Jump to content
UKV - The Place for Precision Rifle Enthusiasts
ezmobile

.270 Win as a long range target / tactical rifle.

Recommended Posts

Here's one for you to ponder. Has anyone tried to use or build a precision long range target or tactical rifle based around the .270 round?

I only seem to have heard of it as a great deer rifle etc, but with the right bullets, match barrel and all is it something that would work?

any thoughts or experience would be useful

All the best

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've always found .270 Win to be a most unpleasant round to shoot. There's nothing wrong with it accuracy-wise, but it kicks like a mule and has nasty muzzle blast.

 

OK, so all of these negatives can be cured by a good brake and/or suppressor, but why bother with .270 when there are plenty sweeter shooting calibres available such as 6.5x47, 6.5mm Creedmoor, 6.5x55, .308 Win to name but a few.

 

Sorry, but in my opinion it's a pretty pointless exercise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes,it could work-a major shortcoming is the lack of high BC long range target bullets in it's odd calibre. The 270w has not been used much other than as the very good 270w large deer cartridge.

There is also pretty fierce competition from the 280/7mm cartridges,which have been well served with bullets,especially the 7mm,and recently the 284w which simply give nothing away to a 270,and may have equal,even better potential. The 280 rem is everything the 270 is,and a bit more,and is even a better (nothing much in it) deer cartridge....but came a bit later,and does not have the provenance (necked down 30-06,one of the greats,the basis of the 270w),and isn't a popular long range/fclass target number either.

It's not always a completely 'logical' playing field-the currently popular-and rightly so-Fclass cartridge,the 284w ( and Shehane wildcat)

was a complete commercial failure when introduced-but decades lates was picked up by the F class wildcatters/developers as near optimum (at the time).

The 222 Rem mag is a slightly better cartridge than the 223rem but was just a tad long for Stoner's new AR15,so the 223 was designed....when did you last see a 222Rem mag?-killed by the 223rem.... And so it goes,sometimes.

gbal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OP - here's a better question for you ... ... ...

 

Ask yourself why the .270 isn't being used?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I once had a Sako in .270, kicked like a mule, noisy, expensive ammo, accuracy was appalling worst gun/ calibre I've ever owned, the best thing about it was.....absolutely nothing!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a RPA thumb home highland stalker in .270 that I use as a stalking and target rifle, it's stupid accurate with 130 gr nosler ballistic tips. I am going to get some nosler accu bond long range in 150gr, according to the calculator they should be super sonic for over 1500 yards which is more than my 308 can do, I don't get why it's not used more, it's flat and fast and powerful. It does kick without a mod, but just use a mod.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm with andybrock on this one...I hunted with such an abomination in New Zealand. Can't see the point...it was made famous because of its speed and Jack Connor's obsession with it, but give me a 6.5x55 any day over the 270...

 

Finman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then there are the newer short magnum class,Winchester and Remington,in 270 and 7mm,which simply give long range shooters more velocity than cartridges based on the 30-06 (eg 270w)-so they have been both quite popular and successful (they don't quite match the best of the 7mm magnums,but by this performance level,recoil etc is starting to be a limiter to consistent shooting,though some can handle the bigger 30s.

There really is no ballistic mystery-there are simply better cartridges for most long range shooting competition. That is not to say the 270w is a non starter,but it is a non podium finisher.As was the 7rem mag-this class are very fine long range deer cartridges-but simply not quite the equal of the short mags as target numbers.Staying transonic stable is just the beginning of the tough criteria needed-and compeitors understandably see no reason to self handicap.

(recoil in sporting rifles-I found it quite sharp,prefered the 7x57-is not the issue-fclass etc rifle weights tame it,and some of the successful cartridges have indeed more recoil-no,as said-there are simply better cartridges for fclass /similar).But go ahead,try it....just be realistic....the 270w has not been overlooked-like some others,it's been looked over,and found wanting compared to LR class leaders.... :-)

gbal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I liked mine when I had it, the big downside was the lack of bullets compared to other calibres, I've now got a .308 but don't feel like I've lost or gained anything with the change performance wise, better bullet choice though

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rifles pretty much all work. You could "invent" a "new" bore size (say 7.2mm), make barrels, bullets and cartridges for it and it would shoot fine. But ubiquity = popularity and popularity = ubiquity. 5.5mm, 6mm, 6.5mm, 7mm and 7.6mm are common bores and fairly regularly spaced apart. 6.8mm is just a bit inbetweeny so makes bullets and barrels more expensive for not much gain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ezmobile - in theory, there's no reason why the 270Win wouldn't work as your 'precision long-range target rifle'.

 

But ezmobile - you gotta try it to find out.

 

So, that means building a rifle with a benchrest quality action, match barrel etc properly bedded in a good stock - ask Baldie for a rough quote - c. £3500 I would guess.

 

Now, you're gonna ask yourself - "Umm - I'm going to spend £3500 on my 270 Win. theory. This is where the doubt comes in - will it work?

 

Ask yourself - can I get top quality brass? Can I get top quality match bullets in the 175gn range with a high BC? Do I have enough case-capacity to push 'em out at around 3000fps?

 

So maybe now you decide to play safe and put your £3500 into a proven winner - like the 7mmWSM or what have you.

 

Theories are good fun on the forum but when you have to sign the cheque, it gets serious......and that's when the doubt kicks in and you go the same route as the rest of us - and go for what works!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I certainly agree with Vince's points, but I also notice the recurrent 'kicks like a mule' statements - which is exactly what I would have said; there's something about it that makes it one of the most unpleasant rounds to shoot that I've ever shot.

 

Now, here's my pet 'but it's an awesome deer round' theory:

 

Yes, it's a Jack O'Connor thing, but why did they all persuade themselves it was better than the other calibres around at the time?

 

In those days they didn't have easy access to chronos.

 

So, one of the few pieces of ballistic feedback available to them was how it felt to shoot.

 

As many of us have said, it has a disproportionate kick (disproportionate when compared to what we, in the modern world, know it actually does ballistically).

 

But back then, if you picked up a rifle that kicked hard, noticeably harder and less pleasantly than other similar sized rounds (such as 6.5x55 or 275 rigby), the hard kicker had to have more grunt didn't it?

 

and

 

Mentally, once everyone (falsely) ascribed the brutal kick as an indication of 'more power'; it was a simple step for them to persuade themselves that it was doing something different and better.

 

Personally, I think that, just as 6ppc and similar designs have some 'powder column & cartridge shape' magic going on that contributes to their exceptional accuracy, the 270 has the opposite, I think it is the perfect opposite and, in cartridges of that size the 270 is a perfect storm of WRONG powder column and cartridge shape - and hence its ridiculously unpleasant recoil for no ballistic advantage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Manythanks for so many replies & ideas, it was nothing more than an exercise in "why not" thats all. I fully agree that if it was possible it would have been done. regarding recoil, even the good old .308 smacks a bit when fired from a very light stalking rifle but of course fired from a heavy barelled "F class" type rig + brake it would damp it down (I dont imagine a .338 lap mag would make a pleasant light stalking rifle - marry it up to an A.I. though.......) I think maybe the lack of top Sierra M-K type pellets may be one of the reasons, who knows? I wasn't planning on building one, I just wondered why it hadn't been done.

All the best guys

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fair play ezmobile - but if you are looking for a new 'accuracy' round, Brown Dog is right - the starting point would be the case.

 

Many noted accuracy cartridges have similarities - short rather than long (powder-burning consistency?) longish neck, steepish shoulder and no belted magnums.

 

If it has a good capacity, it should be able to burn it when full - some largish cases can't use their full capacity with a heavy bullet.

 

In other words, we are talking 'efficiency'. The 6BR and 6.5x47 for example are very efficient cartridges.

 

Yes - you are correct however - recoil would be tamed in a 22lb F Class rig - but muzzle brakes aren't allowed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ezmobile; asking such questions is how to learn; it might inform a few others too.

 

One bottom line is: it has been done-Google 270w for long range-you will get a fair bit of 'hunting stuff' ,but also "270 for Long Range" by Lucas Beitner (in Long Range Hunting Magazine). HE tried using a specially donated barrel made by Benchmark barrels. Perhaps it's significant that the report lapses into hunting stories,after trying LR target.

You might even try "Overbored'-if you are not already :-). This UKV thread started Oct 18,2012.

 

Recoil has been mentioned,both in practical sporter terms,and ..."theory".

There is something subjectively unpleasant about sporter 270 recoil.But do the figures bear it out:relative recoil factors: based on commercial SAAMI hunting loads

 

270W 1.82

7-08 1.80

7x57 1.68

280R 1.95

7rmag 2.06

30-06 2.19

7WSM 2.06

 

Make of that what you will-but given the popularity of 7WSM,the 270 recoil would not seem prohibitive. I agree it's sharp indeed in a sporter,but then so is 30-06-of course- and 7 rem mag etc.

 

When the 270w appeared-in 1925 note- it did offer better long range (hunting) performance that any other

large game cartridge available.Remember performance was probably a bit less than current ammo-but this was true for every cartridge. It is still a pretty potent number,but is at least 100fps/200ftlb behind,say 270WSM. That velocity difference will not be overlooked by 1000y shooters (100fps is a minimum).

The 270w has been one of the great hunting cartidges; it may be seriously challenged now,but has a real legacy/heritage. I don't like it,but hey! in 1925 it was something else,and better- sales are not the only/best guide to merit,but the 270w does a lot very well-esp in USA. Being 'son of 30-06' would do no harm,and probably rejuvenated sales after WW11 and Garrand experiences,with a bit less recoil-and still no serious high volume/affordable competitor.O'Connor's advocacy was always going to win out over Keith's 'big and slow',for medium to long range hunting,and O'connor could write better (his wife used a 7x7,which O'Connor liked to use,when she would let him,and he also used 30 mags-horses for courses).

The great Warren Page made inroads with his even more persuasive (well,to me) advocacy of the 7mms,as 270 competitors ( Page also develped what became the 243,again horses for courses).

I digress (again)-why the 270 was not explored more deeply decades ago isn't clear-except that the few who were into 1000y class shooting probably were developing the larger,hopefully wind bucking,30 magnums....intersting that current thinking goes to shooting fast 'with the wind' instead of bashing it into submission-as per earlier thread on UKV-the heavy rillfe,fast handling 6BR/Dasher.

Or,the specialist wildcat/proprietary numbers-not forgetting some fine European cartidges.The 1953 7x61 Sharpe and Harte was in the short magnum class (as was the 275 H&H magnum in UK),but there was also the 7 Weatherby mag and others-the 7rem mag being eminently affordable (Rem 700).

270 has always been betwixt and between,and now bettered by the 7mag class,especially the currently hot favourite flavour short magnums (Win and Rem).

Books could be/have been written.

Bottom line: it's been tried,even though 'on paper' it looked marginal.There won't-as VInce says- be a rush in UK to repeat the expense,as there are better 'a priori' and well tested alternatives.

 

Introduced by Jeffrey,in 1919 ,and adopted by the British Match Rifle Committee,the 303 Magnum was designed for long range target shooting,equalling then top 30-06 performance.

 

Not a lot is completely new:but the best,of course,is always a temporary accolade.

 

gbal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Theres some great responses coming up about this and of course by talking about such things we all learn.

Anyway, I'm off to Stickledown this w/end with my .22lr + subs.....any thoughts? (just kidding!!!!!)

 

Be lucky

Eric

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is something subjectively unpleasant about sporter 270 recoil.But do the figures bear it out:relative recoil factors: based on commercial SAAMI hunting loads

 

270W 1.82

7-08 1.80

7x57 1.68

280R 1.95

7rmag 2.06

30-06 2.19

7WSM 2.06

 

 

 

I suspect the recoil impulse (force over time) has a great part in how recoil 'feels' - no idea how it's been integrated into those numbers. (I also think 25-06 is a horrible round to fire - and, to my mind, both 25-06 and 270 are less pleasant than 30-06, where, I have no doubt, theory would indicate they should have 'less' recoil. I suspect they have very high impulse).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've always been of the same opinion, .30-06 being perfectly tolerable whlst it's progenythe .270 and .25-06 are most unpleasant. I think of the .30-06 as an extremely versatile and useful hunting round, whilst it's unpleasant noisy brats are vastly over-rated and disliked by all except those who have them.

 

Admittedly both .270/.25-06 are tamed by use of a good moderator, but this makes an already long rifle (i.e. one with a barel suitable for such a calibre) into an unweildy beast. A highland keeper and rile club pal of mine has recently been issued with a lightweight .25-06 which isn't screw-cut - as you can imagine it's a pig to shoot, rather him than me.

 

Short magnums have been mentioned above - I have a 24" Tikka T3 Super Varmint in .300 WSM which in its original Tupperware® outfit is a bit of a horror on the shoulder/ears, but now that it's in an MDT Tac21 aluminium chassis/stock, it's a pussycat to shoot, no more recoil than my 20" .308 T3 in KRG X-Ray chassis/stock, and both can be tamed even further with a TET Spartan III moderator ... ... ... yes TattooedGun, used WITH bullets and very effective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Matt,agreed -subjectively the offspring 270 and 25-06 are 'kickier' than the parent-which is no pussycat,but less unleasant.But in heavier target/f class rifles the differences are ....err subdued,for all these cartridges- to manageable levels-but not 'low levels' like the gentle nudge from a Dasher.

The "Relative Recoil Factpr ' figures are based on the muzzle momentum of the bullet and expelled powder gas for a typical (SAAMI) loading. The 25-06 comes in at in at 1.57-which 'feels' too low-no one measure can capture something that is also mitigated by rifle weight,stock design,and I suspect 'mental factors' -GI Joe shot the (heavy) Garrand ,so can I). But I would not own the other two-because there are 'milder' options that do just as well. And if the performance of somewhat heavier recoilers is needed,so be it-there are better choices too,30-06 is an easy starter.

The 284 failed in its lever action introduction-plenty clamoured for "270' power in a modern lever,but simply didn't buy it....maybe it didn't kick enough! Go figure the fickleness of the consumer.(to be really fair,it wasn't quite a 270 at either end.)

 

(Ruger might well have just done so -about time they made a consistently accurate, even precise,rifle!)

g

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to jump in again, when it's time to re barrel my 270 what options do I have. Not that I'm not happy with 270 to add.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to jump in again, when it's time to re barrel my 270 what options do I have. Not that I'm not happy with 270 to add.

0.473 case head, so the world really is your oyster. 0.284 Winchester, 6.5-284, 0.308, 6.5x47, 6.5 Creedmoor... the list is quite extensive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I once had a Sako in .270, kicked like a mule, noisy, expensive ammo, accuracy was appalling worst gun/ calibre I've ever owned, the best thing about it was.....absolutely nothing!

I have a 39 year old brno zkk 600 .270..will clover leaf at 100m easy...a fIne well built rifle and very Accurate...dont judge the calibre because of your poor rifle and class all the same -

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These are all great arguments with shooters claiming great performance from their rifles - exmarksman, drop the 'ex' and bring that 270 to Diggle's Fly Shoot next Sunday - we'd all love to see it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.270 is long action.

But there is nothing stopping you from chambering a long action into a short action cartridge is there? Plenty of Tikka T3s out there in short action chamberings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy