For Hunting to 425 yds. 6.5 CM Vs. 270 Win

Run that again with the same bullets for all three. The 140 grain 6.5mm Accubonds have a BC of .509

The 270 looks even better when you compare lighter bullets like 127 to 130 gr. It's almost always going to be flatter and faster and hit with more energy within normal hunting ranges with hunting bullets. It will also have more recoil, but unless someone is especially sensitive, it's not like a heavy magnum or anything.

Hunting with lead-free bullets, the best BC's are found on Barne's LRX and they're typically under 0.5 until you get to larger calibers and much heavier bullets like 200 grain .30's. Because of that, the Creedmoor's advantage with ELD bullets isn't as marked.

The Creedmoor was certainly designed with the intention of letting the bullet do the work with low drag, and that just doesn't work best at relatively short ranges and with hunting bullets.

On the other hand, an argument could be made that the Creedmoor is enough. Hitting most any game with a suitable bullet and 1469 ft. lbs. of energy is enough. Hitting them with an excess of 400 ft. lbs. more energy won't make them any deader. If the Creedmoor isn't flat enough, 127 or even 100 grain bullets can be shot with sufficient energy and penetration to kill deer at 425 yards and with muzzle velocities of 3200 fps (for 100 gr.), they're flat.

If I was hunting elk with heavier bullets, I'd have to expect the Creedmoor to arc more, but it should do very well if I get the range right. The 270 will shoot a 130 grain bullet flatter and faster, but it will hit with more recoil and it might not be as good at shooting the lighter 100 grain bullets that are good for deer and smaller game. Those light .277 bullets will be short, lower BC, and lower sectional density. So short of the heaviest game, I might prefer the Creedmoor.

Another factor is barrel length. When shortening the barrel to 22" or even 20", the Creedmoor's performance is going to suffer whereas the .270 which might have had a surplus in the longer barrel, will come in just about right.

How do guys not realize when they claim one thing is great, then prove something else is just like it, they can’t pretend the second isn’t also great?

What @mshootnit did neglect, that 270win load is using 53.0grn of W760, while that 142 ABLR load is only going to be around 40grn (my Nosler 7th Ed doesn’t have the ABLR data).

Also neglects that 270 load generates over 40% more recoil (18.4 ft.lbs. vs. 12.9 in an 8.5lb rifle).

Also neglects that 270 load doesn’t kill anything in the field the 6.5 creed load doesn’t. It just uses 25% more powder and recoils 40% more...

Nobody is asking you to get rid of your old rifle. But please don’t lie to new rifle buyers and try to convince them a 270win is a better choice for their task.

Try to hit a running buck going from left to right with a bullet going 2700 fps and then make the same shot with a bullet going 3000 fps and you will understand why the 270 Winchester is such a good hunting cartridge. All I have to do is swing with the target and keep shoulder hair in the center of the scope. The scope comes from behind, the rifle fires when the scope is on the shoulder, and continues to swing after the rifle fires. I'm talking about shots inside of 200 yards. I learned how to shoot moving targets quail hunting with a shotgun and I have never forgotten.

Shoot a steel target at 200 yards with a bullet going 2700 fps and then make the same shot with a bullet going 3000 fps and you can readily tell the difference in the amount of time it takes for the bullet to hit the target. Again, that is why the 270 Winchester is such a good hunting cartridge. The difference in time is readily noticeable.

More powder results in higher velocities for bullets of similar weights. Is this a surprise? I have a 300 RUM that could produce higher velocities with less drop than any of those cartridges. Does this make it a better 450 yard cartridge?

These 270 vs Creedmoor threads are getting very redundant.

What did I miss?
Did some famous guy I could not possibly care even less about say something derogatory about the "Tired Mule We Keep Beating"?
Are there some run of bullets that are now discontinued?
Is there some defensiveness toward the Wolverine, but must it be taken out on the Creedmoor for its different diameter? For it's newness? For the attention it is garnering, even though it's not new?

The snow is melted (again), go out and shoot something so those of us with broken thumbs can read a range report instead of a bunch of worthless numbers and conjecture.
Yes. I am ornery. My thumb hurts and sticks out like a sore, thumb... I got a VR Eighty for my birthday and I can't even shoot it.
Caged aint even the word...

"Girls! You're both pretty. Now go outside and play."

I'm a fan of the 6.5 CM. I'm really indifferent about the 270. It works and has for years, it just never got me excited. I've never claimed the 6.5 CM was BETTER than the 270. I've often said that no game animal would ever notice the difference and the 6.5 CM does it with noticeably less recoil. And the 6.5 CM is the better long range target round. The 270, at least out to "normal" hunting ranges shoots flatter. But with modern optics that is easily compensated for

And one very important data point you left out is Sectional density. A 140-150 gr 6.5 bullet will penetrate deeper in game animals than a 140-150 gr 270 bullet. The 6.5/140 bullets will match .308/180 gr loads for penetration.

rayatphonix said:

More powder results in higher velocities for bullets of similar weights. Is this a surprise?

Click to expand...

sage5907 said:

Try to hit a running buck going from left to right with a bullet going 2700 fps and then make the same shot with a bullet going 3000 fps and you will understand why the 270 Winchester is such a good hunting cartridge.

Click to expand...

Holy bat guano... really? The stuff that comes out of some people’s mouths...

Varminterror said:

Holy bat guano... really? The stuff that comes out of some people’s mouths...

Click to expand...

Is it that you don't understand the advantage of velocity or is it that you can't swing laying on the ground using a bipod.

rayatphonix said:

I have a 300 RUM that could produce higher velocities with less drop than any of those cartridges. Does this make it a better 450 yard cartridge?

