Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 14

Thread: .270 and 150grn. Why!?

  1. #1

    .270 and 150grn. Why!?

    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

  2. #2
    What make you think heavier bullets hit with less energy?? As for the 150 grain bullets? Its called sectional density. ~Muir

  3. #3
    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

  4. #4
    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.

  5. #5
    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

  6. #6
    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.

  7. #7
    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 to eat humble pie.....Mmmmm


    I wouldn't mind Muir's right aswell 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!

  8. #8
    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.

  9. #9
    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.

  10. #10
    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.


Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 10
    Last Post: 11-07-2010, 13:23
  2. Data required for .308 150grn Sierra Gamekings using VitN140
    By Jason in forum Ammunition, Reloading & Ballistics
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 31-07-2009, 20:09
  3. GOT MY NEW .270
    By the scudd in forum Deer Stalking General
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 30-06-2009, 17:18
  4. .270 or .270 wsm
    By the scudd in forum Rifles & Calibres
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 22-02-2009, 18:42
  5. .270
    By sako85 in forum Deer Stalking Equipment
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-07-2008, 18:09

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts