SKS For hunting

Relying on numbers to kill animals has never worked.

The 2100 ft/lbs number that gets thrown around sounds nice, but in reality it means squat.

According to that you can't humanely kill a moose with a 30-30 at any range, neither a 303 Brit , nor a 45-70 with factory ammo can do it at 100, and a 308 can't do it at 200.

Every experienced hunter knows different.

Personally, I've seen big moose go down hard with loads that had less than 1 000 ft/lbs left in them at impact.

As long as they are hit right.
 
Northman,

The numbers mean squat, so when someone is specifically looking to hunt moose you tell them any gun will do? Is this what you are saying?

Any hunter out there will tell you that a 30-06 is a far better choice than a 30-30 for moose. This is precisely because of the numbers discussed throughout the thread, and numbers don't lie.

So, maybe within 50 yards or so a perfectly placed 30-30 round will take down a moose. Maybe. However, encouraging anyone to use an underpowered rifle to hunt is irresponsible, regardless of the anecdotes in this thread.
 
Arloashean said:
What about that other old favorite, the big banging Norc M14/M305?

Sufficient to drop something that big?
Click to expand...

Yep, there's a thread going on about using .308 for moose right now.

http://www.canadiangunnutz.com/forum/showthread.php?t=586774

I wouldn't hesitate to use .308 on moose.

OP: I'm sure you could use an SKS to hunt moose, but my preference would be something with a bit more energy... 30-06, .270 Win, .308, 7mm-08 would all be good choices without going into magnum calibers.
 
ironsighter, no one is encouraging the use of an SKS on moose, in fact we have all stated preference to something much more powerful. I know northman isnt saying any gun will do, but he is right. Its not like there is some lightswitch reaction at 2100 ft.lbs between working and not.
 
supernova said:
Its not like there is some lightswitch reaction at 2100 ft.lbs between working and not.
Click to expand...

I can see that point. I just think that if the accepted minimum is 2100, then we as hunters have a responsibility to use a round that carries at least that much energy to the target at whatever range we anticipate shooting.

Call it a personal choice. I prefer to "go by the book", is all, and I think using underpowered rifles is unfair to the animal and increases the risk of wasted meat. Using a proper round is not the end-all and be-all (shot placement is obviously far more important), but ensuring sufficient energy for a swift kill is one thing we can easily control, so why wouldn't we?

BTW, for interest; the Ontario Hunter Education Manual lists a "minimum", "adequate", and "preferred" energy for several types of animals. I have lent my book to someone else, but I can say with some certainty that the figures listed for "adequate" and "preferred" energy for moose were considerably higher than 2100 ft/lbs (we have been discussing the minimum this entire time).
 
ironsighter said:
I can see that point. I just think that if the accepted minimum is 2100, then we as hunters have a responsibility to use a round that carries at least that much energy to the target at whatever range we anticipate shooting.
Click to expand...

You know that a .300 Win Mag using a 180gr projectile doesn't carry that much energy to the target at 400 yards, right?
 
Personally I dont care what I am hunting, I wont pull the trigger unless I am 110% sure of my shot. (Rifle, Shotgun or bow) Would I take a shot at anything more then 100 yards let alone 400? Nope.

Using coyote hunting as an example, I hunt Coyotes cause I love the challenge of calling them in as close as possible. When coyote hunting I carry my 12 gauge and my .243 My main goal is to call them in close enough for the shotgun and use the rifle if they hang up outside shotgun range. But that is just me and how I enjoy hunting.
1 shot, 1 kill.
 
My Yugo M59 1st model took whitetails just fine with PMC soft points.

^
In the video above its neat how you can see the bullet making an air pressure wave as its flying down range to the moose.
 
Ar180shooter said:
You're joking, right?

The 2100 number is for muzzle energy, not what it should carry to the target.
Click to expand...

No, the 2100 number is terminal energy. However, it is clear that there is no point in arguing with you.

Regarding the video. The guy is an a**hole, demonstrating how a**holes hunt. Two spent casings before the 3rd shot, and then he comments "two to the boiler room..." and he is using at least a 7mm Rem. Mag, if not the 7.82 Warbird. http://www.handgunsmag.com/ballistics/7_82_ 308_lazzeroni_warbird.html

Read the comments on the video.

I'm with JeffJames on this one. Beyond 100-150 yards, I'm not shooting. But again, it is a personal choice. Each of us defines their own hunting ethics.
 
So, with this theory , you could hold the muzzle against the chest of a moose and you would not have the energy to kill the animal???

Interesting concept.

Sounds like something out of a book from someone who has interest in selling large calibers rifles.

Hit the damn animal in the vitals at reasonable range, and it dies, shot placement boys!!!!!


ironsighter said:
Indeed, a 30-30 is sufficient for deer, as would be an SKS (7.62x39).

However, since the OP has stated :"But when I go north for moose" the discussion of a 30-30 or 7.62x39 becomes irrelevant, because neither of them are sufficient for a humane kill on an adult moose.

So the OPs question is not really "SKS for hunting?", it is "SKS for hunting Moose?"

To be thorough, the accepted minimum energy for a humane kill on an adult moose is 2100 ft/lbs. With that in mind, consider that the 7.62x39 round with a 154gr SP has an ideal muzzle energy of about 1500 ft/lbs. By 100 yards, that energy drops to around 1200 ft/lbs (barely more than half of the accepted minimum). Result: injured moose.

Perhaps if one planned to attempt to empty the entire magazine into the moose, one might have a chance. However, this stretches the limits of the definition of "hunting."

OP, please do not use an SKS to hunt moose.
Click to expand...
 
Kelly Timoffee said:
So, with this theory , you could hold the muzzle against the chest of a moose and you would not have the energy to kill the animal???

Interesting concept.
Click to expand...

It isn't a concept, it is a guideline. The guideline is in place to reduce the number of wounded animals and wasted meat.

Sounds like something out of a book from someone who has interest in selling large calibers rifles.
Click to expand...

No sales pitch. Just stating the accepted minimum terminal energy to kill a moose (with one round). As I have stated repeatedly, it is a guideline. This guideline will typically be followed by those who respect the animal and want to hunt humanely and responsibly.

Hit the damn animal in the vitals at reasonable range, and it dies, shot placement boys!!!!!
Click to expand...

Based on this, shooting a moose or a large bear from 50 yards with a .22 would be good practice, as long as your shot is 100% perfect?

To each his/her own.
 
ditchpickle said:
HA! Sounds like this guy works at Wholesale Sports!!! Telling people that only the biggest magnum will kill a deer/elk/moose/chipmunk.
Click to expand...

No. I have already discussed the fact that a 30-30 (or 7.62x39) is a decent choice for deer. It is simply not a "good choice" for a humane kill on a moose. Period.
 
I agree with Ironsighter, the 30-30/7.62X39 are deer cartridges, at not much over 100 yards. If you're after moose, and you want the ability to make humane sportsmanlike kills out to 300 yards no problem, then bring a scoped 30.06 with 165 to 180 grain bonded bullets. The Hornady Interbond 165 grain in their Superformance series has ballistics creeping towards 300 WM numbers, and with a 3" high at 100 yards sight-in, will give you centre-hold shots in a big game animal's vitals out to 400 yards! The recoil of the 30.06 is quite reasonable as well, and makes for more accurate shooting from many hunters that are a bit recoil sensitive.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom