The .270 Winchester - Tom River Explains...

Status
Not open for further replies.
LoonWulf said:
...Personally I hope the 6.8 Westerner pushes rifle manufacturers to put a faster twist on the 270 Winchester's, As I have no real interest in a short fat 277 especially in a long action, But I wouldn't mind having a 270 Winchester in a long action that could take a long skinny bullet.....
Click to expand...

With the shear volume of existing SAAMI spec. chambered, 1:10 twist .270 Win's - Heavy, ELD ammo, marketed under the same cartridge name, would be a disaster.

Re-throat it as well, like the Western, and call it the 6.8mm Winchester.

:D




GR
 
Garandimal said:
With the shear volume of existing SAAMI spec. chambered, 1:10 twist .270 Win's - Heavy, ELD ammo, marketed under the same cartridge name, would be a disaster.



GR
Click to expand...

That sounds like something remington would do...... Or at least the old Remington.....

Admittedly I'm personally really just interested in The 150-165 class VLDs, I think those would do fine being running a standard throat 270..... At least with as long as most of the standard rifle throats end up being lol
 
LoonWulf said:
That sounds like something remington would do...... Or at least the old Remington.....

Admittedly I'm personally really just interested in The 150-165 class VLDs, I think those would do fine being running a standard throat 270..... At least with as long as most of the standard rifle throats end up being lol
Click to expand...

I've come to the realization that, if a 150 gr. controlled expansion, or 130-140 gr. monometal, .277 bullet won't do it to 400 yards...?

...I need to get closer.

:D




GR
 
LoonWulf said:
Yep that's been my observation as well, The two bullets that have been in stock at SPS since this whole thing started were 9.3's and the 277-165..


Pretty much everything else gets gobbled up literally as soon as they put it up for sale.


The 9.3 is I can understand as that has never been a horribly popular cartridge in the US, excellent though it may be.

And the 165 ABLR's being in stock for a long period of time shows the one major flaw in the 270 Winchester's design(IMO), and it's not a cartridge failing.

Long streamlined bullets like the 165 ABLRs won't stabilize and the 1-10 twist every manufacturer I know of uses for the 270 Winchester. Other cartridges hailing from military or target background have rifles twisted fast enough thar the bullet weights exceeding the case capacity of a standard long action before most of them can't comfortably stabilize them.
The 25's and to a lesser degree the 6 mm's suffer the same issues.
And like it or not bullet manufacturer and design is getting away from the traditional low BC designs commonly used in hunting rifles. I'm not even sure how many round nose bullets are still being offered in the sub-30 calibers, Where is even 20 years ago there's at least one in every caliber.

Personally I hope the 6.8 Westerner pushes rifle manufacturers to put a faster twist on the 270 Winchester's, As I have no real interest in a short fat 277 especially in a long action, But I wouldn't mind having a 270 Winchester in a long action that could take a long skinny bullet.....
Click to expand...
You could get a 165 to stabilize in a regular 270, but it would be more like a semi spitzer correct? I bet you could still hit out to 300 yds with it pretty easy. Whitworth rifles shooting ancient projectiles were getting hits beyond that in the 1800's
 
Garandimal said:
.277/150 gr. ABLR:

.270 WSM and .270 Win, long loaded to max COAL...

H/T: TRexF16
Just add additional twist.


And, as for the 6.8 WESTERN and the 165 gr. ABLR...?

Looks like a Std. length action and long throated Bbl. would improve the hand-loaded round as well.

H/T: RSO
Be like a 6.5x55mm on steroids.




GR
Click to expand...
I shoot the parent 270 WSM. I used it with 130 gr. Sierra to break both shoulders of a young buck at a range of 375 yds. The echo from the hit was a resounding SMACK with no lack of authority to it. I was sold. For the new Westerner ( not to confused with old Winny 264) The only reaon I would ever go with one is if I had a blind with a table and rest in it and a ranged shot was possible at 500 yds plus, and no wind. And I am not practiced in that kind of hunting.

