Help me choose a elk rifle!

[INTJ]

That's the difference in hunters, if it's a bad situation don't take the shot.

Having a magnum means YOU MUST practice more. If you're going to take longer shots you had better be a great shot. I've had animals move just as I fired, nobody's fault? Extra power at longer ranges means ACTUALLY practicing at those ranges if you want to make clean hits. Remember the wind hates you!

If you're carrying a properly configured 270, 6.5 x 55 or an 06 you get in closer to get the penetration.

There shouldn't be any difference in the amount of practice regardless of the name of the cartridge. Also, bullets usually penetrate more as they slow down.

 

[Kracken McGraw]

I know the 6.5 Creedmoor wouldn’t be the preferred caliber, but it would do the job if you know it’s limitations. Sure used to be a lot of men bring meat back from the mountains with a .243 Win.

 

[RegionRat]

Not that I would recommend the 243 for an average sized person, but I have guided many disabled and petite folks for their first deer or elk using a 243 due to their physical limitations.

Every one of those was a first shot, one shot, clean kill to their credit and patients. We worked to get inside 300 yards, and we waited for the broadside pocket shots and they landed them within a baseball sized error of their aim point.

It is a real kick to be with someone for their first deer or elk and I don't hesitate with the 243 if that is what they are good with. Inside their ability to place the shot, the 243 gets it done just fine.

I would rather have them use the 243 and be patient, than botch the shot with something they can't manage.

On the other hand, don't ask me how many folks showed up with a Giant Wonder Mag they couldn't manage and they botched their shots. Mule deer and elk are amazing in terms of how far they can run when mortally wounded.

I didn't keep a diary, but with those kids and disabled using the 243 we are batting 1000. When a rookie shows up with a Giant Wonder Mag they haven't used much, the odds are dependent on landing the shot to within at least a basketball sized error. If they can at least place the shot into that imaginary basketball sized zone in the plexus high on the heart, the job is done well and we won't be tracking.

 

[ebb]

The outfitter that I hunted with kills several every year for his freezer with a 30/30. He was given the rifle by his uncle and he said the uncle had done the same thing for many years before he owned the rifle.

 

[David Milisock]

There shouldn't be any difference in the amount of practice regardless of the name of the cartridge. Also, bullets usually penetrate more as they slow down.

I've shot many calibers, assuming each rifle is of equal quality heavy recoiling rifles require more dedication to practice then 30 06 and lesser calibers.

Maintaining a stable hold in field positions requires lots of practice, I'm a member at 4 ranges out to 600 yards and my experiance has shown me the many magnum shooters have real difficulty even obtaining a proper zero from a bench let alone make 400+ yard 1 shot kills.

There's no doubt that you can make good hits with magnums, I've made them out past 1,400 yards but you will need to practice more, get beat up more and like it or you'll not master a magnum.

A 30 378 is not a friggin toy it took me weeks of shooting every day to get used to it and by then it needed rebarreled. At that time I was 6'1" at 245lbs, I could run 5 miles with a full pack and shoot on command.

In my experiance a decent sportsman with a tutor can master a 30 06 or sun caliber in a few range sessions. My sister in law mastered her 270 in a little over 100 rounds.

 

[INTJ]

I've shot many calibers, assuming each rifle is of equal quality heavy recoiling rifles require more dedication to practice then 30 06 and lesser calibers.

Maintaining a stable hold in field positions requires lots of practice, I'm a member at 4 ranges out to 600 yards and my experiance has shown me the many magnum shooters have real difficulty even obtaining a proper zero from a bench let alone make 400+ yard 1 shot kills.

There's no doubt that you can make good hits with magnums, I've made them out past 1,400 yards but you will need to practice more, get beat up more and like it or you'll not master a magnum.

A 30 378 is not a friggin toy it took me weeks of shooting every day to get used to it and by then it needed rebarreled. At that time I was 6'1" at 245lbs, I could run 5 miles with a full pack and shoot on command.

In my experiance a decent sportsman with a tutor can master a 30 06 or sun caliber in a few range sessions. My sister in law mastered her 270 in a little over 100 rounds.

I have shot dozens of rifles from 22 LR to 450 Nitro Express over several decades. There is no amount of difference in the amount of practice needed for me to gain proficiency regardless of the rifle. I got the basics down and learned how to handle recoil a long time ago, so for me it's just a matter of shooting whatever rifle a little. I do this all the time.

There is nothing magic about the word "magnum." A cartridge is a cartridge and none are terribly difficult to master. While only a couple of my rifles uses muzzle brakes, brakes have become very common and greatly reduce the need to develop recoil tolerance like I did.

I would MUCH rather have someone shoot a braked 300 Norma, 300 RUM, 300 PRC, etc., at large animals at longer ranges than any 6.5 caliber. That said I do like the 30-06 a lot.

Proper instruction is important. In one range session I had my son-in-law shooting sub moa groups with a non-braked 375 H&H, which admittedly isn't a heavy recoiling round. I also got him sub MOA on his .270 the same day.

 

[David Milisock]

I have shot dozens of rifles from 22 LR to 450 Nitro Express over several decades. There is no amount of difference in the amount of practice needed for me to gain proficiency regardless of the rifle. I got the basics down and learned how to handle recoil a long time ago, so for me it's just a matter of shooting whatever rifle a little. I do this all the time.

There is nothing magic about the word "magnum." A cartridge is a cartridge and none are terribly difficult to master. While only a couple of my rifles uses muzzle brakes, brakes have become very common and greatly reduce the need to develop recoil tolerance like I did.

I would MUCH rather have someone shoot a braked 300 Norma, 300 RUM, 300 PRC, etc., at large animals at longer ranges than any 6.5 caliber. That said I do like the 30-06 a lot.

Proper instruction is important. In one range session I had my son-in-law shooting sub moa groups with a non-braked 375 H&H, which admittedly isn't a heavy recoiling round. I also got him sub MOA on his .270 the same day.

In my experiance your experiance in atypical, most people on the ranges I frequent and by most I would estimate 99.5% who have a heavy recoiling rifle should not shoot a heavy recoiling rifle and they should limit their shots to 300 yards or less.

If I had a C Note for every magnum shooter I've benched beside sighting in for a trip out West who had ruined their (super magnum of the day) on the first trip to the range I'd build 2 more rifles. They end up with a rifle shooting 5" at 300 yards expecting to shoot 500 yards+ out West.

I'm on the other end of the spectrum from you, I'd rather see a shooter shoot what ever caliber suited for the game within their limits rather than gut shoot game or put a round into someone's yard 2 miles away.

I find range work and field work 2 different things, managing recoil and hitting on the range is one thing, acquiring your target and having what it takes to know if you can take the shot cleanly form the only shooting position possible is another.

I don't expect hunters to make 500 yard shots while under fire but knowing and staying within their limits I do expect.

 

[INTJ]

In my experiance your experiance in atypical, most people on the ranges I frequent and by most I would estimate 99.5% who have a heavy recoiling rifle should not shoot a heavy recoiling rifle and they should limit their shots to 300 yards or less.

If I had a C Note for every magnum shooter I've benched beside sighting in for a trip out West who had ruined their (super magnum of the day) on the first trip to the range I'd build 2 more rifles. They end up with a rifle shooting 5" at 300 yards expecting to shoot 500 yards+ out West.

I'm on the other end of the spectrum from you, I'd rather see a shooter shoot what ever caliber suited for the game within their limits rather than gut shoot game or put a round into someone's yard 2 miles away.

I find range work and field work 2 different things, managing recoil and hitting on the range is one thing, acquiring your target and having what it takes to know if you can take the shot cleanly form the only shooting position possible is another.

I don't expect hunters to make 500 yard shots while under fire but knowing and staying within their limits I do expect.

You are missing the point. When a braked 300 Norma has felt recoil like a .270, there is no issue with inexperienced shooters shooting it well. They don't need any more practice with it to make clean kills than they do with a .270. The advantage is the larger diameter and heavier bullet drifts less in the wind and cause more damage in impact. Thus, longer shots have a much higher probability to be successful.

Before people figured out how to shoot animals with hearing protection, recoil was a bigger factor than it is now. It does take some dues paying time to develop recoil tolerance, and if you still want to shoot heavier recoiling unbraked rifles, like I like to do, then you need to figure it out. That said I can quickly teach someone to handle more recoil than they think they can.

However, the heavy recoil ship sailed a long time ago and most are now using brakes on everything 6.5 cal and up. They are also using hearing protection in the field when shooting at game. I don't know if PHs allow brakes for DG rifles, but outside of that, brakes are extremely common today.

 

[David Milisock]

You are missing the point. When a braked 300 Norma has felt recoil like a .270, there is no issue with inexperienced shooters shooting it well. They don't need any more practice with it to make clean kills than they do with a .270. The advantage is the larger diameter and heavier bullet drifts less in the wind and cause more damage in impact. Thus, longer shots have a much higher probability to be successful.

Before people figured out how to shoot animals with hearing protection, recoil was a bigger factor than it is now. It does take some dues paying time to develop recoil tolerance, and if you still want to shoot heavier recoiling unbraked rifles, like I like to do, then you need to figure it out. That said I can quickly teach someone to handle more recoil than they think they can.

However, the heavy recoil ship sailed a long time ago and most are now using brakes on everything 6.5 cal and up. They are also using hearing protection in the field when shooting at game. I don't know if PHs allow brakes for DG rifles, but outside of that, brakes are extremely common today.

I understand your point, I simply disagree. Most shooters have no place shooting long ranges within rifle, they're just not good enough. A very small percentage have the complete skill set. In my opinion the skill should be a balance of the hunt, all its associated skills and the rifleman skills not sniping at 3/8 of a mile. I did that once taking 2 elk and it's life with no flavor.

I understand today that hunting is not what it used to be. Hunters go into the field with a great deal more help than they used to. Bipods, range finders, armed guides as backup, ear muffs, GPS locators and hand warmers to mention a few. They use 7MM Magnums to kill a deer smaller than their wife. They use super magnums to kill elk when 17th century men used 32 or 36 caliber flintlocks.

If your braked 300 Norma recoils like a 270, it will with 50% efficiency, then your braked 270 recoils like a 243. Your premium 270 ammo costs 1/2 of magnum ammo, with practice ammo 1/3 the cost, my 358 was $115.00 for 20 rounds a few months ago, it's down to $98 a box now. I handload most hunters do not hand load so they're not practicing much with big magnum ammo at $5.00 to $6.00 a round.

I think getting a big magnum and sniping an animal at long range takes something from the man. My most memorable hunt was the last 2 days of deer season in 1973 I was home on leave. Over 2 days I stalked a 10 point, picked up on him the first day with no shot. I was too far out to come back in so I stayed in the field and went after him early in the morning. He chased me over hell all day until late in the day I came on him at less than 100 yards with the wind just right.

It was me, my old 06 and him, no ear muffs, guides, no big magnums or space gear, no murder from afar. I watched him for a bit and then spooked him, let him make more like him. Every man one time in his life should be so lucky.

 

[INTJ]

I understand your point, I simply disagree. Most shooters have no place shooting long ranges within rifle, they're just not good enough. A very small percentage have the complete skill set. In my opinion the skill should be a balance of the hunt, all its associated skills and the rifleman skills not sniping at 3/8 of a mile. I did that once taking 2 elk and it's life with no flavor.

I understand today that hunting is not what it used to be. Hunters go into the field with a great deal more help than they used to. Bipods, range finders, armed guides as backup, ear muffs, GPS locators and hand warmers to mention a few. They use 7MM Magnums to kill a deer smaller than their wife. They use super magnums to kill elk when 17th century men used 32 or 36 caliber flintlocks.

If your braked 300 Norma recoils like a 270, it will with 50% efficiency, then your braked 270 recoils like a 243. Your premium 270 ammo costs 1/2 of magnum ammo, with practice ammo 1/3 the cost, my 358 was $115.00 for 20 rounds a few months ago, it's down to $98 a box now. I handload most hunters do not hand load so they're not practicing much with big magnum ammo at $5.00 to $6.00 a round.

I think getting a big magnum and sniping an animal at long range takes something from the man. My most memorable hunt was the last 2 days of deer season in 1973 I was home on leave. Over 2 days I stalked a 10 point, picked up on him the first day with no shot. I was too far out to come back in so I stayed in the field and went after him early in the morning. He chased me over hell all day until late in the day I came on him at less than 100 yards with the wind just right.

It was me, my old 06 and him, no ear muffs, guides, no big magnums or space gear, no murder from afar. I watched him for a bit and then spooked him, let him make more like him. Every man one time in his life should be so lucky.

The distance one shoots has nothing to do with anything other than the distance of the shot. It has nothing to do with ethics or morality or manhood. Cost doesn't have anything to do with it either. The bottom line is it's no harder to shoot a braked 300 Norma than an unbraked .270, and if you can't shoot an unbraked .270 then there are some other issues.

And the very things you dismiss: bipods, range finders, gps, ballistics apps, customer handloads ,etc. are the very things make make longer range shots much better than the old days. You know, when guys just took their 30-06 they shot 5 times a year with whatever ammo they could find, saw an animal far off, and held a foot over the back, and started firing until they hit something.

The guys I know that take all this seriously make very consistent first round hits at long range. So much so that casting aspersions on what they do is evidence of ignorance as to how they hunt.

For me personally, I would rather shoot a deer at short range with my pre '64 M-70 FWT or an elk at short range with my prep-sighted Browning 71. However, just because someone else wants the latest gadgets and wants to do it differently doesn't mean I have to cast aspersions on how they hunt.

 

[timeout]

I think getting a big magnum and sniping an animal at long range takes something from the man. My most memorable hunt was the last 2 days of deer season in 1973 I was home on leave. Over 2 days I stalked a 10 point, picked up on him the first day with no shot. I was too far out to come back in so I stayed in the field and went after him early in the morning. He chased me over hell all day until late in the day I came on him at less than 100 yards with the wind just right.

It was me, my old 06 and him, no ear muffs, guides, no big magnums or space gear, no murder from afar. I watched him for a bit and then spooked him, let him make more like him. Every man one time in his life should be so lucky.

Great story! I can't lie to you, if it's me in your shoes, I'm killing that buck. Thank you for your service!

 

[JimT]

The distance one shoots has nothing to do with anything other than the distance of the shot. It has nothing to do with ethics or morality or manhood. Cost doesn't have anything to do with it either. The bottom line is it's no harder to shoot a braked 300 Norma than an unbraked .270, and if you can't shoot an unbraked .270 then there are some other issues.

And the very things you dismiss: bipods, range finders, gps, ballistics apps, customer handloads ,etc. are the very things make make longer range shots much better than the old days. You know, when guys just took their 30-06 they shot 5 times a year with whatever ammo they could find, saw an animal far off, and held a foot over the back, and started firing until they hit something.

The guys I know that take all this seriously make very consistent first round hits at long range. So much so that casting aspersions on what they do is evidence of ignorance as to how they hunt.

For me personally, I would rather shoot a deer at short range with my pre '64 M-70 FWT or an elk at short range with my prep-sighted Browning 71. However, just because someone else wants the latest gadgets and wants to do it differently doesn't mean I have to cast aspersions on how they hunt.

Except for the first sentence of the last paragraph, that’s the biggest crock of crap that I have read in a long time!!

 

[spencerhenry]

I can't count the number of hunters I have talked to that think they have what it takes to kill elk at long range, but can't group better than 2" from a bench at 100 yards. Yeah, sure, all the new gadgets are great, but a GREAT shooter they do not make!
Some can do it, most are just crappy hunters.

 

[David Milisock]

Not that I would recommend the 243 for an average sized person, but I have guided many disabled and petite folks for their first deer or elk using a 243 due to their physical limitations.

Every one of those was a first shot, one shot, clean kill to their credit and patients. We worked to get inside 300 yards, and we waited for the broadside pocket shots and they landed them within a baseball sized error of their aim point.

It is a real kick to be with someone for their first deer or elk and I don't hesitate with the 243 if that is what they are good with. Inside their ability to place the shot, the 243 gets it done just fine.

I would rather have them use the 243 and be patient, than botch the shot with something they can't manage.

On the other hand, don't ask me how many folks showed up with a Giant Wonder Mag they couldn't manage and they botched their shots. Mule deer and elk are amazing in terms of how far they can run when mortally wounded.

I didn't keep a diary, but with those kids and disabled using the 243 we are batting 1000. When a rookie shows up with a Giant Wonder Mag they haven't used much, the odds are dependent on landing the shot to within at least a basketball sized error. If they can at least place the shot into that imaginary basketball sized zone in the plexus high on the heart, the job is done well and we won't be tracking.

Skills pay off. As a kid in the 60's working at Utilities Trap and Skeet we were all at a mass butchering. Six guys came back from an elk hunt and there was iced meat to unpack and cut up. There was a rather well to do gentleman getting razzed by the fellows about his polar bear hunt. It seems the he didn't get one but his wife did, with a 243.

 

[David Milisock]

The outfitter that I hunted with kills several every year for his freezer with a 30/30. He was given the rifle by his uncle and he said the uncle had done the same thing for many years before he owned the rifle.

The Eskimo swear by the 30-30

 

[David Milisock]

The distance one shoots has nothing to do with anything other than the distance of the shot. It has nothing to do with ethics or morality or manhood. Cost doesn't have anything to do with it either. The bottom line is it's no harder to shoot a braked 300 Norma than an unbraked .270, and if you can't shoot an unbraked .270 then there are some other issues.

And the very things you dismiss: bipods, range finders, gps, ballistics apps, customer handloads ,etc. are the very things make make longer range shots much better than the old days. You know, when guys just took their 30-06 they shot 5 times a year with whatever ammo they could find, saw an animal far off, and held a foot over the back, and started firing until they hit something.

The guys I know that take all this seriously make very consistent first round hits at long range. So much so that casting aspersions on what they do is evidence of ignorance as to how they hunt.

For me personally, I would rather shoot a deer at short range with my pre '64 M-70 FWT or an elk at short range with my prep-sighted Browning 71. However, just because someone else wants the latest gadgets and wants to do it differently doesn't mean I have to cast aspersions on how they hunt.

What do you consider the old days? I'm old so depending on your age I guess when I was a kid in my twenties could be the old days.

As far as the capabilities of hunters I don’t see much difference from the sixties to now. Allot more toys but no more skill. My old man was 49 when I was born and judging from his hunting skills the early 20th century man was vastly more skilled at hunting although less inclined toward safety and rifle skill.

Being a range master for well over a decade has put me in contact with a wide variety of hunters and shooters. Believe me in my experiance there's not a vast difference between the average hunter and the average long range hunter. Several of the guys from the bench rest team machined up some field rifles and went West in search of a 1,000 yard kill. The average was 3 shots per kill for those who got game. Two out of 5 never made hits. This was 2 years ago with braked rifles, shooting from a range bench and everything except the space shuttle. Glad I didn't need these guys to cover my 6.

I had a 358 Norma Magnum built, that caliber was chosen because it circumvents the shortcomings of the 338 Winchester Magnum at longer ranges and functions well with 250 grain bulletts. Considering max handloads with both cartridges, at 600 yards it's about 5" flatter with about 900 foot pounds more energy than the 225's in a 338. The 338 with 250's is a non starter in my opinion it's the expansion ratio that makes the 358 more efficient. I did not have this rifle built for elk.

I used this rifle to take 2 elk while on a herd management kill. I was gifted the entire cost of the kill and 2 tags by a client. I expressed that I would like a 400 and 600 yard kill so I could recover the projectiles he provided a Native American (read indian) guide to put me in the right place.

I fired 6 shots the entire kill, 2 to check my zero, 1 to make a 400 yard hit through the heart and lungs, exited the far side. He trotted for a few steps and dropped.

I shot 2 more after raising impact to 600 yards to check zero. Then 1 more at a bit over 600, I aimed for the heart but he turned as I fired, breaking the near shoulder and exiting the far side. He dropped on sight.

This was not hunting. I was pissed, all that and I never recovered a bullet.

 

[David Milisock]

I can't count the number of hunters I have talked to that think they have what it takes to kill elk at long range, but can't group better than 2" from a bench at 100 yards. Yeah, sure, all the new gadgets are great, but a GREAT shooter they do not make!
Some can do it, most are just crappy hunters.

Shooting out past 300 yards takes practice, out past 400 lots of practice, out to 600 or more in real field conditions loads and loads of practice and experience.

 

[David Milisock]

Great story! I can't lie to you, if it's me in your shoes, I'm killing that buck. Thank you for your service!

I want to be honest, I did what I did because I was lazy. I was more than 3 miles from my truck, late in the day, I had a 4AM wakeup to make a 6AM flight the next morning. As it turns out I would not be back for 3 years.

Gutting and dragging an above average size buck that I was not going to eat that distance was too much work for my lazy butt.

 

[David Milisock]

Except for the first sentence of the last paragraph, that’s the biggest crock of crap that I have read in a long time!!

Just FYI, I do own cammo but only if you hide me naked among a bunch of white people.

 

[INTJ]

What do you consider the old days? I'm old so depending on your age I guess when I was a kid in my twenties could be the old days.

As far as the capabilities of hunters I don’t see much difference from the sixties to now. Allot more toys but no more skill. My old man was 49 when I was born and judging from his hunting skills the early 20th century man was vastly more skilled at hunting although less inclined toward safety and rifle skill.

Being a range master for well over a decade has put me in contact with a wide variety of hunters and shooters. Believe me in my experiance there's not a vast difference between the average hunter and the average long range hunter. Several of the guys from the bench rest team machined up some field rifles and went West in search of a 1,000 yard kill. The average was 3 shots per kill for those who got game. Two out of 5 never made hits. This was 2 years ago with braked rifles, shooting from a range bench and everything except the space shuttle. Glad I didn't need these guys to cover my 6.

I had a 358 Norma Magnum built, that caliber was chosen because it circumvents the shortcomings of the 338 Winchester Magnum at longer ranges and functions well with 250 grain bulletts. Considering max handloads with both cartridges, at 600 yards it's about 5" flatter with about 900 foot pounds more energy than the 225's in a 338. The 338 with 250's is a non starter in my opinion it's the expansion ratio that makes the 358 more efficient. I did not have this rifle built for elk.

I used this rifle to take 2 elk while on a herd management kill. I was gifted the entire cost of the kill and 2 tags by a client. I expressed that I would like a 400 and 600 yard kill so I could recover the projectiles he provided a Native American (read indian) guide to put me in the right place.

I fired 6 shots the entire kill, 2 to check my zero, 1 to make a 400 yard hit through the heart and lungs, exited the far side. He trotted for a few steps and dropped.

I shot 2 more after raising impact to 600 yards to check zero. Then 1 more at a bit over 600, I aimed for the heart but he turned as I fired, breaking the near shoulder and exiting the far side. He dropped on sight.

This was not hunting. I was pissed, all that and I never recovered a bullet.

I too have been shooting since the 1960s. In the 60s and before, rifles were not as accurate, optics weren't as good, hand loading wasn't as precise, bullets weren't as good, and hunters weren't as practiced shooting long range.

People are terrible at estimating distance. My dad told me about many 200-400 yd shots that he and my grandpa had taken in earlier years, and they always got their deer. They both grew up in the woods with rifles in their hands. My grandpa was a marksmanship instructor in WWI. My dad could shoot pennies out of the air with his 22. When I got a range finder we tested my dads ranging abilities and found he had been overestimating distance by a factor of two. We laughed about that.

People tend to overestimate distance when they are in a wooded area and underestimate distance when they are in are in an open area. I have tested this many times. That's why all the marketing in the day was about "flat shooting" rifles, because hunters often didn't really know how far they were shooting.

I think your time as a range master has skewed your perspective. The guys that are serious about long range hunting don't spend a lot of time at a range that needs a range master. They do initial load development and then go shoot rocks or steel to validate their load.

A friend of mine guides long range hunts. He routinely puts novice hunters on animals at 700-1100 yds and they make one shot kills. He uses a braked 33 XC. Another friend very recently put his 11 year old son on a bear at 575 yds. The kid made a one shot kill using a braked 300 RUM.

I have no idea what your "benchrest team" was. though I am very skeptical. I in fact shoot competitive 1000 yd BR and a bunch of the guys I compete with hunt a lot. They don't take their BR rifles in the woods, they take their purpose built hunting rigs and they hit what they aim at. I would put them
up against ANYONE on the planet in terms of field accuracy. Then again, the type of shooters you see at your range probably don't routinely shoot 2-5" groups at 1000 yds like we do in LRBR. I have no doubt that an F-Class competitor who hunts has no issues shooting at animals at long range either.

So I think your perceptions are hopelessly skewed and we just aren't going to agree. Like I said before, long range hunting isn't my thing, but I don't have to condemn something just because it isn't what I prefer to do.