Elk gun


PDA






Wedge
November 21, 2008, 09:57 AM
Yes..I know...this has been discussed to death.

Anyways, I handload, my friend's and I are discussing an Elk hunt in a couple years in Wyoming.

I have a Mosin Nagant M44 and a Garand. Obviously not Elk hunting rigs.

debate is:

Go with a .30-06 rifle, already set up for reloading. Probably perfectly adequate.

Go with a 7mm rem mag, ammo cost not an issue, very popular cartridge and super flat. Can always download if I wanted to use the gun for smaller game (deer, pigs). Are the ballistics that superior to a .30-06?

Go with a 300 Win Mag. Again, reloaded ammo so cost not an issue. Now starting to get where downloaded for smaller game is a problem. Are the ballistics that superior to a .30-06?

.338 Win Mag. Not sure how far this can be downloaded. If I went this route, I'd probably just buy a .243 for smaller game.

Opinions? Would like to hear real world examples from owners of these calibers.

If you enjoyed reading about "Elk gun" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Pipe Burn
November 21, 2008, 11:26 AM
Well how far are you going to be shooting? In western Oregon the typical shot is less than 200 meters. My .300 Savage will suffice in this range. Your M44 and Garand will do the job. In Wyoming I would bet that the shots could potetially be much longer in parts of the state. If you handload, I might go with .338 Winchester. The shell holder is the same as .30-06. You just need different dies. The caliber should do the job out at the longer ranges. Of course you can't go wrong with .300 Win mag.

eldon519
November 21, 2008, 11:35 AM
My co-worker successfully uses a .300 Weatherby Mag.

Pilot
November 21, 2008, 11:37 AM
Calibers like .30-06, .308 and 7MM-08 are all fine for Elk. Unless you really want to shoot very long distances, over 300 yards, thatis. Personally, I use 7MM-08 and it has been fine. Most of my shots are under 250 yards though.

Txhillbilly
November 21, 2008, 11:46 AM
30/06 is plenty enough gun for elk. You might get awfully tired toting around a Garand though. I hunt with a sporter A303 30/06 and a Ruger#1 300 Win Mag. The 30/06 will do just as good as the 300 in my opinion up to 300-400yrds.

Harve Curry
November 21, 2008, 11:53 AM
I was just looking at a 30-338 Weatherby, quite a cartridge and accurate. I don't know if I'd like the recoil though.

Wedge
November 21, 2008, 12:09 PM
Not using the Garand. Can't use heavy bullets and no optics on it. I can see well enough for a "hit" at a few hundred yards, but a "hit" is different from an 8"x8"

The Mosin is a good 100 yard gun, that's it.

Neither of those are being used for the hunt...shouldn't have mentioned them. Just in there to let you know that I'm used to shooting .30 Cal type firearms.

Elk gun will be a new platform and new glass.

Shots will be up to 400 yards.

Shawnee
November 21, 2008, 12:10 PM
Considering picking the rifle model first since you'll carry the rifle a lot more than shoot it. Then pick a good caliber in that rifle. The Remington model Seven comes in 7mm/08.

Good luck !
:cool:

Vern Humphrey
November 21, 2008, 12:12 PM
The shell holder is the same as .30-06. You just need different dies.

The shellholder for the .338 Mag is not the same as for the .30-06. The .338 Mag headsize is .532" and the .30-06 headsize is .473".

I recommend looking at your elk rifle as a system. Things like the scope, the recoil level and the overall weight are important. Both the M-N and the Garand are hard to scope properly and weight too much for mountain hunting.

I like the .30-06. It and the 7mm Mag are low-recoil rounds compared to the .300 WM and the .338 WM.

All-in-all, my first pick for elk would be the .30-06 and second choice would be 7mm Rem Mag. I would use heavier premium bullets (170 grains for 7mm, 180 grains for .30-06.)

MD_Willington
November 21, 2008, 12:20 PM
So what did all the GI's coming home use for Elk?

They didn't use those whizz-bang magnums or super shorts...

A Finn MN is a tack driver..
1903 works
M1 works
Russian MN works
8mm Mauser works
SMLE works <- my uncle and grandfather both took Elk and deer with a SMLE sporter.

7.5 Swiss seems pretty good too, 7.5x55 in 165gr BTSP, Norma 180 gr work.

Vern Humphrey
November 21, 2008, 12:37 PM
A scope is critical. Let me illustrate by what happened this morning. I was hunting white tails, and saw two does -- though 7X50 binoculars. In the deep woods and low light of early dawn, they were invisable to the naked eye, but I could have taken them with my scoped M70.

There was a buck (I think -- I just got a glimpse of him and am not sure if what I saw was antlers or ears.) I'll see if I can find him another day -- but I'll need a scope to take him.

Wedge
November 21, 2008, 12:38 PM
Thanks Vern, those were my thoughts as well. That is exactly the reason I will NOT be using a milsurp. Heavy, difficult to scope, terrible trigger, etc. Plus I would rather gouge out my eyes than sporterize a milsurp...

I was working from caliber first then platform. Probably end up being a Savage topped with Nikon/Leupold/Burris in a 3x9 magnification.

7mm Mag looks attractive as it is very flat shooting and .30-06 is attractive because I am already set up for reloading (Have dies and brass, but in reality those are very small costs compared to everything else).

The .300 WM and .338 WM are absolute beasts, and will require a heavier gun to make shooting enjoyable. Not sure what people have done for downloading them. Easier to download a big gun than push the envelope on a smaller one.

Leaning towards .30-06 or 7mm Mag.

edit to add: Just read your (Vern's) comment on a scope and I agree 100%. Other than the brush hunting I did with a slug gun, I would not go hunting without a scope. My eyes aren't good enough, this isn't paper, and I need to hit an 8x8 area every time.

gvnwst
November 21, 2008, 12:50 PM
I personally like the 7mm mag, but that is for LR shooting. On the other hand, someone i know just shot 2 deer with one shot out of his 30-06! Went through the lungs of one, and hit the spine of the other. One ran a few yards, the lung shot was DRT. With this in mind, i have no clue. You are set up for -06, but the mag will give you a excuse to get more equipment!:D

Water-Man
November 21, 2008, 12:58 PM
The 7mm mag. will out-perform the .30-06 for your application.

Ratshooter
November 21, 2008, 01:05 PM
I think it was Townsen Whelen who said "A 30-06 is never a mistake".

If your set up to reload for it thats what I would get. If you scrounge brass from the shooting range I think you will get 50 30-06 cases for every 7 mag case you see.

The trajectory difference between the two is not that much using similar weight bullets. At least not until you get past 400 yards.

I haven't shot many elk but I get the impression its more like hunting really big whitetails. They seem to favor lots of cover. Mine have all been close range shots, the longest 80 yards. I used an 8mm Mauser on that shot and the elk went 40 yards and was dead.

ZeBool
November 21, 2008, 01:06 PM
And the .300 Weatherby Mag will out perform both 7mm and .30-06 without being overkill. I would feel fine with any of those three.

CYANIDEGENOCIDE
November 21, 2008, 01:17 PM
I don't understand why 7mm is supposedly so flat shooting, I realize the 7mm has slighty better sectional density than a 30.06 but looking at midway's site

winchester power point
7mm 175 gr @ 2860
30.06 180 gr @ 2700

winchester power point
7mm 150 gr @ 3090
30.06 150 gr @ 2920

I just don't see a night and day difference, and i doubt the animal you shoot will either. My vote is .30-06 in 180-220 gr but I don't think the garand runs well at these pressures garand gurus chime in please.

skinewmexico
November 21, 2008, 01:56 PM
Whatever you choose, just remember - elk were hunted almost to extinction with 30-30s and less powerful rifles. A magnum is no substitute for shot placement and hunting ability, despite what the gun ads say.

Vern Humphrey
November 21, 2008, 02:03 PM
Yep, although elk hunting conditions are different nowadays. A good .30-06 or 7mm Mag with a good (not BIG, but good) scope is ideal.

Wedge
November 21, 2008, 02:07 PM
I'm not using a garand for hunting!

Ringtail
November 22, 2008, 02:50 PM
I had to think about this awhile before I posted. If the question is "which of the 4 cartridges is the best for elk?" the answer is simple; the .338 because it shoots a larger diameter, heavier bullet. I am assuming you are planning to hunt a big bull amd not a cow. Many people will say "I've killed plenty of Elk with a .270 (or some other smaller rifle)"'. However this does not answer the question "which is best?" This only answers the question "what will work most of the time under favorable circumstances?"

The question of what is the best elk rifle for you is more difficult to answer. Generally, I think you should carry the biggest rifle you can shoot accurately, and only you can decide what that rifle might be. For me the best rifle is the .30-06. I have shot .338s and have decided that I won't make the commitment to master the recoil, so I accept the limitations imposed by a lesser rifle. If possible shoot several rifles of different calibers from field positions. Choose the most powerful one you can master from prone, sitting and standing. And please consider the nature of elk, and the country they live in before you decide to take a long range shot. Elk are easy to wound and once they are charged up with adrenaline they can carry off a lot of lead for a very long distance in a short period of time.

Be a hunter, not just a shooter.

Vern Humphrey
November 22, 2008, 03:18 PM
Let me add, if you hunt elk where I hunt elk (Eagle County, Colorado), you don't want to follow that wounded elk where he will go. And you don't want to have to pack out several hundred pounds of elk from the spot where you finally find him.

Coal Dragger
November 22, 2008, 03:26 PM
Any of the cartridges listed will perform well on elk. If you can put up with the recoil the .338 Winchester will be the more capable round on an elk. With just about any 250 grain bullet you can launch out of a .338 you have a projectile with enough weight/energy to penetrate deeply into the animal from even less than ideal shot angles. Not that you shouldn't try to get the ideal broadside lung/heart shot when you can, but elk as mentioned stick pretty close to cover when they can and often present a quartering angle shot.

Now with all that said I don't really enjoy shooting .338's all that much from sporter weight rifles. I will freely admit that if I were to buy one I would go with a rifle offering a generous recoil pad on a fairly wide butt. I would also look for a medium contour to medium heavy contour barrel to help soak up a little recoil. In other words a rifle that won't be a real pleasure to carry. The other option would be to buy a rifle with a detachable muzzle break. Practice, load development, and sight in can be achieved with minimal pounding, then you can take the break off to hunt with (so you don't deafen yourself and your friends).

tblt
November 22, 2008, 03:40 PM
I would use a 300 win mag
I have a 7 mm mag but I hunt deer and hogs using 140 gr ballistic tip bullet.I would use it for elk if I went elk hunting but would go with around 165 gr bullet,If I was buying a gun for elk it would be a 300 win or a 338

Leanwolf
November 22, 2008, 04:01 PM
I've hunted and killed elk in Idaho, Colorado, Wyoming, and Montana. I've used .338 Win. Mag., .30-06, and .280 Rem.

I say....... Get a good .30-06 bolt action rifle and equip it with -- as Mr. Humphrey said -- a quality 'scope.

Fixed power?? 6x.

Variable?? 1 1/2x5, 2x7, 2x8, 3x9 (but no more powerful.)


Practice and practice some more from various shooting positions.

I favor Nosler Partition bullets, but there are plenty of good ones out there, today.

(BTW, my cousin who has lived out here in the West since 1964, has killed 22 bull elk with his pre-'64 Winchester 70 Featherweight in .308 Win. Never lost one, either. He is an excellent marksman.)

FWIW.

L.W.

jaholder1971
November 22, 2008, 04:05 PM
Buy a good quality .30/06 and lots of ammo.

Practice at home in all conditions, shooting prone, kneeling, sitting, standing and from a bunch of supported positions. Windy, raining, whenever. When you can consistently hit a paper plate from any position, in any wind, from 0 to 300 yards, you're ready for Elk.

Before you go, load or buy some 180 grain Partitions, zero your rifle and go.

Coal Dragger
November 22, 2008, 04:12 PM
^ Do the above and consistently practice every year in the above manner, and you'll be ready for just about any type of hunting no matter what rifle you are using or what quarry you are after.

woof
November 22, 2008, 04:26 PM
I think the mags are unnecessary for elk who will not know the difference. .30-06, 7mm-08, and no reason to overlook .308.

Vern Humphrey
November 22, 2008, 04:28 PM
My own elk rifle is Bigfoot Wallace, a custom '03 Springfield in .35 Brown-Whelen (the most radical form of the Whelen) With a 4X Leupold scope. While not a magnum, it drives a 225-grain Nosler PJ at 2800 fps. My backup rifle is Fionn MacCumhail, a pre-war Winchester Model 70 in .30-06, with a 3X9 scope.

shimniok
November 22, 2008, 05:37 PM
I tote around a 300 win mag here in CO which is the gun my friend used for several years hunting elk here. That's all I know.

Michael

woof
November 22, 2008, 06:00 PM
I wonder if there are any reliable data on the distance of the average elk kill? I've long heard that for whitetails it is well under 100 yds. I'll bet for elk it is no more than 200 yds. I haven't been on an elk hunt in many years. But I would think if you are planning one and spending big bucks on it, you can choose conditions where shorter range shots are obtainable.

I don't know that this is true for elk hunters, but I have seen myself that all too many whitetail hunters in the east have substituted big guns with big glass for their ability to "hunt," eg. get closer. This may explain why we are slightly amazed to hear that all those elk were taken long ago by .30-30s. How did they do that, when we need .300 or 7mm magnums? I guess they were better hunters but by gosh we have better technology!

Erik
November 22, 2008, 06:39 PM
"Go with a .30-06 rifle, already set up for reloading. Probably perfectly adequate. "

There's no "probably" about it. It is perfectly adequate.

Now, if you want something else, then by all means. We all understand, after all. But call it what it is, a want, not a need.

Shawnee
November 22, 2008, 07:58 PM
Besides the 7mm/08, the Remington Model Seven is also available in .308 and a couple other short .30 calibers.

So is the Ruger M77 RSI.

:cool:

Malachor
November 22, 2008, 10:41 PM
I think the .30-06 makes the most sense in your position. You're already setup for it, so you're familiar with the cartridge and have probably done a bit of shooting with it. Plus, given that the '06 is one of the most common cartridges of all time, you can find it anywhere in case you find yourself in need of it.

You can spend the money you would save from buying another setup on shooting more or going the extra mile on buying this elk rifle. I would personally top it with some Leupold glass in a relatively low, but adequate power because field of view is always very important. Make sure you find a good, comfortable sling too.

Blacksmoke
November 22, 2008, 10:58 PM
400 yards?

You ought to find a better guide and plan on getting in a little closer.

.30-06 is fine. A neighbor of mine uses a .270 to bring home a cow each year. In the mountains here (NM/CO border) shots under 200 yards are standard.

I have lugged a Remington 700 in .375 H&H up and down long enough to leave it home in favor of a sporterized '03-A3. My last shot was under 100 yards, which I missed becuase the giant cannon with its big variable scope which I carried was not sighted that short nor had I practiced at that range. All I did was part some hairs on the bulls back. If I had my '03-A3 with its peep sight at the time... Sometimes less is better.

moosehunt
November 22, 2008, 11:18 PM
Mr. Ringtail hit the nail pretty damn square! The .338 Win is arguably the most perfect of elk cartridges (I prefer 225 gr bullets), but one NEVER goes wrong with a .30-06. I'd much prefer a .300 Win over a 7mm Mag, in fact that would be one of my last choices for an elk rifle. Another to consider that is excellent for elk is the .325 WSM. If all you want it for is one elk hunt, then the .338 is a bit hard to justify, though I've used one for pronghorn, deer, etc. Suprising to a lot of people, and anyone who's used a .338 extensively will back this up, a .338 generally causes less meat loss than any of those mentioned, whether pronghorn or moose or anything in between. We all know that a .243 Win or a .30-30 will kill elk, and a .375 H&H is just dandy for wapiti, but best for elk--you can't hardly beat a .338 Win. (except for the .320 DGC that I created and have the only one of)!

Wedge
November 23, 2008, 12:51 AM
Thanks for the input guys.

I shoot 1000s of rounds a year, I'm not that concerned about my marksmanship. Wanted to hear the general consensus on what caliber would work well.

Sounds like a .30-06 shouldn't be an issue, either of the mags would work fine and even a .338 Win Mag would suffice. All could be downloaded for other duties if desired, all will kill an elk dead.

Basically...all comes down to what deals I can find when the time comes.

As far as glass I was looking at one of the Zeiss 3x9s, but that is a whole 'nuther thread.

moosehunt
November 23, 2008, 01:05 AM
Take it as you will, but I suggest a straight 6x over any variable.

RonE
November 23, 2008, 01:18 AM
I personally prefer the .300 Win Mag shooting a 180 gr bullet in excess of 3,000fps. That is what I prefer because it has lots of power and when sighted in an inch high at 100 yards, it is pretty good from 20 feet on out to 4-500 yards without much adjustment. If you know the range and the tajectory of the cartridge you are using, you only have to worry about hitting the target in a kill zone. Almost any center fire cartridge will do if shot placement is good and the range is close enough for penetration to a vital area.

I suppose if your ability to get close to the elk is not good and your marksmanship is not great, you could use a .50 BMG rifle or perhaps a 20mm cannon, just hit the elk almost anywhere and be ready to follow the blood.

For elk hunting I have found good, warm and waterproof boots to be the most important thing...I have been on hunts where elk were killed with cartridges ranging from .243 up through 8mm Rem Mag.

Tang419
November 23, 2008, 01:38 AM
I'll give another vote for the .300 Win Mag, but I'm bias. I havent got to take an Elk yet, but I hope to. I'm working up a load with some 200gr Gamekings just incase.

XD-40 Shooter
November 23, 2008, 01:42 AM
30-06 is plenty for Elk and if you keep your shots under 200 yards, then even the .308 will suffice.

Bigfoot
November 23, 2008, 01:51 AM
30-06, 300 WSM, 300 WM.

Not much to add here other than a thought about downloading the 300 like you mentioned. I was researching reduced recoil loads for the 300WSM tonight, I couldn't find anything for it but I did find this load at Reloadersnest for the 300 Win Mag. 41 grains of 4759 gave him 2660 fps with a 150, sounds like 308 recoil and trajectory to me. With loads like that for most of your hunting and using a thick recoil pad for when you shoot full power loads I don't see why a 300 WM or a 300WSM would have to be heavier than an 06.

Cucumber
November 23, 2008, 02:51 AM
The only gun fit to carry when hunting game is the Savage model 99; having said that, you'd better get the .308 Winchester :cool:. SORRY, I AM partial to the model 99's, and I do have one in a .308, but I choose to shoot within the means of both MY abilities and my rifle of choice.

As many have mentioned, nothing is more critical than shot placement to the vitals; the further your bullet gets from the heart, lungs, spine, brain, etc....the greater the chances of losing your Elk to the coyotes.

Another very critical point is to not push a rifle's capacity beyond it's limits; anything from a .270 130gr to a .30-06 165gr is more than adequate for Elk inside 300 yards providing you make a successful shot, but they simply lack the penetration at ranges much beyond that for an animal that could exceed 1000 pounds.

If you are certain that your conditions will require shots at 400+ yds, I would recommend nothing under a 7mm Rem Mag. In reality, the rifle I use for Elk in the "longer range" areas is a 300 Remington Ultra Mag in an A-bolt.

Another lesson that I learned while in the field is accurately estimating your shot distances. Four years ago, while hunting the North side of Mount Saint Helens for Roosevelt Elk with my WWII veteran hunting buddy Ken, we came upon a herd of roughly a dozen, including a few cow/calf pairs and two young bulls. The area was 3pt or better, so it was not our day to yield a kill, yet we did get something very valuable out of this venture. While on the hogback, looking across a ravine at the herd, I scoped each and every one of them and proudly stated to Ken that the herd was lucky that there was no legal bull, as I could easily hit each & every one of them, using the Alpine Fir as my rest. Two days earlier, I made a comment to him that I NEVER shoot beyond 300 yards simply because I am not that confident in my own abilities to risk a less-than-mortal wounding shot at a greater distance. After watching the herd lounge around for nearly an hour without a legal bull showing up, I pulled out a rangefinder that Ken's son-in-law loaned us, barely remembering that we had it in our midst. Much to my shock, the Elk were between 385 and 405 yards away! My estimation BEFORE pulling out the "proofreader" was 275 yards, and I actually thought that I was a pretty good judge of distance!! Talk about a dose of humble pie! Regardless, the humility of being off by more than 100 yards was easy enough to swallow, but it did make me realize that particular conditions in the elements and terrain can cause errors in judgement, hence, increasing the possiblity of an errant shot.

Bottom line, if you say 400 yds, unless you have a rangefinder, you may just as well be shooting 500, 550, etc. This is why the larger, longer range cartridges would be my suggestion. As I have said along with many others, shoot within the means of your rifle and your own abilities and you'll yield good results. Now get yourself that Savage 99 in a .308 and save me an elk Tenderloin :D! Happy Hunting.

35 Whelen
November 23, 2008, 02:53 AM
If you're set up to load the '06, then to me it would be a logical choice. If however, you're like me and you look for any excuse to reload a new cartridge, the choice is simple: 35 Whelen. Can be loaded with everything from lightweight lead 38 Special bullets for small game and plinking, right up to 310 gr. Woodleighs. I currently use the 225 gr. Barnes TSX at almost 2700 fps. We've also successfully used the 225 gr. Partition and the 250 gr. Speer. I could go on and on, but as they a say, a picture (or pictures) is/are worth a thousand words.
All killed with either mine or my Dad's Whelen:
http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h6/308Scout/Hunting/ElkHunt200436red.jpg

http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h6/308Scout/Hunting/ElkHunt200524-Small.jpg
http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h6/308Scout/Hunting/PostableElkHunt20042100.jpg
http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h6/308Scout/Hunting/Elkbullet1smallest.jpg
http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h6/308Scout/Hunting/P1010160.jpg
http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h6/308Scout/Hunting/PA060184.jpg

Good luck with your choice!
35W

Sunray
November 23, 2008, 03:20 AM
"...Can't use heavy bullets..." You don't need heavy bullets or a magnum, of any kind, for elk. 140 grain .270's have killed elk for eons. A 165 .30-06 will kill any game you care to hunt with no fuss.
A .30 calibre 165 grain hunting bullet out of an M1(or any .30-06 or .308. Both cartridges love that bullet weight) will not bother the rifle either. The rifle was designed to use .30 M1 ammo with its 174.5 grain bullet, not .30 M2 ammo's 152 grain bullet. Mind you, as mentioned, lugging an M1 isn't fun. You, your M1 and its load needs to be accurate enough to hit a 9" pie plate every time, off hand, at at least 100 yards.
Your eye sight is another issue. M1's definitely don't take scope mounts well.
Your M44 would do it too, but at closer range due to the barrel length and poor sights.
"...why the larger, longer range cartridges would be my suggestion..." They won't compensate for poor range estimations.

Pilot
November 23, 2008, 04:18 AM
Be a hunter, not just a shooter.

Truer words were never said. All those calibers are fine. If you come to Colorado to hunt Elk, get on a treadmill at high altitude. Caliber is secondary.

MountainWalk
November 23, 2008, 06:53 AM
I myself, love elk hunting roosevelts and rocky mountain elk with my 338 win mag. But as a elk hunting guide, I love it when a hunter uncases a 30-06 and loads it with 220 grainers. Pretty low tech, but my personal exp shows me that the 220's require less shots and shorter if any follow up than the 180's or 165's. The 220's penetrate game like a frieght train gone mad.

csd4682
November 23, 2008, 07:13 AM
I recomeend a 270 wsm, if you hand load you can use 160 grain bullet. The recoil is very acceptable. I just purchased a model seven in the 270 wsm. I am a small person 5'8 150lbs, and I would rather shoot this over my 12ga with buck shot any day. No matter what the caliber you choose, I highly recommend you take a look at the model seven. I honestly have never shot such a nice rifle. It is perfectly balanced, amazing 3lb trigger right out of the box. Worth checking out.

Wedge
November 23, 2008, 11:32 AM
Truer words were never said. All those calibers are fine. If you come to Colorado to hunt Elk, get on a treadmill at high altitude. Caliber is secondary.

Pilot, good suggestion. I am in pretty good shape (5'10",190lbs, 15% body fat) but not used to altitude.

The only time recoil bugged me was shooting 203gr bullets out of my M44 in a t-shirt from a bench...ouch! I would like to try the big boys, but will probably stick with what I know (.30-'06) unless I can justify other really big game hunts.

35Whelen, you know I'm always looking for excuses for more calibers :-) I'm always looking for an excuse for a new gun as well.

Pilot
November 23, 2008, 01:21 PM
but will probably stick with what I know (.30-'06) unless I can justify other really big game hunts.

Wedge. The .30-06 has killed more Elk than any other caliber. You will be fine. It is suitable for any game found in North America.

Wedge
November 23, 2008, 06:53 PM
Hey Pilot, thanks man! I was being a little tongue in cheek there with really big game hunts...as in not on North America.

I think there is some great advice in this thread, most of it being that we've had a pretty much perfect North American game cartridge for around 102, going on 103 years :-)

Have to say again that training at altitude is such a good idea too. I'm only at 550-600 feet as opposed to 6000-7000! I mean if it's good enough for our olypians to do it's good enough for me!

lefteyedom
November 24, 2008, 07:43 PM
Best real world Elk round of the lot is the 338 win mag.
Not wanting to be a snob but the very fact you are asking this question means that the BEST choice for you would be a 30.06 bolt action. This rifle with a 3X9X40 scope and a 22"-24" barrel, load up either 165 or 180 grain, zero in 4" high at 100 yards will do the job nicely. Practise till you can hit a 2 liter pop bottle out to 300 yards, not off of a bench but as you would find your self in the field.
This is all that you really need. A proper hit with an 30.06 will kill an Elk.
Gun scribes make their rent payments writing about 700 yard last day of the season, Boone and Crockett troph elk shots, taken at the last moment of legal light. Real world hunting is a little differant.
When it comes to ELK the shooting part is the easiest part.

moooose102
November 24, 2008, 10:31 PM
WHAT, YOU DON'T WANT TO USE A .223!?!?!
any of those listed would do a good job on elk. I AM SURE YOU COULD DOWN LOAD THE 338, BUT IT WOULD STILL BE PRETTY POTENT AT ANY DECENT VELOCITY. PERSONALLY, I SHOOT DEER WITH 300 MAG FACTORY LOADS. A BIT OVER KILL, BUT I DONT HAVE TO CHASE THEM! ONLY NEGATIVE THING I WOULD HAVE TO SAY ABOUT A 30-06 IS IF YOU HAVE TO SHOOT PAST 300 YARDS. OTHER THAN THAT, AN '06 IS A GREAT CALIBER. IF I WERE TO SELL ALL MY RIFLES, I WOULD REPLACE ALL OF THEM WITH A 30-06. THE ONLY REAL QUESTION, IS WHY DID IT TAKE ME 30 YEARS TO LEARN THAT! GEESH.

moooose102
November 24, 2008, 10:32 PM
sorry about the cap locks, i hit it by mistake sometimes.

Vern Humphrey
November 25, 2008, 10:13 AM
The .30-06, with a 250 yard zero, only gives up about 3 to 4 inches to the .300 WM at 400 yards.

Personally, I consider a shot at game at more than 400 yards to be a gamble, anyway. And that's being polite.

Cucumber
November 27, 2008, 02:29 PM
"They (larger, longer range calibers) won't compensate for poor range estimations."

No, not exactly....however, for example, a 180g bullet out of a 300 RUM has far less bullet drop @ 400+ yds than does a 180g 30-06, which does allow some compensation in it's accuracy.

Additionally, the point I was trying to make is that in the event you shoot at a target at 400+ yds, even hitting it accurately, the bullet energy of the larger cartridges is much greater than in a 140g .270 or a 180g 30-06.

Your point of poor range estimation is very true and well taken - even if I know my rifle's ranges @ 100y, 200, 300, etc, a misjudgement of 100y will likely yield a miss, or even worse..... a non-mortal wound.

H&Hhunter
November 27, 2008, 02:48 PM
Of all the choices given by the thread starter. You can't go wrong with any of them the 7MM being the absolute bottom of the list.

A 7MM IS NOT at all superior to a .30-06 ballistically or in kill department. It is basically a belted 06 in performance yet for some reason people that shoot them tend to think that they are some kind of a flat shooting death ray.

The 7MM offers such a tiny advantage in trajectory that it isn't worth mentioning and the benefits that are there are beyond the average hunters ability to use.

The 06 is a good choice the .338 is a great elk round as is the .300 win mag but the only one that offers any real world advantage over an 06 is the .338.

Vern Humphrey
November 27, 2008, 04:01 PM
No, not exactly....however, for example, a 180g bullet out of a 300 RUM has far less bullet drop @ 400+ yds than does a 180g 30-06, which does allow some compensation in it's accuracy.
Technically, "drop" refers to how far a bullet falls in a given distance.

When we sight in, we aim above the horizontal, so the bullet is travelling upward in the initial phase of it's trajectory, and falls back to the horizontal at the zeroed range, then continues to fall.

With this understanding, if we zero a .30-06 at 225 yards, and the .300 RUM at the same range, they are only about 6 inches apart at 400 yards -- an amount less than the average rifleman can hold from a field position.

BENELLIMONTE
November 27, 2008, 05:02 PM
The 338 Win. Mag with 250 grain Nosler Partitions is the cats meow for big bull elk here in Idaho. For cow elk or for those of you who have difficulty with recoil the 300 WSM, 30-06 or 270with Nosler Partitons is the way to go.

elktrout
November 28, 2008, 11:37 AM
The replies that recommend the biggest gun you can shoot accurately, topped with a quality scope, are worth strong consideration. A friend of mine has killed 38 elk since he was 19 years old and has worked as a guide for many years, witnessing many elk killed by clients. He has killed elk with 243s, 7mags, 300 mags, and even a 375 H&H. His personal recommendation is 300mags (for flatter trajectory and ability to buck the wind) and Nosler Partitions.

He claims there is a distinct difference in impact effect between the 30 and larger calibers and those less than 30 caliber, regardless of what the paper ballistics say. He shot a lot of elk with the 7mm and then switched to 300s and has never gone back since. His personal gun is a 300 Weatherby, which he saved for years to buy.

Elgin47
December 10, 2008, 12:24 AM
Unless you're hunting in country like this, then maybe not so much....


http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=88986&stc=1&d=1228882841

Meeteetse
December 10, 2008, 12:36 AM
Lots of years (45+) hunting Mule Deer and Elk in my home state of Wyoming. Half the time I used a 30/06 of some brand, shooting a 180 gr. bullet. The rest of the time I used a light weight bolt gun in .308. Both worked and I never failed to harvest game. I switched to the light weight rifle because it is easier to haul it up and down the mountains. Even the horses appreciated it.

Many of my shots have been around 100 yds, but many were beyond 200. I try to limit myself to 250 max. and work hard to keep shots close to 100 yds. In Wyoming that isn't always possible. I have never had a 30 caliber, 165-180 gr. bullet at 2700-2900 fps fail to take game. Personally I like a 2x7 scope, but I have used a 4x for years on some rifles. High power scopes don't replace good binoculars and don't make you a good shot at long distances. Get as close as you can.

If you are coming to the Rockies for Elk, it won't make any difference what gun you carry if you are not prepared for the altitude. I you don't control your heart rate and breathing you will never be able to make a shot.

warrior283
December 10, 2008, 04:00 AM
How much would it cost for one with the decent scope on it, i plan on going hunting next winter with my girl frinds dad when i get back from basic.

Please send me personal message with answer

Thanks
Warrior283

Temp430
December 10, 2008, 09:18 AM
I've taken several elk with a .30-06 and it is a GREAT all purpose caliber. However, if I was to buy a perfect elk gun, now days I think it would be a 300 Rem Ultra Mag with a Leupold 3.5-10x50mm. I have had several 500 - 600 yard opportunities at elk that I may have tried if I had a 300 RUM instead of a .30-06. Just don't forget to pack your ammo for your hunting trip. .300 RUM ammo might be a little hard to find in places like Chama, NM.

Elgin47
December 11, 2008, 12:16 AM
Thanks for reducing my image, Moderator - didn't mean to blow up the thread.

Well, heck - now it doesn't look like it was reduced - sorry, meant well....feel free to delete it if it's a problem.

35 Whelen
December 11, 2008, 12:30 AM
Lots of years (45+) hunting Mule Deer and Elk in my home state of Wyoming. Half the time I used a 30/06 of some brand, shooting a 180 gr. bullet. The rest of the time I used a light weight bolt gun in .308. Both worked and I never failed to harvest game. I switched to the light weight rifle because it is easier to haul it up and down the mountains. Even the horses appreciated it.

Many of my shots have been around 100 yds, but many were beyond 200. I try to limit myself to 250 max. and work hard to keep shots close to 100 yds. In Wyoming that isn't always possible. I have never had a 30 caliber, 165-180 gr. bullet at 2700-2900 fps fail to take game. Personally I like a 2x7 scope, but I have used a 4x for years on some rifles. High power scopes don't replace good binoculars and don't make you a good shot at long distances. Get as close as you can.

If you are coming to the Rockies for Elk, it won't make any difference what gun you carry if you are not prepared for the altitude. I you don't control your heart rate and breathing you will never be able to make a shot.

What a shame that wisdom such as above goes unnoticed.

35W

Ridgerunner665
December 11, 2008, 12:39 AM
Yep...I agree.

Shawnee
December 11, 2008, 12:40 AM
+1 for what Meeteetse said.

I don't know how a 9-lb. rifle can gain 20lbs. per hour but they can!

:cool:

MTMilitiaman
December 11, 2008, 02:32 AM
Okay, I have to go to work shortly, but this:

A 7MM IS NOT at all superior to a .30-06 ballistically or in kill department. It is basically a belted 06 in performance yet for some reason people that shoot them tend to think that they are some kind of a flat shooting death ray.

Is just a gigantic load of steaming bull-pucky.

While the differences between the 06 and the 7mm RM are small enough so as to not be noticed or appreciated for the majority of shots taken in the field, to say there is no difference is to equate a commercial Corvette with a stock car by simply noting both will get you from Point A to Point B.

The 7mm Rem Mag will shoot bullets of similar weight 100 to 200 fps faster than the 06 from the same length barrel, when both are loaded to their potential. So that 180 gr bullet you load to 2800 fps from a 24 inch barrel in your 06 is fine, but the 7mm can do about 3000 with a 175 gr bullet from the same length barrel. But so what? Big deal, right?

The difference comes from the fact the the majority of .284 caliber hunting bullets have higher BCs than .30 caliber bullets of similar weight and construction. This means they resist drag better. This means less velocity is lost, which aside from providing small gains in trajectory and wind drift, also has the benefit of increasing the range a hunter can shoot a game animal and expect the bullet to expand.

Most bullets suitable for elk require 1900 to 2100 fps to expand. So if the OP is can't get closer than 450 yards, the 7mm will provide usable benefits.

Ridgerunner665
December 11, 2008, 02:38 AM
I'm with you on the BC thing....but,

3000 fps with 175's from 7mm RM is a tad optimistic...I've loaded them to 2,900 fps (67.2 grains of RL25, IIRC)...and that was a Kreiger barrel.

EDITED TO ADD: And I ain't skeered when it comes to reloading...I'm careful, but I have no issues about pushing the limits...still have all my fingers too.

H&Hhunter
December 11, 2008, 11:18 AM
Alrighty then,

3000 fps with a 175gr bullet is more than a little optimistic it's dangerously overpressure. But even if you could get a 175gr 7MM to 3000 fps out of a R7MM. Do the math and tell me how much point blank range you've actually gained over a .30-06 with 180 gr bullet leaving the nozzle @ 2800 FPS.

I'll do the math for you with similar BC bullets you've gained.....Wait for it.....About 50 yards further point blank range.

But realistically at more earthly velocities with a 7MM I.E. a 175 @ 2800-2900 the gain is so small that it isn't worth mentioning.

I am not saying that a 7MM is a worthless elk round. Far from it, rather it simply is NOT the super long range death ray elk rifle that some try to make it out as.

It's got about the same effective range as an 06 give or take an inconsequential number they are both about the same power level when it comes to killing an elk. What the 30-06 lacks in velocity it makes up for in bullet weight and diameter.

Of course on paper with similar SD's the 7MM looks like a better killer. Field experience tells us otherwise.

If you really want to step up your effective range a killing power at longer range you need to step up in diameter and bullet weight. I.E. .338,.340 Weatherby ETC. Then you start getting out to ranges where without the right stuff on the back end of the rifle all that down range energy isn't doing you much good unless you got the stuff to use it.

bpl
December 11, 2008, 12:19 PM
Just wanted to throw out the idea that the equivalent bullet in 7mm to a 180gr .30cal with regard to BC and SD would be around 155-160gr, not 175gr. A 175gr 7mm bullet would be expected to penetrate more like a 200gr .30cal bullet, not a 180gr .30cal. Any thoughts on this?

austin360
December 11, 2008, 12:36 PM
300 WSM, 180 Grain Winchester ballistic tip.

.455_Hunter
December 11, 2008, 02:08 PM
I have had great luck on elk using an old .30-06 bolt gun (Rem 721) and an entry level 3-9x40 scope. Nothing fancy, or high dollar, but it puts meat in the freezer and antlers on the wall. My loads of choice are the factory 220 gr. RNSPs. Its amazing how effective bullets are that fall into the "classical" school of terminal ballistics- extremely high sectional density at moderate velocities. My last 5x6 bull was hit in the boiler room at 200 yds with a Federal Classic 220 gr RNSP. He went maybe 50-75 yards before dropping. I can't complain.:)

MTMilitiaman
December 11, 2008, 09:42 PM
Alrighty then,

3000 fps with a 175gr bullet is more than a little optimistic it's dangerously overpressure. But even if you could get a 175gr 7MM to 3000 fps out of a R7MM. Do the math and tell me how much point blank range you've actually gained over a .30-06 with 180 gr bullet leaving the nozzle @ 2800 FPS.

I'll do the math for you with similar BC bullets you've gained.....Wait for it.....About 50 yards further point blank range.


You're missing the whole point, and it is blatantly obvious.

Do you have any idea how difficult it is to find a 175 gr .284 bullet with a BC similar to a 180 gr .308 caliber bullet with the same style and construction?

The whole point is that the velocity advantage of the 7mm isn't all that great at the muzzle, but the larger average BC of its projectiles increases this advantage with range.

As mentioned, it's more fair to compare the .284 caliber 175 gr to a 200 or even 220 gr .308 caliber round in terms of ability to penetrate on game. And when you consider the velocity advantage the 7mm Rem Mag is going to have with a 175 gr bullet at 2900 (excuse me) fps as compared to the 200 or 220 gr out of an 06, the differences in trajectory become more appreciable.

Consider these SDs:

7mm 160 gr- .283
7mm 175 gr- .310
.30 cal 180 gr- .271
.30 cal 200 gr- .301
.338 cal 250 gr- .313

This means that in order to match the SD of the 175 gr 7mm, you have to go up to 220 gr .30 cal or skip .30 cal altogether and go with the 250 gr .338 caliber projectile. Either of these options has serious drawbacks when compared to the 7mm RM with the 175 gr bullet. The .30 cal with the 220 gr bullet isn't going to have near the trajectory of the 7mm round due to the fact that the vast majority of 220 gr .30 caliber hunting bullets are RN or semi-spitzers that lack both the BC and intial velocity of the 7mm RM/175 gr combo. And the .338 cal/250 gr combo is going to produce much more recoil.

Which brings us back to BC. Take the 175 gr .284 caliber Nosler Partition with a velocity of 2900 fps and a BC of .519 and compare it to the 180 gr .30 caliber Nosler Partition with a starting velocity of 2800 fps and a BC of .474. Heck, note even that the BC of the 175 gr .284 caliber Partition, flat base and all, is still appreciably higher than the 180 gr .30 caliber Nosler Ballistic Tip and Accubond projectiles, even with their polymer tips and boat tails. And of course, once again, that is the point--the BCs aren't similar. The velocities may be, but the BCs of most hunting bullets are, on average, very much in favor of the 7mm. So the velocity advantage it begins with is not the velocity advantage it ends with 400 yards downrange on the rib cage of a bull.

The only hunting bullet on the market that I have found that even really compares to the 7mm offerings are a couple of 200 gr spitzer boat tails, namely Sierra's 200 gr Gameking with a BC of .560 and Nosler's 200 gr Accubond with a BC of .588. And to really appreciate these bullets you have to step up to a .30 caliber magnum because the 06 isn't going to be able to push these bullets much past what, like 2500 to 2600 fps?

I don't have my external ballistics software here, so I am kind of handicapped in this debate. But run a .284 caliber 160 gr Nosler Accubond or 162 gr Hornady SST with a BC of .531 and .551 at 3000 fps (which I know to be possible because I have done it), and see how it compares with any .30 caliber load you want to run it against at .30-06 velocities.

I think that you'll find that a) you can't shrug off a 150 fps velocity advantage turning into a 300 fps velocity advantage by the time it gets downrange 400 to 500 yards and b) while not an earth shattering advantage in energy or trajectory, it can be appreciated and certainly, having that advantage at the expense of 5 to 10 grains more powder with virtually no increase in recoil is attractive. And again, on longer shots, velocity becomes crucial not only for its contribution to energy, but because it allows bullets to expand. Even if you have a .30 or .338 caliber magnum with a larger bullet driven at moderate velocities, any energy advantage these rounds produce is only going to be noticed if the rounds still have enough velocity when they get downrange to cause the bullet's to expand. Bullet manufactures often indicate this velocity threshold to be around 1900 fps. So if you have access to external ballistics software, compare the range at which the 7mm loaded with a 175 gr Nosler Partition at 2900 fps or a 160 gr Accubond at 3000 fps reaches this velocity threshold compared to your pet .30-06 hunting load, or even some of the .30 and .338 caliber magnum hunting loads on the market.

These, again, are advantages that aren't likely to be appreciable on the vast majority of hunting shots. But the OP has indicated the possibility of a 400 yard shot. While I am all for getting closer if it is possible, it is not always possible, and I am a firm believer that 400 and 500 yard shots on game by any reasonably competent marksmen should not be a problem. If it is within the OP's capabilities to take a 400 yard shot, and such a shot is a possibility, I think the advantages of a 7mm Rem Mag are appreciable.

James T Thomas
December 11, 2008, 10:02 PM
Please include the 220 grain 30-06 rounds in consideration.
They give a great SD of .331 and at the range being discussed, maintain good velocity too.

XD-40 Shooter
December 12, 2008, 12:20 AM
I just looked up the hunting reg's out here in Colorado, the minimum caliber for Elk in Colorado is......drum roll please.......243 Winchester with 100 grain bullets.:scrutiny::eek: I don't think I'd try to take an elk with a 243, but it would be legal. I think a 30-06 with 180 grain bullets is the ticket.

35 Whelen
December 12, 2008, 12:32 AM
Mr Militiaman, there are two things you don't consider in your ballistic hair-splitting:
1. Yes, the 7mm Mag. does shoot flatter than the 30-06, but then so does a 220 Swift, 257 Weatherby, and a 264 Winchester. The problem with each of these is that they have a smaller diameter bullet. Sorry, but in my experience, given similarly constructed bullets at similar velocities, the larger bullet ALWAYS does more damage. As one fellow said: "The smaller bullet might expand, but the larger bullet won't shrink."
And in this day of affordable rangefinders, what difference does it make if one caliber shoot's 3" or 13" flatter at 400 yds. than another? If you know the distance of the target, is it any more difficult to hold, say, 10" above the desired point of impact than it is 18"? I think not. Unless of course you're just trying to sell your favorite "flat-shooting" magnum.
2. Sectional density. Back "in the day", a bullet with a S.D. of around .270 +/- was considered about what you needed for elk. This included, among others, the .277" 150 gr., the .284" 160 gr. ,and the .308" 180 gr. In this day of super premium bullets, sectional density means far, far less than it did 30 years ago. As a perfect example, my father whacked a rather large bull with his 338-06 and a 210 gr. Barnes "X". Even though it possessed an S.D. of only .263, it completely penetrated the bull side-to-side. As an even more extreme case, he used my 35 Whelen and a Barnes 225 gr. TSX loafing along at 2660 fps to shoot a bull in the rear end and the bullet penetrated from the butt to the right front shoulder while possessing an S.D. of "only" .251.

So, if the new stout bullets are constructed such that they give such hyper-penetration, then the larger diameter bullet would be the better, wouldn't it? After all, it will give the same penetration as the smaller bullet and make a larger hole.

I find it humorous that people continue to jump up and down sqealing that their 7mm Mags. are the Alpha and Omega where elk cartridges are concerned, while folks like Meeteetse continue quietly knocking over bulls year after year with the 308's and 30-06's.
35W

Shawnee
December 12, 2008, 01:37 AM
I find it humorous that people continue to jump up and down squealing that their 30/06s are the Alpha and Omega where elk cartridges are concerned, while hundreds of other folks continue quietly knocking over bulls year after year with their .270s.

;)

jbech123
December 12, 2008, 03:09 PM
When it comes to ELK the shooting part is the easiest part.

The only correction I'd make to that is you could add "or deer" after ELK.

d2wing
December 12, 2008, 03:58 PM
Alot of good posts. I chose a 7mm Mag, and also shoot '06. Out to 300 yards I can't really tell any difference in results. Beyond that, use a rangefinder, good scope and a decent lightweight bolt action rifle. The hitch is how light versus recoil. I think if the Garand and Mosin are too heavy.
You are going to think about how bad you want to be punished. The bigger the cartridge of those choices, the greater the recoil. The lighter the rifle the easier it is too carry. A big deal Elk hunting. But the lighter it is the more recoil. Unfortunatly I have reached the age where I don't want to carry a gun or 6.5 pounds very far, or have a big whack on my recently repaired shoulder. I guess transportation has a bearing, horseback, atv, on foot?
Good luck.

The Bushmaster
December 12, 2008, 04:06 PM
Any quality .30-06 using a quality 165 to 220 grain soft point...

H&Hhunter
December 13, 2008, 09:39 PM
MTM,

I have been reloading and killing elk for over 25 years. In fact the reason it's taken me so long to reply is that I was trying to fill my second elk tag of the year the last couple of days. I fully understand SD, BC and all that stuff. thank you for the lesson but I've been there and done that. And even with all of your ballistic gyrations which by the way if you shoot an Interbond, an Accubond, A Barnes or a Swift Sirocco you get over .500 BC in a 180 gr .308 bullet. The differences are so minute as to be inconsequential. I am not telling you what you should or shouldn't shoot only that if you want to step up your elk killing ability at 400 yards the 7MM ain't the answer. If you want more kill on big critters kick up your diameter and bullet weight. Or better yet don't shoot at stuff at a range where you aren't sure of a clean kill.

I am sick and tired of hearing about and watching guys wound elk at too long a range because they are sold on the 7MM/you name it flat shooting "magnum" myth. Is the 7MM capable of killing elk at 500 yards of course it is but most of the ding bats who try it aren't.

.35 Whelen has got it pretty well figured out in my opinion I completely agree with his last post.

MTMilitiaman
December 13, 2008, 10:21 PM
1. Yes, the 7mm Mag. does shoot flatter than the 30-06, but then so does a 220 Swift, 257 Weatherby, and a 264 Winchester. The problem with each of these is that they have a smaller diameter bullet. Sorry, but in my experience, given similarly constructed bullets at similar velocities, the larger bullet ALWAYS does more damage. As one fellow said: "The smaller bullet might expand, but the larger bullet won't shrink."
And in this day of affordable rangefinders, what difference does it make if one caliber shoot's 3" or 13" flatter at 400 yds. than another? If you know the distance of the target, is it any more difficult to hold, say, 10" above the desired point of impact than it is 18"? I think not. Unless of course you're just trying to sell your favorite "flat-shooting" magnum.

If you actually believed this, you'd be shooting a .72 caliber lead round ball out of a musket or a .729 caliber Brenneke out of a 12 gauge. You aren't so obviously there is a limit in the effect diameter has on killing power as opposed to the usefulness of its trajectory and external ballistics.

2. Sectional density. Back "in the day", a bullet with a S.D. of around .270 +/- was considered about what you needed for elk. This included, among others, the .277" 150 gr., the .284" 160 gr. ,and the .308" 180 gr. In this day of super premium bullets, sectional density means far, far less than it did 30 years ago. As a perfect example, my father whacked a rather large bull with his 338-06 and a 210 gr. Barnes "X". Even though it possessed an S.D. of only .263, it completely penetrated the bull side-to-side. As an even more extreme case, he used my 35 Whelen and a Barnes 225 gr. TSX loafing along at 2660 fps to shoot a bull in the rear end and the bullet penetrated from the butt to the right front shoulder while possessing an S.D. of "only" .251.

And a friend of the family has recounted shooting a large bull nearly end to end with a 175 gr 7mm Rem Mag.

It should be obvious to everyone that dead is dead and I was under the impression that we all agreed the cartridge you use doesn't make a lick of difference for the vast majority of shots taken in the field.

My point is that while dozens of cartridges overlap in performance and capabilities at close and moderate distances, some are clearly superior for given situations. As an all around Western big game rifle where extended ranges are a possibility, the 7mm Rem Mag is among the better choices and I believe clearly superior to the .35 Whelen or the .30-06. Likewise, at close to moderate distances, I believe the Whelen probably has an advantage over the 7mm. Both are certainly more than capable of doing the job at either range, but both are better at certain ranges than the other. All I am doing is suggesting that if 400 yard shots on game are a possibility, the 7mm RM will probably better serve the OP than the .30-06 or the .35 Whelen.

I find it curious that such a simple and to me, obvious suggestion could warrant such a response from some who are apparently pretty defensive and insecure about their choices.

35 Whelen
December 13, 2008, 10:54 PM
My point is that while dozens of cartridges overlap in performance and capabilities at close and moderate distances, some are clearly superior for given situations. As an all around Western big game rifle where extended ranges are a possibility, the 7mm Rem Mag is among the better choices and I believe clearly superior to the .35 Whelen or the .30-06. Likewise, at close to moderate distances, I believe the Whelen probably has an advantage over the 7mm. Both are certainly more than capable of doing the job at either range, but both are better at certain ranges than the other. All I am doing is suggesting that if 400 yard shots on game are a possibility, the 7mm RM will probably better serve the OP than the .30-06 or the .35 Whelen.

So, in summary, you're saying that the larger calibers are OK at short range, but when the range becomes extended, better grab a smaller caliber.:confused:

Again, the ONLY advantage the 7mm RM would have over the '06 or 35 Whelen would be slighter flatter trajectory. And as I said...who cares? I have a rangefinder and trajectory chart taped to my buttstock, so flat trajectory is no longer an issue.
If you're trying to tell me that for some reason a .28 caliber bullet kills better at 400+ yards than a .30 or .35 caliber bullet of similar construction, then I'm thinking you might a few French Fries short of a Happy Meal!

Regards,
35W

Shawnee
December 13, 2008, 11:11 PM
LOLOLOL :D:D:D


.35 Whelen - are you yanking MTM's chain for the heck of it or for the fun of it ?

What MTM has said is that, due to B.C. and MV, the 175-grainer from the 7Mag will pull away significantly from any .30 or .338 slug out there around 400yds. - and (as you know), he is correct.

He has said that since it has an SD equal to (or in excess of) the bigger .30 and .338 slugs - it's velocity advantage will make it capable of both better penetration and better expansion and (as you know), he is correct.

Because of the above, he has said that at the end of the day, the 7mag is superior to the .30 & .338 calibers as a long-distance herbivore-swatter and, given the above, that is a thoroughly valid conclusion.


Now - how significant is that superiority?

I have a feeling local opinions are going to vary a bit on that one.


:D

XD-40 Shooter
December 14, 2008, 12:13 AM
A co-worker of mine took a 900 lb bull elk last year, with a 300 win mag and 200 grain Nosler Partition's. I certainly would not try to take a 900 lb bull with a 270.:p My opinion, the 300 win mag is a very good long range Elk caliber, 300 yards +.

H&Hhunter
December 14, 2008, 01:15 AM
What MTM has said is that, due to B.C. and MV, the 175-grainer from the 7Mag will pull away significantly from any .30 or .338 slug out there around 400yds. - and (as you know), he is correct.

:confused::confused::confused:

Shawnee,

Surley you didn't mean "ANY" .30 or .338 slug? A .340 Weatherby or .338 RUM or a .300 Weatherby or a .300 Dakota or a .300 RUM or any other number of bug .30 mags will launch bullets of equal or higher SD than a 7MM 175 gr bullet at higher velocities at higher SD remain super sonic longer and have more frontal area and weight when they get to their intended target.

Point being once again after upwards of 30 elk killed in my lifetime I don't find that I need any of this super velocity high BC lazerbeam crud. My longest ever kill on an elk was at 443 lazed yards with a .375H&H shooting a low B.C. 285 gr Speer Grand Slam it went just forward of the last rib on the on side and exited the point of the off shoulder on a rear quartering bull elk. It about knowing how to shoot with what you've got in your hands. Get comfortable with your rifle and know how to shoot it.

It's also about know your limitations and knowing how to get closer if you need to and when to pass on a shot. The vast majority of my elk kills have been at under 200 yards. I see these idiots banging away at elk cross canyon at 600 + yards and it just makes me want to puke. I know a few guys who can do it, who have the ability and the equipment to pull it off but they are few and far between.

The most important factor to long range shooting is precise range measurement. Caliber is secondary to that given an adequate caliber and an adequate bullet and an adequate shooter.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
MTM

I find it curious that such a simple and to me, obvious suggestion could warrant such a response from some who are apparently pretty defensive and insecure about their choices.

I don't find anybody here insecure in their choices. Where are you getting that from?

35 Whelen
December 14, 2008, 01:19 AM
.35 Whelen - are you yanking MTM's chain for the heck of it or for the fun of it ?

I'm not trying to yank anyones chain. This ballistic drivel is a classic example of someone spending too much time sitting on the toilet thumbing through reloading manuals, comparing ballistics charts instead of 1) Thinking, and 2) Leaving the computer and actually shooting stuff.

I understand exactly what MTM is saying. But sectional density and a high ballistic coefficient aren't the end all when it comes to defining bullet performance. And to say a little 7mm bullet kills better at long range than a .30 or .338 bullet of similar construction is outright laughable. Both of you are in effect saying that a 7mm bullet will kill better at long range than it will at short range. If BC, SD, BS, retained velocity, etc. were all that mattered, then the 7mm RM would be a death ray at close ranges. Right? After all, velocity would be higher, and expansion would be "better" (?) as you stated.

One thing neither of you have considered is momentum. Huh?!?!? Wait! That's not in the back of the Hornady manual!! What does that have to do with anything????

It's the reason that a .58 caliber round ball will outpenetrate a .50 caliber round ball. (All round balls, regardless of caliber, have very, very similar sectional densities) Why do you think elephant hunters used to use humongous rifles firing large lead balls? I mean after all, if a ball from an 8 bore rifle has a similar sectional density to a ball from a .45 caliber rifle, they should penetrate the same, right? WRONG. Think momentum. Think mass.
Heavier bullets penetrate further. I can prove this by walking a little ways out to my 100 yd. range. My .35 caliber 225 gr. TSX's penetrate further into the backstop than my Dad's .388 caliber 210 gr. TSX's.

This ridiculous arguement is akin to the old "9mm is a better stopper than a 45ACP because of its higher velocity."

35W

Ridgerunner665
December 14, 2008, 01:31 AM
Whelen,
I don't think they are trying to say that the 7mm bullets kill better at long range than they do at short range.

They are saying that the 7mm bullets ballistically outperform the 30 cal. bullets...and they are right, its a proven scientific fact.

I'm a 30 cal. person myself (and I also carry a 45 acp)...but facts are facts. The 7mm bullets have more retained velocity at long range than the bigger ones. Sure...the bigger bullets have enough velocity most of the time to do the job...but it does not discount the benefits of the 6.5 and 7mm bullets.

If you want a 338 cal. bullet to outperform the 7mm bullets...it has to weigh 250 grains and be driven to 3,000 fps (338 Lapua Magnum)

Shawnee
December 14, 2008, 01:38 AM
Aw C'Mon, 35 - you're rearranging MTM's words... and anyway...

think about this....

Suppose you make a fist and hit one of those large hanging punching bags that boxers use and you hit it as hard as you can. Your fist will put a dent in it of some depth - that is the amount of penetration.

Now suppose you use only 2/3 your strength to jab the bag with an ice pick. You don't really think the ice pick will penetrate the bag less than your fist did, do you ? Of course not.

