.270 Nosler Partition

[Almer Fudd]

My pet load for my .270 win. was built over 20 years ago.
150 gr. Nosler Partition,
57 gr. 4350
cci mag. primers

Good tight groups and nice performance on Elk and Moose.

In the past 20 years there has been lots of good powder and bullets introduced on the market.

Do any of the KNOWLEDGABLE members have any good suggestions to try.

I'll likely use my .338 for the Elk and Moose,
but a nice hot .270 load for long range deer, sheep and antelope (maybe the odd coyote).

THX
PS, if you don't really have much expertise and experience it's OK not to respond to this thread.

[sbtennex]

Shot everything for over 20 years with a .270 Winchester and loaded for it, and if you're pushing a 150, any 150, with 57 grs of 4350, especially IMR, I'm pretty sure you're way over max. My favorite was a 130 Sierra SBT pushed by 54 grs of IMR4350 and IIRC, that was one grain under book max. If I were still using the .270, I'd probably go to a really good 140 gr BT and push it for speed and, obviously, best accuracy. Kind of fond of Accubonds, and when my rifle will shoot them, the TSX or TTSX. The advantage of the Barnes bullets is that they don't shed weight on expansion which is what the Partition is designed to do. These things weigh pretty well as much after impact as they did when you loaded them which means you can start lighter and faster and still get great penetration and sometimes a blood trail you can't believe. Again it depends on the rifle - some of mine flat out won't shoot a Barnes bullet period.

[elkhunter11]

My pet load for my .270 win. was built over 20 years ago.
150 gr. Nosler Partition,
57 gr. 4350
cci mag. primers

If you insist on using that load,my advice is to have a friend along to call 911 or to drive you to emergency when the gun eventually lets go.Just make sure that he is far enough away to avoid being struck by shrapnel when you pull the trigger.According to six of my manuals,that load is from 3 to 5 grains over max.Even if you had a sloppy chamber,you would likely be creating well above the SAAMI chamber pressure for the cartridge.

[Almer Fudd]

I recall buiding this load and I started with 51 grs. and worked my way up to 57gr. and the groups just kept getting tighter and the brass (winchester) looked fine. Still today the fired bass doesn't show any signs of excess pressure.
Velocity wasn't the objective it was just shooting 1/2 inch groups.

[elkhunter11]

I recall buiding this load and I started with 51 grs. and worked my way up to 57gr. and the groups just kept getting tighter and the brass (winchester) looked fine.

It is quite possible for accuracy to continue to improve until after you have exceeded safe pressure limits.Brass may not show obvious pressure signs until well beyond SAAMI pressure levels.

Still today the fired bass doesn't show any signs of excess pressure.

How tight are the primer pockets after a case is fired five times with that load?Do you have access to a chronograph?I would be very interested in seeing the muzzle velocity for that load.

I don't get concerned when a load exceeds the max listed in one or two manuals by one or two grains,but when it exceeds the max listed in every manual that I can find by 3 to 5 grains,I get very suspicious.Either you are exceeding safe chamber pressures,or possibly your gun an extremely long freebore,or a chamber considerably oversized,or you are using a batch of powder that is way off spec or damp.In any case,I would be very careful with that load.

[Almer Fudd]

Thanks for the advise on excess pressure.

Also thx to sbtennex for the excellent suggestions.

Anyone tried Berger bullets in .270 win?

[bobinthesky]

Originally Posted by Almer Fudd

I recall buiding this load and I started with 51 grs. and worked my way up to 57gr. and the groups just kept getting tighter and the brass (winchester) looked fine. Still today the fired bass doesn't show any signs of excess pressure.
Velocity wasn't the objective it was just shooting 1/2 inch groups.

It's easy to see why you're seeking advice from someone who has experience and expertise with this cartridge because it's evident by the looks of your "pet" load that you've been shooting for the last 20 years that you have none!

Even PO Ackley stopped at 56 grains and large rifle primers!

