What is the max range of my elk hunting load?

[bigngreen]

So sorry, the idea of 275lb elk just does not ring true.

That kinda weight for an elk is on the rail, skinned, no hide, head and legs. The average elk killed in the greater Yellowstone area on the rail will average 250lbs, that includes big bulls down to calves, a spike bull will be right at this weight on the rail. Those weights are of certified scales not your typical hanging scale which you'll be lucky if it's within 50 lbs of correct!!! If I remember correct a brow tine bull like an average 6 point will run right around 330 lbs on the rail, remember just meat and bone!!

 

[bigngreen]

First, I will readily admit that I won't shoot at any big game animal beyond 350 yards and it's not because my rifles aren't capable of much further distances. It's because I'll be 65 in a couple months and even with the best corrective lenses my nearsighted eyes are about 20/40 and just will not allow it. What I would like to ask is opinions on the post several pages back in this thread that talked about the .243 knocking the cow elk DRT at over 600 yards. I saw that video and the facts are that it was John Burns who took his rifle out and had a young girl with him who was the hunter/shooter. He admitted that she had never shot at a big game animal in her life and had never even shot the gun he had her use! What are your thoughts on what appears to be strictly a publicity stunt on his part doing something like that. I came on this site some time ago just so I could keep abreast of LR shooting, the rifles and bullets being used, etc. and not because I'm planning on doing any. I know the one big thing everyone on this site stresses is the amount of practice needed to shoot LR at any animal and I hope everyone that saw that video would feel very negative to what that video could do for the sport. In other words, many novices watching it would think how easy it is and go right out and start popping away at LR when they don't even have any business shooting at an animal at 200 yards! I know Burns is still taking a lot of heat for that video from long range hunters on various websites and to the best of my knowledge his only comment has been that people who didn't like it are jealous because a girl did the shooting! I may have missed it, but I don't remember it being discussed on this site and maybe it is too close to talking ethics. If that's the case I apologize and the Moderator can deep six this post if it is deemed inappropriate.

.....

 

[Good]

That kinda weight for an elk is on the rail, skinned, no hide, head and legs. The average elk killed in the greater Yellowstone area on the rail will average 250lbs, that includes big bulls down to calves, a spike bull will be right at this weight on the rail. Those weights are of certified scales not your typical hanging scale which you'll be lucky if it's within 50 lbs of correct!!! If I remember correct a brow tine bull like an average 6 point will run right around 330 lbs on the rail, remember just meat and bone!!

If I remember correctly, the last cow I killed turned up 236lbs of meat. That's in-package meat all wrapped up, not minus all the bones, but most of them. It's been a while...

 

[bigngreen]

First, I will readily admit that I won't shoot at any big game animal beyond 350 yards and it's not because my rifles aren't capable of much further distances. It's because I'll be 65 in a couple months and even with the best corrective lenses my nearsighted eyes are about 20/40 and just will not allow it. What I would like to ask is opinions on the post several pages back in this thread that talked about the .243 knocking the cow elk DRT at over 600 yards. I saw that video and the facts are that it was John Burns who took his rifle out and had a young girl with him who was the hunter/shooter. He admitted that she had never shot at a big game animal in her life and had never even shot the gun he had her use! What are your thoughts on what appears to be strictly a publicity stunt on his part doing something like that. I came on this site some time ago just so I could keep abreast of LR shooting, the rifles and bullets being used, etc. and not because I'm planning on doing any. I know the one big thing everyone on this site stresses is the amount of practice needed to shoot LR at any animal and I hope everyone that saw that video would feel very negative to what that video could do for the sport. In other words, many novices watching it would think how easy it is and go right out and start popping away at LR when they don't even have any business shooting at an animal at 200 yards! I know Burns is still taking a lot of heat for that video from long range hunters on various websites and to the best of my knowledge his only comment has been that people who didn't like it are jealous because a girl did the shooting! I may have missed it, but I don't remember it being discussed on this site and maybe it is too close to talking ethics. If that's the case I apologize and the Moderator can deep six this post if it is deemed inappropriate.

That video and shot was flogged to death in a large thread on it!!!!!! The video was not open to the public but was posted by others with access to it so it would seem that it was not a publicity stunt. I have no issues with it, it was their shot and they put it spot on and dumped the elk!!!

 

[bigngreen]

If I remember correctly, the last cow I killed turned up 236lbs of meat. That's in-package meat all wrapped up, not minus all the bones, but most of them. It's been a while...

