What is the max range of my elk hunting load?

[Topgun 30-06]

I guess we all know who the self-appointed expert on this thread is now!

 

[Jordan Smith]

I guess we all know who the self-appointed expert on this thread is now!

Give me a break. Just because my time is better spent doing other things than arguing with a brick wall that is so entrenched in the rhetoric of yesteryear, that he refuses to consider any additional evidence than when sits between his ears, does not mean that I think I have all the answers! Don't be so pompous! I was just simply bringing another point of view to the discussion. But by all means, if you are blindly content to believe that elk and deer are killed by shock waves, then continue on your merry way!

Videos are fun to watch, but what you see, and WHY you see what you see, are very different. Ballistic gel is fun to shoot, but you're naive if you believe that it closely replicates what happens in an animal that is composed of varying layers and thicknesses of different materials. Hide, bone, soft tissue, air space, etc, offer a VERY different medium than a uniform block of jelly. Those videos don't offer any sort of explanation as to why animals die when you shoot them.

And those are rock chucks, not Taliban snipers. I HAVE to laugh when people vehemently mumble, while getting all red in the face, that somebody posted a video, shot at close range, of a bunch of Taliban snipers getting shot with a shoulder-fired rifle and flying 40 feet in the air! Those are rock chucks. But I'm glad you got sucked in to the YouTube author's joke. He must be laughing. Open the video in YouTube and read the comments underneath...

 

[Topgun 30-06]

I was referring to him, not you, LOL!!!

 

[WildRose]

I was referring to him, not you, LOL!!!

Actually the only self appointed expert would be the fellow trying to tell us energy doesn't matter and who doesn't understand such simple things as what ballistic gel is, or what is it for.

Ballistics gelatin, also known as ballistics gel, is a analogue for the tissue of living organisms which is made from gelatin which is dissolved in water, allowed to set, and then chilled so that it becomes very dense. As the name implies, ballistics gel is used to test firearms, although it is also used in experiments where people want to approximate the amount of damage something will cause to a body without actually using a body. Several companies manufacture ballistics gelatin to very exacting standards for organizations like the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and it is also possible to make a similar version at home.

What is Ballistics Gel?

How do you accurately test the affect that ballistics have on a flesh like substance?

One answer to the problem is to create ballistic gel, which mimics human flesh. Another solution is to use a dead pig as their bodies are similar to humans for testing purposes. Ballistic gel is the more practical solution.

Ballistic Gel

It would also be the same person that fails to understand that gut shot animals tend to run a long way before dying is because there are far fewer major blood vessels in the gut than their are in the chest cavity. The closer you are to the heart and brain the larger and more closely packed are the major blood vessels.

Short of a perfect heart shot that immediately destroys or interrupts the function of the heart, or a direct hit to the spine or head it is hypovolemic shock which brings animals down. Hypovolemic shock = blood loss, or in layman's terms they "bleed out".

Those of us who shoot non frangible, high velocity rounds who have opened up the chests of many animals have seen time and again the liquifaction of large amounts of the chests contents which occurs. Yes the tissue directly in the path of the bullet is torn apart, but there's also a considerable amount of damage done to the surrounding tissue by the shockwave passing through it. The overpressure explodes cells and secondarily the vacuum following the wake of the bullet does as well. That vacuum in the wake of the bullet is why you see spray following the bullet as it exits the backside of a target frequently.

In science we have a saying, exceptional claims require exceptional proof. He's made a long list of exceptional claims here with zero evidence to support them.

The videos posted of ballistic gel shots makes it abundantly clear that the premise that the shockwave has no effect, and that only tissue directly contacted by the bullet or bullet fragments is going to be damaged has no merit.

 

[Topgun 30-06]

I was not referring to the information you're putting out, but rather your smartazz way of talking to people that have other opinions whether they may be right or wrong! After reading your last post, I'll stick with my previous comment because you are still coming across as an arrogant ahole with your fancy schmancy college degrees!!! An intelligent person should be able to debate any issue without the condescending remarks you continually post as you try to make your case. PS: I've been hunting for 60 years, have killed over 100 big game animals of all kinds with different calibers and different bullets, and have two safes full of various rifles that will shoot sub MOA, so I know more than a little bit about what you guys are debating and finally, those are rockchucks in the video just like I said earlier, not humans!

 

[elkaholic]

Jordan.....you are making a fool of yourself! Give it up......Rich

 

[bigngreen]

Good luck Jordan, it seems to me if we have to resort to a varmint and a 50BMG to prove a point that point may be a little on the shaky side. I've known guys who shoot deer with Cheytacs and solids and not one has commented on blowing one up, the most they get seems to be a 6-8in split in the of side if the bullet tumbles and the game seem to run about the same as hit in the chest with anything else.

