Being the son of a very successful father is no easy task. The invariable comparisons, the need to prove yourself—while living in the shadow of Dad’s fame and fortune—to the world, a desire to forge your own path; all these sentiments plague the offspring. The same concepts apply to the.270 Winchester; definitely the most successful of.Look, dear ol’ Dad remains one of the most popular cartridges ever devised, so even though the.270 was released only 19 years after the ’06 —in 1925, in the —the stellar reputation of the Springfield had already been established.
![Bullet Bullet](/uploads/1/2/5/6/125609250/806263939.jpg)
Who did this kid think he was? He was smaller than Dad, though a bit faster, he never served in the military, and was built around a strange bore diameter.Yet, he was of the new mind set, the one that believed in high velocity and flat trajectories. If you consider the players in 1925—the 7x57 Mauser,.30-’06,.250/3000 Savage, not to mention it was still the lever gun’s heyday—the.270 Win. Seemed rather revolutionary.Using a.277” bullet diameter, and a case 0.050” longer than the Springfield design, the.270 Win. Launched a 130-grain bullet at a muzzle velocity of 3140 fps. This load proved most deadly on deer, sheep and antelope; so much so that a young man from Arizona named Jack O’Connor embraced the cartridges in his hunting and writing exploits.
O’Connor—who would become a staple in, and the gun industry as a whole—took the new cartridge and had all sorts of good adventures. For you younger hunters, if you aren’t familiar with Mr. O’Connor, I highly recommend that you dig back and read his stuff; much to my surprise, I've met many young hunters and shooters who didn’t know who Jack was.While O’Connor used other cartridges—including the 7x57,.30-’06,.375 H&H and.416 Rigby among them—he was synonymous with the.270 Win.
Best Scope For.270 Winchester – Top 4 Optics in 2019 The.270 cartridges were developed by Winchester in 1923, but it wasn’t released onto the market until 1925. The bullet was specifically intended for the bolt-action model 54.
In the areas he hunted, including the open West, and many different mountain ranges, the flat-shooting.270 made all sorts of sense. That 130-grain spitzer load, when zeroed at 200 yards, hits 6.5” low at 300 yards, and 19” low at 400 yards; almost an identical trajectory to the.300 Win.
With a 180-grain bullet. The 150-grain load—moving at a muzzle velocity of right around 2825 fps—gives a bit more drop with the same zero, dropping 7.5” at 300 and 22” at 400 yards. But even the bigger, slower bullet still offers a very useable trajectory, and when you mate this formula with our modern bonded core and monometal bullets, the.270 Win. Is even more effective today than it was in O’Connor’s day.Dimensionally, the.270 shows its lineage by sharing the same 0.473” case-head and 17˚-30’ shoulder angle of the ’06, but where the ‘06’s case length measures 2.494”, designed the.270 case at 2.540”, so it wouldn’t chamber in a.30-’06 Springfield.The 130 and 150-grain slugs are the most popular choices for the.270, with some 140-grain offerings splitting the difference. There are lighter choices—the 90 and 100-grain bullets that make the.270 a viable coyote rifle—and some heavier bullets, but above 150-grains things get tricky.
You see, the.270 Win. Falls victim to the twist rate of the common barrels, much like the.22-250 and.220 Swift.
Most.270 barrels use a 1:10” twist-rate, which generally precludes bullets weighing more than 150-grains. This is the reason that the.270 has not been a true long-range choice, in the modern sense of the term; the twist rate won’t stabilize the heavy-for-caliber, high Ballistic Coefficient bullets that long-range shooters want. The bullets are available—take a look at 170-grain bullet, with a good B.C.—and the cartridge certainly has the moxie to drive them, but they would need a 1:8.5” or faster twist rate to stabilize them.So, if we’re left with a cartridge that uses bullets between 90 and 150-grains—and uses them well—is that such a bad thing? Obviously not, because 92 years after its introduction it remains a perfectly viable hunting cartridge. It lacks the versatile selection of bullets that both the 7mms and.30 calibers have, and doesn’t use the high B.C.
Bullets that the 6.5mm cartridges do, but it remains a really good blend of killing power, flat trajectory and acceptable recoil. It has been chambered in every type of rifle action, from bolt to pump to autoloader, and it’s one of those classic cartridges for which you can find ammunition just about anywhere. Though I was raised to be a.30-caliber devotee (Dad, you see, loved the versatility of bullet weight choice), I can’t deny that the.270 Win.
Is most definitely a contender for the “Best Deer Cartridge” crown.Of all the Springfield’s children, the.270 has had the most success—though it can be argued that the.280 Remington, with a better selection of bullets, is a more useful design. But, design arguments aside, there’s no denying that the.270 has been getting the job done for over 90 years, with very few complaints.Looking for previous installments of Behind the Bullet? We've got you covered.
Gents,I think that the primers used with Re22 were CCI 250s, but I'm away from my reloading data, so I will have to check that out. I know that the data is the same for both Nosler and Speer 130s, but I don't recall if the Sierra data is the same, and I tend to use data from the corresponding manual.IMR 4831 did wonderfully with the Hornady 130s, made the SSTs the real choice, also sub moa, consistantly.
It also turned a couple of the local coyotes into bait at extended ranges.I did load some Sierra 130s just a little while ago, but I used IMR 4350, and while they grouped very well, they printed too high for serious consideration for this season. I'm thinking that the higher pressures where at the cause, but it could have just been one of those things.I'm not sure what the deal is with the Grandslams, both of the other offerings from Speer did great. Does my heart good to find out its just not me.take care fellows.Steve. Thanks for the replies,I have another question, I know that H4831 is a so-called 'extreme' powder, as named by hodgdon, meaning it is un-changed by heat or cold. Do the alliant rifle powders such as R22 have these same features?
Have you guys noticed any changes when shooting in the summer or winter?thanks,vanbuzen9That is what we call marketing my friend.It does show less variation than SOME alternatives.BUT.That only applies to the case it was designed for. As an example: Varget is very stable in the 308, but frankly is a steaming pile in the 223. They do NOT tell you what it was designed to be stable in. The other issue, is in their 'testing' to prove the 'extreme' coatings.
They tell you NOTHING about the test, other than here is the other powders we tested against. In one of the tests, they used a powder that isn't available anymore.So when was it even tested? Doesn't say.All this is NOT to say that a non-extreme powder is junk, NOR that using one in a case not designed for is bad. In some of the data they show in testing, the difference is so small I doubt it is statistically valid.Personally I like Win 760/H414 behind 130gr Hot-Cor's. HOWEVER 760/414 gets not happy when the temps get warm.
You will need to re-shoot if you test in the 60's and suddenly it is in the 80's. If I remember correctly, Jack O'Connor (who pushed the.270 Win to its popularity) favored IMR-4350 and IMR-4831 in that order.Well not exactly.
He wrote in Handloaders Digest,8th edition that he liked IMR-4350 using 55 to 56 grains for 130 gr. He also wrote that he never used IMR-4831. He also wrote he never used the new manufactored H-4831 that we use today.
He used a great deal of military surplus 4831 according to his article. He wrote that 52 grains of 4064 was his varmit load with 100 gr. Jack died in 1978 the same year the 8th edition was published. I,m pretty sure if he would have lived longer he would have discovered IMR-4831 is a fine powder for the.270: regards.