I am going to buy a Ruger M-77 Mark II in 270 or 308. I will mostly be using it for Deer, Pig, and coyote at up to 400 yards. what woud you guys get and is it a good gun(Pro's and Con's). another thing what is a good scope for the ruger for under $300:
Ruger M-77 Mark II in 270 or 308
- Thread starter BOW CEFUS
- Start date
- Status
Eightball
Member
....
Last edited:
cdrt
Member
My son-in-law had his heart set on a .270 and bought one (Savage left hand bolt). He's wishing now that he got the .308 instead; more bullet choices and less powder to reload.
Navy Vet & SWIFT Boat OIC
Navy Vet & SWIFT Boat OIC
Anteater1717
Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2006
- Messages
- 586
DON'T BUY EITHER
Get a Vulcan they say they are the arsenal of freedom, and that there company is the greatest arms manufacturer in the world.
They are so humble and their guns are so accurate reliable. I use mine for 800yd elk hunting in the Mojave. I have gotten every elk that I’ve seen so far. They are the definition of classic styling and true quality.
http://www.vulcanarmament.com/cgist...tup=1&ida=86&idp=0&his=0&cart_id=6291809.5132
Go with the .308 not the .270 more versatile
Get a Vulcan they say they are the arsenal of freedom, and that there company is the greatest arms manufacturer in the world.
They are so humble and their guns are so accurate reliable. I use mine for 800yd elk hunting in the Mojave. I have gotten every elk that I’ve seen so far. They are the definition of classic styling and true quality.
http://www.vulcanarmament.com/cgist...tup=1&ida=86&idp=0&his=0&cart_id=6291809.5132
Go with the .308 not the .270 more versatile
Eightball
Member
Depending on the size of the pig, I'd say the .270. For all the ".308=best round ever" people, this is heresy, but it's a flat shooting, softer recoiling round that exists for a reason. Of course, it also depends on the size of your deer, but within 400 yards sounds very reasonable for the cartridge. There aren't as many loads, for certain, but the ones available should be fine for your purpose. Either would work well, but .270 gets my vote.
A rifle is "made" by the scope sitting atop it--spend as much as you can afford; a VxII would be a good option, and you can find them for a good price.
A rifle is "made" by the scope sitting atop it--spend as much as you can afford; a VxII would be a good option, and you can find them for a good price.
Jackal
Member
The .270 is a waste of time. Ammunition costs are high, recoil is about the same as .308 and it has less power/load options. .308, no brainer.
If a long-action rifle works for you, get a .30-06.
It'll do anything the .308 will do, and go on up from there.
The only reasons to get a .308 in a bolt gun are target competition (lots of factory and well-tested target loads) and if you want a compact gun. In a full-size rifle, the .30-06 is a more versatile round and with the right heavy loads will work on a big, faraway pig.
The .270 shoots a bit flatter, but if you want a do-anything gun, the .30-06 will do a bit more. Take your pick.
It'll do anything the .308 will do, and go on up from there.
The only reasons to get a .308 in a bolt gun are target competition (lots of factory and well-tested target loads) and if you want a compact gun. In a full-size rifle, the .30-06 is a more versatile round and with the right heavy loads will work on a big, faraway pig.
The .270 shoots a bit flatter, but if you want a do-anything gun, the .30-06 will do a bit more. Take your pick.
SwampWolf
Member
Either way, stick with the Ruger. I prefer the .308 (shorter bolt throw) but the .270 makes for a slightly better long range load, especially with the 130 grain bullet.
aspade
Member
The .270, like any other necked down, 3150 fps magnum, is a specialized long range cartridge. Inside 300 yards, the trajectory difference isn't to matter and all you get is more muzzle blast, and more meat wasted - especially inside 150 yards or so.
300 yards is a long shot in the field. If you honestly think you're going to take one further than that, the .308 would be a handicap. The rest of the time it's as practical a cartridge as there has ever been.
I don't think much of the Ruger - bulky cast receiver, crappy trigger, and most importantly Bill Ruger was a bigtime sellout to the gun grabbers. I would look at CZ, Savage, and Remington in that order.
300 yards is a long shot in the field. If you honestly think you're going to take one further than that, the .308 would be a handicap. The rest of the time it's as practical a cartridge as there has ever been.
I don't think much of the Ruger - bulky cast receiver, crappy trigger, and most importantly Bill Ruger was a bigtime sellout to the gun grabbers. I would look at CZ, Savage, and Remington in that order.
Flat-shooting, BTW, is a misnomer.
Look at this chart: http://www.remington.com/products/a..._results.aspx?data=PRC270WB*PRC308WA*PRC3006B
I took 3 good-quality Remington hunting loads, one each for .270, .308, .30-06: 140 gr., 150 gr. and 168 gr., as appropriate for the rounds, all Premier Core-Lokt Ultra Bonded bullets. Take a look.
Sighted in at 200 yards with the scope 1.5" over the bore, here's the drop in iches that you get at 250, 300, 400 and 500 yards.
.270: -3.0 -7.6 -22.5 -46.4
.308: -3.4 -8.6 -25.5 -53.1
.30-06:-3.3 -8.5 -25.1 -51.7
Yes, a drop of just under 2 feet at 400 yards is "flatter" than a drop of just over 2 feet! But either way, you'd better know your range and compensate for the drop, if you really think you'll be shooting that far. At 400 yards, all three rounds drop about 2 feet, no matter how you slice it.
Particularly with all the new scopes that come with reticles that show bullet drop, I really think "flat-shooting" is WAY overrated.
The difference between the drop of a .270 and a .30-06 at 400 yards is about 0.7 MOA, in other words less than or equal to a good hunting rifle's group size from a machine rest, and several times less than a good hunting rifle's practical accuracy in the field.
The various similar spitzer hunting bullet trajectories are so similar at ethical ranges that they should be chosen by other criteria instead: recoil, gun size/weight, desired barrel length, price/accuracy of rounds, energy downrange, desired bullet weight, even bolt throw as mentioned above.
The really good reason to choose a .270 over a .30-06 would be that you want to shoot 130-140 grain bullets, not because it shoots an inch "flatter" at 300 yards.
Just MHO.
Look at this chart: http://www.remington.com/products/a..._results.aspx?data=PRC270WB*PRC308WA*PRC3006B
I took 3 good-quality Remington hunting loads, one each for .270, .308, .30-06: 140 gr., 150 gr. and 168 gr., as appropriate for the rounds, all Premier Core-Lokt Ultra Bonded bullets. Take a look.
Sighted in at 200 yards with the scope 1.5" over the bore, here's the drop in iches that you get at 250, 300, 400 and 500 yards.
.270: -3.0 -7.6 -22.5 -46.4
.308: -3.4 -8.6 -25.5 -53.1
.30-06:-3.3 -8.5 -25.1 -51.7
Yes, a drop of just under 2 feet at 400 yards is "flatter" than a drop of just over 2 feet! But either way, you'd better know your range and compensate for the drop, if you really think you'll be shooting that far. At 400 yards, all three rounds drop about 2 feet, no matter how you slice it.
Particularly with all the new scopes that come with reticles that show bullet drop, I really think "flat-shooting" is WAY overrated.
The difference between the drop of a .270 and a .30-06 at 400 yards is about 0.7 MOA, in other words less than or equal to a good hunting rifle's group size from a machine rest, and several times less than a good hunting rifle's practical accuracy in the field.
The various similar spitzer hunting bullet trajectories are so similar at ethical ranges that they should be chosen by other criteria instead: recoil, gun size/weight, desired barrel length, price/accuracy of rounds, energy downrange, desired bullet weight, even bolt throw as mentioned above.
The really good reason to choose a .270 over a .30-06 would be that you want to shoot 130-140 grain bullets, not because it shoots an inch "flatter" at 300 yards.
Just MHO.
Last edited:
sansone
Member
I really like flat shooting cartridges. 270
aspade
Member
Comparing a 140 grain .270 to a 150 grain .308 is apples and oranges. The sectional density analog of a 150 grain .30 caliber bullet would be a 120 grain in .27, and if such an animal existed it'd load to 3250fps.
A more realistic comparison:
.270 130 grain bullet, BC .45, 3150fps, zero @ 265 for +/-3"
.308 165 grain bullet, BC .47, 2800fps, zero @ 240 for the same +/-3"
Drop at 300, 350, and 400 yards
.270 -2.2" -6.6" -12.4"
.308 -4.8" -10.8" -18.6"
More importantly, since you adjust for range at 400 yards with any caliber, +/-3" margin of ranging error with a 400 yard zero:
.270 367-427 yards
.308 375-420 yards
A full third more wiggle room to protect you from your incompetence. If you can give that away every time, you're a better shot than I am.
