.270 vs 30-06
Polo
adding any others ant time soon. I have shot 12 guage shotguns. I only
plan to shoot deer and hogs in S Texas. The .270 seems to be the most
common among my friends.
What I understand to be the main diference:
.270 faster and flatter, better for 200 yds and under, less
damage to game
.30-06 more bullet ranges on the shelf = versatility, better
for 300 yards and longer, more kick
At this time I would not take a shot over 200 yards.
Also, I am considering the 3 riflesin either caliber:
Weatherby Vanguard Sporter SS
Remington 700 cdl or bdl
Browning A Bolt
Have heard of CZ and Howa but do not know pros and cons of these.
Thought I would stay with 3 most common.
nordrseta
> damage to game
> .30-06 more bullet ranges on the shelf = versatility, better
> for 300 yards and longer, more kick
There is no effective difference on game if you use the 150 in each. The 130 gr load in the 270 kicks a little less. The heavier bullets - 165-220 gr - in the '06 kick more but make it a little better choice for larger game.
> At this time I would not take a shot over 200 yards.
Other excellent cartridges for this sort of work include the 257 Roberts, 25'06, 260, 6.5x55, 7mm08, 7x57, 280, and 308 Winchester.
> Also, I am considering the 3 rifles in either caliber:
> Weatherby Vanguard Sporter SS
> Remington 700 cdl or bdl
> Browning A Bolt
> Have heard of CZ and Howa but do not know pros and cons of these.
Strictly speaking the Vanguard is a Howa, but that's a fine thing.
I like the looks of the CDL and it comes with an excellent recoil pad.
Never talked with the owner of an A-Bolt who didn't like it.
Don't leave off the Savage. It may be ugly in spots but it's accurate and the new accutrigger is quite something.
"In religion and politics people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination." Mark Twain
Brian
got a Tikka T3 in .270. I load the HLM 140gr for black bear and 130gr
Corelokt for deer.
Brian
Vermont
sdu...@magma.ca
semi. An old gun but it is reliable. I use off-the-shelf Winchester
Silvertip 150 gr. bullets and have had no trouble dropping 160 lb
(dressed) White-tailed deer at 230 yards.
If you don't want to spend a bundle on a new gun look at Remington. I
own several and although my gun-snob shooting Sako friends look down
their noses at me, I shoot as well or better with a used gun that I
bought for $200 (versus their $1800 rifles).
Good hunting.
Scott
Natman
wrote:
Despite the amount of electrons used discussing it, the 270 and the
30-06 are essentially the same cartridge. The 270 uses a *slightlly*
smaller bullet, shoots a little flatter and kicks a little less. The
30-06 is a bit more powerful and kicks a little more.
Because it is flatter shooting, I would say that the 270 is better for
long range, but it really doesn't matter because 300 yards is a long
shot in the real world.
You can't go wrong with either. I would pick based on the chance that
you might want to hunt larger game than texas deer or pigs someday.
In that case go with the 30-06.
BTW the Weatherby Vanguard and the Howa are virtually the same rifle.
lucky
> My first rifle. I have never shot a rifle before. I do not plan on
> adding any others ant time soon. I have shot 12 guage shotguns. I only
> plan to shoot deer and hogs in S Texas. The .270 seems to be the most
> common among my friends.
> What I understand to be the main diference:
> .270 faster and flatter, better for 200 yds and under, less
> damage to game
> .30-06 more bullet ranges on the shelf = versatility, better
> for 300 yards and longer, more kick
>
.30-06, just necked down to accomodate the smaller caliber. The .270
will tend to shoot a bit flatter, but has limitations on bullet
weights. The .30-06 can shoot heavier bullets, allowing it to carry
more energy a longer distance, thus increasing it's effective range.
That said, I would still say the effective range of .270 can take you
further than 200 yds. A lighter bullet fired from a .270 will carry
the energy better than the same bullet fired from a .30-06 because it
can sustain the velocity better (assuming equal velocity @ muzzle).
So, to get on with it, they both have their advantages. If you're
interested in seeing how that long winded explanation plays out, take a
look at some ballistics charts.
If you're never going to shoot longer than 200 yds (and probably tend
to shoot shorter than that), there are other great cartridges out there
that will meet your needs. Personally, I like .30-30 for medium game
under 200 yds.
If you think there's a chance you would hunt something larger, I would
lean toward the .30-06. It's killed every type of large game in North
America, and been around forever. Hard to go wrong with that. No
matter what you choose, it's the guy pulling the trigger that makes the
most difference. Best of luck.
sonor...@yahoo.com
While you can't go wrong with either, get the .30-06. I have had a
few Winchester Model 70s in '06, and each have loved the 165 gr. loads
that either the factory or I have made for it. That is a round that
is applicable to almost every situation also. The recoil, while
stiff, is not much more than my .25-06, which is comparable to the
..270.
Also, in makers I would consider Ruger. They shoot as well as all of
the others mentioned, and will be very serviceable. Seriously
consider the CZ-USA line. They have a single set trigger that beats
anything else on the market, are priced comparably, and have as much
if not more experience making arms than any USA manufacturer. The
quality is as good, if not better, IMHO.
On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 20:11:31 -0700, Polo <rickc...@HOTMAIL.COM>
wrote:
>My first rifle. I have never shot a rifle before. I do not plan on
skully
I have taken more whitetail with 7.62x39 than any other round.
I have hunted with 30-06 for the past 3 years and when I shoot a deer, it
dies. The previous several years I had a 30-30 in the field with the same
results. Before that I had an AK and an SKS and did just fine with one-shot
kills, the longest shot was with the AK with iron sights at 120yds and LUCK!
My son got his first 3 whitetails with the SKS (the round is .30 cal and
about 10 - 15% lighter charge than a 30-30. I think that you can take any
game with any round that you are comfortable with.
I know some that hunt whitetail with .22mag and do just fine. There are some
that use the big rounds and do just as well. The point is to get a clean
kill. I carry a Springfield 1911 to finish off any deer that is still
kicking after the rifle shot, most TV hunts end in the camera finding the
animal after several hours, I go after them right away and usually find a
downed animal that would lay there 10-20-30 minutes at the end of the blood
trail. The 1911 takes care of this quickly.
Hey, has anyone hunted with an 18" or so rifle chambered in .45ACP? I think
that the 50yard and under crowd, including myself, would do fine with these.
Skully
"Natman" <nat_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fj1rj29n4rpq7eve8...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 20:11:31 -0700, Polo <rickc...@HOTMAIL.COM>
> wrote:
>
Steve @ G & S Guide Service
Hey, has anyone hunted with an 18" or so rifle chambered in .45ACP? I think
that the 50yard and under crowd, including myself, would do fine with these.
Skully
Skully,
Why don't you look at the Marlin lever action chambered in .44 Mag? http://www.marlinfirearms.com/Firearms/1894Centerfire/1894.aspx
The .44 Mag has more "snort" than the .45 ACP. Looking at Remington's ballistic charts, the heaviest bullet (250 gr.) for the .45 has 410 lb./ft. of energy at the muzzle and 375 lb./ft. at 50 yards. In comparison, the .44 Mag 275 gr. hunting bullet has 741 lb./ft at the muzzle and 623 at 50 yards. The faster 180 grain bullet for the .44 has even more energy.
--
Steve @ OutdoorFrontiers
http://www.outdoorfrontiers.com
G & S Guide Service and Custom Rods
http://www.herefishyfishy.com
Milo Milo
Catus
owned both, and in similar rifles - a Savage 110 (wood)in 30-06 and a
111F (synthetic) in .270. They're both loud, both have a fair amount of
muzzle blast, but the .270 kicks a little less. Both are a lot more gun
than a 30-30 or SKS. Either will do. I'm inclined toward the "go ahead
and get an '06" argument, though the chances that you'll need more than
the .270 are slim indeed unless you're grizz hunting, and then some
will say you need more than either. You can still find milsurp 30-06;
but then I'm a recoil wussy, and .270 has less of that. Both are
effective on deer much further than I - or most hunters, I'll guess -
can reliably hit the kill zone. Flip a coin.
right now I hunt in the woods with a muzzleloader, but I've got a real
jones for a Marlin 336. Anybody have a nice one they'd like to trade
for a FEG PJK-9HP?
filesreposited at hotmail dot com
Dick F
> Despite the amount of electrons used discussing it, the 270 and the
> 30-06 are essentially the same cartridge. The 270 uses a *slightlly*
> smaller bullet, shoots a little flatter and kicks a little less. The
> 30-06 is a bit more powerful and kicks a little more.
'Shoots flatter' isn't actually true. With the usual loads of a 180 gr
bullet in an '06 and a 130 or 150 in the 270, yes the 270 is marginally
flatter. However, if you load the same bullet weights, the '06 is
flatter, according two Speer's ballistics tables. There is actually very
little practical difference between them.
I used a 270 for nearly 30 years and have an '06. I've taken a fair
number of elk with the 270 and I never had to track one more than 100
yds, but I still don't think it's enough gun for them. So, I've moved up
to a larger gun for elk. For deer, though, even the biggest mulies in
the country, the 270 is plenty of gun. If you study the ballistics
tables, the 130 and 150 gr bullets will shoot to almost the same POI at
about any reasonable distance. The 150 will hit harder at any distance
so I used them exclusively.
Dick
Chris
addressed it...
In terms of caliber - both are fine. I shoot a Remingting .270 ADL. Will
probably never own another rifle. Smoked a doe a 230 yds this weekend.
You've never shot a rifle...
That's what I wanted to address.
When you buy your rifle, and you get over the high of owning something you
will get enjoyment out of for years to come...go to a range, field,
someplace safe and shoot that thing! Get to know it, get used to it, learn
to shoot it correctly! A high powered rifle is an intimidating thing...and
it takes some practice and repetition to get used to the kick, the
breathing, the trigger squeeze. Seeing a 130 class buck is enough to get you
pissing in your pants...have confidence in your shooting. That comes with
knowing the gun, what it will do, and making good shots that are relaxed.
A well placed shot will bring the animal down...sooner or later - no matter
what the caliber!
Good luck - I'm excited for you!
Chris
"Polo" <rickc...@HOTMAIL.COM> wrote in message
news:1161486691.3...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
LuvinTheGrape
a lot of play...
Get yourself a good recoil pad (I like my Sims LimbSaver) and the
difference in kick between the .270 & .30-06 becomes all but a
non-issue. Sure, you can put the same pad on a .270 and have even less
recoil, but you'll reduced it sufficiently on the .30-06 (at least for
most people, I think) that it'll be below the threshold that might
otherwise prevent you from practicing sufficiently, or cause you to
flinch when squeezing the trigger. You can also throw Managed Recoil
rounds at the problem (at least for your time at the range) and shoot
the thing all day long.
Polo
This is what I know.
My friends say to get 7mm rem mag or a 300 wsm and grow into them. I
thought that the kick of these might interfere with my accuracy being a
beginner. In Texas, most everyone seems to be a .270 fan. They say
30.06 causes to much damage to deer and are not as acurate. Besides
many hours at range, I also plan to practice on hogs. I normally like
to buy quality the first time. I have found it costs alot ot keep
changing up 1 level at a time. But not being a hunter in the past, I
want to get something nice, but easy to sell if this isn't my thing. I
am an avid fisherman, but now I have a son now and thought being in TX,
I should learn to hunt so that I can teach him. I grew up in Chicago
where I did not know many hunters. I do remember that many of them had
.30-06. My father says to get a .30-06. He was a very good skeet
shooter. But he never liked hunting live game. He just remembers his
friends all having .30-06. Of course this was in the 70's. I have been
skeet shooting and bird hunting several times and the kick of the 12
guage has not bothered me. I am 6'0" and 210 if this helps. My price
range is $1000 including case, sling and scope and any other items
needed for gun except ammo. I have also been told that the scope is
more important than the rifle. So I was planning on spending 3 - $400
here.
Sam A. Kersh
consider the .30-06 has a much wider selection of commercial loads
available anywhere you may chose to hunt.
As to rifles, I'd skip the A-bolt and add the CZ and Savage Weather
Warrior to those being considered.
On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 20:11:31 -0700, Polo <rickc...@HOTMAIL.COM> wrote:
Sam A. Kersh
NRA Endowment Member
L.E.A.A. Life member
TSRA Life Member
GOA, JPFO
http://www.flash.net/~csmkersh/csmkersh.htmm
================================================
"The pure and simple truth is rarely pure and never
simple."
