Almost nobody was shooting low-drag bullets in hunting rifles. If they were shooting heavy bullets in a hunting rifle they were almost always dumpy round noses or flat-based spitzers intended for penetration, not taking game at extended range. If you look at hunting bullets from Europe it's no better. The low-drag bullets they had back then, some of which still have BCs considered quite good today, were developed for the military to extend the extreme firing range of machine guns. Not relevant to hunting in 1925. If you do the math you'll see that without a rangefinder the primary factor in hitting your target at an unknown range is drop. The 10" twist didn't hinder anything for many decades and doesn't hinder anything for the average hunter today, either. A 9" twist might be better and matches proportionally the 10" twist of the 30-cals. But it was irrelevant in 1925. I don't think it's fair to judge if their design was "bad" by 2019 standards. Most things from 1925 would be considered to have some flaws if introduced as new today. This is almost a century past.
Twist Rate: How Does It Improve Performance In the Hunting Fields?
- Thread starter Garandimal
- Start date
- Status
Almost nobody was shooting low-drag bullets in hunting rifles. If they were shooting heavy bullets in a hunting rifle they were almost always dumpy round noses or flat-based spitzers intended for penetration, not taking game at extended range. If you look at hunting bullets from Europe it's no better. The low-drag bullets they had back then, some of which still have BCs considered quite good today, were developed for the military to extend the extreme firing range of machine guns. Not relevant to hunting in 1925. If you do the math you'll see that without a rangefinder the primary factor in hitting your target at an unknown range is drop. The 10" twist didn't hinder anything for many decades and doesn't hinder anything for the average hunter today, either. A 9" twist might be better and matches proportionally the 10" twist of the 30-cals. But it was irrelevant in 1925. I don't think it's fair to judge if their design was "bad" by 2019 standards. Most things from 1925 would be considered to have some flaws if introduced as new today. This is almost a century past.
Gtscotty
Member
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2007
- Messages
- 3,635
Alliant's published data:
https://www.alliantpowder.com/reloa...?gtypeid=2&weight=150&shellid=63&bulletid=367
4831 is alright, but it's not my favorite powder for .270 anymore.
I love how people feel the need to make garbage up to cover for Winchester's screwups almost a century ago. It's OK to admit that they were just ignorant and did it wrong
Not as bad as Mauser screwed up in developing their 7mm. What's this "intermediate" length that matches neither a standard short or long action? Shallow 20-degree shoulder? Unnecessarily tapered? Giraffe neck? Total bozos!
OP
OP
Garandimal
member
"Limited" hunting...?
< 450 yards...!?!
I love how people feel the need to make garbage up to cover for Winchester's screwups almost a century ago. It's OK to admit that they were just ignorant and did it wrong
Will consider your myopic opinions over venison sausage and eggs brunch.
(the key is the wild pork)
GR
Last edited:
OP
OP
Garandimal
member
Figured that it would be too slow to be efficient out of a 22" Bbl.
Will definitely investigate at the next bench restock.
Thanks.
GR
sage5907
Member
I love how people feel the need to make garbage up to cover for Winchester's screwups almost a century ago. It's OK to admit that they were just ignorant and did it wrong
You're lucky you weren't hunting and target shooting 50 years ago. If you would have had to live with a 243 Winchester, 3-9 variable scope, 4831 military surplus powder and Speer or Sierra bullets you would have had a nervous breakdown. How could you have possibly functioned without your range finder, spotting scope, bipod and lead sled. Fifty years ago the internet had not been invented and you would have had to give your opinions fact to face with other shooters. Fifty years ago shooters and hunters had tact and class and admired the firearms used by their friends. The 270 Winchester and 30-06 were among the best cartridges available to hunters. Today is the golden age of firearms development and I enjoy shooting the newer cartridges but I have little respect for those who have a narrow minded vision of the firearms industry. It's been 17 years since I have taken a deer with a 270 Winchester because I like other cartridges better but I could use one today and never find fault with the cartridge. It's one of the easiest cartridges to make long distance hits and hits on running deer.
Last edited:
OP
OP
Garandimal
member
Old School.
Now, we have phased plasma rifles, in the 40 Watt range...
No, wait...
GR
Vern Humphrey
Member
Two things -- accuracy and terminal performance.
For big game, gilt-edge accuracy isn't needed -- just average. But terminal performance is king. The bullet has to expand, hold together and smash anything it encounters. That's why I like the Nosler Partition Jacket for elk.
For varmints, gilt-edge accuracy is needed, and explosive terminal performance. That's why I like the Hornaday V-Max for crows, woodchucks, coyotes and such.
Jim Watson
Member
I love how people feel the need to make garbage up to cover for Winchester's screwups almost a century ago. It's OK to admit that they were just ignorant and did it wrong
Who did it right? What 7mm Mauser "hunting loads?" W.D.M. Bell was very concerned that Rigby might have reduced the twist rate when they brought out the 140 gr .275 bullet and obsoleted his preferred 175 gr roundnose.
Can any factory have done worse than Remington and the .257?
If you compare a 180 gr RN bullet fired from a 300 WM @ 3000 fps to one of the better high BC 180 gr bullets fired from a 30-06 @ 2800 fps or a 308 @ 2600 fps the 30-06 load is faster than 300 WM at only 75 yards. The 308 load will be moving faster at only 175 yards.
I don't consider 75-175 yards long range and if I can hit an animal with the same bullet weight at greater velocity beyond those ranges with rifles with 1/3 to 1/2 the recoil I'd say that is a pretty good advantage.
If you don't believe me, plug inthe numbers yourself. I'll even help get you started. A 180 gr Hornady RN has a BC of .241a 178 gr ELDX is .552.
https://www.hornady.com/team-hornady/ballistic-calculators/#!/
That is an extreme example, but the one you chose. If we compare pointed bullets with just average BC's to the high BC bullets available we still see a difference. Just not to the extreme as the example above. I load 165 gr bullets in my 30-06 @ 2880 fps. I can choose a high BC bullet such as a Nosler Accubond, or a generic 165 gr Hornady Interlock. The Accubond is already 35 fps fps faster at 50 yards, 100 fps faster at 200 yards.
What does this mean to me? I can choose to use my 308 with a high BC 165 gr bullet instead of my 30-06 with an old school 165 gr bullet with average BC's. The 308 leaves the muzzle about 140 fps slower, but has only 15 ft lbs recoil vs 19 with the 30-06.. The 30-06 has the advantage at the muzzle, but I've never shot an animal at the muzzle. The farther the shot, the closer the 308 with the high BC bullet comes to matching 30-06 with average BC bullets and at about 400 yards the 308 has the advantage. The farther you go beyond 400 yards the bigger the gap becomes in favor of 308. Some would call 400 yards long range. But at only 200 yards the 30-06 only has a 50 fps advantage. I'd argue that no animal would ever notice even the 140 fps advantage the 30-06 has at the muzzle.
The answer to your question in a nutshell is that modern high BC bullets allow us to use smaller, lighter, rifles with significantly less recoil, and usually better accuracy to do the same thing we used to do with older rifles which relied on faster speeds at the muzzle to overcome the poor aerodynamics of the bullets available at the time.
Of course we can use the high BC bullets in 30-06 based cartridges and even magnum cartridges. But most people are finding that those bullets in 308 based cartridges are capable at ranges farther than they have the skills to shoot.
OP
OP
Garandimal
member
Thanks for the post.
But, actually...
That's not the one I chose.
That was a validation that, b/t round-nose and spitzer bullets, unless < 150, there Is a noticeable difference.
My argument is that b/t sptizer bullets, Hunting and LR, the difference is Not noticeable at common hunting ranges (3-400 yards)... especially if, to get that LR bullet, you give up 10 gr. of bullet weight and 200 fps at the muzzle.
(And, yes, there Is less recoil - no free lunch in Physics.)
GR
Those "LR" bullets are usually 10-15gr heavier than "standard" bullets for any given caliber.
If we're still arguing 6.5CM vs .270 than the previous statement was true. If you shoot a long pointy 6.5, it will be lighter than a not as pointy, but near max length . 277
Skip the .277 and go to a 7mm and you've got bullets that are of equal weight but in both vld and standard spitzer format. The vlds will often offer higher velocity due to reduced bearing surface.
Case in point, my 6x47 used the same powder charge for the 95gr Berger vld, as it did the 70gr nosler ballistic tip. Now I just wish my 6x47 had a 1-8 twist so I could actually use those bullets.
OP
OP
Garandimal
member
In that case - guess it's Two different arguments.
1. .270 Win/ 150 gr./ NP vs. 6.5CM/ 143 gr./ ELD-X... which gives up 7 gr./200 fps for an inferior bullet with a 0.160 BC advantage.
2. 6.5CM/ 125 gr/ NP vs 6.5CM/ 143 gr./ ELD-X... which gains 18 gr., but gives up 300 fps, for an inferior bullet with a 0.176 BC advantage.
At typical Hunting ranges (3-400 yards)...
Why?
GR
Just to clarify my position
The eld-x was specifically designed for longer range shooting, it's generally very accurate, and I've used it on a decent size bull at about 50yds, from my faster 6.5-284. It's very good at what it's designed to do, but it's not mention compete with the partition in terms of penetrating when over stressed.
SO, let's compare the 125 nosler partition against the 140 nosler partition.
Why WOULD you chose the heavier bullet at 300ish fps (using noslers data)?
Well simply because you want to shoot something over 500lbs, or with a tougher build, at shorter ranges.
Same reason you would choose a 180 over a 150 in a .308.
Now to compare ballistics, or most specifically useable twist, let's look at the 125NP vs the 129ABLR.
Partition: BC .449, velocity 3000
ABLR: BC .530, velocity 2950
4gr more bullet, .081 higher bc, 50fps slower.
Does it make that much difference....no not really, but the 129s shoot about 1" flatter and hit a little harder.
But if your running too slow a twist for the 129s (which happened to the early .260s) they aren't even an option. Much less the heavier bullets, or the higher bc 130 RDFs which have a .615bc
Having the twist dosent mean you HAVE to shoot heavy, or long bullets, but lacking it means you don't have the choice.
Any gun I build/buy WILL have the option to use what ever bullets I want.
If we're comparing the 6.5 and .270 again, at least on thin skinned med game.
Well I'd happily pit a 129ABLR against the 130s from the .270
On heavier game I prefer more bullet weight tho again, I've seen feral bulls get dumped with a . 243 shooting 100gr softpoints.
OP
OP
Garandimal
member
But that's my point.
You are describing the 6.5x55mm Swede.
So, why is the high twist-rate important in the hunting fields?
GR
No, I'm describing the 6.5CM lol.
The Swede isn't chambered in very many rifles right now, which is in part due to it's oal, and in part to the fact that it's original rifles aren't strong enough to take full power modern loadings.
IT has a more practical twist rate of about 1-9, unlike the later .260 rem which was 1-10 (and I've read even slower on some).
In my opinion, the twist rate isn't critical in terms of relatively short range hunting, unless it's way too slow (early .260s), It just offers more options.
Why buy a 1-10 .250 instead of a 1-8 6.5cm? or 1-10 .270 instead of 1-9 .280 remington?
Admittedly I own a slow twist .250AI, and just gave away a .270. I have specific reasons for building/buying them, neither of which was about practicality, or eeking out performance, but I've seen the difference first hand.
Ive also run out of twist on my Savage .243, wether I needed the heavier bullets or not.
Last edited:
Llama Bob
member
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2016
- Messages
- 2,258
He's intentionally avoiding the facts. He does that.
Fact 1: The 6.5x55s original twist rate is 1:200mm. 200mm is 7.9 inches. A M96 Mauser has a faster twist than a factory CM assuming both are built to spec.
Fact 2: The CM and the x55 SE are ballistic twins. Out of a 24" with the 160gr Weldcore my load-to max velocity with temp insensitive powders for the CM is 2700 ft/s with RL23. With the x55SE it's 2706 with Retumbo.
Fact 3: They do not achieve the same velocity the same way - the CM has less capacity, higher MAP, and and more efficient design. The x55 SE has more capacity, a lower MAP, and a less efficient design.
Fact 4: The CM fits in a short action. The x55SE does not. That is the only practical difference between the two, and is why the CM won and the x55 SE lost. Manufacturers don't want to make intermediate actions for one round.
OP
OP
Garandimal
member
So the 6.5 CM is a short-action 6.5x55mm Swede in the Hunting Fields.
We agree on that.
It shoots 125 gr. bullets, which don't need high twist rates, just like the 94 year old .270 Win.
...and 140 gr. bullets just like the 125 year old 6.5 Swede.
The .270 Win., which doesn't need high twist rates, shoots a similar SD bullet 10 gr. heavier and 200 fps faster.
So, why is the high twist-rate important in the hunting fields?
GR
Llama Bob
member
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2016
- Messages
- 2,258
Simply answer the question of where I can find a bullet for .277 1:10" that's got a spire point and the same or higher SD as the 160gr Wedlcore in .264 and we can proceed. Or else admit there is no such bullet, and then there's your answer
Last edited:
someguy2800
Member
Although I agree that a 270 is a fine medium game cartridge that performs superbly with its 1:10 twist and 150 grain bullets, a better comparison would be a 270 vs a 6.5-06 or 280 Remington. The 6.5 Creedmoor is 2/3rds the powder capacity, what’s the point of dragging that into the fight?
Can you post where you got that load data? I can't find any mention of a 6.5 Creed with 160 gr. projectiles.
Thanks.
OP
OP
Garandimal
member
Well...
1. It seems to be the 1st one to get hit.
2. They don't make a .270-08 (although, the new Mil. cartridge might be just that)
GR
Llama Bob
member
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2016
- Messages
- 2,258
I just got it from QuickLoad. RL23 is the right powder for sure if you want a temp-stable hunting load with the 160s. Start load is 40gr. Do-not-exceed velocity is 2700 at the muzzle in a 24". You will probably get there at about 45.7gr depending on your chamber dimensions. Resulting pressure is 63KPSI MAP.
Let's look at this another way.
Again, the supposed premise of the thread is twist rate, not a cartridge debate.
Why did the .244/6mm Remington fail to beat out the . 243?
It offered more capacity and velocity, was chambered in the same rifles, and to this day is fairly well regarded by folks using it today.
Again, the supposed premise of the thread is twist rate, not a cartridge debate.
Why did the .244/6mm Remington fail to beat out the . 243?
It offered more capacity and velocity, was chambered in the same rifles, and to this day is fairly well regarded by folks using it today.
- Status
Similar threads
