31 replies [Last post]
Offline
Location: Washington & Montana
Joined: 02/21/2005
Posts: 1
300 Win Mag....or...30.06

Getting back into Elk hunting after a 25 year layoff. Looking at purchasing a 300 win mag or a 30.06. I'm leaning towards the 300 win mag but am a little reticent about the recoil. Any suggestions? SS or regular blue?

Also...any good recommends on scopes? Looking at Leupolds right now. A lot of things have changed since 1979.

Offline
Location: Montana
Joined: 02/20/2005
Posts: 5
300 Win Mag....or...30.06

I have gone full circle on the magnums vs non and I am back to using a .280 Remington model 700 for elk & deer. Plenty of punch and very little recoil, fine accuracy. I have a Leupold VXIII 2.5x8 - great scope, lightweight and extremely clear and crisp. Lately I am going for the lighter weight. I wouldn't recommend a magnum with a muzzle brake just because of the noise factor - I previously owner a rem 7mm mag w/ brake and after shooting in the field my ears would ring for an hour. I also shot a 300 ultramag for two years - found out that my .280 kills them just as dead and uses about half the powder. I think the 30-06 is a fine round - Hope that helps!

Offline
Location: Montana
Joined: 02/20/2005
Posts: 5
300 Win Mag....or...30.06

I have gone full circle on the magnums vs non and I am back to using a .280 Remington model 700 for elk & deer. Plenty of punch and very little recoil, fine accuracy. I have a Leupold VXIII 2.5x8 - great scope, lightweight and extremely clear and crisp. Lately I am going for the lighter weight. I wouldn't recommend a magnum with a muzzle brake just because of the noise factor - I previously owner a rem 7mm mag w/ brake and after shooting in the field my ears would ring for an hour. I also shot a 300 ultramag for two years - found out that my .280 kills them just as dead and uses about half the powder. I think the 30-06 is a fine round - Hope that helps!

Offline
Location: granada hills
Joined: 01/13/2005
Posts: 6
300 Win Mag....or...30.06

I do not have any experience with a 30-06 or 300 mag. But I have quite a few Leupold scopes. I love them. I have a few rifles with brakes and the noise does not bother me at all since I use ear plugs.

Offline
Moderator
Location: Wa.
Joined: 03/31/2004
Posts: 1300
300 Win Mag....or...30.06

The most common round I see up in the Washinton Mtns. is the 30-06.
My personal preferrences are the 30-06 and the new 300wsm. 180gr bonded core bullets. These Roosevelts are big but, most shots are within 150 yds.

Offline
Joined: 02/01/2005
Posts: 25
300 Win Mag....or...30.06

I shoot a Browning BBR .300 win mag and that sucker kicks like a mule.
But it gives me the luxury of accuracy in a long shot.
At times ammo is hard to find.
Ammo is expensive.

30-06 is the old faithful, predominantly the most popular caliber nation wide.
Works well enough on both Elk and Deer; the kick is not all that bad.
Not my first choice on long shot.
Ammo is inexpensive, and readily available.
Big smile

Offline
Location: Utah
Joined: 03/03/2005
Posts: 383
300 Win Mag....or...30.06

Just noticed something in comparing the 30-06 to a 300 Win Mag:

In looking at the 2005 Winchester Catalog, 30-06 Premium ammo (180-gr. AccuBond for example), has slightly higher energy at 300 yards than a 300 Win Mag using their standard ammo - i.e. Super X 180-gr. Power Point.

The 30-06 premium bullet is much more efficient in going through the air, so at 300 yards, it has more energy than a less aerodynamic 300 Win Mag bullet in the same weight.

In short, it's possible to get the best of both worlds - lower recoil with a 30-06 and magnum performance from a premium bullet with a high ballistic coefficient.

Anonymous
300 Win Mag....or...30.06

There is absolutely NO REASON NOT to purchase the 300 Winchester Magnum over the 30-06! It will give you another 100 yards in down range distance and energy levels of 450 foot pounds of evergy over the 06.

If your worried about the recoil don't be, you just spend under $40 dollars for a magnum PAST RECOIL PAD and that 300 win mag will feel like a 270 whinney going off in your hands. My son at 17 years old shot his first 300 mag, while wearing that very same type pad. His words where: "It didn't KICK near as bad, as I expected Dad"

Offline
Location: Missouri/Arkansas
Joined: 08/21/2003
Posts: 891
300 Win Mag....or...30.06

I wouldn't feel undergunned packing a 30-06. My Remington 700 BDL is so-chambered. Shooting 165 grain bullets through that rifle, I have chronographed them at 3020 fps MV, and these have achieved groups of anywhere from 1.5 inches down to a little under an inch at 100 yards.

The same 30-06 also spits out handloaded 180 grain bullets at 2800 fps and even a tad more, with similar groups. Recoil does increase in higher energy loads, but still less than a 300 Winchester Magnum shooting factory loaded 165 grain bullets.

Conversely, a 308 Winchester shooting a 180 grain bullet at 2600 to 2650 fps MV reaches the 200 to 250 yard mark with plenty of punch for an elk.

Although muzzle brakes reduce recoil, they increase muzzle blast and noise, which can still lead to flinching, as well as hearing loss. If you're concerned about the recoil, I would suggest avoiding a 300 Magnum. The 7mm Remington Magnum will achieve roughly the same performance as the 300 with proper bullet and load selection with considerably less recoil.

Offline
Location: Colorado
Joined: 02/27/2003
Posts: 394
300 Win Mag....or...30.06
Quick-Sand wrote:
[The .300 Win Mag] will give you another 100 yards in down range distance and energy levels of 450 foot pounds of evergy over the 06.

No offense intended, Quick-Sand, but you are more than a little bit off. I actually did the math and calculated point-blank-range for both, assuming a 10" diameter vital zone for an elk (which I think is a little generous) and 180 grain bullets in both, the .300 Win Mag has a 38 yard advantage over the -06 in range (478 vs. 440) and about a 260 ft. lbs. advantage in energy (1837 vs. 1576). Assume a smaller vital zone and the differences become even less.

Given the fact that there are precious damn few hunters who have any business taking shots at 300 yards, let alone at 400, not to mention the fact that a little bit of time and effort spent actually HUNTING and there's no reason to take a shot beyond about 200 yards, and the differences between the .300 and the -06 become pretty much meaningless.

Anonymous
300 Win Mag....or...30.06

DonMillion..........Will Sprout! I reckon I must be a real Diamond in the Ruff hey!

I will tell you I have taken with success for several decades, shots on big game animals like elk and mule deer over 400 yards and then some. There are those of us who can hit targets that distance and I for one don't consider it beyound my abilities understand.

Now one other thing before I close most ethical hunter! Unless you can walk on water or float through the air, it is damn impossible to get closer to elk on a ridge across a 300 or 400 yard canyon, especially when the ride by horse back takes 4 to 6 hours to get to the other side above them.

Now out West Million Dollar Don, such places do exist and if your a hunter who can indeed shoot and hit his target, there is no time to spare rolling your eyes and wondering. Not in my book least wise, I didn't make the 1000 mile trip to tell myself, I must take 200 yard shots or be whipped with a cat of 9 tales later.

One more thing Donny Boy! I don't cotton to what information you might derive from a PC program. I deal with known facts and those don't include point blank range savy. My rifle is dead on at 300 yards and I keep in my head, as well as a cue card on the gunstock, any hold over necessary passed 400 yards. I also know what bullets works best for my rifle to obtain that goal.
PS......I agree that "Kinetic Energy" never killed one iota of a bull elk in the wild!