lets look at caliber selection from a different approach

[rimrock]

theres always been a constant debate on what a good ELK rifle caliber is, example
theres a group that feels the 243win, 6mm rem,-257 Roberts , 25/06 ,257 wby,up to about the 270 win, are perfectly acceptable Elk rifles,
and theres the group that thinks you'll be far better off with a 378/338 mag 375H&H-416 Remington,404 , 458 win ETC,
but theres few guys that really debate the merits or lack of same of the 7mm and 300 magnums, 325 win 300wby-8mm rem,338 win 340 wby, etc. as having the necessary clout to be used effectively on ELK, with the better ammo.
especially when we look at the ballistics, and pragmatically review the track record of those calibers in actual field use,
so the debate, seems to really center around the recoil and noise levels, and cost of the rifle and ammo,and weight of the rifle your willing to accept or pay for, or the weight you'll carry,etc. and what someone is willing to accept , in recoil, rifle weight and cost to get the job done effectively.
we all make compromises at some point.
few guys want to carry a 9-10 lb rifle, or pay more than about $700-$1500 for a rifle,few guys want the rifle scope to give them eyebrow scars, if the don,t constantly keep the recoil levels in mind before firing,but
most guys want a rifle that at least in theory reaches out to 350-500yards , even thought most ELK are shot at under 350 yards and most guys in my experience don,t want to shoot a harder recoiling caliber from the sitting ,kneeling or prone position, making the real hard kickers, not really an option, as a truly useful rifle under all conditions in the field.
your choice always involves some compromises.
so what are the factors you look for, what are YOU willing to give up and what factors are mandatory in your ELK rifle choice and WHY?
now personally Ive found the 35 whelen to be about as low in the power band as IM truly comfortable hunting ELK with as I have total confidence in that calibers ability to kill ELK, and the 300-mags, 340 wby and 375 H&H to be about the max practical recoil levels, and rifle weight IM willing to put up with.
Ive used either a 35 whelen, 375 H&H, and 340wby on easily 75%-80% or more of MY ELK hunting trips . but thats only MY choice , whats YOURS?? and WHY??

[Rock Chuck]

300 WSM. I've got 2 elk and 2 deer with it to date. So far, I haven't shot anything with it that a 30-06 wouldn't have done just as well. 30 cal is an elk gitter. Before that, I used a 270 for close to 30 years. That was an elk gitter, too.

[dave-t.]

I used a 300wm, because I had it. 9+lb wood and blue rifle, it is a pig to carry, but I bought the thing because it was enough gun for anything I intended to ever hunt. It is too.

Heck, the distances that I was having encounters with elk, a 30-30 carbine wouldn't have been a bad choice, and would have been much nicer to carry.:o

[Chuck S]

I figure accuracy is the most important feature. Secondary features include weight, recoil and length. I like a short, light rifle that doesn't kick. Mine is a 30-06 in a Mannlicher carbine loaded with 130-150 gn premium bullets.

[ColoYooper]

Rem model 700, 30-06, handloaded 180gr Nosler AccuBonds, custom thumbhole stock, 8 lbs. Shoots consistently .7 MOA with AccuBonds.

Since this picture was taken, the scope has been upgraded to a Leupold mark 4, 4.5-14 x 50mm Illuminated Reticle.

I use to hunt with a 300WinMag, but that rifle was too heavy for the mountains. This particular elk dropped on the spot with a heart shot. I've shot 2 other elk with this rifle. One was running, quartering away. That elk ran 40 yards before dropping. The bullet didn't pass though, but got trapped beneath the hide on the far side in the neck. The next elk was a neck shot and dropped on the spot. I really like the AccuBonds fired at 2620ft/sec from this rifle, as they go where I'm aiming and quickly do the job.

[Bushman]

My elk rifle was a work in progress for a kid wanting his one gun does everything rifle. The rifle started life as a used M700 7mm RM with the original black stainless steel barrel that was made back in the early '60's. I traded a buddy a snowmobile trailer for it. It wore a Leupold 2.5-8x36 Vari-X III for a time, but it was too heavy. I sent it out to Brown Precision in California for some metal work. They trued up the action, turned the barrel down to a #1 taper, reworked the trigger, nickle plated the springs, bead blasted the action and barrel and hard chrome plated the action. A year later it went back for a Kevlar stock and full camo paint. Then the Leupold came off and a Swarovski 2.5-10x42 PH 30mm tube scope went back on in Conetrol low rings and bases. 7# ready to go now and it is one heck of a mountain rifle. I knew that I was going to go for lighter weight, so I didn't want a larger magnum chambering. Even at 7# a 7mm RM lets you know that it went off. I've always gone elk hunting with horse guys, but I prefer to hunt elk like I do deer back in WI. so I carry my own rifle and that work in progress rifle has served me well for lots of elk and early deer hunting. I wouldn't change a thing.

[Hi Ball]

Bushman my first die-hard elk gun came in the form of a Belgium Browning FN rifle. It was called the Safari grade gun and the caliber was a .300 Winchester magnum. I carried that rifle a lot of years, never thought about it being more heavy or less heavy than anyone elses rifle. I most likely would have not shot the rifle so well, had it been lighter in weight.

It was truely a well made rifle fit for all types of conditions in my eyes anyway. Not to mention the fact that it shot .750-MOA from the bench with Sierra 190 grain bullets. I liked everything from 165 grains up in weight. I never had any problem threading the needle when shooting at big game, even out passed 300 yards. People back in those days just never thought much about shooting passed 350 yards even out West.

Now I have a super lightweight to do my bidding, in the form of a .338/06 with lightweight stock, tapered barrel (after 3 shots it starts to walk some) but is a solid 1-MOA rifle. I mostly shoot those 210 grain Nosler Partitions out of this rifle, it likes em a lot and the rifle only weighs in a 6.75 pounds with scope. ;):)

[Bushman]

I remember those Browning Safari FN Mausers from back in the '60's. Beautiful looking rifles, but heavy with those steps in the barrel as it tapered forward. Kind of like a M98 Mauser in 8x57 that my dad had. The way I figured it, I was more of a hunter than a target shooter and I was going to carry a rifle way more than I was going to shoot it. If a group started to open up after three shots, I figured that I'd have something down by that time with a cartridge or two to spare. One of the things that I liked about those Browning Safari models was the wood they put on them. Rather high gloss, but always nicely grained. I had kind of a bad experience with wood warping on me during an all day rain, so I've gone painted synthetic and stainless ever since.

I like your .338/06 choice. My buddy has always used that 210 Nosler Partition out of his .338 WM and it really slaps an elk he tells me. People's experience might be different than mine, but the hardest part about getting an elk for me wasn't shooting one, it was getting to where I could shoot one. If a lighter 7# rifle helped get me one set of hills farther back in where the elk were, that is what I wanted. A 7# .308 where the elk are, beats a 10# .338 WM back at the tent.

[GF.]

I'm with Dave on this... First thing I'll forego is 'long' range capability. If it's past a couple hundred yards, it's not hunting, IMO.

I would happily hunt Elkwith either my 7-08 or my .45/70; both are a lot lighter than the .54 tradshooter that I've carried in other years. That one does go close to 10 pounds ( :eek: ) but balances well enough that it's really not a bad carry.

I don't much care for getting kicked real hard, so I'll go slow and heavy if not with the 7-08. Realistically, my best option is the 1895 mounted with the scope that currently tops the 7-08 - a 2-7X Vari-X II compact. It is a bit heavy, though....

So I'm also going along with Bushman - hauling the new compound around the hills was more fun than I was in shape to take on last September. I had been pretty enthusiastic about the .325 WSM when it came out, but I don't probably need ot get smacked that hard. uess maybe the 'ideal' would be a .308 with a 150 or 165-grain copper solid. That way, you could get away with a pretty light rifle without wishing you hadn't. Another good-looking load would be the .338 Federal, aka the .338-08 (even though Herne can't abide the thought of anything that dumpy ;)

Hmmmm... One of those Jeff Cooper Scout Rifles is starting to make sense to me right about now..... And I'd take it in anything that comes out of a .308 case, from a 130 grain .270 bullet (copper solid) to that .338 in a more traditional cup & core. More powder capacity than that, I honestly don't think I'd ever need.

[Hi Ball]

Bushman the good thing about the .338/06, is that is will do just about anything a .338 Win mag caliber will do out to 250 yards (even 300 if you push a bit) and for me know days that is good to go for this hunter.

The idea that this rifle is light in weight compared to others in the vault, is more than a figure of speech when one gets into that high country and thin air. The confidence of knowing that the 210 grain bullet will penetrate deep enough and hit hard is a plus.

I tell you, the .338/06 caliber will grow on you if you ever use one in the field. It does not kick that hard but hits things with authority and gives the hunter that unmistakable "thump" sound when the bullet hits flesh and bone.

[ColoYooper]

I know this is an old thread, but I was thinking about this the other day, and I think there is an important consideration pertaining to caliber that has been overlooked. If we consider the possible shooting angles that an elk might present us with and the shots that we are willing to take. If you are willing to take only broadside shots, then just about any caliber from 243 and up will do the job. I'm willing to take head-on, and quartering shots as well (I'll pass on Texas heart shots). If we compare the shot angle to a compass, the broadside shots would be East and West. The head-on would be South. The Texas heart shot is North. That leaves quartering shots at NE, SE, NW and SW. That means for me 4/7 (a MAJORITY) of the possible shots are quartering. It's also been my experience that even with a 30-06, using good 180gr bullets that maintain their mass, fired at 2620fps at 50yards, the results on quartering shots are often less than optimal. That is, while the bullet hit lungs (missed the heart), it was caught by the hide on the off side and rode the hide up into the neck. ( the elk was quartering away ). This resulted in a fatally wounded elk, that could travel several hundred yards, with NO blood trail. Ideally, the bullet would exit, leaving a large wound and blood trail. I've also observed that Momentum seems to be more important than Energy in how well a bullet penetrates. In other words, given the same energy and bullet construction, a heaver/slower bullet will penetrate better then a faster/lighter bullet. So for elk, for me, in taking broadside and quartering shots, I prefer a 180gr bullet minimum. And I'm beginning to think that a 30-06 at 2620fps is a bit underpowered. A 300 WinMag or WSM at 3000 to 3200 may have more acceptable performance in producing exit holes on quartering shots.

[GF.]

Two factors at play here… One is how much is behind the bullet, and the other is how much is in front of the bullet.

JMO, if a .30-06 180-grain load isn’t providing the penetration that you want on an Elk, then you’ve chosen a bullet that’s expanding more than you need it to; speeding up that same bullet will only expand it more and make it that much more likely to break apart. Fact is, penetration is usually poorer at higher velocity than lower for this very reason.

So you can go with a super-penetrator like a copper solid from the ‘06, or if you want a bigger frontal diameter than that, you’ll have to up-gun to an 8mm, .338 or bigger so that you have more mo’ pushing the slug through there for you. (Note that a 180-grain .338 load will penetrate probably worse than a .308 bullet of the same weight and design - though that would depend on impact velocity.)

And of course you can diddle around with ’06 bullets of umpteen different designs; I don’t know what bullet you used that didn’t exit the way you wanted it to, but chances are there is something out there that’s just a shade tougher and will penetrate ‘more’ without going so far as to not expand ‘enough’.

Long and short, though… If you’re going to take virtually any shot that’s offered, you ought to at least consider going out there with as much rifle as you can shoot well (and are willing to carry!). Personally, I don’t think much about taking long, long shots, so I’m better served by working up to my recoil threshold by using more bullet and less speed.

Because you think about it…. Penetration is a function of mass X speed X frontal area; speed is shed on impact; the higher the impact velocity, the more of it is shed and the greater the frontal area becomes, yet with less oomph left behind it. Mass, on the other hand, is retained; a large-bore bullet that expands little also sheds little velocity, so if mass is retained and speed is retained, then it follows that a much greater proportion of the load’s penetration potential is retained all the way through.

And if you don’t believe me, then you should perhaps take a look at the ‘stopper rifles’ carried by those who are on call to back up a client who is usually using a much lighter bullet at a much higher velocity….

[ColoYooper]

I agree... I just thought my fellow elk hunters reading this thread should consider what shooting angles are acceptable to them, and that those angles can play a BIG part in determining what caliber will produce acceptable results.
I also don't take long shots on elk ( As a 1000yrd Benchrest competitor I don't consider 50 yrds to be long, long shots ;-)
I was using Nosler Accubonds and Partitions when I observed the above penetration problems. I know Accubonds may expand more than desired, and Partitions have a habit of losing the upper portion of the bullet reducing mass. I've played with loading the Barnes TSX several times, and I just don't like the way they foul my barrel (even when I Molly coat them). I don't see myself limiting the shots to broad-sides only, history indicates I would have a very empty freezer. As we've both noted, I could up the weight of the 30-06 bullet to 200 or even 220 and that would probably solve most the problems ( other than my justification to my wife the need for a new 300WinMag ;-)

Question: Has anyone had first hand experience with 180gr solid copper bullets from a 30-06, producing pass-throughs, on a quartering bull elk?

[dave-t.]

I would move up to 200grn accubonds if that would make you feel more comfortable. It couldn't hurt, and you could probably get them close to mid 2600fps like your 180grn load.

My first elk hunt was last Oct, and I had a whopper at 60-70yrds. I had a head shot over cows that I didn't take, and have about 2-3 seconds for the hardest quartering shot possible, (would have just missed his left ham angling up to lungs, or maybe one lung...) and I couldn't pull the trigger. I just wasn't sure what would happen at that hard of an angle, and it was over as qucikly as it was there.

[GF.]

Two thoughts....

1) How does it work to trade powder capacity against mass when you're comparing a 180 Barnes to something like a 200-grain Accubond? Seems like the lower-density all-copper bullet would take up more space, grain for grain, than a lead core, but 180 grains is 10% lighter than 200, and I doubt that the difference in your charge would work out to anything anywhere near a 10% difference in 'oomph'. I know you don't get 10% more MV out of 10% more charge, but..... Of course, with 1/2 mass X velocity squared, I think the KE offset point might be closer to what, 3%? Me bein' me, I might well opt for the slower, heavier slug, but on the other hand, 200 grains just seems like it might run into overload for a .30 cal, and especially an '06.

2) But coming at it from the opposite direction, what's the collective wisdom on dropping down in weight when going to the ultra-high-weight -retention bullets? A 120-grain super-bullet ought to be worth about 2/3 of a more conventional 180-grainer, right? Something along the lines of a 180 Partition that has lost its nose on impact? Personally, I wouldn't be that interested in hunting Elk with a 120, but maybe a 165 or so.... :hmmmm: That seems like it ought to offer pretty good MV - in the 2800 feeps range, no? Combined with a payload equivalent to a 180 grain, 90-plus percent weight retention 'premium' bullet and a lot less velocity squandered on impact, a 165 seems like a pretty handy compromise.

Won't get you a new rifle, though! :aetsch:

Personally, though... I keep looking at the Euro-spec loads for the 8mm Mauser. For my purposes, the aerodynamic efficiency of the slimmer, .308 bullet vs. a stouter 8mm version at the same weight .... Just doesn't strike me as meaningful, to be honest. And the 195-200 grain slugs seem like they'd be good Elk Medicine. If I were to replace the 7-08 and the .45/70 with a single rifle, that's probably where I'd be looking right now....

[ColoYooper]

Doing some off the cuff calculations with the following assumptions:
1) Assuming similar expansion characteristics of Accubond bullets between 165gr, 180gr, 200gr at the 50yrd velocity. This is 2485fps to 2737...so they should be similar at this range.
2) Assuming the "safe" loads I develop for each weight load will result in identical Energy. The resulting velocity appears to fall in the same general area of the Sierra Reloading tables as a sanity check.
3) Assuming my 30-06 chamber throat is sufficiently worn out, that I can seat the bullets out as far as needed to achieve powder load capacities.

Given my current load:
Weight gr........Velocity........Energy............MV.... ...... %delta MV
180..................2620..........2740.89........ .2.092


Computing Velocity from Energy=2740.89 given different bullet weights
200..................2485.6.........2740.89....... 2.205........+5.41%
165..................2736.5.........2740.89....... 2.003.........-4.26%

So I would "ball park" estimate Momentum for my 30-06 loads for 165, 180, 200 gr bullets, given 2740 for Energy. The resulting Momentum and corresponding ability to penetrate (everything else being equal) would be +5.41% with the 200gr bullet, and -4.26% with the 165gr bullet.

[ColoYooper]

NOTE1: The above calculations are more Qualitative than Quantitative. ie. Moving up in bullet weight with the same bullet manufacturer should produce better penetration than moving down in bullet weight.
NOTE2: This assumed 100% weight retention which is OK for making comparisions between different weights of the same bullet manufacturer. If I where to compare Accubonds to Barnes Solids, I'd multiply the Weight in the MV calculation of the Accubonds by 0.85 and the Barnes Solids by .98 ( they seem to leave 2% smeared against my lands ;-)
NOTE3: The assumed constant Energy is useful in making the math work...(instead of actually going to the range and measuring) It may have some relation to reality, in that the loads are published to be within some barrel PSI...which has a direct relationship to Energy.

[ColoYooper]

ps
Pugging in the above mentioned .85 retention for Accubonds vs .98 retention for Barnes copper solids results in:

MV = 1.703 for 165gr Accubonds = -4.26%
MV = 1.778 for 180gr Accubonds = 0.00%
MV = 1.875 for 200gr Accubonds = +5.41%

MV = 1.963 for 165gr Barnes Solid = +10.39%
MV = 2.050 for 180gr Barnes Solid = +15.41%
MV = 2.161 for 200gr Barnes Solid = +21.53%

( note1: this is ALL with 2740.89 ftlbs of Energy at the muzzle,
note2: this assumes AccuBonds and Barnes expand to identical frontal areas...
note3: Accubonds may be better than 85% retention, and Barnes may smear more than 2%...but... )


I think I'll live with the badly fouled rifling!!! +/- 5% is in the noise of my hand waving. BUT 21%!!! that is REAL


I REALLY still would like to hear of 1st hand accounts on pass-throughs with solid copper bullets on quartering BULL elk. But with at 21.53% increase in penetration ability...my wife may get the new front load washer instead of me getting a new 300WinMag:damnmate:

[dave-t.]

I have a friend who shot a 5x6 in WY last year at a little over 300yrds with the 168grn TSX and got a passthrough out of his 22" 300wsm. I'm sure your 30-06 could be loaded close to the same speed that he is getting.

If you have experience with the Barnes bullets, then you know that they are quite a bit longer for their weight than lead cup and core bullets. I see no need for the barnes 200grn bullets, and the 180's would have to be as long or longer than 200grn cup and core bullets.

The 165-168grn barnes should be about the length of a 180grn cup and core bullet, and act like a premium 180grn bullet that would have 92% wt retention. The difference is you can start the lighter barnes bullet faster, if that means anything.

My .257 cal. 100grn barnes TTSX bullets are a hair longer than the 117grn hronady spbt interlocs. So, not getting a bullet too long has to be kept in the back of your mind, as they are a bit expensive to play around with as far as bullets go.

[ColoYooper]

Dave-T, Thanks for the info. Was the pass-through on a quartering elk? I've seen all sorts of pass-throughs on broadside elk. Especially at long yardage, one typically has the time to wait for the ideal angle.

[dave-t.]

Slightly quartering, 315yrds, exit tight behind the far shoulder.

[T2133]

I believe if you have at least 2000 FPE delivered between 2300-2800 FPS on impact, you are on the right track. A stout enough bullet to aim for an ideal exit wound, if possible, and enough ammunition in the magazine to keep firing until the elk is down. Pick your favorite rifle but hunt within its limitations. This year I've reluctantly loaded the Barnes 200 gr TSX BT in my 8mm-06 for a bear hunt. I figure with this bullet launching at 2680 FPS, Im good out to two hundred yards with a Williams peep sight. 2200 FPE at 2250 FPS with a drop of no more than 5" from LOS. I would love to be going elk hunting this year but the financial constraints of retirement have me hunting closer to home the next couple of years.