Thread: .270 is the best caliber ever made.

Originally Posted by whanahuia

How good is the 270? Sig spend millions developing a new 6.8 mm cartridge shooting a 135gr projectile, and it pretty much achieves what the 270 does.

You really are a .270 compulsive personality

Sig 6.8 compared to .270: Sig - shorter, less powder, less recoil, less noise. And I haven't even looked up the Sig's specs to check my assumptions.

The only thing that would make the .270 sillier is if it was belted

Originally Posted by Tahr

You really are a .270 compulsive personality

Sig 6.8 compared to .270: Sig - shorter, less powder, less recoil, less noise. And I haven't even looked up the Sig's specs to check my assumptions.

The only thing that would make the .270 sillier is if it was belted

More expensive. needs specialised rifles and cases to achieve the result. Recoil+- 1 ftlb

Greetings All,
In 1925 the .270 was a big step up from contemporary .30-06 army loads with a 150 grain projectile at around 2,700 fps but few seemed to have noticed at the time. I don't know what the original ballistics were but the claims would have been in a 26" barrel and aspirational rather than achievable. For handloaders, which were few,. IMR 4064 was the slowest powder available once it entered production. By 1950 with IMR 4350 and Surplus 4831 the .270 took off with handloaders. After the depression and WW2 hunters had more money and were more mobile which drove the need or just desire for new rifles rather than cut down military rifles. The .270 benefitted at least as much as any other.
Today although we might bag the .270 for its slow twist it is still a popular cartridge for which ammo and components are easily available. It still does everything it did almost 75 years ago just as well in fact better than that. I can not see it disappearing any time soon which is more than you can say for some of it's supposed replacements.
Regards Grandpamac.

But if it's the 6.8 sig I'm thinking about they are running at 75k plus psi (with a 2 piece case), to get a normal performance for a 270 from an AR platform with a short barrel. Not quite the same.
6.8 westerner I a bit more like the modern take on cartridges.
Shorter fatter unrelated case (just different enought to not get mixed with 270wsm), with a fast twist barrel to get heavier, more BC efficient projectiles that work better at longer distances.
Ala 6.5creed vs 260 and 6.5x55.
If you don't shoot that far out it's a moot point

Originally Posted by whanahuia

Your comparison is wrong. your 022 model still runs on the same fuel as the 96 one.

And it'll be running when the 22 model is u/s due to some electronic part failing and being no longer available.

Originally Posted by Rock river arms hunter

Never owned a 270 but sure as hell won't knock what I haven't used aye. Proof of the pudding plenty of animals die with a .277 size ventilation hole(s) in the vitals. All are each to their own on insert debate here- .but let's stop this infighting stuff aye folks and just appreciate some people like different things for different reasons as they suit their needs better for whatever reason.

.277 but think the hole was a bit bigger on the way out?

Originally Posted by Floundering Around

Attachment 260834

.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.

Let's more red stuff out n sunlight in too.

Originally Posted by Tahr

You really are a .270 compulsive personality

Sig 6.8 compared to .270: Sig - shorter, less powder, less recoil, less noise. And I haven't even looked up the Sig's specs to check my assumptions.

The only thing that would make the .270 sillier is if it was belted

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.

Originally Posted by Marty Henry

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.

And the 275 Rigby
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”

Originally Posted by Tahr

You really are a .270 compulsive personality

Sig 6.8 compared to .270: Sig - shorter, less powder, less recoil, less noise. And I haven't even looked up the Sig's specs to check my assumptions.

The only thing that would make the .270 sillier is if it was belted

270 Weatherby?

Originally Posted by SpeightsDrinker

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”

No surprises there Speightsdrinker....Waikato and 30cal all the way

Originally Posted by akaroa1

And the 275 Rigby
I've just come home with a vintage 275 Rigby Flanged

C'mon now @akaroa1,
We are NOT going to let you get away with at least some details and preferably pictures.
Regards Grandpamac.