For those who have both, which do you prefer most: your .270 or your 30-06?

Dogger · June 7, 2000, 09:06 AM

I REALLY can't make up my mind between these two cartridges. I have opportunties to hunt with buddies in Virginia, Vermont, and Colorado. I will be a one gun only hunter, so I have to make a good choice.

Thanks!

DorGunR · June 7, 2000, 09:11 AM

Damn Dogger, let's see.......270...noooo...maybe 30.06....noooo .270...but then again....

Now you see what you've done, I'll spend the rest of today with this on my mind.

------------------
"Lead, follow or get the HELL out of the way."

Gunslinger · June 7, 2000, 09:48 AM

Ought six.

------------------
Gunslinger TFL Imperial Potentate

TFL End of Summer Meet, August 12th & 13th, 2000

**Mike Irwin** · June 7, 2000, 11:51 AM

My .300 Savage.

bergie · June 7, 2000, 12:26 PM

I have a .270 but I have shot my dad's .30-06 an awful lot (I bought it for him as a birthday present, the first new rifle he ever owned). If I'm going to be hiking all day, I prefer my .270. It has a synthetic stock, the 06 has a laminated one, and is a little heavier. Otherwise, I would be happy with either.
bergie

Chris Orndorff · June 7, 2000, 12:47 PM

How 'bout a .280?

Mikey · June 7, 2000, 01:06 PM

Of the two mentioned, I prefer the .270 for all but the largest "lower 48" game. I used one for 10 years and it was a deer killing machine! It doesn't seem to be big enough for Elk but Jack O'Connor would have disagreed

I've tried hard to like the 30-06 but to no avail. I just hate that cartridge - it's a good one but I personally hate it.

If I were looking for a "one-rifle-does-it-all" gun it would be chambered in 7mm Magnum. I've owned several and still own one. Best all around cartridge there is IMHO...

Mikey

MAD DOG · June 7, 2000, 01:52 PM

THIRTY OUGHT SIX!

M16 · June 7, 2000, 03:48 PM

Why the 30-06 of course. By the way what is this thing called a .270? Is this something new coming out? Why would anybody want a 270?

LoneStar · June 7, 2000, 04:51 PM

I love my .270

I feel it is perfectly balanced for deer/deer sized game.

However, if your trips to Colorado may include Elk, I'd take the 30-06 "IF" I could only have ONE gun.

but, If not limited to one, I'd get a .270 and a 7mmMag, or .338

Besides, no one should ever let an excuse to buy another gun slip by

.

-L

anodes · June 7, 2000, 05:05 PM

A few years ago I saw the SAAMI data for `96(?). Here's the run down on factory produced ammo sales (not reloaded or shot):

1- .30-06
2- .30-30
3- .270
4- .243
5- .308

Hmmmm. I would consider the .30-06 the more versatile cartridge, unless you can shoot better with the .270.
anodes.

BTW, I own a 30-06 only so it's just an opinion.
anodes.

[This message has been edited by anodes (edited June 07, 2000).]

**Art Eatman** · June 7, 2000, 05:58 PM

There ain't no flies on a .270. I had one for a few years as the only gun I could afford. Good used, Sears, $70. I killed a few deer with it...

And then I went back to my first love...I just like the old '06. It has always been my choice as "THE" rifle, if I can have just one.

If you ever get into handloading, the '06 is definitely one of the most versatile cartridges there is.

Have fun, Art

Erik · June 8, 2000, 02:18 PM

I do not have both.

Yet.

They are both classic cartridges. You cannot go wrong with either one.

Paul B. · June 8, 2000, 03:31 PM

Hmmm. 30-06 or .270? Both are more than adequate for the jobs specified. Let's see. When once questioned by Jim Carmichel, of OUTDOOR LIFE Magazine, as to which cartridge he would use, I restricted to only one for hunting in the U.S., Jack O'Connor said without hestitation, "The 30-06." Not the .270, which was his favorite round, but the 30-06.
Col. Towensend Whelan said many years ago,"The 30-06 is never a mistake."
A good shot with a 30-06 is capable of taking on all of the game animals on the North and South American continents and most game anywhere in the world. I have both, and play around with all kinds of different cartridges, but when on any hunt, I always take a 30-06 along as my back up rifle.
Either way you go will be fine. Both are good rounds. I just prefer the 30-06, if restricted to a one gun only forever situation.
Paul B.

swampy · June 9, 2000, 01:58 PM

I own both, and like both. If you are limited to one gun, and particularily if you plan to reload, go with the 30-06. The reloading range and reload data for the 30-06 is greater. You can load it light for varmints or heavy for elk. From a reloading perspective, the 30-06 is more versatile.

