BigGameHunt.net Hunting Forums

[bitmasher]

Quote:
and if your not certain that your rifle will kill at a long distance, actually hunt the animal and get closer!!!


Well said. Welcome Dino.

[Guest]

I think the minimum question is tuffer to answer than one might think. I know of men who could grab onto a 243 caliber and bring home their elk. It kind of depends on the experience of the hunter and his or her marksmanship as well as skills in the high country.

I have hunted elk with a .270 caliber, 30-06, 300 H&H, 300 Win mag, 338/06, 338 Win mag and the 375 H&H. and by the way, been successful using all the above calibers. I have found that the type of bullet one uses is more important than the caliber of most hunters that are going elk hunting.

My favorite over the years in open country has been the 300 Win mag, but in the black timber the 338 mag rules. Any of the above calibers are 300 yard elk takers (if the hunter hits his mark in the vital area with a good bullet)and some you can stretch to 400 plus if you have a mind and the skill to hit the mark.

[ This Message was edited by: Quick-Sand on 2003-07-04 18:48 ]

[bitmasher]

Welcome Quick-Sand, I agree with you on the 243 point. It can be done, although as was mentioned above it probably isn't the best choice.

Just out of curiosity why do you prefer the 338 in the timber as opposed to the 300 on the flats?

[rather_be_huntin]

I've said it before but I'll say again anyway. 80+% of the general public have no opinion about hunting but they determine the future of it. We have to become more and more responsible in our choices in everything we do including what we post on these boards. Recommending a .243 for elk to people that may have never hunted an elk before is not a good idea.

Congrats to some of you old timers who use the 30-30's and the .243's and never had an elk leave its tracks in 100 years of hunting. But with better "elk" equipment available lets recommend something that is much more efficient for those with less experience. The result will be less wounded animals and we will look more humane to the general public, who DO determine the future of hunting. Its no longer an option, its a necessity to care about the political aspect of hunting.

[breding223]

I personaly wouldnt use anything less than a 308.

[outlaw from Idaho]

Real world elk hunting,if someone ask's me what caliber to use for elk, I tell them the largest caliber they can shoot very well!

You can kill elk with a rock if you hit him hard anuff. Whats the point? You can kill elk with about any caliber out there but that dosen't make it a die in the fur all around elk caliber.

Yes I have taken elk with 243win,6mm Rem 257rob over the years but they are not elk calibers.

I know a guy here in Idaho that took a 373 inch B.C. bull this past fall with a 87gr hornady bullet in a 25-06Rem, took him five shots to do it and yes he did kill it, but that dosen't make the 25-06 an elk caliber.

The best you could do with a 25-06 is with 120gr loads and yes a good hunter and good shot could bring home elk very year but it not an elk caliber.

A real world elk caliber can start with the 264 win, 270win with heavey for caliber bullets as a min.

Then go up from there, 7mags 160-175gr, 30-06 165-180gr and the 300mags 180-200gr,the 338mag and 35 whelen even the 358 win with 225 gr bullets. I have even used the 375 H&H mag with 300gr loads on elk.

Now days I use a 300 Rem SAUM and a 300wsm with 165-180gr loads, and thats all I'am going to say about that. Outlaw

[EJ65]

Ok, this is the last time I’ll bring it up… I promise (kind of). The .270 is very, very deadly because it offers almost 30-06 power with awesome sectional density to it’s bullets. Rather be hunting – a 150 grain .308 inch bullet has about the same SD as a 130 grain .277 bullet. A 180 grain 30 cal bullet has approximately the same SD as a 150 grain .270 round. Why is that important? That means the bullet’s have similar penetration characteristics.

Have you noticed how .223s blow stuff up? That’s because they’re 55 grain bullets are really high steppin’ when they hit the grapefruit or woodchuck. Stuff goes flying. Here’s a point to make about the .270 (and 6.5x55 for that matter, but I won’t bore you with ‘foreign’ cals this time out..). The quotient between the velocity and the SD make it so that these bullets are still going really fast with lot’s of explosive power after they have passed through the outside of the animal. So, when a .270 caliber bullet get’s to the vitals (to me that means heart/lung area – about 12-16 inches at most) it is still hauling a lot of a$$. It is more explosive (in my opinion) than larger bullets traveling at lesser velocities.

That is the reason for the success of the 100 grain .243 bullet combonation (an SD of .242) and the 130 grain .270 bullet (an SD of .242….).

I have shot two Elk with my .270 – both in the heart – at 207 yards per rangefinder and around 75 yards. The 75 yard animal was shot using a 150 grain Nosler Partition driven by 59 grains of IMR 7828. It jumped about ten feet, ran a few feet and fell. The 207 yard shot was made with factory 150 grain supreme ammunition. That bull weighed over 800 pounds. It fell before I could chamber another round and did not move again.

Anyway, stories show up all over the place regarding the .270 and elk – ‘A guy I was hunting with put 9 boxes of ammo into an Elks vitals at 25 yards and we had to track it for two weeks through Canada and… so buy a 500 nitro express...” Elk are very tough. Tougher than Moose although they weigh less. I have to say I cannot be convinced that the heart (vital!) or lungs (vital!) of any Elkcould stand up to an exploding .277 grain bullet traveling at a mile per second.

[rather_be_huntin]

Quote:
On 2004-03-12 13:21, EJ65 wrote:
Rather be hunting – a 150 grain .308 inch bullet has about the same SD as a 130 grain .277 bullet.


That may be true but you are forgetting one major thing. A 150 grain bullet going at a high velocity has a tendancy to break apart upon impact with a very solid object. You need at least a 175gr or 180gr bullet that holds together. Shooting an elk in the shoulder blade ain't shootin grapefruits or woodchucks. You don't have to agree with me, thats just what years of first hand and second hand knowledge tells me.

The ONLY reason I don't like the 270 for elk is the max factory load is 150gr, which is a reliable deer bullet but not a reliable elk bullet. Like has been said a dozen or so times. They have killed plenty of elk but I've seen more wounded elk lost and long tracking jobs from the 270 than any other cartridge. Seen it from just about all cartridges but the 270 far and away leads that category in my neck of the woods.

A reliable elk bullet must have certain characteristics. This is my opinion of the 270.

1 - Enough energy. .270 pass
2 - Big enough caliber. .270 pass
3 - Quality bullet construction. .270 loaded with something like a Nosler Partition, Barnes X, Grand Slam, etc., etc. pass
4 - The bullet must be heavy enough to stay together (relatively high weight retention) while impacting heavy bone and muscle. .270 max 150 gr factory load IMO FAIL


[ This Message was edited by: rather_be_huntin on 2004-03-12 15:44 ]

[JTapia]

Quote:
On 2004-03-12 13:21, EJ65 wrote:
I have to say I cannot be convinced that the heart (vital!) or lungs (vital!) of any Elkcould stand up to an exploding .277 grain bullet traveling at a mile per second.



A mile per second?......you sure about that?

[Captain_Obvious]

A mile per second is 5280 feet per second, or 3600 miles an hour. As I recall, a 150 grain 270 bullet doesn't even clock 3000 feet per second. Even a 100 grain bullet from a 270 Weatherby Magnum doesn't get anywhere near that speed.

[bitmasher]

I have shot two Elk with my .270 – both in the heart – at 207 yards per rangefinder and around 75 yards.

Nobody (in there right mind) will argue that a 270 isn't deadly with a perfect shot (or near perfect shot), it is, just like a machete slipped between the ribs is deadly, but that isn't the point.

The point is, that in a non-optimal situation (a shoot in the rump, the shoulder, clip a lung, etc) does the 270 @ 150 grain have what it takes? Some say yes, some say no. Frankly I don't even care anymore. :smile:

By the way, as I think everybody knows, if you shoot it in the gut and it decides to go for a trot, it doesn't matter a hill of beans what you hit with, because your going on a hike. That is why shooting skill is more important than what your shooting.

