The 270 has to be worthless!

[Millwright]

Interesting to see so many "negative vibes" on a caliber that has a long and distinguished pedigree ! The .270 was a favorite of the likes of Cooper, Rourak, Bell and others with African experience.

Opinions are like nether orifices; we all got one. Personally, I'll take the word of the cited users owning the BTDT badge on the utility/versatality of the .270 cartridge against any game. That its fallen out of the gun media "limelight" doesn't change its excellent ballistic performance. >MW

 

[JRH6856]

While I have seen many experienced and respected writers recommend the .270 for any North American game, I am aware of no one who suggested it might be a good choice for rhino, cape buffalo or elephant.

 

[Ed Ames]

And yet the 6.5x54 Mannlicher-Schoenauer, firing 160gr bullets at around 2200fps, was used extensively on elephant back in the day.

 

[JRH6856]

Yes, it was. And I'm sure the .270 has been used as well. I've just never seen it recommended as a calaber of choice.

 

[Powder burn]

It's just that I have 300 rounds handloaded and neck sized for the "weatherby" Howa 1500. i also have 160 new rounds. Why would I pay the new inflated prices? The rifle seems to shoot right at 1moa regardless of the ammo I try. Then again I only tried Remington ammo. Seems to get the job done.

I lucked out and got 200 rounds of norma tactical from Midsouth shooters fur 19.00 a box just as my order for 500 prepped military .308 cases and 1000 147gr bullets came in that was ordered early January.
I was at wal mart tonight. Not much activity except for fishing lures. Central NC area.

 

[orionengnr]

If You were a new would-be gun owner, and walked into a shop today, looking for a deer gun, would the average store guide you to a .270?

Well, for starters, not being a deity, I do not deserve the capitalized "You".

That aside, and to answer your question directly...probably not. And these days, since the Internet is available, I would do my own research, and would probably not put too much stock in what a gun store monkey had to say.

But it has been an awful lot of years since I was a first-time rifle purchaser. And when I was, the 30-06 was King and there was no Prince. And yes, I capitalized "King" intentionally.

Bottom line--the .270 is far from worthless...and if you are starting today, it is a great choice. But if you (like me) have many years of 30-06 shooting, many rounds of 30-06 ammo, many empty 30-06 cartridges to load, and dies for 30-06...I have to admit...I have no use or desire for a .270.

 

[lefteye]

Interesting thread. I suspect the thread would have been much different 30 to 40 years ago. The .270 is, in fact, based on the .30-06 but is slightly longer to prevent accidental chambering in a .30-06 rifle. The cartridge is fine for any big game in the lower 48 including elk. I've taken coyote, black bear, pronghorn, whitetail and mule deer with mine, including a 163"+ mule deer at well over 400 yards. I've never fired a factory loaded cartridge in my .270. In my opinion the .270 is an excellent and slightly lighter recoiling version of a .30-06. The .280 is a tiny bit better, and the .280 AI is one more notch better. Of course this is all splitting hairs. The .25-06 is the smallest member of the club but I wouldn't prefer it for elk.

 

[Agsalaska]

Interesting to see so many "negative vibes" on a caliber that has a long and distinguished pedigree ! The .270 was a favorite of the likes of Cooper, Rourak, Bell and others with African experience.

Opinions are like nether orifices; we all got one. Personally, I'll take the word of the cited users owning the BTDT badge on the utility/versatality of the .270 cartridge against any game. That its fallen out of the gun media "limelight" doesn't change its excellent ballistic performance. >MW

I don't think it is 'negative vibes' as much as it is the current reality and future trends. Nobody is doubting the capability of the 270, especially compared to the more 'modern' replacements on the market. It's just that it's probably reached it's high water market and has begun the very slow trek towards being marginalized. Ten years ago gun shops in my art of the country couldnt keep a 270 rifle in stock. Now it's semi automatic 'platforms' and bolt actions shooting more 'modern' cartridges. None are actually better at killing a deer though.

 

[JRH6856]

The .270 is, in fact, based on the .30-06 but is slightly longer to prevent accidental chambering in a .30-06 rifle.

As has been stated earlier, the .270 Winchester's parent case is the .30-03, not the .30-06. The .30-06 was made with a shorter shoulder than the .30-03 so that the 30-03 will not chamber in a 30-06. The .270 inherited this longer shoulder which is why it will not chamber on a 30-06 and this may be the reason the 30-03 was chosen as the parent.

 

[lefteye]

My old Speer (1981) and Hornady (1980) reloading manuals both state that the .270 Win is based on a necked down .30-06. I don't dispute your statement that it is based on a .30-03. I have read, but don't recall the sources, that the .270 shoulder is further forward specifically to prevent accidental chambering in a .30-06.

 

[JRH6856]

The .30-06 is based on the 30-03 with the difference being a shorter shoulder on the 30-06 and some sources may have assumed a logical progression on to the .270. But the shoulder of the 270 and the 30-03 are the same, so if the 30-06 shoulder was lengthened to make the 270, all that did was recreate the original 30-03 parent case to be necked down to 270. So either way you describe it, the 30-03 is still the parent of both the 30-06 and the 270.

 

[lefteye]

JRH - Wikipedia confirms you are exactly correct. I noticed the Wikipedia page on the .30-03 was edited just before midnight yesterday. Just curious - did you edit the page, and if so, what did you change or add? I do appreciate your expertise. Thank you.

 

[Ed Ames]

Hah, that's just funny...

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=.270_Winchester&action=history

Wikipedia contributor 'JRH' changed the parent cartridge yesterday. But.. The parent cartridge has been going back and forth for years in that history. Some people want it to be '03 so they change it, but they never cite a source. Other people switch it back to '06 because the '03 crowd doesn't have a source or reference to back up the '03 claim.

 

[lefteye]

Interesting/entertaining.

 

[loose noose]

I've got a Remington BDL in .270 and have been reloading for it for at least 35 years. It's taken quite a few deer, not to mention elk, however, in all the years I've owned it I doubt I've shot much over 100 rounds thru it outside of the sighting in just before season. I also own a 30-06 which I loaned to my yougest son to hunt deer with me a time or two. I've also been reloading for that for at least 40 years. Thank God they still have ammo available for them, as my youngest son can't seem to remember to take his ammo with him.

 

[JRH6856]

I did make two changes to the 270 Winchester wiki page, changing 30-06 to 30-03 in order to maintain internal consistency with the final paragraph which reads:

"While it is true that a .270 Winchester case can be formed from a 30-06 Springfield case, the case length of a 30-06 is 2.494 inches (63.3 mm) while the case length of a .270 is 2.540 inches (64.5 mm), the same as a .30-03 Springfield. It is recommended that .270 Winchester brass be formed from .35 Whelen or .280 Remington cases"​

And the last sentence of 30-03 page which I have not edited at any time but which reads:

"The .270 Winchester cartridge was based on reducing the neck diameter of a .30-03 cartridge case to retain a similar bullet-holding length with the same shoulder."​

The .270 Winchester case dimensions are the same as the .30-03 except for neck diameter. The .30-06 has both a shorter case length and a shorter neck than both the .30-03 and the .270 Winchester. But if anyone wants to maintain that the 270 was made by returning the .30-06 to .30-03 dimensions before necking down, go ahead. I've seen wilder theories.

Some people want it to be '03 so they change it, but they never cite a source. Other people switch it back to '06 because the '03 crowd doesn't have a source or reference to back up the '03 claim.

Yeah, the '03 crowd relies on the evidence cited. The '06 crowd just cites someone else making the same unsubstantiated claim. Doesn't really matter. The '03 is the parent of the '06 so if it is not the parent of the .270, it is the grandparent.

 

[savanahsdad]

some stores I see 270's there and others I don't , wait tell Nov. and see what happens !
Back in 2008 ,just before hunting season I got a call from a friend , she had given her Ruger carbine RS, to the grandson a few years before, for deer hunting, her son-inlaw called her and said he couldn't find any 44mag ?? she then called me ,being the only real gun guy they knew , and asked what the deal was ?.... I said been that way all year , but I could help out the grandson , two days later I got another call , her son-inlaw needed 270win too , yep I got lots too,
there whole family are big hunters , no reloaders , or real shooters they hunt with 44mag, 270win's, 32win spl, 243win's and a 308 , none of them saw it comeing or knew what had already happen,
about 12 years back I read the 270win had out-sold all other guns for the first time ,(for that year) so you can bet most of those guns will see the woods this fall , then see whats left on the shelves,

 

[jimmyraythomason]

While it is true that a .270 Winchester case can be formed from a 30-06 Springfield case, the case length of a 30-06 is 2.494 inches (63.3 mm) while the case length of a .270 is 2.540 inches (64.5 mm), the same as a .30-03 Springfield. It is recommended that .270 Winchester brass be formed from .35 Whelen or .280 Remington cases"

And yet the same headspace guages are used for the .270,30.06 and .35 Whelen.

 

[Bruno2]

Hah, that's just funny...

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?...action=history

Wikipedia contributor 'JRH' changed the parent cartridge yesterday

 

[JRH6856]

And yet the same headspace guages are used for the .270,30.06 and .35 Whelen.

Because they headspace on the shoulder and on all three, the base to shoulder dimension are the same. The 30-03 could use the same headspace gauge for the same reason. As noted, the difference is in the overall case length.

 

[Bill4282]

If there was a semi-auto or AR in .270, it too would scarce. What I see on the shelves are bolt-action calibers and no semi.

 

[Chris-bob]

Just to prove you wrong, I bought the last three boxes at my LGS.

 

[CB900F]

Fella's;

In all actuality, the parent cartridge is the 8X57mm Mauser. That's where the .473" head diameter, extractor groove dimensions, and base diameter measurements originally came from. The .30-06, .30-03, and therefore the .270, share those critical numbers that Peter Paul Mauser first laid down.

900F

 

[JRH6856]

Fella's;

In all actuality, the parent cartridge is the 8X57mm Mauser. That's where the .473" head diameter, extractor groove dimensions, and base diameter measurements originally came from. The .30-06, .30-03, and therefore the .270, share those critical numbers that Peter Paul Mauser first laid down.

900F

And the parent case of the 8 mm Mauser (7.92x57) was the M/88.

The M/88 was also the case that was the model for the 30-03. It could not have been the 8mm Mauser as it was released in 1905. It was the 8mm using a 150gr spitzer bullet that made the 30-03 with its 220gr round nose bullet obsolete and was the impetus for the .30-06.

The real disagreement is not about the parentage of the .270 Win, it is about whether the .30-03 is a seperate cartridge or just the first stage of development of the .30-06. The thing is, almost no one has heard of the 30-03 or even cares that it once existed. IT was around for 3 years. Only two rifles were chambered for it. The 1895 Winchester didn't sell well and the almost all of the '03 Springfields were rechambered to 30-06.

So most writers, editors, and many historians rather than recognizing the 30-03 as a distinct cartridge, consider the 30-03 to be a preliminary form of the 30-06 with the 30-06 being the final design and thus the parent cartridge of all that came after. That would be fine if the 30-03 had been strictly a military round that became the 30-06 in final form. But it was not. It was released commercially with a commercial rifle chambered for it for the civilian market. That makes the 30-06 a separate cartridge from the 30-06, albeit a short lived one.

To make matters worse, the is/was a .270-06 wildcat. It is a 30-06 necked down to .270, but other than the difference in case length and neck length, there is no difference in the case, but the '03 and 270 chamber is cut with a longer (2.880) throat than the '06 chamber (2.7442) and a 270-06 in a 270 Win chamber will lose accuracy and suffer greater throat erosion. Same as a 30-06 in a 30-03 chamber in a 1895 Winchester.

It's real simple: the 30-03, .270 Winchester, and .280 Remington cases are 2.54" long. The .30-06, .35 Whelen, 338-06 A-Square and .25-06 cases are 2.494" long. We know for certain that the 30-03 was shortened to make the 30-06, We know for certain that the .270 Win case is 2.54 inches. If they started with the 30-06 to make the 270, the first thing they did was turn the 30-06 case into a 30-03 case, then neck it down to .270. The moment the 30-06 case is turned into a 30-03 case, the 30-03 becomes the parent case of the 270.

But the M/88 is the granddaddy.

 

[savanahsdad]

so were there and 30-03's on the shelves ?? I didn't see any on the shelf at Cabela's (Billings MT) I did see 270's , 308's , 223/5.56 , 7mm-08, 260rem , 223wssm, 25wssm, 7mmWSM, 300WSM and most other hunting cal's, No rim-fires, and almost No hand gun stuff and no primers,

I guess I will add this to my list of why I love my 270win's "if they sell ammo , then they will have some 270win"