Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Elk Hunting In defense of big rifles

...

There are three common ways that good bullets get a bad reputation I believe - maybe more:
...

3. Some folks combine what they don't see - bullets which pass through leaving smallish exits- with what they hear and believe what they think they ought to. I think the original X got a bad performance rep this way based on less "pencils" than what people were thinking they saw. Mostly even they worked just like most Failsafes: splendidly, in spite of the rather small four-cornered exit through the hide. And Partitions can also do a similar thing. Combine that skinny hole with placement that isn't perfect and voila', "it's a bad bullet".

Time for my meds; gack-attack.

There are three common ways that good bullets get a bad reputation I believe - maybe more:

1. Some people assume that a good bullet somehow forgives the errors of poor shooting. When they are used - on guided hunts in this case- and they don't do well, who's going to blame the "money" - in this case the client?

2. Some people, perhaps using a bullet early in their experience, misinterpret what they see and blame, obviously, the bullet. (Hey, it doesn't look like the ones in the mag ads and articles.)

3. Some folks combine what they don't see - bullets which pass through leaving smallish exits- with what they hear and believe what they think they ought to. I think the original X got a bad performance rep this way based on less "pencils" than what people were thinking they saw. Mostly even they worked just like most Failsafes: splendidly, in spite of the rather small four-cornered exit through the hide. And Partitions can also do a similar thing. Combine that skinny hole with placement that isn't perfect and voila', "it's a bad bullet".

Time for my meds; gack-attack.

The best scenario for good shot placement of the bullet is when the animal is positioned broadside or slightly quartering away and the bullet placed into the high shoulder area (#3) hitting the shoulder blade (scapula) and part of the spine (see skeletal picture). Or placing bullet right on the middle of shoulder (#2) attempting to break BOTH shoulders and lungs, or just behind the shoulder into the heart/lung area (#1).

While I agree with everything you said, I have to say the X bullets may have gotten their reputation for unreliable expansion honestly, at least in part, by providing unreliable expansion.

Here�s a summary of my very limited experiences with X bullets:

1. Dropped a coyote at 100 yards with my 7mm RM and a 160g XLC running 3020fps at the muzzle, estimated impact at 2840fps. The coyote dropped like a stone. On examination I found no blood and no entrance or exit wounds (I did not skin it). Many times I have joked I merely scared it to death. Still scratching my head on that one, looked like zero expansion.

2. Dropped a second coyote with the same load, range about 50 yards, estimated impact 2930fps. Hit it on the run, broadside, taking out a section of the spine and leaving a �U� shaped channel wound. Looked like instant expansion on impact.

3. Dropped a buck antelope with the same load at 297 yards, estimated impact 2500fps. Two through the chest cavity left a very sick antelope. It laid down but kept its head up as if sunning itself. I spent 15 minutes circling around for a closer shot and as I got to about 75 yards the antelope struggled to its feet and tried to walk off. A third bullet hit the ribs on a quartering away shot, taking the top of the heart. On inspection the first two wound channels showed very little sign of expansion while the third looked more probable.

My intent was to use the 160g XLC�s for elk that season. Instead I fell back on my old Grand Slam load (and took two elk with them, a 5x5 and a cow). Since then I have developed loads for the TSX and banished the XLC�s to the target range. So far I have yet to take anything with a TSX and have had hesitancy to use it due to my experiences with the XLC�s and the occasional report of TSX failing to expand. Instead I have been switching to the MRX and TTSX. One antelope with the TTSX (.308 Win, 168g TTSX) and some testing with water jugs has provided me with more confidence in the tipped versions.

Coyote
Why would you hunt a yote, with a heavy for caliber elk bullet and expect lots of expansion. While the X series have been nothing but impressive to me from 50 yards or so out to just over 800, you were shooting a bullet that was designed to take some resistance to expand... And that was/is the reason for differing bullets for different size animals. I wouldn't want a quick expansion one on an elk.

The antelope wasn't much different IMHO. 70 pounds vs 500 plus for the use of the bullet.

Of course you hit bone with that bullet instead of much of nothing of resistance and it'll usually help expand the bullet.

Your results are about exactly what I'd have expected.

