quote:

Originally posted by vapodog:

quote:

Originally posted by Hot Core:

quote:

Originally posted by Chuck Nelson:
Haven't got a clue.

Completely agree that he doesn't have a clue.

Right on there HC....

This is perfect!

Vapodog admittedly has shot only one elk and yet he's qualified to make dogmatic assertions about ft. lbs and elk cartridges. HotHole has never shot an elk, and is confident enough to post constantly on elk rifle threads.

The internet is a fascinating place...

quote:

Dude, where do these numbers come from and how many Elk have you killed to give some validity to them. They are simply arbitrary numbers pulled from the sky. It's that simple.

Not at all arbitrary.


TI = bw/7000*v*DI (2)

Where:
TI = Taylor Index
bw = Bullet weight, grs
v = bullet velocity, f.p.s.
DI = Bullet diameter, inches


According to the guidelines, a number from 20 to 40 is considered appropriate for elk, moose, bear.

The 7mm-08 with a 140 grain bullet at 2800 has a TI of 15.

If I were to see a 400 class bull getting away at 400 yards and not perfectly broadside, I wouldn't want the 7mm-08.

quote:

If I were to see a 400 class bull getting away at 400 yards and not perfectly broadside, I wouldn't want the 7mm-08.

And thats why it's called hunting, not just shooting. I've never taken a texas heart shot on an un-wounded animal, and never will, no matter how big the critter. I only hunt to my own critieria. If I cant outsmart the animal to take the shot I want in the range I want I go home empty handed. I dont have any problem with that at all. I dont let muzzle energy make up for hunting skill.

quote:

Originally posted by rcamuglia:

Not at all arbitrary.


TI = bw/7000*v*DI (2)

Where:
TI = Taylor Index
bw = Bullet weight, grs
v = bullet velocity, f.p.s.
DI = Bullet diameter, inches


According to the guidelines, a number from 20 to 40 is considered appropriate for elk, moose, bear.

The 7mm-08 with a 140 grain bullet at 2800 has a TI of 15.

If I were to see a 400 class bull getting away at 400 yards and not perfectly broadside, I wouldn't want the 7mm-08.

That right there is some funny chit...

quote:

Originally posted by theback40:

quote:

If I were to see a 400 class bull getting away at 400 yards and not perfectly broadside, I wouldn't want the 7mm-08.

And thats why it's called hunting, not just shooting. I've never taken a texas heart shot on an un-wounded animal, and never will, no matter how big the critter. I only hunt to my own critieria. If I cant outsmart the animal to take the shot I want in the range I want I go home empty handed. I dont have any problem with that at all. I dont let muzzle energy make up for hunting skill.

+1

quote:

Originally posted by Brad:
Vapodog admittedly has shot only one elk

True but he has shot Kudu, Gemsbok, Wildebeest, and zebra......all about the same size...

Brad, what's your criteria for elk rifle?

I stated mine and even gave a reason for it....

Can you do the same?

What's really funny and fascinating about the Internet is that people can also discount a man like John Taylor who had more actual experience shooting tough big game with various rifle cartridge chamberings than HC, Vapo, rc, chuck, brad, trax, and everybody else on the forum combined.

quote:

Originally posted by rcamuglia:
What's really funny and facinating about the Internet is that people can also discount a man like John Taylor who had more actual experience shooting tough big game with various rifle cartridge chamberings than HC, Vapo, rc, chuck, brad, trax, and everybody else on the forum combined.

His theory was a "theory". How about Bell? Better yet, how about any actual experience of your own?

quote:

Originally posted by rcamuglia:
What's really funny and facinating about the Internet is that people can also discount a man like John Taylor who had more actual experience shooting tough big game with various rifle cartridge chamberings than HC, Vapo, rc, chuck, brad, trax, and everybody else on the forum combined.

It don't take much to sit on the sidelines and throw stones.....some of us refer to them as liberals!

They offer nothing and make no contribution.

Sorry guys, Chuck knows what he's talking about anmd can back it up with field experience. While
I don't agree with shooting Elk with pop guns, I do know they work. I've only shot two bulls, one with a 416 Rem the other with a 340 WBY. Both worked very well.

BighornBreath

The 7mm-08 is a great modern version of the ever reliable killer of game, 7x57 Mauser. It like its older cousin is easy to shoot well. There are some great premium bullets from 140 to 160 Grain that work flawlessly on the game list you mentioned, including elk, at ranges that your son and wife would most likely feel comfortable using a Model 70 Featherweight.
I find that the limiting factor on range with hunting rifles of medium cartridge size as the one you mention is the ability to shoot them reliably to the kill zone and not whether the bullet can and will do it's job. It will. I know that a 7mm-08 is a great choice for most wives and sons and thus will make them want to practice and then continue to hunt and learn. Most folks load it to a higher pressure level than the old Mauser and most load books have great material on that.
Some years back I had both a 7mm-08 and a 7x57 Mauser. When I left Colorado, I gave each to a young cousin for their first “own” rifle. Both have laid to rest many deer and elk. Both boys have grown to be fine shots and fine hunters. I think they both have passed them on to wives and or other boys so they could do the same.
Have a great time hunting with your family.
Best regards,
dmw

Just "got" the "gay" comment chuck.

quote:

“ Undoubtedly one of the deadliest weapons in existence. I've had five of these rifles—two doubles and three magazines—and have fired more than 5,000 rounds of .375 Magnum ammunition at game. One of them accounted for more than 100 elephant and some 411 buffalo, besides rhino, lions and lesser game. ”

quote:

Originally posted by vapodog:

quote:

Originally posted by rcamuglia:
I should be used to this by now. I guess I've just been blessed to have good common sense and a great grasp on reality and so do those I associate with.

Why are so many enamoured with trying to get it done with the bare minimum bordering on "inadequate"?

A guy can push 2,700 FPS with a 160 grain bullet from the 7-08.....this still leaves a full 1500 ft-lb of energy at 325 yards.

That's pretty darn good for such a small case and a fairly long shot indeed!

If one don't state or even know his limitations he'll take a shot all the way to 500 yards where the remaining energy is about 1100 ft-lb.

Had one known this, he'd have been much more likely to have chosen the .280 Remington which will come close to maintaining the 1500 ft-lb mark all the way to 500......assuming one is capable of shooting that well.

Just get the 338 Federal if you want the most bang for least recoil. A 200 grain Hot Cor has .448 BC. I can launch it at 2660 fps and it still has 1950 lbs of energy at 300 yards and over 1500 at 400.

Vapo- It's a true 400 yard Elk Rifle

Chuck,
I don't think you understand..
If someone is a ass-shooter they need a mathematical formula to justify their actions..
They are also morally and socially superior and know what is best for the rest of us just like the little libtards they claim not to be..
Personally I love watching them flap their lips (vaginal?) and give them all the slack they need..
You should never set the hook on them or if you do practice catch and release so they can return again unruffled and grace us with their presence and wisdom like they do so often..
------------------------------
vapo asks:
what's your criteria for elk rifle?
------------------------------------------
He is asking the wrong question..
Great entertainment on a -10*F day, eh?..

Killing isn't hard. Put a good bullet in the right place and death is the outcome.

All I require is a bullet penetrate to the other side from reasonable angles. That's my criteria and caliber/cartridge has little to do with it.

The "best" elk rifle is whatever the best elk hunter has in his hands and that's a fact... ft lbs and all the other assorted minutia aside...

We've got a 84L in .270 at our shop now. Have had several in .30-06 as well. . . . .

quote:

Originally posted by rcamuglia:
What's really funny and fascinating about the Internet is that people can also discount a man like John Taylor who had more actual experience shooting tough big game with various rifle cartridge chamberings than HC, Vapo, rc, chuck, brad, trax, and everybody else on the forum combined.

Another Internet Ninja with an opinion based on fire-side reading and not much else.

Funny, I used to correspond with the late George Hoffman who used to post here many years ago. He was the creator of the 416 Hoffman which Remington eventually adapted and turned into the 416 Rem. He was an African Professional hunter of vast experience.

We mostly corresponded about elk hunting as that's my passion. He told me he had taken just at 50 elk, all with the 270 Winchester... he and I both agree elk aren't particularly hard to kill given proper bullet placement.

I'm not aware John Taylor ever killed an elk...

quote:

Originally posted by DWright:
We've got a 84L in .270 at our shop now. Have had several in .30-06 as well. . . . .

Yeah, have seen them... waiting for the MONTANA version...

quote:

Originally posted by Chuck Nelson:

quote:

Originally posted by rcamuglia:
What's really funny and facinating about the Internet is that people can also discount a man like John Taylor who had more actual experience shooting tough big game with various rifle cartridge chamberings than HC, Vapo, rc, chuck, brad, trax, and everybody else on the forum combined.

His theory was a "theory". How about Bell? Better yet, how about any actual experience of your own?

He's taken a chit while reading Field & Stream...

I wonder why it is, that those here with little or no ACTUAL EXPERIENCE hunting/killing Elk in their home regions, alone or with friends, are also the ones who denigrate others, such as Chuck, who DO HAVE field experience?

I have a 7-08 abuilding and have had several 7x57s, have two now; these are not MY choices as an elk rifle, because I hunt in BC where we have largely a 6-pt. law and heavy bush cover to shoot in. I consider the .300 mags., the .338WM and the 9.3s optimal for this and base this on killing elk and witnessing my buddies kill elk for some 46 years, not on a lot of bullshit and longdicking.

Would I use the 7-08 or 7x57, of course and might yet as I am getting old and elk here live in rugged country, where it is easier to pack a lighter rifle.

I’ve killed at least 1 elk with each of the following calibers, except for the 7mm-08, because I don’t own one. The 7mmx57mm and the 7mm-08 are ballistic clones of each other (as Fury01 points out).

All results are from LFAD with a 150-grain bullet in their respective caliber. Zero is 200 yards.

7mm Remington Mag: 1509 ft-lb., 425 yards, drop is -24.07”

7mmx57mm Mauser: 1508 ft-lb., 225 yards, drop is -1.69”

7mm-08 Remington: 1511 ft-lb., 225 yards, drop is -1.68”

270 Winchester: 1552 ft-lb., 300 yards, drop is -8.36”

308 Winchester: 1509 ft-lb., 200 yards, drop is 0.00”

I agree with MTM as far as “pop guns” go. But a pop gun would be a 6mm/.257 in this state.

quote:

Originally posted by Brad:

quote:

Originally posted by vapodog:

quote:

Originally posted by Hot Core:

quote:

Originally posted by Chuck Nelson:
Haven't got a clue.

Completely agree that he doesn't have a clue.

Right on there HC....

This is perfect!

Vapodog admittedly has shot only one elk and yet he's qualified to make dogmatic assertions about ft. lbs and elk cartridges. HotHole has never shot an elk, and is confident enough to post constantly on elk rifle threads.

The internet is a fascinating place...

HC & Vapodog are clueless about the subject

quote:

Originally posted by rcamuglia:

quote:

Dude, where do these numbers come from and how many Elk have you killed to give some validity to them. They are simply arbitrary numbers pulled from the sky. It's that simple.

Not at all arbitrary.


TI = bw/7000*v*DI (2)

Where:
TI = Taylor Index
bw = Bullet weight, grs
v = bullet velocity, f.p.s.
DI = Bullet diameter, inches


According to the guidelines, a number from 20 to 40 is considered appropriate for elk, moose, bear.

The 7mm-08 with a 140 grain bullet at 2800 has a TI of 15.

If I were to see a 400 class bull getting away at 400 yards and not perfectly broadside, I wouldn't want the 7mm-08.

Another clueless individual. Elk are not impressed with math or numbers of any kind on paper, but put a hole through the vitails and they die pronto

quote:

Originally posted by vapodog:

quote:

7mm-08 vs Elk

IMO the range is limited to the point that the energy is under 1500 ft-lbs

This is the exit in the rib cage of a 6X7 Bull Elk of a 440 grain flat point hard cast bullet fired from the 500 JRH revolver at 950 FPS for 888 FPE

A 300 win mag cartridge is held next to the exit for size comparison




Your FPE theory is hillarious

quote:

Originally posted by Brad:

quote:

Originally posted by vapodog:

quote:

Originally posted by Brad:
Vapodog admittedly has shot only one elk

True but he has shot Kudu, Gemsbok, Wildebeest, and zebra......all about the same size...

Brad, what's your criteria for elk rifle?

I stated mine and even gave a reason for it....

Can you do the same?

I've shot elk and seen elk shot with everything from 243's to 338's... most of the elk I've seen have died with the garden variety 270 and 130's, including friends that have taken them out past 500 yards with the same.

Me, I mostly use the 308 Win anymore but when Kimber comes out with its 84L I'll use it in 270 for the rest of my elk hunting days.

Killing isn't hard. Put a good bullet in the right place and death is the outcome.

All I require is a bullet penetrate to the other side from reasonable angles. That's my criteria and caliber/cartridge has little to do with it.

The "best" elk rifle is whatever the best elk hunter has in his hands and that's a fact... ft lbs and all the other assorted minutia aside...

Spot frickin on

I am not sure the 7mm-08 is the best caliber for elk but in your case I would go with the 160gr Nosler. I have very good experience hunting deer sized game with my 7x57 160 gr Nosler up to European mule deer.

Brad, Chuck and jwp, I'd like to ask what your experience has been with regard to bullet performance and retained velocity. In particular for centrefire rifle bullets - obviously handguns, muzzleloaders, slug guns etc. would be different. Have you experienced fail to open situations with lower velocities? Excessive loss of mass at high velocities? Clearly performance would also depend on the particular bullet in question.

quote:

Originally posted by deadkenny:
Brad, Chuck and jwp, I'd like to ask what your experience has been with regard to bullet performance and retained velocity. In particular for centrefire rifle bullets - obviously handguns, muzzleloaders, slug guns etc. would be different. Have you experienced fail to open situations with lower velocities? Excessive loss of mass at high velocities? Clearly performance would also depend on the particular bullet in question.

You are spot on bullet performance is paramount to how a cartridge performs. The fartherest Elk that I have shot was about 500 yards, but I did shoot an Antelope at 777 yards with the 180 TSX bullet and the wound channel looked exactly the same as the one that I shot at 280 yards. Both bullets were pass throughs and no bullet was recoverd, but judging by the wound channel I'd wager that the TSX opened up at the long distance. Proper shot location with a good bullet that penetrates through the vitails is what truly matters all eles is BS IMHO & E

There are many things that theory and mathematical analysis add to an interesting conversation and occasionally some light to the subject discussed as well. This one however, not much light is shed as most of the energy is used producing heat. Many, many folks of credibility have gone before us have made this answer/subject as clear as it will ever be to a man who still has his own mind to make up.
Best regards,
dmw

quote:

Originally posted by Fury01:
There are many things that theory and mathematical analysis add to an interesting conversation and occasionally some light to the subject discussed as well. This one however, not much light is shed as most of the energy is used producing heat. Many, many folks of credibility have gone before us have made this answer/subject as clear as it will ever be to a man who still has his own mind to make up.
Best regards,
dmw

True, in an inelastic collision most of the energy is transformed into other forms of energy mostly thermal. Before the wide spread use of electronic chronographs the ballistic pendelum was used to determine velocity. One would shoot the pendelum and measure the swing, this measurement gave the amount of "MOMENTUM" that was transfered. With the amount of momentum transfer known along with the bullet wieght velocity could be determined. After the velocity was determined then and only then could the FPS be "CALCULATED"

Very little energy is transfered in an inelastic collision and the small amount that is transfered is untraceable and unimportant. Anyone that chooses a cartridge based purel;y on FPE is ignorant of terminal ballistics


Momentum is transfered in ALL COLLISIONSb both inelastic and lastic collisions. A bullet strike is an inelastic collision

quote:

Originally posted by jwp475:

quote:

Originally posted by Fury01:
There are many things that theory and mathematical analysis add to an interesting conversation and occasionally some light to the subject discussed as well. This one however, not much light is shed as most of the energy is used producing heat. Many, many folks of credibility have gone before us have made this answer/subject as clear as it will ever be to a man who still has his own mind to make up.
Best regards,
dmw

True, in an inelastic collision most of the energy is transformed into other forms of energy mostly thermal. Before the wide spread use of electronic chronographs the ballistic pendelum was used to determine velocity. One would shoot the pendelum and measure the swing, this measurement gave the amount of "MOMENTM" that was transfered. With the amount of momentum transfer known along with the bullet wieght velocity could be determined. After the velocity was determined then and only then could the FPS be "CALCULATED"

Very little energy is transfered in an inelastic collision and the small amount is untraceable and unimportant

This I know to be true.

Energy figures have very little to do with killing ability.

quote:

Originally posted by jwp475:

quote:

Originally posted by Fury01:
There are many things that theory and mathematical analysis add to an interesting conversation and occasionally some light to the subject discussed as well. This one however, not much light is shed as most of the energy is used producing heat. Many, many folks of credibility have gone before us have made this answer/subject as clear as it will ever be to a man who still has his own mind to make up.
Best regards,
dmw

True, in an inelastic collision most of the energy is transformed into other forms of energy mostly thermal. Before the wide spread use of electronic chronographs the ballistic pendelum was used to determine velocity. One would shoot the pendelum and measure the swing, this measurement gave the amount of "MOMENTUM" that was transfered. With the amount of momentum transfer known along with the bullet wieght velocity could be determined. After the velocity was determined then and only then could the FPS be "CALCULATED"

Very little energy is transfered in an inelastic collision and the small amount that is transfered is untraceable and unimportant. Anyone that chooses a cartridge based purel;y on FPE is ignorant of terminal ballistics

JWP475 is spot on.

Energy has very little to do with killing ability in the real world, and was in fact used in a calculation for velocity.

Fellows; The "heat" I was referring to in my prior post comes from the keyboard, not the bullet. Aside from that; thanks for your comments on the conversion of bullet "energy" to "heat."
I have observed many times from different kind of bullets and calibers of same, the conversion of fired projectiles to loss of blood pressure or cessation of nervous system function resulting in Death. Whether well aimed or delivered with great luck, all hit the "right" spot, penetrated to, the great majority through, the vitals. Over the years, I have found it easier to consistently do so with accurate moderate recoiling rifles. I don't think I am alone in this. The original poster asked about his wife and son. I am sure the right choice for them would not be my beloved .338 Winchester Mag with the 275 SS Speer that Elmer also loved so, in front of a full case of AA-3100.
I exchanged letters once back in the 1980’s with Ross Seyfreid who had written a nice article about the 270, 280 etc class of rifles being easy to be accurate with, thus better than the bigger recoiling rifles for deer and elk. He also called the 35 Whelen “nostalgic and neuralgic” which cause me to whip out my ballistic program, send him a letter defending my 35 Whelen with 225 Barnes X bullets at 2800 fps. I received a nice type written letter in response with some hand written notes saying that while the numbers don’t lie on my Whelen, granting my point that folks can not hold the few inches difference in drop at field positions at long range anyway, he also suggested I was probably pushing it too hard, and I was, and that while I might shoot it well, most folks would not. Then Ross went on to say that he understood my affectation with the Whelen; that he loved the .338’s and also a black powder 450 and suggested that I take a look at the 416 Remington with the 350 X bullet if I really wanted to see gross killing power on Elk. He was knowledgeable, polite and granted me room for my own thoughts on the matter. I have always tried to emulate that when talking to folks about shooting and hunting.
Best regards,
dmw

Ross is extremely knowledgeble and I talk with him often. Ross never prints BS.

A little research will open ones eyes about collisions and what really goes on and a lot of "so called energy transfer" is infact not true at all from a bullets impact, which is an inelastic collision

I see we have the classic BS going again.

Same players too.


For those that think energy is not a factor in killing wild game I'd invite you to just stop hunting. But then, I think you did years ago and spend your time blaming others for your laziness.

It's just too bad ignorance isn't painful. You would do something about it.

quote:

Originally posted by Robert Wilde:
I see we have the classic BS going again.

Same players too.


For those that think energy is not a factor in killing wild game I'd invite you to just stop hunting. But then, I think you did years ago and spend your time blaming others for your laziness.

It's just too bad ignorance isn't painful. You would do something about it.

Energy is a byproduct of velocity and bullet weight... all I require is enough velocity to expand a bullet put in the right spot. Dat's it.

Guess I'm just a lazy, ignorant hunter... might as well quit (grin)...

quote:

Originally posted by DWright:Energy figures have very little to do with killing ability.

And everything to do with marketing by ammunition manufacturers.

My pack on my ignorant and lazy mountain-backpack elk hunt this fall... guess I should stop hunting (grin):

The ignorant, lazy slob at -28F... just another day elk hunting (grin):

Ignorant, lazy slob's avatar... just a little summer-time fun... hell, being almost 50 years old I even need a cane (grin):