270 ammo

[Elkmagnet]

Not misleading at all, the right constructed bullet at the right speed for the intended game.

A .223 has plenty of potential to tear up fur depending on load and where it's placed.

Which has nothing to do with the diameter of the bullet. The problem with a 270 is the speed and weight of the bullet.

This is the reason I think that looking at it as only one 1/16th of an inch difference can be misleading.

 

[.280 Remington]

I have to agree with elkmagnet. Assuming similar bullet construction, the .270 is going to make a bigger hole, period. That's why it is a better deer or elk rifle than the .223. No getting around that fact.

 

[Southwind]

I have to agree with elkmagnet. Assuming similar bullet construction, the .270 is going to make a bigger hole, period. That's why it is a better deer or elk rifle than the .223. No getting around that fact.

at least 1/16th" correct. But now what if you have a large expanding .223 and a minimal expanding .270?

It's all relative but a by virtue of being a 270 doesn't mean it is going to tear up fur more than a 223. Generally yes a 270 is far more powerful and has much more energy but to the OP's question Yes you can make a load that doesn't cause a lot of terminal damage with a 270. And it is a fact when poking holes in things it is less than a 1/16th larger.

 

[Elkmagnet]

at least 1/16th" correct. But now what if you have a large expanding .223 and a minimal expanding .270?

It's all relative but a by virtue of being a 270 doesn't mean it is going to tear up fur more than a 223. Generally yes a 270 is far more powerful and has much more energy but to the OP's question Yes you can make a load that doesn't cause a lot of terminal damage with a 270. And it is a fact when poking holes in things it is less than a 1/16th larger.

I agree the problem has nothing to do with 1/16th it has to do with bullet weight and speed. (Witch you are saying to minimize)
That's why I said it was misleading.

I'm not sure if you have sown may dogs that were hit by larger Cal rifles but in my experience it's not a hole it's either a big missing patch or a bunch of long tears from the impact. A loaded down 90 gr is still a big pill for a thin skinned yote.
I'd still try it, velocity will be the key.

 

[idnative1948]

Or, learn how to use peroxide, sew and use a hair dryer. Old school stuff though. Just don't hit any bone. Our go-to has always been 22-250.

 

[.280 Remington]

at least 1/16th" correct. But now what if you have a large expanding .223 and a minimal expanding .270?

It's all relative but a by virtue of being a 270 doesn't mean it is going to tear up fur more than a 223. Generally yes a 270 is far more powerful and has much more energy but to the OP's question Yes you can make a load that doesn't cause a lot of terminal damage with a 270. And it is a fact when poking holes in things it is less than a 1/16th larger.

Only if you're using solids

 

[Southwind]

I agree the problem has nothing to do with 1/16th it has to do with bullet weight and speed. (Witch you are saying to minimize)
That's why I said it was misleading.

I'm not sure if you have sown may dogs that were hit by larger Cal rifles but in my experience it's not a hole it's either a big missing patch or a bunch of long tears from the impact. A loaded down 90 gr is still a big pill for a thin skinned yote.
I'd still try it, velocity will be the key.

We just started shooting coyotes in Kansas last week. Must be our lack of experience that is so inferior to yours.

To the Op yes you can.