I'm looking into a 710 and origonally planned to go with a .243. Figured it would be softer on the bad shoulder and was well rounded since with 80 grainers good for coyotee and such, and stepped up to 100 grainers good for deer and such.
But talking to the guy at the gun counter the .270 caught my eye. More powerful and (he said) flatter shooting then the .243. Said he doesn't really trust a 100 grain bullet for deer since if you hit a bone it's just going to splatter and not do much good and the deer is going to be gone. Made sense, he also said the .270 is still going to have a pretty mild recoil.
So first, what kind of things can the .270 do? Know for deer and the like but is it a well rounded caliber like the .243 for coyotee and such things or is it going to obliterate varmints and such that an 80 grain from a .243 wouldn't? What can I expect from a .270?
And secondly, would you stick with the .243 or step it up to the .270?
If you enjoyed reading about ".243 or .270?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
July 29, 2006, 03:45 PM
Its all personal preference, but a .270 isn't a 'mild recoil'. I wouldn't call it bad, but the .270 is a necked down .30-06. It still goes bang anyway you cut it.
I have a .243 and the biggest complaint people have (I haven't shot a deer eith it yet) is that it shoots right through the deer. But that is all shot placement and bullet selection IMO more than the cartridge.
If you handload the .243, you can use anything from 65gr Hornady for coyote up to 105gr stuff for deer.
I am not familiar in all the options for the .270, so there may or may not be suitable varmint rounds. But the guy telling you the .270 shoots flatter is generally in relation to the .300WIN. I don't know its ballistics compared to the .243. I am sure the .270 is effective at a much longer distance, but bullet drop will inevitably become a factor.
July 29, 2006, 03:54 PM
The post stated you have a bad shoulder, so I would go with the 243. I have seen the 243 take more deer than I can count on two hands and two feet. It is a fine deer choice so long as you don't take 400 yard shots and if you use 100 grain bullets built for the job such as Partitions. The 243 is also a superior coyote round because the lighter weight bullets available and the varmint bullet designs that are available that are not for the 270. I like the 270 fine, but light recoil it isn't compared to the 243. The 270 was designed for deer and maybe elk. The 243 was designed for coyotes and deer...a true dual purpose round.
July 29, 2006, 04:17 PM
I wouldn't call it bad, but the .270 is a necked down .300WIN.
The .270 is a necked down .30-06.
July 29, 2006, 04:53 PM
If it was me, I would choose the .270. Bigger isn't always better, but it sure isn't worse.
Unless, it hurts to pull the trigger.
In your case, without knowing how bad your shoulder is, the .243 probably is the right choice. As stated, .243 has killed more than it's share of deer, and a .243 you can put where you want is better than a .270 that has you flinching and gut-shotting deer.
Just do yourself and the deer a favor, and spend the cash for good bullets when deer season rolls around, and don't forget to re-zero the rifle with the heavier bullets.
The 243 was designed for coyotes and deer...a true dual purpose round.
So...the .270 being designed for deer and elk isn't dual-purpose? Just kidding...I knew what you meant. And, if you are going to be shooting a lot of coyotes, .243 is probably a bit cheaper also.
July 29, 2006, 05:12 PM
I will go with the .243 on this one also (necked down .308 Win). It does a good job on deer at reasonable ranges and is a soft kicker.
The .270 is also a great choice (necked down 30-06) and if your talking mule deer at longer ranges then you might want to step up to it. No need however if white tails and within the 300 yd range in my opinion.
Bigger most always comes with more recoil , but the .270 is not cosidered a heavy recoil caliber either.
July 29, 2006, 05:19 PM
Bad shoulder? You will likely regret the .270 Win, as it recoils comparably to a .308 or .30-06. I also just double checked the trajectories of popular .243 loads against .270 loads. The Remington .243 95gr Premier Accutip has a virtually identical short-range(<300yds) trajectory as the Remington .270 130gr Premier Accutip. If you look at the long-range trajectory (500yds), you will see that the .243 shoots "flatter." I choose the .243 Win.
Remington Premier load comparison (http://www.remington.com/products/ammunition/ballistics/comparative_ballistics_results.aspx?data=PRA243WA*PRA270WA)
The gun-counter guy's discussion of the 100gr bullet not holding together upon impact with bone was accurate... 20+ years ago. Modern bullet construction has turned the sub-quarter-bores into verifiable deer harvesters.
The only other choice I would make is whether to forego the Remington 710 and choose a Savage/Stevens 200 instead.
July 29, 2006, 06:00 PM
The .243 with Barnes TSX, Nosler Partitions etc. will take any deer that ever lived cleanly.
I would also stay away from the Remington 710, it's pretty cheaply made, not just cheap. Look at the Savage series for something close in price, if not cheaper. Easy to adjust triggers, easy change barrels, and well known for out of the box accuracy (I don't even own one by the way).
July 29, 2006, 07:34 PM
My bad on the 270/300 neck comparison. That was wrong. But most compare the 270 as a flatter alternative to the 300 with much of the same performance.
July 29, 2006, 07:44 PM
Don't get a Rem 710, first off. From my experience in what comes through the place I work, they are not worth the money---get a 700, at least. Savage isn't much better.....but it is better. The 710 seems a shame to have the name of Remington on it at all.
Between .243 and .270......270 kicks a bit harder, flies fast & flat, and is a wonderful deer round. .243=varmit round, so far as I am concerned. Small bullet+big deer=annoying blood trail to follow.
July 29, 2006, 08:17 PM
Based on your stated needs - the .243 should do just fine. There is noticeable recoil difference between the .243 and the .270. The .270, to me, feels almost the same as a 30.06 or my 7mm RM.
However, if you are looking to take the performance up a couple notches without significantly increasing recoil - take a look at the 7mm-08 or 260 Remington. Do a search over at 24hourcampfire.xxx on the 7mm-08. I think you will like what you find.
FWIW, a friend switch to a .243 (from a 30.06) after back surgery. He takes the same or more game than he did before (even mule deer which are fairly big). It is usually our own limitations that cause failure long before the chosen cartridge that we use. There is nothing wrong with larger caliber/higher performance cartridges but they also aren't always the best answer.
July 29, 2006, 08:44 PM
If you are thinking deer rifle, I would choose the 270 win for eastern US deer hunting The 270, 308, and 30-06 are probably the best all around deer rifle calibers. I have a 270 and had a 243. The 270 Rem 700 BDL is my deer rifle and it has never failed me. Shot placement is much more critical with the 243 and I lost one deer and had to track another one a long distance before finally getting a clear shot to put it down permanently. I want a deer rifle that puts them down quickly and efficiently without employing excessive power such as some might view the 300 win mag or similar caliber. This is why I went with 270. I used to 243 for varmints and it did extremely well in that role. It is an okay deer caliber if you pay attention to your shots. Some love it for deer. Recoil is no big deal with the 270. You never even notice the recoil hunting, but you do bench shooting. It still is not bad.
The 270 will absolutely slaughter varmints, but a 223, 22-250, or 243 would be better in that role. 270 is okay for black bear and elk hunting; pretty much anything you can hunt in the lower 48 excluding grizzly bears. I would tend to want something a tad bigger for elk, but I would be confident with my 270 out to about 250 yd shots. This is where the 300 win mag or 7mm excells due to the potential for longer shots on elk with a slightly more powerful pay load.
July 29, 2006, 08:51 PM
want a deer rifle that puts them down quickly and efficiently without employing excessive power such as some might view the 300 win mag or similar caliber.What, no .338 for deer season this year?;)
Everything .22-Rimfire said is very, very helpful information to you, right on the money. That being said, steelhead's 7mm-08 recommendation does seem like it would be a perfect bullet for you given the shoulder and all, without being "just" a .243. That, and you'll probably have one of the more unique guns on the field. I know for a fact that Remington 700's can come in 7mm/08 (got one sitting in the rack in my store), dunno about other manufacturers, I would assume they do as well.
And, just for the sake of it.....if you really wanted to take down coyote, and have a fun all-around gun, why not an Uberty 1873 lever in .357? Not much recoil in the least, it'll take a coyote with ease (but probably not deer), and be a perfect excuse for a revolver later :D .
July 29, 2006, 09:03 PM
My dad's been using a .243 Winchester for 30 years. Never failed him on deer and coyote. The comment about the .270 being more flat shooting than a .243 would discredit pretty much whatever the salesman said from now on to me. Unless you're hunting elk or larger, you should be fine.
July 29, 2006, 09:09 PM
if you hit a bone it's just going to splatter
Yeah, thats horse pucky even with good 'ol Remington Express ammo. I've been shooting 6mm (same diameter, slightly more fps) for 15+ years and I have never recovered a bullet and I have hit ribs, shoulders and spines; they all exited. Maybe he was talking at over 800 yards? :D I generally don't shoot at deer over 300 yards anyway, you can always get closer.
July 29, 2006, 09:19 PM
A bigger POS hasn't been offered to the gun-buying public in years. Get the Savage, or Stevens 200, or even a marked-down Remington 700 ADL. The 710 brings discredit to Remington's reputation.
If you can't abide the .243, either in .243 Winchester or .244 Remington, then by all means explore either the .260 Remington, .257 Roberts, 6.5x55 Swedish Mauser (As offered in the bargain Howa laminate sporter) or even the 7mm-08, all of which will have less recoil than the .270 Winchester, since the latter is based on the .30-06 Springfield.
July 29, 2006, 09:31 PM
A bolt action .243 can make your shoulder worse just as fast as a .270. There are gas operated semi-auto .243's out there though. Give you less felt recoil.
July 29, 2006, 10:32 PM
Yeah, first off, do yourself a favor and get a Stephens 200 or Mossberg 100ATR, if on that tight of a budget. Or for a little more (about the same as the 710), a Savage or Howa.
And definitely get the .243 win. It's been killing deer dead for decades, and is much easier on the shoulder. Just use good bullets (soft nose, etc), at least 85 grain, and on up to 107 gr. The 95 gr Federal Fusion is a good economical choice in a hunting bullet. It most certainly will NOT blow up when hitting bone - not a well-constructed bullet - it will penetrate plenty well to easily kill a deer with good shot placement. Just whatever you do, DON'T use light varmint bullets (80 grains or lighter). The .270 is a great cartridge, but overkill for deer unless you're trying to make some crazy super long range shots - then it'd be ideal for that.
July 29, 2006, 10:42 PM
Hornady 58-gr V-max Moly is a deadly coyote load, and shoots sub-MOA thru my rifle.
Six clicks adjustment and I can shoot 95-gr Winchester Ballistic Silvertip for larger pests, or 100-gr Remington Cor-Lokt PSPs for deer.
That just about covers anything that lives within my state.
Don't need any more rifle where I live, and it's comfortable to shoot.
As far as I know, there isn't a .270 bullet light enough for anything less than deer.
July 29, 2006, 10:53 PM
handled the 710 and aside from being a bit light it didn't feel cheap. Just how "bad" is it, I am looking for a decent rifle and for 335 I get the rifle and the scope from the rem at my local stop. Reasonable accuracy to me is fine, if the thing wont put five bullets through a quarter sized hole at several hundred yards I'm not going to be disapointed. I don't want crap but my needs and expectations don't require the best thing out there nor do I expect it for under 400 bucks. Is it that it's bad or is it just that there is better for the money spent?
I am definatly thinking of the .243. The .270 is tempting but I'm not just a hunter, I like range work and softer is better. As to what I can take I have a 30-30 that I shoot and it doesn't start hurt untill after I put at least five or six rounds through, depends though as I have good and bad days. Aside from the softer recoil the multi purpose for varmints and up to deer sized game makes it attractive as well.
Will look into the other rifles mentioned but would like to hear more on why the 710 isn't a good choice.
July 29, 2006, 11:02 PM
also since suggestions are going around what would be some more for the <400 range. It wont be for another paycheck or two so I have a little research time and may as well make use of it
July 29, 2006, 11:15 PM
Will look into the other rifles mentioned but would like to hear more on why the 710 isn't a good choice.Chintzy, cheap metal, cheaply made plastic, horrible bolt throw, bad metal coating, bad bolt system (forget the exact reason why, but they skimped in the "design" phase), cruddy barrel, and usually paired with cruddy bushnell scopes (or is it burris?)
For right around the $400 mark, there's some Savages made with heavy barrels, the accutrigger, scope combo. Meant for "varminting", but would be a pretty nifty rifle, sans the stock---kinda cheaply made plastic. Other than that, a decent gun---at the very least, much better than a 710.
July 29, 2006, 11:33 PM
Definitely get the Stevens 200, and get the .243.
I've shot/killed deer with just about all the above mentioned cartridges.
The .243 is as good as the best of them. It does shoot as flat as the .270 and 7mm Mag, with good bullets.
Ditto on the "problems" with the bullets from 20+ years ago.
The .243 kicks a bit less than the others, but it still does have "some" recoil, perhaps just a bit less than the .30/30 which it nearly duplicates for muzzle energy. It holds much more energy than .30/30 at longer ranges, though.
A "very" recoil sensative aquaintaince (he was 40+, was 5'2"tall, and weighed 130lbs, and had severe arthritis), was having issues with his Remington 742 in .243. I "fixed" that with some 85gr Nosler Partitions loaded down to minimum that rifle would cycle with.
Very little recoil, very accurate, very DEAD DEER, to past 300yds.
Just this past week I was working up some loads for a Stevens 200 that I won in a match back in early May..
I hadn't shot much .243 since late '70s, but my brother gave my nephew a Savage M110 for his 16th birthday. His really shoots well, so I decided to "keep" mine and I'm glad I did.
It shot most combinations to around 1.25-1.5" 5-shot groups at 100yds.
Then I tried RL-22, per the Nosler Manual recommendation
Whoo Hoo! First five shot group with 100gr Hornady Soft Pt Boat tail went 0.660" with 4 touching in clover leaf. Second group with Nosler 95gr Balistic Tip went 0.550"
Not bad for a $250.00 rifle and a $70.00 scope (BSA 4-16x Contender w/mildots).
The Barrels on the Remington 710 are not "screwed" in, in conventional manner. They are "pressed fitted" under high heat. They are generally good for 2-3" groups. They are intended to be a "promotional" gun. At the price point, the Stevens are Much Better, though they don't neccessarily look it.
I also have a Savage M110 in .300 RUM, that will also shoot at/under 1" 3-shot groups at 100yds with ammo it likes, which includes the Remington Factory 200gr ammo.
It too cost me under $250.00 (used).
I've got 2 Remington Mod-7's that I dearly love.... One in .223 w/18.5"bbl, and another in 7mm-08. Have killed 20+ deer with both.... But even with trigger work, rebedding actions- free floating barrels, ect. neither will shoot under 1.5" reliably. Though the .223 will occasionally with 3-shot groups. Triggers had to be replaced with aftermarket triggers.
The triggers on the Savages are very easy to work on for someone with experience in doing trigger work. The Remingtons are "riveted" together and are essentially "Tamper" proof, yes, the M-7's have some adjustments, but not much!. Hence, the large market for after-market triggers. It took me approx. 15min to get my Stevens a 2.75lb trigger, that I can easily adjust down to about 1.5lb, or up to a 7+lb trigger. And no, it dosen't have an Accu-trigger. I took me about 1.5hrs on the first one though......
A used one with a scope can be had around my parts for under $300.00.
July 29, 2006, 11:38 PM
if you are going to limit your upper size game to deer , then the 243 is fine, short action , stiffer, usually a little lighter, and i wouldnt say a 270 is longer or flatter, no way. I would prefer a old 6mm remmy over both of them though. One of the best, flattest , longest, non wildcat cartridges, ever made.
July 29, 2006, 11:40 PM
what do you mean by "press fitted" :scrutiny:
I might have to look into the stevens, seems to be the popular choice in the price range and I'm not liking what I'm hearing bout the 710 :o
July 30, 2006, 02:19 AM
Rem's 710 comes with the barrel hydraulically pressed into the action, so once the barrel is shot out, the entire gun is garbage because you can't get a replacement barrel. The gun is just cheap no matter how you look at it.
July 30, 2006, 02:35 AM
The Stevens is basically a Savage without the Accutrigger. You can easily replace the Stevens trigger with an excellent aftermarket for around $60. Plus barrel swaps, on the Savage/Stevens, are a piece of cake and you can turn your .243 into a .308, 7mm-08, 338-08, etc., if you want to later on. You can usually pick up a Savage factory, take off, barrel for $50. I don't recall if it was Sportmansguide, Bass Pro or Wally World but one of them frequently has the Stevens 200 priced, on sale, for $199.
July 30, 2006, 10:47 AM
handled the 710 and aside from being a bit light it didn't feel cheap. Just how "bad" is it, I am looking for a decent rifle and for 335 I get the rifle and the scope from the rem at my local stop. Reasonable accuracy to me is fine, if the thing wont put five bullets through a quarter sized hole at several hundred yards I'm not going to be disapointed.
With most 710s you'll be lucky to shoot a quarter sized group at 50 yards. The scopes they put on there are junk (and I am of the "cheap scope school", don't wanna spend more for a scope than I did for the rifle.)
For about $100-150 more you can get a Savage w/ Accutrigger, which is in an entirely different league than the 710.
If you DO buy a 710, and later want to sell it, you'll be lucky to find someone who will even want it...Whereas if you go with a "quality" rifle, you'll be able to get much more for it. So, buying the 710 is a "false economy"...
The 710s were made for the guy that goes out once a year deer hunting, which may be OK for some people. But if you wnat a quality gun, that'll last, and hold its value, take a step up to a better gun.
Edited to add: I'm a big fan of the .270, but the recoil in a gun of reasonable weight, like you'd wanna carry though the fields all day, will be SIGNIFICANTLY more than a .243. I had a Winchester Model 70 lightweight in .270, and it really kicked my butt. I popped my shoulder out a coupla years ago, and I'm now very recoils sensitive. Having said that, I persocally think the .243 is marginal for deer, unless you've got a "perfect" shot, where the .270 gives you a signifcant increase in power. Get the .270, and put a really good recoil pad on it.
July 30, 2006, 07:22 PM
Either the .243 or .270 is fine. My father has hunted with the .243 for years and has killed plenty of deer with it -- one shot, one kill. I've used the .270 for the last 3-4 years, and have have the same success.
The .270 was the remington model 710. Of all the combo packages I checked out, it felt the best in my hands. Also, at 100 yards, I could fire a three-shot group, cover one shot completely with my thumbnail, and still have the two other shots partially covered w/in my thumbnail. It may not be a $700 piece of equipment, but it sure works.
July 30, 2006, 07:52 PM
While both .243 and .270 are good choices, I always lean .270.
The .270 can be loaded down to .243 levels and with relatively similar bullet weights, with correspondingly light recoil, if necessary.
It is extremely flat shooting, as well: -33.3 inches at 500 yards with a 130 grain bullet is quite good. From 0-300 there is very little drop at all - what Chuck Hawks calls "point blank range" or something like that. Not to say .243 doesn't have a corresponding trajectory somewhere, but out at the farther ranges, the .270 retains more energy and velocity. According to Hornady.com, a .243 100 grainer has 1397 lbs of every at 200 yards (pretty far shot for most hunters), while the 150 grain .270 round has 2002 lbs. Pretty large difference. The .270 bullets (taking, for example, the Sierra GameKing line) have a better BC as well, for those longer shots.
I guess the point I'm trying to make is that the .270 is more versatile; while it can easily shoot lighter bullets and be used for coyotes or whatnot, it can also be used for Elk and larger game as well.
But I think you really would be hard-pressed to go wrong with this choice. Both have proven themselves as worthy calibers time and again.
Good luck, either way!
July 30, 2006, 11:02 PM
I'm thinking of going with a savage/stevens now in .243 after this thread and one on another forum I go to. Found a package deal that I didn't look much into cause of the suggested retail but seems it goes for well under it so going to look into it, has accutrigger and a simmons scope and should stay under 400, going to go gun fondeling on tuesday.
One side hunting question though.
The guy at the hardware store said his friend that uses .243 (also the one who said he doesn't trust a hundred grain bulelt to not break up on bone) does neck shots. Now I have heard this is a no no and chest shots are what you should always go for. Why is it neck shots are a no no exactally? Seems like cutting off the spine is the same as breaking the neck and woud be quick and humane and with the arteries it should bleed out sufficiantly? Also seems like it would do less meat damage cause aside from hamburger there isn't much in the neck, I know it would screw it up for mounting but Im not to interested in that. Why aren't neck shots alright?
July 30, 2006, 11:08 PM
I would not buy the low priced Remington line for the reasons mentioned above. If you go Remington, go with the Model 700 ADL for a lower price relative to the BDL version. Hard to beat these rifles. I also REALLY like the looks of the newer Savage models with walnut stocks. But they are over $400.
The Stevens will work.
Recoil with 243? You will notice some recoil. Years ago when I first starting shooting the 243, I was surprised with the amount of recoil. It was still manageable and no big deal, but it will bruise your shoulder if you shoot much.
You seem to be sold on the 243 for deer. So be it. We all learn as we grow in experience. Good luck.
The neck is a smaller target than the heart-lung area of the front shoulder. If you hit the front shoulder and break it, the deer will usually fall. Neck shots work well if you can make the shot on whitetails. Spine shots are even tougher, but will always be one-shot kills and the effect is immediate. I shot a whitetail once with a 243 on a running buck at 5 yds from the hip... dropped like a rock. It was my second shot and the deer ran straight toward me in the woods. I used to practice all the time with a 22 rifle that way and hunted rabbits with the 22 rifle frequently making jump shots.
July 30, 2006, 11:13 PM
I wouldn't call it sold, just convinced it will do the job if I do mine and seeing as this isn't going to be a one or two shot a year hunting only rifle but rather a paper puncher I will be familer with I see no reason why I wont do my end of the bargin. If it is a shot I just don't have the angle for I won't take it.
July 30, 2006, 11:21 PM
I have a Remington 700 CDL in .270 and I use Remington 115 grain Managed Recoil ammunition. The R3 recoil pad combined with this ammo makes the gun a pleasure to shoot at the range and VERY accurate at 100 yards... If you need a budget rifle, I would recommend you wait when Bass Pro Shops has a sale on Stevens 200 rifles in .270 or 30-06 for $199 during the Fall Classic which is coming up soon.....Either one of these rifles, with a Limbsaver type pad and the Managed Recoil ammo will be on par with a 100 grain .243 level recoil or less and therefore easy to shoot, even with a bum shoulder.....
July 30, 2006, 11:25 PM
no bass pro shops near me lol
going to see what this-http://www.savagearms.com/11fxp3.htm is going for at my local shops both listed as dealers so they should either have it or be able to get it easily enough. From what I am hearing it is generaly under 400 bucks and seems to be a good combo to fit my needs.
July 30, 2006, 11:26 PM
My dad bought me a Savage 110CL in .243 a few decades ago now. The Wisconsin whitetails I shot with it dropped in their tracks. I don't hunt much anymore, but a buddy dropped a Texas whitetail and a Texas hog in their respective tracks with it, so I guess it still works. :D
July 30, 2006, 11:28 PM
So where is that spot? Well, "the right spot" is a flexible concept. It depends on the angle of the deer as viewed by the hunter, how far the deer is from the hunter, whether or not the deer is calm, how solid a gun rest the hunter has available, and many other variables.
Just pulled this little tidbit from an article because I think it is appropriate to your question. It goes on to say that the neck shot is just fine if the right oppertunity presents itself. (as well as spine shots and head shots) I agree with that . The traditional shot allows for a larger margin of error , it is not the only option . The .243 can work just fine however shooting in the traditional kill zone - it doesn't require a neck shot to perform in my opinion.
Savage has earned a good reputation lately for accurate and reliable bolt guns. If the last one I purchased is represenitive ,then I also agree with that good reputation . I was pleased with mine , and I thjink they are indeed worth having.
July 30, 2006, 11:34 PM
so it is basically just a smaller margin of error?
If a neck shot was taken and you were off by a few inches from the spine yet still hit the neck what would happen? Would the energy still be enough to break the neck even without a direct hit? Would the possible hit to the windpipe and arteries still take the deer down quickly and humanly?
July 30, 2006, 11:48 PM
I have an old Winchester model 70 in .243cal that has, over the years, effectively and efficiently killed quite a few deer and pronghorn, and also a bunch of varmints. The .243 is one of those rounds that seems to work better than you would expect if you just look at ballistics. (I know a rancher in Montana that shoots elk with one but usually a cow for meat and never very far, however, I am not comfortable hunting elk with the .243) .
I would classify the .243 as perfect for pronghorn or coyotes, and at least adequate for deer.
I also have a .270 and a .300mag, but they don't kill em any deader than that old reliable .243.
July 30, 2006, 11:51 PM
It is possible that the trauma of a shot very close to the spine would "break the neck". But generally, you hare trying to hit arteries in the neck. It is a good shot, but I generally would not take it as my first choice.... go for the traditional kill zone around the front shoulders and you will be fine. Depends on the distance to the animal and the angle.
July 30, 2006, 11:51 PM
Would the energy still be enough to break the neck even without a direct hit? Would the possible hit to the windpipe and arteries still take the deer down quickly and humanly?
Most likely not.
Neck shots are dicey and should be avoided under most field conditions.
Heart, lungs, and maybe shoulder depending on angle= always a better choice.
July 30, 2006, 11:53 PM
I figured to go for the heart/lung anyway but just wanted to ask bout the neck
seemed at the very least like less meat damage, I'm not big on hamburger lol
July 30, 2006, 11:55 PM
going to see what this-http://www.savagearms.com/11fxp3.htm is going for at my local shops both listed as dealers so they should either have it or be able to get it easily enough. From what I am hearing it is generaly under 400 bucks and seems to be a good combo to fit my needs.
Just incase you didn't notice, they have that in 243 and 270WSM....WSM being Winchester SHort Magnum.....not the same as a 270. Just an FYI. I can't speak for the 270WSM, but there are way too many short mags coming out for the market to sustain in factory ammunition so some will become hard/expensive to obtain in the future unless you handload. Again, I don't know about the 270WSM.
July 30, 2006, 11:59 PM
the 111FXP3 is the long action version but other then that same thing and comes in .270. Since I am pretty much leaning to the .243 I put the one in .243 :)
July 31, 2006, 12:07 AM
Go with a Savage. Don't bother with the package rifles, the scopes, well..nearly junk.
Don't go with the 270, due to your shoulder. They kick...a LOT...most of the 270's with sporter barrels are lighter rifles, for packing while hunting. There is a lot of recoil. I have shot, at least 20 different rifles in 270 caliber. They all kick. I have a Rem 700, with the limbsaver, helps...but there is still recoil (I am not small either....and shoot a lot!!).
Go with the 243 and buy a limbsaver, it will help some as well. If you plan to hunt, stay away from the varmint barrels, the 8+ pound rifles get heavy quick.
.....and don't listen to that salesman again....ever.
July 31, 2006, 12:14 AM
I already know not to listen to salemen, hence why I ask you fine folks lol
Doubt it was sale driven though and was more personal opinion, the rifle I was looking at (710) pretty much lowest price in the place, same price reguardless of caliber, and the .243 ammo is more expensive then their .270 ammo. Either way I know not to listen to one or two people, esspecialy ones behind counters.
As far as scopes being nearly junk I am in the less expensive scope crowd and don't go much for the high dollar ones, and if I don't liek the scope I still have the rifle at a good price a spare scope and can just buy a new one.
Just another thought but.... If you mainly plan to punch paper, and take shots at dogs, then think about a Savage or Stevens in .223. Cheaper ammo and non exsistent recoil that you literally could shoot all day without fatigue/sore shoulder.
If deer is still on the list, then I would still go with the .243. Or purchase a 243 or 7mm-08 barrel to swap out for deer hunting but use the 223 for everything else. You could get another barrel, and all the tools needed for barrel swaps, for under $175.
July 31, 2006, 11:22 AM
I'd second the recommendation of getting a .270 and using Remington's Managed Recoil ammunition.
I used this ammunition in a .30-06 last season and shot four deer dead as bricks with four shots. Recoil was very mild--less than a 30-30, just as the ads say.
Then if you decide you want a "beefier" load, you can use standard .270 ammunition.
Whatever you decide on, good luck!
July 31, 2006, 12:32 PM
Having shot several antelope and deer with the 243 and 270 I will say the 270 without a doubt has more recoil than the 243 in the same rifle. I am going by memory so allow me some leeway, the 270 with a 130 grain bullet has about 17 ft pounds of recoil and the 243 with 100 grain bullet has about 12 ft. pounds of recoil. Both shoot equally flat at hunting ranges. For target work, I believe there are very good Sierra match bullets available for a 243/6mm. For a 270, I don't recall any. If you limit hunting to no larger than deer, a 243 is fine, but get Nosler 95 grain partition bullets. The Noslers will penetrate and that is what you want. I have had 100 grain Federals blow up on Antelope shoulders. Then you have an merry many mile chase.
I won't comment on the Remington 710, I don't know anything about it.
I will say a little more rifle weight rather than a little less weight is what I prefer. That helps me steady on a target.
July 31, 2006, 08:22 PM
ok went gun fondeling and have settled on a Rem 700 with scope combo likely in .270 since I can use the reduced recoil factory loads, according to the people at both shops the reduced recoil 270 ammo will have less recoil then the 243 would. And price is right at 429 plus tax :) little over the maximum I wanted to set for myself but they have a layaway and with 60 days to pay it off it shouldn't be any problem at all.
I forget the exact dang model already (been long day before gun fondeling) was synthetic stock and had the slightly lessor quality recoil pad then the more expensive 700's.
Going to go do the paperwork and get that puppy on layaway on friday or saturday :D
July 31, 2006, 08:24 PM
Were I in your shoes Mr. Lupinus, I'd shop for a better quality used rifle and open up the chambering choices to any of the mid range rounds, including .243, 6mm Remington, 260 Remington, 7mm-08, 7x57, 257 Roberts, etc, and focus on getting a decent rifle. The chambering is actually pretty low on the totem pole of what one should be looking for in a rifle. Higher items on the totem pole include fit, a good trigger, decently smooth action, weight, sights (whether irons or telescopic, sights are pretty important), magazine blind, detachable, hinged floorplate?), safety type and location (read ergonomics here) and a bore that has been properly cared for and is not worn out. IMHO, the better quality used rifles include Remington 700's, Winchester 70's, Ruger 77's, Browning A-Bolts, and Weatherby's. If I had a bad shoulder, I would stay away from the light weight end of the spectrum and get a full sized and weight rifle in any of the above calibers and hang a decent scope on it. You'll spend about the same $$$$ and have more rifle at the end of the day, it will hold up, a decent scope will hold zero and your shoulder won't get beat to a pulp either.
But if you have your heart set on new and nothing else will do, Savage or Stevens have it all over the 710.
July 31, 2006, 08:26 PM
the 700 fit me very well and am goin with that and am likely gonna stick with the .270 and use reduced recoil loads
July 31, 2006, 08:32 PM
Go w/ the .270, and go w/ a REMINGTON 700. I have yet to be dissapointed w/ mine. Shoots great, feels good, looks good as well.
July 31, 2006, 09:18 PM
I can definitely agree on going with a Rem. 700, but have you looked at what the actual difference (ie: velocity (fps), energy, etc.) between the reduced-recoil .270 ammo and full-power .243 ammo would be?? I haven't looked up the numbers, but I would almost bet that a .270 with reduced-recoil ammo won't be much more, ballistically speaking, than a .243.
July 31, 2006, 09:29 PM
not sure but at the least I can use the reduced recoil for my paper punching and the full power for hunting
I can take the recoil, I jsut can't take much of it. So for hunting where I would only be taking one maybe two shots if I happen to screw up it isn't going to be a problem, but with paper punching it would be for obvious reasons.
The only bad thing is the recoil pad isn't as good as the mroe expensive models, that cna be easily enough fixed however.
July 31, 2006, 09:47 PM
I can feel the pain - re: your bad shoulder, I have 2 bad ones as well. I'm still sticking with my Rem. CDL 30-06 for deer hunting, but I don't think it will be long before I get something a little lighter. My CDL has the R3 recoil pad but I can't really see much difference in the kick vs. a normal thick recoil pad. The .270 is an excellent round, no question, but when you have to choke it down with the managed recoil ammo, it takes away all the reasons for owning a .270 IMHO. However, if you went with a .243 in the same Rem. 700, especially with the 1-9.25 twist barrel, you would have a rifle that would be not only excellent for deer (I've killed MANY with a .243), you also have a terrific varmint rifle, or paper-puncher for that matter. With the 9.25" twist, there is a tremendous amount of factory ammo for any concievable type of shooting you may want to do. BTW, I have a ballistic chart comparing the .270 managed-recoil ammo vs. the full power .243. If you would like me to e-mail it to you, just let me know.
July 31, 2006, 09:52 PM
true, but liek I said one or two shots wont be a problem it is only paper punching and therefor a lot of rounds where recoil is going to be a problem and I am figureing to use the reduced recoil for my paper punching and the full power for any hunting I do. I still might go with the .243 but I am definatly looking into the .270 a bit more with the managed recoil.
July 31, 2006, 09:58 PM
Find something with a BOSS and wear good hearing protection. ;)
My .280 featherweight is a pussycat. Scares people at the range though. :evil:
July 31, 2006, 10:18 PM
I gave up trying to get that comparison file on here so I sent it to your e-mail...
July 31, 2006, 10:28 PM
Good choice Lupinus. If I were you and liked to shoot, I would begin thinking about getting a 223 rifle for paper punching and varminting. It can wait until you are ready financially. A lot of people really like the 204 Ruger. The 22 hornet is making a comeback too these days. But the 223 is hard to beat for general shooting out to 200-250 yds or so. I really want to get a 22 Hornet and the Savage may be the ticket; but I prefer a box magaziine over a single shot.
July 31, 2006, 10:36 PM
yeah while it might have been cheaper I dislike single shot rifles esspecialy if I plan on hunting with it. If I do mess up and need a followup shot I want it to be quick, not to take forever
July 31, 2006, 10:54 PM
I'd suggest .243 or even better 260 Remington.
August 1, 2006, 07:09 PM
Good point on the 260 Rem.. I hadn't thought of it but it's definitely one of the best, although too often overlooked, calibers out there. Very light recoil for the amount of umph you get out of it. As a matter of fact, I'm considering an Ackley-ized version of the .260 for a second 1,000-yrd. benchrest rifle to go along with my 6.5-284.
August 1, 2006, 08:06 PM
rechecked the add btw
700 ADL synthetic stock combo with a 3-9 40mm scope to be exact about it
And 399, I need to recheck adds before posting I really do :o
August 2, 2006, 11:13 AM
That little REMI 270 ADL is just great. :) I am hitting three-round groups at 75-125 yards that can be covered up with a nickel to a half-dollar every time. :fire:
It will be this seasons Whitetail Slayer for sure. :what: You know it won't be long until the will be on us. :eek: Practice, practice, practice,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
August 2, 2006, 10:58 PM
just out of curiosity cause it is a question in the back of my mind
whats the recoil like in a 7mm rem mag?
Not planning on it just more out of curiosity then anything
August 2, 2006, 11:14 PM
I think 7mm Remington Magnum and .30-06 are very similar in felt recoil when shot from similar rifles. Maybe a slight edge to the 7mm. Neither are what I would call punishing until you get in the light rifles from the bench.
August 2, 2006, 11:21 PM
whats the recoil like in a 7mm rem mag?
All other things being equal it can be quite stout. The first 7MM mag I fired was a Herters Mauser action that I had bought in their close out section for $25 and mounted in a $10 seconds stock bought from them also. I had just left the plastic checkered butt plate on the stock when going out to test fire this gun. After two rounds I peeled back my shirt to a big red checked blotch on my shoulder. Recoil was more than the 30-06 I had been shooting that's for sure .
Lots of variables however are built into the guns that effect the felt recoil. The weight of the gun, the butt pad, stock drop and how the gun fits you in general are some of the things that will effect felt recoil. There are also compensators like the KDF systems that in fact do work, and make a significant step toward taming recoil. My friends Remington 700 in 7mm Mag is fitted with a KDF and I would compare it to a 270 in recoil - perhaps less.
August 2, 2006, 11:36 PM
Check out this site (http://www.accuratereloading.com/recoil.html) for a very entertaining recoil table. According to this, the .270 recoils like a .308, and the .243 at least 30% less.
I vote for the .243, but then I'm a self professed recoil sissy anyways.
August 2, 2006, 11:42 PM
yeah but the .270 can use hotter loads with heavier bullets when I'll be doing one or two shots for hunting, and managed recoil loads would bring it below standard .243.
Plus the .270 is on sale for fifty bucks off :D
August 3, 2006, 11:00 AM
got it on layaway, glad I went today the place was packed and none of the guns that are on sale are gonna last long at the rate they are selling, never seen a gun counter that busy before.
August 3, 2006, 03:54 PM
Congratulations on your new Rem. 270! As far as calibers go, it definitely fits in that often talked about senario "If I could only own just one caliber..." The great Jack O'Connor certainly put the .270 through its paces during his illustrious career and often spoke about it as the best all-around caliber ever made.
BTW, I don't know if you've seen them or not but you can buy a recoil pad that fits over your shoulder and is held in place with a strap system similar to a shoulder holster rig for a handgun. You can wear them under your hunting jacket, they're not too bulky and are comfortable enough to wear all day. I had one I used to use when I was developing loads for my .300 Wthby. mag. and they did a good job with the recoil from it. BTW, a .300 Wthby. will really kick your butt when you are shooting it off the bench for a couple hours at a time!! You can get them from MidwayUSA, Mid-South Shooters Supply, etc.. Be careful & enjoy!!!
August 3, 2006, 04:23 PM
BTW, I don't know if you've seen them or not but you can buy a recoil pad that fits over your shoulder and is held in place with a strap system similar to a shoulder holster rig for a handgun. You can wear them under your hunting jacket, they're not too bulky and are comfortable enough to wear all day.
PAST Recoil Reduction. Great stuff...
August 3, 2006, 11:08 PM
going back tomorrow when I get paid to pick up various little stuff, I just wanted to get it on layaway before they ran out. I saw several of the 12 on sale go before I got my chance to get ahold of one of the counter guys, and only 5 of those 12 were 270's. And I was there when the door opened and in the first group to the counter, in an hour they must have sold literaly fifty guns the place was a madhouse and people were buying up the little single shot 17hmr rossi's they had on sale like hot cakes. So since it was that busy I'm glad I got there early when I did cause I wouldn't be surprised if there is none left when I go in tomorrow for the other stuff.
Going to check out the lead sled they have on sale for 99 bucks and see if they have any shoulder recoil pads, this way I can shoot a good amount of time with my 30-30 too and I don't wanna stick a recoil pad on that.....something about a recoil pad on a levergun just seems wrong lol.
August 4, 2006, 12:13 AM
Did you buy the .270 because it was on sale, or because it's what you decided was best for you..? :scrutiny:
The ADL models are on sale nationwide now because they've been discontinued. The .243 chambering included. They are replaced by the SPS line, with R3 recoil pads (Limbsaver), and reconfigured stocks.
With the .243, you wouldn't have had to spend an additional $150 on a lead sled and high tech expensive recoil pads, plus reduced recoil ammo! :D
My local dealer was blowing them out for $319, but the Stevens 200 was still $279... with a better stock and barrel.
August 4, 2006, 04:37 AM
I'm a lefty and I like the Ruger 77. The safety location is perfect for me. Other than a .308 I'd have a .270.
August 4, 2006, 12:25 PM
Well, you don't have to spend MORE to get a better rifle - you can spend LESS - the Mossberg 100 ATR and the Stephens 200 - why would you spend more to get a less-well-made 710? Either one of these two will shoot just a good or better than the 710, particularly the Stephens.
August 5, 2006, 02:32 AM
I'd say the remington adl 270 is your best choice. One word: versatility. You can use rediced recoil to match the 243, you can try out the full power ammo to see if its too bad, what if you want to hunt something bigger one day? You can be better equipped with a 270 for elk, bear, etc, with the 270.
I don't think the recoil would be as bad as you think in full power 270.
BTW, stay away from the 710 model. Complete junk that don't deserve the remington name.
August 5, 2006, 02:41 AM
Haven't read the entire thread (sorry), and this is just an opinion
not based in experience but much pre-buy research.
As for caliber, listen to Steelhead:
However, if you are looking to take the performance up a couple notches without significantly increasing recoil - take a look at the 7mm-08...That 7mm08 has ostensibly has all of the velocity, power and trajectory of the 270 (http://www.remington.com/Products/Ammunition/Ballistics/choose_specific_loads.aspx?c1=17&c2=19&c3=9),
(with way more than the .243) but with less punch. (Nicer on that wounded shoulder.)
And listen to those advising against the 710: chintzy is putting it politely.
Go with a higher quality Remington, Savage, Browning or even a (gasp) Tikka.
For example, here's an article on the Rem M7 in 7mm08 (http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3197/is_n3_v34/ai_7506379).
Here's the skivvy on the Browning A-bolt Stainless Stalker (http://www.browning.com/products/catalog/firearms/detail.asp?value=001B&cat_id=035&type_id=008),
which is for me running neck and neck with the Rem M7.
Remember: just an opinion. No truth implied.
Free advice is worth exactly what you pay for it.
August 5, 2006, 02:44 AM
I do agree that a 260 or 7mm-08 would be a great rifle for you. I really like the 257 roberts too. It's jusa step up from the 243.
The rifle that would best suit you IMO though is a good ole 25-06. Shoots very flat, will do great on deer and has considerably less recoil than a 270. A 25-06 is an awesome all around cartridge as most will probably agree. I had'nt seen it mentioned yet unless I missed it.
August 5, 2006, 05:36 PM
I got it because that is the caliber I decided to go with after thinking it over. The better power and capability for larger game made me go for it instead of the .243. That and I am pretty well sure that with the lead sled I got or the shoulder recoil pad I will do just fine, esspecialy when using the lead sled for bench rest shooting like I do mostly anyway. Would be doing the same thing from a rest so why not jump to a lead sled and not feel so much of the recoil. Its not that my shoulder can't take it, its that it can't take a lot of it, hell with a 30-06 I'd probably be fine with one or two shots, its paper punching with a lot of shots where my shoulder becomes an issue.
August 6, 2006, 12:02 AM
Lupinus, my point was "You can't take the lead sled to the field or deer stand with you." You made no mention of benchrest performance and recoil in your original post. You asked what would suit you better for deer.
I didn't mean to offend, and if I did, I apologize.
August 6, 2006, 12:31 AM
no offense at all, just clarifying what my needs are a bit better. Recoil I can take, just not over and over agian, in the field this isn't a problem.
And it better stay that way cause I bought 200 rounds for it already lol
August 6, 2006, 03:06 AM
You might would have found a 25-06 to be the better rifle you the type of shooting you like to do. Its flatter shooting and less recoiling than a 270. But, at least you did'nt go with the 243:D
August 6, 2006, 11:34 AM
I wanted to add that the 243 is an excellent caliber. However, you didn't go wrong with the 270. It is my favorite whitetail caliber. Here is my typical caliber choice that covers a wide range of hunting activities: 22LR--223--243--270--300 WM--338--375. You have rifles chambered in these and you can hunt anything in North America from taking small game, varmints, whitetail deer in mulitple environments, long plains shots on antelope or mule deer, elk within any reasonable range, big horn sheep in the mountains, moose, to the biggest brown bear or grizzly in Alaska or Canada. Obviously the larger calibers can be loaded down for smaller game, but I'm talking normal factory ammo. If I were cutting rifles, I would go 223--270--300WM--375. (The 338 would substitute for the 300WM if you can tolerate the recoil but has more versatility.) For eastern hunters the 300 WM will get little use until that long planned for elk hunt, or a black bear hunt just because you have it vs the 270. 375 will sit in the safe until you head for Alaska in a dream hunt. Western hunters will lean toward 223--300WM--375. The 22LR is for everyone. The 338 is the enigma; still looking at that one as it kicks a lot without much gain over the 300WM/7mm size, but it could be used for grizz, moose, and elk, hence its utility.
There are so many calibers available. I have always liked the 22 Hornet (but why not a 204 Ruger?), the 22-250 or 25-06 (25-06 for deer too) for long range varmints, 280, 30-06, 308 all great calibers and you just substitute them for another choice. I also like the 35 Whalen and the 7x57. The 35 Whalen never got popular, but it is a heck of a deer caliber to elk size. The 30-30 and 35 Rems are okay, I just lean to calibers that have more range and flatter trajectory.
The 30-30 is great in a Contender for deer.
Everyone has their preferances as do I. If I were still shooting groundhogs, I'd have a 22-250.
August 6, 2006, 11:38 AM
Neither, .308. It will do everything both of these together will do.
August 6, 2006, 05:07 PM
and recoil more while being to much for smaller game that the .243 or a light .270 loading wont be.
August 6, 2006, 05:42 PM
For a true "one cartridge does all", the .308 would have been an excellent choice.
.308 actually does recoil less than a 270 (but not significantly so) and there are loads available for varmiting and all the way up to include elk/moose/black bears. Although, it isn't really known as a very good paper punching cartridge........:D Cheap ammo too....
August 7, 2006, 10:43 AM
Well the .270 is a great choice, I'm also a .243 fan.
I was going to say untill I reached page 4, but I'll suggest it anyway - if someone can't decide between the two consider the 25-06.
August 8, 2006, 12:07 AM
I think a 270 is a more "do it all" cartridge than a .308 Especially in lighter loads. Those small 308 cal bullets have a crappy Ballistic Coefficient. Not good on the small end as the 270. Not much more than the 270 in bigger bullets either.
August 8, 2006, 12:59 AM
lighter, faster, powerful (enough).
long action:short action.
comparison of 308-270-7mm08 here (http://www.remington.com/products/ammunition/ballistics/comparative_ballistics_results.aspx?data=RL3081*R308W1*R308W7*R270W1*RL270W2*R270W2*R270W4*R7M082*R7M081).
i'll still take the .308 for availability after the SHT_.
November 30, 2007, 03:47 PM
i have a question for you all how much less of a kick does a .270 have?
November 30, 2007, 03:51 PM
The .270win recoils pretty close to a 30-06 with similiar weight bullets. The .270's recoil is a little lighter but not too much of a difference.
December 2, 2007, 03:21 PM
There is a significant difference in recoil to me between my .270 with wood stock and 130 grain winchester super x bulletscompared to .30-06 with synthetic stock, especially with 180 grain bullets winchester 180 grain pills..
December 2, 2007, 06:45 PM
Thats why I specified similiar bullet weights. Even in the same type of rifle, the 180gn will most likely have more recoil than the 130gn. Since heavier rifles soak up some of the recoil instead of transfering it to the shooter, I have no doubt that wood stocked .270 with lighter bullets recoils less than the synthetic stocked 30-06 with heavy bullets. What I meant in my original post was that given two rifles of roughly equal weight, shooting equal weight bullets, the recoil is going to be very similiar between a .270win and a 30-06.
If you enjoyed reading about ".243 or .270?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!