Meat and potatoes .270

My top picks for rifles in 270 would depend on the look and feel you like, if you want a slim ultramodern design the Tikka T3X gets the nod, I LOVE that rifle, but their wood is kinna bland so if you want a wood stock in an ultramodern consider the Browning X-Bolt. If you like traditional sporter weight rifles the Weatherby Vanguard is a REALLY nice gun even in synthetic, and yes those Winchester 70s are worth every penny especially if you want a nice hardwood stock, mine is a 308 and it shoots right at MOA with factory 150gr Core-lokts and about half that with my SST handloads. In regards to the Ruger 77 I have one of those too, while it is the least accurate rifle I own it still gives acceptable accuracy for hunting (1.5ish MOA) and I love the weight and balance of that rifle, that said their synthetic stocks leave much to be desired.
 
I'd take a strong look at Remington's model 7600 which is their slide action rifle. This model is quite accurate, fast handling, and a hoot to shoot.

Jack
 
"brush and elements" -stainless/synthetic

I'm pretty fortunate in that the gun deer season in AL runs nearly 3 months in length. Even when I was working, I'd get 50+ hunts in a year, and now that I'm retired, I get even more.

I like vintage, classic, blue steel and walnut rifles, but I realized pretty quickly that all that hunting would put a ton of wear on my classic pretty guns, or cherished heirlooms. I shifted to a synthetic stock/ gray matte finish bolt rifle in .270, bought CHEAP as a return at Wally World when they still did that sort of thing. I was pleased that I did not have to pay so much attention to nicks and dings and care in handling.

Eventually I bought a synthetic stocked /stainless steel bolt rifle, . I bought the rifle for the caliber, and not so much the configuration, but over the years have hunted that little rifle a bunch, in all sorts of conditions. That has led to me to conclude that stainless/synthetic is the way to go if you want a truly durable low maintenance rig. Not maintenance free, but certainly easier to care for over a long season than a walnut/blued beauty.

Whatever make and model you select, give serious consideration to synthetic stock and stainless steel construction for your use in the brush and elements.
 
I'm pretty fortunate in that the gun deer season in AL runs nearly 3 months in length. Even when I was working, I'd get 50+ hunts in a year, and now that I'm retired, I get even more.
Click to expand...
A good point, and definitely a consideration.

When I lived in Florida, my season was part of October, part of November, all of December, and most of January. I believe it was a total of 84 hunting days, the last year that I was there. ...And that's just deer. Add pigs, and it gets longer/better.


But in Utah, and here in Idaho, the seasons for centerfire rifles range from just 3 days (three! :eek:) to 14 days.
For a "deer rifle" you're done after that, and can turn to maintenance (particularly in Utah, where deer season is after Elk season).
But for a big game rifle that sees multiple seasons in Idaho, it might have another three weeks to go. Idaho's (cow) Elk hunt follows the deer hunt, and runs for another 14-25 days (depending upon year, region, and political factors).

So, it's possible to get something running for almost 40 days before the season is over.

Bad for the rifle? Arguably.

But... If you can't fill a tag in a 14 day deer hunt, or a 25 day elk hunt, you're doing something wrong.


(Like me. :rolleyes: I've had to call off every big game hunt since 2013. ...But the reasons why require a long and complicated story involving betrayal and more than one person nearly dying...)
 
"brush and elements" -stainless/synthetic

I'm pretty fortunate in that the gun deer season in AL runs nearly 3 months in length. Even when I was working, I'd get 50+ hunts in a year, and now that I'm retired, I get even more.

I like vintage, classic, blue steel and walnut rifles, but I realized pretty quickly that all that hunting would put a ton of wear on my classic pretty guns, or cherished heirlooms. I shifted to a synthetic stock/ gray matte finish bolt rifle in .270, bought CHEAP as a return at Wally World when they still did that sort of thing. I was pleased that I did not have to pay so much attention to nicks and dings and care in handling.

Eventually I bought a synthetic stocked /stainless steel bolt rifle, . I bought the rifle for the caliber, and not so much the configuration, but over the years have hunted that little rifle a bunch, in all sorts of conditions. That has led to me to conclude that stainless/synthetic is the way to go if you want a truly durable low maintenance rig. Not maintenance free, but certainly easier to care for over a long season than a walnut/blued beauty.

Whatever make and model you select, give serious consideration to synthetic stock and stainless steel construction for your use in the brush and elements.
Click to expand...

Yea, what bamaranger said. Stainless and synthetic is the way to go. I don't buy blued guns anymore if I can help it. Two of my deer rifles are Remington XCR stainless rifles and I have never seen the first sign of rust on them. I have several others that are stainless synthetic.

I take care of my guns but I feel a lot better out there in the rain and snow with a durable rifle. At times I stay at deer camp for 24 days plus so I don't need no worries about any rifles.
 
BIGR, you reminded me of the rifle I put together for a specific type of hunting I did when I lived in FL. Down there, hunting season runs concurrent with hurricane season. I wanted to put together a gun that was totally weather/mud proof PLUS had a better chance of a very fast kill (no trying to track a blood trail in the rain). So, I put together a SS Encore with a SS 30-06 BBL in a composite stock topped with a Bushnell 3200 scope (that has the rainguard coating). I used 180 grn bullets with the idea that I'd stand a better chance of anchoring a hog quickly.

Funny thing was though that every time I brought it out thinking it was going to flood, it never rained a drop.
 
I wasn't a .270 fan but I found a Savage Axis .270 on sale for $230 so I bought it. I've since given it to my grandson but not before shooting a few boxes of ammo though it. I have to say that it's an exceptionally good rifle for the money...

Tony
 
I know the 270 is a Classic. But in 2017 I'd go with a 7-08, 260, or 6.5 Creedmoor if I wanted a sub 30 caliber rifle. Preferably one of the 26 calibers. These cartridges don't give up much performance to 270, but have about 1/3 less recoil. Considering many of these budget guns tend to be on the lighter side long action cartridges such as 270 and 30-06 tend to have more recoil than many people want.
Click to expand...

Are there good ammo choices for the Creedmoor?


I'm not a 270 fan so I'll offer this: the 25/06 has a lot of potential as an addition to a .308. Far better as a multi-purpose cartridge than 270. It's a better choice for varmints, a better choice for longer range deer, and has less recoil.
Click to expand...

The 25/06 has less overlap with the .308 than the 270 does. I've wondered why the 25/06 is not more popular than it is. Could it be length?
 
The .270 is a good cartridge but for hunting it's very comparative to the .308.

My bias through many decades has been for a .30-'06 and a .243. Equally effective on Bambi, except for way-out-yonder possibilities. Inside of 200 yards, they're equal.

With factory loads and 22" barrels, 308 = .30-'06 in performance.
 
The .270 is a good cartridge but for hunting it's very comparative to the .308.
Click to expand...

And this is kind of the thought I keep coming back to. I don't mean to run this away from the OPs question but to me the .270 and .308 line up so nearly with each other that I cannot fathom what is gained other than a new firearm (which is enough excuse in itself).
 
I have a Ruger model 77 MKII in 30-06 and if a 270 were on my radar another Ruger 77 would be what I was looking for. Here are a few on GB for less than your $700 limit. These are MKI guns.

http://www.gunbroker.com/item/683756700

http://www.gunbroker.com/item/683903432

http://www.gunbroker.com/item/682942585

http://www.gunbroker.com/item/683908130

http://www.gunbroker.com/item/683377837

http://www.gunbroker.com/item/683453266

My favorite so far, A MKII.

http://www.gunbroker.com/item/681630938

A Ruger is about as meat and potatoes as it gets.
 
I have a Winchester model 70 in 270 with a 24" barrel standard. Maybe they quit making them that long, dunno. haven't looked lately.
 
ratshooter said:
I have a Ruger model 77 MKII in 30-06 and if a 270 were on my radar another Ruger 77 would be what I was looking for. Here are a few on GB for less than your $700 limit. These are MKI guns.

A Ruger is about as meat and potatoes as it gets.
Click to expand...


Don't they usually lag behind many others in terms of accuracy?
 
Don't they usually lag behind many others in terms of accuracy?
Click to expand...

Well thats the internet scuttlebutt. Take it for whats its worth. But my MKII 30/06 shoots just over 1" groups with ammo I just had on hand with no work up for that rifle.

I have also read that Ruger 77/22s were not very accurate. But I bought one off GB made in 1986 IIRC with the factory open sights. I didn't really expect much because of what I read on the internet. Especially the older Ruger guns with outsourced barrels.

