.270 Win - What Has It Done For You Lately?

blauber

Regular
Rating - 98.8%
80   1   0
Location
Southern Ontario
The .270 is the largest caliber I own - bought it for a strategic reason (deer). A second reason is that you are able to use the .270 on small game in ON, nothing larger like the .280 or 7mm Magnum.

Recently, I reconfigured my rifle to a higher magnification scope and target turrets and bumped up from a 130 grain Partition to a 140 grain Accubond. I'm going to try my hand at 800 yard paper punching, groundhogs and the like.

I rarely shoot it as my varmint calibres get most of my attention and field use. I'm interested in what this calibre has done for you - game taken, distances, performance, accuracy, you name it and I'm all ears...or eyes, would be nice to see a couple rigs.
 
I developed a load for my Sako using 150 grain Nosler's. Cloverleafs at the range. Used to take a moose at 325 yards. What's interesting is that Federal Fusions 130 and 140 grains also shoot in the same hole as the 150 grains. I've used the 270 to take moose in the Yukon a farther ranges than the one above.

I own a 30-06 and hunt with it for big game, but every time I've got the 270 in hand the big game show up.
 
I grew up with the disdain for the .270 than any youngster would acquire after reading reading reams of what Elmer Keith had to say on the subject. Its only in the last 15 years or so that I've come around to appreciate this cartridge. Thinking back to it now, its funny how I thought so poorly of the .270 but so highly of the 7mms. Yet 7mm does not measure .284", rather it measures .27559" making the .277" bullet closer to the measurement of a true 7mm.

Just before my epiphany, I owned a butt ugly sporterized .30/06 M-17 Enfield (which happened to be made by Remington) and a 700 Remington in .270. The 700 should have shot circles around the old war horse, but it wouldn't, not even close. But that didn't matter, what mattered was that the '06 was a lucky rifle for me but that particular 700 wasn't, which further ingrained my distaste for the .270 cartridge, to say nothing of a miss on a caribou at 70 yards! Now that couldn't have been my fault now could it.:rolleyes:

Some time later I acquired a mystery Mauser with A Herters stock and a light contour 22" .270 barrel. My eyes were opened. This thing would shoot! The stock fit me as if it had come from a high end custom rifle maker. Although the barrel's lineage was unknown to me, there's no doubt as to what it would do. I liked the look of the plain stock and the clean lines, and I killed a bunch of stuff with it.

About that time I met Crazy_Davey in Calgary, who mentioned that his Dad worked as a big game guide and carried a .270. I was reminded of Hosea Sarber, one of Alaska's premier game wardens, and brown bear guides from a couple of generations ago, he too carried a .270. That Mauser should have been my favorite rifle, but by then I was smitten with the .375 Ultra, and when a fellow at work found himself unarmed, in a moment of weakness I sold him that Mauser, a scope, and some loading gear at a price which should brand me as a sucker for the rest of my life; thus the .30/06 remains my favorite.

When my son came up here I started looking for a rifle for him to pack around, and naturally wanted a .30/06 which I have oodles of ammo for. The hiccup is that this guy is a south paw, and backwards rifles aren't that common when you get down to searching one out. As it turned out, I found a deal on an "As New" LH Ruger Hawkeye topped with a 3.5-10X40 Leupold, at a price I couldn't pass up, in you guessed it, .270 Winchester.

Today's selection of .277 bullets is phenomenal, and the premium bullets pretty much dismiss Elmer's biggest complaint about the .270, that bullets of his day couldn't be counted to hold together at impact velocities of 3000 fps. That and his apparent dislike for O'Conner didn't help, unless you made a living selling gun magazines. This leads to the disappointment I had with my boy's .270. I bought some .277/180 Woodleighs expecting great things from them, but they wouldn't stabilize in the standard Ruger twist. Its too bad, but with his supply of 140 gr TSXs and 160 gr Partitions, he's pretty well armed.
 
About that time I met Crazy_Davey in Calgary, who mentioned that his Dad worked as a big game guide and carried a .270. I was reminded of Hosea Sarber, one of Alaska's premier game wardens, and brown bear guides from a couple of generations ago, he too carried a .270. That Mauser should have been my favorite rifle, but by then I was smitten with the .375 Ultra, and when a fellow at work found himself unarmed, in a moment of weakness I sold him that Mauser, a scope, and some loading gear at a price which should brand me as a sucker for the rest of my life; thus the .30/06 remains my favorite.

Funny thing about that rifle that my father carried for so many years faithfully, and still does, it was supposed to be a Model 70 in 30-06 that he specifically ordered(he was an Elmer keith fan as well). That happened around the second he stepped foot in Alberta at around the age of 17. He decided to keep it and if you ask him now, he was glad he did. That particular rifle has pretty much killed most big game in north America from big Yukon moose to grizzly bears, black bears, caribou, elk, sheep, goats, deer, antelope, wolves, coyotes, cougars probably lots I am missing. He pretty much did it all with that rifle. Out of the 20 years he spent in the Yukon and NWT guiding that rifle also went on most of those trips whether he was the shooter or lending it out to one of his hunters.

When I reached the age of 12 I was using a .270 as well thanks to Dad. I hated it! The first BIG book I ever actually read was "Hell I was there" my fathers signed copy. I wanted so much more, bigger and better. That was almost 30 years ago. Guess what, after all of these years and owning around 150 firearms and loading for a good portion of those, the .270 is one of my favorites once again. It just gets the job done and kills with the best of them using the right bullets and hitting them where it counts.
 
Last edited:
A few years back I decided it was time Dad picked up something better suited for the high mountains we spend so much time in. He wasn't in agreement, but after some convincing I picked him up a Kimber 8400 in 270WSM. He was never really happy with it even though it shot well with factory loads and was light to carry. I just think the stock design and barrel contour and balance of the rifle was the issue, I never liked it that much either. Once he felt and shot my 84L he was in love and wanted it. I wasn't about to give it up at any price so I found him an 84L in .270. He has now found his glory once again just in a lighter version.

But I bet if you asked him tomorrow which one he would choose out of those two, his old push feed Winchester or the new 84L, he would pitch the 84L in the river and go back to what he knew and used for so many years. He was deadly with that rifle and his dead animal count from over the years prove it.
 
Nostalgia aside, the .270 is as good as, but not better than, a host of other mid range calibers... in my case, through chance circumstances... I got into 6.5mm and 7mm rifles and never ended up going the .270 route... I am familiar with the case from other cartridges and I am sure that it is just as effective as other similar chamberings... I just do not afford it "mystical" status.
 
Well, there is nothing "mystical" about physics, and shooting is pure physics. The .270 is enough pure physics to do a LOT of things quite well. Of course, so are any other rounds that shoot a 120 to 250 grain bullet in the 2500 to 3200 fps range. They all work on game if it is shot properly, and that is why there are so many diverse opinions about which one is "best" - everyone's experience proves that whichever specific chambering he owns, works really well.

The .270 I got many years ago has worked on everything I shot with it. I have decided it is my favorite for game up to the size of deer, and have another favorite for "larger than deer", but I can think of no honest reason to change that rifle for any other cartridge. I expect that if I had bought any one of several other cartridges many years ago, I would feel exactly the same about that one.
 

^ I would tend to agree. I'm not in Benchrest circles, but the .260 is picking up interest and it is "new" and just as "slow". I bumped up to the 140 gr AB for a higher BC and more energy at extended ranges - it's all up to the accuracy I get now, but looks like my new load trials will be sub - 1/4 MOA.

The more I think about it, unless you're going out to 1000 yds plus for long range paper punching or a carefully taken shot on game, I think the .270 can do just about anything. Any counter arguments?
 
I love my .270 Browning X-bolt Stalker w/leupold VXII 3x9, no game yet but paper, gongs and golf balls take a beating out to 200ish yards, need some more room to open her up.
fed power shock 130 & 150gr
 
A featherweight would be a classic choice. I'd still say that even if I'd hadn't just bought one.

I suppose it depends on how "classic" you want to get and still be shooting a firearm as opposed to clubbing the beasty or gong...

I read a post on another forum the other day that the Creedmoor is a "classic" cartridge... how old do you figure that author was???
 
I suppose it depends on how "classic" you want to get and still be shooting a firearm as opposed to clubbing the beasty or gong...

I read a post on another forum the other day that the Creedmoor is a "classic" cartridge... how old do you figure that author was???


Since the .270 and the Model A are within a couple years of vintage I think it qualifies. Even the .257 'Bee has been around since the 40s and the capabilities of both are well known.

The club is old, but not really classy. Archery joined the technology race decades ago but a stick bow is classic. The spear now; that qualifies. Material improved, but the designs stay close to form.
 
At one point in time I had a 270, 280 and 30-06.
The 270 was sold, and the 30-06 was given to my son after it was rebarreled.
Nothing wrong with the 270 but I now have a 25-06 and a 260 Remington so don't really see the need to fill that void.
When looking for an accurate 150 grain load for the 270 I consulted Nosler and went with their H4350 Most accurate powder and that produced under 2" at 200 m. (MOD - Minute of Deer).
 
I have tried the .270 but never owned one.
This might change someday soon. ;)

It seemed plenty accurate to me and rather fun to shoot.
 
This year, two deer at 100-150 range and a my first moose at 230 yards.

As a hunting cartridge you can beat. There are similar cartridges or cartridges with a bit more oomph or a bit flatter shooting.

But what I don't think you can do is find a cartridge that is that has those characteristics and is cheaper to shoot. Add that to mildish recoil, and you make the perfect rifle for anyone to learn how to shoot.

You almost have a perfect one rifle that you can take big game in Canada with. Trust me, I have been trying to convince myself to get another rifle but cannot seem to make a decent argument for it.
 
Back
Top Bottom