.270 vs 7-08......again

[4IDARCHER]

Last week I was all set to buy a Tikka T3X superlight in .270 Win. Seeing some of the new ammo available made me even more sure this thing was plenty flat and if I wanted to set up and take it instead of my .300WM for elk or moose doubletap ammo had 160gr partitions moving out of a 22in barrel at 2850. More than enough for just about any NA animal. The newer loads with a 130gr bullet had it screaming out at close to 3200fps. It matched up about perfect with my scope choice and thru my matched app my holdover strata lines were just about dead on at 100-600 yards (of course this is all theory until I buy the rifle and actually shoot it at those ranges).
Then I notice something on the app…. The distance measurements are in meters, not yards. Quick change to the app and now the 7-08 with some of the hotter 140gr loads, or the 120 Barnes TSX are now lining up pretty darn good with the 100-600 holdover marks, now I am not quite as sold on the .270 as I was a few days ago and could use some advice on choice.

The pro’s for the .270 are
Speed. It is faster for sure, no way around it
BC and SD for a given bullet weight
Availability of ammo (went to several wallmarts and local sporting goods stores over the weekend to test this theory out. While about half had at least one load of 7-08 they ALL had several different .270 available if ammo was ever lost or stolen or whatever).

The Pro’s of the 7-08 are
Less recoil. I always thought the .270 was a light recoiling rifle and really have no issue shooting my 8.75lb .300WM but a salesman at Scheels was showing me some of the Kimber hunters they have on sale and he told me he has one in 7-08 and his son bought an identical one in .270. He told me his is alright in recoil but his son needed to break the .270 in such a light rifle. Now for whatever reason this has gotten into my head a bit, probably because I don’t have much experience with super light rifles. I keep wondering if ANY .270 Win could kick that bad.

Short Action. Now if I stay with the Tikka then the action length becomes a moot point but if I decide to change course then the short action of the Kimber hunter does help out in the 7-08. The thing about the Kimber is that I have heard issues on here about them now and then. Not a ton but enough that I realize I may get a lemon. I have yet to hear a single negative on how the T3x feed or shoot. So still leaning Tikka, but the Kimber just seems like a nice, trim and classy rifle.

So what do you all feel is the better choice for a lightweight rifle for 100-600 yards on the range and 1-500 yards in the field.

 

[JollyRoger]

I think you might be suffering from Analysis Paralysis.

My non-expert opinion is that either will do the trick for your purposes and yardages. Lately I've been shooting my easy to shoot, less expensive, short action rifles more just cause they are a ton of fun, plus I can spend less money on ammo and more time shooting. But it looks like prices per box are pretty comparable between these two.

I'm a fan of the Tikka's. Price, decently light weight, and accuracy are all combined in the T3X Lites that I have. Mine are in 7mm Rem Mag and 6.5 Creedmoor. They both have limbsavers and SWFA scopes. Honestly the 7 Mag is not bad to shoot for me. Set up properly, use good form, and let the rounds fly. Sure it hits harder than the 6.5 (or the 7mm08 would), but it's manageable and I can make good hits.

 

[Trial153]

Flip a coin .

 

[backcountry_hunter]

I have a tikka in a .270. If you can shoot your 8lb 300wm fine, you won't have an issue with the 270.... even in a kimber hunter. Felt recoil is all relative but I've never, even in a kimber mtn ascent with the brake off, thought the .270 was too much.

I love the 7-08, huge fan of it.... but with modern bullets and loading the .270 has gotten pretty friggn universal. In my mind, it's like the new 30-06. That in a tikka is a gauranteed animal killer...

my $.02

 

[pods8 (Rugged Stitching)]

Short Action. Now if I stay with the Tikka then the action length becomes a moot point

Depends. If you want to run long COAL then its an issue to keep in mind, you can change the bolt stop and use a long action mag on the 7-08 tikka and run as long of a bullet as you'd like. The 270 you will be limited to ~3.4 unless you do some more aggressive gunsmith work. If running standard COAL then yes moot point.

 

[R H Clark]

Last week I was all set to buy a Tikka T3X superlight in .270 Win. Seeing some of the new ammo available made me even more sure this thing was plenty flat and if I wanted to set up and take it instead of my .300WM for elk or moose doubletap ammo had 160gr partitions moving out of a 22in barrel at 2850. More than enough for just about any NA animal. The newer loads with a 130gr bullet had it screaming out at close to 3200fps. It matched up about perfect with my scope choice and thru my matched app my holdover strata lines were just about dead on at 100-600 yards (of course this is all theory until I buy the rifle and actually shoot it at those ranges).
Then I notice something on the app…. The distance measurements are in meters, not yards. Quick change to the app and now the 7-08 with some of the hotter 140gr loads, or the 120 Barnes TSX are now lining up pretty darn good with the 100-600 holdover marks, now I am not quite as sold on the .270 as I was a few days ago and could use some advice on choice.

The pro’s for the .270 are
Speed. It is faster for sure, no way around it
BC and SD for a given bullet weight
Availability of ammo (went to several wallmarts and local sporting goods stores over the weekend to test this theory out. While about half had at least one load of 7-08 they ALL had several different .270 available if ammo was ever lost or stolen or whatever).

The Pro’s of the 7-08 are
Less recoil. I always thought the .270 was a light recoiling rifle and really have no issue shooting my 8.75lb .300WM but a salesman at Scheels was showing me some of the Kimber hunters they have on sale and he told me he has one in 7-08 and his son bought an identical one in .270. He told me his is alright in recoil but his son needed to break the .270 in such a light rifle. Now for whatever reason this has gotten into my head a bit, probably because I don’t have much experience with super light rifles. I keep wondering if ANY .270 Win could kick that bad.

Short Action. Now if I stay with the Tikka then the action length becomes a moot point but if I decide to change course then the short action of the Kimber hunter does help out in the 7-08. The thing about the Kimber is that I have heard issues on here about them now and then. Not a ton but enough that I realize I may get a lemon. I have yet to hear a single negative on how the T3x feed or shoot. So still leaning Tikka, but the Kimber just seems like a nice, trim and classy rifle.

So what do you all feel is the better choice for a lightweight rifle for 100-600 yards on the range and 1-500 yards in the field.

Do you already own this scope with BDC type reticle that you are using to decide your rifle choice? IMHO it's a poor way to pick a rifle or a caliber. You seem to be running numbers on a theoretical load that you haven't even tried yet. Suppose your gun hates those particular bullets or shoots that load a different velocity. There's no way to know until you start actually testing, which is one reason I don't like BDC type reticles to begin with.

Either caliber is an excellent hunting caliber but I wouldn't pick one based on theoretical BDC marks based on untested ballistics on a load I haven't even tried in the rifle. Personally,I usually prefer the 7mm-08 for milder recoil, short actions, and a wider range of bullet choices. I own both though and both work great on game.

 

[belly-deep]

You are putting the cart waaaaay before the horse by trying to match a rifle, load, and scope before owning and shooting all three. What if the ammo isn’t accurate in that gun? I what if it clocks 200 FPS below manufacturer specs? What is the elevation and atmospheric conditions where you will be shooting and how do those compare to the factory ballistics?

Step 1: pick rifle and cartridge
Step 2: test rifle w/ variety of ammunition
Step 3: pick a different scope if you want/need that better suits your rifle/load combo

Deviate from those steps much and you’re asking for frustration.

 

[4IDARCHER]

I do realize that I am taking a bit on faith here but the Scope I choose will work with most moderate BC bullets hovering around that 2900-3000 fps mark, I can't imagine a Tikka T3X in either of the calibers (270 or 7-08) not shooting at least some ammo well from the rifle, I have picked out 3 or 4 choices in ammo that in their respective calibers meet these requirements so if one or two doesn't shoot well in the rifle or is 200fps slow then at least one load in either should shoot fairly well.

I have done enough shooting over the years between 600 -1000 yards (a lot of it with iron sights) to know that up to 400 yards, and really even 500 you have to make some pretty drastic changes in atmospheric conditions to throw a shot that would overwise be in the vitals of a deer out of it, due to those conditions.

But I do get that this is not the normal way that most choose their setup.

 

[davsco]

yeah haven't seen a bdc scope yet that matches any caliber/load, sure some do but i don't have them and haven't seen them. data on the ammo box will never match your results. twist rate, barrel length, maybe their data is a little optimistic, etc. pick the rifle you want in the caliber you want. try a half dozen different brands with the various hunting bullets you want. pick one and you'll just have to figure out where it hits at each of your bdc lines. maybe it will come close to even hundred yard increments, maybe it won't. but as long as you know where each line hits, you got what you need. there's nothing that 300winmag won't do in conus, but prob not first choice for grizz. but if you want a lighter, lower recoil caliber, go for it, most of us find additional 'needs' here and there.

 

[R H Clark]

I do realize that I am taking a bit on faith here but the Scope I choose will work with most moderate BC bullets hovering around that 2900-3000 fps mark, I can't imagine a Tikka T3X in either of the calibers (270 or 7-08) not shooting at least some ammo well from the rifle, I have picked out 3 or 4 choices in ammo that in their respective calibers meet these requirements so if one or two doesn't shoot well in the rifle or is 200fps slow then at least one load in either should shoot fairly well.

I have done enough shooting over the years between 600 -1000 yards (a lot of it with iron sights) to know that up to 400 yards, and really even 500 you have to make some pretty drastic changes in atmospheric conditions to throw a shot that would overwise be in the vitals of a deer out of it, due to those conditions.

But I do get that this is not the normal way that most choose their setup.

Right now, I'm only using scopes with mill reticles and I have one Z5 with BT where you can adjust marked rings on the BT to match whatever load you choose. Basically you dial the BT where it needs to be at 200-500 and set the rings to correspond. That way if you want to develop a different load, you can always set it up by simply adjusting the yardage points.

I like the mills. It's a lot more versatile. Over the years, I'm always changing around scopes or selling-trading rifles. Mills makes it simple. You just learn your trajectory and apply it to whatever load you want, either by holding or dialing. You can always make a card and tape it to the stock.

 

[belly-deep]

I agree. The mil or moa reticles are much easier to use than the BDC type ones.

 

[huntsman22]

I have one Z5 with BT where you can adjust marked rings on the BT to match whatever load you choose. Basically you dial the BT where it needs to be at 200-500 and set the rings to correspond.
.

Set your zero stop at a 200 yd zero, the indicator to 300 and use the colored dots to gain some extry yardage......

 

[hodgeman]

I've done a fair bit of hunting with the 7-08 and the .270...if there's any distinguishable difference in the field I can't find it. I can't concoct a practical situation where one is remarkably better than the other. We get pretty preoccupied with 600 yard shooting, BC numbers and ballistics charts that we fail to consider that the majority of the differences are at the margins.

After shooting a pile of critters with the .30-06, .270, 7-08, 6.5CM, and .308W...the results in the field have been indistinguishable.

Best (unsolicited) advice I can give you? Buy a rifle, stick a scope on it and go shoot stuff.