Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Rifles Question for Everyone

Bob,
Maybe your right about not needing such powerful cartridges to kill elk. Van Zwoll shows data from the years before the Second World War that elk hunters used .30/30's, .300 Savages, .32 WS, .30/40 Krags and other loads that many people would think are marginal, at best, for elk.
So a bullet hitting an elk, in the right place, generating 1100 or so foot pounds should do the job. I don't like the idea of taking such a long poke.
John

My grandpa considers his 30-30 his Elk rifle. He has an ancient Winchester in 32-20 that is his deer rifle. And my great grandfather used to use a surplus Kraig in 6.5 Swede to kill everything. Between both of these men, were talking about at least 100 head of elk. Of course, they shot a lot of cows and calves too. Maybe when they get 6x6 and bigger, they're a lot tougher to kill. The only Elk I've killed were double lunged with a 550 grain arrom leaving my 60# recurve going 170 FPS, or were shot with a 260. They all died...

For me, its all a moot point. In my part of the world, its rare to get a shot past 200 yards.

Dan: I understand you have that thick forest where you are.

For many years I hunted elk with a group of fellas in North Idaho whose theory was "Distance should sap human energy and not technology". By this they meant that if the elk was too far away you got closer rather than rely on a rifle chambered in some magical caliber with a scope that you could see a gnat sitting on an elks shoulder at 700 yards. I might add they ate elk every year also.

Most of these guys used a 270 with 130 grain Nosler Partitions or a 30-06 with 180 grain Nosler Partitions. Four power scopes were the norm and some even used 2.5 power ones. One person decided to get a 3X9 variable and nearly got laughed out of the camp because it was assumed he must not be a very good hunter if he had to shoot an elk so far away he needed that big a scope.

I realize in todays world many feel that to stack the odds in their favor they need a Remington 700 in a "Mickey" stock with the best barrel chambered in some hot caliber that they can afford. Top this off with a big scope equipped with turrets, shooting the latest Barnes bullet and by gosh the elk had better take cover. But, there are still lots of folks who kill elk at less than 100 yards and not all of them are accidents by any means.

Here is a picture of a good friend of mine who sadly to say is no longer with us. That bull behind him is the largest elk ever killed in Montana and was number 2 of all time in the world when he killed it. I don't know if it still ranks in the top ten of all time yet, but if not it is close. Fred tracked this bull for almost 15 miles at elevations of around 9000 feet before killing it with his Model 70 in 270 Winchester with a Weaver 4 power scope at fairly short range. He matched wits and expended lots of energy the day he killed this beautiful animal. To each his own but for my money this is what elk hunting should be all about rather than seeing how far a person can kill one.

John:Like I said, or maybe did not explain, I'm just curious about this and can't really take a position because my elk have been shot with 300 magnums and a 7 mag.But at long range these cartridges can't have much poop left,the bullets are traveling below min threshhold for expansion, and yet the elk seemingly DRT.
Makes me curious about what's happening. Love to hear directly from some folks who have actually killed elk at those distances and their impressions on wound channels,bullet expansion, pass through's,recovered bullets etc.

Your point about the older cartridges is well taken.

That guy looks familiar... Did he used to run with Lee Bridges out of Eureka or ever hire him as an outfitter? The name Ed is coming to mind..?

Bob. As I've stated, I'm a bowhunter. And I hunt with a recurve at that (not a compound arrow gun.) I'm the guy that tells a lot of "I hunted my ass off for 7 days straight chasing around a bull that was 330 class, but I never got a shot..." I'm okay with that. For me, hunting is about the chase, the experience, and all that goes with it. I spend a lot of time outdoors, year 'round. The next few weekends I will be setting up treestands for late September, bowhunting whitetails. From start of bow season, until mid September I'll be counting coup on elk with my recurve. I see a lot of good representitive sized critters each year. But I hold out for something special each season. I limit myself with my hardware (recurve and a 308 with a fixed 4) so that if I tag that something special, I know it wasn't easy. I've collected a few good heads with magnum rifles and big scopes. After a few seasons of that, it was empty, and lacked any excitement. The mojo was gone. That was why I took up bowhunting... The first whitetail I shot with a recurve would go maybe 115 B&C, but man what a thrill that was. And so it was with rifles, once I got back into rifle hunting, I needed to make it a challenge again... I understand my logic doesn't make sense to many on here. But it doesn't matter to me, because thats how I roll...

Its more satisfying to be outsmarted by a good trophy playing his game than it is to tag a good trophy from 700 yards with a huge magnum and ginormous scope, laser rangefinder, turrets, and a ballistics chart.

Bob,
I wouldn't try to make too much of one elk kill at 700 yards. Call it a fluke. Or maybe the range and other details aren't accurate.
John

A .22 short behind the ear?

If you can hit it behind the ear, then anything using gun powder will work.

But what about a good, center chest shot? Then the minimum goes up, but to what?

Where I live I'm pretty sure the minimum legal caliber would be the .243 and given your criteria I'm sure it'd work. I will also reiterate that as a member of the "enough gun" club MY criteria is "if I am presented the absolute worse case scenario on the biggest elk I've ever seen do I have a tool I am CERTAIN will do the job?". Using this criteria I would personally (YMMV) not hunt elk with anything less than a 7mm Mag and think a .338 is much better. My chosen elk caliber is a .340 Weatherby.

Where I live, .243 is the legal minimum caliber. I would feel confident shooting elk with my .243 and 85gr TSX if I had to.

This is kinda strange, on the 30-30 thread I posted that I had found big bulls no harder to kill than small cows and JB echoed about the same. One poster nay sayed it and stated that big bulls are darn hard to kill. Seems most every one here is in agreement that they are not hard to kill if you hit them rioht. I suspect those who find them hard to kill just might have been due to maybe poor shot placement.

Had a friend that bragged he shot antelope at 700 yds on a dead run.I asked him if he was out of breath from all that running

Interesting tread that brings a couple thoughts though they don't pertain to the original question.
Whenever someone quotes long distance shot accomplishments I usually write it off unless they answer affirmative to having a range finder and drop chart. I'm talking long here. Recent claims that come to mind locally was overheard in a gun shop conversation of a woodchuck hunter shooting chucks in the 500-600+ yard range using a 22-250 because you can hold right on them.
Ran into a nice older gent last week who hunts all over, guided hunts, for elk,moose, caribou,etc. and was telling me about his custom 300 Weatherby Magnum and how it is good to to 1900 yards.
What can you say. I just smile and say that is great.

I REALLY hope he was just yanking your chain. I mean, the hottest load I found for the the highest BC TSX would be over 800(!!) inches low at 1500yds, and that's with a 250yd zero. (the calc I used doesn't even go to 1900) If this guy is honestly, seriously, going around telling people that kind of stuff he (and all his ilk) is doing a HUGE disservice to the rest of us.

Personally, I don't feel this is true for all but for most it probably is.

In other words, make no doubt about it it can,has and will be done more in the future by those who have earned the right.

Dober

Bob, in response to your earlier post where you wondered "what IS the minimum XXX for a lethal hit" or words to that effect...

I think it bears mentioning that we aren't just trying for "lethal" here, but rather for lethal FAST.

By way of illustration, I think we can all agree that a 30-06 with a 180-gn Partition, if you placed the muzzle up against the hide and shot into the vitals of an elk, will be devastating, through a combination of ALL the classic mechanisms of wounding.

Now move that elk out to about 600 yards, where the bullet is going roughly Nosler's minimum for expansion of 1800 fps, and I think we can all agree that ALL the mechanisms of wounding are reduced in degree. The bullet will still kill the elk (if it's a vitals hit of course).... but what is the difference?

I would argue that the difference is WHERE that elk chooses to lay down to die. On average, given identical hit locations, I would postulate that the elk at 600 yards will run farther, because it will have been wounded less by a bullet going slower, creating less of a permanent and temporary cavity, blowing less rib fragments into the lungs, creating less of a shock wave, basically doing less of ALL of the real (and imaginary <g>) things that we tend to think of bullets doing...

I'm just debating here, thinking out loud, and hoping to learn- in the spirit of Bob's thread...

Jeff my friend, honestly you just need to get out on the hill and see a pile of elk killed from close to far...

Not taking a pot shot just an observation.

Dobro

I usually pass right over these kinds of threads... bullet and ballistic stuff. But I have grown to respect the original poster quite a bit on my time at the fire so I checked it out.

Interesting points. I enjoyed hearing from the experienced elk hunters. A whitetail and black bear guy like me can always pick up a few pointers for the eventual elk hunt.

I guess in my quest for simplification I just quit worrying about bullets and calibers. If an 06 with Interlocks or CL-Ultras won't do it then I probably won't do it. Posts like this just confirm my notion that it is probably better to spend my time in the gym and on the business end of a backpack than to tinker any more with already extremely accurate loads.

I'm counting down the days to the season opener and racking up the miles on my boots. :p

Will

PS: Jeff I noticed your post on black bear hunting. You should have seen the one we put up a tree on saturday night. About the shiniest black coat you ever saw, a brown face that ran all the way up to his ears (very unusual), and would go 350 pounds every day of the week. He'll be a monster by the time the season rolls around. If he doesn't travel too far he'll be around for while though. One our lease he is safe, we've run him before and grown fond of him. He is the perfect dog training bear.

In my experience, elk that are completely unaware of human presence (and that remain that way after they are hit) do not go far with a lethal wound. Elk that are alerted to human presence tend to go quite a ways, even with both lungs reduced to soup and/or a heart that is almost completely destroyed.

The two elk that I have taken with a .375 H&H and 260 grain Accubonds were around 170 yds away when hit, and had no idea either before or after the shot that there was a human anywhere around. One reacted by standing in place long enough for me to shoot it again, before it staggered backward a few steps and reared over backwarrd as it died. The other simply stood there until its blood pressure fell to a lethal level and collapsed. Neither "dropped like a sack of cement".

I often hunt elk in quaking aspen thickets in the middle of the day. Over the years, I have been fortunate enough to take a few at ranges of 40 yds or less with either a .338-06 or a .338 Win Mag. All were spooked and running when shot, either through the shoulder or through the lungs, and all went at least 50 yards before they collapsed and died.

My wife shot a big 5x5 several years ago at about 90 yds with a .280. The bull saw her and recognized her as a human, but did not immediately run, staying long enough for her to put a 160 grain Partition through both lungs. We trailed it for almost a quarter of a mile before we found it dead. I have had similar experiences shooting a 7mm Rem Mag with 175 grain Hornady Interlocks--one reason that I stepped up to the .33s for elk.

I can imagine that a bull that took a lethal hit at 700 yards would act just like the ones that I have shot at shorter ranges that were totally unaware of my presence. They would stand in place, trying to figure out what was happening until they collapsed. However, to paraphrase Jack O'Connor, a lot more game is shot at extended ranges with a keyboard (he said "typwriter") than in the field.

And just so all know I am not trying to box Jeff's ears into cauliflower. I am only saying that killing elk isn't as much of a rocket science that many try to make it.

A couple of things I've noticed about killing elk over the years are as such:

If you wreck the lungs and other good parts they die (be it at long or short range). Be it with a 22/250 or a 416 they just die when the lungs etc are toast.

Those who have taken more than a few elk generally worry a whole less about the rounds than those new to the game.

Those who have taken more than a few elk know that they don't need X amount of energy or X size of a cal or X kind of bullet (pardon the pun) in order to get er done.

I've used the big guns more than a fair bit on elk and it's not cause I feel I need to, it's only cause I want to.

Just some rambling thoughts on a day dat is way too hot!

Come on fall!

Dober