Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters Latest news on 270 Win Handloader Magazine

I also have considerable experience with the .280, after having the late Dave Gentry build me one around 1990. The rifle I turned over to him was a Remington Model 78 .270 Winchester. (Dunno how many here remember the Model 78, but it was basically a less-expensive version of the 700 ADL, with uncheckered, "walnut-stained" birch stocks. Had owned a hunted with it for 2-3 years.

Dave offered o turn it into on of his lighter-weight custom rifles, with a very light synthetic stock. He also trimmed down the action, including substituting an aluminum tube for the middle of the bolt--which couldn't be detected visually. He insisted the .280 was a much better round than the .270, including grouping better. He used a stainless #1 Douglas barrel--and it grouped very well, but no better than than the Remington factory .270 barrel.

Killed a bunch of big game with it during the 1990s, including one of my two biggest mule deer and caribou. But never could tell any difference in "killing power" or anything else between it and the .270--except that .270 brass and factory ammo were far more available. Eventually a friend talked me out of it, and I haven't regretted that--partly because I have a NULA .270 that averages around 3 shots in an inch at 300 yards with it's preferred handloads.

Am curious about why you "happen to prefer the 7mm bullet offerings over the 6.8." Have heard that before from various hunters, but in each case the reason was a wider range of bullet weights. But maybe your prefer has to do with high-BC 7mm bullets being offered earlier than in .270?

Yes, debatable. Highly.

I used to correspond with the late African PH George Hoffman, developer of the 416 Hoffman, which eventually became the 416 Remington. No one would ever accuse Hoffman of being "anti magnum." In our correspondence he told me he'd taken over 50 elk, all with the 270, and that he never found it wanting (mostly with the 150 NP).

That correspondence, and actually seeing how my friends non-magnum rounds (mostly the 270) performed on elk, encouraged me to start "de-magnumizing" my own elk hunting arsenal over 20 years ago.

The 270 (like the 308 and dozens of other similar rounds), "kicks a little and kills a lot." A hole in the right spot is really what matters.

Me neither…

Shocker. Yet another value-added post on this thread by WAM lol...

"Yup. Have never owned one or felt the need to have one."

Very interesting that more than one person "feels" this way, as if that somehow means the .270 Winchester is useless. If it was, .270s wouldn't be found all over the world in hunting countries, or plenty of factory ammunition on shelves--though one of the other interesting things I've noticed over my two-plus decades on the Campfire is how many members don't understand that only about 10% of America hunters handload, where even during "shortages" its far easier to handload than in many other countries.

I also mentioned in a recent article that over 50 cartridges suitable for big game have been introduced in the U.S. since 2000. Was that because previous cartridges had all suddenly become useless? No, because the vast majority of those "new" cartridges essentially duplicated the ballistics of previously existing cartridges--which also means those previous rounds weren't useless.

Instead the real reason for almost all new cartridges is to sell new rifles. One of the commercial disadvantages of big game rifles is they don't wear out nearly as quickly as new pickups. (If we shot a box of ammo through our big game rifles as often as we drive our pickups they would--but we don't.) This is why rifle companies keep coming up with "new" cartridges essentially duplicate older cartridges: They need to keep selling new rifles.

I would also be willing to bet those who "have never owned one or felt the need to have one" do own a rifle (or maybe several) chambered for another cartridge that's actually similar to the .270, and think that cartridge is The Answer. This could be the .308 Winchester, .30-06 Springfield, .280 Remington, 7mm Remington Magnum or a pile of other rounds.

I've personally taken big game with dozens of different cartridges, and witnessed companions doing the same. The animals taken with the .270 have included big game up to well over 1000 pounds in both North America and Africa--but could also say that about several other rounds. In fact, quite a few people have taken a similar array of big game without using any cartridge. Instead they've used a bow and arrow, and I've done the same with several Montana animals, including bull elk.

But apparently it makes some hunters feel special that they've never owned or wanted a .270. No doubt some others feel just as proud about never owning or wanting a Ford pickup....

