Elk Caliber with Particular Rifle Considerations

[BuckSmasher]

They're typically quite a bit less than he claims they routinely weigh. So I want to know how that number was established.

If I said that my bullets are routinely doing 4000fps at the muzzle, people might ask how I arrived at that number.

I've also had a guy tell me he killed a 1500lb Roosevelt cow...

Google says bull rocky mountain elk weigh 7-900 lbs. if i told you last years big bodied bull was ‘around’ 800 + pounds do you think that is lying?

I get it though. People in Texas talk about 4 and 500 pound pigs when they would honestly be shocked about how big an actual 250 pounder looks.

 

[LongWayAround]

Google says bull rocky mountain elk weigh 7-900 lbs. if i told you last years big bodied bull was ‘around’ 800 + pounds do you think that is lying?

I get it though. People in Texas talk about 4 and 500 pound pigs when they would honestly be shocked about how big an actual 250 pounder looks.

If you told me your elk weighed 800, I wouldn't second guess it for a moment. That's a normal weight for a big bull.

 

[BuckSmasher]

If you told me your elk weighed 800, I wouldn't second guess it for a moment. That's a normal weight for a big bull.

Definitely too big for a 22 no matter how you slice it!

 

[kcm2]

Good grief, I'm waiting for someone to proclaim he whacked a 360 bull with a 17 HMR.

 

[probablymissed]

I smoked a 100lb pig with a 17hmr

 

[BuckSmasher]

Good grief, I'm waiting for someone to proclaim he whacked a 360 bull with a 17 HMR.

Don’t ya know Fudd? What ya gotta do is load a 17 HMR with a highly frangible bullet that doesnt penetrate wet tissue paper but dumps its energy! All the old fogeys with their stoutly constructed, large, heavy bullets got it all wrong. You don’t need to penetrate. Elk and moose are basically very sensitive vital organs wrapped in gossamer on 4 legs.

 

[Aussie Dan]

How much actual elk hunting experience do you have? Any? How many mature bulls have you killed?

No elk in Australia, so zero experience. which is why I asked the question.

I've seen videos of elk being killed with arrows, ive seen the .22 success thread and pics of the damage done with various .22 cartridges and am genuinely curious and trying to understand what makes 1 ethical and 1 not.

I could absolutely understand part of the thought process if you said-
An 88gn .22 bullet is not something I'd recommend for a beginner hunter. But a blanket "its unethical" statement with absolutely no room for nuance and varied experience levels while also advocating and agreeing with using what is essentially a fancy "pointy stick" at 1/10th the speed doesn't make sense to me.

Which once again is why I asked the question.

 

[BigAntlerGetter]

If you told me your elk weighed 800, I wouldn't second guess it for a moment. That's a normal weight for a big bull.

Ya til most guys say their Packout weight on a boned out bull was a total of 800 lbs,


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Cherokeeguide]

I find all this talk about small caliber rifles for elk very interesting.

I find it kind of boring, to be honest. People have been killing elk with .257" bullets since the .25-35 Winchester came out in 1895. Killing elk with even smaller-bore cartridges dates back to the .22 Savage Hi-Power of 1912, which Savage aggressively marketed as suitable for all North American hooved game. People have been killing elk with the .250-3000 Savage since 1912, as well. A few Americans were killing elk with .264" bullets after Chas. A. Newton released his .256 Newton cartridge in 1913. A few well-heeled Americans used the Styer-built Mannlicher-Schoenauer carbine in 6.5 M/S for elk and bigger animals since the inter-war period and it was used in Africa from about 1905 to kill things bigger and tougher than elk. People were killing elk with the .257 Roberts before Remington commercialized it in the 1930s. People have been killing elk with the .257 Weatherby Magnum since 1943. So, there's really nothing new about using small-bore cartridges to kill elk.

In part because I can’t help but wonder how many 6.5 and smaller fans have ever shot a truly big bull of 7+ years old.

I don't think you're really wondering how many 6.5 and smaller fans have ever shot a truly big bull as much as you're positing a pre-conceived notion that to do so would be rare.

I have a feeling that some have more experience in typing on forums than actually killing elk.

I get that same feeling, every time I read a comment like this one below:

There’s a big difference between a 900+ lb. Bull and a rag horn or cow

That's true. However, anybody who has filled more than a few mule deer and elk tags knows that it is also true that the biggest elk God ever made IS NOT more bulletproof on a broadside presentation than a run of the mill mule deer is. What will kill a mule deer on a broadside heart shot will kill the biggest bull elk there is equally stone cold dead with the same shot placement.

I also wonder how many small caliber proponents have ever lost a bull with their small gun

Probably not as many as your sense of wonderment seems to pre-presume. As a kid of 11 back in 1976, hunting the wide open spaces of the wide open west with a Marlin 336 in .30-30, I understood that I wasn't going to kill a mule deer on a stern to stem shot at 400 yards with my "saddle gun." Making a pipsqueak round like that work means accepting its limitations and hunting inside of its performance envelope.

When I was 20 in 1985, I bought two Ruger M77RL Ultralights in .250 Savage on the same day at the same time. The old geezer gun-shop flies hovering the shop's counter thought I was one crazy dumb-ass kid for buying one of them, let alone two. I kept one for me and gave one to my dad for Christmas. I went on to fill 21 mule deer tags with it, 3 pronghorn tags, 2 caribou tags, 1 elk tag, and God only knows how many feral pigs, goats, and sheep I killed with it. If you're going to limit yourself to broadside shots out to 300 yards or less, you can kill every kind of hooved game in North America with a pipsqueak .250 Savage. I don't think I'm alone in my understanding that you have to accept some limitations if you're going to use a pea-shooter like the .250 Savage in the field, and you have to be willing to hunt within its performance envelope. That wasn't a big deal for me, because I won't shoot over 300 yards or take anything but a perfect broadside shot on game in a sport hunting situation, anyhow.

The only time I ever had to shoot a game animal more than once was when I made the longest shot of my sport hunting life on a California D-14 mule deer while using a Ruger No.1 B in .300 Weatherby Magnum.

In my haste to get out and get hunting, I grabbed a few rounds I'd loaded with 190 grain Sierra Match King hollow points. I hit the deer with my first shot. It didn't seem to notice. I hit it again with a second shot. It didn't seem to care about that, either. The third time, I hit it with a 180 grain Partition. That turned the buck's heart / lung cavity into liquified goo. My first two shots with the Match King 190's punched straight, cauterized .308" holes. That's the only time I ever had to shoot a game animal more than once in a sport hunting situation, and if I wouldn't have had my head up my ass, and had the right ammo in the chamber to begin with, it would have been "one and done."

But, as big a mess as that 180 grain Partition made at 278 yards, I'd seen equal gore hitting black-tails at under 100 yards with 63 grain Sierra Semi-Pointed bullets from a .223 Remington out of a Contender carbine.

If I was advising a new elk hunter on a first rifle, it’d be a 270 Winchester, 308, 30-06. They’re all better for elk than smaller calibers.

I've tagged 20 elk in my lifetime. I tagged 9 of them with a Marlin 336 in .30-30. I tagged 7 of them with a Whitworth Mauser in .270 Winchester. I tagged 1 wit a .495" patched round ball from a .50 cap-lock Lyman Great Plains Rifle, 1 with a T/C Contender Super 14 in 7-30 Waters, 1 with a Ruger M77RL Ultralight in .250 Savage, and 1 with a Browning A-bolt II Medallion in .257 Roberts.

If I were advising a new elk hunter, I'd tell them to use whatever legal method of take they want to and can afford to practice with during the off-season. I'd encourage them to pass on anything over 300 yards and anything that isn't a broadside presentation with a clear shot to the vital zone, like I do. Hunt like me, and even a pipsqueak .250 Savage with less on-paper power from 200 to 300 yards that a 77 grain TMK 5.56 NATO has from my 20" barreled AR-15 A4 will kill an elk stone-cold dead with one shot.

 

[thinhorn_AK]

O only ever shot elk with a 270 and 130g silver tips from wal mart. My scope was an old fixed 4x Bushnell. The rifle was a Remington 700ADL that had been used and cleaned so much the blueing was worn off it. I shot well over a dozen elk with that gun and those bulllets. Back in those days my dad elk hunted with a weatherby mkv in 300wby, he’d just always wanted a weatherby when he was younger and that was his first one.

