A couple .270 related questions

[charby]

imho, going from a .270 to a .308 would be a step down,though not a big step.

I was thinking the same when I was thumbing through my reloading book, .270 has up to a few hundred fps faster on the 150g and smaller bullets.

[brimic]

I was thinking the same when I was thumbing through my reloading book, .270 has up to a few hundred fps faster on the 150g and smaller bullets.

The sweet spot for 30-06 based cartridges seems to be between .270 and .280.

[Scout26]

Last I checked for Elk (or deer or similar type animals) you merely want to put a hole in both lungs.  Since they are not armored, a fairly decent sized bullet moving a a fairly decent enough speed to pass through a couple of ribs should be sufficient to put the animal down cleanly and quickly.   

[brimic]

Since they are not armored,

There are many people who believe they are....

[Scout26]

Believe me I know.  A couple years back a friend who had asked if he could come deer hunting with me (his first time), showed up with these "slugs" (Illinois is shotgun slugs only).

They were some ungodly 3.5 inch, 450 grain, 1950fps shoulder destroying, uber-tactical, zombie deer killin' overpriced pieces of crap, that I just looked at him as he proudly showed off what he thought (or had been told and sold) was the "ultimate deer killin' rounds" and said; "The deer don't have body armor.  Just poke a hole in their side and they'll go down."  

[brimic]

Working at deer rifle sight-ins at various clubs over the years, I've seen more than my share of .300 RUMs, .338 WMs, and .450 Marlins that guys bought as their first rifle. They usually take 2-3 shots that are all over the place then ask me to shoot it to see if 'its just them or the rifle.'
 

[Boomhauer]

Working at deer rifle sight-ins at various clubs over the years, I've seen more than my share of .300 RUMs, .338 WMs, and .450 Marlins that guys bought as their first rifle. They usually take 2-3 shots that are all over the place then ask me to shoot it to see if 'its just them or the rifle.'
 

I just shake my head. Pretty much any caliber will take a deer if you put it in the right place.

I also don't go anywhere near a public range right before or during the first couple of weeks of deer season. Right damn dangerous for your health. A nation of riflemen we are NOT.

[brimic]

I just shake my head. Pretty much any caliber will take a deer if you put it in the right place.

If you go to any hunting site on the internetz, there will be a longstanding debate as devisive full of stupidz as the 9mm vs .45 debates that are like : is the .223/22-250/.243 ok for deer?
One side says "yes, bullet placement is everything, and the small calibers are easy to shoot."
The other side is "No! You can never have too much gun, and you need more gun to give you a bigger 'margin for error.'

A nation of riflemen we are NOT.

+abillionty

[HankB]

Hell, even the new cheap ass rifles from the factory are tack drivers compared to the rifles they (Keith and O'Conner) hunted with.

Now it's just our handguns that have to catch up . . . I clearly remember old Elmer writing that the S&W M29 with HIS bullets in HIS loads would shoot 1" groups at 100 yards. And of course, you could rely on everything Elmer  wrote to be 100% true. 

[mtnbkr]

Do you remember which book?  I have a few of his and don't recall 1"@100yds specifically.  It is possible with a highly tuned gun, proper handloads, and proper bullets, but is more of an anomaly.

As far as caliber selection for deer is concerned, I'd rather someone use too much gun than try to get by with something marginal and add poor shooting on top of that.  A poor hit with a 223 might fail to stop a deer when the same hit with a 338 or 45-70 won't fail to stop. 

A buddy of mine hunts deer with a 338winmag, but not because he thinks that's what it takes.  His gun is very accurate, he likes it, and he shoots it well.  He's also had opportunities to take bear while deer hunting, so the larger caliber does have some merit for him.

Chris

[brimic]

A poor hit with a 223 might fail to stop a deer when the same hit with a 338 or 45-70 won't fail to stop. 

I would agree that a .223 is on the bleeding edge of too light, but if you are using the correct bullets in a .223, a poor hit = a poor shot. There are very few people in the USA that absolutely depend on venison for their sustenance, so I don't take any excuses for poor shots.
OTOH, I have no problem with people shooting bigger cartridges, so long as they have the skill to shoot them. Most hunters would be better served with a .243 or .260 than a 30-06- but for some reason guys get inadequacy complexes if they use something smaller than a 30-06.

[mtnbkr]

I'm not making excuses for a poor shot, just saying that having a larger caliber gives you some wiggle room between "poor" and "good enough".  223 was just an example, but I see people insisting 22 hornet, 32-20, etc are "plenty for deer".  While they will kill a deer, there's no reason to intentionally go small. 

