Why not 180 grain .270??
 

Why don't they have a more diverse selection of bullet weights for the .270? I mean, the .031" difference between .277 and .308 is irrelevant, as far as damaging tissue, in my opinion.

That said, why don't they make the .270 with 165 and 180 grain loads? It's the same case as the 30.06 so it would push the bullets and make the the .270 a legitimate Elk rifle.

I know you can claim "why should they when they have the 30.06. Well, one reason is the 130 grain loading at over 3,000 fps.

RE: Why not 180 grain .270??
 

I would think that a .277 bullet in 180grains would be so long that it would take up quite a bit of powder space in the case, and you would also have a longer bearing surface on the bullet that would cause higher pressure, so you probably won't be able to get velocities similar to what the '06 can do with a 180grainer.

With a quality 150 grain bullet it is a legitimate elk rifle IMHO. My father in law has been killing elk with one for the last 25 years.

The good ole '06 can also fire 130grainers at 3000fps, but they don't have near the ballistic coefficient of the .277's.

But I would love to see what a 165 would do from a .270.

RE: Why not 180 grain .270??
 

the .270 rifles of history and of today have 1:10 twist barrels and the 7 MMs have faster twists allowing them to shoot up to 175 grain bullets.

If there is an achilles heel in the .270 it's the twist rate it was given. Heavy bullets are not made for the .270 because they can't stabilize them like the faster twisted 7MMs......and there's only .007" difference.

IMO the .280 Rem and the .30-06 are both vastly superior to the .270...and that's still one very fine round for deer and antelope and sheep and goats.......and a helluva lot more.

RE: Why not 180 grain .270??
 

Barnes makes a 180 grain bullet for the 270. I think Nosler makes a 160 grain. The 130 and 140 grain bullets in 270 have a much better sectional density than those same weights in 30-06 giving them better penetration in the smaller weights. To get the same sectional density of the 130 grain bullet in 270, you have to go to the 165 grain in the 30-06. Sectional density plays a big part in a bullets effectivness to perform on game. It also has a lot to do with how much wanted and unwanted damage the bullet will do. A bullet with a sectioal density of 210 or more will do good on deer size game where it may take a bullet of 260 or more to perform the same job on an Elk and mayby 300 to break big bones and penetrat heavy hide and muscle on large heavy game like big moose and bears or the larger antelope in Africa.
This is another good reason to reload. You can taylor a load to do just what you need it to do. I like to shoot the 120 grain bullets in my 280. The sectional density of that bullet is about 211. With the 280 I can drive that bullet to over 3200 fps. Great for varmits if you don't mind turning them inside out, but to fast for good performance on deer it may blow up badly or expand so fast that it won't penetrate. Or if it hits a rib it may deflect or blow a football size hole through my fall meat supply. However as I said I like that bullet for lack of recoil and the speed range I get from it. Therefore for deer I load it to 2800-2850 fps. At that velocity it performs very well on mule deer. Without the ability to control the velocity I would ues the 140 grain for deer in the 280 every time. Many people when they reload are concerned mostly with getting top velocities but overlook the advantages of loading to lower speeds. Sometimes enough really is enough. If a 223 will kill a deer and it will, then do I need 3200 ft lbs of energy to kill a deer. I don't think so.

RE: Why not 180 grain .270??
 

For every rifle there is the medium. The medium being the most nock down the most tragectory and the most accuracy you can get out of a caliber using a specify weight of bullet. While in a tight twist the 270 could and would shoot the 180gr mediocre. That bullet would be seated very deep in the case. I'm afraid in the end it wouldn't preform as well. The 270 is made to shoot 130,140, and 150gr bullets at optimun preformance. There is a reason the heavier bullet is not listed. The 30-06 is larger dia which make the bullet shorter. So they can make heavier bullets for that .308 caliber. Its simple mathematics.

RE: Why not 180 grain .270??
 

Hi James,

Unless something has changed very recently....you are correct. Barnes offers the 180 grain Original, (copper jacket - lead core), round nosed bullet for .270 and Nosler offers a 160 grain Semi-spitzer Partition. One of the rifles carried by my wife at various times in Alaska was chambered for .270 Winchester. It was loaded with those 160 Partitions. (They actually nearly always out-penetrate even the 180 Barnes Original.) Both good heavy game bullets!

Dave

RE: Why not 180 grain .270??
 

The .270 is a legitimate elk rifle. With the bullets available today like Barnes, failsafe, Nosler, the new bonded bullets, so on and so on in 140 and 150 grain weights the .270 makes a fine elk rifle. Of the six elk I have taken with my .270 only one remained inside the animal and that was a 140 grain TBBC that went through ribs, liver, lungs, and more ribs and stoped under the skin and it was dead within 75 yards.

Barnes makes a 180 grain bullet but a 180 grain bulet in a .270 can only be driven to about 2500 fps. One reason is the bullet takes up a lot of powder space and the other reason is the smaler the bore the less speed you will get out of a given weight bullet because there is effectively less bore area for the powder to burn in.

140 and 150 grain bullets of the premium variety will serve you much better than the larger 160 and 180 grain bulets in the .270.

RE: Why not 180 grain .270??
 

:D:D:D

RE: Why not 180 grain .270??
 

Danny,

I guess now you know why i built my custom light weight rifle in 7 express Remington., (280 Rem.) instead of 270 Win!!! I wanted those 175 grain Nosler partitions for moose, and "if needed" also for big bears!!!

I also agree that the .280 Rem. is a better "all around" caliber/cartridge than the 270 Win..

Drilling Man

RE: Why not 180 grain .270??
 

If you ask the experts they will tell you. The optimum bullet for the .270 is the 130 gr. period. Your rifle is just about guaranteed to shoot its best groups with this bullet, all other things being equal. And for deer sized game, including b. bear, this is all you need. I love the .270 dearly and shot alot of deer and antelope with it. But if I'm going for anything bigger I will take my 300 WM or if shots will be close (under 100 yds), my little Marlin 1895 in 45-70.

RE: Why not 180 grain .270??
 

Everyone has a personal load for each caliber they own. My father has taken over 20 bull elk with a 270 using 130gr bullets. It boils down the marksman behind the gun. As far as a 270 being legitimate I would say its more than adequate. If you can't shoot the rifle it won't matter if your using a 50 cal.

RE: Why not 180 grain .270??
 

Trying to make the 270 into a 30-06 is like pounding a square peg into a round hole. The .270's advantages are a high velocity bullet with a high BC and SD, its like a 3 legged stool, you can increase the any one of the 3 factors and you end up out of balance. IMHO the 270 is a very well balanced cartridge to start with. If you want the extra muzzle energy and confidence, get a 30-06, if you want a nice flat shooting rifle that will do just about anything a 30-06 will do, then get the .270.

RE: Why not 180 grain .270??
 

I haven't tried this bullet 180 gr. However my Barnes Manual shows it at 2762 fps. Its true though If you wanted to make a steady practice of shooting 180 grain bullets then the 30-06 would be a better choice . However the 180 in the 270 would have quite a bit higher sectioal density than the 30 caliber 180 grain bullet. 335 sd for the 270 bullet. 271 sd for the 30 cal bullet.

RE: Why not 180 grain .270??
 

Hi James,

I'm being lazy......and not looking it up......but I suspect the 180 grain .277 bullet has a sectional density equal to....or greater than the 220 grain .308 caliber bullet. Which means it should penetrate as well or better than a bullet of similar construction. Which would also make it appropriate for nearly the same uses as one would apply a 220 grain bullet from a .30-06. (For those people that only have one rifle.....it being a .270.) Though you'd give up frontal area.

I know personally when the wife and I were looking for a .277 bullet that would give great penetration on heavy animals.....and still shoot reasonably flat.....we chose the 160 grain Nosler semi-spitzer Partition. It worked very well for us in all circumstances we used it in!

At any rate......it just provides more options for rifleman desiring to use a .270 of any stripe......on really heavy game! Making a really good cartridge....even better.

Dave

RE: Why not 180 grain .270??
 

Barnes makes the 180-.277", as mentioned above. Speer USED to make a 170-grainer. Nosler makes a 160 Partition Jacket. The reason why the bullet weight selection is so small is because when other weights were made available, no-one bought them! That's why the 170 Speer was discontinued, for example. I did use some of them in Alaska - they were very accurate, and performed well - but no better than the Nosler Partition 150 and 160 grainers!!

RE: Why not 180 grain .270??
 

ak, the SD of the 180-grain .270 bullet is .335..... (vs .331 for the .308" 220-grain.....)

RE: Why not 180 grain .270??
 

180 gr 270 Win??? All I can picture in my mind is a great big Carcano with that LOOOOONG bouit sticking out of it. I know it has to be seated deep to clear the lands but that is what popped into my mind. I will never forget the 1st time I saw the 6.5 Carcano round. I was maybe 15 and even then I could not see how that bullet didn't tumble once it left the barrel. Wierd round.

RE: Why not 180 grain .270??
 

Why not a 180 gr. bullet for a .270?
Cause Jack O'Conner shot 130's and 150's,and so that is why we all have to shoot 130gr,140's and 150's out of our 270's[8D]

RE: Why not 180 grain .270??
 

Thanks eldeguello! I guess that's about as close as it mathematically gets.......without being identical!

I remember seeing the 180 grain Barnes at one time. They are such a blunt profiled round nose....they are nearly flat on the end. Even though Barnes has a great reputation....and the other Barnes bullets I'd used always worked well we were certain the Nosler Partition would penetrate at least as well....and shoot flatter. Either way....good bullets!

Thanks again.

Dave

P.S. I was having a "lazy moment"!:)

Danny 45:
In all my years of hunting, I don't know how many elk I've taken with a .243 then I moved up to the .270 which I actually didn't see much difference. I enjoy hunting with either, but for a bit heaver and faster cartridge, the .270 does have more terminal velocity. With that said, regardless of caliber, it will always be about bullet placement. Have a quality scope and can shoot well; I wouldn't be afraid to shoot an Elk, Moose or even a Grizzly with a .270. They simply don't move once hit. So, I know you're asking where do you place the bullet? I seldom every make a body shot, but I'll always go for the neck just below the head. They never seem to know what hit em, it's just over and I seldom every shoot twice using the 130 grain.

Best of luck!

Oh yeah, the .280 is indeed a powerful caliber! But I had the option of either, and after spending weeks investigating them both, I concluded, with the insight of an Alaskan hunter using a .270, there wasn't enough difference to opt for the heaver .280. This Alaskan hunter has taken everything Alaska had to offer with zero problems, including grizzlies. He too advised bullet placement, which is everything. He also shoots below the head in the neck area and they never move again. If however, you hit the heart of a grizzly with a 300 Winchester Magnum, they have been known to still run a great distance before finally dropping. Choose your shot carefully and the results will pay off.

Best regards

As others have stated, the 180grn .277" bullet is either so long that it seats into the grooves (dangerous condition causing excessive chamber pressure), or the bullet has to be seated so deep into the case that the powder capacity is so limited that the velocity is reduced beyond unreasonable levels.

And, again as others have mentioned, the rifling twist rate of production .270win rifles is NOT fast enough to stabilize heavier, slower bullets.

If you want to use a .270 for elk, or black bear, go ahead, it's a very venerable, historically proven cartridge. But at the end of the day, it is what it is. You wouldn't try to force a bullet weight into a .223rem that would supposedly make it useful as a moose rifle. The .270win isn't an "extreme" large game cartridge. It's a middle game to smaller-big game cartridge, it's great for anything on north america except moose and heavy bears (although guys HAVE and continue to use it for those purposes). The world travelling hunter should very likely have a .223, .270 or .30-06, .338Lap or .375 H&H, and a .416 Rigby or .458 Lott... Different sized hammers for different jobs, just like a home builder has a lightweight trim-nail hammer, a framing hammer, and a 9lb sledge hammer.

This is an interesting seven year old thread....even EldeGuello has posted on it!

At the time I posted on this thread I didn't have a .280 Remington....and since that time I've not only built a M-98 in .280 Rem, I've investigated 500 yard trajectories on the .30-06, the .280 Rem and the .270 Winchester....

My conclusions given new bullets (accubonds with very high BC):

The .270 is still an Elk rifle but to 400 yards.....both the .280 and .30-06 have the (traditional) 1500 ft-lb energy at 500 yards (handloaded in all three cartridges) but the surprise is the the .280 Rem with the 160 grain accubond delivers the most "whack" at 500 yards. Therefore, of the three.....the .280 (at least in my studies) is the better choice when retained ft-lb of energy is used as the point of "end of range".

One might ask why the 160 partition in the .270 isn't equal to the 160 accubond in the .280 and the answer is found in the superb ballistic coefficient of the accubonds. The accubond slides through the air more gracefully and retains greater velocity at the extended ranges.....and I suspect a 160 accubond in the .270 might not stabilize in the 1-10 twist.

Just a little kicker for those that are looking to buy an elk rifle!

reloaders have 160 grainers to work with...which is probably about as heavy as you want to go in a .270

Son, after awhile it gets real simple
 

There are over 15 caliber types effective for whitetail deer. It just depends how much money you want to spend on rifles. Some are great for shorter ranges; some for longer. But of the number given, all are effective.
It sure was tough to give up just using the .35 Remington. I payed attention to accuracy and one shot knockdowns in swamps. It wasn't until I got to another state and longer shots, did I get to rifle #2.

Good luck. I always appreciated that the buyer of a lot of different rifles was somebody else.