25-06vs270

[alsatian]

It would seem to me that either of these cartridges are excellent for their niche, which seems to largely overlap.  I happen to have a .25-06 which I love dearly, but it would seem the .270 could very reasonably fill its place.  We are blessed with having a bunch of fine cartridges that are suitable for deer and antelope (and maybe sheep and mountain goats).  .257 Weatherby Magnum, .280 remington, and .264 magnum might do good service in this area too.

[Fla Brian]

Fla Brian,

You know ole Jack O'Connor would turn over in his grave at your lack of respect for his favorite cartridge.  Lawdog
   :-D

You're probably right. The late Mr. O'Connor was a really pedantic fellow, especially later in life. He seemed to have the attitude that if he hadn't experienced it it couldn't be true. I think he started believing his own hype and came to think that he could not be wrong.

But, you know, with all the hoopla about him and his .270s, it is not so well known that he thought very highly of the 06 and probably hunted with it about as much as the .27 caliber. And, if I remember correctly, Mrs. O'Connor was a big fan of the 7X57 Mauser cartridge.

By the way, I don't disrespect the cartridge so much as I view it realistically and in perspective. I even have a Mauser sporter in that chambering. I don't see it as having mystical powers to slay game animals the way some fans of the round seem to think. I just don't think of it as the end all and be all is all. There are times when I would view it as a good choice for a particular hunting situation; it's just that there are a lot of other cartridges that I feel would be better choices yet.

[Lawdog]

Fla Brian,

You are so right.  I don't own a .270 at the moment but I have had a couple in the past.  I never saw the reason for having one seeing I had the .25-06 and a .30-06.  The .270 is a good cartridge, my son uses one but I have never found a need for one.  Lawdog
 

[RaySendero]

Lawdog,

You are right - Someone that has a 25/06 and a 30/06 doesn't need a .270 Winchester.  But some one that has neither and wants a rifle that can do both needs a .270. :mrgreen:

[Fla Brian]

Lawdog,

You are right - Someone that has a 25/06 and a 30/06 doesn't need a .270 Winchester.  But some one that has neither and wants a rifle that can do both needs a .270. :mrgreen:

Ray,

I know you're a .270 fan, but, with all due respect, I don't believe that the .270 can do both all that well. In fact, if one wanted to accomplish all that the .25-06 and th .30-06 can do together would be far better off with just a .30-06 alone than with a .270.

OK, if all one hunted were deer and antelope, the .270 would get the job done, but so would the 06 - and it can do a whole lot more. I, personally, wouldn't consider the .270 for elk for the same reason I wouldn't go deer hunting with a .223. It's been done, but I like a bit of insurance in case an ideal shot doesn't present itself.

The 06 can be loaded with bulllets all the way down to 100 grains and up to 220 grains, and I believe that one can even find 250 grainers. The .270 maxes out at about 160. Ifg one were to load the 06 to equal pressure levels with the .270 and with bullet weights in the .270's range I don't believe the .270 would enjoy hardly any trajectory advantage at all. From the test I wrote of by Sam Fadala, two bullets of identical weight started out at the same muzzle velocity showed only an inch advantage to the .270 at 300 yards. I, and most others, I am sure, could not tell the difference. If one were to take those two rifles, assuming equal accuracy, and shoot them both three times at 300 yards, except for the discrepancy in hole size, one would probably assume it was a group from one rifle.

To be perfectly honest, although I'm a pretty fair shot, I'm not sure that I wouldn't pass on a shot at 300 yards, trying to get closer for a more sure opportunity.

If the .270 were superior to the .30-06, why has the .30 remained at the top of the list (sorry Mr. O'Connor) for so long. It's certainly not without reason.

Happy hunting!

[rickt300]

Actually the 25-06 burns a bit much powder to be used as an all day prairie dog cartridge as does the 270.  As coyote guns both are excellent.  For open country deer and antelope they are equals.  For thick woods the 270 is better due to heavier bullets available and this includes deer, feral hogs and elk.  I have both a 270 and an 06.  The 270 does the open country work on game up to elk and the 06 gets the general purpose elk rifle role.  The 270 with good bullets gives deep penetration and you can take any reasonable shot on an elk with one.

[RaySendero]

Ray,

.......

To be perfectly honest, although I'm a pretty fair shot, I'm not sure that I wouldn't pass on a shot at 300 yards, trying to get closer for a more sure opportunity.

If the .270 were superior to the .30-06, why has the .30 remained at the top of the list (sorry Mr. O'Connor) for so long. It's certainly not without reason.

Brian,

Will try to touch on your last two points.


1) Would I pass on a 300 yards shot with a 270?  Maybe, maybe not! But having a rifle and cartridge that will accurately kill that far makes it a possibility!



2) Never said the 270 was superior to the .30-06 - In fact if all I could have is one rifle it would be the 30/06!

I chose the 270 because it was very common to find good selection of ammo most any where, largest bore that could be loaded to do Ghogs, varmits and yotes i.e 95, 100, 115 grain bullets, great 100 yard deer rifle loaded down to 2600 fps with 130 grain bullets, great long range deer/antelope loaded with 150 grain boattails, will do close brush work with 160 grain Nosler Partition

AND it covers so much ground at or below about .30 caliber that it allows me to skip a .30 rifle and work on heavier ones in the 8mm, .338, .35, .375 range (which I really favor).

As to Lawdog's combination of a 25/06 and a 30/06 rifle - I would prefer the combination of a 270 and a 35 Whelen.

And guess what maybe the next hot target caliber?  That right the 270!! Especially if the 6.8 Rem SPC is adopted by the military.  Think of all those bullet manufacturers that will add 270 "MATCH" bullets to their lineups.

[Fla Brian]

Ray,

(1) You will note that I indicated that the trajectory difference between the two cartridges with 150 grain bullets started out at the same muzzle velocity was but one inch in favor of the .270. I figure that the difference in accuracy between individual rifles or shooters makes such a small difference purely moot.

"But having a rifle and cartridge that will accurately kill that far [300 yards] makes it a possibilty!"

When I spoke of passing on a 300 yard shot, it had nothing to do with the ability of the 06 to make the shot. Could I make a 300 yard shot with my pet .30-06? I guess I could with a steady position, rested against something or other. I've made some pretty good shots at 200 meters using a .45-70 with a tang sight and my poor ol' eyes - just about an inch bigger than your scoped .270 group at 400 yards. It was a matter of my personal preference for getting closer to the game before shooting.

(2) I'm glad to see you recognize the unequalled versatility of the venerable .30-06.  

While .270 loads are very commonly found, as you said, the same is true of the 06, and even more so.

If you prefer a brace of rifles consisting of a .270 and a .35 Whelen, more power to ya. What's really nice about our situation in these here United States is that we have so many options to choose from. Given the rifles that are currently available to me, if I had to choose just two to hunt with, I'd most likely go with my very first centerfire rifle, a very accurate Remington 700 in .30-06, and my .45-70 Mauser. Now, there's a spread for ya. I figure the 06 would handle most any of the non-dangerous game around, and the big .45 with stout handloads would take care of anything that might bite or claw.

As for the .270 becoming the new "hot" target caliber, only time will tell. And, if I'm not mistaken, there are already .27 caliber match bullets being made.

I reiterate, there's nothing particularly wrong with the .270 except for the hype surrounding it that's been passed down from generation to generation by its devotees. Present company excluded of course.  

Happy hunting!

[Mauser]

Wow, I go on vacation with the thought that we had settled this debate only to come back and read all these additional posts.  Good thing messrs O'Connor, Keith, Page, and Weatherby settled the 270 vs 30/06 and velocity vs bullet weight debate decades ago. :lol:

Actually all this thread proves is how viable the ole '06 family of cartridges still is.  I believe that O'Connor himself said that the '06 was the best all around cartridge and like Ray here, if I were limited to one rifle that would be the chambering.  I like the idea of a 270 and 35 Whelen brace of rifles, if, for no other reason, it gives me an excuse to purchase a rifle to fill it out.

[Coyote Hunter]

There is a lot of truth in the saying that a man with a .30-06 doesn't need anything else.

Thank God I don't own one!  (Yet!)

[wpayne]

There is a lot of truth in the saying that a man with a .30-06 doesn't need anything else.

Thank God I don't own one!  (Yet!)

That must be why I've never bought one....  

I don't want anything that could give me less excuses to buy more guns.   :lol:

[Fla Brian]

Wow, I go on vacation with the thought that we had settled this debate only to come back and read all these additional posts.  Good thing messrs O'Connor, Keith, Page, and Weatherby settled the 270 vs 30/06 and velocity vs bullet weight debate decades ago. :lol:

Back in the neolithic days when Shooters.com was still up and running, I got a real hoo-rah of a thread going by pointing out the fact that the .270 was on its way to be retired to the Island of Forgotten Cartridges until the late Mr. O'Connor picked it up and commenced inta doin' a hype job on it. The pro .270 crowd had a case of the vapors over that. We had us a fine good time pokin' fun at each other's choices, and I began to refer to the .27 caliber guys as mousegunners.



I don't think Graybeard will allow me to print what they called me.  :oops:  :oops:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:

In my not terribly humble opinion, the .270, although a decent enough round, has never been as great as its press agents would have us believe.

[Mauser]

I've owned a few '06s over the years and know the cartridge pretty well.  I think it can be argued that, for most North American sportsmen, the '06 was the last truly great (American) innovation in cartridge design.  The law of diminishing returns applies to all subsequent cartridges.  You either trade power for recoil/muzzle blast, trajectory for power, recoil for power, accuracy for trajectory/power, or something along these lines and in many cases there isn't much of a trade either way.  The same cannot be said for the 30/06 and the black powder cartridges that preceeded it.  

The only reason I don't own an '06 today is the same reason I don't own a .243 (a very good cartridge within its limitations) anymore:  I traded them to try out different rifles in different cartridges.  One of the "different" cartridges for which I traded is the 270 Win.  

As I've gotten a little older I have become less recoil tolerant.  It was fun in my teens and 20s to shoot big magnums,etc-but not anymore.  For deer sized animals at somewhat extended range I've come to favor the 270 a little over the 30/06 and a lot over the magnums.  I'll probably own a .243 again.  I'm under no illusions, however, about what I want to carry for Elk on up.  It won't be my 270.

While 270 fans may be a little over zealous in its defense, check out Weatherby fans about their rifles and cartridges.  To them, you're putting your life in danger or going hungry in the woods without a Weatherby magnum in hand.  The new short magnums are now said to make all previous cartridges as obsolete as the horse and buggy.  The 7mm Rem mag, 280 Rem, .243, 25/06, 308 Win, are also cartridges for which I've heard ridiculous claims.  My favorite, for now, is how the 308 is a lot better than the '06.  The 308 is so much more accurate, kicks a lot less, has the same power, works in a 2 foot shorter actions and 5 pound lighter guns, and so on.  LOL.

For me (as if you couldn't tell) having this type of conversation is a big part of the fun of owning and shooting centerfire rifles. :grin:  I might be wrong, but I think the ammo/gun makers might enjoy this talk as well.

[Fla Brian]

For me (as if you couldn't tell) having this type of conversation is a big part of the fun of owning and shooting centerfire rifles. :grin:  I might be wrong, but I think the ammo/gun makers might enjoy this talk as well.

  I know I get a kick out of it (no pun intended). I enjoy poking fun at hype slingers, whether they're Weather Bees, Fat 'n' Stubbies or Mousegunners. LOL!

With regard to the new short magnums versus the older belted versions, I think Jon R. Sundra had it right in the 2004 Gun Digest:

"Even when you add up all the little advantages ... some of which are admittedly more academic than real, it still doesn't make a lot of sense to trade in or sell a perfectly good belted magnum to replace it with a stubby equivalent."

He does go on, however, to say that, if one didn't already have a magnum in a particular caliber, that the short, beltless magnums are the way to go. Whether or not one agrees with him, it's nice to have the choice.

By the way, I do own a .270 along with my several .30-06 rifles and the one my wife favors. And, I own two belted magnums, a .300 Winchester and a 7mm Remington. I had to sell a nice model 70 in .338WM a number of years ago to raise funds. I miss that thing. I don't see myself going out to get one of the newer short ones, despite the fact that I believe they have a lot to offer. The difference just isn't great enough for me to bother.

[Mauser]

Sundra is probably right assuming the short magnums make it.  I've heard some speculation that the only one with any guarantee is the 300 WSM.  For non-reloaders the shortys don't even offer the advantage of not having to mess around with changing the headspace of the cases.  I wouldn't want the rebated rims for hunting bears.

I too have a couple of magnums at this time.  One is a 300 Wea Mag and the other is a 300 Win Mag.  I just don't get a "kick" out of shooting them anymore unless I load them down to 30/06 levels.  Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.  My main problem is lack of time to go shooting enough to get used to magnum recoil/blast again.  My 270, a 9 lb rifle with everything on it, is a sweet, accurate shooter with my pet 130 grain loads.  My 110 lb wife has no problem with it.

[Steelhead]

Get a 6.5/06 and forget them both, I did.

[magnum308]

Fla Brian,

The late great Jack O'Connor was a 270 fan. He was also a fan for light mountain rifles. He was also first and foremost a sheep hunter. Jack did more than anyone else to sing the praises of, and popularize, the 270.

I am also a 270 fan and have at this very moment a Winchester pre 64 M70 featherweight 270 coming in (to Australia) from the US. Jack would be pleased. One day I'll get across the pond to have my crack at a grand slam with Jack O'Connor's favorite rifle.

However, when asked what would he chose if he could have only one rifle, Jack O'Connor without hesitation replied a 30-06. Jack could have more than one rifle and so when a sheep hunt was on the agenda he reached for his 270. The debate between 270 and 30-06 (and 25-06 for that matter) is academic and pointless. They are all good cartridges and deserved their place in the great cartridges of all time. The fact that they are still so popular after all this time speaks volumes.

Magnum308.

[Mac11700]

One of the great things about the 270 as compared to most of the other cartridges..is that the majority of rifles chambered for it will shoot all of the various bullet weights to almost the same point of impact...this is from 90 grainers to the 160 grainers....my father showed me this many years ago,and that was one of the great things about the cartridge...you could hunt varmints to elk and moose with it and not have to worry...he also said there was another cartridge that acted this way...but it was a African dangerous game gun...the 375 H&H...a few years back I got to see this happen and I'm still a firm believer in both cartridges...if I had to choose for DG the 375 H&H would be my choice..now I know a few folks that have the25-06 and the 30-06 and theirs shoots pretty good too...but no-where near as close with different bullet weights...as far a match bullets go...Sierra is the only one that I know of that is producing them yet....which of the 2 is better...25-06 vs 270...whichever you have in you hands at the moment.. both have taken their fair share of critters.....if I had to choose between them for a all purpose gun...the 270 would be MY choice...if I had to choose a variation of the caliber I'd have to go with the Weatherby version ...would I worry about it not taking elk cleanly...nope not in the least....people have always said the 270 in any version wasn't the best choice for some reason or another...and that was hunting anything with it...to heavy for varmints...too light for elk....perhaps for them it wasn't the best choice.....but for countless thousands of other folk ...the 270 is and will always be #1.... everyone has their own favorite for whatever reason and there will always be someone with a different opinion.....:wink:



Mac

[jamie]

I agree with Mac, any of the 2 would be good.  Around my parts the 270 is more common and therefore you have alot better selection of bullets.  So I would have to choose the 25-06, just because.

[Thunder38849]

Seems this topic will never be settled...LOL

   One thing is for sure, caliber, no matter how large it is will not make up for poor marksmanship.   The .270 or 25-06 will definitely take down anything on this continent IF the bullet is placed where it should be.

  But, that won't settle the debate of which is better simply because people in America have the right to make choices, which is an outstanding thing within itself.    I suppose we all have our favs....  I am partial to the .270, but can relate to how some of you feel about calibers.    There is one caliber out there I simply loathe......  A .243!   I hate that caliber with a passion.   :evil:

[Zachary]

I have both, the .25-06 and the .270.  Yes, all else being equal, both are effective.  However, I would rather use my .270 over the .25-06 any day.

Zachary

[Triple4]

First off let me say "it's not the rifle it's the man" Jack O could have did his hunting with any cartridge and been sucessful.  

A late friend of our family did all his hunting with one rifle he hunted alaska to Mexico and beyond, that one rifle was a 257 Roberts and all he shot was nosler partition bullets, and he has taken many elk, I know when I was young I had to help pack them out.

