Hunting & Fishing Why use heavy bullets

[LJT88]

I’m not trolling or trying to ruffle feathers, this is a legitimate question.

I have a 308 and 6.5 cm that I’ve use to take many many Midwest white tails. Never killed an elk and would like to one day.

Chatting with some buddies about it and asked what rifle they would take. Almost all of them said the 308. I’m confident either will work but we had a conversation about it and I asked why they chose that.

“You really want that 30cal whack! Shoot a 180 out of it and it put it down way better than any 26cal.”

I told them a 127 Barnes would penetrate just as far and most likely go all the way through probably open to damn near as big.

“I’d never tackle an elk with a 130 class bullet”

So I guess my question is if penetration is adequate, say both the 6.5 shooting the 127 Barnes and the 308 shooting a 180 partition both went all the way through…what’s that added weight doing for you? Is the potentially minuscule difference in the expanded bullets diameter going to make that big of a difference?

 

[Raffy]

More energy with more shock is my take. Watching an elk get hit with with a 338 225 accubond vs a 270 140ish accubond shows they both can do it. One just does it better. Bullet construction, bullet placement, and energy on target are the three big boxes I like to check to improve the odds. You can do it with two of the three, but try to only do it with one and your screwed and you have a wounded animal get away. Do it with all three and get out the butcher paper cause the meats going down. Some bullets like hammer bullets, and the LRX bullets tend to bleed into some of these other boxes from how I understand them.

 

[357Max]

I’m not trolling or trying to ruffle feathers, this is a legitimate question.

I have a 308 and 6.5 cm that I’ve use to take many many Midwest white tails. Never killed an elk and would like to one day.

Chatting with some buddies about it and asked what rifle they would take. Almost all of them said the 308. I’m confident either will work but we had a conversation about it and I asked why they chose that.

“You really want that 30cal whack! Shoot a 180 out of it and it put it down way better than any 26cal.”

I told them a 127 Barnes would penetrate just as far and most likely go all the way through probably open to damn near as big.

“I’d never tackle an elk with a 130 class bullet”

So I guess my question is if penetration is adequate, say both the 6.5 shooting the 127 Barnes and the 308 shooting a 180 partition both went all the way through…what’s that added weight doing for you? Is the potentially minuscule difference in the expanded bullets diameter going to make that big of a difference?

Either could work depending on a lot of variables.
I worked up a 156 Vulcan 6.5 cm load @2840 from a 25" barrel. Not a high BC projectile, but inside 450 who cares. You don't need to stay light for a 6.5. A 156 Berger EOL even better BC & at 2800 it would surpass a 180gr 308 pretty quick down range. There is a good reason 6.5 PRC's gained a following so quickly.

 

[LJT88]

More energy with more shock is my take. Watching an elk get hit with with a 338 225 accubond vs a 270 140ish accubond shows they both can do it. One just does it better. Bullet construction, bullet placement, and energy on target are the three big boxes I like to check to improve the odds. You can do it with two of the three, but try to only do it with one and your screwed and you have a wounded animal get away. Do it with all three and get out the butcher paper cause the meats going down. Some bullets like hammer bullets, and the LRX bullets tend to bleed into some of these other boxes from how I understand them.

I understand that there would be a big difference between a 338 and a 270 but a 260/6.5 vs a 308….?

Maybe it’s an old frame of mind from back when we didn’t have the quality of bullets we have now?

This old salty neighbor of mine told me the same thing you mentioned about energy. “Do the math, the 180 308 has much more energy. Elk are rough and you need to wack ‘em hard with at least a 30cal.”

I asked him “if a 26 cal bullet and a 30 ca bullet expand to within a couple thou and they both go through the animal, the animal dies right?”

Kind of a funny conversation but didn’t really answer any questions. Hahah.

 

[Jmccracken1214]

I understand that there would be a big difference between a 338 and a 270 but a 260/6.5 vs a 308….?

Maybe it’s an old frame of mind from back when we didn’t have the quality of bullets we have now?

This old salty neighbor of mine told me the same thing you mentioned about energy. “Do the math, the 180 308 has much more energy. Elk are rough and you need to wack ‘em hard with at least a 30cal.”

I asked him “if a 26 cal bullet and a 30 ca bullet expand to within a couple thou and they both go through the animal, the animal dies right?”

Kind of a funny conversation but didn’t really answer any questions. Hahah.

