[MassMark]

I rarely visit the Hunting Forum here at THR, as I do not hunt. Perhaps I should qualify that. I started hunting at age 7 with my grandfather, (Pop). He was a wise old Swamp Yankee, who taught me much about the woods, tracking, stalking, killing cleanly, honoring the environment and the sacrifice of the animal. I think sometime in my late teens, I forgot about much he had taught me before he passed away. Call it the "indiscretions of youth" or a kid gone awry, but I became less than a conscientious hunter. I'll not get into details in this post - perhaps another time. Suffice it to say that I had lost my way. Then I hit my late teens and met a surrogate father figure from the hills of West Virginia who brought me back to square. At 23, I decided on my own accord that hunting was no longer for me personally. I had lost my taste for it - harvesting game just didn't work for my concepts of nature anymore. That said, I still support and advocate for hunters. I open my land to those who respect it and if my family were in need, I would hunt again in a millisecond. My rifle is now a Nikon F5 and a 600mm lens. I find greater peace in shooting film over bullets when it comes to wildlife, but still do have the occasional pang for the traditional hunt. Sorry for the ramble - I just felt the need to qualify that I'm not an anti-hunter type.

With that over, I wanted to pose a question to the hunting community here at THR and will likely post this on NES. I was watching Outdoor Channel the other night while flipping through the channels. I can't remember the exact show, just that it was on about 11EST. It was a guided moose hunt with a man who was looking to hunt moose for the first time. They were sidetracked briefly trying to track, stalk and take a black bear, (I was always a singular game hunter, so this rubbed me a tad) but they seemed to refocus on moose and came across a few bulls jostling in a thicket. After some time picking out just the right bull, the newbie took aim and fired what I seem to remember to be 5-rounds from his rifle into the moose. It seemed to be anything but a clean kill and it looked as if the hits were all over the place. Who knows if they edited, but the series of shots that it took to take to put this moose down seemed to go on for quite some time - too much time for my taste or memories of moose hunting.

I think the thing that got to me the most, was that the newbie was using a .270 Winchester, which kind of surprised me as much as the kill seemed disturbing to my senses. I understand the history and the merits of the cartridge, but I figured, (through some experience), that the .270 had a stopping point somewhere around mule deer and elk, (at the extreme). The bull he was shooting at was over 60-points and quite large. It seemed to be a needless amount of suffering to put this animal down. My Pop taught me to always bring enough gun, always try and reduce the suffering of the animal as much as possible, (kill cleanly) and to honor your quarry. It seemed none of this was followed in this case. When I took my moose with my handed down, (thanks Pop), .338 Winchester Magnum, it turned took a step and dropped like a rock. Two puffs of breath hung in the morning mist. The ones I remember my grandfather hunting and his buddy with the .30-.06 ended much the same way.

So my question after this long ramble ladies and gentleman is: Is the .270 Winchester enough gun to bring to a moose hunt? My vote would be no. What say you?

[ACP230]

I'd say so, depending on the bullet used.
Shot placement is also important, of course.

I haven't hunted moose, but lots of them have been taken in Canada with the .303 British which has less energy than the .270.

[Clipper]

Well, Jack O'connor used a .270 on every kind of big game on the continent, and several on other continents as well. The key, as always, is bullet placement, and the ethics to pass on a iffy shot.

[eliphalet]

I would answer "yes' to both questions.

Yes, I believe a 270 with a quality hunting bullet and proper shot placement would destroy the lungs or heart of a moose causing a clean fast kill.

Yes, If it was me I would choose a larger caliber.

I also do not think most of the hunting shows on TV portray hunting in near as positive a light as could or should be done.

I am a hunter, have been 50 years or so. Some of what I have seen on these hunting shows would absolutely turn me against hunting if I was not a hunter, or a on the fence and undecided person about hunting in general.
Some of what I have seen makes me angry, caused me to send emails and vow to not purchase any product or support any company that advertises on any such show.
Not all, as some I have viewed seem very well done, but others I have personally viewed are disgusting.

[Cosmoline]

More than enough if you use a heavy bullet and get the shot in the right part of the animal. The 6.5 Swede is sufficient. I've seen one brought down with a 7.62x39 firing 150's. There is absolutely no need to use a .338 Mag on a moose, even up here. Though you certainly *can* do so if you want.

