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

Hell, I even have issues with dials on scopes! I've been hunting a while, taken a fair number of animals at ranges from 375 yards down to "at my shoelaces" and all i ever do is "hold on hair" be mindful of wind drift & cartridge limitations and pull the trigger. The 270 fits that bill rather nicely and for that matter so do a whole lot of other cartridges that have been around forever. Besides, "Creedmoor" sounds kindafaggoty...

In my view the 6.5 Creedmoor has many charms quite applicable to the occasional shooter who shoots his deer inside 200 yards.

That's because I'm not for or against the CM. Rather, I'm seeking to understand its popularity.

I second that emotion...

Like teenagers running out to buy condoms before the prom! LOL!

gnoahhh,

The "wondrous charms" of the 6.5 Creedmoor are not limited to long-range shooting. It's just as good for short-to-medium range hunting as any cartridge with similar ballistics, whether the other "mild" 6.5's like the 6.5x55 and .260, or the 7mm-08 and .270.

I killed a mule deer back last fall with the 6.5 Creedmoor and factory Hornady ammunition loaded with the 143-grain ELD-X bullet at the vast range of 101 yards (laser- ranged after the fact). The buck was standing broadside in Gambel oak brush which blocked most of his body except his shoulder, so that's where I put the bullet. The buck collapsed instantly, dead right there. The bullet broke both shoulders and was found under the skin of the far shoulder, retaining 60% of its weight. The buck yielded exactly 100 pounds of boned meat, and while I have killed bigger-bodied mule deer, he may have been in the top 10. Yet despite the shot placement, the moderate muzzle velocity of the load (advertised at 2700 fps, which it actually approaches in my rifle) resulted in little meat loss.

Yet the same load was also very effective on an even bigger-bodied buck my companion killed with a rib shot at 311 yards. That buck kicked up his hind hooves at impact, then staggered maybe 25-30 yards before collapsing.

The rifles we used, both factory models costing around $500, shot groups well under an inch at 100 yards with the factory ammo, and in fact mine shot a 4-shot group at 300 yards of 1-1/2 inches, strung out horizontally due to a perhaps 5 mph breeze. That ammo costs around $25 a box at most stores.

All of those factors--superbly accurate yet affordable factory rifles and ammo, and very effective "killing power," whether up close or further out, are among the reasons the 6.5 Creedmoor has become so popular. Another is moderate recoil, around 14 foot-pounds for the above load in an 8-pound rifle.

Part of its popularity here in Montana is indeed due to some hunters waiting to shoot "long range," but more of its popularity comes from the fact that it recoils more like a .243, yet works not only on big mule deer at normal ranges, but whitetails along the riverbottoms at close range, and elk as well. This is why quite a few guys buy one for their wife or kids--and then discover the rifle shoots so well, and is so effective despite kicking a LOT less than their .300 magnum that they buy a 6.5 Creedmoor for themselves.

I left it to the professional to elaborate on the charms.

One yugely major sea change that the 6.5 Creedmoor hath wrought is that finally, after some 93 years (give or take a couple), the Major Argument of All Hunting has changed from ".270 vs. .30-06" to ".270 vs. 6.5 CM".

This is big.

The 20 something year old counter Clerk at Sportsmans Warehouse told that everytime someone asks to see a 6.5 Creedmoor he tells them it is not a game cartridge just a target round.

I read it...nostalgia is strong within him...

Do remain fairly convinced that the 270 caliber is still flanked by two calibers with potentially higher BCs for bullets of a similar SD.

I think its not the 6.5 cm that drives people crazy...its the people

Well done MD. Even if a guy doesn't own, desire to own, or even hates the Creed for whatever reason......you'd think people would catch on to the FACT that the 6.5CM is for real.

My "most influential gun looney uncle", my Uncle Bud who died when I was 16, hated the .270 Winchester. He loved three cartridges; the .257 Roberts, the .219 Zipper ( in a Model 64 Win) and the 30-06. He said the .270 was "no da--ed good in the woods, its too fast!" ha. He "tolerated" the 30-30. He was very knowledgeable in many areas, and I thank the Lord for the time I had with him...but he also was "limited" in experience. ha It was not until I moved out West in 1990 that I had access to a lot of .270 users. From their accounts, the mule deer and elk I saw in their p/u beds, meat packing plants, in the field, it was just as deadly ( meaning no difference in results) as the 30-06 and 7mm Rem Mag, which are also very popular. I like what one fellow wrote..."if you have a .280, you have a .270; if you have a .270, you have a .280". ha I would throw in the 30-06/7mm Mags too. I mean for overall, deer with an occasional elk. Of course, times have changed, as they should after decades. I've read C.B. through the years ( he was a 2nd Louie then) and I never understood "why" he would always say then that the .270 was "marginal" and he would not use it on elk ( or even big Northern Whitetail) So, I'm glad to see that he finally gave it a chance. For myself, I found I preferred the 6.5s (mine was the 6.5/284)with 120-125gr going around 3200 to be "perfection on deer & exotics" , and have never used anything heavier in that caliber. That's .270 ballistics. While I have had many .270s through the years, I never really 'wrung it out" like I have others. I may never use it on elk myself, but I will take it as a spare to my .338WM. For me, I just like bigger rounds on big animals...its just a thing for me. I hunt with guys who use the .270, .338 Federal, 308 & 30-06, 7mm Mag and one 300 RUM. What a spread, ha.