A heavier bullet will have more energy, but I’d imagine a slightly lighter bullet, going faster will be equal, if not better.
Have your buddies ever heard of 243? I’m willing to bet it’s taken as many, if not more game than 308.

180 nosler has 2686 muzzle energy at 2700 fps
147 eld has 2327 at 2690fps….
The deer won’t notice 300 lb ft of energy.
And once you get to 300 yards, they are basically equal in energy and in favor of the 6.5 the further out you go

 

[hlee]

Shot an elk with a 140 gr Swift Scirocco from a 270 win. He went down like he was hit by Thor’s hammer.

 

[Forward543]

Maybe the question should be wider. Which system is the shooter more comfortable with? Placement is paramount. Any round through a major organ will kill the animal quickly. Lots of elk have been killed with a .243 and a .223. That being said, not ideal.
As far a terminal ballistics, depends on the range the sytem is being utilized, but really a 130 will make them just as dead as a 180. Any bullet moving between 1900- 2800 fps, on contact, is ideal. A bigger bullet tends to have more leeway as there is more surface, but not if the energy is gone before it hits. If the bullet goes all the way through, it still retains energy that was not transferred into the animal.
At the end of the day placement is first and foremost. After that you are trying to get damage transmitted to the vital sections through secondary or tertiary means. If you sever the spinal chord, tear a major artery, or puncture a major organ; the animal is dead.

 

[Raffy]

I'd imagine if you were to make a graph about energy transfer per bullet weight and type there would be a larger volume of energy underneath that graph with a bigger bullet, but yeah if you took a 308 bullet built to NOT expand and it didn't it's basically just poking holes in animals. It doesn't matter that it's a 338 or a 224 diameter. It's how much volume of energy under that graph line you can shove in to the unlucky creature. Its bullet design.

However like was mentioned above, IF you could pinpoint certain arteries in the animal with your non expanding bullet and shoot a .224 bullet sized hole through that your good. Even though you didn't dump massive energy through the animal. I thing bullet design plays as much or bigger role in hunting than anything else. That way your smaller bullet LRX bullet built to impart massive damage in a small package like it does its going to dump a lot more enery in the animal. Its bullet design. We just can't be that precise in a hunting scenario so we have to bring other things to the table like a superior bullet design to up the odds with smaller calibers so that we aren't going to just poke holes in animals so they can walk off and die somewhere else miles away.

Id hunt elk with my 6.5 with a few bullets without thinking I was being irresponsible as an ethical hunter. This list is not conclusive obviously, but a mono copper that is proven like an LRX, hammer bullets, swift scirocco (I've never had them but I've heard good things), berger 156 Eol, and I'm not sure about hornady eld lines. I think the Hornady bullets would do it, but I'd be more likely to not shoot unless I had a more optimal scenario. If the eld bullets got in the animal effectively I think they would take it down. But I worry they might not get in effectively enough, from my own experience with elk, and not do the damage inside the beast I would like. My go to for 6.5 elk hunting would be Barnes lrx, hammer, berger 156eol. Those 3 would give me a warm feeling. But those are the bullets I have available to me, someone else's bullet list might not be the same.

Your effective range is reduced with 6.5s, though with superior ballistics like the 156 eol you are able to reach that out a bit further. There is a good gunwerks podcast talking about this exact subject.

 

[Raffy]

I understand that there would be a big difference between a 338 and a 270 but a 260/6.5 vs a 308….?

Maybe it’s an old frame of mind from back when we didn’t have the quality of bullets we have now?

This old salty neighbor of mine told me the same thing you mentioned about energy. “Do the math, the 180 308 has much more energy. Elk are rough and you need to wack ‘em hard with at least a 30cal.”

I asked him “if a 26 cal bullet and a 30 ca bullet expand to within a couple thou and they both go through the animal, the animal dies right?”

Kind of a funny conversation but didn’t really answer any questions. Hahah.

I think you have a valid point and your salty neighbor would have to agree if you were able to get him to realize what you said is true and he understood how you would he able to do that reliably with that lrx....but he probably won't admit it because he is only going off of his own experiences and I don't see many old salty neighbors deviating from their old salty ways very often.

I think the bigger risk is people seeing the caliber others are hunting with rather than the bullet and mistakenly thinking that because someone else got it done with a 243 caliber gun they can too and go off and make a stupid choice of bullet and wound animals.

Like you implied, it's bullets that kill animals, not calibers. You just have to know where to draw the line in the sand.

 

[Modoc]

I think the bigger risk is people seeing the caliber others are hunting with rather than the bullet and mistakenly thinking that because someone else got it done with a 243 caliber gun they can too and go off and make a stupid choice of bullet and wound animals.

Like you implied, it's bullets that kill animals, not calibers. You just have to know where to draw the line in the sand.

^^^^^
I know a couple of guides who push the 7mm/284 minimum because of this. To the point that they specify bullets and velocities and factory loads for their clients.

 

[hlee]

A 300 weatherby in the guts is less lethal than a 243 win through the heart. Too many hunters shoot guns they can barely keep on paper, because “muh kinetic energy.” Kinetic energy is proportional to the square of the speed of the bullet, but only linearly with bullet weight. Of course, the ability of a bullet to penetrate deeply is more a function of momentum than kinetic energy, which is linearly related to both speed and velocity. Then there is the whole argument about sectional density. That is before taking into consideration bullet construction. And, finally, we have the fact that every animal is an individual and hunter observations about the effects of bullets on game are- at best- anecdotal.

What am I saying? Well, if you drop 10% in bullet weight and gain greater than 10% in velocity, then you have both more kinetic energy and momentum. But, neither of these theoretical numbers actually translate linearly to real world terminal ballistics.

 

[wpeach1912]

I think larger diameter and heavier bullets moving at similar speeds do kill more effectively. Energy gets transferred differently when you add momentum and larger surface area. The ballistics gel comparisons I’ve seen comparing 6.5 creed and 308 win do show an advantage to 308 in normal hunting ranges. Terminal ballistics research has some interesting reads on the subject. Based on all that info, I stick with a 30 cal magnum for elk and bigger. There is definitely something to be said about shot placement with lighter cartridges, but having greater penetration and energy capability doesn’t hurt if you can still make good shots with a heavier caliber.

 

[Raffy]

I think larger diameter and heavier bullets moving at similar speeds do kill more effectively. Energy gets transferred differently when you add momentum and larger surface area. The ballistics gel comparisons I’ve seen comparing 6.5 creed and 308 win do show an advantage to 308 in normal hunting ranges. Terminal ballistics research has some interesting reads on the subject. Based on all that info, I stick with a 30 cal magnum for elk and bigger. There is definitely something to be said about shot placement with lighter cartridges, but having greater penetration and energy capability doesn’t hurt if you can still make good shots with a heavier caliber.

I think everyone agrees with this. I believe the subject the op is talking about was more a matter of what is enough with a smaller than 30 cal cartridge, and why or why not.

 

[Ronws]

Here is that ugly old guy Sir Isaac Newton and his Principia Mechanica. KE = 1/2(MV^2)

Two different calibers can have equivalent kinetic energy. Which one will do more damage? Because that is really a question of the wound track. So, a .308 ballistic or hunting tip will, of course, do more damage at the same KE as a full metal jacket with no ballistic tip, simply because it mushrooms open and slows down fast and does a lot of damage in a damn hurry. A full metal jacket can sometimes go straight through.

That being said, I will always have to mention Rob Arrington at deermeatfordinner and his experience. Over 100 yards. Howa 1500 6.5 Creedmoor shooting Hornady ELD-X 143 grain brings a canadian moose down in one shot.

go to 03:45 for the action.



And others have hunted elk with 7 mm Rem Mag and taken more than one shot.

I think the bigger bullets are more forgiving because of their weight. In Texas, on a drawn hunt on public land, you can shoot no less than .243 Win.

I shoot .308 Win. If I get in the pie plate behind the bend in the leg, I have a deer.

Technically, in my state, any centerfire will do, even a .223 Rem. But the lottery or drawn management or spike hunts require .243 Win or larger. So, any of the 7s will do.

What is the advantage of 7 mm Rem Mag and the new 7 PRC over 308? Better accuracy at longer ranges. Pushing the same weight of cartridges with a tighter spin a bit faster out of the muzzle to get on target a bit farther. At least, that is what my limited mind has comprehended.

However, the reason I came to .308 as an all round hunting cartridge is from studying a bit of military history. Often, at least 40 years ago, snipers were trained with 7.62 X 51 mm NATO. It is ubiquitous and it has enough energy at 175 grains to bring down a 200 pound target at 600 yards. That target is a zone of 20 inches by about 24 inches. So, not trying to take out the x in a target, trying to take down an enemy agent.

I figured that could also work for 140 pound bucks in my neck of the woods, literally.

 

[airborne_trooper]

Maybe the question should be wider. Which system is the shooter more comfortable with? Placement is paramount. Any round through a major organ will kill the animal quickly. Lots of elk have been killed with a .243 and a .223. That being said, not ideal.
As far a terminal ballistics, depends on the range the sytem is being utilized, but really a 130 will make them just as dead as a 180. Any bullet moving between 1900- 2800 fps, on contact, is ideal. A bigger bullet tends to have more leeway as there is more surface, but not if the energy is gone before it hits. If the bullet goes all the way through, it still retains energy that was not transferred into the animal.
At the end of the day placement is first and foremost. After that you are trying to get damage transmitted to the vital sections through secondary or tertiary means. If you sever the spinal chord, tear a major artery, or puncture a major organ; the animal is dead.

A call total bullshit on lots of elk being killed with .223! I have been hunting for 20 plus years out west and no one is using .223 to hunt elk.

 

[Forward543]

A call total bullshit on lots of elk being killed with .223! I have been hunting for 20 plus years out west and no one is using .223 to hunt elk.

Love the enthusiasm. Depredations tags are being filled with a .223. Turns out arrows are also killing elk.

 

[coldboremiracle]

I’m not trolling or trying to ruffle feathers, this is a legitimate question.

I have a 308 and 6.5 cm that I’ve use to take many many Midwest white tails. Never killed an elk and would like to one day.

Chatting with some buddies about it and asked what rifle they would take. Almost all of them said the 308. I’m confident either will work but we had a conversation about it and I asked why they chose that.

“You really want that 30cal whack! Shoot a 180 out of it and it put it down way better than any 26cal.”

I told them a 127 Barnes would penetrate just as far and most likely go all the way through probably open to damn near as big.

“I’d never tackle an elk with a 130 class bullet”

So I guess my question is if penetration is adequate, say both the 6.5 shooting the 127 Barnes and the 308 shooting a 180 partition both went all the way through…what’s that added weight doing for you? Is the potentially minuscule difference in the expanded bullets diameter going to make that big of a difference?

Elk are not bullet-proof, we've killed quite a few using a little bit of everything from 6.5 up to 338LM. I'll start out saying that whatever you are most comfortable and the best shot with is the one you should use. Questions like this frequently pop up, and its a discussion I enjoy, so I wrote a rather long-winded explanation about it if you care to peruse it:

Is Shot Placement More Important than cartridge and bullet selection?

cartridge and bullet selection are important subjects, but are they more important than shot placement on the target?

coldboremiracle.com

If you're looking for a quick answer, both 308 and 6.5cm are very capable of taking down elk. While I am a huge fan of using heavy for caliber bullets, there are also suitable bullets that weigh less than the heaviest for caliber bullets. I have recently used quite a few Cayuga solid bullets from PVA, and they perform excellent despite being lighter than the typical heavy bullets. The main reason is that they are a more efficient design, which allows them to better retain their energy, and being lighter than others, you can shoot them faster. This combination allows them to be fired at higher velocity and better retain their energy. Here is more about them if you're interested:

A Solid Season: hunting with Cayuga solid Bullets

hunting with solid copper bullets is becoming more common, today we discuss the cayuga solid bullets from patriot valley arms

coldboremiracle.com

 

[coldboremiracle]

A call total bullshit on lots of elk being killed with .223! I have been hunting for 20 plus years out west and no one is using .223 to hunt elk.

If you're talking general hunts as traditionally practiced, you are right, not many folks are using a 223. But there are LOTS of elk killed every year with 223's, late season and depredation hunts are stacking elk up with 22 caliber holes in their heads.

 

[powdahound76]

I know a guy who shoots em with .300 blackout subs….
Suppressed AR.

Depridation tags.
He has 14 this year.

Good shot, no issues.

2 weeks ago he dropped 4 in about 6 seconds.

Shot placement is everything.

In my younger days, I shot an elk with a 150 sST. With a friggin Savage.

 

[Aftermath]

75 grain broadheads work just fine on Elk with sticks at 310 FPS IMO.
SoI I'm pretty sure any gun would work with good shot placement, hell I've killed shit with rocks before Then again Im A bad Mother Fucker
View attachment 8054317

But that is only the broadhead. That entire projectile is likely near 400 gr. The slicing of 3 or 4 razors is extremely lethal!!!

 

[Ronws]

We should use a 9 mm. It will blow the lungs right out of the body, man.

 

[coldboremiracle]

We should use a 9 mm. It will blow the lungs right out of the body, man.

Fact, I shot this elk with a 9mm, it wasn't even a hollow point either. lungs just flew out the back...

 

[Bangin]

The 195 from McGuire ballistics did good at 981yds for me at 700ft.

 

[wvfarrier]

The advantages, for me, with 308 Win is the recoil is minimal compared to my 300 PRC, the 308 rifles are lighter (compared to my bench gun), it shares projectiles with my 300Blk rifles, its cheaper to shoot A LOT compared to the magnumals and most of my hunting shots here are less than 150 yards so loading up heavies works well since they do not get a chance to lose much velocity. That being said, a 130 grain Barnes TTSX from my Big Horn/20" PVA barrel will shoot end to end through a 400# black bear at 125 yards. I cannot ask for better performance than that.

 

[Ronws]

The advantages, for me, with 308 Win is the recoil is minimal compared to my 300 PRC, the 308 rifles are lighter (compared to my bench gun), it shares projectiles with my 300Blk rifles, its cheaper to shoot A LOT compared to the magnumals and most of my hunting shots here are less than 150 yards so loading up heavies works well since they do not get a chance to lose much velocity. That being said, a 130 grain Barnes TTSX from my Big Horn/20" PVA barrel will shoot end to end through a 400# black bear at 125 yards. I cannot ask for better performance than that.

From what I have seen from every hunter I have known or studied, Barnes TSX is not only surgically accurate, it brings the beast down. Pricey but good.

And my cartridge of choice is also the .308 Win. Ubiquitous is an understatement. Everyone and their aunt makes or sells .308 W. Manageable recoil, Also, everyone and their aunt makes a rifle in that chambering. I have a number of rifles in that. The Compass II is now my favorite hunting rifle. The MVP LR 308 (not made any more, the new ones are LR Tactical) because it is rock steady and comfortable to shoot and has the adjustable cheek.

WW R16SFST-308 because it is an AR-10 platform and I could hunt feral hog with it, though I also hog hunt with my WW Dissipator M4 A3 in 5.56 (I buy .223 Rem varmint rounds for that.)

However, I think my next rifle could be the 7 mm PRC. Too much to like about it, I guess. Great accuracy at distance and can push a 175 or 180 gr fast. Still hard to find ammo and GB shows it selling for about $6/rd. That is steep but possibly still doable. This might have to be one that I learn to handload, just for availability. A western hunt rifle. Though I could also do that with 7 mm Rem Mag and that ammo is more readily available and it is a 7, so, why not.

Though I have heard good things about 6.8 Western.

 

[JakeM]

6.5 Creedmoor/260 for Deer, Elk, and whatever else.....

Seeing that the 223 thread is such a success, I thought maybe I would start one for the Creedmoor/260. Seems like people are asking a lot about using them and various bullets, especially for elk. I've used mine for the last few years almost exclusively. I have some pics of bullet damage, albeit...

rokslide.com

.223 for bear, mountain goat, deer, elk, and moose.

DON'T HAVE TIME TO READ 176 PAGES? HERE'S THE CHEAT SHEET. “Bullets matter more than headstamps.” “Spent primers offer the supreme tutorial”. I’ve read it here and elsewhere online. It got my attention. I started digging and asking questions and listened. The 77gr TMK delivered by a .223...

rokslide.com

 

[wvfarrier]

From what I have seen from every hunter I have known or studied, Barnes TSX is not only surgically accurate, it brings the beast down. Pricey but good.

And my cartridge of choice is also the .308 Win. Ubiquitous is an understatement. Everyone and their aunt makes or sells .308 W. Manageable recoil, Also, everyone and their aunt makes a rifle in that chambering. I have a number of rifles in that. The Compass II is now my favorite hunting rifle. The MVP LR 308 (not made any more, the new ones are LR Tactical) because it is rock steady and comfortable to shoot and has the adjustable cheek.

WW R16SFST-308 because it is an AR-10 platform and I could hunt feral hog with it, though I also hog hunt with my WW Dissipator M4 A3 in 5.56 (I buy .223 Rem varmint rounds for that.)

However, I think my next rifle could be the 7 mm PRC. Too much to like about it, I guess. Great accuracy at distance and can push a 175 or 180 gr fast. Still hard to find ammo and GB shows it selling for about $6/rd. That is steep but possibly still doable. This might have to be one that I learn to handload, just for availability. A western hunt rifle. Though I could also do that with 7 mm Rem Mag and that ammo is more readily available and it is a 7, so, why not.

Though I have heard good things about 6.8 Western.

7prc has really peaked my interest as well but damn those ammo prices

 

[Ronws]

7prc has really peaked my interest as well but damn those ammo prices

So, have you thought anymore, like maybe this is the next thing to get? I thought I was done buying rifles. I have a few .308s, a 5.56, a 12 ga, and my trusty sidearm, a full size M&P 9 mm (chosen because it will blow the lung out of the body.) Now, I am bitten by this 7 PRC bug. 6.5 CM and 6 PRC and even .300 PRC did not really pique my interest. But tyhis does. I think because it is a better general round than my .308.

 

[357Max]

Just saw this. Looks like 3rd quarter 2023 there will be Remington "Premier" Brass for the 7PRC.

An Official Journal Of The NRA | New for 2023: Remington Premier Long Range in PRC Chamberings

Featuring Speer’s revolutionary Impact bullet, Remington has now announced three new PRC loads that will be available in late 2023.

www.americanhunter.org

 

[Ronws]

So, right now, I am getting stuff together for a 7 PRC. Bought some ammo at GB. $4.74 / rd.

So, I am also looking at getting into reloading. It will cost a chunk of change to start but I am hoping costs will average out and I can get more consistent.

Trust me, I am the stupidest guy here but in my studies of this so far, aside from defects of the bullet, such as a lop-sided ogive or uneven distribution of mass, the few things I can do to get consistent is matching the weight of all the bullets in a batch to a very small variation. And then, adhering stricktly to one charge weight. And the same seating depth every time, within an extremely small margin. That will not get rid of all the variables but at least I could minimize two.

 

[zeroz]

Many an elk has fallen to the 127 LRX in my neck of the woods. Mostly out of the 260 but a couple have gone down to the lowly Grendel in the last couple years. I have still taken more with the 168 TTSX and the 06 over the years but all the ones were just as dead with the 127. The one that took the longest to drop was an old tough ass bull. He was double lunged with the 06 and shook it off. Hit him again double lung but high. Went down and thought I was good. On approach he jumps up and takes off like he hasn't been hit. Another one to the back of the neck brought him down for good. His will to live and somehow still be breathing minutes later with two 168's to his lungs still blows me away. He is definitely the anomaly of my "study" sample. Dude was a stud. Some individuals are just tougher than others. No doubt he was dead walking, just didn't want to give it up until he had to.

 

[DeathBeforeDismount]

Speed/weight is not the only factor. The heavier bullet, all things equal assuming it has a higher BC, is going to bleed off energy slower (IE velocity)

So while you may go down in weight 10% and velocity up in 10%, the rate that both bleed off is not going to be the same. That is why a heavier bullet is preferred, especially at longer range.

Bigger/heavier bullets with more energy = more margin of error. You dont have to have a perfect shot if there is enough energy and decent placement, vs needing a really good shot with a lessor bullet. My buddy took 5 rounds to kill a big bull this year with his 6.5cm, and they were all good shots. Elk are big strong beasts that are not easy to kill as deer. Its prudent to take a little more gun than a little less gun.

 

[Ronws]

Speed/weight is not the only factor. The heavier bullet, all things equal assuming it has a higher BC, is going to bleed off energy slower (IE velocity)

So while you may go down in weight 10% and velocity up in 10%, the rate that both bleed off is not going to be the same. That is why a heavier bullet is preferred, especially at longer range.

Bigger/heavier bullets with more energy = more margin of error. You dont have to have a perfect shot if there is enough energy and decent placement, vs needing a really good shot with a lessor bullet. My buddy took 5 rounds to kill a big bull this year with his 6.5cm, and they were all good shots. Elk are big strong beasts that are not easy to kill as deer. Its prudent to take a little more gun than a little less gun.

I have seen Ron Spomer take and elk with a 7 mm Rem Mag and it took three shots.

 

[Long Range 338]

So much dogma, number crunching, and anectdotal evidence everytime hunting big game is discussed. For every story someone tells of a Berger or "insert here" bullet failing to put down an animal there are just as many claims that the same bullet acts like a lightning strike of death.

In the end it seems to me that all of the bullets and cartridges are tools in the toolbox. One needs to consider the toughness of the animal and the likely shot to be taken. I would never try to drive a berger lengthwise thru an animal and expect good results. Doesn't mean the Berger doesn't work, just means I need to be selective in taking my shots. Likewise the Barnes isn't Thor's hammer but has a different philosophy of use.

With proper respect for the animal and self control to take appropriate shots all of these cartridges and bullets have been used with success.

 

[Eurodriver]

Is there a reason neck shooting doesn’t come up in these convos? Genuine question - not looking for troll answers.

I was a vitals guy my whole life until a buddy told me about it. I was extremely skeptical until I got a depredation permit and was sick of tracking them at night. I shot 8 in the neck this year from 100-150y with 69gr SMK .223 and they collapsed where they stood. Got 4 or 5 of them on video. I should upload it here.

Would they be more dead with a .300WM?

 

[Long Range 338]

Is there a reason neck shooting doesn’t come up in these convos? Genuine question - not looking for troll answers.

I was a vitals guy my whole life until a buddy told me about it. I was extremely skeptical until I got a depredation permit and was sick of tracking them at night. I shot 8 in the neck this year from 100-150y with 69gr SMK .223 and they collapsed where they stood. Got 4 or 5 of them on video. I should upload it here.

Would they be more dead with a .300WM?

Trophy mounts

 

[wpeach1912]

Is there a reason neck shooting doesn’t come up in these convos? Genuine question - not looking for troll answers.

I was a vitals guy my whole life until a buddy told me about it. I was extremely skeptical until I got a depredation permit and was sick of tracking them at night. I shot 8 in the neck this year from 100-150y with 69gr SMK .223 and they collapsed where they stood. Got 4 or 5 of them on video. I should upload it here.

Would they be more dead with a .300WM?

Just smaller kill zone than normal vital shots. Pretty similar concept to a head shot. If you miss the spinal cord, you may get lucky and hit a major artery, but also just as likely the animal is only wounded

 

[zeroz]

Is there a reason neck shooting doesn’t come up in these convos? Genuine question - not looking for troll answers.

I was a vitals guy my whole life until a buddy told me about it. I was extremely skeptical until I got a depredation permit and was sick of tracking them at night. I shot 8 in the neck this year from 100-150y with 69gr SMK .223 and they collapsed where they stood. Got 4 or 5 of them on video. I should upload it here.

Would they be more dead with a .300WM?

In this particular thread, the op didn't ask about shot placement, but caliber choice. In general, for longer distance western hunting its not thought of as a great shot. Fairly small margin of error and unlikely to find animals that arent DRT. For shorter range shots on deer, Im growing more and more fond of it. Less meat loss and less tracking but a bigger margin of error and less messy than a head shot.

 

[Ronws]

The only problem with a head shot is that it can be survivable. The actual brain is quite small and you could miss that and shatter the jaw and now the deer will run off and die of starvation. If going for a drop shot, it is better to aim for the brachial axis, the major nerve center between the shoulders. You will lose some backstrap for this. But the deer usually drops where it stood.

The best shot is also what people call the most ethical, which getting both heart and lungs. The deer will expire, even if he or she runs off for 100 yards. This is why, after the shot, remain still for 30 minutes. All the deer knows is that it felt a sharp sting and should maybe rest. And then lay down and expire.

Then, go to where you shot the deer first, then walk in the direction it was last seen heading. Worst case scenario, you lose some rib meat, which not a lot of people care about. This, to me, is the requirement of an ethical shot. If you can hit an 8 inch pie plate at 300 yards, that is good. If you and your rifle can only hit that at 100 yards, then only shoot at deer at 100 yards. For me, the ethics is not about distance, it is about accuracy of putting stopping energy in a particular zone, as opposed to precision rifle shooting.

 

[RedTimber]

Is there a reason neck shooting doesn’t come up in these convos? Genuine question - not looking for troll answers.

I was a vitals guy my whole life until a buddy told me about it. I was extremely skeptical until I got a depredation permit and was sick of tracking them at night. I shot 8 in the neck this year from 100-150y with 69gr SMK .223 and they collapsed where they stood. Got 4 or 5 of them on video. I should upload it here.

Would they be more dead with a .300WM?

Neck shots are great, but the area you are shooting at is not as wide and for some that makes it easier to miss when they are excited