This year I tried some factory Federal stuff with a very fancy box and utilizing some Swift Scirrocccco 2 bullets. 130's. They worked really well but the farthest shot was only about 125 yds. Bocce ball sized exit wounds consisting of shattered, did I say shattered?, ribs.
 
Last edited:
Garandimal said:
I've come to the realization that, if a 150 gr. controlled expansion, or 130-140 gr. monometal, .277 bullet won't do it to 400 yards...?

...I need to get closer.

:D




GR
Click to expand...
mshootnit said:
You could get a 165 to stabilize in a regular 270, but it would be more like a semi spitzer correct? I bet you could still hit out to 300 yds with it pretty easy. Whitworth rifles shooting ancient projectiles were getting hits beyond that in the 1800's
Click to expand...
I agree on both points.
But equally, if spending the same amount of money, why not buy a gun that gives you all the options?
Also consider that a 1-10 limits the weight on monos as well as VLDs, this is something i often ignore, simply because monos are the opposite side of the spectrum from what i choose to use.
Personally, If there was a 1-8 .270 id buy THAT one for this go round, as it is there arnt any.....would I ever NEED a 1-8 (we were making hits on a torso size rock at just under 700yds with a 6.5 Grendel 527 off crossed sticks last maunakea trip)? nope. dont need a .270....dont really NEED larger than 6ARC or 6.5Grendel, and could make do with a .223.



Im a little miffed covid screwed up ERShaws tooling up for fast twist .277s, or id HAVE 1-8 twist .270 barrel to play with instead of a 1-10.....
 
Garandimal said:
The good thing is - there are no .270 Cal. "low velocity" hunting cartridges.

All the hunting bullets - are developed around "high velocity," generally the spec .270 Win. (save the 6.8 Rem SPC, which has its own)


Given the new >165 gr. heavies available and in development?

A .270 Win, with the throat of the new 6.8 Western, a 1:8 twist 24" Bbl., and long loaded to 3.6" COAL for the Rem 700 magazine would be tempting...






GR
Click to expand...
Kinda proving my point..... And also, much more favorable! The ONLY thing I lament about my Benelli wsm is the slow twist....
 
Garandimal said:
It accurately dispels the myth that the .270 Win, as a cartridge, is somehow flawed, based on several decades of empirical data.

JOC, Aagaard, and Seyfried got it right... and the more current crop, like Barsness, Boddington, and Spomer, put it back on track.




GR
Click to expand...
It wasn't flawed at the time but neither was windows 95,98, or xp...... To quote richard b Riddick, "we go at one pace: mine, if you can't keep up, don't step up, you'll just die."
Modern propellants, case designs, and bullet profiles/construction have designated the standard .270 as flawed by current capabilities. If I'm gonna crank that much powder, I can CERTAINLY expect a better dancing partner.
 
horsey300 said:
It wasn't flawed at the time but neither was windows 95,98, or xp...... To quote richard b Riddick, "we go at one pace: mine, if you can't keep up, don't step up, you'll just die."
Modern propellants, case designs, and bullet profiles/construction have designated the standard .270 as flawed by current capabilities. If I'm gonna crank that much powder, I can CERTAINLY expect a better dancing partner.
Click to expand...

Tough bullets, designed to perform at high velocity/energy, and then slowed down by the ammo manufactures to be less destructive... was a disaster for the .270 Win cartridge.

For the last two decades, though, slower/heavy bullets are not as tough, and light/tough bullets are bein' pushed near original velocities, where they both perform accordingly.

... and the .270 Win is sparklin'... again.




GR
 
BTW I've been reloading for my .270 Winchester ever since I've got it, using the old reloading manuals, and for the most part Speer spire type bullets, perhaps that is why my performance using the .270 has been stellar. I did sight it in with Remington Factory 150 grain core lock bullets way back when I first bought the rifle, (1974) then later on used the Remington 130grn. core lock factory box of ammo mostly for the pronghorn and the smaller whitetail.
 
loose noose said:
BTW I've been reloading for my .270 Winchester ever since I've got it, using the old reloading manuals, and for the most part Speer spire type bullets, perhaps that is why my performance using the .270 has been stellar. I did sight it in with Remington Factory 150 grain core lock bullets way back when I first bought the rifle, (1974) then later on used the Remington 130grn. core lock factory box of ammo mostly for the pronghorn and the smaller whitetail.
Click to expand...

Startin' in the early '80's, when I was young and poor...

Loaded 130 gr. Speer HC, and Nosler Partitions for hunting, over ~ 48 grns. of IMR 4831, for ~ 3050 from a 22" Bbl'ed M700.

When life got busy, switched to factory 150 gr. Federal Premium NP at ~ 2800 fps.

And am now loading Speer 150 gr. GS over ~ 57.5 grns. of H4831, for the same MV.




GR
 
Last edited:
LoonWulf said:
...The 25's and to a lesser degree the 6 mm's suffer the same issues.
And like it or not bullet manufacturer and design is getting away from the traditional low BC designs commonly used in hunting rifles. I'm not even sure how many round nose bullets are still being offered in the sub-30 calibers, Where is even 20 years ago there's at least one in every caliber...
Click to expand...
They aren't getting away from "traditional" loadings near fast enough, at least in .257 Roberts.
20210413_113328.jpg

20210413_113412.jpg

Screenshot_20210413-115719_Opera.jpg
Three loads from three manufacturers, two of which are even +P pressure, but none of the bullets have a B.C. much better than a poorly thrown clodhopper.
 
I have a Sako Finnbear[1964] in .270 Win with a 1:10" twist. I stabilizes 150 gr Hornady Interlock's perfectly. And very accurate. It also worked with NP 160's rather well the few times I tried them. The proof is on my family room wall. A nice N/W Colorado elk. That wonderful rifle now resides at my friends ranch in Idaho. The old .270 simply works.
 
Swampman said:
They aren't getting away from "traditional" loadings near fast enough, at least in .257 Roberts.
View attachment 991785

View attachment 991786

View attachment 991787
Three loads from three manufacturers, two of which are even +P pressure, but none of the bullets have a B.C. much better than a poorly thrown clodhopper.
Click to expand...
Yeah unfortunately the 25s have kind of been left behind as well. I still haven't had a 257 Roberts but I thought my 250AI was a fantastic little round, unfortunately it also suffered from the same slow twist issue and none of the available bullets that it could shoot were over 0.48 BC

Nosler at least offers the accubond and ballistic tip in their line of 257 Roberts ammunition.
 
Elkins45 said:
The idea that there is some magic bullet diameter has always baffled me. Like somehow having a .277 diameter projectile driven thru your lungs at 3000 FPS is somehow less deadly than a similar one of .284 diameter? It defies all logic.
Click to expand...

It just that, especially w/ factory ammo, the .270 Winchester, for a given bullet wt., fits a little further into the "Awesome" corner of the envelope.

Neither shooter nor game will notice.




GR
 
The .270 is a great hunting cartridge and is popular but it has never been successful in serious competition. That's why I like the 7-08 but legends sell better.
 
Last edited:
Elkins45 said:
The idea that there is some magic bullet diameter has always baffled me. Like somehow having a .277 diameter projectile driven thru your lungs at 3000 FPS is somehow less deadly than a similar one of .284 diameter? It defies all logic.
Click to expand...
Historically, mens personal perceptions of weapon effectiveness haven't been particularly logical or science driven.
 
Garandimal said:
It just that, especially w/ factory ammo, the .270 Winchester, for a given bullet wt., fits a little further into the "Awesome" corner of the envelope.

Neither shooter nor game will notice.




GR
Click to expand...
I think the .277 bore excels with 140-150gr bullets, lighter and ill drop to a 6.5, heavier and ill go to a .284. but as always thats my PERSONAL view.
 
