.270 and 150grn. Why!?

mickthebrick

Well-Known Member
Following on from the last .270 thread, the whole experience has got me thinking....and it hurts!

Can anyone tell me what the point is in using larger heavier bullets than a cartridge can efficiently "throw". I've compared the .308 to .270 with 150grn bullets and the "trebuchet" .308 comes out on top in every aspect!

Are heavier bullets used because they have a tougher construction and although they hit with less energy they hold together better?

I'm perplexed!

Cartridge Information
Index Number Cartridge Type Weight (grs.) Bullet Style Primer No. Ballistic Coefficient
R270W4 Remington® Express® 150 Soft Point Core-Lokt® 9 1/2 0.261
R308W1 Remington® Express® 150 Pointed Soft Point Core-Lokt® 9 1/2 0.314

Velocity (ft/sec)
Cartridge Type Bullet Muzzle 100 200 300 400 500
Remington® Express® 150 SP CL 2850 2504 2183 1886 1618 1385
Remington® Express® 150 PSP CL 2820 2533 2263 2009 1774 1560

Energy (ft-lbs)
Cartridge Type Bullet Muzzle 100 200 300 400 500
Remington® Express® 150 SP CL 2705 2087 1587 1185 872 639
Remington® Express® 150 PSP CL 2648 2137 1705 1344 1048 810

Short-Range Trajectory
Cartridge Type Bullet 50 100 150 200 250 300
Remington® Express® 150 SP CL 0.3 0.8 zero -2.4 -6.7 -13.0
Remington® Express® 150 PSP CL 0.0 zero -1.2 -3.9 -8.4 -14.7

Long-Range Trajectory
Cartridge Type Bullet 100 150 200 250 300 400 500
Remington® Express® 150 SP CL 2.0 1.8 zero -3.6 -9.4 -28.6 -61.2
Remington® Express® 150 PSP CL 2.0 1.7 zero -3.4 -8.8 -26.2 -54.8
 
What make you think heavier bullets hit with less energy?? :rolleyes: As for the 150 grain bullets? Its called sectional density. ~Muir
 
The data you've compared: the bullets have a similar muzzle velocity but the 308 has a better ballistic coefficient, so it's no surprise that it performs better at all distances.

Generally, bullets of the same weight for different calibres, the smaller calibre bullet has a high b.c. but not in this case. Also, with the 270, it has more powder so it can generally push bullets faster, but again, not in the data you've listed!

IMHO 308 is not as bad a trajectory as people seem to think, but then maybe I'm biased given that I own a 308 and not a 270 :D
 
150gr bullets from the 270win and the 308win generally start off at the same speed.

However, the 270 will be half as long again as the 308, and will have better SD, BC and retained energy numbers at long range.

There is no doubt the 308 case is more efficient than the '06 case for turning powder into velocity for rounds of less than 30cal. But, if you look carefully at the data above, you will see that the 308 bullet is pointed and the 270 is not. Replace that round nose 270 with a Spitzer and re-run the numbers.

However, these issues are only relevant at longer range, maybe 300m+. At Normal UK hunting range, this is only naval gazing. This type of discussion is called "ballistic gack" on another site.

Ignore and move on.
 
The 150grn .270 has less velocity and energy than the standard 130grn .270 and a 150grn .308 so why use them

But lets just ignore and move on

I'm off to put my head in the sand
 
Mick, I am not ignoring anything. You are not comparing like with like. It is not appropriate to compare the long range retained velocity / energy numbers for a round nose compared to a spitzer, compare the two rounds both loaded with a 150gr BT or the like.

I would be the first accept there is little in it, but by no fair comparison can you say a 150gr 308 out performs a 150gr 270win.

Now if you look at the powder burn required to acheive this, that is a different matter, noo doubt the 308 is more efficient.
 
I hate it when other people are right!

Compared like for like Nosler 150grn on Federal website and the .270 does have more energy and velocity, though as you say not much in it and deer wont know the difference.....off to eat humble pie.....Mmmmm

mick

I wouldn't mind Muir's right aswell :rolleyes: I tried to compare .270 130grn and 150 grn with Remington site and they dont have a pointed 150rgn. Suprised by how much a different bullet shape makes a difference

more pie being eaten right now!
 
Mick, no humble pie is required.

To properly answer the original question, the real reason for the 150gr 270win is to create a great big would channel and ensure complete penetration on heavier animals - large deer and antelope basically. It does this very well.

A much fairer comparison would be the 150gr in the 270win with a 140gr in the 6.5x55, the two bullets have very similar SD and BC numbers. Most people rave about the performance of the 140gr 6.5, the 150gr 270 is just more of a good thing.

My long time personal favourite is a 140gr Hornady in the 270, but then I am a crank anyway. :lol:
 
One of the blokes on my last trip to Croatia tumbled a Boar very nicely indeed using a .270 with 150gn bullets.
I have seen 130gn used quite often but the 150 seemed to have the edge.
 
When I got my Carl Gustaf .270 in 1993 [following calibre changes upward in R.O.I.] it came with the 5 shot test group below using what we call the 150gr Norma soft-point bullet Ref. No. 16903.
The Swedes call it the 9.7 gramm Blyspets.
If the 150 grain was rubbish they would not use it.
Generally I load it with Speer 130gr Softpoints or Hornady 140gr Spirepoints as they have been easy to source, accurate, effective and are inexpensive.
Bullet construction and not bullet weight determines expansion.
I have some 155gr Sako heads which did not expand on Reds and gave me some problems, runners but dead somewhere in the forest area. After a few difficult but successful searches I never used them again.
They were probably designed for the Scandinavian Moose.

Too much emphasis is placed on velocity and ballistic coefficients and not enough on shooting at a sensible distance and better bullet placement.
Practical differences in the field with the .270 and .308 are minimal.

HWH.

TARGETS270AND308001.jpg
 
.270

the 270 is one of the big all time rounds that man has come up with take it from me .
For your load try this one 57 gr reloader 15 with hornady 130gr sp interlock it wont let you down better than the 243 by far :p :p
 
Developed and first sold in 1925 by Winchester for their Model 54 bolt action rifle.
It was a favourite of the late Jack O`Connor, one of Americas legendary hunters.
Given the choice of the .30-06 or a .270 I would choose the former as the range of bullet types and weights is much greater, also easier to source.

HWH.
 
Hmmm the 150 grain loading was brought in for those who wanted a slower heavier bullet for closer ranges like those found in wooded country. They also did a 100 grain loading for the varmint hunters.

I find it quite amazing how people are so polorised by the 270 winchester cartridge which is you look at it logically was basically an Americanised version of either the 280 Ross or the 7x64 I think they went with a different size to avoid and royalties claims ;)

Me I happen to like to .270 although my experience on game with it is limited to one Muntjac Buck shot a couple of years ago. And that was using one of my last of the discontinued Nosler 130 grain Solid Base bullets :cry: I have found it an accurate and even pleasent to shoot.
 
Back
Top