# 7mm or 300 and why



## DeadI

For elk which would you go with and why?


----------



## Critter

Do you have a coin to toss up in the air to decide? I have a 7mm Rem mag and have killed a lot of elk with it and I have friends that have a 300 Win mag and Weatherby mags and they have killed a lot of elk with both. Any of them will get the job done with room to spare. The 30 calibers will have a edge with the higher weight of available bullets. 

My go to elk rifle now is a .340 Weatherby.


----------



## Bax*

I am not saying which I would personally choose, but the owner of a property that has been kind enough to give the UWC two elk hunts on his private property over the past two seasons will not allow his hunters to shoot a 7mm because he has had too many experiences with elk being hit and not going down. His stories covered animals being hit multiple times to animals running off his property and onto the highway (which is quite a long way from his property). So he will not allow hunters to use a 7mm on his property at this point given several bad experiences.

Im not siding for or against his argument but nevertheless, it is something to take note of.

PS: I feel that bullet selection would have a fair role in this


----------



## Cooky

.300. Why? I just don't trust those mm thingys.

I think the .300 WM is a more accurate cartridge, but it could be that the rifles I have owned or shot in .300 were more accurate than the couple in 7mm I have shot.

.


----------



## LostLouisianian

Used within each guns limitations they're both capable calibers. I personally prefer to shoot the biggest caliber-projectile combo that I can reliably put on the target at the ranges I'm willing to shoot at.


----------



## DallanC

Cooky said:


> .300. Why? I just don't trust those mm thingys


Whats not to trust in a 7.62mm Winchester Mag? :mrgreen:

-DallanC


----------



## Loke

DallanC said:


> Whats not to trust in a 7.62mm Winchester Mag? :mrgreen:
> 
> -DallanC


 the proper metric designation would be the 7.62X68mm.


----------



## Critter

I guess then that a .284 would be better than a 7mm????????


----------



## Mavis13

Bax* said:


> I am not saying which I would personally choose, but the owner of a property that has been kind enough to give the UWC two elk hunts on his private property over the past two seasons will not allow his hunters to shoot a 7mm because he has had too many experiences with elk being hit and not going down. His stories covered animals being hit multiple times to animals running off his property and onto the highway (which is quite a long way from his property). So he will not allow hunters to use a 7mm on his property at this point given several bad experiences.
> 
> Im not siding for or against his argument but nevertheless, it is something to take note of.
> 
> PS: I feel that bullet selection would have a fair role in this


Wow that surprises me; though you are right if they have poor performing bullet they may not be getting the penetration. What I know of a 7mm (my dad shoots one) they are very effective and very hard hitting. But a 300 is going to give you more bullet options.
The real question here is do you drive a Subaru?


----------



## Loke

First of all we need to clarify which cartridges we are comparing. A 7-30 Waters and 300-378 WBY? or 7mm Remington Ultra Mag and 300 Whisper?

If we are comparing similar cartridges the 30 has the advantage by .024 inches, and 15 grains of bullet weight to get a similar sectional density. I'd say that the difference is somewhat less than substantial.

BOTTOM OF THE PAGE!!!!!!!!!!!

there is a rumor out there that bax* drives a prius


----------



## outdoorser

Mavis13 said:


> The real question here is do you drive a Subaru?


HAHAHAHAHA!!!:mrgreen:

EDIT: WOO HOO!! TOP OF PAGE! (haven't had that happen to me for quite some time).


----------



## Cooky

I don't think Bax* could fold himself into a Prius. :mrgreen:

Assuming equal guns, and the same type of bullets, arguing the difference between factory loaded rounds with 175gr bullets out of a 7mm Remington Magnum and 180gr bullets out of a 300 Winchester magnum is a waste of good air.

I haven't liked mms since a traumatic math class in the 70s.


----------



## RandomElk16

I love my 7mm. I got rid of my 300. I do have a small desire to build a custom 300 ultra though... But over the shelf weapon and Utah hunting, either will be fine. If you were doing anything that you could tell the difference, the question wouldn't be asked (I mean that hinestly and respectfully).

I find the post in regards to the 7mm troubling. I have killed elk with 140 grain out of the 7mm because I knew the area and that the bullet would work its way through vitals just fine. I shoot 168 loaded now and I can't tell you a range most people will attempt that it can't kill.

Those the only elk he has lost? 7mm? Can people use bows? A recent thread around here showed that the 7mm was one of the most popular rounds for elk. I would be troubled if my outfitter gave me a restriction like that.

Last question, if I shoot an elk in the a** with a 7mm and one with a 300, which one dies? What if I shoot it in the vitals, which one dies?


----------



## Huge29

I think the guide is a bit misguided, no pun intended. The issue is likely more related to bullet type and/or point of impact on the elk. 
I had a similar decision about a year ago and went with the 300WSM. I like having short action at comparable ballistics as the mag. The nice thing of 30 caliber is the great variety of bullet sizes available.


----------



## Wind In His Hair

There is a Smart Fortwo with a UWN sticker on it. Who wants to fess up to that one? :lol:

Oh, as for the 7mm vs 300 thingy. I've owned both calibers, and killed with both calibers. 6 of one, half dozen of the other. I also don't shoot larger than 180 grain.


----------



## Bax*

Nope. No Prius or Subee either.

I once sat in my mom's Prius, and it felt like a space ship. Weird car. Im glad she usually drives in her jacked up FJ Cruiser with a light bar on top when I'm with her.


----------



## Springville Shooter

Doesn't matter. I have both and have killed elk with both. A hit to the vitals at reasonable range from ANY 284 or 308 will be lethal to an elk. 

The guide that doesn't allow 7mm's for elk is ignorant......in other words he doesn't know jack shiznit about ballistics. Animals only run off when the wrong bullet is used or when the shot doesn't hit the vitals. When you hit the guts, that extra couple thousandths of an inch isn't going to make squat for difference. I have a pet 7MM Dakota that I would shoot any animal in North America with. -------SS


----------



## USMARINEhuntinfool

I have killed elk with my 7mm, I've watched my old man kill elk with his 7mm, I've seen elk killed with a .300 win. You could make either work for you. What you have to decide is what pros and cons work in your favor. Cost, bullet weight, range, etc. Can you delve a little deeper into exactly what you are looking to do with it?


----------



## Nambaster

My vote is 300 WM my dad shoots a 7mm with the corelokts out of the green and yellow box and he has slid 3 rounds through a spike elk and the elk never skipped a beat. It then trotted off 200 yards till its lungs filled up and did a snow slide. He also put a 7mm round in the vitals of a cow elk at 50 yards and the same thing happened. 

I'm just saying the diameter of the 300 WM might make a little bit of a difference. Elk are tough buggers. Another thing that I might add that is just kind of a gut feeling and might be like arguing about how many spirits can dance on the head of a needle is.... There is a lot of powder in a 7mm to be pushing such a thin bullet... The 300 just feels more balanced....


----------



## Kevinitis

I would rather be on the receiving end of the recoil from a 7mag, than the 300. If you hit em right then both will kill quickly and I doubt the elk could tell you the difference. And if lower recoil helps you hit em better then you will be more effective with that rifle. A lot of dudes will tell you that recoil doesn't bother them, but a lot of dudes flinch too.


----------



## Rspeters

Springville Shooter said:


> Doesn't matter. I have both and have killed elk with both. A hit to the vitals at reasonable range from ANY 284 or 308 will be lethal to an elk.
> 
> The guide that doesn't allow 7mm's for elk is ignorant......in other words he doesn't know jack shiznit about ballistics. Animals only run off when the wrong bullet is used or when the shot doesn't hit the vitals. When you hit the guts, that extra couple thousandths of an inch isn't going to make squat for difference. I have a pet 7MM Dakota that I would shoot any animal in North America with. -------SS


I agree with this....that landowner that doesn't let people use the 7mm rem mag likely had some preconceived (and inaccurate) notions regarding the 7 mm rem mag, and probably just made up his own ideas as to why it was the caliber's fault.


----------



## lifes short

I have seen standard factory load 150 grain bullets from both calibers not penetrate through the front shoulder and into the heart lung area on elk. When butchering 4 slugs still in the front shoulder only 1 went into lungs. Bullet choice is more important than caliber choice. Use a premium bullet in my opinion, I personally use Nosler Partitions in both calibers and feel comfortable with each at ranges that I can put the bullet where I want it.


----------



## wyogoob

I guess I'll jump in. I have both, but always liked the 300 Win Mag better. I think the reason is my 7mm is a semi-auto and it weighs a ton and it jammed on me once. Anyway, I don't see much difference in the two calibers. 

I went to a 300 WSM when they first came out; similar performance as with the 7mm and 300 mags, but in a smaller package and a shorter action. It's just a great elk rifle.

For General Elk my gun of choice for the last two years has been the 44 mag revolver. For the late season cow/calf "depredation"-type hunts I'll use something with more range of course. Lastly, I've taken more elk with a .308, 180 gr Partitions, than any other setup.


----------



## Kevinitis

Here's a break down comparison of the two, some of which is my opinion.

Energy advantage: 300 win

Trajectory/velocity Advantage: 7 mag (marginally, based on rifles with same barrel length)

Bullet selection advantage: 30 cal. (marginally, would have to be a reloader)

Ballistic Coefficient advantage: bout sixes across a range of bullets (slight advantage to 30 cal because of bullet selection. Would probably have to be a reloader to realize the advantage)

recoil advantage: 7 mag (based on rifles of same weight)

Cost of ammo: sixes

availability of ammo: sixes, maybe slightly better with 7mag

Versatility: sixes- the 300 mag has a higher ceiling for shooting dangerous game, 7 mag would be better shooting smaller sized game (lopes, deer, yotes).

Killing power: 300 mag, but shot placement is more important.

Rifle selection: sixes.

You would need to have a 26 inch barrel to realize velocity advantage of these cartriges. Otherwise all you really have with a 24 or 22 inch barrel is more like a 270 win with heavy muzzle blast with the 7 mag, or more like a 30-06 with heavy muzzle blast in 300 win. This is where the WSM's have the advantage, they can produce those velocities with shorter barrels and lighter guns. Their disadvantage is that they don't shoot the heavy for caliber bullets quite as well because the projectile intrudes on case capacity.


----------



## wyogoob

A comment on recoil:

I never take recoil into consideration when looking at "little" magnums like the 7mm mag and the 300 Win mag. What little recoil there is easily tamed at the range - before the hunt.

I was weaned on, and spent a lifetime shooting, 3" 12 gauge deer slugs. They have twice the recoil versus the 180 gr 300 Win mag. So the 7mm and 300 Win magnums seem kinda wimpy to me.


----------



## DallanC

7STW > 300WM




-DallanC


----------



## wyogoob

Kevinitis said:


> Here's a break down comparison of the two, some of which is my opinion.
> 
> Energy advantage: 300 win
> 
> Trajectory/velocity Advantage: 7 mag (marginally, based on rifles with same barrel length)
> 
> Bullet selection advantage: 30 cal. (marginally, would have to be a reloader)
> 
> Ballistic Coefficient advantage: bout sixes across a range of bullets (slight advantage to 30 cal because of bullet selection. Would probably have to be a reloader to realize the advantage)
> 
> recoil advantage: 7 mag (based on rifles of same weight)
> 
> Cost of ammo: sixes
> 
> availability of ammo: sixes, maybe slightly better with 7mag
> 
> Versatility: sixes- the 300 mag has a higher ceiling for shooting dangerous game, 7 mag would be better shooting smaller sized game (lopes, deer, yotes).
> 
> Killing power: 300 mag, but shot placement is more important.
> 
> Rifle selection: sixes.
> 
> You would need to have a 26 inch barrel to realize velocity advantage of these cartriges. Otherwise all you really have with a 24 or 22 inch barrel is more like a 270 win with heavy muzzle blast with the 7 mag, or more like a 30-06 with heavy muzzle blast in 300 win. This is where the WSM's have the advantage, they can produce those velocities with shorter barrels and lighter guns. Their disadvantage is that they don't shoot the heavy for caliber bullets quite as well because the projectile intrudes on case capacity.


 Good post, good comparisons, but I may have to disagree on the bullet weight and case comparison thing. You can change powder types and get a good recipe for the heavier bullets in the 300 WSM.

If I was a youngster just starting out elk hunting I would go with a 300 WSM. The only disadvantage would be the price of the ammo and if you reload that disadvantage would go away.


----------



## Kevinitis

> Good post, good comparisons, but I may have to disagree on the bullet weight and case comparison thing. You can change powder types and get a good recipe for the heavier bullets in the 300 WSM.
> 
> If I was a youngster just starting out elk hunting I would go with a 300 WSM. The only disadvantage would be the price of the ammo and if you reload that disadvantage would go away.


Good point. I shoot WSM vs Win Mag on elk because I can achieve mag velocities with a lighter smaller gun and when hunting elk the less your gun weighs the better. And I don't care that much about lower velocites with heavier for cal. bullets. Plus I reload so I can compensate some as you state.


----------



## DeadI

Thanks guys for all the responses.

The question was asked for a friend so that he could see some differing opionions as I have a 7mm and my dad and brothers all have 7mms. Love them. 

We have shot a lot of elk with them and never lost one. My dad and brothers shoot 145 grain slugs and I shoot a 140. The last bull I shot took about 20 steps and then hit the ground like a home sick brick. 

I have shot 300's and though I did not notice much difference in the recoil (it had a muzzle brake) I did notice how freaking loud it was due to the brake. 

Another advantage I give the 7mm is that you can load a fairly heavy round it you want but you can also load a fairly light round for deer and antelope.

Again thanks for all the responses and opinions.


----------



## Huge29

DeadI said:


> I have shot 300's and though I did not notice much difference in the recoil (it had a muzzle brake) I did notice how freaking loud it was due to the brake.
> 
> Another advantage I give the 7mm is that you can load a fairly heavy round it you want but you can also load a fairly light round for deer and antelope.


The noise is purely credited to the brake, there is no material difference on the same model of rifle in the two different cartridges. Same on the light bullet comment. The 300 definitely has the advantage here. Look at what Nosler makes for the two in their Ballistic Tip line (widest variety line by Nosler, just one of many examples) http://www.nosler.com/ballistic-tip 7mm has 120,135 and 150, but for 30 cal there are 125, 150, 160 and 180, so just as light, but much heavier bullet also available. In Barnes TTSX for 7mm there are four from 110-150 and in 30 cal there are 6 from 110-180. Again, both are fine, but 30 is definitely a little more versatile to stretch across all possible uses of a rifle round these parts.
One minor consideration would be resale value, I have heard of those saying that the 7mm is the old caliber...perception is reality when selling used personal property, so a 30 might possibly hold its value a little better.


----------



## DallanC

With bullets of the same weight and construction, a 7mm should out penetrate a 300 due to a higher sectional density. The 300 should dump more energy into the animal due to a larger diameter. Really though as people have noted, both cartridges are powerful enough to be adequate for elk.

Personally I love 7mms.

-DallanC


----------



## waspocrew

I've had a 7RM for about a year now and I love it. I've never shot an elk with it, but I was impressed with how fast a small buck went down. I like to shoot heavy bullets anyways- 160 Accubond, 168 VLD etc. As stated already, bullet selection is probably most important. 

When stepping up to the larger magnums, usually people start looking at brakes. I can't stand them at the range and also the noise is ridiculously loud. I like the 7mm because the recoil isn't over bearing enough to require a break. 

If I do step up to a larger round, it'll probably be a .338 WM. I shot my stepdads browning X Bolt in .338 and was surprised by how minimal the recoil was for a lightweight, unbraked rifle. Nothing against the .300, I just may be more of a wuss than I'd like to admit.


----------



## Mtnbeer

Are you sure they weren't low recoil loads in your stepdad's 338 WM? The 338 is notorious for being a hard kicker. Lots of guys in AK carry 338 WM and almost all of them are braked because of the recoil. I've never shot a 338 WM that had less felt recoil than a 300 WM (weight of the rifle being equal). 

For me, I value flat shooting, accuracy, and tough bullet construction for big game. My primary elk gun is a 270 WSM with 130 grain Barnes handloads moving at 3300 fps. It's accurate as hell and drops deer and elk like a rock.


----------



## Huge29

Mtnbeer said:


> Are you sure they weren't low recoil loads in your stepdad's 338 WM? The 338 is notorious for being a hard kicker. Lots of guys in AK carry 338 WM and almost all of them are braked because of the recoil. I've never shot a 338 WM that had less felt recoil than a 300 WM (weight of the rifle being equal).
> 
> For me, I value flat shooting, accuracy, and tough bullet construction for big game. My primary elk gun is a 270 WSM with 130 grain Barnes handloads moving at 3300 fps. It's accurate as hell and drops deer and elk like a rock.


I concur, I like the WSM also and also disagree with the recoil. This chart shows the recoil of a 30-06 at about 20 ft/lbs, 30 WM of about 25 ft/lbs and 338 at about 33 ft/lbs. http://www.chuckhawks.com/recoil_table.htm That is a lot of recoil to not have a brake.


----------



## waspocrew

Mtnbeer said:


> Are you sure they weren't low recoil loads in your stepdad's 338 WM? The 338 is notorious for being a hard kicker. Lots of guys in AK carry 338 WM and almost all of them are braked because of the recoil. I've never shot a 338 WM that had less felt recoil than a 300 WM (weight of the rifle being equal).
> 
> For me, I value flat shooting, accuracy, and tough bullet construction for big game. My primary elk gun is a 270 WSM with 130 grain Barnes handloads moving at 3300 fps. It's accurate as hell and drops deer and elk like a rock.


Absolutely positive they were normal rounds. Factory ammo- Federal Premium 210 gr Partitions. My thinking is the 210 is on the light side for the caliber ( a 250 wouldn't be fun- which is probably what they use in AK. ) or the recoil pads. The X bolt rifles have a great recoil pad design. I put 10 or so rounds through it and felt it was more of a hard shove than a harsh swift kick.

I have a 270 WSM and enjoy the round as well. I shot a black bear with my 140 gr Accubond hand load and the bear didn't make it more than 30 yards. I'm sure deer and elk would react similarly.


----------



## waspocrew

Huge29 said:


> I concur, I like the WSM also and also disagree with the recoil. This chart shows the recoil of a 30-06 at about 20 ft/lbs, 30 WM of about 25 ft/lbs and 338 at about 33 ft/lbs. http://www.chuckhawks.com/recoil_table.htm That is a lot of recoil to not have a brake.


I'm familiar with that chart. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying I love the reaction after pulling the trigger on a .338 haha. I was just commenting that I was surprised that the recoil of that particular 210 gr factory load was not at all what I expected given the .338 WM size and reputation (I'm not a big guy either- 5'11 and about 165#). For me, it was tolerable, but it would definitely not be a range rifle. My 7RM is about my limit for somewhat "comfortable" shooting.

The chart definitely doesn't lie- physics is real, but I think there's a difference between calculated recoil and one's perception of that recoil.


----------



## Critter

A lot of the perceived or felt recoil can all depend on the design of the stock of a rifle. If the stock is designed to push straight back you may feel more recoil than one that is designed to let the rifle roll upwards. 

I know that on my .340 Weatherby that the felt recoil is not that bad no matter what round I am shooting and if I am shooting at a animal then I don't notice it at all. Now if I put the screw on brake on then it knocks the recoil level down to a 7mag-.30-06 levels but I have only used the brake on it when shooting from the bench. Final sighting in and hunting the brake come off.


----------



## Frisco Pete

Big game cartridges evolve. Once in the black powder cartirdge era the only way to increase killing power was to use a heavier bullet because BP limited velocity. and a bigger bullet often meant a bigger caliber 40-45-50 etc.

With the high velocities that smokeless powder brought suddenly you could use pipsqueak calibers but still have excellent results. the problem was that velocity outstripped bullet technology of the simple cup-and-core bullet. Reliability was often had by using a heavier bullet which often meant a larger caliber.

In the last 2 decades we have seen a revolution in "engineered" premium bullets that rely on partitions, bonded cores, or engineer mono-metal to control expansion and penetration with a much less chance of over-expansion/fragmentation, or inadequate expansion where is drills a small hole all the way thru.

One result of that is that we now can use both lighter bullets in a given caliber and also use a smaller caliber and get identical results we got with heavier bullets or a bigger bore. Many hunters have failed to recognize this _New Reality_, probably because they don't read the technical trivia out there, or are conservatively entrenched in what they have known and used and what was the previous reality.

This applies here because both .300 Magnums and 7mm Magnums (of various persuasions) both work equally as well.
An example is the introduction of the WSM rounds. Winchester took groups of gun writers to hunt Nilgai on the King Ranch in Texas. Their body weight is similar to elk, but they have a well-earned reputation for being tough, with dense muscle and bone. If a cartridge and bullet have enough muscle to put a nilgai down reliably, the same load will work on North American species and African plains game.

The writers used both the 300 WSM and the brand new (2001) .270 WSM - which for the purposes of this discussion is a virtual 7mm Mag (.277" = 7.03mm)- with Winchester Fail Safe ammo - a premium bullet. To make the story short, either caliber placed in the kill zone killed nilgai identically. The only difference noted was felt recoil.
Again in Australia the duo was used on water buffalo. Here it was felt that the .270 WSM had met its match, but astonishingly once again it seemed to make no difference what flavor of WSM was used to propel the Fail Safe bullet.

Welcome to the New Reality.

Where once the 180-gr was THE elk bullet in .30 caliber, now with premium bullets the 165-gr with its slightly flatter trajectory and slightly lower recoil gained traction because it worked just as well. Again the New Reality at work.

So with good bullets equalizing terminal performance if we do our part, exactly what else is there to look at?
Exterior ballistics that give high Ballistic Coefficients and high Section Density for long range work is one factor. And it is here that the efficiency of the 7mm over the .30 caliber shows an advantage.

Using Nosler AccuBonds as an example: a 7mm 160-gr bullet has a BC of .531.
A .30 cal. 165-gr has a BC of .475 and a 180-gr has a BC of .507.
Therefore in order to acheive a close, but still a bit lesser level of streamlining for long range work you need to shoot a bullet 20-grains heavier in .30 caliber.
And that extra bullet weight adds to felt recoil in rifles that are already on the edge of what most hunters can tolerate and shoot without flinch.

Muzzle brakes are popular to take recoil out of the picture, but there is no free lunch and normally the trade-off is much greater (and possibly flinch-inducing) levels of muzzle noise/blast.

So if a person is not inclined to put up with more recoil or the loudness it takes to mitigate that, then the 7mm caliber really is a better choice.

Downside of the 7mm Remington Mag in particular is for reloaders. Chamber specs are all over the place because it headspaces on the belt and manufacturers can get sloppy. This is indicated in reloading data where the swings in maximum loads varies more than any other popular hunting caliber and can make you wonder where to start and end (I know from past experience here).
In addition it can mean short case life due to cracking above the belt. _Fishrmn_ on this forum has dealt with that in loading for the 7mm mag. With the .300 WM this doesn't seem to be as much of an issue for some odd reason.

As far as bullets go, most hunters use just one, and occasionally 2 weights anyway and anybody that makes both .284" and .308" bullets makes the same bullet for both calibers. It is a non issue.

So get what you shoot best because in a blind "taste test" you would never know which caliber killed the elk if you put the bullet in the right spot.


----------



## Frisco Pete

While we are on this subject, I thought I would post the most intelligent article on what to use on tough game like elk that has ever been penned. It was by gun writer John Barsness in RIFLE magazine a few years ago:

*ADEQUATE RIFLES - TOUGH GAME*

How much gun/caliber is enough? How much bigger caliber do you need for elk or moose than for northern whitetail? Must we always use heavy bullets and "magnum" cartridges on the tough stuff, while wimpier animals fall easily to wimpy loads?

No, not necessarily. If hit right, all big game animals succumb even to relatively light bullets pushed at moderate velocities. "Hit right" means through both lungs and the major blood vessels that carry blood between heart and lungs. The original size, weight and speed of the bullet doesn't really matter - as long as it gets inside the animals chest and makes a decent hole. A precisely placed bullet from the .30-06 will do the job on everything from reputedly tough 450-pound gemsbok and elk, and the less "tough" moose, and 1300-pound eland. Few would travel more than 50 yards before collapsing.

Where does the tough part come in? Mostly when game animals aren't hit precisely. Hit any of the "tough" animals around the fringes of the lungs, and they can go an awfully long way, and sometimes even recover. Elk and gemsbok sometimes live fruitful lives after bullet placement around the margins of the lungs.

Will bigger rifles kill "better" with imprecise bullet placement? Not as much as some hunters like to believe. Certainly a 250-grain bullet from a .340 Weatherby Magnum makes a bigger hole than a 150-grain bullet from a 7x57, and the bigger bullet will break larger bones and still penetrate deeply. But it won't make much difference if a .340 bullet fringes the rear of the lungs on an elk or gemsbok. We end up chasing a long, thin blood trail regardless of how many foot-pounds or KO Factor or whatever the .340's bullet carries.

So "tough" means they'll go a ways if hit around the edges.

Here I would like to add pronghorn and whitetail to The List. Many hunters consider both easy to kill, but if you hunt either long enough, you'll learn differently. I've seen poorly hit whitetails and prairie goats, neither weighing more than 100 pounds, pack an incredible amount of lead for several hundred yards.

Why do most hunters think pronghorns and whitetails aren't tough? Deer hunters usually start out young. Relatives with decades of experience usually choose their first rifles. Consequently, 99 percent of pronghorn and deer hunters hunt with something milder than a .300 magnum. Since most pronghorn and deer hunters aren't afraid of their rifles, they put the bullet in the right place, and the chase ends.

Most of us, however, don't hunt larger game very often so tend to depend on "gun writers" for advice about what works. We read that anything smaller than a .338 Winchester Magnum is "inadequate" for elk, or that a .375 H&H is too small for Cape buffalo. This isn't what the majority of elk outfitters and African professional hunters say, but with rare exceptions, elk outfitters and African PHs aren't gun writers.

So a deer hunter who normally shoots a .30-06 (in my experience a totally adequate elk rifle) books his first elk hunt and buys a .338 Winchester Magnum. He can't shoot it very accurately, but "knows" anything less is inadequate. On the fifth day of the hunt, he shoots a middling 5-point bull in the rear of the rib cage, and the bull trots over the mountain before they track it down. Elk sure are tough! Shot right through the lungs with a big ol' .338 and kept on truckin'!

An actual example would be a 110-pound whitetail doe I recently witnessed shot at 250 yards with a 100-grain Barnes Triple-Shock through the ribs with a .257 Roberts. The deer (as they almost always do when lung-shot) ran about 35 yards before keeling over. The X-Bullet left an excellent blood trail. After butchering, the shoulder meat wasn't even bruised.

Similar shot placement, however, doesn't always work all that well once we get to animals over 500 pounds, for a couple of reasons. First, there's relatively less bullet hole. Probably, if we averaged all the deer rifles and all the deer in North America, we'd find the average deer bullet to be .27 inch in diameter and weigh 150 grains. We'd also find the average deer to weigh about 150 pounds: one grain for each pound of deer. Generally a bullet this size will almost totally collapse the lungs of the average deer.

To match that on elk we'd have to use 500 to 800 grains of bullet, and on Cape buffalo or bison we'd have to use 1,500 to 2,000-grain bullets. They'd also have to be a lot fatter, around .45 caliber on elk and .60 caliber on the big boys. Instead the bullets we use on elk probably average about .30 inch and 200 grains, and perhaps .40 and 400 grains on buffalo and bison. These do not collapse the lungs of elk and buffalo. Instead they punch holes.

Consequently, the bigger the game, the closer we have to aim for the top of the heart - and a bullet placed there also punches through the biggest part of both lungs. Essentially this means putting a bullet in the shoulder, either the bone itself or the shoulder meat. The average deer hunter isn't conditioned to shoot for the shoulder, but somewhere behind it, one reason so many deer hunters find larger game tough to kill.

Over the years I've made it a point to hunt with as many different cartridges as possible, and to accompany other hunters, either as a guide or simple observer. Over the decades I've made careful shooting notes on several hundred big game animals of all sizes. When hit through the top of the heart, or within a few inches of that ideal spot, there doesn't seem to be much difference in how quickly most big game calibers kill game. Yet many American hunters (perhaps over-fed on shooting propaganda) believe that 10 or 15 grains of bullet weight, a few thousandths of an inch in bullet diameter or a 5 percent increase in muzzle velocity can make one cartridge "inadequate" and another as devastating as a medium-sized volcano.

This doesn't mean there isn't an increase in "killing power" from, say, the .243 Winchester to the .460 Weatherby Magnum. Obviously there is. But probably 95 percent of the "big game" taken in the world weighs less than 700 pounds (including most elk), and 95 percent of the cartridges use bullets weighing between 150 and 200 grains at velocities between 2,700 and 3,100 fps, generating 2,500 to 3,500 foot-pounds (ft-lbs) of muzzle energy. Compared to the gulf between the .243 and .460, that's pretty narrow. Claiming one cartridge in this bunch is magic and another anemic simply isn't rational.

Sometimes this perception is because certain gun writers may come down many times against lighter cartridges for elk. Some may draw a firm .30-caliber line and state that any .270 or 7mm cartridge isn't their idea of an elk cartridge.

This despite the fact that they have never shot an elk with such a cartridge. Some of them eventually have to use a small caliber because of an odd, unwritten law of gun writing: Only personal experience counts. So [true story of unnamed writer who favors the 8mm Rem. Mag and bigger] they use a .270 Winchester on a trophy hunt in New Mexico, handloaded with 150-grain Nosler Partitions. They kill a good 6-point bull at longer range than he'd ever shot an elk - and the bull went down quicker than any of his previous chest-shot bulls.

Fortunately for us, they are soon penning a new article "Are You Overgunned?" He seems to be mellowing, partly because of that elk - and partly because he recently took his daughter and her friend to Africa and watched them slay elk-sized African game with a 7mm-08 Remington and 150-grain Swift Scirocco bullets.

However, we'll never lack for gun writers who insist only larger cartridges are "truly adequate." Many of them suggest that "resident" elk hunters often get by with such truly inadequate rounds as the .270 WCF and .30-06 because residents can go hunting any time they want to, so pass up "marginal" shots.

This is truly a crock. I was born and raised and live in Montana. We have a five-week rifle season, longer than most other elk states. Montana elk hunters, like most hunters in North America, are working people, so Montana hunters mostly hunt weekends - and usually not every day of every weekend. Consequently their elk season is about as long as the 7-to 10-day elk hunt booked by nonresidents. Most Montana residents also hunt public land where (and when) everybody else hunts, unlike nonresidents who do their hunting a long horseback ride into the wilderness or on some private ranch.

Most Montana elk hunters (like most hunters) don't read gun magazines, so remain ignorant of the latest Magic Rifles and Super Cartridges. Consequently they mostly use average rifles, often purchased at Wal-Mart: Remingtons, Rugers, Savages, and Winchesters chambered for the .270 Winchester, 7mm Remington Magnum and .30-06. A relatively small minority use .300 magnums of any sort, and I can count the .338 Winchester Magnums I've encountered over 40 years of hunting Montana on the fingers of one hand (and that hand carried one of those .338s). These residents take any shot they can get, because their time is just as limited as that of any nonresident. If they shoot well, they do well, the secret to using "inadequate" elk rifles.

Something similar happens when American hunters venture to Africa, whether for plains game or big stuff. They read hunting magazines and decide that African game is nearly bulletproof.

Yet upon arrival, they find that most African hunters hold the .30-06 in high regard for anything smaller than eland, and many even use it on those Alaskan moose-sized antelope. Here I mean "professional" hunters, the guides of Africa. Often African gun writers spout the same big-bore stuff that flows from the laptops of many American gun writers. But the Africans who escort amateurs into the field year after year generally recommend the .30-06 for any plains game, or something very much like it, perhaps the 7mm Remington Magnum. If they prefer something larger on eland, it's generally a .375 H&H, not some cutting-edge 300 magnum that may develop as many foot-pounds as the .375 but doesn't penetrate eland bones any better than a .30-06. (One reason many Africans like the .30-06 is that it doesn't require bullets costing several dollars apiece - and that's how much some of our "premium" bullets cost by the time they travel across the Atlantic.)

African game is tough - just as tough as white-tailed deer and elk. Deer-sized African animals fall neatly to deer cartridges, and elk-sized African animals fall easily to the .30-06. Eland are just as easy to kill as moose. Yet many Americans show up for plains game with some super-fast magnum, bragging about how they shoot deer at 600 yards, whereupon their PH yawns and wonders how they'll do on kudu at 60 yards in the thornbrush.

When after Cape buffalo in Botswana last year, I asked my PH Russell Tarr how many dangerous game hunters show up with big-bore rifles that make them flinch. Russell thought a short moment, then said, "The majority." Like many African PHs, Russell carries a .458 Winchester or .470 Nitro Express when backing up over-gunned clients - but hunts buffalo and elephants himself with a .375 H&H.

You might guess that I'm prejudiced against larger cartridges. Not at all. The last five years might be a good example. During that time I hunted big game in nine American states from Alaska to South Texas, several Canadian provinces and territories, Old Mexico and three countries in Africa. The cartridges used included the .250 Savage, .257 Roberts, 6.5x55 "Swedish" Mauser, .270 Winchester, .270 WSM, .270 Weatherby Magnum, 7x57mm Mauser, 7mm Remington SAUM, 7mm STW, .300 Savage, .30-40 Krag, .30-06, .300 WSM, .300 H&H, .300 Winchester Magnum, .338 Winchester Magnum, 9.3x62mm Mauser, .375 H&H, .416 Rigby and .45-70. Oh, and 20- and 12-gauge "slug guns," and a Thompson/Center Hawken .50-caliber muzzleloader.

The .30-06 probably shouldn't have been on the list because I already knew what it would and wouldn't do. One went to Africa anyway, to prove a point about plains game. This ancient round worked just fine, naturally, even making the longest shot I've attempted over there, a one-shot kill on a kudu at almost 400 yards.

Did the magnums kill any better than the smaller cartridges? Not noticeably. I've taken most of my elk with the .30-caliber, 200-grain Nosler Partition, mostly from .30-06s but also a couple of .300 magnums. Generally elk go about 35 to 40 yards before keeling over when shot with that bullet, regardless of the cartridge, and generally the long Partition goes right through. I've never lost an elk shot with the 200-grain Partition, and only shot one twice - with a .300 Winchester Magnum. (The second wasn't necessary, but powder and bullets are relatively cheap insurance.)

I've also used the .338 Winchester Magnum a lot on game animals weighing 500 to 1,500 pounds. For several years no animal required more than one shot, but then one day the first shot on a blue wildebeest went a little high. The bull started to run off, and a second shot also went a little high. A third went into the rump as the bull turned away. Did three 250-grain bullets make up for poor bullet placement? No, not even the rear-end shot, which ended up inside the chest. We caught up with the bull an hour and most of a mile later, just at dusk. I shot him again, at 30 yards - and he fell and got up again. Another big bullet through both shoulders finally ended it.

Does bullet design make a difference? I know folks who firmly believe in bullets that don't fully penetrate an animal's chest - and others who adamantly prefer bullets that always exit. The first set tends to believe in "releasing all the bullet's energy" in the animal instead of the wilderness beyond, while the second group prefers two holes "to let the blood out and the air in." My hunting notes from the past four decades indicate that as long as the bullet puts a decent hole through the vitals, there isn't much difference in whether it penetrates the off-side skin.

Some bullets, of course, have expanded too much over those years, not penetrating the vitals. Others have expanded very little. Neither killed as quickly as bullets that punched a good hole through the pumping and breathing mechanism. The too-quick expanders often required repeated applications to finish the job - the reason I slightly prefer the deeper divers, but don't make a federal case of it.

Like cartridges, most bullets work. There really isn't a universe of difference between how quickly a Nosler Ballistic Tip or a Barnes X-Bullet kills if either hits the right place. Neither will always drop them in their tracks, and neither prevents some lung-shot game from going 50 yards before collapsing. This is because* it takes about 12 seconds for an animal's blood pressure to drop after a bullet punches a hole through its heart and lungs. There's an interval before the brain blacks out.*

I've also learned to distrust two kinds of opinions: those that proclaim something The Absolute Best/Worst or those resulting from biased experience. The first almost always means the opinion-holder has limited experience (perhaps a sample of one) with the cartridge or bullet in question. The second often means the opinion-holder has no experience at all.

I tend to disregard, for instance, opinions about the .270 WCF and large game held by people who've rarely or never seen one used. I've used the .270 to take more big game than any other cartridge. So has my wife, and I've watched her take almost all her big game. The animals in question ranged from pronghorn and whitetails up to elk and moose. If the .270 truly sucks as a big game cartridge, we would have quit using it long ago. We haven't.

All of this is contrary to much advice published in sporting firearms publications, where we read "absolute best" and "bigger is better" over and over again. The human brain (the origin of all our technology) is evidently wired to expect vast improvements in tools. There have been a bunch of new hunting bullets and cartridges introduced in the past half-century. The new short magnums are neat little rounds; I own rifles chambered for two and have taken over a dozen animals with them. I use all sorts of bullets and, while my prejudices about turning edible venison into blood gravy affect my personal choices, no bullet I've tried in the last decade has been absolute junk - if used within what engineers might call its "design parameters."

We discovered perhaps 90 percent of what we know today about big game rifles, cartridges and bullets in the first half-century of smokeless powder. John Nosler, for instance, invented his marvelous bullet only 50-odd years after Winchester produced the first American sporting rifle chambered for a smokeless cartridge. (For the curious: the 1885 Single Shot in .30-40 Krag, in 1892.) The next 50-odd years have seen some refinements in sporting rifles and ammunition but nothing like the improvements before 1950.

What does all this have to do with tough game? Quite a bit. None of the animals on The List are other-worldly tough if we:

1) Put enough practice rounds through rifles that don't scare us.

2) We must learn big game anatomy.

3) Develop judgment about when *not* to pull the trigger.

All this takes time, effort and expense. If we don't put all three into our shooting, many game animals will prove very tough, even if not on somebody's list - and even if we use the latest wonder-magnum and bullets costing $2 apiece. Tough game, it turns out, is often something hunters create for themselves.


----------



## bowgy

Won't go into much detail, but I sold my kicks like a mule Winchester Model 70 7mm Remington mag and bought a Winchester model 70 .300wsm, I believe that was the best gun buying and selling decision that I ever made. Hated to shoot the 7 mm but I love the 300 WSM.


----------



## Frisco Pete

bowgy said:


> Won't go into much detail, but I sold my kicks like a mule Winchester Model 70 7mm Remington mag and bought a Winchester model 70 .300wsm, I believe that was the best gun buying and selling decision that I ever made. Hated to shoot the 7 mm but I love the 300 WSM.


I didn't know if it was just me - but that has been my experience as well. The 7mm Mag seems to have more kick than the caliber warrants. That was one of the reasons I sold my Savage 7mm Rem Mag. As mentioned due to chamber variations figuring out maximum powder charge was challenging and I stopped with what seemed good and safe and dealt all the recoil I could stand. 
However when this 150-gr load was chronographed it really wasn't all that 7mm-Mag fast. But it hurt the shoulder like it was. Other 7 RMs I tried seemed to kick enough to keep me from doing my best shooting as well.

The 300 WSM I shot certainly seemed to give me the impression that it had a more manageable recoil level than the 7 RM.
I went to that virtual performance clone of the 7mm Mag - the 270 WSM and found the recoil level less and not an issue.

The whole thing is puzzling because the physics and math involved indicate that the 7mm RM shouldn't be as obnoxious in recoil as it is to me - and evidently a few others.

I would much rather have a short action beltless case 300 WSM than a belted 7mm Rem Mag personally.


----------



## GaryFish

We've been over this before. In AMERICA, we use rifles denoted by caliber - not that eurocommiemetriccrap mm stuff. If you love you Mom, apple pie, drive a truck and eat meat, then you clearly would choose the 300. If you are one of 'dem hippie weed smokin' vegetarians that carries a man-purse while you drive around in your VW cabriolet on your way to the taupas bar, then shoot the 7mm. It is entirely up to you.


----------



## Frisco Pete

I feel very American shooting a .270 WSM then... I also have a 25-06, .30-06, .243 and .222 and .223s.
No 7mm or 8mm metric furrin' stuff.
That darn near makes me more American than John Wayne!


----------



## 90redryder

Nambaster said:


> My vote is 300 WM my dad shoots a 7mm with the corelokts out of the green and yellow box and he has slid 3 rounds through a spike elk and the elk never skipped a beat. It then trotted off 200 yards till its lungs filled up and did a snow slide. He also put a 7mm round in the vitals of a cow elk at 50 yards and the same thing happened.
> 
> I'm just saying the diameter of the 300 WM might make a little bit of a difference. Elk are tough buggers. Another thing that I might add that is just kind of a gut feeling and might be like arguing about how many spirits can dance on the head of a needle is.... There is a lot of powder in a 7mm to be pushing such a thin bullet... The 300 just feels more balanced....


Your dad must be a terrible shot, shot placement is everything. A good shot to the vitals will drop an elk with either caliber. I am a fan of both calibers but I don't own a 300 win mag yet so I have to back up my reliable 7 mag.


----------



## 90redryder

GaryFish said:


> We've been over this before. In AMERICA, we use rifles denoted by caliber - not that eurocommiemetriccrap mm stuff. If you love you Mom, apple pie, drive a truck and eat meat, then you clearly would choose the 300. If you are one of 'dem hippie weed smokin' vegetarians that carries a man-purse while you drive around in your VW cabriolet on your way to the taupas bar, then shoot the 7mm. It is entirely up to you.


FYI 7mm rem mag was designed in America by an American firearm company, the 7mm rem mag is more American than the toyota tundra rice wagon that alot of fellas on here are surely driving. I know toyotas are manufactured in America since 2007 but it wasn't an American that designed the tundra. Makes me sick to see all these pansy good for nothing Japanese trucks Rollin down the street these days. Anyone else notice that the Tacoma has a plastic bed? There is a short list of things as sorry as a truck with a plastic bed and that list includes: gelled hair, "men" that wear skinny jeans, subaru's, organic produce, skinny jeans, free range eggs, young living skin oils, video games, skinny jeans, organic grass fed beef, tofu, skinny jeans, oh yeah I forgot to include guided hunts.


----------



## GaryFish

90redryder said:


> FYI 7mm rem mag was designed in America by an American firearm company,


But his wife was Canadian. ;-)


----------



## 90redryder

GaryFish said:


> But his wife was Canadian. ;-)


I'm sure he wanted to call it .284 Remington magnum but she forced him to use the metric system.


----------



## Huge29

90redryder said:


> Your dad must be a terrible shot, shot placement is everything. A good shot to the vitals will drop an elk with either caliber. I am a fan of both calibers but I don't own a 300 win mag yet so I have to back up my reliable 7 mag.


