A couple .270 related questions

[Balog]

A fellow on a local board is offering up a very nice stainless Savage in .270 for trade. I'm looking for something I can use as an elk rifle though, and that seems a touch small to me. Anyone know what would be involved in swapping the barrel for say a .308? I think (and I could be totally off) that the cartridge OAL is similar and they have the same bolt face diameter, right? Conversely, would a .270 be enough for elk?

[220_SWIFT]

A 270 Win with the right loads would be great elk medicine.  I would look at a heavier slug from Barnes.  As for changing calibers, they should use the same bolt head.  Only issue would be with the magazine as a 270 is on a standard or long action, and the 308 Win is a short action.  Won't matter for the bolt throw, but the magazine would probably have to be changed out and that CAN be a bear on a Savage, depending on specific magazine used. 

Converting it would probably run $3-400.  You just need the wrench, a new recoil lug, barrel, and headspace gauges.  Personally, I would go with the 270 Win and never look back.  Use the correct bullet and put it where it belongs, and you will have a freezer full of elk steaks.  JMHO of course.

[charby]

.270 Winchester is plenty for elk.

A .270 is a flat shooting low recoil rifle.

Just checked the reloading book, 150g bullet at 2800fps, basically similar to .30-06.

[Tuco]

Just checked the reloading book, 150g bullet at 2800fps, basically similar to .30-06.

[\quote]

Makes sense, since the .270 is simply a .30/06 case necked down .03".

Cptn. Trivia.

[Jim147]

I think the Savage is about the easiest barrel swap around in a non single shot rifle. Leaving machine guns with quick swap barrels and entire AR uppers out of the equation.

I'd feel pretty good with a .308 and 180 grain round nose loads for hunting elk in MO, if they ever let us. I would not feel under gunned with my .270 and 140 grain handloads.

jim

[Balog]

Hmmm, could one ream the chamber out to convert it to 30-06?

[Northwoods]

The .270 is a necked down .30-06.  It is a good elk cartridge with heavy bullets.  140gr Barnes (or similar), or 150gr lead core (e.g. Partition or Hornady aInterlocks) is plenty.  They have a horsepower advantage over 6.5x55 where elk are concerned.  The 6.5 is enough but not a ton of margin.  The .270 gets you some margin.

I would not ream or rebarrel  cheap gun like that Savage.  I'd use it as is or get a .3x that you want from the start.

[Northwoods]

If you want a decent .270 my FIL has a Husqvarna that he'd sell.  It would benefit from a trigger job, but othwise is good to go.  IIRC he wa asking $350, but don't hold me to that.  I'd buy it but I have a lot of other things higher on the priorities list than another gun.

[Balog]

What's a stainless and synthetic Accutrigger Savage in .270 with what I assume is a low quality and needing to be replaced scope going for these days?

Sumpnz: appreciate the offer, but trying to stick with common makes/models for ease of getting spare parts.

[Northwoods]

Understand the concern.  But I haven't needed any replacement parts for my bolt guns, and doubt my FIL has either.  They're so much simpler than autoloaders that I just don't worry about that.

[griz]

Hmmm, could one ream the chamber out to convert it to 30-06?

That can be done, google rifle rebore.  But because you need new rifling cut it would probably be chaeper to rebarrel on an action as easy to swap as the Savage.  For that matter, in common calibers like these, it might be cheaper to trade in the gun.

[Tuco]

Or buy Steve's .308 in the APS classifieds.  Mmmmm, tasty.

[charby]

A used Savage stainless in .270 would go for $300-400 where I live (Iowa). Figure $100-200 more if has a decent scope/rings on it, such as Leupold.

[HankB]

Both the .270 and .308 are fine cartridges - but the rifle would have to be incredibly cheap to consider buying and converting to something else.

Pretty much all rounds from .270 on up through most of the .300 Mags will have almost the same effect on game, given good shot placement and proper loads. For elk, use a premium, heavy-for-caliber bullet, place it well, and you'll be fine. (The .30s will be a little more effective in terminal effect - but only a little, certainly not enough to trade/rebarrel a perfectly functional .270 in search of a ballistic advantage)

Hodgdon's website shows .270 loading data that will get a 160 grain Nosler Partition up to 2700-2800 ft/sec . . . sure looks like good elk medicine to me!

[charby]

My friends wife uses a .270 to shoot Elk, sha has had no problem with double lunging them.

I'm not sure why you don't think a .270 is enough rifle for Elk.

I'm wouldn't think twice about shooting an Elk up to 300 yards with one if a shot presented itself.

[K Frame]

The .270 is not a necked down .30-06.

The 270 case is based on, and is the same length as, the earlier .30-03 case. If you make a 270 from a 06 case, it will be usable but it will be short.

Why Winchester did it that way, I do not know, but they were still loading the .30-03 in 1925 when the 270 was introduced.

[Balog]

My friends wife uses a .270 to shoot Elk, sha has had no problem with double lunging them.

I'm not sure why you don't think a .270 is enough rifle for Elk.

I'm wouldn't think twice about shooting an Elk up to 300 yards with one if a shot presented itself.

Honestly? All I know about the .270 was reading about Elmer Keith and Jack O'Connor arguing about it. So, just kind of vague half memories.

[mtnbkr]

While I like Elmer's writings and philosophy, his 50yo opinions on rifle cartridges aren't particularly valid given the improvement in bullets and propellants since his days.

Chris

[Stetson]

I've killed an elk, deer and antelope with a Remington 6mm.  Decent scope and good shot placement are all you would need with a .270.  My brother hunts with a .308 and He hasn't killed anything with it that I haven't been able to with mine.

[charby]

While I like Elmer's writings and philosophy, his 50yo opinions on rifle cartridges aren't particularly valid given the improvement in bullets and propellants since his days.

Chris

Hell, even the new cheap ass rifles from the factory are tack drivers compared to the rifles they (Keith and O'Conner) hunted with.

[Balog]

While I like Elmer's writings and philosophy, his 50yo opinions on rifle cartridges aren't particularly valid given the improvement in bullets and propellants since his days.

Chris

Which is why I said "I have a vague half thought on the subject" not "I believe this is true." Thanks for the help folks.

[K Frame]

While I like Elmer's writings and philosophy, his 50yo opinions on rifle cartridges aren't particularly valid given the improvement in bullets and propellants since his days.

Chris

Heretic.

[mtnbkr]

Heretic.

I felt dirty typing it, but it's the truth.  Bullet tech has come a long way since his day.  If I were stuck with 50yo bullet tech, I'd want a big heavy bullet as well, but with our modern gear, I'm more confident in the smaller calibers. 

Even though my shots have been close and on smallish deer (100-125lbs), I haven't had a single "soft" 6.5mm bullet fail to fully penetrate a deer and drop it in place (bullets didn't explode and fail to penetrate, but still opened nicely and did much damage even while penetrating bone).  I suspect more primitive bullets would fail to perform well.

Chris

[brimic]

imho, going from a .270 to a .308 would be a step down,though not a big step.

[SteveS]

Or buy Steve's .308 in the APS classifieds.  Mmmmm, tasty.

It sold pretty quickly. I have a .270 that I would use for elk, but the gun is so heavy. I prefer something fairly light and have been tempted to pick up something in a short mag.