Quantcast
uncommon 270 - THR
THR  

Go Back   THR > Ammunition, Gear, and Firearm Help > Handloading and Reloading

Welcome to THR
You are currently viewing our site as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions, articles and access our other FREE features. By joining our free community you will have, access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!


If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please visit the help section.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old Yesterday, 01:55 AM   #1
captainmark
Member
 
 
Join Date: December 21, 2014
Posts: 6
uncommon 270

I recently came across a Ruger American in .270. It had seen a horrendous hack job and I was determined to salvage it. What I ended up with was a 17 inch barrel that was properly cut and crowned......so some of you may get where this is going.

Every factory load is a howitzer. I fitted it with a brake to help calm it down and have managed to get 1-1.5 inch groups with a few old recipes but the short barrel has me rethinking my powder. Considering going with a faster burning powder and a 150 gr nosler or 110 hornady by.

I appreciate the input.
captainmark is offline  
Old Yesterday, 02:05 AM   #2
WestKentucky
Member
 
 
Join Date: February 1, 2014
Posts: 2,010
Please be very careful, and whatever you do post results
__________________
"There is nothing wrong with America that faith, love of freedom, intelligence, and energy of her citizens cannot cure" -Dwight D. Eisenhower
WestKentucky is offline  
Old Yesterday, 02:23 AM   #3
gamestalker
Member
 
 
Join Date: September 10, 2008
Location: SW Arizona
Posts: 7,728
I would still use the same powder line up, as I would for any .270 win.. Going with a faster burning powder isn't necessary, nor will it offer any advantage over typical powders for this cartridge.

GS
gamestalker is offline  
Old Yesterday, 02:30 AM   #4
captainmark
Member
 
 
Join Date: December 21, 2014
Posts: 6
One of my drawbacks to the short barrel is the veritable flamethrower that comes with every shot. It ust seems like there is a lot of wasted energy and powder. If I remember correctly the 6.8 spcII has a lower cup pressure and shoots the same .277 110 hornady just fine with a faster burning powder. My buddys 6.8 sounds anemic next to this 270
captainmark is offline  
Old Yesterday, 02:45 AM   #5
rcmodel
Contributing Member
 
 
Join Date: September 17, 2007
Location: Eastern KS
Posts: 50,958
.270?

Strongly consider having it re-barreled with at least a 22" - 24" barrel.

A 17" .270 is just not in the realm of bearable performance with any powder.

rc
__________________
Don't put all your eggs in one basket.
Or all your primers in a glass jar!
rcmodel is online now  
Old Yesterday, 03:08 AM   #6
captainmark
Member
 
 
Join Date: December 21, 2014
Posts: 6
thought of that RC

Yeah, thought of that rc...couple of issues with that. I live in the middle of the pacific ocean. sending it out to be rebarrelled means I wont see it for a loooong time. Second, most of the shots around here are within 200 yds or less on axis deer. It does the job, its just really loud, hence the thought of a lighter load and a faster powder.

Does anyone know the length at which most powders are burned at in the 270? I thought I had read it was either 16 or 18 inches.
captainmark is offline  
Old Yesterday, 04:19 AM   #7
captainmark
Member
 
 
Join Date: December 21, 2014
Posts: 6
maybe a better question to ask would be does anyone know how the chamber and cup pressures compare between 6.8 spc and the 270?. They are both firing a .277 caliber from a 16" barrel with a four land 1in 10 twist so I am trying to figure out if I should just look at loading up a 6.8 starting load in the 270 as a start point and work up.
captainmark is offline  
Old Yesterday, 08:53 AM   #8
Grumulkin
Member
 
 
Join Date: December 1, 2005
Location: Central Ohio
Posts: 1,896
I have to say that I wouldn't consider any 270 Winchester load short of blowing it up a "howitzer." It's not a flame thrower either. I must also presume none of you have ever shot the 270 Winchester in handgun form; it's a pussycat in that form as well.

There is NO difference in the powder that should be used in a short barrel vs longer barreled 270 Winchester but, if you must try more specialized powders, I believe the Hornady manual has loads for 270 Winchester handguns.

And don't use 6.8 SPC data in loading for a 270 Winchester.
Grumulkin is offline  
Old Yesterday, 12:00 PM   #9
Captcurt
Member
 
 
Join Date: August 9, 2010
Location: Ozark Mountains of Arkansas
Posts: 1,190
Might work.

You might try some of the reduced loads in the Speer Manual. They use a faster burning powder and would probably mimic the 6.8 loads. Just a thought.
__________________
In God we trust, all others pay cash!
Captcurt is offline  
Old Yesterday, 12:07 PM   #10
ArchAngelCD
Member
 
 
Join Date: November 25, 2006
Location: Northeast PA, USA
Posts: 18,296
I agree, a faster powder will do nothing for you.

Which powder are you using now?
__________________
Remember boys and girls, gun control only prevents law abiding Americans from owning guns because the Bad Guys donít obey the laws, no matter how restrictive or lenient the laws are!
ArchAngelCD is offline  
Old Yesterday, 12:17 PM   #11
243winxb
Member
 
 
Join Date: July 8, 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 6,378
6.8 spc- 55,000 psi and the 270-65,000 psi. And don't use 6.8 SPC data in loading for a 270 Winchester. Use Hodgdon Youth loads with H4895. https://www.hodgdon.com/PDF/H4895%20...le%20Loads.pdf
243winxb is offline  
Old Yesterday, 01:22 PM   #12
ArchAngelCD
Member
 
 
Join Date: November 25, 2006
Location: Northeast PA, USA
Posts: 18,296
Instead of trying to turn a short barrel .270 into a "normal" .270 why not set it up as a Scout Rifle? If a .308 makes a good Scout rifle why not a .270? A scout type rifle in .270 would make a great brush deer rifle IMO.

From a 24" barrel a .308 w/130gr bullet will do ~3000 fps, from the same length barrel the .270 w/130gr bullet will generate a similar velocity. The only real difference is, with the .308 you generate that velocity with 4895 and in the .270 you use 4350. You can achieve similar results with a 150gr bullet although both will be a little lower velocities of course.

If a short barrel .308 is acceptable I see no reason why a .270 should be any different. Sure you won't generate the same velocity from a 17" barrel but the same is true of a .308 with a shorter barrel. No???
__________________
Remember boys and girls, gun control only prevents law abiding Americans from owning guns because the Bad Guys donít obey the laws, no matter how restrictive or lenient the laws are!
ArchAngelCD is offline  
Old Yesterday, 03:47 PM   #13
captainmark
Member
 
 
Join Date: December 21, 2014
Posts: 6
I like the idea of the handgun and youth loads . Will start there. Thanks.
captainmark is offline  
Old Yesterday, 04:13 PM   #14
captainmark
Member
 
 
Join Date: December 21, 2014
Posts: 6
I like the idea of the handgun and youth loads . Will start there. Thanks.
captainmark is offline  
Old Yesterday, 04:43 PM   #15
ironworkerwill
Member
 
 
Join Date: January 3, 2013
Location: AUabama
Posts: 848
I would like to disagree with using a faster powder. It may increase accuracy and might be a little less thunderous. If it was me, I'd rebarrel with something fitting a 270.
__________________
Politicians are like diapers, they should be changed often and for the same reason.

Studies have shown that a ladder in the house is more dangerous than a gun.. That's why I own guns, in case some maniac tries to sneak a ladder in.-Uncle Stan
ironworkerwill is offline  
Old Yesterday, 04:49 PM   #16
ArchAngelCD
Member
 
 
Join Date: November 25, 2006
Location: Northeast PA, USA
Posts: 18,296
Quote:
Originally Posted by captainmark View Post
I like the idea of the handgun and youth loads . Will start there. Thanks.
The charge weights and powders used for .270 rifle and .270 handgun loads are identical. The only difference in the data is the velocities reported. If you doubt that fact check the Hodgdon site for yourself.

If you go with the H4895 reduced loads be very careful which bullet you choose. The added effect of the very short barrel combined with the reduced velocities of the light loads will greatly effect the ability of the bullet used to expand. I do not recommend using reduced loads combined with a very short barrel for hunting game.
__________________
Remember boys and girls, gun control only prevents law abiding Americans from owning guns because the Bad Guys donít obey the laws, no matter how restrictive or lenient the laws are!
ArchAngelCD is offline  
Old Yesterday, 05:04 PM   #17
ArchAngelCD
Member
 
 
Join Date: November 25, 2006
Location: Northeast PA, USA
Posts: 18,296
Quote:
Originally Posted by ironworkerwill View Post
I would like to disagree with using a faster powder. It may increase accuracy and might be a little less thunderous. If it was me, I'd rebarrel with something fitting a 270.
If you decide to re-barrel the rifle you can go with any cartridge, not just the .270. If you already have rifles in .270 and 30-06 you could always go with a 25-06, the .280 Rem. or .35 Whelen. Maybe even something really interesting like the 338-06, I would like to give one of those a try myself...
__________________
Remember boys and girls, gun control only prevents law abiding Americans from owning guns because the Bad Guys donít obey the laws, no matter how restrictive or lenient the laws are!
ArchAngelCD is offline  
Old Yesterday, 07:47 PM   #18
balderclev
Member
 
 
Join Date: March 30, 2013
Location: Benton, AR
Posts: 140
I know next to nothing about this conversation but isn't the increased sound simply because the end of the barrel is closer to the ear?
__________________
If weapons are banned, only the criminals will have them!
balderclev is offline  
Old Yesterday, 10:36 PM   #19
WestKentucky
Member
 
 
Join Date: February 1, 2014
Posts: 2,010
Why not thread it and use a 6.8 flash suppressor?
__________________
"There is nothing wrong with America that faith, love of freedom, intelligence, and energy of her citizens cannot cure" -Dwight D. Eisenhower
WestKentucky is offline  
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:00 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
vBulletin Optimisation by vB Optimise.
This site, its contents, Shooting Reviews, and its contents are Copyright (c) 2010-2013 Firearms Forum, Inc.
IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER
Although The High Road has attempted to provide accurate information on the forum, The High Road assumes no responsibility for the accuracy of the information. All information is provided "as is" with all faults without warranty of any kind, either express or implied. Neither The High Road nor any of its directors, members, managers, employees, agents, vendors, or suppliers will be liable for any direct, indirect, general, bodily injury, compensatory, special, punitive, consequential, or incidental damages including, without limitation, lost profits or revenues, costs of replacement goods, loss or damage to data arising out of the use or inability to use this forum or any services associated with this forum, or damages from the use of or reliance on the information present on this forum, even if you have been advised of the possibility of such damages.