Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Elk Hunting 270 Win w/130 gr.

Maybe. But another elk might not have gone far either. 200 yards is certainly within the realm of a well shot big game animal's travels. Most don't go near that far, but I've seen well shot pronghorn and deer travel similar distances, especially if they had a little adrenaline flowing previous to the shot.

^^^There's the answer right there^^^

roundoak,

Hunting is a fun albeit extremely crucial component of wildlife management. What a hunter uses while hunting reflects his personality. Therefore, you are absolutely correct. Hunters should be able to use any reasonable rifle they choose.

I have never condemned any hunter for his rifle/cartridge selection. Its his business, not mine. Were a hunter to hunt once-in-a-lifetime trophy bull elk with a .243 Win, he obviously knows something I don't. On the other end of the spectrum, if a hunter want to use a .300 Rem Ultra Mag, I'm good.

As for me, I use cartridges that have a proven track record that won't knock the heck outta me on benches. I've always been right up front about my not liking to go mano-y-mano with Muhammad Ali cartridges. I know my 7MM Rem Mag will shoot where I aim because I can zero that baby in to very tiny groups. I couldn't do that with a .375 H&H Mag. As Dirty Harry said, "A man's got to know his limitations," and I know mine.

BTW, Warren Page designed the 7MM Rem Mag to be a long range elk rifle. Either ranges got longer or elk have gotten in to BALCO because gun writers (Boddington) think that the .270 Win & 7MM Rem Mag won't kill Catalina Island goats. However, someone forgot to check with all the dead elk that are killed every year with non-magnums. But if a hunter wants to use really big magnums, I'm more than good. After all, what another hunter uses to kill anything ain't none of my darn business.

You're not being fair to Craig. He definitely used to be a magnum guy for elk and African plains game, but finally decided he needed to actually kill an elk with a .270 Winchester if he was going to keep talking about it. So he did, taking a .270 with handloaded 150-grain Nosler Partitions on a Whittington Center hunt for a big bull a while back. He made the longest shot he'd then taken on a mature bull, a little over 400 yards, and the bull also went down quicker than any bull he'd shot before.

After that he watched his daughter shoot a bunch of plains game successfully with a 7mm-08 Remington, and as a result of both experiences has modified his stance on magnums.

From what I have heard over the years, hunters tend to classify game as "tough" if it tends to travel a long way after imperfect hits. I would put both elk and pronghorn in that category.

Once in a great while any animal will decide not to die in the conventionally quick manner from a good hit. I've even seen that in animals other than pronghorn and elk, including mule deer--and once saw a springbok, an African gazelle about 3/4 the size of a pronghorn, go well over 100 yards with a chest-hole from a .375 H&H bullet you could stuff a football inside. But those are anomalies we simply can't explain.

But I will say that if pronghorns were the size of elk there'd be people advocating .375's for hunting 'em.

Or good hits too, that would be my definition. It also may have something to do with what PG pointed out, a pronghorn that goes 200-300 yards after a hit may well die in sight and will most likely be easily recovered. An elk that goes that far in the timber may not, leaving the shooter thinking it got away.

I once saw a doe pronghorn go over 600 yards with a hole from an expanded .25-caliber 115-grain bullet through both lungs. How's that for going a long ways with a good hit?

Pretty good I'd say. I once saw a lethally-hit elk (.50 caliber bullet, not mine) go up over a saddle that had to be a 500-foot climb, down the other side, and into the timber, about a mile all told. It was a marginal hit, one lung, but lethal. The meat was nasty.

But let me ask you this--out of the BG animals in North America, would you say elk are as "easy to kill" as any other?

Try to find Boddington's article about specific cartridges for each species of North American game. Ask me & he destroyed his stature with that lunacy. But then again, gun/hunting magazines are entertainment. They are not professional journals.

If Boddington did finally come around to recognize that the .270 Win is wholly capable of killig elk, what took him so long to recognize the obvious?

I'd always go with the rule & not the exception.

I'm sure an elk somewhere had gone a long ways after a solid .375 H&H Mag hit. Would that exception make the .375 H&H a poor elk round?

I find this hilarious. Mule Deer is one of the most respected gun writers anywhere, and you're arguing with him about gun writers.

Well done!

smokepole,

I think that you're and always have been attention deprived.

I don't care whom writes anything. I've worked in a fact-based career for nigh on 20 years before I took up certificated high school teaching. I am damned proficient at assessing factual information. I don't care who posts it. And that includes especially you.

I have no clue of who mule deer is, but if he's staking his reputation on defending the absurd, it might be a wise idea were he to reassess and then proceed.

Let me write this again: Boddington made himself look amateurish when he wrote that there was one ideal cartridge for each specific species of big game. Either he had done run out of writing info or some other nebulous notion overtook him.

Here's another wise idea, do not defend the indefensible lest you risk your reputation. When you're wrong, own up to it, amend your belief to conform with facts, and move forward. Least that's how it works in fact-based professions, writing entertainment not being fact-based.

Jus' sayin'...

There are many gun writer phrases that indicate amateur status: one-shot-stop, man stopper, king of defensive handguns being just a few. The second I read such crapola I think to myself, "This dude ain't got a clue." You'll never read any such BS in professional law enforcement journals; e.g., "FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin" "Police Chief" etc.

Declaring that there is a concept of a single best cartridge for every species of big game is beyond ludicrous. Do you have any clue of how many confounding factors there are in making such an amateurish guess?

Pot-kettle. Just saying, maroon.

I shot an elk slight quartering away at 250 yards with a 30-06, 180 grain and the bullet went in behind the last rib and embedded in the right front shoulder. He ran downhill about 800 vertical feet and then back up the other side about 300 vertical feet before he collapsed in the green timber. I blew up the liver and both lungs. They are damn tough animals. Any more, I try to go for a slight lower target and get a heart/lung shot. The last two I've hit with heart lung and they dropped almost immediately.

But that being said, I'd still never take a light caliber gun elk hunting. I want abig hole and big blood loss.

My opinion on big game rifles and cal , it really doesn't mean a whole lot which one you use, that is, if you can shoot and place the bullet where it counts, then you will have a dead animal to field dress regardless if it is a Elk , Whitetail, Mule Deer or Pronghorn. Marksmanship works better than the particular rifle or cal you choose to use. There is no Big Game in the Lower 48 the 270 Win won't handle with ease if you use a good bullet and shoot straight.

A certificated HS teacher? Damn, that is impressive. Having gone through high school, I'm familiar with HS teachers, they're all geniuses.





Could've stopped after "no clue."





You have no clue, period. And I'm not "just sayin."

If you think Mule Deer doesn't deal in fact-based writing, that's just showing your ignorance. If you're going to comment on something, try commenting on something you have knowledge of. The reason he's one of the most respected gun writers is, he does his own objective testing of all kinds of equipment, reloading methods, etc. and reports on his methods and results. His work is about as fact-based and objective as you can get.

His writing is entertaining, but it's also fact-based. He knows the gun-writing industry, and set you straight on Boddington. He could do that because he's current on the information. Obviously you're not. Just admit it, and move on.

smoke,

Mule Deer's job is to sell his employer's magazine. If he can't do that he'll be looking for another job.

Tell me what you about about scientific methodology. Are you under the impression that shooting bullets into media is scientific? Shooting big game is scientific?

About the best both are is anecdotal. Neither are empirical. Both fall woefully shy of scientific. Therefore, Mule Deer's testing is entertainment.

Smoke, it might help were you to become familiar with scientific methodology. That way you'll be able to tell the difference between science & entertainment.

Jus' sayin'...

You are in so deep you can't see daylight. Mule Deer runs his own publishing company and works for himself. When I say he tests equipment, I'm not talking about bullets in media or animals, although he's participated in and reported ont the results from shooting a lot of animals which when you get right down to it is about the best way to test bullet performance on animals.

I've been a scientist my entire career, and it spans over 30 years.

You comment on things you have no knowledge of. Even if you understood science, it wouldn't help overcome ignorance.

It doesn't matter if it's a 243 or 375. When in the guts, it wont kill an elk. People are just staying that 243 is not a good choice. There are better choices out there. To each his own, but I frown on guys using bare minimum on big game like elk. SO many things can go wrong.
I use 06 and My back up elk rifle is a 270 with 130 TTSX.

Smokepole,

Thanks for the back-up, but it�s impossible to argue with somebody who�s a genuine �certificated� high school teacher.

Plus, what do I know about science or writing? I was just a lowly biology major in college, and my articles have appeared in trash like National Geographic. Probably shouldn�t mention that the FBI and U.S. military shoot into media and consider it part of the scientific process. Otherwise our certificated friend will rip them a new one.