Most of the folks I hunt with use a 30-06.  The guy with the 338 alternates between that, a 264winmag, 30-30, and a 308 depending on his mood.  I only have my lowly 6.5x55.  I'd feel inadequate except that my deer couldn't be any deader than if I used a grenade launcher.

Chris

[Bob F.]

That 6.5 x 55 is a sweetheart. I intended to take mine elk hunting this fall but the trip fell thru.

Bud years ago had a 7MM Mag. Only thing he ever hit was his hunting partners truck (from inside). "Rick, get a gun you can shoot with your eyes open!"

[mtnbkr]

Mine is a Winchester Featherweight.  I love it, it's a great mountain rifle. 

Chris

[Balog]

Yeah, my thought on the .308 was that it was a short action and thus lighter, as well as the significantly wider selection of bullets since it's such a common round for both hunting and anti-personel use.

[charby]

I'm not making excuses for a poor shot, just saying that having a larger caliber gives you some wiggle room between "poor" and "good enough".  223 was just an example, but I see people insisting 22 hornet, 32-20, etc are "plenty for deer".  While they will kill a deer, there's no reason to intentionally go small. 

Most of the folks I hunt with use a 30-06.  The guy with the 338 alternates between that, a 264winmag, 30-30, and a 308 depending on his mood.  I only have my lowly 6.5x55.  I'd feel inadequate except that my deer couldn't be any deader than if I used a grenade launcher.

Chris

my next deer rifle is going to be a 444 marlin for MN. I took my 300 win mag thinking I'd get in a 200-300 yard shot, way too much hazel brush and dog hair aspen to even think about shooting over 100 yards.

[mtnbkr]

I'm researching short, big bore rifles for thicket hunting.  I have yet to take a shot longer than 50yds.  I think I'm going to get an Encore  in 45-70.

Something like this (not mine):


Chris

[Northwoods]

That 6.5 x 55 is a sweetheart. I intended to take mine elk hunting this fall but the trip fell thru.

I love the 6.5 Swede as much as anyone, but after peronal experience I consider is adequate but marginally so for elk size game.  I used mine (CZ-550 American) on a cow elk hunt in 2005.  Took a 110-120 yard shot on a good size cow.  It was a steep quartering towards shot.  Bullet went through the onside shoulder, traversed the chest cavity, and bounced off the second or third to last offside rib.  No exit wound.  She ran 35 yards nd piled up dead.  The bullet was a 140 gr Barnes XLC (no longer available).  Obviously it did the job.  But if I were on a big bull hunt I'd really want something with more margin in case of longer range shot on a much heaftier animal.

Hence why I now have a 550 in 9.3x62mm.

[charby]

I'm researching short, big bore rifles for thicket hunting.  I have yet to take a shot longer than 50yds.  I think I'm going to get an Encore  in 45-70.

Something like this (not mine):
http://i377.photobucket.com/albums/oo219/JWSAggie2001/DSCN1510.jpg

Chris

I bet that kicks like a mule. I'll be hunting bear also, so I want something with a fast follow up shot or two.

[brimic]

my next deer rifle is going to be a 444 marlin for MN. I took my 300 win mag thinking I'd get in a 200-300 yard shot, way too much hazel brush and dog hair aspen to even think about shooting over 100 yards.

That's whay I hung up the .308 and went with a handgun. In dense forest of Northern WI where I hunt, 30 yards would be a really long shot. 

[charby]

That's whay I hung up the .308 and went with a handgun. In dense forest of Northern WI where I hunt, 30 yards would be a really long shot. 

Yeah, a big damn handgun! :) I'll be taking mine in a couple weeks for one of the Iowa gun seasons.

[mtnbkr]

I've been practicing with a handgun as well.  I'm not as comfortable as I'd like beyond 25yds.  I tried a red dot on my Redhawk, but it just makes it feel unwieldy.  I'm taking my rifle for this weekend since there are places where you could stretch it out to 100yds, but the rest of the season will probably be handgun only.

Chris

[charby]

Yeah, my thought on the .308 was that it was a short action and thus lighter, as well as the significantly wider selection of bullets since it's such a common round for both hunting and anti-personel use.

So did you buy the .270? Also the weight difference between a LA and SA is going to be pretty small.

My main hunting rifle is a .300wm and weighs less than 8lbs, when I shoot it I wish it weighed more to soak up some of the recoil.

[Tallpine]

A poor hit with a 223 might fail to stop a deer when the same hit with a 338 or 45-70 won't fail to stop. 

I dunno ... shooting them in the butt with a 338 or 45-70 is just going to ruin more meat   

[Balog]

Charby: the guy was trying to swap it for an AMD-65 I'm selling. Post election I can get more for it than the Savage cost new, so I turned him down.