2 lost elk and conclusions.

[hobbes]

Actually lots are saying indirectly that by going to a "bigger caliber with heavy bullets" you can compensate for poor shot placement.

Point taken, but my intentions weren't to imply that.

I'm going to bow out of this conversation. I'll let the more knowledgeable folks continue on.

 

[Bubblehide]

Where is Broz's wisdom in this thread. I have not seen him here in a while???

 

[204guy]

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.

Sigh.... slowing that accubond down would not, could not in any way shape or form increase tissue destruction.

 

[Indian Summer]

Sigh.... slowing that accubond down would not, could not in any way shape or form increase tissue destruction.

Actually that exact same thing has happened to me on multiple whitetails. But at 300-400 yards elk and deer are dead before they hit the ground. So what do you suggest to make an Ultra Mag more efficient for killing deer?

 

[204guy]

Use a softer bullet? The "moving so fast it didn't have time to open" theory has been disproven with slow motion cameras and ballistic gel , and simple physics so many times I can't believe it's still brought up.

 

[T28w]

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.

Yes really. And there were pieces. But just that

 

[bummer7580]

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 guess I should have been more specific, I should have said I try to hit 1/3 of the way up on an elk. Thanks for drawing that to my attention. I believe the heart is just above the sternum which is located at the bottom of the chest on a standing elk.. Also the lungs which go from surrounding the heart to a little over the halfway height can be missed if bullet hits to high. Seems like there is a lot of non immediate fatal area on an elk in the upper third of his body.

 

[roosiebull]

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.

here ya go....

 

[Coveyleader]

Personally, I think every guide for elk should have a photo of an elk broadside, maybe quartering away, and have it handy for times like this. I did it with my daughters when they were young telling them exactly where to aim. It may sound "Amateurish" but when you have new hunters, or hunters without a lot of experience, showing a picture, with you referencing right where they need to shoot = Better outcomes. Telling a guy to "Aim behind the shoulder" or "Shoot 1/3 of the way up" doesn't help much. I've seen it, animal quartered slight away, they aim behind the shoulder and then what? Bad hit, calibers fault.

 

[amassi]

Where is Broz's wisdom in this thread. I have not seen him here in a while???

Probably hunting

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

 

[30338]

Trained my dog to blood trail a bit, just for my own use if I ever needed it. A few folks know that and I am amazed at the number of calls I get wanting me to help locate wounded elk. It has to be the number one wounded animal in our state. No input as to why that is, just always amazes me at how many are lost.

 

[Marble]

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.

I would disagree that you can't tell the difference between the two examples you've said with .270 and the 7mm with the bullet weights mentioned. Thats the exact point. There is a difference in damage from the shot.

After going through elk carcasses killed by a 300 RUM shooting 200 grain ABs and my little 7mm shooting 150 grain Sciroocos, it was a stark difference. The 300 RUM just continued to go through the animal and just do an immense of damage. Im not saying I can look at an animal and say, "Looks like a shot from a XYZ cartridge."

The 7mm was a devastating round also, but not like the 300 RUM.

Shot placement is the most important factor. But hunters are not on the range shooting elk in controlled environments with no nerves. In the woods, there is a lot going on and thats when people make bad shots and shit happens. That's why when hunters try to hunt any game with a round that is too small, they have to have a lot of other things to consider and other skills they have to use.

Sent from my SM-G986U using Tapatalk

 

[Marble]

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.

The fact is a larger heavier bullet does compensate. If you butchered and been part of boning out ton of elk you would understand.

It makes a difference.



Sent from my SM-G986U using Tapatalk

 

[Elktaco]

If you lose an elk with a .270 that's on you. You made a bad shot. Period. No elk on the earth will live after being shot in the vitals with a .270. I've seen alot of elk killed with a .270 I'm sure alot of you have, but if the elk does not die from the shot its because of bad shot placement not the caliber/cartridge.

 

[mooretitan]

Shot placement and understanding bullet design and lots of practice are whats really important. With that said I am still looking for that prefect combo. I have the big boys, medium and little guys but still have not found a bullet that I can say I have faith in 100 precent of the time. The TTSX/LRX are what I have to shoot right now and I have shot enough animals to say I have had mixed results. I have shot a few pigs that just would not go down. Tracked them in the snow for a long ways with blood drops the whole way but lost them when the snow dried up. I have probably lost 3-4 pigs the last ten years. Others have dropped in their tracks. Last buck that we shot the LRX should have punched right through but from reason it went in the middle of the back and then changed direction and was found under the same front shoulder. It opened up prefect but something weird happened. Buck before that was less than a 100 yards and hit right in the sweet spot and still made it 50 yards or so.
My sons cow elk this year took 4 shots with a 140g VLD out of a 6.5 creed at around 200 yards. When we quartered her out all shots could be covered with my hand and somehow she still alive when we got up to her.
I think sometimes bullets just dont always work the way we want. It happens.

 

[WyoKid]

I have not shot enough up until now to handloaded. I was using Hornady light magnum with interbonds in my .270 for years. Ran out of ammo and they quit the light magnum line, so used Superformance with 130 gr GMX. This year was the first time I have shot an animal with a copper bullet. I shot the bull a tick over 200 yards which is an easy shot for me. I was standing and used a tree branch for a rest. It was a perfectly placed shot which passed through. The bull didn't go 25 feet. The exit hole was the size of a nickel. I was not at all impressed with the wound channel though. I am definitely going to stick with bonded core bullets. I am going to give 140 gr a try for the elk. Long range Accubonds are a cool concept. I think a .270 win is plenty of medicine to harvest an elk at an ethical range.

Same here....been shooting 270 since 16 years of old. Initially Nosler partitions but now Barnes 130 grains. Never lost an Elk and only a handful took a second shot. You can lose a bull with any caliber. Had a friend shoot a bull with a 375 H&H at 70 yards broadside in the chest...never found that Elk. My brother shot a bull three times with a 300 weatherby....it ran 1/2 a mile before we found it...all lung hits...they are tough animals.

 

[Doc Holliday]

This thread made me google image elk vitals. Leaving tomorrow morning for Montana for my first ever elk hunt. Assuming broadside, looks like halfway up and just behind the shoulder crease appears to be the ticket. Shooting a 7mm w 160 accubonds @ 3000+ fps.

 

[WyoKid]

This thread made me google image elk vitals. Leaving tomorrow morning for Montana for my first ever elk hunt. Assuming broadside, looks like halfway up and just behind the shoulder crease appears to be the ticket. Shooting a 7mm w 160 accubonds @ 3000+ fps.

It is tough to get a perfect broadside shot. Behind the crease might but your too far back if you misjudge the wind down range or he takes a step. I learned to line my vertical sight line with the front leg and put the horizontal 1/3 to 1/2 up. But if angling away, I use the far sided front leg as reference to visualize hitting both lungs.

Shot Placement on Alaskan Game, Alaska Department of Fish and Game

Information on hunting and trapping in Alaska.

www.adfg.alaska.gov

I never aim off hair....if you have to hold that high, you are likely to misjudge and shoot over or you need to get closer.

 

[Gila]

Personally, I think every guide for elk should have a photo of an elk broadside, maybe quartering away, and have it handy for times like this. I did it with my daughters when they were young telling them exactly where to aim. It may sound "Amateurish" but when you have new hunters, or hunters without a lot of experience, showing a picture, with you referencing right where they need to shoot = Better outcomes. Telling a guy to "Aim behind the shoulder" or "Shoot 1/3 of the way up" doesn't help much. I've seen it, animal quartered slight away, they aim behind the shoulder and then what? Bad hit, calibers fault.

Elk vital area from elk101

This thread made me google image elk vitals. Leaving tomorrow morning for Montana for my first ever elk hunt. Assuming broadside, looks like halfway up and just behind the shoulder crease appears to be the ticket. Shooting a 7mm w 160 accubonds @ 3000+ fps.

Good luck to you. I get so excited that I get the shakes. Takes a moment to settle in for the shot.

 

[Sako76]

I stoned two bull elk last year with a 6.5 GAP 4S shooting 156 Berger's, they were close (150 and 250). The year before in Colorado, a father and son doubled on bedded bull elk at 450 yards using 270's (I don't know the bullets), one was dead in his bed and the other bull went 10 yards. The outfitters daughter shoots cows at 400 yards with a 243. I'm thinking bad shot placement.