Quote:
|
but 270's have ethically been taking elk at 400-500 yards for near 90 years now.
|
Says a guy from Georgia...yeah right.
More like sometimes wounding and sometimes killing at those distances. Hang out with a DOW officer in CO for a season, vast majority of wounded animals, multiple shots into herds, etc. are with the vaunted .270s of the out of state hunters from the South that "know it is more than enough." 6 elk were wounded and or killed by a hunter from Georgia in Colorado about 15 years ago, with a 270, at distances of 400 to 450 yards...know that guy? DOW officers tracked down 3 or 4 of them that had chest cavity hits and finished them off.
Sure the .270 is enough gun within some limitations (as are all calibers), but a new elk hunter with a .270 at 400+ is NOT ethical. Sorry, just is. A Top Gun pilot I used to hunt with called anything under .35 a "needle caliber"...just enough to needle them into running away. A bit extreme, sure. The stats indicate that the vast majority of elk are killed inside 200 yards anyway, and a .270 should be fine at that distance.
I have no doubt that an elk could be killed at 200 yards with a .22RF, but it would not be repeatable and it would be unethical to try unless you were starving. If a guy wants to hunt with a .243, sure, fine, but the limit has to be closer than most would like. The VAST majority of hunters can not hold an 8" pie plate at 100 yards under hunting conditions, now you want to set them free with a .270 at 500 yards. That sir IS unethical. If YOU can use a .270 to hit the heart and lungs every time at 500 yards with a .270 and kill elk, then that is great for you, but you would be rare and expounding that to the general hunter would be foolish advice, not wise counsel.
Apologies to the OP.