Oscar Wilde
Gary Kubat
>My first rifle. I have never shot a rifle before. I do not plan on
>adding any others ant time soon. I have shot 12 guage shotguns. I only
>plan to shoot deer and hogs in S Texas.
If you haven't shot a rifle, I'd recommend you do before buying anything.
Go down to the range with your friends and their .270s and see what you
think. Saying you've shot a 12 ga before doesn't mean you'll be
comfortable enough with a moderately kicking rifle to not develop a
flinch. You may be better served by a round with less bang. I'd hate to
see you start out with too much of a kicker and end up developing a flinch
when it can be avoided by practicing with something less potent.
I don't know what size hogs you have in your area, but around here a .243,
6mm, or .30-30 is enough. Pigs aren't as tough as many people say they
are; the reason many people can't knock them down is because the true
vitals area of a pig is pretty small and a lot of folks really don't know
where on the animal that is. A pig hit properly with a .243 will go down;
A pig hit in the wrong place with a .338 mag will still run off.
You don't mention what kind of shotgun action you're familiar with, but if
it's a pump or auto you might consider the Remingon 7600 or 7400 line of
pump and auto rifles. My 7600 pump in .30-06 is capable of sub-MOA groups
off the bench with target loads; my hunting loads are right at 1-1.5
inches depending on how well I'm shooting that day. Since I shoot skeet
with a 12 ga pump, the pump rifle seems quite natural to me, and I have
used a fast follow up shot to anchor deer that were knocked down at the
first shot and getting back up.
Gary
LuvinTheGrape
>
> This is what I know.
> My friends say to get 7mm rem mag or a 300 wsm and grow into them.
Why? Because they bought into the gotta-have-a-magnum hype so you
should too?
> I thought that the kick of these might interfere with my accuracy being a beginner.
Quite possibly. Some would even say probably.
> In Texas, most everyone seems to be a .270 fan.
That's a pretty broad generalization that I don't see backed up at the
shooting range I go to, nor in the field (I live in TX as well). I see
a wide variety of cartridges in use.
> They say 30.06 causes to much damage to deer
Nonsense. "They" either don't know what they're talking about, or are
blowing smoke up your skirt.
> and are not as acurate.
At what range? You're not going to be taking 300 yd. shots anywhere in
TX I can think of.
> Besides many hours at range, I also plan to practice on hogs.
What do you mean by "practice"? Wild hogs are a challenging game
animal.
> I normally like to buy quality the first time. I have found it costs alot ot keep
> changing up 1 level at a time. But not being a hunter in the past, I
> want to get something nice, but easy to sell if this isn't my thing.
It's good to view this purchase as a long-term investment. But unless
you've got more disposable income than you know what to do with don't
forget the concept of "value" as well.
> I am an avid fisherman, but now I have a son now and thought being in TX,
> I should learn to hunt so that I can teach him. I grew up in Chicago
> where I did not know many hunters. I do remember that many of them had
> .30-06. My father says to get a .30-06. He was a very good skeet
> shooter. But he never liked hunting live game. He just remembers his
> friends all having .30-06. Of course this was in the 70's. I have been
> skeet shooting and bird hunting several times and the kick of the 12
> guage has not bothered me. I am 6'0" and 210 if this helps. My price
> range is $1000 including case, sling and scope and any other items
> needed for gun except ammo. I have also been told that the scope is
> more important than the rifle. So I was planning on spending 3 - $400
> here.
You shouldn't have any trouble at all getting a fine quality setup for
$1,000 or less. Hell, I shoot a Savage 111 in .30-06 w/a Nikon
Bushmaster that I'm quite happy with, and paid just under $500 for the
whole setup. My son, who is far better armed (and a better shot) than
I am, has a Savage 110 in .243, a Mossberg 500 in 20 ga. and a Ruger
10/22. The rifles are both topped with good optics and all three rigs
combined cost just under $700, and kill game dead every time.
SaPeIsMa
The question is simply, the following
If ,270 is a smaller caliber evolution of the .30-06, is there an
equivalent smaller caliber evolution from the .308 ?
And considering that the .308 is basically the .30-06 in a short action,
would it not make more sense to go with a short action rather than long
action ?
This is particularly true, since Nato .308 surplus is apt to be more easily
available in the future ?
Polo
.270. If I like hunting, I will probably add a 7mm rem mag or 300 win,
so I decided to start with .270 first. Someone told me to start with a
.22 and work my way up the ladder. I do not have the time or money to
do this. I wanted to start with something that would give me the best
advatage to start hitting a target. The lower recoil and flatter traj.
of the .270 I thought would help. I have narrowed my selection down to
the Remington CDL, CZ 550 American and the Ruger M77. If anyone has any
reasons why any of these would not be wise I would appreciate the help.
Polo
> You don't mention what kind of shotgun action you're familiar with, but if
> it's a pump or auto you might consider the Remingon 7600 or 7400 line of
> pump and auto rifles.
> Gary
I use a remington 1100 form the 70's, not the newer type. I thought
about getting a semi auto., there are plenty around here with close-out
prices. They do not seem to be very desirable around here. Everyone
seems to want bolt action.
Advocate
news:1161609799.9...@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Try this again. I shoot a 30.06 Remington Model 742 Woodsmaster in
> semi. An old gun but it is reliable. I use off-the-shelf Winchester
> Silvertip 150 gr. bullets and have had no trouble dropping 160 lb
> (dressed) White-tailed deer at 230 yards.
>
> If you don't want to spend a bundle on a new gun look at Remington. I
> own several and although my gun-snob shooting Sako friends look down
> their noses at me, I shoot as well or better with a used gun that I
> bought for $200 (versus their $1800 rifles).
>
made replacement parts for them in many many years. The 742 *does* wear out.
Avraham ben David Hakuzari
wrote:
7mm-08, 243. Both necked-down 308 cases - the 7mm-08 is obviously
much closer to the 270.
A
lucky
> As you noticed, I am hijacking this thread and changing the title line
>
> The question is simply, the following
> If ,270 is a smaller caliber evolution of the .30-06, is there an
> equivalent smaller caliber evolution from the .308 ?
Not that I know of. The 7-30 Waters is that evolution from .30-30, but
I don't know of one based on .308 Winchester.
> And considering that the .308 is basically the .30-06 in a short action,
> would it not make more sense to go with a short action rather than long
> action ?
How so?
> This is particularly true, since Nato .308 surplus is apt to be more easily
> available in the future ?
If you're talking about reloading military brass, I understand you have
to reduce maximum loads by a couple of grains as opposed to using
commercial brass. That's going to cost you in velocity and limit the
amount of energy the bullet carries.
Gary Kubat
> ... I have narrowed my selection down to
> the Remington CDL, CZ 550 American and the Ruger M77. If anyone has any
> reasons why any of these would not be wise I would appreciate the help.
I had a Ruger M77 .30-06 and hated it. It was the first rifle I bought on
my own when I was a teenager. It was new, but had a very sloppy bolt, and I
couldn't get a load to shoot straight in it. I handloaded everything from
125 grain bullets to 220s, with all sorts of different powder types and
charges, and various primers and cases. I tried every conceivable seating
depth. It didn't matter... most groups were about 5" and I finally worked
one load down to 2". I sold it, bought a Rem 7600 and haven't looked back
since. My first test group with the pump was smaller than any of the groups
from the Ruger. I've heard many others complain about the M77 too.
Granted, a bunch of other people may like the M77, but I recommend against
it. Wasn't too long ago others piped up here in rec.hunting their similar
frustrations with the M77... you might be able to find those emails on the
listserv with a search.
Gary
New Wave Dave
I would guess that the Ruger under consideration is the Mk II as
opposed to the original 77R (I think) one of which I own but one that
bears little resemblence to its original form. I rebarrelled it in a
No. 5(ish) contour 26 inch .280 Ackley barrel from Bullberry Barrels;
since had that fluted which removed a good 12 ounces of weight. It
sports a butt-ugly, homemade stock which consists of the original Ruger
butt portion and a forend of my own making. It wears a Weaver V16.
But, most importantly, I bedded the action, floated the barrel, and
installed a Timney trigger (2.5 lb pull). It gets fed almost nothing
but handloaded 140 Nosler Ballistic Tips which make right at 3100 fps
and will put five into 3/4 inch about half the time which is to say
that half the time I screw up the group.
Given Gary's experience with the Ruger I have to believe he had a
bedding problem, not uncommon with the original 77R's angled front lug
screw. I'm lost about the "sloppy bolt" though. A little action
tuning might have cured that, maybe lapping the bolt lugs so that they
would seat evenly.
I haven't bought a factory centerfire rifle since the 77R (15 years?)
but if I were to go buy one tomorrow I'd have to go with a Savage. All
the rags rave about the new AccuTrigger and the most-heard comment I
read about them is something akin to, "most accurate out-of-the box
factory gun on the market today." Or somesuch.
NuWave Dave in Houston
Polo
In Texas, most everyone seems to be a .270 fan.
Everyone I have asked locally, including staffs at local gun shops,
have told me to choose .270 over .30-06, except for 1. They told me for
local hunting .270 was the way to go. Many did say 30.06 was better if
I planned to hunt abroad. I do not as sated in my original question. So
when I say .270 fans, I meant when comparing .270 to .30-06 for S. TX
shooting.
Many suggested bigger rounds also, but again these were not in my
questions.
Besides many hours at range, I also plan to practice on hogs.
What do you mean by "practice"? Wild hogs are a challenging game
animal.
I meant, I have a few places I can hunt these for free before I start
paying to hunt deer, so besides target practice, hogs will be my first
targets. I believe until you are a pro, it is all practice. Just a term
I have used for many sports.
It's good to view this purchase as a long-term investment. But unless
you've got more disposable income than you know what to do with don't
forget the concept of "value" as well.
If I had plenty of money, I would go by one of each, and sell 1 at a
time until I kept just 1. Yes I want value first, "bang for the buck" I
like to say. I usually set a budget and live within it. In this case,
it is $1000.00. I do not just want a gun. I can get a rifle and scope
at Academy for $400.00, but I have decided I want a wood stock. I want
to hand this down to my son as my first rifle. I have a 410 and a 12
guage shotgun, both Remingtons. I want 1 rifle only. I think I have
decided to get a Ruger M77. This is going to be just under $500 unless
someone hear knows where to get one for less. I have a FFL friend who
will except transfers for me if so. This leaves $500 for a scope, case,
boots, strap, mounts, etc.
SaPeIsMa
news:1161823330.5...@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
> SaPeIsMa wrote:
>> As you noticed, I am hijacking this thread and changing the title line
>>
>> would it not make more sense to go with a short action rather than long
>> action ?
>
> How so?
>
Shorter action, therefore more compact receiver
Also possibly comparatively sturdier for the same size.
>> This is particularly true, since Nato .308 surplus is apt to be more
>> easily
>> available in the future ?
>
> If you're talking about reloading military brass, I understand you have
> to reduce maximum loads by a couple of grains as opposed to using
> commercial brass. That's going to cost you in velocity and limit the
> amount of energy the bullet carries.
I was just thinking of surplus in terms ot shooting ammo.
Chris Barnes
> At what range? You're not going to be taking 300 yd. shots anywhere
> in TX I can think of.
Well.... that is a bit of a stretch. Nowhere *I* hunt will I be taking
300 yard shots. But Texas is a VERY big state - with terrain to match
just about everything found elsewhere in the US. Certainly 300 yard shots
would be a usable thing to do in Big Bend Nat'l Forrest (just to name
one). Palo Duro Canyon would be another place (and quite a long way from
BBNF). I have seen some localized areas in the hill country that would
fit that bill too (but of course, in the hill country you would be passing
up those 50 +/- deer between you and that one 300 yards away).
Now if you said "for the majority of the state", then I would agree with
you.
:-)
>> Besides many hours at range, I also plan to practice on hogs.
>
> What do you mean by "practice"? Wild hogs are a challenging game
> animal.
I think the concept of practice is pretty well established. Unless you're
Allen Iverson. Practice - doing something similar to the real thing in
preperation for the real thing. Shooting at paper at a range would be
"practice".
>> I normally like to buy quality the first time. I have found it costs
>> alot ot keep changing up 1 level at a time. But not being a hunter
>> in the past, I
>> want to get something nice, but easy to sell if this isn't my thing.
