Which one and why?

I got popcorn ready lol.

Geez get a 7-08!

Depends on your goals. If you’re never going to shoot long distance and do not mind the additional recoil the .270 is an excellent hunting round. If you’re going to spend a lot of time at the bench it’s not near as shoulder friendly. Everyone here will quickly tell you that you must shoot the 6.5 because of its high BC bullets, accuracy, and in fact it may be second coming. What it is is a well engineered, well supported round that absolutely gets the job done. It does not have the energy of the .270 in short to medium range though. At distance it outclasses it easily.

Search this forum.

Give the timespan as many years as possible.

270 of course - because I'm not into designer jeans, man buns, or vaping.

I so resemble this remark.

I used a 270 for 30ish years and switched to a 260 (same ballistics as the CM) about 5 years ago. For long distance target shooting, go with the 6.5 CM. If you are just hunting, either will work just fine. For general paper punching, I prefer the 260, mostly due to lower recoil. Again, with hunting in mind, the 270 is just a bigger helping of energy than the 6.5 CM.

6.5 CM will push a 120 gr Ballistic Tip (what I shoot) at 2900 to a max of 3000 FPS.
270 will push a 130 gr Ballistic Tip (what I shoot) at 3000 to maybe 3200 FPS max.

Somebody is bound to push the joys of the higher ballistic coefficient bullets available for the 6.5 CM as a reason to suggest it over the 270, but inside normal hunting distances BC doesn’t matter much, if at all. It matters big, however, to the long range guys.

In my experiences in shooting both calibers, and despite having been a huge fan of the 270 for decades, I have come to the conclusion that the 260/6.5 CM is all you need. Plenty of killing power and not much recoil. Even in a real light rifle, it won’t punish your shoulder. I enjoy punching paper with it, more so than with the 270. And every deer season I say that I’m going to use the 270 this year, but I don’t.

I am thinking about putting together another 7-08, already have two good shooting 270's and am not going to grow a man bun.

Damn Kyle, he just called you straight the F out

Lol touché, but at least my jeans don’t have Rhinestones on the back.

Mine don't either bish. It is the stitching they are obsessed about

My first deer rifle was a .270 Win. Over the next 30 years, I killed a truckload of deer with that round. Two years ago, I bought a 6.5 CM for my boys to use when they come down to hunt with me. Did a lot of research, focusing on lighter recoil, accuracy, and ballistics. After shooting the rifle for a while and watching the oldest two take some game with it, I bought myself a left-hand model in 6.5 CM. The .270 stays in the safe these days. Never considered myself a band wagon kinda guy, but I certainly jumped on this one. Would do it again.

Starting a 270 vs creed thread on THF is akin to cheering for Texas from Oklahoma sidelines, or vice versa.

Also, by now, I bet anyone that creates a .270 vs creed thread already knows which and why.

The very first centerfire rifle I purchased was a beautiful Ruger M77 MKII in 270 from a store named Oshmans sporting goods in Mesquite TX. It had beautiful figured walnut and a deeply glossed finish on the bluing. At the time of purchase I also added a Leupold base and rings as well as a 3x9 Vari-X II which they mounted and boresighted for me while I waited. I also threw in a Norinco SKS for good measure for $89. I bought one box of every 270 ammunition they had in stock, which if I remember correctly was about 6 different types. I essentially spent my whole tax return in one stop, but my mind was made up, so IIRC i was $1500 all in.

I immediately drove right to Targetmaster indoor range in Garland to shoot my new prized possession that I lusted after just like that kid in the movie Christmas Story did with the red ryder.

Long story longer, I placed my target at 50 yards and when all said and done, I had a minor bout of scope eye, a bruised shoulder, 10 rds of ammo left in each box, and the best target of the day at around 2 inches........at 50 freaking yards.

I drove right back to Oshmans and took the rifle right back to the gun counter and told them that the rifle was broken. The "gunsmith" looked it over and suggested it was the Leupold that I had selected. He offered me a straight swap to the Nikon equivalent (which I cannot remember what it was called). I agreed and he mounted and boresighted the new Nikon.

I drove right back to Targetmaster, bruised eyebrow and shoulder and my 6 half boxes of ammo and ran another target to 50. I left there pissed the F off at that rifle and called it quits for the day and drove home. I took it to the Big Town gun show that weekend and traded it for a nice L1A1 (FAL) that proved more accurate with its rudimentary iron sights than the fancy, beautiful, no shooting Ruger in 270. I wasn't interested in inaccurate rifles even at that age, and I immediately blamed it on the caliber in my immature brain.

Fast forward more than 2 decades and i ran across a killer deal on a custom 270 in my local pawn shop. Another Ruger, this time an American with a custom stock and barrel and brake. It included a scope that was worth more than their asking price, so I made the buy just for that reason.

Begrudgingly, i headed to Academy and purchased 2 boxes of ammunition of different types. A good friend of mine ended up giving me 7 or 8 boxes he had left over from a 270 that he sold, so I had a really good variety.

While this rifle shot hands down better than the previous rifle I had, it was, at-best an inch and a half rifle at 100 yards. Good enough for most, but it didnt show me enough to put in the effort of buying dies and trying to get it under MOA, so I pulled the scope and sold the rifle for what I originally bought it for.

After all this, I told myself I would not mess with 270 again, although I still think the round has its merits. Just about every 308, 6.5, 6mm, 7mm that I have shot has been more accurate than the small sample size of 2 270s that I possessed. I feel like thats a sign, at least for me. Fool me once, fool me twice, etc.

My main hunting rifle used to be a savage in .270. Easily sub moa, and I loved it. The economy of divorce forced the sale of that rifle, and I hunted with a 30/30 for 2 years. As my situation improved, bought another savage, but this time in 6.5 as my main hunting rifle. After 2 years with that one, I had a BAR in .270 that I traded for, and that one is squeezing out the 6.5 as my main hunting rifle. I still use the 6.5, and both will do what you want it to do out to 300 yards. Past that, the 6.5 gets the nod. What you are comparing is apples to oranges. At normal hunting distances, I almost like the .270 better. Maybe I need to try 120 gr. In the 6.5. It looks like they are ballisically similar comparing those two weights. I guess the short version would be that I like them both.

30-06 cause 2 world wars.

I still don't get why the two get compared. Long action versus short action.

.270 vs .284 Win vs 280 vs 280 A.I. vs .30-06 vs 6.5-284 <<That would make sense.

I’ve killed more with the 270 by far......it’s a great round and shooting 130s isn’t bad on the shoulder at all and I have killed with it out to 350 yards with confidence. If I was choosing between the 2 and my goal for a rifle was hunting 300 yards or less for hunting only I would choose the 270 if I could get a better deal on it........

Josh is the only dude I know that bedazzles his jeans.

You Grayson County boys are weird.

I have two .270's (Remington Model 700 and Weatherby Vanguard) and they are both consistent shooters with every brand/load of ammo I've ever shot through them. I also own two Savage rifles, one being a Model 110 bolt-action chambered in 6.5 Creedmoor. The Creedmoor is without question the pickiest rifle I've ever owned for getting consistent performance with different brands/loads of ammo. It groups just about every brand very well, but the individual groups are all over the target.

Based on what I've seen with my Creedmoor and knowing its development history, I believe the bullet was built around a specific load to achieve it's long range accuracy. Once you veer off from that load, it's hit or miss when looking for some other, less expensive brand/load that performs equally well. This leads me to believe that while many people enjoy bragging about their Creedmoor, it's more because they feel they have something everyone wants rather than it's true wide-range performance. It could be just another example of where a lot of marketing hype got a lot of buyers to bite. They go out and buy one and then use the same load (Hornady 143 grain ELD-X) that everyone recommends and it shoots great. But God help them if they should try anything else.

My Remington Model 700 .270 continues to hold it's place as my "go to" rifle.