Smallest / Minimum Calliber for Elk

[suavegato]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Sigma @ Oct 11 2008, 10:03 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

Would I post the numbers and not read them? The Swede is not faster, the chart demonstrates the Swede's ability to retain velocity. I.e. the 6.5x55 starts out a full 300 fps slower than the .270 but has near the same velocity and energy at 500. According to the chart, at 500 yards the .270 loses 910 fps but the 6.5x55 only loses 646 fps. Cool?

Double post -[/b]

I saw your post and was wondering about it also. I did notice that the Swede "retains" it's vel. better but I'm just curious how that is beneficial? Not trying to be a naysayer.... I'm genuinely curious? If the .270 has more vel. at all ranges, wouldn't it be "better" (have more Ft. Lbs. of N.R.G.) at all ranges as well? Is "retaining" velocity something to be considered? It's "cool" yes, but other than that, of what benefit is it? Less recoil maybe?
Thanks,
biGjOhn

 

[Sigma]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (suavegato @ Oct 12 2008, 05:48 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Sigma @ Oct 11 2008, 10:03 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Would I post the numbers and not read them? The Swede is not faster, the chart demonstrates the Swede's ability to retain velocity. I.e. the 6.5x55 starts out a full 300 fps slower than the .270 but has near the same velocity and energy at 500. According to the chart, at 500 yards the .270 loses 910 fps but the 6.5x55 only loses 646 fps. Cool?

Double post -[/b]

I saw your post and was wondering about it also. I did notice that the Swede "retains" it's vel. better but I'm just curious how that is beneficial? Not trying to be a naysayer.... I'm genuinely curious? If the .270 has more vel. at all ranges, wouldn't it be "better" (have more Ft. Lbs. of N.R.G.) at all ranges as well? Is "retaining" velocity something to be considered? It's "cool" yes, but other than that, of what benefit is it? Less recoil maybe?
Thanks,
biGjOhn
[/b][/quote]

It's almost like you're asking why higher velocity at target is better...? The .270 does not have more velocity at ALL ranges. The above chart goes out to 500 yards. This is how the chart continues from 600 to 1000:

6.5x55 600 800 1000
Velocity 1797 1581 1390
Energy 1112 861 665

.270 600 800 1000
Velocity 1782 1497 1262
Energy 1058 748 531

Now, you might say, "that's all fine and dandy, but who shoots game at 600-1000 yards?" Notice in the earlier chart that the .270 loses almost 400 fps. at 200. In contrast, the 6.5x55 loses only 271 fps. At 300 yards the .270 has lost 570 fps, the Swede only loses 400 fps. That's a good thing, isn't it?

"Cool" is also similar performance from a factory load with less recoil and muzzle blast which translates to better accuracy. Performance on game is of course not all about ft. lbs. of energy. It's also about penetration, the bullet's ability to get deep inside an animal and do damage. Sectional density plays an important role in penetration. The Swede is hard to beat in this category. Sectional density for the 6.5x55 155 gr. bullet is 0.318. Sectional density for the .270 150 gr. bullet is 0.279. In order to get the same sectional density from a .270, you'd have to be shooting a 170 gr. bullet.

Fact is that factory loads for the Swede are sorely underloaded due to the abundance of old Swedish Mausers out there. If you were to handload the 6.5x55 to the .270 velocity published in the above load, 2850 fps at the muzzle, you would get a noticeable jump in performance both in velocity and energy and it would be easy to see that the 6.5x55 can be on par or better than the .270.

Far be it from me to knock the .270, lest 'ol Jack O'Connor roll over in his grave. But I'm partial to the 6.5x55. So are the 1000 yard benchrest competition shooters. The 6.5x55 just flies better.

 

[macktruckturner]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Sigma @ Oct 12 2008, 09:18 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

Far be it from me to knock the .270, lest 'ol Jack O'Connor roll over in his grave. But I'm partial to the 6.5x55. So are the 1000 yard benchrest competition shooters. The 6.5x55 just flies better.

[/b]

Ultimately both the .270 and the 6.5x55 have been killing all classes of game on their native continents since their inception.

One can go far overboard in ballistics comparisons, but those will not ultimately make a huge difference in all but the most exacting of circumstances. While such considerations are important for things like benchrest shooting, 1000m competitions, and other venues in which minimal variance is of utmost importance - the fact of the matter is that the vital zone on game animals is quite large, even when one takes into consideration the ethical practice of putting your game down as quickly as possible. All too often there becomes an obsession with terminal ballistics at ranges beyond those which the vast majority of shooters have ever even attempted to punch holes in paper. The rise of inexpensive and accurate laser rangefinders has at least enabled those same shooters to at least know the actual range, instead of relying upon estimation which typically results in stories of ranges increased by several orders of magnitude.

In order to head into the field, there are always sacrifices to be made. If power, extreme range, and certain killing power were all required in the highest denomination possible - everyone here would own at least one .50BMG in order to deliver over 10,000ft-lbs of energy on target. Considering the heft of that weapon system, I'd be surprised to find a good deal of people willing to carry that into the field, and then be faced with also carrying out their kill. My own considerations go towards the fact that the lever guns of old put a significant dent in the mammal population of this continent, even prior to the dawn of smokeless powder. The .30-30 managed even then to get the job done lacking the factory loads which now manage to carry over 1000ft-lbs to 200yds with 150gr bullets. By comparison both the 6.5x55 and the .270 carry well over 1000ft-lbs at double that distance, with ~150gr bullets. Has some biological wonder happened which now makes game impervious to 150gr projectiles carrying over 1000ft-lbs of energy? Even still modern bullets deliver far better sectional densities for increased penetration. If you can get the job done with a 150gr .30-30 bullet with a .226SD (Sierra ProHunter) it stands to reason that improving from there certainly can't hurt - and again both cartridges previously mentioned deliver in spades.

In the end it all seems rather divisive to attempt to elevate one cartridge above another, when ultimately each hunter should choose to hunt with whatever makes that hunter most comfortable, and both cartridges have clearly proven able to take the game in question with great reliability.

 

[hntnnut]

Well said, but the .270 is the standard that all other cartridges are compared to and try to emulate.

Richard

 

[macktruckturner]

lol, I thought that was .30-06

 

[scr83jp]

A friend of mine told me the most popular round used for Elk is the 30-06,next 300wm then 7mm mag.I have a friend who has hunted for years in pennsylvania & the western USA successfully with a Ruger #1 in 6mm for Mule Deer ,Cow & Bull Elk .He was an excellent hunter and shooter long before entering the usmc then he was sent to sniper school.I saw many of his animals with no meat wasted since he hit them with one shot in the neck and head.He also uses a 600 series in 350 Remington Mag or a 308.

 

[Farmerdoug]

Here is the real question you got to ask yourself. If you set 5 empty shotgun shells out at a 100yrds and dont knock down all 5 the first time, leave your 243 at home. Back in Nebraska when I was a kid I was brainwashed by my family that 22-250 was the prefered round for taking big Midwest pasture mulies and crickbottom whitetails. When I was 21, I headed back from California with my new 30-06 and was practically laughed off the farm. Needless to say, I showed up the next year with a new Ruger 243. (Which I am biased about and believe is the best shootin gun I have ever seen). Moral of the story is shot placement and practice. Like the others have mentioned in this thread, the size of the round is useless if you dont make good solid shots. Any good big game hunt starts with good scouting, good optics, and finally good shot placement regardless if your using a 243 or 300 win mag.

 

[Lahontan]

I agree with bigJohn, I am sure a .243 or other is enough to take an elk, but why limit yourself. It depends on your priority. I think in the case mentioned earlier, about the daughter, the biggest concern is recoil and if so then use a smaller caliber. I won't use a .243 for 2 reasons:
1. I don't own one
2. I wouldn't want to limit myself. I just bought a new rifle, haven't even fired it yet. But I bought a .270 because I want a rifle for bear, deer, elk etc. Also, the recoil does make a difference to me. I can handle the .30-06 just fine but I am better with a .270. I don't think I would go lower because I would be giving up more than I would gain in the recoil dept.

I think the .243 will be fine. If it takes two shots, at least it will still drop the elk. We are talking about a young hunter here, so perfection is not going to happen. I know many will argue the ethics of one shot etc. That is all good, but we need to teach the younger hunters about this stuff and I think your plan for a .243 is a good one.

Good Luck,

 

[wmidbrook]

I voted .243 or 6 mm. Plenty of elk have gone down to the .243 & 6 mm with *solid* shot placement. Nonetheless, I'd stick with a 6.5x55 on up for medium range and beyond. Suffice it to say I know a family down in SE Utah who've take lots of elk with a 6mm. Also, my father-in-law's best buddy killed scores of mule deer and elk and bear in Idaho during and after his years as a game warden up there with his model 70 6.5x55 up to 500 yards.

I shot this cow with my .30-06 @ 428 yards - 61.5 gr. RE 19 + 150 grain Nosler Partition. Pass-thru the lungs and down where she stood (but slid another 20-30 yards down the hill).

 

[Mr. Luckypants]

"Muzzle velocity is a depreciating asset, not unlike a new car, but BC, like diamonds, is forever."

-German A. Salazar

This is why I will only buy rifles chambered in 6.5mm, 7mm, or .308. Any one of these will do for elk. I shoot a .260rem and was shooting at a wheel rotor at 600yds using 142smks. It ripped thru the rotor like a hot knife thru butter. Oh and I was able to hit it at will even in 10mph crosswind.

For those who haven't spent time researching BC/SD I highly recommend you to do so.

 

[m_freeman]

"Muzzle velocity is a depreciating asset, not unlike a new car, but BC, like diamonds, is forever."

-German A. Salazar

This is why I will only buy rifles chambered in 6.5mm, 7mm, or .308. Any one of these will do for elk. I shoot a .260rem and was shooting at a wheel rotor at 600yds using 142smks. It ripped thru the rotor like a hot knife thru butter. Oh and I was able to hit it at will even in 10mph crosswind.

For those who haven't spent time researching BC/SD I highly recommend you to do so.

6.5mm

 

[FoCoHugh]

I have a friend who only uses a 25-06. I should probably add that he was a sniper in the Army for years.

 

[DLS]

This has been an interesting thread with lots of anecdotal information supplied. While I checked .260/6.5 as my choice for minimum, I'm far from sure that's the best answer for minimum caliber to hunt elk. I've done quite a bit of elk hunting, and have taken a dozen elk ranging from a yearling to several old bulls that were in the 9-12 year old range. Also some raghorns, cows and younger 6 pt bulls. I've killed elk with a .264 wm, .270, 7mm weatherby, .30-06, .300 winchester, .338 wm, .50 muzzleloader and very sharp broadheads shot from my bow.

With all of that in mind, I'm pretty sure I don't know the 'minimum' caliber for elk, as there is so much more that goes into properly answering that question than just caliber. I think the answer varies a lot, depending on whether you're on a spike/cow hunt, or hunting big mature bulls. Keep in mind that a big cow might weigh 500 pounds, while that is not a very big bull at all. Al lot of 6 pt. bulls weigh 600-700 pounds, but a truly big bull tips the scales at 900+ pounds. The way a person hunts also has so much to do with what a proper caliber should be, and perhaps the most common sense thing a person can do when elk hunting is tailor their elk rifle (assuming that's how you hunt) to the type of terrain and distance of shot they're willing to take, than simply the caliber of the bullet, or dimensions of the case.

I think having the self-discipline to turn down a shot, no matter the caliber you're shooting, is far more important than what you might shoot him with. Also, I believe that the bullet itself is as important as the caliber, except at the extremes of size on both ends of the scale. I'd rather shoot a bull with a quality 150 grain bullet from a .270 than a poor quality bullet from a .338. But then, I don't shoot low quality bullets anyway, so that issue doesn't apply to me. I'm a big believer in Nosler Partitions, Barnes TSX, Trophy Bonded Bearclaw or Swift A-frames if I'm elk hunting. Of course, most of my elk hunting these days depends more on the performance of my broadhead than bullet, so who am I to opine on what may be the best caliber?

These days, when I rifle hunt for elk, it is with a .388, shooting 225 grain bullets. I think that's about a perfect elk rifle, at least for me. I realize that may be a poor choice for many others. I don't think anyone can wrong to hunt elk with a .30-06, as long as you shoot quality bullets, and probably of 180 grains, at least if you're hunting mature bulls.

As for a minimum caliber, I guess I still think that .264 winchester is a good minimum, though a lot of people will think I'm nuts.

 

[warren nelson]

243 has and will always be around to kill elk.
Those that can use a rifle well use it to kill elk all the time.
I'm a 30-378 rifle guy so what do I know. LOL

 

[Deleted member 33033]

100 grain G3 broadhead.

 

[Ism415]

100 grain G3 broadhead.

Thats awesome!! best way to do it!! I own a 243 that has been in my family for years, it has take more then its fair share of cows and bulls out on MT.

 

[shastaboat]

The last and most obvious question is whether you are shooting from a computer or an actual rifle? My answere is 6mm/.243, 100(+) gr Nosler Partition or similar controlled expansion bullet at 3000 fps will work.

 

[catchdog]

.243 for the smallest.
7mm08, .270, and 30-06 are all 300 yard elk killers. if the hunter does his part.

 

[benson_stw]

It seems to me the bigger the caliber I grab on an elk hunt the closer the elk get. The smallest caliber Ive used on a bull is a 243 at 327 yards. Let the flaming begin but when you are set up on a bipod and he is feeding in a meadow and doesnt know youre around. Easy to drop a 100 gr partition in the boiler room. That being said I now use a 270 wsm for all my elk killing duties. And adding more fuel to the fire I shoot a 130 gr. ballistic tip at elk. Never wanted or needed more clear out to 400 yards. Pick the gun you or your daughter or whoever it may be shoots the best regardless of bullet diameter because accuracy trumps all else.

 

[jdjtexas]

I like the broadhead idea! I cant weigh in cus I aint ever killed an Elk but if archery can get it done than a 243 damn well should!