>
> It's good to view this purchase as a long-term investment. But unless
> you've got more disposable income than you know what to do with don't
> forget the concept of "value" as well.
Well, just because his budget is $1000, doesn't mean he is wanting to
spend it all.
;-)
It is better to have more set aside than what you really need, right?
--
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Chris Barnes AOL IM: CNBarnes
ch...@txbarnes.com Yahoo IM: chrisnbarnes
"Why can you not just ignore the trolls?"
"We can, but that doesn't turn a cesspool into a rose garden."
Chris Barnes
> I use a remington 1100 form the 70's, not the newer type. I thought
> about getting a semi auto., there are plenty around here with
> close-out prices. They do not seem to be very desirable around here.
> Everyone seems to want bolt action.
There are 2 reasons for this:
a) generally speaking, bolt action rifles are more accurate than semi-auto
rifles
b) when shooting a rifle, you really only need 1 shot. In fact, knowing
you only 1 shot will make you be picker about the shots you are willing to
take. This is a good thing. Use the sniper's creed: 1 shot; 1 kill.
c) (ok, there is a 3rd reason) If for some reason you do need another
shot, chambering another round with a bolt is fairly easy and quick.
Target reaquireing the target takes longer in almost all cases, so it
doesn't really matter if you had to put the shell into the gun manually,
or the rifle did it for you.
LuvinTheGrape
>
> Everyone I have asked locally, including staffs at local gun shops,
> have told me to choose .270 over .30-06, except for 1. They told me for
> local hunting .270 was the way to go.
Did any of them give you a reasonable explanation as to why? Not that
it's terribly important one way or the other. As you've aleardy
learned, both cartridges will do you just fine for your intended use.
I'm just loath to take advice from merchants, not because I assume
they're not being honest, but because they have an unavoidable interest
in trying to convince you to buy what yields them the most profit, not
what is actually best for you.
> Many did say 30.06 was better if I planned to hunt abroad. I do not as sated in my original question.
Do you know that to always be the case? And you won't need to go
abroad for larger game than deer and hogs. There are places in TX to
hunt Elk and Buffalo...and don't forget the countless exotic species
ranches.
> I meant, I have a few places I can hunt these for free before I start
> paying to hunt deer, so besides target practice, hogs will be my first
> targets. I believe until you are a pro, it is all practice. Just a term
> I have used for many sports.
Then all of your hunting will be practice, unless you plan on having
someone pay you to hunt.
> If I had plenty of money, I would go by one of each, and sell 1 at a
> time until I kept just 1. Yes I want value first, "bang for the buck" I
> like to say. I usually set a budget and live within it. In this case,
> it is $1000.00. I do not just want a gun. I can get a rifle and scope
> at Academy for $400.00, but I have decided I want a wood stock. I want
> to hand this down to my son as my first rifle. I have a 410 and a 12
> guage shotgun, both Remingtons. I want 1 rifle only. I think I have
> decided to get a Ruger M77. This is going to be just under $500 unless
> someone hear knows where to get one for less. I have a FFL friend who
> will except transfers for me if so. This leaves $500 for a scope, case,
> boots, strap, mounts, etc.
Sounds like a good price...and assuming your friend isn't charging you
for accepting then that's a better price than you can get at even Wally
World (not on sale, at least.)
Mike
to this.
When I go hunting I see more people with .270s than at the range.
Range shooters <> hunters. .270 might be the most popular in Texas for
hunters. Look on the pickup dash for the box of shells.
I know people who have shelved their 30-06 because of meat damage on
Texas whitetails. They switched to a 30/30 or .243. Both are more
than enough.
Is there big game in Texas? I never see it. I guess a 200 pound deer
is big game but any centerfire round can kill something 200 pounds.
Is recoil an issue? If you are shooting a 1903 Springfield without a
kick pad it is. But if you have a modern rifle, you ought to get
enough padding to make it comfortable. Just make it part of the budget
like a good scope.
I think finding a good deer gun is the easy part. Any Enfield or
Mauser, ADL or BDL is going to do the job. I would worry more about
mosquitos, thorns, snakes, butcher paper, rain and sleet, and the guy
shooting next door.
Now if I just knew what is the BEST KNIFE?
Natman
wrote:
>>
>> Despite the amount of electrons used discussing it, the 270 and the
>> 30-06 are essentially the same cartridge. The 270 uses a *slightlly*
>> smaller bullet, shoots a little flatter and kicks a little less. The
>> 30-06 is a bit more powerful and kicks a little more.
>
>'Shoots flatter' isn't actually true. With the usual loads of a 180 gr
>bullet in an '06 and a 130 or 150 in the 270, yes the 270 is marginally
>flatter. However, if you load the same bullet weights, the '06 is
>flatter, according two Speer's ballistics tables.
The statement "the 270 shoots a *little* flatter is true when
discussing loads intended for the same purpose, i.e. a 270 deer load
vs a 30-06 deer load. Comparing the *same* bullet weights in two
*different* calibers is stacking the deck somewhat. A 150 grain load
is heavy in a 270 and light in a 30-06.
>There is actually very
>little practical difference between them.
I agree and said as much.
Natman
wrote:
>This is what I know.
>My friends say to get 7mm rem mag or a 300 wsm and grow into them. I
>thought that the kick of these might interfere with my accuracy being a
>beginner. In Texas, most everyone seems to be a .270 fan. They say
>30.06 causes to much damage to deer and are not as acurate. Besides
>many hours at range, I also plan to practice on hogs. I normally like
>to buy quality the first time. I have found it costs alot ot keep
>changing up 1 level at a time. But not being a hunter in the past, I
>want to get something nice, but easy to sell if this isn't my thing. I
>am an avid fisherman, but now I have a son now and thought being in TX,
>I should learn to hunt so that I can teach him. I grew up in Chicago
>where I did not know many hunters. I do remember that many of them had
>.30-06. My father says to get a .30-06. He was a very good skeet
>shooter. But he never liked hunting live game. He just remembers his
>friends all having .30-06. Of course this was in the 70's. I have been
>skeet shooting and bird hunting several times and the kick of the 12
>guage has not bothered me. I am 6'0" and 210 if this helps. My price
>range is $1000 including case, sling and scope and any other items
>needed for gun except ammo. I have also been told that the scope is
>more important than the rifle. So I was planning on spending 3 - $400
>here.
Either the 270 or the 30-06 would work just fine. Threre is NO point
in you getting any sort of magnum for your use.
Since this is your first rifle I would STRONGLY recommend that you
beg, borrow or buy a decent 22 rifle with an inexpensive scope and a
brick of ammo. Shoot it until you can make nice tight groups with it,
THEN start shooting your centerfire. The ammunition savings alone will
pay for the 22.
Natman
wrote:
>I thank everyone for the information. I have decided to go with the
>.270. If I like hunting, I will probably add a 7mm rem mag or 300 win,
>so I decided to start with .270 first. Someone told me to start with a
>.22 and work my way up the ladder. I do not have the time or money to
>do this.
This is like saying "I want to fly a Lear Jet, but I don't have the
time or money to learn to fly a Piper Cub first."
If it takes X hundred shots to learn how to shoot, will it be cheaper
to do in on a 22 or a 270?
Gary Kubat
> ... Given Gary's experience with the Ruger I have to believe he had a
> bedding problem, not uncommon with the original 77R's angled front lug
> screw. I'm lost about the "sloppy bolt" though. A little action
> tuning might have cured that, maybe lapping the bolt lugs so that they
> would seat evenly.
Well actually I didn't dive into all the stuff I tried to fix the problem,
including trying a different scope in case I had one with problems, to
having the crown straightened out and polished (gunsmith suggested a
slightly uneven end could have caused the problem; nope). I free floated
the barrel myself at first (so much free space I could slide 2 crumpled
dollar bills stacked together easily the full length of the barrel from the
action). Since that didn't solve the problem I and gunsmith figured it must
be the action bedding, so glass bedded the whole thing. No luck. I gave up
before trying a whole new stock.
The sloppy bolt was not a closing/lockup issue, it was a problem when
cycling the action. The bolt wouldn't push smoothly forward, it wobbled all
over and would easily jam or bind while trying to chamber a round if you
didn't actually watch what you were doing. I didn't like the idea of having
to watch my action when cycling a followup round into the chamber rather
than the animal I just shot (I could get a fresh shell into a single shot
shotgun smoother and quieter, and without looking, than cycling that M77).
I'm kinda picky about that. Haven't had a similar problem with either a Rem
700 .22-250 or a .338 A-bolt, both of which are smooth as silk.
After all the hassle it became the no-fun gun, at which point I dumped it.
Gary
Gary Kubat
Good point. For the cost of 20 boxes of .270 ammo, a person could buy a .22
and ammo, and actually have a second rifle for use on small game.
At the very least if you don't get a .22, get a decent pellet rifle and
practice in your back yard like crazy.
Gary
LuvinTheGrape
>
> LuvinTheGrape <LuvinTheGr...@YAHOO.COM> wrote:
> >
> > At what range? You're not going to be taking 300 yd. shots anywhere
> > in TX I can think of.
>
> Well.... that is a bit of a stretch. Nowhere *I* hunt will I be taking
> 300 yard shots. But Texas is a VERY big state - with terrain to match
> just about everything found elsewhere in the US. Certainly 300 yard shots
> would be a usable thing to do in Big Bend Nat'l Forrest (just to name
> one). Palo Duro Canyon would be another place (and quite a long way from
> BBNF). I have seen some localized areas in the hill country that would
> fit that bill too (but of course, in the hill country you would be passing
> up those 50 +/- deer between you and that one 300 yards away).
>
> Now if you said "for the majority of the state", then I would agree with
> you.
> :-)
My statement represents a sin of omission on my part. I should have
modified it to say that he isn't really going to *need* to take 300 yd.
shots anywhere here like he might be forced to in more flat-open
grassland or - at the other extreme - mountainous parts of the country.
But yeah, you could find yourself in situations in certain parts of S.
TX where a 300 yd. shot might present itself. I spoke a little hastily
and carelessly.
> I think the concept of practice is pretty well established. Unless you're
> Allen Iverson. Practice - doing something similar to the real thing in
> preperation for the real thing. Shooting at paper at a range would be
> "practice".
Which I think was close to my point. I read (perhaps erroneously) the
original comment as though he did not consider taking hogs to be "real"
hunting in the same sense that going after deer is, and that they are
just edible practice targets.
> Well, just because his budget is $1000, doesn't mean he is wanting to spend it all.
> ;-)
> It is better to have more set aside than what you really need, right?
Absolutely. A principle I was simply reinforcing. I never said,
"don't spend it all". There wasn't enough information in the original
post for me to be making any such assumptions.
lucky
(snip)
> Now if I just knew what is the BEST KNIFE?
The sharp kind. Sorry, couldn't resist. Someone is bound to post that
the LaserBuckElkBullSkinningButcheringDiamondEdged Guide Knife is the
best because they dressed 190 whitetail, 68 Elk, 42 caribou, and 29
Cape Buffalo before they sharpened it, but only did so out of boredom.
Aside from the grip and size, I could care less about the rest. I'm
only going to be dressing out one animal at a time, and I enjoy
sharpening knives (gives you something to do in camp).
Not that I don't appreciate knives... I certainly do, and have a number
in my cabinet to choose from. It's just that the cheap $15 Winchester
knife you get at wally world can field dress game just as well as the
$150 Alaskan, provided you keep it sharp.
LuvinTheGrape
>
> Lots of good comments on this thread. I live in Texas and let me add
> to this.
>
> When I go hunting I see more people with .270s than at the range.
> Range shooters <> hunters.
What % of people shooting hunting-caliber rifles (antiques, dad's
hand-me-down and other sentimental favorites excluded) at the range do
you suppose have them just for punching holes in paper? I'm sure there
are a few, but I'd wager they're a tiny minority...and that the vast
majority of them are there practicing for the hunt.
> .270 might be the most popular in Texas for
> hunters. Look on the pickup dash for the box of shells.
Yeah, it might be. But that's quite different from saying "In Texas,
most everyone seems to be a .270 fan."
> I know people who have shelved their 30-06 because of meat damage on
> Texas whitetails.
This one really worries me. Where are they hitting deer that they're
abandoning a .30-06 because of any meaningful meat damage?