A shot to the lungs is a terrible shot? Despite what you see on TV, it is pretty rare to have on go DRT. In my experience it is only the spine shots that go DRT. I personally witnessed even a two-year old buck get shot absolutely perfectly from about 85 yards, so perfectly the heart was not connected to anything upon further inspection, not to mention one lung being obliterated. Yet, how far do you think he traveled? Surprising to me, he still went about 150'. This was with a 30 caliber Barnes bullet. So, if a deer can do so with what is generally considered a perfect shot, where exactly do you want your shots placed? We all like to armchair quarterback, otherwise this forum and others wouldn't even exist, but as I learn more in the field I am left to question some of the experts and their expert anonymous opinions on the intraweb.


----------



## wyogoob

GaryFish said:


> We've been over this before. In AMERICA, we use rifles denoted by caliber - not that eurocommiemetriccrap mm stuff. If you love you Mom, apple pie, drive a truck and eat meat, then you clearly would choose the 300. If you are one of 'dem hippie weed smokin' vegetarians that carries a man-purse while you drive around in your VW cabriolet on your way to the taupas bar, then shoot the 7mm. It is entirely up to you.


uh....what's a "taupas bar"?

Hey, I live in Hooterville; don't have a clue.

.


----------



## GaryFish

I spelled it wrong Goob. It's Tapas Bar. That might be where I threw you off there. I had to eat at one once on a business trip. Needless to say, I don't work for that company any more. 

The gist of a tapas bar is that it is a she-she food place, pretty uppity. And then the food you order isn't really food, but dainty little bites of food with funny sounding french or Italian or otherwise european-sounding names. And you'll order 6-7 different tapas for the group, and then each person gets a bite of each one. Most men you'll see in a tapas bar will have a stylist, not a barber, don't know how to drive a stick shift, have never worn any form of boots, carry a man-purse, and run more chemicals through their hair than it takes to keep a small farm operating. These are the same people you'll find at the Sundance Film thingy. But tapas bar itself - think a place where you'll sip wine eating very small portions of food that will blow through a guy in about half an hour.


----------



## RandomElk16

90redryder said:


> FYI 7mm rem mag was designed in America by an American firearm company, the 7mm rem mag is more American than the toyota tundra rice wagon that alot of fellas on here are surely driving. I know toyotas are manufactured in America since 2007 but it wasn't an American that designed the tundra. Makes me sick to see all these pansy good for nothing Japanese trucks Rollin down the street these days. Anyone else notice that the Tacoma has a plastic bed? There is a short list of things as sorry as a truck with a plastic bed and that list includes: gelled hair, "men" that wear skinny jeans, subaru's, organic produce, skinny jeans, free range eggs, young living skin oils, video games, skinny jeans, organic grass fed beef, tofu, skinny jeans, oh yeah I forgot to include guided hunts.


What a silly post. An American designed-good. Japanese designed but manufactured in America, creating American jobs and supporting an American economy-bad. Ford Motors outsourcing-ba.... Oh wait, designed by an American-outsourcing good.

Ignorance- the origins are debatable, but us Americans have embraced it. Ignorance-good.

I have a coal roller and I park it next to a Toyota. I also shoot a 7mm. So what.

Also, the 7mm was developed in Europe. By Mr. Mauser. Its ballistics were not loved compared to the .270 so believing in the caliber, Remington launched the first line of model 700's and offered it, among other calibers, in 7mm Rem Mag. So, like many of our ancestors, it began in Europe, and is now a pure blooded american, certified North American Rocky Mountain Elk killer.

Ahhhhhhhh-choooooo!!! 'Scuse me.

Edit: Top of page??? America!!!! Yeah buddy.


----------



## GaryFish

RandomElk16 said:


> What a silly post. ...
> 
> Ahhhhhhhh-choooooo!!! 'Scuse me.


You'll find a tissue in your man-purse. ;-)

AND - GREAT top of page post. Well played. Even for a metric-commie!:canada::canada:


----------



## Cooky

Huge29 said:


> A shot to the lungs is a terrible shot? Despite what you see on TV, it is pretty rare to have on go DRT. In my experience it is only the spine shots that go DRT. I personally witnessed even a two-year old buck get shot absolutely perfectly from about 85 yards, so perfectly the heart was not connected to anything upon further inspection, not to mention one lung being obliterated. Yet, how far do you think he traveled? Surprising to me, he still went about 150'. This was with a 30 caliber Barnes bullet. So, if a deer can do so with what is generally considered a perfect shot, where exactly do you want your shots placed? We all like to armchair quarterback, otherwise this forum and others wouldn't even exist, but as I learn more in the field I am left to question some of the experts and their expert anonymous opinions on the intraweb.


I once shot a little two point at about 25 yards with a 150 grain .308 Winchester (7.62x51 for the non-English speakers) Silvertip. The deer was standing still, broadside, eating. I saw the results of the bullet exiting through the scope. -O,- At the shot the deer reared up, turned around and ran straight down off 1200 Dollar Ridge (near Stawberry Peak) for nearly 150 yards...with no lungs and an 6" diameter exit wound. Most deer shot like that would have made a step ot two at best. There will always be animals that don't respond to plan no matter what you hit them with. I've also shot deer poorly and had them fall over in their tracks. 
I watched my Dad shoot one in the antler with a 25-35 (6.5x52R for you commies) and it killed it.


----------



## GaryFish

So what you are saying Cooky, is that if you can't kill an American Elk with a 300 mag, nor a commie elk with the 7mm, it certainly isn't the fault of the bullet diameter? Hmmmmm. I might have to re-think this stuff.


----------



## Christine

I'm 5'4" and shoot a 300 win mag.

I also own a 3/4 ton 4x4 chevy.


.......... and a priusV.


----------



## Springville Shooter

Have we come full circle yet? Both these cartridges are fantastic elk rounds and any advantages of one over the other are most likely based solely on personal preference. I own and love them both....I'm kind of like a gun polygamist I guess.------SS


----------



## Cooky

GaryFish said:


> So what you are saying Cooky, is that if you can't kill an American Elk with a 300 mag, nor a commie elk with the 7mm, it certainly isn't the fault of the bullet diameter? Hmmmmm. I might have to re-think this stuff.


Yup. And don't expect every hit to look like an Eastman or Christiansen video. I think the animals in those videos are French, the way they fall over and give up so easily.

.


----------



## Huge29

Cooky said:


> Yup. And don't expect every hit to look like an Eastman or Christiansen video. I think the animals in those videos are French, the way they fall over and give up so easily.
> .


 :grin: may be nominated for post of the week.


----------



## longbow

Christine said:


> I'm 5'4" and shoot a 300 win mag.
> 
> I also own a 3/4 ton 4x4 chevy.
> 
> .......... and a priusV.


I believed everything you said until you said you drove a prius. You probably shoot a little prissy commy caliber like a FN 5.7 x 28 and just sit in camp and knit scope covers.


----------



## wyogoob

The bottom of the page sucks.


