.270-308 Do we need one?
 

I know the .308 has many offspring, any most guys like them all, and have heard some say we need a .270 verion of the .308, does anyone think we do? Some say because of the .270 Win. we don't need a .270-308, anyone have some points to make why we do need a .270 version of the .308? Also can we call it the .277 Win?

RE: .270-308 Do we need one?
 

We don' need anymore spin off calibers, especially right now, we've seen 15 or 20 new calibers in the last few years..

They should've called the .270win the .277win in the first place.

RE: .270-308 Do we need one?
 

No. Its .007" away from a 7mm-08... and you can only shoot up to 150gr bullets out of it. The .260 will shoot flatter and faster, and the 7mm-08 has a greater range of bullet weights for the reloader. The .270-08 would bring absolutely no marketable advantage to the table.

RE: .270-308 Do we need one?
 

Why in the world would we need a 270/308 when we already have the excellent 7mm08 that would outperform it handily in the first place? It takes a lot of thought and a gap to make a cartridge a go along with(especially)good marketing. 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.

RE: .270-308 Do we need one?
 

I would rather see a 25-08.

RE: .270-308 Do we need one?
 

And so is the .270 and 280.I don't see the point here.

Personally I would like to see a .270-08. IMO it would make an even better whitetail cartridge than the 7mm-08.

It's called a .270 because that is the bore diameter of the barrels before the rifling is cut. The groove diameter (groove togroove)is .277 inches as is the bullet diameter.

Same with any 300 mag, 30-06, 280 Remington, .330 Dakotaetc... etc...

RE: .270-308 Do we need one?
 

It's called a .270 because that is the bore diameter of the barrels before the rifling is cut. The groove diameter (groove togroove)is .277 inches as is the bullet diameter.

Same with any 300 mag, 30-06, 280 Remington, .330 Dakotaetc... etc...
[/quote]

I'm aware of the how and why, I was attempting a joke, didn't really come out right. Hard to show voice inflection with typing.
I honestly could care less, if they invent a 1000 more cartridges, They are in business to make money not to stay with the standard. But, there's no point to it.

RE: .270-308 Do we need one?
 

Ok, gotcha. ;)

There are a bunch of people that ask stuff like that on here a lotand you being fairly new here I didn't know how much you knew.

RE: .270-308 Do we need one?
 

Me too..

RE: .270-308 Do we need one?
 

Me three.

RE: .270-308 Do we need one?
 

Nope, don't need it,plenty of others doing that job right now.

RE: .270-308 Do we need one?
 

Already been done.... its called the 7mm Swamp Collie ;)


Just messin' with you stalkin'bear!

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

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.

RE: .270-308 Do we need one?
 

No, not really The .264 caliber cartridges take advantage of higher BC's because they are generally loaded with heavy for caliber bullets that have very high BC's.

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.

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.

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.

RE: .270-308 Do we need one?
 

25-08 would be cool but it wouldn't give you much over a .243.

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.

RE: .270-308 Do we need one?
 

To quote SwampCollie... The .25-08 is only .007 away from a .243...

RE: .270-308 Do we need one?
 

Actually it's .014. Which is twice the difference as there would be between a .277 and a .284. There is only .007 seperating a .25 Souper(.25-08) and a .260 Rem though... And yes, the .25-08 wouldn't provide much benefit there either, except more bullet selection than the .260 Rem.The 6.5mm's deserve to be more popular than they are. If someone would make a stiff loadwith that 130 gr. Swift Scirocco in the .260Remington, they'd have about the ultimate deer round in my opinion.

RE: .270-308 Do we need one?
 

Why don't we all just shoot .22lr, .223, 30-06, .338 win mag, .375 H&H and the .416 Rigby. No manufacturer would need to ever offer us anything else, everyone could hunt anything on the planet,and we would never ever need to question why the world needs "X" cartridge when we already have "Z, Y, Q, A, G, R"cartridges. [&:]Every one go throw away every rifle that youown that isn't chambered in one of these six cartridges right now.



We need it because there are people that want it and this is America dang it.

RE: .270-308 Do we need one?
 

No, we probably need a grand total of 30 calibers. I think we will see ammo and gun makers culling the herd over the next few years. I mean, c'mon, we're hurting ourselves. If we had only 30 ammo choices, ammo would be much cheaper. All this fancy choice has caused a box of '06 hunting ammo to go from $7 to $20 in 15 years. . . .and it doesn't kill any better.

RE: .270-308 Do we need one?
 

We don't really need one, but if you wait long enough, someone will begin making one. Outdoor and gun magazines will tout it as the best thing since a pocket on a shirt. Hunting shows will have guys toting it around. People will but it, gun manufacturers will be happy. Order in the universe will be maintained...:)

RE: .270-308 Do we need one?
 

No, we do not need it. But it is becauseof the 7mm/'08 that it is not needed. In fact, to be blunt, the .280/7X64mm makes the .270 Win. unneeded also!

RE: .270-308 Do we need one?
 

I have one in a wild cat ruger m77 that shoots better than any rifle I ever owned. It shoots a 140 grain bullet into the same hole at a 100 yards. I call it a 27-08 and a 257 Roberts is a 25-08

RE: .270-308 Do we need one?
 

Well, I say the .280 Rem isn't needed because we already had the .270 Winchester.

Although your argument about already having the 7mm-08 is a good one.

If you all got the .280 when we already had the .270 then I can have the 270-08 when we already have the 7mm-08. So there!!!!!!

RE: .270-308 Do we need one?
 