Yes - most people know about momentum - and inertia as well.

Which had more momentum - your fist or the ice pick ?

Your fist, of course, because you were driving it with 100% of your strength and used only 66.6% to drive the ice pick.

But the ice pick still penetrated farther even though it had less momentum.


:)

35 Whelen
December 14, 2008, 01:51 AM
Whelen,
I don't think they are trying to say that the 7mm bullets kill better at long range than they do at short range.

No, they're not trying to say that, but their reasoning says it. You guys are all hung up on "ballistic performance", which does not kill anything. Holes through vital organs kill things and the larger the hole, the more damage is wrought, the more blood is lost and the quicjer the animal dies.

If you want a 338 cal. bullet to outperform the 7mm bullets...it has to weigh 250 grains and be driven to 3,000 fps (338 Lapua Magnum)

No offense, but that statement is ludicrous. Again, you guys are all hung up on paper ballistics. From what you're telling us, velocity alone determines how well a bullet kills.


Suppose you make a fist and hit one of those large hanging punching bags that boxers use and you hit it as hard as you can. Your fist will put a dent in it of some depth - that is the amount of penetration.

Now suppose you use only 2/3 your strength to jab the bag with an ice pick. You don't really think the ice pick will penetrate the bag less than your fist did, do you ? Of course not.

Yes - most people know about momentum - and inertia as well.

Which had more momentum - your fist or the ice pick ?

Your fist, of course, because you were driving it with 100% of your strength and used only 66.6% to drive the ice pick.

But the ice pick still penetrated farther even though it had less momentum.
:banghead:
Interesting physics lesson there. ROFL That'll just about do it for me.

You guys go out and actually shoot some game. And by the way, you might want to get in touch with all the Alaskan guides who carry 45-70's loaded with 400 gr.(S.D.= about .270) bullets and tell them that all those bears and moose they killed weren't really dead because the bullets they used were too slow and their sectional density was too low. Tell them they'd better switch to a 7mm RM with a 175 gr. bullet.

35W

Shawnee
December 14, 2008, 01:55 AM
ROTFLMAO ! :D:D:D:D


Personally, I think they should switch to the 87gr. BTHP .243.


:D


Look on the bright side, 35 - as insane as the nitpicking gets among gunnies - we still can't even hold a candle to a bunch of Thoroughbred Race handicappers trying decide on a tri-fecta.

:D

Ridgerunner665
December 14, 2008, 02:03 AM
Now dang it...I never said the bigger bullets don't do the job...and I have shot probably close to 100 deer, at least 30 bears, and quite a few hogs(maybe more, maybe less)...several of those as far away as 800 yards (<<<thats why I'm hung up on ballistic performance...its makes those shots a bit easier).

This discussion is about range and accuracy with sufficient power...no matter how powerful a round is, if you miss the target...it ain't gonna die.

A lot of scopes don't have enough adjustment to "dial in" 500 yards with a 45-70 (<<<another one of my favorites BTW)...sure, it can kill the animal at that distance...but if you miss the range estimation by more than a few feet...you missed.

I see what you are saying now though...and here is my take on it...the bigger bullets will penetrate and kill at long range, but the smaller diameter bullets are not as far behind their performance at long range as they are at short range.

Did that make sense???:)

I love a "civil" debate...


EDITED TO ADD: I hate to leave a good discussion...but if I'm going hunting in the morning, I gotta get some sleep...I'll pick this up tomorrow.

oregonhunter
December 14, 2008, 05:30 AM
Shawnee knows elk hunting, he teaches hunters safety.:rolleyes:

Oddbod
December 14, 2008, 09:36 AM
I'm a fan of the 300WSM

150gr Barnes TSX @ 3200+ fps out of a rifle that's light enough to carry all day & recoil that doesn't beat you to death.
3-10x40 scope.
Good for shots out to 600yds.

woof
December 14, 2008, 09:42 AM
One possibility would be to make the elk read this whole thread and die of boredom.

Wedge
December 14, 2008, 10:03 AM
So how do I unsubscribe from a thread I started?

H&Hhunter
December 14, 2008, 11:21 AM
I've now seen some really incredible "scientific facts" on this thread.

They are saying that the 7mm bullets ballistically outperform the 30 cal. bullets...and they are right, its a proven scientific fact.


Wow.........

This is why I can't stand 7MM fanatics in general. You are now telling me that a .308 or a .338 projectile of equal SD and BC are scientifically proven to be less effective than an equal 7MM projectile?

There is simply no point in continuing a conversation with this kind of "logic" floating around.

Art Eatman
December 14, 2008, 01:10 PM
My problem with all this is that when something is laying there all dead and ruint from a .243 or an '06, how is a whizbang maggie gonna make it any deader?

I figure that part of one's homework is learning the trajectory of whatever is your pet elk-shooter, and how to judge the wind and the ensuing drift. If you do that, most anything that has a muzzle velocity of around 2,700 or 2,800 or more, and a bullet weight around 150 grains, mas o menos, is gonna do Bad Things to Mr. Elk at any reasonable distance. Sure, faster and heavier might mean better reliability on some shots, but the amount of "better" doesn't equate to "necessary".

I'm assuming the usual "correct shot placement", of course. :D

Really, if folks could shoot half as well as they can talk, a danged .25-20 would probably work. :D:D:D

Meeteetse
December 14, 2008, 02:02 PM
This entire conversation has been interesting, but as I said before, after 40+ years of hunting in big country there is no substitute for good shooting. Range finders and lasers are fine, but they don't pull the trigger.

I doubt if most of us are truly qualified or skilled enough to be taking shots beyond 250-400 yards regardless of the capabilities of our equipment. I've seen the results of poor shooting all to often to know that caliber is not "the" most important consideration. I would rather hunt with someone who knows their limitations regardless of caliber.

woof
December 14, 2008, 02:25 PM
Meeteese, Oh c'mon. I'll bet most of these guys, if you just gave them a bench and some sandbags and maybe a broadside elk that just stands there, could make pretty fair shot placement. f you talk to anyone who checks deer at a check station they will tell you they come in with holes all over them. The sad fact is, the majority of hunters these days just blaze away and don't give a crap.

Ridgerunner665
December 14, 2008, 03:02 PM
H&H,

You took that wrong...I was referring to bullets of the same weight...and the 7mm's will have higher BC's.

I am not a 7mm fan...of all the rifles I own (and there's plenty of them)...none of them are 7mm.

I have owned a few 7mm's in the past (7x61, 7mm RM, 280 to name a few), but I have always found my way back the 308 Winchester...always.

berettashotgun
December 14, 2008, 04:24 PM
Interesting fact I learned this spring;
While at a benchrest shoot, balloons @ 100 - 250 - 400 - 500 yards : 4 -4" balloons at each range.
BENCHREST guns (did I emphasize benchrest enough?)
I think there were 40 "riflemen" pluggung away, 18 rounds on 16 targets.
Bench gun( and some NICE ones ) and wonderful rests.
ZERO perfect scores -zilch - nada.
I guessed about a 15mph gusting wind.
Now we are conversing about hitting an 8" target @ 400 yards?:banghead:
I personally shoot a 7mm remmy mag.- at deer.
I don't (haven't yet) get the lottery draw for an Elk here in God's country/ Soonerland, whichever.:neener:
I used a 270 and 280 and 300 and 243 and 25-06 AT deer, but shoot the rifle better - the one chambered in rem 7mm, the best - so, I use that rifle.
IF I somehow got to go Elk hunting, I think I'd get the most caliber and dia I could ACCURATELY shoot , but 250 in 338 sounds about just right for me.

MTMilitiaman
December 14, 2008, 09:43 PM
Well excuse the hell out of me for trying to get beyond purely anecdotal evidence.

Obviously, anyone who has ever hunted their entire lives uses a .35 Whelen or all they've done is spent their lives futilely combing loading manuals. Dang them loading manuals anyways. What do the bullet manufactures know about the bullets they produce? I am sure none of them ever hunt...

Okay, I can't keep it up. It just sounds too ridiculous.

I have seen an entire garage in Deerlodge, MT filled with over 40 elk racks taken by a good friend of the family and his son, and every one of them was taken with a 140 gr PSP CoreLokt from a 7mm Rem Mag.

A dude my dad works with has used 175 gr CoreLokt and Speer GrandSlams to take elk and moose his entire life as well. Obviously, they should stop eating elk steak and reading loading manuals, and get to the obvious fact that they have been mislead by their success and would be better off with a .35 Whelen. Everybody everywhere who hunts anything would be better off with the .35 Whelen. It is the Hammer of Thor, and unstoppable quadruped killing force of doom. Did I miss anything?

Federal loads a 160 gr Accubond at 2900 fps from a 24 inch barrel. That is about 100 fps slower than even a novice handloader can get that projectile out of that barrel length from a 7mm Rem Mag, but so what, right? At 400 yards with a 200 yard zero, you're looking at about 20 inches of drop, 1777 fpe, and 2237 fps.

They only have one load for the .35 Whelen, a 225 gr Trophy Bonded at a muzzle velocity of 2600 fps. At 400 yards with a 200 yard zero, it drops just over 30 inches and retains 1690 fps for 1428 fpe.

Momentum? Let's talk momentum, without forgetting that velocity is still half of it.

At that range, the .35 Whelen produces 1.68 ft/lbs per second of momentum. The 7mm Rem Mag produces 1.58 ft/lbs per second.

Not only that, but the .35 Whelen is well below the velocity threshold for expansion of that projectile, while the 7mm Rem Mag is still several hundred fps above its velocity threshold. Maybe if you had read the manuals more, you'd realize that contrary to your esteemed opinion, the people who actually make these bullets design them to perform within certain velocity limits, which the .35 Whelen has far exceeded at 400 yards. So while the 7mm Rem Mag projectile is still performing as advertised, demonstrating the expansion and weight retention it was designed to produce, the .35 Whelen is not. The 160 gr Accubond only has to expand about 25% of its original diameter to be the same diameter as the .358 caliber projectile, which it will do easily, while still exhibiting excellent penetration. And lets not forget that the 7mm Rem Mag also has more energy at this range, which is only important because it, unlike the .35 Whelen, still possess enough velocity to expand and use this energy to damage vital tissues.

So you're saying it is worth it to give up an advantage in SD as well as downrange velocity, energy, trajectory, and wind drift in order to gain little more than a .1 ft/lbs per second advantage in momentum? And I am the one being the illogical fanatic? Please!

I haven't even began to drink my Kool Aid compared to you guys.

Now, it is possible to get .30 and .338 caliber projectiles to shoot as flat as the 7mm Rem Mag, but doing so usually involves a great deal more recoil, which not everyone wants to deal with, esp when you expend hundreds of rounds a year as I do practicing to actually make those 400 yard shots.

35 Whelen
December 14, 2008, 09:58 PM
More ballistic drivel...S.D....B.C....retained velocity....theory....40 racks....too much recoil....momentum....


YAWN...

I'm gonna turn in. I'm going hunting for a couple of days and with a non-belted cartridge no less. Hope the bullets don't bounce off....

MTMilitiaman
December 14, 2008, 10:31 PM
YAWN...

More ignoring the voice of reason...mines better than yours...nevermind what physics says...hunting...mines better than yours...

Again, too bad you had nothing intelligent to say. What's this, not even going to bring up momentum again? Too bad, an intelligent conversation without relying completely on anecdotal evidence everyone seems to have in abundance but can't substantiate or contribute to a conversation with would have been refreshing.

What state are you in that still has hunting season going in mid-December?

publiuss
December 14, 2008, 10:32 PM
I would use the .338WM for elk (but I already have one) The .30-06 is plenty, I would use a 165gr. Barnes-X. Oh, and the 7mag is not better than the '06 for anything.

H&Hhunter
December 14, 2008, 11:01 PM
MTM,
What state are you in that still has hunting season going in mid-December?

Right underneath my call sign it says Colorado, USA. That could otherwise be known as a clue..;)

We have a special season late season in the North Western part of the state it is a cow only hunt and it is along the winter migration path of one of the worlds largest natural elk migrations, over 20,000 head of elk. They pass through from Southern Wyoming and extreme Northern Colorado on their way to their wintering grounds in Utah.

It is conducted in units 3-301-11 and several others and it is a draw only hunt which I was lucky enough to draw this year.

MTM you keep referencing other peoples use of the 7MM and their elk killed with it. How many have you killed with your 7MM?

You say nobody can contribute but I wrote earlier that I've killed upwards of 30 head of elk. What part of that is a non contribution to this thread. What part of that is anecdotal? Lack of experience in your book possibly? Before you go questioning my credibility you might want to ask around a bit on this site about who I am and my ability to contribute to hunting conversation.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ridgerunner,

I figured that is what the deal was. Sorry if I twisted your words the wrong way.;)

MTMilitiaman
December 15, 2008, 12:22 AM
Right underneath my call sign it says Colorado, USA. That could otherwise be known as a clue..


I wasn't even replying to you. That could otherwise be known as a clue.

The correct answer would be Texas, and it was a rhetorical question.

That is all, class is dismissed.

XD-40 Shooter
December 15, 2008, 12:34 AM
Just shoot a 338 win mag with 250 grain hornady heavy magnums and call it a day, lol.:neener: That ought to put any elk flat on his ass, with a good shot.

Shawnee
December 15, 2008, 09:23 AM
I am sick and tired of hearing about and watching guys wound elk at too long a range because they are sold on the 7MM/you name it flat shooting "magnum" myth. Is the 7MM capable of killing elk at 500 yards of course it is but most of the ding bats who try it aren't.

Long distance wounding of elk by slob hunters is NOT limited to the users of "new-fangled magnums". One heck of a lot of wasted elk (and deer) can be laid straight down on the doorsteps of the "30/06-will-kill-it-no-matter-where-you-hit-it" crowd - the same braindead bunch of "ding-bats" who bad-mouth at every other caliber in Christiandom. Slamming the 7mag and its' users because it is a "magnum" is no different than 7mag users taking shots they "don't have in their bag" because their barrel says "magnum.


Before you go questioning my credibility you might want to ask around a bit on this site about who I am and my ability to contribute to hunting conversation

Practice what you preach. I've read your posts and haven't seen any hesitation on your part to question/challenge the credibilty of others. As for your ability to "contribute to hunting conversation" - it seems just fine to me. In fact, I make it a point to read your posts.
As for "who you are" - I don't know and don't particularly care. But telling someone to "ask around a bit on this site about who I am" sure smacks of someone I'd like to buy for what he's worth and sell for what he thinks he's worth.

As for: "How many have you killed with your 7MM?"

It doesn't matter one darn bit how many MTM has killed with his 7mag, or even IF he has killed ANY, or IF he even has a 7mag. And it doesn't matter how many you've killed either. The bare-faced fact is any elk you can drop with the .30-or-larger caliber of your choice - MTM can drop with a 7mag. And if he can't, I can. So think twice before you start that "counting the notches on your gun" garbage again.

:cool:

Golden Hound
December 15, 2008, 09:34 AM
All I can say after reading this thread is, I'm glad I'm not an elk. With this much planning and analysis dedicated to elk assassination, it must really suck hard to be one of those things.

woof
December 15, 2008, 09:37 AM
Bad hunters and poor shooters can screw up with anything. Good hunters and skilled shooters can make clean kills with anything. Almost everyone is in between and out of respect for the game should use plenty of gun but even moreso - underestimate rather than overestimate their ability and pass on shots that deep down they know are too long.

H&Hhunter
December 15, 2008, 01:18 PM
What state are you in that still has hunting season going in mid-December?

Sorry MTM, I assumed you were replying to me as I am the one who posted that I was out hunting in December. As far as I can see nobody else had made that statement.

My Apologies sir.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Before you go questioning my credibility you might want to ask around a bit on this site about who I am and my ability to contribute to hunting conversation


Shawnee,

That did not come out as I intended. What I meant was that if you go back and check the record I have been a straight up and honest member of this site since it started and on the old TFL site prior to that. If I've posted nonfactual information it wasn't intentional. Opinions are what they are but I don't weave tall tales. If I say I've done it, I've done it.

And that comment was in reply to this one from MTM,

Particularly the last part. Apparently he wasn't even replying to me so the whole thing is out of context.

Too bad, an intelligent conversation without relying completely on anecdotal evidence everyone seems to have in abundance but can't substantiate or contribute to a conversation with would have been refreshing.

What state are you in that still has hunting season going in mid-December?

My question to MTM is still valid however in his above post he states that we are relying on anecdotal evidence but can't substantiate our argument.

I say bull pucky..I am an experienced elk hunter and hunting guide I've been there, I've shot elk cross canyon and up close and places between those two. It's rare that I don't kill at least one elk and many years I fill both of my tags and sometimes I even get one out of state killing three in a season. I know what works for me I've seen lots of elk killed and some wounded and I've developed some pretty strong notions on what works and what doesn't. So what part of that is "anecdotal"?

The 7MM is fine elk cartridge when used within it's limitations. it simply doesn't have the stuff to qualify it as a long range elk cartridge and my personal experiences have shown that to be true. Neither is a .30-06 my point is being taken out of context NEITHER round is a true long range elk round. So to my way of thinking why go to all the bother of the 7MM when you are simply not gaining that much over a standard non magnum like a .270 or an 06.


My question to MTM still stands how many elk have you killed with your 7MM? And that is not meant as a dig or slight in any way I am simply curious to see what your personal experiences with the 7 mag on elk have been.

gralewaj
September 25, 2009, 02:30 AM
Just going to add my 2 cents here to an old post because I am going elk hunting next week.

Ballistic coefficients, flat trajectories and super sonic speed are great at the range and on paper while large caliber, heavy hitting and "slow moving" bullets are what knock animals DOWN! I have been shooting .35 cal rifles since I was 13. I have been "conditioned" to believe that bigger bullets are better at knocking stuff over, period.

For elk, I shoot .350 Rem Mag from a Rem 673 because the rifle looks cool! And it knocks them down... Period.

.35 Whelen, keep shootin' from the hip!

Ridgerunner665
September 25, 2009, 04:50 AM
For elk, I shoot .350 Rem Mag from a Rem 673 because the rifle looks cool! And it knocks them down... Period.

Yep...that'll knock the socks off of anything within its range, and I do mean ANYTHING.

I have a 673 too, nice rifle (also have a 600 and a 660)

gralewaj
September 25, 2009, 04:58 AM
My Rem 600 is a .243 and it's actually "hers." I'm in the market for 600 rifles in 6mm and .350 RM if I can find them affordable.

Ridgerunner665
September 25, 2009, 11:48 AM
if I can find them

Good luck...

Dr.Rob
September 26, 2009, 01:16 AM
If hunters spent as much time on woodcraft as they did on arguing which bullet/caliber was best there would be far more dead elk every season.

My dad has killed almost all of his elk within 50 yards with a pump action Remington 760 in 30-06. That doesn't mean it's the best rifle, or cartridge, but it does say something about his woodcraft.

If you enjoyed reading about "Elk gun" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!