What are your thoughts on this?? are they worth getting for a deer rifle???
This guy in town is trying to tell me they are excellent deer rifles and they a 270 is too small to take deer. I want some advice so I can refute his argument.
__________________
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.
303's were common in my area years ago because they were available cheap as surplus military guns.They were made with sloppy clearances to prevent jamming in dirty conditions and were not very accurate.The 303 british cartridge is not overly powerful and offers no advantage over more modern cartridges.The 270win actually has more power than required for deer which is why I prefer the 25-06 for a deer only rifle.I would not take the advice of the fool that is trying to sell you on the 303 as he has no idea what he is talking about.
Ditto what stubblejumper said. Your gun friend hasn't got a clue.
The 270 is way more than enough gun to take deer. Mine takes an elk every year with no problems and unless the elk are shrinking......... The 303 british is a low pressure cartridge and if you do some research on the two cartridges you will find that the 270 will provide better velosity, energy, and balistics than the 303 british. The gun (receiver) itself is of a weak design and I would stay away from it all together.
__________________
"The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency........... Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The Republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their president."
Stubblejumper is correct that the .270 Winchester has more than enough energy for deer. It also has more foot pounds of muzzle energy than the .303 British. The .270 is a very good "deer cartridge".
Many of the .303's made for the British Army were of "very good" quality! And they were made to tolerances that would allow them to remain in service under "field conditions", but were not what could really be termed as sloppy, and were capable of very fine accuracy. That being said however, most of them were made a very long time ago, and have become "sloppy with wear". (Many of the .303's currently being manufactured in India are realitively "sloppy" and are not of the same quality of "fit and finish" as the original rifles were.)
As to the comparison between the two cartridges and their effectiveness on deer? They are both very good "deer cartridges", and the .270 Winchester does have a "range advantage" on the .303. But the .303 is one of the true "world wide" cartridges and remains popular everywhere the British Empire has existed. The .303 British has probably accounted for as much "game" as nearly any other cartridge in existence.
I only hope by the time I've been around for better than three-quarters of a century that I wear my age so well!
P.S. I would purchase the rifle I wanted.....and wouldn't worry about refuting his argument! It sounds like he has his mind made up.
__________________
You can live life, or simply grow old!
The .303 is a very good cartridge though it doesn't outperform the .270 in any way shape of form. Alot of the American and Canadian made enfields especially the MK1 no 3's and Mk 4's are very well made rifles, regardless of what the remchester worshippers will tell you. They are made with tolerances in the receiver to allow themn to still fuction when dropped in the mud- but that doesn't effect how tight they lock up- only how much clearance the bolt and other moving parts have to move while cycling the action.
The .303, while not as modern and sleek as the .270, will easily kill deer, and contrary to what some people believe, a cartridge doesn't have to be able to push a bullet over 2900 fps to be worth owning.
__________________
Obamanfreude - 1. taking pleasure from the misfortunes of an Obama supporter as he or she is adversely affected by the policies of their Dear Leader.
i bought one that was even sporterized and i got rid of it. the action was clunky. it weighed a ton and just felt like doo doo. i had a scope on it and it was not too bad at the range but you could certainly find a used savage or something in 30-06-7mm that would be just fine
As you can plainly see, the 270 is plenty for deer
Now , about the 303. I own a no. 4 MK.1 and find it to be an exellent rifle, no it's not "modern", 1944, but it's more than capable of handling anything up to moose size and bigger yet. If I'm not mistaken, W. M. Bell used to use it for elephant and other large African game. I'm not saying that it is appropiate for such hunting, but in a pinch it will do anything you need it to, within reason.As for accuracy,mine hits pie plates EVERY time at 250+ yd.Those adjustable peep sights are absolutely fantastic, if you know your range, you will hit your target. I still run a box or two of shells through mine every year just for the fun of it, that old brute will probably last longer than I will.If you can get one cheap, go for it. I paid $90 for my old Enfield and have never regreted it.
__________________
Hunt hard, stalk silent,shoot straight and keep your knife sharp.
303 British
The 303 british is a low pressure cartridge and if you do some research on the two cartridges you will find that the 270 will provide better velosity, energy, and balistics than the 303 british. The gun (receiver) itself is of a weak design and I would stay away from it all together.
thats what im tryin to say...