The 270 Win is the "easy button" if someone were looking for a new deer rifle (I think the same of the 308), easy to shoot and proven 100 years effective. There's a lot of attention to the newish 6.5 PRc but it basically duplicates the 270W in a shot action, at least out to 500 yards. The say imitation is the greatest form of flattery...

I write this sitting in the Atlanta airport traveling home from South Africa. My father and daughter each just used .270’s on our Safari, and they worked perfectly. My dad went 7 shots for 7 animals up to Kudu, Zebra, and Gemsbok with 150 Partitions, and my daughter went 7 shots for 6 animals up to Zebra and Blue Wildebeest with 130 E-Tips. She had to put a second shot into her Zebra, but this was due to bullet placement as opposed to the effectiveness of her cartridge or bullet. I used a 7mm Rem Mag with 175 Partitions, and my brother shot a 300 Win Mag with 200 Partitions. There isn’t anything that we killed that couldn’t have been just as effectively dispatched with my daughter’s .270 with 130 E-Tips. I’ve become a big fan of the .270 over the last few years.

The last .270 I bought was in around 2008. I'd looking for something and nothing in particular but hadn't spent any money. The gun show was closing when I spotted a Winchester M70 Featherweight with what looked like a Mc Millan stock, Turns out it was an XTR and had a 24" barrel which I prefer on the .270. It had a decent Burris 3x9 scope on it so I asked the guy selling if it was accurate, He said it was. I then asked what load he used and he said Winchester 150 gr. Power points. I bought it. On the way home I stopped off at my local Walmart and picked up a couple of boxes of the 150 gr. PPs. I took it to the range the next day and the man was not lying. I shot four 5 shot groups, the smallest about a half inch and the largest .80" as the barrel was quite warm on the last group. I stll ave the second box of that ammo but that rifle shoots my pet load so well with my pet load using the long gone WMR powder and the 150 gr. Sierra game King that I never bothered to shoot that last box of factory ammo. FRIW, I can use the same load with the 150 gr. Nosler partition and no need to readjust my scope. Both loads average .75" and hit about a half inch apart. If I shoot three oc each load the average group will be no larger that 1.5". Might prove useful on a hunt some day. Last game taken with that rifle was an antelope in New Mexico The 150 gr. did a nice job at 75 yards with very little meat damage. That rifle is a keeper.
PJ

Top of the Morning to you Mule deer,
I owned and hunted with a 30-06 since 13 years of age. It was my main hunting/shooting cartridge until I into my 30's. I grew up in South Texas, and took frequent trips to Kansas on family visits. The family visits were more like hunting trips that included family time.
Deer, javelina, coyotes, jackrabbits, prairie dogs, wild Russian boar, nothing was spared from my 30-06, and I got very familiar with its ballistics and capabilities with bullet weights from 110gr to 200gr Sierra GK.
The 280 Remington with useful weights of 120 to 175gr (i haven't tried any of the 180’s for long range yet) it closely approximates the same launch speeds but with less drop at all distances than the 30-06. I've handloaded my 280 Remington with 175gr Sierra GKs to 2750fps MV for an almost exact duplication of the 30-06 with 180’s. The 270 winchester just doesn't do this. 270's top out typically at 160 gr.
The 7mm offerings might be stronger constructed, being designed more for the more popular 7mm RM, while 270's are always designed for the 270 Winchester. I prefer a tougher bullet for use on edible game meat. The last thing I enjoy doing is destroying prize game meat.

LOTS of 270’s and F150’s over the years here
Never wanted or needed anything else

This is a common opinion, but where it commonly stuggles to highlight fact, is that no-one can name a single animal that one cartridge can take where the other cannot. The bullet ranges available in .284 caliber can mean more options in finding accuracy but it doesn't provide legitimacy in superiority over a .270 as a game cartridge.

I am a 7mm fan and own several rifles chambered in cartridges in that "caliber". I do not own a .270. This is an inventory advantage in that if a bullet is not favored by a cartridge, I still have other rifles within that "caliber" to try and find a fit. It works for me as a convenience but is not a reason for me to claim any superiority over a .270 Winchester.

Something to think about.

