.270 v. .30-06


PDA






cbrgator
November 7, 2008, 08:35 PM
How do these compare in terms of recoil? Is the difference significant?

If you enjoyed reading about ".270 v. .30-06" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
sam700
November 7, 2008, 08:50 PM
For me it's is a noticeable difference, but barely. Check out the recoil calculator on hand loads.com for the exact numbers.

bang_bang
November 7, 2008, 08:52 PM
Not enough to complain about with standard rifles of the same make and model.

Either one would be much more comfortable with a recoil pad. I have a Remington Model 700 ADL in .270, kicks like a mule due to its wood stock and hard butt plate.

Shawnee
November 7, 2008, 09:05 PM
.270 w/130gr. bullet is approx. 15.5 ft./lbs. of recoil

.30/06 w/150gr. bullet is approx. 18.8 ft./lbs. of recoil


The .270 load above will shoot flatter than the .30/06 load above.


:cool:

scythefwd
November 7, 2008, 10:39 PM
For the same weight of rifle, and a compairable round (since they shoot a similar range to an extent) they will have the same or very similar kick. A lot of people state that the .270 with a 130gr round will kick less than a -06 with a 150 gr round. The reason for the difference in the kick is the difference in bullet weight. Both will put out a 170 gr bullet at about 1800 fps (according to my reloading manual, modern reloading). As a matter of fact, they move same weight bullets about the same velocity throughout the available weight ranges when they match up. The kick will be the same, but the 270 will penetrate more due to the higher sectional density IF all other factors (fit, weight of rifle, etc.) are the same.

Shawnee, what fps is that 130 gr round moving? What fps is that 150 gr moving?

Shawnee
November 7, 2008, 10:48 PM
"what fps is that 130 gr round moving? What fps is that 150 gr moving? "


The 130 at 3100fps and the 150 at 3000fps.


When the comparison is between bullets of similar BC, the .270 will turn up with notably less recoil because the .30 caliber needs to be a 165-grainer to match the .270 130-grainer, and then the velocity difference (thus trajectory) is significantly in favor of the .270. That's why I, personally, would take the .270 (or 7mm/08) over any of the .30 calibers every time.

P.S. The 165gr. .30/06 load (comparable BC to the .270 130-grainer) at 2900fps. is approximately 21.6 ft./lbs. of recoil - or 40% more recoil with poorer trajectory for a gain in energy that isn't needed.
:cool:

TCB in TN
November 8, 2008, 01:00 AM
But the 30-06 handles larger bullets better, there is typically a better selection of over the counter rounds, as well as more bullet selection of 30 cal bullets for hand loaders. Not to mention that there is still some (not a lot) surplus ammo out there for the 30-06, but never has been for the .270.

For the typical shooter NONE of the above is enough of a difference to matter to anyone. Not that it matters to anyone who will argue for or against either round. (Including me!) I love both rounds, have owned and shot both a lot, and would not fault anyone for picking either.

cbrgator
November 8, 2008, 01:46 AM
How about the .243?

scythefwd
November 8, 2008, 02:07 AM
cbrgator,
You just hit Shawnee's favorite caliber. It is a good round, but it depends on what you are shooting. It will kick less than the 270, and it does have less power. It is a great round, but I wouldn't try taking a moose with it. I would take a .308 or 30-06 or larger for that. For whitetail deer, it is an excellent round (and is getting near the bottom of what I consider an ethical round to hunt with, the .30-30 being the bottom).

MAGNUM44
November 8, 2008, 02:33 AM
Iv'e been using a 270 win on deer for the last 25 yrs and never lost a deer with it & all were one shot kills using the win 130 gr bullets from various distances

Shawnee
November 8, 2008, 04:40 AM
The .243 is a great varmint/deer/hogs/black bear caliber.

The .270 (and 7mm/08) is a great "everything larger than deer" caliber.

:cool:

R.W.Dale
November 8, 2008, 07:25 AM
firing 130/150g projectiles In the same rifles I doubt a blindfolded man could tell the difference in recoil.

.270 w/130gr. bullet is approx. 15.5 ft./lbs. of recoil

.30/06 w/150gr. bullet is approx. 18.8 ft./lbs. of recoil


The .270 load above will shoot flatter than the .30/06 load above.

But let's keep things in perspective here. Inside 300yds where vurtiually 99.9% of game is taken the difference in trajectory is best measured in TENTHS of an inch.

Shawnee
November 8, 2008, 08:07 AM
"Inside 300yds where vurtiually 99.9% of game is taken the difference in trajectory is best measured in TENTHS of an inch."


The Senator from Arkansas has spoken The Truth.

