The .270win:The perfect deer cartridge?
 

Long range or close, anywhere a deer roams the .270 is right at home. With the bullets available now, all your bases are covered. What are your thoughts?

Definitely in the top 5 as far as deer calibers go. Versatile, plenty of power for deer, longer range capability, and not too hard on the shoulder. Last year my brother shot 2 deer with his .270. One was about 70 yards away, dropped in it's tracks. The second was upwards of 350 yards. Went about 40 yards and dropped. While I've never taken an animal with a .270, I'd have no compunction about using one. It has worked for a long time, and like its parent cartridge, the 30-06, it will be around for decades to come.

gd357

I would put the 270 in with about 15 or so other 'perfect deer cartidges'. We also have to factor in some local conditions & how a particular person hunts. The guy in a Texas tower blind may want something different than the still hunter in a Northern WI cedar swamp. Some guns may be suited for both jobs. I am still quite content with my 308.

They are in the top ten. Its very debateable among several calibers for deer size game. Alot of em will do the job and the deer will be just as dead. Some excel at some things such as distance, wind, bullet selection, ect... better than others, but may lack to that same caliber in another catagory of deer rifles.

The ..270 is not the perfect cartridge in itself, but its in a group of perfect cartridges, if that makes sense. Personally, I wouldnt own one. I have other rifles I like better on both ends of the 270 range of bullets and performance and have no need for one, but thats my opinion.

It is among the elite 10 that would be considered perfect by many and all will kill deer equally as dead.Thats not debateable, I wouldnt think anyway.....

;)
Andy

Out of curiosity, after I wrote this, I counted just as fast as I could, over 20 cartridges that could be argued to do the job as well and better in some instances than the 270. So, I guess I should expand that number listed above. :D

The deer will be just as dead with any of them. At one time it may have been perfect, had it been brought in before the 30-06. But with todays bullets and powders, there are alot of performers out there.

270 will live for a long time. I have a couple of them. While I use the 06, daughter fell in love with the 270 first time she shot it.
Dan

To my taste the 270 is more than needed for almost all deer hunting.

Not that it makes the dear deer too dead, just that it is more than needed.

Tops on my list is the 250 Savage. 260 Remington, 6.5x55, 257Roberts are also all ahead of the 270. JMO, Dutch.

Some of you may discredit my posts when I tell you I have never taken a deer in my life so I have no first hand experience. I have taken 2 black bears that would be just as dead with any other capable centerfire as they were with the .270win I shot them with. I just think the .270 loaded with any somewhat stout 130gr. bullet is about all you may need?

I guess I am trying to say is the hunter that totes a magnum rifle or long range big boomer is no better off than a hunter that carries a .270 as long as he knows his gun in and out and what he can do with it.

I disagree with that last post. A hunter carrying a .270 Win isn't in the exact same position as a hunter carrying a .300 Win Mag or .300 RUM. Now, if the property you hunt on can only provide shots out to 200 or 300 yards, then this argument might be moot. However, what if Mr. Big walks out at 800 yards and you are capable of making the shot? Would a .270 Win get the job done as well as a .300 Win Mag or .300 RUM? Probably not. I probably wouldn't even try that shot with my .270, but might actually take it with my .300 Win Mag.

With all that said, I have never had Mr. Big come out at 800 yards, but made my two longest shots on deer this season when I killed a doe and a yearling at somewhere around 250 yards. The farm where I was hunting can present 800 yard shots easily, maybe even 1,000 yards, but I have yet to be presented with that type of shot while deer season is in.

I know that several folks on this board disagree with what I'm about to say, and that's fine.

But I'll always say that the proper way to deal with Mr Big at 800 yards is to give him a crisp salute and hope you see him again some day at a range where you won't risk crippling him.

No matter what rifle you're carrying.

Hi All,

IF you are capable of putting the bullet in the correct spot at 800 yards, then the 270 Win will kill the beast just as dead as the 300 WM. Yes the 300 produces more power but it does not make the beast more dead....................after all dead is dead. I no longer have a 300 WM...................no I have nothing against the cartridge at all. The rifle was traded in a deal to get some collectable rifles, funnily enough for my collection:rolleyes:

I still have some ammo for it including some Lapua 200 gr loaded with the MEGA bullets. Ideal Elk recipe:p

I have 2 rifles in 270 Win, the BSA CF2 is the first centre fire rifle I brought, the other I picked up a little while ago, calibre was unimportant. I wanted a good BSA Majestic and this one was the best deal so I got a 2nd 270 Win rifle. However I have yet to kill an animal with either of the 270's. Had Deer in the sights............ but it was an unsafe shot, or the wrong species or sex:rolleyes: Oh well one day it will happen. I have shot the CF2 at 600 yards and it was very accurate using a handload with 130 Gr Balistic Tip bullets and Rel 19.

