What is the max range of my elk hunting load?

[WildRose]

Really...




















Try reading the entire article before hitting the reply button next time, bud. Your assumptions about the temporary cavity are incorrect.




I don't consider "How stuff works" to be a very credible source compared to Dr. Fackler. Sorry.



The article was written in 1990.

Fackler is a **** poor and lazy "scientist" if he was relying on sixty plus year old material when so much has been learned in the mean time and so much has changed in terms of velocities and energy.

Several of us suggested politely that you should have given up when you were first behind. However if you wish to continue digging yourself into the basement by all means please continue.

 

[Jordan Smith]

Fackler is a **** poor and lazy "scientist" if he was relying on sixty plus year old material when so much has been learned in the mean time and so much has changed in terms of velocities and energy.

LOL, you are obviously unfamiliar with Fackler and his work. He was talking about 3000+fps velocities. Again...

I'm going to get back to work and leave you to your YouTube videos and "How stuff works" citations...

 

[Jordan Smith]

Several of us suggested politely that you should have given up when you were first behind. However if you wish to continue digging yourself into the basement by all means please continue.

Amazing that a man can be so filled with stubborn pride, that even when he is being stared in the face by true experimental evidence and data, he can continue to look at the sun and say it ain't yellow...

I was posting that article for everybody else who has contributed to this thread, and is interested in the real science behind wounding theory. I knew that you wouldn't even read the article, because you're not interested in gaining greater truth, but simply arguing your point, even when you know that you're not entirely correct.

 

[Scot E]

Suprised this one has been allowed to go on this long with all the personal attacks. Shut her down Len!!!

Agreed! And its too bad because this thread had some good info in it as well as some topics that I would personally like to see discussed further by the experienced shooters here. But this is the problem gents, when you let things get out of hand, the guys that really should be adding valuable info to this kind of thread don't even want to participate. So we are left with a bunch of petty bickering and nonsensical scientific pontification in place of what should be experience shared from those that have real-world, in-the-field experience.

Scot E.

 

[WildRose]

LOL, you are obviously unfamiliar with Fackler and his work. He was talking about 3000+fps velocities. Again...

I'm going to get back to work and leave you to your YouTube videos and "How stuff works" citations...

There were few if any 3,000fps capable rounds in 1947.

How about "Military Medicine" cira 2008 instead of something dredged up from 1947?

Military Medicine: From Ancient Times to the 21st Century - Jack Edward McCallum - Google Books

Here's a few more for you to chew on.

Print › MEDTEXT 4 - Gunshot Wounds, Schrapnel and Blast Injuries | Quizlet

Duke University school of Medicine:

- Discussion:

- common shapes includes round nose, wadcutter, and semi-wad cutter;
- missile velocity:
- high velocity:
- greater than 2000-2500 ft/sec;
- M16 travels at 3250 ft/sec;
- associated w/ significant cavitation formation from shock wave;
- medium velocity: between 1000-2000 ft/sec;
- low velocity: less than 1000 ft/sec;
- not associated w/ cavitation formation;
- causes local injury and does not tend to comminute metaphyseal bone;
- yaw: the deviation of a missle's longitudinal axis from the straight line of flight, which may lead to tumbling;
- misc: note that on rare occcassions the surgeon may encounter exploding bulllets w/ separate explosive charges;
- Wad Cutters:
- wad cutters are cylindrical projectiles w/ flat circular striking surface that creates sharply defined holes for target shooting;
- semi wad cutters: are hybrid projectiles consisting of conical or tapered tip w/ sharp shoulder midway back on projectile;
- this combines the ability to create a sharp hole in paper target w/ improved aerodynamic shape for accuracy and easier feeding
into an autoloading weapon;
- Jacketed Bullets:
- consist of a soft lead center surrounded by a jacket of various alloys of copper;
- full Metal Jacketed configuration is onen in which the jacket surrounds the whole bullet from the tip to the base, while a partially
jacketed design is one in which the tip of bullet is exposed soft lead and the bullet is known as a soft point;
- jacketed bullets were originally designed for higher velocity weapons where lead bulltes would foul rifling of barrel;
- in lower velocity weapons partially jacketed bullets are used to allow controlled expansion of the projectile on impact

Gun Shot Wounds: Missiles Characteristics - Wheeless' Textbook of Orthopaedics

Gunshot Wounds-Brian Weatherford MD

Epidemiology

• represent second-leading cause of death for youth in United States

Mechanism

• wounding capability of a bullet directly related to its kinetic energy
• damage caused by passage of missile, secondary shock wave and cavitation
• exponential increase in injury with increasing velocity and efficient energy transfer
• fractures may be caused even without direct impact

Gun Shot Wounds - Trauma - Orthobullets.com.... .
Seems everyone else left you and the Good Dr. Fackler behind a half century ago.


Need more?gun)

 

[WildRose]

Wildrose stated: I'm openly biased towards Hornady over most other bullets because they have served me so well over the years... . And I readily admit it". I am too and they're the only bullets I reload with in my frequently used rifles (100 BTSPS in the .243 Sako, 117 BTSPs in the Ruger M77 25-06, and 150 BTSPs in my 30-06s (a pre 64 Model 70, a Sako, and a rebuilt/sporterized 03A3). The other rifles and handguns that I use infrequently just get fed factory ammo.

There are a lot of good bullets on the market.

The simple truth though is that I've used dozens of different hornady bullets in various calibers, and while I've tried others I gravitate back to the Hornady's time and again because they consistently give me the best performace.

I'm using some Scirocco II's now as well and thus far they have performed very well both in flight and on game/varmints, but they've got a long way to go as far as being able to prove out over time to be as good as the Hornady Interbonds.

 

[Topgun 30-06]

Hornady Interbonds all the way for elk and similar size game!What I find shocking (literally) is the vast majority of the respondents in that poll voted for over 350 yards with a bunch even voting 800-1000 yards! I would love to know the percentage of people that voted those ridiculous yardages with a 25-06 that have never even hunted or shot an elk with ANY caliber. You might be able to hit one of those big rascals easy enough at those yardages with the proper gun/scope/bullet combination with a 25-06, but how long is a bull hit in the lungs going to take to die? The answer is way too long in any area where they normally live to use their available heavy escape cover! Hitting an animal that size at those longer distances would probably make him think a bee stung him, LOL! IMHO, unless that animal can be watched the entire time after being hit until he's down and expires, I would not even think of shooting him with that caliber, period. If the OP has to use that caliber or not go, he should cut the distance to as close as he can possibly stalk and then only take a broadside or slightly quartering away shot. Then reload and keep shooting until that animal is down and out! I've seen too many elk shot properly in the lungs even with what are considered elk calibers at reasonable distances (under 350 yards) and watched them either go down and get back up or just flinch and start moving off before another shot or two or three anchored them. It wouldn't break my heart to see all states where these magnificent creatures are hunted to have at least a 30 caliber minimum to eliminate questions like the OP asked! Use a big enough caliber with the proper bullet and poop so that any shot in the heart/lung area leaves no doubt as to the outcome. Doggoneit, if this is a hunting website and is devoted especially to hunting LR, then IMHO ethics should be able to be discussed and that's really what this whole thread is when you think about it and the question asked by the OP. That is my opinion and I have been hunting game of all sizes for 60 years.

 

[WildRose]

Hornady Interbonds all the way for elk and similar size game!What I find "shocking" is the vast majority of the respondents in that poll voted for over 350 yards with a bunch even voting 800-1000 yards! I would love to know the percentage of people that voted those ridiculous yardages with a 25-06 that have never even hunted or shot an elk with ANY caliber. You might be able to hit one of those big rascals easy enough at those yardages with the proper gun/scope/bullet combination with a 25-06, but how long is a bull hit in the lungs going to take to die? The answer is way too long in any area where they normally live to use their available heavy escape cover! Hitting an animal that size at those longer distances would probably make him think a bee stung him, LOL! IMHO, unless that animal can be watched the entire time after being hit until he's down and expires, I would not even think of shooting him with that caliber, period. If the OP has to use that caliber or not go, he should cut the distance to as close as he can possibly stalk and then only take a broadside or slightly quartering away shot. Then reload and keep shooting until that animal is down and out! I've seen too many elk shot properly in the lungs even with &quot;elk calibers&quot; at reasonable distances (under 350 yards) and watched them either go down and get back up or just flinch and start moving off before another shot or two or three anchored them. It wouldn't break my heart to see all states where these magnificent creatures are hunted to have at least a 30 caliber minimum to eliminate questions like the OP asked! Use a big enough caliber with teh proper bullet and poop so that any shot in the heart/lung area leaves no doubt as to the outcome. That is the only fair and ethical way to hunt anything IMHO and I've been doing it for 60 years!</p>

I think I said way, way, way back that I'd go to 940 yards, but that I'd be using nothing smaller than my 7mm STW.

Of course now I have the 300 Rum, so I'd give it a few more yards.

Less than 1,000Ft/lbs on an animal that large just like borderline instanity.

Even with perfect shot placement you need enough energy to get the bullet through the vitals or into the spine/head, or enough energy such that the energy with a marginal hit will be sufficient to damage the surrounding tissues enough to rupture major blood vessels or cause nerve trauma.

I saw the video of the gal with her little .243 on the elk, and even though that worked out perfectly I'd never allow anyone hunting with me to do such a thing.

Too much room for error.

 

[Jordan Smith]

WildRose,

I will say it again- the article I posted was written in 1990, not 65 years ago.

In an effort to try and make peace with you, here, I'll also say that I believe we've been essentially saying more or less the same thing all along- that the damage done to a large animal is carried out by the permanent and temporary wound cavities, but the temporary wound cavity has been referred to as a shock wave, which it is not.

