So Will the .270 Win Overtake the CM's and PRC's?

[Oldtime Shooter13]

To me 280 Remington is a much better Long Action cartridge than the 270 Winchester. Twist rate and high BC heavier 7mm bullet selection has always made more sense to me. But, I reload! Liked my 270, But I Love the 280! I now shoot 7mm Remington Magnum, but would step back to my 280 anytime and not look back.

 

[Buck Fever]

I'm hoping to get 2,850 fps from my 284 with Berger 184 grain bullets so significantly more energy for that extra powder.

Some bullet/powder combos are better than others.

 

[Lifeisgood]

I'm leaning toward what's been captured by Muddy and J67. Most readers of this thread own more than one rifle. But for a "hunter" trying to decide on a rifle purchase used expressly for elk or oryx here in NM, I could not recommend the CM over the .270.

 

[rustyshackleford]

I load my 7mm in the upper end as I do the 284. Roughly equal load capacity for the case in terms of percentage. The biggest difference is the powder. The powder I use in the 284 just offers better performance than powders offered for the bigger magnum 7mm. Sure the 7mm mag can out run the 284 when maxed out but waaay more powder to do it. I was also speaking of a short action 284 not the traditional LA that is used much more often in competitions to get the most from the case with heavy bullets. I shoot the short action version almost exclusively because it equals the 7mag performance with the bullets I load. I've loaded the 7mm for years and can only say unless you compress the case, it's not enough difference to run 12 grains more powder. I call it case efficiency. Pet peeve or not, I don't know how to label the scenario. It just is a better performer based on less powder use regardless. If you run RL17 in the 7mag, it's an underperformer. I ran H1000 or Retumbo for the fast powders and they still do not really outperform my 284s unless you compress powder. Then in actuality, if you load for accuracy, that's where the difference is zero. Accuracy is most important so why run alot more powder to get same performance and same accuracy ?

I totally agree about accuracy being just as if not more important than bullet construction and velocity. There again efficiency is just a loaded term. I get that you are saying you can do the same thing with less powder but by the same token you could potentially load the 7 mag up to be more efficient as in more ft/lbs of energy per grain of powder or whatever parameters you decide on. What's not up for debate and in my book can be categorized as a efficient or inefficient are drag coefficients like form factor. Efficient is to cartridges as innovative is to the next generation of Glock

 

[Eric Alexander]

Explain efficiency. In my opinion this is a buzzword and as such is a pet peeve of mine.

The short version: Some cartridge shapes burn more efficiently than others ...meaning a bit more fps for the same weight of powder, cartridge capacity. Short, fat brass burns better (more evenly, complete) than long, narrow brass. Diameter of the cylinder more important than length whenit comes to combustion.
OK and important to target guys, but I'll give up a little efficiency for the easy feeding long tapered cases.

 

[bdlesh]

I have never thought much about a 270, but will get one now just to **** off the cm fan boys .

 

[Eric Alexander]

270 winchester will never die.. the best 6.5 ever was the 6.5 remington mag.. it needed a standard action and a long bbl. with this it will smoke all 6.5s except the 264 win mag. but it too did not make the cut.. Remington 7mm mag put them to rest.. a 270 winchester case with it long neck in the 6.5 will put all commerical 6.5s away. with the exception of the European 6.5 x 68 and their new 6.5 x65 which is a 6.5/06. one has to understand the 270 is a magnum without a belt and you cannot improve the 270. the longer neck allows for pressure in the magnum range.. If remington had loaded their 280 to 270 pressure there would be no 7 mm remington mag. but all this is good because they sell more rifles and we shooters have something to talk about. my go to long ranger is a 25" bbl remington 700 E R Shaw magnum bbl in 6.5/06 using 270brass trimed to 63mm.

you gotta wonder why the 6.5-06 as you've described off a .270 WCF case is not a commercial cartridge. Simply defies logic.

 

[Eric Alexander]

Sure like to see more heavy for caliber bullets showing up for the .277. Berger's is decent but there is alot of room for longer and heavier in the .277 to bring the 270 into the same arena as the heavy 6.5 and 7s.

Check out Nosler's brand new 165 ABLR.

 

[D$tring]

I have and will always have a 270 in house, To me it is the " If you only had one rile " the 270 is my answer to that question

This is why the .270 will always be popular in hunting circles and also why it won't catch on in the extended long range game. Not all hunters are long range enthusiasts. And not all people who shoot long range are hunters looking for 'do it all' solution.

 

[D$tring]

I have and will always have a 270 in house, To me it is the " If you only had one rile " the 270 is my answer to that question

The .270 was the original do it all caliber; the OG 6.5 Creed if you will. It was marketed and romanticized in all of the magazines of the day by Jack O'Conner and others; just the way some other calibers are blogged and talked about today. Full disclosure I have a 6.5 CM I love to shoot to get cheap easy reps for me and my kids while saving barrel life on my high end steel thumpers. And I have a .270 with some that I know will shoot 1.5-2 MoA all day long no matter what I feed it. I could take a deer out to 300 with it from now until forever.
Those who want a do it all gun already have a .270, or something like it, that they shoot a few times a year to verify zero, with abundant factory ammo that works well for their style of hunting. I was that guy 20 years ago.

Those who want to dip their toes into long range hunting, will buy off off the shelf, use with factory ammo and have the modern creedmoors, PRCs, Nosler calibers etc etc. to choose from. Many of them will shoot a few times a year to verify zero, then maybe a few more times to try to extend the ranges a bit, but stick to factory offerings and be satisfied that they have a "long range" "do it all" rifle. I was that guy 10 years ago, then I evolved.

Those who catch the bug of LR and ELR, this was me 7 years ago, have a perfectionist mentality and want more than what others say is the best and recognize the only way to control all variables is to build up custom LR and ELR rifles, tend to have multiple in many calibers because they become enthusiasts about shooting and love to shoot a lot. They have rifles in various configurations for various purposes. They learn reloading to maximize accuracy and/or speed, as well as expand their passion for shooting into another area and gain more control in that persistent pursuit of perfection. Trying to get groups smaller and smaller at longer and longer ranges.

Each group has a smaller and smaller number of consumers and a larger and larger number of manufactures vying for their attention and dollars. Those spending more money on higher end rifle and reloading components aren't into the limitations of one 'do it all' rifle and they don't want to build just one and be done, they want to experiment and specialize. Those who want a 'do it all' caliber don't want to wade through all of the decisions and extra expense on the custom end.

 

[montana west]

you gotta wonder why the 6.5-06 as you've described off a .270 WCF case is not a commercial cartridge. Simply defies logic.

chas Newton had that in the 30s 256 newton but winchester did not want to compete with their 270. and in ww2 our enemys has 6.5 s and one 8mm thus history applied.

 

[WHITEBULL]

I have a .270 wsm with a 1-8 twist. For LR hunting, it's a pretty darn good set up. Alot of knockdown power with the 165-170 gr projectiles.

 

[rustyshackleford]

I used to dislike 270 for the same reasons I disliked 30-06. I thought it was a tired out cartridge that really didn't offer much over 7-08 or 308. Now I'm a die hard 30-06 guy for hunting and I'm sure 270 has the same potential. In 30-06 I shoot a Sierra 200 gr SGK over RL-16. This bullet has a better form factor than most of the match king lineup and as a result it carries ~1800 ft/lbs to 500 yards at or above 5k ft/ASL. If I was going to shoot 270 I'm sure a 145 ELD-X or something like it with a lower form factor over some RL-26 or the like would be equally impressive. I doubt either is about to reclaim top spot in cartridge sales though

 

[Lee Goodwin]

Nosler is making a 27 N cartridge and a 165 LR bullet to go with it. That would get you out to 1000. The 270 set up like a factory precision rifle would do well too. I can't find a reason to leave the 270 now except for F class style competition, and, cartridges designed for that ELR. If I was new to the hunt, 270, probably, and if I was new to 400 to 1000 on paper, 6.5 PRC...would probably be my journey. Investment keep the Ruger and Hornady s of the world afloat. Support the sport, let the snowboarders save the mountain so the skiers have a place to go.