Varies by state, some don’t have a minimum, Whatda guys think?

The smallest caliber I have used to kill an elk was a 7mmRM with 175gr partition. All the kills with this load were clean but none were over 150yds. I prefer my 8mmRM for elk hunting now. It has more power with the TSX or Partition for longer shots.

I don’t think minimums are important, plenty of folks wound elk with large calibers. On the small side for me 3 elk with a 243 and have no complaints terminal performance or how long it took to die.

Whatever legal caliber lets you sleep at night after the shot. I don’t own a .270 Win so I guess a fast 6.5 with a well constructed bullet or a 7mm.

Ive seen 243 and 25-06 and 300 BO and am less than impressed.

Ive had experiance with various 7mm 30cal big 338 cartridges, 416, and 45-70 with excellent results. I recently aquired an 270 win and hope to try it sometime. Ive notnused the 270 win yet but hope some 150gr bullets can do the job

Idaho allows you to use any centerfire on any big game. That doesn't mean it's smart, just legal.

Friends have taken a couple with the 243. I've taken a decent number with a 270, both with 130 and 150 grain bullets, even core-lokts. I know a 270 can put them down quick. I haven't taken one with a 6.5. I have no doubt they would work fine. If I have the option I'd prefer at least a 270 but a 243 can get it done. Put a decent bullet in the right place with most any common cartridge and it will do the job. Grizzlies have become much more common in elk country and if I have an unpleasant encounter with one, I'd prefer something bigger than a 243. Whatever I have on hand I'd prefer to have a good bullet for that situation.

I like it...6 fish on in just an hour....

Wyoming requires a 24 caliber of larger. I have seen several elk killed with 243s and all but 2 were good fast kills. The 2 that were not were #1 a bad hit and #2 shot with a bullet that came completely apart. BUT>>>>I have had poor results with several 7MM Mags and 300 Mags when used with bullet that come apart too. I made a good kill on a 5X5 bull a few years back with my 8X57 and the 170 grain SSTs didn't hold up well, but I did drop the bull simply because I got good placements of those bullets. The 8X57 will do anything the 30-06 will do, but I found the 170 Gr SST to be too prone to break up for good deep penetration's. So the shell is not as important as the bullet it's firing.

I do not damn the 243s as "too small". I do think the smaller you go the better you bullet should be and the kill angles are going to be more critical.


So what is the minimum?
That depends on how good a shot you are and what bullet you use, but even though I lean towards larger calibers I have 50+ years of experience of elk killing, and I know from what I have seen a good 243 with a good bullet ,shot well works just fine.

I categorize elk kills in 2 ways. Those I have killed and those I have seen killed when guiding or helping other.

In category #1 the 2 calibers I have seen the most instant or near instant drops from are the smallest one I have used, (the 270s) and one of the largest (the 375H&H) The 270 Winchester has dropped every elk I ever shot with 1 round and not one of them has strayed up after impact for more then about 3 seconds and probably 85% have fallen instantly or within 1-1-1/2 seconds. And my 375H&H is the other "magic-wand" that seems to drop them faster then almost all others except my 270s.

Now in-between I have used 7X57, three different 7mm Mags 300 Savage, 30-06s, 308s, several 300 mags, an 8X57, 338-06s, 338 Win mag, 9.3X74R and then over the 375H&H bore size I have used the 45-70, 458 Win and 416 Taylor as well as 44 mag handguns and 454 Casull handgun, and also 58 and 62 caliber muzzleloaders and 1 with a wood arrow shot from a wood and glass long bow.

So I have used many different guns and a lot of different bullets. But one of the "least powerful" was my 270 Winchester yet it's been super effective for me, far more so then the three 7 Mags and all my 300 Mags when I look at the averages. Many times my big 7s and my 300s did the job with bang-flops but not as often as my 270s did. So for reasons I don't actually understand and for reasons I can't explain, the "little" 270 seems to drop them as well and anything else and quite a bit better then many of the more powerful ones I used. Why? I can't say for sure but what I can say is what I have seen for over 50 years.

I probably averaged 2 elk a year for 50+ years with a few years killing as many as 7 and in a few years getting none. Many years I hunted in 2 states and a few years I hunted in 3. One year I hunted in 4. But 2 per season or maybe a but more (2-1/2?) is about my average.

However in those years I guided I would see 20-35 killed each season. So I have seen what works and what doesn't, and most times the bad results are #1 poor hits and #2 poor bullets, but in 50+ years and seeing many many many killed I have come to the conclusion the actual shell used is not near as important as most people seem to think it is. I would guess that there is a bottom, but the 243 is not below it. So far the smallest center fire rounds I have seen elk killed with is the 243 Winchester. No one I know has ever tried it with a 22-250 or a 223 but I bet if you used proper bullets those would work too.

The 270 bore size is the smallest diameter I ever killed elk with, but I have seen it done very well with 26s (6.5X55s, 260s 6.5 CMs and 264 Win Mag) 25s (25-06s and 257 Roberts) and 24s (243s)

If I ever wanted to use my 25-06 I would go with Partitions, A-Frames or Barnes TSX bullets, but loaded with such projectiles I would feel no fear about hunting elk with that gun. I just have not because I always took something else, but that's not to say I would not trust it to do the job for me. My daughter and both my grand sons have killed elk with a 257 Roberts I made form her about 40 years ago and all have been good clean kills. Just for my own comfort I would bottom out at the 243, but I would not say a good GMX or TSX bullet from my 5.56 AR15 would not work too. I just have no intention of doing it myself. I think I could, but I like my other guns too much and as an old man, I like what I like and I don't know how many more hunts I have left in me so I take the guns I enjoy the most when I go out after anything.

Basically it is recommended to have 1500 ft/lbs of energy at range this is what you are going to find in most of the hunting Regs Books in the western states
What does this really mean

Looking at a 30-06 using 180 gr Partitions you are holding 1500 out to just under 450 Yards

Looking at a .338 Win using 210 gr Partitions you are good out just past 500 yards

Looking at a 270 Win using 150 gr Partitions you are good out just past 350 yards

Looking at a .243 I couldn't find info at anything over 100grs and the partitions were dropping under 1500 ft/lbs at just over 100 yards

Now to be honest it is always more about placement than power, but you do still have to have the power to break through Hair Hide and Bone to hit vitals



Elk are tough and they can eat up ground when they run, personally I like the Win Mags .338 and .300

I used the stats on the Nosler Partitions because they are considered the gold standard to compare other bullets too especially for Elk personally I shoot Barnes TSX or TTSX and they have never failed me.. I however started hunting Elk with Nosler Partitions :p

Anything less than a magnum would be irresponsible.....

You talking mature bulls or cows? Obviously two different ballgames.

That's true. 70 grainers for cows, 88 grainers for bulls.....

Are we talking women and children, or grown manly men?

In state, or NR guided hunt?

How big of a “margin of error” are you wanting?

Are you wanting to “knock ‘em down good”, or just kill them?

Probably the most important question is, do you plan on using a premium bullet?

Don’t forget about whether it’s a once in a lifetime or if you get to hunt elk every year.

Dam, how’d I miss that one.

Thanks.

Love this one.

Yeah, us unethical resident bastards that get to hunt elk every year...

My aunt hunted everything including elk with a .257 Bob. Living in the Big Empty there was no one around to point out to her she was under gunned.

Now me, well, I'm not so sure about all that so last year I played it safe and shot a cow elk with a 26 CM.

Just to be sure...

You hunt grain-fed elk? I bet they're tender.

Any idea where this basic recommendation came from, or what it's basically based on?

Asking for Huntsman22.......

Hate to make assumptions in today’s world, but assuming that your aunt is/was a women, a .257 was obviously adequate.

Had that been your uncle, a .257 would have been marginal at best.

This got me thinking. I know this will really screw things up, but what if you’re a Governor tag holder?

In the proper hands, good bullets, proper placement, within reasonable distances.....a .243 Win or 6 mm is adequate for an elk cartridge!

My wife killed her first elk with a .243 Win., and will be the first to tell you that luck was involved and she does not consider it a good choice of elk cartridges. She killed several elk with a .270 Win., and didn’t really find it lacking. She then went to a .338 WM, and was quickly conversed that it was a far better elk cartridge than those of her previous experiences! memtb

I’d ask the Governor, he’s supposed to know what’s best for his state.

This is where it all falls apart and gets confusing. What if the Governor is a woman?

Think I’ll stick to deer hunting.

How does bullet construction and velocity fit in? Bowhunters kill elk all the time with solids, and at 300 FPS.


Explain that, Mr. Smartypants.
No need for magnum speed.

I've killed a lot of elk with a 270 and 150gr bullets. I'm currently using a 30-06 and really like 165's. A 308 with 165's doesn't give up enough to matter.

I think anything larger than a good size deer the 6.5 is as small a cartridge that should be used on the larger animals. Not because smaller won't do it but because heavier bullet's allow room for error. Now if we were under attack by some enemy here in our own country and survival required killing game my weapon of choice would be my 22 mag RF! Require's better hunting skills and better shooting but is much quieter than larger dia CF rifle bullet's. Then what's easier to hide; 100 243 cartridges or 100 22 mag cartridges

Yeah and if you had fewer nonresidents you could have more tags less people buying up the access most people used to have just for asking? Lotta aspects folks don t like to think about. No win either way for some folks.

Oregon - .24 for center fire and .50 for muzzle loaders.

Then a .50 BMG is the ticket.

If we're talking about hunting elk, the minimum I've carried was a Crosman 760 .177 cal pump. My step-brother was carrying his Daisy Red Ryder though. I'd say the Red Ryder is a good minimum for elk hunting, but the plastic-stocked Daisy is lighter and shorter, thus better for field carry.

The elk killing was on my step-dad. He was carrying a 7 RM with factory Remington ammo. Seemed to work okay.

I prefer .277 and a 30 would be better. Always premium bullets............. My personal preference.

Whatever you use, DO NOT use a Savage 99 in 22 HP...................

Because everyone knows that it will NOT kill Tiger, Cape Buffalo, Red Stag or the like..............

at least not since Charles Newton died...............



that aught to be good for another 4 pages!!!

Good advise. Do not use a 22 HP.

Shhhh Ted!!! 🤫😂😂

Are you talking targets or shooters!? Cuz we all know women and children can kill with smaller cartridges and bullets!

You guys all have missed the important points about larger-bore bullets. With them, you can shoot at large snowbanks above the elk and kill them with no meat loss via avalanche. Also, larger diameter bullets are better when shooting at smooth rocks near the animal and ricocheting into the animal at the perfect angle when the line-of-sight presentation is not perfect. Moreover, a heavier bullet is more stable when being fired in a nearly-vertical manner to take out an elk hiding behind cover from above like a mortar. Jeez. I can't believe I have to be the guy to bring up these important considerations.

Well being as you are showing CO as yer home state, my old stomping grounds, let's use them, but of course this is widely disseminated general knowledge

https://cpw.state.co.us/learn/Pages/EHU-CH2-L10.aspx#:~:text=A%20commonly%20accepted%20threshold%20for,243%20Win.

"A commonly accepted threshold for the minimum amount of kinetic energy needed to kill an elk is 1500 ft-lbs. For whitetail deer, the minimum amount of kinetic energy is 1000 ft-lbs. We’ve all probably heard stories of hunters taking elk with a .243 Win."

Keep in mind I NEVER said it is a hard in stone rule, but it is an widely accepted axiom of Deer (1000) and Elk (1500) hunting..
I honestly didn't expect to have to explain it, as I learned it in CO myself 40 some odd years ago...



..



[b][/b]

While widely accepted it’s also stupid. I think that may be what he’s getting at.

Those 222 Rem Mags seem acceptable enough.. it is a magnum

But only with “premium” Hornady SPs....

Why is it stupid, it is a good solid axiom, if you are asking that means you NEED general info
If you are an experienced Shooter / Hunter then you have your own opinion that is formed over the years

Of course. Could be a once in a lifetime elk.. No sense in skimping.

I am not answering for him but I use impact velocity along with a bullet of fair enough construction and weight to get through bone and vital tissue. Energy is hard to measure since a ML or 45-70 will never make enough energy but they work just fine when you apply the right bullet. Just my thought on it.

Multitudes of elk are killed every year with arrows, round balls, and various other projectiles that carry nowhere near 1500fpe. Bleeding holes through important body parts are what kills stuff, not some magic amount of foot pounds.

Okay lets try one more time since I am a 45-70 shooter also and my Marlin GG shoots my handloaded 405 gr OT Lasercast at 1450 fps which means that I am WELL within that general rule of 1500 ft/lbs out to a Black Timber Elk Long Range shot of 125-150 yards

PS; I already mentioned that the bullet must get into the Vitals with my first post so you are now simply repeating what I already said, much appreciated

I've killed elk w/257Wby/100TSX, 270Win/140TSX/150ABLR, 300Win 200TSX/200NP.

The elk shot with the 300Win showed a LOT more reaction to the hits than did elk shot w/the smaller options.

I used to be a "I need the 300Win/200gn bullet for everything" guy. I certainly don't need the 300 for everything, but I really do like it for elk.

Do I seriously need to explain this to you ?? I mean really, if I am going to give classes on Hunting / Terminal Ballistics you are going to need to start paying me

I'll play.

55 gr swift.

😀

How does a 405gr bullet out of a 45/70 or a .50 caliber muzzleloader kill an elk if launch speed is 1250fps and only producing 1400ftlb? What is the approximate BC of a flat nosed cast bullet designed to safely function through the tube magazine and OAL restrictions of the Marlin 1895? At what distance does it fail to generate 1500ftlb?

If you’re still believing 1960’s hogwash that’s put out by the same brain trust that make caliber restrictions based on outdated bullets and equipment made obsolete decades ago maybe you should be attending class rather than teaching it.

Ahhhhh You can't read ???

I gave you the info above try reading it all, the only thing you need to search is the BC of the Bullet and you can run the numbers and learn something

Look I realize I just upset the Old Dogs on the forum, but don't make the mistake that I don't know more than you Trust me I do
And the more you post the more I am realizing I stepped into Egoville and I am not talking to experienced Hunters and Shooters

We hunted off of mules, shots were not long as a rule. I hunted cows with 243 and 100g partitions, no problems. We shoot all year long.

I mean wow one guy that doesn't know the recommendation of the state he lives in, and another guy that switches to Arrows and Muzzleloaders because he doesn't understand the subject matter at hand
What is this amateur hour ???

Please tell me there are some smarter people on this forum

You’re the one who brought foot pounds into the discussion. I merely pointed out two legal weapons that have been repeatedly proven to kill elk, neither of which generate the magic 1500ftlb

Yep, it's amateur hour for sure. I think I've taught the CO Hunter Ed class to around 1,000 students now, so yes, I know what CP&W has to say about foot-lbs of energy. CP&W also advises people not to go hunting in the mountains alone, which is another "widely accepted fact" that I routinely ignore.

The funny thing is, kinetic energy as a benchmark for killing an elk is widely accepted mostly by people who get their information from books.

And the more elk a person has killed, the less he/she relies on kinetic energy as their indicator. That's a fact.

Plus, you never answered my question. My question had nothing to do with CO CP&W or how "widely accepted" 1,500 ft-lbs is. My question was, what is 1,500 lbs based on.

Not my number
Not magic
Do I even have to explain the term IG: aka "In General" I understand that you don't know much about Ballistics but now you want lessons on basic English too ???

You do know what aka means right ???

Remember you started this so don't go waving the victim flag next

Jud my man, you ain't asking the right question.

I have a pair of 243's that have killed 15 elk. With 100g Partitions.

It's the bullet.........

Multitudes of elk (and deer) have been left to die a slow death from inadequate weapons / bullets and pisspoor shot placement. If the shoe fits, wear it. GFY in advance!

That simple , ehh?

Which comes first, the placement or the bullet? Grin....

If you GFY in advance, are you already f*cked?

Nope you are the smartest one here. You’re able to kill elk with “widely accepted” axioms and 4 digit numbers taught to you by other adults 40 years ago. Amazing.

Now we are getting somewhere.

It’s getting serious when energy numbers start getting crunched...LMAO.

All I know is that I am impressed with the "American Redoubt" as your location. Hey there Neighbor !!!

What is amazing is that the 1500 ft/lb doesn't eliminate most of the calibers that all you guys keep tossing out there including the 243.. it simply qualifies it's usage
Basic Terminal Ballistics knowledge would be good here

You should probably go read my OP it is pretty simple to understand

Back at ya’. Most have no clue.

Happy Trails

Sure would. So what is the magical 1500 ft-lbs benchmark based on?

Good For You....

Good point!
Shoulda’ said shoot ‘em in the front half.
With a stout bullet.

Lol
Nobody is gonna answer that, are they?

I did, it read like a bunch of excerpts from old Field and Stream articles.

Jesus, do I have to do everything around here, INCLUDE drink all the beer?

It isn't 1,500 foot pounds of "kinetic energy" that kills elk. It is the KNOCK DOWN POWER.

I disagree. I think it was old Outdoor Life articles.

Knock down power has been thoroughly de-bunked. Unlike the magical 1500 zoot pounds delivered by a premium pill out of enough gun. Hits 'em like the Hammer of Thor. DRT!

Is that deflave, or huntsman22?

As 1 Minute noted .24 is required in Oregon. A .243 seems to be a workable minimum for elk. Three gals in the family have used them successfully several times. I loaded up some Partitions for my youngest daughter to use but she never got to try them on elk.

Several elk around here have died to .30-30's.

The two guys I personally know who have killed the most bulls (47 and 16 respectively) both used .270 Winchesters....Seems to work.

In my case, I have never used anything smaller than a .308 Winchester or heavier than a .338 Winchester Magnum. I would have trouble opening up on an unwounded elk with a .243. I guess I am a hypocrite.

I would use my 6.5 Sweede and 6.5 Creedmoors without much concern. I am also certain a .300 Savage would do just fine.

Where we find elk tends to be pretty short ranges. I have never needed to take a shot at over 250 yards so far. That probably influences my opinion.

Isn't it funny that you must add things I never said to try and make your point, I can now see how you have 31k posts, you have to post for others along with yourself
I get it, you have managed to bluff your way through all these years.. It is becoming quite obvious that you either don't understand simple ballistics or your ego is bruised and you can't back away from, this now..

Not even sure what you are asking, but the simple fact is the axiom works across the board, as a general recommendation for Elk hunting, I don't understand why it is so hard for you to figure it out it really isn't difficult

A simple ballistics calculation that takes everything into account if you know what you are doing, and it fits to almost all cartridges if you understand how to use it ..It really isn't Magic just simple math and common sense

This thread is useless without ballistic tables.

Dammit Jud get the net.

In other words, you have no idea what the magical 1500 ft-lb benchmark is based on. Thanks for clearing that up.

Do you always use enough gun, and stoke it with premium pills?

Finally, two guys that get it.

A premium pill, shot through a premium tube, will knock ‘em down good.

sixgun is the smartest guy in his quartet.

Über smart.

A simple ballistics calculation and common sense. Let's talk about that, first the calculation. Without googling it, you do know that the simple calculation squares the velocity term, and halves the mass term, right? And you do know that means the formula emphasizes velocity over mass, many would say to the point that it gives an unrealistic apparent advantage to a light, fast projectile over a heavier slower projectile, right?

And since you brought up the state of Colorado and it's take on kinetic energy, you do know that Colorado allows elk hunters to hunt elk with a rifle and bullet that delivers less than 1500 ft- lbs at the muzzle, and less than 1,000 ft-lbs at 50 yards, right?

Last but not least, have you ever shot an elk with a bullet that delivers less than 1500 ft-lbs? Yes or no?

I have, and none of 'em got away.

Have you ever read Col. John Patterson's account of the man eaters of the Tsavo? His book relates a bunch of lion hunts he was on. His gun was a 303 British. Over and over he makes the statement "the lion was hit but wasn't taken". IOW, he wounded a bunch of lions because his gun wasn't up to the task. He might have created more man eaters than he stopped. When he killed the 2d man eater, he shot it 3 times with the 303 before switching to a 450 to finally kill it.
Use a caliber that's up to the job.

😂😂😂

And tighten the drag while you're at it.

Without weighing in on the merits of the always-explosively-violent kinetic energy debate, the formula therefore doesn't just halve the mass, but also halves the square of the velocity.

1/2 x M x V^2 = 1/2 x V^2 x M.

Killed my first 2 with a 378 Bee. Worked well!

No, 1/2m + 1/2v^2 = 1/2(m + v^2).

The factor of 1/2 could well be applied to either variable, and is really not relevant here. Smokepole correctly pointed out that kinetic energy is proportional to the first-order of the mass, and the second-order of the velocity, meaning that velocity contributes much more prominently to kinetic energy than does the mass.

Bottom line is, kinetic energy is necessary for the bullet to do its work, but due to the myriad of variables involved in killing effectiveness and the use of kinetic energy to deform tissue, is a poor metric of ‘killing power’. A better indicator is to simply use a bullet that can penetrate to the vitals, and make sure it impacts with enough velocity to expand properly.

Just saw your edit. That’s better.

I’m sure he made good shots on all of them shooting at night and he was using those early day jacketed bullets that have never been improved upon in the last century......

The .303 British is essentially a mild .308 Win. If lions are getting away from a single shot from a .303, it’s either because of bullet failure or poor bullet placement. Plenty of moose have been killed up here with the .303, and they are a lot bigger than a lion.

I’ve posted this link before, for those that are completely enamored by foot/pounds of energy being the quintessential basis for measurement of effective killing power! Foot/pounds energy, as mentioned by many, is “only” one of many factors involved in lethality of a bullet!

