Hi all -

I know that the gunmag writers "industry standard" on deer is a 10" kz.
Anyone ran across the "gw standard" (not what YOU like) for elk?

regards,

I've seen a few times the 10" kill zone as applicable for all big game of that sort, moose, elk, deer, caribou.

I thought deer was 6" killzone.

Hi all -

Mebbe I disremember -
All you others viewing - c'mon - chime in.
What's the consensus on deer kz?
On bigger stuff, we'll just make up our own! :-)

I hunt deer - no opportunity for bigger stuff - and even the avg. size we have in TN (prolly 120#ish) fit 10" ok.
Seems meese & elk are some bigger - seems oughta have bigger "innards" = bigger kz, right?

Diff in mpbr can be significant.

Since all my elk/moose are shot with 500+ gr cast .45-70 bullets out of a 26" barreled ballistics program (great fun!), I like the idea of bigger kz.

I vote for 16" - you folks who've shot 'em - guide me back to reality!! :-)

regards,

I use 6", 3 above to 3 below, to determine my effective range. The only reason to make it bigger is to shoot further but then you are dealing with decreasing energy or whatever qualifier you use. Most leverguns of any bore seem to work well with a 6" kill-zone.

Rigby -

Looks like Ranch Dog and I are on the same page -- 6" KZ regardless of whether it is deer or elk or whatever.

My rationale is as follows:
Accuracy will be less in the field than from the bench. If I assume an 8" kill zone but zero for a maximum Point Blank Range for a 6" kill zone/target, I have left myself room for error. 6" means a 3" radius. If I can't hold my shots to that tolerance, I should rethink taking the shot at all. Sighting a rifle to shoot more than 3" high at any point in its trajectory is just asking to shoot over the back of your target. (Been there, aimed "high on fur" and missed completely.)

Hi all -

I'm not suggesting there's anything wrong w/6" kz - far from it.
Fact is, it's what I use.

It just seems reasonable to me that if a 6 or 8 or 10" kz for deer is reasonable and DOES work in actual practice, a larger-than-deer-size kz is REASONABLE on a larger animal.

It just clouds THAT PARTICULAR question if we bring long-range terminal ballistics, or assumptions that no one would practice long-range enough to become proficient, into the issue.

Oldtime buff hunters HAD to hit long-range w/LOTS less ballistic capability than we have available.
BPCR'ers regularly shoot (and I suppose occaisionally hit) out to, is it 500 yards?
So it's not a dumb idea.

To consider it "unsporting" or "un-anything" is to respond from personal opinions that have nothing to do with the reasonability of the question.
One may say '"I won't take a shot past 200/225/250 yards" and that's fine - at this point, I won't take a shot past 225yds on deer - even tho' what I use has mpbr/term.energy in a 6"kz WELL beyond that. But that's just my personal limit on what I consider a sporting shot for me.
And notice - it doesn't change the ACTUAL kz of deer one iota.

I'm planning a long-range range for my yard, so I'd just like to find a physically accurate kz size for the big 'uns.
If I only had a few of 'em wanderin' around................

regards,

I also, use the 6" kill zone. With the rifle that I have I can shoot, from bench, less than 1 MOA. That means that I can shoot into a 3" circle at 300 yards from the bench. That is what the rifle is doing. In the field you have a bit of slop. With that being said I can shoot out to 266 yards with a 165 gr .308 Bullet and kill what I am shooting at. I will, at that range be hitting 3" up or down depepnding on the barrel and about 3" down because of the sight that is still within the kill zone and gives me a bit of room. I don't intend on shooting anything past 260 yards, if I can help it. 300 yards is a way to drag a deer.

Hi all -

I notice we haven't heard from anyone who admits to actually SHOOTIN' one of the bigger critters.

And apparently no one has even seen one up close enough to give us an idea of just how big a moose or elk is!

Again, I ask you silent viewers to jump in if you have any info on this.

Seems some real-life experience would really be useful about now. :-)

regards,

What exactly are you "fishing" for?

Hi LLM -

My apologies, I must not have made it clear in my earlier posts.
I'm "fishing" for a true kill zone size for elk and moose.
They're bigger than a deer, so their kill zone must be bigger than a deer's.
A bigger kill zone allows a flatter trajectory.
A flatter trajectory allows a better margin for error in range estimation.
A better margin for error allows for more sportsmanlike hunting, by reducing the chances of poor shot placement.
And sportsmanlike hunting is a matter of principle to me.

Also, I can maximize ballistics for shooting on my soon-to-be-enjoyed 500yd range. :-)
Then I can have fun shooting on it with my shiny new 1895CB.
And I can invite you over to have fun shooting on it too.
Good deal? :-)

regards,

This guy has asked a perfectly reasonable question, asked it over and over, and in the most clear terms. Lots of people ahve answered perfectly goo d questions, but hot the one he has been asking. Rigby doesn't give a **** how far out you are willing to shoot *anything*!!! He just wants to know the answer to a question that should be elementary anatomy to those who have killed an elk, moose, or maybe even caribou.

