Why is the .270 dying?

[slatebuilder]

Yeah but the age of the cartridge doesn’t determine its validity.
Once you get past the shiny wrapper and cool graphics and n some of these new cartridges the 270 performs right there with the best of them.

I agree. However, some people cannot get past marketing. Whether the marketing is good or bad, some people bite on the marketing without doing any further research on a topic.

 

[NorthIdahoDude]

3 major things contribute:

1) Gun nuts reading and obsessing over every last ounce of BC, MV, energy, etc.

2) 100% of the factory rifles I'm aware of are 1:10 twist, so are limited in terms of high-BC bullets they can run.

2a) 100% of the off the shelf pre-fit barrels I'm aware of are 1:10 twist, so if you want a fast twist 270, you are special ordering and waiting a long time.

3) Because of 2, very few bullet makers have put the time and development into creating a wide selection of long sleek high-BC/high accuracy .277 bullets, and the ones that have only make a small number of offerings compared to 6.5 and 7mm and so-on.

So basically, all the gun nuts who obsess over every last thousandths point of BC end up deciding a 7 or 6.5 is better, and the ones that chase MV+BC go with 7PRC/6.5PRC (or 7Mag/6.5-284 if they are old school), and the ones that are less obsessed with MV go with 6.5CM and 7mm-08 (or 260 and 7x57 if they are old school - I'm in the 7x57 camp). That leaves non-gun-nuts buying the 270s and such, and the don't pressure manufacturers to changes points 2 or 3, so... status quo ensues.

My $0.02 - worth what you paid for it.

 

[‘Ike’]

I don’t think anything really dies as far as calibers go…I have one, just doesn’t get shot like it used too! Every time you turn around there’s a new caliber being introduced!

 

[CMP70306]

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
View attachment 916132View attachment 916132

The 6.5 PRC wasn’t originally designed as a hunting cartridge, it was designed for PRS shooting at extended range with reduced wind deflection then people jumped on it for hunting afterwards. In that roll being a short action holds significant advantages when it comes to AICS mags, the most rounds you can get in a standard long action AICS mag is 6 while I can get 11 or 12 rounds in my short action AICS mags with special base plates that aren’t available for long actions.

The .277 caliber is notorious for limited bullet options so I’m not quite sure where you get better bullet choices for the .270.

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.

Better is relative, ballistically they shoot similar bullets at similar speeds with the PRC having the down range advantage due to better BCs. The 6.5 PRC is only “crammed” if you are shooting the 156 class bullets and even then you only pick up a few FPS by loading beyond 2.95”. I had my 6.5 PRC in a long action originally and had to do some mag work to get it to feed right but it worked fine in a short action with the 143gr ELD-X. Hard to argue with 143gr bullets at 3050 fps and an effective range of roughly 900 yards.

Carbon rings are related to higher volume shooting and double base powders, how many .270 shooters are using double base powders and shooting a ton of rounds?

And before you accuse me of looking down on old stuff one of the rifles I carried in deer season was a Pre-War Model 70 that was bastardized into a Palma rifle by the previous owner. It’s chambered in 30-06 and I like it because the Palma sights are tall enough to clear my suppressor and I can load it with the stripper clips from my 1903.

I'd be willing to bet in 20 years from now I'll still be able to find ammo on the shelf for my .270, not sure I'd make that bet on a 6.5 or 7 prc, not that they aren't fine calibers

I wouldn’t bet on not finding 6.5 or 7 PRC, they have sold a ton of rifles and ammo in the past few years and the majority of their purchasers are younger hunters who will be shooting those rifles for a long time.

I don't think 270 is dying. I just think bullet manufacturers are slow to make the heavy high bc bullets. I think that 160-170 grains is the ideal grain weight for elk. And we are just waiting for more bullets than the game king.

A few years ago the military asked for a new 270, this is what got us the 277 sig fury and the 6.8 western. And on paper the 6.8 western is a superior round compared to the 7Prc. Especially when you find out that hornady 7prc data is over inflated. And winchester under loads the 6.8 western.

The only problem here is the hornady marketing team being all stars and the browning marketing team isn't worth their weight in dog shit.

The Hornady data wasn’t over inflated, the issue was the primary power they developed the cartridge with they couldn’t get and as a result they had to find another powder that ended up much slower. I believe they got more of the original power and current lots are back to the original spec.

I’d venture to say 6.8 Western was very much a Winchester ammo decision more so than a Browning one. Browning is already chambering all the PRC cartridges but Winchester makes a bunch more money if they could repurpose the failed .270 WSM into a modern design.

 

[ozyclint]

You are highly confused. God appointed only one… and IT’s the 257 Wby

Negative. The ROAL Reeper used a 270.

 

[E tusk]

While its true the 270 is not part of the "tactical" marketing fad, it is still a very popular cartridge.

Its a very versatile cartridge, and with the addition of higher BC bullets added to the market in the last few years, it's added long range shooting to its resume.

 

[NICKJ]

Always loved 270, seemed like the classic mule deer round. Wanted to buy a model 70 and then was gifted this by a family friend, a sporterized Mauser model 98 in 270…

 

[Lowedown]

Have fun picking out a 270! Its a great cartridge and will handle your needs well! I handled 140s for my wife's Ruger 77 and it shoots great! I put a limbsaver pad on when I cut the old Stockton her length and its a great set up!
Another upside besides cheaper factory ammo is plentiful once fired brass out there for cheap if u ever start reloading

 

[Cdnance]

Always loved 270, seemed like the classic mule deer round. Wanted to buy a model 70 and then was gifted this by a family friend, a sporterized Mauser model 98 in 270…

Very unique stock!
Nice rifle!

 

[UnckleBob]

I have no nostalgia attached to the .270. All l I see is having to commit to a long action standard bolt face and an antiquated looking case design. No advantages when starting from scratch.

1) The "antiquated design," which was based upon military technology,
was optimized to ensure good feeding from a magazine. If a bear charged me and I had to quickly, and reliably, chamber a round to save my life, I would pick a 270 over a 6.5PRC every time.

2) The 270 has a much narrower case than a 6.5 PRC. It allows a typical magazine to hold one extra cartridge vs a 6.5 PRC.

 

[Dougfir]

It's a great round that does a lot of things well. I've got nothing against it and have owned one. That said, it's not surprising to me that it's losing popularity. Two things:

1. Not the greatest bullet selection.
2. There's really no one thing it does better than any other cartridge. Even in the 'jack of all trades' category, it takes a back seat to a couple other cartridges.

 

[TaperPin]

The 6.5 PRC wasn’t originally designed as a hunting cartridge, it was designed for PRS shooting at extended range with reduced wind deflection then people jumped on it for hunting afterwards.

I’m pretty sure Hornady wouldn’t bring out a cartridge if the only shooters were a small group in PRS. I have no doubt that’s what the marketing department would like everyone to believe. It’s following the pattern of the creedmoor - not anything more than a 22-250, 260 Remington, or 243, but call it new and improved and suck sales out of the existing cartridges. It’s not a coincidence that the 6.5 is nearly a ballistic twin of the 270, the 7 PRC matches the 7 Rem mag, and the 300 PRC is not much more than a 300 Win mag. I’m one of those who believe PRC stands for profit reaping cartridge - take the performance of a popular cartridge, convince people its new and improved and even if it isn’t, laugh all the way to the bank. I think it’s a poor design for a hunting cartridge and it seems every week someone posts an issue directly related to the lack of taper to the case, or feeding issues.

 

[whoami-72]

Have fun picking out a 270! Its a great cartridge and will handle your needs well! I handled 140s for my wife's Ruger 77 and it shoots great! I put a limbsaver pad on when I cut the old Stockton her length and its a great set up!
Another upside besides cheaper factory ammo is plentiful once fired brass out there for cheap if u ever start reloading

I did think about that. However, I've gone down the reloading road before and didn't enjoy it. I still have all the stuff and recently switched to shooting the new Norma tip strike in my .308 so I can have good reloading brass. But, I've always been able to find a factory load that suits my needs so I havent found a reason to need to reload.

 

[whoami-72]

That's cool

Always loved 270, seemed like the classic mule deer round. Wanted to buy a model 70 and then was gifted this by a family friend, a sporterized Mauser model 98 in 270…

 

[MtnW]

Bought my first .270 a Ruger tanger while growing up in MT and have had a 270 ever since . When I upgraded went to a custom built pre 64 mod 70. All have been accurate . Probably the best deer and pronghorn cartridge ever.