That's a great-looking rifle, pathfinder76. I'm assuming that it is a worked-over Model 70 action with beautiful bottom metal (obviously not original M70). Looks like the Blackburn unit or something very similar. Can you fill us in on the build details?
100 Years Old
- Thread starter pathfinder76
- Start date
True, I guess, but being 100 years old and still today being one of the top 5 or so hunting cartridges in use does suggest its excellence.
*Now* it looks good, what with a proper scope and allThose are Leupold Backcountry rings. They are quite nice actually. I like them. And if I want to add a pound I’ll throw the NF on
The 30-30 is still very popular in some locations, but that does not make it a superior cartridge. Many 270win owners know very little about ballistics, they buy a 270win because a relative or fiend owns one, or recommends it. Or they read old O'Connor articles.
Works 1000 times better with a Nightforce.
The 30/30 is popular because it works, plain and simple. If used for primarily woods hunting on medium game it kills stuff very well, doesn't kick hard and is available in light, handy rifles. The 270 owners who" don't know much about ballistics" don't have to. It kills just about anything you'd care to shoot at very dead, very fast with just about any commercial load. Why bother with ballistics charts ?
Gun manufacturers have for years been doing a great job marketing " new, improved" cartridges to hunters that aren't a great deal different from the older ones.
How so?
Its a hunting rifle, pretty hard to think of a hunting scenario where a 6x scope of excellent quality on a .270 is a handicap...
What does that nightforce offer that that leupold doesn't? (sure, a few more x's, but that does not equal 1000 imo)
Genuinely curious, as I have no experience with that particular nightforce model.
Regardless of why current shooters buy .270 Win. rifles, the 270 Win's ballistics are definitely in line with those of the more modern cartridges in the same size class. It easily outperforms the currently wildly-popular 6.5 Creedmoor and produces ballistics that are, for all intents and purposes, equal to those of the newer 6.5 PRC. Pretty hard to see it as ballistically inferior to similar-sized offerings from the past 10-15 years, and, in my opinion, its current popularity is due to much more than nostalgia.
Got my first one in 1966. Used it for years hunting groundhogs, deer, moose and bears in Ontario. Moved up into truly big game in the Yukon in1971, and never missed a beat.
Have owned numbers of them, all of which were very accurate factory bolt actions. Still my favourite mountain rifle with 130 grain bullets and a near-full case of 4831.
No better way to find a grizzly bear than to go sheep hunting. A friend of mine has killed several grizzlies while sheep hunting. All with 150gr factory loads.
My personal experience while guiding is that I have seen more one shot kills on big game with 270s than any other cartridge. Makes sense too: a very accurate cartridge combined with light recoil means most people shoot better.
I am not a fan of long range shooting of big game, but confess to have done it three times, one moose, one bear, and one sheep. At 81 years old I am too embarrassed to tell you how far the three shots were.
Perhaps not everyone's choice, the 100 year old 270 is definitely a classic, and has not one time ever let this guy down. Person could do worse than trying one out for a while.
Ted
Have owned numbers of them, all of which were very accurate factory bolt actions. Still my favourite mountain rifle with 130 grain bullets and a near-full case of 4831.
No better way to find a grizzly bear than to go sheep hunting. A friend of mine has killed several grizzlies while sheep hunting. All with 150gr factory loads.
My personal experience while guiding is that I have seen more one shot kills on big game with 270s than any other cartridge. Makes sense too: a very accurate cartridge combined with light recoil means most people shoot better.
I am not a fan of long range shooting of big game, but confess to have done it three times, one moose, one bear, and one sheep. At 81 years old I am too embarrassed to tell you how far the three shots were.
Perhaps not everyone's choice, the 100 year old 270 is definitely a classic, and has not one time ever let this guy down. Person could do worse than trying one out for a while.
Ted
Having made 100 yrs old [and still going strong] the rhetorical would be does the .270 Win need improvement?
-------------
NAA.
Last edited:
It boils down to function (definitely over form, don't get me wrong the Leupold *suits* the rifle better). Some personal experience, some anecdotal.
I've owned probably a dozen Leupold scopes over the years and am down to two, both VX-3HDs, which I'm experiencing the same issues with as my last few. Specifically, I'm not a fan of having customer service tell me I should tap my turrets after adjusting the scope to ensure everything "settles". Not do I like (or am I able to) having to over-rotate the turret and bring it back to zero for the same reason (which is a pain when you've set up the zero stop on a CDS dial - you have to take it apart). I've also had two of them (neither of these two) lose zero. In one case I missed a shot on a deer, that scope was out by a half a foot - I checked my zero the week prior and it sat in a case in my SUV for most of the hunt. Luckily I had another rifle with me, checked it's zero that night and was able to hunt the next day. I wasn't so lucky the second time, and that hunt ended early
I've completely lost faith in the gold ring. It sucks, because it's not a problem with optical quality or footprint. And it's not limited to me, since I started finding similar reports on other forums. I think the new Mark 4HD is an awesome scope on paper, almost perfect for all of my hunting and medium range shooting needs. But I've been slowly let down by them over the years that I've started gravitating towards other brands, including Nightforce. I just can't recommend Leupold anymore. I'll take a Vortex Razor over a VX-5HD any days of the week at this post.
Nightforce scopes are *chunky* but you could use them to hammer tent pegs and they'll hold zero, even the cheap SHV scopes are built off the NXS scope bodies and erector assemblies which are about as tough as they come. Downsides, big, heavy, and expensive.
Last edited:
Anyone that would argue that the 270 winchester isn't a good cartridge is just looking for an arguement......
Are there better cartridges out there today? yeah maybe, but think about how much 100 years worth of technology has improved vehicles, airplanes, appliances etc versus the minimal improvement it has had on cartridges similar to the 270.
Those of us who have used the 270 a lot really appreciate how good it is.
Are there better cartridges out there today? yeah maybe, but think about how much 100 years worth of technology has improved vehicles, airplanes, appliances etc versus the minimal improvement it has had on cartridges similar to the 270.
Those of us who have used the 270 a lot really appreciate how good it is.
Attachments
I still carry around a 1904 Savage 99 in 30-30.
I aim at something squeeze the trigger and it falls down.
Nothing wrong with old calibers.
They are all interesting and were cutting edge in their day.
They are all part of firearms design history and i would be willing to bet that 30-30,270,30-06, 45-70 etc will still be relevant
long after some of the modern wonder cartridges have fallen out of favour.
Just for the record i do like some of the new ones. 6.5 creed is pretty slick for longish range.
I aim at something squeeze the trigger and it falls down.
Nothing wrong with old calibers.
They are all interesting and were cutting edge in their day.
They are all part of firearms design history and i would be willing to bet that 30-30,270,30-06, 45-70 etc will still be relevant
long after some of the modern wonder cartridges have fallen out of favour.
Just for the record i do like some of the new ones. 6.5 creed is pretty slick for longish range.
This is the second time the 270 has been blamed on gun writers. Curious if there is a cartridge that hasn’t been written about with recommendation? Should we all use that one? Lol.
All that was said was that the cartridge is 100 years old. Nothing more.
unstableryan
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Beautiful Okanagan Valley
I hunt with a modern 6.5x55 most of the time now and it's great, but I've shot a bunch of animals with an old husky .270 and it felt like had a few more horsepower. I wasn't a bullet snob then like I am now. 150gr power point or cor lokt do perfectly.
