What’s better than a .270?

[Eddie P]

I’m quite tempted by this tbh. How much is a decent barrel these days anyway? Cheaper than a new gun. Anything half decent is £1300 upwards anyway

7prc is a bit of a beast I think. Dont know a huge amount about it but will look into it. Why no 6.5PRC?

Interesting option!


Possibly something that mimics it for less powder/recoil/noise etc. like if the 6.5prc had more bullet selection, similar trajectory and energy that might tempt me.

- think it’s a case of , if it ain’t broke..




Lots of advice to stick.. maybe some sense in that. Will look into the options though. There’s a few niche choices coming up!

I'd expect a match grade barrel fitted for less than 1300, and no variation needed.

 

[wildfowler.250]

With the 270 you have a good all round cartridge for anything in the UK. Don’t change it if you like the rifle.

If you are looking for another rifle consider how its versatility to your portfolio. At one end a lightweight 223 / 222 is wonderful small walkabout rifle for smaller deer, or with a heavier barrel a superb varmint / range rifle.

At the other end a 30-06, 9.3x62, or 375 h&h may be better on bigger overseas game.

But with modern monolithic bullets a 270 is very capable on the bigger stuff - perhaps not ideal on paper, but doubt any thing will really worry too much.

If i was swapping out the 270 cos I wanted a new rifle the 7x64 is a really good option. Always had a faster twist barrel and always been able to shoot a 140gn bullet like a 270, but also able to shoot ling 173s for use on bigger game.

Will have a look at the 7x64. To be honest .30-06 was the only thing that loosely peaked my interest. Some say less recoil but statistically there should be more. I’d still probably end up loading lighter end as I like a flatter trajectory.

Do love the .222, have one and what a sweet caliber.

I'd expect a match grade barrel fitted for less than 1300, and no variation needed.

I don’t even know if you can get a T3X new for 1300 now. New barrel on the 75 would spice up the interest again without new brass of faff

 

[Heym SR20]

Will have a look at the 7x64. To be honest .30-06 was the only thing that loosely peaked my interest. Some say less recoil but statistically there should be more. I’d still probably end up loading lighter end as I like a flatter trajectory.

Do love the .222, have one and what a sweet caliber.


I don’t even know if you can get a T3X new for 1300 now. New barrel on the 75 would spice up the interest again without new brass of faff

Perhaps a new barrel in 270, but go for a faster twist so you use longer heavy for calibre monolithics. No need to change brass, or get a variation etc. Or just save your money and spend it on hunting instead.

 

[Heym SR20]

I have just had a look at the 270, 7x64 and 30-06 on the RWS website all loaded with their HIT.

Most Recommend zero distance for max point blank range, with 270 about 190m, 30-06 is 175m,

At 200m energy for the 270 is 2450 Joules, the 30-06 a bit over 2600 Joules.

The 7x64 is pretty much in the middle.

Bullet weight is 8.4 grams for the 270, 9.1grams (140 grains) for 7x64 and 10.7 for 30-06.

Recoil for 270 and 7x64 is light and medium for 30-06

Recommended max range 270, 240m; 7x64, 230 and 30-06, 200m

Trajectory

270 - BC of .385, drop at 250 -9.6 cm
7x64 - BC of .409, drop at 250, -10.5 cm.
30-06 - BC of .420, drop at 250 -14cm

The 270 and 7x64 are recommended as very good for medium game but can be used on heavy game such as moose. 30-06 can be used on medium game but very good for big game such as moose.

Really until you get moose hunting its six of one, two threes and half a dozen.

RWS .30-06 HIT 10,7g | RWS Ammunition

Discover the RWS .30-06 HIT 10.7g now: Convincing lead-free penetration. Quality, made in Germany.

rws-ammunition.com

But you will hear conflicting views. I know one gentleman on here had a few 270s, but he now shoots a semi custom 6.5 PRC in a rifle that is built for him. He raves about it.

I would suggest that if changed it to 270, or 7x64 or 7mm PrC without telling either himself or the deer you would notice very little difference.

 

[Mungo]

Well folks, I’ve had a .270 for maybe 15 years. It just works.

I have used a few of the usual calibers apart from maybe .308.

Did convince the old man to get a Swede, slightly loopy compared to what I’d like. But inside 200 all fairly academic, still in kill zone anyway etc.


I’ve had a new rifle craving for a while now. I can’t seem to find anything that does better for flat ish trajectory and reloading availability etc than the .270.

I realise no bullet is gravity resistant but I am much more of a .17hmr than .22lr guy even within .22 distances if that gives you an idea of my style. I like a point and shoot.

I have considered a .30-06. But to get similar sort of trajectory, it was like 165 grain and most folk seem to shoot 180s? Doesn’t seem that efficient either.

The .25-06 sounds appealing but actually no advantages over what I have. And probably less ammo selection even for reloading.

.308, probably more ‘loopy’?

6.5PRC may be an option? But is it just more faff? A new .270 barrel (which won’t kill me more deer) may feel like a new gun.

I’ll be honest, the Swede the old man has would put factory federal into the same hole,(with myself shooting) but I’ll only get 3/4” with the same rifle in .270 and I don’t think it’s a recoil issue. Maybe it’s just not quite the right bullet choice. Would the .30 cals be naturally a little more accurate?

I’ve shot .270 for years. Very effective.

I got a 6.5PRC 3 years ago. Also very effective.

The differences between them are marginal. You get a bit less drop and a bit less wind drift with the PRC, especially if you shoot something like 147gr in the PRC and compare that to 130gr in the .270.

There’s a little less recoil from the PRC, but the difference is probably as much down to rifle weight, stock fit and which moderator you use.

You could use either of them and be completely happy.

Neither are ideal shooting roe deer at shorter range…

 

[Bowland blades]

The 270 is a well proven platform and genrally fairly suited to copper ( not perfect in that regards regards all but not a big bother ) . 6.5 mm with 1-8 or a tad faster will run 100 grain copper up to anything you can fit in it . lots of hand loading options bullet wise ( I preffer to run 100 grain tTSX) which actually is a tad better on the longer range stags than the .270 but most wont get out into that range.
Any 6.5 could be employed but i like the 260 rem its faster than a creed but its the realm of the handloader now and the creed is perhaps the top deer bullet availability as reagards loaded ammo ans hand load components . Both are 308 based cases ( unlike the sweed )
Personally i used 243 for a very long time and now we do not have to go 100 grain i am re-adding one soon for 80 plus copper it will be faster and copper of course it will be faster with less recoil spotting the stikes better and i expect it will shoot flatter and should still pass through both sides of a stag , with less recoil ( i am going full time NV on that one ) . Dont forget 243 as its not all about bullet weight anymore

Good copper is fine on muntjac to the biggest stags as the bullets wont blow up , just be mindfull of where you place things

 

[gelert]

There is very little in it between the 270 and the 30-06. Having used both for a number of years on all 6 here in the UK, abroad on boar and Africa the only benefit you get with the 30-06 is a more wider selection of heavier bullets over say the 150gr mark.

 

[JosephKelly]

Have a .308 found it loopy and groups opening up at 200m +. Had a custom 6.5PRC built by Steve Kershaw shooting 147grain and love it, very flat. .308 will probably go soon enough

 

[Bowland blades]

There is very little in it between the 270 and the 30-06. Having used both for a number of years on all 6 here in the UK, abroad on boar and Africa the only benefit you get with the 30-06 is a more wider selection of heavier bullets over say the 150gr mark.

Truth be told the bullet chosen is the most important thing for UK stalking after the legal UK of bullet / energy .

 

[Andy Mauthe]

Truth be told the bullet chosen is the most important thing for UK stalking after the legal UK of bullet / energy .

100% truth! And it’s true here in America too. We don’t have minimum energy requirements but energy has to transfer into the animal to do its job. That’s why I don’t understand minimum energy requirements. All of the energy generated doesn’t really matter if the bullet doesn’t expand at all and just makes a caliber hole on both sides. It might kill, but chances are not quickly. A bullet that expands properly, but stays together and continues to drive after impact is way more important than how much energy you have on paper. And we are lucky to live in a time of excellent bullet designs. The .270 will certainly do anything you would ever need on the Continent, and on African plains game. As it’s been doing for a very long time just with plain old cup and core lead bullets. It’s even better now with modern bullets and powder.

 

[Bowland blades]

100% truth! And it’s true here in America too. We don’t have minimum energy requirements but energy has to transfer into the animal to do its job. That’s why I don’t understand minimum energy requirements. All of the energy generated doesn’t really matter if the bullet doesn’t expand at all and just makes a caliber hole on both sides. It might kill, but chances are not quickly. A bullet that expands properly, but stays together and continues to drive after impact is way more important than how much energy you have on paper. And we are lucky to live in a time of excellent bullet designs. The .270 will certainly do anything you would ever need on the Continent, and on African plains game. As it’s been doing for a very long time just with plain old cup and core lead bullets. It’s even better now with modern bullets and powder.

Different States can have different legal restriction in the USA , very confusing for travellers - Yeah the same here With England and Scotland etc

 

[Heym SR20]

100% truth! And it’s true here in America too. We don’t have minimum energy requirements but energy has to transfer into the animal to do its job. That’s why I don’t understand minimum energy requirements. All of the energy generated doesn’t really matter if the bullet doesn’t expand at all and just makes a caliber hole on both sides. It might kill, but chances are not quickly. A bullet that expands properly, but stays together and continues to drive after impact is way more important than how much energy you have on paper. And we are lucky to live in a time of excellent bullet designs. The .270 will certainly do anything you would ever need on the Continent, and on African plains game. As it’s been doing for a very long time just with plain old cup and core lead bullets. It’s even better now with modern bullets and powder.

The principle reason behind min energy, velocity, calibre and bullet weight requirements was an attempt to stop people using rifles that are really inadequate for the job, and to reduce the reasoning behind lots of different rifles.

So reaching my tin helmet and flack jacket things like the 22 Hornet are not really adequate for shooting red deer, and the low velocity and thus trajectory of pistol calibre lever action carbines means hitting the target is difficult once you range increases - especially in the days before pocket sized range finders became affordable.

 

[Andy Mauthe]

The principle reason behind min energy, velocity, calibre and bullet weight requirements was an attempt to stop people using rifles that are really inadequate for the job, and to reduce the reasoning behind lots of different rifles.

So reaching my tin helmet and flack jacket things like the 22 Hornet are not really adequate for shooting red deer, and the low velocity and thus trajectory of pistol calibre lever action carbines means hitting the target is difficult once you range increases - especially in the days before pocket sized range finders became affordable.

Yes I certainly understand the premise behind the energy limitations imposed. BUT unfortunately like most government “solutions” they paint with a broad brush. For instance I would imagine they totally eliminate the possibility of you being able to hunt small deer or hogs (boar?) with pistol caliber lever action rifles. And over here lever action rifles chambered in .44 Mag, .45 Colt etc are widely used for white tail deer and wild hogs with great success. Even though they don’t come close to meeting the minimum energy limitations you have. As far as limitations in the USA, they are indeed handled by each state’s game commission. The only limitations that I’m aware of are that some states don’t allow .22 Centerfire for deer etc. and a handful of states don’t allow bottleneck cartridges. Hence the rise of several “new” straight walled cartridges recently coming into existence. This latter situation was created because the states where bottle neck cartridges are forbidden only recently allowed the use of rifles for hunting. Having been previously restricted to only shotguns with slugs. There may be other restrictions in some state that I’m not aware of but more or less those are the only restrictions I’m aware of. I don’t personally use one for deer, but many people use a .223 REM for up to white tails with great success, and in the states where it’s allowed, it seems to work. In the end, more restrictions are not a good thing in my opinion. It’s just another step towards more control and less liberty. And I don’t think they tend to solve problems. Instead they’re a solution looking for a problem. Again just my opinion. What I do know is that we live in a time where we have more options available to us as sportsmen than at any time in history. And that’s great!

 

[Bowland blades]

The principle reason behind min energy, velocity, calibre and bullet weight requirements was an attempt to stop people using rifles that are really inadequate for the job, and to reduce the reasoning behind lots of different rifles.

So reaching my tin helmet and flack jacket things like the 22 Hornet are not really adequate for shooting red deer, and the low velocity and thus trajectory of pistol calibre lever action carbines means hitting the target is difficult once you range increases - especially in the days before pocket sized range finders became affordable.