I'll further repeat myself- I never said that energy is not important. What I said is that the muzzle energy cannot be used as an accurate means of comparing bullet effectiveness, when the efficient transfer of that energy into forms that cause damage and death to animals can vary so much from shot to shot. I also said that the shock wave plays less of a part in a large animal's death than many think it does.

Anyway, I think we're more or less saying the same thing, but terminology, semantics, and bull-headedness has gotten in the way. I apologize for my part in the stubborn, useless arguing.

 

[Topgun 30-06]

Glad to hear we're on the same page Wildrose! That .243 video was obviously a hit to the head or spine, yet he acted like it was a closeup slam dunk on that cow through the lungs with a big elk gun like you mentioned you are shooting. I even question 1000 ft/lb's on an elk, as I've been around way too long and know the old school thought is that much energy for a deer and 1500 for an elk.
PS: I really thought all along that you guys were trying to say basically the same think, but in your stubbornness were more fighting each other than what each of you were trying to say!

 

[Jordan Smith]

Glad to hear we're on the same page Wildrose! That .243 video was obviously a hit to the head or spine, yet he acted like it was a closeup slam dunk on that cow through the lungs with a big elk gun like you mentioned you are shooting. I even question 1000 ft/lb's on an elk, as I've been around way too long and know the old school thought is that much energy for a deer and 1500 for an elk.

John Burns stated that it was a high shoulder shot.

Energy is a poor metric for determining killing power. Momentum is a better indicator of penetrating ability (assuming proper bullet construction). Velocity is a better indicator of bullet expansion (again, depending on bullet construction).

If you get both bullet expansion and penetration into the vitals. The bullet will kill.

BTW, I've killed with the .25-06 at a few yards shy of 950, so I have some idea of what it'll do at that range. Simply put, as long as we're talking about chest shots, I wouldn't want to be an elk in the way of that bullet...

 

[WildRose]

WildRose,

I will say it again- the article I posted was written in 1990, not 65 years ago.

In an effort to try and make peace with you, here, I'll also say that I believe we've been essentially saying more or less the same thing all along- that the damage done to a large animal is carried out by the permanent and temporary wound cavities, but the temporary wound cavity has been referred to as a shock wave, which it is not.

I'll further repeat myself- I never said that energy is not important. What I said is that the muzzle energy cannot be used as an accurate means of comparing bullet effectiveness, when the efficient transfer of that energy into forms that cause damage and death to animals can vary so much from shot to shot. I also said that the shock wave plays less of a part in a large animal's death than many think it does.

Anyway, I think we're more or less saying the same thing, but terminology, semantics, and bull-headedness has gotten in the way. I apologize for my part in the stubborn, useless arguing.

The latest research in tyour citations is from the late sixties. The highest energy rounds evaluated were the 7.62x39 and .308 Win.

Their conclusion that the shockwave does not cause damage is refuted by all of the much more up to date text books and articles I cited.

The article you cited, was limited solely to research done on FMJ's fired from military weapons in those calibers.

Read all of what I linked to and you will see that their conclusions are a half century out of step with modern ballistics and forensics.

When the cavitation occurs a huge amount of tissue is displaced and compressed and the effect on the tissues is the equivalent of a Tsunami passing through the body.

Even bones are shattered due to this effect (cited in three of those links) without bullets even touching them.

Now compared to the energy levels of most of the rounds we're talking about here those are pop guns, and the bullets we are discussing impart a much greater amount of their kinetic energy on the critters we shoot because they mushroom and fragment which increases exponentionally (pointed out in three of my citations) the effects from the cavitation and wave action.

Now if you want to limit the discussion to low and medium velocity calibers and solely to FMJ's you would have been largely correct, but the wave action still occurs even with them, just to a much lesser degree (four or five of the sources I cited).

I dont' have to make this stuff up, I've studied and lived it for over three decades.

 

[Jordan Smith]

You must not have read the article I posted. Either way, we could go on forever arguing about this topic, but it's not pertinent to the thread, at this point.

I've apologized for my part in the bull-headedness, and like I said, I'm done with the discussion.

Now back to the topic of the thread...

 

[Topgun 30-06]

I didn't know John said that, but it obviously had to have hit there or where I stated because it would be very doubtful that the cow would have gone down on the spot like that at 600+ yards with a .243 if hit through the lungs. I have shot most of over 100 animals through the heart/lung area and an occasional one through the shoulder if I wanted to knock one down due to cover in the area that may have made recovery more difficult. I must be doing something right because so far I've never lost one! I won't argue energy, velocity, etc. with anyone. All I will say is get the correct expanding bullet with enough speed at POI to penetrate and expand and you will have a dead animal in pretty short order. The shorter the better with a bigger caliber when you're talking a bull elk near heavy cover where they are located the majority of the time. Good discussion guys, even if we did get a little rowdy, LOL!