25-06 and Elk

[Matt Cashell]

These threads never disappoint.

Curiously,

The OP asked for experience with the cartridge. The posts that actually answer the question can be summed up as:

“Yep. It works”

And…

“Yep. It works … see my picture.”

With a sprinkling of:

“Yep. It works, but I prefer a bigger caliber.”

Interesting. I don’t have any experience that’s applicable but appreciate hearing from those that do.

 

[Rich M]

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.

I think you mean the the bullet design causes the wound channels. There are bullets designed to expand at slow speeds and other for higher speeds.

I do like heavier bullets than lighter but i been shooting cup and core all my life.

 

[SwiftShot]

Simplistic? Hardly.

Bullet design and impact velocity create wound channels.

All bullets are not created equal.

Energy is a worthless predictor of killing efficiently.

Not completely. Two of the exact same bullets, one traveling at 1000 fps and one traveling at 3000 fps. We know the faster one will do better. What you mean is, it is not the only thing,, it is one of many things. It is not even the most important thing, that many people think it is. It does matter, just not all that much. The bullet construction I think in my opinion is the most over looked and under rated of them all.

 

[3325]

This thread is proof that the internet is a waste of time.

Forums are the internet equivalent of bars and taverns.

I’m starting to feel like I’m spending too much money and maybe I need to dry out.

 

[JoSwan]

25-06 would be good for elk. Just old heavy bullets for good penetration and shot placement is important.

 

[Bubbadoyle]

Why! Here we go again. Go ahead and bash the hell out of me but elk aren’t deer and that’s a deer gun.

Placement it’s all about placement. BS!

You will always hear stories about every caliber killing elk. Nobody ever posts about the ones that got away.

I know a guy who killed an elk with a .22. That doesn’t mean it’s an elk gun does it? If we all tried that most would never be found right. But everyone who did find their elk would be thrilled to tell you about it.

Why?

Tell that to my grandfather that killed near 100 elk with a .257 roberts. My father killed many with a .25-06 as well.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Macro]

I have my late fathers Parker-Hale 25-06 and it was new in 1973. It has had God knows how many rounds through it with no loss of accuracy to so called barrel burner. I have 4 different 25-06"s and believe me, they are not barrel burners. I would without a doubt recommend one for hunting. I have reloaded and shot each rifle to get the correct ammo that each one shot well and they are all different loads.

 

[3325]

Tell that to my grandfather that killed near 100 elk with a .257 roberts. My father killed many with a .25-06 as well.

Well, to throw another log on the fire…….I knew a few Wyoming old timers that killed elk cleanly and consistently (or so they said) with a ‘99 Savage in .250-3000.

That doesn’t mean it was the best idea. But in those days a man had only one rifle. There wasn’t a different tool for different purposes. And some of them preferred the flat shooting .250 over calibers like .30-30 Win or .30-40 Krag.

 

[hobbes]

I can't help you with the 25-06. Looks like other folks have.

While some folks have clearly demonstrated that 1500 ft lbs isn't required and some bullets will create incredible wound channel at much lower energy, some level of energy is still absolutely required for any bullet to leave the barrel, travel to the target, penetrate, expand, and create a wound channel. I don't know what that level of energy is for said bullet but it doesn't happen, cannot happen, without the transfer of energy. Someone above tried to express that and was called silly.

I'm not the best person to be giving lessons on energy laws. I despised thermo and energy laws and the like and chose not to pursue mechanical engineering because of it.
However, this idea that velocity and bullet construction is all that matters is not accurate. Velocity clearly matters, it and weight are what we typically measure but velocity and weight of said bullet is part of an energy equation. You cannot move a bullet without energy. Velocity doesn't move a bullet, transfer of energy does.

The explosion of powder does Work on a bullet transferring energy. That work accelerates the bullet down the barrel to some velocity. The bullet (some mass) is traveling at some velocity as a result of energy transfer. It travels down range to impact the target, penetrate, expand, and create a wound channel all because of the energy that was transfered to it and it then transfers to the target. If it goes through the target, it didn't transfer all it's energy to the target but expended some out past the target. When it has no more energy it stops moving and it's velocity is zero. Velocity does not move the bullet it's a measure of the bullets movement over time. Energy moves the bullet and velocity is a measure of how fast it's moving.

If a manufacturer says our bullet will expand at 2000fps. It isn't because the velocity causes expansion. If so, it'd expand in the air. It's because said bullet of said construction and mass will expand when traveling at said velocity and impacts a target, in other words that's the velocity required for a sufficient amount of energy. However, it still expands due to the transfer of energy upon impact.

Energy absolutely does matter regardless of the only way you know how to express it is in some measured velocity. I'm sure someone on here can explain it better and may point out some errors in my explanation. (It's been a long time) I'm also sure that some won't get it regardless. I can't help you there.

We manage velocity by managing powder charge and bullet weight. We manage expansion by managing velocity and bullet construction. But....... behind the scenes, we are really managing the transfer of energy. Energy makes it all happen. Apparently it doesn't require as much energy as we may have previously thought given the right combination.

 

[BigCountry82]

Very interesting topic !!! Enjoyed reading these replies.

 

[Wrench]

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

Ftlbs of energy has zero to do with efficient killing.

I wish I could like this twice.

I've never said you gotta have X ft/lbs for a particular bullet in a particular diameter.....but I always said FPS in place of energy....that's a proveable fact.

 

[35WhelenAI]

I wish I could like this twice.

I've never said you gotta have X ft/lbs for a particular bullet in a particular diameter.....but I always said FPS in place of energy....that's a proveable fact.

Given equal positive expansion characteristics...

A 140 gr bullet at 1800 fps has 1007 ft/lbs of energy, no matter the distance.

A 250 gr bullet at 1800 fps has 1798 ft/lbs of energy, no matter the distance.

The 250 gr bullet has 64 lb/ft momentum vs 34 lb/ft for the 140 gr.

Behind the shoulder, are they equal killers?

Hit the shoulder are they equal killers?

A quartering shot on an elk from behind the ribs?

Which bullet has the most probability to get to the vitals on all three shots? Not just one or two of the shots, but all of them? Are they all the same?

Energy is not what we should be comparing if all else is equal, IMO. It's bullet momentum which doesn't doesn't overinflate the value of velocity.

 

[Wrench]

Not completely. Two of the exact same bullets, one traveling at 1000 fps and one traveling at 3000 fps. We know the faster one will do better. What you mean is, it is not the only thing,, it is one of many things. It is not even the most important thing, that many people think it is. It does matter, just not all that much. The bullet construction I think in my opinion is the most over looked and under rated of them all.

I would challenge this. Take a frangible bullet and drive it into an animal at ultra/wby/lapua type velocity and there's enough examples of instant upset followed by near zero penetration.

Back the velocity off to middle of the road velocity and penetration increases significantly. Reducing the velocity tends to increase the penetration by reducing the bullet upset.

Velocity is very important when choosing the bullet.

I pushed a 100gr .257 completely through my only Roosevelt elk at 400 yards. The impact velocity and bullet upset were obviously in sync. Fwiw, that elk just tipped over dead on the spot.

 

[Mojave]

There is a late great Wyoming gunwriter named Bob Milek. He killed a lot of elk with a 25-06. Most if not all of them were cow elk.

My uncle has probably killed over 50 elk and a few moose in Wyoming and Alaska. He generally uses some kind of 7mm.

My father has killed about 30 elk and 4 moose in Wyoming and Alaska he is a fan of the 308.

The 25-06 is one of the best cartridges ever invented, but it is probably not enough gun for big rutting bull elk at any serious distance.

For a good shot, at reasonable distance it wouldn't be my first choice. But if it was what I had and I shot it well, it would be fine.

I have killed a couple tractor trailer loads of big game animals with a variety of calibers. Including quite a few pronghorns with a 25-06.

 

[35WhelenAI]

Reality is, when this thread finally hits an end, the 25-06 is worth its salt on elk with a good bullet for the situation and when the hunter does what a hunter is supposed to do on their end.

I read tons of Bob Milek, Gary Sitton, John Wooters, Jack O'Connor, et al. Those guys knew what worked for the situation they were gonna be in and didn't mince words about it. They knew what worked.

An article on the 35 Whelen AI by G. Sitton decades ago made me know for the hunting I do, it was going to replace my 300 Win Mag each year for the past 21 seasons in the elk woods and clear cuts. Did a fine job on Eastern whitetails this year as well. Modern bullets and modern powders breathe dragon breath into a number of older cartridges that are written off because of the limitations in bullets and powder when they were in their "prime".

 

[Wrench]

Given equal positive expansion characteristics...

A 140 gr bullet at 1800 fps has 1007 ft/lbs of energy, no matter the distance.

A 250 gr bullet at 1800 fps has 1798 ft/lbs of energy, no matter the distance.

The 250 gr bullet has 64 lb/ft momentum vs 34 lb/ft for the 140 gr.

Behind the shoulder, are they equal killers?

Hit the shoulder are they equal killers?

A quartering shot on an elk from behind the ribs?

Which bullet has the most probability to get to the vitals on all three shots? Not just one or two of the shots, but all of them? Are they all the same?

Energy is not what we should be comparing if all else is equal, IMO. It's bullet momentum which doesn't doesn't overinflate the value of velocity.

Well I just killed an elk with my 300win/225gr and the damage/performance was no different than the 140.

 

[35WhelenAI]

I'm not saying that performance will be different in all circumstances, what was the shot presentation angle?

 

[Wrench]

I'm not saying that performance will be different in all circumstances, what was the shot presentation angle?

Entered as pictured, stuck in the offside elbow.

 

[MTtrout]

These threads always make me chuckle….

1) “know one talks about the game lost with small calibers” - this is pure gold! Let hear the stories of lost elk from the big bore crowd?

2) The “ try to be” comparisons of someone shooting an elk (or other big game) with a .17 or .22 is very disturbing. I heard the same stories when I was a child from other children. I guess rokslide doesn’t put an age limit on who can post.

I’ve shot big magnums and not a fan. However, I’m looking forward to buying a quarter bore for when my sons come of age. Never owned one but shot my first mule deer with it

 

[isItFallYet]

Found this a bit interesting. Started reading Alaska’s Wolf Man again