Elk .243 or 25-06

[Formidilosus]

Form, I’m genuinely curious how you’re involved in 50 elk kills/year.

I don’t see fifty elk killed a year- or at least I haven’t yet. I am involved in ten to twenty a year, this year fourteen so far, and will probably add a few before it’s over. Between antelope, deer, bear, and elk; just pure hunting seasons, that’s closer to fifty a year. Sometimes more, sometimes a bit less.

 

[Squincher]

No, I'm saying the drill has no bearing on shooting in the field. I have described my results in the field with larger calibers, just as you describe your results with a smaller one. And I don't rely on arbitrary tests that must've been made up because somebody noticed people didn't practice which is the bottom line of that drill.

This is the crux of the entire argument. Unless one is willing to accept that larger, faster bullets identical to the smaller, slower bullets being discussed here cannot be shot accurately, the whole idea falls on it's ass.

 

[Formidilosus]

This is the crux of the entire argument. Unless one is willing to accept that larger, faster bullets identical to the smaller, slower bullets being discussed here cannot be shot accurately, the whole idea falls on it's ass.

Don’t accept it- shoot it and prove. It’s the reason I asked him to shoot it. It’s a known standard that correlates exceptionally well to general western hunting scenarios. Data not emotion.

To date, in hundreds of shooters that have shot it, not one person has scored as high or higher with magnums than with smaller rounds, even when shooting identical rifles with the same mechanical precision. The difference on average between 12-14 ft-lbs of recoil (6mm to 6.5 CM), and 20+ ft-lbs (30/06 and larger) is around 4 more misses per 20 shots on that drill. That also correlates with nearly identical percentages in hunting with those same people and those same rifles. The trend continues as recoil goes up or down.

 

[Indian Summer]

This is the crux of the entire argument. Unless one is willing to accept that larger, faster bullets identical to the smaller, slower bullets being discussed here cannot be shot accurately, the whole idea falls on it's ass.

Too simple. Or so a few of us thought.

 

[Formidilosus]

Too simple. Or so a few of us thought.

Will you please take 20 rounds from your 300 ultra and shoot the drill? That information would be beneficial. Just do it honestly and to the time and standards.

 

[Jimbee]

6mm Creedmoor, 1-7” factory T3 Lite contour. Bullet depends on what your are doing with it. What game are you hunting?

6 Creedmoor because of availability. I actually personally prefer the 6XC, but the two are identical in performance and the option for the CM make it win out as a general thing.

It would be a build with elk and deer in mind. What about 6mm GT? I see brass is available. Thanks

 

[MTWop]

i agree mostly, but there are very few people period who get to see the number of critters die as Form, and he documents very detailed results, which very few do regardless of how many critters killed. i have formed my life since i was very young to spend as much time as i possibly can in the woods, and have relatively seen a lot of stuff shot with firearms and bows, but my relative "a lot" isn't a lot by many standards..... i do agree for the vast majority of us, the data we collect shows what it shows, but the amount of data is not big enough to draw any hard conclusions. i have seen over 60 elk shot, and at least the same deer, with a wide variety of calibers and bullets, and almost 1/3 of them have been mine, which for elk have been with arrows, and the rest have been almost all rifle kills.... still not a big data set, certainly enough to form some fairly strong opinions on what works and what doesn't, and the tendencies of others behind a rifle in the woods.

our elk here are big animals, and it's very thick country... you don't get to watch a wounded elk run for a half mile, and even at that, i would never encourage someone to buy a big magnum to hunt elk (if they ask, they most likely shouldn't get a big magnum) i think the big powerhouse cartridges are an awesome tool, but i think they are a very specialized tool for a person who has spent a ton of time behind a rifle with a lot of experience, yet those who preach them will be quick to advise a new elk hunter they should get a magnum.... i think it's poor advise.

the new elk hunter likely has no business shooting elk in the mountains at extended ranges (where magnums shine) and they shouldn't have that false sense of confidence because they shoot a magnum.

Absolutely agree with you. I would never (and haven’t ever) recommend a magnum for any new (and most any shooters). But I also don’t recommend a 223 just because an elk can be killed with it. There are compromises on both ends and the sweet spot for most likely falls somewhere in between

 

[Formidilosus]

It would be a build with elk and deer in mind. What about 6mm GT? I see brass is available. Thanks

That’s a good cartridge. For the most part I am cartridge agnostic. I’m using the XC on this last one because the person that supplied the barrel and bullets prefers that one. Most of the prior ones were 243, 6CM, 6 BR varieties, etc. A good barrel fitted correctly whether prefit it a good smith, with a properly assembled rifle and functioning optics- they all shoot.

For bullets of what is available I have seen good performance from the Hornady 108gr ELD-M, and the 105hr HPBT if you prefer more penetration; the 95gr Sierra TMK, 95, 105, and 115gr Bergers, etc.

 

[Indian Summer]

Absolutely agree with you. I would never (and haven’t ever) recommend a magnum for any new (and most any shooters). But I also don’t recommend a 223 just because an elk can be killed with it. There are compromises on both ends and the sweet spot for most likely falls somewhere in between

I hardly have to type anymore! Thanks

 

[Jimbee]

That’s a good cartridge. For the most part I am cartridge agnostic. I’m using the XC on this last one because the person that supplied the barrel and bullets prefers that one. Most of the prior ones were 243, 6CM, 6 BR varieties, etc. A good barrel fitted correctly whether prefit it a good smith, with a properly assembled rifle and functioning optics- they all shoot.

For bullets of what is available I have seen good performance from the Hornady 108gr ELD-M, and the 105hr HPBT if you prefer more penetration; the 95gr Sierra TMK, 95, 105, and 115gr Bergers, etc.

That’s a good cartridge. For the most part I am cartridge agnostic. I’m using the XC on this last one because the person that supplied the barrel and bullets prefers that one. Most of the prior ones were 243, 6CM, 6 BR varieties, etc. A good barrel fitted correctly whether prefit it a good smith, with a properly assembled rifle and functioning optics- they all shoot.

For bullets of what is available I have seen good performance from the Hornady 108gr ELD-M, and the 105hr HPBT if you prefer more penetration; the 95gr Sierra TMK, 95, 105, and 115gr Bergers, etc.

Much appreciated

 

[Squincher]

Don’t accept it- shoot it and prove. It’s the reason I asked him to shoot it. It’s a known standard that correlates exceptionally well to general western hunting scenarios. Data not emotion.

To date, in hundreds of shooters that have shot it, not one person has scored as high or higher with magnums than with smaller rounds, even when shooting identical rifles with the same mechanical precision. The difference on average between 12-14 ft-lbs of recoil (6mm to 6.5 CM), and 20+ ft-lbs (30/06 and larger) is around 4 more misses per 20 shots on that drill. That also correlates with nearly identical percentages in hunting with those same people and those same rifles. The trend continues as recoil goes up or down.

First, you'll have to prove your test, that was invented by another "some guy on the internet," has any bearing on someone's ability to fire one aimed shot under hunting conditions. You claim to big on data, so show us the validation data for this exercise.

I mean, it would probably be fun to do, but I don't see where it equates to anything beyond punching paper since no one is ever going to fire that many shots at an animal.

 

[yycyak]

This is just my own anecdotal experience:

-- I'm a great shot off the bench. Itty-bitty groups. Very much a stud. Yay me.

-- I suck balls at this drill. You can see a few of my performances in that thread. It's savage how poorly I've done.

-- For some reason I always shoot the 223 better than it's 30-06 sister. (Same exact rifles, just two different cartridges.)

-- "You don't shoot that many shots at an animal." Yeah no kidding. If you read the drill guidelines, you'd understand that you're essentially taking two shots - One first shot, and then a follow up. You know, like you'd likely do in the field... You're just repeating that two-shot sequence a few different times in a few different positions, resulting in 20 shots fired by the end.

-- Time pressure absolutely correlates to field performance. If you can shoot well under time pressure, you'll typically shoot well in the field. Ask some military dudes, current or ex. Lots of studies to back this up.

It's like Yogi Berra said: "In theory there is no difference between theory and practice - in practice there is." I learned that the hard way - There's a reason Roksliders jokingly call that drill The Humbler....

First, you'll have to prove your test, that was invented by another "some guy on the internet," has any bearing on someone's ability to fire one aimed shot under hunting conditions. You claim to big on data, so show us the validation data for this exercise.

I mean, it would probably be fun to do, but I don't see where it equates to anything beyond punching paper since no one is ever going to fire that many shots at an animal.

 

[Indian Summer]

So if you want good placement you need a lighter gun? What about all that data with the addition of a brake??? And like Squincher mentioned… what about all those newer hunters…. the ones we give feedback to, lining up on the first elk they ever shot at? Real life hunting scenarios not data on paper or tests on flat ground with normal heart rates. Let me guess… that would mean even more misses.

I respect anyone who forms an opinion from actual experience. But I have plenty of my own and I don’t see a difference in accuracy with different guns all else being equal as long as the shooter was comfortable with his gun. I’ve never seen an elk just stand there after absorbing (your favorite word) energy from a rifle like the ones I’ve shot. I have personally seen them do that after being poked with a .243. So hopefully you understand where my philosophies come from too.

 

[Formidilosus]

First, you'll have to prove your test, that was invented by another "some guy on the internet," has any bearing on someone's ability to fire one aimed shot under hunting conditions. You claim to big on data, so show us the validation data for this exercise.

I mean, it would probably be fun to do, but I don't see where it equates to anything beyond punching paper since no one is ever going to fire that many shots at an animal.

You didn’t read the thread did you?

 

[Formidilosus]

So if you want good placement you need a lighter gun? What about all that data with the addition of a brake??? And like Squincher mentioned… what about all those newer hunters…. the ones we give feedback to, lining up on the first elk they ever shot at? Real life hunting scenarios not data on paper or tests on flat ground with normal heart rates. Let me guess… that would mean even more misses.

I respect anyone who forms an opinion from actual experience. But I have plenty of my own and I don’t see a difference in accuracy with different guns all else being equal as long as the shooter was comfortable with his gun. I’ve never seen an elk just stand there after absorbing (your favorite word) energy from a rifle like the ones I’ve shot. I have personally seen them do that after being poked with a .243. So hopefully you understand where my philosophies come from too.

So you won’t shoot a measly 20 rounds?

 

[Formidilosus]

Here’s why none of the “magnums are awesome” crowd will shoot it- because you fear what the results will be.
Shooting from realistic positions at vital sized targets representing 100-600’ish yards, with a “easy” time constraint has no bearing whatsoever…

 

[Squincher]

You didn’t read the thread did you?

That isn't how it works. You don't get to demand data from everyone who disagrees with you, then just pull a target exercise out of your ass and demand everyone else accept it as gospel. It should be a simple matter for data driven person like yourself to validate the correlation of your exercise to field shooting on game.

 

[Squincher]

Here’s why none of the “magnums are awesome” crowd will shoot it- because you fear what the results will be.
Shooting from realistic positions at vital sized targets representing 100-600’ish yards, with a “easy” time constraint has no bearing whatsoever…

I don't shoot any magnum cartridges for anything I hunt. This about is you putting your money where your mouth is. You just pronounce this exercise valid without any data because it sounds good in your head. Or because your theory is nonsense and every adult in normal physical condition can shoot a .270, .308, or .30-06 more than accurately enough to kill anything in North America.

 

[Formidilosus]

That isn't how it works. You don't get to demand data from everyone who disagrees with you, then just pull a target exercise out of your ass and demand everyone else accept it as gospel. It should be a simple matter for data driven person like yourself to validate the correlation of your exercise to field shooting on game.

I didn’t demand anything- I asked. It’s very simple- Shoot a 2 moa, 3 moa, 5 moa, and 7 moa target twice untimed. Then timed at 20 seconds. All over people talk about how they have to make shots within 5 seconds after seeming an animal, so 20 seconds should be easy.

To be clear- your saying that an off hand shot at a deers chest from 100-150 yards has no relevance? A sitting shot from 200’ish has no relevance? A sitting shot with a rest at 300’ish no relevance? And a 400-500 yard shot prone has no relevance to hunting?



How many hundreds of animals would it take for you? Would you believe it if I gave it?

 

[Formidilosus]

A partial list of animal opportunities this year,

1. coyote: 315- 420 yards. Sitting on top of pack, 26 seconds, timed out
2. Coyote, 270y prone, bipod, 21 seconds- killed
3. Coyote, 86y, 7 seconds, killed
4. Elk, 515, 45 seconds, prone, timed out
5. Elk, 608, prone, sub 20sec, timed out
6. Turkey, 266y, prone, 51 seconds, killed
7. Turkey, 278y, prone, 12 seconds, killed
8. Deer, 208, prone, 40 seconds, killed
9. Deer, 312y, prone, 18 seconds missed
10. Turkey, 168y, prone, 14 seconds, missed
11. Turkey, 175y, 9 seconds, missed
12. Deer, sitting on pack 318y, less then 15 seconds, timed out
13. Deer, 250-350y, multiple opportunities, sitting/kneeling on pack, timed out
14. Deer, 378y, prone, 18 second, killed
15. Deer, 402y, prone on pack, 7 seconds killed
16. Deer, 612y, prone, 24 seconds, killed
17. Elk, 640-680y, prone, 40’ish seconds, timed out
18. Elk, 850y, 45 seconds, prone, timed out
19. Elk, 910y, prone, 16 seconds, killed
20. Elk, 628y, prone, more than a minute, killed
21. Elk, 644y, prone, 8 seconds, killed
22. Elk, 994y, prone, 24 seconds, missed
23. Elk, 373y, sitting on pack, 11 seconds, killed
24. Elk, 373y, sitting on pack, 8 seconds, killed
25. Elk, 418y, prone, 20’ish seconds, timed out
26. Elk, 350’ish, prone, 5 seconds, killed
27. Elk, 287y, 5 seconds, prone, killed
28. Elk, 458y, prone, 6 seconds, killed
29. Elk, 490y, prone, 30’ish seconds, killed
30. Elk, 488y, prone, 30’ish seconds, missed
31. Elk, 550y, prone, 9 seconds, killed
32. Elk, 80’ish, standing offhand, 4’ish seconds, killed
33. Elk, 558y, prone, 17 seconds, killed
34. Elk, 560y, prone, 17 seconds, missed
35. Elk, 280y, prone, 13 seconds, killed
36. Elk, 970-980y, prone, rodeo of more than 40 minutes, killed

Every single animal that “timed out” (meaning the person ran out of time), was from people that averaged below 14-15 on the hunting rifle drill, and specifically struggles with the position that mimics the animal shot. Every animal but one that was killed, was by people that average between 15-19 on the hunting rifle drill. This year was slightly unique in that there were a lot of prone shots, most years around 60-70% of opportunities are from sitting or kneeling using a pack or hiking sticks as a rest. The average time for all shots available are between 10-20 seconds, or no rush at all.