Flat shooting 270: Urban myth?

[Questor]

I have a .270 and just ordered a .308 for my son. Legend has it that the 270 is flat shooting. But I don't see it as any flatter shooting than a 308, when comparing the 130 grain 270 with the 150 grain 308.

In fact, the .270 doesn't shoot any flatter than any other mainstream cartridge with velocity of about 2700fps and over that shoots spitzer bullets.

Where is the outrage?

[beemanbeme]

The .270 gained it rep back when not every kid on the block owned a Chrony and Jack Oconnor was the elder statesman of ourdoors writers.  A whole lot of the information of both pressure and velocity was somewhat seat of the pants data.  A lot of factory pressure "data" was gained using the same tools we use at home: primer appearance, bolt lift, web expansion, etc.  Reloading was certainly more of an art than a science. Some of the velocity claims in the old mags were optimistic at best.
Jack Oconnor was paid and paid well to say that the .270 was lightning in a bottle.  And everybody believe him.  Winchester paid for him to make month long treks into the way back of the Rockies where the elks had probably never seen a man.  And Alaska. And Africa.  I don't think he ever killed a dangerous animal in Africa that he did not smell his fetid breath as he fell dead at his feet.  And in every story he wrote, the .270 would figure in in some manner.  The deer herds of the US had been decimated so Jack went to Canada and Mexico to hunt deer.  You guessed it.  The .270 killed deer like the Hammer of Thor. 
Now folks are learning it's just another cartridge.  It's a good one.  But there are several out there that are so much better. 

[burntmuch]

Well said. No different than the 30-06. Some people like em some dont. I wouldnt sell a 06 or 308 to buy a 270

[Lone Star]

When the .270 was introduced in the mid-1920s it was very flat-shooting compared to most contemporary medium game cartridges.  Jack O'Connor used it extensively and touted its effectiveness on long range shots with reasonable recoil.  As O'Connor pointed out often in his columns and books, while many commercial cartridges did not live up to their published velocities, the .270 in fact did.  O'Connor knew this because he had friends at Speer chronograph factory loads, as well as his own handloads.   

He was not really an "elder statesman of outdoor gunwriters" when he began writing the praises of the .270, far from it.  Less-informed shooters may not be aware that he also wrote very highly of the .30-06 (he owned at least five), the .280 Remington (he owned three), the 7x57 Mauser (three), the .300 Weatherby (three), and many other cartridges he used with success in the field.  It's too bad when facts get in the way of a good story......

Major arms manufacturers paid for little of O'Connor's hunting expenses.  Roy Weatherby was probably the biggest arms parton Jack had (no .270s there).  Over the years OutDoor Life was the primary settler of hunting bills not paid by Jack himself.

Anyone who is actually interested in the facts about O'Connor's life - instead of urban legend and made-up hit material - should read the biography by Robert Anderson.  It will open your eyes about this complex, troubled man. 
http://www.safaripress.com



.

[benchracer]

I'm no big fan of the .270.  In fact, I don't own one.  However, it is the cartridge I most frequently recommend (along with the 7-08) for the following reasons:  easy to shoot well, almost universal ammo availability, the general tendency of off the shelf 270's to shoot accurately out of the box, and the general versatility of the cartridge.  It is as at home in the woods as it is in open country.  It is an excellent choice for anything from coyote to deer and pronghorn.  Although I do not consider the .270 to be an ideal elk cartridge, plenty of elk are shot with them evey year.  For new shooters, non-handloaders, or individuals who shoot only occasionally but are avid hunters, it is a good fit.  If you are more shooter than hunter or if you handload, there are better choices.

[victorcharlie]

I own 2 rifles in .270 Win......nothing real special about the .270.........nothing real special about a 30.06 either......

Both are great cartridges............

What's the purpose of this post? 

[Mac11700]

Check your data about the 270...long before the short mag craze...270 ammunition did indeed live up to the published velocities...and rightly so...It was loaded hot...very hot...close to it's 65,000 PSI rating...It far out ran any factory loaded 308 hands down...andis easy to see why since many 270's were offered in 26" tubes..over the standard 22" of the 308....Of course then...we didn't have so weak of hunters clamoring for ulta light weight rifles either...I have a few factory boxes from the 80's left around here ...and it regularly clocks 100-150 fps faster than any loaded today...Look to your reloading manuals as well...you will see that they too have backed them off quite a lot...but the 270 can still shine brightly with a 26" barrel..With it's better S.D's and BC's...the 270 is a great flat shooting cartridge.

