Do new calibers have more merit?

R. Macleod & Son - The Best Hunting Companion
wildfowler.250

wildfowler.250

Well-Known Member
Folks , I’ve been considering changing the .270 for a while now. Just to freshen things up rather than anything being particularly wrong with either the caliber or rifle. The fact that it still works is why I haven’t.

Is say, a 6.5prc a sensible call? I’m not massively into long range. Plinking would be fun. You seem to get similar levels of performance with the .270 but a lot more bullet options.

Even a .308 does a ‘more efficient’ job than say a .30-06 ,(albeit a bit less energy).


Is there any sense to move with the times as far as rifle options, bullet availability, better ballistics? Or is it just a case that most of us shoot deer inside 200 yards and any adjustments are more for company sales and user boredom?


I’m still a huge fan of the .222 though!
 
If I did not own a .270 the 6.5 PRC would be interesting. And I also have a 6.5x55 M-38 short rifle. As you say the .270 works.
 
The new cartridges are designed with today's knowledge so may live up to their advertising claims.

If starting out or rebarrelling they may offer a small benefit that deer are unlikely to notice.

If they decline in popularity ammo supply's will reduce.
 
The only real benefit of new calibres is that the come in shiny new rifles. Some may be more efficient but it’s really just academic.

Said bullet at a desired speed is the same from any calibre as long as it’s stable.

If you mean, calibre as in diameter as opposed to cartridge, then there is a significant difference, but I don’t think this is what you mean?
 
moeggesit said:
The only real benefit of new calibres is that the come in shiny new rifles. Some may be more efficient but it’s really just academic.

Said bullet at a desired speed is the same from any calibre as long as it’s stable.
Click to expand...
Absolutely.
A great way to sell new rifles.
I hear the 6.8 x 63 is a great calibre, a 130 grain bullet at 3000fps plus.
(Or you could just call it a 270 Win !!!!)
Remember all the wsm s ?
Don't forget to factor in the availability of ammo or cases , especially if hunting abroad.
 
wildfowler.250 said:
Folks , I’ve been considering changing the .270 for a while now. Just to freshen things up rather than anything being particularly wrong with either the caliber or rifle. The fact that it still works is why I haven’t.

Is say, a 6.5prc a sensible call? I’m not massively into long range. Plinking would be fun. You seem to get similar levels of performance with the .270 but a lot more bullet options.

Even a .308 does a ‘more efficient’ job than say a .30-06 ,(albeit a bit less energy).


Is there any sense to move with the times as far as rifle options, bullet availability, better ballistics? Or is it just a case that most of us shoot deer inside 200 yards and any adjustments are more for company sales and user boredom?


I’m still a huge fan of the .222 though!
Click to expand...
You have a world class calibre in your 270, leave it at that, every Gunshop you go in to virtually anywhere in the world will have a range of ammo and won’t start the conversation “ What’s a Creedmore?”
 
If you look back 100 years, there isn't much new:

The popularity of the 6.5 Creedmoor mimics the popularity of the 6.5x54, which is also similar to the 6.5x55, 260 remington, .256 Gibbs, 6.5x57 etc.

The new 8.5x55 more or less duplicates the .318 Westley Richards, with the 8.5x63, the .333 Jeffrey, .338 Federal and 338-06 all doing more or less the same thing.

I read a really good paragraph in one of Criag Boddington's books in which he interviewed a man with a lifetime of hunting. Basically, his view was that a decent 140gr 6.5mm, a 250gr .338 and something much bigger, I think a .505 would suffice for anything in the world.

It seems to me that by the 1930's, riflemakers had sorted out a cartidge for just about everything and since then, most new calibres have just been tweaking what went before them.

Subsonic are the only groundbreaking developments.

The more I read about different calibres, the more I think that what we should do is look at the bullet we need, I.e. the best sectional density at the correct weight to deliver the energy we need to then see which case is the right size to contain the propellant needed to deliver it.

When I started stalking, I let a stalker talk me in to selling a beautiful 7x57 as it wasn't flat enough. He urged me in to a 6.5x55, which I didn't buy in the end but that would have been totally pointless. I once saw a guest not being allowed to use a .308 as it was a 'woodland calibre' not suitable for the hill.

I really think for uk stalking, almost anything between a .25 - .30 would do the job fine. Not much good for paid for stalking where there are arbiary rules
 
I reckon with all these ‘should I upgrade my .xxx to .xxx’ questions the split between want and need is probably 80/20. ie 80% is probably scratching an itch and wanting something new and 20% is a practical need.

I’ve spent thousands on upgrades and am always tinkering, it’s part of the hobby (so firmly in the 80% want camp most of the time). Therefore go with whatever you want and enjoy it, or don’t and stick with your tried and trusty .270

Some good points already made on bullet selection and recoil management though.
 
wildfowler.250 said:
Folks , I’ve been considering changing the .270 for a while now. Just to freshen things up rather than anything being particularly wrong with either the caliber or rifle. The fact that it still works is why I haven’t.

Is say, a 6.5prc a sensible call? I’m not massively into long range. Plinking would be fun. You seem to get similar levels of performance with the .270 but a lot more bullet options.

Even a .308 does a ‘more efficient’ job than say a .30-06 ,(albeit a bit less energy).


Is there any sense to move with the times as far as rifle options, bullet availability, better ballistics? Or is it just a case that most of us shoot deer inside 200 yards and any adjustments are more for company sales and user boredom?


I’m still a huge fan of the .222 though!
Click to expand...
Shot a .270 for years. Shoot a 6.5PRC now.

I do prefer the PRC, but the differences are small. I would say it’s ‘just a bit better’ on all the variables that matter: a bit more terminal energy, a bit less drop, a bit less wind drift, a bit less recoil.

However this is only true when comparing as close as possible like for like. If, for instance, you shot a 20” barrelled PRC and a 24” barrelled .270, the .270 would very much have the edge. Conversely, if you’re shooting a 20” .270 and go to a 24” PRC, the difference will seem enormous.
 
Nope!

If the right weight bullet comes out of the muzzle at the velocity you want it really doesn't matter what got it there.

What matters is the quality of the barrel, of the chambering, of the muzzle crown treatment, the headspace and the twist.
Then there's the trigger and whether the stock is a good fit and everything is properly bedded.
Have you got a good scope and is it mounted and sighted properly.
F/up on any of these and the newest, bestest, shiniest cartridge is going to be crap to shoot.
As a good friend recently has found with his brand new super duper 7mm08.
It won't hit a barn from the inside.
I've yet to have a look at it but it will be due to one of the above.
 
finnbear270 said:
A long time .270 user here, now using 6.5PRC, I never saw a bullet strike in the scope from my .270, the very first Roe buck I shot with the 6.5PRC, I saw the strike in the intended aiming point, @200 yards, through the shoulder, recoil is near half the felt recoil of the .270.:tiphat:
Click to expand...
Did you see the roe evaporate 😂?
I know what you mean, although my 270 has a heavy barrel, it's absolutely perfect for seeing strike etc when shooting prone, but off sticks it needs the forend controlled.
 
Malxwal said:
Did you see the roe evaporate 😂?
I know what you mean, although my 270 has a heavy barrel, it's absolutely perfect for seeing strike etc when shooting prone, but off sticks it needs the forend controlled.
Click to expand...
:lol: Didn't evaporate ... but using an Americanism it was DRT, or a Bang Flop.
Just remembered shooting another Roe buck with the .270 @ an insane 30 yards, 140 grain Accubond separated it's head and neck from the body.:eek:
 
Tazz said:
You have a world class calibre in your 270, leave it at that, every Gunshop you go in to virtually anywhere in the world will have a range of ammo and won’t start the conversation “ What’s a Creedmore?”
Click to expand...
What is Creedmore? 😘
 
Cheers folks. The long term plan is to get something a bit more adjustable. PSE stock. Probably a smith to put a barrel on. The biggest issue if I went PRC is finding a magnum receiver in T3.

I’m not too sure on the trend for heavy for caliber bullets. But I suppose anything with a high BC that bucks the wind better is helpful. Wind catches more folk out than drop right?

I think there’s a lot to be said for getting the job done with the less recoil possible. I have to say I don’t find the .30-06 bad, but from many aspects the incredibly boring .308 may do just as good a job.

Just these sleek new 6.5 bullets are quite appealing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

30-06, unpopular?
3 4 5
Replies
98
Views
13K
Scipio
Scipio
lead ban, what calibre too chose?
2 3 4
Replies
79
Views
3K
Smellydog
Smellydog
‘Modern’ .270?
2 3
Replies
46
Views
3K
angusb1
angusb1
Which shall I have a new Gary Cane stock for?
2
Replies
24
Views
693
Essexsussex
E
What’s better than a .270?
4 5 6
Replies
103
Views
10K
6.5-06 TIKKA
6
Premium Gun Accessories - Ammo Fusion
Back
Top