.270 130 gr. Sciroccos - Good elk medicine?

I have not tried the Sciroccos but I did kill a bull two years with the .270 130 gr. Hornady Interbond. Since the two bullets are similiar in construction with the Sciroccos certainly being the more durable of the two, I say you should be just fine.

The elk I killed was a large spike, not a huge bull. Regardless, the bullet exited on a broadside shot through the lungs and heart. It left about a 2 inch exit hole. He ran about 40 yards and piled up. In my opinion, with the heaver constructed Scirrocco, you should be fine with even bigger elk as long as your velocity is high enough to cause adequate expansion.
 
A friend of mine used them on his LE elk hunt 2 years ago with disasterous terminal results. He was shooting a 300 mag rather than a 270 though. After his hunt he took the bullets and tested them on a 5 gallon barrell of dried beans and the bullets would not penetrate through the whole barrell while his 243 blew through easily. I would check for penetration before your hunt if I were you.
 
I shoot the 300 Ultrmag with the 180 grain Sciroccos, and have shot two elk, two deer, and a black bear with it and all five dropped dead in their tracks. I shot one bull at 400 yards and it did some serious damage all the way through to the opposite shoulder. Not sure how they are in the 270 but I really like them.
 
the 270 would be the bare minimum that i would use on elk. with 130 grain bullet, thats a little light in my opinion, it will work but now you have to worry about perfect shot place ment and like the others have said, make sure your bullets doesn't disinegrate on impact. 130 grains will loose its kinetic energy really quick, so drill it home.

beat this
 
I've killed several elk and deer with sciroccos. They have always performed flawlessly and they are my favorite bullet. If I were starting from scratch I'd probably opt for 150s, but I'm not sure I've got the time (new rifle, the old one developed problems that I'm not comfortable with so I got rid of it). Was hoping for some good feedback on the 130s.

I'm toying with the idea of getting some 130 grain A-frames.

Thanks all for input.
 
I hope to be trying the Barnes TSX 130 grainers out on an elk come this Saturday. I will let you know the results.
 
>A friend of mine used them
>on his LE elk hunt
>2 years ago with disasterous
>terminal results. He was
>shooting a 300 mag rather
>than a 270 though.
>After his hunt he took
>the bullets and tested them
>on a 5 gallon barrell
>of dried beans and the
>bullets would not penetrate through
>the whole barrell while his
>243 blew through easily.
>I would check for penetration
>before your hunt if I
>were you.

Just to be sure, was your friend using the Swift Sciroccos? These are the premium bonded bullet with a very thick jacket. They are heavily constructed and designed for deep penetration. I would imagine that this bullet would have a higher chance of not expanding fully and penetrating deeply rather than expanding too quickly and not penetrating.
 
I have killed a bunch of elk with my 270.. I mostly shoot the trophy bonded bear claw. However, i have started shooting the accubond and am having good results with it.
Sorry, no experience with the 130 sciroccos.
I have shot some A frames out of my 300 ultra with good results.
 
I agree with what has been previously posted about the Scirroccos and the 270. I would say that the 270 is bare minimum. If you are Jack O'connor, and won't take a shot beyond 250-300 yards then go ahead with the 270. I would be really leary about anything beyond that, and I haven't even gotten into bullet selection yet. Would I hunt elk with my 270? Only if my 300 Win was run over by the truck, and dropped my 7mm in the river and forgot the bullets for my 338 ultra. So the answer is yes, I would hunt with a 270, but I would absolutely set a limit of no farther than 300 yards on a perfect broadside shot of bull. THEN...

I would not shoot any bullet except a barnes x if hunting with a 270. You are going to want absolutely as much weight retention and penetration that you can get. If you bribed me, and stole my reloading equipment, I might concede to factory loads with Nosler Partitions, but then I would cut my max distance down to somewhere between 200 and 250 yards.

Concerning Scirocco's, I shot a 4pt. muley in 01' in SE Montana with my 7mm loaded with 150 gr. Scirroccos. The buck was standing broadside at 100 yards and I nailed him right through the upper heart and lower lungs. The buck did drop, but when gutting the animal I discovered that the bullet had exploded into multiple pieces and didn't even come close to a pass through. The heaviest section I found was around 60 grains. This is absolutely inexcuseable for a 100 heart/lung shot at 100 yards. Had that been a big bull, I may as well have rented a chopper to help me find it. In my opinion, there are far better bullets out there and alot of them. Now keep in mind, these were generation 1 scirroco's not the generation 2 that they are using now. I don't know what the difference is, but they were the latest hype then, and I thought they performed horribly. (by the way, they grouped wonderfully in my 7mm) but if that is all that mattered to me, I would shoot ballistic tips. If you want a polymer tipped bullet, shoot the accubond, or Barnes MRX. If you don't reload, I am pretty sure you can buy Accubonds for the 270. That would be my recomendation.

One last thing, if you are going to shoot a 270, I would do my absolute best to find and shoot 150 grain bullets. The extra weight does make a difference and I think the bull deserves that consideration.

Best of luck this fall for you and your party.

Sincerely,

AutumnPulse

"Be a straight-shooter in all that you do."
 
Don't listen to the haters that can't shoot straight. That load will absolutely work well on Elk, provided you can shoot well. Sciroccos absolutely will penetrate, I have personally seen them go stern to stem on a Cow Moose......
______________________________________________________

68hi7ls.gif
 
My wife shot a shiras moose two years ago with a 150 grain Scirocco out of a 7mm. The bull was quartering sharply away form her and the bullet instead of easing in just behind the rib cage, entered through the meat of the left hind leg and exited between the two front shoulders just missing the right front shoulder. So the bullet did not have any hard bone to penetrate through, but it did completely pass through the bull almost lengthwise. I was impressed with the penetration and results as the bull dropped in its tracks.
 
I've had similar results with 180 gr, .308 sciroccos. thanx all.

elkcampcolorado2005002.jpg


.257 Roberts. 115gr.Nosler Part. Two steps.
 
Thanx again all for input. Can't believe the accuracy of this sako. I was hoping to AVERAGE 1" at 100, or so. I'm getting sub 2" at 200. Right out of the box.



IDBuck, I sent u a pm. I think.
 
Killed a big 6×8 bull in New Mexico at 352yds with 130 grain accubond 270cal. It shot through the bull behind its front shoulder but went 75 plus yds before it piled up.
 
AutumnPulse said:
I would say that the 270 is bare minimum.
Click to expand...
If 270 is bare minimum, a lot of other calibers are gonna be out in the cold. I’d use a 270 ( with good bullets) confidently!

Short actions like .308, 7mm08, 260, 6.5 come to mind. I’d hunt elk with any of those with relatively few concerns, choosing my shots responsibly.

I think the 243 and various 25 calibers would be a better take on “minimum” even though they will kill plenty of elk every year. I wouldn’t reach for these if I had other choices.
 
I will take knowledge, experience, confidence and prior success with a rifle and caliber any day.

Hell I've seen and heard the horror stories of piss poor hunters, poor shot placement, borrowed guns that are said to be killing machines shooting 180-220 grain bullets.

The kill zone in an elk is very large. Just keep the elk fever in check until after the shot is made.

Good luck and go make some great memories and post back here with your success.
 
That all sounds good sitting in front of a computer screen. what about when you get a big bull at 400 yards offering a quartering shot? all that crap goes out the window when buck fever sets in and Mr experience lobs a dinky bullet out there and bad chit happens.

Gear up for what could happen within reason, not what you hope will happen.
 
rmanwill said:
I will take knowledge, experience, confidence and prior success with a rifle and caliber any day.

Hell I've seen and heard the horror stories of piss poor hunters, poor shot placement, borrowed guns that are said to be killing machines shooting 180-220 grain bullets.

The kill zone in an elk is very large. Just keep the elk fever in check until after the shot is made.

Good luck and go make some great memories and post back here with your success.
Click to expand...
I just cant keep the fever in check!
 
Should be a good combo. I would keep my shots to 250 yards with elk and that combo. Possibly 300 if everything is perfect. As somewhat alluded too, I would not shoot a bull at 400 yards through the shoulder with this. I own a 270, and it is my "go to" gun for everything up to a large mule deer. But when I go elk hunting, I pull out my more powerful gun that shoots from 150 grains and up. Don't get me wrong. I think the 270 is fine with limits. Bigger guns have limits too, they are just farther out and at more shot angles
 
txhunter58 said:
Should be a good combo. I would keep my shots to 250 yards with elk and that combo. Possibly 300 if everything is perfect. As somewhat alluded too, I would not shoot a bull at 400 yards through the shoulder with this. I own a 270, and it is my "go to" gun for everything up to a large mule deer. But when I go elk hunting, I pull out my more powerful gun that shoots from 150 grains and up. Don't get me wrong. I think the 270 is fine with limits. Bigger guns have limits too, they are just farther out and at more shot angles
Click to expand...
How about just not shooting a bull "through the shoulder" ever? Slip it behind the shoulder and a bit lower and you'll put a hole in it's heart, even at +400 yards, making it die quickly with minimal meat loss. I have no idea why the last ~15 yrs or so it's gotten common to shoot game through the shoulder to supposedly anchor it. It's one of the dumbest things out there.
 
johnnycake said:
How about just not shooting a bull "through the shoulder" ever? Slip it behind the shoulder and a bit lower and you'll put a hole in it's heart, even at +400 yards, making it die quickly with minimal meat loss. I have no idea why the last ~15 yrs or so it's gotten common to shoot game through the shoulder to supposedly anchor it. It's one of the dumbest things out there.
Click to expand...
Through the shoulder is how you dirt nap that sucker
 
Because that may be your only choice between getting an elk and tag soup, and I want something that will still get the job done in either case.

Plus, animals aren't immobile. When an elk takes a step or turns sharply when you pull the trigger, and the shot that WAS perfect, turns into one that isn't. At 400 yards there are just more things that can go wrong and that is amplified with more distance, even with a bullet
 
txhunter58 said:
Because that may be your only choice between getting an elk and tag soup, and I want something that will still get the job done in either case.
Click to expand...
This right here embodies a lot of the problems with hunting attitudes/perspectives today. Seems like we used to teach folks that if a good, clean shot wasn't available you just accepted that the animal won that round. That's just a part of hunting.

Why not just whiz a round into it's liver or turd cutter, then wait a day and look for birds? Better than tag soup right?!
 
Sorry you think I’m unethical. In truth, I’m about the most ethical hunter there is. I would never take a marginal shot at any distance and 400 yards is the absolute max I will shoot. If I don’t know that the caliber/ bullet combination can cleanly kill an animal, I won’t take the shot. I’ve eaten tag soup plenty of times because of passing on shots. I passed on a prone setup broadside shot on a 6x6 bull at 600 yards last fall that would score at least 320.

But life is not perfect and a little more power and lead can make up for imperfection, especially at longer distances. I guess sh#~ doesn’t happen in your world. Glad they stand perfectly still for you and you always hit within 1” of your aim point. 243 should be plenty of gun for you for any animal.

But getting back the the original question, his gun and bullet are good to go for elk. Just not at 500 yards
 
Last edited:
Glad they hold perfectly still for you and your gun never wobbles. I understand what you are saying: you never intentionally shoot them thru the shoulder. But it could happen to you someday and there are times I might do it on purpose. And it won’t be an unethical shot. I just waste a little more meat than you.
 
Last edited:
In a perfect world behind the shoulder is better. in the real world the shoulder is a better point of aim under most conditions, it has a lager margin of error.

Most elk I've had to go find on the neighbor's property for poor shooting pilgrims have been hit behind the shoulder too high. had the bullet been a little forward they would have dropped in their tracks.

It takes a lot of ruined meat off scapulas to add up to one lost elk.
 
Bulletproof elk shoulders huh? Anybody who has ever actually processed an elk knows that the scapula is thinner than a piece of cardboard and is easily defeated by any modern bullet at any realistic velocity.

Rib bones are thicker in cross section vs the scapula and how many Fudds say not to shoot em in the ribs?
 
IMG_1859.jpeg
IMG_1858.jpeg

I used to shoot at the rear spot (behind the shoulder) but a little wobble (esp at long range) means a liver 😳shot. But now have moved that forward a bit into that crease between the shoulder blade and elbow. Pretty much use the elbow as my landmark and shoot directly above that. Like stated above. Gives you a bit more room for error.
 
txhunter58 said:
I used to shoot at the rear spot (behind the shoulder) but a little wobble (esp at long range) means a liver 😳shot.
Click to expand...
Ever shot an elk in the liver with a rifle? It kills the hell out of them. I've seen it several times and never seen one make it 100 yards.
 
Shoot 140’s and 150s for elk. And I use Nosler partition and Barnes triple shocks. 450 yard elk slayer. Easy! I chuckle at the 250 max yard limit comment.

And the experts say you can shoot that 6.5 prc out deep. I’d take my .270s all week long over any 6.5.
 
I certainly agree that I will always prefer my 270 over a 6.5 creedmore. Certainly has more punch at distance. The only advantage I can see is at the gun range on paper.

As far as going to 450 with a 270, there is no right or wrong. In the right hands it certainly is. And I suspect Jack O’Conner would agree with you. And he hunted with one way more than I have.

I also love your choice of bullets. I have never been disappointed by a nosler partiton in terminal performance. All current “upgrades” are simply an attempt to improve on that concept. My current bullet is the Federal Terminal Ascent bullet. And really the only reason I like it so much is that it shoots 3” at 400 yards. Nosler partition comes in at about 5-6” in my gun. And I had 2 bullet holes in my bull last fall 3” apart at 350 yards.
 
257Tony said:
Quartering shot at 400 yards you say? With something even smaller than said .270? Basically impossible some would say... Well, some people that either don't know Elk, don't know their rifle, or just plain can't shoot...

Click to expand...
What bullet?
 
txhunter58 said:
All I can say is, I would rather have my 7mm mag with a 150 gr terminal ascent bullet than the 130 Sierra out of a 270 at 400 yds
Click to expand...
I just got the terminal ascents for my .270 in 136 grains and I excited to see how it groups.

Edit: I shot a cow elk with nosler ballistic tip at 396 yards and it went through the leg bone into the heart area just fine.
 
Last edited:
If they shoot well, I may sell you mine at a good price. Should be a great bullet, but my 270 didn’t like them as much as Hornady GMX
 
txhunter58 said:
If they shoot well, I may sell you mine at a good price. Should be a great bullet, but my 270 didn’t like them as much as Hornady GMX
Click to expand...
I’ll let you know, iv got the newish CX copper from hornady and eldx as well to try, along with the standards from nosler.
As well as Remington loaded

Sciroccos​

To bring the thread back around :)
 
My 270 shot the GMX lights out so I stocked up when they discontinued them. Brother shoots the
CX out of his ‘06 and they shoot well.
 
I have killed only one elk, and I was surprised to see how tough it was. Unless I was provided a broadside heart/lung shot, I would not want to try one with a 130 grain bullet--even a great bullet like a scirocco--in part because they can cover a lot of ground quickly and will probably end up at the bottom of some canyon rather than where I intended to anchor it. 180+ grain for me when I decide to do it again.
 

Similar threads

Founder
Montana Mule Deer, Whitetail, Antelope, Archery Elk
Replies
0
Views
535
Founder
Founder

Click-a-Pic ... Details & Bigger Photos

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

IMG_7727 copy.jpg
1704251620039.jpeg
IMG_0073 (2).JPG
IMG_2900.JPG
Mule2022.jpg
20220415_174102.jpg
IMG_8469.jpg
thumbnail.jpg
1644170343208.png
IMG_2397.png
bull1.JPG
E9625FDE-AE8E-4BC4-8423-C6471E47CAB7.jpeg
Back
Top Bottom