Good to know! Always thought they started with a 1-8.6 or something like that.
Twist Rate: How Does It Improve Performance In the Hunting Fields?
- Thread starter Garandimal
- Start date
- Status
Ok. You already said in the other thread that I just "don't understand" or something equivalent. Well here's some more fodder for that concept.
I don't use Quickload computer simulations, but would rather rely on published data with actual pressure test results. To my knowledge that is not available (if it was a good idea someone would have tested it IMO). Hogdgon does give 160 gr. data for 260 Rem (generally 100 fps faster than the Creed) with a max velocity of 2597 fps at 58,600 psi.
I'm sure you'll have an answer for that. Fire away.
I've wasted enough time on this nonsense. Laphroaig out.
A faster twist allows you to stabilize a longer sleeker bullet, a longer sleeker bullet has a higher ballistic coefficient, a higher ballistic coefficient means less velocity will be lost regardless of range, therefore with a faster twist you have the ability to have better down range ballistics without a penalty of added recoil or burning more powder.
CoalTrain49
Member
The 300 WM is the most popular cartridge for elk hunters. Most elk hunters have never heard of the 280 AI because it's still mostly a wildcat that ammo mfgs haven't picked up. Looks like there's only two, Hornady and Nosler. Most are zeroed in on 300 WM for elk and 6.5 CM for everything else. Christensen Arms, who builds a lot of light weight custom rifles will tell you that 300 WM is the clear go to cartridge for 30 anything and 6.5 CM for >30 cal cartridges.
Most hunters honestly don't give a hoot about high BC bullets, they just buy a box of ammo, take it to range for a few pokes at a 200 yd target and off they go hunting. I see dozens of them at our range every fall here in WA. Lots of those guys are elk hunters. Some never shoot more than a box of ammo in a year and it's all factory ammo.
Lots of elk hunters still use a 30-06 because it's all they've ever used and it works just fine. It's a good 300 yd cartridge with plenty of ammo choices.
I wouldn't be a bit surprised if a lot of new shooters aren't using a 6.5 CM for elk and taking the shots they know they can make. There's a lot more to elk hunting than high BC bullets and 500 yd shots.
Last edited:
OP
OP
Garandimal
member
The advantage in paper-punching has been established.
But, heaver bullets, out of smaller cartridges, produce inferior ballistics to the lighter ones, out to ranges below hunting energy.
So, why is high twist rate important in the hunting fields?
GR
CoalTrain49
Member
I'm not sure it matters one iota. The 270 gets trashed because the twist rate isn't perfect for heavier longer bullets. Well no kidding, it was designed almost 100 years ago using a 140 gr bullet. Why not just except the cartridge for what it was designed for and move on up to 30 something if you want to shoot 180 gr bullets at warp speed.
Saying Winchester screwed up (not you) is about the most ridiculous thing I've ever read. My FIL now deceased used to hunt elk every year in the Blue Mountains in OR. I think he shot at least a dozen elk (my wife and my MIL verified that) with a 270. All this happened in the 60's and 70's when just about everyone used a 270 or 30-06 to hunt elk. You would have had a very hard time explaining to him why a 270 isn't a good cartridge for elk.
Last edited:
What??? "hunting energy" lol.
As game gets bigger heavy for caliber bullets are pretty universally accepted as desired by knowledgeable hunters.
I agree and this is where OP's argument falls apart. In the 60s and 70s elk bullets for a 270 were 150gr flat based. And IF you believe that the 270 is good enough for 300 yard elk in 1969 then obviously a 6.5 Creed with a 143 ELDX should be equally adequate since @ 300 yards is got more retained velocity, more energy and more momentum than a flat based 150gr 270 would.
Llama Bob
member
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2016
- Messages
- 2,258
Of course. Sectional density and weight retention are what get your bullet to the far side of an elk and leave an exit wound. The 160 .264 Weldcore will penetrate about 50% deeper due to higher SD and retained weight than the 150gr .277 Partition.
I sort of assumed everyone knows that. I'm pretty sure the family dog knows that.
Are you saying Garandimal isn't as smart as your dog?
This may be true, at least in theory, but if the 150 Partition already gives more than adequate penetration for the game and all anticipated (or better unanticipated) shots, the energy may be put to better use creating a wider wound channel and flattening the trajectory.
Llama Bob
member
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2016
- Messages
- 2,258
The 150 partition usually fails to exit on elk. Not exactly "more than adequate".This may be true, at least in theory, but if the 150 Partition already gives more than adequate penetration for the game and all anticipated (or better unanticipated) shots, the energy may be put to better use creating a wider wound channel and flattening the trajectory.
If you don't think the 150 Partition is more than adequate there's always the 180 grain 0.277" Woodleigh Weldcore. Although stability in a 10" twist is merely "adequate"
if they made a true old-timey round nose that would solve potential stability issues... or you could even go to 195 grains.
Llama Bob
member
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2016
- Messages
- 2,258
Why would I go to a low-BC round nose or pseudo-round-nose when I could just shoot a superior caliber that doesn't have this problem?If you don't think the 150 Partition is more than adequate there's always the 180 grain 0.277" Woodleigh Weldcore. Although stability in a 10" twist is merely "adequate"
In the hunting fields, you need the slowest twist that will stabilize your preferred bullet. For example if you have a 22" stainless Ruger M77 in 223 Remington with a 1:12 twist and you plan to hunt coyotes with a 55 gr. bullet, this will be superior to a 1:7 twist rifle shooting a 55 gr. bullet. the 1:12 twist will be somewhat more accurate, and faster. I mean not a ton better, but measurably better if small differences matter. This assumes your style of hunting involves point blank distances, spot and stalk techniques and field positions.
