Help me Buy/Build 270 Win

[cal30_sniper]

Solid. Credo or Credo HX? Magnification?

From the Credo lines, take a good look at the 2-10x36 FFP, SKU CR1036-C-2900038. I have two of them and really like them for what they are. They can be had around $975 occasionally on sale.

Granted, I prefer the TenMile 3-18x44 FFP, but the price has gone way up on those in the last two years. For the price those sell for these days, I'll just pick up a Maven RS1.2 and pocket the extra $400.

I also agree with @Q_Sertorius recommendation to look into the SWFA scopes. You'll save some money vs the Trijicons with comparable features if you go that route.

 

[Q_Sertorius]

I have a SWFA 3-9 on a rifle now that I’m happy with - what Trijicon do you think compares most directly to my SWFA? I wouldn’t mind an illuminated dot and maybe a bit more low light clarity for thick woods whitetails. (Not trying to derail just continuing the OPs scope interest)

Any 3-9x40/42/44 Trijicon is the comparison to the SWFA 3-9x40. From there, you are just adding features. As far as I have encountered and read, every Trijicon has the same rock solid guts.

If low light is really a priority and you don’t mind the larger diameter and heavier weight, then consider a larger objective.

For me, if I am going to add illumination, then I want tritium, not batteries. So, that’s why I like the Accupoint. I will be dead or too old to hunt before it runs out.

The Trijicon website has a great ability to sort. It can be a bit overwhelming, but if you start with something basic and sort by price from low to high, you can usually see what you are getting for your money.


____________________
“Keep on keepin’ on…”

 

[kcm2]

No suppressor but my 270 is similar to what you want. Remington LH action, Lilja #1 contour barrel, 20", fiberglass stock from a defunct company, Garrett Accur-Light, Jewell trigger and Kahles 3x9 American Hunter. 7 lbs loaded. Kills elk out to 519 yards reliably with either partitions or copper bullets. I've taken many elk over 400 yards with it watching escape routes.

Your stock Tikka would go well. You can upgrade over the years, I did. Get the rifle, and a good scope. Add the suppressor, and a Kevlar stock. You should be under budget. Rebarrel later if you wish to get the 1:8 twist. But you're not limited with the 130-150 grain bullets unless you get into the long range stuff. I limit my shots to about 500.

The 130 gr Hornady superformance ammo with the CX bullets chronographs at 3147 in a 20" barrel for me and the bullets are excellent.

 

[Macintosh]

Re: cartridge

Someone mentioned a 6.5cm being equivalent. I understand where that statement comes from, although Im going to disagree…to a degree.

You mentioned “flat shooting” as one of the reasons for picking a 270. As an eastern hunter where a dialing scope is a useless liability 99.9% of the time, a mpbr zero with a flat shooting cartridge makes a lot of sense. Imo a 6.5prc is the modern equivalent of a 270. Very similar case capacity, very similar bore diameter, but designed from the ground up to shoot heavier/higher-bc projectiles. This will more or less only be relevant at ranges longer than your stated goal though. But Id call those two the real equivalents.

That said, I think there is a very good argument that inside that range, especially if you plan to dial for shots 350ish-500yds anyway, that the velocity you gain with a 270 or 6.5prc does more harm than good (ie youre dialing anyway so the flat shooting part isnt providing much benefit, but comes at the expense of extra recoil that can affect your ability to spot hits and keep eyes on game after a shot). A 6.5cm or a 7mm-08 both shoot effectively the same projectiles as a 270 or prc, both retain sufficient velocity for expansion well past 500 yards (assuming lead bullets), but with significantly less recoil. With terminal performance being similar inside 500 yards, in that sense these might also be considered “equivalent”.

A 243 or 6cm could be other options that would combine the flatter trajectory with less recoil.

If you need to or want to use a non-toxic bullet, then one of the higher velocity options could be a benefit, especially with a modern fast twist thats optimized for a slicker-shaped bullet.

