The All Around Hunting Cartridge

Dogger · August 10, 2000, 12:07 PM

As you guys know, I can’t decide between the 270 Winchester, the 280 Remington, and the 30-06. I know that the hands down choice for “all around rifle in North America” is the 30-06. But I am drawn to the 280 Remington, I guess because I like to walk to a different drummer. So I keep trying to justify the 280 Remington, despite the dearth of 280 factory loads compared to the 270 and the 30-06. (Which is a shame!)

Just when I have convinced myself to buy the 280, the old ghost of wisdom that says the 270 and the 280 “ain’t enough gun fer elk” comes up in my head and whispers, “NO! Buy the 30-06!”

So, help me settle this dilemma once and for all, using “adequate for elk” as the measure.

Now, plenty of people on this forum kill elk with bow and arrow – which proves that penetration and shot placement, not energy, is paramount.

And given a solid heart/lung shot, any bullet capable of penetrating to these vitals will cleanly dispatch the elk. I am talking about an elk keeling over and dying within a couple hundred yards – not an all day tracking affair.

Now, we don’t often get an optimum shot at a game animal. Lots of variables involved: choice of bullet, size of elk, range to elk, body position of elk, weather, skill of shooter, etc.

The list of “calibers adequate for elk” gets pared down when we introduce the vagaries that hunters encounter: the elk isn’t standing broadside in the open at 100 meters. The elk moved just as the trigger was pulled, the elk was 300 yards away with a strong cross wind, etc, etc, etc. These vagaries lead us to choose calibers that clearly overmatch the animal – to compensate for field conditions.

So my question becomes: which energy and bullet combination provides a suitable margin for error to make a particular caliber of rifle a “good elk gun”? Which bullet, with how much energy, is needed to penetrate to the elk’s vitals regardless of the angle of attack? Yep, even with a Texas heart shot.

Now, I can’t think of a better bullet than the Nosler partition:
The 165 grain .308 diameter spitzer has a BC of .248 and a SD of .410
The 180 grain .308 diameter spitzer has a BC of .271 and a SD of .474
The 175 grain .284 diameter spitzer has a BC of .310 and a SD of .519
The 160 grain .284 diameter spitzer has a BC of .283 and a SD of .475
The 160 grain .277 diameter semi-spitzer has a BC of .298 and a SD of .434
The 150 grain .277 diameter spitzer has a BC of .279 and a SD of .465

Clearly, the 280 and 270 Noslers should be just as effective at penetration as the 30-06 variety. In fact, I can choose bullet weights in 270 and 280 that have higher ballistic coefficients and better Sectional Density than the 30-06.

Which brings me to velocity and retained energy. Seems to me that there exists some minimum amount of energy which, when pushing a Nosler partition, is sufficient to penetrate to an elk’s vitals regardless of angle of attack. I mean, if I shoot an elk with a depleted uranium sabot round from an M1 tank it is going to penetrate clear through regardless of angle of attack. On the other hand, a .22 rimfire ain’t gonna penetrate to an elk’s vitals unless I am point blank shooting between ribs. Somewhere in between lies a rifle caliber/bullet combination that will penetrate to an elk’s vitals regardless of angle of attack. Can the 270, the 280, or the 30-06 do this? Can all three do this?

I don’t know how much retained energy is required to do this, but I would guess that 2000 ft-lbs would be enough, even with a Texas heart shot. The 270, the 280, and the 30-06 are all capable of delivering a high SD Nosler partition at 2000 ft-lbs of energy at 175-200 yards.

So then, are all three “adequate for elk”? If so, why isn’t more respect given to the 270 and the 280?

I guess you are going to say that heavier bullets retain more energy at longer ranges, so the 180 grain 30-06 is a better choice for long range shots.

OK, I ‘ll shut up now.

Whew! Thanks for the responses.

Halffast · August 10, 2000, 12:38 PM

Buy what you want. The elk you shoot with a .280 will go down swearing you shot him with a .30-06. Just my $.02

David

------------------
If your looking to government for the solution, you obviously don't understand the problem.

