.270-308 Do we need one?
03-05-2008, 05:17 PM
#12
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Where the ducks don't come no more
Posts: 4,420
RE: .270-308 Do we need one?
ORIGINAL: stalkingbear
I'm still is process of developing my new wildcat cartridge I designed but it is the ONLY 7mm cartridge that duplicates ultramag velocities in a STANDARD length action. I necked down the .375 ruger to .284 and so far looks VERY promising.
I'm still is process of developing my new wildcat cartridge I designed but it is the ONLY 7mm cartridge that duplicates ultramag velocities in a STANDARD length action. I necked down the .375 ruger to .284 and so far looks VERY promising.
Just messin' with you stalkin'bear!
03-05-2008, 05:52 PM
#13
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: mississippi by way of Florida
Posts: 357
RE: .270-308 Do we need one?
Well,
It isn't exactly a .270, but they already make have the 260 Rem. Basically it is a .308 necked down to accept a .260 cal bullet.
Ruger makes one in a model 77, as does Sako and Remington. There are some AR-10 based rifles shooting it as well.
It has some pretty nice ballistics, doesn't have the kick that a .308 does (although I think the .308 is pretty minimal myself) and retains energy better down range.
I have heard that it is making inroads to replacing the .308 in some of the highpower competitions due to the flatness and wind bucking abilities.
So, I don't know about the .270, but the .260 already exists and may become fairly popular, who knows.
Hank
It isn't exactly a .270, but they already make have the 260 Rem. Basically it is a .308 necked down to accept a .260 cal bullet.
Ruger makes one in a model 77, as does Sako and Remington. There are some AR-10 based rifles shooting it as well.
It has some pretty nice ballistics, doesn't have the kick that a .308 does (although I think the .308 is pretty minimal myself) and retains energy better down range.
I have heard that it is making inroads to replacing the .308 in some of the highpower competitions due to the flatness and wind bucking abilities.
So, I don't know about the .270, but the .260 already exists and may become fairly popular, who knows.
Hank
03-05-2008, 10:42 PM
#14
Spike
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 90
RE: .270-308 Do we need one?
As mentioned, .264 and .284 bullets are ballistically superior to .277 bullets, and we already have .308 offspring ready to take advantage of that. A .270-08 would be pointless. I second(or fourth, or whatever it's up to now)the .25-08 though- heavier bullets than a .243 for better performance on deer, but still lightweight 85gr. ballistic tips for coyotes. This is probably what the .243 should've been in the first place.
03-06-2008, 08:31 AM
#15
Boone & Crockett
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,679
RE: .270-308 Do we need one?
.264 and .284 bullets are ballistically superior to .277 bullets
If you compare bullets of equal sectional densities and of the same design and shapethe ballistic coefficients of all bullets are very very similar.
Take all Nosler ballistic tips from .264 thru .338 and plug them into a ballistics calculator. All have sectional densities between .242-.250 and all have ballistic coefficients between .415-.485. All fired at 3000 fps and all zeroed at 250 yards all strike 3 inches low between 293-295 yards and all are within 2.3 inches of each otehr at 500 yards.
If someone actually took the time to manufactur bullets in each caliber with exactly the same section densities, shape and design (like amachine turnedbullet)then the results would be even closer. I suspect that at 500 yards there would be less than 1 inch drop between the bullets.
03-06-2008, 10:36 AM
#16
Boone & Crockett
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Wall SD USA & Jamestown ND
Posts: 11,474
RE: .270-308 Do we need one?
Don't forget the 160 Grain Nosler Partition for the 270. It's a performer on bigger game. Barnes used to make aheavier bullet yet for the 270 but no longer do. If I recall it was a 190 grain. Memory fails me.
The gain would be some peoples favorite caliber in a short action. Just like the 308 did for the 30-06.
The gain would be some peoples favorite caliber in a short action. Just like the 308 did for the 30-06.
03-06-2008, 07:20 PM
#17
Spike
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 90
RE: .270-308 Do we need one?
Quote:
If someone actually took the time to manufactur bullets in each caliber with exactly the same section densities, shape and design (like amachine turnedbullet)then the results would be even closer. I suspect that at 500 yards there would be less than 1 inch drop between the bullets.
That's the catch, they don't. The corresponding comparative bullet weights for .264 and .284 bullets have higher sectional densities, which means they have higher ballistic coefficients, which means they're ballistically superior.
I checked your ballistic tips, here's a list:
.277 bullets- 130 gr. .242 S.D. .433 B.C., 140 gr. .261 S.D. .456 B.C., 150 gr. .279 S.D. .496 B.C.
.284 bullets- 140 gr. .248 S.D. .485 B.C., 150 gr. .266 S.D. .493 B.C.
.264 bullets- 120 gr. .246 S.D. .458 B.C.
Just for the fun of it, a 130 gr. Swift Scirocco in .264 has a S.D. of .265 and an insane B.C. of .571. The same weight bullet in .277 has a S.D. of .242 and a B.C. of .450. Step up to a 150 gr. .284 bullet and you have a S.D. of .266 and another awesomeB.C. of .575. The highest B.C. of any .277 bullet I can find is the .525 of the 150 grain Ballistic Tip, which is handily whipped by several .264 and .284 bullets with lower S.D.'s.
As you can see, the 150 grain .284Ballistic Tipis within .003 of the 150 grain .277 Ballistic Tip's B.C. If that's not proof that .284 bullets are ballistically superior, I don't know what is. And you'reright, the difference wouldbe almost impossible to notice except at extreme range. However, the truth is that if you want to shoot deer only, a .260 is superior to a .270-08, and if you want to shoot bigger animals, the 7mm-08 is better than both. Conveniently, the .260would do a fine job on elk ormoose itself, although .264 and .277 bullets are usually considered marginal at best on game of this size.
So there you have it. Iagree that the differences are almostnill, butI'm pretty sure that I've offered proof to back my point.In my opinion, between.25, .30, and .33 calibers, the .27 should probably be obsolete.By the way, if I were to buy a new rifle to hunt deer and possibly elk with, it'd most likely be a .270 Win. Ammo's easy to find, and it's more than capable.But if I handloaded, I'd opt for a .280 to take advantage of the bullets. And if elk were the priority, I'd rather have a 30-06. If only deer were on the menuI'd opt for a .260 or 6.5x55.
If someone actually took the time to manufactur bullets in each caliber with exactly the same section densities, shape and design (like amachine turnedbullet)then the results would be even closer. I suspect that at 500 yards there would be less than 1 inch drop between the bullets.
That's the catch, they don't. The corresponding comparative bullet weights for .264 and .284 bullets have higher sectional densities, which means they have higher ballistic coefficients, which means they're ballistically superior.
I checked your ballistic tips, here's a list:
.277 bullets- 130 gr. .242 S.D. .433 B.C., 140 gr. .261 S.D. .456 B.C., 150 gr. .279 S.D. .496 B.C.
.284 bullets- 140 gr. .248 S.D. .485 B.C., 150 gr. .266 S.D. .493 B.C.
.264 bullets- 120 gr. .246 S.D. .458 B.C.
Just for the fun of it, a 130 gr. Swift Scirocco in .264 has a S.D. of .265 and an insane B.C. of .571. The same weight bullet in .277 has a S.D. of .242 and a B.C. of .450. Step up to a 150 gr. .284 bullet and you have a S.D. of .266 and another awesomeB.C. of .575. The highest B.C. of any .277 bullet I can find is the .525 of the 150 grain Ballistic Tip, which is handily whipped by several .264 and .284 bullets with lower S.D.'s.
As you can see, the 150 grain .284Ballistic Tipis within .003 of the 150 grain .277 Ballistic Tip's B.C. If that's not proof that .284 bullets are ballistically superior, I don't know what is. And you'reright, the difference wouldbe almost impossible to notice except at extreme range. However, the truth is that if you want to shoot deer only, a .260 is superior to a .270-08, and if you want to shoot bigger animals, the 7mm-08 is better than both. Conveniently, the .260would do a fine job on elk ormoose itself, although .264 and .277 bullets are usually considered marginal at best on game of this size.
So there you have it. Iagree that the differences are almostnill, butI'm pretty sure that I've offered proof to back my point.In my opinion, between.25, .30, and .33 calibers, the .27 should probably be obsolete.By the way, if I were to buy a new rifle to hunt deer and possibly elk with, it'd most likely be a .270 Win. Ammo's easy to find, and it's more than capable.But if I handloaded, I'd opt for a .280 to take advantage of the bullets. And if elk were the priority, I'd rather have a 30-06. If only deer were on the menuI'd opt for a .260 or 6.5x55.
03-07-2008, 07:38 PM
#19
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: va USA
Posts: 580
RE: .270-308 Do we need one?
Isnt the 270 Redding actually a 270-308??
To me, a 270-308 just doesn't matter. 7mm-08, Love it.... 260 Rem, maybe but I have no experiance yet.
IMO there isnt anything about a 270-308 that would make me want to own one. I do own and have used a 270 a lot, but I'm not a 270 fan.
I'll stick with my 280 and 7mm-08's.
To me, a 270-308 just doesn't matter. 7mm-08, Love it.... 260 Rem, maybe but I have no experiance yet.
IMO there isnt anything about a 270-308 that would make me want to own one. I do own and have used a 270 a lot, but I'm not a 270 fan.
I'll stick with my 280 and 7mm-08's.
