The Accurate Reloading Forums THE ACCURATE RELOADING.COM FORUMS Hunting American Big Game Hunting 22 centerfire for Elk? No way in hail!!!!Go | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply | |
| 22 centerfire for Elk? No way in hail!!!! | Login/Join |
| one of us |
A game farm owner in Namibia recently told me that he had taken 17 gemsbok with 17 successive shots ranging from 80 metres to 378 meters. He used his 22-250 with a 40 grain monometal bullet at 4200 fps. When I questioned the credibility of the statement of 378 meters, he pointed out that he uses a Swarovski scope with integral laser range finder. We use a pair of 220 Swift rifles with the same bullet at 4400 fps and I have taken blesbuck at 430 metres with full penetration of the chest cavity. This coming week I am rechambering one of them to 22-06 to see if 5000 fps is possible. Time will tell what can be taken reliably with it. One thing I do know is that the times are a-changing as far as bullet technology is concerned. Total reliability can be had with much lighter and faster bullets than before, but time will tell where the new limits will be. This is the normal process of establishing the parameters of any new development. | |||
|
| Administrator |
Sure-shot, I have friends in Africa who use nothing but a 223 to cull all their animals - including kudu and waterbuck. I think they do this mostly at night, where the animals are shot at very short distances though. Gerard, Good to see you back with us. Someone was asking about his bullets that were ordered from you. I think it is on the African forum, not sure though. ------------------ www.accuratereloading.com | |||
|
| Administrator |
Gerarad, Here is the thread I mentioned above. http://www.serveroptions.com/ubb/Forum6/HTML/002073.html ------------------ www.accuratereloading.com | |||
|
one of us |
Possible? Yes Better alternatives? Yes High risk of wounding? Yes Unethical? Yes Ammunition for our critics? Yes (excuse pun) Best avoided? YES! | |||
|
| one of us |
Thanks Saeed, I saw it and it is resolved. Deerdogs, | |||
|
one of us |
I know some young hunter here, which use .223 remington for wild boars, elks and for all other game (except mouflon). This is simply because he haven't any other rifle . . . | |||
|
| <sure-shot> |
My problem is the use of this bullet on elk. Our Roosevelt and Rocky Mountain elk can weigh up to 1200lbs in a mature bull. Every hunting season elk are lost due to 1. Poor shot placement or 2. Bullet failure. I doubt poor shot placement would be problem with the 22-284. I have witnessed elk moving along ways after taking a hit in the vitals. In my opinion elk are the toughest North American big game animal to bring down. Just a few years ago while hunting mule deer above Ray's home (Idaho) I saw a nice 320 class bull elk hobbling around with an archer's arrow sunk in half way into it's front chest. This was I believe 2 weeks after the archery season ended. I've also witnessed a bull wounded by a hunting partner with a 7Rmag 160gr in which it took most of the day to track down because of his poor shot placement. There still exists today the controversy over the late Jack OConner's use of the 270win on elk. I have friends who have used the 270 with premium bullets on elk with mixed results - the bulls went down but not right away. In dense timber recovery can be difficult and this is where the big bulls hang out, the thick, nasty hail holes where no sane man would go,let alone with a puny rifle. Anyone who has hunted the game fields of Colorado in mid November can tell you of the wounded elk hobbling around during the migration. If you glass hard enough you will spot one during the migrations of thousands of elk. I'm not saying this was due to using 22 centerfires on elk but I feel these animals deserve better fate. Anyone who shows up in my hunting camp with a 22centerfire to hunt elk will be asked to go home. Better to spend time hunting big bulls rather than chasing wounded game all over the mountain! sure-shot | ||
|
| one of us |
So, what round/bullet combination will do it all of time? | |||
|
| <sure-shot> |
Robert, any of the 338s including the 338-06 launching 200-250gr controlled expansion bullets. The new 300WSM necked up to 338 in a SA Win 70 would be really nice especially for the recoil-shy. I feel the 300 mags will do it also including the 30/06 if the right bullets are used and the range is kept moderate. After using a 7rmag for 15 yrs I'm moving down in cartridges for the lighter big game(deer,antelope,sheep) and moving up for the larger big game(elk,bear,moose) I like to see game hit the dirt hard although it does not always happen that way. Back to the 338s, the larger diameter bullets with the high sectional density results in an impressive force. The A square manual lists the 338 bullets as tops in the penetration dept. The recoil in a properly built 338win mag isn't bad either kinda like a light weight 30-06 shooting 220grainers. Just my own opinion, sure-shot | ||
|
| one of us |
I agree with Sure shot, in that the 22's are not elk rifles, to argue otherwise is ridiculas...to hunt a grand animal like an elk with a 22 caliber rifle of any kind,on his terms borders on stupidity..Yes, I know a family that shoots several elk each year out the window of their house with a 22-250, while the elk feed on a haystack 20 yards away and it works just fine for them. But c'mon thats not fair chase, thats murder for food. I have culled hundreds of big animals, Kudu, Gemsbok, and the smaller antelope with 223's and my 6x45 using mostly head and upper neck shots and no doubt they work, but you will on ocassions break a jaw or otherwise wound an animal and have to track it down and finish it off...Thats killing and has nothing to do with sport hunting. Most shots are taken out of the bakkie, with a rest at less than 50 yds. and never more than 100 yds. I would use nothing less than a 308 or 7x57 for fair chase elk hunting. My choice will allways be a 9.3x62, 338 or 375 H&H as a matter of fact..I want something that will shoot through whatever I'm hunting from one end to the other... Some ignorant gun writer is going to prove to everyone something that ever hunter knows allready, that is really dumb and they have surely ran out of material to write about... ------------------ | |||
|
| one of us |
I agree with Sure shot, in that the 22's are not elk rifles, to argue otherwise is ridiculas...to hunt a grand animal like an elk with a 22 caliber rifle of any kind,on his terms borders on stupidity..Yes, I know a family that shoots several elk each year out the window of their house with a 22-250, while the elk feed on a haystack 20 yards away and it works just fine for them. But c'mon thats not fair chase, thats murder for food. I have culled hundreds of big animals, Kudu, Gemsbok, and the smaller antelope with 223's and my 6x45 using mostly head and upper neck shots and no doubt they work, but you will on ocassions break a jaw or otherwise wound an animal and have to track it down and finish it off...Thats killing and has nothing to do with sport hunting. Most shots are taken out of the bakkie, with a rest at less than 50 yds. and never more than 100 yds. I would use nothing less than a 308 or 7x57 for fair chase elk hunting. My choice will allways be a 9.3x62, 338 or 375 H&H as a matter of fact..I want something that will shoot through whatever I'm hunting from one end to the other... Some ignorant gun writer is going to prove to everyone something that ever hunter knows allready, that is really dumb and they have surely ran out of material to write about...thats the kinda stuff that agrivates me... ------------------ | |||
|
| one of us |
| |||
|
| one of us |
Never thought I would see the day that Ray develops a flinch! ------------------ | |||
|
| Administrator |
Gerarad, HE DID! And we have the proof here ------------------ www.accuratereloading.com | |||
|
| <William E. Tibbe> |
Now just a moment gentlemen: What sayeth thee about this: Tha Alaska Deparment of Fish and Game has approved the use of .22 caliber RIM fire on Caribou. Lets hear it! Trash them or applaud them? Kendall Dace | ||
|
| one of us |
You must consider who wrote the article. What a joke. | |||
|
| <10point> |
I was deeply disgusted at seeing all the cripple's I saw in CO. last year, among the Elk herds. Even worse was the volley of shot's I heard on a daily basis. I know that kind of volleying when I hear it ; Ive been around long enough to have heard it enough. Its 4 or 5 guy's emptying their rifle's at once , reloading , and emptying again. No doubt they were driving along in their truck when they saw a herd , jumped out, and emtied magazines into the herd. My guide would just shake his head. Now some gunwriter say's he wants to shoot a Bull with a 78 grn bullet for the hell of it. Thats great, just great. Do you think it'll make print if he cripples and loses a fine game animal like that ? I dont, I bet we never hear a thing more about it if that is what happens. Worse will be if he actually kill's one and run's home to his typewriter. Then every Billybob and JimmeyJoe will want to do the same thing. What a stupid stunt........10 | ||
|
| <perrydog> |
Direct quote from the 2001-02 reg book, page 14, Big Game hunting restrictions. "You may not use a rimfire firearm, except you may use a .22 caliber rimfire cartridges to take swimming caribou from a boat in Units 23 and 26" This is a provision for hunting the Western Arctic herd, ~430,000 caribou, near Kotzebue and NW Alaska. Another popular way to kill them is to motor up to them, grab antlers and hit them in head with a large hammer, then cut throat as you motor into shore. This is not hunting, just an efficient way to get meat. Most of those .22 rimfires are administered at less than 5 feet. Shooting a carbiou with a .22 rimfire any other way would not be sporting, just plain dumb. I know someone who hunts caribou with a 223 rem, but he is a good shot, shots them from a good rest at less than 100 yards and shots them at the base of the neck. He doesn't like to waste ANY meat. That said, I am willing to waste the little I do when shooting them in the chest with a 280 just for the safety margin a 280 gives me. A 22-284 for elk seems like an publicity stunt or someone insecure feeling like he needs to prove something. Use a 7mm, 30 cal or 338 or the like seems like a safer bet. | ||
|
| <Warren Jensen> |
Gentlemen, Lots of opinions have been entered in this thread. Some of these are opinions from men who I have the greatest respect for. Let me take a minute and add some facts and first hand knowledge. The 22-284 is not an elk rifle. It was not intended to be an elk rifle. It is one hell of a varmint rifle and will work as an excellent deer rifle with the proper bullets. It could be used to take elk under the right conditions, as could any other of a number of cartridges that are marginal for elk. The exact quote in Handloader 212, by Ross Seyfried, is "I would not have even a momentary second thought about pointing one of these at the middle of a big buck's shoulders, and I would think seriously about landing one on an elk.". That is a long ways from endorsing the 22-284 as an elk rifle. Let's go back aways and cover the background on this cartridge and rifle. Sometime more than a year ago I was approached by Carl Bridges of Broken Arrow, OK. He is an old customer of mine. He said he had a problem. He had a high velocity .224 caliber rifle and he could not get bullets to hold together. That is hold together, not on impact with game, but hold together in flight. He said that with a 1:7 twist and 3800 fps. the bullets were literally vaporizing in flight. He asked if I could make a bullet that would hold together at these velocities and twist rates. I said I thought I could but I would need the rifle to test performance. He shipped the rifle the next day. After several weeks I called Carl and told him that I could make bullets that would hold together in flight, and by the way, that it was the most accurate hunting weight rifle I had ever shot. He then asked if I could make a hunting bullet that would hold together on impacts at these high velocities. I said I would try, which I did for several more weeks. I had asked what size game he was going to hunt. He said deer. That is important because "deer" is a generic animal size, some of which can go over 400 lbs. I had to know what kind of penetration profile I would need. We settled on a penetration profile that would give us 3 1/2 ft to 4 ft of penetration on tissue. We have an extensive test system and can simulate tissue in an indoor range, but we like to confirm it on live animals. We arrived at a projectile that weighed 78 grains. It gave good penetration depth and wound channel width when impacts were above 3300 fps. I tested it last season on a 3 year old mule deer buck that weighed near 200 lbs. I shot him through the shoulders and he died in his tracks. An autopsy showed a would channel that did not have as large a secondary as I would have liked. It was adequate, but not the width that I prefer. We redesigned the bullet to give a wider, longer wound channel. Tests on animals showed that it is much improved over the original design. In the meantime Carl had contacted Ross Seyfried about doing an article on the rifle. He asked that if when we were done could we ship it directly to Ross. We agreed. Ross had been one of the original cartridge designers. There is one aspect of this rifle and cartridge that I have glossed over that is of major consideration. It is the single most accurate hunting rifle I have ever shot. We shot numerous three, four, and five shot groups of under 1" at 400 yds. Many of these were in light to medium wind. It was so accurate that I assumed that this was one of those "hummer" rifles and so we asked Carl to make us another one. We shipped him a new action and in two weeks we had another 22-284. If anything this new rifle was more accurate than the original. It became the personal possession of our best shooter. He said nobody else could use it to it's potential. It's potential is impressive. I have seen it make many, many first shot kills on ground squirrels at greater than 300 yds. That is squirrels, not chucks. Shooting a rifle that is that accurate will instill a lot of confidence. Late last spring we were satisfied with the target, varmint and game bullets and shipped the rifle to Ross. The result of his testing is in the article in Handloader 212. I have known Ross since 1989. He is in my opinion one of the top two writer's in the arms and ammunition field. He is experienced, knowledgeable, and friendly. He will call them as he sees them and is not afraid to bring you up short if you products are not up to snuff. He is not one of those writers who does articles for trips or hardware. He is the only big name writer that has ever called me up, ordered bullets, and paid for them. He does articles that interest him. He also will say things that may seem unconventional, but without a qualification, if he says something is so, you can take that to the bank. He is not perfect. As with anyone, who has won the title "World Champion", in competition, he tends to be a perfectionist. That quote of his that I used earlier may seem to some of you as an endorsement of the 22-284 as an elk rifle. That is not what he meant at all, in my opinion. He meant that the cartridge and rifle was a very good deer rifle and could take an elk under the right conditions. That statement I will personally stand by, having taken big game with it. Ross is very experienced at hunting elk and understands full well how difficult they can be to put down. So do I. On our web page, I wrote the description of elk and elk hunting several years ago. If you want to read my opinion, the web address is www.lostriverballistic.com. Go to the main page, left menu. Click "Game Animals", and then "Elk". You can read what I think about elk and elk hunting, and what it takes to kill them cleanly. I will quote here from the last paragraph, "Carry a rifle that you can shoot well. Carry a rifle chambered for the largest cartridge that you can shoot well. Accuracy is the most important factor in lethality, but it is not the only one. Bigger bullets, constructed properly, will give you an edge. On the other hand, do not carry a rifle chambered for a large cartridge that you cannot shoot well, due either to recoil sensitivity or lack of familiarity. Elk are tough, and when wounded they can go a long ways. Not by coincidence this is almost never in the direction of the horses or the truck. Make your first shot count and always be prepared to follow it up." I have discussed elk hunting with Ross on many occasions and I am certain that he feels the same way. I am not here to apologize for Ross. His statement is true that it can kill an elk. I would have preferred that he spent more time qualifying the statement because I knew when I read it that some folks would take it as a full fledged endorsement of the 22-284 as an elk rifle. It wasn't. Ross's personal choice when hunting big bulls is a 340 Wby. I would place the 22-284's lethality at above a 243 Winchester and a 257 Roberts and near a 25-06, with the proper bullets. None of these are elk rifles either, in my opinion, although they all have harvested elk quite cleanly many times. It is not an overblown 223 Remington, or a 22-250 or a Swift. The latter carry 1:14 twist barrels and will not handle hunting weight bullets well, in my opinion. The 22-284 is something quite more in lethality than these other .224 centerfires, especially with bullets that are designed for impacts and penetration at those exceptional speeds. Lastly, this is not and was not an attempt to sell more bullets. I knew when I agreed to work on this project for Carl that it would be a money loser from the start. I have been at this business for a while now and I know that very few people are going to spend $1.75/each for a .224 caliber, and I will never sell enough of them to get the price down much below that. I probably never will recoup the cost of the time and effort put into this project. But it was worth it in non monetary terms. The rifle and cartridge are spectacular performers. The accuracy instills a confidence that you probably will not fully understand until you've shot a rifle that has it's capabilities. I personally believe that is why Ross made the statement that he did. If you want to say that he did not put enough qualifiers on his statement and someone who did not know better might take that as a license to use any .22 centerfire to hunt elk then I won't argue. If you want to say that Ross does not know what he is talking about, then you are wrong. I hope this will add something positive to the discussion. ------------------ | ||
|
| one of us |
So, I guess this means that the .17 Remington is out as an Elk rifle, even with Lost River Bullets?  - Sheister | |||
|
| <William E. Tibbe> |
Perry Dog: I was aware of the limitations and restrictions on the ADFG allowance of using .22 RIM fire. The NW Alaska is the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve. My assumption, from other discussions with ADFG biologist is, they probably made that liberal allowance for the Inuits/Eskimos and locals because: #1. Of the economic aspect. #2. The present abundance of Caribou. #3. The desire to make it easier on the people who inhabit the area to harvest food. Thus it would be a sort of "boost" to "subsistence" hunting. But could you imagine a non-resident hunter from the "lower 48" hauling a boat up to the north of Alaska to take a caribou from a lake while swimming? By the way a single shot shotgun works quite well also. Warren Jensen: Your dissertation was very informative and interesting. As a matter of fact I have been entertaining the idea of building another rifle, this time a small caliber, super accurate type so I would be interested in hearing more details about the 22-284's that were built; action, barrel, stock and reloading details; bullet type, shape, ogive, construction, tip type, jacket, primers, powder, load. As regards the numerous general comments about using a .22 caliber for elk, Wyoming Game and Fish law; 23-3-111 Size Of Gun To Be Used Hunting Big Or Trophy Game Animals: "(a) except as otherwise provided big or trophy game animals may only be taken with the following type of firearms ": (i) A firearm that has a barrl bore diameter of at least twenty-three-hundredths (23/100) of an inch and is chambered to fire a center-fire cartridge not less than two (2) inches in overall length, including a soft or expanding point bullet seated to a normal depth or any other cartridge authorized by the commission that has a barrel bore diameter of at least thirty-five hundredths (.35) of an inch and generally delivers at least five hundred ( 500 ) ft-pounds of impact at one hundred ( 100 ) yards; or"----- It goes on to include muzzle loading rifles 40/100 of an inch using 50 grains of black powder and muzzle loading hand guns 45/100 inch with 240 grain bullets and a 10" barrel all delivering 500 foot pounds at 100 yards. Elsewhere; The average factory rifle cartridge ballistics recommendations are ( this relates the bullets to the game animals optimum weight ), for: 243 Winchester 80 grain bullet at 3350 fps ( muzzle velocity ) at 100 yards the animal should weigh 83 pounds. 220 Swift 50 grain bullet 4110 fps ( mv ) the animal should weigh 47 pounds at 100 yards. 6mm Remington 80 grain bullet at 3450 fps ( mv ) at 100 yards the animal should weigh 92 pounds. The first caliber the tables recommend for a 900 pound animal is 270 Weatherby Magnum, 150 grain bullet at 3245 fps, good at 100 yards for a 945 pound animal. A .257 Weatherby is recommended for a 500 pound animal using a 100 grain bullet at 3555 fps ( mv ) at 100 yards. Wyoming Law #23-3-110 Rifles using centerfire twenty-two (.22) magnum caliber may be used to take wild turkeys. From all of the above one could conclude that the 22-284 would be just fine for shooting swimming elk from a boat at five (5) feet. Personally I use a.338 Winchester Magnum and a 225 grain bullet at 2785 fps ( mv ) delivering 3871 foot pounds, but not from a boat. Kendall Dace | ||
|
| <Warren Jensen> |
Kendall, My response was not an opening to advertise the 22-284 or our bullets. As such I will avoid further descriptions of these in this thread, because that's what it will in fact appear to be.
------------------ Warren@lostriverballistic.com [This message has been edited by Warren Jensen (edited 08-14-2001).] | ||
|
| one of us |
we don't have many elk in north carolina but they are trying to restock in the mountains, but i would love to try a 22 centerfire on our small whitetails, what kind of rig would you need, what is the shortest barrel you could get away with, barrel life? or should i get 7mm/50bmg built so i can shoot a 90lb doe or 175 lb buck across a 10 acre soybean field, from a shooting house | |||
|
| <sure-shot> |
Warren Jensen, I would like to thank you for your clarification on Ross's article. However let me quote the second paragraph of the article: " The other rifle is a 22-caliber "varmint" rifle. It has one of the largest reasonable cases for this bore size. While it looks like a heavy-barreled varminter of more or less conventional design, it set out to prove that it might be a sheep rifle or deer rifle-maybe even an elk rifle." I think that paragraph pretty much says it all. With all due respect for Ross I can't but think he blew it on this one. I was pretty suprised it came from him. Maybe he will clarify in the next issue not to use this set-up on elk. I also feel he was a little hard on the 7STW, one of the finest proven long range big game cartridges to this day.(In the hands of a capable rifleman) sure-shot | ||
|
| <10point> |
Warren I for one would welcom any information about, what is clearly, a revolutionary bullet design. I dont think that is advertisement, we have other bullet maker's, gunnies, guide's, PH's, and other's "in the business" on this sight. IMOHO I think thats one of the best things about this sight, which I think is the best on the web "drum-roll for Saeed and the Moderator's". There's a lot of knowledge here, which includes manufacture's and I'd hate to lose that, we also respect each other on this sight. everyone has an opinion. I came on a little strong on this one. I guess its one of the biggest problem we have in our sport, shooting game irresponsable, either with not enough gun or a hunter shooting outside their capabilities..:ie..long! Thanks for clarifying. I dont remember this writer ever being anything but responsable, at least thru his writing's. It kind of sounds as if the excitement the rifle/load combo gave him made him "drop a bit to much ink". I can understand that, a true "shooter" is one of lifes joy's and one that you never experience enough in one lifetime. But these Elk are tough. My personal belief is that "I'd never go after them with less then a 3006 and 180's". I prefer a .338 win mag. Exactly how are these bullets you speak of constructed ? Thanks.....10 | ||
|
| <Paul Dustin> |
I could see maybe deer with a 22 centerfire but Elk I would not even try it with a good shoot you could loose the elk. They are hard the kill with a hipower rifle. | ||
|
| <William E. Tibbe> |
Warren: There are still people that believe a bullets weight does have a relationship with the game animal weight. However, the relationship is neither simplistic nor naive. The OGW tables that I referred to are commonly found in one of the oldest and best known reloading manuals in the USA and those tables have been around for more than 20 years. The creator of the tables is very well known and a true expert in the field, having hunted for decades and taken animals around the world in addition to owning and having owned rifles in a great number of calibers covering the full range. He devotes two pages to explanations of the advantages and shortfalls of the tables and while he freely declares that they are very subjective, at the same time he says they correlate very well with actual field experience of many hunters. The development of the formula over many years takes into consideration factors that others have found important: kinetic energy, momentum, bullet sectional density, bullet diameter, bullet nose configuration, impact velocity and a number of other considerations. Elements of the formula also recognize the performance of frangible high speed varmint bullets and heavy big game bullets. Apart from that I want to point out the great disparity of the relationship of a bullets weight to the animal being shot. For example shooting a prairie dog that weighs 5 pounds with a 78 grain bullet equates to 78/5 = 15.6 grains per pound. Prairie dogs do not vary much in size. Now lets assume that a 22-284 is used on an elk. Here calfs, cows and bulls are all legal. A calf may weigh 300 pounds whereas a big bull may go 800 or 900 pounds. But we just say "elk" without distinguishing. Now - that same 78 grain bullet that we used on the 5 pound prairie dog translates into 78/900 lb. elk = .086 grains per pound. Lets kick it up to a 225 grain - .338 Win Mag. 225/900 lb. elk = .25 grains per pound. We are using 62.4 times more lead per pound on the prairie dog than the elk ( 15.6/.25 = 62.4 ). So lets attain parity. We will up the lead dose for elk to that used on the prairie dog. That would be 15.5 grains per pound x 900 pound elk = 14,040 grains! Now lets downsize the lead dose for elk ( .25 grains per pound ) to achieve parity with the prairie dog ( .25 grains per pound x 5 pound dog = 1.25 grain bullet. Now we have the thorny task of building a 1.25 grain bullet for dogs in .22 caliber and a 14,040 grain bullet in .338 caliber for elk. It's becoming a little bit preposterous isn't it? So, instead lets build a 225 grain bullet in .22 caliber to achieve parity with the .338 Wim Mag. We'll call it the .22-284 custom Win Mag. The bullet will be long and slim. It has to be 2.88 times longer than a 78 grain bullet ( 225/78 = 2.88 ). Now-lets build a 78 grain bullet in .338 to achieve parity. The bullet has to be 2.88 times shorter than a 225 grain - .338 Win Mag bullet. The 225 grain is about 1.25" long so the 78 grain-.338 would be about .43 inches long. Maybe there is a better way! The calibers used on very large African , big game ( elephant, rhino ) are not able to achieve the desired penetration using lead bullets, copper jacketed. Thus they go to solids. So - it follows that .22-284 bullets should be solids for use on larger game. There is yet another problem with "lighter" bullets vs "heavier bullets" - velocity decay. When selecting a bullet for use on - lets say deer in .25 caliber - a 60 or 70 grain bullet will have a muzzle velocity much higher that a 117 grain bullet but out at 200 or 300 yards the heavier bullet will have a significantly higher sustained velocity and higher foot pounds of energy. By the same token, that is another detractor from shooting .22 caliber 78 grain bullets even in solids at large game, at long distances. If novices and uninformed hunters will abide by the practice of matching bullet weights and calibers to OGW they will surely avoid the pitfalls and concerns of the posters above who have voiced alarm at implications of sports writers mentioning .22 caliber for elk. In the meantime the .22-284 still has a long way to go in becoming an effective rifle for elk. And that will be achieving the ability to shoot much higher velocities and much heavier bullets. As far as turkeys are concerned, if the .22-284 will shoot solids in 1" groups at 400 yards, then I will be prone to twisting your arm a lot to wring out the details of your rifle and bullets. Kendall Dace | ||
|
| <Warren Jensen> |
Sure-shot and 10-point, Your points are well taken. Kendall, I am intimately familiar with the formula of which you are speaking. It does take into account all of the factors that you mentioned, but it leaves out the most important factor, which is bullet construction. It makes no allowances for the penetration profile, the expansion rate, the secondary wound channel, the velocity of penetration, the channel at depth, and a half dozen more factors. Using that formula, all .243-100 gr bullets are the same, all .284-150 gr. bullets are the same, all .308-180 gr. bullets are the same. The fact is they are not the same. The construction of the bullet, it's penetration profile, and all of the factors I mentioned above have more to do with the bullet's lethality than it's weight, momentum, or energy. The formula is a simplistic solution. What makes a bullet lethal is the wound channel it leaves. Any study of the lethality of various bullets must include the nature of what the bullet does during penetration. To assume that if a bullet weighs X and is traveling Y then it will always do the same thing during tissue penetration even though bullets with these same two identical characteristics are designed and constructed entirely differently is not science. It is advertising and promotion. Even bullets from the same manufacturer of the same caliber and weight can have entirely different lethality characteristics. Would you consider the .308-180 gr. Nosler Ballistic Tip to have the same lethality characteristics as the .308-180 Partition. What would the difference be at 2800 fps. impacts, or at 3500 fps. impacts. The formula says they are the same. Do you think they are the same? If you want to know how a bullet will perform on game and if you want to compare different bullets and rate their comparative lethality you have to shoot them. Media of the various types can tell you a lot, but ultimately you have to use them on game. Then you have to do complete autopsies and record and photograph the results. You have to do this many times before you can derive valid conclusions because the factors of singles incident kills can be so desparate that validity can only be gained with a large sample. There is no mathematical formula that will do this kind of study for you. There is no substitute for laboratory and field experience, lots of it, and good record keeping. I apologize if I sound condescending, I don't mean to do that. Lots of writers have tried to analyze and quantify the factors of lethality. Most do better when they do so in anecdotal terms. ------------------ Warren@lostriverballistic.com [This message has been edited by Warren Jensen (edited 08-15-2001).] [This message has been edited by Warren Jensen (edited 08-15-2001).] | ||
|
| Moderator |
Seyfried didn't recommend the .22-.284 with Lost River bullets as an elk rifle for you and me; he said HE would think about using it on elk (probably on his own ranch, possibly with a backup rifle nearby). Seyfried has a lot of hunting experience and he's a fair shot He's no tenderfoot headed west with his .22-250 and a box of discount ammo. George ------------------ | |||
|
| <Warren Jensen> |
Kendall, Let me put it a different way. Given two rifles with different chamberings and loads. One is chambered for the 270 Winchester and is loaded with 150 gr. Nosler Partitions (old style). It has a muzzle velocity of 2950 fps. The second rifle is chambered for a 30-378 Wby. and is loaded with 180 Ballistic Tips. It has a muzzle velocity of 3550 fps. One of these two rifles is a perfectly adequate elk rifle and load. The other is not. In all of the mathematical formulas, energy, momentum, Taylor, OGW, etc., the 30-378 will appear to be the better choice. It is in fact inferior, with that bullet and that velocity. Most experienced hunters and reloaders and most of the readers of this forum would immediately recognize that 3550 fps. and the Nosler Ballistic Tip to be an accident waiting to happen. That is simply too fast a velocity for that bullet in a big game application. It is very likely to exhibit complete blowup on impacts under 200 yds, especially if that impact is on a bull's shoulder. The 270 with the 150 gr. Partition will give reliable expansion at all possible velocities and deep penetration. It will in most respects exhibit superior lethality qualities to the 30-378 and the BT. The numbers won't tell you that, but experience and testing will. What is a disservice to novices and inexperiences hunters is methods for determining the proper rifle and loads that when used as directed lead you to exactly the wrong choice. (See exhibit A above.) What else is a disservice is hyping a large magnum that an inexperienced hunter will not be able to shoot well, due to recoil sensitivity or lack of familiarity. Accuracy and shot placement is the first requirement for lethality. The last crippled bull I helped clean was packing a week old wound with a .338 slug in his butt. A classic case of plenty enough rifle, but piss poor accuracy. Extra good accuracy and shot placement can make up for quite a bit of deficiency in a rifle's killing power. Extra power will almost never make up for lots of deficiency in accuracy. I live in elk and cowboy country. I still meet old hands who shoot lever action, iron sighted 30-30s. One in particular has shot more elk than he can remember. He was in total amazement at our shop's collection of magnums, variable power scopes, and other high priced gear. He wanted to know why we needed it. When told it was mainly to hunt elk, he shook his head. In his mind, elk hunting was simply a matter of riding out the south pasture towards dark, up to the nearest spring, sneaking to within 50 yds. of the herd of elk that will be watering there most evenings, and plugging one behind the ear. From his perspective I would have to agree that a 30-30 was about right. I won't be recommending iron sighted 30-30s as an elk rifle, either. ------------------ | ||
|
| One of Us |
A very good friend of mine has been to Africa 4 times and has shot about 90 plains game. He has also shot elk in Australia. He has settled on 25 magnum with 90 grains Barnes X. His last elk was shot with 257 Wby and 90 grain Barnes X. He is currently having 2 rifles made in 25/300 Winchester. For comparison he has used 7mm STW and 300 Wby and 358 STA and all with Barnes X plus 4 animals in Africa with Winchester Fail safes in the 7mm STW. The conclusion we have come to is that if the animal is smaller, then a 400 Speer from a 458 or a 220 Hornady flat nose from a 375 will be far superior. Almost hit them anywhere. But with the bigger animals none of the calibers are really big enough so placement becomes the main issue. An extremely flat trajectory combined with low recoil will mean when all else is equal the bullet will hit closer to the aiming mark. He has also ordered a reamer for 243/300 Winchester and I think that will probably be the caliber he will finish with or something similar for his African trips and elk hunting. He also looks like getting a 375 but mainly for blasting roos, pigs and emus. Mike | |||
|
| <William E. Tibbe> |
Warren: Thanks for the posts containing comparative explanations. I usually don't engage in these types of debates because they are sort of like a maverick wallowing in quick sand. The more he wallows the deeper he sinks. And someone usually has to throw a rope. The question always is - which party is the maverick? A free exchange of opinions and ideas is another horse of a different color. The OWG formula that I referred to deals with "External Ballistics". There are also "Internal Ballistics" and "Terminal Ballistics". Thus, the OGW formula doesn't address internal ballistics because it isn't intended to. And likewise it doesn't deal with "Terminal Ballistics" because it isn't intended to do that either. To address wound channels and lethality factors in the external ballistics formula would be sort of like expecting your pack horse to skin the elk and load it on the panniers. The title of the tables is - "Average Factory Rifle CARTRIDGE ( OGW) ballistics. It doesn't say bullet it says cartridge. Then there is another table titled "A Guide to OGW Values with Selected Bullet Weights And Velocities" which begins with a 100 grain bullet and calculates the velocities ranging from 3400 ( 590 pounds )to 2000 fps velocity ( 120 pounds ). The table is incremental upto 500 grain bullets. In your example above of dealing with a ballistic tip or a partition bullet, the formula, in fact, does make an allowance for explosive frangible bullets. In that case the exponent for big game bullets ( like the Nosler partition ) use the exponent -12 whereas the frangible or "varmint" application is -13. It should be pointed out, further, that the frontal area dimension, meplat, bullet tip shape, expansion, weight retention factor is only applicable in very narrow sets of circumstances. A .22 caliber bullet that is designed to expand to 50% of its diameter would open up to .22 x 1.5 = .33 inches. So I would shoot a .33 caliber ball/projectile and get the same hole size with no expansion. Some bullet manufacturers make .45 caliber bullets and don't even require that they expand at all since the hole is already .45 inches. That would be the same as shooting a .30 caliber that expanded 50%. In 1869 the new railroad crossed the plains. One Irish Nobleman has an entourage of 40 servants and an entire wagon just for firearms. He killed 2,000 buffalo in 3 years. In 1872 thousands of hide hunters spread out over the plains of Kansas, Nebraska and Colorado and killed 3 million buffalo. A good hide hunter could down 25 to 100 buffalo in a day keeping five skinners busy from sunup to sundown. The hunters reached Wyoming, Montana and the Dakotas in 1880. By 1884 only 300 hides were shipped. The slaughter was over. There were previously 62 million buffalo. Today they have rebounded to 65,000 across America. Some rifle's of choice were the Sharps Model 1877 45-70, 45-90, 45-100, 45-110. The 45-70 shot a 400 grain bullet using FL powder at 1330 fps and 1580 foot pounds. The old timers didn't pay attention to lethality, expansion, wound channels. They just went out and shot all day with exceptional effectiveness. But that was then and this is now. Of course we all recognize the modern improvements in performance. Cartridges that shoot flat for great distances and open up on arrival. We are all here to learn. Lets hear your recipes and recommendations for various bullets to be used on various big game. Kendall Dace | ||
|
| <Warren Jensen> |
Kendall, I agree that discussions with two folks talking past each other and not listening serve little purpose. Concerning the OGW values. You were the one who introduced them as a method for evaluating a cartridge's effectiveness on game by giving it's calculated optimum value. I have no other way to interpret that to be anything but "terminal ballistics". It is hard to imagine evaluating a cartridge's effectiveness on game by only evaluating it's flight to the target or it's "external ballistics". The .308-180 gr. Nosler Ballistic Tip is classified as a game bullet, not a frangible varmint bullet. There is also no value in any of the OGW formaulas that allows for the velocity being too high. In those calculations when the velocity goes up the calculated result goes up. In reality, many bullets have both lower thresholds for proper initiation of expansion, and upper thresholds where the performance starts to deteriorate. These values are generally variable depending upon how tough the impacted tissue is. Shoulders are harder than the tissue between the ribs. Based upon your analysis of a .22 caliber's frontal area's expansion 1.5 times to .33 caliber and comparing that to the wound channel of a .33 caliber bullet, I do not believe that you have a good understanding of the terminal ballistics factors of primary wound channel, secondary wound channel, velocity of penetration, wave effect and depth of penetration. I will briefly describe these. The primary wound channel is the physical hole the bullet leaves. The secondary wound channel is the tissue outside the primary channel damaged by the the wave effect coming off of the penetrating bullet. The magnitude of effect is a function of the frontal area and the penetration velocity. The effect is basically zero on impacts below 1500 fps. and increase linearly with velocity to 2800 fps. Impacts above 3000 fps, cause geometric increases in the wave effect. Penetration velocity is greatly decreased if the frontal area is too large in proportion to the retained weight at that point of the penetration. The import of this is that penetration velocity can be a more important factor than frontal area. That is if the projectile has not broken into fragments or undergone core-jacket separation at that point. Let me say this plainly enough. The formula is faulty and the methodology is flawed, as is evaluating lethality by kinectic energy, momentum, and the many various others formulas that have been published over the years. You can find some general truth in all of them, but without exception they all Any discussion by me about specific bullets, and cartridges by brand will be seen by most readers as being clouded by my own prejudices as a competing manufacturer. Lastly, practice shooting your rifle. You should be able to hit a pie plate five out of five times, standing, unsupported, from 100 yds. You should be able to hit that pie plate, five out of five times, at 300 yds, from a field rested position. These are NOT stringent standards, but are minimums. ------------------ Warren@lostriverballistic.com [This message has been edited by Warren Jensen (edited 08-16-2001).] | ||
|
one of us |
Pardon me for jumping in, but it seems to me that the old buffalo shooters were not particularly concerned with ANY numbers. They did not calculate velocity, certainly not kinetic energy, and I imagine the discussions around the chuck wagon concerning weight retention were not too interesting. They DID pay attention to what worked and what didn't, and it was not a marketing effort by Sharps that had them all shooting 45/90's and the like. It proved, through real world experience, to be the best tool available for the job at hand. Through burning lots of powder, the old timers learned trajectory and what the rifles could and could not do. Which is indeed a good reminder to quit shooting from the keyboard and go out and burn some more powder before antelope season. Dutch.
| |||
|
| <Harald> |
Warren's criticisms of the OGW formula are entirely on target and completely fair. If anything he was kinder to it than he might have been. The explicit terms of the formula are velocity and bullet weight. Period. It takes no consideration whatsoever of any feature of the bullet, including its caliber. So, its not only that all .308-150 gr bullets are the same, its that all 150 grain bullets are the same, of any caliber, shape, construction, etc. But the worst offense of the OGW formula is that on top of permitting one to rely on a bullet like the .308-180 gr Nosler Ballistic Tip in a .300 super magnum on the really huge animals (in lieu of a more robust design), it further suggests that to make best use of this bullet you should always use it at close range (1600 lbs at the muzzle!). According to OGW, performance decreases exponentially with range. The opposite is actually true. According to OGW the Seyfried load (78 gr J36 at 3700 fps) is only good for 462 lb quarry at the muzzle and 328 lb beasts at the 3300 fps impact velocity suggested by Warren as a prudent lower limit. That probably works out to roughly 200 yards. So, while OGW doesn't quite support the use of the .22-284 on elk it does recommend its use on mule deer, caribou, black bears, etc. (and all of that may well be true, but I defer to Warren's appraisal of the load as being comparable to a .25-06 in effect). Warren is a smart fellow and (in my humble and oft disputed opinion) a great deal more knowledgeable concerning real world lethality than the promulgator of the OGW formula. Ross is also a savvy fellow and if he thinks this load will kill well I imagine he has good reason to think so. I remain skeptical (like St. Thomas) in that I want to put my finger in the hole before I will believe, but I am willing to be persuaded in my faith by facts. All of the weapons we now use have advanced by the process of making the best use of bullet expanded frontal area and impact velocity, subject to the limitations of technology. There are definitely lower limits and there are contraints, but advanced metallurgical technologies are transforming bullet performance. | ||
|
| one of us |
Warren, It is my understanding that a bullet's performance on game depends on the "tracks" the bullet leaves along its path, as I do not believe in things such as hydrostatic (hydrodinamic?) shock. I agree with you in that the bullet will produce a primary and a secondary wound channel, which will very much depend on the frontal area and the penetration velocity of the bullet, but it is also my understanding that the frontal shape of the penetrating bullet is also important, fact that easily explains why non expanding hard cast bullets with a flat point are so effective, even at low velocities, fact that seem to contradict your statement that penetration velocity could outweigh frontal area (and shape) in importance. A fast sleek solid won't be, in my opinion, near as effective as the slow flat point of larger caliber I referred to earlier on. Out of the pictures of recovered Jensen bullets I have seen, I am a bit confused on what their working principles may be, as they do not seem to show much, if any, expansion, except for some shedding of their frontal part. You comments on the subject will be higly appreciated as I have a great interest (from a willing-to-learn amateur) in bullet performance. With compliments, Montero | |||
|
| <William E. Tibbe> |
Well, I reckon our compass flipped its needle because we seem to be travelling around in circles. Bringing up the subject of the OGW formula seems to be like bareback bull riding. Our more learned scholars are really going after the formula like a mamma grizzly on a hiker. I have never used the formula to decide the purchase of a rifle. And I never will. And I trust that the majority of hunters also won't use it. But it should be understood, particularly by novices, beginners and inexperienced hunters, for what it is. It's a rough guide to get them in the ball park. The criticism of the formula and its author seems a bit difficult for me to understand. But, then I view it as a very elementary, basic, no frills guide. The author does say, bump up the results of the formula 25%. It's like earning a single engine land pilots license to fly a Piper Cub VFR ( visual flight regulations ). Thats flying along with a road map and following the roads. It is not a pilots license to fly a commercial jet airliner, or fly F-16's instrument or to fly night flights and land on aircraft carriers. The formula is a little bit more that just speed and bullet weight. It does have a constant that no-one has deciphered. And it has some secret ingredients that haven't been exposed. Colonel Saunders uses secret spices and herbs to fry his chicken. It's finger lickin good and lots of people like it but they don't need to know the recipe to enjoy it. What we need is an open invitation for someone to present a comprehensive, complete, effective formula that covers all of the contingencies, velocity, energy, expansion, penetration, wound channel and ETD ( that's estimated time to death). That would be all inclusive, Internal Ballistics, External Ballistics and Terminal Ballistics. Not a Piper Cub license, rather a Jet F-16 formula to evaluate the many bullets that are out on the market now. Kendall Dace | ||
|
| <Harald> |
Montero, A good example of the principle at work is the comparison between a shaped charge jet and a long rod penetrator fired from a tank gun sabot round (APFSDS). The rod has a diameter of 20 to 25 mm and a velocity of 1500 to 1700 m/s. The jet has a diameter of 1 to 10 mm and a velocity of 9000+ to 2000 m/s. The jet and rod often make similar sized holes (the jet being twice as deep). Perhaps more to the point, the very narrow but extremely fast jet tip particles generally produyce larger diameter holes than the thicker jet tail particles. I don't know how fast essentially non-expanding small bore bullets need to be driven in order to achieve the same effect as expanding larger bore bullets, but I am certain that there is a speed at which they will match the hole diameter and can easily surpass it while penetrating much deeper if the bullet does not erode. Kendall, The OGW constant is nothing magical (1.5e-12). A constant requires no deciphering and none is possible - it holds no variables, by definition. It can literally be ignored in the analysis. In this case it gives a constant behavior for all bullets under all conditions, which we know is not correct. You, on the other hand, provided a very good list of variables and considerations that would need to be embedded in any meaningful formula for terminal effects. Matunas in his original article on the OGW gave a similar list and stated that the formula took account of these things, but it does not and I have no idea why he settled on what he did. But it means nothing. Attaching any significance to it is a mistake. There are ample guides for the appropriate cartridges and bullets to be used on various types of game in handloading manuals and in other sources. I don't want to belabor the issue further but I wanted to address your misunderstanding of that constant for your own benefit and others. I am (and have been for some time) attempting to develop a comprehensive model of external and terminal ballistics that will fully capture the real behavior of bullets. I have made some good inroads using the Tate equations but there are significant difficulties involved. The easy part: Any such analysis if it is to be specific and really useful, as opposed to general, requires an intimate knowledge of the bullet construction. This means not only the precise dimensions but also the material hardness and strain hardening coefficients as well as a good model of plasticity like the Johnson-Cook or Steinberg-Guinan-Lund models (which unfortunately do not pertain to the materials we are interested in for the most part - or the velocities). The material properties will vary from tip to base and from the outside to the axis. I doubt if even the manufacturer has any idea what these numbers are. The harder part (?): It turns out that in addition to the resistive coefficient (which is a function of velocity) there is also a shape factor which is not a constant. The shape factor is a function of velocity and in a deforming bullet it is constantly evolving because the shape is constantly changing. This makes its determination rather difficult. I would need to perform a series of careful tests with non-deforming projectiles of various shapes, from flat-ended to rounded to pointed, and in various diameters (that might also matter in a nonlinear fashion). To extract the necessary information I would have to already know the resistive coefficient as a function of velocity and pray that it doesn't vary strongly with shape (doubtful). The alternative is to roll up both effects but that would require a full range of tests at all velocities for every shape of interest. So, I am not too close to having the answer. Nor, do I think anyone will be for the foreseeable future - at least on the basis of first principles. What may be possible is an empirical solution that has some general applicability, but bullet manufacturers don't always follow a consistent formula, so surprises can occur. [This message has been edited by Harald (edited 08-18-2001).] | ||
|
| <William E. Tibbe> |
Harald: The OGW formula has more that a -12 exponent. It has another exponent suggested. But you will find that if you begin to change the exponent values above or below those published it will very quickly become apparent that it impacts on the suggested game weights. Ed didn't just pick those values out of the air. He has decades of actual shooting experience on large numbers of all types of game. And he says his numbers correlate with other hunters experiences and I believe him. He fine tuned the exponent with some of his propritary ways. I get the distinct impression that there is a concerted effort by some, for some reason, to denigrate and discredit the formula. I just can't imagine how it could be perceived as "leading someone astray" since it is so simplistic and it is patently obvious that it will work satisfactorily. On the other hand there is a possiblilty that its critics don't, or can't, want to understand it or otherwise some cannot seize its usefulness because it is so simplistic. Maybe it's denial. I find Ed Matunas very credible. He has, additionally, worlds of reloading experience with one of the oldest reloading equipment manufacturers in the country. And furthermore he is the author of numerous books which I found very interesting and totally beieveable. As regards pitting Ed Matunas against Warren Jensen, I am sorry to say that I do not know Warren. I have never shot his bullets and I do not know anyone who has. But I did go to his website and have a good look around. I see that he is a Westpointer and studied ordnance. And that he has an associate that is a medical doctor. And further his bullets appear to be solid copper allow with a separate tip that apparently is supposed to "wedge open" the bullet to achieve expansion. A couple of other things I noticed were the water mellon test ( I never tried that but it looks like fun. Would my elk look like that if I used a J-36? I could see why a wound channel would be of so much concern. Only the ears and tail would be left!) and a ballistic calculator with a novel feature ( grabbing the "blue" line with the mouse arrow and dragging it around ). Apart from that there are a few additional opinions that I should like to express. The use of the term "subjective" defines the speakers or writers intent and purpose. The bullet, caliber, rifle controversy has surely gone from the sublime to the absurd. There are so many bullets and calibers now that are so similar, 75% could be simply trashed and we would still have more than adequate to do anything we want in a satisfactory manner. Therefore, it is, to me, just plain silly to dwell endlessly on the relative merits, advantages or disadvantages of one versus the other when in fact there is no discernible difference at the end of the day when all is said and done. As regards wounds, wound channels, hydraulics and lethality they are subjective. There are too many different kinds of wounds in too many different kinds of conditions in too many kinds of animals to draw any beneficial conclusions for hunting purposes. The only wound analysis that would have a significant interest to me ( if I was a doctor or military person )would be that on the batttlefield. Much, if not all, of the wound analysis actually comes from the Doctors ( PhD's ) for the benefit of surgeons to evaluate how much flesh and bone has to be debrided and how much can be saved. Much wound analysis from the military, I suspect, deals with propagation to disable an adversary effectively. That is a different goal from that of a hunter as there are too many humanitarian, religious, beaureaucratic and political influences related to wounding humans as they pertain to the deign and application of infantry rifles and NATO calibers. ( Otherwise historically we would still be using .30-06's and DumDum's ). I am definitely in favor of continuing research and development of rifles, cartridges and bullets. That is our societies foundation, ever increasing improvement. But when using what I have on hand, in the field at the moment I encounter a moose or an elk or a deer, I have only one purpose in mind and that is to put the bullet into the animal where it will be most effective in the least amount of time. The subjective lethality, hydraulics and wound channels are not a coming up in my thought processes. Kendall Dace | ||
|
| Powered by Social Strata | Page 1 2 3 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
The Accurate Reloading Forums THE ACCURATE RELOADING.COM FORUMS Hunting American Big Game Hunting 22 centerfire for Elk? No way in hail!!!!
Visit our on-line store for AR Memorabilia
| View $GS_USERNAME's Public Profile |
| Add $GS_USERNAME to my Buddies |
| Add $GS_USERNAME to my Ignore List |
| Invite $GS_USERNAME to a Private Topic |
| View Recent Posts by $GS_USERNAME |
| Notify me of New Posts by $GS_USERNAME |
