Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Custom Rifles & Wildcats .270 barrel twist

I have had around 15 270’s assembled over many years and have used it on hundreds of BG animals. This was all in search for the ultimate 270.

I found a 1-9 twist 22” .560 muzzle just right. I do extend the throat to match the magazine length of the magazine box. I think of the 270 as a BG cartridge so terminal bullet performance is more important than BC. Likewise, I don’t load varmint bullets.

I have had excellent results with the 130 TTSX and 160 NP for a general purpose hunt or mixed bag hunt. For a single species NA hunt for sheep or mule deer or pronghorns I would pick a 130 or 140 Berger.

The super high BC bullets are great on the ballistic charts but not so great on terminal performance.

A lot of it depends on the typical conditions you hunt in.

I live at 4000' above sea level in Montana, and don't travel as as I used to. About the lowest elevation I hunt at is around 3000' above sea level, but most is above 4000', up to around 7000-8000. I also don't hunt nearly as much at temperatures around zero as I used to.

Have experimented considerably with the newer high-BC .270 bullets such as the 170 Berger EOL in 1-10 rifling twists, and they've shot at least as well as "standard" .270 bullets up to 150 grains, including many of the newer higher-BC 150s. So far the heavier bullets like the Berger have grouped just as well--which is what the Berger rifling-twist formula suggested they might in my typical hunting conditions.

I'm just hoping some high bc medium weight hunting bullets of 135 grain and 140 grain start to come out as a result of the .277 Fury. These will most likely need around 8 or 8.5 twist for stability at sea level and to get the maximum bc from the bullet.

Riflehunter
They exist today!
Find some Federal 136 Terminal Ascents.

It's still only .493 G1 on the 136 grain .270, which is ok but not wonderful. The .277 140 Badlands has a bc of .650 and their 150 .710 - now that's what I call good. A 136 should have a bc of perhaps .550 to be good. But the Federal Terminal Ascent 175 grain in a .308 at .520 G1 might interest me more with a sectional density of .264. Get 'em going at 2700 fps. Then again, the Badlands 175 grain .308 has a bc of .605 which is still a lot better. Thanks for letting me know RinB.

well i know its a little faster,but i have been shooting a custom built 270-300 win mag for about 19 years.its a 1-10 twist broughton 3 contour barrel at 25 inches.it is a small ragged hole shooter with both barnes 130s and nosler accubond 140s.have many rifles but this is all have used for deer to black bear since i got it.

Barnes is now making a 155gr LRX for the 270. Barnes states 1:8 twist. I ordered two boxes, and will give them a try. Going into the reloading room shortly to start putting together some initial load testing rounds.

Starting with the 170gr Nosler Ballistic tips, then will move on to the 155gr LRX and 150gr Badland bullets.

That 155 LRX might be a butt whooper.. I am looking forward to seeing how you make out with it Chad.

A 1:8 270Win @ 22" will push the 140gn Super-BDII to ~3100fps via R-26.

I using Ramshot Magnum for 170gr NBT's. Will see how it works.

Going to using Rel 26 for the 150/155gr bullets.


Thinking the 155gr LRX will be a one bullet do all for my 1:8. Definitely going to give them a run this fall.

I would not have even ordered the Badlands had I known Barnes was going to come out with this bullet.

Chad you’re using the standard SAAMI chamber in your 270 correct?

Yes, and standard mag box. With Magmum powder, plenty of room for the 170gr bullet.

Might run into some compressed powder issues with Rel 26.

This 270 was built as a hunting rifle to shoot heavies and/or spin 130gr monos with higher RPM.

Will post a new thread and pics after the initial range workout.

I have lived with 270s since 19668. I have shot the throat out of 2 barrels and am working hard on a 3rd in one rifle, and have shot several thousands of round through about 7 other rifles.
With all that said I have never found any problems at all with the regular 1-10" twist. If some company was to make 185 or 190 grain 270 bullets there may be a reason for a faster twist. But for what I have used my 270s for up to and including killing horses and cattle on our ranch, I have never seen a problem with 1-10. I have thought about the use of a super long bullet, but the concept is a situation that is so specialized as to slip more into the "what-if fantasy land". It's as if the world wants to ignore the near century of excellent results we've seen from the 270 with 150 grain bullets and find some 'idea" of how it needs to be better.

There are times I want more. In those times I use a 300 mag, or even a 375H&H. I simply can't see a need or even a want for a 270 with a longer heavier bullet. Speer made 170 grain RN bullets years ago and I used some of them and I am very much a fan of the Nosler 150 and 160 grain Partitions as well as the 150 grain bonded core bullets.
To each his own. If someone wants to play with a 270 with very long bullets, so be it. It might be fun. But from results in the field on game killed over 50 years, I have serious doubts that there will be any meaningful gains.

Exactly szihn! My feeling exactly. Holds true for all fast twist bs.

szihn and WCH,

I can appreciate your opinions and thoughts. I have plenty of 1:10 twist 270's. (Seven in addition to the 1:8, plus my son's have three) I have never found them wanting. I have only shot one barrel out, and had I continued to own only one 270, pretty sure that I have burned out more than one.

This is the Fire, and looneyism runs rampant. I figure if my looneyism is down to a 1:8 twist standard 270 WCF cartridge, so be it.

I can expound on the small perceived benefits of the heavier bullets and faster twist for the monos. But it falls under minutiae, angel dust and dancing on pin heads.

Ultimately it comes down to this: I built one because I wanted one.

We have shot critters with 85gr to 150gr bullets, and most everything in between. I am of the firm opinion that the 270 plain works.

If I want to go bigger, I have 338-06's, 416 Remington and a 45-70. Smaller would be 222, 22-250, and 6.5x55.

WyoCoyoteHunter and CRS, I believe we see thing much the same way.
As a side note; My old friend Brad (who I've known since we were in the Marine Corps together,) came to Wyoming last year to hunt antelope. He had made himself a custom 270 on a Savage with a fancy folding chaise stock and a 1-8 twist barrel. He loaded the new Sierra 175 grain Tipped Gameking. Very accurate and flies well, but I was unimpressed. Brad shot a doe antelope in the neck over a cultivated field from only about 30 yards and the bullet was angled towards the center of the chest on the other side. The doe dropped dead instantly but that 120 pound animal was enough to tear apart the bullet into fragments and we found no exit at all. The line from the hit to where the exit should have been was maybe 14 inches. Brad wanted to see on the antelope how the bullets would do and make a decision as to his use for an upcoming elk hunt.
He took my advice and went back the the 160 grain Nosler.

But I am going to guess that many if not all of the new wizz-bang-ubber special, long, heavy 270 bullets are just going to be target bullets and are designed from their inception for flight characteristics and not for real performance on game.
In my life I have made some very long shots, and the longest shots I ever made on both deer and on elk were made with a 270 Winchester, all with 150 and 160 grain Partitions. I don't do it anymore because I don't have to, and I never really had to. I did it because I wanted to --- but in my whole life, in hunting 60 years, in 11 states and in 7 countries, with a game count I lost track of about 40 years ago, not 1 time EVER did I actually NEED to shoot over 500 yards, and I do mean not 1 time, EVER.

Now I don't get upset or angry at those that want to do it, but I guess I outgrew my desire to do so. And even when I was young and did make long shots I never felt any real sense of satisfaction from them. The ones I felt the best about were the opposite. Those I made at ranges under 10 yards, and a handful under 10 feet. Two at under 2 feet.

So I am of the opinion that most if not all of these new long slick bullets are designed to fly well, but the best killing effects for them is not considered by the manufacturers. Brad's bullets are an excellent example A plain Vanilla Remington Core Lokt or Winchester Power Point, in either a 130 grain or150 grain loads would have actually done a better job. All his kills were at 375 yards and less too.
Brad was one of our unit snipers and he is quite skilled at shooting long range. We both like to shoot at 1000, 1200 and 1400 yards and we both do it well. But that's more a military skill. In my hunts I see the game as a blessing from God and not my enemy. I have not shot one at long distance and lost the animal, but I started to think it was only a matter of time if I kept doing it. So I stopped shooting game past 500 yards altogether about 25 years ago. I have never one time had to turn down a shot since I did that either.

I can say from experience however, the standard 1-10 twist made many hits to over 1000 yards very well with 150 grain bullets, (most of which were flat based) and I can't actually see a gap in the performance of the 270 that a longer bullet would fulfill better.

If a standard 270 is not enough I personally would change guns, not just use a longer bullet.

I would not use a Sierra Tipped Game King on anything but targets. Thinking friend would have much better performance with a 170 Nosler ballistic tip, or one of the 150gr monos. In addition to the above mentioned 160 NPt

Longest shot I have ever made was on a doe antelope at 475 yards, 1:10 twist 270 and 145gr ELD-X. Bullet seemed a touch soft IMO, and confirmed when I shot a mule deer with it at 175 yards. Made a mess again.

I like monos, and am thinking the Barnes 155gr and Badlands 150gr will work great, without undue tissue damage. Should have no issues tickling 3000fps with Rel 26. Thinking they will do exactly as I expect them at the intended distances I plan on using them.

Here is the mule deer


For when I want to get really close. I like max helical on my fletching too!

I like the .270 a lot but the gap between .270 projectiles and 6.5 and 7mm in terms of bc is too great to ignore if you need to shoot long-range on some occasions. If you pay a large amount of money and travel to hunt something that you may only hunt once in a lifetime because of the cost, you may be faced with a shot of perhaps 500 yards, or go home without anything. That is why I am looking forward to more middle-weight .270 bullets that have higher bc's and require an 8 twist barrel.

I just ahot a large boar through both shoulders with 175 sierra tgk out of 6.8W and exited. I shoot a lot of pigs wirh different bullets and do not get many exits on large boars unless monos so the seems a pretty stout bullet but ex of 1. For comparison I shot a large boar with Mule Deer’s old Gentry 280 a few weeks ago with 160 Accubond and did not exit. Neither do 180 or 162 hornady interlockts typically exit big boars out of 300/7rm. The BC on the Sierra could be higher I expect but it is a pretty stout jacket on it vs some of the very thin jacketed bullets with higher BC

Lou

Lou 270,
Interesting anecdote on the 175 Sierra. That is not what I would expect from that bullet.

Loaded up some of the 150gr Badlands Precision bullets and LRX's tonight. Tuesday should be a good day to hit the range and run them through the rifle and over the LabRadar.

The Badlands bullets are just about too long for my rifle. Have 5 thousandths jump when seated just past the ogive.