# ELK RIFLE



## BIG DADDY (Sep 16, 2007)

I AM THINKING OF GETTING A ELK RIFLE.
WHAT RIFLE DO YOU USE?
I AM THINKING ABOUT ONE OF THE 338'S.
WHAT IS YOUR OPINION?

THANKS FOR YOUR INPUT.


----------



## Huge29 (Sep 17, 2007)

As to what I use; 7mm Rem Mag. I guess one consideration is what distance you expect to be shooting...
Petersen's really likes the 8mm, I remember in their article last year that they liked the 8mm as an all around caliber also http://www.huntingmag.com/big_game/ideal_elk/index1.html
Sources: 300 ultra http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.300_Remington_SA_Ultra_Mag
338 ultra http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.338_Remington_Ultra_Magnum
7mm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_mm_Remington_Magnum

Comparisons http://www.gunsandammomag.com/ammunition/hornady_110107/


----------



## BIG DADDY (Sep 16, 2007)

Thanks for the links Huge29. Some great information there.
I would be shooting within 450 yards at the most.
I have a range finder now so I can judge the distances better now.
It would be fun to go back and see how far some of those shots I took over the years in my more youthful inexperienced days.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

.338 Ultra mag


----------



## Al Hansen (Sep 7, 2007)

When I use to hunt them it was with the 7MM Remington Mag.


----------



## Mojo1 (Sep 8, 2007)

I use the same rifle for all big game now, an A-Bolt 270 WSM.


----------



## stablebuck (Nov 22, 2007)

Kimber 8400 .325 WSM...end of story...


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

I use a 7mm rem. mag. Two years ago, I used a 150 gran bullet and Shot a spike boadside at 255 yards. I hit it a little far back but the exit hole was about 3" in diameter. It bleed out real fast. This year I am going with the 160 gran barns tsx bullets.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

308
30-06
270 in all varieties
7mm in all varieties
300 win mag
338

All good elk rifles and will work if you practice and shoot them consistently. None of them will work if you don't. I personally use a 30-06 and have done very well. I like it because it doesn't kick much, ammo doesn't cost an arm and a leg, and it does the job. I don't like the 300 win mag because of the kick and cost of practicing. Personally, I don't like making shots over 250 yards, so the magnums have no appeal to me. But any will do you well.


----------



## Alton (Sep 13, 2007)

I agree with Stablebuck the Kimber 8400 325 wsm is a great gun. That is what I shot my elk with last year.


----------



## tapehoser (Sep 10, 2007)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> .338 Ultra mag


I wouldn't hesitate to hunt anything in this world with a 338 RUM. That is one seriously potent round.

Myself, I use a Marlin 1895 chambered for 45-70 Gov't, as I have said before many times. I reload some 300 grain Nosler Partitions and get on the high end of 2,200-2,300 fps. Again, a seriously potent round with a large meplat for some serious knockdown power.


----------



## Huge29 (Sep 17, 2007)

tapehoser said:


> Treehugnhuntr said:
> 
> 
> > .338 Ultra mag
> ...


Well, yeah, but don't you enjoy tracking? That is my favorite part :mrgreen: j/k.


----------



## sawsman (Sep 13, 2007)

GaryFish said:


> 308
> 30-06
> 270 in all varieties
> 7mm in all varieties
> ...


I completely agree with GaryFish. I use a 30-06. The 30-06 is all you need.

sawsman


----------



## nimrod (Sep 14, 2007)

My brothers and I use 30.06. The elk we have harvested were all dropped with one shot. I will say this about choosing a caliber to hunt with, if you flinch (not just blink) when you shoot, you are using too much rifle. Big is only good if you can focus on the shot rather than the recoil that will follow.


----------



## El Matador (Dec 21, 2007)

I did a lot of research before choosing my elk rifle. I settled on the .338 Win mag for a few reasons. If you do much reading, every person that has killed a lot of elk says the .338s are the way to go. Provided you can handle the recoil, of course. That was reinforced by talking to friends of mine that have killed elk with a few different calibers. Having previously shot a few .375s I felt I was up to the recoil, so then I looked at the 325 WSM, .338 wm, .338 ultra mag, and .340 weatherby. I wanted to be able to shoot the 250 grain bullets in case I ever want to hunt a big bear, so I ruled out the short mag. I loved the ballistics of the UM and the Weatherby, but felt like the extra recoil probably wasn't worth it unless I planned on shooting at fairly long range with some regularity. Since I didn't, and the regular 338 has a slight edge on economy and popularity, that's what I went with. Since you said your range will be out to 450 yds, I don't see much of a reason to go with the Ultra Mag unless you don't mind the recoil and your favorite gun comes chambered for it. And now that I've shot the 338 quite a bit, I think more and more that if I wanted to step up to the UM I'd probably get a muzzle brake. But I don't like hunting with those so I'm stickin with the win mag. 

As a side note, if you want the best deer/elk gun, a .300 mag of some type would add more versatility for deer. But if it's a dedicated elk gun, go with the 338. The 325 would also be great if you don't think you'll ever want to shoot heavier than a 220 gr bullet.


----------



## Frisco Pete (Sep 22, 2007)

I remember when they used to kill elk with a .30-06 and 180-gr conventional construction slugs (_or heaven-forbid a .270!_) and felt it did a bang-up job. Guess the elk have evolved and are much tougher now 

Hitting well with a good bullet is the first rule of thumb - don't get more cartridge that you can shoot accurately from field positions at those extreme ranges - and be wary of the hidden toll muzzle brakes can take.
Or you can stalk closer...


----------



## El Matador (Dec 21, 2007)

I don't doubt the smaller calibers can effectively take elk. But you really have to consider the range at which you're shooting. If you want a good caliber for 300 yards and under, there are a lot of calibers that would be good choices. But once you get out around 400 yards and beyond, they start to be somewhat lacking. Heck, a .44 mag is a "great elk cartridge" if you're close enough. Take a look at this table: HERE
If you look at the column for 600 lb game (about the size of a smallish bull elk), it seems to fit very closely with what I've both heard and experienced regarding the killing ablility of most popular calibers. A .270 is listed as being effective out to 160 yards with the right bullet. I couldn't agree more. I've shot and seen shot about 5 elk with a similar caliber, all under 150 yards, and all made clean kills. I've shot one elk at 300 yards with that caliber, and never recovered the bull despite a good lung shot being made. So really, any of the .270 calibers on up would be a good elk cartridge as long as you keep your shots within its effective range. If you want to take shots out to 400 yards and beyond, the minimum would be a 300 mag of some kind, but the 338 still has more juice at that range due to a larger diameter and heavier bullet.


----------



## Frisco Pete (Sep 22, 2007)

Great post - but here is some food for thought on why this subject isn't as cut-and-dried as the charts and tables make it, and perhaps explain why I am neither for or against any of the mentioned rounds for elk:

While I see people try to quantify various rounds based on energy (ft/lbs) and/or momentum and game size all the time (_it being human nature I suppose_) - I think it is very misleading to a degree when deciding on cartridges for elk or other "tough" game animals.

I believe that if you hit elk around the fringes of the lungs, and they can go an awfully long way, and sometimes even recover. Elk (_and similar-size/tough gemsbok to broaden the application world-wide_) sometimes live fruitful lives after bullet placement around the margins of the lungs. All these formulas have a very limited application here.

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. And we are used to dropping deer quickly because...

Lung shots are more deadly on deer than on bigger animals that weigh over 500 lbs. (elk) 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 (whitetail or smaller mule) 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.*

Always remember - 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. This makes judging cartridge effectiveness difficult for most of us and also can be a problem when elk are shot at long range in a place where they can get lost quickly.

So I have absolutely NOTHING against someone that can use a .338 RUM, .338 WM, or similar round well. It shoots a big bullet very flat and is well proven. Same for other over-.30 rounds. In fact an argument can be made that they are certainly a better idea with their bigger, fatter bullets than the .300 Mag or Ultra-Mag-type rounds as _El Matador_ pointed out.

BUT I think that many cannot honestly shoot these rounds well (due to recoil) and shooting well and hitting that area mentioned above is critical to success. Or no matter what cartridge, they are fooling themselves if they can't really shoot accurately beyond 300 yards. So *if you can shoot the biggies well - GO FOR IT!* Obviously many swear by them for good reason.

If your brain subconsciously wants to flinch when you pull the trigger, and you haven't actually shot beyond 300 yards at targets from a field position to know your limitations - *get the tool that works best for you*. I believe the majority of shooters start to lose accuracy and flinch when the 30-06 level is exceeded by much, but you are an *individual*, not a *statistic*, so this may not apply to you - or it may. Only you know or can find out. _El Matador_ did the research and does well with his .338, and should be applauded for his obvious diligence at mastering the medium bore gun, while others don't spend the energy...

Anyway, *that is why I cannot so easily recommend an "ELK RIFLE" to just anybody on the 'net* although, in theory, there are some dandy cartridges when it comes to impressive numbers if we are up to the challenge and many that may not "chart" as well but are well-proven. And if those chart-impressive big/fast rounds don't work out - you can just use what has worked for most hunters at reasonable ranges for decades. Just aim very well and use a decent bullet and lower the range to up the percentages.


----------



## Mojo1 (Sep 8, 2007)

It's not the caliber or the bullet that matters; it's where you put the shot that counts! :shock: 

Not knowing the limits of your shooting abilities’ or trying to over reach them, that's what cripples animals.

Half the people out hunting can't shoot half as far as they think they can; doing it on the range from a bench is one thing, doing it in a hunting situation is another. I won’t even start on the types who read an ad or ballistic chart and without any practice think their gun can shoot to the horizon. We have all seen those types out there.


----------



## Loke (Sep 7, 2007)

Elkhuntingfool said:


> 125gr 4 blade muzzy on the business end of a GoldTip XT 7595 :wink:


How much foot pounds does that have? :wink:


----------



## woollybugger (Oct 13, 2007)

My arrow produces about 74 ftlbs. of energy out of the bow. At 40 yards (my limit), it has about 51. It will penetrate just about any critter roaming this state. :mrgreen:


----------



## BIG DADDY (Sep 16, 2007)

A good discussion. 
Thanks for the information and input. 

Would everyone agree?

#1 Bullet placement
#2 Quality of bullet
Maybe these two go hand in hand.


----------



## Loke (Sep 7, 2007)

BIG DADDY said:


> A good discussion.
> Thanks for the information and input.
> 
> Would everyone agree?
> ...


#3 Enough sectional density to penetrate the vitals.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Elkhuntingfool said:


> 125gr 4 blade muzzy on the business end of a GoldTip XT 7595 :wink:


I would be surprised if you could hit and penetrate a Volkswagon window @ ten yards with that set up! :wink: :shock:


----------

