Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Elk Hunting effectiveness of smaller calibers on north american game

Five year old thread but still relevant.

I didn't have a .243 five years ago but wouldn't have used it for elk if I had. My .257 Roberts with a 120g A-Frame at 2947fps was and still is the smallest I've used. And I knew I was giving up capability my other rifles would have provided, same as when I used my .30-30, .44 Mag carbine, .375 Winchester, .45-70 or handguns. All were a deliberate choice with an acceptable downside. I am still of the opinion that a .243 is a better choice in the hands of an experienced hunter than a novice.

Better bullets have made smaller calibers more effective, IMHO, but I still prefer 6.5mm and up with 130g and heavier bullets.

It is amazing how many hunters to not practice, or even verify their zero from year to year...they just pull the trigger on hair.

I rode mules, and carried a 243 loaded with 100g partitions. Elk were not scared of the mules with me sitting on them, so shots were 125 yards and less. I was hunting cows only with the 243...they flopped on the spot. I also hunted coyotes and deer with the same rifle. I killed two big bulls with 7 mag and 140g Partitions at 3250 fps, jeez....they flopped so hard I think they were dead before they hit the ground...one never kicked, the other kicked one hind leg once or twice.

My hunting partners using 7 mags gimped up elk with 160g Partitions, they could not shoot worth a dam.

The chambering matters less as our premium bullet selection improves.
I also have been around alot of large bull kills in our backcountry, I worked as an Elk guide for various outfitters in th 80's and 90's and the dude hunters often carried .30 + magnums and factory rounds. Dudes were often underperforming with these for various reasons.
If they could of propelled a Nosler partition , handloaded and practiced a little this would of improved things ....with a smaller chambering. Luckily , I would have my reliable little Husky, .270 win companion along for the ride. None to pretty, a 3x lyman scope and NP's.
I don't see any reason a .243 would not work on bulls
if appropriately fitted. I have seen elk killed with a .22/250 and this was not wise,imo

I've been thinking about this since yesterday. I have a distinct opinion from most of the guys that typed on this thread, and I've been trying to nail down why.

Earlier today, I was reminded of an elk hunt a handful of years ago. A canyon between the high timber and farm fields. I'd hunted it earlier in the season, and determined that the snow/cold would have to be a factor before elk would move in and through there. It was an area where my general tag allowed for a spike bull. Not a huge animal, but not small. After a big storm and cold snap, I headed up into the same canyon. It was about 15 below zero at dawn. I was packing a 444 loaded with 310gr WFN bullets loaded to just under 2k fps. My hunting partner and I found fresh elk tracks by a creek bottom, and put a stalk on some timber. We busted a single elk, which I heard before I saw. Had to make a mad dash into a small clearing in enough time to see a spike bull trotting directly away at about 70 yds. I held on his neck. Then though about shooting him in the ass. Then he was out of sight. I don't know how long in actual seconds I stood there holding on him, but I know I could have gotten off at least two shots before he was back in the trees. I didn't shoot, because I wouldn't intentionally shoot an elk directly in the ass, no matter what I was carrying. Do I think that combo would have worked for an ass shot to get to the vitals? Yes, definitely. That didn't matter. I'm not going to shoot an elk in the ass intentionally. I didn't tag an elk that year. That was the only elk I saw across my sights.

All that said, 22 caliber bullets that have proven they will shoot straight and penetrate straight don't seem ineffective on game as big as elk, in my opinion. The reason why is because I'm not going to take whatever shot I'm given if that means shooting something in the ass. I haven't shot elk with a 22 cal anything, but I've seen several big deer nose-dive after a single shot from a 223. They were all shot in the right spot. A few made it a few steps. 243 (and up, again with the caviat of proven bullets) just seems more of the same. I have done that.

I'm reminded that hunting and killing requires both, and that the Indian matters more than the arrow. If a hit is in a marginal area, caliber and velocity and bullet weight all on the high side MAY make a difference, but if a hit is in an absolutely lethal area, they are largely irrelevant. A bigger gun doesn't make up for a miss, and rarely makes up for a marginal hit. I've seen it several times. I've seen guys nearly kill themselves trying to find the big bull they gutshot with their "cannon", in below zero weather, across miles of steep, treacherous terrain, and barely make it out, sans elk. And I've seen a great shot at a huge bull with a "marginal" cartridge at a longer range than I've ever killed anything that anchored that bull to the dirt. He hangs on my brother's wall in the place of honor amidst several other trophies.

I studied the exploits of WDM Bell quite a bit, including his philosophy on what he was doing. He understood the same thing I do. Small cartridges can easily be shot from small rifles with far greater precision, and with cheaper ammo, and it kills just as effectively as the big stuff against HUGE animals, if one learns how to shoot and where to place the bullets. It's also easier to shoot more than once with a small cartridge in a handy rifle, and with precision. Bell proved this indisputably. And he didn't have some ethical standard to worry about. It was about MONEY for him. And my observation has been that money as a driver of clean kills is most likely a far better motivation than any ethical standard that has no consequence to the shooter in the real world.

Great thread. Smallest rifle I would hunt and have hunted elk with is a 270. Worked pretty good but moved on to a 30-06 and it seemed to offer more in the way of penetration which I liked. That said I have never made a bad shot on and elk and I have had several travel further than I liked after being hit. Of course 1 foot in any direction away from an easy place to get a horse is too far!

HuntnShoot,

Excellent post!

Though I would also point out that Bell invested a lot of money in his safaris. He did not choose smaller cartridges because the cost of the the ammo improved the profit. Instead he chose them because they worked so well. Which is obvious when reading his books.

I can’t discount the effectiveness of many of the “smaller” calibers.....however, many hunters do not have the privilege of hundreds of opportunities to fill tags as did Bell and other hunters of his time! Today’s hunter “may” only have one opportunity.....they should choose the best insurance policy! JMO memtb

Thank you, John. I respect your opinion more highly than any current gun author And I simply enjoy your writing the most, which is why I own several of your books, and make a point of reading every article of yours first when Wolf Publishing notifies me of new content.

It's a bonus to know that my views on things don't always piss people off!

My personal diameter minimum is .277 with the .308 even better.

I'm fine using a centerfire .22 on Wyoming antelope. but haven't done it. Colorado has a .24 minimum for big game. While I would use my .243 on antelope, I'd feel pretty limited using it for elk compared to my other options..

I don't know crapola about elk hunting other than it's a damn big animal. But I agree with memtb. If I get the opportunity to go elk hunting it will probably be a one time thing and I'm not wealthy. If I go I have to make hay while the sun shines. I will take plenty of gun, my .270 Win. with 150 grain Nosler Partitions minimum. I also have a couple of 06s, a 7 Rem. Mag. and a .300 WBY. I shoot all of them pretty good so it will be what I feel like using that day. Since I've been on here regularly the past 6-8 months you've given me faith that my ol' .270 Win. is adequate, so it might get the call.

The 270 is possibly the state rifle of Montana or so it seems in my area. You wont be under gunned at all IMO.

Daughter #1 will be hunting elk this fall with her .270 Win and 150g AB Long Range running around 2910fps at the muzzle. Her comfort range extends to 400 yards and the load carries 2000fps and 1500fpe to 740 yards.Should work just fine. If it doesn't, I won't be blaming the cartridge or bullet.

From another thread. I've not hunted elk, but it seems to me that whatever you are hunting it is prudent to shoot the biggest rifle you can shoot comfortably and well, instead of the smallest you think you can get away with.

I've had to shoot small calibers a couple times. I was recovering from a surgery each time. I made sure I had a tough/Premium bullet, and I picked my shot. I shot antelope, mule deer, Axis and oryx. From 220 Swift to a 6x47mm (loaded like a mild .243) I have also had the opportunity to use 30 cal Mags and heavy Mediums from 338 to 375. I really like and even prefer shooting bigger animals with bigger/faster bullets though. They get that "OMG! I've been shot!" look on their face! ha I have no problem with anyone's choice until they start wounding/losing game...I call them slob hunters, you know, those who shoot way too far or "at" a herd, or group. In my gun safe now, my smallest is a .270 Win. It loves the 129gr LRX and I would shoot an elk/moose anything with it. However, where I'm going this Fall for cow elk, I asked the guide "what he wanted me to bring". he said he "preferred" the bigger guns ( I took that to mean 7mm Mag/ 300s and 338s) He said he didn't like chasing down wounded elk, ha. He said "you got a big gun like that" I said, yeah, a couple. Looking forward to it! 300 WSM and a 300WM backup.
There was once a guy who came as a "guest" of another Deer Lease member, East Texas late 70s. He used a scoped, Mod 742 308. He shot two boxes of ammo, wounding/losing deer and hogs one weekend! When he ran out of ammo, he asked around if anyone had some. My goofy Brother in Law gave him a box since he shot the same rifle! I told him "duh"! You shouldn't have dome that! Yes, the guy shot those up too, and laughed about the animals he lost. What a puke. Sorry for the rant....a little bit.

Implicit in your post is the assertion that "bigger" kills "better". I have not seen this. I have seen that good shots kill well, regardless of the amount of "bigness". I'm sure there is a bottom end, but I suspect it has more to do with picking the wrong bullets than picking something that isn't big enough. Several guys have mentioned seeing lots of elk wounded with a 243. I'd be more curious what bullets were used and where these wounded animals were shot.

Even with several deer, I recall what I would call marginal hits with magnums (7mm and 30 cal) at 100 yards or less where it was obvious that the deer were hit, but not well, and they ran off just as if they weren't hit. I remember finding one of those deer, still on its feet a long way away from where it was shot. It finally fell over while I was deciding whether to shoot, or wait for the guy holding the tag. No blood trail. It was random that we found it. Too high a hit, and too far back. All the others were lost.

Again, I have not seen that "bigger" kills "better". I have seen that animals hit well die quickly, and that animals hit poorly run away. This has been the only consistent rule I have seen regarding killing animals from squirrels to moose.

Well, there ya go.

I have and it makes sense to most people!!

I haven't been a congressman either but that doesn't keep me from having an opinion on how they do their jobs. Instead of automatically discounting my statement due to my inexperience with elk, why don't you tell where I am wrong? After all, it was a general, philosophic statement that could apply to deer, which I have hunted, as well as elk.

I don't think bullet diameter is nearly as important as construction. Proper constructed bullets do amazingly well.

What I believe I've seen the most of, is inexperience relying on someone else's opinion. It's fine to read & listen to others for advice and experience, but I've seen people buy into one persons advice or philosophy and believe they have gained all the knowledge needed. The most obvious case of this for me was a young man who had read a few stories and believed the .270W was the end all to success. The chosen bullet was more well suited to vermin rather than big game, and resulted in a several day pursuit of a wounded bull elk. Was it the Cartridge? Bullet diameter? Not in my eyes. It was poor placement first and foremost. Secondly, when a follow-up shot was made the bullet performed poorly. But in my own inexperience at the time, it left me questioning the use of a .270W for elk.

What I believe really affects the usefulness of any firearm is experience. People gain some experience and they tend to practice, pick shot's better, and when it's time to actually shoot an animal, they tend to place the bullet in the right spot. When people reach this level of discernment, they tend to make choices based on experience and results. Often times selecting smaller lighter recoiling cartridges. It's at this point that some start offering advice on what to use, without enough detail, or the finer details escape the novice looking for advice. The cycle then starts over. A current argument to this is the use of .224's on deer. There is much evidence it can be done very effectively, but sometimes a novice doesn't bother with the details and wind up wounding a deer with a .224 SomethingorOther and wind up stirring the pot.

The current craze to use the 6.5 Creedmore for everything will probably start just as much controversy.