one of us
| I only used the 160 gr Nosler Partitons in the 270 just one time. And that was a long time ago on a Moose in Newfoundland. Most of the time when hunting with a 270 I shot a 130 gr bullet, now my Uncle shot nothing but 150's neather one of us could ever tell the difference in the field. Either one will work fine. Hell I would hunt elk with a 270 and 130 gr Nosler Partition and not lose any sleep over it. It really boils down to which bullet your rifle likes best. Now if my rifle would shoot 140 gr 270 bullets well enough, it don't I would stuff a 140gr Failsafe and smile. |
| | | Posts: 1070 | Location: East Haddam, CT | Registered: 16 July 2000 | 
IP
|
|
one of us
| I would go with the 150 myself.
There comes a point where bullet weight starts to overcome case capicity. I belive the 150 has a better ballistic coefficient also, because it is a spitzer, where the 160 is a simi-spitzer.
The 150s have great downrange preformance, where the 160s start to drop energy and trejectory.
I think if you look at ballistic tables, you'll see the 150 out preforms the 160 at just about any range. |
| | | Posts: 254 | Location: Kaliforina | Registered: 31 January 2003 |
IP
|
|
one of us
| The 150 is a fine bullet in the .270 |
| | | Posts: 3097 | Location: Louisiana | Registered: 28 November 2001 |
IP
|
|
one of us
| I doubt you'll see a difference between the two, after all we're talking about 10 grains here!! You'll see more of a difference by switching brands than by adding 10 grains...but then again why switch brands when you have a great bullet anyway? |
| | |
one of us
| I'm using the 160 NP in my 270 - 55gr RL-22 and 2850 fps and clover leaf groups. I'm a semi spitzer believer, based on field results I saw with 117gr 25 cal and 175gr 7mm semispitzers that Nosler use to make - and the slightly blunter nose gives up very little to a 150 gr. However, a 270 with a 130 NP would be just fine for elk. |
| | | Posts: 363 | Location: Madison Alabama | Registered: 31 July 2002 |
IP
|
|
one of us
| Thanks for the replies. What shocked me about the 160 is that it has a higher ballistic coefficient than does the 130 NP. What's driving this question for me is the fact that the hunt would be set up through my brother who is a major 338 Win fan. My 270 tain't big enough in his world. I am convinced that it will kill elk if I do my part. I have a great deal of confidence in my 270. It's always been a shooter. (And yes, I know the 338 is a better all around elk rifle, but I don't want to buy another rifle when I know my 270 is enough.) I figured if I was launching the biggest NP available, that might keep him off my back! ![[Smile]](images/icons/smile.gif) Just trying to maintain peace in the family. Thanks again, Tim |
| | | Posts: 149 | Location: Nebraska USA | Registered: 22 February 2002 |
IP
|
|
one of us
| The .270's most famous proponent, Jack O'connor, observed that the main difference between a 130 and a 150 on elk was that the 130's seemed to kill quicker. I'm sure this is true if the shot is broadside in the heart-lungs.
As between the 160 and the 150 NP, pick the one which shoots best in your rifle. The elk won't know the difference. If you intend to try the very most demanding shot, like through a rear quarter and gut into the vitals, then by all means, use the 160 and pray. But for any reasonable shot, either will work just fine. |
| | | Posts: 13289 | Location: Henly, TX, USA | Registered: 04 April 2001 |
IP
|
|
one of us
| quote:
Originally posted by NETim:
Thanks for the replies. What shocked me about the 160 is that it has a higher ballistic coefficient than does the 130 NP.
What's driving this question for me is the fact that the hunt would be set up through my brother who is a major 338 Win fan. My 270 tain't big enough in his world. I am convinced that it will kill elk if I do my part. I have a great deal of confidence in my 270. It's always been a shooter. (And yes, I know the 338 is a better all around elk rifle, but I don't want to buy another rifle when I know my 270 is enough.)
I figured if I was launching the biggest NP available, that might keep him off my back! Just trying to maintain peace in the family.
