Long vs Short Action??????

R

reeler

Member
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Location
Ontario
i'm shopping around for my first deer rifle.

i've decided on a bolt action and found that almost all have a listing for a Long and a Short action.

the only difference i can see is that alot of the "Short Actions" overall length is more....and hold less ammo in the magazine.

what's the difference.......need help!!!!
 
The caliber you decide on will determine the length of the action.
Shorter Bolts are faster, stiffer and more accurate in many cases! Many of the new Short Mags outperform their long action counterparts.... and use less powder.
What do you want in a deer rifle... are you going to reload your own cartridges?
 
i do not plan to reload my own cartridges

looking at .270 bolt action

would like to take advantage of all the different grains offered for 270.....does that meen i need a long action????
 
Don't worry about it. The 270 must be a long action, you have no choice.
Well, unless you go with a 270WSM. A 270 feeds really well and wsm's are normally feel jumpy due to the sharp shoulder and size difference between the caliber diameter and the shoulder diameter. Put the two in a head to head test and you'll see the difference. I don't buy ammo so I can't help you there.

If you get a Stevens 200, make sure you get a long scope like the Bushnell 3200's or extended bases #402.
 
My t-3 in 270WSM feeds as smooth (single stack mag) and has a shorter and faster bolt throw than any of the numerous bolt action .270's I have owned.;)

Did I mention it is more accurate and faster than the long actions...
 
A .308 is a good choice for a first deer rifle. There is plenty of cheap ammo available for practice and the recoil is mild. It is plenty adequate for deer and is, btw, a short action. They are also known for accuracy. A Tikka T-3, as BR suggests, would be a good choice. For a lower priced rifle a Stevens 200 should fit the bill. If you are on a budget, then I suggest getting the cheaper rifle and a more expensive, high quality scope.
 
long action = longer cartridges. Short action = Shorter Cartridges. simple as that.


as for the speed thing :rolleyes: I'm sure the animal will notice the 0.000001 sec difference between the two :p
 
Nice to be shopping for a first deer rifle when there is so much to choose from...270 is a great round,as is a 308 and the 30-06..none kick too bad.for the 30-06 family of cartridges one has to have a long action...308 family has a short action/..I just bought a 25-06 a bit ago,it is supposed to be a fantastic long range deer cartridge that has very little recoil..Topped it with a leupold 4-12 .If you do buy a rifle get the best glass you can afford,you will never regret it.It does make a huge difference.For quite a few years I bought alot of cheaper scopes and thought they were fine until I bought my first leupold.Now all my rifles will wear them!!!.There are other great brands than leupold as well and many people on here have good experiences with them.here is a pic of my 25-06
stevens004.jpg
 
Reeler: listen to BIGRED this is the year 2006 and if you want a .270 size bullet, get your self a short action in wsm, I got a Rem 700 in 7mmwsm and its light ,quick and it shoots like a benchrest gun under .250" groups these new short cartridges seem to be very easy to get to shoot, my gun shot the factory winchester ammo 150grs 1n 1/2"+ group can,t expect much better for factory ammo. but if you start to reload or have a friend do it for you the
very good old .270 win will not match, the new wsm for long range flat shooting & more energy!!
 
A short action runs all of 2-3 oz lighter than a long action in a typical M70 or M700. After all, we're talking 2/3" or so here.

In the world of benchrest, a short action is theoretically stiffer. In a sporter weight rifle the minute difference is more in the mind of the shooter than in any real world difference.

If you want a short cartridge, a short action makes sense. But the recent "improvements" come in the form of advertisements convincing us to buy a new rifle. Fun to talk about but nil for real world difference.

The "ancient" 270 Winchester has been around for 80 years, and we haven't yet developed a "better" deer round. I would be very happy with a 270 Win as a deer rifle, and advertising notwithstanding, the new "short fats" are only different, not better.
 
Last edited:
.270 Winchester

RickF said:
A short action runs all of 2-3 oz lighter than a long action in a typical M70 or M700. After all, we're talking 2/3" or so here.

In the world of benchrest, a short action is theoretically stiffer. In a sporter weight rifle the minute difference is more in the mind of the shooter than in any real world difference.

If you want a short cartridge, a short action makes sense. But the recent "improvements" come in the form of advertisements convincing us to buy a new rifle. Fun to talk about but nil for real world difference.

The "ancient" 270 Winchester has been around for 80 years, and we haven't yet developed a "better" deer round. I would be very happy with a 270 Win as a deer rifle, and advertising notwithstanding, the new "short fats" are only different, not better.
Click to expand...

And not to mention plenty of moose have fallen to the .270 Win as well. ;)
 
Amphibious said:
as for the speed thing :rolleyes: I'm sure the animal will notice the 0.000001 sec difference between the two :p
Click to expand...

What kind of attitude is that?:D

You can't go wrong with a 270, and certainly not as a first rifle. Whiel it might lack some of the cool factor of the new rounds, it'll kill as well as any of the newbies. Plus you can get a Model 70 Featherweight and pretend you're Jack O'Connor.
 
Get whatever cal. You like I do belive that the shorties have some things going for them but would deer notice a difference.
These are some cal. you may want to take a look at:
30/06, 308win , 270win, 6.5 swede, 7x57(7mm Mauser) or the old 303brit.
These are just some of my favourites and they are all good cartriges
 
Although I'm not answering your question, I have to say that I do not subscribe to the notion that there is any tangible advantage to a short magnum over most traditional magnums, with the possible exception of the .270WSM. IMO a couple of ounces, slightly shorter overall length, and a marginally quicker action will not provide any real word difference to me. But that's just me, and you may find your circumstances differ from mine.

I don't shoot from a stand, I don't have to do too much hiking, my shots are usually under 400 yards, and I haven't required a quick follow-up shot yet (I cannot see how 1/10 of a second will make much of a difference to me if I ever need that quick follow-up).

FYI:

I bought my son a .243 Winchester a few months ago. A month later I bought a .270 Winchester, ostensibly for my wife, on impulse. We took those rifles out to the range so that my boy could try-out his new gun and I could check the zero on what was really my new toy. My son shot a few rounds with his gun and then decided to try mine. He printed a 2" four shot group at 100 yards. The kid is maybe 115 pounds and he loves the .270; the .243 is his younger brother's now.

I cannot say enough about how pleasant the .270 Winchester is to shoot. IMO it would make a great calibre for a first deer rifle and you could probably find one very reasonably priced in the EE. The 25-06 Remington, like the .270 Winchester, is a long-action calibre based on the venerable 30-06 Springfield; it's also a very nice round to shoot. I've read that the .280 Remington is very nice as well, but it may be difficult to find ammunition as readily as for the other two.

The .270WSM is just all that and more, it shoots flatter and faster than the .270 Win, but it probably kicks harder too. You are not a handloader, so it is reasonable to suggest that you will be using factory loads. As far as I know, the 7mmWSM and .300 WSM do not match the performance of their long action counterparts, but then they probably don't kick as hard either.

Having said all that, I do appreciate the attributes of the .243 Win, .260 Rem, 7mm-08 Rem, .308 Win, and .358 Win; all short actions based on the .308.

You want a bolt action so:

I'd say if you are thinking of a short action for your first deer rifle, try the .260, 7mm-08, or .308. If you want more power try the .270WSM.

If you want a long action you could do a lot worse than either the 25-06 or .270 Winchester. There are quite a few other very good choices as well, but there are just too many reasons to choose one of these two.
 
Well the naysayers are out in full force again...:rolleyes:
The shorter the bolt and action the stiffer and the more accurate it will be... there is nothing theoretical about it....:confused:
The short mags are sometimes faster, but in all cases they are more efficient and have less recoil than their long action counterparts.:eek:
The Short mags not only have shorter actions but can use shorter barrels due to the efficient burn of the short fat powder column with more powder exposed to the primer. This results in a much lighter and shorter rifle in most of the Short and Super short chambered rifles!:cool:

You guys that are constantly slamming the short mags are either really slow... or extremely prejudiced.
I have a brilliant idea... lets just tell all the new shooters that ask for advice to buy an original 30-06 Springfield... in an 1895 lever.... by your logic everything made after that is not necessary anyway.:redface:
 
BIGREDD said:
The shorter the bolt and action the stiffer and the more accurate it will be... there is nothing theoretical about it....:confused:
Click to expand...


purely THEORY. you're forgetting so many Variables! like Barrel Quality, action design, etc.


if the above quote was true one of those little Norinco Bushmasters in 7.62x39 would be more accurate then my .270win. doubtful!

there is nothing the shortmags can do that wasn't being done before. except fit in a smaller rifle.


if you want to buy a short mag, buy a shortmag. but Don't get sold on the belief that a .270wsm will kill any better then a .270win in 99.9% of hunting situations.

oh I'm a naysayer alright. don;t have anything against shortmags, but have EVERYTHING afgainst rookies getting opinion when at that stage in their sporting development they should be getting realistic advice!
 
It seems that reeler is to choose between the .270 Winchester and the .270 Winchester Short Magnum. Great calibre choice.

If I were reeler I'd go down to the local gun shop and see how the various different models in each chambering feel. Then I'd check into the availability of ammunition and price at those locations I anticipate hunting.

You know, my experiences with the .270 Winchester suggest to me that it is all the gun most people need for deer. Some people use it for much bigger game. It's pleasant to shoot, has a flat trajectory, a decent selection of ammunition available almost everywhere, and its a pretty economical gun to own.

If the .270 WSM is more to reeler's liking, then reeler will own a slightly lighter and shorter rifle with a stiffer action, that has the potential to reach out a little further than the old .270 and may be more accurate when punching holes in paper targets.

I already own a .270 Winchester and I just don't think that I'd ever realize the advantages of the .270 WSM in the field. None of the short magnums offer enough incentive for me to trade in any of the guns I already own.

Reeler doesn't already own a .270, and BIGREDD offers valid points. If reeler is going to buy a new rifle, and if there is no reason for reeler to prefer one chambering over the other, perhaps the WSM is the way to go.
 
Reeler,

You should buy the rifle that you are most comfortable with and most of all you should shoot it, shoot it at long range shoot it at short range. Then clean it and shoot it again and again untill it becomes a part of you. And when it does you should keep shooting it untill it's time to buy another rifle.

Everyone has valid opinions and good suggestions, it's now up to you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom