As I said in my post I have used the 270 and 06 on all manner of game successfully...It is not my choice for elk and larger animals, I prefer the .338 win. I may want to stick a bullet up an elks backside going away from me in the dark timber of Idaho, and a 270 is not a good choice for taking shots as they come on the larger stuff.

quote:

Originally posted by Grizzly1:
BigNate,

The .338/.375 H&H is not the deer or sheep cartridge (yes I use my .375H&H for deer too.) that the .270 is, not saying alot as the end result is the same with a well placed bullet.

Sounds like you may have been a witness to a poor shot by the trigger man.

All the best-Ron

A .338 is when loaded with 160g Barnes Triple-shock X-bullets @ 3450 FPS. Something to be said for 4200 ft/lbs of energy.

There's all kinds of wounded, only one kind of dead.

Flippy, you just confirmed what I stated.

-Ron

Let me add that some people think that the .270 might be on the heavy side for deer, I'm not one of them though.

-Ron

I have used one on deer,elk and moose for 40 years. I have not had any problem so far. The 140 grain bullets have added much to the old cartridge.

I don't have a .270 but wouldn't be freaked out if one of my boys, or wife wants one. It is great for deer and antelope size critters. Even for elk,moose, caribou it has worked thousands of times. That doesn't make it a cartridge I'd recommend first. If someone needs to ask if it is adequate they have doubts. If they understand what they're using and have the where-with-all to calmly pick a shot they'll not have much to worry about. I wouldn't hesitate to use one myself if that was what was available and I wanted to hunt. Chasing Grizzly bears with a .270 would cause as much a pucker factor for me as using a bow or handgun. I'd want a guy there to back me up with a real rifle.

But for some situations, particularily for big bears, elk, & moose it lacks. It always comes back to shot placement and picking the best bullet for what you're doing.

I think a good discussion would be/is about what bullets work best for a particular animal from a specific cartridge. My good friend uses a .270 exclusively and has taken elk and a moose as well as deer and antelope. I just don't believe recommending a rifle this small for everything is wise. Nate

BigNate,

I like your idea on the thread, I think there is a thread on using the .270 160Gr. NP. Being new to this site I don't have a the knowledge base on past topics, Im gaining on it through searches though.

You and I will probably never agree on the .270 and it's capabilities as I know it is good moose/elk medicine. I do agree with you on the big bears (read my prior posts in this thread). Note that I have never said the .270 is the perfect rifle for moose/elk and since 98 percent of hunters will NEVER hunt our BIG bears, that said my answer to the thread question is a big YES, the .270 is an adequate big game cartridge on moose sized game and more than adequate on smaller big game.

If a person does not have the patience, skill or resolve to hold out for an ideal shot opportunity, stay home and shoot paper and find a mentor. If you don't have the skills it doesn't much matter what your shooting, your going to loose/wound game.

The only time I have ever had a client/partner take a less than favorable shot is on bear that already has a round or two in it and we are just weighing him down with more lead. I would never take or recommend an ass shot on an animal that I was going to consume, never.

Well it's a beutifull day in Ak & the wife is almost home, think I'll grab my .375 H&H & .270 and head down to the range. Sorry for rambling on.

All the best-Ron

I find this to be a fascinating topic and probably one of the most commented on arguments throughout various forums etc. It is of particular interest to me because I teach hunter safety in Idaho and Washington and at nearly every class during break or walking to my car a mom or dad will ask "What should I get my daughter (or son) to hunt with?" It is always asked as though I am the supreme final answer on the subject (which obviously I am not but being the instructor it makes sense that I would offer some guidance.) My opinion with this is that there is no way to answer without knowing alot more about there child, hunting experience, game they are after etc.

Much the same as the question ".270 adequate big game cartridge?" I would answer by asking more questions: How experienced is the shooter? What bullet? What is the max. range? What species? I think (hope) we all know that at 10 yards a .270 through the eyeball at the right anle will probably kill any thing on the face of the Earth, (thats a tough shot, though!! We also know that a poorly placed shot with .416 can allow an animal to escape as well. For me the key is finding the acceptable margin of error (we all make mstakes) and the acceptable range that someone is comfortable shooting in field conditions (not from a bench.) I am comfortable shooting 400-500 yards from the bench with my .338 ultramag and hitting a target the size of a paper plate, I am only comfortable shooting from my sticks while sitting about 350-400 yards and from a kneeling only about 200-250. ( I think you get my point) Thus, in the final analysis I often tell people to use the largest rifle they are comfortable shooting at whatever distance they choose, and don't shoot anything any farther (whether they follow that advice is another thread...) than they can hit a paper plate.

For many, the .270 fits that ticket, use good bullets and practice....practice...practice... so often some of us rely on 'premium' bullets, velocity, sectional density, quick follow up shots etc. that we forget- make the first shot count. Very good topic....

IdahoVandal

I love this debate as much as I love my 270's. I love to watch the 300 wizzbang naysayers with projectile envy cringe and shrink.
Ok one planet one 270 is, well, ...FUNNNY !
Everything but larger african game and big bears. For all NA game, excepting grizz, and most African plains game I am very confident with a 270.
Adequite ? HELL YES !

quote:

For many, the .270 fits that ticket, use good bullets and practice....practice...practice... so often some of us rely on 'premium' bullets, velocity, sectional density, quick follow up shots etc. that we forget- make the first shot count. Very good topic....

IdahoVandal

Well said, IV.

I'm going on my first ever Elk trip this year--in Wyoming. I've hunted Whitetails for 15 years with my 270, and am confident of most shots inside 300 yards (shooting from field positions).

And practice! Why would anyone not look for an excuse to throw some lead?! Just seems to me that of all one's preparations--in equipment, itinerary, food, etc.--of all this work, the one thing that can truly improve your ability to take an animal is simply shooting your gun, no?

friar

p.s. I'll be shooting, more than likely, the 160 partitions @ 2820 fps or so. Might also shoot 150 A-frames, but haven't run those out the end of the barrel yet. I'll let you all know how it turns out!

Thanks guys for your replies, comments, opinions and experiences. My own .270 Win gets collected tomorrow from Australian Customs. I have been without one for 20 years or more and finally couldn't stand it any more. Being a pre 64 M70 Winchester fan, I just had to have one in a featherweight (to match my .308 Win). Bought it on Guns America last year and it has arrived. After I give it the once over, mount the VX-I 4-12X40 on it and run up some quick loads with 130 gr bullets (I have a few in my bullet drawer from my last 270, 20 plus years ago) it'll be out to the SSAA Belmont range with the chronograph.

Then I'll get down to some serious load development with 140 gr bullets which I intend to be my main stay for most of my hunting with this rifle in Australia and the South Pacific. Might go up to 150gr or heavier when I go after Sambar deer, or better still might instead take my .308 Win loaded with 180gr bullets.

And yes my username is derived from the fact that it have a classic custom .308 Norma Magnum built on FN M98. The reason I selected .308 Norma Mag is (at the time) it was becoming quite popular (relatively speaking) in Australia in the 60s and 70s and it had a similar tradjectory to the .270 Win but enjoyed the range of bullets that the 30 cal had. It is still something of a pet of mine (as you can gather from my username) but I've always had a softspot for the 270.

No, I wasn't "stirring the pot" I just wanted some honest opinions and impressions from some US hunters of big game. Yes, I know that big game means something different to everyone. But judging by the poll results, the overwhelming opinion is that it is a big game cartridge.

Cheers & God bless,
Magnum308

I have used the 338 wm for deer hunting the last 20 .I have shot 81 deer with 81 shots.I have taken shots from 3 yards to 425 yards with all one shot kills.I have only had one deer ever run from being shot with my 338wm .How he ever ran the 100 yards that he ran is beyond me.There was no heart or lunds left.I use 200 gr winchgester power point factory loads for my deer load.There is very little amount of blood shot in the meat.I got some deer shot with 270 this year ,I had to throw away the front quaters they were blood shot so bad.I feel that the 338wm is flat shooting ,powerful and kicks less than most high powered mags do .I have shot it up to 300 times in one day with my Ruger Model 77 and my Winchester Model 70 with a boss on it.I do like a medium heavy barrel on my 338s for shooting and accuracy .I have had nothing but good luck with these guns.I have shot 7/8" groups with my ruger and remington 225 gr factory ammo at 200 yards.Its an awesome sheep,elk deer,and what ever I want to hunt in North Amercia all around gun.I never feel under gunned or have to wait for just the perfict shot.It takes up some slack if the game wont always turn broadside for the perfict lung shot.The only time I felt it was small for the task was when I saw three grizzleys at once this past fall.I use my 416 rem mag in the thickets in Alaska because 30 foot is a long shot.I have come to the conclusion that it is far better to use enough gun that to loose game or be under gunned.You can never kill anything too dead but you can loose an animal when you dont use enough gun for the task.

