For yall that are experienced in hunting mule deer and elk at the same time or with the same rifle and load. Is there any real world advantages in a 130gr-150gr bullet with in a 350 yd range shot? Bonded or mono bullet. Cup and core I would think the obvious answer is yes.

Perry

Jack O'connor, the .270's longest and most famed user, commented that there wasn't much difference in how a 130 and a 150 killed elk. And this was with ordinary cup-and-core bullets of the 1950's and 1960's.

Personally, if I were to hunt elk with my .270 I would load it with 150 grain Nosler Partitions, which would also do just fine on mule deer.

The only place for monometals is in lead-restricted areas. Their temperamental nature in terminal performance makes them an iffy choice.

quote:

Originally posted by Stonecreek:
Jack O'connor, the .270's longest and most famed user, commented that there wasn't much difference in how a 130 and a 150 killed elk. And this was with ordinary cup-and-core bullets of the 1950's and 1960's.

Personally, if I were to hunt elk with my .270 I would load it with 150 grain Nosler Partitions, which would also do just fine on mule deer.

The only place for monometals is in lead-restricted areas. Their temperamental nature in terminal performance makes them an iffy choice.

Now that is funny!
Temperamental nature in terminal performance? Really?

I use a 140 grain Berger VLD in my 270 Win. and 270 WSM.Everything I have shot is DRT.

Under those circumstances I would opt for the 150 gr. Nosler partition or accubond at 2800 to 3000 FPS. Gives you a litte more penetration on going away shots, that may be necessary..

My basic requirement on elk is a bullet and caliber that will penetrate and elk stem to stern..Same with any big game..

I've used my 270 on big game since 1969 (kudos to Jack O'Conner), when I was 13yo, and have shot a fair number of elk and deer since then.
I started with the 150gr Partition, and never had a complaint about them. I have had to shoot an elk more than once on a few occasions though.

In 1992, I started using Barnes X, then XLC, TSX and now the TTSX. I have not needed more than one shot since 1992.

I use the 130gr TTSX and have yet to recover a Barnes from a big game animal.

The longest distance an elk has gone hit with a BArnes was about 7-10 steps.

Tempermental nature in terminal performance has not been my experience.

I think many of the situations of "iffy" performance with monometals is when used on light game like Whitetails and Antelope, where, depending on shot placement, there may not be enough resistance to open them up. Elk would not be a problem, IMHO.

quote:

Originally posted by k-22hornet:


Tempermental nature in terminal performance has not been my experience.

+1

Had an exit on a 210 pound fallow straight down through the lungs with upward angle, two length wise exits literally unzipped the flanks on two boar, head shot at 115 yards on a doe exit dropped so fast I thought I thought it disappeared, and an exit heart shot and exit through the center of both shoulder blades pinning another doe all with 140 grain Accubonds at 2950fps.

This has become my favorite light rifle and I have owned a 30/06 since I was 14.

The 140 grain bullet at 2950 carries 1508 ft pounds to 400 yards with only 19 inches of drop. The manuals list 3000fps loads with 140accubond.

I have hunted Mule Deer for years with a 130 gr. Northfork bullet at 3450 fps with my .270 WSM. I cannot get that speed with any other bullet. RL-22 is the magic powder. My Elk load with the same rifle is 160 grain Nosler Partition at 2900 fps. I have also taken many Bulls with .300 Winny, 7mm STW, .338 Lapua, .358 STA, but as the years added up that sweet little .270 WSM in Model 70 Winchester was real confortable to pack over Thornburg Mountain in Colorado. Good shooting.

I just started shooting a 270 Win a couple of years ago and my Ruger No. 1 loves the 130 grain Barnes TSX bullet. I would feel absolutely confident using it for elk hunting.

Except for one antelope and a couple of coyotes that I used conventional lead bullets on, everything that I've killed bigger than a jack rabbit has been taken with a lead free bullet for the last 10 years. That's three trips to Africa, deer, antelope, coyotes, etc., without any hint of a bullet failure.

I've only killed one elk and two mule deer with a .270

Add in a couple Pronghorn and dozens of Missouri deer (Sierra GK)

All with 130 grain Accubonds

The elk ran less then 50 yards and the deer took only a few steps

Elk.......200 yards
Mule Deer......250 and 300

Use whatever your rifle shoots best

In a 270Win, at 300 yds the difference/spread in drop between the a 130, 140, and 150 gr bullet is about an inch.

At 400 yds it's about 2.5 inches.

So use whichever one your rifle shoots best.

I once killed two elk with a 130 gr bullet in a .270. Went right through the near shoulder (missed the bone), took through the lungs, out the rib cage, and right into the heart/lung region of another elk.

Both dead within 50 yards of impact.

BH63

Pick the one your rifle likes the best. They are all efficient killers in the right hands.

I like Barnes Monos, but will not let any stop me from going hunting if you can.

quote:

Originally posted by Stonecreek:
Jack O'connor, the .270's longest and most famed user, commented that there wasn't much difference in how a 130 and a 150 killed elk. And this was with ordinary cup-and-core bullets of the 1950's and 1960's.

Personally, if I were to hunt elk with my .270 I would load it with 150 grain Nosler Partitions, which would also do just fine on mule deer.

The only place for monometals is in lead-restricted areas. Their temperamental nature in terminal performance makes them an iffy choice.

Not sure what you actually mean by this.

I have killed hundreds of African game animals with a 270 Ackley using the Barnes X bullets.

Never had any problems whatsoever.

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
[QUOTE]

Not sure what you actually mean by this.

I have killed hundreds of African game animals with a 270 Ackley using the Barnes X bullets.

Never had any problems whatsoever.

The man ^ there knows.

Here I use the excellent 140 Accubond now, after years of using the 150s successfully.

I am sure the Barnes work well too and Barnes can use the lighter bullets and still do the work.

If I was going after something bigger I would look at the Barnes. For deer and similar game the 140s are excellent. If your rifle shoots one better, then thats the one to use.

That said my wife dropped a large kudu in Africa in his tracks with one shot from my ( now hers Ha ) 270 Winchester using a 150 grain Nosler Partition and my handload. It works too.

Perry, short answer to your question: No.

Longer answer from someone who's been using a 270 for over 25 years for the same purpose:

130 - 150 bullet weight from a 270 only matters on the internet. Aside from a few stories with zero statistical reality, bullet construction might have mattered a long time ago, before the internet. What matters is accuracy when putting down mulies and elk. Use what's accurate, which is what you'll practice with. If you go with a premium bullet and you subconsciously don't practice as much because "it's expensive" - don't. Go with something that you'll shoot and shoot lots.

I've been tossing moderate speed hand load 130gr corelokts (not "premium") at mule deer and elk from my cheap azz .270 for over 25 years and, literally, it has worked every single time.

Thank yo gentlemen for all of the info!

Perry

Not surprised, it doesn't take much to kill a deer or PG, a 270 or 30-06 is more than enough for either and Ive used both on almost everything, although I prefer a .338 Win for elk, its a better killer of elk IMO..based on te number of elk Ive killed with both. I love the 30-06, I find it better than the .270 and the .338 best of all...

Just speaking for myself, and others have the same options..