I've been using a .243 for years, and I really enjoy how light it feels when I shoot. But lately, I've been considering upgrading to a .270 to give me a bit more firepower. Most of my shots are taken at less than 150 yds in some pretty thick woods. Has anyone else made the switch? Would love to hear your thoughts!
.243 or .270
- Thread starter merwel_
- Start date
If I were in your shoes, I'd probably go with the .243 for those thick woods and those short shots under 150yds. It's lightweight and quick, and it really gets the job done for dropping deer at those distances. Plus, the low recoil makes it super easy to get follow-up shots, and honestly, it’s just a fun round to shoot. I totally see why you'd be drawn to the .270. It packs more of a punch and has a flatter trajectory, which can be great if you're ever hunting bigger game or looking at longer shots. But when you're in dense cover, that extra power doesn't always give you a real edge, and you definitely notice the difference in recoil and how heavy the rifle feels.
I agree with this. It’s tough to beat the .243 for the above conditions.
Now if you’ve got the itch for something new… having both is perfect, the only downside is you’re dropping into a deep rabbit hole by getting multiple rifles. I told my wife “the correct number of rifles/guns is 1 more.”
Maybe I’ll see you down there sometime…
Now if you’ve got the itch for something new… having both is perfect, the only downside is you’re dropping into a deep rabbit hole by getting multiple rifles. I told my wife “the correct number of rifles/guns is 1 more.”
Maybe I’ll see you down there sometime…
oneeyejohn
Member
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2025
- Messages
- 10
You might also consider the 6.5MM field. I have really good Montana 1999 in 6.5X55 that is a real good rifle and has a soft recoil. It is plenty of power for Any Dear in north America. You can get bullets up to 160 grain now.