Here it is: How large are the "vitals" in one of these biggies???

Can anyone not answer that? Can *everyone* not answer that? How this can be seen as "fishing' is beyond my ken.

Rigby, I'd answer your question, but I have about as many of those biggies running about as you do :-)

Cheers/buffler
BTW, I'm going to guess that on a full-grown bull moose that KZ is 16" if you shoot a weenie like a .308Win, bigger if you have a .45-70

Hi LLM -

My apologies, I must not have made it clear in my earlier posts.
I'm "fishing" for a true kill zone size for elk and moose.
They're bigger than a deer, so their kill zone must be bigger than a deer's.
A bigger kill zone allows a flatter trajectory.
A flatter trajectory allows a better margin for error in range estimation.
A better margin for error allows for more sportsmanlike hunting, by reducing the chances of poor shot placement.
And sportsmanlike hunting is a matter of principle to me.

Also, I can maximize ballistics for shooting on my soon-to-be-enjoyed 500yd range. :-)
Then I can have fun shooting on it with my shiny new 1895CB.
And I can invite you over to have fun shooting on it too.
Good deal? :-)

regards,
:p

Hi all -

I know that the gunmag writers "industry standard" on deer is a 10" kz.
Anyone ran across the "gw standard" (not what YOU like) for elk?

regards,

Well, to answer the original question haven't read a "gw (gunmag writer?) standard" for elk. Didn't know gunmag writers had standards. ;)

Sounds like Friendly's reply was based on what was seen in gunmags.

Coyote Hunters response is based on experience as he has taken elk. Last year he took one with his .45-70.

Well, never shot one, but seen a few at the zoo! ;-)
Though I haven't gotten any answers from "gunmag writers," I been asking elk hunters around, and seems the consensus is 10" for elk, 12" or even 14" for moose.
Given that I have at least tried to respond to your original question (albeit tokenly), if you'll allow the thread to evolve a bit, here's some thoughts, which may or may not interest you:
First, technically, a bigger kill zone allows a less-flat trajectory. (rib, rib.):cool:
And I'd like to hear more about how the bigger kill zone number is going to get you any more sportsmanlike in the field; maybe closer to the opposite for some folks. (Guess it depends on the sport, eh?) More confidence to take a long shot perhaps. I will concede that trying to find the real kill zone - whatever it may be - is the definition of sportsmanlike.
Also not sure with a 45-70 the difference in an inch or two radius is going to get you much more PBR. But it sounds like you're not necessarily looking for "much more." Just all.
The 10" kill zone might get you 25 yds farther than the 8" on paper, and that's only about 200 yds. Nonetheless, it is something, and 25 yds this way or that at ~200 can be impossible to tell.
Otherwise put, and at known distances, you get 2 MOA forgiveness on the shot, which can be a lot.
Now, if you and your gun are a 1 MOA team, that means at 500 yd, "perfect hits" would be within a 5" circle. That's with a 160" holdover (hee!hee!).
So, not alot of room for error in range estimation on those buffalo herds. (And therefor all the more rewarding I'm sure.):p
Understand that I understand, you haven't mentioned elk hunting at 500 yds. AND, that I'd absolutely love to try my hand at 500 yd paper hunting. (Lucky man has 500 yds to play with! Show us a pic when it's up and running, wouldja?)
Speaking of, one has to wonder just how much lead fell around those herds back then....

Back to the question, you might try contacting some elk hunt guides, get their opinion.
Quite a few online.
XO:D

Hi all -

Friendly -
Thimk in English, "flatter" & "less-flat" are pretty much synonymous.
Re: "sportsmanlike" - what you said.

To all:
As the perpetrator of this thread, I feel I oughta tell you that, in a PM, I received an answer to the original question, from someone with "up-close & personal" knowledge who I am willing to trust.
And the number is PLENTY big enough to make this child smile!
I plan to shoot, ON paper & AT paper, using a 24" vital area & 16" kill zone.
Satisfies the flat-trajectory and the sportsmanship issues for me.

Thanks to everyone for your input, germaine or not.
Kinda like sittin' around, drinkin' beer and talkin' football:
I could give a s**t about football, but the company and the beer is great! :-)

I'm gonna be shooting heavy bullets at Mach 1.5+, so let's all go over to my "HEAVY BULLETS" thread & have a few more rounds. :-)


regards,

Having taken all three (deer, elk, moose), along with a bunch of other board members, I'm sure - the same Kill Zone has been mentally used for all of them from 30 to just under 400 yd ranges.

That is a maximum circle of 8 inches.

This means a 2MOA maximum capable firearm/shooter combination, and crosswinds to be taken into account.

