I'll never be without a 270, If I had to choose only one that would be my pick
Whats the cartridge you LOVE to HATE?
- Thread starter Thebobcat
- Start date
Help Support Long Range Hunting Forum
jake545
Well-Known Member
Creedmoor shooters can rest easy now.
QuietTexan
Well-Known Member
I agree with Stanley, there's finally a surge in modern bullets for the .277s, and the 270 WIN would benefit from custom reamer treatment just like the 300 Win Mag does. Finagle the freebore and throat for newer bullets and there's no reason they can't keep up.
You can almost always keep older cartridges running side by side with newer designs, but the older designs are hamstrung by so many old rifles being out there - so you won't ever see the ammo sitting on the shelf outside the original spec which restricts them to the handloading crowd.
At that point if you're stuck handloading for a custom chamber, why not sharpen up the shoulders a little, take out some of the taper, bulk up the case capacity some... and now we just recreated the 6.8 Western.
jake545
Well-Known Member
He's comparing bullet diameter not rounds.
He specifically referred to the 270win. That's a cartridge. Not a bullet diameter. Also, he stated the he wasn't sure why the .277 isn't as poplar as it should be given the higher BC offerings in the .277 caliber and I stated why I believe that's the case.
6mm and 6.5's are used in SA calibers, lighter recoiling, have more factory support, and the rifles are built with the proper twist rates needed to stabilize their bullets. Being BC is velocity based, I'd say the cartridges it's being used in is a significant factor in the equation.
Address those issues with the the .277 and I have litte doubt that it wouldn't be a more popular caliber / cartridge.
Last edited:
jake545
Well-Known Member
He shifted gears in his post from a 270 win (in response to another post) to referring to .277 bullets compared to 6.5 and 6mm bullets. It's simply about how 277 bullets have greater BC potential than 6.5 and 6mm. He mentioned no other rounds period.
Last edited:
Lol okay. Well that .277 bullet BC apart from the velocity attained from being in an actual cartridge is .000. So it doesn't perform better than anything.
Calvin45
Well-Known Member
You know as much as I am a 270 fan the arguments abojt higher bc bullets for a given caliber changing the game applies to literally every caliber….and with bigger bores and bigger cases still the long range potential is always gonna be greater with sufficient twist.
At some point we'll just have the highest bc bullets tangibly possible in every bore diameter haha, at which point .007 of an inch won't matter much (.277 to .284 for example).
The highest bc .22 pills come close to the highest 6mm ones but not quite. Same for 6 to 6.5. Then same for 6.5 to 7. Then for 7 to .30 cal (and yes it's true…not aware of any 7mm bullets quite up there with the 250 ATIP.
Keeps going that way. There are bore diameters along the way hamstrung by slow twists historically (25, 27, 35…I have rifles in all of those calibers and no 6.5 or 7 haha) but that's all there is to that.
So it eventually just become a question of how big and high bc a bullet you feel you need and how big a case would be required to drive it to the velocity where that bc would still be advantageous (there's lots of .338 bullets that have way higher bcs than any 7mm but if youre starting out with 300-600 fps disadvantage out of a much heavier rifle that still generates more recoil and is much more pricey to practice with you gotta factor that in too).
This is why 7mm and 30 cal mags are unquestionably the kings of long range big game hunting if we're going off popularity. They're big enough to have some very high bc pills that can be driven very fast in cases that still fit "normal" mass produced type actions and while snappy can be controlled my most experienced shooters in rifles that don't seem like artillery pieces to carry in the field. The sweet spot.
Also thinking of military history…now we live in the age of intermediate cartridges but thinking back to ww1 and ww2 era battle rifles…various countries did experiment with bigger and smaller bore diameters but overwhelmingly, proven through real world observation of efficacy, they all seem to have more or less concluded that a sensible field rifle/battle rifle cartridge capable of long range engagements and close ones as well was going to be somewhere between 6.5mm/.26 cal and 8mm/.32 cal.
Smaller had issues (6mm lee navy anyone?)…and there's a reason the 45-70 became obsolete as a military weapon - I recall reading about some battles during the American Spanish war that saw Americans with 45-70s getting their butts handed to them by Spaniards with 7x57 mausers - couldn't effectively shoot back at the distances they were being engaged at - that 11mm Mauser or 43 mauser sucks ballistically as well)
6.5 50 arisaka
6.5x55 Swede
6.5 52 carcano
7x57
280 Ross (an ahead of it's time cartridge in an ill thought out rifle that was reportedly ditched by Canadian troops in ww1 as soon as they could get their hands on an Enfield .303)
7.62x54 r
7.5x55 Swiss
The French and argentine cartridges I can't remember the specific numbers for
.30-06
7.62x51/.308
.303 British (.311")
7.7 Jap
8mm lebel
8x57 mauser
There's no doubt many others, but pretty much every single battle rifle or field rifle cartridge before the age of intermediates and "assault rifles" was within the .26-.32 caliber window. It just makes sense, the right amount of everything.
Of course there were many other calibers and rifles used in war but I'm talking issued en masse to troops.
This rabbit trail to point out its becomes largely arbitrary after a certain point to try claiming there's anything special about any given bore diameter as far as magic bc potential. The bigger the bore the higher bc potential, but twist rate and case capacity determine if that matters or is practical. I love my 270. The 6.5 and 7 sandwich it and i Honestly see no need to try turning the 27 bore into yet another version of the same things it would be competing with.
At some point we'll just have the highest bc bullets tangibly possible in every bore diameter haha, at which point .007 of an inch won't matter much (.277 to .284 for example).
The highest bc .22 pills come close to the highest 6mm ones but not quite. Same for 6 to 6.5. Then same for 6.5 to 7. Then for 7 to .30 cal (and yes it's true…not aware of any 7mm bullets quite up there with the 250 ATIP.
