Looking for 600 yard deer/elk rifle. Recommendations?

[Timberline001]

Yup. I find that if you stick to the 1500lb rule your bullet will have the velocity to do what it needs to do. If you look at your ballistic charts you will see the same. I shoot copper pretty much exclusively since I am from CA Hammers and Barnes.

This year I am leaving my custom rifles in the safe a shooting a factory browning xbolt 30-06 with 175LRX for all my rifle hunts. Muzzle velocity of 2680 hits the 1500lb mark around 400yds. So that will be my limit for all hunts this year.

Just so you’re aware. A factory 147 gr 6.5 PRC load has around 270lbs more kinetic energy at 400 yards than that 30-06 load. Just thought you should know since you think kinetic energy is important.

 

[Tricer]

Just so you’re aware. A factory 147 gr 6.5 PRC load has around 270lbs more kinetic energy at 400 yards than that 30-06 load. Just thought you should know since you think kinetic energy is important.

That’s awesome. Except it has nothing to do with my answer to OP question. My answer for the 60th time in this thread is a 308 or 7mm cartridge capable of 1500lbs of energy at 600 yds is what I consider a good choice for elk.

I am done with this thread you guys are right I am wrong.

 

[Timberline001]

That’s awesome. Except it has nothing to do with my answer to OP question. My answer for the 60th time in this thread is a 308 or 7mm cartridge capable of 1500lbs of energy at 600 yds is what I consider a good choice for elk.

I am done with this thread you guys are right I am wrong.

So if energy matters why wouldn’t you want the round that has more energy? You don’t even agree with your own logic. Is your reason really that the 4.4 hundredths of an inch of extra diameter of a .308 bullet gives its better terminal performance? Because that’s the only thing the .30-06 has over a round you deem not up to the task.

 

[mxgsfmdpx]

a 308 or 7mm cartridge capable of 1500lbs of energy at 600 yds is what I consider a good choice for elk.

Would you be able to articulate as to why? Why not 1700ft lbs? What is your experience with ft lbs and actual killing of elk? How are you calculating ft lbs at impact?

 

[Gadjet]

For all of the “smaller is better” guys, where does it end? At what point will the argument turn into a 22 short is a better elk caliber than a 300 WM?

 

[The Fish Box]

I imagine It ends when the smaller bullet quits creating a wound channel that is capable of killing animals at a high rate of success.

Don’t think the 22lr will ever be capable of this.

 

[JBradley500]

If a 22 short was legal for big game and caused the same amount of tissue damage that a 77 TMK in 223 causes, people would use it. Obviously it doesn't, so it's nothing to mention.

 

[Axlrod]

That’s awesome. Except it has nothing to do with my answer to OP question. My answer for the 60th time in this thread is a 308 or 7mm cartridge capable of 1500lbs of energy at 600 yds is what I consider a good choice for elk.

I am done with this thread you guys are right I am wrong.

I think that posting something "for the 60th time" is not going to get your point across any better than doing it once. It could be your message or your audience, doesn't really matter. You can't make others agree with you by endlessly repeating something.

 

[Timberline001]

I think that posting something "for the 60th time" is not going to get your point across any better than doing it once. It could be your message or your audience, doesn't really matter. You can't make others agree with you by endlessly repeating something.

Especially when the statement isn’t backed with facts.

 

[eric1115]

That’s awesome. Except it has nothing to do with my answer to OP question. My answer for the 60th time in this thread is a 308 or 7mm cartridge capable of 1500lbs of energy at 600 yds is what I consider a good choice for elk.

I am done with this thread you guys are right I am wrong.

I have a genuine question for you. Do you see this as a position you arrived at logically? Is it based on evidence?

If yes, what evidence would be required to change your position (if it's evidence and reason got you here, it must be the case that evidence and reason could move you to a new position).

I've become interested in epistemology (figuring out why people believe what they believe). Not too many years ago I was putting a new "long range elk rifle" together and ended up with a 7mm RM shooting 180 Bergers. This was the smaller of the two cartridges I was considering (.300WM with 215 Bergers was the big one). Shot this for several years, loved it, thought there was nothing else that could touch it until I started looking at the evidence (not just the opinions) for smaller bullets and cartridges.

You're being needled and poked at because you appear to have an almost religious position on the energy and bullet question, implying that no amount of evidence could change your mind. I think this is really the question behind all the questions everyone is asking.

 

[Jake Larsen]

For all of the “smaller is better” guys, where does it end? At what point will the argument turn into a 22 short is a better elk caliber than a 300 WM?

It’s all about adequate wound channel to kill the target species. For this you need two things: penetration to the vitals, and enough tissue damage once the projectile is there. The line is when you no longer have one of these things.

The reason the .223 77TMK crowd is so vocal, is they have proved again and again that combination has both of these requirements to kill.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Spoonbill]

Killing Energy: How Much Do You Need for Big Game?

Photo by: Bill Kinney I recently got this question from an OutdoorLife.com reader Kyle Turner: "What is thought to be the minimum foot-pounds of energy required to dispatch anything from whitetail deer to moose humanely and ethically?" The most common figure thrown around when hunters discuss...

www.outdoorlife.com

I was looking for the 1500 ft-lbs of energy, which I think was something that Wayne Van Zwoll came up with, and found this article. Interesting to see a main stream hunting mag say ft-lbs of energy matter less than bullets.

clif notes version of the article: bullets matter more than headstamps.

 

[Gadjet]

It’s all about adequate wound channel to kill the target species. For this you need two things: penetration to the vitals, and enough tissue damage once the projectile is there. The line is when you no longer have one of these things.

The reason the .223 77TMK crowd is so vocal, is they have proved again and again that combination has both of these requirements to kill.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I understand, but what I don’t get is why the big push to try to kill animals while flirting with the absolute minimum of a cartridge. I watched my wife shoot a bull 5 times in the chest at 300 yards with a 143 grain ELDX out of a Creedmoor. After about 5 minutes the bull finally fell over and died. I’ve killed many elk with a 7 mag and a 300 WM and never had that happen. I’m sure I could have killed most of them with a 77 grain bullet out of a 223, but I think I’ll stick with a little bigger tool for the job.

 

[TimberHunter]

I understand, but what I don’t get is why the big push to try to kill animals while flirting with the absolute minimum of a cartridge. I watched my wife shoot a bull 5 times in the chest at 300 yards with a 143 grain ELDX out of a Creedmoor. After about 5 minutes the bull finally fell over and died. I’ve killed many elk with a 7 mag and a 300 WM and never had that happen. I’m sure I could have killed most of them with a 77 grain bullet out of a 223, but I think I’ll stick with a little bigger tool for the job.

I’ve had similar experiences with 6.5, 270, 300WSM and one (not mine) got away with a 338WM. Some of the toughest elk kills has been cow elk for some reason. Those bigger chamberings were hardly practiced with so that’s a large contributing factor. Now all those bigger guns have been sold

I’ve chalked it up to shot placement, headstamps can’t fix a marginal shots on elk, they’re just tough animals


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Jake Larsen]

I understand, but what I don’t get is why the big push to try to kill animals while flirting with the absolute minimum of a cartridge. I watched my wife shoot a bull 5 times in the chest at 300 yards with a 143 grain ELDX out of a Creedmoor. After about 5 minutes the bull finally fell over and died. I’ve killed many elk with a 7 mag and a 300 WM and never had that happen. I’m sure I could have killed most of them with a 77 grain bullet out of a 223, but I think I’ll stick with a little bigger tool for the job.

The trade off is shootability in a lightweight mountain style rifle. Most people develop some really bad habits if they spend a lot of time shooting heavy recoiling light weight rifles. I think the reason these guys hammer away at this conversation is because it helps people understand bullet performance/cartridge selection. The message is “do whatever you’re comfortable with, but do it in an informed manner.” These guys are proving that the extreme end of going small is still adequate.

For the record, I’ve come to someone of a middle ground personally. Partially because I prefer to shoot a bullet like the Sierra TGK, which is more of a hybrid/controlled expansion bullet. Much less frangible, which means less tissue damage per grain weight of bullet. Which means I like to have a bit more mass going downrange. Also, I’m not a super duper long range guy. I optimize for shots on game 600 yards and under. There’s several mild cartridges that will push 6-7mm bullets at adequate speeds to be lethal at 0-700. Throw on a suppressor, and they’re easy to shoot well and deadly.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Butcher8]

.308 and .30-06 have plenty of juice and consistency to make it to 600. A magnum is just asking for extra abuse, IMO.

7mm-08 would be even lighter recoiling and make it out there just fine. So would .243 Winchester. Lots of folks around here talk positively about the 6.5x55 Swedish Mauser cartridge. I've got a friend with a 6.5 Swede-chambered in a CZ bolt action. He loves that rifle.

.223 will make it out there, even, if your goal is only to punch paper (and not critters). Be a lot cheaper than anything else I listed above.

I'd say get your favorite RemChester that fits well at the local sporting goods store in .308, and buy a couple of milsurp battle packs. Once you get a good feel for the rifle, either handload or get some Black Hills match ammo.

 

[JakeSCH]

No it’s not. 9 of the last 10 elk that I shot or that I directly watched shot with 30cal mags, were shot between 2 and 6 times, all bisecting chest shots on the first or second hit. The lone single shot was because the shooter missed by feet and hit another elk in the neck.




Could it be that people are making decisions on something more than a small sample size with limited data?

I think mono’s skew sample size. I found myself going up in speed / diameter when using monos until I finally started getting results I wanted with a 338 RUM and 260 gr monos.

But as you know, the 338 rum overall shootability outside of prone / off a pack sucks and now going back down the recoil list, planning on making a 6-6.5 or a 6-7PRC focusing on the proven bullets to try this year.

 

[Timberline001]

I think mono’s skew sample size. I found myself going up in speed / diameter when using monos until I finally started getting results I wanted with a 338 RUM and 260 gr monos.

But as you know, the 338 rum overall shootability outside of prone / off a pack sucks and now going back down the recoil list, planning on making a 6-6.5 or a 6-7PRC focusing on the proven bullets to try this year.

100%.

 

[MAP1]

Just so you’re aware. A factory 147 gr 6.5 PRC load has around 270lbs more kinetic energy at 400 yards than that 30-06 load. Just thought you should know since you think kinetic energy is important.

Not sure what loads your comparing but a 6.5 PRC 147 at 400 yards has 1871 ft lbs. A 30-06 175 LRX has 1902 ft lbs and a Winchester 190 ABLR has 1994 ft lbs .

 

[Timberline001]

Not sure what loads your comparing but a 6.5 PRC 147 at 400 yards has 1871 ft lbs. A 30-06 175 LRX has 1902 ft lbs and a Winchester 190 ABLR has 1994 ft lbs .

I used the the tested velocity from my 6.5 PRC with factory 147s at 400 yards so that is in fact 100% correct. 2940 fps 24 inch barrel. The numbers for the 175 lrx are with tracers 2690 FPS load for his 30-06.