|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 35,900
Campfire 'Bwana
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 35,900 |
It's all because the .270 sucks.....
This ain't rocket science... Great comments as usual Bob. All of the gratuitous swipes at the 270 by the usual gang of 'haters' aside, there is an interesting point raised in the OP regarding bullet design. Your points about faster twists and heavier (for calibre) bullets are well taken, and as you've essentially said it is pretty obvious that the 270 isn't going to excel at something it wasn't designed to do well in the first place. However, let's try to eliminate the issue of heavier bullets for the moment. If we consider only the 140 grain bullets in each of .264, .277 and .284 from the OP, there is still an interesting phenomenon. Obviously, at the same weight, the .264 will have the highest SD, and so it comes as no surpise that, given the 'same' bullet design, it has the highest BC as well. However, the .277 has a slightly higher SD than .284 and yet the BC of the .284 is actually a bit higher. It would be interesting to hear some comments from those 'on the inside' with respect to bullet design on why that might be. deadkenny: Yes...maybe they have to design them that way, so they will shoot in the slower 270 twists? I dunno... ....and I think the point is the BC's are "slightly higher"....and it seems the real advantages come from those 6.5's and 7mm's that have substantially higher BC's,bullets like the 162Amax, or the Bergers, etc.I can understand the differences with those...but not with many others. I wonder what a 162 270 bullet would look like?  But no one is gonna build it,except maybe smaller custom makers who also build custom barrels to shoot it.. I have had problems getting 130 AB's and 130 Swift 2's to shoot in the 270 Win....is this twist? I dunno..... I just got a 9 twist Brux 270 barrel....maybe I should have bought an 8" twist?
Last edited by BobinNH; 11/24/11.
The 280 Remington is overbore.
The 7 Rem Mag is over bore.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,792
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,792 |
Bob pretty much nailed it. Would be easy enough for manufactures to make VLD bullets in .277 that matched their 6.5 and 7mm counterparts' BCs, but those bullets would require a faster than standard (for .277) 10" twist.
It appears that Berger's VLDs were made with as high a BC as possible in their respective weights as a 10" twist would allow.
Same goes for the .257s also.
Wishing everybody a very Happy Thanksgiving!
John
If my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land. 2 Chronicles 7:14
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,342
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,342 |
Taking the liberty of "improving" BobinNH's statement.
Given cases of equal capacity and bullets in the same weight range at similar velocities, comparable 6.5's and 7mm's might kill BG animals as well as the 270.
Time has proven that: "I stongly suspect the 270 is "better" than many of its' detractors. If you can't do it with a 270, you likely can't do it with a comparable 6.5 or 7mm either." I could not improve this statement.
In the field, much to much can be made of some of the technicalities. As a hunting tool, the 270 has withstood the test of time. Combines with John Noslers 60 year old Partition it simply gets the job done. Not even sure the newer, high tech, bullets, exceed that standard.
Imagine your grave on a windy winter night. You've been dead for 70 years.
It's been 50 since a visitor last paused at your tombstone.....
Now explain why you're in a pissy mood today.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 35,900
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 35,900 |
fishdogs; Given all the 270's glaring deficiencies as a hunting cartridge, I don't know how it's lasted this long.... 
The 280 Remington is overbore.
The 7 Rem Mag is over bore.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,164
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,164 |
Matrix Ballistics is producing a high BC .277 VLD 165gr (BC .650). Reports have been good in higher velocity .277's such as the 270 Wby. Agree with above, I'm very content with my 270 Win's shooting 150gr NPT's and 130gr Tsx's. Also a big fan of the 7mm's and 6.5's.
"Good judgment comes from experience but unfortunately, experience is often derived from a series of bad judgments"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 5,950
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 5,950 |
There is no "magic" caliber that is inherrently better than everything else. There really is no reason for this argument to continue, except for the entertaining comments and jabs at certain people that take it sooo well. The .277" bullets are a little bigger than the .264" bullets, and the .284" bullets are a little bit bigger yet. Bullet construction and velocity make a whole lot more difference in performance than these small differences in bullet diameter. I have rifles that shoot .264" and .284" bullets, and have had the .277", though not at this time. I have a hankering to try a 270 Win with 160gr Partitions. Maybe someday. Maybe not. Either way I will continue eating venison.
Our God reigns.
Harrumph!!!
I often use quick reply. My posts are not directed toward any specific person unless I mention them by name.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 14,459
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 14,459 |
One of the biggest pluses for using high BC bullets and I'm surprised it has not been mentioned is that because of the higher BC's with comparable SD's.
You can use lighter powder charges in 08 size 26 and 28 caliber cartridges to equal 06 in 27 caliber in field performance.
High BC bullets in 08 size hulls do the work with 10 to 15 grains less powder than 06 size. Hence, less recoil.
I can take a 260 Rem with a 125 NP and equal field performance of a 270 Win 130 NP.
If you can't do it with a 260 Rem or 708 Rem, you likely can't do it with a comparable 270 Win either.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 35,900
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 35,900 |
SU: True enuf! They are all very close.Which is the only point, really....
The 280 Remington is overbore.
The 7 Rem Mag is over bore.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 4,950
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 4,950 |
The lower BCs for the 270 were mandated by a consortium of state fish and game agencies many years ago. They found that users of the 270 were on average much better shots, better hunters and were taking much more than their fair share of game. So, in an attempt to level the playing field between 270 users and other hunters, the fish and game agencies required bullets manufacturers to make only less efficient bullets for the 270.
This handicap has not had the required effect, and now experimenting with other ways to prevent the overwhelming success of 270 users. Montana for example is considering making all 270 owners either covering their entire rifle with blue tape or wearing a cowbell around their neck.
Fred
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 78,300
Campfire Oracle
|
|
Campfire Oracle
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 78,300 |
OH MY GOD!  Happy Thanksgiving Fred.... 
"...the left considers you vermin, and they'll kill you given the chance..." Bristoe
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 5,950
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 5,950 |
I can take a 260 Rem with a 125 NP and equal field performance of a 270 Win 130 NP. This statement right here is precisely the reason this argument continues. A lot of people disagree with it because of the word "equal." While the performance of those two loads is very similar, and the difference may not be seen by watching the animal die, they are not equal. The velocity may be the same, but one delivers a larger, heavier bullet. Personally, I prefer the 260 load because of lighter recoil, but I do not delude myself into believing it is equal to the 270 Win load. Many, MANY people prefer the 270, and they are not making a mistake.
Our God reigns.
Harrumph!!!
I often use quick reply. My posts are not directed toward any specific person unless I mention them by name.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 4,950
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 4,950 |
Same back at you, Tom!
Fred
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 833
Campfire Regular
|
|
OP
Campfire Regular
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 833 |
It's all because the .270 sucks.....
This ain't rocket science... Great comments as usual Bob. All of the gratuitous swipes at the 270 by the usual gang of 'haters' aside, there is an interesting point raised in the OP regarding bullet design. Your points about faster twists and heavier (for calibre) bullets are well taken, and as you've essentially said it is pretty obvious that the 270 isn't going to excel at something it wasn't designed to do well in the first place. However, let's try to eliminate the issue of heavier bullets for the moment. If we consider only the 140 grain bullets in each of .264, .277 and .284 from the OP, there is still an interesting phenomenon. Obviously, at the same weight, the .264 will have the highest SD, and so it comes as no surpise that, given the 'same' bullet design, it has the highest BC as well. However, the .277 has a slightly higher SD than .284 and yet the BC of the .284 is actually a bit higher. It would be interesting to hear some comments from those 'on the inside' with respect to bullet design on why that might be. Thank you for more clearly articulating my question.
Monster Whitetails are Awesome!!!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 14,459
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 14,459 |
A lot of people disagree with it because of the word "equal." While the performance of those two loads is very similar, and the difference may not be seen by watching the animal die, they are not equal. Oh but your are so wrong on this point. You only mentioned part of my statement. I said "equal in field performance". With only 2" of drop difference between the two at 400 yards, the 260 has more than enough speed at 400 yards to kill anything the 270 will, and with only 5 grains less bullet weight. Only a 270 delusional nut would think he has an advantage. And as the distance gets further the higher BC bullet of the 260 gains on the BC deficient 270.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 12,153
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 12,153 |
Montana for example is considering making all 270 owners either covering their entire rifle with blue tape or wearing a cowbell around their neck.
Fred That's so others are distracted from noticing that they're carrying a .270. It's a safety thing, if someone suddenly walks up on a hunter carrying a .270 they might start laughing uncontrollably and fall off a mountain. The blue tape and cowbell lets others know that there's a .270 owner nearby so they can tie themselves to a tree or something before the spasms hit, thus preventing unnecessary injuries and deaths.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 655
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 655 |
It all depends on what the specific choice of bullet, and purpose is. A 260 Rem might 'gain' on the 270 Win out at 1000 yards, but then frankly if I actually intended to shoot something at 1000 yards neither would be my first choice. If one were wanting to use a TSX for instance, they could shoot a 130 gr TSX out of a 260 at 2800 fps at the muzzle, with a BC of .365, or they could shoot a 130 gr 270 at 3200 fps with a BC of .431 (all based on Barnes load data online). I don't see that the 260 would be doing much 'gaining' at any range under those circumstances.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 19,179
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 19,179 |
jwall- *** 3100 guy***
A Flat Trajectory is Never a Handicap
Speed is Trajectory's Friend !!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 14,459
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 14,459 |
If a shooter wants to hamstring himself by using Barnes bullets that's his choice.
That's why I chose a 125 NP and 130 NP at 2,950 and 3,200.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,701
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,701 |
Berger did this on purpose. They said that .270 bullets would mostly be used in hunting rifles (vs target rifles throated for the purpose) so made the bullet so it would be more likely to be closer to the lands in a factory .270 rifle to improve accuracy vs making as streamlined as possible as they did for 7mm/.264. The only other place where 7mm bullets are more streamlined in same weight is the 140 nosler btip vs 140 277 btip. The majority of makers have .277 bullets of the same weight with higher BC than 7mm as expected due to higher SD.
Lu
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,701
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,701 |
This is what Eric Stecker wrote on another forum:
"Since we knew the 270 cal bullet were going to be used mostly by hunters we adjusted the VLD design to be more magazine fed friendly. Also, a slightly shorter secant ogive tends to shoot well with a jump so you can take your round out of the chamber and not worry about sticking the bullet in the rifling (and getting an action full of powder in the middle of your hunt). We did everything we could to keep the hunter in mind. As time passes and interest grows for a higher BC 270 cal we can make some down the road"
Lou
|
|
|
|
|
310 members (22250rem, 240NMC, 160user, 2500HD, 163bc, 12344mag, 32 invisible),
1,947
guests, and
1,037
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums81
Topics1,190,492
Posts18,452,320
Members73,901
| |
Most Online11,491
Jul 7th, 2023
|
|
|
|
