Attachment 260834Quote:
Originally Posted by Rock river arms hunter
.277 but think the hole was a bit bigger on the way out?
Printable View
Attachment 260834Quote:
Originally Posted by Rock river arms hunter
.277 but think the hole was a bit bigger on the way out?
I like them like this, easier to carry when only half the animal is left edible. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Floundering Around
Let's more red stuff out n sunlight in too.
Well there is the .275 belted rimless Holland and Holland nitro magnum but it handled 170 plus bullets and being British it must be better.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tahr
And the 275 RigbyQuote:
Originally Posted by Marty Henry
I've just come home with a vintage 275 Rigby Flanged
Here’s my experience with the .270.
When I first got my fire arms license as a young Auckland male. - I’d never even held a gun let a lot shot one - or gone hunting. In fact I didn’t know a single other hunter to ask for advice. So off to hunting and fishing I went after some Google research where everyone said “get a 308” so I did, I went ang got a neat little short barrel howa which I took to the NZDA range and zerod at 100m. And then I started hunting and meeting hunters and shot a good amount of deer - but all of these were under 100m. Then one day I saw the red stag of my dreams (I still have yet to see another even close to him).
I lined up the shot and pulled the trigger and promptly missed him. He looked around again and soon got another chance. Only I missed again. And again and shot off all 5 rounds as I had no idea what was happening. (We then measured the distance to 300m and I had never had the chance to shoot that far before I didn’t realise my short barrel 308 would drop to much at this distance as I believed what the box of ammo said)
My new hunting mate I was with then lined it up and bang. He dropped it - he was shooting a 270.
I was spewing. And couldn’t understand what happened as I had never missed before. I didn’t really even know hold overs as never had the chance to shoot past 100.
Promptly when out and sold the 308 and got a 270.
A few years later I know better and know how to dial and can hit steel out past 500yards easily with my 270. But still haven’t seen a stag like that one before that now hangs on my mates wall and not mine. In fact still haven’t shot a single red stag.
Oh well! Hard lessons for new young shooters.
But saying that, just this week I have gone back out and purchased another short barrel 308 for the bush as the long barrel 270 just isn’t fun in the kaimais.
But to sum up my story I absolutely love my .270 and will never sell it. Another mate mate just got his fire arms license and for his first rifle I said “go get a .270”
270 Weatherby? :thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by Tahr
No surprises there Speightsdrinker....Waikato and 30cal all the way :PQuote:
Originally Posted by SpeightsDrinker
C'mon now @akaroa1,Quote:
Originally Posted by akaroa1
We are NOT going to let you get away with at least some details and preferably pictures.
Regards Grandpamac.
Do you by any chance have a 280 Ross? Ive always wanted to shoot a stag or bull tahr with one of those.Quote:
Originally Posted by akaroa1
But those are both imatation 7mm they are of course otherwise known as 7x57mm so are not real 7mm.the mighty .277 is closer when you measure the projectiles.Quote:
Originally Posted by akaroa1
Remington RRB no5 Sporting Rifle
Originally 7x57 and rebarreled to 7x57R
If you can call the 7x57 a 275 Rigby
I can call the 7x57R a 275 Rigby Flanged
Sorry no pics yet
I came home and worked on an 1885 first
And the 40-70 @ 44-77
Anyway this is a post about the modern 270 which isn't even 100 years old yetQuote:
Originally Posted by akaroa1
You don't want to see my old junk rifles
I just love the way those slope four shouldered cases feed so slickly from a R700 magazine. And how far out you can seat the pills out in a R700 magazine creating room for so much powder. Cos I quite like to burn powder and paying a bit more for a good pill doesn't worry me, it's my favorite hobby. And lastly when it shoot and hunt with my .270 it doesn't make me feel cheap and dirty like when i shoot my .223! :)
:D
Calling a 7X57 a .275 Rigby is like calling a Vauxhall Viva GT a " Sports Car".Quote:
Originally Posted by akaroa1
Greetings,Quote:
Originally Posted by akaroa1
I thought it might be a 7x57R and you were winding us up. Will look forward to the continuing story. Not junk to me.
GPM.
