25-06 and Elk

[willfrye027]

I bet those shoulder shots destroyed the shoulder?

They have destroyed an offside shoulder but the onside shoulder is usually OK. Seems like they really do penetrate a bit and then expand, not blowing up on the shoulder blade.

 

[mt100gr.]

I want to know the minimum specs for an ethical Fudd trap. Minimum (must use ft lbs) grip strength to hold them and really get the worked up, and minimum pan tension to be sure not to miss one?

I'm guessing these specs are all in multiples of .223, .243, .257, .264??

Please and thank you!

 

[willfrye027]

This was a mule deer at 450ish. Top picture is under the offside shoulder, found the jacket that went through shoulder muscle and near the hide.

Bottom pic is entry through ribs

Didn’t lose hardly any of the shoulder meat itself.

 

[goathunter]

View attachment 504090View attachment 504089


This was a mule deer at 450ish. Top picture is under the offside shoulder, found the jacket that went through shoulder muscle and near the hide.

Bottom pic is entry through ribs

Didn’t lose hardly any of the shoulder meat itself.

Nice. As much as I like the bonded bullets for elk, can't argue this would make a sweet mid-long range setup, or a good youth cartridge recoil wise. But it is a custom barrel and bullet, handloaded obviously - sorry to sidetrack the thread.

 

[fwafwow]

Alright, I've had my fill of arguing with internet strangers. Im out. You all enjoy your angry typing

I don't think it's arguing if you never respond to one of the points made.

 

[goathunter]

I don't think it's arguing if you never respond to one of the points made.

Man anyone brings up anything caliber or bullet related, and you guys come ready to gang up and pick a fight. It's like talking politics. I'm bowing out as well.

 

[fwafwow]

Man anyone brings up anything caliber or bullet related, and you guys come ready to gang up and pick a fight. It's like talking politics. I'm bowing out as well.

I am sorry you feel that way. I personally don't think it's like politics, at least these days, as there is no animosity. I will concede it is like politics in that some are entrenched and not willing to have a discussion.

It usually starts like this "Everyone knows you have to have at least a X caliber for Y animal! You are unethical or disrespecting the animal to shoot less and you are not leaving any margin for error."

OK - now we have several points made. But no one seems to respond to any follow-up questions to the above - like "what cartridges are sufficient and insufficient?" (It can't just be like obscenity - "I know it when I see it.") Or if there is an answer ("everyone knows you need Z ft. lbs of energy for that animal") - no one can explain why or will acknowledge that some of those "marginal" or alleged inferior cartridges can produce the stated threshold of energy.

In short, it's an effort at a discussion, but almost everyone on the side of "30 cal or go home" (or whatever) won't actually engage. If you take that as ganging up or fighting, then perhaps something isn't coming through in the written word. But you are not alone. Form poses an incredible number of questions, and it must be tiring because almost all of them go unanswered. Or the response is "I'm out".

Personally I don't believe anything (or try not to) unless I've seen two sides make points and counter-points on a topic so that I can try to be as fully informed of both "sides" to any issue. On bullet and caliber selections, I would really like someone to make a point that challenges not only the "old school" views, but the "new school" as well.

 

[jjohnsonElknewbie]

My argument is I just saw the "load data" you pulled those numbers off of. You definitely haven't shot that, have you?! 107%fill N570 on a 90° day.... in a 25-06.... better bust out safety glasses!!!

If you're gonna throw other cartridge comparisons, add 200fps over book (with numbers for 26" barrels).... that'll get ya apples to apples But if you can get 270win numbers out of it, why not?! Also.... a .25 cal Berger Match bullet for elk.... really??? You realize there is a big Elite Hunter, right?

You haven’t convinced anyone with your un-scientific points, and left the thread when your points were not appreciated. If you don’t like the hot 135gr load I provided earlier, here is the full Berger load table. Pick your favorite around 3000fps that doesn’t scare you and plug it into a calculator. The numbers aren’t going to change much and the conclusion will be the same.

 

[jjohnsonElknewbie]

I am sorry you feel that way. I personally don't think it's like politics, at least these days, as there is no animosity. I will concede it is like politics in that some are entrenched and not willing to have a discussion.

It usually starts like this "Everyone knows you have to have at least a X caliber for Y animal! You are unethical or disrespecting the animal to shoot less and you are not leaving any margin for error."

OK - now we have several points made. But no one seems to respond to any follow-up questions to the above - like "what cartridges are sufficient and insufficient?" (It can't just be like obscenity - "I know it when I see it.") Or if there is an answer ("everyone knows you need Z ft. lbs of energy for that animal") - no one can explain why or will acknowledge that some of those "marginal" or alleged inferior cartridges can produce the stated threshold of energy.

In short, it's an effort at a discussion, but almost everyone on the side of "30 cal or go home" (or whatever) won't actually engage. If you take that as ganging up or fighting, then perhaps something isn't coming through in the written word. But you are not alone. Form poses an incredible number of questions, and it must be tiring because almost all of them go unanswered. Or the response is "I'm out".

Personally I don't believe anything (or try not to) unless I've seen two sides make points and counter-points on a topic so that I can try to be as fully informed of both "sides" to any issue. On bullet and caliber selections, I would really like someone to make a point that challenges not only the "old school" views, but the "new school" as well.

100

 

[jjohnsonElknewbie]

Here is the .25-06 AI load table for your review as well. Perform the same exercise (pick a load around 3,000 fps) and plug it into a calculator.

 

[littlerhorner]

I am sorry you feel that way. I personally don't think it's like politics, at least these days, as there is no animosity. I will concede it is like politics in that some are entrenched and not willing to have a discussion.

It usually starts like this "Everyone knows you have to have at least a X caliber for Y animal! You are unethical or disrespecting the animal to shoot less and you are not leaving any margin for error."

OK - now we have several points made. But no one seems to respond to any follow-up questions to the above - like "what cartridges are sufficient and insufficient?" (It can't just be like obscenity - "I know it when I see it.") Or if there is an answer ("everyone knows you need Z ft. lbs of energy for that animal") - no one can explain why or will acknowledge that some of those "marginal" or alleged inferior cartridges can produce the stated threshold of energy.

In short, it's an effort at a discussion, but almost everyone on the side of "30 cal or go home" (or whatever) won't actually engage. If you take that as ganging up or fighting, then perhaps something isn't coming through in the written word. But you are not alone. Form poses an incredible number of questions, and it must be tiring because almost all of them go unanswered. Or the response is "I'm out".

Personally I don't believe anything (or try not to) unless I've seen two sides make points and counter-points on a topic so that I can try to be as fully informed of both "sides" to any issue. On bullet and caliber selections, I would really like someone to make a point that

I can appreciate that. I had a couple questions that also went unanswered. At then end of the day I'm not trying to sway the mind of someone that is experienced, but I do believe there are a lot of very inexperienced people that will blindly follow an interent forum's hot topic. I'm not trying to tell someone the can not do something. I am trying to point out there are no free lunchs and no magic bullets I also believe that there are more factors in cleaning killing game that bullet construction. Without energy the bullet never leaves the rifle. It is impossible to completely discount terminal velocity. I truly believe that 333 ft/lbs (the same as at the muzzle of 22 mag) is irresponsible, disrespectful or both. Apparently it worked, but the circumstances that lead to taking that shot are questionable. If you feel that that is reasonable then the separation in our level of acceptable risk is too great.

By all means call me a Fudd. Folks will find out on there own and make there own conclusions after a couple of seasons. You guys do you. I wish you sincere luck.

 

[PNWGATOR]

Bullets matter as they do not create equal wound channels at equal impact velocities.

Ftlbs of energy has zero to do with efficient killing.

 

[littlerhorner]

So the bullet still works at 1 ft/lb?

 

[Mountainrancher]

So the bullet still works at 1 ft/lb?

No the bullet works at its minimum impact velocity. You are getting way too hung up on energy. It is irrelevant. As long as the bullet is traveling fast enough to expand it will upset the vitals and kill the animal. Velocity at impact and the bullets minimum velocity to expand are the only numbers that matter in terms of killing game animals.

 

[littlerhorner]

Ok. There are two variables in ft/lb one is velocity the other is mass. I assumed your bullet has mass. My bad. Have a good weekend

 

[black dawg]

I truly believe that 333 ft/lbs (the same as at the muzzle of 22 mag) is irresponsible, disrespectful or both.

So, would a 22 mag at muzzle velocity cause the damage that is shown in the 333ft/lb example?

 

[PNWGATOR]

Ok. There are two variables in ft/lb one is velocity the other is mass. I assumed your bullet has mass. My bad. Have a good weekend

This is just silly.

Bullets are not constructed equally and are designed and engineered to create specific wound channels at specific impact velocities.

 

[littlerhorner]

It is silly and it is also phyisics. It is the thing the dudes in white coats use to design your bullets that you choose to take a very simplic view of. It is the mass that creates the wound channels. It is the velocity that causes that mass to expand. The bullet needs both. No matter what you read on the internet. You need both. It's a beautiful Friday. I hope you all get out to enjoy it.

 

[jjohnsonElknewbie]

It is silly and it is also phyisics. It is the thing the dudes in white coats use to design your bullets that you choose to take a very simplic view of. It is the mass that creates the wound channels. It is the velocity that causes that mass to expand. The bullet needs both. No matter what you read on the internet. You need both. It's a beautiful Friday. I hope you all get out to enjoy it.

IT IS NOT THE MASS THAT CREATES WOUND CHANNELS. Come on man... Simple illustration... Shoot a standard FMJ (full metal jacket) round at ballistic gellatin. Then shoot a HP (hollow point), JHP (Jacketed Hollow Point), cast solid, etc..., (pick your bullet type) of the same cartridge and bullet weight at the ballistics gelatin at the same distance. You will see the UNEQUIVOCAL evidence that bullet construction, not velocity and mass, is what determines the size of the wound channel and killing power.

 

[PNWGATOR]

It is silly and it is also phyisics. It is the thing the dudes in white coats use to design your bullets that you choose to take a very simplic view of. It is the mass that creates the wound channels. It is the velocity that causes that mass to expand. The bullet needs both. No matter what you read on the internet. You need both. It's a beautiful Friday. I hope you all get out to enjoy it.

Simplistic? Hardly.

Bullet design and impact velocity create wound channels.

All bullets are not created equal.

Energy is a worthless predictor of killing efficiently.