Poll: First Gun - All Purpose Caliber: .308 or .270?

[tlfreek]

psha 308 it is

 

[hendrixfan]

And for what its worth, not saying one gun make is superior to another, but you can find the Savage package rifles at Bimart on sale for under $350 at times. From personal experience, they are good shooters, more than accurate enough for hunting. I have also heard good things about the Marlin XL and XS series. Most of those guns will out shoot the person in hunting scenarios when you don't have the most steady of rests etc...My only reason for mentioning it, is that you can get a good gun for a reasonable price, learn from it, and have extra $ for another rifle that might fill a new purpose later.

 

[orygun]

I've never hunted with a .308 or a .270, but I know enough people that have to know that you will not be disappointed with either choice. The .308 may have an advantage when it comes to practice ammo costs, but they are both popular enough to provide an ample selection of hunting ammo at reasonable cost.
I hunt with a 30-06 and that's my pick, even if that is not one of your choices. There are more usable bullet weights in the 06 than almost any other cartridge. Many would think I'm partial enough to the 30 cal that I'd vote .308, but I'd probably pick the .270 when faced with your choices.
My wife hunts with the 7mm-08 and I've great respect for that little cartridge. Easy one on the shoulder and very effective. The elk she shot didn't know it was an "underpowered" round.
By the way, I didn't vote.

 

[snew]

2. If " believe it or not, a larger bullet is harder to stop." then a 45-70 firing a 300 gr bullet would make a better selection than the 270 firing a 150 grainer at 500 yards. Science says no. The 300gr would have approx. 45% of the 150gr energy. Less energy means less damage, less damage means less likely to kill.

You know that the energy formulas are designed to sell magazines, right? A sedeately moving 300gr .458 has a lot more penetration than it's "formula" numbers would inticate. :winkkiss: Now hitting something with it at 500 is an accomplishment with any gun but a 500 yd shot on game is not something I advocate anyway, at least for myself.

 

[CJ1089]

You know that the energy formulas are designed to sell magazines, right? A sedeately moving 300gr .458 has a lot more penetration than it's "formula" numbers would inticate. :winkkiss: Now hitting something with it at 500 is an accomplishment with any gun but a 500 yd shot on game is not something I advocate anyway, at least for myself.

Must disagree, energy formulas are science, how they are interpreted can sell a magazine or a gun. E= 1/2 x mass x velocity squared never changes. Opinions about how much E it takes abound and are worth just what you think they are..
A 500 shot is something to train for, if you don't train don't try it. If you can hit paper and have the discipline then you can do it on game. I cannot now but could when I was 17 to 30 years old. USMC certified, got the 214s to prove it. Now, I limit my self to sub-400 stationary targets due to heart and respiration rates.
OBTW, I was dissing the trajectory of the 45-70 not its ability to kill something.

 

[snew]

They say "climate change" is science too. Bad science is still science I suppose. You can cook up almost any formula and apply it in a manner it was not designed for and it'll still be science.

 

[CJ1089]

They say "climate change" is science too. Bad science is still science I suppose. You can cook up almost any formula and apply it in a manner it was not designed for and it'll still be science.

You going to call ballistic tables bad science?!?
Cook up any formula? E=(1/2) x mass x Velocity squared is Newtonian, been around about 400 years, research the subject.

This is how you empower those climate "scientists", you can't ignore real physics without allowing them to paint you as a ignorant yokel. As an aside, cyclic temperature shifts are REAL, recorded as data, but data is just numbers until interpreted. Claiming that human emmitted greenhouse gases caused them is the bad science.

Coming up w/ an opinion does not have the same credibility as research.

 

[Natty Bumpo]

Well now, it looks like hunting season is approaching. Good discussion.

My contribution to this thread is to get a rifle and burn up four-six boxes (yes, that's right....a hundred bucks) at the range over four separate sessions and at various long range distances. Then work on moving targets at shorter range.

Don't be a putz and simply "sight in" your .308/.270/7mm at 100 yards and judge that you are now "ready". I see lots of guys every year who do just that a no more. Maybe 10 of those guys don't need to do more. The other 40 do.

You need to master your rifle and your load. Ahead of time.

