Elk .243 or 25-06

[Indian Summer]

I wonder what "logic" the outfitter had for a 160 grain minimum?

I've killed around 40ish elk combined with a 7RM shooting 160 grain AB's and a 7-08 shooting 140 AB's...you can't show me a difference between the two in killing elk...no way, unless your forte' is picking fly manure out of the pepper.

I don’t doubt that for a minute Buzz. But think about what you are saying. You are saying that YOU were able to do that. You’re not just anyone. Guys asking about what gun to consider haven’t hunted for decades and shot 40 elk. But they’re not all scared to death of a little recoil either.

Want to know why an outfitter in the Bob wants more energy in his clients bullets? Because not all hunters can shoot like some of us. And wounding can vary from one end of the spectrum to the other. On one end you get a follow up shot. That can vary from on the spot shots to a hundred yards downhill where the critter finally fell to putting the animal out of it’s misery sometime the next day. And in the Bob that can mean your guide has to go see if the elk is still yours or it now belongs to a grizzly bear with a couple cubs and a bad attitude.

But there are outfitters nowhere near bears that do the same thing. If you think a guy who’s passion and livelihood is hunting doesn’t know anything about ballistics you’re not much of a realist. But it doesn’t matter. He’s seen the results of good and bad shot from every caliber of gun and different bullets out there. Not just what a particular bullet does mind you but what the majority of hunters are capable of doing with it.

All the numbers in the world aren’t as conclusive as what he’s seen with his own two eyes. He doesn’t want 4 guys to stomp all over hell’s half acre stinking the place up looking for an elk. If you ask him what gun you should bring he’ll ask about calibers and bullets and scopes but he’ll also tell you to bring the one you’re comfortable with. As long as it’s sufficient. And for anyone who says sarcastically he’ll push you to your limits because he wants you to kill an elk… what’s wrong with that? Isn’t that the goal? Isn’t that what you hired him to do?

No I’m not talking about pressuring you to shoot beyond your abilities. I’m talking more about making sure you have a setup that’s going to make your elk recoverable when you didn’t hit exactly where you wanted to because: You were huffing and puffing. You were hopped up on adrenaline. You didn’t have that good of a rest. You only had 1.5 seconds to shoulder your gun, find your target and make the shot. Because guys often times admit they barely shot their gun all year. The wind was blowing. Or….. the hunter just wasn’t that great of a shot to begin with. Just like deer elk get hit in the ass, in the lower jaw, spined etc.

To me if we’re on a hunting forum talking about guns we can’t just talk about them like we’re shooting into ballistic gel from a bench all calm cool and collected. We have to factor in real world chit! We have nothing better to do during the off season so let’s get the thousand opinions on what the most effective caliber, bullet, whatever is for killing and finding elk after shooting them anywhere except the vitals.

How about an elk that turned away at the exact moment the trigger broke and I hit him really far forward in the front shoulder and exited out the chest without entering the lung cavity or breaking a leg? I guess we don’t really have to talk about that stuff. But an outfitter has to think about it.

How about a hunter I had who talked about his new gun all year and after missing says “First time I shot this gun” What?! “Yeah I was busy so my brother in law sighted it in for me and said I was good to go”

I had a guy and his wife and young son book an elk hunt. Mom hung out. The guy said I have never hunted in my life but my son saw it on the internet and wants to try it. I asked another guy about his previous hunting experience. Pheasants. An outfitter just wants people to be prepared. And yes dead elk are better than telling a prospective client about the ones that got away.

There are new hunters reading this stuff. We all know most any gun can kill an elk if you put a quality bullet in the pump house. But I’m not comfortable with just suggesting light for purpose ones. I don’t suggest running out and buying a .300 Ultra Mag either. Instead go shoot a friends gun. See how you feel about them. Make an educated decision. Try to at least go with a middle of the road elk gun. If you’ve never shot a gun with a brake or suppressor you’d be very pleasantly surprised at how much they tame down any gun. It’s just common sense to me. No extremes. Middle of the road. I was a Cub Scout, a Boy Scout, and an outfitter and all three taught me to be prepared and that means hoping for the best but planning for the worst. That definitely applies to an elk gun. Ok good night 4:00 comes fast.

 

[mtblackdog]

110 accubonds are lethal in 25-06

 

[roosiebull]

I never claimed to be an expert and prefaced my comments as being my opinion. You do know that IMO means "in my opinion".

Congrats on the success with your .308 and 6.5. I've shot one elk (profile pic) with a 175gr Federal TA at 80 yards and it went less than 50 yards. Caliber size entry and about 3" diameter exit after liquifying both lungs and smashing through an offside rib. Bullet wasn't recovered. Regarding 6.5 vs. .308, that's been debated to death, and at the ranges I prefer to shoot (350 or less) elk don't know the difference.

I've bow hunted for more than 20 years, and I fully appreciate the value of shot placement. I've been shotgun and muzzleloader hunting for whitetails equally long and also understand the importance of bullet construction, especially in low velocity projectiles. As a result, shooting high powers has been a recent treat, and I did a lot of research on several calibers prior to building my .308. Look up some of Jeff Cooper's writings on the .308 and 7mm-08 and the utiliy of the scout rifle concept.

having experience archery hunting, and seeing how effective an arrow is, the puny .223 is so much more destructive than an arrow (penetrating deeper and making a far larger wound channel)

that's pretty much been what has kept me with an open mind on this subject, because i am more well versed on running arrows through critters.... in the past 10-12yrs i have also become a rifle hunter, and more so taking lots of people rifle hunting every year... most of them fairly green to hunting or shooting.

there is a lot to be said for modern bullets and light recoiling rifles (whether it's a smaller cartridge or a braked rifle) i have seen a good amount of elk die from a gunshot wound, a few with 12ga sabots, a few from various 30 cal magnums, 1 with a 338, but most have been with a 270, 7-08, or more recently the "gender bender" (6.5 creed) seeing how bad most guys shoot, for one reason, them being afraid of their rifle... about everyone who pulls the trigger with the safety on is ugly.... the smaller cartridges impress me more all of the time.

my wife shoots better than the vast majority of people i have been around shooting, and that's because she has never suffered behind a rifle, no reason to be afraid of them, she doesn't have the bad habits most do, and she has done well in the woods. the only elk i have seen live more than a few seconds were bad shots, the worst rodeo was with a 300wm out of all i have been a part of, and the only one that made it more than 50yds out of 50-60 elk.... only 1 other hit and not recovered, which was the first elk i have seen shot, and it was i believe a 150 coreloct out of a .308 that hit low in the scapula, dropped, and wasn't there a half hour later when we got to where it was.... they killed the same bull the next morning, out feeding with the herd... limping, but not sick or anything.

most get hit, stand there dazed a few seconds, maybe get shot again, or go to take a step, do the wobble dance and crash... almost every one that is shot through the lungs. last fall i took a 16yr old girl to kill her first elk... first shot with my creed was a little low, but got the bottom of both lungs and the liver was tore up as well... didn't go anywhere but i had her shoot again, now quartering to steep, bullet went throgh the chest, into the offside ham and totally blew up the femur and exited.... nothing like some of the shock and awe in the .223 thread, but i have certainly shifted my thinking a lot in the last several years.

i don't know why Form gets people's panties in such a bunch, he is lucky enough to get a ton of experience shooting, killing critters, and watching critters killed, and shares his detailed results, which is so freaking rare on the internet.... why does that ruffle the feathers of folks? how can you argue results?

people on the internet (and many in real life) will trust their feelings over detailed experience, it's crazy... poor shooting gets passed off as poor performance on the internet, calibers and cartridges lumped together which also doesn't make sense without discussing bullet choice, and feelings with zero experience get lumped into arguments.

 

[Zappaman]

The main message I read from ALL comments is that IF you have the resources AND cash to shoot a 223 to 450 yards- sure it'll work- and work well. But MOST average hunters can not do this.

I feel the missing message here is that this forum is not just putting out opinions, but also advice- to NEW hunters. I feel the 223 crowd has made some statements that seem rather absolute (i.e. energy doesn't correlate to terminal ballistics... when we know it does). Etc.

I feel that the 223 shooters HAVE made their point... and it's relevant to ANY forum where opinions (and facts) should be allowed-- even if they are not the same methods of hunting as other seasoned hunters (including myself) would make (or accept). We are ALL free to our opinion and with that I certainly accept the data brought forth by the 223 guys here as valid.

However, I feel they should (as MANY do here) state "the whole truth" and not claim "absolutes" based on what HAS worked for them... I think we can ALL agree you NEED the right gear AND experience to make longer shots with a 223, ethically. And I again do not say the 223 guys do not, but they might further explain some of the gear they MUST use to achieve these kills... I just say they might want to rethink the "message" they send out, and make some "disclaimers" pointed to the fact the gear and "expertise" (they DO have) needs to be in place to make a 450 yard shot on an elk with that bullet. I am NOT saying the bullet won't do the damage... I AM saying you have to PUT that bullet in the right spot to do it.

AND... with that, I am saying it's easier for the AVERAGE hunter with AVERAGE gear to make longer ethical shots with a larger caliber in this particular argument. And I feel (therefore) it is more ethical again to use more than a 223 at 450 yards on anything larger than a coyote. That is just my opinion... but it comes from EXPERIENCE.

Yes, I've seen the wound channels and I'm convinced 100% ANY bullet can kill with a good hit WITH good energy. AND... in the hands of SEASONED shooters WITH the correct (often expensive) gear it's 100% ok to go out and do it with a 223. But let's remember our obligation to FULLY inform the new hunters here of the REALITY of the needed experience AND gear to do what the 223 guys are doing. And let us ALL be humble in explaining these feats... no need for "bravado" (from either camp).

Side note: My own personal reason for not hunting elk with a 223 is that I prefer a non-frangible bullet. And yes, I must admit that using a mono (in some cases) isn't as effective as a frangible at any range too. But after hunting for meat for 45 years, I prefer a bonded bullet's way of killing without a baseball hole on the offside- whether done by a 77g or 200g bullet.

 

[sndmn11]

Because not all hunters can shoot like some of us. And wounding can vary from one end of the spectrum to the other.

He’s seen the results of good and bad shot from every caliber of gun and different bullets out there. Not just what a particular bullet does mind you but what the majority of hunters are capable of doing with it.

I’m not talking about pressuring you to shoot beyond your abilities. I’m talking more about making sure you have a setup that’s going to make your elk recoverable when you didn’t hit exactly where you wanted to

We have to factor in real world chit! We have nothing better to do during the off season so let’s get the thousand opinions on what the most effective caliber, bullet, whatever is for killing and finding elk after shooting them anywhere except the vitals.

There are new hunters reading this stuff. We all know most any gun can kill an elk if you put a quality bullet in the pump house.

With all that said, how far can a person miss the vitals by, but still kill? Does that distance the vitals are missed but still gets a pat on the back get bigger as the powder charge increases?

I think there is a bigger risk of falsely teaching new elk hunters that a magnum or big bore will do wonders on an elk, just in case, break those bones, shock em DRT, and they forget those vitals need poked still.

With the focus of this approach being hit the vitals with a proper bullet at a proper velocity, the new elk hunter is educated to do just that. No false premise of mystical confidence boosting bullet power.

So, genuinely, how much further can I miss vitals with a 300win vs 243win and still kill that elk?

 

[KurtR]

Last I checked gunsmiths bed a lot of stocks for guys, but hey, if my efforts to enhance the accuracy of my factory barrel and action by bedding and free floating my stock don’t meet your “build” criteria I’m not sorry.

I’m guessing that since their livelihood depends on hunters connecting and killing animals, and they’ve been in business for more than 30 years in the Bob, they have their reasons for a 160 grain min. I wasn’t going to argue about it. Regarding having a range, they expect guys to be able to shoot when they arrive. My bro and I checked our zeroes in Great Falls the day before our hunt.

You have had little experience with rifles but argue with guys with decades. With all that internet research you did should have found just to buy a tikka.

 

[backcountry_hunter]

With all that said, how far can a person miss the vitals by, but still kill? Does that distance the vitals are missed but still gets a pat on the back get bigger as the powder charge increases?

