Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Elk Hunting Minimum energy at impact for elk

We have all these theoretical conversations about "energy levels" for various game animals.....the "conventional wisdom" used to be that an elk cartridge needed to drum up 2000 ft lbs of energy on the elk,and that was the max distance he should be shot....and that many bullets needed to be doing 2000 fps to expand properly...

Then, we see a guy like John Burns use a 140 gr VLD in a 264 Win Mag to kill a bull in its' tracks with a shoulder shot at 700-800 yards.....I don't know what the energy level nor velocity is of that load at that distance,but I will bet it is rather puny,even for a 264......likely under the minimum thresholds mentioned above,which sorta flies in the face of the minimum energy level argument....

This should teach us something,(but generally doesn't),as the evidence is there before our eyes, (but we deny it because it does not fit the preconceived notions we have developed or learned)....namely...that elk (or other animals)are not hard to kill if the bullet has enough velocity and integrity to penetrate to the vitals, and expands properly to destroy enough vital tissue to disrupt life giving functions(as the poster above indicated).

The reason, I think, that there is so much controversy about what works for elk,is that so many combinations kill them....and people will shoot well with a a 338,proclaim it the "best",and maybe shoot sloppily with a 280(not big enough),or vice versa,and conclude a 280 is plenty.

Also, as the poster above states,if we are not experienced, we look for fast, easy answers to complex questions,expressed numerically,to give us cold comfort that we have "enough gun"...

There isn't any doubt that some cartridges are more powerful than others,can at times give more dramatic results,but I have seen guys pick rifles based on numbers or "power",and shoot badly, leading to waves of dissapointment.

I think that so long as we are using something reasonable, the emphasis should be on marksmanship in the field,using good bullets,and less time pondering numbers.JMHO.

Mine too.


Dang this is scary.....me agreeing with you twice in one thread.

Thats all nice and dandy but I prefer to have a complete pass through for 2 holes to bleed out of.

Look at the 30-30 Winchester and all the Elk it has put down..With a 170 grain Core-Lokt, the muzzle energy is only like 1800 fpe and that is at the muzzle.Below, at the muzzle, what some guru's think you have to have to kill Elk.

It's all wrong.Numbers don't kill Elk,bullets in the right place do.

Tom264..I promise I will try harder in the future not to say stuff you will agree with.

Jayco

There is a tear in the Time/Warp Continuum....

Well I suppose the "sound right" part would depend on whether the part about abunch of firearms experts at the range ( yeh that sounds about right) or the part about the real world what it takes to kill an elk. ( No that's a mucked up, or else nobody could ever take one with a revolver at any distance, a 45-70 or 30-30 much past about 50 yds, or any of the so called "hipower" rifles much past 300 yds....)

Seems that the minimum energy required is the level of energy required for the bullet to expand and still penetrate to the vitals. That minimum energy number varies by bullet design and is usually indicated as a minimum velocity rather than minimum energy because the bullets in a particular line of bullets are often designed to expand at a given velocity (e.g., 1800 fps), with the minimum impact energy being different for each bullet weight/mass in a given manufacturer's particular product line (e.g., Nosler Partition, Barnes TTSX, or Berger Hunting VLD).

My only 6x6 dropped where he stood. 30-30 and a 160 grain LeverEvolution round at a ranged 110 yards from my 336 carbine. One shot...he quivered for a second, tried to take a step and went straight down. Oh, then the work began!

At 100 yards you had about 1600 fpe..Not enough energy..

Congrats on the nice bull and speaking of bull,don't ever believe these numbers paper shooters use..You proved as zillions out there have,the 30-30 is deadly on Elk regardless of these silly numbers in the number game of hunting on the net.

Jayco

What's the energy of a muzzleloader at say 100-150 yds? It's a proven killer of elk.

That depends entirely on the projectile, for a .50 caliber round ball (177 grains) it's much different than a 350-400 grain conical bullet.

I'm thinking good old fashioned round balls that have killed lots of elk.

Something I saved from Rifle magazine some years ago looking for a Muzzle loader change...



Jayco

I'd keep round ball shots at under 100 yards. Fifty is better. Round balls slow down quickly, become unstable, and are inaccurate at long range.

As for the original question; yes 1600-2000 ft-pounds is generally considered appropriate energy for elk hunting with a modern, high-velocity cartrige. Its just one way of looking at how to kill an elk. Its only a number that gives a general idea of what to use, and as you can see, there are many exceptions.


Bill

RR: Yup I think so......or something like that....

....anyway I notice the LR guys killing some stuff pretty damn "dead" at distances we thought "unthinkable" 25 years ago....and with pretty puny ballistics by the time the bullet gets there....

Which makes me think, maybe the elk were not all that tough after all.....

I'm guessing you've got little to no real experience shooting roundballs?

What, you've never seen a roundball de-stabilize, start tumbling, and key-hole the target?

Uhhh nope guess I never saw that. The targets I always retrieved had nice round holes in them and groups that were pretty good given the fixed iron sights.
Never saw one bounce off of a critter neither..
Guess the British army troops bitchin about colonial snipers and their pennsylvania long rifles knockin off officers at 300 yds was just so much bitchinbout nuthin also...

Minimum energy requirements are stupid figures to base killing power off of. As other have mentioned, even round balls, arrows and just about anything reasonable will kill elk dead. Shot placement is key.

A 9mm or .357 at point blank range will blow the lungs right out of the biggest bull on the mountain. Nobody could deny that. Both have pretty pathetic energy, but will get it done. I am not saying use them for elk hunting, just making a comparison. There are several guys on here that have killed several arks full of elk with .22-250's and .220 Swifts. Again, shot placement trumps energy EVERY time. Flinch

Watch this video of Lynn Thompson shooting Hogs and Buffalo in Austraila with a 44 mag shoot ing 300 grain XTP's. This load has about 959 FPE and every time Lynnshoots something hits the ground


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKTeEmNUkjw


According to the minimum required FPE Elk, Lyn doesn't have enough

Minimum FE is BS