At any rate it was a Toad..fun to just see one for darn sure.

Thx

Mark D

quote:

DOC - "Just reading this thread and was wondering about this. Does this mean that a person that takes a shot at 400 is less of a hunter than one that takes a shot at 200-350?"

Well, Doc, that's just about what I'm saying. In my experieince with elk hunting, both outfitted hunts and non-outfitted hunts in Colo., Wyom., Mont., and Idaho, very, very few of the hunters I've seen, are capable of making 400+ yard shots ACCURATELY on elk/deer.

In fact, most hunters don't have more than a very hazey, vague idea where their bullet will strike at 400 yards, or how to dope the wind at that distance. (I'm not a "wind doper," but then, most other hunters aren't either, although it's fun to talk about.)

I must say that I look slightly askance at those hunters who boast "Oh yeah, that bull was out there 'cross that canyon up in the quakies at 642 yards, so I just held over his back 38 1/2 inches, and slammed him to the ground with one shot!" Yeah, right.

Are there a few hunters who can do that? Sure. A few. But not most.

So, I say, that a hunter using a .308/.30-06/.280/.270 rifle with good bullets, who stalks within 200/250 yards is a good hunter. Better than those who just start cranking off rounds out at 400/500/800 yards with their super blastin' megabanger... and wounding elk/deer.

Just one example of a man I know, who was hunting with a .243, up in central Idaho. He's hunted for years yet, in my opinion, isn't a "good" hunter. Two seasons ago, he startd cranking .243 rounds at a very nice bull elk across a canyon. He fired a couple rounds, managed to wound the elk. The elk started walking. He continued to fire. 12 rounds later, with the elk wounded numerous times, and finally half way down, the hunter was outta ammo.

Being not too far from camp, he hurried back to camp and grabbed some more ammo. Ran back to his spot and began firing again at the wounded bull. Finally he killed the bull, after a total of 23 (twenty three!!) rounds fired.

Later, another hunter lasered the distance from where the shooting began to the dead bull. 625 yards. When they butchered the bull, they found that he'd hit the bull seven times, with only one round being what would be called a "stopper/killer," and that round was very late in the shooting.

Did he take home elk for the freezer?? Yes. Was he a "good" hunter? NO.

If he'd stalked to within 150/200 yards and fired accurately, even with that .243 he'd probably not had to fire more than twice.

Would it have mattered if he'd used a .338 Win. etc., ad naueum?? No. He was firing wounding shots, not killing shots.

Am I an elk hunting expert?? Absolutely not! even though I've been at it many years and have killed a number of elk. I'm still learning!

But even though I'm not an expert, I know that a good hunter gets as close as he can, and then puts a decent caliber bullet into a vital spot on that elk.

FWIW. L.W.

Here are some thoughts to chew on:

A bull elk is a big target.

If you practice and have a rangefinder 400 yards isn't very far.

A good rest, little wind and a bit of time are all that are required.

When the trigger is pressed all hunting ceases and shooting begins no matter the range.

There are plenty more capable at 500 yards than many who consider themselves hunters are at 100.

Many who condemn LR shooting think nothing of whanging away at running game.

Exactly, Brad.

LW, not everybody who takes a shot at 400 yds is an incompetent slob hunter.

I would be comfortable shooting a .308 while sitting on an elk.......a saddle would be helpful.

IV

quote:

Originally posted by Jon A:
Exactly, Brad.

LW, not everybody who takes a shot at 400 yds is an incompetent slob hunter.

Yea, but 99% of them are.

MG

Well put Brad.

If the "hunter"(allowing the use of the term in spite of the bile churning) in the above example, using the .243, had been able to get close enough to make a clean shot, he likely would also be skilled enough to shoot and make a perfect shot. But that doesn't meen the .243 is recommendable.

Hunters should hunt according to the limits that they have placed on themselves.( and each should have those limits) I know we here on this site tend to be avid hunters, shoot much more in practice than most, and see things differently than many. If you choose to hunt with a small caliber rifle then the shots taken should reflect your shooting ability and the rifles capability. Someone who is a poor shot with the "perfect" rifle/cartridge combo is no less ethical than the tiny shooting guy who can hit a dime, but fails to place the bullet in a killing fashion because although he hit it well, the rifle wasn't up to the task. I won't fault someone who takes long shots if they have trained for it. But I will voice my thoughts out-loud about the guy who is wounding with a small bullet, or taking shots he's not capable of.

These threads always stir a great debate and are interesting in the way it brings things out in people. They start with "Is it big enough?" and the flames fly. If someone questions what they are using then they are not comfortable with it's performance and they should either change what they're using, or how they're using it. I never recommend the smallest calibers for beginners as they really should be reserved for riflemen who are very capable, and don't lose their cool.

The question of this thread was are you comfortable with the .308W for Elk. If everyone would answer why they are or aren't we'd get a whole different twist and it would be based on the varibles that each person placed into the situation. It's these variables that really cause the arguments. One mans mental picture of the situation won't be the next guys. Many have very little experience elk hunting and yet they offer their point of view based on that experience as much as a guy will who has 30 years worth! Those same two guys probably won't hunt the same way, and their needs will actually be different.

When people start recommending the bigger rounds for elk I think thats pretty good advice to a point. But if they have little or no experience with such a big, hard kicking rifle, they will likely be terribe shots with it. For most people it's far smarter to recommend lots of field practice from field positions, than to urge them to use some ultra-mag. There are sensible recommendations if they don't have a clue, but really it comes back to the understanding of ones personal limits, and the effectiveness of the firearm being used. The .308 is effective within it's limits. The guy shooting it is what is generally the biggest cause of the poor performance. Nate

Since 1964, I have owned .308s. Although I have used a .300 Win. mag. to kill the majority of the elk that I have taken, I have also taken a good handful of them with a .308. I absolutely do not have any misgivings about using a .308 for elk hunting. It is more than up to the task. CP.

quote:

Exactly, Brad.

LW, not everybody who takes a shot at 400 yds is an incompetent slob hunter.

________________________________________________

Jon A, please point out in my post where I said that. I doubt you can do so.

What I said was that a whole lot of hunters are not competent when it comes to long range shooting, and it doesn't make a bit of difference what caliber rifle they use.

Also, Brad offers a number of "caveats" to my post, in that he mentions " practice; rangefinders; good, solid rests; little wind; bit of time," and "bull elk at 400 yards are big targets."

Okay, Brad, I'll give you all those caveats... except the final "bull elk at 400 yards are big targets." Of course, you're listing the nearly perfect setup to shoot elk(& deer) at long ranges. Most hunters do not practice much, often have a problem finding a solid rest, even if they have a rangefinder, don't have time to use it, and if there's a wind, don't know how to dope it, and don't know where their bullets will strike "waaaaay out there."

Add into that the "being out of condition" factor affecting many, many hunters, and adrenalin pumping like an oil well blowing in, and more complications cloud the picture.

As for "elk are big targets at 400 yards," perhaps they are to you, as I imagine you see them often, (so do I), but I submit that to most hunters, the 18"x14" +/- kill area is not that big, out that far and beyond.

My point is and was, given this thread is about a .308 W. being good for elk is that it is fine, so long as the hunter gets close enough to make a killing shot, and uses a good bullet.

Saying that the .308 is not a good choice because you might be cranking rounds out there at 400/500/800 + yards, so go to a magnum, caused me to post my opinion.

By the way, I DO NOT take running shots on game. I'm not that good. I'm sure you are, so more power to you. But I'll submit that more hunters wound and lose game taking those running shots, than those who get closer, and with a decent caliber, shoot when the animal is NOT running.

Just my opinion. You and other dissenters certainly have a right to yours'.

L.W.

quote:

Originally posted by Leanwolff:
Jon A, please point out in my post where I said that. I doubt you can do so.

When asked about shots over 400, you gave an example of an incompetent slob hunter as "just one example."

quote:
JON A -"Originally posted by Leanwolff:

______JON A -"Originally posted by Leanwolff:
Jon A, please point out in my post where I said that. I doubt you can do so.

When asked about shots over 400, you gave an example of an incompetent slob hunter as "just one example."_________________________________________________________



Nope, won't wash, Jon A. I gave you an example of ONE incompetent long range shooter who is a slob. I did not say that all hunters taking those long shots are slobs. (But I assure you, I've seen some, who are slobs.)

Conversely, I have a friend who has killed quite a few bull elk, and has made some very long shots... but he doesn't take those shots unless he is "setup" the way Brad mentioned.

He also happens to be an outstanding marksman who practices shooting a lot, and is out in elk country very, very often, scouting and ranging elk at various distances.

If you are able to crank off rounds at far distances and bring home elk without wounding some before finally bringing one to groud, fine with me. Most hunters are not that good. See above post for the reasons I believe this.

We all have opinions: you're entitled to your's. I've expressed mine.

L.W.

"When people start recommending the bigger rounds for elk I think thats pretty good advice to a point. But if they have little or no experience with such a big, hard kicking rifle, they will likely be terribe shots with it. For most people it's far smarter to recommend lots of field practice from field positions, than to urge them to use some ultra-mag. There are sensible recommendations if they don't have a clue, but really it comes back to the understanding of ones personal limits, and the effectiveness of the firearm being used. The .308 is effective within it's limits. The guy shooting it is what is generally the biggest cause of the poor performance. Nate"
--------------------------------------------------------------------


I could not agree more. I think a .308 is an excellent choice because it allows you to practice extensively with it. I can shoot a bunch of .308 rounds at the range and become a better and more proficient shooter with it because if its mild manners. I would like to see somebody try and shoot an 80 round national match course with a 300 ultra. Again, with the 308 you will be able to learn its limitations and not be afraid to squeeze one off. Awesome firepower will not make up for lousy shooting. Awesome cartridges are usually detrimental to accuracy. A puny .308 in the lungs is way better than a .300 ultra mag in the guts.

First let me say a 308 is an effective killer of elk when careful shots are taken. I have a PH buddy in Zim who uses it for all personal plains game including eland. I personally like to use more gun when hunting trophy elk. I feel a lot more comfortable with a 338 at that going away quartering shot that happens all too often. It seems prudent to me to use the best tool for the job and I think more horsepower is needed. Please remember this is simply my opinion and if all I had was a 308 I would take it hunting and not give it a thought.

A .308 will be fine. Just know its effective range. I would say up to 200 yards or just a tad over. I don't take shots at elk over 300 yards. (I Shoot a .300 Win Mag) This year I shot an elk (2.5 year old cow) at 30 yards with the .300 Win Mag right through the lungs. It took off running, I gave it another through the lungs and it was down. When skinning it, I found that both shots were fatal, (through the heart and lungs) but when hunting in Wolf, Grizzly and Black Bear habitat, I don't want them to run. The only Effective way I have found to drop elk in its tracks is put a bullet through there shoulders. But that wastes meat. Elk have lots of stamina and are powerful animals. you have to respect them.

LW, Jon A, Brad, and whomever else is interested:

I certainly wouldn't condone a 600+ yard shot at an elk with a 243 either. From that story I'd be rather sour on Long range shooting/hunting too. I cannot speak for other hunters but I'd GUESS that most do not practice more than a couple of hundred yards either. BUT, once I've got a load for a rifle that is capable of killing efficiently at several hundred yards, I practice practice practice.

LW, your post didn't rub me the wrong way but I find myself with the group that would take a 500 yard shot in a heart beat but only because I've prepared for months in advance. I'm not sure what it takes to measure a "good" hunter, or a less than good hunter, be it number of kills under your belt, how many states a hunter has been, how many species, archery, ML, rifle, etc.

But, I have a bum knee and cannot run across canyons, across sage flats, etc. at top speeds to "get within ethical shooting distances" 100 percent of the time. However, just to let you know, I have passed up many a shot at BIG animals because not everything was perfect at that moment. I simply won't pull a trigger unless I'm 200% sure I can hit the vitals. I've also never "blazed away" at game and never will. I've seen that happen too and do not condone it.

Anyway, I'll act a bit conceited here, brag, or whatever, but I'm very comfortable with 3 of my rifles shooting in excess of 500 yards and will in a heartbeat if circumstances are right for me. (But, thank GOD I haven't been in that pickle yet b/c I prefer 25 yard shots).

I'd say I have to agree with naja302 that the 308 with plain old 180 gr CoreLokts or Powerpoints will work just as good or better than the "Specialty" Bullets due to the speed of the 308. Also, before there was a 308, there was the 30-40 Krag, 303 British, 35 Rem. and the 300 Savage all using those same bullets and performing quite well, "Thank You Kindly". Granted, I'd grab my 30-06 over my 308 if I had the choice for Elk but I have two 308's that I wouldn't hesatate to use and I have. Godsdog.

I would have no problem elk hunting with the 308 win. It produces enough energy and is quite capable of being accurate. Loaded with a 165-200gr. bullet there would be no problems.

Furthermore, a premium bullet would not be needed if a heavy for caliber bullet was used (over 180gr.) because velocities would be low enough that bullet break-up would be reduced.

quote:

Originally posted by 7magman:
Furthermore, a premium bullet would not be needed if a heavy for caliber bullet was used (over 180gr.) because velocities would be low enough that bullet break-up would be reduced.

That is right. FWIW, several elk guides I've talked to preach this statement exactly. One bullet that keeps coming up is the standard Hornady Interlokt bullet.

There is often the assumption that if a guy carries a "big gun" he can't possibly shoot it as well as a "small gun" or that shots past some arbitrary yardage are unethical because many can't make them. All that seems pretty silly to me. A .308 will kill Elk but a bigger gun offers an indisputable edge all the way around if you can handle it and none at all if you can't. Given limited time to hunt and the sheer cost involved I always try to ues a rifle that will get the job done under the worst circumstances I can imagine. For me that means Elk rifles start at the .300 magnums and I prefer a .338 but everyone has to row their own boat on something like this. A man's got to know his limitations on range and caliber and we all have them.

I'm going to offer a slightly different take on the premium vs. non-premium idea above.

While it's true simple cup bullets work great in lower velocity rounds like the 308 it's equally true that premiums only enhance the round.

For me a round that's "elk capable" should be able to penetrate to the vitals and/or break down a bull from a variety of angles. A 150 or 168 TSX would certainly meet that criteria from a 308 but a 150 Hornady would not. The Hornady would be fine for broadside shots but elk in the timber seldom present such shots.

When you need a premium bullet on an elk hunt you tend to need it badly...