270 or 30 06

New Avon Arms
Yup it’s based on the 30-03. The 270 has a slightly longer case than 30-06 so cannot be a necked down 30-06.
That been said, the factory likely used untrimmed basic cylindrical brass as the start point.
 
Looks like we may never know for sure.

[h=3].270 Winchester History[/h]
jack-oconnor-1.jpg
The .270 Winchester was designed somewhere in the 1920's and was released by Winchester. The round was moderately popular for hunting medium to large game and was based of either the .30-03 Springfield or the .30-06 Springfield depending on your sources. I wasnt alive back then so I have to rely on my sources. Either way the .270 is a modified 30-0? Springfield.
 
Greener Jim said:
Yup it’s based on the 30-03. The 270 has a slightly longer case than 30-06 so cannot be a necked down 30-06.
That been said, the factory likely used untrimmed basic cylindrical brass as the start point.
Click to expand...

I'll take your word for it. 30-03 it is then.
 
Why replace the 6.5 x 55 just lean on the homeloads and put some proper bullets in them, I have killed stags on the hill out to 250 with the one I had, Bang, Flop, Dead.
 
Jax said:
Barrel length most likely. You need a longer barrel to make use of the extra powder capacity more often than not.

I also ran a 30-06 with RL-22 through a 26" barrel to get an average of 2960fps with a 180gr bullet. You won't do that with a 308. You'd have to use factory 300 Win mag loads with a 24" barrel to keep up according to Hornady data.
Click to expand...

one of the reasons cutting down barrels is a silly thing to do...
 
TOMMO.B said:
. 243 will kill big stags and boar. nae bother. Its not a size thing its how you use it. And you are right the OP wants a .270 or 30-06
Click to expand...

ost eu countries have minimum restrictions on cal. for boar. usually .270 being the minimum so the 243 would be a useless hunk of steel and wood to carry overseas.
m

that being said I run a .270. I like it. I dont think the reduced amount of bullet range is a hindrance. actually too much of a wide range isnt good. most people forget to factor in their twist rates when choosing bullet sizes to shoot. note I said size and not weight. In my mind, some choices cant be good for the rifles bore.

that being said. at 100m who cares! even if some cartridges are more or less efficient than others, or dont have enough of a bullet range to choose from it doesnt matter in the least as long as you use a proper cal. and bullet type for your quarry and you dont miss.
 
Last edited:
I shot a sambar stag yesterday,he was moving left to right @ 250 yards and got rattled with one from my old 7 mm mag.
If I had either the 270 or 30-06 in hand at the time for the shot (appropriate pills) I wouldn't have given a tinkers cuss as either would have done the job for me. And under field conditions you are not thinking about wtf calibre is in your claw or how much recoil there is you just squeeze off and let fly,concentrating on where to place the pill according to the conditions,animal speed,wind,elevation blah blah.
 
I have just had the same question floating around in my head for a while - 270 or 30-06 for the red stags I have on my ground in Wigtown as they are very big. I decided on 30-06 in a Blaser that way if I don't get on with the cal I can just swap barrels!
 
Greener Jim; said:
The 270 isn’t a necked down 30-06 though. Just to be a pedant.
Click to expand...

http://www.chuckhawks.com/perfect_pair.htm - The "yes it is" view.

Then the minor change that hopefully clears this up before everyone goes ballistic again:

The .270 Winchester (or 6.8×64mm) was developed by Winchester Repeating Arms Company in 1923 and unveiled in 1925 as a chambering for their bolt-action Model 54. The cartridge is a necked down .30-03, which is the same length as the .280 Remington, both of which are longer than the .30-06 Springfield. The .270, .280, and .30-06 were all derived from the .30-03 parent case.
 
mchughcb said:
Poodle shooter lol!
Click to expand...

If only I was starting out again......


I currently have a .243 Blaser K95 Stuzen. My Roe rifle of “indulgence”.
I currently have a 6.5x55 Mauser M03 with a synthetic stock.
I currently have a 9.3x62 Mauser M03 with a wood stock.

The Mausers change stock according to the weather but the K95 is “the ring I would take to Mordor”.

Starting out again, I would choose a 30.06 because I know better now. I can chuck a light, medium and heavy piece of lead out of it. With MODERN rifles we now have more options on scope mounts, breakdown, barrel lenghts etc that make life easier. Smaller cabinets and less cleaning.

Learn to use one rifle to it’s maximum potential and be happy with it. You will be more productive in putting meat on the table, spend less time on the range, and may even spend time with a woman and have some sex.....

Stan ;)
 
mchughcb said:
thanks for the honest reply Chasey. With all due respect if 86% of your deer are shot in the head and 90% of them are under 50m and the biggest is a fallow I'm not sure how that can be considered a test of the performance of a 243 Win. If it was legal over there I'm pretty sure you'd get the same results with a 55gr SP from a 223 or 22/250 which by any definition of the word is only a varmint cartridge.
Click to expand...


I am pretty sure a .17HMR head shot would kill them at 50m and if they allowed me to use my beloved pin point accurate 22 /250 for deer, id sell the 243 in a heart beet. Have you seen the U tube vids of the chaps in the USA shooting 150kg + Boor with a .22 rimfire?

And yes that's why I posted the above. I cant help with stats as I head shoot

The few heart shot 243 Fallow I have had all went down quickly but as I say, it was only a few

And I reiterate, if I am planning a heart shot ill take the 308 because it will no doubt be off sticks and I prefer the bigger margin of error the 308 offers. If I am in a high seat, it will be the 243 as I know I am more accurate with the 243.
 
Chasey said:
I am pretty sure a .17HMR head shot would kill them at 50m and if they allowed me to use my beloved pin point accurate 22 /250 for deer, id sell the 243 in a heart beet. Have you seen the U tube vids of the chaps in the USA shooting 150kg + Boor with a .22 rimfire?

And yes that's why I posted the above. I cant help with stats as I head shoot

The few heart shot 243 Fallow I have had all went down quickly but as I say, it was only a few

And I reiterate, if I am planning a heart shot ill take the 308 because it will no doubt be off sticks and I prefer the bigger margin of error the 308 offers. If I am in a high seat, it will be the 243 as I know I am more accurate with the 243.
Click to expand...

Chasey, I've got a slight modification to the heart shot if you don't mind. As you know I am an avid fan of the .243 and for deer I use it more then all my other rifles put together. Shooting red hinds with the .243 in open country at 300m is just... normal. Nothing to it.

But I never aim for the heart. Heart shots = running deer. Anything roughly 150-350m I aim for the front of the shoulder, 1" or so in front of the line of the foreleg. The objective is the very front of the lungs and the arterial connection between the brain, lungs and heart that runs on the underside of the neck. This area contains the central nervous plexus that if disrupted or hit directly will result in an instant collapse. Known sometimes as the hilar zone. We avoid heart shots. Heart shot deer can easily get away on you. It is quite common for heart shot deer to run several dozen or even a couple of hundred metres before collapsing mid stride. Maybe not such an issue in flatter country, say in the woods in England, but in very steep country you want them to drop where they are shot.

For the younger fellas stepping up from varmints to deer itw well worth doing some research on this.

Shooting short range with a nice .243 from a high seat, you should be able to put the pill right through the hilar zone for instant collapse and death. I prefer this shot over the neck shot because whilst the neck shot instantly incapacitates the animal it does not always kill it out right. The hilar zone delivers instant collapse and a massive loss of blood pressure.
 
I’ve used 6.5x55 with great results and I’ve also had runners I sold the 6.5 and bought a 7x64 which I must admit I really like it

I don’t care if a calibre is old fashioned or inificient “big is better” the bigger you go in bullet size / bullet weight with an equal amount of velocity your kinetic energy will go up so it hits harder



I also like big V8 engines that drink lots of juice a little twin cam just doesn’t do it for me
 
Last edited:
Markfox said:
I’ve used 6.5x55 with great results and I’ve also had runners I sold the 6.5 and bought a 7x64 which I must admit I really like it

I don’t care if a calibre is old fashioned or inificient “big is better” the bigger you go in bullet size / bullet weight with an equal amount of velocity your kinetic energy will go up so it hits harder



I also like big V8 engines that drink lots of juice a little twin cam just doesn’t do it for me
Click to expand...

Yup agree entirely, frontal area is a huge decider on terminal effect. Same goes for weight. If the bullet is selected properly for the quarry the bigger cals will be spectacular killers.

Also I’m partial to high revving straight 6’s, v12’s and rotaries :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

30-06, unpopular?
3 4 5
Replies
98
Views
13K
Scipio
Scipio
25-06 lead free
2
Replies
25
Views
1K
njc110381
N
Steyr Mannlicher model M left hand
Replies
11
Views
733
Gaz222
G
‘Middle Ground’ Culling Calibre
6 7 8
Replies
141
Views
10K
Shootinshyster
S
308 or 30-06 or 270
2 3 4
Replies
61
Views
5K
Boomerang
B
Bleak Ridge is a family-run business, selling country clothing and workwear
Back
Top