308 Winchester or 270?

[Dogleg]

Awesome retort I’ll give ya that. Haven’t yet as I’d rather just get the component, but you just met one. I like the 110gr TTSX at 3,400 personally, +/- the length of a playing card to 350 yards no holdovers.

With the .270 'bee I'm doing that with 140s..............

 

[nowarningshot]

I dont get the talking about same weights and recoil in comparing 270 and 308.

Most rifles now are all long actions, a bolt stop for short action calibers. Even if it is a true short action with two inches less barrel. So what, its 2-4 ounces.

Ive had 5 crashes, somedays its painful, other days its worse. Neither a 270 or a 308 has recoil...period. Who feels recoil shooting at game, at the range use a lead sled if your 22lr hurts ffs.

Some people need to take up less physical sports i suppose.

 

[pete dobinson]

I agree, recoil isn't a concern with 308 or 270 win.

 

[Barnes_270]

Both the 308 and the 270 are fine cartridges. I started with a 270, then had a 308 for a while, and eventually I settled on the 9.3x62 - went from the 110 to 150 to 250 gr TTSX. They all work, though I wouldn't carry a 270 if I could be on the menu (i.e. grizzly country). I find the recoil of the 9.3x62 milder than either the 270 or 308 - more of a push than a sharp kick. Mostly it's the fit of the rifle that tipped the balance for me. I bought it for a moose hunt where grizzlies are common, and after that hunt I just stuck with it for everything.

 

[track]

I dont get the talking about same weights and recoil in comparing 270 and 308.

Most rifles now are all long actions, a bolt stop for short action calibers. Even if it is a true short action with two inches less barrel. So what, its 2-4 ounces.

Ive had 5 crashes, somedays its painful, other days its worse. Neither a 270 or a 308 has recoil...period. Who feels recoil shooting at game, at the range use a lead sled if your 22lr hurts ffs.

Some people need to take up less physical sports i suppose.

I Totally agree with you! There appears to be a great lack of testosterone with hunters today, or are they "want-a-be" hunters?

 

[hoytcanon]

I Totally agree with you! There appears to be a great lack of testosterone with hunters today, or are they "want-a-be" hunters?

Oh, geez...

 

[-Savage-]

<comment deleted>

 

[1899]

I've radar'd factory 27 Win 140gr Interlock ammo from Hornady @ 2895 fps from 24" Remington 700. Subtract 60 fps for a 22" barrel and that bullet would hit 400y with 2100 fps / 1375 ft lbs, and that would be at 2500' above sea level. It gets worse the lower you go

150gr Partition
60.5gr RL26
Nosler brass
CCI BR-2
3.300" COAL

Ohler 35P

Tikka T3 Superlight - 22" barrel

2968 fps
2967 fps
2978 fps

1/2MOA @ 200


Lots of guys getting +3000 fps with that combo.

I guess if you wanted longer range and flatter shooting you could go to a 140gr Berger @ +3100 fps.


I've also loaded 140gr Interlocks in a Remington Mountain Rifle I had. With RL22 it did just under 3100fps. Original Barnes X in the same rifle with same powder was just under 3200 fps.


Edit to add: I think a lot of folks would be unpleasantly surprised if they actually took all the quoted ballistic data ammo to the range and tested it. I bet you would see far worse performance at distance (say 400 yards) than given in the data tables.

 

[todbartell]

.270s excel at pushing light, rapidly expanding bullets fast, with a functional BC that trumps .30 cal bullets of the same weight. You also don’t need to special order 110-130gr fast .270 loads, you’re not finding 125gr Nosler .308 ammo at the home hardware in any small town in Canada. You will find fast, flat shooting .270 on all those shelves.

Inside 400, or all reasonable hunting ranges, in general speed trumps ballistic coefficient for trajectory. A .270 will compete for flattest shooting off the hardware store shelf loads.

I made time yesterday to test a 22" Ruger 270Win with hardware store, flat shooting, 130gr Federal Power Shoks. 2956 fps avg on 5 rounds via Labradar Doppler. HO HUM

140gr Hornady American Whitetail Interlock BTSP = 2865
140gr Hornady Superformance SST = 2958
150gr Federal Power Shok round nose (LOL) = 2734

 

[todbartell]

Edit to add: I think a lot of folks would be unpleasantly surprised if they actually took all the quoted ballistic data ammo to the range and tested it. I bet you would see far worse performance at distance (say 400 yards) than given in the data tables.

I've tested lots of factory ammo, not too often does it match or exceed claims on the box. My 20" 6.5 Creed is pushing factory 140gr Hornady BTHP ammo at 2512 fps, rated at 2690 from 24". Temps around +5c probably don't help anything

 

[1899]

I've tested lots of factory ammo, not too often does it match or exceed claims on the box. My 20" 6.5 Creed is pushing factory 140gr Hornady BTHP ammo at 2512 fps, rated at 2690 from 24". Temps around +5c probably don't help anything

Yes, which is why I find it interesting when people quote factory data, especially at distance. Quite often the ballistic coefficient is inaccurate too. This compounds the problem. For example Nosler claims .519 for the 175gr partition, but it is actually about .450 or so. That makes difference! You need to test your loads at distances- it is the only way to know what your rifle is doing.

 

[todbartell]

130gr Federal Power Shok, based on 100y retained speed via Labradar (2613 fps), the G1 Ballistic Coefficient is a whopping .258. They look like little flat point 30-30 bullets. @ 2950 fps MV, they would dip below 1800 fps @ 375 yards (940 ft lbs energy). 200y zero, -8" @ 300y, -25" @ 400y, -54" @ 500y (via GSeven ballistics)

I only got to shoot them at 100 yards. I should try them out in the real world, to really see how flat an off the shelf 270 deer zapper really is

 

[Dogleg]

There are some truely pathetic BCs in .270 bullets, that's true. Awhile back I found a pile of bulk packed 130 power points or at least we think they were. Sometimes when the deal is good enough and large enough it doesn't matter.. Shooting those on large steel targets at 500 on windy days was enough to make the hardest core .270 owner sit down and cry in the area usually kept watered with .308 tears. There's lots of ways to do things wrong. I would hope that those which seek to shoot long will go through the effort to shoot and learn. That might be hoping for too much though.

At closer range, perhaps more in line with what the typical box of the cheap stuff a year hunter is likely to shoot at it probably won't make much difference what he uses.

 

[Buckmastr]

You guys continually pick on budget factory loads as representative of the 270's performance.
Try handloading these sometime.

150 accubond .625bc

145 eldx .536

150 vld Hunter .531

140 Berger classic Hunter hpbt .528

150 interlock .525

150 interbond .525

And shoot them out of a proper length barrel. No need to cry about it.

 

[MiG25]

270. Back before the internet, when moose and grizzly tags were over the counter, the 270 was considered to be a big gun. 308's were and are few and far between.

IMO the 308 should never even have seen the light of day, it was obsolete before it even came about and was straight out of the 1890's. All they did was read the "Text Book of Small Arms" from 1909 and shrunk the 30-06 until it was at 15 ft lbs of recoil that the British considered maximum for all shooters.

 

[Gatehouse]

There are some truely pathetic BCs in .270 bullets, that's true. Awhile back I found a pile of bulk packed 130 power points or at least we think they were. Sometimes when the deal is good enough and large enough it doesn't matter.. Shooting those on large steel targets at 500 on windy days was enough to make the hardest core .270 owner sit down and cry in the area usually kept watered with .308 tears. There's lots of ways to do things wrong. I would hope that those which seek to shoot long will go through the effort to shoot and learn. That might be hoping for too much though.

At closer range, perhaps more in line with what the typical box of the cheap stuff a year hunter is likely to shoot at it probably won't make much difference what he uses.

It's probably why there are so few .277 caliber cartridges compared to the 7mm's and 6.5s. It's almost like they said 'We tricked them once into buying into this .270 thing. Even tricked Roy into making a .270 cartridge. It's been about 75 years, lets see if we can bring out a newfangled 270 and trick a whole new generation into buying it. ........Oh dang. They have the internet and ballistic calculators now.."

 

[Dogleg]

Once a shooter crosses the handloading barrier he might eventually figure out that he can shoot practically anything he wants for a few pennies worth more or less of powder. When everything costs about the same to shoot, he might rethink whether there's any pressing reason to shoot the .270, 308 and 30-06 economy group n the first place. So with that circular reasoning in place; I don't know if you can completely separate the .270, .308 and 30-06 from the cheap factory ammo. And the circle is complete.

 

[Buckmastr]

It's probably why there are so few .277 caliber cartridges compared to the 7mm's and 6.5s. It's almost like they said 'We tricked them once into buying into this .270 thing. Even tricked Roy into making a .270 cartridge. It's been about 75 years, lets see if we can bring out a newfangled 270 and trick a whole new generation into buying it. ........Oh dang. They have the internet and ballistic calculators now.."

You're only fooling yourself if you can't appreciate the 270 Win as a do-all big game cartridge.

 

[todbartell]

You guys continually pick on budget factory loads as representative of the 270's performance.

Ardent said that the 270 is a off the hardware store shelf,, flat shootin', fast, zapper. Don't need a fancy bullet either

22" barrel length is probably as common as a 24" for the 270, so the velocity results are real. You shouldn't be too upset about the 270's results, since you're a handloader and can better utilize the potential of the cartridge

 

[1899]

Ardent said that the 270 is a off the hardware store shelf,, flat shootin', fast, zapper. Don't need a fancy bullet either

22" barrel length is probably as common as a 24" for the 270, so the velocity results are real. You shouldn't be too upset about the 270's results, since you're a handloader and can better utilize the potential of the cartridge

I guess it just goes to show that you don't really need "much" to kill most North American big game. I recall Jack O'Connor testing factory .270 ammo and his chronograph results seemed closer to the round's potential. I keep coming back to a whitetail hunt:

You can see the bump in front of the shoulder where the bullet hung up:

Entrance side:

off-side:

Entrance side - note that there is not a heck of a lot of bloodshot meat:

recovered bullet (broke off-side shoulder on slight 1/4-ing away shot):

The cartridge was a .243 and load was 33.0gr of IMR 4064 (IIRC) and an 85gr Nosler Partition out of an 18.5" barrel. I've never chronographed it but figure it would be somewhere around 2600 fps at the muzzle. I'll have to look at my notes but the deer was around 60 yards or so and didn't go far after being hit. I really wanted to try something like this for two reasons: first was curiosity arising from an article in African Hunter wherein the author wrote about the effectiveness of the .222 necked up to 6mm launching bullets is the 2400-2500 fps range. These loads were very effective on smaller antelope at typical bushveld ranges and caused much less meat damage than a .243 launching bullets at 3000fps. The second reason was to find an effective, low recoil round for my boy as I was just introducing him to centerfire rifles.


As you can clearly see, this small bullet at modest velocity did a fair amount of damage and was effective in a quick, clean kill. Yes, of course the range and trajectory are limited with this load, but I wouldn't hesitate with it out to 150 yards.