I think there is a bigger risk of falsely teaching new elk hunters that a magnum or big bore will do wonders on an elk, just in case, break those bones, shock em DRT, and they forget those vitals need poked still.

With the focus of this approach being hit the vitals with a proper bullet at a proper velocity, the new elk hunter is educated to do just that. No false premise of mystical confidence boosting bullet power.

So, genuinely, how much further can I miss vitals with a 300win vs 243win and still kill that elk?

I cannot fathom, outfitter or not, anyone recommending to another hunter that cannot shoot a small caliber well… to make up for the deficiency by bringing a larger one. Mind blown

 

[Trial153]

This Bowhunter thinks the elephant in the room is that if both make a sufficient wound channel to kill game yet one has added benefit of a higher percentage of hits( in the vitals) because of it attributes ( manners) one would be better off with the more forgiving set up. Especially with hunters propensity of sporting a healthy dose of Dunning-Kruger effect of their ability’s. Seems like they might be remiss if their focus isn’t on using a rifle/cartridge that they less likely to make a bad shot to begin with.

 

[sndmn11]

I cannot fathom, outfitter or not, anyone recommending to another hunter that cannot shoot a small caliber well… to make up for the deficiency by bringing a larger one. Mind blown

I think that's the reasoning behind "just in case".

 

[Zappaman]

The key difference between a larger caliber and smaller is point blank range (PBR)... and how it IS easier for a (cheaper) larger caliber rifle to maintain a longer PBR... thus needing less optic (and experience) for those further ranges.

Also, I've said it on this post several times, but I think it need repeating: WHO goes hunting (especially seasoned guys) WITH a range limit on their weapon? OK, you can make a shot on an elk at 450 with the 223... but what about 550? I can carry ONE gun only, and when elk hunting I'd LIKE my gun to be able to extend to whatever shot I want to make. And even IF I'm "dailing" would I try a 223 out to 600 yards? - no.

But, if I decided I WANT to limit my distance, AND that I want to take the proper gear (and learn how to use it- which takes some time and resources), can I use a 223? -yes.

My point is that I have dropped some elk past 450... not many, but when that was the shot I had and I knew my gun-- I took it (and I've not wounded an elk- all got hit and all dropped at ANY range). I think THIS is the problem many here have with the 223 idea. I also completely agree the big bore isn't "insurance" for the kill, but I do feel it DOES more damage on an off shot that a smaller caliber... and ONCE that bullet hits that elk, it's your ethical duty to finish the job.

It MIGHT be easier with a first bad "hit" from a larger bore (I believe this)-- especially at longer distance where energy is your friend. I've thankfully killed all my elk on the first bullet, but I've hunted with some guys who had to take several shots- chased them a mile a few times- but always got the elk (in my group anyway).

Bad shot placement is a toss-up, regardless of caliber. Some animals are tougher and run further. But if I had ONE gun to elk hunt with (in any case) I want MY gun to be able to hunt the field as far as I can shoot while not having to think (or dial) or pass on the shot because I just can't make myself take that longer shot with a smaller caliber.

 

[Sridge]

The 110 eldx is a deadly bullet. I also like the old 117 sierra game kings.

 

[sndmn11]

However, I feel they should (as MANY do here) state "the whole truth" and not claim "absolutes" based on what HAS worked for them... I think we can ALL agree you NEED the right gear AND experience to make longer shots with a 223, ethically. And I again do not say the 223 guys do not, but they might further explain some of the gear they MUST use to achieve these kills... I just say they might want to rethink the "message" they send out, and make some "disclaimers" pointed to the fact the gear and "expertise" (they DO have) needs to be in place to make a 450 yard shot on an elk with that bullet. I am NOT saying the bullet won't do the damage... I AM saying you have to PUT that bullet in the right spot to do it.

AND... with that, I am saying it's easier for the AVERAGE hunter with AVERAGE gear to make longer ethical shots with a larger caliber in this particular argument. And I feel (therefore) it is more ethical again to use more than a 223 at 450 yards on anything larger than a coyote. That is just my opinion... but it comes from EXPERIENCE.

There should be no reason a larger caliber is a crutch for shooting skill, I'm darned near certain the opposite is true.

There is no magical expertise that putting a small caliber bullet behind the crosshair takes, and is not needed with a large caliber bullet.

The message to new hunters of all game should be to learn where to put a projectile to kill their game, and then learn how to put that projectile there. Telling new hunters that a certain caliber/cartridge/rifle brand/scope/etc. can replace those two points is a disservice. None of those things can turn a 450yd bad shot into a good one, and make an unprepared shooter suddey "ethical".

 

[260madman]

The key difference between a larger caliber and smaller is point blank range (PBR)... and how it IS easier for a (cheaper) larger caliber rifle to maintain a longer PBR... thus needing less optic (and experience) for those further ranges.

Also, I've said it on this post several times, but I think it need repeating: WHO goes hunting (especially seasoned guys) WITH a range limit on their weapon? OK, you can make a shot on an elk at 450 with the 223... but what about 550? I can carry ONE gun only, and when elk hunting I'd LIKE my gun to be able to extend to whatever shot I want to make. And even IF I'm "dailing" would I try a 223 out to 600 yards? - no.

But, if I decided I WANT to limit my distance, AND that I want to take the proper gear (and learn how to use it- which takes some time and resources), can I use a 223? -yes.

My point is that I have dropped some elk past 450... not many, but when that was the shot I had and I knew my gun-- I took it (and I've not wounded an elk- all got hit and all dropped at ANY range). I think THIS is the problem many here have with the 223 idea. I also completely agree the big bore isn't "insurance" for the kill, but I do feel it DOES more damage on an off shot that a smaller caliber... and ONCE that bullet hits that elk, it's your ethical duty to finish the job.

It MIGHT be easier with a first bad "hit" from a larger bore (I believe this)-- especially at longer distance where energy is your friend. I've thankfully killed all my elk on the first bullet, but I've hunted with some guys who had to take several shots- chased them a mile a few times- but always got the elk (in my group anyway).

Bad shot placement is a toss-up, regardless of caliber. Some animals are tougher and run further. But if I had ONE gun to elk hunt with (in any case) I want MY gun to be able to hunt the field as far as I can shoot while not having to think (or dial) or pass on the shot because I just can't make myself take that longer shot with a smaller caliber.

 

[Backpack Hunter]

The key difference between a larger caliber and smaller is point blank range (PBR)... and how it IS easier for a (cheaper) larger caliber rifle to maintain a longer PBR... thus needing less optic (and experience) for those further ranges.

Also, I've said it on this post several times, but I think it need repeating: WHO goes hunting (especially seasoned guys) WITH a range limit on their weapon? OK, you can make a shot on an elk at 450 with the 223... but what about 550? I can carry ONE gun only, and when elk hunting I'd LIKE my gun to be able to extend to whatever shot I want to make. And even IF I'm "dailing" would I try a 223 out to 600 yards? - no.

But, if I decided I WANT to limit my distance, AND that I want to take the proper gear (and learn how to use it- which takes some time and resources), can I use a 223? -yes.

My point is that I have dropped some elk past 450... not many, but when that was the shot I had and I knew my gun-- I took it (and I've not wounded an elk- all got hit and all dropped at ANY range). I think THIS is the problem many here have with the 223 idea. I also completely agree the big bore isn't "insurance" for the kill, but I do feel it DOES more damage on an off shot that a smaller caliber... and ONCE that bullet hits that elk, it's your ethical duty to finish the job.

It MIGHT be easier with a first bad "hit" from a larger bore (I believe this)-- especially at longer distance where energy is your friend. I've thankfully killed all my elk on the first bullet, but I've hunted with some guys who had to take several shots- chased them a mile a few times- but always got the elk (in my group anyway).

Bad shot placement is a toss-up, regardless of caliber. Some animals are tougher and run further. But if I had ONE gun to elk hunt with (in any case) I want MY gun to be able to hunt the field as far as I can shoot while not having to think (or dial) or pass on the shot because I just can't make myself take that longer shot with a smaller caliber.

What caliber did you use to take an elk at or beyond 450 with PBR? How is a larger caliber cheaper? What is your PBR with your caliber of choice?

Esse quam videri

 

[Zappaman]

There should be no reason a larger caliber is a crutch for shooting skill, I'm darned near certain the opposite is true.

There is no magical expertise that putting a small caliber bullet behind the crosshair takes, and is not needed with a large caliber bullet.

The message to new hunters of all game should be to learn where to put a projectile to kill their game, and then learn how to put that projectile there. Telling new hunters that a certain caliber/cartridge/rifle brand/scope/etc. can replace those two points is a disservice. None of those things can turn a 450yd bad shot into a good one, and make an unprepared shooter suddey "ethical".

If you look at ballistics and energy... range matters as does the ability to shoot (whatever bullet) AT THAT RANGE (according to every shooting manual printed that I've seen, and backed up by the industry also).

There IS some "expertise" (no magic) required when dropping a 223 into a target at 450 yards as there is for a larger caliber too. But I'd wager you it's easier to do with the larger caliber- especially PAST 450 (or 300 for that matter).

We can agree on a bad miss... but a (larger than 223) bullet is going to have both energy and range where a 223 will not-- past a point. And that IS my point.

And we can ALSO agree, the massive magnums are VERY often NO better (in all arguments here except range). That said... I can shoot a 270 or Creedmoor with "easy" kick (I actually shoot a 6.5ai) and get the range and energy for a shot to 600 yards. I (personally) can't (and won't do that with a 223)... and yes, I've done it on paper and coyotes- plenty. But not elk at that range, not even to 300 yards. -nope.

 

[Zappaman]

What caliber did you use to take an elk at or beyond 450 with PBR? How is a larger caliber cheaper? What is your PBR with your caliber of choice?

Esse quam videri

None... as we know. But the flatter shooting gun (than a 223) is "easier" to put on target (given gun and gear) at 450.

Hey, it you want to take your $5000 tag with a 223... go ahead. If that's your plan I hope your gear keeps up with the longer ranges

 

[sndmn11]

If you look at ballistics and energy... range matters as does the ability to shoot (whatever bullet) AT THAT RANGE (according to every shooting manual printed that I've seen, and backed up by the industry also).

There IS some "expertise" (no magic) required when dropping a 223 into a target at 450 yards as there is for a larger caliber too. But I'd wager you it's easier to do with the larger caliber- especially PAST 450 (or 300 for that matter).

We can agree on a bad miss... but a (larger than 223) bullet is going to have both energy and range where a 223 will not-- past a point. And that IS my point.

How do "ballistics", range, and energy relate to precision and placing a bullet in the desired spot?

How does energy on paper translate into death?

Here be some charts

 

[Zappaman]

How do "ballistics", range, and energy relate to precision and placing a bullet in the desired spot?

How does energy on paper translate into death?

??? energy on paper ???

Man, I've put it out there already... read it or not. Argue more if you like. I've made the points I've made and again... if you want to take a 223 to shoot your elk, go ahead.

When the bull steps out at 600 yards, and your 223 is getting "dailed up" on your $1200 scope, I'll be next to you with my 260 and my Weaver... smiling.

 

[BuzzH]

None... as we know. But the flatter shooting gun (than a 223) is "easier" to put on target (given gun and gear) at 450.

Hey, it you want to take your $5000 tag with a 223... go ahead. If that's your plan I hope your gear keeps up with the longer ranges

Anybody care to talk about possibly learning how in the hell to actually hunt elk so you don't have to shoot 450 yards? The advice we SHOULD be giving new elk hunters are pointers in how to get within reasonable range of them.

Maybe that's the dead elephant in the room.

Learn to hunt, learn to shoot, and this arguing over what rifles works best on an elk shot in the guts, ass, or leg at 600 yards becomes meaningless.

 

[BuzzH]

??? energy on paper ???

Man, I've put it out there already... read it or not. Argue more if you like. I've made the points I've made and again... if you want to take a 223 to shoot your elk, go ahead.

When the bull steps out at 600 yards, and your 223 is getting "dailed up" on your $1200 scope, I'll be next to you with my 260 and my Weaver... smiling.

What is forcing anyone to shoot 600 yards? You can't stalk an elk? Pretty rare bird when you cant find a way to shave yardage...at least everywhere I've hunted elk.