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.
270 Win. Target Gun??
NeoBlackdog
Member Posts: 17,194 ✭✭✭✭
Has anybody out there put together or know of anyone that has built a target rifle using the 270 Winchester?
Comments
Never heard of one. There is not the selection of high ballistic coefficient bullets that a target shooter would want.
Sounds about right. Even though the 277 diameters make fine hunting rounds, the 6mm family has had a great amount of success in target shooting.
Welcome to the Gunbroker Forums!
I have not chambered any target rifles for the .270 Win. and I don't know of anyone who has either. This is not to say that you couldn't have one made but be aware of the lack of bullets.
There is a dearth of Match bullets for the .27 caliber with the exception of the 2 bullets from Sierra: the 115 gr. and the 135 gr. MatchKings. You might run across another custom Match bullet but it seems like this is one to ignore and move on to the established Competition cartridges that have a broad selection of Match bullets.
On the other hand, you could move up or down a few thousandths to the 6.5mm (.264") or the 7mm (.284") to get all the Match/Competition bullets you can use. There is a broad selection of cartridges used for accuracy events as well as hunting is you choose.
Best.
I do not know of a purpose built target {edit: rifle} in .270 Win., but I do know of one built in .270 WSM. It's purpose was to use the Berger 150's. It does that job very well. However, the 130's and 140's work just fine too. But not for extreme range like the 150's. For whatever reason Berger didn't give these bullets the pencil sharp ogive known for increasing BC's like the 6mm, 6.5mm and 7mm bullets.
Anyhow, to your issue I would say, the .270 Win using the Bergers, or the two nononsense mentioned from Sierra would work for as far out as 1k. Using the 150's pushed out at 2800. A very attainable velocity for the .270 A good deal farther if your shooting up at altitude out West[:D]. As a dedicated LR caliber, the 6mm and 6.5 and also the 7mm still beat it, but with some prodding the bullet makers may follow through with some higher BC .277 bullets sooner than we think. That is all that is needed for anything in this caliber to take off as a long range target round. It seems odd to me that no one makes them or sees this caliber, that sits between the two highest BC of normal weight calibers, only has five dedicated target bullets. Not to mention it's current and past popularity. It's just a matter of time.
Something to add here, Kirby Allen has built a number of .270 magnum target rifles. The main caliber he builds is his own version called the .270 Allen Magnum or AM for short. He also, in the past, was a big time user of the Wildcat bullets made by Richard Graves.
Richard has since sold his business to a man who lives in Elko, Nevada. The plan was as of June of this year to be producing lines in all the standard calibers that Richard produced. So far, all I have seen is the website come up, but not with any information. I wish the best to him as these bullets, when I could stabilize them, were fantastic for range. In the case of accuracy, I've seen them shoot phenominally, but I had good, not great luck with them. I'm thinking it could have been some things I did/didn't do while reloading. Anyhow, with meticulous reloading the .270 Wildcat bullets are also a good choice and they truly are made for extreme long range shooting. Again, if you had a hankering to get into extreme long range shooting with a .270 Win, these bullets are a good choice.
Another choice not commonly found in stores but is available through the iternet, is GS Custom Bullets. They make long range match bullets in .270 in 99 and 105 gr. That may seem a little light but due to their design they have nearly the same BC as the 150's. Also, due to their weight and design they are intended to come out of the rifle a lot faster. These specifically would lend themselves well to the .270 more-so than a WSM or STW or even AM. They might probably even work best in a .270-08, if you wanted to go that route. (Wildcat round, much work involved, but much reward as well)
These are just a couple more things to think about if you plan on building a .270 target rifle. It's very do-able, but you would have to pick components and stock up to get all the same and the consistency needed to really make it work. But, that's what most target shooters do anyways.
-good luck with this
The pre-WWII Winchester Model 70 "Target" was apparently available in any caliber the Sporter came in. Some years ago I saw one in .257 Roberts, and have noted several in .220 Swift; these guns all had rear aperture/front globe sights on them!
Friend of mine has a heavy barreled VARMINT rifle in .270 Win., made up on a Mauser 98 action w/a 2" 10x Unertl in the 1950s; shoots well with Sierra 90 gr. HP.
The pre-WWII Winchester Model 70 "Target" was apparently available in any caliber the Sporter came in. Some years ago I saw one in .257 Roberts, and have noted several in .220 Swift; these guns all had rear aperture/front globe sights on them!
I have personal experience with these bullets in that caliber and weight. You MUST keep the MV below 3000 fps or you will get bullets upsettin upon exiting the bbl, you'll also see bullets turning to shrapnel.
Jim C. made several points that the caliber should have really been a flop, because caliber aboue (30.06) and below (6mm) would both outperform the .270 in ballistics, bullet choices and on target! Hard to argue with his statements!
