I am not claiming what cartridges are suitable for elk. I am sharing two situations involving elk and the reader can make his/her decision on the cause of the less than satisfactory conclusions.
1. A 14 year old boy had been hunting deer local to his home in SE Washington State since he was 11. He had one rifle, a 243 Win. In the 3 previous years he had killed 3 deer, all with one shot kills using a 95 or 100 grain Nosler Partition bullet. So when he went along with the family group into the Blue Mountains for elk he considered nothing other than his rifle. the family hunted public National Forest land, but they went to a spot where it bordered private land that was posted no hunting. the boy was given a spot for his "stand" that watched a small draw coming out of the private land, deepening as the small creek worked its way down hill to the Grande Ronde River. Shortly after daybreak a spike elk walked down the bottom of the draw from the private land into the National Forest. the boy calmly placed a nosler into the elks lungs. the elk stumbled a couple steps and fell down. the boy ran the short distance to the elk and by the time he got there the elk was dead. Much praise was heard from the boy AND HIS DAD over the next year, belittling the rest of us for using such over-kill cartridges such as the 30-06, 7mm Mag and 300 Mag.
the next year, the boy now 15 went hunting again using Thor's Hammer 243 Win. the same situation developed right up to the point of the shot. But this time the elk stumbled but instead of falling, regained his feet and made a dash of a hundred or so yards. Since it was public land there were other hunters around and one, hearing the shot and seeing the elk run, fired at the elk. Coincidental to the second shot, the elk collapsed. When the boy arrived at "his" elk the other hunter had already notched his tag and was commencing to field dress the elk. an argument ensued, the boys father and other members of both parties arrived leading to an unpleasant confrontation. Ultimately, the second hunter kept the elk and the boy continued hunting the remainder of the season, not having any further opportunity for an elk. Comments from the boy and the father were directed at the "unethical" hunter that "stole" the boys elk. Little was said about the cartridge.

The next year, the boy now 16 went hunting again with the 243 and again a virtual repeat of the previous year. He shot an elk, the elk ran and was shot and claimed again by another hunter. Little was heard from either the boy or his father after that hunt, but when they left for elk camp the following year, the boy now 17 carried a 30-06.


The second situation involved a fellow hunting elk in SE Washington's Blue Mountains. He carried a PreWar M70 30-06 which had claimed sever elk over the previous decades. The fellow was looking across the wide valley and saw a legal elk grazing on the opposide side. The distance was about 1000 yards but this was before convenient rangefinders, so it was an estimate. The fellow had the cartridges in his magazine and a couple boxfulls in his daypack, so he took a solid prone position and started shooting. the fellow hunter with him fired the cartridges in his rifle. With rifle empty and no sign of the elk getting hit or even any impacts of the bullets to see where they wre hitting, the second hunter ceased firing. The first hunter continued, saying he was going to shoot until he ran out of bullets or the elk dropped. At about shot 25 the elk suddenly dropped. The two hunters started down into the valley, waded across the knee high water of the creek and up the other side. On arriving at the elk they found another hunter, having tagged the elk was in the process of field dressing it. another argument and unpleasentries exchanged. Result: the fellow that had tagged the elk kept it, the long range shooter kept hunting. My conclusion as to what happened is that with the shooting, a hunter on the other side of the valley saw the hunters doing the shooting and saw the direction they were firing. The hunter then moved along the top of the valley toward where the shooters were aiming, saw the elk (only a hunderd ortwo yards away) shot it, causing the elk to fall; so it was hit by the close hunter and not the barrage of bullets sent flying by the first hunter. Had the first hunter been a magazine writer, he would have had some magnum that would have made the 1000 yard shot with ease, at least on the writers typewriter- oh I'm dating myself, on his word-processor.


So for discussion: Had athe boy have had a larger cartridge, would the outcomes of the second & third seasons been different? If so, what larger cartridge would have made a difference?

With the second hunter, other than hiking as close as he could get to the elk before opening fire, was there any equipment available at the ime (1978) have helped in the endeavor to bag the elk?

To hell with the second hunter. Discussing something as foolish as shooting at an elk at 1,000 yards is a waste of time.

As to the first hunter, it is impossible to say whether the use of some larger caliber would have resulted in anything different happening. Elk can run quite a distance when lung-shot with a .300 Winchester or a .375 H&H. In my experience an elk will only fall immediately if hit in a key part of the central nervous system -- brain, neck, or spine. Besides, without a post-mortem of the two subsequent elk it is impossible to say whether it was shot placement or some failing of the bullet/caliber which allowed the elk to run.

Personally, I'd be more comfortable hunting elk with a full-house handload using a 100 grain Partition in a .243 than with a box of generic 150 grain .30-06 factory ammunition off of the Walmart shelf.

Well things happen when hunting, and failing to anchor an elk with one shot is nothing unusual. However, the boy with the .243 should have kept shooting until the elk was down. One thing I can't preach to young hunters enough is to get another round in the chamber and get the rifle back on target.

The .243 while certainly capable of killing elk, isn't an ideal choice in my opinion. If they are using a bullet under 100 grains it's going to have the sectional density of a 150 grain .308 bullet. If you're going to use a bullet like that it needs to be a monolithic style bullet that retains nearly all its weight to help make sure it reaches the vitals.

The other problem with small bullets is that they make smaller wound channels. They simply don't disrupt as much tissue as their larger counterparts. Since they don't disrupt as much tissue due to the smaller channel the effects can take longer. You've all heard people say "The (insert animal) was dead they just didn't know it yet."

I'm not a minimalist nor would I suggest a magnum rifle for elk, but a good "deer rifle" with the right bullet can surely kill elk. I think a 6.5mm with a 140 grain bullet is a good place to start for elk. If you can get a MV of 2700-2800 a standard cup and core bullet should react similar to a 180 grain .308 caliber bullet. No it won't get there with as much energy nor create as big of a wound channel as a .308 bullet launched at the same speed, but it should penetrate and disrupt the vitals just fine.

I agree as well the second situation doesn't need to be discussed. Obviously that guy had no business with an elk tag in his pocket.

quote:

Originally posted by taylorce1:[ . . . ] The other problem with small bullets is that they make smaller wound channels. They simply don't disrupt as much tissue as their larger counterparts [. . . . ]

IMO, this is an excellent point.

It seems to me that as the size of the animal increases, the proportion of it that is destroyed by a given bullet will decrease.

Hadn't thought of it in just those terms before. Probably should have, but didn't.

quote:

The next year, the boy now 16 went hunting again with the 243 and again a virtual repeat of the previous year. He shot an elk, the elk ran and was shot and claimed again by another hunter.

I was talking to a young lady in Wyoming she use her .243 to take several cow elk.

Then she lost her first bull to a similar situation.

Yes smaller calibers can kill some big animals, I have used them successfully in the past.

I tend towards bigger calibers and heavier for caliber bullets after five decades of hunting.

On top of it I don't stop shooting till the animal is down, dead and not moving any more.

Or any combination of the above three.

I'd say Stonecreek pretty much nailed it.

quote:

Originally posted by Ray B:


With the second hunter, other than hiking as close as he could get to the elk before opening fire, was there any equipment available at the ime (1978) have helped in the endeavor to bag the elk?

In 1978 you could buy a Barr and Stroud optical rangefinder; while they were heavy and cumbersome, this design was the standard means of estimating range (other than a map) from at least WWII.

That said, I am not sure of their accuracy; I can tell you at 1000 yards even a 10 yard range error puts you 5 inches high or low if shooting a BC of .777 at 3010 fps. An equally huge problem back then was the lack of reliable scope adjustments; the Weaver T series was probably the most reliable.

Before laser rangefinders I used two means to estimate range: a custom stadia wire system by premier reticles and Ranging 1000 rangefinder that I modified. I would estimate the range with both then take an average. I shot two caribou at about 360, a sheep about that far, and an antelope at 455. Never tried anything beyond 500 yards as that was about the limit of that system. (I would practice by driving out and placing a 15 inch deep piece of cardboard on a pole, estimate the range, then shoot.)

As for elk cartridges, I use a .338 Win Mag and have killed and recovered every elk I have shot. If bigger bullets didn't kill better, we would all use .17 caliber bullets.

I'd say Stonecreek pretty much nailed it.
+1

Well, first od all, I believe I would find an area with less hunting pressure.
I still hunt whitetail deer and feral hogs with a 243 / 95 gr partitions at 3100 FPS.
that same load will pierce both side of 3" drill stem pipe at 50 yds.
It is all about placing your bullet in the right spot. 243 between the eyes of a cape buffalo (STONE DEAD!!).
I have shot an Alaskan moose with a 340 Weatherby (250 NP's) at 2900 FPS at 50 yards. The animal did not flinch. I thought how could a miss a van sized animal at 50 yds. I chambered another round and before I could get the rifle to my shoulder he just fell over like a tree (timber).
Lets talk about Nosler partitions, high velocity and "penetration". I could just about stick my fist through the exit hole on that moose.
I have no idea how he stood motionless for 4-5 seconds???? There was blood blown 30 yds. behind him.
I have dropped 250 lb pigs shot straight through those "impenetrable shoulders" with those 95 NP's with a 243 and dropped them in their tracks.
You just never know....
As I said in the beginning, I would find a hunting area with less pressure.
If Elk hunting, I would suggest something light weight. Unless it is a canned hunt it will be physical. Something not over 8 lbs. with a scope.

Indians here routinely use 22-250's on Elk.I would recommend something with a little more KE. The 300 mag was the most used in the last poll i saw. It's funny here in the U.S. people take one shot and wait? In Africa they have you should until it's DEAD!!!

To paraphrase Stonecreek--"It is impossible to know what a bigger gun would have done." Two deer I have shot come to mind. The first was a yearling buck shot through the vitals with a 30-06. Dropped on the shot but got up when I approached and staggered all over the place for a couple hundred yards. Great big exit, how that deer took one step a mystery. Second deer was shot through the vitals. This was with .243 and 100 grain bullet. On the shot did not drop nor run, but walked with some stagger and then stopped after 30 yards or so. Was just standing there swaying and I walked up to it while it was still on his feet. After several seconds fell dead. Again heart and liver both pulverized---how did it take one step? Would be pure speculation (and I would doubt it) that a bigger gun would have dropped either. I've seen many deer taken by grandson, nephews etc with .222 and .223 and have never seen one go as far as these two. Shot placement is the key and in both those examples the shots were well placed. Which proves my one point that can't be argued. You don't know until you have pulled the trigger.

quote:

Originally posted by Nordic2:
I'd say Stonecreek pretty much nailed it.
+1

+2.....



May I add.......for the elk hunting I've done, there is little need for anything over the .30-06 and very little desire to shoot anything less than a .270 Winchester.....but the issue of shot placement is playing the trump card.....no matter what you shoot.

I found the 243 usually killed deer well but ocassionally you lost one, Why I have no idea but know more than a few who have quoted such instances..Ive killed elk with a 25-35, 257,30-30, and 250-3000 on the light side, never lost one..All those elk were at under 150 yards and most were under a 100 yards, all shots placed behind the shoulder, some ran perhaps 75 or more yards, some died on the spot..About what I have come to accept with most all caliber on elk..

Today my elk rifle is a .338 Win. and it gives me a 300 or so yardage and so far all elk have made it no more than maybe 30 yards at most.

I long ago quite using smaller calibers to kill game, I don't like long tracking jobs and I got a few of those with the 30-06 and 270 class of cartridges, but none escaped wounded except one a friend shot with a 30-06...I did notice with the 30-06 that I had to shoot elk two or three times, mostly however they were too sick to run off, but I shoot until they are down to stay with any caliber..

Suitable elk cartridges? I have yet to figure that out, and Ive shot a lot of elk in my many years..but hey, Im still waiting for one to run off a hundred yards shot with my .338..Ive had springbuck and such run a 100 or so yards shot with 375s and 416s, these things just happen, but you can even up the odds much better with a bigger caliber IMO. Im still happy with the 30-06, and its lighter to pack around..I think the secret is more about the bullet construction than the caliber..A 200 gr. Accubond is damn sure an elk killer these days. I love that accubond.

As to deer, about any caliber works on them if you stick a bullet in the heart/Lungs..but then that applies to about any caliber...Its all just interesting conversation in the end.

Well I've killed over 20 elk with my 270. But I'm moving up to my 500 Jeffery for this very reason.

The one the shooter can consistently place the bullet where it will have the most effect!

Just refer to the application chart. Always a crowd-pleaser.

Interesting chart. The only thing I see and it would have saved time, would have been to just have a picture of the .375 H&H!

quote:

Originally posted by 4sixteen:
Just refer to the application chart. Always a crowd-pleaser.

They could have at least illustrated the cartridges to the same scale; the two on the right are much bigger than they really are. The .22-250 case is longer than the .223 but not according to this chart. The .243 and .308 are the same sized case but not according to this chart...

Proper scale on this one.

OP's scenario #1, hunter had a 66.6% failure rate. Personally I think he got lucky the first time.

Scenario #2, the fools who shot for 25 misses probably missed the 26th as well and were too far away to notice the other hunter's shot who actually killed it. Highly probable IMO.

It's interesting that some are able to "make due" with less, like the inuit who roam Alaska with a .223. And I also agree with the late Jack OConnor that a poor shot would be under gunned against an Elk with a 375 H&H.

I once had a 243 built on a Mauser action. I really wanted to like that rifle, I thought it would kill mule deer just fine. However I also had a high failure rate with it myself against mulies. Maybe it was just me, but I never had that much trouble with any other rifle. Now I use a minimum 257 cal for deer. I do believe the "to each his own" rule applies. For me, the minimum for Elk is 160 gn 7mm. That is within MY comfort zone. I would probably be fine with a heavy for caliber 270 or even a 6.5/06, never tried it though.

To try and keep this as brief as possible, in 2015 Texas Parks & Wildlife Department offered a Draw Hunt on a 27,000 acre ranch in Pecosa county thru an arrangement with a company that contracts with landowners to manage their properties.

2015 was the first year that this hunt was offered and Lora and I were drawn for two of the four permits that were available.

I started a discussion on here concerning the suitability of using the .257 Robert's on Mule Deer.

To cut to the chase, so to speak, Lora killed a reallyb good buck with one shot from her .257 Robert's with one of my handloads using a 117 grain Remington Core Loct Round Nose.

Fast forward to 2018 and one of the requirements this year on that hunt is the use of a minimum of a .270 caliber or larger.

I do not know what brought that decision about but it is odd that for three years, 2015,'16 and '17 there was no such restriction.

Story one: Nothing wrong with using a 243 on elk. With any cartridge, know your limitations which includes knowing the limitations of said cartridge. Shoulda found a better place to hunt.

Story two: Who cares... sounds like a bunch of shits went out hunting.

Topics like this discussed on a forum are always an opportunity for some blowhard with "years of experience" and strong opinions based in old BS stories to tell other people how they should hunt and what cartridge they think is inadequate for the job.
Total opinion and bullshart.

quote:

Originally posted by chuck375:
Well I've killed over 20 elk with my 270. But I'm moving up to my 500 Jeffery for this very reason.

+1

I raised a discussion years ago about using light caliber small cartridges on deer sized animals etc.

Everybody knows that light cartridges will kill
game animals if ranges are kept withing the limits of the cartridge capabilities and the bullet is put in the right place.