 

[Q_Sertorius]

Re: cartridge

Imo a 6.5prc is the modern equivalent of a 270.

If you need to or want to use a non-toxic bullet, then one of the higher velocity options could be a benefit, especially with a modern fast twist thats optimized for a slicker-shaped bullet.

I’m in full agreement with the .270 and 6.5 PRC being near equivalents.

And I reiterate the point about bullets. Don’t start with the cartridge you want to fire. Start with the bullet. If you are insistent upon or required to use monolithic bullets, then start with that and then get the twist and chambering to get that bullet out to your maximum expected range.

A lot of people start out with a big cartridge and then limit the damage by using tougher bullets. I suggest starting with the bullet’s terminal and ballistic performance. Then match the cartridge to it to get it where you want it.


____________________
“Keep on keepin’ on…”

 

[kcm2]

I don't need a dial out to 500 yards. Mine's sighted in 3.5" high at 100 yards with the 130 gr CX Hornardy Superformance ammo.

Here's the (shorthand) drop table out to 500, It's not exactly precise but it's within a couple of inches at 400-500, and it's easy to remember.


100 +3
200+3
300 0 (Actually about 325)
400 -13
500 -30

 

[roobear]

No suppressor but my 270 is similar to what you want. Remington LH action, Lilja #1 contour barrel, 20", fiberglass stock from a defunct company, Garrett Accur-Light, Jewell trigger and Kahles 3x9 American Hunter. 7 lbs loaded. Kills elk out to 519 yards reliably with either partitions or copper bullets. I've taken many elk over 400 yards with it watching escape routes.

Your stock Tikka would go well. You can upgrade over the years, I did. Get the rifle, and a good scope. Add the suppressor, and a Kevlar stock. You should be under budget. Rebarrel later if you wish to get the 1:8 twist. But you're not limited with the 130-150 grain bullets unless you get into the long range stuff. I limit my shots to about 500.

The 130 gr Hornady superformance ammo with the CX bullets chronographs at 3147 in a 20" barrel for me and the bullets are excellent.

10-4. Great info thank you! Had a little reservation about 20” 270 as the 24” is classic and 22” is what O’Connor used. But I’d rather take the hit on speed and protect my hearing

 

[roobear]

Re: cartridge

That said, I think there is a very good argument that inside that range, especially if you plan to dial for shots 350ish-500yds anyway, that the velocity you gain with a 270 or 6.5prc does more harm than good (ie youre dialing anyway so the flat shooting part isnt providing much benefit, but comes at the expense of extra recoil that can affect your ability to spot hits and keep eyes on game after a shot).

I don’t think I’d be dialing. Just memorizing hold overs like @kcm2

 

[nm.otter]

...or get a mil reticle and use quick drop. No dialing required for any remotely reasonable hunting range. 145 ELD-X will do it, but works even better with slipperier 6.5mm slugs.

 

[Macintosh]

Fair enough. I’ve tried relying on holdovers like that pretty extensively and I was not able to be precise enough past 400 yards or so in field practice, especially under time pressure. It would have worked fine for elk, but for deer and antelope sized targets it was a no-go for me because I wasnt able to be as precise and because I made noticeably more errors with any time pressure. Ditto with a “large” mpbr zero like mentioned above. I use a much smaller mpbr zero (.75” at 100yds) and do like it on a rifle that I use exclusively in heavy timber, but I found a big built-in error on top of my wobble at closer ranges caused more problems where most shots happen, than it solved at longer range. I know people do this with good success, but IMO unless youve been doing that for decades already and are so grooved into it that you couldnt change if you wanted to, its not the best way. Thats my “more than 2 cents”, anyway. Regardless, for sure a flatter shooting cartridge will help with either of those approaches.

A dialing setup also allows you to do this, ie do a standard 100yd zero, and you can still easily memorize your holds, and you can easily walk around with .3 or .4 dialed for a 200 yard zero (or whatever you like), and either run with that or dial as it makes sense. All or nearly all of the scopes being suggested are dialing scopes which would give you the option of either approach.

 

[nm.otter]

100% on board with the dialable zero concept. 4DOF and Zero Angle made that feel normal.

 

[kcm2]

I should also mention that I built mine over several years. 700 LH stock rifle first. A few years later, glass stock. A few years later, the Lilja barrel and Jewell trigger. The Kahles scope was discontinued and I got a good deal on it. You can get halfway there and nibble away at getting it just the way you want it.

 

[Lou270]

270 is perfect for your purposes. Works fine with 1-10 and ignore the BS on high BC of newer rounds. If you cant get it done with a 270 bullet of .5 ish BC (or .4 for that matter) no 6.5 is going to help you. Plus while the 6.5 and other newer rounds have been popular for the last couple of years, the 270 has been very popular for the last 100 years. One of the most common world wide cartridges and even if the newer rounds stay popular and zero .270s are made moving forward (270 still a top 10 seller by the way) it will take many decades for any round released to come anywhere near the number of 270s in circulation. Basically at this pount the 270 will have robust factory support in perpetuity. In a couple of years the prcs and whatnot could be a memory just like when they came along and knocked the wsms/noslers etc last generation of new shinies out, but the 270 will still be here with knuckleheads claiming it is dead

Lou

 

[Lou270]

I would go 22.4 and try it. You can always cut it off, but can’t put it back. See if ok for your hunting. I run a can on 270 with 22” barrel and it is fine, at least don’t notice it more than a different rifle with 20” barrel. I have 6.5 crd and 6.8W with 24” (and orher rifles) barrel and suppressor starting to fill a bit cumbersome for me there so it probably depends on you and how you hunt

 

[roobear]

Fair enough. I’ve tried relying on holdovers like that pretty extensively and I was not able to be precise enough past 400 yards or so in field practice, especially under time pressure. It would have worked fine for elk, but for deer and antelope sized targets it was a no-go for me because I wasnt able to be as precise and because I made noticeably more errors with any time pressure. Ditto with a “large” mpbr zero like mentioned above. I use a much smaller mpbr zero (.75” at 100yds) and do like it on a rifle that I use exclusively in heavy timber, but I found a big built-in error on top of my wobble at closer ranges caused more problems where most shots happen, than it solved at longer range. I know people do this with good success, but IMO unless youve been doing that for decades already and are so grooved into it that you couldnt change if you wanted to, its not the best way. Thats my “more than 2 cents”, anyway. Regardless, for sure a flatter shooting cartridge will help with either of those approaches.

A dialing setup also allows you to do this, ie do a standard 100yd zero, and you can still easily memorize your holds, and you can easily walk around with .3 or .4 dialed for a 200 yard zero (or whatever you like), and either run with that or dial as it makes sense. All or nearly all of the scopes being suggested are dialing scopes which would give you the option of either approach.

I’m not gonna lie, this went over my head…can you point me to a video or article that explains what you’re trying to explain? I’m very appreciative of you taking the time to walk me through it, but I’m a little slow sometimes

 

[roobear]

I would go 22.4 and try it. You can always cut it off, but can’t put it back. See if ok for your hunting. I run a can on 270 with 22” barrel and it is fine, at least don’t notice it more than a different rifle with 20” barrel. I have 6.5 crd and 6.8W with 24” (and orher rifles) barrel and suppressor starting to fill a bit cumbersome for me there so it probably depends on you and how you hunt

I think this is the move. I’m leaning 22.4” tikka roughtech with SiCo Scythe Ti suppressor. And either Trijicon Credo HX 2.5-15, Vortex Razor HD LHT 3-15, or Nightforce NXS 2.5-10. I like the vortex and nightforce reticles the most. However, the nightforce on a long action has some peculiarities apparently due to shortness of scope and the vortex has had a bunch of bad write up’s. I know Credo is heavily favored in these forums.

