As you guys know, I can’t decide between the 270 Winchester, the 280 Remington, and the 30-06. I know that the hands down choice for “all around rifle in North America” is the 30-06. But I am drawn to the 280 Remington, I guess because I like to walk to a different drummer. So I keep trying to justify the 280 Remington, despite the dearth of 280 factory loads compared to the 270 and the 30-06. (Which is a shame!)
Just when I have convinced myself to buy the 280, the old ghost of wisdom that says the 270 and the 280 “ain’t enough gun fer elk” comes up in my head and whispers, “NO! Buy the 30-06!”
So, help me settle this dilemma once and for all, using “adequate for elk” as the measure.
Now, plenty of people on this forum kill elk with bow and arrow – which proves that penetration and shot placement, not energy, is paramount.
And given a solid heart/lung shot, any bullet capable of penetrating to these vitals will cleanly dispatch the elk. I am talking about an elk keeling over and dying within a couple hundred yards – not an all day tracking affair.
Now, we don’t often get an optimum shot at a game animal. Lots of variables involved: choice of bullet, size of elk, range to elk, body position of elk, weather, skill of shooter, etc.
The list of “calibers adequate for elk” gets pared down when we introduce the vagaries that hunters encounter: the elk isn’t standing broadside in the open at 100 meters. The elk moved just as the trigger was pulled, the elk was 300 yards away with a strong cross wind, etc, etc, etc. These vagaries lead us to choose calibers that clearly overmatch the animal – to compensate for field conditions.
So my question becomes: which energy and bullet combination provides a suitable margin for error to make a particular caliber of rifle a “good elk gun”? Which bullet, with how much energy, is needed to penetrate to the elk’s vitals regardless of the angle of attack? Yep, even with a Texas heart shot.
Now, I can’t think of a better bullet than the Nosler partition:
The 165 grain .308 diameter spitzer has a BC of .248 and a SD of .410
The 180 grain .308 diameter spitzer has a BC of .271 and a SD of .474
The 175 grain .284 diameter spitzer has a BC of .310 and a SD of .519
The 160 grain .284 diameter spitzer has a BC of .283 and a SD of .475
The 160 grain .277 diameter semi-spitzer has a BC of .298 and a SD of .434
The 150 grain .277 diameter spitzer has a BC of .279 and a SD of .465
Clearly, the 280 and 270 Noslers should be just as effective at penetration as the 30-06 variety. In fact, I can choose bullet weights in 270 and 280 that have higher ballistic coefficients and better Sectional Density than the 30-06.
Which brings me to velocity and retained energy. Seems to me that there exists some minimum amount of energy which, when pushing a Nosler partition, is sufficient to penetrate to an elk’s vitals regardless of angle of attack. I mean, if I shoot an elk with a depleted uranium sabot round from an M1 tank it is going to penetrate clear through regardless of angle of attack. On the other hand, a .22 rimfire ain’t gonna penetrate to an elk’s vitals unless I am point blank shooting between ribs. Somewhere in between lies a rifle caliber/bullet combination that will penetrate to an elk’s vitals regardless of angle of attack. Can the 270, the 280, or the 30-06 do this? Can all three do this?
I don’t know how much retained energy is required to do this, but I would guess that 2000 ft-lbs would be enough, even with a Texas heart shot. The 270, the 280, and the 30-06 are all capable of delivering a high SD Nosler partition at 2000 ft-lbs of energy at 175-200 yards.
So then, are all three “adequate for elk”? If so, why isn’t more respect given to the 270 and the 280?
I guess you are going to say that heavier bullets retain more energy at longer ranges, so the 180 grain 30-06 is a better choice for long range shots.
OK, I ‘ll shut up now. Whew! Thanks for the responses.
Just when I have convinced myself to buy the 280, the old ghost of wisdom that says the 270 and the 280 “ain’t enough gun fer elk” comes up in my head and whispers, “NO! Buy the 30-06!”
So, help me settle this dilemma once and for all, using “adequate for elk” as the measure.
Now, plenty of people on this forum kill elk with bow and arrow – which proves that penetration and shot placement, not energy, is paramount.
And given a solid heart/lung shot, any bullet capable of penetrating to these vitals will cleanly dispatch the elk. I am talking about an elk keeling over and dying within a couple hundred yards – not an all day tracking affair.
Now, we don’t often get an optimum shot at a game animal. Lots of variables involved: choice of bullet, size of elk, range to elk, body position of elk, weather, skill of shooter, etc.
The list of “calibers adequate for elk” gets pared down when we introduce the vagaries that hunters encounter: the elk isn’t standing broadside in the open at 100 meters. The elk moved just as the trigger was pulled, the elk was 300 yards away with a strong cross wind, etc, etc, etc. These vagaries lead us to choose calibers that clearly overmatch the animal – to compensate for field conditions.
So my question becomes: which energy and bullet combination provides a suitable margin for error to make a particular caliber of rifle a “good elk gun”? Which bullet, with how much energy, is needed to penetrate to the elk’s vitals regardless of the angle of attack? Yep, even with a Texas heart shot.
Now, I can’t think of a better bullet than the Nosler partition:
The 165 grain .308 diameter spitzer has a BC of .248 and a SD of .410
The 180 grain .308 diameter spitzer has a BC of .271 and a SD of .474
The 175 grain .284 diameter spitzer has a BC of .310 and a SD of .519
The 160 grain .284 diameter spitzer has a BC of .283 and a SD of .475
The 160 grain .277 diameter semi-spitzer has a BC of .298 and a SD of .434
The 150 grain .277 diameter spitzer has a BC of .279 and a SD of .465
Clearly, the 280 and 270 Noslers should be just as effective at penetration as the 30-06 variety. In fact, I can choose bullet weights in 270 and 280 that have higher ballistic coefficients and better Sectional Density than the 30-06.
Which brings me to velocity and retained energy. Seems to me that there exists some minimum amount of energy which, when pushing a Nosler partition, is sufficient to penetrate to an elk’s vitals regardless of angle of attack. I mean, if I shoot an elk with a depleted uranium sabot round from an M1 tank it is going to penetrate clear through regardless of angle of attack. On the other hand, a .22 rimfire ain’t gonna penetrate to an elk’s vitals unless I am point blank shooting between ribs. Somewhere in between lies a rifle caliber/bullet combination that will penetrate to an elk’s vitals regardless of angle of attack. Can the 270, the 280, or the 30-06 do this? Can all three do this?
I don’t know how much retained energy is required to do this, but I would guess that 2000 ft-lbs would be enough, even with a Texas heart shot. The 270, the 280, and the 30-06 are all capable of delivering a high SD Nosler partition at 2000 ft-lbs of energy at 175-200 yards.
So then, are all three “adequate for elk”? If so, why isn’t more respect given to the 270 and the 280?
I guess you are going to say that heavier bullets retain more energy at longer ranges, so the 180 grain 30-06 is a better choice for long range shots.
OK, I ‘ll shut up now. Whew! Thanks for the responses.