Why choose a .25-06 Rem over a .270 Win?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I like the .270..... well, because it works, and quite well as a matter of fact. My Grandfather always used it (Remington 721, since 1949 when he bought it), I bought one (a Howa 1500 / Mossberg), in 1991, after reading Jack O'Connor's praise of the caliber. I found it perfect for taking out woodchucks and deer. I have 3 .270's now (Remington 721, 700 BDL and Remington 7600), and find them just as deadly on deer as a .30-06, it just doesn't rip your cheek bone or shoulder when you touch her off. My buddy has a .270 Ruger 77 and would never part with it. I talked him into the .270 caliber after he developed a flinching issue with his .30-06. He would never go back, after getting used to the .270 and seeing how quick it dropped his first deer.
Sure, a .25-06 or .257 Roberts, or 7MM would work just as well, but it all boils down to shot placement anyhow, be it squirrels or Moose. Do your research and shoot what you like. You may end up swapping a number of times until you find what suits you. My son in law loves the .30-06 caliber and doesn't mind the recoil. It works for him. To each their own.
 
Why go with a 270 when you can go 7MM Rem-Mag?

The 25/06 is more a shooters cartridge and I have found it to be accurate and a lot of fun to shoot at the target range. The bullet weight difference allows me to do the 25/06 for bigger varmints at long range and still have enough for large game with heavier bullets.

I have 2 25/06's and am now looking at either a 25STW or a 257 Weatherby. I could never justify a 270 when you could get a 7MM Rem Mag and download it to 270 levels and still have full power on tap.
 
Peter M. Eick said:
I could never justify a 270 when you could get a 7MM Rem Mag and download it to 270 levels and still have full power on tap.
Click to expand...

That arguments fails to take into account that we don't always WANT more. That's why there are cartridges that AREN'T more.

Why a 7mm mag when I could have a 300win mag? Why a 300 when I could have a 338 Lapua? Why a 338 when you could have a 50bmg?

A 270 is already more than a lot of people will ever need. Why "more" just because you "could"?
 
The main reason I own a 25-06 is because I saw a sweet sporterized 98 Mauser with a Ram Line stock and a Timney trigger at a gun show for some ridiculously low price. It's one of the most accurate rifles I own and there's always a place in my collection for an accurate rifle.

I also have a bit of sentimental attachment to the round. The first buck I killed was with a borrowed 25-06.
 
I have 2 questions about 25-06.

1. Where can I get one?

2. Where can I get the money?

3. How do I find time to shoot it?

4 How do I convince she who must be kept happy that I really do need it?

OK I'll call 2 fers:D
 
That info may not be found in such a book, I would look to some of the actual books on Winchester firearms, or possibly the History of Modern U.S. Military Small Arms Ammunition: vol. 1 1880-1939 by F.W. Hackley et al.

And if the 270 was introduced to the public in 1920, then the original design would predate that, likely towards the end of WWI.

When I verify it, I'll post it unless you've beaten me to the punch. And if I'm wrong, then you have my apologies. But I do believe Dunlap was a straight shooter, so to speak.
 
I guess I'm getting old, because I could have sworn that Winchester introduced the .270 (designed as a hunting round?), in 1925, in the model 54 bolt action. I guess it doesn't matter. Damn good round either way!
 
hellbent said:
And if the 270 was introduced to the public in 1920, then the original design would predate that, likely towards the end of WWI.
Click to expand...


The .270 Winchester was developed in 1923 and introduced in 1925.

You said...

hellbent said:
Sorry about the blank post.....yes, Roy Dunlap claims to have seen original 270 military cartridges made by Winchester on an experimental basis in his 1950 book Gunsmithing - see page 373. He also states that it was withdrawn and reintroduced as a sporting cartridge a few years later. I have yet to verify this, but as soon as I can get to the book I'm looking for, I'll follow up.
Click to expand...

I only said 1920, because thats approximatly a few years before in was introduced.

As far as I know it was never intended to be a military cartridge.
 
Hence the term experimental....and frankly, I could care less about the 270 Winchester. Yes, it may be versatile, it may have explosive power and a decent BC, and all the better for folks who shoot the 270. Its a fine cartridge.

I'll stick with any wildcat with dyes I can find for a decent price and that still has a bore left....heh heh I just picked up a 219 inproved zipper in an argentine mauser...and thank you for clarifying my assumptions about these forums.
 
I have 2 questions about 25-06.

1. Where can I get one?

2. Where can I get the money?

3. How do I find time to shoot it?

4 How do I convince she who must be kept happy that I really do need it?
Click to expand...

1: Wal Mart They can order damn near anything.
2: Every time you go to the store, get $20 cash back. Hide it. When you buy it, pay cash.
3: You are on your own with that one.
4: Use the Ronald Reagan doctrine of Plausible Deniability: "Oh, that old rifle? Had that for years"
 
With the exact same load of IMR 4831 at around 3200-3300 fps., you can simply switch 100 grain bullets from Ballistic Tips to Partitions and kill anything you want to shoot. Those were pretty much John Wootters' words in the Nosler #3 Manual. They also proved good enough for me.

-7-
 
hellbent said:
Hence the term experimental....and frankly, I could care less about the 270 Winchester. Yes, it may be versatile, it may have explosive power and a decent BC, and all the better for folks who shoot the 270. Its a fine cartridge.

I'll stick with any wildcat with dyes I can find for a decent price and that still has a bore left....heh heh I just picked up a 219 inproved zipper in an argentine mauser...and thank you for clarifying my assumptions about these forums.
Click to expand...


Clarifying your assumptions? What are those assumptions? Is one of them...That when you make claims about history that most people aren't familiar with, they might be skeptical, or want further information?