For those that completely “buy-in” to the foot/pounds energy school of thought, please read this.....
if you dare! memtb

http://rathcoombe.net/sci-tech/ballistics/wounding.html

And there we have the basis of your "Facts" too funny

The fallacy of reading things one way,,,, look at your wording, NOBODY said that !!! you said it in your mind and blocked out simple facts in evidence from my OP

Reading Comprehension is helpful

Yeah, but both those lions ended up in a museum in Chicago after being used as rugs by Col. Patterson. Hunting lions in the dark is rather sporting. Happy Trails

Reading my OP would have answered that but you wee ego prevented you from actually comprehending it, amazing that you have managed to bluff your way through on this forum for so many years and so many posts...

I doubt anything you post at this point in time... Your lack of knowledge of basic ballistics and the fact that you must dodge around the facts are quite telling

On the subject of reading things one way! You have yet to explain how and who (other than some bureaucrat in the Colorado G&F) has determined that 1500 ft/pounds of energy, is the determining prerequisite for the ethical killing of elk? Again, as many have mentioned and you seem to ignore, there are a multitude of factors other than foot/pounds energy!

I am in agreement with much of your OP, yet you seem to be hung-up on the mythical 1500 ft/pounds energy concept! It would be extremely enlightening to ascertain how this number was arrived at....and why did not the Colorado G&F combine the “mythical”/“magical” ft/lb number with other criteria. Many folks, hopefully you are “not” one of these people, simply look at the energy number .....yet fail to factor in other components to a lethality potential of a cartridge! memtb

I agree. KE tells you somewhat how much the bullet can do, but the size, shape, and construction of the bullet and the type of material it impacts tells you how much of that energy may put to good use. It's also not the KE at the impact that matters as much as the KE at the impact minus the KE, if any, of the exiting projectile. Also, a fair amount, I don't know how much or how to calculate it, of the kinetic energy is converted into heat energy, rather than structural damage. Logically, I think, more of that would happen with high-velocity impacts. That's just one of the factors that limits the value of relying on KE alone for hunting effectiveness. However, there does seem to be a rough correlation between KE and damage. I don't think it's a coincidence that a bullet propelled by a 30-378 Wby blows stuff up a lot more violently than a similar-typed bullet out of a .223 Win., and the former produces about 4 times as much KE as the latter.

Sorry, I thought it was obvious, but apparently it escapes you so let me explain. What it's based on would be the information and methods used to arrive at the conclusion that 1500 ft-lbs is a good benchmark for the "minimum kinetic energy" for killing elk.

In other words, who came up with the 1500 ft-lb benchmark, and how did he get there? What information did he evaluate and how did he evaluate it in order to conclude that 1500 is the right number? Why not 1250 ft-lbs, or 2,000, I've seen 2,000 thrown around too?

So, what is the magical 1500 ft-lbs based on ?


And as far as your comment below, it's telling that you don't believe first-hand experience shooting elk with a bullet that delivers less than 1500 ft-lbs is a good basis to form an opinion. Obviously because you've never done it.

Again you are projecting your limited knowledge on my OP, I never said any of that in fact just the opposite

But you can't see that because you simply not mentally equipped for those aspects, I didn't ignore anything you just failed to understand it

It is NOT some mythical number it is a general recommendation don't make it out to be what it isn't because you lack the ballistics knowledge to use it correctly

Now sit down listen and learn

ps; it is laughable to watch you get all twisted around an old axiom that actually works quite well if you understand it LOL
Let's try it by dumbing it down for you

If I use the proper bullet and hit the vitals of an Elk with 1500 ft/lbs of energy does that increase my chances of a clean kill ??? that is about as dumbed down as I can make it for you

He's as smart as "elkslayer" and Larry Root combined, but without the people skills.

Actually by now I doubt anything you proclaim
Not sure why you think the 1500 fp is a magical number you keep saying that, yet I never did, it is simply a Rule of Thumb an "Axiom" to put people in the correct arena of power for an Elk hunt

I have seen 2000 and 1000 at 100 yards etc etc these are all just recommendations, again What I said in the OP along with examples of what comes close

This seems to be offensive to you to have a good basis of where to start when looking for an Elk round, you don't seem to understand it eliminates very few rounds and gives a new hunter an idea of a starting point..You simply want to pigeonhole the 1500 fp and I think it is more ignorance and ego now that you have back yourself into a corner

Deal with it

Also this shows Ego nothing more it isn't something to brag about


"it's telling that you don't believe first-hand experience shooting elk with a bullet that delivers less than 1500 ft-lbs is a good basis to form an opinion. Obviously because you've never done it."

Without commenting on it's validity, the 1,500 ft-lbs minimum apparently was generated by Whelen, and 2,000 ft-lb minimum was adopted by Boddington (the author of the chapter excerpted below). I think Boddington later downplayed this.

Why ??? Why did you do that ??? I was having fun watching him twist himself around on that
That was the low bar of knowledge he was using as a Litmus Test, it showed just how limited his knowledge base is, he thought that was important and that only an expert would know it LMAO

Now you spolied it ... wait for his predictable response

Marinehawk: These have been hashed over ad nauseum here so I know who proferred the magical benchmarks, but that's not really the question. The question (that numbnuts can't answer) is what are they based on?

So go ahead numbnuts, see if you can answer the question.

PS, Marinehawk I actually bought that book and I've got to say, what a disappointment. It's anything but the ultimate guide to elk hunting, but it is chock full of recycled information and cliches. So, right up numbnuts' alley, LOL.

And you're right, Boddington backed off on his "rule of thumb." Way off. Truth be told, the basis of these numbers was gunwriter's need to generate copy and give people like numbnuts a number they can cogitate on, pontificate, toss out to the great unwashed, and impress everyone with their "knowledge."

LMAO now even more, when the ignorant latch onto something that they think makes them "LOOK" smart, and follow it up with the name calling to match...



SmokingPoles: you have been weighed measured and found wanting,,, 31119 posts, my god man how much serious BS and misinformation have you laid down in the last 15 years on this forum..

Less than you have on this thread alone.

You did ask that question, and I dispassionately answered it. You never said you already knew who came up with the numbers. You asked "who came up with the 1500 ft-lb benchmark." I wasn't trying to answer all of your questions, just that one. Don't know why you're being so pissy with me.

I also never said anything about whether or not the book had any value. Boddington just wrote that one chapter.

All I can add to this thread is that IME, the proportion of folks citing energy as some magic killing threshold is usually inversely related to actually killing, on average....

This thread needs some coyote hunter ballistic tables.....grin...

Ooooo what a retort, it is so intelligent and well written, ran out of Smoke ??? because you were sure blowing some in this exchange

Two can play the insult game and it is obvious that you are outclassed in it as well the the knowledge base..

Sit down "Oracle" and be a good student now

Damn Smokingpoles you are just looking worse for the wear here

The only two people that said that are the guy smoking poles and another that thinks calling himself a kid is cool but hey that was the best they could do

Now I am going to go look for a coyote hunting thread

So true.
The axiom is an invented comfort for those who need answers without experience. Pretty meaningless to the thousands that are successful every year and are below it.

Why is it a point of pride to be below that threshold, really why is that something to brag about ???

I agree. One of the many reasons that KE is a poor metric for "killing power" is that some of that energy is converted into heat energy, sound energy, etc, and the exact amounts are non-deterministic and nearly impossible to predict.

As you correctly point out, KE is a measure of the potential of the bullet to do damage, but the correlation between KE and killing effectiveness, while existent, is minimal.

The threshold is invented, and thousands of people are successful taking game every year decade after decade below it and not even aware of it.

Why is it a point of pride to be below that threshold, really why is that something to brag about ???

Same folks who fish for large gamefish with 2-pound test leaders..... LOL!

For many people, it is not a point of pride. The point being made here is simply that impact energy that doesn't meet this arbitrary minimum has about as much to do with killing effectiveness as what you ate for breakfast this morning. There are other variables that have a much stronger correlation with killing effectiveness, like bullet expansion, bullet placement, penetration, etc.

Or the hunters ability to get to the actual point of actually pulling a trigger and worrying about the impact "energy"....

The 1500 fp does not discount all those factors, in fact in enhances them so your argument is irrelevant, it was never about an absolute it was always just a recommendation along with all other factors...

If a hunter hasn't figured all that out before he is at that point, he has way more issues than Energy

Whoosh, over the head...

Put this another way. If I want a hunt to be successful, my load's impact energy calculations are about the 1,326th item I'm worrying about...

Been waiting for the 10,000 word response.

Guessing this will be lost as well.

Then I suspect your shot would be about as on target as your statement .... Whoosh right over the head

But then again I might be reading you wrong

Start at 30-06 Springfield then go backward, then go forward. It’s all about the bullet.

Because sometimes that’s what it takes to get a dead drift.

Jud has the dead drift down pretty good.

See?! Somebody else gets it.

This thread is hysterical. I haven’t thought about energy as it translates into killing a critter in decades......

If you're talking about judman, he's using a plastic-coated steel leader on this trip.......

Bullshit, you edited the quite and left off the rest. And if you go back and read where I first asked the question, it was "what is it based on."

Yes, it was but more importantly, it hit the mark.

Ummm, no. It doesn't "enhance" the other relevant variables. As a physicist, I understand the role of energy in complex systems better than most.

Here's another recommendation for you that makes about as much sense as the 1500 ft-lbs minimum: when driving through the mountains, your vehicle should have a recommended minimum of 300 hp at the wheels.

Sorta like you did also ???

Jordan, are you saying that's not true??? I read that in a magazine once, it must be true!

Sheesh. Next thing, you'll be saying there ain't no Santa Claus....

Hold into the ballistics tables!!

Are you ever gonna answer the question?

Sorry, dumb question.

Sixshooter’, you are in way over your head here arguing ballistics with Jordan, but please continue, it’s entertaining.

HBD Jordan.

By the way, .223 is legal in NM for elk.

You're missing the point here Smokepole. You asked a question emphasized above. I answered it. Then you came out and called me names, said you already knew the answer, and told me that I was answering the wrong question among the multiple ones you asked.

I never suggested you didn't ask other questions. I never suggested that I was attempting to answer them. I have no obligation to answer them. And you gave no indication that you already knew the answer to what you asked above until after I answered it. I have no reason to doubt now that you knew the answer, but I haven't insulted you or even disagreed with you. I honestly can't figure out why you are angry with me.

I called you names???

No, I save that for numbnuts. And no, I'm not angry with you, sorry if I came off that way. I did say bullshit but that doesn't mean I'm angry with you. And my question really was, "what is it based on." I shouldn't have even mentioned the "who" but numbnuts needed me to draw a picture for him so I threw that in there.

So, what's it based on, that's the question I want numbnuts to answer. Because it'll be entertaining as hell.

I was confused by the fact that you used the term numbnuts in between two comments to me. I thought that was directed at me. No biggie.

Ok, now that you two have exchanged address for Christmas cards, can we get back on track?

Is 1,500 pounds for residents? Would a NR guided hunter want 2,200?

Is 1,000 acceptable for women and children?

2150 is the generally accepted rate for a NR Guided Hunter on 6x6 elk and smaller. Don’t cross the line SLM, it could get messy.

Okay, please don’t shoot the messenger! What follows is my, often-paraphrased and/or summarized, version of Boddington’s explanation in the subject chapter. Please do not accuse me of promoting or agreeing with any of them, as I am just summarizing them.

Elk are really tough.

Everything from bows, muzzleloaders, handguns, and powerful rifles can and have cleanly taken elk.

Handgun and bow hunters intentionally are limiting their range of effective fire.

There are only a few presentations that work for arrows.

.24 and .25 caliber rifles have reduced effective ranges versus larger bores because, other than a head or neck shot, the only other one that reliably will work, due to the reduced energy produced by these rifles, is a double-lung shot that often doesn’t present itself.

If you're going to accept that limitation, might as well avail yourself of the better-timed archery and ML seasons.

“Does this mean that these cartridges should not be carried into the elk woods? Not necessarily. Truly expert marksmen … can indeed make them work miracles. This is especially true if they live in elk country” because they “can wait for the proper opportunity to present itself ...”

“[I]f the object is to get a nice elk—and especially if the hunter lives far from elk country and has a limited amount of time to hunt—then it seems to me that the sensible approach is to have the most adequate tool available…”

He once saw a big bull take eight “good hits” from an 8mm RM before going down. A .375 H&H likely would have done no better, but his memory of the incident informs his rifle choices.

“How much energy is actually needed is impossible to define, and there is probably no exact figure since so much depends on shot placement bullet construction, and even the mental state of the elk.”

Boddington prefers a 2,000 ft-lb minimum at impact for elk, “but, if I had to choose, I would take bullet weight over energy every day.”

A 175gr 7mm RM is his personal minimum for elk.

Then, he starts to go through the merits of a bunch of specific cartridges.

Then, he said that those who shoot the .340 Wby are the truest and most-honorable sons of God.

Okay, I made up that last part, but it’s true.

That chapter was written in 2000. In his 2005 writings on the subject, he makes some of the same points, but omits any mention of a KE lower limit.

I think he also comes around to say the 270 worked really darned well for him on one of his longest shots later on and admits maybe he was a little bit high on what he suggested previously.

I have no doubt that he did, as I haven't read much of his other writings other than those two sources, the latter being "The Perfect Shot ..."

But, in those two, he basically said that the .270 can work, but he's not a big fan of them for elk.

Again, I'm not promoting that view. It's just what he said in two books up until 2005. I have no doubt that he changed his mind.

I'm still leaning toward taking the 6.5-300 this October. If I do, I would be violating his energy rule past 500 yards, but not Whelen's out to beyond 700 yards.

I thought it was 2,152.39 ft-lbs. Are you rounding? That could leave you short a couple of ft-lbs.

You forgot handgun hunters they get it done because they “get in close but know their handgun isn’t very effective” somehow knowing it’s not very effective makes it bring down animals more betterer even if not meeting the invented minimums.

Thank you, sir

I have only taken 9 elk in my lifetime, so not an expert by any means. 7 of those were with a 270 and 150gr partition, the other two were with a 30-06 and 180 Hornady spire point. all 9 were once shot kills with the longest being around 300 yards and the shortest 75 yards. as far as being dead, I could not tell the difference between the two calibers. I am always somewhat amused by forums when this question is asked for two reasons. One is why we all seemed interested in the smallest caliber and the other being the insinuation Elk are made of steel and concrete. more important to my limited experience are perhaps angles of the shot and distance. my elk hunting days might be over now, but if I did go, I would not hesitate to take anything from 243 up with the right bullet and the understanding I have to pick my shots.

This is getting confusing, is that a 270” type 6X6 or 380”?

A NR guided hunter, hunting a 400” type bulI would need a minimum of 2,322 I’m thinking?

I know you said your only the messenger, but I quit paying attention to anything he says about elk a long time ago.

In your quotes, he talks about resident hunters like a few knuckleheads here do. When I draw, I have 5 days with a ML or rifle just like most guided hunters. The resident, NR argument is about as idiotic as the energy argument.

]


I realize you think you are important here, but I owe you nothing, you opened this up

and NO I am not going to answer your inane question and yes I know the answer.. Ask me a pertinent question about ballistics and I have answered as best as I could

Right now I am seriously LMAO at you twisting around yourself trying to look smart, it is rather entertaining

It might make sense in some applications. My buddy and I hunted the nine-day season-2 in Colorado a few years ago and could only hunt 5 days because of travel time and work obligations. If we lived there, we could have hunted nine days, and we could have spent a lot more time beforehand scouting the area.

I own 130 acres of mountain property in central Colorado. I’m putting in for a class-B private-land-only cow tag there that goes from Sept. 1 to Jan. 31. If I get it, I will be able to hunt it a fair amount, but not like if I lived there.

I’m moving out there in about 18 months. When I live there, I can hunt it every day for some number of hours and many days all day, for five full months--all within 2/3 of a mile of my house. It can make a difference.

I don’t agree with some of what Boddington says, but I actually try to learn from all experienced hunters’ comments. I am not into the “everyone else is so stupid because they aren’t real hunters like the few of us and they hilariously and stupidly talk about ___" philosophy too much.

If someone ponders the kinetic energy of their bullet, it doesn’t mean that they are a dumbass and aren’t picking an adequate loading, doing physical training, scouting, learning, shooting, preparing, etc. …

Your mean the Physicist that said this
"I agree. One of the many reasons that KE is a poor metric for "killing power" is that some of that energy is converted into heat energy, sound energy, etc, and the exact amounts are non-deterministic and nearly impossible to predict."

That alone disqualifies him from the discussion

.223 is legal in Idaho too and if I wanted to kill an elk and not hunt one I can sit on my porch sipping coffee and shoot one dead in the head most mornings from Sept through Jan...Woohoo hunting !!!

Marinehawk, thanks for taking the time to post Boddington's opinion. I could've saved you the trouble though, I've read it. There's really no firm basis for it, as far as settling on 2,000 ft-lbs, 1,500, or any other round number you can think of. It's all anecdotal and it's just his opinion. He didn't do any kind of systematic study or investigation, he didn't shoot elk and vary the ft-lbs of energy, he didn't record the results or analyze the data to see if or where there was a drop-off in effectiveness.

When Boddington wrote that he was a proponent of big calibers/cartridges for elk and that was the basis for his opinion which as you noted has changed. He was also a gun writer and needed something to write about and generate interest, and as this thread has shown, there's almost no better way to do that than to talk about "minimum elk cartridges."

It literally brings the "experts" like sixpooter out of the woodwork.

But again, thanks for going to the trouble to post it.

Dude, I'm Hindu so I take no offense but I'm pretty sure Marinehawk is Hasidic so you're gonna need to apologize.

Days aside, do you think a resident that comes across a good mature bull that he/she has worked 4 days trying to find is going to have any less desire to get him on the ground than a NR? Whether his/her season is 5 or 20 days, if you have an elk tag in your pocket your goal is to kill a bull, resident/NR has no bearing.

I’ll concede on a long cow hunt, things could be different.

I didn't think so.

Send him one anyways.

Uh yeah, if you want to just show off and overkill the poor devil... each to their own I guess

Last time I did that he tracked me down and burned my krishna.

I’m sure if you asked nicely he would use smaller words for you.

“Knock him down right now”.

That’s the second word you used I had to Google.

That's OK. Sixpooter's up to two dozen.

Same... way above my pay grade.

I agree with what you're saying. He did write that back in 2000, and the internets were just getting started back then. I read a lot, but don't necessarily believe it all.

Dude, I'm an Iglesia Maradonianaist, but I love Christmas cards.

Honestly, SLM, I don't know. But what Boddington was saying, and I think it could have some merit in some situations, is that some NRs get to hunt elk fairly unregularly, and may have a shorter hunt in an area with which there are less familiar. In that case, they may get to see a lot fewer bulls than a resident. It might be easier for a resident to pass up a bull and wait for tomorrow or next year for a closer shot that the NR would feel compelled to try to take. I'm not saying that's a good way to look at it. For example, now that I have gotten a fair amount of game of various types, I'm a lot more picky and more likely to pass on various shots than I might have been in the past. I shot my first deer at 18 years old 30 minutes into my first deer season when all I had and could afford was a smooth bore Rem 870 with Brenneke slugs. I shot him in the ass at 70 yards. It took him down, but I wouldn't do that today.

Why don't you go ahead and explain what it is about my statement that you have a problem with?

This should be good.....

Google's down. He couldn't make heads or tails of it.

The sheer stupidity shown here by the resident "experts" is astonishing, have not seen a worse case of group think in some time other than with politics

Simple question asked by MANY hunters that have never tried to take down an Elk "What do you consider a minimum caliber to hunt one"

Answer in this thread by "Experienced" Elk hunters "Well son this is what I use but you can use anything that goes POP there really is no formula to determine that because we have this here Physicist told us that none of them there formulas work" Sound and Heat energy bahahahaha that was funny

Some of you are so opposed to a tried and true standard, that you went so far as to say .223's can kill elk, Really ??? I can't believe any of you consider yourselves expert hunters, you should be ashamed of those answers. Not one of you can say if you use that 1500 FP standard combined with today's better bullets you would be undergunned, because that simply isn't true. The other fact is that almost every other caliber mentioned in the thread from a 243 to the 45-70 all can meet that standard at a certain range with the right load..


What really amazes me is that not one of you answered it with the right answer when you throw away logic, I mean when it really comes down to it, the easy answer is

The Biggest F'n gun you can shoot accurately

Pics attached, yes I can use a freaking Baseball bat if I want

I LOVE it when I hear this!

LOL epic sixpooter meltdown.

Soooo what is the minimum caliber for elk??🤔🤔😁😁
The 1500 ft lbs of “knock down” power is something that’s been preached from a time when there weren’t many choices of bullets or cartridges.
With today’s array of bullet choices and cartridges. I’d rather see someone using a rifle they shoot and practice with all the time vs someone who thinks they have to take their grandpa 340wby cuz elk are so big and you need “knock down” power but can only sight it in off a lead sled cuz it kicks to much. A well placed bullet that disrupts tissue and causes massive trauma is what I prefer.

So something like a accurate low recoil round like a 7mm-08 maybe sporting a Barnes 140 TSX ???

Which also carries 1500 FP out to 300 yards (Factory loads) you mean something like that, amazing it fits that OLD preachy axiom too

'Pooter, you need to look up "axiom" in the dictionary. It means unquestionable or self-evident, neither of which fits here as made painfully obvious by this thread. In Boddington's case, even the guy who originally wrote it now questions it. So it's more like a myth, that's been busted. By one of the originators no less.

Here's a simple yes or no question for you. With your 7-08 and 140 TSX are you saying it's OK to take a shot at 300 yards, but not at 350 or 400 because you'd be below 1500 ft-lbs?

PS, Jordan, don't hold your breath......

