Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Elk Hunting 270 for Elk

Man, I dream about that happening... can't wait to tell the story someday!

Our own Mule Deer may have written an article in the latest Sports Afield that is similar to your empirical observations.

Good article John.

Shooting elk in timber will usually mean tracking, no matter the cartridge. Blood alone can't be relied on as a tracking guide no matter what it's been shot with, so you've got to be able to read more than that. I've had bulls go equally far shot with the 338 WM, 300 WSM, 30-06, 270, 308 or 7-08. I've had them drop in their tracks with the 308 and 30-06 without CNS hits.

I will agree that it's not unwise to shoot the largest rifle you're comfortable with, on the other hand, it conserves more energy packing a light rifle rather than a heavy one all day in the mountains. For me, the "ultimate" elk rifle would be a 22" bbl'd 338 WM weighing around 7.5 scoped, with sling and rounds. Problem is, I don't want to pack or shoot a 7.5lb 338 WM anymore, so pack a 6.5lb 308 win!

Funny how elk just die when you shoot them right with a good bullet. Bullet placement and bullet quality trump cartridge size.

bwinters,

Thanks!

I must also point out that my experience is similar to Brad's. Still have a 22" barreled .338 Winchester Magnum that weighs about 7-1/2 pounds with scope, but haven't hunted with it (or my .375 H&H) since acquiring my 9.3x63 over 15 years ago. All I apparently use the .338 for anymore is breaking scopes when testing them for articles.

Must also note that the .338, 9.3x62 and .375 do not guarantee quicker kills than "lesser" cartridges, even on deer-sized game.
Might use my .375 if I go back to Africa again, but aside from one bison have never used it in North America, mostly because I found it too heavy for mountain hunting even when I was much younger--the reason I built my light .338.

But these days have several rifles weighing less than 7 pounds that are perfectly capable of taking elk, but probably my favorite is my NULA .30-06, which weighs 6 pounds on the nose with scope. Have taken more elk with the .30-06 than any other cartridge, including my biggest bull, and none have gone more than 45 yards after the shot. But then my wife could say the same thing about the elk she's taken, and all of them have been shot with the .270 Winchester, except one with the .257 Roberts.

Your life - hunt the way you want to.
I wear seat belts too. Not out of fear of my skills, but because the other guy is a drunk texter. I don't call that fear - just prepared.

I agree with both you and Brad on the 338. I've shot a couple sub 8 lb 338 and don't like the recoil they generate. I started hunting elk with 338 but it weighed 9 lbs. So decided 9lb rifles and lightweight 338s weren't my cup of tea.

I guess I met your son with you a couple of years ago at Armijo Springs. Hopefully, you will get him back agin this year.

I have had big plans to bring my wife and kids to Armijo Springs, plus my new diesel pickup and big Cabela tent, this year. However, they are now all talking about hanging out in Japan this summer, in which it might just be me, again. (Got some new guns, though, to show off.)

Bill, when I first came to Montana in 1992 I'd read all the scribblings guys like Boddington had recorded about elk in the various gunrags through the 1980's. I was fairly convinced a small howitzer was necessary for elk. I'll never forget one fall evening I was driving South through Bridger Canyon when I picked up a hitchkiker sporting blaze orange and a rifle. He'd just come out of the mountains and needed a lift to his truck. I asked what he was packing, his reply was "308." I remember thinking to myself, "that seems kinda small" but kept my mouth shut. I'd always been a 308 fan, but just couldn't see its place on elk. Then in the early 2000's I started packing one, and eventually found it worked just fine. And, of course, ditto all the other "lesser" rounds like the 270 and 7-08!

I think a lot of guys are still influenced by those 1980's writers, many of whom had thin resumes with elk. I also think in all American males there's an element of machismo that requires a "big/bad" remedy. Add peer pressure, group think, ego/insecurity and viola, the Remington Ultra Mag!

As someone once said, "experience can be very long but very narrow."

I'd also add, there's a definite "confirmation bias" of many magnum shooters that guides them to only seek out those sources that confirm their pre-existing biases, while ignoring all others in contradiction. I had those same biases, I was just flexible enough to learn something new. There's often a better way.

I'm glad I did listen...

Lots of good info in this thread. The only thing I can add is that some of us can't handle the recoil of big rifles and therefore would use a 270. I hunted elk twice, in 1989 and 1991. The rifle I used in 1989 was a Remington 700 ADL in 300 Winchester Magnum. 8 lbs. with 3-9x scope. In 1991 I brought two rifles, a Weatherby Mark V in 300 Weatherby and a Mauser action 358 Norma. Each rifle weighed nearly 10 lbs. I didn't mind the weight or the recoil. Killed a bull elk with the Weatherby.

Now, at age 70, and on blood thinners after bypass surgery, hard kicking magnums are not for me. I have tried a NULA 30-06 like Mule Deer's, and it kicked the snot out of me.

So, I guess I'll follow Jack O'Connor's advice and use a 270 (or maybe a 6.5x55) if I ever go out west to hunt again. My 270 is not a lightweight at 8-3/4 lbs.

Funny how smart Jack O'Connor has gotten the older I've gotten...

Boddington also got smarter as he got older--partly because of watching his daughter kill a bunch of big game with the 7mm-08.

But Craig also finally used a .270 on a bull elk during a hunt on the Whittington Center in New Mexico, mostly because some people gave him grief about putting down the .270 as an elk cartridge without ever having used one. So he loaded up some 150-grain Partitions with H4831, and his chance came on a good 6-point across canyon, at a little over 400 yards. He aimed just behind the shoulder and that's where the bullet landed. The bull stumbled a little ways and fell over dead.

In fact, at that time it was the quickest kill he'd made on an elk. I know this because I hunted the Whittington myself a few years later, with the guy who guided Craig, Mike Ballew. We ended up at the spot where Craig shot his bull, and Mike pointed out where the elk had been standing, and then told me how Craig mentioned it being his quickest elk kill.

Does anyone here on the campfire feel a difference in recoil between shooting a 270 Winchester loaded with a 150 grain bullet and a .30/06 using the same weight bullet?

No, but yours is an apples/oranges comparison. A 270 150 is in a different class of bullet than a 30 cal 150 of lead core construction.

A more accurate comparison (BC/SD) is the 270/150 vs 30-06/180... I definitely can feel that difference in equal rifles.

I don't know if I would call it apples and oranges.

Tons of bullets on the market, in both calibers, of all sorts of shapes and construction.

We aren't talking big differences in dimensions from .277 and .308.

So a 308 cal 150 Partition with an SD of .226 and a BC of .387 is the same as a 277 cal 150 Partition with an SD of .279 and a BC of .465?

Nope. Just like a Jonathan Gold apple isn't a Golden Delicious.

No reason to start talking oranges.

Fair enough!

But it remains, the better comparison is with a 30 Cal 180…

I don't see how sectional density and ballistic coefficient are going to affect felt recoil. Idahoguy101 asked about recoil.

When you are measuring effectiveness on game comparing SD's is far more accurate than bullet weight. Comparing effectiveness of a 270/150 to a 30-06/150 on game isn't a fair comparison, the 270/150 is a much better choice with similar recoil. Comparing the 270/150 to a 30-06/180 will result in similar results on game, but with slightly more recoil for the 30-06/180.

JMR40,
Nobody mentioned effectiveness on game. Idahoguy asked about felt recoil between a .270/150gr and a .30-06/150gr.
Both you and Brad are totally missing the point in Idahoguy's question.