Unhappy IN TEXAS (270 Fans Only)

[razmuz]

The November issue , page 36, of "Outdoor Life" has an article "The 270 Mystery."  They say Outdoor Life has undertook what in all probability is the most exhaustive investigation of the .270's accuracy ever conducted.  The article is well worth reading, however, they provide little data.  I've emailed mailed them twice with no response.  Maybe some of you guys in the know can find out if there's going to be a follow up article.

[The Sodbuster]

I vaguely remember the article from last fall.  As I recall, the gist of it was that the .270, while a fine hunting cartridge, isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer with respect to accuracy.  They reference some figures from highpower or benchrest competition where almost no one shoots .270.  I think they also mention the complete lack of match grade ammo and bullets in .277 caliber.  I have a Savage 110 in .270 Win.  It'll shoot into 1.5" at 100 yards.  I didn't take offense.

It's been a few months since I read it.  I don't subscribe and don't have the issue to refer to so I may have gotten some details wrong.

[Sigma]

Yeah right,

Seems like a grudge Carmichal has with O'Connor and his following. In contrast, some time ago in one of the major gun rags I read that the .270 was inherently more accurate than other rounds due to the fact that "more care" was given to .270 factory loads because of many high profile users in the shooting community. Figure that out.  :?

Interestingly, the .270 caliber bullet was chosen over other alternatives when designing the new 6.8 SPC... Theory is that a shorter powder column would increase accuracy - such is the case with the .308 vs. the 30.06. But to poopoo the .270 like that article did, reeks of politics and pressure from gunmakers to achieve a following for the new WSM cartridges and loads.

Personally, I'm steering clear of belted cartridges and the new short magnums for various reasons which have to do mainly with throat erosion, chamber pressure, and feeding issues.

Regards

[Questor]

You know what? I'm tired of these whining morons who write for gun rags.  To them, if it can't keep bullets in 1 MOA, it's a piece of junk.  The general hunting public picked the 270 long ago as a standard cartridge and it shows no sign of losing popularity any time soon.

[wink_man]

I remember when Carmichael took over for O'Connor, many years ago, he mentioned in his first article, that he had a big pair of boots to fill, taking over for Jack. You know something, Carmichael never did fill those boots, and I think it haunts him to this day. I miss O'Connors writings, don't read Carmichael at all, and even though I don't own one(my daughter does), the 270 IS one of the great all time cartridges, and it will always reek of Jack O'connor, as it should!!!!!!!!!!!!
Sincerely,
 Garry

[longwinters]

Actually, O'Conner is the one who recommended that Carmichael go with the 280 caliber.  Read an article by Carmichael about a year ago and he talks about his 3 favorite calibers and how they came to be thought of so highly by him.  O'Conner was a major influence on his going with the 280.

Long

[Muskie Hunter]

This is why I do not buy gun magazines of any kind.They are a big waste of money and full of lies.I used to and I have bought a lot over the years but no more.
I had a winchester model 70 and had trigger work done on it and put a Bell and Carleson fiberglass stock,bedded down and it gave me quarter inch groups at a 100 yards.I killed a mess of ground hogs out of my hay field at ranges close to 400 yards.I sold the 22-250.
So there,some of those gun writers are butt heads,period.

[Questor]

Muskie Hunter:

I agree with you, but I don't think it's lies. It's misinformation that promotes the industry at the expense of the subscriber.  I buy the gun mags, but regard them mostly as entertainment.

The magazines by Wolfe publishing, Rifle, Handloader, Successful Hunter are all really good. I keep my old copies and enjoy re-reading them during winter.

[5.56er]

I have a savage 110 with laminated stock it has been floated and it will shoot at a 1/2 inch on a good day with 130 grain but won't shoot a 1 1/2 groups with 150. that could have something to do with the accuracy

[Siskiyou]

I like the author but his findings did not fit the findings of others.  I have not seen .277 dia. match bullets in a long time.  Back in the late 60's I bought two boxes of Norma .277 Match bullets at big discount.  I suspect there was no demand for them.  Worked great on deer.  And the accuracy out of a hunting rifle was very good.

The accuracy of ammuntion and rifles very a great deal.  WW 150 grain powerpoints are first choice in one of my .270's, in another .270 the groups are two and half to three inches at one hundred yards.  The rifle that is inaccurate with the PowerPoints, shots great with other loads.  I do not know the answer.  

Years ago I read an article about the tremendous accuracy achieved by a .270 Win. rail gun.  I guess there is some sort of "Rail Gun" competition.  Of course a rail gun is not a hunting rifle no matter what caliber it is in.  The author felt the .270 Cal. was the answer.

[Mac11700]

Sierra #1833...135 grain MatchKing bullet...is one being made today for the 270...while not as heavy as some would like...from what I've heard about them...they are pretty good...and intend to pick up a box and try them out...

Mac

[wormbobskey]

I recently bought a Mossberg ATR100 in .270 caliber, mainly out of curiosity more than anything else. I just wanted to see how a mossberg rifle shot. To be honest most of my centerfire rifles are military rifles I have sportized to hunt with. The rifle has a (in my opinion) light tapered barrel, but shot 1.5 groups at 100 yards once I got it sighted in. I have to say I was impressed with the mild recoil and think this rifle will serve me well on ground hogs and coyotes. I buy these rifles with the notion that one day I will go west to hunt mule deer or elk, but I think the .270 is a keeper even if I don't go out west to hunt bigger game. Worm