[QUOTE]Originally posted by bucko:
That man, with a 270 and a 130 grain NP is far deadlier at that range than 90% of the fools packing a 338 shooting a 250 grain bullet at 200 yards.

[QUOTE]
I disagree.


That number should be 100%

quote:

Originally posted by HunterMontana: A few years back I started reloading for him and we settled on 150gr NP's for everything, makes life simple and given that he kills double digit numbers of game every year, simple seems to work.

That is the bullet I've setteled on for elk when I hunt them with my .270 Win. I just like the heavier bullet better however there is no doubt in my mind the 130 will work as well. I no longer use my .270 to hunt elk and have went back down to the 130 grain bullets. But any elk I ever killed with it died just as fast as any other I've shot or seen shot with proper placement. The .270 has accounted for my longest kill on elk to date at 250 yards.

quote:

Originally posted by Trax:
As long as one is able to properly place the pill, then how far out is it good for a broadside?...270Win & 130gr NP...

Hey Trax, Looks like a lot of folks would be very happy using that combination. Just so I do not mislead anyone, I've never Killed nor Hunted an Elk.

Got a bunch near me now that I can look at and some are pretty BIG. Might take 6-8 Whitetails to make one of the BIG Elk. So from what I've seen first-hand, I'd want something larger than a coyote cartridge.(Reference Elmer Keith on the 270Win being a coyote cartridge.)

No doubt the 270Win/130grNP would make a hole in one. I just can't imagine it being a combination that would properly anchor one if the wind created a bit of drift or some ice fell down my collar at the shot.

Don't care about all the Testimonials either - way too small for the BIG Elk I've seen.

Good Hunting and clean 1-shot Kills.

HOTCORE,
drift bothers me more than drop.
I have to agree with Buckos view on people often being better off with a sharp .270win they can shootwell over .338win they cant.
Im all for reducing recoil to aid better shooting, even in the case of the 270win
eg: .27owin 130np 3150mv about 1485e-400yd, ...or 7mm08/7x57- 140gsHV monometal-2900mv, to deliver same energy + better bullet at the other end,
.. whats not to like?
...and I see no great advantage a heavier combo cupcore 270win150np would have over the mono140hv.
.270win150np 2950mv.....1580e400yd
7x57 140gsHV 2900mv.....1480e400yd

quote:

Originally posted by vapodog:

quote:

Originally posted by 33806whelen:
Minimum energy suggested for Elk is 1500 pounds, so if your gun is a standard 24" barrel, you are good to 300 yards.

This is a good reply.....but why shoot 130s when you can go up to 160s?

I agree, I would use the heaviest bullet thet the cartridge was capable of delivering accurately while retaining enough energy, that being the magic 1500pounds mark.

However I would also consider my point blank range and energy for the 160 grain bullet before I made my choice. Myself I would go with a .280 cal so I could shoot a 160 and have a better ballistic coefficient. All things being what ever I thought was best I would go after a wapiti with a 338-06 or a whelen. Good range lots _o_ bullet. It's what they were made for.

quote:

Originally posted by jwp475:

quote:

Originally posted by vapodog:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by 33806whelen:
Minimum energy suggested for Elk is 1500 pounds, so if your gun is a standard 24" barrel, you are good to 300 yards.

This is a good reply.....but why shoot 130s when you can go up to 160s?

To suggest that FPE is a reliable way to gauge terminal trauma is ridiculous.[/QUOTE]

au contraire, my friend. That is a very good barometer to gauge whether a bullet will have sufficient energy to create the hydrodynamic shock necessary to create a debilitating wound channel. These bullets are constructed to function, i.e. open and deliver enough damage to incapacitate an animal at a given velocity range. Compund that shot with a little wind drift and your bullet hitting heavy bone and all of a sudden that little bit of FPE makes all the difference in the world.

Our mission is to anchor our quarry so it does not suffer and doesn't travel and we don't need to go on a three hour tour through the brambles on our hands and knees searching for our animal.

I want my game to drop right where it was standing when I shot it, as if some one stuck their hand up inside them and pulled every bone out of his body.

quote:

Originally posted by 33806whelen:

quote:

Originally posted by jwp475:

quote:

Originally posted by vapodog:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by 33806whelen:
Minimum energy suggested for Elk is 1500 pounds, so if your gun is a standard 24" barrel, you are good to 300 yards.

This is a good reply.....but why shoot 130s when you can go up to 160s?

To suggest that FPE is a reliable way to gauge terminal trauma is ridiculous.[/QUOTE]

au contraire, my friend. That is a very good barometer to gauge whether a bullet will have sufficient energy to create the hydrodynamic shock necessary to create a debilitating wound channel. These bullets are constructed to function, i.e. open and deliver enough damage to incapacitate an animal at a given velocity range. Compund that shot with a little wind drift and your bullet hitting heavy bone and all of a sudden that little bit of FPE makes all the difference in the world.

Our mission is to anchor our quarry so it does not suffer and doesn't travel and we don't need to go on a three hour tour through the brambles on our hands and knees searching for our animal.

I want my game to drop right where it was standing when I shot it, as if some one stuck their hand up inside them and pulled every bone out of his body.

Good post 338.I learned the limits of the 270win after winter caribou hunting with it for a few years in Northern Quebec.I once shot a caribou in the shoulder at around 170yds with a high power factory load and watched him disappear in the spruce.When I got to the spot I last saw him,we started on his trail and my father and I saw that one leg was being dragged in the snow.The snow was deep and wandering in the northern woods,that afternoon, in the short days of the north, along with its cold temps was not a good idea(have heard many horror stories).This was one of the incidents that made me look towards the 300wm.

quote:

Originally posted by shootaway:
I learned the limits of the 270win after winter caribou hunting with it for a few years in Northern Quebec.I once shot a caribou in the shoulder at around 170yds with a high power factory load and watched him disappear in the spruce.

Could have happened with any caliber, any bullet. Just curious b/c you didn't tell us what bullet was used. Perhaps a Btip, touted to be quite frangible if hit bone?

If one incident teaches us the limits of any caliber, we wouldn't be using a lot of them, many of which deliver far more energy than a 270.

Doc,it never happened with a 300wm.Bullet used was a 130gr silvertip.

Shootaway I hate to be the one to say it ut honestly the silvertip bullets were junk in my opinion.
I liked them in a 30-30, but at velociites approaching 3000 fps they were very unreliable.

If you had shot that caribou with a NP or a Barnes, or a bonded core of some sort I would venture to say it would have been a much different ending to your story.

130 sivertips work great when the task at hand is respected.Here is one that I recovered from a caribou heart at closer distances(second from the left)[URL= ]130gr 270cal silvertip[/URL].

quote:

Originally posted by shootaway:
Doc,it never happened with a 300wm.Bullet used was a 130gr silvertip.

It may have never happened with you. 170 yard shot with a 270 on a caribou if hitting bone with a good bullet equals a dead caribou. I consider the silvertip bullets a soft tissue bullet only. When I worked at a gunstore, they were fairly popular in the factory ammo but only b/c they were so cheap. We had plenty of customers complain about the silvertips. Had you been using a more suitable bullet for shoulders like a partition, aframe, tsx or the like, I don't think you would have seen that caribou disappear into the spruce. My guess is your bullet failed to penetrate the shoulder. Not a function of the 270 but a mediocre bullet.

If you used a silvertip in the 300 mag, I'd say it worked better simply due to mass.

Tis shallow to measure the true game getting potential of .270win only according to how one hundred 130silvertips performed,
but you manage to do it based purely on one silvertip.

quote:

Originally posted by Trax:
...I have to agree with Buckos view on people often being better off with a sharp .270win they can shootwell over .338win they cant...

Hey Trax, If you and Bucko can't shoot a 338WinMag, then I agree "you all" should not use them.

Using an Inadequate Cartridge on Game seems to be a HUGE Bragging point with a good many folks on the Board. They seem to somehow mislead themselves into thinking they are "better Hunters" than those who use proper Cartridges for the Game at hand.

Now we have Seafire and Bucko posting a down-loaded Hornet is perfectly fine for Deer "if" you are a good enough Hunter.

Naw, I don't see them as knowing a lot about Hunting or Game at all.

About all that I will say to a poser such as yourself is that to lump me alongside Trax and Seafire is the nicest thing you could have said.

Pretty damn good company those two are.

quote:

Originally posted by vapodog:
but why shoot 130s when you can go up to 160s?

Exactly....

This years kill was a little over 425 yards. I'm thinkin a 270 is a little light for that. I'll stick with my 338.

quote:

Originally posted by jwp475: To suggest that FPE is a reliable way to gauge terminal trauma is ridiculous.

My sentiments exactly!

I killed my elk this year with a 150 grain NP out of my 270 win. I used RL22 56 grains and the shot was from 305 yards. Someone posted a picture of it somewhere in here.

Forgot to add. It was about a 3 year old cow. I'm guessing, anyways.

Ckemp...PMed you

ted

Ok guy,s you win.
I think I will prove your point.
I have a 180 grain partition in my right hand.
I am about to set it carfully on top of my head.
Ok , I did that. How come I am not dead ?Well mabye you are not right after all.
Beacuse it takes energy for the bullet to pierce my thick skull and let the air out.
The 180 grain weight of the bullet does not when coupeld with gravity generate enough energy to get the job done.
As I said before. (I think) Energy in its self is not a predictor of killing power. But it is a factor.
When a surgen uses a super sharp scalpel,
He hardly needs any downward preasue(energy)
But if he tries to operate with a butter knife he will need more downward preasure(energy) To penitrate.
you must have energy. The amount will very depending on your projectile and the hardness and density of the matter it will penitrate
As most of us know , sectional density will not be a predictor of killing power.
But the football player analogy is the perfect example of why it takes a combination of factors for a projectile to perform.
Take your 2 football players coliding.
The impact energy is spread over a wide area.(low sectionel density)
So the penitration to kill or disrupt deep tissue does not happen.
If the 2 football players are holding a pointed lance infront of them ,(Higher sectional density)there is enough energy to penitrate and kill.

If energy and sectional density are "meaningless' tell me why you can't kill an elephant by throwing a basketball.
You are right that tisue disruption is what kills but it takes energy to disrupt the tissue.
...tj3006

You can argue about Momentum, KE, 130gr. vs. 150 gr. bullets, whatever. I personally will never willingly shoot an elk again at over 300 yards with a .270 Winchester from ANY rifle, with ANY bullet.

I base that on enough years of doing "control" shooting of elk, in which I shot more elk than some arm-chair authorities have even seen.

I mainly used 150 gr. Nosler Partition bullets the times I used the .270 Winchester cartridge on elk. Although they are a good bullet generally speaking, they will sometimes still pencil through when the distance gets long enough, even if they strike solid bone. I base that statement on having autopsied (and butchered) every single one of the elk I shot. (We gave the meat mostly to older people who needed it.)

The .270 Winchester is usable as an elk round, for distances over 300 yards I find there are many better cartridges available which don't kick enough to prevent a LOT of good shooting, if necessary.

As to the "bullet in the right place" argument, a person could kill an elk with a .22 rimfire Short, if he put the bullet in exactly the right place, but it would be absolutely ridiculous to suggest the .22 Short as a satisfactory elk cartridge. As ranges get much over 300 yards and the terrain and elk positions vary, I personally elect to use cartridges which give me a bit more leeway in bullet placement than does a .270 Winchester bullet.

(A shot high in the lungs which pencils through will sometime allow an elk to go an awfully long time and distance before proving ultimately fatal. In wooded areas with lots of ravines, etc., that can mean a lost elk.)

And, I don't believe the man lives who can guarantee me that his shot intended for a low heart/lung strike will never hit high in the lungs at beyond 300 yards.

So others can do whatever they want, I'll accept believe Vapodog's recommendation as to acceptable range. It mirrors my own experience.

If its calm and you can shoot steady; 400 yards.

I wouldn't push the .270 past 400.

quote:

Originally posted by Trax:
As long as one is able to properly place the pill, then how far out is it good for a broadside?
.270win 130np: http://www.federalpremium.com/...ls/rifle.aspx?id=239

The question assumes perfect shot placement.

The question isn't about KE or momentum.

The question isn't about what cartridge would be better.

My answer is 400 yds maybe 500 if you're lucky.

What's yours?

quote:

Originally posted by Trax:
As long as one is able to properly place the pill, then how far out is it good for a broadside?
.270win 130np: http://www.federalpremium.com/...ls/rifle.aspx?id=239

Trax, I just did all of my calculations and the answer you seek is exactly 647 yards. 3" beyond this and no joy.

Ill just say that something like .280rem140hv3150mv will mostly suffice to 400yd.(2390/1775)
would not be and never was my intention to pop something at the 647yd* limit.

For those that worship at the alter of FPE as a means of rating a cartridges terminal performance. All that I can say is that the only mathmatical model that "Accurate" predicts wound channel size and depth of penetration is Duncan McPhearson's and he devates a chapter explaining why a "Model" based on FPE will not work. He also explains that the determing factors are. tthe amount of direct applied force and the amount of hydraulic pressure and the amount of momentum transfer are the only aspects that are menaingful in predicting "Wound Trauma Incapcitation"







It appears that the "Internet Keyboard Comandos" know much more than Mr. McPhearson and Dr. Marin Fackler (President Of The International Wound Ballisics Assc.). Who the hell are those guy and what the hell are they doing putting out the thruth, it appears that many want to hold on to old misconceptions.

So,
Energy & momentum are similar to when we look at power & torque figures in an engine?
ie; you can have high energy/power but not necessarily great momentum/torque...

quote:

Originally posted by Trax:
So,
Energy & momentum are similar to when we look at power & torque figures in an engine?
ie; you can have high energy/power but not necessarily great momentum/torque...

Trax, torque is measurable (as is velocity), but horsepower is something that is calculated -- not measured.

quote:

Originally posted by jwp475:

quote:

Originally posted by Trax:

quote:

This is a good reply.....but why shoot 130s when you can go up to 160s?

I am asking about 130s' cause I want to know what their capable of.

They are capable of killing an Elk as far as you are capable of putting the bullet in the right place.

That is a loaded answer. No one wants to think his ability is limited.

[quote]Trax, torque is measurable (as is velocity), but horsepower is something that is calculated -- not measured.[QUOTE]


I thought a dynomometer measured HP/Kw units?

quote:

Originally posted by Alberta Canuck:
You can argue about Momentum, KE, 130gr. vs. 150 gr. bullets, whatever. I personally will never willingly shoot an elk again at over 300 yards with a .270 Winchester from ANY rifle, with ANY bullet.

I base that on enough years of doing "control" shooting of elk, in which I shot more elk than some arm-chair authorities have even seen.

I mainly used 150 gr. Nosler Partition bullets the times I used the .270 Winchester cartridge on elk. Although they are a good bullet generally speaking, they will sometimes still pencil through when the distance gets long enough, even if they strike solid bone. I base that statement on having autopsied (and butchered) every single one of the elk I shot. (We gave the meat mostly to older people who needed it.)

The .270 Winchester is usable as an elk round, for distances over 300 yards I find there are many better cartridges available which don't kick enough to prevent a LOT of good shooting, if necessary.

As to the "bullet in the right place" argument, a person could kill an elk with a .22 rimfire Short, if he put the bullet in exactly the right place, but it would be absolutely ridiculous to suggest the .22 Short as a satisfactory elk cartridge. As ranges get much over 300 yards and the terrain and elk positions vary, I personally elect to use cartridges which give me a bit more leeway in bullet placement than does a .270 Winchester bullet.

(A shot high in the lungs which pencils through will sometime allow an elk to go an awfully long time and distance before proving ultimately fatal. In wooded areas with lots of ravines, etc., that can mean a lost elk.)

And, I don't believe the man lives who can guarantee me that his shot intended for a low heart/lung strike will never hit high in the lungs at beyond 300 yards.

So others can do whatever they want, I'll accept believe Vapodog's recommendation as to acceptable range. It mirrors my own experience.

So how powerful is a 270 at 300 yards.
Does it match a 30-30 at short range?
Who hunts elk with a 30-30?

quote:

Originally posted by Trax:
[quote]Trax, torque is measurable (as is velocity), but horsepower is something that is calculated -- not measured.[QUOTE]


I thought a dynomometer measured HP/Kw units?

No, it measures torque and then calculates horsepower -- nearly instantly with today's software.

My father owned only one rifle and it was a Remington 700BDL in 30-06.He would refer to my 270 as a "varmint gun".

quote:

Originally posted by Hot Core


Now we have Seafire and Bucko posting a down-loaded Hornet is perfectly fine for Deer "if" you are a good enough Hunter.
Naw, I don't see them as knowing a lot about Hunting or Game at all.

I think they mean the hornet down-loaded is fine if the person behind the trigger is willing to accept the limitations. Life is a compromise. The bigger and more power you have the more room for error. Note I said more room, it does not eliminate human error.
Keep shooting your 270, become better with it and forget what these guys say. I don't need a 399 super ultra long short weatherby wham bam mag with a 872 gr solid copper slug to take elk, even at 300 yds.

Kinda depends on whether you're talking Newfoundland heart shot or behind the shoulders, and whatever in between, eh?

The Buffalo Bore 360 grain load for the 454 @ 1400 FPS calculates to 1566.6 FPE. The 22-250's 55 grain bullet at 3600 FPS calculates to 1582.59 FPE. With a slightly higher FPE number for the 22-250 would you want it to stop a charging Grizzly Bear or would you prefer the 454 with the 360 grain. I know that I would most certainly choose the 454. I know from experience that the 360 grain 454 Will exit on big Bison, and break lots of bone. The same can not be said for the 22-250.
If energy were the determining factors, then why not use the 22-250. The 22-250 is not chosen, because energy is not the determining factor.

My 338 Laupa shoots the 300 grain SMK at 2791 FPS this calculates to 5188.5 FPE, the 458 Win shooting a 500 grain bullet @ 2100 FPS calculates to 4895.64 of energy. Is there anyone willing to claim that my 338 Laupa is a better choice for Elephant? I certainly will not.

There are so many if's, and's, and maybe's. I have seen elk need 3 well placed .338 win magnum 250 Nos.Part before falling, and I have also seen them collapse at the first shot of a 7mm-08 140 grain core-lokt. so many factors can go into how a bullet affects an elk. You might have the same bullet, same animal, same distance, same angle, the next day, and the result be different.
I am a big .270 fan. The 130 grain bullet is the classic pill from the .270 win. Although it has it's limitations, even Jack O'connor admitted it had limitations, it will certainly "kill" an elk. Given the choice, I would go for the 150 grain. Bullet construction is very important. Adequate energy is good to have, but there are hardly any absolutes. A 130 .270 bullet such as a "ballistic tip" or "Core-Lokt", are more fragile than a well made bullet such as a "Swift A-Frame", or "Barnes TSX". If I were using a bullet that small for elk(130 grain), I would want the most retained bullet weight possible, and most penetration possible. Elk are tough critters.
Shot placement is mega important. But all in all, why take the chance. Go with a 150 "TSX" or "Bonded Bullet" and never look back. there is no comparison on performance on big game like elk. And why gamble? Elk are great creatures, and a blessing to be able to hunt. They deserve a quick kill.Besides, you are going to read more of the old stories about how the old 130 grain slammed and elk, than about all the times the elk was never recovered.
To answer your question of what the 130 grain .270 is capable of, well, it is capable of cleanly killing any and all North American Big Game exept for maybe the biggest bears(safely). The .270 has several bullet choices, most noteably the 130, 140, and 150 grain. The .270 has its place, and does an exellent job there. Pushing the envelope too much can leave an animal wounded, and a long track afterwards, or worse, never recovering the Animal. Up the ante with premium 150gr. bullets for elk or moose, and it can make all the difference.Or use a good 140 grain and split the difference. Good luck, and good hunting!

quote:

Originally posted by SR4759:


So how powerful is a 270 at 300 yards.
Does it match a 30-30 at short range?
Who hunts elk with a 30-30?

It does not matter to me how powerful in mathematical terms (either KE, or Momentum) a .30-30 or .270 is. Neither KE nor Momentum has a direct, predictive, relationship to how well either cartridge kills.

I do know based on my own experince that out to about 250-300 yards the .270 will kill pretty well. Based on the same experiences I also believe that in less than desirable sporting circumstances, it does not kill especially well at much beyond that.

I have had to take a lot of shots in crummy, unsporting, circumstances because of my work back then, and would never use a .270 to do it again.

I have to look in the mirror to shave every morning and want to be able to respect the guy I see there.

Best wishes, y'all.