270 Vs 308

[cratz2]

I really get tired hearing of the arm chair ballistic jibble spewed forth on so many threads.

The facts are, all this nonsense of flatter trajectory does not amount to a hill of beans and never has.

So Wild Romanian... I know you like to try to push peoples buttons but mine are generally pretty hard to push, esp when the pusher is completely wrong. Are you really going to contend that things like trajectory, retained energy, retained velocity and sectional density have bo bearing on long distance target shooting?

Some folks I just don't get...

 

[Kaylee]

you know.. one of the things I always liked about moderating in the rifle forum is that y'all are a pretty easy-going kinda of crowd. There's not a lot of "One True Sword" or infighting over little things like cartridge choice... folks are just generally civil to each other.

Thanks for playing nice.

-K

 

[jem375]

TexasBret......first place the 270 is not .270,,,,,,it's .277, and the 7MM is .284.........and the 308 will keep up with the 30-06 with 150 and 165 gr. bullets, it's when the heavier bullets are used that the 30-06 takes over with more powder space..........we use the 308 up here in the North, and have no complaints with the killing power of the 308, and the deer does not know if it is killed with a 270 or a 308........

 

[TexasBret]

Well, I haven't reloaded in a while, so I had to dig out my ballistic tables.

7mmMag (175gr .284 SBT @2900fps) zeroed at 100yds drops 25.38" at 400yds

.308 Winchester (180gr .271 SBT @2600fps) zeored at 100yds drops 33.98" at 400yds

Both rounds loaded to maxium powder load.

Difference is 8.6". If you missed your TARGET by 8.6" would you call that significant? Do you think it would change the result from a sure kill to just a wound? Maybe?

Either way a 8.6" difference is a "straighter" trajectory. I wouldn't call this a myth.

Don't get me wrong, the 30-06 is a great round and has proven it's success over time. But I understand that elk aren't so easy to sneak up on. Longer shots, compared to deer, are the norm not the exception. Even the 30-06 has a 3" greater drop than the 7mmMag at 400yds. You can pass on the shot or try to "compensate" manually, but it's still 3" difference (30-06) or 8.6" for the .308.

"Just the facts mam..."

 

[TexasBret]

jem375

Well excuse me for trying not to be too technical, but you are correct. The .270 Winchester is .277 and the 7mm is .284. It has been a while since I reloaded any large caliber ammo.

I'm sure a .308 will kill any deer in NA just fine. I never had any problem killing them with a 270. But having shot all four: .270; 7mmMag; .308; 30-06 (.308 as well), I would still choose them in the order of .270, 7mmMag, 30-06, then .308. Just my personal preference. If I were a big elk hunter that order would probably change, but the .308 would still be last, which was my main point.

If you're happy with it for your use, great. I'm not trying to change your thinking, just giving someone else my opinion. He will have to make up his own mind. But in my opinion the 270 is a great rifle, one that I would gladly choose again.

 

[Art Eatman]

One of the things not mentioned here about the .270 is that it was considered to be an '06 with less recoil, and was somewhat popularized as a "lady's rifle" because of that. The common measure was the .270's 130-grain bullet against the '06's 180-grain. This is from various gunwriters of the 1940s/1950s, mind you, before the various maggies and such as the .308/.243.

For the once-a-year city-guy hunter, trajectory is very important. That's why the .264 and 7mmRem magni were so popular, so quickly. Their users weren't as good at estimating range, in those days before lasers, so an error of 50 to even a hundred yards was not as critical when compared to the commonly-seen 30-calibers. ("Not as critical" does not mean "doesn't matter".)

Just a dab of history, there, a little perspective...

Art

 

[TexasBret]

Thanks for the history lesson. I've heard the .243 called a "ladies" gun, but never the .270. But then the 40's and 50's are well before my time.

As for recoil, I've had numerous opportunities to shot .270, 30-06 and 7mmMag. Never felt any difference between the 270 and 30-06. Do you? (Only a few grains difference in powder charge for 150gr bullets)

Always felt the 7mmMag had a lot more recoil than the other two which is why I never traded up. Over kill for a deer as far as I'm concerned. The 270 was very effective in that regard.

I'm not an elk hunter, but if I was I might well pick the 30-06 over the 7mmMag. Don't really know since I never had to make that decision.

(By the way, to me a city guy is someone from a town of 5,000. I'm from the sticks of N LA and did most of my hunting in rural AR. Nearest "city" was 30 miles away (obviously AR not TX). I had to give up deer hunting when I moved to the BIG city. I'm just a quail hunter now, but find it much more enjoyable anyway. Any quail in your area?)

 

[cratz2]

What a tactful way of telling me and a certain other member to calm down, Kaylee.

And as much as I like the 270 (and 25-06 and 243) I must admit that my wife doesn't mind shooting it. She doesn't like her step fathers BDL in 20-06 so I guess I can't dispute the ladies rifle claim. I still like the cartridge though.

TexasBret, one thing to keep in mind comparing the 270 to the 30-06 is that the most popular load for the 270 is the 130 Gr and lots of folks buy 180 Gr 30-06s. A noticable difference. To me anyway and I'm not much put off by recoil.

 

[Lone Star]

Frankly, any of the ammo in the general range of the .270. .280, 7x64mm, .308, .30/06, even the milder 7mm's like the 7mm/08 and the ancient 7x57mm (with modern loads) will do the job.

If you need more, look at a .300 Magnum or the .338 or .340 Weatherby. But you then have more power than needed by most people for most game, the recoil and ammo cost are much increased, and the rifle may cost more. (The Weatherby WILL cost more than most other factory brands.)

You might think about being guided largely by the overall finish and fitting of the rifle and the quality of wood in a given example as much as or more than by the caliber, assuming that the caliber is one of the reasonable ones.

Re the .280, for years it was underloaded by Remington to function well in their autoloaders, and wasn't too popular. It could be hard to find in some stores. Today, that's much improved, but the .270 is still easier to find at many country stores. If you forget your ammo, that's an important issue.

Lone Star

 

[TexasBret]

cratz2

Yeh, I usually shot the 130gr. But like I said, I only used it to hunt deer, nothing bigger.

For comparison purposes, knowing that most 30-06 shooters use heavier bullets, I used the 150gr ballistics table. The bullet weight is the one draw back to a 270 if you want to hunt larger NA game, which I never did.

Have a great Easter!

 

[Art Eatman]

One nice thing about a .270 is that you don't even need a powder scale for reloading. Just fill the case with 4831 and seat a 130-grain on top. It's still a tad below max pressure. Easy-shooting load, plumb ruinacious on Bambi.

TexasBret, we have blue quail down here in the desert. (They're fairly common once you get much west of San Antonio, in the country south of US 90.) Blues are about half-again the size of a bobwhite. They're the track stars of the quail world.

, Art

 

[jem375]

TexasBret........to compare the 308 to a 7MM Mag is crazy......of course it will have a better trajectory, and especially using a 180 gr. bullet.......that's like comparing the 270 to my 7MM STW....we were writing about the 270 compared to the 308 and they are pretty close.......you don't need a cannon to kill the small Texas deer in the first place, any flat shooting rifle will do the trick......

 

[BHP9]

7mmMag (175gr .284 SBT @2900fps) zeroed at 100yds drops 25.38" at 400yds

Difference is 8.6". If you missed your TARGET by 8.6" would you call that significant? Do you think it would change the result from a sure kill to just a wound? Maybe?

No disrespect Tex but you just proved my point. Does anyone realize how really far 400 yards is under field conditions. Most hunters that I know personally have difficulty hitting anything over 50 yards under field conditions and I am not exaggerating.

My point is and always has been that under normal and reasonalble hunting ranges for the average hunter trajectory is of no consequence whatsoever. Shooting at game over 200 yards is just pure recklessness except for those very few shooters that are very highly skilled rifleman and in todays rush and hurry society even though most of us will not admiit it they are as scarce as four leaf clovers.

I ask people out there to be honest with themselves and answer the question: When was the last time you shot 2,000 rounds plus in the offhand postion in practice, because if you have not chances are you are not qualified to be shooting at game at ranges much beyond 100yards so that wounded game will be kept to a mininum.

I myself practice constantly in the summer rifle match seaons and even though I have been doing it for years and years if I skip the constant practice my skill level starts to drop very fast and very dramatically. So I do not send you this information while quoting from ballistic tables as I gaze out of an ivory tower while looking at the shooting world through rose colored glasses.

I will not even bother to quote ballistic tables but anyone can take a look at them and see the trajectory is often very minor if apples are compared to apples often varying not much more than a couple of inches at reasonable hunting ranges. It only becomes significant when we are talking of extremely long range shooting which in my opinion is something that should not be attempted by most responsible hunters who respect the game that they hunt.

I think the classic mistake that is made over and over again in peoples minds wether it be becoming more proficient in skilled target competition or becoming a better field hunter is simply this: People think that to become better all they have to do is spend more money on better equipment rather than putting in the hard work through long practice that will really enable them to accomplish their goals. Their is no technological substitute for skill and skill only comes about through long hours of diligent practice no matter what super wiz bang cartridge and latest lazer range finder you may choose to use.

 

[Sodbuster]

"lady's rifle"

Just call me ma'am.

 

[Mannlicher]

I shoot both. My 1952 Mannlicher Schoenauer rifle is very accurate, and utterly reliable. This particular rifle likes 130 grain bullets best. I bought a LOT of 150 grain Federal a few years ago when the local KMart went out of the guns and ammo biz. I have been just shooting it up (only cost me $1/box of 20) to practice, have some fun, and free up the cases to reload.

In .308, I have a Winchester Model 70. I don't shoot it often. There is nothing wrong with it, but I have never really liked the .308 as a hunting round. I am sticking with the .30/06 for a .30 caliber rifle.

My 'go to' gun for deer hunting is neither of these though. I prefer my little Marlin Carbine in .44 Mag for the heavy cover I hunt in down here in North Florida.

 

[TexasBret]

BHP9

Let me start by apologizing. I never meant to start a "caliber" war here. Please shoot whatever you like or are good with. Of the people I hunted with, when I started, two used 30-06, one used 308 and one 270. I don't really recall why I chose the 270. Obviously from somebody's recommedation. I have great respect for the 30-06. It has certainly proved itself.

Secondly, I probably never shot a deer over 75 yards. Hunting in the piney woods of S. Arkansas, you seldom had a opening longer than 100 yds. However, my friend who liked to go elk hunting out west switched from 30-06 to 7mmMag. Normal shooting distances were much longer than with deer hunting in AR. But since I'm no expert on this matter, I'm going to bow out of this discussion. I would guess that as many or maybe even more elk are killed with 30-06 as any other round. I have often read though, and ballistic tables confirm it, that the bullets in the 7mm range have flatter trajectories at most ranges. Your correct to say that if you only plan on shooting deer at 50 yards or less, then the difference is totally meaningless. But for an elk hunter in MT, it might make a big difference. As for me, you don't have to worry. The furry critters I shoot at now have to be at less than 50 yds or I can forget it!

Have a great weekend and a happy Easter.

 

[Art Eatman]

BHP9, where I'd argue with you about comparative performance and trajectories has to do with "most folks" rifles.

That is, a lot of .308s are sold with 20" or 22" barrels. Most of the maggies have 24" or 26" barrels. Such 308s won't have the maximum performance available from the longer tube. To me, that probable 400 ft/sec comparison, +/-, makes the difference.

Example: My '06 is 26", and I load the Sierra 150-grain SPBT. At 400 yards, one day, I compared it with a buddy's 20" .308 using Argentine military ammo. My rig is zeroed at 200 yards, so at 400 yards I gotta hold over about two feet, mas o menos. With his, I was adding almost another foot of holdover, plus maybe six inches more windage.

I figure a max load 140-grain SPBT from a 7mm Rem Mag would be even a bit flatter than my '06, running a couple of hundred ft/sec faster and having a bit better BC.

Really sorta academic, though, since I've only had two occasions to reach out into the 400-yard country for deer.

, Art