I recall reading a lot of Jack O'Connor, John Jobson and Russell Annabel in OL when I was a kid. I read every word and as kids do memorized much of it. I have since had 1 or more rifles in many calibers (most larger than .270 but some smaller) and have shot a few head of deer, elk, bear and moose. I get very tired of the many posts I seen asking if XXX is enough gun for deer or elk or whatever. If the caliber is .243 or larger the answer is "YES". It IS where you hit them not necessarily what you hit them with. All of these writers took many more head of game than I and almost all with .270 or less (Mr. Annabel really like the 250-3000 Savage which is quite light by the standards of today). Ask yourself whether you would really like something that kicked less and then swallow your pride and learn to shoot it. You'll wound less game and have more fun in the process.

Mike

NRALife

I was following everything you said until the last sentence. I call bs since it's pretty ridiculous. It may be true for you, but not for many others here. I get along just fine with a good magnum. On the bench, in field positions and on game. The last sentence in your post is like spreading schit over a good cake.

You'll do better with a 150 grainer

Just saying.......


Casey

Keep in ming that archery hunters kill elk every year, and all reasonable centerfire rifles are more powerful than a blade a 300 FPS.

A week ago today I was high on a mountain in Utah watching a guide quarter an elk. He said he'd rather have a hunter show up in camp with a .270 Win that he can shoot than a magnum that he can't.

I agree with Mac: a .243 Win in the boiler room is a lot better than an '06 in the guts. But that's merely my opinion that mirrors Mac's.

So now you're an expert on elk hunting.

I've taken a truckload of elk with a 270. I always used 150's. They shoot to almost the same point of impact to well over 300 yds and carry more energy when they get there. They have just a little more oomph at longer ranges.

Mike, you are painting with a wide brush here, many of us shoot magnums, don't wound game with them and enjoy shooting them. In fact some of us get a kick out of them.

"He[meaning the outfitter or guide]said he'd rather have a hunter show up in camp with a .270 Win that he can shoot than a magnum that he can't.

Can't count the number of times I've read something similar to this over the yrs. Got to agree.

It never ceases to amaze me how often this topic comes up on forums. In my opinion, an elk is a tough, thick animal and needs the best caliber/bullet combo that you can shoot.

The difference in recoil between several .270s that I have shot and my 7 mags is negligible. It is more of a mental state than anything. Just because it is a magnum, it automatically kicks more in the eyes of many.

Many of the standard calibers (.308, 06, .270, 7-08 etc.) are great for elk. I think that the .243 is too light for the average person and not acceptable for marginal conditions such as steep angles and long ranges. If you have easy access to un-disturbed elk and have perfect shot ops, then it will work.

I just don't understand why people want to show how great they are by using a light caliber for elk. The cost of an elk hunt can be substantial and I don't want to blow a chance because of not having enough rifle to handle the conditions.

If someone cannot handle the recoil of at least 7-08 or 270, then they should re-consider as to whether they should be hunting elk.

Then there are some guys who can handle the recoil of a 7-08 or .270 quite well, but choose to kill their elk with a "lesser" cartridge like the .260.......

And I don't think they'll be re-considering any time soon.

Ive never shot a elk before but ive seen firsthand a 130gr bullet fail to exit a whitetail deer add in the larger/thicker body of a elk and I have to say its too small IMO. Now with a good placed 150gr load its a new ball game.

My father guided elk hunters in the Gallatin during the infancy of the 270. He never had one good thing to say about the 270, claiming he had to finish every elk shot with it. This was before the proliferation of magnums.

I never had any use for a 270 due to his tutelage, and killed dozens of elk with a 30-06. Since then, I picked up a nice pre-64 model 70 in 270. Although I would hunt elk with my 300 WBY mag, if all I had was my 270 and I saw an elk, I wouldn't hesitate to shoot it. Many things have changed since the 30's and 40's...

People like to over dramatize how tough elk are, the drama increasing the further east of Rocky Mountains one lives. Real life experience; however, doesn't support this myth. You shoot an elk in the lungs and it dies rather quickly, regardless of caliber.

Those who haven't read it should read he posts on "Field Report From RSA and Namibia"
The original poster just returned from Africa where he took 29 animals with a 270 and a 129 grain bullet. Only one animal required a second shot. He also talked to three PHs regarding cartridge selection. Casts some good light on the 270/103 grain discussion.

I think that most hunters would agree that if you can shoot a 300WM as well as you can shoot a 243Win. the 300WM would be a better chose for elk.
IME most cannot especially from field positions.

sbhooper,

I agree with you. There isn't much recoil difference between my .270 Win & my 7MM Rem Mag. However, my 7MM Rem Mag has a 24" barrel & weighs every ounce of 10lbs, scope included. My .270 Win has a 22" barrel and weighs at least 2lbs less with scope included. That's why I'd prefer to carry my .270 Win.

There is no doubt in my mind that were I to have shot the same bull I killed a week ago yesterday with my .270 Win, it would have been the same outcome, assuming, of course, that the bullet went in the same place & I was using a 150 grain Partition.

A .243 for elk? Are you nuts?!! At least keep the shots close!

Out of respect for the animal, use as much gun as you can shoulder and shoot well.

Can a .243 kill an elk? Yes, but it will take longer and a misplaced shot will increase the risk of of wounding and lost game. With the .270, just step up to the heaviest load you can buy (150 gr.) or you can handload up to 165gr.

A 30-06 with a 180-grain bullet will slam an elk and take him down much faster with a well-placed shot and a poorly placed shot will open a bigger wound and give you a better blood trail. Not dissing the smaller calibers, just being real about what they do on a 700 pound animal.

Killed only one elk with the .270 140gr. She ran about 125-150 yards.. Double lung.. It is not my pick of elk guns, but it got that job done..

Bingo Sans...

That's one of the dumbest things I read here. If you hit an elk in the guts with a 243, what do you have??? You haven't shot much have you??? You better just stick with golf or knitting...Some guys here can shoot big guns well. Just a thunk...:



If I were going to use my 270 on elk, I'd run the 150gr. Nosler partition....

The 270 or 7mm Rem Mag with 150g bullets is PLENTY of gun for elk, so long as you hit it in the boiler room. I've killed a CHIT pot of elk with both of those calibers over the years. Shot placement trumps caliber (within reason of course)� Oh, and my first elk as a wee teenager in 1982/83 (can't remember) WAS with a Ruger M77 tanger in .243 and 100g power points, a mature cow, and she didn't go very far� why? because I blew the top of her heart off.

I would use 140gr accubond in the 270 I seen the results of the accubond on moose so be my choice for elk as well. They also make a 130 accubond... My next choice would be 130gr barnes ttsx or tsx.

My buds daughter killed moose, caribou, black bear using a 243 using a 100gr nosler partition.

Jeez Shrapnel, why the hell did you never tell us that you came into life after your mom spent a nite at Elmer Keith's house?Jeez " Kirk Keith" what a mouthful, your definitely LEGENDARY now. Damn never would have guessed it. Magnum Man

Funny how women and kids can do it, but guys need big guns.

bsa1917hunter,

Please reread my post. I wrote that a .243 Win in the boiler room is a whole lot better than an '06 in the guts. Do you disagree?

I guess that elk must've taken to using steroids. Back before magnums were all the rage, hunters were killing everything with the 7x57, .303 British, .30-30 Win, '06, .45/70 Gov't, .405 WIn, etc. Not these cartridges won't work on jackrabbits.

When I was a teenager, my dad told me that there was a time when the .300 was the .300 Savage, which was plenty gun for really big critters.

Biology will always win. Nothing lives sans its heart. Period. End of story. What destroys it is immaterial. That it is destroyed is.

A confident hunter who puts a 100 grain .243 Win bullet through an elk's heart will kill it just as dead as were it shot with a super duper mega-magnum. After all, dead is dead.

What a hunter uses ain't nowhere near as important as his ability to use his rifle.

There's another sage old saying: the hunter who owns one rifle knows how to use it.

shoot them where they live and any thing from the 6mm up will get it done on elk, they are no harder to kill than any other animal if the bullet takes down the lungs. Poor shooting is what cripples big game animals not the cal of rifle you choose to use. .

Well said� this X2...

So, an elk is as easy to kill as a pronghorn?

Yes.

OK, so define "easy to kill."

If you hit an elk a little far back with a .30 caliber 165 grain bullet, crease the lungs and hit the liver, how far will it go before it dies, and how far would a similarly-hit pronghorn go?

Shoot either in the right place, they die promptly.

I've seen both elk and pronghorn go for miles and miles when shot poorly.

I don't think you answered my question, and I have seen double-lung shot elk (50 caliber bullet) go 200 yards. Never seen a pronghorn do that. Or heard of one doing it. Could be my inexperience with pronghorns.

I've seen pronghorn hit with high lung shots by bowhunters run a couple miles. I've seen pronghorn shot nicely through the lungs with Barnes bullets that didn't open travel a long damned ways. I've seen liver shot pronghorn go a long damned ways. I've seen gut shot pronghorn, and pronghorn with wounds to several extremities, keeping up with the herd, heading for science knows where.

Haven't been in on nearly as much elk killing, but have been in enough elk rodeos to know it's not something I want to repeat.

The wounded pronghorn were in open country, so they were often easier to find than a wounded elk. But that's an entirely different subject. Shoot something around the edges or blow a leg off and you're in for a rodeo. Put about any sort of decent bullet through the breathy/bleedy region, it's going to croak soon. This killing stuff just isn't that hard.

Never said it was, and never said you need a magnum or even an '06-based cartridge to kill an elk.

I just don't believe they're as easy to kill as a pronghorn.

Shoot them in the right place they die promptly. Shoot them in the wrong place they don't. Doesn't really matter what species we're talking about.

I wouldn't say that if one animal goes 100 yards after a shot, while another goes 50 yards that the 100 yarder was any harder to kill. These variables can be just as much about an individual's tenacity as any trait of the species. Very large animals may take a little longer to bleed out, but I wouldn't say that makes them tougher to kill.

Maybe not. But when I said I'd seen a double-lunged elk go 200 yards, it wasn't a Barnes that penciled through, it was a 350 grain soft lead bullet that went through the on-side clavicle, took out both lungs, expanded to the size of a quarter, and stopped under the off-side hide.

I would guess that a similarly-wounded pronghorn would not go far.

Out of curiosity, what led up to the shot on said elk?

IME elk that go far after good hits were usually "bumped" before the shot.

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.

I hope that you are not insinuating that I know nothing of elk, or have not lived in elk country. I have done plenty of both. I am not saying a .243 will not kill an elk. A .22 will-BIG DEAL! If you take out one lung on an elk, it can go for a long way. A heavier bullet is far more likely to take out the lungs at any angle than a puny .243 bullet and do so even after hitting a heavy bone if the shot is not exact. If you have to prove something to yourself by shooting an animal with a marginal caliber, then go for it. It is only your own ethics at stake, as the puny calibers are usually legal.

I believe that pound for pound, a white-tailed deer is tougher than an elk, but that POUND FOR POUND. An elk is still a big, thick critter that needs penetration to make sure the job is done.

I'll stick with my 7 mags and Partitions.

This discussion leads one to conclude, based on the scientific method, that there's very little difference between certificated... and certifiable.

I'm duly impressed.

mathman, BSEE, MSEE, MS, PhD

Sans, for a guy who tries so hard to sound intelligent, you certainly have a knack for missing the obvious. You castigate Boddington for naming a �best� cartridge, and wonder why he would write about such a thing. And the answer is not only right under your nose, but in your own words above.

I�m 100% certain that if you sat down with Boddington and asked him if there was a single �best� cartridge for each species, he�d say no. But he writes for a living, and things like the best elk cartridge are what people want to read about, and what sells books and magazines. So he obliges.

Boddington and Mule Deer have forgotten more about rifles than you�ll ever know. If either one got hit by a bus tomorrow, and you spent the rest of your life hunting as much as you could, you wouldn�t come close to what they�ve done and seen. Guys like Mule Deer make this site worthwhile; guys like you just make it harder to weed through the bullsh** to get the good information.

Don't mention it, I know you don't need my back-up. It's also hard to argue with someone whose ignorance prevents them from understanding just how little they know.

Mule Deer,

I am not sure why you brought up the FRI Firearms Testing. I'll keep my guess to myself. I used to have a copy of it. I don't remember a hypothesis. In fact, it was more of a laboratory comparative analysis of bullets under controlled conditions with each assigned an value thus facilitating comparison.

Now, please reread my posts and show me where anything I wrote was wrong. Can an elk lives sans heart? Does it matter what destroys an elk heart in its dying process? Is a .243 Win through an elk's heart better than an '06 in its guts?

Are you tell me that there was modicum of knowledge conveyed in Boddington's article?

Tell me, omniscient one, what is the single best cartridge for hunting mule deer. Take all the time you need. I can wait...forever!

It was wholly useless information undoubtedly published for entertainment value. The answer was right under your nose but you've failed to see it because you were too busy trying to morph the mundane into absurd.

The one I would shove up your ass until it made another point on your head if you were standing in front of me.

SanSouci,

I don�t know why you got in an uproar. All I did was suggest you were being a little hard on Craig, and stated why.

I�m perfectly willing to admit that a large part of gun writing is entertainment, but that doesn�t mean it�s all BS. My guess, based on knowing Craig and the business in general, is Craig�s editor assigned him that specific subject. Why? Well, to entertain, and stir up some controversy, sure. But also because Craig has killed a pile of big game around the world, mostly while looking for the biggest trophy possible, including a bunch of elk�and also been alongside many companions when they were doing the same thing, as well as talked to a bunch of professional guides. His books always include the opinions of such professionals, to provide a well-rounded viewpoint.

Craig is certainly as entitled to an opinion about the �best� cartridge for various kinds of big game as anybody around, and far more than most. I have not only known him for over 30 years but hunted with him and worked for him. He�s as honest as anybody I know, and far more experienced than 99% of hunting/gun writers. So yeah, I spoke up about your opinion, which is based on far less knowledge than any piece of entertainment Craig ever wrote.

In my own gun writing I try to combine entertainment with some results, whether scientific or not. The world would be a dull place if it was limited to �just the facts.� In the process I�ve not only hunted quite a bit (though not as much as Craig), but have visited various factories where ammunition, rifles, optics, etc. are made, along with various ballistics labs. Many of those people have a high enough regard for my technical knowledge that they�ve helped me considerably with even more. So no, my knowledge is not gained strictly from shooting �media� and game.

Though I must note that every highly-regarded hunting bullet and ammo company not only tests bullets in media, but then goes on to test them in a lot of animals, because bullets don�t always act the same in animals as in meda. So far this is the only way to get a somewhat �scientific� notion of how bullets will perform in the field. In a way it�s like biology: Results can�t be as exact as in some other branches of science, but overall results can provide useful and valid information.

The 270 Winchester!

Bob, like you I�ve taken some good mule deer bucks over the decades. Have used various cartridges from the .257 Roberts to the .300 Winchester Magnum, but a couple of years ago decided to average the calibers, bullet weights and velocities. The result was a bullet around .28 in diameter, with a 150-grain bullet at 2900 fps. Sounds kinda familiar!

Come to think of it, that works on elk, too...

John sounds like a 270 or 280 to me!

Matter of fact it works so good I recently acquired a Rem MR in 280....just so I can say I have one.

Yeah that works on elk...

The 7mm Rem Mag is the best Mule Deer caliber ever created, and the 270 is a VERY close second. I've stacked piles of mulies up with these two cartridges�

Uh-oh, now you've done it, picked a "best mule deer cartridge." There's gonna be hell to pay.

I read somewhere that some people have had trouble with the bolt handles falling off Remingtons

LOL!!!!

I'm glad you caved on the 280. I'm sure I would be living in a tent were I to even ask to bring it home! It was danged tempting though.

I like Mule Deer and his work, but the ass kissing he receives on this site is getting old.

As far as the .270 Win and 130s on elk, I've seen it work more than a few times. Even with Wally world special Cup ~n Cores. No issues when lung/heart hit.

I do like my magnums though.

He said around .28 in diameter. .270 is .277. .280 and 7mm are .284.

The 270 wins. May as well get rid of those useless .280s.

I would assume that's directed at my posts. If it's really bothering you, why don't you kiss mine. Just for a change of pace.

On second thought.....yeah, you're right there is a certain amount of that here and I try not to engage in it. My comments were more directed at the resident elk hunting and gun-writing expert, sansouci. I thought it was funny that he chose to argue about gunwriters with a gunwriter. And to talk about MD and his work while in the same breath admitting he didn't know who MD was.

That's true! And I have seen it, first hand.....but sometimes you just get tired of worrying about everything and say "screw it".

Besides I still have all my pre 64 FW's


Beretz I figure I may as well grab it before it went somewhere else!


redfoxx the 7 Rem Mag is without a doubt among the best mule deer cartridges.It's a bomb if you point it right!

cough, ahem...

Pre'64's are obsolete

http://www.pacifictoolandgauge.com/remingtonperf.htm#bolts

Hey Dick, how did 55 go?? Did I ever mention that the owner of pommerell is a personal friend of mine Tought him to trap yotes about 10 years ago, great guy..

Just interested in how you did, they are killing some of the biggest bulls Idaho has ever produced,this year, in that unit on OTC archery tags..Crazy

So I hear! Hey, I just bought a Rem 700!

Do I really need to buy all that shidt for it, though?

I use the pre 64's just as they came.

You'll put your eye out with that escaping gas!

Hey, that just as valid of an argument as a 700's bolt handle falling off..

Rosco, we are off topic (sorry for hijack) but sure it is....but I must easily be well into mid 5 figures for rounds through pre 64's (but under 6 figures) by now....not an incident.

OTOH a pal's eye was saved by shooting glasses last year from a Rem 700 when the gas came back from a badly blown primer......to be fair he had chambered a 270 in a 280...hard to blame the rifle for that one.

Point being when gas lets go and starts flowing, you aren't safe with hardly anything if the case does not seal the chamber and it gets past the rear of the breech

Generally Rem 700's have been good to me...I have seen issues with other people's rifles, but no snafu's for me yet.

Gee's this was really I don't know what to say other that, there really is not a wit difference in the field with any of the cartridge/ bullet combinations mentioned, on the computer maybe but that is about it, ok I shoot a 7mm RM as my go to rifle these days, not so much because of the cartridge but more because I like the particular rifle, tastes and style has a lot to do with it. As for the Gun Writing thing, well that is a hard nut, Modern Small Bore Hi Velocity Smokeless Powder shooting has only been around for a 126 years or so, not much has changed over that period of time other that bullets sights powder has gotten some what better, what do you write when its be said countless times before over the years and with more people writing about it and being published than ever! It seems to me that a fellow like Mule Deer aka John B, who makes a full time living doing it is a rare exception rather than the rule. On top of being able to write well, to keep turning out stuff we loons will run to the local magazine rack to buy what ever to just read his latest take on things. As for HS teachers, well most of the ones I came in contact with while in HS and after I have long left stuck me as being for the most part to stupid to do anything else, and could not be trusted to pump the proper grade of fuel in my car, let alone the aircraft I fly!

You owe me a keyboard, or at least help picking the bits of peach out from in between my keys!

Sure thing, stop by or let me know when you're coming through, the door is always open.

And before anybody gets any ideas, I was being facetious. No way I'm going anywhere near his ass.......

This i agree with 100% and i could hunt with the 270 and be happy the rest of my life, but i must say the best cartridge for any type of hunting is the round the rifle you are carrying is chambered for and that you can shoot the best in the field . It really comes down to this,that some cartridges are better than others as the game gets bigger and heavier. Speed kill and speed combined with heavier bullets just kill better on really big game like Elk and Bear. I really don't think a Mule Deer or Elk really cares if you are using a 270, 30-06, 280 or 7mm Mag, if you shoot straight you will bag him if you don't then he will get away crippled or untouched and more wise to the education you just gave him if he survives .

Bob,
I don't understand?
You mean an obviously cultured and obviously saavy .280 owner contaminated his bench with a .270?

I've had the displeasure of a face full of gas from a Remington 700. Not fun.

Pierced primer was the culprit. Now all Remingtons 700s that cross my path get their firing pin bushed. Worst offenders are the .378" bolt face actions, but others can be just as bad.

Bea: I couldn't agree more. Nice summary!

My comment was kind of TIC,since I know for sure there are other cartridges as good or better than the 270 for mule deer,depending how and where you are hunting them.This does not take away from the fact that the 270 gives generally satisfactory results.

AGW: What can I say? It happens!

My pal owns both,and had them both at the range that day.Had no idea what happened until he got to my house and I extracted the fired case from the rifle. The extractor slipped over the rim of the fired case, which seemed firmly stuck but I was able to poke it out with a cleaning rod from the muzzle.

Seems the 270 is short on headspace in a 280 chamber. You would not think it would be that bad with that 270 bullet rattling down a 7mm bore,but seems there was just enough resistance to light a fire....the 270 case did not expand completely to the 280 chamber (shoulder did not blow forward),and the gas leaked back around the cartridge; blew the primer completely. I can't say whether the gas came back through the loading port, or back through the bolt body.

Anyway it was a mess, but could have been worse.


Prairie Goat would bushing the pin have helped?

Very well said. In fact, as well done as any excellent author/writer could possibly do it.

Yes, If shooting at deer over 400 yds I prefer the 270 Wby or 270 wsm.

Saw some great bucks, but had some ground shrinkage on the one I took. I passed up 10 or so that were bigger. I must have seen this guy at a weird angle or something. Still a good buck.

Passed up quite a few like this

I also saw some great bulls in there. Crazy how just 10 or so years ago there were no elk in that area at all.



I'll bet I also saw 1000 sage grouse. It's crazy how many critters are in that area. It was a lot of fun.

Mule Deer,

I was not in an "uproar". For some reason, smoke pole has taken to attempting to bullying me. He does instigate a lot of acrimony. Remember that I wrote that even entertaining the thought that there is a single best cartridge for every species of big game approaches the...

With that out of the way, I do agree with what you posted. Scientifically testing anything to do with firearms is darn near impossible because it'd be more than arduous to control variables and confounding factors. For instance, how would a researcher assure identical bullet alloy from lot-to-lot?

Shooting into media is anecdotal, not scientific. However, useful info can be gleaned from such endeavors.

Gun & hunting magazines attempt to convey the perspective of knowledge when they are in fact entertainment. I'm good with that. After all, I am a laissez faire capitalist. Gun magazines tend to become ridiculous when they attempt to become definitive; e.g., man stopper, the best cartridge for, the best gun for home defense, etc.

Hell, I could live the rest of my hunting days with a ,280 Rem and never look back.

As for smoke pole, he ought to change his moniker to smokin' bowls because it's apparent that he's spending too much time in Colorado's dope shops. I have sent his a PM about asking him what his problem is. Instead of manning up, he's taken to hitting and running. If he has a thesis that he can cogently defend, he ought to get busy on it. If he has a problem with me, he ought to disclose it rather than going at it as a pus$y.

