JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
Messages
206
Reactions
147
1) I used to have a Remington 770 in 270 a long time ago. Back then I wasn't a paper puncher nor did I study the field of ballistics. I do remember my 300yd groups (the 1 time I shot it) looked better then my step dads savage axis 308 by a long shot. In retrospect I think I could have got some nice groups with that gun. Now I am a lot more into precision, I've just been shooting airguns. I'm now budgeted for a centerfire rifle. I was hoping to find some one that had experience with the differences in accuracy at 100yds between a Remington 700, Ruger American, bergara b-14, ,a savage 10, or anything hopefully under 1000 dollars? I want something scalable that I can eventually get a new stock, barrel, have a gunsmith true the action, etc. But I want to be able to shoot sub moa out the box with my hand loads too or maybe quality box ammo. I plan on doing my own hand loads and doing never ending (1+yr probably)experimenting to get everything where I want. I also will be doing a lot of bench shooting. I might take it hunting for anything less then an elk but the trade off for less recoil and overall range shootability leans towards the ladder. Any recommendations on exact rifle and chamber are appreciated. I'm for some unexplainable reason attracted to smaller calibers like a 22-250 but .270 is my favorite. I like ARs but am wanting a standard bolt action gun.

2) I feel that the .270 is underrated or at least not talked about as much as it should be. I've bought several shooting and hunting magazines over the past year and have found 1 article that mentioned a 270 in periphery. Not 1 article talked about bullet choice, reloading, or ballistics of a .270. Every magazine seems to talk non stop about 6.5 creedmoore, 6.5PRC, other 6mm, some times a .243(one of my favs), 224valkrye, 22 nosler, 308, 338lapua. Anything AR I guess too. I feel like the .270 can hold it's own with long range target shooting and would be a more viable option for hunting too at a distance for some one that mostly range shoots but sometimes takes it to the field. I know there is a ft/lbs measure of recoil that I'm seeing people talking about but in my real world talk, the recoil of my old 270 was extremely light in my opinion. It's bullets are somewhat long and pointy and if the manufactures wanted I think they could even improve upon current selection of bullets on bc. Even without that though, looking at the bc's it seems to compete with the 6.5 creedmoor and I feel that if I were handloading my rounds custom to my gun and I got it dialed in with accuracy that I'd have one heck of a long range hunter. Plus I could have rounds tailored towards varmit or big game. Just my thoughts, I'm on the airgun forums but decided to join here mostly to pose this question. Why is the .270 not talked about more in the BC articles, or at all.
 
Why chop the gun up if it shoots well? If you want a bolt action precision rifle, buy one. No need to start with one thing because you like 270 and then turn it into something else.

In the past, Id recommend an M700. It was the small block V8 of bolt actions. Tons of aftermarket parts and accessories. With Remington QC being the way it is, Id go with a Tikka. All T3 actions are the same length. If you restock once, you'll be good as long as you dont go too heavy in your rebarrel.

Why don't you hear about 270? What can be said now that hasn't been said since 1925 by Jack O'Connor. No one wants to compete with that ghost.

Its a caliber size that has only four viable members, the 270 Winchester, 270 WSM, 270 Weatherby, and the 6.8 SPC. Bullets where developed for the 270 Winchester, a hunting cartridge developed in the mid 20s before anyone could spell ballistic coefficient.

Now, high BC bullets are becoming more common, but not nearly the variety as .224, .244, .264, .284, and .308 calibers.
 
Look of Nosler Accubond LR bullets in .270 150gr. Then plug that data into a ballistics calculator and play with the various zero distances.

Then look up the Ruger American Rifle in .270 and compare to the Military Arms channel youtube guy who used a .308 version to shoot 1000 yards with a stock rifle and spent less than $1000 on optic, rifle and mount to achieve this. The .270 according to the data can do it better than the .308 if the shooter can do their part.
 
The 270 is a great round. It is flat shooting and hard hitting. Traditionally it is an east of the Mississippi cartridge for the most part it does best where shots are 2-400 yards. Convention is that in woods and brush, common in the West, ranges are in the neighborhood of 1-200 yards.

The 270s deficiencies are that it uses a long action rather than a short action and it has a small selection of bullets compared to .30, .284, and .264 diameter bullets. It also has a shallow shoulder which 'tends' to be less accurate at the anal retentitive ranges of accuracy needed for long range target shooting. Not a problem for hunting in the least.

If you're going to go for a long action why not 30-06 or 7mm Mag. Both of which are superior in all respects of range and power. Americans like more power more often than they need. 270 just isn't convenient or powerful enough for the American imagination.

It never real gained that much popularity outside deer hunting circles back in the day. When you look at all the Weatherby rounds that remain rare, the 257 Roberts, the 7mm Mauser/.275 Rigby, and so many other cartridges that are rare today, the mid range cartridges today tend to be short action and cluster around calibers with large bullet selections.

We are an odd lot, rifle people. Our caliber selections are a stamp of our self image in many ways. We become partisans for our calibers to the exclusion of others. In reality 99% of calibers are going to be ok for hunting in North America. Picking one over another is academic for the most part.

If you want to shoot .270, you'll love it.
 
Look of Nosler Accubond LR bullets in .270 150gr. Then plug that data into a ballistics calculator and play with the various zero distances.

Then look up the Ruger American Rifle in .270 and compare to the Military Arms channel youtube guy who used a .308 version to shoot 1000 yards with a stock rifle and spent less than $1000 on optic, rifle and mount to achieve this. The .270 according to the data can do it better than the .308 if the shooter can do their part.
If it were so, long range practical rifle people would use it and they don't. 1000 with a 308 is the very edge of the accuracy range. You can do it and do so repeatedly, but you're making 308 work for it. You need more velocity and a heavier bullet with a better BC to really excell there.

If you're going for accuracy, like competitive accuracy, at 1000. Your best bet is 284 win, 6.5 sweede, 260 rem, 6.5 cm, 6.5x47, 30-06, 300WM, 7mm Mag, 308 Norma Mag. 6 cm, 6mm Dasher, and so on.

270 just doesnt have the bullet selection.
 
Rifle recommendation. Go savage 12 in every case under $1000. On the 600 yard benchrest line it is 30% custom actions, 10% Ruger precision, 40% savage, and 20% Remington.

Out of the box savage 12 is sub 1/2 MOA with handloads for a cash outlay of $2-400 if you time your sales right with. Cabelas. If you want to spend the coin, look at 12 BVSS. They also have a lot of $1000+ offerings like the 12 Benchrest, 12 Palma, 12 F/TR, or even get a 12 target Action for $550 and build it out.

R700s can do it but not consistently.

I bought a sav 12fv on sale with rebate at cabelas on Black Friday for $219 and am getting .2" groups at 100 yards.

If you want to try a savage. Let me know.
 
Speaking only for myself here... And to be fair more as a hunter , than a Bench rifle shooter...
If you plan to hunt:
What are you hunting...
Where are you hunting...
How do you hunt...
Any of the above conditions / questions may be vastly different than bench shooting

Again for me.. I want my hunting rifle to be "Handy" , easy to carry and shoot.
A bench rifle , to me isn't that way when carried in the hunting field.
This isn't to say that you can't use a bench rifle hunting..but some rifle designs do better in certain applications than others.

Where I hunt , the area is often thickly wooded with lots of brush and the occasional clear cut.
Often my shot will need to be done quickly and smoothly...Many times I have shot off hand without the use of support...So for me and my type of hunting a bench rifle will not be as useful.
And while accuracy is always important...for how I hunt , I am not in need of sub MOA accuracy...
I need a rifle that comes up quickly , is stable off hand , easily carried and is "accurate enough".

In short you may want to think about two rifles...one for bench shooting and one for hunting.

As for the .270...It is a fine cartridge and is very suitable for North American big game.
Much may not be currently written 'bout it 'cause it is a older cartridge with a already well established reputation.
Andy
 
B9D78ED3-F01E-4B40-BF17-C900E338BD04.png F3DB0EE6-FD3C-4660-BF8E-415B12C92FDE.png 05C298C1-3B47-4840-9941-32336101B47F.png 3E1842C4-B311-489D-A0EC-8DB5BE10ABAD.png 14220462-2490-4D34-80BA-BCC885A8A30C.png

I don't know everything, but when I compare the heaviest and best BC long range Nosler bullet for .308 to the heaviest and best BC long range Nosler bullet for .270 and using the Nosler load data for each labeled "most accurate load tested" when both zero'd at 100 yards and both using the same height over bore for a scope, the .270 beats the .308 at 1000 yards in drop, windage, time to target, energy on target (slightly), and velocity on impact.

