From Finn's Hunting Rifles & Cartridges.

These few pages might be all that ever needs to be said about the beauty that is the 95 year old 270 Winchester...

Excellent. I miss Finn's writing.

Guy

Fun reading, thanks for sharing!

Great read.
My .270's getting new glass today.

Good reading and concur.
The .270 wcf is even better today.

As I have written previously I would get by just fine selling off my rifles keeping my 270 Montana and tweaked NH M70 375 H&H. The latter another of his favorites.

Brad, thank you for posting that article from Aagaard. He is my favorite writer from my childhood. I am a slow convert to the 270 WCF, but when I picked my first chambering from Christensen Arms, I tapped the 270 WCF on the shoulder. I have other rifles. They do in a pinch. But since I do not hunt creatures larger then elk, The 270 will do.

Great read on a great cartridge.

Finn always cut to the heart of it. Met him at the SHOT Show in 1998, if I recall correctly,, and among other things we had a good talk about cartridges for big game, finding our experience was pretty much the same--that if a good bullet landed in the right place, and penetrated and expanding sufficiently, then then the "caliber" and weight didn't matter much. He loved my story about Eileen making 10 one-shot kills in a row with her then primary big game rifle, a Browning A-Bolt .270, on animals from pronghorn to bull moose. We made plans to hunt together in Texas, but unfortunately he passed away not long afterward, before that could happen.

However, both Eileen and I did get to know Berit very well doon after that, and got to hunt and shoot with her. Through her got to look through Finn's personal handloading/hunting notes, and realized again how similar our experience had been with various cartridges, bullets and rifles.

One of Finn's most interesting comments was how he found only about 1/3 of safari clients were able to shoot various .300 magnums accurately enough to kill big game consistently. Have an outfitter friend here in Montana who puts the percentage a little lower.

Excellent read. I have a couple of Finn's books, and pull them out every couple years, as I do with O'Connor's, Carmichel"s, and Barsness. All excellent writers with opinions and ideas based on experience and clear observation.

I never got to meet Finn but I kept in touch with Berit for a long time after Finn's passing. What a wonderful lady! She has remarried to a very nice guy named Bill. Their son, Harald Aagaard was promoted to LTC in the US Marine Corps in 2009. Probably a full colonel by now. I don't know what happened to the rest of the kids but Finn and Berit raised them right.

Thank you for posting...that was a fun read.

Thanks for sharing

It took me a long time to realize that I wasn’t really that proficient with a 300 magnum, though I still used a 338 when I needed to. A 30-06 is more than enough now, and with today’s bullets I probably wouldn’t ever use the 338 again. And today I want a 7x57! It’s so much nicer to keep your eyes open all the way through the shot and watch the bullet strike the target.

Thanks for posting. Coming from a huge 270 fan, agree wholeheartedly with the article!

I started killing game and ranch animals in 1968 with a 270 Winchester. I have done it A LOT. My experience is pretty much the same as Finn Aagaard's and Mrs. Barsness.

Never was a fan of the 270 Winchester, then at a SCI fund raiser about 20 years ago I won a Remington 700 270 with a fluted stainless barrel. It needed a little work to shoot well but is now my favorite rifle. For animals up to and including elk it is my go to choice. 130 Accubonds are my fave load.

My second rifle that was "mine", that is, not provided to me by a parent was a MarkX action in .270. Shot my second elk with it and numerous deer, then got the 06' itch. That MKX moved on but I do have a JC Higgens .270 Husky sitting in the safe that needs to come out for a little fresh air one of these days. The reason I got the .270 in the first place was because of the influence from my stepfather who had an old pre 64 win in .270 that he had been hunting with since the late 40's. He shot more elk with that rifle than anyone we knew and he provided a lot of meat for decades. I saw him shoot elk starting with my first hunt in 1974 and he continued killing elk with the Win. and Remington 130 gr. bronze point ammo til' he "stepped up" to a Colt Sauer in 300 Weatherby about 1985. He thought his old Win. had finely gone to the dark side having lost its accuracy from what was perceived as a shot out barrel (he realized later it just needed a thorough scrubbing but stuck with the Weatherby). I suppose the 300 put them down harder but they didn't seem to be more dead than what the .270 produced. At the age of 75, he shot his last elk, cut it up and packed it out by himself...he hung up the Colt Saur and decided he liked T-bone steaks better.

