Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
Articles
Latest reviews
Author list
Classifieds
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics
What would you rebarrel a .270 into?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="747" data-source="post: 1772923" data-attributes="member: 23925"><p>Hello RDR, interesting question and thoughts. You will of course receive a great selection of responses! Based on my personal: study, experiences and biases . . . I would disregard chamberings of diameters less 7mm/.280. There are a wide range of well constructed bullets/projectiles to choose from for a multitude of applications. It can deliver sufficient payload/weight for efficient hunting and harvest of a wide range of game. It can be loaded for: speed, accuracy and distance. // You refer to Jack O'Connor for many valid reasons. He is well known for his use of the .270 . . . I'm sure that he could have done the same with a multitude of .280s or .30/.300s just as readily. Of note is the fact that he had also commented on the notion that his own touting of the .270 may well NOT have been optimal for others. He had stated that the .280 (Remington) chambering was everything the .270 (Winchester) was, plus more flexibility/utility. ((My words, not a quote of his!)) If one handloads there is of course optimal flexibility. // Keeping the same bolt-face that you have my favorites would be some form of a 7mm-308 AI, or some form of a 7mm-30/06 AI.. (Both the .30/06 and .308 brass are standard and readily available from many manufacturers of course.) If one was NOT tied to the same bolt-face I'd be choosing some form of the 7mm RSAM or WSM. // Do I appreciate the 7mms - yes! Big enough, small enough, fast enough, hits hard enough and accurate enough - for a wide-range of applications. (JMHO)</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="747, post: 1772923, member: 23925"] Hello RDR, interesting question and thoughts. You will of course receive a great selection of responses! Based on my personal: study, experiences and biases . . . I would disregard chamberings of diameters less 7mm/.280. There are a wide range of well constructed bullets/projectiles to choose from for a multitude of applications. It can deliver sufficient payload/weight for efficient hunting and harvest of a wide range of game. It can be loaded for: speed, accuracy and distance. // You refer to Jack O'Connor for many valid reasons. He is well known for his use of the .270 . . . I'm sure that he could have done the same with a multitude of .280s or .30/.300s just as readily. Of note is the fact that he had also commented on the notion that his own touting of the .270 may well NOT have been optimal for others. He had stated that the .280 (Remington) chambering was everything the .270 (Winchester) was, plus more flexibility/utility. ((My words, not a quote of his!)) If one handloads there is of course optimal flexibility. // Keeping the same bolt-face that you have my favorites would be some form of a 7mm-308 AI, or some form of a 7mm-30/06 AI.. (Both the .30/06 and .308 brass are standard and readily available from many manufacturers of course.) If one was NOT tied to the same bolt-face I'd be choosing some form of the 7mm RSAM or WSM. // Do I appreciate the 7mms - yes! Big enough, small enough, fast enough, hits hard enough and accurate enough - for a wide-range of applications. (JMHO) [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics
What would you rebarrel a .270 into?
Top