:D

cbrgator
November 8, 2008, 11:59 AM
Thanks Guys. I already have a 30-06 to handle the big stuff. I was looking for something a little smaller that would kick less. Sounds like .243 is the right choice.

oregonhunter
November 8, 2008, 01:10 PM
I say 25-06

TCB in TN
November 8, 2008, 01:20 PM
I love the 25-06 but .243 has lower recoil, better off the shelf availability (at least locally) and has cheaper ammo.

bang_bang
November 8, 2008, 01:33 PM
.243 is a great deer/groundhog round with a rather flat trajectory and amazing velocities. I, personally, prefer larger, no BS calibers when hunting. But I have seen many fine deer taken with the .243, and some long shots on turkeys from my friend's dad. (He shot a turkey in the neck from at least 130-150 yds)

moooose102
November 8, 2008, 05:48 PM
if you are going to buy a rifle, and it is between those 2. i would buy the 30-06 just because of the HUGE variety of factory loaded ammunition there is for it. you can not walk into any store that carries any ammunition that does not have 30-06 ammo. i know the 270 is a popular rifle, and a good round. but i dont think there is any other caliber anywhere that has the following the 30-06 has. if you are worried about recoil, remington makes reduced recoil ammunition for the 30-06 also. if i ever had to replace my rifles, i would ONLY buy one. a new 30-06. and then, i would buy several thousand rounds of ammo for it. there is not one single animal in north america that you can not hunt with a 30-06. from prarie dogs and ground squirrels (remington 55g accelerators) to big bears (220g winchester silvertips). and anything in between. all you would have to do is adjust the scope for the distance, and ammunition you were going to use.

Oldcoyote
November 8, 2008, 06:27 PM
If you want less recoil from an 06, Hodgdon "Youth Loads", 125 gr bullets are an option.

For MORE recoil, try Federal High Energy with 180 gr Nosler Partitions. These get 2860 fps in my 24" barrel.

jjduller1946
November 8, 2008, 07:41 PM
Shooters,

I had a 270 for many years and now have a 30-06. The 270 is a necked down 30-06 cartridge. I used to think it would shoot flater than a 30-06. In fact when you shoot a 270 with 130 gr BT vs a 30-06 with a 165 gr BT the 270 drops 6.5 inches at 300 yds and the 30-06 drops 7.9 inches (200 yd zero). The 30-06 in this case has 130+ more energy at 200 yds. When you compare 150 gr BT bullets the 30-06 outperforms the 270 in velocity, energy and trajectory, although not by much.

So the reason I went with the 30-06 was simply that it performs nearly as well with a lighter bullet (say as well at the 270's 130 gr) sacrificing 2.4 in drop at 300 yds. But the 30-06 has a much wider range of bullet weights and does very well with my favorite, a 165 gr BT.

So my 2 cents is that if you are going to buy one big game rifle, I think the 30-06 is a good bet. The small difference in recoil may make the 270 more attractive if that is a factor.

This pic shows how close the 270 and 30-06 are in balistics.

http://i284.photobucket.com/albums/ll39/jdfuller19461946/Guns/270vs30-06.jpg

Happy shooting, whichever way you go!

rem1
November 8, 2008, 10:14 PM
i have both and like my 270 more

woof
November 8, 2008, 10:25 PM
The .270 and the .30-06 are the same case, the difference in recoil will be because of bullet weight. Same bullet in both rounds will have the same recoil.

The same can be said for all the cartridges in the .308 family, .243, .260 Rem. 7mm-08, .308, .338 Fed - the recoil difference is a function of bullet weight.

If you have an 06 for the big stuff, what's the small stuff you want to step down to with less recoil? Deer? Varmints? In other words, aside from less recoil what do you want the other rifle to do? Shoot flat on coyotes and smaller? Be a closer range deer gun that is fast and easy to handle? If the latter you might think .30-30. If the former a .223 may do well. If both then a .243 can do it, but a .260 may do better.

KINGMAX
November 8, 2008, 10:46 PM
I have a Remington Model 700 ADL in .270, scoped for my primary hunting rifle. It is one sweet shooting rifle. I have a M38 Mosin-Nagant which is mostly used for target practice using open iron sites which really 'kicks like a mule' for sure. I do not own a 30.06, but have fired a few. I am not a recoil freek, but don't avoid it either. My 16 ga Stevens single shot shotgun that kicks more than any of the rifles I have mentioned.

Loggerlee
November 8, 2008, 11:05 PM
Depends on the rifle,recoil is about the same.
I prefer a 06' myself,but I had a .270 that would do 1/2 or 3/4" groups,nice shooter,but I had to get rid of a rifle.

hankdatank1362
November 8, 2008, 11:57 PM
Some guys out there do some fantastic long-distance stuff with a .260 Rem - ask Zak.

Big Daddy Grim
November 9, 2008, 12:01 AM
Prefer the 30-06 but my M1 don't kick at all

SpeedAKL
November 9, 2008, 12:33 AM
Never fired a .270, but I'm not really bothered by .30-06 recoil. In terms of recoil force, .270 should kick about 10-15% less with most loads. That's lower but not enough to make a huge difference.

If you're looking for a lower-recoil round that will still drop deer, look at the .243, .260 Rem, 7mm-08, .25-06, or .30-30. I personally like the raw power of the .30-06....it lets me know I'm shooting something that packs a big wallop without beating me up! Besides, elk roam the woods of my state, particularly in the southwest corner, and I wouldn't shoot a bull elk with anything less than a .270 or comparable round.

groundhog34
November 9, 2008, 06:34 PM
As George Wallace once said, "They ain't a dimes worth of difference between them"

cbrgator
November 9, 2008, 07:02 PM
.243, .260 Rem, 7mm-08, .25-06

Which of those is the least expensive

R.W.Dale
November 9, 2008, 07:21 PM
Which of those is the least expensive


.243


However excluding exotic $40 a box cartridges I feel a few $ either way on price is a very poor measure of choosing what cartridge fits your hunting needs best.

If you enjoyed reading about ".270 v. .30-06" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!