I'm with WFT, I see no reason not to get a lever gun in either 30-30, 357, or 44.
These are all short range calibers. If that's what you want, fine, but I recommend the 7-08. Mine recoils only a little more than my .243. The .270 kicks more than it has any right to. I believe, as stated in an earlier post, that it approaches 30-06 levels of recoil.
My 7-08 is built on a Remington 700 short action. It has a Hogue overmolded stock and a 24 inch barrel. Shoots very straight. Groups at 100 yards with both factory ammo and my reloads are dime size. Ammo is available in lots of places. I reload for about a dozen calibers, but do not have a .270.
A friend of mine shoots a Remington .280 in the semi-auto configuration. She has killed, I think, 16 deer since she started hunting. Small framed woman about five-two, and no spring chicken (hope she doesn't see this . . .) CB
I'd have to disagree with pretty much EVERYTHING you said, with all due respect.
1) 7mm-08 will have less recoil unless you make reduced loads for 270
2) Ammo is identical in price
3) Zeroed at 200 yards, POI difference @300 will be under 2" - shooting 300+ you just need to know your rifle regardless of MV and BC.
I feel that 270 kicks no different than 30-06; which I find "bearable", not "mild" by any means. 7-08 has a mild kick, and 243 is pleasant. I am a pretty big guy - 6'2 230#, and I judge recoil based on a 60 round 2 hour match ... not hunting 1 round per year: with adrenaline pumping recoil is the last thing you remember; muscles however remember to flinch if recoil was "harsh" during practice.
No doubt 270 will do anything 7-08 can, and it will do it a bit better - I just don't think it's worth the extra 50% more recoil.
Placement>Construction>Caliber
Enter your email address to join: