Big game bullets

Would a bear/elk or moose know the difference?

  • Hell ya!

    Votes: 20 18.5%
  • Nope. All will drop it...

    Votes: 83 76.9%
  • No idea??

    Votes: 5 4.6%

  • Total voters
    108

blargon

CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Rating - 100%
271   0   0
Location
ON
Say all three of these bullets were fired at 2750fps, and at 200 yds impact. How many here think that a black bear, elk, or moose would know the difference? Assume you don't gut or azz shoot it...;) I'll post the cals and weights later...

accubonds.jpg
 
I would say that diameter has less to do with it then let's say, bullet construction. All of those bullets being partitions, I would say there is a chance that the bigger may kill faster, but in the end, they are all dead.
 
I would say that diameter has less to do with it then let's say, bullet construction. All of those bullets being partitions, I would say there is a chance that the bigger may kill faster, but in the end, they are all dead.

Actually, they're all Accubonds. :D

.338 180gr, .308 165gr, .264 130gr. I look at them and can't see why any of them would not work. The 180gr is bigger diameter, but the 130gr being longer, may penetrate further.

2 out of every 3 threads on here is about what cal to get for deer/bear/moose. Really, it doesn't matter...
 
It dosent matter when you are talking about a weight variance of 50 grains across those calibers no. and in general... to me the energy delivered in ftlbs is FAR more important than caliber. but then for some people who pose the question "what caliber?" there are variables such as terrain to consider, distance of shots etc... for example to kill a deer in the praries i might prefer to use a 270win or .300WM rather than a .303brit or 30-30 even though all "could" kill a deer just fine.
to say caliber choice dosen't matter is kind of a strange statement to me considering the variables from one hunting situation to another. .338, .308, and .264 are all somewhat middle of the road "do it all" calibers, and for the average deer, moose, bear hunt, you are right... it dosen't matter. would i want to take them hunting on big browns' side of town? nope! i'd personally want a 45/70 loaded heavy regardless of what i was there to hunt... even though in a pinch with the right shot all three of the calibers you listed might anchor a grizz up close.
To me there are "groups" of calibers that are better suited to different jobs.
 
Rant On:
Yes, anything shot in the heart is dead, but don't assume a smaller caliber and lighter bullet even placed properly will penetrate a legbone, or even a heavy rib. Simple fact is in some cases they won't, period.

No matter what brand of bullet you use and despite what some would say. Pore over your ballistic tables and know where you're at with different ranges energy wise.

"Can", and "should" are two distinct words.

People ask me about hunting moose I tell them minimum 30 caliber. A bull weighs 1500lbs and has rib bones the size of my wrist.
At least anywhere I've hunted elk it requires long accurate shots and therefore a bullet with sufficient energy to do the job at that range. In my own opinon, a 300winmag or a 7mm are likely choices.

Yes, you "can" feasibly put down a charging rino with a .22, but I don't think that you "should", even if you did pay 2.00 per bullet.

About 30 yrs ago I shot a running animal in the heart broadside,....except it was running and the second the bullet struck it's leg was "back", meaning the bullet struck the front leg, shattering it, and having absolutely NO penetration into the chest. My bullet placement was PERFECT.
I eventually got the animal, but the lesson was learned, and it will never happen again in my lifetime.

You guys do what you're comfortable with. Myself, this sept will be hunting moose from about 60 yds with a 450 marlin pushing a 400grain hawk at over 2000fps, my wife will be carrying a 375 winchester pushing a 220grain hornady at just under 2000fps; she'll then be hunting a 240lb mule buck from around 100 yds with a 30-06 and a 150gr lead, I'll be after a mule doe with my .54 percussion roundball and won't shoot it past 50 yds, even though I can shoot bullseyes all day with it from 120 yds.

Don't really mean to sound snarly or condescending, but I get a little tired of reading how it's dandy to shoot a moose from 12000 yards with a 22-250 as long as you use a certain bullet. To be honest I worry new hunters without a mentor will take such garbage as gospel. Quite frankly I question how much hunting some of the posters have actually done.
Rant off.

Incidentally, it was an antelope with a .243 shooting an 87gr hornady at warp 9. At that time saying I was an excellent shot with it is almost an understatement. I love a 243, and have nothing against a 22-250; I was merely trying to make a point that in my Own Personal Opinion a 243 is not a proper choice for moose, despite what you may have read. Feel free to disagree, you just won't be hunting with me.
 
Have shot bears, moose and elk with .338 accubonds and they kill them stone dead. Never recovered one.
To generalize and state the any bullet/cartridge combination will "kill them stone dead" can be misleading to those who would expect the same result from their own rifles. No game animal will drop dead with the same results every time. There are too many variables to generalize like this.

Two yrs ago, I shot a very small moose broadside with a 375 Chatfield/Taylor. Range was about 100yds. Bullets were 260 Nosler Accubonds. Both bullets landed right in the boiler room and the moose didn't appear to be hit both times, but I knew different.

375Nosler08moose006.jpg
 
Well if they made a 416 or 458 Accubond it might look different as the animal dies very fast. This is when I saw a real difference in how quick an animal was put down. Up to 375 was nice but the 416 and 458's have really impressed me. I think bigger is better.
 
Rant On:
Yes, anything shot in the heart is dead, but don't assume a smaller caliber and lighter bullet even placed properly will penetrate a legbone, or even a heavy rib. Simple fact is in some cases they won't, period.

No matter what brand of bullet you use and despite what some would say. Pore over your ballistic tables and know where you're at with different ranges energy wise.

"Can", and "should" are two distinct words.

People ask me about hunting moose I tell them minimum 30 caliber. A bull weighs 1500lbs and has rib bones the size of my wrist.
At least anywhere I've hunted elk it requires long accurate shots and therefore a bullet with sufficient energy to do the job at that range. In my own opinon, a 300winmag or a 7mm are likely choices.

Yes, you "can" feasibly put down a charging rino with a .22, but I don't think that you "should", even if you did pay 2.00 per bullet.

About 30 yrs ago I shot a running animal in the heart broadside,....except it was running and the second the bullet struck it's leg was "back", meaning the bullet struck the front leg, shattering it, and having absolutely NO penetration into the chest. My bullet placement was PERFECT.
I eventually got the animal, but the lesson was learned, and it will never happen again in my lifetime.

You guys do what you're comfortable with. Myself, this sept will be hunting moose from about 60 yds with a 450 marlin pushing a 400grain hawk at over 2000fps, my wife will be carrying a 375 winchester pushing a 220grain hornady at just under 2000fps; she'll then be hunting a 240lb mule buck from around 100 yds with a 30-06 and a 150gr lead, I'll be after a mule doe with my .54 percussion roundball and won't shoot it past 50 yds, even though I can shoot bullseyes all day with it from 120 yds.

Don't really mean to sound snarly or condescending, but I get a little tired of reading how it's dandy to shoot a moose from 12000 yards with a 22-250 as long as you use a certain bullet. To be honest I worry new hunters without a mentor will take such garbage as gospel. Quite frankly I question how much hunting some of the posters have actually done.
Rant off.

Incidentally, it was an antelope with a .243 shooting an 87gr hornady at warp 9. At that time saying I was an excellent shot with it is almost an understatement. I love a 243, and have nothing against a 22-250; I was merely trying to make a point that in my Own Personal Opinion a 243 is not a proper choice for moose, despite what you may have read. Feel free to disagree, you just won't be hunting with me.

Curious if the 1500 lb stated weight of moose includes the bullet(s). Love to see the thickness of your ankle bone.;)
 
I say throw the can of H4350 (that's in the background of the pic) at the ribcage of the animal. In all my life, I've never seen an animal walk away from that. Also never seen one die...

just feedin' the trolls...
 
Rant On: A bull weighs 1500lbs and has rib bones the size of my wrist.


I've dressed out dozens of moose and I've NEVER seen one with "wrist sized" ribs. wrist width sure.

moose are easy to kill if you know how to shoot. sure, when i hit them with my .450 they fall over a lot faster then the ones hit with .270win. I've never seen one go far when the hunter does his job and puts the round where it counts.

I think by-in-large it has more to do with the mental state of the moose when you shoot it. if it's aware or spooked, it's going to soak up a lot more lead before it tips over then one shot once while it's oblivious and feeding.
 
Guys, moose are not hard to kill. They may stand there a while after you put one in the boiler room, but they will go down. Now, if they are already running when you shoot them, they may decide to change area codes ...
 
Back
Top Bottom