Thread: How much does a 270Win suck in 2019?

Norsk.....my elderly friend builds beautiful custom rifles and is a gunsmith and hunter on a World Class level. I wasn't there to observe.
He recounted the story to me over drinks at a gun club dinner. From memory I believe the gist of the event was the bullet entered the throat chest area and went deep into the bears upper chest and came out his back thus damaging the spine. Don't see a .38 revolver doing that. I said " I doubt if you could do that 10 times in a row and he agreed."
I think both you and I know that there is absolutely no comparison of a .38 revolver cartridge vs any of the popular center fire rifles.
My friend stated that it was not a high percentage shot. I can tell you, that we he was young, he was not your average Joe.

All very good stuff Bill.

Originally Posted by Carlsen Highway

Hell no, waste of a good .270 when people shorten the barrel and put 'suppressors' on them. A .270 deserves a proper 24 inch barrel. 22 inches will do but not less that's for sure.

This fad for unnecessary gadgets like suppressors is ruining a lot of good rifles.

Agree with this. I love suppressors, but you need to cut the barrel down to have a practical rifle and 24" is probably still 2" short for .270. Other calibers you can cut down without losing anything. Someone mentioned lots of flame out the barrel. Powder is not so cheap I want to see it launched out the end of the barrel.

As mentioned elsewhere I think a lot of the 270's reputation for "kick" probably arose through muzzle blast and poor or non-existent earmuffs.

I wonder if the old loads for 270 (e.g. H4831 was the go to) had a lot of unburnt powder AND the consequent high muzzle pressure. Back in the mid 1990's chronographs were rare, and the internal ballistic data we have via programs like Quickload didn't exist.

My Quickload is down just now (must revive it) but there's no need to blow unburnt powder out the end of the barrel these days. I used it to produce a very mild report load (unsuppressed) for my 22K Hornet, by selecting the right powder I was able to drop the pressure at the muzzle from 7000 psi (many powerful calibres chasing velocity run at 11,000-12,000 psi) to a bit over 4000 (this was in a single shot rifle with a 26" barrel which does give more options to play with loads).

To answer the OP, it sucks just as much as it did in 2018, which isn't very much.

nah they suck hard, if any of you out there have any classic rifles in 270 cal I will buy them off you at scrap prices.......and that's doing you a big favour

Curiosity got the better of me and I reinstalled Quickload. The 270 with loads based on 130 gn projectiles with "traditional powders" Win 760 and H4381 does indeed run at 12,000 psi at the muzzle (not much unburnt at 24"). At 22" the pressure is up to 13,500 and only 94% burnt. If you compare this with a "modern" tuned load of a 120 gn in something like 260 with N550, the muzzle pressure is 9500 psi with a 99% burn.

Spent all day plinking gongs with the 270 out to 500 comfortably with no dialing .

Originally Posted by Tentman

As mentioned elsewhere I think a lot of the 270's reputation for "kick" probably arose through muzzle blast and poor or non-existent earmuffs.

I wonder if the old loads for 270 (e.g. H4831 was the go to) had a lot of unburnt powder AND the consequent high muzzle pressure. Back in the mid 1990's chronographs were rare, and the internal ballistic data we have via programs like Quickload didn't exist.

My Quickload is down just now (must revive it) but there's no need to blow unburnt powder out the end of the barrel these days. I used it to produce a very mild report load (unsuppressed) for my 22K Hornet, by selecting the right powder I was able to drop the pressure at the muzzle from 7000 psi (many powerful calibres chasing velocity run at 11,000-12,000 psi) to a bit over 4000 (this was in a single shot rifle with a 26" barrel which does give more options to play with loads).

Cheers for that. Very useful.

110 gr barnes or even 110 gr sierra prohunter if you can,t afford barnes are real flat shooters that deck animals with little recoil as tetawa said do your bit and you can,t go wrong

Originally Posted by 57jl

110 gr barnes or even 110 gr sierra prohunter if you can,t afford barnes are real flat shooters that deck animals with little recoil as tetawa said do your bit and you can,t go wrong

I use the 110gr Barnes with 2209 out of an 18" BAR Browning, muzzle blast isn't bad even without the suppressor, but usually only 0ne or two shots fired as used solely for hunting deer.

It works just fine, and is a capable long range cartridge as well.
However, 260, 6.5CM, 7mm08 will all do everything the 270 does with the correct bulllet (Especially the 7mm08) and it will do it with a smaller case, less recoil, less noise, less muzzle blast, less powder use etc so i personally wouldnt bother getting one if im buying a gun, but if you already have one you can use it very effectively with the right loads etc

I just ran the numbers just for sake of interest.

I used max velocity's in the Hodgdon website and used the highest BC eldx bullet that these guns generally will stabilize to try and keep it consistent. and the range they still carry the 1000ftlb of energy to (just for comparison as i know they will kill under 1000 still easy provided your bullet can expand at that distance) and a 5mph 90deg crosswind

Note: i used 140gr data for 270 as they dont have 145gr data

260- 143 ELDX - 2796FPS- 1000Ftlb = 740 Yards @ 1775fps Supersonic (1350fps) until 1110 yards - 17.25MOA drop @ 735 yards - 1.75MOA wind
6.5CM - 143 ELDX - 2795FPS - 1000Ftlb = 735 Yards @ 1780fps Supersonic (1350fps) until 1110 yards - 17.25MOA drop @ 735 yards - 1.75MOA wind
270 - 145 ELDX - 3023FPS - - 1000Ftlb = 850Yards @ 1768fps Supersonic (1350fps) until 1200 yards - 18.75 MOA drop @ 850 yards - 2.0MOA wind
7mm08 - 162 ELDX - 2725FPS - 1000Ftlb = 840Yards @ 1675fps Supersonic (1350fps) until 1150 yards - 22.25 MOA drop @ 840 yards - 2.0MOA wind


You can probably get more distance out of all of these with different bullets like the LRAB etc but this is just to have a reasonable comparison out of factory available rifles.
Atmospherics used was just whatever it is today in Hamilton

I own a 6.5CM, 243, 308 , 300 win mag but almost always reach for the 308 as it does everything i need for general sub 500 yards shooting but i grab the 300 win mag if i know long shots are likely.

My first and only experience of a 270 was using an open sighted one a mate had.
Didn't fit too well belted me on the cheek made my eyes water using the open sights.
Had a Parker Hale 303 myself at the time.Using only the the best.
Then went too and still use a Winchester Featherweight in 30-06.
IMO the fit makes all the difference to the the experience.
A bad experience lasts a long time.
On paper 7x57,308,30-06,270 nothing in it for us joe blow averages.
But wouldn't it be boring if every post made was liked.
Every recommendation become gossip.
We wouldn't have Dundee stretching his barrel every time he shoots something.
Nothing to laugh at.
And if I did have a 270 it would be better than anything else.

There are some better bullets in .270 so I guess it sucks less in 2019 than ever. I rummaged through all my old brass today and I have a surprising amount of .270 brass. I'm sure I only owned one? Her name was Christine. I wanted to go Tahr hunting and my short barreled .308 Spanish Mauser was sub optimal. @Carlsen Highway offered to help me defraud my then girlfriend and buy Christine without her knowing. Christine was a BSA Majestic in .270. It had been lightened and had the barrel cut down at some point. The but stock was wafer thin. I fired six rounds through it and then walked away horrified. In an act of charity, Carlsen Highway traded me in a straight swap, a 25-06 Ruger for Christine. Then Christine proceeded to try and kill him. Headspacing issues. The barrel was on sideways and she had no rifling to speak of.