Go Back  HuntingNet.com Forums > Firearms Forum > Guns
30/30 Vs. .270 >

30/30 Vs. .270

Guns Like firearms themselves, there's a wide variety of opinions on what's the best gun.

30/30 Vs. .270

Old 12-07-2011, 03:20 PM
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Northwest Wyoming
Posts: 26

Calibers are a personal choice. You have to decide what fits your needs. I personally would never own a .270, way over rated. Why own a .270 when you can have a 30-06, or .308, or .260, or 7mag, or 7mm-08, or anything.
Randy_a is offline  
Old 12-07-2011, 03:37 PM
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 36

If you're hunting in thick stuff I'd go with a 30/30. I hunt in swamps and palmetto's in Florida and it's light and short. I never get hung up and I can pack it all day. The deer are smaller here though but I have dropped them in their tracks. If you are hunting the fields that you are talking about I would go with a longer rifle.
Luv2KilFish is offline  
Old 12-07-2011, 03:40 PM
Nontypical Buck
Centaur 1's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Titusville Florida
Posts: 1,727

Originally Posted by DavidD. View Post
I mean I have shot both guns. And I like them both equally. I am starting to think that the .270 really is the better gun. I am an animal lover (I breed reptiles for a living), and when I kill something I want to make it as clean and humane as possible. Seems like the .270 will do a better job at that.

Now we're getting somewhere. With everything that's been posted so far about the different caliber options, nothing will kill a deer cleaner and quicker than a well placed shot. I suggest that you go to a range where you can shoot 300 yards. Then you have try shooting from positions that you would use while hunting. Shoot offhand while using a vertical post for support, then try sitting and kneeling. Forget shooting from a bench or the prone position since you'd never use either while hunting. Chances are if you try what I'm saying you'll realize the true limitations will be with you and not the cartridge. My 30-30 will kill cleanly way beyond the distance that I can consistantly hit a deer.
Centaur 1 is offline  
Old 12-07-2011, 05:44 PM
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 20

I'm glad we didnt get into bullet ogives, hardwood vs. softwoods, space between growth rings of twigs....
The truth of the matter is that it is about hitting a animal where it will kill it.

I spend many years selling firearms and the whole "brush" gun idea left me sickened; countless stories of hunters drawing blood and wounding deer while they took pot shots through thick brush or at running animals in brush because they had a "brush" gun.

Please think about how easily a bullet expands and comes apart when it hits the incredibly soft and very well lubricated tissue of a whitetail then think about maybe not shooting through brush.
paulie300 is offline  
Old 12-07-2011, 06:37 PM
Typical Buck
Join Date: May 2010
Location: South East Pa.
Posts: 526

Centaur 1 is about the only voice of reason here. I still hunt NE Pa. and things did change some, but that is the way it used to be. As far as brushbusting, I don't think it a good idea, but am not convinced it is total hogwash. One year I was swinging on a deer running through and fired at it. Nothing. Turns out I shot right through a 8" maple tree about 15 feet in front of me. RIGHT THROUGH with a REM CORLOKT. The hole was a little ragged coming out, but it did come out the other side. Gun companies spent millions designing bullets and they really have it down pat. I used to test fire guns in a vise and shooting into tied up packs of newspapers. That is a solid back stop. From three feet away most bullets penetrated about 10" and barely blunted the front of a softpoint bullet. The same bullet would tear a groundhog in half. I am not sure that air pressure in front of some bullets does not push small twigs out of the way. I'm beat. You guys can keep at it.
Gunplummer is offline  
Old 12-08-2011, 04:26 AM
TullyMars's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 14

If you are hunting thick woods and want a rifle quick to the shoulder, I hunt with a Remington Model 7 in 7mm-08. Good in the woods and the field.
TullyMars is offline  
Old 12-08-2011, 05:01 AM
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: green bay, wi (hunt in peshtigo, wi)
Posts: 59

Gunplummer - "Centaur 1 is about the only voice of reason here" That is a pretty bold statement to make, I do agree with Centaur 1's point, however I feel as if a lot of good points have been made on this topic
jdweim is offline  
Old 12-08-2011, 06:10 AM
Nontypical Buck
Nomercy448's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Kansas
Posts: 3,800

Originally Posted by Gangly View Post
Incorrect, the gravitational constant is never considered "1", no matter what system you prefer to work in because gravity, being an acceleration is never equal to "1" otherwise we would all float. Therefore, mass and weight should never be used interchangebly. I understand the point you are trying to make though and it is a fair way to approach the discussion but despite what is commonly believed and taught in highschool, gravity is not constant along the surface of the earth, it changes with elevation and coordinates, but the differences are minimal and only slightly affect trajectory along the y-axis. Even still, because of the parabolic change in cartesian cordinates, a change in velocity occurs as well since velocity, being a vector, is comprised of magnitude and direction. Because of this weight should not be used, but mass. All things being equal, and considering you are hunting in the same areas that you are testing, then yes, mass and weight can be used interchangeably sometimes, but not always.]
No, this statement is incorrect. We can indeed use a relative field strength of G = 1 when we are considering USCU (United States Customary Units). Do not mistake that the gravitational factor G = 1, is referring to the gravitational acceleration of 32.17fpsps. You are correct for SI units, where weight, i.e. force, is measured in Newtons and mass is measured in kg. However, in the good ol US of A, the POUND, to which the GRAIN is referenced (7000grn/lb), is both a unit derived for mass as well as force/weight. When using USC units, Momentum = weight * velocity * gravitational factor. To make our lives simpler, we use the gravitational factor G = 1. Yes, of course as we move around the face of the earth, especially drastic changes in elevation, the gravitational factor changes. At a lower elevation than the reference elevation where G = 1, corresponding to 32.17fpsps, then G might become 1.05, at a higher elevation where the gravitational field is weaker, then G might become 0.95. But for all intents and purposes, G = 1 is pretty dang close.

Originally Posted by Gangly View Post
You are actually measuring force, but since the acceleration vectors for both are equal and opposite, the acceleration vectors cancel and leave you with simply mass.
Again, this is incorrect. A BALANCE measures mass. When you place a weight (brass weight) of a controlled mass on one side, and balance it against the test object on the other, it is independant of the gravitational field, and will show the same MASS regardless of gravitational strength, i.e. will show the same MASS on earth as it would the moon. You, again, are making a statement about a SCALE. BALANCES measure relative MASS. Buy a lab equipment book and do some reading...

A SCALE does indeed measure force, the operational design equation behind a standard spring scale is F = mg = kx. A spring with a known compression factor K is used, so the scale meters how far, x, it is compressed, which relates to a specific FORCE, m*g, which is then back calculated by the internal computer, or displayed by an analog dial (calibrated to a specific gravitational field) to determine the appropriate WEIGHT. HOWEVER, say my SCALE reads 190lbs on earth at sea level. I then jump on a rocket and head to the moon (gravitational field of 5.32fpsps, or 0.165x that of earth), my SCALE would then show 31.4lbs (double check my math if you want with any one of the MANY online "what do I weigh on the moon" calculators online if you don't believe me). But say I'm on the moon and want to know what I'd weigh on the earth... I simply take my SCALE weight, divide it by the moon's gravitational field, and multiply it by the earth's gravitational field. Alternatively, as I described above, I can simply use a REFERENCE RATIO to do the same (i.e. if Gstandard-earth = 1, then Gstandard-moon = 0.167). 31.4 * (1/.165) = 190.

Originally Posted by Gangly View Post
Incorrect, "heavier" is better with all things being equal. Smaller profiles assist with penetration, but mass (or weight if you want to look at it that way) and velocity is what creates momentum and energy, and energy transfer is what does the damage.
Yes and no. "With all things being equal" would imply that the momentum and energy of the two were equal, but they are NOT. The .270win has 20% more momentum than the .30-30win. The .270win also has 65-70% more ENERGY than the .30-30win. While I agree that "with all things being equal", i.e. equal energy and momentum, a bigger bullet will be a better choice, but that's not the case here. Frankly, even when compared for "Stopping power", the .30-30 doesn't supercede the .270win. TKO factor (Taylor Knock Out Factor) is a common measure of a rounds "stopping power". The .270win has a TKO of 16, while the supposedly "bigger and harder hitting" .30-30 only has a TKO factor of 14.7. Frankly, given a proper bullet selection, the .270 will be a much harder hitter than the .30-30. In this case, I gotta go with the more energy, more momentum, and harder hitting round, which is the .270.

Then add in the improved trajectory of the .270 over the .30-30. About 1,000fps faster, and BC's in the .35-.45 range, rather than 0.15-0.25, yeah, the .270 is a MUCH easier long range shooter...

Finally, I'd add in the fact that the higher velocity .270win is more likely to produce a pass through wound than a .30-30, and for me, it's a done deal. Pretty hard to track a deer when the only hole in him is the 30cal entry wound. Blow a .270 out the back side the size of a golfball and tracking becomes pretty easy. Granted, a deer isn't going to run very far when either one of them punches through their heart and lungs, but considering the dense timber I've been hunting in the last 2wks, if my deer makes it 50yrds before crumpling, I want to know I'll have a blood trail to help find it.

Again, there is nothing the .30-30 can do that the .270 can't do better, so if a man is to own but one rifle, I would strongly recommend the .270 over the .30-30.

Last edited by Nomercy448; 12-08-2011 at 07:09 AM.
Nomercy448 is offline  
Old 12-08-2011, 07:01 AM
Nontypical Buck
Nomercy448's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Kansas
Posts: 3,800

Originally Posted by DavidD. View Post
I appriciate everyone's input, and have thought about it. Personally, I am writing the 30/30 off, just because I relized most of the thick brush I hunt it, my shots are usually 50 yards or less. That's what my old 12 is for! I am now debating between the .270 and the .308. So, when looking at ballistics, cartridge prices, etc, what is the better rifle?
Now we're talking. Haha! Of these two, I gotta go with the .308win...

For cartridge prices, the .270win and .308win should be about the same. Both are incredibly common, even call them "standard" rounds. For the reloader, the .308win is a bit cheaper, since it actually uses slightly less powder than the .270win. You should have a good selection of factory ammo for both to choose from, all the way from low budget stuff up through premium stuff (granted there's a lot of surplus .308 fodder running around that would be cheaper than .270 ammo, but not many guys ever shoot that stuff, so it's not really relevant).

Ballistically, both will have Ballistic Coefficients in the .30 to .45 range, with the .270win running about 200-300fps faster than the .308win. At 1,000yrds, I calculate about 290" of drop for a .270win, while the .308win is dropping 345". Frankly, if you can dope for 290", you can dope for 345", but it DOES drop more. However, even at 1,000yrds, both will have 550-600ft.lbs. left hanging on, and both will be right at the top end of the transition velocity (1300fps-1000fps isn't a stable range, as bullets come OUT of supersonic speed). At 500yrds, the difference in drop is 46" for the .270, to 53" for the .308. Personally, yes, the .270 is a little flatter, but no, I honestly don't think it makes much difference.

I see is a wash. The heavier .308win bullet should buck the wind a little better because it has higher momentum (about 10% more momentum), but it's also about 10% slower, so the wind has longer to take effect, and it will drop farther in the same timeline. Whatever advantage the .270win has for flattness, it loses in windage, but whatever advantage the .308win has for wind bucking, it loses for the extra drop.

For stopping power, they both run about 2850ft.lbs. at the muzzle. The TKO factor is higher for the .308, 19.5, versus 16.0 for the .270win. The bigger diameter, heavier bullet, in this case, makes up a lot of stopping power, giving it about 22% more stopping power on paper. What does that mean? Not much really. The .270win is likely going to penetrate a little deeper, while the .308win will likely do a little more tissue damage and give better bleeding and better hydrostatic shock, but if you stick either one through a deer's heart, it aint going anywhere. The 22% is mostly just a feel good, and would only make a difference if you MISS the heart by a fraction, the bigger wound channel of the .308win might save you. The .270 is more likely to pass through, which can be a good thing, or a bad thing. Exit wounds mean two things, bleeding, and wasted energy. The .308win is "less likely" to exit than the .270, but it's still very likely to exit, and it'll leave a bigger exit wound than a .270, which means more bleeding, and less wasted energy.

Recoil wise, neither are hard hitters, and if you can tell the difference between the two without specifically shooting them side by side just to feel it, then you're far better "calibrated" to recoil than I am. In theory, for me, again, it's a wash. The .308win has a bigger bullet and more momentum, so it should have a higher magnitude recoil. HOWEVER, the .270win is a faster round, so it has a shorter impulse, so the recoil happens faster, more of a kick, than a shove, so it's recoil curve peak gets "squished" up higher than it necessarily should be. Again, my shoulder isn't nearly sensitive enough to tell the difference.

Other considerations:

The .308win is easier on barrels than the .270win. Both run about the same max SAAMI pressure of 62kpsi (52kcup), but the .270 is running faster, burning more powder, and in a smaller bore. That's not to say the .270win is "hard on barrels", but it IS just a bit harder on barrels than the .308win. For the average "box of rounds a year or less" hunter, this isn't an issue. For a guy that does a lot of prairie dog shooting or a lot of paper punching, it might become a consideration.

The 308 has more versatility. Regardless of actual hunting versatility for game species, some states have 30cal as the minimum bullet diameter for larger game species. If you'll only have ONE rifle, the .308win will let you do more than the .270. The .270win really only reaches up to about 150grns, while the .308win can press up as high as 200-220grns, giving it a substantial increase in stopping power. Frankly, I've used a 30-06 (almost identical performance to a .308win) in 150,165, and 180grn for everything between coyotes and prairie dogs clear up to black bear and elk, and haven't ever felt the need to shoot a 200 or 220grn bullet, but a 30cal 180grn IS a lot more bullet than .277" 140grn.

The .308win fits in a short action rifle. This has several effects. The rifle can be slightly shorter without sacrificing barrel length (not much), the rifle will be slightly lighter (not much), the short action will have a shorter, faster handling bolt throw (not much), but most importantly, the action will have a more stable lock up, making it more inherently accurate.

So those are all the reasons I'd choose a .308win over a .270win as my "only rifle". If you're only ever going to hunt whitetails, then either is a good choice, if you might go for something bigger but only want ONE rifle, then 30cal is the way to go.
Nomercy448 is offline  
Old 12-08-2011, 08:15 AM
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Texas and Arkansas
Posts: 1,496

Someone had mentioned the BLR as a good choice and I have to agree. I have one in 243 and have used one in 308 to take deer. It is a good compromise, IMO, between quick pointing ability and a more powerful cartridge than the 30-30. The only negative thing I have to say about the BLR is that it has a straight grip (or at least mine does) instead of a pistol grip.
GRIZZLYMAN is offline  

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.