Having used a 270 off and on for over 50yrs, I can attest to it's effectiveness on game ranging from antelope to elk. As much as I like it, the rifle nut in me just could never be satisfied with using it exclusively or even a majority of the time. Shooting and hunting with all sorts of cartridges for so long has shown me that a good bullet in the right is what fills tags, not some magical bore diameter or cartridge casing. The past few years I've been using a 7mm due to skipping over it in past years. It kills everything very well, just like the 270 does or one of my 300s. I'd likely have been just as well off to have stayed with the 270 I started with years ago, but I'm sure it wouldn't have been nearly as much fun!

I have killed a pile of big game not just with the .270 Winchester but various 7mm cartridges, and also tested a bunch of big game bullets in various kinds of media.

Have yet to find that "The 7mm offerings might be stronger constructed, being designed more for the more popular 7mm RM, while 270's are always designed for the 270 Winchester." This is partly because I've also killed quite a bit of big game with the .270 WSM and .270 Weatherby Magnum. Oh, and the 7mm-08, 7x57,.280 Remington (as already mentioned), .280 Ackley Improved, 7mm Remington SAUM, 7mm Weatherby Magnum and 7mm STW.

Among those have used the 160-grain Nosler Partition (as only one example) in the 7x57, .280 Remington and 7mm Weatherby Magnum. It worked great on game up to elk-size in all three. Of course, this is partly because the Partitions all have relatively "soft" front cores, which expand readily even at relatively low impact velocities.

But a bunch of other bullets these days also expand at relatively low impact velocities yet penetrate well, including Barnes TTSXs. I also know this due to testing in various kinds of media, along with seeing a considerable number of big game animals around the world taken with 'em.

As a result I disagree with your notion that "The 7mm offerings might be stronger constructed."

Point taken. Having read alot of your hunting accounts I'll admit that you certainly have the most experience here.

Having spent my youth doing business with the tried and true 30-06 with 180gr (usually the core-lokt) combination, my only point is that I appreciate 7mm .284 diameter for being able to provide the same familiar muzzle energy, albeit 175gr slugs.

I certainly think a 270 Win launching premium 160 grainers would produce equally superior results. I have no hunting experience with them. Ive handloaded the 270 win, and shot several owned by friends. Employing simple math tactics the 270 w/ 160s would have to work 9% harder to produce equal results to the. 284 size and 175s, which is only useful when trying to down two caribou with one shot. I'm sure Mathman will be along shortly to disagree and offer swift correction.

I had the good fortune of being exposed to Jack O'Connor's "The Complete Book of Rifles Shotguns", and other works from an early age. He was expert at lumping similar cartridges in classes. He frequently mentioned the 270 win, 7x57, 280, 308, 30-06 and 7mm RM all in the same class. They are all superior when expertly applied. Especially in mountain rifle format.

Aussie
If you owned a 270Win you would have a 7mm bore.

If anyone is interested in picking up a really traditional .270, I have a Ruger M77 wood/blued steel/tang safety model in VG condition, wearing a gloss Leupold M8 6X.

My first rifle was a 270 Win. It has been a good gun. mostly shot antelope, deer and a bison with it.

Love .270 wcf chitchat.
Hard to dispute JB ,RicB and others that have used a .270 ish like rounds on the larger deer and antelope species of the World.
My experience on Elk and Moose concurs,
Yep, marketers just keep reinventing the wheel, imo.
Slight chamber variations means little downrange if a great Game bullet is not used.
A .270, 280 30/06 can equal performance with newer short/fats, at reasonable ranges
400 yards is a massively long shot for any experienced hunter/shooter in real , Western hunting conditions.
Huffing and puffing up a brushy slope leaves the hunter wanting for a lightweight, compact rifle he is really familiar with. He should really know the Game animal he pursues.
Modern Technology will not solve this for that.
Imo, use a controlled expansion bullet, get you body in top shape, and learn how to " glass "for Game.
It costs little. Anyone can partake. Buy the best boots you can afford and do your best to wear them in, and out.
My 2 cents, folks

Good stuff Comerade...