Turk · June 10, 2000, 04:31 PM

There is the 06 and then comes the others.

Turk

Kevinw · June 10, 2000, 04:52 PM

I like flatter shooting Bullets myself. And that means the .270 Win. However both Rounds are excelent. The 30/06 will give you slightly longer ranges but for hunting anything in the lower 48 states the .270 will do. To be honest my hunting rifle is in .270. The 30/06 I have are all older military weapons. 1917 etc. The .270 also favors the lighter end of the bullet weight field. you can get 90 grain and if you look hard enough even 75 grain bullets. I think the lowest you can get with a 30/06 is 110. But they also go up into the 200 range. Both have thier advantages and drawbacks. I think though that it comes down to the kind of shooter you are. In rifls I like Smaller, faster, and flatter shooting bullets and that means the .270 and not the 30/06.

Paul B. · June 11, 2000, 12:40 AM

Kevinw. Both Speer and Hornady make plinking bullets of 100 gr. weight in .30 caliber. Remington makes a 71 gr. bullet for the .32 ACP that makes a good small game bullet as well. We used to use those back in th "old days" to knock off a few squirrels, or rabbits for the pot, while deer hunting. Takes a bit of experimentation but you can get a load to hit at 25 yards or so with your "06" sighted in for deer hunting.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not knocking the .270. I have two of them. I just have more 30-06's, that's all. I just got a Ruger #1 in .270 a while back, and I may do my deer hunting with that one come fall, if I draw a tag. I hate them hunt tag lotteries. Last year was the first one in 5 years that I drew a tag. I may not live long enough to draw the next one. And if I do, I may be too darn old to go anyway.
BTW. I'd have to hunt long and hard to locate the data for those .32 ACP bullets in a 06. If I remember correctly, the powder was Hercules #2400, but it's been about 35 years since I loaded any. You can also get lead .32 cal. bullets and size them down to .310, from .312 inch diameter, and use those as well.
Paul B.

Kevinw · June 11, 2000, 07:37 AM

I didn't know that a 30/06 would handle a 32 cal bullet. THat is good info

I was in no way knocking the 30/06. I do like the 30/06. It is a great Cartridge, in fact I admit it is much more adaptable than the .270. In fact the .270 is a borderline speacialty Cartridge where the 30/06 is more of a Jack of all trades, master of none type deal

I think it is my mindset as much as anything else. I see the /06 as a Military Caliber. 1903s, 1917s, Garands, you get the picture. The .270 is for hunting. THen again I have deen thinking about getting a Garand and having it rechambered for .270

Someone correct me but wasn't this what it was originally chambered in. I know it was supposed to be smaller than a 30 cal but was changed at the last minute.

dundee · June 11, 2000, 09:49 AM

If you do not reload then the 30-06 is the best deal. From tests in various magazines listing actual chrono values the 270 appears to have been gradually underloaded over the years. The 30-06 apparently gets more attention from the ammo factories and the ballistics have actually improved.
I reload for both and use the 270 the most. I to was a single rifle hunter when I went chasing moose in Canada but I did bring home more moose than an extended family could eat.
150 gr. speer mag tip @ 2967 fps over a chrono.

Paul B. · June 11, 2000, 04:10 PM

Kevinw. The M-1 garand was originally designed to shoot a .276 cartridge, closer to a 7MM than a .270, and about the same length, I think. Gen. Douglas MacArthur raised a lot of hell and insisted it be chambered to 30-06, and the rest is history. I think it was a smart move, as it wasn't too much later that were were tied up in WW-2. At first, there were not enough M-1's to go around, and some soldiers were armed with the Springfield 03. Fact is, Remington was making 03A3's well into the war. Imagine what a mess it would have been, if M-1 shooters needing .276's got 30-06's and vice versa? We'd have probably gotten creamed.
Paul B.

June 7, 2000, 09:06 AM	#1
Dogger Senior Member Join Date: August 28, 1999 Location: Virginia Posts: 481	I REALLY can't make up my mind between these two cartridges. I have opportunties to hunt with buddies in Virginia, Vermont, and Colorado. I will be a one gun only hunter, so I have to make a good choice. Thanks!

June 7, 2000, 09:11 AM	#2
DorGunR Senior Member Join Date: January 13, 2000 Location: Maryland Posts: 1,126	Damn Dogger, let's see.......270...noooo...maybe 30.06....noooo .270...but then again.... Now you see what you've done, I'll spend the rest of today with this on my mind. ------------------ "Lead, follow or get the HELL out of the way."

June 7, 2000, 09:48 AM	#3
Gunslinger Senior Member Join Date: January 5, 1999 Location: Springfield, Missouri Posts: 2,106	Ought six. ------------------ Gunslinger TFL Imperial Potentate TFL End of Summer Meet, August 12th & 13th, 2000

June 7, 2000, 11:51 AM	#4
Mike Irwin Staff Join Date: April 13, 2000 Location: Northern Virginia Posts: 21,782	My .300 Savage.

June 7, 2000, 12:26 PM	#5
bergie Senior Member Join Date: April 19, 1999 Posts: 567	I have a .270 but I have shot my dad's .30-06 an awful lot (I bought it for him as a birthday present, the first new rifle he ever owned). If I'm going to be hiking all day, I prefer my .270. It has a synthetic stock, the 06 has a laminated one, and is a little heavier. Otherwise, I would be happy with either. bergie

June 7, 2000, 12:47 PM	#6
Chris Orndorff Senior Member Join Date: January 23, 1999 Location: Utah Posts: 233	How 'bout a .280?

June 7, 2000, 01:06 PM	#7
Mikey Senior Member Join Date: November 14, 1998 Location: Tennessee Posts: 885	Of the two mentioned, I prefer the .270 for all but the largest "lower 48" game. I used one for 10 years and it was a deer killing machine! It doesn't seem to be big enough for Elk but Jack O'Connor would have disagreed I've tried hard to like the 30-06 but to no avail. I just hate that cartridge - it's a good one but I personally hate it. If I were looking for a "one-rifle-does-it-all" gun it would be chambered in 7mm Magnum. I've owned several and still own one. Best all around cartridge there is IMHO... Mikey

June 7, 2000, 01:52 PM	#8
MAD DOG Senior Member Join Date: October 13, 1998 Location: Arizona. Posts: 857	THIRTY OUGHT SIX!

June 7, 2000, 03:48 PM	#9
M16 Senior Member Join Date: September 16, 1999 Posts: 486	Why the 30-06 of course. By the way what is this thing called a .270? Is this something new coming out? Why would anybody want a 270?

June 7, 2000, 04:51 PM	#10
LoneStar Senior Member Join Date: March 10, 1999 Location: Houston, Texas USA Posts: 260	I love my .270 I feel it is perfectly balanced for deer/deer sized game. However, if your trips to Colorado may include Elk, I'd take the 30-06 "IF" I could only have ONE gun. but, If not limited to one, I'd get a .270 and a 7mmMag, or .338 Besides, no one should ever let an excuse to buy another gun slip by . -L

June 7, 2000, 05:05 PM	#11
anodes Senior Member Join Date: May 31, 2000 Location: Sedona, AZ, USA Posts: 160	A few years ago I saw the SAAMI data for `96(?). Here's the run down on factory produced ammo sales (not reloaded or shot): 1- .30-06 2- .30-30 3- .270 4- .243 5- .308 Hmmmm. I would consider the .30-06 the more versatile cartridge, unless you can shoot better with the .270. anodes. BTW, I own a 30-06 only so it's just an opinion. anodes. [This message has been edited by anodes (edited June 07, 2000).]

June 7, 2000, 05:58 PM	#12
Art Eatman Staff Join Date: November 13, 1998 Location: Terlingua, TX, USA Posts: 16,803	There ain't no flies on a .270. I had one for a few years as the only gun I could afford. Good used, Sears, $70. I killed a few deer with it... And then I went back to my first love...I just like the old '06. It has always been my choice as "THE" rifle, if I can have just one. If you ever get into handloading, the '06 is definitely one of the most versatile cartridges there is. Have fun, Art

June 8, 2000, 02:18 PM	#13
Erik Senior Member Join Date: December 24, 1999 Location: America Posts: 3,316	I do not have both. Yet. They are both classic cartridges. You cannot go wrong with either one.

June 8, 2000, 03:31 PM	#14
Paul B. Senior Member Join Date: March 28, 1999 Location: Tucson, AZ Posts: 2,132	Hmmm. 30-06 or .270? Both are more than adequate for the jobs specified. Let's see. When once questioned by Jim Carmichel, of OUTDOOR LIFE Magazine, as to which cartridge he would use, I restricted to only one for hunting in the U.S., Jack O'Connor said without hestitation, "The 30-06." Not the .270, which was his favorite round, but the 30-06. Col. Towensend Whelan said many years ago,"The 30-06 is never a mistake." A good shot with a 30-06 is capable of taking on all of the game animals on the North and South American continents and most game anywhere in the world. I have both, and play around with all kinds of different cartridges, but when on any hunt, I always take a 30-06 along as my back up rifle. Either way you go will be fine. Both are good rounds. I just prefer the 30-06, if restricted to a one gun only forever situation. Paul B.

June 9, 2000, 01:58 PM	#15
swampy Member Join Date: August 10, 1999 Posts: 92	I own both, and like both. If you are limited to one gun, and particularily if you plan to reload, go with the 30-06. The reloading range and reload data for the 30-06 is greater. You can load it light for varmints or heavy for elk. From a reloading perspective, the 30-06 is more versatile.

June 10, 2000, 04:31 PM	#16
Turk Senior Member Join Date: May 30, 2000 Location: USA Posts: 517	There is the 06 and then comes the others. Turk

June 10, 2000, 04:52 PM	#17
Kevinw Senior Member Join Date: January 4, 2000 Posts: 336	I like flatter shooting Bullets myself. And that means the .270 Win. However both Rounds are excelent. The 30/06 will give you slightly longer ranges but for hunting anything in the lower 48 states the .270 will do. To be honest my hunting rifle is in .270. The 30/06 I have are all older military weapons. 1917 etc. The .270 also favors the lighter end of the bullet weight field. you can get 90 grain and if you look hard enough even 75 grain bullets. I think the lowest you can get with a 30/06 is 110. But they also go up into the 200 range. Both have thier advantages and drawbacks. I think though that it comes down to the kind of shooter you are. In rifls I like Smaller, faster, and flatter shooting bullets and that means the .270 and not the 30/06.

June 11, 2000, 12:40 AM	#18
Paul B. Senior Member Join Date: March 28, 1999 Location: Tucson, AZ Posts: 2,132	Kevinw. Both Speer and Hornady make plinking bullets of 100 gr. weight in .30 caliber. Remington makes a 71 gr. bullet for the .32 ACP that makes a good small game bullet as well. We used to use those back in th "old days" to knock off a few squirrels, or rabbits for the pot, while deer hunting. Takes a bit of experimentation but you can get a load to hit at 25 yards or so with your "06" sighted in for deer hunting. Don't get me wrong. I'm not knocking the .270. I have two of them. I just have more 30-06's, that's all. I just got a Ruger #1 in .270 a while back, and I may do my deer hunting with that one come fall, if I draw a tag. I hate them hunt tag lotteries. Last year was the first one in 5 years that I drew a tag. I may not live long enough to draw the next one. And if I do, I may be too darn old to go anyway. BTW. I'd have to hunt long and hard to locate the data for those .32 ACP bullets in a 06. If I remember correctly, the powder was Hercules #2400, but it's been about 35 years since I loaded any. You can also get lead .32 cal. bullets and size them down to .310, from .312 inch diameter, and use those as well. Paul B.

June 11, 2000, 07:37 AM	#19
Kevinw Senior Member Join Date: January 4, 2000 Posts: 336	I didn't know that a 30/06 would handle a 32 cal bullet. THat is good info I was in no way knocking the 30/06. I do like the 30/06. It is a great Cartridge, in fact I admit it is much more adaptable than the .270. In fact the .270 is a borderline speacialty Cartridge where the 30/06 is more of a Jack of all trades, master of none type deal I think it is my mindset as much as anything else. I see the /06 as a Military Caliber. 1903s, 1917s, Garands, you get the picture. The .270 is for hunting. THen again I have deen thinking about getting a Garand and having it rechambered for .270 Someone correct me but wasn't this what it was originally chambered in. I know it was supposed to be smaller than a 30 cal but was changed at the last minute.

June 11, 2000, 09:49 AM	#20
dundee Senior Member Join Date: December 6, 1998 Location: mytown,mi,usa Posts: 162	If you do not reload then the 30-06 is the best deal. From tests in various magazines listing actual chrono values the 270 appears to have been gradually underloaded over the years. The 30-06 apparently gets more attention from the ammo factories and the ballistics have actually improved. I reload for both and use the 270 the most. I to was a single rifle hunter when I went chasing moose in Canada but I did bring home more moose than an extended family could eat. 150 gr. speer mag tip @ 2967 fps over a chrono.

June 11, 2000, 04:10 PM	#21
Paul B. Senior Member Join Date: March 28, 1999 Location: Tucson, AZ Posts: 2,132	Kevinw. The M-1 garand was originally designed to shoot a .276 cartridge, closer to a 7MM than a .270, and about the same length, I think. Gen. Douglas MacArthur raised a lot of hell and insisted it be chambered to 30-06, and the rest is history. I think it was a smart move, as it wasn't too much later that were were tied up in WW-2. At first, there were not enough M-1's to go around, and some soldiers were armed with the Springfield 03. Fact is, Remington was making 03A3's well into the war. Imagine what a mess it would have been, if M-1 shooters needing .276's got 30-06's and vice versa? We'd have probably gotten creamed. Paul B.