Elk .243 or 25-06

[jjohnsonElknewbie]

No. That’s called flinching.

 

[wannakillabigbull]

If I'm not mistaken, 3 MOA at 300 yards is 9". So from a steady position, a shooter could expect their round to land within 9" of their POA.

That's not how MOA works. If they hit within 9" of their POA then that's an 18" circle, in which case that's 6 MOA at 300 yards, roughly, not 3 MOA.

 

[sndmn11]

I'll take the bait and ya'll can tell me how dumb I am. However, I believe in the industry standards and recommendations.

-1,000 ft. lbs of energy minimum at range for whitetails
-1,500 ft. lbs of energy minimum at range for elk

I understand that sectional density and bullet construction can confound both of these standards and choose my ammunition accordingly.

How does caliber translate to killing? In specific examples at close range, it has a huge impact. For example, a full bore foster-style 12 gauge slug is approximately .72 caliber. 12 gauge sabot slug caliber ranges from .50 on up. Inside 100 yards these rounds are lethal because they are opening up huge entry holes and even bigger exit holes. I can tell you from experience, full bore shotgun slugs at close range put holes in animals that you can literally see through.

It isn't bait, I am trying to understand why you have made the statements you have so I can learn.

I am reloading this morning. In front of me I have components for four .308 caliber cartridges. They are all equal for taking a poke at an elk with? I also have somewhere a .54 muzzleloader and round lead balls, is that the best option I have in the house?

No… powder is just a factor. It’s creates more energy. You stand 20 feet from me and let me throw a ping pong ball at you. Ok now a baseball. I bet the results are different. Now back up. I’ll have to aim higher with the ping pong ball because it doesn’t retain the energy that the heavier ball does. It runs out of gas. If it hits you you might not even feel it. I shoot at a 1000 yard range. The guys with the 6.5 CMs can outshoot me all day on paper. But down at the end of the range they literally pick their bullets up off the dirt.

And this scenario is about killing on the first shot. It’s about getting a follow up shot when the first one didn’t hit vitals. To answer the question which some people can’t seem to do, if you hit a bull in the hind with a .233 you will not find it. If I hit one there with my unnecessary overkill .300 RUM I’ll be getting another shot. He might drop right there although not dead for me to finish the job. Fact!

So asking how far can a person miss by and still kill is an incomplete question. The answer is simply further which means more margin for error. That heavier bullet will keep on going and smash through leg bones, pelvis, whatever and maybe even exit but it’s not that bullet that will do the killing. It’s the next bullet that the first one gave me enough time to use.

The fans of light guns seem to think there’s no reason to use anything heavier. But although I shoot a big mag I an by no means recommending it. I don’t recall anyone else steering new hunters in that direction either. For every elk killed with a light gun or big one there are 1000 killed with something in between. I’m suggesting looking into those ones.

Energy, or momentum? I have not heard of Newton's laws of energy.

Your second and third paragraph is in my opinion an unethical message to send other hunters. It has been brought up in this thread that educating new hunters is a goal. I sure as heck don't want this belief propagated that cartridge A means I can miss, but cartridge B is benched because it isn't an adequate misser. The vitals need to be hit, plain and simple. Damaging an animal somewhere that is not vital means it lives regardless of if it is with an arrow, bullet, or spear.

There is no way around the fact that stopping life means stopping something vital. I think what is being missed by some here is that the bullet is the key and priority. I can stuff a 300BO case with a 208gr LRX and a 208gr Amax. They both have the same energy, they both are the same caliber, they both are identical in every way except what they were designed for. I wouldn't want to shoot an animal with one, but the other I would.

I think a really smart person would start at the bullet, and work backwards. The .223 thread, which shamefully I have never opened, is about demonstrating that terminal performance is all that matters when killing things. Not what is on the other end of the equation.

 

[KurtR]

“The two things have nothing to due with one another. What’s being discussed by several of us is physical, permanent damage in tissue created by the passage of a high speed projectile. Ping pong balls have nothing to do with how projectiles perforate, crush, stretch, and tear tissue.”

It has everything to do with it. You will have less passage and therefore less damage of you don’t have the energy for penetration. I could shoot that ping pong ball out of a cannon and it’s not penetrating. But the baseball will blow right through…

These mimi missiles don’t need energy? You guys like numbers…. What do you think is a reasonable amount of energy to kill elk every time?

This is the minimum that it takes but of course its not reasonable. The speed at which a projectile must travel to penetrate skin is 163 fps and to break bone is 213 fps, both of which are quite low, so other factors are more important in producing damage. (Belkin, 1978)

That study has alot of info to take in and with the ever changing bullet development might be a little behind but interesting read on wound characteristics .

https://webpath.med.utah.edu/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNBLST.html

 

[sndmn11]

That's not how MOA works. If they hit within 9" of their POA then that's an 18" circle, in which case that's 6 MOA at 300 yards, roughly, not 3 MOA.

Are you a math-er?

 

[Woodrow F Call]

The 77gr TMK from 3,000’ish FPS to 2,200’ish FPS creates 2+ inch permanent crush cavity, and a 5-6 inche temporary stretch that tears and pops due to fragmentation.

If that won't kill a critter, I probably don't need to mess with it.

 

[wannakillabigbull]

Are you a math-er?

I'm guessing you know the answer to that, Kyle . Seriously, though, if we're talking about the difference between hitting a 9" circle or an 18" circle we as hunters dang sure better know which it is.

 

[jjohnsonElknewbie]

The physical damage created by shotgun slugs is in no way comparable to the damage created by the 223/77TNK combo- not even close. With shotguns slugs due to impact velocity they are creating around a .5 inch wide permanent wound through the animal- some less, some a bit larger. The 77gr TMK from 3,000’ish FPS to 2,200’ish FPS creates 2+ inch permanent crush cavity, and a 5-6 inche temporary stretch that tears and pops due to fragmentation. The wound channels is multiple times larger with the TMK than any slug.

Okay, so the .72 sized entry hole and cavernous exit hole (amplified when hitting bones) from a solid 1oz (437 grain) lead slug , that you can physically see internal organs through, doesn't mean $hit comppared to your .223?

Are you saying that given the same shot placement, that .223 is gonna kill the animal deader than the slug? Just how big a hole do you think you need to "effectively" kill an animal then?

 

[jjohnsonElknewbie]

I'm guessing you know the answer to that, Kyle . Seriously, though, if we're talking about the difference between hitting a 9" circle or an 18" circle we as hunters dang sure better know which it is.

Thank you for correcting my mistake. I am NOT a math-er. My point from that response is that the vitals on big game are large. If a guy cannot consistently put rounds in a 10-15" target at the ranges they plan to hunt, regardless of cartridge, they shouldn't be hunting. If a grown man without a physically disability cant do that with any standard cartridge from .243-.308 its not the rifle or the ammo's fault.

 

[KurtR]

Okay, so the .72 sized entry hole and cavernous exit hole (amplified when hitting bones) from a solid 1oz (437 grain) lead slug , that you can physically see internal organs through, doesn't mean $hit comppared to your .223?

Are you saying that given the same shot placement, that .223 is gonna kill the animal deader than the slug? Just how big a hole do you think you need to "effectively" kill an animal then?

No thats not what he is saying at all. Both are dead but the wound channel is significantly different. They both kill but different ways just like an arrow is deadly but in a very different way. With the number one factor being shot placement for any tool used to kill.

 

[jjohnsonElknewbie]

I am reloading this morning. In front of me I have components for four .308 caliber cartridges. They are all equal for taking a poke at an elk with? I also have somewhere a .54 muzzleloader and round lead balls, is that the best option I have in the house?

No, not all of the cartridges may be equal for shooting at an elk. I wouldn't shoot one with ball ammo or think jacketed rounds made for varmints for example.

The best option depends on the range. That .54 caliber round ball will kill an elk inside 100 yards with the same shot placement just as easily as a high power.

 

[jjohnsonElknewbie]

No thats not what he is saying at all. Both are dead but the wound channel is significantly different. They both kill but different ways just like an arrow is deadly but in a very different way. With the number one factor being shot placement for any tool used to kill.

Agree, dead=dead. However, you cannot say caliber doesn't matter in every scenario. That is simply false.

 

[KurtR]

Agree, dead=dead. However, you cannot say caliber doesn't matter in every scenario. That is simply false.

caliber or cartridge those are two different things. 300 blackout cartridge is a 30 caliber so its good to go?

 

[ARK_Ginger]

Agree, dead=dead. However, you cannot say caliber doesn't matter in every scenario. That is simply false.

I'll say it then. Caliber doesn't matter in every scenario. There is a properly constructed bullet in every caliber to effectively kill elk and other game animals. Regardless of the energy numbers that people randomly make up that you "need" to kill certain sized game.

 

[260madman]

Chuckhawks. Can we do KPS next?

 

[jjohnsonElknewbie]

caliber or cartridge those are two different things. 300 blackout cartridge is a 30 caliber so its good to go?

No. I said caliber. In the slug example, the full bore .72 caliber slug is opening a minimum .72 entry wound into that animal and a minimum .72 caliber exit wound (assuming it exits), but most likely the exit will be much larger, especially if the slug hits bone. I've seen or personally shot dozens of deer with foster style slugs and know how devastating these HIGH caliber projectiles are on them.

Similarly, some bowhunters use big fixed blade broadheads, because they want to maximize entry and exit wounds.

 

[jjohnsonElknewbie]

I'll say it then. Caliber doesn't matter in every scenario. There is a properly constructed bullet in every caliber to effectively kill elk and other game animals. Regardless of the energy numbers that people randomly make up that you "need" to kill certain sized game.

I didn't quote energy numbers as it relates the slug caliber example. It's a fact that if you start with a projectile that is .72" wide it will immediately create a bigger entry wound than one that is .223" wide. As a result, you are already starting with an advantage. The .223 will use velocity and bullet construction to blow up the innards, and the slug will use massive frontal area and massive expansion at low velocity to do the same. Inside 100 yards a .223 isn't going to kill an animal any deader than a slug.

 

[Formidilosus]

I didn't quote energy numbers as it relates the slug caliber example. It's a fact that if you start with a projectile that is .72" wide it will immediately create a bigger entry wound than one that is .223" wide. As a result, you are already starting with an advantage. The .223 will use velocity and bullet construction to blow up the innards, and the slug will use massive frontal area and massive expansion at low velocity to do the same. Inside 100 yards a .223 isn't going to kill an animal any deader than a slug.

Please show the wound channels from the last 5 deer you’ve killed with slugs.

 

[ARK_Ginger]

I didn't quote energy numbers as it relates the slug caliber example. It's a fact that if you start with a projectile that is .72" wide it will immediately create a bigger entry wound than one that is .223" wide. As a result, you are already starting with an advantage. The .223 will use velocity and bullet construction to blow up the innards, and the slug will use massive frontal area and massive expansion at low velocity to do the same. Inside 100 yards a .223 isn't going to kill an animal any deader than a slug.

That would be great if we were comparing pistol calibers that don't have a crush and temporary stretch cavity, but since we're talking about rifle calibers it would be more useful to talk about what the slug vs (insert whatever bullet) does in a common medium such as properly calibrated ballistics gel. Then do all the measuring you want.

If you did that I think you'd find that the would channel from a 77gr TMK (and many others <.308) measures perfectly big enough to kill game as dead as a slug within 100 yards and even further.

 

[jjohnsonElknewbie]

Please show the wound channels from the last 5 deer you’ve killed with slugs.

Apologies, don't have any photos of wound channels from slugs. Its been several years since I shotgun hunted in Iowa, and back then we weren't worried about it. When you could actually see organs and daylight through the deer, we probably figured that was good enough.

However, you seem to be a guy with the means to do significant testing. Go get a 12 gauge shotgun and some full bore slugs and take them to the range. Get a hog carcasse or whatever you deem appropriate media and do the testing yourself.