Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Elk Hunting Standard Cartridges for Elk

I think people get a false sense of security from using the belted wonders. I watched a cow elk take a hit from a 375 HH at a lazered 219 yds. That bullet went thru her liver, lungs and lodged in the off side leg. Her reaction wasn't any different than if she'ld of been hit with a 270, she went about 50 yds before she piled up. Had she of been in the timber instead of in the open it might of been a pretty good trick to find her, the blood trail was virtually non existant.

It's not the fault of the chambering you choose that you make a crappy shot. If you're a good rifleman you're a good rifleman and making excuses about recoil or not being used to the scope or whatever is just silly.

Whatever round you choose you still have to make the shot that does the job. The difference between a higher energy round and standard ones is trajectory at ranges over about 300 yards, remaining impact energy out there, and deeper penetration at all of the ranges you shoot.

It's just a bit of (unrequired in most cases) insurance for the once in a while shots or follow up shots at less than perfect angles. It won't make a liver hit any more fatal but shooting less gun doesn't automatically make you a better shot.

Lots of African game was killed with the .303 British back in the day too. That doesn't make it the best gun for the job.

Being careful means ( my opinion)
practicing at longer ranges , not just at 100yds
practicing shooting kneeling, sitting, prone, and offhand.
practicing with different loads to check group and consistency
oh yeah, did I mention practice?
Art/Wyoming

Why is it assumed that if someone has a mag or big bore that they don't practice shooting.

I don't practice much with my .338-06. I don't have to.
All my rifles are built the same. They all have similar stocks. The triggers are all tuned the same. They all have the same mounts and similar scopes. The loads are very close for trajectory as well.

I can shoot all day long with my 7mm-08, and then pick up the .338-06 and hit what I'm aiming at because they feel the same. I don't adjust how I shoot to which rifle I have in my hands.

If you are saying that caliber doesn't make up for bad shot placemant I absolutely agree- kinda. This has been repeated so many times as to become the mantra of the small caliber set, but it does not necessarily translate into smaller calibers always being as good as larger. If we are shooting deer sized game maybe, but Elk are big and a .338 seems to hit them noticably harder than say a 30-06. Especially if the range stretches out a bit or the angle is less than perfect. Even when the game is deer I have never had anything put deer down in their tracks as consistently as a .338 and 200gr Ballistic Tip - but that is another story. When I hunt anything I want a caliber and bullet combination that can take the animal from any angle and any reasonable range. I also want to stop the animal as close to "in his tracks" as I can. For all of the above BIGGER IS BETTER. We all know about Bell and his 7x57 and elephants. I'm not Bell and sometimes my shot is less than perfect (can you imagine). Bigger has unquestionably bought me a few animals that would not have been mine otherwise. As for Texas heart shots, I may not start with one but I shoot until the animal is down. If it turns to run I will do my best to put one where the "sun don't shine" every time. Its not pretty but sometimes the actual killing just isn't.

Hey, let's turn this crazy subject around, just where do you think enough "BIGGER" is better. Do you stop at a boozka, howitzer or where, -- for game found here in the states?

I always thought any caliber large enough or strong enough to shoot through and animal was sufficent to kill it.
Just because handloaders work up a pet load for their favorite rifle all it does is kill the animal just like an over the counter load. Ammo companies spend thousands of dollars proving their components and they are appearently doing the job all over the world. The short comming lies with some of these "hunters" that take shots that are less than desireable and blame it on the caliber. We all hunt for many different reasons but the bottom line is we should be hunting for the food,(meat), trophy hunters hunt just to feed their ego, (look what I did, me great hunter). Look at my rifle, bigggg sucker, I can kill everything big enough to die!!! Think about it! Most don't hunt squirrels with a 3006, why not??? -- no

<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/help.gif" alt="" />

Who hasn't shot squirls with an 'ol 06?

It can be done. Just make sure you use a premium bullet! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Instead of questioning why some people use bigger more powerful magnums on larger game let me ask why some people are so opposed to using bigger more powerful magnums on larger game?
Are they so nostalgic that they cant stand to leave their .270win/.30-06 at home or are they unable to shoot heavy recoiling guns accurately? I truly believe some people fall into the later category but will simply never admit it to themselves let alone others. I know someone is going to say �the older standard cartridges are proven performers that kill game every damn day�, that is certainly true but really isn�t my point since we�re talking about Elk.
If you can shoot a magnum as well as a .270win why in the world wouldn�t you shoot the magnum on Elk sized game?
Honestly I�m baffled� Is it because the older �standard� calibers kill just as effectively? If you mean more effectively as is a dead animal yes all guns/knives/pointed sticks perform identically. However when you talk about delivered energy at range then some calibers are simply and purely inferior to others for hunting Elk and larger game.
At 200yds a .270win 150gr sp has ONLY 1600ftlb, a .30-06 shooting 180gr sp has just over that same 1600ftlb of energy, compare both of those to a .300wby 180gr sp with 3200ftlb of energy. Obviously the .300wby is more effective than the .270win and the .30-06 and it gets even more effective as the ranges open up. The .300wby will carry 2000ftlb of energy out to 500yds when the .270win drops below 2000ftlb a little ways past 100yds, ditto the .30-06.
We shouldn�t be asking �why in the world do you shoot magnums on elk�. The question should be �why in the world DON�T you shoot magnums on elk�.

How about because my 30-06 fully loaded is 40in long and 7lbs? When it comes right down to it, I really like my 14" Contender really well.

I find it amazing the handgun hunters are perfectly happy with much less power than folks using standard rifles. They happen to kill elk just as dead. Maybe it's perspective. The 308/30-06/280 has been doing the job along time. What made it uneffective all of a sudden? Just how dead can you kill it? As I've said before, 300yds is my limit. If I can't get closer than 300yds the critter wins that round. If people can get close enough to use a bow or revolver, surely I can get close enough to use a 30-06.

300wby, this is the second thread I've noticed you bragging up the magnums. So now I've got a couple of questions for ya.
1. How many elk have you shot and with what cartridges, and what lead you to think you had to shoot a magnum.
2. If a magnum is necessary why did you settle on the 300 and not move on up to something like the 340,378, or 416?

300Wby
What is the minimum energy level required for Elk?
Mike D.

Again having to defend the choice of huntin with a magnum.



#1 I�ve killed 18 elk, 5 being bulls. I�ve never hunted Elk with anything other than 7mmrem (0 Elk), .300win (3elk) or 300wby (15 Elk). My longest shot on a cow was right around 340yds, shortest about 30yds and most being 150+. What �led me to think I had to shoot a magnum�, a combination of things really including the type of land we hunt in; high, open country. Also my choice has come from my father who always advocated shooting a bigger gun on bigger animals. Started me on .22lr then carried a .243, then shot my first buck with a .270win. When I graduated to the 7mm he took me hunting for elk. My father has shot .270win for deer and .300wby for elk ever since I can remember. BTW I don�t �have� to hunt elk with a magnum; it�s a choice not a mandate.

#2 Settle on a .300? A number of reasons: manageable recoil, shoots flat, hits hard. Another reason is depending on my tags I am hunting elk and deer at the same time. I think the 340, 378, 416 are too much for deer.

Anything else you wanna know? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />

That�s a rhetorical question right?

300Wby
You're promoting the use of magnums. I am curious to what your thoughts are for a minimum energy level that would be required to take an Elk.
Mike D.

So, 300 WBY, you've never hunted elk with a standard caliber rifle, and never seen one killed with one, either? In fact, all of your experience is with 300 magnums. You have no idea if a 308 would have done as well. Or a 243 for that matter.

If you had only hunted rabbits with the 300 WBY, then using your logic, are you also going to tell us that the 22 LR is inadequate for bunnies?

I have killed a few more elk than you have, 1 with a 308, 1 with a 30-06, and the rest with a 270. I have also seen about 40 shot besides the ones I have shot, mostly with 270/308 and 30-06 rifles. Ranges run from 20 yds or so, to distances with a 5 as the first number. Most between 200-350 yds, measured, not guessed at. Every elk hit soundly dropped within 100 yds, except one 4 pt hit with a 300 WBY at 200 yds, who ran 200 yds.

As you've never seen an elk fairly hit with a standard caliber rifle, you are in no position to comment about their adequacy. The only thing you can say from experience is that a 300 magnum is adequate.

I've heard that 1500 FPE is what you need to kill an elk.
I've heard that 2000 FPE is what you need to kill an elk.

But how about 2 Pound Seconds of Momentum? (Momentum is calculated by V*W/225,120, where V is velocity, and W is bullet weight.)

But that even is marginal for how effectively something will kill, isn't every number?

I don�t presume to know an exact number. Do you?

Here is a quote I just found.
"I will say that a serious long-range elk rifle should be able to deliver 2,000 foot/pounds of energy at 400 yards-and whatever point the energy falls below that figure is that cartridge's practical limit.
-Craig Boddinton �American Hunting Rifles� Copyright 1995

Mr. Boddington certainly knows more about cartridges and hunting than I do and I think he is unbiased and sensible.

That�s your own assumption I never said anything like that.


What in the world are you talking about? This thread has been a very reasonable discussion until now�


Of course! I wouldn�t expect anything but the best from you. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />


Of course! The ONE animal you saw run was shot by a .300wby, how incredibly relevant to the topic at hand. LOL
I don�t doubt you, I just admire how your experiences are so in line with this topic in particular.


Again, that�s your own assumption I never said anything regarding that.


If we follow your logic as mentioned above then you have no position to say that anything other than your .270, .30-06 or .308 is needed.