I love Finns writing and no nonsense matter of fact style. Johnny B is similar and my current favorite writer.

My 3 favorite lines:

Proper, no nonsense big game cartridges start with the 7x57, 270, and 308.

... but I must say, I have been unable to detect much difference between it (7 mag) and the 270 on game.

I would simply use a 150 gr Nosler Partion at about 2900.

Having killed a couple elk with the 270/150 Partition, I agree. I need to buy another 270.........

Thanks Brad.

I feel very "American" when I hunt with my pre-64 FWT 270 and 130gr Winchester Power Points or Nosler Partitions. But I must admit "bullet placement" is all that matters "triggers me"

I have posted this before. But after hunting with a Remington 788 in 243 for the first two years, I traded for a BDL 700 in 270 circa 1980. In 1992 I traded for a Remington SS mountain rifle in 270.

For the first 17 or so years I had a 270 as my only big game/varmint rifle. I have played with and used 90gr Sierra HP's for varmints all the way up to 180gr Woodleigh's.

In the late 90's, I was finally able to indulge my inner looney. Having since used, 22, 243, 257, 264, 277, 308, 338, 348, 358, 366, 375, 423, 458, and 50 calibers for hunting.

As far as bullets, my experience mirrors the above article. The Hornady 130 and 150gr Interlock's set a very high standard. The 140gr BTSP do not hold together as well and gave up hunting with them. I have also had good performance from the 130gr NBT. The mono metals have only improved performance.

Lowest load was an 85gr TSX at 1900 fps. Fastest load was a 110gr TSX at 3300fps which worked great on hogs, deer, Axis and blackbuck.

My wife, nephews, and boys used reduced loads successfully for their beginning hunts. Bullets included 85gr TSX, 100gr GMX, 110gr NAB, 130gr Interlock and 140gr BTSP Interlock

My Dad has used nothing but the Hornady 130gr SP out of his 760 Gamemaster for close to 50 years. At 82 years old he was able to tag three deer this past fall. He did use a 150gr NP two years ago to tag his first bull elk. If he draws another SD elk tag, the 150gr NP will get the nod again.

This past fall I used the 145gr ELD-X on a doe antelope at 442 yards, and my best mule deer at 180 yards. They shoot great and have banged steel out to 800 with them, but they are soft and found tremendous meat loss when butchering. I did recover the jacket under the opposite skin of the mule deer.

For my Black Hills deer hunt I carried a Husqvarna 1640 in 6.5x55 using a 129gr Interlock. Ended up getting one of my better whitetails. Bullet performed as expected.

My future DIL used a 7mm-08 with a 120gr NBT on her first and second deer this past fall also. Understandably, it worked.

My oldest boy used a 130gr TTSX, and youngest a 130gr GMX for their hunting.

So in summary this past fall we put 12 deer/antelope in the freezer using 6.5x55, 7mm-08, and 270's. All peas in a pod, but I obviously have much more experience with the 270. Hence the comfort factor.

Both of my grand fathers were my inspiration for hunting. Like many hunters during the 1940’s & 50’s one of my grand-fathers carried a Savage Model 99 in 300 Savage and it served him well in the Texas hill country as well as South Texas.
The other was motivated by Jack O’Conner’s magazine articles and hunted with a pre-64 M-70 in 270 Winchester and it served him extremely well in Texas & Wyoming.
I followed his advice and got my first 270 Winchester in a Remington 700 back in 1979. (I now have three 270s, the M-700 and two Winchester Model 70 NH Classics.)
The old reliable 270 has done all I could ever ask for over the years and did me good again this past weekend on a large bodied Northern Kansas buck as well as doe. Took the buck at a measured 509 yards with a 130 grain Hornady SST. He fell with in 25 feet of the hit. With out a doubt, the 270 Win. is still my favorite.

Good article thanks for sharing it.

Love the 270. This year a funky horned 6x6 elk went down with one shot at 380 yards. 160 gr nosler partition. Biggest bodied elk I have ever seen on the ground.

Thanks for sharing Brad

Glad you all are enjoying the article.

The 270 is indeed every bit as good as O'Connor said it was.

