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

Yep, it will get hot after just a few rounds.

Now here's someone that knows his stuff!!!!!

No wonder we are known as rifle loonies. Makes interesting campfire discussion and as usual amounts to picking fly schitt out of pepper. Any bullet of from 257 to 358 diameter driven at anywhere near 2750fps MV is going to kill stuff. Oh, pardon me, make that .17 to 600cal. Do 277 bullets suddenly stop and drop at over 450 yards? Do 264 bullets bounce off things unless driven to fantastic velocities?
Wonder if Taylor and Bell ever sat around a campfire and debated the virtues of the 6.5x55 vs the 303 for elephant?

vapodog,

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.

You weren't holding your tongue right.
.
Seriously, I don't care if you have 10 6.5 CMs, that's your call. I believe they will do the job well on Whitetail and pronghorn and even elk, although I think there are better cartridges for animals of that size, the .270 being one. However, what I think Bodington is getting at is that the diameter of 6.5-.264 is not magical. It just happened to be the European cartridge that was courted for long range target shooting in a military environment. If you feed a .270 bullets equal to those it will do as well if not better. And nowdays some cartridge makers beginning to cater to the long range game are beginning to make bullets for it. Give it time, you will see.

I like threads like this, they are fun.

How many have heard this statement or one very similar.... Sight it in 2" high at 100 yds, it'll be on at 200 yds, and 6" low at 300 yds. I've asked this question to lots of hunters and just about everyone has heard it. The .243 hunter might be 4"-5" low at 300 and the 30-06 might be 7"-8" low at the same 300, but they are all in the same ballpark.

The caliber of the rifle, in most cases, is not the weak link in the hunting chain. Its the person using that rifle. A well placed shot will kill. A poorly placed shot will only wound or cause a slow death. Knowing your limits and learning to be proficient with your rifle is more important that the caliber.

No, I'm not advocating hunting elephants with .22 shorts...... I'm speaking about the range of calibers listed above and the game usually hunted with them.

True dat

If this is in reference to me, I'll apologize for not being clearer. I wasn't trying to portray that the 6.5s mentioned in Craig's article don't kill just as well as the .270 Win. or that the difference in 7 grains in weight and .013" between the 143 ELDX and 150 hot-cor makes any realistic difference.

I've got a fair amount of experience with several 120-140 grain 6.5mm bullets, and with the exception of some bad berger experiences, have had zero issues killing antelope, mulie and white-tailed deer and elk with them, from 50-600 yards. I really liked the old 140 AMAX, RIP.

Agreed, but we all need to become familiar with the firearm or firearms we hunt with. We need to know our drops at all ranges and know how much to hold over. A good range finder is good to have. Also, if you hunt the same places you can mark different ranges from your blind. If you walk around and spot and stalk ect, you need the range finder. And you need to know your rifle and load and what its drops are at each range. Like yes, for my .270, 100=+1.5", 200=right on, 300=-6.7", 400=-15" Etc.

And that, sir, is very often the core issue. Someone has either a very good or a very bad experience, and praises or damns whatever the tool of the moment was. It's much easier than taking the time to understand the tool, and to use it in the space where it works well.

I hope that you are not suggesting people use the proper tool for the proper job.

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

Splitting hairs!

I agree 100% Oldman3. The trajectory arch is very similar for most hunting cartridges. Some are a little flatter, some more of a rainbow trajectory, but for most of us normal hunters that aren't into shooting into the next county, any of these cartridges will suffice. As you said, it's a lot more the shooter than the rifle.

This simply isn't the reason.

For decades, NRA high power competition, aggregates at 200, 300, and 600 yards, required the use of the 30-06 cartridge. None others were allowed. So good boat tailed .308 diameter bullets were invented for match shooting, first the military's 173 grain bullet (originally developed to mazimize range by wlevating a machine gun instead of using artillery) and later Sierra's 168, 180, and 190 grain Match Kings.

1000 yard matches, however, had no cartridge limitations. Since good long range .308 caliber bullets were available, the logical step was to use faster 30 caliber cartridges, first the .300 H&H and later the .300 Winchester magnum.

A similar process in Europe yielded good boat tailed 6.5mm bullets of around 140 grains. So available long range target bullets were either 6.5mm or .308 inch. There were none in .25 or .270 caliber until much later.

A 14 grain difference in powder weight means abaloutely nothing, just as when .30 calibers were required for 1000 yard matches, the difference in capacity between a 30-06 and a .300 Magnum meant nothing.

I agree with this for the most part. I as much said the same. The 6.5s and 30s were military based cartridges. 277s and .257s were always hunting cartridges. However, both are excellent for this. The .25-06 and the .257 Weatherby and the .270 Win. and the .270 WBY are all great long range performers. If you feed 'em the right bullets they can do anything the .264s and .30s can do.

On a slightly different note, there is nothing sweeter than a good accurate .25-06 or even .257 Roberts, or .270 Winchester for hunting deer. They're relatively flat shooting, they aren't generally known as shoulder stompers, and in a good rifle they're all known to be pretty accurate. I shoot a .257 AI and a .270 Win. and I feel totally confident with either. I even have a lowly .250 Savage that for White Tail I feel totally in control with. They all three are totally sweet.

And another point. There's a lot of talk about their not being enough different bullet choices for these two diameters. But for whitetail deer and similar size game the bullet choices offered are all that's needed for what they were designed to do. There's more than enough weights and shapes. And every major bullet maker makes excellent bullets for them.

Here's an experience of "many."

For many years I shot 600 yard matches with NRA rules. We got five sighter shots before firing 20 shots for record. We shot from the prone position, with tight slings, with very accurate heavy rifles. The target was a 36" black circle on a white background. After each shot, people in the pits pulled the target down, stuck a spotter in it, and ran it back up, so you could see exactly where you had shot. We wore specialized shooting coats to dampen recoil, make our bodies rigid, and minimize heartbeat vibrations. Calibers ranged from the .223 using 80 grain bullets through .243s using 105 to 117 grain bullets, the 6.5mms, and .30 calibers. All bullets were heavy for caliber hollow point boat tails. Usually there were two scope sight matches and one iron sight match. The range, of course, was known exactly. Each of us had an exact zero from the previous match. We had three minutes to prepare and get into position. Our gear included a powerful spotting scope next to the rifle, in order to detect wind speed by reading the mirage. Most of us were pretty good at doing that. There were also large range flags to indicate wind speed and direction.

I maintain that the conditions of such matches were better for accuracy than one would ever find when hunting at comparable ranges.

Now here's the point. Why did we get five sighter shots? Because at least 1/3 of the first sighting shots did not come close enough to the target center to kill a deer. Also, it was quite common, after getting in the X-ring, to see a slight change in conditions blow the bullet out. In fact, anyone shooting 20 shots within a 12" circle would score 200/200 and probably win the match. Most of us couldn't do that.

From this experience, I think that hitting a deer at 600 yards with the first shot is larely a matter of luck. I would not attempt it. If the 6.5 is marginally better than a .270 beyond 600 yards, after it has dropped more in the first 600 yards, so what? Neither is a competent 600-yard hunting round.

Switch,

Thanks very much for your response, and clarifications. A few comments:

I also killed a pile of deer (and some antelope) with the 130 Sierra GameKing in my first .270, handloaded to just about 3000 fps. (Didn't even know the real velocity until five years later, after buying my first chronograph in 1979.) The only "failure" I had was on a forkhorn mule deer buck, bouncing up a slope just about 100 yards away. My first shot missed--but the second dropped him dead right there.

When I skinned and butchered the buck, I found the empty jacket under the hide at the ENTRANCE hole at the left-rear side of the ribcage--but also found what was left of the core in the right shoulder. Just because a bullet separates core and jacket does NOT mean "penetration soon ceases," as Bob Hagel wrote. (Had basically the same thing happen at around 200 yards with a 105-grain Speer Hot-Cor on a whitetail buck. That time the deer was broadside, but the shot hit the spine, and despite the jacket stopping just under the hide, the core broke the spine.)

Have pointed out a number of times on the Campfire that Hornady did NOT "create a marketing craze" with the 6.5 Creedmoor. Instead ithey introduced it in 2007 as a target round with relatively little fanfare. But hunters who tried it over the next few years found it worked very well--which is how I "discovered" it in 2010--and said so in that first article. Only AFTER so many hunters started using it did so many magazines cover the round. (I hadn't even really grasp the virtues of the cartridge when writing that article, using a 120-grain bullet on my first big game animal, because it got over 3000 fps. Have learned a lot more since, partly through firing thousands of 6.5 Creedmoor rounds at targets out to 1000 yards, and seeing quite a few big animals slain.)

My point, however, is that Hornady didn't push the 6.5 Creedmoor as a hunting round for several years--until hunters started using and liking it. Even then the publicity push didn't always come from Hornady. I bought my rifle and several boxes of factory ammo at a local store (as stated in the article), because the store was selling so many. (I do admit phoning one editor before buying the rifle and ammo, to be sure he'd be interested in an article.)

If you ever decide to sell your rifle I'd be very interested.

I dismissed the 6.5 CM for a long time, relegating it to the target class of shooter. I read threads about it here and thought it was just another "loony invention". It wasn't until I read the Rifleman interview with the Hornady engineers, their rationale and the African cull hunt that sparked my interest. I grew up with JOC's cartridge and used it on numerous elk, whitetail, mule deer, 3 pronghorn and one Dalls Sheep. The 6.5 is easy to shoot, the wife likes it and I have a caribou and a cow elk in the freezer from last years hunts. So no need to twist your undies in a knot - shoot what you like or even shoot both!

Indy,

I agree with you on those points. In fact, one of the techniques used by some long-range hunters is to fire a "sighting shot" before the on-game shot., especially at ranges beyond where animals react to the sound of a shot.

I have not suggested the 6.5 Creedmoor is a an automatic 600+ yard big game cartridge, But that does NOT mean the 6.5 Creedmoor, whether factory or handloaded, doesn't work just as well on big game as .270 ammo at "normal" ranges. Which is not just my experience.

I can't be sure but I think the release of Ruger's RPR gave the 6.5 CM a kick in the pants. That's when I remember really starting to hear about it.