Call me skeptical......
While I am dead certain this man has a considerable amount of experience hunting & guiding for Elk, I can’t help but think the bulk of the story has been ‘embellished’ (for drama’s sake) and the underlying reason for doing so….is to disparage the 7mm-08 and to a lesser degree the hunter.
Again, I have not been on as many Elk hunts as the Author, but here are some ‘problems’ I have with the story, using some selected quotes from it:
Author: It brought us within 80-yards of the nearest bull and about 120 yards from the farthest bull elk.
^^^^^ From this, we may surmise both the guide and hunter are at relatively close range (for Elk). The nearest Elk (the one being shot at) a scant 80 yds. away. The second Elk is a bit farther away but would most certainly be aware of anything the closer Elk was experiencing.
The story continues and at this juncture (see quote below)….three shots have been taken:
Author: Neither bull was concerned with us in the least, and both of them had seen us by now, and both went on grazing.
So… two (presumably wild Elk) at distances of 80 & 120 yds. completely ignore the muzzle blast of an ’08 three times in a row and are so comfortable with the situation that they go back to grazing.
OK, I’ve seen some weird and un-explainable things from wildlife before, so I’ll take the Author at his word so far.
Author: This went on for five shots
Now we’re up to five shots and STILL no negative reaction from either Bull. I am trying to be generous here, but this is where I begin to have serious doubts with this accounting.
Author: Michele fished out a whole box of Remington Core-Lokts from her jean jacket pocket.
Here… we finally have some concrete information (the bullet used). Remington Core-Loct….a traditionally constructed cup and core bullet.
Although it would not be my first choice for Elk, later in the story we will discover that at least a “few” of them exited the animal.
Next, we come to the first reload. From previous statements….we may assume the rifle holds five rounds and that both Elk are still going about their business (see below).
Author: She reloaded and fired one. I decided to wait two minutes before each shot. I can’t say why, but I couldn’t believe that every shot had missed from that range.
Above, it is unclear how many additional shots were taken (spaced 2 minutes apart) but from the way the story is written… a second string of five shots was taken when the author exclaims:
Author: Somewhere in the process the nearest bull laid down. The farthest still continued to graze.
So, after 10 shots the nearest bull is now laying down and the other one seems oblivious to all this and continues to graze. These could be REALLY hungry Elk I suppose.
There seems to be a narrative lapse (for me) at this point in the story, but basically another reload is required and another five shots are taken at the Elk (some possibly while it is lying down).
Author States: Michele shot everything but five bullets.
Author: I said, “Reload.”
Alrighty then, we are now on the third reload and from all accounts….we can’t definitively say whether or not the Elk has been hit even once, BUT the decision is made to move closer, see below:
Author: At 20 or 25 yards—with both bulls looking at us, one lying down chewing cud and another grazing—Michele let loose, blowing his jaw off.
From the above….I am forced to believe one of several things:
1. These are not Wild Elk.
2. The Guide and Hunter are incredibly stealthy.
3. The Elk are Blind, Deaf or Both.
4. The Author has embellished the story.
In the end (see below), we find that the Elk had indeed been hit multiple times with NO guts shots (though peripheral hits cannot be excluded).
Author: Skinning showed something odd. In addition to one shot to the brain and one shot through the jaw, the hide had 14 bullet holes in it. No gut shots were found. Most of the bullets entered and a few had exited.
In retort to certain ‘replies’ the Author received on his blog site, he offers this:
Author: In the story, I stated that Michelle had "done her job." That does not mean that all her shot hit. In fact, most missed.
OK, then would it not be appropriate to state so in the BEGINNING instead of condemning the cartridge?
Author: Additionally, I stated that there were 14 bullet holes in the hide. Fourteen holes in a hide from bullets that entered and exited does not equate to 14 hits.
Rather begs the question: What was your intent then?
Author: Do the math.
It would be easier for the Author to just tell us how many good hits were present, but I can do simple math….so I’ll take a stab at it.
We are told in the story that a “few” of bullets exited, so for each bullet that “exited” (not fragments) we can assign TWO holes.
The definition of a “few” is simply: a small number. In this context (hits on the Elk) it is reasonable to imagine 3-5. Let’s just go with the lower figure (to aid the Author’s argument).
OK, here comes the math part:
NOT including the two head shots, we have 14 bullet holes accounted for, right?
IF three of the shots exited (each leaving two bullet holes) we can subtract 6 from 14….leaving us 8.
All the rest (8 shots) did NOT exit….leaving one bullet hole each.
8 + 3 shots= 11 hits on the animal (not counting the two head shots).
The Author stated that “most shots missed” when in fact “most” shots hit, yet another disparity.
In summary, the Author would have us believe… that up until shot number 16….neither Elk seemed to be concerned, even though all of this took place at a distance no greater than 80 yds.
Eventually… they walked up to within 35 yds of the Elk the hunter had been shooting at, only to find it lying down “chewing cud”.
Maybe it’s just me…but I find that “Cud” easier to swallow than this story.
Flint.
my 7mm-08 holds 5 , and I may put 4 in my pocket . my 7mmWSM holds 3 and I keep 4 on the sling , my 270's hold 5 , and again maybe I'll put 4 in my pockets , and like said above ,that would be 3 reloads ,
So unless we are talking a lot of gut hits on one that's flopping around wounded, and a hunter that's too crippled up to run 100 yds and brain it, or maybe across a crevasse? Frankly, I think that somebody is lying, or badly mistaken about the details.
