For nearly 20 years now, I have periodically surveyed Elk Foundation members about their elk hunting—how long they’ve been at it, shots they’ve taken, equipment they’ve used. Some trends are remarkably consistent. The .30-06 perennially tops the list of favorite elk cartridges. You can bet your elk tag that most hunters will carry 3-9x scopes next year, and more Winchester and Remington bolt rifles than any other brands. Now, as when I published the first survey in the early 1990s, reported shot distances vary from spitwad range to a day’s travel by oxcart on the Oregon Trail.

But surprises always turn up, and our latest samplings of elk hunters delivered plenty.

Surveys taken at the 2006, 2007 and 2008 RMEF Elk Camps have some built-in biases. They represent the people attending, not a cross-section of RMEF members. Results are dramatically influenced by the venue. Conventions held in Portland, for instance, have delivered a flood of responses from elk hunters with many years of experience. Those in Reno tap a different crowd—Nevada residents have relatively limited elk hunting, and I suspect Reno draws more people from areas where elk don’t live.

That said, these surveys have told us quite a bit about how members hunt elk and what they carry. By the way, totals differ among categories, because some questions were not answered, and some answers were indecipherable (so is my handwriting). Of course, we had to discard nonsense responses, some no doubt deliberate, others apparently not. Here are a few observations from the results of the last three surveys—and my thanks to the 730 RMEF Elk Camp attendees kind enough to complete the questionnaires distributed there.

Years hunting elk
The number of seasons respondents had hunted elk varied from 1 to more than 30, but distribution was remarkably uniform across that spectrum. The number of new recruits exceeded that of 30-year veterans—reason, perhaps to take heart. Recruitment is the life blood of any sport. On the other hand, I’m sobered to think that more than half the respondents began elk hunting after I began these surveys!

Number of elk killed
Historically, roughly one in seven western hunters kills an elk in any given year. But your odds for success swing from nearly 100 percent on carefully managed ranches with limited tag allotments and high elk densities to darn near zero in sterile backcountry where I’ve worn out several pairs of boots. Kill tallies, then, fail as an indicator of hunting prowess or even dedication. I know some very accomplished riflemen and skilled hunters who chase elk the hard way, on public land, and pass up young bulls other sportsmen would shoot. I also know hunters of modest ability who routinely kill big bulls because they have access to target-rich elk country. So my interest in numbers of elk killed is purely academic. An elk hunt makes memories, with or without a shot. And the best memories don’t always include a carcass. I lowered my rifle last fall when I could have filled my Idaho tag. Someday, I hope, that four-point bull, grown up, with thick mahogany beams, will appear around a bend in the trail—if not in front of my rifle, then to thrill some other hunter who has tested the iron in his legs on the steeps of what we call elk country. 

Closest shot
Short shots interest me because short shooting marks an accomplished hunter—or one whose pick of gear limits him to close-in killing. As in past surveys, the bulk of shortest shots occurred between 20 and 100 yards. Getting that close in most elk country takes more effort than does setting up a bipod and firing at elk across a basin. Eight archers weighted the super-close figures, but as many rifle hunters listed their closest shot “less than 30 yards” as those recording it between 31 and 150. I’ve shot elk at ranges best measured in feet, and those memories remain vivid! A couple of bulls fell at 300 yards, the longest shots I’ve taken at elk. In both of those cases, I had very carefully threaded groups of elk for more than an hour and exhausted all possibilities of getting closer. The shots were well executed. Still, a better end is always up close, where you can watch the bull breathe, read his eye, smell him, hear his foot not only snap a twig but compress grass. Such intimacy is hard to describe; but it defines hunting in a way the long-distance shooter will never understand. 

Farthest Shot
The limits of effective shooting hinge mostly on our abilities as marksmen. The rifle, cartridge and sight matter less. Depending on shooting position, conditions and how long an elk wants to remain in your scope field, even a 200-yard poke can be difficult. So shots at double that distance are risky indeed.

Having punched enough paper at ranges between 600 and 1,000 yards to have become hardened to embarrassment, I’m astonished at hunters who tell me matter-of-factly that they’ve killed elk that far from the rifle. Even if you have a solid rifle rest and a cooperative target, odds are stacked heavily against a center hit. Your range estimate must be spot-on as the arc of your bullet grows ever steeper. For example, my .308 with flat-flying 168-grain bullets registers more than 12 minutes of drop at 500 yards—or roughly 65 inches. At 700 yards, drop amounts to nearly 22 minutes, or 159 inches. Try holding over your target 159 inches. Of course, if the elk is just 650 yards off, you need elevate only 19 minutes, or 129 inches, with that .308. So an error of 50 yards in range estimation puts you 30 inches high. Shooting up or down at a gentle 22-degree angle? You’ll be spot-on at 700 with the 650-yard holdover—if there’s no wind. Doping wind can be difficult indeed in mountainous terrain, where its effect along a bullet’s path is not only variable but hard to read. A mild 10-mph breeze carries my bullet 6.5 minutes, or nearly 48 inches, at 700 yards. Now, does it move the bullet less if I hold for 650? I’ve concluded that hunters reporting kills at such distance were far ahead of me in high school algebra. We, the math-challenged, must shoot close.

Rifles
As in past years, hunters who completed this survey showed a broad range of preferences in rifles. Predictably, most carried Remington 700s, Winchester 70s, Ruger 77s and Browning A-Bolts. Weatherby fans showed a frustrating ambivalence in recording rifle model. So I lumped the Mark Vs and Vanguards. A contingent of 21 hunters chose Sakos; surprisingly, as many carried Browning BARs. It should come as no shock that some rifles once exceedingly popular have all but vanished. The Savage 99 and Winchester 71 appeared only once; the list included no Winchester 94s or Marlin 336s! Weep with me. Alas, only the Browning BLR among lever guns can handle the high-octane rounds many elk hunters now demand. And there’s a consensus that bolt rifles are more accurate—an advantage under powerful glass when elk appear on the far side of a canyon. Finally, bolt rifles have received many improvements, and have been built in such large quantities that the unit price now averages less than that of a lever gun. Quite the opposite was true in early post-war days when 99s, 336s and 94s listed for around $100, and Winchester M70s cost $121.

Trends? The Winchester 70 has acceded, over 20 years, to the Remington 700, though both remain comfortably ahead of the competition. The recent hiatus in M70 production can’t improve that rifle’s lot among elk hunters. 

Cartridges
Despite the invasion of short beltless magnums over the last decade, most elk hunters in our surveys preferred the cartridges they carried before the first WSM appeared. The ubiquitous .30-06 again finished with the highest number of votes—a resounding 148, or more than a quarter of all the responses received in this category. For the first time in the history of this exercise, though, the 7mm Remington Magnum yielded second place to the .300 Winchester Magnum. Early surveys put the belted 7 well ahead of all .30 magnums, and once it edged the .30-06 for top spot. But the .300 Winchester has steadily gained ground over the years. Among the most versatile of big game rounds, it delivers significantly more punch than the 7mm Remington Magnum and is just as widely chambered. The .338 Winchester Magnum and .270 also switched places, relative to their first showings in the early 1990s. With hunters choosing ever-more-powerful cartridges, the .338’s strong showing is no surprise—though modern bullets give the .270 all the smash you’ll likely need, with much less recoil. As in years past, no other rounds threatened the top six choices. Cartridges spanned a broad ballistic range, from the .243 to the .378 Weatherby. Among the old and beloved: the 7x57 and .348. Among the excellent but neglected: the .330 Dakota and .340 Weatherby. 

Bullets
Because 30-caliber rifles figure so heavily in any list of favorite elk rounds, 180-grain .308 bullets rule the projectile roster. Add the 175-grain bullets some hunters use in 7mm magnums, and that weight range swells. But arguably most 7mms are better served with 150- and 160-grain spitzers, and 30-caliber cartridges of modest capacity do well with 165s.

As for bullet sources, Federal topped the list with 126 mentions. Remington bested Nosler for second place, 111 to 97. Winchester got 63 votes and Barnes 20. Of course, Barnes (like Nosler) sells bullets to Federal and Winchester, which market them in loaded ammunition. Swift bullets appear in Remington ammo, so may also have been under-reported. Sierra furnishes MatchKings and hunting bullets to all three loading companies; but the name still gets little recognition outside the handloading community. Despite its many and significant advances recently in hunting ammunition, Hornady earned few mentions. 

Rifle scopes
Predictably, variable scopes buried the fixed-power models in our most recent surveys. The 3-9x is still the most popular power range (and, in my view, the most useful). More than 170 hunters chose the 3-9x, nearly 50 the 3.5-10x, which by virtue of increasing availability, is becoming more popular. Hunters opting for more power outnumbered those satisfied with less by a ratio of three to two. The excellent 2-7x Leupold Vari-X II got exactly as many votes as the newer 2.5-8x Vari-X III but will no doubt lose ground to this and other fine variables of like magnification from Nikon and Zeiss. Not only does 2x at the low end seem inadequate; it is lower than you need to go for a huge field of view. Swarovski Z6 scopes, with six-times magnification, are too new to have figured in these surveys. While the 4x earns plaudits from a stubborn few who recognize its many merits afield, it lacks the overwhelming support it once had from a generation raised on the Weaver K4, B&L Balfor and 4x glass from Redfield and Leupold. So sad.

Only 12 hunters reported using iron sights.

As to market share, Leupold still dominates. Of hunters surveyed, more than half (395) reported using Leupold scopes! Zeiss, now aggressively courting riflemen in the U.S., has made inroads with its fine Conquest scopes. But like Swarovski, Kahles and other venerable European firms, it has a tough mission prying hunters from the Golden Ring. Leupold’s masterful marketing, its American roots and an iron-clad guarantee have sold shooters on its rifle-scopes since their 1947 debut. Nikon continues to refine its superb Monarch line, and elk hunters are taking notice. Burris and Bushnell stay in the race with sights that deliver great value for the dollar.

Binoculars
As if the optics industry had a mandate from above, it has focused on bringing hunters a choice of 8x42 and 10x42 roof-prism binoculars—and not much else. Grudgingly, it has heeded calls for the lighter and, to my mind more versatile, 8x32. Sportsmen content with 3mm exit pupils (read: less light gathering ability) can get 10x32s; and 50mm objectives have proliferated to serve hunters willing to carry them. All but gone are lightweight Porro prism glasses like the B&L 7x35 Zephyrs I once carried. Thank heavens for Nikon’s current and excellent SE!

Once a minor player in the binocular market, Leupold now shows up more often than any other name in these surveys—a fitting tribute on the company’s 100th anniversary. The high cost of top-drawer Zeiss, Swarovski and Leica glass no doubt discourages some buyers. Zeiss and Nikon have made overtures to the quality-conscious with models that cost less but deliver images that are hard to tell from the most expensive glass.

Surveys tell you what’s popular. But like exit polls during elections, they don’t necessarily tell you what’s best. There’s a greater selection of hunting rifles, ammunition and optics than we need to have fun or ensure success afield. Still, the gear we carry to the mountain and the choices we make in its use play a role in defining the hunt. Perhaps that’s why RMEF members continue, after 20 years, to help so graciously with these surveys.