A more realistic comparison:
.270 130 grain bullet, BC .45, 3150fps, zero @ 265 for +/-3"
.308 165 grain bullet, BC .47, 2800fps, zero @ 240 for the same +/-3"
Drop at 300, 350, and 400 yards
.270 -2.2" -6.6" -12.4"
.308 -4.8" -10.8" -18.6"
More importantly, since you adjust for range at 400 yards with any caliber, +/-3" margin of ranging error with a 400 yard zero:
.270 367-427 yards
.308 375-420 yards
A full third more wiggle room to protect you from your incompetence. If you can give that away every time, you're a better shot than I am.
.270 is not .27, it's closer to .28.
But no matter.
If you are not confident in making the shot, you have no business shooting pigs at those ranges.
And 120 grains is hardly a long-range pig round anyway, with little remaining energy at long range.
I chose bullets that are considered more-or-less standard for the rounds, and that would serve the purposes specified, not bullets tailored to make the numbers look better for the .270 and worse for the .308. And you didn't even mention the .30-06, which shoots a 165 grain bullet notably faster than the shrunken version, the .308.
Bottom line?
Out to 300 yards, the rounds are very similar. Furthermore, 1 MOA at 300 yards is 3". Even your artificial numbers (how many 120 grain .270 cartridges are sold?) are only 2.6" apart at 300 yards. That's smaller than the group size of a real rifle.
Past 300 yards, they all drop too much to shoot without compensating for drop.
And a fair comparison is between a .270 and a .30-06 with the same case. If you look at ENERGY, I think that the .30-06 will be a better round for faraway pigs.
MPBR of a standard 150 grain .270 and a 150 grain .30-06 are the same! You gain less than 20 yards for a 130 grain, and you lose a lot of energy. Past 300 yards, there's not a round out there that doesn't drop enough to matter. Even the Weatherby Magnums have MPBR's around 320.
But no matter.
If you are not confident in making the shot, you have no business shooting pigs at those ranges.
And 120 grains is hardly a long-range pig round anyway, with little remaining energy at long range.
I chose bullets that are considered more-or-less standard for the rounds, and that would serve the purposes specified, not bullets tailored to make the numbers look better for the .270 and worse for the .308. And you didn't even mention the .30-06, which shoots a 165 grain bullet notably faster than the shrunken version, the .308.
Bottom line?
Out to 300 yards, the rounds are very similar. Furthermore, 1 MOA at 300 yards is 3". Even your artificial numbers (how many 120 grain .270 cartridges are sold?) are only 2.6" apart at 300 yards. That's smaller than the group size of a real rifle.
Past 300 yards, they all drop too much to shoot without compensating for drop.
And a fair comparison is between a .270 and a .30-06 with the same case. If you look at ENERGY, I think that the .30-06 will be a better round for faraway pigs.
MPBR of a standard 150 grain .270 and a 150 grain .30-06 are the same! You gain less than 20 yards for a 130 grain, and you lose a lot of energy. Past 300 yards, there's not a round out there that doesn't drop enough to matter. Even the Weatherby Magnums have MPBR's around 320.
aspade
Member
.27 is to .30 as .277 is to .308. Semantics.
120 grain .270 bullets don't to my knowledge exist. The numbers I used were for 130 grain bonded, boat tailed bullets from Hornady or Swift. That would give you 1500 ft lbs of energy at 400 yards. A proper 30-06 load would have 1700 at the same distance. No animal would know the difference.
My first post in this thread said, in part, "Inside 300 yards, the trajectory difference isn't to matter..."
But beyond that range, the .270 is a meaningful step up when loaded properly. Which means midweight, polymer tipped boat tails, not flat based, semi spitzer elk bullets.
120 grain .270 bullets don't to my knowledge exist. The numbers I used were for 130 grain bonded, boat tailed bullets from Hornady or Swift. That would give you 1500 ft lbs of energy at 400 yards. A proper 30-06 load would have 1700 at the same distance. No animal would know the difference.
My first post in this thread said, in part, "Inside 300 yards, the trajectory difference isn't to matter..."
But beyond that range, the .270 is a meaningful step up when loaded properly. Which means midweight, polymer tipped boat tails, not flat based, semi spitzer elk bullets.
- Status
