Why is the .270 dying?

[UnckleBob]

I look at something like my 6.5x55 Swede and early versions were around 1:7.9 twist for heavy for caliber bullets so they were aware of the advantages. Straight wall cartridges were not uncommon back then coming from the black powder world, but tapered was used probably for feeding reliability. I don't doubt they could have made tighter spec chambers if they wanted. I simply refuse to believe the Mauser brothers couldn't have made tight match chambered rifles, but they were making weapons for war and not target matches. I'd have to assume straight wall cases were tried and rejected for a reason. After all, why wouldn't they want that case volume if they could have gotten it for free? Same for sharp shoulders. This is an obvious design consideration and I just find it hard to believe people like the Mausers, Browning, Garand, Springfield Armory, etc. never considered it. Certainly Ackley proved it out repeatedly.

Great post. After thinking about, I think the limiting factor in the early 1900's was probably the relatively new "smokeless" gun powders of the era. I am pretty sure Brits were using cordite loaded like spaghetti in their WW1 rifles.

From what I can tell, everyone got speed from using long cartridges in what are now considered "long actions" for their military rifles.

 

[Southern Lights]

That twist was because of 160gr round nose bullets- a happy accident that it also works for long, aggressive high BC bullets.




I suppose one can refuse to believe whatever they want, but no- they didn’t have the information we have now, and no they didn’t dismiss it because it didn’t work for ”war”. As for war, the 6.5cm is working just fine in gas guns and machine guns. So too quite a few “modern” designed cases. 300 PRC, Nor a Norma, 338 L and Norma (while being slightly more tapered, certainly aren’t the same as “old” designs.

They weren’t stupid, but it is a continuum- they in no way had what have today. If they did, there would have been the 6.5cm and 6cm in 1910.

I'm not refusing to believe cartridges have improved, but certainly there is not some earth shattering performance envelope between the 6.5CM and 6.5x55 Swede for instance. With identical bullets and modern powders they are indistinguishable on target in my shooting and I own both. The Swede is somewhat faster, but otherwise I can tell no difference in practice. The 6CM is great, but is it really that mind blowing over a 243 in equivalent twist barrels and bullets?

 

[Bluefish]

I'm not refusing to believe cartridges have improved, but certainly there is not some earth shattering performance envelope between the 6.5CM and 6.5x55 Swede for instance. With identical bullets and modern powders they are indistinguishable on target in my shooting and I own both. The Swede is somewhat faster, but otherwise I can tell no difference in practice. The 6CM is great, but is it really that mind blowing over a 243 in equivalent twist barrels and bullets?

There is no magic in cartridge design. If you update old cartridges to faster twists and use heavy for caliber bullets with high bc you may be able to duplicate performance. The difference is you can’t buy factory loads with those bullets or rifles with those fast twists (for the most part). If we could start over today without the mag length limitations of the AR, short actions, and long actions with today’s bullets there would be a lot fewer cartridges.

Since a 270 is basically a necked down 30-06, it should shoot lighter projectiles fast, just like a 25-06. Ok, slightly faster as the bore is bigger so the same pressure gives more velocity. Where the smaller bore beats it is for the same weight bullets BC is higher, same as comparing the 270 to a 30 cal. Go heavy on the 270 to make it equal weight to an 30-06 and it has the potential for better bc with slightly less speed. Same as a 7-08 vs a 308.

 

[MtnW]

I’m not so sure about that. The industry does what it always has, and no- it was not generally understood what modern case and chamber designs did, nor what optimized bullets could do. In 1925 Winchester didn’t go- “you know, the 6.8 western is better at MV ES and SD, accuracy, precision; high BC (what’s that?) bullets extend range and reduce wind drift, and minimum spec chambers increase consistency from rifle to rifle- but we’re after “reliability”””.
No, they made cartridges the way that they always had. The amount of people that understood anything about what we see as modern case designs could have fit at a family dining table in the 1950/60’s.

More disinformation!
There was a very active and innovative shooting community in the 1950-1960 time frame. Have you ever
heard of the 7MM Mashburn/ 7MM Super Mashburn, designed in the 1950’s doing what the modern 7MM STW can do today except they were doing it in the mid 1950’s. Obviously you are not familiar with Warren Page, Bob Hagel, Vernon Speer. I had hunting/shooting/ firearms mentors in the 1970’s-early 80’s that made me aware of what you are saying never happened in the 1950’s . These guys were using 7MM STW type rounds in the 1950’s and actually hunted A LOT!! They also used Vernon Speer’s (Speer Bullets) ballistics lab in Idaho. In those days, shooting publications were quite popular. Wildcat cartridges were always in the forefront of the shooting articles. In those days you didn’t need to wait 10 years to draw a tag. Many hunters hunted mule deer and elk in five or six states, mentors of mine went on 21 day mixed bag hunts killing moose , stone sheep, caribou and the occasional grizzly on the same trip. Guess what? They used 7MM Super Mags , same as todays modern 7MM STW’s .
You need to read some history on cartridge designers , hunters and gun writers of the 1950’s. I suggest Bob Hagel’s “The Game Rifle”. He speaks of never shooting at big game over 600 yards among other ethics on hunting big game.

