A "pointed" discussion on .270 ammo for hunting
Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com > Long Guns > General Rifle Discussion > A "pointed" discussion on .270 ammo for hunting

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-28-2010, 04:39 PM   #1
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
king1138's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Cheyenne,Wyoming
Posts: 100
Default A "pointed" discussion on .270 ammo for hunting

I posted a similar thread a little while ago, but I now have a bit more experience and wanted to spark some more discussion on the matter.

The basics:
A Remington 700 in .270 win, used for hunting elk at ranges that vary from 10-15 yards all the way to 100-150 yards, with a very unlikely possibility of 200-250 yards.

The back story:
Went to do a little shooting with my dad this last weekend, I had just got my new scope mounted and wanted to test it out, and my dad had just acquired a Winchester Model 70 featherweight in .270 win. We weren't at an official range, just out shooting in the snow. We setup our target at about 40 yards, the target pinned to a tree stump. We started shooting with 150 grain soft point ammo, and ran through roughly 30 rounds until we exhausted that supply. There was damage to the stump, and we were both shooting fairly well (aside from a poorly mounted scope on my rifle, that's going to be fixed this weekend). Then, we switched to 130 grain pointed soft point ammo, and the difference was stunning. The damage to the tree was extraordinarily higher with the 130s than with the 150, with each 130 showing visible and shocking damage to the tree. We actually removed a rather thick limb from the stump with only about 15 rounds, and the surface of the tree expelling chunks with every shot.

The Curiosity:
So I started doing some research, and sticking to the ammo brand I wish to use while elk hunting, Remington Core-Lokt Express, I compared some balistics.

The Balistics:
130 grain PSP- Muzzle velocity 3060 fps, Muzzle energy 2702 ft lbs.
130 grain PSP- Velocity at 100 yds 2802 fps, Energy at 100 yds 2267 ft lbs.

150 grain SP- Muzzle velocity 2850 fps, Muzzle energy 2705 ft lbs.
150 grain SP- Velocity at 100 yds 2504 fps, Energy at 100 yds 2087 ft lbs.

http://remington.com/comparison.aspx
Here's link to the ballistics I'm using, hope it works right.

The question:
So, what this all boils down to, is that I liked the damage I saw with the pointed soft point ammo rather than the soft point, and Remington doesn't make the Core-Lokt .270 150 grain in PSP. I also like the balistics better on the 130 PSP, higher velocity, better energy, and less drop as compared directly to the 150 SP.
Are the visible benefits of the 130 grain PSP (ballistics and seen damage) enough to take down an elk? Or is the 150 grain SP still the better choice due to the increased mass of the bullet? Do the PSP rounds have a better expansion that the SP?
From what I see, I'm really leaning towards the 130s, but I don't want to risk leaving an animal wounded by a round without the mass for a clean kill.

So there it is, as logical and precise as I can be right now, what do you all think?

Also, I know the .270 is a tad on the small size for elk, I don't wish that to be part of this discussion, as I will work more on shot placement. I don't wish to use a different ammo simply because the Remington ammo shoots very nice in my gun, and I'm a cheap bastard who doesn't want to spend a bunch of money on expensive ammo that will work roughly the same as the cheap stuff.

Any input you all have will be appreciated!

__________________
king1138 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote

Join FirearmsTalk.com Today - It's Free!

Are you a firearms enthusiast? Then we hope you will join the community. You will gain access to post, create threads, private message, upload images, join groups and more.

Firearms Talk is owned and operated by fellow firearms enthusiasts. We strive to offer a non-commercial community to learn and share information.

Join FirearmsTalk.com Today! - Click Here


Old 04-28-2010, 05:13 PM   #2
Moderator
FTF_MODERATOR.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
c3shooter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Third bunker on the right,Central Virginia
Posts: 16,915
Liked 9166 Times on 3958 Posts
Likes Given: 1436

Default

Well, the basic formula is velocity SQUARED, times weight, so fast gives MUCH more energy, but HEAVY retains the energy (speed) better at distance. However, you are also seeing the effect of a different bullet design. IMHO, the .270 at 200 yds would be more than adequate for elk with EITHER cartridge, if you do your part and put the bullet in the right place. You have noted a critical element in hunting- bullet drop. And the faster bullet (all other things being equal) will drop less. That may mean the difference between a miss, and putting the bullet where it works.

__________________

What we have here is... failure- to communicate.

c3shooter is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 04-28-2010, 05:32 PM   #3
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: TX
Posts: 1,118
Liked 2 Times on 2 Posts

Default

The tree damage is not a fair comparison or gage.

You already weakened the wood by the first 150 gr bullets before you used the 130 gr. on it.

JMHO

__________________
Poink88 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 04-28-2010, 05:38 PM   #4
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
king1138's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Cheyenne,Wyoming
Posts: 100
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Poink88 View Post
The tree damage is not a fair comparison or gage.

You already weakened the wood by the first 150 gr bullets before you used the 130 gr. on it.

JMHO
You make a very sound point, I hadn't even thought of that. I might also mention that we weakened the hell out of that tree with about 300 rounds of .40 s&w handgun ammo too.

Next time I go shooting it will be at an actual range, so I will avoid the "tree damage test" in my consideration of the ammo I go with.

But how about the ballistics? Still too much to consider!
__________________
king1138 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 04-28-2010, 05:41 PM   #5
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Stafford, Virginia,The state of insanity.
Posts: 14,043
Liked 34 Times on 29 Posts

Default

At 200 yards I think like C3 does either will be a good choice.


It is also nice to see someone going about things in a rational manner. Vs saying I wanna kill me a elk at like 900 yards and hum i think like a 22 hornet will work but my bro says you hav to hav a 499 super ultra mag with neclar tips.

Me personally I would look at a premium bullet in a loading similar to the two your shooting now. Check out Hornady Superformance ammo.....

Hornady SUPERFORMANCE Ammunition 270 Winchester 140 Grain SST Box of 20 - MidwayUSA

__________________
cpttango30 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 04-28-2010, 06:06 PM   #6
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Missileman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Omaha,Nebraska
Posts: 492
Liked 1 Times on 1 Posts

Default

I've hunted elk in Montana for over 30 years, and the .270 is a great round for them, and is effective to 300 yards+. The key, of course, is bullet placement, as it is with any round. A poorly placed shot from a 458 Win Mag may not do anything more than one from a .243. When I started hunting elk, I used 130 grain loads exclussively. I later moved up to 140 grain boattails, only because they retained their downrange energy a little better. However, the 130 Rem PSPs will not let you down with proper shot placement at effective ranges. If you haven't already, pick up a hunting book by Jack O'Conner. He was probably one of the most successful and famous hunters in North America, and his favorite elk round was the 130 grain .270 in an Winchester Model 70--you're in good company!

__________________
Dave

"Adversity does not make a man--it reveals him"
Missileman is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 04-29-2010, 05:28 AM   #7
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Savannah, GA.
Posts: 102
Liked 5 Times on 4 Posts

Default

Trajectory is not an issue with a 270 in either 130 or 150 gr. bullets at 250 yards and the comments provided by others is right on. If I were to use a 130 gr bullet I would go with a premium, ie Nosler partition or Accubond, Barns, Swift A Frame, Trophy bonded Bear Claw, etc. I would not feel the need for a premium 150 gr. bullet but would probably use one anyway. I usually lean towards heavy for caliber bullets because I feel they give deeper penetration and don't shoot up mean as badely. The 270 is one of the all time greats and certainly easily capable of taking elk at more then the ranges you indicated, but as with any rifle, only if you guide the bullet to the proper point of impact!

__________________
Tuner is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 04-29-2010, 07:17 AM   #8
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
davemccarthy707's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Newfoundland
Posts: 758
Liked 253 Times on 127 Posts
Likes Given: 137

Default

I live on an island with the highest moose population in the world(Newfoundland). I have shot a few moose. The 130 grain Remington corelokt PSP is all I will use. It stops em everytime. The last one I shot was a bang flop at 200 yards. It was a thru and thru. Just my 2 cents.

__________________
davemccarthy707 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2010, 03:06 AM   #9
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Savannah, GA.
Posts: 102
Liked 5 Times on 4 Posts

Default

dave, you can't argue with success and the 130 Rem. Corelock has a very good reputation for performing well. Your experience only serves to verify that. I would not feel handicapped with it but given the choice on a big game hunt where I was spending big bucks to fly in and hunt Newfoundland, as I did about 10 years ago, I would probably go with Nosler partitions. On that trip I did take a nice moose and caribou in the Deer Lake area. Great hunt, great people. Used a .338 Win. Mag., 225 Nosler Part. on the moose and a .35 Whelen, 225 gr. Nosler Part. on the caribou. Our guides said they used a .243 Win. and had no trouble dropping moose. In the final analysis it is all about shot placement

__________________
Tuner is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2010, 04:00 AM   #10
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
jpattersonnh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: South central,NH
Posts: 5,035
Liked 728 Times on 505 Posts
Likes Given: 758

Default

You can't compare moose to elk. Elk are much thicker and tougher than a moose. If it were me hunting Elk w/ a .270, I would find a real good partition or a Barnes TXS or TTSX. A standard soft point will fall apart when it hits bone.
Here is comparision. Years ago the 175gr bullet was king for tough game in the U.S. for 7mm Rem Mag. Well some years past and bullets got better, so the 160gr has become king. Now looking at the 160gr, with a well constructed bullet I can do the same w/ a 140gr within reason. The 160 still has a better BC and sectional density, which means it will go further and penetrate better. But, the 140 shoots flatter and looses nothing to the 160 until you hit 350 yards. It starts to shed speed fast. I really like the barnes bullet if not for anything else, they retain mass weight and penetrate deep. I bought them on special from Barnes a while back. $17.00 per 50. I have enough for all my big game hunting for the rest of my life! You can't cheap out on a special hunt!

__________________

Freedom is not free. The best of us always leave too soon.

jpattersonnh is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Firearms Forum Replies Last Post
45-70 "Trapdoor" rifle ammo rooney7388 General Rifle Discussion 16 04-03-2014 06:09 PM
"Do "Gun-Free" Zones Encourage School Shootings?" cnorman18 The Club House 26 04-17-2012 09:57 PM
Ammo & "jamming" mr1911 1911 Forum 2 09-11-2009 03:30 PM
Anybody use "green" ammo? Does it perform as well? orangello Politics, Religion and Controversy 14 03-05-2009 03:49 PM
Witloe Remington 1858 New Model Army "Lee" & "Grant" bprevolver Blackpowder & Musket 0 09-25-2008 11:11 PM