270 vs 308

I've got a preference for the .308 due to having a vast array of 30 cal bullets available to you, including larger bullets than the .270. However, I've shot moose and bears with both these calibers and I can't honestly see a real difference between them as long as you place your shots right.
 
.308 vs .270

I can't believe a debate like this can command 7 pages!

Pick up a copy of 'Rifle' or 'Handloader' magazines and do some reading by guys who do a LOT of hunting and shooting with a range of rifles and calibres around the world.

It's a uniquely American phenomenon (and catching on in Canada) that you need to burn a lot more more powder for little gain in velocity and a commensurate gain in recoil and muzzle blast. Nothing you hit at any range is going to know the difference between 100-150 fps bullet impact. It takes 300fps for a projectile to break human skin.
You had better have the ability to be able to take advantage of any theoretical ballistic advantage past 250 yards.

It boils down to bullet placement with whatever calibre you can shoot well. There has never been so many good bullet designs available to shooters as now, but I still hear of bullet failures because shooters are asking penetrating bullets to expand. Some will do both.

At our monthly club rifle matches, we see several .300 mags of various makers and the odd .338. I call these the "I shoot all my game at 450 yards off-hand crowd". These guys come away humbled at the end of 15 rds (five off hand) only out to 200 yards! It's usually a standard calibre rifle that wins often a .308 in the hands of a man that can handle it.

In my rack are 6 sporters in four calibres, three of them in .308. What I hit goes down on the first shot with Winchester 150 gr PSP or my handloads with the same bullet. The .270 stays home as I have no need of a rifle that can (and has) shot through a large mule deer, heartshot from brisket to butt hole, making for a messy gutting out.
I'd have been better off with my .30-30 '94.

You can load a .308 with 125 gr. bullets or a .270 with 150s. I even have a couple of boxes of Imperial .270 160 RNSPs, once popular with moose hunters.

With a rifle suited for the game, a bullet suited for the job and accurate placement, game is down. The rest is smoke and mirrors and manufacturer's hype.
 
Sharps '63 said,----"These guys come away humbled at the end of 15 rds--"

This is exactlly what I have seen, also, the fellows with the huge magnums are not worth a hoot in competition!
 
Fortunately the thread has remained positive and not become a name calling quarrel. Both of these cartridges have remained popular over the years, and probably with good reason. I did end up buying a 308 bolt action rifle. It will allow me to concentrate on the one cartridge for reloading for both my m14's and the deer hunting bolt action rifle. I was curious about the 270, having seen it around for a long time, and having heard of its famous proponent who used it on all sorts of North American game with great success.

As for the magnums, I've not had the best experience to date with the 300Wm that was meant to replace my 6.5x55 Mauser. Its now retired as a future project for when I get around to it. Either it was a lemon from the factory, or the rapidly heating thin barrel isn't conducive to shooting a good group. The Tikka 308 is looking good so far as accuracy and consistency, and I hope to put in a lot more time at the range before hunting season starts.
 
Sharps '63 said:
. The .270 stays home as I have no need of a rifle that can (and has) shot through a large mule deer, heartshot from brisket to butt hole, making for a messy gutting out.
.
Click to expand...


Next time you shoot an animal end to end, use the gutless method of cleaning. I use it regardless of shot placement, in most circumstances. My days of being elbow deep in guts are over!:)
 
The presence of a cartridge, big or small, has little to do wiht a shooters ability. The finest marksman I ever knew used a .338 Lapua. Military snipers use everything from .308 to 50BMG.

I can shoot my 7RM or 300WSM just as well as I can shoot my .223, although I admit after 50 or so rounds, I'd prefer to be shooting the .223. I can't recall ever shooting 50 rounds at an animal, though.
 
We always should qualify everything on here. Gate, I haven't the slightest doubt that you are an excellent shooter and can shoot the largest magnums very easily and very well.
I am thinking of two cases that stand out in memory. In each case a non-reloading shooter bought a 300 Weatherby. They talked a great line of what their rifles could do and had pages of ballistics memorized. Then, at two different times, each showed up at a club competition. To say they couldn't shoot worth a hoot, is being too kind to them. They were terrible.
Obviously, there are a great many owners of large magnums who can shoot them with perfection.
But, the large magnums are not for the shooters who wound moose with a 30-06, then try to solve the problem by getting a larger rifle.
 
H4831 said:
But, the large magnums are not for the shooters who wound moose with a 30-06, then try to solve the problem by getting a larger rifle.
Click to expand...

Of course not, but that has nothing to do wiht the cartridge itself, and everything to do with the shooter.

Bashing the owners of "magnums" as people that are compensating for lack of skill or lacking in size of thier personal equipment seems to be prevelent here quite often.

Some of the poorest marksmen I've seen were equipted with cartridges in the .308/30-06/270/303 category. Why were they poor marksmen? Same reason that the guys with "magnums" are poor marksmen- They didn't practice much.

They went to the range once a year to "sight in" and that was that. Sighting in often consisted of shooting off a poor rest, and chasing the bullet holes all over the target, twisting thier scope adjustments after every shot.

Doesn't matter what you shoot- If you can't shoot, it's not the cartridges fault, it's yours.
 
Gatehouse said:
Next time you shoot an animal end to end, use the gutless method of cleaning. I use it regardless of shot placement, in most circumstances. My days of being elbow deep in guts are over!:)
Click to expand...

This is one that has me scratching my head. What is gutless method of cleaning? If there's a gutless way to gut things I want to learn how!

Chuck
 
It's the way most of the folks I know folks up here do it. Remove the shoulders and hams, backstrap, and neck meat before ever getting inside the animal. All done with a knife, no saw.

Once all that is away from the carcass, we take off one side of ribs, which exposes the heart and liver. After taking them out, just roll the carcass over and remove the ribs from the other side. The guts will be underneath and out of the way!

Oh, and don't forget the inside tenderloin (filet), too!

Supercub, who is a professional butcher, watched us do it when he was here a few years ago. He was impressed, however I will let him give you his comments after seeing it done for the first time.

Ted
 
Last edited:
Yup, that's the way. And depending if I want the heart or liver, I won't even open up the chest, except to go in the rear to retrieve tenderloins.
 
I'm still looking for a LH 280 Rem, kinda the best of both worlds, between the two choices you mention.
It will be primarily for deer.

With the better quality bullets being offered out there today for the 270, it's fine on those questionable penetration shots from years ago, on say, moose sized game. You dont have the weight in a 270 but you can have better penetration, with better quality bullets.

But for deer,the common lead core bullets in 270 or 308 were made for them.

308 has the weight behind it if you wish to go heavier, but again for deer sized game I shoot Hornady 308 Win in 130 SP's. Sometimes a bang, flop. Other times they run for a hundred or so yds, all depends where you hit'em.:cool:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom