Imagine that a new law is released during 2010 that says that for the next elk season the only legal caliber for elk hunting will be the 270 win.

After the season...

1)Do you think that the number of elk killed compared with the previous season will be less ??

2)Do you think there will be more wounded elk lost than the previous year ??

Honest question deserves honest answers...I asked this because I was surprised how many people choose in a recent post the 338 as an elk caliber...

L

I don't think it will change much,But some will have to think about the shot a little more.
If it happened I would not have to but a new rifle.

While I think the 338 is a fine elk caliber, assuming all elk hunters had access to 270s, I don't think much would change. Maybe a few more wounded as a handful of marginal shots that probably shouldn't have been taken anyway may work out with the 338 but not the smaller 270. Other then that, my guess is no. Oddly enough, I have a 338 and don't have a 270, so there is no agenda or "bias" in my reply.

A lot of people in the US use 270 on the elk and with good success. Many favor the 338 as the heavier bullets and thicker diameter works better at busting bone and dropping an elk right there.

I don't think people will be less successful with a .270, I think there will be a bit more tracking. A 338 anything can't make up for a bad shot, and may contribute to a bad shot, but when put in the right place, things just stop moving.

John

Seems I remember some State statistics regarding lost elk by caliber - The "% lost" number did not rise significantly until you got down to the 243 Winchester.

quote:

Originally posted by RaySendero:
Seems I remember some State statistics regarding lost elk by caliber - The "% lost" number did not rise significantly until you got down to the 243 Winchester.

That would be very interesting data to see, assuming it has a good level of accuracy.

Well the 270 in 2010 is not the same cartridge it was in 1925 or 1945 or even as late as 1980. Its about bullets not the cartridge per say. With the really good bullets that we have today, a smaller cartridge can do the job as well as say a 338 in 1960. So its really a moot point. A 270 with a proper bullet for elk, they are bigger than the usual white tail, and you would not notice much of a difference at all. I would not even consider a 270 loaded with any number of bullets like the Barne's X to be lacking in any way. And this is from a guy who shot all but two elk with a 338.

Since every state regulates their own elk season that also includes calibers. Never happen.

quote:

Originally posted by George Semel:
Well the 270 in 2010 is not the same cartridge it was in 1925 or 1945 or even as late as 1980. Its about bullets not the cartridge per say. With the really good bullets that we have today, a smaller cartridge can do the job as well as say a 338 in 1960. So its really a moot point. A 270 with a proper bullet for elk, they are bigger than the usual white tail, and you would not notice much of a difference at all. I would not even consider a 270 loaded with any number of bullets like the Barne's X to be lacking in any way. And this is from a guy who shot all but two elk with a 338.

Yup! It was never a question of power, it's about the bullet holding together. Modern components have benefited the 270 as much as any other calibre.

Since the 270 Win is my favorite cartridge, that would be easy for me. I have never felt undergunned on elk, with the 270. The ONLY elk I have ever shot that dropped right now, and never twitched was with the 270 Winchester. An interesting note on this elk, it was my first elk, he was a 6X6 and went over 900lbs. Of course I hunt like an indian, and was only about 80 yds, bang flop. That said, my favorite ELK cartridge is the 35 Whelen I have shot many with it, also 30-06, and 50 cal black powder.

I do not shoot the shoulder, but prefer to place my shots about "3 ribs back". Non of the calibers above led to any tracking, unless you consider 80yds tracking, with the muzzel loader, the rest were down within 20 yds or so.

The comments by the other guys as to shot placement, and bullet construction really kill a lot of Ford Chevy type arguments. What the hell, they're all good (most cartridges).

Jerry

Only if some hunters couldn't afford to get a new rifle

Ahhh, .243 for elk. Sounds like a fun thread

Terry

Your average hunter would do better. They tend to be recoil shy. A 270 is fine out to 400 yards for an excellent shot, even further.

Chuck

Before you toast me over the flames, remember, you asked for opinions....

If you are talking about the guys who belong to boards such as this one, yes I think there would be some more wounded elk get away, lost, wasted.

I see too many folks here talking about 500 yard and longer shots on elk. Do I believe ALL those folks would be less likely to shoot if they saw a 7x7 walking across a hillside (not running, just walking) 550 yards away and were restricted to a .270? Sorry, but I don't. Some wouldn't even if you restricted them to a .257 Roberts (or a .223 Remington). When called on it, some'd say "It"s where you put the bullet that counts....." and hope none of us thought that through as appled to hunting circumstances involving a 700-to-900 pound animal.

In my opinion, too many people believe in "magic", "new" bullets. Also too many believe that because they paid some figure they can barely afford for a guided hunt, they feel they have a right to blaze away if they have even a 25% or 30% chance of making the shot.

I am not referring to the people who responded to this thread before me (above). I have no idea what any individual person here would do except myself.

I have been required to shoot elk at 550 yards and longer with a .270, sometimes much longer. I know it will kill elk. I also know it often does not do so cleanly with one solid hit. I would not voluntarily try it again, and quit my role as a "control" hunter because I refuse to do that anymore.

None-the-less, I believe some folks would not restrain themselves to the .270's limits when they should.

When you get to the great mass of hunters who do not belong to forums such as this, I think the waste of elk would increase immensely, and, as it became known to the public (which it assuredly sooner or later would) anti-hunting political pressure from the general non-hunting public could rise considerably.

As I don't think any of us want any more anti-hunting publicity out there than is already thrown at us, I would fight such a limit with everything within my means.

It is one thing to debate which cartridges will kill elk. It is another thing entirely to identify those cartridges which will do it in the hands of poorly skilled hunters who may also lack self control.

Of course, there is no magic cartridge or rifle which will do that either, so I guess the question to me is: where do we make the cut-off in terms of cartridges and rifles which will give the hunter the best odds of doing the job cleanly?

If we can ever invent a modern IR controlled "rifle" which won't fire at a living animal at all beyond 350 yards, that's what I'd lean toward requiring for the hunting sports. Then folks would have to learn not only to shoot, but to hunt, stalk, and to smile when they had had a week of hunting but took home no meat anyway.

Subsistance hunters would likely hardly be bothered. They already get close as a matter of routine. To them eating is too important to leave to long-range bullet-flinging.

Now please fell free to blaze away (pun intended) with your flames, if you must.

quote:

Originally posted by Sevenxbjt:

quote:

Originally posted by RaySendero:
Seems I remember some State statistics regarding lost elk by caliber - The "% lost" number did not rise significantly until you got down to the 243 Winchester.

That would be very interesting data to see, assuming it has a good level of accuracy.

7x,

I don't have the link - I wish I had copied it or kept a copy! I seem to remember it was a Colorado "poll" about 5 or 6 yrs ago. The State was collecting polling info from PGs. Maybe someone else saw it, too?

quote:

Originally posted by Lorenzo:
1)Do you think that the number of elk killed compared with the previous season will be less ??

Yes, a bit less but by a very small amount....maybe 1-2%



2)Do you think there will be more wounded elk lost than the previous year ??

Again a small amount and again 1-2% more
L

Here in North America the overwhelming elk caliber is .308 .....usually a .30-06 or one of the .300 Magnums and a few .338s

Assuming all other things equal the .270 will do the job at the common ranges. The simple fact is that it carries less energy to extremes.....hense a few more misses and cripples....

I seriously doubt anyone would notice by visiting the mountains the following day after the season closes.

quote:

Originally posted by vapodog:
Here in North America the overwhelming elk caliber is .308 .....usually a .30-06 or one of the .300 Magnums and a few .338s

Assuming all other things equal the .270 will do the job at the common ranges. The simple fact is that it carries less energy to extremes.....hense a few more misses and cripples....

Yes, and at long distance, that loss of energy and diameter can be significant.

In some of my "control" shooting at 500 yards and beyond, I'd get solid hits which struck bone in the front shoulder. Using Nosler 150 grain Partition .277 bullets, the front half of which is designed to open up rather easily, I found after the elk were shot again (sometimes two or three times again) that the initial bullet had made a clean bullet hole in the bone pretty much as if it had been drilled by a high speed 1/4" drill and neither shattered it nor destroyed much if any meat around it.

If those elk had been anywhere near any trees, I would have possibly lost a sizeable number of them. Matter of fact, I feel I probably did lose at least a couple which simply kept on walking. And these were cow elk, not big bulls.

I could not chase them as there were other shooters as well and I am not inclined to run into a "hot" field of fire. After a few hundred more yards (600-800), they walked into an area where we did not have the authority to follow.

I found larger calibers much more effective for the purpose, and never used a .270 in that circumstance again.

I also suspect the killing would have been cleaner had we been using plain old cup 'n core bullets, which would have opened up better and probably shattered some bone. With bone fragments and bullet core fragments acting as secondary missiles, I feel the killing would have been quicker.

I no longer do control shooting. It turns my stomach.

Borrowed from AC ;

In my opinion, too many people believe in "magic", "new" bullets. Also too many believe that because they paid some figure they can barely afford for a guided hunt, they feel they have a right to blaze away if they have even a 25% or 30% chance of making the shot.

I am not referring to the people who responded to this thread before me (above). I have no idea what any individual person here would do except myself.

I have been required to shoot elk at 550 yards and longer with a .270, sometimes much longer. I know it will kill elk. I also know it often does not do so cleanly with one solid hit. I would not voluntarily try it again, and quit my role as a "control" hunter because I refuse to do that anymore.

None-the-less, I believe some folks would not restrain themselves to the .270's limits when they should.

In response to Lorenzo's questions ;

# 1 Yes # 2 Yes I'm not going to go into what I think is the perfect caliber or Rifle

A 7 Mag will do it as will a .270 /06 .308 On and on . Ones shooting skills coupled with Caliber, Bullet

choice and Distance ALL dictate an ethical kill !.

Personally if I were to shoot a Large Bull Elk at anything in excess of 400 yd , I'd use my Lapua .338

and not my Win Mag . Why ? Because I know what my Lauppy does and is capable of at 1K meters and I can

shoot it accurately enough . Never shot the Win Mag in excess of 400 yd . I Have shot the 7 Rem Mag

out to Appx. 525 yd and killed a Monster Muley . That was in AZ up in the Kybab years ago .

I practice and practice with most all of my weapons .

FYI ; As far as I'm concerned the above yardage for my 7 mag is Topped out and I would never have taken

that shot had I any other chance at getting closer . I used a 162-165 grain Cupernickel that I believe

was manufactured in Europe . I purchased a storage facility at auction and ended up with 10's of K's of

assorted you name it pertaining to reloading , even got a couple of Guns !. I filled a Std. pickup bed

with AA once fired 12 gauge hulls from there !.

quote:

Originally posted by Lorenzo:
Imagine that a new law is released during 2010 that says that for the next elk season the only legal caliber for elk hunting will be the 270 win.

After the season...

1)Do you think that the number of elk killed compared with the previous season will be less ??

2)Do you think there will be more wounded elk lost than the previous year ??

Yes

Yes

quote:

Originally posted by Big Bore Boar Hunter:
I don't think people will be less successful with a .270, I think there will be a bit more tracking.

+1

quote:

Originally posted by George Semel:
Well the 270 in 2010 is not the same cartridge it was in 1925 or 1945 or even as late as 1980. Its about bullets not the cartridge per say. With the really good bullets that we have today, a smaller cartridge can do the job as well as say a 338 in 1960.

A traditional cup/core lead bullet from a 338 is going to significantly destroy much more tissue than a modern TSX from a .270

In 1960, the .338 still had significant weight retention left even if hitting the front shoulder bone to enter vital tissue. The result being saucer size holes. I disagree.

quote:

Originally posted by ar corey:

quote:

Originally posted by George Semel:
Well the 270 in 2010 is not the same cartridge it was in 1925 or 1945 or even as late as 1980. Its about bullets not the cartridge per say. With the really good bullets that we have today, a smaller cartridge can do the job as well as say a 338 in 1960.

A traditional cup/core lead bullet from a 338 is going to significantly destroy much more tissue than a modern TSX from a .270

In 1960, the .338 still had significant weight retention left even if hitting the front shoulder bone to enter vital tissue. The result being saucer size holes. I disagree.

The average hunter doesn't read these forums. The average hunter buys the cheapest ammo they can find at Wally World. Thus negating any benefit from premium bullets. The average hunter fires less than 20 shells/yr.

In response to the original questions: The number of elk killed would be about the same (killed, but not necesarily harvested). Yes, more elk would be wounded and lost.

quote:

Originally posted by plainsman456:
I don't think it will change much,But some will have to think about the shot a little more.
If it happened I would not have to but a new rifle.

I would GET to buy another rifle!!!

I don't think anything would change with the exception that a LOT of people would not be happy.

Since we seem to be getting into the Ford Chevy thing, I have 3. questions: 1. How many of you guys have experience with the 270 Winchester, at any range? 2. How many shoot elk, at a measured 500+ yds, or even know how far that is? and 3.What's the matter can't anyone besides me get close enough,sneak like an indian to kill surely, even with the woefull 270 Winchester?

Jerry

quote:

Originally posted by Jerry Eden:
3.What's the matter can't anyone besides me get close enough,sneak like an indian to kill surely, even with the woefull 270 Winchester?

Jerry

Just to make my own situation clear, we were told where to shoot from and at what in the "control shoots". We didn't have the choice of getting closer, or I surely would have tried to.

I was directed to do the bulk of the shooting because with my Palma Team experience on top of (at that time) my 50 years or so of hunting experience, they thought I could at least hit the elk dependably with my .270.

All of the elk I shot which were recovered were cut, wrapped and frozen at my own expense, and given to needy families known by me. The part that really sickened me the most was that every single cow shot was pregnant, most of them (as autopsy showed) with bull calves.

After reading lorenzo's origional post,
I am wondering if you are saying the .338 is not an elk round ?
Of couse it is, and a good one. If you can shoot it well enough and don't mind the recoil it makes a good varmint rig too.
Point being there is no such thing as to much gun when it comes to elk hunting.
I would use a .270 with little concern, but I like rifles so i have one of each.
I would prefer the 06 or a 7 mag to the .270. though...tj3006

I agree with most here that a 270 would work fine on the vast majority of shots taken in the field. The marginal angles and longer shots that work well in killing with a bigger more powerful round in the hands of a competent marksman would likely still be taken and end up wounding and later killing more elk that would not be recovered. Some folks have the patience and willingness to pass on those, most would not. Some very small percentage of hunters toting magnums they can't shoot might hit the target with the 270 but if you can't shoot your 300 or 338 you probably can't shoot a 270.

quote:

Originally posted by Jerry Eden:
Since we seem to be getting into the Ford Chevy thing, I have 3. questions: 1. How many of you guys have experience with the 270 Winchester, at any range? 2. How many shoot elk, at a measured 500+ yds, or even know how far that is? and 3.What's the matter can't anyone besides me get close enough,sneak like an indian to kill surely, even with the woefull 270 Winchester?

Jerry

I shot a 270 for 17 years and its limit is 450 yards IMO.

Thanks for your answers gentlemen.

Just to clarify, I think the 338 is a GREAT caliber, it's just that I was surprise how many followers it has for elk.

I thought that 270/308/3006 were more common cartdriges for that purpouse. A 338 WM is a LOT of gun for any deer around the world !!

For red stags here in Southamerica (smaller than elk) I use a 300 wm but I have used a 3006 and my friends 308 winnie with good success.

Thanks again, sorry if the post ended as a "is the 270 enough for..", "or better than..." post.

I choose that cartdrige just as an example of a non magnum good caliber.

Personally I am one of those that thinks that there are very few animals that under normal hunting conditions can not be hunted with a 30-06...I just own other guns in other calibers because I am not very "normal", the same as you..

L

quote:

Originally posted by Lorenzo:
Thanks for your answers gentlemen.

Just to clarify, I think the 338 is a GREAT caliber, it's just that I was surprise how many followers it has for elk.

I thought that 270/308/3006 were more common cartdriges for that purpouse. A 338 WM is a LOT of gun for any deer around the world !!

For red stags here in Southamerica (smaller than elk) I use a 300 wm but I have used a 3006 and my friends 308 winnie with good success.

Thanks again, sorry if the post ended as a "is the 270 enough for..", "or better than..." post.

I choose that cartdrige just as an example of a non magnum good caliber.

Personally I am one of those that thinks that there are very few animals that under normal hunting conditions can not be hunted with a 30-06...I just own other guns in other calibers because I am not very "normal", the same as you..

L

Red staq are quite a bit smaller than a big bull elk. Many non resident elk hunters get 5-7 days to take their elk & like the extra margin a heavy 338 bulelt gives them for less than perfect broadside shots. I could hunt elk w/ a 270, but bullet selection would be more important than w/ the 338winmag. I have hunted elk w/ my 280, pretty much the same as the 270 (ok, maybe a bit better ), but you have to know your limitations.

quote:

Originally posted by tom holland:
Since every state regulates their own elk season that also includes calibers. Never happen.

hy⋅po⋅thet⋅i⋅cal 
Pronunciation [hahy-puh-thet-i-kuhl]
–adjective
1. assumed by hypothesis; supposed: a hypothetical case.
2. of, pertaining to, involving, or characterized by hypothesis: hypothetical reasoning.
3. given to making hypotheses.
4. Logic. a. (of a proposition) highly conjectural; not well supported by available evidence.
b. (of a proposition or syllogism) conditional.


–noun 5. a hypothetical situation, instance, etc.: The Secretary of Defense refused to discuss hypotheticals with the reporters.

Also, hy⋅po⋅thet⋅ic (for defs. 1–4).

quote:

Originally posted by Alberta Canuck:

In some of my "control" shooting at 500 yards and beyond...

So, while I know I am not answering the original question I read this and could not help but think that if a large percentage of Average Joe hunters are taking 500+ yard shots at elk then there are probably a lot more cippled and lost elk than we would prefer redardless of caliber.

You can kill elk with a 270. I think they are going to travel farther after being shot and require more followup shots than if I am using my normal elk rifle (338wm or 375 H+H)

quote:

Originally posted by Bruce R:

quote:

Originally posted by Alberta Canuck:

In some of my "control" shooting at 500 yards and beyond...

So, while I know I am not answering the original question I read this and could not help but think that if a large percentage of Average Joe hunters are taking 500+ yard shots at elk then there are probably a lot more cippled and lost elk than we would prefer redardless of caliber.

I assume you know that "control" shooting is NOT sport hunting? It is shooting authorized & "managed" by Game & Fish Departments in areas that are too heavily populated by elk (in F&G opinion). It does not normally take place in areas open to sport hunting, and is done after sport hunting seasons are over and total elk populations are still deemed too high.

The aim (bad pun) is to reduce elk numbers in the area(s) by reducing the population of actively breeding cow elk in those specific locations.

Unfortunately there are way too many folks with elk tags who shoot at elk at ranges where they are not qualified to do so by their skills, OR armament.

And, yes, those folks likely lend their efforts to too many wounded elk lost already. Exactly how many, I doubt anyone could accurately estimate. I could support both a minimum cartridge requirement, and a test of shooting ability required before elk tags were issued.

Lorenzo, surprised that .338 is common Elk round? What better reason to get another gun? If you asked what caliber would you use if $ was no object and you could get whatever you wanted, I would guess alot of folk's would say .338. If you asked what would you use today and would it be adequate I would venture the answers would not be the same. My grandfather used a 300 Savage and filled his tag whenever they saw an Elk to shoot, using the 180 grain round nose ammo of the 50's.

I can't give a very good answer here as I have only killed one elk in my entire life. It was however, with a .270 and a 140 grn. Accubond @ 2930 FPS

One shot through both lungs just under 200 yards and then about a 50 yard run/jog/walk of "getting sick fast" then down.

Congratulations Ted, good job!

Certainly at the distance you used it, with the load you used, and with your shooting skills, the .270 is a very, very adequate elk round.

Nice looking elk country you were in, too. Looks a lot like unit 4A in northern Arizona or the Mitchell area of eastern Oregon...nice high grasslands. The beautiful country and a good elk liver for supper, what more could a guy ask?

(Well...maybe a nice Manhattan to go with supper....)

Thank you for the kind words A.C.

The snow covered mountains you can just barely make out in the background are the southern Rocky's.

I hunted about 20 miles south of Colorado in Northern New Mexico last year and fully intend on doing so this comeing December, for a cow again.

Ted,

Great picture !! thanks for sharing it.

Sometimes I wonder if american hunters realized how lucky you are with the diversity of game you have there.

Elk, moose, black bear, grizzly, bison, whitetail, blacktail, mulies, antelope, pigs, javalina, goats, sheeps, axis, audad, nilgai, cougars, etc, etc.

An elk hunt is something I must do someday..

L

Neighbor's recent elk hunt (Rocky Mt. Elk) some clown showed up with a 30-30. Fortunately, they didn't see any elk. Locally the preferred calibers for Roosevelt Elk are 300 Win. Mag. .338 Mag. and 45/70 Govt. 30-06 with a heavy bullet.

This same neighbor tells me 2,000 ft. lbs. energy needed for a clean kill on an elk. You can do that with 7mm RUM, but I don't see the .270 as being a good option for elk.

quote:

One shot through both lungs just under 200 yards and then about a 50 yard run/jog/walk of "getting sick fast" then down.

That's an optimal shot and yet not a "clean kill." A lot of elk in open country are taken at 300 yds or better.