Elk calibers

[JC9995]

It actually has more retained energy at (hits harder at) 300 yards and out than an .06 or 308.

It's flatter shooting than an .06 or 308 - enough to matter at 500 yds.

These are EXCELLENT points. Most people dont realize that a smaller dia. bullet at the same energy of a larger caliber, will do more damage. And you GOTTA love the flat trajectory of the .270.

 

[Gunner3456]

These are EXCELLENT points. Most people dont realize that a smaller dia. bullet at the same energy of a larger caliber, will do more damage. And you GOTTA love the flat trajectory of the .270.

I think they call it better "cross-sectional density" - longer, thinner bullet cuts through the air better and retains more velocity and energy at distance.

One thing I know - calibers are a matter of preference and I saw a good friend kill a deer at 500 yards off-hand with his 30.06. I also saw him kill a coyote off-hand at 400 yards.

It's what you're used to and what you are comfortable with. I've just had my .270 for so long that it would be hard to trade now.

 

[Gunner3456]

I know that each shooter has a favorite "elk" cartridge and I'd never say anyone is wrong. Different people find different guns to be a best fit. I found an interesting article and thought I'd post a link?

Link

"I would go so far as to say that recoil is responsible for 99 percent of all shooting errors. The reason is nothing more than normal human defensive physiology known as a reflex. We try to move away from something that is hurting us and exhibit the startle reflex to loud noises. It takes considerable training to be able to shoot a gun without showing those effects and the difficulty increases in direct proportion to the recoil.

The major factors that govern recoil are the weight of the gun and bullet and the velocity to which the bullet is driven. If you increase bullet weight or velocity or decrease the weight of the gun you will feel more recoil. That's why flyweight guns and super-magnum cartridges don't get a lot of trigger time from Charlie.

I consider myself to be a fairly skilled shooter but my tolerance for severe recoil is definitely limited to a relatively small number of shots before I begin to flinch, jerk the trigger or both."

More...

 

[Buano]

Hi,

Much of the previous information is good, but many of the posts just list what the writer has used, not what is optimal.

Elk can be killed with a .223, under ideal conditions, if everything goes right. Does that mean you should hunt elk with a .223? Of course not!!

Most guides will tell hunters to bring ANY rifle, .270 or larger, that they can shoot well. That said, you should get a gun that will handle what you ask of it. If you will NEVER take a shot over 100 yards, a 45/70 or .444 is excellent. At the same time neither of these rounds is useful if shots may be 300-400 yards or more. Most elk hunts are expensive and/or difficult enough most hunters do not want to be handicapped with a rifle that won't get the job done for whatever shot (within reason) they are offered. Thus, most consider the 7mm Rem Mag and the .270WSM as the minimum they would carry when elk hunting. By far the most popular elk cartridge is the .300 Win Mag.

I took a beautiful 6x6 bull in September all of 27 feet from my 7-mag's muzzle. I put a 160 grain bullet right behind his shoulder. The bullet destroyed his lungs but did not exit through the far side of his ribs. Since the elk was still standing & my guide didn't want him going where he would be harder to recover, I was told to put him on the ground. I put a shot into his shoulder to get him off his feet. When we quartered the animal I saw the second bullet didn't make it to his chest cavity. These are TOUGH animals! The moral of this story: Shot placement matters but having enough gun matters too. If my first shot had been 4-5" farther forward, I would have simply wounded, and wasted, an animal. I don't believe in letting wounded animals go off & die from infection 2 weeks later. For this reason I do not recommend anyone use the minimum cartridge recommended — UNLESS that's the biggest they can shoot well. I'm currently shopping for a .300 RUM and a .375 H&H & expect the .300 RUM to be my "go to" elk rifle. When hunting thick timber I just might opt for the .375.

You need to find the most powerful cartridge that you can shoot well, that has AT LEAST the power of a 7MM mag, and become proficient to at least 400 yards. Then you will have an excellent elk rifle.

