What stuff does he know? He cites losing a deer as a young guy with an unspecified cartridge and bullet. If he lost the deer, how does he know what happened? Did he make a bad shot, or was it the fault of the cartridge and bullet? If it was the fault of the bullet, was it due to its caliber, weight or construction?
Similarly, how does he know any of a number of other cartridges won't work on deer won't work as well as the .270 at closer ranges?
I'm a big fan of the .270, in fact at one point about 20 years ago had used it on more big game animals than any other round--and had also watched my wife use it on plenty of big game from pronghorns to bull moose, at ranges from up close to 450 yards. In the 1990's, in fact, Eileen had string of 10 one-shot kills in a row with the .270 on not just antelope and moose but elk and big buck deer, both whitetails and muleys. It works great.
But I have since gotten plenty of experience with several 6.5's that won't match the .270's muzzle velocities. Yet they somehow work great as well--if the hunter puts the right bullet in the right place. Which in my experience is far more important than a few grains of bullet weight and minor differences in retained velocity, especially close up where the 6.5x55 has always worked very well.
I always love how these threads devolve into BOTH theoretical ballistic numbers AND field examples of one.
I was using a 270 Winchester with the old Sierra Game King 130 grain bullet at about 3000 FPS. I've seen other deer gut shot and it is easy to tell by the way they hunch up and their irregular gait, again IMHO. I blame poor shooting at too long of range, as I was unable to make follow up shot count. We've killed a truck load of deer with this bullet and failure has never been a problem.
As stated my use of the 6.5 CM is an example of one, merely stating my opinion that the 6.5's are not magic. Any number of other cartridge would have and do work as well as the 270, If the hunter puts the bullet in the right place any cartridge works well, including the lowly 22 Long Rifle. I've killed more than an example of one mule deer with the 300 savage, mostly one shot kills, but you have to know your limitations. I bought one of the first Ruger 77's in 6.5 CM , due in part to Mule Deer's writing. Nice rifle, a little unwieldy with the 26" barrel, but it is a shooter. I still own it and while I haven't used it on deer but once. I shoot it regularly on paper and coyotes.
Hornady created a marketing craze with the 6.5 CM and now is considered by many to be the only and the greatest, enabling the average Joe to take game cleanly at extreme ranges. Probably was the same when Jack first stated writing about the 270. American hunters for years side stepped the 6.5 X 55, but somehow the 6.5 CM is the IT cartridge! I guess I've been over exposed. to the hype. I'm always amazed when discussing the Creed, conversation always tuns to retained energy and bullet drop at 1000 yards.
I'm not as good a shot as Mule Deer, but don't doubt he's good to 450 yards with a 270 Winchester, as he shoots a lot, but 400 yards is a long way down the road for most of us under field conditions. Shots are generally closer than they used to be when range finders are used! The 270 has worked so well for my family and I over the last 50 years, I seldom reach for any other chambering, It works so well I've decided not to move on, at least not often
