hunting "elk" with a 280...

MPFD you didn't hurt my feelings at all. Most folks don't shoot elk or deer at 500 yards. That's not because the bullets don't have enough energy it's because 500 yards is a long way off and most folks simply don't have the skills to hit well at those distances from field positions.

You'll notice that I shoot the magnums for elk. I've always held that most folks used to small a gun for elk hunting. Reason is I've seen elk with their heart blown to bits run to the bottom of frying pan canyon. Might as well just eat them there than try to get them out.

I like a front shoulder shot and have done that for several years now, break the front shoulders, remove the means of locomotion and they usually don't go far.

The big turnaround on elk cartridges is all the new bullets on the market now. When we had the choice of factory ammo or loading Nosler partitions smaller caliber rifles such as the 270 often didn't seem to have the stopping power that bigger guns did. Now it's a whole new ball game and foot pounds of energy doesn't tell the "whole story" anymore.

I don't think I'd hesitate dropping the hammer on an elk today with one of the Barnes tripple shock bullets in my 280, though I doubt that I'd want to shoot much past 300 yards. I do think that combination would kill further, but that's getting to the edge of my ability anymore.

I do agree that 500 yards is to far, but not because of any energy levels. One of the sad things anymore is the hype of shooting long range for big game. Lots of folks buying into that hype, then trying for those shots when they really don't have the shooting skills to hit elk effectively at those ranges.
 
I think it is also very poor for several here to scoff at general energy guidelines. Let's see you take those .243's after a grizzly. All of a sudden energy and weight and fps become the topic. Yes I know it has been done with a .22. It is legal to hunt elk here with a .243. Just as factory ammo for the .280@500 yds shows energy at around 800 ft pounds the same as a .22-250 at say 200 yards. So what is the difference then? To throw out the numbers is odd since I have seen nearly every one of you quote them about your regular caliber. Using .223 for deer topics usually generate plenty on this matter. I am not against using any legal caliber for elk. But each has it's personal limit. A .243@200 yds has about 1400 ft pounds and around 750@500yds. So is it a 500 yard elk gun too? So if we don't use the numbers how do we draw the line? I could just see how intelligent these threads would be without numbers. My brothers cousins cousin shot an elk with a little bullet across two wheatfields. How many popular calibers have been developed and proven without using the numbers? I could go even further. So in an effort to keep this on an educated level I will continue to use the numbers to convey my experiences.
 
ya know i honestly don't know what to think ?? i will say i think everyone has brought up "valid" point's...i think's it's a good conversation...i will say though from my perspective i have.. ZERO..interest in trying to shoot anything beyond 300 yard's...i just don't care...let the young guy's go for it...they might have more time to learn so many click's up will get you here...or there...i don't...reloading & load devopment & getting familier with a rifle keep's my hand's full...plus the wife...almost teenage daughter...well you get the point !!
 
A 280 shooting a 180gr bullet has more energy at 1000 yards than a 300 Win mag shooting a 180gr bullet.

You don't have to guess or take anybody's word for it. Just plug the numbers into your favorite ballistics program.

Jack
 
A local gunsmith once told me that two of the quickest elk kills he'd ever seen were from .270's with 130 grain Barnes X's. One of them was shot in the southbound end while heading north, and the bullet wound up in the front of the chest cavity. According to him the elk dropped at the shot. Considering the length of the wound channel, that does not surprise me.

Use a stout partition bullet or Barnes X or Winchester Fail-Safe type of 160-175 grains. If it were me I'd use the 160 Barnes Triple Shock X. What makes up for smaller caliber is bullet integrity and deep penetration - and correct placement.

Start practicing on something simple like a 9" or 10" paper plate. Get to where you can hit that plate every shot, from 50 yards out to wherever, from standing, squatting, kneeling, sitting, prone, unsupported and supported, from a rest, whatever it takes to make that particular distance. Learn to use a shooting loop sling. Find out just what your range/accuracy limitations are. Understand the physiology of the animal so you know what the heart/lung aimpoint is from different angles. Also make up your mind ahead of time as to which angle/distance shots you will accept and which you will refuse, and keep that in mind in the field.

If you do all that successfully you should be just fine. Drive a .284 partition or X-bullet through an elk's lungs and it probably won't laugh at you for using a .280 instead of the mighty 7mm Remington Magnum. At least, not for very long. You may indeed have a runner, but with the X bullet I hear that it leaves a lot of blood behind and over a fairly short distance.

Me, I use a .270 with 150 Nosler Partitions, or a .35 Whelen currently being converted to Ackley Improved. One seems a bit small, the other a bit large, but since I never killed an elk with either I don't have the elk's opinion either way. However, I don't lack confidence in the .270, if I do my part correctly. That said, I'm taking the .35 out this year (the .270 is shot out to the point of being a 3-MOA rifle).
 
Sorry dogtired, I don't believe you. By your own example the first .30-06 I picked has more energy. Example .280 139 gr SST 2188/1447 and .30-06 180 gr BTSP 1959/1533. I also noticed only cartriges offered in .280 and a whole page for the good ole '06. Again I say the .280 will kill elk but I abandoned it for several reasons and believe the .30-06 is a better choice for several reasons. But I shoot .300 WM for even more reasons. My favorite shots are head and neck or high in the shoulder. These put them down hard with little or no wasted meat. For inexperienced shooters I say bust the shoulders to drop them and lung them for less wasted meat. A couple years ago I dropped one with a neck shot and everyone was so impressed with minimal damage from a .300 that several others repeated it. Most guys that we hunt with use .300 or .338 for elk.
 
The .280 Rem is one of the finest cartridges around. Light recoil and excellent accuracy with great bullet choices. Jim Carmichael RAVED about the .280Rem with good reason. I bought my first one in 1977 in a Remington 700 (7mm Express)and put it in a a Brown Precision fiberglass stock. It was my main rifle for many years until it was stolen in 1996. I immediatly replaced it with a Remington Custom shop 700KS 24" barreled rifle which I use all the time. I have taken Moose, Elk, Deer, Antelope, Bears, Sheep and Caribou. I have shot 29 elk with my .280's and none argued with it's potency. Ranges I killed them at were from 20 yds to 500 yds. I shoot a Speer 145gr HotCore bullet most times and sometimes a Swift A-Frame 160gr or a Speer Grand Slam 160gr. I have NEVER had my .280's let me down in performance or extreme weather conditions. They are accurate and consistant. I have the utmost CONFIDENCE when I pull the trigger I will have my game. I was an outfitter in Wyoming for 24 years and have seen all sorts of rifles taking hundreds of animals in the US and Canada. I've shot African game including 2200lb Eland with 160gr 7mm bullets and I was very pleased with their performance. Anyone who states that the .280Rem is not a good choice for Elk sized game doesn't know what they are talking about or are just poor shots.
elk20012.jpg
eland12-1.jpg
hart8.jpg
bigelk.jpg
 
Quote:

Me, I use a .270 with 150 Nosler Partitions, or a .35 Whelen currently being converted to Ackley Improved. One seems a bit small, the other a bit large, but since I never killed an elk with either I don't have the elk's opinion either way.



For my .270, I load 160 grain Partitions (tough to find, have to order them online) over RL-22 to 2840 fps, safely. Though considered too long for caliber to be accurate, my rifle loves them and puts 3 into 3/4" at 200 yards. They work nicely on elk.

I also worked up a load for 150 Swift A-Frames that are a bit less accurate (though accurate enough for elk), and surprisingly, they won't quite match the velocity of the 160 Partitions. I've yet to use one on elk, but there's no doubt in my mind they'd be very effective. But, it's pretty hard putting the Partition load aside long enough to give the A-Frames a chance.

Mike
 
dukxdog says, "Anyone who states that the .280Rem is not a good choice for elk sized game doesn't know what they are talking about or are just poor shots."

Amen to that statement... And it looks like you have some real experience with the 280 to back it up. You're not relying on ftlbs of energy charts to tell what can and can't be done. Real world hunting answered that question.

