Thread: Calibre for goats and occasional deer?

My first two rifles where 270 which I sold due too not being able to handle the recoil.
Bad shooting technique, which then turned into a flinch.
Was much happier going too a 243.

243 would be my recommendation.
It was my 1st rifle and I wish I never sold it, a Browning BLR 81. Was light and accurate as out to 250+ metres.
243 is very versatile round! it shares the same parent case as 308 & 7mm08 and as you develop your shooting you could later also develop lighter loads to suit goats and a heavier load for deer with something like a Hornady Sst projectile.
My 2 cents, good luck

I haven't read through this thread. Not sure if the OP will hand load or not? For all of the bang, recoil and ammo expense I wouldn't touch anything bigger than a 243 for what is contemplated.

Barnes and bonded bullets combined with modern powders have revolutionised the .223. For goats and the odd deer out to 250-300 yards the .223 would fill the bill reasonably cheaply and efficiently I reckon. The kill zone of animal doesn't shrink because you are using a .223. You just need to actually hit.

A 55 grain Barnes TTSX doing 3.2k at the muzzle will go right through a Red at 250 yards, and flatten it.
You can use cheaper bullets than the Barnes on goats, like the Hornady. You just need to fiddle a bit to get the 2 loads in sync.

Tahr.
Where is your point of aim with the .223 at those distances on a red?
On the shoulder or behind?
The amount of deer I see you with in your threads I have no doubt you know what your talking about.

Originally Posted by MightyBoosh

My simple question has generated lots of answers, thanks! I didn't consider metric calibres out of sheer ignorance, so some more to think about.

Just out of interest, .270 doesn't seem very popular at all. Is it just about cost and availability of ammo, or is there something else?

Im biased as I own a .270 and love it to bits...that said I bought a .223 to shoot wallabies as it was easier on shoulder,ears and wallet where 40 rounds for a day is normal
I now also own a 7.62x39mm which ticks same boxes for shorter range with heavier projectile giving better energy than the .223
if you are into reloading your .270 will do everything you can ask of a rifle,so will a .308
you can down load to 100grn pills for bugger all recoil or up to 160grn for big and angry up close or a reasonably sleak and fast number for longish range
the .270 made its name BEFORE rangefinders were common as Joe average could put crosshairs on shoulder of bambi out to 400ish yards and it would fall over as calibre was flat shooting by comparison to others at the time,the suppressor has tamed the cartridge recoil down to where it is fine to use.
yip factory fodder is hard on wallet if you are into bomb ups but if you fire 3 shots and kill two animals it is cheap. on par with 7mm/08 .243 30/06 pricewise.

Originally Posted by Micky Duck

Im biased as I own a .270 and love it to bits...that said I bought a .223 to shoot wallabies as it was easier on shoulder,ears and wallet where 40 rounds for a day is normal
I now also own a 7.62x39mm which ticks same boxes for shorter range with heavier projectile giving better energy than the .223
if you are into reloading your .270 will do everything you can ask of a rifle,so will a .308
you can down load to 100grn pills for bugger all recoil or up to 160grn for big and angry up close or a reasonably sleak and fast number for longish range
the .270 made its name BEFORE rangefinders were common as Joe average could put crosshairs on shoulder of bambi out to 400ish yards and it would fall over as calibre was flat shooting by comparison to others at the time,the suppressor has tamed the cartridge recoil down to where it is fine to use.
yip factory fodder is hard on wallet if you are into bomb ups but if you fire 3 shots and kill two animals it is cheap. on par with 7mm/08 .243 30/06 pricewise.

Have you had too many Beers. Quote .270 made its name BEFORE rangefinders were common as Joe average could put crosshairs on shoulder of bambi out to 400ish yards and it would fall over as calibre was flat shooting by comparison to others at the time,Un quote. This is nonsence is it not .
Its a bit of a fairy tale that that Cal and others are classed as flat shooting when in the real world they still going to drop a reasonable amount when you get out to 300 plus. You can sight any CAL to hit a animal at 400 yards but you not going to point and shoot at that range if its sighted at 100, or even 200m zero.
A 130 silvertip sighted at 100 yds is going to have a drop of 26 plus inches at 400 yards in a 270, and the list goes on. Even sighting a 150gr win at 275 yards zero(above a normal zero for most people) its still a 12 inch drop at 400.
Like i said, you can zero any Cal to hit 400 yards but even with a 270 you cant point and shoot without its zero being way over normal , they drop a good distance and if you actually compare different Cals theres not heaps in it to class something very flat shooting, esp with normal hunting rounds without hot reloads with light pills.
Plus lets be honest, the average Joe isnt shooting 400 yards, prob not even 300 yards, more like 0-250m tops.

Originally Posted by deer243

Have you had too many Beers. Quote .270 made its name BEFORE rangefinders were common as Joe average could put crosshairs on shoulder of bambi out to 400ish yards and it would fall over as calibre was flat shooting by comparison to others at the time,Un quote. This is nonsence is it not .
Its a bit of a fairy tale that that Cal and others are classed as flat shooting when in the real world they still going to drop a reasonable amount when you get out to 300 plus. You can sight any CAL to hit a animal at 400 yards but you not going to point and shoot at that range if its sighted at 100, or even 200m zero.
A 130 silvertip sighted at 100 yds is going to have a drop of 26 plus inches at 400 yards in a 270, and the list goes on. Even sighting a 150gr win at 275 yards zero(above a normal zero for most people) its still a 12 inch drop at 400.
Like i said, you can zero any Cal to hit 400 yards but even with a 270 you cant point and shoot without its zero being way over normal , they drop a good distance and if you actually compare different Cals theres not heaps in it to class something very flat shooting, esp with normal hunting rounds without hot reloads with light pills.
Plus lets be honest, the average Joe isnt shooting 400 yards, prob not even 300 yards, more like 0-250m tops.

Micky duck is mostly correct, but should have worded his shoulder at 400m better,
270 is in the top 5 of deer rifle sales, mostly one or two position, for every rifle manufacture in USA.

270 is 90 plus years old, and the 375H&H is a 100 years, really what have 100 years, of ballistic, advancements gained us, 5 %, 10 at most.

Tradition, is simply the same mistake repeated over and over again......

Originally Posted by southernman

Micky duck is mostly correct, but should have worded his shoulder at 400m better,
270 is in the top 5 of deer rifle sales, mostly one or two position, for every rifle manufacture in USA.

270 is 90 plus years old, and the 375H&H is a 100 years, really what have 100 years, of ballistic, advancements gained us, 5 %, 10 at most.

The 270 is up there in rifle sales but the number one selling is the 3006 in the Usa. The 308 is normally in the top 5 as well as the 223 plus a lever action as americans are in love with them.. You say he is mostly correct, but the fact is comparing a 270 to a 3006 and a 308 theres next to no difference in drop between the 3 out to 300 yards that matter, and out to 400 yards theres nothing to it with a 3006 and you only talking 2-4 inches on average between a 270 and a 308(all depends on whats being used). Normal hunting ranges "flat shooting Cals"" the difference is so minor to the non flat shooting cals that in the real world its a myth . My mate uses Rems 140 in his 270(assume a few do) and compared to my 150sst in my 308 theres no difference in drop at 400 yards. What matters most is the BC and energy that tell a round apart.
A 270 has the edge with the same weights but when you move up 165gr etc and larger in 3006 and 308 the 30 cals have it over a 270

Originally Posted by bully

Tahr.
Where is your point of aim with the .223 at those distances on a red?
On the shoulder or behind?
The amount of deer I see you with in your threads I have no doubt you know what your talking about.

I have 2 loads. With the Barnes so long as its in the kill zone (hilar I think its called), they work. The max range I've used them is about 250 yards. But as the range increases the more I tend to move back from the bony shoulder to the lungs with my point of aim. The Barnes bullets are so effective I don't tend to fiddle so much with head and neck shots now.
I also use 69 grn Targex and the new 69 grn Sierra plastic tip. Have used them out to 300 yards and am more careful about making lung shots in the crease behind the shoulder.

The only reason I don't use my .223 a lot more is that you do need to limit your range to under 300, and where I tend to hunt that's not always possible. Plus I like the variation of using different calibers and rifles.

This is the exit from the ribs into the back of the off shoulder with a 69 grn Sierra plastic tip at 288 yards. Red spiker. It a bit yucky I'm sorry.

MD is correct. Back before range finders (sort of prior to the 1980's) the .270 was probably the most respected longer range calibre. It was also before the internet, so long winded comparisons of calibers were not often made and we stuck to what we new.

Kills around about 400 yards were common enough, and this was because we sighted in our rifles to be 3" high at 100 yards. We didn't crawl all over ballistic tables, but we did know that at 400 yards if we held on the top of the shoulder the bullet would strike into the kill zone about 12" lower. It wasn't difficult to do with an accurate .270.

Originally Posted by Tahr

MD is correct. Back before range finders (sort of prior to the 1980's) the .270 was probably the most respected longer range calibre. It was also before the internet, so long winded comparisons of calibers were not often made and we stuck to what we new.

Kills around about 400 yards were common enough, and this was because we sighted in our rifles to be 3" high at 100 yards. We didn't crawl all over ballistic tables, but we did know that at 400 yards if we held on the top of the shoulder the bullet would strike into the kill zone about 12" lower. It wasn't difficult to do with an accurate .270.

While I agree with all you've said there, how did you know it was 400 yds and not 350 or 450 without a range finder

I've listened to my father recite stories for many years about shooting deer at 400 yds with his 'flat shooting' 270, well before the days of Lazer range finders.

Friday just gone I took him to the range to shoot the classic model 7 243 I got for him. After he put a few thru at 100 we went out to 300 yds to shoot my gong.

We got back to the 300 yd bench and he says 'bloody hell that's a long way, I've never shot a deer that far before'.

I had him on and reminded him of all his stories, he ended up admitting that in hindsight all the 400 yd deer he'd shot years ago were very likey much closer

The old boy didn't disgrace himself at 300 tho I must say.


Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk

I watched my dad shoot a fallow from a big rock to a clearing many years ago with his 223. It went about ten steps and rolled down the hill.
Many years later I have a range finder and we ranged it at over 500y.
Not recommended and there was probably a large amout of luck involved but shows what can be done with a 223 and a 4x scope.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by GWH

While I agree with all you've said there, how did you know it was 400 yds and not 350 or 450 without a range finder

I've listened to my father recite stories for many years about shooting deer at 400 yds with his 'flat shooting' 270, well before the days of Lazer range finders.

Friday just gone I took him to the range to shoot the classic model 7 243 I got for him. After he put a few thru at 100 we went out to 300 yds to shoot my gong.

We got back to the 300 yd bench and he says 'bloody hell that's a long way, I've never shot a deer that far before'.

I had him on and reminded him of all his stories, he ended up admitting that in hindsight all the 400 yd deer he'd shot years ago were very likey much closer

The old boy didn't disgrace himself at 300 tho I must say.


Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk

We didn't. So that will explain the odd high shoulder hit, and the odd puff of dust at their feet.

the lack of knowing the actual range is where a accurate rifle sighted in (as said ) 3" high at a hundred comes into the equation it didn't matter if it was 350 or 400 you projectile was still going to connect and if you under estimated range it fell underneath .Ive shot a chammy with std 130 grn load 1st shot trimmed her toenails and 2nd dropped her like sack of spuds nearly 24" of drop in that case and sighted in 3" high at hundy. I recently shot a fallow 1st shot anchored it at over 400 and I finished it at 350ish both measured later on google earth.I don't normally take long shots and those two wee unusual for me. having confidence in your rifle helps,knowing where it shoots helps even more."how many footy fields away" was often used.