Mac

[drdougrx]

I have one...with 150gr bullets its just great...then again....so is my 06.  I've taken quite alot of game with it...but...I think the 06 kills better for whatever reason.  I'll keep it.

[BigJakeJ1s]

But I don't see it as any flatter shooting than a 308, when comparing the 130 grain 270 with the 150 grain 308.

I just checked Federal's standard loads for Nosler BT 270/130gr vs 308/150 gr.  With both zeroed at 200, 308 is 1.4" lower at 300 and 3.9" lower at 400. The 308 is also 0.4" higher at 100. Oh, and both were shot in 24" test barrels.

Now, I'm not saying those are major differences, but yes, the 270 is flatter than the 308.

Andy

[Lloyd Smale]

I can honestly say ive never owned one. I was never a fan of Jack O.s writings and ive never seen where it did anything that an 06 didnt do. that been said i am a fan of the 280 and think its  the best ballanced cartridge on the 06 case. Its sligtly flatter shooting then an o6 and has the abiltity to use heavier bullets then a 270. If i wanted flatter id go to a 2506.

[beemanbeme]

I wasn't aware that Jack Oconnor was independently wealthy and one doesn't make too many African safaris nor treks into the Alaskan nor Coloradan wilderness on an english teacher's salary.  His association with Vernon Speer came, i believe, after his reputation as a outdoor writer was well established.
We less informed readers are aware that he did indeed write of other cartridges, it was part of his job.
This thread is like saying a .243 is a marginal deer cartridge. You immediately get a small horde of shrill faithful that rally to the flag. 

[Cheesehead]

The 270 is a great cartridge as is any 06 based cartridge. Since i reload I find the 30 calibers more useful, especially the 308 primarily for the almost endless options for components, bullets in particular. A 180 grain premium 30 caliber bullet is well suited for the largest North American game. A 150-165 grain bullet shoots flat enough and penetrates enough for all the medium size game. I should say a 30 cal magnum for big bears as compared to a 308 Win. This is just my opinion since I have never owned or used a 270 but have owned/used a number of 30 cals.

Cheese

[FourBee]

I've  shot both the .06 and .270 in bolt actions.  The .270 seems to have an edge over the .06 in trajectory, but that's just my opinion.   The .06 recoil was more harsh than that of the .270.   But after several rounds I was ready to put that .270 down.   

[goodconcretecolor]

I think Winchester did the American hunter a great disservice in not offering  a .284 or .264 (7mm & 6.5mm) cartridge based on the 30-06 case. We have the 280 Remington now but the 6.5-06 is still essentially a wildcat. The bullet selection in both of these calibers is much better than that for the 270.  Winchester's NIH arrogance and marketing power are the sole reasons for the 270's success. Don't get me wrong, it is a great hunting cartridge but it is at a disadvantage in availability of good bullets.

[benchracer]

goodconcretecolor, I think you make some interesting observations, but let me approach from a slightly different angle.  The 280 Remington is indeed a better cartridge than the 270.  However, Remington introduced it too late and kept changing the name of the cartridge.  It is a wonder (and a credit to the cartridge itself) that the 280 survived Remington's incompetence in marketing.  Winchester did introduce a very good .264 and also introduced the parent of another very popular .264 wildcat.  The .264 Win Mag is a fine cartridge, but never caught on.  The .284 Win was poorly marketed and introduced in the wrong rifle, assuring that it would never become popular.  However, it made the 6.5-284 wildcat possible and a large portion of the shooting world is the better for it.  I personally covet a custom built 6.5-06, but I have often heard it commented that the 6.5-06 won't do anything for you that a 270 could not do in a factory rifle with factory ammo.  I am hard pressed to argue with that, but I still want a 6.5-06.  As a shooter, avid gun nut, and handloader, I would love to have a 280 and a 6.5-06 and a 264 Win Mag, and a 6.5-284... but, for someone who is not a gun nut and does not handload, all of these cartridges are way more trouble and expense than they are worth.  The 270 is popular because it is proven and it is easy to feed, not because it is the best cartridge or because of slick marketing.  Just look at all the hype that has surrounded the WSM's, the RUM's, and the SAUM's.  I'm betting that most of these will not survive in the long term, principally because they are not going to convince the shooting public to retire their 30-06's, 270's, .308's, 7mm Rem Mags, and 300 Win Mag's.

[goodconcretecolor]

Benchracer, You make some astute observations yourself. I guess it comes down to handloading potential not being a consideration when Winchester introduced the 270(1920's). They were as interested in ammo sales as gun sales so handloading potential was probably a negative to them. They wanted something different from the 256 Newton, which was a 6.5mm-06. Charles Newton was a talented cartridge designer but not a marketing man. Lyman manual's article on the 270 says the diameter was that of an obscure, experimental Chinese military cartridge. I guess quirky cartridge history is part of the appeal of forums like this. The 270 does fall in the middle of the 6.5-7mm range so in theory, it is every bit as good. So, is the problem Winchester of the past, or bullet manufacturers of the present?

[beemanbeme]

I believe I have read that the major rifle companies of the day,  1920's and on, were pretty anti-reloading for the very reason that they felt it would cut into their profits from ammo sales.

[PartsMan]

Were is this data that shows a 308 150g shooting as flat as a 130g 270.
I am showing 9" difference at 400yd.

[beemanbeme]

Naaah, I don't have a dog in this fight. Owning neither a .308 nor a .270.  I think they're both pretenders to the 30-06 and the .280 but according to my tables, there's about an inch difference in favor of the .270.  Assuming one can hold that tight at 400 yards under field conditions.

OOOPPPPS, I didn't see the 130gr .270 bullet.  Why would you compare a 150gr .308 bullet against a 130gr .270 bullet?  My ballistics was 150 against 150. 

[warrior1]

victor charle hit it square.

[myronman3]

first, i cant believe  i am responding to this post.....
 a fine cartridge, not saying it is the best, but it performs well for it's intended purpose.   everything i have shot has been dead before it hit the ground a half a second later.   i dont know how you could kill anything deader.

[iiranger]

As Geo. Herter loved to say, "put sights on the typewriter and you can hit about anything at any distance..."

I grew up on Old Jack O. Not until his passing did I appreciate that he was in the ROTC/Nat. Guard in/during WW I. Yes, he "grew up" to teach English in Pacific NW colleges. No, I have no handle on his finances. At the same time, the .270 was intro'd in 1925 or 1926 depending on who you care to listen to. POINT: From day one it worked at 55K CUP in the old system. .30/'06 was standardized earlier at the current standard THEN, 45K CUP.

You can always spot the "shallow." They assert that the .270 is in all regards vastly better than the old, tired .30/'06. Shallow. Factory .270 ammo will outperform the '06 FACTORY AMMO!.  SURPRISE???  Handloaded? You want the slightly better ballistically 130 gr / 140 gr bullets at slightly higher velocity and slightly less recoil or you want the possiblity of heavy bullets, 200 grains plus???

As he admitted quietly, the idea was to take a .30/'06 case and come up with a round that recoils less and reaches further with less drop... In those days, Uncle Sam left fired '06 brass lay and it could be had free or for very little... Surplus ammo, out of date--of course, went for a whole $0.01 per round... at least it did with a surplus Springfield '03, walnut stock and a whole $18.00 or was it $18.50 left on your front porch by REA (Railway Express Agent). Common talk in NRA old magazines, etc. Not too challanging to unscrew the '06 barrel and screw in a .270 barrel... No other gunsmithing required...

When you compare the other "standards" of the day... .303, either; .250 or .300 Savage also standardized at 45K CUP; .30/30; .25/35 WCF or .25/36 Marlin (the same, ha, ha, ha); 7x57; ... no doubt the grandfathers clung to their old standards...   .45/70; .45/90...    .38/55 or .38/56... .44/40; .38/40; etc.

I had a dear, old friend, retired gunsmith telling me years ago (and he owned several .270s) that before WW II, the .270 was little better than the 7x57 (and surplus Mausers were even cheaper). It was the introduction by B. Hodgdon of 4831 surplus ... owners of '06s were disappointed, but the .270 really learned to sing...

Now the common competition today... .308, 1955; .243, about the same; 7/08 don't recall; .260, very recently; and the .280... it came out in the 1970s. And it was not loaded hot for reliable use in the semi autos and pumps... reportedly... Roughly 50 yrs. after the .270 entered the market... and to a lower pressure standard... I am grateful to Remington for the .22/250; .25/'06; etc. but this was not a market triumph.

The .270 is so close to the potential of the 7 Rem. Mag... and still ... It is like the bi plane crop dusters little improved from the planes basic design of WW I. Lots of "lift and handling." Still gets the job done. So you "pays your money and you takes your choice." Nothing wrong with .308 but the .270 was doing about the same job 30 or 40 years before Uncle Sam decided to put a longer neck on the .300 Savage (which gave shooters original .30/'06 performance in a lever action) and work it at a higher pressure and civilian gun makers decided to make it possible for civilian shooters to use the suplus brassss... again... if you like history... most don't... oh well.

