Printable View
This past month a bud of mine gave me some 130's and 150's for my newly bought 270. I've never hunted with a 270 before and need some help. I'm going on an elk hunt and I'm not quite sure what bullets to use. He said he's only used the 130's for mule deer. Would those work for elk or should I move up to 150's. BTW this is my first elk hunt with a 270 so I'm sorry if I sound stupid.
What 130 grain bullet is it ?
Accubond, partition, ect ?
A premium 130 should do the job.
A standard deer bullet, I would not recommend.
A 150 grain premium bullet would be better in 270 for elk, than the 130's.
That being said, I am sure their have been elk shot with 25-06 and 243 ect, that use bullets lighter than 130 grain.
Elk demand a premium bullet, and with the 270, be sure shot placement is taken into consideration also.
Good luck.
Good luck
I dissagree.
"standard deer bullets" work beautifully on N. Idaho elk; PROVIDED you aren't trying to break large bones. 130gr Core Lokt's quite easily kill elk. Me and my group have accounted for over 12 Elk out of the high country in Idaho. No 10 hour chases, no lost animals. All while using Hornady 130gr SP's and Speer 130gr Hot-Cor's. Now IF you aren't very concerned about bullet placement, and have no issue breaking bones...
That is why "premium" or Bonded bullets came about, they stay together better on very hard impacts.
In the lung/heart shots zone there aren't terribly large or dense muscles that you have to get through.
Bonded bullets are for TV shows where the shooter isn't concerned about bullet placement. If you can't accurately place a bullet at whatever that distance is, you need to either: step up the bullet weight, and take the recoil(not what tv hosts do), or get a bonded bullet. They stand a better chance of not seperating and give you more penetration.
thanks guys. I have 130 SST's from hornady and 130 and 150 Core Lokt's. Im really good at shot placement (not to toot my own horn lol) and am concerned about shot placement. Thanks for info again guys!
I'm sure everyone has their own opinion and mine is that bonded core bullets are the cats pajamas. They typically offer great initial expansion, better penetration and hold together much better. To me they are modern miracles that make centerfire rifles hit like a larger caliber. I have found the terminal performance of the Accubond to be nothing short of astounding.
This being said, I have found the Hornady SSTs to be very thin jacketed. In my experience they fragment much too rapidly and lack the terminal performance of their bonded cousins. In my opinion it's a very heavy varmint bullet.
Just my .02
About 20 years ago I was Elk hunting in Montana,near White Sulfur Springs. I ran into a guide on his day off hunting the same ground I was. I asked him what he was shooting and what ammo he was using. His reply; a 270 Winchester and the cheapest Remington 130 gr ammo that he could find.
Honestly, that is a guide with whom I would never do business. Pinching pennies on shooting range ammo - when you're slinging hundreds/thousands of rounds downrange throughout the year - makes sense. Doing so on ammo that you're relying on for a quick humane kill of large game, and that you'll likely fire no more than a box or two of each year is just foolish.Quote:
Originally Posted by Luckus
While we're singing the praises of bonded bullets (a song I can certainly hum along to) let's not forget the copper-alloy solids. I now hunt exclusively with handloaded rounds tipped with Barnes TSX variants, and can't say enough good things about them.
I think the guide was saying that a Remington Core lokt bullet in the boiler room of any Elk would kill it, you have to shoot them where they live with any bullet to get the job done. I am not against bonded or so called premium bullets, but many thousands of head of game are killed perfectly well the cup and core bullets.
I understand that. While it's certainly true that just about any commercial hunting round will perform just fine in most instances if you do your part and put the pill where it belongs, and it doesn't have to deal with inconvenient obstacles like bones on the way in/out. But putting your shot in the kill zone on an elk means a good chance of having to punch through a very thick rib or two, and the bullet needs to mostly hold together after doing that (at least on the way in) in order to give you the best chance of making the quick, clean kill you're after. And while it's true that Core-Lokt bullets can...and have...killed plenty of big game in that desired quick-and-clean manner, the fact is that they don't perform as well as most of the newer electro-chemically bonded and solid projectiles when it comes to retaining structural integrity, especially after having to punch through solid bone.Quote:
Originally Posted by Luckus
My point was that there's no wisdom in purposely avoiding better quality projectiles when selecting a hunting round, especially when the price differential doesn't even come close to representing a significant difference in the overall cost of your hunting activity, and yet could make all the difference in the world in how they turn out.
When I Elk hunt this fall, I might use my 30-06 and 165 Gr Nosler pt, because I have them, and they are accurate in this rifle. I may also use my 257AI with a 120 gr Hornady hp's for the same reasons. I will not feel inadeqaute with either selection. Many Elk are wounded and get away when poorly hit with every type of rifle cartridge and bullet combination, premiums included. I watch what I do and don't take bad shots.
That's great. But I didn't say anything about relying on bullet quality to compensate for taking "bad shots". Hitting a rib when aiming for the heart/lung zone isn't the result of taking a bad shot. It's a result of hunting an animal that has a rib cage.Quote:
Originally Posted by Luckus
Been lurking for awhile, but this is my first post.
I only have my experiences to go by. I've never killed one of those little Rocky Mtn elk. Every elk I've killed has been a Roosevelt. (Bigger body, smaller horns). In my life I've put 34 elk in the freezer with everything from my bow to a 340 Wby. I've cleanly killed 17 elk with my old 270. Like has been said, a properly placed shot means a lot more than the weight or constuction of a bullet. I'm not an expert by any means, but in my experience, a 270 puts an elk down just fine. I used 130 gr. Sierra SPBT for years. Yes, the core shed the jacket, but the reason I know that is because I always found the jacket...when I was skinning it.
No argument there...and I think my point is being misunderstood. I've said nothing at all about which of those two factors "means more". Such an approach would be an irrational implication that there is some sort of choice to be made between the two. Both are important to one degree or another. Which one is MORE important is utterly beside the point, which is about tilting every factor involved in your favor, within practical limits. With this in mind, purposely opting for the cheapest hunting load you can find when there are so many better options readily available for not much more money (relative to the total cost of hunting) simply makes no sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by CastleRocker
I agree 100% with that statement!Quote:
Originally Posted by big honkin jeep
If I were hunting elk with a .270 I would use either the 150 grain or 160 grain Nosler Partition bullet. I would go with the one my rifle liked the best and not feel under gunned at all. Jack O'conner liked the 130 grain Partition for his elk shooting, and didn't seem to have a problem with it.
Bob
Someone on another site has a signature line to the effect of, " There are a lot of bullets which work fine when everything goes right but I want one which works fine when everything goes wrong"
There is some wisdom to that statement and I like it.
Personally I'd load a 130gr Barnes TTSX to 3200 and go kill stuff.....even when everything goes wrong!
For most of us an elk hunt would be a once or twice in a lifetime event, I don't understand why so many people choose to use the cheapest ammunition they can when the overall cost vs the hunt for premium ammo is almost insignificant. I have seen 130 and 150 grn bullets from Federal, Remington, and Winchester fail on whitetail, especially at close ranges, most of the time they work fine but not always and I have helped track wounded deer many times. Elk are much tougher why not use a good bullet, there are lots of choices. I am particularly fond of the Nosler Partitions but the Barnes TTSX, Nosler Accubond, Swift A-frame, Remington Ultra-core lock, Federal Trophy Bonded,and Swift Scirocco, would all work great and be much more consistent performers.
Last Elk I shot was a cow 2 years ago. I was shootng my 96 Swede and the 140 gr Hornady Il at 2600 mv. Hit a rib going in, cow made two jumps and was dead, shot thru both lungs, bullet stuck in shoulder bone on off side. Like I said earlier, I have nothing against so called premiuim bullets, I use some myself. But I also think a c&c thats on the heavy side per caliber and that is ACCURATE in that rifle is no detriment.
My pal shoots a .270 and has always shot his Elk with the 130g bullet in his handloads. He was using a Hornady 130g JSP from what I recall. Placement and distance will do it everytime. Only 3 elk in 34 years took 2 shots with his 270. My own Elk gun is in 7mm-08 with a 140g SGKSP bullet.
SSTs are kinda thin, with those 2 choices I would use the core lokts.
Mike
The majority of my hunting time is spent with buddies hunting elk, we switched to the 165gr Matrix Ballistics bullet last year and it has been thee best bullet on elk from our 270 wins and 270 WSMs from point blank in the timber to over 800 yards it puts a hole through them they won't shrug of!!!
Coyoteslayer223,
Have you worked up a load for either of these yet? Not to be smart but your rifle may not like one or the other. I had a 270 that wouldn't shoot 130s into a barn wall if you were standing inside of it. Wasn't fantastic with 150s either. But with 140s it would group better than you would believe. I used that rifle/load to take a lot of game, including WY elk, never had anything get more than a few yards from where it was hit. FWIW it shot the Noslers and the Hornady 140s equally well and I think they are the better bullet for the 270. Elk season is a while away, the range will tell you what your rifle likes.
Very good advice -- and it applies to rifle calibers as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by nsaqam
Examples:
Why use a .223 when you have a .243?
Why use a .243 when you have a .270?
Why use a .270 when you have an '06?
Why use an '06 when you have a .375 Magnum?
The reason is that most folks' ability to properly pace the shot diminishes as they get more worried about recoil and assume the big blaster will cover their mistakes in shooting.
Also, there have been reports of premium bullets not working as well as hoped on thin-skinned animals.
So, do the research and match the rifle and bullet combination to your quarry and shooting skills. This also means going with the heaviest bullet and rifle you feel comfortable enough to have high confidence with shot placement.
For me that would be a .243 or or .270 even though I have an '06 and had a lot of fun with a .378 Weatherby Magnum in my youth. Others would go for something like a .416 Rigby because they are confident of a hit in the vital zone over the ranges they would take the shot.
can't go wrong with premium bullets such as Partitions and Barnes X... Most of the time a proper shot will present itself unless the terrian dictates it otherwise.