Why is the .270 dying?

[ORJoe]

Most shooters can't take advantage of what newer cartridges do better than .270

If you follow that logic to the end, then .270 isn't the answer because most shooters can't take advantage of what .270 does better than .223.

 

[Q_Sertorius]

If you follow that logic to the end, then .270 isn't the answer because most shooters can't take advantage of what .270 does better than .223.

Well, .224 cartridges aren’t legal for game animals everywhere and it is a relatively small number of hunters who understand the effectiveness of .224 cartridges on game animals.

The .270 doesn’t have to be “the answer.” It just has to be “an answer.” Of which there is no doubt. Elmer Keith was definitively wrong when he said the .270 was merely a “damned adequate coyote cartridge.” In the last seventy years, we have gone from campfire bickering over whether .270 was “enough gun” to the point where for many people it is too much gun. But I expect our children will still be having this conversation 50 years from now.


____________________
“Keep on keepin’ on…”

 

[Tanner]

I long

But what is the use case for a 6.5/06 or 280 vs a .270? Apart from on paper superiority, what hunting task will they perform significantly better? Kill a deer at a maximum of 700 yards instead of 600 yards?

To me, “Apples to apples” means comparing cartridge and bullet effectiveness at a given role. And that role, for most people, is going to be shooting deer/antelope/elk/black bear/etc at ranges under 500 yards. With 500 yards being a rather rare maximum range under field conditions for most hunters (excluding the masses of hunters who shouldn’t be shooting past 50 yards).

I sometimes hunt with a .270 and will likely do so for a long time, but to me it offers no significant advantage over a .243. The .243 will kill deer just as dead out to 550 yards, which is 200 yards further than I have ever killed a deer and probably 450 yards more than my average deer.

If the .270 dies, which I think doubtful, it will be buried by hunters realizing that the .224 and .243 cartridges do the “normal job” of killing deer and other common game animals just as well as it does.


____________________
“Keep on keepin’ on…”

The 270 is absolutely great if you are fine with leaving free performance on the table.

 

[Q_Sertorius]

I long

The 270 is absolutely great if you are fine with leaving free performance on the table.

What “free performance?”


____________________
“Keep on keepin’ on…”

 

[khuber84]

Ev

I long

The 270 is absolutely great if you are fine with leaving free performance on the table.

Everyone here raves about the 108 eldm.........it has the same exact bc as........the 145 eldX in 277. If they leave the muzzle within 50fps of one another, you have the exact same rifle, accept one has a fair bit more recoil. If you're calling recoil lost performance? I'd say it's an unnecessary consequence of choosing the 270 VS a 6cm, but the bullets will fly the same. I don't have a 270 win.

 

[Tanner]

the increased BC and SD and increased selection of said projectiles in 6.5mm.

What “free performance?”


____________________
“Keep on keepin’ on…”

 

[Tanner]

Ev
Everyone here raves about the 108 eldm.........it has the same exact bc as........the 145 eldX in 277. If they leave the muzzle within 50fps of one another, you have the exact same rifle, accept one has a fair bit more recoil. If you're calling recoil lost performance? I'd say it's an unnecessary consequence of choosing the 270 VS a 6cm, but the bullets will fly the same. I don't have a 270 win.
View attachment 917003View attachment 917004

Unnecessary consequence I would say is a perfect description of that situation.

 

[Q_Sertorius]

Ev
Everyone here raves about the 108 eldm.........it has the same exact bc as........the 145 eldX in 277. If they leave the muzzle within 50fps of one another, you have the exact same rifle, accept one has a fair bit more recoil. If you're calling recoil lost performance? I'd say it's an unnecessary consequence of choosing the 270 VS a 6cm, but the bullets will fly the same. I don't have a 270 win.
View attachment 917003View attachment 917004

The .270 isn’t dying, but this is why it should die.

Of course, I will keep shooting it for a while.

It seems apropos that this is what came in the mail last night:

PS - I am hopeful that our kids can have this same conversation in this same thread.
____________________
“Keep on keepin’ on…”

 

[Bluefish]

Ev
Everyone here raves about the 108 eldm.........it has the same exact bc as........the 145 eldX in 277. If they leave the muzzle within 50fps of one another, you have the exact same rifle, accept one has a fair bit more recoil. If you're calling recoil lost performance? I'd say it's an unnecessary consequence of choosing the 270 VS a 6cm, but the bullets will fly the same. I don't have a 270 win.

Or 25 cm, same mv as the 145, higher bc, less powder, less wind deflection, less drop, lower recoil. newer cartridges can offer better performance. If you have a 270 is it a reason to change, probably not, but if buying a new rifle it might be.

 

[Cdnance]

The .270 isn’t dying, but this is why it should die.

Of course, I will keep shooting it for a while.

It seems apropos that this is what came in the mail last night:

PS - I am hopeful that our kids can have this same conversation in this same thread.
____________________
“Keep on keepin’ on…”

So… I have a love hate with that very shell! I had two back to back failure to fire. But then again, I’ve also dropped a few dozen deer with it having no other issue.
Nice purchase!

 

[Lou270]

Ev
Everyone here raves about the 108 eldm.........it has the same exact bc as........the 145 eldX in 277. If they leave the muzzle within 50fps of one another, you have the exact same rifle, accept one has a fair bit more recoil. If you're calling recoil lost performance? I'd say it's an unnecessary consequence of choosing the 270 VS a 6cm, but the bullets will fly the same. I don't have a 270 win.
View attachment 917003View attachment 917004

This was a point I made earlier. The 1-10 270 bullets have similar or better BC as the 1-7/1-8 BC 6mm and 22 cal bullets worshipped here. If BC is a problem with 270 1-10 it is a BC problem with ALL the 22/6mms as well whether fast twist or not

The 1-8 270 bullets are similar BC to equivalient 6.5/7mm 1-8 bullets. And there are plenty of .27 cal bullets if want to go this route whether custom 270 or factory 6.8.

Lou

 

[FredH]

Same with browning now having an 8tw 7rem mag, trickle down of 7prc.

The fuds can dislike or not understand the new cartridges, but they're still pulling the old war horses into the modern era.

That comment makes zero sense. Modern era? You mean what exactly? Tipped match bullets, excessive meat damage, short barrels and suppressors? Setting up shots at long range because you feel that is better than stalking into easy range? Yep must be a Gen Z weasel thing.

 

[FredH]

T

I believe the question at hand is “why is the .270 dying”…. And it’s dying because there are cartridges that offer way more for way less. I have nothing against a .270 and have killed plenty with ‘em but they don’t reside in my safe anymore as the bang no longer matches the buck.

And I suppose if you really want an apples~apples comparison for bullet performance you’d want to punch in a number corresponding to a 6.5/06 with a 147 or a 280 with a 180 see how badly it whoops up on a .270 again…

The 270 isn't going away. It will be here long after the plastic tipped match bullets have fallen out of favor because controlled expanding bullets are just better hunting tools. And when people figure out BC numbers over 500 are not really needed by the vast majority of hunters. I take far more pride in getting inside a hundred yards of an elk than sitting on a hillside for hours, getting a range with a rangefinder, consulting drop figures to either dial or figure out which dot to to use and hoping my bullet expands at 1800 fps. To add wind variability into the equation being the hardest part. Don't have that issue up close. While ballistic coefficients have never been as high as they are now the very soft bullet fad has come and gone several times. Back in the 60's and 70's Hornady used to put out bullet adds bragging about how their bullets stayed in the animal. Sierra, Remington, Winchester all had bullets that were designed to expand dramatically. I am all for quick expansion but I like weight retention also. I get that from most bullets. The lack thereof does not make a bullet better.

 

[LongWayAround]

That comment makes zero sense. Modern era? You mean what exactly? Tipped match bullets, excessive meat damage, short barrels and suppressors? Setting up shots at long range because you feel that is better than stalking into easy range? Yep must be a Gen Z weasel thing.

