .22, 6mm, 6.5mm, 7mm, .30 and even the .338—have all made their mark in the world of super accuracy.
Why the Bum Rap?
Various explanations have been offered for the .270’s failure to be adopted by the accuracy elite, including the absence of finely accurate rifles and ammunition. But the fact is that the most popular target rifle of its era, Winchester’s Target Grade M-70, was offered in .270 chambering, along with other calibers. But so few were sold in .270 that Winchester took it out of its catalog in 1951.
It has been pointed out that during the era in which Winchester built target rifles, the only caliber allowed in NRA-type, high-power rifle competition was the .30/06, and therefore the .270 never had a chance to prove itself. However, when the rules were relaxed to allow other calibers, there was a rush to such calibers as the .243 Win. and .280 Rem., but not the .270.
Tim McCormack, longtime head of Remington’s Custom Shop, which turns out the finely accurate 40-X target rifles on a special-order basis, tells me that he can’t remember ever getting an order for a .270.
This echoes Winchester’s earlier failure to seduce accuracy fans with a target-grade .270. All the more strange, as reported by McCormack, 40-X target rifles have been ordered in such unlikely calibers as the .350 Rem. Mag. and even .416 Remington.
Another suggested cause of the .270’s poor headway in the accuracy department is the failure of bullet and ammo makers to provide target-grade loads and components for the .270 as they do for some other calibers. Over the years major ammo makers have offered match-grade ammo in .30/06, .308, .223 and even .300 H&H, but after a search through catalogs dating back to the 1930s, I find no such listing for the .270.