[TX1911fan]

I just watched a Petersen's Hunting episode where Scott Rupp took a huge bull moose with a .270. I've seen black bear taken with .270 as well. I have a 300 Win Mag that I'd use, but I would not be afraid to hunt moose with a .270.

[Vern Humphrey]

Actually, O'Connor shot his share of big game with the .30-06 and heavier calibers. For sheep (he was an avid sheep hunter) and similar game, he preferred the .270.

I'd say if you have a .270, shoot it well, and are confident of your ability, and are willing to use heavier, premium bullets, the .270 will do fine.

[Striker]

Location, location, location is everything as they say.

I got two moose during my years in Alaska, one with a with a 150 gr .270 and the other with a 150 gr .308. Both were one shot (shoulder/lung) kills at 50-60 yards

The .270 was/is used a for everything in Alaska other then big bear.

[DogBonz]

But, if it were me, I would not use a 270, well, that said, I never really liked the 270 anyway. Nothing factual against it, I just grew up using a '06 and it did all I ever asked it to, so why bother? All that aside, the 270, with proper bullet choice has enough umph to get to, and take out the vitals if you are studied up on the anatomy of your quarry. If the shooter does their part the rifle will do its.

[MDHunter]

Massmark,

Sounds like your discomfort with killing might be impacting your perspective a little....moose are big animals, and often take a couple of minutes to bleed out and die, even with multiple hits in the vitals. In 2006 I shot a 56" bull, took two shots to the heart/lung area to put it down, and when we walked up to it, it stood up and needed two more shots to finish it! I used a .338 WM, so I had plenty of gun, but it still took four shots when all was said and done.

The .270 will do the job on moose with good hits and proper bullets, but moose are huge animals, and sometimes they take a little while to realize they've been shot.

[3pairs12]

I voted to opt for the better caliber. Although with a good shot placement 270 would do it.

[HM2PAC]

.270 is plenty for moose. Last year my friend and I hunted moose up here in Maine. He killed a rather large cow at @125 yds with a 7x57 Win M70.

The shot was perfectly placed, the animal went 25 yds and laid down in a small trench.

The moose is not a tough animal to kill if the shot placement is good. An elk may run off a hundred yards or more with a well placed shot. A moose is not an endurance/distance runner.

[ADKWOODSMAN]

If I could only use my .270 I would. However, there is also a .35 Whalen in the cabinet and I'm dying to try it out!

[paintballdude902]

i have been told that .270 is the minumum for elk but not much larger


i have friends that use it as a great whitetaile round but i would never use it on moose

but then again in "Into The Wild" the kid killed a moose with a .22lr notsure on th size of the moose and the range

[MassMark]

Thanks - and you may be right MDHunter. It's been a while since I've hunted. I gave it up when I was 23 - I'm 42 now. It just seemed like a lot of rounds fired and the tape seemed to skip - indicating it was edited. I watch hunting shows infrequently, but they never seem to bother me until this one, (except elephant hunts for some reason - always get me - perhaps it was 5-months in Africa). I guess I was just lucky. With the exception of a pheasant and a squirrel or two, I never remember anything taking that much time to put down. I've had white tails in Ohio take a few bounds after being hit, but the moose I hunted with the .338 went down like a rock. It just didn't seem like he had enough gun and of course I'm not confident with his shot placement.

I understand your perspective as well eliphalet - some of those hunts - especially the caged hunts just seem light-years away from the hunting I knew. I don't judge it I guess - it's just not for me.

Thanks all for your replies so far - it's been nice to get your feedback.

Mark

[justice4all]

I think both answers could be yes. If a .270 was all I had, I'd use it, but I wouldn't chose it over a .35 Whelen I had in the safe.

[TAB]

Just remember...

the best place to shoot a moose is....

















Close to a front end loader.

[MassMark]

LOL...You ain't kidding! :) We butchered mine in the field, (thank God I was with someone with experience) and hauled it out on Honda 3-wheelers. Took 4 trips.

[Guns_and_Labs]

As others have said, I'm sure a .270 would do it, but I would take one of the heavier rifles if I had a choice. My one-and-only (so far) was taken with a .30-06, but if I were hunting now it would be a .338 or more likely a .350RemMag.

[GCW5]

I'll chime in and agree with everyone else. A 270 with 150gr partation bullets will probably kill moose cleanly if you hit'm right. I've used it on elk and they are as tough as they come. I'd perfur a bigger hole with moose, they are BIG, like I've found with elk. The 270 works, but I've been shooting a 9.3 X 62 for the past 4 or 5 years, and it defenatly has more "umph".

[learningman]

I'd say yes that it is big enough to bring down a moose, but that I would most likely opt for a bigger gun. The funny thing is I've shot animals, and seen animals shot cleanly and they should fall over dead in an instance right?, but they don't. Then the same could be said for an animal that was shot with a not so good placement but the darn thing walks two or three steps then dies. Good shot placement is the key bar none. That being said somethimes the best shot just isn't enough.

[CoRoMo]

.270 will do it for sure. I hunt big game with a .270 and nothing else. I haven't bagged a moose yet... yet, but it will be with a .270.
I used to hear people say that the .270 is too small for elk, but nope. My experience hasn't even required a second shot. I was considering a .300 Win Mag for elk because I bought into the idea that you need a gun to blow through both shoulders of the animal to be adequate. Well let me tell you about the elk I shot in October with the Ruger M77 .270. Once I butchered the entire thing, I found that the 130gr bullet punched a pinky-finger size hole through one shoulder blade, cut through the lungs and completely shattered the offside shoulder blade into several bone shards. Found the bullet right under the offside hide.
Through both shoulders indeed. That elk didn't take another step. Now I know that moose are bigger, tougher, and thicker, but I think the .270 with a 150gr bullet will still kill 'em handily.

Edit: For me... I'll never own a magnum.
I've read a lot about how the 45-70 is ideal for moose. The logic being a big, slow bullet kills them quicker.

[Guns_and_Labs]

I've read a lot about how the 45-70 is ideal for moose. The logic being a big, slow bullet kills them quicker.


Well, the .45-70 DOES seem to work on buffalo, so maybe there is something to that logic.

[Flintknapper]

I saw the same show a couple of days ago.

I have been a hunter for almost 40 years and this particular clip was a tad disturbing to me as well.

While I believe a .270 is "enough" gun to get the job done...it turned out to be less than "ideal" in this case.

We are not told what bullet he used (weight or construction), but the animals reaction was consistent with one that was hit with a bullet that didn't penetrate well.

I recognize moose are big and tough animals...and that each animal can react differently when hit. But, the range in this instance was quite close (perhaps under 50 yds.). I believe that high velocity (and less than rugged bullet construction) were causing them to "blow up" at this close distance.

I use a .338 on Elk and Moose and get consistent results (good clean kills), but I don't label the .270 as inferior.

Bullet choice and placement should be prime considerations however.

IMO a dis-service was done to this animal, but I've had a Whitetail buck run 90 yds. and jump a fence after being shot squarely through the heart! Unusual to be sure.

[MassMark]

Thanks Flintknapper - I'm glad I wasn't the only one who saw it. I do believe they said 40-yards. If I were the producer of that show - I would have edited that tape to high heaven. It was not a "good death".....

[jmr40]

Never hunted moose but have seen a lot of deer and bear shot. Sometimes the shot placement is perfect and the bullet performs well and they just don't want to die. Having read many hunting stories in Outdoor Life and other books etc. it seems that moose are especially tenacious in not wanting to go down after a good hit.

Did not see the show, but I would hunt with a .270 with good bullets but would prefer something bigger.

[CoRoMo]

40 yards with a .270?!?!?!?

posted by David E. Petzal:
Called-in moose are usually shot at ranges of 20 to 40 yards, where high velocity is worse than useless. At the very least it will produce blown-up bullets that cause horrendous meat loss. At worst the bullet will blow up on the shoulder and the animal will run away and die at his leisure, and you may not ever find it. What you want is a bullet that will hold together and pass intact through 4 feet of bone, hide, and muscle.

If you're hunting that close, go with the heavy, slow projectile. 45/70 would be perfect. Keep the .270 for longer shots.

[Vern Humphrey]

That's why I like the .35 Brown-Whelen. A 225 grain Nosler PJ at 2800 fps is just about ideal for larger game, and has enough punch and reach to deal with any reaonable range, from off the muzzle out to 300 yards or so.

[351 WINCHESTER]

The .270 with a heavy bullet or a heavily constructed 130 gr. will kill moose all day long. I knew an elderly gentlemen that used to hunt moose with his .351 winchester. Never lost one or had a problem. He was an excellent hunter.