For yotes I don't think you need an X, but if so I"d have certainly been thinking fast 120.....

As to my results, I'm pleased since the mid 90s IIRC, mabye early 90s... Caliber in entry, and double or so size, nothing huge on exits but I can't recall ever recovering one, even from a lung shot and a spine shot at 802 on a caribou. Both of which expanded.

This is meant to be a somewhat lighthearted rebuttal to what seems to be almost a backlash against larger rifles, even for what would be condsidered "large" game animals such as elk. I've read a number of threads (not just on the 'Fire) where you'd swear there was almost a competition to see who can tout the smallest caliber as being all that is needed to cleanly take elk at, say, out to a light year, give or take. Something along the lines of:

"Dang guys, I've been loading up neutrons over .0000001 grains of H4350 for years and filling my tag. Anybody that needs more than that obviously can't hunt well enough to get close and/or is trying to overcompensate for poor marksmanship."

Ok, maybe not quite that but I bet you know what I mean.

Look, I understand the concept of "adequate" and there's not really a functional use for the word "deader" but I think more...now stay with me here I beg...can, under certain circumstances CAN be better. Let me indulge myself enough to throw this out there:

Who here would hunt, say, a Cape Buff with a .243? Why not? Wait wait sit down please! Seriously, why not? Because you don't necessarily think the cartridge is up to the task? Ok, fine, me neither. How about an '06? I will say right now I have absolutely no doubt that the '06 has killed Cape Buffalo. No, I can't cite examples but I doubt anybody else thinks it hasn't been done. Does that make an '06 "adequate" for Cape Buffalo? The late Larry Kelly killed pretty much anything that breathes oxygen...with a .44 magnum handgun. That includes the African Big Five. So a .44 will kill an elephant? Yep. Would I attempt it? Umm, no. (say guys, I must have left something back in the 'Rover, I'll be right back...not) So, if something smaller CAN kill something why would anybody ever use something larger? I think there's two reasons.

First, "larger" isn't necessarily accurate to begin with. A .300 Wby is no larger a caliber than a 30/30 but it does shoot things of that caliber lots faster. This can be a huge aid in hitting something. I loooove flat trajectory. My first rifle was a 30/30, my second was a 7mm Rem Mag. It was just silly. Ranging essentially ceased to be an issue. Point, bang, flop, clean. But for this discussion lets say the point two of bigger isn't "just" trajectory but delivering more in and of itself. I respectfully submit that the reason people tend to use, we'll say "plenty" of gun on grizzlies/cape buff and such is because somehow "adequate to kill" doesn't seem to make you feel warm and fuzzy. In fact your mind goes to the possibility of being gored/stomped on/clawed/chewed on BY something warm and fuzzy. So, again, exactly why are you carrying that .338/.340/.375/.416/.45-70? Do you expect things of it the other (lesser?) cartridges do not? If not, you're carrying them why? So...

Does whatever real or perceived advantages of those bigger cartridges simply not apply to game like elk? Perhaps it's just the fact that when things don't go exactly as planned you aren't breaking into a cold sweat and beginning to really worry about more than a long tracking job or getting a carcass out of some nasty stuff? Again, respectfully, I submit that what you're feeling when you consider what is "adequate" for elk being a whole lot less than what you would consider for a brown bear is "margin for error", or MFE. Being on the bad side of MFE with an elk is another world entirely than for a big bruin. So I put it to you, is an elk less deserving of the MFE?

OK, and now for my concessions;
I love my .340 but yeah, it kicks. It's also on the heavier side. Then again, I've got no interest in shooting a 6.5lb .340. As I grow older though it isn't the recoil as much as lugging the thing around.

It's still sinking into my head how good modern bullets have become. Less really can do more than what you once might have needed. (ok, I said it)

My last rifle purchase was a little Tikka T3 Light Stainless in...308. God help me it's wonderful.

Ok dammit! Concessions over! C'mon you Weatherby people! You .338 "anything on the continent with this one rifle" people! You guys in the woods with your 45-70's and 450's! Let me hear you!!!

So, in the light of a campfire....

How hungry would be hungry enough to keep you from trying to eat a Cape Buffalo before you eat a coyote, if all you had was a .243 ?