I just "have" to go there! .270/.308/30-06

The 308 is just Uncle Sam's best attempt to put the 30-06 in a small package. That's so your basic USMC grunt (me, 40 years ago) can pack more ammo per pound of weight. They had to give up some of the performance to get the smaller package. If it comes down to hunting with the 30-06 or the 308 (aka 30-06 light), go with the 30-06. As for the 30-06 versus the 270, that's been argued about for at least half a century, with no clear winner. Personally, I'm a 270 fan. For me, the 308 comes in third place. And it's no more inherently accurate than the 300 Savage and probably less inherently accurate than the 260 Remington or the 6.5X55.
 
The 308 fanboi will jump in and tell you how much more "inherently accurate" the 308 is.

The 30-06 guys are just sitting back relaxing and smiling smirkily because they know they have ALL the bases covered.
Click to expand...
Why do you think high power competition scores jumped up and the same barrels shot smaller test groups when the .308 was first used in 1963? Three years later, the NRA had to make the scoring rings smaller; too many unbreakable ties were shot with the .308.

The most accurate .30-06 match rifles then would shoot about 5 inches at 600 yards properly tested. .308's were shooting test groups about half that size. Same bullets, primers, powder, stock, action and barrel make/taper/bore/groove/twist dimensions; just the chambers and cases were different.
 
Sure the 270 out performs with 150 gr bullets. Jump to 168's or 175's and the 270 is out of contest. So i think anything beyond 400 yards is where 30 cal will out perform the 270.
Click to expand...

Between 300 and 500 is where the .270WIN trajectory outshines the .308 and -06: For flat trajectory, you need efficient bullets AND high velocity. You can get those with .277 (.284 and .264) bore diameters, without going to a bullet so heavy you need a Magnum sized case packing 70-90 grains of powder..... the 168's and 175's can't be launched as fast as the .277 150's, without exceeding safe pressure limits.....

.270 WIN allows a flatter trajectory and less drift than the other two, between 300 and 500 .....

That is unimportant to most people, because they won't take shots at game that far. Target shooters don't need a flat trajectory, as they have known distance targets, and wind flags/windmeters .....

Beanfield hunters, OTH .....
 
Why do you think high power competition scores jumped up and the same barrels shot smaller test groups when the .308 was first used in 1963? Three years later, the NRA had to make the scoring rings smaller; too many unbreakable ties were shot with the .308.

The most accurate .30-06 match rifles then would shoot about 5 inches at 600 yards properly tested. .308's were shooting test groups about half that size. Same bullets, primers, powder, stock, action and barrel make/taper/bore/groove/twist dimensions; just the chambers and cases were different.
Click to expand...

Although I posted facetiously, thanks for proving one of my points....
 
Trouble is, Bart B, unless you're into competition matches, the accuracy is not enough better to care about. Irrelevant.

Jimbob86, if you know the trajectory of your cartridge/bullet setup, the difference between the .270, the .308 and the '06 isn't enough to matter one iota.
 
I would trust a 30-06 on lower 48 grizzly. I don't think I would trust a 270 or a 308, but I guess I may be a 30-06 fan boy even though I don't currently own one.

I don't like necked down center-fire bullets (yes I know I am weird).
 
I've been doing some research on the 175 grn Matrix .277 grn bullet. At a modist 2600 FPS, it stays super sonic to 2000 yards.

Something you wont get from a 308 or 30-06, even a 300 WM.

Deffently worth looking into.

But as a hunting round, at normal hunting ranges, either of the three would work.

I just like the wind bucking abilities of the 270 better.

Plus the lighter recoil out of a Model 70 Featherweight.
 
Ugh!! This same old argument. For most users and uses the performance difference between the three is negligible. Many claim that the 30-06 is the most versatile; that is if you reload and know what you are doing. That goes for the .270 and the .308 as well. To me, what gives the edge to the .308 is simply the fact that it has less recoil and generally comes in a smaller package. Compared to the .270, the .308 at least comes in a smaller package. For the average shooter, the minimal performance gain of the 30-06 is not worth the extra recoil and action size/length. This is no reason to go out and buy another if you already have one. I have a mod 70 featherweight in 30-06 as my "hunting" rifle that is absolute torture to fire from a bench. I would rather have the rifle in a .308, 7mm08, or a .260 but I already have the rifle and for how and what I us it for, there is no point in changing it now.
 
I wasn't talking about 270 AM, I was talking about the standard 270 Winchester with discussing the Matrix bullet. That's why I used a modest 2600 FPS.
 
I was referring to post #15. It has been MANY years since I have reloaded or shot any wildcat cartridge (with the exception of a couple of bench rest cartridges, i.e. 22 PPC and 6mm PPC - not my rifles). I have really enjoyed my .270, Rem. 700 LH in a Brown Precision very light weight synthetic stock and topped with Leupold VX-III 2.5 x 8. My preferred bullet is the Nosler 130 gr. Ballistic Tip. Having not kept current on wildcat reloading, I was surprised by the photos and data on the .270 AM.

SHORT ANSWER: My initial reaction was that the .270 AM was as overbore as any wildcat I could immediately recall.
 
Jimbob86, if you know the trajectory of your cartridge/bullet setup, the difference between the .270, the .308 and the '06 isn't enough to matter one iota.
Click to expand...

So, an "iota" is about 8"? (difference in wind drift between a 270 WIN and .308WIN with 10mph crosswind at 500) ....or is it the difference between guessing between 300 and 400 (a 270 WIN sighted 3" high allows one to "hold in the hair" to a bit over 400 .... )

The .270 WIN takes a lot of the guesswork out of the 300-500 ranges without magnum level recoil..... True, target shoooters can ignore this, and most hunters, certainly 95% of those east of the 100th Meridian can, too .... but out west, a flatter shooting gun is better than .... a lesser gun.

You can argue that ther are better beanfield rifles (7Rem Mag on up through 7 Shoots Through Wisconsin), but for a gun that you'll shoot year-round, prairie dogs to deer (maybe elk, if you are lucky enough to have them!), I'll take a .270 ..... YMMWV.
 
No one mentioned my beloved .280... Sorry.. Had to go there...
Click to expand...

I'll go there: to get the same BC's you still have to go to heavier bullet weights..... more recoil....... Though the .280 does have a wider range of bullets ....... and a higher pressure limit..... and higher powder charges...... more recoil....
 
603country comments:
For me, the 308 comes in third place. And it's no more inherently accurate than the 300 Savage and probably less inherently accurate than the 260 Remington or the 6.5X55.
Click to expand...
Well said words about accuracy.

As soon as Sierra Bullets was making consistantly accurate .264" diameter HPMK's, the 6.5-.308 was "the" cartridge of choice in competition. It quickly replaced the .308 as it had two advantages over that commercialized version of the NATO round. First, it was noticably more accurate. Second, its recoil being less during barrel time, it was easier to shoot more accurately. Most of the records held by the .308 were soon dashed by the 6.5-308. Then Remington thought they should commercialize that round (they didn't want to commercialize the 7.62 NATO their engineers came up with) into the .260 Remington.

Few folks know that Remington's Mike Walker (benchrest Hall of Fame, accuracy guru) knew the .300 Savage was a more accurate cartridge than the .30-06. All he and his team did to create the 7.62 NATO round was beef up the Savage case for reliability in semi and full auto weapons and increase its powder capacity a little bit. That old Savage round is probably as accurate as the .308; maybe moreso.
 
I wasn't talking about 270 AM, I was talking about the standard 270 Winchester with discussing the Matrix bullet. That's why I used a modest 2600 FPS.
Click to expand...

I simply refrenced the .270 AM in post #15, so you could find out about twist rates. I don't know if the Matrix bullet will stabalize in a 1:10 twist of the common .270 but I would doubt it. To have the BC it states to have it would make for one long bullet.

However, there are loads that let you push 175 grain bullets in the .280 AI to 2700+ fps so I think 2600 fps is easily achieveable out of a .270 Win since they run at similar pressures. Cutting Edge Bullets offers a 130 grain HPBT bullet that has a stated BC of .540 with a muzzle velocity of 2950 fps. That will keep you supersonic past 1000 yards, not 2000 like the 175 Matrix, but it will stabalize in your .270 Win. So at least you wouldn't have to rebarrel to run the bullet.

https://cuttingedgebullets.com/cgi-bin/commerce.cgi?preadd=action&key=MTH_H02
 
kraigwy, I seen your post on sniperhide looks like your headed in the right direction for the 270. Got to say one thing you sure don't waste any time getting things figured out.
 
Yeah, I've been playing with the numbers. I figure if I build a 1000 yard rifle in 270, and use those High BC bullets.

Think about it, The X ring of the NRA 1000 yard target is 10 inches across. Assuming I could get a good position, follow all the fundamentals, in a 10 mph wind, I should just have to hold for a pin wheel and keep most of the bullets in the X ring. A 10 mph full value wind should only move the bullet 5 inches with that bullet.

Problem is, what am I going to use for excuses.

The 270 Winchester is a highly under rated round in my opinion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top