Recently one of the better known outdoor writers wrote a treatsie on what calibers were suitable for elk hunting. It appears he might have been facing a deadline to get his monthly report in on time.
Going back 40 yrs I can remember a friend showing me a card trick where he basically eliminated 51 of the 52 cards in the deck, forcing you, unknownly to pick the card he had in mind.
Now lets fast forward to Sept 2010 & the article on what calibers to use for elk does pretty much the same thing. The author puts you in a situation where you have spent several thousand dollars on an elk hunt, you've pounded the turf for 10 days with little sleep, food or water & in the fading light of the last day, in the last minute of legal shooting light he drops the bomb...do you shoot with a lesser caliber & chance wounded the disappearing bull or do you shoot one of his super magnums with total confidence & make the kill.
Well, its like my old friend & the card trick, if everyone of those things aligned all at the same time I guess I'd have to choose one of the super magnums. Everyone knows that elk are much tougher now days than when we first started killing them with the 300 Savage, 260, 284, 308, 30/40 Krag, 7/57 Mauser & the classic 270. Even the old 30/30 in heavy timber at close range was an effective elk killer, no it wasn't a 300 yd open country gun but for up close & personal it got the job done.
We got by just fine with the old Remingtion Core Lokt's, Nosler Partitions & the regular cup & core Hornady, Speer & Sierra bullets.
The author states that the old 270 is down to only 1800 ft lbs of energy at 200 yds, he also states in the article that the escaping bull is 300 yds away...remember the card trick!
I'm sure there are many old elk hunters here in Idaho, Montana, Wyoming & other surrounding western states that would be flabbergasted to know their old elk rifles couldn't cut the mustard.
The author uses the tired old argument of a minimum of 2000 ft lbs of energy for elk & then just a few paragraphs away states " Energy doesn't kill elk", now I'm really confused! Actually on this last part he's correct, it still takes bullet placement & penetration. Sure you can take any caliber out of range, thats up to the hunter, he knows his ability & his guns limitations. Where the 2000 ft lbs came up as a minimum for elk is a total mystery.
He also states in the article that anyone who has disagreed with him in the past is simply bragging about using a lesser caliber than those he suggests...so none of us can use our own experiences as proof that the super magnums only give you more distance, they don't kill any better than what we've been using for generations.
OK, first lets get the energy part of the argument out of the way. The old 30/30 has a hard time getting much over 1000 ft lbs at 200 yds & is probably out of range at that distance although elk have been taken cleanly many times at that distance, but at 150 yds & closer... & thats where the old 30/30 makes its claim to fame, will work just fine if the shooter does his part.
How about the 44 magnum handgun, it has a difficult time exceeding 1000 ft lbs at the "muzzle" & its taken lots of elk, I know this for a fact because I've used it many times, also the 41 magnum & the old 45 have taken elk for me. Now I know I'm bragging here & the author says we can't do that but this stuff about energy just might be overrated. Think bullet placement & penetration.
I've taken 27 elk in the last 40 years, 13 years I was a high scool coach & elk hunting was pretty much a faded memory, I'd like to think I'd have taken several more in those lost years. Again, bragging is against the rules so don't give stats.
With the excellent premium bullets available now its a fact that many of the "lesser" calibers will continum to take elk cleanly if the shooter keeps the distance reasonable & places his shot correctly. Again, the super magnums only gain you distance, they also provide lots of healthly recoil, something the author does't allow in his article, he states that muzzle brakes have eliminated this excuse.
He doesn't mention the fact that many outfitters get a little uneasy when the client shows up with his new whiz bang super magnum that bellows like a elephant & in many cases wounds game because the shooter is over gunned. Remember, a wounded elk is still wounded, whether its with a 300 Savage or a 358 SSM!
Now don't go & throw that old 300 Savage, 284 or 7/57 in the scrap pile, just keep putting those elk steaks on the table like you've done for the last 30-40 years!
If its the last minute of the last day & that bull is 300 yds running, make sure its a super magnum, thats the answer!

Dick

Top

Just be patient, Rich will be along any time now to give you the right answer!!!

Steve

What he said.

So it all comes down to a running shot at 300 yards?

After 10 days of hard hunting with little food, sleep, and water?

I know I wouldn't take a standing still shot at 300 yards off hand and I own Roy's older magnums, but hey that's just me.

I've only killed 4 elk, 3 with 7mm and 1 with a 300. Three that I killed, I could have used a 30-30 (or a 250 savage). One was 346 yards and I was grateful I knew my gun, but I think I could have stalked closer.

Running shot at 300 yards, must be them wolves chasing them up in Idaho has them so spooked

There goes my chance of using the 444 marlin I have in the safe for my next elk hunt.

If hunters would just bowhunt elk, these discussions wouldn't be of concern.

If I chose to unload on an elk at 300 yards "running," then I'd use whatever I took to begin with thinking it was adequate. Most likely I'd have one of these 3:

30.06, 7mm Rem Mag, or 300 RUM.

Wanna see a video of a dude shoot an elk at 925 yards with a 140 Berger VLD from a 6.5x284?

quote:

Wanna see a video of a dude shoot an elk at 925 yards with a 140 Berger VLD from a 6.5x284?

I'll bet the elk wasn't running and the guy wasn't shooting off hand.

I'd not take it out of context, Towsley's article was geared towards making a case for having "Enough Gun" and using serious elk cartridges based on his personal 25 years experience killing elk. The minimums he discussed in the article were for these bigger guns and it wasn't for the minimums of any and all elk cartridges ever used.

Something around 1,500 ft-lbs KE has been tossed around quite a few times over the decades when talking about minimums for large game such as elk. Bryce placed his personal cut-off at 2,000 ft-lbs using a 180grain 30cal bullet from an '06 for the bottom end of his serious elk cartridge list. The point he made about energy was reference the argument some make for using bullets that stay in the elk to dump all the remaining energy. He was just stating his opinion that this energy is not what kills the elk, but it is the hole through the elk that does so. He expressed his opinion that having enough gun that put a hole through and through an elk with ample energy to spare resulted in a bigger hole with a better blood trail.

I believe the example of the big magnum at 300 yards related to an actual hunting experience where one in his hunting party using a 7mm magnum hit an elk that was close to the boundry of Yellowstone. This elk made a dash for the park but the bull was dropped in its tracks with a follow-up shot from a 338RUM before it crossed the line.

This same article could have been written about "enough gun" for hunitng big bears where someone with 25years experience recommends 2,000 ft-lbs using a 180grain 30cal bullet from an '06 for the bottom end. Same thing as Bryce Towsley's article on elk, its not saying that you cannot kill a big bear, or an elk, with a 30-30, its just making a case for having enough gun.

Best

quote:

Originally posted by keithv35:

quote:

Wanna see a video of a dude shoot an elk at 925 yards with a 140 Berger VLD from a 6.5x284?

I'll bet the elk wasn't running and the guy wasn't shooting off hand.

correct

quote:

correct

I have seen the video I think (long range hunting site) and it is a great shot though! Amazing when they pan back to see how far it was.

quote:

Originally posted by keithv35:

quote:

correct

I have seen the video I think (long range hunting site) and it is a great shot though! Amazing when they pan back to see how far it was.

correct again. What puzzles me is these elk debates time and time again, then you see videos or talk to outfitters who make interesting statements, "I'm still not able to convince myself that a 6mm bullet won't kill an elk at 1000 yards because it happens every season." (referencing a 243 and 105 VLD).

Heck, the ONLY reason I bought a 300 RUM was for elk hunting. Then when I started going out west to do hunts, nobody there that I hunt with or are friends of those I hunt with shoot anything bigger than a 270. I specifically asked about lost elk with 25-06, 270s, you name it, and I received looks as if I was asking an unreasonable question, inferring that the calibers in question may not be useful on such large game.

Then, ya get escorted to the garage or back shed to see all the antlers.

Considering selling my 300 RUM bbl and making something else with it.

In much the same vein was a fellow that stated that i should "get with the times Gryph and get a 7mm wsm"... meaning with the advent of the WSM`s my old seven mill rem (he actually said it) was a dinosaur..
My answer was "its been killing game for 30 years till now and its not gonna stop!"

Dick
You completely missed the entire point of the whole article.
+1 on Gary's response.

Perry

quote:

Originally posted by perry:
Dick
You completely missed the entire point of the whole article.
+1 on Gary's response. ...

+2 It is an excellent article and begins on page 58 in the Sep10"NRA American Hunter".

Dick Thompson's response is exactly what Mr. Towsley anticipated from those who would be carrying an "Inadequate Cartridge" for the Hunting situation that was described. I doubt Mr. Towsley is clairvoyant, just has enough first-hand experience, and has written enough to be able to predict the lack of agreement.

Under the conditions that Dick Thompson mentioned, it appears his choice of firearms worked - OK. But that is totally different from the situation Mr. Towsley described. Using Dick Thompson's selection of Cartridges, a person would have to pass on the shot.

Good Hunting and clean 1-shot "Adequate Cartridge" Kills.

Gary, I tried really hard to not take anything out of context & although the author states he's hunted elk for 25 years he doesn't state how many he's taken or how many required more than one shot from the super maggies.
You're right about him stating the mimimum for the bigger calibers, he didn't even mention the mimimum for the "lesser" calibers.
Hunting elk for most of us here the west is just that, hunting, some feel that having the ability to shooting a quarter mile or more in any direction with the big guns is "real" elk hunting, maybe it is, thats each persons call.
Last week a friend told me of a guy in Wyoming that put 8 shots in a Bison with his 338 & it charged. The 338 is a great caliber but in this case it was probably operator error, perhaps he was just over gunned, everyone will take a different stance on this one.
In a back article of Handloader there were stats kept on different calibers that had taken moose, this was in Sweden, maybe Norway, can't remember, but the figures were very interesting. You can imagine that the 6.5 Swede was very high on the list & it was, several thousand had been taken, they also listed the distances & the total number of shots required.
As the calibers got bigger the number of shots also increased & in many cases the distance traveled increased as well. This doesn't mean the big calibers aren't as effective but it does mean the less than magnum calibers work great. Usually because the shooter handles them more accurately & knows his guns limits.
Again, the big maggie's only gain you distance, the smaller calibers work because most guys using them are seasoned shooters.
Looking back I think I've taken one elk with a 7 magnum, the first six ever taken were with the 270, they required a total of 7 shots, one bull in the Selway raised his head & I used a finisher.
The last 7 have been with magnums but all were magnum handguns, also one of these required a second shot, it was down but not out so it got a finisher, all the others were one shot kills. I didn't have anywhere near the horsepower of the big magnum rifles....so what killed them with one shot, bullet placement & complete penetration.
I started bragging here again & I know that wasn't allowed in the article. If you can handle the big magnums then I say great, but the lesser calibers will continue to cleanly take elk just as good if not better & I'll stand by that.

Dick

I haven't even read the article and I'm gonna be +3
It's as I have stated many times: When You travel halfway acrost the US, plus you have time constraints, and While it's not imperative that you kill something, it would be nice, and finally you have a lot of money tied up, you would be stupid to not take a rifle that would get the job done under the worst possible conditions. As I used to tell folks about bass tourny fishing, rig to catch the biggest bass you hope to under the worst conditions you might encounter.
Simply stated, you can't just say, "well, he's outa range of my popgun so's I'll go home and come back next week end or tomorrow or the next day, whichever.
As a final FWIW, I don't know about elk being harder to kill than back in Papa Jack's times, but I will guarentee they are more sophisticated.

quote:

As I used to tell folks about bass tourny fishing, rig to catch the biggest bass you hope to under the worst conditions you might encounter.

quote:

As a final FWIW, I don't know about elk being harder to kill than back in Papa Jack's times, but I will guarantee they are more sophisticated.

Two very appropriate comments.

quote:

So it all comes down to a running shot at 300 yards?

After 10 days of hard hunting with little food, sleep, and water?

This is a very common scenerio on the public lands where we hunt.... Except the little food, sleep and water part. We eat well in Elk camp!!

Wasn't that the story about elk cartridges with no dead elk pictures?

Reminds me of a story in the 80s written by Clay Harvey about how great the 7mm Rem Mag was for elk. Then at the end of the article we read he has never hunted elk. Give me a break...

quote:

Originally posted by Antelope Sniper:

quote:

So it all comes down to a running shot at 300 yards?

After 10 days of hard hunting with little food, sleep, and water?

This is a very common scenerio on the public lands where we hunt.... Except the little food, sleep and water part. We eat well in Elk camp!!

To set the record straight the author never said it was a running shot. He said the bull elk was following some cows into the brush and you only had a few seconds to make a hard quartering away shot. He stated at that point it would be better to have a heavy magnum to get through a full stomach, ribs, etc, to get to the vitals and then have an exit for a better blood trail. He NEVER said it was a running shot.

Again, Dick totally misread this article.

AnotherAZwriter,
Dead elk in the article on page 60, read something before you opine.

Perry

quote:

Originally posted by Antelope Sniper:

quote:
So it all comes down to a running shot at 300 yards?

After 10 days of hard hunting with little food, sleep, and water?



This is a very common scenerio on the public lands where we hunt.... Except the little food, sleep and water part. We eat well in Elk camp!!


To set the record straight the author never said it was a running shot. He said the bull elk was following some cows into the brush and you only had a few seconds to make a hard quartering away shot. He stated at that point it would be better to have a heavy magnum to get through a full stomach, ribs, etc, to get to the vitals and then have an exit for a better blood trail. He NEVER said it was a running shot.

Again, Dick totally misread this article.

AnotherAZwriter,
Dead elk in the article on page 60, read something before you opine.

Perry

Good point Perry, so lets rephrase:

"So it all comes down to a few seconds to make a difficult 300 yard quartering shot, after 10 days of hard hunting, with plenty of good food. "

Yes, this is a very common scenerio on the public lands where we hunt....

so i guess the 35 elk i have killed with my 243 were the weaker elk in the woods. i got to call BS on this story . was just out to the rifle range and there were several guys with there big magnums you should of seen there targets ,looked like they were using a shotgun its all shot placement and knowing how your load and rifle preform just my .02

quote:

Originally posted by bigbill0690:
so i guess the 35 elk i have killed with my 243 were the weaker elk in the woods.

Well of course. They must have been if they fell to a bullet from that caliber.

Don't you know the writer's are the experts. Not folks like you who have that many under your belt?

Kidding aside. That # is impressive.

quote:

Originally posted by perry:

quote:

Originally posted by Antelope Sniper:

quote:

So it all comes down to a running shot at 300 yards?

After 10 days of hard hunting with little food, sleep, and water?

This is a very common scenerio on the public lands where we hunt.... Except the little food, sleep and water part. We eat well in Elk camp!!

To set the record straight the author never said it was a running shot. He said the bull elk was following some cows into the brush and you only had a few seconds to make a hard quartering away shot. He stated at that point it would be better to have a heavy magnum to get through a full stomach, ribs, etc, to get to the vitals and then have an exit for a better blood trail. He NEVER said it was a running shot.

Again, Dick totally misread this article.

AnotherAZwriter,
Dead elk in the article on page 60, read something before you opine.

Perry

I threw that issue out, so I can't check. That is why I asked a question and didn't make a statement.

Towsley isn't exactly known as an elk hunter.

For that matter, there are very few writers who could go out and shoot an elk on public land without a guide. There are plenty on this site who do just that.

If it is late the last day of a hunt, the hunter is tired and they spot an elk they would like to take . The elk is 300 yards and running and the hunter shoots, please "hunter" don't call me your friend.

I prefer to have never known you.

Yup.

TCLouis, where in middle, middle TN do you live?

I'm in Camden

I shot an elk with my 338-06 at 280 yards. Quartering to shot presentation. Broke the front ball socket into four pieces, went through the vitals, liver and exited behind the ribs. The bullet, a 210gr TSX.

I am confident it would do just fine on the above shot presentation.

I think my 270 loaded with 130gr TSX's would work just fine too. I don't think the cartridge in my hands would dictate if the shot is taken or not. A good shot presentation is just that. Is the scenario above a good shot presentation? I would have to be put in that position to decide.

Everything else is theoretical armchair banter.

I for one, am much more worried about the nut pulling the trigger and being able to put the bullet in the right spot than the actual cartridge.

I have seen/shot elk shot with archery, 243 Winchester to 375 H&H. I have much more elk hunting problems with arrows/bullets being put in the wrong place than the equipment doing it's job.

Just spent the weekend archery hunting with a friend. Spent close to a combined six hours within 200 yards and closer to a herd of elk. He passsed a spike, cow, and calf during that time hoping the opportunity would arise on the 6x5 herd bull.

But a writer that has been on nothing but hand held guided hunts thinks a super magnum is needed? What a crock. He's obviously been there and done that. But all he is doing is selling a crock to the naive.

quote:

Originally posted by Doc:
If hunters would just bowhunt elk, these discussions wouldn't be of concern.

If I chose to unload on an elk at 300 yards "running," then I'd use whatever I took to begin with thinking it was adequate. Most likely I'd have one of these 3:

30.06, 7mm Rem Mag, or 300 RUM.

Wanna see a video of a dude shoot an elk at 925 yards with a 140 Berger VLD from a 6.5x284?

I think most folks prefer to kill elk instead of wound them.

quote:

Originally posted by AnotherAZWriter:
For that matter, there are very few writers who could go out and shoot an elk on public land without a guide.

Nonesense. Obviously you know very few writers personally. Many of them who were raised or lived in the West were successful hunters and/or guides long before they became writers.

quote:

Originally posted by D99:

quote:

Originally posted by Doc:
If hunters would just bowhunt elk, these discussions wouldn't be of concern.

If I chose to unload on an elk at 300 yards "running," then I'd use whatever I took to begin with thinking it was adequate. Most likely I'd have one of these 3:

30.06, 7mm Rem Mag, or 300 RUM.

Wanna see a video of a dude shoot an elk at 925 yards with a 140 Berger VLD from a 6.5x284?

I think most folks prefer to kill elk instead of wound them.

I think so too.

Was it Bob Milek who wrote of an old packer sliding out of his saddle and braining a fat cow with an iron-sighted .25-35? All hunting is about shot placement.

http://video.google.com/videop...1471134580254066518#

Slide forward to 14:00 that is where the 925yd kill is.

quote:

so i guess the 35 elk i have killed with my 243 were the weaker elk in the woods

How many of those 35 elk were on public land, and how many on private land?

Dick,

If it makes you feel any better, I prefer to hunt with a simple longbow and wood arrows, all you guys are using big super magnums in comparison

I like to collect old hunting books, so I went to my collection and pulled out my 1955 “Hunting Annual” that covered deer, upland, wildfowl, elk, antelope, rabbit, preserves, archery, guns, ammo, gear, dressing and cooking. The book was a wealth of knowledge and experience from expert guides and hunters of the day. Even back then they discussed a Winchester model 71 in 348 Winchester as being the ideal timber rifle for elk when used at close range. For anything in the open 200yards or more on elk that could go 1,00 pounds, they touted the .30-06 with either a 180- or 220-grain bullet as being the overwhelming most popular cartridge used to kill the majority of elk, more than any other cartridge. They placed the 270 Winchester with 130-grain bullet on the light end with enough penetration for quick kills, and they placed the .300 Weatherby Magnum as the best long-range arm you could possibly use for knocking down a big hardy elk, especially when fitted with a 2 ½ or 4-power scope. Seems like nothing has changed over the years other than there being more cartridge selections today than back in 1955. Even back then, Howard Hill was killing big elk with a simple longbow and wood arrow not much different than mine today. I’d not get too torqued up over the Bryce article, he‘s saying basically the same thing they said 55 years ago. It is neither new nor earth shattering.

Best

Perry, he didn't say a "few" seconds, he said about 2 seconds, thats not much time to make a shot under bad conditions at a running elk...& yes they were running, he didn't say they were running but perhaps you haven't hunted elk very much. In the last minutes of darkness elk are feeding out into the "open" not heading into cover, makes sense they were running.
Someone said many writers don't have much elk hunting experience, I disagree, many of them have been taking elk since they were teenagers & doing it on public land just like the rest of us, and they did it with medium calibers & did it well.
I notice you didn't say anything about the 2000 ft lbs of energy nonsense or the later statement where he said energy meant nothing. How about the statement where I said a lot more elk have been wounded or missed with the big guns as opposed to the medium calibers, maybe we wouldn't even want to know the answer to that one!

quote:

Originally posted by Dick Thompson:
In the last minutes of darkness elk are feeding out into the "open" not heading into cover, makes sense they were running.

That's an assumption. It all depends on the situation, and no two might be the same.

Perhaps the elk were already feeding in the open and became aware of the hunters. Thus, the critters decided to meander into the cover. And they wouldn't necessarily run even then, if they didn't perceive an instant threat.

quote:

If it makes you feel any better, I prefer to hunt with a simple longbow and wood arrows,

And are you doing that during the rut, or during rifle season?

Keep in mind, those of us hunting with rifles on public land are doing it AFTER you bow hunter and the muzzle loaders have been out there stiring them up for two to 3 months. We are also not hunting during the RUT, so their mind are all clouded about the thinks that could every guys mind. When you can regularly kill elk with a bow during a late rifle season I will be truly impressed with your stick and your string.

In any event, if you are truely using a "simple bow", not a compound, not even a recurve, no fiber optic sights ect, that's pretty respectable, even during the rut.

So is he saying it is ok to gut shoot a bull with a large caliber and not with a small"er" caliber?

I would guess that if it came down to split second decision for a marginal shot at 300 yards I would rather not take it. It seems like a guy might have to take a hail-mary shot if all he wants is the feeling of success only IF he makes the shot and if he can shake off wounding a bull if the shot goes awry.

I hunt with a 280 and have killed many elk from 40 yards to 578. Never lost one yet, but I guess the difference is I only take shots which I know will kill the animal. A hard quartering shot after a fatigued hunt at 300 yards is NOT a sure thing with any caliber.

I think the 25-06 would be the best choice. Just head shoot him. hahaha

1810 - Advice from a great elk hunter: "The minimum caliber to use on elk is .36 but only in a rifled barrel. Muskets in .58 are marginal and a .50 musket is inadequate regardless of the many elk that have been killed with it"

1860 - Advice from a great elk hunter: "The minimum rifle caliber to use on elk is .58 in ball or mini. The .50 is marginal and a .36 is inadequate regardless of the many elk that have been killed with it"

1910 - Advice from a great elk hunter: "The minimum caliber to use on elk is .30-30. The .25-35 is marginal and any muzzleloader is inadequate regardless of the many elk that have been killed with it"

1960 - Advice from a great elk hunter: "The minimum caliber to use on elk is .30-06. The .270 is marginal and a .30-30 is inadequate regardless of the many elk that have been killed with it"

2010 - Advice from a great elk hunter: "The minimum caliber to use on elk is .300 Magnum. The .30-06 is marginal and a .270 is inadequate regardless of the many elk that have been killed with it"

2060 - Advice from a great elk hunter: "The minimum caliber to use on elk is .50 BMG. The .338 Lapua is marginal and a .300 Magnum is inadequate regardless of the many elk that have been killed with it"

quote:

Originally posted by Dick Thompson:
Perry, he didn't say a "few" seconds, he said about 2 seconds, thats not much time to make a shot under bad conditions at a running elk...& yes they were running, he didn't say they were running but perhaps you haven't hunted elk very much. In the last minutes of darkness elk are feeding out into the "open" not heading into cover, makes sense they were running.
Someone said many writers don't have much elk hunting experience, I disagree, many of them have been taking elk since they were teenagers & doing it on public land just like the rest of us, and they did it with medium calibers & did it well.
I notice you didn't say anything about the 2000 ft lbs of energy nonsense or the later statement where he said energy meant nothing. How about the statement where I said a lot more elk have been wounded or missed with the big guns as opposed to the medium calibers, maybe we wouldn't even want to know the answer to that one!

Dick,
Your reading comprehension is about at a 1st grade level...if that! I'm sorry if I have offended any first grade readers out there, that was not the intent.
"...spots a bull 200 yards away with a bunch of cows. By the time the bull is clear of the cows, they are in the timber and he is following. All you have is a sharp quartering away shot and about 2 seconds before he disappears."
Page 60, American Hunter magazine.

Let me emphasize a few words here. "FOLLOWING". This could mean running...if you are named Dick. In context I would say the bull is, drum roll please, following.
"ABOUT 2 seconds", this could be 5 seconds by the way it was written. The idea/point the author is making here is that time is of the essence...unless of course your name is Dick, then it is exactly 2 seconds. Even though the author used the word "about".

Perry

Meanwhile back at the ranch.....
i love the elk threads......
believe i'll go hunt a "months" worth of them.
and i'm leaving before the sun, in the morning.
good luck and safe travels to the rest of you.

let a few more seasons open and folks won't be quite as grumpy.
at the end of the season i think we will find
alot of different weapons kill elk.

go let the air out of a tan side!