260 rem vs 270 win.

[louielouie]

If W.D. Bell can kill 300+ elephants with a 6.5x54 Mannlicher why wouldn't a 260 Rem with Partitions take an elk? Still need a good shot. The cartridge doesn't matter.
If you don't want to reload get the 270. If you get the 260 and reload, you'll probably become a better shot with it.

 

[JabaliHunter]

I don't want to muddy the water, but I shoot a .270 and have used a 6.5x47L for hunting. If I were to do it again, I think I would seriously look at the .280AI in a .30-06 length action......

 

[wapiti25]

The original post was 270 win Vs. the 260 rem. the actions in long Vs. short is about 3-4 oz. in weight. For a hunting rifle you usually have a magazine, some times the short magazines limit the bullet seating on heavy bullets such as the 140 6.5's. We dont know if he is looking for a out of the box or custom build.

 

[15Tango]

Either will do the job. Personally, I'd take the .260.

6.5MM cartridges have a hell of a hunting record and have proven themselves - 6.5 Swede anyone?
Better BC bullets and more selection of bullets.
Less recoil.
6.5MM bullets have higher sectional density than .277s and there are heavier 6.5 bullets available than the .277 (as far as I know). Sectional densities: 150 gr .277"=.279; - 140 gr .264"= 287; 160 gr .264" .328.

I'd prefer a short action over a long. Sure the .270 is available in hardware stores the world over but who forgets their ammo on a hunting trip? All the work that goes into zeroing, loading and everything we do and you forget your ammo? I don't see it as a real valid argument for the .270. Come on now.

Wayne

 

[CaptainMal]

Stock Winchester Model 70 SS with BOSS in 270. BOSS set at 1.8...55 gr. IMR 4350...Hornady 140gr. SP & SST bullets ...3030fps av.

300 & 400 yards couple months ago... Scope is Burris 3 1/2 - 10X Signature.

It's a hunting gun with hunting optics. Does this literally "all the time". Taken deer to 600 yards with many in the 400 yard range.

No reason to hunt with anything else and I own literally "everything" else.

 

[15Tango]

Yeah, I just noticed Mattri's ballistics there.

2600 FPS for a 140 out of a 260 is way off. I know guys that have ran the 142s out of their 260 at 3100 FPS. I'd say conservative numbers on a 260 with a 140 are more like 2850 FPS, at least that's about where Hodgdon's manual puts the 260 at with a 140.

I don't know what 140 grain only has a BC of .520 either, but there are 140s out there that are .620.

Putting a .277's best case bullet and velocity against the poorest case for a .260 isn't exactly apples to apples and is quite skewed.
.260 at a conservative 2850 FPS, 200 yard zero, 10 MPH:
300 yards - 6.98", 1805 Ftlbs
500 yards - 39.67", 1423 Ftlbs
1000 yards - 274", 744 Ftlbs Wind? 67"

1000 yards for that 140 grain .277"? 305" drop, 559 Ftlbs. Wind? 87"

The energy on those two loads, a 140 at 2850 and 2900 are nearly identical at muzzle for energy, after 100 yards the 260 will have more energy the farther you go out.

I'm not saying one is more accurate than another, that comes down to individual rifles more than anything. The 260 handily beats the .270 in regards to energy down range, drop, wind deflection, recoil, and sectional density.

To me short action versus long isn't much of a weight issue but more rigidity and handling issue for faster follow up shots. To me though, it's really a non-issue in the grand scheme.

The real answer to me in what cartridge wins in this debate though is the .280 - it offers the best of both of these cartridges. I have no idea why anybody gets a .270 when the .280 exists.

Wayne

 

[mattri]

Data was taken from Hornady's Ballistics Calculator.

 

[djtjr]

Mattri your example is clear but i think that 2600 fps is not really a fair representation of what a 260 140 gr can do. mine with a 140 a max is shooting much faster at about 2750 with no signs of presure which would allow the better bc of the bullet to make it a much closer race and one that may lean in favor of the 260 but i dont have bullet flight in front of me.

 

[boogershooter]

Old bowhunter say,"A surgically placed needle can be more deadly than a wildly flung axe"

 

[Erik Cortina]

I have no idea why anybody gets a .270 when the .280 exists.

Wayne

+1!

I will never own a 270 because if you really think about it there are always better choices! Also, why get a 270 when you can get the same performance from a short action cartridge?

 

[oldroper]

If you were going to choose between these calibers for an all around hunting rifle, which would it be? and why would you lean that way?

I own a 270 has a Lilja 25" long barrel I hunt antelope/deer/elk and the 270 my mim caliber that I hunt elk with. I also own a custom 270WSM and having a 270Wby build and I have other calibers.

I've never shot or owned a 260 and I'm sure it a good caliber but it something that doesn't fit in as one of my "all around hunting rifle" a 7-08 or 308 wouldn't fit in either.

 

[cliffe]

the reason to go 270 is cheap ammo, brass is free from guys that don't reload. if you shoot a deer or elk with a 260, 270 or 280 in the vitals would one have any noticable difference than the other, no.all would do the job, it don't matter what you hit em with it's where you hit em. cliffe

 

[Hunter2571]

The only reason I would choose the .270 over the .260 is to save money on ammo. Once fired .270 brass can be had from $20-$25 per 100 and you will probably not find any in .260 and it's probably close to $40 per 50 new. But I improvised and bought 100 .243 brass for $20 and run them through a .260 Remington die. Either one is a great cartridge but the .260 is a little more efficient reaching similar ballistics using less powder with less recoil. I already own a 30/06 myself so I won't bother getting a .270.

 

[Hunter2571]

One more thing, they are correct about rifle selection though. I have the Remington 700 vtr in .260 and I wouldn't recommend it it doesn't shoot that great and I have much much better luck with my Savage and Mossberg Patriot rifles. The Patriot rifle comes in .270 with a nice walnut stock for around $400 I have one in .243 and it will shoot 1/2" moa any day of the week. They are nice rifles.

 

[Someoldguy]

Thread is 7 years old.

Just an observation.

 

[fyrewall]

Walmart has small mountain size pallets of .270 & .30-06 ammo just before hunting season. Many hunters that I know who travel to far off lands and spend $20 thou or more for hunts carry old style .270's not the more efficient and sophisticated .260. Possibly just killing the beast is sufficient. I like the .260 because of the great selection of match and match-like hunting bullets but my expeditions are limited to yotes, rodents, occasional small deer and inanimate targets.

 

[long40shot]

The zombie threads keep waking up. But, i did enjoy this one.

 

[CaptainMal]

Poor Glen asked a simple question and got bombed with opinions and facts. To my observation he never came back to comment and explain more of his "needs" and capabilities. You all did a wonderful over that time to explain your opinions. Since I hunt with two 260 AI's and two different 270's I see agreement with near everyone.

Now give me but one and I am taking one of my 270's for general hunting deer-sized game or larger. Why? It is a tiny bit larger in diameter to transfer energy, bullets are great for hunting, trajectory and energy is fine for general hunting to 600 yards or so and all of the availability issues stand out.

Just because YOU are experienced, good and competent does not make the more exotic the best choice. A 260 is both expensive to buy ammo for and a bit exotic after we make our rifles fit our needs. I am right now using one of my 6.5's for deer. Doing it because I can. Just feel more confident with 270. It has killed an not disappointed me for decades. Not that my kills with 6.5 were a problem. Just know that 270 works for beginner, average, good and expert hunter.

 

[284winner]

Yeah, I just noticed Mattri's ballistics there.

2600 FPS for a 140 out of a 260 is way off. I know guys that have ran the 142s out of their 260 at 3100 FPS. I'd say conservative numbers on a 260 with a 140 are more like 2850 FPS, at least that's about where Hodgdon's manual puts the 260 at with a 140.

I don't know what 140 grain only has a BC of .520 either, but there are 140s out there that are .620.

Putting a .277's best case bullet and velocity against the poorest case for a .260 isn't exactly apples to apples and is quite skewed.
.260 at a conservative 2850 FPS, 200 yard zero, 10 MPH:
300 yards - 6.98", 1805 Ftlbs
500 yards - 39.67", 1423 Ftlbs
1000 yards - 274", 744 Ftlbs Wind? 67"

1000 yards for that 140 grain .277"? 305" drop, 559 Ftlbs. Wind? 87"

The energy on those two loads, a 140 at 2850 and 2900 are nearly identical at muzzle for energy, after 100 yards the 260 will have more energy the farther you go out.

I'm not saying one is more accurate than another, that comes down to individual rifles more than anything. The 260 handily beats the .270 in regards to energy down range, drop, wind deflection, recoil, and sectional density.

To me short action versus long isn't much of a weight issue but more rigidity and handling issue for faster follow up shots. To me though, it's really a non-issue in the grand scheme.

The real answer to me in what cartridge wins in this debate though is the .280 - it offers the best of both of these cartridges. I have no idea why anybody gets a .270 when the .280 exists.

Wayne

3100 isn't realistic from a 30" or under non Ackley 260 chamber. I get where your going as I believe those 260 numbers were too conservative while the 270s were realistic. The 260 is undoubtedly the winner in long range shooting simply due to the better bullet ballistics and it's accuracy certainly isn't inferior to any 270. The newest Berger bullets offered are very impressive so this makes the comparison quite close. Either are great choices and I personally believe the decision comes down to action length. What action is your preferred action. Long or short. I prefer a short action personally anytime I can make one work as my goal for a bolt gun.

 

[Barlow]

Flip a coin, then go huntin. Barlow