caliber selection: .243 Win or .270 Win?


PDA






Magwa45
December 22, 2006, 11:20 PM
I have almost decided on a rifle, Rem 700 SPS, leaning toward the .270 Win. For a while I borrowed an old Rem ADL in .270 and really liked the way it shot. I reload and made up some light loads, 100 gr. Hornady SP. That would make a good smaller game load, i.e. coyotes or plinking at the range. But I thought about a .243 would fill that role better. The only thing is a really deer stopper is desireable. So maybe I have answered my own question. Is there a real solid deer stopper in .243? Maybe the Nosler Partition or a Barnes XLC? Beyond that there is the scope question. A Bushnell 3200 Elite would save $100 over a VXII. Are those .270 light loads good for teaching a kid how to shoot centerfire? I guess we could get him his own rifle when he's ready.

Back here deer hunting is almost exclusively shotgun slugs, unless you take to the hills with a good rifle. But I want to pursue that game. Plus maybe make a trip out of state sometime to plug some feral hogs and other game. I figure .270 with 150 gr. is good for black bear too.

Anyway, any advice/experience would be appreciated. Thanks,

Magwa in MD

If you enjoyed reading about "caliber selection: .243 Win or .270 Win?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Jackal
December 22, 2006, 11:39 PM
In my opinion, the .270 is really a pointless caliber. It does nothing that the 30-06 or .308 can't do. Recoil is a slight bit less, but most .270 loads I have fired feel much like a .308. The .243 on the other hand really is a great caliber. It can be ideal for everything from varmints to deer/predators and has practically zero recoil in a 8+lb rifle. Bottom line? Skip the .270 and go for the .243. Or, step up to a .308. Another problem with the .270, is factory ammo cost. It is quite pricey compared to more mainstream rounds.

ArchAngelCD
December 22, 2006, 11:46 PM
If you're looking for a deer rifle then you really should go for the .270. I like the .270 a lot and get a lot of lip from the 30-06 guys about it but the .270 is a better deer stopper than the .243. The .243 will do the job on deer but just not as well as a .270 will.

You said you reload so that's even more a a reason to buy a .270 since you can make up some light stuff if you find the need to clear out some varmints. Even if you didn't reload your own rounds there are factory loads available for the .270 in 100, 115, 130, 140 and 150 grain. On the other hand, I like the .308 better than the .270 or the 30-06. You might want to look at a .308

Geno
December 22, 2006, 11:49 PM
the .243 Win is an excellent round, however, according to the professionals, it tends to be picky regarding powders. Mine was.

I have had several .270s and none have been picky. The all-round best load of the .270 Win is 60 grains of H4831 under a 130 grain bullet and a F210 primer. If this load does not group sub-MOA for you especially in a neck-sized-only reload, something is wrong with the rifle. I have never seen this load group over 1 MOA in a good quality rifle. I have seen many rifles group .25 MOA with it.

By the way, if you get the .270, get at least a 24 inch barrel. It was designed for a 26" barrel. Take a look at T/C Pro Hunter with its 28" barrel it should be a genuine barn-stormer. I am thinking of adding that very barrel for my Pro Hunter.

In the end, you make the call. Good luck and let us know.

Edit to add: they also produce 160 grain bullets. :)

Doc2005

sacp81170a
December 22, 2006, 11:50 PM
Boy, did you just open a can o' worms. Why not compromise a little and get a .25-06? Great little round. I used a Remington 700 in .25-06 for everything from prairie dogs to antelope to mulies on the plains of eastern Wyoming. It has an advantage over the .243 of being able to handle bullet weights up to 120 gr. as opposed to 100 gr. Try the Speer Grand Slam in 120 gr. for deer and the Hornady 75 gr. V-Max for varmints. CAUTION: If you're shooting varmints and you want to keep the hide, use a 100-115 grainer in FMJ. This will kill coyotes and fox cleanly without tearing up the pelt like a V-Max will.

I'd go for the .270 if you want to hunt anything tougher than a mule deer. Then again, I've just pretty much said, "step up to a .30 caliber" haven't I?

LHB1
December 22, 2006, 11:58 PM
IMO, the .270 is one of the all time great hunting calibers. It can easily handle bullet weights from 90 grains (varmints) thru 150 grains (deer, black bear, elk, etc.) with modest recoil. The velocity and trajectory are excellent making it very good at long range as well as short range. The .243/6mm is also a great caliber and I have killed a number of deer with it but again IMO it is primarily a varmint/small deer cartridge. The .270 provides a larger margin of power, performance, and punch for larger game. YMMV. Choose the one you like and use it within its capabilities. Good hunting.

Good shooting and be safe.
LB

ps: My long range hunting caliber these days is a .25/06 which sort of splits the difference between .243 and .270. My short range hunting caliber (100 yds or less) is a .44 Mag in S&W M629 Classic pistol with 2X EER scope.

rockstar.esq
December 23, 2006, 12:13 AM
Well I'd go with the .270 because if you're bent on something smaller than .30 cal you should at least get better velocities out of the heavier projectiles. Although I'm not a .270 fan, I do think it's a good choice considering it's one of precisely THREE .270 caliber commercial chamberings! Aside from the Short magnum and the Weatherby there isn't another .270 that made it to legitimization. I view the .243 the same way I view the 7mm-08, as less useful than the .308 winchester and less powerful than their longer action counterparts. Plus you stand a FAR better chance of finding 270 win on the shelves of stores than the .243! Plus the .270 has way more commercial loadings which is helpfull to the non handloader.

22-rimfire
December 23, 2006, 12:40 AM
I will give you my common sense suggestions on the 270 vs 243 scenario posed. First, you don't need a 243 as the 270 is a much better deer caliber which has some flexibility to take game larger than a whitetail deer. It will take out the larger varmints, but another caliber would be better. 243 sure, but it is also a bit oversized for most varmint shooting. I would go with a 223 (since the 222 has lost some favor) for varmints which would be effective to most practical distances needed. Heck, most varmints can be taken with a rimfire, but you are more restricted on distance.

My first centerfire rifle was a 243. Why? Same rationale you are looking at... I wanted a deer rifle and a varmint rifle as I could not afford both. It worked, but the 243 is too much power for a varmint rifle and just a bit undersized as a deer rifle caliber. The 243 is in fact not a good stand alone choice for either. I later bought a 270 Remington BDL. Still my primary deer rifle. I would buy another one if I lost this one.

My dilemma is do I really need the 223? Why not just get a 22WMR rifle or perhaps a 17Rem.? Answer... extended range of the 223, but I would also get a 22WMR too and use the tool that fits the job at hand. Use the least amount of power to accomplish the objective, but with adequate force and effect.

You could argue the merits of a rifle in 300 win mag or 300 WSM as being the more flexible caliber... most would agree that it is just too much gun for varmints and probably too much gun for whitetail deer at normal ranges. Throw elk into the equation, and you could convince your self that the 300 is the way to go, but your shoulder will thank you for not making this choice.

ArchAngelCD
December 23, 2006, 12:53 AM
22-rimfire,
I can't agree with your choice of .223 (or even.222) for varmints. The 22-250 is a much better round for that job hands down.

22-rimfire
December 23, 2006, 01:03 AM
I can live with the 22-250. Great caliber for wood chucks!!

Jackal
December 23, 2006, 01:29 AM
The .243 is my primary varmint round. No 'yote has lived after 1 shot. I would buy both. Buy a cheap .243 for varmints and a decent .308 for deer+.

Powder_Burn
December 23, 2006, 03:30 AM
I dropped 2 deer this year in their tracks using the Hornady SST 95gr Light Magnum in .243. If you use premium ammo, you will not have trouble with deer and will have a more appropriate varmint round all in one gun.

Essex County
December 23, 2006, 12:21 PM
I'd go with the .270. It works well on deer+ anywhere in the country, and it's still very varmit capable. I've always had at least one .243 around, but tend to see it as most suitable for varmits. I fully realize that multitudes of folks swear by it as poisen on whitetails..........Essex

BigFatKen
December 23, 2006, 12:32 PM
In my opinion, the .270 is really a pointless caliber.

Tell this to the late/geat hunter and writer Jack O'Conner who owned 28 .270s. A .270 150 gr bullet has everything over a .30, 150gr. Better BC, penetration, less wind drift

I sold my .30-06 years ago and never looked back. I still shoot my 1976 .25-06

I need a new scope more than the rifle does. My rifle loves the 117gr spbt by Serria bullet

one-shot-one
December 23, 2006, 12:41 PM
inside 200 yards on deer or smaller either will do. past 200 yards and on larger game the .270 gets my nod plus i would feel more comfortable taking quartering shots with the .270. really boils down to how difficult you want to make your hunt. deer have been taken with handguns, bow&arrow and .22's (unlawful in most places). haveing bigger, faster chamberings just allow you to take advantage of shots that you might have to pass up with lesser rounds.

.38 Special
December 23, 2006, 12:41 PM
Boy, talk about a difference of opinion! I'll make my contribution short: just look at Jackal's opening post, take the opposite of every single thing he said, and you'll have my opinion. :D

dfaugh
December 23, 2006, 01:04 PM
I've always been a fan of the .270 as an "all-around caliber". Maybe I read too much Jack O'Conneer when I was younger. But essentially the is nothing the .270 cannot do that any other caliber can do. On the converse side, other calibers may not give you quite what you can do witha .270.

270Win
December 23, 2006, 01:37 PM
+1 to .270 ;)

wingman
December 23, 2006, 01:54 PM
In my younger days deer hunting in the east I made a number of one shot
kills using a model 70 win in 243, 85 gr hp reloads. Most were under 200
yards however I'm a believer in the 243 and shot placement accuracy.

.38 Special
December 23, 2006, 01:59 PM
IMO, the .243 is great for deer if

A) You keep ranges reasonably short, like <250 yards

B) You use the best bullets available

C) You wait for "perfect" shots, ie. broadside at an unalarmed animal.

D) You have carefully prepared your own ability and KNOW you can slip that little bullet into the heart and lungs.

Lots of folks are apparently unable and/or unwilling to accept those limitations. That's why I'm not much of a .243 fan.

highlander 5
December 23, 2006, 02:07 PM
If Ruger still makes it an M77MKii in 250 Savage

Eat Beef
December 23, 2006, 06:21 PM
+1 on the 243 is fine for deer inside of 200ish yards.

If you think you'll ever want something that will reach out farther than that, you might want something bigger.

I've had a 270 since I was 13, it was the first centerfire I owned (Before that, I used Daddy's 243). I love that rifle, and would never let it go, but if I lost it , I prolly wouldn't go with another 270, but that's mainly because it's too close to the 308, and I already have a pile of them laying around.

Bottom line is, there is no such thing as one perfect rifle for everything. It's going to take several.;)

aspade
December 23, 2006, 06:31 PM
IMO, the .270 makes a somewhat better coyote rifle than the .243 does a deer rifle. But if you're willing to look outside those two calibers, splitting the difference with a .257 or 6.5mm of one variety or another would be a better compromise.

Remington doesn't chamber as many midrange calibers as they ought to, but they do make the SPS Stainless in .25-06.

Lambo119
December 23, 2006, 10:26 PM
If anyone says different see if they have the credentials to trump Jack O'Conner's vote. :neener:

Shawnee
December 23, 2006, 10:32 PM
Get the .243.

Not even Jack O'Conner ever killed a deer or coyote with "credentials".

:neener:
:D

Lambo119
December 23, 2006, 10:43 PM
Ouch! :D

Geno
December 25, 2006, 04:23 PM
Which is the better all-round, big-game cartridge: the .270 Win or the .30-06 Sprg? This battle has raged for decades!

:evil:

Doc2005

Magwa45
December 27, 2006, 12:19 AM
I am now set on the .270 Winchester. It is just a matter of scraping together the cash for the Rem 700 SPS. Thanks for all your advice!

Slide45
December 27, 2006, 12:55 AM
My vote is for the 270, she is my favorite, 130 in winchester silvertips. Easy to shoot no kick. Two Bucks and a doe so far this year. None of them took a step after the shot. Just mo
HAPPY NEW YEAR!!

rangerruck
December 27, 2006, 01:56 AM
if i had to choose, id go 270 , between these two.

rbernie
December 27, 2006, 10:42 AM
In my opinion, the .270 is really a pointless caliber. It does nothing that the 30-06 or .308 can't do.Actually, it does. :)

The 270 can shoot a 150gr bullet (roughly equal in SD to a 180gr 308) far flatter than the 30-06 or 308 can shoot that 180gr bullet. We're not talking a half inch at 300 yards; we're talking three plus inches difference (depending on the bullets being used). The 270 is just enough of everything without too much of anything.

There are a few chamberings (e.g. 6.5/284 or 6.5mm-06) that can best the 270 in the SD and BC game. But for a factory chambering with ammo available everywhere, the 270 is one of the most versatile, flattest shootin' game chamberings you can find.

Specific to the question at hand; it's easier to use the 270 as a varmint gun than it is to use a 243 on larger game. The 243 is fine for whitetail, but runs out of steam pretty quickly as the deer get larger.

IMO, the .270 makes a somewhat better coyote rifle than the .243 does a deer rifle. Exactly.

For what it's worth - I have two 700SPS SS bolt guns, one in 270 and one in 25-06. The 25-06 is for the smaller stuff and the 270 is for the larger stuff. But either can be used in a pinch for anything between coyote and mulies.

.38 Special
December 27, 2006, 11:23 PM
IMO, the .270 makes a somewhat better coyote rifle than the .243 does a deer rifle.
That really is a helluva line.

moody22
December 29, 2006, 01:54 AM
Great choice Magwa45. I got the same thing but in stainless and love it. The .270 is a great caliber for many different animals to hunt.

gezzer
December 29, 2006, 10:21 PM
Never believed the college professor Jack O'Connor and his 270 fit every thing.

Elmer Keith was more to my liking 270 good varmint cartridge for deer and blackies the 333OKH or its modern equivalent the 338/06 for starters.

gunslinger15
December 29, 2006, 10:44 PM
+ 1 on 270

Flattest shooting round I've ever owned. Never once has a dear been shot with mine that hasnt dropped in their tracks. Same goes for yotes. Ive even taken several unlucky pararie dogs with that gun out past 200 yards. :neener: I do however also like the 308 but wont be trading my 270 for one. All around great caliber, guess you have to own one to know it.

trigger45
December 30, 2006, 08:10 AM
I have a .243win and a .270win. For everything you listed .270win.

robctwo
December 30, 2006, 10:50 AM
This summer I worked up a number of .270 loads to introduce a friend to the high power rifle. I was loaning him my Winchester Model 70 Featherweight. I have twins in .243 and .270.

Loads from 27 to 36 grains of H4895 under 100 grain and 130 grain Hornady and Winchester bullets. These all felt just like the .243 for recoil. Didn't run them through the chrono, but the Hodgdon site has the fps info. My friend enjoyed shooting these loads, as did I. After a couple trips to the range, and a couple hundred rounds down range I moved him up to full loads for hunting purposes. I will continue to use the light loads for practice and targets. We were comfortably shooting with just light shirts on, just like a .243

I have not bought any of the commercial youth loads available, but would guess that they perform about like these. Look at the Hodgdon site under data and youth.

.38 Special
December 30, 2006, 12:59 PM
Elmer Keith was more to my liking 270 good varmint cartridge for deer and blackies the 333OKH or its modern equivalent the 338/06 for starters.
Key difference being that Keith didn't, for practical purposes, have any decent bullets to work with. A careful review of his writing reveals that he had trouble with bullet failure even with his big calibers. When your bullets are so bad that .338" at relatively low speed still occasionally blow up on deer and elk, it's not really fair to blame the cartridge.

To put it bluntly, there's not a deer that ever lived that can stand up to a .277" FailSafe through the shoulders.

Not that there's anything wrong with the cannons, if that's what you like. :)

kieran
December 30, 2006, 01:33 PM
Boy, did you just open a can o' worms. Why not compromise a little and get a .25-06?

no no no. he should get a 260 Remington. ;)

Hank Hunter
December 30, 2006, 07:00 PM
I have and like both. If your primary bullets are over 100 grains I'd go 270, If under 100 grains I'd go 243.

rangerruck
December 31, 2006, 02:54 AM
strictly from a cost point of view, you can load a lot of special interest bullets in 6mm/243, up to 115 grains, and with silvertip or corelokt bullet, you will drop any deer you wanna. you can also proly reload forever, on one good stash of powder , as well.

McCall911
December 31, 2006, 06:35 AM
A couple of points were brought up earlier about an easy-to-forget class of cartridges between the .243 and .270. Namely, the 6.5 mm (.257 to .264) cartridges (non-Magnum, of course.) For one, you have the outstanding 6.5x55 Swedish Mauser which is pretty widely available as well as versatile. Same for the .25-'06.
Were I in the market for a versatile varmint through deer (and maybe a little bigger) rifle, a 6.5mm is probably what I would choose.

4fingermick
December 31, 2006, 07:06 AM
Another thing Jack O'Connor said is "if there is any difference between the 270 and the 3006, I plain can't see it!" or words to that effect. The book with the quote is in my bedroom and the wife is sleeping I will dig it out tomorrow.

Let the game dictate the choice. I have had a lot of experience with the 3006 and none with the 270 (boy, I've been tempted sometimes). The 3006 is a bit of a handful at times and I suppose the 270 wouldn't feel much different. If you want to trin a kid to shoot with it, Federal (I think) has some low recoil ammo, just the shot for a beginner.
Mick

Bricky62
April 3, 2007, 12:21 AM
I worked several years cutting meat in a game processing shop in Wyoming. I grew up with a 30-06 since my dad was a WWII vet and he swore by that caliber, But after seeing so many deer blown to bits, I learned to appreciate the smaller rifles. Personally My favorite is an model 1899 250-3000 savage for deer and antilope. I think it hits a little harder than a .243 (Does anyone have the actual ballistics comparing .243s and 250 savages?) This is a perfect round for Coyotes too. I've hit several at over 500 yards. I don't beleive in shooting deer this far with anything--if you cant get closer your not much of a hunter anyway. I'm just into lever actions and I think savage is superior. I think plastic guns are a sin-- where's the tradition? I still have my 06 and I take it when I'm after elk and moose, but for everything else I think we should all consider downsizing. A .270 is a step in the right direction. consider also .257 Roberts, 25-06, 7mm (not mag) or 7mm-08, .250 savage and .243 -- anything smaller than .243 is not legal at least here in Wyoming and that is probably a good thing. I've never been around a .260 rem or seen shells for one for sale. I'm sure it's a fine caliber but I like to think that if I run out of ammo I can get some at about any ammo shop I come to.

berettashotgun
April 3, 2007, 03:20 AM
My kids learned to hunt with 243's; now the 270 is the schizzle for them, oldest one recently made me happy with a new addition to the family.
I don't own a non-mag 30 caliber rifle.Killed alot of short/long range deer with one, but somehow migrated to the 7mm stuff.

Colt46
April 3, 2007, 03:32 AM
One is a long action necked down .30-06 and the other is a necked down .308 wich. If you are a new shooter or recoil sensitive then the .243 may be the ticket. Againts hogs It's rather marginal. Use premium bullets if you must. The .243 is supposed to be for the hunter that can't afford two rifles that may want to hunt varmints and large, non dangerous game.

As an all around big game round the .270 has a lot going for it. Range, accuracy and a wide variety of loadings.

Hokkmike
April 3, 2007, 09:17 AM
If you are set on the 2, I would definately opt in favor of the .270. There is just a little more you can do it with it and you would be set for ALL North American game animals.

rangerruck
April 3, 2007, 08:54 PM
270 is one of the top 10 most efficient, best energy , with flat shooting, standard carts ever made. Far better than a 243.

trigger45
April 4, 2007, 07:41 AM
last year my 3 friends dropped 3 dear. one with a .30-06, one with a .270win,the other a .243win. All with one shot. The the .270 is faster than the .30-06 with 150gr. and the .243 with 100 gr. bullets. 1.5 inches high at 100 yards will give you dead on hold for 200 yard shots. .270 hits just as hard as the .30-06 and with the right bullet and good shot placement can take elk. I know this is all personal pref. but the .30-06 Isnt the only hunting round out there. i could also start giving numbers for the .300wby with 150gr. bullets which just beats the heck out of all cal. listed. the .308 is a good cart. as well. powder charge about as big as the .243 and can use 180gr. bullets. and would buy one for these reasons alone now that i reload and have a coffee can of brass already. I sold my .308win for a .270win and enjoyed a vol. increase and a reduction in recoil impulse. I currently have both the .243 and a .270win. I work hard for the money I make and when I go deer hunting, I feel the .270 would perform better at 200 If the opp. presented itself. yes yes I know the .243 "could" do it, but the .270 "would" do it. The .270 is a little much for coyote but I dont think it will hurt their feelings.

Art Eatman
April 4, 2007, 12:09 PM
I moved back to the old home town of Austintatious in 1963, and among other needs I figured a deer rifle would be a Good Thing. I ran across a Sears&Sawbuck .270 for $70, and stuck a Weaver K4 on it. Got back into reloading.

I killed several deer with the Remington 130-grain Bronze Point, ahead of a slightly compressed load of the old 4831. Easy loading: Fill the case, tap it, scrape across the mouth and then seat the bullet. Not quite a max load.

My billfold improved and I got my present '06 and a little Sako Forester carbine in .243. I've collected a bit over 20 deer with each.

With the .243, I've almost exclusively used Sierra's 85-grain HPBT, and mostly taken neck shots inside of 200 yards. Those deer dressed out most usually at 120 pounds or less. I wouldn't use the .243 on mulies. That bullet is on the nasty side for a poor old coyote, spreading innards across a half-acre or so.

I'd say the .270 is a more all-around cartridge than the .243, unless you're a skilled enough hunter to get pretty close to larger deer. I wouldn't select one for prairie dog shooting, but that's purely a recoil issue--and makes my shoulder hurt, just thinking about turning loose a hundred rounds or more in a day. :D

Art

oregonhunter
April 4, 2007, 03:53 PM
You would never catch me hunting bull elk with a 270, sure a 270 can throw a 150gr well but you cannot shoot a 180gr 0r 200+ gr bullet with a 270, a 30-06 on the other hand will throw a 180gr core-lokt hammer of god 2800fps. I wont even get into the 220 gr beasts.

kennyboy
April 4, 2007, 04:09 PM
Definately .270 Win. .243 will still work, but it is mainly preferred only because of its minimal recoil. If you can deal with the recoil of the .270Win which is not harsh, then go .270. It is one of the, if not the most popular deer cartridge out there.

aubie515
April 4, 2007, 05:14 PM
Both calibers are great and will take deer. It all boils down to personal preference...despite all the "experts" opinions. I owned both calibers and I prefer the .243 because I do not like LA calibers. If you are recoil sensative, I'd suggest the 243.

countryrebel
April 4, 2007, 05:18 PM
+1:)

sb350hp
April 4, 2007, 05:45 PM
Threads like this crack me up. It began as what to purchase 243 or 270. All the sudden every ones success stories with thier calilber of choice comes out. Comparing a 270 to a 243 is like comparing 7mm mag to a 30-06. Both will all things but somethings better than the other.

If you are hunting primarily deer, go with the 270, if you are 50/50 deer,coyotes or other critters go w/ 243. I have no bones about deer hunting w/ either caliber but it is not about performance as much as it is preference.

As for "oregon hunter" from another oregonian. Many many big bull have been killed with a 270 with no follow up shot. For that matter my uncle bagged to bulls with a 243 out of neccestity not choice (wifes gun, his broke). His gun of choice for elk before he died... 300 win mag. 243,270,280,30-06,7mm etc not big enough for elk in his opinion. My gun.. A model 700 mtn rifle in 30-06. does all things I need it to do well.

alfpwo3
September 6, 2013, 01:49 AM
Came across this as I surfed the net. I just purchased my first 270axis. All my budget could afford. Haha wish I would have looked at it better before I bought it. First rifle I owned with a synthetic stock. Dont like how light it is. And all the cheap plastic...safty...clip release etc..etc... However So far every thing i pulled the trigger on has dropped. 2Deer a black bear and a bull moose. As for any some fur bearring critters...I think it would be too much..I want value for my pelts. That being said..even a 243 seems a bit much for critters. Unless ur into targetshooting then make ur pick. I would look and see how available shells are.. and cost. SB350hp.... He probably broke his 300 over a tree trunk cause the round couldnt keep up to the beast.lol jk

toiville2feathers
September 6, 2013, 02:16 AM
from an economic stand point I would buy the savage in a 270 and then you could do a switch barrel in a 25-06 or a 220 swift if you like for varmints. The only extras you need are a barrel nut wrench and two head space gauges.

Inebriated
September 6, 2013, 02:36 AM
EDIT - well dang, this thread is over 6 years old!

Welcome, alf.

sixgunner455
September 6, 2013, 01:07 PM
Zombies in the house! :D (At least, zombie threads)

Dthunter
September 6, 2013, 01:32 PM
From a target shooters perspective:

The 243 and the 270 are totally different cartidges.

If you reload, The 243 shoots flatter than the 270. Bullets with much higger BC are available in that diameter.
The 243 is night and day the better pick for varmints. Even though its a little big for that too. Less recoil/ easier to shoot for presision work.

Afrer 1000 yards the 270's energy has bled out so much that the 243 has nearly
Matched it.

The 270 win is a hunting mans caliber. It is/was intended to shoot big game form its onset.
The 270 has more energy than the 243, therefore by default(physics) can kill lager animals easier.
The .277 cal is seriously handycapped by a lack of high BC bullets.
If there was higher BC bullets like the 168gr .284 BergerVLD, it would shine for long range target as well as hunting!

I like both, shot many animals With both.
I have shot both out to 1000 yards many times, and the 243 out to 1300.
The 243 with 108 grain bergers just dont get easier to shoot long range. Fun stuff!

Both cartridges are great hunting calibers, in thier own class.


This time next year I will be shooting a custom 270 win tactical rifle. My goal is 1760 yards. I want to post a group with it at that distance. It will take some work, but I know it can be done.

Just pick one that suits your mood and go for it. Its all fun!

jmr40
September 6, 2013, 03:54 PM
With modern bullets a 243 is as big as anyone needs for deer. If larger game is on the menu a 270 with better bullets will cleanly take any animal in North America. It is on the light side for the larger brown bear, but that wouldn't stop me from using it if a 270 were what I had. It depends on what your long term uses are.

You would never catch me hunting bull elk with a 270, sure a 270 can throw a 150gr well but you cannot shoot a 180gr 0r 200+ gr bullet with a 270, a 30-06 on the other hand will throw a 180gr core-lokt hammer of god 2800fps. I wont even get into the 220 gr beasts.

Bullet diameter and weight have been largely irrelevent since smokeless powder came on the scene. Bullet construction determines how much damage a bullet does when it hits game. A premium 270/150 bullet will have pretty much the same effect on game as a 30-06/180. I'll conceed that the 200 gr and heavier .30 cal bullets offer a slight advantage on really large animals. But if a 270 ain't big enough to get the job done, I need a lot bigger gun than a 30-06. For game up to elk or moose a 270 is more than adequate.

Elkins45
September 6, 2013, 04:32 PM
243 is a varmint rifle, 270 is a deer rifle.

25/06 is both.

wyohome
September 6, 2013, 05:27 PM
243 is a varmint rifle, 270 is a deer rifle.

I wish I would have known this 30 years ago.
http://youtu.be/hY0w1c-gf18
Notice that the bullet goes clear through.

sixgunner455
September 6, 2013, 05:28 PM
Well, you could just get both - nothing wrong with a pair!

Art Eatman
September 6, 2013, 09:13 PM
The problem with necrothreadia is that commonly, the question has been answered, long ago. Next is that the OP might well be dead and gone, so what's the point of the resurrection?

If you enjoyed reading about "caliber selection: .243 Win or .270 Win?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!