257 weatherby or 300 win mag

[sndmn11]

3600fps and a 100gr Etip sound like pretty great friends.

 

[BuzzH]

We can go back and forth all day. The last few posts above this are excellent. Respectable non-argumentative guys with actual experience and nothing to prove.

So now it’s about wound channels? No. It’s about marginal shots which we can all agree happen. No benchrests on flat ground and adrenaline free trigger pulls when we’re hunting elk on public land. So if the wound channel isn’t in the ideal spot it’s good to have the energy to cause damage because of hydrostatic shock.

We don’t shoot turkeys with cannons but every once in awhile it seems like the BBs bounce right off. They are extremely tough as well. Think about that for a second….. why don’t we use the same size shot for turkeys that we do rabbits? States even regulate the minimum size shot for turkeys. They want that energy! And for the record it has nothing to do with chest pounding because “I shoot a magnum”. To me it’s about respect for the animals I pursue. I want them dead on their feet before they even hit the dirt.

Disclaimer: Dead on their feet is just a figure of speech. I have to say that so I don’t have to read about the scientific facts about oxygen loss to the brain being the actual cause of death which takes a few seconds. It’s also a fact that in steep thick elk country they don’t have to make it too too far to land in some pile of stuff where we walk right by and never find them. I’ve looked for elk before where we ended up finding them the next day…. or days later after the birds revealed their resting place and said wow… we were so close the first night. We walked right past him.

Lots of word salad there.

A bad shot is a bad shot no matter the caliber. Its all BS that a larger caliber and hydrostatic shock makes up for a crap shot...BTDT.

I've lost one elk out of 75 I've shot with a rifle, shot with a .338 with a 250 grain partition at about 90 yards. Made a crap shot and hydrostatic shock didn't do chit to change the outcome. Actually, in fairness I didn't lose it, found it 3 days after I shot it, a spike.

The best advice is to tell people to shoot more, keep their cool, and plant a reasonably constructed g-damn bullet where it needs to go with a rifle they shoot well at typical/reasonable hunting ranges. Caliber doesn't matter much from .243-.375 and that's a fact...again, BTDT.

 

[Formidilosus]

We can go back and forth all day. The last few posts above this are excellent. Respectable non-argumentative guys with actual experience and nothing to prove.

Actually it’s seems more like people posting ballistics charts and comment their outfitter said, versus experience with 257 Weatherbys on elk.

So now it’s about wound channels?

What kills elk besides destroyed organs which is directly related to placement and wound channels?

No. It’s about marginal shots which we can all agree happen. No benchrests on flat ground and adrenaline free trigger pulls when we’re hunting elk on public land. So if the wound channel isn’t in the ideal spot it’s good to have the energy to cause damage because of hydrostatic shock.

So “hydrostatic shock” does something that is not related to wound channels? What exactly is hydrostatic shock? And how does it cause damage that isn’t related to wound channels? And how much “energy” is needed to cause damage due to hydrostatic shock?

We don’t shoot turkeys with cannons but every once in awhile it seems like the BBs bounce right off. They are extremely tough as well. Think about that for a second….. why don’t we use the same size shot for turkeys that we do rabbits? States even regulate the minimum size shot for turkeys. They want that energy!

No, it’s not energy. It’s penetration.

And for the record it has nothing to do with chest pounding because “I shoot a magnum”. To me it’s about respect for the animals I pursue. I want them dead on their feet before they even hit the dirt.

How many elk have you lost with 25 calibers, what bullets, and what were the results?

 

[Formidilosus]

I like data that isn't circumstantial, which is why I immediately go to the numbers. Data like that doesn't lie and has nothing to do with shot placement.

I like data too. So what does energy do for you exactly? Please be specific.

 

[Indian Summer]

My mistake. Energy has nothing to do with penetration or the amount of damage related to expending that energy. What was I thinking! A tack driver is the ticket! Bust out the 17s!

 

[sndmn11]

My mistake. Energy has nothing to do with penetration or the amount of damage related to expending that energy. What was I thinking! A tack driver is the ticket! Bust out the 17s!

With hydrostatic shock, how much can one miss the vitals by, but still mortally damage them?

 

[DRUSS]

This thread is getting extensive.
I do believe in taking what your comfortable with and making good decisions on your choice of shot taken. I have killed a elk with a 25/06 and 300 win Mag, 300wsm . I have not shot anything with the 257 Wby (I do want one though) . If I get to choose my rifle for a elk hunt I would take what I have the most confidence in. And be patient when your shot presents itself. The elk I shot with 25/05 was with 115gr Berger at 50-60yds. Right through the chest, bullet was on the inside of hide farside. He went another 30-40yds before collapsed.
Good luck on your choice and this upcoming hunt!

 

[Formidilosus]

My mistake. Energy has nothing to do with penetration or the amount of damage related to expending that energy.

Actually it does not in a functional sense. “Energy” is used to create damage, however there is no set amount that causes a certain damage level, nor can “energy” tell you how much damage will occur, how deep a bullet will penetrate, how wide the wound will be, or it’s overall shape. Nor if “hydrostatic shock” in tissue was real (it’s not), would energy tell you anything about that. The stated theory (which has repeatedly been proven to be nonsense) is that Hydrostatic shock is caused by velocity- not ft-lbs of energy. The very thing that a 257 Bee offers up in excess over a 300 win mag…. Your own misconceptions are arguing against your fallacies.

What was I thinking! A tack driver is the ticket! Bust out the 17s!

And this shows that your beliefs are emotion and/or myth driven and not reality. Notice that I didn’t need to resort to hyperbole to discuss the errors of your statements. Quite frankly the reason that a 17 cal would be good for elk has nothing to do with the caliber itself, and instead because there aren’t 17cal projectiles that will reliably penetrate deep enough to reach an elks vital organs in the chest. Even if there were, the wound channel from an extremely light 17cal bullets would be very narrow- like very small broadhead, and would generally kill slowly.

 

[jjohnsonElknewbie]

Even if there were, the wound channel from an extremely light 17cal bullets would be very narrow- like very small broadhead, and would generally kill slowly.

Using your same logic then, due to its constant diameter advantage, a .30 caliber bullet would deliver a larger wound channel than a .25 caliber, no? Let’s assume same bullet (partition, accubond, TBT, etc…) out of both rifles at roughly the same energy on impact? If we use energy instead of velocity or bullet weight, doesn’t that normalize the experiment since energy is a function of both?

What if we went one step further to normalize and used non-expanding FMJ rounds for the experiment. At similar energy levels on impact are you prepared to argue that a .25 is going to create a larger wound channel than a .30? Why do you suppose military sniper rifles are .30 or larger?

The bottom line is that with similar bullet construction and performance a larger caliber projectile should naturally expand further than a smaller caliber round thus creating a larger wound channel.

 

[amassi]

3600fps and a 100gr Etip sound like pretty great friends.

Bounce right off an elk

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

 

[AKDoc]

I've never hunted elk.

I do have a 257WBY that I have used to take black bears in the spring on the snow slides, as well as some black-tail on POW island and Kodiak...all were DRT. I handload 100grn TSX's, and I get 3600fps out of a 26" Lilja barrel. Of the black bears that I have taken, two of them were six-footers and one was 7. One bear was a back-up shot for a friend's poorly placed shot, that gut hit the bear and was running off at full speed directly away from us and might be unretrievable...I had to shoot him directly up the.....perineum. That bear was just under six feet, and the bullet traveled the entire length of the body, exiting the chest...and DRT. The 257WBY with 100grn TSX's is a laser beam!

That said, it stays in my gun safe each fall when I head out moose hunting.

 

[Formidilosus]

Using your same logic then, due to its constant diameter advantage, a .30 caliber bullet would deliver a larger wound channel than a .25 caliber, no? Let’s assume same bullet (partition, accubond, TBT, etc…) out of both rifles at roughly the same energy on impact?

Yes. If utilizing projectiles that are optmized to destroy the maximum amount of tissue, a 30cal will have a larger wound channel than any smaller caliber. But very, very few people use or want bullets that are the most destructive because we eat the animal. Even with that, total tissue destruction isn’t the largest part of the equation. When talking normal hunting ranges say 600’ish yards and/or 2,000’ish FPS impact velocities- once sufficient wound channels are achieved, the increase in measurable and noticeable benefits from larger wounds drop significantly. There is no bullet from any common shoulder fired caliber/cartridge that can reliably and consistently turn a true gut shot into popping the diaphragm on an elk. Deer yes, not elk. You get incremental gains once you get past “sufficient”. And those incremental wound channel gains come with heavy shootability penalties that are not proportional- little gain in wound channel, big loss in hit rate. The shootability piece is actually measurable and has been researched and studied. The British with the adoption of the enfield, and the US with the 30-06 (12 and 14 ft-lbs of recoil respectively, IIRC). Anything more than around 12 ft-lbs of recoil has a dramatic effect of shooting ability. And no, body size does not have nearly the effect that most think when your talking adult males.

Using a 180gr TBT in a 300 mag as an examplef that bullet produces acceptable wounds to you- it is relatively easy to get a smaller diameter bullet that exceeds the 30 cal TBT wound size.

If we use energy instead of velocity or bullet weight, doesn’t that normalize the experiment since energy is a function of both?

No. Because energy is not a predictor or penetration or bulletin upset. Projectiles are designed to expand or fragment at certain impact velocities- yes, that also has a certain ft-lbs if energy attached to it- but it is specific to that particular caliber, model, and weight of bullet. A 120gr 25cal Nosler Partition and a 180gr 30cal Nosler Partition launched at the exact same MV have WIDELY different Ft-lbs of energy levels, yet performance characteristics are almost exactly the same. I.E.- the wound overall shape and behavior is very similar with the 30cal penetrating just a bit more, with just a bit wider wound- but not nearly as much as most believe and both are more than sufficient in wound size. This is because energy varies greatly with weight and speed, yet terminal performance does not. Bullet construction and impact velocity are what determines projectile sounding in tissue.

What if we went one step further to normalize and used non-expanding FMJ rounds for the experiment.

In a non fragmenting FMJ they would be, and are, nearly identical in wounding. This has been studied quite extensively actually. They are so close that no one is able to tell which is which when looking at the wounds created by both, nor which is which when witnessing the the shot on game with both. Interestingly, your argument here both hits on one of the most researched and known terminal ballistics points- FMJ performance; and shows the relatively minor difference that caliber plays. Given optimization, differences in caliber causes generally minor differences in performance on animals.

Bullet construction and design have far greater effect on killing than caliber, and only when you get to the extremes of caliber on either side due differences become significant.

At similar energy levels on impact are you prepared to argue that a .25 is going to create a larger wound channel than a .30?

Sure…. If I get to pick the bullets for each. Energy is not the metric that is causing differences between them.
construction and impact velocity are the differences.

Why do you suppose military sniper rifles are .30 or larger?

Because for most of US Mil history, and especially modern Mil history, the US DOD has no clue about bullets or performance. Until the 1960’s/70, and really the early 1990’s, no one actually knew how bullets killed- no legit studies or research had been done. That’s how we got nonsense such as “TKO”, Ft-lbs energy”, “momentum”, “hydrostatic shock”, etc. as metrics to try and explain how bullets killed. All of those have been repeatedly proven to either not exist (hydrostatic shock), or have no correlation whatsoever with wound size and hence “killing”.

As an aside, USSOCOM has adopted the 6.5 CM to replace the 30cal (7.62mm) in standard sniper weapon systems for the exact reasons being presented, with the 300 and 338 magnums being utilized past 1k as a general thing.

The bottom line is that with similar bullet construction and performance a larger caliber projectile should naturally expand further than a smaller caliber round thus creating a larger wound channel.

Yes, but you aren’t using a 30cal bullet that is maximized for tissue performance (killing). You are artificially choking them down by using bullets with relatively narrow wound channels. Instead of buying and driving a V8 and then ripping spark plugs because it’s too fast, get a 6 cylinder that is maximized for the use.

 

[BuzzH]

Using your same logic then, due to its constant diameter advantage, a .30 caliber bullet would deliver a larger wound channel than a .25 caliber, no? Let’s assume same bullet (partition, accubond, TBT, etc…) out of both rifles at roughly the same energy on impact? If we use energy instead of velocity or bullet weight, doesn’t that normalize the experiment since energy is a function of both?

What if we went one step further to normalize and used non-expanding FMJ rounds for the experiment. At similar energy levels on impact are you prepared to argue that a .25 is going to create a larger wound channel than a .30? Why do you suppose military sniper rifles are .30 or larger?

The bottom line is that with similar bullet construction and performance a larger caliber projectile should naturally expand further than a smaller caliber round thus creating a larger wound channel.

I think in your paragraph one...it doesn't matter whether you shoot an elk with a .25 110 grain accubond or a .30 caliber 180 grain accubond and zap them behind the shoulder.

In both cases it means the same thing...knife work and packing.

In paragraph 2...again, don't see much difference other than a .05 inch difference in "wound channel". Neither is going to create much of a wound channel.

Without knowing for sure about your comment regarding military sniper rifles, I would say the reason they have settled on .30 caliber is the mix of BC, manageable recoil, and to keep things simple. When training snipers it would seem to make sense to use ONE caliber, one type of firearm, with known ballistics that are consistent. All of that makes equipment purchasing consistent, as well as keeping training consistent. From what I know (not much) they also work in teams of at least 2 and trade off with the firearm.

But I don't think that's a fair comparison of much of anything (hunting V. sniping). Mainly because the goals are not nearly the same in theory or practice. If sniping simply came down to shooting people at normal hunting distances, there would be very little difference between using a 22-250 or .338. The same way that shooting big-game within reasonable hunting distances matters very little whether using a .22-250 or a .338.

In theory your last paragraph would be true keeping most all variables similar (bullet, velocity, etc). However, again is there a significant enough difference in "dead" between an elk killed with a 110 grain accubond out of 25/06 compared to a 180 grain accubond out of a 300 winchester?

My contention is no...and why I no longer shoot my magnums much these days. Field experience tells me that shot placement and bullets matter most...as well as knowing your abilities and knowing how to hunt.

 

[sndmn11]

Bounce right off an elk

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

I'd get full expansion though?

 

[Idaho4x4Bronco]

338 RUM.

Done

 

[MJB]

I don't want an exit hole! I want the bullet to fragment, destroy soft tissue and leave all the energy in the animal.
I shoot SST 180GR in 06. Shots from 80-560yds and no exit wounds except for one. All I find is the copper jacket and 40grs of the base of the bullet just under the hide on the opposite side.

Most devastation was a 450yd neck shot on a 7x8 bull. He dropped mid stride with a baseball size wound never did find that bullet but lots of fragments in that wound.
I have an elk hunter this year that's taking the 257 for late season cow in NM.
115gr will get it done!

 

[Idaho4x4Bronco]

I don't want an exit hole! I want the bullet to fragment, destroy soft tissue and leave all the energy in the animal.
I shoot SST 180GR in 06. Shots from 80-560yds and no exit wounds except for one. All I find is the copper jacket and 40grs of the base of the bullet just under the hide on the opposite side.

Most devastation was a 450yd neck shot on a 7x8 bull. He dropped mid stride with a baseball size wound never did find that bullet but lots of fragments in that wound.
I have an elk hunter this year that's taking the 257 for late season cow in NM.
115gr will get it done!

Exit holes can be very useful though, tracking through thick timber where you can walk right by a bull.

My first elk was the 6x7 in my avatar, it was dead on it's feet with a perfect shot and a very hot hand loaded nosler, and that elk ran a lot further then I ever would've thought possible.

 

[theddguide]

Can't believe I've let myself read all of another one of these threads. Just shoot whatever and know it's limits. Dang.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 

[hobbes]

I like data too. So what does energy do for you exactly? Please be specific.

There is no doubt in my mind that you have a better grasp on this than myself. I believe you gave me a link or two in the past that was some pretty good reading on wound channels and the lack of "hydrostatic shock". If Im not mistaken it was a study on human wounds during war.

The problem that most are going to have with your argument is your delivery. Most folks aren't going to read it. It's given in such a way as to turn most folks off and few are going to read the details.
They grow bored very quickly. It's a classic case of "know your audience".

What people will look at is numbers. What makes the numbers that I posted more relevant is comparing them with bullets of similar construction. In other words, a 115 gr Accubond vs a 180 gr Accubond. I don't have to do a lot of head scratching to see which has the most potential to do the most damage. As far as sufficient damage goes, when it comes to killing elk with a rifle do I really give two ........ about "sufficient"? Is there data that shows me sufficient so that I know what is enough?

Have at it man. I'm out.

 

[cuerro viejo]

I have two rifles one is a 257 weatherby that I Have taken 11 Antelope with and am very comfortable behind.
Shooting 115 berger vld . The other is a 300 win mag that I have only taken out once for a deer hunt and got my deer
with it. I am shooting 165 grain berger vld. I got drawn for Elk this year and Really considering using the 257 mag. I will
keep my shots to under 400. yards. What do you guys think? Scott

My 115vld is a little anemic @3250 but I’ve killed WT, Mule deer, Aoudad, Elk, pronghorn, Nilgi, Axis, Oryx, and ton of hogs up to 380’s lb with it. Under 400 yards it’s great after that it’s energy gets a little light quick. 1500-1600 KE is my limit on elk, oryx and nilgi. I’ve killed further out but recovery always seem exponentially longer distance for same shot placement. That’s my personal observations atleast