I traded for some 270 bullets and I acquired some 130 and 140 grain Partitions. I have been a big fan of 150 grain bullets in the 270 in the past but can't really say a 130 or 140 grain Partition would do any differently than a 150. It seems odd that there would be three very similar bullets made in one caliber 10 grains apart in weight. I can say the 130 grain Partition will out penetrate either the Speer or Hornady 150 grain spitzers and spire points which I have used to good effect on Elk, Mule deer and Whitetails. The next hunt this rifle will go on will be for Mule deer in an area well known for being windy and open.

I use 130grain bullets in my 270 WCF, 140’s in my 270WSM and 270 Weatherby

I'd prob let the rifle decide what it likes best. I have one .270 that prefers 150 Partitions over the others. In my other 270's I shoot more 130's than anything.
Saying that, if I was a "one gun/one bullet" man I'd pick the 150. We know it'll cover everything from deer to moose and I would not be afraid to hunt Grizz with it.
Just my two cents.

Well then the 130 gets the nod! Actually I have two 270 rifles and both can easily be made to shoot into an inch with just about any bullet I have tried so far.

My own preference is the 160 gr Partition as a heavy game load but of the ones you ask about the 150 gr is what I would choose after seeing how well it does. The others you mention work well of course but for game from small to big it's tough to beat a 150 gr Partition.

Nothing wrong with a 130 Partition lit by a max load of powder. It's fun to stand on the gas peddle and see what we can squeeze out of each bullet and powder.

Bob used to say that he thought the 130 driven fast out-penetrated the 150 driven normally (he postulated that the 130 shed the front core more readily and peeled back to a smaller diameter wadcutter shape).

With the 150-RL26 combo available now, I suppose that might not be the case.

Im probably a minority here but I haven’t been that impressed with the penetration of the 150, at least at factory speeds. I watched my brother shoot a calf elk at 300yds or so. On a quartering away shot through the ribs, the bullet did not exit. Penetration was only 16” or so. Calf elk are neither large nor dense. In my experience, a130 atop a case full of h4831 would have left a golf ball sized exit wound. Based on factory loads I’ve chronographed, I’d guess velocity was 2725fps or so.

I have used them all, but I now use the 150s and 160s.
The 130 and 140s are fine but do nothing the 150s and 160 do do as well or better.

My old pre-64 Model 70 and my custom Mauser both shoot the 130 Partitions the best, but my grandson's old Remington 721 likes the 150s. I have killed a boat load of stuff with the 130 Partitions and, except for my first elk 45 years ago, I have never shot at game with anything but 130s in any of my .270s.

The partition I have used the most is the .284 diameter 140. Never recovered one and that is one impressive bullet! Mostly shot out of a 7x57 and a 280 AI.

When my wife was shooting the .270 Win., she was using the 150 Partition. Her last kill with it, a Bighorn Sheep (at around 200yrds.)...bullet entered the breastbone, found under the hide in the ham! It was the best bullet of the day....and worked well! memtb

I have been shooting 140's.. Been ok so far.. But came across a bx. of old Silvertips.. I plan to load some of them for fall. They are 130's..

You won’t see a single bit of difference in the performance on game between any of those Partitions. Shoot the one your rifle likes best.

If you really want to make the .270 Win shine, try the 130 Barnes TTSX. It will out-penetrate all those Partitions and you can launch it at good velocity.

I’ve never tried a 129 Barnes LRX in a .270, but I’d sure give that one a try, too.

Of the choices listed? 140gr. I've never recovered one. The only Partition I've caught is a 150.

The Partition was for many years my bullet of choice for elk. After trying the Barnes TSX & the Hornady GMX I discovered they far out penetrated the Partition. The homogeneous copper with a liter bullet will out penetrate heavier Partitions. The Barnes TSX & Hoenady GMX have a much higher BC which means a faster time of flight & a flatter trajectory. The copper mono's tend to retain 100% of their weight even thru heavy bone. More hunters are trying them & understanding their ability.. Buy one box of Barnes 110gr TTSX & try them on game. You will be very surprised at their ability..

Not that it matters but the Barnes bullets are not know for their high BCs. Especially the 110 grain 270 bullet, it has a lower BC than the 130 Partition.

And I dont buy the concept that you need a solid copper bullet to kill an elk. YMMV.

Listed BC's of 130-grain .270 bullets:

Nosler Partition: .416
Barnes TSX: .431
Hornady GMX: .460

The Hornady has a plastic tip, the reason the BC's higher than for the Partition or TSX.

Starting them all at 3100 fps with a scoped rifles sighted 2" high at 100 yards, the Partition and TSX have a trajectory within half an inch of each other out to 500 yards in typical elk hunting temperatures and elevation. The Hornady GMX shoots about an inch flatter at 500.

FWIW, a while back I used the ballistic calculator in my PACT chronograph to compare trajectories of some "light for caliber" TTSXs with more traditional weight Partitions and Ballistic Tips in .277 and .308 calibers. While this suggested nothing about penetration, it did suggest that the trajectories were not that different out to 500 yards despite the fact that the muzzle velocities used for the TTSXs were 10-15% higher.

Can't go wrong with any of them. I use 140s in the WSM and 130s in the 270 win. This is just how it ended up accuracy wise. As to the original question of why 130,140 and 150's. Jack O'Conner wrote that the 140's were made for people who can't make up their mind between a 130 and 150. I think he had it right.

I think JOC was probably about right. Hard to argue the pile of animals killed with a 130 grain bullet from a 270 Winchester.

i'm partial to 130's at 3200fps. deer, goats and even elk!

Everything else being the same Sd still counts for something.

RL-26 at 3000fps with a 150gr NPT in a 270 makes for a smaller difference in velocity versus the lighter bullets with the 130's showing a tiny trajectory advantage.

Back in the day when shooting out to 400 yds with 150gr NPT's at 2900fps they would still show a bit less wind drift than 130gr NPT's at 3100fps. With another 100fps added to the 150's I'm gonna guess the wind drift is even less..........

Preferences? Yes. But, none involve a 270.

I've always used the 150 pt for deer because where I hunt it could be a 50yd shot or 250yds. Like the heavier weight for close shots. 140's are for theperson who can't decide 130 or 150.

FWIW, the 150 class bullets always shot more accurately than 130s, in my rifles. Stem to stern on a Mulie at near 300 yds facing me........can't argue.

Whichever shoots best.

Shooters Pro shop had the 140's on sale so I stocked up.

Of the three weights, the 140's always shot the least accurate across a wide variety of rifles. I always try that weight cause its a good compromise. Have some R-17 and will check on that option as the range clears up.

Well heck, guess I will have to load some and shoot them.

still working up loads but my Model 70 seems to like 160gr partitions. I started with 130grs and as I have gone heavier the groups are getting smaller.

What cha using for powder?

I am currently following the herd with RL26. Shows a lot of promise. I don't have a chronograph so I am moving up slowly. Best load so far is 59.5 grains and CCI 250 primers.

Bob would have good posts about this, I miss that guy!

+1

Some 270's will like one better than the other. But if the rifle shoots 150's as good as 130's I'd shoot the 150's. Look at your ballistics tables as it may help your decision.

And don't forget to check the all-important "SD" because looking stuff up in books is what really matters.

I use 130’s in my 270, they knock fire out of deer and pigs.

I sure hope you looked up the BCs first.

Your a wise man there smokepole. LMAO. You ate way to many paint chips as a kid.

I've seen more elk killed with the 270/130 combo than any other single rifle/bullet combo. All were standard cup and core's. One time I went up to our place and the game warden, who had been culling elk out of the hay meadow, was loading the last of the six elk he had just shot into the truck. Yup, 270/130.

I doubt he read "ballistic tables."

I have used the 95gr TSX through the 160gr partition out of my 270's.

Lately I have settled on a 130gr monometals.

With that being said, you can use any of three partition weights listed and have nary a worry.

I know of a firm which is hired out to kill whitetails. They use .338 win mags w/250 grain bullets as the don't want the animals to leave the property. They claim those whitetails don't even twitch. Haven't tried it myself but maybe one day I'll take old maggy out whitetail hunting.

I'm willing to bet that most 270's shoot 130 grain bullets better than they do 150 grain. Might be why you see those 270/130 combo.

Don't read or no anything about bullet drop or wind pushing bullets. If you have a chronograph and know bullet speed using ballistics charts give you a good basis as to bullet drop and windage. Those two things are pretty important to me. Then get out there and test that information. Shoot shoot and shoot some more.

**sigh**
I'll bet a chambering/bullet conversation with those "experts" would be an interesting and enlightening discussion: "Yep, we shoot them at the base of the neck (or head) and it drops them right there".

