Answered: What's enough bullet for Elk? (long read)
- Thread starter SFR292
- Start date
Keeptrying
Active member
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2016
- Messages
- 678
Very interesting posts.
Some points from a not long distance rifleman.
We have a .300wm because as said it gives us confidence. Flat, fast, hard shooting rifle that does it's job. We will certainly have to give some thought to using it at closer ranges. Would moving point of aim forward a bit to shatter the shoulder be an appropriate move? Asking here.
That rifle also has a CDS dial. Not because it makes us 1000 yard shots, but because when tired, hungry, and under pressure it allows us to dial the rifle to whatever distance we range an animal at and aim for the vitals. Idea being to make everything as simple as possible. The idea is not to start guessing on wind drift at 700 yards because we can dial our elevation at that distance.
A big, tough, hard-hitting rifle with a reliable optic that will easily dial out to 400 yards is a win in my book. Thanks again for such thoughtful posts.
Some points from a not long distance rifleman.
We have a .300wm because as said it gives us confidence. Flat, fast, hard shooting rifle that does it's job. We will certainly have to give some thought to using it at closer ranges. Would moving point of aim forward a bit to shatter the shoulder be an appropriate move? Asking here.
That rifle also has a CDS dial. Not because it makes us 1000 yard shots, but because when tired, hungry, and under pressure it allows us to dial the rifle to whatever distance we range an animal at and aim for the vitals. Idea being to make everything as simple as possible. The idea is not to start guessing on wind drift at 700 yards because we can dial our elevation at that distance.
A big, tough, hard-hitting rifle with a reliable optic that will easily dial out to 400 yards is a win in my book. Thanks again for such thoughtful posts.
KeepTrying,
So first, there's so many variables involved with each situation to dictate shot placement my general response for elk is no, point shooting an elk is generally not a good idea as a solution for close range shooting. I also have to state for completeness that we as elk hunters have the responsibility of knowing our game, particularly their anatomy and physiology in the case of choosing a shot placement. For the reasons of bullet failure, choosing a shot that would have more dense target material would only compound the issue. So there's assumptions on my part with my reasons, namely the bullet choices of most North American hunters when compared to a safari hunter in other areas of the world. The bullets of choice for most of us are based around the expansion of the bullet to transfer energy with penetration to cause critical levels of trauma whereas dangerous game and safari bullets are designed more with all out penetration in mind and achieve their kill similar to a broadhead on an arrow, massive blood loss with some amounts of shock trauma or a nervous system shutdown through a no reflex shot placement (something we in the "professional" world are trained to do to lessen threats as quickly and safely as possible). If you look at the locations of the major vitals on an elk, a point shot to break the animal down in the shoulder would have low odds of causing lethal trauma to the major organs right away but will cause some rapid blood loss and could cause some nervous system shutdown. Another negative to the point shot is typically a lot of tissue damage to some good meat on the animal and could make for some creative field work in breaking the animal down and packing it out. Ultimately it takes a bunch of research on different bullet types and manufactures that reach the result you want, use your field experience to determine what situations you expect and what your personal limitations are in terms of shooting conditions. You don't need a crazy high BC, long range designed bullet if you're shooting inside 500 yards with a 300 WM, thats my professional opinion. Bullets such as the Nosler partition, Hornady Interlock, or another flat-base, bonded core bullet is probably the better option for your situation. Another bonus, a flat-base bullet typically has precision attributes to them in the close to mid range areas do to the center of gravity benefits of a shorter per weight bullet designs.
All of that being said, my observations and experiences on bullet failure in this sense is that the bullet over expands too quickly and looses mass needed to penetrate to the desired depth. The shot I would take in this scenario would either be the path of lease resistance to the vitals (really the shot we're all after in any scenario) or a nervous system shutdown by taking a neck shot. There's a lot of debate on that shot placement and its a very small window between good results and a wounded animal.
