.270 160 gr

[jdb]

So I don't have a back up big game rifle, but I have encore, so I'm going to buy a .270 barrel, and I'm thinking about shooting 160 gr partitions. Any input??

[724wd]

why so heavy?  140's shoot REALLY good out of a .270.

[PlateauNDN]

My .270 loves the blue box of federals 140 gr. Knocked down deer and elk no problem.

[bobcat]

The 160 grain Partitions will do great. It's just like using 180's in the 30/06. The only reason I might be reluctant to try them in the Encore, is that recoil might be a little too much.

[yakimarcher]

Most .270 barrels don't have enough twist for a 160.

[jrebel]

My .270 loves the 150 partitions.  I would imagine 160s would work fine also if you can get the rifle to shoot them.  Any of the 140 /150 /160 partitions would be devastating on any game in North America out a .270.  good luck and if you get the 160s to work...make sure to post your recipe. 

[NRA4LIFE]

What Yakimarcher said.  A little much for a .270.  I have never reloaded past 150.  I prefer 130 for deer.

[theleo]

I wouldn't go heavier than 150 grains, there's just no real good reason to unless you're just trying to slow it down for brush hunting.

[Bob33]

The 160 grain Partitions will do great. It's just like using 180's in the 30/06. The only reason I might be reluctant to try them in the Encore, is that recoil might be a little too much.

To be more precise, a 160 grain out of a 270 is closer to a 200 grain out of a 30 caliber (.308). Using sectional density as the standard, the equivalent bullet weight to a 180 grain in 30 caliber would be a 145 grain in .277.

I would personally choose something lighter than 160 in a 270, but if it shoots well it should work fine.

[bobcat]

The 160 grain Partitions will do great. It's just like using 180's in the 30/06. The only reason I might be reluctant to try them in the Encore, is that recoil might be a little too much.

To be more precise, a 160 grain out of a 270 is closer to a 200 grain out of a 30 caliber (.308). Using sectional density as the standard, the equivalent bullet weight to a 180 grain in 30 caliber would be a 145 grain in .277.

I would personally choose something lighter than 160 in a 270, but if it shoots well it should work fine.

Yeah, I just meant it's like using the heaviest that's generally available. Bullet weight isn't really that critical. I say use whatever you have confidence in. It could also be said that there's no need to use 130 grain bullets, or 150 grain, just use 140 grain. It's really just personal preference along with finding a bullet that shoots good groups in a particular rifle.

[jdb]

I have a semi custom model 700 in .270 as my primary hunting rifle. I shoot 130 grain accubonds out of it, my idea here is I stick with the .270 to simplify life in terms of on hand components i.e. I already have 100's of brass. But I want something ballistically dissimilar. This would primarily be a truck gun/back up gun. I thought that with there long heavy profile they'd penetrate like no tomorrow.

[Bob33]

Bullet choices and weights will be debated forever, as long as campfires exist.

The use of "heavy for caliber" bullets like a 160 grain in .277 caliber made a lot of sense in the days when bullets did hold together well. Most big game bullets today are designed to retain more weight: some as high as 100%. This allows the use of lighter bullets that can still penetrate, if that is your preference. Some hunters prefer bullets that enter, quickly expand, and expend all their energy inside the animal.

The adage that slow, heavy bullets "bust brush" better than lighter, faster bullets has been disproven.

Pick the bullet you like, shoot it enough at targets to understand its trajectory and accuracy limitations, and go hunting.

[Firedogg]

 If you are thinking more penetration look to bullet construction, not weight. The Barnes TSX/TTSX gives great penetration along with full mushrooming and weight retention.
  Modern design bullets are doing some interesting things for our old calibers changing the way we used to think about them.

[theleo]

A 160 Partition will penetrate like crazy but no more than a 130 grain TTSX or a 150 grain A-frame.

[bobcat]

A 160 Partition will penetrate like crazy but no more than a 130 grain TTSX or a 150 grain A-frame.

That's true but it might make a bigger hole.

[Bigshooter]

130, 140, 150, 160, all kill deer and elk.

[BULLBLASTER]

130, 140, 150, 160, all kill deer and elk.

Say wha?  You mean to tell me 10 grains bullet weight difference isntthe end of the world? 

[Bigshooter]

130, 140, 150, 160, all kill deer and elk.

Say wha?  You mean to tell me 10 grains bullet weight difference isntthe end of the world? 

I know it's hard for some on here to believe but it's true. 

[theleo]

130, 140, 150, 160, all kill deer and elk.

Don't use solid logic to derail the conversation, it's about which one kills them deader.

[BULLBLASTER]

130, 140, 150, 160, all kill deer and elk.

Don't use solid logic to derail the conversation, it's about which one kills them deader.

The proper term is "more deader better" I do believe.

[Curly]

If you do try the 160gr, look into trying some Reloader 26 powder.  I hear guys are getting unreal velocity with that powder and heavy bullets in the .270 Win.

150 gr, 24" barrel, R26.........over 3,000 fps. link

[jackelope]

130, 140, 150, 160, all kill deer and elk.

Don't use solid logic to derail the conversation, it's about which one kills them deader.

The proper term is "more deader better" I do believe.

This is the more accurater way to explain it.

[theleo]

130, 140, 150, 160, all kill deer and elk.

Don't use solid logic to derail the conversation, it's about which one kills them deader.

The proper term is "more deader better" I do believe.

If you're going to get technical I believe it's "deadest de bestest".