I think their shooting at distances to far to try for head shots. Could go for base of the neck shots but wastes meat when donating animals. I've seen some of their damage to the animal pictures, and their shooting them through the lungs. Quite a devastating hole.

But we all know that if we used a cannon ball @ 3000 fps vs. a needle @ 3000 fps at point blank range, the cannon ball is going to kill them faster.

Have you seen what a vanilla 270 with a 130 grain Sierra GK does to deer lungs?

It's a good bet that for a dedicated lung shooter a 264 mag loaded with 100 grain Ballistic Tips will be more of a "right now dropper" than a 338 with a 250.

No I haven't I'm a Nosler Partition guy. I do know how fast they drop using a .270 wsm 150 grain. Probably killed 20 -30 whitetail in last 10 years only one took more than one step.

But if that GK really explodes their lungs can you imagine what a .338 Sierra GK would do to deer lungs traveling at the same speed as your 270?

130s for deer and similar size.
150s for elk, bear and moose.
Probably shoot to a very similar poi.

140s for you buddy.

Your thesis has two problems: 1. The 338 Win mag you mentioned earlier doesn't move 250 grain bullets nearly as fast as a 270 does 130's. 2. You fail to take bullet construction into account. The 338, 250 grain GK is built tougher than the 270, 130 grain GK and won't upset nearly as much in the relative light resistance of a deer chest cavity.

Please share your 338 load that will launch a 250 gr bullet at 3000-3100 fps.

I've had 6 different 338 WM's... I've never broken much over 2,700 fps with any 250 gr. bullet/powder combo. And having killed elk with the 338 WM/210 Partitions at nearly 3,000 fps, vs. a 270/130 at 3,000 fps, I've not seen any difference in demise.

You're totally correct. The .338 win mag is only going 2750 fps and .270 is going 3000 -3100 fps. And because the GK 250 grain bullet is built stronger because it doesn't go as fast. That's what you're saying correct? The GK .338 bullets traveling at slower speed are built stronger than bullets traveling at higher speeds. I'm no expert on this particular question but if I were Sierra I would be building the faster moving bullet harder than slower moving bullets. But hey what the he!! do I know.

And I'm sure you're correct if you're saying that the .270 GK in 130 grain bullets are way more devastating on whitetail than a .338 win mag GK 250 grain bullet I"m sure you're correct on that.

Hey Southtexas I'm not sure where I got that load data that launches a 250 gr bullet and 3000-3100 fps. Maybe I didn't even post anything like. Maybe I was inferring that the .338 win mag 250 grain bullet is close to a .270 150 grain bullet. 150 fps maybe 200. But isn't that nit picking a little as it's only about a 7% difference in speed.

But again we can all agree that if we used a cannon ball @ 3000 fps vs. a needle @ 3000 fps at point blank range, the cannon ball is going to kill them faster. Keep making all the arguments about bullet construction, speed, etc, etc, etc.

But we all know bigger vs. smaller. Nuclear bomb vs. hand grenade. .416 rigby vs bb gun. Do I need to go on. LMAO

I love this debates.

No, I did not say the 338 bullet was built tougher because it wasn't as fast.

Your absurd examples are not relevant to the real situations.

You stated that I failed to take bullet construction into account. What did you mean by this?

The 338, 250 grain GK bullet is built by Sierra with a heavy jacket and hard core material so it will resist coming apart on impact with game much heavier than deer. The 270, 130 grain GK is pretty much a deer bullet.

Because I magnified the situation you don't see the relevance???? I'm not sure what is hard to understand.



I totally agree with this statement. But this does not make the .338 less devastating on an animal such as a whitetail. Seeing this information on the internet is simple. Go out do some research and look at pictures of whitetails shot with .338 vs .270's. It's easy for me to see which does more damage.

This is a really stupid argument. But I love the debate. I find it funny on these threads that if someone mentions the a larger caliber is better or kills faster the thread just blows up.

Most know that bigger, faster is more devastating creating larger wound channels and internal damage. Others well........

Have you seen the results of shooting a deer broadside through the rib cage with a first generation 130 Ballistic Tip loaded full throttle out of a 26" barreled 270? A 250 out of a 338 Winchester would have a hard time keeping up with that level of damage.

You stated earlier the team of "snipers" wanted deer dead on the spot. News flash - they aren't punching lungs to get the desired effect.
If a 20lb hammer hits the spine and breaks it with aplomb, why would one need a 40lb'er to accomplish the same thing?

He also said they were shooting them through the lungs. Any thoughts on DRT percentages with that shot for 130 SGK started at 3100 vs 250 SGK started at 2600?

He must've got it from the funny papers, er, I mean ballistics tables.

280 Remington is my choice.

Will a 280 launch a 250 gr bullet at the same MV as a 270/130?

Well Brad, aren't you glad you asked?????

A guy certainly can get an "education" around here...

Wow. Just when I thought I'd read it all.

Obvious that Adams has done his internet research here. No sense arguing with an 'expert'.

Shoot the one that is most accurate out of your rifle/load and don't look back.

Im a fan of 130's. and that is for deer and elk.

I might agree with that IF. IF that bigger bullet is NOT constructed so heavy it resists opening up.
THAT has already been brought out...did you catch it ?

From PERSONAL experience ‘bigger’ & ‘faster’ does NOT always mean more destructive.

REAL life reality **

In my 8mm Rem Mag. I shoot 200 gr bullets at 3100 + FPS. That’s .323 dia.- 200 grain @ 3100 +
For WT (whitetail) I don’t use N Ps.

The Speer 8mm 200 gr spitzers are STOUT enuff that they DONT open sufficiently or quick enuff for the destruction that I expected and that you reference.

I haven’t tried them yet but the front end of the 200 gr N Ps might very well open quicker and give expected destruction.

I doubt the 250 gr 338 bullets will open quick enuff on WT to be as destructive as opined.

Jerry

Alright, how did this turn into a 338wm vs. 270 thread? Lets get this thing back on track. I vote 150gr. nosler partition for an all around use deer and elk bullet. That's what I decided to settle on with my 270 rifles. They always shot the 150's just fine and reached velocities in excess of 2900 fps. Pretty good for 22" tubed rifles. We all know Bob loved the 130's and for good reason. I also agree with some of the others that said, use what shoots best in said rifle. Really, there's probably not enough difference in these bullet weights to even tell the difference on game, at any sane shooting distance...

For sure. Couldn't agree more. For normal ranges you cannot pick a bad one from the 270's. I kinda gravitate towards the 150's as I have a slew of them and BBC's to go along with them, but have been shooting the 130 Tipped TBBC in my little Featherweight. Wouldn't even blink about using it for just about anything.

All depends on what you want from the bullet. For example, if what you want with an expanding bullet is primarily penetration for mid size game animal hunting (antelope, deer, sheep, and so on), then the 130 grainer is fine. But if you want the most penetration on moose and elk size animals, then step up to the 150 grainer (.279 SD). The 140 grainer works well, too (.261 SD), but the 150 is king. The said, a 130-140 monolithic bullet should be more than plenty for moose and elk (it will out-penetrate the Partition).

I personally would choose a 150-grain controlled expanding bullet such as the 150-grain Partition or Accubond for everything.

My 270 Shoots the 140gr Accubonds and the 150gr Partitions about the same as far as accuracy goes.
My observation is the partitions penetrate a little deeper and the Accubonds make a Bigger wound channel.
I get 3000fps with the 150gr Partitions and 3100fps with the Accubonds. I,m working on loads for the 130gr
Barnes TTSX and the 110gr TTSX. I get 3400fps with RL16 and RL17 using the 110gr Barnes.

Please do not tell any animals about this.... But I grew up and have continued to use Nosler Part. & BT's that are Factory seconds. 150's always in the 270win. They have always been reliable and accurate for me. So I stopped looking for the answer to the problem I was not having.

A .270 was meant to shoot a 130gr bullet. Maaaybe a 140.

If yer gonna shoot 140s, ya need a 280:

Care to share why you think you need a 280 to shoot 140s?

270 --> 130

280 --> 140

30-06 --> 150

It was a funny.

Everyone KNOWS the 280 is FAR superior to the 270’ right?.

Well I guess... Missing sarcasm, maybe.

Using a 140 grain NAB in a 270 gives a slightly superior BC than the same 140 in 7mm. Velocity with maximum loads is ~3000 fps, with neither being 100 fps better than the other. If anything, I've been able to get a little more from the 270 given equal barrel lengths. So, virtual twins the way I see it with 140s.

virtual twins, period.

But, But, But there is .007" difference in diameter.

And a huge difference in case capacity

Not to mention the superior case design of the 280. The longer neck may contribute as many as five additional shots before the barrel goes South.

338 vs 270 ? This would be a good combo in Africa or Alaska but otherwise how did this come up?

My 280AI doesn't gain enough to make it worth forming cases, cool round though.