 

[Q_Sertorius]

I think this is the move. I’m leaning 22.4” tikka roughtech with SiCo Scythe Ti suppressor. And either Trijicon Credo HX 2.5-15, Vortex Razor HD LHT 3-15, or Nightforce NXS 2.5-10. I like the vortex and nightforce reticles the most. However, the nightforce on a long action has some peculiarities apparently due to shortness of scope and the vortex has had a bunch of bad write up’s. I know Credo is heavily favored in these forums.

Check out the Scythe failure thread before you get one.


____________________
“Keep on keepin’ on…”

 

[Macintosh]

I’m not gonna lie, this went over my head…can you point me to a video or article that explains what you’re trying to explain? I’m very appreciative of you taking the time to walk me through it, but I’m a little slow sometimes

No worries. I dont have a video, so Ill try to explain. Caveat, this is my experience. Others will disagree. I only bring it up to suggest practicing at range in field situations to really decide for yourself. You have to practice with ALL of these.

3 ways of shooting being discussed to reach to your stated goal of 500 yards. Mpbr (max. point blank range), reticle holdovers, and dialing. Because even a 270 or prc drops around 4 feet at 500 yards so “kentucky windage” would require holding well off of the target itself, so imo isn't a reliable 4th choice.

Mpbr means you sight in x-amount high at 100 yards, the equivalent of a 200, 250, 300 or even 350 yard zero. The idea is that you “build in” an “acceptable amount” of extra elevation at close range which will cause you to hit high, so that past your zero you have an acceptable amount of drop and hit a little low, and you can aim dead-on at any range out to a certain range. I use this minimally and it works well. Some people stretch this very far though—ex a 300 or 350 yard zero. There is so much built-in error at close range (about 4-5 inches on my 270) that when you stack that built in error on top of the other sources of error such as the guns mechanical precision, your wobble shooting in the field, a less than perfect range, etc, I had a significant decrease in hit rate at normal ranges. Some people use a little kentucky windage in combo with this as well. This method for sure works, I just could not hit well enough really stretching it so I personally dont like it. Imo this is a great tool done minimally, its questionable really pushing it without a LOT of practice. Also, I mostly deer hunt, an elk is a much bigger target that might skew the math toward this for some people.

Holdovers are using reticle marks to be more precise with your elevation hold. This eliminates the kentucky windage element, but its very dependent on the exact reticle, and you still have to count reticle marks and estimate in between them. Especially using quick drops (a short rule of thumb to estimate Mil holds based on yardage) this can be fast, where it broke down for me was 1) finding the right balance of reticle marks for precision, that didnt have me counting too high and losing track of my count or the animal, and 2) adjusting and having to re-count reticle marks for a follow up shot or a new yardage. Basically I found that using the reticles I had access to, this was not precise enough at longer ranges if I used a reticle simple enough to not make lots of mistakes in counting hashes under pressure (again, elk vs deer might matter for some people). I also found in the long run it was no faster than dialing once past moderate range.

Dialing is easier to understand. Game is at 460 yards, you dial 2.6mils, hold center of reticle and shoot. Its inarguably the most precise. For me it hasnt been much/any slower where it matters. You have the added benefit of having a reference along the horizontal crosshair to hold wind as well.

As far as using a dialing scope…if you want a mpbr zero, you just dial .4mils and walk around that way. You have your ability to use a mpbr for anything x-range and less, and then for anything farther you just dial whatever you would have dialed. If you want to use a holdover, just dont dial, leave the scope on zero and use the reticle. Or dial. To me it makes perfect sense to mix these as it makes sense, but makes no sense to limit yourself to only one way of doing things. But if you are relying heavily on either holdovers or a mpbr strategy a flatter trajectory will help a little to reduce the error.

 

[Gobihawk]

Buy a LH Savage 110 Timberline in 270 or 280AI. Mount a nice Vortex scope on it. No upgrades required. It will do everything you need. Will have more money for ammo.

 

[roobear]

Check out the Scythe failure thread before you get one.


____________________
“Keep on keepin’ on…”

lol does nothing work in this industry?!