Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Elk Hunting Friends Cow Hunt.

So my friend drew a Cow hunt for this fall, and he's thinking about using his .223. I am trying to convince him to use my .270 WSM instead, he doesn't like recoil. I have heard of a young boy taking a large 6pt with a .243, but I think the .223 is too light for the job even with a barnes bullet.

What do you all think? Anyone ever tried the .223 on Elk?

By the way I will be using my 300 saum on the same hunt.

What state are you hunting in? I doubt a .22 centerfire is even legal for elk. I am in Oregon and am pretty sure that the minimum is a .24 caliber, which is still on the extreme light side, in my opinion. I'd say put a limbsaver on a .270 and call it good.

Buck up camper don't be a wuss. Packing that elk out will be alot worse than .25 cal recoil!!!!!

If its legal, an X in the ear canal will work every time...

If that doesn't do it, the 270 kicks worse than the 06s to me.... point being speed of recoil is generally worse...

Pick a 308, and managed recoil ammo with a decent bullet.

The state is Utah, and it is legal. This is from the proclamation.

R
ifles and shotguns
R657-5-9
You may use a rifle or shotgun to take big game, but your firearm and ammunition must meet the following requirements:
your rifle must fire centerfire cartridges and � expanding bullets.
your shotgun must be 20 gauge or larger. � If you�re using a shotgun, you may use only slug ammunition or buckshot that�s 00 or larger in size.

The 270 already has a limbsaver on it, and he has fired it at the range before. Actually the reason he bought the .223 in the first place was on the advice of one of our co-workers and the gun counter person at Wal-mart that the .223 was plenty powerful for big game hunting. And like I said he doesn't like recoil.

+1

He did help me pack out an Elk last year while he was wing man since he didn't draw.

I agree that an X in the ear canal will work, but most shots are over 100 to 150 the terrain being a bit open; however my shot last year was only 70 yards but hard quartered away. Not a shot I would have wanted with a .223.

Personally I find the 270 wsm and any bullet a cream puff compared to any bullet in my saum, but I do load it to the maz. I like the idea of a .308 with managed recoil ammo, but he won't be buying a new rifle. So that leaves my 270, but I could load a 150gr Partition down quite a bit for him. In order to help nudge him in this direction I will be showing him the responses to this thread.

Load him ammo down if needed.

IMHO the elk head is a large target, with a scoped rifle 200 yards and less should be a chip shot. The need for a rest for the shot is there though.

How about slapping a brake on the 270? Its money, but we put one on my cousins 270 since he didn't like the recoil, you could watch the bullets cut paper after the brake was on there....

Jeff

I'd advise against it. I know folks get by with 24 and 25 calibers too, but I lean at least into the 270 range. I passed on a fine bull once because I had a less than optimal shot while packing a 257 Weatherby with 100 grain pills. With my 7 mag or 30-378, it would have been a very dead elk.

If he has the ability and patience to place slugs with surgical precision, then have it. My issue it that elk don't always offer the perfect pose, and one should definitely not try any bone crusher angles with a 223. A large elk just may be able to eat that slug and run for a long ways.

It is an unfortunate fact that Utah allows any centerfire. I recall watching two young guys trying to sight in a 220 Swift with factory loads getting ready for an elk hunt. They had gone with the lightest bullet they could get in order for it to shoot flatter. It just seems to me that the elk deserve better.

Anybody without a medical condition should be able to handle the recoil generated from cartridges that are suitable for cow elk, which in my book goes down to the .257 Roberts and .260 Remington class.

Don't use that 223. In my opinion it's borderline unethical. The bullet will lose way to much energy past a 150 yards or so. Not saying the animal won't die, but certainly not humanely or quickly, and probably won't leave a decent blood trail for tracking. TELL HIM HE'S AN IDIOT TO USE THAT 223 ON ELK AND THAT THE GUY WHO SOLD HIM ON IT IS AN EVEN BIGGER IDIOT.

[/quote]
Actually the reason he bought the .223 in the first place was on the advice of one of our co-workers and the gun counter person at Wal-mart that the .223 was plenty powerful for big game hunting. [/quote]

Um...thats the problem. Tell those two folks, "Here's your sign".

Taking a .223 elk hunting is pure foolishness. If your lucky, you might actually kill one relatively quick. Probably going to be a long chase with no blood trail. Best of the worst cases would be that you'll merely cause a flesh wound that will heal after a while. Worst case is that you cause a fatal wound that takes days or months to kill the beast.

Like another said, the elk deserve better than that.

If recoil is such a problem, maybe big game hunting isn't his cup of tea.

Take a look at the first post in this thread.

https://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbth...lat/Number/2306447/page/1/gonew/1#UNREAD

I can vouch for this. I once shot a small Blacktail buck in California with a 22-250. Went through the neck and the deer just shook its head and stepped forward. Second shot was right through the shoulder blade. Bullet broke up on impact but cut up the lungs quite a bit. Deer fell down but before I could get to him he was up and moving off. A shot from my uncle's .243 put the lights out for good. First and only time I've ever used a .22 for anything bigger than a coyote. Never again. And a 100 pound Blacktail is a lot less mass to get through than a cow elk.

Well Larry, ya gotta admit that if the 22-250 in the neck didn't drop him, the loudenboomer mag would not have either. That was poor shot placement plain and simple. That example isn't apples to apples at all.

Borderline? There's no border in sight. It's HIGHLY unethical. Calling a 223 elk 'hunter' an idiot is way too polite.

Your right about the shot placement. It did not hit the bone. Missed high on that one, I believe and just hit a little bit of meat.

Did the same thing a couple years later on a near record book Blacktail buck with a 30-30. Hit high in the neck but that time I chipped bone from the top of the neck and even exposed the spinal cord. That one didn't drop him either. But, the next shot with the 30-30, thru the lungs did him in rather quickly. Would a .223 thru the chest like that have dropped him within that same forty feet or so? Heck, I dunno, but I sure wouldn't have wanted to find out, he was too nice to lose to a poor caliber choice.

The apples to apples in my previous example would have been the shot to the chest with the 22-250. On a small deer, the bullet broke up and just did a poor job. Would a better bullet have killed him on the spot? Dunno, I gave up on such nonsense years ago and went to reasonable bore sizes, so I've never used a premium bullet in the coyote guns. But, I do know that a plain old Winchester Power-point, Remington CL, or Federal HSSP (run of the mill factory ammo) out of a 30-06 would have planted that buck where he stood. So there's your apples.

The example was to show that 22's don't have the bullet size and weight to handle all the myriad of shots one might have to take while elk hunting. If a chest shot on a small buck is a challenge, then whats a shot on an elk going to be like? Premium bullets will help of course, but still, the wound channel isn't going to be all that large. Add to that small entrance wounds with the probable outcome of no exit hole, and you have very little in the way of a blood trail...pretty much zero. Elk hair soaks up blood like a sponge. I put big 50 cal holes in em' and the blood trail is still thinner than I would like until right near the end.

So, why take the chance on losing one or several to the coyotes when there are tons of rifles availble that are better suited to the job? I mean hell, if a .223 is a great elk gun, then we outta be able to use a 17HMR too eh? Pop em in the ear hole. Heck, how about 22LRs...they kill cattle pretty good.

Ethics and the 223 apply to paper and varmints. I personally don't consider the application of 22 caliber rifles to big game hunting appropriate, much less ethical regardless of case size. Lots of thers do, but that's why they're called opinions. I simply have more respect for the game than some others.

Pretty well sums up my opinion on the matter.

Your friend is obviously inexperienced when it comeds to elk. Given that, the minimum I would recommend would be a .260, 7mm-08 or .270 with good 130-160g bullets.

Last week Daughter #2 was at the range with me and was shooting one of my .30-06's while wearing a tank top with straps - nothing covering the shoulders. That .30-06 is a Ruger with a hard buttplate rather than a recoil pad. Your friend needs to man up.

Good news. He's finally been convinced to use my 270 WSM with 150 partitions. I will load them to 2900, it shouldn't phase him at all. In fact I am about to load up the cases right now for the range tomorrow.

The myriad of shots is why I hunt with something larger... I personally wouldn't think of less than 30 cal 200 grains... but I prefer to be able to take any shot offered.

That being said there are a lot of standard rounds I would not risk any shot with, 06 is one of them...

Glad he decided to pass the 223, I wouldn't have an issue at all using it, especially on a cow private ranch, where you could wait for a good head shot...

Just me.

Jeff