PDA

View Full Version : .270 vs .30-06


Vanguard.223
May 9, 2012, 11:58 AM
Alright, so I have 2 custom made rifles both based off a German Mauser action, and as stated above theyre chambered in .270 and .30-06, if I were to make a long range set up out of these rifles which caliber would you choose? Is there an accuracy edge for one over the other?
Any pros or cons you can give would be helpful! I reload so price of ammunition isn't a problem!

Thanks!

tobnpr
May 9, 2012, 12:22 PM
Ballistically, they are very close. For hunting, it would be a toss up IMO.

However, when you say "long range setup" I'm going to assume you mean target, and from that respect I would give the nod to the .06.

Target bullet selection, especially Match and VLD types, are very limited in the .277 caliber. Not much to work with there, and I don't need to tell you that the selection of .308 bullets is mind boggling. Me, I would go with the .06 because of bullet selection/availability.

twobit
May 9, 2012, 12:27 PM
No easy answer. Lots of variables.
Are you going to shoot paper or large game animals at long range?

Generally the .270 will have a flatter arch than a 30-06 from muzzle to say 400 yards. If you zero both at say 200 yards and then shoot at 100 yards and again at 300 yards (without adjusting sight for range) the .270 will hit closer to point of aim than the 30-06 in the vertical axis at both 100 and 200 yards because normally the .270 has a higher velocity equating to a flatter arch. 32 feet per second per second of bullet fall is a given (gravity). Bullet velocity is the variable that creates the arched path of the bullet over distance. I define accuracy as putting the holes as close together as possible at a given distance.

How much wind is blowing can effect accuracy. Lighter bullets are blown about by the wind more than heavier bullets.

Brian Pfleuger
May 9, 2012, 12:39 PM
Which one is more accurate? Mechanical accuracy trumps any other consideration.
Would you use a less accurate gun because it has less wind drift?
You can calculate and compensate for drift and drop. You can calculate inaccuracy.

black mamba
May 9, 2012, 12:41 PM
I don't believe there is any inherent accuracy edge of one cartridge over the other. Generally speaking, to get the same Ballistic Coefficient in the .308 bullet you have to go about 40 grains heavier than the .277 bullet (180 gr to 140 gr), which would have more recoil. Less recoil is always conducive to more accurate shooting.

If both rifles have the same barrel length, you should also achieve slightly better drop numbers with the .270. Using the same Hornady SST bullet in both cartridges with max published velocities and a +/- 3" point blank range sighting, I came up with the following drop numbers:

180 SST @ 2850 fps = on @ 241 yds, PBR of 283 yds, -68" @ 600 yds, -319" @ 1,000 yds.
140 SST @ 2950 fps = on @ 249 yds, PBR of 293 yds, -61" @ 600 yds, -285" @ 1,000 yds.

These numbers are close enough that if one rifle had a longer barrel to achieve greater velocity, or if one was consistently more accurate, I would consider that a greater advantage. You can compensate for drop, you can't for innaccuracy.

PawPaw
May 9, 2012, 12:45 PM
That's a choice of philosophy more than the ballistics of the round. I can't really see a difference between the two for long-range work. The only edge might go to the .30 caliber with the greater bullet selection, but both are certainly capable cartridges.

Both calibers can be wonderfully accurate, so the choice is yours.

bailey bud
May 9, 2012, 12:50 PM
Unless you're shooting 180 grain bullets at moose or similarly large game, the 270 is fine.

(I own a .30-06 --- although my next rifle will be a Winchester Model 70 in .270)

jmr40
May 9, 2012, 12:50 PM
There are a lot more .30 caliber target bullets inteded for long range shooting. Most 270 bullets are designed for hunting There is more information available to guide you setting up a 30-06 for long range shooting. Heavier .30 bullets are less effected by wind at long range With good bullets, the 270 will always shoot flatter, but that is not a factor in long range shooting. As long as you are shooting at known distances you can always adjust your sights.

There are a few 270 bullets designed now for long range shooting and I believe that it is theoretically possible that both can be equal. But the 30-06 has been used in this role far, far more often and the information on how to do it is there. Getting a 270 to do it would be harder since you would be doing a lot of your own research on load data etc.

Vanguard.223
May 9, 2012, 12:51 PM
Wow, thanks for all the replies guys! I will be using this set up to mainly punch paper and ring steel, but would like to have the option to hunt with it as well. The rifles are exactly the same except for what they are chambered in. Thanks for the numbers as well. Both rifles are fairly heavy (9.5 lbs) topped with a cheap scope. I haven't even added a bipod and maybe a stock pouch. So thy might help with recoil if I chose the -06 and the heavy pills. By your responses it seems I can't go wrong with each!

Te Anau
May 9, 2012, 03:37 PM
I'll take a 30-06 over a .270 anyday.

spclPatrolGroup
May 9, 2012, 03:44 PM
You need to define long range, under 500 yards its a toss up, over 500 a 30 cal has better bullet choices, you will want something over 200gr with a high BC.

Vanguard.223
May 9, 2012, 04:52 PM
I was think over 500, probably closer to 800 and work my way out

RaySendero
May 9, 2012, 09:07 PM
Brian Pfleuger wrote:

Which one is more accurate? Mechanical accuracy trumps any other consideration.



270 vs 30/06 at 200yds - They say a pic is worth...


http://www.hunt101.com/data/500/medium/3006Case_100508_1.jpghttp://www.hunt101.com/data/500/3006Case_100508_3.jpg

603Country
May 9, 2012, 09:25 PM
I don't even own a 30-06, being a die-hard 270 guy. But...if I was wanting a rifle for long distance accuracy work, I'd go with the 30-06 purely because of what a couple of the other guys said, which is that more target bullets are available in 30 caliber. If the shooting is under 500 yards, I'd go with my 270, but out past that I'd go with the 30-06. Consider that if you intend to do some serious target shooting, you're gonna need serious gunsmith work on the rifle and some serious glass on top of it.

warbirdlover
May 9, 2012, 10:01 PM
I'll take a .270 over a 30-06 anyday. :D

AllenJ
May 9, 2012, 10:42 PM
Bottom line is the rifle that is most accurate should be used. We all have our favorite cartridges and are going to recommend them, but like Brian Pfleuger said, you can adjust for everything except a rifles inaccuracy.

RC20
May 9, 2012, 10:56 PM
Both are great cartridges.

Doing it over, if I was going to buy a hunting rifle it would be 270.

Long range target 3006.

But switch it and you would not go wrong that way.

old roper
May 10, 2012, 02:01 AM
It's hard to figure if you already build the rifles but it sound like since you mention both are 9.5lbs etc only difference being the chambers. If not.

Couple thing I always look at building, what bullets I want to use next barrel twist/length plus having a magazine length for them also how there throated.

As you said "I was think over 500, probably closer to 800 and work my way out"
also "but would like to have the option to hunt with it as well."

I've got a nice 270 that I had build as a hunting rifle also couple 30-06 and I could use one with some of Berger target bullets if I wanted. If I was looking more at the 270 also to include LR target shooting I would of build it more to handle the Matrix bullets in 165gr and 175gr bullets.

Lot of choice building.

hooligan1
May 12, 2012, 05:25 PM
Well, well, well,,,,, the ole thirty vs .270 win thread...... I love them equally, myself because I'm lucky, I have two 30-06's and one fantastic.270 win.
And before I tell you why they are equal (to me) I wanna tell you that the recoil on my son's Rem 700,(hard plastic buttplate) is the worst of the two 30-06, as far as recoil. This friday past I purchased a Savage 111, 30-06, that is another sub-moa shooter and it has a decent recoil pad on it, so the point I'm trying to make is that, up to friday I could spend all day at the range shooting my Savage 110, .270 win, cause it doesn't recoil as much as the 30-06. Back to that Reminton 700, trying to shoot it past maybe three groups of three rnds kinda gets painful, but it's a 1/4 moa shooter. My 110 is a 1/4 moa shooter also.

Between the two, if I were to get a moose tag, I'd opt for the 30-06, loaded with some 180 Nosler Partitions.
If I were to go on a trip to Wyoming, to shoot speed goats, I'd pack my .270 win, and plenty of 130 grn Ballistic tips.

The difference's in these cartridges aren't hugely different but confidence, I'll say it again confidence in either is the main thing.

just my buck fitty fellas, yes I really do love them equally!;)

ndking1126
May 13, 2012, 06:40 AM
I'm surprised it hasn't been mentioned (much) yet. One big factor here is what rate of twist the barrels are. You need the heavier bullets for shooting long range, so if one barrel has a slower rate of twist, it will probably stabilize the lighter bullets better, making it not as desireable for long range shooting.

Which one is more accurate? Mechanical accuracy trumps any other consideration.

I'll agree this right here is the single biggest factor in which one you should choose to setup for long range.