This is just what the data says, practical application may prove otherwise, but this is what Nosler says.

If it were so, long range practical rifle people would use it and they don't. 1000 with a 308 is the very edge of the accuracy range. You can do it and do so repeatedly, but you're making 308 work for it. You need more velocity and a heavier bullet with a better BC to really excell there.

If you're going for accuracy, like competitive accuracy, at 1000. Your best bet is 284 win, 6.5 sweede, 260 rem, 6.5 cm, 6.5x47, 30-06, 300WM, 7mm Mag, 308 Norma Mag. 6 cm, 6mm Dasher, and so on.

270 just doesnt have the bullet selection.
 
I'll respond enlength later when I have time. Now I am a rookie and haven't been around long at all but I read from a credible source something, then it has been kind of implied in other areas that I've looked into... I only want to mention this in defense of my .270 obsession... (I totally agree with Goosbrown on rifleshooters and their selections, I will respond to you about that savage here later today) In response to American123, yes it can beat the .308 ballistically as you've shown on the calculator. The .308 was selected as much for politics as it was for efficiency from my understanding. The military popularized it then the civilian population (civilian bench snipers) followed suite without question and manufacturers jumped on board to produce whatever the professional civilians were buying (.308 bullets). So the focus was on the .308 but only the wildcatting people were looking elsewhere. When the ballistic numbercrunching became king, the competition shooters decided that the 6.5s and above mentioned rounds could really do well at a distance and marginally out perform other carterages but at the same time the produced recoil allowed for minimal shot deflection and the ability to shoot all day. I could be wrong but this just goes to my argument the the .270, especially when compared to the .308, is under rated.
 
I'll respond enlength later when I have time. Now I am a rookie and haven't been around long at all but I read from a credible source something, then it has been kind of implied in other areas that I've looked into... I only want to mention this in defense of my .270 obsession... (I totally agree with Goosbrown on rifleshooters and their selections, I will respond to you about that savage here later today) In response to American123, yes it can beat the .308 ballistically as you've shown on the calculator. The .308 was selected as much for politics as it was for efficiency from my understanding. The military popularized it then the civilian population (civilian bench snipers) followed suite without question and manufacturers jumped on board to produce whatever the professional civilians were buying (.308 bullets). So the focus was on the .308 but only the wildcatting people were looking elsewhere. When the ballistic numbercrunching became king, the competition shooters decided that the 6.5s and above mentioned rounds could really do well at a distance and marginally out perform other carterages but at the same time the produced recoil allowed for minimal shot deflection and the ability to shoot all day. I could be wrong but this just goes to my argument the the .270, especially when compared to the .308, is under rated.

Felt recoil was something I didn't bother to mention, but is a factor you brought up. The recoil of a heavy for caliber .308 shot is much more than a 150gr .270

Someone who wants to enjoy shooting and not have to put a large comp on the front of the rifle may consider what caliber and load combinations produce what they are looking for at distance and energy on target at reduced felt recoil to help maintain the enjoyment of shooting.
 
I wouldn't try to compare 308 with 270
Two completely different families of bullets
One long action and one short action.

Some actions mentioned in the OP are entry level.
Sounds like you are ready for a top line action and are set on the 270.
 
Felt recoil is amazingly important. My rifle is so quiet and recoils so little that competitors to the sides have asked me if I have shot or just cycled the bolt for some reason to clear a jam. THATS a rifle you can shoot all day. But I wouldn't hunt with it.
 
I have seen 270s used for ground hogs to elk. The 270 has no flies on it. I think there is not really that much difference in game killing capability between the 308 3006 270 280 and even the lowly 7x57
Put a bullet where it needs to go and you will have meat. I have gone to hunting with 30-06. Use a bullet appropriate to the task at hand.
 