Jim Carmichael wrote a article couple years back or so that I will never forget! Why you do not see any 270 caliber bench or competition rifles! "It is because the 270 is not accurate as compared with calibers above and below" He also in a round about way indicated that the 270 was over-rated by the guy that made the caliber famous, think he was indicating Jack Conner, maybe!
Jim C. made several points that the caliber should have really been a flop, because caliber aboue (30.06) and below (6mm) would both outperform the .270 in ballistics, bullet choices and on target! Hard to argue with his statements!
I can't believe you are repeating what Carmichel said as though you know. Or he knows for that matter. The guy is nothing but a self-promoter. Any caliber bullet can be made to be accurate. Whether it be .243/6mm, .257/6.35mm, .264/6.5mm .277/6.8mm and up. Accuracy is a matter of precision in concentricity along with being able to create the most ballisticly efficient form within a given weight and length parameter per a given diameter. Meaning if you applied the same technology to .22 call all the way up to .50...or above... you could get ultimate accuracy. There is no reason why you can't do the same in .27 cal as you can in .26 cal of .28 cal or .30 cal. Try to remember it took a very, very long time for the 6.5mm to catch on in competitions in this country. Far too long did we take the approach that it takes more power to get long range than better efficiency in a bullet. The 6.5 provided that because it has good efficiency. The .277 diameter bullet has the potential with a long point and boattail to be made more ballisticly efficient. It's simply a matter of when the buying public sees the potential and starts to demand it.
FWIW, I'm no over the top fan of Jack O'Connor and neither was I much of a fan of the .270 Win. But I always knew it could get the job done and done well. Since only in the past twenty years have bullet makers come up with the latest greatest (true) super high BC bullets. When we get apples/apples and oranges/oranges comparisons then you really should look twice at saying the .270 isn't accurate.
Jon
quote:Originally posted by Okie743
Jim Carmichael wrote a article couple years back or so that I will never forget! Why you do not see any 270 caliber bench or competition rifles! "It is because the 270 is not accurate as compared with calibers above and below" He also in a round about way indicated that the 270 was over-rated by the guy that made the caliber famous, think he was indicating Jack Conner, maybe!
Jim C. made several points that the caliber should have really been a flop, because caliber aboue (30.06) and below (6mm) would both outperform the .270 in ballistics, bullet choices and on target! Hard to argue with his statements!
I can't believe you are repeating what Carmichel said as though you know. Or he knows for that matter. The guy is nothing but a self-promoter. Any caliber bullet can be made to be accurate. Whether it be .243/6mm, .257/6.35mm, .264/6.5mm .277/6.8mm and up. Accuracy is a matter of precision in concentricity along with being able to create the most ballisticly efficient form within a given weight and length parameter per a given diameter. Meaning if you applied the same technology to .22 call all the way up to .50...or above... you could get ultimate accuracy. There is no reason why you can't do the same in .27 cal as you can in .26 cal of .28 cal or .30 cal. Try to remember it took a very, very long time for the 6.5mm to catch on in competitions in this country. Far too long did we take the approach that it takes more power to get long range than better efficiency in a bullet. The 6.5 provided that because it has good efficiency. The .277 diameter bullet has the potential with a long point and boattail to be made more ballisticly efficient. It's simply a matter of when the buying public sees the potential and starts to demand it.
FWIW, I'm no over the top fan of Jack O'Connor and neither was I much of a fan of the .270 Win. But I always knew it could get the job done and done well. Since only in the past twenty years have bullet makers come up with the latest greatest (true) super high BC bullets. When we get apples/apples and oranges/oranges comparisons then you really should look twice at saying the .270 isn't accurate.
sandwarrior: (Your opinion of them two self promoters (gun writers) is same as mine) They were getting paid to draw the self promotion)
I'm a reloader and reload for all calibers and have not have any problems with any of them and also one of my favorites is the 6.5mm (.264) you mention as being a slow popular caliber in the U.S.A. and have also glass bedded and reloaded for the 270's and found them too be Ok! I have found some of the rifles that are suppose to be inheriently ACCURATE to be some of the most painful to tune at times, such as the 223, and 308's, with the 6mm usually, (but not always the most user friendly! I kinda think MR Jim C. was just trying to stir up a hornet's nest about the 270 and draw attention to himself (like you said, another self promoter)
But, it seems the 270 was kinda left behind as a target rifle caliber, maybe because the other calibers above and below were the advertised calibers for such!
Okie,
NRA Member,
(When they come after your guns, GIVE THEM YOUR BULLETS FIRST!
want a hunting round to be?
with my Rem 700-.270
I can completely cover 3 shots
from 150yds with a quarter using
winchester factory 130.