It took a Craig quite a while to "discover" the .270 was actually quite capable of killing big game larger than deer. For elk he firmly drew the bottom line at the .30-06.

I kind of did too, which was pretty common among our generation (Craig and I were born about two weeks apart). However, I got over it due to growing up in Montana, where there's more opportunity for residents to hunt elk than for a non-resident gun writer. But the instance that really convinced me the .270 is a great hunting round took place 30 years ago this coming September, when my wife drew a Shiras moose tag on her very first application.

She'd heard stories about how moose don't react much even to good shots, so actually contemplated using my .30-06 with 200-grain Partitions, rather than her .270 with 150 Partitions--which she'd already used successfully on elk. But one shot with the .30-06 changed her mind back to the .270.

We found her medium-sized bull (the kind she wanted, for eating) on opening morning, just after dawn. It stood in a willow bottom at about 125 yards, quartering away. She aimed for the far shoulder and at the shot the moose took a slow step-and-a-half before folding up dead. Despite not being a really big Shiras, it was still bigger than any bull elk I've seen on the ground, and have seen a few here and there from New Mexico to British Columbia. The bullet was found in the meat of the far shoulder, so the bull died so quickly due to a lung shot.

The muzzle velocity of her 150-grain handload, by the way, was around 2850 fps. It's pretty easy to get 2800 with 140's in the 6.5 Creedmoor, and in fact the latest Speer manual lists 2855 from a 24" barrel, using Reloder 26. Maybe the extra 10 grains and .013 inch of bullet diameter in the .270 makes a real difference, but my experience makes me doubt it.

LOL, I'm not upset and I don't own a Creedmoor. I don't have a dog in that fight, I just wanted to slip in the comment about being a legend in your own mind.

As far as "proving you wrong," why on earth would I spend time and effort proving you wrong, and why would you make such a bold claim and then expect someone else to prove you wrong? Why don't you prove yourself right, you're the one making the claim.

I have never owned a Creedmoor but I have owned a 6.5x55. This in a nicely sporterized M38. It shot great and I ran a 140 grain Hornady Spire point or Nosler Partition at 2500 fps. The rifle was topped with an old 2.5 Weaver and I used it for some hog hunting and a bit of Mule deer hunting. Longest shot taken was on a 14 point Mule deer and the neck hit dropped him. The round seemed reliable, gave good penetration and the rifle's action was very smooth. I have owned several 270's and own two now. I usually loaded 150 gr. bullets to top velocities and I personally felt it was much more gun. That said the 6.5x55 loaded mildly as I loaded it would do the vast majority of deer hunting without issue. I feel the same way about the Creedmoor. I have of late started using my 270 rifles again and darned if I can find anything to complain about. Accurate, reasonable recoil and effective. I just don't see how a Creedmoor could improve on that. I don't see the Creedmoor as a replacement for the 270 but a far better choice than the 243 for just about anything.

Yeah, those young farts know everything there is to know about guns. If in doubt, just ask one.

To me the "charm" of the Creed: cheap rifles that shoot great, super factory ammo at reasonable prices in a round that's accurate and with the right ammo, a killer.

What's not to like.

And, I do have a .270, just don't talk that much about it...

Have a Swede, too. Great gun, more finicky than the Creed. Creed is one of the easiest rounds to load for, seems to shoot about everything from well to great.

DF

I very much agree, although you can take a good thing too far. I saw a line in a magazine just today, where the author was reviewing an AR in 6.5CM and an inset photo showed a Creedmoor round, a .308 round, and a .223 round with the caption "The 7.62 and 5.56 work "okay" on hogs but the 6.5 Creedmoor is deadly!" I found that kind of funny. The Creedmoor is very good for what it is, but to say that it is a decisively better swine killer than a .308 is reaching a little far, and I've shot a fair number of hogs with the 6.5 and 7.62. The whiz-bang, golly-gee enthusiasm can get a bit thick sometimes, even for us rifle loonies....

I need to make a copy of this thread and bring it to the nearest gun shop. "See look at this, the 270 is obsolete. So, how's about you let me have that Cooper in 270WCF for half price? No really, I'm doing you guys a favor, take it off your hands?!"

I avoid these fusses by not owning a 6.5, or a 270, or a 30-06. Instead i own a 6mm Remington and a 280 Remington and a 300 H&H and a 300 RSAUM.

but i love reading these 270 vs Creedmoor vs everything else threads...