patrickstar
Well-Known Member
Just been approved for.270 and have been offered new Ruger .has anyone any experience of this rifle or any recommendations please
thanks
thanks
Ruger American .270
- Thread starter patrickstar
- Start date
patrickstar
Well-Known Member
well thanks and well done on deer ,any info on calibre would be appreciated
cheers mate
cheers mate
I don't own a 270 but I have the American in 223 (x2) 6.5 Grendel, 6.5 Creedmoor, 300AAC, 308, and 300 Win Mag and 7.62x39.
Kick it. Drag it behind the truck. Throw it off a hillside. It will come up smiling. ~Muir
And I have the Ruger Precision in 308. It's just an overgrown American.
Found this.
And this
Kick it. Drag it behind the truck. Throw it off a hillside. It will come up smiling. ~Muir
And I have the Ruger Precision in 308. It's just an overgrown American.
Found this.
And this
Last edited:
enfieldspares
Well-Known Member
I like Ruger's innovative ring system where the "bases" the rings lock into are actually already machined recesses on the receiver. I think Schultz and Larsen do the same nowadays? What I never liked about Ruger rifles was my own "fetish" that stalking rifles for the UK should have twenty-four inch barrels. A twenty-two inhc .270 WCF won't be nice! The Ruger M77 rifles suffered that "fault".
The American series, though, uses has a rail mounted by four screws. I replaced the one on my 300AAC with a 20 MOA version.
It took me a while to warm up to the Americans due to my basic hatred of the Model 77 series. It was when I found that they were made in an entirely different plant, and hammer forged, that I sprung for my first: that 300AAC. I think I paid $379 for it new and it shot extremely well right from the start. That was the first of many. ~Muir
It's certainly a calibre that instils confidence. As someone once posted on here: "There's a certain authority about the 270".
130grn bullet weight seems to be the go-to for most people. I tried heavier (150grn) but the results weren't good. I have used the 130grn at both ends of the deer spectrum (muntjac and red stag) with entirely satisfactory results.
Mine is zeroed on the "point blank range" principle, so I just point and press on anything out to 230 yds without having to worry about holdover / under.
(If you want the detail, it's 0.5 inches high at 50 yds, 1.7 inches high at 100 yds, smack on at 200 yds, and about 2 inches low at 250 yds. So at anything up to 230 yds-ish I'm very confident that my shot will land within the critical 4 inch circle without having to make any adjustments to point of aim).
And it makes such a lovely big bang without a mod
It's fashionable in some circles to denigrate the 270, but those who have them love them.
enfieldspares
Well-Known Member
And it makes such a lovely big bang without a mod
I too love the .270, but you have to mind where you rest the rifle when running mod-less. I have seen a chap use the bonnet of his Landy as a convenient rest to make Charlie fall over. Only after the windscreen 'went West' did he realise that he was, perhaps, a little too far from the front of the bonnet and that the .270 has a 'noticeable' muzzle blast
I seem to remember him being a tad less than impressed, but the others present (me included) all had a good giggle at his expense.
Presumably the same effect would have been caused by a 308, 30-06, 300win mag, etc etc? A sample size of just one hardly produces conclusive evidence that the muzzle blast of the 270 is any greater than any other similarly sized rifle.I too love the .270, but you have to mind where you rest the rifle when running mod-less. I have seen a chap use the bonnet of his Landy as a convenient rest to make Charlie fall over. Only after the windscreen 'went West' did he realise that he was, perhaps, a little too far from the front of the bonnet and that the .270 has a 'noticeable' muzzle blast
I seem to remember him being a tad less than impressed, but the others present (me included) all had a good giggle at his expense.
Perhaps you could persuade your mate to try the same with a range of other calibres, just to be sure....
Not sure he'd be too keen TBH. (Wherever the old knave is these days). He simply rested his elbow in the 'gutter' at the base of the screen just like he usually did with his rimfire .... I don't doubt that any full-bore CF would have had a very similar effect, but it was a .270 that did it, and it was everyone else present that laughed (quite a bit).I’m quite new to rifle shooting and deer stalking but was lucky enough to be granted a .270 with my FAC application. After months of watching YouTube videos I decided it was the best all-round calibre for UK species and a confidence inspiring round in terms of trajectory. I think you’ve made a great choice. Currently using S&B non toxic ammo and seem to be getting on well. I’m afraid I’m no help with Rugers though, I’ve got a Mauser 98.
WildBoarHunter
Well-Known Member
I had a R.A. in 308. Did not like it. Slightly too light for my taste, made the 308 thumpy. The stock was too short for me, which also probably didn't help with the recoil. The original mag caused constant jams so I had to get a new mag and then it was fine. I was not impressed. It just felt unfinished. I saw them in U.S. on sale for 300 $. Would pay that much. But here, they're 700 € nowdays. Nope.
Dunwaters
Well-Known Member
That windscreen was obviously defective.I too love the .270, but you have to mind where you rest the rifle when running mod-less. I have seen a chap use the bonnet of his Landy as a convenient rest to make Charlie fall over. Only after the windscreen 'went West' did he realise that he was, perhaps, a little too far from the front of the bonnet and that the .270 has a 'noticeable' muzzle blast
I seem to remember him being a tad less than impressed, but the others present (me included) all had a good giggle at his expense.
The .270 is famous for only damaging whatever you point it at.
Similar threads
