How Good, Really, Is the .270 Win?

[hawkeyesatx823]

When I’ve posted on here in the near past, about rebarreling my .270, a lot, and I mean a lot of you have said keep it in the original caliber.

So….

I am rethinking it, and maybe keeping it in the original.270!

But, I need your opinions, actual experiences as to what I can hunt with it!

What’s the heaviest big game you have taken with a .270?

How well does it do on elk and or moose?

What’s the smallest game anyone has taken with a .270?

What’s the farthest one can expect to use a .270?

Please fill in any blanks that I have forgotten to ask.


Hawk

[Dave Hoback]

People have been hunting the largest game in North America for many decades with the 270Win.

[scratcherky]

People have been hunting the largest game in North America for many decades with the 270Win.


Plus 1.

[efm77]

Plenty of speed and reach to ethical hunting distances. With properly constructed bullets it works well for anything up to and including elk. Maybe even fine for moose too, although, I would consider it marginal for that. Grizzly/brown bears have been taken with it too, but again, not ideal.

[Harry Pope]

Your local library should have books by Jack O’Connor, the foremost expert on the cartridge.


FWIW:

The largest animal I’ve shot with a .270 was a bull caribou.

I watched one of my hunting partners in Alaska shoot two moose with his .270 M760. Both died.

I once shot a fly off my 100 yard target with my old .270 varmint rifle. Really.

I read a story about a guy who used his .270 in Australia; that’s the farthest from here I’ve heard about anyone using a .270.




.

[Newtosavage]

If I were not a reloader, I'd rebarrel it to .270 unless I felt like I needed to shoot heavier bullets in which case I'd bump up to an '06.

I am a reloader, so if it were my rifle I'd rebarrel it to a .280AI and never look back.

The .270 is very versatile but it's a bit outdated compared to modern offerings and long actions are losing popularity for a number of reasons. But you can't tell the romantics that. Every word Jack O'Connor wrote was gospel. :D

I've never owned a .270 and likely never will, even though it was my father's favorite caliber (mostly because of the writings of Jack O'Connor). My 7mm-08 will do everything a .270 Win will do, and do it in a shorter, lighter platform (It's also the ballistic twin to Jack's "other" beloved cartridge - the 7x57 Mauser). So that's my choice for an all-around cartridge. If I need more oomph I'll get out the .284 Win.

[J.Baker]

If I were not a reloader, I'd rebarrel it to .270 unless I felt like I needed to shoot heavier bullets in which case I'd bump up to an '06.

I am a reloader, so if it were my rifle I'd rebarrel it to a .280AI and never look back.

The .270 is very versatile but it's a bit outdated compared to modern offerings and long actions are losing popularity for a number of reasons. But you can't tell the romantics that. Every word Jack O'Connor wrote was gospel. :D

I've never owned a .270 and likely never will, even though it was my father's favorite caliber (mostly because of the writings of Jack O'Connor). My 7mm-08 will do everything a .270 Win will do, and do it in a shorter, lighter platform (It's also the ballistic twin to Jack's "other" beloved cartridge - the 7x57 Mauser). So that's my choice for an all-around cartridge. If I need more oomph I'll get out the .284 Win.

How does a cartridge become "dated?" Does it lose killing efficiency or inherent accuracy as it ages? Do game animals develop a herd immunity to it over time? I don't think so. The whole 'outdated' argument is marketing nonsense to convince people to trade-in their old hunting rifles and buy a new one chambered for what those same marketing folks are telling us is the latest and greatest wonder cartridge (the vast majority of which fade into obscurity after just a few years - take the .224 Valkyrie or the Ruger Compact Magnum's as recent examples).

Another thing to keep in mind is that most of these new whiz-bang cartridges have minimal body taper and steep shoulder angles. Yes, these are both great attributes in terms of cartridge efficiency, but those same attributes are also widely known to result in unreliable feeding from a magazine - especially when manufacturers get lazy and don't both to develop magazines specifically for that cartridge and instead just use existing ones designed for cases with much more body taper. Many (like the Nosler's and PRC's) are also overbore which means a pretty short barrel life.

The only viable case that could be made for the newer short-action cartridges that mimic the ballistic characteristics of their long-action predecessors is that they provide similar ballistics using less powder. Theoretically this could be beneficial given the frequent shortages we see in reloading components these days, but even so the real world difference isn't all that much to get excited over. To use your example of the 7mm-08 v. .270 win, both loaded with a typical 140gr hunting bullet, you're only looking about a 5-10 grain difference in powder charge per round or a difference of about 30 rounds per pound of powder. And given these are hunting cartridges for hunting rifles that you aren't taking out and putting 100+ rounds through per month punching paper or steel, it's really not even worth noting. The average shooter typically won't put a full box of 20 rounds through his/her hunting rifle per year unless they are doing load development or have to sight in a new optic.

As for long-actions falling out of favor, again that's just a marketing thing for the most part. 90+% of the new cartridges being introduced to market are short-action cartridges. Short actions are also slightly cheaper to make than the long actions from the manufacturing standpoint (less materials in them) yet carry the same MSRP, so you could say manufacturers are incentivized to focus more on developing new short-action cartridges from a profitability perspective. We're only talking a difference of pennies per component here, but it all adds up when making tens of thousands of units. There's also 60+ years worth of used long-actions out there on the market to be had on the cheap as those same lemmings sell off dad or grandpa's "antiquated" old hunting rifle to buy that latest whiz-band rifle which directly affects the number of sales of new long action rifles. Why spend $500-1,000 on a brand new long-action rifle when you can readily buy a clean used one for half the cost of new at the local gun show or pawn shop?

There's a reason only a handful of cartridges have stood the test of time and continue to be the top sellers year after year many decades after first hitting the market while most everything else fades into varying levels of obscurity. Simply put, they work - and they work well! Such cartridges just fit into that narrow window of being inherently accurate, offer excellent ballistics, are broadly versatile in terms of use with different types/weights of bullets, and they've proven to be reliable in regards to functioning in various feeding systems over the decades. I'll take proven feeding reliability over a marginal gain in ballistics or cycle time any day of the week.

That's just my two cents though, take it for what it's worth.

[Newtosavage]

Here we go... LOL

The .280 Remington is what the .270 wanted to be all along, but 'Muricans had a thing about using metric calibers at the time, so... ;)

The .270 was the whiz-bang Creedmor of it's day. Let's not forget that. :D

[Dave Hoback]

Well said Jim.

[hawkeyesatx823]

I know my capabilities when it comes to shooting, and hunting.
I don’t brag, but I possess higher than normal capabilities than the average “joe”.
I’ve used cartridge and rifle combos hunting that a lot of people turn their noses up at, and deride because the almighty gun scribes have deemed them inferior, but I found out actually work extremely well, if you do your part by putting the projectiles in the vitals area of big game.
Plus, I used one caliber, that the gun scribes, and others adored, and left me with nothing but heartburn, and dismay, and I won’t ever use again, because I lost a wounded deer to it.
Now, that being said, I know that if I use a .270, I will put it’s bullets in the right spots on any game animal, right in the heart lung area.
I’m not one of those hunters, either, that will, or condone, 1000+ yds shooting at game animals, because I can hit a steel target that far or farther.
I can sneak within 200 - 250 yds quite regularly. But, if I need to stretch the cartridges legs out to 400 - 500 yds, I can.
From what I’m hearing here, though, is that a .270 can, and will do so regularly, correct?
Is it fair to say that the cartridge itself, hits above its weight class while hunting?
I’m the kind of hunter, as well, that I usually don’t need a lot of bullet weight selection to hunt with. And it sounds like to me that the .270 does admirably well with one bullet weight, maybe 2 while hunting, Is this fair to say?


Hawk

[Dave Hoback]

Yes, that is fair to say.

[Fuj']

Here we go... LOL

The .280 Remington is what the .270 wanted to be all along, but 'Muricans had a thing about using metric calibers at the time, so... ;)

The .270 was the whiz-bang Creedmor of it's day. Let's not forget that. :D

It's all about marketing ploys. You can say that the 280 Remington is a bit dated with
the much younger 28 Nosler. There is always a bigger stick.

[hamiltonkiler]

I’ve shot steel out to 1k with a .270

Killed some deer at 200yds or so with one.

I think a well constructed bullet will hammer anything. I wouldn’t shoot an aggressive charging animal up close with it but I would at a distance.
Should be fine on moose and elk.

In comparison my .223 does great on deer weather people like it or not.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[hamiltonkiler]

An to contrary belief.
My friend shoots the 110gn varmint bullets on deer and they usually don’t even twitch. They are very violent at 100yds
So much I don’t know why he does it, it bruises the meat from neck to rear.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[efm77]

I've seen Ron Spomer do a video comparing the 270win to other .277 and 6.5 cartridges too IIRC. Very little difference out to ethical hunting distances to show any superiority at all. Now beyond 400-500 yards is where the heavier/higher BC bullets start to outpace the standard weight hunting bullets. That's a long shot for a lot of people though, especially for hunting. Get a 270win barrel chambered with a little longer throat and faster twist rate, and it can shoot those heavier bullets pretty well too. I like a wide variety of cartridges though and have quite a few so I don't really get in to defending one round to the extreme over others. The 270win is definitely no slouch though, even today.

[wbm]

I don't really get in to defending one round to the extreme over others.

Can get very subjective for sure. Few years ago Craig Boddington did an article on cartridges he could live without. Gave the 7mmx57, and 6.5x55 a thumbs down while praising the 7mm-08 and eventually the 6.5 Creedmoor. Seriously now!

If I had a 300 Win Mag and a 7MM Magnum, I wouldn't get no 270 "girly gun". Just sayin.

[hawkeyesatx823]

Can get very subjective for sure. Few years ago Craig Boddington did an article on cartridges he could live without. Gave the 7mmx57, and 6.5x55 a thumbs down while praising the 7mm-08 and eventually the 6.5 Creedmoor. Seriously now!

If I had a 300 Win Mag and a 7MM Magnum, I wouldn't get no 270 "girly gun". Just sayin.

Well, I kinda just fell into the .270 round. Not that I was looking to add one to my battery.
Other hunters on another site, and some on here said to think about staying with the .270 instead of reboring the barrel to 9.3x62, so I’m doing my due diligence in asking, and getting advice.
I have my 8x57, .300 Win Mag, .30-06, 7x57, and 6.5x55. Soon to have my .35 Whelen.

Hawk

[Newtosavage]

It's all about marketing ploys. You can say that the 280 Remington is a bit dated with
the much younger 28 Nosler. There is always a bigger stick.
You're right. You certainly could make that argument.

The .270 has a cult-like following mostly due to the writings of one man who was being paid to promote it. Sound familiar? It was the 6.5 CM of it's day. I'm not saying that's a bad thing either. Just pointing it out. The .270 is a very capable cartridge with a great track record. But how many of those same animals would have fallen to the .280 or 7x57 had Americans not been metric-phobic? I guess we'll never know.

I'm sure there were plenty of 'aught-six fans in the 60's who poo-poo'd the .270 Win alright. I'm sure it sounded just like the haters going on about the 6.5 CM today.

[wbm]

The Whelen won't do anything some of your other rifles will do as well or better but the more I read about them, due to your interest post, the more I thought it might to be nice to have one lying about just for "coolness" factor. Course I guess you could say the same for the 1925 270 also.

[Newtosavage]

I like a wide variety of cartridges though and have quite a few so I don't really get in to defending one round to the extreme over others.

I agree. However the .270 is unique (or it was until the 6.5 CM came along) in that rarely does a cartridge have such a cult-like following.

Ah those gun writers... They gotta make a living too I guess. :D