Thread: Is it time to leave the 27 gang?

Originally Posted by Max Headroom

I think a lot of the migration from caliber to caliber that is discussed on this and other forums comes from the fact that the shooter has either:

* Realised that it is not fit for purpose.

* Become bored with what they have

* Not recognised that their rifle will perform much better in a more skilled pair of hands, and is in fact all they need and more.

* Lost confidence in it for some reason

* Been trying to keep up with the Joneses

* Realised that they have learned all the lessons that it has to offer, and feel the need to keep on learning.

The first and last ones to me, are the truly valid ones.

Or don't shoot a 6.5

28 club all day only people who don’t know any better own 27’s
26 club is a great club also

.270 is a diameter neglected by projectile manufacturers.
7mm has a much better choice of efficient projectiles.

For years I hated .270 because its reputation was bollocks. Its fame and efficacy were entirely imaginary and it was ballistically average because of what ChrisW said. All over bore and jacked up for "flat shooting" but no matching projectiles. Shooting boxes and boxes of it with no hearing protection when I was 16, it gave me a bad flinch and I hated it.

Then I found out it had become almost terminally uncool, to the point it had a "gang" of aficionados trying to defend its legacy. One after another, they were selling up or re-barreling. .270 was dead.

I immediately went out and bought one. Right when it became uncool, a range of Hornady projectiles came out making. Not much you can't do with .270 but that recoil impulse sits at a sweet spot for being unpleasant.

Took me a while to work out what 27 gang was. I thought a bunch of forum members had joined South African street gangs.

As the late great Jack O'Connor said. There are only two types of hunters. Those that love 270s and those that hate them. That is those that have used one and those who haven't............................ I love the earlier message saying 28 is great, 27 is crap and 26 is great too. How the hell does that work????? 27 must be a prime number or something. And as for projectiles, well yeah 27 doesn't have as many offerings but how many do you need? I only need one! I have tried many and never had any trouble finding one that suited what I wanted to do. To the point that I realised I really didn't need many and was better off picking a good one and then learning all about it. I think part of the problem with the 270 is that it is just so damn good. It doesnt really make sense in the way that it sits between 6mm and 7mm and is just a touch bigger than 6.5mm. But it works. And for that reason the great kiwi expert knocking machine comes out. To be frank give me any moderate calibre between 6mm and 30 cal and I will find the right projectile for the animal I am hunting...........and go hunting! They all work with the right bullet and shooter.

If projectile manufacturers properly supported .270 it could be very good. It sits between 6.5 and 7mm, so projectile manufactures should be able to make projectiles with a bc in between that of the 6.5 and 7mm’s. That is to say higher than the 6.5 but less than the 7mm, But no .270 is neglected and so has lesser bc projectiles than even the 6.5mm diameter below it. The “heavies” of a given diameter usually have a better bc than the heavies of the caliber below it. Eg a 6mm has higher bc options than .223/5.56. 6.5mm has higher bc than the 6mm. 7mm has a higher bc than 6.5mm. 7.62 heavies have better bc than 7mm heavies etc etc.
270 is one of the only diameter that does not hold true and it’s because of projectile manufacturers not the cartridge itself

Originally Posted by Hiawatha

As the late great Jack O'Connor said. There are only two types of hunters. Those that love 270s and those that hate them. That is those that have used one and those who haven't............................ I love the earlier message saying 28 is great, 27 is crap and 26 is great too. How the hell does that work????? 27 must be a prime number or something. And as for projectiles, well yeah 27 doesn't have as many offerings but how many do you need? I only need one! I have tried many and never had any trouble finding one that suited what I wanted to do. To the point that I realised I really didn't need many and was better off picking a good one and then learning all about it. I think part of the problem with the 270 is that it is just so damn good. It doesnt really make sense in the way that it sits between 6mm and 7mm and is just a touch bigger than 6.5mm. But it works. And for that reason the great kiwi expert knocking machine comes out. To be frank give me any moderate calibre between 6mm and 30 cal and I will find the right projectile for the animal I am hunting...........and go hunting! They all work with the right bullet and shooter.

