Is a 270 WSM an adequate elk round?

[dhbikerczar]

Did you recover any complete bullets?

All 3 were complete bullets. They looked as you would expect, mushroomed out in the tip but I remember one of them bent over and moshroomed on just one side and flat on the other.

 

[stazmania]

A close friend of mine in my youth shot an elk at a little over 400 yards with a .270. The elk stumbled, got back up and started walking away. His follow up shot put it down. When he gutted the bull he found his first round had been stopped by a rib. I don't recall the load but was surprised the bullet was stopped.

Some times you see, do, or just have incredible things happen that you should keep to yourself. I have seen and done things in life, by myself and with others that are not shared with people that don't know me personally,

 

[SSG Graybush]

My opinion. Run the ballistics on the bullet you're wanting to use. Then make sure your bullet will have enough velocity to function at the distances you want to hunt. Use the manufactured recommendation. Conventional wisdom states 1500ft/lbs is the minimum energy sufficient to kill elk. However my opinion is 200ft/lbs and up is "ideal", especially for smaller caliber/lightweight bullets

200 or 2000 #'s?

 

[Idaho Lefty]

Fudge, the Foot pounds of, energy, "Chit" !
We, in my Family, plan on, USING , "good" / KNOWN to "Expand", 130 Grain, Bullets at, 2,000 FPS as, Minimum, to Kill Elk,. Reliably !
And 140 grainers, are,.. Better, Yet !
a Half inch dia, EXPANDED Bullet Hole, thru their Heart / Lungs, pretty much,.. Always,. "Gets it, Done" !
Berger Hunting bullets, Nosler Partitions, AccuBonds, Horn ELD-X's & Interlock's and Sierra GK's HAVE Done this Reliably for Us, for MANY Years!
Never, have Seen ANY of These Bullets "Bounce" off, a Rib from, a .270 !

 

[OG-danimal]

200 or 2000 #'s?

Ha whoops. 2000

 

[khart1988]

My opinion. Run the ballistics on the bullet you're wanting to use. Then make sure your bullet will have enough velocity to function at the distances you want to hunt. Use the manufactured recommendation. Conventional wisdom states 1500ft/lbs is the minimum energy sufficient to kill elk. However my opinion is 200ft/lbs and up is "ideal", especially for smaller caliber/lightweight bullets

You've got 2 different metrics here. You mention functional velocity of the bullet, which is in fact the only thing that matters, whereas foot-pounds of energy is useless.

With the energy metric, we should scrap muzzleloader season for elk altogether because it's just not ethical, and the absolute best loads for 243 would be considered "insufficient" when they can absolutely kill elk as far as a hunter can shoot.

 

[Flatbow]

Not to mention how many Elk have been killed with 357 mag or 44 mag revolvers with less than 500 foot lbs!
Holly smokes Elk are not T-REX'S!
Good shot placement goes a long way and for most people that is easier with a firearm that has less recoil.

 

[ObiJohn]

Foot-pounds is a measure of kinetic energy... the ability of mass combined with velocity to impart force. The formula of E = 1/2m × v^2 favors velocity over mass because it was developed to explain the disproportionate damage that lighter objects at higher velocities cause compared to a heavier object at lower velocity with the same momentum (pounds-feet) expressed as P = m × v. The difference between momentum and energy can be measured, and is often seen as heat on more durable objects or destruction on less durable ones, e.g., bullet expansion/deformation is disproportionate to velocity but proportionate to kinetic energy. The difference in expansion of any expanding bullet that strikes at 1300 ft/sec versus 2600 ft/sec is not twice as much, it's 4X as much. When kinetic energy is discarded for velocity, we are just using velocity as a poor (not well-represented) proxy.

We want a bullet that expands enough, but not too much, penetrates sufficiently but not excessively (bullet velocity/energy on the far side of our quarry is wasted), and transfer energy as equally as possible across the internal bullet path. Balancing these is extremely difficult across a wide range of distances because of the disproportionate decrease of energy to decrease of velocity. Going to either extreme of not enough or too much penetration and the corresponding expansion/energy transfer or lack of it is easy... explosive varmint bullets or FMJ solids. The Norma articles mention this and suggests hunters pick the appropriate Norma bullet to cover the majority of reasonable situations... and then exercise the discipline to not shoot outside of those situations. Seems like good advice, and the development of more advanced bullets with wider applications opens up more situations.

 

[Frank in the Laurels]

..with a good well made bullet it'll handle anything you can hit with no problem..basically a 7mm mag ..

 

[Jjason]

Absolutely