[Almer Fudd]

Like I said earlier, really appreciate the concern for my safety.
There are lots of old .270, 30-06 that likely cannot handle the higher pressures.
I'm OK with this one.

What I'm interested in is some serious replies like sbtennex on some load suggestions.

If I wanted a lecture or some condescending/insulting remarks I'd call my wife.

[Predator]

Originally Posted by Almer Fudd

Like I said earlier, really appreciate the concern for my safety.
There are lots of old .270, 30-06 that likely cannot handle the higher pressures.
I'm OK with this one.

What I'm interested in is some serious replies like sbtennex on some load suggestions.

If I wanted a lecture or some condescending/insulting remarks I'd call my wife.

I'm just wondering what makes your 270 any different than any other SAAMI spec. rifle. Do you have a custom chamber, tight neck, BR type gun? If not, why is it that you think that your gun is "OK"? I mean we aren't talking about shooting modern loads in some old Trapdoor Springfield 45-70 here.
I am also sure the above comments about being over max. were only mentioned with your safety in mind.
If don't like the answer, maybe you shouldn't ask the question or maybe you could call your wife and ask about her load suggestions.

[Dick284]

Hey Almer.

Look up:
Cumulative Metal Fatigue.

[bobinthesky]

Originally Posted by Almer Fudd

Like I said earlier, really appreciate the concern for my safety.
There are lots of old .270, 30-06 that likely cannot handle the higher pressures.
I'm OK with this one.

What I'm interested in is some serious replies like sbtennex on some load suggestions.

If I wanted a lecture or some condescending/insulting remarks I'd call my wife.

You'll be "OK" right up untill you blow your head off.

You only get the lecture's and remarks that you deserve!

[elkhunter11]

Myself and others posted because we don't want to see anyone get hurt,including forum members that may see the load posted,and assume that it is safe to use in their guns.

[Almer Fudd]

OK so just got home from work and checked my reloading journal and I stand corrected;

Sept. 1988 I loaded 55.5 gr of 4350 in that .270 load.

I loaded 57 gr. of 4350 in a 30-06 load.

My thread wasn't to suggest the previously mentioned load.
I'm interested in building a new load for this rifle.

I also think it's good to call someone if they are doing anything dangerous.
Some may wish to reconsider the tone they use.

In 1988 partition's were considered by many to be THE hunting bullet.
Lot's of this have changed in the last 20 years.
I'm looking to try some better options.

[bobinthesky]

I expect that your refering to my tone Almer Fudd.

You still don't seem to understand the severity of posting a dangerous load on the internet and insisting that " I'm OK with this one" even though it's been explained to you already.
I really don't care if you hurt yourself with your handloads but someone who dosn't know any better may use your load and get injured or killed, would you be OK with that one?

So stop acting so indignant and don't worry about the tone I'm using because I don't care if I offend you in the interest of safety.


I'm glad to hear that you haven't actually been shooting those grossly overloaded 270's for the last 20 years though.

[elkhunter11]

I'm glad to hear that you haven't actually been shooting those grossly overloaded 270's for the last 20 years though.

55.5gr is still 1.5gr to 3.5gr more than any of the loads listed in my manuals.and the loads in my manuals are using large rifle primers,not magnum primers.

[Almer Fudd]

Well thanks again for the warnings.
Good thing these loads are long gone.

The reason I'm on here is to investigate a new load.

Got any suggestions.

[munyee4321]

Originally Posted by Almer Fudd

Well thanks again for the warnings.
Good thing these loads are long gone.

The reason I'm on here is to investigate a new load.

Got any suggestions.

Grab a reloading manual of your liking for bullet of choice.. and have atter....... Any of our loads work well for our rifles might not work for yours........ if you like the nosler partiions then keep using them... If you wanna try something else you can do that aswell.......

[bobinthesky]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

55.5gr is still 1.5gr to 3.5gr more than any of the loads listed in my manuals.and the loads in my manuals are using large rifle primers,not magnum primers.

