I want to thank Wayne van Zwoll for his latest exclusive Campfire article. Please welcome him aboard if you have not done so already.

Please use this thread to ask Wayne van Zwoll (WvZ) questions about "SUB.27: WHERE THE ACTION IS"

Thanks Wayne, and enjoy, folks.

I think the .25 Souper and the 6.5-06 could have been a success had Remington or Winchester put their name on them. Am I wrong? Are they just too close to the .243 and .270 for a market to exist?

I kind of wonder why nobody ever commercialized other rounds in the popular .277 caliber, like a .270/.308. Or a .270 magnum instead of a 7mm magnum. Other than the one Weatherby offering, that is.

Great article. Was a great read.

I would like to see a write-up concerning all the options in 6mm. That is the current and next frontier, as soon as the 6.5 Creedmoor fades a bit.

The 25-06 and the 6mm Remington - two of my favorites. I see a 6mm-06 in the future though.

Indy,

You mean like the .270 WSM?

Why do you think that the 256 Newton has never been as popular as its performance suggests that it should have been? The 256 Newton is my favorite long action .264" bore cartridge.

Oops. Forgot that one. It only took 'em 75 yeqrs or so and the WSM doesn't seem very popular.

I guess my real question should have been why did everyone go all goo goo ga ga over the 7mm and later the 6.5mm when the .270 was already proven.

One could also ask why did we need the .270 when the 6.5 and 7mm's were already proven?

Indy,

Because 6.5mm and 7mm originated as military calibers back in the early days of smokeless powder, when all military bullets were long, heavy roundnoses, apparently because all previous lead bullets for black powder military cartridges were long, heavy roundnoses. As a result, relatively fast twists became standard in 6.5 and 7mm, which also turned out to work fine to stabilize long, streamlined spitzers when they started appearing.

The .270 Winchester appeared after the transition to spitzers, when high muzzle velocity became the obsession among hunters. Many companies, however, found that faster twists resulted in poor accuracy. Early spitzers were often poorly balanced, and faster twists accentuated the poor balance.

As a result, companies introducing new, high velocity hunting cartridges often used relatively slow twists that would JUST stabilize lighter bullets. A classic example is the .250-3000 with its 1-14 twist, but the .270 was also one.

It's standard 1-10 twist is considerably slower than the twists normally used in 6.5 and 7mm calibers on either side of .270. Which is why heavier 6.5mm and 7mm spitzers have higher BC's than .270 bullets: Their standard twists can handle longer, more streamlined spitzers.

Consequently, when the long-range hunting trend started after the introduction of laser rangefinders, hunters "discovered" what target shooters had known for decades: 6.5mm and 7mm bullets were available with higher BC's than .270 bullets, and hence worked better at longer ranges.

Yeah, you can put faster twists in .270-caliber rifles, and there are a few high-BC .270 bullets designed to work in them. But why bother after decades of 6.5mm and 7mm twists and bullets providing better long-range performance?

Yes, the .270 was already "proven." It was proven to result in less retained velocity and more wind-drift at longer ranges than 6.5mm and 7mm bullets--which were not a new fad. They had been proven for even longer.

Not everyone went "all goo goo ga ga over the 7mm and later the 6.5mm", just hunters who were ignorant of their long-range advantages, which target shooters had known about for a LONG time. Which is exactly why .270 caliber never became popular among target shooters.

Nice article and welcome to this forum. I have enjoyed reading your articles over the years.


In this house we have a 260 Rem, 6.5x55 and 264 WM so are big fans of the smaller rounds. I know it isn't a "sub 27" but the 270 Win has really become a favourite in the last two years since I started finally using one, I wonder why it took so long. I also would like to try a 270 Wby one day too when my 264 barrel is toast.

Speaking only for myself the reason why I went for a fast twist 270 was I finally realised the 270 Win is a great cartridge in its own right after years of ignoring it. I also wanted to have at least one round around here that I could find cheap factory ammo at Canadian Tire if necessary. The fast twist part does mean I can experiment with pretty much any bullet currently made which is quite enjoyable for me. This 270 Win is largely replacing my 264 WM (which I like) and works just as good so far after chronographing loads.

Yep, easily finding a wide selection factory ammo and brass is the big advantage of the .270 over most 7mm cartridges, especially the newer ones.

Also, some of the newer, high-BC .270 bullets will indeed stabilize in a 1-10 twist, at least under most environmental conditions.

John,
Several years ago Brian Litz wrote an article about SCALING. The obvious conclusion is that .277 is just about perfect for LR performance.
Bring on the 1-9 twists.
Of course there is the fact that 270 Win ammo can be found everywhere big game is hunted. It is one of a handful of worldwide hunting cartridges.
Can't find 6.5-06 or 280 AI anywhere I go. Can find 7x57 / 275 RIGBY. Now that is a tempting choice.

