Elk gun

[James T Thomas]

elk bullets

Please include the 220 grain 30-06 rounds in consideration.
They give a great SD of .331 and at the range being discussed, maintain good velocity too.

 

[XD-40 Shooter]

I just looked up the hunting reg's out here in Colorado, the minimum caliber for Elk in Colorado is......drum roll please.......243 Winchester with 100 grain bullets. I don't think I'd try to take an elk with a 243, but it would be legal. I think a 30-06 with 180 grain bullets is the ticket.

 

[35 Whelen]

Mr Militiaman, there are two things you don't consider in your ballistic hair-splitting:
1. Yes, the 7mm Mag. does shoot flatter than the 30-06, but then so does a 220 Swift, 257 Weatherby, and a 264 Winchester. The problem with each of these is that they have a smaller diameter bullet. Sorry, but in my experience, given similarly constructed bullets at similar velocities, the larger bullet ALWAYS does more damage. As one fellow said: "The smaller bullet might expand, but the larger bullet won't shrink."
And in this day of affordable rangefinders, what difference does it make if one caliber shoot's 3" or 13" flatter at 400 yds. than another? If you know the distance of the target, is it any more difficult to hold, say, 10" above the desired point of impact than it is 18"? I think not. Unless of course you're just trying to sell your favorite "flat-shooting" magnum.
2. Sectional density. Back "in the day", a bullet with a S.D. of around .270 +/- was considered about what you needed for elk. This included, among others, the .277" 150 gr., the .284" 160 gr. ,and the .308" 180 gr. In this day of super premium bullets, sectional density means far, far less than it did 30 years ago. As a perfect example, my father whacked a rather large bull with his 338-06 and a 210 gr. Barnes "X". Even though it possessed an S.D. of only .263, it completely penetrated the bull side-to-side. As an even more extreme case, he used my 35 Whelen and a Barnes 225 gr. TSX loafing along at 2660 fps to shoot a bull in the rear end and the bullet penetrated from the butt to the right front shoulder while possessing an S.D. of "only" .251.

So, if the new stout bullets are constructed such that they give such hyper-penetration, then the larger diameter bullet would be the better, wouldn't it? After all, it will give the same penetration as the smaller bullet and make a larger hole.

I find it humorous that people continue to jump up and down sqealing that their 7mm Mags. are the Alpha and Omega where elk cartridges are concerned, while folks like Meeteetse continue quietly knocking over bulls year after year with the 308's and 30-06's.
35W

 

[Shawnee]

I find it humorous that people continue to jump up and down squealing that their 30/06s are the Alpha and Omega where elk cartridges are concerned, while hundreds of other folks continue quietly knocking over bulls year after year with their .270s.

 

[jbech123]

When it comes to ELK the shooting part is the easiest part.

The only correction I'd make to that is you could add "or deer" after ELK.

 

[d2wing]

Alot of good posts. I chose a 7mm Mag, and also shoot '06. Out to 300 yards I can't really tell any difference in results. Beyond that, use a rangefinder, good scope and a decent lightweight bolt action rifle. The hitch is how light versus recoil. I think if the Garand and Mosin are too heavy.
You are going to think about how bad you want to be punished. The bigger the cartridge of those choices, the greater the recoil. The lighter the rifle the easier it is too carry. A big deal Elk hunting. But the lighter it is the more recoil. Unfortunatly I have reached the age where I don't want to carry a gun or 6.5 pounds very far, or have a big whack on my recently repaired shoulder. I guess transportation has a bearing, horseback, atv, on foot?
Good luck.

 

[The Bushmaster]

Any quality .30-06 using a quality 165 to 220 grain soft point...

 

[H&Hhunter]

MTM,

I have been reloading and killing elk for over 25 years. In fact the reason it's taken me so long to reply is that I was trying to fill my second elk tag of the year the last couple of days. I fully understand SD, BC and all that stuff. thank you for the lesson but I've been there and done that. And even with all of your ballistic gyrations which by the way if you shoot an Interbond, an Accubond, A Barnes or a Swift Sirocco you get over .500 BC in a 180 gr .308 bullet. The differences are so minute as to be inconsequential. I am not telling you what you should or shouldn't shoot only that if you want to step up your elk killing ability at 400 yards the 7MM ain't the answer. If you want more kill on big critters kick up your diameter and bullet weight. Or better yet don't shoot at stuff at a range where you aren't sure of a clean kill.

I am sick and tired of hearing about and watching guys wound elk at too long a range because they are sold on the 7MM/you name it flat shooting "magnum" myth. Is the 7MM capable of killing elk at 500 yards of course it is but most of the ding bats who try it aren't.

.35 Whelen has got it pretty well figured out in my opinion I completely agree with his last post.

 

[MTMilitiaman]

1. Yes, the 7mm Mag. does shoot flatter than the 30-06, but then so does a 220 Swift, 257 Weatherby, and a 264 Winchester. The problem with each of these is that they have a smaller diameter bullet. Sorry, but in my experience, given similarly constructed bullets at similar velocities, the larger bullet ALWAYS does more damage. As one fellow said: "The smaller bullet might expand, but the larger bullet won't shrink."
And in this day of affordable rangefinders, what difference does it make if one caliber shoot's 3" or 13" flatter at 400 yds. than another? If you know the distance of the target, is it any more difficult to hold, say, 10" above the desired point of impact than it is 18"? I think not. Unless of course you're just trying to sell your favorite "flat-shooting" magnum.

If you actually believed this, you'd be shooting a .72 caliber lead round ball out of a musket or a .729 caliber Brenneke out of a 12 gauge. You aren't so obviously there is a limit in the effect diameter has on killing power as opposed to the usefulness of its trajectory and external ballistics.

2. Sectional density. Back "in the day", a bullet with a S.D. of around .270 +/- was considered about what you needed for elk. This included, among others, the .277" 150 gr., the .284" 160 gr. ,and the .308" 180 gr. In this day of super premium bullets, sectional density means far, far less than it did 30 years ago. As a perfect example, my father whacked a rather large bull with his 338-06 and a 210 gr. Barnes "X". Even though it possessed an S.D. of only .263, it completely penetrated the bull side-to-side. As an even more extreme case, he used my 35 Whelen and a Barnes 225 gr. TSX loafing along at 2660 fps to shoot a bull in the rear end and the bullet penetrated from the butt to the right front shoulder while possessing an S.D. of "only" .251.

And a friend of the family has recounted shooting a large bull nearly end to end with a 175 gr 7mm Rem Mag.

It should be obvious to everyone that dead is dead and I was under the impression that we all agreed the cartridge you use doesn't make a lick of difference for the vast majority of shots taken in the field.

My point is that while dozens of cartridges overlap in performance and capabilities at close and moderate distances, some are clearly superior for given situations. As an all around Western big game rifle where extended ranges are a possibility, the 7mm Rem Mag is among the better choices and I believe clearly superior to the .35 Whelen or the .30-06. Likewise, at close to moderate distances, I believe the Whelen probably has an advantage over the 7mm. Both are certainly more than capable of doing the job at either range, but both are better at certain ranges than the other. All I am doing is suggesting that if 400 yard shots on game are a possibility, the 7mm RM will probably better serve the OP than the .30-06 or the .35 Whelen.

I find it curious that such a simple and to me, obvious suggestion could warrant such a response from some who are apparently pretty defensive and insecure about their choices.

 

[35 Whelen]

My point is that while dozens of cartridges overlap in performance and capabilities at close and moderate distances, some are clearly superior for given situations. As an all around Western big game rifle where extended ranges are a possibility, the 7mm Rem Mag is among the better choices and I believe clearly superior to the .35 Whelen or the .30-06. Likewise, at close to moderate distances, I believe the Whelen probably has an advantage over the 7mm. Both are certainly more than capable of doing the job at either range, but both are better at certain ranges than the other. All I am doing is suggesting that if 400 yard shots on game are a possibility, the 7mm RM will probably better serve the OP than the .30-06 or the .35 Whelen.

So, in summary, you're saying that the larger calibers are OK at short range, but when the range becomes extended, better grab a smaller caliber.

Again, the ONLY advantage the 7mm RM would have over the '06 or 35 Whelen would be slighter flatter trajectory. And as I said...who cares? I have a rangefinder and trajectory chart taped to my buttstock, so flat trajectory is no longer an issue.
If you're trying to tell me that for some reason a .28 caliber bullet kills better at 400+ yards than a .30 or .35 caliber bullet of similar construction, then I'm thinking you might a few French Fries short of a Happy Meal!

Regards,
35W

 

[Shawnee]

LOLOLOL


.35 Whelen - are you yanking MTM's chain for the heck of it or for the fun of it ?

What MTM has said is that, due to B.C. and MV, the 175-grainer from the 7Mag will pull away significantly from any .30 or .338 slug out there around 400yds. - and (as you know), he is correct.

He has said that since it has an SD equal to (or in excess of) the bigger .30 and .338 slugs - it's velocity advantage will make it capable of both better penetration and better expansion and (as you know), he is correct.

Because of the above, he has said that at the end of the day, the 7mag is superior to the .30 & .338 calibers as a long-distance herbivore-swatter and, given the above, that is a thoroughly valid conclusion.


Now - how significant is that superiority?

I have a feeling local opinions are going to vary a bit on that one.

 

[XD-40 Shooter]

A co-worker of mine took a 900 lb bull elk last year, with a 300 win mag and 200 grain Nosler Partition's. I certainly would not try to take a 900 lb bull with a 270. My opinion, the 300 win mag is a very good long range Elk caliber, 300 yards +.

 

[H&Hhunter]

What MTM has said is that, due to B.C. and MV, the 175-grainer from the 7Mag will pull away significantly from any .30 or .338 slug out there around 400yds. - and (as you know), he is correct.

Shawnee,

Surley you didn't mean "ANY" .30 or .338 slug? A .340 Weatherby or .338 RUM or a .300 Weatherby or a .300 Dakota or a .300 RUM or any other number of bug .30 mags will launch bullets of equal or higher SD than a 7MM 175 gr bullet at higher velocities at higher SD remain super sonic longer and have more frontal area and weight when they get to their intended target.

Point being once again after upwards of 30 elk killed in my lifetime I don't find that I need any of this super velocity high BC lazerbeam crud. My longest ever kill on an elk was at 443 lazed yards with a .375H&H shooting a low B.C. 285 gr Speer Grand Slam it went just forward of the last rib on the on side and exited the point of the off shoulder on a rear quartering bull elk. It about knowing how to shoot with what you've got in your hands. Get comfortable with your rifle and know how to shoot it.

It's also about know your limitations and knowing how to get closer if you need to and when to pass on a shot. The vast majority of my elk kills have been at under 200 yards. I see these idiots banging away at elk cross canyon at 600 + yards and it just makes me want to puke. I know a few guys who can do it, who have the ability and the equipment to pull it off but they are few and far between.

The most important factor to long range shooting is precise range measurement. Caliber is secondary to that given an adequate caliber and an adequate bullet and an adequate shooter.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
MTM

I find it curious that such a simple and to me, obvious suggestion could warrant such a response from some who are apparently pretty defensive and insecure about their choices.

I don't find anybody here insecure in their choices. Where are you getting that from?

 

[35 Whelen]

.35 Whelen - are you yanking MTM's chain for the heck of it or for the fun of it ?

I'm not trying to yank anyones chain. This ballistic drivel is a classic example of someone spending too much time sitting on the toilet thumbing through reloading manuals, comparing ballistics charts instead of 1) Thinking, and 2) Leaving the computer and actually shooting stuff.

I understand exactly what MTM is saying. But sectional density and a high ballistic coefficient aren't the end all when it comes to defining bullet performance. And to say a little 7mm bullet kills better at long range than a .30 or .338 bullet of similar construction is outright laughable. Both of you are in effect saying that a 7mm bullet will kill better at long range than it will at short range. If BC, SD, BS, retained velocity, etc. were all that mattered, then the 7mm RM would be a death ray at close ranges. Right? After all, velocity would be higher, and expansion would be "better" (?) as you stated.

One thing neither of you have considered is momentum. Huh?!?!? Wait! That's not in the back of the Hornady manual!! What does that have to do with anything????

It's the reason that a .58 caliber round ball will outpenetrate a .50 caliber round ball. (All round balls, regardless of caliber, have very, very similar sectional densities) Why do you think elephant hunters used to use humongous rifles firing large lead balls? I mean after all, if a ball from an 8 bore rifle has a similar sectional density to a ball from a .45 caliber rifle, they should penetrate the same, right? WRONG. Think momentum. Think mass.
Heavier bullets penetrate further. I can prove this by walking a little ways out to my 100 yd. range. My .35 caliber 225 gr. TSX's penetrate further into the backstop than my Dad's .388 caliber 210 gr. TSX's.

This ridiculous arguement is akin to the old "9mm is a better stopper than a 45ACP because of its higher velocity."

35W

 

[Ridgerunner665]

Whelen,
I don't think they are trying to say that the 7mm bullets kill better at long range than they do at short range.

They are saying that the 7mm bullets ballistically outperform the 30 cal. bullets...and they are right, its a proven scientific fact.

I'm a 30 cal. person myself (and I also carry a 45 acp)...but facts are facts. The 7mm bullets have more retained velocity at long range than the bigger ones. Sure...the bigger bullets have enough velocity most of the time to do the job...but it does not discount the benefits of the 6.5 and 7mm bullets.

If you want a 338 cal. bullet to outperform the 7mm bullets...it has to weigh 250 grains and be driven to 3,000 fps (338 Lapua Magnum)

 

[Shawnee]

Aw C'Mon, 35 - you're rearranging MTM's words... and anyway...

think about this....

Suppose you make a fist and hit one of those large hanging punching bags that boxers use and you hit it as hard as you can. Your fist will put a dent in it of some depth - that is the amount of penetration.

Now suppose you use only 2/3 your strength to jab the bag with an ice pick. You don't really think the ice pick will penetrate the bag less than your fist did, do you ? Of course not.

Yes - most people know about momentum - and inertia as well.

Which had more momentum - your fist or the ice pick ?

Your fist, of course, because you were driving it with 100% of your strength and used only 66.6% to drive the ice pick.

But the ice pick still penetrated farther even though it had less momentum.

 

[35 Whelen]

Whelen,
I don't think they are trying to say that the 7mm bullets kill better at long range than they do at short range.

No, they're not trying to say that, but their reasoning says it. You guys are all hung up on "ballistic performance", which does not kill anything. Holes through vital organs kill things and the larger the hole, the more damage is wrought, the more blood is lost and the quicjer the animal dies.

If you want a 338 cal. bullet to outperform the 7mm bullets...it has to weigh 250 grains and be driven to 3,000 fps (338 Lapua Magnum)

No offense, but that statement is ludicrous. Again, you guys are all hung up on paper ballistics. From what you're telling us, velocity alone determines how well a bullet kills.

Suppose you make a fist and hit one of those large hanging punching bags that boxers use and you hit it as hard as you can. Your fist will put a dent in it of some depth - that is the amount of penetration.

Now suppose you use only 2/3 your strength to jab the bag with an ice pick. You don't really think the ice pick will penetrate the bag less than your fist did, do you ? Of course not.

Yes - most people know about momentum - and inertia as well.

Which had more momentum - your fist or the ice pick ?

Your fist, of course, because you were driving it with 100% of your strength and used only 66.6% to drive the ice pick.

But the ice pick still penetrated farther even though it had less momentum.

:banghead:
Interesting physics lesson there. ROFL That'll just about do it for me.

You guys go out and actually shoot some game. And by the way, you might want to get in touch with all the Alaskan guides who carry 45-70's loaded with 400 gr.(S.D.= about .270) bullets and tell them that all those bears and moose they killed weren't really dead because the bullets they used were too slow and their sectional density was too low. Tell them they'd better switch to a 7mm RM with a 175 gr. bullet.

35W

 

[Shawnee]

ROTFLMAO !


Personally, I think they should switch to the 87gr. BTHP .243.





Look on the bright side, 35 - as insane as the nitpicking gets among gunnies - we still can't even hold a candle to a bunch of Thoroughbred Race handicappers trying decide on a tri-fecta.

 

[Ridgerunner665]

Now dang it...I never said the bigger bullets don't do the job...and I have shot probably close to 100 deer, at least 30 bears, and quite a few hogs(maybe more, maybe less)...several of those as far away as 800 yards (<<<thats why I'm hung up on ballistic performance...its makes those shots a bit easier).

This discussion is about range and accuracy with sufficient power...no matter how powerful a round is, if you miss the target...it ain't gonna die.

A lot of scopes don't have enough adjustment to "dial in" 500 yards with a 45-70 (<<<another one of my favorites BTW)...sure, it can kill the animal at that distance...but if you miss the range estimation by more than a few feet...you missed.

I see what you are saying now though...and here is my take on it...the bigger bullets will penetrate and kill at long range, but the smaller diameter bullets are not as far behind their performance at long range as they are at short range.

Did that make sense???

I love a "civil" debate...


EDITED TO ADD: I hate to leave a good discussion...but if I'm going hunting in the morning, I gotta get some sleep...I'll pick this up tomorrow.

 

[oregonhunter]

Shawnee knows elk hunting, he teaches hunters safety.

 

[Oddbod]

I'm a fan of the 300WSM

150gr Barnes TSX @ 3200+ fps out of a rifle that's light enough to carry all day & recoil that doesn't beat you to death.
3-10x40 scope.
Good for shots out to 600yds.

 

[woof]

One possibility would be to make the elk read this whole thread and die of boredom.

 

[Wedge]

So how do I unsubscribe from a thread I started?

 

[H&Hhunter]

I've now seen some really incredible "scientific facts" on this thread.

They are saying that the 7mm bullets ballistically outperform the 30 cal. bullets...and they are right, its a proven scientific fact.

Wow.........

This is why I can't stand 7MM fanatics in general. You are now telling me that a .308 or a .338 projectile of equal SD and BC are scientifically proven to be less effective than an equal 7MM projectile?

There is simply no point in continuing a conversation with this kind of "logic" floating around.

 

[Art Eatman]

My problem with all this is that when something is laying there all dead and ruint from a .243 or an '06, how is a whizbang maggie gonna make it any deader?

I figure that part of one's homework is learning the trajectory of whatever is your pet elk-shooter, and how to judge the wind and the ensuing drift. If you do that, most anything that has a muzzle velocity of around 2,700 or 2,800 or more, and a bullet weight around 150 grains, mas o menos, is gonna do Bad Things to Mr. Elk at any reasonable distance. Sure, faster and heavier might mean better reliability on some shots, but the amount of "better" doesn't equate to "necessary".

I'm assuming the usual "correct shot placement", of course.

Really, if folks could shoot half as well as they can talk, a danged .25-20 would probably work.