100 Years Old

stubblejumper said:
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.
Click to expand...
Stubblejumper, let me clarify things here. I stated that the 270 Win “produces ballistics that are, for all intents and purposes, equal to those of the newer 6.5 PRC.” “For all intents and purposes” means for all practical purposes, such as in the field. I didn’t say that they are precisely ballistically equivalent. There’s a difference.

So let’s see how close they are. Hornady gives the following for their Precision Hunter ammunition:

6.5 PRC – 143 gr. ELD-X bullet; MV: 2960 fps; 400 yd. energy 1800 ft.-lbs.; drop at 400 yds. with 200 yd. zero: 18.2 in.

270 Win – 145 gr. ELD-X bullet; MV 2970 fps; 400 yd. energy 1714 ft.-lbs.; drop at 400 yds. with 200 yd. zero: 18.8 in.

So at 400 yds. there’s about a half-inch difference in trajectory between them. At 300 yds., the trajectories, with a 200-yd. zero, are -6.4” for the PRC and -6.5” for the 270 Win. I’d see all of this as indicting no practical difference in the field. Wouldn’t you?
 
pathfinder76 said:
Joel, what makes a cartridge efficient?
Click to expand...

To me? Space it occupies in a magazine and the fps generated per amount of powder used for a given bullet weight. Honorable mention given to doing the job with an array of widely available cheaper powders.

Anyone else can define it however they like.
 
Joel said:
To me? Space it occupies in a magazine and the fps generated per amount of powder used for a given bullet weight. Honorable mention given to doing the job with an array of widely available cheaper powders.

Anyone else can define it however they like.
Click to expand...
I can put five cartridges in the magazine of that 270. Does that make it efficient then?
 
Great looking rifle chuck!
Although it is pretty common knowledge that I detest the 270 Winchester , I also admit that my distaste for it is simple prejudice. it is a great cartridge that has gained a very large following over the years.
Pretty hard to improve on several cartridges that have been out here for uowards to 100 years or more .🙂
Cat
 
iron cat said:
Great looking rifle chuck!
Although it is pretty common knowledge that I detest the 270 Winchester , I also admit that my distaste for it is simple prejudice. it is a great cartridge that has gained a very large following over the years.
Pretty hard to improve on several cartridges that have been out here for uowards to 100 years or more .🙂
Cat
Click to expand...

I didnt know you detest any cartridges, Cat! 😂
 
pathfinder76 said:
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.
Click to expand...
And yet the hurt feeling button was pushed in this discussion.
 
South Pender said:
Stubblejumper, let me clarify things here. I stated that the 270 Win “produces ballistics that are, for all intents and purposes, equal to those of the newer 6.5 PRC.” “For all intents and purposes” means for all practical purposes, such as in the field. I didn’t say that they are precisely ballistically equivalent. There’s a difference.

So let’s see how close they are. Hornady gives the following for their Precision Hunter ammunition:

6.5 PRC – 143 gr. ELD-X bullet; MV: 2960 fps; 400 yd. energy 1800 ft.-lbs.; drop at 400 yds. with 200 yd. zero: 18.2 in.

270 Win – 145 gr. ELD-X bullet; MV 2970 fps; 400 yd. energy 1714 ft.-lbs.; drop at 400 yds. with 200 yd. zero: 18.8 in.

So at 400 yds. there’s about a half-inch difference in trajectory between them. At 300 yds., the trajectories, with a 200-yd. zero, are -6.4” for the PRC and -6.5” for the 270 Win. I’d see all of this as indicting no practical difference in the field. Wouldn’t you?
Click to expand...
Based on one factory load of each, that is the case, actually working up handloads, with a variety of bullet weights, I have seen larger differences between them. My own 6.5prc load for the 143eldx is 3050fps, and I can easily push another 50fps, but groups start to open up slightly.
 
Hmatt said:
I like the obscure, old and unobtanium. I don’t know why I just can’t stay away from them!
Click to expand...
There is absolutely nothing wrong with cartridges that are old, they killed big game animals for over 100 years...........case-in-point, 7x57 and 6.5x55. However, people purchase 6.5 Creedmore because it is more effecient.:cautious:
 
track said:
There is absolutely nothing wrong with cartridges that are old, they killed big game animals for over 100 years...........case-in-point, 7x57 and 6.5x55. However, people purchase 6.5 Creedmore because it is more effecient.:cautious:
Click to expand...
6.5x55 is what I grab most of the time I go out. But I also like all these other cartridges being hated on 😅
 
stubblejumper said:
Based on one factory load of each, that is the case, actually working up handloads, with a variety of bullet weights, I have seen larger differences between them. My own 6.5prc load for the 143eldx is 3050fps, and I can easily push another 50fps, but groups start to open up slightly.
Click to expand...
I could get the same speed with a similar weight bullet out of my 270 and a healthy dose of RL26. You would not see any difference on game taken in the field.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom