Forum rules
Welcome to the Leverguns.Com General Discussions Forum. This is a high-class place so act respectable. We discuss most anything here other than politics... politely.
Please post political post in the new Politics forum.
Something's bugging me. Given that the .30-06 Springfield case is derived from the .30-03 Springfield by shortening the neck length, and given that the .270 Winchester has the same overall case length as the .30-03 (thus a longer neck than the .30-06), would it not be more accurate to say that the .270 Winchester is derived from the .30-03 simply necked down? I have heard this stated by laymen before but I have yet to find a single publication that lists the .270 Winchester as derived from the .30-03 in the same way the .30-06 was born from that chambering. Always the statement is that the .270 Win is a simply a necked down .30-06. Well, if that were so you would be able to form full-spec brass for your .270 out of .30-06 brass but it'll be slightly short in the neck if you do that. Contrast this with the .25-06 which specs the same case length as the .30-06 so you'll actually have to trim your brass should you form .25-06 out of .30-06.
So it seems to me that the .270 is NOT a "necked down .30-06", it's a daggum necked down .30-03! If you ask me...which no one has.
I'm sorry if this is ground that has been plowed here before, but I figured you are the guys to ask about it.
Cheers,
Oly
Cheers,
Oly
I hope and pray someday the world will learn
That fires we don't put out will bigger burn
Well don't look to Speer, they think it was developed from the 30-06. The case length of that of course is listed at 2.494 as is the 25-06 and the 6.5-06. The case length of the .30-03 is .254 as is the .270 Winchester and the .280 Remington. The difference is obvious but still some lump them together. Factories obviously don't use the same brass - one case is 63.34 mm and the other is 64.51 mm. I have read the .30-03 derivation and will have to keep my eye out for where that was.
Those Wikipedia entries are interesting because the .30-03 page shows the .270 as a derivation (without supporting references) but on the .270 page is shows .30-06 as the parent case with references. And everything I've got says .30-06, not .30-03. Honestly I think it's just journalistic laziness going on here but it's aggravating because the .30-03 was still offered as a factory loading when the .270 was introduced and the fact that it's the parent case for the whole family of off-shoots should be a matter of fact, not some lost-to-history tidbit.
Cheers,
Oly
Cheers,
Oly
I hope and pray someday the world will learn
That fires we don't put out will bigger burn
I don't remember when the .270 was first produced, but seems it was introduced when the Model 70 was introduced as part of the line up of cartridges. Mauser was making a 6.8MM(iirc) for a contract with China way back when, this is also actually a .270 round slightly different. Also when the Springfield Arsenal was looking for a semi auto battle rifle there were to rifles in the running one was John Garands famous M1 and another by Pederson which used a toggle link action similar to the Luger pistol. The rounds they were intending to use was a .276 cartridge, but I think it was smaller in diameter. The Pederson and the Garand would hold 10 rounds in an enbloc clip, only the Pederson would not cycle reliably unless the cartridge carried a bit of oil or lube. The Garand wasn't a gas operated rifle rather the set back of the primer when firing unlocked the bolt causing the rifle to function without problem. The English was hot for the Pederson design and the 276 cartridge at the time. A certain Officer named McArthur nixed the idea of a new caliber, seeing as we had millions of 30-06 rounds left from WWI. This spelled the doom of the Pederson rifle and also the birth of the M1 Garand. Which was a simple conversion to an eight round clip and with the crimping of the primers John Garand simply converted his rifle to gas operated. I think the 276 round may have been the forerunner of the 270 Winchester cartridge. I do run on and on don't I. No sporting arms were ever produced commercially in the 276 cartridge a well. I am probably all wet and wrong on this assumption. I will have to go back to my reference books and see how baddly I screwed up the creation of the .270. Anyway happy hunting and all the best.
I agree Oly, but the issue seems to obvious on the face of it with the measurements. They all seem to know that the 30-06 was created by shortening the 30-03 case or more properly, creating a case that was shorter.
In the High Desert of Southern Calif. ..."on the cutting edge of going back in time"...
The Wikipedia reference "says" it was derived from the .30-06 but the reference points to a Chuck Hawks article that says .30-03 / .30-06 .... lumping them together. It doesn't specifically attribute the .270 as being from the .30-06 only as the Wiki implies. Someone took some liberties apparently without the aid of a dial caliper.
... I love poetry, long walks on the beach, and poking dead things with a stick.
