Thread: shortest length for a 270

If I was to trim a 270 to add a can on it, what's the shortest length for reasonable accuracy out to 400m?
I don't handload so would be relying on quality factory ammo for performance.

accuracy doesn't need a long barrel, often guns get more accurate with shortened barrels. velocity does suffer if you plan to go to 400m I wouldn't go any shorter than 20 inches, thats without running the numbers thru a ballistic calculator. someone with one might do it for you tho.

what bullets do you use eg. federal 130 gr blue box?
how long is your barrel at the moment?

400m, shit, ditch the .270 and get a 16" 7mm08, an A-tec and some good handloads


(a change of calibre is not necessary but a 7mm08 would be more efficient and have much less blast from the shorter barrel)

I haven't bought a 270 as yet. Keen to put a can on one without making the OAL huge. My 243 is 20 inches and the Gunworks can makes the OAL 26inches. It can be a pain if bush bashing but not a prob on the tops. So a consideration is when I buy a 270, is do I cut it and thread for a can, or leave it as is.

Gimps advice is good. Why the hang up on 270s?
The 08 cases are more efficient and suffer less from chopping the barrel.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 2

I didn't think there was much of a step up from a 243 to 7mm08. Same case, bullet change from 6mm to 7mm.
270 pretty much knocks everything down, so really heart set on 270win, but option to add suppressor or not.

Run the numbers. The energy difference between 243 and 708 is huge. Yes a 270will drop any thing but used properly so will a 243. Ive owned 2x270s and imo the boot and bang you get for performance you may aswell go to 7mm mag a small step up in recoil for massive ballistic gains. And off the top of my head i think the numbers on the 7mm08 arent to far off the 270 anyway. If your heart is set on one 24 inch is optimum and 20inches i would consider minimum.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 2

if you havent baught a gun yet then as a chop and supp jobbie the 270 isnt the most Ideal candidate.

I would stick with 08 case. My 19" 7mm08 runs 140s at 2800 . Have had 4 kills at 400-450 with it without issue and handy in he bush
I have one of the older shorter greystone suppressors on it

That is some of the best advice I have seen on here in a long while tussock.my first rifle was in 270 in all fairness I only shot animals to 150 m buti bet if I was to shoot out past 300m these factors would have mybe seen some bad results that I wouldnt of been ableto explain so had I known this I would have made my first choice back then a 08mm

If your going to shoot a .270 past 400 you should consider something like the SST or Accubond with a high BC. Factory ammo using these bullets is expensive so you probably want to consider reloading too and using 22" barrel as a minimum.

Originally Posted by Tussock

You have been fooled by the very loud bang and all the recoil. The 6.8mm .270 projectiles have a very poor BC generally. You need the 150g projectiles to get real performance out of them. What this means in terms of comparison between rounds if, while the .270 makes a huge fuss, that projectile has a parachute on the back of it. You wear all the impact and recoil, at 400m an animal is getting hit by a 130g projectile going quite slowly. Its an overbore round, so you need all that case to make use of all that powder. Also, as you are planning to use factory ammo and .270 is a very old load, the ammo has been loaded down a lot for the old guns. Its not as powerful as it once was.

An 08 case with a higher BC projectile, like .260 or 7-08 will have more down range killing power, for less recoil and less muzzle blast and it is not an overbore round, so it does not need all that barrel.

270 would always be a poor choice to shorten the barrel on, because its overbore already. It is already an inefficient round. Guys who don't own chronographs and ballistic calculators look at that great big 06 case and feel all that recoil and noise and think "wow, what a beast".

But because all those .270 pills were not made to fly, they slow down real quick. So what are you left with? Your left with the close range performance the other guns have, with mountains of recoil and muzzle blast, but you lose out on the down range performance that some of the much milder, more pleasant to shoot rounds like 6.5x55, 7-08 etc have.

Thats not counting wind either. Your average off the shelf .270 ammo with a normal 130g pill, will have the wind bucking ability of something akin to a .223Rem. If your Tahr hunting and its blowing its guts out, then it will suffer, where a decent hunting projectile in 6.5mm or 7mm will fly a lot straighter, and give you more chance of hitting your killing spot.

If you get a .270, chose one of the very few decent projectiles, and give it enough barrel to reach its potential, then its a beast.

But no one does that. All those people with .270 hunting rifles for "flat shooting" hard hitting guns are kidding themselves. Yeah, they do the job, but in reality not as well as a lot of other smaller, less dramatic rounds.

I'm glad you exist occasionally, it saves me typing things

Originally Posted by Tussock

Makes me feel all warm and fuzzy.

Go check your friendface messages and then tell me that I'm Real Dumb

Interesting.

The above statements ring very true with me. I re-started hunting with a 270 with a 20 inch barrel. Heaps of muzzle blast, ringing ears if no earmuffs used. Killed a few deer with it, probably scared most of them to death. I was very dissapointed when I printed some rounds at 300 yards. The short barrel and factory ammo gave something like 11 inches of drop at that distance. A 30-30 would do just as well! In short all bark, no bite. To unleashe the mighty 270 it beeds a bit of barrel. A 308 / 708 may be the best option if you are adding a can.