Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Alaska .270 gr TSX vs. 300 gr. TSX

Getting loaded for a 2015 Kodiak bear hunt. Any recommendations on the better triple shock bullet?

Bears speak to me of heavy bullets.

Though in TSX I wouldn't feel uncomfortable with a 270, if I was buying for that specifically would be 300s and break some bones.

Bear bones are considerably softer and less massive than say moose bone. They are incredible tough, but not not so that a bullet would notice.

I have sent quite a large number of 270gr Barnes through brown bears, mostly Kodiaks, and have never recovered a single bullet, including a number that went lengthwise through extremely big bears.

I like the old XLCs, but had to switch to TSX when I ran out.

270 is not gay in this case...

Either one would do the job if bullet is placed right. Which one shoots the best is the one to use. If I am going to hunt something that could bite back it would be the Woodleigh 350gr.PP bullet. Thinking about loading some up for the Ruger 375 Guide Gun.

Used 270 gr TSX on Kodiak this spring. I picked the 270 over the 300 as I felt the 300 was over kill. I like speed and a flatter trajectory if I used the rifle elsewhere. My shot was at 25 yards, but my buddy's was close to 300 yards. Can't go wrong with either.

I'd do the 270gr. Shots in AK can be longer than you might imagine. I usually hunt in the mountains, and took my Brownie at 381 yards, and my Moose at 423. Might be different circumstances on Kodiak.

I agree with Sitka deer 270 TSX is plenty.

I watched a fella shoot a 235ttsx through an 8.5'er one spring out of a plain vanilla 375 h&h. Broke bone on both sides and exited. I'd go 270 out of your choices but if you're hand loading don't overlook the 250 and 235 ttsx offerings, less recoil and still plenty of penetration.

This place gets funny sometimes. There are plenty of advocates for 120 TSX variations out of the 7mm-08 on our big old moose, yet we ponder whether a 270 TSX is 'enough' for bears????

well, yea...

Never shot a BB, so I have no idea what you mean by that statement. Care to explain?

Being "soft" and "tough" doesn't make sense to me.

I have repeatedly posted a photo of the scapula from a Kodiak bear shot by OlBlue. In it you can clearly see the outline and color of a knife held on the opposite side of the bare bone.

They are not at all thick and heavy bones. Moose bones are much thicker.

Caribou bones are not particularly heavy but the bone itself is VERY hard. Mountain goats have very heavy-walled bone, but it is not quite as hard as caribou, but harder than moose.

These examples just to show different critters use different mechanisms to produce bones that work best for their needs.

Bears obviously stress their bones a tremendous amount in many different ways. They need to give a little to reduce impacts and so on when they are fighting other bears and such.

I have saved brown bear bone and dried it to use for knife handles and such. It is not hard and does not polish well because it is soft. Yet that same fairly soft bone does not usually break when a bear well over 1,000 pounds swats an equally large bear while fighting.

That is not fair, you know what you are talking about!

As others have posted, the 270 TSX is a much better choice than the 300. You could consider using something lighter than the 270 TSX if you want to experiment.

I used a 270gr TSX to kill a brown bear back in '07. I won't bother looking for something better, because I doubt such a thing exists.

Seeing that a posters son here killed one with an 80 ttsx, its not what can be done, but more like tell me how much better a 270 is than a 300 and not just that, but WHY.

Flatter trajectory? By how much at what distance?

Something that can bite back I'd just be happier with more displacement....

That being said my buddy that guides the big bears, his guide gun has been 338 win mag and 225 Barnes for years.

I just am thinking along the lines when I gear up for somethign big and dangerous you want everything on your side, for the worst case scenario.
Its not quite like shooting a moose. At least IMHO.

That being said they can be done in with almost anything as noted in my first sentence.

TSXs thrive on speed, and 270 grains can be pushed faster than 300.

following that train of thought, I'd likely use my .375 RUM/235 gr. TSX/106.5 gr 7828 which yields ~3185 fps in a thinly veiled attempt to justify having a .375 RUM

but Scenarshooter shot his with a .260 without drama, IIRC

Art has shot the 270 length wise through 9' bear with an exit, how much more penetration is needed?

When it becomes a 'can' deal rather than leaning toward more 'certainty', the hunt has become about 'us' rather than the quarry. I don't buy the idea that a bear deserves it any more than does a moose, or goat, or caribou. In the case of the 270 vs the 300, while the question has merit when thinking of softer, more expansive bullets like those constructed of lead, I almost wonder if the 300 TSX (along with the 250 TSX in .338 and the 200 TSX in .308) is an answer to a question that isn't asked in North America. Moose paunches and knuckle bones might stop them, as might several inches of spinal column from a variety of different animals. Other than that, I don't see their 'why', and I am not one to advocate 'how light/small' can we go?; (seen enough of that to satisfy already).

Actually the bear in '12 was significantly over 9' and much as I hate to post such a thing because folks will start getting the idea there are a lot of them... it was also over 10' by every legitimate measure.

Not only did 4 270gr TSXs go full length and exit, but so did 3 210gr TSXs from a 338WM.