Is a 270 a good black bear gun ?
Printable View
Is a 270 a good black bear gun ?
Yes it is.
yes and no. Yes it is good for short distances, but for longer distance I would use a 30-06
Easily capable of taking down a black bear.
Got my pop-corn, now let watch the show.....Quote:
Originally Posted by The Phoenix
It depends on bullet, 140-160gr would be fine for black bear. I've found that in my case 45-70 with 320gr works way better than 308 Win 160gr due to the chance of recochet.
It will kill a black bear no problem, they are not supposed to be very tough to kill.
That being said, I have a couple friends who are bear guides, they prefer 30 cal rifles for fall bear as the hole that is open on exit is larger and tends not to plug up with fat.
I was going bear hunting on a bait, I have a 6.5x55mm and was going to use it, I was told my 30-30 would be a better option as the larger hold will give a better blood trail if it does not drop. The feet of bears do not leave very good tracks either.
You hit a bear in the high shoulder with a 270 though and I doubt it will run far on 2 broken shoulder blades.
30-06... lol.. need a min. 338 win magQuote:
Originally Posted by The Phoenix
Sent from my SM-G920W8 using Tapatalk
Maybe you can explain, because I am not understanding your comment.....a .270 will/can do the job no problem,Quote:
Originally Posted by The Phoenix
Thanks for all the help
I've seen them lost with just about everything--especially arrows.
If I'm hunting close range (under 75yds.) in thick bush,I'll use my 45/70 Marlin. I simply want enough to anchor it on the spot. If I'm doing the spot and stalk thing (like almost always) on bush trails and roads,I use 30-06 Spr Ruger M77 for longer shots still wanting it to not go far,if at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by brown
Here's my thoughts on the matter, the old buffalo hunters use to work with about 1600 ft-lbs of energy with the old black powder buffalo rifles, and they were capable of taking down a buffalo. With a 270 Win. and a 150 grain bullet traveling at 2842 fps your knocking back something in the order of about 2700 ft-lbs of energy. What's do you imagine are your odds of taken down an animal about 1/3 to 1/2 the size of a buffalo. Jacques Herter once took on a grizzly with a 243 Win. the first round he fired broke up on the bears chest cavity, and pissed him off, confronted with a charging bear his second round hit him high on the forehead and blew up destroying part of his brain. It stop the grizzly. Arguably is was a pretty dumb thing to do. However, he took the view: "I wanted to see what it (a 243 Win) would do, to a bear; you never know until you try."
You don't stop hunting because you grow old. You grow old because you stop hunting.
-Gun Nut
I saw a bear taken at our camp with a 7mm-08. The slug got lodged in the hide on the opposite side and never exited. That said, the bear didn't go very far.
A couple of years ago I posted the ballistic charts for the ammo I was using in my .270, the speed and impact values we almost equal out to 150 yds. after that the .270 values exceeded those of the 30-06. That said, I fail to see how the .270 is only good on bears at short range. Both bullets in that comparison were 150 gr. The damage in any of the deer I have shot with my .270 is comparable to those shot with a 30-06.
I'm selective with my ammunition, but I don't see any problem in using a .270. For short range. I have a 35 Remington.
Roe+
You are good to go. I would reccomend a stout bullet that the rifle shoots well.
It will certainly do the trick (just as well as a 30/06 or a 308) . --- I know of a ~ 300 lbs. "Blacky" that was taken with a 22WMR (head-shot) . --- Years ago (when we were still allowed to hunt with handguns) this hunter left his rifle at the camp-site (just before dark) , grabbed 2 pails and walked down to the river (~ 200 yards away) . After filling them he started to climb up-hill again . Within ~ 50 yards from the water he suddenly heard a "clicking sound" and noticed some movement in the under-brush (to his left) . He quickly set the pails down and drew his handgun (Ruger Single Six Convertible) . At that time he was still using 22WMR-solids because they weren't as destructive as HPs (for Grouse etc.) . In later years he switched to BB- and CB-caps (less noise) . --- Anyway , the Bear was only ~ 15' away (clicking it's teeth) . The hunter aimed at the head (in dim light) and hit the Bear into the right eye . It dropped instantly . --- That year (1965) we harvested 3 Moose and 1 Bear . --- It seems as if it had happened only yesterday . --- I still have pictures of that Bear . --- Among the 4 of us one hunter took a bull + cow , the other a bull + Bear . --- I kept the hide (on the living-room-floor) until 1993 and then gave it away . --- Memorieeeees !!! --- During those days I always carried my Ruger on the hip while Deer- , Bear- or Moose-hunting .Quote:
Originally Posted by brown
Yes. I'm fairly new to the rifle thing but I've taken 3 bears with a .270. Closet one was 150 yards. Furthest one went after the shot was 40 yards. I was using 150gr Winchester power point ammo.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Fre
270 ballistics are almost the same as the 30-06. The 270 is actually suited for the same distance as a 30-06.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Phoenix
I have both,so,it's always a toss up which one to take. The only difference is a 30-06 can load a heavier bullet than a .270,delivering more knock down at the same range.Quote:
Originally Posted by greatwhite
While I know a number of people who have taken moose with a .270, a 30-06 with the heavier bullet would be better. That said the polymer tipped bullets are amazing, higher ballistic coefficient and better expansion. I've been using Winchester XP3s and I was impressed by what they did to that 10pointer I got in 2014.Quote:
Originally Posted by trimmer21
With those, the last thing to cross a bear's mind would be his A-hole.
Roe+
I'd take the .30-06 over the .270. Not only can you shoot a heavier bullet - which is better from a physics perspective, but the heavier bullets are constructed more solidly - less expansion and better penetration, particularly if you hit a big shoulder bone.
The only place a .270 holds an edge over the .06 is that it is flatter shooting, so for long range shots (300+ yards), range estimation needs to be a bit less accurate. This is why Jack O'Conner championed it, and without Jack, the .270 wouldn't have near the popularity that it has today.
The one thing that will eventually influence your choice is your age - when I was younger I used a 30-06 for deer - at one point I found the kick uncomfortable - went to a 270 for awhile - since most of my hunting in close range I ended up with a 35 Remington - now occasionally I take a 243 with me - they have all served me well over the years - but I must admit that when I was using the 06 the deer didn't go very far - it really took them down quick -
Both with 150gr bullets the 270 and 30-06 have almost identical recoil numbers, you could just drop the bullet weight to 150gr for 30-06 and not bother getting a 270.Quote:
Originally Posted by JoePa
Unless an ULTRA-LIGHT-rifle is employed none of the "medium-calibers" is unpleasant to shoot (if the stock fits) . It baffles me why people who use SUPER-DUPER-shotgun-charges are concerned about the trivial difference (in recoil) between an 06 and a 270 .
OP, if you have a .270 it will do just fine. However if you don't and you aren't a Jack O'Connor fan the 30-06 is likely a much more versatile gun. I started out with a .270 as my first big bore in part due to Jack O'Connor and it has worked well on many bears over the years.
couldn't agree more.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gunner 38
if you can shoulder a rife/gun properly, recoil should not be an issue up to .300/.416 in a medium weight rifle.
problem starts when you have been hit a few times and get in the habit of flinching. once you there, don't fool yourself - you'll flinch with a .270 just as much.
what can help is lots of practice (dry-fire, air rifle) and a well fitting stock/heavier rifle
Its not recoil that most people find offensive. Its muzzle blast. Put a decent set of muffs on ones head and they could shoot just about anything without discomfort.
Ain't that the truth.LOL I had the misfortune to be beside a guy at a range with a .338 Win that had a muzzle brake installed. Jysus,if that doesn't give you the flinches,nothing will.Quote:
Originally Posted by sawbill
my 300wm is fine for recoil and I enjoy shooting it even tho some say itll break your shoulder or the recoil is too much yadda yadda yadda...well my trick is I dont wear a skirt while shooting - i put my man pants on and its all gravy. As for the noise well...more noise more fun for meQuote:
Originally Posted by sawbill
The noise thing - well that's great while you're young. But if you shoot a lot, your older self will thank you greatly if you wear ear protection.Quote:
Originally Posted by GrizzlyAdams
A 270 I more then enough for a bear. I have used used a SKS bear hunting, a 270 has about 1,000 foot lbs more energy then 7.62x39.
Sounds like someone who would flinch when I tell you there is a 3 1/2in turkey load in the gun but it is unloaded, ha ha, just a little too macho.Quote:
Originally Posted by GrizzlyAdams
The 7.62x39mm is still a 30 cal, the extra energy does not matter if it all ends up in the dirt behind the animal, a 30-30, 7.62x39mm, 300 Win Mag, they will all kill the bear at 30 yards with proper bullet placement, the 270 will as well but the hole will be smaller if all the bullets expand the same amount, if that means you lose the bear then I would go 30 cal, if the bear drops it would not matter at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by arclight
Always doQuote:
Originally Posted by werner.reiche
When my kids started hunting we would go down the back of my property and shoot at targets set up against a bank - what I would do is get the gun ready for them and tell them that a bullet is in the chamber and all they had to do is take the safe off and pull the trigger - sometimes I wouldn't put a shell in the chamber - boy it was something to see how they would flinch when they pulled the trigger and nothing happened - it was a good way to show them how much they flinched when they pulled the trigger -
Yes the noise from shooting over the years did its damage - can't hear the birds sing or the peeper frogs in the spring anymore - tried hearing aids but just can't get use to them - things are a lot quieter anymore -
I almost took my eye out with a pellet gun when I was young and I have tinnyness in my ears now, I will never shoot with people now without hearing protection, my wife and I have ear muffs that amplify and cutoff for hunting now, not worth it at all. We also have shooting glasses and spare sets for friends, you only have 2 eyes and 2 ears.Quote:
Originally Posted by JoePa
Unfortunately , it's already too late for me . After a life-time of shooting and "Diesel-racket" (mechanic and highway-business) my ability to hear has suffered tremendously . --- The "medics" had warned me (during my YOUTH) that my "abusive" sport would lead to "ailments" later on . --- Well , it surely didn't improve my sense of hearing ; not to mention fractured bones in hands and face . --- According to my wife I suffer from selective hearing .Quote:
Originally Posted by JoePa
I will try 6.5x55 SE. I like my old Mauser 96.
yepper
Have you ever shot a .270? How do you select your bullets? The bullets I use are only10% lighter than a 30-30 bullet, but the damage they do is substantial. Have you tried the new polymer tipped bullets, they are said to expand better than hollow points with a higher ballistic coefficient. Higher velocity rounds like a .270 use the hydrostatic shock principle, they hit faster and do massive damage when they hit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fox
If you're worried about penetration, try Nosler Partitions, I know more than 1 person who has successfully taken down moose using them.
All bullets do not expand the same. I'm very selective about the ammo I use. I always check it on the range before I use it.
Roe+