Why is the .270 dying?

[nm.otter]

Before we all had rangefinders and scopes that dialed correctly, we guessed that the deer was at 300 and if it was at 350, that might be 7" or more error with a .308win. It's more like 4-5" with a .270, a real tangible difference.

Our dads knew this back in the 1970s, but there were still plenty of .30-06 snobs (and of course a few rich guys with Weatherbys).

I got a chuckle reading this https://www.outdoorlife.com/guns/270-winchester-and-6-5-creedmoor/

 

[SDHNTR]

Gotcha, can you explain further on slower twist rates? I haven't heard anyone bring this up before.

The vast majority of .270 Winchesters are 1:10 twisted to shoot traditional tangent ogive 130-150 gr bullets. To make a .277 cal really shine, a heavier and longer secant ogive bullet makes it more ballisticly efficient. Those bullets need a faster twist to stabilize.

 

[roadrunner]

Buyer personna's are being targeted by marketers that fit "gimmick" rifles.

I say "gimmick" as in new and the best thing since sliced bread.

The .270 lacks absolutely nothing. It's not going to die off and fade away anytime soon.

 

[left hunter]

Not dying for me. Since it’s the 100th anniversary of the 270 Winchester that’s all I’m using this year including my upcoming Alaska moose hunt

 

[KU_Geo]

It may not be trendy, but it is truly a versatile cartridge for most of NA game. I’ve killed more animals with a 270 than anything else. But, I do see the advantages of the newer cartridges like 6.5cm, 6.5 & 7mm PRc, and have rifles in those chambers as well. It’s going to be a long time before the 270 fades away. I do think sales of new rifles will likely continue to decline over the next 5-10 years and we may even start to see less rifles chambered in the 270 win.

 

[eric1115]

Gotcha, can you explain further on slower twist rates? I haven't heard anyone bring this up before.

Heavy bullets are long. Heavy, high BC bullets are very long. Long bullets require faster spin to stabilize (think football spiral). Since the earth cooled and cavemen were killing mammoths, the .270 has had a slower twist rate that worked great for the 130 grain bullets everyone used in them. Recently, heavier higher BC bullets have become popular and those require faster twist rates.

Heavy is not really the full story, heavy for caliber is the deal. A 175 grain .30 cal bullet is not heavy for caliber. A 1/10" twist barrel (one full twist every 10" of length) stabilizes that just fine. A 175 grain .277 bullet is much longer, and since the mass is closer to the axis it needs to spin faster to generate the gyroscopic forces needed to stabilize it. A 130 stabilizes in a 10" twist .270, but a 175 needs an 8" twist barrel (give or take). Almost all factory .270's are traditional (slow) twist barrels. Because of that, essentially all factory .270 ammo uses the lighter weight bullets.

Bullet shape matters a bunch, too. A 175 round nose takes a lot less spin to stabilize than a sleek modern 175 grain bullet of the same diameter. That's largely due to the fact that to make that shape, you're taking material from the middle and pushing it to the pointy front and tapered back of the bullet, making it much longer than a same weight cylinder. Any shape has something called "center of pressure" which is its aerodynamic "balance point". If the center of pressure is in front of the center of mass, the bullet wants to tumble. If it's behind the center of mass (the reason for vanes on an arrow) it is stable(ish) without spin. The gyroscopic stability of the spinning bullet keep it from tumbling. The longer and sleeker a bullet is, the further forward its center of pressure will be, and the faster it needs to be spinning to stay stable in flight.

 

[SloppyJ]

I was walking around the gun show with a supergrade m70 in maple chambered in 30-06. I had multiple people stop me to check it out. Every single one of them said "ohh no thanks" when they found out it was a 30-06. I ended up trading it for a really nice 1953 model 70 in .270. It doesnt get much more classic than that.

.270 is a sweet round but the 6.5prc has a few things going for it for the new crowd. It shoots a similar class of bullets when looking at saami spec rifles. I think the big one is that the prc is a short action.

Thats just the low hanging fruit. The BC on the prc is obviously a lot better since they skew more towards the heavy for caliber.

But everyone is spoke with said 270s and 30-06 rifles were the kiss of death and they just dont sell. But what's cooler than a pre64 model 70 chambered in one of those classic cartridges? The answer is nothing.

 

[Q_Sertorius]

I was walking around the gun show with a supergrade m70 in maple chambered in 30-06. I had multiple people stop me to check it out. Every single one of them said "ohh no thanks" when they found out it was a 30-06. I ended up trading it for a really nice 1953 model 70 in .270. It doesnt get much more classic than that.

.270 is a sweet round but the 6.5prc has a few things going for it for the new crowd. It shoots a similar class of bullets when looking at saami spec rifles. I think the big one is that the prc is a short action.

Thats just the low hanging fruit. The BC on the prc is obviously a lot better since they skew more towards the heavy for caliber.

But everyone is spoke with said 270s and 30-06 rifles were the kiss of death and they just dont sell. But what's cooler than a pre64 model 70 chambered in one of those classic cartridges? The answer is nothing.

Tastes and fashions have definitely changed. When I started buying rifles again after my divorce, I was shocked to discover that many of the excellent condition rifles that used to be collectors’ safe queens were selling for less than they would have been 25 years ago. The true top end collectibles are still very expensive, but the shooting quality 90-98% rifles can be had for relatively little.

I regard .30-06 as a “lite magnum.” With modern powder and bullets, I just don’t have a use for a rifle that powerful. Not when I can kill deer just as dead with a relatively diminutive cartridge that is far more enjoyable to shoot a lot.


____________________
“Keep on keepin’ on…”

 

[CMP70306]

It primarily comes down to market trends and industry support. The .277 cal as a whole has not had good support when it comes to bullets and the .270 Winchester is pretty much the only one to gain any wide spread acceptance. It was seen as a good lighter recoiling alternative to the 30-06 with better trajectory but still enough energy for larger game like elk.

In modern times heavy for caliber bullets and long range are the market drivers currently, the standard .270 with its SAAMI designated 10 twist does not work well for this application. This same mistake was made on the .270 WSM and is the reason the 6.8 Western exists despite being nearly identical. Without the faster twist major ammo companies will never make ammo with the high BC bullets as the simply don’t work in standard rifles and it isn’t worth the headache for them to do so. Modern cartridges are speced with the correct twist so there is no such concern from the ammo manufactures.

The other issue is that the industry has settled on the .264 and .284 as more standard calibers offering a much wider range of bullets and cartridges for them. The industry set the .270 as the primary .277 cartridge a century ago and never bother to do much else with the caliber since. Compare than to the .264 and .284 which both have a half dozen relatively common cartridges across the full velocity spectrum and there are simply more options.

A guy into hand loading and building rifles could absolutely make a fast twist .270 to shoot those heavy bullets but it would be a one off not something reproducible on a large scale.

 

[Q_Sertorius]

I suspect that if the military’s silly new 6.8/.277 cartridge survives long enough, that will be good for .277 bullet development.


____________________
“Keep on keepin’ on…”

 

[go_deep]

Alive and well in it house, that's all we use on big game.

 

[taskswap]

The 30-06 has been "dying" for a century, if all you go by is ammo sales numbers. Maybe 270 owners just have enough ammo for now?

 

[johnw3474]

If you were to re-barrel a .270 with a 1:8 twist would it still shoot the 130gr and 150 gr bullets well? I am very ignorant on the subject of PRC calibers, BC , twists rates, etc.

 

[Q_Sertorius]

If you were to re-barrel a .270 with a 1:8 twist would it still shoot the 130gr and 150 gr bullets well? I am very ignorant on the subject of PRC calibers, BC , twists rates, etc.

Almost certainly, “yes.” Bullet length is what really matters for stability.

A shooter could definitely continue to use 150-grain factory ammunition in a 1:8 twist barrel without any issues. I suspect, but have not seen first hand, that a 1:8 .270 would do well with 130-grain bullets. I would not attempt to use the 90- to 115-grain bullets in a 1:8 twist. Those are typically .851 to .959” long.

A Sierra 130-grain Spitzer Boat tail Gameking is 1.13” long. A 130-grain Nosler Ballistic Tip Spitzer is 1.22” long. Those have always shot very well in my 1:10 twist .270.

A Hornady 145-grain ELDX is 1.367” long with a .14” tip. I have not fired it myself, but I believe these are designed for 1:10 twist barrels.

A Speer 150-grain Spitzer BTSP is 1.208” long. A Nosler Ballistic Tip Spitzer is 1.35” long. Both those shoot well in a 1:10 twist rifle.

The Nosler 160-grain Partition Semi-Spitzer is 1.3” long and designed for 1:10 twist barrels. That is why it is not a full spitzer design (semi-spitzer keeps it closer to ideal for 1:10 twist).

A Berger 170-grain EOL is 1.491” long. That will certainly need a 1:8 twist to shoot well, in my opinion.

My guess is that a .277 bullet needs to be less than 1.38-1.4” long to do well in a 1:10” barrel.
____________________
“Keep on keepin’ on…”

 

[S-3 ranch]

I was walking around the gun show with a supergrade m70 in maple chambered in 30-06. I had multiple people stop me to check it out. Every single one of them said "ohh no thanks" when they found out it was a 30-06. I ended up trading it for a really nice 1953 model 70 in .270. It doesnt get much more classic than that.

.270 is a sweet round but the 6.5prc has a few things going for it for the new crowd. It shoots a similar class of bullets when looking at saami spec rifles. I think the big one is that the prc is a short action.

Thats just the low hanging fruit. The BC on the prc is obviously a lot better since they skew more towards the heavy for caliber.

But everyone is spoke with said 270s and 30-06 rifles were the kiss of death and they just dont sell. But what's cooler than a pre64 model 70 chambered in one of those classic cartridges? The answer is nothing.

The 6.5prc and 270win are about as equal as twins with 140gr bullets
I have two 270win 1 a pre64 m70 that shoots sierra 140gr TGK @ about .75 MOA
#2 is a m70 lightweight that shoots Norma Oryx 150 with same results

WTF do we need a 6.5 prc or is it just a Hornady pumped market trick?
270 is doing just fine and has way better bullet choice then a prc

 

[Q_Sertorius]

The 6.5prc and 270win are about as equal as twins with 140gr bullets
I have two 270win 1 a pre64 m70 that shoots sierra 140gr TGK @ above.75 MOA
#2 is a m70 lightweight that shoots Norma Oryx 150 with same results

WTF do we need a 6.5 prc or is it just a Hornady pumped market trick?
270 is doing just fine and has way better bullet choice then a prc
View attachment 916126

Better bullet choice? No. Not hardly. There is a much wider variety of .264 bullets available than .277. Take a look at the JBM Ballistics bullet length list. Even allowing for duplicate entries, .264 entries outnumber .277 entries by a good margin. I would love to see more .277 bullets offered, but right now .264 has more options.

Edit - you should compare the .277 145-grain ELDX with the .264 143-grain ELDX and 147-grain ELDM. I think that is a closer comparison than the 140-grain Accubond.


____________________
“Keep on keepin’ on…”

 

[Rallen]

TLDR: retailers and internet traffic is showing that while .270 is still popular with the existing crowds. It is getting blown out of the water on gun sales by new comers like 6.5 prc and is slowly going to die off. Why?

Background: I've got a couple of rifles that shoot fairly well but aren't the most flat shooting (.308, 6.5 creed, .30-06, etc.) I got looking into new calibers for bucking the wind more to serve as a primarily desert based antelope/mule deer gun where the wind is brutal. I took to the internet and everyone was ranting and raving over the 6.5 PRC which almost got me to buy one until I saw ammo costs. I then went to sportsmans ammo section and filtered by lowest cost and found out that the 270 is nearly the same cost as my current calibers. I then got to researching it and immediately was shocked by how good of a cartridge it is and wondering why I had never heard of it before other than old guys with their wood stocked 1970's beauties claiming it can hit a tick on a coon hound. I realized for my hunting distances is effectively the same as the 6.5 prc and fits my goals pretty well. So, the shopping for a .270 rifle began and I realized very few of the higher end brands are making rifles in .270. In fact, across a few different retailers I've seen 2x the offerings of new rifles in 6.5 PRC vs .270 and only medium to budget rifles (tikka or below) offered in .270. I then asked around and couldn't find any hunting friends under the age of 45 who owned a .270. And none under 50 who actively hunted with it. I tried doing research on the caliber and could find many current posts or marketing for it. The ones I did find just talked about how it hasn't modernized as well as the legacy 30 cals. In fact, everyone points back to jack o conner who died 20ish years before I was born and I had never heard of. This ultimately lead me to believe that while the cartridge is still popular with certain shooters. The internet and retailers are showing that new sales and future generations are moving towards other options.

So, ammo is way cheaper, more plentiful, and it's ballistically equivalent to the modern 6.5 prc for hunting distances, and the same recoil. The only downside is a longer action and lesser chamber tolerances. So, why is it slowly dying? Is it just the marketing machine of "new"? Is it really that much easier to be accurate with the tighter tolerances of newer calibers?

.270 is a great versital round. That was my 1st hunting rifle

 

[TaperPin]

I firmly believe the 270 is a better hunting cartridge than the PRC. The long more tapered design feeds better, does’t develop clickers for no reason, and holds more rounds in an internal magazine. How many posts have been about the 270 not feeding well? None. The no clean crowd should love the SAAMI specs that have more clearance in the neck and throat - how often do we talk about carbon rings in a 270? Never. The PRC is crammed in a short action, so it’s better off in a long action.

Marketing has convinced a generation that short fat cartridges are the only way to have an accurate rifle, yet the factory accuracy of PRCs hasn’t been overwhelmingly better - people are accepting two 1-1/2 MOA 5 round groups stacked on top of each other (or a single 10 round group) as great accuracy. Sorry, but 13 year old me had that level of accuracy with a bone stock Remington ADL 270 and 4x scope back in the late 1970s.

The only benefit to the PRC is it’s a cheaper way to get a 1:8 barrel, but I’d say my $250 1960 Remington with a $400 custom barrel is awfully cheap compared to 3/4 of the rifles on the rack at Scheels, and it will out shoot most of them. Still, most folks don’t need a fast twist since a 140 gr. is a well balanced bullet for anything at least 500 yards and most people can’t hit reliably at 600 other than steel plates on good weather days at the range. I chuckle to myself when someone tries to convince me an extra heavy bullet makes their fancy new inaccurate rifle a better choice at the long distance gongs.

It’s hard to convince someone a 100 year old cartridge is better so those of us who know just keep killing things and ringing those long distance gongs with it. I have an accurate 6.5 PRC, but I still reach for the 270 over it every time.

 

[whoami-72]

Thanks for the info on twist rates being "out of date" in the .270. That is good to know. I guess that falls in line with what I was reading about modern shaped bullets not coming around as fast in the .270 as they are the 30 cals.

 

[SDHNTR]

If you were to re-barrel a .270 with a 1:8 twist would it still shoot the 130gr and 150 gr bullets well? I am very ignorant on the subject of PRC calibers, BC , twists rates, etc.

Yes, especially with any thicker jacketed hunting bullet, and especially with monos.