In light of the “Is 30-06 too much gun” thread, thought I’d start a new thread titled differently to ask the question that popped up in that thread. Has anyone ever run into a situation where a larger caliber, faster bullet, or some other combination was required to kill an animal – that a properly loaded 30-06 couldn’t handle?
A look at ballistics indicates the 30-06 can cover a bunch of ground. Think a 270 Win or 7 RM ‘smokes’ the 06? Run the ballistics on a 30 cal, 150 gr Nos AB scooting at 3000 ft/sec – 31 inches low at 500. A 7mm, 160 Nos AB at 3000 ft/sec is 28 inches low at 500 (a 7mm 150 at 3100 is 27” low). A bit less wind drift with the 160 AB but not a huge difference (30-06 19”, 270 18”, 7RM 15”).
A 180 Partition at 2800 from an 06 drops 35” at 500 using a max rise of 3.2” above horizontal. A similarly sighted 300 WM (3.2” max Y) at 3050, typical 300 WM velocities, using the same bullet drops 28” at 500 and drifts 1.5” less at 500. Using an arbitrary 250 yard zero the differences are less (300 WM drops 6” less than 06).
Bullet velocity and associated inherent velocity/performance envelopes (~ 2000 ft/sec) are sufficient for the 06 out past 550 yards (750 yards if you consider a bullet velocity envelope of 1800 ft/sec).
So the question really is: when will a properly loaded 30-06 not work and we need something flatter shooting or harder hitting to hit/kill our intended game?
So the question really is: when will a properly loaded 30-06 not work and we need something flatter shooting or harder hitting to hit/kill our intended game?
When the hunter f'ks up.
Originally Posted by Mannlicher
America needs to understand that our troops are not 'disposable'. Each represents a family; Fathers, Mothers, Sons, Daughters, Cousins, Uncles, Aunts... Our Citizens are our most valuable treasure; we waste far too many.
So the question really is: when will a properly loaded 30-06 not work and we need something flatter shooting or harder hitting to hit/kill our intended game? [/quote]
The '06 will be totally worthless immediately after the Chicago Cubs win the World Series two years in a row.
Why does a man who is 50 pounds overweight complain about a 10 pound rifle being too heavy? SCI Life Member 4**
It works everywhere except here and has been skullphucked up one side and down the other.
Was kind of thinking the same thing - but I am asking a serious question. I've been hunting close to 40 years and have killed my share of stuff. I've yet to shoot at any living animal past 350 and then only did so once and was successful. I've passed up more than a few shots because I didn't like the angle/wind/distance or something weird - but it wasn't because I had an inadequate weapon. My personal ethics/limitations kept me from shooting - not the weapon which is the point of my post. Thats my experience but know alot of guys on here have much broader and varied experiences than I, hence the serious nature to the question.
With modern powders and bullets the 30-06 is truly better than ever. Until you get up to Cape Buffalo, there is no NEED for anything else. Truth is, that you can say the same for lots of rounds but the 30-06 is a great balance of power and shootability while being the most popular round in just about every corner of the whole world. There is nowhere that you can find shooting supplies that you can't find the 30-06.
Buddy wound up with a problem getting his rifle into Africa in 2012 and ended up hunting plains game with a loaner 760 pump and 180 RN . He will tell you that its the beat trip Jes ever had.
Over the years I've been blessed to be able to play with a variety of different big game cartridges. For the first 20+ years I used a 7mm "shoot 'em again" RM. Because big game tended to drop at the shot or go no more than a few steps, I had no idea I was using a totally inadequate, shoulder-busting cartridge.
Fast forward to 2006, when I acquired my first .30-06, or 2014 when I reduced the number of 30-06 rifles in the safe back to three. As with the 7mm RM, game dropped quickly
When Daughter #2 got married, her husband got a .30-06 as a wedding present. It looks like Daughter #1 will be getting married this summer and her husband will also receive a .30-06 as a wedding gift. We hunt antelope, deer and elk and, based on experience, I see no reason to go bigger.
Coyote Hunter - NRA Patriot Life, NRA Whittington Center Life, GOA, DAD - and I VOTE!
No, I'm not a Ruger bigot - just an unabashed fan of their revolvers, M77's and #1's.
This is truly amazing. How this old tired yardstick of a cartridge can inspire so much interest. I think it's testimony to the very reason the 06 has endured this long. It never gets old. I wish I had some way of tallying up all the threads on all the forums on the net,that revolve around the old 06. I'm obviously pro 30/06. Always have been. So,I'm a little biased. But,I can understand other folks not being in the cult.
I have a 7 Rem mag presently,that I am very fond of. It will do anything the Otter6 will. Just as well. Maybe a shade better with bullets under 150gr. Light .30 caliber lead core bullets get a little chubby and inefficient. On the other hand the old 06 can make good use of a 200gr bullet. It doesn't even need to be a monolithic. The 30/06 is what I call cup and core compatible. All that being said. Even though my T3 7 mag is a one hole wonder.Lots of cool factor. And just damn near perfect. If I had to choose between it and a comparable 30/06 as my go-to,one gun for all. Adios. I'll take the 06 purely out of some odd attraction to it. It just begs to be used. I can't explain it,but I believe it's the same voo doo that keeps us coming back to it. Even if for no other reason than to expound on it's virtues and it's faults.
To answer the OP. When won't it do? When in your own mind it isn't the best rifle for the job. You gotta have confidence in your rig. If you don't, you need a different rig.
"Political Correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."
Bob I am just being tongue in cheek. I live in Ohio And don't get to use rifles for deer thus my 243 is fine for groundhogs. You have forgotten more about this subject than I know.
It works everywhere except here and has been skullphucked up one side and down the other.
Not sure where you're getting that from. (Perhaps I haven't been paying attention. ) I certainly don't know anyone who uses one (or several) who disses it. (It actually works pretty well for beluga hunting too, for younger hunters or those who can't take the recoil of many rapid shots of 375…) I understand it doesn't have the aura of some of the newer, smaller, faster, flatter ones, but she ain't a spring chicken anymore and I'd venture she's holding up better than most of the new ones will at the same age.
Sometimes, the air you 'let in'matters less than the air you 'let out'.
Lol when you absolutely need a low ballistic coefficient bullet along with heavy recoil and inefficient use of gunpowder...30/06
I always like to read raw genius from someone who hasn't a clue what they are talking about. Of all the assorted crap I've read here you moved up to a tie for 1st Place. Congrats....... Winner Winner Chicken Dinner........
Why does a man who is 50 pounds overweight complain about a 10 pound rifle being too heavy? SCI Life Member 4**
The 30-06 will hardly kill most ground squirrels unless you hit them right. Most guys around here have learned to shoot shoulders just to anchor them. Kind of a worthless cartridge. Not good for much of anything, unless you need to clear a few japs off your bayonet. It's good for that.
Last edited by Higbean; 04/22/15.
Screw you! I'm voting for Trump again!
Ecc 10:2 The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but that of a fool to the 24HCF.
In light of the “Is 30-06 too much gun” thread, thought I’d start a new thread titled differently to ask the question that popped up in that thread. Has anyone ever run into a situation where a larger caliber, faster bullet, or some other combination was required to kill an animal – that a properly loaded 30-06 couldn’t handle?
A look at ballistics indicates the 30-06 can cover a bunch of ground. Think a 270 Win or 7 RM ‘smokes’ the 06? Run the ballistics on a 30 cal, 150 gr Nos AB scooting at 3000 ft/sec – 31 inches low at 500. A 7mm, 160 Nos AB at 3000 ft/sec is 28 inches low at 500 (a 7mm 150 at 3100 is 27” low). A bit less wind drift with the 160 AB but not a huge difference (30-06 19”, 270 18”, 7RM 15”).
A 180 Partition at 2800 from an 06 drops 35” at 500 using a max rise of 3.2” above horizontal. A similarly sighted 300 WM (3.2” max Y) at 3050, typical 300 WM velocities, using the same bullet drops 28” at 500 and drifts 1.5” less at 500. Using an arbitrary 250 yard zero the differences are less (300 WM drops 6” less than 06).
Bullet velocity and associated inherent velocity/performance envelopes (~ 2000 ft/sec) are sufficient for the 06 out past 550 yards (750 yards if you consider a bullet velocity envelope of 1800 ft/sec).
So the question really is: when will a properly loaded 30-06 not work and we need something flatter shooting or harder hitting to hit/kill our intended game?
Excellent title/thread idea.. I agree.. . Been using one since I was 12 and it's always worked great..
Originally Posted by raybass
I try to stick with the basics, they do so well. Nothing fancy mind you, just plain jane will get it done with style.
Originally Posted by Pharmseller
You want to see an animal drop right now? Shoot him in the ear hole.
The 30-06 will hardly kill most ground squirrels unless you hit them right. Most guys around here have learned to shoot shoulders just to anchor them. Kind of a worthless cartridge. Not good for much of anything, unless you need to clear a few japs off your bayonet. It's good for that.
They are barely big enough for lizards. Shoot under them and let the rock shrapnel kill them . They work great on jack rabbits too...
Originally Posted by raybass
I try to stick with the basics, they do so well. Nothing fancy mind you, just plain jane will get it done with style.
Originally Posted by Pharmseller
You want to see an animal drop right now? Shoot him in the ear hole.
Bob I am just being tongue in cheek. I live in Ohio And don't get to use rifles for deer thus my 243 is fine for groundhogs. You have forgotten more about this subject than I know.
mjb I kind of doubt that....was just curious was all.
Always like looking at your pics Phil. Thanks for posting them. If you don't mind me asking. What bullet did you whack the bear with?
"Political Correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."
And Phil provides meaningful data - again. He showed uses that I've never considered, and likely will never do.
This thread is kind of a realization, at least for me, that the 30-06 covers almost all the ground almost all big game sportsman will ever need. As I explained in the previous 30-06 thread, I despised the 30-06 for years. I humbly submit I was wrong.
I've also come to the realization, painful as it is, that as I age (51 at the moment) I'm becoming less enamored with recoil. I've had magnum eyebrow twice shooting magnums at weird angles on game. I'm asking why should I put up with that?
As someone pointed out earlier in this thread, a guy must have confidence in his rifle. I have extreme confidence in my rifles and associated abilities within my self imposed restrictions. I've had zero faith in the 30-06 for most of my life for some reason. I'm seeing it in a much different light as I work through tolerating recoil to arrive at an end point. I don't need a 300 RUM to shot elk at 400 yards or less. I don't need a 257 Weatherby to shoot an antelope at 400 yards. I've always shot flatter shooting cartridges to give me the maximum amount of error when shooting at big game - what if animal X is 450 yards instead of 400? Truth of the matter all bullets starting dropping like rocks after 400 yards. You need significant skill and equipment to be able to shoot much past that distance. I have neither the inclination or desire to do that, so limit my shots to 400 yards. The other truism is that once 'big game' enters the equation, we all run up against the recoil equation. We could all shoot 30-378 or 50 BMG rifles to maximize the effective point blank range but who the hell wants to A. carry one of these, B. shoot it from a straight up or half quartering angle. Then there's the whole bullet integrity issue. To truly maximize a flat shooting rifle capacity, we need high BC's bullets. Truth be known most high BC bullets tend toward the frangible end of the spectrum because of the velocity envelope necessary to perform as advertised at distance.
I see how a laser shooter is a good idea for 'smaller big game' because the recoil investiment for the performance gain is fairly minimal making these type rifles very capable in the hands of those who take the time to learn to shoot at distance. My issue is very simple - reading the wind. I read an article lately that stated that a really good long distance shooter can read the wind within 3 mph. They used a ballistic program to show the differences in drift of a high BC bullet at 500-1000 yards for wind readings +/- 3mph. I left the article confirming that I'll never be shooting at long distance. Remember - this is a good wind reader. What about the average or not so good wind readers?
This factoid was proven to me when I was in my 20's. I stated in the other 30-06 thread that I've never shot at an animal past 350 yards or so. Not true - that should have said big game animal. We had a place to shoot woodchucks. It sat along a gravel road and we knew the landowners well. We used to bring a bench and sand bags set up in the back of a pick-up to shoot at them from point blank to way out there, I'm guessing 1/2 mile or so. In those days I normally used a 243 shooting various 70-100 grain bullets or my 280 Rem shooting 140-150 grain bullets. Shooting from a dead steady bench, the only reason to miss was mis-estimation of range or wind. After a while we figured the hold and distances so the major variable was wind. We soon learned that lightweight, fast 243 bullets would drift in a breeze enough to miss woodchucks at less than 300 yards unless you compensated for the wind. Very unscientific but did prove to me the impacts of wind. I've carried those lessons with me for the past 30 years. I know it is possible to shoot effectively in the wind but have also seen the wind change directions, swirl, and a bunch of other weirdness to know it can't be read accurately 100% of the time.
Great thread. The first firearm I ever owned was a 30-06. I still have that one. Its a great all around, get er done kind of cartridge. Now if I could just talk myself into not needing all of my other rifles things would sure be simple.
So the question really is: when will a properly loaded 30-06 not work and we need something flatter shooting or harder hitting to hit/kill our intended game?
I keep looking but haven't come up with anything yet. Give me a couple more decades and I'll get back to you.
I am continually astounded at how quickly people make up their minds on little evidence or none at all. Jack O'Connor
The 30-06 is so good that pretty much all cartridge development since 1906, at least as far as hunting rounds go, has been superfluous and nothing more than mental masturbation for the rifle loonies.
Bought my '06 in 1974. Have acquired a few more rifles in different calibers and chamberings since then. All could leave (if necessary) except Grandpa's 99 .250-3000 and the '06.
