PDA

View Full Version : good 270 elk bullet



Jon Boy
08-31-2011, 11:58 PM
What do you guys recommend for some good elk medicine in 270? I know its not the most ideal caliber for elk but im sure jack o'connor proved it could get the job done. It seems like I cant go wrong with an accubond but I want to hear what others would recommend as well.

jay
09-01-2011, 08:37 AM
i would either go accubond or partitioner. I think that the highest grain you can shoot out of a 270 off the shelf is a 150, so i'd probably go with that. Federal has the Nosler Accubonds in a 140 grain and the Nosler Partitioners in a 150. I believe Guy was shooting a 270 on that Nevada elk hunt they aired this season and took that bull at like 400 yards if i remember correctly. Good gun, i was recently in the market for a new rifle and was torn between the 270 and the 30-06. I ended up with a 30-06 just because of the more variety of grains you can shoot out of it, but i've seen some impressive shots with a 270. Good luck!

Grantbvfd
09-01-2011, 10:16 AM
I use the 140 grain accubond and I have had excellent performance. Plenty of power to kill elk. Being confident with your rifle and proper shot placement is all you need.

stumpsitter
09-01-2011, 11:55 AM
Shooting a 270 with Hornady 140 gr Interbond killed a bull at 297 yards last year.
Head on shot, hit in neck and exited out rear. Bull took 2 or 3 steps and fell over.
Perfer a bonded bullet for elk.

revcwood
09-01-2011, 12:02 PM
I shot my first bull last fall with my .270. I handload, so I loaded 160grain Nosler Partitions. At 150 yards, it broke both shoulders and got both lungs. I have the load recipe written down at home if you want it.

*******
09-01-2011, 01:11 PM
I am a huge fan of the Barnes tripple shock bullets, but the tipped and the non-tipped. I use them in my .270 and I have found excellent results with them. I load them pretty hot and they stand up to some major impacts. I took a moose with the 130gr TTSX and I had 2 rounds pass through both shoulder blades and exit at 225yds. I use the 110gr for deer, mountain goat, and sheep. I love them. For elk I would shoot the 130gr in the bush or the 110gr in open alpine.

Jon Boy
09-01-2011, 02:00 PM
thanks for all the input guys

mcseal2
09-01-2011, 04:38 PM
+1 on the 140gr accubond. Excellent performance & ballistic coeffiecient to help with trajectory and wind drift.

Bitterroot Bulls
09-02-2011, 12:25 AM
I like the 130 or 140 Barnes TTSX or the 140 Accubond.

I really don't think the .270 is marginal for elk at reasonable ranges. If it is, it never seemed to matter to the 30 dead elk my uncle has harvested with his 270 and 130 corelokts over the last 3 decades.

Elkoholic307
09-02-2011, 06:52 PM
I believe Guy was shooting a 270 on that Nevada elk hunt they aired this season and took that bull at like 400 yards if i remember correctly.

Are you sure it wasn't a 300 short?

6mm Remington
09-02-2011, 08:12 PM
130 Accubond or Partiton
140 gr. Accubond or Partition

Pick the one out of those 4 that shoot the best in your particular rifle. I feel they all would work wonderfully for you. I load for a buddy and in his rifle he shoots a 130 gr. Partiton and has taken lots of elk with it. Good luck.
David

Bitterroot Bulls
09-03-2011, 09:14 PM
Are you sure it wasn't a 300 short?

I believe in the show he referred to it as a 270 WSM.

jay
09-06-2011, 01:58 PM
I believe in the show he referred to it as a 270 WSM.

that's what i thought...

Jon Boy
09-06-2011, 06:31 PM
If I remember correctly he put that bull down rather quick. What do you guys think effective range for the straight 270 win would be on an elk?

Fink
09-06-2011, 07:39 PM
If I remember correctly he put that bull down rather quick. What do you guys think effective range for the straight 270 win would be on an elk?

I'd think as long as you can punch it through the lungs, the .270 will kill one as far as you can accurately shoot.

Jon Boy
09-07-2011, 12:43 AM
Its been a while since ive rifle hunted so im sure it wont be past 300 yards

jay
09-07-2011, 04:21 PM
with practice and knowing your holdover, you can easily pull off a 300 yard shot.

Lone Ranger
09-07-2011, 08:45 PM
I prefer the 140 grain Nosler Accubond in my 270!! It shoots great and is very accurate.

Jon Boy
09-07-2011, 10:21 PM
I think im gunna buy a box of accubonds. Seems like I really cant go wrong with them.

ljmelea
11-02-2011, 11:35 PM
130 grain partion has worked in my .270 for over thirty years never lost an elk. Larry

nvarcher
11-03-2011, 11:09 PM
I've heard stories of soft point bullets (partition) expanding on contact and getting no penetration ending up with a lost animal, even in 30-06. They are fine on deer, but I wouldn't risk it on an elk. Go with a ballistic tipped bullet.

Montana
11-04-2011, 08:28 AM
Triple shock... For sure.

Bitterroot Bulls
11-04-2011, 08:29 AM
I've heard stories of soft point bullets (partition) expanding on contact and getting no penetration ending up with a lost animal, even in 30-06. They are fine on deer, but I wouldn't risk it on an elk. Go with a ballistic tipped bullet.

nvarcher,

Plastic tip bullets do three things: 1. Increase ballistic coefficient. 2. Resist deforming in the magazine during recoil. 3. Initiate expansion sooner than soft points. Bullet designers use this to their advantage. They use the tip to initiate violent expansion of the mushrooming portion of the bullet while constructing the rest of the bullet to resist deformation, giving "controlled expansion." Expansion is needed to cause tissue damage while controlling leads to deeper penetration. Examples of these tipped bullets are the Barnes TTSX, Nosler Accubond, Hornady Interbond, etc.

Nosler ballistic tips are some of those bullets that have, on occasion, expanded too violently, and failed to penetrate. They do not have the reliable, bonded construction of the Accubond.

I have never heard a first-hand account of a Nosler Partition failing to penetrate.

AvidHunterAbe
11-05-2011, 01:06 PM
I run 140 grain accubonds grouping .5 inches at 100 yards out of a very semi-custom TC Icon. It smacks large mule deer well, but with a caliber that small its ify for ME on elk. I would rather over gun than under gun, and just dont consider the .270 a strong choice for elk. In reality it all comes down to shot placement regardless of what you are shooting, you can eaisily take out an elk with a 22-250....with good shot placement. Last year I watched a fella running 150 gr partitions out of a 270 shoot at 2 elk at 300-350 yards....not a pretty picture. After watching him make a shot just a tad too far back on a cow...which was never found, then a low shoulder shot on a bull I decided if I didnt help hed lose the animals (which I didnt care about him, just an injustice to our game) So i followed the wounded bull for over a mile until he finally bedded down and was left behind. He just couldnt hang with the other elk, but he wasnt bleeding or wounded to the point of expiration. I had no choice but to sit on this animal for 45 minutes until some one could go back and find the weekend warrior who wounded this animal. Right then I swore Id never use even a questionable caliber on game that large. When he arrived I ended up having to let him use one of my long range guns, a 300 RUM built to shoot 1k. A 557 yard shot put him down and out of his misery. I know plenty of elk have fallen to the 270 winchester, but if it were me Id stick to a .30 cal. To each his own...

Jon Boy
11-05-2011, 01:55 PM
Like you said yourself, its all about shot placement. Obviously the guy you speak of shouldnt have been taking that long of a shot because he failed twice to make proper shot placement. Just because you have a bigger bullet that doesnt enable you to make poor shot placement and take iffy shots

Grantbvfd
11-05-2011, 04:00 PM
A bad shot is a bad shot. A bigger caliber will help with penetration but a gut shot or leg shot is still a bad shot whether you are using a 22 or 338. It might help a little more with an ass shot but I don't see the benefit of using a larger gun if you can't hit them good with a small gun.

Elkoholic307
11-07-2011, 07:49 AM
I run 140 grain accubonds grouping .5 inches at 100 yards out of a very semi-custom TC Icon. It smacks large mule deer well, but with a caliber that small its ify for ME on elk. I would rather over gun than under gun, and just dont consider the .270 a strong choice for elk. In reality it all comes down to shot placement regardless of what you are shooting, you can eaisily take out an elk with a 22-250....with good shot placement. Last year I watched a fella running 150 gr partitions out of a 270 shoot at 2 elk at 300-350 yards....not a pretty picture. After watching him make a shot just a tad too far back on a cow...which was never found, then a low shoulder shot on a bull I decided if I didnt help hed lose the animals (which I didnt care about him, just an injustice to our game) So i followed the wounded bull for over a mile until he finally bedded down and was left behind. He just couldnt hang with the other elk, but he wasnt bleeding or wounded to the point of expiration. I had no choice but to sit on this animal for 45 minutes until some one could go back and find the weekend warrior who wounded this animal. Right then I swore Id never use even a questionable caliber on game that large. When he arrived I ended up having to let him use one of my long range guns, a 300 RUM built to shoot 1k. A 557 yard shot put him down and out of his misery. I know plenty of elk have fallen to the 270 winchester, but if it were me Id stick to a .30 cal. To each his own...

Great post. I agree 100%.

sethkuhl
11-07-2011, 02:15 PM
Wife shoots .270 150 grain triple shocks. Awesome bullet! Hammered her first big bear with it and loved what her bullet did much more than what I have seen out of my 168 grain bergers out of my 7MM on the bullet market myself.

HuntinFool
12-19-2011, 08:58 PM
I had a partition blow apart on a little antelope doe this last weekend. I didn't hit anything but ribs. The exit wound was bigger than my fist. That being said, I have never had that happen before. I have killed elk with them just fine.

Bitterroot Bulls
12-19-2011, 09:53 PM
I run 140 grain accubonds grouping .5 inches at 100 yards out of a very semi-custom TC Icon. It smacks large mule deer well, but with a caliber that small its ify for ME on elk. I would rather over gun than under gun, and just dont consider the .270 a strong choice for elk. In reality it all comes down to shot placement regardless of what you are shooting, you can eaisily take out an elk with a 22-250....with good shot placement. Last year I watched a fella running 150 gr partitions out of a 270 shoot at 2 elk at 300-350 yards....not a pretty picture. After watching him make a shot just a tad too far back on a cow...which was never found, then a low shoulder shot on a bull I decided if I didnt help hed lose the animals (which I didnt care about him, just an injustice to our game) So i followed the wounded bull for over a mile until he finally bedded down and was left behind. He just couldnt hang with the other elk, but he wasnt bleeding or wounded to the point of expiration. I had no choice but to sit on this animal for 45 minutes until some one could go back and find the weekend warrior who wounded this animal. Right then I swore Id never use even a questionable caliber on game that large. When he arrived I ended up having to let him use one of my long range guns, a 300 RUM built to shoot 1k. A 557 yard shot put him down and out of his misery. I know plenty of elk have fallen to the 270 winchester, but if it were me Id stick to a .30 cal. To each his own...

I agree with Jon Boy and Grantbvfd on this one. It seems to me that the experience would make you swear off poor shooting, not the 270. That said, I sure like 30 magnums for elk. I run a 300 RUM myself.

EdD270
12-20-2011, 04:28 PM
I've shot several elk with the Barnes X and Triple Shock 130 gr. bullets and also their 150 gr. bullets. I love them, never have recovered a bullet, always go clear through.
I love my .270, thus the username, and have it sighted in for a 200 yard zero and feel comfortable with it for shots out to 600 yards. Most places I rarely need longer shots than the 200 yards, but occasionally a 300- or 350-yard shot. I've shot metallic silhouettes at 600 meters with it with no problems. I generally use the 130-gr. bullets, but if in open country where shots may be long I use the 150 gr. bullets.
I've also had good results with the Hornady's, Speer's and Sierra's premium bullets, but they are not up to the performance of the Barnes, IMHO.
As already so well stated, shot placement is much more important than fps or diameter of the bullet. I don't take iffy shots, waiting for a good broadside or quartering shot or passing on it.

bigshot
02-14-2012, 11:24 AM
Hey EdD270,
Just curious how far did the elk travel after being shot with the Barnes bullets.

Bitterroot Bulls
02-14-2012, 12:09 PM
Hey EdD270,
Just curious how far did the elk travel after being shot with the Barnes bullets.

I am not EdD270, but I did shoot a nice six point bull with a 140 grain TTSX out of a 270WSM. The bull tipped over right where he was standing. I recovered that bullet. It was dangling petal-end-out of the offside hide' with just the grooves on the shank holding it in the hide. I don't know how that happened. It had broken both shoulders, and turned the lungs to ribbons. The solid copper bullet had hit so much bone that it sheared off one petal and bent the shank slightly.

Drhorsepower
02-14-2012, 12:46 PM
I am not EdD270, but I did shoot a nice six point bull with a 140 grain TTSX out of a 270WSM. The bull tipped over right where he was standing. I recovered that bullet. It was dangling petal-end-out of the offside hide' with just the grooves on the shank holding it in the hide. I don't know how that happened. It had broken both shoulders, and turned the lungs to ribbons. The solid copper bullet had hit so much bone that it sheared off one petal and bent the shank slightly.

How was weight retention?

Bitterroot Bulls
02-14-2012, 01:40 PM
How was weight retention?

I will weigh it tonight, but it still has to be something like 90%.

bigshot
02-14-2012, 10:17 PM
Wow, sounds like the Barnes did great. I'm gonna try loading them in my brothers 270Win.

Jon Boy
02-15-2012, 12:03 AM
So between the accubond, partition, and ttsx what one would you guys think is best?

bigshot
02-15-2012, 01:22 AM
If, "I," was going to hunt elk with a 270win cal, from what I've been reading so far on this site and a couple others, I would feel most confident with some Barnes TTSX bullets. My brother is going elk hunting with us for the first time this year and he will be using his Rem. 700 in 270win cal. I plan to load him some 130grn Barnes TTSX bullets traveling at about 3050-3100fps. As a matter of fact I just placed an order of 100 bullets. If u reload, I'll let you know what recipe shot the best in my brothers rifle. I should know within a couple weeks.

Drhorsepower
02-15-2012, 01:29 AM
So between the accubond, partition, and ttsx what one would you guys think is best?

IMO, it is the one that shoots the best out of your rifle. Accuracy is FINAL! The above three mentioned are all top caliber bullets and can't go wrong with whatever one you choose. Order all three and see which one shoots the best. Fwiw.

Shaun
02-15-2012, 07:58 AM
Big fan of Barnes ttsx my self they are makin a lrx now that has a super high bc

Bitterroot Bulls
02-15-2012, 10:40 AM
Sorry guys, I forgot to weigh that bullet. You know, Valentines festivities and such. I will get it done though.

bigshot
02-15-2012, 11:01 AM
The more I thought about it, I deleted my experience with the other calibers and agree with Drhrspower and bitterrootbulls. Just go with what shoot best in your rifle. I read the whole thread again and saw you were going to be keeping your shots within a reasonable distance. So, any one of the bullets mentioned will do the job just fine.

If you wanna go by price, The Nosler Accubonds are the cheapest. The Partitions and Barnes are about the same price depending where you buy them. Good luck and let us know what you decide on.

Bitterroot Bulls
02-15-2012, 02:23 PM
I would be fully confident in the 7mm 160 accubond at any reasonable range on elk. Same goes for the .270 140 accubond.

We could (and have) debate the minimum caliber for elk. Many people kill them like clockwork year after year with their smaller cartridges. Like many game animals, some are just plain tough, and won't give it up right away. Caliber or bullet construction is never a substitute for marksmanship.

I am actually going away from my 300 RUM this year and moving to a 7mm Rem. Mag. My bullet will either be a 160 accubond, 168 LRX, or 168 Berger VLD Hunting. It will be whichever shoots best.

Here is the .277 140 grain Barnes:

2730


2731
That is 96% weight retention.


Here is a 30 Cal. 200 accubond recovered from another bull:

2732

That is 61% weight retention.

Both are within their intended weight retention ranges and both killed the bulls.

Jon Boy
02-15-2012, 07:45 PM
The reason I ask is because my brother and I both shot our deer this year with the 130 grain accubond. Both shots were under 120 yards and both shots hit shoulder. The entrance wound was massive on both animals and seemed to blow up with plenty of bullet fragments and then their was a small exit. Is this typical? it happened to the both of us, same gun same box of bullets. Im not complaining because both deer dropped but it made me wonder what would happen if I hit an elk even in the ribs none the less the shoulder.

Bitterroot Bulls
02-15-2012, 08:04 PM
The reason I ask is because my brother and I both shot our deer this year with the 130 grain accubond. Both shots were under 120 yards and both shots hit shoulder. The entrance wound was massive on both animals and seemed to blow up with plenty of bullet fragments and then their was a small exit. Is this typical? it happened to the both of us, same gun same box of bullets. Im not complaining because both deer dropped but it made me wonder what would happen if I hit an elk even in the ribs none the less the shoulder.

This is exactly how the bullet is designed to work at high impact velocities. The front of the bullet fragments and the bonded rear portion penetrates deeply. The entrance hole likely would have been smaller had the impact velocity been lower (like if the range was longer).

Jon Boy
02-15-2012, 08:44 PM
Thanks for clearing that up! Sounds like ill need to stay away from the shoulder on an elk.

Bitterroot Bulls
02-15-2012, 09:19 PM
Thanks for clearing that up! Sounds like ill need to stay away from the shoulder on an elk.

One plus to the Barnes is they don't ruin much meat. If you prefer shoulder shots (I often do) they are a good bullet for it. Accubonds will do the trick, too, but you will often have more bloodshot meat.

Barnes bullets do have their issues. One is copper fouling. It seems like the copper will stick in a bore with gilding metal fouling. So, if you use Barnes, make sure to get a nice, clean bore first, and then don't mix Barnes with gilding metal bullets (like accubonds, bergers, etc.)

Jon Boy
02-15-2012, 10:51 PM
I may have to give the barnes a try. I cant remember the last deer I shot that wasnt in the shoulder, they drop everytime. Do you think a bullet like the barnes or partition would have enough power to punch through elk shoulder out of a 270, or should I just avoid it all together?

Bitterroot Bulls
02-16-2012, 06:32 AM
I may have to give the barnes a try. I cant remember the last deer I shot that wasnt in the shoulder, they drop everytime. Do you think a bullet like the barnes or partition would have enough power to punch through elk shoulder out of a 270, or should I just avoid it all together?

I think those 130 accubonds have a good possibility of fully penetrating. I would guess the Barnes would make it through most of the time. The one I recovered above went through both scapulas and ribs on both sides. This was at about 450 yards, so impact velocity would be like the standard 270 at (guessing) 300 yards. The partition performs just like the accubond, the front expands violently and the rear portion penetrates deeply. All three of these bullets would make a high-shoulder kill, the Barnes would just be a little insurance on penetration. I would find the best shooting load. The 140 grain versions do have better ballistic coefficients (which means better long-range velocity retention and wind-drift resistance), and a little more energy.

Jon Boy
02-17-2012, 12:13 PM
Thanks for the help BB