Yes the 270 Win is an excellent game cartridge but as has already been stated it depends on the terrain and area it is used in. Personally I would not want it in close wood/timber, there are better cartridges suited to this work. Most hunting is a compromise. If I had a place like this, like in fact the place I hunted Wgitetails in 2003 where long shots 500+ could be taken in the fields and close dense thickets where 40 yards was a long shot then the 270 loaded with 150 gr bullets would suffice. I actually used a 7x57mm due more to it's scope moutn set up being a QD one against the fixed steel mounts on the 270 win. Sighted in for 200 yards and the longest shot I took was 65 yards:rolleyes:

I stand corrected. I looked at the data in the Barnes reloading manual and a 130 gr. XLC bullet in .270 with a starting muzzle velocity of 3,200 fps will carry about 1,400 lb/ft of energy out to 600 yards and a 150 gr. XLC bullet in .300 with a starting muzzle velocity of 3,300 fps will only carry about 1,350 lb/ft of energy out to 600 yards, so I guess the .270 Win will do a better job out that far because of the BC. Now, up close the energy levels favor the .300, but then it really doesn't matter because they will both kill up close and far away.

Rocky,

I agree that an 800 yard shot shouldn't be taken if the shooter isn't capable of doing it, and right now my equipment isn't even close to being able to do that because I haven't spent enough time with it lately. However, is somebody can make the shot (e.g., Boyd), I don't have any problem with it. What about guys that kill groundhogs at 1,000 yards? Should they not take the shot because they might cripple the animal, or is it because they groundhogs are varmints that such shots are acceptable? There is a better chance of hitting the kill zone on big game than there is on varmints. Then again, there is a greater chance of completely missing a small target at 800 yards.

What are the parameters of the hunt? Brush hunting or beanfield hunting? Lots of steep climbing or sneaking around? One gun or cartridge won't fit all the situations. What size deer? A 100lb Pa. mountain deer or a 280lb Alberta monster?

The .270 is a fine round, although I do not own myself. I wouldn't feel undergunned or overgunned if i did. Sort of like picking who has the best wife. They all have their pros and cons;)

Although I prefer the 25.06 I have to admit the .270 is capable of taking any deer at any range one should be taking shots at. In most incidences 800 yards is far beyond where one should be hunting deer. At this distance too many factors become important. Accurite range estimation is vital, a mere 50 yard mistake can mean the difference between a hit and a miss. Wind drift can easily move your bullet up to 2 feet. At this distance any uphill or downhill shot will effect the height. If you can shoot 1" at a 100 yards from a bench what will your grouping size be in the position you use in the field? In a hunting situation you will not likely get the chance to fire a round to adjust for these factors like you could on the range. Just too many varibles to be shooting at a fine game animal like a deer at 800 yards. JMO

Best Wishes

If you can put a bullet into the vitals at 800+ yards, the .270 will kill it just as dead as the .300mag as earlier stated.

Why would it matter what the terrain is? Why could you not hunt deer in the brush with the .270 like you can much more open terrain?

That .270 will kill a 100lb. buck just as it would a 250lb. buck.

Model 70,

Ya know my answer. However, having said that, I'm carrying a 338 WIn this year for elk.

Yea we shoot a longer ranges in the west than are usual in the east but, most deer are shot a < 200 yds.

Shot a moose with the 270 130 gr sierra. Range was about 65 yds. Mv of the bullet was 3200 FPS. Bullet did what it was supposed to. Complete penetration, severed top of heart.

May as well have shot a house (building) for all the more reaction by the moose. He just walked off. Got him about 5 minutes later.

Make the same shot with a 338/358/375 and you'll see a big difference.

During public/open hunts and close to boundaries like Yellowstone, Indian Reservation or even posted property you want the animal dead now not 200 yds later.

O'Conner fan too but he's long gone and would really enjoy his options if he were around now.

BTW, 25 cal and above up to 30 cal. Any case size from 7X57 mm to 06/308 case. There's yer perfect deer rifle.

model 70, The terrain would matter depending on what type of rifle you might want to carry, whether it be a short action or standard action. A buddy of mine shot a 250lb buck in New Brunswick a few weeks ago. 2 shots with a 150gr '06. Neither bullet passed through. If I know I am going after 250lb+ deer and I have two rifles on the rack, a .270 and an '06, I'm taking the '06. And as far as brush or open ranges, the .270 has it on the open range. "Brush guns" such as a .35 Remington are usually faster handling, more compact guns. From 150 yds in, it's hard to argue with 200gr of .35 diameter Core-Lokt. Not saying the .270 is "bad", 'cause it's not. No one round or gun can be perfect for all situations. Although the Remmy pump comes close to the perfect gun.:D

Fabs,
Im not too sure your wrong. Do you have any data out to 800? The manual I chose to look at painted a different picture. It only has data out to 500, but looking at it, seems the further you go, the more the 300 Win takes over.

Check 130 and 150 gr 270 against 150 and 180gr 300Win and see what you get.....

Andy

The .270 is hardly the ideal moose gun.

Why could a shorter barreled "mountain" rifle like my featherweight with a low powered scope or even open/peep sights not work in the thick stuff?

I've never been in that situation but a 150gr. partition or a-frame in a .270 seems like it would topple the largest of bucks.

Andy,

I double checked the Barnes manual and the figures still stand. I compared a .270 at 3100 fps with a 130 gr. XLC bullet with a .300 at 3200 fps with a 150 gr. XLC. The .300 is in front of the .270 energy wise until 500 yards. At 500 yards, they are about even. After 500 yards, the .270 has 50 lbs/ft more of energy at 600 yards. The table ends at 600 yards.

The BC for the .270 is .466.

The BC for the .300 is .428.

I guess the BC is what makes the difference.

I'd wonder if a Barnes X bullet would open at the velocity levels you'd be at at 500+ yards- with either cartridge.

Fabs, I watched a foursome of really, really good groundhog shooters just this year. If I recall correctly, the longest kill was almost 700 yards.

But not one came on the first shot. In fact, the group shot at a dozen or so different hogs, launching up to ten shots at an individual animal before they connected once.

They didn't miss by much: a foot or so on the first shot, and less as they "walked" 'em in.

Every one of those "almost" shots would have gutshot, legshot or missed an average deer. That's my point.

It's not the drop. It's the wind. Nobody can see the wind between the shooter and the game. You might have an idea of what the wind is where you are, and you might have a vague hint of what it's like at the animal, but nowehere else (and I'd wager damn few have a real idea of the wind speed even where they are.)

Jack, Barnes X bullets will open at least some at impacts as low as 1300 fps.

Rocky,
I know what you mean. I watched a really big buck from a stand this year. He was on the next ridge with a valley between us. He was with 2 does and I had time to lazer him. 460 yards. I had a good rest, knew what my gun would do and was really comfortable with the shot itself. But, it was across a valley and there was a slight crosswind, where I was. I couldnt shoot. What was that wind doing down the valley between us? What was the wind doing on the ridge he was on?

I passed. Hoping he would chase the does out into the valley below and would offer a 200 yard shot. He didnt.

I have replayed that scenario in my head several times over. I think I made the right decision. I think??

Andy

Andy,

If you weren't sure of the wind, you were absolutely correct in your decision. Better to wait and hope for another day than risk losing a buck like that to a bad shot. That's what we all have faced at one time or another (at least I have) and while you dearly wish that the situation had been different, true sportsmen will make the right decision. Good choice.

gd357

No doubt, .270 is in the top 5 -- great cartridge. However, there are so many variables and hunting conditions available in the world that there are certain calibers/weapons that do specifically a better job, i.e., the brush hunter armed w/a 12ga pump or a lever 45-70. A lot depends on the terrain and conditions. However, no one should feel handi-capped under any conditions going deer hunting with a .270. It is a proven performer that does the job exceptionally well, JMHO, Waidmannsheil, Dom.

270 perfect???
 

the best answer is YEP!! My longest game animal was shot with my 270 Ruger. Rangefinder right at 460. But I had been shooting rifles all year and knew the drop etc. Oh and it was a very rare day in Montana. No wind. I wouldn't even try that shot today...too far for me now...no practice:( The fellow I was hunting with couldn't believe it. It was a really long shot...even out there> :D

I've heard the speer point found on must .270 bullets bucks brush better than something like a 45/70.

