Talking big game hunting here, lets use elk hunting for example.  My current elk hunting rig is a .300 win mag slinging 180gr Hornady Interbonds at about 3000FPS.  This caliber and bullet do a great job of getting consistent penetration and expansion on bull elk out to 400 yards.  I dont shoot at game farther than that, but it probably would do fine out to 500-600 yards.  

So onto my question.  I was doing some research on a new Mule deer rifle and looking at the .270 Winchester cartridge.  I got to looking at the Barnes TTSX bullet for this caliber and it got me to thinking.... A 130 grain TTSX fired from a .270 has enough velocity out to 400 yards (above 2000 fps) to get reasonable expansion, and since its a solid projectile it will have great penetration and weight retention.  Why would I need a 180 grain .300 win mag for elk?  The reason I use it is for the penetration at longer distances, especially if I hit shoulder bone.  But with the 130 grain TTSX from a .270 I would still get great penetration, and from what I have read as long as you stay above 2000fps the bullets expand pretty well too.  The .270 would have much less recoil and cheaper brass/powder for reloading.  

So why use a magnum caliber when it looks to me like a standard caliber with a solid bullet like the TTSX can do the same job?  What am I missing?

Just off the top of my head, while I am sure a 270 would kill one, I'm sure not gonna stand on the ground with in 100 yards of a big bear and try..no thanks...I use a 300RUM shooting 200 grain TSX's and sometimes  I still think more gun wouldn't be a bad idea(closer/bigger the bear the more inadequate  the cartridge feels)... same deal with big bull moose, 270 will do it, but I want something bigger...

You aren't missing much, OP.

I'm not a big fan of Barnes. I want 60%-70% weight retention. The weight that's lost will wreck a the lungs of a deer, and whatever is left will push through if you take a raking shot.

Partitions or Accubonds for me.


Of course a mountain of elk has been killed with a 270 Win.


I did shoot a Muley buck with an 80gr TTSX out of 6mm at 75 yards, and it punched from 1/2 way back in the ribs on one side to in front of the shoulder on the other. Even at that range and going at the speed it was (3300-3400 MV) the wound channel wasn't impressive. 85gr. Partitions make a better wound channel IMHO.

The downside? The people who will hound you over it.

"Anything under .308 is a poodle shooter."
"I want a handgun that starts with a 4."
"I wouldn't use anything under xxxx foot pounds!"

Your idea of what constitutes big game is rather limited.

Well here in Idaho, Elk is about the largest thing I hunt.  Black Bear are not near as tough to kill in my experience, and Moose are a once in a lifetime hunt here in this state, and I haven't put in for that hunt at this point.

Stick with your .300 and Interbonds since that works for you. No reason to change to the newest bullet when you know what the load you're using will do.

I'm impressed with TSX and TTSX in .224. But I still prefer a bonded SP.

Id stick with your win mag. I've shot 4 white tails with an old model 70, none needed tracking. But I'll never argue with a man wanting more tools at his disposal ha.

Bumping for the day crew's opinions

Heavy 30 caliber magnums haven't been necessary for years, if ever. Elk are killed every year with 243 rifles shooting the soft points that bubba picked up at walmart 4 years ago with the rifle. Elk and moose were routinely killed with muskets and round balls before rifling even existed. My dads moose dropped from a single round 7mm-08, both my caribou dropped from single rounds of 25-06. My dads Kudu and Eland fell to a 30-06.

6.5 caliber rifles are the sweet spot for all around elk/mule deer/black bear. Long range power, low recoil, cheap and easy to buy or reload.

I know they are not necessary, shot placement is key.  But bonded heavy .30 cal bullets do much better at breaking shoulder bones of large elk and mule deer.  A .243 cup and core bullet not so much.  But a Barnes ttsx out of a .270 should be able to go through a shoulder bone and keep going without much trouble (given you keep the shot within a reasonable range)

The better question is why not use a .300?
If you're shooting pheasants you use heavier shot than for doves.
Whitetail die fine with .243s.
Prairie dogs? .223 and .22-250 are great.

Why not use an appropriate tested, proved round for elk sized game.
The cost of ammo, etc is small compared to the whole experience.
Why limit yourself when a trophy is on the line?

Sure, the .270 might kill it fine, but why take a chance?

I am a.300 fan from way back as you can tell.

There have been more animals killed on this earth with "normal" rifles than all the magnum rounds.

I  would hazzard that just the 30-06 by itself has killed more.

I like my .300, it's a great cartridge.  But what I am thinking about here is if you can get .300 win mag performance at longer range with a .270 firing a lighter bullet with less recoil and similar flat trajectory, why not use the .270?

There is no reason unless you just like recoil. Although I personally see the 270 as the king of fudd rounds so I'd go with a Creedmoor or 7mm-08 if it were me in the position.

