Hunting Washington Forum

Equipment & Gear => Guns and Ammo => Topic started by: fishingnut71 on December 30, 2014, 05:15:56 PM

Title: .270 question.
Post by: fishingnut71 on December 30, 2014, 05:15:56 PM: Is the .270 win an effective 700yard deer caliber? I have one and don't have the money for another caliber yet. I really want to use it but want to know what everyone thinks. it loves 130gr bst win ammo. What do you think?
Title: Re: .270 question.
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on December 30, 2014, 05:20:53 PM: In my opinion it all comes down to the shooter ..Is the .270 capable of dropping big game at 700 yrds ? Absolutely ! I prefer a 140 gr bullet out of a .270 ...it just seems to be the perfect combination :twocents:
Title: Re: .270 question.
Post by: Tyler_C on December 30, 2014, 05:21:14 PM: I'm sure it will kill a deer at 700 yards, but that's a stretch for most calibers...
Title: Re: .270 question.
Post by: Biggerhammer on December 30, 2014, 05:24:00 PM: Can't speak for the 700 yard deal persenaly but I know a .270 Win with a 160gr Partition will jam a Mulie Buck in the dirt at 500 yards, right quick. :tup: I have witnessed deer killed clean at 500 yards with a 120gr Ballistic Tip launched from a 6.5 Grendel carbine. You can pretty much bank on a 130gr from a .270 doing just fine at 700.
Title: Re: .270 question.
Post by: 270Shooter on December 30, 2014, 05:36:48 PM: Put it where it needs to be and I'm sure it will do the job. Use a bullet that expands fairly easily if you plan on shoot deer that far.
Title: .270 question.
Post by: bobcat on December 30, 2014, 05:42:02 PM: You'd want a bullet with a high ballistic coefficient such as a 140 or 150 grain Berger, or the 150 grain Nosler Long Range Accubond. You'd need a high power scope, and lots of practice. But the 270 would certainly be capable of taking deer at 700 yards.
Title: Re: .270 question.
Post by: PlateauNDN on December 30, 2014, 05:53:21 PM: I used 140 grain for short and long range out to under 500 yds with my 270.
Title: Re: .270 question.
Post by: Bofire on December 30, 2014, 05:56:18 PM: :) My Dad had a Winchester 270 featherweight, 1951 model. With a Williams peep sight. With a few of his friends at the Wenatchee "orchard"hunt they used to have every year, a damage control hunt. he reloaded the 150 grain Sierra BT.
I saw him kill two deer a buck and doe (both were legal) at 700 yards with 5 shots. This was about 1958, he hit the buck twice.
Carl
Title: Re: .270 question.
Post by: fishingnut71 on December 30, 2014, 05:59:28 PM: I guess ill try to keep it under 500yds. more practice, more practice more practice.
Title: Re: .270 question.
Post by: Fl0und3rz on December 30, 2014, 06:08:44 PM: With a "130gr bst win" at rated speeds, you would be above what some recommend as minimum energy for deer (800 ft-lbs), and with a 200 yard zero, drop is not a concern. I'd be more concerned with my abilities to estimate and correct for wind to ensure a humane kill.
Title: Re: .270 question.
Post by: carlyoungs on December 30, 2014, 06:12:39 PM: Can somebody show a graph for drop from 100 to 700 yards?
Title: Re: .270 question.
Post by: VarmintVentilator on December 30, 2014, 06:19:39 PM: A 270 with a 130gr. bullet can make that kill. But, most shooters cannot. I don't mean any disrepect to anyone on here, but I see it way to often in my area where hunters just start shooting away hoping to get lucky. I hate to see wounded game and have to much respect for the game I hunt. I've shot hundreds of rounds from 700 to 1000 yds., but only at targets. I'll prefer the spot and stalk method, it's more challenging. To much comes into play at those distances. My thought is to stay within your capabilities not the guns. That's just my 2 cents, don't mean to start any wars.
Title: Re: .270 question.
Post by: RadSav on December 30, 2014, 06:21:15 PM: Quote from: carlyoungs on December 30, 2014, 06:12:39 PM
Can somebody show a graph for drop from 100 to 700 yards?

Use this calculator http://www.hornady.com/ballistics-resource/ballistics-calculator (http://www.hornady.com/ballistics-resource/ballistics-calculator)

If you want a graph I think the Winchester Calculator has a graph, but it only goes to 500 yards. And I think only goes by their load information :dunno: http://ballisticscalculator.winchester.com/ (http://ballisticscalculator.winchester.com/)
Title: Re: .270 question.
Post by: carlyoungs on December 30, 2014, 07:08:55 PM: I got 307 inches of drop at 700. That's crazy
Title: Re: .270 question.
Post by: bobcat on December 30, 2014, 07:17:32 PM: I came up with 106 inches low at 700 yards if sighted in dead on at 250 yards. That's 2.8 inches high at 100 yards.

106 inches is nearly 9 feet. So, for shooting at that kind of distance you definitely need a good rangefinder, and a two thousand dollar scope.

This is why my maximum range I will shoot with my 270 is 400 yards, and that's only in theory, as I have never shot an animal further than about 325 yards.
Title: Re: .270 question.
Post by: jay.sharkbait on December 30, 2014, 07:39:15 PM: Bobcats numbers are very close to mine

I ran it with a .496 @ 3000
Title: Re: .270 question.
Post by: carlyoungs on December 30, 2014, 07:40:09 PM: Maybe I calculated wrong?
Title: Re: .270 question.
Post by: carlyoungs on December 30, 2014, 07:41:25 PM: Yep my velocity was 1000 off typed the wrong number
Title: Re: .270 question.
Post by: csaaphill on December 30, 2014, 07:41:43 PM: can't understand why one would want to try and kill anything that far out, but ya I'm sure it would. Even an antelope I wouldn't want to shoot that far out.
My load would be the 150gr though If I was to shoot that far out.
My question would be though; can you hand load a .270 in 180gr? or would that be considered too much for it?
I know you can get it in .270 weatherby, but can it be done in a .270 win and not damage it?
Title: Re: .270 question.
Post by: RadSav on December 30, 2014, 07:45:27 PM: Quote from: csaaphill on December 30, 2014, 07:41:43 PM
can't understand why one would want to try and kill anything that far out, but ya I'm sure it would. Even an antelope I wouldn't want to shoot that far out.
My load would be the 150gr though If I was to shoot that far out.
My question would be though; can you hand load a .270 in 180gr? or would that be considered too much for it?
I know you can get it in .270 weatherby, but can it be done in a .270 win and not damage it?

When you stretch the neck out about .030" it shoots the 180 grain bullet great! :chuckle:
Title: Re: .270 question.
Post by: Alchase on December 30, 2014, 07:54:40 PM: Quote from: RadSav on December 30, 2014, 07:45:27 PM
Quote from: csaaphill on December 30, 2014, 07:41:43 PM
can't understand why one would want to try and kill anything that far out, but ya I'm sure it would. Even an antelope I wouldn't want to shoot that far out.
My load would be the 150gr though If I was to shoot that far out.
My question would be though; can you hand load a .270 in 180gr? or would that be considered too much for it?
I know you can get it in .270 weatherby, but can it be done in a .270 win and not damage it?

When you stretch the neck out about .030" it shoots the 180 grain bullet great! :chuckle:

I don't care you you are or what you shoot, that was funny as heck!
Title: Re: .270 question.
Post by: csaaphill on December 30, 2014, 07:57:30 PM: Quote from: RadSav on December 30, 2014, 07:45:27 PM
Quote from: csaaphill on December 30, 2014, 07:41:43 PM
can't understand why one would want to try and kill anything that far out, but ya I'm sure it would. Even an antelope I wouldn't want to shoot that far out.
My load would be the 150gr though If I was to shoot that far out.
My question would be though; can you hand load a .270 in 180gr? or would that be considered too much for it?
I know you can get it in .270 weatherby, but can it be done in a .270 win and not damage it?

When you stretch the neck out about .030" it shoots the 180 grain bullet great! :chuckle:
sooo No then?
crap always like the 180gr for some reason always wanted it in that but never could find any ammo, but alwyas wanted to take up hand loading my own and wonderd if you could or not.
Some guy showed me his .270 wthby once was cool and came in 180gr but the bullet was way fatter the casing I mean than mine.
I want a .270 whtby sometime then and or a .280 7mm 30-06 25-06, 257, 300, .35, a host of others :chuckle:
Title: Re: .270 question.
Post by: ELKBURGER on December 31, 2014, 08:27:51 AM: I'm waiting for Woodland Shooter to chime in.....He loves the 270 Win and has had good long range success with it.
Title: Re: .270 question.
Post by: Firedogg on December 31, 2014, 10:03:21 AM: 700 yards??? Shoot, I can barely make out a bus at that distance. :dunno: I'm sticking to the brush.
Title: Re: .270 question.
Post by: Alpine Mojo on December 31, 2014, 07:47:51 PM: 700 yards is almost a half mile. At that distance, the gun is more capable than the person behind it.
Title: Re: .270 question.
Post by: Bob33 on December 31, 2014, 07:50:07 PM: I would say that if you have to ask, the answer is no.
Title: Re: .270 question.
Post by: Firedogg on January 01, 2015, 08:53:33 PM: My question would be that if the .270 is appropriate for that distance why don't you see it being used in distance shooting comps?? With everything that can go wrong with things that far away I would want the most consistent/accurate round to shoot that far. A .270 can do it, but at what degree of repeating it enough to put down game in a humane manner.