MarshMule, Thanks for posting. The reason I mentioned disabled hunters was BadBoyz's definition of hunting that seemed to preclude physically challenged individuals from actually being deserved of the title "hunter".

Part of what brought me back to the activity of hunting was hosting a disabled hunter. This individual was a true sportsman, as patient as any, obviously capable of excellent marksmanship. He on a stand in a wheelchair from an hour before dawn till 20 min from dusk. He dropped a 7 point at 160 yds with a .243. Help was required to load the deer into the vehicle, but I have had help from hunt buddies with some kills and I feel I am still a hunter.

Badboyz, I at least partially agree that the .300WSM, .300SAUM, the H&H, and the WinMag are redundant in reference to performance on game at tipical ranges. I would even agree if you said a U.S. hunter might be served just as well by a .257 Roberts as a .338 WinMag, just because I have used or witnessed used calibers from .243 to .358 NormaMag and with correct shot placement any killed as quickly as the others.

Stating the .300WSM, or any of the short mags, only appeal to idiots is making apparent something about yourself you would have rather kept private.

Ruff,

Actually I like the .300 WSM. I just enjoy yanking your chain since you seem to pull things out of your hat when it comes to a debate. You certainly enjoy using the MSU method of quotation application.

As for the disabled hunters, I applaud any and all methods that are available to help them enjoy the outdoors.

As for Long Range Hunting and Matchkings, I don't care what you use as long as it it legal. Just ain't my cup of tea.

Daryl,

I've read many of your postings on the forums. I certainly would respect your ability as a shooter and as a hunter. Can't say that I would ever be a convert to ultra long range hunting applications, but I would certainly find the long range shooting on paper interesting.

Ruff,

Bet you had no idea that this subject was going to stirr such a debate.

I AM GOING TO PREFACE FIRST THAT I DO NOT USE MATCHKINGS FOR HUNTING MYSELF.

However, I had my intelligence questioned on another post by just pointing out an observation, by several people.

To give credence on what they were telling me, I actually called Sierras tech line and asked them to help and explain to me if I was not understanding something. The first tech actually supported everything I had said ( which was contrary to what I had onced believed, but experimentation showed me different results)

I called back a second time to double check and the second guy told me the exact opposite of the first guy. However after discussing it a little deeper, circumstances included, the theorys showed both side are really right, if the end product is bringing down the game being hunted.

It was on bullet expansion, and at lower velocities it may not expand as much, but spending more time in the animal, it can do more damage ( although the bullet itself may not expanded to its full optimum size, it still does it job).

Because of this thread, I also asked each guy about Matchkings for hunting. The first guy said definitely not, with no more than the standard explanation. The second guy said even tho it was not company marketing policy, if someone used one of the more heavy matchking bullets ( this seems to almost be a strictly 30 caliber question as that is who is using the major of them) if it hits something that will offer the bullet resistance, it will yaw and tumble, and it will stir up what it is inside of. THERE ARE VARIABLES, but you can't argue with that.

I have also sent a private email to Ruffhewn, as I did not care to have it make another invitation to a few people who view themselves as professional critics on here. IN testing bullets on GreenWood media ( still on the tree and still planted) with a diameter of 6 to 8 inches or so, of all the bullets I have fired, with the exception of one 6.5 mm Nosler bullet that is not available in the USA ( but is at their factory seconds store), nothing did more damage than the Sierra Matchkings, consistently.

That notwithstanding, I still use the conventional bullets, especially a Round nose if the distance allows me to, or the Nosler Bullets.

No matter what is said statistically, I see more damage with ballistic tips at velocities under 2600 fps impact speed. At over that, they have more tendency to blow up, still bringing down the animal, but causing a real mess inside for when they are field cleaned.

Another interesting observation( this is an observation, if you don't agree with it, test it first, then if you have a difference perspective to add, feel free to, and do it with civility),
but shoot a 40 grain ballistic tip or Blitz King into a piece of wood with a muzzle velocity of 3800 or more and look at the damage it can do to a piece of wood say 6 inches thick ( tree branch or tree trunk).

Although I have never done it, I believe Parker Ackley's observation that a 220 Swift will take a deer better than a 30/06 ( with a proper swift bullet) on a more consistent basis. I have taken a lot with a 30/06, but the few I have seen taken with a Swift or 22/250 really impressed me with the post mortem results when field cleaning. Parker Ackley was no fool.

Wow, 108 posts on such a simple subject as will a 300 WSM kill and elk, it will....

As to MKs I shot a lot of deer with them in several calibers in the past...sometimes they blew up inside and killed the animal very quickly, sometimes the went through and left a nickle size exit and killed quick or with a 100 yard run..they always worked, but they are unpredictable to say the least...I shot a whitetail this year with a ranchers 25-06 and the 120 gr. Sierra HPBT blew up inside and I got an instant kill....

I wouldn't use them on elk, except for broadside shots and not long shots...Actually I wouldn't use them at all, why should I? there are so many better choices...If they are what I had then I would and I would use them carefully and they would work.

Now is anyone going to tell me MK's are the best bullet available for elk, if you do then your sure short on experience and full of BS.......

Ruffhewn-I really couldn't care what bullet you use but you did provide me with some humor by calling a 475lb elk a big bull.I don't know where you hunt elk but here in alberta any mature bull will weigh over 600lbs and be a lot thicker than 12" across the chest while a big bull will weigh 700lbs to 800lbs or more.I have personally killed one that weighed 538lbs with hide,head,legs and internals removed and our average bull will go around 400lbs in the same condition.You may know your long range shooting but you either need more experience judging the weight of bull elk or a better place to hunt them.

[ 07-21-2003, 06:10: Message edited by: stubblejumper ]

Badboyz, after some thought I realized you must have read something of my respect for some disable hunters and were adjusting your definition of hunting to preclude the disabled from even being hunters to yank my chain. Of course it worked. I am sure you believed poo-pooing my WSM would do as well but as I have said before: If your bullet disrupts a vital organ the caliber and manufacture of the bullet matters very little. There is probably no species of game animal in North America that has not been killed by both a .22 rimfire and a .30-30. Some cartridges do have very real advantages but it is primarily the man behind the rifle that will handicap it's potential.

StubbleJumper, what is the average thickness by your measurements, rib to rib, a third the way up a mature bull elk's body? I know they are much larger up your way than in the southwest. 12 inches give or take a couple pretty well encompasses all the mature bulls I have seen. Body length also appeared fairly consistent at between 5 and 6 ft. Back to briskett varied from 25 to about 36". My observations are based on elk in California, New Mexico, and Mexico. I never hunted them in California, only did some watching while I was stationed on the left coast for a brief time.

Atkinson, thanks for sharing your experience and conclusions on Match Kings. I do not think anyone is going to tell you the MK is the world's greatest elk bullet, but as you admit it will kill elk. As I have stated, it compromises terminal performance for accuracy. Users of MKs accept this and place their shots with the limitations of the MK considered. Most users of MKs also punch a lot of paper and are familiar with the external ballistics and have developed the skill to use the accuracy advantage of the MK.

Ruffhewn-I don't have a carcass handy but taking a few quick measurements off of my two shoulder mounts show measurements of 30"x18" and 31"x20".While hardly scientific I do believe these mounts to be reasonably close to the dimensions of the live animals.Given that these are measurments at the shoulders the maximum rib cage measurements would be larger.I would estimate that the thickness at the outside of the ribs would be in the 16" to 18" range at the widest dimension.I will try to post a picture to give you a better idea of the size of the larger bull.

Ruffhewn-The picture I posted above may not be the best but I think it certainly does appear as if the bull is much thicker than 12" at the ribcage.I think that my earlier estimate of 16" to 18" is certainly not exagerated and may even be a little modest for this bull. This is one of those bulls that did weigh in at around 900lbs.

[ 07-21-2003, 08:38: Message edited by: stubblejumper ]

Gee , I didn't know there was a race of pygmy elk roaming around in the southwest........most any scrawny whitetail I have seen will run 12 inches or so thru the ribcage.........

