Why is the .270 dying?

.
25cm is loaded warm to make it shine. Pretty much anything over 2830 fps in a 24in or less barrel is near or exceeding saami max. I've been shooting the 25cm for 7 years, multiple barrels. It behaves much more similar to the 65 VS the 6.

The 25CM seems like a good solution for certain competitors.

Will the 25CM work for huntng? Absolutely! It might even hit a sweet spot in term of performance. But, I just don't see hunter demand for a cartridge in between the proven (and readily available) 6 and 6.5 CMs.
 
Nam
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…
Name said cartridge that offers way more for way less? The Creedmoor only offers precision ammo because it was and is a target cartridge. Is it the lesser recoil? Are you saying that it's way less ability as a hunting cartridge is more? I never said the 270 was the end all of 1000 yard target cartridges, it is a hunting cartridge. Born and bred for hunting. If I were to build a custom rifle in 6.5-06 I could do the same thing with the 270 and which would end up being the better cartridge? Very good 1000 yard bullets are being designed in .277 as we speak and a few are already here. But that doesn't matter to me. I hunt and the longest range I have available for my use is 130 miles away and only goes to 500 yards. The question is rhetorical as the 270 Winchester is fine. Still up in the top ten cartridges as to sales.
 
-06, 257 weatherby (now with fast twist rates), and a laundry list of popular quarter bore wildcats all came to be due to new high BC 25 cal bullets. I can get head stamped 25 GT and 25x47 brass as well. Why do you think that isn't happening at near the scale for 277s?

I do think the 270 would give up some of it's "lesser recoiling than a 30-06" allure if it were more tailored to heavier high bc bullets.

All new bullets in .277

Barnes has a heavy .277 bullet
Sierra has a 175g 277 bullet

Basically, Hornady is the only major hunting bullet maker without a heavy for caliber bullet because they want people to buy 6.5PRC ammo.

Change is coming. Right now, people can buy a factory x-bolt 270 with a 1/7.5 twist barrel.
 
And
Fast twist barels coming in on the shelf rifles designed to handle the heaviest for caliber bullets, the modern times. No genZ here, maybe I'm having a midlife crisis.......
both 243 and 270 rifles are being manufactured with faster twist barrels. I have a Remington 700 in 243 that came with a 1-8 twist. Hunting load this year uses the 85 gr. Sierra HPBT at 3250 fps.
 
All new bullets in .277

Barnes has a heavy .277 bullet
Sierra has a 175g 277 bullet

Basically, Hornady is the only major hunting bullet maker without a heavy for caliber bullet because they want people to buy 6.5PRC ammo.

Change is coming. Right now, people can buy a factory x-bolt 270 with a 1/7.5 twist barrel.
Interesting. The future is wide open.
 
The Creedmoor only offers precision ammo because it was and is a target cartridge. Is it the lesser recoil? Are you saying that it's way less ability as a hunting cartridge is more? I never said the 270 was the end all of 1000 yard target cartridges, it is a hunting cartridge.
Nobody here has called the .270 anything less than what it is: A capable and reliable hunting cartridge with a well-earned 100-year history.

What many of us have said is that if you had to buy a new rifle -- today -- that 6.5 Creedmoor is generally a better choice.
 
The Creedmoor only offers precision ammo because it was and is a target cartridge
Can you define a "target cartridge" please. Every cartridge I've ever seen was just an engine for launching a projectile. It provides the horsepower to give a projectile velocity, nothing more or less. Every cartridge should be loaded to the best precision possible. Why would they change the way they load ammo based on the stamp on the case? Maybe, just maybe, some cartridge designs just are easier to load for higher precision because the bullets for that caliber are of new design with better external ballistics for use in faster twist barrels than those classic designs commonly used in cartridges like the 270 Winchester with slow twist barrels. If the appropriate twist for accuracy in a 243, 264, and 284 is 1/8", then why is the 277 a 1/10"?

Jay
 
The Creedmoor only offers precision ammo because it was and is a target cartridge.

The 6.5 Creedmoor is alive and well today because of hunters. Where Creedmoor Sports failed to make the 6.5 a viable match cartridge is their failure to commission a requisite rifle to go with Hornady's cartridge and the real problem is, it doesn't really fit in any discipline. Sure, you could build a 28" 6.5CM on an Eliseo chassis but then you have a rifle that is mediocre at best for all NRA disciplines and too light for PRS. The 6CM is a better option for factory ammo. No animal has ever argued with a 147ELDM in the lungs.

As far as the .270, it's a darling cartridge, it's not perfect but as Alabama would say "It's close enough to perfect for me." I love the .243 as well and I'll always have my .243 Handi-Rifle, but my .243 Savage will eventually be replaced by a Tikka with a 6CM barrel. I don't see a cartridge I'd replace the .270 with for my desires in the field. My kids' deer rifle will be a 6CM. The plan is for 3 Tikkas, one for each of us.

Sent from my SM-S918U using Tapatalk
 
Back
Top