I have noticed on these rifle boards that the larger caliber always gets more love. So if your choice were for example 260 vs. 270, 270 would win, or in another case if you asked 17HMR vs. 22WMR, 22 would win, or if you asked 7mm Rem Mag Vs. 300 Win Mag, 300 would win. There is just some kind of "bigger " bias and I can not understand it totally.This will be my one hunting rifle. Will be used mostly for Wisconsin whitetail but would like to know that I could head out west and hunt larger game as I would like to do that at some point. If you want to comment, cool. If not, just vote. Curious to see how this goes. I'm guessing 70/30 in favor of .30-06. Ive got my eyes on a couple Weatherby Mark V's. One is a deluxe in .270 which I prefer the looks of and the other is an Ultralight in .30-06 which I don't like the looks of as much but I do appreciate a lightweight rifle. Again, no need for a flame fest, just want to see primarily how people vote given the situation. Part of me feels that with modern bullet design, technology, and construction, no reason the performance gap hasn't closed a bit between the .270 and -06. The other part of me wants the option of a bigger bullet and a slightly more readily available cartridge with a storied past.
It's a straighter recoil direction and the cheekpiece is higher and fatter toward the back so as the rifle recoils, it pulls away from the cheekbone instead of banging into it. The Savage stock had more drop and the comb was high, resulting in more "savage" felt recoil.Does that weatherby stock design transfer the recoil into your shoulder at a different angle or something?
It's a straighter recoil direction and the cheekpiece is higher and fatter toward the back so as the rifle recoils, it pulls away from the cheekbone instead of banging into it. The Savage stock had more drop and the comb was high, resulting in more "savage" felt recoil.
This will be my one hunting rifle. Will be used mostly for Wisconsin whitetail but would like to know that I could head out west and hunt larger game as I would like to do that at some point. If you want to comment, cool. If not, just vote. Curious to see how this goes. I'm guessing 70/30 in favor of .30-06. Ive got my eyes on a couple Weatherby Mark V's. One is a deluxe in .270 which I prefer the looks of and the other is an Ultralight in .30-06 which I don't like the looks of as much but I do appreciate a lightweight rifle. Again, no need for a flame fest, just want to see primarily how people vote given the situation. Part of me feels that with modern bullet design, technology, and construction, no reason the performance gap hasn't closed a bit between the .270 and -06. The other part of me wants the option of a bigger bullet and a slightly more readily available cartridge with a storied past.
Good insight. The only -06- I've shot were easily 7+ lbs and kicked pretty hard. The 9+ pound m1 garand was quite shootable but still a pig so it dissipated a lot if that recoil. I am personally somewhat fond of the idea of 7mm-08 after reading about it so you never know. We'll see what else floats along.Of these 2 RIFLE choices, the Mark V Ultralight is a rifle I seriously desired 16-18 years ago. There was even one in .30-06 on the used rack at what was one of my favorite local gunshops. Luckily (?) I was 18 and saving for college classes and didn't buy it.
However, a .30-06 in a sub 6-lb rifle is going to kick quite hard. Like .300 Magnum hard. Now I've had a 6-lb single-shot .45-70 that earned the nickname "The Punisher", and I'm not sure I want to try to zero that Ultralight in -06 if it takes more than a couple of 3-shot groups. Repeated exposure to that level of recoil doesn't in fact do good things for your shooting habits. (After shooting a few rounds through that .45-70 I mentioned, I'd tense up shooting my 14-lb AR-15 target rifle for the first few strings, until my subconscious re-learned I wasn't going to get smacked around every trigger pull.)
Now, if you were to consider getting the Ultralight in a .308 or 7mm-08, I think you'd have a much more shootable rifle, which would still be perfectly adequate for whitetails to 300 yards. With 150 to 165 grain bullets, there isn't enough performance difference between the odd-six and the .308 to lose any sleep over. And I might not agree with the "1/4-1/3 less" recoil jmr40 quoted earlier, but the .308 DOES kick less than the odd-six. I have my grandfather's old tang-safety Ruger 77 in .308 and a Remington 700 ADL in .30-06, that weigh about the same all dressed up. (I don't have a postage scale but I'd ball-park 8-ish pounds each.) There's no doubt in my mind the .308 is easier to shoot, even after putting half a box of ammo through the odd-six to get "tenderized" first.
So yeah, I'd vote "other" if it was an option and say find a Weatherby Ultralight in .308.
There is something very American and satisfying about letting "Thirty aught six" roll off your tongue with authority. Almost like "Merica!"I like saying “awt six” so that’s how I vote.
I used the 140 Accubonds for my moose last year. The 860 lb (dressed) critter was down and out at 270 yards within 15 yards of where I shot it in the old haul road.I have noticed on these rifle boards that the larger caliber always gets more love. So if your choice were for example 260 vs. 270, 270 would win, or in another case if you asked 17HMR vs. 22WMR, 22 would win, or if you asked 7mm Rem Mag Vs. 300 Win Mag, 300 would win. There is just some kind of "bigger " bias and I can not understand it totally.
For me 270 is the winner especially in a 24" barrel and sighted in 3" high at 100 yds. This was called for in Jack O'Connor's excellent " Know your big game rifle" https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjAAegQIARAB&usg=AOvVaw2zJ3HIdOSG6b0qbKWLyjF8
The 270 Win with good old 130 gr. Sierras, 140 gr. Accubonds, or 150 Interbonds is just plain deadly.
https://www.hornady.com/bullets/rifle/270-cal-277-150-gr-interbond#!/
I don’t know that there is another sport where guys argue so vehemently over totally meaingless differences
I don’t know that there is another sport where guys argue so vehemently over totally meaingless differences.