Wait, I did that one awhile back

Any Looney KNOWS a 6.5 is MO Betta!!!

GFY.

LOL

Well if goes bang...

You bet!

both are good rds

6.5-06 is the taller dorky sister of the 6.5-284

So from pure speed and flight path what's a 270?

Really surprised the industry has not tried to market the 26-06, seems it might have a following from hunters, Joe Blow wants speed, perhaps Nosler will have ltd success w/their new round.

.270 and pocket .270.

How about a 6.5cartridge for the masses that isn't a proprietary round like the Grendal.

What say about a 6.5 SPC?

The 260 should have been a really hot seller. but remington didn't support its own with goiod ammo selection or make a good varity of rifles so chambered at once in the begining

DMS, yes, that's why Hornday stepped in and re-named it. Their Creedmoor is a good round, but diluted the sales of the 260, and perhaps 47 Lapua. Where ONE could do fairly well, folks are split in what they can buy, or choose to build. Remington is not willing to be aggressive in pricing ammo like Hornady, and yes, they dropped the ball LD - like many times before. Rem should avoid ANY new product if they are not going to be committed to it. Folks will continue to shy from ANY new offerings from Rem b/c their track record is dismal at best.

Had Hornady came out with the 260, or the Creedmoor first, then Rem would never had mucked up a product launch. They overpromised, i.e. 140@2750, when production run early on was only running 2550, WTH??? They should have brought it out, TO SPEC like Hornday did with the 6.5CM.

Rem could take a lesson from Hornady, wonder when they will introduce rifles? Hmmm, bet quality control will be right, and price.

Agreed. Remingtons lack of marketing/support is well documented...and not just with the 260, which is a fabulous little round IMO....

.260 Rem is easily my favorite mid-size centerfire cartridge, hands down.

Remington can mess up anything. Just think what they could be as a company if they didn't always mess up their marketing and product launches.

Because old guys are the only ones that will buy it, and without their reading glasses they'll think they're looking at 25-06.

Big liability there...

I get around that problem by using 270 brass in my 6.5-06. If I ever make a mistake and load one in a 270, it'll just squib out.

Oh, that's right, I don't have a .270........

Brad, correct, but 264-06 might change that, no mix up with 264 WM, 260, 26 Noz, or 25-06.

It might sound more palatable to Americans who view the "Six point Five" as a foreign number.

Perhaps 264 Hornady Express........

They sure can. They managed to deal the death blow to the .244, .260, and .280 Remington. I don't think anybody could have sold an 8mm magnum however.

65:

Plug the 260 with a 140 gr Berger at 2750-2800 from a 260 into the Hornady ballistic lab and compare it to a 270-150 ABLR at 2900 fps(any garden variety 270 win will get that from a 22" barrel.

While we are at it, do the same with a 140 Berger in the 6.5/06 at 2900 and I think we will see why the 6.5/06 will likely not see the light of day as a factory offering.

I already did this to 1000 yards, with a 10 mph wind and 200 yard zero, so already know the answers.......but it is pretty enlightening and the only advantage I can see from a hunting standpoint is that a 260 will kick a bit less.

Other than that, there isn't much to see in difference between them.

Ballistic gack notwithstanding, the cool, slick, capable, classic 6.5X55 makes the .260 redundant, unnecessary... contemporary gauche. The .270, well, everybody knows the .270 is gay.

I am continually impressed with how well my .260 shoots. I run 142 SMKs (when I can actually find them) and the thing is stupidly accurate.

Not much of a pic:




If this Lilja tubed 700 starts shooting groups bigger than .3s (for 3 shot groups) from the prone, I know I need to get more stable or focus on my fundamentals harder.

Maybe the chambering of the SPS in 260 will resurrect the cartridge.
I too never understood why it wasn't more popular than what it is.

ahh a fellow shooter who relies on tupper ware and zip lock bags to organize his ammo! I'm in good company...

nice looking rifle, by the way...

260 or 270, both are good long range deer slayers...
so what does it matter... one is as good as the other..

I just prefer the 260, strictly because it is the less popular...

I tend to be the NOT follow the crowds kind of guy...

This^. Probably the reason I hunted with a 9.3x57 some this year. Nobody wanted to bum ammo..

Nice rifle Mac

any caliber is an improvement over the 270

;-)

Bob...

If I want a 130 @ 3k.... I'll do it with a 6.5....

If I want a 150 @ 3k (+).... I'll do it with a 7mm...

Seems pretty simple to me...

I love how the .270 guys get one bullet, the 150 LRAB, and all of a sudden they're ghetto fabulous. There's a pile of options in the .550-.650 BC class in both 6.5 and 7mm.... When the dust settles, my money still says that the .277/150 will come in with a tested BC of about .550-.580... which still ain't bad. But, the .260 can clock a 130 at 2900-3k, with a BC of .550, and do it with 10 grains less powder... and a 25% increase in RPM over the .277 (1-8" vs. 1-10" at equal velocity) which you're convinced helps penetration.

I love how 6.5 guys claim a .50 point jump in BC makes a difference in the real world.

Bob, compare big game bullets. The difference is even more in favor of the 270. When one compares nothing but match bullets and Bergers, the 6.5 has a really slight advantage, unfortunately that advantage doesn't occur until the game is out of range.

Splitting hairs...get one of each! You'll enjoy both...that's what shooting is all about. Me, I'll keep my 270 and my 7mm08. In the hunting world the 7-08 has more going for it than the 260 IMO, and it isn't that much different from a 270 for all practical purposes. There isn�t all that much different between any of the three and any will do what I need. Prairie goat summed it up well. The 260 doesn't really shine until it's way out there at match ranges. For hunting ranges (IMO 500 yards or less) they'll do just fine.

I do lean toward the 7-08 recently as it isn�t as powder hungry as the 270, which is a good thing in this crazy, hard to find reloading components world.
If I was buying a new rifle it�d be a 7-08 because of the ease of reloading for it. If I can�t get 7-08 brass, I can resize 308 without issue most of the time. It's pretty easy to find once fired 308 for cheap. Haven�t see 260 brass around here for some time.

If that's the argument.... then none of it matters. Go even Steven on the BCs.... I'll still take the recoil reduction provided by 8-10 grains less powder.

Scoop of chocolate.... scoop of vanilla ....

If we're talking 300 and in, then there's about 789 different calibers that'll fit the bill nicely.

Or for that matter, like we need yet another 7mm iteration.

Exactly. It's why none of this ballistic gack matters. Just grab a rifle and go hunting.

Well....geeeeezzzz!

This is kinda where I come out and lose no sleep over it.

I was just pointing out that a few new bullets will pretty much even the playing field to the point we can't tell the differences.

Over here I have a couple of 7mm's...some 270's, (one of which is twisted 9")......and within a couple of days expect to help wring out a spanky new 6.5x55 belonging to a friend, to see if I want one myself.....

Same thing people say on the "over-thinking the elk rifle" thread, but that one's gone on what, 20-30 pages?

It's winter. We have to find something to talk about!

I was never able to get the velocities some claim from the 260s I dinked with. 2950 with 120s, 2850 with 130s, and 2750 with 140s is where I topped out in a couple 22" barrels. I don't have vast experience, but put probably 400 rounds through them, and messed with a 6.5 Creedmoor briefly.

While some may take the reduced powder consumption of the 260 (never a bad thing), I'll take the increased velocity and flatter trajectory, as well as the available factory ammo option of the 270. The suitable velocity with heavy bullets option is there with the 270 as well, without having to push things too hard.That is, if we are talking a general use hunting rifle. For a play rifle that will get shot a bunch and will see mostly moderate sized game hunting, a 260 is an absolutely superb choice.

Hey Bob -

Since when did facts make any difference????

They always do that, from historically to date.

CARTRIDGES!!! Not calibers.

Nothing wrong with Tupperware for that application. I don't own a 260 never had. But I had and shot and still shoot a 6.5 x 55. You would have to shoot a few Arks full of herbivores to be able to tell the difference between a 270 and a 6.5. I call my swede a pocket 270. Its winter, its cold in most places in the lower 48. I got a broken ankle so what else is there to do but to talk on the fire. This is what we do. For a big game hunter its really a toss up, I would lean toward the 270/ 7mm RM because ever gas station in areas where big game is hunted, you will more likely than not find a box of those should the need arise, not aways the case with the newer commercial cartridges like the 260.

Ever notice all the comparison's to the 270 winchester, this one is better, that one is better. The 270 just rocks from this layman's point of view. Put cross hairs on animal, pull trigger, bang and dead animal. Pretty simple really.

Yes I know there are a lot of cartridges that will almost do the same thing.

gm -

Sorry to hear about your ankle >> get well soon.

Yes sir, it's COLD here too. We've been in the single and double digits at night with hi's in the 20-30s AND wind. Today we made it to 50* but wind at 25-30 mph.

I've had 270s since the mid 70s and have multiple 270s today. I also HAVE a 6.5X55 that's a sweet rifle and shoots well.

My experience is similar to Prairie Goat's. The Win 70 with 22" bll. has NOT given the velocities 'TOUTED' here. I'm using 129 H Ils and 2800-2850 fps is about tops. I can get between 2900 and 3000 fps with 150 gr 270s.

OTOH the 270 Win with 130s >> 3100 fps is 'common' and easily attained.

I prefer the higher vel. and 'flatter' trajectories. I like and hunt my Swede but it ain't a 270 Win.

That difference is real in trajectory and retained energy.

I agree with you as well, just try to find 260 Rem or 6.5X55 ammo in A LOT of places near good hunting areas.

I will STOP right here before rant begins.

Wonder if the 260 will pick up a little steam with Remington introducing the SPS 260 with an 8 twist 24" barrel for *one* year <<< that is just my guess but they do have a history of introducing good stuff and killing it soon thereafter.

Bob, do you not find it amusing that todays Loonie are still trying to find something to compare to or compete against an 89 year old design


Randy

Randy if we haven't found something that improves on the 270 Winchester in 89 years of trying, then shame on us.

Generally I think they have but it's funny how it takes a lot of modern technological tweaks to do it; yet when the same things are applied to a 270.....well....then it isn't somehow kosher.

The BC's won't hold up...(how do they know this?)....comparing a 150 gr 270 with a .625 BC to a 140 Berger at .618 isn't fair( Well shidt don't blame me! Tell Berger!)

And a .625 BC is fabulous in 7mm;smart shooters build rifles around it! I shoot a lot of 162 Amax myself these days.

But..... give a 270 bullet a .625 BC and the sniping begins!

NOW, it's only "one bullet" (I have never been able to fit more than one bullet down the bore at one time. If it's fine to concentrate on a 162 Amax in 7mm, why is it not OK to do the same thing with a .625 bullet in a 270?)..... and the BC won't hold up and the twist is too slow(easily remedied with nothing more than a check payable to Krieger, and a 9 twist 277 barrel is yours!).

So, we are expected to look at the 270 the same way, leave it with slower twists, use standard old bullets with modest BC's, while critics stack the deck with other cartridges/bullets that are faster and with higher BC's.... and then say the 270 sucks. Mmmmm....... Something about that is not exactly kosher to my way of thinking.

We'll set aside, for the moment, that the 270 Winchester with shidt bullets has slapped more game into the freezer or put more trophies on the wall than any 6 of many of the pets on here combined.

Talk this stuff up, and suddenly you are "jamming" the 270 down everyone 's throats....not the case. Just pointing out flawed thinking. If you are na�ve enough to have anything on here jammed down your throat, you need to get out and kill more animals with more stuff.

No, I suspect that many folks are simply resistant to change.....get entrenched in beliefs, been doing things a certain way with certain things, and the thought that something as old as the 270 could be brought to modern standards does not resonate. It's just too old to ever be modern....interesting.

Good post Bob!!

Bob, good post but you do realize that exactly the same point could be made from the other side of the coin?

I believe the 6.5x55 is older than the .270 Win..... is it not? As is the 7x57 on the other side. The .270 has always been sandwiched between two better rounds.... and marketed as a solution to a problem that never existed... because it doesn't use the metric system. You could go so far as to say the .270 is a racist and anti-European statement round. "Buy a .270 or a .30-06..... don't be a commie."

So, the .270 never quite lived up to the thunder it was trying to steal. They did chamber it in an iconic POS, the 'Rifleman's Rifle'.... that got it kick started. But if JOC hadn't been roped into pimping it (which he hated, the .270 wasn't even his favorite cartridge)... it'd have gone the way of the Lee Navy.

6.5s have (and continue to) put way more fur in the dirt worldwide.... than the .270.... even with you and Billy carrying the torch now. Same with 7s....

I guess sucking hind tit is the best thing the .270 does. Will it kill schitt? Yep, pretty well..... I could even slum one if I had to. But it's hamstringing one's self... intentionally.... kinda like picking the old school hiking boots, rather than the gortex Lowas that are right next to them on the shelf.... just because those are the same boots JOC wore. They're heavier, leaky, and tougher on the feet.... but hey, they work, and have that old school cool.

Technology is your friend my friend.... embrace it. There's nothing wrong with the .270.... they're just building it better now.... they call it the .260.

Bob - All this logic is somewhat ironic, coming from a guy who champions a medium game cartridge that was brought out when we already had the 6.5X55.

Bizarre.

Reminds me of the revisionist history taught in schools today.


Looking at the numbers: 260-140 Berger .618 BC @ 2800 fps; 200 yard zero,10 mph wind:

Drop at 1000- 283.6. Drift- 67.3"

270-150 gr ABLR .625 BC @ 2900 fps; 200 yard zero.

Drop at 1000-260.1" Drift 62.9".

Is .625 BC only ".625 BC" in a 6.5-140 or 7mm-162, but not in .277-150?

The comparison may not be "fair"....the 270 is faster outta the box.

So the .270 is older than both?

The 270 is older than the 260, but not the 6.5x55 or 7x57. WTH does that have to do anything - aren't all three are pretty damn old?

Google up some of the arguments on the euro hunting websites and you may be shocked to find they bich about the same things we do on here when comparing the 270 to the 6.5x55. Most, I imagine, are gravitating to the 270 for the extra velocity, etc. etc. Although, it seems one standout euro cartridge that is holding ground in its niche and gaining even more popularity world wide (even the US)is the 9.3x62. I was shocked to find out that they are as high on the magnum speed stuff as most are on this side of the pond because no matter which way you look at it speed is attractive. The 270's speed offers this in a standard cartridge that kills without beating you silly unlike most of the uberboomermclouden magnum cartridges available.

My friend has a 260 and I LOVE shooting it! But I like easy and stress free, which the 270 has all over the 260, especially when it comes to hunting cartridges and all encompassing murphy variables considered.

Speaking of the 270 and 9.3x62, the bullets designed for these two (until very recently) were designed with these two specific cartridges in mind. Hell this even applies to the rifles chambered for them - how many problems exist for the 7x57 when it comes to its differences in figuring out how to throat the chamber and lengthening the magazine and action among the factory manufacturers that do so? All the other calibers that exist have to contend with all the extra cartridges dipping into the pool. Look at the multiple 6.5 chamberings for instance, 6.5BR to the 6.5Nosler pulls from the 6.5 caliber bullets and every bullet made has constraints when stretched across the full spectrum which likely falls to the wayside for most folks who are not rifle loonies; when you look at the .277 bullets they are made for 6.8 SPC, 270 and wsm cartridges specifically.

I actually feel dumber after having read this shidt.

If the 270 is truly American and anti other stuff, then I'm going to run a 270!

Question: Have you ever owned and killed anything with a 270?

I am kinda pissed off at 6.5BR for starting this crap.

LMAO - Your welcome!

In all fairness, truth, I have run both, and the Swede, 7/08, 7BR, 7RM, 243, - they all killed fine when I did my part.

PG - no doubt, grab an accurate properly sighted rifle w/good loads and Get R Done!

I think rifle choice - inc. Short vs long action, and recoil tolerance is where it falls. Never yet owned a 7x57, but I have seen some nice ones that get me thinking. That said not much cannot be fell with a properly placed 6.5 if not .277 for that matter. Even a 6mm slug will get the deed done fine - my furthest WT deer was 400 yds, stumbled 25 yds after a 105 Amax turned his lungs into Cambell's soup, golf ball sized exit, started over 28.5 Varget at 2850 mv - 6mm Benchrest.

Shot placement w/a good bullet is where it's at, that said, I enjoy practicing more with a lighter recoiling round, and get more rounds downrange in a session without resorting to a excess blast or recoil.

For a non-reloader, I will concede a 270 in America is akin to a 6.5x55 or 7x57 overseas.....they must go bang or it really is all only MM (mental ....)

A big cutoff I see is whether or not the rifle is going to be used on elk. Specifically big bull elk.

To me, the 260 isn't the best for that proposition. Not that it can't do the job, but when it's loaded with what I would consider "elk bullets", the velocity is down there where the trajectory starts to suck.

Load it with lighter bullets for a flat trajectory, and it starts to get into the "I'd better wait for a perfect broadside shot" situation (though some of the TTSX offerings and the like help a bunch here). This doesn't always occur with elk, especially if they're brushed up.

If those sorts of game are not a primary use of the rifle, then go for it. But I'll take a bit more bullet with a bit more speed for the big guys.

And please refrain from the "6.5s have been used for years in Scandinavia" story, as I've heard it before. Those fellows aren't likely hunting the same way we do....namely having the possibility of picking a rutting, jacked up bull out of a herd in a park, to tracking a lone bull through the fresh snow in a blow down hellhole where all you might get is an azzshot at 40 yards, to making a 500 yard shot across a canyon, all of which could occur within a matter of hours and a mile of country. More power to the guys who choose to go light; I see no problem with a smaller 6.5 when wielded correctly. But it's just not what I want for an all around big game rifle for the west.

This kind of question and arguments is amusing but it mostly lght and heat with little difference in application. Fact is, there's a quantium difference in potential between the old .270 and "new" .260 but for most of it's rational uses the .260 is over kill and the .270 is over kill but dead is dead and they both do that quite nicely most of the time.

The real differences in common hunting cartridge comparisons lie at the trajectory at their respective effective ranges and their way-down range thump. And at their extremes, the .260 is a weinie compaired to the .270. As is the .270 compaired to the .338. Etc.

Yes.... and yes....

Like I said, it kills schitt just fine.

They pretty much all kill schitt just fine. To me, the argument is in the minutia...

Please spare me the azz shot at 40 yards in an elk argument. What bullet makes any .270 (or sub-.40 cal) appropriate for that application? Whatever you'd shoot with a .270, I'm pretty sure you'd shoot with a .260 or a Sweede...

Do you see any difference in killing prowess between a .264/120-140 at 2800-3k.... and a .277/130-150 at 2800-3k? I never realized 10 grains and .007" made that much difference to ungulates...

Like I said. Throw big bull elk into the equation, and you're looking at a different ball game. One I'm not comfortable using a 260 for on a full time basis.

Why is the 40 yard azz shot not pertinent to the conversation?

In two 22" 260s, I've been at 2950 with 120s, 2900 with 125s. Max. They were happier a bit shy of that. That's my primary beef with trying to push lower capacity rounds to meet larger. I guy has to push them hard, and he still doesn't get there. Same with the 280 AI vs. 7mm Rem Mag. The larger round just makes life easier.

Will smaller rounds work for big bull elk? Of course. But I feel more comfy with a bit more. I didn't arrive at my opinion in a vacuum. I've seen the 270 work, and work well. I've seen some lighter rounds work well, but have also seen some not so exemplary results....as in bulls packing well placed bullets off quite some distance, and quite some distance down. Which meant they needed packed back up.

Because schitt shots are schitt shots.... caliber/cartridge is irrelevant there.... especially when the delta is .007 and 10- 20 grains in mass....

I know you ain't hunting in a vacuum.... and I know you have experience here.... but do you honestly believe that the above mentioned difference of .007" and 15 grains make any difference at all... given equal bullet construction.

And.... do you really believe that azz shots on elk are a good benchmark for a debate on cartridges that are kissin' cousins?

I'm in the not enough difference to fight over corner so shoot what you want. The one argument I do question regards the popularity and availability of the various 6.5s and 7mms vs the 270 outside of the US. Can some of the folks such as MD & Ingwe and others that have ample experience hunting in Europe and Africa provide a perspective on this. I am under the impression that the 270 is pretty common in Africa and Europe.

I also would not be surprised to learn that the 270 has claimed more game over the years than either the 6.5x55 or even the 7x57 despite their longer existence. One has to remember that the number of people that actually hunted in the 30 years or so preceding the invention of the 270 is in no comparison equal to the number of people that hunt today. I was looking at the stats on the 2013 deer season in My home state of Ky and there were nearly 80k deer taken in the modern firearms season by probably 300k hunters. What was the white population of Africa in say 1900.

This. Thanks for a good read!

Got both, like both. 260 is a 700 MR, 270 M70 Sporter. Been on a "one hit wonder" kick as of late and think I've settle on 125 NPT's at 2,900 in the 260 and 140 NAB's at 3,000 in the 270.

I think those dogs will hunt.....

Kimber 84 and Steyer Forrester are of the highest quality .260s on the market.

I don't think Kimber chambers in 260 anymore.

Pretty simple to my reckoning. If you have a 260, you don't need a 270 and vice versa. Having both is pretty cool though.given the opportunity I'd welcome having a rifle for every cartridge.