Which Rifle 270 or 300 win mag?

[Im Neero]

You know I read a study on bullet deflection when hitting brush in a Gun mag where they tested all manner of rifle and the 6mm Rem did just as well if not better then a 45-70Gov't. It's because the smaller bullet could get thru the brush without hitting it where as the larger bullet hit more brush. There is no such thing as a "Brush Gun", it's a myth. Besides, a person shouldn't be shooting at game unless he's got a clear shot.

http://www.hunting.net/forum/tm.aspx?m=2582071

http://books.google.com/books?id=I2A50VngxgQC&pg=PA27&lpg=PA27&dq=the+myth+of+the+brush+gun&source=web&ots=cXBkbO4_eR&sig=GReNpbyU4IRYmn_Jk_zXdBurnXw

http://www.huntingnet.com/forum/tm.aspx?m=2582071&mpage=2

K.

I still like .30 caliber better for deer.

[Guest someguy12341]

.308 = cannon ?

To those who object to it, sure. (I am not among them.)

[Guest TN.Frank]

Nothing wrong with a 30 cal, just make sure you get the right one. You have ctgs. between the 30 carbine up to the 300 Weatherby and a few 30's that are even a bit rare like the ones Lazaro(I think that was his name) was chambering in his rifles. For a good, basic 30 cal the 308 Win. or the 30'06 is just about all you'll ever need.

[Im Neero]

For a good, basic 30 cal the 308 Win. or the 30'06 is just about all you'll ever need.

Agreed.

[molonlabetn]

Pushing a given caliber faster (.308win vs. .300winmag), is primarily meant to get more effective range out of the bullet... so, essentially, you'll have the same hitting power 800yd out. But, it's rather pointless to do so for shots which will likely be inside 200yd... where even a .30-30 will do. If you want a flat trajectory, it's more efficient to simply go with a smaller caliber and push it faster.

[Guest TN.Frank]

If/when the time comes for me to get a rifle I'll almost have to get an '06 since I've been loading it for a buddy for over 10 years and now my nephew has one so I guess that's what I'll get too. It's not been a top seller for over 100 years because it's crappy, LOL.

[Guest jaypee]

I guess I'm a little late getting into this discussion, but I'd like to stand in support of the .270, in this particular application, over the .300 Mag.

I'm a transplanted Californio who spent most of his life hunting in the western states where shots are long. Out there the .270 has a tremendous following, probably second only to the otsix.

I've owned three .270's and handloaded for two more. The .270 has the versatility of being able to shoot anything from 100 grain varmint bullets all the way up to the 160 grain Barnes bullets, and is entirely capable of taking game as large as elk, in fact it does it all the time. The .270 is much cheaper to handload than the 300 Mag, which can cost you about as much as a nice steak dinner just for a box of brass. The .270 on the other hand can use otsix brass, always plentiful and cheap, and it performs beautifully with the most common and economical medium to slow burning powders. Most handloads will yield about 115-120 rounds per pound of powder, and there is seldom a need to use magnum primers except with the slowest powders. It is a dream to load for as well, being very straight forward and honest.......i.e. if you load responsibly you seldom get snuck up on by excessive pressures in loading for it. Also, when deer season rolls around you can always find .270 ammo in the marked-down "comeon" isle at Walmart. Try that with the .300 Mag. So the bottom line is you can afford to shoot a whale of a lot more .270 ammo than .300 Mag ammo.

The .270 is a superbly accurate round. I never loaded for one that wouldn't shoot minute of angle or better. Just before I left for Tennessee in '96 I zeroed my rifles for 300 meters for one last hunt in Colorado.....and my .270's final zero group printed into 2 1/4" at 300 Meters (328 yards). So I have no doubt it will "do" a coyote at 500 yards in short order. It's that accurate. In the rifles I loaded for I was always able to get velocities around 3,000 fps with 130 grain bullets from 22 inch barrels without a lot of strain, and I didn't walk away with a mild concussion after shooting it.

The only warning I would offer is this: The .270 has a very well deserved reputation for doing excessive meat damage when using full-bore 130 grain loads at close range. I have personally witnessed this in hunting deer and feral pigs and so have some of my best and most honest friends. So if you are going to use a .270 for Tennessee woods hunting where shots are usually within 50 yards, I would only use the 150 grain bullets. They don't have this problem. Needless to say a .300 Mag will also do this at close range.

One last area of consideration and I'll shut up. In considering which caliber to buy, consider how landowners will react to you asking permission to hunt their property with a magnum rifle. It could be a real factor for those with outbuildings and livestock, whereas the .270 is quite a bit easier for them to get along with.

Anyway I can't see where you could go wrong with a .270 in this application. The .300 Winchester Magnum is a superb cartridge, but I see it as being a fish out of water for what you want to do with your rifle. Best wishes and I hope this helps.

JayPee

PS - My primary hunting rifles since 1964 have been an otsix and a 7x57mm Mauser, not a .270. But that's a different story.

[wareagle]

Forget the .300 mag for hunting deer. Its just not efficient. The .270 is nice, but the .25-06 is nicer. Honestly, I've killed more than 50 deer with my .25-06 and never had one take a step. The light bullets at high velocity transfer almost 100% of its energy into the deer's body. Plus, mine is 1" MOA at 100yds. My 7mm mag (and former .300 mag) is less accurate and over penetrates within range.

[Guest Killthewabbit]

Never had a 300 but I've heard alot about em'. Used to use a 270 for chucks and praire dogs...don't have a body to dispose of that way.