Well, I figure it doesn't really matter. When they came out with the .270 Win which was first chambered in the old Model 54 Winchester, (I think) they might have just decided, "Hey, lets neck down the 30-06 to .270", and then as an afterthough during the design stage, Winchester decided to make the neck a little longer, which was no big deal, either way, as they were going to make the brass anyway, but then again I recond they could have just started directly with the 30-03 parent brass and saw no need to shorten it up.
Either way, you can still neck down a 30-06 case and get by, but why bother, new .270 brass is pretty easy to come by. I wonder if the .270 would still be with us, if Jack O'Conor had not written about it so much. I know I was big fan of it for many years, but Jack's writtings got me going on it, and for many years, I never saw a need for anything else.
Lastmohecken wrote:Well, I figure it doesn't really matter. When they came out with the .270 Win which was first chambered in the old Model 54 Winchester, (I think) they might have just decided, "Hey, lets neck down the 30-06 to .270", and then as an afterthough during the design stage, Winchester decided to make the neck a little longer, which was no big deal, either way, as they were going to make the brass anyway, but then again I recond they could have just started directly with the 30-03 parent brass and saw no need to shorten it up.
Either way, you can still neck down a 30-06 case and get by, but why bother, new .270 brass is pretty easy to come by. I wonder if the .270 would still be with us, if Jack O'Conor had not written about it so much. I know I was big fan of it for many years, but Jack's writtings got me going on it, and for many years, I never saw a need for anything else.
Thats what I was thinkin'. Who gives a rat's butt about where the stupid 270 came from. (I wish that was all I had to worry about at the moment) Now, where did the 45-70 come from? was it a downsized 50-70 or a blown up 25-21 Stevens? ------------Sixgun
1st. Gen. Colt SAA’s, 1878 D.A.45 and a 38-55 Marlin TD
While I can't locate it at the moment, a couple of years ago I read an article showing evidence of Winchester experimenting with the .270 as far back as 1917. They included a photo of one rifle dated to that period. Apparently, Winchester played with the idea for some time before its commercial introduction in 1925. Will keep looking.
If I'm not mistaken Paco Kelly stated in one if his books that it came from the 30-03 case.
RustyJr
Life is a storm, my young friend. You will bask in the sunlight one moment, be shattered on the rocks the next. What makes you a man is what you do when that storm comes.
There is an old saying that the proof in in the tape [measure]. In this case it is in the calendar. The .30-03 was replaced by the .30-06 in 1906. The .270 was developed in 1923. Now why would any private arms/ammunition company design a new cartridge based on a cartridge that had been obsolete for 20 years. As for the .276 [Pedersen] it used a different head size and was an original design. During the course of its development many variation of head and rim diameter, case length, case taper, shoulder angle, etc. were experomented with.
The reason the .270 case length more closely resembles the .30-03 than the .30-06 is probably because when necking existing cases down they tend to lengthen. As the .30-06 was already a popular caliber it made sense for Winchester to use the same basic [blank] case for the .270. Just give it a new headstamp and run it through a .270 Winchester die. No point in reinventing the wheel.
The proof is in the tape measure and the answer is .30-03 for the 270. The 270 Win and 280 Rem are the same length - 2.54 which is the length of the .30-03.
The 25-06, 30-06 and 35 Whelen, are 2.494. So apparently the industry has used both lengths for cases over quite a long time. Doesn't seem at all to be based on what either of the cases comes out necked up or down.
In the High Desert of Southern Calif. ..."on the cutting edge of going back in time"...
Rimfire McNutjob wrote:The Wikipedia reference "says" it was derived from the .30-06 but the reference points to a Chuck Hawks article that says .30-03 / .30-06 .... lumping them together. It doesn't specifically attribute the .270 as being from the .30-06 only as the Wiki implies. Someone took some liberties apparently without the aid of a dial caliper.
Bingo. I tried to edit that page and the Wiki Gods took issue with it because EVERY resource out there says that the .270 is a "necked down .30-06" despite the obvious dimensional relationship with .30-03 instead of .30-06.
Multiple sources state that the dimensions of the .270 are the same as the .30-03 (neck diameter excluded of course), but somewhere else they also contradict themselves and state that it is "derived" from the .30-06. Huh?
It's a small thing, but this kind of lack of attention to detail drives an anal-retentive techno geek like me NUTS.
Oh well,
Oly
Cheers,
Oly
I hope and pray someday the world will learn
That fires we don't put out will bigger burn
Old Savage wrote:The proof is in the tape measure and the answer is .30-03 for the 270. The 270 Win and 280 Rem are the same length - 2.54 which is the length of the .30-03.
The 25-06, 30-06 and 35 Whelen, are 2.494. So apparently the industry has used both lengths for cases over quite a long time. Doesn't seem at all to be based on what either of the cases comes out necked up or down.
Cheers,
Oly
I hope and pray someday the world will learn
That fires we don't put out will bigger burn
Old Savage wrote:The proof is in the tape measure and the answer is .30-03 for the 270. The 270 Win and 280 Rem are the same length - 2.54 which is the length of the .30-03.
The 25-06, 30-06 and 35 Whelen, are 2.494. So apparently the industry has used both lengths for cases over quite a long time. Doesn't seem at all to be based on what either of the cases comes out necked up or down.
Exactly, it has nothing to do with the brass drawing procedure. There are two families of .30-03 derived cases, those the same length as .30-06, and those the same length as .30-03.
And I suppose if one wants to, the lineage can be drawn back to the 8x57i (8mm Mauser) because of course that 1880s designed German smokeless powder chambering for the Gew88 is what birthed the .30-03 U.S.! If one wants to...
Cheers,
Oly
Cheers,
Oly
I hope and pray someday the world will learn
That fires we don't put out will bigger burn
Oly - it is those pesky dimensional facts - kind of like when they lengthen and shorten various fuselages. Which came first the 03 or the 06. Well then the 06 is just a shortened 03 and doesn't that make the 06 another brother so to speak. But we must be talking length because as mentioned they are all based on the 8x57. And the 8mm 06 has the 2.494 length for another in that family when we also have the 280 at 2.54. So, in that case two cartridges of the same diameter with only the length different other than I think the 280 has the shoulder slightly forward to prevent chambering in the 270.
In the High Desert of Southern Calif. ..."on the cutting edge of going back in time"...
8mm-06 always struck me as odd. It's a reloader's round, but if you're going to reload in the first place why bore out an 8mm Mauser chamber to use .30-06 brass when 8mm brass is plentiful? And why do it for the extra power when you can simply hot-rod 8mm to your heart's content? I guess you can get a hundred feet per second more at the same pressure due to the extra capacity and to each his own and all that, but like I said - just strikes me as silly. Maybe I'm missing something?
Sorry, I drifted my own thread.
Oly
Cheers,
Oly
I hope and pray someday the world will learn
That fires we don't put out will bigger burn
Charles Askins was apparently jealous of Jack O'Connor because Jack got the Outdoor Life job that Askins' dad wanted. Jack liked and lauded the 270 and 30-06. Askins for his part derided them but lauded the 25-06 and the 8mm-06. The 8mm 06 does have a ballistic advantage in the same length action but as you say the difference in not great and maybe not worth the change in the view of many. You know how this goes - as you say, to each his own.
As for me, I love the 270 and 06 cases and never had a rifle in either or the 280 that was not very accurate or for that matter the 35 Whelen. I have reloaded for all those. They seem to stand up to pressure better than the 7x57 and I have not reloaded for the 8mm. For the same velocity it is my impression that those cases hold up longer than the 57mm cases. The exception for me there is the 6mm Rem which I also like a great deal. Mine will equal the 25-06 with 100 gr and if I want heavier in my opinion the 270 jumps out ahead of the 25-06. I am also fond of the 257 Roberts. See how things wander. Part of the beauty of discussion for me. I have reloaded for the 25-06 in a couple of rifles and it is a great one too.
In the High Desert of Southern Calif. ..."on the cutting edge of going back in time"...
The reasoning behind the 8mm06 was that after wwll there were tons of 8mm mausers available but little 8mm brass, there was however plenty of 30-06 brass, so it was only natural that a simple rechambering job would be considerably less money than a rebarrel...
Don McDowell wrote:The reasoning behind the 8mm06 was that after wwll there were tons of 8mm mausers available but little 8mm brass, there was however plenty of 30-06 brass, so it was only natural that a simple rechambering job would be considerably less money than a rebarrel...
Yep, in those days that made sense for a reloader for sure.
Oly
Cheers,
Oly
I hope and pray someday the world will learn
That fires we don't put out will bigger burn
Just an observation but everything but the 30 with an 06 on it started as a wildcat as did the 53 Whelen. The two the factories chose to make the 270 Win and the 280 Rem use the 03 case length. And the term case length rather than case may be the more correct way of looking at it.
In the High Desert of Southern Calif. ..."on the cutting edge of going back in time"...
(I wish that was all I had to worry about at the moment) Now, where did the 45-70 come from? was it a downsized 50-70 or a blown up 25-21 Stevens? 
