.270 vs .30-06 (POLL)

[LoonWulf]

I would imagine his experience with me is the same given my love for the .270 Winchester.

I completely support your right to own and enjoy a cartridge I dont like.

Ill just roll my eyes, and mutter under my breath when your not looking, very Muttley esque .....Its what I do to all my in laws (every one a .270 fan, besides my FIL hes a 7mager ). I guess that could be why they all think im crazy.....

My 6.5x55 takes the place of the Creedmoor.

If only the x55 fit in these stubby actions I keep ending up with.......I probably should have done my T99 in the Swede.

 

[LoonWulf]

The only problem with the .243 Win is that it lacks energy of the larger bores noted above beyond 300 yards, and long-range trajectory with the 100 grainers is not as good as the lighter bullets. A 90 grain, pointy boat-tail bullet would probably be a big help.

If you have a fast twist .243, there are a good crop of heavier bullets that can be loaded out and driven pretty fast. The ELD-X should be an excellent deer bullet for that rifle, unfortunately when i bought them they were for a 1-10 (didnt know at the time) twisted gun, so i dont have any experience with them.
My old .243 did fine with the berger 95vlds, but i ended up shooting regular spire points mostly. Ive been pretty happy with the performance on those, but your right they do start to slow down pretty quick as you get out there.

 

[Bushpilot]

Sectional density. The .270 is held back by Winchester's absurd choice of the 1:10 twist - the 6.5mm Mauser was 1:200mm, the 7mm Mauser 1:250mm - somehow Winchester found 1:10" in the middle ?!?!.

That mistake, once made, is very hard to fix. They could have fixed it with the .270 WSM, but they missed the opportunity.

First off, the 1/10 isn't "in the middle" of 200mm and 250mm, it is 254mm... Second, there is nothing "absurd" about the 270 Winchester's 1/10 twist rate. It does a perfectly good job of stabilizing the most common hunting bullet weights for the 270 Winchester. You seem to think that every hunting and military rifle needs to be able to shoot a 2 inch long bullet suitable for a 1000 yard target rifle... It doesn't...

6.5mm is the first caliber that historically has bullet with a sectional density over 0.3. 7mm is the next. .270 doesn't get to play since Winchester screwed up.

You're well in the minority if you think Winchester "screwed up" with the 270... There is nothing that you can hunt with the 6.5s or the 7mms that you can't hunt with a 270, regardless of what you think about it's 1/10 rate of twist...

The calibers in between 7mm and .375 don't let you hunt any additional thin skinned non-dangerous game, have worse ballistics and recoil, and aren't good stopping rifles. So what's the point of them exactly?

The point is that just like the 6.5mms and 7mms have an edge over the 6mms in the size game they can take and the authority in which they will anchor a large game animal, so do the .30s, 338s and 35's have an edge over the 6.5's and the 7mms... There's a whole slew of great cartridges that you just wrote off with your "doughnut theory" that not only will put down large, thin-skinned game with more aplomb than your 6.5's and 7mms but will also stop some big angry animals too.. Here are just a few:

30-06, 300 Win. Mag., 300 Wby. Mag, 338 Win. Mag, .340 Wby,.35 Whelen and 350 Rem. Mag.

Do they recoil more? Of course they do and if they hit harder on one end they're usually gonna hit harder on the other end as well... Honestly, if you really think that a 6.5 performs just as well on elk or moose as the 300 or 338 mag that you wrote off as being pointless then... well...... I'm at a loss..... Well, lets just say we're at polar opposites on this subject......

 

[someguy2800]

I completely support your right to own and enjoy a cartridge I dont like.

Ill just roll my eyes, and mutter under my breath when your not looking, very Muttley esque .....Its what I do to all my in laws (every one a .270 fan, besides my FIL hes a 7mager ). I guess that could be why they all think im crazy.....

I can relate to that. My FIL is the worlds biggest fan of the 270 and even though I am also a fan of the 270 and I own one, listening to him talk about it is almost nauseating. I refuse to take mine hunting just to deny him the satisfaction. He is firmly convinced it is deadlier than anything that can be loaded in a 30-06.

