This questions is along the same lines as the post about .17 Rem. question. I got slammed on another Forum for sugesting that the .270 was designed off the .30 Govt.(30-03) and not on the 30-06 case. overall case lengh for the .270 and .30 Govt. is 2.54" and the O6 is 2.494". so therefore winchester would have had to lenghen the neck of the 30-06 by .046". A 30-06 with a .046" longer neck is dmensionaly identical to the .30 Govt.
What say you??


Richard

IMHO, that's just nit picking. Since the .30-06 replaced the .30-03 it's just common practice, IMHO, to say that certain cartridges are based on the .30-06 case. Examples, in SAAMI standardized cartridges, are the .25-06 Rem, 270 Win, .280 Rem, .338-06, and .35 Whelen. Small differences in case length (or shoulder angle) are a minor point. Heck, the .280 Rem even has the shoulder a little further forward than the others but the designers of the cartridge (Remington) started with the basic .30-06 case dimensions and then just made slight modifications.

By the way, the .30-03 and the .30-06 are really just lengthened versions of the 7x57 and 8x57. The rim and base diameters are the same. Similarly, the . 300 Win Mag, .338 Win Mag, and the .350 Rem Mag (as examples) are based on a shortened .375 H&H case.

My two cents...
Cheers!
-Bob F.

Have you ever necked a 30-06 down to .270? It comes out of the sizer die with a longer neck.

More .270 info.

http://www.chuckhawks.com/270win.htm

Yep,Thats why you trim to length.Not only that ,some times you have to neck turn them because it thickens when necking down.

Yep,Thats why you trim to length.Not only that ,some times you have to neck turn them because it thickens when necking down.

Huntz, we heard you the first time......

Parent case for the .270 Winchester was the .30-03

Prove it.

Google...Google...Google...

According to a well-known internet source, Wikipedia :

The real question:

Can the .270 Win be ackley improved? If so, what gain in velocity can someone get out of it with 140gr. bullets?

Yes, the .270 win. can be Ackley improved, but Ackley himself said that there was not enough gain to be worth it.

stop asking these stupid questions.

Off topic but hntnnut you sure live in some beautiful country. I was just there on a G3 hunt. I love the eastern Sierras. Too bad you fellows can never draw tags to hunt in your own backyard. I got a pard up in Independence that's been putting in for G3 for years and never been drawn. You ever do any coyote calling? I never saw any while I was there but I figure they gotta be there. Did see 2 golden eagles soaring over Division Creek. That was quite a sight.

NoCAL

Who cares? I just buy factory brass and start reloading.

I suppose the same question could be asked about the 25-06. I've got one of them too and I do the same: buy factory brass and reload.

I used to try to make 270's out of FA 60 brass. By the time I got the necks thinned down enough to chamber and trimmed down to length, I figure my time was worth about 35 cents per hour.

Wayne

My finger stuttered!!!

If you depend on Google or Yahoo, you will get a lot of wrong answers. Most people mistakenly believe that the .270 is just a necked-down .30-06.

Actually, the basis for the .270 was the .30-03.
The .270 case length is 2.530. The .30-06 is 2.484.

My original source was Jack O'Connor's 1964 book on hunting rifles, where he describes how he heard about the .270 being developed in 1923, and put himself in line to receive one of the first ones to try. I also discussed it with one of the famous builders of .270 custom rifles, Paul Jaeger, in 1968. Later sources include visits to the Winchester factory and conversations with their engineers. You might also refer to the Buffalo Bill Museum in Cody, Wyoming, and The Winchester Book, which I think is in reprint now.

It's more interesting, in an arcane, non-consequential way, than anything I've ever seen you post. So stop making these stupidly snide posts...

DN

The 30-03 was dead & buried before the 270 was born.

Mike

FWIW:

Phil Sharpe wrote in his book The Rifle in America:



Sharpe stuck to the same story in his book Complete Guide to Handloading.