My rifle came with a straight tubed Bushnell 4x scope that probably cost less than $50. I made up a target sheet with 1" square spots on it and at 50 yards it will keep not 5, but 10 shots INSIDE the 1" square. And it will do it with Federal Blue Box bulk ammo from Walmart. And it will do it over and over again. I have never shot it with "Target" ammo. Whats the point?

So don't believe everything you read on the internet. My advice is to turn off the computer and do your own testing. For all you know the review you are reading may be done by someone who can't hit a barn from the inside.

My dad had a MKI 243 that would shoot 1" groups at 100 yards with factory ammo. So don't sell the Rugers short on accuracy. They have more than enough for hunting.
 
Very basic breakdown of Ruger barrels:

Douglas from '67-'73
Wilson from '73-'91
Ruger hammer-forged from '91-Current
Other contracts filled in where needed, if Wilson or Douglas couldn't meet demand.

The Wilson years earned a reputation for being all over the map for 'accuracy' and quality.
Wilson barrels, however, were only use for a very short time in early production 77 Mk IIs. Their bad reputation was earned on the 77 'tang-safety'.

Once Ruger went to in-house production, quality has only gotten better as time passes.

So, if you make sure you have the best odds at getting a good barrel, make sure it's a '92+ Mk II.


But, as ratshooter mentioned, not all of the 'bad' barrels were actually 'bad', either.
As I mentioned in a previous discussion about 'tang-safety' vs Mk II Ruger 77s...
I have a 78 prefix tang-safety M77 that was originally chambered for .220 Swift. I have no idea whose barrel it was (but it was of ~1983 production), but it shot like a dream. And that barrel, 4,500+ rounds later, is still going strong on another 78-prefix M77 tang-safety, in the hands of a predator control contractor in Montana.
Click to expand...
 
About 4 or 5 years ago while cruising a gun show I spotted what looked like a Winchester M70 FWT in .270. Had the proper XTR stamp and all but the stock was a black synthetic that looked exactly like the wood FWT stock. Seemed heavier that the FWT as well.I thad a Leupold 3x9 scope on it at $400 I said, "What the hell." and bought it. Needed another .270 like I needed another hole in my head. The seller said it was sighted in with factory Winchester brand ammo with the 150 gr. Power Point bullet and was very accurate with that load so that's what I picked up at my local Walmart. I hit the range the next day. I just tried it at 100 yards and the first 5 shout group was right as a half inch. :eek: I shot 3 more 5 shot groups allowing time for the barrel to cool and the worst group was .80". Looks like I got a winner on that one. FWIW, my handloads with the 150 gr. Sierra Game King and 150 gr. Nosler Partition are just as tight grouping as the Winchester ammo.
The point of all that is I have 4 rifles in .270 Win., all but one purchased second had One was a 70's FN Mauser commercial gun a friend got as part of a trade. he didn't even like the looks so let me have it for $75 NIB. It outshoots the M70 by a small margin but the stock is so ugly it would abort a lady crocodile. (Thank's to Jack O'Connor for that remark.) Another is another FN Mauser commercial from the early 50's. It too is very accurate. ($350 as I recall) The last is a Ruger #1A and it's the least accurate but with Wilson barrel and all still shoots 150 gr. bullets into one inch average. The Ruger was $400 and as it filled a part of my #1 collection I bought it. Every one of those were bought a few years back. All but the Ruger have 24" barrels and frankly I wouldn't have it any other way.
Now if deer tags weren't so darn hard to draw they'd get used a lot more. I'll be doing an elk hunt later this year so maybe I'll drag one of them along.
Paul B.
 
I admit, I did not read all three pages of this thread, but if you are are looking for a .270 for under $700 then the world is your oyster. I managed to pick up a new FN Winchester M70 30-06 sporter for $659 at a closing Gander Mountain but I would go for a Ruger M77 or Weatherby Vanguard if it had to be a .270. Also, please do NOT disregard the used rack as I've picked up a couple of good deals there. Also check with coworkers...A guy today offered me a Vanguard in 25-06 for $300....

Great deals are out there is you are willing to look, and truth be known I would rather buy a quality used rifle than a new "budget" rifle any day of the week.

Jerry
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top