|
|
Joined: Jan 2021
Posts: 1,775
Campfire Regular
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Jan 2021
Posts: 1,775 |
Great article, thanks for posting it.
Why don't I own a 270win?!
Bore size is no substitute for shot placement and
Power is no substitute for bullet performance. 458WIN
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 48,031
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 48,031 |
That's a great article Brad. Thanks for posting it and bringing it back up. Do you know the date, in which it was written? Maybe the early 1980's? That rifle he bought for his son was made from 1981-1983, so you rarely see them on the streets, or the woods. I bought one at the beginning of the year, and it's a great rifle. Really like the design of the stock, and of course the commercial mauser action: ![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/vNXH6PG.jpg) ![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/3ea3MW6.jpg) Other writers like Rick Jamison wrote about these rifles, as they were initially marketed as an economy mauser, but dang they shot well, and functioned just like a commercial mauser should. The stocks were very nicely designed, and they used good walnut. ![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/6KLaQdA.jpg)
I try to stick with the basics, they do so well. Nothing fancy mind you, just plain jane will get it done with style. You want to see an animal drop right now? Shoot him in the ear hole. BSA MAGA
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 30,275
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
OP
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 30,275 |
BSA, I'm uncertain when in the 1980's that article came out in American Rifleman. Hunting Rifles & Cartridges came out in 1990, so definitely sometime in the 80's.
“Perfection is Achieved Not When There Is Nothing More to Add, But When There Is Nothing Left to Take Away” Antoine de Saint-Exupery
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 3,998
Campfire Tracker
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 3,998 |
I feel like I'm in good company. Never felt a need for a 270 until a SC FWT on GB looked like it was too cheap about 10 years ago. It turned out to be very accurate and a little less recoil than my 30 cals is not a bad thing. Amazingly just about anything I point it at falls down at the first shot.
I am continually astounded at how quickly people make up their minds on little evidence or none at all.
Jack O'Connor
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,923
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,923 |
Conversation has taken an nteresting turn.
Being an unabashed 270 fan. Hand me a 6.5x55, 6.5 PRC, 270 WCF, 7x57, 280, 7 PRC, 30-06, or various 30's etc, am certain I will fill the freezer.
But I am covinced my 270 will do it all. My new 1:8 twist 270 shooting 155gr LRX has done nothing but reinforce my opinion.
Shoot what you like, like what shoot, but put the bullet in the right place.
Last edited by CRS; 12/31/23.
Arcus Venator
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,553
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,553 |
I still have a copy of the book of Finn's collected articles from American Hunter which includes the 270 article mentioned by the OP. It's falling apart, but I still take it off the shelf and read it again and again. Great stuff. I also remember the H&R rifle Finn bought for his son, and remember the article by Rick Jamison. I am very fond of the 270 and currently own three.
NRA Endowment Life Member, G.O.A supporter
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 8,896
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 8,896 |
The quote "...I believe I have seen more big game killed with fewer shots with the 7 x 57 than with any other cartridge" is from J. O'Connor's article "The 7 x 57: Cartridge with Nine Lives". In that same article, he says: "my own experience on big game with the 7mm Mauser is not wildly extensive." He talks about his wife using it in the same paragraph. Although he discusses many others (besides his wife) who used it successfully, it's not clear how many of those instances he actually had "seen". If his experiences with the 7 x 57 included a lot of personal use himself when he got older as part of the reason for the quote "...I believe I have seen more big game killed with fewer shots with the 7 x 57 than with any other cartridge" then that seems to be in conflict with his statement "my own experience on big game with the 7mm Mauser is not wildly extensive". Damn - you sure get caught micro managing a single tree while missing the entire forest... Not at all - I accept that both cartridges are very good. However, in Finn Aagaard's article on the .270, he starts off the article with a quote from Jack O'Connor and uses that same quote for justification at the end of the article as to why he adopted a 7mm as opposed to the .270 as his primary preferred cartridge. Now I am simply exploring whether that conclusion is based on a flawed premise. The importance of placing both the premise at the start of the article and the conclusion at the end of the article indicates that they are not insignificant to the whole article or "micro-managing" as you call it. Just to be clear, if, for example, J.OC saw 95 out of 100 big game killed with one shot with a .270, but had seen 180 big game killed out of 200 with one shot with a 7 x 57, then he would have "seen more big game killed with fewer shots with the 7 x 57..." than the .270, yet in the example, the .270 would have a 95% one-shot kill ratio whereas the 7 x 57 would have a 90% one-shot kill ratio. Are you this nit-picky in real life? If so, you should take up employment as a Catholic schoolmarm.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 3,691
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 3,691 |
Great article, Brad. Thanks for the post!
I went through two 30-06’s back in the 60’s before getting a .270.
