User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 5/3/2014 4:36:41 PM EDT
[#1]
No reason that 300 BLK will not put down an elk as long as you keep shots to within a reasonable range and do your part. I see no reason why 100 yards wouldn't be within a reasonable range for 300 BLK.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/3/2014 4:48:02 PM EDT
[#2]
I'd rather use a heavy expanding solid copper boolit.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/3/2014 5:35:53 PM EDT
[#3]
I don't see a problem with it, Lehigh has some devastating ammo.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/21/2014 12:11:26 AM EDT
[#4]
If killed lots with the the 6.8 I don't have a 300 YET
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/21/2014 12:17:54 AM EDT
[#5]
Not ideal, but doable for short distance.
The problem is that long shots are not abnormal in elk country. My bull I killed last year was at 326 yards, and that is not my longest shot. I don't like limiting myself when in pursuit of game.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/21/2014 7:12:08 AM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not ideal, but doable for short distance. The problem is that long shots are not abnormal in elk country. My bull I killed last year was at 326 yards, and that is not my longest shot. I don't like limiting myself when in pursuit of game. I dont see it as a limitation, but as a challenge or an obstacle to overcome, it would take alot of skill and luck to be able to sneak in on an elk in certain terrain types. I have no problm passing on an animal if its not ethical or if there is a doubt. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/21/2014 7:47:57 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I dont see it as a limitation, but as a challenge or an obstacle to overcome, it would take alot of skill and luck to be able to sneak in on an elk in certain terrain types. I have no problm passing on an animal if its not ethical or if there is a doubt. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Not ideal, but doable for short distance. The problem is that long shots are not abnormal in elk country. My bull I killed last year was at 326 yards, and that is not my longest shot. I don't like limiting myself when in pursuit of game. I dont see it as a limitation, but as a challenge or an obstacle to overcome, it would take alot of skill and luck to be able to sneak in on an elk in certain terrain types. I have no problm passing on an animal if its not ethical or if there is a doubt. Just like bow hunting. Have fun!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/21/2014 7:31:16 PM EDT
[#8]
Exactly
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2014 2:30:14 AM EDT
[#9]
I would not do it, but elk have been taken in the past by .30-.30. I like something that I know is going to quickly anchor this very strong animal if I do my part.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/25/2014 12:53:42 AM EDT
[#10]
I have killed 6 bulls in the last 7 years. Three with rifle, two with archery, and one with muzzle loader. It could be done effectively but I would approach it like an archery or muzzle loader hunt mentality. Not much breaks my heart more than a lost animal. Don't give into the temptation to take shots longer than the effective energy of the round.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/30/2014 3:23:57 AM EDT
[#11]
It would be a pretty cool brush gun.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/3/2014 4:32:50 PM EDT
[#12]
I have killed more elk under 100 yds than over.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2014 12:49:46 PM EDT
[#13]
Like others have said.....treat it like an archery hunt and you should be GtG. I've had that size elk close enough.....with a cow tag in my pocket.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2014 1:53:24 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not ideal, but doable for short distance. The problem is that long shots are not abnormal in elk country. My bull I killed last year was at 326 yards, and that is not my longest shot. I don't like limiting myself when in pursuit of game. It would be like bow hunting. I wouldn't take less than a .308, but would prefer a .300WinMag. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/7/2014 12:23:01 AM EDT
[#15]
I have dealt with a lot of problem elk on agricultural land. My solution was a suppressed 300blk. Unfortunately we high fenced the property before I got to test the equipment.
As stated above, know your limits and make a good shot and you will be fine. FWIW, my first elk came in to 3'. At that range I am sure you would be fine! 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/7/2014 3:45:26 PM EDT
[#16]
I wouldn't but I wouldn't want to limit myself to a 100y shot if you do than you should be ok at that range but only for a broadside shot.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/15/2014 5:53:16 PM EDT
[#17]
I'm sure it would work, given good bullet placement, some luck, and your 100 yards or in limits.
The 308 is a much better option though. . |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2014 10:49:58 AM EDT
[#18]
For a person who is obviously not an experienced elk hunter I think this is a bad idea. Can it be done? Yes. Should is another matter...
