dude you are my hero [Steelhead], i totally agree with all of you posts. the .270 is way over rated.
As compared to "what"? Overrated "how"? C'mon tell me....I would love to be educated
I read comments like this and LMAO.Especially since I'm certain the poster has this vast book of experience with the 270 or other similar cartridges upon which to predicate such a profound assertion.
In general, cartridge comparisons bore me to tears,especially when case capacities are roughly similar,and bore diameters differ by a few thousandths.Anyone with half a brain should be able to figure out that if 6.5 is so "great",and 7mm the same ,that a bore diameter stuck squarely between them should be good as well;and the differences between them more likely is a result of the twist rates,available bullets,and the manner in which the cartridge was promoted, used, and developed over time.
The 6.5's and 7mm's had origins as military cartridges shooting long,heavy bullets through fast twists; the 6.5's have a rich history as target rounds;until recently the 7mm's really have not had much favor in that regard for some reason,likely bullet quality.There is no doubt that the 6.5's and 7mm's have seen more attention than the 270 with regard to target-type bullets,but this has nothing to do with hunting.
The 270, OTOH,was developed and promoted as a hunting cartridge.
270 detractors have been around for years.If you're lucky enough to have issues of American Rifleman dating back to the 30's,40's and 50's,you will bump into them now and then...for some reason the cartridge drives some of these people nuts...generally these folks tend to be ballistic nit-pickers who get their jollies drooling over numbers.Some,by their own admission,have never even used a 270.....yet they draw these imaginary lines in the sand about what it's "good for",an declare something else vastly superior....
Yet if you pin them down,and ask what it is about a 270 they don't "like",or how it is deficient,they really can't explain it...or they run for the nearest ballistic table,citing energy quotients ,wind drift,BC,or some other formula.....or they cite some example about how one animal they shot with it "got away";generally this is because of careless, rotten shooting;less likely it is because bullets were inappropriate to the animal.
I suspect a lot of 270 criticism comes because the cartridge is "common"; some rifle savants see the cartridge annually bury their own pets in game taken,sales of rifles and ammo,and world-wide use...it rubs them wrong intellectually to have put all this time and effort into all the vast knowledge they have acquired,and then have some runny-nosed kid,or some other poor ignorant slob with a beat-up 270 roll elk,moose and grizzly bears with impunity.
This flies in the face of all their vast ballistic knowledge and the several thousand bucks they have spent stretching out a 280 or 7/08 case(for example)to equal or (maybe)beat a 270 by 50-100 fps......
In Wyoming last year, I strolled over to the barn(where we skin game) with Bill,my pal and the ranch owner,after stashing my duffel.The head and cape of a good 6x6 was on the floor....I tapped it with my boot.
"Yours?", I asked Bill.
"Yup"
"Nice bull.270?"
"Yup".
"Did you use those lousy 130 Sierra's again?"
"Yup"
"One of these days you'll smarten up. Gotta beer?"
"Yup".