My first big game rifle I got for Christmas when I was 15 was a Savage 110 in 30-06... This started a lifetime love affair with the 06. I never had a use for a .270... Then I got my wife one. Then I stole hers. I killed my first big game animal with a .270 just this year. Now I’m wishing I wouldn’t have spent so much time on and with the oughty, though I do love it still. I certainly feel the special aura the .270 Win has earned in the hunting woods.



Thanks for posting the article. I really enjoyed it.

Todd

Growing up in the late 50's and having a subscription to Outdoor life. I read every article on the .270 I could find. First rifle I bought was a Marlin in .35 rem, second was a .270.

Thanks for sharing Brad! Between JOC, and Finn Aagard, I fell in love with the 7x57 cartridge. He was the first writer that I heard say "I challenge anyone to tell me what a game animal was shot with by observing the reaction"!

Ron

I got mine in 1975. Remington 700 bdl.

I've zero desire for a .270.

But it seems to me, that if I were - it would almost have to be a Win M70 fwt. Only seems right for me/to me.

I bought my first .270 in 1976, but traded it off 3 years later. I hunted mostly with .308's and .30-06's for about 25 years. Hunting mostly in wooded Pennsylvania where shots over 100 yards are rare. Then, I started doing some hunting on a farm. I bought a .270 Tikka, which I still hunt with. I got one for my son to use. Now I'm up to 7 of them. All my .270's have shot well. I've had a couple .30 cal rifles that were fussy.

My brother bought an older model 700BDL with a 3-9 Redfield on it from the widow of a police officer who died of cancer back in the late 80's. I witnessed him kill a groundhog at 400+ yards with it. it's a beautiful, accurate rifle!

Ron

Great article! Thanks for posting..

Now I need to find a copy of Finn Asgard’s book ... any suggestions?

Rumor has it that when Jack got to Heaven he was issued a 280.

No way, he was issued a 270 WCF, 7x57, 30-06, 375 H&H and 416 Rigby

I've been using the .270 for nearly 40 years now. I've used other stuff (.30/06, 7x57, .25/06, .243,) now and then, but the primary rifle was always a .270. I had a gunshop owner who treated me right while I was at Ft. Bragg, and when I told him I wanted a M77R Ruger, he ordered up the $10 upgrade to the stock, and got me a pretty one (nice marbled walnut) and I ordered up the .458 steel trigger guard and floorplate (normal was aluminum). I shot that one until the bore was 'shot'. Then I went to Model 70s, and was/am pretty happy with them. I'm still using the second M70 (the first was a Featherweight, but it didn't fit me well) a Classic SM (Classic action, Synthetic Matte finish, cheap stock, which I replaced) They'll probably bury me with that one. I've had a couple Howas, too, but always went back to the Winchester.

When I was messing around with the "other" rifles, I noted that they killed stuff just as dead, just as quick, if I put the bullet in the right place. No news there. Shoot straight, and stuff dies, no matter what you shoot it with. But I like my .270, and will keep it around for the duration.

I've owned that book for 20 plus years. He always struck me as pragmatic, which is a good thing in my view. Some is outdated, because bullets have changed, but that's the way with most things in life.

My first deer rifle, a birthday present at age 14, was a Savage 340 in .30-30. When I finished college, my parents and grandmother bought me a SAKO L61R Finnbear in .270 as a graduation gift. That was in 1974. I put a McMillan stock on the rifle sometime in the late 1980s and still have it some 46 years after acquiring it. I've owned it longer than anything in my vault. It's topped with a Nikon 1.5-5 scope and is more accurate than I am. Jack O'C was a big influence in my early gun choices and I haven't experienced anything to suggest he was wrong almost half a century later.

Great article. Love the 270 and a pile of Bitterroots to feed it.

Berit and Bill still well in Houston/LLano/Piney Woods......

Finn Aagaard and Ross Seyfried both knew their way around a good hunting rifle...

Choosing YOUR Ideal Hunting Cartridge - Ross Seyfried

... especially if it was chambered in .270 WIN.




GR

Enjoyed Finn’s writing. Especially about the 338-06 and 6.5x55. His article about the 7mmBR in a ULA inspired me to have one built. He said the round was probably plenty for a lot of deer hunting needs and that many hunters are probably over gunned.