So first, there's so many variables involved with each situation to dictate shot placement my general response for elk is no, point shooting an elk is generally not a good idea as a solution for close range shooting. I also have to state for completeness that we as elk hunters have the responsibility of knowing our game, particularly their anatomy and physiology in the case of choosing a shot placement. For the reasons of bullet failure, choosing a shot that would have more dense target material would only compound the issue. So there's assumptions on my part with my reasons, namely the bullet choices of most North American hunters when compared to a safari hunter in other areas of the world. The bullets of choice for most of us are based around the expansion of the bullet to transfer energy with penetration to cause critical levels of trauma whereas dangerous game and safari bullets are designed more with all out penetration in mind and achieve their kill similar to a broadhead on an arrow, massive blood loss with some amounts of shock trauma or a nervous system shutdown through a no reflex shot placement (something we in the "professional" world are trained to do to lessen threats as quickly and safely as possible). If you look at the locations of the major vitals on an elk, a point shot to break the animal down in the shoulder would have low odds of causing lethal trauma to the major organs right away but will cause some rapid blood loss and could cause some nervous system shutdown. Another negative to the point shot is typically a lot of tissue damage to some good meat on the animal and could make for some creative field work in breaking the animal down and packing it out. Ultimately it takes a bunch of research on different bullet types and manufactures that reach the result you want, use your field experience to determine what situations you expect and what your personal limitations are in terms of shooting conditions. You don't need a crazy high BC, long range designed bullet if you're shooting inside 500 yards with a 300 WM, thats my professional opinion. Bullets such as the Nosler partition, Hornady Interlock, or another flat-base, bonded core bullet is probably the better option for your situation. Another bonus, a flat-base bullet typically has precision attributes to them in the close to mid range areas do to the center of gravity benefits of a shorter per weight bullet designs.
All of that being said, my observations and experiences on bullet failure in this sense is that the bullet over expands too quickly and looses mass needed to penetrate to the desired depth. The shot I would take in this scenario would either be the path of lease resistance to the vitals (really the shot we're all after in any scenario) or a nervous system shutdown by taking a neck shot. There's a lot of debate on that shot placement and its a very small window between good results and a wounded animal.
Keeptrying
Active member
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2016
- Messages
- 678
So interesting. Lots of food for thought.
walking buffalo
Active member
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2013
- Messages
- 111
SFR292,
In reflection of the Canadian sniper's new record kill shot, I am very curious as to your 4000+ yard group size?
What is "enough bullet" for elk at this range?
In reflection of the Canadian sniper's new record kill shot, I am very curious as to your 4000+ yard group size?
What is "enough bullet" for elk at this range?
So for the record shoot I shot 10 rounds starting from a cold bore, shot 4 through 10 landed on target (48"x54" 3/8 AR550 steel plate). The group major was 15.92 inches. I had forward observers behind dirt mounds and in make-shift bunkers to call my shots for me as me as the shooter could not spot for myself. It's not a real world shooting scenario, rather we just wanted to see what we could do. I couldn't have done it what so ever without forward observers, and good ones that could make good calls. We also had very favorable conditions, ground temps and air temps were very close so mirage was a minimum, it's still there but not as bad as it could have been.
That being said I was shooting 2500-2700 yards almost weekly with this same system. Currently I'm about to ship the system to a relatively new action manufacturer so that they can measure and test what my system is as they want to "fix" the downfalls of most the actions based around this Cheytac based case (which is based on the 505 gibs case dimensions).
I'm also using the same Nightforce ATACR 5-25x56 off that system on my elk hunt and on mule deer hunt this year. Once you jump into the 34mm or even the 40mm tube size glass it's really hard to go back into "normal" scopes. Again, like my silencers I feel the added weight and bulk is worth the benefits to me. Just because it has a high "zoom" doesn't mean you have to turn up that high. Again, this is what I like and what I'm willing to carry, the system isn't light weight that I'm hunting with by any means, as a system it weighs 13 lbs, 3 oz, unloaded. Compared to my 375 it's a featherweight, that system weighed just shy of 29lbs unloaded.
That being said I was shooting 2500-2700 yards almost weekly with this same system. Currently I'm about to ship the system to a relatively new action manufacturer so that they can measure and test what my system is as they want to "fix" the downfalls of most the actions based around this Cheytac based case (which is based on the 505 gibs case dimensions).
I'm also using the same Nightforce ATACR 5-25x56 off that system on my elk hunt and on mule deer hunt this year. Once you jump into the 34mm or even the 40mm tube size glass it's really hard to go back into "normal" scopes. Again, like my silencers I feel the added weight and bulk is worth the benefits to me. Just because it has a high "zoom" doesn't mean you have to turn up that high. Again, this is what I like and what I'm willing to carry, the system isn't light weight that I'm hunting with by any means, as a system it weighs 13 lbs, 3 oz, unloaded. Compared to my 375 it's a featherweight, that system weighed just shy of 29lbs unloaded.
AvidIndoorsman
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2015
- Messages
- 18,411
Great read and very informative, as an adult onset hunter it's great to find material like this that tries to really explain why you should pick a certain calibers over others. Although with all the talk of 30s I'm setting here thinking of the guy that got me into hunting telling me he shot his first 10+ deer and 5 elk with a .22lr, legal in his state when he was doing it, although I sure just as ethically dubious as it is today.
There's so much information thats related to this topic that I haven't included in this post around ballistic performance in terms of hunting. Just wanted to remind everyone that this is intended as food for thought, or a mental exercise in making field decisions. I have no problem discussing my personal shooting experiences and setups with people but lets try to keep the discussion in this thread focused on the intended purpose if we could. I realized when I wrote this thread that the discussion of long range hunting would come up, as in the original post, this is not the intention of this topic. Yes it is connected when discussing ballistics but I just wanted to help people understand their equipment better.
That being said theres a very important statement to add to the discussion of ballistics in terms of energy determination, when running the math to figure out the potential energy is doesn't mean that amount of energy is transferred to the target. If a projectile passes through it's target, i.e. entrance and exit wounds, then the projectile did not transfer 100% of it's energy. Knowing how much energy is transferred is something I really don't know how to determine and haven't seen any papers or discussion with solid information on how have even a rough idea of a percentage of transfer, doesn't mean its not out there I just haven't been able to find anything that can be proven.
Along the same lines of energy transfer of a projectile there's been some discussion among myself and others who study the topic that the rotation rate (rpm) of a projectile has an effect on not just the ability to transfer energy but cause more tissue damage than the same projectile at the same speed at a lower RPM. This is related to twist rates of the barrel being faster than average, in addition to the stability factor increase to the projectile which has other benefits to itself important to long range shooting predictions. I tend to believe this concept of higher RPMs on a projectiles causing more damage and energy transfer to target, again I haven't seen anything to actually test this or prove this theory but it seems to make sense conceptually.
That being said theres a very important statement to add to the discussion of ballistics in terms of energy determination, when running the math to figure out the potential energy is doesn't mean that amount of energy is transferred to the target. If a projectile passes through it's target, i.e. entrance and exit wounds, then the projectile did not transfer 100% of it's energy. Knowing how much energy is transferred is something I really don't know how to determine and haven't seen any papers or discussion with solid information on how have even a rough idea of a percentage of transfer, doesn't mean its not out there I just haven't been able to find anything that can be proven.
Along the same lines of energy transfer of a projectile there's been some discussion among myself and others who study the topic that the rotation rate (rpm) of a projectile has an effect on not just the ability to transfer energy but cause more tissue damage than the same projectile at the same speed at a lower RPM. This is related to twist rates of the barrel being faster than average, in addition to the stability factor increase to the projectile which has other benefits to itself important to long range shooting predictions. I tend to believe this concept of higher RPMs on a projectiles causing more damage and energy transfer to target, again I haven't seen anything to actually test this or prove this theory but it seems to make sense conceptually.