Likewise, if you scan the product list of any of the big-name bullet makers, you’ll find .270-caliber hunting bullets aplenty, but nothing in the accuracy category, as offered in other calibers.
A few years back Sierra took the leap and offered a .270 (which is actually 0.277 inches in diameter), 135-grain MatchKing bullet, but according to Adam Braverman, Sierra’s vice president of sales and marketing, sales of the .270 MatchKings have been just a trickle. Here again, as Braverman points out, the paradox of the .270 is that while .270-caliber hunting bullets remain among Sierra’s biggest sellers, the accuracy crowd remains unimpressed.
When all these aspects of the .270’s accuracy history are considered together, a pattern begins to emerge. One begins to wonder if there is something truly mysterious at work here. Or to put it bluntly, a mystery that has long tantalized arms makers and ballistic experimenters: Are there such things as inherently inaccurate calibers? And if so, is the .270 Winchester one of them?
Testing Begins
To explore the mystery of the .270, Outdoor Life undertook what in all probability is the most exhaustive investigation of the .270’s accuracy ever conducted. The investigation began with the controlled firing of hundreds of test rounds of .270 ammunition and then continued into more hundreds of rounds as our findings were checked, rechecked and confirmed.
Firing such an extensive test is not just a matter of gathering up a bunch of rifles and plinking at targets. A test protocol must be established and special laboratory-grade equipment used throughout. A standard .270 hunting rifle, no matter how good, would be unsuitable because the rifle’s accuracy, or lack thereof, would be a major factor and would almost certainly skew test results.
Accordingly, we had a test rifle built with an extra-heavy SAAMI spec barrel (the type used in industry test ranges) with a 1-in-10-inch rate of twist, fitted to a “blueprinted” Remington 700 action. The assembly was then fitted in a heavy H-S Precision stock with the receiver bedded into a rigid aluminum cradle. The shape and structure of the H-S stock allowed the 17-pound rifle to be fired from benchrest-type supports or clamped in our 250-pound, free-recoiling Clerke machine rest.
This custom .270 test rifle is identical to our test rifles in other calibers, sometimes known as “slaves,” which typically are capable of 100-yard, 5-shot groups smaller than a half inch with “calibration” ammo. This is specially loaded ammunition of known accuracy that is used to calibrate or confirm that the test rifle is at peak performance at the beginning of each series of test groups.
On The Range
After a few test loads were tried, the calibration load selected was the 135-grain Sierra MatchKing, 55 grains of IMR-4831, Winchester primer and new, previously unfired Winchester cases. During initial confirmation a series of six 5-shot groups were fired rapidly without cleaning the barrel or allowing it to cool. The purpose was to determine whether the barrel had any tendency to shift point-of-impact or lose accuracy when hot or badly fouled. If any of the six groups had been larger than 0.750 inches (¾-inch), the barrel would have been replaced. The largest group of the series measured 0.682 inches, with the average of the six groups being 0.624 inches. (Consistency is as much the essence of a good calibration load as accuracy.) The last group of the series, fired when the barrel was extremely hot and fouled, was one of the smallest, indicating we had a reliable test rifle.
Our test protocol required four 5-shot groups fired consecutively at 100 yards with each load we tested. At the end of every 20 shots the barrel was cleaned and cooled. The firing series was divided into two parts: handloaded ammo—to test bullets—and factory loads. Factory-loaded ammunition was tested first, and from the beginning there were disappointments.
Brands Vary Widely
There are far too many brands, bullet weights and styles of factory-loaded ammo to test them all, so a cross- section of brands was tested. Mainly we tested the newer, top-of-the-line offerings with popular styles of bullets ranging from 130 to 150 grains.
It was fascinating to discover the wide differences in accuracy within a particular brand. For example, while Winchester’s Supreme-grade load with 130-grain Ballistic Silvertip averaged a tidy 1.114 inches, the 140-grain Fail Safe load could do no better than 2.700 inches.
Across the spectrum of factory-loaded ammo, groups tended to range in the 2-to-2½-inch category. It was almost as if the ammo industry had decreed that the accuracy of .270 cartridges should be about 2½ inches—no better, no worse. I expect this falls within the mysterious “within our specifications” category used by some makers to explain—or excuse—ammo of mediocre accuracy. I also strongly suspect that this is much of the cause of the .270’s reputation for bum accuracy—a situation made all the more peculiar when the same bullets, presumably identical to those loaded at a factory, handloaded to the same overall length, proved measurably more accurate. To be fair, this was not always the case, with the accuracy of some factory loads being virtually identical to handloads with the same bullet.
All handloaded ammo used in our test followed a strict loading regimen. Bullets of the same weight were loaded with weighted charges of the same propellant and seated to the same overall length in new, previously unfired cases. The type of propellant and the charge weights selected for the various bullet-weight categories were those widely recommended and considered optimum by reloading guides. The only concessions made to gain top accuracy with handloads were rounding the case necks, individual hand seating of primers, use of a Redding benchrest-type, bullet-seating die for best alignment and, as mentioned, weighing each propellant charge.
Test Results
Predictably, the handloaded ammo was more accurate than the factory loads, with a few exceptions. As with other calibers, certain brands, weights and styles of bullets performed better than others. In no instance did a group with handloaded bullets measure as large as 2 inches, and groups measuring less than an inch were common.
Perhaps the biggest surprise of our test series was the accuracy of the .270 with a wide range of bullet weights. Whereas sub-MOA groups were common with bullets in the 130-to- 150-grain range, there was similar accuracy with bullet weights of 90 and 110 grains, indicating the uncommon versatility of the .270. The Sierra “Varminter” and Speer “TNT,” both 90-grain hollowpoints, delivered groups nearing a half inch. Our test load for these light bullets (61 grains of IMR-4831, yielding an MV of over 3,400 fps) would be devastating for woodchucks and other small game animals.
On the final day of test firing, we celebrated by varying from our strict protocol and entering two additional rifles in the race, one being a rare sample of Winchester’s M-70 Target model. Mounted with a 15X Unertl target scope of similar vintage, the M-70 produced a good first test group, with its first two shots overlapping. But even with our super-accurate calibration load, the final group, and those following, measured over 2 inches. This may well explain why there were so few orders for that model.
The other rifle was a standard-grade prewar M-70 made about the time Jack O’Connor began writing for Outdoor Life. How well did it shoot? Well, let’s put it this way: I’d put it up against any of today’s factory-produced .270’s. If you want to wager against it, bring plenty of cash.

[Catfish25p2000]

I'm currently building a .270 on a Mauser action because it is a killer round. I am using a brand new factory 700 barrel. No trying to jack the thread, but can anyone tell me what kind of accuracy you get out of a factory Remington barrel? I think its a 22 inch, but I cant remember.

[Picher]

I have a factory stainless sporter barrelled action in a "take-off" HS-Precision Sendero stock. With 130 grain Nosler Ballistic Tips, using a hefty load of Reloder 22, it has made 3-shot groups under 1/2" at 100 yards and 3 1/2" at 450 yards.

With light loads of IMR 4895, Sierra 90 Grain HP, groups 3/8" at 100. The best thing is that both groups print less than an inch apart at 100 yards.

I think the reason the .270 Win hasn't become a target round is that the .308 Win is a better target round for shooting up to 300 yards. The inherent accuracy of that round is out of line with it's diameter...as indicated by the long-term Rem 40x factory testing/accuracy claims. It's not hurt by the fantastic match bullets available in .308 diameter.

The 1,000 yard shooting distance was probably never as popular as it is today. The .270 Win might be a good cartridge for that shooting, but it's not sexy.

As much as I like the .270 Win, it wouldn't be my first choice for a target round, but is a great combination hunting/informal target/larger varmint round. I've shot a few coyotes and woodchucks with mine and won a few turkey shoots with it.

[longranger]

I have been reloading and shooting for 40 years, I reload and shoot the following.
.222 Rem-.223 Rem-22-250-7x30 Waters-7mm- Rem Mag-308 Win--30-06-300WSM-40-70 Sharps Striaght-45-70 Gov. 38 S&W-.38 Special-45 Colt -.41 Rem Mag.These cartridges are spread over 40 rifles and 8 handguns
Tell me why I need a .270, it does better than what?
It is a fairly small number of people who seek out specifically the .270 Win. It just does not do anything better than other established cartridges.It suffers from a fairly anemic bullet selection and rifles that will exploit it's potential.It would be nice if rifle makers would give the .270 Win. a little push with some different twist barrels and some new bullets,Not unlike what has happened with the .223 Rem.
Seems like every time I get ready to buy a new rifle The .270 Win. never enters my mind as a "I gotta have it" cartridge.:confused:

[Horseman]

It just does not do anything better than other established cartridges.It suffers from a fairly anemic bullet selection and rifles that will exploit it's potential.

I haven't found this to be the case. There's overlap in almost all cartridges. What does your 7-30Waters do that your 308 can't? What does your 308 do your 30-06 can't? There are plenty of good 277 bullets around. Most people don't buy custom benchrest bullets. And those are primarily only made in .224, 6mm, and 30cal. I'm referring to high end target bullets like Ronnie Cheek and similar. But for match type production bullets you've got Sierra Matchking, and Berger making some really good .277 bullets. Same as most other calibers.

[Art Eatman]

The range of bullet selection for any caliber is a free-market decision by the manufacturers in response to demand. There has been no particularly great demand for target bullets in .277 as compared to other calibers. Simple, really. It's all about making enough profit to stay in business.

[Pathfinder45]

Brewman, your lengthy post was fascinating. However, why was all the testing done at 100 yards? Was there no testing at, say 300, 400, and 500 yards? I've found that one should not presume that any given load that is accurate at 100 yards will still be stable and group well at 300 yards. Accuracy at 100 yards was a good standard for testing 100 years ago. but for at least a couple of generations now there have been a lot of cartridges in common circulation that are considered long range calibers. I think the shooting press has done us a disservice by not adopting a much longer range as a standard for testing rifles for the articles they write. The whole reason for having a .270 is that it shoots a lot flatter than a .30-30 at LONG range. If no one can shoot well beyond 100 yards then we could just as well go back to the black-powder cartridges. Maybe no one needs anything more than a .38-55. My primary rifle is a .270 Winchester. In my experience with it, 100 yard groups mean absolutely nothing at 300 yards. If all the testing was limited to 100 yards I think they proved nothing much. All was not lost, however, if they wrote an article to help sell more magazines or whatever. Longranger: What did you mean by this?: It is a fairly small number of people who seek out specifically the .270 Win.? This statement appears to be false but perhaps you weren't talking about hunting rifles and ammo sales? Maybe you meant .280 Remington? To all .270 owners: Have you tried Nosler 150 grain Partitions? My Winchester really likes them. Happy New Year and good shooting to all.

[Christchild]

To all .270 owners: Have you tried Nosler 150 grain Partitions? My Winchester really likes them. Happy New Year and good shooting to all.

I have not tried Partitions. The 150 gr. bullets I use in my .270 Win. are Norma Oryx. The Oryx are about $2 per 100 bullets cheaper than the Partition (very small difference), they're bonded core, and the Oryx aren't quite as spitzer/pointed as the Partition, they're Protected Point, kind of Semi-RN. If I could get the Hornady 150 gr. Interlock RN, I'd definitely have a few hundred, but apparently Hornady doesn't make them anymore.

I have 40 (2 boxes of 20) 150 gr. Barnes MRX, but they're so expensive I wonder why I even bought them. Maybe for Elk if I get the chance...:o...but the Oryx would do just fine for those, too.

[brewman]

Pathfinder45,

In answer to your question “Why was all the testing done at 100 yards?” well you would need to ask the authors that question not me. I can only assume that when the general discussion of accuracy comes up it is often talked in MOA which is based on 100 yards, that’s what most people think of and that is an industry standard in bragging terms, how many advertisements do you see that guarantee 1” or less MOA out the box? People can relate to it I guess.

I do agree with you, a long range study would be very interesting but I suppose the further out you get the more variables come in to play as well and I’m sure there would be no shortage of people ready to tear shreds off of any such study and its findings. You can never please all the armchair critics…..

