Best rifle, scope, caliber for deer, elk, bear in Western WA?

[Buano]

There might be a reason that they (and me) posted up what we hunt with. 1) That we chose that rifle for a reason and 2) We actually live and hunt here and can actually comment what combo may work very well here.

I have nothing to say about NC hunting, so I don't recommend anything to anyone there. Might be a start for you?

Gaius,

I've done much more of my hunting outside NC (my current home) than in it. I've hunted Florida to New England, the Mid-West & much of the West. I've seen too many allegedly "misses" with small calibers on large game, misses when no dirt or debris was kicked up around the game by the bullet that likely hit the animal, but did not anchor it. I've seen a 165 grain Accubond shot from a 7 MM Rem mag fail to make it through an elk's shoulder. (The range was 9 yards, but the shoulder was the biggest I've ever seen — even in pictures.) I've seen elk take solid hits, that would soon be fatal, and not even blink when hit. I've seen elk take a double-lung shot & not leave a drop of blood trail. I know I could kill an elk with a .243, could kill a whitetail with a .22 LR, and I could kill a grizzly with a .223, but I know there are better choices for those animals. Using a diminutive cartridge on elk (or any game) means bullet placement must be PERFECT if you want an ethical kill & recoverable game. Reality tells us that few hunters, and damned few new hunters can make a perfect shot on game when they suddenly see the animal they have dreamed of for years.

I've also recovered a lot of lost game supposedly "missed" by others, normally after infection killed an animal slowly and guaranteed nothing would be edible. I've also shot several animals that were partly salvageable, animals that others had shot but not put down. Over the years I've been present for more than 25 wounded animals being "put down" to end their misery. Shooting an animal and not killing it quickly gives ammunition to the anti-hunters — something we should never do!

If the most powerful cartridge this hunter can handle is a .35 Whelen, it will work so long as he stays within the effective range of the cartridge. If the most powerful cartridge this hunter can handle is a .30-06, it will work so long as he stays within the effective range of the cartridge — and limits his shots to ideal situations. If he can handle more cartridge he has more options, and is more likely to have a successful hunt. Although I know I could kill an elk with a .270, I'll never cary one elk hunting because I don't want to be looking at a beautiful animal that's not presenting the perfect shot, and have to say to myself, "Not enough gun for that shot.".

If a hunter has difficulty handling recoil, there are always muzzle brakes for hunting and a Lead-Sled for target practice. Yes, that means hunting with ear-plugs to tame the muzzle blast, but it's an option. I would rather see an elk hunter with a muzzle-brake to tame the recoil he can't otherwise handle, than to see someone sorely under-gunned on a dream hunt. An under-gunned elk hunter is too likely to have a hunt ruined by an animal that was shot & not recovered, or by seeing an animal and not being able to take a makable shot because he didn't have enough gun for THAT shot. (Savage offers several rifles with muzzle-brakes that can be turned off with a twist, ideal for hunters that can't handle recoil.)

I never said what I would cary for dark-woods elk hunting: Never less than a .300 Weatherby, but more likely a .375 H&H. Then again, I no longer am a 1-gun hunter, and have the luxury of picking a gun that fits the game & hunt. This hunter didn't ask what we hunt with, he asked what HE should hunt with.


Also FYI: The best cartridge for NC is the .25-06, it has all the range anyone is likely to have & will take game at that distance without "blowing up" game shot at close range. Now you also know something about NC hunting.

 

[DieselScout]

Somehow, overtime it seems wildlife is getting more and more armored. 30 years ago, people wouldn't have blinked when you pulled out a .30-30 to go deer or even (shutter) elk hunting. But now, we need some ultra fast ultra flat expensive magnum to take the same animal? Jeez, in 30 more years we're all going to be showing off our newest .300 WM you got for squirrel hunting, and having to upgrade the .50 BMG because we hit an elk with it square in the vitals, the elk turned flipped us the bird and ran off. I guess it's about time to invest in that .600 Overkill or .577 Tyrannosaurus.

 

[Buano]

Somehow, overtime it seems wildlife is getting more and more armored. 30 years ago, people wouldn't have blinked when you pulled out a .30-30 to go deer or even (shutter) elk hunting. But now, we need some ultra fast ultra flat expensive magnum to take the same animal? Jeez, in 30 more years we're all going to be showing off our newest .300 WM you got for squirrel hunting, and having to upgrade the .50 BMG because we hit an elk with it square in the vitals, the elk turned flipped us the bird and ran off. I guess it's about time to invest in that .600 Overkill or .577 Tyrannosaurus.

30 years ago the .300 Win mag, .338 Win mag and the .340 Weatherby were the best elk rounds, by many accounts they still are. If you thought a 30-30 was a good elk round 30 years ago, you must have not gotten out much!

 

[DieselScout]

30 years ago the .300 Win mag, .338 Win mag and the .340 Weatherby were the best elk rounds, by many accounts they still are. If you thought a 30-30 was a good elk round 30 years ago, you must have not gotten out much!

Yeah, I wasn't around 30 years ago. The statement I made is just to be funny and sarcastic, and point out that people are really losing sight of what the OP asked and arguing for the sake of arguing. The OP wanted recommendations for a rifle to hunt WESTERN WASHINGTON. There are no monster bears, no monster elk and no monster deer in western Washington. The .30-06, the 7mm Rem mag, 7mm WSM and even the maybe even .300 Win Mag would all be great guns for him. I am just trying to keep Western Washington in mind. That means he is going to be hunting smaller dear, not the large mulies you see on the east side of the state. I got a Columbian black tail for the first time this year and my .30-06 made garbage out of most of the front quarters. I would have much rather carried my .22-250 (legal in Oregon) or a much lighter .30-06 load, a .300 WinMag would have destroyed everything and way too much gun. Something with smaller lighter loads for the smaller and lighter game he is going to encounter in Western Washington will better suit his needs.

 

[sasquatch]

There are no monster bears, no monster elk and no monster deer in western Washington.

You may be right about bears and deer, but Roosevelt elk on the Olympic Peninsula are the biggest elk in Washington, and probably Idaho, Montana, and Oregon, as well.

<broken link removed>

 

[moose]

I've seen a 165 grain Accubond shot from a 7 MM Rem mag fail to make it through an elk's shoulder. (The range was 9 yards, but the shoulder was the biggest I've ever seen — even in pictures.)

utter complete
:bsflag:

 

[moose]

You may be right about bears and deer, but Roosevelt elk on the Olympic Peninsula are the biggest elk in Washington, and probably Idaho, Montana, and Oregon, as well.

I was out on the north fork of the Calawah today and ran into a herd of about 15 head. They didnt look armor plated to me.

 

[sasquatch]

I didn't say anything about being armor-plated. I was responding to the post which said "There are no monster elk in Western Washington".

 

[DieselScout]

You may be right about bears and deer, but Roosevelt elk on the Olympic Peninsula are the biggest elk in Washington, and probably Idaho, Montana, and Oregon, as well.

<broken link removed>

Yeah that is my mistake, but it doesn't change the fact the fact he would be fine with .30-06, 7mm RemMag or 300 Winmag

 

[moose]

I didn't say anything about being armor-plated. I was responding to the post which said "There are no monster elk in Western Washington".

Oh I agree with you. Cervus canadensis roosevelti are the biggest of the 4 north american elk sub-species and are the main reason there is an Olympic National Park.

 

[Buano]

utter complete
:bsflag:

Moose, You can call it BS if that makes you feel important, but I was there. Were you? When the chest cavity was opened we saw that shot has not even entered the chest cavity. It did however, destroy a lot of meat on that shoulder. THANKFULLY, that was a follow up shot for an elk that was already dead but didn't yet know it.

 

[DieselScout]

Moose, You can call it BS if that makes you feel important, but I was there. Were you? When the chest cavity was opened we saw that shot has not even entered the chest cavity. It did however, destroy a lot of meat on that shoulder. THANKFULLY, that was a follow up shot for an elk that was already dead but didn't yet know it.

So what were the specs on the bullet or cartridge? What yardage was it shot at ? It sounds like it didn't preform as intended and maybe there was problem with the loaded round. Even factory ammunition has problems and I would guess this is the case. But really there are 100s of factors it could have hit a stick or branch while in flight and tumbled. So who knows?

 

[Buano]

So what were the specs on the bullet or cartridge? What yardage was it shot at ? It sounds like it didn't preform as intended and maybe there was problem with the loaded round. Even factory ammunition has problems and I would guess this is the case. But really there are 100s of factors it could have hit a stick or branch while in flight and tumbled. So who knows?

The bullet was fired at slightly under 27 FEET from the elk. (I measured the distance.) There were no obstructions, branches, etc.. The cartridge worked perfectly &#8212; until impact.

All bullets have a range of velocities where they perform best. At 27 feet, this bullet hadn't slowed one bit & was at the very top end of the velocities it would perform well at. (Any faster & it may have come apart in flight.) The bullet made a small round entrance wound but mushroomed explosively on impact, shredding the shoulder as pieces pealed off the bullet. About 1/3 of the bullet was imbedded in the bone. There wasn't enough mass or inertia left in the bullet to cary it through to the vital organs. At that impact velocity it performed as a varmint round, not as a big-game round.

The elk didn't even blink on impact. (This was the second shot.)

The first shot entered behind the shoulder muscle & angled forward, destroying the lungs. The bullet made a hole about 2.5" wide & 1/2" deep in the inside of the far ribcage. There was no exit wound. The elk did blink on impact from this round, but made no other signs of distress until blood blew out its' nose & mouth right before it fell over.

