Elk .243 or 25-06

[jjohnsonElknewbie]

Ok, HOW does caliber translate to killing? Are you able to help me understand how energy translates to killing also?

I tend to think there is nothing magical about the experience of those you tagged allowing them to use certain cartridges other than a firm grasp on how things are killed.

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.

 

[Indian Summer]

How do guys miss the point every time? Maybe they want to?

Regardless of where a follow up shot lands if the first shot missed the mark a second one is a good thing. The point is that the more damage done on the initial shot the better the chance of a second chance.

 

[Formidilosus]

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.

Incorrect. The 224/77gr TMK breaks elk femurs without issue.

 

[Backpack Hunter]

Who said that? Nobody!

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.

Have you looked at the damage pictures from the 223 thread? Do you think that hitting an elk in the front shoulders and punching a softball sized hole through it is minimal damage? Would it not do the same in the rear quarters on a bad shot? Would the lesser recoil not allow a faster follow up shot?...perhaps lessen the possibility of a bad shot to begin with?

Esse quam videri

 

[Formidilosus]

Regardless of where a follow up shot lands if the first shot missed the mark a second one is a good thing. The point is that the more damage done on the initial shot the better the chance of a second chance.

And every human alive has a more accurate first shot, quicker and more accurate follow up shots the less a rifle recoils. There is a huge jump in shooters performance, regardless of skill level, when recoil levels are in the 5-8 ft-lbs range. Virtually everyone loses sight of the animal in the scope during recoil- at the exact tile that all critical information is taking place. Extremely recoiling setups that use very destructive bullets, allow pretty much everyone to watch every shot land on animals, which tells you everything about what to do next.


As for “more damage”, I posted a picture in this thread- is that too little damage? That is an adult elk, the round is in the front half of the chest, penetrated the entire animal and was caught under then offside skin. There is stomach contents in the wound.

 

[jjohnsonElknewbie]

If follow up shots are what we are talking about proper recoil management is going to become more paramount. I have little faith in some one shooting one in the ass and then composing them self enough to all of a sudden hit the vitals with the pressure on.

Okay, Im going to say it and welcome the hate.

Much of the argument about using the .223 comes down to recoil and recoil management, and I agree that a gun that recoils less enables the shooter to become more proficient.

That being said, IMO and IME, any grown man without a physically disability should be able to accurately shoot all standard, non-magnum, cartridges from .243 through .308 without recoil sensitivity. Failure to be able to meet this standard is the result of either poor shooting technique or practice. This is not a "macho man" position either. I'm 6'1" and 225 and my daughters are 5'3" and 130/140. My daughters shoot my rifles equally as well as me while prone, sitting, offhand, and from the bench. They can also bust 20/25 clays most days plus or minus. I don't have any formal shooting training or military experience. My Dad taught us boys to shoot when we were kids and we developed our skills over time. We shared this knowledge with our kids.

Felt recoil is impacted by several variables including gun weight, min/max load, brake or not, suppressor or not, recoil pad thickness, shooting position, etc... However, for ya'll to use recoil management as the basis of the argument for using the .223 is disappointing. I watched a video of Melissa Bachman mule deer hunting in NW Nebraska and guess what she was using for her rifle? Drum roll please... A suppressed .300 Win mag.

I'd love to survey the mods, staff, and founders of Rock Slide to see what their preferred big game cartridges are. I'd bet dollars to donuts its not the .223.

 

[Formidilosus]

Interestingly, I don’t think I’ve ever suggested someone shoot elk with 223’s- or anything else for that matter. I am stating facts and trying to push that ideas such as “caliber”, “cartridge”, and “energy” are nebulous and in no way take into account the only thing that actually matters- the physical wound created by the passage of the bullet, and where that wound is located.

 

[KurtR]

Okay, Im going to say it and welcome the hate.

Much of the argument about using the .223 comes down to recoil and recoil management, and I agree that a gun that recoils less enables the shooter to become more proficient.

That being said, IMO and IME, any grown man without a physically disability should be able to accurately shoot all standard, non-magnum, cartridges from .243 through .308 without recoil sensitivity. Failure to be able to meet this standard is the result of either poor shooting technique or practice. This is not a "macho man" position either. I'm 6'1" and 225 and my daughters are 5'3" and 130/140. My daughters shoot my rifles equally as well as me while prone, sitting, offhand, and from the bench. They can also bust 20/25 clays most days plus or minus. I don't have any formal shooting training or military experience. My Dad taught us boys to shoot when we were kids and we developed our skills over time. We shared this knowledge with our kids.

Felt recoil is impacted by several variables including gun weight, min/max load, brake or not, suppressor or not, recoil pad thickness, shooting position, etc... However, for ya'll to use recoil management as the basis of the argument for using the .223 is disappointing. I watched a video of Melissa Bachman mule deer hunting in NW Nebraska and guess what she was using for her rifle? Drum roll please... A suppressed .300 Win mag.

I'd love to survey the mods, staff, and founders of Rock Slide to see what their preferred big game cartridges are. I'd bet dollars to donuts its not the .223.

Have i ever suggested to use the 223 on elk? There is a bigger picture. Do you loose sight picture when you shoot your rifle?

 

[jjohnsonElknewbie]

Interestingly, I don’t think I’ve ever suggested someone shoot elk with 223’s- or anything else for that matter. I am stating facts and trying to push that ideas such as “caliber”, “cartridge”, and “energy” are nebulous and in no way take into account the only thing that actually matters- the physical wound created by the passage of the bullet, and where that wound is located.

And Clinton didn't inhale and technically didn't have sex with that woman either...

Are you going to argue that in the shotgun slug example I provided that a cartridge that delivers a .72 caliber entry and even larger exit wound is not significant?

How many of you guys would stand up and let @Indian Summer throw a baseball at your chest and then a ping pong ball and argue the baseball hurt less? Hell let's downsize it to a golf ball and a ping pong ball?

 

[Formidilosus]

That being said, IMO and IME, any grown man without a physically disability should be able to accurately shoot all standard, non-magnum, cartridges from .243 through .308 without recoil sensitivity. Failure to be able to meet this standard is the result of either poor shooting technique or practice.

There is quite a bit of actual data on this, and you are completely incorrect. The 20 century saw multiple US and British research projects that found when recoil exceeds between 10-14 ft-lbs (depending on which source), hit rates with rifles plummeted.
Given like weights- in this case 7lb identical rifles that are mechanically within .1 moa of each other, each jump in recoil basically adds 25-50% to the group size (really doubles the error in shots) on target from field positions for the vast majority of trained and untrained shooters. That is from sub 8 ft-lbs to 12’ish ft-lbs takes most shooters capable of consistently hitting a 1 moa target prone off a pack to a 1.5-2 moa hitter. From 12’ish to 16’ish takes them from a 1.5-2moa hitter to a 2-2.5 moa hitter. And from 16’ish to 20’ish takes them from a 2-2.5 moa hitter to a 2.5-3 moa hitter. And that’s in average and the most steady position possible. A change it to sitting or kneeling and it gets ugly quick.

This is not a "macho man" position either. I'm 6'1" and 225 and my daughters are 5'3" and 130/140. My daughters shoot my rifles equally as well as me while prone, sitting, offhand, and from the bench.

Felt recoil is impacted by several variables including gun weight, min/max load, brake or not, suppressor or not, recoil pad thickness, shooting position, etc... However, for ya'll to use recoil management as the basis of the argument for using the .223 is disappointing. I watched a video of Melissa Bachman mule deer hunting in NW Nebraska and guess what she was using for her rifle? Drum roll please... A suppressed .300 Win mag.

Having seen it enough, I can say with near certainty that if you conducted ball and dummy drills with your daughters that they will flinch. Near certainty is because nothing is 100%, however I have never seen a person that did not specifically trained to not anticipate or flinch, ever not not flinch- everyone does it. They just can’t see it due to recoil.

I'd love to survey the mods, staff, and founders of Rock Slide to see what their preferred big game cartridges are. I'd bet dollars to donuts its not the .223.

This is an appeal to authority. One that doesn’t make sense, because unless they have done rigorous comparisons they are going off of belief and feelings- not data. in any case, you might be surprised.

 

[jjohnsonElknewbie]

Have i ever suggested to use the 223 on elk? There is a bigger picture. Do you loose sight picture when you shoot your rifle?

I lose sight picture for a fraction of a second with every high power I shoot. It's called blinking.

 

[Formidilosus]

Are you going to argue that in the shotgun slug example I provided that a cartridge that delivers a .72 caliber entry and even larger exit wound is not significant?

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.

How many of you guys would stand up and let @Indian Summer throw a baseball at your chest and then a ping pong ball and argue the baseball hurt less? Hell let's downsize it to a golf ball and a ping pong ball?

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.

 

[Formidilosus]

I lose sight picture for a fraction of a second with every high power I shoot. It's called blinking.

No. That’s called flinching.

 

[backcountry_hunter]

I lose sight picture for a fraction of a second with every high power I shoot. It's called blinking.

That's odd, I can spot my impacts in my scope with a 223

 

[BuckRut]

I can say with bear certainty

Careful. He's dealing with bear certainty now.

 

[backcountry_hunter]

^^^^ Its either that or pappy yoste..... take your pick

 

[Indian Summer]

“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?

 

[jjohnsonElknewbie]

There is quite a bit of actual data on this, and you are completely incorrect. The 20 century saw multiple US and British research projects that found when recoil exceeds between 10-14 ft-lbs (depending on which source), hit rates with rifles plummeted.
Given like weights- in this case 7lb identical rifles that are mechanically within .1 moa of each other, each jump in recoil basically adds 25-50% to the group size (really doubles the error in shots) on target from field positions for the vast majority of trained and untrained shooters. That is from sub 8 ft-lbs to 12’ish ft-lbs takes most shooters capable of consistently hitting a 1 moa target prone off a pack to a 1.5-2 moa hitter. From 12’ish to 16’ish takes them from a 1.5-2moa hitter to a 2-2.5 moa hitter. And from 16’ish to 20’ish takes them from a 2-2.5 moa hitter to a 2.5-3 moa hitter. And that’s in average and the most steady position possible. A change it to sitting or kneeling and it gets ugly quick.





Having seen it enough, I can say with bear certainty that if you conducted ball and dummy drills with your daughters that they will flinch. Near certainty is because nothing is 100%, however I have never seen a person that did not specifically trained to not anticipate or flinch, ever not not flinch- everyone does it. They just can’t see it due to recoil.





This is an appeal to authority. One that doesn’t make sense, because unless they have done rigorous comparisons they are going off of belief and feelings- not data. I’m any case, you might be surprised.

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.

My daughter, myself, you, @KurtR, and every other human on the planet blinks when they shoot a high power. Blinking and flinching are too different things in my view. Intentionally leave a gun on safety or let a new shooter dry fire a rifle and watch their body. Flinching is obvious and apparent when it happens.

Of course I appeal to authority when I know there are others with more expertise than me. Rockslide and other sites like it have crediblity because people respect the founders' experience and expertise that they don't have themselves.

 

[jjohnsonElknewbie]

That's odd, I can spot my impacts in my scope with a 223

You da man!

 

[ARK_Ginger]

man this thread is delivering.

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?

My recurve does about 40 ft-lb so I'll go with that. Ping Pong for the win