Cheers.

[Clark]

If you read that whole Brown Precision website, you will see that they have experimented with many cartridges for their high end sporting rifles.

http://www.brownprecision.com/how-i-build-a-rifle-for-myself.htm

What is curious, is that when Mark Brown builds a rifle for himself, it is a 270.

[gunn308]

As a teenager a buddy said my ole mans 270 will out shoot your 30.06 any day of the week so off we went 100 yds I had more in the 10 ring so he says well it's a long range gun any way so we commence firing at 200 yds and again I had more in the 10 ring. Boy was he POed but I was on the rifle team at school and shot rimfire postal league twice a week and I knew my old Springfield was a shooter so no matter what he had I knew I could out shoot him that was my first exposure to a 270. Last year I walked into the local pawn shop and an old winchester model 70 in .270 with a heavy 1.25" Douglas barrel was there for $150 and I told Momma it followed me home. I mounted a scope and my son and I went to sight it in at 100 yds he was spotting and I fired 3 shots and he says only one was on the paper high and right so I dial it in and fire 3 more and he starts laughing low and left and only one on the paper so I dial it in again and fire 3 more and he laughs and says its on but only one in the bull so we walk across the gravel pit so I could look at the target, now I'm not a competition shooter but that sucker was making cloverleafs I could cover with a dime. I'm a hunter and that 270 gave me a hernia just taking it out of the truck so I sold it to some range rat minus the scope and tripled my money. What a hoot. He says with the right loads he shoots sub 1" groups at 500 yds. How many BR shooters doe it take to change a light bulb? What !!!!! Change!!!!!

[NWCP]

Only the 270 and 30-30 earned the respect of the world
the hard way.

The .223, .308 and 30-06 all earned their respect the hard way. Last I checked deer don't return fire. :rolleyes:

[hagar]

I was never a 270 fan, but 12 years ago I had a hunting trip to South Africa planned, and one of my buddies there wanted a stainless Ruger in 270. I tried to convince him to get a 30/06, but he would not budge. Just so happen a big chain was closing it's doors, and I walked out with a brand new rifle for $325, and a couple of boxes of Federal 130 grainers for about $7 a box. Did not want to take it to SA without making sure it would at least fire, so I mounted a scope on it, and proceeded to shoot a 5 shot group into less than 3/4 inch at 100 yards. Thinking it was a fluke, I shot another one, and tried to especially concentrate, and came up with a real 1/2 inch group. And I did it twice again in a row. And the groups were nice and round, the kind of groups I always strive for.

I had a devil of a time getting my Winchester 30/06 to shoot a 3/4 inch group with my best handloads, and decided there and then that NO WAY am I parting with that rifle. Went back and bought another one. It too shot good, not quite as good as the first one, but still way less than an inch. My friend was ecstatic with it, even after paying import duties he got it for about 60% of what he would have paid for it new in SA, and I saw him make a neckshot on a springbuck 350 yards away. And mine also loved the Failsafe bullets, shot them even better than the Federals, none of this 2 inch groups. Actually, I never saw a group over 3/4 inch group with it, no matter what I tried.

I have not shot it much since 2002, my wife used it for Elk hunting but she never got a decent shot. I moved from AZ to SC in 2003, 3 years ago my brother in law shot a bobcat with it at over 200 yards, so I guess it still shoots good!

One reason it never became a popular target cartridge was because it was never a military cartridge. Let one sucker win the Wimbledon or the F class tryouts with a 270 Winchester, and it will be the next new hot cartridge.;)

[rudy270]

i have a choice of gun to use but the 270 remane the best of the best i have 270 wsm that will group 5 shots under 3/4 inch 270win. gun that will group 1in or better then a savage that will group 1/2 in with reloads of 130 gr bullets with match primmers and a load of powder 55 gr can't ask much more then that as for game pull off some shots at over 400 yards with the savage . closing i will keep all 8 of my 270s and get rit of the rest but i like guns all kinds all kinds of cal

[uncyboo]

Hey Rudy, I'm sure we all appreciate your input, but please please use some punctuation and capitalization. Your posts are almost impossible to read.

[tundramed1]

I have a rifle that I had built (can it be 25 years ago?) on a Sako action, Douglas air-gauged 26" barrel, 1/4-rib, barrel band and ramp front sight (I love the look of British "express" rifles),all by Allen, with an exhibition-grade french walnut/ebony forend that I hand-selected out of Reinhardt Fajen's bins when he was a custom stockmaker. Talley rings and a Leupold 2.5-8X. 57.1 grs of 7828, and Nosler 150gr Partitions have knocked over more than a dozen caribou at 150-440 yds,one shot,neck or chest. Minimal meat damage with the Partitions, and .75" 5-shot 100 yd groups all day. Newer "shinier" bullets there are, but the Partitions get the job done and shoot straight. Play around with the seating depth and stop when you have a winner.

