Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Elk Hunting Minimum caliber to hunt elk??...

Yeah, but both those lions ended up in a museum in Chicago after being used as rugs by Col. Patterson. Hunting lions in the dark is rather sporting. Happy Trails

Reading my OP would have answered that but you wee ego prevented you from actually comprehending it, amazing that you have managed to bluff your way through on this forum for so many years and so many posts...

I doubt anything you post at this point in time... Your lack of knowledge of basic ballistics and the fact that you must dodge around the facts are quite telling

On the subject of reading things one way! You have yet to explain how and who (other than some bureaucrat in the Colorado G&F) has determined that 1500 ft/pounds of energy, is the determining prerequisite for the ethical killing of elk? Again, as many have mentioned and you seem to ignore, there are a multitude of factors other than foot/pounds energy!

I am in agreement with much of your OP, yet you seem to be hung-up on the mythical 1500 ft/pounds energy concept! It would be extremely enlightening to ascertain how this number was arrived at....and why did not the Colorado G&F combine the “mythical”/“magical” ft/lb number with other criteria. Many folks, hopefully you are “not” one of these people, simply look at the energy number .....yet fail to factor in other components to a lethality potential of a cartridge! memtb

I agree. KE tells you somewhat how much the bullet can do, but the size, shape, and construction of the bullet and the type of material it impacts tells you how much of that energy may put to good use. It's also not the KE at the impact that matters as much as the KE at the impact minus the KE, if any, of the exiting projectile. Also, a fair amount, I don't know how much or how to calculate it, of the kinetic energy is converted into heat energy, rather than structural damage. Logically, I think, more of that would happen with high-velocity impacts. That's just one of the factors that limits the value of relying on KE alone for hunting effectiveness. However, there does seem to be a rough correlation between KE and damage. I don't think it's a coincidence that a bullet propelled by a 30-378 Wby blows stuff up a lot more violently than a similar-typed bullet out of a .223 Win., and the former produces about 4 times as much KE as the latter.

Sorry, I thought it was obvious, but apparently it escapes you so let me explain. What it's based on would be the information and methods used to arrive at the conclusion that 1500 ft-lbs is a good benchmark for the "minimum kinetic energy" for killing elk.

In other words, who came up with the 1500 ft-lb benchmark, and how did he get there? What information did he evaluate and how did he evaluate it in order to conclude that 1500 is the right number? Why not 1250 ft-lbs, or 2,000, I've seen 2,000 thrown around too?

So, what is the magical 1500 ft-lbs based on ?


And as far as your comment below, it's telling that you don't believe first-hand experience shooting elk with a bullet that delivers less than 1500 ft-lbs is a good basis to form an opinion. Obviously because you've never done it.

Again you are projecting your limited knowledge on my OP, I never said any of that in fact just the opposite

But you can't see that because you simply not mentally equipped for those aspects, I didn't ignore anything you just failed to understand it

It is NOT some mythical number it is a general recommendation don't make it out to be what it isn't because you lack the ballistics knowledge to use it correctly

Now sit down listen and learn

ps; it is laughable to watch you get all twisted around an old axiom that actually works quite well if you understand it LOL
Let's try it by dumbing it down for you

If I use the proper bullet and hit the vitals of an Elk with 1500 ft/lbs of energy does that increase my chances of a clean kill ??? that is about as dumbed down as I can make it for you

He's as smart as "elkslayer" and Larry Root combined, but without the people skills.

Actually by now I doubt anything you proclaim
Not sure why you think the 1500 fp is a magical number you keep saying that, yet I never did, it is simply a Rule of Thumb an "Axiom" to put people in the correct arena of power for an Elk hunt

I have seen 2000 and 1000 at 100 yards etc etc these are all just recommendations, again What I said in the OP along with examples of what comes close

This seems to be offensive to you to have a good basis of where to start when looking for an Elk round, you don't seem to understand it eliminates very few rounds and gives a new hunter an idea of a starting point..You simply want to pigeonhole the 1500 fp and I think it is more ignorance and ego now that you have back yourself into a corner

Deal with it

Also this shows Ego nothing more it isn't something to brag about


"it's telling that you don't believe first-hand experience shooting elk with a bullet that delivers less than 1500 ft-lbs is a good basis to form an opinion. Obviously because you've never done it."

Without commenting on it's validity, the 1,500 ft-lbs minimum apparently was generated by Whelen, and 2,000 ft-lb minimum was adopted by Boddington (the author of the chapter excerpted below). I think Boddington later downplayed this.

Why ??? Why did you do that ??? I was having fun watching him twist himself around on that
That was the low bar of knowledge he was using as a Litmus Test, it showed just how limited his knowledge base is, he thought that was important and that only an expert would know it LMAO

Now you spolied it ... wait for his predictable response

Marinehawk: These have been hashed over ad nauseum here so I know who proferred the magical benchmarks, but that's not really the question. The question (that numbnuts can't answer) is what are they based on?

So go ahead numbnuts, see if you can answer the question.

PS, Marinehawk I actually bought that book and I've got to say, what a disappointment. It's anything but the ultimate guide to elk hunting, but it is chock full of recycled information and cliches. So, right up numbnuts' alley, LOL.

And you're right, Boddington backed off on his "rule of thumb." Way off. Truth be told, the basis of these numbers was gunwriter's need to generate copy and give people like numbnuts a number they can cogitate on, pontificate, toss out to the great unwashed, and impress everyone with their "knowledge."

LMAO now even more, when the ignorant latch onto something that they think makes them "LOOK" smart, and follow it up with the name calling to match...



SmokingPoles: you have been weighed measured and found wanting,,, 31119 posts, my god man how much serious BS and misinformation have you laid down in the last 15 years on this forum..

Less than you have on this thread alone.

You did ask that question, and I dispassionately answered it. You never said you already knew who came up with the numbers. You asked "who came up with the 1500 ft-lb benchmark." I wasn't trying to answer all of your questions, just that one. Don't know why you're being so pissy with me.

I also never said anything about whether or not the book had any value. Boddington just wrote that one chapter.

All I can add to this thread is that IME, the proportion of folks citing energy as some magic killing threshold is usually inversely related to actually killing, on average....

This thread needs some coyote hunter ballistic tables.....grin...

Ooooo what a retort, it is so intelligent and well written, ran out of Smoke ??? because you were sure blowing some in this exchange

Two can play the insult game and it is obvious that you are outclassed in it as well the the knowledge base..

Sit down "Oracle" and be a good student now

Damn Smokingpoles you are just looking worse for the wear here

The only two people that said that are the guy smoking poles and another that thinks calling himself a kid is cool but hey that was the best they could do

Now I am going to go look for a coyote hunting thread

So true.
The axiom is an invented comfort for those who need answers without experience. Pretty meaningless to the thousands that are successful every year and are below it.

Why is it a point of pride to be below that threshold, really why is that something to brag about ???