----------



## 90redryder

Huge29 said:


> A shot to the lungs is a terrible shot? Despite what you see on TV, it is pretty rare to have on go DRT. In my experience it is only the spine shots that go DRT. I personally witnessed even a two-year old buck get shot absolutely perfectly from about 85 yards, so perfectly the heart was not connected to anything upon further inspection, not to mention one lung being obliterated. Yet, how far do you think he traveled? Surprising to me, he still went about 150'. This was with a 30 caliber Barnes bullet. So, if a deer can do so with what is generally considered a perfect shot, where exactly do you want your shots placed? We all like to armchair quarterback, otherwise this forum and others wouldn't even exist, but as I learn more in the field I am left to question some of the experts and their expert anonymous opinions on the intraweb.


Shot placement is critical, bullet selection is next. I switched to the nosler accubond this year and my buck dropped dead in his tracks with a lung shot, haven't put one of these bullets in an elk yet but I do expect great results.


----------



## Christine

longbow said:


> I believed everything you said until you said you drove a prius. You probably shoot a little prissy commy caliber like a FN 5.7 x 28 and just sit in camp and knit scope covers.


 You're going to hate this..... I also have an XDS.  (well, it's off on recall but it should be back soon)

It fits nicely in the center console of the tactical prius. :mrgreen:


----------



## 90redryder

RandomElk16 said:


> What a silly post. An American designed-good. Japanese designed but manufactured in America, creating American jobs and supporting an American economy-bad. Ford Motors outsourcing-ba.... Oh wait, designed by an American-outsourcing good.
> 
> Ignorance- the origins are debatable, but us Americans have embraced it. Ignorance-good.
> 
> I have a coal roller and I park it next to a Toyota. I also shoot a 7mm. So what.
> 
> Also, the 7mm was developed in Europe. By Mr. Mauser. Its ballistics were not loved compared to the .270 so believing in the caliber, Remington launched the first line of model 700's and offered it, among other calibers, in 7mm Rem Mag. So, like many of our ancestors, it began in Europe, and is now a pure blooded american, certified North American Rocky Mountain Elk killer.
> 
> Ahhhhhhhh-choooooo!!! 'Scuse me.
> 
> Edit: Top of page??? America!!!! Yeah buddy.


I knew the Tacoma lovers would love my post! I strongly disagree with any American company out sourcing. My point is that if you cant say you bought American unless you are giving an American company revenue by purchasing an American made product. You try to make assumptions and somehow I'm the ignorant one? I'm just happy I could get the yota lovers on edge.


----------



## wyogoob

Cooky said:


> I once shot a little two point at about 25 yards with a 150 grain .308 Winchester (7.62x51 for the non-English speakers) Silvertip. The deer was standing still, broadside, eating. I saw the results of the bullet exiting through the scope. *uh...just what are the results of a the bullet going through a scope?* -O,- At the shot the deer reared up, turned around and ran straight down off 1200 Dollar Ridge (near Stawberry Peak) for nearly 150 yards...with no lungs and an 6" diameter exit wound. Most deer shot like that would have made a step ot two at best. There will always be animals that don't respond to plan no matter what you hit them with. I've also shot deer poorly and had them fall over in their tracks.
> I watched my Dad shoot one in the antler with a 25-35 (6.5x52R for you commies) and it killed it.


*Great story. That 25-35 is kind of a pea-shooter but has killed a fair share of deer.

Sorry to hear about your scope.
*
.


----------



## Christine

The TacPri before I moved out here. It was a pretty good deer hauler. 









I was tempted to try it on an elk but my husband's coworker said he'd kick me out of camp if I showed up with it. LOL


----------



## RandomElk16

90redryder said:


> I knew the Tacoma lovers would love my post! I strongly disagree with any American company out sourcing. My point is that if you cant say you bought American unless you are giving an American company revenue by purchasing an American made product. You try to make assumptions and somehow I'm the ignorant one? I'm just happy I could get the yota lovers on edge.


I don't have a tacoma. What did I assume? I didn't assume anything about you. Seems like you assumed things about my post. I wasn't on edge either. Just like to be a pain in the a** and point things out. Open minds!


----------



## Frisco Pete

Nissan truck owners seem to have got a pass here on this thread hijack. :?


----------



## Loke

Nissan makes trucks?


----------



## bowgy

*Nissan makes trucks?*

Not real ones;-)


----------



## RandomElk16

Loke said:


> Nissan makes trucks?


Now they are getting a cummins in them. If that doesnt confuse us hillbilly's...


----------



## Cooky

wyogoob said:


> *Great story. That 25-35 is kind of a pea-shooter but has killed a fair share of deer.
> 
> Sorry to hear about your scope.
> *
> .


Ummm...through the scope I saw? I saw through my scope? I done seen it out the scope?

Since when was grammer or spelling required on this here site?


----------



## longbow

My how we wander here on UWN!


----------



## longbow




----------



## 90redryder

longbow said:


> My how we wander here on UWN!


It seems like all conversations tend to shift quite a bit, you can only go so long on one topic. But it is interesting to see where the conversation ends up.


----------



## colorcountrygunner

I for one, am thinking quite heavily on picking up a 7mm Remington Magnum soon. As well as a Toyota Tacoma once I have the money.8)


----------



## 3arabians

This thread was worth every bit of the 20 minutes i spent reading it. Just what i needed after a long day at work. I needed a good laugh. BTW I shoot a 300 WM and drive a F350 crew cab!!! I LOVE MMERICA


----------



## wyogoob

It's 2015, I'm changing my mind...wait a minute, I don't think I made up my mind in 2014.

7mm Mag or 300 Win Mag? I'm voting for the one with the prettiest wooden stock.

.


----------



## Loke

I vote we lobby the ammo manufacturers to develop a 29 caliber cartridge. They could start with a short action case to fill the gap between the 7mm-08 and the 308 Win. Since the '06 case is no longer fashionable, we can skip the 29-06 and move right up to the 296 WSM. And Big Green can make the super-dee-duper long range guys drool over the 290 UltraMag.


----------



## colorcountrygunner

I could get on board with the .290 cartridge. We already have a .240 Weatherby magnum, various .250s, a .260 rem, a .270 win, a .280 rem and then a big fat gap between .280 and .300.


----------



## Longgun

ive shot both, and killed elk with both, still i prefer the .300Win.

Why? Dunno...

Although, there was that time i dropped a bull stone dead with a .243, yet i want a 338/378 or 338EDGE now for some reason?

But TEX tells us the only way to kill em is to fling sticks, _with sticks_??!!

IM SO CONFUSED! -)O(-:faint:


----------



## Longgun

Loke said:


> I vote we lobby the ammo manufacturers to develop a 29 caliber cartridge. They could start with a short action case to fill the gap between the 7mm-08 and the 308 Win. Since the '06 case is no longer fashionable, we can skip the 29-06 and move right up to the 296 WSM. And Big Green can make the super-dee-duper long range guys drool over the 290 UltraMag.


the .296 IDTP?


----------



## Dunkem

Longgun said:


> how did you mention "lobby" and not get involved in this _debate_?


Oh good Lord Longgun,dont get it started.:mrgreen:


----------



## Longgun

EDITED mine, now do the same before he sees it...! ;-)


----------



## Dunkem

Longgun said:


> EDITED mine, now do the same before he sees it...! ;-)


DONE:mrgreen: :lol2:


----------



## MuscleWhitefish

DeadI said:


> For elk which would you go with and why?


A .338 Win Mag, because overkill is underrated.

By Overkill I mean your shoulder of course.

-/|\\-


----------



## DeadI

All these posts crack me up. I went with a new Xbolt in 7mm. Love it.


----------

