Who hates a .270 Winchester?

270 is my favorite boring chambering by far.

I think the hate for the 270 and 6.5 creedmoor comes from the hyper masculine crowd who are somehow offended by light bullets.

I remember once I was looking for 130 grain ammo in the small northern BC town I lived in and the owner of the store told me that most people's wives shot 150's.

I've done most of my hunting with light weight 270 loads and med to heavy 338 wm loads. As a macho 338 fan I'm sort of sad to admit that they seem to work equally well on ungulates and bears
 
The only reason I wouldn't get a 270, is the same one I won't get a 308: I shoot a 30-06 and a 6.5 Swede. It simply doesn't give me anything beyond those two (other than less space for a different gun in the safe). If I didn't have either? Absomalutely, a 270 would likely be in the cards.

Like with every gun: if the hunter does his job and works within the constraints of the cartridge, bullet selection is much more important than the caliber.
 
Well that was fun. I did not try to explain remaining energy to the guys in the FB group. I did let them know I shoot moose confidently with a 6.5x55, with cup and core bullets. No one commented.
 
A .270 WCF will spit out a 150 grain at 2800 fps, a 150 grain .277" bullet has a slightly higher sectional density than a 180 grain .30 cal bullet. If you can't kill North American game with that, you are saying a lot about your ability as a hunter.

Relatively light recoil, extremely wide factory ammo selection, plentiful brass and components. Long, smooth feeding case. There is a lot to like.

I have one in a 1950 Model 70.
 
cam1936 said:
A .270 WCF will spit out a 150 grain at 2800 fps, a 150 grain .277" bullet has a slightly higher sectional density than a 180 grain .30 cal bullet. If you can't kill North American game with that, you are saying a lot about your ability as a hunter.

Relatively light recoil, extremely wide factory ammo selection, plentiful brass and components. Long, smooth feeding case. There is a lot to like.

I have one in a 1950 Model 70.
Click to expand...
I’ve always said if I can’t kill it with a 270 win, give me a 375 H&H. It’s that simple.

Ive actually had the itch to add another 270 to the vault the last few weeks, and after stewing on this thread today, I caved. I wanted a rifle I could beat the crap out of and not feel bad getting it scratched up, unlike my Sako’s, Tikkas etc. So on my travels today for the long weekend I stopped in at Cabelas (🤮) and they happened to have a Weatherby Vanguard Obsidian there in 270 win on sale. It’s sitting beside me as I type this, figured at sub $750 tax paid and having a 24” threaded barrel, what could go wrong. I can slap a brake on it for the Mrs if she wants to shoot it this year, and if she scratches it I won’t care.

So once I get back after turkey dinner tomorrow night, I’ll be slapping one of my spare VX3’s on it and putting it through its paces this week.
 
I don’t have a hate on for .270 W.C.F., or, for that matter, anything of 0.277” / 6.8mm groove size.

I just see no need to have them in my accumulation of rifles. I have a few 7x57 chambered rifles, which, although they are a scant 0.007” larger, are available in much heavier weights [I am and have been a disciple of the Late Elmer Keith, for almost 60 years, since reading Dad’s early 1950’s volumes of Gun Digest, where Roy Weatherby & Elmer Keith argued their positions]. I have previously owned a couple of .280 Remington chambered rifles & still, although I have no earthly idea why, a few 7mm Remington Magnum-chambered rifles, given where I call home here in The Canadian Shield, where shots are typically 35-60 yds., unless you situate yourself along a Hydro cut-line.

Along the same lines, I have never cared for quarter-bore [0.250”] rifles, neither .250 Savage, .257 Roberts, .25-06 Remington & most definitely, .257 Weatherby chambered rifles.

I have had, &, for the most part, still do, have rifles chambered in .224 bores [.22 Hornet, .218 Mashburn Bee, .222 Remington, .223 Remington, .22-250, 5.6x57RWS], .243” [a long time ago a .243 W.C.F. for my ex-wife, & a few 6mm BR Remingtons], .256” bores [2 6.5 CM left, although a number of 6.5x55 rifles [aka .256 Gibbs Magnum] in the past, along with a number of .256 Fl. N.E. [aka 6.5x53R Mannlicher rifles], 0.275” bores [the above-mentioned 7x57 & 7mm Remington Magnums], way too many .300” bored rifles [.30 W.C.F., .308 Winchester, .30-06 Springfields, .308 Norma Magnum & a long time ago, a .300 Winchester Magnum], .303” [in the ubiquitous .303 Fl. N.E. 2 1/4”], .350 [.357 Magnum in a custom Ruger #1, a few 9x57 Mausers & a re-bored Holland & Holland in .350 Rimless N.E.], way too many 0.356” [aka 9.3x57 & 9.3x62] & .370” [quite a few .375 H&H Rimless Belted N.E.], and, at least back in the day, 0.437”, 0.447” & 0.450” in .45-70’s, .458 Winchester & .450 Lott, .577/450, & even 0.500” in a Ruger #1 chambered in .500 N.E. 3”.

Will they do anything more, or less, than another bore-chambered do? No, but we like what we like, whether it be a beautifully-stocked marble-cake walnut, deeply-blued rifle, or, [sorry, they hold absolutely no appeal to me] a stainless-steel, synthetic-stocked rifle.
 
jamesharrison said:
I don’t have a hate on for .270 W.C.F., or, for that matter, anything of 0.277” / 6.8mm groove size.

I just see no need to have them in my accumulation of rifles. I have a few 7x57 chambered rifles, which, although they are a scant 0.007” larger, are available in much heavier weights [I am and have been a disciple of the Late Elmer Keith, for almost 60 years, since reading Dad’s early 1950’s volumes of Gun Digest, where Roy Weatherby & Elmer Keith argued their positions]. I have previously owned a couple of .280 Remington chambered rifles & still, although I have no earthly idea why, a few 7mm Remington Magnum-chambered rifles, given where I call home here in The Canadian Shield, where shots are typically 35-60 yds., unless you situate yourself along a Hydro cut-line.

Along the same lines, I have never cared for quarter-bore [0.250”] rifles, neither .250 Savage, .257 Roberts, .25-06 Remington & most definitely, .257 Weatherby chambered rifles.

I have had, &, for the most part, still do, have rifles chambered in .224 bores [.22 Hornet, .218 Mashburn Bee, .222 Remington, .223 Remington, .22-250, 5.6x57RWS], .243” [a long time ago a .243 W.C.F. for my ex-wife, & a few 6mm BR Remingtons], .256” bores [2 6.5 CM left, although a number of 6.5x55 rifles [aka .256 Gibbs Magnum] in the past, along with a number of .256 Fl. N.E. [aka 6.5x53R Mannlicher rifles], 0.275” bores [the above-mentioned 7x57 & 7mm Remington Magnums], way too many .300” bored rifles [.30 W.C.F., .308 Winchester, .30-06 Springfields, .308 Norma Magnum & a long time ago, a .300 Winchester Magnum], .303” [in the ubiquitous .303 Fl. N.E. 2 1/4”], .350 [.357 Magnum in a custom Ruger #1, a few 9x57 Mausers & a re-bored Holland & Holland in .350 Rimless N.E.], way too many 0.356” [aka 9.3x57 & 9.3x62] & .370” [quite a few .375 H&H Rimless Belted N.E.], and, at least back in the day, 0.437”, 0.447” & 0.450” in .45-70’s, .458 Winchester & .450 Lott, .577/450, & even 0.500” in a Ruger #1 chambered in .500 N.E. 3”.

Will they do anything more, or less, than another bore-chambered do? No, but we like what we like, whether it be a beautifully-stocked marble-cake walnut, deeply-blued rifle, or, [sorry, they hold absolutely no appeal to me] a stainless-steel, synthetic-stocked rifle.
Click to expand...

Hope you're doing well, James. Always appreciate your posts
 
The only problem with the 270, specifically my 270, is it isn’t in a pre-64 Model 70…
Still my 270 is a very nice rifle to me (Weatherby Vanguard Fluted Stainless in a full length bedding block Hogue stock sporting a VX3HD).
Someday that pre-64 will show up but condition and availability when I satisfy that itch will trump cartridge so maybe, but might be an ‘06 too.
But would I rebarrel for it?
Not yet, I went 280AI and 35 Whelen is next but after those…nope 25/06…but after that I wouldn’t rule it out as it is a great cartridge.
 
I dont even hunt deer with .243 anymore and I grew up with it, my first deer was taken with a 243. Eventually I came to the conclusion that its too small of a bullet with too loud of a bark. Id rather use a larger diameter bullet going slower. Easier on the ears, bigger wound channel, less deflection in vegetation etc.
 
Murray 3-D said:
Eventually I came to the conclusion that its too small of a bullet with too loud of a bark. Id rather use a larger diameter bullet going slower. Easier on the ears, bigger wound channel,
Click to expand...
As did I, MANY years ago, at least for my current situation / location, although it was quite different when I lived in the wide-open plains of Alberta many years ago.

What it took me a VERY long time to realise, was that I did not have to keep rifles that I would never again need or use. In some cases, I still have a hard time letting go of some!

;-(
 
22to45 said:
In a FB group I am in a bunch of guys, whom I presume are from south of the border, go on and on about a .270 being a substandard cartridge for big game, and a .243 is far superior. These are elk hunters. I am from northern BC, where the .270 has been a standard cartridge since Jack O'Connor made it famous. I am only 67, and I have been reloading since I was 18, so naturally if I did have a .270 I would be loading it with the bullets of my choice. No one in the group said any of the things I might have expected, like perhaps 130 gr bullets waste a lot of meat, or they do not like long action rifles, or the .243 kicks less, or a .243 rifle is a bit lighter.. They just do not like it. Please, give the .270 a like or a dislike, and if you do not like it, let us know why.
Click to expand...
My answer to your question is, I like the 270 Winchester. I do not dislike any cartridge. Cartridges are designed or redesigned, as the case is with both the .243 and the .270 from the parent cartridges. 308 Winchester and 30-06 Springfield respectively. Both were intended for different game and general use based on the available bullets at their conception. Both were also intended to provide high velocity and reduced recoil compared to the parent bullet cartridge combination.
For anyone to hate or dislike any cartridge is just a false statement. It's mindless drivel and has no sensible or possible conclusion other than pure opinion. Not that opinions don't matter.. they do!
I suspect that your friends on Faceboo are south eastern and don't typically hunt larger deer species in general.. but that's an assumption.
Guns are tools to be used for what they are intended for. Take your pick for what you want to accomplish. Cheers
 
Last edited:
I have 4 270's but was never lucky with them so they stand in the corner. The 270 is ideal for those that don't do ballistics and want to stay under 300yds. For longer ranges I think 280/7x64 is the better cartridge. I had also checked velocity on some factory loads and was very disappointed with 270 speeds. 270 Win has it's place just not for me.
edi
 
We as hunters and shooters are a weird lot. We will "hate" one great cartridge while clinging to another that is practically the same. Most of this bias is often based on nothing more than superstitions and wife's tales from others who have had a bad experience with said chambering often from family or friends.

I personally have no affiliation with the 270 and for no good reason other than I have not had one that I really liked. Had other rifle/chambering combos that I did like and still use. The 7mms are one of these. I've had 7s that shot well, handled well, and most importantly killed game which slants my choice over the 270. Is the 7x57 better than the 270? No, but rational has nothing to do with my choice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom