Hunting Rifle Input Wanted

Thanks for all the replies. I had heard about "sporterized" Springfields and thought it might be fun, but it seems like it's not my particular brand of fun. I may still see if I can find the couple of parts that I know are missing so it at least looks complete.

The .270 is more than what I need for deer, but with a lot of things I do, I tend to branch out, or at least daydream about branching out. So it's for deer, but could possibly be used for elk or any other big game in Washington.

Open sights and old eyes are making shooting tough. I sighted in the lever action at 100 yards and could hit reliably in a 6 inch circle, but that was as good as I could group. My shooting skills are a bit rusty, but the worst part is the distance from the rear sight to the front sight. Shooting my buddies rifle with a scope made me think that I'd be better off aiming through one.

There is nothing wrong with a .270 for deer size game but I find them a bit lacking on bigger thicker skinned animals. An 06 is perhaps one of the most versatile calibers available. There are factory loads from 125 grains to 22o grains and if you go to some of the premium high energy loads you are approaching 300 Win. Mag capabilities.

Regarding the Springfield action it is a weak action as compared to Mauser actions and can not withstand very high pressures. Modern factory loads would not be a consideration for use in my opinion, particularly the high energy loads.

I know there are a lot of devotees of the .270 that will claim and have shot everything with them. Over the years I have owned a few and within what I perceive limitations is a nice rifle. But it is not the rifle I want if I have to shoot at a 500 pound plus elk at over 200 yards. With a .270 I really wouldn't want to take a shot at an elk much over 100 yards. I hate tracking wounded animals.

Dave

I'm offering on opinion and not an attack, got it?

I've had the opportunity/blessing to hunt a variety of animals using a variety of rifles and calibers. I've taken whitetail deer with .243, mule deer with .270 and .3006. I've taken moose with .3006 and .300 Win Mag. I've taken a dozen elk size and moose size animals with .3006, .300 Win Mag and .375H&H (300gr bullet). There was also a Cape buffalo with the .375. I've taken very small deer type animals (i.e. dog-size antelope) with .3006 and .375 H&H. I've shot targets and vermin with .22, ,22-250, and .223.

In all of these years and all of that hunting, I lost one wounded animal. The one wounded animal I lost was a blue wildebeest I shot through the chest with a 180gr .3006. It ran off, no blood trail, and we never found it. The following year I went back and shot another one through the chest with a .300 Win Mag and it ran 100 yards and dropped...and there was NO blood trail. The expert tracker found it. I saw another wildebeest shot with a .458 Lott using 400gr bullet and it staggered a little ways before it dropped.

I mention all of this, not to brag, but because these are my credentials.

My opinion is there seem to be folks who want to say "I shot this big/huge animal with this small caliber rifle.". The implication seems to be that the better hunters use smaller calibers. And this is where I strongly disagree.

In my opinion, a true sporting and ethical hunter uses the largest caliber they can effectively and accurately shoot to kill their game. We, as sportsmen/sportswomen, owe it to the animals we hunt. They deserve a clean, humane death. And, by the way, that is also why goose hunters use 12 gauges.

I also believe folks spend too much time focused on minute of angle accuracy off of the bench shooting those smaller rifles rather than trying to improve their skills to hit a paper plate at 150 yards offhand with a bigger rifle.

Robert Ruark said it best many years ago: Use Enough Gun.

By the way, if I ever decide to shoot another wildebeest, it will be with at least a .375.