Firearm & Gun Forum -

Firearm & Gun Forum - (
-   General Rifle Discussion (
-   -   243 vs 270 (

spacemonkey 04-15-2010 08:33 PM

243 vs 270
i want to get into long range shooting. i would like to start with a rifle that is good up to 400yds and then move on to a bigger caliber so i don't have to learn everything on .308. i was thinking of 243 or 270 for the 200-400yd and 308 for the 600-1000yrd. any help would be great, just getting into this.....

Missileman 04-15-2010 08:46 PM

Honestly, if you check the ballistic tables, the 270 is just as capable or more of long range target shooting as the 308--they both are capable of firing a 150 gr bullet at about 2850 fps, but the the ballistic coefficient of the 270 is better, so it retains higher velocity and drops less in flight. So, if yo were considering the 270, get it and you won't need to get a 308 later (although neither is an ideal 1000 yard weapon, the 308 is more common because of M1A/M14 long range matches). I assume you're only talking target shooting and not even thinking about hunting at those ranges.

spacemonkey 04-15-2010 08:55 PM

no way would i hunt anything but paper @ those ranges. i am not in the "i took a elk @ 400yd last week" crowd. i know it is possible, i just have ethics. i forgot to mention that i was on a budget. also would you recommend Remington or savage?

c3shooter 04-15-2010 09:28 PM

For the money, Savage.

Missileman 04-15-2010 09:37 PM


Originally Posted by c3shooter (Post 270447)
For the money, Savage.

I agree, especially with their accu-trigger--although I've noticed their prices creeping up lately and are almost on par with Remington. Either one would be a great choice.

spacemonkey 04-15-2010 09:45 PM

is the accutrigger that good

Centerfire 04-16-2010 01:28 AM

I have a Savage 3oo Win Mag with an accu-trigger. It is pretty cool. It is just one more thing to adjust and play with.
Although I must admit that after adjusting it 1 time at the range, I have never touched it again.

UnderFire 04-16-2010 12:39 PM

.243 and .270 ammo roughly runs about the same price. I would go with the .270 because it's a good general hunting caliber and can do the long range target shooting you're wanting to do. I believe you'll get more use out of a .270 rather than a .243.

cpttango30 04-16-2010 02:52 PM

Why not take a stop in the forgotten middle with a quater bore and look at the 25-06. This is a superb medium rang caliber.

Both Sierra and Hornady offer bullets from 75gr Varmint bullets to 120gr hunting bullets. Berger offers 87gr and 115gr match grade bullets.

Granted you don't get the selection of either the 6mm or the 270 but the 25-06 is a great cartridge and I think it would fit your goals better than either a 243 or a 270...

Winchester62a 04-16-2010 11:26 PM

I used to do a lot of chuck shooting when I came out of Nam in 66..I'm a small guy so recoil was important to me..I used a 243 and loaded my own might want to look at the trajectory tables and recoil tables from Chuck Hawkes..they would give you an idea as what to expect..the fellas gave you some great advice on this website!

All times are GMT. The time now is 07:44 PM.

Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.