Elk .243 or 25-06

[woods89]

Look man, I don't deny your research and studies. I also will not deny what I've seen with my own eyes, on my range, on my farm.

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. Below is an excerpt from Chuckhawks.

"We've already said that an average whitetail buck gives you about a 10" diameter target. That deer measures perhaps 17" deep through the chest, measured from the top of his back to his brisket. Here are some top of back to bottom of brisket estimates for other common North American game animals taken from various sources, but primarily from Jack O'Connor's book The Hunting Rifle:

• Pronghorn antelope = 14"-15"
• Small deer = 14"-15"
• Medium size deer = 17"-18"
• Large deer = 18"-20"
• North American wild sheep = 20"-22"
• Mountain goat = 22"-24"
• Caribou = 24"-26"
• Elk = 24"-26"
• Moose = 30"-36"

Given those external body measurements, here are some estimated "vital area circle" diameters that roughly correspond to the approximate (heart/lung) target area:

• Pronghorn antelope = 8.5"-9"
• Small deer = 8.5"-9"
• Medium size deer = 10"-11"
• Large deer = 11"-12"
• North American wild sheep = 12"-13"
• Mountain goat = 13"-14.5"
• Caribou = 14.5"-15.5"
• Elk = 14.5"-15.5"
• Moose = 18"-21.5""

So given these dimensions, even a 3 MOA capable weapon/shooter has a high probability of hitting the vitals at 300 yards assuming broadside presentation and placement. Obviously this probablility goes down for quartering to and away shots. My point is you don't have to be shooting .5 or 1 MOA to succcessfully place bullets in the vitals.

This gets dangerous really fast, unless you hunt where the wind never blows and you can always shoot prone.

 

[jjohnsonElknewbie]

This gets dangerous really fast, unless you hunt where the wind never blows and you can always shoot prone.

Especially when using tiny bullets.

 

[Formidilosus]

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.

I have. Shotgun slugs produce wounds that are significantly smaller than pretty much all high velocity (2,000+FPS) rounds.

 

[ARK_Ginger]

Especially when using tiny bullets.

When you don't flinch you can watch tiny bullets kill big things.

 

[woods89]

Especially when using tiny bullets.

How? Explain.

 

[jjohnsonElknewbie]

I have. Shotgun slugs produce wounds that are significantly smaller than pretty much all high velocity (2,000+FPS) rounds.

Significantly smaller and still capable of 100% lethality.

 

[Formidilosus]

Especially when using tiny bullets.

A graph depicting typical wound channels between 12ga shotgun slugs and soft point high velocity rounds. The images are quite common in terminal ballistics circles, however I used them from- Link

The scale is provided-

12ga slug. The only part that creates real damage for slugs due to impact velocity is the center straight line dark area.




Soft point. The entire oval is destroyed tissue.




Those images can be correlated with the damage resulting from live tissue with both.

 

[jjohnsonElknewbie]

When you don't flinch you can watch tiny bullets kill big things.

I'm certain I blinked after I shot my bull. A fraction of a second later, I was also certain the bullet went exactly where I was aiming. He was pretty big.

 

[Formidilosus]

Significantly smaller and still capable of 100% lethality.

At no point have I, or anyone in this thread said that slugs don’t kill. They do. However, if slugs kill well enough for you, the 77gr TMK destroys significantly more tissue and therefor does in fact kill quicker.

 

[yycyak]

Dude, this isn't hard:

Option A = Makes a big F'n hole in animals. Super easy to shoot accurately.

Option B = Makes a big F'n hole in animals. Not as easy to shoot accurately.

Shoot a rig that you can shoot accurately, and that also makes big holes in critters. In that order. Big holes always mean dead stuff.

This isn't O'Connor and Elmer Keith, with the whole light fast projectiles vs slow and heavy projectiles. It's not 1964 anymore. We have bullet tech that will make big holes in stuff from a relatively small projectile. Science is cool.

Significantly smaller and still capable of 100% lethality.

 

[jjohnsonElknewbie]

A graph depicting typical wound channels between 12ga shotgun slugs and soft point high velocity rounds. The images are quite common in terminal ballistics circles, however I used them from- Link

The scale is provided-

12ga slug. The only part that creates real damage for slugs due to impact velocity is the center straight line dark area.
View attachment 373237



Soft point. The entire oval is destroyed tissue.
View attachment 373238



Those images can be correlated with the damage resulting from live tissue with both.

