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

[Beaglegun]

Sounds like the bullet performed as it's designed to. If you wanted a smaller wound cavity and over-penetration for an exit, should have used a different bullet.

Not complaining bout the performance. I was just giving my experiance per cartridge, bullet, distance and animal. My daughter is 125 lbs and the 6.5 PRC doesnt make her flinch

 

[Bowhuntone]

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.

I killed a cow elk at 525 yards with a 300 win mag with 180 grain accubonds and same thing bullet just inside of far side hide. Must need to get a heavier gun .

 

[Packmansion]

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.

I'm not saying energy doesn't matter. I'm saying for determining a bullets performance it's irrelevant. Velocity is what determines proper expansion. If you want to have the bullet behave as intended you need to mind the minimum velocity. Energy is not part of determining you maximum effective range.

 

[Beaglegun]

I killed a cow elk at 525 yards with a 300 win mag with 180 grain accubonds and same thing bullet just inside of far side hide. Must need to get a heavier gun .

Did bullet hit any bone? If not, that tells me the 6.5 PRC performs as advertized

 

[Wrench]

I always feel like guys should answer this question for themselves. Start within range you are comfortable with and keep stretching a bit, verifying the results......vs asking the internet to impose a limit.

 

[180ls1]

I used to shoot a .338-06 with 185 grain Barnes TSX bullets. Two things stood out. I regularly had animals fall within several steps of being hit and I regularly found the bullet underneath the opposite side hide. This happened some with deer but especially so with elk. Does that mean it was too light?

That's probably the most hated choice on this site lol.

However, I think a 338 mono is a fantastic choice for a guy that isn't a long-range hunter who needs to see impacts. Deep/large wound channels and the ability to take off angled shots, especially follow-up sounds like a killing machine to me.

 

[Laelkhunter]

I used to shoot a .338-06 with 185 grain Barnes TSX bullets. Two things stood out. I regularly had animals fall within several steps of being hit and I regularly found the bullet underneath the opposite side hide. This happened some with deer but especially so with elk. Does that mean it was too light?

Sounds like optimum bullet performance to me. Complete penetration of the body cavity, and stopping in the hide on the far side so all of the energy was dumped into the animal, and most importantly you recovered the animal. (But I think you know that already, your question was tongue-in-cheek).

 

[Article 4]

Sounds like optimum bullet performance to me. Complete penetration of the body cavity, and stopping in the hide on the far side so all of the energy was dumped into the animal, and most importantly you recovered the animal. (But I think you know that already, your question was tongue-in-cheek).

Had a well shot, double lung, waterbuck shot at 315 with a 185 grain copper bullet. The animal ran 300 yards into brush and died. Took us an hour to find it and I was lamenting the bullet performance thinking it was a failure it went that far. My African PH asked me “at what point during the animals death did the bullet fail?”

Kept that with me to remind me and keep me grounded when I get obsessive with this stuff sometimes.

 

[Packmansion]

So, what is the Max Effective Range for Elk: 7-08, 6.5C, and 308 ?? Asking for a friend...(The OP).

Select a bullet, determine the minimum velocity for expansion, run it in a ballistic calculator like Hornadys find the max range at which bullet will still expand.

 

[Jason Snyder]

But I think you know that already, your question was tongue-in-cheek

Very much.

Penetration all the way through depends on a number of things, and I don’t view it as an indicator of much. Hide is very elastic.

 

[Laelkhunter]

Select a bullet, determine the minimum velocity for expansion, run it in a ballistic calculator like Hornadys find the max range at which bullet will still expand.

Yes, I agree and have been following the last 9 pages of some pretty heated discussion. I just thought I would "take us back" to the original question posted by OP, and seems to have been lost somewhere in the settling dust of the 160 responses.

 

[Fujicon]

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!!!

Yes, it's interesting how so many gun forum discussions devolve into egotistical pissing contests. So much acute sensitivity out there. I don't know if that's a specific reflection of gun forums, or characteristic of online forums generally. Makes me wonder if math forums get into similar egotistical pissing contests...

 

[Packmansion]

Yes, I agree and have been following the last 9 pages of some pretty heated discussion. I just thought I would "take us back" to the original question posted by OP, and seems to have been lost somewhere in the settling dust of the 160 responses.

That's what the op needs to do The range of the 6.5 will be the best followed by 7mm08 then in dead last the 308. However the likelihood of someone shooting much past the 308s max range is unlikely. 308 is very versatile and people won't get mad at you for using it. I know plenty of people are dropping elk with 6?5 creedmore but I personally prefer something bigger, it's not scientific its all feeling based. Hunting is more psychological than anything so I don't want any doubt in what gun I'm using but I love the 6.5 creedmore it's probably one of the best cartridges to ever exist. I use a 300 win mag. If I could snap my fingers and have any gun I want it'd be a 7prc but I'm not quite there yet.

 

[JMasson]

I’ll give you a couple explanations.

One includes many experts who are misinterpreting newtons law talking about equal and opposite reactions. They’ll tell you it matters not in animals however when we look at jell targets, the internal wound channel of fast and energetic projectiles is massive because of the energy displacing the jell. That energy ruptures blood vessels, and blows organs open or what hunters call “a pile of mush”. A single bullet hole that does not contain any energy would not do more than poking a single hole in something. Does the hole cause death, sometimes. Take an APDST round from a tank.

We know from military testing that high speed rounds that do not expand penetrate armor very effectively and make a hole. That in itself does not kill a tank. The kinetic ENERGY it produces causes massive shrapnel and internal damage. Killing the people and causing everything in the tank to melt down and sometimes ignite. Testing was done in 113’s filled with sheep. Human and animals bodies are 70% water, the internal shock wave carrying the kinetic energy from the round caused massive damage without the bullet making a hole in each of the sheep. Dead sheep

Energy matters.

You can’t compare anti-armor munitions and their ability to pierce said armor and kill everything inside the vehicle to hunting ammunition. AT/AA rounds typically utilize some form of armor piercer, usually in the form of a shaped charge or spalling SLAP tip to kill the troops inside the vehicle. Sabot rounds from tanks are also hypersonic, so now we are talking about extreme velocity measured in thousands of meters per second. Anti-armor missiles use an explosive shaped charge to penetrate the armor. 25mm or 30mm rounds fired from an auto cannon will be shooting depleted uranium SLAP-T’s that spall on impact that gives them their killing capabilities, not kinetic energy. You are comparing apples to oranges.

 

[slowelk]

Rokslide is far too often an echo chamber in the past couple of years. I welcome the input of members like @Article 4.

I don't agree that bigger is better. People don't shoot enough and bigger cartridges aren't going to change that. Smaller calibers shot accurately with good bullets are going to kill more animals than larger cartridges that people don't shoot well.

Permanent damage to tissue, whether achieved by huge temporary->permanent stretch cavities created by larger calibers+cartridges or smaller, fragmenting bullets is what kill animals. Pick your flavor.

 

[Article 4]

Rokslide is far too often an echo chamber in the past couple of years. I welcome the input of members like @Article 4.

I don't agree that bigger is better. People don't shoot enough and bigger cartridges aren't going to change that. Smaller calibers shot accurately with good bullets are going to kill more animals than larger cartridges that people don't shoot well.

Permanent damage to tissue, whether achieved by huge temporary->permanent stretch cavities created by larger calibers+cartridges or smaller, fragmenting bullets is what kill animals. Pick your flavor.

Thanks @slowelk - open discussion breeds new ideas and helps break down myths and bias...mine included sometimes

Agree, shot placement matters no matter what the caliber. Ill take all 31 flavors if I can!!!!

 

[IDVortex]

Rokslide is far too often an echo chamber in the past couple of years. I welcome the input of members like @Article 4.

I don't agree that bigger is better. People don't shoot enough and bigger cartridges aren't going to change that. Smaller calibers shot accurately with good bullets are going to kill more animals than larger cartridges that people don't shoot well.

Permanent damage to tissue, whether achieved by huge temporary->permanent stretch cavities created by larger calibers+cartridges or smaller, fragmenting bullets is what kill animals. Pick your flavor.

The other thing with Article 4 is which I like, it makes one truly think as to why they use thr caliber that they do, versus just going with the flow. I may not agree on the larger caliber, but also doesn't make it wrong either.

 

[Article 4]

The other thing with Article 4 is which I like, it makes one truly think as to why they use thr caliber that they do, versus just going with the flow. I may not agree on the larger caliber, but also doesn't make it wrong either.

Appreciate that...
I remember a quote from a well known and ground breaking physicist. He said "You want to know what makes a great scientist? We all research something until we find enough evidence to prove ourself correct; the best researches then try to find enough evidence to prove themself wrong. In the end, one of the paths will lead to the right conclusion"

 

[Packmansion]

Appreciate that...
I remember a quote from a well known and ground breaking physicist. He said "You want to know what makes a great scientist? We all research something until we find enough evidence to prove ourself correct; the best researches then try to find enough evidence to prove themself wrong. In the end, one of the paths will lead to the right conclusion"

You should follow this guy's advice... You've been proven wrong. This doesn't even touch science this is like oil change level technical understanding... Read the manual.

 

[Packmansion]

A 30-06 with a 180 grain bullet will be traveling at 1598 fps when it has 1009 ftlb. This is below the minimum velocity for reliable expansion. Do not use 1000 ftlbs for determining max range. This is just one example. It's the incorrect tool. You need to pick a bullet appropriate for the quarry, then determine minimum velocity then get max range. We don't need research papers to demonstrate this. This isn't physics research this operations level math. The engineers already did the math.