I know the .270 and .308/.30-06 are basically point and shoot out to 300 yards. However, on the ballistics charts I've seen the 130 grain .270 seems quite a bit flatter from 300 to 400 yards (which would be my absolute maximum range at best and I'm no pro at ballistics or shooting).
Just wondering if you guys think the .130 grain .270 is much of an advantage over the .308/.30-06 between 300-400 yards. Is the reduced holdover very significant in practice?

You can load a 30-06/150 to 3000-3100 fps. A 270/130 at the same speed isn't enough flatter to matter. In the 1920's when 270 was introduced a typical 30-06 load was a 150 at 2700 fps. The 270 shot flatter back then, but not today unless you're shooting watered down factory loads.

I've drifted away from 30-06 to 308. There is a difference in drop, but the way I see it out to 300 any one of them are manageable with little hold over. Beyond 300 all of them drop enough that I need a range finder and a scope with multiple aiming points. Even at that I'm not likely to take a shot beyond 300. In fact other than at the range I've not shot at game past 250. I've done it enough at the range that I'd shoot at 300, and up to 400 only if everything were perfect. I'm not good enough past that.

Shooting out to 400 yds is a lot harder without a bench than 99% can hit at regardless what weapon is used.
George

I never thought the 270's I had were that great.The 24" barreled one I had struggled to get 3000fps with a 130gr bullet,the 22" barreled one I had couldn't break 2900fps.I know some peoples rifles do better,but mine wouldn't.I never found it to be that flat of a shooter either.I like the 30-06 much better.It shoots just as flat or flatter with a bigger bullet.My 24" barreled 30-06's will push a 168gr Ballistic Tip a tad over 2900fps and my 28" barrel will do 3000-3070fps depending on what powder I use.Now I'm choosing these two bullets because that's what I'd be hunting with.A 130gr 270 Ballistic Tip has a B.C. of .433.A 168gr Ballistic Tip in the 30 cal is .490.
The 270 130gr @ 3000fps 200yd sight in shows -6.6" at 300yds and -19.6" @ 400yds
the 30cal 168gr @ 2900fps 200yd sight in shows -6.7" at 300yds and -20.2" @ 400yds
the 30cal 168gr @ 3000fps 200yd sight in shows -6.4" at 300yds and -18.6" @ 400yds

I think the 270 earned the reputation as a flat shooter years ago when at it's time was true.But since that time,so many different cartridges,bullets and powders have come to be.It's not bad,but there are a lot of cartridges that do shoot a lot flatter.I still think the 30-06 is a better cartridge.You can load light bullets or really heavy bullets and it will work well with a wider variety of powders too.

All depends on what bullet you want to use, and how much recoil you want.

Agree

I agree too.I prefer shooting 200yds or less myself.Once you get to those longer distances,a lot more factors come into play.

Baldhunter beat me to it. Zero'ed for 200 yards, a .30-06 shooting a 150gr NAB at 3000fps only drops 3" more at 500 yards than a .270 shooting a 130gr NAB at 3100fps. A shooter would have to be able to hold 1/2 MOA at 500 yards from field positions to see a difference when hunting...

There is a 425 yd steel In a clearcut on the way home from alpine hunting. It’s nothing to hit it to confirm we didn’t knock rifle offa zero on the way down. 400 ain’t hard at all.

I’ve shot the 30-06 and 270 both right at 20 years. I’ll never own another 270 unless it is just an ultra special rifle.

There is no difference I’ve found or magic within the 270.

I prefer the ability to go 130-220 grain bullets with the 308 and 30-06.

Hunt with what you like, boys. Several cartridges will work fine to distances farther than many will ever shoot.

The reduced recoil vs a 30-06 is significant to many shooters. Count me as a long time 270 shooter, especially for deer.

I'd rather have the superior SD/BC of a .277 130 as opposed to a .308 150. Especially in the wind

I lent my buddy my 270 Mountain rifle many years ago when he hunted with his mentors. He was basically laughed out of camp up in the Adirondacks as only real men hunt w/742s and w/220 Corlokts. WWll veterans loved the 06. He knocked a buck over backwards with the little gun and the old guys kinda accepted him. He still borrows my guns to this day.

+1 I see no difference between a 30-06 and a 270 to even matter.

I’m a 200-250 yard shooter. Can’t see that well anymore

Baldhunter, I don't know what powders you've tried but my first attempt at working up a load with a 130 grain SGK has been clocked on two chronographs at close to 3100 FPS and that's through a 22 inch tube. But I didn't buy it because I thought it was flatter shooting than a .270. I bought it because of less recoi and the SDs of the lighter bullets. I don't think shooting at 300 yards there's a dimes worth of difference in a dozen different rifles. I just like some better than others.

Fil e mon

In case you don't know....

a 130 gr 30 cal does NOT have the BC (ballistic coefficient) of a 130 gr .277 cal.

just saying. They ain't the same.

Jerry

In like bullets.

Otw, I’ll take the bc of a 0.308 130 ttsx over the bc of a 0.277 130 core-lokt ...

No meaningful advantage of any one of those three cartridges over the others, so take the rifle that you like the best.

I hunt elk with a pair of 270s, a CLR to use on overwatch and a Remington 760 to use in the timber. I could use the same two rifles in 30-06, but I chose to use them in 270. The 270 worked well for JOC and the improvements in bullet design and manufacturing has made even better than it ever was in his prime.

Yes they really perk up with the new powders.

With modern bullets not much difference unless you compare oranges and apples. That say, they both have been reborn. My 24” 30/06 chronies 3200 with 130 gr ttsx & 3275 with 125 bt. And 58 gr Varget. It would be hard for me to shoot my 270 to chase a little more bc. They both shoot better than I do.

I do not think it is a huge advantage in real world situations.

Over 40 years of hunting and I have shot exactly one deer over 300 yards. So I have no real world experience.

Huge 270 fan here, and will be taking one after antelope next weekend.

I like to shoot my 270 at longer ranges better than my 06.
Most of my hunting/kills are under 300 so the 06 is a clear choice.
270 with 130 ttsx or 06 with 168ttsx are deadly

Uust curious, but what game are you shooting under 300 yards where the 30-06 would be a clear choice over a 270 using comparable bullets?

What is a CLR?

BTW I don't have one, and all but my '94 are bolt guns but there's just something I love about 760s. Remington always made good pump shotguns so I know a 760s gotta be first rate.

There ain't a dimes worth a practcal difference in the two. I love the .270 because it was the first rifle I bought and I have used it for the past 54 years with a lot of success. But I now have 2 .30-06s that I also love. If one has a real advantage over the other, the .30-06 is capable of taking bigger game than a .270 because of the availability of heavy bullets due to its larger diameter. But around here of the game we have in Texas the two are equal. These two, the .270 and the .30-06, are the greatest of American cartridges.

Remington is BECOMING or IS History.....
Ifn you like a Rem pump, better get 1, some before the price skyrockets.

BTW-- there are 7600s, 76s, & Sixes SINCE the 760.

Elk is my primary game.
Maybe it’s because of the rifle .
06 is a Tikka and is lighter and easier for me to handle than the 270 in tc venture.
My 270 is tack driver and I am much more accurate it with it after 400 yards than the 06.
The 270 is always with me as a back up or a loaner.

The 30.06 is a fine round. There is almost nothing in North America it can't handle. I've killed a lot of stuff with it. It's the work horse of the gun world. A good work horse can be ridden, he'll pull a wagon, you can load a pack saddle on him, etc. The thing is he's not ideal for any of those tasks. Same goes for the 30.06. That's why my pre-64 M70 stays in the safe a lot these days.

CLR = Colt Light Rifle?

Correct answer

Great thread and when I read this type of discussion on distance/caliber/bullets I’m sometimes reminded of a conversation I listened to, circa 1970.

One of the true Cajun guys I knew had only ever hunted with a Winchester Model 94 in 30-30 that was handed down from his grandfather and finally to him. He killed a lot of swamp deer with that rifle. We ran deer dogs in the swamp in those days.

He told several of us at the swamp camp that he was getting himself a new rifle, a BAR in Remington 7mm mag. One of the guys said, “Brother Boo, dat ting made for shootin cross canyons and stuff”.

Boo said, “ hot damn,Man, shoot far, shoot close”.

And so it is. If it’ll shoot far, it’ll shoot close.

It is all about the individual bullet, weight, shape and velocity. Daughter shoots a 130g TTSX @ 3045fps in her .308 Win, and a 150g ABLR @ 2910fps in her .270. She has used the .308/130g TTSX for elk but will use the ..270/150g ABLR this year.

Comparing like-weight bullets at 7000 feet, say 130g TTSX, a .270 can deliver 1500fpe to about 100 yards further than a .308 do.

Shhh, don’t ya know fpe “don’t mean anything” ?
Don’t confuse them with stats !!

Not to mention— the increase is because of B C which translates to
Flatter trajectory &
Retained ‘Speed’, aka velocity which means it hits HARDER !

Keep the secret.

Jerry