Louis Luttrell said
Hi Zeb-I’ve no doubt that Winchester’s R&D program did not operate in a vacuum, and a little “friendly” industrial espionage was the order of the day. I quick tour through MS20 (the WRACo document collection) in the McCracken Library digital archives shows that Winchester had a lot of blueprints and other technical documents on other manufacturers’ products. Why acquire that information unless they wanted to know what the competition was doing?
The 256 Newton (almost a 6.5mm-06) had been around since 1913 and Winchester didn’t finalize the 270 WCF (.277″-06) until late 1918. Apparently they also played with a 280 design (.284″-06) but dropped it in favor of the .277″ (true 7mm-06). I do like the story that the reason they settled on .277″ was that it was the bullet diameter with which they could get 3000 fps out of a 30-06 case with a 130 gr bullet, thereby deflating the 250-3000 Savage’s advertising claim… “Friendly” competition? Hardly…
Here’s an anecdotal observation from the M70 survey… Everyone knows that over the entire pre-64 M70 production span (1936-1963) the 270 WCF was second in popularity only to the 30-06. Roughly 36% for the 30-06 and 21% for the 270 WCF, while the 257 ROBERTS represented a mere 2.5% of sales. But what was the relative popularity of these cartridges in the pre-war period (1936-1942)?
The survey presently encompasses a little over 5% of pre-war M70 serial numbers. There were originally (9) chamberings offered. Representation in the survey to date is: 30-06 (45%); 22 Hornet (12%); 220 Swift (8.0%); 300 H&H Magnum (6.9%); 270 WCF (6.7%); 257 Roberts (6.3%); 375 H&H Magnum (6.1%); 7×57 (4.8%); and, 250-3000 Savage (3.8%). While I understand that an observational survey like this will tend to overrepresent the less common calibers, it seems apparent to me that the 270 WCF wasn’t all that big a marketing hit at the time. Who knew that in the pre-war guns 270 WCF was a “rare” chambering???
I wonder if the M54 survey has big enough numbers to compare the relative popularity of the 30-06 and 270 WCF at the time it was introduced?
So what happened to make the 270 WCF a “great” cartridge? I’d call it the post-war “The Jack O’Connor Effect”…
Best,
Lou
Absolutely! If it wasn’t for Jack O’Connor, the .270 WCF would have remained as popular as it was during pre war production and that would have largely resulted in .30-06 production dominating even more.
What would be interesting is to note when exactly Jack O’Connor began to promote the .270 WCF and when also his writing was available to the masses and note if this correlates to a marked increase in production and sales of the Model .270 WCF.
I am a “young man” and late to the party but was a Jack O’Connor fan in the 70’s and his articles and books describing the .270 and it’s suitability for African game are the EXACT reason my first pre-64 Model 70 was a .270 WCF (which of course I have taken to Africa in his footsteps). I am also a fan of the 7×57 Mauser cartridge which is what his wife used.
Best Regards,
WACA Life Member #6284 - Specializing in Pre-64 Winchester .22 Rimfire
So what happened to make the 270 WCF a “great” cartridge? I’d call it the post-war “The Jack O’Connor Effect”…
Louis Luttrell said
Don’t think it could be anything else! His popularity & prestige as a hunter & gunwriter was unmatched, no, not even by perennial rival Elmer, whose writing I believe even his fans took with a grain of salt, whereas Jack’s work radiated the quality of “believe-ability,” telling it like it really was.
He certainly had an air of believability and of the common man. True to his word I have taken everything in Africa up to, and including, Greater Kudu. Of course I am not stupid enough to stand in front of a Cape Buffalo with my .270 but I don’t think that is what he meant. Anything larger than a GK (such as an Eland) and I moved up to the .375 H&H, another personal favorite of mine.
Best Regards,
WACA Life Member #6284 - Specializing in Pre-64 Winchester .22 Rimfire
1 Guest(s)
