Author Topic: 25-06vs270 (Read 3469 times)

Zeak · « **on:** March 09, 2004, 05:38:19 AM »

IMO the 25-06 will have to go along ways to beat the performance of the 270. I'm bias because I own two 270s. Lets hear the pros and cons to both. Might try a 25-06 if persuaded in that direction. Zeak

wpayne · « **Reply #1 on:** March 09, 2004, 06:16:22 AM »

You didn't say what your intended application for the round would be but if it's whitetail and like sized game I would have to go with the 25-06. The 25-06 and the 270 have the same parent brass and virtually identical case capacity so the only advantage the 270 has performance wise is the ability to shoot larger grain bullets.

If you compare a 120gr 25-06 round to a 130gr 270 round the difference will not amount to much all the way out to 500 yards.

If you compare the 120gr '06 round to the 150gr 270 round you will find that the smaller bullet retains energy better and actually has more energy than the larger 270 round past 200 yards due to it's (25-06's) higher BC.

But those are just paper numbers, the two rounds are pretty close performance wise, the real difference comes when you go to buy ammo and what your shoulder feels right after you pull the trigger. 270 ammo is easier to find and cheaper, here in KY anyways. But, the 25-06 will deal out about 25% less recoil. Another 25-06 advantage is it's ability to shoot smaller grain varmint rounds at super velocity.

I've owned two 270s and just bought a new 25-06 last weekend, I'm already in love with it.... So I may be biased.

Coyote Hunter · « **Reply #2 on:** March 09, 2004, 09:05:15 AM »

Zeak -

What do you mean by "beat the performance"

If you are talking about small varmints, the .25-06 can use 60 and 75g bullets and move them along at much higher velocities than anything you can do with a .270.

If you are talking about elk, the .270 is the clear winner IMHO.

For everything in-between, it probably doesn't make much difference so long as appropriate bullets are used.

Lawdog · « **Reply #3 on:** March 09, 2004, 09:33:32 AM »

Zeak,

For an all around cartridge for everything from varmints to deer size game the .25-06 is the clear winner. Those little 60 - 75 grain .257 bullets fragment on contact with the ground where the smallest bullet you can get in .277 caliber do not fragment. Result is you get ricochets. This will not endear you to property owners that have cattle, sheep nearby. I have tried the little 100 grain bullets in .277(my son's .270 Winchester) and they make a nasty whine when ricocheting across the country side. True when it come to larger game such as Elk, Black Bear the .270 has an advantage, although I have taken 5 Tule Elk, 3 Black Bear with my .25-06 I don't recommend people using the .25-06 for these animals. For all around use the .25-06 has the advantage. Lawdog

Mauser · « **Reply #4 on:** March 09, 2004, 09:53:50 AM »

These types of discussions are fun but very academic. As Jack O'Connor said when (I believe) comparing the 270 to the 30/06: "Neither will do a bull Elk much good." Bullet placement is, or should be, about 90% of the equation.

That said, with the exception of varmints, I fail to see where the 25/06 beats the 270. When comparing trajectory its important to compare apples to apples in the bullets. When comparing a .257 bullet with a BC of 400 and a SD of 250 use the same parameters for the .277 bullet. I'll bet the 270 wins in terms of power every time and trajectory most of the time. The 270 will resist the wind better and creats a little bigger wound channel. All of the this adds up to a better cartridge for medium and large game knock down power. I've never heard that the 25/06 is inherently more accurate than the 270.

The 270 would have to be considered more versatile for medium and big game hunting which given its heritage is hardly surprising.

Coyote Hunter · « **Reply #5 on:** March 09, 2004, 09:59:31 AM »

Lawdog -

5 elk and 3 bear with a .25 is is both impressive and encouraging - I've been considering using my "new-to-me" Ruger .257 Roberts for elk this fall using Barnes 115g TSX (Triple Shock X) bullets and +P loads. Muzzle velocity will be 2936fps with H4831SC, but I'm hoping to reach to 3,000fps with H4350.

Zeak -

The .257 Roberts with +P loads is something you might want to consider instead of a .25-06. My Ruger has a 22" barrel and is much handier than my 24" Ruger in 7mm Mag. (The Ruger .25-06's are also 24".) With +P loads it doesn't give up much to the .25-06, but uses less powder in the process.

Zeak · « **Reply #6 on:** March 09, 2004, 10:50:23 AM »

My purpose was for whitetail and mule deer,with shots from 200-400yds. Zeak

Fla Brian · « **Reply #7 on:** March 09, 2004, 11:41:18 AM »

Quote from: Zeak

IMO the 25-06 will have to go along ways to beat the performance of the 270. I'm bias because I own two 270s. Lets hear the pros and cons to both. Might try a 25-06 if persuaded in that direction. Zeak

OK, how about we compare the two cartridges to see if the .270 is so superior to the .25-06.

The following data is derived from the 2002 Gun Digest:

A comparison between the .270 130 grain bullet and the .25-06 120 grain bullet.

Muzzle velocity:

.270: 3060 fps.

.25-06: 2990 fps.

Velocity at 100 yards:

.270: 2776

.25-06: 2730

200 yards:

.270: 2510

.25-06: 2484

300 yards:

.270: 2259

.25-06: 2252

400 yards:

.270: 2161

.25-06: 2032

Energy figures

From muzzle to 400 yards in 100 yard increments:

.270: 2702, 2225, 1818, 1472, 1180

.25-06: 2382, 1985, 1644, 1351, 1100

Trajectory figures

From 100 yards to 400 yards in 100 yard increments:

.270: +2.5, +1.4, -5.3, -18.2

.25-06: +2.5, +1.2, -5.3, -19.6

In trajectory, the .270 doesn't even start to pull away until they are past 300 yards. In energy, both are sufficient to take elk out to 200 yards (if we assume the oft cited 1500 foot pound energy minimum), and both are below minimum at 300 yards.

For deer, both are pretty much equal, but the edge would have to go to the .25-06 for varmints.

All of which goes to show that, for practical field use on big game, the great .270 has only the slightest of edges over the .25-06, too small to have any noticeable advantage on game animals.

And, the .25-06 does it with less recoil.

As far as I'm concerned, neither is a really good choice for all around elk hunting. For them to be considered really adequate one would have to be very selective with regard to one's shots. Here, the .30-06 should be considered minimum and a magnum a far better choice. I would consider that both should be limited to hunting deer, antelope and similarly sized animals. Given that restriction, I would give the nod to the .25-06.

I have always believed that the .270 is an overrated cartridge, and, the more I look into it, the more convinced I am that I'm right.

Fla Brian · « **Reply #8 on:** March 09, 2004, 11:52:17 AM »

Quote from: Zeak

My purpose was for whitetail and mule deer,with shots from 200-400yds. Zeak

In that case, your .270s would be adequate for your needs. Of course, it couldn't hurt to add another chambering to your battery. Variety is, after all, the spice of life.

Enjoy!!!!!

Coyote Hunter · « **Reply #9 on:** March 09, 2004, 12:23:02 PM »

Zeak -

For 400-yard shots at mulies, I'd prefer the .270 and a 140-150g premium bullet.

Fla Brian -

While I agree that the differences in capability between the .25-06/120 and the .270/130 are not that great, there is a more significant difference when comparing to a .270 with the 140-150g bullets. Remember that trajectory is the least important factor, and energy only tells part of the story. Momentum, expanded diameter, retained weight and other criteria are also important. In the retained weight deapartment, a 140-150g .270 can be expected to retain more than a 120g .25-06 starts with.

As to the .30-06 being the 'minimum' for elk, I will respectfully diasagree, having hunted elk for over 20 years with a 160g Grand Slam in 7mm Rem Mag. The difference between this load and a 140-150g .270 is even less significant than the difference between the .25-06 and the .270, and the 160g 7mm Mag is a very reliable elk killer. In all those 20+ years I have recovered exactly ONE Grand Slam bullet - all the others passed through completely. Granted, I take only broadside or quartering shots, but I would do this with a .375 Knockyoursocksoff Loudenboomer, too.

My personal opinion has been that --for the average shooter/hunter -- a 140-150g bullet in .270 or 7mm-something is an adequate minimum. But, as always, that assumes reasonably competent placement.

Fla Brian · « **Reply #10 on:** March 09, 2004, 01:17:54 PM »

Quote from: Coyote Hunter

Fla Brian -

While I agree that the differences in capability between the .25-06/120 and the .270/130 are not that great, there is a more significant difference whn comparing to a .270 with the 140-150g bullets. Remember that trajectory is the least important factor, and energy only tells part of the story. Momentum, expanded diameter, retained weight and other criteria are also important. In the retained weight deapartment, a 140-150g .270 can be expected to retain more than a 120g .25-06 starts with.

As to the .30-06 being the 'minimum' for elk, I will respectfully diasagree, having hunted elk for over 20 years with a 160g Grand Slam in 7mm Rem Mag. The difference between this load and a 140-150g .270 is even less significant than the difference between the .25-06 and the .270, and the 160g 7mm Mag is a very reliable elk killer. In all thoe 20+ years I have recovered exactly ONE Grand Slam bullet - all the others passed through completely. Granted, I take only broadside or quartering shots, but I would do this with a .375 Knockyoursocksoff Loudenboomer, too.

My personal opinion has been that --for the average shooter/hunter -- a 140-150g bullet in .270 or 7mm-something is an adequate minimum. But, as always, that assumes reasonably competent placement.

CH,

I was trying as best I could to compare apples to apples. I also would prefer, if I were going to use a .270, to go with the heavier bullets. And I understand and agree with what you say to a great extent.

Let me clarify my statement about the .30-06 being minimum. I was not thinking in terms of bullet diameter but of cartridge power. I have always considered the 7mm Magnum to have the power edge over the .30-06. Given my druthers, and I'm a big fan of the .30-06, I'd give the nod to a well constructed 160 or 175 grain 7mm bullet (eg. the Barnes X or Grand Slam) over a 180 in a .30-06 in this case.

While a lighter bullet in the 7mm mag or a .270 might be adequate for elk, given proper bullet placement, I can't escape the feeling that a mite more power is good insurance - just in case.

We don't disagree so much after all, do we?

Coyote Hunter · « **Reply #11 on:** March 09, 2004, 02:28:42 PM »

Quote from: Fla Brian

...
We don't disagree so much after all, do we?

Nope, guess not!

Mauser · « **Reply #12 on:** March 09, 2004, 03:08:50 PM »

Coyote Hunter beat me to it. Actually without trying to quibble (well maybe I am) comparing the .257 120 grain bullet to the .277 130 bullet is not comparing apples to apples. The .257 120 grain bullet has a sectional density of .260, the .277 130 grain is .242. A better comparison is the same .257 bullet to the 140 grain .277 bullet which has a SD of .261. This comparison is from the 2004 gun digest.

Muzzle vel: 25/06 2990 270 2940

100 2730 2700

200 2484 2480

300 2252 2260

400 2032 2060

Muzzle Energy 2382 2685

100 1985 2270

200 1644 1905

300 1351 1590

400 1100 1315

Trajectory

100 +2.5 +2.5

200 +1.2 +1.8

300 -5.3 -4.6

400 -19.6 -17.9

While the difference is still not dramatically different, the 270 has a worthwhile edge and, when considering the bigger wound channel, has to be conceded the more effective medium to big game cartridge. For a hunter who is very recoil sensitive and who is going after deer sized game and down the 25/06 is not a bad choice although the .243 or .257 Roberts would be better. I'd rather have a 270 for deer on up. I'm moderately recoil sensitive but find the 270 comfortable to shoot at the range (my rifle/ scope is about 8.5 lbs).

Having said all this, I've got to admit that I'm thinking my next rifle may be a 25/06. Ruger just came out with a left handed 25/06 in the M77. A guy can never have too many. :wink:

huntsman · « **Reply #13 on:** March 09, 2004, 03:14:19 PM »

Seems this whole comparison is a bit like tasting the difference between eggs cooked in an 8" skillet and those cooked in a 9" skillet. Despite the fact that the 8" skillet heats up a bit faster (.257 bullets are better on the lighter side) and the 9" skillet holding maybe one more egg (.270 bullets come a little heavier), no one is going to turn away either omelet.

Let's have some grub!

Fla Brian · « **Reply #14 on:** March 09, 2004, 06:00:01 PM »

Huntsman,

That's pretty much my point. I've found a tendency of diehard .270 proponents to make some pretty exaggerated claims for the superiority of their favorite round. As has been shown, the .270 is a good cartridge, but it is not overwhelmingly superior to other cartridges based on the .30-06 case.

I remember reading a test done by Sam Fadala comparing the .270 to the .30-06. When both were loaded with 150 grain bullets, the sum total of the .270's trajectory superiority amounted to one inch at 300 yards.

I realize that trajectory is not the sole measure of cartridge performance, but that it is very much flatter shooting than its competitors is one of the main claims for the superiority of the round. The facts show that this is quite an exaggeration.

Mauser,

Given the data you provided, I find it hard to accept your conclusion that "the 270 has a worthwhile edge." The differences between the two are not exactly earth shattering. But, even if I were to accept that conclusion, I have real trouble with your claim that the .243 and .257 Roberts, which are ballistically inferior to the .25-06 "would be better."

Let me make this perfectly clear, I am not saying that the .270 is a bad cartridge; it is not. What I am saying that claims for it are exaggerated and that it is overrated by its devotees.

wpayne · « **Reply #15 on:** March 10, 2004, 03:44:28 AM »

My point exactly.... The difference between the two is solely the bullet weights that they shoot, if you put similarly wieghted bullets (check stats for a 100gr vs a 100gr) these are virtually identical rifles.

For me the seller for the 25-06 was less recoil. The 270 was fine for hunting, I'm not THAT recoil sensitive, but I like to shoot A LOT. I could never shoot more than a box through my 270 without getting a little tender, hasn't been an issue so far with the 25-06. I shot a box of shells during my first range session and my shoulder is no worse off for it.

If I had more large game in my area to hunt other than whitetail I would probably choose the 270 (at least) but thats not the case. I chose the smallest round that I felt would do the job EVERY time. I looked at the 243 and the 257 Roberts but felt that ballistically they were clearly inferior to the 25-06. The 243 had nice numbers but I felt more comfortable with the larger bullet selection (+100gr) that the .25 caliber rounds offered.

In the end the 25-06 fit MY wants/needs the best, seeing as you want to hunt larger game your needs are different. Life would be boring if there weren't so many awesome rounds to choose from.

Mauser · « **Reply #16 on:** March 10, 2004, 04:26:35 AM »

Funny, but don't think I ever said that the 270 was the greatest thing since sliced bread. It may be overrated by some of its devotees, as all cartridges are, but not by me. I certainly wouldn't want to use a 270 on grizzlies or on an all day prairie dog hunt. The 25/06 has its share of unrealistic apologists as well.

As for the .243 and .257 Roberts, my point applied to a person who is "very recoil sensitive." You are, undoubtably, correct that they are ballistically inferior to the 25/06. They kick less than the 25/06 which is exactly the point being made on this thread about the superiority of the 25/06 over the 270.

In the end there are no free lunches when it comes to cartridges. In a given weight rifle if one cartridge kicks harder than another its going to punch harder on the other end. Everybody has a recoil threshold over which they no longer shoot well. I think a sportsman has an ethical obligation to his quarry to use a cartridge that is at the top of his threshold to ensure quick/humane kills.

Fla Brian · « **Reply #17 on:** March 10, 2004, 08:51:04 AM »

My apologies, Mauser. I guess I just read right past the "very recoil sensitive" phrase without it registering. I guess all the recoil I've had hit me has loosened some brain cells.

Given that caveat, I would agree with you.

As for the .270 being "the greatest thing since sliced bread," I don't believe that my characterization was directed at you. It's just that I've heard all sorts of exaggerated claims for the cartridge by the "heirs" of Jack O'Connor. While, in fact the .270 is just another cartridge that will perform well on deer size game. The way some of its devotees speak about it you'd think it was a killer ray gun.

The fact is, there are worse cartridges - and there are far better cartridges. There are some that are just about as flat shooting and powerful, and there are some that are even more so. And, there are cartridges that are far more versatile. If I had to pick a cartridge that was very close to the dimensions of the .270 that I consider superior to, and is more versatile than, the .270, it would be the .280 Remington. For just a smidgeon more bullet diameter, the vast array of .284" diameter bullets opens up to the shooter.

And, while it does kick harder, the .30-06 is a far better all-around cartridge than the .270. It may not shoot as "flat" as the .270 with the heavier bullets that are available for it, but there is no .270 bullet that packs the authority of a 180 grain .30 caliber projectile.

Incidentally, the .30-06 does what it does at a considerably lower pressure level than the .270. This is in respect for some of the older rifles in this chambering. But, there's no reason that a .30-06 in the same make and model as a .270 cannot be loaded to the same pressure level as the .270. With loads like that, any edge the .270 might claim gets erased in this ol' feller's considered opinion.

Am I saying the '06 is the greatest thing since sliced bread? Heck no! As great a cartridge as it is, I recognize that their are others that will outperform it. At similar recoil levels, for instance, the 7mm Remington Magnum immediately comes to mind as a flatter shooting, more powerful round. And there are others.

I totally agree with your last paragraph. Nuff said!

By the way, I love your handle. I do think that Mausers are "the greatest thing (before or) since sliced bread."

Regards.

Mauser · « **Reply #18 on:** March 10, 2004, 09:34:26 AM »

Fla Brian: Actually as long as you brought it up, the 30/06 is my favorite cartridge for the reasons you mentioned.

Yes sir, the '06 and the Mauser-better than sliced bread!

Fla Brian · « **Reply #19 on:** March 10, 2004, 09:54:49 AM »

Mauser,

I've got three - my first centerfire, a Remington 700 BDL that's now in a bilious green synthetic stock that I call Ol' Ugly - but shoots right purty; a custom on a 1917 Enfield (Dough Boy) and a custom Mauser with an original Lyman Alaskan aboard (Alter Freund).

My wife has her fave, a .30-06 Remington 78 that we bought from a friend who owned a sport shop in Sullivan County in New York.

I just read a Layne Simpson article on the web about the 12 greatest sporting cartridges. Would you like to guess which came in at #1?

Thomas Krupinski · « **Reply #20 on:** March 10, 2004, 10:05:14 AM »

Now Brian I am a big fan of the '06 cartridge family and have quite a few of the different chamberings.

But I have to take issue with your references to sliced bread being a good thing. Now I much prefer to slice my own homemade recepies and haven't bought any since I got that breadmaker as a gift. Kind of like buying factory ammo.

As in reloading and bullet casting I like the control and possibilities it gives depending upon the use for the bread. Now others may disagree but that discussion of the 25 and 27 are kind of like the preferences for sliced or unsliced bread.

Lawdog · « **Reply #21 on:** March 10, 2004, 11:29:55 AM »

Coyote Hunter,

The Tule Elk is the smallest of the Elk breed. AND like I stated I DO NOT recommend the .25-06 for any of the larger Elk. For the larger Elk breeds I consider the .270 with 150 grain premium bullets as the minimum to use. Sure they have been taken with smaller calibers but the real question is, "Should you use a cartridge this small"? I have seen Rocky Mountain Elk soak up bullets from cartridges like a .300 magnum and keep going. They can be one of the hardest critters to take down. And no way would I ever think about using a .257 Roberts for Elk no matter what the bullet or the load. As far as the Black Bears I killed with the .25-06 I did so because it is what I had in my hands at the time I run into the bears. Two of the times I took Black Bears with the .25-06 I had someone else around with a larger caliber(one was a .338 Win. Mag. and the other time it was a .30-06). The third time was unavoidable or I would not have taken the shot. There is an old saying I adhere to "Use Enough Gun". Lawdog

Coyote Hunter · « **Reply #22 on:** March 10, 2004, 12:21:10 PM »

Lawdog -

I guess my experience with elk is a bit different - I've never seen one "soak up bullets". All the elk I've taken, with the exception of my first over 20 years ago, were down with one shot.

