7mm Rem Mag elk rifle

[EastCoaster]

Since this thread has been hijacked from the start…..what bullet would be recommended in a 30 cal magnum launched at 2900 for ranges out to 800? The above debate has me curious about outside the box projectiles.

 

[Outdoorsman12b]

This is a good read as well. While the evidence provided on 6-7mm in this thread is valuable @Broz shares his direct experience with the 7mm vs 30 cal on several elk culls in the triple digits.

300 RUM vs 7MM Rem or 28 Nosler

I hope I am not reintroducing what has already been debated? I am building a new rifle and thought I had it down to 300 RUM. I want "ONE" rifle for everything from Antelope to Shiras Moose. Talked to an outfitter with a lot of critters under his belt and he said 7mm Rem is his go to gun and...

www.rokslide.com

 

[Dobermann]

I can play the copy/paste game from the internet too

Effective Game Killing

Effective game killing- How bullets kill and where to aim to ensure a fast clean kill.

www.ballisticstudies.com

Uh-oh ... someone linked to Nathan Foster ...

 

[762 ULTRAMAGA]

You typed "arrow" and "energy" - my arrow has about 80 ft-lbs of energy. It passes cleanly through every animal - from moose, bear, elk, and deer - and results in quick kills. The figures you cite above are considerably higher, no?

For the love of christ can we stop comparing arrows to bullets when discussing energy.
A 500 grain projectile with a wide 3 blade cutting surface does not kill the same way a bullet does, and it surely doesn't penetrate an elk shoulder

Part of the argument for smaller bullets is less recoil resulting in better shooting.

If you can't shoot, increasing caliber/energy isn't really the answer.

This argument is completely flawed, its based on the assumption that people shooting heavier recoiling rifles aren't capable of the same level of accuracy.
It also leaves out the fact that muzzle brakes and suppressors tame heavy magnums to levels where small women and children can shoot them extremely well.
I have videos of my 10 year old nephew hitting moa sized targets at 1k with a 9lb 300 prc shooting 225s

Since this thread has been hijacked from the start…..what bullet would be recommended in a 30 cal magnum launched at 2900 for ranges out to 800? The above debate has me curious about outside the box projectiles.

I really like the 215, 220, or 230 Bergers for your application, I'd also look into the 212 ELDX.

I have to say I'm nearly dumbfounded with some of the ridiculous stuff being said on this thread.
I don't care what little study someone wrote, or how many 6mms have taken elk at 600 yards, bigger heavier bullets of equal construction going faster will 100% penetrate deeper, create bigger wound channels, and kill more effectively.

I would love to talk about all the disasters I've seen with 243s and 6.5s that connected with elk shoulders (and even deer), but this audience doesn't want to hear it.

 

[Formidilosus]

I would love to talk about all the disasters I've seen with 243s and 6.5s that connected with elk shoulders (and even deer), but this audience doesn't want to hear it.

I’ve asked you multiple times for specifics. And for pictures.

 

[gbflyer]

Grab an expanding bullet with a ~.250 or greater sectional density that you can get good cold-bore hits with and go elk hunting. No need to overanalyze.

 

[Vandy321]

Part of the argument for smaller bullets is less recoil resulting in better shooting.

If you can't shoot, increasing caliber/energy isn't really the answer.

If you need to drop to a 6mm to shoot accurately enough to hunt with it, id suggest working on your fundamentals, otherwise, a smaller caliber just a bandaid fix hiding errors.

 

[mxgsfmdpx]

If you need to drop to a 6mm to shoot accurately enough to hunt with it, id suggest working on your fundamentals, otherwise, a smaller caliber just a bandaid fix hiding errors.

No “energy is king” at the end of every post now? Darn.

 

[Vandy321]

No “energy is king” at the end of every post now? Darn.

You can tell a child the same thing over and over again, after a while, you're simply wasting your breath.

Speed is only part of the equation, energy is the end result.

Not my problem you can't shoot a .30 cal mag accurately.

 

[mxgsfmdpx]

You can tell a child the same thing over and over again, after a while, you're simply wasting your breath.

Yeah we know. You in this thread is proof of that.

 

[Vandy321]

Yeah we know. You in this thread is proof of that.

not sure what hurts your feelings more...recoil from a magnum, or a statement you can't seem to prove false.

It's is not speed that initiates expansion...speed does not initiate anything, it is simply a variable in the equation. What does is the bullet transferring its energy onto an object, be that shoulder, rib or flesh. It is also the energy of the bullet being transferred into say shoulder that will cause that shoulder bone to break...not enough energy, no breakie, no breakie, no continued penetration. You can call it what you want, but all you're doing is playing with words. Again, speed is part of the equation, but energy is the end result. Can you prove that statement incorrect?

Nobody here has been able to prove a 6mm is a better caliber for elk than a 7RM or a .30 cal. The only argument provided has been "I can shoot it more accurately, therefore its better". An inability to shoot a magnum accurately is not data to support a 6mm being the better choice for large game.

 

[Maverick1]

For the love of christ can we stop comparing arrows to bullets when discussing energy.
A 500 grain projectile with a wide 3 blade cutting surface does not kill the same way a bullet does, and it surely doesn't penetrate an elk shoulder

Energy is king. If you dont agree, please explain how from 2 arrows of equal weight, traveling at different speeds, one can punch through bone and one can't?

@762Gunner - @Vandy321 brought arrows into this thread.

 

[Vandy321]

@762Gunner - @Vandy321 brought arrows into this thread.

Wasn't comparing arrows to bullets, you did though.

 

[Maverick1]

Wasn't comparing arrows to bullets, you did though.

Wrong

 

[35WhelenAI]

It comes down to what is better under all conditions many hunters would face in the field for elk and the larger calibers are the best answer.

A 6mm in the timber would do nothing good on a quartering shot as an elk departs. To say a Marlin 1895 45/70 is not the cartridge to shoot at 300+ yds is accurate as well. Nothing wrong or misleading, bending of numbers, etc by saying some calibers/cartridges/bullet weights are more suitable or less suitable than another in some conditions than others, it's truth.

When the truth gets told and pointed out, undies get in a bundle. Tell the truth that a smaller caliber is not as ideal for elk as a larger caliber, and feelings are hurt. Tell the truth a 45/70 at 350 yards is probably a bit past long for a shot, most agree. Why the stubbornness on one and not the other?

Used to be a 270 win, 7mm-08 were the lighter caliber for recoil sensitive shoulders. Now we have to have a 6mm with a muzzle brake?

 

[QuackAttack]

Thats where you're wrong dude...energy is absolutely a wounding/killing mechanism.

Hydrostatic shock.

I stand by statement that energy is king. But sure anything in the boilermaker will do the trick, as evidenced by a 250fps arrow.

Respectfully, that’s not supported by the decades of ballistic research done by DOD, on both the creating casualties side and the treating wounded soldiers side of the house.

There are 3 ways bullets kill-

CNS hit to brain or spine.

Blood loss, causing depressurisation of the circulatory system leading to organ failure and death. This is achieved by tissue damage to the heart or major vessels.

Lack of oxygen due to either the body being incapable of respiratory process or unable to deliver oxygen to the body. This is achieved by tissue damage to the lungs.

Much of this tissue is relatively elastic. Hydrostatic shock is not a primary wounding mechanism in elastic tissue.

There are organs like the liver that are inelastic and susceptible to HS, but they are more likely to be damaged by a direct pass through of an expanding bullet.

Generally, the optimal way to kill a game animal is to go for the second two methods using a heavy for caliber bonded bullet or monolithic projectile like a Barnes X. You need a clear entrance and exit wound to achieve the blood out/air in model leading to rapid systemic failure.

An example of this would be a 300 win mag with 180gr Barnes X bullets.

 

[Vandy321]

Respectfully, that’s not supported by the decades of ballistic research done by DOD, on both the creating casualties side and the treating wounded soldiers side of the house.

There are 3 ways bullets kill-

CNS hit to brain or spine.

Blood loss, causing depressurisation of the circulatory system leading to organ failure and death. This is achieved by tissue damage to the heart or major vessels.

Lack of oxygen due to either the body being incapable of respiratory process or unable to deliver oxygen to the body. This is achieved by tissue damage to the lungs.

Much of this tissue is relatively elastic. Hydrostatic shock is not a primary wounding mechanism in elastic tissue.

There are organs like the liver that are inelastic and susceptible to HS, but they are more likely to be damaged by a direct pass through of an expanding bullet.

Generally, the optimal way to kill a game animal is to go for the second two methods using a heavy for caliber bonded bullet or monolithic projectile like a Barnes X. You need a clear entrance and exit wound to achieve the blood out/air in model leading to rapid systemic failure.

An example of this would be a 300 win mag with 180gr Barnes X bullets.

Im confused by your post. Your claim that it is not a primary killing mechanism is contradicted by the statement that a primary killing mechanism is the CNS hit. According to the flat earthers, that is how hydrostatic shock kills, if you beleive their arguement, which apparently you do because you admitted in your post the organs are susceptible to it.

I dont disagree a mono from a 300wm is an excellent choice. Far better than a 6mm.

 

[KChunter71]

my Only rifle has been a 7mm since I started elk hunting in1980 and fathers group of 5-7 all shoot 7mms…I acquired my tikka in 2003 and have shot a couple bulls with it….if you go down the 7mm route there are plenty of factory ammo options for you to become proficient out to 600-700 yds or more if desired but that is not my game past that….i shoot a 154 gr sst which has done well at 7 yds and close to 600 yds…good times when the magnum barks

OP, I would look back at what Ross is saying and the animals he has dropped with his tikka 7mm. Search his past post and you will see.

 

[Walkstoomuch]

OP, I would look back at what Ross is saying and the animals he has dropped with his tikka 7mm. Search his past post and you will see.

His response got my attention. Appreciate the wisdom

 

[QuackAttack]

Im confused by your post. Your claim that it is not a primary killing mechanism is contradicted by the statement that a primary killing mechanism is the CNS hit. According to the flat earthers, that is how hydrostatic shock kills, if you beleive their arguement, which apparently you do because you admitted in your post the organs are susceptible to it.

I dont disagree a mono from a 300wm is an excellent choice. Far better than a 6mm.

A central nervous system hit is not going to use hydrostatic shock as its mechanism of injury. You could inflict a CNS hit wit a 22 and kill just as dead as a 458. A 25 ACP in the brain stem is 100% lethal because it has the tissue consistency of pasta and is simply fragile…no HS required, just a wound channel.

Hydrostatic Shock is marketing, used to sell products to people that look at ballistic gel and don’t understand that gel is 99 % Hollywood, with little resemblance to actual tissue. It’s why you see actual ballistic labs using “calibrated” gel while ammo companies use mostly clear super soft elastic gel that photographs well. Ballistic gel should always be viewed sceptically, unless it’s calibrated, temp controlled, and given a layer of fabric or similar to simulate skin.

The heart and lungs are generally not affected by HS in the way the liver would be. The chest cavity has the ability to stretch and expand as we do it by breathing. A hit on the heart that would cause HS is already causing tissue damage by direct contact with the bullet via wound channel…hs is irrelevant there.

Like I said, HS is largely irrelevant outside very limited areas of the body. We don’t intentionally shoot animals in the liver…it’s a slow death.


Blood out, air in, depressurisation of the major vessels and a sucking chest wound via a double lung hit with entrance and exit wounds ….that’s the idea.