Max Effective Range for Elk: 7-08, 6.5C, and 308

[Short Track]

You guys still haven't figured out how to kill an Elk ????

These threads are just comical..

 

[Chris_in_Idaho]

@Article 4
The argument isn't that energy doesn't do anything (obviously if the bullet had no energy it wouldn't be moving), it's that the ftlbs energy number doesn't tell you whether the bullet will be effective or not. Hence "energy is a useless metric."

For example look at the 77tmk out of a 223 Remington. There's a huge thread showing hundreds of autopsy pictures and accounts that show it is very effective on game up to at least Elk and Moose as long as it's moving at least 1800fps or so when it hits.

At 554 ftlbs that's WAY under your proclaimed 1000 minimum, but it's extremely effective.

Let's say we wanted to surpass 1000 ftlbs, so we used a 30 cal 180gr Barnes TSX. To get 1000 foot pounds we need it to hit moving at least 1582fps. It's not even going to expand.

The 77tmk at 554 foot pounds makes a gaping wound you can put your fist through, and the 180tsx at 1000 foot pounds pencils through.

So, do you still think you should use 1000 foot pounds as your pass/fail metric for effectiveness, or would you be better off looking at bullet construction type and impact velocity?

 

[Article 4]

@Article 4
The argument isn't that energy doesn't do anything (obviously if the bullet had no energy it wouldn't be moving), it's that the ftlbs energy number doesn't tell you whether the bullet will be effective or not. Hence "energy is a useless metric."

For example look at the 77tmk out of a 223 Remington. There's a huge thread showing hundreds of autopsy pictures and accounts that show it is very effective on game up to at least Elk and Moose as long as it's moving at least 1800fps or so when it hits.

At 554 ftlbs that's WAY under your proclaimed 1000 minimum, but it's extremely effective.

Let's say we wanted to surpass 1000 ftlbs, so we used a 30 cal 180gr Barnes TSX. To get 1000 foot pounds we need it to hit moving at least 1582fps. It's not even going to expand.

The 77tmk at 554 foot pounds makes a gaping wound you can put your fist through, and the 180tsx at 1000 foot pounds pencils through.

So, do you still think you should use 1000 foot pounds as your pass/fail metric for effectiveness, or would you be better off looking at bullet construction type and impact velocity?

I am pretty done with this whole thread. I hope we helped the OP. Or maybe the OP is sitting there going "WTF" - So I will bow out having said my piece.


To your first comment, and thanks for being polite. The original premise that I made with the 1000 lb post, many said that I was completely wrong about energy. Even using personal attacks about how juvenile I am and how I have no evidence. SO i led folks down a path without quoting experts in hopes we could expand some thinking. Didnt work. So then I provided evidence, quoting the chief ballistician from Berger, Hornady, and the US Army proving they believe it and it matters. The latter publishing a 2020 study confirming it along side a Harvard Physics PHD. Harvard PHD (very anti gun school) Corroborating that energy matters...to me that says something. Energy exists, period. There is no way it cannot exist. Period. Anyone saying anything different is completely ignoring physics.

I am not and have not discounted making a hole in an animal. I only said that I could kill without making a hole using energy, like a sledgehammer.

Making holes matters, obviously.
I am saying energy matters and more of it is better.

To your second, I have killed big game animals all over the world with Bergers, Nosler and Hornady Bonded bullets, non-bonded bullets, copper bullets, and arrows. Making a hole in the animal matters. Energy accompanying a bullet matters. More the better. We even calculate it in arrows. Hornady's Jayden Quinlan stated many times “To maximize hydrostatic shock, you should impact with the most energy possible, that’s the mechanism for hydrostatic shock—the energy that a projectile is carrying."

So you all keep writing, keep telling me I am wrong, I am good with that. I have scientific, peer reviewed articles and expert bullet makers supporting mine so Ill sleep just fine knowing BOTH, making a hole in the animal and shooting the largest and fastest projectile that I can at it, so that the accompanying energy creates an even more devastating wound. All of that will aide in killing the animal faster!!!

 

[Southernfried]

I know I am simple minded, but I learned years ago when I started hunting and shooting 45 years ago, I could shoot a 308 fmj through a pumpkin but my 12 ga copper solid would make it explode. One was designed to not open, and one was. One had high velocity with high muzzle energy, and one was slow with high muzzle energy. The slow one would make it explode. I always thought that was weird, till I started reading about the different bullet constructions companies used, and realized, hey, these here engineers, tell me, "do not use this below so many fps or you will not be happy", I figured, these guys know more than me, so I will listen. Blew my mind when I was younger using the wrong bullet type in a 308 and the white tail would not drop, even made me stop using the 308 and buy a 7 mag, never knew I was the dummy and using the wrong type of bullet in the 308 but the right one (pure luck) in the 7 mag. I witched to the proper bullet, at the speeds and distances it was designed for and wham, things started dropping with the 308. It was even more apparent when I would shoot a coyote or feral dog with a 223 fmj vs a rapidly expanding bullet designed for expansion, the fmj would zip right through but the expanding one would blow out the far side, even though they both had similar velocity and muzzle energy...that is what sealed the deal for me. Get the proper bullet and use it at the appropriate distance (speed) that they were designed for and things got a lot easier, muzzle energy did not matter, bullet design and speed did.....never gave it much thought after that. Glad I have a simple mind.

 

[buffybr]

No it doesn't. Recurves and longbows produce very little energy, and kill stuff dead as a high "KE" weapon. Properly designed projectiles matter. Period. That's it.

Sent from my SM-S918U using Tapatalk

Apples and oranges.

The KE of a bullet breaks bones and destroys muscle tissue and organs.

The KE of an arrow just has to drive the broadhead through muslce tissue and organs where the sharp edges of the broadhead cuts the tissue and organs, and the animal basically bleeds to death.

I've done both.

 

[Pharmseller]

Apples and oranges.

The KE of a bullet breaks bones and destroys muscle tissue and organs.

The KE of an arrow just has to drive the broadhead through muslce tissue and organs where the sharp edges of the broadhead cuts the tissue and organs, and the animal basically bleeds to death.

I've done both.

They both kill by exsanguination.

(Sorry, I just wanted to type exsanguination.)




P

 

[sneaky]

Apples and oranges.

The KE of a bullet breaks bones and destroys muscle tissue and organs.

The KE of an arrow just has to drive the broadhead through muslce tissue and organs where the sharp edges of the broadhead cuts the tissue and organs, and the animal basically bleeds to death.

I've done both.

Actually the bullet design is what breaks bones and disrupts tissues. FMJ will pencil right through, match bullet will turn them to jello. Bonded bullets somewhere in the middle. KE isn't a magic force field of destruction.

Sent from my SM-S918U using Tapatalk

 

[Fujicon]

Assuming you want an effective elk kill with 1500 foot pounds of terminal energy, none of those rounds should be applied much past 400 yards. The key consideration, of course, is quality shot placement, so that also argues for 400 yards max, for me at least. I hunt elk with a 300PRC which gives me 800 ethical yards of lethality, but 400 yards remains my ethical range of quality shot placement. That's just how I hunt. Others will have their own ways of defining ethics.

 

[HingleMcCringleberry]

It is simply amazing how the "1500 ft lbs of energy" thing is regurgitated as if gospel. Fascinating.

 

[Turkeygetpwnd38]

This is why I kill all my elk with arrows like God intended

 

[buffybr]

Actually the bullet design is what breaks bones and disrupts tissues. FMJ will pencil right through, match bullet will turn them to jello. Bonded bullets somewhere in the middle. KE isn't a magic force field of destruction.

Sent from my SM-S918U using Tapatalk

Actually the bullet design is what determines how the bullet will react when it hits the resistance of animal flesh and/or bone. The size of the wound and wound channel is determined by how much and how fast the KE of the bullet is transfered to the animal's flesh and bone.

A FMJ bullet with a very small surface area of the bullet point and a thicker copper shell that resists deformation will have very little resistance to the animal's flesh and it will pencil through the animal and most of that bullet's KE will be expended somewhere on the other side of the animal.

A match bullet with it's hollow point tip and thin copper jacket will expand it's shape very quickly, often completely fragmenting the bullet, and releasing all of it's KE into the first few inches of the animal's flesh turning that flesh into jello, and not transfering any of the bullet's KE into the animal's vital organs.

A hunting bullet, cup and core or partition or bonded or mono copper, is designed for the front half of the bullet to expand or mushroom making a larger surface area that increases it's resistance to the flesh of the animal and maintining the mass of the base of the bullet driving it deep into the animal where the KE of the bullet is transfered into the animal's vital organs.

Kinetic Energy isn't a magic force field of destruction, it's simple Physics.
KE = 1/2 Mass x Velocity squared.
All moving objects have KE. KE is the work performed when a moving object collides with another object.

An object, or bullet, has Mass, but if it is not moving it has no Velocity so it just sits there and has no KE.

An object with no Mass is nothing, so nothing at any Velocity is still nothing and there is no KE.

It can't get any more simple than that.

 

[Packmansion]

Step 1 pick your favorite bullet.
Step 2 determine minimum impact velocity per mfg specs.
Step 3 run ballistic calcs and determine your max range.

 

[Packmansion]

I am pretty done with this whole thread. I hope we helped the OP. Or maybe the OP is sitting there going "WTF" - So I will bow out having said my piece.


To your first comment, and thanks for being polite. The original premise that I made with the 1000 lb post, many said that I was completely wrong about energy. Even using personal attacks about how juvenile I am and how I have no evidence. SO i led folks down a path without quoting experts in hopes we could expand some thinking. Didnt work. So then I provided evidence, quoting the chief ballistician from Berger, Hornady, and the US Army proving they believe it and it matters. The latter publishing a 2020 study confirming it along side a Harvard Physics PHD. Harvard PHD (very anti gun school) Corroborating that energy matters...to me that says something. Energy exists, period. There is no way it cannot exist. Period. Anyone saying anything different is completely ignoring physics.

I am not and have not discounted making a hole in an animal. I only said that I could kill without making a hole using energy, like a sledgehammer.

Making holes matters, obviously.
I am saying energy matters and more of it is better.

To your second, I have killed big game animals all over the world with Bergers, Nosler and Hornady Bonded bullets, non-bonded bullets, copper bullets, and arrows. Making a hole in the animal matters. Energy accompanying a bullet matters. More the better. We even calculate it in arrows. Hornady's Jayden Quinlan stated many times “To maximize hydrostatic shock, you should impact with the most energy possible, that’s the mechanism for hydrostatic shock—the energy that a projectile is carrying."

So you all keep writing, keep telling me I am wrong, I am good with that. I have scientific, peer reviewed articles and expert bullet makers supporting mine so Ill sleep just fine knowing BOTH, making a hole in the animal and shooting the largest and fastest projectile that I can at it, so that the accompanying energy creates an even more devastating wound. All of that will aide in killing the animal faster!!!

You're just flat wrong. Keep the 1000 ft lbs thing to yourself it's bad advice and someone might listen to you .

 

[Article 4]

You're just flat wrong. Keep the 1000 ft lbs thing to yourself it's bad advice and someone might listen to you .

Prove it

 

[Packmansion]

Prove it

Form already explained it. Minimum impact velocity. If bullet expands as intended it will do the damage. Energy is not an indicator of lethality. Velocity, bullet selection and shot placement are going to be the best variables to focus on. It has everything to do with how the bullet was designed and how it transfers that energy into your target. This is achieved by hitting the target at or above the minimum impact velocity. The energy number is not useful because it doesn't tell you when the bullet stops performing as intended. In summary, bullet selection, minimum velocity and shot placement.

 

[Beaglegun]

6.5 CM seems light to me. My daughter killed a young bull with a 6.5 PRC with a 143 ELDX at 550 yds. The bull went down and never got up but the bullet was stuck in the hide on far side and didnt hit any bone.

 

[Article 4]

Form already explained it. Minimum impact velocity. If bullet expands as intended it will do the damage. Energy is not an indicator of lethality. Velocity, bullet selection and shot placement are going to be the best variables to focus on. It has everything to do with how the bullet was designed and how it transfers that energy into your target. This is achieved by hitting the target at or above the minimum impact velocity. The energy number is not useful because it doesn't tell you when the bullet stops performing as intended. In summary, bullet selection, minimum velocity and shot placement.

Perhaps you can explain what is happening in the attached bullet impact and how it is transferring energy well outside the wound channel?

Misleading for sure, your premise. In your statement you talk about how it transfers energy. Form said energy didn't matter SO which one is it?

Form has an opinion that has been disproved by bullet makers, West Point Ballisticians, and Harvard experimental physicists. They even state more energy is better and there is a threshold including 1000 lb feet of energy

You wanna believe him fine, go kill elk. Ill continue to believe the evidence and go kill elk too.

 

[HiMtnHntr]

I know there are a lot of people who use lighter calibers successfully for elk and more power to em if it works for how they like to hunt elk.

But if someone were seeking some recommendations on a dedicated elk rifle I wouldn’t recommend any of the calibers in the original post.

I know this probably isn’t worth much given the original question and discussion but there it is anyway.

 

[Beaglegun]

I have read a bit about experianced elk hunters saying lighter loads kill elk and the elk dont run off because they didnt get hit so hard. They stay put and die. I'm not experianced enough to know if that is true

 

[Article 4]

I have read a bit about experianced elk hunters saying lighter loads kill elk and the elk dont run off because they didnt get hit so hard. They stay put and die. I'm not experianced enough to know if that is true

Some truth to that - There is a great 2021 article by one of Steve Rinellas crew by Sillars; and although he states what I also believe to be true, is that bullet placement is the #1 factor, energy and hydrostatic shock exist and are facts that contribute to death and damage, in fact the often seen result of an animal drpping dead and folding up is primarily the result of energy transfer.