Sharpe's been wrong before, but since he shot a .270 before Jack O'Connor heard of it, I'd take his word that the .270 was derived from the .30-06.

Since a .30-06 necked to .270 is longer than a .270, the derivation from a .30-06 seems logical.
--Bob

The .30-03 may have been obsolete by 1905, but its case was still the basis of the .30-06 and the .270 Winchester.

My grandfather came to Virginia in 1621, and was a legal colonist.

I have read that the 270 was originally a new cartridge and bore diameter designed for the Chinese as a military cartridge in the Mauser 98.

Jeff

I too seem to remember hearing/reading something along this line. I am not sure, but I think the Chinese cartridge was off the 6mm Lee case and not the `03 or `06. I can`t remember when nor where though.......you`re likely more right then I

Ahhh, let'see Lee24. - If your grandfather came to Virginia in 1621 (that's 376 years ago), you must be mighty long-in-the-tooth by now.

I would have to do some counting to see how many great-great-greats there are on that grandfather.

The .30-03 is the father of the .30-06 and the .270 Winchester, and the grandfather of the .25-06 and the .280 Remington.

Hey, at least this is a legitimate gun-related query.

You want to see stupid, go up to the "campfire" section and you will find stupid +P+, in wholesale quantity.....

More like long in the nose from telling lies.

Mike

Carefull there MM you'll piss someone off.

Hell, I'm guilty of contributing to the drivel, now and then.

I'm not making a career of it though.....

The 270 was designed to have the same neck length as the 30/06 and that makes for a greater overall length because when you neck down you shorten the neck.

When you neck down the lower portion of the neck on the bigger calibre forms part of the shoulder on the necked down case.

If you a put a 25/06, 270 and 30/06 together then you will see that the distance from the head of each case to junction of the shoulder and neck is greatest with the 25/06 then 270 then 30/06. Thus if all three cases had the same overall length then the smaller calibre will have the shortest neck. On the other hand if you give each calibre the same neck length then the smaller calibre will have the greatest overall length.

Do the 25-06, 270, and the 30-06 share a common datum line ?

Might throw the 280 in with that question as well.

According to the SAAMI drawings in my old NRA Handloading book, the headspace dimension on the chamber of the 25-06, 270 Win, and .30-06 is 2.0487" minimum, 2.0587" maximum. Diameter at that length is 0.375".

For the .280 Rem, the values are 2.110" max, 2.100" min, and 0.375" diameter.

--Bob

Actually, Jack O'Connor was a space alien.

His Starship missed the Roswell target, ...so he made the best of things....in the Tucson area.

The cartridge dimmensions did not come from this universe.

live with it.

Best wishes, for a Merry Christmas.

GTC

Lee-

Could you post the title of the 1964 book and the page number(s)?

Thanks.

--Bob

BFaucett,
The US government had to pay money to Mauser to settle a patent infringement suit over the .30-03, because it was based off the 7x57 and 8x57 cases, and on the .30-06 for copying the Mauser light .323 spitzer bullet, and on the 1903 Springfield action.

Not only does the .270 Winchester have the same case length as its parent, the .30-03, but also the same overall length of 3.34 inches that the .30-03 has with its standard 220-gr round nose bullet.

There's some really good info about it in Jon Speed's new book "The Mauser Archive".



Available here: http://www.collectorgrade.com/

-Bob F.

The M 1 Garand prototypes were originally chambered for the 270. When the Grand hit Douglas McAurthur's desk for final approval (He was Army Chief of Staff), he sent the design back to be chambered 30 06. The deciding factor: The Army had warehoused full of 30 06 ammo.

RogerK-

I suspect you're confusing the .270 Winchester with the .276 Pedersen. The story is told in Hatcher's Notebook, pages 158-169. Ken Waters wrote an informative piece about the .276 Pedersen in Handloader #131. Both this article, and Ken Howell's cartridge book have drawings of the Pedersen.

Capt. Grosvenor Wotkyns wrote a glowing report of the .276 in Hunting & Fishing magazine of January 1929.

