Need opinions on the .270 for elk hunting

P

Payette Jack

New member
I know a lot of people hunt elk with the .270 (which doesn't necesarily make it right) and I was wondering what the concensus was. Is it 'enough'? I like the round and am deciding between the .270 and 30-06 in a Remington autoloader. I'll only have the one hunting rifle and want the flexibility of taking elk or deer and possibly mulies and pronghorn.

Thanks in advance.
 
I'd say load up a 150 grain nosler partition warmly and make a sure shot. No problems. Hit the boiler room.
 
There seems to be a lot of people who would be better off with a rifle they could shoot with their eyes open (270 Win)as to one they can't (338 Win Mags, etc.,etc.)Time and time again, its shot placement and range that puts the meat on the table. Have friends who think they need a rifle which will shoot 500, and they are out there, but the shooter can't. I think 500 is a long way, but some don't!
 
Classic

You have entered into one of the all time classic debates about hunting rifles. Jack O'Connor, Elmer Keith, and most of the famous gun writers argued that one for decades. The only elk here are in the zoo so I can't give any option based on experience, but Mr. O'Connor believed and proved on many occasions that the 270 would do everything. I do know there is less recoil with the 270, but in an autoloader who cares anyway. (Talk about a post not even worth two cents)
 
If you are an excellent rifle shot at typical hunting distances, AND you have a good load, sure you could do it. For a little more leeway with your shot placement, and with energy to spare, the 300 Win Mag and .338 Win Mag's are better suited IMHO.

Remember the mantra, placement is EVERYTHING. Rifle and load are always secondary to this.
 
Payette, if it's a choice between a .30-06, and a .270, I think you'll be better served with the .30-06. A whole lot more choice in cartridges (and bullets, if you reload), and given the various game here in Idaho, the .30-06 will take anything you run across. (My cousin, who lived for 20 years in Boise, pulled an Idaho moose ticket several years ago, and killed his moose up near Island Park, with his one-and-only high powered rifle, a pre-64 Win. FW .308, with two shots. He killed many elk and deer with that .308).

A good friend of mine with whom I've hunted elk/deer, many times, has killed three bull elk, and several deer, with his Rem. 742 in .30-06.

I have a Rem. 742 in .308, and have never had any problem with it, by the way.

Anyway, again, I suggest the .30-06. J.B.

EDIT: How does it feel to be out of the Marxist State of Kalif.?
 
I would vote for the '06 also. No doubt the 270 will get the job done, but, IMHO, bigger is better. While I have not seen very many elk killed, blood trails seem to be better with larger bullets. Of three cows shot with 7RM using 175gr partitions, only one left a discernable blood trail and another failed to completely penetrate the off shoulder on a double lung shot at 50 yds. Each traveled at least 150 yds. I have seen 180gr horn.lt mag in '06 penetrate end to end at over 300. A couple more with 33 and 35 cal seemed to leave a good trail...but really wasn't needed. At close range I suspect it won't really matter..but at longer distance, blood might be the only indication of a hit and a 270 hole isn't very big.

MFH
 
It feels great, Jay.

Thanks for asking. Boise isn't paradise, but you can day-trip it from here.

I've been toying around with putting in for the moose tag too. When is that, April?

Anyway, I like both rounds pretty well. I like .308 too, but between .308 and 30-06, I'll take the added flexibility of the '06. I like the ballistics of the .270 and from watching my dad take a couple of whitetails, I can tell you its a deer-gettin' cartridge par excellance.
 
I have a friend that has taken more elk than I can count with a Rem 270 autoloader (favorate spot is above Idaho City somewhere), but he has never carried one more than 200 yards to the road, either. Unless you have his skill, I think bigger is better, too.
 
270 Elk Hunting

I would use either a 130 or 150 [preference is a 130] grain SP bullet.

If you use a 30-06, then use a 130 to 150 grain SP bullet
 
Add my vote for the 30-06. It has the range for the open country shots, and can handle the heavier bullets for hunts in black timber.
I think that the .270 has been loaded down somewhat in deference to the limitations of the semi-automatic rifles chambered for the round. You can get a "magnum" loading for the 30-06, but if I am not mistaken, they state not to use it in the semi-auto's.
A point to consider when discussing the arguments concerning the .270 or something heavier for elk by the late Jack O'Connor and Elmer Keith. Jack just about always hunted his elk above timberline where the .270 was more than adequate for the type of shots he took. Elmer, on the other hand did most of his elk hunting in thick timber country, where the penetration of the bigger, heavier, and longer bullet was necessary.
In the .270, I would use a 150 gr. loaded with the Nosler Partition or Bear Claw bullets. In the 30-06, I'd use any good 180 gr. premium bullet. 165 gr. if a Barnes X bullet or Winchester's Failsafe. A 130 gr..30 caliber bullet on elk? That's a varmint bullet, and elk ain't varmints. I totally disagree there.
Paul B.
 
