Passing your kill shot based on caliber unless your hunting elr distance just means that you weren’t patient enough to wait for the right shot or not man enough to let that elk walk and wait for another day whenever that may be. Just my opinion fwiw.
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Short action Elk rounds
- Thread starter Mag 300
- Start date
I don't disagree. I'll pass on a shot because of various reasons. It's possible I'm not man enough. I find dead elk every year I won't take a shot unless I know it's the best I can do. You owe it to the animal to make a humane kill.
Where I hunt is mostly hills, mountains and swamps. So when you catch them in the open it's rare. And they are usually walking through, not hanging out.
Where I hunt is mostly hills, mountains and swamps. So when you catch them in the open it's rare. And they are usually walking through, not hanging out.
6.5x55 and up with the least amount of recoil for the distance you are shooting at.
Slow and heavy? 9.3x57.
They have both worked over here for over a century...
It's possible to kill an elk with a 22lr, but why?
Slow and heavy? 9.3x57.
They have both worked over here for over a century...
It's possible to kill an elk with a 22lr, but why?
If you want to focus on the caliber aspect, assuming we already have bases, rings, optics, and zero all squared away, then I think new shooters should start out smaller and train with that, keep themselves limited to 200-400yd shots provided they have trained at those distances.
I don’t think it’s a good idea to go straight to a larger magnum that you can’t get trigger time with. That’s asking for poor results.
I do see a converging opportunity in the market right now with NRL .22 trainers mimicking short action rifle profiles, where you could have a trick .22 LR that is the same trigger, action size, mags, and basic set-up as your hunting rifle.
That could be a lever to get better POA=POI for you, as long as you know your dope for the hunting rifle.
If it’s just one rifle though, even for elk, a new hunter should start out smaller and know their max effective range.
Even the 6mms will anchor most cows within 400yds.
In Finland, there used to be a hunting practical marksmanship test you had to take until enough fudds complained about it.
You had to shoot a moving target track moose at 75m from a standing position with multiple left-to-right and right-to-left iterations and keep a high percentage in the vital zone. If you couldn’t pass that test, no license for you.
I thought it was fun, more like the ARM range at Benning or a moving target stage in 3-gun.
I don’t think it’s a good idea to go straight to a larger magnum that you can’t get trigger time with. That’s asking for poor results.
I do see a converging opportunity in the market right now with NRL .22 trainers mimicking short action rifle profiles, where you could have a trick .22 LR that is the same trigger, action size, mags, and basic set-up as your hunting rifle.
That could be a lever to get better POA=POI for you, as long as you know your dope for the hunting rifle.
If it’s just one rifle though, even for elk, a new hunter should start out smaller and know their max effective range.
Even the 6mms will anchor most cows within 400yds.
In Finland, there used to be a hunting practical marksmanship test you had to take until enough fudds complained about it.
You had to shoot a moving target track moose at 75m from a standing position with multiple left-to-right and right-to-left iterations and keep a high percentage in the vital zone. If you couldn’t pass that test, no license for you.
I thought it was fun, more like the ARM range at Benning or a moving target stage in 3-gun.
I tell many friends that I know never practice if they want to hunt on my land they have to pass a competency test. Don’t want any wounded animals. None of them come hunt 
If you think people are lazy about practicing bow and rifle shooting, man they never get their lard asses off the couch until a few days before hunting season to "prepare." I've had enough packing peoples shit all through the Rockies because the only thing they conserve throughout the year is every percentage of bodyfat they can muster.
The only thing worse than wounding animals is making your friends do all of your work because you couldn't bother to put in the time.
The only thing worse than wounding animals is making your friends do all of your work because you couldn't bother to put in the time.
I've taken 4 bulls with archery myself, since We're on that topic archery hunting is leading to a huge number of wounded and lost elk in my area.
I've done it myself, hitting a little high or clipping the scapula because a leg was positioned back covering the vitals.
We find dead bulls after archery season every year, it's really soured me on archery so I went back to rifle last season.
You're either ignorant or just biased beyond belief.. I suspect a little of both.
I know a heavy 30 cal will anchor a bull if shot in the hind quarter because I've done it, a friend made a shitty shot on a bull with a 243 (I don't hunt with that clown anymore) and I drilled him in the femor before he made the timber.
That bull dropped instantly, the 180 partition from my 300 WM shattered the bone and penetrated into the liver.
I don't think anyone should upsize their caliber in the belief that it's a substitute for skill, I've certainly seen the guys who shoot a few rounds from a bench once a year and call it good.
I have no problem with guys taking reasonable short range shots on elk with small caliber rounds, but denying that faster heavier bullets of equal construction don't wreck more havoc is like saying cow farts cause global warmingYou have to be ignorant as fuck to be telling me that your wm will anchor them because it them in the hind quarter
Drilled him in hind quarter. Anyone else want to brag about making terrible shots and getting lucky?
Thats actually called missing your spot by a long ways. Saying a hind quarter shot, is an anchoring shot with a 300wm because you broke a leg when you made terrible shot is retarded. You got lucky and broke his leg, otherwise he runs off with another wound. This time from a 30cal bullet. A 243 bullet would have broken its leg had it hit its femur too.
Funny your buddy shoots an elk wounded with 6mm bullets so similarly to the way you and him, anchored one because you shot it in the ass with your 300wm. You sure one or two of those stories aren't made up?
I've downed my share of deer with 6.5 and many have dropped in their tracks.... I'm sure that it can do the same for elk in many situations.
The one thing I don't often see with the 6.5 is a strong blood trail. Not important when they drop in their tracks, but when they run the blood trail is definitely helpful in tracking. My preference would nod toward the larger caliber if the intended purpose issue for elk hunting.
The one thing I don't often see with the 6.5 is a strong blood trail. Not important when they drop in their tracks, but when they run the blood trail is definitely helpful in tracking. My preference would nod toward the larger caliber if the intended purpose issue for elk hunting.
So this thread can be summed up as follows:
1. A few near trolls that insist a 6mm is good, and the 6.5’s are actually better than a 300wm for killing elk
2. A good population that is arguing that 6’s and 6.5’s are good enough and shot placement, bullet selection and knowing your own limits is more important than which new magnum you shoot
3. A group arguing that yes, shot placement, bullet selection, and skill matter. Also, a larger magnum with more energy, employed with equal skill will kill with equal or greater efficiency and we owe that to the harvested animal to minimize our own error, or the negative impacts of our error through training and equipment selection
4. A few who seem to think elk have armor rated to 6.5mm and anything less than a venerable 30 caliber means you are weak and stupid
This reminds me of the 223 for white tails debate I’ve observed. Yes the small calibers will kill the critters, but if you have an option it probably should not be your first choice, or you need to recognize the limitations of your equipment and employ it with those limitations in mind.
Elk with a 243 win with a good bullet, pick shots similar to a bow and arrow (broadside only, just behind the shoulder, and plant them there until the animal is down or out of sight - be prepared to track - give them 30 mins post shot)
300 Norma and a good bullet, your shot opportunities expand a bit to quartering shots and facing shots, but you still need to know what you are doing and need to put it in the boiler room
I have enjoyed how passionate people are about being right. Overall a double lung or hear shot is lethal, 100% of the time, same with a brain shot. A bigger hole in the lungs kills faster, and exploded heart kills faster than a penciled heart. In then end they all die because of a good shot, or they gimp around a few days or weeks and are eaten by wolves because we suck and shooting
1. A few near trolls that insist a 6mm is good, and the 6.5’s are actually better than a 300wm for killing elk
2. A good population that is arguing that 6’s and 6.5’s are good enough and shot placement, bullet selection and knowing your own limits is more important than which new magnum you shoot
3. A group arguing that yes, shot placement, bullet selection, and skill matter. Also, a larger magnum with more energy, employed with equal skill will kill with equal or greater efficiency and we owe that to the harvested animal to minimize our own error, or the negative impacts of our error through training and equipment selection
4. A few who seem to think elk have armor rated to 6.5mm and anything less than a venerable 30 caliber means you are weak and stupid
This reminds me of the 223 for white tails debate I’ve observed. Yes the small calibers will kill the critters, but if you have an option it probably should not be your first choice, or you need to recognize the limitations of your equipment and employ it with those limitations in mind.
Elk with a 243 win with a good bullet, pick shots similar to a bow and arrow (broadside only, just behind the shoulder, and plant them there until the animal is down or out of sight - be prepared to track - give them 30 mins post shot)
300 Norma and a good bullet, your shot opportunities expand a bit to quartering shots and facing shots, but you still need to know what you are doing and need to put it in the boiler room
I have enjoyed how passionate people are about being right. Overall a double lung or hear shot is lethal, 100% of the time, same with a brain shot. A bigger hole in the lungs kills faster, and exploded heart kills faster than a penciled heart. In then end they all die because of a good shot, or they gimp around a few days or weeks and are eaten by wolves because we suck and shooting
You are right, because we suck and shooting and are fat, but working out is hard and pizza and beer is good
In honor of this thread, I am starting the new year with fat person pullups.
Don't get your Sitcka gear undies in a wad. I wasn't trying to throw mud in your snake boots. We give you east coasters a ride or lead you to the road when you're lost. We are all friends here.
What you see at the range is everywhere. If nothing else its proof that all this tiny margin of error bullshit is bunk. I see dudes every year that can't shoot for shit fill tags and make clean kills. Can you hit a 12" circle from x distance. I bet the average deer is shot at less than 50y.
Sounds like the dude didnt hit the deer well. Or are you saying a 243 isn't enough for deer either? You know can't penetrate to the vitals and create a good wound channel.
That’s just not fair. You know Gail Root personally designed that bullet for his own deer and elk hunting purposes….
Drilled him in hind quarter. Anyone else want to brag about making terrible shots and getting lucky?
Thats actually called missing your spot by a long ways. Saying a hind quarter shot, is an anchoring shot with a 300wm because you broke a leg when you made terrible shot is retarded. You got lucky and broke his leg, otherwise he runs off with another wound. This time from a 30cal bullet. A 243 bullet would have broken its leg had it hit its femur too.
Funny your buddy shoots an elk wounded with 6mm bullets so similarly to the way you and him, anchored one because you shot it in the ass with your 300wm. You sure one or two of those stories aren't made up?
I read it as his buddy shot and wounded the elk and it was running away when he shot it with his 300wm. This is how I usually hunt. If someone is getting ready to shoot I'll set up and get ready as well. If you wound a animal with a bad shot,, killing it takes priority over saving the meat.
I hope you added reading comprehension to your list of new years resolutions..Drilled him in hind quarter. Anyone else want to brag about making terrible shots and getting lucky?
Thats actually called missing your spot by a long ways. Saying a hind quarter shot, is an anchoring shot with a 300wm because you broke a leg when you made terrible shot is retarded. You got lucky and broke his leg, otherwise he runs off with another wound. This time from a 30cal bullet. A 243 bullet would have broken its leg had it hit its femur too.
Funny your buddy shoots an elk wounded with 6mm bullets so similarly to the way you and him, anchored one because you shot it in the ass with your 300wm. You sure one or two of those stories aren't made up?
My dumb ass friend shot him in the face and blew his lower jaw off, tried for that head shot and hit him in the nose below the center of the eyes.
I shot a terribly mamed bull in the hind end so he wouldn't die in some thick ass hell hole
Exactly
It's nice to see that some of us on this forum learned to read in high school
Not directed at anyone in particular, but:
If
you're not willing to pass on bad shots don't go hunting
I agree with the earlier poster who said you're either on the vitals or you're not. If you're not confident, don't pull the trigger, doesn't matter what you're shooting. Personally, I wouldn't want to drag a bullet through a few feet of guts to get to the vitals no matter what I am shooting. Same reason I am using copper solids more and more, wasting meat isn't very fun for me.
Practice a lot and know your limitations on the range and in the field and you'll do great. I'd 100% rather hunt with someone using a standard bolt face 6.5 or 7mm something that has practiced all year and knows their limit than a guy shooting a big 300 or 338 who only shoots a few rounds at a pie plate before heading out thinking horsepower will make up for a deficit of skill.
If
you're not willing to pass on bad shots don't go hunting I agree with the earlier poster who said you're either on the vitals or you're not. If you're not confident, don't pull the trigger, doesn't matter what you're shooting. Personally, I wouldn't want to drag a bullet through a few feet of guts to get to the vitals no matter what I am shooting. Same reason I am using copper solids more and more, wasting meat isn't very fun for me.
Practice a lot and know your limitations on the range and in the field and you'll do great. I'd 100% rather hunt with someone using a standard bolt face 6.5 or 7mm something that has practiced all year and knows their limit than a guy shooting a big 300 or 338 who only shoots a few rounds at a pie plate before heading out thinking horsepower will make up for a deficit of skill.
For the record, I am arguing for door #3. Practice AND use an appropriate elk cartridge. And start training for elk season at the end of the last elk season. It makes the whole enterprise a hell of a lot more fun.Not directed at anyone in particular, but:
If
I agree with the earlier poster who said you're either on the vitals or you're not. If you're not confident, don't pull the trigger, doesn't matter what you're shooting. Personally, I wouldn't want to drag a bullet through a few feet of guts to get to the vitals no matter what I am shooting. Same reason I am using copper solids more and more, wasting meat isn't very fun for me.
Practice a lot and know your limitations on the range and in the field and you'll do great. I'd 100% rather hunt with someone using a standard bolt face 6.5 or 7mm something that has practiced all year and knows their limit than a guy shooting a big 300 or 338 who only shoots a few rounds at a pie plate before heading out thinking horsepower will make up for a deficit of skill.
I hope you added reading comprehension to your list of new years resolutions..
My dumb ass friend shot him in the face and blew his lower jaw off, tried for that head shot and hit him in the nose below the center of the eyes.
I shot a terribly mamed bull in the hind end so he wouldn't die in some thick ass hell hole
Exactly
It's nice to see that some of us on this forum learned to read in high school
If you didn't break his femur, he would have ran into said hell hole with two wounds. He didn't go down because you hit it with a 300wm, he didn't drop because the bullet "made it to his liver." You kind of have to shred a liver to get a lot bleeding. I can't imagine the liver was too shredded if it stopped the bullet, it usually takes a while to bleed out from the liver. Its probably more likely he bled out form his femoral artery.
Shooting an animal from behind is bad shot. I didn't say it was shot you shouldn't have taken. I understand things happen and things have to be done sometimes.
While we are going back to high school lets do some anatomy. Where is the liver? Where is the hindquarter?
I’ve knocked bull at 400yds with 143gr Eld x hand loads from my 24” 6.5cm. Get a load that keeps over 1000fps impact velocity and you’ll drop an elk any day with 6.5mm .264. I can get you a bull with match loads even.
Exactly ^^^
I could've built my house with a finish nailer but I used a 20 oz framing hammer.
Sure they will both work but why the hell not use the better tool for the task??
Not to let math get in the way of things, but ethical kE for an elk at impact has always been estimated at 1400 ft-lbs. 143 at 1000 is about 375 ft-lbs. So maybe on the low side. You'd really want that pill going 2000 fps at impact. And that is before you take into account the issue that bullets don't tend to expand at slow velocity.
I'll be that guy...
The fact is, most hunters --- in the field --- that try to harvest an animal at 600+ yards from any gun/with any caliber are going to miss entirely.
Just sayin'... I've seen people miss a 100 yard shot on a deer with a properly 100-yard zeroed rifle. The range is different than the field, man.
The fact is, most hunters --- in the field --- that try to harvest an animal at 600+ yards from any gun/with any caliber are going to miss entirely.
Just sayin'... I've seen people miss a 100 yard shot on a deer with a properly 100-yard zeroed rifle. The range is different than the field, man.
Estimated.
That‘s funny as hell.
Like a bull is gonna know the difference between 1400 and 1000.
If a good bullet has enough velocity to adequately expand and drive through the vitals, that’s all we need.
P
There are two cartridges that are 100+ years old that are still hard to beat for harvesting large animals these days. Those would be the 30-06 and the 45-70. The 47-70 inside 150 yards of course. Someone got those cartridges right back then and not much has evolved since, specifically not the animals themselves.
Succinctly reasoned. I mean, why try to estimate what will work when we can just shoot at shit and see if it dies. Planning is for fools.
I've never shot an elk with a 45-70, though I would love to. It's probably my favorite round to shoot.
estimated
/ˈestəˌmādəd/
adjective
- (of a value or number) roughly calculated; approximate.
"an estimated cost of $1,000 million"
Bullet manufacturers already did the velocity and expansion testing.
And isn‘t estimating what will happen when shooting at something just as foolish?
Last edited:
I don't hunt much anymore. When I did it was mostly with a bow. I trained regularly and belonged to the local 3d shoot league.
I hunt steel now. Every year, about late September, there is an influx of people to my local gun club that come in, and set up on the 300 yard range to zero. They never bring paper. They look down range at the 100 yard ipsc steel and use that, or want to use my dot drill targets, but that's another conversation.
Sometimes they get on steel, most the time they don't. Most the time they don't understand how to properly zero a scope anyway. I help if they seem open to it, keep my mouth shut if they don't. Whether they got on steel or not, they pack up after 5-10 rounds of whatever caliber and I presume use the now 'zeroed' weapons system on some poor animal somewhere.
There are very few substinence hunters left in the lower 48, so it's a 'want', not a 'need'. If you 'want', you owe it to the animal to be a good shot with an appropriate caliber. Preaching to the choir here I hope, but my observation is that isn't the general hunting public. Apologies for the rant, just went through it, so it's on my mind.
243 kills moose and grizz.. but won't kill an ironside elk??
almost all bullets down from 338 are basically tiny pieces of metal. what matters is that the bullet upsets and destroys vital organs/separates CNS
too many people get wrapped around the cartridge.. and not the bullet or the placement.
seen plenty of critters soak up 30cal bullets.. alaska, africa, here in the west, new zealand and never to be found.
and plenty of critters bang flop with a well placed .224 bullet.
for me the 7mm-08 with 162gr amax/eld has bear mythical status. it's an absolute monster for killing big game. seen it enough times to know what it does
but truthfully it's not magic..
for a better perspective. 2800fps launch on a 108gr eld-m at just under 500 yards makes mushy insides and plenty big enough exits
poa = poi if only because the gun and its manners are enjoyable. it gets shot a lot. zero's get checked. skills stay fresh.
as for "subsistence hunters" isn't that why we hunt? to eat it?
almost all bullets down from 338 are basically tiny pieces of metal. what matters is that the bullet upsets and destroys vital organs/separates CNS
too many people get wrapped around the cartridge.. and not the bullet or the placement.
seen plenty of critters soak up 30cal bullets.. alaska, africa, here in the west, new zealand and never to be found.
and plenty of critters bang flop with a well placed .224 bullet.
for me the 7mm-08 with 162gr amax/eld has bear mythical status. it's an absolute monster for killing big game. seen it enough times to know what it does
but truthfully it's not magic..
for a better perspective. 2800fps launch on a 108gr eld-m at just under 500 yards makes mushy insides and plenty big enough exits
poa = poi if only because the gun and its manners are enjoyable. it gets shot a lot. zero's get checked. skills stay fresh.
as for "subsistence hunters" isn't that why we hunt? to eat it?