--Bob

Hard to believe that such a simple question could stir the souls of so many! I think some folks need to get a job and off welfare, I mean get a life..Whats in a silly milimeter?

I think it is unlikely Winchester necked down the 30/03. There are just too many sources stating the 30/06 was necked down to produce the 270. All of the people involved are dead so it's unlikely we'll get a first hand answer!
I did actually get to handle the first 270 to leave the Winchester plant. A Model 54 with a serial number of 21, this rifle was sent to Ashley Haines who resided in Salmon Arm BC and wrote for Outdoor Life at the time.
The rifle was brought into the shop by Haines' great nephew. He wanted to see about getting it drilled and tapped and a scope mounted. The rifle seemed a bit special with the serial number engraved rather than stamped so I declined the job and recommended he write Winchester for a history. He brought back the letter describing the rifle and it's history. Winchester expressed an interest in purchasing the rifle but, as far as I know, the fellow decided to keep it. A neat bit of history. This occurred about 30 years ago in Kamloops, B.C. GD

greydog-
That's a fascinating story. You have to wonder where the rifle is now.

The very first rifle to be chambered in .270 was a modified P14/M1917 Enfield. There's a picture of it in Handloader #241 on page 10.

In its lab, Winchester apparently was playing with the .270 as a possible military cartridge at least seven years before they introduced the cartridge commercially in 1925.

--Bob

My suspicions are confirmed............ Now what?

greydog -
Like all historical facts, the original witnesses may have passed away, but they documented the facts as they occurred. Jack O'Connor, the Winchester engineers, and others with direct knowledge all said the .270 Winchester was developed from the .30-03, just as the .30-06 was.

Lee-
I'll repeat my above request for the title of the 1964 O'Connor publication and page number wherein he made the statement you aver he made.

Thanks.
--Bob

I am on the road, and have read and own a lot of Jack O'Connor books. IIRC correctly, it is an entire chapter on the early .270s in The Book of the Rifle (1949). I have the 1964 edition. You can find the page yourself.

Also, there are his letters discussing the new rifle with Winchester in his collection of papers, some of which I have read, at
Washington State University Libraries
Manuscripts, Archives, and Special Collections
Pullman, WA 99164-5610 USA
(509) 335-6691

The Last Word on the Subject:

I think God created the 270. It was Imaculate Conception. No idea. No man involved. It just came.

I'm going out in the snow in about an hour for some late season pheaseant hunting and I feel good!

Good thing you aren't going after anything big and dangerous like turkeys. The 270 ought to be big enough for pheasants, not so sure about anything bigger.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.


There! It had to be said.

Bullshooter, you have the right screen name. Why don't you go to the library or do some research on your own. Anyone can sit at home and tell someone who knows the facts, "It ain't so!", without submitting any facts of their own.

Now just look who's talking....the world's greatest Google cowboy.

I also heard somewhere that Lee Harvey Oswald actually used a Mannlicher-Carcano rechambered to .270 winchester, but he used one piece of.30-06 brass that he had necked down, trimmed to length, and neck turned and one piece of .30-03 brass that he just necked down without any other modifications.!

Selmer & MikeNZ-
You should cut Lee some slack. He's away from his home library and is frustrated at not being able to look up his references. If he takes out some of his frustration on me, I guess my shoulders are broad enough to handle it.



Lee-

My doing the library work you suggest is complicated by not having a correct title for O'Connor's 1964 book. As far as I can tell, O'Connor wrote no book titled The Book of the Rifle. Books with that title have been written by Jim Carmichel (O'Connor's successor at Field & Stream), by John Olson, and by A. G. Banks.

I know that O'Connor wrote at least three books specifically on rifles: The Rifle Book, The Big-Game Rifle, and The Hunting Rifle. I have copies of all three in my library. The Hunting Rifle was first published in 1970, and The Big-Game Rifle in 1952. Since neither ran through a second edition, and were not put out in 1964, then they probably aren't the book you're remembering.

The first edition of The Rifle Book was published in 1949, a second edition in 1964, and a third edition in 1978. Is it safe to assume that this is the book to which you referred? I have only the 1978 third edition, and cannot find in it the reference to the .30-03. However, it may be that it is in the second 1964 edition.

I have a copy of this edition on the way, and will seek diligently the .270/.30-03 material. Because I like to read O'Connor, this search will not be a chore. If I find the .30-03 - .270 connection, I'll be pleased to post it to this thread and confirm your memory and knowledge.

If the reference appears in a different O'Connor book, it would help if you would post to that effect here.

Although shoveling b.s. is part of the quadruple pun involved in my screen name, I'm pretty serious and very curious about the history of cartridges. I try to do my homework and contribute documented opinion where possible. You appparently overlooked my quotes from Phil Sharpe, post #1870164 above.

Travel safely.

--Bob

When I first read the real history of the .270, the inventor of Google had not been born. I don't understand why it makes some people sore that they don't know the facts, can't find them on their own, and can't understand them when spoon feed from authorities. Oh well,...

At least Bullshooter has made some effort, but seems to be falling into the logical fallacy of "if I can't find it, that disproves it". No, it just means you still haven't found any facts that prove it to you, and you haven't found any facts to dispute what I have said ( which is just passing on the history from those who were there ).

Well, I don't know the correct parent case for the 270, but I will say this; if you simply neck down a 30-06 in a 270 Win die, the result is a case that is definitely shorter than a true-to-SAAMI-specs 270Win. I know this for a fact, because I just went in and sized a few to check. Those who have said you end up with a case the correct length or (as I believe one post said) even longer than a true 270 Win. are incorrect, according to my tests.

Like I said, I don't know the real history of the 270 because I wasn't there, but I know for a fact that they had to start with a case longer than a 30-06 to end up with the case we now know as the 270 Win. Now, if you want to argue about the correct use of the terminology regarding what constitutes a "parent case," feel free. That's an entirely different issue. Just my .02.

Winchester didn't bring out the 270 until 1925, and by then, it's doubtful there were any 30-03 cases floating around since it was put out of commission in 1906, some 19 years earlier.

And who cares? The 270 is just a 30-06 somebody ruined.

Wayne

Hey! You talking about the 270 Winchester Center Fire?------AKA the 30-06 Improved?..........sheesh


Casey

Hey, new idea for wildcat. Take a 270 case, keep necking it up till it will take a serious big game bullet (180-220 grains) and stop when you get to 308 diameter. Ought to turn that varmint rifle into an elk rifle.

Wayne

I'm a bit apologetic for bringing this thread back from the murky depths, but there are a couple of loose ends that need tying up.



I obtained a copy of the 1964, second edition of O'Connor's The Rifle Book.

Pages 218-229, part of the chapter on "All Around Rifles", give the story of O'Connor's early adventures with the .270. There is nothing on the origin of the .270 in this chapter. O'Connor relates that he first learned about the .270 in a 1925 ad.

On page 17, O'Connor wrote, "The .270 is only a .30/06 case necked down with the same shoulder angle."

On page 94, O'Connor wrote, "The .256 Newton case was a .30/06 case necked to .256, and the .270 Winchester case is simply the .30/06 case necked down to .270 with the same slope of shoulder retained."

There is nothing in the book to indicate that O'Connor thought the 30-03 was the parent case of the 270.




I obtained a 1985 copy of Madis' The Winchester Book. A careful perusal of all 654 pages showed nothing on any aspect of the development of the 270 cartridge.

--Bob

I am going to say that the 30-03 is the 270's grampa and leave it at that.

And I'm going to say that the 30-03 was obsolete, with no rifles made for it in 19 years prior to the introduction of the 270.
I'll leave it to readers to figure out what makes more sense.

Wayne

Jack O�Connor�s dedication to the .270 Winchester which originated from the early 30-03 military cartridge case (not the 30-06 as is widely believed), convinced many American big game hunters who wanted accuracy without a wallop of recoil, to try the cartridge. Ironically, O�Connor and another popular gun scribe, Idahoan Elmer Keith, clashed over the favorable aspects of the .270 versus the 30-06 in a battle that wore on throughout both writer�s long lives.

- A .270-ist never runs out of conversation
By Paul Bruun
Jackson Hole News
Date: October 18, 2006

So this guy Paul Brunn (I assume that you are quoting him) writing in the esteemed gun magazine The Jackson Hole News, is the world's greatest authority on the .270, and Jack O'C doesn't know nothing.

Lee, get back on those meds.

He is one of several authorities I have posted, but if you have one from New Zealand, post it.

It's already been proven that 2 of the authorites you cited stated the 30-06 was the source. Has anything that wasn't an outright lie ever been typed on your keyboard?

That's strong talk from someone who hasn't posted any authority to dispute mine, who include those who knew Jack O'Connor, O'Connor himself, the Winchester Museum, the NRA Museum, Charles Newton - maybe they are all wrong, but I doubt it.

Come on Lee, remember this? It's actually what brought this post back to the top.



Let's repeat out loud - "O'Connor said 30/06"

The .30-03 case length = 65.0 mm
The .270 case length = 64.5 mm
The .30-06 case length = 63.35 mm

You can't neck down a shorter .30-06 case and create a longer .270 case with the same shoulder angle. That's why you have to start with a .30-03 if you want to make a proper .270 WCF.

O'Connor got it wrong, just like a lot of others, but he realized he was wrong after being corrected. He wasn't right about a lot of things where his knowledge was second-hand, just like today's people who buy the rumor 10th-hand.

Sorry case really.

They took away his Kahuna-hood and he just fell to pieces . . . .

BMT

Excuse, I am going out to the hog barn now.

Less manure odor.

BMT

That sounds like a good place.

My answer from a couple of days ago.

Casey

Americans thought in English units of inches: .45, .30, .25, .27, .28, with appropriate bore sizes adding 0.007 to 0.008 inches.

The US Army had already lost a patent infringement suit with Mauser over the .30-06 and the spitzer bullet. Mauser already had the 6.5x55, 6.5x57 (.264), 7x57 (.284), 8x57 (.323), so using a metric bore was just asking for more trouble, even if the engineers had been so disposed.

Using the .30-03 as a base for the .270 WCF not only gave more powder and the desired shoulder angle, but avoided using a cartridge that had spawned several lawsuits.

the 270 has the same case, and the same shoulder angle as the 30/06. It is effectivley a 30/06 necked down to 277, with a slightly longer neck. Or it's a necked down 30/03 with a slightly altered neck length (I guess).

Who the heck cares?

Lee24 are you saying that you know what the Winchester engineers in the early 20's were thinking? Perhaps you have had a s�ance?

Otherwise, neither side can win, and what difference would it make anyway?

Why don't we argue whether a 150 Ballistic tip at 2900fps works better than the same bullet at 2925fps...

I am not arguing at all, just stating what I know, and there is a lot more. Maybe I should stop posting to deaf ears and write an article, using original sources.

Maybe we can start a thread on 150-gr bullets out of the .270 vs 150-gr bullets out of the .30-06 at the same speed.

Based on the .30-06 with the length to bottom of the neck in the 0.270 longer than the .30-06 so that .270 cartridges could not be fired in a .30-06.

.270= 2.156
.30=06= 2.109
That's the standard story-right or wrong I can't confirm-that many said as far back as the 50's.

Battue

Lee, do you suppose that your humility (or lack thereof) just might be the reason for your poor reputation here on the 'fire?

Is this just your internet persona? Or are you like this in person, also? Just curious.

Boys, step away from your computers. Go outside and shoot something. You'll feel much better soon.

I do remember reading that Jack O'Connor said that if the .270 had only been available with the 150 grain bullet, that it would not have become as popular as it did, especially in the western states and open country.

The reason was the flatter trajectory of the 130 grain bullet at higher velocity.

yep, if the info is on the internet, it just HAS to be accurate.

Original velocity for factory .270 WCF was 3,140 fps with 130-gr flat-base bullets, but they backed off to 3,060 - a marketing ploy that persists to today's WSM cartridges.

I got no dog in this fight but looking objectively it seems mighty hard to argue with Mike378 and IDshooter who actually took the time to test things for themself. Good on ya boys! Their data is scientifically drawn and not hereditary. As such it appears to me Lee has it right folks. You can argue about who said what in what book or article but as to the original question the answer seems to me to be 30-03 unless someone can counter 378 and ID's conclusions.

"Original velocity for factory .270 WCF was 3,140 fps with 130-gr flat-base bullets, but they backed off to 3,060 - a marketing ploy that persists to today's WSM cartridges."

I agree with the WSM "marketing ploy" statement but I question the other part about the speed being backed down. I've always understood that the 3140 was reduced because it was found that that speed was difficult to reach without pressure spikes etc. that made the lower 3,060 easier to keep in line without pressure problems...

Dew

Pre WWI, China had 6.8x57 and 6.8x60 cartridges. (DWM #511A-E)

Somewhere I read Winchester had a contract to make some of this ammunition for them, but I can't find the reference.

Winchester: "We have these .277 bullet-making dies. What can we do with them?"

Bruce

The original Winchester claim for the 270 Win. was actually 3160 fps. with a 130 gr. bullet out of a 24" bbl., and they did actually achieve that velocity or come very close to it, and I have myself chronographed old factory 270 Win. 130 gr. loads that did clock over 3100 fps. and out of a 22" bbl., no less.

Of course, all sorts of non-factory 270 Win. rifles have been built since 1925 on countless military actions of all descriptions, some of which have been brittle or soft; not to mention barrels with varying actual bore diameters, odd throat and lead dimensions, crooked chambers, etc., etc. Some of these rifles simply weren't suitable for use with high-pressure 270 Win. factory ammo, so prudently, the factories cut back on the powder, and they've gone to seating the bullets pretty deeply as well. I've chronographed recent factory 270 Win. 130 gr. loads that were under 2800 fps., and accuracy was abysmal, at least in my rifle.

So I personally consider the 270 Win. to be primarily a handloaders cartridge, and Bob Nosler once stated that very opinion to me himself.

I don't have any trouble achieving the same sort of results that Jack O'Connor and Bob Lee reported with 130 gr. and 150 gr. bullets out of most of the 270 Win. rifles I've owned (mostly with 22" bbls.) and my own current rifle (22" tube/1-10" twist) gets 3140 fps. with the 130 gr. Nosler Partition, Winchester cases, Federal 215 primers, and H4831sc powder.

Back in the good ol' days, John Jobson reported 3200 fps. with 130s out of his 270s, but his pressures must have been very high - too high for my liking, and for any 270 Win. rifle I've ever owned.

AD

I can offer the following information for consideration. From The American Rifleman
July 1, 1925 �A New Winchester Bolt Action Rifle� by E.A. Price � The new .270 WCF cartridge designed especially for this rifle is a praiseworthy achievement of our New Haven friends. It is simply the .30 Springfield shell necked down to .270 caliber, the shell being very slightly lengthened in the process.�

Mauser had nothing to do with the 30-03, 30-06 or the bullet. Around 1914 Deutsche Waffen- und Munitionsfabrik (DWM) filed for a patent infringement not on the 30-06 but the spitzer bullet, the case was not settled until 1928 when DWM was awarded $400,000.

Out of court, the US Government also agreed to pay a royalty to Mauser for the design of the 1903 Springfield.

I think some people misunderstood when I said that the initial .270 MV of 3,140 fps was "marketing hype like the the WSMs", as meaning the numbers are phony. No, the numbers of the .270 WCF and the WSMs were real, but obtained with high pressures. Then they are relaxed after sales took off. They did the same with the .300 Win Mag.