Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Elk Hunting How many Elk did Jack O' really kill?

Time and time again Jack's name is mentioned as being the killer of all and master of the 270. What I really want to know is how many elk did he "really" kill with is beloved 270?

IIRC I think I read some where years ago that he only killed a couple dozen. Is this correct? If so should we really consider him and his lowly 270 experts in the field of elk kill'n?

I've killed elk with the 270, and yes it worked, but I feel a little more weight is desirable for those fouled ups and shoulder shots that happen to everyone if you hunt them long enough.

I'm intersted to know... I've killed a few elk more than 2 dozen and have been in on quite a few kills... I've seen many diffrent rifles in action chambered in all kinds of rounds, and still feel that the 270, while adequate under ideal conditions, is still marginal at best for an all around elk hunting rifle. Anyone have any thoughts on this?

Here is a direct quote from O'Connor in a Guns & Ammo publication entitled, "Jack O'Connor Tells All About Hunting Big Game", which was published in 1979:

"In 40 years I have shot something over 20 elk. As with any other game I have found that if the hunter puts a good bullet in the right place elk are not hard to kill.

I have shot one elk with the 7mm Remington Magnum and the 150 gr. bullet. The others I have shot with the .30-06 (mostly 180-grain bullets) and the .270 (both 130 and 150-grain bullets). I once went elk hunting with a .338 but I never saw an elk............"

AD

Ditto.....

I spent 16 years guiding elk hunts and as well have been on a number of kills. If all my clients had used a 270 the numbers of wounded/excaped would have surly been higher.
The best guy under the best conditions has his day.....

Follow-up post.....

I agree that the 270 Win. is a marginal elk cartridge. I grew up and was, in part, mentored by an excellent hunter who had taken more than 30 elk with pre-64 Model 70 Featherweight 270 during the course of his career, and I also know of guys, including some relatives, who had long elk careers with the 300 Savage and 243 Win............

I've hunted elk for 33 years myself, and it didn't take too many seasons before I began to subscribe to Bob Hagel's philosophy that the best elk cartridges are the ones that perform well when conditions are less than ideal.

In a nutshell, my first-hand experience is that the 30-06 and 7mm Rem. Mag. are better on elk than the 270 Win., and that the 300 Win. and 338 Win. perform better on elk that the Seven-Mag and Ought-Six, and represent near-ideal elk cartridges. Rounds that are bigger than 300 & 338 are either housed in rifles that are too long and heavy to haul up the mountain and/or kick too hard to shoot well..........

AD

Allen that pretty much sums up my experince as well and that's after drawing my first elk tag in 1970 for an AZ hunt.

Of course just my opin, the 270's, 280's are just fine under ideal conditions and I've taken my fair share with them. But how many times have I been in ideal conditions while elk hunting? Not very many, especially on public land hunt's with lot's of hunters pushing elk.

As some one else posted here, the bigger calibers are like insurance, you use it when it's needed.

I am a huge 270 fan but... It didn't take me too long, about 1/2 dozen elk with a 270 to realize that it works, but bigger is better. I currently prefer a 338-06. I have been in on elk shot with 243's to 375's H&H and most calibers in between.

I lean towards to 338 caliber because it makes a bigger hole.

You might want to be careful in comparing your hunting experience with O'Connor's. From his book "Hunting Big Game in North America" which was first published in 1967, well before the end of his hunting career, he said

"I have shot in all about 18 or 19 elk but I have also shot a fair number of Afircan greater kudu and roan antelope, both of which are about the size of elk and are just about as difficult to kill".

Keep in mind he also saw his wife kill a bunch of elk with her 7x57mm.

Bambistew,

Good name by the way. The next elk I kill will be my first. I know people that have killed a few, none as many as you or Jack O'Connor. I do know that Jack probably had as much hunting and shooting experience as any human is likely to have. I trust what he says. I also know that Carmichael will tell you that a .280 loaded with quality 140 grain pills is fine elk medicine.

I live in Alabama. Many people here think you need a 7mmMag for our 150lb whitetail. I shoot one, but I also own a .243 which many consider on deer the same as you do about a .270 on elk. There has always, and always will be 3 camps on this issue. You're either in the camp of if a .270 is enough, then I want a 7mmRM or more because that must be better. That camp is also divided into the velocity vs. heavy bullet crowd. Or you're in the camp of if its enough gun then dead is dead and a mag wont make em any deader.

Here are my thoughts. In the hands of a good rifleman, and more importantly a hunter that wont take the marginal shot with any caliber, whatever the game, the least acceptable rifle is an acceptable rifle. Some people are not patient enough to wait out or pass out the marginal shot or the quartering away shot. I have no problem with them either so long as they're competent to take it, and have enough gun to do so, and they're taking a shot calculated to kill not wound in order to slow down for a final killing shot. I feel like there must be some hunters/shooters that are competent enough to take the quartering away shot on an elk with a .270 all it takes is being good enough and carful enough to slip it between ribs or other bones. To my thinking this is really the only problematic shot for someone using "not enough gun" save the facing away shot or Texas Heart Shot which I would think would be a shot not to take with any gun on game as large as elk, Taking a gut shot to slow one for a second shot, to me is not ethical. If a bullet can be gotten to the boiler room, then a .270 will get it there IMO. As important is to make sure your choice of bullet is one of premium grade that wont blow up on heavy bone. I have heard of many numbers of elk being taken with single shots from .243s, 25-06's, 7x57s and the like. I don't know why there'd be a question about the .270 with its track record with not only Jack, but many of his disciples.

Happy hunting.

O'Connor killed something like 18-20 of his 20+ total Elk with a .270. O'Connor also never said the .270 was an "ideal" all-around Elk rifle, only that it was adequate. He even cautioned against shooting through heavy shoulder bone (though I don't think this is an issue with today's bullets anymore). Adequate to O'Connor did not involve shooting Elk up the tail-pipe, so maybe it's not adequate for everybody. Jack's main point always seemed to be that you can move to a magnum if you want to, but don't do it if you think it will make up for poor shooting. As others have mentioned, O'Connor also shot a slew of other "Elk sized" critters such as Moose and African Antelope with a .270 that helped shape his opinion.

-Lou

You know...

If you are like O'Connor, and know there'll be plenty of elk hunting in your future then you can pass up the bad shot. If you just paid $10,000 that it took you 5 years to save to book the guided elk hunt of a lifetime in prime Royal Bull territory on private land, then maybe you want something like a .338RemUltraMag or 340 Weatherby Mag, or something else that will let you Texas Heart Shoot a bull elk. I gotta think that its gonna take a hell of a bullet moving at warp speed to get thru elk hip./thigh bones and all the way to the boiler room.

There is no excuse to take an iffy shot on an elk or any other animal. I dont care how much you paid for the hunt. People who do that place themselves in a category of "hunters" that would be doing the sport a favor if they sold their rifles and bought golf clubs.

Having said that I will also say that in the hands of a real hunter, one who gets close enough and knows how to use his rifle, the 270 is plenty of gun. Too bad this kind of hunter is so scarce these days.

lodgepole,



Would you like a soap box and a megaphone?

While on a NM Mulie hunt,I passed on a THS on the biggest
mulie I am probably ever going to see.I figured he was going to stop before he dissappeared over the ridge...WRONG.
The guide was miffed,his opinion was dead is dead,whats the
difference between through the shoulder out the rear or
through the rear out the shoulder.

At the time I didn't even think about taking the shot.Would I
take the shot today?Probably.

Back in those days and even now in some States,caliber was chosen from what your hunting.Even now in Idaho on a hunt you can shoot Deer/Bear and Elk on the same hunt.In the 60's when he wrote his book it was eaither sex Elk and still is in a few palces in Idaho today.So it was not and is not just Elk hunting ONLY!!!

Whats the best caliber for two deer a bear or two and maybe an Elk all on the same hunt...Some will say,the bigger the better but others will say the .270/.06 works just fine and they did and do.Elk only and the larger above .300 work fine but in the years I have lived in Idaho and worked in the field,I have never seen a .338 or larger in a locals arsenal.Just not needed in most's opinion.

Jayco

I hear guys talking about the need for 375's and 378 Weatherbys for elk, and I just laugh. If that is what makes them happy, so be it. But I would prefer that they not fix me with their steely glare and try to convince me that you need such cannons for Elk. After 48 years of hunting and many dead Elk and moose, I have formed some opinions also. The 270 would not be my first pick for an elk rifle, but for 99% of all the Elk Hunting I have done, it would have served just fine. I have shot Elk with the 7x57, the 6.5x55 and the 264 Winchester. The 270 has accounted for a couple, the 7Mag a couple more. The '06 has taken the lions share, probably 18 or so. But my favorite Elk rifle is my 30-338 Mag with 200 Partitions. The 35 Whelen is also good elk medicine, as is the 8x57 Mauser. I'm sure the 338 Win Mag is probably the best in many eyes, and it is excellent. But it is too much gun for many hunters, and that is not conducive to good shot placement. My personal experience leads me to believe that an elk is harder to put down than is a moose, but neither of these big Cervids go far with their lungs shot out. Regards, Eagleye.

Ringman,
Do you have an opinion on the topic at hand or just an opinion about my opinion?

Come on guys, "Need" is certainly subject to interpretation.

Shoot what floats your boat with a GOOD bullet and place it in the right spot. The rest is academic.

If you want to shoot through a shoulder or end to end, make sure your rifle, bullet and skills are up to the task. It cracks me up (pun intended) that many of the same folks snobbing over a THS, have no problem shooting an animal in the chest and it exiting the ass end. Go figure!

lodgepole,



My opinion is if you think, from penitration testing and practice, you can reach the vitals with your rifle/bullet combo go for it.

Why the dis then?