I voted for the 160 grain because elk are big and for shots at raking angles the more weight the better, in a properly constructed bullet of course.
I would test the 160 in your gun, if it shoots goot then it mis the one I would pick.

If 10 grains of bullet weight really matters then you are better off with a 150 gr X-bullet, Failsafe, A-frame, or Trophy Bonded bullet which will usually retain more than the 60% the Partition usually holds on to.

I've used the 150gr NPs in my 270 for 35 years. Based upon its past performance, I see absolutely no reason to change. I guess some other bullets work as well, but I seriously doubt they work "better". JMO.

I see the difference as being very slight, due to the extremely close weights. But since energy is a function of mass, then retained energy should be a function of retained mass. I would opt for the 160.

160 grainer for me too! An Elk is a large animal and one needs all the weight possible to bring one to bag.

Hmmm...seems to be a trend in these 270 bullet poll posts.

Elk aren't exactly wearing body armor in the woods these days. It's funny how the cartridges that have been killing animals like this for decades are now considered inferior even though they are capeable of greater velocities and the bullets used are ten times the bullets they were only ten or twenty years ago.

Any good heavily constructed bullet of 140 or 150 grains and even some 130 grains is more than enough bullet to anchor the largest elk.

I have taken five elk with my .270 and all have fallen to single 140 grain bullets of varous makes. TBBC, Ballistic tip, Failsafe, and partition.

Don't make such a big deal about it. Choose a well constructed bullet, make sure it goes where you want it to, and go kill an elk.


Of the two listed I'd opt for the 150.

I have taken several bull elk with each of these bullets and any difference in killing power is in your mind. Both worked excellently!

465H&H