In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.

Question for Nonsense

NeoBlackdogNeoBlackdog Member Posts: 14,785 ✭✭✭✭
In the thread about the .270 GMX bullets you mentioned that you were not a fan of the '270 anything'. I'm just curious, what is it that you don't like about that particular caliber, especially given it's long track record of proven performance?

Comments

  • nononsensenononsense Member Posts: 10,934 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    NeoBlackdog,

    quote:Question for Nonsense

    Actually it's 'Nononsense' unless you're trying to make a point...[:D]

    I was hoping that I wouldn't offend anyone with that wording but alas that's not to be.

    It's very simply my opinion. Without going into an extremely long and detailed explanation of the background, please let it suffice for me to state that it started when I was an apprentice and built up along the way to where I am now. The details would not improve the reason so I try to keep it simple.

    I take nothing away from the cartridge or its proponents at all. We all have the right to pick and choose which cartridge(s) we champion and I stand squarely by that idea. There are hundreds of cartridges including variations on themes so if you like the .270 Win., that's great and I will not demean your choice ever.

    Best.
  • Alan RushingAlan Rushing Member Posts: 9,002 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    NeoBlackdog - May I offer an observation?

    Although "NN" and a few other folks have no personal love affair nor even "puppy love" for the .270 chamberings. He laid his own personal notions regarding the .270 right there AND then . . .

    " we built a .270 WSM to test some bullets for pure hunting experience (nothing to do with competition). Hornady was kind enough to send off a couple of boxes of their best hunting bullets for the testing, one of which was the GMX. We didn't do anything special with regard to loading since Hornady suggested using their standard loading procedures. Target accuracy was very acceptable but the performance on deer was excellent at ranges from about 70 yards to over 500 yards. "

    For a "non-Lover" to speak so openly, honestly, and glowingly regarding the performance of those projectiles . . . well, that says quite a bit for both: the bullet and the Man. [^]
  • NeoBlackdogNeoBlackdog Member Posts: 14,785 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by nononsense
    NeoBlackdog,

    quote:Question for Nonsense

    Actually it's 'Nononsense' unless you're trying to make a point...[:D]

    No point, just clumsy typing![:D]

    I was hoping that I wouldn't offend anyone with that wording but alas that's not to be.
    No offense taken. I was just curious as to the dislike for the caliber especially after the glowing report on the 270 WSM experiment.

    It's very simply my opinion. Without going into an extremely long and detailed explanation of the background, please let it suffice for me to state that it started when I was an apprentice and built up along the way to where I am now. The details would not improve the reason so I try to keep it simple.
    It's the gritty details that I was curious about![;)]

    I take nothing away from the cartridge or its proponents at all. We all have the right to pick and choose which cartridge(s) we champion and I stand squarely by that idea. There are hundreds of cartridges including variations on themes so if you like the .270 Win., that's great and I will not demean your choice ever.
    Actually, the 270 Win is my favorite round! I've just never heard of anyone that disliked it and you piqued my curiosity. I (and I'm sure many others!) would like to hear the details/reasoning behind the conclusion. I hope this doesn't sound like I'm trying to pick a fight. That is certainly not my intent! Just curious...
    Thanks!

    Best.
  • nononsensenononsense Member Posts: 10,934 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    NeoBlackdog,

    O.K., fair enough, but it really isn't that impressive.

    I apprenticed to a very Germanic gunsmith who believed in mastering a process or technique before moving on to bigger and more exciting prospects in gunsmithing. Not just doing something right once or twice but every time, dozens of times. Repetition builds muscle memory and ingrains the concepts in your brain. Repetition of the proper skills builds on itself, allowing for a progressive learning based on the previous skills when taught by a master craftsman.

    He had been great friends with Mr. O'Connor and even socialized with him when Mr. O'Connor came to town for a visit to the shop. They would tell stories, laugh, drink and carry on arguing about guns and cartridges for a couple of days and nights before Mr. O'Connor had to leave. Please note that I am not nearly old enough to have participated in these goings-on, I was merely on the receiving end of the stories about the events of that time.

    This old gunsmith and I spent long hours in the shop, 7 days a week, so there were plenty of opportunities to get new details and older stories. But the best part aside from the training were the 'discussions' regarding the beliefs and accepted 'learned' concepts about nearly anything having to with firearms and cartridges. We could spend a whole day just working with one cartridge and one bullet, reloading it a dozen times then shooting it over a chronograph to establish a base for additional data. This same process was accomplished repeatedly with dozens of cartridges and many more bullets.

    The end result was simple. Several cartridges share similar performance characteristics, without any one in particular standing out about the rest. This however did bring about another discussion when I asked about Mr. O'Connor and the .270 Winchester with regard to the nearly heroic status that cartridge has enjoyed for decades.

    My take from the discussions, shooting, testing and data analysis is this:

    Jack O'Connor was an extremely bright and accomplished writer, catering to a not very sophisticated public. He had mastered the art of wordsmithing an advertising campaign long before it became a science employed by the data thieves of today.

    He could whisk you off to a hunting camp where you would play a part in the hunt, using of course, the Hammer of Thor, the ultimate deer killing machine, the magnificent .270 Winchester! Through his stories and the incessant advertising, the American public was thoroughly convinced that America, no the World, only needed two cartridges. One was the .30-06 Springfield, the mighty battle cartridge of WWI and the wunderkind of Jack O'Connor, the incontrovertible .270 Winchester.

    Well, the truth is the .270 Winchester is a decent cartridge. But in reality, it is really no better and in some cases it is somewhat a little worse than other cartridge which have suffered long because of the overpowering, mythical stature which Jack O'Connor created for this cartridge.

    Understand, we always want heroes and heroic performances. It's good for us, I don't ever question it. That's what he gave us, entertainment and an advertising image all wrapped up into one. He made millions of dollars for the industry and quite a bit for himself with this campaign. So it wasn't just the mythical greatness of one cartridge but an advertising campaign aimed at making money for decades. It also insured that the name of Jack O'Connor would go on into history through this work and association.

    So, there it is, out in the open for all to read. You are free to be judgmental in your disagreement or this can cast a slightly different light on how we look at and accept what gunwriters write and why. There tactics are much more obvious these days, though.

    Best.
  • RobOzRobOz Member Posts: 9,538 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Has a .277 bullet ever won a 1000 br match that you know of?
  • nononsensenononsense Member Posts: 10,934 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    RobOz,

    I can't answer that for absolute surety but the potential is available from the Berger 150 gr. VLD and the .270 WSM. Sierra also makes a Match King or two in the .277" diameter.

    Maybe I need to put one together and test it...[:0]

    Best.
  • NeoBlackdogNeoBlackdog Member Posts: 14,785 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Nononsense, (Got it right that time!)

    Thanks for your explanation. I have to admit that as a young man I bit the hook baited by Jack O'Connor and have had the 270 bug now for 38 years. Your explanation makes perfect sense to me and I have to agree, the 270 was 'wordsmithed' into something perhaps greater than it actually is. That said, given the things I've seen done and have done with the cartridge, somebody would play hell trying to get me to give it up!![:D]

    I've got a bunch of the Sierra 135 grain SMK's sitting on the reloading bench... One of these days I'll have some time and can start working up up some accuracy loads. Of course, then I'll probably want to re-barrel, re-stock, etc. etc.
  • RobOzRobOz Member Posts: 9,538 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by nononsense
    RobOz,

    I can't answer that for absolute surety but the potential is available from the Berger 150 gr. VLD and the .270 WSM. Sierra also makes a Match King or two in the .277" diameter.

    Maybe I need to put one together and test it...[:0]

    Best.




    I wouldn't be able to handicap myself like that[:D]
  • sandwarriorsandwarrior Member Posts: 5,453 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    NeoBlackdog,

    Oftentimes, we hear about this or that cartridge/caliber and hear how great or how sad it is. Unfortunately, most of this is hype.

    Back in the day when Jack O'Connor was writing up the .270 Win., hype was the norm. Hype, just as with any new caliber/cartridge. It was what sold stuff, good or bad. But also, the .270 wasn't the norm as far as what was out there at that time. When Jack was plugging the .270, it really was a hot-rod. When bullets of different calibers were made, they were often made the same. At some point, and the point I believe Jack was belaboring, the natural balance of weight vs. diameter, given a standard construction, was optimized. Meaning if you had a .250 something cartridge, a .270 something cartridge and a .30 something cal cartridge, all with a 6R ogive, there would be a weight vs. diameter efficiency through the air for the .270. You couldn't have all three bullets weigh the same and get the same velocity. So, you had to set velocity parameters and then weight parameters. Meaning characteristics of the bullet needed to change to meet the criteria of each caliber.

    Back in 1925 when Winchester introduced the .270, it really did have about the best ballistics one could hope for. But, keep in mind those ballistics were not optimized. Not only were they not optimized in the projectile, they were not optimized in the rifle for a 'newer, better projectile". Back in the day when everything was a round nose or 6R ogive, it was fine. Then along came 10R ogives for target use, and because the .270 wasn't chosen, it was immediately surpassed in capability by the 6.5 and 7mm's. In the weight category it was surpassed by the .30 cals.
    So, it languished until people bent on really finding the optimal balance between weight for dia. vs. launch speed and ballistic coefficient dug it up again in the form of Matrix bullets.

    Bottom line is you have to get past personal and hearsay prejudices against something because someone said it's the greatest thing (i.e. green mint flavoured brain gel on your lamb). You have to try it to see what works and what doesn't. The newer .270 bullets in a tight twist like the 6.5's and 7mm's are proving to be the cats * as far as great long range ballistics. Whatever case they are launched from, as long as it has sound internal ballistics to propel the projectile. A .270 Savage or .270 Win, would be an excellent choice. The rifle can be made to be as accurate as needed.
  • steve45steve45 Member Posts: 2,920 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    I think this is the most informed and logical conversation about the pro's and con's of the .270 that I have ever read.
  • Sky SoldierSky Soldier Member Posts: 460
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by steve45
    I think this is the most informed and logical conversation about the pro's and con's of the .270 that I have ever read.


    I agree. Could have gone off in a lot of unfortunate directions but stayed on track. Thanks to all who posted.
  • NeoBlackdogNeoBlackdog Member Posts: 14,785 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Sandwarrior, thanks for the great response. What do you think would be the optimal twist rate for launching the Matrix 175 gr. VLD's? With a BC of .7828 I'd think a guy (or gal!) could get some pretty good accuracy given the right platform. Thanks for all the reponses, everyone. Keep 'em comin'.
  • sandwarriorsandwarrior Member Posts: 5,453 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by NeoBlackdog
    Sandwarrior, thanks for the great response. What do you think would be the optimal twist rate for launching the Matrix 175 gr. VLD's? With a BC of .7828 I'd think a guy (or gal!) could get some pretty good accuracy given the right platform. Thanks for all the reponses, everyone. Keep 'em comin'.


    It is my opinion that you should stick to the manufacturers guide for within normal supersonic range of a particular bullet. And, for extended ranges past expected supersonic flight, use a 1" tighter twist*. You can also use a broad comparison by taking what the next smaller and larger caliber use to stablize a VLD type bullet. Use the principle above for shooting extendced ranges.

    *The twist will determine final accuracy of the cases. It has been demonstrated, although not always, that a tighter twist, in certain cases of specific construction, will help a bullet stabilize, when in normal flight.
  • JustCJustC Member Posts: 16,055 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    If it were me, I would order a 1:8 twist barrel to spin-up the 175gr .277" pills, maybe even 1:7.5?
  • sandwarriorsandwarrior Member Posts: 5,453 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by JustC
    If it were me, I would order a 1:8 twist barrel to spin-up the 175gr .277" pills, maybe even 1:7.5?


    Yup. Same principal I use when shooting my 7mm-08 with 180 Bergers and even Sierras with a 1-8" twist. The original twist for 7mm was about 1-8.4" That stabilized 173 gr. round nose bullets just fine for 2Km.
  • NeoBlackdogNeoBlackdog Member Posts: 14,785 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Is anybody making a 1-8 twist 270 barrel? I did a quick search online and couldn't find any.
    What action would you guys use if you were building a 270 Winchester for accuracy?
  • RobOzRobOz Member Posts: 9,538 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by NeoBlackdog
    Is anybody making a 1-8 twist 270 barrel? I did a quick search online and couldn't find any.
    What action would you guys use if you were building a 270 Winchester for accuracy?


    Remington or Remington clone.
  • Tailgunner1954Tailgunner1954 Member Posts: 7,815
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by NeoBlackdog
    Is anybody making a 1-8 twist 270 barrel? I did a quick search online and couldn't find any.
    What action would you guys use if you were building a 270 Winchester for accuracy?


    Fastest I saw was 10, but one of the "cut rifling" guys might be willing to do a 8" twist, as they could use existing tooling (the button rifling guys would need to purchase a custom button before they could make one).

    For pure on accuracy, look at all the usual suspects IE: Panda Surgeon Kilby, Bat etc. Skip over the "factory" actions, because by the time you get one brought into spec, you will have spent just as much (if not more) than buying a "expensive" one right off (esp if you want something like a RH bolt, LH load, bottom eject action).
  • Dads3040Dads3040 Member Posts: 13,788 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    I have to agree with an earlier post. This has been a really great thread to read.

    I have a .270 Win in a Model 70. I have to admit I have had it for 6 or 7 years and have never shot the thing. I bought it because the deal was too good to pass up. I was looking for a gun for my son to start with, and while looking at other stuff, the old guy mentioned he had the .270 and a Model 94 30-30 he would sell for $500 total.

    The .270 has a decent scope on it, and the 94 is about pristine, so I went for it. Then the old guy began bringing out rifle cases, extra slings, a veritable crapload (~400 rds!) of factory ammo the 'he figured' I ought to have. I was embarrassed by the time I left.

    Now after reading this, I suppose I better go get it out and head into the hills this weekend. What a great excuse.

    Thanks guys!
Sign In or Register to comment.