Elk at 688 yards with a 243

[TOBY458]

They didn't get close enough. View attachment 564807

Totally unethical to shoot that far past their competence level! LOL!

 

[CoElkHunter]

I know of guys that have missed cape buffalo and elephants completely at 20-40 yards.

Interesting.

 

[colorado]

Wowsa a one sentence troll of Bob (whom I respect greatly) leads to this many replies lol

 

[Forrest Halley]

The major complaint I have with this video is that with all the experience and expertise...the bolt wasn't cycled for the next shot and the shooter and spotter did not remain on target to follow up. That's amateur hour practices and especially using such a light setup for the distance and animal weight. Shame on them.

I'd take this shot with the .375HH or the .300WM, but not with a .243 the energy is just not there enough for my comfort for a game animal.

 

[Muledeerchaser]

That is way too far to shoot an elk with a 243 Winchester. Legal, but ethically bankrupt.
Montana did a study on the wounding loss of big game during hunting season. It was found that for every 100 animals recovered, 15 to 30 were lost to wounding. This kind of hunting makes me sick.
Hunting is a privilege, not a right. The public can remove this privilege at any time.
Hunters, practice sound ethics at all times……. The sport you love depends on it.

 

[cajunchefray]

I agree that if you can make that shot a high percentage of the time, it’s good shooting. It’s just not hunting. Maybe it wasn’t supposed to be. That’s what I find sad.

True words

 

[HankBuck]

The major complaint I have with this video is that with all the experience and expertise...the bolt wasn't cycled for the next shot and the shooter and spotter did not remain on target to follow up. That's amateur hour practices and especially using such a light setup for the distance and animal weight. Shame on them.

I'd take this shot with the .375HH or the .300WM, but not with a .243 the energy is just not there enough for my comfort for a game animal.

I find that happens often in Hunting Videos - the shooter rarely racks another round - too busy giving High 5s and mugging for the camera with “I put the Smack Down on him”..etc.. Of course some of that video footage isn’t even “real” - it was “recreated” after the actual shot (or shots) were taken.

 

[Bonk]

On page 2 I criticized her for wanting kudos for making a lucky shot. I stand by that comment but let me expand a little bit.

My contempt (that's the correct word) for that shot is twofold. First, I'll give her the benefit of the doubt and say she's a competent long range SHOOTER. The problem is that shot required absolute perfection from her, the wind and the animal. If she didn't make a perfect shot (not 99%, perfect), if the wind changed even a little bit or the animal moved at all she would not have been successful.

Second, can a .243 kill an elk? Sure, at reasonable distance but it has to be a well placed shot. A sloppy shot or misplaced shot with a .243 will not usually result in a quick clean kill on a 400lb animal especially at very long range. A larger caliber with a better bullet will still allow for a reasonably quick clean kill even if the shot placement isn't absolutely perfect. Also, the question of whether or not a 243 is carrying enough energy at almost 700 yards is really not in doubt. We just saw at least one example. However, the shot placement was absolutely perfect. 1-2" in any direction could've had a completely different outcome.

1. The shot was a combination of skill and luck. She hit the animal in a spot that was lethal. Was it pure skill? Not in my opinion. Too many variables. I'll be generous and say it was 70/30 skill vs luck. Nevertheless the animal was hit in the perfect spot. That much I'll give her.

2. Even though a 243 is enough gun to kill an elk it's not enough gun to kill an elk unless the shot is perfect.

3. The combination of having to make a perfect shot at extraordinary distance using a caliber that requires perfect shot placement at the range being attempted is why even though she was successful SHE GOT LUCKY. True hunters don't rely on lucky shots with marginal calibers. They reduce the variables as much as possible by increasing the caliber, getting closer, waiting for less wind or all three.

4. Because of all the above IMO it was a poor decision to even attempt the shot. The fact it was successful is beside the point. She should have never attempted it because the low probability of shot perfection and the relative poor lethality of the caliber at that distance meant that she was hoping for a good outcome instead of reasonably expecting a good outcome.

 

[Divernhunter]

if this is true then stupid---just plain stupid

 

[Sideshow]

The shooter is Kassandra Wojcik…. She is indeed an extremely accomplished long range shooter.. she and her husband Caylen own Modern Day Sniper (MDS) a podcast about long range shooting… she’s behind most of the “technology” with their shooting as I understand it…

Well that says it all doesn’t it. MDS Modern Day Sniper……not hunting not for me! I like to sneak in close and drop them without them knowing I’m there. No dial in triwddle with your scope range find bollocks. Add using a 243 as said is just silly does mater who it is.