Now, it's acknowledged the larger game will have larger potential "kill" zones, but if you hold yourself to the 8 inch maximum, the kills will certainly be more sure and quick.

In addition to the aiming circle, the bullet MUST be capable of delivering a minimum of 2,000 ft/lbs energy for the given range for the elk and moose. Usually, 1,000 ft/lbs is sufficient for deer sized critters.

At least - that's my take on big game hunting.

I HAVE SHOT A GOOD MANY MOOSE , I use a 10 inch point blank range .
If i miss a moose because of a few inches high , i missed anyway. good luck on your hunt for info.

"Thimk in English, "flatter" & "less-flat" are pretty much synonymous."

....
Get yourself into trouble talking that way.
Make sure your loads are "less high" than maximum! ;-)

right -
meant "un-flatter" & "less flat".

Hi all -

I notice we haven't heard from anyone who admits to actually SHOOTIN' one of the bigger critters.

And apparently no one has even seen one up close enough to give us an idea of just how big a moose or elk is!

Again, I ask you silent viewers to jump in if you have any info on this.

Seems some real-life experience would really be useful about now. :-)

regards,

I never got the chance to shoot one, but I've seen moose very up close and personal. They are big. Really, really big. When she's chasing you down a dirt road, a cow moose is huge--and they're nothing compared to a trophy bull. The KZ may be larger than 10" on a bull moose, but it depends more than a little on where you hunt moose. A Vermont moose is not normally as big as an Alaskan moose--kind of like whitetail deer: they vary in size considerably by geography.

Some whitetail deer may indeed have a 10" KZ while others may be barely 6". A monster bull moose KZ may be 12" or even bigger, but a barely legal Maine moose may be 10" max.

Did I mention how big moose are? Bigger than a horse. Bigger than you realize. Mostly just big.

Hi all -

Tom G - puts me in mind of sumpin' I read - feller said, lookin' down his barrel at one ~30' away - wouldn't anything w/o a lanyard string on it make him feel real comfortable! :-)

regards,

One more thing before I leave you alone about it.
This 500 yd range. (How do you spell "pssssshhhhhhhhwwwwwwwwwww...thwak! ?)
Have you figured out a BC for that bullet, to put into your ballisticatin'?

I would hope that we would all aspire to have a kill zone that falls no more than a couple of inches away from the intersection of crosshairs or front sight ,every time we pull the trigger on our animal friend. To send a bullet down range with a pre conceived notion that if it's within a foot or so of where we aim were o.k., really seems to be askew when we strive to put bullet after bullet into the same hole on paper but readily accept a poke in general direction of where we aim when a game animal is involved. Has our lack of practical field practice allowed us to console ourselves with 16" ,20",24" whatever "kill zones "


444fitch

Well Tom G I see moose alot up here in northern Ontario and have hunted them for many years If you can keep your shots in a 12" circle you'll have no problem provided you have a broadside or quarting shot. the chest on an adult moose on a broadside shot is 3' . They are a very big target. :D

Recommended by Bitteroot outfitters of Montana for Elk.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

The 22" Rule When sighed in optimum point blank for a 10" kill zone, it is never advisable to shoot at an elk when your bullet drops more than 22 inches. The reason I say 22" is because with a 22 inch drop , a good rest and no cross wind, you can hold your crosshairs on top of an elks back and hit him right in the vitals. It is never a good idea to hold above an elks back because you can lose sight of the elks vital area from your field of view. Your rifle also should have a minimum 1200 ft. lbs. of energy at the given distance you are shooting.



Hear is a list of ranges. The rifles listed under them drop less than 22 inches at that given range when sighted O.P.B 10"kill zone
----------------------------------------------------------------------

This is what they expect from there clients and there opinion of the Kill zone on Elk.They should know as it's there buisness.Jayco.

Hi all -

Friendly - Doesn't rem zakly how I got there, but a while back .39BC seemed "good in my own eyes", so that's the story I'm stickin' to 'til range tests (or somebody) proves me wrong. :-)

Fitch - I & my rifle shoot 1.1" avg/100 yds - "ideally" that's 5.5" @ 500, whether I use a 2" or 5' KZ!
In my case, KZ size is for purely ballistic advantage - I won't have to hold so far over.
Aside from the fact that I'm shooting paper & NOT an animal friend (? - I don't shoot my friends) here, if both an upper and lower chest shot are philosophically & morally acceptable and they happen to be 24" apart in real life - what's the prob?
As 444 claims a moose has ~3x the chest size of a deer - would you then suggest a 2" KZ on deer for moral proportion?
If jayco's refs are accurate, my load drops below 22" @ 327 yds, energy min @575. But note - there's NO LAW against practicing enough to make the 575 yd moral & practical. And I have nuttin' but time. :-)

regards,