d_hoffman wrote:

step-up would be the 7mm Rem. mag.

I wouldn't disagree. I was thinking .30-caliber.

I love my .270 no question. if I point it in the right direction what Im aiming at dies. no argument no fuss. with the right projectile it is great. I shoot smaller game with soft pills like typans or 110grn hornadys I dont recamend using the 110s on big stuff they are super leathal and blow a large hole about 10" deep on wallabys very impressive but they dont go deep on big stuff. I Uuse 130 or 150grn on deer or pigs etc I had 1 box of lapua 160grners and they were super accurate in my mod 70 and dropped deer sweet as. the .308 is a great round. loads of long range shooters used it in the past. military use as well. my big brother has a blr in .308 no fuss no bother deer go down its his range rifle too hard on the ears but accurate. he put it in prespective last time we hunted. you either own a .270 or a .308 the .270 MAY have a range advantage the.308 MAY have abush bucking advantage. my advice, if you feel undergunned go to a heavier pill and keep shooting what you have. if you want a shorter light weight rifle the .308 would be right up near the top of my list. but then again the new ruger ranch rifle in 6.8spc realy gets a look in too.

I'm with slimjim on this one. I like to run all my guns between 2900 and 3100 fps, any slower and long range shots become restricted and any faster and bullets can do squirrelly things.

Comparing the 270 and the 308, getting 3000 fps means shooting a 140 gr in the 270 and the 150 gr in the 308. The sectional density for a 140 gr 270 bullet is .261 and for the 150 gr 308 bullet it is .226. To me that means a lot more penetration with the 270 bullet.

To get up to a decent sectional density in a 308 bullet you need to shoot a 180 gr bullet with a sectional density of .271. The 308 win will only push that bullet at 2700 fps or so. The 308 with 165 gr bullet (.248 sectional density) will maybe reach 2800 fps.

Choosing a 140 or 150 gr bullet in a 270 makes it adequate for Elk if the bullet construction is chosen wisely. A 140 gr Trophy Bonded, Swift A-Frame, Hornady Interbond, Nosler Accubond or Barnes TTSX makes the 270 good Elk medicine IMO.

That being said, I shoot the ballistic twin to the 270, a 6.5 rem mag with a 140 gr Accubond at 3000 fps and a sectional density of .287.

Woods' post of 19 Sep takes us in an interesting direction. Over the years, I've looked for good metrics for comparing the effectiveness of different cartridges. I found that Hornady has a very interesting method that takes into account bullet weight, caliber, and velocity at the target. (see www.hornady.com/ballis...ulator.php ) The method assumes bullets of standard construction. When we use their method for typical bullet weights we see that the two are very close in potential. I used the Federal 2008 catalog and standard velocity loads with Nosler Partition bullets to try to get as fair as a comparison as possible:

Results in a nutshell:

From Federal 2008 Catalog – Velocity @ 200 yards
(Standard Velocity Offerings)

308 Win 150 gr Nosler Partition 2380 fps - H.I.T.S score: 780
270 Win 130 gr Nosler Partition 2610 fps - H.I.T.S score: 821
270 Win 150 gr Nosler Partition 2450 fps - H.I.T.S score: 1025
308 Win 180 gr Nosler Partition 2210 fps - H.I.T.S score: 1078

These results suggest that the cartridges are very close in terminal performance at 200 yards. To be sure, the higher muzzle velocity of the 270 gives slightly flatter trajectories, but it won't make much of a difference for deer-sized targets. That leaves the milder recoil of the 270 for the same terminal performance...

Bring back the .280!

Hey Stovie, The 7mm Rem Mag is a .280 on steriods.

Aint steroids illegal in some sports? Miss pops ol' deer hunter is all.

Thread-jack over.

Elvis wrote:

... with the right projectile it is great. ...

IMO Elvis has one of the two key factors here. As we all already know, the other is shot placement. I was amazed one time to read about some guys talking about their hunting experiences and saying that they were taking 3 or 5 or 8 shots to drop African game. Then they listed the loads they were using, all consisting of MATCH bullets! I would have thought that anyone with much experience shooting would know that they made a poor choice of bullets for their application. (I do know that there is at least one exception to this "rule".)

Again IMO any of the cartridges named in this thread so far will work fine for deer or elk, given the right bullet and good shot placement. All have well proven track records. Its fun to nit-pick over differences (sometimes) but I wouldn't turn down any of them, would you?

Nope!!! What I can't figure out is how anything ever got killed a 100 years ago!!!

It's called gettin' close and good shot placement.

Try it sometime, Mr. Beanfield Shooter.

I think you missed the sarcasm in that!!!

Obivously! And ditto.

Now the .30-06 and a few other cartridges we still use are over 100 years old.

Now that you mention it!!! Ooops!!! Should have said 200 years ago !!! Boy time flies when your having fun!!!

Where's Bushy when you need him? He'd be able to tell us first hand how it was done that long ago.