It was Rigby that called the 7x57 a .275 Rigby.Quote:
Originally Posted by norsk
GPM.
One of the ways we can tell the .270 is the best ever....
We dont need a .270 on deer type thread.
everyone just know it works.
Queue Tui ad
I also am in possession of a "275 Rigby flanged" as you say. Although I call it a 7x57R so as not to appear pretentious🙂.Quote:
Originally Posted by akaroa1
Come on Gibo. If you say you shoot a 30 cal, it could be anything. If you say you shoot a 270, its only going to be one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibo
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marty Henry
MY brother has a lee enfeild in that case and calibre. Whats the correct name for that particular one?
I have nothing against the 270. Have never owned one, but have mates that do and they get their fair share of animals.
My main rifle is in 308 and the cartridge itself has never let me down. I will be sticking with that.
It's a 7x57R always has been and always should beQuote:
Originally Posted by whanahuia
I was just taking the piss
And I like the way the Europeans designate their caliber and length
Very helpful
Unlike the American system that does give at least a clue
Then there's the British where things get quite messy with so many variations on a single bore and then they throw in another word to add to the confusion
I also was taking the wee. It's the likes of Bell and his antics with elephants who made the rigby name popular. British is always better than German?
British big bores are better than GermanQuote:
Originally Posted by Marty Henry
German medium bores are better than British
British stocks and Express sights are better than German
And without doubt the Germans make the very best cuckoo clock rifles ( cuckoo clock guns are fully load with every imaginable feature that doesn't actually make it shoot better )
Greetings All,
Getting back to the .270 most of you will be aware the load data for many cartridges was dialled down after electronic pressure testing revealed high or erratic pressure in some cartridges, the .243 and 7mm Rem Mag often being quoted as examples. Yesterday was wet so I thought it would be interesting to look at how data for the .270 had fared. IMR4064, IMR4350 and IMR4831 were all popular powders for loading the 270 at various times in it's history and I had pressure tested data spanning about 60 years. The data for the 130 grain was compared for the three powders. Data from the mid 1960's did not include IMR4831 which was not released until the 1970's. Pressures were close to the red line as you would expect for the 60's. IMR4831 had appeared by 1976 with pressures down a little along with velocities. In 2003 loads and pressures were down a little more but velocities stayed about the same. Current data had slightly different loads with lower pressure and similar velocities. All of the pressures for the above were in CUP so the data may be older. The projectiles were either cup and core or for the 2003 data a partition. So in summary other than the 1960's data velocities have changed little although loads and pressures have dropped.
I also looked at 3 other sets of data from the 1970's. These were the Speer No 9 and Nosler No1 manuals plus Ken Waters Pet loads from 1977. Data was close to current Hodgdons data for all three although a little higher in Speer for IMR4064.
Interestingly the Hodgdons data also includes loads for the 130 grain TSX. This is a harder projectile should have lighter loads but does not. Loads are similar or higher to those for the soft point with higher velocity and pressure in PSI.
All of this suggests that the .270 does not suffer from the variable pressure problems that required significant drops in loads and velocities we saw with some other cartridges, another feather in its cap.
I believe that the listed velocity for the 130 grain was 3,140 fps in a 26" barrel or a little under 3,100 fps in 24" and 3,040 in a 22". About what current data produces today.
Regards Grandpamac.
Regards Grandpamac.
Great info Grandpa,
Also another reason why 270 is the greatest. Ackly found he couldn't improve on it.
They got the .270 case capacity correct from the start... there was no need for the .270 AI as it didn't gain much in terms of performance.Quote:
Originally Posted by whanahuia
What they got wrong is the twist rate.
So if they start making 270 barrels with a 1:8 twist it would be a better calibre than it already is?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hermitage
Would it also out perform or match a lot of the modern cartridges developed in more recent years?
Actual questions here BTW.
i had a Steyr .270 in 1:8, awesome rifleQuote:
Originally Posted by RUMPY
So if they start making 270 barrels with a 1:8 twist it would be a better calibre than it already is?Quote:
Originally Posted by RUMPY
If there was ever a redundant cartridge/caliber to get rid of it's the 270. But to answer your question - yes if it had 1:8 twist barrels it would be a more effective caliber as it could handle long high BC bullets, but it seems like a waste of time due to the calibers of 6.5 and 7mm on each side of it which already have fast twists.
