Home Forums Hunting & Shooting General Big Game List reasons why one would get a .308win over .270win.

I still can’t think of a good reason to pick a .270 Win over a ..308W.... all BS aside.

The 308 is no 30-06. But, it accomplishes the task.
The 30-06 is no 300 WSM. But, it accomplishes the task.

Etc.

I got tired of all the Cactus Jack bullsheit years ago. Not from Mr. OConnor, but from all the dweebs who pretended to know his mind. Flame on.....

I haven’t owned a 308 in several years. I don’t know any reason to get
another..... all bs aside.

Jerry

That man has some very good educational information,

but due to the differences in shear and tensile properties of paper, the method of testing in phonebooks is not demonstrative
of wound channels in living tissue.

Then you have guys who do water jug tests, that do not simulate living tissue and provide no modeling for permanent wound channels.

For my testing, put me in the water jug camp for a variety of reasons.
1. They are quick and easy to prepare.
2. They are cheap. Mine are free since they would otherwise be in the trash.
3. They are very consistent as a test medium.
4. Bullets that expand or come apart or fail to expand in water often behave the same in flesh. I have identical bullets taken from flesh and water jugs and they look very much alike. I've also had bullets come apart in both water and flesh.

You say water jug tests " provide no modeling for permanent wound channels", That is true enough if you want to measure wound channels, but if you just want to get an idea of a load's potential to do damage, water jugs can help. In my experience a bullet that explosively destroys more water jugs also leaves larger wound channels. Some loads I've tested have blown up the first jug but just left entrance and exit holes leaking in the remainder of the jugs. Probably an indicator those loads would not leave wide wound channels.

Personally, I don't care for wet or dry paper or dirt/clay/sawdust as a test medium - or even gelatin for that matter. None are identical to flesh and all are much more work than water jugs. Gelatin is great for the lab, but I don't shoot in a lab. When it comes to flesh, there is also a big difference. A bullet that takes down an antelope with authority may not do so well on larger game.

Had hoped to do a big water jug shoot this year but life got in the way. I probably have close to 100, but they will keep until next spring or summer.

Very well put. It's not perfect, but it is consistent. Bullet to bullet.

Mebbe you fellas shooting water jugs should put some bones in them just for grins.

I am a water jug guy as well, not because I think it perfectly replicates any animal but it gives us all the same playing field we can all cheaply and easily compare bullets to. Not infallible by any means but usually if a bullet will take a point blank shot into the jugs and not fall to pieces, I haven’t seen it do it in animals yet.

The dry media is pretty cool though, may try building a box or something in the future for that and stack old paper in there. Till then I will keep hammering the milk jugs.

The only pulp media I liked was wet. Then you have a monumental mess to clean up. Wet too. Dry paper is quite abrasive to my way of thinking.

I love you guys. These threads always talk me out of buying a new rifle. Given I have a M700 in 280, I don't need a 270 or a 308 or a 30-06...

but I have a hankering for a Steyr Pro Hunter in 308...

Amen. I have enough 280’s to supply each member of my family.


I am, by no means, opposed to the 30 GOVT. Just wouldn’t own one.

Cartridges are more alike than different...

I've shot a lot of water filled milk jugs, but I had my video camera filming them for later viewing. I also shot those 5 gallon plastic water filled cubes and compared a NP to an Interlock and filmed that one. Snow filled boxes caught some bullets, but as written before tied together phone books gave me a consistent media that I could compare one bullet to another in the same stack. Then number, note and save just the covers without all the paper mess. Back when I was shooting a .308 for my deer hunting, a big surprise was the difference in expansion in a Remington 180 grain round nose Core-Lokt vs. a 180 grain Pointed Core-Lokt through the same stack of phone books. That round nose was punching a thumb size hole out of the first book's cover and the pointed bullet took three to have a similar size exit. The round nose penetrated a couple of books less as well. Our deer camp never lost a deer hit anywhere with that Remington round nose Core-Lokt. Some years back Handloader ran an article of 180 grain .30 caliber expanded bullets. I contacted the author and ordered a poster showing all those bullets side by side. Of the 38 different bullets tested in 100 fps increments from 3100 down to 1400 fps three bullets each, that Remington round nose Core-Lokt was the only one on the entire poster that expanded with a nice mushroom shape, never lost its core at every velocity from 3100 down to 1400 fps.

Some of our agricultural deer shooters are missing what could be a real learning opportunity for lots of us. They could be photographing the exit wounds of deer shot with different bullets.

The 308 will have better resale value.

The 270 is slowly dying in the used gun market, while the 308 is the biggest selling centerfire cartridge in the world, I believe.

Personally, I have yet to buy much of anything for resale. Selling my hunting rifles would be a challenge, especially the synthetic stocked ones....never know, it could of been used as a Jack handle . I prefer the .308 Jack handle over the .270 Jack handle...just have too much respect for the .270 wcf.

A link or two to your source(s), would be interesting.

My experience with it confirms this as true. Of all my rifles it has a better record of DRT kills than all the rest.