Thanks again,
Tim
If the .270 isn't enough gun to kill an elk there are a lot of delusional people here in Wyoming. The .270 is widely used here. I often think if all of my guns disappeared and I had to start over again I would get me a good .270 and not look back. It is a sweet shooting round of low recoil. As to the bullet like an earlier poster said, use which ever one your gun shoots the best and enjoy your steaks. Then look at your brother & say "I told you so". |
| | | Posts: 1172 | Location: Cheyenne, WY | Registered: 15 March 2001 |
IP
|
|
One of Us
| A .270 or .243 will work fine on elk if you get teh right shot. But I seem to get shots where all I can see is the hind end with some antlers sticking up. For that kind of shot, I will take a rifle in the .338 and up category. Of course such calibers are not for recoil-sensitive folks because as always shot placement is paramount. |
| | | Posts: 18352 | Location: Salt Lake City, Utah USA | Registered: 20 April 2002 |
IP
|
|
one of us
| Yeah, what's wrong with me? Don't want to buy another rifle? What's up with that? I like my old .270. I wouldn't mind having a 338/06 or a 9.3x62 but I don't know how much I would use them, realistically speaking. I think I can handle recoil alright, but I'm not at all fond of it. I've shot my brother's 338's at paper and survived alright. I think I'd be better off putting my $$$ into better optics and binocs. Not sure if this elk hunt will get off the ground or not anyway. We'll see. I think though, I will go ahead and work up some 150 and 160 NP loads just for something to do. Never tried RL22 before. Good excuse to buy a pound. Tim |
| | | Posts: 149 | Location: Nebraska USA | Registered: 22 February 2002 |
IP
|
|
One of Us
| quote:
Originally posted by WyoJoe:
If the .270 isn't enough gun to kill an elk there are a lot of delusional people here in Wyoming. The .270 is widely used here. [/QB]
Yes, but there are also a lot of 2wd pickups in Wyoming, and every winter some of them get stuck.
The issue is whether you want to be prepared for all eventualities, or just for the best case scenario. |
| | | Posts: 18352 | Location: Salt Lake City, Utah USA | Registered: 20 April 2002 |
IP
|
|
one of us
| The .270 Win. and .280 Rem. calibers are used a lot here in Idaho, and are very effective on elk, when the shooter does his/her part, meaning, accuracy.
A friend of mine and his buddy just returned from an Idaho moose hunt in east Idaho. My friend's buddy used his .270 to kill a cow moose, at about 150 yards. He was shooting the .270 150 grain Nosler Partition. Fired twice, but really didn't need the second shot. No problems.
My friend used his .30-06 with his handload of 150 gr. Sierra PSP boat tail, to kill his cow moose. Down like a sack of potatoes.
Yes, the .270 is just fine for elk, and if it were I, I'd use the 150 grain Nosler Partition.
FWIW. L.W. |
| | | Posts: 253 | Location: S.W. Idaho | Registered: 30 August 2002 |
IP
|
|
one of us
| quote:
Originally posted by 500grains:
quote:
Originally posted by WyoJoe:
If the .270 isn't enough gun to kill an elk there are a lot of delusional people here in Wyoming. The .270 is widely used here.
Yes, but there are also a lot of 2wd pickups in Wyoming, and every winter some of them get stuck.
The issue is whether you want to be prepared for all eventualities, or just for the best case scenario.[/QB]
I know what you are saying but the reason those 2WD get stuck is they don't know their limits. The older I get the more I am getting away from the magnums. I think the 270 within it's limits is a fine elk rifle. I like hunting deer & antelope with my .243. But it has it's limits. If I can borrow from Jerry Eden, he said it well If the shot is 300 yards or less, the 270 will do its job. Longer than that, and someone more than likely shouldn't take the shot. |
| | | Posts: 1172 | Location: Cheyenne, WY | Registered: 15 March 2001 |
IP
|
|
one of us
| [/QUOTE]Yes, but there are also a lot of 2wd pickups in Wyoming, and every winter some of them get stuck.
[/QB][/QUOTE]
You know the difference between 2 wheel drive and 4 wheel drive? When you get stuck with the 4x4 you are farther from the road... |
| | | Posts: 457 | Location: Kentucky | Registered: 25 February 2002 |
IP
|
|
one of us
| RSY, your take is my take on this also. Seems alot of people believe they need a cannon to take game nowadays. |
| | | Posts: 492 | Location: Northern California | Registered: 27 December 2002 |
IP
|
|
one of us
| I've been a fan of the 270 Jack for years--and I've beat up on my share of game with one.
