.270 Caliber. Why?

[Laphroaig]

Tactikel's post got me Googling, and here’s some pieces to the puzzle of why Winchester might have chosen .277 as the bullet diameter for their new cartridge.

There was actually development of a 6.8 mm cartridge by the Chinese in the early 1900’s. There were two variants, 6.8x57 and 6.8x60, developed by Mauser in Germany. The Chinese had a contract with Haenel of Suhl Germany who produced a 6.8x57 1907 Model rifle based on the Gewehr 88. A number of these rifles were built and shipped to China, but production stopped in 1914 due to WWI. Shortly thereafter, China abandoned the 6.8 in favor of the 7.92x57.

In the US, there was testing of a “28” caliber cartridge based on the 30-06 case in the period 1910 to 1913. Not much is known of the specifics of this testing. Winchester might have participated.

Then, in the period from 1918 to 1921, Chinese General Liu, commander of the Hanyang Arsenal, came to Springfield armory on at least 2 occasions to participate in tests of a self loading rifle developed in China utilizing the 6.8x57 round.

I checked several sources but much of the above narrative came from this thread on another forum:

http://www.iaaforum.org/forum3/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=4427&start=0

Just looking at the above sequence of events, it seems likely that Winchester might have gotten the .270 idea from the Chinese when they were here at Springfield.

But wait! Check the post by Historian (everybody’s named Historian on that site) on the second page, dated Thursday July 3, 2008 at 2:08PM. He claims that there is a drawing from Winchester Dated January 16, 1917 showing their .270 Cartridge prototype. If this is true, then maybe Winchester came up with the idea independently? Historian gives some references at the end of his post that I might try and check out next time I’m at the big library in Pittsburgh.

I think that world events during and immediately after WWI would make collaboration with Germany unlikely. Unless maybe General Liu corresponded with someone over here during that time period? Liu was apparently educated in America. We’ll never know but I think Winchester knew of the Chinese round somehow.

Finally, one thing is apparent to me. If the Chinese were involved, it lends credence to rc’s post that Harbor Freight was somehow in the picture. Is rc ever wrong?

Merry Christmas everyone!

Laphroaig

 

[rbernie]

So from this I gather that choosing .270 allowed Winchester to corner the market on the ammunition production, and that the .270's popularity may not have depended on Mr. O'Conner as much as we have been led to believe.

Now this sounds as plausible as any other theory - they deliberately made a proprietary round by making the bore different than any other.

 

[Sniper66]

Dunno why, but glad they did. Bought my first one this year and killed my first deer opening day, dropped where she stood.

 

[justin22885]

seems .277s becoming more popular with the 6.8SPC and .277 wolverine

 

[Bobson]

I've never shot one, what is the recoil like?

My first hunting rifle was a 270 (in a roughly 7 pound rifle), when I was 26. Recoil from 150gr bullets felt pretty stout.

Next rifle caliber I shot was 300 Win Mag (8 pound rifle). Recoil from 180gr Federal Fusions actually felt less than what I remembered the 270 being...

Maybe one is more of a slap, and the other is more of a push - sorta like 9mm versus 40 S&W? Idk. Maybe time just exaggerated the recoil of the 270 in my mind. Maybe that one pound weight difference has a bigger effect on felt recoil than I expect it to.

 

[Gtscotty]

Maybe time just exaggerated the recoil of the 270 in my mind. Maybe that one pound weight difference has a bigger effect on felt recoil than I expect it to.

That or the stock shape on the .270 did not handle recoil as well. I find .270 recoil very easy to handle, on the order of a similar weight .308, certainly less than a full bore 30-06, which, itself is not bad in a well designed rifle.

 

[R.W.Dale]

My first "real" rifle was a skeleton stocked ruger 77 all weather my current never sell rifle is the same gun in 30/06.

If blindfolded shooting the same bullet weights you'd never be able to tell the difference

 

[Gtscotty]

My first "real" rifle was a skeleton stocked ruger 77 all weather my current never sell rifle is the same gun in 30/06.

If blindfolded shooting the same bullet weights you'd never be able to tell the difference

I guess I wouldn't know about that then, I shoot 130's and 140's in .270, and 165's and 180's in '06. No overlap to compare, but recoil is related to momentum, so lighter weight bullets tend to kick less even if they are going fast enough to have the same kinetic energy as a heavier slower round. That's one of the nice things about the .270, 130's kill medium game very well, but are easy on the shoulder.

 

[R.W.Dale]

I shoot 125's and 150's almost exclusively from 30-06

Tons of overlap

 

[d2wing]

The 270 does shoot a little faster and flatter than a 30-06. But only in lighter bullets. The same weight bullets there is very little if any difference. Even in lighter bullets there isn't much difference. In checking ballistic tables it seem there is little gain in necking down a cartridge. But you do get less recoil and a small gain in trajectory. I was disappointed in my 7-08 that it isn't much if any different than a .308 in trajectory and velocity. But it does recoil much less. All of that class of bullets do a great job at normal hunting ranges on deer size game. Differences are more imaginary than fact but there are some differences.
I do not know why they invented the .270 but it was a marketing idea that with the paid help of Jack OConner paid off and killed off the .280. Much the same as Jack killed off the 6 MM REM in favor of the .243. I think there were issues with twist rates with 6MM as well.

 

[AKElroy]

Probably because it was as far from a military calibre as Winchester could get. Especially 7 and 8mm Mauser. Plus it wasn't 'metric'. Metric meant trouble and bad memories for some. W.W. I was a recent thing in 1925.
Without O'Connor, the .270 very likely would have been discontinued before it even got going.

I think this is it. In fact, many European countries ban the sporting use of military cartridges. Not sure this was the case when this round was developed, but maybe...

As for the effectiveness, the folklor and buzz in the hunting community around Jack O'connor's exploits cannot be overstated. That man sold a bunch of .270's, and the devotees of that chambering are near cult-like in their devotion to it. My father is one such individual, and, sure enough, every animal I've shot with his trusty Winchester died. I'm sure my other rifles would have fallen short...

 

[AKElroy]

I guess I wouldn't know about that then, I shoot 130's and 140's in .270, and 165's and 180's in '06. No overlap to compare, but recoil is related to momentum, so lighter weight bullets tend to kick less even if they are going fast enough to have the same kinetic energy as a heavier slower round. That's one of the nice things about the .270, 130's kill medium game very well, but are easy on the shoulder.

I get the science in this comment, but honestly, firing both from the bench I cannot tell a difference, and I've fired them back to back. In the field, my .270 seams to be a bit more painful on unprotected ears. (I do not always ear protect when hunting, please save the flames. I am aware of the damage).

 

[Lone Star]

O'Connor did address this in a .270 article. I think a man he knew at Winchester was his source.

They were afraid that if they chose a 7mm, some would try to re-chamber Mexican or Spanish Mausers and Rolling Block 7mm's for the new round and that there'd be accidents. They had lawyers in 1925, too!

If you don't have his, The Rifle Book and, The Hunting Rifle, buy them. They're a little dated, but essential basic knowledge of hunting rifles, and much still applies. There is no better source of this info, and reading those books will avoid having to ask a lot of questions on boards like this.

The main improvements have been in optics, esp. in variable scopes, and the appearance of the Winchester short Magnum cartridges, but they haven't done well, anyway. And synthetic stocks are now much more common.

I've kept a few letters from Jack and have most of his books. I think he did for hunting rifles what Jeff Cooper did for handguns. He died in 1978, but no better writer about hunting rifles has emerged.

Yes, he loved the .270 and the 7X57mm, but pointed out that 7mm burns barrel throats sooner if bullets lighter than the old 175 grain bullets are used a lot. I imagine that Rigby discovered this with the .275, which is just the 7mm Mauser loaded with Rigby's patented bullets. They were intended to take both the 175 grain bullet and a later, faster Rigby load with 140 grain bullet.

O'Connor was also very fond of the .30-06 and he liked the .375 H&H and the .416 Rigby for really big game. I think he had three .416's built for him, but none by Rigby. Believe that two were on re-worked M-1917 actions and the other on a Brevex Magnum Mauser. He also had a .338 for big bears.

He did love the .270 and used several rifles in that caliber for much of his hunting. But he went to larger bores when indicated. Many today seem not to know that about him. And he was responsible for a lot of the success of both the .270 load and of Winchester's Model 70. He was not enthused about the post-1964 version. But I think he'd be very pleased with the current ones. I am.

 

[Lone Star]

I just read posts above saying that Jack O' Connor was Winchester's press agent out the gate with the .270 and that he killed off the 6mm Remington in favor of the .243. Neither statement is accurate.

O'Connor didn't begin to write outdoor material until the 1930's, when he lived in AZ. The .270 and the M-54 rifle appeared in 1925. He did substantially boost its popularity, but it was already a modest success for Winchester.

BTW, it was O'Connor who almost single-handedly made the classic stock style popular.

And he knew and noted the superior design of the 6mm Remington ctg. over the .243 and had a custom 6mm made on a Mauser action. But he honestly told readers about the rifling twist problem in early Remington rifles, and this probably didn't help sales. Winchester better understood that many buyers saw the 6mm's as both varmint and deer calibers. Remington slanted the 6mm as a varmint caliber and only belatedly realized that they needed to change the twist to better stabilize heavier bullets. The .244 Remington was re-named the 6mm, but the damage was done and the .244/6mm never caught up to sales of the versatile .243.

Jack felt snubbed by Remington PR people soon after he became Shooting Editor of, Outdoor Life and he got along better with Winchester and preferred their more traditional rifles after Remington cheapened their line in 1948. It was left to Warren Page at, Field & Stream to make friends at Remington and to promote that brand. Page was a fan of the 7mm Magnums and was the probable father of their success, much as Jack championed the .270.

BTW, Jack O'Connor was also one of the best shotgun writers, and I implore you to buy, The Shotgun Book, preferably in the later (1977?) edition. I'd have to dig mine out and check publication dates, but I think it may have reached print about a year after his death. It would have taken a year or two after his revision for it to be re-printed, with the new info. That later ed. has added content, inc. on the Remington M-1100, etc.

Jack preferred Winchester M-21 double shotguns, and later, a couple of fancy Beretta doubles that he bought in Italy. He told me that the 20 ga. would do for most hunting, and that the guns and shells were a lot easier to carry in upland hunting. He even used the 20 ga. a lot for pheasants and ducks.

 

[cpt-t]

Laphroaig: I am getting Older and my Wife's health is failing so my going hunting in the mountains is about at a end. And I have an Old Sako Rifle in 270 that, I have had a love affair with for many years. But now it just sets in the back of the safe now looking forlorned and mistreated. And I had not shoot it in over a year or more. But I found some 110gr Hornady V-Max`s for it 3 or 4 weeks ago and they shoot extremely well thru my Old Sako 270. An 1 inch or less groups are just regular as clock work with it now. I now have a truly Coyote Killing Machine that I use a lot, rather than a Safe Queen. We have a lot of Coyotes in this area and I have been trying to thin them out when my Wife feels well enough for me to be gone for a few hours. Using my Old Sako Rifle and these bullets. I can just about turn a Coyote inside out as far as I can see one so they are DRT no running away. And because most of the ones I have shot lately are just ate up with mange. I leave them where they lay and the Farmers and Ranchers that I shoot on are extremely happy with that. And I have one of my favorite Rifles back in action.
ken

 

[txcookie]

When comparing apples to apples (ie the same bullet weights) there is very little difference in bullet drop.

I'm looking at the charts right now and it is showing the .270 with 130 grain bullet dropping 11.57 inches at 300 and 50.9 at 500 yds.

The .30-06 with 150 grain bullets is dropping 13.3 inches at 300 and 55.3 inches at 500 yds.

I don't think that would be considered "much" flatter.

At the time it was. Powders have came a long way.

 

[txcookie]

I have no idea why. I suspect they wanted something fast, with less recoil that would be highly accurate. I know with out Ole Jack, it probably wouldn't have been as popular. I also know it's is right there with the 308, 30.06 as far as a do all rifle. I feel it's and excellent choice for any game other than big bear. I do feel it's adequate for the big bear though there are better choices.

 

[gamestalker]

I've researched this to death, and I still don't know why.

But what I do know, is that the .270 win. remains one of the most popular all around hunting cartridges for North American game.

