Ok i just found out my girlfriend just drew a cow elk tag. Now im trying to figure out which gun i should have her use to shoot it. Which one would you pick and why?

I would use the 7mm-08. I have used it to start all of my grandchildren on deer and my step-daughter has used it to bag a bull elk. If you use a heavy for caliber bullet (such as a 160 grain Nosler Partition or Barnes TSX, or even a 175 Partition), you can find or make a load that won't kick as badly as the .25-06 with 120 grain bullets.

We have had good luck with the 160 grain Partitions in the 7mm-08 and, at modest velocities, in my wife's .280. My step-daughter did a stint in the National Guard and qualified as "expert". Her deer/antelope rifle is a .25-06, but she borrowed one of our 7m-08s to hunt (and kill) her elk.

In the interest of full disclosure: IMHO I think that either would work fine with proper bullets and proper shot placement. She should use the one that she likes to shoot the best.

I hope my friend Dennis from Arizona logs on here....

JB

Unless she is truly proficient with firearms, I suggest she toss the largest, heaviest slug possbile downrange. So 7mm. If she's an olympic class marksperson, then whatever she wants.

I really don't think marksmenship has too much to do with it. If she makes a bad shot with a 7-08 vs the 257 then the results will be the same, even with a marginal shot.

As long as the shots are broadside I doubt it would matter. If there was a quartering shot then the 7-08 would have the advantage with conventional bullets but I bet with barnes or even partitions performance would be similar. The 257 would help on longer shots where range estimation would come into play.

I have never shot an elk with less than a 270 caliber so take that for what its worth,.

I'd let her pick whichever one shes most confident with. Has she shot either one?

7mm-08 with a 120gr TSX! Or any quality bullet would be my first choice of the two. I prefer heavier bullets and more frontal area.

"I prefer heavier bullets and more frontal area." Why 120g in .284 then? Why not a 115g TSX in .257 going alot faster?

Seems to me the advantage of the .284 is the heavier bullets available.

While I own one of each, neither would be my choice of an elk round, but my first question would be which one does she like to shoot. Neither is much of a kicker, so rifle fit is probably the key....and don't ever let her shoot the Roy without ear protection or she's ruined for life.

I guess if push came to shove, I'd probably go with the .257 Roy and the heaviest TSX. But wouldn't feel undergunned at all with the 7-08 with 160 Parititons or lighter Barnes.

Of course, I use a .338, so what do I know?

Bottom line, get both rigs in her hands and let her tell you which one without knowing a thing about cals.

Both will work just fine for her.

IMO it is all about fit and feel and what is comfy to her and not about cal.

Dober

+ 1

A good shot with either is a dead elk.

I plan to fully explore the 7-08 120gr TSX next year on black bear, deer, mnt goat, and elk. I have no doubt a good shot will work wonders and know a poor shot usually has poor results, regardless of chamber or bullet weight.

Evidently my friend Dennis is paying attention to something else.

He lives in Arizona, but we met a few years ago and have done some hunting together. I introduced him to the Nosler Partition and he has been loading it a lot since then. His kids draw cow elk tags now and then in AZ, and I believe they have taken them all with the .250 Savage and 100-grain Partitions. One shot through the ribs, right behind the shoulder, dead elk.

Now everybody (except Mark) can go back to discussing minor differences in bullet weight and diameter--or angling shots, etc. Why on earth force a new elk hunter to take a tough shot on a cow?

JB

I am going to kill my meat cow with a 257 roy here in the next few weeks....seen it do some nice work on everything it runs into.

Should work just fine. I am thinking of using mine on for my next elk hunt.

I also know a couple who own a one-section "ranch" in New Mexico, on the edge of one of the elk-famous mountain ranches. So far she has killed 17 elk in a row with the .257 Bob, all one-shot kills.

JB

Based on my experience with the two, they are very close in terms of what they do to the life support system of a critter. I would use partitions or tsx in either one. In really open country I'd tote the 257roy.In thicker stuff I'd go with the shortest most handy gun, the 7-08 in most models is perfect.

I would let her pick the one she likes best if there is any difference between them to her,after all it's her time to shine.

Britt

It was a sarchastic referance to another thread, hence the "".

I think i have decided on having her shoot the 7mm-08 because it has less recoil and my .257 weatherby is alittle long for her. So now what bullet would you shoot out of the 7mm-08 for a cow elk.

Factory or roll your own?

Dober

Gotta hit the rack, can't wait for your answer, impatient and sassy I guess........grins

Roll your own

R15 and 140 Noz
139 Horn flat base
140 TSX
120 TSX

Factory Hornady Lt Mag 139 grain
Federal 140 Noz
Federal 140 TSX
Rem 140 CL Ultra

Later

Dober

Ya, probably a good choice. You might want to take her out to the range and try both rifles. However, I'm guessing that it would be the same result in the end, i.e. she would choose the 7mm-08 over the .257 Weatherby. Now, if you were comparing the 7 to a .257 Roberts, that might be a different story.

Mark, I agree with that. I'd put her to the test shooting both rifles at targets; first at the bench, then as you'd shoot in the field. That little test would be good practice anyway, and it'll tell you all that you need to know.

Personally, I'm rooting for the 257 Wby., but I suspect she'll shoot the 7mm-08 best...........

AD

I roll my own and im thinking of the 120 tsx but im not sure yet. Will these also work good for deer and antelope or will they just zip right through without doing much damage. For deer and antelope im thinking the 120 grain ballistic tip but i kindof just want to stick with one bullet for elk, deer and antelope.

One bullet for all I'd vote for and if used in an intelligent manner then the 120 TSX will do her just fine.

We've all read the testimonies over the years about the Roberts and 117's on game and the 7/08 with a 120 is pretty much about the same dawg.

Dober

What dober said about ammo.
+1

Britt

neither caliber, if its over 200 yards and then it's iffy if the exact spot is not hit.

Mule Deer:

17 elk with the 257 Roberts? Since the +P loading just came out recently, does that mean she used the anemic 117 gr roundnose at 2650 fps muzzle velocity (Remington factory load) for the majority of them?

And the 250 Savage with a 100 gr bullet (typically around 2800 fps)...it doesn't just bounce off?

Kind of makes you believe the guys who use a .243 for elk aren't completely clueless!

cdhunt,

You mean the 7mm-08 bounces off past 200 yards? One of my buddies here in Montana has three sons, who have killed over 30 elk with the 7mm-08 (mostly with 140-grain bullets) out to 400 yards and have never lost one.

JB

ZINNNNGGGG!!! LOL

JB you always have real world experiences to back up your points, which is why I enjoy and respect your posts!

Your out your friggin mind!
The biggest bodied deer I've ever watched killed. Was taken with one shot at 257yds with a 7-08 and 140 gr partitions. The hunter was my 14 yr old son. That buck looked like it got smashed under Godzill's foot! Infact it was so violent that any critter, Moose ,elk, grizz included woulda crumpled at the shot!
My wallet says add another 100 yds to that shot and the results would been the same.

200 yds? Dude, get real.. I guess the 4x4 blacktail I hit between the eye's at 319yds forgot he was out past 200. Same gun same load.

After what I've seen the last 7 yrs ain't any critter safe at even 400yds.

Bottom line that -08 with 140 partitions is "overkill" on deer. if You wanta use a bigger caliber than thats just personal preference. Not because it's needed.

My kid is magic when it comes to killing critter's! At this point if your a bull elk at 300. Well, your simply a dead bull at 304yds. Cuz my kid just knocked you on your ass!

You guyz gotta get some experience. I mean didn't you know that @ 201 yds all things go to heck in a handbasket.......grins

I just love this place as it takes all kindz

Dober

Actually, it's 200.000000000000000001 yards. Sheez Mark, don't you know anything

Only what I've read in the rags.....grins

Dober

This sounds like something I saw on one of the Saturday morning hunting funnies program. The erstwhile host spends about 15 minutes explaining how you need an "adequate controlled expansion bullet" like the 160 grain Swift A-Frame he was using in his 7MM STW.

After a hearty "let's go huntin" pep talk he hops into his buck buggy and cruises down to the outhouse on stilts for his evening adventure.


Near the end of show Ol' Nimrod passes up a perfect broadside shot at a medium sized whitetail buck that the onscreen laser rangefinder overlay said was 212 yards across the food plot from his box stand because it was "just too far to insure a proper bullet placement."

HBB

I haven't pulled the trigger on a centerfire yet that wouldn't do the job just fine out to 300. 200yds. OTFLMAO!!