 

[Quackerbacker]

Well now, it looks like hunting season is approaching. Good discussion.

My contribution to this thread is to get a rifle and burn up four-six boxes (yes, that's right....a hundred bucks) at the range over four separate sessions and at various long range distances. Then work on moving targets at shorter range.

Don't be a putz and simply "sight in" your .308/.270/7mm at 100 yards and judge that you are now "ready". I see lots of guys every year who do just that a no more. Maybe 10 of those guys don't need to do more. The other 40 do.

You need to master your rifle and your load. Ahead of time.

Thread Winner

 

[ehunter]

Yes well put I have both and I am converting from a 06. I really like my 270 the 308 is my brush gun. For those of you who think a 270 is not a elk gun I have friend with almost 30 elk under his belt and he has shot 29 of those with 130 grain bullets. I would go handle the guns in question and buy it based on what feels good the difference is a short action vs long action. And as pointed out what ever you go with go have fun and practice with it.

Thread Winner

 

[JC9995]

Im a HUGE .270 fan. That said, the 7MM is a flatter, faster round. Albeit not by much. To be exact, its only about 300 FPS and 1" difference way out to 500 yards as compared to the .270.
The .308 doesn't even come close to sectional density, trajectory or reatained energy at those distances. But it will smack the crap out of anything within 300 yards. After you answer your first question as to WHAT you will be shooting with this, you have to answer HOW you will be shooting it. 100, 250, 400, 600 yards??? That would determined the caliber you choose. IMO.....
Good luck.

 

[snew]

You going to call ballistic tables bad science?!?
Cook up any formula? E=(1/2) x mass x Velocity squared is Newtonian, been around about 400 years, research the subject.

No.I don't even know how you get that from what I said. You mentioned interpretation and that's exactly what I am talking about. You have a penchant for applying the energy formula to a bullet's effectiveness on game. You said that when you refuted that other fella's post. The formula is what it is but it doesn't go there. There are other forces that make bullets effective at the terminal end and I know that those other forces have much more to do with whether he's DRT or running off into the sunset.

The other guy is right. Put your shot where it needs to go and that animal will drop. Finesse vs force, though a healthy dose of force won't hurt.

 

[Will_Power]

Thanks for all the feedback, guys. Didn't really expect this much info, but your replies - along with a ton of reading elsewhere online - is helping me get ready with theoretically book knowledge before I lay down the money and get some practical time with the rifle I end up going with.

Being new to hunting, the vast array of calibers - followed by corresponding grain loads & bullets - is pretty mystifying, but sometimes it strikes me as a Ford v. Dodge v. Chevy argument.

At this point, I'm only planning on a single rifle (depending on my mood I'll just go ahead and claim the "Beware a man who only owns one gun" adage or simple finances). As I mentioned in my first post, I'd like a caliber that can handle elk and black bear along with white/blacktail along with being viable for antelope and sheep if I decide to head east of the Cascades.

A lot to ask of a single gun, I know. So far, I've got things narrowed down to two calibers: namely the .270 Win or the 7mm Rem Mag.

I know people claim that .270 works for elk and that plenty of them are taken with the caliber (practice & shot placement trump everything), but the sheer certainty of takedown power and bullet selection has me leaning towards the 7mm Rem Mag.

However, the choice boils down to two questions for me and the 7mm:

1. Recoil: As a big 6'4" 350lbs+ dude, how much is that recoil really going to bug me, especially as a new shooter (the way I figure it, I'll either have to fight developing a flinch the whole time or adjust to it right off the bat as I have no other point of reference)? Best case scenario, I'd like to find a way to shoot the 7mm before I make any purchases to find out. If I do go 7mm, a limbsavers recoil pad is probably a mandatory purchase, from what I hear.

2. Cost: How much more does good ammo cost, compared to the .270 (and what's a good deer load - heard Hornady 139 gr. SST might be the way to go)? If it's something like 25% or so more expensive, that might be a major point in favor of the .270 as I plan on shooting a lot to learn.

EDIT/UPDATE: Looking through the Shop Shooting Supplies | Reloading | Gunsmithing | Hunting gear — MidwayUSA site, I'm seeing such a ton of variation in costs between ammo of the same caliber (both .270 and 7 Mag) that it's tricky for me, as a newbie, to get a handle on this one. In a search for Hornady SST for the 270 Win and the 7 Rem Mag, both seem to be priced the same. Granted, I know there's a ton of difference bullet and grain loads out there, so this is where I'm over my head.

Some input here would really be appreciated.​

 

[CJ1089]

No.I don't even know how you get that from what I said. You mentioned interpretation and that's exactly what I am talking about. You have a penchant for applying the energy formula to a bullet's effectiveness on game. You said that when you refuted that other fella's post. The formula is what it is but it doesn't go there. There are other forces that make bullets effective at the terminal end and I know that those other forces have much more to do with whether he's DRT or running off into the sunset.

The other guy is right. Put your shot where it needs to go and that animal will drop. Finesse vs force, though a healthy dose of force won't hurt.

So as not to further hijack the man's thread, I invite you to PM me if you wish clarification about my statements. You have misunderstood me badly, but this is not the place for continued debate. The original poster has moved beyond the question that started the discussion.
And it is his thread after all,
CJ

 

[Jamie6.5]

Thanks for all the feedback, guys. Didn't really expect this much info, but your replies - along with a ton of reading elsewhere online - is helping me get ready with theoretically book knowledge before I lay down the money and get some practical time with the rifle I end up going with.

2. Cost: How much more does good ammo cost, compared to the .270 (and what's a good deer load - heard Hornady 139 gr. SST might be the way to go)? If it's something like 25% or so more expensive, that might be a major point in favor of the .270 as I plan on shooting a lot to learn.

EDIT/UPDATE: Looking through the Shop Shooting Supplies | Reloading | Gunsmithing | Hunting gear — MidwayUSA site, I'm seeing such a ton of variation in costs between ammo of the same caliber (both .270 and 7 Mag) that it's tricky for me, as a newbie, to get a handle on this one. In a search for Hornady SST for the 270 Win and the 7 Rem Mag, both seem to be priced the same. Granted, I know there's a ton of difference bullet and grain loads out there, so this is where I'm over my head.

Some input here would really be appreciated.​

Will, you have made a wise choice IMHO. When one spends enough time looking over ballistics tables and recoil numbers they usually arrive at where you are.
All cartridges are a compromise between flat shooting and hard-hitting. Many here have pointed out one or the other, but the reality is that the two (2) classic cartridges that hover at the top when ALL factors are considered are the .270 and the 7MM Rem mag.
Among the newer cartridges, the hot 6.5s and the .280AI seem to come the closest.

The issues you face when buying ammo for cost and effectiveness isn't easy, and even when "rolling your own," there is really no way to tell without the gun in hand, on the bags, at range. The gun has to tell you what it likes whether it be a custom handload or an off the shelf load. That will be "good ammo."
Don't get it in your head what you're going to use ahead of time. Accuracy and consistency are far more relevant when it comes to killing the animal, especially at ranges over 100-200 yds. The best bullet in the world still needs to be delivered on target.
My first advice at this stage would be to evaluate the maximum cost of a box of rounds for each chambering, and plan on no less than 3-4 boxes, to gain confidence with the gun, and the knowledge necessary to determine/utilize it's Maximum Point Blank Range. MPBR is where these two cartridges really shine.
Then calculate what it will cost to try out 3, 4 or maybe even a half dozen different loads 'till you find the right one! One box of each will usually be sufficient to know initially whether that gun likes that particular load, but remember that you can't return ammo so buy one of each until you know what THE GUN likes.
Edit: Occasionally one finds a gun that will shoot most ammo accurately. Don't plan on it, as you are setting yourself up for disappointment.

Regardless of which you choose, you will most likely find that the 7MM runs 50% more per box than the .270. Apples to apples is the best way cost-wise, but again, that may not be what a particular gun likes! In other words, if the 7MM were to like green box Remmies and the .270 prefers Federal premiums with Partitions or Barnes, the situation will likely be reversed.

With the first 2 .270s I owned, (both M700s) I was surprised at the fact that among the ammo they seemed to like best for deer and 'lopes was plain old green box 130gr core-lokts. Many deer (20 or so) and a couple of antelope fell to that combo at ranges up to and including 340 yards. They all dropped like they were hit with a lightning bolt, DRT. They consistently grouped at 1.5" @ 200yds and around 2.5" at 300. Not bad for a factory load, especially considering it was among the cheapest. At the time they could be had for less than $10.00/box

When it came to an elk load, things were a little different. I finally ended up with a custom load consisting of a 150gr Sierra SPBT, CCI 200 and H4831, at over 2900 FPS out of a 22" barrel. Cost after all was calculated, came in less than the green box 130s, but I didn't have to factor in the expense of the reloading equipment.

Good luck in your search, and keep availability in mind too. It would be a bummer to find a load for either and realize it's being discontinued, or can only be ordered from Cabela's, Midway or other inconvenient source. Then reloading will be mandatory.

 

[Spitpatch]

Voices in the Wilderness: Snew, Natty Bumpo and others who made these points:

1) Anybody who plans to shoot at elk at 500 yards needs more experience hunting elk.

2) Anybody who plans to shoot anything at 500 yards, needs to spend a lot of time and ammunition shooting at paper at 500 yards. They will learn two things: It is extremely difficult to hit anything at 500 yards, let alone the vitals of an elk consistently and reliably under hunting conditions.

3) All the "Data Tables" in the world have nothing to do with what your rifle actually does at long range. Even with a load that you have chronographed personally, if you consult the ballistic tables from the actual manufacturer of the bullet that you are using, and utilize their data to hold elevation per their recommendations for that bullet traveling that speed, I would love to be there with money to bet that the first shot out of your rifle at 500 yards will very most probably completely miss the 8x10target paper. With extensive practice on a hard bench, with a very accurate gun and load (dispensing with the "data" in favor of what your gun actually does) at the end of the day, you may finally realize some frequent hits.

4) Recoil affects everyone. It affects everyone negatively. Body mass has little or nothing to do with how a shooter copes with the always negative affect of recoil. Skinny little guys may quite readily teach themselves effective techniques for overcoming the negative influence. Big burly guys may never be able to develop these skills. It is largely a mental thing and not a physical thing. Everyone shoots lighter recoiling guns better. Everyone.

 

[Will]

I voted for the .308, a well founded round that is easy to find in any flavor desired. I have an old Savage lever action I used for many years to hunt with and truly enjoyed, next was a rem 700 in 30-06, a nice upgrade. I'm now back to Savage and shooting 300WSM. It's all about what fits you best for the task at hand. The savage was the first left hand bolt I have owned. It truly made smile and fit me and my need well. The .300WSM round is one you need to reload but it's truly worth the the time IMHO.

 

[Spitpatch]

Mammaries on a Yellow Cracker (can I say that?) said more in his short statement than is readily evdent: His forwarding of the 7-08 and the .280 address the OP's choices, and yet go another way that very well might be better.

The .280, for all practical purposes IS a .270 in the sense of launching (on the whole) lighter bullets than a .30-06 for flatter trajectory. It also allows easily the option of truly heavy bullets should the need arise.

The 7-08, for all practical purposes can be compared identically in the above ways to the .308.

Yes, the .270 and the .308 are the garden varieties, and take into account our demonstrated dislike on this side of the pond for anything that is followed by "mm". The 7-08 and the .280 (suffering an identity crisis as a result of suffering two name changes, one of which was 7mm Express) just might be the "exotics" that should not be overlooked.

 

[coop44]

stick with the 270, a good flat shooter, and, works well on all NA game.

 

[Will_Power]

Thanks for the advice, guys.

I've decided to bite the bullet on ammo cost (especially after doing just a basic run through at the stock at Dick's and seeing not that big of a difference between the 7mm Mag and the 270 Win) and go with the 7mm Rem mag.

I'll be looking for a used guns and keeping my eyes on the Remingtons, Rugers, and Savages. But what do you guys think about Weatherby's?

I know Leupolds are the gold standard in optics, but what about the other makes - particularly of a cheaper sort? I know the idea is to buy the cheapest gun and the most expensive scope you can, but how much will I gimp myself if my used rifle comes with a Bushnell or Tasco?