20 inch .270 Win

[pitweiler]

I was reading a F&S article by David Petzal which talked about shorter barrels not losing velocity the way some would think, cartridge dependant.

Anyone ever chronographed a 20 inch .270 Winchester? I love 20 inch barrels on bolt guns. Perhaps a .270 would lose too much velocity and I'd be better off with a 7mm-08.

[Jaeger]

While not directly on point, it's interesting to note that the powers that be haven't come around to a 277-08, a short action 270 based on the .308 win family.  Or did they?  I'm not up on all the short mags, but I haven't heard of one on a .308 win case.

 

I wonder if it's been done much as a wildcat?  I know the 6.8 (.277) short cartridges are shorter that the .308 case.

 

But, I'd agree with Petzel, with todays' faster powders the loss may not be that great and here in the north east the velocity loss may not matter that much.

 

The old rule of thumb was a loss of about 20-50 fps/per inch of barrel loss measured from a starting point of a 26" barrel.

 

Aagaard did a cut back test with the 30-06 for his "professionals rifle", but I couldn't put my hands on the article right away.

 

I just went through this with a black powder substitute gun where the velocity loss I accepted was 150 fps lower in the 24" barrel gun I bought vs the 30" popular model.

 

There are plenty of guns with 20 inch barrels on short actions , but few with short barrels on full length (30-06 length) actions.  One extremely successful model was the Rem 760/7600 30-06 carbine with the 18 1/2 barrel.  The Benoits never seemed to lose a deer because of it!

 

But then again, when one is dealing with the .270, its also a matter of romance rather than actuality, I've been looking for a pre-64 Win 70 super grade in 300 H&H, and most for sale are .270's!!

Edited October 12, 2015 by Jaeger

[Pygmy]

The .270 Win earned it's fine reputation with relatively slow burning powders such as 4350 and 4831...

Still, 22" barrels are common and perform well..I doubt cutting it back to 20" would drop the velocity much more than 100 FPS or so, which would not make that much difference in performance..

I suspect that muzzle blast and muzzle flash might increase significantly though.. I hunted with a guy once who had a 30-06 with a 20" barrel, and it was LOUD and was quite a fire breather..

[Buckmaster7600]

Now this thread is right up my ally as I can't own a rifle that I don't take a hack saw to the barrel of I have a lot of 16.5 in barreled rifles from 223's to 300wsm the loss in velocities are minimal although they do get louder! I have shot my 30-06 over a crono with a 16.5" tube that shot around 2650fps with a 180 gn bullet I'll have to look in my notes for the powder I was using.and my 300sm with a 16.5" barrel was at 2875ish with some factory Winchester 165's. The way I see it is if I cut 4"-6" off a barrel I step down 1 cartridge in velocities so my -06 becomes a 308 my 270 becomes a 7mm-08ish my 300 becomes a -06. My favorite shortie that I have built is a ticca t3 I rebarrled to 35whelen and I sighted it in with the barrel still at 24" and cut it to 16.5" and at 200 yards I lost 1 inch in elevation not bad for a lot handier rifle.

[pitweiler]

I've found the 20 inch barrel and ~40 inch overall length to be optimal for my uses. My Marlin 336 .30-30 and Ruger 77 .243 both sport 20 inch tubes and they handle so much better than my 22 inch Savage .30-06. The Savage weighs in right around 9.5 to 10lbs with a scope which, IMO is heavy for a gun you tote around. I'd like to have a 20 inch bolt gun with a bit more thump than the .243, but in reality I probably don't need it. 

 

I would really like a company to standardize a short action non-magnum .277 built off the .308 case. I know there are a few wildcats, but something standardized would be nice. It probably would have too much competition from the .260 Rem, various 6.5's, the 7-08 and heck, maybe even the .243 to get a foothold. It sure would be a cool idea though considering how popular the .270 Win is.

 

I like my .243, but the trend towards 80-95 grain big game bullets is annoying. Will someone make an Accubond or BT type bullet in 100 grains, please?

 

I saw a Ruger UL in .270 Win with a 20 inch tube and I thought that it would be neat. I also saw the same rifle in 7-08, but finding 7-08 at the store can be challenging at times. Everyone stocks .270.

[Buckmaster7600]

A short action 270 imo would never make it what would it be able to do that 7mm-08 or a 260 couldn't, not that being said if someone would make one I would buy it because I like to have all of them. Now what I would like to see is a 7mm super short mag like they did with the 243 but with .280 diameter at something that would shoot 2800fps with a120 in a 223 sized action!

[Pygmy]

To each his own...I'm not crazy about those stubby barreled blasters..

22" seems ideal for ME in a standard caliber..I love my Rem 700 Mountain rifle in 7MM08 and wouldn't want it any longer or shorter..

If I wanted a magnum chambering (which I don't) I'd prefer at least a 24" barrel..

[Buckmaster7600]

I have no problem with long barrels on rifles that's why they make hack saws, it's alot easier to cut off extra than to add some on!

[pitweiler]

Pygmy- That 700 Mountain Rifle is a specimen. I almost picked one up as well, but decided I wanted a more compact package and CRF.

 

I think a 20in .270 would still outperform a 7-08. In two equal rifles the 7-08 would lose approximately the same amount of velocity as the .270, maybe a little less, but the .270 would still produce higher velocities. The 7-08 should have less blast and flash, but if it would be by a quantifiable margin, who knows. FWIW my 22in .30-06 is loud and produces and nice light show at the end of the barrel. I doubt a 20in barrel would fare much worse.

 

Now the question- Do I really need a 20 inch .270? Probably not. My .243 can take any game in North America with the proper bullet selection and the same goes for my .30-30 and .30-06. 

 

[Jaeger]

I've found the 20 inch barrel and ~40 inch overall length to be optimal for my uses. My Marlin 336 .30-30 and Ruger 77 .243 both sport 20 inch tubes and they handle so much better than my 22 inch Savage .30-06. The Savage weighs in right around 9.5 to 10lbs with a scope which, IMO is heavy for a gun you tote around. I'd like to have a 20 inch bolt gun with a bit more thump than the .243, but in reality I probably don't need it. 

 

I would really like a company to standardize a short action non-magnum .277 built off the .308 case. I know there are a few wildcats, but something standardized would be nice. It probably would have too much competition from the .260 Rem, various 6.5's, the 7-08 and heck, maybe even the .243 to get a foothold. It sure would be a cool idea though considering how popular the .270 Win is.

 

I like my .243, but the trend towards 80-95 grain big game bullets is annoying. Will someone make an Accubond or BT type bullet in 100 grains, please?

 

I saw a Ruger UL in .270 Win with a 20 inch tube and I thought that it would be neat. I also saw the same rifle in 7-08, but finding 7-08 at the store can be challenging at times. Everyone stocks .270.

Pitweiler, I too like 20 inch barrels.  And I like the idea of a .308 case based .277.  I'm not partial to .270 but for those who are, I think might take off, fits between .260 and 7-08 like the .260 fit between the .243 and 7-08.

 

So, not so sure about the not gaining ground argument.  The .260 gained alot of ground even though we had the .243 and 7-08, tho' I think it's popularity was based on 6.5x55 ballistics and great BC/SD bullets in a short action.

 

Once we had the .260, the 6.5 Grendel and 6.5 Creedmoor also grabbed a foothold using the same .264 bullets.

 

Seems today ballistically similar cartridges have a better chance to get a foothold than in the past.

 

Although, you can't really tell, one of my favorites the .338 Federal is not so popular and not chambered by any but sako/tikka or custom.  But with 200 grainers its a great 200 yd round, great energy, big initial diameter, relatively flat trajectory and relatively mild recoil.

 

So who knows what we may take a liking too.  We gun nuts must drive the cartridge companies crazy!!

[Buckmaster7600]

Pitweiler, I too like 20 inch barrels. And I like the idea of a .308 case based .277. I'm not partial to .270 but for those who are, I think might take off, fits between .260 and 7-08 like the .260 fit between the .243 and 7-08.

So, not so sure about the not gaining ground argument. The .260 gained alot of ground even though we had the .243 and 7-08, tho' I think it's popularity was based on 6.5x55 ballistics and great BC/SD bullets in a short action.

Once we had the .260, the 6.5 Grendel and 6.5 Creedmoor also grabbed a foothold using the same .264 bullets.

Seems today ballistically similar cartridges have a better chance to get a foothold than in the past.

Although, you can't really tell, one of my favorites the .338 Federal is not so popular and not chambered by any but sako/tikka or custom. But with 200 grainers its a great 200 yd round, great energy, big initial diameter, relatively flat trajectory and relatively mild recoil.

So who knows what we may take a liking too. We gun nuts must drive the cartridge companies crazy!!

I have always dreamed of a 338 fed BLR to sit between my 308 and 358win. I have a AR in 338 and can't believe it never took off. I think it's biggest downfall is that upon release it was dubbed as a "brush" cartridge much like my beloved 35whelens and 358 win.

[Jaeger]

I know.  I don't think a 200 yard cartridge can be called a brush cartridge either!

 

Perhaps with the 35 Whelen and 358 win. it was more the guns they were initially offered in that gave them that label.  Rem 760's and Win 94/savage 99's.

 

That being said, I'm thinking of rebarreling a Win 88 or Savage 99 to 338 Federal.

 

A lever action 338 fed like your BLR's but a little more old school.  The BLR would be fantastic in 338 Fed!

[Buckmaster7600]

Rebarreling one of my 99's has crossed my mind many times. There is a guy who makes barrels for 7600's in VT and he offers 338 barrels that might be my next 338.

[pitweiler]

I too have a hankering for the 338 Federal. If I were to ever re-barrel my 243 that is a choice on the list.

I don't categorize the 260, or other 6.5's, save maybe the Creedmoor, as commercially successful. If no more than one or two companies chamber a factory rifle in the caliber, that means it never caught on. Those are popular in the competition curcuit, but that is a niche.

A short action .277 would probably suffer the same fate as the .280 Remington; the 7mm was first. Had the .280 Remington been introduced prior to the .270, I would net that the .280 would be more popular. The 7mm-08 beat the .277 short action to the game. The .277 would have nothing to offer. Bullet selection for .284 is better than the .277 with heavier bullets and higher bc. Recoil would probably be about the same. The .264 bullets offer high bc and sectional density, and are probably a better choice than .277 bullets.

That being said I'm still all for it. Variety is the spice of life. That's why we have brunettes, redheads, and blondes.

As for the 338 Federal, they marketed that round totally wrong. It seems like they pushed it to deer hunters when they probably should have pushed it to elk/moose/bear hunters. Why trade a .308 for a .338 that recoils as heavy as a .30-06 but doesn't offer much more performance than a .308? What can the Federal do for a deer hunter that a .308 or .30-06 can't? Answer; nothing.

Now for a bigger game hunter the .338 Federal offers a heavier bullet, deeper penetration, and bone busting big game performance in a non-magnum format. But, people want long range, even though they rarely need it. On paper the Federal is capable of killing out to 400 or 500 yds. With modern BDC scopes that is an attainable range. A little different marketing approach and that round could have been very successful.

[Buckmaster7600]

The sad part is if the 338 was called A 330 short mag we wouldn't have this conversation.

Edited October 15, 2015 by Buckmaster7600

[Gencountyzeek]

Isn't a 7mm-08 the short action .270 you are looking for? .0394×7=.2758. I am not a expert on bullets but that seems pretty much a ringer for your short action .270.

[Buckmaster7600]

A 7mm-08 shoots a .284 bullets as to a 270's .277 diameter so technically a 7mm-08 would be short action 280. Although I own 270's and 280's I have never understood why we need both other than having more guns and that's NOT a bad thing even if my wife thinks so!

[Elmo]

From my understanding, the reason gain speed on a longer barrel is that the bullet exits the barrel on a short barrel before all the powder has burned up so you essentially wasted some of the powder.  But you only really see this being a factor with magnum rounds that tends to hold a lot of powder.  Can't remember where I read this but the author stated that a 22" barrel will be long enough for any non-magnum round in existence.  A magnum round in a barrel shorter than 22" and the bullet will exit before all the powder is burnt.  For small calibers like the 223, 16" is enough to burn all the powder before the bullet exits.

[Buckmaster7600]

From my understanding, the reason gain speed on a longer barrel is that the bullet exits the barrel on a short barrel before all the powder has burned up so you essentially wasted some of the powder. But you only really see this being a factor with magnum rounds that tends to hold a lot of powder. Can't remember where I read this but the author stated that a 22" barrel will be long enough for any non-magnum round in existence. A magnum round in a barrel shorter than 22" and the bullet will exit before all the powder is burnt. For small calibers like the 223, 16" is enough to burn all the powder before the bullet exits.

This is a heavily argued topic, some say that in a short barrel it does not give the burnt gasses time for full expansion and not unburnt powder. "I think I worded that properly" I can say that the only time I have ever seen unburnt powder on a shooting bench was from a 45-70 revolver. In all my short barreled rifles I have never seen any.

[Pygmy]

7600......Do your hunting buddies call you " Stubby"  by any chance ?

 

Some of my old girlfriends used to call ME that, but they weren't referring to my firearms...

[Buckmaster7600]

7600......Do your hunting buddies call you " Stubby" by any chance ?

Some of my old girlfriends used to call ME that, but they weren't referring to my firearms...

Old girlfriends yes! And all my hunting buddies are deaf but they mostly call me way worse names than stubby!

[nobody]

The deer won,t even notice the shorter barrel when you shoot it. 22 or 20 inch barrels do not change velocity that much.

[shawnhu]

I think mine is 18", but never have my girlfriends called me stubby

X-Calibur Lighting Systems

http://facebook.com/XCaliburLightingSystems

[Lawdwaz]

I think mine is 18", but never have my girlfriends called me stubby

X-Calibur Lighting Systems

http://facebook.com/XCaliburLightingSystems

 

If you were Indian they'd name you "One Hung Low".

 

 

But you ain't...............................

[Daveboone]

I have a 20" .308, which I handload for. Yes, it chronys less than my 24" (.308/ .270 use many of the same powders, similar in vel, energys etc. to compare), but it is highly doubtful the critter will know the diff. My 20"er though def. is much touchier to sight in with ...most shorter barrels also have a lighter barrel. Once again, for a one shot rule, the deer don't know the diff. If I am shooting groups, my 24" .308 rules. By a lot. (20" + Ruger bolt, glass bedded, Timney trigger and competition spring and firing pin, 24" Savage 99, totally stock.)