JOC probably sparked my interest early on for the 270, it was highly effective then, and now. Dumped several deer and even a double on crows about 300 yds from a #1B Ruger using 100 Corelokts as I recall with none other than a 6x scope.

Since the 270 is a hot topic here lately, thought I'd bring this back up for those that may have missed it.

**Click on each image to enlarge them for better reading...

Thanks for bringing this back up. A lot of common sense advice in Finn and Ross's article.

We all like to argue small looney details. Reality is that one would be much better off picking a cartridge from 6.5-30, with a suitable bullet in a rifle you like and shoot the heck out of it.

I am comfortable with a 270 because of years of use, 1000's and 1000's of rounds downrange, with multiple hundreds of animals in the freezer in the hands of at least eight different hunting partners and family members.

Both of my grandfathers owned .270’s!

One was a Mauser custom, the other a stock Remington 721.

The Remington was the biggest (caliber wise) rifle that grandfather ever owned. To my knowledge he never shot anything heavier than 130 grain bullets for use on our mule deer, elk and black bear, along with the occasional coyote or pronghorn antelope.

The Mauser played second fiddle to that Grampa’s .30-06 which incidentally was also a Remington 721.


I myself inherited a Browning BBR in .270 some years back. With it I have taken coyotes and one cow elk, following the grandfatherly advice of preferring 130 grain bullets. I plan on using it for mule deer as soon as I can draw a good tag and take proper time to hunt.

Although a dyed-in-the-wool .30-06 man, I do appreciate the .270 for its many good attributes greatest of which is, it’s a darn good cartridge!

Thanks for posting the article. I have a Mossberg .270 in the gun safe that I haven't shot in years. I may take it out in the new year and shoot it some.

1973 was a good year for buying guns for me. IIRC, I fond some good deals that year. Probably one of the best was a very lightweight FN Mauser chambered to the .270. Knocked off a few coyotes and a nice Mule deer but wasn't too happy with all the meat destruction so on advice from a friend I went to the 150 gr. Sierra Game King. Much better in my opinion. In the passing years I've added another commercial Mauser, a Ruger #1A and a Winchester XTR that came equipped with a McMillan stock from the factory. They all shoot very well with the Game King load I used in the first rifle which BTW, I still have. The last game animal I shot with a .270 was an Antelope on a ranch hunt in 2009. After a relatively easy stalk I took the shot at about 75 yards, one and done. The goat staggered for maybe 30 feet tops and died.

The one thing I found most interesting about my .270s was they were the easiest rifles to find a good load for out of many I've worked with. If I ever decide to seriously thin out the herd, a couple of those 270s will still be in the safe.
PJ

I have never used the 270 at all.. But I like to think I was heavily influenced by Finn to use the 280. Kind of a mix between the 270 and the 7x57, and very similar to another of his favorites,,the 7x64 of which he wrote about quite a lot.
Finn was definitely among my all time favorite writers on guns and hunting.

About twenty years ago a friend had a JC Higgins .270 (Belgium Mauser action) that he wanted to sell. I wanted to move up from a .243 so I bought it, and put an old Leupold 4X with tapered cross hairs on it. It was and still is a great rifle. I shot numerous deer with it.

One of my best days with it was when I went to a turkey shoot with it. I went home with two turkeys. One old timer asked me what I was shooting and when I told him, he said it’s got a nasty crack to it, but I never noticed that when I shot it.

Then I got the bug to build a 30-06, so I gave the .270 to my son. I still borrow it occasionally.

Tag.

I have all of Finn’s books was a favorite author and influenced so many of my rifle choices.

I knew Finn, and have always loved his story about the client who thought a .375 H&H was absolutely necessary for plains game--and wounded plenty due to the recoil. When Finn persuaded him to switch to a .270 "rental rifle, the guy finally started killing stuff cleanly....

Perhaps a Biesen stocked Ruger 77 with a 22" barrel, skeleton grip cap and buttplate?