Paul B. · August 10, 2000, 12:41 PM

Dogger. Decisions, decisions, decsions. Ain't it a bear? Well, it's just my personal opinion, but here goes. Frankly, I don't think any of the three rounds in question are suitable for "Texas Heart Shots". Not even with Noslers. Besides, I don't like the mess it makes out of the animal. For any other shot, I think that it would be close between the 30.06 and .280 Rem. using good stout handloads, and Nosler bullets. 160 or 175 gr. in the .280, and 180 or 200 gr. in the 30-06. If you went .270, Nosler does make a 160 gr. bullet, and I would be inclined to use that, if I used a .270.
Me? I'd probably use my 30-06. I have a custom built .280, but the gun came out a bit too heavy to pack in the hills.
I would say that if you like the .280 Rem., go for it. While bullets in factory ammo are a bit lacking, there are plenty of good 7MM bullet available to the reloader.
Paul B.

Erik · August 10, 2000, 02:15 PM

I know a dozen or so hunters who take elk every year with .270s. The .280 will do fine. Get it if you want it.

Al Thompson · August 10, 2000, 04:44 PM

Ummm - you got your SD and BC figures crossed up.

The general rule is - given bullets with like construction, the higher the SD, better the penetration. Most BG hunters also use .25 as a floor for bullet selection.

Ballistic Co-efficent, IMHO, is a smoke screen. Spurious precision, very like the boat tail's alledged advantage. One thing never mentioned is that BC depends on a lot of external factors (barrel condition, twist rate, elevation, air density), all of which are beyond the maker's control and many the shooter's control.

As for an all round cartridge - the .33/.375 calibers rule.

The problem is one of definition. For someone like me (who does not live in elk/bear country) the optimum cartridge is the standard. If I have to spend a large sum of money in hunting, I do not want a rifle that limits me. I want to be the one limiting the rifle.

Several friends who live in elk country put one on the ground every year with a .270 - .30-06. They can afford to pass one up, becouse next weekend they can be right back.

BTW, I really see no big difference between from the .270 to the '06. Think about it - .03 of an inch is verrrry small.....

Giz

[This message has been edited by Gizmo99 (edited August 10, 2000).]

STEVE M · August 10, 2000, 04:46 PM

Buy both!

------------------
keep your options open &
never miss!

rr41mag · August 10, 2000, 06:40 PM

I have shot the 06 then rebarreled to a .270 till I finally got the money (permission) to buy my long time dream an encore chambered in 7mm rem mag with a bull bbl. I know it has the knockdown power and is a pretty popular cartridge. I just so happen to have the dies so I didn't put up a fuss about it. I have to agree about the .270 and .06 not much difference.

Dogger · August 11, 2000, 08:24 AM

Oops! My Bad on mixing the SD and BC figures! Thanks for the responses. I think I am flogging a dead horse!

Keith Rogan · August 11, 2000, 11:31 AM

Lets get our heads out of the clouds for a moment and look at one simple fact - the 30/06 has far more bullet weights and styles available in factory ammo than all of the others put together.
You can buy 55 grain varmint loads or 220 grain brown bear loads - its just far more versatile.
If you reload it gets even better because the sheer magnitude of bullet weights and styles available in .308 is mind boggling.

Now, I don't even own a 30/06, I go by the theory that lots of rifles and calibers is better than just one. But, if I was going to buy just one versatile deer/elk/pronghorn/other rifle, I would get the 30/06, no question.

------------------
Keith
The Bears and Bear Maulings Page: members.xoom.com/keithrogan

Dogger · August 11, 2000, 12:43 PM

Good points. I live in Virginia and have deer hunting covered with a lever action 30-30 and bolt actions in 6.5x55 Swede and 7x57mm Mauser. I don't "need" another rifle. Amazing how hard it is to justify a "want" rifle to a "need-oriented" spouse.

Ron Ankeny · August 11, 2000, 09:10 PM

Lots of guys around here use the .280 and it does just fine. BTW, there is a difference between a .270 shooting say 130 grain bullets and a 30-06 shooting 180 grain bullets. Terminal ballistics is the determining factor, not the difference in bore size.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

