270 win 130gr vs 140gr vs 150gr

Back when I had a .270Win, I had a 130 NBT load for deer @ 3150, and a 150 VLD load for elk @ 3020. Both shot equally well.

Once I actually started LEARNING about ballistics and terminal performance, I only loaded the 150s. We killed a lot of game with it over the years. Deer and elk. A lot of first kills too. Including my Dad's first deer.
 
I honestly do not know what that means.



FEENIX, I guess that I'm not certain about what you mean!

If you're suggesting that ft/lbs energy was a significant factor in the quick death of that moose…..I'm not convinced!

Several years ago I shot an elk at around 50 yards, broadside, behind the shoulder…..no visual indication of a hit. He continued walking, though at a slightly increased pace, for a few yards then tipped over.

If ft/lbs energy were so significant ……I suspect that the 5000+ ft/lbs energy that was applied to my little (as in comparison to the moose) elk was much greater ft/lbs of energy applied to that moose @ 890 yards! Then if you "guestimate" the weight differential between my elk and that moose, factor in the ft/lbs energy difference between the two bullets at impact….. I suspect that my elk absorbed about 3X the ft/lbs energy as did the moose.

So I contend that bullet energy (ft/lbs) transfered to big game animals from a conventional, shoulder fired hunting rifle is rather insignificant.

If the energy remains the same, and the animal is substantially larger….I contend that ft/lbs energy is substantially/comparatively "less" important!

Perhaps we can agree on this point……if/when a bullet destroys vital organs, cutting/tearing arteries/vessels, that animal will quickly expire due to a significant drop in blood pressure. That significant drop in blood pressure, will cause "said animal" to "tip over"…..just like in the video.

I strongly suspect however, ft/lbs energy had little to do with the disruption of arterial blood flow. When the brain is deprived of oxygen…..the animal will pretty quickly collapse. If the animal is excited/stimulated, and the blood highly oxygenated……said animal will remain standing a bit longer! memtb
 
FEENIX, I guess that I'm not certain about what you mean!

If you're suggesting that ft/lbs energy was a significant factor in the quick death of that moose…..I'm not convinced!

Several years ago I shot an elk at around 50 yards, broadside, behind the shoulder…..no visual indication of a hit. He continued walking, though at a slightly increased pace, for a few yards then tipped over.

If ft/lbs energy were so significant ……I suspect that the 5000+ ft/lbs energy that was applied to my little (as in comparison to the moose) elk was much greater ft/lbs of energy applied to that moose @ 890 yards! Then if you "guestimate" the weight differential between my elk and that moose, factor in the ft/lbs energy difference between the two bullets at impact….. I suspect that my elk absorbed about 3X the ft/lbs energy as did the moose.

So I contend that bullet energy (ft/lbs) transfered to big game animals from a conventional, shoulder fired hunting rifle is rather insignificant.

If the energy remains the same, and the animal is substantially larger….I contend that ft/lbs energy is substantially/comparatively "less" important!

Perhaps we can agree on this point……if/when a bullet destroys vital organs, cutting/tearing arteries/vessels, that animal will quickly expire due to a significant drop in blood pressure. That significant drop in blood pressure, will cause "said animal" to "tip over"…..just like in the video.

I strongly suspect however, ft/lbs energy had little to do with the disruption of arterial blood flow. When the brain is deprived of oxygen…..the animal will pretty quickly collapse. If the animal is excited/stimulated, and the blood highly oxygenated……said animal will remain standing a bit longer! memtb
You just complicated things unnecessarily. No one is saying energy transfer is the only factor (bullet choice/construction, velocity and energy on POI, shot placement, etc.), but dismissing the laws of physics (energy transfer, dump, or whatever terminology to get the point across) as insignificant is asinine. The beauty of it all is that you can completely ignore it, but it is always there whether you accept it or not, and it always works for you, regardless of your shot placement (heart/lung or shoulder).
 
Back when I had a .270Win, I had a 130 NBT load for deer @ 3150, and a 150 VLD load for elk @ 3020. Both shot equally well.

Once I actually started LEARNING about ballistics and terminal performance, I only loaded the 150s. We killed a lot of game with it over the years. Deer and elk. A lot of first kills too. Including my Dad's first deer.
@Andy92, Lance provided you with the most straightforward response to your question.
 
You just complicated things unnecessarily. No one is saying energy transfer is the only factor (bullet choice/construction, velocity and energy on POI, shot placement, etc.), but dismissing the laws of physics (energy transfer, dump, or whatever terminology to get the point across) as insignificant is asinine. The beauty of it all is that you can completely ignore it, but it is always there whether you accept it or not, and it always works for you, regardless of your shot placement (heart/lung or shoulder).

I'm not dismissing it…..merely stating that it's vastly overrated pertaining to big game.

Broadheads kill quite effectively with all of the thing ps that you listed…..with near zero ft/lbs energy transfer to the animal!

If energy is the "black magic" by which game is killed……why are so many folks starting to use cartridges/bullets with far less ft/lbs energy. The simple answer is "surgical placement" of the bullet, doing all of the things you mentioned….. and doing it with mediocre ft/lbs energy! memtb
 
I'm not dismissing it…..merely stating that it's vastly overrated pertaining to big game.

Broadheads kill quite effectively with all of the thing ps that you listed…..with near zero ft/lbs energy transfer to the animal!

If energy is the "black magic" by which game is killed……why are so many folks starting to use cartridges/bullets with far less ft/lbs energy. The simple answer is "surgical placement" of the bullet, doing all of the things you mentioned….. and doing it with mediocre ft/lbs energy! memtb
As I said, you are complicating things unnecessarily; hemorrhaging and hydrostatic shock are two different things.
 
As I said, you are complicating things unnecessarily; hemorrhaging and hydrostatic shock are two different things.

Obviously they are different. However, ft/lbs energy or hydrostatic shock are not necessary! They may be a contributing factor……but are vastly overrated.

I suspect that you and I are of similar age, and we " poured" over the same firearms and ammunition sales catalogs of our day, often mimorizing the energy #'s, trajectory tables, ect. of our favorite cartridges. We saw these as the written gospel pertaining to firearms, ammunition, and hunting.

Though, during the times before Christopher Columbus it was thought that the earth was flat, that hypothesis has been proven incorrect…..much like the highly regarded value of ft/lbs energy in a bullets lethality factor!

And I've been called a "Flat Earther"! 😂

Good Night Partner…….we'll take this up again, I'm certain! 😉 memtb
 
Last edited:
Obviously they are different. However, ft/lbs energy or hydrostatic shock are not necessary! They may be a contributing factor……but are vastly overrated.

I suspect that you and I are of similar age, and we " poured" over the same firearms and ammunition sales catalogs of our day, often mimorizing the energy #'s, trajectory tables, ect. of our favorite cartridges. We saw these as the written gospel pertaining to firearms, ammunition, and hunting.

Though, during the times before Christopher Columbus it was thought that the earth was flat, that hypothesis has been proven incorrect…..much like the highly regarded value of ft/lbs energy in a bullets lethality factor!

And I've been called a "Flat Earther"! 😂

Good Night Partner…….we'll take this up again, I'm certain! 😉 memtb
Again, you continue to complicate things unnecessarily, introducing irrelevant information.

@Andy92, I'm sorry your thread got hijacked unnecessarily. Stay your course, and you'll be fine. Good luck on your hunt.
 
While I won't get in the energy debate, the old an "arrow doesn't have a lot of ft-lbs" argument annoys me. An arrow going 100 ft/s also kills quite well but nobody uses that as a rationale for low velocity;)

As for 130, 140, 150 - they all work. I have killed a bunch of game with all. If you are dialing and all that a higher BC 140/150 make sense. For point and shoot 0-400 a 130 is tough to beat. For tougher game a stout 140/150 would get my pick. In reality, Given all the options in bullets these days there is more overlap in performance than few grains

Lou
 
Animals are killed by turning off the brain, either via blood loss or physical destruction of the brain itself (or by destroying the circulatory system's ability to support the heart through nerve damage). Arrows cause this by blood loss. Bullets do so too, but by either tissue destruction through direct physical contact (as with arrows), or by tissue destruction through the explosive effects of kinetic energy. If you've ever seen the results of a 150gr Corelokt in the form of a whitetail buck's shredded lungs, you understand. Yes, the buck might have made it 40 yards, spewing blood all the way. The moment that bullet hit and the lungs were destroyed, only the residual oxygen in the blood kept it alive.

In order to be effective with kinetic energy, the bullet must fravel through tissue that has less elastic strength than what would contain the energy of the bullet. For example, when you explode a prairie dog with a varmint bullet, the kinetic energy is greater than what the carcass can contain. With a deer, the lungs and liver are fragile and will be structurally destroyed with an expanding high power rifle bullet's kinetic energy... the temporary cavity, if large enough, stretches the tissues until they either fail or rebound.

So, bullets have to destroy enough tissue to cause sufficient blood loss, either by the damage caused from the cavitation of a tempory cavity or from the tissue damage caused by damage from the bullet's passage. And, the lungs of even the largest critters are very fragile and inelastic. A bullet, or an arrow, in the right place doesn't need a lot of energy.
 
My 1st deer was killed with a 270 win. I always had a soft spot for it. After my 7 mm mag was stolen I bought a Kimber 8400 in 270 wsm used for 750.00 back in '08
It absolutely loved 140 gr interlocks. It was devastating on elk and deer. The only thing I didn't like was the massive amount of blood shot meat.
I bought another Kimber Montana in 270 win in '15
It was much more picky about bullet choices. It shoots 130 gr accubonds and Ttsx bullets really well and 150gr speed hot core's and absolutely hates 140 & 145 gr bullets. And surprisingly it is doing well with the 165 gr accubonds for a 1-10 twist rate .
I wish the 270 wsm was more popular than it's become.
My advice is find what you're 270win. Likes and goes hunting
 
Okay….apologies to the "OP", but I gotta chime in here regarding energy and the transfer thereof.
So, let's say I conduct an "experiment" where I take a 250 lbs man and I put a threat level III ballistic vest on him and have him stand 10 yards away from me and then I…..

1) shoot him in the chest with a 40gr .22 LR bullet traveling 1,520 fps. And then I….
2) shoot him in the chest with a 547gr 12 gauge Power Shok slug also at 1,520 fps.

If he's still conscious afterwards (and before his trip to the ER) I bet he'd validate that energy transfer and the "shock" of said transfer was pretty significant. It's simple physics….and the numbers don't lie. 🤷‍♂️
IMG_5642.jpeg
IMG_5641.jpeg
 
Animals are killed by turning off the brain, either via blood loss or physical destruction of the brain itself (or by destroying the circulatory system's ability to support the heart through nerve damage). Arrows cause this by blood loss. Bullets do so too, but by either tissue destruction through direct physical contact (as with arrows), or by tissue destruction through the explosive effects of kinetic energy. If you've ever seen the results of a 150gr Corelokt in the form of a whitetail buck's shredded lungs, you understand. Yes, the buck might have made it 40 yards, spewing blood all the way. The moment that bullet hit and the lungs were destroyed, only the residual oxygen in the blood kept it alive.

In order to be effective with kinetic energy, the bullet must fravel through tissue that has less elastic strength than what would contain the energy of the bullet. For example, when you explode a prairie dog with a varmint bullet, the kinetic energy is greater than what the carcass can contain. With a deer, the lungs and liver are fragile and will be structurally destroyed with an expanding high power rifle bullet's kinetic energy... the temporary cavity, if large enough, stretches the tissues until they either fail or rebound.

So, bullets have to destroy enough tissue to cause sufficient blood loss, either by the damage caused from the cavitation of a tempory cavity or from the tissue damage caused by damage from the bullet's passage. And, the lungs of even the largest critters are very fragile and inelastic. A bullet, or an arrow, in the right place doesn't need a lot of energy.


Or said in another much simpler manner............take out the lungs/heart and they're done!
 
Top