150 partitions and a nice dose of H4350.

John,
That wouldn't be "Elk", would it? He had a great article in Rifle (or maybe it was Handloader) a while back about the 7-08 and his family's success with it.
Regards,
Marty

You guessed!

JB

Do you have a copy of that article? I'd love to read it.

All members---I feel very good, now that I have awakened your brains about 7mm-08 and 257. You know it does everyone good once in a while to get their blood pressure elevated, it clears up a lot of things. Also it shows that we are still americans and can voice our opinions, as it should be. The 7mm-08 and 257 in whatever rifle and or configuration are some good calibers, and in the proper hands can do the work intended. Continue to voice your opinions strongly and it will become a better america. CD

Well, you didn't tell anything about the rifles themselves... I am imagining that the 7mm-08 is housed in a rifle that is a more pleasant "carry", IE smaller and lighter, so IF that's the case then the 7-08 wins hands down just on that alone.

As far as on the merits of the two calibers, I would again go with 7mm-08. I would load it with either 150 or 160-gn Partitions, or a 140 or 150-gn TSX (if such a thing exists).

7mm-08 is, like just about everything based on the .308 case, a wonderfully efficient cartridge... and while a .25 will certainly kill an elk, or an elephant for that matter, I think the bigger, heavier bullet of the 7-08 is a real advantage with elk.


Now off to read the thread and see if anyone agrees with me! :-)
-jeff

I killed a bunch of blacktail with a 7mm-08 and 150-gn Partitions (the rifle didn't like the 140's). I never lost one, but I did ALMOST lose a very nice buck:



Sorry for the bad scan of a bad photo to begin with...

That was shot solidly through both lungs. That buck, and another good one that I had to track for 100 yards, plus the barrel being shot out on my 7-08 <g>, prompted me to re-barrel that rifle to .358 Win, which at the very least leaves much more blood trail than 7mm-08...

Anyway, not diss-ing the 7mm-08; I still own one in a Mountain Rifle and I love the caliber and would hunt anything up to elk with it. But I guess my point is that, overkill or not, there are reasons to use something bigger on deer than 7mm-08 for some situations. That said, I'm not a fan a going into warp-speed for more power; I want a bigger, fatter bullet at a moderate 2600 fps or so.

-jeff

If we use the gun argument, I can see a 7-08, but the ballistics argument doesnt hold any water.

If you compare the 120g NP factory load in the .257 to the 140g 7-08 factory load (federal ballistics website), the .257 kills the 7-08.

The .257 with a muzzle velocity(MV) of 3305 fps has a muzzle energy(ME) of 2910 ft/lbs. The 7-08 with a MV of 2820 fps has a ME of 2472 ft/lbs. That is almost 500 fps and 450 ft/lbs the 7-08 give up to the .257. Since most game isnt killed at the muzzle, lets compare at 300 yards. At 300 yards the .257 has a listed velocity of 2570 fps and 1760 ft/lbs, whereas the 7-08 has a listed velocity of 2162 fps and 1452 ft/lbs of energy. Still a 400 fps difference and 300 ft/lb difference in favor of the .257.

Lets compare the 120g .257 to 150g 7-08, the 7-08 loses at muzzle by 650 fps and 570 ft/lbs and at 300 yards it loses 500 fps and almost 400 ft/lbs.

With comparably constructed bullets, the .257 wins hands down ballistically.

There is more to bullet effectiveness than just velocity and striking energy...

Such as?

We are comparing apples to apples, NPT to NPT or TSX to TSX. Ballistically, the .257 WM wins.

Momentum, the 120g and 150g bullet's momentum is nearly identical.

Why is bigger/heavier/slower better than smaller/lighter/faster if similarly constructed bullets?

Bullet diameter: wound channel, exit hole diameter.

I never have, and never will, kill an elk with a .25, so hopefully someone who has seen it done, or done it, will chime in.

My OPINION, based on seeing and helping dismember a half-dozen elk and killing one small one, is that with elk bigger is better. Bore sizes between .30 and .35 seem to be about optimal. 7mm and .280 certainly work too.

By your argument, a blazing .22 at 4000 fps would be an elk load.

Elk are big animals, and big holes are a good thing. They don't need to be humongous, but .25 is getting a little small, IMHO. Also, a .25 at 3300 fps is risking bullet problems on big bones, even with a great bullet.

If I was forced to hunt elk with a .25, especially a fast one, I'd restrict my shots to broadside and try to keep the range at least 100 yards or greater.

If I was using an appropriatly-loaded 7mm-08, the angles I would be comfortable taking would be much greater. A 7mm-08 would drive a 160-gn bullet deep into a lot of elk.

That's what I think anyway.

-jeff

Kodiak,
I'll look for it tonight.

Thanks

Jordan, I will play devils advocate. If a good bullet expands to twice its diameter, the .257 will be 0.514 inches, the 0.284 will expand to 0.578. Are you insinuating that 0.054 inches in exit hole will be detectable to the human eye or the elk will be able to tell the difference?

My argument is that the .257 will have a larger wound diameter because of the increased velocity of the bullet and the larger hydrostatic energy.

Jeff, my argument nowhere mentions the .22 at 4000 fps. We are comparing the ballistics of the .257WM to the 7-08. Ask JB if an elk has ever been killed with a .257 caliber bullet.

kyreloader,

I understand you didn't mention .22's.... but let's extend your line of thinking a little and see where it goes. In the process, we will find that you too have a line in the sand, so to speak, with regards to minimum for elk...

You are saying a fast .25 would work. What is wrong with a very fast .22, then, of comparable ft-lbs? Are you saying that a .22 expanded to twice it's diameter, .44, is going to be noticably different to the elk, or to the human eye, than your .25 expanded to .514? We are talking less than 8/100's of an inch difference after all. Trivial!

And yet we all know that a hyper-fast .22 would be a poor choice.

The mechanisms that make a fast .22 less "good" than a .257 Weatherby, make the fast .25 less ideal than a 7mm-08.

-jeff

Exactly Jeff.

kyreloader,
First of all, the term "hydrostatic energy" is an oxymoron. Second of all, I have yet to see a difference in the way a few hundred feet per second determine wound channel diameter or volume.

It's not a difference of 0.054" between the two bullets, it's the difference in volume of the wound channel created by that 0.054" expanding rapidly upon impact.
After all, to our reasoning, would 0.162" really make much of a difference between an expanded .257" bullet and an expanded .338" bullet? But yet we all know that there is a world of difference in effectiveness on game. Both will get the job done, but there is a significant difference in the animals reaction to the bullet striking. Where do we draw the line of what makes a difference and what doesn't? Is there a difference between a .243 and a .257? How about a .243 and a .264? How about a .243 and a .577? You see my point?

I see your point, mine is that ballistically the .257 WM is superior to the 7-08.

Why is my wound cavity with a 100g TSX .25-06 bullet at 3450 fps larger than my father's 150g TSX .270 Win bullet at 2950 fps when tested in the bullet test tube if 500 fps isnt important to wound diameter?

How much volume difference does 0.054" expanding rapidly create?

The differences between the .257 bullet and the .338 bullet has to do with the momentum, velocity and energy of the two bullets. I think a difference of 1000 ft/lbs of energy between the .257 and .338 should make a difference in an animals reaction to bullet striking and overall effectiveness.

Jeff, a .22 does not have comparable foot pounds. A .22-250 with a 60g NP at 3500 fps only has 1632 ft/lbs and momentum figures of 210,000. Balllistically not on the same planet-it is a bad choice because it doesn't have enough energy, momentum.

I see your point but ballistically the .257WM is superior. Real world will it matter? I am arguing that it will not.

I see your point as well, but even if the .338" bullet had equal momentum and energy, I will venture a guess to say that it will be more effective than the .257" bullet.

"How much volume does 0.054" expanding rapidly create?" Enough to make a difference.

A wound cavity in the bullet test tube (read: consistent medium) is different than it would be in an elk for example because the elk is not a hydraulic medium like most test mediums are, but instead are largely pericardium, lung, airspace, bone, and skin/hair. Now I'm not saying that velocity doesn't create a bigger wound channel in an ANIMAL, but just as with the bullet diameter comparison, where do we draw the line? Does 25 fps make a difference? Does 200? What about 2000? I'm trying to say that it's all a compromise. More velocity with the .257 and more surface area in the expanded 7mm bullet. The .257 may have the external ballistic advantage, but I would wager that the 7mm would have the "consistently reliable animal reaction" advantage. Both will make the elk sick enough to fill my freezer though.

What about if we took a .177" bullet and gave it enough velocity to match the .257" in momentum and energy. Would they be equally effective on elk?

That would only be about 20,000 fps with the .177.

I agree, Jordan, both .257 and 7-08 would make them sick enough to fill my freezer.

Since, for a given mass, momentum increases linearly with velocity but kinetic energy increases quadratically I think you're going to run into trouble trying to get two different masses to have the same kinetic energy if you've matched momentum, and vice versa.

Heavier and heavier isn't better in the extreme either. I believe a 16 pound bowling ball at about 3.6 fps has the same momentum as a 150 grain bullet at 2700. Now which is the better elk killer?

Having no elk killing experience I can't tell you which will cartridge will do better, but I think I can illustrate what happens when numbers get mishandled.

mathman

Good illustration mathman. The actual dynamics are far more complicated than a single number (momentum or energy) can possibly accurately represent. The 'bowling ball' and 'hyper speed needle' counterexamples illustrate the fallacy. Bottomline is that a sufficiently 'damaging' wound has to be inflicted, and placement and bullet performance have to enter into it as well as velocity and bullet weight and caliber.

Why not compare the 100 or 120 TSX out of the 257Roy to the 120 TSX at about 3,100 out of the 7-08? I don't have the numbers right in front of me but that would seem a more logical comparison.

Kodiak, the article is in Handloader No. 237, October 2005. PM sent.

That's exactly what I'm trying to say. There is more to the equation than just velocity, momentum, and energy. If too much emphasis is placed on any one of the many variables, it begins to stray from reality. Both the bowling ball and the hyper-velocity needle are unreasonable as neither would be extremely effective on dispatching an elk, but preferably we'd use a bullet somewhere in between the two and have a dead elk in short order.

All I can add is, and with apologies to Dober here, thank GOD it's almost time to start hunting, the GACK is getting thick around here!

(and I'm as guilty as the next guy!)

:-)

-jeff

I like the 7/08 with a good 140 gr bullet; mostly cause I have seen plenty of elk killed with 7mm cartridges, but only a few shot with 25's. While the smaller calibers work, I like the larger wound channels and frontal area of the 7mm's better.You'll never starve if you shoot elk with 25's; but there are better tools for the job.

A very light rifle in 458 winchester sounds about right, or possibly a 458 Lott. those are tough cows.

I think somewhere Dober wrote of having an interest in an 8mm-06 Improved. So don't feel too bad if he gets to chiding us about "gacking off" or whatever.

It is quite simple...
Poke the vitals and you have a dead animal...

Plain and simple really...

Not me, but I was gathering intel for a good bud of mine.

IMO once we get past a 06 and or a 270 for the most part it then begins to get into the want category and also into the gun gack as well.

Doesn't mean it aint fun to cuss and discuss however........

Dober

Ah HA! What he really wants is my .325 WSM, then. I knew it all along!

-jeff

It is simple. That's why it's nice to use a caliber that can reach the vitals from tough angles if need be, and make a nice big hole going through the vitals so the elk does his dyin' in the same county as you...

-jeff

Haven't popped anything larger than big deer with the .257 WBY, but have shot some at 450 yards with the 100 TSX @3600 fps muzzle velocity. They are still dead. I have a lot of experience on larger game with the 7x57 and a 160 Nosler at 2750 fps, flattened kudu, oryx, elk, etc as well as anything. A stoutly constructed .257 should work, but the 7-08 with the much heavier bullet that I know will penetrate would make me feel better. It sure won't be any harder to shoot, so that would be my choice.

Jeff-the 325 Rosie has not intrigued me a bit, I have a 338 Rosie and it is nice but in the long run not anything that truly interests me.

Always fun to play with different rounds, get them sorted out and then move them on.

Dober

I know what you mean. I tend to get bored with my "easy" guns!

I think, if I were starting all over again though and didn't already have some really nice rifles (nice shooters I mean) I'd get a Kimber .325 WSM, or else have one built on a M700 action... and maybe a .260 or 7mm-08... and that'd about do it for me. I really like .325. It's a significant notch down from .338 in recoil, which means I could house it in a lighter rifle...

Hey, speaking of such, I keep meaning to ask you what's a 7mm Mashburn?

-jeff

It's the original 7mm Magnum!
http://www.loaddata.com/members/search_printable.cfm?metallicid=487&MW=&PM=&PT=

Both will work. She will have a better time if she uses whichever one she happens to prefer for whatever reason. You will have a better time if she does, too.

Jeff: The Mashburn pre-dates the 7 rem mag and was made famous by Warren Page of Field and Stream, who hunted about everything with a Mauser action 7mm Mashburn, and a 375 Weatherby Mag.Bob Hagel also used the cartridge a lot. Famous people using it today include a guy name Mark Dobrinski from Bozeman, Montana...............


The Mashburn may very well be the theoretically "best" big 7. I would expect a 7mm on the new 375 Ruger case to be pretty close; can't wait to get one if they make it.

Thanks Bob!

Sounds interesting... though the big magnum's don't hold much appeal to me personally. Mainly I was curious because it wasn't in any of my books.

-jeff

Jeff-sorry about not getting to your Q about the Mashburn, been sort of haulin butt busy lately.

Bob has it mostly right, people like Page/Hagel/Bowman used the big 7 a lot and it was sort of the predessor to the 7 RM to my mind.

I was very fortunate to have built a relationship with one of those fellas (Hagel) and hence I started using the Mashburn way back when. I'm on my 3rd Mashburn tube now and it is fairly well on its way to Croak City Wyoming. After this season is over it'll be going to the gun Doc for a new tube.

I am sort of a sentimental (and or mental) fella and so I go in for some of the oldies. I've carried the gun a ton and just love it and shoot it fairly well, but then again anyone who picks up does so as well.

I also have a thing for the 340 and the 375 Wby, go figure eh.

Now for what Bob got wrong, he meant to say I was infamous and notorious........grins

Dober

Mark, I'm not really in the market for another magnum right now, but am curious if the numbers on the LoadData link are typical of what you're getting? They seem to better the STW which seems wrong if case capacity means anything. It's basically a 7mm-300Win correct?

Even though I never met Mr. Hagel, I'm quite sentimental (kind of a curse), and could easily be drawn to the Mashburn just to be different.

222-the info on the link is a fiar bit agressive according to my findings. I'd say that a lot of the old Mashburn info (like much of the info from the days of past) is a fair bit feisty.

With respect to the departed Bob (Hagel) I just can't go where he did. I am normally at least 100 fps off of where he went.

But then again as I get older I have pulled my ears back a fair bit from running things at top end. I no more have an interest in making a round go this or that way just to appease my ego. It is something that I've grown out of and hope that others do as well.

I do enjoy working with the "catz", always have and most likely always well as I kind of go about life a bit differently than the rest of the world.

As far as the Mashburn goes there is a cost that goes with it for sure. The dies are a cost and will set you back a fair chunk, and then there is the case forming (which is really darn easy but it is a process). So, if it is something you really wanna look into give me a pm and I will get your phone number and will call you and go thru it with you.

I find the speeds of the Mashburn to be right in between what the 7 Wby and the STW will do, and a goodly number of the STW's that I've been around wouldn't do anymore than the Mashburn.

If you've any more Q's just pm me so we don't take this thread to far off the fairway.

Dober

Thanks for the reply Mark. There's no hurry for me right now since I'm not shooting half of what I own right now. I don't have a fast 7mm however, so if I ever felt the need, I'd likey try the Mashburn first just for giggles.

Am I just corn-fused, but isn't the 7mm mag based off the .300 WM case??

Never had either one... just seems like it from brass I've picked up!

-jeff

A lot of stuff is actually based off of the 300 H&H case, but the 7mmRem has shorter dimentions than the 300Win. IIRC a Layne Simpson article correctly (sorry...), the first 7mm Rem mag loads were built with .264Win cases.

Jeff-the Mashburn can be made via H&H case and or WM. It is just a lot easier to do it with the WM.

For lack of better verbage the process sets everything a bit forward and so there is more case capacity.

Real world of big 7's is that the Mashburn is just a sentimental journey for me and while I would not stoop to call it ballistic gack (cause I love the old round) one who is not a Mashburn lover may just call it that.

I like the "catz" what can I say.

Dober

(I'll be at my Big Sky office tomorrow give me a shout if you wanna chew over some of this)