It just amazes me how quick some people are to blame the caliber when bad shooting or poor bullet selection for the animal hunted is usually the prime cause. It is easier to blame the cartridge because it dropped 25 ftlbs below some mythical line at 300 yards.

Tripod, if your favorite shot is head or neck shots a .243 will work just fine. Native Americans kill pickup loads of elk here with head and neck shots and they like the .223.
 
Last edited:
It is almost funny how this has been twisted into me saying the .280 is no good. I initially stated "The .280 will get the job done and the more familiar you are with the gun and it's limits the better for you." I also stated my reasons for abandoning it. "We do not reload and it is impossible to find more than one factory load on the shelf locally." The one bullet available was a poor performer 800 foot pounds at 500 yards. Even now the choices are 1/10 of that for the .30-06. The .30-06 is available in piles at half the price. I also still completely disagree with shooting two elk with one shot. If you are such a "good shot" there are other places to shoot without getting both. I admire the .280 for it's ability to retain energy at 1000 yards but have no desire to hunt at that range. I do not and will not recommend the .280 or .30-06 as a 500 yard gun for elk. This has been discussed here before at length and the general concensus was the .30-06 is a 300 yard gun. Will it get it done @500, well with a good bullet in good hands with good conditions, yes. At 500 yards, 30 mph wind, snowing, animal moving, shooter just ran up a ridge, lens fogged a little, well maybe not. How many 500 yard 1 shot drop in it's tracks kills have I seen? Only 1 and it was with a large caliber. I have seen several multiple shot kills at long range that required follow up and sometimes even tracking and or complete loss. I have also sat watching ugly wounding of large game that will die eventually. Around here a 500 yard shot, kill or wounding almost insures someone else will tag it. A guide in Alaska has his clients upon arrival shoot at a 55 gal barrel set at 500 yards. He told a friend only one client has hit it first shot. If we don't use the numbers as a guideline imagine what would happen. That could be a whole book. Lonny since the numbers are useless Please remind me to never shoot your reloads and are you then saying you will use the .243 as a 500 yard elk gun?
 
My two cents, having guided in Colorado for 8 years and taken either myself, with family, friends or clients over 60 elk, would say shoot what you shoot best and is legal where you plan to hunt. I have seen every caliber from a .243 to a .33-378 used and when using the right bullet the elk was just as dead! More often the problem is coming over gunned, buying the latest monster gun, and not shooting it as well as the .270 or other suitable caliber they hunt whitetail with back home. They would have been better off bringing the ol' deer slayer that they shoot well and are comfortable with and confident in. As for 500 yd shots, occasionally attempted, rarely succesful so who cares what the energy is at that range. Get realistic. Most shots will in the 150-250 range if you are hunting. It only turns in to a 500yd shot when you retell the story! Bottom line .280 is fine.
 
Folks put WAY too much emphasis on energy. About the only time that energy is the main or even a major factor in terminal ballistics (actually killing an animal) is if you hit a main nerve nexus (shutting down the nerve impulses to the heart and/or brain).

Consider this, a broad-head arrow delivers ~50fp of kinetic energy on target, less than a .22 short. Nobody would argue they aren't an efficient killing projectile. When that 1400 fpe bullet goes through an animal it didn't deliver it's energy to the animal because it's still moving and still has energy (often the case with that 50fpe arrow too).

Terminal ballistics (aside from a nerve nexus hit) has much more to do with wound channel length and size (amount and speed of blood loss), and of course what organs you damage (it doesn't take much blood loss if the heart stops pumping). The wound channel depth depends more on momentum/weight/velocity/SD than energy, and the size (diameter) of the wound channel depends on caliber, but as much or more on bullet design (how long after impact will it reach full expansion, how much it will expand, weight retention). Bullet design considers velocity at impact and density of the target (among other considerations).

HERE'S where's energy matters the most. Some percentage of the potential (kinetic) energy is spent over time in expanding the bullet while allowing it to continue through the animal making a wound channel. How much energy that takes, and how quickly it happens depends not only on the density of the target, but very much on the bullet design. Some bullets are designed to expand at lower velocities (retained energy levels), some at high. Excepting a couple of specific (and rare) circumstances, energy matters as work done to the BULLET, not the animal.

Larger, faster, heavier, (magnum) bullets can be a disadvantage. I have pencil holed coyotes through the (relatively low density) bread basket with a 7mag at shorter ranges. That very high energy, very high momentum bullet didn't have time to begin expanding before it had already passed through the body (and the coyotes ran a little ways). Hit them in the (high density) shoulder at the same range and it destroys them.

Magnums come into their own particularly at longer ranges. They (generally) are less affected by wind, drop, etc, so you can hit better at long range, while still retaining enough energy to do it's work on the bullet.

Do a search for "terminal ballistics" and you'll find all sorts of stuff, but this article done for the Division of Military Trauma Research covers it pretty well in general without a lot of math, including the debunking of a lot of commonly held misconceptions. Read it and learn.

As to the 280 for elk question, of course it's enough gun depending on a number of factors (bullet used, range, shot placement, etc, etc). Those same caveats apply to any other chambering as well.
 
If I may reply to the original question, the 280 will do just fine and the recoil is minimal. I personally have a 280AI set up for 180's.
 
I think the 280 is easily the best 7mm around, but, not with factory loads. It has enough over the 7X57 to say that and with the same bullet is within 100-150 muzzle fps of the 7mag with the same bullet.
But then as for me losing ALL the belted mags is no big loss, along with the short mags and super short mags.

I shoot a 300 win mag cause my brother built it for me and it kills good, so do the other belted mags, and most the other cartridges. There are far more choices out there then needed. but "whats need got to do with it?"

Just an observation: comparing different 'calibers' with the same weight bullets is stupid, compare BC's. (ballistic coefficents).

CD
 
I brought up the velocity/energy figures because it is very difficult to compare apples to oranges. Using those numbers at distance gives an idea of the terminal performance of the given caliber. Now don't read too much into that statement. I also said "give or take" because 50 fps or 50 foot-pounds really can be arbitrary between two guns. I was merely pointing out that the 270/280 basically equals the velocity of the .30-06 at 100 yards and surpasses it at distance. Those numbers only establish the math of "killing power" if you will. All are good cartridges and in MY opinion all will handily put down an elk. I am of the camp that more people should shoot sane cartridges on a regular basis and become proficient with that gun and cartridge, than the new Eargosplittenloudenboomer that they have been convinced they need. Also people are less likely to run 10 boxes of .300 RUM thru their gun prior to season both from abuse and from the prohibitive cost, where they may do that with the .280. The .280 is about 200 FPS and 200 Foot-pounds shy of the 7mm Mag at 500 yards for a better apples to apples comparison. In my mind that is pretty respectable performance without the beating.

Tripod, babe, you chose the "light Mag" numbers for the .30-06 and a different bullet. I tried to compare same style bullet (SST is all that is offered in 280) in standard loadings. Both of the standard loadings are pretty anemic for both the 30-06 and the 280 also because of old gun issues....

I don't actually own a .280 but substitute .270 into this arguement and it's the same... I do not even hunt elk with my 270 either (this year with a bow so energy numbers are irrelevant). I actually traded my .300 WM off for a digital camera because the numbers between it and the .30-06 properly loaded are not really that different... That and the guy that has it thought he needed more rifle than the .270. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif
 
hello...part of what has "spured" my insterest in the 280...is because i met a "fellow" about 6 year's ago now...he alway's dropped in @ a former job...because he was friend's of a few co-worker's...i think he was about 78 @ the time...he had hunted elk if i remember correctly about 50 years'...i don't know how many elk he has killed...never asked...he just said he has usually dropped an elk every year...about four year's ago it occured to me to ask his caliber of choice...he said a 280 remington...to be honest i didn't know what a 280 was...i'm now learning...thank's for all the information guy's...
 


Write your reply...
Back
Top