.270 vs .280
- Thread starter BIGREDD
- Start date
I hope those lads were just kidding about the .260 because it is in a pretty exclusive class of cartiridges (6.5X55 Swedish, 6.5 Redding,6.5-308)... what other calibre can shoot 95gr bullets at 3300 fps...and 140gr bullets at 2800fps...from a short action light weight rifle that has very very modest recoil... the S/D and B/C of the 6.5 is among the best of the mid-weight hunting bullets... from a hunters viewpoint the .260 is far more efficient than either a .270 or a .280 :shock:
Thats one of the reasons I didn't include it in the poll... it is in a class by itself :idea:
Thats one of the reasons I didn't include it in the poll... it is in a class by itself :idea:
I know your being "facetious" Super... I already have enough trouble keeping my "#### Disturber" title... :wink:
Are you agreeing with me on the 6.5/.260 :?:
Do you think that S/D and B/C are a good way to compare calibres/cartridges... I think that they are a better indicator of performance on game than just bullet weight and velocity :idea:
It was the mystery of why the 6.5 performed so well on Big Game that opened my eyes to Sectional-Density in the first place :? 8)
Do you think that S/D and B/C are a good way to compare calibres/cartridges
:?: :?: :?: Good question
Lets look at it this way as far as sectional density :wink:
A lot of, if not most bullets, pass right thru your average game animal ( I stress average game animal ) so at what point would you be better of with a wider bullet with less sectional density for more destructive force thus killing power :?: :roll:
:?: :?: :?: Good question
Lets look at it this way as far as sectional density :wink:
A lot of, if not most bullets, pass right thru your average game animal ( I stress average game animal ) so at what point would you be better of with a wider bullet with less sectional density for more destructive force thus killing power :?: :roll:
senior writes:
As far as using sectional density or bullet diameter as a comparison tool... there is no contest if you are talking about long range calibres and their ability to retain energy and kill game at long range... sectional density is the better formula for comparison ther is no doubt
If you want to talk about large Diameter Bullets with less S/D and more destructive force you should probably save that argument for a 45-70 / .444 debate :idea: :lol: :lol: :lol:
You are now saying the difference of .007 is wide enough to limit pass throughs on not-so-big-game... after all we are talking about a .270 / .280 comparison here senior.. who' picking fly #### out of pepper now? :wink:
As far as using sectional density or bullet diameter as a comparison tool... there is no contest if you are talking about long range calibres and their ability to retain energy and kill game at long range... sectional density is the better formula for comparison ther is no doubt
If you want to talk about large Diameter Bullets with less S/D and more destructive force you should probably save that argument for a 45-70 / .444 debate :idea: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Sorry REDD if you misunderstood me
I was simply replying to your question above
:arrow: "Do you think that S/D and B/C are a good way to compare calibres/cartridges... I think that they are a better indicator of performance on game than just bullet weight and velocity "
I didn't think you were being specific to any one cartridge :roll:
I was simply pointing out that once a bullet passes thru game the SD is of no signifigance
I was simply replying to your question above
:arrow: "Do you think that S/D and B/C are a good way to compare calibres/cartridges... I think that they are a better indicator of performance on game than just bullet weight and velocity "
I didn't think you were being specific to any one cartridge :roll:
I was simply pointing out that once a bullet passes thru game the SD is of no signifigance
OK guys, now I want you to make FOUR different piles:
Black pepper
White pepper
House-fly ####
Fruit-fly ####
:roll:
Oh yes, and I want you to tape your hands inside those boxing gloves, we don't want you to bruise your knuckles....
Doug
Black pepper
White pepper
House-fly ####
Fruit-fly ####
:roll:
Oh yes, and I want you to tape your hands inside those boxing gloves, we don't want you to bruise your knuckles....
Doug
Naw I understood you senior...but I was just using the old "turnabout is fair play" ploy :wink:
Yes you are correct... that is the reason I do not shoot partitions on deer any more...they pass through most times and dump their energy into the ground... even though the sectional density is very similar between an accubond and a partition the accubond delivers energy better... but this has everything to do with bullet construction and nothing to do with bullet diameter...apple and oranges :idea:
You make valid arguments and are very hard to debate with "senior"... I may have to resort to bull#### and bafflegarb if I run out of reasonable arguments of my own :shock: :wink:
I started the thread and the debate with the knowledge that I was out-numbered from the beginning. :shock:
Momma told me not to look into the eyes of the sun... but Momma thats where the fun is... :wink:
Momma told me not to look into the eyes of the sun... but Momma thats where the fun is... :wink:
The poll results really surprised me :!:
We know 3 to be true
I know 280 owners to be very loyal ( maybe fanatical :roll: )
But where's the 270 owners :?: :?:
Maybe they've come to admit the truth that 280 is the one :twisted: :mrgreen:
We know 3 to be true
I know 280 owners to be very loyal ( maybe fanatical :roll: )
But where's the 270 owners :?: :?:
Maybe they've come to admit the truth that 280 is the one :twisted: :mrgreen:
You fella's are debating the 270 vs the 280...not the applicable bullets! S/D and B/C have everything to do with bullets and there on game performance and potential accuracy. Lets not drag the bullet into this one fellas.
But what is a rifle without the bullet????
For the North American crowd Remington took the 7mm and converted it into terms we all could understand ...280 and put it up against Winchesters 270 for marketing. It never really caught as well as the Winchester 270. So Out comes the remington 7mm Mag...well hello lazer beam :shock:
When it comes down to it......its simple....which is better??? The one in your hands that you can shoot and eat what you have killed :roll:
But what is a rifle without the bullet????
For the North American crowd Remington took the 7mm and converted it into terms we all could understand ...280 and put it up against Winchesters 270 for marketing. It never really caught as well as the Winchester 270. So Out comes the remington 7mm Mag...well hello lazer beam :shock:
When it comes down to it......its simple....which is better??? The one in your hands that you can shoot and eat what you have killed :roll:
- Location
- Lakes District BC
BIGREDD said:
seems to me alot of 270 guys have a issue as well seeing this thread keeps popping up.....or does it maybe it is a size issue :lol: :lol:
notice the big bore guys are always happy .......its true size does matter :wink: :lol: :lol: :lol:
