Recoil (.270 vs 300 WM)
fie...@ix.netcom.com
Anybody have any statistics comparing recoil of the .270 Win with the
300 Win Mag in similar guns?
I'm looking for something I can use on whitetails in the mountains of
upstate New York, and on Colorado Elk (without worrying if I have
enough gun). I have a stainless Ruger M77 Mark II in .270 (I
consider recoil to be fairly mild), but am considering something in a
300 Win Mag. On a 1994 Elk hunt in Colorado, I did take a 5x4 bull
with the .270, but felt I was somewhat 'under-gunned'.
I have not fired anything bigger than a 30-06. I just don't want to
turn into a flinching fool.
Thanks for the help.
D. Douglas Smith
If you put a muzzle brake on the 300 wby or 300 win you will end up with
recoil comparble to a 270, maybe a lil more or less.
ste...@omni1.voicenet.com
fie...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>Anybody have any statistics comparing recoil of the .270 Win with the
>300 Win Mag in similar guns?
>I'm looking for something I can use on whitetails in the mountains of
>upstate New York, and on Colorado Elk (without worrying if I have
>enough gun). I have a stainless Ruger M77 Mark II in .270 (I
>consider recoil to be fairly mild), but am considering something in a
>300 Win Mag. On a 1994 Elk hunt in Colorado, I did take a 5x4 bull
>with the .270, but felt I was somewhat 'under-gunned'.
>I have not fired anything bigger than a 30-06. I just don't want to
>turn into a flinching fool.
>Thanks for the help.
Why not get a 300WM with a BOSS compensator? I've shot the Savage
300WM and 270 side by side. The 300 kicks less than the 270 when the
compensator is on.
James Hovencamp
fie...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
> Anybody have any statistics comparing recoil of the .270 Win with the
> 300 Win Mag in similar guns?
>
> I'm looking for something I can use on whitetails in the mountains of
> upstate New York, and on Colorado Elk (without worrying if I have
> enough gun). I have a stainless Ruger M77 Mark II in .270 (I
> consider recoil to be fairly mild), but am considering something in a
> 300 Win Mag. On a 1994 Elk hunt in Colorado, I did take a 5x4 bull
> with the .270, but felt I was somewhat 'under-gunned'.
>
> I have not fired anything bigger than a 30-06. I just don't want to
> turn into a flinching fool.
>
recoil more like
your 270 than the 300 Mag. The 7MM will reach out and touch, and put
down just about anything you can see.
Good Luck
Kirby Keller
I have hunted whitetails and black bear in Pensylvania for years with the
270. For Elk hunting in Colorado, I use a 300 Weatherby Mag. and do not
find the recoil to be intolerable, but the recoil is more than the 270.
Having a stock that fits you is important. Also, if you go with the 300
you can consider having it magna-ported which will reduce your recoil.
Hope this helps. Good luck.
0000000
fie...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
> Anybody have any statistics comparing recoil of the .270 Win with the
> 300 Win Mag in similar guns?
>
> I'm looking for something I can use on whitetails in the mountains of
> upstate New York, and on Colorado Elk (without worrying if I have
> enough gun). I have a stainless Ruger M77 Mark II in .270 (I
> consider recoil to be fairly mild), but am considering something in a
> 300 Win Mag. On a 1994 Elk hunt in Colorado, I did take a 5x4 bull
> with the .270, but felt I was somewhat 'under-gunned'.
>
> I have not fired anything bigger than a 30-06. I just don't want to
> turn into a flinching fool.
>
> Thanks for the help.
Possibly you are not sufficiently comfortable with your perceived level
of proficiency with your weapon, as the .270 is a fine rifle for the
uses you describe if used in a workmanlike manner. You may underestimate
your abilities, or you may require more practice. The .270's rather
light recoil, flat trajectory, and the light weight of the typical .270
weapon - these are not assets to be traded away capriciously.
You are right in anticipating that the .300 will kick appreciably more
than the .270.
It is generally chambered to rifles of similar weight to the .270 and
'06, and 2) it has a significantly larger powder charge. People often
forget that the bullet weight/velocity equation is not the sole element
affecting perceived recoil - powder charge weight has a lot to do with
it. Rifles generally produce diminishingly-greater projectile velocity
returns with greater powder capacities as a function of bore and bullet
weight. Yet the gun recoils in an amount not explained by the increase
in bullet velocity - because it is emitting from the muzzle a
significantly greater mass of propellant product at higher-than-bullet
velocities. Energy increases exponentially as a function of the increase
of velocity attained. And as powder capacities and pressures increase,
so does muzzle velocity of the propellant product, and therefore does,
to an exponential degree, recoil the result of the weight of the powder
charge.
Consider therefore that there is a definite relation between the
efficiency of a case and its level of recoil for a given velocity
obtained. Such cases also tend to be the most flexible for handloading.
Such cases include the .270, 7mm Mauser and .280, the .30-06, the .35
Whelen, and the .375
Remember if you are a handloader that a necked-down high-capacity case
such as the .300 does not take reduced loads well - so if you get a
.300, you probably need to get used to its output at the butt-end.
The .300 is a good gun, but it is a compromise for the sake of economy,
designed to squeeze long-action performance out of a medium-weight rifle
using the standard-length Mauser action and a .30 calibre barrel. The
result is a lot of perceived recoil for the amount of increase in
killing power and trajectory, and somewhat reduced barrel life.
My own opinion is that, if indeed one is subject to flinching, one does
not gain in power for such as your purposes what one is likely to lose
in accuracy in trading up from .270 to a .300 Win. Mag, unless one
orders a custom rifle made heavier and with a 26" barrel. Recoil
suppressors are possible, but they also generally increase
shooter-perceived report significantly.
Final Note: If you desire significantly greater killing power, consider
that the .338 is becoming popular because it has respectable trajectory
with heavier bullets. It has real punch, certainly enough for elk, and
does so without generating excess propellant-induced recoil.
regards,
Clark Casperson
David Affleck
In article <51sol4$d...@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>, fie...@ix.netcom.com says:
>
>Anybody have any statistics comparing recoil of the .270 Win with the
>300 Win Mag in similar guns?
>
>I'm looking for something I can use on whitetails in the mountains of
>upstate New York, and on Colorado Elk (without worrying if I have
>enough gun). I have a stainless Ruger M77 Mark II in .270 (I
>consider recoil to be fairly mild), but am considering something in a
>300 Win Mag. On a 1994 Elk hunt in Colorado, I did take a 5x4 bull
>with the .270, but felt I was somewhat 'under-gunned'.
>
>I have not fired anything bigger than a 30-06. I just don't want to
>turn into a flinching fool.
>
>Thanks for the help.
Recoil, of course depends an awfull lot on factors other than just
the cartrige. All else being equal, a .300 kicks alot harder than
a .270. I own both a .270 Win and a .300 Win, both are M70's. My
.270 seems very mild even with hot loads when compared to the .300.
Try and find a .300 you can shoot, then you will know whether the
recoil will be more than you are comfortable with or not. There
are lot's of things that can reduce felt recoil too. I've shot other
.300's that don't seem to kick nearly as hard as mine does (muzzle
breaks etc...). I'm not particularly sensitive to recoil but even
so I start wanting to put my .300 back in the case after about 30
rounds.
- David Affleck
Bterr
The .300 recoils about twice as hard as a .270 with the same weight
bullet. My partner has a magna-ported .300 Ruger M-77. It has recoil not
much worse than a .30-06. On the other hand, use a Win. 140gr. Fail Safe
in your .270, and you won't be undergunned for elk, as long as you keep
your shots within 250 yards. Beyond that, you really should use a .300,
or at least a 30.06.
Kirby Keller
I read an article sometime ago that compared recoil of various calibers.
I cannot recall the exact figures but the 270 was listed as
approximately 36 footpounds of recoil versus close to 50 footpounds for a
300 weatherby. I would think a 300 winchester would be similiar. I also
hunt whitetail and black bear with a 270 in Pennsylvania, but for chasing
Elk in Colorado, I use a 300 weatherby. The 300 winchester is a good
option for you. You could also have the 300 magna-ported which will
greatly reduce the recoil. Hope this helps. Good luck.
Jeff Crowell
0000000 (blu...@cnw.com) wrote:
: Possibly you are not sufficiently comfortable with your perceived level
: of proficiency with your weapon, as the .270 is a fine rifle for the
: uses you describe if used in a workmanlike manner. You may underestimate
: your abilities, or you may require more practice. The .270's rather
: light recoil, flat trajectory, and the light weight of the typical .270
: weapon - these are not assets to be traded away capriciously.
As an owner and shooter of both the .270 Win and the .300 Weatherby, I'd
like to comment here.
Having used a .270 for over 15 years for deer and elk, I agree with
the original poster regarding the .270 Winchester for elk. Yes, it is
adequate, if limited to broadside shots at 200 yards or less. In the
words of the original poster, "a bit light." IMO the 150 Nosler Partition,
or Barnes X, is the ticket, but the .27 caliber bullet is a bit too small
for my comfort level.
The 7mm magnums (Remington and Weatherby) bring more to the party in
terms of penetration (and muzzle blast and recoil). If you find one
that will handle the 175 grain slugs (or likes the 160 Barnes X),
penetration is very nice indeed. This rifle is a good step up from
the .270, as well as being an excellent compromise rifle for deer, antelope,
etc. I owned a Ruger M77 in 7mm Magnum for 5 years and got very good
service from it. Recoil was noticeable, especially with the heavier
bullets.
The .300s just simply offer more power in all respects than the 7s, and
shoot flatter than the .338 (while recoiling less). I sold my 7mm mag
to buy a .300 Weatherby, and have never regretted it. My personal elk
load is the 200 grain Barnes X on top of 77 grains of RL-22, and this
load is extremely accurate. With it, I can take that Texas heart shot
if that's what the hunt comes down to, and be confident that the bullet
will make it all the way thru, end to end. Recoil is very manageable,
particularly in rifles of the proper weight. 'Proper weight', in case
you're wondering, means the right compromise between carry comfort
and shooting comfort. I've ballasted down my Mark V .300 with an extra
10 ounces of lead, making it top out at about 9 pounds or a bit more.
Fitted with a neoprene carry strap, not bad at all for me at 6-2 and 225.
Your mileage may vary. I also lengthened the stock and put a good
Pachmayr Decelerator pad on it. I chose not to use a comp on this rifle,
having shot and been around comped .300s and 7s. They are truly
something to behold with max loads, and I don't like having to fool
around with earplugs when hunting. And you *will* want plugs, even with
only 1 or 2 shots when hunting. A number of friends have shot my .300
and commented on how comfortable it is, folks ranging in size from
6-7/215 to 5-5/165. As a comparison, I have shot ultra-light 7 mags
and a .35 Whelen which were distinctly uncomfortable at the back end.
: Consider therefore that there is a definite relation between the
: efficiency of a case and its level of recoil for a given velocity
: obtained. Such cases also tend to be the most flexible for handloading.
: Such cases include the .270, 7mm Mauser and .280, the .30-06, the .35
: Whelen, and the .375
Bob Heinlein was right, There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch.
The price you pay for all that whack at the end of the bullet's flight
is a bit more push at the back end. But this extra push does not
need to blow you out from underneath your hat. I've hunted and shot
for 25 years and have heard all sorts of hullabaloo about how hard the
.300 magnums kick, and the plain fact is that in rifles of the proper
weight and with stocks of the proper length and fit, it just ain't so.
: Remember if you are a handloader that a necked-down high-capacity case
: such as the .300 does not take reduced loads well - so if you get a
: .300, you probably need to get used to its output at the butt-end.
Not true. Take a look at the reloading manuals, and you will
see loads that turn out about the same power levels as the venerable
30-06. While absolute accuracy may suffer a bit, most rifles will
shoot them well. This gives the handloader (or one who has access
to handloads) the option of working up to the top end. Powder charges
which dip below the recommended starting points can give erratic
pressure and velocity, and must be avoided.
: My own opinion is that, if indeed one is subject to flinching, one does
: not gain in power for such as your purposes what one is likely to lose
: in accuracy in trading up from .270 to a .300 Win. Mag, unless one
: orders a custom rifle made heavier and with a 26" barrel. Recoil
: suppressors are possible, but they also generally increase
: shooter-perceived report significantly.
Strongly agree on the last part there! Also, if you're looking for the
power of the .300, you're foolish, IMO, to go with a 24 inch barrel.
What's the point? Gonna make a "quick-handling brush rifle" out of
a cartridge which excels at long-range knockdown power? Not only will
those two extra inches give you more speed, but the longer tubes are
typically somewhat heavier in profile; they'll heat a bit slower, but more
importantly, they'll help keep the muzzle down. Several factory
rifles are now available with 26 inch barrels.
If you're subject to flinching, the muzzle blast of the .300s at full
power can be disconcerting. Practice is important, and reduced loads
a good place to start. Think of it as a good excuse to go shooting
more often!
: Final Note: If you desire significantly greater killing power, consider
: that the .338 is becoming popular because it has respectable trajectory
: with heavier bullets. It has real punch, certainly enough for elk, and
: does so without generating excess propellant-induced recoil.
Hmmm. While not trying to cast aspersions on a fine cartridge, it has
been my experience that the .338's recoil is more noticeable than that
of the .300 in rifles of equal weight. And the .300 is clearly superior
at longer ranges. Personally, if I knew I wouldn't be shooting farther
than 250 yards or so, I'd go with the larger, heavier bullet of the
.338. If I might be shooting farther, I'd stick with my .300.
I'd also give serious thought to the .338 if I was after coastal grizzlies
(Brown bear). My Dad killed a 10-foot brownie back when, with a .300
Weatherby, and he says to this day it's the only time the hole in the end
of the Weatherby's barrel looked a bit small ;-). But it purely did
the job.
Jeff
--
#######################################################
# #
# Jeff Crowell | | #
# jc...@hpdmd48.boi.hp.com | _ | #
# _________|__( )__|_________ #
# BLD Quality Engineer x/ _| |( . )| |_ \x #
# (208) 396-6525 x |_| ---*|_| x #
# O x x O #
# #
#######################################################
"Other than that, Mrs. Kennedy, how did you like the parade?"
Kelly McMillan
fie...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
> Anybody have any statistics comparing recoil of the .270 Win with the
> 300 Win Mag in similar guns?
>
> I'm looking for something I can use on whitetails in the mountains of
> upstate New York, and on Colorado Elk (without worrying if I have
> enough gun). I have a stainless Ruger M77 Mark II in .270 (I
> consider recoil to be fairly mild), but am considering something in a
> 300 Win Mag. On a 1994 Elk hunt in Colorado, I did take a 5x4 bull
> with the .270, but felt I was somewhat 'under-gunned'.
>
> I have not fired anything bigger than a 30-06. I just don't want to
> turn into a flinching fool.
>
> Thanks for the help.
You will get plenty of responses to put a muzzle break on a .300 and it
will reduce the felt recoil to about that of a .270. Well here some
different advice. Put a McMillan Fiberglass stock on the .300. Not only
will you get a durable, stable, consistant, dependable stock, it will
also help to reduce the felt recoil considerably. Example: A friend had
a .308 Silhouette rifle with a wooden stock on. He have a .300 win mag
hunting rifle on an identical stock except we had produced the stock in
fiberglass. He had both at the range sighting them in and he pick up the
.300 mag and fire a round. The first thing that went through his mind
was oh my god I put a .308 round in the rwrong gun. Well it didn't take
but a split second to realize that that couldn't happen and was ecstatic
that the recoil was so managable.
The way our stocks are made, they allow the butt stock as well as the
material around the receiver to flex as the recoil tries to drive the
action backward. Once the bullet leaves the muzzle, and the energy
rearward is basically subsided the stock slowly (in comparison to the
movement from the recoil)returns to it's original state. This has the
effect of slowing down the the initial push and then spreading it out
over a longer period of time. That is why we say it reduces felt recoil.