I own a 7MM Rem Mag. I don't own a .280 Rem. I wish it were the other way 'round.

Running? From you? That's a good one. I'll do my talking in the public forum, right here. PMs are for people who don't want their drivel to see the light of day.

My problem with you is this--you comment on things you know nothing about as if you were an expert. You argue with a gunwriter about gunwriters. You comment on Mule Deer's work, right after having said you have no clue who he is.


This place has enough "armchair experts" already, we don't need more from a guy who kills an elk on a guided private-land hunt and thinks that makes him an expert elk hunter. A guy who gets "pushed to the limits" on a 5,000 acre ranch, and thinks that's something worth talking about.


You say shooting bullets into media is not scientific, it's anecdotal. That's incorrect and just anopther example of you talking about something you have no clue on. If you were to shoot a few bullets into media and make qualitative observations, that would be anecdotal. If you shoot enough bullets, control the variables, and record empirical data on things like length of penetration, diameter of expanded bullets and so forth, it is scientific and none of your hogwash can change that.

You want to talk anecdotal? Anecdotal is a guy going on a hunt, hearing what one guide says about the .270, and repeating it here as if it means something.

You can call that "bullying" if you like, whatever that means. I call it putting your "expert" commentary in the proper perspective.

Prove that I have tried to pawn myself off as expert on anything. That's your assumption. And it suits your justification for attempting to feed tour attention-staved ego.

I still have no clue who Mule Deer is. His identity is immaterial. What he writes is. You're enamored of him. As another poster wrote, you have your nose buried so far up his read end, you know what he had for dinner last night. As for me, I want to know his theses and how he defends them.

The biological FACT is nothing lives sans its heart. What destroys it is immaterial. That it is destroyed is. That, my naive shooter, is 100% factual. If you desire to argue that fact, take it up with God.

smoke pole, projection is afoot with you allusion to armchair quarterbacks. In fact, you're attempting to placate your ego by imposing yourself as head coach. Go back to holding water bottles. No one cares what the hell you have to contribute because it's all unproved opinion. In contrast, I can prove that nothing lives sans its heart. In FACT, I have yet to read a single piece of knowledge outta you. You're all pompous opinion.

The FACT is what that guide said it 100% correct if you took time to analyze what he said. And what that guide said has been said a zillion times before. And all hunters know it's factual. A miss with a .375 H&H ain't doing anyone any good. A heart shot with a .270 Win and back-breaking work begins. Maybe you can't discern this fact. But it's 100% factual. Moreover, it's also 100% factual that a .243 Win in the boiler room is a whole lot better than an '06 in the guts. A three-year old could understand this FACT, convey it to me, and it'd still be factual.

Now, if you're able to intellectually refute these FACTS, get on it. If you can't, get back to your dope shop and fill your bowl. You are easier on the eyes when you're wasted.

Wow. And this from a guy who wants to lecture us on the "scientific method." Tell me more, professor.



That's not what I said. I said you think you're an expert. And I also said you like to comment on things you know nothing about as if you were an expert. Which is nicely demonstrated by the first quote above.

Or by the past thread on using drones to locate game, you remember that one? The one where you opined at length that drones should be allowed for spotting game and relaying the information to hunters on the ground, because you were against any "new regulations" that infringed on our rights? Remember that? You were ignorant of the fact that using aircraft to spot game and relay the information to hunters on the ground was already illegal, had been for some time, and for good reason. It's no secret and any responsible hunter knows the regulations.

Ignorant of the facts, yet you chose to flap your gums anyway. "Ignorance in action" is a pattern with you.






Funny, I don't recall ever arguing about any of those things. Because they're not worth arguing about, just drivel, cliches you read somewhere, most likely Outdoor Life. Maybe Field & Stream?

smoke,

Tell me the difference between drones and spotters who use electronic communication to inform guides where game is.

The fact is I don't have enough info about drones to proffer a definitive opinion. Neither do you. You think you're expert. But that's what bud will do to you. It'll give you an unrealistic opinion of your abilities.

I'm through with you. Your mind has been burned out from too much of your legal bud. You're deep in a hole and digging furiously. You have contributed nothing remotely intellectual. You demand that your opinion be taken as gospel when it's nothing more that unsupported opinion.

Here's a thought: put your shovel down and try thinking.

Drones are aircraft, and aircraft are illegal for spotting game, Professor. I'd think someone so well-versed in a fact-based profession and the scientific method could easily discern that fact. Apparently not.





That much is evident, but it didn't stop you before. Why stop now?


And by the way, your continual references to marijuana are telling. Ad hominem attacks are a reliable indicator that the person making them has no arguments or logic left, so thanks for making that clear.

Congrats on the buck! I'm heading that way a week from tomorrow. Are you keeping the velvet on or stripping it? I vote on...

I have no personal experience with the .270 Winchester. Never have fired one. I've heard they're like feather boas and Cher.

A good friend of mine knows a lot about them, elk, and the 130 grain Sierra Game King. He's killed 19 Bulls with that combination.

He's married

Married to a woman or man?

Being married doesn't necessarily mean the opposite sex these days, at least in some states!

Yep, a woman.

They live and work at a facility around Ogden, UT founded by a Genius.

I think you know him

Ah, yes! I believe I do.

He hunts for a living. Pisses me off!

A learned man (such as yourself) would actually know what empirical evidence really means. You obviously don't know and you are not going to fool anyone.

Knowledge you gain from observation or experimentation (AKA: finding [bleep] out for yourself). Results can be garnered by shooting into media or game therefore they are empirical. Or do you still think people like JB just pull schitt out of their azz just to "sell" magazines...
To be "scientific", the method must be based on empirical and measurable evidence. such as shooting into media and/or big game animals, developing/testing loads, etc, etc.

Anything else you have to offer, Professor?

Rick,

Yeah, people who hunt for a living tend to generate that kind f feeling! And I have yet to meet one of those hunters who would rather be, say, a stockbroker.

Yep, congrats on the buck..And as for the elk, these ARE the good old days.

Where you headed pointer?

Pointer, the velvet is still on, but it is kind of thin and I wore some of it off while getting him out.

Roscoe, the amount of elk in S Idaho and Wyoming right now is absolutely absurd. Utah too from what I hear.Western Montana??? Not so much.

Pointer, I assume you will be hunting with our mutual friend?

Yep. I love my 270 winnys, but I shoot a magnum without issue, and shoot them often. They do work better at less-than-perfect angles on big, heavy stuff.

Hi CLB,

Well, let's take a look at where you might have lefted when you ought to righted; that way, you'll have a clue of empirical and anecdotal"

"Empirical evidence is information that is acquired by observation or experimentation. This data is recorded and analyzed by scientists and is a central process as part of the scientific method.

The scientific method begins with scientists forming questions and then acquiring the knowledge to either support or disprove a specific theory. That is where the collection of empirical data comes into play.

Before any piece of empirical data is collected, scientists carefully design their research methods to ensure the accuracy, quality and integrity of the data. If there are flaws in the way that empirical data is collected, the research will not be considered valid."

Taken from here.

So, before empirical data can be collected, we're gonna need a controlled environment, a criterion missing in blasting holes in media.

Then we have anecdotal evidence. Hold on. It gets better:

Anecdotal evidence has several definitions, which usually relate to how certain types of evidence cannot be used to logically conclude something. We see examples of this type of evidence all the time in commercials. A person tells us how their breath feels fresher after using a certain brand of toothpaste, or people testify to the clearing of their acne as a result of special products. This type of evidence is often used in place of clinical or scientific evidence, and may completely ignore research or harder evidence that points to an opposite conclusion.

Types of anecdotal evidence include claiming non-factual information based on the experiences of a few people, stories that would seem to contradict factual information, and word of mouth recommendations. This type of information isn�t always poorly intended or untrue, and we base a lot of decisions on anecdotes. For instance, you might want to find the best dry cleaner in town and ask a few friends to recommend someone. You usually don�t have time to perform true scientific testing on this by looking at a range of data.

We take other recommendations from non-experts all of the time. We may base our decisions about which doctors to see, who should baby-sit our kids, what travel agency we ought to use, or where we should stay on vacation solely or at least partly on advice. This advice usually doesn�t come from people who are qualified to give an expert opinion on the matter.

Taken from here.

Hence, when you tell me that chronic is better than Thai Stix, that would be anecdotal, for there is no attempt to control your smoke_bowling. See, when you find chit out on your own by comparing Chronic to Thai Stix, what you get in anecdotal. Were you able to control your smoke_bowling, you might be able to smoke up empirical data. Now were you able to develop a hypothesis and test for it with a control & text group, then you'd have cause & effect otherwise know as knowledge, which, at this time, you're suffering extreme paucity.

You mean, like word of mouth recommendations from your guide? What empirical data do you think he recorded when he made his scientific observations? Please expand on that, professor.



This quote proves that your moronity is complete. The reason people test bullets in media is precisely because all the variables can be controlled unlike in the field. Distance of the shot, velocity, consistency/density of the media, angle of impact, and so on. As someone so proficient in a "fact-based profession," you're terribly inept when confronted with actual facts.



I just realized you used the word "pus$y," I missed that the first time. Thanks for proving my point yet again, that's just one more example of you talking about something you know nothing about.

SansSouci:

Sounds like the extent of your research education is googling...

So please share with us what at what university you studied experimental design, and how many peer-reviewed scientific research studies you have had published.

I am really starting to like the 270 win as well. However, I've always had a magnum of some sort: 300 wby, 300 win, 338 win, 375 H&H etc... I get a kick out of shooting them and am utterly bored with the small stuff. Once again, for some of these guys to suggest you'll make a poor shot with a magnum and make a good shot with a small caliber rifle on game is just ludicrous. You put the crosshair on the vitals and pull the trigger. Same same regardless of what caliber of rifle you are shooting. A bullet in the guts with any pill is not good as far as I'm concerned. I'm not going to hold it against anyone that can't handle a magnum caliber, but don't tell me I'm going to miss what I'm aiming at just because I pack one... Not directed at you 1deernut, but the sansucki types....

I shoot a ton of magnums, maybe not really big ones, but the 338 Win Mag and 35 Newton class rifles quite alot. There isn't much difference to me between those and my smaller bore rifles. You have to shoot them correctly and with good form. If you "limp wrist" them, they'll tear you up.

BSA,
Understood and I agree wholeheartedly. I own more rifles than one man should, and I shoot them all regularly. I've used magnums extensively to kill everything from crows and prairie dogs to bears and about everything between. I shoot magnums as well as I shoot 22 rimfires. Funny, the 3 guys I do the bulk of my hunting and shooting with do as well. I guess we are SPECIAL!

Just saw this. This elk had its head down grazing. She had no idea I was there until the shot.

WOW, this thread has gone all over the place from what I started. Interesting and funny.

I've loved every rifle I have ever had, and I've had a lot. I never seen an elk drop faster than from my 338WM and I've never seen a moose drop faster than from my 264 WM.

The one thing similar was they were hit well. A 270 will do the same.

End of story.

Mac I am a dedicated fan of the 270. The last elk I got was a spike bull with one. One shot through the heart @ about 125 yards and it took us about 5 hours to get him off the mountain. I was using the 130 gr. Hornady Interlock. Hopefull tomorrow I will be out seeing if I can get his sister with the same rifle & load.

Agreed. I shoot 300 WSM's without muzzle brakes or 1" recoil pads. I do wound game though, terminally & mortally. Haven't lost one yet.

After shooting a couple doz. elk with a 270, I see no benefit whatever in a 130 over a 150. You won't see hardly any difference in trajectory and the 150 will carry a bit more energy at long range. It's just a bit more cushion for a less than ideal hit.

Amen, and at these prices, why don't people just use em:

http://www.shootersproshop.com/nosl...0-150gr-partition-spitzer-blem-50ct.html

These have shot great in all of my 270's. They just make more sense. Ideally so, since this is the "elk hunting" forum and not the deer hunting forum...

Wouldn't hesitate to use a .270 130 gr Nosler Partition on elk.

My smith/Winchester guru buddy has shot countless elk with the old 130gr. grand slam. He says, "that's the best bullet out there for elk hunting"... I say use whatever works best for you. However, I'm in agreement with rockchuck in using a 150gr. partition for the reasons he stated. My rifles also love that bullet, which sways my decision. At $16.95/bag, it's really hard to say no too . I actually loaded some old 150gr. grand slams for one of my buddies to try on elk this year. His only big game rifle is a 270 Winchester. He's not "loony" like the rest of us

Stunt shooter!!!! LOL

My Winchester Super Grade .270 will shoot the 130,140,150,160 gr NP,s into elk killin' groups. BUT,my FN Mauser .270 will not shoot the 130 gr at all! It likes the 150 gr NP. So,basically have the best of both worlds.

Nothing like living on the edge huh..

This is a chart that I copied from gundata.org comparing 130 and 150 gr bullets. Both are Hornady SP Interlocks.

Naturally the 150 will drop farther but you have to compensate for either one. You have to know what the drop is so you only need to know different numbers. If you want to shoot at 300 yds, it's only a matter of remembering 11" or 13". You still have to compensate for drop.

However, the 150 will be packing more energy at any range beyond 50 yds. The difference isn't much but on a less-than-perfect hit, it can make the difference.

Yeah,and use a 4x scope too.

I'm a fan of the 140's myself my model 70 in a std 270 loves the 140gr hornady boat tails my 270 wsm likes the 140 accubonds.

My .270 Wby likes the 140 & 160 gr NP's. Use the 160 gr NP just cause I can.

A 30/30 works great with 170gr. RN too..

Can a 30/30 send a 170 gr RN at 3050 fps.

Does the 160 gr. nosler partition loose out to the 150 gr. partition in BC?

Don't know,as my shots at elk are within 30/30 range ie 200 yds or less.

My wife took a 5X5 Elk 10/11/2014 with her 270 win. using Hornady 140 gr SST bullet over R-22. One shot kill from 300 yards. Complete pass through. This bull went straight down. Bullet entered at the base of the neck just under the spine. Two vertebra were pushed up causing instant paralysis and hemorrhage from the severed artery.

That's great

What's funny is that a bunch of intelligent(?) grown men can still argue about the effectiveness of the 270 89 years after it's introduction. Sure, bullets and powders have changed but the 270 just keeps piling up dead animals. As if the 7 mag, 300 mag, 338, 375, 416, 458 or whatever has never crippled an animal. Sheesh.

The beauty of the 270 is that it can be put up in a light, accurate, easy to carry rifle that most people, ESPECIALLY THE TYRO can shoot accurately. Sure, guys that are "experts" and hang out on gun forums can handle any rifle that ever lived, but I've seen grown men that can't even handle an ought six much less a magnum.

It's always the 270 that gets picked on. WTF?

Flame on...

My old man has killed more elk with the 270win/160NP than CWD..BC and partition is kind of a moot point..

Yes, yes a .30-30 Win can shoot a 170 grain RN at 3050 FPS, but it can do it only once ;-)

The shooter probably wouldn't remember the shot.

Off track here, but I have a good friend in Cokeville,WY that adores the 30-30.

He wanted more range and bought a 30-06 a few years ago. I bedded the stock and set him up with a simple to use Burris with the two "dots". I had it dialed in to 500 yards with 165 swifts..He proceeded to miss everything he shot at for a season and a half, no fault of the rifle.

He asked if i had any pointers, i just told him to get closer and use the phuggin 30-30..

some people

Some rifles just don't fit some people. I should know.
Also, some can't handle recoil. However, years ago when I used a Win 94 32 Spec., I thought it kicked every bit as hard as Dad's much heavier 30-06.

Rosco. That is funny, but some of us have habits that are hard to break. I think he was too accustomed to using the 30-30. I'm kind of that way with the 30-06 and like cartridges.

The original question was whether a 130 grain .270 Win will kill elk. It has been done enough time to make it moot.

A couple years ago I was zeroing my rifle prior to hunting Utah mule deer. There was a well-put-up, studly dude at a bench next to me. He looked to be in his mid-30's. He was sighting in his brand new .300 Win Mag for his upcoming Montana deer hunt. I loaned him my shooting rests because it was obvious that he was having a lot of difficulty. After maybe 16 rounds, he had an approx 6" group, high left. I asked him if he was going to zero his rifle. He told me that he couldn't fire another round from his rifle. His shoulder was too sore.

Before he left, he told me that he was probably going to hunt with his uncle's .25/06 Rem, an excellent mule deer cartridge.

I'll guess that he had read gun magazines that extolled the virtues of the .300 Win Mag, and indeed, the .300 Win Mag is an excellent cartridge. But its recoil is substantial making bench shooting, which is where confidence is instilled, most difficult if not outright painful. And we can't forget that big recoil causes flinching. Flinching causes misses.

I agree with Mac 100%. A hunter who uses a suitable rifle, and we have already established that a 130 grain bullet through a bull's heart will be fatal 100% of the time, and is comfortable shooting it from benches thus building confidence, will be far better suited for elk hunting than a .300 Win Mag that he can't shoot.

I agree with Mac again. After many Rocky Mountain hunting adventures, I've learned that I'd much rather carry a lighter .270 Win than a heavy magnum.

The largest cartridge that I can shoot from a bench without recoil beating the heck out of me is my 7MM Rem Mag. I have fired big rifles. I don't like their recoil. If a hunter wants to believe that a .300 Win Mag will kill a bull deader than will a 7MM Rem Mag, or .270 Win for that matter, I'm good. After all, what another hunts with is his business, not mine. However, I'm going with dead is dead. It gets awfully deep when a hunter tries to tell me that an elk cares what reduced its blood pressure to zero. All that matters is that a bullet ends its ability to pump oxygenated blood to its brain. And everything living is dead when its brain no longer works. That is factual.

I'll bet the hunter with a .270 Win that he can shoot rather than a hunter with a .300 Win Mag he can't every time.

Bullets that stop oxygenated blood flow will result in dead animals.

Good deal!! Tell your wife congrats. Job well done.. Thanks for your input on the 140gr. SST as well..

Hi rosco,

I remember Cokeville. I stayed in a motel there a long time ago. The owner was a lawyer. He had an impressive collection of mule deer mounts on his lobby walls. There are some massive mule deer roaming sage behind Cokeville.

I have a friend with an impressive trophy room. He has about 140 mounts in it including an Alaskan griz. He used to hunt with a Mark V .300 Wby Mag. He told me that when most hunters see far off game they try to figure out how they're going to make long shots. He had a very different strategy even though he had an excellent long-range rifle. When he saw far off game that he wanted to shoot, his first thought was how he was going to close distance. He'd rather shoot game at a hundred yards than 500. When recoil became an issue, he went with a Mark V .270 Wby Mag.

To may way of looking at hunting, it's about humanely killing game, not distant shots.

Anyone that was of age and lived/ hunted Lincoln county WY in the 80's- 90's (or earlier), and was the least bit serious about it probly has a decent collection. The fella I mentioned has killed a lot more, and bigger bucks than i have,all with a 30-30.

They are cowboys, and as such more/less jump shot them off of horseback. IMHO, those days have passed.

If a guy wants a trophy mule y these days its done polar opposite of how he got his back in the day..Not sayin that dont work anymore, just not likely.

They havent adjusted, but the same tactics work these days, only the game is elk instead of deer..I've said it many times, these ARE the good old days when it comes to elk.

Yup...

Forrest

More than a few years ago I bought a 1st gen syn stocked stainless steel M700 in 300 Win Mag used but barely for $360. Didn't look like it had been shot much and it had Burris rings and bases on it. I put a Leupold Vari X 3 in 2.5 x 8x on it. I didn't really need it but my other 300 Win Mag weighed 2 lbs more with scope and I was looking for weight reduction in an all-weather pkg. The M700 had not been shot much probably because the Tupperware stock and hard as a rock recoil pad was a vicious kicker,about knock you out recoil. Hard to shoot something well when you are getting the hell whopped out of you. But going down to a 270 would not give me the performance I wanted, so I just looked around at the next gunshow until I found one of those prefit Limbsaver recoil pads that really aren't just a drop in replacement. So I fitted it correctly and went back to shooting, now the recoil was more like what my ADL 270 and 150's produced. Back on track with power, accuracy, in a shootable rifle.no, I don't think new guys at shooting need a 300 mag, they need to learn how to shoot first. Reducing your felt recoil doesn't allways mandate a smaller cartridge either. Some folks like to badmouth 300 Magnums are you one of them? I have seen elk killed with 270's and fine job done at that but that is no excuse for bashing 300 magnums that are ready to be used for larger game. Magnum Man

Hi Magnum Man,

No. I think that the .300 Win Mag is an excellent cartridge, as I wrote in a post about five above this one.

We know properties of cartridges. It's up to hunters to research before buying.

When I was a teenager, I had ability to shoot friends' big guns including the 7MM Rem Mag, .300 Win Mag, and 8MM Rem Mag. I figured I needed to start my mule deer hunting operations with a .270 Win. Through the years I've fired other big guns including the .338 Win Mag and Big Five loaded .45/70, and, of course, 12 gauges with slugs & buckshot. I never did take to shooting guns that hurt. However, I can see how they're good for other hunters.

When I figured it was time to get serious about elk hunting, I picked up a 7MM Rem Mag, a cartridge that was designed by elk hunters for long range elk killin'. Fact is, I could've stuck with my .270 Win & been just as good and elk just as dead.

In my opinion, the 7MM Rem Mag is the best magnum cartridge for all North American big game hunting. The reason is superior sectional densities and ballistic coefficients of .284 caliber bullets coupled with manageable recoil. Its bullets will travel farther & flatter & penetrate more deeply. For instance, a 160 grain .284 caliber bullet is superior in SD & BC to a 180 grain .308 caliber bullet. The reality it's all minutiae. Last I knew, big game don't know how to read micrometers.

Hunters can turn darn passionate when it comes to defending cartridges to which they have abiding loyalty. I'm good with that. But reality is emotion chases intellect from thinking when hunters take to defending cartridges they love...or gun writers need material.

I'm good with any reasonable cartridge that any hunter wants to use to kill anything he wants to hunt. However, they lose me in convoluted logic when they try to tell me that the .024" separating .308 caliber from .284 caliber is crucial when it comes to room temperature reducing elk or that a magnum will kill elk deader than an '06/.308 Win. I'm good with passionate loyalty to cartridges as long as opinions don't mock the fact that all that lives will die sans it heart. Nor is there a biology category of deader than dead. Dead is dead. Rigor mortis comes after that, not deader than dead.

I'm good going with knowing characteristics of big game I want to hunt, knowing terrain of areas I hunt, figuring out big game patterns, and figuring out how I can get as close as possible to big game I want to kill. For me it ain't about killing at distance or extreme distance. It's about hunting skill and humanely killing big game. Other than a brain shot, the best way I know to do that it to destroy oxygenated blood pumping apparatuses.

Even though my friend hunted with a Mark V .300 Wby Mag, he knew it was a whole lot more wise to use skill to stalk within a far more reasonable distance than to leave a lot of space between muzzle and animal.

Jus' sayin'...