Glock Talk banner

Can the .30-06 do more than the .270 Win?

9K views 62 replies 29 participants last post by  dkf 
#1 ·
As stated in the title. Is the .30-06 capable of performing more tasks than the .270 Win?
 
#52 · (Edited)
Surprised no one has mentioned the history of the .270. IIRC, Wasn't it developed to get higher velocity & longer range by just necking down a .30-06 case? I think case volume behind the bullet is the same, is it not? So you can "reach out and touch" smaller targets at greater distance!

I'm certainly not a ballistics authority, but I believe I read that somewhere BEFORE the Internet. (Sports Afield or the like)
 
#55 ·
Surprised no one has mentioned the history of the .270. IIRC, Wasn't it developed to get higher velocity & longer range by just necking down a .30-06 case? I think case volume behind the bullet is the same, is it not? So you can "reach out and touch" smaller targets at greater distance!

I'm certainly not a ballistics authority, but I believe I read that somewhere BEFORE the Internet. (Sports Afield or the like)
You have to look at the marketing strategy to understand the .270, really, ballistically, it doesn't make a lot of sense. You do not gain effective "longer range" with a lower ballistic coefficient. You might gain a flatter trajectoy which translates to a slightly longer PBR but not as much as one would think. put a 130 gn bullet in a 30-06 and see what happens.

The ability to hit targets at long range is much more in the hands of the shooter and their knowledge and skill than in a realtively few FPS. But shrewed marketers would have you think otherwise.

At the time America was "30-06'ed" to the max. There was considerable interest still, in rounds like the .257 Roberts but Americans would not accept a "foriegn caliber" with things like "8mm, 7mm, 6.5mm" in the title or based on "Odd" bore diameters. "If we are going to have an odd caliber, it will be one our own making" was pretty much the sentiment.

When it comes down to it, and with the benefits of todays projectiles, the wildcat "6.5-06" is a giant leap above the .270 in versatility. But in the day "All American" "with more velocity" is what sold new guns.
 
#57 ·
I am not a fan of either round, but the 06 can handle heavier bullets w/ enough vel to take anything that walks the planet.
With 220gr solids, it has taken all the DG in Africa as well as the largest bears. I prefer a 280 & 338-06, but I am just a bit on the odd side.:cool:
I started with a 30-06 because that's what my Dad had and I inherited all of his ammo, bullets, powder, etc. If I started from scratch, I'd probably go with the 280 Rem for deer and antelope, 338-06 for elk, bear, moose.

As it stands, I have the 30-06 and 338-06. :cool:
 
#58 · (Edited)
Surprised no one has mentioned the history of the .270. IIRC, Wasn't it developed to get higher velocity & longer range by just necking down a .30-06 case? I think case volume behind the bullet is the same, is it not? So you can "reach out and touch" smaller targets at greater distance!

I'm certainly not a ballistics authority, but I believe I read that somewhere BEFORE the Internet. (Sports Afield or the like)
From Wiki

"While it is true that a .270 Winchester case can be formed from a 30-06 Springfield case, the case length of a 30-06 is 2.494 inches (63.3 mm) while the case length of a .270 is 2.540 inches (64.5 mm), the same as a .30-03 Springfield. It is recommended that .270 Winchester brass be formed from .35 Whelen or .280 Remington cases.[11]"

.270 - "Case capacity 67 gr H2O (4.355 cm³)"
30-06 - "Case capacity 68 gr H2O (4.42 cm³)"

So sounds like the extra length on the .270 is neck.

A bigger diameter bullet gives more area for the burning powder to "push" against the bullet and more room in the bore to burn. For example a .338-06 can push a .338 220gr bullet with more "authority" than a 30-06 can push a .30 220gr bullet.
 
#59 ·
From Wiki

"While it is true that a .270 Winchester case can be formed from a 30-06 Springfield case, the case length of a 30-06 is 2.494 inches (63.3 mm) while the case length of a .270 is 2.540 inches (64.5 mm), the same as a .30-03 Springfield. It is recommended that .270 Winchester brass be formed from .35 Whelen or .280 Remington cases.[11]"

A bigger diameter bullet gives more area for the burning powder to "push" the bullet and more room in the bore to burn. For example a .338-06 can push a .338 220gr bullet with more "authority" than a 30-06 can push a .30 220gr bullet.
This is an important, and often overlooked point.
 
#60 ·
They just hadn't adopted the term "magnum" yet...




Imma do the .277 Nabuchadnezzar although the Methuselah sounds pretty potent.
Reminds me of the story of a wildcat cartridge maker. He had come up the ultimate varmint cartridge. It was suppose to have an extremely flat trajectory and because of the speed it would not have to worry about wind drift as much.

He had take a 50BMG cartridge and necked it down to .45. Then he took that cartridge and necked it down to .40. At this point he had to thin the neck because the brass was getting too thick. Then he took the case and necked it down to .308. Then he necked it down to .264. Again he had to thin the neck. He was finally able to neck it down to .224.

He then put a gun together with with a barrel chambered in his special round.

His test loads were with with the same powder as normally loaded in a 50BMG.

He said that he was only having one issue with the ultimate varmint cartridge. It was vaporizing the bullet before it reached the end of the barrel.

:whistling:
 
#61 ·
From Wiki

"While it is true that a .270 Winchester case can be formed from a 30-06 Springfield case, the case length of a 30-06 is 2.494 inches (63.3 mm) while the case length of a .270 is 2.540 inches (64.5 mm), the same as a .30-03 Springfield. It is recommended that .270 Winchester brass be formed from .35 Whelen or .280 Remington cases.[11]"

.270 - "Case capacity 67 gr H2O (4.355 cm³)"
30-06 - "Case capacity 68 gr H2O (4.42 cm³)"

So sounds like the extra length on the .270 is neck.

A bigger diameter bullet gives more area for the burning powder to "push" against the bullet and more room in the bore to burn. For example a .338-06 can push a .338 220gr bullet with more "authority" than a 30-06 can push a .30 220gr bullet.
Thanks for the good info! :cool:
 
#62 · (Edited)
C'mon now. No amount of bullet and gun development can ever turn the .270 into an elk or moose cartridge like the .30-'06 easily is.
Let me guess, you own a 30.06, right? Do you have any experience at all with the .270?
The .270 win has long been considered a premier elk cartridge by plenty of people who know what they're talking about.

Sure, an 06 may be marginally better when both are pushed toward their limits, but within their intended scope (CXP2 & thinner skinned CPX3 sized game at medium to long range), they're too close to matter much at all. I'm not denying the OP's claim that the 06 is more versatile, but you are claiming that it's better at everything.
 
#63 · (Edited)
There are many different opinions on the "perfect elk cartridge". Some say .338-06, some .300win mag, some .300rum, some 30-06, some 7mm, some .338 win mag and etc. The 30-06 is a more versitile cartridge than the .270 hands down due to many factors, I really don't know how someone can argue otherwise. Is the .270 a bad cartridge? Nope. If I would come up on a big bull I just would prefer a little more bullet than what the run of the mill .270 provides. Opinions vary.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top