^ AGREE!! The myth that will never go away it seems!!
130, 140 or 150 grain bullets in a 270?
- Thread starter MD
- Start date
^ AGREE!! The myth that will never go away it seems!!
I don't know how experienced you are at hand loading, but before trying different bullet weights I would play with seating depth and different powders.Partitions are capable of moa accuracy in all my rifles, interlocks are also OK.
Have fun finding an accurate load.
Have fun finding an accurate load.
yeah and we all loose because of it. For instance I look at the huge selection of 140 grain bullets available in .264 diameter and I just about pull out my hair wishing there was a similiar selection in 150-160 grain wieghts.
Like wise I have bought and sold a couple 8mms cause I could'nt lay hands at the time on any bullets heavier then 170, but could find an endless supply of those and 150s!
if your a soldier and need to carry 200 rounds then I understand shaving off the grains and increasing the velocity but I am just bitter that the trend has caught on in the sporting bullet world.
Pathfinder
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Northeast Ontario
I like the time tested 130 gr. bullet pushed by H4831 but then again Ive been using my 270 as a deer rifle.
Not that I would be afraid of taking a lung shot at a moose......make that a double lung shot !
Not that I would be afraid of taking a lung shot at a moose......make that a double lung shot !
Hodgon's data manual #19 lists a speer 170 grain bullet at 2800 fps using 58 grains of 4831 at a pressure of 47K. At 48K you get 3000fps with a 130 grain bullet from the same manual.
Norma Precision loads a 130 grain pill to 3100FPS at 300yards it is down 5 inches with a 225 yard zero. It retains 1596 ft/lbs of energy.
Norma Precision Loads a 156 grain bullet to 2850 FPS at 300 yards with the same zero it is down 6 inches and retains 1860 ft/lbs.
Wind drift for both bullets is almost identical at 7-8 inches at 300 yards in a 10miles perhour cross wind.
Can anyone explain to me exactly what the benefit is of using a 130 grain bullet over using a 150 or a 170? For the sake of inch at 300 yards you are giving up beaucoup energy and lots of SD. I am not being cheeky I am just curious to know if I am missing somehting? BTW: everytime you choose a 130 over a 150 the bullet manufacturer pockets the 15% in material you left behind, it take more powder to push the small bullet and more powder aint cool either is more wear on your throat.( I know I am splitting hairs with that part)
EDIT: just looked and woodliegh offers a 180grain .270 bullet. Now that makes a .270 into an interesting rifle!
Norma Precision loads a 130 grain pill to 3100FPS at 300yards it is down 5 inches with a 225 yard zero. It retains 1596 ft/lbs of energy.
Norma Precision Loads a 156 grain bullet to 2850 FPS at 300 yards with the same zero it is down 6 inches and retains 1860 ft/lbs.
Wind drift for both bullets is almost identical at 7-8 inches at 300 yards in a 10miles perhour cross wind.
Can anyone explain to me exactly what the benefit is of using a 130 grain bullet over using a 150 or a 170? For the sake of inch at 300 yards you are giving up beaucoup energy and lots of SD. I am not being cheeky I am just curious to know if I am missing somehting? BTW: everytime you choose a 130 over a 150 the bullet manufacturer pockets the 15% in material you left behind, it take more powder to push the small bullet and more powder aint cool either is more wear on your throat.( I know I am splitting hairs with that part)
EDIT: just looked and woodliegh offers a 180grain .270 bullet. Now that makes a .270 into an interesting rifle!
Here is the results of tests I made a lot of years ago. I posted the whole story in DDs thread, on sensitvity of powders, in the reloading secion.
For all of the test, the load was first sighted to be 2½ to 3 inchs high at 100 yards.
CIL, 130 grain bullet, 60.5 grains of war surplus H4831--34" L at 500.
---------------------- 60.5 grains of Norma 205--32" Low at 500.
Norma 150 grain bullet, 59 grains of H4831, -- 34 inches low at 500.
150 grain Hornady, 59 grains of Norma 205, 2½ to 3" High at 100, a 6½ inch group, 30 inches low at 500.
130 grain Hornady bullet, 61 of Norma 205, 2½ to 3 high at 100, on at 300 and a 6 inch group 27 inches low at 500.
I never used a magnum primer and at this stage in life we never heard of temperature sensitivety, or otherwise, of powders.
Later, the Noma MRP replaced N 205, because they said it was more temperature stable.
WARNING- Do not attempt to duplicate these loads in your rifle, unless you carefully work up your loads.
I am just reporting what they did in my rifle, which does not mean your rifle.
This is the reason I have always said that a good 150 grain bullet was best for all around use in the 270 Winchester. The best I have used is the 150 grain Nosler partition.
Edited to say that all groups were five shot groups.
For all of the test, the load was first sighted to be 2½ to 3 inchs high at 100 yards.
CIL, 130 grain bullet, 60.5 grains of war surplus H4831--34" L at 500.
---------------------- 60.5 grains of Norma 205--32" Low at 500.
Norma 150 grain bullet, 59 grains of H4831, -- 34 inches low at 500.
150 grain Hornady, 59 grains of Norma 205, 2½ to 3" High at 100, a 6½ inch group, 30 inches low at 500.
130 grain Hornady bullet, 61 of Norma 205, 2½ to 3 high at 100, on at 300 and a 6 inch group 27 inches low at 500.
I never used a magnum primer and at this stage in life we never heard of temperature sensitivety, or otherwise, of powders.
Later, the Noma MRP replaced N 205, because they said it was more temperature stable.
WARNING- Do not attempt to duplicate these loads in your rifle, unless you carefully work up your loads.
I am just reporting what they did in my rifle, which does not mean your rifle.
This is the reason I have always said that a good 150 grain bullet was best for all around use in the 270 Winchester. The best I have used is the 150 grain Nosler partition.
Edited to say that all groups were five shot groups.
Bruce those are some interesting results and show what I was babbling about. Only diffrence is that your results are more in favor of the 150s then I dared claim!
IIRC your at or 1 grain higher then the book data for 4831 of the day so I am assuming you worked up pretty close to the max for your rifle.
Great data and the 6 inch group at 500 yards sure tells how important being able to replicate a sight picture is and how low magnification and open sights make it easier to do so.
Any way I expect that soon this thread will be so swamped with '130-140 grain bullets always killed em dead for me' posts that there wont be any room for anything else so I am gonna go dig out my Jack o'Connor books and see what a thinking man said.
EDIT: thinking on your groups brought to mind an accomplishiment of a mentor from your era. Told a tale of killing two sheep somewhere out of cassier at 500 yards with an aperature sighted 270. First one went down dead and the second one stood up. Old storey of thinking two animals was one. Any way it is great in this day of super wis bangs and catalouges of junk to remember that it does'nt need to be that complicated. Apparently in the 50s all you guys could shoot 6 inch 500 yard groups with inferior bullets, archaic propellants and diets way too rich in bacon fat and nicotine LOL. I am wondering though how ever did y'all manage to lug around those rifles stocked in (gasp) wood???!!! There must have been way more animals around and the hills must have been lower to have had any success in the abscense of carbon fiber and goretex.
IIRC your at or 1 grain higher then the book data for 4831 of the day so I am assuming you worked up pretty close to the max for your rifle.
Great data and the 6 inch group at 500 yards sure tells how important being able to replicate a sight picture is and how low magnification and open sights make it easier to do so.
Any way I expect that soon this thread will be so swamped with '130-140 grain bullets always killed em dead for me' posts that there wont be any room for anything else so I am gonna go dig out my Jack o'Connor books and see what a thinking man said.
EDIT: thinking on your groups brought to mind an accomplishiment of a mentor from your era. Told a tale of killing two sheep somewhere out of cassier at 500 yards with an aperature sighted 270. First one went down dead and the second one stood up. Old storey of thinking two animals was one. Any way it is great in this day of super wis bangs and catalouges of junk to remember that it does'nt need to be that complicated. Apparently in the 50s all you guys could shoot 6 inch 500 yard groups with inferior bullets, archaic propellants and diets way too rich in bacon fat and nicotine LOL. I am wondering though how ever did y'all manage to lug around those rifles stocked in (gasp) wood???!!! There must have been way more animals around and the hills must have been lower to have had any success in the abscense of carbon fiber and goretex.
Last edited:
Northman999
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Southern Yukon
I do not think there is a real significant difference in performance between these weights of bullets in this caliber.
H4831's data is great, and confirms what some long-time .270 shooters had a gut feeling about.
Personally, I tend to prefer 150gr BT's, as I have used them in the past very sucessfully on black bear, caribou and moose. When I go shopping for .270 bullets, I go looking for 150's, but I do scoop up anything from 130-150 that happens to be very well priced.
I would not pass up a shot, with a 130 grain bullet, that I would have taken with a 150, or vise versa.
H4831's data is great, and confirms what some long-time .270 shooters had a gut feeling about.
Personally, I tend to prefer 150gr BT's, as I have used them in the past very sucessfully on black bear, caribou and moose. When I go shopping for .270 bullets, I go looking for 150's, but I do scoop up anything from 130-150 that happens to be very well priced.
I would not pass up a shot, with a 130 grain bullet, that I would have taken with a 150, or vise versa.
This is emabarrassing but the numbers I gave above are incorrect for the 150 grain bullet. 1856 is incorrect and the real figure is a hair shy of the 130 load. Glad I found the error first! Sorry MD.
Anyone wants an easy way to crunch numbers should check out
3xW.norma.cc/default.asp?Lang=2#
Ballistics calculator is a tab top right.
Anyone wants an easy way to crunch numbers should check out
3xW.norma.cc/default.asp?Lang=2#
Ballistics calculator is a tab top right.
David, I had a better build up to this testing on your, Temp sensetivity MRP/H4831 thread, in the reloading section. I was doing this for my own information at the time, so was as careful, precise and honest in the testing as I could be.
The 150 grain Norma bullets I used were semi boattail, but more rounded on the front, than a pointed spire point. The flat based Hornadys with the sharp spire, very similar to Nosler, held up the best.
Jack O'Connor credits himself as coming up with the 60 grains of H4831 with the 130 grain bullet. When Bruce Hodgdon brought out the surplus H4831, they had no loading data for it. They called it, "4350 data powder." That was because they knew it was slower than 4350, so just use 4350 data and people wouldn't go wrong. The surplus powder was dirt cheap.
Jack O'Connor immediately started writing about it and soon he wrote in Outdoor Life that 60 grains in the 270 with 130 grain bullet shot like a whiz.
O'Connor had a tremendous following and soon most of the 270 reloaders in the country were using that load. Hodgdon's later admitted that they were not about to question Jack, so they just put that load into their loading data.
It was a great time to be a shooter.
The 150 grain Norma bullets I used were semi boattail, but more rounded on the front, than a pointed spire point. The flat based Hornadys with the sharp spire, very similar to Nosler, held up the best.
Jack O'Connor credits himself as coming up with the 60 grains of H4831 with the 130 grain bullet. When Bruce Hodgdon brought out the surplus H4831, they had no loading data for it. They called it, "4350 data powder." That was because they knew it was slower than 4350, so just use 4350 data and people wouldn't go wrong. The surplus powder was dirt cheap.
Jack O'Connor immediately started writing about it and soon he wrote in Outdoor Life that 60 grains in the 270 with 130 grain bullet shot like a whiz.
O'Connor had a tremendous following and soon most of the 270 reloaders in the country were using that load. Hodgdon's later admitted that they were not about to question Jack, so they just put that load into their loading data.
It was a great time to be a shooter.
Yeah I bet with the 'data powder' flying off the shelves they kept mum LOL. Jack sure had a great way of writing. Just reread his pressures article from the speer manual.
Wonder if we'll ever see more surplus powder again (higinsons 335 aside)?
David, I noticed this quote from you regarding my 500 yard shooting.
"IIRC your at or 1 grain higher then the book data for 4831 of the day so I am assuming you worked up pretty close to the max for your rifle."
So, went through some more notes in the book found this. About twenty five years after doing that shooting, I was able to chronograph the loads. While the original chronographing was to test the difference between the old war surplus 4831, which I used in the 500 yard tests, and the (then) newly cannistered variety, I just noted the temperature on my notes. It was 90 degrees fahrenheit!
Not only was the velocity of the 60 grains of H4831 surplus just short of advertised speed, but it was 90 degrees and it still wasn't too high.
Note that under exact conditions, same loads, but old and new powder shot the same hour, the old surplus powder was 118 feet per second faster, and a smaller es.
At the time Hodgdon's said to use the same loading data for the new 4831 as the old. Another tricky way to get the people to load less!
On your thread on temperatures in the reloading section, I stated that in years back the differences in temperature was never mentioned, anywhere, so obviously we disregarded it. I see no reason to change my ways about loading for different temperatures!
Just noticed what book I was using for notes!
"IIRC your at or 1 grain higher then the book data for 4831 of the day so I am assuming you worked up pretty close to the max for your rifle."
So, went through some more notes in the book found this. About twenty five years after doing that shooting, I was able to chronograph the loads. While the original chronographing was to test the difference between the old war surplus 4831, which I used in the 500 yard tests, and the (then) newly cannistered variety, I just noted the temperature on my notes. It was 90 degrees fahrenheit!
Not only was the velocity of the 60 grains of H4831 surplus just short of advertised speed, but it was 90 degrees and it still wasn't too high.
Note that under exact conditions, same loads, but old and new powder shot the same hour, the old surplus powder was 118 feet per second faster, and a smaller es.
At the time Hodgdon's said to use the same loading data for the new 4831 as the old. Another tricky way to get the people to load less!
On your thread on temperatures in the reloading section, I stated that in years back the differences in temperature was never mentioned, anywhere, so obviously we disregarded it. I see no reason to change my ways about loading for different temperatures!
Just noticed what book I was using for notes!