John,
Regarding the 275 RIGBY aka 7x57, with optimal powders and best brass, with modern pressure limits, can you get 140's to 2900 in a 22" barrel? I am assuming the throat is cut so those 140's have about .275" of bullet shank touching the inside of the case neck.

It wasn't until I started posting here that I realized I wasn't supposed to have killed anything that I had been killing for 30+ years with a 270.

All those dead animals....down the drain.

oh well....

Rick,

Yeah, you can get 2900 pretty easily with 140's in a 22" barrel. Of course, might not with some bullets that produce more pressure than others. But three that result in pressure at the lower end are the 139 Hornady Interlock, 140 Ballistic Tip and 140 TTSX, all of which work very well.

I knew that long before I ever got a .270 or joined the 'Fire. Many times as a kid I remember hearing my dad tell people "the .270 is a groundhog gun". So I knew it was crap. Then I grew up and bought one and realized it's one of the best big game cartridges there is. I do imagine you could take some groundhogs with it too.

Heck of an interesting, well-written article.

Thanks Wayne, looking forward to more.

Regards, Guy

Welcome Wayne. It sure is nice to have your view here. I like the way you see things.

If the 6.5-284 Norma is "overbore", and potentially a 1000 rd. "barrel burner", what would we consider a 26 Nosler or a 6.5/300 Weatherby? I understand the utility of the "overbore" 7mm's for hunting but not the 6.5's. A 28 Nosler, 7mm Dakota, 7mmRUM, etc. can send a 180gn plus VLD bullet a 1000 yards with enough energy to reliably kill an elk. Just because a 140gn 6.5mm gets there at the same speed is it anywhere near as terminally effective? I am guessing that the "super overbore" 6.5's are the flattest shooting long range cartridges, but what niche do they fill?

I greatly enjoyed the article. It is a real treat to have detailed articles written by Wayne and John on this site.

Great article as always from WVZ. Enjoyed reading his articles and books in the past and looking forward to future articles

I suspect cleverly branded, well-marketed cartridges will always earn a few shekels. But while the Souper and 6.5/06 are among my favorite wildcats, there's nothing wrong with the .243 and .270. The .25-06 spans the gap ably, if for some unfathomable reason, you must limit yourself to one rifle. Speculating, I see marginal support for the Souper and 6.5/06, had they gone commercial after 1955, for the reason you point out.... WvZ

Thank you, Chip.... WvZ

The .270 Redding I've used for years was developed by Redding's Richard Beebe on the .308 case long before Remington had a 7mm/08 or a .260. I like it, but can understand the industry's preference for a 7mm. The .270 Winchester came along in a different time, when the .30-06 stood almost alone as a high-velocity big game cartridge. The sub-7mm slot was a void. Not so today! The long list of fast-stepping .264- and .284-bore rounds is rife with overlap. Any choice of one diameter over another is, in my view, arbitrary. I adore the .270 Weatherby, but in truth the .264 Winchester and the 7mm Remington and Weatherby Magnums are very similar beyond the muzzle. Bullet availability has some effect on cartridge design. So does the success of other rounds of similar bore. What company wouldn't want to piggy-back on the popularity of the 7mm Remington Magnum? Our wealth of 30-caliber rounds owes much to the .30-06! .... WvZ

I wouldn't be surprised if you get your wish. The 6mm Creedmoor is a reality, the .243 still wildly popular. The 6mm Remington and .240 Weatherby, alas, don't get the attention they merit. I'll look for 6s on smaller cases -- per the 6x45. It seems to me some developed for Benchrest shooting must work fine on deer-size game. The question for manufacturers: Wouldn't we be as well served producing more .243 ammo, perhaps new loads? Why endure the front-end costs of cartridge development? Is the .243 WSSM useful or just an afterthought balky on the feed ramp? .... WvZ

As you know, Charles Newton was far ahead of his time in cartridge development. The .30-06 was in his day a hot number indeed. His .250 succeeded because Savage chambered same in its popular lever rifle -- and used marketing muscle not available to Newton. The .30 Newton, like the .256, is a versatile round, with fetching lines and efficient, high-octane performance. Neither survived the Great War, Depression or, mainly, competition from within the industry. You might say the 6.5 Creedmoor is a .256 Newton with a different profile. I'm sweet on both!... WvZ

Thank you, Gerry. I share your affection for the .270. It had an easy childhood, partly because it was, in my view, one of a handful of early cartridges "built right." After 90 years, it still seems modern, and performs as well as any current round of similar capacity. It doesn't kick hard but delivers enough downrange punch for elk-size game at distances that give us pause. It doesn't eat throats. It nips tight groups from most rifles without tuning. Surely its commercial success is due in large part to O'Connor's cheerleading and the paucity of pre-WW II cartridges in its performance class. ... WvZ

