Author Topic: 270 Limitations? (Read 4763 times)

while99 · « **Reply #30 on:** February 23, 2005, 12:18:44 PM »

I concur with LGM270. A .270 will certainly kill an elk but there are better calibers to use under today's conditions. I prefer a .338 Winchester magnum with 250 grain Nosler partitions.

Don Fischer · « **Reply #31 on:** February 27, 2005, 08:21:30 AM »

Look's like we could start a geezer club here. Jack O'Conner, Russel Annabelle, John Jobson, Ted Trueblood. God how I miss those guy's. I don't have "The Hunting Rifle" anymore, lost in a fire but I do still have "The Last Book". I believe that although Jack was very fond of the 270, were he here, you'd find that he really felt the 280 a better cartridge. I believe it was in the "Last Book" where he said that he was sorry that he was so permantely tied to the 270, he hadn't meant for that to happen. But he was certainly proof of what one's faith and proficiency in a cartridge could do. I've never been a big fan of the 270 but there can be no doubt it's usefulness. The magical power it posses lies within a man than learned to use it so well. The lesson he gave us was competence with what we have.

tanoose · « **Reply #32 on:** February 27, 2005, 03:09:48 PM »

The 270 is a great caliber its in the 30/06 class, but leave the big bears to the big bores Like the .338 or 375 and even bigger.

earschplitinloudenboomer · « **Reply #33 on:** February 28, 2005, 09:07:23 PM »

Wrote Mr. O'Conner a letter once. I was about 15 (and told him so). Asked him what he thought about a .243 for eastern whitetails. He wrote back. Said he preferred a 6 MM "has a better shoulder for reloading", but he wrote back...to a kid. Typed letter but it was signed in ink "Your friend, Jack O'Conner". That letter was a most treasured possession, I read it many, many times. I can still recite it per batum. While I was overseas, in the service, my folks moved, the letter was lost...you guys have stirred a lot of memories.
best to you and yours...
ears-

bigchast1 · « **Reply #34 on:** March 21, 2005, 02:39:20 PM »

Thanks for all the input guys!! Now what are some good deer to elk loads to start with. Also what is a real, really, really really good target load, 2 inch or better at 300yds for egg shoot. Again thanks guys!!!!!!!!

270_Abolt · « **Reply #35 on:** April 09, 2005, 03:25:06 PM »

The .270 Win is my fav caliber by far. Shooting 130 Gr. Barnes X Bullets Ive never had a deer get away from me ( if they did run ) and most of the time they drop where they stand.

Yes the 270 win can take elk easily with good shot placement.

jro45 · « **Reply #36 on:** April 12, 2005, 05:40:06 AM »

I own the Winchester 270 and use H4831 and shoot tight groups.

magnum308 · « **Reply #37 on:** April 12, 2005, 12:51:25 PM »

I'm now back in the "270's owners club". My Winchester pre 64 M70 featherweight in .270 Win was collected from Australian Customs last Friday. A quick inspection revealed a pretty good rifle for 44 years old. Mounted a 4-12X40 Leupold VX-I in Weaver bases and rings (temporary until I get a set of Conetrol Custums), loaded some rounds with ADI (Australian Defence Industry) AR2209 (sold as H4350 in the US) and AR2213SC (sold as H4831SC in the US) with some 130gr Hornadys I had in my bullet drawer. With my chronograph, I headed to rifle range.

The results (see pic below) was nothing short of startling for the 2209. I was expecting an extended load development session to arrive a load that shot well. I was therefore pleasantly surprised when the first group (of 3 shots) measured less than ½". The rest of the loads with 2209 were much the same. Largest group being just under 1" (as you can see) and most around the ½" to ¾" size. Pretty good for a first shoot and still getting used to it. Trigger was typical Winchester heavy (some work needed here).

The disappointment was the velocities. Best I got was with the ADI maximum load of 55 grs was (3 shot) average of a bit over 2,900 fps. Even with the 22" barrel I was hoping for a bit better than this. The surprise though was the second group (52gr AR2209) registered an average of 3,032 fps (with all 3 shots > 3,000 fps). The next load (53gr) registered average of 2,883 fps with the top load (55gr) registering average of 2,919 fps.

By the time I got to start shooting the AR2213SC loads that autum afternoon shade had rendered my chrocograph ineffective and no reading could be taken. I fired a couple of groups but these were not of the order of the previous loads so I packed up for the day.

With the first outing with a new (to me) rifle that is stock original with the addition only of a recoil pad (the original had a metal or plastic butt plate) I am wrapped. The action is not even bedded but the stock looked good.

I will be spending some future development time on this and will in the process probably try some Alliant powders (particularly Reloader 22) which has resurfaced again in Oz. But the first impressions very impressive.

