Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Rifles The .270

Not at all...it would be a most honorable death from the classic deer cartridge (and bullet weight) if I were a deer.

puah, I'm not being smart or sarcastic. I've looked thru THIS thread and don't see 'data' < unless it's in the other threads
you posted. I don't have time to go thru all those.
It appears PennDog did. Ok.




FIRST of all. I have never bought 1 box of boutique bullets and I don't have need for them.
For the last DECADE +, 400 yds is my REALISTIC hunting/shooting range.

I stated early in this thread that the 270 - 280 is a wash.
^above P D "actual data still show minutia between the three...at normal hunting ranges."
NORMAL hunting ranges is ALL I'm talking about and use.

You said above, "284 bullets have better BC Period"

In normal hunting bullets for normal ranges I have not found that.

My loading books are dated (old). My newest is the Nosler #7.

277, 140 gr ---- .496 BC........,261 SD
284, 150 gr ---- .493 BC........,266 SD

Nos. doesn't have a 130 .284 to compare to 140 .277 .. SO.

I like and use H 162 BTSP in the 7 RM BUT nothing to compare BC & SD.

I'm NOT cherry picking.

If you push the 277 140 .496 BC at 3000, which I can/do AND
If you push the 284 150 .493 BC at 3100, which I HAVE done

the diff is minitua, The trajectory diff is a wash. Yes the 10 xtra grs 150 of the 284 shows up in KE but we understand the
effect of KE.

I know there are more and heavier bullets in the 284 bore but 160 grs is the heaviest I need.
(I have a 7 RM & 300 WM & 8 RM for heavier)


I have said many Xs over the years if you have a 270....you have a 280 and vice versa.

For Me, the 280 offers no advantage, I don't DISLIKE it.

I wrote a lot more THEN deleted it. I'm not writing a book LOL This states my take on the 270 - 280 discussion.

Jerry

Rainier: for sure the 130 .277 bounces right off! (But the .308 130 drill on through) but us .270 shooters use that to our advantage.

Hit the deer in the head with a130 grain bullet the concussion kills the deer, the bullet bounces off giving a chance at a second deer. A good .270 shooter can judges angles well like a pool player and we can get two to three deer with a single 130 grainer. 😃👍. It’s the truth 😃

Now those 140s, they over penetrate, buts that’s a different set of problems

Rainier thanks for asking those key questions allowing to share my knowledge and experience with the fire 😄

Here’s hoping y’all have a great day.

Quite a bit of hairsplitting going on in this thread. How about throwing in a few other standards and magnums.

243 Win
6mm Rem
240 Wby
257 Roberts
25-06 Rem
257 Wby Mag
6.5x55 SE
6.5-284 Norma
264 Win Mag
270 Wby Mag
284 Win
7mm Wby Mag

Along with many others mentioned in this thread. It’s nice to have so many choices, there’s no shortage in finding a cartridge that works for you in the field, the only real limitation is the human one in hunting skills and field shooting.

WRONG THREAD ... note Title

Good morning my friend..... hope all is well with you. Me.... not so good. spitting up bloody shiitt from surgery.

Lets make this simple:

280 case capacity - 67.9 gr

.284 150gr eldx bc .574 BC

https://www.hornady.com/bullets/rifle/7mm-.284-150-gr-eld-x#!/


270 case capacity - 67 gr

.270 145 eldx .536 BC

https://www.hornady.com/ammunition/rifle/270-win-145-gr-eld-x-precision-hunter#!/


Kind of like my friends who are twin brothers - James and Gino. James is older by 5 min. He will always be the older brother.
The .280 has a greater case capacity and higher BC bullet. Like James, the .280 is the older brother.
However marginal, the numbers don't lie my friend....

Nice rifle, details?

The 270 Win is the standard which all others are measured against!

Your are right..

"However marginal, the numbers don't lie my friend...."

270---280 Wash

My Friend too

Jerry

Amen brother. Godspeed.

,257 The original statement was by Col. Townsend and it was the .30-06!!

I still like my 6mm Creedmoor better than any other caliber I have ever had.

Finn Aagaard. "the general purpose big-game cartridges used in this country come in but two calibers, 30 and 7mm (the .270 Win. is merely a slightly aberrant 7mm whose bullets are .007 undersize."

I've come to expect the shocking and absolute ballistic ignorance of the .270 shooters - after all, if they knew even a little about ballistics, they wouldn't be .270 shooters. The inferior BC of .277 projectiles is caused by the need to support the incorrectly chosen 1:10" twist rate. For light projectiles, it makes no difference and .277 and .284 will be the same. So if you're hunting deer the size of a small dog in a 20y clearing back east, congratulations - the .270 is for you. For the rest of us, it sucks. For heavy projectiles, using the wrong twist rate means medium to heavy .277 bullets must either use high-drag short profiles, or aren't possible at all. For example, here at the BCs of the .277 and .284 partitions. The 160gr .277 is forced to be a semi-roundnose, and there is no .277 equivalent of the 175gr .284 partition because it wouldn't stabilize in the slower twist .270.



You'll see the exact same pattern in other .277 projectiles unless they're for for fast-twist rifles like the 27 Nosler and 6.8 Western. Those both fix the issues with the .270 and are reasonable cartridges, albeit with limited bullet selections which still makes them practically inferior to the 28 Nosler and 7mm WSM, although that's not the cartridge designer's fault for once.

If only Winchester has been worldly enough to copy the twist rate of the 7x57, the .270 win would be merely a poor cartridge instead of one of the worst ever designed

And you see it with the Army trying to get a new 6.8mm caliber round...

6.8mm... .277... An "American caliber"... which is in fact a Chinese caliber.

6.8x57 Chinese Mauser, 270 Win, 270 Weatherby where the only .277 caliber cartridges for a looooong time.


The "other" myth is that Winchester were left with a boatload of 6.8mm bullets after a Chinese Military contract went south.
And as a result they "invented" the .270 Win by necking down the other cheap brass was available. 30.06.


Just "a fluke" it basically copied the 7x64 Brenneke.

If Winchester had given us a full pressure 7x64 with the standard 220mm twist, they would have moved US hunting rifle technology forward by decades. But they were ignorant of what was possible, and instead we got the crappy .270.

That’s funny, the 270 Wby among others were advertised to counter and better the 270 Win. The 284 Win which has similar ballistics as the 280 Rem was in fact Winchester’s answer and marketing ploy as better than the 270 Win in a SA. Intention wasn’t a thread high jack, but just to broaden the discussion, which appears to be quite broad already.

I always love to tease .270 users out here, but then I tell them, I have owned/shot/played with more .270s than any other caliber in last 50yrs! And I've played with just some,ha Funny, I've only killed one jackrabbit and finished off a spanish goat my Godson wounded ( oakbrush deflected his shot) I had to crawl into that jungle and pop him..last time I hunted w/o my pistol! I've "hunted" with the .270 many times but it seemed the game heard I was out there with a .270 and fled for its life! ha Out to 500yds at targets, I could never tell the difference between it and several other fast movers. The RUMs were a "tad" flatter, but lots more boom/blast to get there.

My experience with the .270 is long and rather thin. However, any animal I shot at with the .270 dies, none moving more that a few feet after being hit. Last one was an antelope in 2009. One shot, ran in a30 foot half circle and expired. What's not to like?
Paul B.