Elk Question

[Ryan Avery]

If he was singing the praises of Berger hunting bullets and SWFA scopes, for instance, it wouldn't be hard to listen to?

Neither Berger nor SWFA advertise here. But Barnes does….weird!

 

[35WhelenAI]

Good observation. It's a turn off in a podcast, but not a turn off here to keep the lights on.

 

[BRTreedogs]

Yes, it's contradictory, good point. It's a turn off in a podcast, but not an issue here to keep the lights on.

Was this thread really about comparing bullets?

Because I thought the OP was about how much muscle tissue a bull elk has before vitals.

How is Rok keeping the lights on by promoting fragmenting bullets when Barnes is a sponsor?

Ryan asked about a podcast where a statement was made that cannot really be backed up.

But fragmenting bullets can be backed up pretty well.

Are you sure your personal bais doesn't just blind you? And pride keeps you from looking at things objectively?

 

[RyanT26]

Actually…..what he said is, “Man, I have measured on elk, that I have shot just this way, between eight and 12 inches of muscle alone that you have to go through…” before hitting the ribs and on into the thoracic cavity.

Doesn't sound that far-fetched to me based on the mature bulls I’ve killed….

I think he is going off what he tells his wife is 8-12 inches. I don’t have near as many elk kills as some of you all do you, but I cannot think back to a single one, cow or a bull, that I would have to have a bullet penetrate 12 inches of muscle just to hit the ribs.
He is difficult to listen to on a good day. And seems to be the embodiment of fudd gun writer.

 

[ElDiablito]

As posted above, it’s pretty simple math (or maybe not for some) for 4” of muscle to turn into 8” or more with an angled shot.

 

[ElkNut1]

Formidilosus​

You are correct, I should have listened to that part of the podcast! I didn't realize what he was referring to the way Ryan worded it in his original post. It was vague.

I just saw this post & now realize what was actually discussed!
ElDiablito said:
"Actually…..what he said is, “Man, I have measured on elk, that I have shot just this way, between eight and 12 inches of muscle alone that you have to go through…” before hitting the ribs and on into the thoracic cavity."

Yes, that's a pretty bogus comment, Ryan was right in his 4" estimate for sure! Thank You!

ElkNut

 

[35WhelenAI]

Was this thread really about comparing bullets?

Because I thought the OP was about how much muscle tissue a bull elk has before vitals.

How is Rok keeping the lights on by promoting fragmenting bullets when Barnes is a sponsor?

Ryan asked about a podcast where a statement was made that cannot really be backed up.

But fragmenting bullets can be backed up pretty well.

Are you sure your personal bais doesn't just blind you? And pride keeps you from looking at things objectively?

Agree, the thread is about the amount of muscle needed to be breached to get to the vitals on an elk. And it is not near the range being discussed with respect to the podcast.

In the post referenced, the bullet brand was half of the statement that was a turn off and a scope brand was the other half.

Fragmenting bullets work very well, it's not at debate, nor did I question functionality of any brand projectiles or scopes, merely provided a counterpoint. The comment was on the principle of the statement at hand and respect to displeasure with specific named sponsors being referenced regularly.

 

[Ryan Avery]

Good observation. It's a turn off in a podcast, but not a turn off here to keep the lights on.

That reminds me of a country song.

All bullets are welcome, but you must defend your choices and statements here.

 

[Mountainrancher]

If he was singing the praises of Berger hunting bullets and SWFA scopes, for instance, it wouldn't be hard to listen to?

I don’t use Berger bullets or swfa scopes.