Jones123,
You have a PM.

Idahoelkinstructor,

I've always tipped my hat to competent bow hunters, especially the ones that use equipment appropriate to their quarry.

EKM

Sorry but IMO thats stupid.
Look at all the small bore's that have killed deer, elk, bear and moose.
.22 Hornet
.223 Rem
.22-250 Rem
.220 Swift
.243 Winchester and so on...
Heck, look at the .30-30 and .250 Savage, those 2 calibers have killed more big animals such as bear and elk than you could ever imagine.

Answer this...
If a .270 isnt good enough for elk then how did W.M. Bell kill all his african big game (elephant and buffalo) with a 7mm mauser???????
Its ALL in the shooter.

All I can say to this post is this. ANYONE who is not capable of killing an elk with a 270(which has been done thousands of times) SHOULD NEVER NEVER NEVER carry one afield. For those who can and have, You already know this is BUNK.. If the 270 is legal for elk where you hunt and you can shoot it well, for gods sake use it. If you need a much bigger gun then go for it. I have never shot an elk with a 243 but many have. A 270 is plenty of gun with good bullets when used by good hunters. I know as many hunters who use a 270 for elk as I do hunters who use something bigger. Just like a bow hunter has to count on his hunting skills, so does the hunter who carries a rifle smaller than the 375 H&H. Or so I hear. Well anyway things are stirred up again for a while. Myself I use a 30-06 or a 50 caliber Muzzle loader. Or the trusty 45-70. . I have a new Buffalo Classic.

I know a guy that bought a .50 BMG for deer since his .340 Wby didnt satisfy him anymore.
The biggest caliber I own as far as rifles go is my .300 Win Mag

I might know that same idiot. I guided a guy like that for six or seven years. He thought that 340 weatherby was a 1500 yard rifle. The gun might have been but he wasn't.

I just think that we have a major disconnect here...

This isn't about killing... This is about being unhindered by your weapon.

I guess if shooting any elk... or any moose... or any bear is the goal. You can afford to be limited in your opportunities by your weapon.

But if you are hunting for quality/trophy animals, those opportunities are few and far between... You can't let you shot selection be hindered by your weapon.

If my only shot opportunity at the animal that I want to harvest is a angled shot, I want to be able to shoot with confidence knowing that I can drive that 250 grain bullet through a shoulder or a hip to get to the vitals.

This isn't about making poor shots and gut shooting animals and hoping that a large bore will help. It is about opening up a few more shots because of the penerative qualities of the larger bores.

Well, if you want to get right down to it... If I recall correctly, he used a 175 grain SOLID. Look at the sectional density of a .284" 175 grain bullet. All he needed was penetration and that combo provided it.

Wont waist my time posting just want to say nice to see you post EKM.

Also SpyroAndes

Very well said........

ELKampMaster, I have never doubted the capability of the heavier mags to punch through the less than ideal shots, as I have seen a few. After all that is essentially what they were designed to do, along with the long-range performance (200 plus). It is unfortunate that our (Canada's and the US's) wilderness area's are being crowded to the extent that an animal has to be dropped in it's tracks so someone else doesn't get it or screw up your hunt. I don't disagree with the heavier rifles, but I don't discount the lighter one's either. They are all capable in the proper hands. The .270 users will out of necessity have to wait for their shot to present itself. If it does not, and the (ethical) hunter restrains him or herself from shooting and looses the opportunity to harvest an animal. Well, I guess, you just call that hunting (in their minds eye and mine). But if it is an animal at all costs, trophy at all costs, bigger is definitely better.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree...sort of... on this one.

God Bless ya, Jeepy, opinions are like rectums, everybody's got one and everyone is entitled to one. Thank god you are arguing for the "other side" it would be way too much damage control to have you arguing on mine!

Regarding Mr. Walter Dalrymple Maitland Bell you've already got part of the story wrong; SpyroAndes has one of the key pieces --- solids that are ILLEGAL here in the USA and Canada, but there is more. How about you do a book report and get back to us with the REAL story about this extraordinary individual (He blows Jack O'Connor into the weeds)! For those that know the full set of details on Mr. W.D.M. Bell it does make for the classic Paul Harvey line, ...."and now you know the rest of the story!"