Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
Articles
Latest reviews
Author list
Classifieds
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Hunting
Long Range Hunting & Shooting
Serious question about caliber and elk potential
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="MontanaRifleman" data-source="post: 297430" data-attributes="member: 11717"><p>To me the definiton of "ethical" in this context is... Having a reasonably confident asurance of making a relatively clean and quick kill that will not result in a lost animal - and that this assurance is based on a certain amount of first hand experience with the performance of the rifle, cartridge and load. Basically, you should know everything reasonably possible about your bullet's terminal performance at different ranges and velocities. You should be reasonably confident of a first shot hit to the vitals that will produce enough damage to assure a relatively clean and quick kill. Nothing is guaranteed when it comes to hunting, but, IMO, one should never "shoot and hope". If you are not reasonably sure of your bullet's POI and it's terminal performance, you should pass the shot.</p><p> </p><p>This is not me preaching ethics, just speaking to the subject of this thread.</p><p> </p><p>Having said all that... <strong>What kills an elk, or any game animal</strong> for that matter? Answer: Lack of blood to the brain. Lack of blood presure results in lack of blood to the brain. Hemoraging results in lack of blood pressure. Wounds result in hemoraging. The location and extent of wounds determine the extent of hemoraging. This is why we try to shoot the animal in the lungs and/or heart and not the gut or the legs, etc.</p><p> </p><p>OK, now that, that is established, the extent of wound damage creating hemoraging is dependent on the type and size of the wound channel. The best type of wound (in the bullet world) is a permanent wound channel with large cavitation, destruction of tissue, especially tissue that a lot of blood flows through. The surface area of the cavitation is what's important, The larger the area, the more the hemoraging. In other words, the bigger the hole, the better.</p><p> </p><p>That being said, bullet terminal performance is critical. If a large cal 338 bullet penetrates completely through and fails to open, it will probably do less damage than a 22 cal bullet that deos open and expand.</p><p> </p><p>With bullets of similar construction, a 338 that expands properly will kill an elk more effectively (quicker) than a 277 cal bullet, with same shot placement. Does that mean the 277 is not ethical? No. There is plenty of evidence that a 277 bullet can effectively kill an elk...... within certain parameters.</p><p> </p><p>Bottom line... know the capabilities and limitations of your rifle, load and yourself.</p><p> </p><p>-MR</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="MontanaRifleman, post: 297430, member: 11717"] To me the definiton of "ethical" in this context is... Having a reasonably confident asurance of making a relatively clean and quick kill that will not result in a lost animal - and that this assurance is based on a certain amount of first hand experience with the performance of the rifle, cartridge and load. Basically, you should know everything reasonably possible about your bullet's terminal performance at different ranges and velocities. You should be reasonably confident of a first shot hit to the vitals that will produce enough damage to assure a relatively clean and quick kill. Nothing is guaranteed when it comes to hunting, but, IMO, one should never "shoot and hope". If you are not reasonably sure of your bullet's POI and it's terminal performance, you should pass the shot. This is not me preaching ethics, just speaking to the subject of this thread. Having said all that... [B]What kills an elk, or any game animal[/B] for that matter? Answer: Lack of blood to the brain. Lack of blood presure results in lack of blood to the brain. Hemoraging results in lack of blood pressure. Wounds result in hemoraging. The location and extent of wounds determine the extent of hemoraging. This is why we try to shoot the animal in the lungs and/or heart and not the gut or the legs, etc. OK, now that, that is established, the extent of wound damage creating hemoraging is dependent on the type and size of the wound channel. The best type of wound (in the bullet world) is a permanent wound channel with large cavitation, destruction of tissue, especially tissue that a lot of blood flows through. The surface area of the cavitation is what's important, The larger the area, the more the hemoraging. In other words, the bigger the hole, the better. That being said, bullet terminal performance is critical. If a large cal 338 bullet penetrates completely through and fails to open, it will probably do less damage than a 22 cal bullet that deos open and expand. With bullets of similar construction, a 338 that expands properly will kill an elk more effectively (quicker) than a 277 cal bullet, with same shot placement. Does that mean the 277 is not ethical? No. There is plenty of evidence that a 277 bullet can effectively kill an elk...... within certain parameters. Bottom line... know the capabilities and limitations of your rifle, load and yourself. -MR [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Hunting
Long Range Hunting & Shooting
Serious question about caliber and elk potential
Top