Close meaning 50 to 200 yards. 150 gr. is about tops for a factory .270 cartridge. Why might one even be interested in .270? I might just happen to find a minty vintage rifle in that caliber. I'd hate to have to pass it up because .270 Winchester is simply no good for the woods. Why did an iron-sighted lever action like Savage 99 even come in a 1925-released American caliber that is "meat-destructive at close range"? My two favorite hunting rifles have been offered in .270 Win: Savage 99 and Husqvarna Model 3000 Crown Grade. Has anybody here ever taken deer in the woods with a .270 and has been happy with the results when the deer carcass was butchered? Mr. GunBlue490 said there were complaints from earlier on in the .270's long history that meat was being ruined for close shots. The Jack O'Connor-celebrated .270 could surely kill but the question was could it do so efficiently? Without the availability of a modern lowered-velocity .270 loading, the Savage 99 in that chambering becomes a thing of low feasibility for the deer woods. Most hunters won't take up handloading just to accommodate it for woodland deer. The .270 really has to be slowed down to make it woods-worthy. It's a classic case of less is more. Just as an automobile engine is detuned for EPA compliance and governed to prevent overrevving, the jolly ol' .270 Winchester has to be detuned for woods practicality. Please see video time mark 4:50 for the older gripe about the venerable .270 in the woods.