My puny 6.5x47s with a tiny fraction of the size of the .270, with a tiny fraction of the recoil, powder, throat erosion and noise, actually carries more energy downrange, inside practical hunting ranges.

So yeah, I agree with you, but there is a HUGE difference between the .270 offerings (until recently) and 260 or 280. Also remember that the area of the barrel is what matters and the area of a circle is 3.14xradius SQUARED so a small difference in diameter is quite a big percentage difference in area.

Your .270 will work. Anything will work. A .303 will work. But forums would be boring if we ended the discussion there. .270, with poor bullets is a compromise. You get all the barrel damage and noise of a high performance round, with none of the performance. The long range, flat shooting hard hitting reputation of .270 sprung from peoples imaginations. The math does not lie.

I really don't like long thin cases which launch the projectile AND HALF THE POWDER and some bits of the lands out the barrel. Not unless they have nice slippery projectiles to make it all worth while.

Now all of this is in the past because Hornady has produced some respectable projectiles.

Originally Posted by ChrisW

If projectile manufacturers properly supported .270 it could be very good. It sits between 6.5 and 7mm, so projectile manufactures should be able to make projectiles with a bc in between that of the 6.5 and 7mm’s. That is to say higher than the 6.5 but less than the 7mm, But no .270 is neglected and so has lesser bc projectiles than even the 6.5mm diameter below it. The “heavies” of a given diameter usually have a better bc than the heavies of the caliber below it. Eg a 6mm has higher bc options than .223/5.56. 6.5mm has higher bc than the 6mm. 7mm has a higher bc than 6.5mm. 7.62 heavies have better bc than 7mm heavies etc etc.
270 is one of the only diameter that does not hold true and it’s because of projectile manufacturers not the cartridge itself

The standard .270 twist rate is a limiting factor?

Originally Posted by Tahr

The standard .270 twist rate is a limiting factor?

Yes I agree, but no reason 270 can’t get up with the times and start getting made in some faster twists. I guess a projectile manufacturer needs to break the mould and make a projectile that needs a faster than usual twist to bring 270 into the modern world, then someone needs to make a rifle / barrel to shoot it.

Originally Posted by Tussock

For years I hated .270 because its reputation was bollocks. Its fame and efficacy were entirely imaginary and it was ballistically average because of what ChrisW said. All over bore and jacked up for "flat shooting" but no matching projectiles. Shooting boxes and boxes of it with no hearing protection when I was 16, it gave me a bad flinch and I hated it.

Then I found out it had become almost terminally uncool, to the point it had a "gang" of aficionados trying to defend its legacy. One after another, they were selling up or re-barreling. .270 was dead.

I immediately went out and bought one. Right when it became uncool, a range of Hornady projectiles came out making. Not much you can't do with .270 but that recoil impulse sits at a sweet spot for being unpleasant.

Took me a while to work out what 27 gang was. I thought a bunch of forum members had joined South African street gangs.

I think what you say about the 270’s recoil impulse is true. In theory they should have a moderate amount of recoil. They launch 130-150gr projectiles at decent speeds, but there are no hefty powder charges or magnum-style velocities, so the 270 shouldn’t really boot a lot, but for some reason it does. The most uncomfortable rifle I’ve ever shot was a bog standard T3 in 270. At the time I owned an unmodified finnlight 308. It was a lighter rifle than the T3 and was shooting the same weight projectile at a very similar speed to the 270. So when I got behind that 270 I figured the recoil would be the same or possibly a bit less. I was wrong. That rifle beat the crap out of me. And I don’t blame the T3s stock design or recoil pad as its not a lot different to a finnlight. I dunno what it is but the 270 seems to have some sort of bizarre combination of recoil energy and speed which results in disproportionate felt recoil

Originally Posted by 7.62

I think what you say about the 270’s recoil impulse is true. In theory they should have a moderate amount of recoil. They launch 130-150gr projectiles at decent speeds, but there are no hefty powder charges or magnum-style velocities, so the 270 shouldn’t really boot a lot, but for some reason it does. The most uncomfortable rifle I’ve ever shot was a bog standard T3 in 270. At the time I owned an unmodified finnlight 308. It was a lighter rifle than the T3 and was shooting the same weight projectile at a very similar speed to the 270. So when I got behind that 270 I figured the recoil would be the same or possibly a bit less. I was wrong. That rifle beat the crap out of me. And I don’t blame the T3s stock design or recoil pad as its not a lot different to a finnlight. I dunno what it is but the 270 seems to have some sort of bizarre combination of recoil energy and speed which results in disproportionate felt recoil

Thinking about it a little, I wonder if in the .270's case, there is some counterpart to the commonly understood barrel harmonic at work in the stock to produce the aforesaid recoil impulse, ie a harmonic working back towards the shooter producing an exaggerated recoil, as well as one travelling down the bore.

Originally Posted by Huntfisheat

Shot with one for 34 years then switched to a 7mm08 because I got sick of getting belted around the shoulder and the ears. In the last 13 years I haven't lost a shot animal, though some have been unrecoverable, so the prey don't know the difference.

My first centerfire was a 270, a wood/blue weatherby vanguard which I owned for about 4 years. Hard to believe, but they were actually pretty uncommon in the late nineties. It was reasonably heavy and I got a guy to load me some 110gr hornadys so the recoil was manageable, but with 150s it was a bit of a brute. Give me something based on an 308 case any day

The modern world is great, simply add a can or a brake all of a sudden recoil not so much an issue. Oh wait those things have been around for ages
I'll never understand experienced shooters who get rid of accurate rifles due to "recoil" perceived or actual, there are ways to reduce recoil to a very manageable level.
At the end of the day if you want a hard hitting caliber for longer ranges there are trade offs either a heavier rifle that will feel softer to shoot or a lighter rifle that will be nicer to carry but will feel more brutal to shoot unless you brake it or get a supressor.
Or of course get a softer shooting cal and get closer
Awaiting my flaming

What a lot of cock pulling about recoil impulses. I have owned three 270's and shot plenty of others. The worst recoil by far was a T3. It is down to rifle weight, stock MATERIAL as well as design. You blokes will have Sir Issac Newton turning in his grave with that non-physics BS .
My pet 270 is a 700 with a Kevlar filled Bell and Carlson stock and thick standard recoil pad. We all know that kevlar absorbs / dissipates / slows shock waves. Anyone can fire that gun. It is quite a light gun. A friends son shot two pigs and a possum with it one evening and he was only 10 at the time.
Everyone knows that those hard ugly factory T3 stocks only use is for staking roses, why would anyone even consider using one on a gun ??.
You cant have velocity + projectile weight without an equal and opposite force - recoil

Originally Posted by 7.62

I think what you say about the 270’s recoil impulse is true. In theory they should have a moderate amount of recoil. They launch 130-150gr projectiles at decent speeds, but there are no hefty powder charges or magnum-style velocities, so the 270 shouldn’t really boot a lot, but for some reason it does. The most uncomfortable rifle I’ve ever shot was a bog standard T3 in 270. At the time I owned an unmodified finnlight 308. It was a lighter rifle than the T3 and was shooting the same weight projectile at a very similar speed to the 270. So when I got behind that 270 I figured the recoil would be the same or possibly a bit less. I was wrong. That rifle beat the crap out of me. And I don’t blame the T3s stock design or recoil pad as its not a lot different to a finnlight. I dunno what it is but the 270 seems to have some sort of bizarre combination of recoil energy and speed which results in disproportionate felt recoil

It is 100% stock design. Physics is physics. The t3 stock is definatley a poor design for mitigating Recoil. I've noticed it in several different calibers.

Its also a combination of other factors, weight of powder charge contributes (10 - 20 % more in the 270?) As does muzzle pressure.