55 replies [Last post]
Offline
Location: Northern California
Joined: 02/09/2004
Posts: 21
270,280 or 30-06

Sectional Density! Please read about it. For instance, if you read Chuck Hawks excellent, scholarly articles about SD, you’ll discover why .243, 6.5x55 and .270 guys are so deadly… The sectional density of the bullet is the difference. A .308 165g, .243 100g and a .270 130g all have the same sectional density. The point is that when someone says something like, “Oh, you can only use a 378 Weatherby on pronghorn,” or “you have to use 400 grain bullets for…,” remember that science gives us another tool to decipher game killing power. I’m sure Jack O’Connor would have some comments here. Finally, everyone marvels when they read about the African hunter (who’s name escapes me) who killed more Elephants than any man alive. He used a 7x57 for most of them. Why? Penetration and destructive power on the target. That third element – favorable Sectional Density – is the ‘mallet’ here not bullet width (caliber) or bullet weight. Shoot the .270. Kicks less, shoots a little bit more accurately and a little bit faster (on a target that moves, that counts) and the bullet digs deep. California and Nevada hunting cannot be served better than with the .270 in my opinion. I can shoot jacks with 100 grainers (and now hit them pretty regularly) or rocky mountain elk with 150 partitions or my favorite hunting these days – wild pigs.

Offline
Location: Missouri/Arkansas
Joined: 08/21/2003
Posts: 891
270,280 or 30-06

If you think a 270 is more accurate than a 308 or 30-06, you're very confused.

Offline
Location: Northern California
Joined: 02/09/2004
Posts: 21
270,280 or 30-06

Why yes El Capitan I do believe that. Go try out some $500.00 rifles and see… Many $1,500.00 and up rifles are equal. I think I’m crystal clear on that one - no confusion. Weatherby’s are all around the same too – they have to shoot under 1.5 or they don’t go to market. That’s one of the reasons Vangaurd is such a great deal. You can still like your favorite round despite my opinions. I will certainly continue despite yours.

Offline
Moderator
Location: Florida,USA
Joined: 08/21/2003
Posts: 1550
270,280 or 30-06

I'll have to agree with the Captain on this one EJ65.
While there are many fine points to argue for the .270, accuracy is not the best one as the .270 is notorious for being suddenly off target with any ammo, factory or handloads.
There is a trade off for small, fast bullet travel to achieve that "flat" trajectory, its deviated from its path by the slightest force, that being wind, twig, or leaf and as some have written, even a thermocline can knock a fast moving bullet off course. You have to hit your target before SD comes into play.

On a side note, there aint nothin more exciting than huntin those Hogs, huh? I love it.

Offline
Location: Wisconsin
Joined: 12/08/2003
Posts: 134
270,280 or 30-06

I agree as well. In fact, I would rank the .270 behind the .280 in accuracy as well. It's no secret that the military has used .308s, .30-06s, and .300 Win Mags as sniper rifles for years. If they are inferior to the .270, the military would have switched a long time ago. Also, there is no factory match .270 ammo. It's easy to find match ammo for the .308 and .30-06. Top shooters in the world use the .30 cals. If they were inferior, they wouldn't be in constant use. Match shooters haven't been using the M1 and M14 for decades because they are less precise than a .270.

_________________
So many guns, so little money.

[ This Message was edited by: mister_venison on 2004-03-15 03:31 ]

Offline
Location: Northern California
Joined: 02/09/2004
Posts: 21
270,280 or 30-06

Well, we got us a discussion here...

The 30-06 was deemed ‘perfect’ by the powers that be for use as a military round. The .308 was a short action sized replacement for the 30-06. That’s why those rounds are there. One thing I should make clear is that I love the 30-06. And the 300 Win for that matter. Military sniper rifles are entirely handmade and are very, very accurate. I don’t know that your figures on bulled deflection or ‘brush busting’ as is commonly described is totally correct either. Elmer Kieth is the only person I am aware of who did much work on this aspect to shooting and he came away fairly in conclusive other than to say big flat bullets work well. The pointed nature of a bullet (specifically one with good SD….) makes them more prone to tumble. My two cents…

It is when I realized that the lines between being undergunned – adequately gunned and – overgunned are not as my dad and uncles told me. They said that everything bigger than a jack needs an ought six. Ok. That’s true in some ways. But mostly it’s not… The reality for me is that If I shoot an Elk every three years with a .270 (adequately), then I don’t need to shoot black tails and Mulies (my main shooting until I met Mr hog..) with it. In fact I have fought off many people who believe that .243’s are the way to go. I just don’t buy that. My longest shot was also my biggest deer. It was on a a 4/5 mulie at around 323 yards that dressed out to around 195 pounds. The live weight was probably around 325 (I am trying to be conservative…. It’s so easy to brag when you’re typing!). I don’t think the .270 is more powerful than a 30-06. I don’t think it’s better for eland or griz or moose. I do, however feel that it is perfectly suited to a conscientious rifleman. By that I mean someone who shoots accurately, safely and knows how to kill cleanly. With a .270 I wouldn’t shoot at an Elk at 300 yards or more than around 225 or 250. I wouldn’t have shot at that huge Mulie if he wasn’t in a wide open plane. The 280 is a great round for the reloader. That’s for sure. I don’t own one, but would seriously consider it if my wife said, “Honey, you need another big game rifle.” May not happen though…

Oh yeah, Hog hunting is great! I had no idea it was that fun. It requires good hunting skills. None of this “Buckmaster,” hunting from tree stands… You have to hump!

Offline
Location: Missouri/Arkansas
Joined: 08/21/2003
Posts: 891
270,280 or 30-06

The 270 versus the 30-06 debate has been around probably since the 270 came out in 1925. But when all the sentiment and personal preference is left out of it, the 30-06 is the better round. It delivers more energy, both at the muzzle and downrange, it handles heavier bullets than a 270, and it's selection of hunting bullets is as wide as the day is long. The 270 Winchester provides a cartridge which, in capable and efficient hands, will harvest just about any game we have here in this continent, and a lot of big game elsewhere. To the delight of many shooters, it offers less recoil than a 30-06. However, it offers no real ballistic advantages over the 30-06. With some loads, it shoots maybe two inches flatter, three at most, when using big game bullets, 140-150 grains for the 270, and 165 and 180 grain for the '06. In real-world hunting situations, a difference like this is insignificant at most.

Offline
Moderator
Location: Florida,USA
Joined: 08/21/2003
Posts: 1550
270,280 or 30-06

OK, we all know that ANY modern firearm will kill ANY animal living on this continent. A .22LR at 25 yards is just as deadly as a 300WM at 100 yards, as is every calibre and cartridge in between.

From what everyone keeps writing is the fact that a .270 will shoot a long ways without much bullet drop(shoots flat). Thats all fine and dandy but then the stories start telling of 400 yard shots at Elk. Most hunters greatly overestimate yardage out past 100 yards making those 400 yard shots more like 250 or 300 yards in reality so a flat shooting rifle has its advantages when the distance is not estimated correctly. But do real world shot angles and distances really make a .270 calibre an appropriate calibre for Elk sized game? Not saying a .270 wont kill an Elk but is it the wisest choice?

Lets do a little physics and see.

According to Einstein, E=MC^2, tiny bits of mass at high velocity = tremendous energy transfer. From this it could be said that an even larger amount of mass at high velocity will transfer an even more tremendous amount of energy. Higher velocity will not increase the mass of an object, mass is a constant. Retained energy is what causes our bullet to expand and cause massive tissue damage resulting in large blood loss which in turn causes death in animals and fowl(for those that dont believe that fowl are animals) :smile: The energy shock(knock down power) is what causes an animal to drop in their tracks...not the actual blood loss that kills it. When field dressing an animal we have all found some that had lungs turned to jello...energy shock, not bullet fragmentation or expansion. Nothing can compensate for mass.
Even a 1 ftlb loss in energy when focused down to a .270 size mass is a huge loss of energy.
Which would you rather have hit your car with you in it, a VW Beatle or a Peterbuilt carrying a 40 ft Trailer? Once again, nothing compensates for mass.

So fellas despite what our girlfriends and wives tell us....bigger is, in fact, better. :smile:

Is a 30.06 a better calibre than a .270? No sir it is not. Is a 30.06 a better calibre than a .270 for whitetail Deer sized game? No sir it is not. Is a 30.06 a WISER choice for Elk sized game? Yes sir it is. Will any of this make you switch from your .270 to a 30.06? No sir it will not and thats OK just be real with the selections ability. No matter how you slice it a larger bullet traveling at high speed is better than a small bullet at high speed, its the law of physics.

[ This Message was edited by: JTapia on 2004-03-16 17:51 ]

Offline
Location: Missouri/Arkansas
Joined: 08/21/2003
Posts: 891
270,280 or 30-06

''A .22LR at 25 yards is just as deadly as a 300WM at 100 yards''

No way. Think about it.

Offline
Location: Colorado
Joined: 02/27/2003
Posts: 394
270,280 or 30-06

Way. Think about it.

The plain and undeniable fact of the matter is that elephant have been killed with .22 rifles. Any game animal on this Earth can be killed with a .22. All you have to be able to do is put the bullet right into the animals ear!

Does that mean the .22 is a "good" caliber for hunting elephant? OF COURSE NOT!!! Whether or not a particular cartridge CAN kill an animal is a completely different question from whether or not that cartridge is a good choice for hunting, and that is a completely different question from whether or not that cartridge should be recommended to someone who is new to hunting that particular animal.