My brother and I had twin rifles then. Both Rem 700’s with Leupold 3x9’s on deck.
His an 06’ and my .270. Shot side by side, the difference in felt recoil was remarkable!
The .270 was much milder, easier to shoot well. Because it was so much friendlier to shoot, it was easier to make good hits on game and killed very well.
I don’t use it much anymore, but it does get loaned out from time to time. Mostly to kids that haven’t the coin to buy their own rig yet.
I’ve moved on to a lighter rifle with even less recoil these days. My Creed has good bullets and is easy to make good hits with and therefore it kills well - same/same, just a lighter package for this old man to pack around.
BT53
"Where do they find young men like this?" Reporter Savidge, Iraq
Elk, it's what's for dinner....
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2021
Posts: 1,652
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Aug 2021
Posts: 1,652 |
The quote "...I believe I have seen more big game killed with fewer shots with the 7 x 57 than with any other cartridge" is from J. O'Connor's article "The 7 x 57: Cartridge with Nine Lives". In that same article, he says: "my own experience on big game with the 7mm Mauser is not wildly extensive." He talks about his wife using it in the same paragraph. Although he discusses many others (besides his wife) who used it successfully, it's not clear how many of those instances he actually had "seen". If his experiences with the 7 x 57 included a lot of personal use himself when he got older as part of the reason for the quote "...I believe I have seen more big game killed with fewer shots with the 7 x 57 than with any other cartridge" then that seems to be in conflict with his statement "my own experience on big game with the 7mm Mauser is not wildly extensive". Damn - you sure get caught micro managing a single tree while missing the entire forest... Not at all - I accept that both cartridges are very good. However, in Finn Aagaard's article on the .270, he starts off the article with a quote from Jack O'Connor and uses that same quote for justification at the end of the article as to why he adopted a 7mm as opposed to the .270 as his primary preferred cartridge. Now I am simply exploring whether that conclusion is based on a flawed premise. The importance of placing both the premise at the start of the article and the conclusion at the end of the article indicates that they are not insignificant to the whole article or "micro-managing" as you call it. Just to be clear, if, for example, J.OC saw 95 out of 100 big game killed with one shot with a .270, but had seen 180 big game killed out of 200 with one shot with a 7 x 57, then he would have "seen more big game killed with fewer shots with the 7 x 57..." than the .270, yet in the example, the .270 would have a 95% one-shot kill ratio whereas the 7 x 57 would have a 90% one-shot kill ratio. Are you this nit-picky in real life? If so, you should take up employment as a Catholic schoolmarm. Well yes, sometimes. The ability to analyze things in detail often results in that person being able to achieve things that many can't. For example, it can open up employment opportunities which can allow you to earn a higher-than-average income. It also allows you to make correct decisions based on a myriad of facts.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 1,799
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 1,799 |
The quote "...I believe I have seen more big game killed with fewer shots with the 7 x 57 than with any other cartridge" is from J. O'Connor's article "The 7 x 57: Cartridge with Nine Lives". In that same article, he says: "my own experience on big game with the 7mm Mauser is not wildly extensive." He talks about his wife using it in the same paragraph. Although he discusses many others (besides his wife) who used it successfully, it's not clear how many of those instances he actually had "seen". If his experiences with the 7 x 57 included a lot of personal use himself when he got older as part of the reason for the quote "...I believe I have seen more big game killed with fewer shots with the 7 x 57 than with any other cartridge" then that seems to be in conflict with his statement "my own experience on big game with the 7mm Mauser is not wildly extensive". Damn - you sure get caught micro managing a single tree while missing the entire forest... Not at all - I accept that both cartridges are very good. However, in Finn Aagaard's article on the .270, he starts off the article with a quote from Jack O'Connor and uses that same quote for justification at the end of the article as to why he adopted a 7mm as opposed to the .270 as his primary preferred cartridge. Now I am simply exploring whether that conclusion is based on a flawed premise. The importance of placing both the premise at the start of the article and the conclusion at the end of the article indicates that they are not insignificant to the whole article or "micro-managing" as you call it. Just to be clear, if, for example, J.OC saw 95 out of 100 big game killed with one shot with a .270, but had seen 180 big game killed out of 200 with one shot with a 7 x 57, then he would have "seen more big game killed with fewer shots with the 7 x 57..." than the .270, yet in the example, the .270 would have a 95% one-shot kill ratio whereas the 7 x 57 would have a 90% one-shot kill ratio. Are you this nit-picky in real life? If so, you should take up employment as a Catholic schoolmarm. Well yes, sometimes. The ability to analyze things in detail often results in that person being able to achieve things that many can't. For example, it can open up employment opportunities which can allow you to earn a higher-than-average income. It also allows you to make correct decisions based on a myriad of facts. Still quibbling over minutiae!