[Scorch]

If we divide 140 by .264 we get 530.3, multiply that by .277 and we get 146.8 grains. So to match the 6.5's BC we only need a .277 bullet of 147 grains.That will match the sectional density of the 6.5mm bullet, not the ballistic coefficient.

My opinion of why the 270 never made it as a match chambering is the focus on the cartridge as a game cartridge. I think it would be a great match cartridge if match bullets were available.

[tachunter]

Hey Rudy, I'm sure we all appreciate your input, but please please use some punctuation and capitalization. Your posts are almost impossible to read.

haha...that's funny.

I have a WinM70 featherweight pre-64 in 270. I have reloaded, SMK's 135gr, Nosler E-Tips 130gr, Hornady GMX 130gr, Barnes TSX 150gr, and Barnes TTSX bullets. I have yet to shoot the TTSX's. The 150gr Barnes won't stablize properly and grouped over 2" at 100. All the other full copper bullets shoot around MOA or a bit more. I'm hoping to to get under a MOA with the TTSX's. The SMK's though are a complete different story. They shot around 3/4 or less sometimes all day long. This is out of a 60 year old rifle. I was consistenly around 3050 through the krono and dropping 36" at 550yds. I could only imagine the capabilites out of a modern build with more match projectiles available. If the military was shooting the 270 cartridge we would have 10x the options. I don't understand why this cartridge never received the attention as the other either. I've heard the story a thousand times that there just isn't a lot of people who want them. I'm just waiting for a serious competition shooter to get the balls and put in the time to avenge this cartridge.

[mxsailor803]

I hae a Remington 700 ADL in .270 loaded with a custom mix with a Sierra 110 boat tail that is fitted with a shilen trigger. I would use it for any game, short of dangerious, here in North America. Lets face the reality that it has the power to drop a reasonably size animal at any distance the shooter is comfortable with and it won't give you the "black eye" or bruised shoulder. The .270 will always have a place or two reserved in my safe.

[longranger]

Nobody buys a 30-06,308,300WM or any of the 30.cal ,7mm or 6.5 wishing dang I should have bought a .270 just don't happen that way.Nobody buys a .270 thinking hey I'm going to blow all their doors off with my little .270. and the crappy bullet selection.Good deer cartridge that's it,not a long range cartridge for all the reasons all ready stated..270 does nothing better than what has been proven over the past 50 years,sorry realty is what it is.

[.300 Weatherby Mag]

Nobody buys a .270 thinking hey I'm going to blow all their doors off with my little .270

I did... I must be weird...:D

[270winforlife]

as my member name states, I am a huge fan of the 270 winchester and I wasnt even born when O Connor passed away. But I have shot and reloaded for the 270 alot and have seen one shot holes with cheap and expensive guns. People always mention the 308 being accurate, but overlook the 270. Its low recoil teamed up with a good trigger should work for any gun.

[Art Eatman]

Comparative recoil for two equal-weight rifles:

Add the bullet weight to the powder charge and multiply by the muzzle velocity. Compare the two. That will tell you if the percentage difference is enough to matter.

For the .270 and the '06 in common loadings:

50 + 130, x 3,000 for the .270 = 540,000.

50 + 150, x 2,800 for the '06 = 560,000.

So the .270 has about four percent less recoil than an '06 rifle of equal weight. IMO, it's not worth worrying about.

[moosemike]

I'm glad match bullets aren't available for the .270. The beauty of the .270 Win. to my way of thinking is that it is first and foremost and always a hunting cartridge. Born and bred to do one thing; hunt.

[kraigwy]

Why isnt there more match bullets for the .270??????

I asked my self the same thing and the only thing I came up with is IT DOSNT NEED THEM.

I have a FN Model 70 Featherweight in .270 so I decided to play. I tried some match bergers and sierra MKs and ran them through my rilfe.

I couldnt see they shoot any better in my gun then the cheap hornady 130s and 150s. I just dont see the justification for the additional cost.

But then, this is my Elk Rifle.

[ForneyRider]

Not saying 270 Win is not accurate, but it is not inheritantly accurate like a .308 Win or a 6mm PPC.

Issues:

Case design:
270 Win shoulder is not as sharp as an AI cartridge, PPC or 308 Win based cases. Short, fat cases with healthy shoulder area are the trend in case development for accuracy. See 260 AI, PPC, 6mmBR, and WSM cases.