> Is there big game in Texas? I never see it.
Try any one of the many exotics ranches, or ones that have Elk and/or
Bison. Some of the larger wild hogs might qualify as well.
LuvinTheGrape
>
> Since this is your first rifle I would STRONGLY recommend that you
> beg, borrow or buy a decent 22 rifle with an inexpensive scope and a
> brick of ammo. Shoot it until you can make nice tight groups with it,
> THEN start shooting your centerfire. The ammunition savings alone will
> pay for the 22.
Good advice. And if he buys one he'll end up with a nice
squirrel-hunting weapon while he's waiting for the general deer season
to open up.
LuvinTheGrape
>
> I thank everyone for the information. I have decided to go with the
> .270. If I like hunting, I will probably add a 7mm rem mag or 300 win,
> so I decided to start with .270 first.
I'm confused. All along you've been stating that you only plan on
hunting deer and hogs, and dismissing the .30-06 on those grounds
(among others). So why would you need to add a magnum to your arsenal?
> Someone told me to start with a .22 and work my way up the ladder. I do not have the time or money to
> do this.
With all due respect, that statement makes no sense at all. In the
first place, it wasn't suggested that you work your way up any
"ladder". He just recommended a .22 as a good way to introduce
yourself to rifle shooting because, among other reasons, the money
you'll save on ammo practicing with it will allow a decent .22 to pay
for itself. Unless, of course, you're planning on ill-advisededly
putting a couple boxes of rounds through your shiny new .270 at the
range and then declaring yourself ready for the hunt.
> I wanted to start with something that would give me the best
> advatage to start hitting a target. The lower recoil and flatter traj.
> of the .270 I thought would help.
It's starting to sound like you really haven't paid that much attention
to the feedback you've been getting here, and had really already made
your decision before asking for advice.
skully
Natman is as correct as can be...
A Marlin model 60 .22LR with 4X tasco in good used condition in a WV pawn
shop can be had for 50 - 100 dollars. I even have a cheap crossman .177 with
a tasco 4X to practice with.
I also shoot my bow and handguns year round.
The point, in my case and humble opinion, is that it is much less hassle and
heartache in the field if you know your weapons as well as you know your
heat and air controls in your car. This also makes you more safe; I once saw
a guy pull the trigger to see if the safety was on, fortunately it was even
though he had it pointed down range.
I'm not trying to give anyone H*ll here, just spewing what I know from
limited experience.
My first Whitetail hunt consisted of 3 missed shots from not knowing my
rifle and that was in the first 2 hours of the hunt, the rest of the day I
didn't see any more deer.
Your mileage may vary...
Skully
"Natman" <nat_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:via2k21oviot4qh78...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 13:24:45 -0700, Polo <rickc...@HOTMAIL.COM>
> wrote:
>
> >I thank everyone for the information. I have decided to go with the
> >.270. If I like hunting, I will probably add a 7mm rem mag or 300 win,
> >so I decided to start with .270 first. Someone told me to start with a
> >.22 and work my way up the ladder. I do not have the time or money to
> >do this.
>
Chris Barnes
> Not that I don't appreciate knives... I certainly do, and have a
> number in my cabinet to choose from. It's just that the cheap $15
> Winchester knife you get at wally world can field dress game just as
> well as the $150 Alaskan, provided you keep it sharp.
Funny you should mention that.
The knife I use to skin & process a deer after the kill:
A $12 FISHING filet knife from wally world. The small one (with the 5"
blade).
Yeah, I usually have to run it across the sharpening sticks a few times in
the middle of the job. But doing that gives my back a rest.
Chris Barnes
> Since this is your first rifle I would STRONGLY recommend that you
> beg, borrow or buy a decent 22 rifle with an inexpensive scope and a
> brick of ammo. Shoot it until you can make nice tight groups with it,
> THEN start shooting your centerfire. The ammunition savings alone will
> pay for the 22.
.... and when you're done, if you really don't want it anymore - sell it.
You'll get almost as much in the resale as you paid for it (assuming you
take even moderately decent care of it).
Alex Vitek
#The knife I use to skin & process a deer after the kill:
#
#A $12 FISHING filet knife from wally world. The small one (with the 5"
#blade).
#
#Yeah, I usually have to run it across the sharpening sticks a few times in
#the middle of the job. But doing that gives my back a rest.
The one I keep handy is a fileting knife made by Rapala. Bought it back in '82
and it definately has lost some metal due to use. Have done several deer and
umpteen million Walleye and other fish from Michigan waters.
Know what you mean about taking a break to sharpen that puppy. Taking the time
off to sharpen not only gives my back a break but fingers as well after handling
38 degree temp venison.
My next favorite knife is a large butcher knife found at a garage sale.
Back to the ".270 vs 30-06" topic.
Alex Vitek <ale...@ix.netcom.com>
http://home.ix.netcom.com/~alexvit/outdoor/amv.htm
*******
"Perhaps the warmest pleasure in life is the knowledge that one has no enemies.
The easiest way to achieve this is by outliving them.
No action is necessary; time wounds all heels."
Robert A. Heinlein (Forward to:) EXPANDED UNIVERSE (1980 version)
********
Stan Marks
Avraham ben David Hakuzari <khazar800N...@YAHOO.COM> wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 08:00:08 -0500, SaPeIsMa <SaPe...@HOTMAIL.COM>
> wrote:
>
> >If ,270 is a smaller caliber evolution of the .30-06, is there an
> >equivalent smaller caliber evolution from the .308 ?
[SNIP]
> 7mm-08, 243. Both necked-down 308 cases - the 7mm-08 is obviously
> much closer to the 270.
Isn't the .260 Remington derived from the .308, also?
Stan
--
Stan Marks
A waist is a terrible thing to mind.
Polo
> On Oct 25, 3:24 pm, Polo <rickcas...@HOTMAIL.COM> wrote:
> >
> > I thank everyone for the information. I have decided to go with the
> > .270. If I like hunting, I will probably add a 7mm rem mag or 300 win,
> > so I decided to start with .270 first.
>
> I'm confused. All along you've been stating that you only plan on
> hunting deer and hogs, and dismissing the .30-06 on those grounds
> (among others). So why would you need to add a magnum to your arsenal?
I was told by a few friends to start with these magnum calibers, and
that if they only had one gun these would be thier choices. But, I
wanted the smallest caliber to get the job done. I didn't want to deal
with alot of recoil, since I believe this helps with accuracy. If I
like hunting enough to travel for larger game, I might get one of these
magnums. I do have a friend with acres in Northern Wisconsin. But I was
talking several years down the road. I thought the .270 would be better
to have along with one of these, where the .30-06 would be more equal
to them.
>
> > Someone told me to start with a .22 and work my way up the ladder. I do not have the time or money to do this.
>
> With all due respect, that statement makes no sense at all. In the
> first place, it wasn't suggested that you work your way up any
> "ladder". He just recommended a .22 as a good way to introduce
> yourself to rifle shooting because, among other reasons, the money
> you'll save on ammo practicing with it will allow a decent .22 to pay
> for itself. Unless, of course, you're planning on ill-advisededly
> putting a couple boxes of rounds through your shiny new .270 at the
> range and then declaring yourself ready for the hunt.
The "ladder" I was referring to was something I was told by a rep at
BPS. He said that I should start by hunting rabbits and squirrels with
a .22 first. Then move up to larger game, I believe he said varmints
next, like coyotes. He also said I should not go directly from a .22 to
a .30-06. He mentioned I should use 2 other calibers in between, hense
the ladder I was referring to. I wasn't referring to any message here.
>
> > I wanted to start with something that would give me the best
> > advantage to start hitting a target. The lower recoil and flatter traj.
> > of the .270 I thought would help.
>
> It's starting to sound like you really haven't paid that much attention
> to the feedback you've been getting here, and had really already made
> your decision before asking for advice.
I have been on the border between the .270 and the .30-06 and after
asking the question here about which to get, I am probably more
confused. I was leaning towards the .270, I admit, but I was looking
for a reason to get the .30-06 instead. I really didn't see one. My
plan was to use the managed recoil 115 gr. as my practice rounds.
http://www.basspro.com/servlet/catalog.TextId?hvarTextId=69939&hvarTarget=search&cmCat=SearchResults
I asked for black(.30-06) or white(.270) and had all sorts of colors
added to the mix.
If someone could list 3 reasons why to get a .270 and 3 reasons why not
to and then do the same for the .30-06, I think that I would have my
best answers. Please do not throw in other calibers. I have decided on
one of these two, which was the original question. I want the one that
gives a beginner the best odds of becoming a good shot and yes,
primarily for hogs and deer in S Texas. I do not mind practicing with a
.22, I am sure I have a friend who has one I could borrow. I have been
offered a .25-06, if I want to use this practice.
I was leaning towards .270 because I had been told it had less recoil
and was slightly more accurate vs. the .30-06. But the .30-06 was
thrown in because of it's diversity. I believe I have learned that the
smaller the caliber the more accurate it is, due in part to recoil? I
have read that many guns, even though they can use several different
grain weights, that they usually do best with one, when it comes to
accuracy. I have heard that .270s are usually more accurate with 130 gr
and a .30-06 is best with 165 gr. Assuming this, I guess this might
explain why some say the .270 would have less recoil. I am sure there
are many other caliber choices, but I really have decided to get one of
these. I had also been told that in close range, the .30-06 did more
damage to the meat of the animal. I believe I have let to many chefs in
the kitchen, but I do try to weed through all the opinions.
Greg Pride
reliable and versatile. Don't go shooting at any greater range or attempting
to shoot anything much larger though.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Polo" <rickc...@HOTMAIL.COM>
Newsgroups: rec.hunting
Sent: Sunday, October 22, 2006 1:11 PM
Subject: .270 vs 30-06
> My first rifle. I have never shot a rifle before. I do not plan on
> adding any others ant time soon. I have shot 12 guage shotguns. I only
> plan to shoot deer and hogs in S Texas. The .270 seems to be the most
> common among my friends.
> What I understand to be the main diference:
> .270 faster and flatter, better for 200 yds and under, less
> damage to game
> .30-06 more bullet ranges on the shelf = versatility, better
> for 300 yards and longer, more kick
>
> At this time I would not take a shot over 200 yards.
>
> Also, I am considering the 3 riflesin either caliber:
>
> Weatherby Vanguard Sporter SS
> Remington 700 cdl or bdl
> Browning A Bolt
>
> Have heard of CZ and Howa but do not know pros and cons of these.
> Thought I would stay with 3 most common.
Polo
> On Oct 25, 9:55 pm, Polo <rickcas...@HOTMAIL.COM> wrote:
> >
> > Everyone I have asked locally, including staffs at local gun shops,
> > have told me to choose .270 over .30-06, except for 1. They told me for
> > local hunting .270 was the way to go.
>
> Did any of them give you a reasonable explanation as to why? Not that
> it's terribly important one way or the other. As you've aleardy
> learned, both cartridges will do you just fine for your intended use.
> I'm just loath to take advice from merchants, not because I assume
> they're not being honest, but because they have an unavoidable interest
> in trying to convince you to buy what yields them the most profit, not
> what is actually best for you.
They told me, several hunters in the San Antonio area, that originally
bought .30-06's, were switching to the .270, (for deer mainly) for a
few reasons. They mentioned less recoil, better accuracy, and less
damage to the meat. One shop also based this partly on the fact that
they had many used .30-06's and no used .270's. They said they sold
used .270's as fast as they came in and could not sell the used
.30-06's as easily. I guess they were using the supply and demand
theory. One clerk mentioned the versatility of the .30-06 as a reason
to get it over the .270. They also mentioned that the .270 was the
number one selling caliber in the area, except for a few of the larger
magnums (7mm rem mag and 300 win mag) that at this point I was
ignoring. So if I decided to sell mine to get a new rifle or to get out
of the sport, it should be the easiest to sell. These were mainly the
employees, who claimed to be avid hunters, of gunshops and were
probably not aware of the bottom line. This would include BPS, Cabelas,
Academy, a local gun store and the Sportman's Wharehouse. With the new
BPS opening here in San Antonio, there are lots of choices for the
hunter. Thier opening week sale was what got me on this kick to begin
with. I have toyed with the idea of getting a rifle for several years
now. My brother in law has several hundred acres available to me in S
Texas. BPS was offering a Weatherby Vanguard Sporter for only $399, but
only in the 7mm rem mag. I was going to buy this one, but that is when
I found out it might be too much for a beginner. Then Academy told me
they would match the price, but that they only carried the .30-06 and
the .270 and I could have my choice on the day that BPS offered it in
thier sale flyer. BPS had a special each day during thier first week.
This is why I started this topic, I had to choose between the 2. It
became a mute point when Academy later told me that they could only
match exactly apples for apples, leaving out the .270 and .30-06. But
since the exitement has me going, and I have a place to hunt, I still
plan to buy a rifle. By the way, my brother in law also uses a .270 and
swears by it.
Natman
<stanle...@COMCAST.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>In article <a9tvj2ln99pprmjt3...@4ax.com>,
> Avraham ben David Hakuzari <khazar800N...@YAHOO.COM> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 08:00:08 -0500, SaPeIsMa <SaPe...@HOTMAIL.COM>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >If ,270 is a smaller caliber evolution of the .30-06, is there an
>> >equivalent smaller caliber evolution from the .308 ?
>
>[SNIP]
>
>> 7mm-08, 243. Both necked-down 308 cases - the 7mm-08 is obviously
>> much closer to the 270.
>
>Isn't the .260 Remington derived from the .308, also?
Yes. It's a 6.5mm-08 under the name 260 Remington.
Chris Barnes
> If someone could list 3 reasons why to get a .270 and 3 reasons why
> not to and then do the same for the .30-06, I think that I would have
> my best answers. Please do not throw in other calibers.
The honest to God truth is that there aren't 3 good reasons for choosing
between a 30-.06 vs. a .270. The difference between them is just too
small for any answer to be legitimate.
I have owned both a 30-.06 and a .270. But they weren't an apples-apples
comparison. The 30-.06 was my first rifle and was an autoloader & not
very consistant while the .270 is the one my dad bought the year I was
born (used the rent money to buy it) and is a Rem bolt-action that is
pretty darn accurate. I sold the 30-.06 when my dad passed his .270 to
me.
Both killed every animal I ever pulled the trigger on (several Texas
whitetails, 1 Wyoming mulie, and 1 Wyoming antelope).
It really comes down to the specific rifle's looks, price, and your
personal preference.
My advice: pick the one you like and don't look back.
The rifle I prefer to use for deer in Texas NOW?
The .243 I bought for my daughters (an el cheapo, single shot H&R).
> I was leaning towards .270 because I had been told it had less recoil
> and was slightly more accurate vs. the .30-06. But the .30-06 was
> thrown in because of it's diversity.
Both statements are accurate is splitting hairs; but imho there's not
really a spit's worth of difference between them in terms of accuracy or
versitility.
> I believe I have learned that the
> smaller the caliber the more accurate it is, due in part to recoil?
I think that is the general principal. Plus the fact that a smaller
projectile will have less drop over a given distance - meaning distance
estimation accuracy is not as critical.
> I
> have read that many guns, even though they can use several different
> grain weights, that they usually do best with one, when it comes to
> accuracy.
This is DEFINATELY true. And not just weights, but also bullet
constructions (soft point vs ballistic tip vs Barnes XBullets, etc. Each
gun almost always seems to have it's "favorite" round that it shoots
better than anything else.
> I have heard that .270s are usually more accurate with 130
> gr and a .30-06 is best with 165 gr.
This is true for the most part.
> Assuming this, I guess this might
> explain why some say the .270 would have less recoil.
Smaller projectile requires less power which in turn generates less kick.
> I am sure there
> are many other caliber choices, but I really have decided to get one
> of these. I had also been told that in close range, the .30-06 did
> more damage to the meat of the animal.
I'm not sure this one is all that true. Bullet construction will likely
matter far more than which caliber it came from.
> I believe I have let to many
> chefs in the kitchen, but I do try to weed through all the opinions.
If you have 1 watch, you always know what time it is.
If you have 2 watches, you've never quite sure.
;-)
Polo
> Polo
> wrote:
>
> >I thank everyone for the information. I have decided to go with the
> >.270. If I like hunting, I will probably add a 7mm rem mag or 300 win,
> >so I decided to start with .270 first. Someone told me to start with a
> >.22 and work my way up the ladder. I do not have the time or money to
> >do this.
>
> This is like saying "I want to fly a Lear Jet, but I don't have the
> time or money to learn to fly a Piper Cub first."
Not exactly, There is as a LAW that says you can not start flying lear
jets before you get rated for single engine, multi engine and so forth.
I havn't read a rule that says you can not start with a .270.
It may be a little harder or costlier to learn with a .270 vs. .22, but
I didn't think impossible. I have shot plenty of shotguns in my life,
so it not like I have never held a gun. But when people kept telling me
you do not want to develop a flinch from the recoil, I started asking
questions. Maybe shooting a .22 first isn't a bad idea, but this guy
made it sound like I should start with a .22, then a .243, then a
25-06, and so on up to a 7mm rem mag, which is what I first was looking
at. My friends told me to start with this, if I was only going to have
1 rifle. I was told that this was not a good idea by gun store
representative and I agreed. I have about 20 fishing rod and reels at
home that some have cost me more than a decent rifle and scope, but I
love fishing. I didn't plan to doing this with rifles. I know what it
like to have a rod and reel designed to do one specific type of fishing
and I realize that hunters like to have this same range with thier
guns. I was hoping I could get one rifle that was not overkill and
could handle deer and hogs in TX. If I love hunting, all of could
change, but these are my present goals.
James Beck
>
> The honest to God truth is that there aren't 3 good reasons for choosing
> between a 30-.06 vs. a .270. The difference between them is just too
> small for any answer to be legitimate.
>
>
I split the difference and bought a .280 Rem. ;)
I wouldn't hesitate to pull the trigger on anything I'm going to run
into in North America and just about any other place as well.
Now, my FAVORITE round for white tails is the 25-06 and if I had to dump
every rifle I had except one, I would keep my 25-06.
Jim
Polo
hours to get my messages posted. I am sure I am saying things that are
already answered, but also havn't posted yet. By the time things have
posted it does look like the "cart before the horse".
skully
I use the longer bladed one though.
My wife went out and got me a very nice expensive set of knives just for
working on game...fortunately they are just as good as the cheap knives. ;)
Skully
"Chris Barnes" <ch...@txbarnes.com> wrote in message
news:eht69k$2fb$1...@news.tamu.edu...
> lucky <dav...@MSN.COM> wrote:
> > Not that I don't appreciate knives... I certainly do, and have a
> > number in my cabinet to choose from. It's just that the cheap $15
> > Winchester knife you get at wally world can field dress game just as
> > well as the $150 Alaskan, provided you keep it sharp.
>
> Funny you should mention that.
>
> The knife I use to skin & process a deer after the kill:
>
> A $12 FISHING filet knife from wally world. The small one (with the 5"
> blade).
>
>
> Yeah, I usually have to run it across the sharpening sticks a few times in
> the middle of the job. But doing that gives my back a rest.
>
Polo
Now this is what I was looking for. At least it sounds good. I picked
the .270 because I didn't need the versatility of the .30-06 because I
wasn't going to target something that needed 160 gr.+ ammo. Now, while
I am looking for a .270, if a great deal was offered on a .30-06, I
wouldn'd pass it up. And to think, 2 weeks ago I didn't even know how
the .30-06 got it's name.
This is DEFINATELY true. And not just weights, but also bullet
> constructions (soft point vs ballistic tip vs Barnes XBullets, etc. Each
> gun almost always seems to have it's "favorite" round that it shoots
> better than anything else.
Is this a true statement.
Can 2 different NEW .270 Rem. CDL 700's just alike, actually like 2
different types of bullets, for accurecy? If most guns of same brand
and model do prefer the same ammo, where can you find this info in
advance of shooting it?
John Grossbohlin
> Polo <rickc...@HOTMAIL.COM> wrote:
>> If someone could list 3 reasons why to get a .270 and 3 reasons why
>> not to and then do the same for the .30-06, I think that I would have
>> my best answers. Please do not throw in other calibers.
>
>
> The honest to God truth is that there aren't 3 good reasons for choosing
> between a 30-.06 vs. a .270. The difference between them is just too
> small for any answer to be legitimate.
>
snip
>
> The rifle I prefer to use for deer in Texas NOW?
> The .243 I bought for my daughters (an el cheapo, single shot H&R).
Nothing wrong with single shots. I mostly hunt with Ruger No 1 single shot
rifles though I've also got bolt action, semi-auto, falling block, and trap
door models...
My latest "perfect" deer rifle is a Ruger No 1A in .270. Before that it was
a 1965 vintage Ruger .44 Carbine, before that a Ruger No 1A in .357 Magnum,
and before that a Remington 700 BDL .30-06. They all work well on deer but
variety is fun and I often switch guns off during the season. BTW, the .357
and .44 Magnums are strictly for the heavy cover.
John
NRA Benefactor
John Grossbohlin
news:1161927652....@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> LuvinTheGrape wrote:
>> On Oct 25, 9:55 pm, Polo <rickcas...@HOTMAIL.COM> wrote:
>> >
>> > Everyone I have asked locally, including staffs at local gun shops,
>> > have told me to choose .270 over .30-06, except for 1. They told me for
>> > local hunting .270 was the way to go.
>>
>> Did any of them give you a reasonable explanation as to why? Not that
>> it's terribly important one way or the other. As you've aleardy
>> learned, both cartridges will do you just fine for your intended use.
>> I'm just loath to take advice from merchants, not because I assume
>> they're not being honest, but because they have an unavoidable interest
>> in trying to convince you to buy what yields them the most profit, not
>> what is actually best for you.
>
> They told me, several hunters in the San Antonio area, that originally
> bought .30-06's, were switching to the .270, (for deer mainly) for a
> few reasons. They mentioned less recoil, better accuracy, and less
> damage to the meat. One shop also based this partly on the fact that
> they had many used .30-06's and no used .270's. They said they sold
> used .270's as fast as they came in and could not sell the used
> .30-06's as easily. I guess they were using the supply and demand
Sounds to me like you should forget all the nonsense and go negotiate a low
price on one those low demand -06s... If that's the attitude of the shop you
should be able to get something really nice for a low price. ;~)
You'd be as well equipped out the 300-350 yards as any of the .270
shooters... 150 gr -06 loads wouldn't recoil much different from 130 gr .270
loads in comparable rifles and you wouldn't even notice the difference while
shooting at a deer.
If you place your shots through the lungs well (as in behind the shoulder)
you'll take the lungs with almost no meat loss. The only deer I really lost
any meat on was the first one I shot as I didn't give it time to die--I shot
it three times! It was a neophyte mistake that has never been repeated...
;~)
John
NRA Benefactor
Kevin Vang
rickc...@HOTMAIL.COM says...
> I was told by a few friends to start with these magnum calibers, and
> that if they only had one gun these would be thier choices.
>
Don't listen to these friends any more. If you buy either a .270 or a
.30-06 and learn to shoot it, you will be equipped for any game in
North America except possibly grizzly bears. If you plan to do your
deer hunting in Alaska, then you might consider a big magnum.
Stock design also plays a big part in felt recoil. You want as straight
a stock as possible (that is, if you draw an imaginary line along the
path of the bore, the butt of the rifle should only be a few inches
below that line.) There was a kind of fad a few decades back for guns
with a bigger drop at the heel, and when you shoot one of them you will
feel it when it torques up into your cheek.
Two other cartridges to consider are the 7x57 Mauser and the .308 Rem.
They have similar performance to the two you mentioned, have relatively
mild recoil, and you can find ammunition for them pretty much anywhere.
Kevin
--
reply to: kevin dot vang at minotstateu dot edu
Alex Vitek
#One of the problems I am having here, is that it is taking over 12
#hours to get my messages posted.
Rick,
You have to remember that the group/list is moderated and the moderators cannot
sit at the monitor 24 hours a day waiting to approve msgs. It can get to be even
longer between approval sessions when both moderators are away for the weekend
or a holiday.
More info on all this is available in the archives. Try a search on
"Administrivia"
#I am sure I am saying things that are
#already answered, but also havn't posted yet. By the time things have
#posted it does look like the "cart before the horse".
Not a real problem. Even if two people answer the question it is the different
approaches to the same answer that help put things into perspective.
Newsgroup Co-Moderator - rec.hunting
The rec.hunting archives: http://listserv.tamu.edu/archives/hunting.html
Gary Kubat
> .... And to think, 2 weeks ago I didn't even know how
> the .30-06 got it's name.
You had a steep learning curve being new to this, but seem to have waded
through all the input and come out alive. Incidentally, while you might
wonder how accurate the input by folks here was, from what I've seen none of
it was BS. Just a lot to digest if you're new to it.
> Can 2 different NEW .270 Rem. CDL 700's just alike, actually like 2
> different types of bullets, for accurecy? If most guns of same brand
> and model do prefer the same ammo, where can you find this info in
> advance of shooting it?
Unfortunately from what I've seen it's really a unique thing to each
specific gun. The only way to find out what your weapon will like best is
to shoot a bunch of different loads through it.
Since you're not a handloader, this is where those friends of yours may come
in handy, even if they haven't been giving great advice (start with a
magnum... sheesh). If it turns out you buy a .270 (or whatever) and someone
else has one too, see if you can get about 5 rounds each out of some of the
various boxes of ammo they have so you can fire test groups at the range
with your gun. Be sure to write down *exactly* what the ammo is (brand,
bullet style/weight, anything unique) and don't mix them up. Write down the
accuracy results for future reference, because eventually you'll forget; a
logbook could save you from wasting money on boxes of ammo you already found
out don't work well. You could probably talk some of them into trying out
the new ammo out there (like reduced recoil stuff) by each person buying a
box then divvying up among the group. That would enable everyone to
experiment with less out of pocket.
Gary
Natman
wrote:
Sure it's not against the law to start with a 270, it's just a really
bad idea. I think working your way up to a 270 in four or five steps
is a bit much, but that doesn't mean you wouldn't be better off trying
it in two steps. There are a lot of skills to learn in shooting a
rifle: breathing, trigger control, positions, using a sling, etc, etc.
You would be MUCH better off learning all this without the distraction
of recoil and noise that comes with a 270. Not to mention the cost of
burning up 270 ammo practicing, which would EASILY be more than the
cost of a 22, scope and a bunch of 22 ammo.
I strongly suspect once you find out how much fun a good 22 is you
will be glad you bought it. In the unlikely event you aren't you could
always sell it.
Natman
wrote:
>Is this a true statement.
>Can 2 different NEW .270 Rem. CDL 700's just alike, actually like 2
>different types of bullets, for accurecy? If most guns of same brand
>and model do prefer the same ammo, where can you find this info in
>advance of shooting it?
Yes it's true. Recommendations from other shooters about what
brand/type/bullet shoots best in a similar rifle are generalizations
at best.
You're a bit ahead of yourself here. Worry about hitting the bullseye
first, then think about tight groups.
nordrseta
> equivalent smaller caliber evolution from the .308 ?
The 260 and 7mm08 are commercial rounds that bracket - actually overlap - that space. The wildcat 270 Redding is dead on, butI wonder if it wasn't developed before the commercial solutions.
> And considering that the .308 is basically the .30-06 in a short action,
> would it not make more sense to go with a short action rather than long
> action ?
> This is particularly true, since Nato .308 surplus is apt to be more easily
> available in the future ?
The 308 runs with the 30'06 with lighter bullets. The '06 still has an advantage with 180 and heavier bullets unless your rifle likes Light Magnum or High Energy loads from Hornady and Federal, respectively.
The advantages of the shorter action are pretty subtle. The oft claimed weight length and weight savings can be cancelled by barrel length, contour, stock material, scope mounts, and scope choice. You can run 7.62x51mmNATO ammo through a 308 but even the good stuff may not impress you accuracy-wise, and due to our imperial entanglements truly surplus ammunition is not as common as it once was.
In any case if you're looking for a handy and attractive short action thirty have a look at the Remington Seven CDL or the Kimber 84M. If you match either with a 22 rimfire Remington 504 or Kimber Hunter, respectively, you'll have the only two rifles you'll ever need unless pinkmisting rats or chasing dangerous game is on the dance card.
"In religion and politics people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination." Mark Twain
Polo
> On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 14:37:33 -0700, Polo <rickc...@HOTMAIL.COM> wrote:
>
> #One of the problems I am having here, is that it is taking over 12
> #hours to get my messages posted.
>
> Rick,
>
> You have to remember that the group/list is moderated and the moderators cannot
> sit at the monitor 24 hours a day waiting to approve msgs. It can get to be even
> longer between approval sessions when both moderators are away for the weekend
> or a holiday.
>
questions after they were already answered and to let them know that I
am learning something here.
Polo
I think working your way up to a 270 in four or five steps
> is a bit much, but that doesn't mean you wouldn't be better off trying
> it in two steps. There are a lot of skills to learn in shooting a
> rifle: breathing, trigger control, positions, using a sling, etc, etc.
> You would be MUCH better off learning all this without the distraction
> of recoil and noise that comes with a 270. Not to mention the cost of
> burning up 270 ammo practicing, which would EASILY be more than the
> cost of a 22, scope and a bunch of 22 ammo.
Are you taking into account that I have shot 12 guage shotguns plenty
of times? This is my first rifle, not my first gun.
Gary Kubat
> Are you taking into account that I have shot 12 guage shotguns plenty
> of times? This is my first rifle, not my first gun.
I don't think many us clearly got from previous posts that you were
experienced with a 12 ga, but rather only that you had shot some.
Even if you are a regular 12 ga shooter, there's still good reason to beware
of getting a flinch with a rifle. Most scattergun shooting is done while
standing, and other than the noise the kick is well absorbed by the standing
position. If you shoot slugs from a rifled shotgun, or shoot a rifle,
you'll tend to do most of your sighting in and practice shooting from a
bench. Benchrest shooting tends to make recoil more noticeable. Plus, with
a scattergun you're generally shooting a moving weapon: you focus on target
motion, shotgun motion, lead, and follow through; it's very dynamic.
Shooting something from a rifled barrel is very static: focus on target,
align sights or crosshairs, concentrate on breathing control, squeeze
trigger, and try to not anticipate the bang. When shooting birds or clay,
there's a lot going on, and squeezing the trigger is just one small part of
it. With a rifle, there's a tendency to focus on the trigger once
everything else is set and it's easy to develop a flinch.
If you already have a shotgun, you might consider just getting a rifled
barrel for it. Slug guns can reach out to 150 yard range now with good
sabot slugs, although they kick like a mule. There isn't an animal in North
American that won't fall to a 12 ga slug, and a 20 ga is still plenty for
deer and pigs.
Gary
Natman
wrote:
>Natman wrote:
> I think working your way up to a 270 in four or five steps
>> is a bit much, but that doesn't mean you wouldn't be better off trying
>> it in two steps. There are a lot of skills to learn in shooting a
>> rifle: breathing, trigger control, positions, using a sling, etc, etc.
>> You would be MUCH better off learning all this without the distraction
>> of recoil and noise that comes with a 270. Not to mention the cost of
>> burning up 270 ammo practicing, which would EASILY be more than the
>> cost of a 22, scope and a bunch of 22 ammo.
>
>Are you taking into account that I have shot 12 guage shotguns plenty
>of times? This is my first rifle, not my first gun.
Yes I have. You'll notice that I didn't mention anything about gun
safety, since I assumed you knew about that from your shotgun
experience. Let me repeat:
"There are a lot of skills to learn in shooting a
rifle: breathing, trigger control, positions, using a sling, etc,
etc."
Your shotgun experience won't help you with these since they are
completely different with a rifle than a shotgun. You will probably
have some help dealing with recoil, but that too is quite different
with a rifle since the shotguns are shot while standing and moving and
rifles are shot while remaining as still as possible.
Don't take my word for it. Count the number of experienced riflemen
who are urging you to take some form of graduated approach (all of
them at last count) vs. the number of them who think that trying to
start from scratch with a 270 is the way to go (none).
SaPeIsMa
news:2006102815564...@web35710.mail.mud.yahoo.com...
=================================
I'm already a Marlin 70 fan
I own 3 tackdrivers that cost me less than U$200 for the bunch.
But I must admit that I lust for 2 different models made by Browning.
One is the recent rifle that looks like a bubba-ed Buckmark pistol
The other is the classic rifle with the detacheable barrel. That rifle just
feels so sweet, and points naturally for me.
Have not shot either one, so I am clueless about how good they really are.
therefore, I still havent' woked myself up to buying one or the other
Polo
> Polo wrote:
> I don't think many us clearly got from previous posts that you were
> experienced with a 12 ga, but rather only that you had shot some.
In my very first post, I said I have shot 12 guage shotguns. I never
said how often, nor was I asked. I have this same question in rec. guns
and there someone did recognize that I had experience with a shotgun. I
have probably shot about 2000 rounds, both skeet and birds, probably
50% each. I realize this does not make me an expert. I said this so
that people would understand that the recoil of a shotgun had not
bothered me, or noise that someone mentioned.
> If you already have a shotgun, you might consider just getting a rifled
> barrel for it. Slug guns can reach out to 150 yard range now with good
> sabot slugs, although they kick like a mule. There isn't an animal in North
> American that won't fall to a 12 ga slug, and a 20 ga is still plenty for
> deer and pigs.
Is this what most shotgun owners do? If I wanted to do this, I
wouldn't be here asking questions.
Gary Kubat
> Gary Kubat wrote:
> > Polo wrote:
>
> > I don't think many us clearly got from previous posts that you were
> > experienced with a 12 ga, but rather only that you had shot some.
>
> In my very first post, I said I have shot 12 guage shotguns. I never
> said how often, nor was I asked.
That's exactly my point. Having "shot" before could mean pretty much
anything, including less than a handful of shells.
> I
> have probably shot about 2000 rounds, both skeet and birds, probably
> 50% each. I realize this does not make me an expert. I said this so
> that people would understand that the recoil of a shotgun had not
> bothered me, or noise that someone mentioned.
Well now that we know you have more experience with a shotgun than we could
have assumed, I can understand you're familiar with loud noise and recoil.
Still doesn't make me any less concerned about possibly developing a recoil
flinch when shooting a rifle since the two types of shooting are
significantly different.
You may be fine starting with an '06 or .270, then again you may not.
A .22 and a few bricks of ammo are still cheaper than the many boxes of ammo
you'll likely need to become a reliable shot with a rifle, plus it would be
much faster (you can shoot thousands of.22s in a day without any pain,
probably no more than a hundred with a .270 before the shoulder starts to
ache a bit). Honestly, just trying to be helpful here; what you do is up to
you.
> > If you already have a shotgun, you might consider just getting a rifled
> > barrel for it.
>
> Is this what most shotgun owners do?
Can't speak for most shotgun owners, but I have a rifled barrel for my 12 ga
Rem 870 and love it. Shot it at a deer once; no tracking required,
delicious animal. Zero meat damage too (was a very close head shot since
rest of the animal was behind a slash pile).
> If I wanted to do this, I
> wouldn't be here asking questions.
Why not? This is rec.hunting, not rec.rifles. Just wanted to suggest
another option that works well.
Gary
LuvinTheGrape
>
> Is this what most shotgun owners do? If I wanted to do this, I
> wouldn't be here asking questions.
Why exactly ARE you here asking questions? You've gotten a lot of good
advice from some very experienced hunters (who, by the way, are taking
time out from their lives to offer you said advice while getting
nothing out of the deal themselves...I'd think you'd be more
appreciative of it) and so far you have only been receptive to one or
two responses that seemed to tell you what you already wanted to hear.
Of course, you could have just saved everyone the time and effort by
listening to your "get a magnum first" buddies instead.
abor...@redshark.goodshow.net
> Polo wrote:
>> .... And to think, 2 weeks ago I didn't even know how
>> the .30-06 got it's name.
>
> through all the input and come out alive. Incidentally, while you might
> wonder how accurate the input by folks here was, from what I've seen none of
> it was BS. Just a lot to digest if you're new to it.
>
>> different types of bullets, for accurecy? If most guns of same brand
>> and model do prefer the same ammo, where can you find this info in
>> advance of shooting it?
>
> specific gun. The only way to find out what your weapon will like best is
> to shoot a bunch of different loads through it.
I had to re-sight in my Mossberg 695 slug gun. No change in slug brand
(Lightfield Hybrid EXP) - just the difference between a box of rounds
from 2 years ago and a new box. Point of impact was shifted 2" down
and 8" left.
