Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com

Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com (http://www.firearmstalk.com/forums/)
-   General Rifle Discussion (http://www.firearmstalk.com/forums/f18/)
-   -   .270 vs .308 (http://www.firearmstalk.com/forums/f18/270-vs-308-a-60650/)

glockenstein 03-20-2012 08:54 PM

.270 vs .308
 
Am going to add another rifle to complement my Mini14. I have pretty well settled on a Savage Axis.
I will scope it with a Nikon Coyote 4x14 w/BDC.
My dilemma is this: Most of my shooting with this will be target , ranging from 100-500 yds. There is the possibility of a hunt next year. Prey TBD.
What are the trade-offs between .270 & .308?
I have had both recommended by my shooting buds, for various reasons.
I would appreciate any input from the knowledgable folks that contribute to this site.
Thanks, and good day to all!

hmh 03-20-2012 08:59 PM

1 Attachment(s)
Split the difference .270 wsm have one love it. The downside is cost of rounds and you need yo let it cool between shots.

ShagNasty1001 03-20-2012 09:16 PM

I'm a .308 fan just because I'm a short action guy but I've heard good things about the .270

theropinfool 03-20-2012 10:19 PM

A .308 can handle a little bigger bullets, providing a little more power up close. A .270 has a higher ballistic coefficient and a higher muzzle velocity, giving it more energy down range, less wind drift, and a flatter trajectory.

Now I can only speak on my experience, but I've seen a lot of elk taken with a .270. I've never seen one taken with a .308. It's been my experience that a .270 is much better handling our "out west" distances.

I think I'll stick with Jack O'Conner and the .270. Step it up to a 30-06 and we have a debate.

texaswoodworker 03-20-2012 10:40 PM

I'm a big and of the 30-06, so I would go with the 270. They are really simular, but the 270 shoots a little flatter (just a little). Both are extremely accurate, long range rounds that can pack a hell of a punch.

cottontop 03-20-2012 10:59 PM

The .308 is also based on the .30-06 case, just shortened. I would not compare the 308 to the 270. One is for a long action and the other is for a short action. The two should be separated into two separate genres. Then you could compare the 243, the 7mm-08, the 308 and the 358. You could then compare the 270 to the 30-06, the 280, and the 35 whelan.
cottontop

Ledbetter84 03-20-2012 11:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cottontop
The .308 is also based on the .30-06 case, just shortened. I would not compare the 308 to the 270. One is for a long action and the other is for a short action. The two should be separated into two separate genres. Then you could compare the 243, the 7mm-08, the 308 and the 358. You could then compare the 270 to the 30-06, the 280, and the 35 whelan.
cottontop

I thought the parent of the 308 was the 300 savage? Not arguing just want to learn.

Georgiahunter 03-20-2012 11:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ledbetter84

I thought the parent of the 308 was the 300 savage? Not arguing just want to learn.

I always heard its parent is the .30-06, or rather it's based on it. Don't quote me on it though.

jpattersonnh 03-20-2012 11:59 PM

History 101: 7x57, 8x57, .30-06, 270, .308, .35Whelan.
They all use the same case head dimensions. 7x57 was the Grand daddy, 8x57 came next. The U.S. copied the round and rifle for the 1903 and .30-06. Not a bad place to start.

.270 is not superior to the .308. They are very different. Both have sufficient energy to kill elk at 300 yards. You hear guys boasting the .270 is a 500 yard Elk slayer, just not true. I kinda chuckle when I hear "western distances". I took my 1st Elk and 1st Muley w/ a 12ga slug gun at no more then 30 yards w/ open sights. That is called hunting here in the East! Both were taken in the Colorado Rockies.

Georgiahunter 03-21-2012 12:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jpattersonnh
History 101: 7x57, 8x57, .30-06, 270, .308, .35Whelan.
They all use the same case head dimensions. 7x57 was the Grand daddy, 8x57 came next. The U.S. copied the round and rifle for the 1903 and .30-06. Not a bad place to start.

.270 is not superior to the .308. They are very different. Both have sufficient energy to kill elk at 300 yards. You hear guys boasting the .270 is a 500 yard Elk slayer, just not true. I kinda chuckle when I hear "western distances". I took my 1st Elk and 1st Muley w/ a 12ga slug gun at no more then 30 yards w/ open sights. That is called hunting.

Thanks for the facts, I never really thought about where the .30-06 came from. (Weird huh?) I agree neither caliber is better than the other. I also think it's funny how people out west think they have to shoot from so far away. Half the fun of the hunt is getting close and staying silent. There is nothing like the feeling of detecting an animal before they detect you and stating quite and concealed to take the shot. Sure, you can shoot better and farther than me, but can you stay quieter?


All times are GMT. The time now is 06:05 PM.

Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.