Elk .243 or 25-06

[35WhelenAI]

In the spirit of the discussion with respect to the drill, I don't need the drill to confirm or deny, what works works. However when I have an opportunity, it might not be until I can get to an outdoor range after the school year is up, I'll happily do the drill and post the results.

Where are you so fortunate to be able to cull 14 elk in a season? We disagree on some things but I agree that would sure be a good way to spend some time.

 

[Formidilosus]

What are you saying? What is a correctly sized target away from the field? All I've seen here is someone devised a drill to show something on a piece of paper to prove what we already know. Which is people who are afraid of their gun and don't practice tend to do worse no matter what caliber they're shooting. And again, with respect to hunting accuracy at the ranges I hunt, and the types of shots I take from whatever positions I take, I've done it and done it successfully. And I don't take out a whole shoulder to wax poetic on a small caliber.

So hold on, I thought your position was 6mm’s were marginal on elk? That they wouldn’t penetrate the “shoulder” (whether onside or offside), but now it’s wasteful?

You guys are confusing me here. Is it that smaller rounds create smaller wounds therefor making them marginal? Or do they create too large of wounds making them wasteful?

 

[35WhelenAI]

Please don't put words in my mouth, I never said they were marginal. That's a word you've chosen to further your discussion. I've said they aren't the best choice under all circumstances. I stand by that.

Look at your picture, tell me if that's a wasted shoulder or not. Just adds to the reality that small calibers aren't the best option for elk hunting. Not a sole determinant in and of itself, but keep posting pics.

 

[260madman]

.300 Remington Ultra Mag with 91.5 grains of Alliant RL25.

You’re only off by 500fps. Close enough when holding over I guess. Make sure to lick your finger and hold it up for wind direction and speed.

Schmitt is deep in here. I’m out. I’ll tard joust but outright lies is a bit much.

 

[MTWop]

Thats ironic. I have several hundred kills with multiple calibers and bullets- including 30cals and 6mm’s. My personal single day max was around 70 on game during culling- though not with a 6mm. Fourteen elk this season, half of those were shot with the 6mm. There’s a thread with something close to 60 pictures of wound channels from animals I personally killed.

Hard to argue with that kind of experience. My rancher friends shoot elk off the haystacks with a 223. That said, I won’t be packing my 243 for elk any time soon. If you were hunting public land mature bulls out to 4-500 yards (not a cull hunt or private ranch, etc), what caliber would you be packing? Again, a 243 will never be the answer for me

 

[Formidilosus]

Look at your picture, tell me if that's a wasted shoulder or not.
Just adds to the reality that small calibers aren't the best option for elk hunting.

The more damage a bullet does, the faster organs fail, and the quicker animals die. So the 6mm kills too well?

Really think about what you arguing here. Because if its “too much”, it’s nothing but a simple projectile change in that 6mm to cause less damage.

 

[Formidilosus]

Hard to argue with that kind of experience. My rancher friends shoot elk off the haystacks with a 223. That said, I won’t be packing my 243 for elk any time soon. If you were hunting public land mature bulls out to 4-500 yards (not a cull hunt or private ranch, etc), what caliber would you be packing?

Every elk I have killed has been on public land. I used a 6mm this year. A 6.5 for the prior three. Next year it’ll be a 6mm or a 22 centerfire. However I am willing to kill elk quite a bit farther than 500 yards. If I were only shooting to 500, it would be a 223 with 77gr TMK’s.

I have yet to see, kill, or witness these bullet proof, so hard to kill bulls. If anything, the cows have on average taken longer to fall over than bulls. My experience with elk is the same as it is for deer, antelope, bear, and moose- shoot them in the front half with bullets that create large wounds, regardless of caliber, and they die.

 

[35WhelenAI]

Form, you are absolutely trolling this stuff now. Destroying edible tissue has nothing to do with an animal dying because vital tissue destruction caused lack of blood flow to the brain.

 

[35WhelenAI]

Thank God you won't be using that 22 centerfire on elk in Colorado, but maybe they'll grant you an exception to the law. Edit: You just qualified your position by saying in the front half. Would you take a shot that wasn't a slam dunk broadside with a 6mm? Sounds like you have more opportunities than most guys, so again I stand by my case that if I have a hard angle shot, you're probably passing on it.

 

[PNWGATOR]

No trolling going on. Gimme a break. Open your mind.

Effective wound channels kill game.

 

[sndmn11]

Form, you are absolutely trolling this stuff now. Destroying edible tissue has nothing to do with an animal dying because vital tissue destruction caused lack of blood flow to the brain.

You and @Indian Summer have been advocating that shots to non-vital areas with "more energy" are the way to slay.

 

[Formidilosus]

Form, you are absolutely trolling this stuff now.

Not even close.

Destroying edible tissue has nothing to do with an animal dying because vital tissue destruction caused lack of blood flow to the brain.

Are you being serious? A bullet kills by destroying tissue. There is no magic that lets it get through bone and meat with little damage and only cause large damage to lungs (not quite true- Bergers).

 

[35WhelenAI]

A non-frangible bullet.

 

[Formidilosus]

Destroying edible tissue has nothing to do with an animal dying because vital tissue destruction caused lack of blood flow to the brain.

@PNWGATOR is the primary mechanism/cause of death from lung shots due to the lack of blood flow to the brain?

 

[35WhelenAI]

I consider trolling when people put words in others mouths to try and further their point of discussion. I don't think I put words in anyone's mouth. If I have then I'm wrong to do it.

 

[35WhelenAI]

I see where you're going with this, lungs can be destroyed but the heart can still be pumping so yes blood can get to the brain for a short while. Lack of oxygenated blood flow causes ultimate brain death after the animal has fainted for lack of a different term and no possibility of recovery.

 

[seand]

Id really like to see the target from the Whelen at 100, ten rounds into 1/2” at 100. Not all day long, just the once. That would be really impressive.

 

[MTWop]

Maybe I’m just getting old and conservative, but I shudder to think about the masses reading this thread and taking their 223’s elk hunting. Do you really think that’s a good idea? It’s asking for trouble in my opinion. Just because you can, doesn’t make it an ideal choice. At the end of the day, we’re talking about killing living animals, not paper. We owe it to them to do it as humanely as possible. We’re going to have to agree to disagree

 

[sndmn11]

Maybe I’m just getting old and conservative, but I shudder to think about the masses reading this thread and taking their 223’s elk hunting. Do you really think that’s a good idea? It’s asking for trouble in my opinion. Just because you can, doesn’t make it an ideal choice. At the end of the day, we’re talking about killing living animals, not paper. We owe it to them to do it as humanely as possible. We’re going to have to agree to disagree

What harm comes when the "masses" read they just need a .30cal or something with a magnum primer in it and "the energy" means they only must strike flesh?.

 

[Formidilosus]

Maybe I’m just getting old and conservative, but I shudder to think about the masses reading this thread and taking their 223’s elk hunting. Do you really think that’s a good idea? It’s asking for trouble in my opinion. Just because you can, doesn’t make it an ideal choice. At the end of the day, we’re talking about killing living animals, not paper. We owe it to them to do it as humanely as possible. We’re going to have to agree to disagree

I’m not saying what I think or what I believe. There’s an entire thread about using 223’s with a certain bullet on big game- it’s one of the longest threads on this forum. You are making a statement based on a feeling or belief; use the correct bullets in a good 223 and I would all but guarantee you that you would find it too destructive in game.

What I present is data in so much as it can be. In more than 200 big game animals from near contact to over 600 yards with the 223/77gr TMK in the last eight years, used by people ranging from extremely skilled with shooting/hunting to first time hunters- it has by far the least amount of screw ups of any chambering/bullet combo- and that’s not being selective of shots. That’s antelope, deer- multiple sub species; bear, elk, and a bull moose. Feelings play no part in it- people kill more animals on demand with that combo than any other that I have seen.