Nothing bucks brush. Try it. Put your taget back in the brush a little ways, like where you would see a deer and shoot at it. See how your bullet bucks brush. Closer your target is to the brush, more accurate it will be, only because it has had less time to tumble out of line....

Nice shot Skeet. Dont you think a 300 Win Mag, 300 Wby Mag, 300 RUM, 30-06, 308, 280, 7mm Rem Mag, 7mm Wby Mag, 7mm RUM, 6.5x55, 260, 264, 257, 250 Savage, 25-06, 6mm Rem, 243 Win or a whole host of short mags, wildcats in the same calibers or improved cartirdges could have made that deer just as dead at 460 yards??

270 is good, very good, but its no better than a host of other "perfect deer rifles".......

Andy

I suppose I could have made the same argument for the .280 and 30/06.

All those magnums are too much. Too much powder, too much blast, too much recoil, to much $$$.

It's like calling a hot rodded muscle car the perfect grocery getter.


Most of the short action rounds run out of steam after 500 yards. I wouldn't take a 500+ yard shot anyway.

Well, for arguments sake, I shot a 300 Win Mag for years, still do in certain circumstances for whitetails. It is alot of gun, but I dont mind the recoil, the powder, the blast or the $$$ and have plenty of pictures to back up the effectiveness of them. Drops em just as dead as any other gun Ive ever fired, and with a well placed shot, no more damage to the meat, than any other gun.

So, for me, its not as good or better than the 270?

Just trying to make a point. 270 is good, but not the best. None are the best. Best went out the window years ago. With the bullet selection, powders of today and gun technology, the playing field has been equaled ALOT.....

Andy

Andy,

When I saw that there was a new post to this thread, I figured that I would post myself about how I feel about the "Best" deer cartridge.

Quite honestly, I don't think there is any best cartridge because each one does something a little differently and each time a person shoots a deer there is something different about the situation. My first deer was taken at 30 yards with a .30-06 and Core-Lokt bullets. I broke his back and he dropped right there. Was the .30-06 the ideal cartridge for that scenario, probably not. A .30-.30 would have worked just fine and iron sights would have beena lot better than the scope I had. My second deer was almost the same situation, but it was right under my tree and only presented a front shot. At that time, I had just bought my .300 Win Mag and it had, and still has, a 3-12x scope on it. A little better than the 4x scope the .30-06 had on it, but not the best thing for that shot. Well, shooting down on the deer I put the Core Lokt bullet into the middle of the top shoulder. Blood came shooting out of the entry hole and the bullet never made it to the other side because it disintegrated. Granted, the deer dropped like a ton of bricks. There have been many more deer shot with my .300 Win Mag and it is getting to the point now where I am starting to lose count.

Anyway, my point is that a person can only pick one of the perfect cartridges and perfect setups if he/she knows exactly how the deer is going to present itself. Without knowing all the variables, a person can only guess as to what is the perfect cartridge to use. Quite honestly, I think the most important thing is not selecting the perfect cartridge, but using the gun you are most comfortable shooting. I have a .270 Win, .30-06, .220 Swift, and .300 Win Mag. I am most comfortable with the .300 Win Mag followed closely by the .220 Swift.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree because saying the .300win mag is the best for deer is like saying a 25/06 is ideal for yotes(yes, i know you didn't say the .300 is the for deer). It works and it's quite effective on yotes but there are guns tailored for that purpose.

The 270 Winchester is an excellent cartridge. Time has proven that. However it's no magnum but it's close to one.

For woods hunting it's just fine and thats not a demanding application for deer. Many cartridges will do there.

At long range there are some more poweful cartridges that would be a little better.

By the way the data posted by fabsroman is twisted to show the weaker cartridge to be somehow "better" at long range. Of course this fools only some.

I did have an opportunity for long range deer hunting this season. To me long range is about 400 yds. I really don't care all that much if I shoot another deer or not but don't want to wound one. I carried a 270 WSM and a 264 WM. Each has a small edge over the 270 Win. I have a couple of 270 Wins and one of them was a back up down the line. I would have gone to one of my 300 magnums or 30-06's first.

I agree. The 270 is time tested. Excellent. But, not perfect or the best. But, is in the catagory with alot of other perfect and best. There is a list.

Actually, if you took away my big boomer and wouldnt let me shoot my 25-06 and made me pick a 140gr gun for whitetails only, Id rather have the 280 than the 270. Little higher BC, little more velocity, little more energy and little flatter shooting.....

Andy

Edit: I could be a little tired of hearin of the 270 too, I guess. I hunt with some guys that swear by them. They know nothing of guns or reloading or anything, and it makes a great gun for them. Like, they are apt to have it sighted for 140gr factory ammo (their sighting in consists of leaning over the hood of a truck and shooting at a feedsack on a tree, with the guns rested on a coat) and buy a box of 130s if WalMart is out and not even check the gun. All they know is it likes Winchester ammo. One guy said he had another guy make him some reloads for his 270 this year. I asked what he was using and he said "some of those good ones". :rolleyes: :D The guy that loaded them never saw the gun, let alone measured anything or worked up a load, but since they were handloads and "the good ones", they were the ticket.

He was shocked when he lost a buck he shot. I wasnt. He gut shot him and we never did find him.

We can agree to disagree. Ill stick with my 300 Win and 25-06Imp. (And Ill load my own, thank you, and be sure to use the good ones.) ;)

Andy

The perfect deer cartridge:

The 22wmr

Shoot them in the head. No meat damage, no trophy damage and they do not run very far.

Even if it is illegal in most places how many people do we know who have done it and how many times has it worked.

Just my humble opinion based on what everybody else has told me.

I still say the .270 is at home in ANy deer bunting situation.

Btw-the 30/06 or .280 hold NO advantage over the .270 in any deer hunting situation.

And the .270 doesn't hold anything over the .280 and .30-06 in any deer hunting situation.

Mike Moss,

I didn't twist anything. That is the data that Barnes' reloading manual shows for the bullets, cartridges, and velocities I used. If you were to look at my first post, you would see that I wasn't endorsing the .270 as the perfect deer gun. In fact, if you read all of my posts on this thread, you would know that I was making an argument for my .300 Win Mag, not my .270. Find the lb/ft for the bullets I listed and let me know what you find. Sure, I could find data for a .270 bullet that is much less aerodynamic and post those numbers, but that wouldn't be the truth. I guess I could have looked at a lot more data, plugged it all into a spreadsheet, and then come up with some type of answer. However, I use a 130 gr. bullet in the .270 for deer and a 150 gr. bullet in the .300 Win Mag for deer, so I used the data for those bullets.

.270 ammo is easier and probably cheaper to find on a deer hunt in the boonies than .280 stuff.

I'm sure the .270 has better trajectories at longer ranges and SLIGHTLY less recoil than the '06.

Wouldnt know, dont buy ammo in the boonies. I take it with me.

270 wont do anything the rest of the cartridges wont do to a deer. They are just as dead. And it doesnt have better trajectory than a 280 or 300 Win Mag or my 25-06IMP with the loads I use. Not as good of trajectory. Its a good/average deer rifle. Just like the rest mentioned. No worse, no better.

It may have a slight advantage over a 30-06 in trajectory, but that would be it. In capable hands, you cant do anything with your 270 a man cant do with an 06 or any of the other rounds. And, if your buyin ammo in the boonies, I would be willing to bet 06 ammo is more plentiful than the 270.

Recoil? I have only shot two 270s. One was a Rem 700 and the other a Winchester 70. I have shot one 280, Rem 700 Mtn Rifle. I have shot many 30-06. The 270s I shot kicked every bit as much as any of the 06s and worse than the 280. True story. I would say they average out about the same.

Its good, but not the berries..... Every gun has its shortfall....

I would still take the 280 any day of the week for a 140gr gun.

Andy

Some folks forget ammo or what not.

Like I said, better long range ballistics than the '06.

I nailed a big buck right behind the lungs this year. Ok, it was gut shot. I used a '06 with 180gr Rn Core-Lokt. It ran about 150 yds. If shot with anyting less, like a .270, 6mm, .30-30 etc it would have ran a lot furhter. There is no doubt about that. When I hunt with the 6mm I know i can bring down a deer, although the placement has to be almost perfect. With a .270 the placement is not 100% critical, and even less so with '06. Even though we all strive for an instantaneously kill. It doesn't always happen.