Guys, That 12" statement should tell you something about this thread. Even the new Ky elk are much bigger. Most whitetail I kill are 12" rib to rib.

Stubblejumper, nice bull! While the ribs are expanded to the sides with the animal on his belly, it is still plain that standing thickness would exceed 12" by a large margin.

California does have pygmy elk on the coast, Tuley strain.

While the elk in NM and Mex are Rocky Mountain strain the food is obviously not what is available in Alberta, where whitetails exceed 300 lbs.

Elk transpanted to Ky and Pa also have plentiful food. Supplemental food plots with boosted protein are even established to ensure the success of the program.

Ruff , you are so full of beans it's getting interesting......

New Mexico and Arizona are KNOWN for LARGE BULL ELK . The longer growing season and milder winters than the northern ranges are no doubt contributing factors....as well as tough to draw tags.....as for the Tule elk , hunting is virtually
non-existent , so they are scarsely worth mentioning in a discussion of elk hunting bullets .....

The new mexico and arizona bulls are some of the most sought after bulls because of their huge antlers.They do also grow to quite large body sizes.However for sheer body weight the northern rocky mountain elk are on average larger than the southern elk with the manitoba and roosevelt elk being heavier yet.It is not at all that uncommon for a manitoba or roosevelt bull to weigh in excess of 1000lbs.

With virtually no predators other than man, very mild winters, no such thing as winter kill, and all the food they can possibly gourge themselves on.
The Tule Elk on Grizzly Island, California, not more than 50 miles from me hardly fit any form of the discription of "Pigmy" they also have some of the most impressive, almost prehistoric looking racks I've seen! Quite common to see 7x7's, 8 or 9 points on one side also. they may not be quite as tall or long as there Rocky Mountain cousins, they are definately "Bulked-up!"

I only mentioned Tule elk since there was a question of smaller elk inhabiting the SW. As I stated, I never hunted them. I do not recall them being hunted in the early '80s, and are only hunting by wealthy residents of California now. The coastal scrub that fed the one's I saw must have carried little nutrition because I did no see any bulked up.

The Rocky Mountain elk in New Mexico and Mexico I encountered were not massive in body size but the racks were huge, appearing even more impressive compared to the body.

Animals in the most southern states that I have observed are more slight in body than the same in Canada. There is indeed more plentiful food in the south but the animals north are still much larger to survive the harsh winters. I will try to find some reference material to refer you to on a complete explanation of this fact, but in the meantime post questions on the average size whitetail killed in Florida vs BC.

Post questions to Az and NM residents on the size of the elk they kill .

I think you will find that average elk sizes run bigger in the far northen AND southern fringes of their range . This is due to nothing more than limited hunting pressure , and letting some of the bulls get old enough to reach their true potential . Some of the BC areas have a 6x6 minimum , for instance. And AZ tags are difficult to draw , even for residents...

[ 07-22-2003, 21:42: Message edited by: sdgunslinger ]

SDgunslinger, the size of the elk you claim in the far south is not consistent with my experience.

In Mexico when I hunted there, if you had the money and used it right, and I am talking very little money, you were able to hunt.

I am 100% sure I could get an elk tag for New Mexico for the upcoming season with the proper application of funds. Landowners sell tags. They are expensive but they are available.

Sure , NM landowners can sell tags. You can buy them if you don't mind paying the price . The number of tags still has a limit, and the high price asked for landowner tags is still another lid on hunting pressure.

Contrast that with Wy or Mt. , where any resident can get a general bull license for $15 or $20 , or even Col. where even non-residents can buy tags over the counter . There is simply no comparision in hunting pressure between the SW and the central elk ranges on public land......

[ 07-23-2003, 01:12: Message edited by: sdgunslinger ]

Food Plots. Not much. Man, have you seen the land where these critters live in Ky? You have read too many magizines for you own good.

Anyone in California can apply for an Elk tag, same price for everyone. It might cost a pricey access fee to get to some of them, and some are hunted on refuges.
They also Auction off a certain number of tags to raise money. One recent hi-bider was featured on OLN and the program was hosted by the RMEF and took place on Grizzly Island. They had some great footage of 8 to 10 bulls running together 6x6's on up! The biggest bulls looked like "Feedlot Beef", that's got to be some fine eating.

[ 07-23-2003, 00:18: Message edited by: Marsh Mule ]

Granted, the “Tule” Elk are the smallest of the [ three (?)] subspecies of Elk.
Rocky Mountain being the largest, then Roosevelt, followed by the “Tule” being the smallest..
Just as you have the different sub-.species of Moose.
.. Alaska-Yukon (A. alces gigas).
... Western Canada (A. alces andersoni).
... Eastern Canada (A. alces americanus).
... Shiras (A. alces shirasi). Moose being the smallest.
No matter how you look at them they are all large animals.

Actually the rocky mountain and manitoba elk have the largest antlers but for body size the roosevelt and manitoba species are larger on average than the rocky mountain elk.

If an elk is 12" rib to rib just above the heart and your shot is on an animal quartering away at a 45 deg angle with .308 to .300 WinMag from 200 yds, you will need your field dressing kit.

FredJ338, I was going to ask on another thread but never did so will do so now if you do not mind: What is the largest elk you have ever measured thickness side to side?

[ 07-12-2003, 00:06: Message edited by: RuffHewn ]

--------------------
Posts: 99 | From: Alabama | Registered: Jun 2003 | IP: Logged

fredj338
One Of Us
Member # 5182

posted 07-12-2003 10:33
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ruff, I'll have to admit I have never actually slapped a tape on any of the elk I have shot or helped field dress (about a dozen). I have however measured:
My big Airedale goes 9" across
My own chest is close to 14" across

The elk I have field dressed all seem to be deeper thru the chest than myself. This year I'll have to take a tape w/ me & see. For me personnaly, 12" of penetration is NOT enough for elk size game. Then again, I am not going to let a big bull get away because he won't give me his broad side (has happened to me & others too many times).

[ 07-12-2003, 10:36: Message edited by: fredj338 ]

Stubble, thanks for posting the elk pic, a great bull. I new I had never seen a bull elk much smaller than 14"-16" thru the ribs, Ruff?

[ 07-23-2003, 04:54: Message edited by: fredj338 ]

I have worked a lot of elk in pens, sawed off there horns, shots etc. and a standing relaxed elk not counting all that heavy thick coat is about 12 to 14 inches inside rib cage to rib cage, depending on age...It amazes me how big some people think an elk is. It takes one hell of a bull to weigh 900 lbs live, thats 315 lbs dressed figuring 65% yeld, if my addition is correct...

BTW, I know a lady who shoots through them broadside most of the time she tells me, every year with her 22-250 and 60 gr. hornadys off her back poarch she shoots her yearly elk, has been doing that for 50 years, for many of those years she used a 32-40 Win. range about 25 to 50 yards.

That said, if you put any angle to the shot that chest cavity gets bigger as that angle increases..

I use a 338 with 300 gr. Woodleighs, but I shoot them under about any circumstance, I just take'em as they come...It takes a lot of penitration to get through that wet bale of hay in the stomach...

I'm also surprised no one noticed that Boyds MK expanded fully "before" it penitrated the deer in the photograph, that is one big entrance hole. I'm sure it certainly killed that deer quickly, but use that same bullet at an angle and the results could be disasterious and the deer lost....

Like I said broadside the MK will certainly work on any deer or elk, but it is not a bullet for everyone. Anyone who uses it should modify their hunting technique to fit that bullet with carefull broadside placement, but I fear that is easier to say than do and many will push the bullet beyond its design and capability and wound game...These same people would probably wound with any bullet and under any circumstances however...

The truth lies with the user, any caliber any bullet within reason will kill almost any animal if the hunter is up to the task and can control his emotions and not shoot until the circumstances are right for his caliber and bullet...

I have killed many elk with a 25-35, 250 Sav. and 30-30, but they are not ideal and I always limited my shots to 100 yards or less broadside and they worked like a charm. I had to pass on some real nice bulls BTW that were just a bit to far and too smart to get close to...I solved that by going to bigger guns and over 40 years arrived at a 338 and 250 to 300 gr. bullets. Thats a long ways from my original elk gun, the 25-35 Win.

Ruff;
It was not my intention to berate, I was just sticking up for the local sub-species.
After rereading your earlier post, if the only "Tule" Elk you saw were on the Coast Range then I can understand. Everything on the Coast Range is on the scrawny side, especially the little Blacktail Deer.

[ 07-23-2003, 06:09: Message edited by: Marsh Mule ]

Ray -I believe you need to redo your math.A 900lb bull will dress out at far more than 315lbs.The bull pictured in my previous post weighed 538lbs as delivered to the butcher.(internals,head,hide and legs removed)I figure a bull will dress out at about 60% of live weight(I have seen a few weighed before and after dressing) so the bull in the picture is about 900lbs.A friend of mine killed a bull in manitoba that dressed out at almost 570lbs.

Stubblejumper, I believe Ray was stating you loose 315 lbs.

I was browzing the magazine rack at Walmart just a few days ago and remeber a Nebraska 6x6 bull taken by Rick Hacker with a .45-70. This elk is no more than half your elk, Stubblejumper. The rack lacks mass also. I would not have shot it. There was also a massively racked bull on the cover of Bowhunter that I would bet is less than 12 inches through the ribs at that narrow area behind the junction of the scapula and humerus now known as "Boyd Heaton's spot."

Ray, thanks for posting your experiences with elk. I knew there were studies ongoing but did not realize the amount of contact made with the animals. You are most likely one of the few on this forum that has been within touching distance of a live elk. Are these elk the ones I have read of being auctioned to some "hunter" to finance the study program?

I had enough patience to wait for a broadside shot when I was 14 using a .338 WinMag with 250 gr GameKings, and at 17 and 18 yr old shooting a .270 Win 130 GameKings. My restraint and patience has not diminished with age. Does it with anyone?

Ray, I salute your lady friend. I fully and openly admit I do not have the confidence to use a .22-250 on an elk hunt.

If I recall correctly Boyd Heaton posted that picture before and refered to that side that is shown as the bullet exit.

BigCountry, I was in Ky 2 years ago and had a tour of the food plots and even spotted a couple of very large cow elk. I will be up there again in late March to SCUBA dive another flooded mine, then on to the Lake of the Ozarks for more underwater fun. If you would like to show me where the food plots aren't I would be happy to look. I am considering throwing the rifle in the 5th wheel camper trailer, so if there is a 600 yd range nearby we can see what my new barrel will do if you are still interested. I need to shoot at some different altitude and humidity anyway.

MarshMule, I was not offended and did not intend to disrespect your local elk. I accept that the Tule you see are larger than the few I saw and agree not all elk of a subspecies are the same size. Some will be larger than the 500 lbs average and some will be smaller.

Wal , I reckon that since elk are now such light bodied creatures that are scarsely bigger thru the chest than a lowly whitetail or even a pronghorn....( I have two pronghorn full shoulder mounts hanging on the wall ten feet from here ; they measure 11 inches ).........there is simply no reason to use something that kicks as much as a .30 caliber.

I reckon a heavy barrel .223 with MATCH KINGS ( accuracy and shot placement being paramount, ya know ? ) would be the proper tool for the job. Just shoot them in the head at 675 yards......

[ 07-23-2003, 17:03: Message edited by: sdgunslinger ]

Fred338, Bigcountry, SDGunslinger

Gentleman, unless any of us have experience plenty of close contact with live standing elk larger than the apparently healthy and well cared for specimens that Ray Atkinson has worked with, I suggest we defer to his estimate of size.

Ruffhewn, you might be right. But in Pike and Martin and Johnson countys I haven't seen these large food plots. Can't say I have looked for the elk around Harzard, or cumberland. But hey, it is 14 countys. I can't cover them all.

Here's a link to some recent pictures taken of some California Tule Elk.

http://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=180590&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1