.270 vs. 6.5 swede?

[ACP]

I'm considering purchasing my first centerfire, bolt action rifle. I have decided on a Winchester Series 70 Featherweight in either .270 or 6.5 x 55 Swede. Anyone with experience, I would appreciate an understanding of a difference between the two cartridges. In the future I may hunt, I'd like to go up to something as large as moose, perhaps a black bear (shooting in northern New England) or maybe even an elk (if I ever get out West). I've heard the ballistics are similar, the 6.5 is softer shooting, can use heavier bullets, is accurate, flat shooting, and carries more energy past 100 yards than the .270. But there aren't as many factory loads? And I don't handload, at least not yet. Thanks in advance.

 

[Baba Louie]

You pretty well nailed it, altho I wouldn't say the 6.5 is a flatter shooting cartridge. When zero'd for 300 yds/meters/paces (whatever) like my Old Swede Mauser is, it tends to shoot a might low at 100 yds(understatement there) so there's plenty of arch in the old round.
Since you're going new Win Featherweight and I assume are in the USofA you'll probably be able to pick up .270 with a little more ease at any store that sells ammo, than the 6.5SE.
But, if you ever do get a chance to pick up an old Swedish Mauser in 6.5, do yourself a favor and snag it. You won't believe what a really old gun can do... why sometimes it even makes me look like I can shoot a little. And mine was made in 1900 somewhere in Germany
It ain't no featherweight and it's a might long and skinny looking and the knob sticks way out to the side... but boy, does that thing shoot well. I reckon if I was to go bear or elk hunting and got up close enough to use the open sights and placed the round where it ought to go, a black bear or elk sized critter would eventually expire pretty darned quick using the 6.5x55, with or without Jack Conner's stamp of approval. Now Elmer Keith would probably sing a different song and tell me I was undergunned for shooting moose at 600 yds (and he'd probably be right).
And I reckon if'n I needed to, I could affix bayonet and always use it as a Swedish Boar Spear... but I digress.
In today's world, you find more variety in the .270 loads. You don't reload. Stick to it for a new rifle purchase.
But you really can't go wrong either way.

 

[Jaywalker]

I've had a .270 constantly for over 30 years, and my motivation back then was for a single rifle that could do it all. The .270 certainly does just that, though from reading about the need for .300 magnums in the last couple of years, I have to presume that elk and moose have somehow grown armor recently. The .270 and the 6.5X55 will (and have) succeeded for years and will continue to do so.

I realized a couple of years ago that I was approaching the problem all wrong. I like rifles, so why was I limiting myself to just one of them? Also, the one thing I didn't like about the .270 was its recoil in a six-pound rifle. So, I recently bought a Ruger MkII 6.5X55, a fantastic rifle for the price.

The whole thing involves which benefits you value most. The .270 is a recognized world-class cartridge, and so is the 6.5X55. The 6.5 might tend to be a bit more accurate and will certainly recoil less. The .270 is more powerful and its ammo is available everywhere.

I enjoy shooting my 6.5 much more than my .270, and the lower recoil allows me to shoot it more, which allows me to shoot it better, which makes me enjoy it more, and so forth.

If local deer are the immediate fare, I'd recommend the 6.5, particularly for a first rifle. Factory loads are reasonably accurate and are "underloaded" by many people's opinion. The result is a wonderfully effective deer (Shh! Don't tell the deer it's underloaded - they don't know it yet!) load with reasonable accuracy and low blast, noise, and recoil. If you want more later - buy it then. In the meantime, bruise your shoulder less with the 6.5.

Jaywalker

 

[Pilot]

Get an inexpensive, single stage reloading press and customize either load. I would go with the 6.5 MM Swede or up to a 7MM Mauser or 7MM-08 for your intended purposes. It is cheap and easy to reload and you can get a single stage kit with all you need for less than $100.

 

[ThreadKiller]

The 270 in 3 words: BANG! THWACK! Meat.

The Swede is a grand old cartridge, but the 270 is more versatile.

Tim

 

[liliysdad]

Thats funny...the .270 more versatile than a 6.5 Swede?


The Swede recoils less, yet has more retained velocity ans ME at 100yds than the .270 does, and can be accurately loaded in weights of anywhere from under 100 grains to 160 grains. The 6.5 Swede is enough gun for any species on the continent, barring dangerous bear.

The .270 is a fine cartridge, but the 6.5 is hard to beat as far as versatility, by any cartridege.

 

[Selfdfenz]

I like to put it this way.
The 270 will do everything the Swed will do.

And with a good bit more recoil, if you like recoil.

I see 6.5 on the store shelves and in the catalogues just like 270. It's out there but maybe not in all the flavors 270 is found in.

People point to the Swed as "old school" . Sure is, thankfully.
With its 1925 birth date and case based on the 1906 30-06 I like to think of the 270 as equally "old school".
I like "old school".

S-

 

[ACP]

Thanks for the input so far.

I've been visiting www.chuckhawks.com for some background research. Perhaps the fact that I'm committed to a featherweight makes me lean toward the 6.5 mm. Plus, its sectional densities are considerably higher than the .270 (i.e. .287 v. .261 for 140-grs., .328 v. .298 for 160-grs.)

But, here's the kicker -- a shop down the road has what looks like a 98% Winchester Model 70 Featherweright in .270 Winchester with a Redfield Widefield scope already mounted for $499. Holy cow! I think that's a good deal. I'm going to look at the serial # tomorrow and try to place its manufacture date. I'm hoping for something 1992 or later.

Is this too good a deal to pass up? Or should I hold out for a NIB 6.5 with a scope of my choice?

 

[Selfdfenz]

Since you mention the Win FW

The Featherweight is one of the models that was chambered in 6.5x55 but I haven't encountered one NIB in a while. If I ever do it sold the second I see it. I expect it to be more than 500$ and that w/o a scope or rings.

I think Tikka chambers for 6.5 Swed. as does Ruger. I wish Savage did.
EEA claims they will import a single shot in the caliber but I have yet to see one.

IMO the 270 FW seems like a decent deal.
If you get it, prepare for some kick because it is, after all, a featherweight.

S-

 

[liliysdad]

Howa makes, or did at least, a line of rifles in 6.5.