Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Rifles A Girl, An Elk, A 243 Win/105VLD and 688yds makes elk steaks

John, 6K for your rifles, Ill take one, thats cheap, LOL. How does that young ladies rifle group out to 600yds(MOA)?

B&C stock, or the more gooder H-S Precision?

Thanks John, nice video.

Congratulations to the young lady on her Elk.

Thanks for doing your part in the outdoor shooting/hunting industry.

A bit of stretch for that caliber/cartridge in my book, but it looks like it worked.

The shot was made and was successful; this is indisputable. Many people like to hunt this way and, I suppose, it's OK. I do not. I would not even attempt such a shot though I am fairly certain I could make it. I shoot quite a bit at long range and I have a half dozen "F" class rifles in the vault but I'm one of those guys who doesn't remember the "X" I fired nearly as vividly as I remember the "8" that should have been an "X". I shoot a lot at 6 inch plates. If I can't ALWAYS hit that plate, I'm not likely to take such a shot at an animal. I have occasionally missed the plate at 400 meters so I'll always want to be closer than that. That's just my choice. In the end it just shows we all have our own ideas as to what is "right". GD

Love it - Congrats to her & you John!!

+1 greydog

You try a Greybull stock and you'll spit on anything H&S makes. He got the ergonomics dead nuts on that stock. Also, I don't believe he has any former FBI assassins in his employ.

Mr. Burns:

You seemed to miss my point(s)...the 105 gr. 243 bullet has approximately 600lbs. of energy left at 700 yards [presuming the 3100 FPS Maximum velocity at the muzzle: source Nosler #4 Manual].

That isn't enough energy to kill CONSISTENTLY at that range.

Yes, one can HIT the target - like a steel gong - at that range, but that's not what I am talking about. I am pointing out that killing consistently is not likely, and is more UNLIKELY, using 600 lbs of energy.

The statistics I am referring to is the probability of any shooter doing so with that respective bullet at that respective range and respective impact velocity for 10 of 10 or even 5 of 10 attempts. It's NOT discussing using the .243 at ANY i.e. shorter range(s) to kill elk; we are discussing it's use at 700 yards...

One or two kills, are case studies, and not a controlled study.

A controlled study, typically with an N=30 or more, will allow for statistical significance , or no significance. So, even 10 consecutive kills is not sufficient for subjecting data to a t-test for significance. A survey of hunters [30 or more] who have done the above, not excluding the misses and wounded eld i.e. including them, will need to be conducted and the data sujected to analysis for significance.

Do you see where we are going...? (No GPS or range finder needed.)

In other words, if you have them, post 10 more consecutive elk kill videos from the same shooter with the same range and the same bullet. Then get 20 more, or a few less. Then, we look at analysis.

And, NO, I don't speak for Mr. Rodriguez, he spoke for himself in his recent article on limits to long range hunting (and NOT with small[er] calibers such as the .243.

I would be remiss if you have access to a better protocol than the Optimum Game Weight Formula (OGW) re lbs of energy need for consistent kills, then please introduce it. The OGW is proven superior to the Taylor Knockdown formula; neither one is perfect or without exception. However, statistics is about the rule and the exception...and what happens the most typically is the rule.

The way I see it, you're the one making the assertions here, namely that the cartridge/bullet/shooter is inadequate to consistently kill elk at a given distance.

So the way I see it, it's up to you to provide data to support your assertion, not the other way around.

So where's your data?

Also, the way I see it, whether Burns has 10 kills to his credit or one kill to his credit, those are data points and you have zero data points. If Burns has less than a sample of 30 (10), and you want to call his data statistically insignificant, what do you call your data set with zero data points?


Besides, what are your credentials as a long-range hunting or precision shooting expert? Aren't you the one who opined on another thread that choosing the right sized bushing for a bushing die depended on the diameter of the "chamber's respective neck size??" I've only been re-loading for a few years, but even I could see the error in that.

A 105gr Berger VLD at 3100 fps mv will retain about 2140 fps/1068 ft-lbs at 700 yards, at 5000' el.

What the hell does foot pounds of enrgy have to do with anything? I mean why even mention FE

I could give a schitt less.

BS has been ranting on FPE and I thought it a bit funny he didn't even have that correct.

Well Bowhunters are obviously unethical too..

At 688 yards, the 105 started at 3100 would be at 1900 fps.

For a control group, maybe someone should shoot some elk or elk-sized animals at 50 yards with some of that ammo loaded at 1900 fps.

Of course not all should be shot in the same place. Some in the shoulder blade, some in the heart/lungs, some a little far back to simulate the possibility of not being able to judge the wind perfectly.

At 688, a 200 grainer out of a .300 WM started at 2900 would be traveling at the same velocity as the .243 caliber 105 grain bullet; 1900.

Maybe load some up at 1900 and shoot the same test at 50 yards.

Compare results?

I for one, never pull the trigger without first consulting the proper case study.

GMAFB!

It is obvious a 243 can kill an elk, but that doesn't mean it isn't a stunt especially at long range. If a 243 is the end all, then why does Mr. Burns himself offer larger chamberings?

Cause their are doubters willing to spend moolah????

There are bigger critters than elk?

Perhaps I missed it but, where did Burns or anyone else say that the 243 is the end all?

Dober