If you use light cartridges to shoot a few animals per year everything may go well but if you shoot a lot of animals 20 to 30 or more per year then the limitations of light cartridges will surface with the evident loss of some game eventually.

By using light rounds one handicaps oneself as it is not always possible to get sufficiently close to get a reliable hit.

I would advocate the use of 30 caliber bullets and upwards of adequate weight and velocity.

The 6.5 crowd seem to bestow magical properties on their .264's just because the bullets may possess high SD but if one uses larger diameter heavy bullets then this imaginary parameter can be ignored.

I use an 8mm and a 9.3 myself and have found them to be the best for all situations after having tried many lesser cartridges over the years.

quote:

Originally posted by Snellstrom:
Topics like this discussed on a forum are always an opportunity for some blowhard with "years of experience" and strong opinions based in old BS stories to tell other people how they should hunt and what cartridge they think is inadequate for the job.
Total opinion and bullshart.

It would be interesting to hear from elk guides and see what they say.

Hey Aaron Nielson and others, let's hear your take on the subject.

You don't have to be a guide to see a lot of elk hit the dirt.

I've seen people kill elk with everything you can imagine between .243 to .338 Win Mag as well as .50 and .54 cal muzzleloaders and I've seen good shooting and bad shooting and frankly have not seen any difference from one cartridge to the next.
Saw a Bull suck up 3 great shots at 68 yards with a .338 Win Mag and he gave no outward indication he was hit until he fell over (was definitely NOT stopped in his tracks).
I've seen Elk drop at the shot with a 30/06, 30/30, 300 Savage and .243's.
One observation I have is that good shooting is the best Elk medicine, period no substitute.
What some folks call a good shot on elk may not always be the best shot for every situation.
Something that has amazed me for my entire life is how badly many people shoot and they seem satisfied with it and worse yet think that a bigger rifle will help their shortcomings.
If a bullet pierces an elks heart or lets the air out of both lungs that elk will not survive it even if it is a lowly .243, some elk will not give outward indication of a hit from any cartridge and some will fall to the shot, that's just elk.

We have had many such discussions. To me, it appears that for a few hunting is more about a sporting game. Shooting an elk, for example at 1000 yds with a Creedmore (the new wonder flavor) has nothing to do with ethical hunting in my book.

Clean, quick humane kills are the only way to go. In most cases, a 243 is just going to lead to a slow demise. I have heard the argument about placement....its nonsense. Big wound channels with placement are simply better.

quote:

Originally posted by AnotherAZWriter:

quote:

Originally posted by 4sixteen:
Just refer to the application chart. Always a crowd-pleaser.

They could have at least illustrated the cartridges to the same scale; the two on the right are much bigger than they really are. The .22-250 case is longer than the .223 but not according to this chart. The .243 and .308 are the same sized case but not according to this chart...

What about the disparity in size between the .300 Savage and .308 Win as well?

quote:

One observation I have is that good shooting is the best Elk medicine, period no substitute.

That, is as good as it gets.

quote:

In most cases, a 243 is just going to lead to a slow demise. I have heard the argument about placement....its nonsense. Big wound channels with placement are simply better.

That's funny!
I love it when someone uses anything at their disposal to back up their bigger is better "opinion".
Lack of facts, experience and all.

The question should be simple to answer.

What caliber do you want in your hands when the bull of a life time is standing there at the longest possible range you are willing to shoot at.

Giving you only one shot but not a perfect broad side one.

If it is a 243 fine if it is something else fine.

Because it is your chance.

quote:

Originally posted by Snellstrom:
You don't have to be a guide to see a lot of elk hit the dirt.

Telling. Maybe you just have to be hunting elk.

In typical cover here we see about one of three whitetails "hit the dirt" after a heart lung hit. That's not because ME whitetails are harder to kill than elk. And it's probably not b/c they travel farther after a hit, on average. It's because the cover here is thick.

They travel as far in open cover as in thick. But the .22 and .243 CFs make for longer death sprints.

Cover complicates retrieval. Larger calibers help by reliably creating a blood trail. More blood trail/shorter sprint = win/win.

If you can kill an elk with a .35 Whelen, you can kill it with a .350 Remington Magnum, at least out to reasonable ranges. Anyone talking about shooting elk from 1000-yds away is a moron.

quote:

Originally posted by Samuel_Hoggson:

quote:

Originally posted by Snellstrom:
You don't have to be a guide to see a lot of elk hit the dirt.

Telling. Maybe you just have to be hunting elk.

In typical cover here we see about one of three whitetails "hit the dirt" after a heart lung hit. That's not because ME whitetails are harder to kill than elk. And it's probably not b/c they travel farther after a hit, on average. It's because the cover here is thick.

They travel as far in open cover as in thick. But the .22 and .243 CFs make for longer death sprints.

Cover complicates retrieval. Larger calibers help by reliably creating a blood trail. More blood trail/shorter sprint = win/win.

Here is the reason I said we should ask the guides:

1. They see a lot of hunters every year and consequently see a lot of elk hit the dirt. A guy with a tag sees one or two elk die a year, unless they are guys like Aaron Nielson that hunt several states every year.
2. Guides want to see elk die quickly, so they don't have to track. I would be curious to hear what they like to see; I am sure the .30-06 would outnumber the .243. Why do you suppose that would be?

quote:

Originally posted by AnotherAZWriter:

Here is the reason I said we should ask the guides:

1. They see a lot of hunters every year and consequently see a lot of elk hit the dirt. A guy with a tag sees one or two elk die a year, unless they are guys like Aaron Nielson that hunt several states every year.
2. Guides want to see elk die quickly, so they don't have to track. I would be curious to hear what they like to see; I am sure the .30-06 would outnumber the .243. Why do you suppose that would be?

I took literally your "hit the dirt" because killing and retrieving are not the same thing in thick stuff. But we are in agreement.

And you're right about guides not especially liking tracking jobs. Years back my hunting partner and I each DRTd our moose on survey roads. Our guide hugged us each time, told us we were the only two hunters to do so that season. We were not using .243s, even though we could easily have killed moose with .243s.

For the most part "guides" (who are always necessarily part-timers due to the seasonal nature of hunting) are typically "ballistically challenged". That is, they really don't know much about rifles and cartridges and are not students of such things. They often have little interest in what caliber a client is shooting and even less interest in what kind of ammunition or projectile is in use.

Mostly what guides know is if the client hits the animal in the right place the hunt is usually successful. Asking a guide about "the best" or "the worst" elk cartridge is like asking a traffic patrolman about the most dependable car -- he may see a lot of traffic but traffic is his specialty, not cars themselves.

Of course, there are a few guides who are also "gun nuts". Their prejudices, just like the rest of us gun nuts, result in varying opinions about cartridges and how they perform on game.

Stonecreek
Many here won't believe what you just said but it is an absolute truth.
You hit the nail squarely on the head.
The majority of guides I've spoken with are far from gun nuts.

quote:

Originally posted by Snellstrom:
Stonecreek
Many here won't believe what you just said but it is an absolute truth.
You hit the nail squarely on the head.
The majority of guides I've spoken with are far from gun nuts.

I know several guides they are not gun people.

One bear guide since 1978, had never fired a pistol. Until I took him out as we wintered in AZ last January.

Many years ago we had two guides on a paid elk hunt in New Mexico. My son was hunting with a .375 H&H, mainly because it was new to him, a bit of a novelty, and was obviously capable of taking an elk (which he did). When we were talking about his "big" gun the guides seemed not to understand anything about the cartridge, or when shown one even comment as to its size. They basically shrugged it off. Asked what they hunted elk with when on their own time they replied that they used the same rifle for elk as for everything else -- a .22-250.