Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters Boddington on the .270 Winchester

Nothing to US old biased White guys !!

WHO plays the race card ???


Jerry

He needs to pen a song, ASAP.

Sir Elton needs another hit.....

Based on the theory that two meaningless numbers combined are twice as meaningless?

S M H


Jerry

I thought this thread was about Boddington's gig with the .270 Win. Not the 6.5 CM. When the 6.5 CM LASTS as long as the .270 Win, then someone will be impressed. Boddington wasn't.

I'm a believer in physics, myself.

Congratulations. You are going to be looking at bullet weight and the diameter anyways. That being said why not look at energy per grain or better yet... it’s impact velocity.

A specific Hornady SP of unknown diameter and weight has 423 ft lbs energy impacting a deer. Does it have enough energy per grain to expand? Would it help to know the velocity?

Not all 1200 ft/lbs projectiles reliably expand as soft points, it really depends on velocity. Many cup/core soft points expand reliably between 1800-2000 feet per sec at a low end, or if you wanted it converted in to ft/lbs per grain it would be 7.2 - 8.9 which is pretty silly when you can just use velocity as a guide. The total number of ft/lbs is pretty meaningless. The best is when people start talking about how many ft/lbs it takes to kill a deer or elk.

Comparing cartridges, not bullets, a chart with only velocity isn't helpful. And to the 500 yard distance, all compared have 1900+ fps. If you added the weight, I can see a 338 is "twice as powerful" since it pushes twice the weight to the same speed as a 243. But when the velocity is different suddenly it's a lot harder to visualize. There's no such thing as one "magic number" but kinetic energy is the best starting point. If people think it's supposed to be the "magic number", and complain when it turns out it isn't, that's on them, not physics.

You need 25 ft lbs to kill an elk.

I'll take the 6.5 creedmoor based on those numbers. I've tried to like the 270, but ended up selling the 3 I had. The creed just makes more sense..

I thought most everyone already knew that, and they don't even kick very much, most women or young teen can handle the recoil with a good pad. If there is a .270 available to a hunter they are free to worry about things other than rifles.

As much as I like the smaller-cased 6.5mm rifles, a well-loaded 270win is still a bit more horsepower at most hunting distances. I was kicking around the notion of acquiring a 270 just the other day, as I find myself without one at the moment, and Buds has 700 ADL SS combo rifles for pretty cheap. With today's bullets and powders, it's tough to argue with something like a 140gr Tipped Trophy Bonded at 3,100fps for an all-rounder in the hunting field.

Nice try but what you're actually a believer in is a formula that emphasizes velocity out of proportion with its contribution to what's really important, which is the size of the hole made by the bullet.

Boddington used to think the same way and said he personally wouldn't use the 270 on elk because it didn't meet the magical 2,000 ft-lb. threshold past 200 yards.

He doesn't think that way any more.

It's really fun being a rifle looney and playing the numbers game, however please hold your hand up if you can truthfully can deliver a KILLING shot on a game animal smaller than an Elephant at 900 yards on a breeze day across a canyon. If you raised your hand you are lucky and 1 in a 1000, IMHO. Inside 400 yards the 270 has the edge, if only slightly. I own a 6.5 Creedmoor and am not really in love with it. It worked fine on the one deer I killed with it, just not that impressed. Example of one, I know. True the 270 used 14 grains more powder, but if I can't afford that I can't afford the gas to get to the range. In a blind test I doubt I could tell the difference in recoil in the field, off the bench the 6.5 has a slight edge. As a young guy I gut shot a fine Mule Deer at about 400 Yards and lost him to die a miserable death. NEVER AGAIN. I'll take the .270 with a good bullet and get closer, thanks. I have fun shooting at far away rocks on the distant canyon, but not on game, it's not fair chase.

Just my two cents worth on this fine Sunday morning.

Not age...experience. It took me 20 years of being a 270 hater to come full circle. Now...I honestly wouldn’t consider any thing else. Shoots flat, kicks a little, and kills a lot

Ok, first let's get the disclaimers and claimers out of the way.....

I haven't read the article by Boddington; I don't own a 6.5 of any sort; I'm not an expert on anything, much less rifles and bullets, but I do own a 270.

Now I have read this post and one of the things that keeps being said, in this thread and other places, is that the 6.5 CM is better than a 270 at long distances. There are graphs that show velocity, drop, energy, etc. that prove this point.

But, in none of these comparisons are they comparing apples to apples. Why? Because they dont make the same bullet for each caliber, at least I dont think they do. What would the comparison look like if they did make the same bullet for each caliber, or almost the same bullet?

Well, we're in luck, because Sierra is now making the GameChanger bullet and it can be bought as loaded ammo or bullets for reloading. 6.5 comes in 130 gr at .510 bc and the 270 comes in a 140 gr with .508 bc. As far as I know, these 2 bullets are as close to being the same, as you can get. What would the charts look like when you compare apple to apples, or as close to that, as you can get.

As stated in this thread, the 270, for what ever reason, never caught on for shooting long range. I really dont know why, but I just chalk it up to another thing I dont know. I've shot steel at 1000 yds. with mine. Someone said it was because of the lack of good bullets. I agree that to shoot long distances, it takes good bullets, and the 6.5 has a better variety of good bullets for distant shooting.

Both rifles are good, no doubt about it. With proper shot placement, both rifles will kill things..... dead is dead, no matter how you look at it.

Ok, I've had my say, so flame away!

Have you stayed in a Holiday Inn Express in the past 30 days?

The 270 never caught on with long range because it burns a ton of slow fuel and is a barrel torch, at least in that line of work. Yes the 6 and 6.5-284 has its fans, but it has waned for the same reasons.
A hunter can dial in his 270 without too many rounds and use the same barrel forever. A target shooter can roast a barrel in a season or two; it's similar to the 243 in this regard.

LA actions are also less rigid, so target shooters as a group prefer them.

Winner! Winner! Chicken dinner!

Good morning, I am an old guy and agree with you.
In these steep timbered mountains , if you shoot you had better recover it or put 150% into it trying.
Often shooting across a draw is in the 200 yard range, it might be 200 hundred yards but could take an hour to get to it. Elk hunting is done just after daylight or at just before dusk.
I use a .270 WCF and have used or clients Experienced a whole range of chamberings and 400 yards approx the absolute limit. A 270/ 280 or 30/06 fills the Bill, imo
I hunted with a fella that used a .264 win and it performed well but no better than the aforementioned and the barrel was a little to long
A good good, tenacious bullet is the key not a sleek high B.C. bullet.

rifletom,



Did you read Boddington's article? Its partly about why he thinks the .270 is superior to the 6.5 Creedmoor and similar 6.5 cartridges, a judgement which is mostly based (as it is in many hunters) on muzzle velocity, not downrange velocity. And downrange velocity is why the "mild" 6.5's work so well--and not just at whatever's considered long range.

And not just with "sleek, high-BC" bullets, either. The same brand/type of bullet in a 6.5 and it will have a higher BC than a .270 bullet. At closer ranges a 140 Partition from the 6.5x55 works just as well as a 140 Partition from the .270, even if the .270 bullet is going faster. I know this from actually having used both.