Enough Elk Gun
- Thread starter txcookie
- Start date
- Status
the 270 win is more than adequate for elk. anyone who says or writes to the contrary is just showing their own ignorance or prejudice. sure, there are better elk cartridges, but have no doubt, the 270 has and will continue to kill elk. know your rifle, know your limitations, and get your knife ready. it's as simple as that! good hunting.
Arizonagunrunner
member
Jack O'connor never killed a Brown bear or Polar bear with a 270. He did shoot several grizzlys with his Winchester 270 though.
Certaindeaf
member
Ah, I should have known otherwise but I thought you were referring to the Elmer.
OP
OP
txcookie
Member
I have total confidence in the 270 for any critter in North America! I dont feel I would need any special load or premium bullet. I think the 130 grain Core lokts would be just fine. I also wont be shooting hard angles nor will I shoot past my abilities. If I were to go on some dream elk hunt, I would certainly feel good taking my 270. I usually bowhunt so getting close is all I really know. I have plenty of discipline in shot selection and have no issue passing on shots I dont know I can make. Thanks for all the post
X-Rap
Member
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2006
- Messages
- 6,657
What state are you hunting? What season? Private or public? Remote pack in or drive to area?
All these questions can/will determine just how close and how good of a shot you may get at an elk. I've hunted areas that you'd do well to see one standing as they run a gauntlet of hunters traveling between their feeding and bedding areas. Other places I've hunted have them as close to what their natural state could be.
Your 270 will be fine if you indeed are willing to pass on shots until the right one comes along. I have seen many fall to Core Lokts although 130 is far lighter than I would use, 150 would be the minimum.
All these questions can/will determine just how close and how good of a shot you may get at an elk. I've hunted areas that you'd do well to see one standing as they run a gauntlet of hunters traveling between their feeding and bedding areas. Other places I've hunted have them as close to what their natural state could be.
Your 270 will be fine if you indeed are willing to pass on shots until the right one comes along. I have seen many fall to Core Lokts although 130 is far lighter than I would use, 150 would be the minimum.
You left out the Super Thirty aka .300 H&H Magnum, introduced in 1925.
X-Rap
Member
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2006
- Messages
- 6,657
Some seem to think that "magnumitis" only started recently. Man has worked to improve his weapons since he picked up a sharp stick.
I feel we are pretty much at the top of the hill when it comes to wringing out performance from hand held firearms at this point but maybe I'm wrong.
I feel we are pretty much at the top of the hill when it comes to wringing out performance from hand held firearms at this point but maybe I'm wrong.
Arkansas Paul
Member
I bet they thought the same thing when they first started using archery equipment too.
X-Rap
Member
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2006
- Messages
- 6,657
That may be Paul but there are very few "revelations" in the gun world in the last few decades as far as calibers and ballistics go.
Men have had to work very hard to wring out a few extra FPS or Ft Lbs of energy from the metallic cartridge in recent years.
Scopes, stocks, and other accessories continue to improve as well as bullet construction but the guns pretty much are limited to what a man can carry in the field.
Look at the king daddy of them all, the 50BMG which is hardly a easily carried gun for field use. It was developed almost 100 yrs ago.
Men have had to work very hard to wring out a few extra FPS or Ft Lbs of energy from the metallic cartridge in recent years.
Scopes, stocks, and other accessories continue to improve as well as bullet construction but the guns pretty much are limited to what a man can carry in the field.
Look at the king daddy of them all, the 50BMG which is hardly a easily carried gun for field use. It was developed almost 100 yrs ago.
OP
OP
txcookie
Member
Phillip m
is the 300H&H belted?
is the 300H&H belted?
Yes.
mdauben
Member
That's just it, it took a quantum leap in technology (from man powered bows and spears to chemical powered rifles and shotguns) to offer a real improvement in performance of "ballistic weapons". I agree with the previous poster that we've come pretty close to the limits of chemical powered projectile weapons. Its going to take another quantum leap in technology (man-portable rail guns, practical combat lasers or something we don't even see yet) to get really significant improvements over what we can do now.
The "quantum leap" in technology is better bullets that have been introduced recently. We have had the technology to shoot small light bullets at hyper velocity for a while now, but still needed heavy bullets that would hold together and work on larger game.
We can now shoot a 100 gr 243 that will hold together, penetrate, and do the damage to game that it used to take a 180 gr 30-06 to do. The small fast vs heavy slow debate is quickly swinging in favor of the small and fast camp.
While the 270 has always been a viable elk round, today it and the 30-06 are quickly becoming overkill for even elk size game.
35 Whelen
Member
No way. Regardless of the quality of the bullet a .243" bullet will never be a .30 caliber bullet. If you've ever skinned, quartered and packed a mature bull elk, you'll understand just how large they are and why they take a good bullet of reasonable caliber to kill.
35W
I'm not a hunter...
... but I have three buddies who go up to Colorado each November to hunt elk. The 3 rifles they use are 270, 308, and 30-06. I've never accompanied them on their hunts, but they say they've never lost an elk. I don't know what range or angles they take their shots from, but each seems well satisfied with his weapon.
That said, I've seen elk up close on a number of occasions. They're huge impressive beasts. Seems to me that a magnum caliber would certainly be appropriate.
... but I have three buddies who go up to Colorado each November to hunt elk. The 3 rifles they use are 270, 308, and 30-06. I've never accompanied them on their hunts, but they say they've never lost an elk. I don't know what range or angles they take their shots from, but each seems well satisfied with his weapon.
That said, I've seen elk up close on a number of occasions. They're huge impressive beasts. Seems to me that a magnum caliber would certainly be appropriate.
While there certainly have been some serious advances in bullet technology, they've changed shooting an elk with a 243 from irresponsible stunt to merely a bad idea.
Even if your premise that a 243 with a premium bullet is equal to a 30-06 were true, there's still no net advantage. Why not use a 30-06 with a premium bullet and actually take advantage of the new technology?
OP
OP
txcookie
Member
243 is pushing IMO. However I wouldnt be afraid to use one at 100 yards or so with a broadside shot.
I Bowhunt and I know a 243 can cause ALOT more damage than a XX75 2315.
I Bowhunt and I know a 243 can cause ALOT more damage than a XX75 2315.
Arkansas Paul
Member
No it doesn't. And I LOVE the .243 round.
On a big elk, moose or big bear, I would rather shoot them with an arrow. I don't think a .243 will give you a pass through with a 1 1/4" wound channel all the way through.
On a big elk, moose or big bear, I would rather shoot them with an arrow. I don't think a .243 will give you a pass through with a 1 1/4" wound channel all the way through.
- Status
