From the ballistics manual:
"The 210 grain Nosler Partition was designed for use on Elk sized game and at .340 velocities, kills can be spectacular out to moderate ranges on mid to larger bodied deer. Maximum effective range for this load in rifles with suitable long range optics is around 675 yards however shot placement is critical at this range and can be difficult to achieve relative to wind drift. To this end, an effective range of around 450 yards can be more realistic."
I’m not quite sure how this turned into a ballistics thread, or an “I’m right and you are wrong” thread, but I’ll play along while the laundry dries.
The components of making a kill on a game animal are; shot placement, bullet velocity, bullet construction, and bullet weight. I think most people can agree on that, so I’ll move forward with the discussion from there with that assumption.
Further, I’ll assume that the 210 grain Nosler Partition moving at 2125 feet per second at the target, producing over 2100 foot pounds of energy would be considered acceptable by any ethical elk hunter as a lethal combination.
So that leaves shot placement. If a person can effectively shoot at any given range under field conditions, with a rifle and load capable of meeting the above criteria for mass, sectional density, construction, expansion, etc, why would a sentence in a book make that suddenly unethical?
Your ( I’m guessing here) .270 with a 3100 fps 130 grainer carries less energy than this at 165 yards.
So, if a person can make the shot, wants to make the shot, and has the equipment to do it, a sentence in a manual that is one man’s opinion, has squat to do with ethics or lethality.
Cheers
