• You are using the old High Contrast theme. We have installed a new dark theme for you, called UI.X. This will work better with the new upgrade of our software. You can select it at the bottom of any page.

Is Carmichel Right About the .270?

Status
Not open for further replies.
L

Lone Star

Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2003
Messages
1,754
Location
SW USA
First, read Jim Carmichel's essay on the faults of the .270 Winchester in the latest, "Outdoor Life".

Then, tell me if you think he's gone off the deep end a little bit. I think he's obsessed with benchrest shooting and varmint rifles, and is judging the .270 out of context.

Also, his predecessor, Jack O'Connor, reported grouping much better than Carmichel seems to be getting. O'Connor obviously didn't have match bullets: Carmichel is correct that they aren't made for the .277" diameter. But Jack loaded Noslers that were less precise than the ones today, and he shot them pretty well!

Lone Star
 
I was scratching my head over that one too. I've never heard of accuracy problems with the .270, in fact I've heard quite the opposite. I have a pretty high regard for Carmichel's writings, but this one I just have to shrug and ignore his opinion on this one.:confused:
 
I haven't read the article, but I have done a lot of shooting with the .270 Winchester. My gun is a beat up post 64 push feed model 70 in .270 that I put a nikon 3-9 on. Since it's a hunting rifle, I only tested 3 shot groups, but when testing loads I tried 5 shot groups. Well let me tell you, the 270 CAN be very accurate. This hunting rifle puts three shots touching at 100 yards, and spreads out to .75 with 5 shot groups most of the time. Worst group I've gotten was an inch. Nothing fancy, just a good gun, good scope, and nice trigger (2.75lbs).
 
I am surprised! What is he talking about? Where did he find these so called match ammo? from the garbage?

My .270 Winchester shoot pretty well and very accurate, I could easily get sub MOA group and sometimes sub-half-MOA at 100 and 200 yds. (bench) from it if I do my job correctly, and I only use the ordinary hunting ammo (Wihchester PSP, Federal HiShock).

I haven't read the article, but the experience of me and other guys tells us this is NOT TRUE. This guy might want to promote something else, let's wait and see what he will say in the next "Outdoor Life", 270 WSM?
 
I haven't read the article, but just out of curiosity, did he recommend something else?

The sponsor's latest mega-hyper-magnum, by any chance?
 
Carmichel isn't pushing any particular new cartridge in lieu of the .270, but he is well known for using the .280 Remington when he wants a rifle in this class.

In the previous issue, he talked about three of his favorite rifles, all custom guns. One is his Clayton Nelson-stocked .280, and he said that O'Connor encouraged him to order a .280. That might be because Jack didn't want his successor to be associated with a cartridge that he had become famous for promoting. However, he was certainly aware that the .280 is an excellent round, never promoted enough by Remington. He also ordered a .280, and I think owned another. One that he'd ordered was completed after his death, and was sold to a friend for the price that Al Biesen charged the O'Connor family.

The .280 does have the ability to use 175 grain bullets, and that's nice. But most using a rifle of this type don't need more than 150 grain Nosler Partitions, or similar premium bullets, for the sort of game shot with rifles below .30 caliber.

Oddly, although Carmichel has been known to write that the .375 H&H Magnum is too light for best results on Cape buffalo, he used a .338 on them, and on lion!

He is certainly a very knowledgeable man, but sometimes, his statements puzzle me. And the lack of match loads in .270 doesn't seem to have been anything to trouble the many owners of .270's, including me. Matches are usually shot with GI calibers, like the .308, the .30/06, etc. I have yet to see a M-1A in .270! Nor do I miss it.

I am really baffled as to why the .270 groups he reported are so "loose". O'Connor once noted that, across the broad range of production, he felt that factory .270 ammo was held to tighter tolerances than was .30/06 hunting ammo. I've noted no real disparency between them; in premium ammo, both calibers group very well in my Winchester and Sako rifles!

Lone Star
 
Carlos-

You need to get out more: get by a store that sells magazines! Or, are you in a country that doesn't stock, "Outdoor Life" at the newsstands?

"Outdoor Life" does have a site, shared with, "Field & Stream", I think. In an unhappy sign of the times, those titles are now owned by the same publisher. And Primedia now owns both , "Guns & Ammo" and former arch rival, "Shooting Times". I doubt that this is good. May be one reason why Mike Venturino has left, "Shooting Times" for, "Guns"... and I think he made a wise decision. Those first two titles are too heavily into promoting advertisers. "Guns" and, American Handgunner" are more apt to run articles on classic guns, without an ad message as the real cause of the article.

For that matter, I perceive that, "Field & Stream" does more promo work for advertisers than does, "Outdoor Life". That may just be my perception, but it is one reason why I prefer "OL".

I don't know the site address, but try www.outdoorlife.com I think that used to be it. However, I doubt the article will be posted there.

Lone Star
 
Thanks Lone Star. Yeah, I get out occasionally. :D I know, it may have sounded lazy of me to request an online transcript of the article. I have a hunting buddy that has a subscription. I may have to visit and ask "Hey bub, mind if I use your bathroom" :p

I have always had very good results with the .270 and wondered, as did others, if another caliber had been suggested.:
 
I've shot teeny tiny groups with a .270 & Sierra

I've shot teeny tiny groups with a .270 & Sierra bullets - on the other hand I don't own one today - I enjoyed one for its versatility but today I do own a variety to cover the same uses.

For my money today the .270 in a 22" ultralight makes an ideal sheep rifle but is ideal only for climbing after light game. Marginal for elk and more than adequate but no better than others for deer, too heavy - too loud and expensive to feed for lots of shots on varmints but very good for a walking around looking for mousing coyotes at longer ranges say. In a world of easy travel but fewer shots on game I see the .270 as more specialized today rather than less. Of course if the blacktail jack ever come back (they won't) I'd have to shoot them with a .270 in Jack's honor.
 
he just said that factory ammo doesn't seem to group smaller than about 3 inches at 100
Click to expand...
My Sako Model 75 puts 5 into 1" on demand and into .75" with my handloads. And I am no benchrest shooter by any stretch of the imagination.

An earlier Sako .270 I owned would shoot .5" with 140 grain Nosler Ballistic Tips. Against my better judgement I sold the rifle. The good news is that I don't have to listen to the incessant whining and begging of a good friend of mine who wouldn't quit until I sold him the rifle.
 
Don't know what make of rifle Jim was using in the article, but my hunting buddies Rem 700 sporter will not group 130 grain factory loads worth a darn.

I asked him why he persisted in shooting 150's for small white tails here in Texas and could hardly believe his answer. After all, 130's and 270's are like 308's and 150's.

Got him interested in reloading, and we put a Stony Point gauge on it-sure enough, the throat is waaay out there. We seated the bullet to just fit in the magazine and it keeps 4 shots inside of a minute.

Anyone else find this to be true?
 
Now that I've actually read the article

The only reference to the virtues and vices of the .270 as a cartridge I could find was a statement the .270 showed fine accuracy with a wide variety of bullet weights - something with which I am in complete agreement - hardly a knock.

The article doesn't even say the .270 is marginal for elk which it is.

He did demonstrate that the lots of factory ammunition he tested could be bettered for accuracy. I didn't see any details on uniformity of velocity or weight of powder charge or alignment of bullet. I am sure he called it as he found it and I'm sure he's right. The other name I've seen write on this practical accuracy with factory ammunition is Clay Harvey. He has a book on hunting rifles where he shares the results of his own record keeping over the years on how accurate his own rifles and those of other people have been with the ammunition available at each time and place. I don't recall what he wrote and I can't find my copy but I wouldn't be surprised to find the .270 doesn't meet published velocity with factory ammunition very often.

I can't think of a more versatile rifle with a downward emphasis than the .270 just as I can't think of a more versatile rifle with upward emphasis than the 7mm.

I don't think the article was a knock on the cartridge at all.
 
My wife's old Remington (621?) shoots better than 1 1/2" at 100yds with 130 or 150 grain bullets.Good caliber for most game in the lower 48.Course,since the wife shoots 270 I have to shoot 30/06.....
 
Although I have loaded for a number of friends .270's and still load for several more, I have not noticed the .270 to be any more or less accurate than the .30/06 or .308.

Most factory ammo for Wally World and such will not really tack drive, but then, you get what you pay for.

Layne Simpson built up a .270wcf Rail Gun quite a few years ago to investigate the same issue. Gun weighed upward of 30lbs and was built by Kenny Jarret before he had established his reputation, if I remember correctly.

He decided that it was just run of the mill guns and ammo producing "run of the mill accuracy. He used H and IMR4831, and IMR and the then new H 4350 and H414 with the also then new 130 and 150gr Nosler Ballistic Tips to get some phenomenal accuracy for "NON Match" grade bullets and brass. In fact, it was amoung the first articles I read touting the accuracy of the Nosler B.T.'s.

Success begets success. If Tubbs, or some others had pursued the .277 diameter for long range NRA matches, or if the Bench Rest crowd had pursued it, you can believe that the .270 would produce (as if it dosen't already?) "match" accuracy. Fact also is that the bullet factories aren't really pressured to turn out a really superior product either. (How many ultra accurate bench/rail guns are there out there to give Sierra a negative feed back on their "Match Bullets". In one friends Sauer .270, we found that either the 150gr BTSP or 130 Nosler B.T.'s to be superior to the Sierra Match bullets (one box of 100) that we tried. We just wrote it off to what the "Rifle" liked. Could have been a less than superlative production run on the bullets too!

Fact is, most .270's are "HUNTING" rifles, and as such anything less than 1.5moa is really frosting on the cake.

But then, most of the .270's I've shot and/or loaded for will do better, given better ammo, with the bullets seated out close to 3.34" oal. For consistency, I always seat the bullets to 1 bore diameter bullet insertion into the case for optimum concentricity.

IMO if there is anything to the Accuracy beef, it has to do with the cutting of the chambers more than anything. A short throat is usually better than a long one for accuracy. As another noted, a .270 throat is apt to be a bit long for optimum accuracy.
 
Thanks, everyone.

I want to make it clear that I'm not trying to run down Jim Carmichel, who is a very knowledgeable man.

But my feeling (and yours'!) is that good .270's, particularly when fed ammo that the individual rifle "likes" will often shoot much better than the guns he cited.

I may write to him, c/o "Outdoor Life", to see if there's something that I missed that he was trying to say.

I still have great faith in the .270, particularly when it isn't used on animals that are simply too large for its intended use, or which are at too great a range, or which may be shot when turned the wrong way. And those comments apply to ANY cartridge!

Lone Star
 
But that's not what he said

But that's not what he said.

He demonstrated by test that his own .270 would stay reliably and well under an inch at 100 yards hot or cold, slow or fast for 3 shots or many shots light bullets or heavy bullets or in between.

He also demonstrated that common over the counter commercial ammunition would not reliably hold small groups in the same rifle - but that intermixing commercial ammuntion and handloads he would alternately shoot large and small groups to prove the rifle/sight/bag/shooter combination did not break between groups.

To say particularly when fed ammo that the individual rifle "likes" will often shoot much better than the guns he cited is to agree entirely with his research that in the .270 with the ammunition available to him folks need to find ammunition the individual rifle "likes".

I think he's right. I can go out and buy .308 and .223 ammunition within walking distance and count on shooting groups small enough to impress bystanders and embarrass braggarts - I'd look to Federal Match because it is available but if you give me Blackhills and it didn't shoot I'd check the scope before I blamed the ammunition. I wouldn't count on that with a .270. Doesn't sound to me as though the man is shilling for makers when he says they could do a better job with their products.
 
I read the article and didn't know whether to get mad or use it to housetrain the dog.

Maybe he got some free goodies to write that bunch of drivel.

Maybe what he knows is alot different than what he commits to paper.

Since the article was casting doubt about the 270, an article promoting the next Remchester alphabet soup magnum can't be far behind.

Thankfully my subscription to that rag was free.

ZM
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

L
  • Locked
Carmichel's Rifles in new, "Outdoor Life".
Replies
0
Views
514
Lone Star
L
H
  • Locked
.19 Calhoon?
Replies
4
Views
4K
SoCalGeek
S
D
  • Locked
2003 Product Lines
Replies
6
Views
4K
45R
4
B
  • Locked
CA: time to Zumbo Turner's Outdoorsman re: lead ammo bans
Replies
12
Views
1K
Basura Blanca
B
C
  • Locked
Minnesota: "Cities ask legislators to give them gun controls"
Replies
9
Views
645
Kharn
K
Back
Top