Cheers & God bless,
Magnum308

riddleofsteel · « **Reply #38 on:** April 24, 2005, 06:28:32 AM »

I am currently building a .270 Savage 110 LH. I have been a quarter bore and .26/6.5 fan for decades. If anything the .270 is more versatile.

rickt300 · « **Reply #39 on:** April 24, 2005, 12:55:54 PM »

My 270 is a medium heavy sporter barreled mauser in a synthetic stock. I began and ended my load developement with H4831, the standard version. 59.0 grains under the Hornady 130 grain flat based spire point gives consistant 3 shot groups between 1/2 and 3/4 otf an inch. The rifle has an unusually short throat and this rifle with it's 24 inch barrel gives around 3150 fps with this load, WLR primers and Winchester cases. I could go up a bit but feel I need no more velocity and like the accuracy.

Redhat · « **Reply #40 on:** April 29, 2005, 07:55:37 PM »

Man-o-man, these threads are all over the internet. Always about .270 or .30-06! Ever wonder why everyone is looking for something that works "better" than these two? I think most of this talk about inadequacy is MALARKY!

Has anyone ever seen a correctly placed .270 or .30-06 round fail to do the job on any game? I bought a.270 because of two reasons:

Light recoil - which means I can practice with it and not Dread the kick

Ballsitics - flat shooter out to 300-400 yds, and downrange energy retention

I think the only folks not satisfied have started to believe the advertisements for the newer .300 Super short train stoppermagnums...blah blah blah !

They all seem like an answer to a non-existent problem

But hey, then again, what fun would gun collecting be if you could only buy .30-30, .270 or '06!

Carry on gentlemen

poncaguy · « **Reply #41 on:** April 30, 2005, 03:19:28 AM »

Most of my life I have shot 270's with excellent results. I shoot a Winchester Super Shadow 270WSM now. It's a little faster and a little flatter, but I like the shorter overall length and light weight mainly.

Slamfire · « **Reply #42 on:** May 07, 2005, 04:46:53 PM »

Quote from: bigchast1

Thanks for all the input guys!! Now what are some good deer to elk loads to start with. Also what is a real, really, really really good target load, 2 inch or better at 300yds for egg shoot. Again thanks guys!!!!!!!!

I can live with the statement that the .270 isn't adequate for modern elk hunting, and you need a .338 to kill them with. That's just a statement from someone who hasn'e used one. What puzzles me is the .270 is adequate for an 800 lb elk, but will bounce off a 450 lb black bear, and will only make a 600 lb mountain grizzly angry at you. I wasn't aware bear muscles were so much tougher than elk. I can understand my ignorance though I only ever shot one blacky that was hanging around the school bus stop. :roll:

Lawdog · « **Reply #43 on:** May 08, 2005, 08:56:48 AM »

Slamfire,

Quote

What puzzles me is the .270 is adequate for an 800 lb elk, but will bounce off a 450 lb black bear, and will only make a 600 lb mountain grizzly angry at you. I wasn't aware bear muscles were so much tougher than elk.

Actually the bone/muscle mass and density is greater on a bear than on an Elk. But a wounded Elk wont lay in wait in heavy brush to teach you the error of your ways like a wounded bear can/has/will do. Lawdog

Slamfire · « **Reply #44 on:** May 08, 2005, 11:23:45 AM »

Well after we peeled that one I did shoot, I figured what was left looked too human, and never had a desire to shoot another. I'll stick to members of the deer clan, thank you. :wink:

Lawdog · « **Reply #45 on:** May 09, 2005, 09:54:15 AM »

Quote from: Slamfire

Well after we peeled that one I did shoot, I figured what was left looked too human, and never had a desire to shoot another. I'll stick to members of the deer clan, thank you. :wink:

Yeah, I learned about them looking too human after I shot my first at the age of 13. We(my friends and I) had just finished skinning it when the neighbor hollered over the fence asking "What did old Fred do to get hung?". But the meat was excellent and the excitement of taking him hooked me for life on bear hunting. Lawdog

jmckinley · « **Reply #46 on:** August 27, 2005, 01:19:00 AM »

I have been kicking around gettinga 300 something for Elk and reading your post on this topic put my choice in perspective. First it aint what you shoot , it's where you hit them that counts. One thing for surr Mr. O'Connor saw and killed morre animals world wide than most of us have ever seen The ole 270 sure seemed to serve him well. He also so used the 06 a good deal. His wife hunted most of the time with a 7x57. I own and shoot a Remington 7600 in 270 and it is hands down my favorite rifle. It will kill any game animal I be hunting in the lower 48.140gr Fail Safe will be used on my Elk hunt this fall. I think I need a new rifle for sure a Tikka T3 in 270 should work just fine and make a nice twin for my 7600. I do need a big bore but it will be the Classic Buffalo S/S Handi Rifle in 45-70. If thats not a Big Bore I don't know what is. For me the 270 has been adequate without limitations for many moons and will continue that trend llong after I turn into worm dirt.

Jess