Inaccurate .270

J Bolt 7mm · 07-05-2005, 10:51 AM

I just read an article that states that the .270 win. is inaccurate. I allways thought that they were one of the more accurate cal. out there. Here is the article. What do you guys think?
http://www.outdoorlife.com/outdoor/shooting/article/0,19912,768584-1,00.html

Rebel Hog · 07-05-2005, 11:01 AM

Yes, especially this part!
Target shooters spend a lot of time talking about the accuracy potential of various cartridges In such discussions the .270 gets no respect. It is almost as if, at some point in the unknown past, it was decreed that the .270 would never be a contender in that arena. This becomes even more mysterious when we notice that calibers on both sides of the .270"”the .22,6mm, 6.5mm, 7mm, .30 and even the .338 "”have all made their mark in the world of super accuracy.

texhookem · 07-05-2005, 03:56 PM

I think the key phrase in that paragraph is "in the world of super accuracy." Super accuracy is not needed to kill whitetail deer or most other big game animals that the 270 is capable of killing. I think the 270 is capable of more than enough accuracy for its given task. The 270 probably will never make a big splash in the target shooting world but to say that it is inaccurate is garbage.

UThunter · 07-05-2005, 09:42 PM

That is weird, i guess some calibers are truly more inherently accurate than others.

James B · 07-05-2005, 10:04 PM

That is ridiculous blanket statement no matter who made it. Rifles are all different. The most accurate rifle that I ever had and shot was a 270 Pump Remington. Not a likely candidate for super accuracy but that one was. The 270 has established a record that not many calibers can hope to match. I wouldn't give lack of accuarcy a fleeting thought if I were thinking of buying one. The 270 is small in caliber but big on performance and has taken almost every game animal species on earth.

longrifle1000 · 07-05-2005, 10:42 PM

I agree with James. I think it has more to do with the rifle, than the cartridge. Some rounds might be more inheritently accurate, but if it is not in the right gun it doesn't matter.

Virginia7 · 07-05-2005, 10:49 PM

Quote:

ORIGINAL: SCHOOLBOY
I just read an article that states that the .270 win. is inaccurate. ..... What do you guys think?

Yeah, and the earth is still flat too!

Doe Dumper · 07-06-2005, 01:49 AM

Somebody should tell my .270that those 5 shot groups with factory ammo of an inch most days and less than an inch on a good day arent possible. With el cheapo Fed Classic ammo. I dont buy that....I havent seen a 270 of any make that was a stinker yet.

stubblejumper · 07-06-2005, 06:18 AM

It depends on the level of accuracy that you are talking.If you are talking benchrest or long distance shooting competition the 270win has not been very successful.If you are talking typical hunting accuracy,the rifle has far more to do with accuracy than the cartridge.

HighDesertWolf · 07-06-2005, 06:45 AM

Quote:

ORIGINAL: UThunter

That is weird, i guess some calibers are truly more inherently accurate than others.

Thats true, I handload several calibers. From experience it seems i dont have to put much effort into my 308 and 30-06 rounds to get accurate loads. The 270 on the other hand I was working up a 270 load for my buddies rifle to put it simply the rifle was quite finnicky and it took me 3 times aslong to work up a good load for it then it took me for my 30 cal rifles. but once i found the right combination it was just as accurate as my other loadings.