Ditto, for the Elk client/ dude hunters at my time.
I paticipated in horror as a "Dude hunter" fresh from killing a Polar bear in Northern Canada showed up in our camp- and killed large Shiras bulls ,yes two , the first day was an example of rapid fire , unrestrained shooting and I attempted to stop him. He emptied the magazine and my little needle gun was used to finish the messy little outing.
He shot both, I was forced to use my personal Moose tag to legitamize the shooting spree.
It took me two days to pack out both bodies and the cape and antlers for hir prize.
This was his 27th or 28th animal on Safari Club's list
So somehow he was awarded a ribbon or plaque for his great achievment.
This man was not a hunter, paid no attention to the mountains or other wildlife. This was in the spectular West slope of Rocky mountains . He also didn't like camp.
The rifle was some fancy grade 375 H&H that he had previously used on the bear. He told me the bear hunt was quite a dull experience and glad it was over.
Safari Club has been stuck in my craw from the day onward
* the 375 is a wonderful round and perhaps if he would of agreed to checking its zero it would of helped somewhat.

How were you forced to take part?

Finn was such a common sense writer. I have his books and have read them multiple times. Every time I read them I get an urge to go out and find a used Mauser actioned rifle put a 4x scope on it and fill an ark.

GreggH

What a great article with very factual information.

Just great results that are proven over the years.

HS 58

Brad, thanks for sharing. Excellent story by Finn. I remember reading that when it originally came out.

Another good read about the .270 that I still have boxed up is Every Man’s Beltless Magnum by JOC.

Don't agree with your high regard for a 98, I'll take an fn or fn clone any day.of the week and twice on Sunday no more clunky 98's for me. You just have to spend to much money to get them right..mb

I dont agree with you. Nothing better than 98 Mauser

Good to see you back up and moving buddy!

He hired the Guide / Outfitter that I worked for.
In B.C. the oufitter hires licenced assistant guides to take Dude hunters out in his prescribed territory.
There were many great experiences but that one soured me a little on Safari Club.
He wad a bully type, took no instruction and the camp was glad to see him depart for his flight back to Texas.
I remember stopping to fuel up in Elko, my friend happened to be there and was truly impressed by the bull as we were dropping it off at the taxidermist on the way to his flight. I filled him in about this later on, and John ( my friend)was a serious , dedicated hunter
This happened a long time ago and at that time I did see quite alot of poor shooting- even at 100 yards, folks. My little old opinion.

Have seen quite a few hunters who can't handle a .375 H&H's recoil, mostly in Africa but also elsewhere. But they often won't admit it--or even realize it. One illuminating hunt was a month-long cull in South Africa, where I hunted with a dozen other guys, who came in two groups of six hunters, each staying two weeks.

Many of them brought both a "light" rifle--chambered for rounds from the .270 Winchester to the .325 Winchester Shot Magnum, and a bigger rifle, chambered for rounds from the .300 Winchester Magnum to the .375 H&H for larger plains game, though two guys also hunted Cape buffalo, and one of them used a .416 Remington Magnum. (His light rifle was a .308 Winchester.)

The majority of them started flinching with their larger rifle, partly because we were shooting a lot of animals, both culls and trophies. One guy brought a 7mm-08 and a .300 Winchester Magnum, and put the .300 aside after a few days--and still managed to take tougher, larger plains game cleanly with the 7mm-08. Another guy brought two rifles in the same pair of chamberings I did, the 7x57 and 9.3x62--and put the 9.3 aside after a few days, after realizing he was flinching.

One guy brought the .325 WSM for plains game, and a .375 H&H for his buffalo. But the 220-grain Power Point factory loads didn't penetrate enough on the larger plains game, and he ended using the .375 on everything--and very well. But have found that sort of shooter relatively rare....

Bunduki eh? I've never thought of a particular rifle as lucky, always seems good or bad results came from the skill of the operator.

41

Good Morniing
You have vast experience worldwide and I respect you knowledge of these things.
My question to you is.... Are client hunters expected to zero their rifles on location where you have hunted?
I found if I observed their handling of the firearm, watched them check their zero and make the neccessary adjustments , it spoke volumes how they might be in the field.
Some brought no tools, to check the bedding , mounting ,machine screws etc. Furthermore, some would of never thought to do this.
One Weatherby guy told me his rifle was zero'd from factory
Muledeer , you must have oodles of these types of stories. Probably enough to write a book.
Happy New Year to you and all.

This isn’t something “client” hunters have the corner on. I suspect a very high percentage of North America’s hunters go afield with a rifle that hasn’t had confirmation of zero for an extended period of time.

Just on Finn Aagaard's article on the .270, it's a good article but I do find it a bit misleading. He starts off saying that Jack O'Connor experienced more big game put down with fewer shots with the 7 x 57 than with anything else. The implication being that though Jack O'Connor touted the .270 in his writings, the 7 x 57 was better at putting down big game with fewer shots than the .270. However, the reason that Jack O'Connor made that statement about the 7 x 57 was simply that in his early days he used the 7 x 57 more than the .270 and also that his wife whom he accompanied on most of her hunts, used the 7 x57 as her big game cartridge. Therefore, he saw more big game being shot at with the 7 x 57 than the .270, and as a consequence, saw more big game put down with the 7 x 57. However, he considered the 7 x 57 as a down-loaded .270 and not quite as good, notwithstanding that in his later years he returned to the 7 x 57 because of the reduced recoil and possibly muzzle blast.

Quibbling over something written decades ago.

The thread is "Finn Aagaard On The 270 Winchester". If it's "quibbling over something written decades ago", then the whole thread is of little relevance also.

AYE !!!

I'll start by saying yep! And yeah, have had guys insist their rifles was zeroed even though they'd never fired it, whether at the factory or the counter-guy at the sporting goods store where they bought it, who'd zeroed it with a bore-sighter.

Yes, all hunters have been required to at least check the zero on their rifles before hunting--and when I guided for a while around 30-35 years ago I insisted on it, partly for the reason you stated: " I found if I observed their handling of the firearm, watched them check their zero and make the neccessary adjustments , it spoke volumes how they might be in the field."

Though I did have to shoot a couple guys' rifles to get the zero close before they check-fired it, as they were obviously over-gunned so started flinching after taking their first shot or two. Many guys were also classically over-gunned.

One was hunting pronghorns and mule deer in the open country of central Montana. He was from somewhere Back East, and apparently believed he needed a more powerful cartridge to take game at "western" distances. So he left his .243 Winchester at home and bought a new 7mm Remington Magnum. (He eventually got his game, but it wouldn't have taken as long with his .243.)

One my Montana outfitter friends, sees the same sort of thing all the time. His pet peeve was guys bringing a .300 magnum of some sort to hunt mule deer, since 3/4 of 'em couldn't shoot a .300 well enough to put the bullet in the right place at even 200 yards, so shooting at 300+ was out of the question. (Finn Aagaard also observed this happening with safari clients who brought .300 magnums, saying only a third could shoot .300s well.)

Oh, and I ran into another guy who couldn't shoot a .300 magnum well on a horseback hunt in northern British Columbia. He was a European who'd hunted Stone sheep the previous year with the same outfitter--then decided to come back and hunt caribou and moose. He'd brought a 7x64 Brenneke for the ram, essentially a metric .280 Remington, and made a 1-shot kill at medium-long range. But he decided it wouldn't work on moose, so bought a .300 Winchester. When we did the 100-yard zero-check in camp, he shot a nice round 18-inch group with his new .300--and took several shots to get his moose dead, and the same thing happened on the caribou.

Most also brought no tools, and I saved some trips by using mine--including some epoxy to fix a cracked wrist on one guy's stock. But they also didn't bring really basic stuff, such as a screwdriver with the correct bits to tighten the screws on their stock or scope mounts.

Have written about all of this in various books and articles....

One problem with your analysis is that Jack himself used the 7x57 more and more as he got older, because like many aging hunters he became more recoil sensitive. O'Connor discussed this in at least one of his books....

Personally I have shot a pile of big game with the 7x57, both in North America and Africa, plenty of it larger than "deer" size, including wildebeest, kudu, elk and moose. Have also shot and seen shot plenty game of the same size-range with .270. Have never been able to see any consistent difference in how either cartridge killed....

I will add to MD post that O’Connor often stated he did not see much difference in killing between 7x57, 270, 30-06, the various 300 and 338 mags on game (including plains game) up to Elk. It was not always this way in his writing

You can clearly see in his writings that in early days he liked to take a 270 for sheep/deer and 30-06 with heavier bullets for Bigger game like bear and Moose. After he killed a bunch of bigger animals with the 270 cause he ran into a caribou, moose or grizzly sheep hunting figured out it worked as good as the 06 on bigger animals and started using it more as preferred the flat trajectory. When the 300 wby, 338 win, 7 rem Mag came out, he used those and did not see much of a difference taking game just more recoil and heavier guns.

For middle period (and most prolific) of career settled on the 270 Win with 130 and 150 Nosers for most hunting especially a lot of international hunts, though still used other stuff. When hunting really big or dangerous game he went to something bigger but that was something bigger than something like an Elk, Kudu, or Zebra where he found the 270 will shoot through and kill fine. So as with the Boddington thread it wasn’t “270 for everything” from the beginning. In using the 270, he found it worked well with good bullet construction despite some early concerns with light bullets

I expect like a lot of older hunters he was less worried with theoretical long range situations and more worried about pracitcal things like recoil as got older and used the 7x57 more

Lou

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.

And yet you’re still lost, exploring and left wondering in said forest.

At least MD addressed the argument with a valid counter argument. Some of the other dummies who have replied aren't capable of doing that - I suppose that's why they are just "followers".

Shoot 'em all, and let God sort 'em out.

Great article, thanks for posting it.

Why don't I own a 270win?!

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:



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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Are you this nit-picky in real life? If so, you should take up employment as a Catholic schoolmarm.

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.

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!

I have Aagaards Hunting Rifles & Cartridges, also Guns and Hunting that need to go.Very slight wear,PM an offer if interested. Thanks

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.

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

This thread needs some 270 Pics... I'll start.

I bet whether someone is a hoot at parties or not is irrelevant to the points we are discussing.

Brother Brad,
270 pic's you want 270 pic's you get....

Was hoping you'd put that one up.

I can see you're a real hoot at parties...if that's what you look like! LOL!!!

Hey dumbazz , post a pic...

That's a nice goat! Made me do a double take. That country looks like some of my stompin' grounds.

Wow! This doof called me stupid. Oh well, I can get over it. 😏

He’s concerned someone might be misled over an article written 30 plus years ago where there was a comparison made between two different but somewhat similar cartridges. He seems very concerned over a quote made in the article by the author from another author who also compared the two cartridges. The fact that both of these esteemed writers on the subject are both long ago deceased, seems to make no difference in the voracity of his disdain.

And he thinks I am the stupid one. 😳😄

Looks like he's getting it done to me!

He's probably a biden voter.....

Good call!

Lots of images, showing the greatness of the 270 Winchester.

There are other rounds out there, that will push a higher BC bullet and faster than a 270 Winchester; saying that the 270 Winchester is still getting it done.

Nuff said.

Way cool.

Dig the 270’s.



I’ve got some more. But that’s one of my favorite 270 hunts.

At least Ifuqbarms has shot a .270 and he's proven what a clown at the parties he is and how he makes everyone laugh at him with that moustache. Takeoffmyjockstrap has never shot a .270!!!

Here's the exact quote from JOC regarding why he's seen more animals killed with the 7x57:

"Yet I think I have seen more game killed with fewer shots from this modest little cartridge than with any other. The explanation for its deadly efficiency does not lie in blinding velocity, in big bullets, in a frightening number of foot pounds of energy. It lies in the light recoil, coupled with the excellent hunting accuracy of so many 7×57s. Those who use it are not afraid of it and, as a consequence, they tend to shoot it well—and to place their shots well. In case no one has told you, the most important factor in killing power is putting that bullet in the right spot."

That is from this article: https://gundigest.com/more/classic-guns/forty-years-little-7mm

As JB and lots of others have mentioned, it all boils down to not being afraid of the cartridge (i.e. recoil, muzzle blast, etc.), and with today's bullets it's arguable whether or not a "Loud-n-Boomer" is even necessary for the majority of game most of us hunt. Now, if someone "wants" to hunt and shoot his L-n-B, that's an entirely different issue.

The ladies would swoon over my porn stache..... still do! lmao

RevMike, that particular article you have quoted is a shortened and modified version of the article I referred to- The 7 x 57: Cartridge with Nine Lives. The exact quote you refer to is not the exact quote in the article I refer to. I have a hardcopy in front of me, but it would be an infringement of copyright to post it.