Click to expand...

If you can shoot it accurately, it certainly does. I don't care how much powder it burns. Add up all the costs of a hunting trip and the cost of your ammunition seems pretty insignificant.

Demi-human said:

"Girls! You're both pretty. Now go outside and play."

Click to expand...

This stuff is getting so ridiculous that it's starting to be fun to comment just to see what the experts will say! Sorry mshootnit, I liked your original post. It explains the difference between a cartridge developed for target shooting and a cartridge developed for hunting.

My best .270 Winny load with 140gr ABs was a bit slower than that (2,940 fps) and used 62gr IMR7977.

My .270 WSM load with 140gr ABs used ~72.5gr of MagPro for ~3,200 fps.

My 6.5 CM load from a few years ago used 42.5gr of H4350 under a 140gr AB or 143gr ELDx for 2,760 fps.

My thought when looking at that chart is: Why use 45% and 70% more powder respectively, than my 6.5 loads for such similar on-target capability, and equal or larger wind drift?

Laphroaig said:

If you can shoot it accurately, it certainly does. I don't care how much powder it burns.

Click to expand...

Agreed completely. I think the part everyone is tired of is the “we have a winner!!! with its faster by wonk wonk, ability to shoot even heavier wonk wonk”. Dead is dead.

Just checked flight times on Winchester’s app using comparable loads, .22 seconds vs .23 seconds for a 200 yard target. 1/100th of a second...

CNN is still all-in on the Creedmoor....

LRDGCO said:

CNN is still all-in on the Creedmoor....

Click to expand...

The Hallmark Channel is still pumping "I Love Lucy" and .270 Win propaganda.

LRDGCO said:

CNN is still all-in on the Creedmoor....

Click to expand...

CNN was the lowest rated news channel this past week. Even the cooking shows had more viewers.

Either one. The shooter must know the exterior ballistics of each round given the bullet weight used. The difference between the 129 gr 6.5 vs. 130gr .270 Win or 140gr 6.5 vs. 140gr .270 Win is de minimus. To be sure, the CPX2 target will not notice the difference if the shooter makes a good shot to the animal's vitals. We are talking about a 13/1000" difference in diameter and <=1gr of bullet weight.

YMMV but I doubt it.

My biggest issue with 6.5 CM is that it’s a really sloppy fit in the chamber of the 270 rifle I’ve already bought and paid for.

sage5907 said:

Try to hit a running buck going from left to right with a bullet going 2700 fps and then make the same shot with a bullet going 3000 fps and you will understand why the 270 Winchester is such a good hunting cartridge

Click to expand...

IMO, there is something to this, but if you can make the shot with one you can make the shot with another.
IMO 200fps dosent change flight time enough to really matter. When I switched from my 7mm to my .375, I dropped almost 400fps with my original .375 loads, and admittedly I was hitting farther back than I expected on my first couple shots.
Took a running buck at 175yds (lasered after the fact), that I'd originally judged at 100ish and did hit farther back also, but had I used my 7 I'd probably only have hit him a foot farther forward. I'd switched loads and was only about 200fps slower at that point, bc on my .375 bullets is only about .47 (according to Speer so....), as compared to my 7s .625

Newtosavage said:

Run that again with the same bullets for all three. The 140 grain 6.5mm Accubonds have a BC of .509

Click to expand...

Not picking on you by any means, just using the statement to give a basis for my thoughts on the matter.

Personally I kinda enjoy my pet vs your pet arguments.
But I don't feel there's any validity in hampering a look at cartridge performance by comparing anything but the best bullets for each, now best can be subjective to epected tasks.

If we're going to argue something so similar as the 6.5CM and .270, going into it we gotta realize neither of use is gonna win any major battles. Then again, unless we compare apples to oranges, we won't anyway......

Here's my take on both sides.

6.5CM, lower recoil is the primary benefit, it can do everything nearly as well and kicks you way less. (You macho men wanna say we should all shoot long action "men's" cartridges? Bite me. ...only place in this argument I ever get snarky). Velocity maybe 200fps.slower with slightly less bullet weight, but the much higher BC of the 6.5 (why would you shoot a lower bc bullet that costs the same, and performs the same on game, if you have the twist to use the "better" one, ABLR vs AB...referencing my previous, thought) projectiles allow it to hang in there.
If we're talking heavier than standard bullets, there's a few options for 160gr hunting bullets. While no factory data is available, as far as I could tell, Brian Pierce has published loads as fast as 2600 with hornadys round nose.
The only .277 bullet I know of that's heavier than 150, that has any chance in stabilizing in a 1-10, is the woodleigh 180. From what I've read so far that maybe marginal at Winchester velocity also.

.270 has a ballistic advantage within "regular" hunting distances due to greater case capacity and velocity. With the hottest loads it can deliver a 150 the same speed the smaller CM can deliver a 120. For someone like me who shoots relatively small stuff and doesn't want it running away, ever, opening up bigger holes helps. The extra weight in a soft projectile means it can, in theory, open a bigger exit wound. (Why do I say theory? Well cause I've never gotten to load a .270 the way I want. The only 150s I've ever used we're factory roundnose, and they did what I'd expect, but flew like bricks and only did about 2800fps)
For lighter game and with the new bullets specifically for the 6.8spc available, it might be even better at with 110 at ludicrous speed, than 130s at pretty fast. As long as you use a tough enough bullet for your expected impact velocity and/or don't need a ton of penetration.

sage5907 said:

CNN was the lowest rated news channel this past week. Even the cooking shows had more viewers.

Click to expand...

Exactly.