Which Rifle is best for me?

[nluchau]

I have never owned a rifle before and am thinking of getting one mainly for deer hunting. I was at Scheel's today and was looking at a Tikka T3 .270 synthetic stock stainless barrel. How are these guns? Another thing to consider is what kind of .270 should I get. There is a Stainless SYN .270 Win and a Stainless SYN .270 WSM. What is the difference? I was also looking at the Ruger .270. This will also be a bolt action. I was also throwing around the idea of a Ruger but I like how smooth the bolt action is on the Tikka.

The scope I plan on getting is a Nikon Buckmaster 4.5-14x40

Thanks for any help

[blue_healer_guy]

Just bought a Remington 700 .270 and she laid 3 nice deer down. About $500 with the scope.

[nluchau]

What model 700 was that. There is alot of them.

[PerchJerker]

I think yoiu should get a 3-9x40 scope if you're planning to use the rifle for deer hunting. The lower the power the brighter the scope will be and the larger the field of view will be. You will have it on the lowest power for the majority of your hunting. Dialing it up to 9 power should be fine for the range or for your longer shots.

As for the rifle, get whichever one feels the most comfortable. The more comfortable / better it fits, the better you will shoot.

Good luck.

[Canuck]

This is a question with more questions than answers. Everybody has their own preferance in cal., action, make and scope. Between my wife and I we have 31 different long guns and I am always looking for more.

My only sugguestion is to pick up several (with your hunting cloths on & and see which feels right for YOU. The 270 or 270WSM are both good cal., as is the 308. If you have access to someone who hand loads that just opens up many other cal., but don't confuse the issue and stay with the 270. The difference in the 270 and 270WSM is very small but if I had to chose between just one I probably would pick the 270WSM as the throw is so short and it may help with your pick on scope.

I am partial for bolt but do have other actions, just because.

On scope, do NOT be cheap in the money you spend on the glass as that is one of the most vital parts of your rifle. You don't have to mortage the the house or sell your first born but the cost of the scope can be almost the same as the gun. A Nikon, Lepould(sp) are good starters and if U have more money than you know what to do with, try a ZEISS, (nice but wayyyy too much for me, but one can always dream).

Remember a stainless barrel is only stainless coated and you will still have to maintain it. Ask yourself, do I want to spend the extra on the stainless barrel or on the guality of the rifle. Also there are several grades of syntheic stocks, some are so soft they almost wiggle in your hand.

My favorite deer rifle is a Parker Hale 1200C in a 7mm Reg Mag. with a 3X9 BDC Bushnell, but I down load it to the specs of a 270 (2840 fps with 150 Nosler partion) for deer. I have a wooden stock but have had it glass bedded and it has held zero since the put the scope on in 1974, (now I have to touch wood).

You seem to have had some good sense on what you looked at so far. Good luck and no matter what you pick get to know YOUR gun.

[shortfatguy]

get the 270wsm but in the tikka. the wsm is a short magnum has a shorter action which means less weight and is alot flatter shooting and harder hitting than the 270. i have the 300 wsm and love the cartridge! the 270 wsm would be my second choice followed by 7mm wsm

[nluchau]

I think I will get the 3-9x40 Nikon Buckmaster. What is the real difference between 3-9x40 and 4.5-14x40. Is one longer than the other? I'm new to this stuff so dont mind me asking dumn questions. So the .270 wsm is a shorter barrel than the regular .270? What I am gathering from the posts is that the .270 wsm is a better gun.

