why the .270?

[trigger45]

I am intrigued (sp) by this round. why is it so popular? what can it do better than the 30-06? kinda like the way i felt when i recieved my .243 from my DAD. why neck down a .30 cal to something else. the .243 is easy to understand it is popular enough. 100gr will take down a deer and 55 gr will tear a varmit in half!

why why why am i considering this round to be chambered in my next rifle.

can somebody please tell me what is so special about the .270 Win? why is it even made. we can go from .25 cal to .35 and mabe even a .375 cal round made from the .30-06. so why should i pick the .270 over any of the others? is there something that i missed?


thanks for your time.

 

[Tamara]

Because...

...it's the only cartridge on the planet that P.O. Ackley didn't feel needed an "improved" version?

 

[Covert Mission]

Trigger:

Jack O'Connor was sometimes lonely at first in his crusade for the .270, but it's stood the test of time. It's a great round, depending on what you hunt... I use it as my #1 caliber for now, but that's another story.

Were I to start from scratch, I'd pick the .30-06 or maybe, just maybe, the .308 (incredible inherent accuracy), and I wish my favorite rifle was the former. Not because I dislike the .270 or lack confidence in it— I don't— but because '06 is just more versatile. Bullet weights from 100 (?) to 220 grains. Close enough ballistically, and more efficient, than 7mm mag (another good choice, btw). Like '06, .243, and .308, you can find .270 ammo just about anywhere if you don't handload or need some, like in Africa. I've used 140gr Trophy Bonded bullets with excellent results on elk, though some say .270 is too small for the elk. Mine didn't think so

Craig Boddington, one gun writer/hunter whose judgement i trust, picks .30-06 as his #1 caliber choice for all-around use in N. America. It isn't the best at any one thing, but good at the most. If you're mainly a trophy elk hunter, I'd move up to the .338 or at least .300WM/WSM, and maybe even .375H&H if you want to have dangerous game capability too. Ross Seyfried, I think iirc, picked the '06 as his choice for an African light rifle.

There are of course soooooooo many choices theses days, mostly to sell new rifles and dies, and appease peoples' short attention spans. I don't gravitate to the really esoteric wildcats, like the Lazzeronis etc, but i'm more conservative. Many of the super magnums like 7mmSTW are great in theory, but you pay some penalties... recoil, noise (esp w/brake), barrel life, and really, I don't care if I have a ton of energy left at 500 yards! If i can't get closer than that, well, the critter wins that round.

I would love to have a .257 Roberts (AI maybe), a 7mm Mag, a .240 Weatherby, a .300WSM, a .308, a .375H&H... Someday. So, you have to decide what your mission is, and which calibers you'll eventually own, and think about integrating them. I like the idea of the new .300 win short magnum, and short action calibers in general, but haven't shot one. I know the recoil is a step up from '06, which can be stout with 180gr bullets in a light gun. .270 recoil is downright pleasant.

 

[Khornet]

.270

Is a great, classic cartridge with fine accuracy and useful for almost all North American game. Does anyone "need" the .270? No, but that's not why we have so many different cartridges. The .270 is just plain cool. I'll have one sooner or later. If you can only have one centerfire cartridge, I'll take the .30-'06, but who has just one? And after the '06, my choice would be .270 or .257 Roberts. Go ahead, try it.

 

[Sundance]

I have a .270 Browning BAR and plan to get a Winchester Classic Sporter LT in .270 soon. The .270 is a very versatile cartridge. It shoots extremely flat and hits hard. With a 200 yard zero, you have a point of aim kill shot from 0 to 250 yards. It shoots flatter than the .30-06 with less recoil. It is a superb whitetail caliber. It will also take black bear, boar, antelope, mule deer, and elk. Is it the best cartridge for everything...probably not. Is it a good cartidge for everything...probably so. Does it qualify as a candidate for best all around cartridge...definitely. If you like it, buy it...if you don't like it, don't buy it.

 

[Art Eatman]

The standard for the .270 is a 130-grain bullet at about 3,000 ft/sec. The standard for an '06 is a 150-grain bullet at around 3,000 ft/sec.

So, you have a tad over 10% less recoil with a .270. The typical deer or antelope won't know the difference in bullet weight.

Back in the 1930s/1950s, the .270 was regarded as the Ideal Deal for a "Lady's gun". O'Connor basically said, "Hey, if you can shoot worth noticing, it'll do for guys, too!" And, of course, he was right.

You also gotta remember that folks using .270s for elk didn't try to kill 'em out at Omigod distances, either. For one thing, there were more elk and the hunting was pretty much a different deal than in today's world. Lots of folks would take off for a week or two, putting in some time fishing as well as hunting...

The .270 in the hands of a skilled shooter/hunter will do plenty good. 100-grain bullets for varmints, 130- and 150-grain bullets for deer or elk...

Art

 

[Mike Irwin]

The .270 was apparently an outgrowth of some of the experimentation the military was doing with smaller-caliber rounds after the first world war.

The .276 Pedersen was tagged as the replacement for the .30-06 in military usage, in part because it was felt that the 7mm bullet would give better long-range hitting ability.

Someone apparently had the bright idea of necking down the .30-06 to take a Pedersen style bullet (original bullets were very close copies, apparently) and seeing if it would fly commercially.

In reality, the .270 can do anything that the .30-06 can do, with the possible exception of the biggest game, but with flatter trajectory and lighter recoil.

But, had Jack O'Connor not become such a fan of the .270, it's likely that it never really would have gotten off the ground. Other gun writers at the time more or less looked at it, snorted, and said .30-06 wannabe...

 

[Bob Locke]

why the .270?

Because it's on a VERY short list of the best all-around cartridges available to the hunter/shooter. Top four or five (at least), I'd say.

My dad's older brother used one exclusively for about 30 years, and he killed everything from elk on down with it.

It's just a fantastic cartridge.

 

[Futo Inu]

can i ask something?

Besides availability, is the .270 still better overall in y'alls opinion than the .280 rem? Also, Covert Mission, does the 7-08 have the same inherent accuracy as the .308?

 

[Mike Irwin]

The .270 and .280 are so similar as to be balistically identical.

They are loaded with slightly different bullet weights, but in reality they both do the same thing.

 

[BusGunner007]

It only belongs in a "Classic" Winchester Featherweight.
Add Conetrol Custum 1-pc. base and rings with a Leupold 2.5-8 scope; Brownells "Latigo" sling.
Nice rifle.

That's the fun with guns.
If more of us admired each others choices, we'd be having a LOT more fun.

I'll stick with my Remington 700 in 7mm Rem.Mag.

 

[MeekAndMild]

You've got to remember too that the 270 was brought out back in 1925 when the average deer hunter used a 30-30 Winchester or a 30-40 Krag. In 1925 was super fast compared to the loads these hunters were used to. According Ken Water's tables it can be loaded to just a couple hundred FPS slower than the .270 Weatherby Magnum. But he also publishes light loads slowing it down to 1500 FPS.

Both O'Conner and Whenen took a lot of game with it, so its reputation was firmly established within a couple of decades. Now it is hard to get rid of.

 

[Sodbuster]

The .270 is a boring round. It takes a long action. It doesn't have the versatility of the 30-06. It is a true 7mm but that nomenclature belongs to the .284 class of bullets. It's old.

You're right, MandM. It's hard to get rid of, and I'll never get rid of mine. Light recoil, accurate, flat-shooting, easy to reload. The bullets made for it today enhance its utility even more: Trophy bonded bear claws, Failsafes, GameKings. (For a flat-based bullet, I think the Failsafes are quite accurate). If you have a favorite make or model of rifle, odds are you will find it chambered in .270.

 

[Crimper-D]

I Wouldn't turn one down

In my own case, my caliber choices in centerfire rifles range from .22, .24, 6.5 & .30. I just never botherd to choose a .28 when shopping for another rifle. Jack O'conner's writings and praise and his published hunting results take much of the credit for the loads initial popularity. I don't think it'll ever sell more guns or ammo as the 30-06 or the .308, but it'll certainly do for hunting anything in the US.