Deer Hunting Forums banner

.308win vs .270win

23586 Views 28 Replies 15 Participants Last post by  Karl.Luhr
Hi guys I am going to buy a new rifle and it is a toss up between 308 and 270 for deer in New Zealand (e.g- Red deer, fellow, sika etc). I will be taking shots form 15 - 300 yards so what will be best?, My rifle of choice will probally be a tikka T3 or a Remington 700 SPS.
1 - 20 of 29 Posts
I might serious look at the 308. If i can locate a mint Win model 88 in 308 I will fulfill a long dream rifle want. There's is absolutely nothing wrong with the 270 and may be your best choise. Do some ballistic comparisions and fit it into your hunting geographics and game hunting, The 308 could have a slight edg for your applications. You many want to take a quick look at the ren 280 bullit, I think it is really under looked and is a great performer.
MY choice would probably be .308. I prefer .30 cal and up for deer hunting. .308 is a very accurate cartridge..I'm not sure about where you live but here you can get very cheap .308 ammo for practice.
I'd go with the .270
I have seen this thread on 2 other forums. But I will have to say it again. The .308 has the edge for 1 reason. There are a lot more match grade bullet company's out here for them. The .270 is mainly a hunting round. As the .308 is more versital. Go from the field to the range and drive tacs. My .270 will shoot under 1in at 100. But with hand loads I can get 5/8' but most .308 can do this from the factory.
Inflation is caused

Inflation is caused by a cnghae in money supply (where money supply is affected by actual amount of cash issued by the federal reserve, as well as multipliers created by fractional reserve banking and the shadow banking system (hedge funds; investment banks; foreign lending)).In another thread, I listed a bunch of the things that cnghaed money supply in the passed year:- implosion of financial markets and consequential unwinding of leveraged positions, tightening of credit (commercial and retail). This includes everything from panic'd selling on the stock market, reduced lines of credit for consumers.- reduction in housing values, meaning that people could not tap their overvalued homes for equity/loans- Recently, the Fed has started talking about mopping up the excess liquidity as the economy begins to recover. While I'm not sure they'll really be able to do that so long as unemployment is >= 10%, it will be a reduction in money supply if/when they do_On the other hand, we've had significant new money:- Federal reserve buying treasuries, mortgage backed securities and other debt with newly minted cash (The Fed's balance sheet expanded by 1.5 Trillion]. This is real new money, which gets multiplied up by the effects of fractional reserve banking (that is, if reserve requirements are 5%, 1.5 Trillion gets multiplied out as 20 Trillion in money in the economy, assuming it all gets lent out in a recursive fashion)- Fed's loosening: Reduced interest rates for banks; improves spreads and profitability of banks, and should increase risk taking, under normal circumstances.- Government stimulus: TARP, emergency measures, speding bills, cash for clunkers. This isn't new money per say (it's been borrowed by the federal government from investors, including the federal reserve), but it can behave like new moneyThe figuring of all of these loosenings and tightenings are extremely complicated, and I'd doubt even the federal reserve can figure it out authoritatively. They made an educated guess about how much input new cash would be necessary to offset the dramatic reduction in money supply that the deleveraging of the crisis caused. If they guessed right, then the new money should offset the money removed and inflation should remain more or less constant it might bounce in the interim). But if they supplied too much, or aren't able to mop up the excess for political reasons, when the economy starts leveraging up again, then we'll see inflation. Conversely, if they didn't input enough, or mop up too early, then we'll see deflation.Finally, there's the question of the impact of inflation.Inflation decreases the value of money, so inflation ends up hurting those holding cash or equivalents, as well as lenders who will be repaid with a devalued asset. Meanwhile it rewarding borrowers (assuming fixed interest rate, not tied to inflation) who get to pay back their debt with a devalued asset. People who hold assets (gold, commodities, real estate and even stocks (to a lesser extent)) end up preserving their wealth.Who are net borrowers? Most americans are borrowers, many small companies, the federal government etc.Who are net lenders? Rich individuals, larger companies, foreign governments.There's already an expectation for inflation to be around 2-3% in the US in normal times. So some amount of inflation is already expected, tolerated and built in to the calculations of investors. When we experience deflation (as we have to a minimal extent in the past year), then lenders get a windfall because they are making ~3% more than they expected. Conversely, if inflation were to rise moderately, say to 5%, then investors are penalized in a way they perhaps didn't predict (But most investors (except those who are extremely highly leveraged) wouldn't get wipped out if they made 2% less than expected).Though most individuals generally hate the idea of inflation, its actually beneficial to most debtor americans: it makes paying their mortgages, car payments, and other debts easier to do. The most common argument is that we'll experience wage inflation without experiencing labor inflation, but this is bogus. Wage inflation and price inflation cannot remain out of sync for an extended period unless there's a cnghae in the long term demand for employees or supply of employees. So even an individual who is 30% underwater in his home, would get to par after 5 years of 5% inflation. Inflation is also beneficial (at least in the short run) to the government, the largest debtor in the world, who happily (for itself) has its debt denominated in US dollars (as opposed to many 2nd or 3rd world countries). Inflation causes the debt/gdp ratio to go down (as long as the nominal cnghae in debt is proportionally less than inflation on GDP). However, in the long term, a cnghae in inflation rates would affect the reputation of the US as a stable financial market and drastically increase our borrowing costs (Put another way: The US has some of the cheapest borrowing costs in the world, precisely because we have a history of managing our money well. When that history cnghaes, our borrowing costs will go up). Foreign investors would penalize the US, and many businesses might eventually move to other countries to grow in better financial environments. It also causes a moral hazard: it penalizes savers and rewards debtors. This is not a behaviour we should be encouraging: but we already are, since inflation is the defacto norm its just a matter of degree.Banks, and other financial institutions, who are net lenders would be hurt by inflation; though their hurt is relatively gradual and would not necessarily hurt them too much, but would be a damper on their growth for many years. And banks are already in pain. If we hurt banks more, we end of reducing their lending and hurting the overall growth prospects of the economy.If the problem is to get housing prices back above water for the majority of individuals, the options are:1) Widespread mortgage cramdowns2) Cash-for-clunker housing (bail out under-water borrowers with free cash, care of future taxpayers)3) Mass bankruptcies, foreclosures and start anew (this can however become a vicious cycle and can lead to depression).4) Moderate inflation (say 5%) + time and don't care if we piss off our creditors or hurt our future growth prospects.I think everyone agrees we don't want to cause a state of runaway inflation: 10%/yr or higher. This would drastically cnghae the landscape of investing in the US and have major consequences. But I think a moderate increase (say 2-4% higher than we were before the crisis) in inflation can be tolerated, though not without any side effects. To me, option #4 seems to be the least painful solution, does not punish a large proportion of the electorate, does not appear to be a reward to people bad with money (though it is) and is a solution that can occur without a direct bill or obvious government involvement (who don't know what they are doing, anyways) Rate this comment: 0 0
See less See more
There is so little practical/performance difference with those calibers that your choice really won't make any difference in the success or failure of your hunting. Both those rifles are equally good bets too. I happen to own a Tikka T3 Lite and I love it, but I consider myself a Remington man having owned many. For the money, the Tikka gets my vote and it is super accurate right out of the box, but, on the other hand, I just came from the rifle range, and I shot a sub-one-minute group with my Remington Model 7 (300WSM) at 300 yards! Seems to me you just can't go wrong with any combination of these calibers and these rifles. Those red deer had better watch out!
Although I would love to have a .270, if I had to choose it would be hands down .308.

