.270 vs .308
Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com > Long Guns > General Rifle Discussion > .270 vs .308

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-20-2012, 07:54 PM   #1
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 18
Default .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!

__________________
glockenstein is offline  
 
Reply With Quote

Join FirearmsTalk.com Today - It's Free!

Are you a firearms enthusiast? Then we hope you will join the community. You will gain access to post, create threads, private message, upload images, join groups and more.

Firearms Talk is owned and operated by fellow firearms enthusiasts. We strive to offer a non-commercial community to learn and share information.

Join FirearmsTalk.com Today! - Click Here


Old 03-20-2012, 07:59 PM   #2
hmh
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
hmh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 611
Liked 140 Times on 96 Posts

Default

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

forumrunner_20120320_145906.jpg  
__________________
hmh is online now  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-2012, 08:16 PM   #3
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
ShagNasty1001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,526
Liked 460 Times on 267 Posts
Likes Given: 22

Default

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

__________________
ShagNasty1001 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-2012, 09:19 PM   #4
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
theropinfool's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Hooper,Utah
Posts: 512
Liked 2 Times on 2 Posts

Default

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.

__________________

Wait, was this thing on?

theropinfool is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-2012, 09:40 PM   #5
Feedback Score: 1 reviews
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Reno,Texas
Posts: 10,211
Liked 6563 Times on 3635 Posts
Likes Given: 27929

Default

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.

__________________
texaswoodworker is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-2012, 09:59 PM   #6
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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

__________________
 
 
Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-2012, 10:16 PM   #7
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 383
Liked 1 Times on 1 Posts

Default

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.
__________________
Ledbetter84 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-2012, 10:26 PM   #8
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Georgiahunter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 506
Liked 31 Times on 12 Posts

Default

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.
__________________
Georgiahunter is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-2012, 10:59 PM   #9
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
jpattersonnh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: South central,NH
Posts: 4,992
Liked 710 Times on 488 Posts
Likes Given: 727

Default

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.

__________________

Freedom is not free. The best of us always leave too soon.


Last edited by jpattersonnh; 03-20-2012 at 11:01 PM.
jpattersonnh is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-2012, 11:06 PM   #10
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Georgiahunter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 506
Liked 31 Times on 12 Posts

Default

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?
__________________
Georgiahunter is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes