Is a 270 WSM an adequate elk round?

dhbikerczar said:

Micrometer on the base of the bullets recovered.

Click to expand...

Did you recover any complete bullets?

dhbikerczar said:

Micrometer on the base of the bullets recovered.

Click to expand...

I've done the same. Of the two measured…..one was a .277 and one was a .243.

These were back before the mono bullets became available, both bullets showed full expansion, appeared to have substantial weight loss (a guestimate on my part), both had minimal penetration, both were encased in what appeared mass of gristle.

It helped confirm my desire for larger caliber, and better constructed bullets. memtb

The 270 WSM every so often tempts me lol, the big thing for me is I want to launch the 170 bergers so it would need to be custom.

I don't see any problem with the 7WSM. It's far more importance to place the shot in the right place, I have read here with people are taking Elk with 22/250. That's them not me.
Interesting on the Nosler B.T. did that. I have used them for years without ever having that problem. Using 165 gr @ 3300fps, and 200 gr @ 3320fps. Punch them from one end to the other. If I remember correctly I have only come up with 3 bullets that have stayed in the animal. Those were front on or rearend shoots. None have really produced much in blood shot meat.

Calvin45 said:

I'd add that the boring old .270 is a more than adequate elk gun as well, not as in it can kill if everything is perfect but as in many guides and outfitters cite it as their suggested starting caliber for serious elk hunting. The wsm is the same thing with just a little more horsepower.

Click to expand...

At about 11, I was in a deer camp with Dad. Some guys came buy, stopped to jaw, then ferried their motorcycles over the river. One of them was cussin' up a storm over how useless the 270 Win was for elk, describing his experience of emptying his magazine into the poor animal without result. He'd gone out and bought a .30-06! Even at 11, I knew the fault lay not in his rifle, but in himself!

memtb said:

I've done the same. Of the two measured…..one was a .277 and one was a .243.

These were back before the mono bullets became available, both bullets showed full expansion, appeared to have substantial weight loss (a guestimate on my part), both had minimal penetration, both were encased in what appeared mass of gristle.

It helped confirm my desire for larger caliber, and better constructed bullets. memtb

Click to expand...

Mem, you and I are "up there". John Nosler developed the Partition a year after I was born. If bullet technology had stopped there the hunting world would be in a better place. Just MHO, of course.

memtb said:

I've done the same. Of the two measured…..one was a .277 and one was a .243.

These were back before the mono bullets became available, both bullets showed full expansion, appeared to have substantial weight loss (a guestimate on my part), both had minimal penetration, both were encased in what appeared mass of gristle.

It helped confirm my desire for larger caliber, and better constructed bullets. memtb

Click to expand...

Gotta wonder if these bullets were pass-throughs on other elk that hit an elk behind the original target. Or, bad shots. Where did you find them in the elk? Was there any evidence of a bullet path... scarring, etc... to give you an idea of the actual shot placement?

I believe what you're saying, but it's hard to understand how a full penetration with expansion with one of these bullets that passed through heart/lung area would not result in a death from blood loss... even if it took a minute or two.

As an aside, I was watching the Hornady podcast with the two fellows who came up with the 6 GT. George Gardner, the "G" in GT, who owns GA Precision and makes custom rifles was talking about how everyone who wants a custom hunting rifle and picks a caliber asks, "Will it kill an elk?" He's thinking of getting t-shirts made up with "Will it kill an elk?" on the front. His point was, any reasonable big game cartridge, when used within its effective range, will kill an elk. Not excepting the .223 cartridges with fast twist barrels shooting 77 gr bullets.

1raggedhole said:

Mem, you and I are "up there". John Nosler developed the Partition a year after I was born. If bullet technology had stopped there the hunting world would be in a better place. Just MHO, of course.

Click to expand...

As just a "pup" I'm pretty happy that Randy Brooks brought out the Barnes series of X Bullets.

Makes me, as an old cast bullet shooter, think of cast bullets @ 3K or faster! memtb

memtb said:

As just a "pup" I'm pretty happy that Randy Brooks brought out the Barnes series of X Bullets.

Makes me, as an old cast bullet shooter, think of cast bullets @ 3K or faster! memtb

Click to expand...

Me, too. I started with'em in the late "90s. Cast, in the '70s'.

500 yards is a long way! As long as you try targets at 500 yards with the rifle you settle on and can still put it in the kill area at that distance -- yes the 270WSM is more than adequate. I'd use either 140 gr Barnes TSX or 150 gr Sierra SPBT's though. I'm a handloader and I've had 2 different 270 WSM's and both were very accurate with the 150 gr Sierra SPBT's with groups 1/2 inch (3 shot groups) to slightly over at 100 yards! I was getting slightly over 3100 fps in both rifles -- however, I never tried those bullets and loads at 500 yards!

I've never heard anyone say a 7mag wont kill an elk. The difference in bullet diameter is .007. Nosler lists the short mag chunking a 160 gr partition over 3000 fps. Thats pretty much a 7 mag. The 150 Ablr is 3100. A buddy of mine has killed 3 elk all bulls with a 270 remington pump and 150 gr corelokts. One was about 350 yds.

Here's an article about the .270 WSM.

I've shot a Rem .270 for over 30 years. 6 Elk, 8 Mule Deer and countless Antelope; that .270 delivers.
To listen to someone tell you, "it will bounce off" is, I hope being sarcastic.
What you really need to know is no matter what caliber you shoot, will there be enough kinetic energy on target at the distance you're shooting. I taught hunter Ed in Colorado. Certainly Elk country. Their DOW (Fish & Game), says you need a minimum of 1000 ft lbs of energy to humanity dispatch a big animal such as an Elk.
So when I built my reloads, I clocked the bullets via a chrony and used my Sierra load data to help approximate energy out to maximum distances. My bullet of choice was the Sierra 140 BTSP. I ran it at slightly under 2900 fps. It was so accurate the gun shot .323 groups at 100 yds.

A 150 grain in .277 moving at say 3,000 fps is a formidable killing agent when delivered with pin point precision.
Sure you might hit a Bull at 600 yards, but if the energy loss at that distance falls below that 1000 ft lb threshold, it's a wounded or worse, lost animal.

I've never failed at harvesting an animal using that 1000 ft lb energy mark.
And by the way, Colorado minimum caliber for Elk is a .243. I knew an entire family of guys who ran a game meat cutting service.
Everyone of those guys were capable of head shots at over 300 yards. The caliber of choice for them was the .243.

Burnt 3 barrels off a 270 WSM, its in my top 5 for elk hunting, killed a lot of elk out to 1000 yards with one. It's what I was shooting when I found Berger bullets before they had separate lines, absolutely game changer set up after shooting Barnes and Accubonds for ever, 140 Berger at 3320 fps then after a rebarel the 170 Berger at 3060 fps. Hammered Elk!