Thank you, Gerry. I share your affection for the .270. It had an easy childhood, partly because it was, in my view, one of a handful of early cartridges "built right." After 90 years, it still seems modern, and performs as well as any current round of similar capacity. It doesn't kick hard but delivers enough downrange punch for elk-size game at distances that give us pause. It doesn't eat throats. It nips tight groups from most rifles without tuning. Surely its commercial success is due in large part to O'Connor's cheerleading and the paucity of pre-WW II cartridges in its performance class. ... WvZ
Nice article and welcome to this forum. I have enjoyed reading your articles over the years.
In this house we have a 260 Rem, 6.5x55 and 264 WM so are big fans of the smaller rounds. I know it isn't a "sub 27" but the 270 Win has really become a favourite in the last two years since I started finally using one, I wonder why it took so long. I also would like to try a 270 Wby one day too when my 264 barrel is toast.