Do we need a .270-308? No.
Would a .270-308 sell some more rifles and ammo? Yes.
Would I buy one? No.

RE: .270-308 Do we need one?
 

No it ain't ... a 257 Roberts is much more like a 257 X 57mm since it's darn near a necked down 7X 57 case. It's much closer to that than a .308 case.

RE: .270-308 Do we need one?
 

No, the .257 Roberts is NOT a .25/'08. It is a .257/7X57mm. Just as the 6mm Rem. is a 6mm/7X57mm.... The .257 Roberts holds more powder than the .25/'08-(".25 Souper").

As for .264" and .284" bullets being ballistically superior to .277" bullets - theballistic properties of any caliber bullet depend on two factors-their sectional density (weight IN POUNDS divided by the square of the diameter in inches)and their form factor, or shape. (Sectional density / form factor = ballistic coefficient-B.C.) So if you take bullets of any given caliber, givethem a specific sectional density and identical form factors,they will ALL be ballistically IDENTICALregardless of their diameter - .264", .277", .284, .308", whatever. Of course, to remain ballistically identical, the shape has to remain the same, and weight must increase as diameter increases to maintain identical SD's.............

RE: .270-308 Do we need one?
 

That's what I was saying but I guess I was proven wrong. [&:]

RE: .270-308 Do we need one?
 

Do you work for Sierra bullets? Because I called Sierra a few weeks ago, and the guy who I taked to spurted off a line of BS like that at me too. I didn't know what the hell he was saying, but he sure did say a lot of it!:D:D It went something like this:

Shato: "I'm looking for a bullet for my 22-250. It shoots 50 gr. Nosler ballistic tips well, but not 50gr. Sierra varminters. I've always been partial to sierra bullets, any thoughts?

Sierra bullet Nerd:
"Well, Sectional density this blah blah, blah, Ballistic coefficient that blah blah blah, Cosine this blah blah blah, Tangent that blah bla blah. No if you divide the square root of the earth circumfrence by the cube root of the Diameter. and multiply the product by the tangent of the cosine of the lunar eclipse. then use quantum physics to determine the twist rate of your barrel. blah blah blah.....................

Shato:
"maybe I'll try Blitzkings, thanks!" hang up

RE: .270-308 Do we need one?
 

As others have said, the 7mm-08 makes the 270-08 unnecessary.

RE: .270-308 Do we need one?
 

LOL For me the 7mm08 makes the rest of the gun cabinet nearly unnecessary.

RE: .270-308 Do we need one?
 

LOL. I'm surprised you let him finish.

Tom

RE: .270-308 Do we need one?
 

I didn't, heck I'd still be on the phone to the guy. Man could he talk!:D

back to the 270-08: Do we need one? No. But more importantly: Do we want one? heck why not!

RE: .270-308 Do we need one?
 

We had a 270win and then 30-06 why didwe need the 280rem? But it is nice to have the choice. If the 277-08 came before the 7mm-08 the latter would not be necesarry, but its a nice cartridge to have. And if there is a 277-08 the 260rem wouldn't be necesary. Or would it? Like choice

Use full 277 bullet weights forthe 277-08110/115, 130, 140, 150, 160gr.
And for the 7mm-08 139/140, 145, 150/154, 160, 175gr.
The last listed for each is most likely too heavy for good velocity.

I would like the 277-08 to match my 358win for th same reason I have a 270win & 35whelen. But the 7mm-08 will work just fine.

The 08 & 06 cases make sense in .257/.277/.308/.358 all would be or are great cartridges but any that shoot the gap are OK with me!

RE: .270-308 Do we need one?
 

Agreed that the same S.D.'s and forms would produce the same B.C.'s... Can't argue with math. However, I was just saying that .277 bullets are ballistically inferior because we round off our bullet weights. A 120 grain .264 bullet and 140 grain .284 bullet both have higher S.D.'s than a 130 grain .277 bullet. Therefore, theyshould have higherB.C.'s. Also, for whatever reason, many .264 and .284 bullets happen to have really good streamlined shapes, which improves their B.C. relative to S.D.

This is perfectly demonstrated by the fact that the 140 grain .284 Nosler Ballistic Tip's B.C. is .485 and the 140 grain .277 Ballistic Tip's B.C. is only .456, even though it's S.D. is .013 higher than the .284's.That math doesn't work, unless the .284 bullet is designed more aerodynamically... Which mean's it's ballistically superior. Everyone agree?

And the original question per the title of the thread was whether or not a .27-08 is NEEDED, not whether people would buy it. If it's not obvious to some why we don't need a .27-08, then those are the exact same people who are the reason it might sell anyway. We do, afterall, live in the most excessive, over-the-top nation on Earth.

RE: .270-308 Do we need one?
 

[quote]ORIGINAL: TJEN

We had a 270win and then 30-06 why didwe need the 280rem?


Remington was trying to match the .270 with a cartridge that would work through their new semi-auto rifle. The semi-auto action couldn't handle the pressures of a .270 load. This is why .280 ammunition still isn't loaded to as high of pressures as the .270. However, since the .280 bullets tend to have higher ballistic coefficients, they still come really close and sometimes even beat the .270 in trajectory.

RE: .270-308 Do we need one?
 

It is also perfectly demonstrated by the Swift a-frame bullets in 140 grains in .264" and .277" that your argument holds no water. The .264 bullet should be the ballistically superior bullet right?

It's not, the 140 grain .277 bullet is ballistically superior to the same weight bullet in .264".

To say one bullet caliber is superior to the other is false.

I understand your point but...............