Long Action:
270 Win is a "Long Action" cartridge. A short action receiver is more capable of being made stiff, as it is less subject to torsional twist. That's why the custom receivers(BAT, Hall, etc.) are so thick.

Primer Size:
Small rifle primers are a big hit. Even 308 Win can be had with small primer pockets. Not so with the 270 Win.

Bullet Support:
There may be a 135 SMK and Berger match bullets, but almost all manufacturers make .224, .244(6mm), .264(6.5mm), .284(7mm, okay 7.2mm), .308, and .338 caliber match bullets. See Lapua Scenar, Berger VLD match, Hornady BTHP and A-Max, Nosler CC, Sierra Match King, Norma Diamond Line and Speer BTHP. The 115gr bullet is for 6.8SPC. The 135gr .277 SMK is .488 BC over 2800fps, comparable to 168gr .284 or 168gr .308 SMK.

Brass:
No Lapua/Norma brass which is made to higher standard. This is less of an issue as Win/Rem/Fed and Hornady can be prepped to be pretty consistent.

Competition:
The 30-06 has won 1000 yard bench championships in open classes recently. For classes where 30-06 can compete, 270 Win is still behind in the bullet support arena.

What to do:
Nosler Ballistic Tip is relatively cheap and very accurate. Nosler Accubond is very accurate, but not cheap. A consistent bullet in a consistent load that is compatible with the firearm is key to accuracy. Along with the 135gr SMK, I would try the 130 and 140gr Nosler for testing.

[270winforlife]

bergerbullets make 130, 140 and 150 grain VLD match hunting bullets, that should fit the bill nicely for target shooters. They are match bullets first and as any hpbt match bullet, you can use it on game when quick expansion/high energy is desired.

[tachunter]

I'm glad match bullets aren't available for the .270. The beauty of the .270 Win. to my way of thinking is that it is first and foremost and always a hunting cartridge. Born and bred to do one thing; hunt.

Well there is a couple actually, but I like that. The 06 and 308 you could never say that about. The 270 has always been a hunting cartridge.

[Stiofan]

I just love reading all the "engineers" here try to prove the .270 isn't accurate, or is not as accurate as other calibers in it's class. Tens of thousands of deer, elk, moose and antelope would disagree though...lol!

I don't know about most of you, but my .270 is more accurate than I am and I'm sure that's the case for a lot of us.

[Picher]

The .270 Win is one of the worlds greatest hunting cartridges. Shhh, don't let those target shooters know how accurate it is; they'll spoil everything! My poor old Rem 700 only shoots 3 1/2" groups at 450 yards with my hot 130 ballistic tip hunting load, chronographing about 3,260 fps pushed by 60+ grains of Reloder 22. Poor me, but don't pity me too much; pity the poor deer!!!

[Art Eatman]

The absence of match bullets is not due to anything but the lack of demand.

The .270 couldn't compete in benchrest against the common choices. It was not a military cartridge, so no usage there. And for 1,000-yard competition, such cartridges as the 7mm Rem Mag were superior. So, no interest in the .270 as a competition target-shooter.

But most anybody can work up good combos for any cartridge, without worrying about match bullets...

I hunted with a Sears .270 for a half-dozen years before getting back into the '06 game in 1970. I reliably got sub-MOA groups with the Remington 130-grain Bronze Point and 4831. Worked great...

[Colorado Redneck]

Loneranger, you are certainly entitled to your opinion. I have a good friend that has taken several elk with his old .270. Most were one shot kills, and a couple were DRT. I shot an antelope fawn over 350 paces last fall....quit counting at 350. Right in the old gizzard. Held about 2 inches higher than it hit. 130 gr SST knocked it down. I thought that was pretty good for a blind old man

The ballistic calculator on JBM website shows almost a ton of energy at 300 yards with a .270 Nosler 140 Accubond leaving the muzzle at 3000 fps. That is almost identical to a 30-06 165 gr. Accubond at 2800 fps. That oughta do in any elk or moose, if you do your part.

Looks pretty darn competitive to me. Course, you should shoot what you like. I do.:D

[taylorce1]

I thought I could stay out of this one. The .270 Win is one of my favorite cartridges and the first rifle I ever bought to hunt elk with so I didn't have to keep borrowing a .30-06. IMO it was never intended as a bench rest competition round. It has accounted for 4 elk, six pronghorn, and two deer, I know that may not sound like much to a few of you guys but that is a lot of hunting in Colorado. My longest shots to date that have accounted for game are elk @ 250 yards, pronghorn @ 415 yards, mule deer @ 560 yards.

