Elk Rifle Suggestions

[fmyth]

My 20" Tikka in 6.5C has killed 7 elk and 5 mule deer. 11 of the 12 were between 300-400 yds. 10 were 1 shot and done the other 2 got an extra for insurance. Haven't lost one yet. If you put a hole through the heart or both lungs they die. All were killed with off the shelf Hornady 143 ELD-X ammo. Correction forgot about letting my buddy use my rifle when his scope came loose on our mule deer hunt. 7 elk and 6 mule deer total. His shot was just over 400yds. Bang flop.

 

[dchum]

6.5CM will do the job however a larger cartridge may offer more room for error if your shot isn't perfect.

So if he uses a 300 win mag he can miss the lungs and be ok? Lol

If the shot doesn’t hit the vitals it won’t matter what is stamped on the brass.

 

[apieceofwork]

From a novice's point of view, I see the debate as being distilled to this:

Smaller calibers can be packaged with a lighter rifle, but why not just put a slightly larger caliber in a lighter rifle? Recoil - the idea being that you will practice more with a smaller caliber without beating yourself up...

Okay, but how many rounds are people actually putting through these barrels before they're worn out? Is there a person who will only shoot 40 rounds a year through a 7 PRC because the suppressed/braked recoil is too much for them, but will shoot 800 rounds a year with a 6.5CM, without caring about barrel life?

I'm not convinced those people exist in any meaningful number.

The argument in favor of something like a 6.5CM for a dedicated elk rifle would have to hinge on the following claim: there is absolutely no benefit whatsoever to stepping up to something in the range of a 7 PRC. I'm not yet convinced that this is a sound claim.

The relevant question isn't whether these smaller calibers can kill elk, it is a question of tradeoffs, as always. If you want more range time, you can always practice with something other than your hunting rifle, if it's shooting fundamentals you're honing. Of course there is no replacement for practice with the rifle you'll be carrying in the field, but there is value to practicing in general.

 

[Jbriley56]

So if he uses a 300 win mag he can miss the lungs and be ok? Lol

If the shot doesn’t hit the vitals it won’t matter what is stamped on the brass.

All is true. But the benefits of more gun is more: DRT, vs hopping off into some area where recovery and location becomes farm more difficult, IMO. Shoot him in the guts with a 22, he’ll die, but he’ll die a week from now.

Be reasonable and it’s fine.

Insurance is comfortable, all of my bulls have been taken at around 400 yards.

 

[streamerfish]

From a novice's point of view, I see the debate as being distilled to this:

Smaller calibers can be packaged with a lighter rifle, but why not just put a slightly larger caliber in a lighter rifle? Recoil - the idea being that you will practice more with a smaller caliber without beating yourself up...

Okay, but how many rounds are people actually putting through these barrels before they're worn out? Is there a person who will only shoot 40 rounds a year through a 7 PRC because the suppressed/braked recoil is too much for them, but will shoot 800 rounds a year with a 6.5CM, without caring about barrel life?

I'm not convinced those people exist in any meaningful number.

The argument in favor of something like a 6.5CM for a dedicated elk rifle would have to hinge on the following claim: there is absolutely no benefit whatsoever to stepping up to something in the range of a 7 PRC. I'm not yet convinced that this is a sound claim.

The relevant question isn't whether these smaller calibers can kill elk, it is a question of tradeoffs, as always. If you want more range time, you can always practice with something other than your hunting rifle, if it's shooting fundamentals you're honing. Of course there is no replacement for practice with the rifle you'll be carrying in the field, but there is value to practicing in general.

First and foremost....People should just shoot whatever they want. Shot placement and bullet choice is going to determine the outcome. Big, small, medium....whatever....

The idea isn't necessarily that you will practice more with a smaller caliber. But that the smaller caliber is easier to shoot, regardless of how much you practice. Less recoil equals more accuracy for 99.99999% of shooters, and equals faster follow up shots for the same. Obviously you can mitigate recoil with rifle weight also. But the point still stands.

Barrels wearing out on a 6.5CM isn't much of a worry for most people. Unless your shooting something pretty spicy, your probably gonna get around 3K rounds anyways.

I would agree that overall its a pretty small percentage of people that shoot heavy volumes of hunting rifles rounds if the rifle is say above 6mm, unless they competitively shoot, or really at all.

The "argument" - "there is absolutely no benefit whatsoever to stepping up to something in the range of a 7 PRC".

As long as you are shooting at a range in which the bullet you have chosen has enough velocity to properly work. And you have chosen a bullet that is going to do the job. The statement is absolutely true. And not really arguable at this point. There are bullets out there that I would personally never shoot an elk with out of a 6.5 creedmoor, because I would be worried about the pure resulting carnage, killing it is objectively not a concern at all.

The only potential tradeoff is effective range.....That 7 PRC might get you out past 1,000yds. The creedmoor may only be good for 700yds or something.

If your inside 500 yards or whatever, your giving up nothing at all. Realistically in an objective sense only downsides to going to that 7PRC. More recoil, more potential meat damage, more expensive ammunition, more expensive to reload.

People choose whatever they choose for various reasons....nothing wrong with the choice. But going bigger is just a mental conditioning thing at this point. Unless, we are talking about shooting waaaayyy out there range wise. Or just simple personal preference....cool.

 

[apieceofwork]

First and foremost....People should just shoot whatever they want. Shot placement and bullet choice is going to determine the outcome. Big, small, medium....whatever....

The idea isn't necessarily that you will practice more with a smaller caliber. But that the smaller caliber is easier to shoot, regardless of how much you practice. Less recoil equals more accuracy for 99.99999% of shooters, and equals faster follow up shots for the same. Obviously you can mitigate recoil with rifle weight also. But the point still stands.