Thank you, Guy. I'm catching up on my Campfire reading, after a spill on a mountain put my shoulder under the knife. At last I've both hands on the keyboard -- but no heavy recoil until snowmelt.... WvZ

Much obliged, StrayHorse....WvZ

You make a good point. Increased case capacity is useless behind bullets too skinny to transfer the powder's energy efficiently. "Overbore" is as relative a term as "liberal" or "dangerous." All bullets make barrels cringe. Heat and friction eat steel. Big bullets throttled by modest charges of powder, as in, say, a .35 Remington, are easier on bores than smaller bullets driven faster. But shorter barrel life is a price willingly borne by shooters who want to hit at 1,000 yards. An automobile that gets 30 mpg is efficient, but it won't win at Daytona. The 6.5/284 is justly popular among long-range target shooters, as it can drive wind-cheating bullets flat enough for X-ring hits out yonder. I've used it on elk. The rebated case doesn't thrill me, but ballistically it's a .270 Winchester, and thus a worthy big game round. Irrationally, I also like the .264 Winchester Magnum, perhaps because it's been so roundly (and undeservedly) criticized and has responded beautifully to my handloading. If you like speed and reach, the full-length-magnum .26s shine. But they're the very definition of "overbore." Rate of throat erosion in barrels, by the way, depends on how fast you follow one shot with another (accrued heat) and the powder type and charge, as well as bullet diameter, type and bearing surface. .... WvZ

Thanks for the article Wayne. I've enjoyed reading your work for quite some time.

I'm a fan of the quarterbore. My first love & still a favorite is Ned Robert's little darling. I think it's one of the most under appreciated cartridges in the all around use category. I've taken tons of coyotes with mine loaded with 75gr Hornady HP's, and big game with 100's up to the 120gr Nosler Partition.

Of course I have a .25-06, a .25 WSSM, and was about to build a .25 Souper until life got in the way.

We have an eclectic accumulation of arms but the 25's go out the door most often.

Look forward to more contributions from you. Heal well. Nate

Welcome from the little folks Dr.Wayne van Zwoll. Great article!

I hope you heal up good. I have always enjoyed your writing and look forward to what you have to offer the fire. Regards...

Wayne thanks for a great read. I've enjoyed your writings for a long time. I look at the introduction of these new cartridges such as the offerings by Nosler and the 6.5-300 Weatherby and shake my head and wonder why when there are so many tried and true calibers already out there. We are "hunters" and IMHO it's hunting not shooting. IF you can reliably hit an Elk at 1000 yards you can do so much better inside 300.

Maybe I'm just stuck in the past but I love my Pre64 M70's in 250 Savage, 300 Savage, 257 Roberts, 7MM etc. I have a couple of Roberts and they are some of my go to deer rifles but a 257 Weatherby Ultra light gets the nod when heading west for Antelope. Another favorite in the 7X57 and I just had a rifle built on a 1909 Argentine Mauser action fashioned after a 1930's era stalking rifle and had it marked as a 275 Rigby. It took it's first deer this past November.

Marketing demands new and improved this and that but the tried and true still puts venison in the freezer.

Thanks again for a very informative article and I look forward to more.

I'm reading Wayne van Zwoll's book on ballistics - great and informative book.

Thank you for the kind words. I'm sure many readers would trade their 1,000-yard 6.5s and 7s for early Winchester 70s in .300 Savage and 7x57. As regards utility, I prefer to hunt close with rifles that don't need bipods for support. On the other hand, I've learned a lot about wind and the ballistic properties of bullets by shooting far. Watching a steel plate wiggle half a mile off is fine entertainment for those of us with few other talents. There's the niche for fast 6.5s..... Wayne

No, the .257 Roberts and .257 Ackley haven't had much love from shooters or ammunition companies. Unlike the parent 7x57, the Roberts doesn't have a colorful past in battle or on African game trails. Both (with the 6mm Remington) suffer from intermediate-length hulls. A few rifles now have actions that, like Paul Mauser's 1898, are perfectly sized for them. But short-loading the .257 for actions designed for the .308 hamstrings it. Barreling long actions for the Roberts begs the question: Why not a .25-06? I'm bereft of my best Roberts, a 98 stocked by Iver Henriksen. If you ever get the urge to sell any of yours, take a cold shower..... Wayne

INDY -
Pick up a 270 wsm next time you buy used.
So much negative news to all the short mags
they are out of favor but the 270 configuration
Is the best. One of the Nosler techs and I were
talking. ballistics on all kind of new cartridges
when the 270 wsm came up and he added how
under rated it was. My favorite handloaded is
270 Wby but with a lot of new recipes available
here at campfire the short mag is gaining for me
especially with the absolute bargains out there for
used rifles . If for semi long range 400 - 600 which it
does just me but would never buy less than 24 inch
barrel and 25 seems the best. Lots of speed and
sweet bullet choices in a short action!