 

[HankBuck]

On page 2 I criticized her for wanting kudos for making a lucky shot. I stand by that comment but let me expand a little bit.

My contempt (that's the correct word) for that shot is twofold. First, I'll give her the benefit of the doubt and say she's a competent long range SHOOTER. The problem is that shot required absolute perfection from her, the wind and the animal. If she didn't make a perfect shot (not 99%, perfect), if the wind changed even a little bit or the animal moved at all she would not have been successful.

Second, can a .243 kill an elk? Sure, at reasonable distance but it has to be a well placed shot. A sloppy shot or misplaced shot with a .243 will not usually result in a quick clean kill on a 400lb animal especially at very long range. A larger caliber with a better bullet will still allow for a reasonably quick clean kill even if the shot placement isn't absolutely perfect. Also, the question of whether or not a 243 is carrying enough energy at almost 700 yards is really not in doubt. We just saw at least one example. However, the shot placement was absolutely perfect. 1-2" in any direction could've had a completely different outcome.

1. The shot was a combination of skill and luck. She hit the animal in a spot that was lethal. Was it pure skill? Not in my opinion. Too many variables. I'll be generous and say it was 70/30 skill vs luck. Nevertheless the animal was hit in the perfect spot. That much I'll give her.

2. Even though a 243 is enough gun to kill an elk it's not enough gun to kill an elk unless the shot is perfect.

3. The combination of having to make a perfect shot at extraordinary distance using a caliber that requires perfect shot placement at the range being attempted is why even though she was successful SHE GOT LUCKY. True hunters don't rely on lucky shots with marginal calibers. They reduce the variables as much as possible by increasing the caliber, getting closer, waiting for less wind or all three.

4. Because of all the above IMO it was a poor decision to even attempt the shot. The fact it was successful is beside the point. She should have never attempted it because the low probability of shot perfection and the relative poor lethality of the caliber at that distance meant that she was hoping for a good outcome instead of reasonably expecting a good outcome.

BONK, wow - can You drive a point - and drive it, and drive it etc... Congress is an economy of words compared to your Post — which I Green with (as do most others posting. I almost want to take a long “counter point” just to mess with you - a bit. But your point/pointsssss are well taken

 

[TMac]

I would question why 700 ft lbs of energy is “not enough” and how it is considered “300 ft lbs BELOW” what is needed? I think I know the answer - someone “read” an article on balistics that “claimed” you need 1000 ft lbs of energy as the “minimum” for certain game animals. And most of us have read that same definition many times and it’s accepted as “true”...it is a guideline and a very rough one at that but it SOUNDS so scientific that it must be true. Because the deer or Elk would somehow Not die cleanly for 950 ft lbs but drops dead on 1000.? My opinion - that’s making a “science” out of something that is NOT science. Proper bullet placement & proper bullet construction = clean kills. Yes, at some point a loss of ft lbs of energy will matter but when did Einstein determine that number was 1000?
You likely guessed - I’m Not a ballistics expert, just another old hunter with an opinion. Not sure how to disprove this “factoid” but i’m Gonna suggest that 25-50 million Bison were eradicated in the 1800s - many by bullets delivering less then 1000 ft lbs of energy and by Hunters that “never heard of FT. LBS. of energy !”..

You are on the right path. As I've often said if it took ft lbs to kill, arrows wouldn’t. As long as you accurately place a properly constructed bullet of adequate mass for the chosen quarry, within its designed velocity envelope, stuff dies.

Ft lbs has little if anything to do with wounding. In my mind it is best thought of as a mathematical formula used to give one an idea of how much wounding potential exists. Our focus should be on the bullet. Deliver that bullet where it belongs with enough velocity so it performs as designed, then get your knife out and start the work.

What the ft lb guidelines do is offer some assistance for folks to begin selecting cartridge and bullet combos. Since velocity is squared in the formula, it has an inherent bias to high velocity, which is not always desirable. So imo our focus must be on placement and the bullet, for a given usage.

 

[Rafiki]

This thread is wobbling all over the place.

 

[Hogpatrol]

This thread is wobbling all over the place.

Long range is the best! If she would have killed it with a .338 Lapua or .375 H&H, the thread would have went the same direction, but maybe with less popcorn.

 

[Nevada Mike]

Pounds/feet is not a good criteria to predict terminal performance. Momentum is a better measure. If your push a light object (like a 243 caliber bullet) very fast it can provide some startling ‘energy’ numbers. But there is little momentum to provide penetration and tissue destruction. If this were not so, I would not need a 404 Jeffery to shoot Cape buffalo. I could use a .243.
Where arrows are heavy and employ a razor sharp head to CUT through tissue, bullets are blunt and must tear and displace tissue. This requires momentum, which is why slow, heavy bullets penetrate so well.
This is why just hitting the animal is not enough. More bullet weigh with momentum is a better idea.

 

[colorado]

Unless you're a retired Recon sniper who stays in practice, that's too far to shoot with a 300 Magnum never mind a 243. My longest elk kill was at 500 yards with a 270 Win shooting 150g Partitions at 3000 fps One shot kill, elk went 30 yards before lying down. That, in reality was probably too far, even though the there was just a slight breeze.

 

[MS 9x56]

MS 9X56 - we have some common beliefs but I’m gonna challenge your “code” of getting close. Here’s the scenario as you claim to be a Hunter, not just a shooter. I’m gonna take a “poke” at you twice - so don’t get offended: 1). Why use any rifle at all - a Bow better describes your definition of hunting and many Bow Hunters have zero interest in rifle hunting (too easy)... 2). You are hunting with your rifle and see a huge whitetail buck 250 yrds off in an open bean field, his antlers easily qualify for B&C and you have plenty of time and a solid rest - do you shoot? Or do you try a stalk that’s almost certain to fail and lose opportunity on Buck of a lifetime? (Let me answer for you: BANG - Big Buck down !!). I think that “getting close” is al relative to the hunt, the size of the trophy, the ability and likelihood of making a clean kill, the weapon being used (50 yrds is a long bow shot). Other hunting skills are also in play besides just distance ie: did you pattern & plan a good ambush site for a particular buck, spend days or weeks hunting for that “one” opportunity”, maybe even tried for the same old buck several seasons before getting a chance at him? Play the “wind” and conditions perfectly etc.. A lot goes into being a dedicated hunter, a skilled hunter, just to get a chance at a mature trophy animal, sometimes getting within 200 yrds required real planning, skill just for that one chance... I would be very proud to harvest a trophy under those fairchase conditions.

No offence taken. I do also hunt with a bow in season. Your right at 250 yards it would be bang flop. But to be honest I am not a trophy hunter, I am a meat hunter. Now don't misunderstand that B&C buck would still he bang flop. What I will not do is take a shot that has a higher probability of ending in a wounded animal or a mile pack or drag back to camp. If someone wants to shoot long distances and then brag about it in video, that's their thing. Have at it, but don't call it hunting, call it what it is, shooting.

 

[Bob Nelson 35Whelen]

With a Berger 105 VLD at 690 yards 3150fps gets you 977#s at 3250 you are 1054#s. Have read many people say Berger are not hunting bullets. My results have been the same as the video, it just shuts them down. With my 6XC, 6CM, or 243, hitting 4" plate at 800 yards is more than common.

@Inline6
That bullet weight in a 243 AIN'T going to be started anywhere near 3,150fps. I have personally chronoed 243s with factory and hand loads. My best handloads could only get a 100gn to 2,800fps out of any 243 I loaded for. Factory loads were similar or less. These had 22 inch barrels. Even a 30 inch barrel wouldn't account for the extra 300 plus fps.
I wouldn't even attempt that shot with my 25 with a 100gn started at 3,600 fps. But that's me
Bob
Just my 2 cents.

 

[MS 9x56]

Long shots are great-
Until they aren't.

Exactly and it is the animal that suffers when the shot is muffed. But what the hell they are not Even close enough to see it or follow up.

 

[Bob Nelson 35Whelen]

Ah yes, the legendary .340 WEATHERBY MAGNUM! You Jim, are my hero, after killing everything on our PG hunt with that cartridge. Your shoulder showed me that. LOL Seriously though, what a fine cartridge. Only second to the magnificent .338 WINCHESTER MAGNUM! LOL

@CoElkHunter
The 340 maybe ok but your little 338 takes a back seat to the Whelen.
Bob