Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Elk Hunting 7mm mag on elk vs. heavier calibers

Coyotehunter,

I never qualified my statement �for the shots you take� with the word �most�, that was your mistake to try and make a point.

I would never choose a cartridge that was adequate for �most of the shots� and I never said as much.

I understand you have a burr under your saddle regarding me but try and stick to what I say as opposed to what you wish I said.

I can�t imagine a bad shot on an animal being fixed with more penetration. There has to be vitals at the end of the penetration to make it work.

Pick the lightest recoiling cartridge/bullet combination that will always get to the vitals with the shots you will take and you will be the most effective.

I also imagine we have a different opinion of �shoot well�. Seeing as I get down to Loveland quite often we could meet at the range and compare our definitions of �shoot well�??

...
Use the minimum [cartridge] that will kill the bull with the shots you will take and you will shoot better and be way more effective.

I'm all shot out of AMAXs right now or I'd throw up comparisions. My 7 RemMag and 7 Shamwow don't let me kiss lands with either bullet loaded in the magizines. So it's no big deal. The Amax is a very accurate bullet in both the above and the 280.

The bigger guns are more difficult to shoot and therefore a hunter is more likely to have a bad shot. You may or may not agree.

By reducing the recoil a hunter will be able to take and make shots not possible with the hard recoiling cartridges. Most of us can shoot the big guns well enough for most of the shots taken but my point is to use precision to make the tough shots not power to make up for a bad shot.

When choosing a cartridge/bullet combination I would recommend picking precision over power.

+1 ...Ive seen a boat load of hunters miss using "big magnum's" over the yrs from the recoil alone. 25yr experienced outfitter in Alberta told me last year,...'I'd rather my hunter's bring a 7-08 rather than a 300win mag because I have seen lot less misses with lighter recoil rifles.

I don't know how a person quantifies that....at least from a standpoint you can measure,and I mean terminally,(not wind drift,trajectory, etc),in terms of effect on animals because emperically we know,through our own experiences and those of others,that both "kill",effectively, humanely.

In our minds we all want the animal down and dead as completely and quickly as possible so we look very hard for a combination that does this all the time,but we find after awhile that there is no combination that does it consistently, thoroughly,and abruptly every single time.

This is because we look for things that throw animals to the ground, swats them,like a club,and that is not what a rifle does,although we see it happen at times......JOC once wrote that a rifle is a tool designed to administer a surgical function at a distance....following that line of thought, a bullet becomes a scalpel,not a battering ram....

..bullet weight, diameter,striking velocity,placement and construction all affect the size of the wound and the rifle allows us to "do the surgery"where it does the most good.Large calibers throw bigger scalpals,in theory creating larger wound channels, but the thing to focus on, in my mind anyway,is not what "advantage"the bullet has in weight and frontal area as it flies toward an animal(although this is important in getting on target),but rather what advantage in weight and frontal area does it hold after it hits, how does it behave,and what kind of wound does it inflict(?)

A perfect example is what JB posted on another thread on Elmer Keith,and his use of lousy,heavy bullets from a 333 OKH in Africa,on animals he'd have killed well and cleanly with a 30/06 and 180 Partitions.Elmer spent a lot of time chasing animals because the big bullets broke up without doing enough damage in the right place...to Elmer the answer was "bigger bullets" because African animals are "tough"...is that lethal effect(or a lack of it)that we can "measure"?

I dunno....

Another good post Bob! Flingin' scalpels... I like that.

You know though, I do feel like that in my .358 I have a rifle that truly does hammer our relatively small deer down in a way I haven't seen other cartridges provide in the same way. Plus, the "big" scalpel is typically moving slower than the small, fast scalpel. Velocity kills- but it does it by really tearing up meat, or at least the potential for that seems greater. A big chunk of bullet, in this case a .35, at 2500 fps is both very... authoritative while not costing you a half a deer if you shoot through shoulders <g>.

Whether a cartridge that has similar effect on a bull elk while still having tolerable recoil even exists, I have no idea. I think those of us carrying .338's and .325's and so on, would like to THINK our rifles are like that.

Jeff,

You do understand the AMAX will open faster and penetrate less bone than a VLD??

I don�t think it will be a problem but AMAXs are simply cup and core with the addition of the plastic tip that initiates expansion on contact.

Not saying there is anything wrong with the AMAX but you seemed concerned about using the VLDs on elk.

I have no qualms with my 338 wm. It puts the elk down with authority and is very manageable.

Lil Fish is on the run

muzzle brakes SUCK