Model 70 sporter in 270 Weatherby magnum

Maybe you should have your own. My motto is that if a man can only have one bolt-action centerfire, it ought to be a model 70 Winchester. Furthermore, he ought to have a pickup truck to go with it.;)
 
Maybe you should have your own. My motto is that if a man can only have one bolt-action centerfire, it ought to be a model 70 Winchester. Furthermore, he ought to have a pickup truck to go with it.
Click to expand...
I offered the guy $700 on the spot--even told him the barrel would need replacing soon--no go. The extreme irony is that post 64 push feeds are now hard to find--something to think about since I've heard head spacing a Mauser claw style bolt requires that it be timed properly to a cutout in the receiver for the extractor, no simple affair from what I understand, especially since the barrel is short-shanked and has to be torqued directly to the receiver. It is otherwise one of the all-time best designs I've seen IMO.:) For whatever reason (did Weatherby get all proprietary about it?) finding 270 Weatherby Magnums is VERY hard outside of Mark V's--couldn't find them even in Vanguards. It's Roy's first--and probably his all-around best (though that is an endless argument among Weatherby fans)
 
Last edited:
Yeah, but I think the rifle is still better in 30-'06 or 270 Winchester, since it is a 5+1 rifle in standard calibers. I don't think you can beat those two calibers by much and certainly not without compromises. Plus, it will not be hard to find a good one as long as it is a 30-'06 or 270 Winchester. I'm getting 3,000 fps with 150 grain bullets from my 270. It was actually chronographing faster than some guys 7mm Remington magnum; of course that's my optimal handloads versus 7mm factory loads....I've clocked 140's up to 3,285, admittedly too fast with primer pockets getting loose after 2 or 3 firings. Having found the safe pressure boundaries, I have backed off a little bit, maybe a lotta bit. I run the 130's as relatively mild plinking/practice loads, perhaps barely making 3,000 fps or even less. Still, my most accurate load at 300 yards uses that 150 Nosler Partition at 3,000. That should be plenty for North American big game short of Alaskan Brown Bear.
 
It's the mile-long throats that enable Roy to run up the powder charges without upping the pressure.;)

On your note, I have an old axis which I just took completely apart this morning--rebuilding the bolt and replacing the barrel with a McGowen 24" 270 win barrel.:)
 
Good! The 270 can really deliver the goods with a 24" barrel, which is what is on my Winchester. With that barrel length, and using optimal powders, I think it's reasonable to expect to get 3,200 fps using 130 grain bullets; 3,100 fps with 140 grain bullets; and 3,000 fps with 150 grain bullets. But these should be considered maximum loads with optimal powders for each bullet weight, and when you reach these speeds over the chronograph, I don't think you should try for any more. With powders having burn rates that are a little faster than optimal, reaching these numbers could be well over maximum pressure.
Accuracy, of course, is to be preferred over highest velocity. The only good reason I can think of at the moment for keeping a load at the red-line is if you find a loading up there that is just too darned accurate to not keep using it, especially if it is a heavier bullet, and then you can put up a few boxes of that recipe and call it your ,"Moose ammo". And for deer season, if you have an accurate 130 grain load that doesn't even make 2,900, who cares? The deer will never know and you don't have to tell your buddies that it's a, "wimpy", load. It might even cause less meat to be damaged.
 
Last edited:
I've done some loads for the 270 Weatherby magnum--if I can get within 150 fps or so with a 270 win load I'd be real happy. I've been very impressed by Barnes 129 LRX.
 
I like the idea of an aluminum bedding block but there's a flaw in the thinking. You get a factory stock and it is machine inletted. Leaves room in most to better bed the thing. So get rid of that wood stock and get a plastic stock with an aluminum bedding block, inletted with a machine and tell me what changes? If I were to get an aluminum bedding block stock, I would still bed the action!

I suspect that someone really good a measuring thing's can find difference's in demention's in pretty near every barreled action! Stand's to reason to me that that is why wood stock vary and generally benefit from bedding. All the bedding block will really do is keep wood under the stock screw's from getting soft over the years from cleaning fluid!

Sort of similat to pillars. All the pillar really does is support the action so even if the wood get's soft the action will still only go down to the pillar! Epoxy on the other hand fills spots that are to thin and allows you to cut out humps and fix them. Cleaning fluid can still work on the wood but I have never owned a rifle that that has happened on.
 
Last edited:
I like the idea of an aluminum bedding block but there's a flaw in the thinking. You get a factory stock and it is machine inletted. Leaves room in most to better bed the thing. So get rid of that wood stock and get a plastic stock with an aluminum bedding block, inletted with a machine and tell me what changes? If I were to get an aluminum bedding block stock, I would still bed the action!

I suspect that someone really good a measuring thing's can find difference's in demention's in pretty near every barreled action! Stand's to reason to me that that is why wood stock vary and generally benefit from bedding. All the bedding block will really do is keep wood under the stock screw's from getting soft over the years from cleaning fluid!

Sort of similat to pillars. All the pillar really does is support the action so even if the wood get's soft the action will still only go down to the pillar! Epoxy on the other hand fills spots that are to thin and allows you to cut out humps and fix them. Cleaning fluid can still work on the wood but I have never owned a rifle that that has happened on.
Click to expand...
I've bedded some savage and ruger stocks--but they were mine so it was no pressure if I goofed. I'm not a black-belt ninja stock reworker, so when I looked at this particular stock my gut reaction was "I'm not so sure I can improve things significantly without tons of work" and so I took the easy way out. If the rifle can't do the job (and I know it can) I'll hear about it pretty fast. Maybe I should have got a wood stock instead--but we live on an island on the North Atlantic--so these guns spend time in rain and salt water environment.
 
Last edited:
I have used a bit of Magpro....I think it works best with heavier bullets, but I haven't used enough of it to get a good feel for it yet. Some of the best 270 powders are no longer in production. The best powder I have ever burnt in the 270 is Norma N-205, which I believe hasn't been made in over 40 years, but I've still got some in excellent condition. I have heard that Norma MRP is supposed to be an improved replacement for N-205, so I will be experimenting with it in hopes of good results.
I prefer extruded powders and trickling up to exactly weighed charges for every round. But those ball/spherical propellants throw so darn consistently from the powder measure that it's hard to ignore the speed with which you can put together ammo without weighing every charge. Still, for accuracy testing and especially for maximum loads, I weigh every charge regardless of whether it's a ball powder or not.
I have run some ball powders and the best in 270 for me so far has been Winchester WMR, especially so with 140 grain bullets.
 
Stagpanther if you have some imr7828ssc give it a try in the 270. Also hearing rl26 is also good in the 270.
 
Don't think I have that either--but I did recently buy 4 lbs of 6.5 staball which is supposed to be good for the 270 win--though I don't know of any load data listed.

PS: scratch that, I found some on Winchester's site; Hodgdon even more. Duh.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top