I have used a 6mm Rem with 100gr Powershocks and a 270wsm with 140gr Accubonds. Both worked well. Both were good, clean hits on big bears. The 270 resulted in a 30metre dash to the treeline then dead, while the puny 6mm anchored it on the spot. I predict your 130gr will suffice.
130 grain 270 bullet on black bear?
- Thread starter MD
- Start date
"Question: who much does a balck bear weigh? "
The bears I shoot are in the 200 lb. range, if that. (orders for a young one from the Mrs.)
I've killed them with a 243, a 7x57, a 7.62 Russian, a 30-06 and a 300 WM.
I was just wondering what people's experience was with the 270 130gr. bullet.
The bears I shoot are in the 200 lb. range, if that. (orders for a young one from the Mrs.)
I've killed them with a 243, a 7x57, a 7.62 Russian, a 30-06 and a 300 WM.
I was just wondering what people's experience was with the 270 130gr. bullet.
Black bears can take lots of poorly placed hits, but not many good hits. Like most animals. I've shot it seen them shot with .223 to .375, 45/70, 30-30 etc. match your cartridge and bullet to shot placement. A 130gr TTSX will blow through both shoulders, a 130gr cup and core will blow up lungs. I really don't know how many black bear kills I've been in on but it must be upwards of 50
Cranky Pants
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
I dropped a 200 lb male 3 years ago that was limping as it came to the blind. As it was only 35-40 yards I gave him a high neck shot with 130 grain Winchester supreme and he flopped and expired on the spot.
Upon skinning there was some bloodshot and infection on the right shoulder. The butcher cut this area out and found a fresh shiny .270 slug lodged in the shoulder. Someone had shot him a couple days earlier from a straight on or quartering to angle as the entrance hole was under the neck. Not the bullets fault, just a poor shot. I have no concerns with being under powered with the .270, hell, it's miles ahead of the 30-30 I used for years!
Poor shot is poor shot. They really aren't that hard to kill, all the deer I have shot run farther than bears and black bears don't charge you after being shot fortunately ( I had a deer do it once though!)
Upon skinning there was some bloodshot and infection on the right shoulder. The butcher cut this area out and found a fresh shiny .270 slug lodged in the shoulder. Someone had shot him a couple days earlier from a straight on or quartering to angle as the entrance hole was under the neck. Not the bullets fault, just a poor shot. I have no concerns with being under powered with the .270, hell, it's miles ahead of the 30-30 I used for years!
Poor shot is poor shot. They really aren't that hard to kill, all the deer I have shot run farther than bears and black bears don't charge you after being shot fortunately ( I had a deer do it once though!)
- Location
- Somewhere on the Hudson Bay Coast
If the question pertains to 200 pound game, the .270/130 is almost too much of a good thing, but black bear weights can double that. Frankly I'd let a 200 pound bear grow up unless it was making a nuisance of itself. With modern bullets a 130 gr bullet is certainly up to the task of killing a bear, but if I found myself packing a .270, chances are it would be loaded with 160 gr Partitions, and if I was in big bear country, it might even be loaded with 180 gr Woodleighs if the twist was fast enough.
Ardent
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Average boar here is 300-400lbs, with only exceptional boars going over 400, we scaled one on a freight scale whole a couple years ago as I was curious. That's a perfect .270 creature in my eyes.
I knew I bought those 160 Partitions on sale for something. The .270 is a funny one for me. On the one hand I know its a very effective cartridge because I've already done it. On the other hand, I can't think of any compelling reason to use mine instead of other calibers that are bigger, faster, bigger and faster, or even still .270s but faster. I view the .270's strength as being possibly the best blend of flat trajectory, bullet weight, killing power and mild recoil. That's just as true now as when I first started with it, but the difference is that now the recoil component doesn't mean much anymore. When the recoil factor is removed from the question, then there are all sorts of cartridges that can do everything a little better.
All true... but the .270 (although one I do not choose) can join a host of other cartridges which are equally effective on medium game... there are reasons to to choose one over another, some quantifiable, some purely subjective, all equally relevant given that the end result is the same... but if we extend this logic too far we will have little to discuss...
I took my bear last year with 110gr TTSX at around 100 yards facing me straight on. The only reason I recovered the bullet is because it smashed into the femure and stopped just under the hide. Like others have said thinned skinned animals. My cousins grandfather, who I hunted with for a few years before headed, only used a 270 with 130gr bullets for deer and moose. He had plenty of racks hanging in his shed.
I'm the OP. I was asking because my new-to-me 270 is just the sweetest little "carrying around" rifle I've got next to its twin sister, my 7x57 in an identical model rifle.
I have a 280 that shoots 150 grain bullets too that I may also take bear hunting. Or the 300 WM again. Or the 7x57. Or the other 270. Or the 7.62 Russian, etc.,etc. but you know how it goes with your newest rifle; you just gotta shoot it at something.
I have a 280 that shoots 150 grain bullets too that I may also take bear hunting. Or the 300 WM again. Or the 7x57. Or the other 270. Or the 7.62 Russian, etc.,etc. but you know how it goes with your newest rifle; you just gotta shoot it at something.
Last edited:
- Location
- Somewhere on the Hudson Bay Coast
Actually I held the .270 in disdain for many years, believing the '06 or a 7mm does everything a bit better, and I still do I guess. The .270 never seems particularly lucky for me, while I could do no wrong with the '06. Then one day I acquired a nice little Herters stocked Mauser 98 in .270. I think the barrel length was 22", and the contour for that length was apparently just right, because it one of the nicest handling bolt guns I ever owned. If it had been half as accurate as it was, it would still have been twice as accurate as it needed to be. In a moment of weakness I sold it; a co-worker needed a rifle and caught me at a moment of uncharacteristic generosity, so he got the rifle, with a scope, components, and a Lee Loader that I doubt had ever been used. Apparently he shared my assessment of that rifle, because when he moved away, the jerk wouldn't sell it back to me.
Anyway back to bears and the .270. I went on an internet/Access quest to find my south paw son, a .30/06, but instead came across a LH Ruger Hawkeye with a 3.5-10 Leupold in as new condition, for little more than the cost of the scope alone, so a .270 is the rifle he owns. The only bear he's likely to point it at is a polar bear, should he runs into trouble some day. Loaded with 150 gr TSXs or 160 gr Partitions, it'll look after him.
Anyway back to bears and the .270. I went on an internet/Access quest to find my south paw son, a .30/06, but instead came across a LH Ruger Hawkeye with a 3.5-10 Leupold in as new condition, for little more than the cost of the scope alone, so a .270 is the rifle he owns. The only bear he's likely to point it at is a polar bear, should he runs into trouble some day. Loaded with 150 gr TSXs or 160 gr Partitions, it'll look after him.
- Location
- Somewhere on the Hudson Bay Coast
As a rule no, but for an individual who travels alone and is competent with his rifle, sure. Besides, juvenile bears are the ones you'd most likely have trouble with, and they are usually less than 500 pounds. I wouldn't choose a .270 if I was protecting other people. But honestly, I brought the point up to show that a .270 was perfectly appropriate for black bear hunting, not to start a bear defense thread.