The 270 kills and kills well. It’s a fairly flat shooting cartridge that was limited by the ideologies of the time. I’m happy to say I own a few. It’s great. But it doesn’t kill any better (or worse) than any other rifle I own at the distances those cartridges are typically used. If it’s just something for us to discuss, I guess I get it. But all the charts, graphs, and schematics in the world, don’t mean a damn thing if you can’t put the bullet where it needs to go. And if you can put the bullet where it needs to go, then they still don’t mean a damn thing.

My primary hunting bullet has a SD of .186 and a BC of .185. When I’m going after the big boys my hunting bullet has a SD of .238 and a BC of .189. Seriously, there can’t be many worse SD/BC’s out there for hunting bullets short of maybe patched round balls. But how many animals have I lost to either bullet? ZERO. Put me in the Yukon going after moose, the plains of Africa going after Impala or Eland, or California going after Cous and the number will remain the same. I won’t take a shot I don’t feel comfortable taking. And a high BC bullet doesn’t alleviate that comfort zone.

If I’m at the point that I have to worry about charts and graphs of MV, SD, BC to justify/dignify my choice in cartridge, then I’ve robbed myself of the reason I hunt. Might as well just go fishing.
 
BigBore44 said:
If I’m at the point that I have to worry about charts and graphs of MV, SD, BC to justify/dignify my choice in cartridge, then I’ve robbed myself of the reason I hunt. Might as well just go fishing.
Click to expand...

When it comes to the 270 Winchester or 280 Remington they are both good. The 280 is a little faster with a 140 grain bullet but when I pull the trigger they both feel the same and perform the same. Just pick a good powder like IMR 4831 and a good bullet like the 140 grain Nosler partition for either rifle and all is good. The reloading community has worked out all of the bugs for so many years that there is very little else to discover. Longer bullets and faster twists won't do much for the average hunter. And, the white bass, walleye and channel cats are running up the river. Worked this past week to clear brush away from the bank to make fishing easier.

I watched two or three of Tom River's posts on youtube and he talks so dang slow and says so very little that I can't stand to watch him.
 
Last edited:
sage5907 said:
When it comes to the 270 Winchester or 280 Remington they are both good. The 280 is a little faster with a 140 grain bullet but when I pull the trigger they both feel the same and perform the same. Just pick a good powder like IMR 4831 and a good bullet like the 140 grain Nosler partition for either rifle and all is good. The reloading community has worked out all of the bugs for so many years that there is very little else to discover. Longer bullets and faster twists won't do much for the average hunter. And, the white bass, walleye and channel cats are running up the river. Worked this past week to clear brush away from the bank to make fishing easier.

I watched two or three of Tom River's posts on youtube and he talks so dang slow and says so very little that I can't stand to watch him.
Click to expand...
Somewhat the point of the 270 is to use the 130's. 140 is a fine and ubiquitous weight, everybody using a 6.5 on up to 7mm Mag seems to use it, but running the 130's with a 270 Winchester was preferred for flatter trajectory, terminal performance and generally lighter recoil. If you were to cosmically eliminate the 30-06 and the 270 a 280 would be a fine stand-in. If you are looking to differentiate from the 30-06, for some more speed, and less recoil, then 270 for me. But I feel that 270 WSM really shines as well.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Garandimal
  • Locked
Why does the 6.5 Creedmoor Crowd claim the 143 ELD-X as the Bullet that Beats the .270 Winchester?
2 3 4 5 6 7
Replies
172
Views
15K
Art Eatman
A
Garandimal
  • Locked
An Interesting Coincidence: .270 WCF and 6.5x55mm
Replies
10
Views
851
Dr T
Dr T
Garandimal
  • Locked
For the .270 Win/150 gr. and 6.5x55 Swede/140 gr. - Talk Me Out of Using IMR 4831
2
Replies
38
Views
2K
Bfh_auto
B
Garandimal
  • Locked
A Note RE: Rifle Recoil...
2
Replies
37
Views
2K
Mosin Bubba
M
N
  • Locked
Why the .270 is obsolete
2 3 4 5
Replies
118
Views
6K
Robert
Robert
Back
Top