Average amount burger meat will be 115 lbs and steaks 65 lbs, hand cut steaks, saw cut adds more steak yield. That's average, you can most certainly go more and if I'm looking over a herd of elk I'll target elk that will go over the average, unless way down hill, then a calf starts looking good

 

[Joe King]

Average amount burger meat will be 115 lbs and steaks 65 lbs, hand cut steaks, saw cut adds more steak yield. That's average, you can most certainly go more and if I'm looking over a herd of elk I'll target elk that will go over the average, unless way down hill, then a calf starts looking good

Sounds as if you've hunted the breaks lol

 

[elkaholic]

Another thing on energy and my line of thinking is similar to another guys line of thinking. One of my favorite outdoor writers. Here is a quote from an article that he has written up. He has over 25 years of hunting elk and this is his line of work.

American hunter magazine
Article: The case for " enough gun" elk cartridges
By Bryce M. Towsley

Quote: " I don't buy the [leave the bullet in the critter and expend all the energy] school of thought. I want my bullets to exit if possible, and want them exiting with lots of remaining horse power. Energy doesn't kill elk, death happens because of damaged body parts. A well designed bullet that is still traveling at high velocity on exit does a lot more tissue damage than one that stops inside the elk. That's because the wound channel remains large all the way to the exit. It also will usually result in a larger exit hole, for better blood trail if needed. With elk it often is."


He also states that he believes " elk" cartridges start at .30 cal. I know not every one has a . 30 cal and you certainly don't need one for elk but it does give that little edge in your favor. I do totally agree with his statement about energy. And a bullet that is left inside the animal most times will be at the very low end of its "energy" deposit. A good example is ballistic gelatin. That small path the bullet creates towards the end just before it's " dumped" or deposited in has a small wound channel and a large one at the beginning and middle. Just my thoughts. Meaty

Meaty....I hear what you are saying and I believe what he says to a point. Here is where I differ. Many bullets that have enough "horsepower" to exit a bull elk do not START expanding as fast and therefore the wound channel isn't as large as early. What you want is a wound channel that is large as far as you can get it. This is a perfect world situation and can not possibly happen at all ranges so you pick the best for your application. I have found that bullets found just under the hide normally don't require a blood trail! I guess if I had my druthers, I would like it to just exit or stay just under the hide. I do agree that a lot of tissue damage is what you want, but along with bullet construction, energy is part of that equation. Believe me, a bullet that blows up after it makes it inside an elk, does a whole lot of tissue damage. I've killed over 30 bulls and I've found that a bullet that sheds a lot of weight as it travels through the vitals does the best job of putting them down early.
Here is a good example that I learned early on in Michigan where I grew up. My dad probably killed more deer than a lot of people have seen! He used an '06 with a lot with Rem corelokts. He didn't like shoulder shots because it ruined too much meat. I can't even tell you how many deer ran 40 miles/hr. for 150 yards before they piled up after a lung shot. I bought the first factory 25-06 Rem 700 in 1970 and was laughed at by a lot of the old timers that used 30/30's and '06's. I use to sit on a RR track and shoot 400 yards or so either way. I killed a pile of deer and the farthest one made it was under the telephone wires that ran along the track. (Maybe 20 yards.) Almost all of the others went DOWN! I used a lot of 100 grain bullets at around 3300 fps. A deer is not an elk but it is the same principle with a larger animal......my two cents.....Rich

 

[WildRose]

Meaty....I hear what you are saying and I believe what he says to a point. Here is where I differ. Many bullets that have enough "horsepower" to exit a bull elk do not START expanding as fast and therefore the wound channel isn't as large as early. What you want is a wound channel that is large as far as you can get it. This is a perfect world situation and can not possibly happen at all ranges so you pick the best for your application. I have found that bullets found just under the hide normally don't require a blood trail! I guess if I had my druthers, I would like it to just exit or stay just under the hide. I do agree that a lot of tissue damage is what you want, but along with bullet construction, energy is part of that equation. Believe me, a bullet that blows up after it makes it inside an elk, does a whole lot of tissue damage. I've killed over 30 bulls and I've found that a bullet that sheds a lot of weight as it travels through the vitals does the best job of putting them down early........Rich

Correct. Velocity/energy is what creates hyperstatic shock or the "liquification" of tissue.

When you do not directly penetrate the heart, lungs, Aorta, or liver it is the hyperstatic shock from a high velocity projectile passing through that saves the day.

Thus once again we come back to energy making up for accuracy and saving the day so to speak if you don't get that direct impact on the major organs/vessels.

 

[meatyrem]

Meaty....I hear what you are saying and I believe what he says to a point. Here is where I differ. Many bullets that have enough "horsepower" to exit a bull elk do not START expanding as fast and therefore the wound channel isn't as large as early. What you want is a wound channel that is large as far as you can get it. This is a perfect world situation and can not possibly happen at all ranges so you pick the best for your application. I have found that bullets found just under the hide normally don't require a blood trail! I guess if I had my druthers, I would like it to just exit or stay just under the hide. I do agree that a lot of tissue damage is what you want, but along with bullet construction, energy is part of that equation. Believe me, a bullet that blows up after it makes it inside an elk, does a whole lot of tissue damage. I've killed over 30 bulls and I've found that a bullet that sheds a lot of weight as it travels through the vitals does the best job of putting them down early.
Here is a good example that I learned early on in Michigan where I grew up. My dad probably killed more deer than a lot of people have seen! He used an '06 with a lot with Rem corelokts. He didn't like shoulder shots because it ruined too much meat. I can't even tell you how many deer ran 40 miles/hr. for 150 yards before they piled up after a lung shot. I bought the first factory 25-06 Rem 700 in 1970 and was laughed at by a lot of the old timers that used 30/30's and '06's. I use to sit on a RR track and shoot 400 yards or so either way. I killed a pile of deer and the farthest one made it was under the telephone wires that ran along the track. (Maybe 20 yards.) Almost all of the others went DOWN! I used a lot of 100 grain bullets at around 3300 fps. A deer is not an elk but it is the same principle with a larger animal......my two cents.....Rich

I may have not explained my point how I wanted it to be but your statement that you said is I think spot on, quote: "what you want is a wound channel as large and as far as you can get it". This is what I believe and what I understood form Mr. Towsley too and what he has found works best for him. I have said in other post's and here that energy is not everything but it still plays a part too. Yes bullet design plays one of the bigger roles too. A perfect hit is good but the construction of he bullet is has to be thought out. I want one that is tough and will hold together with proper expansion and drive through to he other side and not Peter out before it gets there.

 

[Jordan Smith]

Energy and hydrodynamic shock are less influential in the killing of large animals than most people think they are. The term hydrostatic shock (hyperstatic shock is a misnomer) was coined by a writer that was trying to create an emotional response from his readers/customers. A hydrodynamic shock wave occurs when matter cannot get out of the way of a moving projectile fast enough, and it results in the eruption of the cells within the tissue. This is mainly a factor in fluid mediums, and very much less so in areas with large air pockets, like the thoracic cavity.

A much more meaningful metric of bullet effectiveness is found in the impact velocity, momentum, and bullet construction of the projectile.

A bullet that enters the chest cavity with sufficient velocity to rapidly expand is what destroys tissue, and kills game. Kinetic energy is simply what gives the bullet the ability to do its work, but much of that energy is converted into other forms that are inconsequential to the killing of animals. For this reason, energy is a poor indicator of the effectiveness of a bullet. Just ask all the guys that bring down elk, moose, and deer with .224" and .243" bullets.

 

[WildRose]

Energy and hydrodynamic shock are less influential in the killing of large animals than most people think they are. The term hydrostatic shock (hyperstatic shock is a misnomer) was coined by a writer that was trying to create an emotional response from his readers/customers. A hydrodynamic shock wave occurs when matter cannot get out of the way of a moving projectile fast enough, and it results in the eruption of the cells within the tissue. This is mainly a factor in fluid mediums, and very much less so in areas with large air pockets, like the thoracic cavity.

A much more meaningful metric of bullet effectiveness is found in the impact velocity, momentum, and bullet construction of the projectile.

A bullet that enters the chest cavity with sufficient velocity to rapidly expand is what destroys tissue, and kills game. Kinetic energy is simply what gives the bullet the ability to do its work, but much of that energy is converted into other forms that are inconsequential to the killing of animals. For this reason, energy is a poor indicator of the effectiveness of a bullet. Just ask all the guys that bring down elk, moose, and deer with .224" and .243" bullets.

The bodies of all mammals are 90% + Water in liquid form. As for air pockets, the only air pockets inside of the thorasic cavity are the interior portions of the lungs.

With high speed rounds the effects of hyperstatic/hydrodynamic shock are quite evident. I have seen many hogs and deer as well with the entire contents of their chests turned to a combination of liquid and very small bits of organs.

 

[Jordan Smith]

The bodies of all mammals are 90% + Water in liquid form. As for air pockets, the only air pockets inside of the thorasic cavity are the interior portions of the lungs.

With high speed rounds the effects of hyperstatic/hydrodynamic shock are quite evident. I have seen many hogs and deer as well with the entire contents of their chests turned to a combination of liquid and very small bits of organs.

There is a very big difference between a bullet travelling through a consistent body of water, and one that is travelling through an animal that is composed of cells that are 90% water, meaning that there are millions of physical barriers between each microscopic portion of water. You do not get a nice, even fluid shock wave through such a medium, as you would through a uniform body of water. BTW, there is no such thing as hyperstatic shock. That would refer to something that is "extremely motionless", as where hydrodynamic shock refers to a wave causing the "motion of water", which is what a shock wave travelling through a liquid is.

The effects you see, and I've seen them, too, are not caused by the shock wave, but rather the aggressive fragmentation of a bullet that rapidly and readily expands in tissue, causing tissue and cell disruption. The shock wave is what causes the temporary wound channel that you see in some of the videos of ballistic gel. The permanent wound channel is caused by direct bullet and fragmentation contact with tissue.

I think we're on the same page as far as witnessed results from frangible bullets impacting at high velocities, but the cause for those results is what I'm disputing.

 

[WildRose]

There is a very big difference between a bullet travelling through a consistent body of water, and one that is travelling through an animal that is composed of cells that are 90% water, meaning that there are millions of physical barriers between each microscopic portion of water. You do not get a nice, even fluid shock wave through such a medium, as you would through a uniform body of water. BTW, there is no such thing as hyperstatic shock. That would refer to something that is "extremely motionless", as where hydrodynamic shock refers to a wave causing the "motion of water", which is what a shock wave travelling through a liquid is.

The effects you see, and I've seen them, too, are not caused by the shock wave, but rather the aggressive fragmentation of a bullet that rapidly and readily expands in tissue, causing tissue and cell disruption. The shock wave is what causes the temporary wound channel that you see in some of the videos of ballistic gel. The permanent wound channel is caused by direct bullet and fragmentation contact with tissue.

I think we're on the same page as far as witnessed results from frangible bullets impacting at high velocities, but the cause for those results is what I'm disputing.

Once again you are in error.

That damage is caused with or without fragmentation. Hyper or hypo static in this context refers to "stasis" or normal pressures within the cells of the body, which is suddenly and violently changed by the impact and wake of a bullet.

As the shockwave passes through you have sudden and extreme high pressure waves passing through those fluid filled bodies which rupture just like little water ballons.

You will get this effect with high speed rounds even using FMJ's.

You also get the effects of the vacuum formed in the wake of the bullet which creates ultra low pressure (hypostatic) around the remaining cells which have not ruptured causing them to expand far beyond their normal limits.

Think physiology here not just physics. Hyper=above normal homeostatic levels, Hypo=below normal homeostasic levels.

You can see this effect by going to youtube and looking at .50bmg sniper kills in afghanistan. They are using non fragmenting bullets, and the bodies erupt just like you were shooting full water jugs.

As for the barriers inside the body vs a flud filled jug, those barriers don't interfere much since all of them are permeable or semipermiable. There is a free flow of fluid into and out of all of the bodies cells constantly.

 

[Jordan Smith]

Once again you are in error.

That damage is caused with or without fragmentation. Hyper or hypo static in this context refers to "stasis" or normal pressures within the cells of the body, which is suddenly and violently changed by the impact and wake of a bullet.

As the shockwave passes through you have sudden and extreme high pressure waves passing through those fluid filled bodies which rupture just like little water ballons.

You will get this effect with high speed rounds even using FMJ's.

You also get the effects of the vacuum formed in the wake of the bullet which creates ultra low pressure (hypostatic) around the remaining cells which have not ruptured causing them to expand far beyond their normal limits.

Think physiology here not just physics. Hyper=above normal homeostatic levels, Hypo=below normal homeostasic levels.

You can see this effect by going to youtube and looking at .50bmg sniper kills in afghanistan. They are using non fragmenting bullets, and the bodies erupt just like you were shooting full water jugs.

As for the barriers inside the body vs a flud filled jug, those barriers don't interfere much since all of them are permeable or semipermiable. There is a free flow of fluid into and out of all of the bodies cells constantly.

LOL. You're mixing biological and physical terms. A shock wave is physics, not biology. Hyperstatic refers to a STATIC condition, meaning non-changing. It means that the pressure is higher than normal, but has nothing to do with dynamic pressure changes, such as those caused by shock waves.

How many animals have you shot with FMJ's, and then witnessed massive internal damage? When a bullet penetrates without expansion, you usually see a pencil hole through the lungs and ribs.

That YouTube video is just a bunch of rockchucks being exploded, and has nothing to do with human targets. If you've seen the damage from a .50 BMG on humans, you'd know that people don't instantly explode when hit.

I'm going to stop contributing to this conversation, since it's clear to me that you're arguing just to argue, and that you lack an understanding of the science behind what's going on. This is evident by the fact that you think that water can transverse the cell membrane in large quantities within thousandths of a second, and that you believe that a non-expanding bullet will cause a living body to explode. I was simply correcting some flawed logic regarding the physics of bullet impacts on living flesh. Not interested in a ****ing match just for the sake of ****ing.

The fact is, when bullets that expand rapidly impact flesh with enough velocity to undergo violent expansion, yet retain enough structural integrity to penetrate through vital organs and tissues, stuff dies pretty quick.