Caliber for 100-300 yd Deer or Elk Newb

For Elk at that range I'd recommend nothing less than .300 Win Mag.

Flat-shooting, hits hard, with the right bullet and gun you won't be too sore and you also should get clean kills.
 
Nathan's post #10

Nathan, how tall are you? It matters, because perceived recoil is relative to how well a rifle fits the shooter as much as the actual recoil force. For example, I had an opportunity to shoot a 250 Savage model 99 that was the primary Alaskan hunting rifle of a family friend who was perhaps 5' 7" tall. That little 250 kicked rather unpleasantly. My thumb was crammed violently into my nose every shot. But I'm 6 feet tall and need a longer length of pull in a rifle stock to fit me well. I use a slip on recoil pad on my 270, more for increasing the length of pull than anything else. Short stocked rifles punch me in the nose. It's not unlike having a scope mounted too close. So, this family friend also had a nice pre-64 270 Winchester model 70 that he won in some kind of lottery in Alaska. He said it was too powerful and it kicked too much. Exactly the opposite of my experience. Why? Stock fit, of course. The Savage 99 fit Joe, but the Winchester model 70 fit me better. For your stated purpose, the 270 Winchester is your very best choice. If you are taller than average, use a slip on recoil pad to effectively lengthen the stock. If you are really tall, you may need to lengthen the stock further. I hope this helps. Pathfinder
 
For Elk at that range I'd recommend nothing less than .300 Win Mag.
Click to expand...

270ballisticnetchart.jpg


150gr .308 cal SD = .226
130gr .277 cal SD = .242

180gr .308 cal SD = .271
150gr .277 cal SD = .279
 
Last edited:
about those charts

I find it somewhat interesting, but the 270 is actually better with 150 grain bullets like the Sierra Game King or even my favorite, Nosler Partition, which is generally highly regarded for heavy game. With a 24" barrel and select powders you can work up loads that achieve 3,000 fps. Such a load will shoot as flat as a 300 magnum and will deliver very similar energy at 500 yards with a lot less recoil. For sheer, raw energy, the larger magnums definitely beat the 270 by quite a bit in the first few hundred yards or so. But at 500 yards and beyond, the advantage in retained energy is much less and will eventually favor the longer, skinnier bullet with a higher ballistic coefficient. Not that most humans have any business shooting at big game that far away. But the point is that if a 300 magnum has plenty of energy to reliably kill Elk at 500 yards, then the 270 Winchester is likewise entirely adequate at that range. Furthermore, any rifle that's adequate at 500 yards, is more than adequate at closer range. So, then, the 270 has a lot of advantage over the 300 magnums for many uses on big game. I'm sure, for a charging Brown Bear across 75 yards and rapidly closing, the 300 magnums would be worth more than their weight in recoil. For most other American big game, the 270 is a winner. Did I hear somebody say it kicks less than a 30-'06? Well, only a little less, but a lot less than a 300.
 
Last edited:
If you are that concerned with recoil, install a muzzle brake. A good 'smith can install one very easily. I recommend the brake mainly because that's what my dad did with a .243 for me. Before someone jumps up and says that a .243 is not a hard kicking rifle, I was using it at 7 and under 80lbs. Stock fit is key as well. Best example, my 91/30 Nagant kicks way worse than my Remington 788 .308, even though there is not much difference between the two rounds. Now for ammo availablity, I'm willing to bet you can find .270, .308, and 30-06 where ever you buy ammo. Pick one of those calibers and run 150gr bullet and with practice, you'll be just fine.
 
Paul's comparison:
When considering the .308 vs the 30-06, About three or four years ago I ran some 180 gr. Winchester Power Point ammo in .308 and 30-06 over my chronograph. Rifles use were a Winchester M70 for the .308 and a J.C. Higgins M50 Mauser for the 30-06. Velocity for the .308 was right at2610 Average and the 30-06 was 2630 FPS. Big whoop difference but not the 2700 FPS advertised for the 06. I killed stuff for years when I used factory ammo and never had a problem. In fact, the only rifle that did give 2700 FPS was a 26" barreled Ruger #1B.
Click to expand...
That difference is normal when the .30-06 barrel's bore and groove diameters are larger than the .308. I've seen about 90 fps difference in muzzle velocity shooting the same lot of .30-06 M72 match ammo in 5 different rifles all with 24 barrels. Slugging their bores pushing .310" diameter lead balls through them showed groove numbers to range from .3120" down to .3085". And all lots of the same make and types of ammo do not have the same muzzle velocity in a given barrel; a 50 fps spread is very normal.