54.1 grains is listed as max in my Hornady #3 book which is pretty liberal as far as max loads go. For some reason, none of my Nosler books even recommend 4350 for 150 grain 270 bullets. they do list 52.5 for the 140 grain bullet and 51 for the 160 grain bullet. Interpolateing between the two, you'd see that if they did list 4350 for the 150 gr bullet, it would probably have a max load of around 51.7 grains. These loads are all using a LRG primer, not a magnum.
Ackley lists 56 grains as his max with the 150 grain bullet in the 270 but I've learned over the years to approach his max loads with extreme caution. I'm not saying that I think 55.5 grains is a good idea, but I believe some guns can do it safely. The trick is knowing which ones can and which ones can't...

Almer, the reason I don't post my own loads on the net and only quote published loads and their source is that any one, including you, can post whatever they like on here and unless you varify the data in a load manual before you use it well... you're a test pilot! You're not amongst a small group of good ol' boy experts here. And you can't sort them out by saying "no comments from inexperienced reloaders please", the whole world can watch and participate and use your loads or post their own, insisting all the time that they are good loads! People get hurt reloading all the time for one reason or another. And yet some reloaders go through life living on the ragged edge all the time and never get hurt! You just can't be carefull enough!

If you can use the Google feature on your computer, load data is easy to find. The powder companies all publish their data on the net, and it's good, tested data.
The best advice you've received so far is to go out and get yourself a reloading manual and find your own load. I just picked up Noslers latest manual a month ago to add to my collection and it's fantastic reading if your at all interested in this sort of thing. This would be a natural for you because you want to use Nosler bullets, and it only cost about $32 bucks. The thing about the Nosler manuals that I've always liked is that they show which powders and loads they had the best accuracy with as well as velocity, which makes powder selection real easy! As you read through the book, you start to realise just how much R&D goes into bullet making and that maybe their bullets aren't so overpriced after all. Of course, you don't have to stick with Nosler manuals though, all of the bullet manufacturers publish books.

Good luck.

[elkhunter11]

The thing about the Nosler manuals that I've always liked is that they show which powders and loads they had the best accuracy with as well as velocity, which makes powder selection real easy!

I find the velocity useful in deciding which powder might produce the best velocity in my guns,but the accuracy loads have not at all proven to be the most accurate in my guns.In some cases,they are among the least accurate in my guns.As a result of past experience,I pay little attention to the so called accuracy loads,and instead let my gun tell me what it prefers.

[bobinthesky]

Well, not all guns are the same. That's one reason of several that they publish so many different loads.
I've actually had pretty good luck with their acuracy loads over the years. Mind you, if the load I'm trying works out well, I don't usually look too much further and maybe in some cases, I could have done better.

[elkhunter11]

Mind you, if the load I'm trying works out well, I don't usually look too much further and maybe in some cases, I could have done better.

So you have no way of knowing if that load really is the most accurate load for your gun.

[Dean2]

Guys, time to get off Almers back. One of the things you will find if you have been loading for 30 or 40 years, is that todays published max loads are WAY lower than what they used to be. Lots of us built up loads using the old data, using powders, cases and bullets of that era. Modern batchs of powder, primers and cases are very different than the old components.
DO NOT USE THIS or any other OLD LOAD DATA> USE NEW BOOKS FOR THE NEW POWDER BATCHES, CASES, BULLETS, PRIMERS and better testing methods of today.
Hornady Voume II, first published in 1973, lists a max load of 4350 (did not secify H or IMR because H was all there was) of 56.0 grains for a velocity of 3000 fps in a western case with a Federl 210 primer. This load, along with a whole bunch of the max loads in other claibers, like 68.4 grans of 4831 behind a 162 grain BTHP in 7 Rem Mag, which was a favourite of mine in the day, won't be found in any of todays loading books.

