Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Elk Hunting Enough energy for elk?

#1 I fully agree with you on your math. I maybe didn't state it correctly. I wasn't talking plus/minus 6 inches. Either way, the fact is that equipment and cartridges aren't perfect. Then we add some wind variation, human error, and other variables, and noone on this forum can say they can place their first shot through a Cheerio at 400 yards. Even though I am sure some will claim they can.


#2 I didn't say that the 325 is a super powerful cartridge. I really like the 30-06 and the 338 as well, but think my 325 will do me well in the field. In many places on this forum people have talked about 1500 ftlbs of energy as the "magic number" for elk. The cartidge/bullet I shoot carries just shy of 2200 ftlbs at 400 yards which is probably all of 400 ftlbs more than the majority of 30-06's at that distance (approx. 25% higher). To me that is pretty significant.
As for the increase in caliber, I think we underestimate the difference caliber makes on wound channel. I am not saying that from 30 to 325 is huge, but from my 7mm to my 325 is pretty significant. I consider wound channel not only the hole the bullet causes, but also the shock wave propagation through the animal. In my opinion, and I am sure some sort of analysis/study could be done, an increase in caliber given the other factors remain the same, makes an underestimated difference on wound channel.

Amen to that, JB.

I've had no problem at all killing elk with 270, 280, 30-06, 308 class cartridges. Carrying a light, well fitting rifle, practice at shooting in field positions, basic knowledge of game anatomy versus shot angle, and getting the shot off quickly has greatly improved my practical shot placement over the years. Not bench shooting. And especially not shooting a rifle that kicks me into next year.

My 338WM spends lots of time in the back of the safe. I love it, but I don't need it to kill elk.

Mule Deer; well said and well put. You are almost too logical for a rifle loony, there are times ( usually new gun buying time) when the two don't go well together. But I've seen you at new gun time, and you don't let it get in your way.
You also know me and this whole energy/ shot placement deal. Killed elk with all sorts of calibers,the two favorites being .300 H&H and the 7x57. Elk did not seem to show a preference.
Very thankfully its no longer an issue with me because a few years ago MY energy level went south, I am happily and gratefully leaving the elk to younger men!
Ingwe

Yes, it does seem that it's getting more difficult to hawl them out, as I get older.

I didn't get an elk last year. I had one good opportunity though. I had a three-minute look at a five-point bull standing broadside at 200 yards. Just as I was about to start squeezing the trigger, my buddy leaned over and whispered into my ear "KC we are seven miles from the truck." Had it been a six-point, I would have finished the job.

KC

KC,

Takes a real hunter to make that choice. Being fairly young I'm pretty gung ho to shoot elk wherever I can find them. Even miles into the back country. However, after having a pretty big dose of reality the last couple years I now have it stuck in my head to think of getting said animal out before pulling the trigger also.

Cacciatore,

Let me follow up just a little.

On (1), even a medium-sized elk's really vital area is at least a foot wide. It isn't hard to hit at 400 yards for a decent rifleman. The cartridge has little to do with it, or even half-inch accuracy. What has something to do with it is the person on the trigger.

On (2) again. According to the world's top forensic ballisticians, there is no "shock wave" that makes any difference in killing power. Yes, there are ripples that fan out from the bullet's impact, but they have no bearing on what we are talking about.

What does is the permanent wound channel, the severe damage to vital tissue. This has nothing to do with hydrostatic shock (which doesn't exit) or any of the other mumbo-jumbo that hunters like to talk about. It has to do with how big a hole a bullet puts through an animal, and this has more to do with bullet contruction than minor differences in kinetic energy, such as 400 foot-pounds.

Yes, bullet diameter has something to do with killing power, but the difference between a .308 and .323 bullet isn't enough to be seen when shooting either ballistic "media" or an elk. Believe me, I have seen plenty of the holes from both. In fact, you would be extremely discouraged if you saw the permanent wound channels made in various kinds of ballistic media with the bullets from a bunch of different cartridges.

There is nothing wrong with a .325 and 200-grain AccuBonds for elk hunting. But it isn't a .338, much less a .375. It is just another of dozens of cartridges of somewhere around .30 caliber that do a good job--if a good bullet is put in the right place.

But another 400 foot-pounds or 20 grains or bullet or .015 of bullet diameter will not make much difference. Look at it this way: 400 foot pounds is about the energy a 50-grain Nosler Ballistic Tip from a .223 retains at 400 yards. That is enough to kill a 2-pound prairie dog quite neatly, and will even kill a coyote--if it hits the coyote in the right place. But it ain't going to make any difference to a 750-pound elk.

In fact, a couple of years ago in Africa I watched a guy trying to kill a zebra about the size of a bull elk with a .325. It didn't go too well, even at 150 yards, and not because the .325 doesn't have enough power. Instead the problem was the bullet. He was shooting the 220-grain Power Point factory load, a fairly stout bullet that generally retains at least 2/3 of it's weight. But it also expands way too widely for deep penetration--and wasn't getting all the way through the zebra's chest. The impact energy was close to 3000 foot-pounds, but the bullet wasn't making a permanent wound channel through enough vital tissue. And as far as the zebra was concerned, the "shock wave" didn't exist.

Just one question: How many elk have you shot with your .325?

The DOW lower limit for elk is 85 grain bullet with 1000 ft/lbs at 100 yards. An 85 grain bullet launched at 2600 fps gives 1000 ft/lbs of energy.

JB, That's a great example and reminder of how unimpressive "energy" alone can be. There is really nothing like seeing a hundred something -or more- pound animal absorb "tremendous" energy to realize the huge difference between using shoulder fired rifles to blow up small critters (like PDs) and humanely killing bigger game. (I have sometimes wondered just what it would take to actually "PD" and animal the size of a deer or bigger. I'm certain I don't want to fire such a weapon from the shoulder though!) And, neither recoil nor muzzle blast impress target species in the least either I've noticed, another phenomenon which some folks seem to get side-tracked by.

Thanks once again for your common sense, evidence based opinion. Lots of experience and less voodoo, anytime.

Exactly what MD has been talking about all along, great advice.

I just can't imagine that anyone could think the 30.06 not powerful enough for elk at any reasonable range. It is probably the most widely used all-around big game round in this country and likely the world too. I don't use it much lately. My current favorite the .280AI with the 160gr. bullet, but it has nothing over the old .06 in the real world. I think that one should use enough gun to get the job done, but after reaching that point more power doesn't seem to make them any deader.

I have seen too many broken legs from hunters taking too long shots, it works most of the time, but sooner or later you going to shoot low...I prefer to limit shots to 300 yards...I "hunt" elk. If everything is perfect I might take a 400 yard broadside shot on a deer or elk and more likely on a big moose, but I try to decrease the range in every way possible. 400 yards is streatching the 30-06 IMO.

Heck, 400 yards is stretching me a whole lot more than my .30-06!

FC

I gotta admit I'm somewhat of the Caccitore mindset. It is both correct and incorrect to simply state something like "energy doesn't kill critters". How about we say "damage" kills critters and "damage to vitals" kills even better? How much "energy" does an arrow have? Do arrows kill elk? I think we'd agree they do, IF they cut their way (do damage) to enough things that matter. But bullets don't work like arrows. They are MUCH smaller and, compared to a broadheaed, very dull. So, what does a bullet require to do what is asked of it? Some viable combination of weight and velocity. Here's the problem, I've basically just set forth the parameters of kenetic energy, haven't I? Let's try a quick little run of scenarios.

I'm holding a 250gr .338 Nosler Partition. I now:

Walk up to an elk and throw it at his lungs from 10' as hard as I can. Assuming he doesn't fall over laughing, I've accomplished nothing.

Now I get a really strong slingshot and bust him with another Partition. He may actually feel that from 10' but that's about it.

Now we can keep walking up the scale adding a couple hundred FPS as we go and what will we find? At some point (and don't ask me where) from 10' I'm gonna get that bullet through that dude's hide and into a lung. Yea! But how much damage did I really do? Did I even get the bullet to expand much? What if I gotta do this at 100 yds instead of 10'? What if instead of him just standing there broadside I'm going to have to go through a shoulder? NOW how much more am I gonna need? And at what distance can I maintain that lethality without having to add, dare I say it, more "energy"?

Jump forward and ask yourself if an '06 will kill an elk. You betcha. Grizzly? Well, yeah. Big Brownie? I'm sure it can but you'll never see me go afield with that plan. Cape Buffalo? Elephant? I'll tell you right now I'm positive somebody, and likely several somebody's have done so. You want to try? Be my guest but I'll stay in the Range Rover thank you.

See, my argument is that there really is a practical standpoint for what "can" work and what, quite simply, is "more appropriate". I wouldn't think twice about a quarter facing bull at 250 yds with my .340 and a good rest. I honestly doubt I'd take that shot with a .243 off a bench in ideal conditions. Move that bull broadside to me at 75yds and all I'm worried about is how far I'm going to have to pack out.

Sorry I got long winded but I'm just one of those guys that, if given the option (and thank God I am) of what to carry afield I'll tend to err on the side of "more than I'll likely ever need but enough for even the worst case scenario".

For the record, I hope all of you DRT everything you ever shoot at and I don't care what caliber you do it with.

I am not arguing that more rifle isn't better. I have killed several semi-loads of big game with cartridges from the various .300 magnums on up, and am a big fan not just of the .300 magnums but the .338, 9,3x62 and .375 H&H, among others, because they have killed a lot of game for me.

But I have also shot quite a few bigger-than-deer animals with the .30-06 at ranges from 350-450 yards, and it worked just fine in every instance. I do not claim to be the world's best shot, but it worked, and I saw it work. The bullets did not bounce off, and they expanded and penetrated sufficiently, often more than sufficiently.

The only reason I keep posting on this thread is that somebody with a vague idea of what actually kills animals (such as shock waves) started talking about how a .325 WSM is a big jump up from a .30-06. This has not been my experience. In my experience it takes something like a .338 with 225's at the minimum and preferably something of .35 and up with 250-300 grain bullets to beat the old '06 in the hands of somebody who can shoot. And even then you won;t notice much difference on many animals.

One quote I probably use too often comes from my friend Phil Shoemaker: "Anybody who says the .30-06 is inadequate for big game hunting is inadvertently commenting on their own marksmanship." That may not be the exact quote, but it is close...

I think you can take all the 30's 8mm's and 338's and put them in one big pile,and you can't tell the difference.....

Guyandarifle, good post. I quess my position is that beinging with say, a 6.5x55 or so, more gun will make little if any difference in killing power on game up to elk, even if rounds as large as the .300Win. are used. I personally have no meaningfull experience with anything larger that. This is given that the range is kept reasonable and for my argument that means 400yds or less. My position also assumes good bullets are used.

My thought's exactly... which is why I like a light 300 WSM the best of all the medium magnums.

If you have to ASK...The answer is NO...

I'm not sure that I agree with that (which isn't saying that I necessarily disagree either) but....

I think that anyone who has hunted "a bit" with a variety of calibers and cartridges in this power range will easily recall some of the instances where either "all that power" was not tremendously impressive, or "that puny thing" did "that"? And that is the reality that one is faced with. Though statistically a certain cartridge may have some advantage over others, there is enough overlap in the anomalies to prevent the decisive statements we would like to be able to make about our favorites. And that is probably what has led me back to where I started in many respects. The plain, boring old 30-06 - a blued and walnut one even- has been put to use quite a bit these days though there is no question that the old 340 will knock things just as dead. They both work well when used well; they both fail equally when not.

...and what Ray, and John, (and even Phil by paraphrase) say is priceless.