I think the ballistics of the .280 Rem. demonstrates why Win. went with the .277". The .280 is a dog in comparison to the .270 win., and actually took away from the desired results, as it offered absolutely no advantage regarding trajectory. And the .280 Rem has nothing on the 30-06, which out performs the .280 in just about every aspect.

GS

 

[natman]

The .270 is a necked down .30-06, and coincidentally, when resized, rarely needs trimming to length. That was on purpose.

I hate to nitpick, but I will. It was either coincidental or it was on purpose. It's pretty hard to be both.

 

[R.W.Dale]

I've researched this to death, and I still don't know why.



But what I do know, is that the .270 win. remains one of the most popular all around hunting cartridges for North American game.



I think the ballistics of the .280 Rem. demonstrates why Win. went with the .277". The .280 is a dog in comparison to the .270 win., and actually took away from the desired results, as it offered absolutely no advantage regarding trajectory. And the .280 Rem has nothing on the 30-06, which out performs the .280 in just about every aspect.



GS

280 Remington is a dog not because it's .007" too fat. It's a dog because it gives up 5000 psi of operating pressure vs the 270

It represents just one of a half century of Remington failures but that's the topic for another thread

 

[Laphroaig]

280 Remington is a dog

I don't understand this conclusion. I just did a quick perusal of some on-line loading data (Nosler, Hodgdon, Alliant) with a common bullet weight, 140 grains. If anything, depending on the powder, the 280 might have a very slight potential for higher velocities. That would be expected due to the slightly bigger diameter.

As far as the "operating pressure", that is a factory ammo condition. After all, 2 rifles from the same manufacturer would have the same allowable chamber pressure considering the closeness of the 2 cartridges.

I think Jack would have had the same success with a M70 chambered .280.

Laphroaig

 

[R.W.Dale]

As far as the "operating pressure", that is a factory ammo condition. After all, 2 rifles from the same manufacturer would have the same allowable chamber pressure considering the closeness of the 2 cartridges.

Except they don't

Saami allows 270 to be loaded to 65k psi
Remington submitted 280 to them @ 60k psi

Even though every firearm Remington had in mind for the then new 7mm express/280 rem was already offered in 270 Winchester

 

[H&Hhunter]

The 6.5-06 offers better BC and higher SD for the velocity. But I guess the big picture here is, does any of this add up to a hill of beans on actual in the field performance on game? I think the answer is no. All of these rounds have about the same terminal performance on game. It comes down to what sells and personal preference.

For me the 6.5-06 makes for a fantastic kid round in that it offers great BC/SD at very usable velocity with extremely light recoil. My youngest daughter has taken to hers with a vengeance. She killed her antelope buck last year at 328 yards, one shot. Her antelope this year dropped to one shot at about 100 yards and there have been a pile of North American game rocks at various ranges that have paid the ultimate price as well.

The key is confidence and the kid has supreme confidence in that rifle. She enjoys shooting it. I'm guessing that the same could have been said about a properly weighted and fit .270 but you get better SD/BC with lighter bullets in the 6.5 and that allows for greater capability with less recoil. A perfect combination for the kidlet.

 

[R.W.Dale]

The highest BC of any of the calibers mentioned are within a few percentage points of each other.

People today get way too hung up on BC. Inside of 300m where 99.5% of hunters have no business at all taking a shot beyond BC has no role to play whatsoever from an 06 or 08 class derived cartridge. Misjudgment of the range by + or - ten yards will have a bigger affect on poi than going from one BC extreme to another

 

[22-rimfire]

I bought one because I wanted a deer rifle with more omph than 243 win that I owed then. I had a deer get away from me which I naturally blamed on the caliber versus the tree I shot though before hitting the deer.... My Dad swore by the 30-06 and as a kid I certainly wanted to be different. Me and two of my brothers swear by the 270 for deer hunting. I read a lot of Jack O'Conner back in the day and his opinion made a big difference when I chose a caliber.

I am not all hung up on calibers for deer sized game. I chose a 243 win first because I wanted a combination varmint (groundhog) and deer rifle at age 16. I killed a lot of woodchucks with that rifle. But I eventually wanted something "more" for deer hunting.