shot placement, plus big, medium or small bore rifles. lets talk

[TIM]

Lets have a discussion on shot placement and bore size.

I do understand that any good hunting bullet getting put in to the lungs will kill an animal. That is the shot placement side.

I do understand that in hunting situations the animal is not always standing broad side. And you have to punch thru some bone. Small bore calibers don't do that good in this situation.

Which do you prefer and why?

I use a .338 win mag that i have had for about 15 years for elk and a .270 wsm i use for deer and sheep. I can shoot both well, but the .270 wsm gets shot a lot more at targets, but i wouldn't want to brake thru a bunch of elk bone at 200 yards with the .270 wsm. Where as with the .338 win mag, i wouldn't even hesitate.


also a baddly shot animal with a .338 won't react that much different than a badly shot animal with a .223, but the .338 would give you more hunting oppurtunity than the .223, provided you can shoot the .338 win mag.

lets talk


tim

 

[xrated]

I use a 30-30 for my hunting...nothing more the whitetails. Have to use a soft tip bullet, because as much as I preach it, my shot placement isn't what it should be.

With that said, I know guys who feel comfortable taking black bears with the same rifle...they know the shot.

My old man, he loves the 270 for the flatness. We don't have near the long shots you do out west, but I'm fairly certain that is the rifle he would use on elk, etc due to comfort. Even with a 30-30 my dad will shoot a solid tip bullet because he knows where the hole is going.

If you are comfy with the gun and know you can reach so far and hit I would think "bone breaking" wouldn't be an issue, you could very well take a head shot.

I really think if you are comfortable at whatever range caliber won't isn't a factor as long as the load is capable. Your not taking an elk with a 22 at 200 yards(25 maybe) but a proper 270 shot will kill the elk just as dead as the 338, and I imagine save a bit more meat.

 

[wickman]

I have a 7mm Mag. I went with that because I can use it for deer, moose, elk or even bear. When I was a kid I used a .308.

 

[Stuck]

I use a 7mm rem mag. I think its a pretty good universal round. Shoots flat and carries energy well. And its relatively cheap to shoot. Brass is readily available as well as bullets. If you don't reload, there are about 70 different factory loads available from 130 gr to 175 gr.

 

[AKSNOWRIDER]

I shoot a .300 ultra mag..have taken wolk at a little over 600 yrs..also taken a wolk at less then 10 yrds... while it is a bit much for wolves..its a little light for brown/grizzly bears unless you know where you are putting the shot...I have 7 brown/grizz on this gun everyone was dead on the first hit(unfortunately I had 2 jump right back up and get shot twice more each)when a bear jumps right back up after you hit it good..its scary...I have always thought the .30 cal was one of the best all around calibers you could buy because it will do it all and do it darn good...but this rifle is due for a rebarrel and it may become a dedicated .375 ultra mag bear gun.......then I will build another .30 for everything else I hunt...On a 1600 pd bull moose..very impressive...they drop like a rock....

 

[snow_knight]

Hold on... making popcorn.. I know nothing about guns but this will get good..

 

[Nate]

I shoot a lot of guns for hunting. But my personal favorite is my 6.5 Leoperd. Good for everything and carries well down range. I have also had great luck with .330 Dakota, 7RAUM, 6x47Lapua, .338 & .375 Cheytac and 6.5-06Imprv. But I will never set down my 6.5Leoperd. I have it down now to where the ballistic chart is in my head, all I have to do is shoot a range, dial the dope and bueno.

Best off the shelf, .270WSM or .260 IMO

 

[woodzy]

300 ultra... spendy for shells tho

 

[2XM3]

.270 for me killed about everything with it, mc millian sako pattern stock,pre 64 reworked action,kenyon trigger,usually a lilja or hart barrel,old zeiss optics. its a tad heavy for a hunting gun but shoots as good as my target rifles.

I also use a .350 rem mag that Bob Morrow built, and the other Ive been messing with is a nice custom .338-06 ack imp...very very accurate gun.

 

[adrenaline junkey]

For most of my big game i shoot a Remington 300 ultra mag. I use hand loads that give me about 3300 fps with 180 grain ballistic tip. never recovered a bullet yet from a downed animal with even some threw the shoulder shots. But that gun is hard on your shoulder as it doesn't have a muzzle break. I have also taken plenty of mule deer with a 243 and one time we were out hunting coyotes and ran across a nice buck, I had no big game loads but given the area and the ability to track the buck i felt confident we would be successful. I took the shot, 300 yards with a 58 grain v max. the buck dropped like a rock jumped back up ran 30 yards and was dead on his feet

 

[woodzy]

if you're not finding bullets that's not a good thing. you want to find your bullet inside the animal to ensure all the energy gets transferred to the animal.

 

[TIM]

how important is bullet selection in regards to hunting.

snowknight and nate
the problem with you 2 is everything is so specialized and it goes over the head of the average rifleman. But lets get your opinions on bullet selection.

I just used an 140 gr nosler accubond on a stone sheep and the bullet definalty did its job. I am getting more and more impressed with this bullet, but i doubt it is good enough for elk except for the broad side shot. What do you think?

tim

 

[woodzy]

also a baddly shot animal with a .338 won't react that much different than a badly shot animal with a .223, but the .338 would give you more hunting oppurtunity than the .223, provided you can shoot the .338 win mag.

WRONG. 338 does huge damage compared to a 223. No matter where that bullet goes, it is going to do more damage than the 223.

 

[woodzy]

how important is bullet selection in regards to hunting.

snowknight and nate
the problem with you 2 is everything is so specialized and it goes over the head of the average rifleman. But lets get your opinions on bullet selection.

I just used an 140 gr nosler accubond on a stone sheep and the bullet definalty did its job. I am getting more and more impressed with this bullet, but i doubt it is good enough for elk except for the broad side shot. What do you think?

tim

I have always figured a minimum of 165 grain for elk, but that's just me. You are shooting this 140 grain out of the 270 I'm assuming?

 

[xrated]

how important is bullet selection in regards to hunting.

snowknight and nate
the problem with you 2 is everything is so specialized and it goes over the head of the average rifleman. But lets get your opinions on bullet selection.

I just used an 140 gr nosler accubond on a stone sheep and the bullet definalty did its job. I am getting more and more impressed with this bullet, but i doubt it is good enough for elk except for the broad side shot. What do you think?

tim

important if your a average shot like me....hence why I shoot a soft tip load. I need the expansion and exit hole. If you can drive tacks bullet selection is the same as gun...what you are comfy with and can shoot. I imagine depending on the critter differnt grains will make a difference. But I don't know enough to know how big a change there is from 140 to 160, etc.

 

[MTdream]

Lets have a discussion on shot placement and bore size.

I do understand that any good hunting bullet getting put in to the lungs will kill an animal. That is the shot placement side.

I do understand that in hunting situations the animal is not always standing broad side. And you have to punch thru some bone. Small bore calibers don't do that good in this situation.

Which do you prefer and why?

I use a .338 win mag that i have had for about 15 years for elk and a .270 wsm i use for deer and sheep. I can shoot both well, but the .270 wsm gets shot a lot more at targets, but i wouldn't want to brake thru a bunch of elk bone at 200 yards with the .270 wsm. Where as with the .338 win mag, i wouldn't even hesitate.


also a baddly shot animal with a .338 won't react that much different than a badly shot animal with a .223, but the .338 would give you more hunting oppurtunity than the .223, provided you can shoot the .338 win mag.

lets talk


tim

Isnt the issue more of a distance limitation? meaning, if you are shooting a smaller caliber (i.e. .243 or such) you are pretty much just limiting the distance at which you can consistently put down (read ethically) an animal the size of an elk?

i.e. the round number I have heard, is the energy necessary to consistently do this is roughly 2.5-3X the weight of the animal...

So if that is the case...

.243 100gr. bullet your limited to roughly 200 yards MAX.
.270 WSM 140 gr. your good out to about 400 yards...
.308 165. gr. you good out to roughly 350 yards
.300 Win. Mag 180 gr. pill your limited to your skill...
.338 win. Mag. 225gr. pill your limited to your skill...

IMHO, it is not the caliber, or the angle as much as it is limiting yourself knowing the cartridge you have...

Have taken loads of elk with a .280...never an issue...taken several with .300 win. mag...never an issue, have several friends who have knocked down bulls in their tracks (limited distance) with a .243...Here is a pic of a bull that was knocked down with a .243 (for those saying it cant happen, or was a small bull) and this was written up in I think Trophy Hunter...is a friends son..

This one was shot with a .270 @ 300 yards...did not drop in tracks, but punched through should bone, and through the heart...I put finish shot on it with my .280 at 100 yards (spine) but it was not going anywhere...

 

[MTdream]

if you're not finding bullets that's not a good thing. you want to find your bullet inside the animal to ensure all the energy gets transferred to the animal.

Yeah, this energy transfer thing has been debated for generations...Not sure it is the key...(not saying it isnt, but it is way bigger than I can answer definitively)

There is a really good article on it that the FBI did research on calibers and what was the best bullet for them to use...

net net, they found that caliber is not the most important, it is placement...and the type of bullet (not all rapid expanders are created equal)...

I think it was a study to prove the .40 cal. was the gun of choice, but ultimately proved nothing definitively...

 

[MTdream]

WRONG. 338 does huge damage compared to a 223. No matter where that bullet goes, it is going to do more damage than the 223.

sure, but how much is enough...and how much is necessary to do the job...

You can always bring a howitzer to a knife fight but it is not always necessary...

More times than not, we gun way higher than we need to...it is like sledding...I have more power in my sled to make up for my lack of skill...same thing happens in guns... IMHO

not many load their own, study ballistic charts...shoot enough to know what happens...how their gun shoots versus the charts etc. etc. Just like not all turbos are the same on the hill...

 

[MTdream]

how important is bullet selection in regards to hunting.

snowknight and nate
the problem with you 2 is everything is so specialized and it goes over the head of the average rifleman. But lets get your opinions on bullet selection.

I just used an 140 gr nosler accubond on a stone sheep and the bullet definalty did its job. I am getting more and more impressed with this bullet, but i doubt it is good enough for elk except for the broad side shot. What do you think?

tim

The bull above was shot with an accubond...I love those things!!!!

have a ruger that is a cloverleaf shooter (custom trigger, custom bedding, etc. etc.) in a .280 shot several elk in the last two years with it (MT you can get two in certain areas) and in ID. Never had an issue with the 140 gr. or the 160 gr. in my .280

shot several in last couple years with my .300 Win. Mag (tikka Whitetail hunter model) 180 gr. accubonds...it too is a pin hole puncher out to 300 yds. (best group @ 300 is sub 2" wont say as it will just distract from topic) but it has never had a knock them off their legs unless it was a neck shot or head shot or spine shot...knocked one down with a spine shot at 225 yds. and it went down so hard, we lost where it was...took us 3 hours to find it....but it dropped in its tracks...we just lost which tree it was near...and found it piled up under it almost totally hidden...

 

[woodzy]

sure, but how much is enough...and how much is necessary to do the job...

You can always bring a howitzer to a knife fight but it is not always necessary...

More times than not, we gun way higher than we need to...it is like sledding...I have more power in my sled to make up for my lack of skill...same thing happens in guns... IMHO

not many load their own, study ballistic charts...shoot enough to know what happens...how their gun shoots versus the charts etc. etc. Just like not all turbos are the same on the hill...

example: you shoot an elk in the stomach w/ a 223, it's going to take days to die from the teeny hole you put in it. Shoot that same elk with a 338 in the same spot and it's going to die a lot sooner.