Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters Boddington on the .270 Winchester

Oh I try not to listen to others, but make my own news....Haha

we should come up with a .290, just to fill the gap between .280 and .300.

I've killed more deer with the 270 than the other cartridges added together. Haven't used it in years, because I love to use different rifles, and different cartridges. But,I haven't found anything else to be as good as the 270 when it comes to killing a deer.......and my current "favorite" deer rifle is a 6.5 Creed. The good ole 270 is still just as good as it was 96 years ago. It says a lot about how good something is for it to stand the test of time.

I read the article and got this out of it "a longer cartridge is more powerful than a short cartridge even with inferior bullets at regular hunting distances".

Don't you think Craig's hunting experience qualifies him to have a "qualified opinion" ?

I agree BTW.


I'd think that C B has hunted more places for more game with more diff cartridges than many posters here -- myself included!


Jerry

kid0917,

Apparently you missed the introduction of the B-29 cartridge about 20 years ago, which proved to be the best general-purpose big game round ever.

I have loved, an used, the 270 for 50 years. Used it to introduce my kids, and grandkids to centerfires and deer hunting.
I also like 300 Savage and 35 Whelen. Add the 257, 308, 7x57 etc etc.
I like Boddington, but was underwhelmed by the article. Thanks Captain Obvious.
As noted earlier, it seemed to be more of an observation that magnums are not required, "lesser" cartridges can be relied on to get the job done.....meaning: deliver a decent bullet to the proper spot.
This has been true since Nosler rolled out the Partition.
How many decades ago? Longer than most of us have been hunting.

Works great for my wife.

-Jake

Yawn . 😴

I'm not a Craig Boddington fan. Most of his articles lack creativity and contain very elementary, often repeated material. For me, they are seldom worth reading. However, the recent American Rifleman article was not done in the usual Boddington manner. I found it interesting. He did one several years ago regarding ethical long-range hunting. I don't recall the article title or the publication. That was also a good one.

He is an old biased white guy

I have to load my 270 down to equal a 6.5 Creedmoor

What are "normal" hunting ranges? sub 300 yards? These days, maybe sub 500 yards? I see only one mention of distance in the article, that being 1000 yards, and even that mention was ambiguous.

Within those ranges the poor B/C of currently produced .277 bullets are pretty much meaningless. It's when the ranges get stretched out to 5, 6, 7, 800 plus yards that high B/C 6.5mm bullets start making a night and day difference. I'd have to agree with Boddington, assuming he's referring to shots in the sub 400-500ish yard range. I really like my pre-war .270 Win for timber hunts where I am 100% expecting a relatively close shot. It's been great on elk with the 150 speer hot cor. I've also killed antelope and mule deer with that combo, and with borrowed .270s have killed red stag, fallow, black buck, wild boar and axis deer with wally world special 130 grain bullets (power points, I believe). No issues whatsoever with the kill'n.

I used a "243 equivalent" 6x222 mag (6x47) and the older 85gr xbt on axis and a scimitar horned oryx one Spring after a neck surgery. I had it in a 27" Shilen going 2900fps, ha.

Also no issues with the killin' on the same sorts of animals with the 6.5 Creedmoor out to 300. In fact, a 143 ELD-X at 2700 fps from the Creedmoor retains just about the same velocity at 300 yards as the 150-grain .270 Hot-Cor started at 2900. So why wouldn't it kill just about as well? Or maybe there's some magic in another 7 grains of bullet weight.

And yes, I have some experience with the 143 ELD-X in the 6.5 Creedmoor. It kills just as well as the .270--which I've been using for 45 years now. Or at least that is my experience.

I do know that quite a few people who've tried the Creedmoor use lighter bullets, because they firmly believe you must have more muzzle velocity than 2700 tfps o kill anything at 300 yards--but the Creedmoor's strength is high-BC bullets at moderate muzzle velocities. They catch up quickly to lower-BC bullets started faster, and even at closer ranges kill well--just like the 6.5x55 has been doing for a long time with 140's handloaded to 2700 fps.

The difference is you can buy the 6.5 Creedmoor 143 ELD-X factory load at lots of stores, instead of having to handload--and is very accurate in the average factory rifle. In fact it shoots as well as the best handloads I've been able to come up with in my Lilja-barreled 6.5x55 custom.

I haven't read Craig's article yet, but plan to.

If he suggests a longer cartridge is preferable over a short one, I would agree. I like a cartridge that looks streamline and aerodynamic. I know, it doesn't need to be but a gentle shoulder and a long neck gives the round more suitable for me. I don't like to seat the bullet beyond the neck and no chambering slips into the chamber like a 30/06 based one. Perhaps a .375 or .300 H&H will, but not many short /fats are as good at it.
The .270 wcf is a classic, has improved with age and is my first choice for sheep hunting, the .280 will do the same thing. They hit harder than they should, you can put them in a 7 lb rifle with a 22" barrel and won't regret it. Cheers

Not sure how looks of a round make it better. LOL.

Or how a 270 has improved over the years.. Bullets and powder sure, the round? Or seeing that a 270/280/or 30-06 have any appreciable difference between em personally.

But again the joy is use what you want or like!

I'm thinking that your list of what you do to shoot, applies to any caliber at some point. And the fact that BC gets involved, well you can take LRF, drop chart and turrets on lots of rounds and just ignore those... I never had any of them for years and everything worked fine with 223/243/308/300. Out to certain distances obviously.

But I may have to think this over, if you don't do any of the above or even aim or squeeze I may have to drag out the only 270 I've had, one I won of all calibers, and start using it. Might even just let it do all the work on its own. LOL

Well, IF the bullets have improved and..

the powders have improved......

how could the performance of the cartridge NOT improve ?


Jerry

rost

You said,

"But I may have to think this over, if you don't do any of the above or even aim or squeeze I may have to drag out the only 270 I've had, one I won of all calibers, and start using it. Might even just let it do all the work on its own. LOL"


Show me where I said I don't AIM or SQUEEZE ! I did not specifically mention that but I did NOT say I don't!

I use the LRF on landmarks before seeing game. I DON'T use drop charts or turrets.

Nit Pick.


Jerry