Oh yeah, in the 75 years since the introduction of the .270 bullet makers couldn't design an adequate bullet until the introduction of the super magnum. [:-]

Quote:
"Just about any smokeless powder round with a diameter of .26 or better will kill any game that walks."

================================================== ====
Well, if that is a true statement and carried to its logical end, then the .243 or even the .223 will kill any game that walks.

With a statement like someone quoted above, I would love to see one of these Hardies take their .26s with them up against tuff stuff that would bite back. I believe most would wrap their hands around a rifle/caliber that has quite abit of thump and is more than an adequate killer. Why, because their own personal safety is important to them, or it should be. The larger calibers kill better when the shot placement isn't perfect. Why not give a big game animal your hunting the same respect of killing him quickly as you would any other animal (those which bite back)?

If a person wants to poke around for wounded griz in the thickets with the end of his .270, be my guest. Not Gade Zooks, though. My experience has not been all that good with the .270 on the larger big game animals, even though I own and shoot serveral different .270s. IMHO, I view the .270 as useful for the smaller size big game animals.

I've read where others have had great success with a .270. As stated before, this is not my experiences. So to answer your question, NO. I think it's a poor choice for hunting big game animals, unless you can't shooting something larger accurately.

"The larger calibers kill better when the shot placement isn't perfect." The myth that will not die, only something with an explosive bullet can kill quick when the vitals are missed.
"I would love to see one of these Hardies take their .26s with them up against tuff stuff that would bite back." You need to read some of the stuff written by Victorian era Brits, about hunting in Africa. Quite a few carried 6.5 or 7mms as their basic rifle.
"Well, if that is a true statement and carried to its logical end, then the .243 or even the .223 will kill any game that walks." I guess you missed the part about bullets with enough sectional density to penetrate sufficiently.
Now Gadd Zooks, tell me your favorite Elmer Keith story about the bullet proof ram.

Compare the .264- 140gr SP 6.5mmSwed S.D. and B.C., with other bullets
on the bullet charts.
6.5mmSwed> S.D..287......B.C..490

Norma Ammo says .158gr SP Alaska will take Moose with
no problem.

I think adequate and proper are two different things.Lot's of elk and other big game have been taken w/270 I think a lot of factors are involved especially shot placement,distance etc.Lot's of smaller calibers have killed big game it may have been adequate in their eyes at the time but a far cry from being a good choice.I prefer the 30 calibers in the magnum for big game.
Elkshed

It's a matter of personal opinion. In my opinion, I don't like the 270. Can't beat the 300win mag for large game. I can understand your question though, especially if it's biggest gun you own. I personally shoot a 30.06, and when I go after big game with my hunting friends, I have the smallest gun, now. I was up in Newfoundland last fall, shot my moose with the 30.06 and anchored him to the ground with the first shot. Yes shot placement is every thing. This particular time my hunting partner was using a 270. He watched his bull carry off his bullet, never to be seen again as in about 2 seconds it disappeard in the black brush of Newfoundland. Later that day he dropped a 200lb black bear at 185 yards on the range finder and it went about 15 yards. This year we have booked an elk hunt in Montana, the first thing my friend did was buy a 300 RUM. I know a bunch big game animals are taken every year with the 270, this is just my opinion of the caliber. Myself, I've heard more horror stories about wounded elk with the 270 than say the 30 cals. And I know any gun is only as good as it's shooter.

AND HIS/HER BULLET CHOICE!

You never stated what the angle of the shot or bullet used in your freinds case, so I will not assume either way. But all to often a poor choice in bullet and decision to make a poor angled shot = lost animals regardless of the cartridge or caliber used. Sure a larger cartridge will allow you to take raking angle shots and still find pay dirt but that is provided the rifleman picked the proper bullet!

As stated previous it is not ideal but with one using a premium solid contruction bullet (built for tougher game) and proper/realistic limitations on distance and angle of shots taken the 270 is adequate in the elk woods. This based on my experience - I used 150 gr NP or 140 Gr Failsafes, limited my shots to 250 or under and positive vital angled shots only were taken(aka broadside or quarter away) to anchor both elk and moose. If you can't do this I agree it is not adequate as it will lead to lost/wounded animals.

BTW I now use a 7mm rem mag which affords me many more options and wouldn't dream of going back now.

The 270 is a fine all around big game rifle. Good hunters will have no problem. Its been taking NA game since 1925.

the 270 is a great deer rifle. It IS NOT a good elk caliber.

I assure you that the 270 with 150 grain Barnes X bullet will take out both front shoulders on and elk as will the 260 with the 140 grain X bullet. I have done it with the 260 at well over 250 yards. Yea BOTH front shoulders. If you need more power than that then there is no hope for you.