Just inherited a 270. Let's hear it.

Have killed and seen killed a semi-truck load of elk with 270 win using all weights and types of bullets. I like 150 gr cup and core bullets best but 130 barnes work very well too. If you want a lot of penetration try the 160 nosler partition. Lately, I have been using my lwt 7mm/08 for elk.

150g Partitions at 2900 plus fps out of our 270s have killed a couple of dozen elk between myself and my two sons. None went more than 50 yards, most dropped right there

All about bullet construction and bullet placement with a .270, you have all the power you need up to say 300 yards or so..

I like Nosler partitions or Accubonds, most any bullet weight from 130 to 160s works just fine.

If you intend to take shots at 400 yards or more they you might consider a .300 magnum or better yet a .338 Win IMO.

Ive shot a lot of elk with a .270 and/or a 30-06 as have other members of my family, and friends but elk hunting has changed dramatically over the last 60 or so years and Ive pretty much switched to a .338 Win unless Im hunting horseback then I use a .308 99 Savage, mostly for comfort under my leg, and I seldom shoot with it beyond about 250 yards, maybe 300 under good circumstances, about what I used to do with a .270 or 06.

270 is a great elk round, and I'd sure as hell be happy to use it on any bull that walks well past 300 yards.

I shoot four .270 WSM's along with three grandsons. Our bullet of choice for Elk for Elk is 160 grain Nosler Partition. Our Deer bullets are 130 gr. Northfork, and 140 gr. Nosler Accubond and Ballistic tips. Would not be afraid to use any of them on Elk and be careful on placement. Good Shooting.

I have shot the largest Bull elk in my group of hunters with a 270 Winchester. This bull was estimated, by the meat packer @930 Lbs. 6X6. I used a 130 grain Winchester bulk bullet in front of 56 grains of IMR4350. At the shot the elk dropped like a bolt of lightning had hit it. Of course all that was recovered of the bullet, was the jacket, which was in the heart. My son has also shot several elk with the 270 Winchester and Norma factory 130 grain soft points. Same results. If you place your shots with the cup and cores, or use a premium type bullet, it's pretty potent on elk, or anything else you may want to shoot. The 270 is a "magic" cartridge.

Jerry

quote:

Originally posted by BighornBreath:
Just inherited a 270. Let's hear it.

Sorry, the 270 doesnt work on Elk. Too many have tried and they are onto that tactic. Now they just flinch a bit and go about their way grazing and bugling while the bullets either disintegrate against their hide or deflect altogether. Especially with that old school cup and core stuff. Im afraid you'll have to try something more modern and suitable.

130, 140 and 150 gr. They all work. The 270 win is a fantastic cartridge. One of my favorites.

Two posts that can stir the masses and akin to self homicide in the gun world is to say ill of the .270 and 30-06.

That said, the problem came about because you can kill a dozen elk with the .270 and 30-06 and the animal dies as if electrocuted, seen it many times but unlucky no. 13 elk shot properly will travel to the bottom of a divide making your life miserable and then go many miles for a number of unexplainable reasons, even when the shot is right and the bullet performs properly, Not only with elk but with any large animal...I have shot elk with calibers much smaller than the .270 for elk with excellent success, and Ive shot a number of elk and elk size game with the 270 and 30-06, and both have been my favorites over the years but I have seen enough that I have my doubts at times. I know a lot of professionals that have had the same experiences..I know 458 who posts here is a great fan of the 30-06 as I am, but he had some circumstances with Brown Bear, to guide him to a much larger caliber to serve as a stopper, that pretty well frames my opinion, and the reason I went to the .338 for most of my elk hunting, and, in all fairness, that depends on the area I am hunting. There are areas where I hunt wherein I will use a smaller caliber, such as a special cow hunt over a small alfalfa field, there I have used the 30-30, and I used a 25-35 in my early years, limiting shots to 100 or so yards, same with the 250 Savage, neither over 200 yards..

Just some food for thought and to each his own..Its just not as black and white as some users profess IMO....

Any caliber within reason will work if you know your limits and shorten your range to fit the caliber IMO, such as the 222 on deer and the 30-30 on elk, but just how many folks can do that as compared to how many claim they will..Ive seen a lot of the opposite in my lifetime wherein hunters stretched the string on this subject and a hard follow up occurred..

quote:

Originally posted by Atkinson:
Two posts that can stir the masses and akin to self homicide in the gun world is to say ill of the .270 and 30-06.

