270 is it to small for moose.
Ironic consecutive posts...
Yes, place the bullet in the front shoulder to maximize meat damage.
Now on to big Bear-
As Jack O'Connor wrote (p.228-229) in The Rifle Book: "...there is no reason why the man going to hunt Alaskan brown bear should take a .270 if he has a rifle of heavier caliber - nor is there any reason why the man on the spring grizzly hunt should take one..."
Now on to big Bear-
As Jack O'Connor wrote (p.228-229) in The Rifle Book: "...there is no reason why the man going to hunt Alaskan brown bear should take a .270 if he has a rifle of heavier caliber - nor is there any reason why the man on the spring grizzly hunt should take one..."
I can certainly think of some reasons, I guide the buggers and would rather a client has the .270 he can shoot than the .375 he can't. Of course bigger is better, there's no argument against it, but many shooters can't manage a bigger gun as well.
That's why we hire guys like Ardent. To back us up with the big gun in case the SHTFWell, maybe the Nancies who's upper recoil limit is a 270 shouldn't be hunting grizz.![]()
That's why we hire guys like Ardent. To back us up with the big gun in case the SHTF.
![]()
I've got nothing but well used jokes about containing too much Shrek to fit in life jackets, and I also hear he just bought a .270. Next will be a Mossberg, you just watch.
If a fellow said he wanted to use his .270 I'd say get a good Partition load and let's go! More important is surviving the Mountain House spaghetti, and Hoyt messed with that too!
Go easy on the "Shrek" talk, Donkey...
My CGN world is upside down...... Hoyt bought a 270, Angus is OK with a 270 for grizz and mountain house spaghetti is now considered food...
"I" don't consider Mountain House spaghetti food... which is why I messed with it... ahhhh, those quirky mountain folk....