6mm Creedmoor first elk hunt

[quandary]

You really think people will practice more with a magnum than a smaller cartridge? I'm not following your logic there. Larger calibers don't make bad shots good ones.

And let's say they don't practice with either, how does the magnum help them?

Assuming you actually read the post and you can comprehend it you will note that I said "another excuse for not practicing". A bad shot is a bad shot, as poor of an excuse as it may be a hit with a larger caliber bullet has a higher probability of saving a bad shot.

I have very little faith in my fellow man. What I believe will invariably happen is that many hunters will start using 22 centerfires, take shots that they shouldn't, wound animals, not recover them, then say whatever, and shoot another animal. I do not believe that most people have the personal discipline to understand you draw blood your tag is filled whether you recover that animal or not. Eventually forcing state DNRs to put in strict caliber rules for certain game animals. We will see what happens in the next 10 to 15 years. But as the Dude says that's just your opinion man....

 

[clark33]

Assuming you actually read the post and you can comprehend it you will note that I said "another excuse for not practicing". A bad shot is a bad shot, as poor of an excuse as it may be a hit with a larger caliber bullet has a higher probability of saving a bad shot.

I don't necessarily agree with that, and that's ok.

I'd argue IF a bad shot was made, a low recoiling round would allow the shooter to see the impact, make the adjustment, and make a QUICKER follow up shot than if they made the same bad shot with a magnum. But… like… that's just my opinion man.

If the shooter doesn't practice all of this **** goes out the window anyways.

 

[WA Coyote]

The beauty of this is its simplicity. Once a plan gets too complex, everything can go wrong….

 

[WA Coyote]

If the shooter doesn't practice all of this **** goes out the window anyways.

F'n amateurs.

 

[ickes123]

We have so many laws and rule because of stupid people.

 

[memtb]

Actually…. It can be quite objective.

Here's a list of thousands of moose shot in Scandinavia, the cartridge they were shot with, the average number of shots, and the average distance traveled after the first shot.

Seems like well hit moose tend to die rather quickly, regardless of cartridge/caliber…. but this is also in a place where you have to pass a shooting test to get a moose tag. Maybe there IS something to that whole "shot placement" thing?

Cartridge Animals # of Shots Moose Travel*
6.5x55 2,792 1.57 43
7mm Rem. 107 1.32 40
.308 WCF 1,314 1.67 41
.30-06 2,829 1.57 47
.300 Win. 27 1.83 16
8x57 575 1.53 57
.338 Win. 83 1.20 31
.358 Norma 219 1.16 19
9.3x57 134 1.50 41
9.3x62 449 1.50 34
.375 H&H 211 1.33 31

This is good information and mostly relevent.


The "glaring" omission that I immediately see in this list is…..the distance at which the animals were shot!

Contrary to popular belief….the velocity, type of bullet construction, diameter of the bullet, and the impact point and direction of bullet travel all play an important role.

I dare say that all things being equal in the bullets except the calibers used that a .378 Weatherby is more effective than the 6.5x55 @ 1000 yards! memtb

 

[ickes123]

You can kill almost any animal in the world with a field point on an arrow, however you would be crazy to do it. Bad shots happen as often as good with the average hunter. size matters

 

[quandary]

I don't necessarily agree with that, and that's ok.

I'd argue IF a bad shot was made, a low recoiling round would allow the shooter to see the impact, make the adjustment, and make a QUICKER follow up shot than if they made the same bad shot with a magnum. But… like… that's just my opinion man.

If the shooter doesn't practice all of this **** goes out the window anyways.

I agree, if you are in a situation that allows for a follow up shot.

I'll reiterate what I said above I have absolutely no problems with someone choosing to hunt say Elk with a 6mm or 22ARC etc. As long as they are good shooters and choose shots where the animal can be double lunged. That is a clean humane kill. But for me I will stick to my 300s and 7s for larger game. The grizzly bear and caribou I shot in Alaska this year were both steeply quartering towards. I would not have killed (nor taken the shot) either of those animals with a 22ARC. However both were killed cleanly with one shot out of a 300PRC shooting a 200gr CEB Lazer. I will take the flexibility of a big bore every time. I enjoy shooting them and shoot them accurately. I understand that not everybody can handled the recoil of those rifles, thats ok shoot something smaller, just be responsible. That is all I'm saying.

 

[Ckleeves]

Pop quiz, which would you be more likely to use for elk out of these two?

 

[akmtnhnt]

There is no disputing if you shoot a 22ARC broadside through the lungs it will just about anything Moose included. I like Freel's gun articles and his podcast. He has no preconceived conclusions and he does not push agendas. But lets look at his moose kill. First shot broadside through both lungs, that Moose was dead right there just didn't know yet. But awesome the second shot was the first shot. That moose is gone and will likely live to fight another day. Freel rights we didn't find anything in the moose from the second shot.... well that because that little bullet vaporized itself before hit could hit anything that would kill it. You just made a bad decision. That is the short coming of the small caliber craze.

If a hunter is disciplined enough to take appropriate shots, great. The problem is most hunters aren't, they will be overcome by "this is my only chance yadda, yadda, yadda" and they will take shots they shouldn't. Further more they will read all the posting etc about how easy it is to shoot and how accurate and it will be another excuse for them not practicing enough to be any good at shooting. Which is already a big problem. The small caliber craze only exacerbates the problem.

You really think a bullet just vaporized on the hide and not maybe he missed? Which one comports with all known physics?