Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Rifles My search for the right 6.5mm cal rifle has lead me to...

If I just had to have a 6.5, it would be a 6.5x57.


.

Doh! Mid-afternoon brain fart

Stupid, fat, ugly chicks abound. That doesn't make them better than smart, pretty, funny chicks.

I still consider the 270WCF to be the gold standard for deer cartridges, I just have no interest in using one. It is really a single purpose chambering, whereas the 6.5mm and 7mm offerings are typically twisted faster and have "sexier" bullets available. This really means nothing to the guy who is going to use said rifle for his deer hunting at reasonable ranges, but the rifle-nut may feel hamstrung by the same choice.

Speaking of track records.....the Swede was developed in 1891. The 270 in 1923, SO...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6.5x55mm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.270_Winchester

SO, it's the Swede MUST be Wiser by 32 years! LOL.

Seriously, to consider it's popularity after 119 years, it MUST be well proven to stand that test of time!

The Swede is a nice alternative.

JPro, if all us looney's did were take a rifle hunting, maybe we would not take the road less traveled and venture for subtle differences, no doubt. I love sitting down plinking and punching paper when not hunting, so recoil reduction while maintaining killing effectiveness is always a bonus to me. Others it's not an issue, I realize.

Emotions aside, logic might say a like length barreled 270 will give a good 6.5-06 a run for it's money w/equal bullet weights, larger bore/expansion ratio + slower twist..., but when did logic matter?

It is nice to have choices. For now I will shoot 6, 6.5, and perhaps some 7mm-08s in the future.

NOW.....as a disclaimer, HAD WW ever shortened up that baby of theres and made the 277 OUGHT EIGHT, I MIGHT have a rekindled interest in that caliber

dude you are my hero, i totally agree with all of you posts. the .270 is way over rated.

No offense, but I honestly have no earthly idea what that means.

Here in Montana I've watched quite a few elk fall to the 270 as well as deer, coyotes, antelope and bear. If you mean it's a "single purpose chambering" in the sense that its single purpose is efficiently killing whatever you properly point it at, then I'd agree.

Yep, that actually is exactly my point. It really is a good killing rig, but it doesn't have the twist for the VLD type stuff. Some guys see that as all the reason they need to go with a 6.5 or 7mm that can do both if they feel the need.

If I was headed out on a hunt and had to use a 270 instead of a 280, I really wouldn't care. If I'm building something for hunting and "funning", I'd just as soon go with something that affords me more options, even if I really don't plan to use them much.

That makes sense. To me, the 270 is strictly a hunting round, and a good one at that. Approximates a 300 mag's trajectory without all the recoil.

Okay Steelhead, which one of your butt buddies from araig did you put up to this?

As compared to "what"? Overrated "how"? C'mon tell me....I would love to be educated

I read comments like this and LMAO.Especially since I'm certain the poster has this vast book of experience with the 270 or other similar cartridges upon which to predicate such a profound assertion.

In general, cartridge comparisons bore me to tears,especially when case capacities are roughly similar,and bore diameters differ by a few thousandths.Anyone with half a brain should be able to figure out that if 6.5 is so "great",and 7mm the same ,that a bore diameter stuck squarely between them should be good as well;and the differences between them more likely is a result of the twist rates,available bullets,and the manner in which the cartridge was promoted, used, and developed over time.

The 6.5's and 7mm's had origins as military cartridges shooting long,heavy bullets through fast twists; the 6.5's have a rich history as target rounds;until recently the 7mm's really have not had much favor in that regard for some reason,likely bullet quality.There is no doubt that the 6.5's and 7mm's have seen more attention than the 270 with regard to target-type bullets,but this has nothing to do with hunting.

The 270, OTOH,was developed and promoted as a hunting cartridge.

270 detractors have been around for years.If you're lucky enough to have issues of American Rifleman dating back to the 30's,40's and 50's,you will bump into them now and then...for some reason the cartridge drives some of these people nuts...generally these folks tend to be ballistic nit-pickers who get their jollies drooling over numbers.Some,by their own admission,have never even used a 270.....yet they draw these imaginary lines in the sand about what it's "good for",an declare something else vastly superior....

Yet if you pin them down,and ask what it is about a 270 they don't "like",or how it is deficient,they really can't explain it...or they run for the nearest ballistic table,citing energy quotients ,wind drift,BC,or some other formula.....or they cite some example about how one animal they shot with it "got away";generally this is because of careless, rotten shooting;less likely it is because bullets were inappropriate to the animal.

I suspect a lot of 270 criticism comes because the cartridge is "common"; some rifle savants see the cartridge annually bury their own pets in game taken,sales of rifles and ammo,and world-wide use...it rubs them wrong intellectually to have put all this time and effort into all the vast knowledge they have acquired,and then have some runny-nosed kid,or some other poor ignorant slob with a beat-up 270 roll elk,moose and grizzly bears with impunity.

This flies in the face of all their vast ballistic knowledge and the several thousand bucks they have spent stretching out a 280 or 7/08 case(for example)to equal or (maybe)beat a 270 by 50-100 fps......

In Wyoming last year, I strolled over to the barn(where we skin game) with Bill,my pal and the ranch owner,after stashing my duffel.The head and cape of a good 6x6 was on the floor....I tapped it with my boot.

"Yours?", I asked Bill.

"Yup"

"Nice bull.270?"

"Yup".

"Did you use those lousy 130 Sierra's again?"

"Yup"

"One of these days you'll smarten up. Gotta beer?"

"Yup".

Figured you'd be taking it queer Tony, at least you have a few pivot men on this thread to help you out.

Bob must get paid by the word, sweet Jesus.

Nope I'm just fast....

Truth of the matter,Scott, is that I got sick of screwing with cartridges a long time ago after too many hours on the chronograph and at the bench,and hunting with them...and after figuring out the magic was in the bullets, not the cartridges.......Once in awhile I get excited about something new but have to fight long and hard to get to that point.

My point in all this is many of them are so much the same,one no better than the other,that to say "this or that" is better than a 270, or vice versa, is utterly worthless advise and conversation.

Dude, I totally agree with YOUR post.

When I started this thread I didn't have the "270's rule and all other cartridges drool" mentality, I did however feel precisely the way BobinNH did.

I've been doing this a long time. I've reloaded, shot factory, and messed with endless calibers. I've argued BC and ballistics with those far less educated than these forum members to no end. And while I have enjoyed some of these discussions, most not, the truth of the matter is I'm inclined to take the path of least resistance these days (accept when it comes to the 257 Bob). I don't shoot enough to reload anymore, and I don't have the time to commit to it as a hobby, so I like the 270.

I'm sooooo glad we have all these flavors to choose from. It still gets me a little pumped to share thoughts with folks like I have found here (I'm new to Campfire). But if you want to tell me why your .30, 7mm, 6.5mm is better than a 270 I'll be happy to listen. These calibers for the NA continent are unrivaled and any of them is a great mice to moose choice in what ever mid size cartridge YOU like. I'd be happy to shoot my favorite along side you at a shooting range any time!!

Very well said. I would have to agree with you and Bob. And for anyone who continues to dislike their 270s, there is a place here in Nevada where you can send all unwanted firearms. I will even make a special place for the 243s noone seems to like either.

aw shucks, what the heck are we gonna argue about, now?

Wood vs. Laminated vs. Synthetic?