.270 vs 6.5x55

[Hespco]

The reason Bell was so successful in Africa with the 6.5 MS was the bullet. A 159 to 160 RN. This was a very long bullet for cal. Like a small spear. Basic physics states that the more mass in line you have ( sectional density ) gives deeper penetration, all things being equal. The bullet of Bell's day did not have the structural integrity of today's bullets. So at 2300fps his bullet was matched to his bullet's ability to stay together & penetrating. Now we have much stouter bullets allowing higher velocities. A 6.5 today with with a bullet like the Barnes 130gr TSX driven at 2800 to 3300fps depending on the cartridge would amaze Bell. I use the Barnes 6.5 120gr TSX to take my elk each year. Penetration has never been a issue. Never have recovered a bullet. My hunting friend & his son use a 270 with the Barnes 130 gr TSX & we both get the exact same results. Complete penetration every time. So.... your choice. If you don't wish to reload the 6.5CM, 260 Rem & 270 are all available factory loaded with the Barnes or Hornady mono bullets.

 

[HARPERC]

One can't discount the situation Bell found in his most productive period, uneducated critters at moderate range. His contemporaries point to a later period, when conditions had changed that weren't as "smooth" for him.

Reportedly a good athlete with physical attributes he had to utilize more than once.

The 6.5's can make it on merit in the modern world, and really don't require the the hyperbole of digging up Bell. The .270's don't need Jack O'Connor, nor the .338's Elmer Keith.

 

[Eagle eyes 17]

I would put my Savage .270 Win. up against any 6mm, it has outperformed every 6.5 Creedmoor that I have shot against using my 130gr., 3,000 fps. Loads.