Just picked up an issue of Trophy Hunter. Inside is a picture of a young lady holding her Ruger 22-250! She's standing behind a very large 5x5 bull! She shot it at 170yds!!

Once again it's shows that shot placement is way more important than caliber! Don't know if there's on online link to a pic for you guys or not. Bull was killed somewhere in Montana.

On another note it will prolly be the last issue of the Trophy Hunter I buy. Every issue just get's worse with advertising. Most stories never even mention type of gear or statements about what caliber or bullet dispatched the critted. Bummer

"A hunter should not choose the cal, cartridge, and bullet that will kill an an animal when everything is right; rather, he should choose ones that will kill the most efficiently when everything goes wrong"
Bob Hagel

Got this off another post and kinda thought it fits here. Just cause something will work doesn't mean it shoudl be done.

But what the heck I "killed" a elk one time with a 22 stinger. I had shot the neck bone into with a 30-06 but it was still breathing when I got up to it. So there ya go a .22 CCI Stinger can kill a elk. even witha a 1 1/2 inch barrel American Arms. LOL.

Very sound advice! Thanks for the quote.

CD

wow, that takes guts! i would never attempt that!

I've been there done it and dined on the elk steaks via the old '250.

Most likely it'll happen again some day.

Not that I condone it for most people and or most circumstances.

Dober

I once defended a guy who killed an elk with a .22 mag.

They also don't tell you how the guy spent $5000 on a landowner tag, was driving around on private land, and blasted the deer/elk as it came out of the hayfield, LOL. But they make sure and tell you the score.

And people argue the .30-30 isn't enough gun...

Placement, placement, placement.

I don't suppose the article mentioned the other 2 that she wounded before she got one to go down. Information like that is usually left out of hunting articles.

Dick

The sad thing is that THIS will turn into a flame war...
Count me in on the group with shot placement rules....

It should be up to the hunter to ensure that everything does not go wrong. S*#T happens but a lot of it can be avoided.

As Phil Shoemaker noted in his last article in Successful Hunter, the .223 is the most popular cartridge in Alaska and is used on everything from small furbearers and pests up to moose and grizzly. That doesn't mean that it is the cartridge of choice for taking bruins and large ungulates--it's often the only one that is at hand for the task.

I believe that it is incumbent on a hunter to select a cartridge/rifle combination that he or she can shoot accurately and that will kill the quarry quickly and reliably with any shot that will be taken. The more "marginal" the cartridge, the lower the percentage of possible killing shots relative to the number of animals encountered.

Regardless of how large or small the bullet and how fast it is leaving the barrel, you still have to be able to get it into the heart/lung complex or the central nervous system to gaurantee a quick, clean kill.

End of sermon--pass the plate...

Yeah, when I was in the gunshop the other day buying some 60-gn Partitions for my .223, I mentioned that it was for my "elk load" and you could see about 4 sets of shoulders stiffen up as they prepared to explain to me what an idiot I was!

They were for my home-defense load for my AR...

The minimum caliber I'd personally like to hunt elk with is a 7mm-08, but it's legal to go all the way down to .243 in Oregon. They are tough animals, in tough country, and I personally want to hit them hard, and I want lots of penetration. Since I CAN'T afford "gimmee" tags, and elk is a low-percentage affair in Oregon, it just makes sense to carry a rifle that isn't going to be an impediment to the killin' should such a chance present itself. So while I would carry a 7mm-08 if I had to, in reality in my opinion "proper" elk rifles start at 30-06 and go from there.

The rifles in my safe that I consider "ideal" elk rifles are 30-06, .358 Win, 325 WSM, and 338 Win Mag, with the last one being the best for the job IMHO. The best combo of trajectory and terminal ballistics in a shootable rifle.

Rifles in my safe that I would use in a pinch or in special circumstances include 7mm-08, 30-30, 32 WS, 44 mag, .308, and 45/70.

I couldn't see hunting elk with a .22-anything or even a .243, personally.

-jeff

They also didn't mention the guy standing behind her with a 338.

Jeff, so you wouldn't use a .270? Let's not forget that if I'm not mistaken isn't it the swede's that have killed thousands of moose with a 6.5!

CD

Sure, I'd use one... but I don't own one so I didn't mention it. It would be bracketed between my choices of 7mm-08 and 30-06.

But to be honest, I consider it a notch below the 30-06, and the 30-06 is my minimum "ideal" elk rifle. The .270 would fall somewhere in my "adequate" category with 7-08, .280, .260, .308, etc.

A 30-06 with the right bullets is a bona-fide bull elk rifle, capable of most any shot angle. Get below that and you start to lose shot angles, you make a smaller hole, you make a less-deep hole, etc etc etc.

Of course, the caliber I consider truly ideal for elk is .338 Win Mag. Next up would .325 WSM or 300 maggie.

And now, sit back and watch as I get clobbered by all the .270 guys! Please let me note, NOWHERE IN THIS POST DOES IT SAY THAT .270 IS INADEQUATE FOR ELK! Also, this is all just an opinion, worth what you paid for it, and my opinion is formed by the terrain I hunt and my style of hunting- your mileage will vary.

It's neat that we have so many great calibers... I love 'em all! Just not all of them for elk.

-jeff

props to jeff!

What'd I do? Manage to cover all my bases? :-)

-jeff

I was a little worried I might have offended. You remained civil.

Ho jeez, I've been on the internet since 1992 or so... I've got pretty thick skin! Besides, you didn't say anything offensive or aggressive. And besides THAT, I have posted with my real name since the beginning and I'm not in the habit of getting in fights... it's just no fun, and it follows you around if you use your real name.

It's funny, 270 is a caliber that's just never interested me. Everyone talks about how flat it shoots but 30-06 shoots just as flat for practical purposes, and hits harder... if I want to shoot flat, I'd choose a 7-mag anyway.

I know .270 is a fine, fine caliber and if my first hunting rifle had been a .270 things would be different for me but as it turned out, it was a 30-06 so I got branded that way. Or something.

Pretty much everything ever made that's based ont the 30-06 parent case is a great caliber and same with the .308 case IMHO.

Of the new crop, I really like the 325 WSM. It's too bad that it's probably destined for the scrap heap because it really is useful, slotting right between 30-06 and .338 about every way. Note that I say between them... in my .325 WSM, at least, I get nowhere near the advertised velocities... it's no .338.

-jeff

Jeff......

I think you said what most of us "think"... and you "covered" the subject well.

Any experienced elk hunter would agree with your synopsis of something I've always believed and suggested which is, "Use ENOUGH rifle for the intended game!"


Strength & Honor...

Ron T.

Sometimes, I get lucky I guess!

Yeah... tales of woe abound at elk camp. One kid I met one time out in the field had a 6-inch strip of lung in his pocket, that had snagged on a stump that the wounded elk he was trailing had lost. He had followed it for miles at that point, over 2 ridges into 2 drainages... it finally met up with some other elk and stopped bleeding and he couldn't track it anymore. Tough critters!

-jeff

I would say it takes stupidity and HUGE lack of respect for the trophy animal.

I killed my first several elk with a 25-35, my dad killed at least 50 with a 250 Savage, I have killed a couple with that same 250 Savage. My mom killed a rabid horse with a 22 rifle.

Elk rifles start at the 30-06 IMO, and I base that on experience. Any caliber will kill an elk or an elephant for that matter. What has that got to do with hunting? If you want to hunt with a inferior caliber then be prepared to pass up many easy shots and good bulls to prove your point, or figure on wounding a lot of animals.

Shooting elk at 170 yards with a 22-250 is just a stunt, and it could go either way, I wonder how many she has left wounded in the mountains of Montana...I have seen light bullets from varmint guns blow up on deer several times, so good shooting isn't the answer to all, its just one part of the equasion.

Uh oh. Here come the .270 guys. Duck for cover!

:-)

-jeff

The problem with elk hunting is, the shots tend to be either very close, like in the timber, or...they are far shots out in open sage, canyons etc. I would not want to be packing a small caliber gun to shoot at an elk 300 yards away right before dark. And that is a shot that I would take with my 338.

I don't think Phil did anyone any favors with his article involving the .223. It's the most popular caliber because it's CHEAP not because it's good.

I think it is ridiculous to hunt elk with a 22-250. Period. I personally know of several bad experiences with elk and 22-250s. My cousins have like two rifles- one is a 22-250 and they are forever loaning it out when someone shows up with a rifle that is not sighted in. Although my cousin has killed a couple of elk with this rifle- he has followed quite a few that were wounded by friends and guess what- the bullets never made it through the shoulder! If shot placement isn't perfect, you have a wounded elk. For those of you who haven't had the opportunity to shoot a few elk, I will tell you that they are as tough an animal as there is- period. Even Craig Boddington gives them that credit in comparison to African game.

Hunting elk with a 22-250 intentionally is akin to having a cop carry a .25 auto as his duty weapon. Will it kill someone? Absolutely, is it effective- not hardly.

When I first started deer hunting I used my dad's -06, as expected, it worked perfect. The first rifle I bought was a 22-250 (because my uncle used one) I killed a half dozen coues whitetail with it before I had my first bad experience. I made a very LUCKY 2nd shot and broke this deers back at 400 yds [running, no less] and when I finally hiked over, the deer was still alive and fighting mad. The first round had deflected off a shoulder bone and went straight down. I can't imagine using it on elk.

Ray used a 250 Savage on elk- so have I- it shoots a 100-120 grain bullet and is very reasonable in velocity, totally different from the 22-250.

I just don't get the whole using a really light rifle on elk thing. Even something like a 250 Savage... WHY?

I think things are different where some of you hunt elk, though. If you live or lived on a ranch with lots of them, and knew you'd get multiple chances, or even multiple elk, I guess it would tend to make a person more casual about the whole thing. In Oregon, guys go years and years between having a SHOT at an elk, so you want to make sure that when you get that chance you are properly armed. For me, a 30-06 with 180's on up = "properly armed for elk". I'd just be ill if I got a chance at a good bull and screwed it up because I was using a very light caliber.

-jeff

...everything goes wrong...

Well, that certainly covers a lot of scenerios. I would be so busy thinking of Bullcookie Scenerios that I would never have time to hunt! How about that fir tree that inserted itself between me and my target?

My quibble is with "everything". I like the words "likely", "foreseeable", or even "probable".

I think Atkinson pegged it when he wrote, "If you want to hunt with a inferior caliber then be prepared to pass up many easy shots and good bulls to prove your point, or figure on wounding a lot of animals." The devil is in the details. WHICH easy shots/angles can you make and which should you pass on? As the caliber get more marginal the shot selection gets more critical and more dependent on Lady Luck.

I must 'fess up. I have never hunted elk...

Having confessed my virgin status, I gotta tell you it would take an series of unfortunate events before I would consider using a 22-250 for elk. While many guys use them to vaporize PDs at 300 yards A.) I am not one of those guys and B.) I would not want to hump that rifle up the mountain and through the blowdowns.

Another thing that baffles me as an elk virgin...this discussion about almost Texas Heartshots, i.e., "any angle". Half the WT deer in Michigan are harvested during bow season. Bows cannot drive an arrow through a shoulder and make a mess of any path that goes aft of the diaphram. So bow hunters tend to be very, very selective of their shots and let many "shots" walk. Why are elk in the west different? Is it because it is a shorter season? Is it because the hunters either need to put protein in the freezer or they are some Eastern "dude" who has $10K invested and want some tangible return?

Speaking from my own limitations, I have grave reservations about my ability to visualize a path that will take a bullet through an animals rump and, some 48 inches downrange, hit a significant stretch of lung (say 10" of path) or the heart. If elk are anything like Michigan WT deer, they seldom give you a shot like the picture in the magazine. You might see part of the animal, but not enough to judge yaw, pitch and roll. And bullets do not always travel in a nice, straight line.

I am not flaming. I just don't understand.

Bottom line: I would be very comfortable with 30-30 or 6.5X55 or 270 (or more) as long as I was not using "varmit" bullets and was cool with passing on shots that did not have a clear view of the "boiler room" and/or were out of range.

It is easy for me to write with certainty since I have not had to contend with reality.

-Joe

I've never taken a Texas Heart Shot (THS) and hope I never do, but part of why it's effective, and they say it's very effective, is that the liver is a vital organ, one, and that the sheer, pathetic, overwhelming trauma of being shot up the a$$ with a high-powered rifle tends to make the shoot-ee give up and lay down, two. Imagine the punch in the gut THAT must be. It's not supposed to be pleasant for the shooter either, involving very sick animals in a lot of pain, and a very messy cleanup job afterwards possibly to include ruined tenderloins. But they go down.

All that said, if I can visualize a straight path to the vitals I would take the shot with my .338... possibly even to include the THS. Call it what you will, elk hunting is very hard work... VERY hard work... and for many of us a low-percentage affair bordering on insane obsession. When you finally get a shot at an animal it'd be a shame to have to pass it up for lack of gun, of all things.

-jeff

JoeMama -

While I would never choose a .22-250 for elk, I can see how they could easily be taken with one. A varmint bullet in the neck would moslt likely do the trick rather quickly, as would a TSX or Trophy Bonded behind the ear.

Not every hunter will take a THS as a first shot, but wound one and it may be the only second shot you get.

Like you, and I've been hunting elk since 1982, I would be very comfortable with a 30-30 or 6.5X55 or 270.

Coyote: No disrespect...but a varmint bullet in the neck is probably the worst place you could shoot an elk. Their necks are massive, and have a lot of muscle. Unless you got lucky and happened to hit them in the spine, you are going to wound it for sure. I was with a guy that shot a mulie in the neck with a 7 mag. It missed the arteries, and spine, and poked a mean hole all the way through in the meat. The deer made it about a mile before we found him and finished him off. He was still standing with his head down.

The 22-250 is a perfect coyote gun.

dogcatcher223 -

I understand your position but disagree as I've too often seen what a varmint bullet will do to the off side of a coyote. Its hard to imagine hitting the neck and not destroying something important, whether it was a CNS hit, arteries or the throat.

Like I said, though, I would never try it.

A Varmint bullet in the neck would probably make a mess and might kill the bull if you hit the right spot. My uncle killed several this way with 55 grain soft point factory ammo [Remington and Winchester] This is typical a heavy for caliber bullet in the 22 by today's standards. I don't know if it took more follow-up shots or not- I do know that he was unable to use any of the capes as they were recked.

The problem with varmint bullets in an elk's neck isn't whether it will kill it but rather where the elk will be when it dies. If you blow out the esophagus, it will probably die 2 weeks later in some dense hell-hole. If you blow out the trachea, chances are that it will be able to breath and run, for a while anyway, and will die a day or so later of infection or exhaustion. If you hit the spine, it may or may not penetrate, depending on how fragile the bullet is. If it doesn't penetrate, there's still a good chance that you made the kill but the death might well come from shock, bleeding, or infection several miles away.

The only sure thing here is a hit on the jugular. How many hunters can tell exactly where it is at any angle?

Dick

And that's sort of one half of the whole "use enough gun for elk" equation. #1, respect for the animal IE a clean kill... #2, elk tend to live in very rugged terrain and are very tough animals and putting them down ASAP can be the difference between recovery or not, or between thousands of vertical feet of huffing out quarters...

.243 is the minimum for elk in Oregon. I think 22-250 is insane bordering on criminal.

-jeff

I don't even like .243's for elk. I'll take a .30-30 instead.

Oh, I'm with you there! I don't even like .243 for deer!

-jeff

Jeff,
I hunted with the light calibers when I was very young and that was about all I could handle. My family were ranchers and true outdoorsmen and in those days most folks used 30-30s and thought a 300 Savage was a magnum. A few had Springfields and I remembering thinking when I got big I would own a 300 Savage or maybe a 30-06 Springfield army rifle. I almost had appoplexy when I saw my first M-70 in 300 H&H and the owner, a paying hunter, gave me one of those big cases. I took it to school and showed it to the whole classs and the teacher, all were impressed. A different time and place.

As to the "Texas heart shot", I don't know of a quicker killing shot if you use enough gun. other than brain or spine.. I don't know why anyone would hesitate to use it. It destroys much more vital organs than a broadside shot, and 95% or better of the time they pile up at the shot...I have not had any other opertunity in the last number of years where I hunt, so I use a 338 with 300 gr. Woodleighs or my 375 with 350 gr. Woodleighs. The black timber is thick, nasty and dark, they jump close and are going south fast, what would you suggest, that I just quit hunting them?

"I almost had appoplexy when I saw my first M-70 in 300 H&H and the owner, a paying hunter, gave me one of those big cases. I took it to school and showed it to the whole classs and the teacher, all were impressed."

that brought a smile!
remembering back a few years,
about 29 years ago I went on my first ELK HUNT IN WYOMING, we were at a drop off hunt and fairly deep into the greys river area, one of the guides that was showing us the basic area lay out, had just purchased a 7mm rem mag and was complaining about the recoil levels compared to the 270 win he had used for years. he was to pick us up in 5 days or when we signalled him by putting a blue tarp around a tree trunk he could see from a spot on a mountain road. we signalled him on the second day, we had an elk down, when he came to pick us up he commented on the small enterance and exit wounds, on the dressed carcass, then saw the internal damage/bloodshot area was not that bad even thought the bullet passed clear thru,
"looks like a bullet went in behind the last rib on the right rear and exited the left side neck and passed out with minimal expansion, how far did he run? what was the range?"

he dropped on the spot! and was shot at about 280-300 yards, was the answer,
"OH! what did you use?"
I flipped him a loaded 378 wby loaded with 300 grain round nose bullets seated to the max length that functioned in my mark V, I thought he would crap him self, I allowed him to keep the cartridge, he said his buddies would never believe it!

Atkinson,

I think you mis-read my post. I said:

"I've never taken a Texas Heart Shot (THS) and hope I never do, but part of why it's effective, and they say it's very effective, is that the liver is a vital organ, one, and that the sheer, pathetic, overwhelming trauma of being shot up the a$$ with a high-powered rifle tends to make the shoot-ee give up and lay down, two. Imagine the punch in the gut THAT must be. It's not supposed to be pleasant for the shooter either, involving very sick animals in a lot of pain, and a very messy cleanup job afterwards possibly to include ruined tenderloins. But they go down.

All that said, if I can visualize a straight path to the vitals I would take the shot with my .338... possibly even to include the THS. Call it what you will, elk hunting is very hard work... VERY hard work... and for many of us a low-percentage affair bordering on insane obsession. When you finally get a shot at an animal it'd be a shame to have to pass it up for lack of gun, of all things."

In the first part I say, I've heard it's a very effective killing shot (but a messy cleanup); in the second part I say that I'll take about any shot angle with my .338, even to include the THS.

With the right rifle and bullet in my hands, I'd take a THS. But I hope I never have to. From what I'm told, it's miserable for the animal and a real mess come gutting time.

-jeff

Sorry, I did misread your post and I apoligise for that, and hope I was polite in my answer to you, I thought I was, after all these are only conversations in print, but the printed word has no emotion and sometimes comes across poorly.

As for messy, gutting an animal is messy, but I have done it so many times it does not bother me one way or the other to clean one, even gut shot. I do like to get them washed out with either water or snow.

rest assured they are normally dead by the time you get to them and if not a second shot is quick to end it. I have been told by veternerians that animals flush with adrenaline and pain levels get quit low. I was curious about this as I have observed Lions eating buffalo that were still alive and the buffalo were rather calm about the whole thing. Also I have shot moose and had them continue to graze!! so I inquired.

In many instances mortally wounded animals continue to live in seemingly no particular discomfort, some fight you and others run off and get in the herd and continue their life cycle of eating, cud chewing, and sleeping.

For what is worth.

No worries! I could tell you just mis-read it.

I wish I lived in a state where it was realistic to kill an elk every year, or almost. It's a tough, low-percentage hunt in Oregon. Tough is fine, but the low-percentage part gets old.

-jeff

My one and only experience with a THS was an 80# coues whitetail buck at 125 yds with a 1st generation 165 grain Balliistic Tip out of my 300 Wby. It did NOT kill the deer and ruined 3 of the 4 quarters. I had to put a finisher in when I got up to him. He was down instantly but very much alive. Truly a case of using the wrong medicine for that job!

I wouldn't hesitate to use it now if I were trophy hunting and using a good bullet- I just haven't had an opportunity since! Dang!

Oh man.... not a pretty image... 80# deer meets BT up the pooper from a large magnum... bleah!

One of my elk camp buddies came across a wounded buck and decided to finish and tag it. He shot it at about 20 yards with a 150 Ballistic Tip from a 300 WSM. Lost both shoulders. D'oh!

-jeff

For some reason the board wouldn't let me edit my post so I will follow-up

What I wouldn't hesitate to use now is the THS- not the Ballistic Tip!!!

I don't doubt the ballistic tip is a good deer bullet, used properly (broadside shots or nearly so), but my one experience was with a heavy-for-caliber BT from a 7mm-08, and it was still way too explosive for my tastes. That was with a 150 from a 20" barrel. Blew a fist-size chunk of meat off the animal's neck.

I much prefer Accubonds. They are now my bullet of choice.

-jeff

This is a prime example of irresponsible behavior that gives all hunters a bad name. Good shot placement is certainly VERY important and a properly-placed shot will anchor any game.

But, you can just not guarantee a properly-placed shot under all circumstances. Even a well aimed shot can strike bone or thick grissel that will prevent proper expansion and deep penetration.

Even a properly placed 30-06 (180+ grain bullet) may strike bone and not penetrate deeply - the game is left to a painful death, unless good tracking is successful.

I just can not say enough about the irresponsible behavior exhibited here, at least on the part of the adult responsible for her.

Agreed with everything except the 30-06 part.... if you use proper bullets, '06 will penetrate any bone any elk has in it's body. Use a deer bullet and maybe not.

-jeff