Home Forums Hunting & Shooting General Big Game 270 130,140 or 150 gr. Partitions any preference

I traded for some 270 bullets and I acquired some 130 and 140 grain Partitions. I have been a big fan of 150 grain bullets in the 270 in the past but can't really say a 130 or 140 grain Partition would do any differently than a 150. It seems odd that there would be three very similar bullets made in one caliber 10 grains apart in weight. I can say the 130 grain Partition will out penetrate either the Speer or Hornady 150 grain spitzers and spire points which I have used to good effect on Elk, Mule deer and Whitetails. The next hunt this rifle will go on will be for Mule deer in an area well known for being windy and open.

I use 130grain bullets in my 270 WCF, 140’s in my 270WSM and 270 Weatherby

I'd prob let the rifle decide what it likes best. I have one .270 that prefers 150 Partitions over the others. In my other 270's I shoot more 130's than anything.
Saying that, if I was a "one gun/one bullet" man I'd pick the 150. We know it'll cover everything from deer to moose and I would not be afraid to hunt Grizz with it.
Just my two cents.

Well then the 130 gets the nod! Actually I have two 270 rifles and both can easily be made to shoot into an inch with just about any bullet I have tried so far.

My own preference is the 160 gr Partition as a heavy game load but of the ones you ask about the 150 gr is what I would choose after seeing how well it does. The others you mention work well of course but for game from small to big it's tough to beat a 150 gr Partition.

Nothing wrong with a 130 Partition lit by a max load of powder. It's fun to stand on the gas peddle and see what we can squeeze out of each bullet and powder.

Bob used to say that he thought the 130 driven fast out-penetrated the 150 driven normally (he postulated that the 130 shed the front core more readily and peeled back to a smaller diameter wadcutter shape).

With the 150-RL26 combo available now, I suppose that might not be the case.

Im probably a minority here but I haven’t been that impressed with the penetration of the 150, at least at factory speeds. I watched my brother shoot a calf elk at 300yds or so. On a quartering away shot through the ribs, the bullet did not exit. Penetration was only 16” or so. Calf elk are neither large nor dense. In my experience, a130 atop a case full of h4831 would have left a golf ball sized exit wound. Based on factory loads I’ve chronographed, I’d guess velocity was 2725fps or so.

I have used them all, but I now use the 150s and 160s.
The 130 and 140s are fine but do nothing the 150s and 160 do do as well or better.

My old pre-64 Model 70 and my custom Mauser both shoot the 130 Partitions the best, but my grandson's old Remington 721 likes the 150s. I have killed a boat load of stuff with the 130 Partitions and, except for my first elk 45 years ago, I have never shot at game with anything but 130s in any of my .270s.

The partition I have used the most is the .284 diameter 140. Never recovered one and that is one impressive bullet! Mostly shot out of a 7x57 and a 280 AI.

When my wife was shooting the .270 Win., she was using the 150 Partition. Her last kill with it, a Bighorn Sheep (at around 200yrds.)...bullet entered the breastbone, found under the hide in the ham! It was the best bullet of the day....and worked well! memtb

I have been shooting 140's.. Been ok so far.. But came across a bx. of old Silvertips.. I plan to load some of them for fall. They are 130's..

You won’t see a single bit of difference in the performance on game between any of those Partitions. Shoot the one your rifle likes best.

If you really want to make the .270 Win shine, try the 130 Barnes TTSX. It will out-penetrate all those Partitions and you can launch it at good velocity.

I’ve never tried a 129 Barnes LRX in a .270, but I’d sure give that one a try, too.

Of the choices listed? 140gr. I've never recovered one. The only Partition I've caught is a 150.

The Partition was for many years my bullet of choice for elk. After trying the Barnes TSX & the Hornady GMX I discovered they far out penetrated the Partition. The homogeneous copper with a liter bullet will out penetrate heavier Partitions. The Barnes TSX & Hoenady GMX have a much higher BC which means a faster time of flight & a flatter trajectory. The copper mono's tend to retain 100% of their weight even thru heavy bone. More hunters are trying them & understanding their ability.. Buy one box of Barnes 110gr TTSX & try them on game. You will be very surprised at their ability..

Not that it matters but the Barnes bullets are not know for their high BCs. Especially the 110 grain 270 bullet, it has a lower BC than the 130 Partition.

And I dont buy the concept that you need a solid copper bullet to kill an elk. YMMV.

Listed BC's of 130-grain .270 bullets:

Nosler Partition: .416
Barnes TSX: .431
Hornady GMX: .460

The Hornady has a plastic tip, the reason the BC's higher than for the Partition or TSX.

Starting them all at 3100 fps with a scoped rifles sighted 2" high at 100 yards, the Partition and TSX have a trajectory within half an inch of each other out to 500 yards in typical elk hunting temperatures and elevation. The Hornady GMX shoots about an inch flatter at 500.

FWIW, a while back I used the ballistic calculator in my PACT chronograph to compare trajectories of some "light for caliber" TTSXs with more traditional weight Partitions and Ballistic Tips in .277 and .308 calibers. While this suggested nothing about penetration, it did suggest that the trajectories were not that different out to 500 yards despite the fact that the muzzle velocities used for the TTSXs were 10-15% higher.

Can't go wrong with any of them. I use 140s in the WSM and 130s in the 270 win. This is just how it ended up accuracy wise. As to the original question of why 130,140 and 150's. Jack O'Conner wrote that the 140's were made for people who can't make up their mind between a 130 and 150. I think he had it right.