44 MAGNUM for Elk

Seems to me like all us internet experts should be asking the OP how dead a .44 Mag kills elk, then the other way around.

After all, he is the one eating elk steaks, and elk chili.
Not the rest of us internet experts who think, in theory, it is too small for elk!

How many westerners do you think fed themselves & their families on elk & deer 100 years ago with a 38-40 WCF or 44-40 WCF lever gun with half as much power??

Like somebody already said, if you know how to hunt and get close enough for trajectory not to play into it?

A .44 Mag carbine is every bit as effective as a 30-30 Winchester or .300 Savage.

And those rifles have killed enough elk over the last 100 years to sink a pretty good sized ship.

rc

 

I personally wouldn't use it, I prefer a flatter shooting round that I can use at a longer range because of the area I hunt.

If I was hunting the thick stuff and darker timber a 44 lever gun would be a great rifle and I wouldn't hesitate to use it under 100 yds.

 

I also would bump the weight up to a 270gr sp and load to max or buy from BB or DT for a hotter round. It not hard to push a 270gr to right at 1950 to 2000fps from a 18" barrel.

 

I like the pistol and blackpowder comparisons. They put using the .44 Mag from a rifle in perspective. Of course it is addequate.

 

I know there seems to be some flaws with this reasoning, but there are flaws with every school of thought on this subject. I think it's generally helpful.

I typically use momentum (mass x velocity) to compare the capabilities of various cartridges and loads. For example, a 240-grain bullet fired from a carbine should be giving you at least 1500 feet/second. That gives you 360,000. A 150-grain .30-30 traveling at 2400 feet/second also gives you 360,000. Theoretically, then, they should penetrate about the same.
This is hardly cut-and-dry, however, since the .44 loses gas much quicker than the .30-30. I'm sure there are other factors, too, that are escaping me at the moment.

What else gives about 360,000 of momentum?

.44 mag..................240-grain, 1500 feet/second, 360,000
.30-30 win..............150-grain, 2400 feet/second, 360,000
.240 wby mag..........100-grain, 3400 feet/second, 340,000
.25-06 rem..............120-grain, 3000 feet/second, 360,000
.257 roberts +P........120-grain, 2900 feet/second, 348,000
.257 wby mag..........100-grain, 3600 feet/second, 360,000
.260 rem.................120-grain, 2950 feet/second, 354,000
.35 rem...................150-grain, 2300 feet/second, 345,000
.38-55 win...............255-grain, 1320 feet/second, 344,250
6.5 creedmoor..........120-grain, 3050 feet/second, 366,000
6.5x284 norma..........130-grain, 2900 feet/second, 377,000
6.5 swede................140-grain, 2600 feet/second, 357,000
7mm-08 rem.............120-grain, 3100 feet/second, 372,000
7x57 mauser.............140-grain, 2660 feet/second, 372,400

While there are arguments against momentum as a good determinant of performance, real-world experience, like the OP's suggests that there is at least something, generally, to it. All of those on this list are based on fairly common factory loadings. Many of them can be significantly higher or lower in momentum with different loads, and that's not taking handloading into account.

 

...And don't people quite often take elk with a .44 magnum revolver?

 

A 44M solid will bore a 1/2" hole end to end through an elk. It is plenty of gun.

Shot placement is key.

 

It has always amazed me that a round that is touted as shere lightning as a handgun round can be so anemic in a rifle. When the 357 came out it was THE cartridge to own. It didn't matter if you were after mice or moose, the 357 could handle it. Then along came the 44 mag. The answer to end all handgun whoas. Now with the 454, 460, 480, 500 and a host of rifle calibers the poor old 44 is suddenly too small for anything larger than an alley cat.

You took a fine animal with a round that was and is totally adequate for the job as long as you know it's limitations. Evidentally you do. To quote the great Yogi Berra, "It ain't bragging if you have done it. "

 

Used to have a Winnie in 44 mag. A hardcast 44 just keeps on going. I never lacked confidence that it could drop anything I could get close enough to hit properly. The problem, then, is not the caliber ... it's ME. I either need to be a better shot, or a better stalker, or both.

As it happens, I'm not an especially impressive shooter (just about anyone with a decent scope can outshoot me at 100 yds w/o one). Instead, I got better at getting closer. Obviously, up close, the 44 is enough gun for elk, as the OP is now eating elk. Nothing succeeds like success.

ETA: in the Texas Hill Country, I've never gotten more than about 75-80 lbs of meat off a deer. They're SMALL. A 44 mag is a cannon by that standard.

 

I killed this cow elk with my 357MAG revolver because I'd left my .308 rifle back at camp. I was glassing a valley to hunt the following morning when this cow elk walked up behind me. First shot was 50 feet. Second shot was about 70 feet. Damage to chest organs, diaphram, and liver was most impressive for such a light cartridge. But the organ damage killed this animal quickly and humanely.

In my opinion, 357MAG is lethal on elk within archery distances. But for longer shots, I recommend a .308 or 30-06 loaded with 180 grain bullets.

44MAG is a good killer because it makes big holes in animals. And the bullets are designed for quick expansion which causes sudden organ trama as well. But it's still a revolver cartridge with distance limitations.

Most of the elk I've toppled were 125 to 225 yard shots. This was an exceptional circumstance and a memory maker.

TR

 

For about the same weight as rifle chambered for 44 mag, you could have carried one in 444, 45/70/ 450 Alaskan.

When "hunting" I want to use a weapon that will give me the most ethical options. When hunting elk I choose ether a 338 win mag or 300 win mag,why? because ether will reach out to 500 yards ethically.

It is not that a 44 mag won't kill an elk, (Elmer Kieth and the 700 yard shot) it is that there are better options. 16" barrel 308 ultra light....

But if a hunter is willing to stay with in the limits of that cartridge go for it.

 

niho - any shot you can make on a crippled deer that's hobbling away is a humane shot. The problem at that range isn't the anemic horsepower the .44 has - a hit will still have some effect. The problem is predicting the artillery-shell trajectory, and that's what would make such a shot a big deal.

 

My math major wife says you should have used ^2 for squaring the last figure in your formula. Her ultra-logical brain couldn't appreciate the joke once you divided by 2 (/2) instead of squaring (^2) the last figure. She's still fussing about it.

I'm giggling at both of you - you for the funny thought of how much elk actually weigh, and her for fussing so much about math notation in an internet joke.

 

There is a long history of large bore handguns and carbines killing very large game, not my first choice, not by a longshot, but in a pinch you bet I would put one down with a 44. Given a choice my 30-06 will do everything a 44 mag will do and more, with 300 more yards or effective range, a relatively flat trajectory, and probably a whole lot less tracking.

 

Craig I am pretty sure the 06 has taken ever species of big game on at leased one occasion, I have heard of elephant being killed with an 06 and I have seen one put a CB down with one shot. A real long way from being ideal for that but put that little 30 caliber where is is supposed to go and it will surprise you.
I am with you on the heavier Gold Dots, making sure you get through and through is the name of the game especially with a handgun cartridge, so a heavy bonded bullet is the ticket.
Think of a slow heavy handgun bullet much like an arrow, it does not kill via hydrostatic shock. It kills by blood loss and disruption of the vital organs (not that a rifle does not they just have an added effect) You don't need or even want a large amount of energy dump seeing as energy is in short supply, just make a 1" PWC through the sweet spot and they might run, but they won't make it far.

 

The 44 in a rifle and the 44 in a pistol are two completely different animals. Like one of the posters' replied...has the elk become harder to kill in the past 75 years. Davie Crockett and Daniel Boone would have loved the .44 and they did well for themselves with alot less.

 

In testing the 180gr TSX (the deepest penetrating expanding bullet IMHO) out of an 06 drive through 42" of 10% BG, from what I have seen quality Keith style SWC hardcast they will reach that same range with 44mag speeds, nowhere near the shock damage, but that means less meat damage too. I am a newbie to 44 mag, only been loading it since last Dec, but I have been impressed thus far and would not hesitate for a second to use on game. BTW those wide flat nose hardcast do make a wound wider then the caliber of the bullet, how much wider depends on the velocity, anything over 1100fps impact speeds it becomes very noticeable. I have said it before and I will say it again, a large caliber, heavy, flat nose, non-expanding bullet is the most efficient killer in the ballistics world per ft/lbs energy as it relates to firearms (razor edged arrows are even more so)

 

Sounds like the elk died. Big bore handgun hunters discovered that big heavy bullets in excess of 1200fps or so tend to kill even large animals very dead. You just happened to use one of those rounds out of a rifle and your results speak for themselves.

 

Buddy of mine takes his .44mag elk hunting every year and he has a local guy load him some special loads that I know are over 300gr I think they are 320 but I could be wrong. I have shot exactly 2 of these rounds out of his dan wesson and that was plenty enough for me. But he takes elk with it many years.