Its not always easy to do the right thing, But it is always the right thing to do.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 195
Campfire Member
|
|
Campfire Member
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 195 |
I have Aagaards Hunting Rifles & Cartridges, also Guns and Hunting that need to go.Very slight wear,PM an offer if interested. Thanks
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2021
Posts: 1,961
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Jan 2021
Posts: 1,961 |
Shot some lefty Ruger Hawkeye and Rem 700 in 270win yesterday. Burned up some blue box and then some of my mono loads and Winchester Power Points.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2021
Posts: 1,652
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Aug 2021
Posts: 1,652 |
The quote "...I believe I have seen more big game killed with fewer shots with the 7 x 57 than with any other cartridge" is from J. O'Connor's article "The 7 x 57: Cartridge with Nine Lives". In that same article, he says: "my own experience on big game with the 7mm Mauser is not wildly extensive." He talks about his wife using it in the same paragraph. Although he discusses many others (besides his wife) who used it successfully, it's not clear how many of those instances he actually had "seen". If his experiences with the 7 x 57 included a lot of personal use himself when he got older as part of the reason for the quote "...I believe I have seen more big game killed with fewer shots with the 7 x 57 than with any other cartridge" then that seems to be in conflict with his statement "my own experience on big game with the 7mm Mauser is not wildly extensive". Damn - you sure get caught micro managing a single tree while missing the entire forest... Not at all - I accept that both cartridges are very good. However, in Finn Aagaard's article on the .270, he starts off the article with a quote from Jack O'Connor and uses that same quote for justification at the end of the article as to why he adopted a 7mm as opposed to the .270 as his primary preferred cartridge. Now I am simply exploring whether that conclusion is based on a flawed premise. The importance of placing both the premise at the start of the article and the conclusion at the end of the article indicates that they are not insignificant to the whole article or "micro-managing" as you call it. Just to be clear, if, for example, J.OC saw 95 out of 100 big game killed with one shot with a .270, but had seen 180 big game killed out of 200 with one shot with a 7 x 57, then he would have "seen more big game killed with fewer shots with the 7 x 57..." than the .270, yet in the example, the .270 would have a 95% one-shot kill ratio whereas the 7 x 57 would have a 90% one-shot kill ratio. Are you this nit-picky in real life? If so, you should take up employment as a Catholic schoolmarm. Well yes, sometimes. The ability to analyze things in detail often results in that person being able to achieve things that many can't. For example, it can open up employment opportunities which can allow you to earn a higher-than-average income. It also allows you to make correct decisions based on a myriad of facts. Still quibbling over minutiae! Considering the fact that you have never used a .270 at all (as you have previously stated in this thread), and this thread is about the .270, what you have to say has no value whatsoever. What's worse though, is besides not having any experience at all with the topic, you repeat your posts, and at the same time show how stupid you are.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 20,824
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 20,824 |
The quote "...I believe I have seen more big game killed with fewer shots with the 7 x 57 than with any other cartridge" is from J. O'Connor's article "The 7 x 57: Cartridge with Nine Lives". In that same article, he says: "my own experience on big game with the 7mm Mauser is not wildly extensive." He talks about his wife using it in the same paragraph. Although he discusses many others (besides his wife) who used it successfully, it's not clear how many of those instances he actually had "seen". If his experiences with the 7 x 57 included a lot of personal use himself when he got older as part of the reason for the quote "...I believe I have seen more big game killed with fewer shots with the 7 x 57 than with any other cartridge" then that seems to be in conflict with his statement "my own experience on big game with the 7mm Mauser is not wildly extensive". Damn - you sure get caught micro managing a single tree while missing the entire forest... Not at all - I accept that both cartridges are very good. However, in Finn Aagaard's article on the .270, he starts off the article with a quote from Jack O'Connor and uses that same quote for justification at the end of the article as to why he adopted a 7mm as opposed to the .270 as his primary preferred cartridge. Now I am simply exploring whether that conclusion is based on a flawed premise. The importance of placing both the premise at the start of the article and the conclusion at the end of the article indicates that they are not insignificant to the whole article or "micro-managing" as you call it. Just to be clear, if, for example, J.OC saw 95 out of 100 big game killed with one shot with a .270, but had seen 180 big game killed out of 200 with one shot with a 7 x 57, then he would have "seen more big game killed with fewer shots with the 7 x 57..." than the .270, yet in the example, the .270 would have a 95% one-shot kill ratio whereas the 7 x 57 would have a 90% one-shot kill ratio. Are you this nit-picky in real life? If so, you should take up employment as a Catholic schoolmarm. Well yes, sometimes. The ability to analyze things in detail often results in that person being able to achieve things that many can't. For example, it can open up employment opportunities which can allow you to earn a higher-than-average income. It also allows you to make correct decisions based on a myriad of facts. Still quibbling over minutiae! Considering the fact that you have never used a .270 at all (as you have previously stated in this thread), and this thread is about the .270, what you have to say has no value whatsoever. What's worse though, is besides not having any experience at all with the topic, you repeat your posts, and at the same time show how stupid you are. I bet you are a hoot at parties? oh wait, you have never been to a party.... lmao
