Originally Posted by TracksWapiti
Originally Posted by Brad
Originally Posted by bellydeep
Originally Posted by TracksWapiti
Glad CPW determines what cartridge is legal rather than conventional wisdom. Using the best ammo available for this application will hopefully mitigate things "going wrong."


LOL.


CPW knows everything. It’s as good as the word of God. I’m so glad they settled it and we don’t have to discuss further.

So true, CPW allows a 300 BLK, but not a 22-250 or Swift. I'd rather use either of those on elk than the 300 BLK...

That doesn't make any sense to me. How exactly would 22-250 be better for elk at close range than 300BO? Be specific, please.

I've killed elk like most of you or we wouldn't be on this thread. Most of us already know that killing power for larger game animals like elk is a function of penetration and wound channel. Penetration is a function of bullet sectional density and weight retention. Wound channel is a function of caliber and bullet expansion.

Assuming 22-250 is using the heaviest controlled expansion bullet available, it probably would penetrate similarly to the 300BO with Barnes 120gr. But the 300BO would leave a much wider diameter wound channel, making it a far superior choice over the 22-250 for elk.


Hmm. SD for a .224/70 is .199 and for a .308/120 it’s .181.


So the 300 BLK is losing the SD war and really sucking hind tit when it comes to velocity and energy. Sure, it wins in frontal diameter, but velocity is what really churns up their insides and creates tissue damage outside of the actual path of the bullet.


Originally Posted by shrapnel
I probably hit more elk with a pickup than you have with a rifle.


Originally Posted by JohnBurns
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.