You say the reason you want to use a 300 blackout is because you work for someone who builds blackouts. Stunt shooting to promote business and personal advancement as well as advertising is pretty poor form (in my opinion) . Personal experience: I've killed dozens of elk. The last 1/2 dozen elk I've shot have all been with the .308, none of which needed a follow-up shot. Maybe 1 in 20 have been under 200 yards. The 300blackout is way, way down the list of cartridges that I would recommend. You don't need a magnum, but you do owe (in my opinion) your game a quick death, minimizing its suffering. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2014 4:14:48 PM EDT
[#19]
Don't give into the temptation to take shots longer than the effective energy of the round. so with this thought what would be the suggested energy at impact for Elk |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/19/2014 3:31:07 PM EDT
[#20]
Quoted:
Just curious within 100 yards do you think the 300blk is a viable cartridge for say a 300 class Bull elk? I'd be using 110 grn Controlled Chaos bullets from Lehigh Defence pushing about 2350fps. I've got a 308 but I work for a 300blk manufacturer and we are curious if it's ever been done. I want it to be ethical and not have to dump 5 or 6 rounds into the animal. It's basically 30/30 type ballistics maybe a bit better with the newer technology bullets being used nowadays. Thoughts? Why when there are so many better cartridges. The 300 BLK isn't "basically" 30-30 ballistics either. In fact it's really not even close. A 30-30 runs a 170 gr. bullet about the same velocity as the 300 runs a 125. Even then, most experienced elk hunters, self included, consider the 30-30 marginal for elk expect at fairly close range. Also, a 110 gr. bullet won't begin to give the penetration required to reach the vitals of an elk. Don't let your infatuation with a particular platform dictate your choice of hunting calibers. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/19/2014 5:40:25 PM EDT
[#21]
I'm taking all of this in, and while Id love to take an elk, you guys have been helpful in determining that the 300blk is going to be a liability and might not guarantee success that a better 30cal cartridge would. Thanks guys.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/19/2014 5:47:18 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I'm taking all of this in, and while Id love to take an elk, you guys have been helpful in determining that the 300blk is going to be a liability and might not guarantee success that a better 30cal cartridge would. Thanks guys. Very much so. Even as a seasoned elk hunter with many, many notches in my gun stock, I am still in awe of the size of elk (especially mature bulls) and their tenacity to live. I have seen elk do almost supernatural physical feats after being shot in the boiler room with a belted magnum. It is still doable, but I would literally treat it like bow hunting.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/19/2014 6:05:58 PM EDT
[#23]
I'd have to be hungry to try it.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/19/2014 8:51:18 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Why when there are so many better cartridges. The 300 BLK isn't "basically" 30-30 ballistics either. In fact it's really not even close. A 30-30 runs a 170 gr. bullet about the same velocity as the 300 runs a 125. Even then, most experienced elk hunters, self included, consider the 30-30 marginal for elk expect at fairly close range. Also, a 110 gr. bullet won't begin to give the penetration required to reach the vitals of an elk. Don't let your infatuation with a particular platform dictate your choice of hunting calibers. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Just curious within 100 yards do you think the 300blk is a viable cartridge for say a 300 class Bull elk? I'd be using 110 grn Controlled Chaos bullets from Lehigh Defence pushing about 2350fps. I've got a 308 but I work for a 300blk manufacturer and we are curious if it's ever been done. I want it to be ethical and not have to dump 5 or 6 rounds into the animal. It's basically 30/30 type ballistics maybe a bit better with the newer technology bullets being used nowadays. Thoughts? Why when there are so many better cartridges. The 300 BLK isn't "basically" 30-30 ballistics either. In fact it's really not even close. A 30-30 runs a 170 gr. bullet about the same velocity as the 300 runs a 125. Even then, most experienced elk hunters, self included, consider the 30-30 marginal for elk expect at fairly close range. Also, a 110 gr. bullet won't begin to give the penetration required to reach the vitals of an elk. Don't let your infatuation with a particular platform dictate your choice of hunting calibers. This, I've only killed one elk, a big cow on a high fence Texas ranch. I used a 44 mag revolver and it took 4 hits to put her down. Elk are big, tough critters and I wouldn't want to be under gunned. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2014 9:00:18 AM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm taking all of this in, and while Id love to take an elk, you guys have been helpful in determining that the 300blk is going to be a liability and might not guarantee success that a better 30cal cartridge would. Thanks guys. You're a wise man seeking the counsel of other experienced elk hunters. Like someone mentioned a mature bull is, relatively speaking, an enormous animal with an amazing desire to live. While it doesn't take a fire-belching magnum to kill them, it absolutely takes a bullet with good penetrative qualities. My personal go-to is a 35 Whelen and a 225 gr. Barnes TSX. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2014 1:30:07 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
so with this thought what would be the suggested energy at impact for Elk Quote HistoryQuoted:
Don't give into the temptation to take shots longer than the effective energy of the round. so with this thought what would be the suggested energy at impact for Elk This |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/24/2014 6:00:07 PM EDT
[#27]
I am taking out my 8" SBR tomorrow. It has a 1-4x with exposed turrets and the DOPE taped to the stock. I will be shooting 110 grain Barnes handloads. Shots are pretty much guaranteed to be within 200 yards so I am not worried about its ability to kill an elk.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2014 3:08:08 AM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Why when there are so many better cartridges. The 300 BLK isn't "basically" 30-30 ballistics either. In fact it's really not even close. A 30-30 runs a 170 gr. bullet about the same velocity as the 300 runs a 125. Even then, most experienced elk hunters, self included, consider the 30-30 marginal for elk expect at fairly close range. Also, a 110 gr. bullet won't begin to give the penetration required to reach the vitals of an elk. Don't let your infatuation with a particular platform dictate your choice of hunting calibers. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Just curious within 100 yards do you think the 300blk is a viable cartridge for say a 300 class Bull elk? I'd be using 110 grn Controlled Chaos bullets from Lehigh Defence pushing about 2350fps. I've got a 308 but I work for a 300blk manufacturer and we are curious if it's ever been done. I want it to be ethical and not have to dump 5 or 6 rounds into the animal. It's basically 30/30 type ballistics maybe a bit better with the newer technology bullets being used nowadays. Thoughts? Why when there are so many better cartridges. The 300 BLK isn't "basically" 30-30 ballistics either. In fact it's really not even close. A 30-30 runs a 170 gr. bullet about the same velocity as the 300 runs a 125. Even then, most experienced elk hunters, self included, consider the 30-30 marginal for elk expect at fairly close range. Also, a 110 gr. bullet won't begin to give the penetration required to reach the vitals of an elk. Don't let your infatuation with a particular platform dictate your choice of hunting calibers. I've never shot an elk, but I have lived in elk country and I've heard old timers say that you can't go to big when picking a caliber for elk. I got curious after reading the "baseically 30-30 type ballistics", as that is what I always hear about the 7.62x39. I certainly would not shoot an elk with 300blk after checking numbers. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2014 3:41:47 AM EDT
[#29]
30-30 is significantly more powerful than a .300 BLK.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2014 9:08:58 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
30-30 is significantly more powerful than a .300 BLK. This. People don't understand terminal ballistics very well. I shoot a 170 grain Speer at 1800 fps and it will penetrate at least 14 inches that I know of. Clean through a broadside 300 plus pound black bear including one shoulder blade. It will end to end a mountain lion. A110 or 125 grain bullet at a little faster velocity and of a totally different design? Not convinced. I have trailed elk with 50 caliber holes in them from a muzzleloader and chest shots from bigger 30's and a few couple bad shots from rifle and archery shots as well. No thanks. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2014 1:00:20 PM EDT
[#31]
So I use Sportsmans guide to check numbers.
.30-30: grn150-fps2390-ftlbs1902 7.62x39:grn125-fps2445-ftlbs1633 7.62x54:grn150-fps2838-ftlbs2682 .308:grn150-fps2820-ftlbs2648 5.56:grn55-fps3270-ftlbs1306 .300blk:grn130-fps2075-ftlbs1249 
.300 is less powerful than 5.56! No way I'd shoot an elk with it! |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2014 1:59:25 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So I use Sportsmans guide to check numbers. .30-30: grn150-fps2390-ftlbs1902 7.62x39:grn125-fps2445-ftlbs1633 7.62x54:grn150-fps2838-ftlbs2682 .308:grn150-fps2820-ftlbs2648 5.56:grn55-fps3270-ftlbs1306 .300blk:grn130-fps2075-ftlbs1249
.300 is less powerful than 5.56! No way I'd shoot an elk with it! So what is the magic number of foot pounds of energy to kill an Elk. For that matter what is the magic number of foot pounds of energy to kill the following? Squirrel Rabbit Fox Raccoon Badger Pig White tail Black Bear Brown Bear Mule Deer Caribou Moose Polar Bear Rhinoceros Elephant Hump Back Whale 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2014 2:13:58 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So what is the magic number of foot pounds of energy to kill an Elk. For that matter what is the magic number of foot pounds of energy to kill the following? Squirrel Rabbit Fox Raccoon Badger Pig White tail Black Bear Brown Bear Mule Deer Caribou Moose Polar Bear Rhinoceros Elephant Hump Back Whale Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: So I use Sportsmans guide to check numbers. .30-30: grn150-fps2390-ftlbs1902 7.62x39:grn125-fps2445-ftlbs1633 7.62x54:grn150-fps2838-ftlbs2682 .308:grn150-fps2820-ftlbs2648 5.56:grn55-fps3270-ftlbs1306 .300blk:grn130-fps2075-ftlbs1249 .300 is less powerful than 5.56! No way I'd shoot an elk with it! So what is the magic number of foot pounds of energy to kill an Elk. For that matter what is the magic number of foot pounds of energy to kill the following? Squirrel Rabbit Fox Raccoon Badger Pig White tail Black Bear Brown Bear Mule Deer Caribou Moose Polar Bear Rhinoceros Elephant Hump Back Whale I have found that anything under 1k ft/lbs of energy at the striking point to be less than ideal on elk with expanding bullets and a broadside shot to the vitals.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2014 2:25:48 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I have found that anything under 1k ft/lbs of energy at the striking point to be less than ideal on elk with expanding bullets and a broadside shot to the vitals. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So I use Sportsmans guide to check numbers. .30-30: grn150-fps2390-ftlbs1902 7.62x39:grn125-fps2445-ftlbs1633 7.62x54:grn150-fps2838-ftlbs2682 .308:grn150-fps2820-ftlbs2648 5.56:grn55-fps3270-ftlbs1306 .300blk:grn130-fps2075-ftlbs1249
.300 is less powerful than 5.56! No way I'd shoot an elk with it! So what is the magic number of foot pounds of energy to kill an Elk. For that matter what is the magic number of foot pounds of energy to kill the following? Squirrel Rabbit Fox Raccoon Badger Pig White tail Black Bear Brown Bear Mule Deer Caribou Moose Polar Bear Rhinoceros Elephant Hump Back Whale
I have found that anything under 1k ft/lbs of energy at the striking point to be less than ideal on elk with expanding bullets and a broadside shot to the vitals. And where might one find the set in stone science that determines that 1000ft lbs of energy is what is need to kill an Elk, or is this simply personal preference? understanding I have not hunted elk. But I have been told that 1000ft lbs of energy is what is needed to ethically kill a North Carolina White Tail. I have found that argument to be a fallacy. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2014 2:54:30 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So what is the magic number of foot pounds of energy to kill an Elk. For that matter what is the magic number of foot pounds of energy to kill the following? Squirrel Rabbit Fox Raccoon Badger Pig White tail Black Bear Brown Bear Mule Deer Caribou Moose Polar Bear Rhinoceros Elephant Hump Back Whale
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
So I use Sportsmans guide to check numbers. .30-30: grn150-fps2390-ftlbs1902 7.62x39:grn125-fps2445-ftlbs1633 7.62x54:grn150-fps2838-ftlbs2682 .308:grn150-fps2820-ftlbs2648 5.56:grn55-fps3270-ftlbs1306 .300blk:grn130-fps2075-ftlbs1249
.300 is less powerful than 5.56! No way I'd shoot an elk with it! So what is the magic number of foot pounds of energy to kill an Elk. For that matter what is the magic number of foot pounds of energy to kill the following? Squirrel Rabbit Fox Raccoon Badger Pig White tail Black Bear Brown Bear Mule Deer Caribou Moose Polar Bear Rhinoceros Elephant Hump Back Whale
I'm just comparing. Most people who live in elk country will say .308 or .30-'06 is the minimum for elk, where as what I found shows that a 300blk is weaker than 5.56. Approximately half the energy of a .308. So I'd say it is to small. ETA: looking around, I looked at 44mag, it only produces around 1,000ft.lbs. and yet I used to hear people say it can take a cape buffalo. It's funny how fudds, like Jim Zumbo, or other fudds that write for outdoor life will go bragging and trying to prove how some new handgun round can take a cape buffalo, yet the same guy will say the .30-30 is not powerfull enough. I wrote to outdoor life once after they had an article saying 7.62x39 wasn't powerful enough for deer and saying that mini-30s and SKSs aren't good for hunting, they never responded. Kept spreading their FUDD shit and then stupid Zumbo finally pissed off so many people that ARFCOM crashed the server on his blog!
ETA: I have no idea. As the guy below shows, even a 44mag can kill an elk. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2014 3:00:09 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So what is the magic number of foot pounds of energy to kill an Elk. No such thing. Bullet placement and bullet construction are equally important, if not more so. I've only taken one elk, a cow (big cow that was several years old), and it was taken with a 44 Magnum revolver. The bullet was a Hornady 240 XTP and the energy around 1200 ft/lbs. First shot at about 75 yards hit the front shoulder. This broke her shoulder but did not put her down, a second and third shot, to the same shoulder, netted the sam effect. She was crippled but still standing a couple of minutes after the first shot. I got closer and put a fourth shot into her neck, breaking the spine and putting her down. The first three bullets broke up on the shoulder and only tiny fragments penetrated to the chest cavity, doing very little damage. The final shot broke her neck and killed her instantly. I made a poor choice of bullet, and it did not perform. Luckily I was on a Texas game ranch where she couldn't "get away". I'd have been sick to lose such an animal in the wild. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2014 3:15:46 PM EDT
[#37]
Hornady has a chart that they put out with point of impact energy for N.A. game.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2014 4:00:43 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted: And where might one find the set in stone science that determines that 1000ft lbs of energy is what is need to kill an Elk, or is this simply personal preference? understanding I have not hunted elk. But I have been told that 1000ft lbs of energy is what is needed to ethically kill a North Carolina White Tail. I have found that argument to be a fallacy. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: So I use Sportsmans guide to check numbers. .30-30: grn150-fps2390-ftlbs1902 7.62x39:grn125-fps2445-ftlbs1633 7.62x54:grn150-fps2838-ftlbs2682 .308:grn150-fps2820-ftlbs2648 5.56:grn55-fps3270-ftlbs1306 .300blk:grn130-fps2075-ftlbs1249 .300 is less powerful than 5.56! No way I'd shoot an elk with it! So what is the magic number of foot pounds of energy to kill an Elk. For that matter what is the magic number of foot pounds of energy to kill the following? Squirrel Rabbit Fox Raccoon Badger Pig White tail Black Bear Brown Bear Mule Deer Caribou Moose Polar Bear Rhinoceros Elephant Hump Back Whale I have found that anything under 1k ft/lbs of energy at the striking point to be less than ideal on elk with expanding bullets and a broadside shot to the vitals. And where might one find the set in stone science that determines that 1000ft lbs of energy is what is need to kill an Elk, or is this simply personal preference? understanding I have not hunted elk. But I have been told that 1000ft lbs of energy is what is needed to ethically kill a North Carolina White Tail. I have found that argument to be a fallacy. External ballistics for any bullet (gel tests, manufacturer's minimum impact velocity, bullet weight and construction) and experience is why I make that determination. Elk are unlike any other North American deer, they are hard to anchor, weigh nearly half a ton for a big mature bull, and have a great tenacity to live.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2014 4:02:58 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No such thing. Bullet placement and bullet construction are equally important, if not more so. I've only taken one elk, a cow (big cow that was several years old), and it was taken with a 44 Magnum revolver. The bullet was a Hornady 240 XTP and the energy around 1200 ft/lbs. First shot at about 75 yards hit the front shoulder. This broke her shoulder but did not put her down, a second and third shot, to the same shoulder, netted the sam effect. She was crippled but still standing a couple of minutes after the first shot. I got closer and put a fourth shot into her neck, breaking the spine and putting her down. The first three bullets broke up on the shoulder and only tiny fragments penetrated to the chest cavity, doing very little damage. The final shot broke her neck and killed her instantly. I made a poor choice of bullet, and it did not perform. Luckily I was on a Texas game ranch where she couldn't "get away". I'd have been sick to lose such an animal in the wild. http://i.imgur.com/hpV7z.jpg Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
So what is the magic number of foot pounds of energy to kill an Elk. No such thing. Bullet placement and bullet construction are equally important, if not more so. I've only taken one elk, a cow (big cow that was several years old), and it was taken with a 44 Magnum revolver. The bullet was a Hornady 240 XTP and the energy around 1200 ft/lbs. First shot at about 75 yards hit the front shoulder. This broke her shoulder but did not put her down, a second and third shot, to the same shoulder, netted the sam effect. She was crippled but still standing a couple of minutes after the first shot. I got closer and put a fourth shot into her neck, breaking the spine and putting her down. The first three bullets broke up on the shoulder and only tiny fragments penetrated to the chest cavity, doing very little damage. The final shot broke her neck and killed her instantly. I made a poor choice of bullet, and it did not perform. Luckily I was on a Texas game ranch where she couldn't "get away". I'd have been sick to lose such an animal in the wild. http://i.imgur.com/hpV7z.jpg This is exactly where I was going. Except to say that Bullet design as well as shot placement trump foot pounds of energy. If one were to take a PROPERLY designed heavy grn projectile as fast as one could out of a 300blk you are approaching an din some cases bettering .44magnum ballistics. but as you pointed out bullet design is what hurt you in your hunt. Although since you brought home the meat I still consider it a resounding success. that properly design bullet would need to be 220gr plus, hollow pointed, with a thin score jacket. or for the real adventurous a heavy gr cast also with a hollow point. Either one pushed to as fast as one could push it. Which could be as much as 1300fps if not faster depending on a few factors. then you are well within .44 mag energy as well as having a bullet that would, at least in my limited unscientific testing, penetrate much further then a .44mag. The problem with discussing the 300blk inside these types of hunting scenarios is that people limit the round to either lightweight fast loads or heavyweight subsonics, forgetting that the great thing about the cartridge is its ability to do a lot of things outside the box. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2014 4:07:28 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted: This is exactly where I was going. Except to say that Bullet design as well as shot placement trump foot pounds of energy. If one were to take a PROPERLY designed heavy grn projectile as fast as one could out of a 300blk you are approaching an din some cases bettering .44magnum ballistics. but as you pointed out bullet design is what hurt you in your hunt. Although since you brought home the meat I still consider it a resounding success. that properly design bullet would need to be 220gr plus, hollow pointed, with a thin score jacket. or for the real adventurous a heavy gr cast also with a hollow point. Either one pushed to as fast as one could push it. Which could be as much as 1300fps if not faster depending on a few factors. then you are well within .44 mag energy as well as having a bullet that would, at least in my limited unscientific testing, penetrate much further then a .44mag. The problem with discussing the 300blk inside these types of hunting scenarios is that people limit the round to either lightweight fast loads or heavyweight subsonics, forgetting that the great thing about the cartridge is its ability to do a lot of things outside the box. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: So what is the magic number of foot pounds of energy to kill an Elk. No such thing. Bullet placement and bullet construction are equally important, if not more so. I've only taken one elk, a cow (big cow that was several years old), and it was taken with a 44 Magnum revolver. The bullet was a Hornady 240 XTP and the energy around 1200 ft/lbs. First shot at about 75 yards hit the front shoulder. This broke her shoulder but did not put her down, a second and third shot, to the same shoulder, netted the sam effect. She was crippled but still standing a couple of minutes after the first shot. I got closer and put a fourth shot into her neck, breaking the spine and putting her down. The first three bullets broke up on the shoulder and only tiny fragments penetrated to the chest cavity, doing very little damage. The final shot broke her neck and killed her instantly. I made a poor choice of bullet, and it did not perform. Luckily I was on a Texas game ranch where she couldn't "get away". I'd have been sick to lose such an animal in the wild. http://i.imgur.com/hpV7z.jpg This is exactly where I was going. Except to say that Bullet design as well as shot placement trump foot pounds of energy. If one were to take a PROPERLY designed heavy grn projectile as fast as one could out of a 300blk you are approaching an din some cases bettering .44magnum ballistics. but as you pointed out bullet design is what hurt you in your hunt. Although since you brought home the meat I still consider it a resounding success. that properly design bullet would need to be 220gr plus, hollow pointed, with a thin score jacket. or for the real adventurous a heavy gr cast also with a hollow point. Either one pushed to as fast as one could push it. Which could be as much as 1300fps if not faster depending on a few factors. then you are well within .44 mag energy as well as having a bullet that would, at least in my limited unscientific testing, penetrate much further then a .44mag. The problem with discussing the 300blk inside these types of hunting scenarios is that people limit the round to either lightweight fast loads or heavyweight subsonics, forgetting that the great thing about the cartridge is its ability to do a lot of things outside the box. It sucks for elk either way, and is best viewed as being akin to bow hunting, which would be related to revolver hunting. Nothing wrong with hunting with it, but to do so would be severely limiting yourself, much like bow hunting, which is enjoyed by many.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2014 4:14:52 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
External ballistics for any bullet (gel tests, manufacturer's minimum impact velocity, bullet weight and construction) and experience is why I make that determination. Elk are unlike any other North American deer, they are hard to anchor, weigh nearly half a ton for a big mature bull, and have a great tenacity to live. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So I use Sportsmans guide to check numbers. .30-30: grn150-fps2390-ftlbs1902 7.62x39:grn125-fps2445-ftlbs1633 7.62x54:grn150-fps2838-ftlbs2682 .308:grn150-fps2820-ftlbs2648 5.56:grn55-fps3270-ftlbs1306 .300blk:grn130-fps2075-ftlbs1249
.300 is less powerful than 5.56! No way I'd shoot an elk with it! So what is the magic number of foot pounds of energy to kill an Elk. For that matter what is the magic number of foot pounds of energy to kill the following? Squirrel Rabbit Fox Raccoon Badger Pig White tail Black Bear Brown Bear Mule Deer Caribou Moose Polar Bear Rhinoceros Elephant Hump Back Whale
I have found that anything under 1k ft/lbs of energy at the striking point to be less than ideal on elk with expanding bullets and a broadside shot to the vitals. And where might one find the set in stone science that determines that 1000ft lbs of energy is what is need to kill an Elk, or is this simply personal preference? understanding I have not hunted elk. But I have been told that 1000ft lbs of energy is what is needed to ethically kill a North Carolina White Tail. I have found that argument to be a fallacy. External ballistics for any bullet (gel tests, manufacturer's minimum impact velocity, bullet weight and construction) and experience is why I make that determination. Elk are unlike any other North American deer, they are hard to anchor, weigh nearly half a ton for a big mature bull, and have a great tenacity to live. That is great. Except I was told several years back that the same magical 1000tflbs of energy was needed to successfully take down a north Carolina white tail. As I stated above. I have found that to be a fallacy. I have no doubt of the difficulty in hunting, elk, moose, caribou and mule deer, considering they are all larger then North Carolina white tail. I mean get up into some of the northern states and their white tail are much bigger then North Carolina White tail. But they are not bullet proof. And I agree that It is best to anchor the animal so they cannot go as far after being shot. But I have seen white tail with perfect boiler room shots hit with 300 win mag and 7mm Remington Mag still travel 50 plus yds before they are on the ground. With gaping holes in the opposite side. I agree that bullet weight and construction are paramount factors into the possibility of a successful harvest of any big game. with shot placement being right up there. But if kept within realistic ranges, with a properly designed and weighted bullet, And a shooter that can hit where he needs to, there is no logical reason that one could not be successful with a 300blk. I am not even saying it would be my first choice to hunt any of the bigger game. I have kept my .308 Winchester in case that chance ever presents itself. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2014 4:16:20 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It sucks for elk either way, and is best viewed as being akin to bow hunting, which would be related to revolver hunting. Nothing wrong with hunting with it, but to do so would be severely limiting yourself, much like bow hunting, which is enjoyed by many. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So what is the magic number of foot pounds of energy to kill an Elk. No such thing. Bullet placement and bullet construction are equally important, if not more so. I've only taken one elk, a cow (big cow that was several years old), and it was taken with a 44 Magnum revolver. The bullet was a Hornady 240 XTP and the energy around 1200 ft/lbs. First shot at about 75 yards hit the front shoulder. This broke her shoulder but did not put her down, a second and third shot, to the same shoulder, netted the sam effect. She was crippled but still standing a couple of minutes after the first shot. I got closer and put a fourth shot into her neck, breaking the spine and putting her down. The first three bullets broke up on the shoulder and only tiny fragments penetrated to the chest cavity, doing very little damage. The final shot broke her neck and killed her instantly. I made a poor choice of bullet, and it did not perform. Luckily I was on a Texas game ranch where she couldn't "get away". I'd have been sick to lose such an animal in the wild. http://i.imgur.com/hpV7z.jpg This is exactly where I was going. Except to say that Bullet design as well as shot placement trump foot pounds of energy. If one were to take a PROPERLY designed heavy grn projectile as fast as one could out of a 300blk you are approaching an din some cases bettering .44magnum ballistics. but as you pointed out bullet design is what hurt you in your hunt. Although since you brought home the meat I still consider it a resounding success. that properly design bullet would need to be 220gr plus, hollow pointed, with a thin score jacket. or for the real adventurous a heavy gr cast also with a hollow point. Either one pushed to as fast as one could push it. Which could be as much as 1300fps if not faster depending on a few factors. then you are well within .44 mag energy as well as having a bullet that would, at least in my limited unscientific testing, penetrate much further then a .44mag. The problem with discussing the 300blk inside these types of hunting scenarios is that people limit the round to either lightweight fast loads or heavyweight subsonics, forgetting that the great thing about the cartridge is its ability to do a lot of things outside the box. It sucks for elk either way, and is best viewed as being akin to bow hunting, which would be related to revolver hunting. Nothing wrong with hunting with it, but to do so would be severely limiting yourself, much like bow hunting, which is enjoyed by many. yes sir that is actually what I am getting at. it would be more akin to pistol hunting, just maybe with a little bit more range depending on the shooter. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2014 5:42:27 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This is exactly where I was going. Except to say that Bullet design as well as shot placement trump foot pounds of energy. If one were to take a PROPERLY designed heavy grn projectile as fast as one could out of a 300blk you are approaching an din some cases bettering .44magnum ballistics. but as you pointed out bullet design is what hurt you in your hunt. Although since you brought home the meat I still consider it a resounding success. that properly design bullet would need to be 220gr plus, hollow pointed, with a thin score jacket. or for the real adventurous a heavy gr cast also with a hollow point. Either one pushed to as fast as one could push it. Which could be as much as 1300fps if not faster depending on a few factors. then you are well within .44 mag energy as well as having a bullet that would, at least in my limited unscientific testing, penetrate much further then a .44mag. The problem with discussing the 300blk inside these types of hunting scenarios is that people limit the round to either lightweight fast loads or heavyweight subsonics, forgetting that the great thing about the cartridge is its ability to do a lot of things outside the box. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So what is the magic number of foot pounds of energy to kill an Elk. No such thing. Bullet placement and bullet construction are equally important, if not more so. I've only taken one elk, a cow (big cow that was several years old), and it was taken with a 44 Magnum revolver. The bullet was a Hornady 240 XTP and the energy around 1200 ft/lbs. First shot at about 75 yards hit the front shoulder. This broke her shoulder but did not put her down, a second and third shot, to the same shoulder, netted the sam effect. She was crippled but still standing a couple of minutes after the first shot. I got closer and put a fourth shot into her neck, breaking the spine and putting her down. The first three bullets broke up on the shoulder and only tiny fragments penetrated to the chest cavity, doing very little damage. The final shot broke her neck and killed her instantly. I made a poor choice of bullet, and it did not perform. Luckily I was on a Texas game ranch where she couldn't "get away". I'd have been sick to lose such an animal in the wild. http://i.imgur.com/hpV7z.jpg This is exactly where I was going. Except to say that Bullet design as well as shot placement trump foot pounds of energy. If one were to take a PROPERLY designed heavy grn projectile as fast as one could out of a 300blk you are approaching an din some cases bettering .44magnum ballistics. but as you pointed out bullet design is what hurt you in your hunt. Although since you brought home the meat I still consider it a resounding success. that properly design bullet would need to be 220gr plus, hollow pointed, with a thin score jacket. or for the real adventurous a heavy gr cast also with a hollow point. Either one pushed to as fast as one could push it. Which could be as much as 1300fps if not faster depending on a few factors. then you are well within .44 mag energy as well as having a bullet that would, at least in my limited unscientific testing, penetrate much further then a .44mag. The problem with discussing the 300blk inside these types of hunting scenarios is that people limit the round to either lightweight fast loads or heavyweight subsonics, forgetting that the great thing about the cartridge is its ability to do a lot of things outside the box. I grew up reading Elmer Keith and can't imagine tackling a wild elk with a pipsqueak like the .300 BLK. I have one, and love to play with it, but I'm not hunting with it, with the possible exception of a suppressed 300 BLK on feral hogs. Next time I take an elk other big game animal, it will likely be with the 44 mag revolver again. But I've learned my lesson and will be using either hard cast bullets, or bullets from my stash of Nosler 240 grain partition bullets. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