FWIW I sold my 300RUM and replaced it with a 6.5 Creedmoor for my go-to elk rig. Now I don't have to lug a 15lb rifle up mountains, I can actually enjoy shooting it so now I am far more accurate since I take it to the range every trip versus the 300 which I never shot, and I can reload for dirt cheap or buy premium ammo for a quarter the price of the 300. Didn't get drawn the past two seasons for elk, but I hit the light switch on a Utah muley at a hair over 400, and watched my brother use it to drop a Colorado bull at 350.

130gr Berger VLDs out of a 20" Aero Precision M5 build, topped with a Vortex Viper 2.5-10.

Monometals don't make cartridges like 300 Win. Mag. unnecessary. They do make what many considered not enough, into enough. When you mention 5-600 yards on larger game the 300/7 Mags.,  regardless of bullet is going to hit harder and be less affected by conditions than many other, smaller cartridges/calibers. The 270/130 grain doesn't seem to be chosen much for longer range hunting or target by anyone.

I swear by Barnes in many cartridges/calibers from .224 through .308, with great results. Usually in a bit lighter for caliber weight than a normal cup & core bullet, but I've never taken a shot at game over about 250 yards.


If I were chasing larger game at 5-600 yards I'd want a better BC, heavier and quicker expanding bullets than Barnes. The new higher BC Hornady tipped bullets are interesting. Wonder how they'll perform on game.

I'm sold on Barnes, for exactly the reasons you state in the OP.  I was shooting 160 accubonds from standard 280 chamber.  I had it recut to Ackley Improved, and at the suggestion of the smith that did the work I started load development with a Barnes 145 LRX.  The lighter Barnes has a lower BC (.539 to .486) than the heavier accubond, but I can push it over 400 fps faster than the 160 accubond load I had been using with a standard 280 chamber.  I increased KE at the muzzle by almost 500 foot pounds, have better down range energy retention, and terminal performance is excellent.

I recovered the bullets from a Shiras Moose I killed last year, they worked exactly as intended.  I have since killed 2 additional elk with the load and been 100% pleased with the performance of the bullet on big game.

That being said, I think that the accubond also has excellent terminal ballistics on game.  I killed a bunch of elk with the 160 accubond.  I simply get better external ballistics with the Barnes, mainly due to going "light for caliber" and gaining muzzle velocity and energy up front.  




 .

I agree with this, but as I said in my OP I don't take shots much over 400 yards

When it comes to big game hunting, most people's opinions are based on a cup and core type bullet. The new big games bullets out there are far far superior. I've killed half dozen or so elk over the past couple years using a 308 with accubonds. I even killed a small cow with my 6.8 with an accubond. I've also killed several bears, quite a few mule deer and countless whitetails - all with either the 308 or 6.8. Use the right bullet and you are golden.  Shoot a rifle that you are comfortable and confident in. I also have taken several youngsters out , and I'd far rather them have a 243 that they can shoot well than a big magnum that scares them.

I hung up my 7 mag a couple years back, sucks carrying a 12 lb rifle that still kicks like a mule.  

Run a 20" DPMS Hunter with a 3x9 and a 10 round mag which weighs under 10 lbs.  I use the 150g TTSX right at 2800 fps, which is more than enough in the 400 yards ill shoot.  They penetrate deep, I have yet to have one not pass through and the always make jelly out of the lungs.

So why not load a 168gr TTSX in the 300 mag?

Around 78 grains (Depending on your chamber/throat/barrel) of RL22 gets you ~3300 with a 26" barrel. Bad medicine, right there.

 

IMO .270Win with the proper ammo, is much more gun than people give it credit for. Never used copper bullets in this caliber though.

I shot an elk this year at 420 yards.

200gr nosler partition, 72.5gr h4831sc, 210m primers.

I like the idea of the tsxx bullets and bought some 180grs to try out. However, stepping down calibers  isn't something I'd really consider. Why? I'm sure 270 is enough gun, my dad shot an elk before with a 270.

However I want the flexibility of a 300wm. Sure its alot of gun at 0-200 yards. But at the 400+ range, I'd rather have the ballistics of 300wm then 270. Quite frankly, because you have to think less. When I shot this year, I didn't know the exact range. I knew it was far, but I didn't range finder it till after the fact. So I aimed for the spine, hit the bottom of the lung. No scope adjustments, simple duplex cross hair, no range calculations. Faster, easier, smoother.

And, it left a nice hole.

Well I decided to do it.  I sold my Ruger .300 winnie and bought a Weatherby Vanguard S2 in .270 Winchester.  Pretty excited to start working up some loads with the 130gr TTSX and also the Barnes LRX 129gr.  The LRX has a BC of .463.