Reason, Any caliber that has been adopted by the military receives preferential consideration. availability of cheap ammo and brass for reloading and the abundance of choices in this case of 30 cal bullets make this one an easy one.
I have just found the stevens 200 for a really good price with a BSA Deer hunter 3-9x40 scope would this be a good choice for my first rifle.
As much as I love my .270 I have to agree with onehorse ballisticly I don't think you will really notice a difference between them well at least here 99% of my shots have been under 50yds my longest was about 75-80 yrds I don't have many places I can hunt that have shots over 200yds
if you are looking for long range then I would say the .270 has a slight advantage
I own a Stevens 200 in .243 topped with a Center Point 4-16x40 scope. I use it for coyotes. Its an AWESOME rifle, it uses the same tried and true Savage 110 action. The only different is this doesn't have Savage's AccuTrigger and it has a cheaper synthetic stock. The trigger on the Steven's is still good and the synthetic stock doesn't really bother me much. I say go for it.

See less See more
Steven's or Marlin

Before you buy the Steven's 200 I would try to find a Marlin XL7 and give it a good look. I think that the price of both will be similar. I personally prefer the Marlin. Let us know what you end up with. I would also recommend against the package deals where they include the scope. Most of the package scopes are not very good. There is a really big difference between a 50 dollar scope and one that costs 150. Try to get as much scope as you can afford.

id say 270...just in case you decide to hunt something bigger....
id say 270...just in case you decide to hunt something bigger....
Energy wise the .308 and the .270 are about the same. The .308 shoots heavier bullets generally and the .308 fires a .308 diameter bullet while the .270 shoots a .277 diameter bullet. Personally I'd rather have the .308 if I was hunting bigger game.
its all preference. the .308 is a nice round, and yes you can get bigger bullets, but the .270 is a flatter round. yes the velocities are about the same, but it goes beyond that. the muzzle energy and down range energy are higher than the .308. just depends on what you are shooting, bullet, powder, etc.

thier both built off std 30-06 case the real differace is the 308 was shortened the 270 a much faster rifle with its 27 cal bullet but why buy unless u want a corvette with a 4 cyl motor just by the basic 06 and i think you would be much further ahead although of the two go with the 270 the dorn.
the freakin 270 kicks like a mule it has a very sharp recoil to it,i own 300 ultra mags,7mm ultra mags,300 win mags, i can shoot these a lot better than the 270 because it kick so freaking bad, i have owned 3 .270s none of witch i kept becouse of recoil,go with the .308
Both are fine rounds. I prefer 30 cal bullets but that is nothing but personal preference.

308 being a NATO round, there will always be lots of surplus ammo for plinking.
the freakin 270 kicks like a mule it has a very sharp recoil to it,i own 300 ultra mags,7mm ultra mags,300 win mags, i can shoot these a lot better than the 270 because it kick so freaking bad, i have owned 3 .270s none of witch i kept becouse of recoil,go with the .308
Gee, another UNREGISTERED guest with a strong, controversial opinion!! Hard to believe, ain't it?? :yawn: :yawn:
1 - 20 of 29 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.