If they were equally accurate, I personally would go with some Berger VLDs in the .270. While I can handle the extra recoil, it's easier for me to shoot a gun with less recoil accurately.

http://www.longrangehunting.com/articles/270-win-long-range-shooting-1.php
Here is an interesting article on using the .270 for long range shooting.

Rifleman1776
May 13, 2012, 08:56 AM
Greater versatility with the 30-06.
Trajectory differences not enough to even talk about.
The .30 cal. heavier bullet is less affected by wind.
Personally, I think there was never a need to even invent the .270. Completely pointless.
Between the .223 and 30-06 there is no need for anything else.

Art Eatman
May 13, 2012, 11:46 AM
If the 800-yard effort is a serious idea, go with the '06. It's strictly a bullet-selection thing. For hunting, particularly for the typical 200- to 300- yard shots in open country, it's six of one, half-dozen of the other.

BIG P
May 13, 2012, 07:43 PM
A 270, Because I already have a 300wm LR.:D

Striker1
May 13, 2012, 08:29 PM
Anyone here ever tried the .270 out past 400, 500...?

ndking1126
May 14, 2012, 04:59 AM
The .30 cal. heavier bullet is less affected by wind.


150 gr .270 and 180 Gr .30-06 Berger bullets (as an example since we are talking long range) have almost the exact same BC. You would have to go really heavy with the -06 to gain any advantage with the wind. Which gets back to what I said earlier.. the rate of twist then becomes a big factor.

Clark
May 20, 2012, 02:13 AM
http://i757.photobucket.com/albums/xx220/ClarkM/WinM70270.jpg

This is a 1956 Win M70 30-06 that I got used in 2005

The previous owner shot:
2 grizzlies
6 moose
10 mountain goats
6 sheep
109 Sitka Black tailed deer
16 black bear
2 caribou

Then he died, and his nephew sold it to me.

I put a different stock, barrel, scope, sling, and bi pod on it that add up to 8.75 pounds.
It is now a 270

I shot 4 mule deer with it in 2008.
I shot 4 mule deer with it in 2009.

RaySendero
May 30, 2012, 08:20 PM
Striker1 asked:

Anyone here ever tried the .270 out past 400, 500...?



Yes - Clay Pigeons at 500

RC20
May 30, 2012, 09:43 PM
I would wring them both out for accuracy and see which is the inherent better shooter.

Then go with the best one.

Lead Slead if its too close to call.

Both as good a cartridge as you will find on the planet.

375NE
May 30, 2012, 10:42 PM
"If I were to go on a trip to Wyoming, to shoot speed goats, I'd pack my .270 win, and plenty of 130 grn Ballistic tips."

Ummm... what's a speed goat?

:confused:

TNT
May 31, 2012, 06:38 AM
not knocking the .270 it seems well enough but I like the the .06 for range and versatility. Been around allot longer and can be loaded up or down for a variety of applications. But I look at shooting like racing "no replacement for displacement" .06 gets my vote

hooligan1
May 31, 2012, 06:45 AM
Ummmmm,,,,,What's a speedgoat??? Pronghorn Antelope.:)

Pathfinder45
May 31, 2012, 11:55 AM
Anyone here ever tried the .270 out past 400, 500...? Certainly. Water filled milk jugs, 450 yards, sitting position, Winchester model 70 Classic Sporter. My rifle shoots best beyond 300 yards with 150 grain Nosler Partitions running near the red-line, 3,000 fps at the muzzle.

Striker1
May 31, 2012, 12:12 PM
500 is the farthest I have had the opportunity to shoot mine...it got there okay. :D

FairWarning
June 2, 2012, 02:23 PM
If all you would ever do again is hunt elk or smaller game in North America, the .270 is hard to beat. Less recoil and a flatter trajectory than the '06.

But for anyone that values versatility and having plentiful surplus rounds available, not to mention interest in bigger game from time to time, the '06 wins.

If you have a big Magnum rifle for bigger game, then I guess you could have your cake and eat it too by using the .270 up to mule deer and the Magnum for everything else. But of course, that's costs more money. The '06 can do both in one package. But we all have choices. :D

Striker1
June 2, 2012, 04:52 PM
My decision had more to do with the rifle itself than caliber...but, I did want a common old school caliber that wasn't boutique expensive and could be found most anywhere. Another thing I like is I can go to the range and shoot 40 or so rounds without taking a beating.

As to trajectory, what is the difference between say .270, 30-06 and maybe 7mm Mag?

Brian Pfleuger
June 2, 2012, 06:43 PM
As to trajectory, what is the difference between say .270, 30-06 and maybe 7mm Mag?

Unfortunately, this app doesn't list 7mm Mag but here is:

Cartridge 1, 270Win; 130gr, 2, 30-06 180gr, 300win Mag 180gr
http://img.tapatalk.com/b84a2914-b3a5-9379.jpg


270 150gr looks like this:
http://img.tapatalk.com/b84a2914-a58a-c230.jpg


And versus 270WSM 150gr:
http://img.tapatalk.com/b84a2914-a607-6652.jpg

Striker1
June 2, 2012, 06:58 PM
Thanks Brian,

Doesn't look all that much different to me?

Art Eatman
June 3, 2012, 09:09 AM
There's not all that much difference in the trajectories. And certainly not in the most common hunting distances of 300 yards or less.

Striker1
June 3, 2012, 11:10 AM
Makes me wonder what all the debate is sometimes with regard to "flatness"

Brian Pfleuger
June 3, 2012, 11:25 AM
Personally, I care a lot less about trajectory (in most cases) than I do recoil.

Especially since I use a laser range finder at any distance that matters.

Things I shoot aren't hard to kill and I'd much rather have a gun that's fun to shoot than use one that would kill elephants when I'm only shooting deer.

Most of the time, differences between cartridges are irrelevant. If the shooter is up to the task, they're up to the task, and if they're not, whatever difference there is between a 270 and 30-06, or 243 and 300 WinMag, isn't going to suddenly make up for the shooter's inadequacies.

Skill matters. Power almost never does.

a7mmnut
June 3, 2012, 11:43 AM
A .270 of most any brand will shoot custom ammo like a varmint rifle, and that's how it should be treated-like a varmint rifle. If you've got plenty of room to run a blood trail, fine. The bigger hole and energy of the .30 cannot be denied. I was extremely proud of one of the first Ruger SS .270's to be sold around here in 1990. I have a long but great horror story of it posted on here somewhere. I got rid of my .270 as fast as I could. Naturally, I traded for one of my 7mm's- never had any regrets.

People will lambaste me for saying this, but I'll bet my short hairs they don't hunt in thick mountain terrain or crowded Eastern bottom woodlands.:eek: If you want to stay out of this stupid argument, get a cheaper-to-shoot .308 with nearly identical performance. When they tell you their .270 is much flatter shooting, ask them over to watch a few episodes of "Top Sniper" on Hulu. Let them pick out the rifles that are .270's. Nobody argues with military success.

-7-

Striker1
June 3, 2012, 12:57 PM
Well, my experience is exactly the opposite. Everything I've shot with my .270 has been drt...no blood trailing required. Did have to track one a friend shot right behind the front leg with his 7 mag though.

Does that mean either is better than the other? I personally don't think so.

Brian Pfleuger
June 3, 2012, 01:59 PM
A bigger hole (we do realize that it's bigger by .031", right?) and more energy might be undeniable but the affect thereof certainly is not.

A .308 bullet has an area of .0745", a .277 bullet of .06026.

That's a difference of .01424 square inches and only .0155 around the bullet.

That's like adding a period (yes . <- one of those) around the edge.

Energy doesn't make much difference at all. The difference in energy is whether your bullet is 3 inches or only 2 inches buried in the tree on the other side.

Besides, none of that energy difference or diameter is going to make a gut shot more deadly or a double lung less deadly.

Sodbuster
June 3, 2012, 02:42 PM
that's how it should be treated-like a varmint rifle
OMG Elmer, I thought you were dead!!! ;)

Para Bellum
June 3, 2012, 04:23 PM
30-06 is more versatile, you can go from 125gr to 220 gr (Squirrel to Buffalo) and it does better in normal barrel lengths (58-60cm) whereas 270 is limited between 130gr to 150gr and needs 65cm barrels to do really well. So if it shall be either one as a one for all, 30-06 makes the race by far for me. I have one.

But the "best" caliber for me is the 308, why? Gas pressure levels at the muzzle. Very very low due to small case and aggressive powders. Relevant? Yes! Less noise for me and my dog. Even with earmuffs a rifle can/will damage your hearing. And when hunting you are likely to only have a thin less effective muff on and no additional plugs. Also very versatile and very accurate.

Hope that helped.
PB

tobnpr
June 3, 2012, 06:35 PM
Makes me wonder what all the debate is sometimes with regard to "flatness"

"Flatness" matters little on a perfect, no-wind- no external bullet influences- day.

I don't hunt, so energy at the "target" matters little to me, it is everything to the hunter.

Bullet drop is easily, and accurately, compensated for with a ballistics program if the necessary parameters are known, with the elevation turret.

However, the "flat-shooting" aspect becomes increasingly more important on a windy day, when the bullet that gets to the target sooner- and has a higher BC to cheat the wind- has a distinct advantage.

None of this matters much at short ranges. It becomes exponentially more important as range increases, bullet speeds drop and external factors influence bullet trajectory. For those that never shoot beyond a few hundred yards, it's a non-issue.

jmr40
June 3, 2012, 08:25 PM
30-06 is more versatile, you can go from 125gr to 220 gr (Squirrel to Buffalo) and it does better in normal barrel lengths (58-60cm) whereas 270 is limited between 130gr to 150gr and needs 65cm barrels to do really well. So if it shall be either one as a one for all, 30-06 makes the race by far for me. I have one.



From a hunting perspective this is all outdated, incorrect or irrelevent. For the record I favor the 30-06 simply because it is what I started with back in the 1970's and there is simply not enough difference with modern loadings to matter, certainly not enough to have both and I'm not selling my 30-06's.

There are a lot of the misconceptions today because the original 30-06 hunting loadings were almost exclusively either 180 or 220 gr bullets. The 30-06 was tradionally loaded very conservatively for many reasons. By the time the 270 was introduced gun and ammo makers felt more comfortable loading newer chamberings hotter and up to their true potential. During the 1930's the 270 with 130 gr bullets did offer flatter trajectory and with bullet technology of the 1930's the heavier 30-06 did offer an advantage on the largest game.

But a lot has changed in 80 years and most shooters are still repeating things that haven't been true in years. So what if the 30-06 is available in 200 gr+ bullets. They aren't needed anymore. With modern loadings and bullets a 150 gr bullet from either can be loaded to over 3000 fps, and do it from a 22" barrel. You can get 3100 fps from either from longer barrels. Both have almost exactly the same trajectory and both will kill any animal in North America equally well. In 2012 there is absolutely no reason to load a bullet heavier than 180 gr in a 30-06. There isn't an animal in the world that will tell the difference between .031" in bullet diameter. In fact the slightly longer .277 bullet will likely out penetrate the .308 bullet. A bullet gets penetration from sectional density more than bullet weight. A 160 gr 270 bullet will equal or outpenetrate a 180 gr 30-06 bullet if shot at the same speed. Which they can be.

In 2012 they are equals in every way for hunting. As a long range target rifle the 30-06 gets the nod only because there is more data, more research that has been done with that round and a shooter does not have to do as much R&D to get success. But with the right loads and right bullets I have no doubt a 270 could equal or even beat a 30-06 at extreme distance.

Art Eatman
June 3, 2012, 08:34 PM
Aw, now, Para Bellum,the best squirrel load for an '06 is a double-ought buck ahead of five grains of pistol powder. :) An 80-grain pistol bullet at around 4,000 ft/sec is good for ruination of jackrabbits, I long ago discovered. 110-grain Hornadys always worked for coyotes.

Most any 150-grain bullet will do mean things to Bambi to some 500 yards, from family experience over the years...

COSteve
June 4, 2012, 12:41 PM
I favor the 30-06 although I've owned both because of the wider range of bullets available and generally the cheaper prices for them than the 270. I like the 06's better resistance to wind drift at long range. In addition, I also load for my M1 Garand, M1A, and M1 Carbine so I already have a supply of 110grn, 147grn 150grn, 168grn and 177grn bullets I can use. Other than that, the 06 has an advantage if shooting larger, dangerous game because it can push 180 to 220 grn bullets.

BruceM
June 4, 2012, 06:39 PM
For me, I the '06 gets the edge if I intend to hunt game where there is a legitimate need for bullets heavier than 140 grains. And it's not because you can't kill an elk or moose with a .270. In my experience, the perfect shot or situation doesn't always present itself in the real world so I like a little room for error. I'm not talking about rump shots either, just a little edge and the .30-06 has it on bigger game. On close in shots, it seems the '06 will render less meat blood shot and damaged on less than perfect hits-a real concern for some hunters east of the Mississippi. On critters the size of a large mule deer and on down, there's little if any difference in killing effectiveness between the two.

Just my thoughts.

:)

Bruce

a7mmnut
June 4, 2012, 07:12 PM
Math ain't everything. There's always been a ton of difference for me. Shoot what you shoot best. As for me, I'm a7mmnut.:cool:

<7><))))))))))))))))))))

Clark
June 6, 2012, 05:15 PM
I have been hunting over sage brush.
I shot a couple deer over 500 yards.
I shot a couple deer under 400 yards.
But almost all the deer I shot were between 400 and 500 yards.
That is because I stalk to, or wait while intercepting until the deer is between 400 and 500 yards.

I like the 130 gr Ballistic tip 270 bullet for lung shots.

The 270 shoots flatter than the 30-06.
If both rifles are zero'd at 200 yards, the 270 needs less hold over or adjustment on the elevation knob.

Striker1
June 6, 2012, 07:29 PM
But how much hold over? That seems to be the question.

Art Eatman
June 7, 2012, 09:25 AM
If zeroed at 200, per my Sierra book, the 300-yard drop for a 130-grain .270 is about five inches. For a 150-grain '06, about six inches. (That's from memory; my Sierra book is 1,400 miles away at the moment. :D)

My holdover at 500 yards for a 150-grain from my '06 is about four feet. I had no trouble hitting the plate, first time out, guesstimating holdover with my usual 200-yard zero. IOW, not worth worrying about.

Striker1
June 7, 2012, 12:02 PM
If zeroed at 200, per my Sierra book, the 300-yard drop for a 130-grain .270 is about five inches. For a 150-grain '06, about six inches. (That's from memory; my Sierra book is 1,400 miles away at the moment. )

My holdover at 500 yards for a 150-grain from my '06 is about four feet. I had no trouble hitting the plate, first time out, guesstimating holdover with my usual 200-yard zero. IOW, not worth worrying about.

My thoughts as well...in a practical sense I don't see enough difference to worry about.

Clark
June 7, 2012, 07:23 PM
If the 270 with 26" barrel and 130 gr boat tail is driven at 65ksi the trajectory will only be a small amount better than a 30-36 with 26" barrel and a 130 gr boat tail driven a 60kpsi.

The 270 will start at 3190 fps and be down to 2020 fps at 550 yards [8 moa correction point]

But the 30-06 starts at 3280 fps and is down to 1895 at 550 yards [8 moa correction point]

This means the 30-06 kicks more but has less power at range.

Art Eatman
June 7, 2012, 08:04 PM
My father always loaded his '06 to GI specs, using the Hornady 150-grain Spire Point. Witnesses related the stories of observing him call the shot for one-shot kills (yeah, more than one) out around 500 yards. And that was way before laser range-finders.

If you know what you're doing, it doesn't really matter a lot what you use...

hooligan1
June 8, 2012, 06:17 AM
Amen brother!:)

jimbob86
June 8, 2012, 08:54 AM
Target shooting ...... not so much.

Anyone here ever tried the .270 out past 400, 500...?
Yes.

Works on deer.

@Brian P: colorful charts, but it looks as if you used a flat based 150gr .270 WIN bullet in your example: There are boat tailed .277 150's with G1 BC's over .500 .....


Makes me wonder what all the debate is sometimes with regard to "flatness"

For most folks, it is akin to arguing how many angels may dance on the head of a pin ....... for me, it is important, in that with my rig, any good sized deer that appears on the hayfield in front of me and begins feeding* is mine if I want and he gets within 500.......

At 500 yards, even with 9x magnification, 6-8 inches more holdover is harder to judge .... and the rangefinding has to be much more exact...... with my rifle and load, my bullet will drop just over 18 inches ( top of the back to the bottom of the heart on a large deer ) between 400 and 500..... zeroed for 300, I can use the horizontal crosshair to underline the deer's chest at to 250 (poi will be +4" at 100, +4 3/4" at 200, and begins falling to dead on at 300, 11" low at 400 (spine hold), and between 400 and 500, I'll need between 6" and 18" holdover- easily figured using the animal's chest as a guide.

With an -06, and 150 grain bullets, I'd want target turrets or a mildot scope- which would make eyes open, snap shots at short range harder.....


.... I can't speak to wind drift, as I won't take long shots on game if there is any wind to deal with- I don't have that skillset.

I don't believe there is any inherent accuracy edge of one cartridge over the other.

Some are (shorter, fatter cartridges of modest velocity are inherently more accurate than longer, hypervelocity cartidges.... they are more efficient, too, allowing more bangs for the buck) ..... and benchrest shooters have proven it ...... but to most people, benchrest guys are "preoccupied with inconsequential increments"..... much the same way as high plains hayfield hunters, or southern beanfield guys are.......

A .270 of most any brand will shoot custom ammo like a varmint rifle, and that's how it should be treated-like a varmint rifle.

While it does a fine job on varmints when loaded with 90 to 110 grain varmint bullets, it is not ideally suited for that- pink mist is pink mist, and a .223 will make it at 1/4 the cost..... plus 300 rounds of 55gr @ 3000 f/sec won't make your shoulder nearly as sore as 300 rounds of 110gr @3000 f/sec .... I know this from experience...... though that will sure sharpen your skills for deer season ....... prairie dogs @ 300 yards from field positions is good practice for an animal with a 12"x18" vital zone.....

If you've got plenty of room to run a blood trail, fine. The bigger hole and energy of the .30 cannot be denied.

I have yet to see a deer hit well with a .270WIN that went very far .... then again, "far" can be a subjective term....... I also have yet to see a deer that was hit with high powered rifle bullet that anybody could tell what diameter the bullet was that struck it, unless they found the bullet (assuming it held together and did not exit) and measured the un-expanded portion of it.


Were I to take up a "long range" target game, I would not choose either the .270 or the -06 ..... I'd want somthing more efficient that would not beat the hell out of me on the bench......



*with a flight time exceeding .5 sec, you have to be sure your target does not move: when deer are feeding, even if they go on alert, the head will come up, and they will look for the threat, but the chest won't move....

hooligan1
June 8, 2012, 05:21 PM
Well put Jimbob!:)

Brian Pfleuger
June 8, 2012, 10:47 PM
Jimbob,

They were Winchester PowerPoints, I think. There's not much choice, only Winchester ammo.

Here's one with all XP3 bullets... 270Win 150gr, 30-06 150gr and 243Win 95gr

http://img.tapatalk.com/4a43547e-c73f-87dc.jpg

With Winchester factory ammo, I don't see any 30-06 round that really comes close to 270. Close being a relative term, no closer than 4-5 inches at 500 yards.

Clark
June 10, 2012, 10:30 AM
This is the entance hole and an exit hole in a Mule deer's rib cage after I shot it a 500 yards with a 270 130 gr Nosler Ballistic Tip bullet.

The holes do not look big, but the lungs were liquefied. The animal staggered and fell down with blood coming out the mouth.

bulldawg1024
June 17, 2012, 08:18 AM
I agree with some others and say 30-06 due to the bullet choices and also wind/weight advantage.

ZippZ
June 21, 2012, 03:55 AM
You can pick up cheap plinking Greek surplus 30-06 ammo from the CMP. No surplus for the 270.

langenc
June 24, 2012, 12:06 PM
If I was getting a new rifle it would be_________?? I have a 30-06 and therefore would not want to load for a 270. Since I have a 30-06, I dont need another.

If I was getting a new rifle it would probably be a Tikka 300 WSM.

TNT
June 26, 2012, 06:38 AM
I have a 30-06 and therefore would not want to load for a 270. Since I have a 30-06, I dont need another. my dad taught me old school I grew up with the ole girl I own one she is over 100yrs old fought in three major wars and is proven herself. Perfection is hard to mess with. If you don't have either both are good choices. Good luck if you have to choose

Tnnhoj
October 13, 2012, 09:16 AM
There is no correct answer from a different perspective. Go to the gun store and buy 4 Winchester model 70's, 2 in 30-06 and 2 in 270 caliber. This is not possible but, have ammo that is an exact match with each other, exact powder, exact pills, exact dimensions and all (Per caliber). Now go to the range 1 rifle is going to be the most accurate, 2nd, 3Rd , and last. I do not know which will be first. All rifles are different even same caliber from the same manufacturer. The question really is "did I buy a rifle that has the long range consistency in accuracy that I desire"! The 270 pills leave faster than the 06 (farther down range in .2 seconds therefore a flatter trajectory) but if the POI is not the same shot after shot what good is it? or you can reverse this. So the answer is how well does the rifle shoot and not which caliber. Either caliber is capable of beating the other it depends on how well the rifle shoots.

RC20
October 13, 2012, 10:57 AM
Were I to take up a "long range" target game, I would not choose either the .270 or the -06 ..... I'd want somthing more efficient that would not beat the hell out of me on the bench......

While I agree with most of what Jimbob said, I disagree that you have to suffer the above (excepting you have a collector 270 or 30-06 of some type that you do not want to mess with, i.e. Sako 270, 1903 that's vintage Pre 64 Winchester etc).

That said, my brother tamed his 7mm with a Limb Saver.

I won't claim to be an expert, but I have shot the 375 H&H as well as the 338 Winchester Magnum.

Of all those, the 7mm Remington Mag is the nastiest to shoot. I think you have to get into the .40 caliber and above to be worse than that).

If a Limb Save can tame a 7mm rem mag, then it will turn a 270 or an 06 shooter into a friendly house kitty.

No disagreement that its really a matter of choice as to what the mission profile is and what works a bit better where.

One gun battery and you are going to shoot anything from moose to Sitka Blacktail and you may have a bear encounter , then a 30-06 simply cannot be beat.

On the other hand, if you are Elk size and lower and never plan on anything bigger, then a 270 is more than adequate.

And if you are out at 500 yards, I don't see any difference between 44 inch hold and a 50 inch hold. Too many other factors are going to play into that shot as it is a field shot not a bench rest shot (even if its a supported shot).

If you like the 270 (and I love it) then go for it. The only thing its shy of is the wider capability that the 06 has and if you don't need it there is some advantages that help in its area of capability.

Whatever the choice, both are great, enjoy it!

Chuck Dye
October 13, 2012, 12:10 PM
So, if all of the above doesn't clear, or muddy, the waters sufficiently, why not complicate the question and consider the .280 Remington? :p

RC20
October 13, 2012, 12:21 PM
Well we can add in the 270WSM, the 270 Wheatherby magnum, 7mm-08 and.....

A lot of fine calibers, but the ones under discussion are 270 and 30-06 and opinion not asked for others.

imp
October 15, 2012, 05:06 PM
I had a Tikka in .308 a few years ago, sold it to pay some bills. A few months ago, I walked into the gunstore and looked at identical Ruger American's, one in .270 and one in .30-06. I spent the next two days agonizing over which one to buy, reading posts on here and other places, checking out ballistics on various websites. I came to the realization that it didn't make a lick of difference one way or the other. I plan on hunting a few eastern states, and the largest animal I'm likely to encounter will be black bear, and either would do the job. I ended up going for the .30-06, becase I do not reload, and there is a larger variety of commercial loading for the old gal.

At the end of they day, both cartridges do essentially the same job. Take medium critters at moderate ranges. Get one, learn it's particulars, and leave the nuances to those that have little else to do.

hooligan1
October 16, 2012, 07:42 AM
The 30-06 can be ethically used to hunt any game in the northern hemisphere, a .270 win, not so much, because all the heavier bullets the old thirty cal can wield.
I know there is some who might argue this point but the majority of use would pick the 3006 to hunt All species, before picking the .270 to hunt ALL species with.

Rifleman1776
October 16, 2012, 08:33 AM
Easy choice. The venerable aught-6.
The "flat shooting" (not really) advantage of the .270 is almost a myth. The mid-range trajectory difference is tiny, not worth anything but writers ink to perpetuate the myth.
The .270 is a caliber that did not need to be invented.
The only cf calibers needed for north america are .223 and 30-06.

hooligan1
October 16, 2012, 10:10 AM
Quote: the only cf needed for north america are .223 and 30-06.
And who would agree on that garbage? Why do we have all these great calibers to choose from? Some would argue that the .22 lr, and a 12 guage shotgun is all that is needed.

That's like saying we all need to drive station wagons!!!:rolleyes:

Striker1
October 16, 2012, 07:25 PM
.270 Win.

For a round that didn't need to be invented, it sure ha been put to good use.

RE hunting all NA game animals...you may be right but how many of "us" will ever hunt ALL NA game animals? Not many I'd bet.

PS

What do you guys think about modern bullet designs making smaller calibers suitable for larger (tougher) game?

Brian Pfleuger
October 16, 2012, 07:41 PM
What do you guys think about modern bullet designs making smaller calibers suitable for larger (tougher) game?

No doubt true.

Bullets like the Barnes T/TSX line have made cartridges like the 22-250 into viable deer guns.

On the other hand, a lot of cartridges are and always have been viable choices, and were often used, until "Magnum-itis" became so infectious in the shooting world.

The 243, on elk, for example. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hY0w1c-gf18)

Striker1
October 16, 2012, 08:04 PM
One of my best friends sons killed his first cow elk with a Remington Model 7 in 7-08...worked fine.

I think maybe some folks get a gun they aren't comfortable shooting due to recoil...consequently they don't like to practice with it and it goes down hill from there.