2 lost elk and conclusions.

[BigAntlerGetter]

I've not killed a lot of elk. Those that I have killed have been with a bow or a 7 mag shooting 175 grain factory bullets. I've never understood the fascination with shooting elk with small calibers and light ammo. It's like it's a badge of honor to say I killed a bull with a rubber band and a spit wad and he only took two steps. Maybe I've grown too old.

Wouldnt a bow be considered a light type of caliber? Isn’t it w badge of honor to be bragging about doing it with a bow? Kinda contradicting.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[hobbes]

Wouldnt a bow be considered a light type of caliber? Isn’t it w badge of honor to be bragging about doing it with a bow? Kinda contradicting.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Maybe so, but I've kept those shots within about 30 yards. I don't have much more defense than that.

As far as bragging....I've not shot enough elk to be bragging. I should have just left that bow part out since this isn't a comparison of the two. That was intended to show that I don't have a lot of experience shooting elk with a rifle. I just read a lot of threads about rifle and bullet selection.

 

[Indian Summer]

You can kill elk with light bullets. You can also kill a deer using a field tip. But why try? If you don’t like recoil get a muzzle brake. I have a saying that I always tell deer hunters who think that their wisdom and experience comes into play when elk hunting. It goes: Hunting elk doesn’t just mean killing them... it also means finding them! Any experienced deer hunter can tell you how tough deer are. How far they can go on 3 legs or a gut shot. Everyone has heard stories of a bullet or broadhead from another hunter found in a deer they killed. To someone with zero elk experience it’s hard to imagine multiplying that toughness by 100. But if you compare the thickness of the hide and hair, the heaviness of bone and the sheer amount of blood you’ll start to get the picture. No they aren’t bulletproof but marginal hits, shots at less than ideal angles, near misses etc don’t often end with meat in the freezer.

If you want a dead bull every time you pull the trigger you should do EVERYTHING in your power to hit em hard and hit em right.

My 13 year old niece hit a big cow perfectly once with a .243. That elk stood there like we shot it with a BB gun. Then it walked off and bedded down. We finished it off with a head shot from about 75 yards. Bullet placement wasn’t a factor. It was simply a lack of energy.

Big calibers launching heavy bullets isn’t about manliness. It’s about killing elk fast when the shot opportunity is less than perfect. That can mean many things. A stiff wind, a quartering to angle.... or more commonly shaky crosshairs due to heavy breathing and adrenaline.

I’m a logical thinker. I base my conclusions on facts. If someone shoots an elk and doesn’t find it that can only mean a couple things. Either no vital organs were damaged enough (shot placement) or if placement was good then there’s no debating that the amount of damage done wasn’t enough allowing the elk to travel far enough to “vanish”.

I don’t use anything less than a 7mm Rem Mag for elk. These days my go to gun sends 200 grain Nosler Accubonds at 3050 feet per second. I don’t have to hit lungs dead center because there’s enough shock from the energy to gel the lungs even if I clip to top or back end of them. That holds true even at long ranges. Go ahead and bash me but those 6.5 CM guns kill lots of targets at 1000 yards.... BUT, you can go pick the bullets up off the ground behind the target! Don’t show up at a gun fight with a knife!

After 35 years of elk hunting, guiding and outfitting I could tell you lots more stories of elk that weren’t recovered after a hunter made a “good hit”. Draw your own conclusions but if your bullets dumps enough energy in the right spot an animal twice the size of an elk will die and be found.

 

[5MilesBack]

I’m a logical thinker. I base my conclusions on facts. If someone shoots an elk and doesn’t find it that can only mean a couple things. Either no vital organs were damaged enough (shot placement) or if placement was good then there’s no debating that the amount of damage done wasn’t enough allowing the elk to travel far enough to “vanish”.

I'm all about logic. But once I shot a cow in about a foot of snow and she ran and ran. She was easy to follow in the snow because it was the only "single" set of tracks away from the rest of them. There was no blood to start, I couldn't find any hair on top of the snow where she stood, and when that bullet blew through her.......she just stood there staring at me for a couple seconds. I actually thought I had missed.

There finally were a few drops of blood on the snow and then almost a 1/4 mile into the trail there was finally a pool, and then there she was slumped over a blowdown. When I cut her open, she had no heart.......only chunks floating around in all the blood. I can't come up with any logic that explains that other than they're tough critters with an amazing will to live. If there hadn't been any snow on the ground, I doubt I would have found her.

 

[AaronMColeman]

A couple quotes from Chuck Hawks are relevant here.

"Bullet placement is the most important factor in killing power. (Memorize that sentence!) "

"The truth is that most hunters simply have not shot enough elk, or observed enough elk killed, to be able to draw valid conclusions from their personal experience."

"I would much rather see an elk hunter carrying a .270 that he can shoot well, instead of a .300 Magnum that causes him to flinch. Elk are big, vital animals, but they are not indestructible. Use a reasonably adequate caliber within its energy and trajectory limits, an appropriate bullet and most of all get that bullet into a vital spot!"

Elk Cartridges

I like this all except the flinch part. I’ve never flinched or noticed how loud a rifle was in the fields. A 300wm that’ll take my shoulder off on a range is a light tap on the shoulder when I see and elk through the scope. I don’t buy into recoil and noise in the field at least for me.

 

[Indian Summer]

I'm all about logic. But once I shot a cow in about a foot of snow and she ran and ran. She was easy to follow in the snow because it was the only "single" set of tracks away from the rest of them. There was no blood to start, I couldn't find any hair on top of the snow where she stood, and when that bullet blew through her.......she just stood there staring at me for a couple seconds. I actually thought I had missed.

There finally were a few drops of blood on the snow and then almost a 1/4 mile into the trail there was finally a pool, and then there she was slumped over a blowdown. When I cut her open, she had no heart.......only chunks floating around in all the blood. I can't come up with any logic that explains that other than they're tough critters with an amazing will to live. If there hadn't been any snow on the ground, I doubt I would have found her.

What did you shoot her with? Caliber and bullet type? Also how far away was she?

 

[5MilesBack]

What did you shoot her with? Caliber and bullet type? Also how far away was she?

175gr Partition in a 7mag at about 75 yards.

 

[Indian Summer]

175gr Partition in a 7mag at about 75 yards.

Definitely a great elk setup and it sounds like a good shot by the damage done. Another example of how tough elk are and why people convincing themselves that light calibers are good enough is not the way to think. If you hit a deer like that with that gun he wouldn’t have taken one step.

 

[Bulldawg]

I like this all except the flinch part. I’ve never flinched or noticed how loud a rifle was in the fields. A 300wm that’ll take my shoulder off on a range is a light tap on the shoulder when I see and elk through the scope. I don’t buy into recoil and noise in the field at least for me.

I would argue against that totally. No you don't hear/feel the recoil sound of the rifle when you hunt, but subconsciously your body will flinch due to experiences you've had at the range. Most people don't think they flinch, most think that they are great shots too. But, you put them on the spot with 5 rounds and make them show a group and they are not nearly the shot they thought they were. Then you give them a blank round and you really see what kind of flinch they have, even better if you can film it and show them later on.

Think about what a flinch is, it's not a reaction to the recoil or sound, it's an anticipation of such. So although you don't hear or feel it, your subconscious is expecting it and bracing/preparing you for that traumatic experience.

All that will transfer over into hunting. you may not think that you are flinching when you shoot at a critter, but most likely you are. Seen a buddy of mine go to shoot an elk or deer can't remember which and he forgot to load a round, squeezed the trigger and I couldn't believe the amount of flinch that he had.

 

[Bulldawg]

To me the biggest stand out to the OP's initial post is you kept going on and on about the lower third of the animals body, and behind the crease, there isn't much vital down there. The majority of the lungs fall in middle third of an animals body. And the heart is behind the shoulder, so if you shoot behind the shoulder, in the lower portion of the body, you aren't hitting much of importance. So, going for the middle section of the body and tight to or in the shoulder is the best option.

 

[AaronMColeman]

I would argue against that totally. No you don't hear/feel the recoil sound of the rifle when you hunt, but subconsciously your body will flinch due to experiences you've had at the range. Most people don't think they flinch, most think that they are great shots too. But, you put them on the spot with 5 rounds and make them show a group and they are not nearly the shot they thought they were. Then you give them a blank round and you really see what kind of flinch they have, even better if you can film it and show them later on.

Think about what a flinch is, it's not a reaction to the recoil or sound, it's an anticipation of such. So although you don't hear or feel it, your subconscious is expecting it and bracing/preparing you for that traumatic experience.

All that will transfer over into hunting. you may not think that you are flinching when you shoot at a critter, but most likely you are. Seen a buddy of mine go to shoot an elk or deer can't remember which and he forgot to load a round, squeezed the trigger and I couldn't believe the amount of flinch that he had.

I agree with the part about flinching on the range transferring. What you do on the range will absolutely transfer to the field.

I have seen that last sentence too! I’m just so focused that nothing enters my mind...not even shooting fundamentals of breathing etc. But that’s why I reload and go to the range a lot. I don’t want to think when I’m on elk. I just want to react and have it be so routine if my brain shuts off I’ll still shoot well.

All that to say, you may have a good point. I just don’t want to admit it

 

[T28w]

Definitely a great elk setup and it sounds like a good shot by the damage done. Another example of how tough elk are and why people convincing themselves that light calibers are good enough is not the way to think. If you hit a deer like that with that gun he wouldn’t have taken one step.

I disagree as I have done in o a whitetail doe. 80 yards 300 wm. Ran prob 80 yards. Was shooting my partners gun and not sure of bullet as this was 15 years ago. The way the deer took off he looked at me confused and asked did I miss lol. When we gutted her there was not a piece of lung or heart left bigger than my thumbnail.

 

[204guy]

Not much to be concluded from the op. No elk recovered so what conclusions can be drawn? Highly unlikely bullet failure in all 3 cases, much more likely misplaced shots. Let's face it most people are terrible shots and they try to compensate by using a bigger gun, which is counter productive. If a 270 and a 140 mono isn't enough, you're delusional if you think going to a 7mm mag with 175 partitions is going to make any difference. If you autopsied 100 elk, 50 killed with each I doubt you could tell which was which.

"Go to a big caliber with heavy bullets" My mind instantly glazes over when guys don't know the difference between cartridge and caliber.(this is rampant on this site and as a shooter it's embarrassing, but that's for another thread) And then there's talk of bullets by weight and not their construction. Bullet construction plays a far bigger role in tissue damage than it's caliber or weight. Not to mention impact velocity.

I've seen a couple elk killed, maybe around 50 now. Plenty have seen a lot more. IME I don't think elk are anything special to make dead. Hit them well and they die in short order. Again most guys can't shoot. Then they compensate by going to a more powerful cartridge often with a tough bullet. Then they continue to place shots on the fringes, it's double counterproductive, and they have zero clue.

 

[hobbes]

No one is saying that bullet placement isn't critically important, but why not combine bullet placement with a rifle caliber, cartridge, bullet construction, whatever, that was developed with elk in mind and not whitetails or coyotes.

I don't even know why I'm commenting except for out of boredom. I should be out trying to kill an elk now instead of reading this dang forum.

 

[Gila]

To me the biggest stand out to the OP's initial post is you kept going on and on about the lower third of the animals body, and behind the crease, there isn't much vital down there. The majority of the lungs fall in middle third of an animals body. And the heart is behind the shoulder, so if you shoot behind the shoulder, in the lower portion of the body, you aren't hitting much of importance. So, going for the middle section of the body and tight to or in the shoulder is the best option.

Actually with elk, their lungs are large and set up higher so the middle of the body is acually center mass for a double lung shot. Bulldawg is spot on. Double lung shot should be the goal as that shot will put an elk down period.

 

[Gila]

No one is saying that bullet placement isn't critically important, but why not combine bullet placement with a rifle caliber, cartridge, bullet construction, whatever, that was developed with elk in mind and not whitetails or coyotes.

I don't even know why I'm commenting except for out of boredom. I should be out trying to kill an elk now instead of reading this dang forum.

I am still going through withdrawals from my last hunt. I wish I had another tag to fill, although the freezer is full to capacity. I prefer not to haul a howitzer up a mountain slope. I have put on alot of miles with my Tikka in .270 and over the last 15 years, that rifle has never failed me! I have complete confidence in the rifle and my abilitiy to harvest an elk out to an ethical range. I don't take marginal shots. If the unfortunate ever happens and I can't find an animal I know was hit, I will punch my tag and go home. I certainly don't need an outfitter with all of the gear I have. However if I do ever use a guide, it will be to find a trophy animal. Once the guide finds what I am looking for, he/she can turn around and go home.

 

[wapitibob]

I shot my WY Elk with a 7stw and 140 TSX, and it didn't take 2 steps. I think if you understand your chosen bullet dynamics and choose the appropriate shot placement, you should be fine. I'm not a gun guy but my research has shown me a light for caliber solid and a heavy for caliber frangible are appropriate. Shot placement of high shoulder preferred for the solids and chest cavity for the Berger frangible types.

 

[TxxAgg]

To me the biggest stand out to the OP's initial post is you kept going on and on about the lower third of the animals body, and behind the crease, there isn't much vital down there. The majority of the lungs fall in middle third of an animals body. And the heart is behind the shoulder, so if you shoot behind the shoulder, in the lower portion of the body, you aren't hitting much of importance. So, going for the middle section of the body and tight to or in the shoulder is the best option.

I was thinking the same thing

 

[204guy]

No one is saying that bullet placement isn't critically important, but why not combine bullet placement with a rifle caliber, cartridge, bullet construction, whatever, that was developed with elk in mind and not whitetails or coyotes.

I don't even know why I'm commenting except for out of boredom. I should be out trying to kill an elk now instead of reading this dang forum.

Actually lots are saying indirectly that by going to a "bigger caliber with heavy bullets" you can compensate for poor shot placement. Simple truth is, you can't. Look at all the "what caliber for 600 yds on elk" threads on here. There will be 27 guys that say 300win. 25 of those guys couldn't hit an 18" plate at 600yds on demand in field conditions with their 300 win. They've got the horsepower but not the skills to utilize it. So its wasted. Once an adequate level of tissue destruction is achieved to kill an animal everything beyond that is just extra. A 223 or 243 with the correct bullets far exceeds that level needed. So many think you gain this huge "extra" stepping up in cartridges. The reality is you gain little incremental bits of "extra" as you step up. Bullet construction, weight and impact velocity all variables that change things. Prevailing thought seems to be the little bit of "extra" that their magnum gains them will pull them through a fringe hit. Its basically a way of taking a shortcut. Just like with gear. Guys have $10,000 of gear and have spent 2 nights in the backcountry. Guys have a 300 win mag and 2 range sessions with 40 rounds off the bench. They would be leaps and bounds ahead if they had a 6 creed and 1000 rounds downrange in field positions. Then they wouldn't place shots on the fringes, but that takes work. Nobody wants to put the work in shooting. Far to much emphasis is put on cartridges and that they'll somehow pull you out of bad placement. I have 100% confidence saying I could hand pick killers and outfit them with .223's and they could go and kill elk at will anywhere. While Joe 270 still couldn't kill an elk at 100yds over a corn pile. Giving him a 300 doesn't change anything.

 

[Indian Summer]

I disagree as I have done in o a whitetail doe. 80 yards 300 wm. Ran prob 80 yards. Was shooting my partners gun and not sure of bullet as this was 15 years ago. The way the deer took off he looked at me confused and asked did I miss lol. When we gutted her there was not a piece of lung or heart left bigger than my thumbnail.

Really... come on man. 80 yards with not A PIECE OF LUNG OR HEART LEFT?


I’ve shot deer at under 100 yards with my .300 Ultra Mag and had them run more than 50 yards. BUT.... it was because the 200 grain Accubond was going so fast it zipped right through without expanding not dumping any energy and leaving an exit hole no bigger than the entry.