I never said you didn't read the information you related and I never even said that if you had read it, that it was wrong information.

I have to say though I'm still skeptical and uncertain. Even after reading the Roy F. Dunlap information from the book you referenced. There is too much he leaves out.

Below is Dunlap's info on the .270 Winchester from his book Gunsmithing.

attachment.php


attachment.php


When and where did he see the experimental .270 cartridges? He was born in 1914 so I doubt he was around the Ordnance Department in 1918-1923.

Was it when he was in the military during WWII? Was it before WWII? Was it after WWII? If not the Army, then who possessed these experimental cartridges? We don't know he doesn't say.

If Dunlap's account is accurate. What rifle was Winchester proposing the .270 be chambered in for military use? Why isn't this common knowledge? Why is the development date of the .270 Winchester always given as 1923?

These are all valid questions and before I start proclaiming the .270 Winchester as a one time experimental cartridge, I'd like to have them answered.

Picture 1.jpg

Picture 3.jpg
 
270 is a great deer cartridge but a bit heavy for varmit and coyote. Recoil is heavier.
Click to expand...

I handload, so I can adjust my recoil level to the level I want...... why buy another rifle?

It also works well on elk at medium range.
Click to expand...

With the modern controlled expansion/bonded bullets, I see no reason why it would not be effective to 400 yards: 1600 ft/lbs is about what a 170gr 30/30 has at the muzlle, and they take moose with those up in Maine.....

I suppose, to some people, 400 yards would be medium range, though......:D

I am pretty sure the .270 WIN and the handloading set-up I have will do anything I have that needs doing ...... The 25-06, not so much.
 
That's the page!! Did you look into the book I previously mentioned? And thanks for a great introduction to this site. I thought it would be a great place for discussion, but it's more like...what would an old-timer say....a p#*@ing contest?

And I suggest you answer them. Prove me wrong, that's what these silly time-wasting rants are all about, right?
 
hellbent said:
That's the page!! Did you look into the book I previously mentioned? And thanks for a great introduction to this site. I thought it would be a great place for discussion, but it's more like...what would an old-timer say....a p#*@ing contest?

And I suggest you answer them. Prove me wrong, that's what these silly time-wasting rants are all about, right?
Click to expand...

Extraordinary claims, require extraordinary proof.

You are the one claiming the .270 Winchester started life as an experimental military cartridge, not me.

So it is incumbent on you to prove your assertions are correct.

This isn't about rants, nor any sort of debating contest and I'm not picking on you, or trying to bicker.

Its strictly about historical accuracy and if the .270 Winchester was a one time experimental military cartridge, I'd like to know.



PS: Using symbols to defeat the language filter is frowned upon by the staff.
 
Settle down, Gentlemen.

Fact...

There was a TREMENDOUS amount of both military AND civilian experimentation into military cartridges going on all around the world before and after World War I.

While I have never heard this specifically about the .270 Winchester, I think it's speculation that does have some interesting merit...

First off, the .270 appears to have been based not on the .30-06 cartridge, but the older. 30-03 cartridge; the case length of the .30-03 and the .270 Winchester are identical at 2.540 inches (I THINK that's the correct measurement).

Secondly, right before World War I the British were investigating seriously replacing the Lee Enfield series of rifles with a Mauser-based rifle firing a rimless 7mm cartridge, the .276 Enfield.

At the outbreak of the war the project was scrapped and the rifle, the Pattern 13, was modified to take .303 British as the Pattern 14.

The Pattern 14 Enfield was later adapted into the Model of 1917 Enfield and used by US forces in the war.

During the war, before US entry, the British approached Winchester and Remington to manufacture Pattern 14 rifles. I have absolutely no doubt that Winchester at that time would have become familiar with the earlier .276 Enfield round were they not already familiar with it.

Dimensionally, the .276 and the .270 Winchester are very similar.

Was the .270 Winchester developed with an eye towards the US military? Possible, but I'm not 100% sure.

After the war military budgets were cut amazingly quickly, and R&D funds dried up for the better part of a decade for anyone other than the Springfield Armory (where the .276 Pedersen cartridge and the M1 Garand were being developed around the same time).

Yes, this is speculation on my part. The true answers would probably be found in Winchester's records.

Finally, Cartridges of the World, while a good publication, is hardly exhaustive.

One only needs to pick up a copy of COTW and compare it against Jean Huon's "Military Rifle and Machine Gun Cartridges" to see just how many experimental AND production cartridges won't be found in COTW.

And, Huon's book is also FAR from exhaustive.
 
Thinking about this some more...

While 7mm cartridges weren't all that popular in the United States at the time, they weren't unknown, either.

The .280 Ross had created quite a splash, and the US had been on the receiving end of some bad 7mm juju at the hands of the Spanish. And IIRC there had been at least one older black powder 7mm target cartridge in the US.

Finally, discussions and experimentation for what would become .276 Pedersen were happening around the same time that Winchester would have been developing the .270. I think it's pretty much a given that they would have known about that as some of the original specifications for the US semi-auto rifle were written around a 7mm cartridge.

Interesting speculation.
 
One big factor also is that once fired .270 win brass is available and can be had for like $15-$20 per 100. Something to consider if your tired of spending $40 for 50 brass. I had to buy .243 brass and resize it to .260 rem to not have to take out a second mortgage to buy brass. I'm sure the ballistics between the 26/06 and .270 is quite similar. And either is good for anything up to large mule deer. If hunting bear I would probably choose a .280 or 30/06 just for the extra bullet weight.
 
Shawn,

I'm glad you figured out how the search function on the forums, but after six years did you need to necromance this topic? Nothing wrong with starting a new thread if you want to discuss something.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top