Which is more common in Indiana -- 270 or 30-06?

[BE Mike]

Current and former military cartridges always seem to be popular. I say the .30-06 is more popular. It is also is more versatile if one wants to pursue bigger game than deer.

 

[BackFromDC]

The casing of the .270 (which began as a necked down .30 caliber) actually predates the .30'06 by three years, but Winchester added it to their providings in 1925, but it was a wildcat for a time before that.

Interesting history some of these rounds have...

I always thought the .30-06 came first due to it's military service and then they necked it down.

 

[Mongo59]

I always thought the .30-06 came first due to it's military service and then they necked it down.

The .270 is a necked down .30'03 which is what the first Springfield 1903's were chambered in (the original US .30 caliber). They had some issues with ballistics so they went back to the drawing board and came out 3 years later with the .30'06 which they made a little shorter so they can fit in the '03 but the '03 can't chamber in the '06.

The only surviving descendant of the '03 is the .270, but back in the day Winchester made the 1895 in .30'03 as well as other manufacturers used it in their offerings. The .30'06 became popular after the vets came back from The Great War and had an appreciation for what the '06 could do. So, technically, the case they used for the .270 is 3 years older than the .30'06.

It is a great example of "bigger is not always better".

 

[smokingman]

I don't know the answer to your question. But I choose 30-06. More bullet weight choices.

85 grain (Hornaday) to 180. 270 win(same sizes as 6.8 spc)
100 grain(Hornaday) to 220 for the 30-06
It is pretty dang close.

(4) 270 win rifles
(1) 30-06

 

[Michigan Slim]

90 grain (Hornaday) to 180. 270 win
100 grain(Hornaday) to 220 for the 30-06
It is pretty dang close.

(4) 270 win rifles
(1) 30-06

Two .270's. No .30-06's.

 

[smokingman]

Rifle type (for me) may be more important than cartridge.

Nasty but cool, a Remington 760 carbine.
Dont think they ever did one in .270 win

https://www.sportsmansguide.com/product/index/browning-bar-mark-ii-safari-semi-automatic-270-winchester-22-barrel-41-rounds?a=1799247

https://www.sportsmansguide.com/product/index/browning-bar-mk3-semi-automatic-270-winchester-22-barrel-41-rounds?a=1935364

I have a Remington 7400(2011 production). I like my Carbon Mark V best though(in 270win).

 

[Mongo59]

.270- 1
.30'06- too numerous to count

(If we are making a tally.) Then again, how many does not necessarily equal preference, both will kill graveyard dead.

I only carry one rifle at a time when in the field and Indiana will only allow $10, er, 10 rounds of ammo...

 

[BackFromDC]

The .270 is a necked down .30'03 which is what the first Springfield 1903's were chambered in (the original US .30 caliber). They had some issues with ballistics so they went back to the drawing board and came out 3 years later with the .30'06 which they made a little shorter so they can fit in the '03 but the '03 can't chamber in the '06.

Oh man I totally forgot that the original Springfields didn't shoot .30-06. Makes sense that a .270 would be a derivative of the 03 then. If it's that old I wonder if there were late generation lever guns chambered in .270?

 

[Michigan Slim]

Oh man I totally forgot that the original Springfields didn't shoot .30-06. Makes sense that a .270 would be a derivative of the 03 then. If it's that old I wonder if there were late generation lever guns chambered in .270?

Browning BLR.

 

[Mongo59]

Other of the main reasons why the .270 Win is still one of the most popular loads is because of its acceptance worldwide. Internationally, ammunition and firearms manufacturers offer this chambering in a wide range of firearm options including bolt-actions, single-shots, lever-actions (such as the Browning BLR), pump-actions (such as the Remington 7600), autoloaders (such as the Remington 7400), and even a few double rifles.[8]

From Wikipedia...

 

[Mongo59]

In countries, like Germany, where you can't have a weapon chambered in a 'military round' the .270 is a great conversion for all the sporterized war horses.

 

[Magyars]

85 grain (Hornaday) to 180. 270 win(same sizes as 6.8 spc)
100 grain(Hornaday) to 220 for the 30-06
It is pretty dang close.

(4) 270 win rifles
(1) 30-06

They also made a 55gr "accelerator" rnd for the '06

 

[smokingman]

Oh man I totally forgot that the original Springfields didn't shoot .30-06. Makes sense that a .270 would be a derivative of the 03 then. If it's that old I wonder if there were late generation lever guns chambered in .270?

.270 Lever Action Rifles For Sale at ClassicFirearms.com

www.classicfirearms.com

 

[Bassat]

At different times, I've owned on of each. I currently own neither. Does that help?

 

[smokingman]

12 years and 11 days ago. weeps. Feels like yesterday she started her new life with me and yes she is a 270 WIN(to answer that very old question lol).

Whoooooo,picked up a Mark V today for $450.00

You will never guess WHERE. Gander Mountain in Greenwood.It has been sitting on the shelf for almost two years.I had fondled it many times.The original price was $1000.00 for the "used" Mark 5 not a bad price. Last night I was visiting the store to pick up a few last minute Christmas gifts and...

www.indianagunowners.com

 

[natdscott]

The .270 is a necked down .30'03...

The only surviving descendant of the '03 is the .270,...

So, technically, the case they used for the .270 is 3 years older than the .30'06.

Nawwww. That ain't true.

Wasn't a wildcatted .30-03, was simply based on prints of it. Even the wildcat version of .270, pre-1925, was still formed from .30-06 brass.


Never actually pre-dated .30 Gov't, though.


If I am wrong, which is possible, then please direct me to that literature. I literally just checked all mine, except to wade through Hatcher.

-Nate

 

[Michigan Slim]

Wikipedia says the .270 is from the .30-06. Outdoor Life says 06. I'm going with OL.

 

[Mongo59]

Quote:

• There are only three major differences between the.270 Win and the 30-06, the bullet diameter each cartridge fires, their neck diameter, and the SAMMI max pressure rating. The 270 Winchester fires a.277” diameter bullet while its larger brother fires a.308” diameter bullet. Simply put, the 270 Winchester is a necked-down version of the.30-03.

If we want to over simplify it and since +99% of people never heard of .30'03, we just use .30'06. On the other hand everyone knows it is a lot easier to stretch a cartridge than it is to neck down one already available...

Go outside and gently try to chamber a .270 in a .30'06, if it is just a necked down version, it should fit...

Quote: If you own a Model 1895 rifle that is chambered for the 30-03 cartridge, there really is not another cartridge that it can be rechambered to. On a positive note, the 30-06 cartridge can be safely fired in a 30-03 chamber, but it will lose some of its inherent accuracy due to it having a shorter neck. That stated, if you are a reloader, you can load the 30-06 cartridge to shoot accurately in the 30-03 chamber.

Quote: Soon after adoption of the .30-’06 Sprg. cartridge (.30 caliber, adopted in 1906), the manufacturing tooling was changed to accommodate the new cartridge. Many of the existing .30-’03 barrels were modified to .30-’06. Due to the slightly shorter dimensions of the new round, it was necessary to rechamber the barrel, which resulted in the length being reduced by 0.200". It was also necessary to shorten the stocks and handguards by 0.200".

Quote: Another way to ascertain if a rifle is still chambered for the .30-’03 round is to note that the bolt will not fully close on a .30-’03 cartridge in a .30-’06 length chamber. However, the reverse is not true as a .30-’06 cartridge will chamber in a .30-’03 rifle. There have been a few examples where a .30-’06 chamber has been opened up a bit by a “restorer” to permit a .30-’03 cartridge to be chambered in order to dupe a buyer into believing that the rifle in question was an original, unmodified .30-’03 example. This reinforces the advice to observe the overall length of the rifle, as compared to a .30-’06 rifle an original .30-’03 example will be 0.200" longer.

I added these as this will be the result on trying to chamber a .270 in a .30'06.

 

[Purdue1991]

I really don’t think so.

If anybody wants not to read the following, then I’ll boil it down: the cited 55+ year old isn’t as old as you think.

Consider that that 55-year-old wasn’t born until 1968. By their birth, even the “new” .270 Winchester was already well older than their parents: it had been 43 years since its introduction as a factory chambering. Jack O’Connor--arguably a greater force for the .270’s success than was Winchester theyselfs—retired from Outdoor life before that 55 year old’s 5th birthday, then died (and stopped writing) before most of them were 10.

The .30-06 was already old by that point, and was no longer the US Military Complex’ round of choice: the M14 was adopted in 1957, and even it had already been supplanted by the 5.56x45-chambered M16 4 years before the 55-year old was born. .30-06 continued with some non-hunting loyalty for several years, but even in competitive circles (people very comfortable with the esoteric), it was basically out of the game by the 1980’s, if not sooner.

I mention all that history of the .30-06 as a reference that your average Gen X shooter (1965-1982/3) not only never served under an -06 chambered rifle, they also had begun to see some downturn in its perception as a cutting-edge cartridge, and saw a known-reduction in the availability of cheap military surplus ball ammo.
It was, by the time they were of any buying power, “the shell in grandpa’s old rifle”.

Meanwhile, faster and flatter (and simply more numerous) options like the (.244)/6mm Rem (1955), .243 Winchester (1955), .308 Winchester (1952-ish), .300 Win Mag (1963), 7mm Remington Mag (1962), 7mm-08 Remington (1980), were cutting edge, and coming into their own in market share and gun-tabloid articles during the formative years of your Gen X kids.

The debate over whether any of the above can kill deer deader than a .30-06 or .270—or any other relatively fast, small-to-medium bore cartridge, from .220 Swift through .375 H&H—is a worthwhile use of time only if you enjoy arguing over the subjective.

My point is not that the hunting community always tried to be at the cutting edge—if they did, the .30-30 would have died in 1906—but that we can and are influenced into trying new things, even if it’s years later than other shooting groups perceived and/or realized the benefits of a new approach.

By now, the Gen X hunter has "seen some sh**", and has probably been inundated with information long enough that they have at least fired--if not hunted with--something more modern than .30-06.

My opinion as a die-hard steel plate .30-06 fan is that the average deer hunter of the past 30-40 years, with average shooting ability chooses something else, if it is perceived to kill deer as well as .30-06 and .270, but does so in lighter, shorter rifles, without as much recoil and blast.

If you want to see evidence for that, you need go no further than the 6.5 Creedmoor--which as a cartridge, does nothing new--but may become an historic benchmark of successful promotion across nearly all demographics of the rifle-shooting public.

I'm Gen X and I hunt with a 6.5 Grendel in an AR platform. Age has nothing to do with caliber preference...

 

[Pin]

lol. This could be very true.

I concur.