Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Rifles The .270

Yes. Here's their ballistician.

Agree mostly. It's not the .270 owners who arguing that the CM is so much better than the .270

As I've said before, if you want better than the .270 Win in a different bore size, you need to go to the .280 RCBS Improved and use 150 or 160 grain projectiles. Even then, the slight performance gain will be off-set by slightly more recoil and muzzle blast (but not significantly), and its better with a slightly longer barrel.

Even better yet, get a 7 Rem Mag or larger fuselage.

In the last few years I have hunted a 7 RM more than any other.
I like/use the 270
I like/use the 284 W

I DONT dislike the 280— I have a 270.

I like/use a 6.5x55......don’t need a slower ugggh Cm.


Jerry

R hunter

"Agree mostly. It's not the .270 owners who arguing that the CM is so much better than the .270"

ahmmm, Indeed.

Sometimes it's easy to get lost in the circumlocution --- for some. grin
I now bit my tongue to not include 'some' other cartridge touters.


Jerry

Terminal ballistics often does seem to get left out of these sorts of discussions. It's one things to get a bullet to the target. What happens when it arrives? It may be generally true that a heavy-for-caliber bullet will have better external ballistics than a lighter bullet, all other factors being the same. But it's fallacy to believe a heavier bullet will penetrate further or perform better then it reaches the animal.

Especially when its a match bullet or a soft long-distance bullet.

When I say the .280 RCBS Imp may be better than the .270, I'm using the criteria that its not significantly worse in any way, only marginally worse in some ways and marginally better in some ways. That is, it's not significantly worse in recoil, muzzle blast, or feeding from the magazine, same magazine capacity...but better in pushing the marginally bigger, heavier projectiles. The .270 will still be better for the marginally smaller game.

I've never caught an Amax in a deer at ranges from 40 yards to 200.

Haven't shot one closer or farther yet.

.243 and .284 diameter

It is HILARIOUSLY fascinating,that the 27-'06 gang can almost make their beloved chambering hang with a 6.5-250...you "lucky" kchunts. Almost. Hint. Congratulations?!?

You Google Gals are a Treasure Trove of "information",as you set astride your Couchbound Kchunts and extoll your Imagination and Pretend in your Knitting Circle. The ONLY things you Fhuqktards "shoot",are your mouths and Imagination. Hint. Fhuqking LAUGHING!

You CLUELESS Window Licking Kchunts are in soooooooo far over your pointy heads,that it is simply fhuqking HILARIOUS! Now it's "percentages",that your Make Believe Pretend is "factored". You gals don't make enough empties in a year's time,to keep your Kleenex from blowing away! Hint. Fhuqking LAUGHING!

Pardon wares that exist,if only to your Woke Crying Karen chagrin. Hint.



Be SURE to keep The Hurt Feelers Reports and Copious Insecurities paperwork fulfilled,with your Whining CLUELESS Dumbfhuqktitude. Hint.

Bless your hearts for doing your BEST though.

Hint.

Fhuqking LAUGHING!....................

When someone carries on like they've got something very wrong in their head, abusing every single person constantly, using language that only a scum-bag uses then they lose credibility. Its like when you walk down the street and coming towards you there's someone who has never met you and they start yelling out 'f--king cu..., f--king cu.." Do you take them seriously?

All very true, assuming both bullets hit the same place with requisite impact velocity to expand and penetrate. I've seen enough BG animals killed with both the .270 Win and the 6.5 CM to come to the conclusion that between the two, the cartridge makes essentially zero difference when it comes to terminal performance, and bullet selection dominates that arena. The biggest challenge, and most important factor, in cleanly/quickly killing critters is getting the bullet to hit the right place, and that's where advantages in external ballistics come into play.

My experience has been that a heavier bullet will do exactly that, assuming all else is equal.

When CLUELESS Kchunts are powerless in the refrain of their STUPIDITY,they tend to Whine about it...you "lucky" kchunt. Hint. Congratulations?!?

Bless your heart for trying though.

Hint.

Fhuqking LAUGHING!............






Jordan,

An increase in recoil and report,do NOT bolster placement...despite same being THE 27-'06's Swan Song. Hint. LAUGHING!(grin)

As mass increases in a given bore sizing,launch speeds tend to descend and that in and of itself,do cup/core favors. The Kreedmire don't make enough initial velocity to compromise the sanctity of same and that it tends to stubbornly retain initial velocity(due BC),do not "compromise" Terminal Effects. If only to the chagrin of Crying Karens everywhere. Hint. Fhuqking LAUGHING!

Due the reduction in recoil and report,such wares tend to be triggered more often and spent primers remain THE Supreme Tutorial. Not that I don't enjoy Woke Melting Snowflakes doing their collective BEST,with their absolute fhuqking STUPIDITY. Hint.

Bless their hearts.

Hint.

Fhuqking LAUGHING!......................












Pardon my forgetting to ascribe Pixels,I'm just now going through Mail and it's daunting. Hint.

Fhuqking LAUGHING!................

Jordan!!!

What’s this polite reasonable conversation you are engaging in!?!? Gads man where’s the invective? The veiled profanity!? 😃

Quoting Jordan here

“
We’re just discussing slight but real advantages one way or the other. When you get past 300 meters, as can occur quite often in the open terrain of the West, the advantage becomes greater.

Sometimes the bullet you want isn’t readily available, regardless of how many high-BC options exist in the caliber in question. More alternatives means a better chance of finding another option that shoots well in your rifle, and is available. “

Along with other, reasonable, well thought out and calculated comments (if I recall Jordan has more than a couple of physics courses under his belt, that’s why his posts have math and mine just have blather 😃) Jordan and others have hit the mail on the head.

The .270 WCF is a cartridge with limitations there are better choices as ranges get longer. The 6.5 PRC or the 6.5 -.284 family of cartridges will give you all the velocity of the .270 with a slicker bullet and the same or lower recoil (assuming the same “platform” is used) Does that mean the .270 sucks and those that use are fools and heathens? No it means we have assessed (hopefully we have done the assessing) our needs, skills and personal requirements and have chosen a tool which suits those needs. Jordan’s slight but real comment comes into play in some cases the slight advantage is not sufficient enough in my situation to justify the change.



That being said we are truly blessed to have so much choice! Hopefully y’all in the USA can eject another republican so the component shortage will allow better selection.

I myself have in the rifle locker rifles chambered for modern cartridges designed for slick bullets and some for archaic designs. I enjoy them all. I hunt with different rifles for a variety of reasons often sentimental or emotional, I know full well I have handicapped myself by the choice but don’t care.

I once took a late 40s vintage Brno (with bluing and wood finish that totally suck in the rain) that barely exceeded 2300 FPS with 200 gr Nosler Partition to hunt caribou in the central barren grounds of the
You don’t need a bullet approaching 180 gr to get a meaningful increase in BC over the mid-weight bullets in .277” with BC of ~0.5. For example, the 6.5 CM 147 gr ELD-M factory load has G1 BC of 0.697 and ~10% less wind drift than the .270 Win 145 gr ELD-X factory load at 300 meters. Said 147 gr load can easily be zeroed for MPBR of over 300 meters, and has even milder recoil than the .270 Win. To be clear, both cartridges obviously work great for 300 yard shots. We’re just discussing slight but real advantages one way or the other. When you get past 300 meters, as can occur quite often in the open terrain of the West, the advantage becomes greater.

Sometimes the bullet you want isn’t readily available, regardless of how many high-BC options exist in the caliber in question. More alternatives means a better chance of finding another option that shoots well in your rifle, and is available. NWT. Not a wise choice but a fun choice. It did create a very real series of limitations, ones I was aware of, understood, accepted and dealt with.

As gun owners, shooters and hunters we all have enough enemies outside of the sport without making more inside it.

Jordan my friend thanks for your reasonable input into this conversation, for the most parts it’s been fun, interesting and informative.

Maybe it will, maybe it won't. Once a bullet enters tissue, sectional density changes, unless, perhaps, if you're using a monolithic solid.

Bullets tend to deform and they tend to shed mass when they pass through tissue resulting in changes in the immediate sectional density. The typical bullet that exits the other side of a game animal, if it mushroomed, and even if it has the same weight as when it entered, doesn't have the same section density coming out as it did when it went in. That's how a study of terminal ballistics sets the notion that, for instance, a 165 grain 7mm bullet launched at a higher speed than a 145 grain 7mm bullet launched at lower speed will always out penetrate the lighter bullet on its ear. It's just not always the case.

Studies have shown that in 'some' cases a lighter bullet at a slightly higher velocity can penetrate deeper and retain more of its mass than the same bullet with a higher initial sectional density and at a slightly lower velocity. Some have shown that a bullet designed to retain mass that's lighter than one that isn't as well designed to retain mass may outperform he heavier bullet with respect to penetration while generating a similar wound cavity. But these things aren't reliable rules of thumb. In the work "The Mechanics of Terminal Ballistics" tests showed a 145 gr Speer Grand Slam out of a 7mm-08 at 2735 fps can out penetrate a 160 gr Swift A Frame out of a 7mm RM at 2930 fps, even with the former shedding more mass than the latter, apparently because the former expanded less than the latter resulting in a higher immediate sectional density. Bullet shape, construction and velocity generally are the 1-2-3 most important factors in penetration, though velocity helps in breaking things.

These discussions surrounding external ballistics are interesting. And if target shooting is all there is to the issue at hand, maybe going beyond external ballistics isn't necessary. But with respect to effectiveness on game, no proper conclusion can be had without an understanding of terminal ballistics.

TARDO sticks family left him LONG ago.They finally figured it out thats he's NOT rapped real tight.

Yes sirs.

The only thing certain is
Nothing is for certain.

There are too often extinuating circumstances that yield anomolies.


Jerry

Rickety,

DO cite the projectiles and their velocity,along with the sight system(s),used to arrange these "amazing" deeds...you "lucky" kchunt. Hint. Congratulations?!?

I rather enjoy your Imagination and Pretend,especially being it's soooooooo very "REAL" to you. Hint. Fhuqking LAUGHING!

Pardon a 6BR slapping that schit silly. Hint.



Bless your heart,as NOTHING is fhuqking funnier than The Texas Version of EVERYTHING.

Hint.

Fhuqking LAUGHING!......................

Okay butthead, Bullets were 130 grain Partitions, Hornady Interlocks, Sierra Pro Hunters or 150 grain Partitions, Speer Horcors and Hornady interlocks. Velocities for the 130's were usually a bit over 3000 fps and the 150 moved along at 2850 fps. Glass generally a 4 or 6 power Leupold. Rifles were custom Mausers and Remington 700's. Didn't need any mystical 600 plus BC bullets either, still don't. For shooting everything from jackrabbits to elk I don't think your little dick 6BR would hang.

Exactly. There are so many factors at play, and ignoring any of them yields a wrong or, at least, an incomplete conclusion. Animals are different, shot presentations are different, bullets react differently to different resistance. Arguing one tried and true deer round is better than another tried and true round is simply an effort in futility.