The 160 NP and the 150 NP are both excellent heads. In country where I'd be shooting to 300 and that is it (for sure)-then I'd go 160 or 150. If the country was gonna be more open then I'd be going 130 or 150.
A friend of mine from the Flathead shot a bull a couple of years back as it went away with a 160 at about 100 yards. The bullet went end to end and exited-said elk expired quite quickly!
R22 is a great choice for both rounds as it is for the 130's.
Lastly the fella from California b4 me wrote about an elk unipressed by a shot to the neck with a 270. Is that supposed to mean that the 270 is not a good elk round? It kind of sounded that way to me. Well from my experience on necks shots they are about finding the bone. If you do that, then things happen quickly be you usihng a big gun or a small one. Fail to hit the bone and it matters little what you use-you may well need your track shoes at that time.
Just my thoughts....
"GET TO THE HILL"
Dogz |
| | | Posts: 879 | Location: Bozeman,Montana USA | Registered: 31 October 2001 |
IP
|
|
one of us
| One last thing about thoughts on elk and elk guns. I've generally come to find that the people with the least amount of real experience tend to pimp and promote the use of the bigger guns. I think they've read about it somewhere b4. The fellas that I know that are true elk killers know or care little about all of this-they just take there 25/06 there 270 there 308 there 06 or there 300 whatever and get after it.
"GET TO THE HILL"
Dogz |
| | | Posts: 879 | Location: Bozeman,Montana USA | Registered: 31 October 2001 |
IP
|
|
One of Us
| Mark, I'm glad you didn't mention this year's 488 yard one shot kill on your elk with the lowly 270 and the 130 grain TSX... many here would argue it's not really a dead bull despite the fact that it's in the freezer ![[Big Grin]](images/icons/grin.gif) Also, drawing a conclusion about the 270 based on one elk shot in the neck is, at best, naive in the extreme... neck shots can be iffy no matter what iron you're packing. |
| | |
one of us
| After many years of hunting with my Dad, and my Uncle Fred, both were avid 270 fans, I can honestly say that placement of the shot beats the other factors, including bullet weight. The fastest killer I have seen is not much better than the 270 shooting 130's, well placed shots. Bigger caliber and more bullet weight give more latitude when the shot is/turns marginal, which can be an advantage. Personally, I can pass on a questionable shot rather than chance a wounded/lost animal, but most of my hunting has not been subsistence hunting, just personal enjoyment hunting. That way I could go the next week also. Personally, I think Nosler Parts are hard to beat for performance on game. |
| | | Posts: 1944 | Location: Moses Lake, WA | Registered: 06 November 2001 |
IP
|
|
one of us
| I disagree that the 338 is a better "all around" elk cartridge than the 270. The 338 kicks pretty hard, hard enough that shooting from field conditions one must be careful to keep the scope from hitting him in the face. Second velocities are not that high limiting expansion at longer ranges. The 300 magnums hold the position of best all around elk cartridge. Where the 338 shines is with heavy bullets in timber. That said my favorite elk cartridges is the 30-06 and next is the 270 loaded with 150 grain Speer Hot-cors. |
| | |
One of Us
| quote:
Originally posted by rickt300:
I disagree that the 338 is a better "all around" elk cartridge than the 270. The 338 kicks pretty hard, hard enough that shooting from field conditions one must be careful to keep the scope from hitting him in the face.
Shooters who cannot handle the recoil are definitely well-served with a lighter caliber, but should limit themselves to broadside shots. |
| | | Posts: 18352 | Location: Salt Lake City, Utah USA | Registered: 20 April 2002 |
IP
|
|
One of Us
| quote:
Originally posted by WyoJoe:
quote:
Originally posted by 500grains:
quote:
Originally posted by WyoJoe:
If the .270 isn't enough gun to kill an elk there are a lot of delusional people here in Wyoming. The .270 is widely used here.
Yes, but there are also a lot of 2wd pickups in Wyoming, and every winter some of them get stuck.
The issue is whether you want to be prepared for all eventualities, or just for the best case scenario.
I know what you are saying but the reason those 2WD get stuck is they don't know their limits. The older I get the more I am getting away from the magnums. I think the 270 within it's limits is a fine elk rifle. I like hunting deer & antelope with my .243. But it has it's limits. If I can borrow from Jerry Eden, he said it well If the shot is 300 yards or less, the 270 will do its job. Longer than that, and someone more than likely shouldn't take the shot.
I agree with your suggestion on a range limitation, but I think there also needs to be a limitation on shot angle. If you need to put a round up the tail of an elk and expect it to travel 5 feet to reach the lungs, then a .270 150 grain (nosler or not) is just not likely to get there. I have shot lots of game with a .270 and know what it can do. Perhaps more important is knowing what it cannot do and having the self discipline to draw the line. Unfortunately, a lot of hunters in the field will get excited and take a shot that results in a wounded and lost animal. I know that I am personally prone to take the shot presented so I like to carry a .375 for elk hunting so that I know the bullet will reach the vitals from any angle at all. |
| | | Posts: 18352 | Location: Salt Lake City, Utah USA | Registered: 20 April 2002 |
IP
|
|
one of us
| NP's will do the job, but if you want to give yourself every advantage you can get, try the Barnes X. My 270 loves the 130gr Xlc-bt. I have taken 4 elk with this combo,and, in my limited experience, can attest to the effectiveness. I shot a small bull this year (4x3) at a lasered 418yds, and he went 30 feet and dropped, the bullet going in the right side and breaking the upper left front leg bone on the way out. I've reloaded the X's for 6 calibers (222Remmag, 243, 270, 30-06, 300WSM & 300 winmag) and would suggest you try the Tripleshock first. They seem to be much easier to get to shoot well than the Xlc or X.
Whatever you choose, shoot straight and have fun.
Fred |
| | | Posts: 37 | Location: Colorado | Registered: 26 June 2003 |
IP
|
|
one of us
| quote:
Originally posted by 500grains:
I have shot lots of game with a .270 and know what it can do. Perhaps more important is knowing what it cannot do and having the self discipline to draw the line.
Well said. |
| | | Posts: 1172 | Location: Cheyenne, WY | Registered: 15 March 2001 |
IP
|
|
one of us
| Fred338--if you like I can tell you of many more stories than just the 488 one.....also I've found you need to be just as careful regardless of round. Be it a 250 SAF out of my 340 or a 130 TS out of my 270.
I have seen quite a few elk hit the old tera firma over the years. Quite likely more than a few more than most will see in a lifetime.
I've seen them shot with rounds from the 22/250 to the 416's. I've found one and only one thing for sure my observance of elk being shot. Hit them where it counts and they die-hit them wrong and it is not rocket science they will give you a chase and you had better have your track shoes on.
It absolutely cracks me up to no end the cal's that many (like I said b4 most of the people saying you need the bigger rounds have lil experience) like to complain about. 99 times out of a 100 or more when push comes to shove the people talking have lil or no experience with what they talk about.
The old 270 being ok on elk is one of the biggest piles of horsey poop out there. I tell you what go and shoot 20 head with the 270 then tell us what you think. Until then I'd suggest-ah heck I won't suggest it. But you get the drift.
