Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Rifles The .270

Or too hard headed to accept it....😁😁😁💪💪💪🥃🥃🥃

See, this is where the people who are not western hunters out themselves. My elk hunting setup has about a 4 mile hike, and then from my usual vantage point a series of clearings out to roughly 600y. No one's hiking a 30lb M82 in there (nor is it legal, but you could chamber it in 416 Barrett I guess and make it legal). The A-Max is arguably not a legal bullet either and M82 accuracy is [bleep] but again we can forget that for a bit. The weight makes it a no-go by itself.

But with say a .300 WSM shooting 200gr Terminal Ascents I can ethically address every one of those clearings - 100% hit probability on a 12" circle except in insane wind when I won't take the long shots. With a .270, the last 2 or 3 clearings aren't ethical - it's impossible to guarantee a hit because of the garbage ballistics.

It's not just technological advancement. The ..270 was garbage from day one. If you look at the round that supposedly inspired it, the 7x64 Brenneke, you'll see it has a 1:220mm (roughly 1:8.5") twist. This problem was basically solved already (all that needed fixing was the shoulder diameter and angle) and Winchester was too ignorant to understand what's out there. In that respect Winchester then is much like the fangirls now - too ignorant to know how wrong they are.

I wouldn't agree it was garbage. Ok at best for nearly a 100 year old cartridge. Does it work? Yes.

Certainly outclassed by today's calibers.

Hell, the 280 didn't even make the list.

Only if you flinch before your shot.




Now we're waiting on three loads.

Or if you're running a muzzle device

AKA noise maker

My data is this;
a. I have verified my rifles, 270 Win, 7mm Rem Mag, 300 Win Mag over many years.

b. Using my preferred hunting bullets THEY work w/o exception out to 400 + yds.

c. 400 yds is NOT long range today but that's AS FAR as I have opportunities.

d. exceptionally high BCs are of NO benefit to ME.

e. LESS velocity ONLY lessens the trajectory.

f. Seriously, I have YET to see any ADVANTAGE to me in the 280 Rem or even the BIG 6.5s. What I'm using is
ALREADY doing the job.


It's ludicrous for anyone to tell me that what I'm using won't work, or is less effective.

NO HARM, NO FOUL


Jerry

Could not agree more JW. Noone has ever said that. The .270 has and always will kill game.

Just technology has surpassed its performance.

Keep on brother JW.

Technology has helped it and all other cartridges too.

Kind of like the top of l
The line car the same year the .270 was introduced.
Functional, yes. Can't hang with the technology of the new cars.

All mentioned still get the job done.

Shoot what makes you happy and ignore everything else.

Life's too short to bicker about potato 🥔 potatoe

Killing big bucks is what is after the equal sign my friend...

This sure makes for good reading 📚 though.

Holy Fook

I'm really not a fan of the CM as a hunting round except for the recoil-adverse, but your "comparison" is crap. Max in the CM with either H4350 or RL16 (temp stable) is in the mid 2800s for a 24". An accuracy load can generally be found no lower than 2750.

You also need to compare equal SD bullets, not equal weight bullets to get similar wound depth.

What you've got there is grade A bullshit. The fact that a women and children short action cartridge can match the .270 is all you need to know about the failure of the .270.

Only if you are searching for the ballistic advantage, smart money 💰 goes like this:


Find the optimum cartridge that works for you with the case capacity desired velocity, highest BC bullets, recoil,budget, and enjoy hunting and shooting.

6.5 Creedmoor is undersized for 6.5 bullets.


I am a huge fan of the 6mm Creedmoor and own "several ".

Ouch.....

Not nearly as much as other cartridges, due to Winchester's twist rate failure. The only good new .277 bullets are for other .277 cartridges that didn't make the same mistake.

The .270 has benefited from the development of slower powders, but again not as much as other cartridges because it's sized for the "fast magnum" (4350) and "regular magnum" (4831) burn rates, while superior competitors can make good use of the slow magnum (H1000) burn rate powders. That's unfortunate for .270 shooters, but I guess the cartridge designers can't be blamed for that one since those powders didn't really exist then. It's still a reason to move to a superior newer cartridge.

An advancement is an advancement in no matter how big or small.