I use this firsthand experience to point out how penetration can be THE critical issue in BIG game, and that rifles ideal for medium game like deer (including my .25-06) are not the best choice for Big game. Yes, many have used their deer rifles to shoot elk, moose & even coastal brown bears, but there are MUCH better choices for that game. I also acknowledge that any rifle suitable for Big game will be overkill for small deer &#8212; especially at close range.

The moral of the story? There is no one cartridge suitable for all game that might be hunted, using 1 rifle to hunt multiple classes of game means the rifle will not be best-suited for all species hunted, that many "missed" shots on elk are not misses &#8212; rather elk that will die slowly out of our sight, and (most definitely) that love of a caliber does not automatically make it suitable for ALL game.

I can only think of one chambering that a hunter could hunt all these species at less than 150 yards where he could effectively kill all but not destroy any with overkill, and that would be a 12-gauge shotgun with a rifled slug barrel firing quality 3" slugs. A Mossberg 500 Trophy Slugster would be an EXCELLENT choice.

 

[Jamie6.5]

Your scenario Buano, is a perfect example of someone choosing their ammo based total energy figures over lesser energy, and a properly (for the game) constructed bullet with adequate sectional density.
Too many rookie hunters believe overall energy will overcome a lack of sectional density, and opt for light-for-caliber bullets, of inadequate construction for the task at hand.
Greater sectional density contributes tremendously to penetration capability, but due to the greater weight (and bearing surface length) that comes with it, velocities drop. The hunter that doesn't realize that (s)he's sacrificing penetration for velocity and flat shooting pays that price.

I seriously doubt that the bullet you mention bullet was an accubond, trophy bonded, or interbond. I also seriously doubt it was 160gr or more. It sounds very much like the early 140gr Nosler ballistic tips, which were designed for rapid expansion, and when pushed to the upper limits of their velocity range, would practically explode on impact.
That's why Nosler changed them, and introduced the ballistic tip "hunting" bullet and re-named the previous design the ballistic tip "varmint."

The 7mmRem mag, as well as the 7mmSTW are both capable of pushing a light-for-caliber bullet into the realm of velocities where a cup-and-core, or ballistic-expansion type bullet will fail to penetrate heavy bone.

Yet, at the other end of the spectrum, we have the Finns, Norwegians and the Swedes that have been killing moose and polar bears for a century or so, with the 6.5 caliber, often at velocities below 2500FPS. The reason? The 150-160 grain bullets they use have a sectional density of well over .3 (.318/.328).

I have used, and heartily recommend the .270 for elk, at ranges up to 350-400yds. But only with 150 grain bullets. The reason? The sectional density of the 150gr .277 bullet is actually higher than a 180gr .308 bullet (.279 vs .271)
The only elk I ever shot at close range (~35yds) I hit in the front shoulder, and the bullet broke both shoulders and exited the far side, shredding the arteries/veins at the top of the heart/lungs. This was with the .270 using a 150gr Speer. That elk was DRT, and probably took all of 15 seconds to die.
The bullets I choose in my .270 for elk consist of two bonded 150s, (usually speer) followed by 2 cup-and-core Sierras for use at longer ranges, where they have slowed down to the point where I may need the additional expansion.

Chuck Hawks has a pretty good explanation of S.D. and it's effect on penetration here:
Sectional Density for Beginners
and here:
Sectional Density
and here:
Want Better Sectional Density?

There may be exceptions to my explanation above, especially when mono-metal bullets are used, (barnes for instance) but greater sectional density will always equal greater penetration with similarly constructed bullets.

 

[mortre]

I'm on jamie6.5's side. S.D. >.3 and velocity <2600 is hard to beat. If I want light for caliber, I'll spend the money for barnes tsx or ttsx bullets..

 

[orygun]

I am very skeptical of someone that discounts standard cartridges and says that only magnums will do the job on elk. I personally use Nosler Partitions and a 30-06 for elk with no regrets. So far I've only shot Rocky Mt elk, but I've smashed through a few shoulder blades. Maybe not at 27 feet, but very close.
There are a few reasons that I don't use a 270, but it has nothing to do with the effectiveness of that cartridge. I just happened to have chosen the 30-06 to do my hunting with and have armed most of my family with the same.
To say that this "deer" cartridge is a compromise could be true. But the 06, 270 and 280 are "compromises" that have the least bad consequences. If you can't do "it" with one of these, perhaps you should reconsider your choice of being a hunter.
By the way, it's been over 30 years, but I certainly remember many a dead eastern Oregon elk hanging in the shed that met their end by a 30-30. If I'd been hunting elk last October (deer season) when that Roosevelt bull came by my stand and I'd had my 94, I've no doubt my next concern would have been how to get him to the truck!

 

[SPU]

I had this same issue, and saw a Savage Weather Warrior (Model 116) in .30-06 and it fit well. I asked friends and researched online for scopes and almost went with a Leupold, but ended up with a Nikon Monarch 2.5-10x42mm and got some Talley lightweight one piece mount/scope rings. I'm hoping that will last me a while and I can pass it on to my son. The entire stup was $862.

 

[dklime]

With all the hype and disagreements, and agreements, I agree with the statement that shot placement is the most important and not caliber. I've always taught my sons and all those who sought my guidence about calibers, is this simple rule: The kindest and most responsible thing you can be, is a good shot! Hunters already get enough grief from the anti-hunting side, so practice that you are a good shot! Don't take a questionable shot, no matter the range or size of the animal.

 

[DieselScout]

The bullet was fired at slightly under 27 FEET from the elk. (I measured the distance.) There were no obstructions, branches, etc.. The cartridge worked perfectly — until impact.

There was either something wrong with this cartridge or this is a 1 in a million happening and really shouldn't be taken into account, as we'll never see it again. Also, are you sure it was an Accubond? I can't find a listing anywhere where Nosler makes a 165 grain Accubond for the 7mm (.284). The muzzle energy of the 160gr Accubond that Nosler loads is 3695 ft lbs of energy. After 27 feet, almost none of that energy is going to be shrugged off. I am not doubting it happened or calling you a liar, but the cartridges you've listed can't match that energy at 100 yards, let along 300 or 400.

So, this instance is so unique it really shouldn't be taken into account when forming an opinion about a cartridge. I still think there was something up with the load, maybe a bad primer or bad powder drop. Or like I said, one in a million occurrence. Maybe the elk had been rolling in mud and had a rock stuck to it's side that the bullet hit. Regardless, shoot that shot again a million times and I bet the Elk drops dead in its track a million times.

 

[iusmc2002]

Your scenario Buano, is a perfect example of someone choosing their ammo based total energy figures over lesser energy, and a properly (for the game) constructed bullet with adequate sectional density.
Too many rookie hunters believe overall energy will overcome a lack of sectional density, and opt for light-for-caliber bullets, of inadequate construction for the task at hand.
Greater sectional density contributes tremendously to penetration capability, but due to the greater weight (and bearing surface length) that comes with it, velocities drop. The hunter that doesn't realize that (s)he's sacrificing penetration for velocity and flat shooting pays that price.

I seriously doubt that the bullet you mention bullet was an accubond, trophy bonded, or interbond. I also seriously doubt it was 160gr or more. It sounds very much like the early 140gr Nosler ballistic tips, which were designed for rapid expansion, and when pushed to the upper limits of their velocity range, would practically explode on impact.
That's why Nosler changed them, and introduced the ballistic tip "hunting" bullet and re-named the previous design the ballistic tip "varmint."

The 7mmRem mag, as well as the 7mmSTW are both capable of pushing a light-for-caliber bullet into the realm of velocities where a cup-and-core, or ballistic-expansion type bullet will fail to penetrate heavy bone.

Yet, at the other end of the spectrum, we have the Finns, Norwegians and the Swedes that have been killing moose and polar bears for a century or so, with the 6.5 caliber, often at velocities below 2500FPS. The reason? The 150-160 grain bullets they use have a sectional density of well over .3 (.318/.328).

I have used, and heartily recommend the .270 for elk, at ranges up to 350-400yds. But only with 150 grain bullets. The reason? The sectional density of the 150gr .277 bullet is actually higher than a 180gr .308 bullet (.279 vs .271)
The only elk I ever shot at close range (~35yds) I hit in the front shoulder, and the bullet broke both shoulders and exited the far side, shredding the arteries/veins at the top of the heart/lungs. This was with the .270 using a 150gr Speer. That elk was DRT, and probably took all of 15 seconds to die.
The bullets I choose in my .270 for elk consist of two bonded 150s, (usually speer) followed by 2 cup-and-core Sierras for use at longer ranges, where they have slowed down to the point where I may need the additional expansion.

Chuck Hawks has a pretty good explanation of S.D. and it's effect on penetration here:
Sectional Density for Beginners
and here:
Sectional Density
and here:
Want Better Sectional Density?

There may be exceptions to my explanation above, especially when mono-metal bullets are used, (barnes for instance) but greater sectional density will always equal greater penetration with similarly constructed bullets.

Jaime, remember the "I saw a .270 bounce off an elk's hide at 300m in the dark?" post? I'm wondering if Guano (isn't that bat poop? maybe batbubblegum crazy?) is the same guy.

A 375H&H for elk? GFTO. To each their own I guess, but seriously? You've been hunting for how long, and have decided that you need a howitzer to put an elk down? Are you just messing with the OP's mind, or trolling?