Originally Posted by Judman
PS, if you think Trump is “good” you’re way stupider than I thought! Haha
Sorry, trump is a no tax payin pile of shiit.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 30,275
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
OP
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 30,275 |
This thread needs some 270 Pics... I'll start. ![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/CxVT4QvP/bulldown2012-2.jpg) ![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/4yhmV15h/DSC02668.jpg)
“Perfection is Achieved Not When There Is Nothing More to Add, But When There Is Nothing Left to Take Away” Antoine de Saint-Exupery
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2021
Posts: 1,652
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Aug 2021
Posts: 1,652 |
The quote "...I believe I have seen more big game killed with fewer shots with the 7 x 57 than with any other cartridge" is from J. O'Connor's article "The 7 x 57: Cartridge with Nine Lives". In that same article, he says: "my own experience on big game with the 7mm Mauser is not wildly extensive." He talks about his wife using it in the same paragraph. Although he discusses many others (besides his wife) who used it successfully, it's not clear how many of those instances he actually had "seen". If his experiences with the 7 x 57 included a lot of personal use himself when he got older as part of the reason for the quote "...I believe I have seen more big game killed with fewer shots with the 7 x 57 than with any other cartridge" then that seems to be in conflict with his statement "my own experience on big game with the 7mm Mauser is not wildly extensive". Damn - you sure get caught micro managing a single tree while missing the entire forest... Not at all - I accept that both cartridges are very good. However, in Finn Aagaard's article on the .270, he starts off the article with a quote from Jack O'Connor and uses that same quote for justification at the end of the article as to why he adopted a 7mm as opposed to the .270 as his primary preferred cartridge. Now I am simply exploring whether that conclusion is based on a flawed premise. The importance of placing both the premise at the start of the article and the conclusion at the end of the article indicates that they are not insignificant to the whole article or "micro-managing" as you call it. Just to be clear, if, for example, J.OC saw 95 out of 100 big game killed with one shot with a .270, but had seen 180 big game killed out of 200 with one shot with a 7 x 57, then he would have "seen more big game killed with fewer shots with the 7 x 57..." than the .270, yet in the example, the .270 would have a 95% one-shot kill ratio whereas the 7 x 57 would have a 90% one-shot kill ratio. Are you this nit-picky in real life? If so, you should take up employment as a Catholic schoolmarm. Well yes, sometimes. The ability to analyze things in detail often results in that person being able to achieve things that many can't. For example, it can open up employment opportunities which can allow you to earn a higher-than-average income. It also allows you to make correct decisions based on a myriad of facts. Still quibbling over minutiae! Considering the fact that you have never used a .270 at all (as you have previously stated in this thread), and this thread is about the .270, what you have to say has no value whatsoever. What's worse though, is besides not having any experience at all with the topic, you repeat your posts, and at the same time show how stupid you are. I bet you are a hoot at parties? oh wait, you have never been to a party.... lmao I bet whether someone is a hoot at parties or not is irrelevant to the points we are discussing.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 20,824
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 20,824 |
Brother Brad, 270 pic's you want 270 pic's you get....  ![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/Zq51LBVt/DSCF0136.jpg)
Originally Posted by Judman
PS, if you think Trump is “good” you’re way stupider than I thought! Haha
Sorry, trump is a no tax payin pile of shiit.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 20,824
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 20,824 |
Originally Posted by Judman
PS, if you think Trump is “good” you’re way stupider than I thought! Haha
Sorry, trump is a no tax payin pile of shiit.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 20,824
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 20,824 |
Originally Posted by Judman
PS, if you think Trump is “good” you’re way stupider than I thought! Haha
Sorry, trump is a no tax payin pile of shiit.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 20,824
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 20,824 |
Originally Posted by Judman
PS, if you think Trump is “good” you’re way stupider than I thought! Haha
Sorry, trump is a no tax payin pile of shiit.
|
|
|
|
|
428 members (12344mag, 17CalFan, 10gaugemag, 16penny, 007FJ, 01Foreman400, 53 invisible),
2,737
guests, and
1,280
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums81
Topics1,191,616
Posts18,473,958
Members73,941
| |
Most Online11,491
Jul 7th, 2023
|
|
|
|
![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/zXwjfrdk/IMG-2101.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/jjyQGfP1/IMG-1261.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/0jVCVqD2/IMG-1264.jpg)