270 Winchester

I added a 270 last year to tell the truth I wanted a 7-08 for the,had a 260 been made in the model It would have been in the running as well. And for the reason mentioned less recoil, burns less powder, though I am not convinced I would have noticed the "shorter action at all". But when faced with waiting for the short action stevens to show up or buy a 270 that is there, I thought how bad off can a prarie deer hunter be with a 270. About a heart beat later I handed over my pal. The buck I shot last year would not have known the difference, no regrets here.

This is a case of two right anwsers, but the sign of a true gunnut is the ability to endlessly split hairs :)
 
all things being equal, a guy will shoot the milder recoiling 270 Winchester better, and be more lethal with it at longer range, making more hits and more one shot kills

if faster and harder is better, we'd all be shooting STWs
​
 
I have hunted with the 270 as my dedicated Whitetail rifle for over 15 years. With it I have collected 4 bucks scoring over 160 B&C with it. As well it accounted for 1 bull elk about 30 coyotes one surly badger. I have used the old standby loading of 55.5 gr IMR 4350 and the 130 gr Sierra BT. cannot think of a better load IMHO for deer I do have a good 130 gr load for the Sierra GS that accounted for last years bull at slightly over 400 yaRDS

My grandfather used the 270, my uncle accounted for over 30 bull elk and 25 moose, with FN sporters, so logically I decided to obtain a SEaSONED specimen from Why Not last year,

A pre 64 with a Lilja barrel

270M70.JPG


My Winlite Accounted for big bucks, also survived a drink in the Mountain river NWT and stolen by some Indians

270mC-copy.jpg


FN Sporter I aquired from WHY Not

FN270.JPG


my Browning Safari grade and nice bull taken last year

Peerselk1.jpg
 
BIGREDD said:
I disagree... the energy difference is 200-300 foot pounds between them at 400 yards depending on the bullet and if you factor in wind drift and bullet drop it can make a marginal hit a miss or worse.
I am immune to your reverse logic.... faster and harder is better.:cool:
Click to expand...

I have both and as Tod says I wouldn't try to kill anything with the WSM that I wouldn't kill with the old standard. I set mine up at 3" high at 100yds and average about 6-7 inches low at 300, the WSM set up the same is 5-6 inches low at the same distance with the same bullet. I'm only getting about 150fps faster with the WSM before getting pressure signs and 2" more barrel. If you like to split hairs then there is a difference but most of us wouldn't be able to tell and neither would the critters. When you look at the graphs they advertise the trajectory curves when comparing the two in the magazines it is set up so it looks like a great advantage but if the graphs were presented in a more realistic rational graph the curves of the lines would be so close as to be hard to see an actual difference. If I have to shoot a critter at such distances where you have to use a rangefinder and calculate holdover then it makes no difference to me if I have to hold over 22" or 26" at 450 yds. Personally, I don't take those shots anyway. If you load the win to the same pressure as the WSM then the difference is even less with less bolt thrust because of the smaller boltface and cartridge face of the old 270 Win.
 
stubblejumper said:
Apparently you don't understand bowhunting very well.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...


Whats this difference Stubby?? A broad head is fired at an animal and slices it up in its vitals and bleeds to death. A bullets does pretty much the same but adds shock, and punches through anything in its path.
Dont see why you need to roll your eyes like some broad at a cosmetic booth??
 
That FN Sporter that Battle River got from me last year is more than fifty years old and still shoots well under an inch. :cool:

All original, just as it came from Fabrique Nationale, no pillars, no glass bedding, no fancy 21st century gimmicks, and stil kills big game today as well as it did back then. :D

Ted
 
Why not? said:
That FN Sporter that Battle River got from me last year is more than fifty years old and still shoots well under an inch. :cool:

All original, just as it came from Fabrique Nationale, no pillars, no glass bedding, no fancy 21st century gimmicks, and stil kills big game today as well as it did back then. :D

Ted
Click to expand...

I would have to agree 'cuz I've got the same rifle ;)
I was never a big fan of the 270 (I preferred a 30 cal hunting round), but after getting this rifle, and being able to shoot it as well as I do, I sold all my other hunting rifles as they just never got used anymore!
100_3866.jpg
 
Whats this difference Stubby??
Click to expand...


The difference is that a broadhead is much larger in diameter and is very sharp.It kills by cutting a clean channel that causes bleading that results in the animals death.Because of this,it requires only a fraction of the energy to penetrate that a bullet does.On the other hand a bullet must plow a wound channel through the vitails by displacing material along the way, which takes a great deal more energy especially with larger animals.Therefore a broadhead can be much more effective than a small caliber bullet when used on larger animals.Broadheads are routinely used to kill very large game that it would not be wise to attempt to kill with a smaller caliber bullet.
 
canuck said:
I would have to agree 'cuz I've got the same rifle ;)
Click to expand...
Well that rifle was popular!! This one was owned by a gentleman that used it to take at least one of everything that is legal to hunt in Alberta.

After 30+ years of hunting it will still shoot under 3/4" at 100 yards with a 130gr Partition on top of 56gr of IMR-4831. It's still in in it's original configuration with the original scope.
FN270.jpg
 
stubblejumper said:
The difference is that a broadhead is much larger in diameter and is very sharp.It kills by cutting a clean channel that causes bleading that results in the animals death.Because of this,it requires only a fraction of the energy to penetrate that a bullet does.On the other hand a bullet must plow a wound channel through the vitails by displacing material along the way, which takes a great deal more energy especially with larger animals.Therefore a broadhead can be much more effective than a small caliber bullet when used on larger animals.Broadheads are routinely used to kill very large game that it would not be wise to attempt to kill with a smaller caliber bullet.
Click to expand...

Gotcha :beerchug: Mind you there have been some pretty big animals taken with the .223 and the likes with a good bullet.

Cheers!!
 
my .270 is only about 12" low at 400 yds using a 3" high zero at 100 yds. Those ballistics are hard to beat in a non-magnum caliber. It also kills deer DEAD ON THE GROUND WHERE YOU SHOOT THEM with no bloodtrailing or tracking needed in my experience. I have never chased a deer or needed more than one shot with this caliber and my trusty 130 grain TSX boattails. No thrashing around, kicking or finishing shot needed...if you him them behind the shoulder, they just die...
 
Jeff/1911 said:
How about the BSA Monarch Deluxe in .270? Are these rifles good shooters? :)

Jeff.
Click to expand...

I owned one about ten years ago. It shot pretty good, but I didnt reload back then. I bet with some good handloads it would have been a real performer :ar15:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom