.270 For Elk Hunting
04-26-2005, 06:48 PM
#41
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Colorado
Posts: 4,127
RE: .270 For Elk Hunting
A .338 is a great rifle for the big bears. Once you go above the .300 Magnums, however, you are essentially trading long range trajectory for increased penetration - since the .338 shoots about as flat as a 30/06. If the range is short to medium, and the animal is large; .338 looks pretty good. At longer ranges the .300 Magnums have an edge - and some of these new bonded bullets can let you have your cake and eat it too.
The best thing about the .270, IMO, is that most folks can shoot this caliber without flinching - and subsequently place their shots better. This is an often overlooked virtue . . .
The best thing about the .270, IMO, is that most folks can shoot this caliber without flinching - and subsequently place their shots better. This is an often overlooked virtue . . .
04-26-2005, 07:17 PM
#42
Boone & Crockett
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Wall SD USA & Jamestown ND
Posts: 11,474
RE: .270 For Elk Hunting
When I compare the 30-06 to the 338 Win mag, I have to take into consideration the sectional density of the bullets in both calibers. If you compare bullets of equal SD in the two and I were going to use either in the field, the closest consideration would be the 190 Grain 308 bullet to the 225 grain 338 bullet. Both have about the same sectional density or ability of the bullet to penetrate. The 30-06 would fire the 190 grain BTSP at 2725 fps. The 338 would fire the 225 grain bullet at 2915. Does this give the 338 the edge? you bet it would. Would either bullet flatten an elk? You bet it would. I was only saying that having had both calibers at the same time and using both for big game hunting, Both with those loads are PLENTY. Therefore for me the 30-06 would be down loadable enugh to be a more versitile rifle for all around big game hunting. You will also find if you talk to people that have done it that properly loaded the 30-06 will suffice for anything in NA. There are several people on this board who have taken the big bears with the 30-06. The 338 did not fill a nitch for me. For some maybe it would.
The 190 Grain BTSP is a little used and very underated bullet for the 308 and 30-06. I have fire thousands of them at the 500 meter Rams while shooting silhouettes. I have fired many at big game as well with very good results. I have used the Hornady the most.
If starting over I would bypass the 338 in a heartbeat for the 375 H&H if I needed something bigger than the 30-06 or 270-280. That would be a real step up if one is needed.
The 190 Grain BTSP is a little used and very underated bullet for the 308 and 30-06. I have fire thousands of them at the 500 meter Rams while shooting silhouettes. I have fired many at big game as well with very good results. I have used the Hornady the most.
If starting over I would bypass the 338 in a heartbeat for the 375 H&H if I needed something bigger than the 30-06 or 270-280. That would be a real step up if one is needed.
04-27-2005, 09:57 AM
#43
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Missouri
Posts: 1,429
RE: .270 For Elk Hunting
James,
Good points all. Sectional Densities can not be considered in and of themselves. There are considerable factors involved. Sectional Density is very important, but velocity, Kinetic energy, and weight of projectile all play key roles. So bullets with the same sectional density one being heavier and and a higher velocity would penetrate further and deliver more kinetic energy.
All these points are moot though. Our disagreement stems more from personal preference than any other factor. I prefer the 338 you prefer the 06. Which one of is wrong? Neither, we are both just in our decisions. The 06 is a great round as is the 338. I personally think the 338 is superior. You think that the increases do not justify the increase in recoil, powder burned, etc. When we boil it all down, they both get the job done.
Good points all. Sectional Densities can not be considered in and of themselves. There are considerable factors involved. Sectional Density is very important, but velocity, Kinetic energy, and weight of projectile all play key roles. So bullets with the same sectional density one being heavier and and a higher velocity would penetrate further and deliver more kinetic energy.
All these points are moot though. Our disagreement stems more from personal preference than any other factor. I prefer the 338 you prefer the 06. Which one of is wrong? Neither, we are both just in our decisions. The 06 is a great round as is the 338. I personally think the 338 is superior. You think that the increases do not justify the increase in recoil, powder burned, etc. When we boil it all down, they both get the job done.
04-27-2005, 10:45 AM
#44
Boone & Crockett
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Wall SD USA & Jamestown ND
Posts: 11,474
RE: .270 For Elk Hunting
True enough for me. Good luck this upcomming season.
One more thing to add however. Penetration will also be determined by bullet frontal area. Over expansion or caliber size can limit penetration somewhat. I have not seen any common bullet in the field that will out penetrate the 180-190 grain 30 caliber bullet. I have seen tests that show that the 300 Win Mag will penetrate further than the 338 given bullets of equal SD.
One more thing to add however. Penetration will also be determined by bullet frontal area. Over expansion or caliber size can limit penetration somewhat. I have not seen any common bullet in the field that will out penetrate the 180-190 grain 30 caliber bullet. I have seen tests that show that the 300 Win Mag will penetrate further than the 338 given bullets of equal SD.
05-10-2005, 11:44 AM
#45
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Burlington Wyoming
Posts: 22
RE: .270 For Elk Hunting
I have not been here for a long while but this thread made me really want to add my 2 cents.
A few years back I built a rifle for Ray Milligan. For those who don’t recognize the name Ray is the most successful elk outfitter in the world. When I hunted with him in 2003 the bull I took was “Officially” # 900 in six years. Put another way his outfit takes 150 bulls a year.
No one else in the world has more elk hunting experience. Period.
Ray’s rifle was chambered for the 7mm Remington Short Action Ultra Mag. The load is a 150gr bullet at 2975 fps. I loaded and chronoed the ammunition.
A hot .270 will duplicate this easily or a factory load will produce the same terminal effect 50 yds closer to the target.
Ray lets a lot of clients use his rifle when the chances of a long shot are good. In other words this is his choice for a “Camp Rifle”
He has personally taken bull elk with it at 1060 yds but bullet performance was not what he likes and now limits shots to 750 yds under good conditions.
This rifle has also taken sheep (both Dall and Bighorn), caribou, deer, antelope, and bear (both Grizzly and Black) with perfect reliability.
If you have problems cleanly taking the biggest bull elk with a .270 the fault is not in the caliber.
The reason elk are wounded is poor shooting.
A .270 with any reasonable bullet will handle the shoulder shot on any bull. This is simply a fact.
The only shot where a .270 is questionable is a quartering away where the bullet must penetrate a stomach full of grass before it gets to the chest cavity. This is a very questionable shot with any cartridge and most skilled hunters don’t take it.
The .270 will fully handle a wounded elk going away, it will unquestionably break the pelvis and immobilize the elk and be easier to get the hit with than any “Elk Hammer”.
In my opinion the .270 is a much much better general elk hunting cartridge than any of the above mentioned “Elk Hammers”.
Let me state that another way.
I personally hunt for a living and have shot cartridges from the .17s to the .585 Nyeti to the 4 bore rifle and regularly use handguns with relatively heavy recoil (.454 Casull). I have shot, spotted for, or videoed being shot over 50 elk (9 in 2004) with cartridges from the .22-.243 to the .338-.378 Weatherby and would go on the hunt of a lifetime for 400” bulls with a .270 without concern. It would not be my first choice but if it was what I had I would not lose any sleep. I would limit my shots to 600 yds.
A few years back I built a rifle for Ray Milligan. For those who don’t recognize the name Ray is the most successful elk outfitter in the world. When I hunted with him in 2003 the bull I took was “Officially” # 900 in six years. Put another way his outfit takes 150 bulls a year.
No one else in the world has more elk hunting experience. Period.
Ray’s rifle was chambered for the 7mm Remington Short Action Ultra Mag. The load is a 150gr bullet at 2975 fps. I loaded and chronoed the ammunition.
A hot .270 will duplicate this easily or a factory load will produce the same terminal effect 50 yds closer to the target.
Ray lets a lot of clients use his rifle when the chances of a long shot are good. In other words this is his choice for a “Camp Rifle”
He has personally taken bull elk with it at 1060 yds but bullet performance was not what he likes and now limits shots to 750 yds under good conditions.
This rifle has also taken sheep (both Dall and Bighorn), caribou, deer, antelope, and bear (both Grizzly and Black) with perfect reliability.
If you have problems cleanly taking the biggest bull elk with a .270 the fault is not in the caliber.
The reason elk are wounded is poor shooting.
A .270 with any reasonable bullet will handle the shoulder shot on any bull. This is simply a fact.
The only shot where a .270 is questionable is a quartering away where the bullet must penetrate a stomach full of grass before it gets to the chest cavity. This is a very questionable shot with any cartridge and most skilled hunters don’t take it.
The .270 will fully handle a wounded elk going away, it will unquestionably break the pelvis and immobilize the elk and be easier to get the hit with than any “Elk Hammer”.
In my opinion the .270 is a much much better general elk hunting cartridge than any of the above mentioned “Elk Hammers”.
Let me state that another way.
I personally hunt for a living and have shot cartridges from the .17s to the .585 Nyeti to the 4 bore rifle and regularly use handguns with relatively heavy recoil (.454 Casull). I have shot, spotted for, or videoed being shot over 50 elk (9 in 2004) with cartridges from the .22-.243 to the .338-.378 Weatherby and would go on the hunt of a lifetime for 400” bulls with a .270 without concern. It would not be my first choice but if it was what I had I would not lose any sleep. I would limit my shots to 600 yds.
05-10-2005, 12:49 PM
#46
Boone & Crockett
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,679
RE: .270 For Elk Hunting
John, while I don't have nearly the experiance as Ray or yourself hunting elk your comments practically mirror my thoughts and findings exactly. I have been preaching the merits of the .270 and its use on elk since I have been a member here.
For some reason too many people think that elk are wearing body armor these days and the hunter needs the laest super magnum or big bore rifle to kill elk.
I here all the time that there is no such thing as shot placement when hunting elk. I'm not sure where that thought process comes from but the sights need to be where you want the bullet to go before you pull the trigger regardless of the caliber you choose otherwise you get a wounded elk. Sounds like shot placement to me????????
I like an article that Chuck Hawks writes regarding elk rifles. I have quoted it a few times and I'll go ahead and quote it again for any one that has missed it.
For some reason too many people think that elk are wearing body armor these days and the hunter needs the laest super magnum or big bore rifle to kill elk.
I here all the time that there is no such thing as shot placement when hunting elk. I'm not sure where that thought process comes from but the sights need to be where you want the bullet to go before you pull the trigger regardless of the caliber you choose otherwise you get a wounded elk. Sounds like shot placement to me????????
I like an article that Chuck Hawks writes regarding elk rifles. I have quoted it a few times and I'll go ahead and quote it again for any one that has missed it.
It has come to my attention that it takes a much larger and more powerful cartridge to kill elk these days than it used to. Last time I checked, all the elk that I have shot with a .30-06, are still dead, but I fear that soon this will not be the case.
If what the gun writers say is true, then, in just a few short years the .30-06 will not be just "marginal," but totally inadequate for killing elk. It's just a short step from there to proclaiming that killing an elk with a .30-06 is "virtually impossible."
As you are probably aware, the elk was almost shot into extinction over most of the west before smokeless powder was invented. As you are also well aware, the elk population in the west is increasing and expanding into places where elk have not lived for a hundred years.
There can be only one explanation. Those elk that were killed in the 19th Century are coming back to life because they never could have been killed in the first place.
So far, this has not affected me personally, other than giving me more elk to shoot at but, as I said earlier, I fear that soon my antler collection will begin to slowly and mysteriously vanish, as if it never existed. What does this mean to the future of hunting? How will it affect the space-time continuum?
I might also point out that mule deer numbers are probably in decline because they are being killed really, really, really dead at 3000 fps from 400 yards away, rather than just sort of dead with a .30-30.
And how long before bow hunters get caught up in the Short Magnum fad? Talk about feed problems!
If what the gun writers say is true, then, in just a few short years the .30-06 will not be just "marginal," but totally inadequate for killing elk. It's just a short step from there to proclaiming that killing an elk with a .30-06 is "virtually impossible."
As you are probably aware, the elk was almost shot into extinction over most of the west before smokeless powder was invented. As you are also well aware, the elk population in the west is increasing and expanding into places where elk have not lived for a hundred years.
There can be only one explanation. Those elk that were killed in the 19th Century are coming back to life because they never could have been killed in the first place.
So far, this has not affected me personally, other than giving me more elk to shoot at but, as I said earlier, I fear that soon my antler collection will begin to slowly and mysteriously vanish, as if it never existed. What does this mean to the future of hunting? How will it affect the space-time continuum?
I might also point out that mule deer numbers are probably in decline because they are being killed really, really, really dead at 3000 fps from 400 yards away, rather than just sort of dead with a .30-30.
And how long before bow hunters get caught up in the Short Magnum fad? Talk about feed problems!
06-08-2005, 09:55 AM
#49
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Denver, Colorado
Posts: 192
RE: .270 For Elk Hunting
ORIGINAL: 147 Grain
A .270 Win shooting 150-gr. High Energy Federal Partitions will do the job quite nicely!
A .270 Win shooting 150-gr. High Energy Federal Partitions will do the job quite nicely!
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
sacres
Hunts/Outfitters
0
04-27-2009 11:08 PM
sacres
Hunts/Outfitters
0
03-28-2009 08:13 AM
sacres
Hunts/Outfitters
0
01-20-2009 11:46 AM