Yea, don't we all cry when we trim off a little bit of shoulder meat. 200lb of elk meat but I lost 8oz of shoulder. Not sure how we'll survive the winter...

Must be a weasel thing.

You must shoot a Sharps with paper cartridges. Ya know, cuz technology sucks.

Keep clutching your pearls. We'll keep killing stuff with those new fangled tipped bullets.

 

[FredH]

Yea, don't we all cry when we trim off a little bit of shoulder meat. 200lb of elk meat but I lost 8oz of shoulder. Not sure how we'll survive the winter...

Must be a weasel thing.

You must shoot a Sharps with paper cartridges. Ya know, cuz technology sucks.

Keep clutching your pearls. We'll keep killing stuff with those new fangled tipped bullets.

So actual hunting wasn't even a consideration of yours, stalking is the best part of hunting. Ya missed the point didn't you?

 

[FredH]

But what is the use case for a 6.5/06 or 280 vs a .270? Apart from on paper superiority, what hunting task will they perform significantly better? Kill a deer at a maximum of 700 yards instead of 600 yards?

To me, “Apples to apples” means comparing cartridge and bullet effectiveness at a given role. And that role, for most people, is going to be shooting deer/antelope/elk/black bear/etc at ranges under 500 yards. With 500 yards being a rather rare maximum range under field conditions for most hunters (excluding the masses of hunters who shouldn’t be shooting past 50 yards).

I sometimes hunt with a .270 and will likely do so for a long time, but to me it offers no significant advantage over a .243. The .243 will kill deer just as dead out to 550 yards, which is 200 yards further than I have ever killed a deer and probably 450 yards more than my average deer.

If the .270 dies, which I think doubtful, it will be buried by hunters realizing that the .224 and .243 cartridges do the “normal job” of killing deer and other common game animals just as well as it does.


____________________
“Keep on keepin’ on…”

I agree that both the .224 and .243 rifles will kill deer effectively. I don't see them being the best tools for all deer hunting. I have experienced hitting deer that didn't go down nearly as fast as they would have if shot with a 30-30 and left very little blood in that hundred yard sprint. Fortunately I have generally had a good dog that finds deer no problems and even has dragged deer out of blackberry patches. Good old Amber, RIP what a heck of a dog. On the other hand I have dropped a lot of deer where they stood because I took CNS hits to heart. I don't take running shots with my light rifles either. I can say that I have never lost a deer hit with either a 223 or a 243, some have required more than one shot, but I have seen more than a few tracking jobs from others that have ended up with the deer getting across the property line after traveling hundreds of yards. If I had to choose one rifle out of the three that could cover all aspects of my deer hunting it would certainly be one of my 270's.

 

[LongWayAround]

Hah

So actual hunting wasn't even a consideration of yours, stalking is the best part of hunting. Ya missed the point didn't you?

Yea, no actual hunting for me...

I've probably killed more animals archery hunting than with a rifle, but don't let that stop you.

Keep clutching those pearls.

 

[FredH]

Hah

Yea, no actual hunting for me...

I've probably killed more animals archery hunting than with a rifle, but don't let that stop you.

Keep clutching those pearls.

Pearls? Tell me all about this modern era? I do most of my rifle hunting from my archery stands.

 

[FredH]

The .270 isn’t dying, but this is why it should die.

Of course, I will keep shooting it for a while.

It seems apropos that this is what came in the mail last night:

PS - I am hopeful that our kids can have this same conversation in this same thread.
____________________
“Keep on keepin’ on…”

I shoot very few factory loads but I have some 300 of the 130 grain Hornady interlok ready to be loaded. I hate that they made it a more blunt bullet than it was in the past.

 

[ozyclint]

The .270 isn’t dying, but this is why it should die.

Of course, I will keep shooting it for a while.

It seems apropos that this is what came in the mail last night:

PS - I am hopeful that our kids can have this same conversation in this same thread.
____________________
“Keep on keepin’ on…”

That right there is the stock standard 270 kill it all bullet.

I reload and the 130gr Interlock has been getting it done for years.