 

[Garandimal]

Sectional density. The .270 is held back by Winchester's absurd choice of the 1:10 twist - the 6.5mm Mauser was 1:200mm, the 7mm Mauser 1:250mm - somehow Winchester found 1:10" in the middle ?!?!.

That mistake, once made, is very hard to fix. They could have fixed it with the .270 WSM, but they missed the opportunity.

The parent cartridge (.30-06 Springfield) is 1:10.

Designed in 1925 as a flatter shooting/ higher velocity/ longer PBR alternative to the parent cartridge, 1:10 stabilizes spitzer bullets up to 150 gr., which is the practical upper limit W/R/T velocity.


It's not the 6.5 CM of today... because it is the .270 WIN of 1925.




GR

 

[Llama Bob]

The parent cartridge (.30-06 Springfield) is 1:10.

.30-03 is the parent I'm pretty sure. Anyways, twist rate should basically follow caliber (and faster twist for slower MV) not case family.

I understand how they got there, but in the process they really limited the cartridge. When I can shoot 160s in 6.5mm all day long, but only low-SD 150s in .270 the question arises of why I would want a .270 - after all if I want light and fast the 6.5s will do that too (and lighter and faster). And by the way I don't dislike the .270 per se - compared to the .30-06 I prefer it. But they did make a mistake IMO.

 

[1MoreFord]

From my ole timers point of view it looks like I voted 30.06 however either will serve you well.

 

[Goosey]

The parent cartridge (.30-06 Springfield) is 1:10.

Designed in 1925 as a flatter shooting/ higher velocity alternative to the parent cartridge, 1:10 stabilizes spitzer bullets up to 150 gr., which is the practical upper limit W/R/T velocity.

It's not the 6.5 CM of today... because it is the .270 WIN of 1925.

GR

Yep, back in the day they didn't have laser rangefinders. Flat trajectory was a much bigger deal. Those heavy, sleek, long-for-caliber bullets would have meant lower velocity and therefore shorter range when talking hunting from 1925 until recently. And more recoil, too. If a 1-8" .270 sends even a 170 gr Berger at 2,700 ft/s the .270's trajectory is not much better than a 180 gr softpoint .30-06.

A 150 gr .277" bullet has the sectional density of a 185 grain .308". As it wasn't intended to beat the '06 on heavy game there was no point twisting the rifle for anything longer at that time. And if a twist is too fast the light bullets may not shoot as well, or could even self-destruct—the .270 could also be used for varmints.

Many military rounds had their quick twists to stabilize the original long, heavy round-nosed bullets. Long, heavy round-nosed bullets aren't exactly highly advanced and the original designers of those cartridges back in the 19th century didn't choose those twists foreseeing today's VLD bullets either.

Those bores just got lucky with their history. Not an absurd choice, just how history worked out.

 

[LoonWulf]

What bugs me is that they STILL use it, even the some of the custom barrel makers only list a 1-10.
Switching to a fast twist at this point wouldnt hurt either the .257 or the .277s, and i cant see changing the rifling rate to be too hard for anyone not doing hammer forged barrels.

 

[someguy2800]

I find the argument against the 1:10 twist rate of the 270 hilarious. The most popular hunting bullet weights in 6.5 are 120 and 140, and the most popular hunting bullets in 7mm are 140 and 160. All of the hunting bullets in those weights would stabilize in a 1:10. Its only the very heavy for caliber and VLD match bullets that need a 1:8 twist in those calibers. So what exactly is wrong with the 130 and 150 grain hunting bullets in 270? If a 140 grain .264 and a 160 grain .284 are the right answer, how can a 150 grain .277 be wrong?

 

[Garandimal]

.30-03 is the parent I'm pretty sure. Anyways, twist rate should basically follow caliber (and faster twist for slower MV) not case family.

I understand how they got there, but in the process they really limited the cartridge. When I can shoot 160s in 6.5mm all day long, but only low-SD 150s in .270 the question arises of why I would want a .270 - after all if I want light and fast the 6.5s will do that too (and lighter and faster). And by the way I don't dislike the .270 per se - compared to the .30-06 I prefer it. But they did make a mistake IMO.

In 1925, low-SD bullets were all that existed, and no one had chronographs besides the Government.

Nosler's 150 gr. .277 Partition bullet has an SD of 0.462 - just a little under their 160 gr. 7mm (0.475) and 180 gr. .30 (0.474) offerings, and all having very similar BC's. The 150 gr. .277 can be pushed at ~ 2900 fps out of a .270 WIN.

As for VLD .277 bullets, HDY's 145 gr. ELD-X's BC looks pretty good at 0.536, and is still light enough to be pushed at high velocity and consequently flat shooting.

As for shooting your 160 gr. 6.5? Out of which cartridge?

6.5 CM? what's the muzzle velocity out of a 22" sporter Bbl. and drop at 400 yards of that mortar round?

For a hunting round, 400 yards is a loooong way.

And 600 yards for a field round is a loooong way.




GR

 

[LoonWulf]

I find the argument against the 1:10 twist rate of the 270 hilarious. The most popular hunting bullet weights in 6.5 are 120 and 140, and the most popular hunting bullets in 7mm are 140 and 160. All of the hunting bullets in those weights would stabilize in a 1:10. So what exactly is wrong with the 130 and 150 grain hunting bullets in 270?

I stole that

There are plenty of other heavier bullets that dont do real well in a 1-10, or even a 1-9.


What bugs me is that, the twist limits what design changes bullet manufacturers can do to increase the bc of bullets. If manufacturers offered .257s in a 1-8, wed likely see more .257s with bcs in the 5-6s (pet peeve there highest i can get is about .463), the same could be said for .277s

again inside of 400yds it really dosent matter, and im not a good enough shot to be shooting outside of 400yds or so, so it shouldnt matter to me....but it does.

 

[tactikel]

I hunt in Marinette county Wi. Average White tail is killed at 60 yards. A shot across a field, or down a firelane may be 200 yards max. I chose the '06 only because of bullet selection options. Unless you are really going out west a .243 would be best IMHO.

 

[Garandimal]

What bugs me is that they STILL use it, even the some of the custom barrel makers only list a 1-10.
Switching to a fast twist at this point wouldnt hurt either the .257 or the .277s, and i cant see changing the rifling rate to be too hard for anyone not doing hammer forged barrels.

Twist rates are in the SAAMI Certification.




GR

 

[LoonWulf]

Twist rates are in the SAAMI Certification.




GR

I get that, but there are a number cartridges that have different twist rates (I also didnt think SAAMI actually had any twist requirements). The .243 for instance comes in 1-10, 1-9, and ive heard of others. The .250 came in a 1-14, which was changed to a 1-10. .223s can come in everything from 1-14 to 1-9 (Ive never seen a faster .223 marked gun, but they may exist).

Why not update current cartridges to a 1-8/1-9 twist rates, that would at least give the ability to get bullets in the mid .5s without much work.

 

[Picher]

I don't deliberately shoot at deer beyond 400 yards, so the 130 grain .270 load I use is a GREAT choice for ME. I don't care that it was designed in the 1920s, it WORKS as well as anything for Maine deer in the area I hunt. I don't shoot at 1,000 yards and don't often hunt in heavy woods with it. I've squeezed the trigger on many deer and an 860 lb. moose at some long Maine distances and it hasn't failed me yet.

Some of the other cartridges I've hunted/killed deer with are: 20 and 12 gauge slugs, .22-250 Rem, .30-06, and .243 Win, but it's not as important what you shoot at them with...as WHERE THEY'RE HIT.

 

[cdb1]

First off, the 1/10 isn't "in the middle" of 200mm and 250mm, it is 254mm... Second, there is nothing "absurd" about the 270 Winchester's 1/10 twist rate. It does a perfectly good job of stabilizing the most common hunting bullet weights for the 270 Winchester. You seem to think that every hunting and military rifle needs to be able to shoot a 2 inch long bullet suitable for a 1000 yard target rifle... It doesn't...

You're well in the minority if you think Winchester "screwed up" with the 270... There is nothing that you can hunt with the 6.5s or the 7mms that you can't hunt with a 270, regardless of what you think about it's 1/10 rate of twist...



The point is that just like the 6.5mms and 7mms have an edge over the 6mms in the size game they can take and the authority in which they will anchor a large game animal, so do the .30s, 338s and 35's have an edge over the 6.5's and the 7mms... There's a whole slew of great cartridges that you just wrote off with your "doughnut theory" that not only will put down large, thin-skinned game with more aplomb than your 6.5's and 7mms but will also stop some big angry animals too.. Here are just a few:

30-06, 300 Win. Mag., 300 Wby. Mag, 338 Win. Mag, .340 Wby,.35 Whelen and 350 Rem. Mag.

Do they recoil more? Of course they do and if they hit harder on one end they're usually gonna hit harder on the other end as well... Honestly, if you really think that a 6.5 performs just as well on elk or moose as the 300 or 338 mag that you wrote off as being pointless then... well...... I'm at a loss..... Well, lets just say we're at polar opposites on this subject......

I agree with you on everything you said.

 

[mpd61]

I agree with you on everything you said.

8.6 CREEDMORE!?!?
WTH!!!
I give up, all this MADNESS thanks to the .30 TC?

 

[Llama Bob]

First off, the 1/10 isn't "in the middle" of 200mm and 250mm, it is 254mm.

Well at least you managed to figure out what Winchester missed.

Had they simply picked a twist rate in the middle (such as 1:9") they wouldn't have crippled the caliber.

 

[cdb1]

Well at least you managed to figure out what Winchester missed.

Had they simply picked a twist rate in the middle (such as 1:9") they wouldn't have crippled the caliber.

It’s amazing how a crippled cartridge became so popular.

 

[Llama Bob]

Twist rates are in the SAAMI Certification.

SAAMI's twist rate is a suggestion, not a requirement. However, once it gets set and rifles are built, the existence of slow twist rifles will cripple a cartridge because ammo makers generally won't make rounds that don't stabilize in the typical gun.

Of course you can get past this by making a new cartridge like Hornady did with 6.5CM, getting them around the twist rate mistake Remington made on .260. If you do this and new, longer bullets are made then frequently the older cartridge will get rifles with the new faster twist. Winchester could have done exactly that with the .270 WSM, but they missed the opportunity.

 

[Llama Bob]

It’s amazing how a crippled cartridge became so popular.

People get excited about all sorts of things that are horribly designed. Witness that they sold almost a million Dodge Omnis.

 

[Flatbush Harry]

FWIW, I spent last weekend in a LR Precision Shooting Class in CO. One of our participants was using a Win M70 in .270, shooting Hornady Precision Hunting ammo. He was making first shot hits out to 1,250 yards. He had a good rifle, an excellent scope, great ammo, and wonderful wind calls (in 16 mph variable wind), elevation (altitude about 4,900') dope, and exceptional fundamentals of marksmanship. While he was a rock star with that rifle, he did show that the .270 Win (.277 cal) was more than capable of shooting as far as needed accurately. Were I hunting western elk, I'd opt for 140 gr bullets but would not hesitate to use a proven hunting rifle in .270. Keep in mind that the 7mm family, with .284 cal bullets (only 7/1000 of an inch wider) are widely-used elk rounds...indeed, I've used a Win M70 in .7mm RM with both 140 gr and 160 gr bullets successfully. A well-placed shot with a bullet with sufficient terminal ballistics will stop almost anything that you encounter (as the old saw goes, "Who was that guy WDM Bell, and he did what with a .275 Rigby?")

Incidentally, I was using a purpose-designed precision rifle in .308 Win for the class. James outshot me by a good margin although I was getting 1,250 yard hits also. I think that this proved that it's not the arrows, Tonto.

Harry

 

[cdb1]

People get excited about all sorts of things that are horribly designed. Witness that they sold almost a million Dodge Omnis.

I guess Jack was getting a stipend from Winchester to perpetuate the myth.
If the .270 was crippled by its barrel twist rate I believe it would have come out before now. Granted it could use a faster twist in conjunction with a VERY FEW number of today’s bullets. Same with the .243. At the time of its invention it had the correct twist.

 

[js8588]

...indeed, I've used a Win M70 in .7mm RM with both 140 gr and 160 gr bullets successfully.

Harry

Those must be some looooooong bullets!