.277 is still a nice bullet diameter for the balance of weight, recoil, and terminal effectiveness but there is no denying that it is surrounded on each side by better options (by the numbers) in .264 or .284 bore.
Would it also out perform or match a lot of the modern cartridges developed in more recent years?
The .270 has got to be good as it's maintained a century-long tenure of popularity and it can kill deer just as dead a hundred years later.
However, there are ways that modern cartridges have been improved. Hunters who go out of their way to choose the .270 today are probably doing it for nostalgia’s sake and bias as much as performance. That’s not because it doesn’t work, but because there are more-refined options available.
Nobody today would ever design the .270 Winchester as it is. The principles of modern cartridge design give us cartridges that usually propel bullets more efficiently, are designed for longer, low-drag bullets, and conform to chamber designs that produce better inherent accuracy. Cartridges like the 6.5 CM, 6.5 PRC and 6.8 Western embrace the characteristics that are good and impressive about the .270 Winchester, just execute it better and more efficiently.
Don't forget the 270wsm they should have released that with a fast twist at the start no need for the Westerner
[QUOTE]Cartridges like the 6.5 CM, 6.5 PRC and 6.8 Western embrace the characteristics that are good and impressive about the .270 Winchester, just execute it better and more efficiently./QUOTE]
Just running through load data, and the 6.5 PRC uses about the same amount of powder, for very similar velocities. Wheres the added efficiency?
One hell of a lot of those sorts of claims are more part of marketing and keeping people buying new stuff.
My prediction is the Creedmore will settle down just as the 7/08 did before it. Hardly see a 7/08 nowadays.
[QUOTE=whanahuia;1622703]It's been out for 17 years already, doesn't seem to be fading away much so far. I'd probably buy a 6.5 x 47 in preference to a Creedmoor, but I have been told I'm occasionally somewhat contrary.Quote:
Cartridges like the 6.5 CM, 6.5 PRC and 6.8 Western embrace the characteristics that are good and impressive about the .270 Winchester, just execute it better and more efficiently./QUOTE]
Just running through load data, and the 6.5 PRC uses about the same amount of powder, for very similar velocities. Wheres the added efficiency?
One hell of a lot of those sorts of claims are more part of marketing and keeping people buying new stuff.
My prediction is the Creedmore will settle down just as the 7/08 did before it. Hardly see a 7/08 nowadays.
Of course, the guy who said that was wrong.
Even Jack O'Connor admitted the 280 was better than the 270. As does anyone with a functioning frontal cortex, but with RWS making 7x64 brass that would be even betterer.
At the time high BC heavy for caliber projectiles were not a "thing". Twisting it for the available 130/150 grn and blunt 160grn was probably the exact right thing in that context.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hermitage
And it still makes sense.
Look this forum is heavily shooter orientated. But there is a big majority who dont wish to go push thier firearms and systems too the max and who do most of their hunting within 400 meters with a standard rifle and standard scope.
We have all had discussions on here about what it actually takes to shoot past that, and it takes a lot of practice and time and money. The wind factor alone.
Inside 400, and bullet speed will trump weight for advantages all most all the time. All things being equal.
[QUOTE=whanahuia;1622703]7mm08 fading ??? - you need to get out more, I still see heaps of young guys with them at the range sighting in.Quote:
Cartridges like the 6.5 CM, 6.5 PRC and 6.8 Western embrace the characteristics that are good and impressive about the .270 Winchester, just execute it better and more efficiently./QUOTE]
Just running through load data, and the 6.5 PRC uses about the same amount of powder, for very similar velocities. Wheres the added efficiency?
One hell of a lot of those sorts of claims are more part of marketing and keeping people buying new stuff.
My prediction is the Creedmore will settle down just as the 7/08 did before it. Hardly see a 7/08 nowadays.
I have had two 270 guys, both with Howas, in the last few weeks, the factory ammo they were using delivered great 3 shot groups. Convinced both of them to wear earmuffs over their earplugs and with a suppressor the 270 becomes a pussycat.
