Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

.243 or .270?

Discussion in 'Rifle Country' started by Lupinus, Jul 29, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Lupinus

    Lupinus Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2005
    Messages:
    3,502
    Location:
    Upstate SC
    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?
     
  2. Outlaws

    Outlaws Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2006
    Messages:
    2,481
    Location:
    Valley of the Sun
    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.
     
    Last edited: Jul 29, 2006
  3. 30-06 lover

    30-06 lover Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2006
    Messages:
    584
    Location:
    CA
    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.
    -Mike
     
  4. Vern Humphrey

    Vern Humphrey Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2002
    Messages:
    18,678
    Location:
    Deep in the Ozarks
    The .270 is a necked down .30-06.
     
  5. priv8ter

    priv8ter Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    1,003
    Location:
    Poulsbo, Wa
    Since you ask...

    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.

    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.

    greg
     
  6. mnrivrat

    mnrivrat Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    4,655
    Location:
    MN
    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.
     
  7. asknight

    asknight Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2005
    Messages:
    1,298
    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

    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.
     
  8. browningguy

    browningguy Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2004
    Messages:
    4,633
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    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).
     
  9. Outlaws

    Outlaws Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2006
    Messages:
    2,481
    Location:
    Valley of the Sun
    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.
    :eek:
     
  10. Eightball

    Eightball Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2005
    Messages:
    4,257
    Location:
    Louisville, KY
    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.
     
  11. steelhead

    steelhead Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2004
    Messages:
    736
    Location:
    Oregon
    7mm-08

    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.
     
  12. 22-rimfire

    22-rimfire Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2005
    Messages:
    11,450
    Location:
    TN
    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.
     
  13. Eightball

    Eightball Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2005
    Messages:
    4,257
    Location:
    Louisville, KY
    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 .
     
  14. kentucky_smith

    kentucky_smith Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2005
    Messages:
    1,686
    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.
     
  15. TexAg

    TexAg Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2005
    Messages:
    781
    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.
     
  16. Gewehr98

    Gewehr98 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    5,988
    First off, I'll tell you to skip the 710.

    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.
     
  17. Sunray

    Sunray Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2003
    Messages:
    11,257
    Location:
    London, Ont.
    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.
     
  18. ArmandTanzarian

    ArmandTanzarian Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2006
    Messages:
    58
    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.
     
  19. nitesite

    nitesite Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2004
    Messages:
    1,177
    Location:
    North Alabama, USA
    Big fan of the 6mm-08 cartridge (.243)

    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.
     
  20. Lupinus

    Lupinus Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2005
    Messages:
    3,502
    Location:
    Upstate SC
    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.
     
  21. Lupinus

    Lupinus Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2005
    Messages:
    3,502
    Location:
    Upstate SC
    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
     
  22. Eightball

    Eightball Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2005
    Messages:
    4,257
    Location:
    Louisville, KY
    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.
     
  23. GooseGestapo

    GooseGestapo Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2003
    Messages:
    3,373
    Location:
    W.GA
    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.
     
  24. rangerruck

    rangerruck Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2006
    Messages:
    8,374
    Location:
    Texas, baby!
    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.
     
  25. Lupinus

    Lupinus Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2005
    Messages:
    3,502
    Location:
    Upstate SC
    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 :eek:
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page