To max or not to max... That is my question.

BigUglyMan said:
I have and my father did. But both were magnums (300WM for me and 270Weatherby for him). Now I don't know any other hunters who have but they may exist. Now to wear out a non-magnum? That would be an impressive feat. Maybe if guys spent as much time practicing as they should the market for rebarrelling services would be more robust.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

I have owned, loaded for, and shot a number of 270s since 1966, and have never pussy-footed any of them. They were all loaded to max! Put over 4000 rounds down the tube of one Husqvarna, almost all of which were 130 gr at near 3200 fps shooting woodchucks. When I traded it for, of all things, a new Kirby vacuum cleaner for my wife, the rifle would still group around MOA, and the guy who got it is still using it, 30 years later. He wanted it after I killed the second largest moose I ever got at over 600 yd with a single shot using the same load.

A VZ24-actioned 270 that Bevan King rechambered to 270 Wby for me, drove 130 Partitions at over 3500, and 150 A-Frames at 3200, and was still MOA after more than 20 years of hunting. During that time it fired perhaps 700 rounds at targets and game. I sold it to a guy here last year who is still quite amazed at how accurate it is and how flat it shoots with factory ammo.

Ted
 
The thing is, even with hot loads, a 270 should be good for 5,000 rounds before wear becomes noticeable. You'll be good for several thousand more shots before accuracy degrades to the point where it is not accurate enough for hunting. So at say, 6,000 rounds of useful life, that's 30 boxes of ammo per year for 10 years. Not a lot of hunting rifles see that volume of use.
 
I reload a dozen different rifle calibers, from 250 Savage to 300 Win Mag, and almost all of my loads are between 1 and 3 grains under what the books consider max.
That's where I find the best accuracy.

Also, be careful when working up hot loads during cooler weather, then shooting when the outside temperature is hot, pressures can rise to dangerous levels.
 
Last edited:
Jack O'Connor talked about this is an OL article. I am reading it now, he said 'if a man does much rapid fire, or shoot many 10 shots groups, both of which heats the barrel up, he will see a good deal of erosion in 1000 shots and may find accuracy dropping off in less than 2000 shots', and that 'pressures are a good deal higher than in a 30-06 and barrel life is shorter'.

He believes 'barrel life to be about 30% shorter than a 30-06, but these figures may be on the gloomy side because I do a lot of experimenting, which is tough on barrels'. Outdoor Life: December 1943

I think jack loaded his 270 as hot as he could to achieve the flattest trajectory possible since he was singing it praises and is largely responsible for it's success. He did wear out at least one barrel.
 
When I hunt I enjoy the confidence I have in the rifle. Accuracy trumps velocity. If you believe shot placement is 95% of the result, go with accuracy over velocity.

I have shot out many barrels (about 30 of them) - but never in a hunting rifle.
 
Varmit said:
Jack O'Connor talked about this is an OL article. I am reading it now, he said 'if a man does much rapid fire, or shoot many 10 shots groups, both of which heats the barrel up, he will see a good deal of erosion in 1000 shots and may find accuracy dropping off in less than 2000 shots', and that 'pressures are a good deal higher than in a 30-06 and barrel life is shorter'.

He believes 'barrel life to be about 30% shorter than a 30-06, but these figures may be on the gloomy side because I do a lot of experimenting, which is tough on barrels'. Outdoor Life: December 1943

I think jack loaded his 270 as hot as he could to achieve the flattest trajectory possible since he was singing it praises and is largely responsible for it's success. He did wear out at least one barrel.
Click to expand...

I wonder what Jack's loads for the 270 were at that time, before the surplus powder that became H4831 became available after the war?
I believe Jack believed in loading all calibres full tilt, where his well bedded rifles gave their best accuracy.
 
Speaking from a military/ competition background, reliability trumps both accuracy and velocity. The guys who push velocity past max to get to one more accuracy node, or to buck the wind a little bit better are the guys who have their rifles stop working. Many people have regretted their choice following case failures, ruined extractors and broken bolts when they get caught by environmental changes, as high temps or a wet chamber will increase chamber pressure and or bolt thrust often with entertaining results.
 
Gunnerlove said:
Speaking from a military/ competition background, reliability trumps both accuracy and velocity. The guys who push velocity past max to get to one more accuracy node, or to buck the wind a little bit better are the guys who have their rifles stop working. Many people have regretted their choice following case failures, ruined extractors and broken bolts when they get caught by environmental changes, as high temps or a wet chamber will increase chamber pressure and or bolt thrust often with entertaining results.
Click to expand...

very good points.
 
H4831 said:
I wonder what Jack's loads for the 270 were at that time, before the surplus powder that became H4831 became available after the war?
I believe Jack believed in loading all calibres full tilt, where his well bedded rifles gave their best accuracy.
Click to expand...

I know he had a load of 49.5 grains of 4064, which he claimed was his most consistently accurate in different rifles load. I seized onto the idea that it was safe bet and made it my first load for my first 270, and any of those that came after. That would be a stiff load by todays data.
 
Most hunters will never wear the barrel out of any standard hunting rifle.

I have worn out several barrels, but not usually hunting rifle barrels [exception: one 6.5x55 is on it's 3rd barrel]

It takes a lot of shooting, even at max loads to wear out a barrel to the point that accuracy degradation is apparent.

I do not believe in loading "down" a hunting load, but often do so for plinking and to familiarize myself with a given rifle.

I have also noted that many of my hunting rifles deliver their best groups when loaded to their full potential.

Regards, Dave.
 
Read a pile o' Jack over the decades past and keep several of his books in my library.

With 130 gr. bullets, he loaded up to 62 gr. of H-4831, but his favourite load was 60.0 gr. IIRC.
His 60 gr. load became "the standard" for a lot of folks, However, some manuals like Sierra
show a max. of 59.2 gr (3100 fps.) and Nosler 59.0 ( 3125 fps. ) for this load with their bullets.
Barnes, on the other hand, shows 60.0 gr. as max. for their 130 gr. "X" bullets ( 3072 fps. ), and
with their coated XLC BT 130 gr., 61.0 gr. max. of H-4831 (3175 fps.)

I think you can pretty much pick your own "max." depending who you read, who you follow and
after carefully working up your own handloads with good manual guidelines to follow.

The last 270 I owned was most accurate with Nosler Partitions & 58.0 gr. of H-4831, or a grain under
what they consider max. No pressure signs at all in my gun up to 60.0 gr. Never went beyond 60.0 gr. with
H-4831 as it involved too much fiddling around to get more powder than that into WW cases.

Pick your favourite bullet and load to near-max or max., whichever gives you the best accuracy.
A well placed properly constructed bullet will do the rest.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom