Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Elk Hunting 270 cal 150 grain OK for elk?

For a going away shot at that patch of yellow fur at 300 yards and a big bull, I'll take bigger, heavier, faster, and Partitions every time. A 375 isn't too big for that kind work.

Wayne

I have used a number of rifles on elk, the 270, 30-06, 300 Win mag, 338 Win mag. The last elk hunt I went on I used the load you are talking about a full power load using the 150 grain Hornady. Neither bullet exited and the second was unnecessary. I built my 35 Whelen for hunting in the Timber as shooting is fast and I might want the edge in penetration it gives. In moderately open country where you can get a good shot angle the 270 works fine but if I use mine aqain I will load 150 grain Partitions for the job and to make me feel better if I have to take it in the timber. I have yet to use the Whelen on elk and of all my rifles the 30-06 has killed the most elk and it is my favorite rifle for elk hunting.

You can't use a 270 on elk.. Its not enough gun.. At least thats what some people try to tell me... However, the pre-64 270 in my closet may just disagree with those people. I think its taken somewhere between 20-30 Rosevelt elk out of WA state. However, everyone knows Rosevelts are just small easy to kill elk..... ;-)

We just kinda', sorta' had this discussion with Mule Deer on another thread........and he'll probably just throw down on us with the 200gr, 30 cal Partition

I've done the Texas Heart Shots with the 270 and 150gr Partition at longish range--successfully I might add. Indeed, that's my load for that worst case scenario. But if I wasn't prepared for that worst case scenario shot (and only on very rare occasion will I go for it), my 243W and 100gr Partitions has done very well on heavily quartering elk from 40 yards out to 300 yds.........


Casey

Plenty of bullet weight and energy behind it. I killed my first elk with a 117 grain bullet from a .257 Bob!

I don't shoot elk in the butt. But then again, I don't shoot antelope or deer in the butt, either.

Dammit all folks, if J.B. "throws down on you with a 200 gr Partition" for those tough, going away timber shots on big bulls, when there isn't and won't be any other shot offered besides that yellow rump, maybe we ought to start paying attention to him.

Wayne

My wife uses a 270 on elk and goes with 130's. If one hears her shoot, get the knife out, because there is an elk down. We've only recovered one slug, and that one was a headon shot straight through the brisket. The bullet was in the rear surface of the liver.

If one can deliver it accurately, I'd be fine with 4 or 500 yds. The wife's longest reach was about 425, and the shortest was about 12 yards in a mahogany thicket.

There will always be a difference in preference in size of cartridges for certain animals and I'm definately a supporter of use enough gun. Some have valid points for larger calibers while others imply because you can kill something with a small cartridge, you can hunt with it. IMO, the 270 on elk is not one of these. It not only has the horsepower but the bullet weight to take on elk handily. In fact, I've seen many instances of those claiming the fastest they've had an elk go down was with a 270, Craig Boddington being one of them. Now he did try to rationalize why that was with one point being the animal wasn't alerted, but it doesn't change the fact it was still his fastest. A recent Handloader article about the 7 x 57 Mauser had that author recount the same story with the 270 and elk. I've also seen it from quite a few other hunters. Bottom line, the 270 is a dandy of a cartridge that's been around for over 80 years simply because it works. With modern powders and bullets it's only gotten better.

I feel the max range is how ever far you can keep all your shots in a 10" paper plate, while shooting from field positions.

Getting the bullet where it needs to go is 95% of the deal. That Hornady bullet can fail horribly on you (very doubtfull), but as long as it "fails" in the lungs of that Elk; your still going to be eating Elk steaks.

So the answer is: Go somewhere where you can shoot a LONG ways out, and find out.

Wow, thanks for all the great information! As a kid I had a suscription to Outdoor Life and Jack O'Connor had a monthly column (forgot what it was called). I used to cut out and save his articles; what an outdoor writer he was. He was probably, maybe still is, the greatest proponent of the 270. Back around 1982, shortly before we married, my wife asked my hunting partner what rifle she should get me for Christmas. Of course he told her to get a Model 70 in 270 caliber. BTW, this is the same hunting partner who drew a WY elk tag with me this year.

That load should work to 250 yards, maybe 300just fine.

If I had a 338 I liked I would take it instead.

I gotta know, but what on earth are you talking about here?

Thx
Dober

Now that right there is funny... Dober, what was the range you took your last bull at with the 270? As I recall it was right at 500-ish, no?

496 to be prezact, one 130 TSX on the front right, it went back and exited the opposite hams and said volunteer pitched over on his nose.

Not quite a electrocution but darn close!

Dober

hi all. hey dober, i have thought about using the very same 130 tsx of which you speak of. other than that 1 bull, what else positive or negative have you heard of the 130's?-keith

Lots of positives and no negs, I'll let you know that more than a few other bulls have bounced via 130's for me and my hunt buds.

Dober

thanks dober. let me ask you this, have you noticed any appreciable difference in the killing potential of the tsx's with the other weights for the 270? i know they make a 130, 140, and 150 grainer. i know you would lose a little ballistic advantage, but i have always been taught to shoot the heaviest weight for your particular bullet. maybe with the tsx's that no longer hold's true?-keith

Dang, I thought they'd bounce-off at 301 yards!

They probably do--but it's the ricochet that kill's 'em










Well...at least I thought it was funny........



Casey