Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Long Range Hunting Has the 6.5 smothered the 270's chances?

Actually, today we use faster-twist barrels BECAUSE we make better bullets.

None of the early bullets were as well-balanced as they are today, though some weren't bad. But most of the short, high-velocity spitzers for military rounds were used for barrages at longer ranges, whether with machine guns or mass fire from infantry rifles. Some dispersion wasn't a disadvantage.

But many of the faster-twist rifles sold today wouldn't sell if we also didn't have short, light, well-balanced spritzers in every caliber. Many people also want to shoot 40-grain bullets in their AR-15.

The .277/150 LRAB numbers look good... in theory. We've yet to see how they perform on game (en mas)... we''ve yet to see if the BC numbers hold up ... and we've yet to see a solid quantity even become available (unless you count the 50,000 'seconds' they sold).

For all the hype you and Billy have been talking about the 150 LRAB.... I'm just curios if either of you have actually shot one? Seriously.... I'd like to know if we're talking rubber meets the road.... or we're just ballistically jacking the .270 off?

I'd love to see a good, high BC bullet for the .270s.... but it hasn't happened just yet. They're knocking on the door... but don't quite have it solved yet.

As for the 6.5s and 7s.... we all know there's a veritable cornucopia of high BC game turfing bullets available.... that's just how it is.

Great post. Thanks for more knowledge!

Here's Litz's findings on some of the LRABs�

http://forum.snipershide.com/range-...ler-lr-accubonds-bc-testing-results.html

John

The 6.5-284 obviously has some intrinsic accuracy advantage over the 270 Winchester judging simply by the number of competitive LR shooters using it and the number of records it held/holds. Never seen a 270 Winchester at a single match, not one. I also perused PS magazine match reports for several years and not a single one showed up. That doesn't mean it isn't accurate just not to the degree that some of the other chamberings are.

There is no reason why someone couldn't make a 9 twist barrel and shoot 160 grain VLD 270s in it if it was so good. Unless the factories switch to a 9 twist we will never see a good selection of 270 bullets for long range work. Who would buy them if they won't shoot in a factory rifle and nobody in their right mind is going to try and compete with one unless trying to prove something.

I will say this, I know gunsmith here in AZ that has chambered a number of 270AI and although it gains little in velocity, they have proven to be quite accurate. Might be something to that!

Dogshooter...You assume that becase I get on here and discuss these things that I really care about your views on the 270 Winchester....trust me I don't.

I have not fired a single LRAB and to be honest could really care less abut the bullet; I am simply pointing out that they are "there",as are the Matrix bullets,and the published BC's are what they are. I have not seen anybody who has shot them,say that the BC's DON'T hold up....I think 16 bore on here has shot them and said the numbers match up to real world;as I recall you participated in that thread.

As for me, I would not load either one for my hunting in the 270; I don't like that type of bullet for general BG hunting and prefer tougher stuff,since i know there are more important attributes than BC when it comes to choosing bullets for general BG hunting...I learned this from killing animals and seeing a great many more of them shot.I have a few decades of killing game animals with the 270,and prefer other types of bullets because I know exactly what they do, and what the cartridge does at 700-1000 yards is of utterly no interest at all to me.


Here's a "hint"....BC numbers take a back seat to other bullet construction criteria when it comes to effectively killing a wide range of game animals under a wide range of hunting conditions,and for solid on game performance.When I see people choose bullets based solely on BC numbers and without regard to other bullet construction characteristics, I suspect they have not really done much BG hunting...with anything. There are exceptions of course...one or two post here.

Despite the lecturing, you sure aren't telling me anything about the 7mm's I don't already know...if it's a 7mm I have loaded, shot, hunted, and killed game animals with it....from the 7/08 and 7x57 to the Mashburn....maybe more than with the 270(not sure anymore).I have two 7mm Rem Mags and a Mashburn here now, They are pretty new; I have worn out a few others.

I am curious about a lot of things ,too....namely the hunting experience and numbers of animals in different places and conditions under which a lot of 270 critics on here have actually killed game animals....or with anything else for that matter.

But what I think is funnier than anything are target shooters, with little wide spread hunting experience getting on here and bad mouthing a cartridge that has killed BG animals for decades from Zambia to Alaska;(based on the fact that its BC numbers are fractionally lower than something similar),and telling me the cartridge is a punk cartridge for killing game animals because it doesn't do well on gongs at 700 to 1000 yards. It's really too funny.

He never said it was a punk cartridge... He said that .277" bullets are still largely unproven and mostly lacking behind everything .264" and .284". That's the gist I got, anyways....

At the end of the day it is still more about the indian than the arrow. For me, in field positions, it is still more about me than any of the rifles or cartridges I use.

That said I of course shoot a 6.5-06 due to the uberness of it. Carry on.

The Uberness is strong in that one.

So no.... you've not shot them. I figured....

16bore did shoot them.... and they looked like the BC held pretty close... but 6 rounds, at paper, doesn't mean much to me. One guy posts a couple groups.... and all of a sudden the 150 LRAB is the panacea for all things .270. Not yet my friend.... not quite yet.

Obviously you didn't look at the link..... as Litz found that the 1-10" twist had a tough time getting full BC value. In fact.... he found the BC to be about .550.... which is right where I guessed it would be from the get go. Even in 1-7" it still only made .575.... which ain't bad.... but it's not .625. Other bullets (Matrix) are the same way.... just cause they appear to be stable... doesn't mean you'll get full BC either......

I never said they won't kill.... they just suck hind tit.... feel free to regale me with some actual experience with the bullets in question. Jury is still out on the 150 LRAB.... so to put it up against proven high BC game pounding bullets like the 6.5/7mm VLD and Amax is a bit presumptuous and premature.

Uber on....

If he was super-uber, it'd be AI'd.

You can have �BER.
I went home early with the fat chick. A 243AI.......
We are killin schit and smoking Marlboros.
Not �BERing them and phoning a Winch for discovery & recovery.

Dennis,

Claiming that since .270's aren't used for target shooting 6.5's obviously have some intrinsic accuracy advantage is faulty logic.

The reason 6.5's are used for target shooting and .270's aren't goes back, again, to the history of the calibers. If the .270 had appeared first, in a shorter military cartridge with a sharper shoulder and faster-twist rifling, it probably would have been a top target caliber.

First, most early smokeless target shooting was done with military cartridges. Second, the .270 didn't appear for 31 years after the 6.5x55, the first commonly used 6.5 target/long-range cartridge. Third, the .270 had a relatively slow twist, so nobody developed longer, higher-BC bullets, which happened very early on in 6.5.

Fourth, all indications of any "inherent" accuracy revolve around the case itself, not the caliber. They normally involve a short, relatively fat case, with a shoulder angle of around 30 degrees, give or take a few degrees. This fits the 6.5x55 case far closer than the .270 Winchester case--and no other .270 cartridge appeared until 50 years after the 6.5x55.

When 140-grain 6.5mm spitzers were being widely used as both match and long-range military bullets in 6.5x55, the factory 150-grain .270 load used a ROUND-NOSED bullet, because that's what everybody believed was needed for "woods" hunting.

And the primary 130-grain .270 load was designed for flat shooting to 400 yards and not much farther, because that's all hunters could take advantage of back then, since very few rifles even had scopes. They didn't care how much a 130-grain bullet would drift in the wind at 1000 yards. Instead they wanted a bullet that shot flat enough so they could hold on hair at 300 yards. And a 130-grain .270 bullet at 3100 shoots much flatter out to 300-400 than a 140-grain 6.5x55 bullet at 2700.

The two cartridges were developed for totally different purposes, which influenced their bullet designs. Nobody but a hobbyist would go to the trouble of developing, say, the 6.8x55 or 6.8mm Creedmoor just to prove (or even test) if .277 bullets were more intrinsically accurate. Why would they be? But there's also no reason they'd be less accurate than 6.5mm or 7mm bullets.

Whoa there John!

I completely disagree with this part of your post.