I still had a bit of hope that him and I could have a rational discussion about his objection to my statement (as scientists often do), but clearly that won’t/can’t happen. One thing is certain: he’s a legend in his own (very uniformed) mind. Some people are promoted beyond their intelligence, and open internet forums highlight that fact. It’s like Grandpa used to say, “better to keep quiet and be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt”. Poor ‘sixgun is eager to open his mouth as often as possible.

Ahhhh, good Ol boddington and his 1500 lb + elk. 😂😂

Did you get your limit yet?

Yep. All I did was ask a simple question, "what's the basis for 1,500 ft-lbs." An honest, rational answer to that question would'v made this thread a lot shorter.

Yessir 😂

Cracked me up as well.

Amazing....after all this I'm still confused as to why all the fuss?

Not sure where I come down on this ft lb of energy issue. But I think a little science and civility goes a long way in this discourse. In my opinion, a couple of hundred fps above the advertised or claimed expansion velocity of a bullet might be a good place to start when choosing an elk load. Perhaps a load that’s good for 200 yards might not be adequate for 600 yards. A very light bullet at high velocity might dance around a bit in mountain winds and not provide adequate penetration at long range. YMMV, Happy Trails

First YES Jordan PLEASE hold your breath ... I lost all interest in you after the first dumb thing came out of your typing

Smokes Poles

See when you ask a pertinent question I will gladly answer..


No
I never said don't take the shot, your closed mind keeps you from understanding it.. I can't say it more times, as I said it in my OP it is a suggestion, a recommendation, a guideline NOT set in stone.
You just showed just how ignorant you really are to think that the Elk is going to know the difference of 50 yards, I was right you don't know jack about ballistics..
The shooter needs to know his rifle, and obviously his capabilities, we all know the odds begin to stack against hunters here in the US once the range goes past 250 yards, there is no magical impact formula that covers bad hits. (as I said in my OP)

The problem you have is that you are so wrapped around your ego that you can't see straight.. Everything you have tossed out there trying to pigeonhole the axiom, I never said, you added it, not me.

That 7mm-08 load holds onto quite a bit of steam out to 500 yards, if the shooter can make the shot and the angle looks good heck yeah float one out there, that is where we each have to decide on our own capabilities matched with the rifle..

I don't tell people what I think is ethical, if they wound an animal and it goes over that far ridge I am pretty sure they are going to make a half-assed attempt to track it and will quite soon give up and convince themselves they missed it completely. We all know what happens if they manage to make the shot, and down the elk, we can read it in many statements on this very thread..

I do think there is probably a higher percentage of good shooters here on this forum as compared to the general hunting population, I mean if we weren't more interested, we wouldn't be here trading barbs over something I am right about

This all begins to make sense now LOL,

https://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbt...t-elk-cartridge-in-the-world#Post4676551

Sure something like an accurate low recoil 7-08 would work fine but I wouldn’t be shooting a 140TSX. My personal preference would be the 140gr Berger VLD or similar which also carries past 300 with plenty of VELOCITY to aid in said bullet doing exactly what it’s designed for.

Slim, you ever get that box of rubber dongs I sent you for Xmas?

Since you hadn’t said *Thank You* I figured Tman probably stole them off your porch.

😜🦫

Excellent, this is real progress!

So what is the 1500 ft-lb "suggestion" based on? Why not 2000 or 1200?

And the broken record continues,,

I guess when your "Forum King" it takes awhile for your stupidity to become apparent to others, keep going you are helping me with every post, at this rate you will be irrelevant sooner

I did notice that you had nothing to say about the rest of my post, must have finally made it through, ahhhhhh Progress and Sensibility

Perfect if that is your favorite load go for it, any well constructed bullet placed accurately with around that energy is going to be just fine.. That 1500FP suggestion doesn't mean a .340WBY is needed

'Pooter, you and I both know there's no basis for it. You just can't bring yourself admit it.

And btw, Jordan is one of the most knowledgeable as well as one of the nicest guys on here.

That you got crossways with him speaks volumes. But go ahead, keep showing your ass, it's entertaining as hell.

That SOB...I thought you just didn’t care anymore.

Figured he had been around, the dogs ass was shaved and my beer was gone.

Sixshooter’, I would suggest you make a few rolls on the water and try to spit the hook,

From the looks of it, Jud doesn’t go barbless.

If I look at your past postings and his sorry but neither of you impress me one bit, nor does your mutual admiration of each other

Now let's try a different tack for you Mr. 31156

What is your caliber of choice in Colorado and why, instead of yammering on and on about what you think doesn't work how about you tell the OP what he should use

I even gave you the out of "In Colorado" so you can claim it as your excuse

Please enlighten us

He’s flossing 80lb braid in this River.




LMAO

🦫

Opinions .... Oh well you probably know the rest,,

And NO I didn't ask for yours

He’s a Canuck smoke, canucks are great folks

I doubt making “sense” of things is your forte as you are still trying to explain your original post. In fairness though another adult telling you about 1500 ft lbs and elk made sense to you 40 years ago, so there is that.

This seems logical to me. Steering a bit away from the energy debate, assuming you have a well-constructed bullet impacting at well-above the minimum expansion velocity, how much bullet mass would you think starts to get a bit too low for comfort? I've seen 85gr .243 bullets work wonders on deer, but would you all be comfortable with that on an elk hunt? If not, how much mass would it take to make you feel comfortable? And by comfortable, I mean that you're getting ready to pull the trigger with the sight on a front shoulder, are you kind of wishing you had a bit heavier of a bullet to launch, assuming the velocity is sufficient? At what weight of bullet would that thought not even pop into your head? Again, assume that the presentation is such that you gotta break bone.

I think folks would be a whole lot better off taking care of their physical health, and learning the ins and outs of their hunting areas than worrying about bullets and head stamp's as much as they do. Especially in today's day and age when we have so many wonderful options out there. Someone said it earlier, but that is one of the last things on my mind when trying to fill my family and I's elk tags.

You think I'd steal from that mangy dog? He has nothing I am interested in (except maybe a life).

Besides, I have my own lifetime stash of rubber dicks. They're MAGNUMS too, as I prefer at LEAST 2000 foot pounds of butt pressure. KNOCKDOWN POWER!

As most here can attest - speaking specifically about Jordan. He knows I’m not too scientific. 😬

But, I have probably as much or more experience than some here on killing public land elk. Approaching 70.

I’ve killed or been next to a hunter gunning a 30-06, 7mag, 270 Win, 300 Win, 300 Roy, 300 Ultramag, 30-370 Roy, 7mm-08 and a 28 Nosler.

Range has been between 842 yards at the tips, and as close as 60 yards.

Aside from a poorly made shot. All had died quickly with either one and done, or quick follow up shots to anchor it.

The unfortunate mountain rodeo retrieval has always been due to a bad hit with several follow up air ball shots. Caliber and bullets don’t matter much if you’re not connecting with tissue.

The only situation where I was personally behind the scope that had me miffed, was a cow hunt a couple years ago. I sunk a 140g Abond iirc, from a 7-08 behind the shoulder of average sized cow - 325lb ish that was *static* not under any stress.

I hit her at 425 yards. She absorbed the hit, and looked unfazed from what I could tell after coming off the recoil. Without indication that she had been hit,,,,,aside from the audible tell of my round slamming into her.

I had to watch the cow for several minutes to make sure I was still watching the elk I had hit,,,,,Mountain erupted with elk going everywhere at the break of my shot, and without any visual indicator the cow was hit, I had to wait until all the elk had moved away, leaving only the one cow. She was still standing, not swaying, finally she lowered her head and took an unstable step.

I hit her again about 2.5 inches apart from my first shot. That stoned her.

I recovered both rounds. One on the opposite side shoulder. The other under the hide on the opposite side....Good penetration on both bullets.


It’s still a mystery why the first shot didn’t provide more visual confirmation of a hit...Elk, can be a tough critter sometimes. That’s just a fact.

🦫

My god!! You got a pic of that bone pile??? That’s some serious bull killin!

Nobody in this thread has disproved that it works, so there is that

You wouldn’t enjoy my life, it involves females.

Not judging,....Well, maybe a little.

Thanks for the kind words, fellas.

This is painful.

Nobody in this thread has claimed that bullets with 1500 ft-lbs of kinetic energy at impact don't work. What you don't seem to understand is that the 1500 ft-lbs bullet is a subset of bullets that work. Bullet performance and placement can make up for a bullet that has much less than 1500 ft-lbs. A VLD in the ribs is decisively lethal, as long as the bullet arrives with enough velocity to expand/implode, even if it has nowhere near 1500 ft-lbs of kinetic energy.

My theory is, like humans, some are just tougher than others.

Pards bull, killed 1340 yards, 7 mag 180 Berger. How many flbs of energy was remaining there?


Beautiful pack out by the way, 5 guys, old road grades the whole way...

+1000 Jordan. For a while now I’ve looked at velocity limits and used that as one of the main factors when choosing a bullet for a given cartridge.

Nice bull. With no knowledge, I'm assuming 5,000 ft elevation as a median or so. With HSM's factory load with that bullet, it had dropped 38 MOA, or 46 ft from the LOS. It would have been moving around 1,450 fps and had an energy of about 850 ft-lbs, about like a medium .44 mag loading at the muzzle. That's pretty amazing shooting. How did they account for the drop and/or wind? Quite a shot. It looks like they took out the spine. I'm seriously impressed.

Math,

I just can't I really just cant believe some of the posts in this thread..

That being said, besides the math issue that was a nice shot, and a sweet Bull,,, very nice..

Smartest thing you have said yet, should have stopped there , and the following double talk was painful as you tried to unwind it

Pretty funny, dude selling the rifle was from Bremerton, met him in Olympia, checked the rifle out for mark. Long story short bought the rifle scope, ammo whole works. Pard wife and his buddy drew 3 Dayton tags here in Washington. He shot quite a bit prior to season out to 800 yards. Season rolled around, he killed this bull, his wife killed a decent 6, and his pard killed a good 6. Great hunt, lotta good memories, thankful to have been along to help spot and pack. 👍

Way, way lost. But expected.....

5.6x52mm Rimmed 22 Savage High-Power. Isn’t that the ultimate minimum?

I think that anything less than a 7mm Rem Mag is a bad idea if you are after a bull elk. I know that you can kill them with a 243, but that's not what I consider the minimum caliber. I would say that you should use whatever will ethically and humanely dispatch your quarry that you are able to shoot well. Shot placement is key and no magnum caliber is going to solve that issue.

More Elk have been killed with the 30-06 than all the 7mms in the world.

It's just a big deer and not bulletproof.

I spine shot a cow elk with my muzzle loader. Was reading fictional and non-fictional tales of the old time mnt men at that time. Rather than use a second load from the caplock. I grabbed the cow under her chin to slit her throat. It was a very bad idea with an unsuccessfull ending. I reverted back to the Hawken and discovered I was a better reader than a mnt man.

Whatever the minimum is. Its better than a knife.
:-)

I'm reading "The Wilderness Hunter" by Theodore Roosevelt at the moment, in which he describes several elk hunts in the Rocky Mountains. He mostly describes shots from 30 to 150yds and also states that he would usually shoot until the elk was down. On an elk hunt he would usually expend 2.5 cartridges per elk killed. In all of these hunts he used a Winchester 1876 centennnial in caliber .45-75, which produces around 1600 ft/lbs of muzzle energy. After reading the book, I'd personally want a bit more energy, especially at longer ranges.

I have shot half a dozen cows with a 243 using 100g partitions, they flopped. Shots were 100 yds and less.

The two most popular elk rifles in Az when I was living there was a 30/06 and 270 win.

I shot two big bulls with my 7 Mag using the old 140g NOsler ballistic tips loaded to 3200. Shots were 150 yards, mid body hits, and they were dead when they hit the ground. Two guys I hunted with used BARs with the same bullet and load. Their comment was the ammo killed like lightening.

I think that poor hits on elk make for a lot of good stories, and creating the fear that a larger caliber is much better. A poor hit is a poor hit no matter what the caliber.

For the average guy, a 300 Winchester or a 300 Weatherby mag loaded with 180-200g partitions would be a marriage made in Heaven, and for a 30/06, the 190g Hornady btsp will the job done!

Anyone else get four or five pages deep, become worn out by the energy debate then realize that szihn told you all you need to know on page one?

I've got a brother that because of his line of work can afford to do anything he wants wrt big game hunting and equipment.

Every season, just before leaving on a big ticket hunt he goes to the shooting range bench and launches 5 or six rounds at 100 yards. GTG.

Every season, on returning he tells me he had to shoot the big ass elk 5 times to put 'em down for good. He figures it's bad ammo and he wants me to tune a load for him. I tell him he needs to field practice more. A lot more.

So, with tuned handloads in hand off he goes on another hunt. And again, he has to empty the magazine into the bull elk to finish him off. Damn! he says, it must be the scope. Gotta get a better scope. Nope. he need to field practice more. A lot more.

So, last season, with handloads, a shiny new scope on his rifle, and a handful of rounds fired from the bench the weekend before we left for elk country he misses 4 times at a bedded elk at 259 yards and finally connects with rounds # 5 & 6. Personally, that has got to be one dumbass elk.

WTH! he says. You shot yours with one shot from a freakin' 6.5 CM and my elk won't die without emptying a magazine of .30-06 into them. The problem must be with the cartridge, and so his buddy who owns the sporting goods store is telling him he needs a .300 WM.

No. I tell him he needs to field practice more. A lot more. Just for S&G I choose a different cartridge to hunt with every season. This season? Probably the 9.3x62mm will get the call. But I field practice a lot. Like every week a lot.

Except that the average guy likely won't shoot either one very well.

Next to big bear cartridges, the elk cartridge debate is my favorite. I have never hunted the majestic elk, but have put holes in many Alaskan moose that were not much bigger then a big elk. All of it was done with a 30-06 or my .338 Winny and I'm not sure the moose noticed the difference. Most were taken with a Nosler Partition or Barnes X bullet of some flavor.

Lets look at what two of North Americas most famous hunters and writers used. I know Jack used a .270 for lots of his hunts, but he also used a 30-06 and we all know Elmer preferred a .338 or bigger for everything from our prairie goats to elk and big bears. So if we choose something on either end or in between its gotta be a good choice. We have no end to gook elk bullets, so if we do our part and put them in the right spot............

That’s what I was thinking.

Im an 06 whore. But also wouldn’t hesitate with the 270 or 6.5 CM.
Shot placement and proper bullet.
This year I got my 10 year old youth mentor tag and I’ll bring my cz 527 in 76239 and hope keep the shots around 100 yards