Remington 700P.......in whatever your choice of calibers. Comes from the factory with a match barrel, 40X competition trigger and McMillan aluminum rail Kevlar stock.......about 1000.00. You can't buy the components for that. Mine shoots 1/4 moa and when the action was checked for alignment by one of the best long range smith's in the country he couldn't improve on it. The 270 is a fine caliber (we lived down the block from Jack O'connor) but for larger animals I prefer at least a 30 caliber. If starting fresh, I really like a 280 Remington in that bore class. It has a better bullet selection than the 6mm's. I also like the short actions so have a lot of 308's for use as all around rifles. Don't fall for the myth that velosity has anything to do with accuracy. Accuracy is about consistency (the old 45-70 is very accurate) velocity gives you more terminal energy and allows a bullet to fly flatter. Also useful issues but nothing to do with being accurate.
 
Last Edited:
I'd add Tikka to your list to consider. They do chamber .270.
I like Tika's a lot but some have pressed barrels and are difficult to modify. If you can buy one as you want and use it, they are wonderful but rebarreling can be very challenging. They do make a broad variety of rifles for many uses but are not inexpensive as they get more exotic.
 
I expect a lot more time at the work station then actually shooting. If I hunt it will be long range ground squirrels, coyote, deer, and maybe elk. For larger game animals I'll probably be using a bow and for western grey squirrel and small game under 60-70yd I'll probably use my airguns. Mostly going for time consumption chasing precision I doubt I'll be chasing bear around with a rifle. I am completely open to any caliber, I'm not set on anything, my 2 questions were separate, I was just curious why I hear about the .308 exponentially more then the .270.
Right now, based off my research and recommendations here I have it somewhat narrowed to the following: (1) Remington 700 .270, (2) Savage 11/111 TH xp in 260Rem, 270win, 6.5crdmr, (3) 10/110 Predator hunter max 1 in 260rem or 6.5cdmr and (most expensive) a 12vlp in 22-250 with the option for 1:9 rifling because I've heard the faster twist rate doesn't do too much worse then the 1:12 but with heavier bullets it does a lot better and I'd want to see what's available for higher bc 22-250 bullets. I'd prefer 600 dollar range but if something matches what I want I can go up to 1200ish and hold out on a good scope for a while since at first I will not shoot beyond 50-100 yards (I expect at least 6 months at that range) while I experiment with my hand loads.
 
I was just curious why I hear about the .308 exponentially more then the .270.
That's easy.
1) 308 Win has a military counterpart....7.62Nato
That means plentiful, cheap ammo
2) 308 fits the magazine limits of battle rifles which are popular with target shooters
3) 270 is an old chambering and gunwriters have spewed ad nauseum about it over the decades.
One thing that sticks in my mind, is that I read that Jack O'Connor once said that if 280 Rem was around when he wed 270, he might have gone for 280 instead.

Right now, based off my research and recommendations here I have it somewhat narrowed to the following: (1) Remington 700 .270, (2) Savage 11/111 TH xp in 260Rem, 270win, 6.5crdmr, (3) 10/110 Predator hunter max 1 in 260rem or 6.5cdmr and (most expensive) a 12vlp in 22-250 with the option for 1:9 rifling because I've heard the faster twist rate doesn't do too much worse then the 1:12 but with heavier bullets it does a lot better and I'd want to see what's available for higher bc 22-250 bullets. I'd prefer 600 dollar range but if something matches what I want I can go up to 1200ish and hold out on a good scope for a while since at first I will not shoot beyond 50-100 yards (I expect at least 6 months at that range) while I experiment with my hand loads.
You need two rifles....at least.
Winchester M70 would be a natural for 270.
Savage is a homely action but they do shoot.
Tikka owners love 'em.
I still say you will end up with 270
 

Upcoming Events

Oregon Arms Collectors March Gun Show
Portland, OR
Tillamook Gun & Knife Show
Tillamook, OR
"The Original" Kalispell Gun Show
Kalispell, MT
Teen Rifle 1 Class
Springfield, OR
Kids Firearm Safety 2 Class
Springfield, OR

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top