|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 14,525 Likes: 2
Campfire Outfitter
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 14,525 Likes: 2 |
Screw the cartridge. It's all about the bullet. Especially the place where said bullet impacts...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,727
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,727 |
I won't touch the aspect of the video that most are discussing, but the choice of bullet and the performance described brings to mind a question for ya'll:
Recently I hunted axis deer. Deer 1 was shot at about 180 yards broadside. 180gr Nosler Partition broke one shoulder and exited the off side.
Deer 2 was shot at about 80 yards with a 165 Hornady SST. Two shots in the chest, (missed the shoulder) about 2 inches apart. Both bullets recovered under the skin on the off side. One a perfect mushroom. The other had a blown core. Animal ran about 50 yards after the first hit, was hit a second time and ran another 50 yards after the 2nd shot. Albeit deer #2 was a bit bigger than #1.
I'm not confident with the 30 cal 165 SST's any longer and based on EHG's experiences with three semi trailers full of animals, and a partridge in a pear tree, am considering switching to Scirocco's for the 30's. Should I be considering similar for the 6.5's? Granted I've only killed 3 deer with the 30cal 165gr SST, but all three went straight down when shot by my '06. Two were about 100-120yds away, and the other was about 20yds away. 3 shots, 3 dead deer.
I don't drink or Smoke. I spend my money on gunpowder and gasoline.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 4,929
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 4,929 |
Hitting well with enough energy to do the job EVERY TIME with the vagaries of field conditions can't be overemphasized. Learning to manage recoil is part of shooting a hunting rifle well. My .300 mag wild cat is a tack driver and both I and my 140 lb. wife can shoot it, recoil and all, plenty well enough to put an elk in the dirt with certainty.
I like to make sure I use the right tool for the job and do the job well. I will not use a marginal, at best tool, and hope that my skill can always make up for my less than adequate choice in weapon. When I muzzleload for elk I shoot a .54 cal., when I bow hunt I shoot a 75 lb. bow and best broadhead I can find that is surgically sharp. I don't think you need a magnum to kill elk. A 30-06 or even a .308 would be a fine choice if used within it's limitations in range and energy. If you want to reach far than at least have the concern for the beast you're killing to do it right and choose a weapon with enough energy to do the job well, every time.
I guess I kind of fall in line with Mark Twain when speaking about drinking. He said, "Too much of anything can be bad but too much bourbon is just enough". I feel the same about building things, shooting things, and life in general. Nothing I make will win awards for it's sweeping lines and lithe looks but it sure as hell will not fall down while I'm alive and nothing I shoot will limp away to die slowly if there is choice I can make to ensure that doesn't happen. Using enough gun is part of that choice as is learning to deliver the round where it needs to go. Seeing a video of one very accomplished marksman do it once isn't enough to convince me to trade in my rifle for something more dimunitive any time soon. Are you talking about shooting elk in the ass? That is the only sense I can make out of your argument. Take a 6.5 Creedmoor or a .270, or something similar, load it with a heavy Barnes X, and any elk short of an ass shot is going to be dead. Those bullets WILL break elk shoulders, you know... It always amazes me how a cartridge can kill an elk with one shot and people will still claim it is inadequate. Here's a snippet from the Colorado Division of Wildlife about cartridge choice, energy, and killing elk. When you have an elk in your sights you should concentrate on the heart- lung area of the chest cavity just behind the front leg. Head and neck shots are NOT recommended. You will need to penetrate into the tissue with enough destructive force to destroy those vital organs to insure a clean one shot kill. Cartridges that deliver 1,000 foot-pounds of energy are sufficient on deer species because they are smaller, thin-skinned and have a much lighter skeletal structure. The general consensus is that for a broadside shot on an elk you need 1,200 foot-pounds of energy and at least 2,000 foot-pounds for any quartering shot. A quartering shot when the animal is partially facing you is the most challenging shot. You have to penetrate heavy, dense muscle tissue and the heavy bone structure of the shoulder and then still have enough bullet and energy left to destroy the vital organs. I ran the ballistics for a hot load in the 6.5 Creedmoor with the heaviest bullet on the list, the 142 Matchking. At 600 yards it's packing a whopping 903 ft/lb of KE, about 3/4 of what they recommend. They may or may not be experts and I'm sure their recommendations are like the pirate's code, more of a guideline than a carved in stone law. Their recommendations do fall in line with what lots of outfitters and other folks that see elk get shot by a variety of weapons have to say about it as well. I've yet to see anyone with a broad depth of experience recommend the bare minimum or a marginal one as their favored choice. If your idea of a challenge is waiting for a broadside shot over a quartering one, with the wind steady enough, and the moon in the perfect alignment to slip a low energy bullet in a bull's ribs at a third of a mile then have at it. It's still mostly a free country. That said each person is responsible for themselves and their own ethical choices. I've helped a few folks like that attempt to find an animal they've shot or shot at and have yet to see it work out with a celebration at the end but your milage may vary.
![[Linked Image]](http://militarysignatures.com/signatures/member579.png)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 4,638
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 4,638 |
Hitting well with enough energy to do the job EVERY TIME with the vagaries of field conditions can't be overemphasized. Learning to manage recoil is part of shooting a hunting rifle well. My .300 mag wild cat is a tack driver and both I and my 140 lb. wife can shoot it, recoil and all, plenty well enough to put an elk in the dirt with certainty.
I like to make sure I use the right tool for the job and do the job well. I will not use a marginal, at best tool, and hope that my skill can always make up for my less than adequate choice in weapon. When I muzzleload for elk I shoot a .54 cal., when I bow hunt I shoot a 75 lb. bow and best broadhead I can find that is surgically sharp. I don't think you need a magnum to kill elk. A 30-06 or even a .308 would be a fine choice if used within it's limitations in range and energy. If you want to reach far than at least have the concern for the beast you're killing to do it right and choose a weapon with enough energy to do the job well, every time.
I guess I kind of fall in line with Mark Twain when speaking about drinking. He said, "Too much of anything can be bad but too much bourbon is just enough". I feel the same about building things, shooting things, and life in general. Nothing I make will win awards for it's sweeping lines and lithe looks but it sure as hell will not fall down while I'm alive and nothing I shoot will limp away to die slowly if there is choice I can make to ensure that doesn't happen. Using enough gun is part of that choice as is learning to deliver the round where it needs to go. Seeing a video of one very accomplished marksman do it once isn't enough to convince me to trade in my rifle for something more dimunitive any time soon. Are you talking about shooting elk in the ass? That is the only sense I can make out of your argument. Take a 6.5 Creedmoor or a .270, or something similar, load it with a heavy Barnes X, and any elk short of an ass shot is going to be dead. Those bullets WILL break elk shoulders, you know... It always amazes me how a cartridge can kill an elk with one shot and people will still claim it is inadequate. Here's a snippet from the Colorado Division of Wildlife about cartridge choice, energy, and killing elk. When you have an elk in your sights you should concentrate on the heart- lung area of the chest cavity just behind the front leg. Head and neck shots are NOT recommended. You will need to penetrate into the tissue with enough destructive force to destroy those vital organs to insure a clean one shot kill. Cartridges that deliver 1,000 foot-pounds of energy are sufficient on deer species because they are smaller, thin-skinned and have a much lighter skeletal structure. The general consensus is that for a broadside shot on an elk you need 1,200 foot-pounds of energy and at least 2,000 foot-pounds for any quartering shot. A quartering shot when the animal is partially facing you is the most challenging shot. You have to penetrate heavy, dense muscle tissue and the heavy bone structure of the shoulder and then still have enough bullet and energy left to destroy the vital organs. I ran the ballistics for a hot load in the 6.5 Creedmoor with the heaviest bullet on the list, the 142 Matchking. At 600 yards it's packing a whopping 903 ft/lb of KE, about 3/4 of what they recommend. They may or may not be experts and I'm sure their recommendations are like the pirate's code, more of a guideline than a carved in stone law. Their recommendations do fall in line with what lots of outfitters and other folks that see elk get shot by a variety of weapons have to say about it as well. I've yet to see anyone with a broad depth of experience recommend the bare minimum or a marginal one as their favored choice. If your idea of a challenge is waiting for a broadside shot over a quartering one, with the wind steady enough, and the moon in the perfect alignment to slip a low energy bullet in a bull's ribs at a third of a mile then have at it. It's still mostly a free country. That said each person is responsible for themselves and their own ethical choices. I've helped a few folks like that attempt to find an animal they've shot or shot at and have yet to see it work out with a celebration at the end but your milage may vary. I've still never heard about a 150gr Barnes X failing to penetrate an elk sufficiently when fired from a .270. A 140gr Barnes from a 6.5 Creedmoor should be no different. Quartering or not, elk will die. Colorado DOW writes that stuff for idiots who shoot core-lokts and bore-sight their rifles the night before opener. John Burns has pretty much shown that the whole "2000 foot-pounds required to kill an elk" thing is a myth. On the other hand, I have heard about lots of people losing elk with big magnums, probably because they can't shoot them well, but of course they won't admit that when they tell me their stories.
I probably hit more elk with a pickup than you have with a rifle. I have yet to see anyone claim Leupold has never had to fix an optic. I know I have sent a few back. 2 MK 6s, a VX-6, and 3 VX-111s.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 35,900
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 35,900 |
Bob,
A few years ago, after not drawing a moose tag in Montana after 30 years of applying, I booked a "cancellation" hunt in Alberta with an outfitter I've known for a long time.
He's one of those guys who firmly recommends a .300 magnum for elk and moose--mostly because that's what he shoots. I took a 7x57, and simply didn't mention it to him. When the guide asked what my rifle was chambered for, I said "7mm." He nodded, not really caring one way or the other.
Got a 41" bull on the second day. The first went through both lungs, just over the heart. The moose was standing there waiting to tip over, but then took a tentative step toward some thick brush and the guide asked me to shoot again, so we didn't have to pack him out of the brush. So I shot again, and then once again to make sure.
The moose didn't react to any of the three shots, though they were all within 4-5 inches of each other, and tipped over 19 yards from where he'd first been hit.
When we got back to the lodge that evening, the guide told the story, bragging about my shooting--which really wasn't extraordinary, since the moose was only 225 yards away. The outfitter nodded and said, "That's exactly what my bull did when I shot it with my .300!" John I have seen the rug jerked from elk with 300's and the usual other over 30 cal magnums...no denying their effectivness. But thinking back on it over the years the bullets were very well placed....and in those instances when they were not well placed, those cartridges truthfully did not do any better than smaller cartridges..lesson learned is that a 270/7mm in the right place will do what a poorly placed 30/338 mag,will not..... Given the 6.5mm range of bullets and track record on other large animals, I can't imagine a 6.5 Creedmoor doing anything but pulping an elk's chest to shreds....once that happens he is simply going to die;and it has nothing to do with energy numbers and various Knock Out values.....he just can't breathe anymore. End of game! I recall an article you did a few years back about "tough game",where you said that tough game is often a problem some hunters create for themselves.... 
The 280 Remington is overbore.
The 7 Rem Mag is over bore.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 4,929
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 4,929 |
I see people that can't shoot well all the time, or used to when I shot a lot. I've mostly hunted with my bow for the last 8 years. It doesn't matter if you shoot a magnum or a .270 the markmanship skills are exactly the same and the key is practice. Most people don't practice and most people are really pretty crappy marksmen because of it.
If you want to shoot well consistantly at more than 100 yards it takes a bit more than a few days at the range. The thing I found that makes the biggest difference is a good trigger that you don't have to wrestle and learning to squeeze it without torquing the rifle off line with the intended aim point.
Recoil is an issue with any rifle and learning to deal with that isn't rocket surgery either. I see people flinching when they shoot .22s because they've made it a habit. Believe it or not people flinch when they shoot bows too and they don't recoil anything like a rifle.
Truth be told most archery hunters don't practice enough or have their bow tuned properly either. Maybe they don't think they have the time or it's not important to them.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 14,525 Likes: 2
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 14,525 Likes: 2 |
I've yet to see anyone with a broad depth of experience recommend the bare minimum or a marginal one as their favored choice. I've yet to see anyone with a broad depth of experience recommend foot-pounds of energy...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 7,295
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 7,295 |
I've yet to see anyone with a broad depth of experience recommend foot-pounds of energy Is that why Craig Boddington said he would prefer 2000 Ft Lbs at impact over 1500 lbs on Elk but also preferring bullet weight to energy...Not that I agree with either statement. Jayco
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 1,463 Likes: 2
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 1,463 Likes: 2 |
Granted I've only killed 3 deer with the 30cal 165gr SST, but all three went straight down when shot by my '06. Two were about 100-120yds away, and the other was about 20yds away. 3 shots, 3 dead deer dmsbandit, can you tell me if you recovered any bullet? ...or did they pass through? I don't often recover bullets, especially at close range, but I got two out of that last deer with the SST's.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 1,498
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 1,498 |
Shot placement by far trumps everything else...
Second would be bullet construction...
A distant third would be head stamp...
Just sayin...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 24,851
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 24,851 |
Shot placement by far trumps everything else...
Second would be bullet construction...
A distant third would be head stamp...
Just sayin... +1
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 12,143 Likes: 15
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 12,143 Likes: 15 |
I ran the ballistics for a hot load in the 6.5 Creedmoor with the heaviest bullet on the list, the 142 Matchking. At 600 yards it's packing a whopping 903 ft/lb of KE, about 3/4 of what they recommend.
Not really sure why you would run the numbers on a different bullet at a different altitude?  The load that killed the elk was the factory 129gr SST at 2975fps. The altitude was 7500ft and 50deg Temp. Not that it is really important but you will find that the bull got hit with more than 1200ft/lbs. We had all agreed at the beginning of the hunt to limit any shots to 600yds and I do think that is the max range I would ever use the Creedmoor on elk. It obviously worked but the wound channel was small enough that I would not be willing to push any further.
John Burns
I have all the sources.
They can't stop the signal.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 12,651
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 12,651 |
Energy plays its part as nothing happens without it.
For myself, I would rather have excess than too little or marginal amounts. A friend of mine used to guide and carry a .250 Savage. It worked but he admits he would prefer something bigger and used it at the time because it was what he had. I sometimes hunt elk with my .30-30, .44 Mag and Roberts but there is no way I would take shots with them -- much as I enjoy carrying them and even if I could hit as well at longer ranges with them -- that I would happily take with my .308/.30-06/.300, 7mm RM, .45-70, etc.
Coyote Hunter - NRA Patriot Life, NRA Whittington Center Life, GOA, DAD - and I VOTE!
No, I'm not a Ruger bigot - just an unabashed fan of their revolvers, M77's and #1's.
A good .30-06 is a 99% solution.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 2,145
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 2,145 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 22,736
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 22,736 |
I see my NRA Hunter has a lengthy article on the Creed. I'll have to read it and then catch up on all these pages too.
My home is the "sanctuary residence" for my firearms.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,727
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,727 |
Granted I've only killed 3 deer with the 30cal 165gr SST, but all three went straight down when shot by my '06. Two were about 100-120yds away, and the other was about 20yds away. 3 shots, 3 dead deer dmsbandit, can you tell me if you recovered any bullet? ...or did they pass through? I don't often recover bullets, especially at close range, but I got two out of that last deer with the SST's. Complete pass thru on all three deer. One hit at the neck/shoulder junction, one in the white patch under the chin, and one hit thru the middle of the neck.
I don't drink or Smoke. I spend my money on gunpowder and gasoline.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 4,638
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 4,638 |
I've yet to see anyone with a broad depth of experience recommend foot-pounds of energy Is that why Craig Boddington said he would prefer 2000 Ft Lbs at impact over 1500 lbs on Elk but also preferring bullet weight to energy...Not that I agree with either statement. Jayco Craig said a lot of things for a lot of years about elk and elk guns. I think he's changed his tune a bit recently. He wrote on and on about how a .270 was a marginal elk round and how he would limit his shots to 200 yards with one, blah blah blah Then after the Accubonds came out he went down to NM and dumped his first bull he ever killed with a .270. If I remember correctly, he killed it somewhere out around 400 yards. Recent bullet technology has changed the killing power of cartridges...but the prevailing "knowledge" is much slower in catching up.
I probably hit more elk with a pickup than you have with a rifle. I have yet to see anyone claim Leupold has never had to fix an optic. I know I have sent a few back. 2 MK 6s, a VX-6, and 3 VX-111s.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 7,295
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 7,295 |
My answer was in reply to " I've yet to see anyone with a broad depth of experience recommend foot-pounds of energy" and that was clearly wrong...I also said "not that I agree"... I'm the last one to argue energy and it's effects/the definition of or.....But energy has to have some effect on game,especially larger game or the 6.5 Creedmore would be legal in Africa for dangerous game.So if you defined energy as knockdown power it would be like Mike Tyson(375 H&H) fighting Suger Ray Leanord (6.5 Creedmore)..Both excellent fighters in there day but not even close to being in the same league of actual power... I have seen smaller calibers than the 6.5 take Elk at that range and I have seen mistakes in judgment/wind/distance/grade and movement at ignition result in bad shots that never should have been taken. One thing about so called long range marksmen,there sure not short on testosterone and there abilities and there also quick to tell you how good they are but we don't here about there boo/boo's as I got to see first hand with a few Military sharpshooters. There kinda the Second Lieutenant's of the hunting world...  Jayco
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 14,525 Likes: 2
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 14,525 Likes: 2 |
Show me that what I said was clearly wrong.
Energy gives bullets the ability to do what they do. Nothing more.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 12,143 Likes: 15
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 12,143 Likes: 15 |
Lil Logcutter,
I think we can all agree that you and the guys you hunt with should absolutely not attempt any long range shooting.
I commend you on knowing your limits but I would question why it took so many bad shots on elk for you to learn this long range thing is just not your cup of tea??
John Burns
I have all the sources.
They can't stop the signal.
|
|
|
|
|
581 members (01Foreman400, 007FJ, 06hunter59, 10gaugemag, 1234, 10Glocks, 53 invisible),
2,313
guests, and
1,136
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums81
Topics1,192,649
Posts18,493,368
Members73,977
| |
Most Online11,491
Jul 7th, 2023
|
|
|
|
