Bitterroot Bulls
Veteran member
Sorry guys, I forgot to weigh that bullet. You know, Valentines festivities and such. I will get it done though.
good 270 elk bullet
- Thread starter Jon Boy
- Start date
bigshot
Very Active Member
The more I thought about it, I deleted my experience with the other calibers and agree with Drhrspower and bitterrootbulls. Just go with what shoot best in your rifle. I read the whole thread again and saw you were going to be keeping your shots within a reasonable distance. So, any one of the bullets mentioned will do the job just fine.
If you wanna go by price, The Nosler Accubonds are the cheapest. The Partitions and Barnes are about the same price depending where you buy them. Good luck and let us know what you decide on.
If you wanna go by price, The Nosler Accubonds are the cheapest. The Partitions and Barnes are about the same price depending where you buy them. Good luck and let us know what you decide on.
Last edited:
Bitterroot Bulls
Veteran member
I would be fully confident in the 7mm 160 accubond at any reasonable range on elk. Same goes for the .270 140 accubond.
We could (and have) debate the minimum caliber for elk. Many people kill them like clockwork year after year with their smaller cartridges. Like many game animals, some are just plain tough, and won't give it up right away. Caliber or bullet construction is never a substitute for marksmanship.
I am actually going away from my 300 RUM this year and moving to a 7mm Rem. Mag. My bullet will either be a 160 accubond, 168 LRX, or 168 Berger VLD Hunting. It will be whichever shoots best.
Here is the .277 140 grain Barnes:
That is 96% weight retention.
Here is a 30 Cal. 200 accubond recovered from another bull:
That is 61% weight retention.
Both are within their intended weight retention ranges and both killed the bulls.
We could (and have) debate the minimum caliber for elk. Many people kill them like clockwork year after year with their smaller cartridges. Like many game animals, some are just plain tough, and won't give it up right away. Caliber or bullet construction is never a substitute for marksmanship.
I am actually going away from my 300 RUM this year and moving to a 7mm Rem. Mag. My bullet will either be a 160 accubond, 168 LRX, or 168 Berger VLD Hunting. It will be whichever shoots best.
Here is the .277 140 grain Barnes:
That is 96% weight retention.
Here is a 30 Cal. 200 accubond recovered from another bull:
That is 61% weight retention.
Both are within their intended weight retention ranges and both killed the bulls.
Last edited:
The reason I ask is because my brother and I both shot our deer this year with the 130 grain accubond. Both shots were under 120 yards and both shots hit shoulder. The entrance wound was massive on both animals and seemed to blow up with plenty of bullet fragments and then their was a small exit. Is this typical? it happened to the both of us, same gun same box of bullets. Im not complaining because both deer dropped but it made me wonder what would happen if I hit an elk even in the ribs none the less the shoulder.
Bitterroot Bulls
Veteran member
This is exactly how the bullet is designed to work at high impact velocities. The front of the bullet fragments and the bonded rear portion penetrates deeply. The entrance hole likely would have been smaller had the impact velocity been lower (like if the range was longer).
Bitterroot Bulls
Veteran member
One plus to the Barnes is they don't ruin much meat. If you prefer shoulder shots (I often do) they are a good bullet for it. Accubonds will do the trick, too, but you will often have more bloodshot meat.
Barnes bullets do have their issues. One is copper fouling. It seems like the copper will stick in a bore with gilding metal fouling. So, if you use Barnes, make sure to get a nice, clean bore first, and then don't mix Barnes with gilding metal bullets (like accubonds, bergers, etc.)
I may have to give the barnes a try. I cant remember the last deer I shot that wasnt in the shoulder, they drop everytime. Do you think a bullet like the barnes or partition would have enough power to punch through elk shoulder out of a 270, or should I just avoid it all together?
Bitterroot Bulls
Veteran member
I think those 130 accubonds have a good possibility of fully penetrating. I would guess the Barnes would make it through most of the time. The one I recovered above went through both scapulas and ribs on both sides. This was at about 450 yards, so impact velocity would be like the standard 270 at (guessing) 300 yards. The partition performs just like the accubond, the front expands violently and the rear portion penetrates deeply. All three of these bullets would make a high-shoulder kill, the Barnes would just be a little insurance on penetration. I would find the best shooting load. The 140 grain versions do have better ballistic coefficients (which means better long-range velocity retention and wind-drift resistance), and a little more energy.