My antelope traveled farther after the hit than anything else we shot last year and I hit her with a 300gr OTM at 300 yards from a 338 RUM, the wound indicates a bullet that opened well and it tore out her heart, the lungs were untouched and it split the diaphram and pulled her stomach out and she ran 50 ish yards, she must not have read the energy figures or seen ballistics jell footage

 

[Fiftydriver]

So there are 55 people that believe that this is a 1000 yard elk load, WOW!!!!

I voted for 400 yards max. with all the options we have today, I have no idea why anyone would want to use a 25-06 class rifle on elk at long range, truely a mystery to me. I know that this is not what the OP is saying but thats what 55 of the voters have said its useful for.

I would not shoot elk past 400 yards with any 25-06.

I would like to see just how many of these voters have actually killed a bull elk at any range?

 

[WildRose]

I was not referring to the information you're putting out, but rather your smartazz way of talking to people that have other opinions whether they may be right or wrong! After reading your last post, I'll stick with my previous comment because you are still coming across as an arrogant ahole with your fancy schmancy college degrees!!! An intelligent person should be able to debate any issue without the condescending remarks you continually post as you try to make your case. PS: I've been hunting for 60 years, have killed over 100 big game animals of all kinds with different calibers and different bullets, and have two safes full of various rifles that will shoot sub MOA, so I know more than a little bit about what you guys are debating and finally, those are rockchucks in the video just like I said earlier, not humans!

When some smartass with no clue starts off by telling me I don't know enough to understand the science he's not going to get politely addressed by me in the future.

I give as much respect to others as they show me.

 

[Jordan Smith]

I was referring to him, not you, LOL!!!

My apologies, sir. gun)

 

[WildRose]

Good luck Jordan, it seems to me if we have to resort to a varmint and a 50BMG to prove a point that point may be a little on the shaky side. I've known guys who shoot deer with Cheytacs and solids and not one has commented on blowing one up, the most they get seems to be a 6-8in split in the of side if the bullet tumbles and the game seem to run about the same as hit in the chest with anything else.

My antelope traveled farther after the hit than anything else we shot last year and I hit her with a 300gr OTM at 300 yards from a 338 RUM, the wound indicates a bullet that opened well and it tore out her heart, the lungs were untouched and it split the diaphram and pulled her stomach out and she ran 50 ish yards, she must not have read the energy figures or seen ballistics jell footage

Your experience then shows that indeed the cavitation caused by the shockwave and vacuum which follows indeed was responsible for a good deal of that damage then.

That's certainly a great deal damage to tissues that were not directly contacted by the bullet.

 

[Jordan Smith]

Good luck Jordan, it seems to me if we have to resort to a varmint and a 50BMG to prove a point that point may be a little on the shaky side. I've known guys who shoot deer with Cheytacs and solids and not one has commented on blowing one up, the most they get seems to be a 6-8in split in the of side if the bullet tumbles and the game seem to run about the same as hit in the chest with anything else.

My antelope traveled farther after the hit than anything else we shot last year and I hit her with a 300gr OTM at 300 yards from a 338 RUM, the wound indicates a bullet that opened well and it tore out her heart, the lungs were untouched and it split the diaphram and pulled her stomach out and she ran 50 ish yards, she must not have read the energy figures or seen ballistics jell footage

Exactly. Thank you.

 

[Jordan Smith]

Actually the only self appointed expert would be the fellow trying to tell us energy doesn't matter....

It would also be the same person that fails to understand that gut shot animals tend to run a long way before dying is because there are far fewer major blood vessels in the gut than their are in the chest cavity. The closer you are to the heart and brain the larger and more closely packed are the major blood vessels.

Short of a perfect heart shot that immediately destroys or interrupts the function of the heart, or a direct hit to the spine or head it is hypovolemic shock which brings animals down. Hypovolemic shock = blood loss, or in layman's terms they "bleed out".He's made a long list of exceptional claims here with zero evidence to support them.

The videos posted of ballistic gel shots makes it abundantly clear that the premise that the shockwave has no effect, and that only tissue directly contacted by the bullet or bullet fragments is going to be damaged has no merit.

You're good at twisting peoples' words. I NEVER said that energy doesn't matter. I said that the SHOCK WAVE is less significant in the killing of large animals than many people think. You're right about hypovolemic shock being a major factor in the death of an animal, and blood loss is caused by the disruption of blood vessels and the circulatory system through projectile (whether bullet or secondary projectile) contact, not by a romanticized shock wave.

What claims have I made that were not supported by real world experiences and evidence? Even if I had provided no evidence, it would be better than faulty and dogmatic evidence, such as what you've provided.

 

[bigngreen]

Your experience then shows that indeed the cavitation caused by the shockwave and vacuum which follows indeed was responsible for a good deal of that damage then.

That's certainly a great deal damage to tissues that were not directly contacted by the bullet.

I agree the vacuum was present but if there was a massive shock wave it would have thrashed the lungs being the softest organs, they were perfect which surprised me with the heart MIA.
I really think there is some kind of shock value but I really don't put much value on it next to other factors.