Elk at 688 yards with a 243

[TMac]

I’m just curious, but what power of scope are hunters using on their HUNTING rifles when taking extraordinary long shots? At 10x, I struggle at 300yds. off sticks.

I use 5x to just over 400 yards while hunting. Too much power makes it harder for me. I’ve practiced enough with my crossed sticks that I am good to just over 350 sitting, but if over 200 I prefer an attached bi-pod or being prone. I do sort of load my sticks a little, like one would a bi-pod when prone. Seems to help.

Last few seasons sticks are low on my list as there a couple quick attach options I prefer as they are steadier. Have started practicing with a large tripod that snaps into an ACRA plate on my rifles stock. Heavy, but amazingly steady. Tripod works prone to standing. Very versatile.

 

[MS 9x56]

There have been several times that I couldn't have closed that kind of distance, and been unlikely to have a shot if I did. And I often describe myself as a bowhunter that has to use a rifle (shoulder won't let me draw my bow anymore). But I do agree that the 243 is questionable beyond 200yds on an elk.
I should add, I've only taken a handful of shots on game beyond 300yds, the longest was 442yds on an antelope.
As to the bad rap, that occurs because we hunt; with any weapon, for any animal.

This was typical when I hunted Ft Carson years ago. Looking at game on the next hill was easy, seeing it on the one I was standing, it had to be very close. If we had gotten my 300WM registered on post (she can't handle the recoil), rather than the 270Win, my longest shot on an elk would have been 720yds. 7am and dead calm, I could have hit him where I wanted with that 130gr bullet, but didn't take the shot because I did not think the bullet would be adequate at that distance. The 180gr from the 300WM would have, and I've shot both enough at distance to know I could have made that shot, in those conditions. If there had been any breeze, I wouldn't consider it with either caliber.

We have marmots. Let's see some of these guys come out here and climb to timberline to whack the mountain version of the groundhog

If you can climb to timberline you can get much closer.

 

[HankBuck]

And there’s the rub. Me I prefer to see how close I can get. That’s where the real challenge is. Any one can kill an animal just by practicing to shoot. I hunt for that adrenaline rush I get as the animal gets closer and closer.

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.

 

[CoElkHunter]

Why?
Almost all my scope are FFP, have turrets, and 30mm-34mm. Why would I limit myself on my choice of gear? Even a rifle, I'm shooting a 7mm or less and running a suppressor. My rifles are heavy, most would not like the weight. A 10# rifle feels light when your 22lr is 20#s.

When I was 16, I purchased a Browning A bolt Medallion. I worked all summer throwing hay to buy that rifle and scope. It was chambered in 300WM, at the time the best shooter I knew was my uncle. I asked him to shoot it, make sure it was sighted in. He said son, I ain't beating myself up shooting that damn thing. You bought it you shoot it. At 16 my feelings were hurt, I did not understand it. As an adult I get it, you don't need the biggest round to accomplish a job of killing an animal. I educated myself on reloading and at 200 yards I was cloverleafing 3 rounds with that rifle. That rifle was an educational tool for myself. One of the last deer I took with that rifle (20 years ago) was 125 yards, I shot it in the neck. I thought to myself why am I beating myself up with this when a 243 would do the same thing.

For 300 yards and in, a 308, 7 08, 6.5CM, 260 would be adequate. All those rounds are extremely accurate, you have a high probability of practicing with them because you are not beating yourself up. Everyone has the right to shoot what they want, I understand why people want the magnum calibers, I'll just say my boys have killed Elk, deer, and hogs with 6mm. Bullet placement is key.

My Browning A Bolt (blued/walnut) .338WM weighs 8.5lbs. scoped when unloaded. Same weight with my Remington 700 .300WM. When wearing a 25-30lb. pack when elk hunting, that's all the weight I can/want to carry. As I've grown older, it's getting a bit much to carry and I take more pit stops now. LOL But, I don't beat myself up with it when shooting at the range. A dozen or so shots in one session from standing/sitting using my sling for support and I'm done. That's tough shooting for ME at 200yds in those positions, but that's reality when mtn. hunting. I only shoot from the bench to make sure the scope still holds a zero. And of course, when shooting at game with the one or maybe two shots needed, felt recoil is a non issue.

 

[HankBuck]

If you can climb to timberline you can get much closer.

True if - IF - that Elk waits for you to get there, just “climb” 400 yrds up a 30 degree incline, swirling winds and up draft thermals, hope you don’t get scented or seen, hope the Elk is “taking a nap”, and is too deaf to hear you etc.. Yes, it can be done but more variables then just being in shape for a little walk,. Now, if I have a very light caliber rifle that limits my range - then Yes, I must get within “reasonable range” for my chosen rifle, rarely easy on Elk but that might be what you MUST do to insure cleanly taken animal

 

[CoElkHunter]

More Popcorn

With melted vegemite mixed in.

 

[NIGHTHAWK]

You just have to get close…

 

[HankBuck]

Trying to get some objectivity in the debate, it would seem logical that the maximum ethical range is determined by two factors: can the shooter consistently hit a vitals size target, and does the projectile remain lethal at that range. If both factors are positive, then a shot is arguably ethical.

The only thing I see wrong with her shot is that the .243 is likely carrying a maxmimum of 700 ft lbs at that range. Which is at least 300 ft lbs below where it needs to be for cow elk.

It seems that hunters always remember their closest encounter with a game animal, and they always remember their longest clean shot. As humans, we love the extremes of our experiences, and so I understand the joy of eyeballing an animal and also the joy of dropping an animal at long range.

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 !”..

