270 WIN Hornady 120 grain SST Load Data

I just loaded some A5477 130 grain Interlocks and 120 grain SSTs today. Run between 35-36 grains for the 120s and 34-35 grains for the 130s. Expecting between 2400-2500fps. The 120s are way shorter than the 130s. Odd look with such a long case and short bullet. The 120s ended up with a COL of 3.165 per the data I found. Max SAAMI COL for a 270 is 3.34. Using the OAL gauge the 120 maximum in the Rem 700 chamber was 3.296. I could have backed .020, but that short bullet it does not have a lot of real estate to grab, so I am sticking with the recommended length.

For all providing inputs on this exploding on a deer and why am I doing this. I am running the same velocity as the 6.8, so I am not running this at 3000 fps. My reason for this is that I have a beautiful Rem 700 Mountain Rifle in 270. Due to disabilities that I have, and are getting progressively worse, I cannot shoot standard loads. The recoil is too much. So, to keep it from being a safe queen, I am reloading it to be able to use it and deer hunt with it. It is a very beautiful and accurate rifle.

attachment.php


Finished product.

attachment.php
 

Attachments

  • 120 Grain SST 270 Win.jpg
    120 Grain SST 270 Win.jpg
    30.5 KB · Views: 438
Last edited:
I went to the range and unfortunately I did not have time to do the testing I needed to. Went straight from a doctor appointment and only had an hour and a half and I was helping a buddy with some handloads for his AR-10.

The Rem 700 Mountain has a thin barrel and after 3-4 shots you can cook an egg on it. Had to wait 10-15 min for it to cool down. So, I will have to go back.

I can say, my velocities are 200-300 fps faster that what Hodgdon advertised on the data they sent. I definitely have to back down the 120 grain load. I was very satisfied with the reduced recoil, though. I did not have time to do group testing, either. So, I will get there early on Saturday.

attachment.php
 

Attachments

  • 270 5744.JPG
    270 5744.JPG
    51.9 KB · Views: 423
ES and SD looked good. Impressed with the stability of the 5744. Now to work on seating depth and groups on the best load numbers.

attachment.php


attachment.php
 

Attachments

  • 130 Grain Interlock.JPG
    130 Grain Interlock.JPG
    49.1 KB · Views: 408
  • 270 120 grain SST.JPG
    270 120 grain SST.JPG
    52.4 KB · Views: 411
USAF Ret,

That's an interesting data set. I ran the 130-grain loads from the #7 Western databook (2019; before Hodgdon took them over) and found much the same thing from QuickLOAD and GRT. Results included higher velocity than the book said to expect and closer to your own results after adjusting to meet the databook numbers, and given you have a 22" barrel on the Mountain Rifle (right?). The GRT number, in particular, use a powder model that has actual user pressure curves and velocity numbers considered as feedback, so if it is coming out higher than book, we either have a situation where the book numbers are from old data from old lots, lots from a different source, an unusually slow lot (reflecting a poor QC job) or some such thing.

The bottom line is that it looks like you will end up in the 30-32 grain charge area to get the velocities you want.
 
Unclenick said:
USAF Ret,

That's an interesting data set. I ran the 130-grain loads from the #7 Western databook (2019; before Hodgdon took them over) and found much the same thing from QuickLOAD and GRT. Results included higher velocity than the book said to expect and closer to your own results after adjusting to meet the databook numbers, and given you have a 22" barrel on the Mountain Rifle (right?). The GRT number, in particular, use a powder model that has actual user pressure curves and velocity numbers considered as feedback, so if it is coming out higher than book, we either have a situation where the book numbers are from old data from old lots, lots from a different source, an unusually slow lot (reflecting a poor QC job) or some such thing.

The bottom line is that it looks like you will end up in the 30-32 grain charge area to get the velocities you want.
Click to expand...
Unclenick, your assessment is the same as mine. The data I got was from Hodgdon. I asked if I could access that source information myself, they did not have a link.

I can definitely back down on the powder charge to get what I need for deer hunting, but the charges that I shot at were comfortable for me, so I may work with them. I think the reduced recoil and increased velocity is a win-win.

Now I just need to work on groups and seating depth. The 120 doesn't give me a lot of real estate to work with so I may be working on the 130 grain Interlock.
 
USAF Ret for whats it worth, I shoot a 25-06 using 117 gr hornady sst and they are deadly on deer, shot 2 last season, 1 drt the other ran about 30yds after both lungs were blown out..posted muzzle velocity for my rifle is 3000 fps..
 
NHSHOOTER said:
USAF Ret for whats it worth, I shoot a 25-06 using 117 gr hornady sst and they are deadly on deer, shot 2 last season, 1 drt the other ran about 30yds after both lungs were blown out..posted muzzle velocity for my rifle is 3000 fps..
Click to expand...
Much appreciated. I have two loads worked up for my No.1. 150 grain ABLR and 130 grain SST. Both shooting about 1 MOA. I will be testing the 120 grain SSTs as well.
 
I understand your reasoning for trying reduced loads for your rifle, if I were you Id sell it and find a Super nice fitting .243 or 6mm Creedmoor, something that already lives in rhe low recoil world.. Im not jumping up on a soap box for the .270 win, (it does fine on its own merits) but its like taking the high performance that makes it what it is and muzzling it down to something that its really not intended for.. That Ruger with proper pad, ( and recoil reducers installed) could be comfortably shot with decent ammo, not reduced.. Theres plenty of other options you can try...
 
hooligan1 said:
I understand your reasoning for trying reduced loads for your rifle, if I were you Id sell it and find a Super nice fitting .243 or 6mm Creedmoor, something that already lives in rhe low recoil world.. Im not jumping up on a soap box for the .270 win, (it does fine on its own merits) but its like taking the high performance that makes it what it is and muzzling it down to something that its really not intended for.. That Ruger with proper pad, ( and recoil reducers installed) could be comfortably shot with decent ammo, not reduced.. Theres plenty of other options you can try...
Click to expand...

I already own several calibers that are low recoil. 6.5 Grendel. 6.5 Creedmoor. I bought the 270 prior to my medical condition worsening with regard to handling recoil. I just love the No. 1. So, while I am not using everything that the 270 can offer for velocity, I still enjoy shooting it with the lighter loads. I already have dies, bullets and a couple rifles. I am, however, selling another 270 I own. It is a Rem 700 Mountain Rifle. It is just too much.

I have found my 308s give me what I need if I have a chance for elk and the recoil is manageable with a brake.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top