Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Rifles The .270

I am pretty sure the 270 is not the offspring of the 30-06. They are brothers
out of the 30-03. And both have killed an immense amount of game.

If your 270 brass does not last long, you are probably overloading or have a sloppy chamber.

If you shoot deer with a 270 using 130 gr Nosler Partitions, you will never need another caliber.

You’ll go Cross eyed !! LOL

Jerry

Probably!

I was just a kid back then who couldn’t afford a haircut, before the internet really had taken hold, and didn’t know the .270 was as bad as it was.

I think the neighbor used a .30-06 on the middle buck, .270 surely wouldn’t have been 3 for 3.

150 grain bullet out of 308 Win, 24” barrel @ 2,950 fps.
140 grain bullet out of 7-08 Rem, 24” barrel @ 2,950 fps.
130 grain bullet out of 270 Win, 24” barrel @ 3,150 fps.
130 grain bullet out of 6.5 CM, 24” barrel @ 2,850 fps.
150 grain bullet out of 30-06, 24” barrel @ 3,100 fps.

I see no short comings taking any into the field, they all are well beyond capable at 400 yards. Any conversation beyond that is superfluous. I’d have no sleepless nights using any of the above.

The 270 Winchester is a classic, great cartridge!

Thanks for posting those!!! Everyone has an opinion, I didn't think the 308 was higher than the 6.5 CM. I do know my shoulder appreciates the 6.5 CM recoil though!!!

They shoot good and kill deer like a bolt of lightning.

I completely agree. They all work great and I’ve killed deer with everyone of them with total satisfaction!

The .264 bullets have great BC, however they also have small bores with significant bullet surface bearing due to bullet length. That equates to greater friction down the barrel and slightly less velocity. Barnes and others now groove band their bullets, especially copper mono types to reduce friction and down barrel pressure on all calibers these days. This is some of the reason the 264 Win obtains somewhat lower velocity with 140 grain bullets in a belted magnum hull, especially with late 50s and early 60s bullet technology in 24” barrels. The 6.5 CM doesn’t require high velocity to compete at long range, it has the advantage of sweet spot BC that does its thing way out there at high impact velocity in lieu of its slightly lower muzzle velocity.

The .270 case design is 96 years old now. It was state of the art when it was brought out.
Scopes were just becoming popular and "long range" was maybe 300 yards...
Bullet design could barely keep up with the new velocity envelopes being pushed.

The old girl made her reputation killing game of all sorts and sizes, at short range and long - and doing it very well. It's still doing it today. It's always among the top sellers of rifle and dies. Year after year - decade after decade. There's reasons for that. Light recoil, adequate killing power, flat trajectory, a rifle of reasonable weight and plenty of support from the ammo industry.

The .270 is better today than it ever was and is still a viable choice for the majority of us.

The .270 Win was already 8 years late compared to the 7x64 Brenneke
Most likely Winchester didn't want to pay royalties to Brenneke, so they "made their own cartridge".
Just make the caliber a tiny bit smaller, so people just can't recut the chamber to the superior 7x64 Brenneke.


"Invent"... then spend a god awful amount on advertisement.
Just like the 6.5 Creedmore did with the 6,5x47 Lapua.


7x64 Brenneke



270 Win

270 has been put down since WWII the way I see it as the war heros I hunted with as a kid loved the 06 as it won the war and the 308 was no good as well, in their world. My buddy wanted to borrow a rifle to hunt in upstate NY so I offered him my 270 mountain rifle, "I can't show up there with a 270, my uncles all hunt with 742s in 30'06, give me your .35, that'll work, that shoots 200s." I told him the 270 will drop a deer in it's tracks with a 130 grain handload. Nope my uncles use 220s and they will laugh at me. Years later he did bring the 270 and knocked a deer over backwards and the elders were blown away with the damage when they dressed it. Granted the old timers shot at any angle and the 220s got thru the deer every time and that's all they knew. A 270, no way for them. My mentor ran a landing craft during WWII and was another 30'06 only man. We all hunted with Browning BARs after the 742 and Win 100s proved unreliable and when I bought a 308 BAR I was scorned, thank God it wasn't a 270, lol.

This is probably big news to the JOC nostalgia crowd

That 7 x 64 looks like a good cartridge. The same case in 6.5 would also be good. Perhaps mid-way between 6.5 and 7mm would get the best of both and be even better. No...there would be no point in that, as we already have the .270.

Yeah, I 'd happily give up the good bullets of the 6.5 or 7

Yup!

270?

Hell, the 7Rem and 300Win are almost 60.
The shortmags were an attempt to slightly shorten the gun and duplicate others..

The Creed was an attempt to fix the 260, which is just a pup trying to
be a Sweet.

No, not much has been gained in 60 years in chambering.

Now as to precision in rifle and bullet manufacturing, and
powder tech and burn rates? Things have changed.

It's iconic for a reason. Flat-shooting, mild recoil, and still carries plenty of energy even at 500 yards. The only full-power rifle I own is a .270 and I'm tickled to death with it.

Now I just need to pick up a die set and start tinkering with loads!

No need to not use good bullets in the .270. The .277 140 grain Accubond, 140 Sierra Tipped GameKing for example have good b.c.'s without being excessively long, good sectional density, good accuracy, ideal cross-sectional area, good performance on game. In a relatively light hunting rifle at realistic distances such as up to about 350 yards its ideal. Once you get much beyond that, you really need to start thinking of longer barrels of heavier profile, more magnification and bigger heavier scopes, bipods, possibly even different stocks. Townsend Whelen advocated it as the ideal big game cartridge.