With well placed good bullets it will be ok. More energy is better, again the 223 for deer idea. I like the 300 wm, a lot of time and money invested and God forbid a lost animal. If you use the 270 then make sure you use it well (goes for all cartridges)
270 Winchester for bull elk
- Thread starter todbartell
- Start date
pete dobinson
CGN frequent flyer
- Location
- Courtenay BC.
I was hunting in southern BC for mule deer a few years back. I met another hunter who had just shot a nice buck, I helped him drag the deer out to a logging grade. He was telling me about his 300 win mag and huskemaw scope that he got from Corlanes. He asked me about my rifle, I was packing my kimber MA 270 win. He told me that I would be chasing lots of wounded deer with a 270, he didn't think it was enough for big mule deer. I couldn't help but notice he had shot the deer twice with the 300. Then his hunting partner arrived, he was packing a 340 weatherby. So with that logic I would guess nothing less than a 375HH for elk. 
bearkilr
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Nowhere, ......just past the middle
Marginal means close to the lower limit of qualification, so by that definition I'd say he's right. He didn't say it's not good enough, so.........
- Location
- Somewhere on the Hudson Bay Coast
I don't know if that's a fair statement since an earnest novice lacks the experience necessary to know whether the .270 should be considered a practical minimum for big game, or is the .25/06, or is the .243, or is the .22-250? Under what conditions should any cartridge be considered minimum? Likewise, a hunter with 30 years of experience and dozens of elk to his credit, that has only ever made broadside shots with a .270/130, has no idea what is needed to make a quartering shot on an animal of that size. Yet he might think poorly of his fellow hunter armed with a .338 Winchester. I might choose a big case .375; even though I've seen things go wrong, I've never seen a .375 fail on medium or large game, regardless of the shot angle, provided the path of the bullet was in line with those things that are essential to life. If an elk hunter, novice or experienced, opts to use a .300 Weatherby that he shoots well, because he looks down his nose at the .270, he might have good reason to, even though it was the .270's bullet and not the cartridge, that was at fault when he witnessed a failure. If I was required to hunt elk with a .270, I'd choose either a 150 or 160 gr Partition over a 130, because I have greater faith in bullet mass than I do in velocity alone, even when the construction of the bullets are the same, yet the 130 is a dandy medium game bullet weight.
Last autumn, 2017 I shot this bull elk (one shot) with a 7mm Rem. Mag. at 300 yards. If he was 500 yards away, he would of been DRT. With a 270 Win. at 500 yards?....no way! Margin of error for holdover and energy is to great. Magnum cartridges were created for longer shots on the biggest of North American big game.....flatter trajectory and more downrange energy. Don't go under-gunned, just in case there is that long shot.
https://imgur.com/a/1NrWuup
Elmer Keith thought the .270 was a fine coyote gun.
Things are always clearer when viewed through the telephoto lens of time so it's best not to judge too harshly. They were products of their time, a time before ballistic hyper photo-sensitivity (BHPS) was as well understood as it is today. If JOC was around today he would likely be among its foremost promoters.
- Location
- Somewhere on the Hudson Bay Coast
I get that a hunter develops confidence in his rifle particularly if he shoots it well, but lets look at this objectively. We'll assume both the 7 mag and the .270 are loaded with 160 gr Nosler Partition bullets; the 7 has a velocity of 3000 fps, the .270 2800. Sighted 2" high at 100, the .270 hits zero at 215 yards and is about 9" low at 500 while the 7 mag hits zero at 230 yards and hits about 7 inches low at 500. I doubt that much of a case can be made for the 2" difference in drop between the two, particularly since it would be tough to even see 2" at 500 yards, never mind exploit it. Its a safe bet that both bullets impact with enough residual velocity at 500 yards to penetrate sufficiently and expand to result in a quick humane kill given good placement.
Last edited:
Beautifull ELK ! But LOL I Quote You - Margin of error for holdover and energy is to great to use a 270 Win is Funny ! RJ
On paper (reloading manual) 2" and 200 fps may not seem a great difference to you et al, however to me, there is a vast difference. I don't classify myself as a elk hunter, this was only my 7th elk that I killed. What I do know, through experience, is that they are a brawny animal. I will not utilize a standard cartridge for such an animal, case in point, I only use magnum cartridges for all big game. The Great Plains of Alberta is big wide open country and the magnum cartridge really makes a difference, even if it is only 2" and 200 fps.
Too funny.
- Location
- Somewhere on the Hudson Bay Coast
I agree, performance matters, but as suggested by 1899, the same criticism you make against the .270 can also be leveled against the 7mm Remington by someone shooting a long barrel 7 STW, 7mm-300, or .28 Nosler. Regardless of the name or size of the cartridge you shoot, if you shoot at a range where bullet drop takes you off target, you need to have the knowledge, experience, and equipment that allows you to make an ethical shot on a live target. The cartridge is only one element of the whole. You'll need a laser range finder to accurately measure the range, a correctable ballistic solver and/or a record book of your adjustments for elevation and wind for your rifle and load at the range you need to shoot from, a scope that has repeatable elevation and windage adjustments, or has hold offs in the recticle, and you have experience making long range, cold bore shots in a variety of conditions, from field positions. You also need the wisdom not to attempt a marginal shot at any range on a live target. Then there are considerations of the moment, you need a solid position to shoot from, good light, a clear unobstructed view of the target, identify mirage, and have an accurate assessment of wind strength and direction, relative to the direction of the shot. 500 yards is only "long range" to someone who doesn't regularly shoot long range, but its far enough that a successful shot cannot be made in a thoughtless manner. To summarize, attempting to make a case for the superiority of one cartridge that is ballistically similar to another, based on typical performance resulting in a difference of a couple of inches in trajectory, at whatever range we're talking about, misses the point entirely.
Last edited:
I've taken 2 good bull elk with a 270 over the years and yes, both got a second shot. I could also say the same about a few taken with the .338 and the 300 Win Mag.
Strange enough the only one I ever dropped dead in his tracks was with a 120 grain out of a 25-06.
Range on pretty much every one was well under a hundred yards and most less than 50 yards.
A .270 with a 130 or 140 grain do the job every time if you put it in the right spot.
Strange enough the only one I ever dropped dead in his tracks was with a 120 grain out of a 25-06.
Range on pretty much every one was well under a hundred yards and most less than 50 yards.
A .270 with a 130 or 140 grain do the job every time if you put it in the right spot.