 

[mdwest]

I'm not sure the brake that was on his rifle or how many times you shot it. In a match setting you can plan on 80-100 a day (PRS style)


I believe your view of a suppressor is a little skewed. You are paying for a tax stamp, they are not machine guns. The tax is BS, like anything else you can choose to pass or pay it. You can buy quality suppressors for 600.00 and find deals for less. I went from owning none to 12 in a year. It was that big of a difference for me.

I used suppressors for “work” off and on for years… never thought they had much application for hunting and I didn’t want the added expense of both the suppressor and the stamp…

After a trip to South Africa with our daughter where she used a suppressed camp gun with high success, I became sold on the idea.. and now own one, and have another on the way, and am considering a third…

 

[TOBY458]

I've seen plenty of people who couldn't make that shot at 100 yards, much less 700. Proves that if you do your homework, these shots are possible. You also need the proper equipment. In this scenario, the elk is out in the open, on a seemingly calm day. If that shot has been made many times in practice, it shouldn't be that difficult under the conditions of this hunt. I personally have never hunted an area that has required that type of shot, but if I had the proper equipment and the practice under my belt, I'd take it.
I wouldn't use a 243 for Elk, but it seemed to work well on this particular hunt. It's amazing how modern bullets have really turned marginal calibers into much more lethal calibers. Having used the 243 extensively on whitetail deer, I can say for certain, that if you put the bullet where it's supposed to go, the tracking job is never hard. On a cow elk, I'd bet the results would be similar.

 

[Berettaco]

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 !”..

I haven’t performed any energy tests for bullet types and calibers. Colorado Division of wildlife says “1,500 lbs energy is required for elk” where did they get that number?? Not sure. Other people have stated 1,200, 1,300 etc…
Lots of variables here - what is the size of the animal, bullet/shot placement (hit bone - shoulder, ribs, etc). Broadside shot vs. quartering. At the end of the day what is the magic number (energy wise) to get proper bullet expansion and penetration.

 

[Inline6]

My Browning A Bolt (blued/walnut) .338WM weighs 8.5lbs. scoped when unloaded. Same weight with my Remington 700 .300WM. When wearing a 25-30lb. pack when elk hunting, that's all the weight I can/want to carry. As I've grown older, it's getting a bit much to carry and I take more pit stops now. LOL But, I don't beat myself up with it when shooting at the range. A dozen or so shots in one session from standing/sitting using my sling for support and I'm done. That's tough shooting for ME at 200yds in those positions, but that's reality when mtn. hunting. I only shoot from the bench to make sure the scope still holds a zero. And of course, when shooting at game with the one or maybe two shots needed, felt recoil is a non issue.

I know what you mean, my explanation was not stated well enough.

Because of the rounds and rifles you shoot, you are limited to say 10-15 rounds a session. If you were shooting one of the rounds I listed in the same weight rifle you currently use. Your session can easily double if not triple. When you are concentrating on where to place your bullet and that is the only factor, you can learn alot about your abilities. Meaning I'm hitting low (probably your breathing) I'm hitting right (could be slapping the trigger). You have the ability to diagnose what is going on. Big magnums, you fight more recoil and blast. Especially when you are trying to make quality shots while training.

Understand not everyone can or will buy a new rifle for certain scenarios, we all have a limit. Could be space, time, or money. If a new rifle is not in the cards, I will suggest running your same drills. Only dry fire, watch your cross hairs when you trip the trigger. If the crosshairs are not on the same spot of the target, you need to work on your fundamentals. It's painless (recoil and wallet), it will help make you a better marksman. I know someone will say, " you will damage you fp" I have rifles with over 300k dry fires on them, fire pin is just fine.

 

[Inline6]

I haven’t performed any energy tests for bullet types and calibers. Colorado Division of wildlife says “1,500 lbs energy is required for elk” where did they get that number?? Not sure. Other people have stated 1,200, 1,300 etc…
Lots of variables here - what is the size of the animal, bullet/shot placement (hit bone - shoulder, ribs, etc). Broadside shot vs. quartering. At the end of the day what is the magic number (energy wise) to get proper bullet expansion and penetration.

Proper bullet expansion is usually based on velocity, bullet construction will determine penetration (and expansion). If the bullet is designed to open up at a certain velocity, well that is the design. The design of a bonded bullet is to hold together, where a frangible will come apart when it hits something hard. Have talked with people who have shot deer and they never find them. When you start talking them about the ammo they were using. It is closed nose match ammo, great for matches not so great on animals. They fail to expand, closed tip. We still have to pick the correct equipment for the application.

 

[archer36]

It was windy too.

 

[WAB]

I recently posted a report on a Romanian red deer hunt. I had to borrow a rifle as they had a glitch in their system and all visiting firearms were held at the airport police station. As a result I used a .30-06 with light for caliber RWS bullets that simply did not expand. I made a perfect shot on a stag at about 100 yards. There was little reaction and the stag ran off leaving no blood trail. We found the stag 100 yards away. The exit wound was roughly 30 caliber.

Key learnings for me:

Eastern European red stag are every bit as big as elk and significantly tougher.

As stated above, bullet selection is absolutely critical. The 9.3x62 sitting in the police station with 286 gr A-frames would have yielded a very different result.

 

[Tanks]

... Same with a .300 REMINGTON ULTRA MAGNUM would have a LARGE handicap over a .300 SAVAGE. Golf, horseshoes and maybe hand grenades have handicaps, why not rifle competition shooting? LOL

It is a moot point. No one is going to shoot a .300RUM when they can shoot a 6mm Dasher and get better results. Not to mention barrel wear.

 

[86thecat]

Long shots are great-
Until they aren't.

 

[Hogpatrol]

MORE POPCORN!

 

[Tanks]

Long shots are great-
Until they aren't.

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

 

[Hogpatrol]

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

They didn't get close enough.