Browning: Factory Fast-Twist .270 Winchester

[Gun-Reck]

Thought this was interesting:

26" barrel and a 1:7.5" twist.

X-Bolt Speed LR

Kinda make the .270 Win. into a .280 AI.

 

[horsemen61]

Thought this was interesting:

26" barrel and a 1:7.5" twist.

X-Bolt Speed LR

Kinda make the .270 Win. into a .280 AI.

The 6.8 Western has the same twist rate in that line so I’m betting they are using the same barrels just changing the chambering

 

[.455_Hunter]

Many old calibers can be turned into trendy calibers by a simple twist rate change.

 

[Gun-Reck]

Many old calibers can be turned into trendy calibers by a simple twist rate change.

The .270 Winchester has a pretty optimum capacity-to-caliber ratio, so it doesn't need improvement.

Both light and heavy bullets produce ~ the same muzzle energy.

It just lacks a heavy or high BC option, and the higher twist rate barrel provides that.

Not that a 150 gr. .270 round is anything to sneeze at.


Wonder if any factory ammo will be forthcoming, and, if so, how it is marketed.

It would pose no danger to a Std. .270 Win., but the precision would be pretty bad with the mistake.

 

[LoonWulf]

Nice to see a the 270 getting a faster twist rate. The only issue I could see, if you could even call it an issue, is that unless they throat it longer, You're giving up some capacity at the standard COAL.
My X-bolt and 28 Nosler had a pretty long throat on it though, might just be a Browning thing and the 270 would follow suit.

 

[WisBorn]

Interesting option for factory rifles. With the 7mm Rem Mag compared to the 7mm PRC both having a 1-8" twist. Will a PRC or CR have any advantages over the old cartridges

 

[Varminterror]

Gross.

The 6.8 Western and the Fury are driving new heavy .277” bullets to market, but not everyone wants a magnum, so they think they’ll have a market. Eh… I guess it’s good that they’re finally putting the twist in front of a 270 it should have always had, but a guy has to want case stretch and more finicky tuning.

They should have launched one in 280AI, marketing HARD that standard ammo would still shoot sub-MOA, then leverage that into a fast twist 270AI along with it. Optionality with retained commonality. But just for a heavy 270, they’re 30yrs late to the party.

 

[Varminterror]

The .270 Winchester has a pretty optimum capacity-to-caliber ratio, so it doesn't need improvement.

Can’t tell if this is sarcasm?

 

[Gun-Reck]

Can’t tell if this is sarcasm?

P.O. Ackley didn't seem to think so.

Fill the case to the top with slow burn-rate powder, and one gets both peak pressure and velocity.

And light and heavy bullets produce essentially the same muzzle energy.

Very well-balanced cartridge.

Was just lacking high Sectional Density or Ballistic Coefficient options because of the twist rate.

The 175 grain Sierra Tipped GameKing looks interesting on both accounts.

 

[Gun-Reck]

An interesting analysis and perspective from Ron Spomer on the subject:

​

Think his 165 gr. ABLR muzzle velocities are about a hundred feet per second low, while his 150 gr. ABLR is right at the top.

But it still looks pretty much like a wash with the .270 Winchester, except for the extra Sectional Density, Inertia, and Momentum of the heavier bullet on game, which he ignores all together.

 

[Gun-Reck]

Nice to see a the 270 getting a faster twist rate. The only issue I could see, if you could even call it an issue, is that unless they throat it longer, You're giving up some capacity at the standard COAL.
My X-bolt and 28 Nosler had a pretty long throat on it though, might just be a Browning thing and the 270 would follow suit.

A long magazine, like the Remington M700 series at 3.65", coupled with a long throated barrel, could yield a case powder capacity equal to that of a std. 130 gr. load.

Filled with a slow burn-rate powder, 2900 fps or higher velocities should be attainable with the 165 gr. bullet.

It would be a rifle committed to 150 gr. or heavier bullets, but then, that's what the extra twist is for, anyway.

Interesting.

 

[LoonWulf]

A long magazine, like the Remington M700 series at 3.65", coupled with a long throated barrel, could yield a case powder capacity equal to that of a std. 130 gr. load.

Filled with a slow burn-rate powder, 2900 fps or higher velocities should be attainable with the 165 gr. bullet.

It would be a rifle committed to 150 gr. or heavier bullets, but then, that's what the extra twist is for, anyway.

Interesting.

Just ran the numbers in QL . Projections with standard data (@ 62000PSI) suggest 2850 with a 170 Elite Hunter loaded so that the bullet shank is flush with the base of the neck. COAL would only be about 3.42
Probably wouldn't even need a .375 length magazine to get top velocities.

The .280AI sits in about the same place with a 180ELD, and the regular .280s at about 2825....again assuming all are run at 62000psi, and the start of boattails set to the base of the neck

IMO the .270WSM, 6.8West, and .270Wby are closer to the ideal capacity to bullet weight for the 165+ bullets. The AI and .270 Gibbs would also be on my list at the bottom end, but for some reason QL dosent have a listing for it so i can't easily run projections.
Of course thats just my personal thoughts, having that 7.5 twist in a .270 is no hindrance, and does allow for more options at the top end.

 

[WisBorn]

IMO the .270WSM, 6.8West, and .270Wby are closer to the ideal capacity to bullet weight for the 165+ bullets

I thought the exact same thing. I don't think the 270win can get enough velocity to make the heavy high BC bullets shine even with the fast twist barrel.
The 150 grain bullets are a good top end for the 270win

 

[Gun-Reck]

Just ran the numbers in QL . Projections with standard data (@ 62000PSI) suggest 2850 with a 170 Elite Hunter loaded so that the bullet shank is flush with the base of the neck. COAL would only be about 3.42
Probably wouldn't even need a .375 length magazine to get top velocities.

The .280AI sits in about the same place with a 180ELD, and the regular .280s at about 2825....again assuming all are run at 62000psi, and the start of boattails set to the base of the neck

IMO the .270WSM, 6.8West, and .270Wby are closer to the ideal capacity to bullet weight for the 165+ bullets. The AI and .270 Gibbs would also be on my list at the bottom end, but for some reason QL dosent have a listing for it so i can't easily run projections.
Of course thats just my personal thoughts, having that 7.5 twist in a .270 is no hindrance, and does allow for more options at the top end.

Depends on the parameters.

Won't be a viable 1,000 yd. hunter.

On the other hand, if 600 yards is the outside of your envelope?

Long loaded, even with a 24" barrel, the 165 gr. ABLR should make 2850 fps at the muzzle. (if not 2900, with either RL-26 or a 26" barrel)

That equates to, at 600 yards: in excess of 2,000 fps, 1,500 ft-lbs, and 20 in. of drift (10 mph@90 deg.), for 22 ft-lbs of recoil (8.5 lb. rifle).

That's 500 yd. velocity and drift, and 400 yd. energy, of a hot 150 gr. NP load with 21 ft-lbs of recoil.


If one knew that the 150 gr. ABLR would stabilize in their 1:10 twist barrel, they could close the gap a little more.

But, as a specialty long range rifle, probably with a dialing scope, it would provide a solid performance gain with the same case and powder charge.

And no special reloading components, just .270 Winchester.

Ten years ago, would have been all over this.

 

[Gun-Reck]

I thought the exact same thing. I don't think the 270win can get enough velocity to make the heavy high BC bullets shine even with the fast twist barrel.
The 150 grain bullets are a good top end for the 270win

The 150 gr. .270 Winchester is a solid 400 yd. performer, which, for field shooting, is the outer limits for a std. scoped rifle.

Long range bullets and rifles, with all the expensive gear that makes first round hits possible, are something else all together.

A rifleman prides himself on how close he can get before he has to take the shot.

Not a popular opinion these days.

A friend just built a 1,000 yd. rifle around the 6.5 Creedmoor, but doesn't hunt.

 

[LoonWulf]

Depends on the parameters.

Won't be a viable 1,000 yd. hunter.

On the other hand, if 600 yards is the outside of your envelope?

Long loaded, even with a 24" barrel, the 165 gr. ABLR should make 2850 fps at the muzzle. (if not 2900, with either RL-26 or a 26" barrel)

That equates to, at 600 yards: in excess of 2,000 fps, 1,500 ft-lbs, and 20 in. of drift (10 mph@90 deg.), for 22 ft-lbs of recoil (8.5 lb. rifle).

