Having shooting sticks makes a night and day difference, and understanding distances in undulating terrain. I disagree with opinions stated that a 270 is not sufficient for elk. I've DRT'd elk with my 270 shooting 130 grain Fed Premium Nosler Balistic tips on multiple occasions. That' right, balistic tips DRT on elk. It's all about knowing and being confident with your rig, thus consistently making kill shots.

I don't see a post on here that said a .270 is not sufficient for elk.

OK, ballistic tips work great if shot placement is perfect. Here's my question? Why would you use a bullet that has a great chance of NOT working if you hit a shoulder bone, rib, etc.? In other words, why not give yourself the most margin for error-especially when you are using a caliber on the light end of the spectrum for such a large animal to start with?

This is especially true for BT bullets, which are strengthened with thicker jackets, etc. for larger game above .30 cal/180 grains, but are only designed for 50-60% weight retention below that. In other words, designed specifically for smaller/mid-sized game.

I rarely shoot offhand at game anymore. If I can't be sure of making a real good shot on a deer, I'll just pass. There's always tomorrow.

Back where I grew up, in eastern Louisiana, I hunted the edges of the corn and bean fields most of the time. And I hunted off of an old folding stool with a canvas seat. I carried it with me everywhere and hunted where nobody else ever hunted. The big bucks were patterning us. It wasn't the most stable of platforms, so I almost always had a stout shooting stick with me. I used to be able to sit in the cold for a couple of hours, all camo'd up and never twitch an eyebrow. I don't think I can do that anymore.

Firearms should be something that you enjoy taking out and shooting throughout the year, especially when you consider what you paid for them. Pick those that are a true pleasure to shoot and enjoy them in the same way you would a valued car or truck.

Great article. Thanks for sharing.

The art of field shooting is vanishing.

As has been said before bench and bags are used for setting zero and gathering DOPE. Then the work towards mastering the rifle begins: prone, sitting, kneeling,
off hand. It takes 1000's of rounds IMO to begin the journey and 1000's more to attain master status.

Buying a wiz bang mag rifle with a big 50mm 20x scope with markings to 900 yards does not a master make.

^^Very good reason to have a bolt action .22 lr to go with the centerfire.

And the art of hunting with it. It has been replaced with nothing more than sitting in an old office chair waiting for something to show up and eat within a 12-foot circle.

Those guys who used to shoot at running deer offhand wounded a lot of animals too. People didn't seem to mind that as much as they do now. I think society has evolved.

I was in a gun shop on Saturday and saw one of these for the first time:

Bog Pod Xtreme Shooting Rest

Fits onto a shooting tripod so that the rear of the rifle as well as the front is held steady.

100% agree. Or maybe a dozen of them?

We shoot deer in Texas we not hunt them, but that is another topic.

We manage deer and hunt particular deer. I shoot deer in CO.

of course placement is important - but if you have hunted enough you know every shot is not a perfect set up - have enough gun and bullet is there to offset mistakes for placement. If hunting trophy deer you need overkill rather than speed -

When I hunted moose in Finland in '84, all of the Hunters had to qualify for a Permit by successfully shooting a 30 caliber 200 grain bullet - we used a borrowed SAKO 30'06 with a dinky 3x9x36 jap scope, at 100 meters, and hit a full sized moose target 4 of 5 times in the "black" 7ring or better, with the target moving at 40kmph across a 100 meter track, that was started on your call while holding the rifle at the port arms position at the beginning of each shot cycle.

The Europeans in the crowd were totally confortable with this procedure and passed the Shooting Test easily, the Americans struggled a little with the guys from the Rockies & western Canada getting the best scores...I passed after some extra practice rounds and the new to me techique was explained to me by a guy from Scotland.

As far as plinking offhand being a waste of time, I respectfully disagree. It all depends on how you describe plinking and with what for a rifle and targets. I learned more plinking at moving targets, usually big brown river rats in the Trinity river bottoms over fresh baited plots at 100 to 300 yards with a 243, betting a $1 a shot in a Mexican Sweat type betting game, than I ever did anyhwere else...when my hourly gross pay was $4.25.

I had learned to shoot iron sights at an earlier age on some Permain Basin Oil Leases as a 7 or 8 year old using a 22, when my Oil Scout Uncle would drop my older cousin and I off at the front gate of the lease, and we would plink our way a mile or two back to the drilling rig...shooting everything from dragon flys to rattlesnakes and sometimes enough game birds to feed the family with that nite, practicing for my cousin's Boy Scout Badges using the classic offhand, sitting, kneeling and standing positions. It was a total shock at 16 to learn that game birds had a season & limits, were never supposed to be hunted with a rifle, and you had to buy a license...who knew?

It all depends on what you call plinking...bottle caps at 50 feet for a dime or a quarter each... Center X on a Jax can at 100 paces or was it 133 paces or that fat rat across the river laying on a log at 2-300 yards on left edge of the pack for a $ a shot...standing on your hind legs with no sling allowed. Just Sayin' BTDT and it's all in the eye of the beholder.
JMHO & YMMV
Ron

Ron, when you put money on it, it was no longer plinking, it was target shooting at live targets. Plinking is often just shooting without puting in the concetration neccasary to improve. When your concentrating on putting everthing together, to make the shot, your practicing with a pupose.

Agree with most of that OP, have seen it too many times where people were hunting with more gun than they were comfortable with. For the big game elk and above bigger is better but only if the hunter is able to shoot the bigger gun. Something else be ready for another shot, not just look at your first shot. Unless the critter is down for the count be ready for a followup shot and it it is not down sling more lead into it. That is one of the biggest complaints I have heard about American hunters from African PHs.

As far as shooting and getting ready for season, I like to go through various field shooting positions stretching the distance learning my limits then stay within those limits during season. One game we play is golf ball races with 22s, off hand and run a golf ball 100 yards to the berm (helps that there is almost no grass on the range).


As far as hunting, the closer the better for shots. Some of my most memorable shots on game are not the long ones but short shots (less than 20 yards) where it was the getting in position for the shot more than the shot itself. Shoot a doe in her bed at 12 yards, slip in to less than 20 yards on a feeding buck, call in a rutting buck to less than 5 yards before the shot... Sure these days I hunt some at a feeder but when conditions are right for still hunting or spot and stalk that is more fun.

Bought my Alaska rifle years ago, never have made the trip which is something I regret at this time. Remington 700 in 350 Remington Magnum, it has racked up some good kills elk, mule deer, hogs and whitetails. Have no doubt it will be ready if I ever make that Moose hunt.

I want power behind my placement.

Good nuts and bolts article from Alaska F&G. It simply reiterates the obvious fact (often lost to many of us) that practical field experience trumps gadgetry every time.

The first time I ever hunted brown bear in Alaska, I showed up in Cold Bay with a new .338WM stoked with 250 gr Noslers. I was partnered with an experienced hunter from Seattle whose outfit was the same rig he used everywhere he hunted: a tang Ruger 77 in 30-06 with a 2x7 Leupold shooting 180 NPTs in factory Federal Premium ammo. Guess who killed the big bear? His was 9.5 ft squared with a 28"+ skull that is well up in the B&C record book.

I also agree that frequent practice from field positions will pay dividends when you finally spring for that dream hunt in Alaska, Africa, or the Rockies. On the small rural property I now own, I have cobbled together a "golf course" of sorts....9-10 "holes", or shooting stations, that vary from around 100 yards to 220 yds. We toss shooting sticks, bipods, backpacks, etc in the back of the UTV and we play a round of shooting-golf. At each "hole" we fire three shots using various means of support, sans benchrest bags, and total up the scores. This informal game is fun and the results often sobering. I wish we could practice at ranges up to 300 yards or so, but my small property size makes this impractical and unsafe. But no matter....I've never had to shoot a head of big game at more than 400 yards (370 yds, actually).

It is my personal opinion that a guy who becomes comfortable and proficient with his .30-06, .270, or 7x57, will gradually be able to move up to the heavier magnums, providing he takes it slow and easy. Just don't go out and buy a new .375 Holland when all you've ever shot was a .243. And don't make the mistake of falling for the newest whiz-bang gadget in a futile effort to make up for lack of personal practice.

Good article, jeffbird....

I'm one of those guys the article describes. My main deer rifle is a 30-06 and my bigger game rifle is a 338mag. I've been able to shoot sub one inch groups with my 30-06 with 150 grain bullets, but every deer I shot with them, they just punched right through the deer without doing a lot of damage. I moved up to 165 grain bullets and found that with the Federal Premium loads, I could get down to just over an inch groups at 100 yards. I really like the results I get out of those bullets, so I'm sticking with this load. I buy the same ammo for my .338 and have found it to be devastating on everything I've shot, from elk to gemsbok. I haven't shot a moose yet, but that's what I'm taking when I go moose hunting.

I also have a muzzle brake on it. What I found happening is that after so many rounds, the recoil was affecting me. First few shots where good, then my groups would get bigger. 2 inches at 100 yards is about as good as I've managed to shoot with that rifle, but it took the muzzle brake for me to be able to do that consistently.

What I question more then anything in the article is comparing target shooting accuracy to hunting in the field accuracy. Maybe I misread it, but considering 8 inch groupings accurate is just crazy. I aim for the heart. You take out the heart, he is dead. Anything else and it becomes a guessing game if and when it will die, and how far it will go. For me, that means you have a 4 to six inch target, depending on what you are hunting.

While I'm sure plenty of very large animals have been shot with smaller calibers, I'm also sure that a lot of them have been wounded and lost that wouldn't have been if a larger caliber with a bigger bullet had been used.

Eddie

I'm

Because as the article points out, you go with the equipment and ammo you practice with and have confidence in. I've killed many big hogs with this load and big bucks with shoulder shots DRT.

With elk, I don't take the shot if I'm not confident I can make a heart lung shot. If there's a chance I don't make that shot, I don't take it. No different than bow hunting, some shots I just don't take.

The article said adequate and was referring to hitting in the heart lung area. If you concentrate on just the heart then you need to be more accurate.

I understand that. I am the same way when it comes to distance. I know my limitations and I'm just not going to exceed them.
But, to me, your situation is different. If you simply substitute a Partition, Accubond, TSX, or any number of monometal/bonded bullets nothing will change except you will be using a bullet much more suited for elk. Perfect shots don't always happen-despite our best efforts. Even with perfect placement, an elk rib stands a good chance of leading to a poor result with a 130 grain Ballistic Tip. Sure, they work spectacularly when all goes well. But, they fail spectacularly when all does not. I've seen it.

I don't really have any hard facts, but I would assume shooting a moose/bear at 200 yards with a 200 grain partition out of a 30-06 or a 300 win mag will yield nearly identical results given the same shot placement. In my opinion the plusses of the magnum are only realized at extreme distance where most don't have the business hunting/shooting anyway. I have a 300 wby because I wanted one and I like it. I can shoot it just as good as my 270, but it doesn't kill deer/hogs any deader or faster than my 270 either.

Makes you wonder how we kill many big game species to the blink of extinction and many subspeices to extinction with non smokeless powder and then even after the invention of smokeless powder in the mid 1800's we still effectively killed big game with what many consider outdated insignificant calibers

We cleared a lot of land with an ax too. Today, there are better methods.

There is a reason every innovation from the the matchlock on forward was immediately adopted and it's predecessor immediately discarded from the 15th through the end of the 19th century.