Buck Hollow Sporting Goods - click or touch to visit their website Midwest Habitat Company

270 or 300 Win

ironwood

ironwood

Active Member
I am either going to buy a barrel for my Encore or pickup a New Rifle for a planned western Elk/mule deer hunt for 2008. What does every body think? The barrel would save a boat load of cash. I could buy a Remington 270 win mag for an additional $150. Is the 270 enough or should I bump it up to the 300?
 
If you don't mind recoil, I would go with the .300, but if you like less recoil, the .270 is more than adequate. It just boils down to being comfortable with what you shoot and putting the bullet where it needs to go. However,with either one, use a premium bullet. Accuracy and bullet performance is the key.
2guns.gif
 
Bump her up to 300 mag and I would stay clear of any cartridge less than a 30 caliber for elk.

I am really biased on the 30-06.

You can use a 150 grain load for goats and deer and bump it up to 180 or 220 grain load for elk. Same is true with the 300 mag. their is just more kick and recoil as well foot pounds of energy in the round.

I have found a web site for federal ammunition to be a real good site for foot pounds of energy and bullet trajectory for various calibers and loads.
http://www.federalpremium.com/default.asp?br=1&bhcp=1
Good Luck
 
A 270 will take anything in North America other than griz. I know lots of people that use 270 for elk. The 300 will also weight moe when hikeing.
 
I have shot a .270 for 12 years, taking deer up to 412 yards. The biggest buck I have ever killed was at that distance (I have only lived in Iowa for 2 years, from Missouri). I have also been to Canada bear hunting and killed 2 nice Ontario black bears with it, one weighing in the 300 lb range. In my opinion, a .270 is the best all around big game round there is. Plenty of punch at long distance and reasonably flat shooting. Also ammo is much, much cheaper than the .300. I have never elk hunted before, but plan on it in the next 10 years. Alot of my friends go out west every year, and out of the group the .270 is the favorite round.
 
Ok I am getting the idea here. What about going the cheap route and buying a barrel for the Encore instead of a Bolt action with a clip. Is a 270 Win Short worth considering?
 
Say,, I have just the rifle for ya! I have a 30-06 remington 700 bolt action. Shot a mule deer with it at 200 yrds down hill in WY. About all I shot with it. Like new condition, $350.00.
 
I've seen people shoot the .270 WSM and it seems to kick like a mule. I personally have a .300 Win Mag and love it although the most popular elk cartridges are probably .270 and 30-06. I would have no fear about taking a .270 elk hunting. I used to hunt with won before I won the .300 and it was a tack driver. What ever you decide to go with make sure you have the right bullet style and weight. I would recommend a trophy bonded bear claw or a Remington core-lokt. I use the trophy bonded federal premiums in my .270 and the Remington core-lokt ultra's in my .300. The both group great and have excellent weight retention down range.

As far as the encore vs. the bolt I would say it's personal preference. You are not going to load a follow up shot a whole lot faster with a bolt. I would recommend going synthetic for weight purposes. Lugging around a heavy rifle all day up and down the mountain can take a toll. You'll be grateful for the ounces saved.

The best thing to do is buy it now and start playing with different bullet/load configurations if you are hand loading or trying different factory ammo if that’s the route you are going to go. It makes a huge difference. My father and I both have A-bolt .300 win mags. I have a white gold medallion and he has a composite stalker. He shoots Federal premiums with great success and ha can’t get them to group out of mine. I use the Remington Core-Lokt. Each gun will shoot each type of ammo differently.

The other thing you will want to consider is optics. Buy the best possible scope you can afford. I would recommend a 3.5x10x50. This might be a reason to go with a bolt so you can leave that scope sighted in on top of the rifle. Hope this helps.
 
The 300 is going to be a better Elk cartridge, but the 270 will get the job done.

If you plan on using the gun for anything besides elk I would go with the 270, but if it is going to be an elk only gun your best bet is the 300.

Both calibers will do the job as long as you have a good penatrating well built bullet. I recommend a Barnes triple x or a trophy bonded bear claw. The Remington scioco and A frame bullets are also good for elk.

Good Luck
 
I have a 300 WSM and it shoots like a dream. I have shot everything from Antelope at near 400 yards to Moose at 12 yards with it and it has easily gotten the job done. With a 300 there will never be a doubt in your mind whether you have enough gun. I also thing that the too much gun theory is also kinda silly. My two cents. However, I think any of the above ideas would easily get the job done.
grin.gif
 
I shoot an Encore with a .300 barrel. They don't seem to have much kick, I think the stock style has something to do with it. Your hand absorbes most of the shock. I took a good whitetail buck in WY with it last year and put him right down. Got it all on video. I love that rifle.
 
Of the two choices given, I would buy the 300 mostly based on the fact that you want the gun for elk. Like DOR said, there is no doubt that when you pull the trigger and only have or want to shoot a shoulder..that 300 will get it done!

I have a 270WSM and don't think that it kicks all that bad at all and I feel that it's really enjoyable to shoot. I haven't shot it much, but was driving tacks at 200 yards with 140gr factory ammo. Can't imagine what it would do if I played around with hand loads. The only problem with short mag loads is that ammo might be tougher to find if your out there somewhere and it is expensive. Tough decision, but I would lean 300 win.
 
I would go with the .284 or otherwise known as the 7mm. Flat hard hitting and was designed for elk. Out of the 270 or 300, I would go with the 300.
 
I have both guns in Remington 700 BDL and they will both get the job done.

My advise would be to put your money in a good scope, shooting sticks, and or tripod mount.

Accurate bullet placement is much more important than the caliber of the gun.

With that said, I took my .300 mag when I went out West Elk hunting.
 
Ballistic table


FPS, FPS @ 200, Energy, Energy at 200

270 Win. (130 Sp) 3060 2639 2702 2009
.270 Win. (150 Sp) 2850 2183 2705 1587
.270 WSM (150 Sp) 3150 2601 3304 2252
.270 Wby. Mag. (150 Sp) 3245 2823 3502 2655


7mm WSM (150 Sp) 3200 2648 3410 2335
7mm Rem. Mag. (150 SpBT) 3110 2751 3221 2520
7mm Wby. Mag. (150 SpBT) 3300 2896 3627 2793
7mm Ultra Mag. (160 Sp) 3200 2791 3637 2767

30-06 Spfd. (150 Sp) 2910 2342 2820 1827
.30-06 Spfd. (180 Sp) 2700 2023 2913 1635
.300 Rem. SAUM (180 Sp) 2960 2571 3501 2642
.300 WSM (180 Sp) 2970 2549 3526 2598
.300 Win. Mag. (180 Sp) 2960 2540 3501 2578
.300 Wby. Mag. (180 Sp) 3240 2826 4195 3193
.300 Ultra Mag. (180 Sp) 3250 2834 4221 3201
 
"My advise would be to put your money in a good scope, shooting sticks, and or tripod mount"

No doubt. Harris bi-pods are worth there weight in gold!!
 
I'm not much of a rifleman, but I have both. The 300 win mag with 180gr bullet has impressed me. Took 2 does early this year in So. Iowa at 300+ yards using a stoney point bipod. Almost seemed unfair. But they still tasted just fine.
grin.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom