Standard Cartridge Series - .270 Winchester

[Jay Edward (deceased)]

This cartridge really needs no introduction and it would not surprise me if it was amongst the most owned cartridges in the U.S.

[Daryl (deceased)]

I had one many years ago in a Remington 700 BDL.  I only hunted deer with it once, but did manage to get one.
 
Great cartridge!
 
Az

[swede]

The 270 is my main hunting rifle.I have taken moose,elk and deer with it.I only shoot 150 grain bullets for everything i hunt.

[CAfrica]

This rifle is also very popular in SA.  Personally I have always found the limited range of bullets for this very popular cartridge strange.  Usually it is loaded only in 130 and 150gr. Compare it to the available 6.5 bullets which range from 85gr to 160gr even though the 6.5's seem to be a lot less common.
 
The 270 is a true 7mm (the 7mm calibres have 7.2mm bullets).
 
C

[Jay Edward (deceased)]

OK...I'll throw up a comparison chart of sorts in a new thread.

[swede]

Jay you are right the 7mm and the 270 have  just about the same trajectry. The 270 has just a little less but not much.

[Hunterbug]

My first centerfire rifle was a Savage 110 in 270. I killed my first deer and my first antelope with it. When I was young and foolish I traded it for a double barrel 12ga which I also no longer own. My Grandfather used one for many years in a Pre '64 Model 70 to take everything from coyotes to elk. He gave it to my cousin that doesn't hunt and it sits in his closet.

[Shotgunhemi]

Jay, do you have one of these Standard Cartridge Series thingys for the .30.06 sprg?

[Jay Edward (deceased)]

Jay, do you have one of these Standard Cartridge Series thingys for the .30.06 sprg?

Yes I do...we lost the original database and we're trying to re-build it.  I'm re-posting all the cartridges in order.  This will go on all through the winter and should make for some interesting reading and discussion.  But I'll get to it SGH...I promise.

[Shotgunhemi]

Cool. Looking foward to it. I find your posts very informative and interesting. Good stuff:)

[Brithunter]

Hi All,
 
      Well the first sporting rifle I ever brought, in fact the first rifle I ever brought was and is a 270 Winchester. The rifle is a BSA CF2 Stutzen (full stocked) which I still have, and the 270 Win has been my unluckest cartridge:confused:  despite being the first it's the one I have not shot anything live with:mad:  I just never seem to get the right shot opertunity when I am carrying the 270's I now have two of them, both BSA's the other is an older Majestic Featherweight Delux.
 
     Like for instance, I am walking through the small wood, it's just getting light and as I pass the large Holly bush, I hear the sound of large animals moving through the floor litter in the wood. so I stop and wait sure enough about 35 yards away a Fallow Doe pops out onto the track behind me, I look at her throught her scope she looks at me and snorts and stamps. An easy shot for sure.................... But!............... Fallow Does are not ins season AND directly behind her some 150 yards back through the brush is the neighbours Bungalow. A definate no-shoot situation on two counts. And that's the way its' been with the 270's plenty of Beasties have been lined up on, but they are always in the wrong place for a safe shot of out of season or the wrong beast. I don't seem to have this problem with other cartridges.

[gitano]

The very first firearm I bought with money I personaly earned was a brand new 1963 Winchester in .270. Both saint O'Connor and my older bother said it was "the best" cartridge. Who was I to argue with two such experts. I shot several moose and sheep using 150 grain handloads from the old manual Lee Loader. Had that rifle and a Mossberg Model 85 .410 (the gun with which I learned to wingshoot - dove) stolen from me. Never replaced either. I'd probably replace the Model 85 first.
 
The .270 is only a .30-06 in .277 clothing. As such, it recoils evey bit as much as an '06 shooting a bullet of equal weight. Few rifles I have owned recoil as much as that .270 did. Furthermore, my attitude toward Jack O'Connor and his opinion has changed. He influences my firearms decisions in a different direction these days. Kinda wish I still had that .270, but only for nostalgia's sake.
 
Paul

[kombi1976]

The .270 is only a .30-06 in .277 clothing. As such, it recoils evey bit as much as an '06 shooting a bullet of equal weight. Few rifles I have owned recoil as much as that .270 did. Furthermore, my attitude toward Jack O'Connor and his opinion has changed. He influences my firearms decisions in a different direction these days. Paul

That's pretty strong feeling towards Jack O'Connor. Which other experiences, apart from the .270, brought you to this opinion?
Can you give some examples of where you went the other way compared to O'Connor?

[gitano]

Don't really wanna get into a spittin' contest over favorite "outdoor writers'.
 
On the 'front end' Jack O'Connor and I were at the same place at the same time. He was VERY popular in the 50's and most of us, particularly us young ones were easily influenced. He influenced my brother, and my brother influenced me to be influenced by Jack O'Connor.
 
On the "back side", because I "liked" Jack O'Connor, ("like" meaning I did NOT review his comments with a critical eye), I read everything I could get my hands on not only BY him but also ABOUT him. The more I read about him, the less I liked him. The less I "liked" him the more objectively I reviewed his work. The more objectively I reviewed his work, the less I liked him....
 
He is not "the worst outdoor writer of all time", but he is, in my opinion, certainly among the dregs. All of this only my opinionof course.
 
Paul

[NUMBERFARMER]

I don't know anything about Jack O'Connor or for that matter who he is, but I do know that the 270 win has been a fine firearm for all uses in my part of the country.  It is a pretty darn good varmint rifle, great on coyotes, deer, antelope, and elk.  It has good velocity and offers a lot in the flat trajectory department.  Mine likes H4831   and 140 or 150 grain bullets.  I only wish I could still find some of the heavier 270 bullets that used to be available.  It is no miracle cartiridge, but the improvements offered by newer cartridges aren't all that great.  The 06 case seems to still be competitive at whatever caliber you would like to size it to.

[swede]

If you are looking for aheavier bullet nosler has a 160 grain bullet.

[Hunterbug]

Barnes also offers a 180gr Origional but it's a RN, not really a reach out type bullet.

[CAfrica]

HB,
 
I think that should be Barnes "used to" produce that bullet.  They have discontinued a number of the "Original" bullets. Their latest catalogue no longer lists an original under the 270 calibre.
 
I used their 250gr original in my 30-06 but this has also been discontinued.
 
You are right that these are not "reach out" bullets, they are primarily for close work and as a result of the lower velocities, you get much reduced meat damage in close hunting situations. My 250gr 30-06 bullets leave the Muzzle at "only" 2100ft/s.  I now use a local 250gr bullet which I prefer over the Barnes.  The Barnes original is prone to jacket core separation.  The local bullet has a bonded core.  It also has a profile which allows me to seat it further out whereas the Barnes doesn't allow that.
 
C

[Hunterbug]

CAfrica, you are correct. I was just looking at my Barnes reloading manual and it still listed the 180gr Origional. They still make a few but most have been discontinued.

[NUMBERFARMER]

Actually the 180 grain bullet is the one I was referring to.  It is no barn burner, but for certain situations it is very effective.  I guess I like speed, but I like the heavy bullets too.  They both seem to have their place of use.

[klallen]

Never did like the .270 Win much.  Same category as the '06, as far as I'm concerned.  To "old school".  To many folks saying ya GOTTA have one.  To "middle-of-the-road", as performance goes.
 
Bought myself one a while back.  Rifle it came in really caught my eye but thought it would be educational to work with the round from the reloading bench, too.  Been hunting with it.  I feel pretty much the same.  Love the rifle, but when I grab something to go hunting with, the .270's left behind 9 times out of 10.  Not because it doesn't work.  It's never failed me in the field.  I've just got other things that     ...     move me more then the .270 does  ;o)  .  Later.  >>  klallen

[M1Garand]

Let me guess you're one of those guys who overkills deer and bought into the marketing strategy and picked up one of the new 300 WSM, SAUM, Ultra mag magnums because you suddenly felt undergunned?

[klallen]

Never bought into the term overkill. The '06 fit the popular definition of the term back in the old days when the .30-30 was all you needed to hunt deer. Today the magnums are labeled as such for the same reason. No matter when it's been used, it's been nothing more then a catch phrase by the minimalist cartridge supporters. It's just a term of convenience, meaning nothing. As such, I don't mind when folks use it.
 
I hunt deer with cartridges that give me what I want, performance wise. That's pretty much the long and short of it. This most certainly does include the .300 magnums (and a large one at that) but also the .264 magnums, .284 magnums, .358 magnums. But it does not exclude things like the .25-06, .280 Ack. Imp., .307 Win. ... handgun cartridges like the .375 SuperMag, .44 RemMag, .454 Casull. In other-words, I'm not what you'd call a one dimensional hunter.  That said, when I hit the field wanting to carry something performance minded, it isn't a standard cartridge that I'm carrying. Take care. >> klallen

[M1Garand]

Sorry to disagree with you and I realize that everyone has their favorite rifles, but a 300 magnum is overkill on deer. They are not hard to kill when you choose your shots well and place them accordingly. There may be situations where a 300 mag is more suited but about the only reason I can think of is if you're shooting deer at extreme ranges and even then, how many hunters have the skill to make a clean kill at 600 yards? If you shoot well with your 300 mag, then that's great, more power to you. Just IMO, for general deer hunting, it's overkill and a 30-06 is the upper limit of power needed for a deer in most situations. That and any number of calibers has the performance that will kill a deer just as dead at 300 yards as any of the 300 super-marketed-mags. Most also shoot them better.

[klallen]

No need appologizing. You have your thoughts. I've mine. I might think you're completely wrong, but I won't hold that against ya.
 
One thing I don't care for, though, is when folks take it upon themselves to tell others what is and is not needed for hunting. Always seemed to me a bit foolish for one to assume himself the almighty decider on what should and should not be used while hunting. Yet so many jump at the chance to do so. Strange.
 
On the topic of over-kill (man I hate that word), the notion of this words validity seems competely obsurd to me when you consider the ease with which a .22-250 or .243 can dispatch even the largest of deer. Knowing this, and staying with your theme, it would stand to reason that anything larger then a .243 Win. would have to be considered over-kill on deer.
 
So why do we use larger? Simple. #1 Because we can. #2 Insurance.
 
I believe heavily in insurance. It's why folks use the .30-06 over the .30-30. Why I use mangums over the standards. Just to give a little "more". Regardless of whether that "more" wanted translates itself into the form of penetration or wind drift capability or energy or trajectory or baing able to use a heavier bullet ... on any given shot confronted, when you need "more", it's offered by magnums. That's why I like them. Well ... that and the fact that so many say that I don't need them. I like going against the common flow of things any time I can. Never been one to follow the crowd with regards to my rifle buying. I take a bit of pride in that. >> klallen

[Hunterbug]

I am going to have to agree with klallen on this one. There is no such thing as over kill. Is the extra power necessary for deer? Usually not. Does it hurt to have it? No. If your shots are 100 yards or less then you don't need a 300 Mag for deer but if your shots are 300 yards and farther the extra power does help. And for thoes of us that hunt elk that extra power is a real help. Also, you can down load a larger caliber for thoes times when you don't need the extra power but you can't load up the smaller caliber for thoes times when you do need it.

[Brithunter]

Hi All,

      Well personaly I could give a diddly squat what you use to shoot your deer with, the only thing I care about is the fact that the animal is taken cleanly;)
 
     My hunting buddy used a .300 WM last year to take his 10 point Whitetail in Northern Missouri, the shot was only about 75 yards, he had sighted in for 200 yards expecting a longer shot but in the end it was a short range shot.  Now he normaly uses a 6.5x55 Swede in a Ruger 77 but it was not shootign as well as it normaly did for soem reason, I suspect he got a duff box of bullets:confused: . The Sako .300 WM got the call a week before the season started jsut so he could be confidant in the fact it was printing the bullets in the right place;) now even with the .300 WM and using 180 grn Nosler Ballistic Tips ( the load he had developed years ago), a goodshot whichcaught the right elbow going in as the Buck walked slowly, took out the heart/lungs and broke the left led on exit. The buck STILL went 30 or so yards into the scrub at the field edge.
 
     Also there is no deader than dead!
 
     The year before he got an 11 pointer at a measured 325 paces with the 6.5 Ruger 77:D  he shoots very well and competes in high power 600 yards matches and does bench rest as well, plenty of practice makes for confident shooting.
 
      I no longer have a .300 WM as I traded it in a deal to get hold of 4 collectable rifles and needed to trade 3 rifles to get the deal, the .300 WM Ruger No1 was one of them and that's the only reason I have no longer got a .300 WM. Still have ammo for it in the cabinet! I use what ever I feel like on the day and what I have ammo for on hand which the rifle is sighted in for. Last year in Missouri it was a 7x57 BSA CF2 rifle which got the call, but it could have been any of the following cartidges:-
 
6.5x54MS
 
6.5x55 SE
 
270 Win
 
.308 Win
 
30-30 Win (using 130 grn spitzers as it's a bolt action)
 
.303 british
 
7.92 (8x57)
 
9.3x57
 
     Perhaps I should stick with one rifle/cartridge combination but I like to give my different rifles the outings, it's all aprt of the fun. All the above rifles are sporting ones no military ones even though I have few of them, I kept this thread to sporting rifles as seems fit! if some one wants to use a weatherby 30-378 and shoot Deer with it, providing that they can hit the deer properly.............. well then it's up to them and none of mine of anyone elses business:p