I like the choice of a 30-06 as well for elk (if your choice is limited to 270 or 30-06 that is) as I would go for the the caliber which can deliver the most energy, just in case you have to go for the shoulders on that 7x7 Monarch bull (or mistakenly hit them when shooting for the boiler). You want at least 2000 ft lbs of energy for those shoulders for as far out as possible as you may not be so lucky as to be blessed with a close shot. I found the following formula helpful, which a professor (John Taylor, I believe) from Wayne State University came up with to determine "knock-down" power amongst calibers, bullets, loads. It is:

Velocity * Bullet diameter * Bullet weight divided
by 7000 = knock-down factor

The factor itself is meaningless; its value comes from comparing it to factors computed for other calibers/loads/bullets. I think if you compare the two calibers with this formula, you will choose the 30-06. See example below:

2700 (fps) * .308 * 180 (grns) / 7000 = 21.38 (30-06)
2800 (fps) * .277 * 150 (grns) / 7000 = 16.62 (270)

So, the 30-06, in this example, has almost 30% more knock-down power. Sure, you can kill plenty of elk with a 270, but I would opt for the '06 if you're choosing between the two.
 
I don't know...

elk are a lot tougher today, what with steroids and weights, than they were just a generation ago. What used to work fine will now not work. Sure, Jack O'Conner used a .270 for much of his hunting (I love his stories), but that was a long time ago. You'd better go with a magnum cartridge. ;)

Seriously, I have an '06 that'll work just fine for anything I plan to hunt and shoot within a reasonable range (300 yards). I've no doubt that a .270 will do the trick, as it has done for decades, if you do your part.
DAL
 
270/30-06 for el?

The coice, in my mind for you, is not the caliber but the gun.....

Why not a bolt or,my personal choice, a single shot?

With either of these you can get loads to max and, well you can see where I am going. I grew up with an 06 Rem 742. (I guess that dates me at past 50.) I also grew up reading about the caliber that "Jack built".

I am a 270 fan. It will kill an elk. As was posted earlier, use the federal Trophy Bonded Bear Claw in 140 gr. Keep your shots reasonable, 300 and under. This Federal load might be too much for an auto loader.

Now for the double speak.... So will an 06. Ammo for both is easy to find.

But..... really consider, at least, bolt gun.

Huntschool
Bruce A. Hering
"Single shot shooters only shoot once"
 
I'm (probably) going with the autoloader because of the reduced recoil and faster follow-up shot. Most deer/elk in this neck of the woods (Idaho) are taken at less than 150 yds. And because I just like them. I'm leaning toward the '06 more and more, even though I like the .270's ballistics a bit better.

Decisions, decisions.
 
.270 plenty of rifle

I have personally used my .270 to take several elk, a couple of moose, some exceptionally large black bear, and more deer than I can count. It is plenty of rifle for elk, provided you use premium bullets (Nosler Partitions, Barnes X-bullets, Winchester Supremes, Swift A-frames, etc.). As has been stated several times already in this thread, shot placement is MUCH more important than caliber.

Shoot whatever you shoot to the very best of your abilities. Most folks are actually overgunned for the game & conditions under which they hunt. Magnums are fine IF you can shoot them well under ALL conditions. The .270 is one of the most shootable rounds we have for large game. Ammo is available everywhere for it, and now we have some excpetional premium bullets to use it it.

Just my $0.02

AJ
 
I'll vote for the 30/06 as a MINIMUM for elk. Use premium bullets in a rifle with at least a 22 inch barrel too. Elk are large, tough animals and can absorb a lot of shock.
I tried using my Remington 742 carbine (18" barrel) 30/06 with 165 gr Sierra Game King BTHP bullets for elk one year. It was not enough rifle or bullet and required three rounds to put the animal down. All were well placed shots.
Next season, I used a Sako 30/06 (24 inch barrel) with 200 gr Nosler Partition bullets. The elk dropped with the first shot. Same bullet placement as above. The extra energy made a big difference.

I also discovered, while trying to soup up my handloads a bit, the bolt action will handle a much hotter load than the semi-auto will. I'd suggest going with a good bolt action and making your first shot count.

Even though the 30/06 has worked OK on elk for me, I had the feeling I was pushing the cartridge to the limit so when my buddy offered me a smoking deal on a Sako .338 Win Mag last month, I jumped on it. I'll be using the .338 for elk from now on.

That's my $.02.

Bottom Gun
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top