adcoch1
Member
Not to knock on others experience, but I've never shot a 270 that recoiled any less than a 30-06.... What am I missing? Is it a stock design? The 270s have been savage, Remington 700 adl, and a Remington 721...
.270 vs .30-06 (POLL)
- Thread starter ksalmi72
- Start date
- Status
Llama Bob
member
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2016
- Messages
- 2,258
It pretty much has to be either stock geometry or rifle weight. Whenever you go to lighter bullets in roughly the same capacity case (whether due to just using a lighter bullet, or due to necking down) you should always end up with less recoil. The recoil reduction is half of the weight change for small changes. So if you reduced your bullet weight by 10%, you would expect velocity to go up by about 5%, and recoil to go down by about 5%, using the fastest powder and max loads everywhere.
adcoch1
Member
Exactly as I would expect, maybe I have just been lucky(unlucky) to find so many hard kicking 270s. It really has been surprising, to shoot two very similar rifles and have the lighter bullet kick more. Hasn't happened with any other cartridge comparisons either. Not to say the 270 ever kicked too much, just felt like more in the three samples I've tried... Either way though, 270 or 30-06, you can't really go wrong...
Mn Fats
Member
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2017
- Messages
- 2,372
I skipped passed the 7 length page posts
Perfect.
cdb1
Member
I have a .270 and 30-06 and have never noticed a difference in recoil either. They have the same stock too.
.308 Norma
Member
I don’t think you’re missing anything. It might be just a matter of perception. It’s been years since I’ve even fired a 270, but I don’t remember the Model 70 Winchester, 270 I used to have kicking any less (or more) than the M77 Ruger, 30-06 I traded it for. I still have, and still love my M77 (tang safety) 30-06 BTW.
On the other hand, I had a buddy that had a Remington Model 7400, 30-06 Carbine. I helped him sight that thing in a few times, and I swore it kicked a lot harder than the Model 70, 270 I had at the time. But as look back on it now, I think half of what I “perceived” was sharp recoil was probably muzzle blast. A 30-06 with an 18” barrel is kinda loud.
My personal pick would be the 30-06. I really like 30-06.
I voted for the 270, because realistically, i think it would do the job just as well for the most part, and probably with less recoil. Also, it wasn't doing as well in the poll, and I could never resist and underdog.
I voted for the 270, because realistically, i think it would do the job just as well for the most part, and probably with less recoil. Also, it wasn't doing as well in the poll, and I could never resist and underdog.
Speaking of military rifles, with my part-time gun repair business, I installed more scope mounts on British Enfields than about any others. They were cheap, but pretty good rifles and the .303 British is a pretty good deer cartridge.
BTW: I think I still have a new Weaver mount base to fit the British Enfield, if any one needs one (cheap). An acquaintance bought it by accident and left it with me.
d2wing
Member
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2008
- Messages
- 6,411
It is a common myth that a necked down cartridge is faster. Often it is not. The 270 is not faster or flatter than the 30-06 in like weights for any practical purpose. There isn't much difference for deer within 400 yards. Bigger game and further distances favor the 30-06 as you can get much better bullets for those purposes. Also the 30-06 has been a historically good match rifle while the 270 has never been successful as a match rifle.
The 30.06 is great & I own 9 of them but the 270 Weatherby Mag can eat the 06.
Most people you ask around her say it like this, the 30.06 kills as soon as you hit
the deer, the 270win = not so much. [ From my feeble little memory not a survey ]
Most people you ask around her say it like this, the 30.06 kills as soon as you hit
the deer, the 270win = not so much. [ From my feeble little memory not a survey ]
Last edited:
A modern necked down cartridge will usually deliver a similar BC, SD, bullet faster. Perhaps not a lot faster, but usually at least somewhat. Of course there are some times you run into the area of diminishing returns pretty quick.
Comparing the .270 and 06, the 130s compare pretty well to the 165s. Velocity for the .270 is usually at least 100fps faster than the 06 for those respective bullet weights.
Theoretically they should penetrate about the same, the .270 should deliver less recoil, and shoot a tad flatter, tho 100fps wont matter a whole heck of a lot.
If we consider equal weight bullets the smaller bore cartridge will (barring really dissimilar bullet design) always be slower than the larger parent (or off spring i guess), when loaded to the same pressure.
The flip side is the smaller bullet of similar design, will also out penetrate its larger counterpart.
My personal experience is that the 06 kills faster than the .270 on game where the bullets exit, especially at shorter range where velocity is still quite high. The holes it opens are usually larger.
On game where the bullets do not exit Ive seen no difference.
Ive said this before I dont like the .270s, any of them.
I love the 06, but i never use mine. In fact Its killed a number of animals but ive never hunted with it.
I really like 7mms, I feel they offer the best of balance of bullet weight, velocity, and bc/sd of any of the hunting calibers. If you cant do it with a 7, you need a medium bore, and a big one.
All that said, it really dosent matter what you chose to shoot these days, within reason. There are some calibers that suffer from slow twists like the .25s and .277s, but the truth is they offer plenty of performance for hunters on any reasonable shot most folks can expect to take.
Llama Bob
member
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2016
- Messages
- 2,258
I call this the doughnut theory - you either want a 7mm or smaller, or a .375 or bigger. The stuff in between does what the 7mms do, only with less reach for the same case type. And if the game's dangerous, don't pussy foot around - grab the .375 (or bigger) and if you get charged, you'll be glad you have it.
The '06 certainly is more flexible than the .270, due to the wide variety of factory ammo weights/types available. It's probably a little better killer at ranges under 200 yards, corresponding where most Eastern whitetails are shot, but we've shot deer out to 400 yards and needed a bit flatter shooting round that only provides quick shots as deer cross an old haul road at various distances from 20 yards to 500, but the need for holdover at 300-400 is notably less.
I also needed a turkey shoot round to replace a .22-250 that was so successful, it was banned from competition. The .270 worked pretty well, since I can shoot light loads, but obviously, not as light as the .22-250.
Anyway, I gave my favorite '06 to my son and he's killed lots of deer with it. If I ever return to turkey shoots, I'd probably load some light .243 rounds and be quite happy. Only in the past 6 years or so, I've "discovered" the .243 Win as a cartridge that works extremely well for coyotes, and deer at reasonable ranges (but I've limited grandkids maximum shots to 200 yards). It's also easier on the shoulder than either the '06 or .270, so is my favorite carry rifle for patrolling the blueberry fields and woods for coyotes, etc.
I also needed a turkey shoot round to replace a .22-250 that was so successful, it was banned from competition. The .270 worked pretty well, since I can shoot light loads, but obviously, not as light as the .22-250.
Anyway, I gave my favorite '06 to my son and he's killed lots of deer with it. If I ever return to turkey shoots, I'd probably load some light .243 rounds and be quite happy. Only in the past 6 years or so, I've "discovered" the .243 Win as a cartridge that works extremely well for coyotes, and deer at reasonable ranges (but I've limited grandkids maximum shots to 200 yards). It's also easier on the shoulder than either the '06 or .270, so is my favorite carry rifle for patrolling the blueberry fields and woods for coyotes, etc.
What do you think the 7mm (.284) bullet diameter does so well that a (.277) "270" bullet can't do? There is so little difference between the two that in practical hunting terms it is meaningless.... At the same time I know from your other posts that you like the 6.5mm (.264) bore diameter... No love for the 270 (6.8mm) though....???
Last edited:
So, what you're saying is that as you go from .17 to .22 to 243 to 6.5mm (.264) increases in bullet size and weight continually increase "killing power" all the way up to 7mm (.284). But, once you get past 7mm to 30 caliber, the "more is generally better" rule as it relates to "killing power" suddenly stops................................... and then starts back up again at 375...??? Really??? No point to anything in between?
Last edited:
AABEN
Member
The 270 is a very good round it can be loaded from 90 gr up to 180 gr bullet witch will take any game in the USA . The 90 will take any white tail and does NOT kick very hard the heaver the bullet the harder the kick. That is why I like the 270 it is a all of a round gun and a flat shooter. Good luck on what ever you do OO look up the history of the 270
I've always disliked the .270WIN, not for any practical, or even logical reason, I just don't like it. It's a perfectly fine cartridge for hunting, and I have a set of .270 Dies in my reloading desk because a bunch of my friends and family shoot it.
Couple the slow twist to my irrational dislike for 1 cartridge, and you have my dislike for the caliber as a whole.
In practical terms, the only advantage the 6.5s, and .284s have over the .277s is twist rate, and corresponding long high BC bullets. Even stuff like the ABLR dosent produce the bcs that they are supposed to in factory rifles (they still shoot awesome and kill well, i load those for my buddy). As i said before tho MOST of us dont need those bullets for hunting, and pretty much any caliber you chose will offer you a good selection of use able hunting bullets and weights. BUT the lack is still there, and it does bug me.
Again tho going back to "shoot what you like" Mostly for me, its the irrational part that stops me from liking them.
I LIKE the .257s while acknowledging that they suffer the same issues as the .277s
As to the bigger is better theory, I feel thats true as long as they are still comfortable to shoot and you shoot them well.
Ive had multiple .300 Winchesters, Ive shot side by side with a bunch of them. They tend to blow pretty big holes in things, larger than any of the smaller rounds/calibers given the same bullet construction and an exit wound. Im pretty sure the trend continues as the bullets get larger. The flip side is you need MORE weight to insure an exit with similar bullet design, and velocity, the larger your bullet gets.
In my experience a 165 balistic tip bullet from a .300WM may or may not exit one of our axis deer on a shoulder shot when driven at 3100ish. A 162 Amax will ALWAYS exit on a shoulder shot driven at 3050.
The .300 balistic tip if it exits usually takes out a hand size chunk of animal, and ive never seen one go more than a couple feet after that. The Amax usually makes a 3" exit wound, and again havent seen anything walk away from it.
If the bullet dosent exit, ive seen animals run, tho usually not very far.
On our feral cattle hunts, good hits from everything up to .300 have produced similar results. The lone exception was a bull that took a hand full of lethally placed rounds from the STW after being shot in the foot.
Ive had remington 700s in 7mm, 7mm STW, 30-06, and 300 Winchester. I found the .300 uncomfortable to shoot, more so than even the larger cased STW. This experience was duplicated in my Savage 300, and my Ruger 300. (And yet at some point ill build another 300, but not a hunting weight gun)
My experience with +30, 30s has been limited, and for the most part unpleasant. I honestly built my .375 Ruger expecting it to be in the 10lb range, and that id shoot it 4 or 5 times a range trip. Ive actually found it to be pretty pleasant, unless you get your off hand behind the pronounced grip cap......
I shot a .338 ultra at the range for a guy who was having a hard time keeping it on paper, and 3 shots in i had to take a break. The last 2 rounds were like pulling teeth. Thankfully after adjusting the scope the 6th round hit where he wanted it to, and when he fired one it also landed where it was supposed to.
Given the penetration of a 175gr 7mm bullet, id rather have that than anything larger as long as what im shooting at isnt going to try and bite, stomp, or claw me. If it IS going to try injure me, shooting would probably be at much shorter range, where the advantages of long pointy bullets arnt as high, thus ill take a larger bullet, at a slower speed.
Buddy of mine uses the 90s on sheep, for that exact reason. They dont penetrate real far, but they do a pile of damage, and if they do exit its a mess.
Llama Bob
member
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2016
- Messages
- 2,258
Sectional density. The .270 is held back by Winchester's absurd choice of the 1:10 twist - the 6.5mm Mauser was 1:200mm, the 7mm Mauser 1:250mm - somehow Winchester found 1:10" in the middle ?!?!.
That mistake, once made, is very hard to fix. They could have fixed it with the .270 WSM, but they missed the opportunity.
Llama Bob
member
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2016
- Messages
- 2,258
That's sort of what I'm saying. In order to hunt larger game, you need a bullet of sufficient penetration to pass through the vitals and ideally through the whole animal even from quartering angles or if bone is hit. For small to medium bores shooting soft points, penetration capability is a function of sectional density and weight retention.
Now, very small calibers have a problem in that if the bullets are made heavy enough to pass through a big animal, the twist rate required to stabilize them is excessive. That's why we don't see 125gr bullets in .243 win for example. They'd have about the same penetration ast a 175gr 7mm or a 200gr .308, but the required twist rate would be about 1:6" and it would be difficult to get the bullets to engrave right.. Your'd probably have to use a gain twist barrel, and those have their own problems. So we don't do that.
6.5mm is the first caliber that historically has bullet with a sectional density over 0.3. 7mm is the next. .270 doesn't get to play since Winchester screwed up.
Stopping rifles are different. There your goal is not to pass a bullet through the vitals, but rather to stop the animal right now which often involves brain shots or breaking heavy bone. For those applications, you'd basically like as big a rifle as you can carry and swing and tolerate the recoil. But .the .375s have the property that they're sort of a crossover - minimally acceptable as a stopping rifle, but still capable of shots at some range with spire points.
The calibers in between 7mm and .375 don't let you hunt any additional thin skinned non-dangerous game, have worse ballistics and recoil, and aren't good stopping rifles. So what's the point of them exactly?
Llama Bob Quote: ["Many shooters confuse shooting in the field with shooting on the bench or known-distance range. Field shooting involves targets with unknown distance, position, and time of appearance shot from positions determined by the terrain. All this is done against time pressure and often the situation evolves rapidly so only first-round hits count."]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is also my reason for using a relatively flat-shooting standard cartridge like the .270 Win, using pointy, boat-tail bullets and powders like Reloder 22 that provide MV at or about 3,200 fps for 130 grain bullets. We may have a special-case situation on a 500+ yard, straight old county road that's pretty narrow and deer walk across pretty quickly, so we need to have a flat-shooter that gets there by sighting-in by the rule of 3s, and without using a rangefinder to get exact range. Yes, I've mistook the range a couple of times and missed one or two low, but anything inside of 400 yards is in deep trouble!!!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is also my reason for using a relatively flat-shooting standard cartridge like the .270 Win, using pointy, boat-tail bullets and powders like Reloder 22 that provide MV at or about 3,200 fps for 130 grain bullets. We may have a special-case situation on a 500+ yard, straight old county road that's pretty narrow and deer walk across pretty quickly, so we need to have a flat-shooter that gets there by sighting-in by the rule of 3s, and without using a rangefinder to get exact range. Yes, I've mistook the range a couple of times and missed one or two low, but anything inside of 400 yards is in deep trouble!!!
The only problem with the .243 Win is that it lacks energy of the larger bores noted above beyond 300 yards, and long-range trajectory with the 100 grainers is not as good as the lighter bullets. A 90 grain, pointy boat-tail bullet would probably be a big help.
cdb1
Member
I’m proud to call LoonWulf a friend but it has been a long hard road for me to get past his love of the 7mm Remington Mag. I would imagine his experience with me is the same given my love for the .270 Winchester.
I also don’t do Facebook which possibly explains why I don’t have a 6.5 Creedmoor. My 6.5x55 takes the place of the Creedmoor. I find it somewhat amusing when I think of .264 vs .277 vs .284. Reason being at the distance I’ll shoot an animal the advantages or disadvantages of cartridges chambered in those calibers is moot. The only advantage my Swede has over my .270 is less recoil at the 300 yard max distance I’ll shoot. Nothing in 7mm is going to give me an advantage at that distance either.
I wasn’t totally truthful about Facebook. I do have an account so I can keep up with my grown children’s lives since that is their preferred mode of communication. I have less than ten friends I think.
I also don’t do Facebook which possibly explains why I don’t have a 6.5 Creedmoor. My 6.5x55 takes the place of the Creedmoor. I find it somewhat amusing when I think of .264 vs .277 vs .284. Reason being at the distance I’ll shoot an animal the advantages or disadvantages of cartridges chambered in those calibers is moot. The only advantage my Swede has over my .270 is less recoil at the 300 yard max distance I’ll shoot. Nothing in 7mm is going to give me an advantage at that distance either.
I wasn’t totally truthful about Facebook. I do have an account so I can keep up with my grown children’s lives since that is their preferred mode of communication. I have less than ten friends I think.
- Status