You know there is one great thing I love about the .270..........it easy to size the brass to .25-06!

Or .30-06 for that matter.

I have a .30-06 and a .270 and a 7 Mag. I would take any of those rifles in the woods any day. I prefer the 7 Mag for elk and above and the .270 for whitetails. However if I know I will be doing a lot of hiking I always take my lightweight .270. Loaded with 150 grain partitions it kills just as dead as the 06 or 7 Mag.

quote:

If a person does not have the patience, skill or resolve to hold out for an ideal shot opportunity, stay home and shoot paper and find a mentor. If you don't have the skills it doesn't much matter what your shooting, your going to loose/wound game.

Baloney to the above. Total baloney.

For cripes sakes just use enough gun and then the bullet will penetrate further, make a larger more humane wound, shoot flatter and drift less! That's all there is to it.

Does the author think someone is going to have him "guide" for them spending $$$$ and then have to pass up a shot because he is shooting a minimal cartridge?

Baloney.

"Use enough gun."

The .270's big enough, will make a large wound channel and is a flat shooter with minimal wind drift.

When someone is hunting with me they will not take a poor shot, I don't care what cartridge they are shooting.

You can eat your bologna-Ron

Grizzly 1,

I maintain that more powerful cartridges are capable of more. Thus a particular shot with a weak cartridge may be doable with a more powerful one.

That's just common sense.

Yes that does make sense, and I love my magnums too.

-Ron

quote:

Originally posted by Magnum308:

... the overwhelming opinion is that it is a big game cartridge.

Of course it is. The .270 Winchester is a superb big game cartridge.

So is the 6.5x55 SE, .260 Rem, .264 Win, .270 WSM, .270 Weatherby Mag, 7x57 Mauser, 7mm WSM, 7mm Rem SAUM, 7mm Rem Mag, 7mm Weatherby Mag, 7mm RUM, .280 Rem, .300 Savage, .308 Win, and the .30-06, all roughly in the same class of (commonly available) big game rifle cartridges; although the .308 and .30-06 begin to leave the others behind when using 180 grain bullets.

The .300 Magnums are another class, a step up, and the entry point to the middle bores of .338 Win and bigger, more powerful rounds with heavier bullets yet.

Take your pick. They will all do much the same job on thin-skinned game in the hands of an experienced rifleman.

quote:

Originally posted by Savage99:

I maintain that more powerful cartridges are capable of more. Thus a particular shot with a weak cartridge may be doable with a more powerful one.

I agree 100%. In fact, my only centerfire is a .300 Win Mag.

Speaking for myself, I want to hunt, not collect rifles.

I have heard that some folks can't kill big game with a 270. For them, may I suggest MORE PRACTICE.

For all practical purposes the next step up from a 270 is a 338 Win. For some that step comes at the Elk level, and for others it cmes at the brown bear level.

I think Ray is right about the 338 for elk if you want to take a shot with one going away or in brush. If you can wait for a "good" shot, the 270 with the right bullet is fine.

Even though I have absolutely no experiance with hunting with the rifle. I really think that accurate shooting CAN NOT BE STRESSED ENOUGH!

I believe that there is a lot of people that consider sighting their gun in, when September comes, is adequote trigger time. To me it isn't, I'm behind my .300 wm all summer long learning the gun and what it does so I can make the most ethical kills possible but also be able to take shots confidently where and when I want to.

I think this is where the .270 man is at the advantage. That gun can be comfortably shot all of the time where the larger guns you have to get use to.

The point I'm trying to get to is that from what I have seen is that no matter what the gun or the caliber, the more serious hunters, THAT ARE SUCCESSFULL PRETTY CONSISTANTLY, seem to be always plinking with their hunting rifles at anything they can get their hands on, at all kinds of ranges.

It's better to shoot 1,000 practice rounds at the range to make one good shot in the field, than it is to take 10 poor shots at an animal.

"A bullet in the lung is meat hung"

My neighbor whom has lived and worked in central Idaho for 69 years uses only the 25-06 stoked with Nosler Partitions and I cannot remember a year he or his wife have not gotten there Elk with the "little" 25-06 stoked with Nosler bullets.

The .270 must atleast be adequate. It's the nut behind the wheel not the car or caliber.

Jayco

The 25-06 is really a pretty good elk rifle if you watch the shots you take and use a good bullet. I would not hesitate for a skinny second to try the 25-06 for elk. Several friends do with good results.

The 270 came into its own with the advent of IMR 4831 and continuued to improve as bullets got better. Now, it has taken yet another step up with AA's Magpro powder. Their latest data from a 24 inch bbl shows 3234 fps with the Nosler partition 130, and the Sierra and Hornady offerings as well...all at 63,200 psi.

150 grainers do 3000 fps at 63,600 psi.

I have duplicated these with ease from my 24 inch Encore with 1.0 MOA.

Wow! 3000 fps for the 150 grainer. Pretty sporty.

Bet if you totalled up all the heads of game shot with the .270 since 1925 you would have your answer.

JT

I can't help but giggle a bit at all the little Elmers running around yelling "I haven't used one, but..."

Somebody wrote up Seyfried's (Oh, and we all know who his mentor was, right?) little escapade with the 455. I remember another one a few years ago where his client busted an elk using a 160 grain 6.5 at 2200 FPS. IIRC, it broke both shoulders and the elk only took a few steps.

Use a good bullet. Hit the right spot. Bottom line.

More than adequate even for elk!

There was a day when It was THE big game
cartridge.Nobody questioned then.(except Elmer Keith) Why question it now?Our game animals are no harder to kill now than they were in the 1920's.
If some of you dont have confidence in it
you are better off not using it.Personally I shoot alot of game with mine and so do alot of my friends,after 25 years of killing with it I am not going to second guess its performance now

Those days were before the advent of the various 140gr bullets. This weight has been the most significant advancement for the .270 Win and its performance in the last 30 years.

It will shoot virtually as flat as the 130 gr but arrive at 400 yards (a long shot for the 270) with 1,500 flbs enertgy. 140gr SD = 0.261 BC = 0.486 at about 2,950 fps MV (chronoed out of my 22" barrel), sighted at a 280 yards zero):

Cal 100yds 200yds 300yds 400yds 500yds
270
Eneg 2,371 2,074 1,808 1,569 1,355
Trad +3.3" +3.5" -1.4" -12.4" -30.4"

It doesn't get much better than this.

Magnum308

quote:

Originally posted by dakota rifleman:
I have heard that some folks can't kill big game with a 270. For them, may I suggest MORE PRACTICE.

AND quite possibly, better bullets...

I've only been hunting with a 270 since 1958, killed literally hundreds of animals with it in 4 states, Mexico, two canadian providences, and two african countries that ranged in size from coyotes to moose and eland. Mostly with 150 gr Nosler partitions. Only lost one animal I hit and that was a spike bull elk grazed on the top of the back. You will have a difficult time convincing me that it isn't adequate but go ahead and try!

465H&H

I just saw the thread mentioning Elmer Keiths opinions on elk rifles. Let me share a conversation I had with Elmer in the mid 70's.

I took out Elmer and his wife Loraine to try and fill her mule deer tag. Elmer was already taged out. This was my first hunt with him and I was a little concerned of what he would say when he saw I was carrying a 270. BTW Loraine was carryinf a pre-64 Mod 70 in 358 win. Much to my surprise Elmer said that he thought the 270 was an adequate elk cartridge if you used 150 gr Nosler partitions and you were careful in placing your shot. He din't think you should try a Texas heart shot with it and I completely agreed with him on that point.

465H&H

Sabot, I have been a H4831 user in my 270 since the seventies and have gotten pretty close to 3000 fps with the 150 grain bullets and over 3100 fps with the 130 grain bullets, But I am going to give the Magpro a try this year. While I have taken a lot of game with the 270 including elk I think my 30-06 with 200 grain bullets has an edge on elk.