It wasn’t until I’d moved to AK when I found out that 270 isn’t good for elk hunting. My dad shot an elk a few years back with a 6.5 creedmoor and it died just fine.

I like to collect and read old hunting books, mostly ones about Alaska, there were guys killing mountain goats with their 257 Robert’s back in the 1960s. No though, lots of people think you need a magnum for goats. Likewise, back when the Alaska national guard got their 30-06 rifles lots of people in the state couldn’t believe how powerful those guns were. People had been hunting everything in Alaska with 30-30s, 40-44s and alls parts of stuff that people would never consider today and they were doing it with primitive bullet technology.

I don’t think there’s any need to shoot an elk with a 6.5 if you aren’t comfortable with it but it would work just fine. So would a 30-06, 308, 270 or anything within reason.

The 280ai seems really cool, I havnt tried one though.

 

[solarshooter]

My personal opinion is that a .24 caliber 100 grain bullet is as small as one can ethically use for elk

OK, starting small, I like it!

The smallest cartridge I’ve ever used on elk is my .264 Win Mag.

Uh oh...

elk cartridges start with the .270 Winchester

Oh boy

Ideally, I regard elk cartridges as 7mm and above

Here we go

I do most of my own elk hunting with a .338 Win Mag

Sigh...

You covered some serious ground in one post! Talked yourself up from a 100gr 6mm to a 338 WM! Incredible! And yet you claim to have killed elk with every single one of these. So your observation is, "dead elk", and your conclusion is, "I need a bigger gun". Genius!

 

[DLSJR]

No elk in Australia, so zero experience. which is why I asked the question.

I've seen videos of elk being killed with arrows, ive seen the .22 success thread and pics of the damage done with various .22 cartridges and am genuinely curious and trying to understand what makes 1 ethical and 1 not.

I could absolutely understand part of the thought process if you said-
An 88gn .22 bullet is not something I'd recommend for a beginner hunter. But a blanket "its unethical" statement with absolutely no room for nuance and varied experience levels while also advocating and agreeing with using what is essentially a fancy "pointy stick" at 1/10th the speed doesn't make sense to me.

Which once again is why I asked the question.

Thank you for sharing those details. With that in mind I’ll try to help you understand the difference between an arrow going 300 fps and a .22 caliber bullet going 3,000 fps and why one is superior to the other.

A broad head tipped arrow kills primarily by causing massive hemorrhage, causing the animal to bleed to death. Also, when an arrow pierces the thoracic cavity it allows outside air into that area causing the lungs to collapse. Both conditions are lethal. How an arrow accomplishes this is that as the relatively slow projectile impacts, the extremely sharp blades of the broad head slice through the hide and flesh, resulting in a relaxing of the tissues which reduces resistance to the penetration of the arrow. As the arrow continues to slice its way through the animal every blood vessel and organ encountered is cleanly sliced open, which results in massive and rapid blood loss. An arrow doesn’t expand (the blades of mechanical broadheads being the exception) so it slides easily through the hole created by the broad head, but momentum also plays a role as a heavier arrow will out penetrate a lighter arrow thus cutting deeper. The ideal result is a ‘pass-through’ where you get both entry and exit holes. Twice as much blood on the ground to follow, twice the amount of air that can deflate the lungs and death is usually very quick. That’s how an arrow kills.

In contrast, bullets kill by brute force. As an expanding bullet slams into an animal it rapidly expands and creates a hydrostatic wound channel that is much larger than the diameter of the actual bullet. As the bullet continues along its path, it destroys all organs it contacts, as well as blood vessels resulting in significant blood loss, deflation of the lungs if shot through the thoracic cavity and death is often quick, sometimes nearly instantaneous.

Where the problem presents itself with the small caliber bullets crowd is when the animal gets a lot bigger and tougher than the game the bullet is designed for. A given bullet that might be devastating on a coyote, or even a pronghorn antelope and many of our deer in the 100-200 pound range; may perform poorly on a 500-950 pound elk. When a bullet impacts an elk’s hide it begins expending energy. It takes more energy to penetrate a thicker heavier hide (elk) than it does a thinner, lighter hide (deer, antelope). After that, the muscles and bones of an elk are significantly larger and more difficult to damage by a tiny bullet, no matter how fast it’s going. Momentum again plays a role as a 225 grain .338 bullet at 2,900 fps has a lot more momentum than a 65 grain .22 bullet at 3,300 fps. A .338 bullet has a larger diameter un-expanded than a .22 caliber bullet does when fully expanded. When that bigger bullet expands it it dramatically bigger and has way more momentum, thus doing damage on a level that no tiny bullet can inflict in the best of circumstances. Bullet construction also matters as some bullets like Berger tend to disintegrate and do massive damage but with shallow penetration, while bullets such as a Nosler Partition, A Frame, Bearclaw and such retain much of their weight and thus penetrate deeply causing more organ damage. A large, heavy bullet that can smash thru and break heavy bones is superior to a small, light bullet that doesn’t have the energy and momentum to break through the same bones. And when that smaller bullet stops, it does no more damage

@Aussie Dan I hope this answers your question and helps you understand the difference in why a slow arrow can be more lethal than some fast bullets.

 

[BigAntlerGetter]

OK, starting small, I like it!

Uh oh...

Oh boy

Here we go

Sigh...

You covered some serious ground in one post! Talked yourself up from a 100gr 6mm to a 338 WM! Incredible! And yet you claim to have killed elk with every single one of these. So your observation is, "dead elk", and your conclusion is, "I need a bigger gun". Genius!

Guy has to be a politician!!! basically just covers all the bases without a definitive answer so doesn’t upset anyone!!!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[LongWayAround]

So .243 is ok for little Colorado raghorns, but .338 is necessary for those 1100lb New Mexico giants.

Got it.

 

[BuckSmasher]

That’s a lot of words to say, “I don’t understand terminal ballistics or what kills animals.”

Enlighten us?

 

[DLSJR]

OK, starting small, I like it!

Uh oh...

Oh boy

Here we go

Sigh...

You covered some serious ground in one post! Talked yourself up from a 100gr 6mm to a 338 WM! Incredible! And yet you claim to have killed elk with every single one of these. So your observation is, "dead elk", and your conclusion is, "I need a bigger gun". Genius!

Well, you’re kinda sorta right. Kinda sorta. Your question was ‘What caliber and bullet weight do I consider to not be reckless?’ What I tried to do was acknowledge that a fair number of elk are successfully killed with .24 & .25 caliber cartridges each year. Truth is, the majority of those elk are cows, spikes, rag horns. Not my cup of tea, but I draw my line right there. I probably should have stopped with that direct answer to your question.

Most of the elk I and friends have shot with the .264 were taken by kids as it’s easy to shoot, yet pretty effective. It’s not one of my top choices but it works. I apply for cow elk in Nevada every year and when I draw that’s probably what I’ll shoot, but would not choose it for a big bull.

Many thousands of elk have been killed with .270’s over the years and I’ve used it on a few as there was a time I was into hunting most stuff with my .270. With a good quality bullet, it’s a legit elk cartridge, IMO. So that’s MY starting point to what I consider elk cartridges. (Don’t tell my .264).

The first elk I ever shot was with a 7 mag and, ideally, I think they’re a better elk cartridge than a .270 but I’d carry either with no hesitation.

My personal love of the .338 has more to do with me than elk. The first animal I shot with my .338 was a Brown Bear on Kodiak in 1985. It was a fairly long shot for a Kodiak Bear, about 250 yards across a canyon. The bear only went about 30 yards or so and died. I was very impressed and started using the .338 for most things I hunt. I find it easy to shoot well, it hits hard and there are very few animals on the planet I’d be hesitant to hunt with my .338.

Since someone brought it up and going from memory, these are the cartridges I can recall shooting elk with. .264 win mag, .270 Winchester, 7MM Weatherby Mag, .30-06, .300 Win Mag, .338 Win Mag. These days, 90% of the non-dangerous game I shoot is with the .338 or .264 and most of that with the .338. My preference.

 

[Q_Sertorius]

Enlighten us?

You are beyond enlightenment.

What caliber made this wound?

At no point in this animal’s death was I thinking, “I should have used an arrow.” Or, “I needed a larger caliber.”

If I can penetrate 16-18” of animal, I am well through its vitals, leaving a 2” diameter area of destroyed tissue through most of that area. I don’t need to do more than that. Visualize jamming a paper towel roll completely into the animal. If that’s in the vitals, they are dead.

The fact is, you want to make killing one of these large deer a quasi-mythical feat. You convince yourself that these animals are hard to kill, when they aren’t. Most people just suck. And there’s no larger sporting caliber that makes up for sucking.

And the “bigger is better” mentality is effectively the same as “a teenager who can drink a dozen beers is more of a man than one who can’t/won’t.” It’s a stupid macho fascination on the same plane as suburban office workers with lifted trucks.

It’s the shooting manifestation of the “Max Power Way. Check out this video, "the max power way" https://share.google/kNWnYZkOsbQJWgg8e

Magnum rifles have a place: they are generally better for MPBR shooting and carry further at longer ranges than smaller cartridges. But since it’s not necessary to use MPBR, that’s a moot point. And the ranges where they become unequivocally better at killing are so far out as to be irrelevant.

We live in an era where nearly any modern center fire has more than enough “power” to send a decent bullet clean through the vitals of any North American game animal from a decent presentation. But you are still believing your grandfather’s argument to your grandmother that the “old rifle wasn’t good enough and he needed a new one.” And, for people who claim to be independent thinkers, you swallow decades of gun industry marketing like it’s the gospel truth.

 

[DLSJR]

That’s a lot of words to say, “I don’t understand terminal ballistics or what kills animals.”

First, I was answering a fellow who stated he had no experience with elk and didn’t understand how an arrow compares to a small bullet. I was attempting to help him.

I have a very clear understanding of terminal ballistics and what kills animals. I’ve looked inside plenty of animals from small to the very largest and seen what various bullets do. What kills animals is organ destruction and blood loss.

 

[Q_Sertorius]

First, I was answering a fellow who stated he had no experience with elk and didn’t understand how an arrow compares to a small bullet. I was attempting to help him.

I have a very clear understanding of terminal ballistics and what kills animals. I’ve looked inside plenty of animals from small to the very largest and seen what various bullets do. What kills animals is organ destruction and blood loss.

I should be fair. You accurately describe how bullets work, but you misstate the toughness of the animal and you start from the assumption that the smaller caliber doesn’t already do enough damage to kill the animal.

 

[BuckSmasher]

You are beyond enlightenment.

What caliber made this wound?

At no point in this animal’s death was I thinking, “I should have used an arrow.” Or, “I needed a larger caliber.”

If I can penetrate 16-18” of animal, I am well through its vitals, leaving a 2” diameter area of destroyed tissue through most of that area. I don’t need to do more than that. Visualize jamming a paper towel roll completely into the animal. If that’s in the vitals, they are dead.

The fact is, you want to make killing one of these large deer a quasi-mythical feat. You convince yourself that these animals are hard to kill, when they aren’t. Most people just suck. And there’s no larger sporting caliber that makes up for sucking.

And the “bigger is better” mentality is effectively the same as “a teenager who can drink a dozen beers is more of a man than one who can’t/won’t.” It’s a stupid macho fascination on the same plane as suburban office workers with lifted trucks.

It’s the shooting manifestation of the “Max Power Way. Check out this video, "the max power way" https://share.google/kNWnYZkOsbQJWgg8e

Magnum rifles have a place: they are generally better for MPBR shooting and carry further at longer ranges than smaller cartridges. But since it’s not necessary to use MPBR, that’s a moot point. And the ranges where they become unequivocally better at killing are so far out as to be irrelevant.

We live in an era where nearly any modern center fire has more than enough “power” to send a decent bullet clean through the vitals of any North American game animal from a decent presentation. But you are still believing your grandfather’s argument to your grandmother that the “old rifle wasn’t good enough and he needed a new one.” And, for people who claim to be independent thinkers, you swallow decades of gun industry marketing like it’s the gospel truth.

Ahhhh there it is! I have found the new way! Y'all are bunch of reactionary Fudds stuck in the past!

Bunch of magnumitis small ego dudes that think you need a cannon and bruised shoulders!

Nice elk pictured btw. Never seen one that small in hunting season. Get a calf? I thought the whole benefit of shooting .22s were they were magically more accurate? Why the poor shot placement?

Honestly, will shooting an elk, breaking its shoulder and dooming it to a slow death change your mind?