As for the short mags, their advantage is they pack a "magnum" punch in a short action rifle — which saves you half a pound & makes the bolt faster to cycle. The WSM cartridges have become standard loadings available almost everywhere while other short mags have not. I would never buy a hunting rifle I couldn't buy ammunition for in almost any town. For this reason, the only short mags I would consider (and I have 2) are the Winchester Short Mag (WSM) cartridges. The .325 WSM may well be the best all-round elk cartridge on the planet. If I was shopping for a rifle just to use elk hunting, I would buy a stainless rifle in .325 WSM.

Good luck!
Ron

 

[the4thshake]

I just looked up some ballistics tables and have to dissagree about the .270 hitting harder then the 30-06 at 300yards. You wouldn't be using light bullets for elk. Comparing a 150 grain .270 and a 180 grain 30-06 you would get a little more then 150 ft/lbs more with the 30-06 at 300 yards. Not to mention it punches a bigger hole. As for bullet drop, the .270 does shoot slightly flatter. At 300 yards it's a tad more then 3/4 an inch less drop then the 30-06. At 500 yards the .270 drops 43 inches from a 200 yard zero. The 30-06 drops 47 inches from the same zero. Thats less then 1 MOA difference at 500 yards. Either caliber should work just fine for elk with the right bullet and proper shot placement.

 

[Gunner3456]

I just looked up some ballistics tables and have to dissagree about the .270 hitting harder then the 30-06 at 300yards. You wouldn't be using light bullets for elk. Comparing a 150 grain .270 and a 180 grain 30-06 you would get a little more then 150 ft/lbs more with the 30-06 at 300 yards. Not to mention it punches a bigger hole. As for bullet drop, the .270 does shoot slightly flatter. At 300 yards it's a tad more then 3/4 an inch less drop then the 30-06. At 500 yards the .270 drops 43 inches from a 200 yard zero. The 30-06 drops 47 inches from the same zero. Thats less then 1 MOA difference at 500 yards. Either caliber should work just fine for elk with the right bullet and proper shot placement.

OK, I should have said "beyond 300 yards" instead of "300 yards and out." What did you find at 400 and 500 yards for retained energy, .270 Win vs 30-06? Please answer as 130 grain for the .270?

And I do use 130 grain bullets for elk. Remington Core Lokt. As I recall, they shoot flatter than what you quoted, and have a higher velocity both at the muzzle and at range, and I seem to recall that they have a higher retained energy at distance too.

I'm talking Eastern Oregon now. That's not what I'd do West of the Cascades for Roosevelt Elk, but I don't hunt those.

We hunt the wheat and alfalfa fields in Eastern Oregon and you can find some long shots out there. My wife grew up on a 4,000 acre wheat and cattle ranch in Eastern Oregon and the family still owns it. Together with neighbors' properties, we have lots of good hunting land and a place to stay.

(For those of you who know the area, it's sorta between Arlington and Condon.)

 

[Gunner3456]

PS. Some people, when they compare the overall ballistics of the .270 Win with the 7mm mag get surprised when they see how little difference there is, all around, all things considered, especially at distance.

$.02

 

[markw76]

PS. Some people, when they compare the overall ballistics of the .270 Win with the 7mm mag get surprised when they see how little difference there is, all around, all things considered, especially at distance.

$.02

Except how much the ammo costs, and certain inherent difficulties reloading belted magnums.

 

[rudedog04]

200gn barnes tsx

 

[284guy]

Although the 270 is a great cartridge, nobody with any real experience killing animals such as elk, moose, bear etc can say the 270 is better for killing these animals than a 7, 300, or 338 mag. A person can read all the ballistic tables they want, but they dont paint an accurate picture. I can tell you I dropped an elk with one shot from a 243 in its tracks and had an elk with 2 bullets in the lungs from a 338 run 100 yards before dropping. Does that mean the 243 is a better elk cartridge? Does my anecdotal comparison mean anything? NO! While dead is dead, and I suppose this could be drug out to "in what part of the animals death did the bullet fail" physics show heavier, faster bullets hit with more energy, and therefore kill better.

 

[the4thshake]

OK, I should have said "beyond 300 yards" instead of "300 yards and out." What did you find at 400 and 500 yards for retained energy, .270 Win vs 30-06? Please answer as 130 grain for the .270?

And I do use 130 grain bullets for elk. Remington Core Lokt. As I recall, they shoot flatter than what you quoted, and have a higher velocity both at the muzzle and at range, and I seem to recall that they have a higher retained energy at distance too.

I'm talking Eastern Oregon now. That's not what I'd do West of the Cascades for Roosevelt Elk, but I don't hunt those.

We hunt the wheat and alfalfa fields in Eastern Oregon and you can find some long shots out there. My wife grew up on a 4,000 acre wheat and cattle ranch in Eastern Oregon and the family still owns it. Together with neighbors' properties, we have lots of good hunting land and a place to stay.

(For those of you who know the area, it's sorta between Arlington and Condon.)

The lighter 130 grain is around 200 ft/lbs of energy less then the 180 grain 30-06 across the board. The .270 would drop 1 3/4 inch less then the 30-06 at 300 yards. Out at 500 yards the difference would be around 2 MOA. What I found interesting when comparing the two loads is that the wind drift is nearly identical.

Energy or velocity isn't what kills an animal. Damaging vital organs is. Assuming identical shot placement with adequate penetration.....A bigger bullet makes a bigger hole.

 

[Gunner3456]

The lighter 130 grain is around 200 ft/lbs of energy less then the 180 grain 30-06 across the board. The .270 would drop 1 3/4 inch less then the 30-06 at 300 yards. Out at 500 yards the difference would be around 2 MOA.

That's substantial. About ten inches.

What I found interesting when comparing the two loads is that the wind drift is nearly identical.

Energy or velocity isn't what kills an animal. Damaging vital organs is. Assuming identical shot placement with adequate penetration.....A bigger bullet makes a bigger hole.

Not necessarily. Retained energy and bullet expansion, coupled with the shock wave determines the size of the wound cavity.

 

[Gunner3456]

Although the 270 is a great cartridge, nobody with any real experience killing animals such as elk, moose, bear etc can say

Well, right there we're off on the wrong foot. I've been in so many hunting parties in both sides of Oregon and in Wyoming, Colorado and Montana and Alaska that I don't think there's a caliber I haven't seen used or an animal I haven't seen killed. Let's not make this personal?

the 270 is better for killing these animals than a 7, 300, or 338 mag. A person can read all the ballistic tables they want, but they dont paint an accurate picture. I can tell you I dropped an elk with one shot from a 243 in its tracks and had an elk with 2 bullets in the lungs from a 338 run 100 yards before dropping. Does that mean the 243 is a better elk cartridge? Does my anecdotal comparison mean anything? NO! While dead is dead, and I suppose this could be drug out to "in what part of the animals death did the bullet fail" physics show heavier, faster bullets hit with more energy, and therefore kill better.

All things being equal that's true, but when is enough enough?

I've seen a large mule deer completely ruined (shot through the front quarters) with a 300 Win magnum and still have to be finished off with a head shot after we walked up to it. I've also seen one walk about 20 feet and then drop dead in its tracks from a heart/lung shot with a .243.

When I first started hunting the guys who were taking me were big fans of Jack O'Connor and therefore the .270 Win. They took me to the Steens Mountains in SE Oregon on my first real trip. They took me to Wyoming and Montana. We packed into the Wallowa National Forest between Joseph/Imnaha and Halfway and then used burrows to get back into the wilderness. I killed my first elk (with a .270) on Chief Joseph Mountain on "bald knob" above the lake and above the timberline. We packed it out with burrows.

I'm not trying to start or continue an unproductive argument. I will agree that for silvertip (Alaskan coastal grizzly) or even black bears or moose I'd prefer a larger caliber. I'm just here to tell from real life experience that a .270 Win is plenty for elk including Rocky Mountain Elk.

$.02

 

[SDR]

I have been following this subject for along time,I like everyone have my own opinion...
I have been hunting since I was 10 Yrs old,Lets say I have been effectively harvesting animals for a bit over 30 Yrs...Expert No,Seen a lot yes... I taught my wife to shoot and hunt,I have taught my two boys and my two girls to shoot and hunt...I have taught one of my boys girl friends to shoot and hunt,As funny as it is they are broke up But she still shoots with us and still hunts...That is a pretty neat thing to me...I think I have seen or been involved or experienced almost every mistake possible... I don't think you can name one caliber as the best... Caliber,Ballistics and punching paper is a small part of what gun to shoot...I have effectively taken Deer Elk Bear and Moose with a 30/30, 308,300 Win and 45/70 and 300 Ultra... The Bear and Moose is from when I lived in Kenai A.K. I was there for six years working in the oil field just before the Valdez incident...

Caliber choice is up to the person pulling the trigger the type of hunting as in walk/stalk or stand or road hunting and what the terrain is like... So again it is opinion and what works for the shooter...My father bought a brand new 7 Mag in a Browning,Had it all decked out with a nice scope...Got it to the range got it all dialed in and was so happy...Shot his first Deer twice,Took awhile to find but we did...Elk season shoots a rag horn bull three times took awhile to find but we did...While removing the hide on the Elk my father asks me why he shot each animal so many times...Simple...Too much power,to small of bullet diameter,To hard of bullet and too close to the target...All the shots not more than 20 Yrds all behind the shoulder in the lung area...We put him in a 300 win mag ...30 Cal from a 284...180 Grn soft point and he has hollow points...So we slowed the bullet down made it bigger and gave him a bullet that mushrooms better to increase the wound channel the last two years his animals died quicker and with one shot...With the slower bigger bullet The animal felt more energy...Now if he would have the those animals in the shoulder through and through with the 7 Mag they would have dropped instantly or if he was shooting further out the outcome would have been better...The shots my father takes he could use any caliber to be effective with...His main weapon before the Browning was a Mdl 95 lever .06...The man never lost a animal and never had to look to hard for it...Some times bigger badder,Faster can be a hindrance...He wanted a caliber to shoot from 50Yrds to 500 and be effective... He wanted One Grn and one gun to shoot Deer,Bear,Elk...His choice is a 300 Win...My wife I started her out on a 280,Fine cartridge,I had killed a lot with it...She had a couple instances that had us out all night and in to the next day looking for her animals...I bumped her to a .06 with a 220 Grn bullet, She won't shoot over a hundred Yrds,Most shots are 20-30 Yrds ,We don't look for her animals anymore anymore...Two boys started out on 308's and has graduated to a 300Win and one is still 308...One daughter is a 308 and one bumped to a .06.. Now me,I hunt with a 45/70 for deep dark timber,If you want to see a animal fall and not move much a 45/70 is hard to beat...Big slow moving bullet,Rarely a exit wound the animal feels all the energy that bullet has to offer..If the bullet exits, the animal did not feel it all as in a through and through behind the shoulder...If I'm cruising timber and opens or clear cuts I take my 300 Win,I have had this for sixteen yrs and I have the confidence to shoot 50 to 500 Yrds with it,It just depends on the bullet I have in it...I have several bullet choices all the same Grn...I take them to the range and choose the different bullet configurations that print close to the same...Yes different bullets do fly differently .... Open country Long range across canyons or clear cuts My 300 Ultra is the choice,But you better know your weapon of choice and get surgical with it...Wind,Temp,Pressure and more can affect performance...
My rule with my kids before hunting is being able to hit a milk jug free hand at a hundred Yrds three times... Now we have competitions on walking fifty Yrds and shooting @ milk jugs at 50 and seventy Yrds trying to create a real hunting situation...I'm proud to claim my kids to this point have never not recovered a shot animal... It is all about preparation and caliber and bullet choice for the type of hunting you are going to do...Know your limitations and stay with it...

 

[Buano]

It is true that at speeds below which hydrostatic shock takes over, a larger bullet always makes a larger hole. This is still true with muzzle-loaders & shotgun slugs. With modern rifles it is not true. Modern rifles shoot fast enough most damage is done by the wake of the bullet. This is the shock-wave that can liquify internal organs and shred muscle tissue when an animal is shot at close range with a very high energy bullet. This is why a deer shot in the ribcage with a 7 mag or .300 mag at 5 yards will have a 6" exit wound even though the bullet only mushrooms to around 1/2-3/4". For modern rifles, the real measure of killing power is not caliber, but retained energy. This is the energy the bullet hasn't lost to resistance from air.

Since a smaller diameter bullet of the same weight (& shape) will displace less air, the smaller caliber will retain more energy, all other items remaining equal. This is simply applying basic science to ballistics. The complications come in when more variables are added that shooters don't really understand:
1) As bullets get heavier for the same caliber, the rifling must spin the bullet faster to keep it stabilized — and accurate. Thus, a 220 grain bullet may work in a 30-06 but won't shoot well from a .25-06.
2) Bullets must be matched to their application. Bullets meant to penetrate deeply have traded away their mushrooming ability for penetration. Thus, dangerous game bullets generally do not produce the hydrostatic shock of a soft-point bullet, and may not kill a chest-shot deer as fast as a cheap bullet. These "premium" bullets may cause someone to dislike a wonderful firearm because of perceived lack of kill-power.
3) most bullet designs are designed to mushroom best at a small range of velocities. At higher velocities the bullets break apart and at lower velocities there is little mushrooming.

Best calibers should be best calibers for what type of game, at what range, under what conditions?

Elk are hunted with anything from .223 (Yes, I've heard of a hunter using one!) through the biggest African Game magnums, but the optimal caliber is the one with enough energy to quickly kill an elk from ranges YOU are apt to shoot, that you can shoot well. For most of us this starts around a .270, is centered from 7mm Rem mag through .338 Winchester, and tops out with a .300 RUM. Most hunters, hunting in most situations, would be best staying in the center of this range. If unsure of your situation, it's common (& recommended) to err on the side of more gun than risk not having enough so long as you can shoot "more gun" well. The negative to "more gun" is that most people shoot less-powerful guns better than they shoot more powerful firearms. If you can't (or won't invest the time & effort to) learn to shoot a gun well because of recoil, muzzle-blast or weight, it's too much gun for you. Retained energy matters little if you can't deliver it to the vital organs!

With an elk penetration is often more of an issue than mushrooming. An elk's shoulder will stop many bullets before they reach vital organs. Although hunters don't aim for the shoulder (hopefully) on elk, such hits do happen. Use a bullet meant to penetrate.

MOST elk hunters should stay with a 7mm Rem mag through .338 Winchester mag with a penetrating bullet.

Ron Cooley

 

[bwells]

The negative to "more gun" is that most people shoot less-powerful guns better than they shoot more powerful firearms. If you can't (or won't invest the time & effort to) learn to shoot a gun well because of recoil, muzzle-blast or weight, it's too much gun for you. Retained energy matters little if you can't deliver it to the vital organs!

Ron Cooley

I think that anybody can learn to shoot a medium to large rifle (300/338 size). It just takes practice, and may require an investment in a good recoil pad on a heavier rifle. The first centerfire rifle I ever bought was a 300wm, and this was also the first centerfire rifle I ever shot. At the time, I read as much as I could and decided that a 300 would be perfect for what I wanted to use it for, without having too much recoil. After I picked up my rifle from the shop, I took it to the range and I could measure those first groups in feet. I had a terrible flinch that I had to work through, but it was the first rifle I had ever shot (other than 22 and bp), and the first time I had ever shot with a scope. I ended up working through the flinch, and have taken game with that rifle from 300 yards. I guess the point I'm trying to make is that some people do shoot lighter rifles better than they shoot the heavier rifles, but with practice I think just about anybody can learn to shooth the bigger guns, they just takes more practice. Many of the recoil-sensitive big game hunters in Africa use the 375 H&H.

 

[Buano]

We are in agreement. My comment was, "If you can't (or won't invest the time & effort to) learn to shoot a gun well because of recoil, muzzle-blast or weight, it's too much gun for you." I believe almost everyone can learn to handle the most mid-bores, .338-.375 , IF they are willing to invest the time & effort. (I don't include the ultra mag .338 & .375 & any ultra-light rifle in this list because these have considerably more felt recoil.)

I also know hunters who have never put a box of shells through their rifle, hunters who won't shoot more than 4 or 5 rounds per year, and hunters who don't even check the zero of their rifle. That group of hunters will likely never get used to appreciable recoil so they should stay with rounds and rifle styles that don't take getting used to.

Ron

 

[SDR]

We are in agreement. My comment was, "If you can't (or won't invest the time & effort to) learn to shoot a gun well because of recoil, muzzle-blast or weight, it's too much gun for you." I believe almost everyone can learn to handle the most mid-bores, .338-.375 , IF they are willing to invest the time & effort. (I don't include the ultra mag .338 & .375 & any ultra-light rifle in this list because these have considerably more felt recoil.)

I also know hunters who have never put a box of shells through their rifle, hunters who won't shoot more than 4 or 5 rounds per year, and hunters who don't even check the zero of their rifle. That group of hunters will likely never get used to appreciable recoil so they should stay with rounds and rifle styles that don't take getting used to.

Ron

My 1/2 a Cents worth of opinion is hunters who have never put a box of shells through their rifle, hunters who won't shoot more than 4 or 5 rounds per year, and hunters who don't even check the zero of their rifle should not be allowed to hunt.......I really think all hunters should pass a hunters saftey coarse and have to pass a accuracy test before being turned loose in the woods with a rifle...Maybe even toss in a ethics coarse also....

Just My 1/2 a cents worth...

 

[Inspector]

The .270 will kill elk. No doubt about that. My grandpa's best friend killed at least 15 elk over the years with his old Remington pump in .270. He liked high shoulder shots. I also have a old .25-06 that was built by my uncle and he shot three elk with it over the years. Both hunted strictly in the blue mountains (Mt. Emily) near Meachum.

My own philosophy on the .25-06, now that I've partially restored it, is that it's great for deer or predators but I'll limit my use to nothing larger than deer. It simply isn't worth the risk that I may make a less than perfect shot on an elk.

I'm trying to decide between 7MM and .300 win for elk. My dad is a 7mm fan and feels that the extra recoil of the .300 isn't worth the advantage. I've fired both at the bench and don't find either to have unmanageable recoil. Of course if I opt for the .300 I'll have to endure his babble for a bit.

I reload and enjoy playing with new cartridges. This will be my first magnum. I'm looking at sometime after Jan. 1st providing I'm still employed.

 

[Buano]

Inspector,

Either the 7MM or .300 Win would be a great choice. The .300 handles heavier bullets better so you will get slightly better penetration (other things being equal) on "through the shoulder" shots. If money is the issue (as it sounds) buy whichever you get the best deal on and use the rest of your $ for quality optics.

Recoil tolerance varies wildly. My skinny 10-year old daughter just shot a buck with my Triumph .50 cal with a maximum load. A 240-250 pound hunting buddy of mine has trouble shooting a .270wsm. Your dad may be very uncomfortable with a .300 win & you might be comfortable shooting a .338 RUM. Don't judge "tolerable recoil" by anyone's shoulder but yours. If the .300 Win mag is not objectionable to don't let your father's intolerance keep from it — unless you want to have a gun he would be comfortable borrowing.

Good luck!
Ron