That said, I have talked to several hunters that shot and wounded elk with a .243, only to have them get away. Since that is a situation I want no part of, I'll probably stick with my 7mm Rem Mag and .45-70 for elk.

Even though I am confident that the .257 Roberts +P load (115g Barnes TSX @ 2936fps) would be plenty effective with proper bullet placement, in the end I'll probably save it for mule deer and antelope.

Fla Brian · « **Reply #23 on:** March 10, 2004, 12:31:32 PM »

Quote from: Thomas Krupinski

Now Brian I am a big fan of the '06 cartridge family and have quite a few of the different chamberings.

But I have to take issue with your references to sliced bread being a good thing. Now I much prefer to slice my own homemade recepies and haven't bought any since I got that breadmaker as a gift. Kind of like buying factory ammo.

As in reloading and bullet casting I like the control and possibilities it gives depending upon the use for the bread. Now others may disagree but that discussion of the 25 and 27 are kind of like the preferences for sliced or unsliced bread.

Now then, Tom, I truly love home baked bread, but, sliced or unsliced, I don't get to eat bread as I'm on the Atkins plan. And, I think it was very inconsiderate of you

to mention them theah delectable, hot, fresh from the oven, or bread maker, loaves

while I am in such a deprived state. Just thinking of the staff of life is pure torture for me.

You're breaking my heart!

Why do you have to do this to me?

RaySendero · « **Reply #24 on:** March 10, 2004, 03:31:04 PM »

270 Winchester

Oh yeah 270.

Did I mention 270?

I mean 270!

Thomas Krupinski · « **Reply #25 on:** March 10, 2004, 04:19:08 PM »

Brian,

I most humbly apologize. Had no idea of your plight. Glad I did not elaborate about a thick slice lightly toasted dusted with canola margarine and then topped with strawberry spread.

My lips are now sealed and will not elaborate on the glories of it's companion, my crockpot elk stew. The dynamic recipe that although works excellent with the bread, is delicious alone, even if you leave out the potatoes. But then again, elk no matter how you prepare it is certainly Atkins friendly.

Sorry for hitting a nerve.

Fla Brian · « **Reply #26 on:** March 10, 2004, 05:06:34 PM »

:lol: :lol: :lol: :-D :-D :-D

lilabner · « **Reply #27 on:** March 13, 2004, 06:58:25 AM »

I've been hunting and shooting for over 50 years and am sold on cartridges based on the 30-06 case. I've used the '06 a lot for large, non dangerous game and it is very effective. I had a 7mm Rem. Mag. and used it but couldn't see that it was killing any better than the '06. I've also used the .270 and it is an excellent round though not as reliable as the '06 for the big stuff. The most accurate rifle I've owned is a Ruger 25-06. On deer sized game, it makes nothing but instant, one shot kills. It hits a lot harder downrange than it does on your shoulder. It is a great antelope round and excellent for coyotes.
For deer sized game and lighter, it is hard to beat the 25-06. For elk, moose etc. I prefer the 30-06 as I believe the .270 bullet is on the light side. For me, the .270 is neither here nor there.
I handload and that has something to do with it. There are so many military rifles out there converted to 30-06 that factory ammo is underpowered so it won't blow them up. A 30-06 can be handloaded for my rifle to shoot 150 gr. at 3000+, 165 gr. at 2900 and 180 gr at 2800.
Just my opinion.

Fla Brian · « **Reply #28 on:** March 13, 2004, 07:06:32 PM »

lilabner,

Precisely!

What those who tout the .270 over the .30-06 don't take into consideration the pressure limitations imposed on ammunition factories when they load .30-06s. They have a much higher pressure limit to work with when they load for .270s. Load both to equal pressures and the .270's edge flat disappears.

It is OK, maybe even excellent, for what it does well, but the old 30 does all that and a heck of a lot more.

For the recoil sensitive, the .25-06 will do just as well as the .270 for the most part.

The .270 is, in my opinion, neither here nor there, as you say.

Lawdog · « **Reply #29 on:** March 14, 2004, 09:37:45 AM »

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