Not disagreeing with the charts, but the dead animal on the ground doesn't know the difference does it? Given the choice, I would always use a high power for shooting deer and big game. The point of my last several comments was that you cannot discount caliber in every scenario. Using your chart above, that 2.0 cm hole straight through the lungs or heart is lethal.

 

[yycyak]

I'm on my lunch break, so I drew an amazing picture. Because something about pictures and words.

What my idiot-scribble is saying is that a .22cal bullet with Science Tech, shot fast enough ("Energy" here. Bad word, but I'm lazy) will make a really big hole. And can be shot really accurately.

There's a hypothetical Unicorn Cartridge that can be shot accurately (read: perfectly) every time, and has a magical bullet with the perfect amount of "energy" that makes the best Big Holes every time. (I'm still chasing this mythical creature. I hope to find it one day.)

Then, as energy/recoil goes up, accuracy falls off. You miss. Lots of energy in that lead you're slinging, sure. But you suck at shooting, cause you're flinching.

When you do the "bring enough gun" thing, you give up accuracy for the ability to produce "Extra-big holes (TM)." But it makes you miss more too. It's this thing called marginal gains, and it sucks.

No one is saying the 223 is the go-to for elk. What is being said is that it makes big holes, and can also be shot very, very accurately. Which means dead things. It's not the Unicorn that we all argue exists somewhere, but the 223 with good bullets will show up in the top part of the bell curve.

 

[sndmn11]

I'm on my lunch break, so I drew an amazing picture. Because something about pictures and words.

Gold star for multiple color usage and multiple circles of things.

 

[jjohnsonElknewbie]

Dude, this isn't hard:

Option A = Makes a big F'n hole in animals. Super easy to shoot accurately.

Option B = Makes a big F'n hole in animals. Not as easy to shoot accurately.

Shoot a rig that you can shoot accurately, and that also makes big holes in critters. In that order. Big holes always mean dead stuff.

This isn't O'Connor and Elmer Keith, with the whole light fast projectiles vs slow and heavy projectiles. It's not 1964 anymore. We have bullet tech that will make big holes in stuff from a relatively small projectile. Science is cool.

Point taken and ya'll do you. You're not changing and I'm not changing, best of luck killing things.

 

[woods89]

I'm on my lunch break, so I drew an amazing picture. Because something about pictures and words.

What my idiot-scribble is saying is that a .22cal bullet with Science Tech, shot fast enough (energy. Bad word but I'm lazy) will make a really big hole. And can be shot really accurately.

There's a hypothetical unicorn that can be shot perfectly every time, and has a magical bullet with a perfect amount of "energy" that makes the best big holes every.

Then, as energy/recoil goes up, accuracy falls off. You miss. Lots of energy, sure. but you suck at shooting cause you're flinching.

When you do the "bring enough gun" thing, you give up accuracy for the ability to produce "Extra-big holes (TM)." But it makes you miss more too. It's this thing called marginal gains, and it sucks.

Well done.

I don't hunt elk with a 223, because I have a 6.5 Creedmoor that I really like, but if it's what I had I'd use it. I did shoot a whitetail doe with my 223 bolt gun this fall. Zero drama, and it's probably the most surgical and precise shot I've ever made in the field.

My guess is that most people using a 223 trainer will start to think about hunting with it after awhile, because it's so easy to be precise.

 

[roosiebull]

The main message I read from ALL comments is that IF you have the resources AND cash to shoot a 223 to 450 yards- sure it'll work- and work well. But MOST average hunters can not do this.

I feel the missing message here is that this forum is not just putting out opinions, but also advice- to NEW hunters. I feel the 223 crowd has made some statements that seem rather absolute (i.e. energy doesn't correlate to terminal ballistics... when we know it does). Etc.

I feel that the 223 shooters HAVE made their point... and it's relevant to ANY forum where opinions (and facts) should be allowed-- even if they are not the same methods of hunting as other seasoned hunters (including myself) would make (or accept). We are ALL free to our opinion and with that I certainly accept the data brought forth by the 223 guys here as valid.

However, I feel they should (as MANY do here) state "the whole truth" and not claim "absolutes" based on what HAS worked for them... I think we can ALL agree you NEED the right gear AND experience to make longer shots with a 223, ethically. And I again do not say the 223 guys do not, but they might further explain some of the gear they MUST use to achieve these kills... I just say they might want to rethink the "message" they send out, and make some "disclaimers" pointed to the fact the gear and "expertise" (they DO have) needs to be in place to make a 450 yard shot on an elk with that bullet. I am NOT saying the bullet won't do the damage... I AM saying you have to PUT that bullet in the right spot to do it.

AND... with that, I am saying it's easier for the AVERAGE hunter with AVERAGE gear to make longer ethical shots with a larger caliber in this particular argument. And I feel (therefore) it is more ethical again to use more than a 223 at 450 yards on anything larger than a coyote. That is just my opinion... but it comes from EXPERIENCE.

Yes, I've seen the wound channels and I'm convinced 100% ANY bullet can kill with a good hit WITH good energy. AND... in the hands of SEASONED shooters WITH the correct (often expensive) gear it's 100% ok to go out and do it with a 223. But let's remember our obligation to FULLY inform the new hunters here of the REALITY of the needed experience AND gear to do what the 223 guys are doing. And let us ALL be humble in explaining these feats... no need for "bravado" (from either camp).

Side note: My own personal reason for not hunting elk with a 223 is that I prefer a non-frangible bullet. And yes, I must admit that using a mono (in some cases) isn't as effective as a frangible at any range too. But after hunting for meat for 45 years, I prefer a bonded bullet's way of killing without a baseball hole on the offside- whether done by a 77g or 200g bullet.

well thought out reply.

the other side we all have to see (to actually help the newer elk hunters) is the magnum pushers, who don't often go into the detailed "why" just they're better for elk, who will discount the success of folks who kill the world with non magnum cartridges. telling them to go get a 300 ultra and brake it if they're a sissy is the worst advice i see given, most new hunters who heed that advice will be worse off than getting a smaller cartridge without the experience to make them consistently devastating on larger game (or smaller for that matter) there are a lot of environments where a brake is not worth having on a rifle (cons outweigh the pros)

the inbetweens aren't often talked about as "ideal" but it seems in a broad brush fashion, they may be (the quick 25's-non mag 30's) may be the best space to live in for the biggest group of elk hunters. for folks newer to hunting and shooting, my main goal will always be handing them a rifle that will not start forming bad habits after the first time the trigger is pulled and in the woods, will never ask them to take a tricky shot, and the outcome will almost always be stellar, don't give new hunters an easy opportunity to make a big mistake, especially with a big tough critter like an elk (that really isn't that tough if your first shot is in the vitals)

i think magnums (more so than pea shooters) are an advanced tool for experienced hunters, in the right hands, they can be spectacular and impressive, especially shooting big critters at extended range with a very experienced hunter and marksman.... they can be equally as ugly in the wrong hands, especially for those relying on a head stamp over experience, which isn't uncommon.

the best thing an inexperienced hunter can do is send a lot of rounds down range with the rifle they will be packing in the woods (especially from field positions) most hunters who aren't already experienced aren't going to go shoot 500 rounds on their own with a rifle that sucks to shoot, or even 100 rounds in a whole year. it seems like the magnum pushers would understand that concept, and add that disclaimer to their advice, but i don't think i have ever seen that happen on the internet.

if the little 223 (with the right bullet within it's effective range) does the destruction it does on critters as big as moose, a 6.5, .257, .270, 7-08, etc scaled with the right bullet is not a bad option.

nobody is saying a new hunter SHOULD pick a .223 with a 77gr TMK for an elk rifle, but it gives excellent perspective on the capability of current projectile options... at least that's what it is for me.

internet forums are like politics in many ways, rather than giving applicable information, they spend their energy trying to discredit theories that don't align with their own, like they need validation for picking the equipment they have.... there is a lot of good information muddied up by people who just want to be right, discounting data to validate their feelings, and then claim they are trying to give good advice.

same BS in the archery space

 

[yycyak]

Let me tell you a story about the Fudd Bible.

When I first started hunting, there was the Fudd Bible. Its words were spoken in hushed tones in wall tents all over North America, preaching that small calibres were very accurate to shoot, but made small holes. The bigger calibres were harder to shoot, but make big holes. This was the Gospel I was raised on.

And it made sense. And it was true. Small, fast bullets didn't make big holes at the time. Holes kill things, so we all picked the bigger calibres, so we could make big holes.

Then one day Science showed up. And made amazing projectiles. And these projectiles could be slung from those smaller calibre rifles, and would now make big giant holes.

Suddenly a person could shoot those small, but very accurate rifles and create giant big holes in critters.

This went against the Fudd Bible. I fought it for a long time. Many hours and dollars wasted. But eventually science and facts prevailed: You can't kill what you can't hit. If you maximize hit %, and combine that with the ability to make a big hole, you will harvest more animals. It's a simple statistics calculation: All things being equal (big holes), you will kill more things when you hit them. So maximize hit %.

Sure, load those Science bullets into the big calibres, and you have even bigger holes (awesome!) but you lose accuracy (boo). So it becomes a trade-off, and results in all of us becoming essentially addicts who chase the Unicorn combo of perfect hit percentage + biggest possible holes.

I blasphemed, and strayed from the Fudd Bible. I was disowned from certain wall tents. But such is the cost of enlightenment.

I still shoot a 30-06, because I guess I'm still a Fudd at heart. But I can't deny that there are likely better rigs to use from a hit percentage standpoint. But like they say, the 30-06 is always "good enough", so I still run it.

Point taken and ya'll do you. You're not changing and I'm not changing, best of luck killing things.

 

[ARK_Ginger]

Let me tell you a story about the Fudd Bible.

When I first started hunting, there was the Fudd Bible. Its words were spoken in hushed tones in wall tents all over North America, preaching that small calibres were very accurate to shoot, but made small holes. The bigger calibres were harder to shoot, but make big holes. This was the Gospel I was raised on.

And it made sense. And it was true. Small, fast bullets didn't make big holes at the time. Holes kill things, so we all picked the bigger calibres, so we could make big holes.

Then one day Science showed up. And made amazing projectiles. And these projectiles could be slung from those smaller calibre rifles, and would now make big giant holes.

Suddenly a person could shoot those small, but very accurate rifles and create giant big holes in critters.

This went against the Fudd Bible. I fought it for a long time. Many hours and dollars wasted. But eventually science and facts prevailed: You can't kill what you can't hit. If you maximize hit %, and combine that with the ability to make a big hole, you will harvest more animals. It's a simple statistics calculation: All things being equal (big holes), you will kill more things when you hit them. So maximize hit %.

Sure, load those Science bullets into the big calibres, and you have even bigger holes (awesome!) but you lose accuracy (boo). So it becomes a trade-off, and results in all of us becoming essentially addicts who chase the Unicorn combo of perfect hit percentage + biggest possible holes.

I blasphemed, and strayed from the Fudd Bible. I was disowned from certain wall tents. But such is the cost of enlightenment.

I still shoot a 30-06, because I guess I'm still a Fudd at heart. But I can't deny that there are likely better rigs to use from a hit percentage standpoint. But like they say, the 30-06 is always "good enough", so I still run it.

All of these types of threads should have this response with an appendix for ballistics data links

 

[sndmn11]

I still shoot a 30-06, because I guess I'm still a Fudd at heart. But I can't deny that there are likely better rigs to use from a hit percentage standpoint. But like they say, the 30-06 is always "good enough", so I still run it.

I shoot one because it was my wedding present. I wouldn't hesitate to elk hunt with someone based on their caliber or cartridge of choice, I would care more about their bullet of choice.

My wife and I shoot mono bullets full well knowing they do not produce wound channels that some or maybe even many bullets do. However, I think I understand what the pros and cons of monos are and stay in their optimum window of usage. Somewhere in this thread I think I said that a 100gr etip from a 25-06 seemed like a cool solution. That is a load I have worked up, and I am itching to find a shooter to see what devastation it can bring.

 

[Indian Summer]

yycyak… to me it’s not about the size of the hole. It’s about what happens when reality kicks in and the hole is in the wrong place. Then what?

I personally use a magnum specifically for long range shooting. Not for hole size. But when I started hitting elk with 200 grain Accubonds at all ranges it was amazing. The damage even compared to my 7mm Rem Mag is night and day.