Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters .270 Win. fanatics

Good rule.

TexasRick,

You have hit on a subject that is near and dear to my heart. I agree with you that avid 270 fans tend to be pretty emotional on the subject. I know that because I am a 270 fan, and have been one for more than forty years. But, having said that, I do not now, nor have I ever attributed anything magical to the 270 and its performance in the field. It works, and it works wonderfully well--but then, so will numerous other similar cartridges.

I only get emotional about the subject when I read or hear someone declaring that the 270 won't work. A shooter avowing that they prefer a different cartridge, or that another cartridge works just as well as the 270, bothers me not. On the other hand, to state that the 270 is inadequate for a mule deer and that a 375 H&H is just about right, as one writer put in print a few years ago, drives me immediately to the keyboard. So do arguments about the 280 vs. the 270. I've seen several articles expounding on how the 280 is superior to the 270, but I cannot ever recall a single piece that did the reverse. In fact, they are two peas in a pod. What one will do so will the other. Based on that observation, it seems to me that the fanaticism is much more on the part of the anti-270 gang than it is with the pro-270 crew.

I am also one that uses nothing but 130 grain bullets in my 270s. Why? Because they have worked wonderfully for me, and that bullet weight seems to go with the bore diameter like gravy goes with biscuits. If I feel the need for more bullet weight than the 130 grain offers, I change calibers as well.

My observation over the years, particularly from the outdoor writer fraternity, is that most of the "digs" I've seen in print against the 270, seem to me to be more a swipe at its most famous user, than the caliber itself. Old Cactus Jack made many enemies during his long career. One of my favorite General Officers, Creighton Abrams, once told me, "the higher you go up the flagpole, the more your butt (he actually used another word starting with A) hangs out." I don't think that there is any doubt that O'Connor was at the top of the flagpole in the outdoor writing business. As such, he had many critics, and, even though he died in 1978, obviously still does. Was he arrogant? Well, perhaps. He was certainly protective of his privacy, and if that constitutes arrogance, OK. Was he egotistical? Absolutely, but then no more so than Elmer and several other colleagues. Was he an irrational writer? I think not. I've read just about everything that he has ever written, and I can't recall anything I've read of his that was even close to irrational.

There is nothing magical about the 270 Winchester cartridge. It was not delivered from the mount by Saint Jack. There are several other cartridges that will work equally well or nearly so. What is it about the 270 that's so special? It works, nothing more, nothing less.

Tom

for years i didn't want a .270 simply because most everybody else had one and swore by it. i ended up with one because that was the chambering a used rem 700 happened to be in.
found out it is way, way easy to handload, accurate loads easy to find, and it flat whupped deer as long at the bullet wasn't a 130-grain ballistic tip at bow ranges.
not good, that.
sold that 'un and got another 'un, same chambering. shouldn't have shot the donor. this one loves 150-grain projectiles rather than 130-grainers. fellas, it works and ammo is easy to come by.
if that is fanaticism, so be it.

I'm uh...."neutral" in this if it's possible. On one hand, I doubt I'll ever own a 270 just because I don't have the ambition. If the 270 was outlawed here in East NC, over half the population couldn't hunt! I don't want one or desire one but I get a bit butt bunrt when someone rants about their "effectiveness' on NC deer. Just because I don't get slobbered over one, doesn't take away the history and down right effectiveness of one. These days with bullet and proplleant options for handloaders and factory ammo that's available, it's better than ever. If all that I had until my dying days was a good bolt action 270 with a good scope and a handload that I worked up that met my needs, I'd be perfectly happy. I don't see any "magic', but I far from see a handicap either. Just my 2 cents.

HB

For western hunting:
Light recoil
Handles most big game
Good for varmints / off season shooting
Relatively flat shooting
Did I mention light recoil
Reloads well / good component availabilty

Not a gunwriter........ <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />
Bob

I will agree with Brad's assessement of good performance with low recoil. I had a 270 when I was younger and killed lots of stuff with it. Very good general purpose rifle for the lower 48. When I sold that rifle, I knew it would probably be a mistake, but I had a case of magnumitis at the time. I didn't loose any deer with my new 300 WM but I also hadn't lost any with the 270. I am much more willing to listen to a hunter talk about how his 270 works for him/her that I am to listen to some puffed up cocksman extoll the virtues of his latest and greatest cannon while belittling everything else.

I have only seen a few "failures" with the 270 and they were due to bullet design and really pushing the limits of what the cartridge is capable of. I still like the chambering and equate it and the 280, 7mm-08, and the 260 to a Toyota pickup. Nothing fancy but very capable, dependable, and easy to use. Come to think of it, I learned that lesson the hard way too <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Sorry, did not realize this was in the Gunwriter forum.

Turp,

Well spoken,Sir. Reading your post saved me alot of keyboard time. This thread could as easily have been titled - .270 Fanatic Haters.

The words 'fanatic' and 'irrational' seem to apply to 270 haters more accurately. However, in the case of TexasRick
it isnt 270 lovers responding,but rather those with a low tolerance for BS.

I've been shooting the .270 for around 35 years. In that time I've had a few 130's open a bit quick and have wished for tougher 130's in general, not just premiums. However, the only 130 I've recovered on a decent shot angle was last year with an Interbond at 80 yards on a grizzled old Kansas buck. That one got lots of bone and stuck under the hide on the far side. Had to trail the buck in thick brush, perhaps, well, about 10 yards. No big deal. I'm just kind of wondering if the lack of two holes is the result of flag shooting in the thick brush? Lately I've moved "up" to the .250 Savage and .257 Bob. Still not lacking in penetration on decent angles.

Rick

It was just that we called bullchitt!

I used to have a 270 fthrweight winny, nice gun and shot some critters with it.
I'm not a to the death 270 man, as lots of calibers kill the same.

But Bullchitt is just that, and we called M16 on it thats all.

I love the 270 caliber. For years, I was a 270Win Fanatic....and still am, but I have moved over to the 270WSM in the last year.

But, My wife and my two sons all shoot a 270Win. The boys have a Savage Model 111's and my wife has a Win70. All three are shooters.

I love the versatility of reloading for the 270. I can load them to shoot flat for varmits with 115 grain bullets and heavy for elk with 150 grainers.

It is a very versatile cartridge. Absolutely fabulous!!!!!

I like the 270 for medium sized game and have owned one since I moved outta the house. I am a die hard 270 fan but I know there are a bunch more calibers out there that are just as good if not better. I'm a big O'Connor fan as well, I grew up reading his stuff so I guess you could say he influenced me some with my caliber selection. Sure am looking forward to shooting that new Kimber in 7mm-08 though.....

For some reason I seem to be giving the impression that I dislike the .270.....not true. I have owned many .270's over the last 30 years and presently have three in my safe. I will likely take at least one game animal with the .270 before this season is over.

However......I am not a fanatic about the 270 or any other particular round. Several have pointed out that the problem I have had with the .270 are related more to bullet construction than to the 130 grain pill and I'd have to agree. My reasoning for going to a 150 grain slug isn't bullet weight but to drop the velosity into the proper working range for standard bullets.......the same reason I moved up from 150 grains to 15 in the .30-06. There may be some of the new "super" bullets today that can stand up to the increased velosity, but if everyone is totally honest they will admit that the majority of hunters don't handload and don't buy "premium" bullets. The readers of this forum are quite likely a bit more exsperienced and dedicated than the run-of-the-mill outdoorsman........but Joe Bleaux still buys his ammo at Wallyworld. For that reason, I stand by my statement that the .270/130 combo is marginal when full penetration is required.

True.....as I said earlier.....you can with careful use, make any rifle do a job it really isn't perfect for, but that doesn't change the facts for the average, less careful user. Hell, I like to use a .250-3000 with a 100 grain bullet even in the thickets of East Texas, but that doesn't mean I think it's really a roper choice for most hunters.

I will concede that the modern "super" bullets may make the difference......if they perform as advertized.......but I'm old and have seen too many claims made by too many previous "wonder products" to place my faith in them. I just don't trust "gimic" bullets.......better to use a standard, bonded core bullet at a reasonable 2800-2900 fps.

The added velosity of the lighter bullet isn't really needed except at longer range.....and that type of open landscape doesn't place as much of a premium on a bullet penetrating fully and leaving a good blood trail.....the tracking is so much easier.

I stand by my opinion for these reasons......however, one point that seems to come up often is the issue of lighter recoil. I'll plead guilty to ignoring that one, and ask forgivness. Over the years I have heard this argument from enough hunting partners....some were VERY exspeienced hunters too.....to know it has merit. I am apparently one of those individuals who just isn't very recoil sensative. I notice almost no difference between the recoil of the .270, .30-06, 7mm Mag. and even the .300 Mag except the magnums are painfully loud. I even find the .338 Mag to be comfortable to shoot......but I do notice the increaed recoil, just not to a degree I find distracting. For that reason alone I can see someone choosing the .270 over the larger rounds.......I don't understand it, but I do believe it makes a difference to most and you can't shoot well if you are scared of your rifle.

I too, don't understand those that claim one rifle over another when the ballistics are basically the same (the .270 -vs- .280 was mentioned earlier). Nearly every rifle from the 7x57 to the .30-06 will perform equally in most instances. It's not the .270 I am critisizing.....it's the choice of the 130 grain bullet (or any other light-for-caliber bullet in any of the rounds mentioned) that is the problem when penetration is required.

A side issue that does bother me is that from the start I have tried to put forth my arguments in a logical, reasoned manner. You don't have to agree, but if you don't at least should be able to articulate why you disagree. That's what debate of any subject is about....exchange of information in an intellegent manner. Maybe you'll convince me (the premium bullet argument has made me think), maybe I'll convince you.......or maybe we agree to disagree. However, it is not an exchange of information to stoop to name calling, sarcasm and ridicule.......and there's been a lot of that in these discussions......mostly by the "supporters" of the .270. That's why I started this thread about the "fanatic" folloing this cartridge has......I am confused.

If you are trying to make a point....support your beliefs and maybe you will change someone's mind. Act like a 12 year-old name calling on the playground and you lose all credability.

This doesn't apply to all here.....some have made very reasoned and well supported arguments. There have been lots of "Me and Joe killed a big one" stories that, while interesting sometimes, don't really prove anything.......anything can hapen once. Other however, have given examples of experience gained over a number of years....and multiple shots.....to support their side. Those are the ones who have me wondering if maybe "premium" bullets may be the answer.

I appreciate that attitude....and I've tried to do the same (yes, I do still stand by my comments about O'Conner....a great writer, with a poor attitude). Those who wish to turn an intellegent conversaton into a childish argument sould be ignored at the least....and repremanded by those interested in actually learning something from these forums.

Sorry if I stepped on an toes.......butthat's my story and I'm stickin'to it.

Nicely stated.

But it still comes down to placement.

Put the 130 gr. bullet, even the standard cup-and-core versions like the CoreLokt or PowerPoints where it needs to go, and the deer is graveyard dead.

If you're worried about not being able to find a bloodtrail, put the bullet THROUGH the shoulders and drop it right there.

Of course, that suggestion would be, and is, the same, in close range hunting whether the round in question is the .30-30, the .270, or a .300 magnum.

TexasRick, I think it all boils pretty much down to that fact that when a lot of us aren't shooting or hunting we don't have much else to do but argue about pointless details about shooting or hunting................ <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />.............DJ

I have had more DRT kills with a .270 than any other caliber. Lo logical reason why it should be that way, but that's just the way it turned out for me. I really need to get another .270 some day...

John

I am just a fanatic for some of those handsome rifles which came in .270 in the 1930s through the 1960s:

Model 70 Supergrade
FN Mauser based custom rifles by Marholdt, Jaeger, Biesen, Kennedy
Mannlicher-Schoenauer
Steyr M Luxus
Winchester 1895

AllenDay,

I enjoyed your comments.

My path to the 270 Win was a bit similar to your, although I'm a bit older. I read O'connor, Page, Jobson, Keith, Carmichael, and my all time favorite, Bob Hagel.......now I read John Barsness - the best of the current lot. I've hunted with Jim Zumbo.

Of those writers, only O'connor was a 270 afficianado.

The 1st one I had was a Parker Hale with a Leupold scope......had problems with the mounts and eventually sold it; I was never really comfortable with it's accuracy.

Didn't get another one for some time, but then picked up a Sako and put a McM stock on it........I've killed many deer, elk and a moose, all with 130 or 150 Partitions, some at very long range (over 400 yards). I still have the gun, but I think it's in semi-retirement, as am I.

I currently have four 270's but I am not overly smitten by them; they just work. All four are 1" rifles or better, and as you found, generally not finicky about what they are fed.

One of the 270's that I picked up is a very classic styled gun with a beautiful piece of French Walnut built by Keith Stegall of Gunnison, CO in the mid-60's. I bought it from the guy who commissioned the gun. It fits and points better than any other rifle I have ever held. It is on a Pre-64 M70, has Fluer-de-lis wrap checkering, a nicely done cheekpiece, engraved floorplate and a steel buttplate.

It shows a little use but no real damage. The barrel is also very light. It shoots almost anything into one big ragged hole.

I love the gun and will probably never let it go.

Hopefully one of my sons will grow to appreciate it and it will then be his. This rifle deserves to live on.

The 270 Winchester simply works...............give it a good bullet and a decent shooter and it kills all NA non-dangerous game cleanly.

I am not a 270 fanatic, but other similar cailbers, slightly smaller and slightly bigger, offer little real world advantage.

Today's tremendous new bullets just make the 270 that much better............although there are still no flies on the Nosler Partition.

If O'Conner would have been shooting the .280 its what we would be talkin about today!!

Kev

Kev,

Funny you should mention O'Connor and the 280. As a matter of fact, Cactus Jack's final custom rifle, in the works when he passed away, was a Ruger Model 77 chambered for the, you guessed it, 280 Remington. Al Biesen was working on the rifle when Jack died.

Tom

MontanaMan-any chance you picked up that Stegall rifle over in Great Falls about 12 or 15 year back?

Mark D