30.06 VS 270 WITH a 150 grain bullet

Status
Not open for further replies.
txcookie said:
How do you quote a post btw?????
Click to expand...

They took that option out because people didn't want to be bothered with deleting the bits that were not needed.


otherwise you need to cut and paste the text you want to quote and type [noparse]
[/noparse] in front of it and [noparse]
Click to expand...
[/noparse] after it

the best way to do it though is to type [noparse]
screename of person you are quoting said:
[/noparse] in front
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
d2wing said:
Trajectory is very similar. The 30-06 has a more stable bullet at a more optimum speed according to Chuckhawks. The 30-06 has a long proven edge in accuracy and killing power. But so many people believe the old Winchester salesman that the .270 is a wonder cartridge that it is hard to get a factual discussion.
The .270 has a slightly flatter trajectory beyond 500 yards which is beyond it's effective range due to bullet instability. Under 300-400 yards there is no big difference in the 150 grain bullet. Either one is effective beyond normal hunting range and in that grain bullet it is a toss-up. Recoil should be the same. I have a
Couple 30-06 rifles, I would not buy a .270 because at my age I might not notice
The small difference in bullets and try to load the wrong ones. When you are absent minded and vision isn't the best, you need caution.
Also as bench rest shooters know, skinny and fast isn't optimum in bullets, the mythical flatter shooting .270 is mostly that. It is somewhat flatter , barely in same weight bullets, but at the cost of stability.
Click to expand...
Please share where this instability of .277 caliber bullets is documented since we are having a factual discussion here, not relying on snake oil.
 
I don't have a dog in this fight as I own nor load for either cartridges. However I'm not exactly sure what ballistic tables everyone is looking at. The one i just viewed at Hornady shows the .270 having it all over the the 30-06 with a 150gr bullet. This makes since to me since the .270 150gr bullet has a greater BC than the 150gr 308" bullet.

http://www.hornady.com/store/270-Win-150-gr-SP/

http://www.hornady.com/store/30-06-Springfield-150-gr-SP/

And since when does the .270 have have stability issues? This is certanly a news to me.
 
funny alot of people think the 270. lags in the elk department but from what Hornady and winchester Tables show its actually a pretty excellent cartridge out to 500 yards for elk with 1400 plus in foot pounds. Thats kinda the standard for elk right?
 
To me this is a moot discussion. When you are trying to limit a caliber to one load it is difficult to make any kind of decision. The 150 grain round is far from the 06's best performance but it is still very effective with that load. I for one would feel great using a 30-06 or .270. Nothing wrong with either caliber, I tend to slightly favor the 06 though overall.
 
In response to the question about stability there are formulas such as Miller and Greenhill to calculate this. Basically a long skinny bullet does not stabilize as well as a fat bullet. Other factors such as,bullet shape aside from B.C. Bearing surface, rifling twist etc. the 270 is not used in serious target shooting or bench rest unlike the .308 because no one has solved the optimum shape, twist rate,
And velocity to make the .270 work. Recently Outdoor life did a project on the .270. It's like spinning a pencil like a top. Hard isn't it. The .270 is a great round.
If you prefer it fine. Just trying to shed light on popular myths.
 
d2wing said:
In response to the question about stability there are formulas such as Miller and Greenhill to calculate this. Basically a long skinny bullet does not stabilize as well as a fat bullet. Other factors such as,bullet shape aside from B.C. Bearing surface, rifling twist etc. the 270 is not used in serious target shooting or bench rest unlike the .308 because no one has solved the optimum shape, twist rate,
And velocity to make the .270 work. Recently Outdoor life did a project on the .270. It's like spinning a pencil like a top. Hard isn't it. The .270 is a great round.
If you prefer it fine. Just trying to shed light on popular myths.
Click to expand...
Where do you get this stuff? There are no, none, nada, zip stability issues with bullets in the .270. There's no magic to figuring out rate of twist required for a particular bullet length and .277 cal bullets aren't particularly long for their caliber. The standard 1:10 twist of a .270 has mo problems with the Woodleigh 200gn.

The .270 isn't used as a target round because of a lack of suitable bullets. It was developed as a hunting round and has nothing to offer as a target round. The .308 isn't a serious target round anymore and the .30-06 isn't either. But that isn't even germane to this discussion anyway. Last I checked we're talking about hunting rounds. Considering that there are more fantastic hunting rounds that aren't used for target shooting, bringing up target and benchrest, where neither of the cartridges being discussed are used, is a total non sequitur.
 
I'm just curious enough to look things up. Sorry that it irritates you so. I was responding to someone who asked about stability. Just trying to help. You are probably right about the hunting part. Perhaps the tendency to yaw helps lethality. Shoot in peace.
 
Look it up where? Source? Preferably credible.

Knowledge with a credible background doesn't bother me in the slightest. I'm extremely nerdy about this stuff and read extensively about it. What irritates me, and should irritate everyone is completely wrong information passed off as "undeniable fact" when there is nothing anywhere to support it.
 
Look up the formulas in my post yourself. You don't have to take my word for it.
Correction, you think it's all b.s. no problem.
 
helotaxi said:
The .308 isn't a serious target round anymore
Click to expand...

If you discount PALMA, F-Class (TR), Service Rifle (M1A/M14) and the US military maybe that's true.

Now back to regular programming ... the .270 Win vs. the .30-06 Sprg.
 
Limit them both to 150gr and the 270 gets my vote seeing as I don't care much for 150gr 30 cals, compare the 165 or 180gr 30-06 and it is a very different ball game.
In 150gr the 270 has fantastic ballistics while the 30 cals are so-so, 165 and 180gr 30 cals tend to have much better external ballistics then there lighter counterparts.
For the record my 06 sees alot more time in the woods then my 270s, my 165gr SGK handloads shoot very well and are devastating on game.
 
Both are about equal around 300-400 yds. in terms of power, speed ,and trajectory. Both have taken down everything from Whitetail to Elk at those ranges.
 
At normal hunting ranges they are very close to equal. Outdoor life built a 270 special target rifle, there's a online article about it. The results were poor. 1 1/2 groups at 100 yards for a benchrest rifle. At long range shooters a guy has built a good rifle for long range but it takes a lot of knowledge and custom components to make the .270 shoot well. Many guys have trouble finding a load to shoot well in the long range hunting forum.
I could not find the article I read about the .270 awhile back so for anyone interested I will attempt to relate the jist of it.
The op wants to compare 150 grain .270 to .30 cal 150 grain. The factory .270 load shows a .291 BC load for the .270. Much different that the Sierra .500 something bullet. Why?
Dumb maker that doesn't want to sell ammo?
Several reasons. Rifle bullets are heavier toward the rear, center of gravity is behind midpoint of bullet. A long high BC bullet is more so. Plus it has a longer jump to the lands causing greater wobble and deformation. Also it has less bearing area causing it to be less concentric to the bore. Since the bullet is tail heavy it needs more rpm to stabilize but there are points of diminishing returns.
Once out of the barrel. The smaller diameter of the bullet has a less gyroscopic effect than a .30 cal bullet.
The net effect is to match the stability of the .30 cal, the .270 has to spin faster
And has a lower BC bullet. that negates the higher SD of the .270.
Also when the .270 slows it begins to lose stability and wobble.
This all can be overcome with custom bullets, barrels and chambers designed for a specific bullet. But then you are at the starting point of a 30-06.
For 3-400 yard hunting none of this matters but you might want to know about it.
Of course many rifles do outshoot theory and there are factors I don't recall.
 
Last edited:
JrRanger

Just loaded some 150 gr Speer Deep Curl with a few powders for testing in the .270
I like to take deer down where they stand so I'm not chasin the animals into ravines and such. Shot placement is important with any bullet weight and 130 gr Nozler BT's work really good. I just wanted to check these bullets out in case I'm off target by an inch or so. I also have some Speer Grand Slam in 150 gr for run ups. I think these are some what of a partition bullet and controled expansion is what I'm after. I also load 06 for a friend while he likes 165 gr soft points. We're shooting 200-250 yds max. at game, not 500 & out! Performance and shot placement put game in the pot!:)
 
At normal hunting ranges they are very close to equal. Outdoor life built a 270 special target rifle, there's a online article about it. The results were poor. 1 1/2 groups at 100 yards for a benchrest rifle. At long range shooters a guy has built a good rifle for long range but it takes a lot of knowledge and custom components to make the .270 shoot well. Many guys have trouble finding a load to shoot well in the long range hunting forum.
I could not find the article I read about the .270 awhile back so for anyone interested I will attempt to relate the jist of it.
The op wants to compare 150 grain .270 to .30 cal 150 grain. The factory .270 load shows a .291 BC load for the .270. Much different that the Sierra .500 something bullet. Why?
Dumb maker that doesn't want to sell ammo?
Several reasons. Rifle bullets are heavier toward the rear, center of gravity is behind midpoint of bullet. A long high BC bullet is more so. Plus it has a longer jump to the lands causing greater wobble and deformation. Also it has less bearing area causing it to be less concentric to the bore. Since the bullet is tail heavy it needs more rpm to stabilize but there are points of diminishing returns.
Once out of the barrel. The smaller diameter of the bullet has a less gyroscopic effect than a .30 cal bullet.
The net effect is to match the stability of the .30 cal, the .270 has to spin faster
And has a lower BC bullet. that negates the higher SD of the .270.
Also when the .270 slows it begins to lose stability and wobble.
This all can be overcome with custom bullets, barrels and chambers designed for a specific bullet. But then you are at the starting point of a 30-06.
For 3-400 yard hunting none of this matters but you might want to know about it.
Of course many rifles do outshoot theory and there are factors I don't recall.
Click to expand...

I just read the article that you mentioned, you are clearly taking it out of context. With factory ammo yes the .270 didn't give results that would win any prizes. However when it was fed properly handloaded ammo the results were much different. The author wrote that the .270 turned in sub M.O.A. accuracy with handloaded ammo from 90gr to 150gr. Last time I checked serious match shooters shoot carefully prepared ammo not off the shelf ammo.

here is a link to the article for everyone to read.
http://www.outdoorlife.com/articles/guns/rifles/2007/09/270-mystery
 
d2wing said:
At normal hunting ranges they are very close to equal. Outdoor life built a 270 special target rifle, there's a online article about it. The results were poor. 1 1/2 groups at 100 yards for a benchrest rifle.
Click to expand...
This is a bullet problem, not a cartridge, twist or voodoo problem.

The op wants to compare 150 grain .270 to .30 cal 150 grain. The factory .270 load shows a .291 BC load for the .270. Much different that the Sierra .500 something bullet. Why?
Dumb maker that doesn't want to sell ammo?
Several reasons. Rifle bullets are heavier toward the rear, center of gravity is behind midpoint of bullet. A long high BC bullet is more so. Plus it has a longer jump to the lands causing greater wobble and deformation. Also it has less bearing area causing it to be less concentric to the bore. Since the bullet is tail heavy it needs more rpm to stabilize but there are points of diminishing returns.
Once out of the barrel. The smaller diameter of the bullet has a less gyroscopic effect than a .30 cal bullet.
The net effect is to match the stability of the .30 cal, the .270 has to spin faster
And has a lower BC bullet. that negates the higher SD of the .270. Also when the .270 slows it begins to lose stability and wobble.
Click to expand...
You're making a lot of assumptions here. First you're assuming the factory (not sure which factory you're talking about) bullet, which based on the high SD that a 150gn .277 cal bullet would have is probably a round nose, not a bullet suitable for long range work. A 150gn Interbond or SST has a BC over 0.5, more than 0.1 higher than a like bullet of the same weight in .30cal. Second a 150gn .277 bullet will have a very long bearing surface and the .270 cartridge has a very long neck. Those two things negate the whole "small bearing surface" and bore alignment issue. A 150gn .30cal with a boat tail will have a very short bearing surface so much more likely to suffer from the problem that you describe if the rounds are not well assembled. Lastly, the location of the CG does have some impact on the spin required to stabilize the bullet, but it actually helps the bullet stabilize as it slows down, not the other way around. The problem is not that the CG is aft of the center of the bullet, that is actually irrelelvant. The issue is that the aerodynamic center of pressure is forward of the center of gravity so the two forces acting on the bullet are acting on different points. This means that once the bullet is upset significantly, it will be very unlikely to return to stable, nose forward flight. This is true for any spitzer pointed bullet. The key then is to get the bullet out of the bore cleanly with minimal wobble. The long shank of a heavy .277cal bullet makes this fairly easy. As the bullet slows from drag, the force acting on the aerodynamic CoP decerases, but the gyroscopic moment stays fairly constant. RPM decays much more slowly than velocity. The result is a bullet actually becomes more stable from a gyroscopic standpoint as it goes further downrange. This does require the bullet to come out of the bore cleanly and be well made and balanced. None of these issues are unique to the .270 and the .270 is not especially plagued by them because of "unique" bullet designs.
This all can be overcome with custom bullets, barrels and chambers designed for a specific bullet. But then you are at the starting point of a 30-06.
For 3-400 yard hunting none of this matters but you might want to know about it.
Of course many rifles do outshoot theory and there are factors I don't recall.
Click to expand...
None of the "custom" stuff is required and other than the velocity difference with like bullets weights compared to the .30-06, the .270 is not at any particualr disadvantage. Again, I'm not sure where you got your info, but you need to recheck it. If you're the inquisitive type, Applied Ballistics for Long Range Shooting is a must read.
 
I appreciate your informed response. You did answer a question I had about that other article concerning why the bullet is less stable at long distance. you are correct that it is not RPM. I still prefer the 30-06. There is no theory's or test's or chest beating needed to prove it is accurate and effective.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

S
  • Locked
M1 Garand .308 or 30.06???
2
Replies
35
Views
12K
USSR
U
D
  • Locked
30.06 Ammo advice
Replies
8
Views
647
RandyB
R
stinger 327
  • Locked
30.06 in various grains
2 3 4 5
Replies
121
Views
6K
stinger 327
stinger 327
N
  • Locked
.308 vs. 30.06
Replies
17
Views
880
Vern Humphrey
V
5
  • Locked
30.06 versus 8mm
Replies
21
Views
15K
mec
M
Back
Top