Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Rifles How much real difference

So I'm at the range yesterday testing some loads for a couple of rifles. One is a 308 Norma Mag shooting 180 grain Accubonds at a little over 2900 fps. The other is a .270 Win shooting 140 grain Accubonds at a little over 3000 fps. Both turned out to be very accurate loads.
So I got to thinking about how much real difference there is between the two on game. For argument's sake, let's say the rifles are identical with the exception of chambering. Under what conditions would you choose the bigger of the two?

It may not be necessary, but for heavier game and game that bites I like to carry the heaviest rifle I can shoot well. For me that would be my .338. In your case, the 308 NM would be just about perfect on Elk, bear, and African plains game IMHO. The 270 would work on them but to me it is best suited to deer sized game, since you have both to choose from.

Of course, we could get into a long discussion about bullets, BC's, drop and wind resistance, etc.... and make this a long winded conversation but since 99% of all game is shot within 250 yards, it really doesn't matter unless you address that specifically in your question....

Bob

I have come to like my .270 very much.But I have more faith in my .300.. When I would use my .300 over the .270 would be if I were hunting for a big bull elk, or big mule deer.. BobfromNH, explained several times that a .270 kills elk fine, but a .300 beats them up..

Not enough to worry about having anything but the 270. At least for me. And as soon as my 7 gets sold.

Bob gave up on the 300 years ago, mainly because it beat him up. Of course you may be talking about a different Bob. The one I'm thinking of was BobinNH....

Past 600 yards, but both calibers have bullets that would be better for that purpose.

270-140AB is a very effective combo at a lot lower cost in recoil.

That is the Bob I was talking about, and he did go to the Mashburn. But that is also what he had to say about those calibers on elk!

On an elk hunt the difference in stopping ability might just keep the animal anchored on the ridge instead of the bottom of the canyon. Dead is dead but hauling 300 lbs of meat up a steep canyon is something to be avoided if you can.

Spec, excellent point.. I know I can kill an elk with a lung shot from a .222 how far it might go is a different matter..

[quote=Hookset]So I'm at the range yesterday testing some loads for a couple of rifles. One is a 308 Norma Mag shooting 180 grain Accubonds at a little over 2900 fps. The other is a .270 Win shooting 140 grain Accubonds at a little over 3000 fps. Both turned out to be very accurate loads.
So I got to thinking about how much real difference there is between the two on game. For argument's sake, let's say the rifles are identical with the exception of chambering. Under what conditions would you choose the bigger of the two?[/quote] I would use the .308 NM just cause I wanted too.

Killed this buck last year with a .300 Wby. Why,cause I wanted too.

Beat reason in the world😁

Yup,kinda like using a .460 Wby on jackrabbits.

there's no debate here, 308 normal is better, its simply is a more reliable ammo.

oh, horsechit. How is it 'more reliable'?

I've killed Alaska/Yukon moose with 375 H&H, 300 Win Mag, 30-06, 7MM mag, 308 Winchester, and with a recurve bow. More with a 308 Winchester than anything else. All worked just fine. Worrying about what cartridge to use is much less important than worrying about putting a well-designed projectile in the vitals at a reasonable speed. Just like an arrow from a bow, putting the sharp point in the right place is infinitely more important than how much horsepower is pushing it. Get close (after all, that's what hunting is all about), shoot well, and start carrying meat.

Opinions on such can often be more subjective than objective-
If you had a blind test where observers witnessed a pile of game being shot with .270 and another pile with .308NM
(but were not made aware of which cartridge made which kill) I tend to doubt people could tell the difference just by
how far an animal moved or how long it took to drop.

From time to time a similar kind of debate comes up concerning DG calibre effectiveness, people insisting .458 or .470
is superior to .416, or .416 superior to .375..or, 375 superior to .338 (one argument being a larger cal. allows more margin
for shot error). But each time I have asked what 'margin of error' a larger calibre allows, nobody seem able to quantify it
for each calibre concerned. Maybe someone has a whizzbang concept or formula to add to to these other entertaining ones..


TKO formula

Stopping Power

Knock Down Power

Threshold of Wounding Potential based on Kinetic Energy

Optimal Game Weight (OGW) Formula

Hydrostatic Shock

Lethal Index Formula

Dead is certainly dead and a bunch of necropsy results might be enlightening but in my small sample of less than 20 elk killed or witnessed between a 30-06, 7mm RM, 300 Win mag and 300 Weatherby the most powerful weapon has produced the shortest distance travelled after the animal was hit. Right now a 75 yard flip and roll is the longest trailing job with the Weatherby.

I have a filmed hunt of a friend killing an enormous bull elk on a big ranch in Utah with a 308 Norma mag at about 400 yards. It absorbed 4 fatal shots before it died and covered 300 yards walking and trotting after the first hit. It did indeed die on the ridge right before it reached a deep canyon that would have added 1/2 a day to the retrieval. Would a 270 have stopped it as soon or sooner - who knows but my friend has an identical 270 rifle that stayed home because he wanted the extra oomph. If all I had was a 270 I'd sure use it but for elk I'd always go with the Norma. I don't think it would matter one bit on a deer out to 500 yards or so.

Look, he's 1K and you're only 22. You better listen up.

As for me, I have no need for a 300 mag shooting 180's, especially when I'm doing the volume of shooting required to become proficient at the ranges where the bigger cartridge and bullet supposedly have an advantage.

I'll be damned if that doesn't make sense.

I forgot to add, I have a .300 Wby. in the safe that's a tack driver with 180 TTSXs but it rarely sees the light of day.

Well, open the safe door once in a while....

during the daytime....

I would add that when it comes to dangerous game bigger is better. Never have hunted dangerous game in Africa, but having personally killed two large coastal brown bears and having participated in the killing of 4 more, I have a deep and abiding respect for how vindictive and powerful they are. I'm no longer in the brown bear hunting business but if I was I'd go with nothing smaller than a 375 H&H. I'd carry a 20mm chain gun if I could.

I did not notice any difference in two elks behavior when hit with a 260 gr Partition from a 375 H&H (~50 yards) or a 140 gr TSX from a 270 Win (~250 yards). They both just fell over.

The heart and lungs of elk are covered with an elastic lining that is similar in strength to 1" armor plating!!! They are damn neer impossibly to kill short of useing a cannon........or, armor piercing bullets from an /06 will work. Plus the heart and lungs are only 2" in diameter combined and that's why a cannon works best because that way you can hit the elk in the ass and the sheer shock will still completely blow the front end off of an elk taking out the heart and lungs. Good luck and be prepared to track at least 30 miles even if the head is blown completely off because an elk will still run based on muscle memory instinct alone. ☺


Trystan

I don't have a .270 or .308 Norma, but I do have a .280 and a .300WM. The .280 gets 140g North Fork SS, Nosler AccuBond and Barnes TTSX. The .300 gets 180g Barnes MRX and TTSX and North Fork SS. The .280 has been antelope, deer and elk hunting, the .300WM has hunted deer and elk.

There is little I would do with one I would not do with the other. At 600 yards the .300WM probably has an edge and would be my first choice. Whether that advantage would show up on any particular shot is questionable a best.