Exceelent shot!!
I agree with what you wrote. ALL of the bullets we use today are tiny, compared to when this whole thing started, meaning firearms. Firearms were developed as a way to kill people. That's an indisputable fact.
The first "functional" man portable ones were beasts, match lit Arquebus type firearms with huge projectiles (or lots of small ones) and kicked so hard users had a stick to anchor the firearm. When hunting with said firearms first started is unknown to me. I spent an hour searching for references on the net and either that's unknown or it's been erased from history.
As far as I can tell, the evolution of firearms was in no small way driven by the need to kill humans. Hunting was a secondary consideration until, and this is a best guess, the late 1600's. And that happened here in America, where hunting was a way to feed the family. Something that only nobility in Europe was allowed to do.
Back to the skinny high power bullets, this preference also came about as the way to kill humans at longer ranges. Before that the one exception, the rifle, developed in Germany for hunting. Much used for killing humans as well later.
The point here is that we have adapted guns made to kill humans as a way to kill game. And those two are not the same thing. We should not forget to be humane, but people shoot Elk with 90 foot/pound arrows all the time. This is anathema to requiring a 1400 foot/pound rifle shot to kill an Elk. So what is it? You all tell me.
300 Remington Ultra Magnum, but you will go broke if you don't reload, great for ELR Elk hunting in AZ.
I use 46.2 grains of Big Game with 150 gr ELDX for 2780 fps from my T3. It’s a killer. What’s your load and MV with the 162s? Tikka barrel is 1-9.5 I believe, 22.4 inches.
P
Last edited:
Archery doesn't rely on FPE.
Not at all.
It relies on causing massive blood loss to kill and kill quickly.
you got me in a box brother. i don't think the 26.2 is correct?
it's been a couple moons since i ran a 7mm-08. last one was a kimber hunter cut down and velocity was 2600 and change. don't quote me tho.
a tikka stainless with a long mag stop, 06 mag box and a stiff charge of ADI 2208 is the norm for kiwi hunters.
seen quite a few tahr, chamois and red deer fall to that combo.
i had no problem getting 2700 fps with reloder 17 but at that time i was living in SW new mexico and it wasn't temp stable once it started getting into summer. switched to h4350 and stability was great but velocity was less. again memory has faded. we (my bro) did kill one elk with that gun. a spiker up by strawberry Arizona.
it's been a couple moons since i ran a 7mm-08. last one was a kimber hunter cut down and velocity was 2600 and change. don't quote me tho.
a tikka stainless with a long mag stop, 06 mag box and a stiff charge of ADI 2208 is the norm for kiwi hunters.
seen quite a few tahr, chamois and red deer fall to that combo.
i had no problem getting 2700 fps with reloder 17 but at that time i was living in SW new mexico and it wasn't temp stable once it started getting into summer. switched to h4350 and stability was great but velocity was less. again memory has faded. we (my bro) did kill one elk with that gun. a spiker up by strawberry Arizona.
Holy fuck the window lickers keep emerging.
You know the conversation has gone full retard when someone starts comparing a 340 grain shaft with a 100 grain fucking 1 3/16" wide 3 blade broadhead to .243 cal bullets
You know the conversation has gone full retard when someone starts comparing a 340 grain shaft with a 100 grain fucking 1 3/16" wide 3 blade broadhead to .243 cal bullets
A lot of folks shoot shitty with an eargonsplittenloudenboomer (myself included) and at the end of the day hitting vitals is as more important than 20 grains heavier or a half mm wider.
Similar threads