[mister_venison]

That's true, Bitmasher. One other thing...I'd add is that I happen to think that if I'm going on a hunt, I want all the shot opportunities I can get. While I can cleanly kill an elk with a .260 Rem, I may be reduced in the shots I can take as compared to a 300 Win mag. I would try to avoid a direct shoulder shot with the .260, but the .300 wouldn't really have a problem with that. Or maybe something's out there just a bit further than the .260 can handle...sometimes, having a slight edge in performance can be the difference between eating tag soup or elk stew. The more you reduce the round's energy, the less options you'll have in the field, and the more picky the shot has to be. Yes, I agree that the vitals have to be hit, but there's lots of different ways to get to the vitals...head on, quartering, etc.

[rather_be_huntin]

Good points bitmahser. I never ask what can my rifle do in a perfect case scenario. IE no wind, can use my rangefinder, level shot, etc. Because if we were discussing what the minimum elk cartridge is that's capable of killing an elk, my answer would be a .22 LR at 25 yds from a bench rest while the elk is sedated.

I always ask myself and give advice on what a rifle can do in the worst case scenario. Being a skilled shooter is as important in hunting as knowing that elk live in mountains and not on the beach. However hunting isn't bench shooting. Its making range errors, slight wind, elk are not stationary, uphill and downhill shots, rifle shake, etc. Sure someone could argue that they know thier rifles' limitations and they hunt within those limitations but often times you have a "shooting" handicap you don't even realize exists. Range is a prefect example of that. Wind is another and sometimes you think you have a level shot but its up or downhill. The effect of an uphill shot is the same effect a hill has on the speed and power of your vehicle. It alters the ballistics. Sometimes that alteration can be measured in more than a couple of inches.

IMO a rifle-bullet combination should ONLY be considered on the game you are hunting if it can be counted on to RELIABLY penetrate the bone and muscle of that game.

[ This Message was edited by: rather_be_huntin on 2004-03-15 11:19 ]

[EJ65]

I have heard many people say the .270 isn’t all that great for Elk, but under 250 it seems to be quite good in fact. I just hear all these stories about .270 shot Elk taking 10 rounds in the wheelhouse and running off and I don’t buy it. I will agree that if you just want to shoot in the general direction of the vital zone of an animal you need a bigger caliber. It’s funny, I didn’t like the .270 until my shooting became fairly good. Here’s my real point in all this – If you have good shooting discipline you don’t need to shoot bigger rounds. Don’t shoot through bushes; don’t shoot at ranges you are not 100% sure of; don’t shoot offhand at 200 yards if you can’t always hit a dinner plate that way; don’t shoot quartering away at an animal because it’s “the last day of my hunt.” Shoot correctly. Worry about calibers after you get to that point. It’s fun to bolt off a 10 second 5 shot group at the range from the off-hand position and see the“magnum men” marvel at my 4 inch groups. It’s fun to hit running jacks at 75 yards that way too (with my “ladies rifle” - .270). Shoot some rolling clay pidgins with your .22 a couple of times a week and shoot offhand at the range and I’ll bet you the animals you shoot at will mysteriously become a little more mortal. I think the 30-06 is a perfect Elk entry rifle. Were I a guide, I’d suggest that all my clients use at least that. I would impose the same shooting restrictions I impose on myself with my .270 though. I think a lot of guides allow marginal shooters to take marginal shots so that they can get the client an animal at any means. Good thing I don’t need any friends around here… Hey, I’m not such a bad guy, though, I swear! I have a 1 year old who things I a wise 38 year old…. Good luck shooting by the way.

[swilk]

Greetings all ... new here and just wanted to comment on this one. Lets say for the sake of argument you had to choose one of the follwing to hunt elk with (and yes, you have to choose one of these): a .270 handloaded with a 150gr Nosler partition bullet or a 300 win mag loaded with a 168gr nosler custom competition bullet? I think anyone with any sense would choose the .270 loaded with the partition. Basically what I am getting at is bullet selection is at least as important, if not more important, that caliber selection. Any bullet that hits an elks shoulder and breaks apart was not intended to be used to shoot an elk (or at least the bullet failed). Bullet weight and speed have less to do with a bullets ability to stay together than its design and intended use. I would put a .270 with a wise bullet selection way, way ahead of a .338 with a poor bullet selection.

[ This Message was edited by: swilk on 2004-03-16 06:30 ]