"GET TO THE HILL"
Dogz
[ 11-12-2003, 04:36: Message edited by: Mark R Dobrenski ] |
| | | Posts: 879 | Location: Bozeman,Montana USA | Registered: 31 October 2001 |
IP
|
|
one of us
| Hey Mark, I'll bend to your exp. on elk & elk rifles. I can only go w/ my own & that is about a dozen w/ different rounds. It just makes ME feel better to hunt w/ something other than a .270. Hell, I don't even like the .270 as a deer/antelope round. In fact I don't care much for the .270 for anything. That's just me, no offense ment to anyone who covets theirs. I just wouldn't RECOMMEND a .270 to someone looking to buy an ELK rifle. Invaribly they'll go out & hunt w/ a good 130gr deer bullet & then wonder why their elk ran off w/ a shot to the shoulder area. That's that margin of error I like to have. So my choice for an elk rifle starts @ the .30-06/180gr bullets. Having said all of that, my backup rig is a .280 using 160gr NPs, but I know I'll have to wait for a shot & 400 anything yards is out of the question. ![[Eek!]](images/icons/shocked.gif) Happy hunting! [ 11-12-2003, 04:51: Message edited by: fredj338 ] |
| | | Posts: 7752 | Location: kalif.,usa | Registered: 08 March 2001 |
IP
|
|
one of us
| Try the 140 gr bullets in the 270 you'll be suprised at the out come between the other 2 bullets-130 and 150. Plenty of 140 gr bullets to use for an elk, if you like the nosler type try the Swift A frame. ![[Wink]](images/icons/wink.gif) |
| | |
One of Us
| Fred, my comment about the 270/neck shot was to point out the idiocy of drawing any conclusion about it as an elk cartridge based on one experience. My point with Mark's story was to tell what he wouldn't, plain and simple. Mark's not a bragart.
Funny, but I have a mirror story about the 338 WM / 270. I once shot a five pt. bull in heavy timber with my 338 / 210 Partition. The bull stumpled and fled. I had hit him high above the lungs but below the spine. Some doubt the existance on this hollow spot on elk, while others, like me, have seen it. Regardless, the bull high tailed it down the mountain where a chap potted it with a 270. This is the only animal I've ever lost. Does it "prove" the 338 WM is a lousy elk round and the 270 is superior? Heck no! It only proves shot placement is nearly everything. I could confidently hunt elk for the rest of my life with a 270 fully assured if I did my part I'd have an elk down every time I pulled the trigger.
While I'm on the subject, this BS about the superior penetrating qualities of the heavy 338 WM bullets is pure baloney. A 200 grain Nosler from a 30-06 will penetrate as well as the 250 Nosler from the 338 WM... and will out-penetrate the 225! Granted the 33 bullet will make a bigger hole, but the greater frontal area of the 33 will overcome its extra weight and inhibit penetration... the 30 cal, while being lighter, has lesser frontal area and will pencil on through! |
| | |
one of us
| Brad, as one of our infamous presidents said. "I feel your pain". The only dropped-in-his-track elk I have seen was one of mine taken w/ a 160gr/7mm bullet thru the spine. Another taken w/ a heart shot @ 320yds/.338-06/210grNP, showed almost no reaction to being hit. He just stood there until I hit him again, this time too low & broke his off leg. When I dressed him out I realized the 1st shot had actually killed him, he just didn't know it. I still hunt w/ both rifles, but I'll hold my range on the .338-06 closer to 250yds next time. Yeh, it is about bullet placement & bullet performance and a bit of luck along the way. A buddy of mine guided for several years in Montana & he used to carry a .243 because of the weight, take an occasional yote now & then. He hunts elk w/ a .338WM though, and he has taken & seen dozens of elk taken. I like his choice. [ 11-12-2003, 09:36: Message edited by: fredj338 ] |
| | | Posts: 7752 | Location: kalif.,usa | Registered: 08 March 2001 |
IP
|
|
one of us
| PLACEMENT is everything. BUT with that said I do NOT think the .243 is a great elk rifle. You want to hit the vitals but need to hit them with something capable of doing the job.
I'm in a good situation here in Montana; A five week season. My elk live 5 miles from where I live and I can spend ample time afield. Hence I can pass on bad shots due to angle , cover or range. I have all season to get a decent shot.
For me a .280 Rem with 150 NP's works fine. Either of my H&H's have worked well over the years too; the .300 with 180's or 200 NP's and the three seven five with 300 Sierras or NP's.
The best one so far though is my .338-06 as its the best of both worlds. Easy to shoot yet it seems to shoot like a much bigger gun.
FN in MT |
| | | Posts: 950 | Location: Cascade, Montana USA | Registered: 11 June 2000 |
IP
|
|
one of us
| quote:
Originally posted by Brad:
A 200 grain Nosler from a 30-06 will penetrate as well as the 250 Nosler from the 338 WM... and will out-penetrate the 225!
Brad...
That's an interesting bit of info. I'd like to hear the details on that discovery. Thanks. |
| | |