[Questor]

iiranger:

Those poiints are all well taken. The problem is that times  have changed and the .308 really isn't any different in performance than the .270. The 30-06 is about the same as the .270 too. Those are just today's ballistic facts. If I wouldn't take a shot at it with the .308, I wouldn't take a shot at it with the 270 either. The drop and wind deflection is about the same.

My original complaint is that people who write for books and magazines are still repeating the old "flat shooting" argument, even though it hasn't been true relative to other popular cartridges for decades. There are plenty of other good arguments for the .270, but flat shooting isn't one of them anymore.

The scope companies seem to have this all figured out though. Leupold, for example has various reticle options, including the LR-duplex and some similar scopes. If your cartridge is in table A of the manual, then the points of impact indicated by the dots are 100 yards shorter than if your cartridge is in table B of the manual. .270 is right there with the 30-06 in the tables. The 300 magnums are the flat shooting cartridges of today.

[SHOOTALL]

nothing special about the 30-06 , come on now , 2 world wars and several other engagements , hunted all over the world , chambered in most action types by most makers , would we have a 270 if the 30-06 had not come along ?
and still in the top 5 best sellers !
the 270 can do alot the 06 can do most things also !

[Questor]

The way I see it, there's something very special about the 30-06, but nothing special about most other cartridges. Most of what we have today is just duplication in niches that are already adequately filled with one good cartridge. 

[~Ace~]

nothing special about the 30-06 , come on now , 2 world wars and several other engagements , hunted all over the world , chambered in most action types by most makers , would we have a 270 if the 30-06 had not come along ?
and still in the top 5 best sellers !
the 270 can do alot the 06 can do most things also !

By that reasoning, the 5.56 / .223 would beat the 30/06

The .270 is a Very flat shooting and effective round, in some ways the 30/06 beats it, but in Many waysthe .270 is better. They are both Tools, and usingthe right tool for the job is the key. In this day and age there seems to be 2 camps, one wants to use guns Way to small for the job (.223 deer) and others think it takes a .300 Mag to kill whitetail.. When you get to the point that the .270 is Not Enough, the jump to a 30 / 06 would only give you Marginally enough.... But Most people will shoot the .270 better.  6 of one, 1/2 dozen of the other. ~Ace~

[SHOOTALL]

the highest praise for the 06 is , it is not the best for every thing but in a pinch it will work for everything !
not sure the 270 would instill that much confidence , with me it wouldn't , the 06 starts to strut its power at 180 and up grains of bullet weight ! it is down right impressive what the energy is at 500 yards compared to some of the 30 cal. mags

[SHOOTALL]

beat it in what way ? in the desert they are sending M14's for long range work , don't seem to remember seeing that with the M-1 , do they hunt bear with a 223 now ? and i can't remember hearing the AR platform being called the greatest battle implement ever by someone important  who was there , have you ? did battlefield snipers start using .223 ?
the 06 was praised from the start , the 223 has had a not so stellar record although the kinks may be worked out now , but its not fair to compare a med. range round with a full power round now is it !

[~Ace~]

nothing special about the 30-06 , come on now , 2 world wars and several other engagements , hunted all over the world , chambered in most action types by most makers

Your comparing the fact it was used in Wars / Battles.. so was the .38 the M1 Carbine, and many others.. What do they all have in common ? The were REPLACED    But the .223 has been used in More Wars / Battles, and fits all the other creteria you used. I'm NOT implying the .223 is better, it's sadly Anemic, I'm just blowing gaping holes in your comparisim  ~Ace~

[SHOOTALL]

replacement is the norm , improvement is not , if you wish to blow holes in anything use the 06 it can be depended on to get it done !
i really didn't compare it to anything as other than the 7X57 or maybe the 303 it has little company ! how could i compare a round used for ground hogs to one used for elk ?
I hold the 06 in a place of honor , it has stood the test of time and every other test people could dream up !
if you wish to compare the carbine then compare it to the 1911 it was to replace ,funny there seems to be alot of 1911 still in use seeing how the USMC never stopped using them . no i was listing the 06's history as compared to the 270 ! as far as the 223 , can't remember seeing it used in Africa , do they have ground hogs there  ?
how good would a 223 compare to a 270 or 06 on a sheep hunt ? why do troops up north in Arctic conditions use M-14's ? not AR's ? i really think you would be hard pressed to come up with a round that had a more honorable history !
and if you count the 308 as a compact 30-06 , its still fighting !