Almer
If you read much of Jack 'Connor, the 270 was made for the 130 grain bullet. IMO it is stll the best speed, BC, drop and wind drift balance in that caliber, especially for lighter game. A 130 grain Ballistic tip or hollow point, both with a boat tail, should get you in the .4 to .460 (Hornady 130 Interbond) BC range depending on maker and velocity. That type of bullet over H4350 (7828, and Hybrid 100 included, H4350 is still hard to beat for getting max vel and good to great accurracy out of a 270) should make a good start to work up a load for what you are looking for. Best of luck.

[Bushrat]

Nosler accuracy loads are the loads that worked best in their test gun, they may have no bearing on what will work in your gun. When they don't list a specific powder it just means they didn't test that powder or that powder did not give good results in their gun, not yours. If they tested every combination of powder with every bullet the reloading manual would be 4000 pages thick. On the other hand If there were one best load for every rifle there would be only one powder and its weight listed per bullet and the manual would only be one or two pages thick. Reloading manuals are a general guide to what is commonly popular for certain bullets and powders for a variety of cartridge designations. In every reloading manual I've seen they have a third or half the book explaining the hows and whys of reloading. Seems a lot of people skip over this part of the book and go straight to the loading data expecting perfect results.

[elkhunter11]

In every reloading manual I've seen they have a third or half the book explaining the hows and whys of reloading. Seems a lot of people skip over this part of the book and go straight to the loading data expecting perfect results.

Exactly,far too many people simply pick the so called fastest or most accurate load listed in the manual,then load it up and expect the same performance in their gun.If it was that simple,loading manuals would only bother listing the fastest and most accurate load for each bullet weight.
Unfortunately,many people also skip the part in the manual where it warns readers to work up loads from a starting load while watching for pressure signs,and they start out with the maximum load listed.

[Rackmastr]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

Exactly,far too many people simply pick the so called fastest or most accurate load listed in the manual,then load it up and expect the same performance in their gun.If it was that simple,loading manuals would only bother listing the fastest and most accurate load for each bullet weight.
Unfortunately,many people also skip the part in the manual where it warns readers to work up loads from a starting load while watching for pressure signs,and they start out with the maximum load listed.

x2....good post.

[bobinthesky]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

So you have no way of knowing if that load really is the most accurate load for your gun.

In many cases that would be true... but I have no idea what the point that your trying to impress upon me is because I never claimed that those loads were the most acurate for my gun.

I'll attempt to clarify what I said. What I ment is that, contrary to what you've found, I have had good luck using loads that Nosler found to be acurate and in a lot of cases, I've not persued it any further if I was happy with the results I got. Again, I never said that I found them to be the most acurate loads for my gun, but they are a good starting point and in many cases I've found, they are plenty good enough for the average guy who wants hunting accuracy and not extreme accuracy. Before I jump to another powder and load, I'll play with the bullet seating depth or change primers or change bullets. There's many things you can tweak before writing off one load and moving to the next. Some times I'll persue acuracy further and sometimes I'm happy with what I've got and move on to something else. It depends on what I want the load for and if I feel the particular rifle should be able to do better or not.

[Pathfinder76]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

Unfortunately,many people also skip the part in the manual where it warns readers to work up loads from a starting load while watching for pressure signs,and they start out with the maximum load listed.

Maybe this is a topic for another thread, but I'd like to hear how you test for pressure. I think you measure case head expansion and am curious as to what equipment you use and your procedure.

[bobinthesky]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

Exactly,far too many people simply pick the so called fastest or most accurate load listed in the manual,then load it up and expect the same performance in their gun.If it was that simple,loading manuals would only bother listing the fastest and most accurate load for each bullet weight.
Unfortunately,many people also skip the part in the manual where it warns readers to work up loads from a starting load while watching for pressure signs,and they start out with the maximum load listed.

That's very true, especially the last part, but most people don't want to experiment with load after load they way some of us do. We are the exceptions, not the rule! The majority of reloaders just want a good hunting load and are happy if all their bullets go inside a couple of inches at 100 yards, and it makes them feel good that they have rolled their own!

I don't believe that you're average reloader has the time, money or inclination to play with all the different loads available to reloaders today. I feel that Almer is one of these guys and I don't think he would disagree with that. That's why he's here looking for loads.

[bobinthesky]

Originally Posted by Dean2

Guys, time to get off Almers back. One of the things you will find if you have been loading for 30 or 40 years, is that todays published max loads are WAY lower than what they used to be. Lots of us built up loads using the old data, using powders, cases and bullets of that era. Modern batchs of powder, primers and cases are very different than the old components.
DO NOT USE THIS or any other OLD LOAD DATA> USE NEW BOOKS FOR THE NEW POWDER BATCHES, CASES, BULLETS, PRIMERS and better testing methods of today.
Hornady Voume II, first published in 1973, lists a max load of 4350 (did not secify H or IMR because H was all there was) of 56.0 grains for a velocity of 3000 fps in a western case with a Federl 210 primer. This load, along with a whole bunch of the max loads in other claibers, like 68.4 grans of 4831 behind a 162 grain BTHP in 7 Rem Mag, which was a favourite of mine in the day, won't be found in any of todays loading books.

Almer
If you read much of Jack 'Connor, the 270 was made for the 130 grain bullet. IMO it is stll the best speed, BC, drop and wind drift balance in that caliber, especially for lighter game. A 130 grain Ballistic tip or hollow point, both with a boat tail, should get you in the .4 to .460 (Hornady 130 Interbond) BC range depending on maker and velocity. That type of bullet over H4350 (7828, and Hybrid 100 included, H4350 is still hard to beat for getting max vel and good to great accurracy out of a 270) should make a good start to work up a load for what you are looking for. Best of luck.

I think we got off Almers back before you felt that you had to tell us to Dean. Reread the entire thread and I think you'll see a change in tone and that we are trying to be helpfull.

[elkhunter11]

Maybe this is a topic for another thread, but I'd like to hear how you test for pressure. I think you measure case head expansion and am curious as to what equipment you use and your procedure.

For the first loading,I use new cases and measure case head expansion with a micrometer or dial caliper as I work up loads.When I arrive at a load that looks good accuracy and velocity wise,I load three new cases with the load and fire each case five times with that load.If the primer pockets are still fairly tight after five loadings,I accept the load as being safe in my gun.I find that primer pockets loosening after five firings shows up at lesser powder charges than other pressure signs such as brass extrusion or resistance on bolt lift occur.If I see any pressure signs at all,I back off two full grains with large capacity cartridges,and a grain with smaller capacity cartridges.I try to do all of my load development in warm weather if at all possible.If I must develop a load in cooler weather,I retest the load in warm weather.
In some cases,I am able to match book velocities or even slightly exceed them,in other cases,I can't attain them in my gun at acceptable pressures.

I'll attempt to clarify what I said. What I ment is that, contrary to what you've found, I have had good luck using loads that Nosler found to be acurate and in a lot of cases, I've not persued it any further if I was happy with the results I got. Again, I never said that I found them to be the most acurate loads for my gun, but they are a good starting point and in many cases I've found, they are plenty good enough for the average guy who wants hunting accuracy and not extreme accuracy.

You aren't that different from me in most regards.If I immediately achieve sub 1/2 moa and good velocity with the bullet that I want to use for hunting,I may not bother with any other loads.However,if my loads are around moa,I will try other powders,and perhaps other bullets,even though moa is acceptable to most people in most hunting situations.Then again,if I happen upon an exceptionally accurate rifle,I may do a little more development to see just how accurate I can get it to shoot,to satisfy my own curiosity.
In some cases,i find the "most accurate" loads to be very satisfactory,in some cases,they aren't even close in my gun.

However some people automatically assume that if a load is listed in a loading manual,it must be safe in their gun.They also assume that a load listed as the "most accurate" load,will also be the most accurate load in their gun.My point being,that this isn't always the case,and some loads can in fact be unsafe in some guns,despite the fact that the load is listed in a manual..