100 Years Old
- Thread starter pathfinder76
- Start date
I have no iron in the .270 fire as I’ve never owned one and don’t feel the need for one.
I’m staunchly perched in the “Dirty Thirty Club” for my hunting purposes
however…
Not much more can be added to what’s has already been mentioned. .
The simple fact is.. its popularity and track record across NA for most species (save big bears) is its main attribute. 100 yrs can attest and/or argue to that.
.270Win is usually what I have and will recommend to new hunters here in Ont. based on what I’ve seen afield and some of those same thoughts others have echoed here.
Happy BDay/Anniversary 270W !
I’m staunchly perched in the “Dirty Thirty Club” for my hunting purposes
however…
Not much more can be added to what’s has already been mentioned. .
The simple fact is.. its popularity and track record across NA for most species (save big bears) is its main attribute. 100 yrs can attest and/or argue to that.
.270Win is usually what I have and will recommend to new hunters here in Ont. based on what I’ve seen afield and some of those same thoughts others have echoed here.
Happy BDay/Anniversary 270W !
No, it's not exclusive to the newer models. The CDS dials just give you a lock at the bottom that is hard to dial past without removing the turret to dial past "zero". Neat innovation, poor execution
That's a good looking rifle and the .270 is a great cartridge. Sure 6.5, 7mm and .30 cal have more bullet options and faster twists for the in vogue bullets. How many options do you really need? I usual try and pick 2 or 3 options that are my mainstays.
If we're staying original recipe, so 1-10 twist, what do you need to do that a 145 eldx(or various 140-150 grain vlds), 130 or 150 Hotcore and 160 partition can't handle? If you need or want lead free select from about a dozen 120-130ish grain offerings. Add the new bullets of 160 and heavier with a fast twist to stabilize them and you can really begin to have some analysis paralysis. Pick a bullet suitable for you game and that retains enough velocity to expand at your maximum range and start shooting and hunting.
Honestly most of us would better served to worry more about our optics, boots and a sharp knife then a few thousands of an inch worth of copper and lead.
If we're staying original recipe, so 1-10 twist, what do you need to do that a 145 eldx(or various 140-150 grain vlds), 130 or 150 Hotcore and 160 partition can't handle? If you need or want lead free select from about a dozen 120-130ish grain offerings. Add the new bullets of 160 and heavier with a fast twist to stabilize them and you can really begin to have some analysis paralysis. Pick a bullet suitable for you game and that retains enough velocity to expand at your maximum range and start shooting and hunting.
Honestly most of us would better served to worry more about our optics, boots and a sharp knife then a few thousands of an inch worth of copper and lead.
People get tied up in knots over nothing when it comes to cartridge selection. I’ve killed big game with the:
243
260
6.5 CM
6.5x55
270
7-08
7x57
280
280 AI
7MM RM
7MM Mashburn
308
30-06
300 WM
338 WM
375 H&H
375 Ruger
And probably 1 or 2 I’m forgetting about.
The longest shot I’ve taken game at was a bull elk at 560 yards. It was with the 270 ironically.
The truth is, we haven’t done much for cartridge improvement in the last 100 years. Especially in the affective and functional departments.
Is there really people out there that think I’m seriously handicapped by hunting big game in Alberta with a 270?
243
260
6.5 CM
6.5x55
270
7-08
7x57
280
280 AI
7MM RM
7MM Mashburn
308
30-06
300 WM
338 WM
375 H&H
375 Ruger
And probably 1 or 2 I’m forgetting about.
The longest shot I’ve taken game at was a bull elk at 560 yards. It was with the 270 ironically.
The truth is, we haven’t done much for cartridge improvement in the last 100 years. Especially in the affective and functional departments.
Is there really people out there that think I’m seriously handicapped by hunting big game in Alberta with a 270?
Last edited:
While I agree that the 270win offers advantages over the 6.5CM, the 6.5PRC produces more velocity than the 270 with higher B.C.s, and it does it in a short action. The same people that would argue that the 270win and 6.5prc are the same ballistically, are the same ones that are stating that the 270win is equal to the 7mmremmag ballistically.
Who is saying that? Lol.
That's because the basics of firearms were pretty much sorted by the early 20th century. Powders have been refined a bit since, with more consistent performance across temperature ranges, and bullets have been made more consistent through improved manufacturing technologies, but Mauser had the bolt action sorted with the 1898, Rubin had sorted small bore/high velocity cartridge design by the early 1890's and the spitzer bullet was in widespread use by the early 1900's.
Since then there has been little that was revolutionary, with incremental improvements to guns and cartridges through newer technologies and better materials, but no big jumps. There were significant improvements in optics, but they didn't change the guns or cartridges themselves.
Mark
The person that I quoted, stated that the 270win and 6.5PRC are ballistic equivalent. I have heard several people, hard core 270win fans, state that the 270win and 7mmremmag were essentially the same ballistically.
Charger 426
New member
- Location
- Central Ontario
I too am a big fan of the 270.
I am also 'old school' in regards to most firearms.
Here's some pics of a couple of 270's I have.
The top is a first year production - (1925) -Winchester model 54 - the rifle that introduced the 270.
The bottom is a 1947 Winchester model 70 also in 270.
Both have been hunted with but not so much any more.
I must admit modern optics have come a long way but I could not bring myself to scope either of these.
I am also 'old school' in regards to most firearms.
Here's some pics of a couple of 270's I have.
The top is a first year production - (1925) -Winchester model 54 - the rifle that introduced the 270.
The bottom is a 1947 Winchester model 70 also in 270.
Both have been hunted with but not so much any more.
I must admit modern optics have come a long way but I could not bring myself to scope either of these.
Attachments
I’ve heard several people say the 270 is a lousy Elk cartridge. I’ve heard people say the world is flat. But none of it is relevant to this discussion.
Very nice.
How much smaller and how much more “efficient”? In the field, many of these arguments are stupid.
The hardest part of killing good big game animals isn’t shooting them. It’s getting the opportunity to shoot them. Give me the opportunity and I could give two hoots what cartridge is in my hands. I just need something gun wise that functions.
I love the 270 and own several of them. More than enough for any game animal on most continents.
Pathfinder76 makes a really significant point about opportunity. Most animals will drop to a shot from most hunting cartridges providing a capable hunter has the opportunity and is in the right place at the right time, which has nothing to do with calibre, efficiency of powder burn rates, ratio of powder to bullet weight, bullet weights and lengths, ballistic coefficients, or forward ogives of the bullets.
Pathfinder76 makes a really significant point about opportunity. Most animals will drop to a shot from most hunting cartridges providing a capable hunter has the opportunity and is in the right place at the right time, which has nothing to do with calibre, efficiency of powder burn rates, ratio of powder to bullet weight, bullet weights and lengths, ballistic coefficients, or forward ogives of the bullets.
Having an AR10 wouldnt be stupid at all if our gun laws weren't stupid lol
If you dont care what cartridge you're using why are you bothering in this convo? Or wishing one a happy birthday
That said I agree. Comparing cartridges generally is stupid. But I like hitting 3000 fps with a 120gr bullet with barely over 40 grains of powder in a modern rifle cause it makes me happy. If old fudd stuff makes others happy that's great.
Last edited:
