Interesting, DD -I have read, over the years, that the .270 has never been known as an "accuracy cartridge", as many

.30's, 7mm's and 6.5's have, thus, bullet construction and
dies for it, lack the precision of the 'accuracy calibres'.

True or not, I do not know. I have seen some really good shooting .270's, as have many

guys here, but then some really mediocre ones as well. Most Euro rifles chambered for the .270 seem to do very well

indeed, such as Belgium Brownings, Sako, Styer, etc.All three makes you named, Win, Ruger, Rem. have at times had

difficulty with production rifle accuracy, regardless of
the calibre, however, in those times, their offerings of

.308 and .30/06 were still reasonably accurate, being
better balanced ctgs. quite likely.

I recall, many years ago reading an expose' on the .270,
written by Ed Mathieus (sry Ed, just looked for your name

spelling and could not find it in the mess).He used 5 or 6 different .270 rifles and chronographed them

all with the same ammunition. In his tests, he noted he thought he discovered why a lot of people swear by the .270

for long range deer-type game shooting, while others were disappointed with it. His velocity recordings with 130gr. bullets were all over

the map, while the 150gr. readings from the same rifles
were spot-on, almost exactly box numbers.

He noted for some reason, 130gr. speeds ran from
2,740fps to just over 3,100fps, while 150gr. averages were

all in the 2,900fps range. Like I said, this was some time ago - maybe 15 years back,

but these numbers kind of stuck with me.
He said he contacted Remington and pretty much asked them

"Why". Their ballistics expert noted the 130gr.
.270 load was the most difficult to get consistent results

with, but did not know why, and to use 150's if the 130's
were sub-standard in his rifle. Ed felt that if you had a

.270 running 130's at 2,740fps, that you would be totally
dissatisfied with it's long range performance on deer,

compared to the guy running over 3,100fps, who would be elated with it's performance, thus polar opposite results.