I have never owned a 270, I never felt the need as I always had a 25-06, 30-06 and others, But I do load for a 270 that my kin folk use and the more we play with this round the better it looks...........the 270 is about as close to the all american cartridge as is the 30-06.

The biggest prblem we get into is the word "better" forget better
we must always look at the differences of cartridges and there applications.

[Mauser]

I really love this debate.  The 270 might just be the greatest of all non military designed cartridges and is truly an "all American" cartridge.  While Jack O'Connor might have used something else just as well, he didn't, and gave the rest of us great reading material in the process.  It is a disservice to both the 270 and to JOC to attribute the 270s popularity alone to the writings of JOC.  The 270 is far better than that and JOC thought highly of other cartridges such as the 7mm Mauser, 30/06, and the 300 Weatherby to name a few.  

The fact is that just about any of the 25 to .338  caliber smokeless rifle cartridges will do just fine on deer, etc if the rifleman is competent.  The 270 is a first among equals however, and is THE classic western big game cartridge.  It is a rare cartridge, indeed, of which it can be said that no one will ever question its presence in a deer camp

[Mac11700]

I remember some of the wild debates over which was was better/best/greatest...ect...ect...back in the late 70's/early 80's over the 280(7mm Express) and the 270...at that point in time there were no match bullets available...no 140 or 160 grainers either to be found....I do remember when Hornady came out with their 140 grainer...I  was lucky enough to have a pre-production box and loading data sent to me from a ballistician friend that worked there...and it made my Winchester mod 70 Westerner shine....and I can honestly say to this day I have never owned a rifle that would shoot as small of groups as that one did...even then with a new bullet out the nay-sayers still down graded the 270 to still being to light for elk and moose....it seems we are coming full circle again...especially with the short magnums coming out and all the comparison between them and the original ones...the amount of articles in all of the recent gun mags bear this out.....the only thing I haven't heard on this thread when comparing the two...is the old song and dance on how easy it is to burn out the barrels on the 25-06...this is one I used to hear all the time several years ago...I really don't know if it is true or not...I have never owned a 25-06 before...so this one may be a " Ole Wives Tale" Has anyone is heard this and know if there is any truth to it??
 
 
Mac

[Lawdog]

Mac11700,

the only thing I haven't heard on this thread when comparing the two...is the old song and dance on how easy it is to burn out the barrels on the 25-06...this is one I used to hear all the time several years ago...I really don't know if it is true or not

I have been hunting/shooting the .25-06 since before Remington adopted it and gave it their name.  I have 3 .25-06’s at the moment and the oldest one has well over 2,500 rounds thru it and it still shoots groups near or under 1/2 inch.  This rifle is an old model Ruger M77V(1976 Centennial Model - tang safety era) when Rugers were supposed to have barrels that were no good.  My Remington M700 BDL Varmint model is even older(made in 1975) but only has about 1,600 rounds thru it and it is almost as accurate as my old Ruger.  Any cartridge can be a barrel burner if you push the velocity on the cartridge.  Over load them and you will actually “BURN” the throat/rifling right out.  I know a fellow hunter/shooter that ruined the barrel on a Rem. .222 by over loading it.  The .25-06 is no more of a barrel burner than the .270.  I just believe that if you want a duel purpose varmint/deer cartridge the .25-06 outshines the .270 Win. as varmint bullets are much better in .257 caliber over .277.  Lawdog
 

[Mac11700]

Lawdog:

Like I said...it was something that I had heard a while back...I didn't put a-lot of stock in it then...but ...if you never owned one and had to rely on second hand info...it could be disturbing to say the least.I have to agree with you as to the 25 calibers having better varmint bullets...I guess that would come in handy...but I just don't know that much about it...only 1 of the 25 calibers have I ever shot...and seen how many head of game it's taken...that would be the 257 Weatherby... a very good friend of mine has taken 5 different elk...a bunch of whitetail and mulies...and a bunch of antelope and a couple of cairabo with it...and swears by it like no other...but one thing he doesn't hunt is varmints with it....so I know those 25 caliber bullets(at least the partitions) work great...but I don't think I would take either one on an all day prarie dog shoot...heck...I wouldn't take a 270 either come to think about it :wink: now if I could get Handirifles 223 or 17HMR .that would be a-bit more pleasent to shoot all day...and a lot cheaper too...


Mac