So,do you have any real experience or just book experience?

Interesting. Not to hijack the thread, but is that from a magazine or one of his books?

You can find it in Hunting on Three Continents with Jack O'Connor Volume 1.

Thanks!

You're welcome.

I'll prolly hunt with my 270 some, this next hunting season.

This is more of a question than a statement. However, I seem to remember that in subsequent years, Aagard settled on the 7mm-08 as his favorite. I don't remember him ever repenting his opinions on other chamberings, but 7mm-08 IIRC was his final favorite.

Makes sense, he had great taste.

7mm-08 East of the Mississippi.... 270 West of the Mississippi

Sounds like a great plan.

I have hunted considerably with the 7mm-08 and .270 Winchester both east and west of the Mississippi--along with the 7x57, .308 Winchester and some other similar rounds. Have yet to find a discernible difference in the field--at least at the ranges where Finn shot big game.

I also knew Finn, but eventually got to know Berit better after Finn passed away. From what I recall (which partly comes from reading his writing) he eventually picked the .308 as most practical, but also recall that Berit's first left-handed bolt rifle (she's left-handed) was a 7mm-08.

Nope. He played with the 7-08, but as John says, the 308 Win was where he settled. In fact, his last article published posthumously, was on the 308 Win.

Nice. I do like my carbon bbl 270. 129lrx and 145 Eldx.

Congrats on all, Calvin you're doing a good job with the littles.

Now that is an article I'd like to read.

Or vise versa. Both cartridges are excellent.

Very nice Calvin on a couple of fronts!

Here you go:

https://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbt...thread/Board/34/main/1035263/type/thread

That's awesome stuff Calvin. I love when the 270's pop up with a bunch of good animals around em. Warms my heart

Love this photo!

+1!

Thanks! That's one of the articles in a book I have that is a collection of his articles and it's a great read.

Thanks Brad.

Thank goodness for that .308 article. Now I don't have to replace the .270 with a 7 x 57 only to replace the 7 x 57 with a 7-08 and then re-barrrel the 7-08 to .308...as I already have a .308. Just not sure whether to continue running 180's in it in accordance with the last part of the article or switch to 150's like the first part of the article. Is everybody absolutely sure that he finally settled on the .308 before I do anything more?

Split the difference and go 165's.

Of course that article is obsolete these days since he's talking about shooting game only out to 300yards.

Much as I love the 270, 280 & 7-08, yea, even the 'o6 I just cannot warm up to or find a niche for the 308 in a hunting rifle.

The only thing appealing about it to me is that it goes into an SA package.

MM

Same here. I've tried many .308's and keep going back to the 7mm-08 for what I'd intend doing with it.

[/quote] 7mm-08 East of the Mississippi.... 270 West of the Mississippi[/quote]

I'm from North of the Mississippi, so we use both pretty much interchangeably :-) and notice no real difference on game ranging from pronghorn to moose. But I've shot more game with a .308, and like it a lot.

Ok, so we got east of the Mississippi, west of the Mississippi and now north of the Mississippi. What do you take if you want to hunt south of the Mississippi in Campeche?

The larger question is what do you use south of the equator. Should the rifling twist be in the opposite direction as north of the equator?

Chortle

To add to that conundrum: What should the rifling be when you are exactly on the north or south poles, as the case may be?

John, I believe there's an article for you there... might involve some field testing in Patagonia

There's no way I'm buying a second rifle in the opposite twist in the same chamberings as I already have. Perhaps though, they might have a scope soon that adjusts for the Coriolis Effect by measuring the angle that your rifle is pointed and your exact location on Earth and the distance of the shot.

My first gun was a 270 Win. I move on to a 270 WSM. This last Fall I went back to the 270 Win. I enjoy shooting them both.

Just straight lands and grooves there, no spiral.

Thank you for sharing. I still own a .270 and I have used it in Africa (which is like saying North America!), more specifically in South Africa and in Namibia on everything including Mountain Zebra and Kudu. If I had seen an Eland that I liked, I would have shot it without hesitation too; however, I was hunting free range areas and there were few eland to be found.

Absolutely my favorite if I had to keep only one it would be 270 I’m just west of the Mississippi and I prefer round nose 150 grain DRTs