Thanks everyone

[catman71]

nluchau, you have very typical questions. first off, any gun (Ruger, Savage, Remington, etc) can come chambered in many different rounds. in recent years many companies started making "short" rounds, the WSM seems to be the most popular. There is also SAUM (short action ultra mags)and the "regular" .270 is actually a ".270 Winchester". These rounds are NOT interchangeable! The bullets probably are (in the right grains) but not the cartridge. Many other gun makers will make a WSM besides Winchester. So, really, you have 2 decisions (3 including the scope) what caliber and then what gun. The Tikka in .270 WSM or "regular" .270 Win would be a great choice. Remington made an ADL and now is replaced by the SPS, that are very reasonable and you might want to check them out. Savage makes good guns inexpensivly. But the Tikka has a great reputation. Stainless is always a good idea, but it usually costs extra. The 3-9 Nikon is a great choice on any of these guns. Hope my answer wasn't to simple for you it didn't look like any other poster spelled it out and I know being a beginner is confusing with all the new terminology. Hope this helps and good luck.

[catman71]

to answer your question "what is the difference?" basicially, the "short" rounds are copies of older, popular rounds that were redesigned to make guns smaller and lighter. There are also many who believe a short fat shaped round fires more effieciently and accuratly. The cartridges are actually different shapes. Like i said before they are NOT interchangeable so be familiar enough to not buy the wrong round. as a general rule the WSM are a little faster and flatter than the round they were based on.

[almostthere!]

nluchau,

Get the Tikka in 270 WSM. The round is more powerful than the regular 270. The WSM has a shorter action so you will be able to recycle loads much faster. The WSM also allows the efficient burning of gun powder in a shorter barrel so the rifle will be a whole lot lighter.

Tikka is just better than Ruger. Here is what to consider: bolt lift, trigger smoothness, out of the box accuracy. The Tikka has a shorter bolt lift, meaning you will not bang your thumb against the scope and you can cycle the next round quicker. The Ruger has a high bolt lift. The Tikka has a very smooth trigger and it is adjustable; all you have to do is remove the trigger guard and use a screwdriver to adjust the poundage. To change the Ruger's trigger's poundage requires a trip to your favorite gunsmith. Tikka has a quarrantee one inch group at a hundred yards out-of-the-box accuracy.

If you have your sight set on a Buckmaster scope from Nikkon, you should switch over to the Monarch. The difference in clarity and brightness will be night and day if you compare the two side by side. Do not sell yourself short in this area, you will only regret it later on down the road and spend more money on purchasing a better scope. The price of a 3-9X40 Monarch UCC is only the same as the 4.5-14X40 Buckmaster. You do not need the extra power, what you need is the extra brightness and clarity of the Nikon Monarch UCC.

Another thing to consider in purchasing a scope is the eye relief. For most guys, a short eye relief is no problem at all. For the select few, there is always that nice ring mark around the shooting eye; most hunters know what this eye ring mark is. Had this happened to a buddy.

[nluchau]

I can't thank each of you enough for your assistance. I have narrowed my searching down to either:

The Tikka synthetic stainless in .270 win or .270 wsm

I assume the wsm will have more recoil or kick?

What is the difference in barrel lengths. There is a 22 inch and 24. Which one is better and why?

Scope: I plan on going with The Nikon Monarch 3-9x40 UCC in black matte. (Thanks Almostthere!)

Everybody's help is greatly appreciated.

I am getting very close to my decision.

[Steve Foss]

nluchau:

Good scope. Good choice.

Generally speaking, the longer the barrel, the better the long-range accuracy you can manage with it. Shorter barrel is best for woods shooting, since most shots are fairly short range, and a longer barrel is more apt to catch on brush or branches when you swing it to get on target. If you're looking at a lot of 200-plus yard shots in open country, go with the longer barrel. I see you're a Fargo hunter. I spent most of my hunting years outside Grand Forks and west to Fessenden and Harvey in the open country. If it's there you're hunting, pick the longer barrel. It'll probably improve the overall balance of the package a little bit as well (at least for me, since I like a slightly front-heavy gun). If you can, try each barrel length with your scope, or one of about the same weight, in the store. Swing it around, get the feel. Decide which feels better. A longer barrel will be potentially slightly more accurate, but in reality you won't be able to make is sing as well as the shorter barrel if the shorter barrel and the way it makes the gun behave feels a lot better to you.

I've not shot any of the WSMs, so I don't know about relative kick. Since it's a shorter cartridge than the regular .270, it may not pack so much more of a punch that it kicks a lot more.

However, here's my vote for the standard .270. It's a darn fine deer cartridge, and you can find ammo for it almost anywhere. It's nearly as common as the 30-06. The WSMs are all the current rage, and I'm sure they're fine loads. But if you're out somewhere in the boonies like near Page or Cooperstown and run short of shells, you can swing into most any mom-and-pop C store in deer country and pick up a box of .270 standard. And .270 WSM? Not as common in those little stores at all.

I know rifle lovers are inveterate tinkerers with loads and shells. I am too. I love to look at ballistic charts and think about what could be better than what's out there. But in reality, even if the WSM equivalent hits a little harder or shoots a little flatter, the standard .270 load wasn't broke, so why "fix" it? I mean, how much overkill do you need for a deer?

One last thing. Unless you're a heavy fellow, any high-powered deer rifle will feel like it kicks a lot when you're firing it on the range. Once you level it at a deer and the animal is there in your crosshairs and you pull the trigger, you will feel absolutely no kick at all. Promise.

[uffdapete]

I'd second stcatfish's choice of the 270. I just bought a Ruger Mark II SS/synthetic 270 this year and wouldn't change a thing except the scope which will be a Nikon Buckmaster 3x9 by next year. The caliber recommendation came from several locals who've used their 270 on deer, moose, elk, mulies, antelope, caribou and been very satisfied with the results. I looked at several calibers and decided on the 270 due to a lot of ammo options and availibility. The gun recommendation came from a gunsmith I trust.

[almostthere!]

nluchau,

Always glad to help out a comrad in need. Happy hunting with the Tikka and Monarch; may they bring you many years of happiness and games in the bag.

[catman71]

You WILL be happy with that combo. It makes me think I'm due for a new one. I'm up to 7 deer with the Ruger M77 7mmMAG i bought last year and have 10 or so with my Rem Sendero 7mm. I worry I might use up all the mojo and have to get another one....Good Luck!

[End of the Line]

The Tikka is a better gun over a Ruger, but they will both get the job done. One note on the scope the Nikon Buckmaster series scopes are only 87-88% light transmission. It is a good scope and I do own one. But for about $150 you get get a ballistic plex 3x9-40 in a Burris Fullfield II and it has a 95% light transmission through as well as a Nikon Monarch and any Leupold VX III or IV. What this means is the outside light is 100% you will loose 0nly 5% of the light available. Comes in very handy early morning and overcast days. For the money the Burris is your best buy, I prefer a Nikon Monarch; Leupold is good too, but is just over priced marketing. Another caliber to consider in my opinion is the 25-06. I'll probably get blasted for that one! Good luck!

[TRITC]

Hope you don't mind if I add a question to the mix as well...but what are your opinions on 40mm compared to 50mm objectives? Is the 50 worth the $$$ or is the 40mm sufficient for your average Minnesota deer hunter?

Thanks,

TRITC

[marine_man]

I've got a Browing A-Bolt Hunter in .270 WSM... I really like it... wasn't aware of the Tika when I purchased it otherwise I probably would have gotten the Tika.

Anyway, I'll second what stfcatfish said in regard to shells.. you won't find the WSM shell anywhere but at a sporting goods store.. but can find .270 just about anywhere... shell price is more for the WSM and there is less of a selection... but I'm still more than happy with my selection... I've dropped 2 deer with it and left a pretty good hole in them...

The good news is that shell selection gets better every year, and the price seems to be going down every year... but it will never be as good as the .270.

All that said... I'd still buy the WSM.

marine_man

[leechlake]

TRITC, this should answer your question, I'd save the money. The point of the info below is that the human eye has limits that no scope objective size will change.

(credit Cabelas buyers guide for the info below)

The low light performance is due to the maximum exit pupil offered by a larger objective. Exit pupil is the size of the beam of light that leaves the scope. The exit pupil can easily be calculated (in mm) by dividing the diameter of the objective lens by the power. Therefore, a 4x32 scope has an exit pupil of 8mm. On a bright day, the human pupil will vary from 2mm at noon to 4mm later in the day. When your eyes become adapted to dark conditions, such as pre-dawn and after sunset, when big game are moving, the pupil will vary from 5mm to a maximum of 9mm.

On a bright day, having a scope with a larger exit pupil will have little effect. The only difference you may notice is that you will be able to move the scope and still maintain the image. In low light, the exit pupil is the biggest factor in getting as much light as possible to your eye.

[nluchau]

I think I will stay away from the WSM because as marine man said it blows big holes in the deer. This is something I dont need. Too big of hole = less meat for the freezer. I like the idea it packs more punch but I think I would only use the WSM for very long shots. For where I am hunting the longest may be 200 yards. I also like the idea that there is many different types of .270 shells I can shoot compared to the WSM.

[MossBoss95]

All of you guys are posting big guns what about the old standard 30-30. More deer have been taken with this gun in Minnesota than any other. In my opinion it is the best all around best first timer gun. Easy to use and carry.

[buzzsaw]

Quote:

---

I think I will stay away from the WSM because as marine man said it blows big holes in the deer. This is something I dont need. Too big of hole = less meat for the freezer

---

????

I have the Browning A Bolt Medallion Hunter 270 WSM with the Nikon Monarch Gold 2.5-10x56 Black Matte scope and I shoot 150 grain WSM bullets ... mine does NOT blow big holes in the deer whatsoever. and is deadly accurate. I am now a diehard WSM customer. I also agree with what Mossboss said about the 30-30... this is a good brush gun, I'd recommed this (MARLIN 336SS) old lever action beast if you were hunting in the thick stuff shooting at shorter ranges, if your mixing in the long field shot then go with the 270 or 300 wsm... nothing against the 30-06.... still a great deer gun.

check out the link: web page

P.S. The Tikka is also a very nice gun and was one of my finalists... heres something to check out. web page

[almostthere!]

30-30 is a great cartridge but it is the most accident prone rifle in the industry. Anytime you have an open hammer you run the risk of setting off shoots you do not intend to. I simply do not like the having the idea that some hunter has to squeeze the trigger in order to put the hammer into the safe position. It is amazing how many knowledgable fathers put these rifles into the hands of green-horns.

The other thing is using a 30-30 on a 200+ yard shot is really pushing your luck. I think the optimum range for a 30-30 is 150 yards and under.

No apologies for the put-down of the beloved 30-30 because that is just the way the cookie crumbles.

[Steve Foss]

MossBoss:

The thread started out with nluchau looking for advice on whether to buy the Tikka rifle and whether to chose .270 or .270 WSM.

It wasn't about which deer rifle or cartridge is the "best," for deer. That is a matter of wide opinion, and nluchau was looking for specific advice. There have been plenty of those "best cartridge/best rifle" threads on FM over the years, including one on this board started a bit before deer season.

I'm with almostthere, however on the .30-30. It's not the safest gun. I have shot several deer with .30-30s, and even with perfect shots behind the should through the heart/lungs, they run. Sometimes as far as a bowshot deer. This year, my 30-06 with 150 grain bullets put down two deer with behind the shoulder shots. One dropped in its tracks, the other lunged once and dropped 20 feet away. Both were shot throug the heart. How did I know that? When I opened them up to field dress, the heart and parts of the lungs had literally disintegrated. If I'd have had a .30-30, I would have been tracking those deer.

Nothing wrong with a .30-30 that a VERY careful safe hunter and a 100 yard maximum shot can't cure.

[lawdog]

I doubt highly that the 30-30 has taken more deer than any other cartridge. I got good money on that distinction belonging to the 30-06.

I also agree there are some safety concerns with them.

Lastly, I won't even get into to "brush gun" discussion we've had so many times, other than to say NO gun shoots accurately through brush. Its physically impossible.