Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Savage Collectors Effective range for Moose

I waited until fairly late in life to get in to hunting. This year I'll be passed on my dad's .300 Savage and intend to go hunting moose in the Summer in Northern British Columbia. I'm told there are often longer range shots to be made there and that the .300 might not have the power for moose at these ranges. I figured I'd ask those here what range they'd consider the maximum range I should consider shooting a moose from with this gun. Friends have 30-06 and .308 I can use if needed. The chart here: http://www.sportsmansguide.com/Outdoors/resource/remington_charts/300savbal.htm makes me think 200 yards should be fine, 300 is possibly ok. Am I on the right track?

If you shoot a good penatrating bullet the range limitation has more to do with how far you can confidantly hit where you need to and also have enough velocity to open the bullet up. I would have no trouble shooting a moose at 300yds with a 300 savage.


Its hard to imagine that a moose would know the difference between getting hit with a 308 or 300 savage under most circumstances.

I hunt moose with a 300 Sav, it'll do whatever a 308 will do, I don't bother with charts.

Go with a 180 gr bullet for moose though. Doesn't really matter I guess, a moose is gonna go for a bit before it falls anyways. I've seen moose go over 400 yds with no heart left in them at all.

Thanks for the answers. Regarding the 180g, is that going to have more destructive power despite carrying less energy? I suppose from being longer when it tumbles through the animal?

The 303 British shooting 180 grain bullets has probably killed about a gazillion Canadian moose.

I don't see any reason the 300 Savage couldn't kill one out to 300 yards.

Not alot of options for the 300 Savage, your either buying 150 gr or 180 gr. Since were talking moose your gonna want to hit him with as much lead as your can. I'd like to think that if that bull flinches and you put one in the shoulder that the 180 is gonna penetrate a whole lot more than a 150. I use 150 gr when deer hunting but I'd opt for more penetration than energy when it comes to moose. Your not talking about some stupid ole doe.

My family and I have killed our share of moose. We've accounted for 7 since 1992. That's pretty gratifying seeing as though it's a lottery.

We started out with Nosler partition bullets at 180 grains. My wife was the first to kill one. The load has always been the same.
IMR 4831, 56 grains, case R-P, primer CCI large rifle, and initially the Nosler. My wife shot at 265 yards. Bullet went completely through both lungs. Struck no bone and the exit hole was the same size as the entrance. I was not impressed although the result was a dead moose. Went about 100 yards.

I was next. In 1993. Rifle was a Ruger #1B. It took 4 shots to kill the record book moose. Of the 4 rounds fired, I was able to recover the one in the picture. It started life as a 180 grain bullet. It weighs 49 grains. That was the absolute LAST time I considered a Nosler bullet for ANYTHING.

In 1997 my sone shot his first moose. We played aroung with Speer Grand Slams and the Barnes solid copper X bullet. The Barnes bullet outperformed the Speer, so we went with it. The velocity was just 2591 with a muzzle energy of 2683 Foot pounds. The recovered bullet started out as a 180 and pictured after recovery it weighs 172. No that's my idea of a moose bullet. Of course, your opinion may be considerably different and I respect that.

Don't want to take exception to your take on Nosler's. You noted your wife's shot on her moose was 265 yards. I am curious about the distance you and your son shot your moose.
Thanks
Wayne

My first shot was a little over 100 yards. The moose turned and came straight at us. I shot 3 more times and the moose finally piled up 12 yards from where my son and I stood.The bullet as a Nosler Partition. My sons moose was 59 yards. One shot done deal. Barnes X. Again, EVERYTHING regarding guns, hunting, and everything that goes along with it is a totally personal preference. That's what makes it fun for everybody.

Most of the moose shot in my area are all 100 yds or under. We've got alot of thick brush and swamp around the camp but if you get up into the cuts your looking at 300 yd shots. Only thing is that when moose season rolls around they aren't up in the cuts, haha.

Perhaps this is true (I have no idea at all yet, having not had enough experience to develop an opinion), but I certainly appreciate folks willing to take the time to share their opinions and experiences. At the very least I'll have some starting points based on others' experiences. You all have my thanks for that!

Don't thank us yet, shooting the moose is the easy part!

Ain't that the truth. You can kill em with about any old thing once you find one. I once saw a native in Manitoba drive his boat about 2 miles across a lake to within about 100 yards from young bull and stand up in the boat and dispatch the beast with several rounds from a model 94 30-30, win which looked like it had been pulling double duty for several years as his boat paddle.

What to do with them once they are dead is the real question.

Well, you could pack board them out like my dad and uncles always did....


or theres the easy way:

Took this bull in Newfoundland near Dear Lake in 2009 with my Savage 300 EG using Federal 180 gr. soft points at about 85 yds. First shot knocked him down and second shot finished him. On same hunt also took a woodland caribou at about 175 yds, one shot kill with same rifle & federal ammo.

Beauty, 'eh?

You can find examples of nonfunctional "high performance bullets" on any hunting forum. I have read of failed Partitions, A-frames, and Barnes Xs, TSXs, and TTSXs. I've also read of plenty of hunters who have always used traditional cup-and-core SPs on elk and moose with no worries.
Here's my take on it. (presuming you do not reload.) 2 boxes of premium 165 grain Nosler Acccubond from Doubletap with a velocity of 2520 fps out of a 22 inch barrel, costs about $90 bucks, vs. 2 boxes of 180 gr. Rem cor-loct, MV of 2350 fps out of unknown but probably 24 inch barrel, costs about $66 , or under 50 cents a bullet less, both available online at MidwayUSA.com . (no hazmat fee for UPS ground shipping either)
With all the $$$ I put into a hunt, the difference between going premium hunting ammo vs. something i am not quite as confident in, to save the price of a hamburger, brings up the question: Is ammo where you want to scrimp on an important hunting trip?
That said, either of the above will do well, if put in the right spot.

I'd say that limiting your range to 150 yards or less... and "less" is better, I believe the .300 is "adequate" for moose using excellent premium bullets.

I honestly believe 200 yards is "pushing it", but if you are an excellent marksman and take only a "rested" shot thus putting your bullet EXACTLY where you want it (in the moose's "kill zone"), then yes, the .300 Savage is "adequate" for moose with a good bullet heavy enough to penetrate through the moose's tough hide, heavy bone and wide girth.

I took my big Canadian moose (5-foot+ antler spread with huge "palms") in the mid-1960's on a fly-in trip well back into the Canadian bush. The plane was equipped with pontoons and landed on a remote lake where the Indian guide was waiting at a tent camp at the edge of the lake.

A man couldn't penetrate and walk through the bush unless he got down on his hands & knees and followed the bear trails through the bush, so the camp was necessarily along the lake's shore-line.

I used my custom pre-'64 Model 70 Winchester with a 26-inch barrel in .338 Winchester Magnum. My hand-loaded round consisted of a 210 grain Nosler Partition Bullet in front of a maximum load of IMR4350 @ a 3020 fps.

The bullet smashed a vertebrae in the big moose's neck at 110 yards, then turned and went down the neck and stopped just under the off-side shoulder's skin. The moose dropped where he stood and never moved. He was dead when we beached the canoe and got to him.

I followed the wound channel while the Indian guide cut up the moose for transport back to camp and, eventually, into the plane and back to the main camp while I dug the bullet out and still have it.

It weighed 148.6 grains meaning it retained almost 71% of its original weight after turning a fist-size vertebrae into splinters and bone-dust as well as penetrating several feet of moose. The Nosler Partition bullet expanded to 50+ caliber. Thus the obvious advantage of a heavier bullet.

If you're a hand-loader, you might also check out a 165 grain premium bullet of your choice in front of a maximum charge of a powder of your choice for a muzzle velocity close to 2600 fps out of a .300 Savage cartridge case. The 165 grain bullet may be the best overall choice when considering a "balance" between both bullet weight and muzzle velocity.

However, I wouldn't completely disregard the advice of our members who regularly hunt moose with their .300 Savage Model 99s and recommend the 180 grain bullets... certainly they have "been there, done that".

By shortening the range somewhat... let's say no greater than 150 yards, your bullet retains a higher velocity at the target which translates into greater penetration and higher bullet energy.

Bullet PLACEMENT is, of course, a PRIMARY consideration. I'd suggest a shot through the somewhat lower heart/lung area just behind the shoulder. No moose usually goes very far with both lungs shredded and the tip of the heart missing.

Good luck on your hunt...


Strength & Honor...

Ron T.

Beg to differ Ron.

You got lucky, you spined yours. I've seen double lunged moose go alot farther than what your saying. That comment would start one big flame war at Canadian Gun Nutz and I'd be locking the thread in under an hour, haha.

That moose my wife shot through the lungs without hitting any bone dropped within a hundred yards from where he was standing,,,,,,,,,,,but he walked over 600 yards to get there and he was acting as though he didn't even know he was hit. That was quite a lesson. Because of the small (as in not much over bullet dia) exit hole, 99% of the blood was in front of the diaphragm.