Keeps going that way. There are bore diameters along the way hamstrung by slow twists historically (25, 27, 35…I have rifles in all of those calibers and no 6.5 or 7 haha) but that's all there is to that.
So it eventually just become a question of how big and high bc a bullet you feel you need and how big a case would be required to drive it to the velocity where that bc would still be advantageous (there's lots of .338 bullets that have way higher bcs than any 7mm but if youre starting out with 300-600 fps disadvantage out of a much heavier rifle that still generates more recoil and is much more pricey to practice with you gotta factor that in too).
This is why 7mm and 30 cal mags are unquestionably the kings of long range big game hunting if we're going off popularity. They're big enough to have some very high bc pills that can be driven very fast in cases that still fit "normal" mass produced type actions and while snappy can be controlled my most experienced shooters in rifles that don't seem like artillery pieces to carry in the field. The sweet spot.
Also thinking of military history…now we live in the age of intermediate cartridges but thinking back to ww1 and ww2 era battle rifles…various countries did experiment with bigger and smaller bore diameters but overwhelmingly, proven through real world observation of efficacy, they all seem to have more or less concluded that a sensible field rifle/battle rifle cartridge capable of long range engagements and close ones as well was going to be somewhere between 6.5mm/.26 cal and 8mm/.32 cal.
Smaller had issues (6mm lee navy anyone?)…and there's a reason the 45-70 became obsolete as a military weapon - I recall reading about some battles during the American Spanish war that saw Americans with 45-70s getting their butts handed to them by Spaniards with 7x57 mausers - couldn't effectively shoot back at the distances they were being engaged at - that 11mm Mauser or 43 mauser sucks ballistically as well)
6.5 50 arisaka
6.5x55 Swede
6.5 52 carcano
7x57
280 Ross (an ahead of it's time cartridge in an ill thought out rifle that was reportedly ditched by Canadian troops in ww1 as soon as they could get their hands on an Enfield .303)
7.62x54 r
7.5x55 Swiss
The French and argentine cartridges I can't remember the specific numbers for
.30-06
7.62x51/.308
.303 British (.311")
7.7 Jap
8mm lebel
8x57 mauser
There's no doubt many others, but pretty much every single battle rifle or field rifle cartridge before the age of intermediates and "assault rifles" was within the .26-.32 caliber window. It just makes sense, the right amount of everything.
Of course there were many other calibers and rifles used in war but I'm talking issued en masse to troops.
This rabbit trail to point out its becomes largely arbitrary after a certain point to try claiming there's anything special about any given bore diameter as far as magic bc potential. The bigger the bore the higher bc potential, but twist rate and case capacity determine if that matters or is practical. I love my 270. The 6.5 and 7 sandwich it and i Honestly see no need to try turning the 27 bore into yet another version of the same things it would be competing with.
jake545
Well-Known Member
This is getting ridiculous. The discussion was about having a higher BC than another diameter. The BC works the same for a 270/08 as it would for a 270weatherby. Same as a 6.5 would for a CM or a Swede, or a PRC.
I was just pointing out the subject was not 270win vs 6.5cm but .277 bullets vs 6.5 bullets.
I have no need or desire to argue with you much less win an argument with you
I simply tried to state my opinion of why the 270 win and the .277 bullet isn't more popular in comparison the lower BC 6mm and 6.5mm bullets. All you've done is nit pick my post while bringing literally nothing of value to the conversation but your man bun meme. Who's the 12 y/o exactly?
The BC is directly affected by velocity. If you're not getting the velocity that BC was based off of (typically 3000 fps) or have the twist rate needed to stabilize it, it's not gonna be the BC you're getting in the field. Which is why we true our velocity and BC based off of our real world results.
jake545
Well-Known Member
Yes we have to true it but BC is based off of mass, diameter and length of the projectile. Not solely based off of velocity. It is simply a numeric calculation to show how aerodynamic a projectile is. Thus showing the amount of velocity loss expected over a given distance (time).
Once again the discussion was about BC not 270win.
Have a great day Stanley.
Last edited:
Yeah dude, without velocity and a drag function all you have is Sectional Density. A dont recall him speaking to SD in his post. We're speaking about it BC which is directly related to velocity which it means it absolutely matters what cartridge you're using it in if you a expect to get that BC.
Calvin45
Well-Known Member
Velocity most certainly does affect bc. And we are most certainly not talking .270 wcf vs 6.5 creed on their own.
To use a redneck expression i heard
You're both banging your shin on a stool that's not in your way!
I don't even think there's any real disagreement here haha. Though it is adding to the page count for this pointless thread that I've pointlessly prolifically participated in…and I told @Muddyboots wed hit 65 pages for sure so
CARRY ON GENTS!
To use a redneck expression i heard
You're both banging your shin on a stool that's not in your way!
I don't even think there's any real disagreement here haha. Though it is adding to the page count for this pointless thread that I've pointlessly prolifically participated in…and I told @Muddyboots wed hit 65 pages for sure so
CARRY ON GENTS!
I have two .270win rifles and I would not be without a .270win. Early on I shot Sierra Game Kings or Speer Grand Slams. They performed well enough Would reliably group 1inch at 100yds and took north american big game like clockwork. Then I moved to Noslers. Partitions and the regular Accubond (not the ABLR) Improved accuracy some and killed game just as reliably. Now I never was a long-range competitor, trying to shoot the warts off a pickle at 1000 yards, My goal was to be able to regularly kill deer sized game up to 600yds and I succeeded. In my experience very few shooters can get every bit of performance that their rifle/caliber is capable anyway, so chasing that windmill becomes a Don Quixote thing. I like Calvin45's statement about bangin your shin on a stool that's not in the way.
