# 270 vs 30-06



## Rustyaxecamp (Mar 1, 2005)

I vote 30-06. More versatile (bullet weight wise)


----------



## ridgewalker (Jun 24, 2008)

_Both calibers are excellent. I agree with swampbuck that the .308 also makes a nice deer caliber. Browning makes a nice weapon. I have an old Remington but in today's market I would take a serious look at the Savage selection for the money._


----------



## Perferator (Oct 18, 2003)

jimmy johans said:


> I bought one in 270wsm. I enjoy the x bolt and it shoots very well.
> enjoy in either caliber you choose. I bought the x bolt over others because of free floated barell, most adj trigger on the market and the fit and finish. I was thinking if I would ever hand down a savage or mossberg to the grand kids. Browning I will.


I'm going to be very very dead before my kids get my weatherby .257mag:lol:


----------



## rzdrmh (Dec 30, 2003)

jmoser provides a great comparison.

i'd like someone to explain knock-down power or energy to me and it's effect on terminal performance.


----------



## Perferator (Oct 18, 2003)

rzdrmh said:


> jmoser provides a great comparison.
> 
> i'd like someone to explain knock-down power or energy to me and it's effect on terminal performance.


That's like herding cats.

Each animal will react differently (like we dont already know that).


----------



## thill (Aug 23, 2006)

Last night I decided to cut up my opening day buck and get him packaged and in the freezer. I shot the buck in the shoulder with my 30.06 at about 60-70 yards. He didn't run but, 20 yards before piling up (I was suprised he ran at all). 

But I thought I should mention, both shoulders were almosted completely unusable. The .06 turned the shoulder the bullet entered into jelly and the shoulder the bullet exited had a huge hole and tons of bone fragments. I could only salvage about 5% of the entire front quarters. I couldn't tell you if a .270 would have the same results or not, but in this case, I think the extra knockdown power was an overkill. 

I guess I shouldn't complain about the killing power, I mean it did the job. I'd rather have too much versus not enough. But I thought it might be worth mentioning.


----------



## jayzbird (May 19, 2005)

CL-Lewiston said:


> Jack O'Conner spent a lifetime defending the 270 and people still cant agree 270/vs 30-06!!


Very true. This is about the 100th time I've seen a comparison between the two. Shoot a deer with each and see which falls faster. :smile-mad


----------



## Perferator (Oct 18, 2003)

thill said:


> Last night I decided to cut up my opening day buck and get him packaged and in the freezer. I shot the buck in the shoulder with my 30.06 at about 60-70 yards. He didn't run but, 20 yards before piling up (I was suprised he ran at all).
> 
> But I thought I should mention, both shoulders were almosted completely unusable. The .06 turned the shoulder the bullet entered into jelly and the shoulder the bullet exited had a huge hole and tons of bone fragments. I could only salvage about 5% of the entire front quarters. I couldn't tell you if a .270 would have the same results or not, but in this case, I think the extra knockdown power was an overkill.
> 
> I guess I shouldn't complain about the killing power, I mean it did the job. I'd rather have too much versus not enough. But I thought it might be worth mentioning.


My .270win will do the same when shot placement is in the shoulder using the Nosler Partition bullet.


----------



## rzdrmh (Dec 30, 2003)

Perferator said:


> That's like herding cats.
> 
> Each animal will react differently (like we dont already know that).


i don't believe "knock down" power exists.

i believe holes through organs kill deer. 

the deeper and larger diameter, the quicker the kill. but knockdown power is an unsubstantiated term.


----------



## Enigma (Jan 30, 2006)

What no weatherby calibers?


----------



## Rustyaxecamp (Mar 1, 2005)

Not even getting close to stepping in the ring on this but.....

What about "Hydrostatic shock" or do jellified organs and tissue count as "holes in organs"?


----------



## thill (Aug 23, 2006)

rzdrmh said:


> i don't believe "knock down" power exists.
> 
> i believe holes through organs kill deer.
> 
> the deeper and larger diameter, the quicker the kill. but knockdown power is an unsubstantiated term.


Think of "knock down" power as the ability to put a deeper and larger diameter hole through the organs of a deer, than another weapon.

Would you agree that a 30.06 has more "knock down" power than say a 22? Or even a .243? Both will put holes through the organs of a deer a kill it, but some will do it more effectively.

I've read many many articles that will use the term "knock down" power and I'm sure over 90% of hunters know what that "unsubstantiated" term refers to.


----------



## WinMag (Dec 19, 2004)

*.270 vs .30-06: The deer will never know the difference.* If you want to use the same rifle for bigger game like brown bear, elk, moose, the .30-06 is a must. Otherwise you will be a well-equipped deer hunter either way.


----------



## rzdrmh (Dec 30, 2003)

Rustyaxecamp said:


> Not even getting close to stepping in the ring on this but.....
> 
> What about "Hydrostatic shock" or do jellified organs and tissue count as "holes in organs"?


see the ballistic tip thread.

here's another explanation (from "Shooting holes through wounding theories")

"I don't know where this term originated, but it is pseudoscience babble. In the first place, these are dynamic - not static - events. Moreover, "hydrostatic shock" is an oxymoron. Shock, in the technical sense, indicates a mechanical wave travelling in excess of the inherent sound speed of the material; it can't be static. This may be a flow related wave like a bow shock on the nose of a bullet in air or it may be a supersonic acoustic wave travelling through a solid after impact. In terms of bullets striking tissue, shock is never encountered. The sound speed of water (which is very close to that of soft tissue) is about 4900 fps. Even varmint bullets do not have an impact velocity this high, let alone a penetration velocity exceeding 4900 fps.

Some people use "shock" in the colloquial sense to describe a violent impact, but it is confusing, especially in connection with the term "hydrostatic" and lends undeserved quasi-scientific merit to the slang. It also tends to get confused with the medical expression attending trauma. We are not describing any medical shock. The word shock should never appear in a gun journal.

Before I become too dogmatic and overstate the situation, let me concede that there may be some merit to the idea that hydrodynamic (not hydrostatic) impulse created by bullets which have a high kinetic energy and generally exhibit violent cavitation, can cause some secondary effects due to pressure on the nervous system or heart. It is possible to kill manually by nerve "strangulation". In this case actual damage to the central nervous system is not caused, but the signals governing the heart or diaphragm are shut off, resulting in instantaneous unconsciousness or even death. Certain rare sports fatalities have been definitely attributed to a swift blow which interrupts the cardiac rhythm. Acoustic pressure on the spine can also cause temporary paralysis. These phenomena may account for the rapid effectiveness of some high-velocity hollow-point pistol bullet wounds, especially in cases in which the victim is not mortally wounded and recovers consciousness within a few minutes. Several special handgun loads have been designed with no regard whatsoever to penetration (e.g., the THV bullet) in order to achieve this result. Unfortunately, this is an unreliable mechanism of incapacitation, generally obtained at the expense of effective penetration. No bullet yet designed will produce this effect even 10% of the time. Many of the bullets designed to utilize this effect can be defeated by common barriers, such as glass, sheetrock, and even clothing. Doing this deliberately by hand, even with a profound understanding of the mechanism and vital points, is extremely uncertain; using the passage of a pressure wave from a bullet to accomplish this falls into the freak event category. Such is never an acceptable mechanism for the hunter. "



thill said:


> Think of "knock down" power as the ability to put a deeper and larger diameter hole through the organs of a deer, than another weapon.
> 
> Would you agree that a 30.06 has more "knock down" power than say a 22? Or even a .243? Both will put holes through the organs of a deer a kill it, but some will do it more effectively.
> 
> I've read many many articles that will use the term "knock down" power and I'm sure over 90% of hunters know what that "unsubstantiated" term refers to.


no. "the ability to put a deeper and larger diameter hole through the organs of a deer" is what we should all seek to achieve, but that's not what people mean when they refer to "knockdown" power. that phrase has been passed along to imply that a particular caliber will "knock down" an animal.

problem is, absolutely no bullet will "knock down" an animal, at least not from the impact of the bullet.

the term has no real-world measurement, and is rather meaningless.

i would be relatively skeptical of any article i read that referenced "knock down" power.

for what its worth, thill, as other long time posters on this board will attest to, i am a big fan of using the largest caliber you can accurately shoot. i'm rather amused by those that use the term "over-kill" to describe calibers. i find the trend of using smaller, faster calibers misguided. and i've spent too many posts advocating the terminal performance of larger calibers. i simply don't like the term "knock down" power because of it's nebulous meaning and generalized use.


----------



## Rustyaxecamp (Mar 1, 2005)

rzdrmh said:


> as other long time posters on this board will attest to, i am a big fan of using the largest caliber you can accurately shoot. i'm rather amused by those that use the term "over-kill" to describe calibers. i find the trend of using smaller, faster calibers misguided. and i've spent too many posts advocating the terminal performance of larger calibers. i simply don't like the term "knock down" power because of it's nebulous meaning and generalized use.


I am aware of this and really enjoy your posts explaining this.

I am also in the "biggest you can effectively shoot" school.

While my beliefs differ slightly on points, like I said, keep posting as you have, I enjoy reading someone who has an understanding of how things work...

Now.......what about brush-busting guns........?:lol:


----------



## Mike M. (Jan 20, 2006)

(LOL) I love this debate you hear all kinds of stuff!!!Either caliber will kill anything you will likely be shooting,at distances you probably shouldnt be.As far as only .30 calibers in 1000 yard matches tell that to the guy who did very well in 1000 bench rest competion with a little 6.5 millimeter that is now known as the 260 remington.


----------



## rzdrmh (Dec 30, 2003)

Rustyaxecamp said:


> Now.......what about brush-busting guns........?:lol:


LOL.. you're alright, rusty..;-)



Mike M. said:


> Either caliber will kill anything you will likely be shooting,at distances you probably shouldnt be.


don't think anyone here's debating that, do you?


----------



## Mike M. (Jan 20, 2006)

I was answering the guys question,my comment had nothing to do with your knock down power,hydrastatic shock, big hole in the organs thing you have goin on (LOL)


----------



## deepwoods (Nov 18, 2002)

I have both. My. 270 is my favorite shooter.

If I had to choose just one it would be the '06 due to its versatility like already mentioned. For deer I don't think it matters at all but if you eventually went elk hunting or for larger game you may wish to have the 30-06. Best of luck to you.


----------



## Ranger Ray (Mar 2, 2003)

How about the Remington 760 in .300 savage.


----------



## rzdrmh (Dec 30, 2003)

uptracker said:


> Don't get me wrong, the -06 can do the same, but I'd rather shoot something with less recoil and a slightly flatter trajectory if at all possible.


the average 140 grain 270 round generates 17 ft/lbs of recoil @ 3000 fps mv.

the average 180 grain 30-06 round generates 20 ft/lbs of recoil @ 2700 fps mv.

i doubt i could notice the difference in recoil. the trajectory of the 270 will be slightly flatter, but drop is the only constant that can be reliably predicted - making the small difference a moot point, imo.

essentially, they are the same gun - there very close to each other in performance. i like the 06 for bullet options.


----------



## MDH (Aug 1, 2006)

If I'm hijacking this thread I apologize, but since I have a question(s) about the 30-06 I figured I'd ask here. 

I currently have 2 30-06. One that is a remington bolt action that I always use. I shoot only 150 grain bullets, but it has worked well for me. The other is an older semi-auto remmington of my grandfather's that might need some work done on it. 

I don't use my other one yet, but was thinking about using some smaller grained bullets in it to maybe use for coyote hunting or something like that. 

My question is, if I use a smaller grain bullet, will it shoot "flatter"? And if so, what grain bullet would you reccommend for me to use? 

I am pretty limited in my overall understanding of ballistics, so bare with me if this is a stupid question. 

Thanks, 

MDH


----------



## rzdrmh (Dec 30, 2003)

no, you can use a smaller grain bullet that will shoot very fast. remington used to sell an "accelerator" bullet - a 55 grain, saboted round.

today, you're probably looking at a 125 grain bullet - though if you still want speed, make sure you don't get managed recoil rounds.

personally, if i wanted to hunt with a 30-06 for coyote, i'd pick up a premium 150 grain bullet (that will expand very little) and go hunting. if you reload, you have a lot more options.


----------



## MDH (Aug 1, 2006)

So even if I was to find a smaller "flatter" shooting grained bullet for my 06, you reccommend the 150 grain? That's what I already shoot, but I'm only using the cheap remmington core locked stuff. 

If I do go with say a winchester supreme 150 grain ballistic tip bullet with my current set up I'm already using with the cheap remmington stuff, do I need to site it in again with the new ammo. I know I would if it was a different grain, but not sure on just changing the type of ammo. 

Thanks for the info, and the good read on this subject because I am thirsty for some more knowledge in this area. 

Thanks, 

MDH


----------



## WMUAngler (Oct 18, 2007)

I think this guy might be questioning the "knockdown power" of his .270 and upgrading; possibly to a 50 BMG. 


http://www.bnd.com/breaking_news/story/561511.html


----------



## thill (Aug 23, 2006)

rzdrmh said:


> squirrel gun? what exactly is your point?
> 
> if you would like to rely on outdoorlife or f&s (fwiw, i have a subscription to both) as your source of ballistic and terminal performance information, so be it.


 
My point is I believe there is such a thing as "overkill" when it comes to chosing calibers.


----------



## wally-eye (Oct 27, 2004)

As to the title of the thread 270 vs 30.06. A Michigan whitetail standing the average 60 yards away where most are shot in this state will "not" know the difference whether it was the 270 or 30.06 that killed it....it's a personal choice as both work.


----------



## PA BUCK 2 (Oct 17, 2006)

MDH-

If you are changing ammo- you should shoot the rifle and see what it changes. 

FWIW- I handload 130 grain Hornady SP in my .308 and 06. We do not push these too fast- they have chronographed at 2950 fps. POI on these are almost identical to the 150 grain OTC ammo that I have shot. We use these to deer hunt and they have performed well. I have never shot a yote with them- but they would probably blow right through them... I think the suggestion to use a premium bullet would be to limit expansion of the bullet and limit damage to the pelts. I think the remington 150 grainers would be fine for yotes in the 06.

Good luck.


----------



## bersh (Dec 9, 2003)

thill said:


> My point is I believe there is such a thing as "overkill" when it comes to chosing calibers.


It always cracks me up at how many guys think they need to shoot a magnum for deer. A 7mm mag is one thing, but 300 win mag, 300 wby, 300 RUM, 338, etc are all WAY more than is needed. To top it off, _most_ of the guys that I've seen shooting these cannons can't shoot for crap with them. This fall I was at the range getting my .270 and .32 win spl dialed in, and there were two guys there shooting magnums. One was a 300 win mag, the other a 7mm mag. 300 wm guy was shooting 5-6" groups at 100 yards, and blaming the rifle & scope for shooting so bad. The irony is that last year the same guy was shooting the same way with the same gun/scope, but at that time his excuse was that he just got the gun and needed to get used to it. From watching him shoot, I could tell without even looking at the target what was going on. He was so damn recoil shy that he flinched on every shot. I'm actually surprised he shot as good as he did. When I asked him why he shot a 300 wm, he said that when he hits them he wants them to go down. Classic example of trying to cover up marginal shots with too much power.

So 7mm guy is shooting at 75 yards, and he is all over the map. He's griping like crazy, saying he never shoots this bad, then blames the poor shooting on the fact that he loaned the gun to someone for bear season and they said they dropped it. We checked everything, scope mounts were good, etc. I grab the gun, take a shot, middle of the dot. Take another shot, and it's about 1" away, edge of the dot. Guy takes a shot after me, and his shot hits about 4" high and right. Takes another shot, hits about 3" low and left. Takes another shot, hits dead center but 6" high. By now the barrel was so hot you couldn't hardly touch it. He throws it in the case and blames everything but the fact he can't shoot. He takes out his .243 and shoots it great. I just sort of said "guess you know which gun you are using this year" and went back to shooting again. These guys both rattled off about 4 times the shots that I had taken, total, with BOTH of my guns, in less time than it took me.

I have two buddies that have a 300 win mag and 300 wby mag, respectively. They are both very good shots, and are both bigger guys and can handle the recoil. Both have shot a number of deer, and both no longer use these rifles for deer. For 300 wby buddy, he was tired of paying $40/box for ammo, and started to reload. That gun would only group well by loading hot, and even though he shoots a lot and can handle the recoil, it does beat the crap out of him. The deer he has shot with it have been torn up pretty good, and tired of having to cut away a lot of meat and pitch it, he now shoots a .308. 300 win mag buddy has shot his share with it, and he too got tired of the amount of meat loss. His main hunting rigs are now either his 06, or his 25-06.


----------



## Violator22 (Nov 10, 2004)

C'mon, everyone knows you need the latest super-duper-magnum to kill Deer. No thanks, I'll stick with my 25-06/303 Sav/30-40 Krag. Although Savage has the 250 out again in the 16fhss, the Weather Warriro. That caliber right there is the ULTIMATE deer caliber in the united States, walks all over the 243. Les


----------



## rzdrmh (Dec 30, 2003)

thill said:


> My point is I believe there is such a thing as "overkill" when it comes to chosing calibers.


it should be blatantly obvious to you that we're talking about overkill in terms of a particular animal size and caliber class. its unproductive to insert such an exaggerated example in the debate.

btw, i've shot 3 deer this year with a 50 cal and didn't consider any of them "overkill". plenty of deer are shot with 50 cals and are not recovered.



PA BUCK 2 said:


> MDH-
> 
> I think the suggestion to use a premium bullet would be to limit expansion of the bullet and limit damage to the pelts. I think the remington 150 grainers would be fine for yotes in the 06.
> 
> Good luck.


exactly. agreed.


----------



## Rustyaxecamp (Mar 1, 2005)

bersh said:


> To top it off, _most_ of the guys that I've seen shooting these cannons can't shoot for crap with them. shots with too much power.
> 
> ......The deer he has shot with it have been torn up pretty good, and tired of having to cut away a lot of meat and pitch it, he now shoots a .308. 300 win mag buddy has shot his share with it, and he too got tired of the amount of meat loss.


 
1. While I agree the mags are not as easy to shoot well, I have seen a ton of guys just as bad with a 30-30s, -06s and 270s....

2. If meat damage is a concern, don't shoot them in the meat. A ball through the slats will put the brakes real quick on any MI deer. 

Carry on.....


----------



## Hart (Jan 27, 2008)

A classic, 1960s Remington 700 bolt-action .30-06 (which is all I still use) and a Sako Hunter .270 (which I had to give to my brother on dad's wishes).

Everyone is correct about personal preference. I noticed slightly less recoil with the .270, but hardly enough to make it a defining factor (we're not talking about cannon recoil any way).

I made a double-lung shot with the .270 at 100+ yards and if I hadn't been able to see where the deer entered the bordering woods from the field, I might not have found it. Next to no blood for about 60 yards. I've never had that problem with the ought-six. 

My bottom line recommendation would be this: if you can only own one of them, I'd suggest the .30-06 simply for the versatility and ammo availability.


----------