August 10, 2000, 12:07 PM	#1
Dogger Senior Member Join Date: August 28, 1999 Location: Virginia Posts: 481	As you guys know, I can’t decide between the 270 Winchester, the 280 Remington, and the 30-06. I know that the hands down choice for “all around rifle in North America” is the 30-06. But I am drawn to the 280 Remington, I guess because I like to walk to a different drummer. So I keep trying to justify the 280 Remington, despite the dearth of 280 factory loads compared to the 270 and the 30-06. (Which is a shame!) Just when I have convinced myself to buy the 280, the old ghost of wisdom that says the 270 and the 280 “ain’t enough gun fer elk” comes up in my head and whispers, “NO! Buy the 30-06!” So, help me settle this dilemma once and for all, using “adequate for elk” as the measure. Now, plenty of people on this forum kill elk with bow and arrow – which proves that penetration and shot placement, not energy, is paramount. And given a solid heart/lung shot, any bullet capable of penetrating to these vitals will cleanly dispatch the elk. I am talking about an elk keeling over and dying within a couple hundred yards – not an all day tracking affair. Now, we don’t often get an optimum shot at a game animal. Lots of variables involved: choice of bullet, size of elk, range to elk, body position of elk, weather, skill of shooter, etc. The list of “calibers adequate for elk” gets pared down when we introduce the vagaries that hunters encounter: the elk isn’t standing broadside in the open at 100 meters. The elk moved just as the trigger was pulled, the elk was 300 yards away with a strong cross wind, etc, etc, etc. These vagaries lead us to choose calibers that clearly overmatch the animal – to compensate for field conditions. So my question becomes: which energy and bullet combination provides a suitable margin for error to make a particular caliber of rifle a “good elk gun”? Which bullet, with how much energy, is needed to penetrate to the elk’s vitals regardless of the angle of attack? Yep, even with a Texas heart shot. Now, I can’t think of a better bullet than the Nosler partition: The 165 grain .308 diameter spitzer has a BC of .248 and a SD of .410 The 180 grain .308 diameter spitzer has a BC of .271 and a SD of .474 The 175 grain .284 diameter spitzer has a BC of .310 and a SD of .519 The 160 grain .284 diameter spitzer has a BC of .283 and a SD of .475 The 160 grain .277 diameter semi-spitzer has a BC of .298 and a SD of .434 The 150 grain .277 diameter spitzer has a BC of .279 and a SD of .465 Clearly, the 280 and 270 Noslers should be just as effective at penetration as the 30-06 variety. In fact, I can choose bullet weights in 270 and 280 that have higher ballistic coefficients and better Sectional Density than the 30-06. Which brings me to velocity and retained energy. Seems to me that there exists some minimum amount of energy which, when pushing a Nosler partition, is sufficient to penetrate to an elk’s vitals regardless of angle of attack. I mean, if I shoot an elk with a depleted uranium sabot round from an M1 tank it is going to penetrate clear through regardless of angle of attack. On the other hand, a .22 rimfire ain’t gonna penetrate to an elk’s vitals unless I am point blank shooting between ribs. Somewhere in between lies a rifle caliber/bullet combination that will penetrate to an elk’s vitals regardless of angle of attack. Can the 270, the 280, or the 30-06 do this? Can all three do this? I don’t know how much retained energy is required to do this, but I would guess that 2000 ft-lbs would be enough, even with a Texas heart shot. The 270, the 280, and the 30-06 are all capable of delivering a high SD Nosler partition at 2000 ft-lbs of energy at 175-200 yards. So then, are all three “adequate for elk”? If so, why isn’t more respect given to the 270 and the 280? I guess you are going to say that heavier bullets retain more energy at longer ranges, so the 180 grain 30-06 is a better choice for long range shots. OK, I ‘ll shut up now. Whew! Thanks for the responses.

August 10, 2000, 12:38 PM	#2
Halffast Senior Member Join Date: February 22, 2000 Location: San Antonio, TX Posts: 525	Buy what you want. The elk you shoot with a .280 will go down swearing you shot him with a .30-06. Just my $.02 David ------------------ If your looking to government for the solution, you obviously don't understand the problem.

August 10, 2000, 12:41 PM	#3
Paul B. Senior Member Join Date: March 28, 1999 Location: Tucson, AZ Posts: 3,800	Dogger. Decisions, decisions, decsions. Ain't it a bear? Well, it's just my personal opinion, but here goes. Frankly, I don't think any of the three rounds in question are suitable for "Texas Heart Shots". Not even with Noslers. Besides, I don't like the mess it makes out of the animal. For any other shot, I think that it would be close between the 30.06 and .280 Rem. using good stout handloads, and Nosler bullets. 160 or 175 gr. in the .280, and 180 or 200 gr. in the 30-06. If you went .270, Nosler does make a 160 gr. bullet, and I would be inclined to use that, if I used a .270. Me? I'd probably use my 30-06. I have a custom built .280, but the gun came out a bit too heavy to pack in the hills. I would say that if you like the .280 Rem., go for it. While bullets in factory ammo are a bit lacking, there are plenty of good 7MM bullet available to the reloader. Paul B.

August 10, 2000, 02:15 PM	#4
Erik Senior Member Join Date: December 24, 1999 Location: America Posts: 3,479	I know a dozen or so hunters who take elk every year with .270s. The .280 will do fine. Get it if you want it.

August 10, 2000, 04:44 PM	#5
Al Thompson Staff Alumnus Join Date: May 2, 1999 Location: South Carolina Posts: 3,611	Ummm - you got your SD and BC figures crossed up. The general rule is - given bullets with like construction, the higher the SD, better the penetration. Most BG hunters also use .25 as a floor for bullet selection. Ballistic Co-efficent, IMHO, is a smoke screen. Spurious precision, very like the boat tail's alledged advantage. One thing never mentioned is that BC depends on a lot of external factors (barrel condition, twist rate, elevation, air density), all of which are beyond the maker's control and many the shooter's control. As for an all round cartridge - the .33/.375 calibers rule. The problem is one of definition. For someone like me (who does not live in elk/bear country) the optimum cartridge is the standard. If I have to spend a large sum of money in hunting, I do not want a rifle that limits me. I want to be the one limiting the rifle. Several friends who live in elk country put one on the ground every year with a .270 - .30-06. They can afford to pass one up, becouse next weekend they can be right back. BTW, I really see no big difference between from the .270 to the '06. Think about it - .03 of an inch is verrrry small..... Giz [This message has been edited by Gizmo99 (edited August 10, 2000).]

August 10, 2000, 04:46 PM	#6
STEVE M Senior Member Join Date: February 7, 1999 Location: TN. USA Posts: 607	Buy both! ------------------ keep your options open & never miss!

August 10, 2000, 06:40 PM	#7
rr41mag Senior Member Join Date: June 25, 2000 Location: Biloxi, Miss. Posts: 180	I have shot the 06 then rebarreled to a .270 till I finally got the money (permission) to buy my long time dream an encore chambered in 7mm rem mag with a bull bbl. I know it has the knockdown power and is a pretty popular cartridge. I just so happen to have the dies so I didn't put up a fuss about it. I have to agree about the .270 and .06 not much difference.

August 11, 2000, 08:24 AM	#8
Dogger Senior Member Join Date: August 28, 1999 Location: Virginia Posts: 481	Oops! My Bad on mixing the SD and BC figures! Thanks for the responses. I think I am flogging a dead horse!

August 11, 2000, 11:31 AM	#9
Keith Rogan Senior Member Join Date: March 11, 1999 Location: Kodiak, Alaska Posts: 1,014	Lets get our heads out of the clouds for a moment and look at one simple fact - the 30/06 has far more bullet weights and styles available in factory ammo than all of the others put together. You can buy 55 grain varmint loads or 220 grain brown bear loads - its just far more versatile. If you reload it gets even better because the sheer magnitude of bullet weights and styles available in .308 is mind boggling. Now, I don't even own a 30/06, I go by the theory that lots of rifles and calibers is better than just one. But, if I was going to buy just one versatile deer/elk/pronghorn/other rifle, I would get the 30/06, no question. ------------------ Keith The Bears and Bear Maulings Page: members.xoom.com/keithrogan

August 11, 2000, 12:43 PM	#10
Dogger Senior Member Join Date: August 28, 1999 Location: Virginia Posts: 481	Good points. I live in Virginia and have deer hunting covered with a lever action 30-30 and bolt actions in 6.5x55 Swede and 7x57mm Mauser. I don't "need" another rifle. Amazing how hard it is to justify a "want" rifle to a "need-oriented" spouse.

August 11, 2000, 09:10 PM	#11
Ron Ankeny Senior Member Join Date: April 3, 2000 Posts: 316	Lots of guys around here use the .280 and it does just fine. BTW, there is a difference between a .270 shooting say 130 grain bullets and a 30-06 shooting 180 grain bullets. Terminal ballistics is the determining factor, not the difference in bore size.