[M1Garand]

All very good points esp. the point regarding anything over a .243 can be considered "over-kill" because there was a time I thought that was an ideal caliber for deer and everything over could be considered excessive. But I won't pull a Kerry and flip-flop dammit! LOL. I guess regarding my point on the term "overkill" maybe there is no such thing as long as you shoot well and take animals cleanly, but if you'd ran into someone in the field who was deer hunting with either a .416 or .458 Mag, how would you view that or what term would you use (besides a glutton for punishment)? BTW, I invited my uncle to our deer camp to hunt this year and he's using a .338 Win Mag. But I think that's the only rifle he has to use other than an old German sniper rifle in 8mm Mauser his dad brought home from WWII.

[klallen]

"if you'd ran into someone in the field who was deer hunting with either a .416 or .458 Mag, how would you view that or what term would you use"
 
Well prepared ????? ;o) LOL !!!
 
I understand the point you're getting at M1GARAND. And I tend to agree with you, deer are not hard to bring down. And for most shots confronted in the field and most areas hunted by the majority, standards will work wonderfully.
 
All I know is where I hunt. And there, I know that at any point in time I can be facing a shot on game where I'm thrilled to be shouldering a 7.82 Warbird over a .30-06 or a 7mm RUM over a 7mm Mauser or ... you get the idea. I certainly don't need the performance provided on every single shot that I face in the field. That's kind of irrelavent though. Idea for me is being prepared for those special shots that require something more.
 
Either way, that's what I like.  If standards work for you and the shots on game that you see, you've made the correct decision in sticking with them. And I hope they continue to work for you in the future. Chat with ya later. >> kallen

[M1Garand]

Well thanks for the insight from a different perspective, I have to say that I'd much rather see someone with some extra horsepower rather than something with not enough such as the .22 centerfire's. Though I know it's been done, to me, that's asking for a wounded deer.

[Brithunter]

Hi All,

    Again it all depends on the situations, on another forum I go on there is a guy who is culling on a professional basis, for some of this he uses a 22-250, now this is from a steady rested position and the shots are mainly head and neck ones, for him in that situation it works, another time when he was walking the woods he took a 45/70 single shot and that too worked, use the right tool in the right situation and everythign is well.

[M1Garand]

Well, like I said, it's been done and if he's taking head/neck shots and he's a pro I'm sure he know's what he's doing.  Heck there's guys who have shot deer with .22 LR's.  But for general hunting I wouldn't recommend a .22 centerfire.

[swede]

The rifle i use for most of my hunting is a 270 winchester. I have taken deer, moose, elk and bear. I am quite comfortable shooting at all this game with it. So i see no reason to change to a another rifle to hunt these animals. But i know guys that use 338 magnums and 300 hundred magnums. They say i am under gunned for elk and moose yet when we hunt i take the same amount of game as them.

[Brithunter]

Hi swede,
 
     Now surely you must be mistaken:eek:  how can you do as well when so seriously undergunned????
 
    :D it must be the "nut behind the but" that makes the difference?
 
     More power to you, and keep up the good work;)

[gitano]

I have to say that I'd much rather see someone with some extra horsepower rather than something with not enough such as the .22 centerfire's. Though I know it's been done, to me, that's asking for a wounded deer.

I'm not looking for a fight here M!1, but correct me where I'm wrong. You "took on" klallen for being over-gunned with a .30 caliber (magnum albeit), and stated

and a 30-06 is the upper limit of power needed for a deer

, further suggesting that a .243 was "plenty" adding

esp. the point regarding anything over a .243 can be considered "over-kill" because there was a time I thought that was an ideal caliber for deer and everything over could be considered excessive.

. You also think anything in the .22 caliber is "too small". Let's see, I don't know of any commercially available chamberings above .22 and below .243. Doesn't really leave much room "to move".
 
Paul

[M1Garand]

I didn't word that right and walked into that, LOL....What I meant was I used to believe the .243 was perfect powered for whitetail and that as you moved up, the power started gradually getting excessive. I should have added somewhere that IMO it should be considered the minimum caliber for the general hunter. But in my defense....key words: "there was a time"...past tense. At that time I would've been ok with .22's being used for deer but that was a long time ago and I've learned a lot since and have seen deer shot with .22's and wasn't impressed.

[gitano]

I did note the past tense of your .243 comment M1. I was just having a little fun at your expense. :)
 
Paul

[M1Garand]

Yeah, yeah, I should have guessed as much..:D