.243 or .270?

Did you buy the .270 because it was on sale, or because it's what you decided was best for you..?

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!

My local dealer was blowing them out for $319, but the Stevens 200 was still $279... with a better stock and barrel.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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:

That 7mm08 has ostensibly has all of the velocity, power and trajectory of the 270,
(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.

Here's the skivvy on the Browning A-bolt Stainless Stalker,
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.

 

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.

 

Knight-
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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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

 

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.

 

Neither, .308. It will do everything both of these together will do.

 

and recoil more while being to much for smaller game that the .243 or a light .270 loading wont be.

 

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........ Cheap ammo too....

 

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.

 

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.

 

30-06-308:270-7mm08

lighter, faster, powerful (enough).

long action:short action.

comparison of 308-270-7mm08 here.

i'll still take the .308 for availability after the SHT_.

YMM_.

 

i have a question for you all how much less of a kick does a .270 have?

 

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.

 

difference

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..

 

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.