Long Range target shooters are constantly searching for anything to give them an edge to make more hits than the next competitor. If anything chambered in .277 would accomplish that, you bet your ass there'd be widespread use. If bullets and barrels were designed today for the .270 that would out-perform anything else, guys would be all over them.

You are correct about "inherent accuracy" as probably not mattering; long range is all about the wind.

The same considerations for choosing a cartridge to increase the probability of making first round impacts on long range steel should be used for choosing a long range hunting cartridge.

That's the tactical point of view, but from a 1000 or 600 yard Benchrest view, it's still a valid point for making little groups at distance.

If the 270 could hang, there'd be a wagon to hop on.....

Rick,

You completely missed my point:

The reason 6.5 bullets have an advantage over .270 bullets is the way both evolved. With the multitude of good 6.5 (and 7mm) target bullets that have been out there for decades, plus more recent models, there's been zero reason to develop either .270 bullets or cartridges for long-range target shooting.

If you don't believe me, please provide ONE examples of somebody who developed an entire line of heavy .270 target bullets, plus new cartridges to fire them in fast-twist rifles. You can't, because it's far easier (and more practical) to use what's already been available for a long, long time.

Like Dennis, you're assuming the availability of 6.5mm and 7mm target bullets means there's some sort of magic in 6.5mm and 7mm, and the few hundredths of an inch of bullet diameter between 6.5mm and 7mm is somehow bereft of that magic. That assumption defies logic and the laws of physics.

.270 Allen Mag..... designed by Kirby Allen to run the old Wildcat 160-170s..... it really caught on.

.270 Arnold.... same thing... tits-up before it got off the ground.

Chicken then egg...... Egg then chicken.... whatever....

Nobody will step up and mass produce a real, high BC bullet for them.... because the .270s and .25s will always be hamstrung by the millions of 1-10" twisted factory pipes. Why the hell someone would build a quick twist .270 to 'take advantage' of the one maybe two decent LR bullets that are occasionally available.... is beyond me. Especially when properly twisted factory sticks are available a dime a dozen in any 6.5 or 7mm flavor of the month.... and kick ass LR Hunting bullets are already available en mas.

The only real advantages the .270 has over anything... are the zero recoil (apparently 2-year olds can shoot them).... in Montana.... when shooting off hand... at a running whitetail.... that you stalked to within 12 yards. Which apparently covers all hunting situations.... everywhere, unless you're an unethical azz hole....

No, I didn't miss the point you made about their evolution, and I agree. As you can see from the above, I don't think there's any magic with a specific diameter bullet.

Again, if .277 caliber bullets were manufactured today with huge BC numbers and there were barrels twisted to stabilize them, they would be used for many long range applications. Since they are not and there are many better wind-cheating choices in just about every other caliber, no one who cares about winning a match or making a first round long range kill does...

...and I'm not bashing the 270 as a killing cartridge. I'm sure it has wacked them and stacked them along with every other. Most game is shot under 200 yards. A buddy of mine has killed 30 bull elk with the .270 Winchester and the 130 grain Game King.





Why do you believe it can't hang?

Dogshooter,

I remembered the Arnold but didn't know about the Allen--though both kind of prove my point: Why would anybody bother? Plus, both were primarily designed as hunting cartridges, not target rounds.

I'm not defending the .270 caliber. I wouldn't buy one for real long-range shooting myself, again because there aren't any real long-range bullets. But the reason isn't because there's something inherently defective about .277. Instead it's all those 1-10 twists!

To a certain extent the same thing happened to the .35 caliber, though it was never meant to be a long-range or target round. The original 1-16 twist doesn't stabilize lead-cored spritzers over 250 grains, or monolithics over 225. As a result there are far more .338's and .375's, because they can handle heavier bullets. Yeah, there are .35 bullets heavier than 250, but not many, and not real spitzers, so the .33's and .375's are far more practical choices.

People on here always forget that we are not the majority. Everyone that hunts has heard of a 270. Hardly anyone I have talked to has even heard of a 6.5x55, never mind its over 100 years old.