.270 Caliber. Why?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Laphroaig

Laphroaig

Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2013
Messages
2,806
Location
W. PA
Does anyone know why Winchester chose .277 as their new caliber in 1925? Nothing like it before and there were close existing calibers in 6.5 and 7 mm.

I suppose that American shooters weren't familiar with metric designations but using the decimal equivalents would have overcame that objection pretty easily.

Speculation is fine, but facts are better :)

Laphroaig
 
Basically the 270 is a necked down 30-06, which was the standard up until the that time when the .270 came along because it was a much flatter shooting. I believe Jack Occonor (spelling) was the one who really made this cartridge popular.
 
.277" seemed like an odd bullet diameter in retrospect and remains so today nearly a century later.

I don't think Americans were especially "metric" adverse. We had a metric service round for the navy briefly and 7mm Mauser was very well known and somewhat popular.
 
It's a good question - why did they neck the 30-06 down to .277 instead of .284 or .264?
 
They got a really good deal on .277" bore drills & rifling cutters at Harbor Freight???

I actually have no idea.
But they were starting with a clean slate in 1925 with the new Model 54 rifle, and the new .270 caliber for it.
So they could make it whatever they wanted to make it.

The actual reason is probably lost in the mists of time.

rc
 
It could be that much like the Winchester 71 and its 348 chambering Winchester just wanted a unique actual caliber to introduce the new 54 in.

243-257 =.014"
257-264 =.007"
264-284=.020"
284-308=.024"

Just looking at the caliber spacing if you wanted to introduce a new caliber that was meaningfully smaller than .30 you would almost naturally fall between 6.5 and 7mm
 
JOC was also fond of the 7x57, which his wife shot. The 7x57 is practically the ballistic twin of the 270, except that the 7x57 does a little better with heavier bullets.

I have no real knowledge, but suspect that JOC wanted something that was distinctly American, but which had characteristics similar to the 7x57.

Why .277? I have no idea.
 
Dunno, but history proved it sure was a good move on Winchester's part. Gun writers like Jack O'Connor also did a good job of promoting it to its present status.
With the present shift to mm in today's modern technology it probably would not have happened. It would be the 284-06 or 7-06 or something.
I'm glad I've got one and now I don't have to buy the mm equivalent!
 
Last edited:
Probably because it was as far from a military calibre as Winchester could get. Especially 7 and 8mm Mauser. Plus it wasn't 'metric'. Metric meant trouble and bad memories for some. W.W. I was a recent thing in 1925.
Without O'Connor, the .270 very likely would have been discontinued before it even got going.
 
i think .277 can really shine in smaller calibers where .308" bullets begin to become too fat to really offer much of a ballistic coefficient.. i'll give one example, when you get down to the 120 grain range which many (myself included) would consider ideal for military carbine rifle calibers (like 5.56, 7.62x39, etc), you'll find the .308" bullets have a ballistic coefficient of only .260 or somewhere in that area which means they lose a lot of energy at distance whereas a .277" found in the 6.8 SPC has a ballistic coefficient of about .400 which means it will retain energy for much greater range with a flatter trajector than a 7.62x39 firing the same weight bullets

so for small caliber stuff, considering the higher BC in the lighter bullet weights it really would make a big difference, in larger calibers where it was designed like the .270 i honestly dont think it makes a bit of difference over .308 or 30-06, or 7mm mauser or any of the other calibers around this area, because generally speaking any of these are capable of delivering more energy and a flatter trajectory than the rifle itself, the shooter, or the optics will be able to handle

what im wondering is why there hasnt been a major .270 short action cartridge made available, a .308 based cartridge chambered in .277 would be pretty interesting
 
loose noose said:
Basically the 270 is a necked down 30-06, which was the standard up until the that time when the .270 came along because it was a much flatter shooting. I believe Jack Occonor (spelling) was the one who really made this cartridge popular.
Click to expand...
Yep! Good Ole' Jack O'Conner !!
He was once the shooting editor of Out Door Life magazine and a very knowlegable one at that!
There will NEVER be another Jack O'Conner!
 
From what I read in an article in Handloader magazine the 270 was the smallest winchester could go down in size and achieve the target velocity they wanted with the powders that were available at the time. The idea was to provide hunters with a lower recoil round than the very popular 30-06.

I have only owned two 270 rifles. I didn't shoot one of them just bought it and sold for a nice profit a couple of days later. I did shoot the remington pump I had. But not much.

I later shot my buddies winchester 270 with 130gr bullets instead of the normal 150s he likes. If I had know how nice that rifle was to shoot with lighter bullets I would never have looked at a 243. I need to sell my 243 and buy a 270 and never look back. I just have so much ammo and supplies for my 243.:banghead:
 
My original point was Winchester could have necked down the -06 to .264 and called it the 260 Winchester, or .284 and called it the 280 Winchester. Both have been done subsequently and also have followings. I bet Jack would have been as happy with either of those if the 270 never was born.

Laphroaig
 
hmm a .308 necked down to a .270 for a military type cartridge?.. fire the 120 grain hornady SSTs with a BC of .400 (about on par with a 150 grain 308 bullet) but you'll get velocties about matching a 5.56/223 with less recoil, faster followup shots, lighter ammo.. but i guess the 260 would be even better
 
Last edited:
In direct response as the the "why" of the question, I submit the following for consideration:

I wonder to what extent Winchester envisioned the .270 Win, as being US-created competitor to the 275 H&H. It is interesting to note that the .275 H&H was discontinued from the Winchester line-up soon after the creation of the .270 Win. By 1939, Winchester ceased manufacturing the .275 H&H ammo altogether.

There are other "odd-ball" 27 caliber cartridges in history. I suspect Winchester simply thought they could best them. And of the 27 calibers, none is so popular still today as the .270 Win, though others keep trying, Weatherby key among them. Not to be left behind, Winchester then tried the .270 WSM. Given new propellants, the .270 Win is still king of the heap in 27 caliber.

Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.275_H&H_Magnum

Geno
 
The 270 Winchester isn't a necked down 30-06 ,it's a necked down 30-03. The neck is longer.
Click to expand...

Yes it is. When you neck down a 30-06 case the metal has to go somewhere. So the neck gets longer. This was mentioned in the article I spoke about in my earlier post. The article was one of the Cartridge Board articles from writer Gil Sengal in Handloader magazine.

Instead of trimming the longer neck winchester just decided to leave it long.
 
Fella's;

It's a good question. Far as I'm concerned there's never been a good answer.

:evil: 900F
 
I would only observe that since Winchester did not neck the 30-06 down to 7 mm to make the 280 Winchester, Remington did and called it the 280 Remington. They later changed the name to 7 mm Remington Express.

JOC did not believe there was much difference in the killing power of the trio. He was very fond of the 30-06.

None of this answers the question. I suspect that it was more of a marketing decision than anything else.

One should note that the bullet diameter of the 270, 0.277" = 7.0 mm. It is thus a "true" 7 mm bullet. The bullet diameter of the 7 x 57, etc., is 0.284" = 7.2 mm.

Go figure. As I understanding, the grove diameter of the 270 Winchester is the bore diameter of the 7 x 57.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Garandimal
  • Locked
Why does the 6.5 Creedmoor Crowd claim the 143 ELD-X as the Bullet that Beats the .270 Winchester?
2 3 4 5 6 7
Replies
172
Views
15K
Art Eatman
A
BringHomeTheBacon
  • Locked
Is there a good .270 Winchester load for the American deer woods?
2 3 4
Replies
84
Views
4K
Robert
Robert
C
  • Locked
Question about caliber names and measurements
Replies
14
Views
1K
briansmithwins
B
D
  • Locked
Popular rifle primes high-caliber dispute
Replies
8
Views
794
rbullom
R
N
  • Locked
Why not the .284 Winchester?
2
Replies
41
Views
5K
Varminterror
Varminterror
Back
Top