T.R | Title | User | Personal Name | Date | Lines |
---|
445.1 | | SA1794::CHARBONND | I'm the NRA, GOAL, TBA | Wed Aug 23 1989 08:42 | 6 |
| Split the difference, get a .257 Roberts.
I'm tempted to say that the .243 is only a good deer gun if
you shoot very well. But since you'll practice plenty on
varmints, it's probably the better choice. .270 on a bunch
of varmints would be h*ll on the shoulder.
|
445.2 | not bad recoil | TWOBOS::LAFOSSE | | Wed Aug 23 1989 09:54 | 13 |
| If your planning to do alot of varminting and throw in an occasional
deer hunt i'd have to say go with the .243 Not so much because
of the reduced recoil, the .270 is probably one of the sweetist
shooting calibers around in the recoil dept., but because the .243
was designed originally as a varminting round. Only later did people
realize its fringe benifits as a potent little deer cartridge.
both will do the job, but where varminting is the norm, i'd go with
the .243
Fra
boy, did that ever hurt to sell out the .270 8^)
|
445.3 | No Contest - Take The .270! | MAIL::HENSON | | Wed Aug 23 1989 13:52 | 29 |
|
Go with the .270. Of course, I'm a .270 bigot. I've been shooting
one for over 10 years and wouldn't consider anything else (except
maybe black powder, but that's a different matter).
I've taken Texas Whitetails with both the .270 and the .243, and
in my opinion, the .270 is far superior. In fact, I even disagree
with a previous reply which stated that you have to have very
careful bullet placement if you're shooting a .270. I'm not
advocating that you don't always try for exact placement, but
I killed one deer with my .270 by hitting it right in the butt.
It did take a second shot, but the deer went down and stayed down.
Also, if you're worried about bullet placement, you will have to
be even more careful with the .243.
Another advantage with the .270 is that you can take larger game,
say Mule deer or Elk, with it. I don't know if this is a
consideration, but why learn two or more rifles when you can get
by with only learning how to shoot one. By that, I mean that it
takes a certain amount of time and shooting with any new firearm
to become comfortable and proficient with it. I am of the opinion
that the very best gun for anything is the one which you like the
best, as long as it meets certain basic minium requirements (whatever
they happen to be).
For what it's worth, that's my opinion.
Jerry
|
445.4 | how about the .30-06 or .308 | PNO::HORN | | Wed Aug 23 1989 17:06 | 24 |
| .3 I don't agree with the thought of using the .270 for a possible
elk rifle. Even the best of shooters run alot of risk of not getting
the shot placement that one needs with a lighter gun (.270). A
.270 in the chest would just dent a rib and then you'd have one
p*ssed off elk chasing you around a mountain. At a minimum I would
suggest a .30-06 or .308. These will cover varmints to elk.
Remmington makes an accelerator bullet (55 gr powered by a .30-06
or .308 shell), which works real well on varmints. then you have
the selection of other weights that are good for all else up to elk.
If you don't go with .243 or less or the .30-06/.308 than you will
just blow up your coyote or bobcat. I've hit yotes with a .30-06
165gr bt and they look just like the ones on the highway after a
big mac hits them.
My varmint gun is a custom made .22-250 (remmington 700 action,
Brown stock, fluted bull barrel, 6.5x20 leupold scope and every
inch is cammo - even the tip of the barrel).
my suggestion: if you want an all-around, .30-06 or .308.
if you can get 2, then .22-250 and .30-06 or larger.
good luck and good hunting,
scott
|
445.5 | .270, .280, 30/06,...etc.,,, | SALEM::MACGREGOR | I'm the NRA/GONH/NAHC | Thu Aug 24 1989 10:54 | 12 |
| This is my $.02 worth and with inflation the way it is it probably
is not worth that much. I have done some reading and talking to
some people. When one rifle is all that you are going to get, the
general consensus is to get a 30/06. It seems that most people regard
this as the best all around rifle cartridge. A .270 is nice but
it the smallest cartridge that should be used on elk. Next is a
.308 then a .280 then a 30/06 then comes all the magnums. But everybody
has their own personal preference. Jack O'Connell swore by the .270,
Which probably did more to kill the .280 than anything else. If
it were me buying the rifle I would go with a 30/06 (which I have).
Good luck with whatever choice you make.
Bret
|
445.6 | is 30-06 to much for chucks 8^) | TWOBOS::LAFOSSE | | Thu Aug 24 1989 10:56 | 19 |
| re:.4
I disagree about being undergunned with a .270 for elk, although
I havn't hunted elk there are quite a few guys in this conference
who have used a .270 and taken several elk consistently with them.
As far as denting ribs this is ridiculous, one needs only to handload
the correct bullet style to insure good penetration/expansion.
Jack O'Connor has proved time and time again that a .270 is more
than capable of taking Elk, and has even thrown in a moose or 2
for good measure.
For what the author of .0 is requesting, (i.e. predominantly a
varmint rig with an occasional deer thrown in) a .308 or a 30-06
is not on the top 5 list of choices, although capable of filling
the bill there are others more suited for the task.
just my $.02 worth, Fra
|
445.7 | | CSC32::L_THOMAS | | Thu Aug 24 1989 12:02 | 14 |
| re: .5
Jack O'Connor's supporting the .270 did NOT lessen the popularity
of the .280. In fact, Jack once said that the .280 was a better choice
for game than the .270. I believe that the .280 was introduced in 1966
and has been kicked around a LOT by gunwriters but I have never heard
of Jack O'Connor being one of them.
re: .4
I think you spoke too hastily about the .270 just denting the
ribs of an Elk. Thousands of Elk have been taken by the .270. I've
even heard of Kodiak Brown Bear being taken with one shot from a
.270 (I believe they were using a 165 gr Nosler partition bullet.
Lowell
|
445.8 | | DNEAST::MAHANEY_MIKE | | Thu Aug 24 1989 12:33 | 2 |
| I should of stated at the beginning that I have a couple of .308s
and a 30-06 already among other .30 rifles.
|
445.9 | .280 history | TWOBOS::LAFOSSE | | Thu Aug 24 1989 14:10 | 30 |
| re:.7.... my thoughts exactly!
regarding the .280 introduction/death/rebirth several times over....
the 280 made its first of 4 debuts in 1957. It was a problem of
bad timing, the .280 got lost among a flock of new calibers (i.e.
the 243 win, and the 338 win mag to name a few), the .280 was
introduced in the remington model 742 autoloader, and couldn't compare
on equal terms with the bolted .270
It was introduced a second time in the model 760 pump but again
the combo didn't catch on. Word also got around that the .280 was
loaded down so as not to be too stressful in the pump action and
autoloaders.
It was offered a 3rd time in the remington model 721 a bolt action,
but by now hunters were yawning at it. 25 years of almost total
failure would have seen most manufacturers give up, but Remington
hung in there. In 1981 they renamed the .280 to the 7mm Remington
Express hoping this would be the answer. They now offered the "new"
cartridge in their Model Four autoloader. The problem now was people
were confusing it with the 7mm magnum, so in 1983 they again renamed
it, now calling it the 7mm/06 Remington (because it was nothing more than
a 30-06 necked down to a 7mm, with a slightly longer shoulder), but
not for long, handloaders were having headspace problems trying to
use 30-06 brass, so they renamed it again to the .280 remington
which has been used ever since.
In 1987, the .280 outsold the .270
just a little fyi i dug up, Fra
|
445.10 | bad timing | SALEM::MACGREGOR | I'm the NRA/GONH/NAHC | Thu Aug 24 1989 14:51 | 17 |
| I didn't mean to say that Jack O'Connell was killing it but more
that he was promoting the .270 so much that it was all everybody
was talking about and not much was heard of the .280 until recently.
I think the .270 is anice cartridge, definately big enough to take
an elk but one should not use a lesser cartridge. I have a friend
in Montana that uses a .243 on elk, which he does use succesfully
from time to time. It would not be my choice though. I think the
.280 would be a better choice (especially if reloading) because
of the wider range of bullets that are available. But I will always
take a 30/06 over a .270 or .280. Only because I like an even greater
variety of bullets than you can get in the other 2. I think but
I am not totally sure but isn't a .280's velocity about 100 fps
faster than a .270 with the same bullet weight? Just curious. But
like .9 says, when Remington first came out with the .280 it was
bad timing, so much was being written about the .270 that the .280
was lost in the shuffle. Just my $.04.
Bret
|
445.11 | Another vote for the .270 | CSC32::G_ROBERTS | | Thu Aug 24 1989 15:35 | 20 |
| RE:
>.3 I don't agree with the thought of using the .270 for a possible
>elk rifle. Even the best of shooters run alot of risk of not getting
>the shot placement that one needs with a lighter gun (.270). A
>.270 in the chest would just dent a rib and then you'd have one
>p*ssed off elk chasing you around a mountain. At a minimum I would
Lets summon up the spirts of the 10+ elk I've taken with my .270
with 130 grains. Not a one of them will remember chasing anything
once they were hit. They will more likely say "what the heck hit
me?". Dent a rib? More like blowing them out the other side. I've
only had two move from point of impact and they dropped very close
by.
That same load is used from elk down to 10" tall ground hogs.
Though it puts too big a hole in coyotes, I don't take them in any
way. Head shots to deer and antelope have flipped them hoof side
up.
Gordon
|
445.12 | Go with what you know | MAIL::HENSON | | Thu Aug 24 1989 17:58 | 25 |
|
re .11
Gordon, I like the way you think. Especially the part about using
only one load. I'm a firm believer in picking a cartridge that
you can handle well and have confidence in. There's not hardly
anything worse than packing a gun around all day long and wonder
if you can drop your game if the opportunity presents itself.
I like to settle on one rifle, one cartridge and one load for
all of my hunting. Of course, I realize that this is not always
practical. But where it is, go with what you like. If you're
constantly changing rifles, cartridges or loads, you never have
a chance to develop that confidence that only repeated success in
the field with the same gun gives you. It's that psychological
edge that often makes the difference between a hit or a miss.
Oh well, enough of my digressing. Perhaps we should start another
topic on favorite rifles, calibers, etc. I've already put a vote
in for the .270, but will do so again to comply with the spirit
of this topic. By the way, I use 140 grain loads. Anyone else
ever try 'em.
Jerry
|
445.13 | its O'Connor, not O'Connell!!! | WAV12::HICKS | Stamp out hoplophobia!!! | Fri Aug 25 1989 14:21 | 17 |
| Who is Jack O'Connell?????
The Great One, the all time biggest supporter of the .270, the last
Great White Hunter of an age now gone by, the former Shooting Editor
of Outdoor Life, and one of the finest writers of any kind, now
sadly deceased, is:
_JACK_O'CONNOR_
^^
note the difference!
Sorry guys, I think I'm his biggest fan, and hate to see his name
used incorrectly.
>>> Tim <<<
|
445.14 | | CSC32::L_THOMAS | | Tue Aug 29 1989 13:42 | 5 |
| Sorry, *I* am his biggest fan... ;'}
Lowell
|
445.15 | O K, second biggest! | WAV12::HICKS | Stamp out hoplophobia!!! | Tue Aug 29 1989 15:21 | 5 |
| funny thing. After writing that reply, I started reading Jim
Carmichael's The Book of the Rifle. Starting to have some second
thoughts on Jack'e ideas, but Jim doesn't beat Jack on readability.
>>> Tim <<<
|
445.16 | Maybe we could alternate ... | CSC32::L_THOMAS | | Tue Aug 29 1989 16:26 | 11 |
| Tim,
How do you mean "Second thoughts"?? As I understand it, Jack simply
was saying that if you shoot a gun that has low recoil, you tend to
shoot it more often and therefore you become more proficient. He was
also one of the first to see the value of a flat shooting caliber. I
think that everyone agrees with those principles these days. I haven't
read Jim's book yet (maybe I should).
Lowell
|
445.17 | 115 grains would help !?! | AKOV75::ANDERSSON | | Wed Aug 30 1989 13:26 | 8 |
| To get back to the original question, I just noticed in a
catelog that Barnes makes a *heavy-duty* 115gr bullet in .243.
I would think that would help alot - a little slower but more ommmph
wouldn't you think?
(I retired my .243 Sako from deer hunting when a 100gr Core-lok
blew up on a big bucks shoulder and I never got him.)
|
445.18 | .270 wins | DNEAST::MAHANEY_MIKE | | Fri Sep 01 1989 07:47 | 3 |
| Thanks for the input. I pretty sure that my choice is a
.270 Remington Mountain Rifle. Since I handload I think that I
should be able to down load to my varmints needs.
|
445.19 | | SA1794::CHARBONND | It's a hardship post | Fri Sep 01 1989 08:36 | 9 |
| Make sure you check out the availability of light bullets
in .270.
I use 100 grainers in 7mm, not sure if they make this weight
in .270.
Good luck, and let us know how it shoots.
Dana
|
445.20 | 90 HP | DNEAST::MAHANEY_MIKE | | Tue Sep 05 1989 10:03 | 3 |
| I checked into it this weekend and found that Speer makes a
90 grain HP for the .270. Everyone makes a 100 grain bullet.
|
445.21 | say goodbye to many old rifle myths... | WAV12::HICKS | Stamp out hoplophobia!!! | Wed Sep 06 1989 17:01 | 26 |
| re: second thoughts.
I was referring to a few areas where Jack had definite strong opinions,
and Jim pretty much blows them away. There are many examples, I'll
give you two:
Jack believed that the older Mauser-style bolt actions with the
large extractor claw were superior yo the current designs. As with
most everything Jack took the no-nonsense, sceptical, lots of careful
reasoning and field approach to this area. Jim shows that, in
fact the modern design is superior from a number of standpoints.
Jack also believed that any modern rifle designed to be manufactured
economically had to be inferior to older designs whish were much-more
labor intensive. The love of the "pre-'64" model 70 Winchester
is a good case in point. Jim does a TREMENDOUS job reviewing how
rifles are manufactured. His basic point is that modern bolt actions
are not only cheaper to manufacture, but are also safer, simpler
and MORE ACCURATE than older designs.
I'm not going to elaborate or argue (maybe this whole thing should
be discussed as a seperate topic?), but I highly recommend Jim
Cacmichel's Book of the Rifle for anyone who has any kind of interest
in rifles. I got my copy through the Outdoor Life Book Club.
<<< Tim >>>
|
445.22 | | TWOBOS::LAFOSSE | | Wed Sep 06 1989 17:08 | 6 |
| RE:.21
Maybe this should go under a different topic, but I have to disagree
with you regarding the "pre 64" model 70...
Fra
|
445.23 | 243 again | WMOIS::S_NIEMI | I'm the NRA,ILA,CCRKBA | Tue Sep 12 1989 15:33 | 13 |
|
Everybody has a favorite calibre that will do anything. I had
a 1963 issue of Guns & Ammo that touted the .243 best all around
cartridge for use on all types of game up to and including BROWN
BEAR. But than again people have used a 44 magnum pistol to take
all this planets most dangerous game.
SO if were up to me to choose between the .280 and .243 , I'd
buy both..................
One can never have enough toys :^)
sjn
|
445.24 | Death Wish 6 | SA1794::CHARBONND | It's a hardship post | Wed Sep 13 1989 08:39 | 3 |
| If you want to take a Brownie with a .243, a) go for head
shots, b) make sure your backup has a .458, and c) make
sure your life insurance is paid up.
|
445.25 | .270 Article... | TARKIN::AHO | What's Skeetshooting anyway;-) | Wed Sep 13 1989 09:02 | 8 |
|
The American Hunter has an article on the .270 with loading
data seems pretty informative for you folks contemplating
or owning one....
~Mike~
|
445.26 | Nothing is perfect | SALEM::AYOTTE | | Tue Sep 19 1989 15:02 | 15 |
| I saw someone mention a .257 Roberts but how 'bout the 25-06? Thats
my next cabin fever project..... Lafosse talked me into the .270
this year and I had a ball with it. I haven't taken it afield yet
but I worked up a nice load for it that does MOA performance using
the 130 SPBT. I spent an afternoon dusting clay pigeons that were
set up at 300 yards. If you don't mind "dusting" coyotes, or rodents,
I wouldn't think twice about using it. Oh yeah, I've fired as many
as 75 rounds at a sitting in a t-shirt, with no black-and-blues.
The .243 will take deer. No question about it. But, if you were someone
that didn't handload, didn't do a lot of varmit hunting, etc.. I'd
say you'd be unethical to go after deer with anything in the .243
class.
Dave
|
445.27 | ?? Recoil ?? | DNEAST::MAHANEY_MIKE | | Wed Sep 20 1989 05:26 | 5 |
| Well I havn't got a chance to try out my .270 yet but I was
wondering if any of you have got a 700 Mountain Rifle in a .270
or larger cal. Its the lightness that I am wondering about and
how the recoil will be. The Mountain comes through with a pad so it
will help.
|
445.28 | | TWOBOS::LAFOSSE | | Wed Sep 20 1989 09:18 | 4 |
| The recoil of a .270 is a pleasure in whatever setup you should
choose...
Fra
|
445.29 | .280 info | CADAM::OAKMAN | | Wed Sep 20 1989 13:41 | 11 |
|
I just sighted in my Mountain Rifle in .280 last week. Using 150
grain Federals w/noslers it was reasonably tame. I was using a
bench rest and fired about a box (20) shots. Ruined the X-ring...
I would think that 130 grain bullets in .270 or 140 grains in .280
would be even milder. No problems with the lightness of the rifle,
it's a pleasure.
-jro
|