Is rebarrel it to 6.5 in a medium weight contour and restock it. Handy and short

I’m with the get a new stock crowd. Hunted with a .270 mostly for 30 plus years then switched to 6.5x55. Under 300 yards which I believe the vast majority of hunters shoot their game at, I don’t think there’s any question the .270 hits harder, at the expense of increased recoil.

And what is the big deal with action length?

I can’t grow a beard like that Grendel dude. Other than that, it’s pretty close.

Um, powder capacity...

Get a new stock for it, cheapest 90 bucks and up from there. Or sell to me cheap.

OT, Remington did not put a fast enough twist in the early 260 Rem they were 1:10 and could not stabilize the heavy bullets that mad the 6.5mm so great in the field. I had a M7 which I inherited and it had a hard time with 120 and 140 were patterned not grouped. Had it re barreled and it is now a favorite hunting rifles.

The rounds you are comparing have similar powder capacities actually. Most long range rifles are not built as lightweights and generally long actions are not much heavier than short actions. AND cartridge OAL is less often an issue with long actions.

Where is the 270 guys picture?

???? 6.5 CM is 40 - 45 grains with most powders. 270 is 55 - 60+. That is a +50% difference.

The 6.5 CM is a very nice round, and I sometimes use a 260 to hunt, but a 270 is a very substantial step up in power and terminal impact with comparable bullets.

Nobody will ever admit that when discussing the terminal performance of the tow, only when it supports their agenda of reduced recoil etc.

Well one person just did.

50% more powder capacity in the .270, jeff pointed out.

Don't tell the 6.8 pound 7mm-08 A.I. sitting next to me that it can't shoot long range.

No, long actions aren't much heavier.

O.A.L. issues come from whomever chambered it, long or short action cartridge. I've seen plenty of long action chambered rifles that had so much free-bore it was impossible to get a bullet within .100" of the lands.

I get very little traction from most on here when I mention added bullet weight, frontal diameter, and the like as it contributes to terminal velocity and, thus, performance on game. Most just give me Sneaky’s “Bert Stare”.

Earlier in this thread it was basically said that the .270 brings nothing to the table compared to the 6.5. That’s simply not true. You add more case capacity-you add more performance. Period. They make bigger calibers for a reason.

Is it free? No. Everyone has to decide for themselves the recoil price they are willing to pay for better performance.

(All of that relating to normal hunting ranges of 400 and under, as usual.)

Perfect!

The post I referred to referenced the 6.5x284 vs the 6.5-06 and 270 which have similar capacities. It is possible to load the 270 down to Creed levels and only use 4-5 grains more powder. 10% more powder and lower pressures to boot. Bet that gets close to equalizing recoil.

If you can’t handle the recoil of a .270 in a sporter weight rifle you need to do some self-assessment.

Amen! Not to say less recoil isn’t nice, but we’re talking about hunting rifles here. Sure I’d rather shoot 50 rounds of .243 than .270. But in a hunting rifle, recoil shouldnt be a factor when comparing these types of rounds.

No kidding. A .270 just isn't a stout recoiling round.

I guess that was also my thought. Get my 12yr old the 270 with a muzzle brake and the recoil is similar to the 6.5.

Many on here disagree. I don’t get it either.

If yall go back to page one, this rifle is for a kiddo. I'm 5'9" 185 pounds, and I will shoot anything. But my 9 year old daughter is not the same size as a grown man. If recoil beats a kid up, they do not enjoy shooting, and they will not be any good at it. She's going .22lr, .223 then 6.5 X 47, in that order.

Funny thing is he has never complained about recoil. Although someone at the range who helps people sight in their guns who shoots a lot shot the little model 7 and said "dang that kicks more than my 270".

He's beating the odds then.