270 and Long Distance

[Mach2]

I recently became fascinated by an article on the 6.5mm Creedmoor due to it's 1000yd range. The Creed is basically a 260. Will the 260 reach that far? I have a 270 currently and so I was wondering if the 270 can reach 1000 as well? A buddy told me a few yrs ago that the 270 is the lngest flattest shooter. Is this true?

[fgw_in_fla]

I've read & heard similar info. Point in fact, my .270 will shoot the same POA on a 50yd line or 100yd. At 200yds it's 1.25" lower. Another caliber that's incredibly accurate & a real flat shooter is the 25.06.
I had the opportunity to crono mine about a week ago & was quite amused to find the 85gr Noslers were 3600fps. I didn't think they were moving quite that fast.
I don't see any reason why your .270 wouldn't make a 1000yd shot. Best way to find out? Find a 1000yd open area & have fun with it.

[JASmith]

The .260 Remington and 6.5 Creedmoor are used routinely in long-range competitions. They do very well.

The .270 can, in principle, do as well, depending on choices of bullet, rifle, & optics plus shooter skills.

You will have fun with it for casual shooting at those longer ranges with almost any factory load.

If you are serious, take a look at the 130 gr Berger 130 gr Match Grade Classic Hunter or the 150 gr Berger 150 gr Match Grade VLD Hunting bullets.

[BoilerUP]

Yes a 270 Win can reach 1000, but the lack of interest begins and ends with a lack of high BC bullets in .277 vs 6.5 and 7mm...Matrix offerings notwithstanding.

A 260 or 6.5 Creedmoor does well at 1000yd and beyond with the 130/140gr VLD, 140gr Amax and 142gr SMK...then again, folks make hits at 1000yd with a 30cal 175gr Matchking going 2500fps.

Indian, not the arrow....but a faster arrow that's more aerodynamic never hurts.

[jonbearman]

I have a .270 and am going to get a creedmore prefit from jim soon.The only thing that makes me nuts is lack of good bullets for this overlooked crtridge.I think the 6.8 rem the military is playing with is a .270(.277) bullet.

[r3dn3ck]

Works ok but my toying around at those ranges didn't prove it to be exceptional by any stretch. Heavier bullets for the caliber were helpful as I had endless fits with my preferred hunting load (a 130gr soft point) getting blown around at even modest distances with any hint of wind. I'd probably use 150gr bullets if I were to try with a .270 again. 6.5-06 would probably be a vastly better choice if you're fixin'a shoot for groups but if you're just having fun and ringing steel it'll do alright.

To call it the longest flattest shooter is <sticks neck out> utterly stupid and your buddy should be told that. Flatness of shooting comes from high velocities and retaining that velocity over time, period. Many factors go into retaining velocity but speed is all that matters in the "flatness" of trajectory.

[fsr402]

a 270 shooting a factory load at 130g would have a huge drop in 1000 yards something in the range of 440+ inches. Doable yes.
But I think there are better rounds like a 7mm mag at 140g would have more like 245 inches of drop.

[rusty815]

A 270 with 150gr. Bergers will do well out to 1000yds, but the bullet doesn't have a high enough BC to do much past that. The problem with the 270 is that everyone uses a 1 in 10 twist for them, which limits you to basically any bullet up to 150gr. a 1 in 9 can get you up to the higher BC bullets offered by Matrix, but almost no one makes a barrel like that, and if you do get one, you're stuck with only one bullet manufacturer for those high BC bullets, not really worth it.

[Mach2]

From reading the replies to my questions I get the feeling that a bullets ballistic coefficiant (BC) should be the prime consideration when choosing a platform for long distance. I have to wonder why newer rounds such as the Creedmoor offer more selection in BC than a .270 which has been around longer and should have acquired ammo manufacturers whom supply far more choices in BC.
But then enter twist rate into your selection choice. So twist rate and BC are more important than caliber? Any caliber .223 and above will take down a deer.
Yet as you get a tighter twist rate the number of barrel manufacturers dwindles as well as bullet weight choices narrows to only one.

[M.O.A.]

There are ten times more rounds that use the 264 bullets than the 277 bullets that's why there are better BC bullets

Plus the 6.5X57 originated sometime around 1895 the 6.5x50 made in 1897 and the 6.5X52 carcano were around long before the 270 came out in 1925

[Mach2]

There are ten times more rounds that use the 264 bullets than the 277 bullets that's why there are better BC bullets

Plus the 6.5X57 originated sometime around 1895 the 6.5x50 made in 1897 and the 6.5X52 carcano were around long before the 270 came out in 1925

You forgot that I live in a cave. I never heard of the Creedmoor until the past couple of years. However, the 270Win is just a
necked down 30-06(1906) So is the 25-06. the Creedmore seems to be all the rage suddenly in long distance shooting.

That new Savage 11 Creedmoor intrigues me but the 260Rem guys claim their round is better. The Creedmoor shooters say nay.
ive got a .223 mod 200 Stevens I want to rebarrel to Creedmore or 260Rem. I had no idea how interesting the research on this cartridge would become. However, Im still considering swapping to a Striker barrel. I have a three way tie between the 260, the Creedmore and a more mundane cartidge in a Striker style. I have more thinking to do it seems.

[BoilerUP]

260 and Creedmoor are basically the same ballistically.

If you reload go 260, if not go Creedmoor...

[Panozguy]

You forgot that I live in a cave. I never heard of the Creedmoor until the past couple of years. However, the 270Win is just a
necked down 30-06(1906) So is the 25-06. the Creedmore seems to be all the rage suddenly in long distance shooting.

That new Savage 11 Creedmoor intrigues me but the 260Rem guys claim their round is better. The Creedmoor shooters say nay.
ive got a .223 mod 200 Stevens I want to rebarrel to Creedmore or 260Rem. I had no idea how interesting the research on this cartridge would become. However, Im still considering swapping to a Striker barrel. I have a three way tie between the 260, the Creedmore and a more mundane cartidge in a Striker style. I have more thinking to do it seems.

There's not a ton of information on the Creedmoor around. I know this because I just went thru the same process. I ended up choosing the Creedmoor and I can tell you it shoots great out to 700. I shot a 2.5" group at 700 a week or so ago. It just cheats the wind so much better than .308. Anything in the 6.5mm is the ticket - .260, 6.5x47, or Creedmoor are all basically identical and you have a large range of quality bullets to choose from. I have great success with the factory brass and 142 grain SMK's. My 12 LRP likes them much better than the factory ammo but YMMV as always.

Pick what you like and run with it - have fun!

[358Hammer]

As was previously stated; Matrix Ballistics bullets has finally done something about poor bullet choice for long range shooting of the 270 cartridges.
A .738 or .782 BC bullet really brought the 270 into any long range realm. The Matrix bullet will let anyone's 270 hold its own against any cartridge out there.

http://matrixballistics.com/.277-Cal...e-bullets.html

I recently went down the 6.5 Target cartridge road for my Strikers. The 6.5 WSM is a flat out speed demon.

Change bolt and barrel to 6.5 X 47 Lapua for a smaller cased 6.5. Typically I would say that the 6.5 X 47 was built for benchrest accuracy. At this point the 6.5WSM shoots equal in accuracy with double the powder. I can not say enough good about the accuracy of Benchmark barrels. I am pretty sure that the 6.5 X 47 will get 2-3 times more barrel life that the 6.5 WSM barrel however. The WSM barrel is strickly a hunting barrel.

Neal

[MZ5]

The 270 will shoot 1000 yds without any problem at all. Darkker has a post on MarlinOwners (and ShootersForum; don't recall whether he put it here or not?) where he shot 6 shots in a row at 1000 yds with his bone stock Marlin XL7 in 25-06, SHOOTING SPEER TNTs. Nice hits of about 16 - 18" total spread, and he was holding over to make the hits (not enough clicks in that particular scope, apparently).

The point is, the TNT is a relatively light-for-caliber, flat-base bullet and he put them all right on target at 1000. The 270 is so close to the same cartridge, it'll easily do the same thing. Shooting at looong range has a very great deal to do with the shooter. Don't fall into the trap of trying to 'buy your way in' with equipment. Shoot more; LOTS MORE. Whatever you have on-hand, right now, in terms of components will do the job.

[handirifle]

If you're wanting the 270 for long range paper punching, it is very limited. If you want to long range hunt, the bullet selection is very limited also. Th bullet selection is THE main reason I have never owned one. A far better round IMHO that uses the same case is the 280 Rem. It uses 7mm bullets, much larger selection, and has as much or more range than the 270. The 280 just never had a big name gun writer fall in love with it to give it the jump start it needed. Besides it was chambered in fairly low pressure gun when introduced and that hurt it. Kinda like the 243 vs 6mm Rem. The Rem is a better round, but nowhere near as popular. It all has to do with marketing!

The 270 is a good round, but just never really was exploited enough for anything other than hunting.

[helotaxi]

Rem neutered the .280 in its original offering. In that guise, it was vastly inferior to the .270. Combine that with the fact that the .270 was already very popular when the .280 came on the scene, and it was destined to fail. Since that time, the .270 has been relegated to "hunting round" status meaning that bullet construction has kept up with the times, but not bullet design, while the .280 was "reinvented" as the 7mm Express (later to return to the .280 moniker) and 7mm target bullets have been on the cutting edge all along.

The 6.5mm bore has an international heritage and is only a late comer to the US. The .277cal is a uniquely American animal. The 6.5x55 Swede has run a fast twist barrel from the beginning to shoot the really long round nose bullets that the cartridge was originally built around. The standard availability of that fast twist and the relatively long magazines and chamber throats that the standard bullet dictated in the "original" 6.5mm cartridge meant that 6.5 bullets have always been relatively long for caliber and a long bullet has the potential to have a higher BC. Long range shooters noticed that "feature" in the 6.5's and took advantage of it.

As far as the difference between the Creedmoor and the .260 Rem, if you have an action that will support loading longer than the normal 2.8" .308 based short action OAL (like a Savage can) the .260 has a slightly larger powder capacity available since you don't have to seat the bullet as deeply. If you are mag length limited, the Creedmoor was designed with the shorter max OAL in mind and doesn't lose anything going with a long bullet while staying within the 2.8" limit. IIRC, it is also loaded to a higher pressure meaning that the slight disadvantage in case capacity can be somewhat compensated for. The reality is that they are essentially ballistic twins and which one is preferrable depends on the rifle being used.

As to the .25-06 for a long range cartridge...as limited as the .270 is by bullet selection for long range use, it is much better off than the .25-06. Sure hits are possible at long range, but the phrase "the indian not the arrow" is the order of the day. The terrible available BC's in .25cal mean that even though the cartridge might be really flat into the intermediate range, past that it begins to drop quickly is horribly susceptible to wind effects and is way down on velocity and energy beyond a couple hundred yards. A practiced shooter can get regular hits at long range under permissive conditions. The average shooter, or pretty much any shooter having to deal with any wind, will find themselves horribly frustrated in very short order while they could be finding great success with the likes of a .243, one of the 6.5s or a 7mm of some flavor.

[thomae]

Helotaxi: Nice post. Informative, not provocative. Thanks. (and good grammar and spelling as well!) Keep it up!

[Panozguy]

Shoot more; LOTS MORE. Whatever you have on-hand, right now, in terms of components will do the job.

Agreed completely. Pick a platform, pick a round no matter what the Internet says, and GO SHOOT. A LOT. It's the only way to get better. If you don't know how to do trigger control properly, it won't matter what round you chamber the rifle for. Some rounds are (arguably, lol) better than others, but you're mostly splitting hairs especially between the various 6.5 rounds. As my local range master says 'Just shut up and shoot'. :-)

[handirifle]

helotaxi
I agree with you 100%, as I mentioned, it's all in the marketing. The 280 has IMHO, more potential than the 270, due to the slightly longer body, about .040" longer. But the difference would be negligible on its own, but combined with the larger bullet base diameter, it has the potential for higher velocities for the same bullet weight.

I am sure if the same attention that was given to 6.5mm, 7mm and .308 bullet ballistics, to the .277 bullets we would not need this discussion. I have to say, I do find it odd that no one did it. The 270 is probably one of the top 4 or 5 cartridges in the USA so why hasn't it got the respect?

Over at the Long range Hunting forum, there are some fellows, at least one for sure, the did use the new long range bullets and a faster twist barrel and according to him he got excellent results.

[M.O.A.]

well now that i get to looking the hornaday SST and interbond both have a somewhat high BC of .525 for there 150s and the bergers are a little higher at .531 so thise may be ok at 1000 yards ;-}

[sortafast]

I have been going over and over what long action type caliber to do my 110 up in. Its a stripped action with the 30-06 sized bolt face. I thought about the 270, and in the short range, i like it enough, but like everyone has said, for LR stuff the bullets are lacking. I want to keep the 30-06 sized case so I was pretty well set on doing a 30-06 ackley improved, then someone brought the 280 Ackley Improved to my attention. Running some numbers in a ballistic calculator, it looks like the 30-06AI will stay supersonic to about 1000-1100yds depending on bullet choice and muzzle velocity. The 280AI can go to about 1500yds before going transsonic. I didn't really bother running the calc for the 270, but if you want to, the ballistic calculator on Vortex Optics site is free and seems pretty decent. Not only is the BC a big part of getting out there, you also want to take into consideration when the bullet will start to go transsonic. Thats when it will start to destabilize some and accuracy can start to suffer. From what I have read, this is around 900-1100fps depending on the atmospheric conditions.

[M.O.A.]

i would say go with the 280 AI it gits the most out of being inproved from what i have read i and is fastly becoming one i am looking at too ;-} that or the good old 7MM mag ;-}

[sortafast]

i would say go with the 280 AI it gits the most out of being inproved from what i have read i and is fastly becoming one i am looking at too ;-} that or the good old 7MM mag ;-}

ahh, but the 280AI gets just about to 7mm mag with out all the recoil, or so I am told.

[r3dn3ck]

I don't find there to be any real perceptible difference of recoil in similar weight rifles between several .30-06 based rounds and 7mag. My .270 felt identical to my 7mag though the 7mag has a significant amount more muzzle blast. None of them, even the 7mag kick exceptionally hard though I would argue that the -06 based rounds kick too hard for their performance and so the 7mag made more sense for me and I've been divesting myself of the .30-06/.270/.25-06 guns for the most part.

I don't know what loads people are running in the AI versions of the .280 but I don't see it getting full 7mag velocities (I could be wrong, it's happened before), maybe REALLY close but not all the way there. I think the biggest downside to the 7 rem mag is the rather large appetite for powder. Well... that and close range shots devastate a lot of meat when hunting mid-size and large mammals. As a paper puncher .280 might be better (I think we have an argument there for 7mm-08) but for anything against live targets I'd probably take the more common and powerful 7rem mag.