I suspect that the pocket rangefinders have been an issue played a bigger part in wounding as its easy to dial in std drop but wind speed and contour ? It will always catch the unwary. While getting really close with a sub legal tool might very wound less ? No way to prove it today legally but pre-deer act that is how stalkers did things , some very famous ones at that

 

[Heym SR20]

Yes I certainly understand the premise behind the energy limitations imposed. BUT unfortunately like most government “solutions” they paint with a broad brush. For instance I would imagine they totally eliminate the possibility of you being able to hunt small deer or hogs (boar?) with pistol caliber lever action rifles. And over here lever action rifles chambered in .44 Mag, .45 Colt etc are widely used for white tail deer and wild hogs with great success. Even though they don’t come close to meeting the minimum energy limitations you have. As far as limitations in the USA, they are indeed handled by each state’s game commission. The only limitations that I’m aware of are that some states don’t allow .22 Centerfire for deer etc. and a handful of states don’t allow bottleneck cartridges. Hence the rise of several “new” straight walled cartridges recently coming into existence. This latter situation was created because the states where bottle neck cartridges are forbidden only recently allowed the use of rifles for hunting. Having been previously restricted to only shotguns with slugs. There may be other restrictions in some state that I’m not aware of but more or less those are the only restrictions I’m aware of. I don’t personally use one for deer, but many people use a .223 REM for up to white tails with great success, and in the states where it’s allowed, it seems to work. In the end, more restrictions are not a good thing in my opinion. It’s just another step towards more control and less liberty. And I don’t think they tend to solve problems. Instead they’re a solution looking for a problem. Again just my opinion. What I do know is that we live in a time where we have more options available to us as sportsmen than at any time in history. And that’s great!

Agreed, and in the US you have a lot to thank Theodore Roosevelt and others for creating both Federal and State Wildlife services that fundamentally promote and manage hunting on public lands that is available even the most humble of folks. They have game and other wildlife populations from the brink of extinction or actual extinction in large parts of the country to where there are good strong populations that sustain good controlled hunting.

Its not perfect by any means and there will always be tensions with other land use interests.

But over here we don’t really have public lands. We have land that is owned by the state or the crown, but to the general population its in effect private land. As for hunting on such lands - unless you are professional employed or on contract forget it.

And the governments within the UK are hell bent on getting rid of all our deer.

 

[Heym SR20]

I suspect that the pocket rangefinders have been an issue played a bigger part in wounding as its easy to dial in std drop but wind speed and contour ? It will always catch the unwary. While getting really close with a sub legal tool might very wound less ? No way to prove it today legally but pre-deer act that is how stalkers did things , some very famous ones at that

Yup - all the gear and no idea. I have no doubt a 22 rimfire or Hornet in the correct hands are very effective on all game. Indeed I believe the Inuit happily use the Hornet on moose and polar bears, although the 223 has taken over.

But as you have correctly said a decent bullet choice is far far more important that cartridge or calibre. Take the 223, my experience with a good monolithic bullet you could capably shoot much bigger deer than Roe. Wound channel will not be as large as say the 7mm, but you will have penetration and will severe the major arteries provided, as always bullet is in the correct place. Certainly I am not seeing much difference in terminal effect between a 51gn 223 peregrine, an 80gn 243 Fox nor a 130gn 7mm fox on Roe Deer. They all drop on the spot.

 

[cjm1066]

Straight Walled Rifle Cartridges Compared (and Why We Have Them) — Ron Spomer Outdoors

Straight Wall Rifle Cartridges described, explained, and their performances compared

www.ronspomeroutdoors.com

We sometimes think our legislation is barmy. Perhaps a new FAC applicant wants to try a straight wall cartridge with land inspection and his FEO!

 

[Dan Newcombe]

I honestly don’t really see the issue with the minimum requirements - just get something that fits them and crack on it’s not like they are somehow secret and hard to fulfil.

 

[25 Sharps]

.280, obviously

 

[Edinburgh Rifles]

Love a .270
Will always own one

But….
Now chucking 147gr ELD-Ms at 2950 from a 22” barrel
6.5-284

Less powder
More Velocity
Heavier bullet
Less perceived recoil

Loving it

Not a cartridge to feed from factory ammo though

270 is great
But its just not an efficient cartridge
56-60gr of powder should drive 130-150gr bullets much faster than the .270 does