25-06 and 270 - R.I.P.

Bush Baby

New member
Joined
Jul 1, 2001
Messages
18
Location
South Africa
Friends and myself were discussing the merits of various cartridges, great fun. So with just a little tongue in cheek, here’s what the majority of us suggest:
The 6,5-06 should be legitimised and commercialised – Remington/Hornady are you listening !
We should drop the 25-06, which is really nothing more than a 6,5-06 wanna-be………and comes up short.
The 6,5 can do anything the .257 bore can do in any given bullet weight, up to 120grs (which is as far as the 25-06 can go), however the .264 bore can easily handle bullets 40grs heavier which is more important and a far bigger advantage than the tiny ½” of flatter trajectory the 25-06 might offer at 350 yards or so – which is un-useable anyway. If you want to shoot jackals and Springbuck (game up to 125lbs) at longish ranges then use the 25-06, for anything bigger get something better.
In fact the 6,5-06 could also oust the 270 Win. as well. It shoots the same range of bullet weights – all with better sect.density (penetration) – and is just as flat shooting.
But then if the 25-06 is a 6,5-06 wanna-be, then the .270 is just a .280 Rem./7x64 wanna-be and dare I say it…………for the same reasons, comes up short !
What ever you can do in a 25-06 or .270, you do the same or better – with 10grs more weight – in the 6,5-06 or .280/7x64. The same does not hold true for the jump to 30-06 from 7mm, all four cartridges mentioned are separated (bullet diameter) by only 0.027 of an inch - .257 to .284 – the jump to .308 from .284 is 0.024 of an inch by itself.
We did our ‘test’ using FACTORY ballistics (not your pet hand loads) from Cart. of the world (vol.8) and Nosler bullets (bal.tip and Partitions – depending on available bullet weights) to provide some consistency, must compare apples with apples.
Apologies to all 25-06 and Jack O’Connor fans - the 6,5-06 and the .280/7x64 are the thinking man’s long range (non-magnum) cartridges !………………25-06 and .270 – R.I.P.
 

Leet

New member
Joined
Apr 26, 2001
Messages
82
Location
Southern, Id.
I have to agree with you on the 6.5. I have shot a lot of game with a .264 and 25-06. They are pretty comparable until the game gets to be elk size and past 300 yards or so, then the .264 really shines.

I can't say anything about the other comparison as I have only used the .280 on a couple of deer and a small bull. Never have got around to using a .270
 

JudeinPa

New member
Joined
Mar 27, 2001
Messages
69
Location
Luzerne County, Pa.
Bush Baby, I have to agree. I'm on my 2nd 6.5-06 thanks to Danr55 and his S/S model 70 action!! I have a lot of people at the range coming over to me to see what I'm shooting also. Thanks Dan....... ;)
 

A-con

New member
Joined
Dec 23, 2000
Messages
2,926
Location
Fresno,Ca.
DID YOU SAY .270 RIP !!!!!!!!!
That 6.5 whatchmathingy & the .284 combined will need to kill about 20 million more head of game before they can even dream of being in the same league as the .270
 

1_pointer

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 20, 2000
Messages
18,113
Location
Indiana
Anaconda- I don't think anyone has said that the .270 is not an effective caliber, but that the 6.5/06 & .280 are more efficient calibers. Imagine how many people would use those if one of the earliest/greatest outdoor writers touted their use?? The .270 DOES WORK and WORK WELL, but they think that the others may work better.
 

danr55

Active member
Joined
Dec 18, 2000
Messages
4,328
Location
Mesa, AZ
Well, If the number of wildcat cartridges based on bore diameter are any criteria, then the 270 is sucking the hindmost. If Winchester hadn't gotten a wild hair in thier nose, and picked something based on an expired military experiment, in England no less, then the .270 would never have been born. Even the US Army, in all of thier simple wisdom knew enough to stay away.

The venerable 6.5 on the other hand, has been wildcatted to just about every case that has been invented by anyone since the advent of smokeless powder. The Norwegians proved the capability of this caliber in thier skirmishes with the Germans during WWII with snipers laying in snow banks, dressed in white and sniping Wermacht soldeirs at 1000 meters and more using 1896 Swedish Mausers in 6.5X55. Not to mention the number of beasts taken in Africa, including Elephant and lion, before anyone told hunters it was too small for big game.
I have a hard time imagining a more efficient cartridge in it's class than the 6.5-06. I am proud to have inspired several folks to try one by either this type of talk or by letting them shoot mine. I believe that were there nothing between 22 and 30 cal but the 6.5mm whatever, the world would not be lacking for a mid range caliber that was both deadly and accurate. I can't wait for the WSM to be necked down to 6.5 and chambered in a rifle with a 26" tube.

Oh and Anaconda, you better go back and check your records again. The 270 is big in this country, but it is fairly recent when compared to the 6.5. The 6.5X55 and 7X57 both were hunting all over the world for nearly 50 years before the .270 Winchester was even born. I don't think that all things considered, even the 270 with its fame in this country can exceed the numbers of head of game that either of these calibers as racked up. :cool:

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 13 July 2001 14:20: Message edited by: danr55 ]</font>
 

Calif. Hunter

New member
Joined
Dec 13, 2000
Messages
5,176
Location
La Palma, CA, USA
Not disputing your comments, Dan, other than the discussion was about the 6.5-06 and .280 Remington,and those are what Anaconda was comparing to the .270, not the 6.5x55 or 7x57.
 

danr55

Active member
Joined
Dec 18, 2000
Messages
4,328
Location
Mesa, AZ
Well, Shucks. I saw the 6.5 and 284 and went on a tangent. I figured I had another one I could convert. Shame on me for being that way. You're right CH, now that I read it again. I guess the 270 has probably killed more game than the 6.5-06 and the .280 Rem. :cool:
 

A-con

New member
Joined
Dec 23, 2000
Messages
2,926
Location
Fresno,Ca.
DanR55, you mentioned the number of wildcats based on bore diameter as a criteria, well that just goes to show they got it right the first time with the .270. They bring out a new 6.5mm and 7mm every week or so, I gess there are still tring to figure it out !
I'm just kidding of course, I've been shooting a .270 for decades, and when I saw "R.I.P.", I just had to spout off.
They real difference between these cartridges
in question is very little, same parent case (30-06) same powder capicity, just bore diameter. They nod for efficientcy probably goes to the .284 by a tiny amount.
These debates on this cartridge vs that can be fun as long as nobody takes it seriously.
I dout any animal would know the difference between a 6.5-06 and a .270 at any range under any conditions.
The REAL difference between these two is one is as factory standerd as it can get and the other is a wildcat, whitch, I suspect, is why danr likes it so much ?????
:rolleyes: :cool:
 

danr55

Active member
Joined
Dec 18, 2000
Messages
4,328
Location
Mesa, AZ
You know what Anaconda, you are pretty smart for a feller from California. :D That is more true than people realize. The difference between any of them at 100 yards is probably unnoticable. (Cept for the 6.5-06 of course.) Sure does make for good conversation though. :cool:
 

Bush Baby

New member
Joined
Jul 1, 2001
Messages
18
Location
South Africa
Thats why I posted it up guys, thanks for all the comments it gave some fun reading, I don't really want any cartridge to die(even the 270), for me - the more the merrier.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
96,271
Messages
1,455,373
Members
30,265
Latest member
HuntNV
Top