That's 500 yd. velocity and drift, and 400 yd. energy, of a hot 150 gr. NP load with 21 ft-lbs of recoil.


If one knew that the 150 gr. ABLR would stabilize in their 1:10 twist barrel, they could close the gap a little more.

But, as a specialty long range rifle, probably with a dialing scope, it would provide a solid performance gain with the same case and powder charge.

And no special reloading components, just .270 Winchester.

Ten years ago, would have been all over this.

Ive loaded the 150s in a 1-10 and got good accuracy, so id guess stability is "marginal" and primarily your losing BC.
Id actually be noslers original B.C.s were pretty close when fired in an optimal twist barrel.

A fast or long tube, and RL-26, and you could probably eek out 2900 from the 165s QL. Thats plenty fast enough for most things........

 

[Varminterror]

A rifleman prides himself on how close he can get before he has to take the shot.

Gross.

If I can be sure I am anything, I can be sure I’m a “rifleman,” and I really don’t give a second thought to how close this kind of backwards, old world thinking wants to pretend I should want to get before taking a shot. Rather, because I AM a “rifleman,” I design all of my hunts to put game within my reliable range, and I pick cartridges which can deliver sufficient payload at that range, and I don’t bother any other pressures or risks to my hunt. I don’t bother with getting any closer to get “the shot” when the game has already presented me with “the shot”…

Rifles and “riflemen” both have their independent effective ranges. Align the two, hunt within the shorter, eat venison, and don’t be a Luddite.

 

[Gun-Reck]

Gross.

If I can be sure I am anything, I can be sure I’m a “rifleman,” and I really don’t give a second thought to how close this kind of backwards, old world thinking wants to pretend I should want to get before taking a shot. Rather, because I AM a “rifleman,” I design all of my hunts to put game within my reliable range, and I pick cartridges which can deliver sufficient payload at that range, and I don’t bother any other pressures or risks to my hunt. I don’t bother with getting any closer to get “the shot” when the game has already presented me with “the shot”…

Rifles and “riflemen” both have their independent effective ranges. Align the two, hunt within the shorter, eat venison, and don’t be a Luddite.

My point.

Range - is the most detrimental factor in the taking of game animals.

It multiplies all other factors, adding risk.

When one unnecessarily accepts that risk, the animal on the other end gets the bill.

You call that "backwards, old world," others call that ethical.

Agree to disagree.

 

[Gun-Reck]

Ive loaded the 150s in a 1-10 and got good accuracy, so id guess stability is "marginal" and primarily your losing BC.
Id actually be noslers original B.C.s were pretty close when fired in an optimal twist barrel.

A fast or long tube, and RL-26, and you could probably eek out 2900 from the 165s QL. Thats plenty fast enough for most things........

Thanks for the research, and agree with you.

Still hunting - generally brings game into std. rifle cartridge ranges, and even 2800, with an appropriate 150 gr. bullet, has been dropping game with boring regularity.


What are the ranges that you generally face in the sheep/goat/pig fields?

May have the same conditions in the near future.



P.S. Have you ever done a drop test, to see how the 150 ABLR compares to say, a 150 NP?

Might not be enough to justify the expense.

 

[LoonWulf]

Thanks for the research, and agree with you.

Still hunting - generally brings game into std. rifle cartridge ranges, and even 2800, with an appropriate 150 gr. bullet, has been dropping game with boring regularity.


What are the ranges that you generally face in the sheep/goat/pig fields?

May have the same conditions in the near future.



P.S. Have you ever done a drop test, to see how the 150 ABLR compares to say, a 150 NP?

Might not be enough to justify the expense.

You can generally find an area that fits the hjntig style you want to use.
Personally i generally prefer to stay out of the really thick stuff, and avoid areas where shots will be farther than I want to go get stuff. That leaves me needing to be able to engage from about 10-400/500yds.
My most commonly used rifles are my .280Ai and .375 ruger.

I havent shot the 150NPs at game, and have only seen one or two animals taken with the 150ABLRs (6-800lb feral cattle). Only real comment I have is accuracy wise hands down the ABLR, and that's from a couple 1-10s.....Tho thinking about it, im pretty sure the last .270 i owned absolutely refused to shoot them.
I have used the 168 ABLRs from my 28Nosler and wasnt thrilled, i think they open later than the standard ABs and don't blow as large a holes.

 

[Varminterror]

When one unnecessarily accepts that risk, the animal on the other end gets the bill.

More gross.

You’re assigning, blankly, that there is any unnecessary risk to what is rather proven and ethical huntable ranges. I have no motivation, as an “ethical hunter” and as a “rifleman” to see “how close I can get before the shot.” I get close enough that I know my shot will be ethical, within my ability, and I take it. I have absolutely no difference in “pride” as you’ve stated I should have, whether I have game come into within 400yrds or within 50yrds, and I have assumed no additional risk within my ability as a rifleman to deliver that shot, the end result is the same - perforated heart and lungs, blood and hair in the dirt, and venison on the table.

The 270 has been killing game as far as hunters can do it for a long time - and we’ve learned a lot about how to build better cartridges since then too. This rifle from Browning is a ploy to sell new rifles to dude’s with grey hair as gifts to their sons and grandsons, capitalizing on the new market of heavy .277” bullets so the grandsons aren’t quite as disappointed to receive a .270win. It’ll be dandy as a bridge Rifle between deer sized game and elk, but the 270win really always has been that anyway. They just smeared the ink at the edge of the margin a little, they didn’t really write a new page here.

 

[Gun-Reck]

You can generally find an area that fits the hjntig style you want to use.
Personally i generally prefer to stay out of the really thick stuff, and avoid areas where shots will be farther than I want to go get stuff. That leaves me needing to be able to engage from about 10-400/500yds.
My most commonly used rifles are my .280Ai and .375 ruger.

I havent shot the 150NPs at game, and have only seen one or two animals taken with the 150ABLRs (6-800lb feral cattle). Only real comment I have is accuracy wise hands down the ABLR, and that's from a couple 1-10s.....Tho thinking about it, im pretty sure the last .270 i owned absolutely refused to shoot them.
I have used the 168 ABLRs from my 28Nosler and wasnt thrilled, i think they open later than the standard ABs and don't blow as large a holes.

Interesting.

4-500 yards - would probably require at least a new load, if not a new rig.

A "sneak," which I truly enjoy, to inside of 300, or still hunting in the pine thickets and oak bottoms well inside of 100, covers most of my current hunting.

Stand hunting - is not really my thing.


Feral cattle...!?!

That would bring the 9.3x62mm out of the freezer.

How is the eating on those things?

 

[Varminterror]

Will a PRC or CR have any advantages over the old cartridges

7 PRC is a bigger case than 270win by about 10%, just ~2grn H2O behind 7RM, and has 5% greater bore area, so they’re a bit more overbore than the 270 = more horsepower. Not a lot, but the same as the difference between 7RM and 270win has been for decades. The 6.5 Creedmoor case is smaller, and bore area smaller, but for practical application, there hasn’t been a realizable difference in performance between the 6.5 creed and 270win, just the same as there never really was a realizable in-field performance difference between the x55 Swede and the 270 for decades either. Putting ~15 more grains of powder, ~1/3 more, behind similar bullet weights in the 270 over the 6.5 creed doesn’t appear to buy us anything in the field. I MIGHT argue the 15 MORE grains of powder, another ~1/4 over 270 loads, DOES mean we can do more with 180 class bullets in 7 PRC, RM, and RUM, but largely only huntable distance as limited by trajectory management, because we can get 180’s significantly faster out of the magnum 7mm’s than we can from the 270.

I expect that is why the Browning is 1:7”, while most 7 PRC’s are selling at 1:8” - larger dia bullets of the same weight are shorter and easier to stabilize, and we get more speed from the larger cases. Pick your poison: push a 180grn bullet in a 7mag to the same speed a 270 can achieve with a 150, or push a 180 300fps faster with a 7 mag than the 270 can push a 180, either way, it’s longer useful range for the larger cases.

 

[Nature Boy]

The 270 is the mini van of cartridges.

You could put a turbo on a mini van, make it go faster, try selling it as a sports car but at the end of the day it’s still just a basic, homely, grocery getter.

 

[WisBorn]

@Varminterror my question was manly the 7rm compared to 7 prc, Not the 270 win.

The 270win will always be a good deer round. And has benefited from the technology improvements. I just don't see that it gains much from the faster twist barrel.
Will the 7mm Rem Mag gain enough with the fast twist???