7mm vs .270

[Sled]

Take the .308, more than capable. I use a kimber .308. Hiking the mountains without needing a sling, just having the rifle in hand is a huge benefit.

mine is always in my hands if i'm hunting. less missed opportunity that way. that's also where you notice the extra 1lb or two.

 

[Gila]

With the right bullet, both will knock a bull's dick into the dirt. I would say use the rifle you shoot the best and like to hunt with.

 

[.270]

300 yards max range? Shoot whatever rifle is more accurate and you are comfortable with.

 

[FLS]

I’ll vote 270. Ive got an older 700 Mountain thats killed everything I’ve pointed it at with authority. Load it up with a 130 TTSX and don’t look back. Shoots flat, hits hard, has modest recoil, and ammo is everywhere.

 

[Indian Summer]

My preference would be the 7mm Rem Mag. I like a heavier bullet for elk. Those buggers are tough. Heck think about how tough deer can be and then times that by 10. My “small” elk rifle is a 7mm. I haven’t had it out except for deer in years. Back when I got serious about elk I wanted a synthetic stock that was waterproof and could handle more abuse than my laminated wood stock. So now I’m shooting 200 grain Accubonds which I love for beasts like elk and moose.

If you ever hunt elk in places where you start wanting to shoot further... much further you’ll be glad to have a heavier bullet. A good analogy might be... there’s a reason golfers use golf balls instead of ping pong balls. More weight simply retains more energy.

Sure a .270 will kill elk but as the saying goes hope for the best but plan for the worst.

 

[DropTyne]

Being a newbie to Rokslide I hope I don't offend anyone, but .007" is not going to make any discernable difference to the elk if shooting quality bullets in both cartridges. When choosing which rifle to take between your two options, the headstamp on your brass is probably the most meaningless variable to your decision.

You should take the rifle that you shoot the best in FIELD POSITIONS, which is not always the one that shoots the best on the bench. Which rifle balances better in standing, sitting, and kneeling positon? Only you can decide that. Once you figure that out you will have your answer. With the two rifles you mention, balance and field handling will trump terminal ballistic gack and a pound or so of weight. If you truly feel you shoot them equally and they both balance the same, then take the lighter rifle. You won't kill anything if you can't put the bullet where it needs to go.

There's not a nickle difference between the 270 and 7mag with terminal performance with todays bullet choices, particularly if you're comparing a Partition to an Accubond. Both work well!

 

[Rifleman86]

Being a newbie to Rokslide I hope I don't offend anyone, but .007" is not going to make any discernable difference to the elk if shooting quality bullets in both cartridges. When choosing which rifle to take between your two options, the headstamp on your brass is probably the most meaningless variable to your decision.

You should take the rifle that you shoot the best in FIELD POSITIONS, which is not always the one that shoots the best on the bench. Which rifle balances better in standing, sitting, and kneeling positon? Only you can decide that. Once you figure that out you will have your answer. With the two rifles you mention, balance and field handling will trump terminal ballistic gack and a pound or so of weight. If you truly feel you shoot them equally and they both balance the same, then take the lighter rifle. You won't kill anything if you can't put the bullet where it needs to go.

There's not a nickle difference between the 270 and 7mag with terminal performance with todays bullet choices, particularly if you're comparing a Partition to an Accubond. Both work well!

I’d say it has more to do with the extra 20gr of bullet with the 7mm and the added sectional density than bullet diameter.

That could be the difference between complete penetration and a good blood trail and incomplete penetration and a pencil sized entrance wound that gets plugged with hair.

Unfortunately BTDT with the latter scenario. Losing the tracks of what should be a dead elk and not recovering isn’t something I wish on anyone.

Does bullet selection play a larger role in that than caliber? Sure. But elk are big tough critters. I’ll take the “heavier” caliber rifle every time, given I shoot both well and all else being equal.

 

[Rifleman86]

Dupe!

 

[Rifleman86]

Dupe

 

[DropTyne]

That could be the difference between complete penetration and a good blood trail and incomplete penetration and a pencil sized entrance wound that gets plugged with hair.

Unfortunately BTDT with the latter scenario. Losing the tracks of what should be a dead elk and not recovering isn’t something I wish on anyone.

I should have definitely put the disclaimer thats there's not a nickels difference as long as you place the bullet where it should be.

Losing game is certainly one of the worst experiences a hunter can have. But, if you lost the elk how do you truly know you didn't have marginal or poor bullet placement with your shot? A poorly hit animal is likely lost whether it's shot with a 243 or 375.

Today's premium bullets are far superior to yesteryears cup and core bullets. Place a premium bullet in the vitals where it should be and you'll have a dead elk. There's too many killed with smaller cartridges like the 243 today to dispute that, even though they would personally not be my first choice.