The energy is the same, it is just distributed differently, as a result
it feels much milder. Kelly
Kelly McMillan
McMillan Fiberglass Stocks Inc.
http://mcmfamily.com
Bob Field
The 300 Weatherby Mag has about 37 pounds of recoil, not 50. The 270 Win
has about 17 pounds and the 30-06 has about 19. I think that the 300 Win
Mag has about 26-29 pounds. I dont know where this person got 50 from.
The Weatherby catalog publishes the numbers for its rifles. With the
Weatherby accubrake, the recoil is 17 pounds, the same as a 270.
John L. Williams Jr.
David Affleck wrote:
>
> Recoil, of course depends an awfull lot on factors other than just
> the cartrige. All else being equal, a .300 kicks alot harder than
> a .270. I own both a .270 Win and a .300 Win, both are M70's. My
> .270 seems very mild even with hot loads when compared to the .300.
> Try and find a .300 you can shoot, then you will know whether the
> recoil will be more than you are comfortable with or not. There
> are lot's of things that can reduce felt recoil too. I've shot other
> .300's that don't seem to kick nearly as hard as mine does (muzzle
> breaks etc...). I'm not particularly sensitive to recoil but even
> so I start wanting to put my .300 back in the case after about 30
> rounds.
>
> - David Affleck
David, I've had the same feeling myself.
My experience has been if you are hunting or sighting in a .300, the
recoil isn't toooo bad. But when I want to do some serious target
practice with a box of reloads, by the time I get to that 20th round,
recoil apprehension sometimes becomes a factor. This also depends on
how much time has elapsed between shots. If I have all day to mess
around then the time lapse makes things easier. If have one hour
until dusk, then recoil gets VERY noticable.
BTW, I shoot a light-weight (7.5 lbs.) Rem. 700 BDL in .300 Wby.
Regards,
John Williams in OR
Mark Przybylowski
fie...@ix.netcom.com writes:
>Anybody have any statistics comparing recoil of the .270 Win with the
>300 Win Mag in similar guns?
YEP!
** FIREARM RECOIL SUMMARY ** 09-26-1996
----------------------------------------
CARTRIDGE TYPE : 270WIN
BULLET WEIGHT ---- 130 GR
MUZZLE VELOCITY -- 3100 F/S
CHARGE WEIGHT----- 56 GR
RIFLE WEIGHT ----- 8.5 LB
RECOIL VELOCITY (F/S) = 10.5
RECOIL ENERGY (FT/LB) = 14.7
APPARENT FELT RECOIL (RIFLE)- MODERATE
** FIREARM RECOIL SUMMARY ** 09-26-1996
----------------------------------------
CARTRIDGE TYPE : 300 WIN
BULLET WEIGHT ---- 165 GR
MUZZLE VELOCITY -- 3220 F/S
CHARGE WEIGHT----- 82 GR
RIFLE WEIGHT ----- 8.5 LB
RECOIL VELOCITY (F/S) = 14.4
RECOIL ENERGY (FT/LB) = 27.5
APPARENT FELT RECOIL (RIFLE)- HEAVY
These figures are taken from an External Ballistics program. The apparent
felt recoil values are highly subjective and are not my opinion.
>I'm looking for something I can use on whitetails in the mountains of
>upstate New York, and on Colorado Elk (without worrying if I have
>enough gun). I have a stainless Ruger M77 Mark II in .270 (I
>consider recoil to be fairly mild), but am considering something in a
>300 Win Mag. On a 1994 Elk hunt in Colorado, I did take a 5x4 bull
>with the .270, but felt I was somewhat 'under-gunned'.
>I have not fired anything bigger than a 30-06. I just don't want to
>turn into a flinching fool.
The 300WIN is not as much increase in killing power over the 270WIN as you
might think on that sized game. The only thing it really offers is
flatter trajectory (slightly) and a little more bullet weight which is
better for rear end shots at longer ranges.
As for the 30/06, you will probably not notice any difference in the
field between the it and the 270WIN. To gain significantly more Power
over your Excellent 270WIN or the equally good 30/06 you need to increase
your bore size a fair bit. A good place to start is the 338WIN MAG and
UP.
Here you have Great bullet weight (160gn through 300gn), in all styles.
** FIREARM RECOIL SUMMARY ** 09-26-1996
----------------------------------------
CARTRIDGE TYPE : 338 WIN
BULLET WEIGHT ---- 250 GR
MUZZLE VELOCITY -- 2722 F/S
CHARGE WEIGHT----- 72 GR
RIFLE WEIGHT ----- 9 LB
RECOIL VELOCITY (F/S) = 15.4
RECOIL ENERGY (FT/LB) = 33.0
APPARENT FELT RECOIL (RIFLE)- HEAVY
Here is some data for 200gn Bullets loaded to Maximum Pressures in the
338WIN MAG.
** FIREARM RECOIL SUMMARY ** 09-26-1996
----------------------------------------
CARTRIDGE TYPE : 338 WIN
BULLET WEIGHT ---- 200 GR
MUZZLE VELOCITY -- 3152 F/S
CHARGE WEIGHT----- 78 GR
RIFLE WEIGHT ----- 9 LB
RECOIL VELOCITY (F/S) = 15.0
RECOIL ENERGY (FT/LB) = 31.3
APPARENT FELT RECOIL (RIFLE)- HEAVY
The next step up is the 340WBY which is not as big a step up as from
300WIN to 338WIN.
** FIREARM RECOIL SUMMARY ** 09-26-1996
----------------------------------------
CARTRIDGE TYPE : 340 Weatherby
BULLET WEIGHT ---- 210 GR
MUZZLE VELOCITY -- 3260 F/S
CHARGE WEIGHT----- 93 GR
RIFLE WEIGHT ----- 10 LB
RECOIL VELOCITY (F/S) = 15.1
RECOIL ENERGY (FT/LB) = 35.4
APPARENT FELT RECOIL (RIFLE)- OUCH! - SEVERE
A .338WIN is really all that is needed for game this size, The only real
advantage you gain with the 340WBY is range. And when you consider most
game is shot within 200Yds it is a moot point.
I hope this helps a bit.
Mark.
--
--Mark Przybylowski
Applied Physics Dept. E-MAIL ==>low...@minyos.its.rmit.edu.au
Lee Olson
>> I cannot recall the exact figures but the 270 was listed as
>> approximately 36 footpounds of recoil versus close to 50 footpounds >> for a
300 weatherby.
>
>has about 17 pounds and the 30-06 has about 19. I think that the 300 Win
>Mag has about 26-29 pounds. I dont know where this person got 50 from.
>The Weatherby catalog publishes the numbers for its rifles. With the
>Weatherby accubrake, the recoil is 17 pounds, the same as a 270.
My Speer Reloading Manual #11 makes reference to 50 foot-pounds of recoil
for a 300 Weatherby. It stuck in my mind because it didn't seem to make
sense when I read it. 37 foot-pounds is closer to what I anticipated.
Lee
D. Douglas Smith
The answer to questions is if you want to move up to 308 bullet selection
then you either have to buy the 300 win and work up to and get used to
the recoil. This cannot be done on Saturday before opening day. It is
year long process of shooting the rifles continously and staying with it.
You can brake the rifle and reduce the 300 win reciol to that of a 270
for 140$ most everywhere. Tradeoffs are noise and barrel blast. Many
lightweight rifles in magnum calibers are sporting breaks. Advantages of
a 300, many, ability with 200 gr premium bullets to go stem to stern in
an elk at 300 yards Need I say more.
If you do not shoot regularly and are not willing to spend the time to
aqaint yourself with the 300 the stay with the 270. Tradeoffs are;
Careful shot placement, reduced lenght of shot or downrange energy.
Why are the 270's 7mm-08's and the like popular, why do shop's stock up
and push them over the 300/338 win and wby's? Becuase the reciol is not
as severe and lends itself to hunters who pull old bess out of the closet
saturday before the season to poke a few ten year old factory shells
through it at a pie plate a hundred yards away and are happy when old
bess puts all five under a 6 inch group.
Ronald N. Zeek
.300WM and .338WM - while they do both have a 'heavy' recoil
in my opinion a better way to compare them is that the 300 slaps you
hard while the 338 gives you a heavy push. I'd go with the 338 but I
did really like my 270 (wish I hadn't sold it).