I know a 30 caliber has more frontal area and is considered better for this alone, but how about a 270 firing a 160 grain nosler partition between 2700 and 2800fps. Some say penetraton is what it is all about and place less emphasis on frontal area(the best of both worlds would be ideal,I suppose), but if this is the case then why not almost any caliber from 243 on up with a Barnes bullet(they are almost armor piercing from what I have heard) They make a 130gr tsx for my 6.5x55 and I can drive at 3000fps. They should penetrate very well and shoot plenty flat. Should I get a 270...something bigger...or am I good with my Swede?
2007-12-24 08:13:43 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Sports ➔ Outdoor Recreation ➔ Hunting
It sounds to me like you've done your homework on this. Elk have been shot with many caliber rifles and some smaller than a 270. If you want to use a 270 by all means do it. Before you do though make sure you are well practiced and totally comfortable with it for perfect shot placement. Think of the animal first. Have a great hunt.
2007-12-24 08:34:17 · answer #1 · answered by DAN 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Alot of moose have been killed with the 6.5 X 55. It is very popular in Scandinavia. But it shoots heavy for caliber bullets in the 150gr range, for the penetration like you stated. I think the popularity has more to do with price and availability than effectiveness. As there were many 6.5 mausers and converted 7mm mausers all over europe. Look at how many deer are killed with 30/30's Which I think is a crappy round. It only has the track record because it is the cheapest rifle you can buy so lots of people use it. Jack O Conner loved the .270 and if I had one I would use it. But it sounds like you dont own one. If I had a 6.5 and was looking for a new rifle I dont think a 270 is much different. I would move up to a 300 or 338 win mag or 350 remington magnum or 35 whelen. No since buying another rifle that is only a tiny bit better. If you are gonna use your 6.5 do some research online about bullets and loads that Scandinavian Moose hunters are using.
2007-12-24 08:29:55 · answer #2 · answered by sfcjoe4d 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
If you have no other rifle available, the 270 Win. will work. The Nosler 160 grainer is an excellent choice. I shot a cow with this combo in 2006 at about 150 yards...Down for the count. These bullets are a semi pointed spitzer design so they are not as flat shooting as Sierra's and others but the Nosler Partition design just flat out works as many of us know so very well. These are also quite accurate even in my "Trombone" as my hunting partners call my old Remington 760 pump circa 1962. "You tromboned another one didn't you? I can tell you did, look at your smile". Use this combo and you can smile too!
2007-12-26 17:25:28 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
With perfect shot placement and a stout 150gr. bullet, the .270 will do. But as many have commented, if you are looking to upgrade, why not go at least to a .30-06?
And to the bloke who took an elk at 600 yards with one shot from a .270 - did I ever tell you about my 1000-yard sasquatch head-shot with a .357 revolver? Kidding aside, what kind of guide with any sense has his client open fire on a live beast at 600 yards with anything less than a 338Lapua.
2007-12-24 15:11:14 · answer #4 · answered by geraldine f 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I use a .270 with Winchester 150 grain pp. Quite a few elk hunters I know use the .270 and most of them are one shot kills in the 150 - 250 yard range. Sadly I haven't been able to get one yet, but I have no doubt that the round is more than adequate for elk based on the kills from hunters who are using it quite succesfully.
2007-12-24 15:41:17 · answer #5 · answered by smf_hi 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I've taken elk with no problem with my .270. I shoot a 150 grain sierra spitzer boat tail bullet with IMR 4631 powder, my longest shot was several years ago, on a guided hunt in wyoming, I hit a bull elk at 600 yards and killed it with one hit. Would I shoot that far again? no, but back then I was on my game and it was a perfect day for the shot. So, yes, the .270 is perfect for elk.
Shoot safe
2007-12-24 12:22:16 · answer #6 · answered by randy 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The .270 is sufficient for taking elk, but i would opt for 150 grain shells instead of the 130 grain.
2007-12-26 04:54:22 · answer #7 · answered by southernrebel22 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
A better choice is the 30-06, because you have a greater variety of bullet weights to choose from.* I prefer the 180 or 220 grain bullets myself.*When you have a 30-06 you don't need any other rifle.* It will harvest any game in North America cleanly.*
2007-12-24 11:37:01 · answer #8 · answered by dca2003311@yahoo.com 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
the problem I have with using a 270 on much of anything larger than a whitetail is lack of punch, and lack of bullet/cartridge choice. If you step up to .30 caliber, there's a whole plethora of choices. .308, 30-06,.300magnums, etc. Also, if you step DOWN to the 7mm's you've still got quite a few choices that are capable. 7mm Remmington magnum, 7mmSTW, 7mm Weatherby, etc. Myself, I'd start with the .300 Winchester magnum, or perhaps even go up to a .338.
2007-12-24 10:40:00 · answer #9 · answered by JustJoshin999 3 · 0⤊ 4⤋
I woudn't go under 30-06 mainly due to bullet grain weight may not have enuff punch through the shoulder blade.Smaller bullets have realy gotten good due to core bonding,and ballistic tipping hollow pointed spitzer style bullets.Upwards of 2-21/2 times expansion would kill and elk with a PERFECT hrt/lung head/neck shot,anything less would just unethicly wound.
2007-12-24 08:34:58 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 5⤋