They are both lacking in almost every aspect......says too many

Anyone who knows me very good knows I wouldn't have one.

More like......4

Sorry, the 270 doesnt work on Elk. Too many have tried and they are onto that tactic. Now they just flinch a bit and go about their way grazing and bugling while the bullets either disintegrate against their hide or deflect altogether. Especially with that old school cup and core stuff. Im afraid you'll have to try something more modern and suitable.

Sorry I guess you didn't read my post. Then again I consider myself a rifleman, maybe others can't place their shots as well.???

quote:

Originally posted by Jerry Eden:
Sorry, the 270 doesnt work on Elk. Too many have tried and they are onto that tactic. Now they just flinch a bit and go about their way grazing and bugling while the bullets either disintegrate against their hide or deflect altogether. Especially with that old school cup and core stuff. Im afraid you'll have to try something more modern and suitable.

Sorry I guess you didn't read my post. Then again I consider myself a rifleman, maybe others can't place their shots as well.???

That was 100% tongue in cheek Jerry. There are many calibers I would be very much against using for Elk, the 270 Win is NOT one of them.

Wstrnhuntr: Now that you point it out, I see exactly where you where going with your comment. Good one.

Jerry

Bighorn,

I suspect I'm in the same boat as you, looking to pack a .270 into elk country next year. I'm looking at stout, heavy bullets like A-Frame, Weldcore, and Norma Oryx.

I do believe ever word of what's posted above (at least the ones that weren't tongue-in-cheek), however look at where most of those guys live. I'm guessing a lot these guys get to elk hunt in their home state every year. That gives a significant advantage over those of us East of the Mississippi.

When I go elk hunting next year I will have exactly 5 days, regardless of environmental factors, to get an elk. I've been elk hunting three times in the past and have had exactly two shooting opportunities. The first I capitalized on, the second, I wasn't quick enough, and that was that. No elk.

So if I get a chance at a bull next year, I have to be able to get a bullet into the vitals from any reasonable angle. Broadside may not be an option. That's my thoughts on going heavy and tough for bullets with the .270 Win.

quote:

Originally posted by 35whelenman:
Bighorn,

I suspect I'm in the same boat as you, looking to pack a .270 into elk country next year. I'm looking at stout, heavy bullets like A-Frame, Weldcore, and Norma Oryx.

I do believe ever word of what's posted above (at least the ones that weren't tongue-in-cheek), however look at where most of those guys live. I'm guessing a lot these guys get to elk hunt in their home state every year. That gives a significant advantage over those of us East of the Mississippi.

When I go elk hunting next year I will have exactly 5 days, regardless of environmental factors, to get an elk. I've been elk hunting three times in the past and have had exactly two shooting opportunities. The first I capitalized on, the second, I wasn't quick enough, and that was that. No elk.

So if I get a chance at a bull next year, I have to be able to get a bullet into the vitals from any reasonable angle. Broadside may not be an option. That's my thoughts on going heavy and tough for bullets with the .270 Win.

And I would like to very respectfully offer this: unless you are going on a DIY hunt, you will probably spend well north of five grand (maybe closer to $7500) for this elk. How big a shame would it be for a really nice bull to take that perfectly placed .270 round and run far enough to where he cannot be found?

In my opinion, and take this for whatever it is worth, the .270 is a wonderful deer, sheep, and hog rifle, but it is lacking for elk hunting if you want reliable exit. And I will say it again: elk live in incredibly big country, and they can take a LOT of abuse. It would be a shame to spend all that money and lose a bull because the projectile didn't come out and the ground was rocky enough to not leave reliable tracks.

I have seen it twice now: with a so-called "premium" 150-grain bullet from Speer in .277", and two weeks ago with a .284" Nosler 162-grain Solid Base, one of the best hunting bullets Nosler ever offered. Neither came out, and finding one of them was a matter of pure luck. The other one, thankfully, got vitals and the guide watched it fall.

I would get a bigger rifle and go make sure. But that is just me.

Best of luck on your hunt.

quote:

Originally posted by 35whelenman:
Bighorn,

I suspect I'm in the same boat as you, looking to pack a .270 into elk country next year. I'm looking at stout, heavy bullets like A-Frame, Weldcore, and Norma Oryx.

I do believe ever word of what's posted above (at least the ones that weren't tongue-in-cheek), however look at where most of those guys live. I'm guessing a lot these guys get to elk hunt in their home state every year. That gives a significant advantage over those of us East of the Mississippi.

When I go elk hunting next year I will have exactly 5 days, regardless of environmental factors, to get an elk. I've been elk hunting three times in the past and have had exactly two shooting opportunities. The first I capitalized on, the second, I wasn't quick enough, and that was that. No elk.

So if I get a chance at a bull next year, I have to be able to get a bullet into the vitals from any reasonable angle. Broadside may not be an option. That's my thoughts on going heavy and tough for bullets with the .270 Win.

Whelen man, yes, preparing for an elk hunt is an interesting proposition.

My wife and I have never hunted an elk and are thinking about a first, next year. Bullet selection and rifle selection are part of the package, besides deciding where and when.

My wife needs to choose between her Tikka 270Win and her Ruger Alaskan 375Ruger, which is still in the US.(Tanzanian local hunting is suspended this year and maybe next. Hopefully, that will help curtail previous abuses that have been widespread.) The Tikka is quite light, about 7.5 lbs. with a scope, while her 375 is 9.0 with a scope. It's her choice but we need to have loads developed for both.

For the 270 we are thinking of a 129 Barnes LRX at about 3100fps. The monolithic will provide a more guaranteed bullet integrity and weight for penetration. Its .463 BC is excellent for distances from 0 to 400 yards, which is all she would ever consider. But those Nosler Accubonds are also attractive for hunting outside of California. The 150 grain AB long range has a .625 BC and might be able to be pushed to 2900fps. We will need to see which is more accurate.

[[She will also need to consider the .375" 250 grain TTSX and a 200 grain .375" GSC. They will not shoot quite as flat as the 270 for shots in the 250-400 yard range, but they are flat enough and might provide more put down power in the case of a marginal shot. But that 375 is not part of this thread, nor are my own bullet choices for the expected 338WM. I will probably go with a 225gn TTSX but might top that off with a single feed 225grain CEB Laser Raptor (BC .63) if they are both accurate and shooting to about the same POI. The 416 Rigby will probably be left at home because it weighs 2 pounds more than the 338, though it shoots a 350gn TTSX as fast and flat as the 338. And whether up close or way out there, the 338 probably has all the horsepower practically usable for elk.]]

quote:

Originally posted by Doubless:
...
How big a shame would it be for a really nice bull to take that perfectly placed .270 round and run far enough to where he cannot be found?

In my opinion, and take this for whatever it is worth, the .270 is a wonderful deer, sheep, and hog rifle, but it is lacking for elk hunting if you want reliable exit.
...
I would get a bigger rifle and go make sure. ...

Anyway, I am thinking that my wife will likely choose her lighter, easier carrying rifle for herself, and that is exactly on target for this thread, though she will weigh the words of Doubless about a keeping an elk from disappearing after a pretty good shot.
Nevertheless, a well-handled 270Win is an awesome hunting machine.

Use enough gun.

For me, at my current stage in my life and career, an elk trip is a wicked expensive proposition. So, my idea of 'enough' now is much different than when I lived in Denver and could hunt front range public land with an over the counter tag for the day.

Some of you folks need an update, Most of the locals, cowboys, guides, and farmers in Idaho, Colorado, and Utah, and even Texas deer hunters that I know used to be 30-06, 270 and 25-06 fans, have moved on to the 7 mag, 338, and 300 magnums for elk and I see a lot of various magnums being used on deer..More so than ever before, self included, Im not saying the .270 or 30-06 isn't an elk rifle, they are, just comenting on the old "paragraph" about the locals who some proclaim have been using such and such for ions, that went south about 1970 best I can recall, Im one of them I guess because as many elk and elk size plains game as Ive shot with various small calibers, Ive gradually moved up to the .338 Win. and I am sure in my mind its the best elk caliber yet..Would I still use a .270 or 30-06, yes I would, but I know the .338 is better..The one exception would be someone that's recoil sensitive to the .338 would be better off with a .270 IMO..

I guess I am one of the lucky Jose' who get drawn, get a tag, enough here in Arizona that I don't worry about where when and how I may take a shot. Because I scout, and am close enough to home, I always know where I am going to set up, and pretty much what kind of shot to expect. As I said earlier, the 270 has performed exceptionally well for me and others I hunt with, along with the 30-06. I will take exception to these 2 cartridges and agree with Ray, like a friend who owns a ranch in New Mexico. He wants me to use my 375 H&H and break um down. If that's the shot you are going to take, thru the front shoulders, then a 338,35 Whelen or 375, is what's needed. I don't like that shot, and won't take it just to score a kill. Since most of my shots are close, usually 125yds or less, I shoot for the heart spine. Besides I don't want to loose all that meat. While I don't consider my self an expert on this subject or any other for that matter, I am experienced, and the 270 Winchester will do a great job.

First, I respectfully acknowledge my place in line behind those who are more experienced elk hunters, so by no means am I attempting to be the expert here.

As has been said untold thousands of times, the .308, 30-06 and .270 will work on Elk and will do so reliably. But, there will be exceptions. Because serious money (for me) and time will be invested into this hunt, just me personally, because I’m East of the Mississippi and can’t hunt Elk out my back door, in 2017, I will be carrying the cartridge and bullet that gives me all the “insurance” I can get for that “less than ideal” shooting situation.

For health reasons, due to recoil, I had to sell my custom .338 Win. Loved that rifle and know very well why Ray and others choose it. So, after a great deal of research and discussion, it appears my 30-06 with a longer barrel and a 200 gr Partition will get the nod. The rifle fits me well and recoil is entirely acceptable.

I will be toting a back up rifle, a Ruger # 1 in .275 Rigby with 160 or 175 gr Woodleighs.

None of this infers anything about what “you” should take. I’m just offering my personal reasons for consideration.

ALL the best on your hunt.

Those elk, 'specially those big branch-antlered ones are pretty tough. I'd say you need to get a street-legal M109 155mm shooting solids of depleted uranium, and then only for direct fire, keeping the range to less than600 yards.

Task 1, Well said and stated. I wish you luck on your hunt. If you have a good guide hopefully he'll be like an indian sneak up and get you close. That's what I try to do. My nephew shot a nice 5X6 Bull in November in the canyon country here in Arizona. He used a Kimber Mountain Assent Rifle in 30-06. He was shooting Hornady's new 178 grain ammo. Took the heart shot at 408yds. Dropped right there. To far and too rough for me now, but good performance. The only comment I can make to anyone going hunting anything, is there is nothing better than a well placed shot.

Merry Christmas

Jerry

Bighorn, I'm a big fan of The 270 for elk! However, upon reading many of the responses, it seems that most are confused. You were referring to grains and not caliber.... correct!!!! . memtb

Yes!!!! Grains and loads!!! Any experience using the 160 grain Partition? Any real benefit over the 150? I'm guessing your giving up quite a bit of range for penetration? Thanks!

Bighorn, I don't really have any personal experience with the .270 Win. My wife used one for years, before retiring it. We were using 150 grain Nosler Partitions. With that bullet she killed quite a few antelope, deer, a black bear, an elk or two and a Bighorfn Sheep. I'm a Barnes fanatic, and started loading Barnes 140TSX's for our daughter and grand daughter to use. Daughter has killed two deer with it, using the Barnes. I like heavier bullets, and chose the 140 for the slightly heavier weight and much better BC over the 130 Barnes. With the Barnes, you should get near 100% weight retention which equals better penetration on larger game. I'd be surprised if you recover a bullet from your animal, most will be pass throughs! Good Luck on your new rifle! memtb

I love the 270 Winchester, I guess it's my favorite all around cartridge. Here's a story why. Back in the 60's I asked my Old Uncle Hans, what cartridge I should buy as all I had at the time was a 99 Savage in 300 Savage. I guess I wanted more "performance". Now Hans, was The German National Rifle and Pistol Champion in 1960, so I figured what he had to say had merit, and lots of it. His response was, " well I'd buy a 7X64, but here in America it'd be hard to get ammo and brass, remember this is the 60's, so go with the 270 Winchester. You can shoot everything from bears to gophers. So in 1969 I bought a Model 700 Remington in 270. For 20 years it was the only "game" rifle I had. And as he said it shot flat, and allowed me to use it as a varmint gun also. I finally wore it out, and turned it into a 35 Whelen. Hope I didn't bore you all, but The 270 Winchester has never let me down, and I bet it won't disappoint anyone else either.

Jerry

quote:

Originally posted by BighornBreath:
Yes!!!! Grains and loads!!! Any experience using the 160 grain Partition? Any real benefit over the 150? I'm guessing your giving up quite a bit of range for penetration? Thanks!

We used both the 150 NP and the 160 NP in a 270 Win in Africa in the 80's. Both seemed to work identically. They did their job, though they did not match the 338 when it came to stopping animals and providing shorter follow up. Because of the BC, we mostly used the 150NP in the 270.

A comparison on paper between the 150gn NP and the 160 NP might help.
If both bullets are started out at 2800 ftlb muzzle energies (that is 2900 fps for the 150 grain, and 2808fps for the 160 grain), then at 400 yards the 150 grain NP will have 1660 ftlbs remaining and the 160 grain NP will have 1580 ftlbs remaining (4000 ft. elevation, humidity, et al., being equal).

So there you have it. At 400 yards the 150 will have 5% more energy. Whoopeedoo (that is irony).

I would assume that both would have similar accuracy.

The only other consideration is that at 400 yards the 150NP will drop -18.5 and have a 11.1" wind drift, while the 160NP will drop -21.1 with a 12.6" wind drift (at the stated muzzle conditions and with 2.1" as the max arc height over sightline.)

So personally, I would go with the 150NP because it will give about an inch of hidden margin on longer shots. Terminals will be as close to identical as could be imagined or designed.

If you are willing to trust the terminals and bullet integrity of the 150 Nosler Accubond Long Range, then it significantly improves the above numbers at 400 yards with same conditions as above (2800 muzzle energy, 2900fps, etc.):
.277" 150 gn Nosler AB-LR
- 400 yards drop of -16.8", 8.1" wind drift in 10MPH, and 1908 ftlbs. remaining energy.
That gives a few inches of margin for the Accubond LongRange, plus about 15% more energy, probably worth considering, though trading off the guaranteed integrity of the 'H'-partition.

Bighorn,

I have only shot 150 grain Partitions in Federal factory ammo. This was before I started hand loading.

Took the rifle and Partitions to S. Africa and shot Kudu, warthog and impala. Obviously was more than enough for the warthog and impala, and preformed just as well on the kudu. I shot the kudu at about 40 yards, head on, placing the bullet at the junction of neck and body. Pulled the bullet out of his butt.

Instance of one, I know, but maybe it helps.

We started using the Federal ammo too after I had an illness (couldn't get around to handloading) until I chronographed it at 2650 fps. It definitely worked, but we easily get 2900 fps in our 22" barreled BDLs with the same bullet handloading with zero pressure signs. We use Remington brass, Federal 215 primers, Nosler 150g Partitons and H4831SC. Follow the manual and work up slowly as always ... Cheers

I'll chime in here: There is always a fair amount of bashing of small-cartridge bashers. Some fair, some not so.
The South African hunting author Gregor Woods put it well "it is not so much what a cartridge is capable of doing, but what it can be relied upon to do."
I love my 270 and hunt almost everything with the 140 gr NAB.
However, I do shoot a good number of gemsbok and kudu and there is a noticeable difference in performance between it and the 338 Win Mag. Those animals simply do not go as far with the bigger bullet.
As someone mentioned, if it was a dream hunt, etc., I know which one I would pack, all else being equal.

The 270 with 150 gr. partitions worked on a few elk foe me.

Dave

I've been lucky enough to have made one big trip to Africa (eleven different species) and several "dream" hunts out west that others might have insisted required a magnum for several of the unwritten coads that forums generate

Accubonds, the .270 and the 30-06 have never left me wanting "more"

In my single barrel days I used an old Westherby rifle in .270 WCF for plains game in Zimbabwe and South Africa. I always used 150-grain bullets. If it will work on kudu, zebra, etc., I don't see why it would not be fine for elk. (Friends now use the rifle for caribou and moose in Alaska).
Cal

I started hunting elk in 1966 when I moved to Steamboat Springs, Colorado. Back then the only rifle that I owned was Remington single shot .22 LR.

When I asked the locals that I worked with what caliber rifle I should buy for deer and elk hunting they recommended a .270 Win or .30-06. They said only the city dudes from Denver hunted with big guns like the .300 Win mag.

So I bought a .30-06 and for the next ten or so years, I had no problem using it to keep my freezer full of deer, elk, and antelope meat, including a one shot kill on a 366" DIY Montana bull.

In the late 70s my hunting partner showed me a .30 Gibbs case, and I thought that it looked so cool that I had my .30-06 rechambered to that cartridge. My .30 Gibbs shot 180 grain Nosler Partitions out at 2990 fps, which was close to .300 Win mag velocities. For the next 20 years about that number of Montana elk and a couple of Shiras moose fell to that rifle and those bullets.

Along the way I dropped a 5x5 bull elk with a fiberglass arrow and a Bear broadhead from an old Herter's recurve bow. Another year a heavy 330" 6x6 bull dropped in his tracks like a rock from a 117 grain Sierra spire point bullet from my .257 Ackley while I was on a DIY bighorn sheep hunt in the A-B wilderness north of Yellowstone Park.

I guess its more about bullet placement than bullet diameter.

For more than 40 years I admired the .300 Weatherby cartridge and rifles. About 7 years ago I finally built one, and it quickly became my favorite elk and almost everything else rifle.

My thoughts for ME ONLY.

The 270 makes a great sheep rifle and I've used it in a few States and a couple countries (for Asian sheep a 300 WM is the correct round).

On elk, the 7mm mags are just okay and a good place to start. The various 300 mags are good with the proper projectile but don't expect too much from them like I did.... for years while I allowed the 338 to sit in the back of the safe.

"THE" elk caliber is almost anything chamber in a .338 bore. It'll save the day on a raking shot when a lesser round fails. (This is important if you work, plan and plot for 360 days per year for a 5 day elk hunt!)

Yes, I've killed many many elk, over the past 5 decades of elk hunting, with about everything from a 25-06 and up. The .323 and up calibers are the right elk medicine FOR ME and the .338 is an ideal combination of trajectory and penetration.

Just my rambling so all you guys who like a small gun and oft get tight underware, don't be offended please. I can help you track but at my age I won't help you pack one out of that hell-hole!! haha

Zeke

Everytime such a conversation comes up the smaller rifle crew starts qualifying the use of their old Betsy, such as all my shots are 100 yeads and in which case my 25-35 has served me well on elk as has the 250-3000..Thats what I use if Im shooting a cow for meat in an Alfalfa patch and they work..I normally make a head shot, or behind the shoulder heart shot or break the neck..But if Im hunting for a trophy bull, I will have my .338 or even a .375 and I'll take whatever shot Im offered and take advantage or that window of opertunity that trophy bulls have a habit of offering. The minimum caliber for a Texas heart shot I would take at a trophy bull elk going south is a 200 gr. Nosler partition in a 30-06 at 100 to a 150 yards yards...With the .338 Win. Ive found it makes little difference, even at extended range they never go further than 50 yards even with shots that are a tad outa where they should be..Never believe the old adage that's kicked around about a gut shot deer with a 375 H&H will go the same distance as a gut shot deer with a 25-35 or even a 30-06, that just ain't so, that's what folks say that like play make believe to make a point! That's when the big gun saves your hunt, and that happens to everyone that hunts if they are honest with themselves.

Bottom line is Im not against the .270 or 30-06 and Ive used both plenty of times and Im an avid 30-06 fan, but I have no doubt what so ever the .338 is an obvious better killer of the larger species of game than the .270 or 30-06. and at any range. but especially as the range lengthens.

It all boils down to where you hunt and how you hunt and your ability to pass up shots that your caliber of gun might be iffy, and if you can do that then any gun, even a 22 L. R. is and elk gun.

Ray, I absolutely agree. My wife's using a .338 WM, and I 'm gonna keep using my .375AI. We use them for "all" of our big game hunting! While the .270 Win. is a fine cartridge, and much improved with some of the premium bullets available. We will continue to use rounds with a few more "cubic. inches" ! . memtb

Last falls elk dropped in three steps to a 140 gr TSX via 270 Win at 250 yards from my Kimber Montana. All prior elk, all decent bulls, have dropped to either the 338-06 or 35 Whelen. All seemed the same for me.

Nice hunting, Boxhead.

Your choice of the 140TSX is interesting.
The new 129LRX might have a nicer BC at .463 but when its plastic tip is removed its remaining metal for penetration would be about 122 grains, I'm figuring. So 140 versus 122. Your thoughts?