.270 vs .30-06

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

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.
 
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.
 

Attachments

  • entrance hole hit a rib in mule deer yearling hit with .277 130 gr balistic tip at 1928 fps at t.jpg
    entrance hole hit a rib in mule deer yearling hit with .277 130 gr balistic tip at 1928 fps at t.jpg
    41.9 KB · Views: 56
  • exit hole in yearling hit with .277 130 gr balistic tip at 1928 fps at time of impact.jpg
    exit hole in yearling hit with .277 130 gr balistic tip at 1928 fps at time of impact.jpg
    144.2 KB · Views: 58
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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
 
Depends on quality of the rifle

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.
 
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......
Click to expand...

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!
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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:
 
.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?
 
Striker1 said:
What do you guys think about modern bullet designs making smaller calibers suitable for larger (tougher) game?
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top