2 lost elk and conclusions.

[roosiebull]

For the record since a few posts got off track.... arrows and bullets are apples and oranges.

Arrows kill by hemorrhaging. They cut blood vessels causing blood loss. Period.

Bullets kill by hydrostatic shock. The energy from a projectile moving so fast causes a wave of pressure that damages everything around it. Muscles, nerves, bone etc. The resistance of the bone and tissue causes properly designed bullets to expand increasing the pressure. We call it “dumping the energy” and there are mixed opinions on dumping all the energy before exiting or passing through which can create a better blood trail but wastes energy.

But my point is that it makes no sense to say something like “if arrows can kill elk what’s wrong with light bullets”. Nobody here debated whether or not elk are big and tough. They also live in terrain that helps them motor downhill never to be seen again.

Yes lighter bullets kill elk. But dumping more energy will kill them faster. More importantly it creates a larger shock wave which increases the margin for error. In other words you can miss a little and still damage the right parts.

Looking at ft lbs of energy is the best way to compare bullet potential AT VARIOUS RANGES when it comes to killing assuming placement is good. If you shot 2 elk in the exact same spot using light or heavy bullets the amount of damage will be different. Drastically different at longer ranges.

A 168 Berger from a 6.5 Creed stores about 2900 lbs of energy at the muzzle but only about 600 at 1000 yards. A 220 grain bullet from a .300 Ultra Mag has a muzzle energy of 4200 pounds and 1350 at a thousand yards. At 500 yards that 220 grainer is still holding 2400 ft lbs of energy.

Most people figure it takes 1000 to 1500 pounds of energy to effectively kill an elk. So if you want to shoot light bullets that’s fine but know your limitations. Know where your bullet runs out of gas. When I read a thread that says “I practiced all summer and I know I hit the bull where I wanted to but we didn’t find him” I always think.... maybe you did hit him good but what did you REALLY hit him with? He might be dead but what good is that if you cannot find him? Elk hunting doesn’t just mean killing elk it means putting them in the freezer.

I lost one elk out of 24. I shot it with an arrow. I shot one bull with a 7mm Rem Mag and the rest with 200 grain bullets from a .300 RUM. I assure you not all of my shots were perfect. Nobody makes all perfect shots in the field. But I had NO trouble finding any of those elk.

arrows and bullets are apples and oranges, but the energy concepts are related.... whatever the projectile, regardless of how it kills, it needs to penetrates far enough to create a wound channel through the vitals or CNS system.... everybody realizes they kill different.

what causes a bad hit? it's the same on both... miss vitals completely, or hit something that stops the projectile before it enters the vitals.

you could say between cartridges is apples and oranges too, a muzzle loader or 45-70 with hardcast doesn't kill the same as a 300 ultra with a soft bullet...

you obviously can handle your 300 RUM fine, but many, if not most, can't.... mass energy doesn't make up for proficiency.....

your experiences tell you that bigger cartridges will make up for shooter error, i have not seen that. smaller cartridges create more limitations, but i think that's where it ends.

it's not worth having a rifle you don't want to shoot to maybe have them die 10 seconds earlier (or maybe not) if you are a guy who likes to anchor them with a high shoulder shot, then yeah, you'll want the HP to do it however far you're shooting.... if you are shooting them behind the shoulder, it's just not gonna matter.

i understand all shots won't be perfect, but more will if you are using a gun you aren't afraid of.... more won't if you shoot a rifle that makes you flinch.... it evens out in the realm of broad brushes.

no matter the rifle or cartridge, most bad shots are from shooters shooting beyond their realistic ability.... no cartridge will fix that.... some may make it worse when the hunter gets a long range rig but has no business shooting long range.

when everything is factored in, these arguments are completely trivial, and the solutions aren't something tangible like a bullet or cartridge. shoot within yours and your weapon's means and stuff dies (within reason)

 

[BuzzH]

Hydrostatic shock is pure crap...bullets kill by causing blood loss and drop in blood pressure, same as an arrow.

Want proof? Spine an elk with a 338 and a 250 grain partition and miss the artery under the spine.

If hydrostatic shock kills them, one would think that the elk would be dead in seconds...yet they can survive for hours and even days with a broken spine.

Why? Because they aren't losing blood.

 

[trophyhill]

That is him. Thanks for putting the picture up amassi, not sure I would have figured it out. I hope we all come across a bull like that at some point.

The mystery is solved. Your buddy simply acquired a case of buck fever at the wrong time. In other words, he ****** it up

 

[Bubblehide]

"bullets kill by causing blood loss" "is pure crap" I have killed 4 animals shooting them in the heart, with a shot behind the front shoulder in which the heart ended up under the hide on the opposite front chest. One was an elk, one a deer and two pigs. Each time the heart had a nice little hole going through it. It was pure hydrostatic shock the pushed the heart through the body. The hide held the heart only because it could stretch and contain it. Granted there was an instant drop in blood pressure; but those animals did not die from blood loss.

Could you be correct in some cases, sure, but hydrostatic shock moving through a body and causing catastrophic damage is real.

 

[BuzzH]

"bullets kill by causing blood loss" "is pure crap" I have killed 4 animals shooting them in the heart, with a shot behind the front shoulder in which the heart ended up under the hide on the opposite front chest. One was an elk, one a deer and two pigs. Each time the heart had a nice little hole going through it. It was pure hydrostatic shock the pushed the heart through the body. The hide held the heart only because it could stretch and contain it. Granted there was an instant drop in blood pressure; but those animals did not die from blood loss.

Could you be correct in some cases, sure, but hydrostatic shock moving through a body and causing catastrophic damage is real.

Laffin'...

 

[Elkangle]

Two animals in particular stand out from memory

1 was a bull shot in the hump with a 375 h&h...it took out the vertebrae just above the spine, cracked the spine...bull shook it off and was still on his feet an hour later when a final shot killed him

2 was a deer shot with a 7rem mag 180 berger in the neck...it literally couldn't pickup its head and was on its front knees but the back legs still worked..it was pushing itself around like a sled in the snow...can't remember exact time but 30-40 minutes later a 2nd shot finished it off as it was sledding away in the brush...the spine was completely blown up

While I think hydrostatic shock is a great tool to kill something I feel its best to not bank on it and sill have the ability to let the blood or air out...this is reflected in the popularity of the nosler partition bullets over the years

Versatility wins

 

[Colby]

I have made some less than perfect shots before. In order to kill an elk or any other animal you have to poke a hole through some vital operational gear. CNS (ie) spinal cord will do the trick. Heart or lungs will also do the trick. Guts, feet, legs, any other parts may also do the trick but finding them will be a giant pain on the ass. I am sure that you can lose elk with .338’s and kill elk with 6.5’s. It all depends on where we poke the holes. If a guy wants to kill them and not lose them the shortest route is to get better at shooting not wonder about what gun to shoot. The ones that I have had go less than perfect and seen go less than perfect the bullets didn’t land where they were supposed to.

 

[Marble]

Hydrostatic shock is pure crap...bullets kill by causing blood loss and drop in blood pressure, same as an arrow.

Want proof? Spine an elk with a 338 and a 250 grain partition and miss the artery under the spine.

If hydrostatic shock kills them, one would think that the elk would be dead in seconds...yet they can survive for hours and even days with a broken spine.

Why? Because they aren't losing blood.

Your example isn't really an appropriate comparison. You both are correct mostly.

Bullets can and do kill by both hemorrhaging and blood loss, or breaking of spines or necks. Hydrostatic shock incapacitates, shocks, creates wounds and injuries that running a simple projectile through something will not.

Its not just one or the other.

Sent from my SM-G986U using Tapatalk

 

[WCB]

I've guided a bunch of elk hunts...I've seen them killed with 7rems, 308, 300s, 270s, 30-06s, 375s and some others. I told all of my guys shoot straight up the leg in the dead middle of the shoulder "favor lower". Once hit shoot till they go down. This gave them a chance to "break them down" and puts them will within the vital zone. Not all the shots ended up straight up the legs as habit took over for some guys...including 3 well placed shots a couple inches behind the crease with a .375 at 300 yards...bull stood for two shots 3rd shot it took a couple steps and fell (it was dead the first shot). Through the shoulder with a .270 one or two steps and down. Big isn't always better but it doesn't mean small is more efficient either.

My criteria when asked by people what caliber, grain weight/load to shoot.

#1 what can you shoot comfortably that is enough gun (sorry .223 is not an "elk" caliber. Can you kill them with it yes I understand). This helps with shot placement instead of the "my outfitter told me I need a 300win or bigger so I need to by a new gun". "but you have a .308 and are limiting your shots to 400 yards anyways...and most elk are killed under 300 yards"..."but my outfitter said."

#2 A well constructed bullet...I like good bonded bullets next are monos then good cup and core/partitions, last are Nosler Ballistic Tip type bullets and Match bullets. (your order may differ this is mine that is fine). Once a elk was hit, hit it again and I want the bullet to be able to drive into the animal after breaking stuff if need be. I get the well placed shot but sh!t happens. Hit a big bull bad and it turns and runs away...try driving a .223 up through it.

 

[marshland_max]

I don't have much to add other than when I was skinning deer and bear for an outfit full time in my early twenties (LOL seems like forever ago now) the number one multiple hit / most problems I seen came from 270's shooting 130/140 solid copper bullets -

Most effective 270 bullet I have ever seen was a 150 gr Partition - go figure

IDK was probably the shooter in both cases in the OP's example -

Personally we still use an awful lot of Cup and Core and Nosler PT bullets in Standard cartridges like 260, 270, 308, 30-06, 358 with aplomb!

We use Nosler AB and PT's in the 7 mm Mags

People really love the Copper bullets and I have used them some to take game - I don't bother with them much anymore, but that's just me

Cheers!

 

[bardenes]

good experience for us new guys to learn from.

 

[COwineguy]

"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 agree with this but I have never really liked it. To me it’s like saying “work smarter not harder” It dismisses the option for both. I would assume most guides feel this way but when it comes down to it would rather have a guy who shoots a big gun well without flinching and practices well beyond the range he will shoot an animal.

 

[WRO]

So to recap:

You need either a Bazooka or a rifle you can shoot well.

Bullet placement matters.

Shoot them in the shoulder if you hate meat.

Every bullet sucks for elk, try lightning next time.

They either bleed to death or die of hydrostatic shock..

Anything else I missed?

 

[roosiebull]

Two animals in particular stand out from memory

1 was a bull shot in the hump with a 375 h&h...it took out the vertebrae just above the spine, cracked the spine...bull shook it off and was still on his feet an hour later when a final shot killed him

2 was a deer shot with a 7rem mag 180 berger in the neck...it literally couldn't pickup its head and was on its front knees but the back legs still worked..it was pushing itself around like a sled in the snow...can't remember exact time but 30-40 minutes later a 2nd shot finished it off as it was sledding away in the brush...the spine was completely blown up

While I think hydrostatic shock is a great tool to kill something I feel its best to not bank on it and sill have the ability to let the blood or air out...this is reflected in the popularity of the nosler partition bullets over the years

Versatility wins

the deer scenario is crazy! i like neck shots on deer, but if i ever have that happen, it will be the last one i take. i am also a fan of partitions.... they were my go to bullet in my 270. my only complaint with them is not shooting great in every rifle.... the ones they shoot well out of become my bullet for said rifle. i just bought some federal terminal ascents to try... very similar concept, but of course it will be a good while before i have an actual opinion on them.

i personally like a tougher bullet that doesn't make a mess.... not saying they are better, but i like them better. double lung shots aren't often DRT, but they also don't go far..... especially deer, we only get one per year and they don't have a freezer full of meat on them, i assume salvage as much as possible.... even if they are on their feet standing there dazed for 10 seconds (unless they give a good angle on their neck)

i took my sis in law friday, last day of deer season, and she killed a dandy. i gave her my tikka 270 a few years ago, and that's what she uses. that rifle loves SST's, i quit using them and switched to partitions, but she uses them. i had to trim probably 3/4 of that entrance shoulder, it was bad.... and that dang buck still took 30 seconds to actually die.

A few years ago i shot a really big spring bear with that rifle and SST's, shot was 12yds, shot him right in the pocket, hit a rib going in and grenaded. bear went tearing right by me while i'm working the bolt, luckily it wasn't coming after me because it would have got me bear didn't make it far, maybe 30-40yds and was moaning out. when i gutted that bear, the front lung was full of shrapnel, the offside lung was all bloodshot looking, but couldn't find much that actually made it into the lung, i think it was miniature fragments that did the damage.... the offside ribcage was clean as a whistle, not a single bullet fragment made it over there.... it worked, but any more than a rib and it likely wouldn't have....

next fall, another close shot on a bear with a partition, steep quartering away. shot the bear and it turned into a bowling ball rolling down the hill, bullet entered high on the last rib, and came to rest in the hide between his front 2 legs. for my taste, way better performance hitting much heavier bone, and besides a 1/2 dollar size piece of brisket... zero meat loss.

DRT is a cool thing, but i don't need it.... a suitable projectile (for the size of animal you're hunting) through the lungs makes them dead fast enough for me, and they rarely make it very far, if anywhere, even if they don't die instantly.... i like a bullet that works in every scenario, but i'm also not a sniper..... nothing wrong with a specialized setup that you can reliably anchor things in their tracks, but you don't need that to be a lethal and effective rifle hunter for any species. penetrating the vitals works.

i'm not going to go full Roy Weatherby and go hunt cape buffalo with a 1/4 bore, but you don't need a giant magnum to kill critters we have in North America.... even elk.

it is odd to me that cartridges are highlighted more than bullet designs in these conversations.... it is probably more critical as you drop down in cartridges, but is flat out not considered in these discussions.

 

[AaronMColeman]

So to recap:

You need either a Bazooka or a rifle you can shoot well.

Bullet placement matters.

Shoot them in the shoulder if you hate meat.

Every bullet sucks for elk, try lightning next time.

They either bleed to death or die of hydrostatic shock..

Anything else I missed?

I do not get the shoulder shot. I mean I guess I get it, it makes it so they can't run. but you lose so much meat. I shot my bull through the shoulder in a follow up shot this year. I was bummed at all the lost meat.

I like your recap . Choose a side and roll with it, and guess what? You'll probably kill that elk

 

[roosiebull]

So to recap:

You need either a Bazooka or a rifle you can shoot well.

Bullet placement matters.

Shoot them in the shoulder if you hate meat.

Every bullet sucks for elk, try lightning next time.

They either bleed to death or die of hydrostatic shock..

Anything else I missed?

i think the actual take away is a lot of stuff works really well.... poor shooting is pawned off to faulty projectiles or too small of cartridges. i know you have seen plenty of elk die with a wide range of bullets and cartridges. you like your setup based on all of the data points you have seen.... you didn't compromise on your setup because you have the experience and ability not to.

you also know people (at least in the past) who shoot too much rifle, and don't shoot well, and will shoot outside of their ability because the weapon is capable.

the perfect rifle/cartridge will change regionally and stylistically (lots of stuff works well enough) if i rifle hunted elk locally, i would have kept that Browning Bar safari grade i had for awhile in 338wm... absolutely perfect roosie rifle. pleasant to shoot, and great for close encounters in reprod or timber.... you can most likely make a path to the vitals if you need to... that was a cool rifle, i just had no practical use for it, and it was too pretty for me to use.

evryone gets wrapped up in what they do and think it's the best way.

 

[WRO]

I do not get the shoulder shot. I mean I guess I get it, it makes it so they can't run. but you lose so much meat. I shot my bull through the shoulder in a follow up shot this year. I was bummed at all the lost meat.

I like your recap . Choose a side and roll with it, and guess what? You'll probably kill that elk

I'm a huge fan of it and here's why..

1. High shoulder doesn't take out that much meat (5lbs or less on average) and it stops them from going to a shittier place.

2. If you screw up your going to hit them in the neck or lungs (both are typically pretty lethal) Mid chest cavity with a flinch turns into a shit show. (been there, done that, got the t-shirt)

3. My personal theory is shoot an elk until they're dead, If they're standing, I'm telling clients to keep sending it or sending it myself. I've seen what people think are great shots be not so great. Those rushed follow shots tend to be way harder on meat than little bit of jerky meat lost the first shot.

 

[WRO]

i think the actual take away is a lot of stuff works really well.... poor shooting is pawned off to faulty projectiles or too small of cartridges. i know you have seen plenty of elk die with a wide range of bullets and cartridges. you like your setup based on all of the data points you have seen.... you didn't compromise on your setup because you have the experience and ability not to.

you also know people (at least in the past) who shoot too much rifle, and don't shoot well, and will shoot outside of their ability because the weapon is capable.

the perfect rifle/cartridge will change regionally and stylistically (lots of stuff works well enough) if i rifle hunted elk locally, i would have kept that Browning Bar safari grade i had for awhile in 338wm... absolutely perfect roosie rifle. pleasant to shoot, and great for close encounters in reprod or timber.... you can most likely make a path to the vitals if you need to... that was a cool rifle, i just had no practical use for it, and it was too pretty for me to use.

evryone gets wrapped up in what they do and think it's the best way.

I'd agree with you on that, especially on too much rifle or a rifle you aren't comfortable with.

BTW I still need a Rosie. Have rifle, will travel (we keep saying we're going to do it one of these days)

 

[AaronMColeman]

I'm a huge fan of it and here's why..

1. High should doesn't take out that much meat (5lbs or less on average) and it stops them from going to a shittier place.

2. If you screw up your going to hit them in the neck or lungs (both are typically pretty lethal) Mid chest cavity with a flinch turns into a shit show. (been there, done that, got the t-shirt)

3. My personal theory is shoot an elk until they're dead, If they're standing, I'm telling clients to keep sending it or sending it myself. I've seen what people think are great shots be not so great. Those rushed follow shots tend to be way harder on meat than little bit of jerky meat lost the first shot.

Great points. Appreciate the response.

My goal is meat 1st so I hate to lose it for almost any reason. I get it, they elk won't run far so my way of shooting risks 100% meat loss when not finding the elk.

And, I couldn't agree with point 3 any more. If the elk is standing shoot it, if it's flailing on the ground shoot it, if it's not 100% dead shoot it. And the rushed or not ideal follow up shots are what lose meat. That's exactly my scenario this season.

I'm not sold on the shoulder shot, but I do like your reasoning.

 

[roosiebull]

I'd agree with you on that, especially on too much rifle or a rifle you aren't comfortable with.

BTW I still need a Rosie. Have rifle, will travel (we keep saying we're going to do it one of these days)

let me know your schedule in the next few days.... don't think it would take us long.