Lighter bullets with faster speeds can increase your point blank range and eliminate the need for hold over at all practical ethical hunting ranges. For me that is zero to 300 yds, but being able to stretch that rifle out to 375 yds on deer is nice.
Tight twists and heavy bullets are great for short range or for long range bench shooting. But if I am setting up on sticks for a now or never shot on a 300 yd shot, I don't have time for clicks and wind deflection is usually not as much a concern so it seems.
I guess people wanted to shoot 100 grain big game bullets.
But we can look at this in yet another way... why was the a 270 smashing success?
I guess people didn't feel the need for (or buy 270s to shoot) bullets heavier than 150 grains. This is a North American cartridge and with a 150 grain bullet it's fairly comfortable with taking (almost) anything in North America (see thread: Is This a Big Bear Round?) at the ranges most people take anything in North America.
(by the way, a 12" twist in 0.243", like the original 6mm, is equivalent to a 13.7" twist in 0.277", not an apples-to-apples comparison. The 270's 10" twist is equivalent to an 8.8" twist in a 243. Your post may not have been referencing the 270 but I feel the need to use it to launch a defence.)
I guess the answer is that the 10" 270 didn't limit people, whereas with the 12" 6mm they were. Until now, that is. Still mostly only mentally, since that buck 150 yards from the stand won't care either way. But this is the era of "Creedmoor" and PRS. A little more spin would be nice.
According to Woodleigh the BC is a smidge higher on the 180-gr 0.277" than on their 160-grain 0.264" you mentioned, which makes sense, given the SD is a smidge higher
it depends on what you want to do. The 10-twist 270 can't stabilize certain bullets.But as everyone knows... the 270 is one of the most successful of all hunting cartridges. When I think of "standard" big game bolt-action rounds, I still think 308, 30-06, 270, 243, 300 Mag, 7 Mag, more or less in that order. Today I'd add 6.5 Creedmoor. But the 270 has been in the top... 3? ... for a long, long time. So they must have done something right at Winchester, and the slightly slower twist didn't hurt it much "in the hunting fields", in the public estimation.
Last edited:
old heeler
Member
I shoot 270 and one of the bullets I've hunted with is 160gr Partition. I started using it back in 70's.
https://shop.nosler.com/partition-270-caliber-160-grain-bullet-50ct.html
https://shop.nosler.com/partition-270-caliber-160-grain-bullet-50ct.html
Because before the internet JOC had an article in every gun rag spouting the accolades of the 270.
I think your absolutely correct. The .277s have enough twist rate to be completely effective in their expected role.
I personally have never really liked the .270Win, mostly for personal reasons, but the slower twist does play in. I still don't thing it's a BAD cartridge design, any more than the belted mags are.
Your also correct that comparatively, the overly slow initial twist on the 6mm, IS an apples to pears comparison to the relatively slow twist of the . 277s. Again the threads supposed to be about the effects of twist (rather than a cartridge comparison, as much fun as they are), so that was one the more extreme examples I could think of off hand.
That's a large part of it I'm sure.
It was also one of the first truly high velocity big game cartridges widely vailable.
If it had been born of a military caliber that used a long heavy bullet, it would also likely have gotten a slightly faster twist rate, even if the intended weight was 110-150gr.
Which again while not strictly necessary, wouldnt have hurt.
sage5907
Member
That's not entirely true. Jack O'Connor died in 1978 which is over 40 years ago and he only wrote for Outdoor Life plus his sale of hunting books. The shooting public with continued gun sales has made the 270 Winchester popular for the past 40 years. The internet didn't get going good until after 1990. The early and constant availability of good hunting bullets like the Speer HotCor and the Nosler partition and powders like IMR 4831 and IMR 4350 contributed to the success of the cartridge. These bullets and powders have been available for over 70 years and still used today. Hunting rifles would shoot minute of angle groups at 400 yards in 1950 and they will still do it today. The greatest change for hunting rifles since 1950 is the quality of the optics, designer bullets and specialty powders.
Last edited:
Elkins45
Member
Well, and it kills stuff pretty good. There’s always that...
Gtscotty
Member
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2007
- Messages
- 3,635
How do you figure a 6mm bullet rotating one full revolution every 12 inches is equivalent to a 6.8mm bullet rotating one full revolution every 13.7 inches? Are you comparing stability factors or RPM or something?
Llama Bob
member
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2016
- Messages
- 2,258
According to Woodleigh the BC is a smidge higher on the 180-gr 0.277" than on their 160-grain 0.264" you mentioned, which makes sense, given the SD is a smidge higher
That bullet doesn't work in a 1:10". Nice try though - the .270 almost had one single decent bullet, but the twist rate screws them again. It's as if maybe they made a mistake or something...
Llama Bob
member
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2016
- Messages
- 2,258
Well, aside from the Jack O'Conner propaganda, there were a number of factors:
- recoil was reduced vs. .30-06, and that was important to a lot of shooters in the days before recoil pads
- maximum point blank range was long which has become essentially irrelevant to the modern hunter but mattered then
- It was chambered in the M70, which was undeniably the nicest production hunting rifle available.
- Imperial vs. metric bias
- Similar but far superior cartridges like the 7x64 Brenneke weren't readily available in the US. The US shooter had nothing to compare to and so didn't know what they were missing.
- High SD spire point bullets were essentially unknown in the US, so terminal performance where the bullet didn't exit was seen as normal (contrast Europe where 170-175gr 7mm was common). This thinking persists today, with hunters showing off their bullet that exhibited insufficient penetration (aka any bullet still in a thin skinned animal after a side or quartering shot) all the time as if they were trophies.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
