7mm Rem Mag elk rifle

[Vandy321]

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.

The argument behind hydrostatic shock is that it kills the CNS, massive spike in pressure, the same waves you can see on a bullet penetratimg ballistics gel (soft substance but still subject to pressure) doesn't matter if that's the heart, nerves running down the spinal cord, blood pressure spike to the brain, or other tissue, those pressure waves exist. I disagree with the claim that HS is irrelevant the heart because the heart is already experiencing tissue damage. Who's to day the HS didn't stop the heart before the tissue damage? Proof? HS can still effect heart/CNS aside from a direct impact, again, those pressure waves.

Never claimed to be a scientist, but am certainly capable of questioning stuff that just doesn't pass ths smell test, this arguement is one of them. To say the science is not settled on HS is the best way to put it. You have folks way smarter than any of us in opposition on the subject and have for at least the last 10 years. Probably not gonna hash it out here.

 

[QuackAttack]

This is a small book that every serious hunter should read. It gives you the basic 101 level understanding of who/how/why when it comes to rifles and game. It enables you to self analyse and gives you the basic tools to figure out rifle questions based on math and reality…rather than theory on the internet.

it’s old…and it works.

Guru

 

[ElPollo]

To the OP, please ignore the pissy argumentative BS that occasionally shows up on public forums arising from even reasonable questions. I will summarize so you don’t have to read this whole thread.

A 7 mag will be a fine elk rifle as long as you learn to shoot it and stay within your capabilities and those of the round/ bullet combo. The same goes for both smaller and larger rounds. The key is to pick a bullet that will do what you want it to do at the speeds you expect it to impact. If you limit yourself to 300 yards and are conscientious with shot placement, a 223 with 77gr TMKs will kill an elk just fine. If you think you might be tempted to take longer or more challenging shots, you might want to shift your choices upward in caliber and adjust your bullet selection appropriately. Generally speaking, tougher bullets produce more penetration and less wound volume. If there’s a chance you might shoot something in ass with the hope that the bullet reaches the vitals, you probably want a bigger gun, a non-lead bullet, and really good tracking skills. I personally try to avoid that sort of unpleasantness.

 

[Brooks]

My dad had a 7 mm mag and my brother and I both grew up hunting with the .308 we just sighted them in and went elk hunting. We have killed more elk than I can remember with those two calibers. My 17 year old daughter has killed 4 elk with the .308 ….7 mm mag is a great elk rifle with a Nosler Partition or Accubond so is the .308 & .300 win mag. No need to over think it.

 

[Pokoki]

I'm shopping for a new rifle to hunt elk that my skills can "grow" into. My wife has become interested in hunting elk/deer with me and so I've got the nod to add to our collection. In a previous post I asked for input on Christensen vs Tikka but in hindsight I should've asked for input on the chambering as well. I have decided to purchase a Tikka T3X. I currently own a 6.5 cm and a .308. I don't reload and probably won't anytime soon. I'm leaning towards a 7mm Rem Mag from what I have read. Seems like it has plenty of energy for when my skills allow me to take longer shots and has decent availability of ammo. Barrel life sounds like a concern but I think I'm comfortable with needing to make that investment when the time comes. In my Tikka vs Christensen post there were some comments regarding barrel twist rate (Chistensen is 1:9 and Tikka 1:9.5), how seriously should I be considering this and how will it affect the performance of the rifle for my purpose (I realize this may be obvious to some but I'm still peering over the edge of the rabbit hole at this point)? Is there another cartridge I should be considering? Thank you for your help

I love my 7mag in Browning Hells Canyon.

 

[Dlgies]

I like the Tikka rifles and own two of them. Having said that, I would not get one in a magnum caliber without a break. For some reason, Tikka’s kick the heck out of a guy. The newer ones with the brake are very nice, though. It would be an excellent option for elk hunting. I have a Ruger Hawkeye a 7MM Rem Mag, and it shoots lights out with Terminal Ascent bullets. In fact, it’s so pathetically accurate that I’m not even going to hand load for that rifle. P.s. You don’t have to spend over $1000 to get a decent hunting rifle ;-)

 

[PanhandlePilgrim]

I think the 7 mag would be a great rifle for you to start with, let us know what you decide to buy if you go forward.
I would proceed with caution on anything from Christensen. I have shot 3 of them and only one has impressed me, the others I would have traded for a cheaper savage or tikka. If you have the funds the Seekins is hard to beat, a similar price option to the mesa would be the Bergara B14 which look and feel like a higher quality gun for the money but I have no experience with them beyond the gun counter.