Barrels wearing out on a 6.5CM isn't much of a worry for most people. Unless your shooting something pretty spicy, your probably gonna get around 3K rounds anyways.

I would agree that overall its a pretty small percentage of people that shoot heavy volumes of hunting rifles rounds if the rifle is say above 6mm, unless they competitively shoot, or really at all.

The "argument" - "there is absolutely no benefit whatsoever to stepping up to something in the range of a 7 PRC".

As long as you are shooting at a range in which the bullet you have chosen has enough velocity to properly work. And you have chosen a bullet that is going to do the job. The statement is absolutely true. And not really arguable at this point. There are bullets out there that I would personally never shoot an elk with out of a 6.5 creedmoor, because I would be worried about the pure resulting carnage, killing it is objectively not a concern at all.

The only potential tradeoff is effective range.....That 7 PRC might get you out past 1,000yds. The creedmoor may only be good for 700yds or something.

If your inside 500 yards or whatever, your giving up nothing at all. Realistically in an objective sense only downsides to going to that 7PRC. More recoil, more potential meat damage, more expensive ammunition, more expensive to reload.

People choose whatever they choose for various reasons....nothing wrong with the choice. But going bigger is just a mental conditioning thing at this point. Unless, we are talking about shooting waaaayyy out there range wise. Or just simple personal preference....cool.

"But that the smaller caliber is easier to shoot, regardless of how much you practice. Less recoil equals more accuracy for 99.99999% of shooters, and equals faster follow up shots for the same."

Unless the step up in recoil is significant enough to actually cause a decline in accuracy (which to your point, it certainly can), then this isn't as important as it seems. A .22 is easier to shoot than a .223. That doesn't mean the average fully grown man cannot consistently shoot a .223 with precision.

Further, your premise assumes that recoil is the only thing affecting accuracy or shot placement. Other factors can come into play, such as a less than ideal shot angle - a scenario in which a larger caliber can be beneficial.

 

[Q_Sertorius]

Other factors can come into play, such as a less than ideal shot angle - a scenario in which a larger caliber can be beneficial.

What shot angle would that be?

In other words, inside of the bullet’s performance window (going at least 1800 FPS), where do I have to hit the animal such that a 7 PRC will kill it, but a 6.5 CM will not kill it?

 

[streamerfish]

"But that the smaller caliber is easier to shoot, regardless of how much you practice. Less recoil equals more accuracy for 99.99999% of shooters, and equals faster follow up shots for the same."

Unless the step up in recoil is significant enough to actually cause a decline in accuracy (which to your point, it certainly can), then this isn't as important as it seems. A .22 is easier to shoot than a .223. That doesn't mean the average fully grown man cannot consistently shoot a .223 with precision.

Further, your premise assumes that recoil is the only thing affecting accuracy or shot placement. Other factors can come into play, such as a less than ideal shot angle - a scenario in which a larger caliber can be beneficial.

Well, of course we have to throw a bit of reasonableness in here....is 1ftlb more or less recoil energy going to make some kind of massive difference....no probably not. Is 5+ftlbs of recoil going to make a noticeable difference, yeah most likely.... Is a 8lb 7PRC with a stout 175gr "elk load" at 30ftlbs of recoil energy going to be significantly different then 8lb 6.5 creed running a 140gr "elk load" at 15ftlbs of recoil energy....absolutely.

I never assumed that recoil is the only thing that affects accuracy or shot placement at all, the conversation is obviously within the context of bigger or smaller calibers.....

Shot angle seems to be a popular thing to bring up. But again, it's really bullet choice. Elk aren't elephants....its not that far to get both lungs, no matter the angle (assuming you aren't running through the rear end/guts first), (and assuming your angle can actually hit both lung and not straight through one lung length wise). Unless your shooting a varmit bullet, your getting there.

 

[mwoolsey5]

Good lord, how is large vs small cartridge for elk still a debate on Rokslide of all places in 2026. There’s literally thousands of big game animals from antelope to coastal brown bears, with necropsy pictures of the wound channels, on the 223 thread.

I can even understand being skeptical because I went into the thread thinking those guys were all crazy and it was unethical, and came out of that with a Tikka 223.

Anyone open to actually learning, using facts and data driven evidence provided instead of relying on emotional attachment to cartridges we grew up being told were what was needed will have their minds changed.

You can’t see picture after picture after picture of the wound channels and call it marginal. The shots have been taken from every angle too. Broadside, quartering away, quartering too, etc, and it just works. Put the bullet in the front half of the elk and it’s going to die.

Like damn, they should make a flip chart side by side and have people guess which was made with the 223 and which was made with a 300 WM, or 7 PRC, or whatever other big magnum you guys want to use for comparison.

Generally the only reason to go to a bigger cartridge is to be able to take a longer shot, or if you are using a monolithic bullet. That 223 is going to give you 400-450 yards of performance, farther than most hunters are capable of shooting. If you want/need more than that, go with a 22 CM or 6 UM.

If I can paraphrase Ryan Avery, “it doesn’t matter how badass you think you are, there’s not a human on planet earth that is going to shoot better getting punched in the shoulder and having a loud boom go off in your face.”

 

[Jbriley56]

All this arguing for 30-06 to still be the right answer. Lol.

This is getting ridiculous, and has turned into another “look what my 22 creed killed” thread.

Your caliber might matter at distances most people can’t shoot at reliably. It doesn’t matter at reasonable hunting distances. It’s not just about killing the thing, you have to find it afterwards too.