.270 How does it size up?

interstatepawnllc

September 23, 2002 19:28

Ballistically speaking how does the .270 size up to competing calibers such as the 3006, 243, 7.62X54, 8mm etc.? Thanks.

If your gonna be stupid you better be tough !!

0

• 

  BoltactionMan

  September 24, 2002 03:13

  The .270 will shoot flatter than all of them with the possible exception of the .243 (about the same depending on loads). It will deliver more velocity and striking energy downrange than the 8mm, 7.62 x 54.
  
  It delivers more energy than .243 by virtue of larger caliber, heavier bullet choices and less than the 3006 for the same reasons.
  
  It will cover any deer, antelope need for all but the very longest shots (well past 400 yds) and can be loaded to handle varmints. It can be used on elk, but is starting to get a little bit light, a sure shot will bring them down quite nicely though.
  
  KC

  0
• 

  Iroquois Scout

  September 24, 2002 05:12

  I prefer the 30-06 over the 270 Winchester for two reasons: 1.The 30-06 has a greater choice of bullet weights and styles 2.The 30-06 can be loaded with 130 and 150 grain bullets to the same velocity as can be achieved in the 270 and still have the advantage of being able to use bullets of heavier weight when needed.

  0
• 

  He Dog

  September 24, 2002 07:08

  Both of the above posters are correct. I shoot a .270 because it has a little less recoil, and I am a little more accurate with it than with an -06. Less bullet where I need it to be is better than more bullet in the gut or leg.
  
  A balanced diet is a cookie in each hand

  0
• 

  roysha

  September 25, 2002 06:57

  If you can't kill any game animal on the North American continent, cleanly, at any reasonable range, with the 270 Winchester, you should stay home. Anything smaller (powerwise) would be very questionable for really large game and if you can't shoot the 270 accurately, anything larger wouldn't make up for a poorly placed shot. And while we are at it, if the barrel lengths are equal, up to 150 gr. bullets, the 7mm mag has to scramble like hell to stay ahead. I have a 25" barrel on my 270 and it will keep up with virtually any 7 mag that I have chronographed.(okay, so it's an inch longer than most factory 7 mags. picky picky!)

  0
• 

  idsman75

  September 25, 2002 11:38

  Not to mention the fact that you can get 90 and 100 grain bullets for the little pests that need shootin'.

  0
• 

  steve45

  September 25, 2002 18:01

  I used a .270 to shoot a Bull Elk at 200 yds. The Elk was facing me head on. The bullet hit where the bottom of the neck joins the body. The elk dropped in his tracks and we found the bullet in one of the roasts in the hindquarters. It was a smaller Elk (spike bull) but that shows you that the 270 has plenty of penetration on larger targets. The bullet used was a Sierra 150 boatail. This bullet isnt known for it penetration, its known for its accuracy and flat trajectory.

  0
• 

  interstatepawnllc

  September 25, 2002 18:15

  Thanks for all the educated feedback.
  
  If your gonna be stupid you better be tough !!

  0
• 

  gunpaq

  September 26, 2002 02:56

  Pop said that the Garand was originally manufactured in the .270 caliber but was changed by order of War Dept. to .30-06 due to the mass volumes of .30 cal. ammo in government storage. Pop has taken dozens of deer and two black bear in PA with his .270 and I have taken dozens of groundhogs and several deer with mine (all deer were one shot drops from 50 - 200+ yds). My opinion on the .270 vs the .30-06 based on personal experience is the difference between being punched by Tyson vs being punched by Forman.
  
  Pack slow, fall stable, pull high, hit dead center.

  0
• 

  queeksdraw

  October 05, 2002 08:20

  I dont think anybody that doesn't know the ballistic relationship between the 270 and 30-06 has any room to call any body else names.

  0

Please sign in to leave a comment.