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

I've thought about asking this on the gunwriters part, but suspect that a number of you have way more elk shooting experience than any of the gun writers so here goes.

Have we got to the point with all the super bullets we have today, that the really small calibers, i.e. .22 centerfires and 6mms have become legitimate calibers for most any north american big game. I ask this here because it appears that elk are the toughest critters in lower 48. I hear lots of very experienced elk hunters rather make fun of the cannons used by some. So have the .22-250s, .220 Swifts, .243, .250 savage, etc. become fully adequate elk calibers or all-around calibers for most any big game hunting in the lower 48 or even in Alaska (with the right bullet and placement of course) appreciate your input, especially from those with lots of killing experience.

Guy I work with put his 12 year old boy on his first elk, a real big one, and he used one shot from a 6mm to dump him. I asked what he used, and he said some soft points Dale (guy at work he bought it from) loaded up.

He's guided before, and gets his bull every year, either by bow or rifle. I also asked him If he thought the 6mm was a little light for the monster he got his son on, and he just chuckled and looked at me funny.

A lot of times it's the indian, and not the arrow, that does the killing.

I think a lot of game is lost due to too small a weapon.. I know the local stick hunters have kept their mouths shut about the amount of game they cripple each season. People are sick and tire of hearing about the big bull they hit, but never found... Sure I can kill an elk with my .22 Hornet, how far would he run shot though the lungs, would I find him, would the meat be worth a darn?? Of course we know placement is the key to everything..

In Colorado, New Mexico and Wyoming the legal minimum is .24 caliber (6mm) for elk. I have a .243 but would not use it for elk.

This could get good.

Have killed/witnessed enough elk shot with a 243 that I wouldn't hesitate to use one again.

Enough kids in this state have put their first elk into the freezer with a .243, that I wouldn't either..

I think the issue has more to do with the shooter than the cartridge. A larger caliber gives the options not to wait for a perfect vital shot. An old 06 will break shoulders, expand and penatrate violently. After spending 6 days in the woods and seeing nothing, then out of the shadows an elk appears. That wiggle room is vital. If the shooter is willing to stare at the front of an elk and not take a shot just because they wanted to hunt an elk with a 243, then fine. I would carry a 35 Whelen because those critters are just to tasty.

I know 6mm and 25 caliber cartridges kill elk because I've seen it and traced wound channels through them.

Also seen the same things from cartridges and bullets 270,7mm,30,338, to 375. Anything the smaller stuff does they do even better,and the same bullet technology that helps the small stuff helps the larger cartridges as well.

A rancher friend in Wyoming gets to hunt elk every year.He started as a kid killing them with 250 Savage and was still killing them with that when I first met him.He's killed slews of them from small cows to big trophy bulls; and my elk hunting education started on his ranch where lots of other people killed them with everything.

He moved to a 270,liked it better. Over the years he also used a 7mm STW and a 300 Winchester magnum. His view is the 6mm's and 25's kill them; 270 is better,but the 7mm mags and and 300's "hammer" them.I agree.

So my answer to the OP's question would be that you don't have to go over board on the "big" side,but I don't see any point in seeking the lowest denominator in killing effect either. There isn't any virtue in it and seeing how small one can go to kill an animal is something I got over a long time ago.

Who cares, really?

I bought a 300 WSM when they first came out to replace a 270. I had no real reason to move up from the 270 other than midlife crisis and the fact that I'd been using the 270 for 30 years very successfully. After a bunch of elk in the pot from the 300 WSM, I can say that I've never shot one that couldn't have been taken just as well with a 30-06. A few weeks ago, I switched to the 30-06 for my duration. I got a Ruger American for it's light weight and good reputation. It does shoot very well for an economy gun.

Being out elk hunting for more than a few days every year and for many years as a CO resident,I don't see that elk hunters are going to smaller caliber of elk hunting rifles, so it must be else where. The hunters I see are still carrying .270..308. 06 , 7mags or 300mags. I don't see NR hunters traveling 1500 miles and paying$ 600 for a tag or even and then showing up with one of those smaller calibers to hunt elk.

Will those smaller rounds kill elk effectively ?. Yes, I am sure if it because on the internet people are saying they do it and we all know you can't put anything on the internet that is not true.

I think putting a 6mm or 243 or ,257 in the hands of a 12 -13 year old young hunter is about the worst mistake someone can make. It's about like starting a youth off hunting with .410 shotgun which is about the hardest shotgun to shoot accurately.

I can't argue with a single point of view spoken thus far. Certainly bullet placement trumps everything. I think everyone can agree on that. I just think if things go wrong( Murphy's Law, whatever), the "potential" to go wrong will come quicker with a smaller caliber than with a larger caliber. I'm not comparing a 223 vs a 50 caliber. As I get older I tend to become more risk averse, and in this case, tend to lean more towards something heavier within reason, using the best constructed bullets I can find, and taking my time to take the best shot I can, because I will, in all likelyhood only get one shot every year or two, so it has to count. How's that for a run on sentance?

Best of luck to everyone this fall!

Can you kill an elk with a .25 automatic if you " do your part"? It's possible but why would you want to? I have seen elk run to the next county with less than exceptional shots from 300 mag and never recovered. Tougher animal than most give credit for. My son was not allowed to shoot an elk until he could handle the .270, about 12 yrs of age. And 22 caliber is foolish and out of the question.

I killed a bull with a quartering away shot as it was traveling fairly swiftly through the woods. My 7mm bullet(7x57) made it from the last rib on the right side all the way to the heart. Killing the bull. The bullet had enough gas to get through the heart but not enough to do any damage to the front of the rib cage. I did not find it but it must have been in the chest some where. I have switched to a stouter constructed bullet in a .300 for my elk hunting and their should be two nice holes on any reasonable shot.
Smaller calibers will kill , but I would suggest people stick to the largest calibers they can shoot comfortably. Just out of respect for the game.

I don't think the 410 is a good comparison but I get what you are saying. A 243 is easier to shoot accurately than a 300 win mag. Shooting a 410 with a small pattern full of holes is like shooting a 6 moa rifle.

Really novice shooters should only take the best shots, no angles and such, IMHO. Until they get the hang of things.

The biggest thing to me, is what you are willing to accept/pass up.

Limit me to a 223 and I'd happily hunt elk. But I'd also know I'm limited in range, and to shot selection.
Being that any elk I hunt falls into your statement of long travel, costs etc... I dont' go lightly armed. Typically if I were to ever gun hunt, 300 mag woudl be the smallest. MZ I carry a 54 for the extra penetration.

That being said I hunt moose with small calibers.. and I travel to do that but for some reason its not a big deal if we have to pass a shot because I have a 30-30... years ago, I'd have taken a cannon( first elk was shot with a 338/378 wtby, and could have been shot with a 243 for that matter....) just because I didn't want to have to pass up any shot presented.

These days as I age( typical for all of us I believe) its the hunt and not the kill, but I did settle on 338-06 for moose now... kind of an in between round... but still have 54 MZ and bow on the list to tackle them with eventually.

Maybe I'm missing your point but I can't see the logic here.

I'd much rather have a kid that is comfortable and confident in what he/she is shooting over a kid that is over gunned. My 90# 13 year old daughter does not handle recoil well at all.

The worst elk rodeo I've been involved in involved a 14 year old boy, a 7# /06 and a dad with a chip on his shoulder.

Most likely the Dad was most of the trouble... A guy here in town turned all three of his sons off on hunting with his attitude toward their mistakes..

What I meant was that although there are certainly young hunters that great marksman, usually young hunters are more apt to have "buck or bull" fever and more apt to then "blow" the shot, make a mistake. Thee is more of a chance for setting them up for failure if they are using a smaller caliber. I think losing or wounding an elk for youngsters is more than likely going to affect them mentally unless they are really callous than it would a seasoned hunter. The .410 with it's long and small diameter shot string is a lot harder to shoot accurately than say a 20 gauge with choke tubes that you can change out to IC if needed.

Well stated.

So if a youngster has buck fever and is using a 300 mag, they have less of a chance of wounding something? I cannot see how a shotgun shot string relates to centerfire rifles.

This is all true. I use a 30-06 and have killed 33 elk.

However, I know a young (20 something) lady who might weigh 110# who has killed six elk with a 25-06. She readily admits that bigger calibers are too much for her to handle. Maybe she also does that just to make us big caliber guys eat crow.

KC

The discussion here illustrates why Elmer Keith liked heavier bullets, both caliber and weight wise. Back "in the day" we're talking 30's into the 40s, when his book Big Game Hunting was covering, there were essentially NO decent bullets. Speer and Hornady didn't come along till the late 40s. Bullets had a habit of not penetrating, and Elmer's theory was, prepare for the worst. If you get a going away shot late in the day, and need to take it, especially if from the LEFT side of an animal, then the bullet needs to hold together well enough to go from the last rib back on the left side, THROUGH the paunch and into the heart lung area. Too many bullets in those days wouldn't. With the Ttsx and such, not as much of a problem anymore and ole Elmer might even decide the 06 good for something other than jackrabbits. I always looked at one of our horses and said, an elk about this big, would I REALLY feel comfortable shooting one with a 243 or something (NO). Different people take recoil differently. and stocking, etc. helps. A guy I know who hunts a lot, has a little wife, maybe 5'3" and not that big, and her basic rifle is a 340Wby. Condi, the woman who helped build Barnes bullets, is TINY, have met her, and she shoots a 338 for her hunting round. BUT, made FOR her, so probably fits and doesn't recoil as bad.

Back in the day when th 06 was king the 257 rob was concidered a pretty good elk cart. Along with the 300 savage... And 30/30--- now the 06 is concidered a min and you really need an ultra somthing..
You see elk are tougher than they used to be...

Back in the day hunters got closer.

Ive seen 4 elk killed with a friends dads 257 roberts and its lethal,in skilled hands, but I'd also point out that most of the successful hunters in years past knew how to hunt and seldom would attempt shots at the ranges I see guys quote frequently today. my friends dad killed all his elk well inside of 250 yards and he waited for a good shot angle before squeezing off a shot, if your going to use a smaller caliber pure physics, and the games anatomy, restricts you from expecting to get away with some of the shot angles you could effectively pull off successfully with a significantly heavier projectile, of larger caliber.
no matter how you try, you can,t get away using a 243 win or 257 roberts at the same extended,ranges and odd angles that a 280 rem,- 30/06-300 mag,-375 H%H loaded with heavy bullets can deal with,successfully.
used within a reasonable range and handled correctly with a well practiced shooter, Ive seen rather remarkable results , but those are still limitations that the shooter should be aware of, that are not quite as restrictive on its use as a larger caliber.
personally from the results Ive seen I think a 270 win loaded with a good 140-150 grain is where ID start as a good dependable ,low recoil,elk rifle.
my friends dad whos near 80 years old dropped a small bull within a few feet of where he spotted it , while shooting a 257 roberts loaded with 100 grain speer bullets, on bullet impact the bull trotted about 20 yards and then got wobbly and fell , the shot was easily 240 yards, or a bit more as it was 270 plus paces to the bull from where we stood. and he made the shot leaning over a branch on an aspen with his Winchester 70 and weave 4x scope.
he hit the bull in the near side lung and angled back into the liver
that was back in the 1990s and was the last bull he ever took.
that shot really impressed me, not so much as to accuracy but how such a small cartridge could be so effective, but Ive seen guys make similar shots with 7mm and 30 calibers that had elk run further.but Id point out the bullet failed to exit and did not travel in a strait line after impact,while it destroyed the heart and one lung it only penetrated about 2/3rds thru the elks chest and if it had not been a broadside shot it might not have worked nearly as well.,

No one said a youngster was to use a 300 mag, and the .410 reference was in respect to the difficulty of shooting it accurately and DUMMIES trying to get their kid introduced to hunting using one. The analogy is the same for introducing them to elk hunting using a smaller caliber firearm for which shot placement is more critical ( ie. accurately). That is pretty easy to understand ,unless you just want to argue about it ,which I don't

Thanks, but the main reason is the wife is now carrying my 7x57...... and the .300 win mag was found one a good deal.

P.S. we have a .243 in the cabinet and it will stay there for elk season.

I've killed elk with a range of bullets and calibers. smallest diameter was 243, lightest was a .25-06 90 grain HP Both bangflopped on the spot. heaviest bullets used have been 180 grain. on a generic soft point out of a 30-06, the other was my most recent elk and that was a 180 berger out of a 300 wby. that was a calf and at 447 yards it took 30 seconds to fall over, 2 shots and the first one was in the heart.
the furthest elk I ever took was with a 243 at 585 yards. that was an old cow and she piled up at the shot. biggest elk rodeo I've seen was with a 7mm rem mag and shot placement was great for all 4 of them.

I've seen way more people screw up because they used too much gun. of course it could never happen to anyone here. I'd say that of the hunters I've met 10% of them could handle a magnum and really make it shine. the rest figured they better have as much gun as they could carry because of that "iffy" shot they might have to take. none of them will tell you it's because they will likely mess up the first shot cause they are scared of the recoil and have to be prepared for anything on a wounded animal. because when you boil it down, that is VERY often the case.

Some good points and well stated ideas here. But in my book if you can't put the bullet where it's supposed to go you better develop your abilities some more before you hunt, don't rely on a set of ballistics to win the day for you. Wonder bullets or ordinary ones you still have to be able to shoot well from field positions using any cartridge. I have a couple of 243's don't ever seeing my self using them or my 257/25-06 on elk as I have outfits more suited to that job. Elk should not have to suffer for someone's lack of competence large caliber or small. As to the OP's question, yeah better bullets for all calibers are made today but why use a marginal caliber period? Magnum Man

so what or who defines "marginal"?

to me a .223 is marginal for elk. to others it may be a .270
I prefer adequate, each hunter should pick what they think is adequate for what they are hunting.

No, but the guys who write articles about "elk cartridges" sure are. As are the guys selling rifles in gun shops. They're the ones with the real skinny.

Lots of good points here, not much that I'd want to argue with.

The only thing I'd possibly add, because I'm not sure it has been covered yet, is something along the lines of the following.

To me, a big part of hunting is my ethics & moral standards.

So, my question would be along the lines of; should a novice hunter/shooter even be considering hunting Elk, with any caliber ?

Ive started at least 7 guys in our elk hunting group out ,who expressed interest,and who are now enthusiastic members, by first getting them efficient and comfortable at shooting from field positions , and getting them involved in the planing and conversations, then guiding and tutoring them on their first few hunts out west.
I think if theres interest it should be encouraged and mentored & tutored thats how my mentors felt 45 years ago, and it sure awoke a desire (obsession)

I would say hell ya'. To me elk are not as bullet proof as many would like to think. Can they be tough? Sure, but I've also seen antelope go miles after bad hits.

Everybody always just lumps elk together, but a yearling spike/cow is a whole different deal than a mature bull IMO. Elk hunting is not the same everywhere. I wouldn't hunt my 13 year old daughter where I typically hunt, there are other areas that give her a better chance of a more controlled patient shot.

I've seen some pretty accomplished hunters come completely unglued on elk.

I'll chime in on that one. I've taken 5 young men on their first elk hunts.
I think at a certain point in one's hunting path you have an obligation to pay it forward and give something back to the young generation.
Luckily I've never had issues with the young men I've taken taking long shots, bad shots, running shots, buck fever, or other risky practice for which they were not qualified. All were conservative with their shot selection - knock on wood.

With each novice hunter we practiced shooting positions, ranges, actually simulating hunting elk to the extent possible - not just bench shooting, at the range beforehand.

The other thing is having that difficult conversation with each of them before the hunt. It feels uncomfortable to lecture a grown man but you have to say something about - these are higher life forms, they are not rodents, not for your entertainment, you own that animals life when you pull the trigger, if it takes all night or 5 miles you bought it, or words to that effect.

Nicely handled by both of you !

It just so happens that I agree.

Never said I was against it, just wanted to add another thought provoking element, to the discussion.

Perfect !

I'm going to the basement now.

I just posted this on another thread, and truly believe in the sentiment.

Lots for you to catch up on.

Bought an hour & a half to go for me !

I'll be impatiently waiting.

I have taught quite a few youngsters elk hunting and several older gents. Everyone of them I was successful in them getting their first elk. A couple took a few years.

I think a great deal of the discussions on what bullets to use, calibers ranges etc. could be avoided or ignored if a good deal more time was spent discussing game anatomy,and correct precise shot placement from field positions.
the plain fact is a good many people can't hit squat from a rapidly acquired field position at even 100 yards let alone the 200-400 yards they claim most of the time!
I find the vast majority of guys I started out could shoot 2" or smaller 100 yard groups off a bench rest at the range , who felt very confident in their shooting ability's UNTIL I started placing 4 6" paper plates on a target backer, out at 100 yards and challenging them to assume a quick sitting or making an off hand shot or two,(their choice) in under 10 seconds time at the number (1-thru-4) posted on the plates, which is far closer to hunting than any bench rest will be.
those impressive bench rested groups sure go to hell quickly until they learn to use a rifle under field conditions

That's the same type of stuff we work on. Those are good drills.

You mean some hunting shots are actually taken like that?

In my younger days, when I was shooting NRA/CMP matches, I felt very comfortable taking any 100 yard shot off hand and any 200 yard shot was doable kneeling. Prone was never much use as grasses and brush were always in the way. Today and in the recent past that is not the case, and I don't practice at field positions although a 50-60 yard shot off hand at elk in the timber or such means elk in the freezer.

The very simple solution is carrying a good set of shooting sticks or making use of any natural rest you can find. The idea that there is never enough time to do that is pure BS, I bring home elk every year with these methods.

THANKS I NEEDED A GOOD HARD LAUGH!
I know all the cable shows have some guide looking through a spotting scope and telling the guided hunter to take his time while he makes a 600 yard shot from a rifle supported on a padded tri-pod ,out over a sage brush flat with all the time required and no trees in the way..... but in 45 years of hunting elk in the timber where Ive hunted , your far more likely to have spent two-to-four days hunting public land, a few miles down in some remote canyon, your either freezing your butt off or nearly exhausted from moving slowly and concentrating on every movement at the far edge of your visual range, and your slowly sneaking along some steep timbered drainage, moving intermittently, then standing and observing carefully without seeing a decent elk, when out at the edge of your vision you detect movement, a line a shape materialized through the timber out at 70-130 yards, you barely make out antlers as the elk stares in your direction,your heart beat doubles, you bring up the rifle ,you look for a branch to use to steady your carbines aim, and about that time a cow you just noticed gets nervous and the bull, starts to fidget,you now have 3-5 seconds ,if your lucky,to make up your mind, if the targets legal, if the range and angle is something you can work with, all while your finding theres a gap through the trees that will allow the shot, and you then get the rifle sights properly lined up and squeeze off the shot, as the elk decides the next drainage looks like a better location.!
the ELK whirls,too run as you squeeze off the shot, and your not 100% sure you connected, your heart beat doubles again, while your buddy assures you that your 340 wby, or 375 H&H did its job... you try to catch your breath, and your heartbeat and increased blood pressure is making you a bit dizzy, you put on the rifles safety without ejecting the empty case...you walk to the bullet impact site, as your buddy assures you the shot you made was great, and you find blood spray on the aspens or conifers..or on the snow, just past the elks former location.....WHERES THE TRACKS? WHERES THE ELK? ....the elk fell within two steps and slid 20 yards down the slope and is jammed up against some small trees, in the least accessible area you found in days....THATS MORE REALITY TO ME!
and the areas pictured below familiar




A 35 whelen slide action Remington with peep sights or a 2x/7x Leopold compact scope is a very popular choice with my friends

MY 375 H&H sakos claimed its share of ELK

My experience is nearly identical to 340mag.
In partial to thick cover I’ll spot a cow and she’ll see me at the same time. Almost always less than 100 yds. She’ll begin to move - slowly at first. Almost never do they bolt like a racehorse. More elk that were previously unseen will show movement. It all happens fast but that is plenty of time to set up for a short shot.

Target acquisition is a big deal.
The drill that I like.
Set up 2 targets at 100 yards. Have the shooter stand with rifle on shoulder as he would be coming upon these elk. Have the shooter get the gun off his shoulder and take whatever position he is comfortable with (but it has to be high enough to clear the low brush that you don’t get on a range). Shoot 1st target, cycle a cartridge, shoot 2nd target.

What we usually find is that if they choose to shoot offhand most struggle with marksmanship (* unless they are well practiced shooting offhand).

Getting the gun off their shoulder and getting into a sitting position takes about 1 second. Acquiring the target, checking backstop, antlers, gun position, animal position, safety, takes about another second (unless they have an astronomy power scope on their gun - then it takes longer). For most people this seems to be the drill that translates into success best on an actual hunt. Try to develop that motor-skills memory to make cycling a cartridge after a shot and reaquiring become 2nd nature. The reason for the 2nd target is that it forces the shooter into target acquisition a 2nd time.

(One of the worst habits brought from the range to the field is ignoring the animal after the 1st shot and looking down at the ground for the spent cartridge. That routine of looking down for the brass is just a bad habit that most everyone (me especially) seems to develop from range shooting).

People kill elk every year with a .243. That said, I’ve seen more elk wounded and lost after being shot with a .243 than possibly with all other cartridges combined. Full disclosure, I lost my elk last year after hitting it with a 7mm RM 160g/North Fork. Placement is what matters most and in spite of the biggest blood trail I’ve ever seen, that hit was apparently just under the spine and too far back, a liver hit, and the blood trail eventually petered out.

A good friend of mine guided elk hunters for years, before we had the great bullet choices we have today . He carried a .243 as his personal choice – not because he thought it was the best choice but because it was what he had.

I agree with saddlesore – the smaller cartridges are best for experts, not novices.

340 I knew you would get a kick out of that....which is "why" I said it.

I also knew saddlesore would chime in there as well.


Here's an observation: I recall back years when a lot of the printed material on elk rifles was published. A lot of it advocated mediums with heavy bullets,things like the 338's with 250-300 gr bullets,and 375's with 270-300 gr. There were even some guys like Will Haffler (IIRC) who it seems had to trail up and kill not only his own elk, but those wounded by clients,and invented something called the 458 American,which was a shortened 485 Win Mag designed for bolt guns.

The purpose was to rake a big bull at spitting distance stem to stern.

It seemed to me that most of these guys hunted heavily timbered slopes steep as a chalet roof, in places like Idaho and NW Montana;had to take hasty shots at bulls standing at funny angles and under circumstances that did not present perfect shot opportunities.They wanted penetration and big, leaky holes.Distances were not long.

They were advocates of the Keithian Theory of elk cartridges.


These guys were always at odds with the small bore boys who rolled the same bulls in more open country,(like high alpine basins in Wyoming) with stuff like the Roberts,270/280,7mag,30/06 etc,which the Keithians considered to be pea shooters.

The Colorado boys seemed to be all over the map....seems they have a diversity of country in Colorado.

Even today the elk have spread into cow country and can be sniped at distance with nothing but thin air between them and a bullet,and lots of time to set up.

Looking back, I guess both were "right"given the bullets of the day,and the circumstances under which they are hunted. The elk also seem more abundant today,and less reluctant to stick their noses into the open. Kids can whack them using little guns, with impunity.

So we have these discussions about what constitutes fully sufficient elk cartridges when we might consider that what works in the open country of Wyoming or New Mexico might not be quite the ticket on some north slope in Idaho. So we might want to consider where we are, and what we're doing.

Random thoughts....not advocating one thing over the other.

Bob - it seems everybody "is all over the map" anymore when it comes to elk "anything". I see the pics of the nice bulls that the Montana guys are putting down and there isn't even a stick in the picture! Just wide open spaces and meadows with roads, which leaves me silently lamenting why in he!! I keep elk hunting the steep thick stuff! Maybe I should give that "meadow elk hunting" a try - and I'm not picking on anyone with those comments. Heck, Shrapnel has "Truck Bugling" down to a science - which by the way, was funnier than crap!

Or someone makes a comment that "one should just place the bullet where it needs to go" - if it was just that easy, right? Those thoughts and comments leave me wondering if they even get out of the truck to do the shooting.

Anyway, I agree with Alamosa's thoughts and guidance tips, but there's a whole lot more going on between each "shoot, aquire the target and shoot again". There are several "mechanics" the shooter is doing during each of those steps. To me the mechanics of off-hand shooting are really only two scenarios - game standing and game trapping.

What I wish we could have on the Elk Forum are civil discussions about things like close range shooting technique or tracking or whatever. Let's talk mechanics, break it down, share some good information, as this "gear/bullet/rifle only talk" mindset has worn thin and is a very small part of successfull hunting.

Study: Linky

So have the .22-250s, .220 Swifts, .243, .250 savage, etc. become fully adequate elk calibers or all-around calibers for most any big game hunting in the lower 48 or even in Alaska (with the right bullet and placement of course)

I don't believe they have, I get hung up on fully adequate I suppose.
Some family members started with .243's and 6mm's for big game and stayed with them, two of my girl cousins and two of my daughters come to mind. The cousins have killed several elk. They were mostly cows and mostly shot in more open country but they can shoot and haven't lost any. Most of the other gals went on to a .270.
Fully adequate on the edge of a hay field with a cow tag and fully adequate in a sidehill pole thicket on bulls are different enough that I wouldn't care to try the second with a .243 or my .250 Savage unless that was my only choice.
A lot of the choices come down to confidence. If you are confident in the cartridge and rifle it seems to help.
While I'm comfortable that cartridges above my lower threshold are not necessary all the time. For me that is a .308 Win with a 150/165 grain bullet or a .270/150 grain.
For one my huunting partners, who has only killed one bull but seen a couple other kills a .338 is what a person should use for elk. At least that is what he said when I told him I was planning to bring a .30-06 with 180 Partitons on our spike only bull hunt last year. I guess I brainwashed him.

Completely off subject, but I have shot a lot of elk in the thick timber. Probably 90% of them.

In the early years, I bumped quite a few when I didn't know what I was doing. I probably got one shot for every ten I jumped. Once I had it figured I out, I shot a lot more when they were just standing there or in their beds. Many were shot right behind the ear or at the base of the skull. No doubt a 243, 257 or any similar chamberings could have done the job . I choose a 30-06 with 220 gr RN or at least a 180 gr GK

I don't claim to be the best or even close to a mediocre elk hunter. In fact I tell most guys that wonder how I shoot an elk ever year, that I just bumble around until I find a stupid one.

Three things I see hunters do that results in elk bolting off in the timber. They move too fast, don't watch the wind close, enough and don't use their binoculars in the thick stuff to watch for that one ear, eye, tip of a horn or a leg.

Not all elk are taken in thick timber, that’s for sure. By way of example, and to get people in the mood (only 7 months to go until 3rd season…),here are some photos taken in years past.

2003, small 6x6 bull.


2006, buddy’s cow. Mine is down on the slope, behind us, far left side.


2007, first of two cows. Dang near got overrun by a second herd passing through after she was already down.


2007, second of two cows. She and a small herd came off a mountain over a mile away. I passed on a 25-foot shot, took one at about 40 yards.


2009, passed on an easy shot at a 1-1/2 year-old cow, went home empty-handed. If I’d had a bull tag I’d have had a dandy.


2010, shot my elk from the far timber line. It went straight down near where I was standing when I took the picture.


2010, son-in-law shot this one cross-valley, 382 yards or thereabouts. (Would have to check the records.)
[img]http://www.hunt101.com/data/500/IMG_11551.JPG[/img]

2011, on a 1/2 square mile patch of public land.
[img]http://www.hunt101.com/data/500/IMG_13584.JPG[/img]

2012, my elk is down in the circle, 400 yards out.
[img]http://www.hunt101.com/data/500/IMG_1509-2.JPG[/img]

2013, shot my elk from here.
[img]http://www.hunt101.com/data/500/20131107_065843.jpg[/img]

WOW! yeah! obviously we have different experience to draw from, I would not even ever expect to find elk traveling through open areas like that during day light, Id expect the sea of orange road hunting guys would prevent anything worth shooting from venturing out in open areas like that, on public access land.
yes Id expect open areas to prove to be good on private ranches
or near large parks, or areas near housing, or major roads,or ski resorts and air-ports, where hunting's restricted, but I've never had access to those areas

GW: I agree. A lot of what you are talking about is knowing how to "hunt".

You hit the mark.
Success rate on RFW ranches is 65% to 100%, resident only, and not that hard to draw.

If a guy looks for the out of the way places that others don't hunt, you'd be surprised where you can find elk. Once you learn how to get in here and how to hunt it, you can kill an elk every year. All BLM.

The big difference between CH and my hunts is he mostly hunts the 3rd season or maybe 4th during migration up in the NW quadrant of CO. The elk come out of the higher country and traverse those sage brush flats heading west mostly. I'm not as tough now days. I hunt muzzle loader season close to the same area before they start to move and then the Gunnison area during the 2nd rifle season.

Here are some additional photos to get everyone thinking about those Colorado Apps that are due soon. Any one of them ,except maybe the last one, I could have probably killed with a .243.I would not have felt as confident though.


A dink I killed last year near Gunnison.



An even smaller dink I killed this past years in the NW CO during ML season. This young bull was about 18 months, but no testicles and no horn pedicles. Anterless then that I had a "B" tag for.



Year before, same place same ML.



Shot her in her bed. Gunnison.



Another one shot in her bed at first light. Flat Tops



This was one was shot in the timber,(ML season) but she made it about half way across a beaver pond and then fell in the water.



Then there are those in the nasty stuff.

[img]http://i274.photobucket.com/albums/jj250/vmautino/blowdown.jpg[/img]

[img]http://i274.photobucket.com/albums/jj250/vmautino/Packing2.jpg[/img]

Then sometimes you get lucky and catch them sneaking thru the aspen.

[img]http://i274.photobucket.com/albums/jj250/vmautino/DSCN0360.jpg[/img]

243....100gr Partition.....First elk for the boy, the tenth elk for that 243. That was a few years ago, he's now added two more elk to his bragging rights with that rifle and load.



Fist part of the equation is to shoot them in the front half, the second part is to use enough bullet. Cartridge chosen doesn't mean as much.

My family owns/owned land in Colorado's GMU 61 and 62 for the past 45+ years My parents built their retirement cabin in GMU 61 almost 20 years ago and live there (off grid) from May till early Nov. NF borders two sides of both properties.

Over the years I've probably found 25-30 dead, unrecovered elk in or around our properties. For the ones that weren't too rotten to investigate, the majority appeared to be shot in the front half. I've done a quick "bullet necropsy" on two of those elk (much to my young son's disgust on the last one) to see what happened. In both cases it was poor penetration--the bullets made it to the first lung and quit. Too much expansion with one, on the other elk the bullet came apart and didn't penetrate very far.

Dry, poor tracking conditions, the elk runs 400-700 yds in thickish timber, all adds up to an unrecovered elk.

Although we have lots of good bullets out there these days, and I've had the opportunity to observe lots of bullets--including Noz's other excellent offerings--kill elk, I haven't seen a bullet outperform a Partition when it comes to consistently deep penetration across the widest range of velocities. Of course, the Accubond and Ballistic Tip do tend to shoot smaller groups than the Pt........

Casey

The difference between a heavy timber elk,and an open country elk,might be a few seconds and ten steps. Kinda raises a conundrum....don't it?

But not really.

Indeed....I shot my bull this past year in heavy timber, didn't have as long to make up my mind. You are certainly right. That Nosler Partition busted his conundrum all to pieces though.

A ton of overkill beats an ounce of underkill.

Did someone mention elk in thick timber? There were four elk in the photo below as I recall. Even though I took the pic I can only find two, both of them close enough to reflect the camera flash in their eyes. It was raining, of course.



My son hunts elk in the stuff above, consistently killing branched antler bulls. He moved from a 30-06 to a .338 for elk, though he has a 7mm mag and a 6mm in his arsenal, and killed a 6x6 with the 6 when it was the rifle in hand one time.

A long time friend of mine in BC shoots all big game with his 220 Swift: moose, grizzly, elk, whatever. He also roped and tied up an uninjured adult caribou bull. If you've got what it takes...

Great pictures!

Elk country can change in a few steps of the elk...

That is a superb photo!

Godogs
The Nosler Partition seen to be one of the only bullets that can be counted on to penetrate the conundrum on an elk.
I have had cup and core bullets disintegrate on a dichotomy on deer sized animals, leaving contusions on the enigma, but requiring a follow up shot.

I've used Partitions and Speer Hotcores for years with equal results...until the last couple of years. I think Speer's quality control has dropped. I can't get them to group any more in the same rifle I've used for years.

I might as well add my two cents in here also. I haven't read through the entire post, though most of it.
Like others have said, shot placement is most important, with a bullet designed for the job being done.

For the original question about small calibers being used. I think it all comes down to what one is comfortable with. And I don't mean just comfortable shooting, I mean what you are comfortable shooting a big game animal with.
I personally am not comfortable shooting game animals with small calibers. It even felt weird to me to carry a 6mm last fall whitetail hunting. Oh, it would have killed just fine, but I am not comfortable with it.
For big game I prefer a 140 grain bullet and on up. I really prefer the heavies though. I like the Speer 200 gr out of my 30-06 even for deer, 200 gr Sierra in my 300 WBY, and my favorite elk rifle is my stubby little 350 Rem mag with a 220-225 grain bullet.
Where I hunt it is heavily hunted public land, where a lot of years the only legal elk I see is the one I shoot. Shot angles are not always perfect, I have shot through heavy brush and limbs many times. This is where I like the heavier bullets. From my experience, even a 165 or 180 grain bullet will not go through brush without deflection. The 200-250 grain bullets will stay right on path and put the animal down.

Again, just my opinion. Each person will have his/her own idea of what will and can work for them.

Great post swede ,
My own sentiments, and just about my preference in Bullet diameters !
Ya know for a Medium Bore rifle,you'll have a hard time surpassing the authority of that .358 used on large game in the lower 48 IMHO , and I have used .338's & .375's
Rich

I can't support this. Once a bullet hits something, I don't care what size it is, it's a guessing game as to where it goes, and what it will do.

A while back someone did some serious research on bullet deflection. The results were that big, heavy bullets deflected just as bad as light ones. The old idea of brush busting bullets is a myth.

Seen more that one time when guys had to learn that the hard way.

Over the years, I've killed a bunch of elk with both a 270 using 150 gr bullets and a 300 WSM with 180's. I never had a hit one get away with either caliber but I choose my shots. I don't just throw lead. I will say, though, that I feel like the ones hit with the 300 go down faster on the average. I've had some DRT's with the 270 but a lot more with the 300.

That said, I'm switching to a 30-06 strictly for the weight. I just bought a Ruger American that weighs a lb less than my Savage 300 WSM. At my age, that pound adds up after a day of steep mountains. The recoil of the 300 in this light rifle would be more than I want to deal with. The recoil of the 30-06 in the Ruger is about the same as the 300 WSM in the heavier Savage. I'll likely stay with the same 180 gr bullets that I've used for years in the 300.

It's more to do with the wound channel than how the wound is made.

I've been a proponent of bigger wound channels but have been successful using a .257 Roberts and .25-06 and wouldn't be afraid to use either again. On elk though I'm partial to using my .338WM, as much because it is so accurate my confidence in it is unsurpassed, as it is very effective.

I miss these threads.

Yeah, a .>22-250 WILL KILL an elk if you hit him right. But in the heat of the moment will you hit him right? If you got a .270 use use it. Take your .243 Deer hunting.

In my post above I'm talking like an elk authority and I've never been elk hunting in my life. But I have been Nilgai hunting and they seem similar in size. I didn't kill a Nilgai but I saw a few killed and they used everything from 25-06s to .300 Mags. One guy killed one with a .30-30. I just draw the line on small diameter bullets on big game. No way would I take a .243 Nilgai hunting. I would draw the line at a .270 and then only with a 150 grain bullet, preferably a Nosler Partition or something made to penetrate as well as a Partition.

To those on here that have a problem with a .243 or 6mm on deer, I have to say it depends on where you deer hunt. My first wife was from Missouri and her parents had a farm out of Booneville. The deer I saw up there were much larger body wise on average than in most places in Texas. I mean I can take you to South Texas and show you some monsters rack wise, but their bodies will rarely weigh more than 200 pounds. The deer in the hill country and around my home on the coast are relatively small compared to those in South Texas, much less up North. In Texas a .243 not only is adequate but even makes sense. Running a 100 grain bullet at 2950-3000 FPS is plenty lethal on an animal weighing less than 200 pounds. I've seen too many deer killed DRT with a .243 AND my own 6mm Remington.

There is a guy here on the 'fire whose sig line quotes Bob Hagel...something to effect of,,,choose a rifle that works when everything goes wrong instead of a rifle that works when everything goes right.

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.