 

[UnckleBob]

Why?

At that point, I would guess my daughter had shot less than 1/2 box with a centerfire rifle (all with my 6ARC). She had shot a lot of 22LR with my 10/22 in the past, but I wasn't as comfortable with her shooting ability with the 6 ARC as I would have liked. To reduce the risk of her wounding an animal, we limited her to 100 yards.

As for the Hornady Black BTHP ammo, I had never heard of people using it to hunt deer with and I really didn't want a goat rodeo because my daughter took a mediocre/poor shot with a bad hunting bullet. Their BTHP bullet might have been a good or bad choice, but I would not have a way find out in the time I had.

In contrast, I had read about lots of people on this forum using Eld-m's with great success. Everyone, including you, had convinced that the Eldm would be fine and it was more than fine.

 

[ozyclint]

This is news to me. I’ll buy anyone’s dying .270

They're not dying.

 

[Southern Lights]

Great post. After thinking about, I think the limiting factor in the early 1900's was probably the relatively new "smokeless" gun powders of the era. I am pretty sure Brits were using cordite loaded like spaghetti in their WW1 rifles.

From what I can tell, everyone got speed from using long cartridges in what are now considered "long actions" for their military rifles.

The original Winchester load did 130gr. with 3140fps or so. That was blistering fast when it came out and still pretty good even by today's standards. I can get about 2900-2950 with modern 145ELDX loads which is also pretty good. I'm not sure what powder they would have been using, but probably was beyond cordite at that time as I saw references to 4064 type powders, etc. in old reloading data.

The 270 holds about 67 grains of water which is near identical to the 6.5 PRC capacity. So the 270 cases are longer, but you can fit more in the magazine vs. the PRC which went shorter but fatter. They've got to pick their poison I suppose. I like having the extra rounds and long tapered cases feed better in my experience.

 

[Formidilosus]

More disinformation!
There was a very active and innovative shooting community in the 1950-1960 time frame. Have you ever
heard of the 7MM Mashburn/ 7MM Super Mashburn, designed in the 1950’s doing what the modern 7MM STW can do today except they were doing it in the mid 1950’s. Obviously you are not familiar with Warren Page, Bob Hagel, Vernon Speer. I had hunting/shooting/ firearms mentors in the 1970’s-early 80’s that made me aware of what you are saying never happened in the 1950’s . These guys were using 7MM STW type rounds in the 1950’s and actually hunted A LOT!! They also used Vernon Speer’s (Speer Bullets) ballistics lab in Idaho. In those days, shooting publications were quite popular. Wildcat cartridges were always in the forefront of the shooting articles. In those days you didn’t need to wait 10 years to draw a tag. Many hunters hunted mule deer and elk in five or six states, mentors of mine went on 21 day mixed bag hunts killing moose , stone sheep, caribou and the occasional grizzly on the same trip. Guess what? They used 7MM Super Mags , same as todays modern 7MM STW’s .
You need to read some history on cartridge designers , hunters and gun writers of the 1950’s. I suggest Bob Hagel’s “The Game Rifle”. He speaks of never shooting at big game over 600 yards among other ethics on hunting big game.

I have their books and articles sitting beside me. I don’t know what you believe you were responding to, but it wasn’t about what I wrote.

 

[Formidilosus]

At that point, I would guess my daughter had shot less than 1/2 box with a centerfire rifle (all with my 6ARC). She had shot a lot of 22LR with my 10/22 in the past, but I wasn't as comfortable with her shooting ability with the 6 ARC as I would have liked. To reduce the risk of her wounding an animal, we limited her to 100 yards.

As for the Hornady Black BTHP ammo, I had never heard of people using it to hunt deer with and I really didn't want a goat rodeo because my daughter took a mediocre/poor shot with a bad hunting bullet. Their BTHP bullet might have been a good or bad choice, but I would not have a way find out in the time I had.

In contrast, I had read about lots of people on this forum using Eld-m's with great success. Everyone, including you, had convinced that the Eldm would be fine and it was more than fine.

The Hornady 105gr HPBT kills well. It tends to penetrate deeper than most tipped match bullets, but does upset consistently.

 

[Steve300xcw]

At that point, I would guess my daughter had shot less than 1/2 box with a centerfire rifle (all with my 6ARC). She had shot a lot of 22LR with my 10/22 in the past, but I wasn't as comfortable with her shooting ability with the 6 ARC as I would have liked. To reduce the risk of her wounding an animal, we limited her to 100 yards.

As for the Hornady Black BTHP ammo, I had never heard of people using it to hunt deer with and I really didn't want a goat rodeo because my daughter took a mediocre/poor shot with a bad hunting bullet. Their BTHP bullet might have been a good or bad choice, but I would not have a way find out in the time I had.

In contrast, I had read about lots of people on this forum using Eld-m's with great success. Everyone, including you, had convinced that the Eldm would be fine and it was more than fine.

No flies on an ELD......That said a hornady bthp kills the hell outta stuff. Not as soft at an eld. Though its hard to bitch about an animal layin on the ground

 

[JFK]

I love the 270 but it’s a little absurd to think that there haven’t been any meaningful advancements in cartridge design over the last 100 years. If it was being designed today it would no doubt have a faster twist barrel and a better shoulder angle. The 270 doesn’t have the head height to seat ultra long heavy bullets ideally and still fit into a factory magazine.

On the other hand, the number of people that could/would be able to take advantage of a the advantages are tiny. As in almost no one. The readily available 130-150gr .277 bullets going 3,000+fps with a bc above .500 that stabilize just fine in an 1:10 are not the reason someone misses a shot at 0-600 yards.

 

[aachey]

A day late and a dollar short on page 17, BUT I highly doubt this cartridge is dying, it's just not fancy and cool to talk about.

 

[The Guide]

There are typically 4x or more 270 factory loads available vs (PRC or ARC choices) at any place I purchase ammo. At my local Cabela's, they rarely have more than two choices and often only have 1 choice of PRC or ARC load on the shelves.

I have had 6 ARC rifles for a few years now.

Last fall, I got an unexpected, late invitation to take my daughter on my hunt. All of my 6ARC reloads were target loads using MidwayUSA factory second BTHP mystery bullets.

The only load I could locate on the shelves was the Hornady Match load (which worked fine). If they happened to only have the "Black" load in stock, I would have had to pick a different rifle for her.

This year, I don't expect to take either child hunting, but I have a full box of Hornady's Precision Hunter set aside just in case.

The only new cartridge I see lots of choices on the shelves is the 6.5CM. Like the 270, 243, 308, and 30-06, I won't find every possible load on the shelves, but I always see lots of options to pick from.

Maybe I'm just luck or in the know but I have over a dozen shops that are in small towns across Montana where I can go and get ammo for all the "new" cartridges in multiple bullet flavors. Maybe Montana is just different?

Jay

 

[Deere_Man]

Maybe I'm just luck or in the know but I have over a dozen shops that are in small towns across Montana where I can go and get ammo for all the "new" cartridges in multiple bullet flavors. Maybe Montana is just different?

Jay

Yes. I wouldn’t trust most places around here to keep 7 PRC or 300 PRC on the shelf. 6 Creedmoor is becoming more common. 350 Legend is everywhere, even though we are not a straight wall state. It really caught on as a woods cartridge or a youth cartridge, I have one of those myself. But if buying a hunting rifle for long range purposes in mind, I just don’t see something as being a good choice unless there are multiple manufacturers loading ammo for it. It’s a warm fuzzy feeling when you search on Midway for 270 Win and see over 100 results and several are under $30 a box. It is great to see how popular that the 6.5 PRC has become, because that certainly may nudge me into one at some point.

 

[Boarmaster]

Its less popular with new rifle buyers but far from dead or even dying. It will be around well past most of our lifetimes. Rifles last the average hunter a lifetime. I think the OP started the wrong premise. I would gave asked why is the 270 less popular. There're many choices these days. When I got into it most hunters knew about only a small handfull of calibers.

 

[prairieboy]

I don’t need to look it up… I own both calibers.

Barnes 270 110 TTSX is 3000 @ .347BC. Even if you matched my speed you can’t get there BC wise.

My 257 115vld is 3480 @ .483 BC… and it has more gas in it

But to answer the OP question 260/ 6.5 CM killed the 270 because that Adoptation caused plethora of 1-8 twist bullets for all 6.5’s which opened the door to the PRC, RPM, Nos, etc

comparing a ttsx to a berger vld isnt exactly apples to apples, and a 270 can match your speed with a 110.

 

[UnckleBob]

The Hornady 105gr HPBT kills well. It tends to penetrate deeper than most tipped match bullets, but does upset consistently.

View attachment 930375

View attachment 930376

View attachment 930378

Thank you for the information. I had no idea.

 

[Formidilosus]

Thank you for the information. I had no idea.

You’re welcome. The ELD-M and X’s are probably my better for the ARC’s speed, but the 105hr HPBT will do in a pinch.

 

[MtnW]

The amount of people that understood anything about what we see as modern case designs could have fit at a family dining table in the 1950/60’s.

Here is your quoted comment for you to read again. You need to read my original entire post again and then reread again since your comprehension is lacking. You always seem to disregard others when it doesn’t suit what you think is your expert opinion. Seems to be your style to conveniently not remember what you wrote or what you stated when you are challenged.There was way more going on in the 1950’s and 1960’s in cartridge development than today. Dude you are not the expert you claim to be or want to be. Why anyone values your opinions amazes me!

 

[ElPollo]

Once upon a time we thought the internet would change the world for the better. Now it’s just a place to be butt-hurt and indignant over meaningless minutiae and semantics.