Conference vmsnet::hunting$note:hunting

    Split the difference, get a .257 Roberts.
    
    I'm tempted to say that the .243 is only a good deer gun if
    you shoot very well. But since you'll practice plenty on
    varmints, it's probably the better choice. .270 on a bunch
    of varmints would be h*ll on the shoulder.

    If your planning to do alot of varminting and throw in an occasional
    deer hunt i'd have to say go with the .243  Not so much because
    of the reduced recoil, the .270 is probably one of the sweetist
    shooting calibers around in the recoil dept., but because the .243
    was designed originally as a varminting round. Only later did people
    realize its fringe benifits as a potent little deer cartridge.
    
    both will do the job, but where varminting is the norm, i'd go with
    the .243    
    
    Fra
    
    boy, did that ever hurt to sell out the .270  8^)

    
    
    Go with the .270.  Of course, I'm a .270 bigot.  I've been shooting
    one for over 10 years and wouldn't consider anything else (except
    maybe black powder, but that's a different matter).
    
    I've taken Texas Whitetails with both the .270 and the .243, and
    in my opinion, the .270 is far superior.  In fact, I even disagree
    with a previous reply which stated that you have to have very
    careful bullet placement if you're shooting a .270.  I'm not
    advocating that you don't always try for exact placement, but
    I killed one deer with my .270 by hitting it right in the butt.
    It did take a second shot, but the deer went down and stayed down.
    Also, if you're worried about bullet placement, you will have to
    be even more careful with the .243.
                                       
    Another advantage with the .270 is that you can take larger game,
    say Mule deer or Elk, with it.  I don't know if this is a
    consideration, but why learn two or more rifles when you can get
    by with only learning how to shoot one.  By that, I mean that it
    takes a certain amount of time and shooting with any new firearm
    to become comfortable and proficient with it.  I am of the opinion
    that the very best gun for anything is the one which you like the
    best, as long as it meets certain basic minium requirements (whatever
    they happen to be).
    
    For what it's worth, that's my opinion.
    
    Jerry                        

    .3   I don't agree with the thought of using the .270 for a possible
    elk rifle.  Even the best of shooters run alot of risk of not getting
    the shot placement that one needs with a lighter gun (.270).  A
    .270 in the chest would just dent a rib and then you'd have one
    p*ssed off elk chasing you around a mountain.  At a minimum I would 
    suggest a .30-06 or .308.  These will cover varmints to elk.  
    Remmington makes an accelerator bullet (55 gr powered by a .30-06 
    or .308 shell), which works real well on varmints.  then you have 
    the selection of other weights that are good for all else up to elk.
    
    If you don't go with .243 or less or the .30-06/.308 than you will
    just blow up your coyote or bobcat.  I've hit yotes with a .30-06
    165gr bt and they look just like the ones on the highway after a
    big mac hits them.
    
    My varmint gun is a custom made .22-250 (remmington 700 action,
    Brown stock, fluted bull barrel, 6.5x20 leupold scope and every
    inch is cammo - even the tip of the barrel).  
    
    my suggestion:  if you want an all-around, .30-06 or .308.
    if you can get 2, then .22-250 and .30-06 or larger.
    
    good luck and good hunting,
    scott 

    This is my $.02 worth and with inflation the way it is it probably
    is not worth that much. I have done some reading and talking to
    some people. When one rifle is all that you are going to get, the
    general consensus is to get a 30/06. It seems that most people regard
    this as the best all around rifle cartridge. A .270 is nice but
    it the smallest cartridge that should be used on elk. Next is a
    .308 then a .280 then a 30/06 then comes all the magnums. But everybody
    has their own personal preference. Jack O'Connell swore by the .270,
    Which probably did more to kill the .280 than anything else. If
    it were me buying the rifle I would go with a 30/06 (which I have).
    Good luck with whatever choice you make.
    							Bret

    re:.4
    
    I disagree about being undergunned with a .270 for elk, although
    I havn't hunted elk there are quite a few guys in this conference
    who have used a .270 and taken several elk consistently with them.
    
    As far as denting ribs this is ridiculous, one needs only to handload
    the correct bullet style to insure good penetration/expansion. 
    
    Jack O'Connor has proved time and time again that a .270 is more
    than capable of taking Elk, and has even thrown in a moose or 2
    for good measure.
    
    For what the author of .0 is requesting,  (i.e. predominantly a
    varmint rig with an occasional deer thrown in) a .308 or a 30-06
    is not on the top 5 list of choices, although capable of filling
    the bill there are others more suited for the task.
    
    just my $.02 worth,  Fra

    re: .5
    	Jack O'Connor's supporting the .270 did NOT lessen the popularity
    of the .280. In fact, Jack once said that the .280 was a better choice
    for game than the .270. I believe that the .280 was introduced in 1966
    and has been kicked around a LOT by gunwriters but I have never heard
    of Jack O'Connor being one of them.
    re: .4
    	I think you spoke too hastily about the .270 just denting the
    ribs of an Elk. Thousands of Elk have been taken by the .270. I've
    even heard of Kodiak Brown Bear being taken with one shot from a
    .270 (I believe they were using a 165 gr Nosler partition bullet.
    
    Lowell
    

          I should of stated at the beginning that I have a couple of .308s
    and a 30-06 already among other .30 rifles.

    re:.7.... my thoughts exactly!
    
    regarding the .280 introduction/death/rebirth several times over....
    the 280 made its first of 4 debuts in 1957.  It was a problem of
    bad timing, the .280 got lost among a flock of new calibers (i.e.
    the 243 win, and the 338 win mag to name a few), the .280 was
    introduced in the remington model 742 autoloader, and couldn't compare
    on equal terms with the bolted .270 
    
    It was introduced a second time in the model 760 pump but again
    the combo didn't catch on. Word also got around that the .280 was
    loaded down so as not to be too stressful in the pump action and
    autoloaders. 
    
    It was offered a 3rd time in the remington model 721 a bolt action,
    but by now hunters were yawning at it. 25 years of almost total
    failure would have seen most manufacturers give up, but Remington
    hung in there.  In 1981 they renamed the .280 to the 7mm Remington
    Express hoping this would be the answer.  They now offered the "new"
    cartridge in their Model Four autoloader. The problem now was people
    were confusing it with the 7mm magnum, so in 1983 they again renamed
    it, now calling it the 7mm/06 Remington (because it was nothing more than
    a 30-06 necked down to a 7mm, with a slightly longer shoulder), but
    not for long, handloaders were having headspace problems trying to
    use 30-06 brass, so they renamed it again to the .280 remington
    which has been used ever since.
    
    In 1987, the .280 outsold the .270
    
    just a little fyi i dug up,  Fra

    I didn't mean to say that Jack O'Connell was killing it but more
    that he was promoting the .270 so much that it was all everybody
    was talking about and not much was heard of the .280 until recently.
    I think the .270 is anice cartridge, definately big enough to take
    an elk but one should not use a lesser cartridge. I have a friend
    in Montana that uses a .243 on elk, which he does use succesfully
    from time to time. It would not be my choice though. I think the
    .280 would be a better choice (especially if reloading) because
    of the wider range of bullets that are available. But I will always
    take a 30/06 over a .270 or .280. Only because I like an even greater
    variety of bullets than you can get in the other 2. I think but
    I am not totally sure but isn't a .280's velocity about 100 fps
    faster than a .270 with the same bullet weight? Just curious. But
    like .9 says, when Remington first came out with the .280 it was
    bad timing, so much was being written about the .270 that the .280
    was lost in the shuffle. Just my $.04.
    							Bret

	RE:
    >.3   I don't agree with the thought of using the .270 for a possible
    >elk rifle.  Even the best of shooters run alot of risk of not getting
    >the shot placement that one needs with a lighter gun (.270).  A
    >.270 in the chest would just dent a rib and then you'd have one
    >p*ssed off elk chasing you around a mountain.  At a minimum I would 


	Lets summon up the spirts of the 10+ elk I've taken with my .270
	with 130 grains.  Not a one of them will remember chasing anything
	once they were hit.  They will more likely say "what the heck hit
	me?".  Dent a rib? More like blowing them out the other side. I've
	only had two move from point of impact and they dropped very close
	by.
	That same load is used from elk down to 10" tall ground hogs.  
	Though it puts too big a hole in coyotes, I don't take them in any
	way.  Head shots to deer and antelope have flipped them hoof side
	up.

	Gordon

    
    
    re .11
    
    Gordon, I like the way you think.  Especially the part about using
    only one load.  I'm a firm believer in picking a cartridge that
    you can handle well and have confidence in.  There's not hardly
    anything worse than packing a gun around all day long and wonder
    if you can drop your game if the opportunity presents itself.
    
    I like to settle on one rifle, one cartridge and one load for
    all of my hunting.  Of course, I realize that this is not always
    practical.  But where it is, go with what you like.  If you're
    constantly changing rifles, cartridges or loads, you never have
    a chance to develop that confidence that only repeated success in
    the field with the same gun gives you.  It's that psychological
    edge that often makes the difference between a hit or a miss.
    
    Oh well, enough of my digressing.  Perhaps we should start another
    topic on favorite rifles, calibers, etc.  I've already put a vote
    in for the .270, but will do so again to comply with the spirit
    of this topic.  By the way, I use 140 grain loads.  Anyone else
    ever try 'em.
    
    Jerry

    Who is Jack O'Connell?????                              
    
    The Great One, the all time biggest supporter of the .270, the last
    Great White Hunter of an age now gone by, the former Shooting Editor 
    of Outdoor Life, and one of the finest writers of any kind, now 
    sadly deceased, is:
    
    	_JACK_O'CONNOR_
    		    ^^
    		    note the difference!
    
    Sorry guys, I think I'm his biggest fan, and hate to see his name
    used incorrectly.
    
    
    >>> Tim <<<
     

    Sorry, *I* am his biggest fan...   ;'}
    
    
    Lowell
    

    funny thing.  After writing that reply, I started reading Jim
    Carmichael's The Book of the Rifle.  Starting to have some second
    thoughts on Jack'e ideas, but Jim doesn't beat Jack on readability.
    
    >>> Tim <<<

    Tim,
    
    How do you mean "Second thoughts"?? As I understand it, Jack simply
    was saying that if you shoot a gun that has low recoil, you tend to
    shoot it more often and therefore you become more proficient. He was
    also one of the first to see the value of a flat shooting caliber. I
    think that everyone agrees with those principles these days. I haven't
    read Jim's book yet (maybe I should).
    
    Lowell
    

          To get back to the original question, I just noticed in a
    catelog that Barnes makes a *heavy-duty* 115gr bullet in .243.
    I would think that would help alot - a little slower but more ommmph
    wouldn't you think?  
    
          (I retired my .243 Sako from deer hunting when a 100gr Core-lok 
    blew up on a big bucks shoulder and I never got him.) 
                                                    

         Thanks for the input. I pretty sure that my choice is a 
     .270 Remington Mountain Rifle. Since I handload I think that I 
    should be able to down load to my varmints needs.

    Make sure you check out the availability of light bullets
    in .270. 
    
    I use 100 grainers in 7mm, not sure if they make this weight
    in .270.
    
    Good luck, and let us know how it shoots.
    
    Dana

         I checked into it this weekend and found that Speer makes a 
    90 grain HP for the .270. Everyone makes a 100 grain bullet.
    

    re: second thoughts.
    
    I was referring to a few areas where Jack had definite strong opinions,
    and Jim pretty much blows them away.  There are many examples, I'll
    give you two:
    
    Jack believed that the older Mauser-style bolt actions with the
    large extractor claw were superior yo the current designs.  As with
    most everything Jack took the no-nonsense, sceptical, lots of careful
    reasoning and field approach to this area.   Jim shows that, in
    fact the modern design is superior from a number of standpoints.
    
    Jack also believed that any modern rifle designed to be manufactured
    economically had to be inferior to older designs whish were much-more
    labor intensive.  The love of the "pre-'64" model 70  Winchester
    is a good case in point.  Jim does a TREMENDOUS job reviewing how
    rifles are manufactured.  His basic point is that modern bolt actions
    are not only cheaper to manufacture, but are also safer, simpler
    and MORE ACCURATE than older designs.
    
    I'm not going to elaborate or argue (maybe this whole thing should
    be discussed as a seperate topic?), but I highly recommend Jim
    Cacmichel's Book of the Rifle for anyone who has any kind of interest
    in rifles.  I got my copy through the Outdoor Life Book Club.
    
    <<< Tim >>> 

    RE:.21
    
    Maybe this should go under a different topic, but I have to disagree
    with you regarding the "pre 64" model 70...
    
    Fra

    
    	Everybody has a favorite calibre that will do anything. I had
    a 1963 issue of Guns & Ammo that touted the .243 best all around
    cartridge for use on all types of game up to and including BROWN
    BEAR. But than again people have used a 44 magnum pistol to take
    all this planets most dangerous game.
        SO if were up to me to choose between the .280 and .243 , I'd
    buy both..................
    
    One can never have enough toys :^)
    
    
    sjn

    If you want to take a Brownie with a .243, a) go for head
    shots, b) make sure your backup has a .458, and c) make
    sure your life insurance is paid up.

    
    
    	The American Hunter has an article on the .270 with loading
    	data seems pretty informative for you folks contemplating
    	or owning one....
    
    
    						~Mike~

    I saw someone mention a .257 Roberts but how 'bout the 25-06?  Thats
    my next cabin fever project..... Lafosse talked me into the .270
    this year and I had a ball with it.  I haven't taken it afield yet
    but I worked up a nice load for it that does MOA performance using
    the 130 SPBT.  I spent an afternoon dusting clay pigeons that were
    set up at 300 yards.  If you don't mind "dusting" coyotes, or rodents,
    I wouldn't think twice about using it.  Oh yeah, I've fired as many
    as 75 rounds at a sitting in a t-shirt, with no black-and-blues.
    
    The .243 will take deer.  No question about it.  But, if you were someone
    that didn't handload, didn't do a lot of varmit hunting, etc.. I'd
    say you'd be unethical to go after deer with anything in the .243
    class.                                                
    
    Dave

         Well I havn't got a chance to try out my .270 yet but I was
    wondering if any of you have got a 700 Mountain Rifle in a .270
    or larger cal. Its the lightness that I am wondering about and
    how the recoil will be. The Mountain comes through with a pad so it
    will help.

    The recoil of a .270 is a pleasure in whatever setup you should
    choose...
     
    Fra

    
     I just sighted in my Mountain Rifle in .280 last week.  Using 150
    grain Federals w/noslers it was reasonably tame.  I was using a
    bench rest and fired about a box (20) shots.  Ruined the X-ring...
    
     I would think that 130 grain bullets in .270 or 140 grains in .280
    would be even milder.  No problems with the lightness of the rifle,
    it's a pleasure.
    
    	-jro