BigGameHunt.net Hunting Forums

[mcb]

I live here in Ohio and was all set to by a 270 Win when I was invited to go on and elk hunting trip next year. Here in Ohio the only thing I would use a center fire rifle for would be varmint hunting (must use shotgun slugs for deer) but I thought the versatility of the 270 Win would also let me take an occasional Deer in Kentucky with my brother. But do you think it would be a good round for Elk. I know it is a legal round to use by Colorado game laws. If you wanted to buy and elk rifle but you were most likely going to use it for other things a lot more when not elk hunting what would you recommend?

Since the invite to hunt elk I have been looking at Remington’s 300 Ultra Mag, but that is so over kill for everything else I would hunt back here in the east. I would love to hear your recommendations.

Thanks
mcb

[donmillion]

Personally, I would recommend a .30-06. With 150 grain bullets it will be a great deer rifle. With 180 grain bullets (especially if you get some of the new higher velocity variety) it will be perfectly suited for elk.

The .270 would be adequate, but you would have to be more careful about shot placement. For someone going on what might be a once-in-a-lifetime hunt for elk, I think the .30-06 would be better.

[BeaverJack]

Don's got good words fer ya. Specially since you ain't a long time mag shooter, best to use a cartridge yer apt to shoot well. I live in elk country. Kill one every year. Ain't ever used more 'an a 30-06 with 180s. Jus' don't get bull fever an' go poppin' off at 380 yards. Good luck on yer hunt.

[expatriate]

I agree with the '06 or, as you mentioned, the 300. If for no other reason, if you go out there with a .270 you'll spend all your time arguing with your companions about the .270's effectiveness. Furthermore, if you take more than one shot with that .270 to bring down the elk, you'll be hearing it for the rest of your life. Choose another round and it frees up time to BS about other topics like hunting stories, first cars, you name it.

[caveman]

Beaver Jacks got the answer. I use a 270 most of the time. Put one in the lungs and he's yours. Good Luck!

[expatriate]

I'm not saying a .270 won't work. My point is the following:

If you get a one-shot kill with an '06, folks will compliment your marksmanship. If you get a one-shot kill with a .270, people will say you were lucky.

If you get a two-shot kill with an '06, hunters will say it's bad luck and remind you that elk are tough animals. Take two shots to kill it with a .270, and they'll question your wisdom of attempting the feat with a .270.

You'll have meat in the freezer either way, but the question is how much time you want to spend debating your cartridge every time you discuss your hunt.

[BeaverJack]

I wouldn't give a rat's turd cutter what other people said 'bout my choice in cartridges. Got more impotent things to be worried 'bout. Like whether I'm gonna be chasin' a wounded elk or not. I seen enuff elk die in my life to know thet you need a big, tuff bullet right thru their wheels to put one down reliably. Talkin' anythin' else on these sites is irresponsible. A 270 in the right guy's hands, somebody who has a whole month to hunt elk in his back yard is a differnt proposition than tellin' a guy from Ohio who will have maybe 5 or 6 days to take home the trophy of a lifetime that he can use a 270 with similar results. It ain't so much a matter of ballistics than it is one of opportunity, shot selection and bull fever. Although no 150 grainer is gonna punch thru like a 180 will.

[ This Message was edited by: BeaverJack on 2003-11-09 06:50 ]

[mcb]

Hey guys,

Thanks for all the replies. I have done a lot of reading/study and a lot of looking at numbers on various web sites. I have decided to go with the 270 Win. From all I have read and researched the 30-06 seems to be the round of choice. I have also seen a few suggestions for larger rounds like the 300 Win Mag and 338 Win Mag. I have also seen that Colorado games laws thinks the 243 is big enought to hunt elk? But given some research the 270 Win seems to give me a slight ballistic edge over the 30-06 for a slight lost of bullet weight and energy. With some of the modern bullets like Barnes X bullet I think the lighter bullet will not be a great liability.

I also have other reasons for chosing a 270 Win. I have been looking for a rifle for a while and none of them have really fit what I wanted. I wanted control feed bolt rifle (been reading to much Capstick) and the iron sights, pusher bolt and stainless steel of many of the new guns especial the Rem 700 really don't appeal to me. To my rescue in my search my father has offered me his Winchester. Its a late 1950's model 70 Winchester chambered in 270 Win. This rifle was given to my father when he was 14 by my grandfather it will now be passed onto me. So there is some sentimental attachment there.

The rifle will get a good work over to make sure it is hunt ready. It has been used but never abused and never has sat long in a gun cabinate. The action will be checked over and I will be putting a new scope on it. It started with a Weaver that was moved to another rifle. It presently has a Tasco on it but I will be puting a Leupold (probably a 3.5-10X50).

The hunt is not until next October and as soon as the scope is mounted it will be off to the range to start finding a bullet and load that it likes and will have the performance for big game. I will then spend alot of time at the range and hunting groundhog and maybe some coyotes with it next summer.

Thanks again for all the help and suggestions, I'm sure all be around this forum. And will let you guys know how the hunt goes.

mcb

[ This Message was edited by: mcb on 2003-11-09 22:03 ]

[bitmasher]

I have also seen that Colorado games laws thinks the 243 is big enought to hunt elk?

Yup, you can legally hunt elk with a 243 if you so choose.

[BeaverJack]

Yup, an' you can legally drive down the highway with yer kids in the back of a pickup in some states too. Don't mean its the wise or ethical thing to do. Allays amazes me how easy these fellers tote a puny cartridge into the Rockies after the best dam game animal goin', then they are real easy on themselves when things go wrong an' they lose a wounded elk. Mos' don't think much of it, an' will say things like "I saw him react to the bullet, an' he stumbled a few times before heading over the rim of the canyon, so I know the shot was good". No big deal, we'll jus' go after another one, right? More worried 'bout their reputation as a marksman 'an a sportsman.

[ This Message was edited by: BeaverJack on 2003-11-10 03:39 ]

[donmillion]

"I have also seen that Colorado games laws thinks the 243 is big enought to hunt elk?"

I wouldn't word it that way. What I would say is that the Colorado DOW thinks that anyone who would hunt elk with a cartridge smaller than .243 is too friggin' stupid to be allowed a hunting license!

[OZSTRIKER22]

My good friend lives in Montana. He ONLY uses a 270 for Elk. Then again... He won't take a shot unless he's CLOSE, and then ONLY in the neck. He carries a .44 on his hip in case a bear or Kitty Cat decides it'd like Man for dinner.

He never takes a body shot with a 270 as he doesn't trust it to hit an Elk's rib or shoulder bones without the risk of breaking apart, deflecting, or not passing into the second lung. All of which of course lead to a wounded animal that can RUN FOR MILES before dying.

With a 270 it should be Necks or Nothin.

Just my .02 cents.

[mcb]

I would think that at reasonable ranges (

[donmillion]

Energy and penetration are two very different things, which is why there is so much debate within the shooting community concerning these matters. It would be quite possible (easy, even) to build a rifle with a very lightweight bullet, travelling at very high speeds, that would end up with HUGE amounts of kinetic energy downrange, but very little ability to penetrate anything.

Kinetic energy increases by the square of velocity. So, lots of velocity makes for lots of kinetic energy even with light bullets. Penetration, on the other hand, is more a function of inertia, and inertia does NOT increase by the square of velocity. So, it takes not only good velocity, but also good bullet weight to achieve lots of inertia.

I, for instance, hunt elk with a muzzleloader. It shoots a 435 grain bullet at very moderate (some might say "slow") speeds. Because of its enormous weight, though, penetration is never an issue and one-shot kills are easy, even with extreme quartering shots.

That is why larger calibers and heavier bullets are generally recommended for heavy-boned, thick-skinned, and/or dangerous game.

Having said that, I will repeat what I said before. The .270 is adequate for elk. I would consider it on the low end, but certainly adequate. If you already have the rifle, there's no need to go out and buy a new one just for an elk hunt. You'll just have to be a little more careful about bullet placement than you would with a larger caliber and realize that penetration may be an issue on quartering shots.

If you had to buy a new rifle specifically for an elk hunt, I would not recommend the .270, but that is not the case here.

[BeaverJack]

That's 'bout the best explanation I've seen on these sites. Even I could foller it. I get riled up when I hear this "small, fast bullets penetrate better" and such crap. Every year, including this year, I meet people who wound elk, and they always got an excuse. We need level-headed fellers like Don to get the proper message out so I don't get my back hair on end so much. Too old for such foolishness.