Why is the .270 dying?

[wind gypsy]

i suggest you look at the barnes load data for the 270 win and a 110gr ttsx. outdoes the 257 bee with less powder and less barrel.

Depends what you mean by outdoes.

 

[prairieboy]

Depends what you mean by outdoes.

the 270 win can take a 110 ttx to over 3400 fps. thats well into 257 bee territory, in fact barnes data says the 270 can achieve about the same speeds with 110s that the 257 gets with 100s.

 

[The Guide]

Particular factory loads or components can be hard to find, even with rigorous searching. Particularly very popular niche ones. That .243 95-grain bullet is one example.

There was a thread where someone was looking for 7 PRC Federal Premium 175-grain ELD-X only yesterday.


____________________
“Keep on keepin’ on…”

Finding specific bullets in factory ammo is different than not being able to find ammo. If you really want to shoot specific bullets in your rifle, either handload or use a boutique ammo manufacturer. The 95tmk's is a Sierra problem not related to any particular cartridge. The 243 Winchester 95gr Ballistic Silver Tip is on shelves at many of the stores I've been in in the last month along with the Federal 175 ELDX. The issue is people are cheap and only buy 1 or 2 boxes of shells and then when it shoots well they don't go buy more or order a case while it is available.

Jay

 

[TaperPin]

W

What recent cartridge can people not find ammo for? What I see is people who don't want to look for ammo where it is located. Just because Billy Bob can't get the new wiz bang ammo for his new super sniper shooter cartridge at the local Pay-N-Save doesn't mean the ammo isn't out there and readily available for purchase. There are a lot of people who refuse to buy ammo over the internet from an online dealer. No problem, more cheap ammo for me!

Jay

There are plenty of other cartridges that have been puked out since 2000 that just never went anywhere, no commonly available rifles are still chambered and every year less and less ammo is consumed until they go poof. The super short Winchesters, the less popular WSMs, many of the Ruger and Nosler cartridges, RUMs, SAUMs. I realize to 20 year olds, 2000 is ancient history and anything older than a PlayStation 2 or Xbox might as well have dinosaur eggs falling out it’s butt.

It doesn’t bother me much, I just bring it up as the profit seeking behavior it is - I enjoy collecting barrels in discontinued, oddball or wildcat cartridges, even if they require multiple steps to form the case. Profit seeking behavior and good design don’t necessarily correlate.

 

[TaperPin]

I'm sure Federal, Hornady, Nosler, etc will take that under advisement next time they hear customers asking for something new.

Heck, they don’t even need to wait for customers to bring it up. The industry is very much advertising driven so if Hornady started pimping out a 7mm Creedmoor many of the 7mm08 shooters would be brainwashed into thinking the new creedmoor is a good thing. Isn’t that what federal is trying to do with the 7 BC? I never woke up wishing for higher pressure cases in a hunting round and I’m the biggest proponent for bigger, faster, more.

 

[S-3 ranch]

It ain’t even Close to done yet, lots more stuff has come and died since the start of the.270 and it’s still hanging tough !

 

[wind gypsy]

Heck, they don’t even need to wait for customers to bring it up. The industry is very much advertising driven so if Hornady started pimping out a 7mm Creedmoor many of the 7mm08 shooters would be brainwashed into thinking the new creedmoor is a good thing. Isn’t that what federal is trying to do with the 7 BC? I never woke up wishing for higher pressure cases in a hunting round and I’m the biggest proponent for bigger, faster, more.

Going faster with less powder and recoil, in a shorter barrel like the 7 BC seems to be something most any prospective magnum rifle customer might find intriguing. Basically nobody who buys factory magnum hunting ammo thinks about whether its loaded to 55k PSI or 65k PSI. I dont think they have second thoughts about the BC due to a pressure # unless it's proven to be a functional issue.

But back on topic since we're in the 270 thread.. Part of 270's success is the 65k PSI SAAMI pressure max compared to stuff like 280 Rem at 60k PSI.

 

[TaperPin]

Going faster with less powder and recoil, in a shorter barrel like the 7 BC seems to be something most any prospective magnum rifle customer might find intriguing. Basically nobody who buys factory magnum hunting ammo thinks about whether its loaded to 55k PSI or 65k PSI. I dont think they have second thoughts about the BC due to a pressure # unless it's proven to be a functional issue.

But back on topic since we're in the 270 thread.. Part of 270's success is the 65k PSI SAAMI pressure max compared to stuff like 280 Rem at 60k PSI.

Its recoil will be more than a 280ai, so I don’t see recoil sensitive guys being the target market. Roksliders howl if it recoils or sounds like more than a wet dog fart.

It’s one of those cartridges that the guys who stare at ballistics charts and chronographs will claim is better, and on paper it may very well be better in short barrels, but I doubt the critter in front of the muzzle or behind it could tell the difference between it and a 7 PRC or 7 mag. For early adopters I’m sure it will scratch an itch.

I’m all for new things if they actually move the goal post. The 7PRC looked great on paper, but turns out what we really liked was RL26 and Hornady ammo has struggled once Federal cut them off of that powder. RL26 is also a top performing powder in the 280ai with heavier bullets - I wonder if it was also used in the BC.

 

[cuerro viejo]

i suggest you look at the barnes load data for the 270 win and a 110gr ttsx. outdoes the 257 bee with less powder and less barrel.

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

 

[Southern Lights]

One reason I own 270, 308, 223, 30-06 and such is that I know ammo will be around for a long time and be inexpensive. I don't fault the rifle companies needing to make new things to keep their profits going, but yeah many new cartridges are going to be gone or dying in 10 years. It's just the way the game has always been.

I own a 6.5 Creedmoor as of this year and the Hornady factory ammo is moving at a blistering 2553 fps. Anemic as crap, but at least I have that high BC as I watch it underperform the 270 in basically every single metric. However, I'm shooting a modern cartridge design and I'm told by very important people this is an improvement.

As for making a fast twist 270, I don't see any reason why it wouldn't work and stabilize the longer bullets. The same way they have made 223 loads for 1:8 twist with heavies for those twist rates. If your slower twist doesn't stabilize them, oh well. Try another load.

People compare the old vs. modern cartridge design and think they've hit on some deep and insightful point. But the reality is that the older cartridges were built for an entirely different purpose (war and reliable feeding with tapered cases and looser chambers) vs. target (straight wall, fast twist, and match chambers). Certainly the magic of straight wall cases, sharp shoulders, fast twists, and match chamber tolerances were not above the understanding of the older designers. They just chose to not use them for their application.

There's not any more magic to it than the above. Shooters have to use what's important to them and what they enjoy.

If you want the higher potential accuracy of the modern designs, you need to keep them cleaner and expect shorter barrel life. You also may not find factory loadings for them in 10 or so years. Just buy a new barrel and re-chamber to the latest belle of the ball.

If you want more room for feeding reliability in the field, and are not trying to shoot 1,000 yards on the regular, the older designs are very well proven and common as dirt so you can always shoot them.

 

[Q_Sertorius]

One reason I own 270, 308, 223, 30-06 and such is that I know ammo will be around for a long time and be inexpensive. I don't fault the rifle companies needing to make new things to keep their profits going, but yeah many new cartridges are going to be gone or dying in 10 years. It's just the way the game has always been.

I own a 6.5 Creedmoor as of this year and the Hornady factory ammo is moving at a blistering 2553 fps. Anemic as crap, but at least I have that high BC as I watch it underperform the 270 in basically every single metric. However, I'm shooting a modern cartridge design and I'm told by very important people this is an improvement.

As for making a fast twist 270, I don't see any reason why it wouldn't work and stabilize the longer bullets. The same way they have made 223 loads for 1:8 twist with heavies for those twist rates. If your slower twist doesn't stabilize them, oh well. Try another load.

People compare the old vs. modern cartridge design and think they've hit on some deep and insightful point. But the reality is that the older cartridges were built for an entirely different purpose (war and reliable feeding with tapered cases and looser chambers vs. target (straight wall, fast twist, and match chambers). Certainly the magic of straight wall cases, sharp shoulders, fast twists, and match chamber tolerances were not above the understanding of the older designers. They just chose to not use them for their application.

There's not any more magic to it than the above. Shooters have to use what's important to them and what they enjoy.

If you want the higher potential accuracy of the modern designs, you need to keep them cleaner and expect shorter barrel life. You also may not find factory loadings for them in 10 or so years. Just buy a new barrel and re-chamber to the latest belle of the ball.

If you want more room for feeding reliability in the field, and are not trying to shoot 1,000 yards on the regular, the older designs are very well proven and common as dirt so you can always shoot them.

Good post.


____________________
“Keep on keepin’ on…”

 

[Formidilosus]

People compare the old vs. modern cartridge design and think they've hit on some deep and insightful point. But the reality is that the older cartridges were built for an entirely different purpose (war and reliable feeding with tapered cases and looser chambers) vs. target (straight wall, fast twist, and match chambers).

Maybe, they were built that way specifically because the weapons were so poorly consistent that they had to. There is no doubt that old long, slender, sloping shouldered cartridges feed smoothly- but it doesn’t mean that it was because of that why they did it, versus because the rifles/weapons needed it. Modern rifles and weapons work with modern cartridges extremely well, and over all are significantly more reliable than legacy weapons and cartridge combinations.

Certainly the magic of straight wall cases, sharp shoulders, fast twists, and match chamber tolerances were not above the understanding of the older designers. They just chose to not use them for their application.

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.

 

[Southern Lights]

Certainly bullet design has improved but they were also well aware of BC and the US Govt. 30 cals had revisions to improve shape, etc. to affect this as best they could without computer aided design and modeling. The Germans had some pretty advanced bullet designs in the early-mid 1900s as well.

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.

As for the 277 caliber. Yeah it's an oddball and I never got a straight answer how they came up with it. Even Jack O'Connor's writings (who was well before my time), never had a straight answer either.

The only interesting cartridge I've seen in a while is the 7mm Backcountry due to the clever use of new case materials to boost chamber pressures safely to use in a short-barrel rifle.

I suppose my view on modern cartridges is a bit of a yawn. Yeah they are more accurate due to the tighter specs and higher twists. But, they are not mind-blowing revolutions to me. I think they are marginal improvements taking target rifle performance and applying it to hunting with pluses and minuses.

 

[Catterz]

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

 

[UnckleBob]

What recent cartridge can people not find ammo for? What I see is people who don't want to look for ammo where it is located. Just because Billy Bob can't get the new wiz bang ammo for his new super sniper shooter cartridge at the local Pay-N-Save doesn't mean the ammo isn't out there and readily available for purchase. There are a lot of people who refuse to buy ammo over the internet from an online dealer. No problem, more cheap ammo for me!

Jay

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.

 

[Formidilosus]

Certainly bullet design has improved but they were also well aware of BC and the US Govt. 30 cals had revisions to improve shape, etc. to affect this as best they could without computer aided design and modeling. The Germans had some pretty advanced bullet designs in the early-mid 1900s as well.

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.

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

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.

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.

 

[Formidilosus]

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.

Why?

 

[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.