--
Aaron
Gary Kubat
> I had to re-sight in my Mossberg 695 slug gun. No change in slug brand
> (Lightfield Hybrid EXP) - just the difference between a box of rounds
> from 2 years ago and a new box. Point of impact was shifted 2" down
> and 8" left.
>
> --
> Aaron
Wow, big change. What size boxes do you get, 5 or 25 per box? I mostly see
the 5 round boxes here but it would be nice to get a bulk discount for
buying more than 5 at a time since I try to get a bunch from a single lot.
Only thing I don't like about slugs is how much they cost!
Gary
Polo
> Don't take my word for it. Count the number of experienced riflemen
> who are urging you to take some form of graduated approach (all of
> them at last count) vs. the number of them who think that trying to
> start from scratch with a 270 is the way to go (none).
The problem is, it isn't 0.
This is where I get confused. You say graduated approach and in another
thread I read this.
Snake Hunter, plus several others, have told me the opposite or that I
should be able to go straight to a .30.06, but I am still leaning
towards .270..
Read below what Snakehunter says.:
Snakehunter said:
If you are inexperienced in shooting rifles and/or shotguns, the recoil
of the 30-06 may be unpleasent for you. That will affect your accuracy
and enjoyment of shooting.
The venerable 30-06 has been a staple among deer hunters for over a
century
now. Hundreds of thousands of hunters have cut their teeth shooting
the
.30-06 and now it recoils too much? The original poster (ME) has
already said in
another thread that he's been shooting 12 ga. shotguns, so how is a
.30-06
worse?
I don't get it, depending upon who you talk to, "You need a magnum to
kill a
deer," or "The 30-06 kicks too much." I guess the deer have been
getting
tougher and the hunters softer!
Sure, you know when you pull the trigger on an "06", but it's not that
bad
unless you are a light framed woman or a kid. Stock design and recoil
pads
are two of the biggest factors in how "unpleasant" a rifle can be to
shoot!
I'm 5'9", 185 pounds and I've shot a .375 H&H Magnum while in Africa
that
was actually fun to shoot. ( I'm 6'0" and 210)
My advise is to (if possible) borrow several different calibers in
different
models (different stocks), take them to the range and see which is more
enjoyable to shoot. Then make the purchase decision based on what YOU
prefer!
--
Steve @ OutdoorFrontiers
http://www.outdoorfrontiers.com
G & S Guide Service and Custom Rods
http://www.herefishyfishy.com
Natman
wrote:
If you re-read Snakehunter's post carefully, I think you'll see that
he is talking about the recoil level of the 30-06 being acceptable
*for a hunting rifle*. I agree with that.
My point is that you should learn how to fire a rifle with a 22 in
order to avoid 30-06 level recoil *while you are training*. The low
recoil and noise of a 22 will allow you to concentrate on your
shooting technique. Also, in order to learn how to become a good shot
you will need to fire hundreds of rounds, and while I have no problem
dealing with 30-06 recoil while hunting, after about 30 to 40 rounds
in a day it starts to get old.
So if you want to learn to be a good rifle shot with the least
expenditure of time and money, get a 22. It will be faster, because
you can shoot more rounds in a day. It will be *overwhelmingly*
cheaper, because 50 rounds of 270 ammo will cost $30 to $50. 50 rounds
of 22LR costs a buck and a half.
LuvinTheGrape
> Natman wrote:
> > Don't take my word for it. Count the number of experienced riflemen
> > who are urging you to take some form of graduated approach (all of
> > them at last count) vs. the number of them who think that trying to
> This is where I get confused. You say graduated approach and in another
> thread I read this.
> Snake Hunter, plus several others, have told me the opposite or that I
> should be able to go straight to a .30.06, but I am still leaning
> towards .270..
>
> Read below what Snakehunter says.:
<<Snakehunter's post snipped>>
You're mixing messages. Snakehunter's comments were all about the
issue of recoil, which had little or nothing to do with most of the
advice you were getting about starting out with something like a .22
for practice.
abor...@redshark.goodshow.net
> abor...@REDSHARK.GOODSHOW.NET wrote:
>> I had to re-sight in my Mossberg 695 slug gun. No change in slug brand
>> (Lightfield Hybrid EXP) - just the difference between a box of rounds
>> from 2 years ago and a new box. Point of impact was shifted 2" down
>> and 8" left.
>>
>> --
>> Aaron
>
5/box. I've never seen slugs in a 25 box.
> I mostly see
> the 5 round boxes here but it would be nice to get a bulk discount for
> buying more than 5 at a time since I try to get a bunch from a single lot.
> Only thing I don't like about slugs is how much they cost!
Yep... $11.99/5 - and I went through about 10 or so getting it back on
target. It's a might bit pricey and painful for sighting in.
--
Aaron
nord...@yahoo.com
> beg, borrow or buy a decent 22 rifle with an inexpensive scope
There is no end to the "decent" rimfires (and a glut of cheap scopes)
one can choose from but considering all the benefits of inexpensive
practice, small game hunting, and vermin shooting perhaps we ought to
buy the very best rifle and scope we can afford.
Polo
> >Snakehunter said:
>> Hundreds of thousands of hunters have cut their teeth shooting
> >the.30-06 and now it recoils too much?
> If you re-read Snakehunter's post carefully, I think you'll see that
> he is talking about the recoil level of the 30-06 being acceptable
> *for a hunting rifle*. I agree with that.
What I understood Snakehunter to say is that, many hunters have started
hunting with a .30-06 or at least this is what the phrase "cutting
teeth" has always meant to me.
One of my friends told me that starting with a .22 is like having a kid
pitch to you and you hitting the ball and then trying to hit the ball
with a Major League pitcher. Basically meaning that hitting a target
with a .22 doesn't prepare you for a .30-06. He did say a box of ammo
with a .22 to teach technique isn't a bad idea. He also didn't agree
that it would take hundreds of shots to get used to any rifle with my
experience with shotguns. He said to me, "you are not trying to be a
marksman off the bat, you just have to get the aim within a couple of
inches." This friend is a World Class skeet shooter and an avid hunter.
My plan is to shoot his .22 at the range until I get used to it. Also,
I am going to use a good recoil pad and use reduced recoil ammo in the
beginning. He says, with this, it shouldn't bother me. He also said it
wasn't a bad idea to get a .22 to use for fun in the off season. He
says once I like firing a rifle, a .22 would give me something to use
year round. So I will look for a good used one.
I appreciate your help. I guess I will not know anything until I
actually get out there and try. Hopefully this weekend.
Chris Barnes
> I guess I will not know anything until I
> actually get out there and try. Hopefully this weekend.
Truer words were never said. :-)
Have fun!
--
Natman
wrote:
>Natman wrote:
>
>> >Snakehunter said:
>>> Hundreds of thousands of hunters have cut their teeth shooting
>> >the.30-06 and now it recoils too much?
>
>> If you re-read Snakehunter's post carefully, I think you'll see that
>> he is talking about the recoil level of the 30-06 being acceptable
>> *for a hunting rifle*. I agree with that.
>
>What I understood Snakehunter to say is that, many hunters have started
>hunting with a .30-06 or at least this is what the phrase "cutting
>teeth" has always meant to me.
>
>One of my friends told me that starting with a .22 is like having a kid
>pitch to you and you hitting the ball and then trying to hit the ball
>with a Major League pitcher. Basically meaning that hitting a target
>with a .22 doesn't prepare you for a .30-06.
This is true in the sense that there are a whole lot of other issues
to deal with when shooting a 30-06. It is definitely harder to shoot
than a 22, which is *precisely* why so many people have recommended
that you take it in stages.
I've given you good advice. Whether you take it or not is up to you.
Best of luck.
Jeff
> My first rifle. I have never shot a rifle before. I do not plan on
> adding any others ant time soon. I have shot 12 guage shotguns. I only
> plan to shoot deer and hogs in S Texas. The .270 seems to be the most
> common among my friends.
> What I understand to be the main diference:
> .270 faster and flatter, better for 200 yds and under, less
> damage to game
> .30-06 more bullet ranges on the shelf = versatility, better
> for 300 yards and longer, more kick
>
> At this time I would not take a shot over 200 yards.
I disagree with the "less meat damage" part with the .270: more
velocity and lighter bullets means MORE meat damage. As far as
shooting flat, there's not enough difference to matter at any practical
range. Look at a chart showing the ballistics of a fast, sleek 150-gn
'06 load versus the same in a 130-gn .270 load- it only starts to
matter waaaay out there, past where you or I should be shooting.
Get the 30-06, get happy with a premium 165 or 180-gn load, and hunt
any deer or elk or hog anywhere. The '06 is a far superior elk or hog
caliber should it come to that. It'll do anything the .270 does, only
better. For closer-range hunting, perhaps contrary to your intuition,
you want to use a heavier bullet like the 180-gn. Sure it'll
overpenetrate, but then so would the 150-gn load, but the point is it
won't jelly near as much meat as a 150-gn load at close range, would.
For what it's worth, either a .270 or a 30-06 is murderous overkill on
deer, generally speaking, so don't worry about THAT. Probably the best
overall match of caliber to quarry, for deer, would be the fine 7mm-08.
-jeff
Jeff
> As you noticed, I am hijacking this thread and changing the title line
>
> The question is simply, the following
> If ,270 is a smaller caliber evolution of the .30-06, is there an
> equivalent smaller caliber evolution from the .308 ?
> would it not make more sense to go with a short action rather than long
> action ?
There's the 7mm-08, which is a .308 necked down to 7mm. There's .260,
which is a 6.5mm neckdown. There's .243. There's my favorite, .358,
which is a .308 necke UP to .35 caliber. There's the new 338 Federal,
which is a .308 necked up to .33.
They are all good or even great. The .308 is an amazing little
cartridge.
-jeff
Polo
> Get the 30-06, get happy with a premium 165 or 180-gn load, and hunt
> any deer or elk or hog anywhere. The '06 is a far superior elk or hog
> caliber should it come to that. It'll do anything the .270 does, only
> better. For closer-range hunting, perhaps contrary to your intuition,
> you want to use a heavier bullet like the 180-gn. Sure it'll
> overpenetrate, but then so would the 150-gn load, but the point is it
> won't jelly near as much meat as a 150-gn load at close range, would.
Well, I bought a .Remington 700 30-06 anniversary model this Saturday.
Now I have to buy a scope. Since my budget was $1000.00 and the gun was
$ 699.00, I am leaning towards a Luepold 3-9-40 Vari II. I like the
Luepold mainly because of the warranty. Because it has a waaranty that
transfers between users, I feel I can get more money for it down the
road if I want to get a better one. If I could get the same quality for
a better price I would like to know about it.
Thanks for the help.
Rick
Polo
one has both, including a fluted stainless barrel. I chose it for looks
first, but think I got a good rifle also. Now I have to buy a scope.
Since my budget was $1000.00 and the gun was $ 699.00, I am leaning
towards a Luepold 3-9-40 Vari II. I like the Luepold mainly because of
I could get the same quality as Luepold, in another brand, for a better
price, I would like to know about it. I am planning to get a .17 HMR
instead of a .22 for fun and practice. I was told that the .17 is more
versatile than the .22. Do you see any reason not to get a .17 instead
of the .22?
Jeff
I think going Leupold is a great choice. I've had to use their
warranty, and let me tell you they are AMAZING. They had my fixed
scope back in my hands in one week! That's including the shipping
time. You could run over your Leupold scope with a truck and they'd
replace it. Plus they are great scopes. You have to spend a lot more
money to get any more scope than a VX-III Loopy. On that note, the new
VX-III's are better than the recently-discontinued Vari-X III's. I
have both and the VX's are an improvement on an already fine scope.
However, as long as I'm advisin', I'd recommend a Leupold VX-III 2.5x8;
it's one of the all time great scopes. The VX-III is superior to the
VX II and you certainly won't want more magnification than the 2.5x8
provides for normal hunting. Get Leupold dual dovetail bases and LOW
Leupold rings and there you go, all set up with a very nice rig.
I'm having fun with YOU spending money! I recently quit a perfectly
good job, got my real estate broker's license, and am embarking on that
career so I can't spend any money right now....
-jeff
Natman
wrote:
>Well, I bought a .Remington 700 30-06 anniversary model this Saturday.
>I bought it because I really wanted a wood stock with ss barrel. This
>one has both, including a fluted stainless barrel. I chose it for looks
>first, but think I got a good rifle also. Now I have to buy a scope.
>Since my budget was $1000.00 and the gun was $ 699.00, I am leaning
>towards a Luepold 3-9-40 Vari II. I like the Luepold mainly because of
>the tranferable warranty. Would a 3-9-50 really be that much better? If
>I could get the same quality as Luepold, in another brand, for a better
>price, I would like to know about it. I am planning to get a .17 HMR
>instead of a .22 for fun and practice. I was told that the .17 is more
>versatile than the .22. Do you see any reason not to get a .17 instead
>of the .22?
>
>Thanks for the help.
>Rick
Congratulations. The Remington CDL is a beautiful rifle.
17HMR ammo = $10.50 for a box of 50
22LR ammo = $1.50 for a box of 50
Whoever told you the ".17 is more
versatile than the .22" has a very strange definition of "versatile".
Natman
wrote:
>Well, I bought a .Remington 700 30-06 anniversary model this Saturday.
>I bought it because I really wanted a wood stock with ss barrel. This
>one has both, including a fluted stainless barrel. I chose it for looks
>first, but think I got a good rifle also. Now I have to buy a scope.
>Since my budget was $1000.00 and the gun was $ 699.00, I am leaning
>towards a Luepold 3-9-40 Vari II. I like the Luepold mainly because of
>the tranferable warranty. Would a 3-9-50 really be that much better? If
>I could get the same quality as Luepold, in another brand, for a better
>price, I would like to know about it. I am planning to get a .17 HMR
>instead of a .22 for fun and practice. I was told that the .17 is more
>versatile than the .22. Do you see any reason not to get a .17 instead
>of the .22?
>
>Thanks for the help.
>Rick
P.S. A Leupold 2-7 or 3-9 Vari-X II would be just fine.
abor...@redshark.goodshow.net
> Jeff wrote:
>> Get the 30-06, get happy with a premium 165 or 180-gn load, and hunt
>> any deer or elk or hog anywhere. The '06 is a far superior elk or hog
>> caliber should it come to that. It'll do anything the .270 does, only
>> better. For closer-range hunting, perhaps contrary to your intuition,
>> you want to use a heavier bullet like the 180-gn. Sure it'll
>> overpenetrate, but then so would the 150-gn load, but the point is it
>> won't jelly near as much meat as a 150-gn load at close range, would.
>
> $ 699.00, I am leaning towards a Luepold 3-9-40 Vari II. I like the
> transfers between users, I feel I can get more money for it down the
> a better price I would like to know about it.
As far as great bang for the buck I've been absolutely stunned by my
Mueller (http://www.muelleroptics.com/) - and their service is top
notch. I have an older version of the 3-9x40 SportDot on my Mossberg
695 slug gun, and it has performed beautifully.
--
Aaron
David Norris
news:1161923304.5...@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
| LuvinTheGrape wrote:
| > On Oct 25, 3:24 pm, Polo <rickcas...@HOTMAIL.COM> wrote:
| > >
| > > I thank everyone for the information. I have decided to go with the
| > > .270. If I like hunting, I will probably add a 7mm rem mag or 300 win,
| > > so I decided to start with .270 first.
| >
| > I'm confused. All along you've been stating that you only plan on
| > hunting deer and hogs, and dismissing the .30-06 on those grounds
| > (among others). So why would you need to add a magnum to your arsenal?
|
| I was told by a few friends to start with these magnum calibers, and
| that if they only had one gun these would be thier choices. But, I
| wanted the smallest caliber to get the job done. I didn't want to deal
| with alot of recoil, since I believe this helps with accuracy. If I
| like hunting enough to travel for larger game, I might get one of these
| magnums. I do have a friend with acres in Northern Wisconsin. But I was
| talking several years down the road. I thought the .270 would be better
| to have along with one of these, where the .30-06 would be more equal
| to them.
| >
| > > Someone told me to start with a .22 and work my way up the ladder. I
do not have the time or money to do this.
| >
| > With all due respect, that statement makes no sense at all. In the
| > first place, it wasn't suggested that you work your way up any
| > "ladder". He just recommended a .22 as a good way to introduce
| > yourself to rifle shooting because, among other reasons, the money
| > you'll save on ammo practicing with it will allow a decent .22 to pay
| > for itself. Unless, of course, you're planning on ill-advisededly
| > putting a couple boxes of rounds through your shiny new .270 at the
| > range and then declaring yourself ready for the hunt.
|
| The "ladder" I was referring to was something I was told by a rep at
| BPS. He said that I should start by hunting rabbits and squirrels with
| a .22 first. Then move up to larger game, I believe he said varmints
| next, like coyotes. He also said I should not go directly from a .22 to
| a .30-06. He mentioned I should use 2 other calibers in between, hense
| the ladder I was referring to. I wasn't referring to any message here.
| >
| > > I wanted to start with something that would give me the best
| > > advantage to start hitting a target. The lower recoil and flatter
traj.
| > > of the .270 I thought would help.
| >
| > It's starting to sound like you really haven't paid that much attention
| > to the feedback you've been getting here, and had really already made
| > your decision before asking for advice.
|
| I have been on the border between the .270 and the .30-06 and after
| asking the question here about which to get, I am probably more
| confused. I was leaning towards the .270, I admit, but I was looking
| for a reason to get the .30-06 instead. I really didn't see one. My
| plan was to use the managed recoil 115 gr. as my practice rounds.
|
|
http://www.basspro.com/servlet/catalog.TextId?hvarTextId=69939&hvarTarget=search&cmCat=SearchResults
|
|
| I asked for black(.30-06) or white(.270) and had all sorts of colors
| added to the mix.
|
| If someone could list 3 reasons why to get a .270 and 3 reasons why not
| to and then do the same for the .30-06, I think that I would have my
| best answers. Please do not throw in other calibers. I have decided on
| one of these two, which was the original question. I want the one that
| gives a beginner the best odds of becoming a good shot and yes,
| primarily for hogs and deer in S Texas. I do not mind practicing with a
| .22, I am sure I have a friend who has one I could borrow. I have been
| offered a .25-06, if I want to use this practice.
|
| I was leaning towards .270 because I had been told it had less recoil
| and was slightly more accurate vs. the .30-06. But the .30-06 was
| thrown in because of it's diversity. I believe I have learned that the
| smaller the caliber the more accurate it is, due in part to recoil? I
| have read that many guns, even though they can use several different
| grain weights, that they usually do best with one, when it comes to
| accuracy. I have heard that .270s are usually more accurate with 130 gr
| and a .30-06 is best with 165 gr. Assuming this, I guess this might
| explain why some say the .270 would have less recoil. I am sure there
| are many other caliber choices, but I really have decided to get one of
| these. I had also been told that in close range, the .30-06 did more
| damage to the meat of the animal. I believe I have let to many chefs in
| the kitchen, but I do try to weed through all the opinions.
I have been reading this thread and I think you should get one of the many
used 30-06 rifles that are sitting around in all the dealer shelves while
others are buying new .270's.
I would not recommend the ruger. I have seen some things on ruger's that I
didn't like. Idid see a 30-06 Weatherby Vanguard that shot very well
(astoundingly) but the barrel metal fouled fairly quickly. I have had 6
Savage 110's in various calibers from 22-250 to .338 mag and all were
excellent shooters.
David Norris
| Natman wrote:
|
| > Don't take my word for it. Count the number of experienced riflemen
| > who are urging you to take some form of graduated approach (all of
| > them at last count) vs. the number of them who think that trying to
| > start from scratch with a 270 is the way to go (none).
|
| The problem is, it isn't 0.
| This is where I get confused. You say graduated approach and in another
| thread I read this.
| Snake Hunter, plus several others, have told me the opposite or that I
| should be able to go straight to a .30.06, but I am still leaning
| towards .270..
|
| Read below what Snakehunter says.:
|
|
| If you are inexperienced in shooting rifles and/or shotguns, the recoil
| of the 30-06 may be unpleasent for you. That will affect your accuracy
| and enjoyment of shooting.
|
| The venerable 30-06 has been a staple among deer hunters for over a
| century
| the
| .30-06 and now it recoils too much? The original poster (ME) has
| already said in
| another thread that he's been shooting 12 ga. shotguns, so how is a
| .30-06
| worse?
|
| I don't get it, depending upon who you talk to, "You need a magnum to
| kill a
| deer," or "The 30-06 kicks too much." I guess the deer have been
| getting
| tougher and the hunters softer!
|
| Sure, you know when you pull the trigger on an "06", but it's not that
| bad
| unless you are a light framed woman or a kid. Stock design and recoil
| pads
| are two of the biggest factors in how "unpleasant" a rifle can be to
| shoot!
| I'm 5'9", 185 pounds and I've shot a .375 H&H Magnum while in Africa
| that
| was actually fun to shoot. ( I'm 6'0" and 210)
|
| My advise is to (if possible) borrow several different calibers in
| different
| models (different stocks), take them to the range and see which is more
| enjoyable to shoot. Then make the purchase decision based on what YOU
| prefer!
| Steve @ OutdoorFrontiers
| http://www.outdoorfrontiers.com
| G & S Guide Service and Custom Rods
| http://www.herefishyfishy.com
In my experience, I'd rather shoot a 30-06 than a 270. The 30-06 is a big
push, but to me, a 270 is a sharp jab. I second all the opinion about
getting a .22 rifle to get used to shooting a rifle. I din't think anything
about shooting a shotgun translates to shooting a rifle. Good Luck!!
Jeff
To the original poster, the good news is both 270 and 30-06 are
excellent general-purpose calibers and, truth be told, if you can or
can't "handle" (I hate that way of phrasing it) the recoil of one then
the other was going to be a problem anyway...
I'd still stick to my advice of going with the '06, because it's more
versatile and, frankly, you'd never need the magnums you mention if you
got a 30-06! And the recoil of an '06 iwth 150's isn't much different
than a .270 with 130's anyway.
As far as accuracy, that is much more rifle-dependant than
caliber-dependant. I would recommend either a Remington Model 700 of
some type, or a Savage. You'll have your best chance of getting a good
shooter that way, though it still comes down to your individual rifle.
I've heard too many horror stories of Ruger rifles that shoot 5 inches
at 100 yards, to reccommend them even though they are pretty.
If it were ME, I'd get the Remington M700 LSS in 30-06. The slightly
heavier laminate stock will help mitigate the recoil. That's a nice
rifle. I've had very good luck with (4) Remington M700's of various
types now. My latest is a box-stock XCR in .338 Win Mag that shoots
under an inch at 100 yards all day long.
-jeff
Doug
feature.
Jeff
> You want a scope that will perform well in low light. Check out that
> feature.
If it's legal light, I can shoot it with my Vari-X III's.
-jeff
Mikko Nahkola
> Sure it's not against the law to start with a 270, it's just a really
> bad idea. I think working your way up to a 270 in four or five steps
> is a bit much, but that doesn't mean you wouldn't be better off trying
> it in two steps. There are a lot of skills to learn in shooting a
> rifle: breathing, trigger control, positions, using a sling, etc, etc.
Well, maybe just "bad" instead of "really bad". After all, I get the
idea that various militaries around the world used to start recruits
directly on the full-power rifles... even back when they _were_ full
power. And most of the recruits did learn eventually.
Someone got me a break-open (piston type) air rifle when I was a kid. I
developed a flinch with that, the thing _bounced_ when fired... a .308
bolt action was actually easier to shoot well than that thing.
> You would be MUCH better off learning all this without the distraction
> of recoil and noise that comes with a 270. Not to mention the cost of
> burning up 270 ammo practicing, which would EASILY be more than the
> cost of a 22, scope and a bunch of 22 ammo.
Agreed. At least for the typical case. (The other cases include getting
to shoot government-paid 7.62 or 5.56 mm or the like, or having a good
air rifle.)
> I strongly suspect once you find out how much fun a good 22 is you
> will be glad you bought it. In the unlikely event you aren't you could
> always sell it.
I don't know, I _do_ have a good .22 rifle, it's just that it's my
grand-uncle's old competition rifle from the 1930s. Very heavy and
impractical. Then again, I didn't buy it. I'm also not likely to sell
it, I suppose some collector might be interested but...
--
Mikko Nahkola <mnah...@trein.ntc.nokia.com>
#include <disclaimer.h>
#Not speaking for my employer. No warranty. YMMV.