To quote Septemberf 2009 American Hunter Magazine article "America's Favorite All-Around Cartridges.
.270 Winchester
From the loins of the .30-06, the .270 Winchester first saw the light of day in 1925 in the form of the Winchester Model 54 bolt action. The government cartridge was still the most popular but "magnum mania" was begining to take hold, and this was Winchesters initial step into that arena. Not that anyone today would consider a .270 Win a magnum, but muzzle velocity of 3140 fps certainly turned heads in 1925.

All the other cartridges listed in that article were .30-06 Springfield, 7mm Remignton Magnum, .300 Winchester Magnum, and .375 H&H Magnum. The two they listed as up and coming all-around cartridges was the .300 WSM and .300 RUM. The .22lr made it in there as well as the "Everyman's" cartridge.

However I think moosemike summed it up the best.
I'm glad match bullets aren't available for the .270. The beauty of the .270 Win. to my way of thinking is that it is first and foremost and always a hunting cartridge. Born and bred to do one thing; hunt.

[mbanger]

My stock Ruger M 77 in .270, an old tang safety model, shoots Berger 140 and 150's in sub half MOA at 100 yards. Sub MOA at 300 yards and hits an 18 inch round plate at 600 yards without fail. 90 grain Sierras, 1/4 inch at 100 yards. Does nearly as well with Sierra 130's; Hornady 140's; Nosler AB, Partitions, Ballistic Tips. 3-9 Vortex Viper scope.
Berger VLD Hunting Bullets are match quality and very effective on deer-sized game. Those who don't think the .270 is capable of target accuracy should shoot more and read less.

[Jack O'Conner]

15 years ago, I had a smith build a custom Browning for my wife in 6.5mm but if I could do it all over again, I would've bought her a new 270 instead. The 270 has nearly identical recoil.

Jack

[lefteye]

Old thread but not as old as my .270 Win. In the early 80's I traded for two left handed Remington 700 BDL rifles chambered in .270. I had already been reloading for a few years. I stupidly sold the less accurate rifle - a mistake I will regret forever. I glass bedded the more accurate rifle in a very light Brown Precision stock and developed loads for it. It shot sub MOA with Hornady, Speer, and Nosler 130 gr, bullets but was unacceptable with Sierra boattails. Eventually I was able to consistently get 1/2 MOA to MOA groups at 100 yards. I have taken deer in Missouri, Minnesota, and Wyoming, including my best Mule Deer (163 B&C) at 400 to 450 yards with one shot through the heart (the deer walked less than 10 yards before dropping.) I've also taken coyotes and Pronghorn with the rifle. That rifle remains my favorite. I wish I had taken it on some elk hunts (although my Browning A-Bolt SS .300 Win Mag accounted for two 5 X 5 bulls and one black bear.)

[JD0x0]

The new Accubond Long Range in .277 has a BC listed at .625, for the 150 grain bullet. Very impressive, if you ask me. It's plausible that it can be driven to 3000 ft/s. That could potentially make a very good long range round.

[fatwhiteboy]

I have a Model 70(Walmart Special) in .270. Using Corelokt 130gr ammo, I sighted it in at 50 yards using a Buckmaster scope. At 100 yards the first 3 shot group showed 2 holes that were touching through my spotting scope. I thought I had a flyer. When I got out to the target, the 2nd shot had gone through the 1st shot hole as evidenced by a little widening of the hole on one side. The only round I reload for it is with a Barnes TSX 140gr for hogs. It too is very accurate...

[taylorce1]

The new Accubond Long Range in .277 has a BC listed at .625, for the 150 grain bullet. Very impressive, if you ask me. It's plausible that it can be driven to 3000 ft/s. That could potentially make a very good long range round.

Actually the bullet has a G7 BC or .317 which is the one you should be programming into your ballistic computers. Still this is a very good BC for LR bullets, but when available G7 is always more accurate for computations than G1. Which makes this bullet comparable in G7 BC to the target bullets offered by Berger in 140 grain 6.5mm VLD and 168 grain 7mm VLD. Plus in .30 caliber you have to run a Berger 200 grains or heavier to match the G7 numbers of the Accubond.

Berger offers a couple of decent bullets as well with decent G7 BC in the .280-.290 range. Then you have Matrix bullets which offer some very high G1 BC's in the .700+ range with their VLD bullets. The 165 grain bullet will stabilize in the standard 1:10 twist of the .270 Win but the 175 grain bullet will need a 1:9 or faster twist to work. I don't have any G7 data on these bullets but from what I've read, while not as good as published their BC's are still better than the LR Accubond 150 grain.

I've bought a box or the Accubond bullets to reload and run in my 24" barrel on my M70 Extreme Weather and will be very happy to get 2900 fps which I think is more realistic than 3000 fps out of the standard .270 Win. I do think 3000+ is attainable in a .270 WSM, .270 Weatherby, and .270 Allen Magnum. If you were to have Kirby Allen build you his .270 AM more than likely it would have a 30" barrel as well. That is just too much pipe IMO for a hunting rifle.

I'm all for these new bullets if it gets people excited about shooting the old .270 again. I've had a love affair with the round going back over 10 years now as my hands down favorite do everything western hunting rifle. While it will never be a popular target round it offers real potential to the person wanting to learn to shoot 600+ yards without having to invest a lot of money into a new rifle. Even with the older bullets 600+ yards was a realistic range to shoot paper and steel with, these new bullets just make it a little easier.

[Mystro]

I have owned and hunted with many calibers over the years (30-06, 300Win Mag, 7mm Rem mag just to name a few). As primarily a deer/black bear hunter in the North East, I have been bombarded over the last 30 years by many old antiquated opinions on what caliber is best. It almost laughable now remembering what magnum calibers a lot of less experienced hunters swore they needed to give the best killing power for big whitetail deer.:rolleyes: After years of research, my own successful hunting and reading what professional big game hunters have used over the years, I kept seeing the 270 Winchester come up again and again especially by the real professional hunters. I read 3 books from the late Jack O'Connor that pretty much should be required reading for all big game hunters. Jack O'Connor is brilliant, educated and extremely experienced with game all over the world. He knows how to kill big game and he applies common sense. A good friend of Roy Weatherby, Jack knew all about what magnum calibers were capable of, providing they were shot out of a 26" barrel. Jack even shot several of Roy's calibers on a few hunts all to gain more experience in what was capable of the super magnums. The ballistic coefficient of the 270 was outstanding when Jack used it and with todays modern bullets have only raised the bar on the 270. When Jack used his then modern bullet of a 130gr jacketed soft point and has killed over 14 Grizzly Bears with the 270 and all have been from one shot kills. Several dozen Elk with 130 grain bullets with one shot kills some from over 290 yards, Rams,Moose, African game,etc... Its almost embarrassing to question the killing power of the 270 Winchester especially that we have better powder and bonded bullets that can do it all. Todays new hunters are bombarded by media that has to push the latest super magnum and talks these new hunters into believing they NEED this caliber or bullet hole size.:D
There will never be another hunter like Jack O'Connor simply because his experience and time in history gave him the opportunity to hunt like no other hunter will ever do in todays world. Its a shame the new hunters wont spend the time to research from the great ones before them like JOC. I wish I would have 25 years ago. If anything I have learned from reading the books from Jack O'Connor is that, not much has changed in the caliber wars since Jacks days.

FYI, Jack hunted with many other calibers like the 30-06, 375H&R, 7Rem Mag,etc just to name a few. He certainly could use the phrase "Been there, Done that" with about every caliber. He knew what all those calibers could do but the 270 Winchester was still his favorite so that should tell you something.

Here is a three shot group at 100 yards with Hornady factory loads.
http://i272.photobucket.com/albums/jj182/TheMystro1971/Hunting%20Guns%20etc/Winchester%20M70%20Jack%20OConnor%20Tribute%20Rifle/2ndrange1.jpg (http://s272.photobucket.com/user/TheMystro1971/media/Hunting%20Guns%20etc/Winchester%20M70%20Jack%20OConnor%20Tribute%20Rifle/2ndrange1.jpg.html)

It was a bit windy and I know I can get a better group at 300 yards than this.
http://i272.photobucket.com/albums/jj182/TheMystro1971/Hunting%20Guns%20etc/Winchester%20M70%20Jack%20OConnor%20Tribute%20Rifle/2ndrange2.jpg (http://s272.photobucket.com/user/TheMystro1971/media/Hunting%20Guns%20etc/Winchester%20M70%20Jack%20OConnor%20Tribute%20Rifle/2ndrange2.jpg.html)

[SIGSHR]

My first range session with one of my SIG SHR 970s in .270, I was getting groups of about 1.25"with Remington ammo-and I am FAR from being an experienced long range shooter. Recoil is subjective and at 5"10" and 200 more orless muscular pounds I am far from a shrimp, but I found it on the mild side.

[Mystro]

Yea recoil is very close to my 30-06 in the same gun, perhaps a bit less. Its still not a novice friendly recoil but coming from a 300 Win Mag, the 270 is very comfortable. I can shoot 45 rounds of 270 and still feel good. One box of 300 Win Mag and my shoulder is sore.