MN hunters, .270 or .280 OK for brushy woods for deer?
#1
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Saint Cloud, MN
Posts: 138
![Default](https://www.huntingnet.com/forum/images/icons/icon1.gif)
How would a .270 or .280 work in the heavy brushy woods of Northern Minnesota? I have been reading quite a bit of positive remarks on either of these calibers. Which of these calibers would be the better of the two? I used to shoot a 30/06 Woodsmaster years ago but I sold it. I am totally unfamiliar with this caliber of gun. My Dad's guns were always heavy hitters, other than his little .35 Remington. I wish that we still had that one, It was a great brush gun. I am planning on shooting Muzzle loader next year and just purchased a gun for that. Iwas thinking of going in and putting a rifle on lay away next week. I was kind of interested in the Tikka bolt action with the synthetic stock. Would this be a good rifle in that caliber or would there be a better gun to go with? Brand and caliber wise? I would like to keep it under $850.00 if possible but I also like to get the most gun for the money. One other thing as long as I am asking, what round would be the best for starting out with the Tikka? I am planning on going with no scope but possibly an aperture sight.
Thanks,
Mike
Thanks,
Mike
#2
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location:
Posts: 1,813
![Default](https://www.huntingnet.com/forum/images/icons/icon1.gif)
There's no such thing as a "brush gun", meaning noone cal./cartridge is much better in the brush than another, so take your choise! Bothare excelent deer cartridges, justuse the proper bullet weightfor the animials you are hunting...
DM
DM
#3
![Default](https://www.huntingnet.com/forum/images/icons/icon1.gif)
What makes a rifle a brush gun is a short barrel like the .30-30's. The .270 and .280 make good Power Line cartriges. Unless the brush is very thick, I would prefer the .270 and 130gr NP.
#4
![Default](https://www.huntingnet.com/forum/images/icons/icon1.gif)
My family has been using the .270 for 30+ years and all we have here in the NW where I live is brush hunting. Sure, there are some fields too which the .270 is also very well suited, but mostly we hunt woods. Its really up to you, but for myself and my dad and his dad the .270 has been killing deer in the woods for a long long time. I use the 130gr bullet, my dad prefers the 150gr bullet. I guess that it really depends on what you like and what shoots well in your gun. Next year I will be trying my new .44 magnum Marlin 1894 levergun though. After 2 shoulder surgeries and neck problems I prefer the easy hitting and easy packing .44 levergun.
#5
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Mn.
Posts: 3,399
![Default](https://www.huntingnet.com/forum/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Iam from northern Mn and my brush gun is a 30-30.When your trying to get thru the heavy underbrush(buck brush) a longer gun with a scope is a bad idea,Iron sights all the way,your shots wont be but maybe 50-75 yrds depending on how good you are atstalking,even from a stand it still is good,If you are going to be posting then I would go with a 30-06,270 or something like that.
#6
![Default](https://www.huntingnet.com/forum/images/icons/icon1.gif)
"How would a .270 or .280 work in the heavy brushy woods of Northern Minnesota? I have been reading quite a bit of positive remarks on either of these calibers."
Either one would work just fine, as long as you continue to remember that there really is no such thing as a rifle that can reliably go through alot of brush! At least, none that one man can carry and shoot from his shoulder!! The "brush-buster" is an old wives' tale.
In such country, you have to be able to pick your shots, and shoot through holes and breaks in the brush. So what you need is a very accurate rifle-scope combination that will let you see where to thread your bullet through to a vital spot on the game animal, and then do it. Evenlow-power scope will let you see these holes in the weeds, but irons don't. I find even a good 4X has plenty of field of view for close range, brush shooting. Just keep both eyes open at least until you pick up the deer in the scope!
I used a .270 for years, in the brush-choked swamps of VA and NC and the scrub oak filled canyons of the mountains in NM, AK and CO., and could still use the same rifle for long shots across canyons and up & down powerline cuts, etc.
Either one would work just fine, as long as you continue to remember that there really is no such thing as a rifle that can reliably go through alot of brush! At least, none that one man can carry and shoot from his shoulder!! The "brush-buster" is an old wives' tale.
In such country, you have to be able to pick your shots, and shoot through holes and breaks in the brush. So what you need is a very accurate rifle-scope combination that will let you see where to thread your bullet through to a vital spot on the game animal, and then do it. Evenlow-power scope will let you see these holes in the weeds, but irons don't. I find even a good 4X has plenty of field of view for close range, brush shooting. Just keep both eyes open at least until you pick up the deer in the scope!
I used a .270 for years, in the brush-choked swamps of VA and NC and the scrub oak filled canyons of the mountains in NM, AK and CO., and could still use the same rifle for long shots across canyons and up & down powerline cuts, etc.
#7
![Default](https://www.huntingnet.com/forum/images/icons/icon1.gif)
forget the brush part; as others said, they defect evenly. Let us deal with cartridge choice: .270 is easily the better choice for most. Why? Ammo availability and panache, that's why. .280 does nothing better than the much more common .270; they're as alike as two kernals on a cob.
Go with the .270, unless you're a reloader or the .280 is free.
Go with the .270, unless you're a reloader or the .280 is free.