To say nothing about the fact that the way humans hold rifles against them has enough spread to cause a greater spread in muzzle velocity than what the ammo would do in a rifle shot in free recoil or a fixed mount. Forum member Metal God learned that shooting his .308 in free recoil versus hand held against his shoulder. His muzzle velocity spread in free recoil was 1/3rd or less what it was shoulder held.
 
Last edited:
When I read "deer or elk", I'm thinking mostly deer and an occasional elk. My vote is for the 7m-08, then. Very versatile, efficient, low recoil, and you can find a number of suitable bullets for your application that have great external and terminal ballistics without having to go too heavy and/or magnum.

Take the 150gr Nosler Accubond as a potential elk bullet, for instance: It has a SD of 0.266 and a whopping BC of 0.611, and since the Nosler Partitions and Accubonds are well known for their penetrating ability, it'll deliver some surprisingly good smackie at longer ranges when needed.

In deer-sized animals, the Nosler 120gr Ballistic tip seems to do really well. And for tougher animals at moderate ranges, the 120/140gr Barnes tipped TSX ought to be excellent performers.

Top it all off with some loadings for varmints (and even small game), and you've got a very versatile cartridge in a small package.
 
My opinion is that 7-08 is about the minimum caliber/weight/velocity combination to give good trajectory and energy for a clean kill beyond 200 and that requires good ammunition. There are plenty of 25 caliber rounds adequate to the job and lots of elk have been taken, but I don't approve of using minimal rounds just because they have worked and can work if everything goes right.

Since most of the smaller rounds are less than common, and anything larger may offer too much recoil, I'm going to suggest that you use a 7-08 as your minimum consideration, and use a good bonded bullet to keep weight loss to a minimum. I would have suggested moving up to a .270 or equivalent round if recoil for training could be tolerated. My personal decision would be to use a 30-06 with 180 grain loads, as that can reasonably take even large elk, from bad angles, has pretty good ballistics, and can even be bought at convenience stores.

In summary, 7-08. It's what you want and it will work well. I would prefer that you use a .270 with good bullets, a .308 with 150 grain, or 30-06 with 165 or 180 grain bullets.
There are plenty of rounds that fit your needs. Cartridges that share similar caliber/bullet weight/velocity will have similar ballistics, and anything in this range will be capable of easily taking an elk.
 
Like they say never go wrong with 30-06. If you start adding elk in the mix got good selection for factory ammo and another good one is 270.

If your recoil shy and have it that 7-08 or 308 is less by all means buy one or other.
 
Minimum caliber for elk should be .30 IMHO. You owe it to the animal to bring enough gun and put them down ASAP. Aside from the ethical issue...........Anyone who has shot an elk and had it run off into a revine or any other 'hard to get to place' knows what I'm talking about. The .30-06 is a great newby rifle for elk. If someone can't tolerate the recoil of a .30-06............ they need to stay in the kitchen and cook. Newbies shouldn't be shooting past 100 yards either. Leave the 300 yard shots for those that confidently place the bullet on target. A wounded animal benefits no one.
An even better choice for elk is a .33 caliber.......... but they whop the shooter about as much as they do the elk!
Personally I shoot the .30-378 Weatherby for elk and put the 180-210 grain rounds in the boiler room every time for high percentage shots. I've had only two that didn't go down immediately even with so much damage. Every elk I've shot with a .338 Win Mag fell like a stone. Sure you can put head shot on elk with a .223 and drop him, but that's not a sure thing past 100 yards. I have more respect for game than to risk such an endeavor.
Bring enough gun. You won't be thinking about recoil when you see 'Ole Big' in the scope!
 
Minimum caliber for elk should be .30 IMHO. You owe it to the animal to bring enough gun and put them down ASAP
Click to expand...
most places that restrict normally do so to 6.5mm or anything above 243. 30 caliber is irrelevent if it's something light travelling slow. a 30 cal fired from an SKS(7.62x39mm) is less suited than a 6.5 fired from a swedish mauser(6.5x55mm). in that case, I think the guy hunting with the 6.5 is way more ethical than the guy with the 30 cal. also, I've seen more elk slain with a 7mm magnum than any other cartridge put together. it's not the size of the bullet, it's how you use it, how it's built, and how fast it's going.

Anyone who has shot an elk and had it run off into a revine or any other 'hard to get to place' knows what I'm talking about
Click to expand...
I've seen elk deader than dead with a 7mm and I've seen elk shot with 300 win mags run several hundred yards down into hard to get places, some animals just have a lot of fight and especially with elk this is unavoidable. between my two brothers, my 2 brothers-in-law, and myself who have all been on more than a couple elk hunts, only two of us have had dead-right-there elk, one was mine and it was a head shot, the other was a small calf hit with a 420gr slug from a 45-70 at close range.

Newbies shouldn't be shooting past 100 yards either
Click to expand...
this depends on the skill set of the newbie involved. I was shooting for over a decade before my first elk hunt, I was a newb to elk hunting, but my marksmanship skills were no longer novice.

An even better choice for elk is a .33 caliber.......... but they whop the shooter about as much as they do the elk!
Click to expand...
not if we are talking about 8mm mauser, comparable recoil to 30-06, again, over-generalizations are killing us here.
Bring enough gun. You won't be thinking about recoil when you see 'Ole Big' in the scope!
Click to expand...
yeah, maybe, but you'll sure be thinking about it after your scope bounces off your skull. half your arguments revolve around the OP being completely inexperienced and the other half suggests cartridges which are way beyond what most newbs can handle. I've been shooting a couple years but I've been dummy ringed by my 300 weatherby mag twice now, I now download it to winmag velocities, I would never recommend a 30-375 or 338 mag for a newb no matter their skillset.
 
Minimum caliber for elk should be .30 IMHO
Click to expand...
Refer to post #43 to see why I would disagree with your opinion. Also, don't get me wrong, I'm all about bringing enough gun, but sometimes a .264, .277 or a .284 can end up more powerful than a .30
it's more than just caliber obviously.
 
My go to calibers are .270 and .308, they'll down any creature on the continent if you stay inside 500 yards, factory loaded ammo is readily available for both, recoil is quite mild on both.
 
Based on my elk hunting experience and my communications with guides and outfitters, those guides and outfitters prefer hunters carrying a .270, .280, or .30-06 because those cartridges are certainly adequate and hunters can shoot them more accurately than the magnums. I can't imagine any elk hunting guide or outfitter preferring a .30-378 Weatherby or a .338 Win Mag. I have taken two 5 X 5 bulls (one large and one small) with my .300 Win Mag. I don't regret buying my .300 and using it for elk hunting, but I believe I would have been happier (and just as successful) with a .280.
 
Last edited:
I don't regret buying my .300 and using it for elk hunting, but I believe I would have been happier (and just as successful) with a .280.
Click to expand...

I started hunting elk in the early 90's with a R700 in 30-06. I shot two elk with it, the second being a 300 yard shot, but did not get complete penetration on a broadside heart shot. That got me thinking I needed something more powerful so I sold that rifle and got a Browning A-Bolt in 300 Winchester. I used that Browning until a 2 years ago when I finally just could not take the recoil anymore. I shot my fair share of elk with the Browning, it was a good rifle, but only one time did I need a 300 Winchester Magnum and in truth I should not have been shooting at that distance anyway. Every single other elk I've killed could have been taken with that R700, and I would not have had to put up with the pain of shooting that Browning! I regret buying the 300, and even more I regret selling that R700 as it was a really good shooter.
 
shot two elk with it, the second being a 300 yard shot, but did not get complete penetration on a broadside heart shot. That got me thinking I needed something more powerful
Click to expand...
Sounds like all you needed was a heavier and/or tougher bullet, not more velocity from the .300WM ;)
 
Good advice but nobody was there to stop me back then. We actually recovered that bullet, a SGK 180 grain. It was a perfect mushroom, just did not have the power to create an exit wound.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top