Ak74

[bonehead]

No doubt about that... however, mine was 375 yards away and went down like a stone.

However, in the process of cleaning the carcass I was amazed at the sheer power and strength that these animals must have, based on its muscle and bone structure. One tough animal. No way in hell I'm taking that on with a puny .22-caliber weapon, even at point-blank range. Whoever does that is irresponsible, and I don't blame the guides who refuse to allow their hunters to use anything smaller than a 7mm for an elk (which itself tends to disintegrate upon hitting harder tissue and bone).

Last fall my bullet went through the front leg, shattering it, then destroyed the shoulder and somehow vaporized the lungs before coming to rest on the far side. The Elk still meandered for 30 yards. I have no doubt that anything less than a quality .30 cal bullet would have been stopped at the leg. I know some idiots, er hunters, having nothing but a bow and a pointy stick that go after elk in the rut. Bulls have but two things on their minds that time of year and I don't want to be a participant in either one of those activities.

For me the cut-off would be the 30-06. Too many people start flinching with anything bigger. My preference is the .300 and .338 win mags for elk, but in a pinch I could use something else within reason.

[Bill]

I'd agree with that last statement, there isn't anything worth transitioning to at this moment for NATO and US military issue. However, this use is against men and not against game, which have different muscle and bone densities. I'll agree that there's no such thing as a sure kill, but you can dramatically increase the odds in your favor.

One major advantage of the larger rifle rounds is their range, which is sorely lacking on the 5.56 that tends to bleed off its energy and fragmenting potential relatively quickly (less than 200 yards), especially when fired from a shorter barrel. The higher mass of ~.30 caliber rounds allows it to retain its energy over longer distances, where a lot of shots are made in hunting. Every single shot I've made on any sort of animal (deer, antelope, elk) has been well over 200 yards, with the longest being 457 yards at an antelope. While I could make a shot like that with a 5.56 caliber weapon (provided it had some sort of optical sight), I just wouldn't have the confidence in its stopping ability, especially on a larger animal like an elk or bear (especially the bear, since you're hunting a potentially dangerous animal that has been known to attack when wounded). For that situation, I'd like as much energy as possible with as good of projectile weight retention as possible. Something that a lot of these new rounds are specifically designed not to do (especially the ones designed to fragment).

I just don't buy that the 5.56 is an effective big-game killer, regardless of the effects on humans. There are better options out there by far, ones that don't require you to make precision shots (simply put, not always possible). The larger-caliber weapons have done the job well for a long, long time now, and I see no reason to jump ship.

All the hunting around here is 100yds and less.

I am not advocating hunting elk or bear with 5.56mm, i simply stated that with the lastest loadings 5.56mm can cleanly take bear at close ranges, provided the shot is good. I also stated that it is more than enough for dispatching bad guys as well.

I would not ever try to shoot an elk with a 5.56mm, that would probably just piss it off.

I have 4000ft-lb 3" magnum solid copper sabot slugs for that sort of thing.

[leib10]

Agreed on all points. You also have to consider that hunts are expensive and that it would be financially irresponsible to hunt with too little gun too!

There's no doubt though that for being an effective man-stopper, the 5.56 is getting a lot better due to new bullet designs. Humans are relatively frail in body construction compared to other animals, and so the 5.56 is a much better choice for these situations, especially at distances under 200 yards. Add low recoil, low bullet weight (allowing for more rounds carried) and a flat trajectory, it's a good choice for a standard-issue weapon. However, I don't believe that it should replace all .30 caliber weapons in the hands of the infantry. There are certain situations (target is behind cover, long range engagements) that the 5.56 is at a disadvantage, and a .30 caliber weapon such as the M240 or SR in 7.62 would be a boon. I know the Bundeswehr is planning to replace all MG3's at the squad level with the MG4 (looks a lot like a Minimi), and I wonder whether such a decision is well-advised. Although it will simplify ammunition logistics, it would seriously take away the punch of the squad.

[Bill]

The new M855A1 round actually outperforms M80 7.62mm ammunition in many types of barriers, which is quite impressive. (of course modern .30 ammo would be even better)

When i was in US squads were all 5.56mm armed. The M60s were platoon and company assets.

[leib10]

I realize that 7.62 MG's are typically platoon/company assets; I was referring to the Bundeswehr specifically. :)