Talk:.270 Winchester

message: The difference may be moot, however the cartridge case lengths are different. Jgnfld 13:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Necked down 30-03 vs. 30-06

message: I think the statement that "today the .270 is the second most popular caliber in the world behind the .30-06 Springfield in terms of firearms and ammunition sold" is not valid (though it was certainly true in the 60s which may account for the source quoted or consulted in making this statement).  To the best of my knowledge three military/military-based calibers are more popular: the 223 Remington (5.56 NATO)/the .308 Winchester (7.62 x 51), and the 30-06 Springfield. 
I have not changed this statement as I am not sure of my facts, however I have marked it with a "fact" tag.  Jgnfld 13:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I remember reading this "fact"  in an article, something along the lines of "Greatest Cartridges of the 20th Century"; I'll see if I can find it for you (it was an online copy of a gun mag. article).71.235.66.254 01:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement

message: I have noticed some inconsistencies in the utilization of gram weights in context of grain weights.  In particular "Factory bullets are commonly available in 100, 130, 140, 150 and 160-grain (10 g) sizes with 130 and 150-grain (9.7 g) loads being by far the most popular."  There are only gram weights for some grains, while above, it is given to even listed gram weights (in the table).  While reading the article, I (who am unfamiliar with guns, but enjoy using them) found it confusing, as did a few others.  Correction to this would be greatly appreciated! 98.132.222.123 (talk) 23:32, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Gram Weights

message: I am also removing the insufficient context flag now. Jgnfld 16:05, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal

message: The WPMILHIST tag has been removed due to this article not being military related.--Oldwildbill 13:38, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: WPMILHIST

message: I think the following quote would be appropriate for this article, but the article is already well enough tuned that I don't see where it would fit.  Putting it here for the time being.
"This (the .270 Winchester) is a magnificent round built long ago by modifying the .30/06 case to .277. It has been found over the years almost impossible to improve upon it." —Jeff Cooper, Custom Rifles —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Talldean (talk • contribs) 12:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cooper

message: I own a Ruger M77 MkII bolt action rifle chambered for the .270 Win, i have had some minor tweaking done for example, free floating the barrel, glass bedding the receiver, and coming up with 2 separate hand loads one for varmints using a Speer 90gr hollow point, and the other for Whitetail Deer using a 130gr Nosler Ballistic tip boat tail. Both loads are EXTREMELY accurate out of this gun. I am getting 1/2 to 3/4 inch 3 shot groups with both loads at 100 yards i have taken groundhogs out at 450 yards shooting off a Harris bi-pod. My longest shot on a Whitetail is only 130 yards but the majority of my shots on deer are 100 yards or less. The .270 Win is a very efficient deer cartridge and just like any other center fire rifle cartridge it can be hand loaded to your rifles liking.I love it and am satisfied with its performance, its mild recoil and flat trajectories has me convinced that the big .30 cal magnums are just to much and a little bit over rated as far as deer cartridges go.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.100.107.90 (talk) 02:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  .270 performance. 

message: "When loaded with a bullet that expands rapidly or fragments in tissue, this cartridge delivers devastating terminal performance, including remote wounding effects known as hydrostatic shock."
This statement is only partially correct, on -some- animals.  Most animals are best taken down with a controlled-expansion bullet, with the extra velocity of the .270 Win giving additional damage from hydrostatic shock.  It is the velocity that gives the most useful hydrostatic shock, not rapid expansion.
If no one finds a good reason to prevent me, I'll be removing or dramatically changing the quoted statement soon.
Usernamenottvalid (talk) 04:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heading is misleading 

message: The parent cartridge in the article keeps getting changed between .30-03 and .30-06 Springfield. It is widely written that the .270 Winchester was based on the .30-06 Springfieldhttp://www.chuckhawks.com/great_cartridge_families.htm. The .30-03 was the parent of the .30-06, so technically the .30-03 would be the grandparent of the .270, not the parent. Just because the .30-03 was the first in that cartridge family doesn't mean it's the parent of this particular cartridge. The parent cartridge should be listed as the .30-06 Springfield unless someone can give a credible reference otherwise.   --KySharpshooter (talk) 13:06, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think theorizing about "how to stretch .30-06 brass" would fall under OR, and is an almost-moot point anyway (it's 0.046" longer). I can imagine a case getting longer when you decrease the neck diameter as easily as I can imagine a case getting SHORTER if you increase the diameter (think of clay pottery on a wheel). There's still the same amount of brass present, it has to go somewhere. There is also the .25-06 and the .338-06; should we argue that they are "really" -03s? If the actual case used for these (at the time) "wildcats" was the .30-06 (and it was, hence the name), it's the valid "parent" cartridge. Same goes for the .270, which came out around 1925, IIRC. The citation by KySharpshooter is at least a source, which states, "One, the .270 Winchester, became extremely popular in its own right and (along with the .30-06 parent cartridge) is...." The source also speaks of the ".30-03 / .30-06 family" of cartridges, so I kind of see both sides. However, barring a citable source, I would say we should just go with the .30-06. In actual fact, the '03 was supplanted by its child, the '06. This should be settled one way or the other (I think it's clear where I stand). The second sentence in the lead is a bit self-contradictory right now. I don't think an encyclopedia should use the term "more accurately" in any case. FWIW Jororo05 (talk) 21:45, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: .30-06 Springfield or .30-03 as the parent cartridge

message: I noticed in the header portion of this article,there is mention that the .270 Winchester equals 6.8mm....actually,being that the .270 Winchester shoots a .277 sized bullet,it is not a 6.8 mm...by my math,a .277 projectile is actually a 7mm sized bullet....unless i am looking at this wrong !!!  sometimes,manufacturers list a bullet size,that really has nothing to do with the actual size...44 rem mag for instance,shoots a bullet with a diameter of .430....must be for marketing?? I've always found this kinda confusing..  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:200:4202:B900:3444:10A1:5B3D:6D49 (talk) 08:16, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  .270 winchester  = 6.8mm??? 

message: I've removed the unofficial metric designation. 
No one refers to the .270 Winchester as the "6.8×64mm", even in non-English speaking metric countries. CIP calls this the "270 Win." The dimensions are being presented as if they are an accepted alternative name for the cartridge, and that is wrong. There is no point presenting the dimensions of the cartridge in this manner at the top of the article when all the dimensions are provided in the table alongside the article.
Many cartridges have their metric dimensions presented like an accepted alternative name in their Wikipedia articles and I will be removing these when I see them. It's not only redundant, but misleading.
Kanadskaja Kazarka (talk) 04:05, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Metric designation