quote:

Originally posted by ted thorn:
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.

Interesting photo. Are those Elk I see in the back ground? roger

bartsche

I only see some naked women running in the back woods but no other game there buddy..

You must go hunting soon !! you are seeing elk everywhere..

L

quote:

Neighbor's recent elk hunt (Rocky Mt. Elk) some clown showed up with a 30-30. Fortunately, they didn't see any elk.

My hunting partner fell on his 30-06 one year, bent the scope. The fall-back was his 30-30, we just got closer like people did when the 30-30 was a hot new cartridge...

quote:

Originally posted by 0X0:

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 Nosler Accubond .277 dia bullet of 140 grains with a B.C. of .456 and a muzzle vel. of 2900+
will be a bit faster than 2500 at 200 yards.

This equals 1943 ft. lbs at 200 yrds. Pleanty of energy for well placed shots.

Just one other thing, just wondering why the elk I shot wasn't a "clean Kill"?

hey hey bartsche,

"Interesting photo. Are those Elk I see in the back ground?"

Ceader trees from the best of my recolection. It is an awfull picture.
My buddy couldn't quite understand "hold the button half-way doen to focus" instructions I gave him.....
but it was 10 deg that morning. Ted

I do remember while reading one of Jack O'Conner's books I noticed that when he had his .270 it seemed to require more then one shot while his 30-06 seemed to have more one shot kills. This observation is nothing scientific but I did notice it.

I also had a good friend who went Elk hunting this year who was using a .338 and got his Elk while his father lost his after shooting it with a .300. His father misjudged the distance so it wasn't really the .300s fault.

You now what I can't believe? How many guys are worried about a "safety margin" I don't know if there is such a thing. The 270 will kill any elk at any praticle range, no question, no concern. If you can't place the bullet where it needs to be, don't be out hunting elk. 40+ years of hunting with the 270 Winchester has taught me that.

Another note, a friend of mine and I, tried to figure out what we could hit behind some brush. So we put gallon water jugs behind a creosote bush, we don't have many bushes in Arizona, then we shot 35 Whelen, 375 H&H, 30-06, 7Mag, and we could NOT get any of the bullets to hit the jugs. My point is, you better hit what and where you need to, or it will be a miss or a crippled critter.

Jerry

I think that you'd find a lot of guys learning to be better shots, and learning a fast course in shot placement.. whether they would admit or not.

Elk are not bullet proof. A bullet matched to the game, and the MV in which it is fired, and a realistic expectation of the performance within those parameters.

Taking a 650 lb cow elk in Montana, with a 165 grain ballistic tip out of an 06 with an MV of only 2250 fps. Bullet destroyed the lungs on both sides, cut the esophagus in half, and destroyed the upper half of the liver and was mushroomed just under the hide on the far side.

I was impressed on how much damage the bullet did at that MV ( impact was at 175 yds) broadside with the elk running at a full gallop with about a dozen others.. she just happened to be the biggest of the bunch.

The other thing I was impressed with is that the elk managed to still run another 60 yards with all of that damage to the internal organs.

it still did just a fine job.

quote:

Originally posted by Jerry Eden:
You now what I can't believe? How many guys are worried about a "safety margin" I don't know if there is such a thing. The 270 will kill any elk at any praticle range, no question, no concern. If you can't place the bullet where it needs to be, don't be out hunting elk. 40+ years of hunting with the 270 Winchester has taught me that.

Another note, a friend of mine and I, tried to figure out what we could hit behind some brush. So we put gallon water jugs behind a creosote bush, we don't have many bushes in Arizona, then we shot 35 Whelen, 375 H&H, 30-06, 7Mag, and we could NOT get any of the bullets to hit the jugs. My point is, you better hit what and where you need to, or it will be a miss or a crippled critter.

Jerry

Jerry Makes some excellent points.

I recall a report on the Swedish government was debating to ban the 6.5 x 55 for Moose hunting.

It was tested out in penetration tests against some of the more modern powerful cartridges ( read magnums). the 6.5 x 55 with a 156 grain bullet was tested for penetration tests, at a certain distance, against multiple calibers including the 375 H & H with a 300 gr SP.

The 6.5 actually out penetrated the 375 by a minimal amount.... that outcome scrapped their plans to ban the 6.5 Swede from being used.

Please Lord, Please, Please, Please don't make me use a .270.

I'd be cheating for sure. Making .280 reloads with .270 headstamps. Firearms prejudice is real and I friggin hate a .270. No good reason why. I just hate them.

Some guys never get the message!! The 270 Winchester is so good, that it is only natural some people are going to hate it, just because it is a superstar. 280's ok, but when the 270 came out they were called 7X64. I guess that makes the 280, OMG an upstart,LOL! Funny thing is, I don't hate any cartridge. If it goes bang it has a purpose, even the 280.

Jerry

quote:

Originally posted by daniel77:
Please Lord, Please, Please, Please don't make me use a .270.

I'd be cheating for sure. Making .280 reloads with .270 headstamps. Firearms prejudice is real and I friggin hate a .270. No good reason why. I just hate them.

I feel your pain.. that is why God had Paul Mauser invent the 7 x 57!!!

Back in 1957 ,I shot my first elk with a 130 Gr Hornady bullet from a Win. Mdl 70 270. I shot two more elk with that rifle before getting a 308 Norma Mag rifle. Shot one elk with the Norma rifle then got 340 Weatherby. I shot elk at about 50 yards with the longest shot about 300 yards. I could have used my old Win 270 to drop any of the elk I have shot but its fun for me to try out different rifle rounds.

Dude, every one knows a 140 grn. .284 kills better than a 140 grn. .277

quote:

Originally posted by ted thorn:
Dude, every one knows a 140 grn. .284 kills better than a 140 grn. .277

absolutely

I break out in a cold sweat when I'm at the range scavenging brass and I pick up a .270 case.

There is medicine for that.

I've been going to meetings. You should've seen me before. I still nearly puke when I pick up 9mm brass.

The 270 is an effective cal. on elk however it has less hitting power and therfore more animals will run away further. So the question should be not less animal killed but less animals recovered. To this question I say yes. I don't think the number huge as Elk hunters (very generally in my experience) tend to be serious and prepared hunters. I read a couple of the usual recoil remarks which I still think are silly. My 270 WSMs recoil matches the heavier 338s.