I have recently acquired a Winchester pre 64 M70 fwt in .270 Win (from the US). Here in Australia we have ADI powder (repakaged for the US market as Hodgdson). I cannot get AR2213SC (H4831SC in the US) to shoot with 130 or 140 gr bullets (Hornady). I tried AR2209 (H4350 in the US) and it shoots keyhole groups . One group with 130 gr FB interlocks (stock #2730),doesn't like the SSTs though, measured 0.216" (3 shots @ 100 yards) this gave an average MV = 3,095fps

The 140 gr Hornay SPBT (stock# 2735) shoots well too (most groups under 1" and one @ 0.573") with an average MV = around 2,950 fps. Although this MV is only moderate the higher BC and weight give almost identical tradjectory to 500 yards as, but about 200flbs more energy than, the 130gr bullet.

As you can see from my previous post it's quite a hitter at 400 yards (which I consider absolute maximum for the .270 Win).

I haven't tried the 150 gr bullet weight yet.

So I guess, so far, the powder for my rifle is 4350 not 4831.

Cheers & Good bless
Magnum308

I've used the same Rem ADL .270 for over 20 years using 130 grain core locks exclusively and have never had a problem, other than piles of dead critters to butcher after the shot. Its a fabulous rifle for introducing new big game hunters to the sport (doesn't kick, relatively quiet, kills animals dead all the time). Had a guy use my .270 for his first ever deer hunt last year. He'd never shot a deer-sized cartridge either. I had him dry fire with cross sticks at several deer until he was comfortable, had him pick out a stationary buck (smallest 4x4 ever!), down he went. Could have done it with any cartridge, of course, but the .243/.270 is tough to beat for an intro hunt.

He had a great time and asked what caliber he should buy: I told him '06 or .300 if he's going after elk more often than deer.

If you want to freak out a new hunter, make sure you give them magnum-belted-RUM-itis ('ya just ain't man enough ifn 'ya don't have an elephant killer for that mulie!), or make them think "hunting" is shooting at something over 400 yards away all the time.

To twist the argument a little, let's say you win an all-expense-paid brown bear hunt with the caveat that you have to use a 270. Would you turn it down? I would not but I would spec my own ammo.

The issue to me isn't if the .270 is adequate, as much as is it the best choice I guess. It's hard for me to accept adequate as a criteria. One of my most used guns has been my .257 Roberts and it is less powerful than the .270! Last year I carried a new .25-06 and my wife has adopted the Roberts. I even put the sneek on a huge bull while packing the .25-06 deer hunting, and yes, if it had worked out I would have shot him. It was loaded with 115gr Barnes XLC's. I have several rifles that fill in a specific void for me.( at least thats how I look at it.) When hunting like this where I am carrying both an elk,and deer tag I usually take my 7mm RM. Last year the week before I was to leave on my hunt my scope took a dump. I had to get into the safe and come out with rifles and cartridges that were up to the task that I had confidence in.

I don't think comparing deer to elk is fair at all when talking about effectivness. Deer are easy to kill and the smaller rounds are actually quite effective. Elk take hits that would put a deer flat out and then walk off. I realize it is mostly due to using bullets that are poorly matched to the velocity, poor placement, ect. On the other hand, a bigger hole, and deeper penetration will be fatal in the same exact hit with the bigger bullet.

I like 250gr Woodleigh PRP's in my .338 WM for hunting elk because I know that I can aim for the heart from any angle and it gets there. The 7mm RM isn't as forgiving so I wouldn't take the texas heart shot with it. Had I been offered the oppritunity to take a shot at the bull last fall with the .25-06 I can tell you it would have been a sure thing. In fact, I did get a good look at a nice bull that was just to far for me with the .25-06 and he was broad-side. It wasn't that I couldn't have hit him, but that I lacked confidence in how it would perform at that range. With the distance the bullet might have penciled through. That would be an awfully small hole. I've personally held an elk heart in my hand that had a scar through it of small caliber. It was maybe 5/16" and after cutting it open found scaring all the way through.

We all form opinions based on our experiences.(hopfully) I have not been impressed with the .270 from what I've seen, and so I've had no desire to spend time hunting with it. If I were swayed by what I'd read, I'd probably have bought a .270 years ago. I will say that the new bullets out now really have helped to close the gap between different cartridges. Basically in many cases we're splitting hairs!

Tiggergate, the late Hosea Sarber killed many big AK bears with the 270... with today's bullets it's only better.

Yeah, I'd do it in a heartbeat.

I typed that a little weird; I would not turn it down.