[Rebailey]

A friend of mine hunted moose in Alaska. The natives used .243 Win. with 100-gr bullets. They said shoot them through the lungs. They waited about 30 minutes then followed them and they would lay down and die. No problem.

[CoRoMo]

The .270 with a heavy bullet or a heavily constructed 130 gr. will kill moose all day long.

I couldn't agree more. I'm a .270 lover and I'll never change. However, when I've shot deer at close ranges (26 paces was the closest) the 3,000+fps bullet seems to explode on impact. Sure, it still killed the mule deer, but on a big bull moose, I'm not sure what that close of a range would do. Just a massive wound or 'good enough' penetration?

[rhweb32]

My buddy shot his moose here in Montana this year with a .357 mag. It took one shot at 25 yards. It's all about the bullet and shot placement.

[Run&Shoot]

Bullet weight and construction are important. The 130 gr is very popular for the .270 and is fine for deer and antelope. But for moose it would be better to use the 150 gr of good construction (like the bonded bullets).

I would opt for a .30-06 in 180 gr or even 200 gr., or a .35 Whelen. Or even a .300 or .338 WM. The .270 seems a bit small but with good shot placement and a good 150 gr bullet it should do better than what you saw in the show. I suspect the guy either used the 130 gr bullets or had poor shot placement.

[Vern Humphrey]

I have a lot of sympathy for people who rail against "magnumitis" -- the proposition that nowadays you can't kill game without the latest magnum. And I agree that in days gone by, people killed moose, brown bear and similar really big game with rifles we would consider too light today.

But at the same time, I realize they used those "too light" rifles because that's all they had. And they were hunting in a different era -- it didn't cost them the price of a new car to shoot a moose, and if they lost one, they could always find another.

Having said that, a .30-06 is still all you really need in North America, and a .35 Whelen (or my favorite, the .35 Brown-Whelen) is extra insurance.

[MakAttak]

Having said that, a .30-06 is still all you USUALLY need in North America, and a .35 Whelen (or my favorite, the .35 Brown-Whelen) is extra insurance.

Fixed that for you.

I don't know if I'd want a 30-06 with a charging Grizzly...

[Vern Humphrey]

I've never shot a charging grizzley, but I recall reading about a lady out berry picking who shot and killed two -- with a .250 Savage.

Personally, with a good 180 grain bullet or better, I think you'd be hard put to tell the difference on grizzley between the .300 Win Mag and the .30-06.

[mbt2001]

Ballistically, the .270 is shooting roughly the same size bullet at roughly the same speed as the 7mm mag. Obviously the 7mm is the faster, larger, more powerful rifle, but not by a large margin. 100 - 300 fps and approx 300 ft lbs...

The 30-06 and 308 have a similar difference in power and most people would agree that anything you can hunt with a 30-06 you can hunt with a .308. Just FYI.

The .270 is fine for Moose. There are other cartridges that do it better, but few "larger" guns have the same versatility as the 270 round.

Vern Humphrey - You sentiments are the same as mine. There are a lot of people that put magnum at the end of a cartridge and feel that it can do anything, when in reality the difference between a "magnum" and "non magnum" round is sketched out above. The 30-06 and .300 winchester magnum have about the same varience as the .270 and the 7mm mag.

Everyone on this board would say that a .300 win mag is OK for moose and grizzly bear and most would say the same for the 7mm mag. I wonder if they see that in advocating those two, they are elliptically agreeing that the .270 win and the 30-06 are also fine for the same game.

[redneck2]

Two years ago I shot a mid-sized 6-point white tail with my 12 gauge. Deer was facing me from maybe 50 yards. I was prone, deer standing still looking at me.

485 grain slug went in the right side front of the chest, angled thru the heart and lungs and exited just in front of the left rear hind quarter. Looked like a buzz saw went thru. Deer still ran about 100 yards.

If a .712 round with exceptional expansion and complete pass thru isn't big enough, I don't know what is.

Some times they just don't know they're dead.

[Nevertoomanyguns]

My buddy shot his moose 3 years ago with a .270 using 130 gr. bullets. Shot it just behind the shoulder complete pass through and the moose went about 25 yards and dropped. The moose was a cow and weighed 850 lbs dressed. I hunted for my bull moose this year with my .270 and never felt under gunned I just never found my bull.:(