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." Robert E. Howard
I'll also say that with regard to military rounds, the .308 was a mistake. It's whole reason for being was commonality between machine gun rounds and rifle rounds with the understanding that riflemen needed a shorter round so they could carry more ammo. Well, the .308 is a little shorter but not much lighter and regardless, it was only the rifleman's round for less than a decade.
What we should have today are 5.56 rifles and 30-06 machine guns and sniper rifles with today's powder it would be a significant upgrade in performance.
The 30-06 is so good that pretty much all cartridge development since 1906, at least as far as hunting rounds go, has been superfluous and nothing more than mental masturbation for the rifle loonies.
This. It is funny we still debate something that was pretty much figured out in the 1930's. Modern bullets, optics, and rangefinders just make the '06 even better. It is obviously not a great high volume varmint gun, but that's about it's only shortcoming. Recoil is a bit tough for some, but reduced recoil loads fix that. Loonies like to point out the 'wasted space' of the long action. I like shooting smaller calibers, but I can't really imaging anything in NA that the '06 isn't well equipped for.
The only problem with the '06 is that everybody has one of the damn things (including me) How are you gonna brag about your rifle if everybody in camp has the same thing? Hunters like to be unique.
The only problem with the '06 is that everybody has one of the damn things (including me) How are you gonna brag about your rifle if everybody in camp has the same thing? Hunters like to be unique.
Using "only a 30-06" is bragging
One nice thing about all the 30 calibers is that factory bullets are available in a range of a factor of two 110 gr to 220r. and if you consider the 55gr Accelerators and 250 gr Woodleighs it is even higher.
My favorite for use in Alaska is the Nosler Partition 200 gr bullet and it is a fantastic long range hunting bullet and works superb at spitting range on critters as large as our big bears. I did use the 220 Partition on the bear in the photo as my 30-06 was built with a fast twist to utilize them. Although it shoots 150 gr bullets well also.
I'll also say that with regard to military rounds, the .308 was a mistake. It's whole reason for being was commonality between machine gun rounds and rifle rounds with the understanding that riflemen needed a shorter round so they could carry more ammo. Well, the .308 is a little shorter but not much lighter and regardless, it was only the rifleman's round for less than a decade.
What we should have today are 5.56 rifles and 30-06 machine guns and sniper rifles with today's powder it would be a significant upgrade in performance.
The Army Ordnance Corp wanted .30/06 performance from a shorter cartridge. 150 grain bullet with a muzzle velocity of 2700 fps. They started with the 300 Savage cartridge and tinkered with it till they got what they wanted. Then forced all of NATO to agree to adopt it.
The only problem with the '06 is that everybody has one of the damn things (including me) How are you gonna brag about your rifle if everybody in camp has the same thing? Hunters like to be unique.
Using "only a 30-06" is bragging
One nice thing about all the 30 calibers is that factory bullets are available in a range of a factor of two 110 gr to 220r. and if you consider the 55gr Accelerators and 250 gr Woodleighs it is even higher.
My favorite for use in Alaska is the Nosler Partition 200 gr bullet and it is a fantastic long range hunting bullet and works superb at spitting range on critters as large as our big bears. I did use the 220 Partition on the bear in the photo as my 30-06 was built with a fast twist to utilize them. Although it shoots 150 gr bullets well also.
Only problems I've had with the 06 not working is when I forget to load a primer or powder.
So the question really is: when will a properly loaded 30-06 not work and we need something flatter shooting or harder hitting to hit/kill our intended game?
Working, after a fashion, & being optimum are 2 different things.
No problem at all with the '06 on everything but dangerous game & for that I simply want the security of a bigger bore & more HP with a heavier bullet.
If I had no choice but the '06, I think I'd pass on some animals.
So the question really is: when will a properly loaded 30-06 not work and we need something flatter shooting or harder hitting to hit/kill our intended game?
Working, after a fashion, & being optimum are 2 different things.
No problem at all with the '06 on everything but dangerous game & for that I simply want the security of a bigger bore & more HP with a heavier bullet.
If I had no choice but the '06, I think I'd pass on some animals.
MM
Agreed with may not be optimum for some animals.
What animals/conditions do you feel it inadequate or you would pass on?
Based on my nearly non existent knowledge of African hunting, I don't think the law allows hunting of the "big 5" with anything less than a .375 ...so in that regard, I guess a 30-06 would not "work", although I am sure that all these species have been killed by a 30-06 or some equivalent at some point.
WDM Bell shot elephants with a 7x57....everyone thinks they know that story. Eleanor O'Connor shot lions, tigers and maybe an elephant or two with her 30-06. Col Patterson killed the lions of Tsavo with a .303 British....which is like a 30-06 youth load. No "trophy fees" in those days and as long as they did not get stomped or clawed I doubt people in those times were too worried about wounding critters, especially those that were making a nuisance of themselves.
More recently, I remember reading about a gun writer who got a special permit to kill a Cape Buffalo with a 30-06....I think he used solid bullets. He posed with a dead buff so I guess he got it done.
"Men must be governed by God or they will be ruled by tyrants". --- William Penn
So the question really is: when will a properly loaded 30-06 not work and we need something flatter shooting or harder hitting to hit/kill our intended game?
Working, after a fashion, & being optimum are 2 different things.
No problem at all with the '06 on everything but dangerous game & for that I simply want the security of a bigger bore & more HP with a heavier bullet.
If I had no choice but the '06, I think I'd pass on some animals.
MM
Agreed with may not be optimum for some animals.
What animals/conditions do you feel it inadequate or you would pass on?
Brown or grizzly bear at close range, Cape Buffalo, lion, obviously elephant.
We all know the '06 will kill all of those animals & that's not the point, but I want something bigger for those listed & could easily opt out if the '06 was the only choice.
Can't imagine that most Alaskan brown bear guides would prefer their clients to have an '06 instead of a 338 or 375 in their hands assuming they shoot them all equally well (which I can).
Agreed on all accounts. I was thinking primarily for NA. I'll likely never hunt brown bears, elefinks, lions/tigers, or cape buffalo so those are kind of moot for me.
Brown or grizzly bear at close range, Cape Buffalo, lion, obviously elephant.
We all know the '06 will kill all of those animals & that's not the point, but I want something bigger for those listed & could easily opt out if the '06 was the only choice.
Can't imagine that most Alaskan brown bear guides would prefer their clients to have an '06 instead of a 338 or 375 in their hands assuming they shoot them all equally well (which I can).
MM
You may not be able to understand it but believe me when I say that most Alaskan guides have more confidence when they see a hunter show up with a well worn 30-06, or even a 270, than with a 338 or 375.
The 30-06 has been a favorite brown bear cartridge for a number of experienced guides and gov't hunters and biologists , even many who owned 375's ! Hosea Sarber, who was a gov't hunter, wrote that he actually preferred his 30-06 over his 375 as it killed just as well and didn't kick as bad. I know of experienced guides today who still carry and prefer the 30-06 over the 375 for brown bear hunting due to it's ability to hold more rounds in the magazine.
And if you want to talk about Africa, Mike LaGrange, who killed thousands of elephants as culler, used a pair of M-1 Garands in 30-06 !
I still stand by my tag line. If a hunter knows how to shoot there is not much they can not accomplish with a properly loaded 30-06.
So the question really is: when will a properly loaded 30-06 not work and we need something flatter shooting or harder hitting to hit/kill our intended game?
Working, after a fashion, & being optimum are 2 different things.
No problem at all with the '06 on everything but dangerous game & for that I simply want the security of a bigger bore & more HP with a heavier bullet.
If I had no choice but the '06, I think I'd pass on some animals.
MM
Agreed with may not be optimum for some animals.
What animals/conditions do you feel it inadequate or you would pass on?
Brown or grizzly bear at close range, Cape Buffalo, lion, obviously elephant.
We all know the '06 will kill all of those animals & that's not the point, but I want something bigger for those listed & could easily opt out if the '06 was the only choice.
Can't imagine that most Alaskan brown bear guides would prefer their clients to have an '06 instead of a 338 or 375 in their hands assuming they shoot them all equally well (which I can).
MM
I'd use a properly loaded 30-06 in a heart beat.
I got banned on another web site for a debate that happened on this site. That's a first
I think MM, and I know my own response, was aimed at the effectiveness of the hammer. If I was after elephants, cape buffalo, lions, I'd likely want something with a bit more diameter and horsepower. We know it will work but if I'm spending $10k for a high end African hunt, I'd learn how to shoot a better hammer. The point is a bit moot because I don't think a 30 cal is legal for the above mentioned species.
I have zero experience with Ursus arctos, but I could see how a 200 gr Partition from a 30-06 would be just as effective hammer as a 338 250 gr. I've shot both cartridges with both bullets and they seem to penetrate the same and the mushroomed bullets look quite similar. I haven't shot 375's into much so don't know. But if the guys that do this for a living say so, I'm in and cool with it. In lieu of an 06, I'd likely drag my 06 35 caliber derivative (35 Wh) into such situations. I've really grown to like my 22" barrel M77. Plus it shoots 250 Partitions into small groups.
MM and bwinters, you are not wrong in your opinion that bigger hammers and larger rifles are sometimes the wisest and best choice. I still prefer carrying my 458 when I have to wrinkle a wounded brown bear out of the pucker brush but I know from experience that if the hunter had used a rifle that they could shoot well, rather than some magnum they were afraid of, I wouldn't have to go in after a wounded animal.
The rifle with the Ibex is a Luxus 30-06 with a 26" bbl and the bolt action is an FN action built by Lon Paul with a 22" stainless steel barrel built by Danny Peterson. Stephen Dodd Hughes wrote up a little piece on it in the March/April 2014 issue of Sports Afield.
Last edited by 458Win; 04/25/15. Reason: photo added
Brown or grizzly bear at close range, Cape Buffalo, lion, obviously elephant.
We all know the '06 will kill all of those animals & that's not the point, but I want something bigger for those listed & could easily opt out if the '06 was the only choice.
Can't imagine that most Alaskan brown bear guides would prefer their clients to have an '06 instead of a 338 or 375 in their hands assuming they shoot them all equally well (which I can).
MM
You may not be able to understand it but believe me when I say that most Alaskan guides have more confidence when they see a hunter show up with a well worn 30-06, or even a 270, than with a 338 or 375.
The 30-06 has been a favorite brown bear cartridge for a number of experienced guides and gov't hunters and biologists , even many who owned 375's ! Hosea Sarber, who was a gov't hunter, wrote that he actually preferred his 30-06 over his 375 as it killed just as well and didn't kick as bad. I know of experienced guides today who still carry and prefer the 30-06 over the 375 for brown bear hunting due to it's ability to hold more rounds in the magazine.
And if you want to talk about Africa, Mike LaGrange, who killed thousands of elephants as culler, used a pair of M-1 Garands in 30-06 !
I still stand by my tag line. If a hunter knows how to shoot there is not much they can not accomplish with a properly loaded 30-06.
Absolutely Phil! But I'd prefer you backing me up with "Old Ugly". If I took on a bear with my rifle
Brown or grizzly bear at close range, Cape Buffalo, lion, obviously elephant.
We all know the '06 will kill all of those animals & that's not the point, but I want something bigger for those listed & could easily opt out if the '06 was the only choice.
Can't imagine that most Alaskan brown bear guides would prefer their clients to have an '06 instead of a 338 or 375 in their hands assuming they shoot them all equally well (which I can).
MM
You may not be able to understand it but believe me when I say that most Alaskan guides have more confidence when they see a hunter show up with a well worn 30-06, or even a 270, than with a 338 or 375.
Phil,
I fully agree on the shoot-ability issue, & I qualified my comment on the bigger guns to that effect.
Might be hard for you to believe too, & I'm certain you've had experiences that led to your comments, but there really are guys who can shoot a 338 or a 375 just as well as an '06.
Yes, it does...........some guys have trouble with a .22; some guys have no trouble with a 458.
I've killed more stuff, including elk & moose, with a 270 than everything else put together because it's very shootable, I have complete confidence in it, & I always know exactly where the round is going to go & never wished I had a bigger gun.
But then again, I've also killed a lot with a 338...........
Yes, it does...........some guys have trouble with a .22; some guys have no trouble with a 458.
I've killed more stuff, including elk & moose, with a 270 than everything else put together because it's very shootable, I have complete confidence in it, & I always know exactly where the round is going to go & never wished I had a bigger gun.
But then again, I've also killed a lot with a 338...........
MM
So I guess the real question everyone always wants to know is how much deader were they when you shot them with the 338 than when you shot them with the 270?
Yes, it does...........some guys have trouble with a .22; some guys have no trouble with a 458.
I've killed more stuff, including elk & moose, with a 270 than everything else put together because it's very shootable, I have complete confidence in it, & I always know exactly where the round is going to go & never wished I had a bigger gun.
But then again, I've also killed a lot with a 338...........
MM
So I guess the real question everyone always wants to know is how much deader were they when you shot them with the 338 than when you shot them with the 270?
Laughin' here.........yeah, they were all dead; & on animals killed with either, not much difference in effectiveness.........but that isn't on dangerous game.
I'm sure I could kill a bear, lion or whatever with an '06 & a 200 gr Partition, but since I haven't, I'd prolly still feel more comfortable with a 338 or a 375........while you cover me with that big ol' 458.
Can't rally think of a situation in NA that it would not work with the right bullet. Is it a varmint rifle, no. Is it the best for big bears, no. Would it work? Yes. If I was not a looney, it would be choice as a do all and anything in NA.
I think modern hunters tend to place too much emphasis on powder bottles (cartridge case) and velocity/energy figures and not enough on bullet construction. There is, in my mind, an advantage to velocities in the 2400-2800 fps range, in terms of being more predictable in how a bullet behaves when it hits an animal at normal hunting ranges of 300 yards or less. And a .30-06 will do this with bullets of 180-200 grains...and they make the partition in those weights. I suspect if the .30-06 hadn't been designed 109 years ago, and appeared today as the ".30-270 Remchestuger Magnum," it would lauded by many as what we'd been waiting for all these years. A reasonable cartridge with long range potential, liveable recoil, and good barrel life. I am probably coming close to plagiarizing several ancient and extant gunwriters, and for that, I apologize. But I've known too many folks who "traded up" from a .30-06 or .270 to something way bigger, and started missing and losing animals, including elk and deer, cause they didn't practice with, and were secretly scared of, their new rifles.
Another recent trend is fat cases with little body taper and a steep shoulder. Some of the new designs do shoot well but the old 06 case was built with a few things in mind that get overlooked or undervalued these days. I love the way am 06 case feeds and loads in most actions and like the mag capacity. I also seem to get less pressure/ bolt thrust extraction problems. The long neck is nice, it's efficient and works with most powders.
I love the 06 on a rem action because I've got room to seat them out and room to fit my fat fingers in the loading port. It's pretty impressive what a 30-06 with a 208 amax at 2700 mv will do at long range too.
I've been on a quest to get my custom go anywhere do anything rifle right for a while. It's a stainless 700 trued with a 23" 10 twist rem mag sporter custom barrel on it but unfortunately it doesn't shoot well. I like the way it feeds and handles so I bought a different brand barrel, rock creek this time, and plan to try again. I'm going with a little faster 9.33" twist and hope to give the 215 hybrids a try. I'm crossing my fingers that this one will shoot at least as well as my stock T3 and first gen Ti.
I think I have well over a dozen 30-06's mostly because of my JC higgens 50 and 51's, nato model 60's and colt 57 rifles. Whenever I see a commercial fn Mauser auctioned rifle I tend to pick it up and most are in 30-06. My friends say I'm stupid for having a big stack of them and that the commercial fn's will never be worth much but I think in 20-30 more years I'll be glad I grabbed them.
Lately all of my build interests are 700's or clones in the stainless synthetic garb but when I get old if I decide to build some Mauser type customs I'm going to have pleanty of actions to use. I've got lots of commercial fn's, some 1999 argentines, some 08 brazilians, some steyr built 1940 660's and a few others. I'm still holding out hope of finding a 33/40 one day too.
Burleyboy, that reminds me of a friend with a .223 WSSM that didn't feed really great. After he traded it he noted that "weebles wobble but they don't fall down." .30-06s fall down nicely and feed into that chamber.
Has anyone ever run into a situation where a larger caliber, faster bullet, or some other combination was required to kill an animal – that a properly loaded 30-06 couldn’t handle?
There are times when killing isn't enough--you actually have to anchor an animal on the spot, and not just to stop a charge.
I was on a control hunt for feral cattle on a small coffee farm on the Big Island of Hawai'i a few years ago. The farm is about 800 yards long by 500 yards wide. It's surrounded by thick brush, and you hunt the edges as the game comes out of the brush and into the orchard at dusk. The upshot is that you're always near the edge of the property and anything that isn't anchored stands a good chance of getting into nasty brush on someone else's place. Hawaiian land ownership issues and local politics being what they are, that can make meat recovery (among other things) a monumental headache involving police, attorneys, and bad feelings that persist for years.
These cattle went about 700 lbs on the hoof. In three days, I got nine of then, killing about as many with a 9.3x62 as I killed with a 30/06. Nothing I hit with a 270- or 286-grain 9.3mm bullet went more than about 20 yards. The ones that I hit with the 30/06 (180-grain Swift A-Frame or 220-grain CoreLokt) went farther. One big bull made it into the woods with a 180-grain A-Frame through his lungs. About an hour later I got to listen to him scream as a herd of wild hogs pulled him down. Judging by the noise, they didn't wait for him to die before they started eating him.
I'll be the first to admit that I'm talking about one experience with only nine animals, but if I had to make that hunt again, I'd choose a 9.3x62 with 286-grain Partitions loaded to 2,350 fps over a 30/06 HANDS DOWN. The 45/70 with 405-grain factory loads might be even better. Neither of those cartridges kicks harder than the 30/06 with those loads, so they're just as easy to handle and to shoot well at speed. That matters because several of the animals that I shot were within 25 yards, and I was able to hit more than one in the herd at a time--those shots came about as fast as wing shots on doves or quail.
But short of a highly specialized situation like that or stopping a charge, the 30/06 is enough for anything.
Okie John
Originally Posted by Brad
If Montana had a standing army, a 270 Win with Federal Blue Box 130's would be the standard issue.
I hear ya,most of the magnum morons won't agree though
sandpit that's two slams on the magnum users in one day. Congrats on advancing an agenda.
Please give us more of your thoughts regarding magnum cartridges and users. I'm very interested in your "Western wisdom" and experience on the subject.Thanks in advance.
When Phil talks I listen as well as many of you. I own three 06s and can also attest to their efficacy. That said, they remind me of Vespas and Fat Chicks; lots of fun and get the job done, UNTIL your friends see you with one.... And I was glad I had a 416 Rigby when I hunted Cape Buffalo..
A good principle to guide me through life: “This is all I have come to expect, standard lackluster performance. Trust nothing, believe no one and realize it will only get worse…”
the old 06 works very well for a lot of things.. But usually there are specific calibers that will out class it in all of those areas..
With the exception of the two ends of the spectrum, varmints and African dangerous game, I cannot think of any cartridges that will "outclass" the 30-06. Many will do the same job just as well, but outclass. I respectfully disagree.
Chronographs, bore scopes and pattern boards have broke a lot of hearts.
The trouble with fat chicks is they have places they can't reach with a washcloth. Nothing against Vespas. Years ago my wife and I took our 10 year anniversary to Alaska. We were on a caribou hunt flying out of Iliamna. We were sleeping in a tent next to a pile of quartered caribou. I had read in a book never to argue with your guide or the hunt will be ruined. So I kept my mouth shut. That night a sow brown bear and two cubs came to feast on the pile of meat just a few feet from our tent. The bones crunching woke me up out of a sound sleep. My guide had told me not to load until he said so and not to shoot until he said so. I decided it was time to load and started shoving 35 Whelen cartridges with 225 gr Noslers in. After awhile I decided to get the camera and when I shot the camera the flash scared them off like the Kentucky derby. Never once did I wish for a 30-06 400 Whelen maybe. whelennut
Hey, lets not get personal, what is wrong with fat chicks on Vespas?
NUTHIN'
A good principle to guide me through life: “This is all I have come to expect, standard lackluster performance. Trust nothing, believe no one and realize it will only get worse…”
I'm down to four 06's. My go to rifle is usually a 721 06 with a Kevlar stock, a 700 barrel and a 700 trigger. It either has a 2x7 Leupold or a 4x Leupold on it. I've had that one 30+ years. It replaced an O3 Springfield with modified military stock and a 4x Weaver and an old recoil pad that came off something else. I had that 03 for 20 years or there abouts.
I've killed more big game with those two rifles than all other calibers put together. However, I like other calibers too. No need to bad mouth anything else just to bring up the 06. The only one that is suspect is the gay cartridge...
Last edited by Bugger; 04/29/15.
I prefer classic. Semper Fi I used to run with the hare. Now I'm envious of the tortoise and I do my own stunts but rarely intentionally
I have gone to the 180 grain Hornady. I have a @#$t-load of 180 grain Remington CL's too (which I bought for a dime on the dollar) and will use those in 06's that shoot them accurately - my 721 doesn't. If I were to go for antelope with the 06 again, it would be the 150 grain bullet. I like the Nosler Partitions too and that is what I might use on elk or moose, but the Hornadys hold up so well that I don't feel the need for premium bullets.
I prefer classic. Semper Fi I used to run with the hare. Now I'm envious of the tortoise and I do my own stunts but rarely intentionally
I can vouch for the fact that the Remington 30-06 Core-Lokt 220 grain load is outstanding on Moose. I know that if it ain't broke don't fix it but I would like to take a Moose with the 270.
I can vouch for the fact that the Remington 30-06 Core-Lokt 220 grain load is outstanding on Moose. I know that if it ain't broke don't fix it but I would like to take a Moose with the 270.
I've played it before but……..
…….a 270 is really a kids' rifle…… (With his own/first license and ticket he got for his 10th birthday.)
Sometimes, the air you 'let in'matters less than the air you 'let out'.
I can vouch for the fact that the Remington 30-06 Core-Lokt 220 grain load is outstanding on Moose. I know that if it ain't broke don't fix it but I would like to take a Moose with the 270.
I'm set on taking one with the .260. So far, the .243, .270, 12 ga. slug, .280, have all worked on singles. So far, the '06 (one 165, one 150, the rest 180 gr loads) is somewhat leading the .338 on multiple kills of the other 18 bulls.... It's also leading on one-shot kills, but those two-or-more shot kills were my fault... mostly. I could have quit shooting earlier...
The 30-06 will stop working when the owner falls victim to "rifle loonyism" - an all too common malady which leads to much money being spent along with sleepless nights. The "cure" results only when the owner realizes he had the correct rifle all along!
Last edited by bigwhoop; 05/01/15.
My home is the "sanctuary residence" for my firearms.
... So the question really is: when will a properly loaded 30-06 not work and we need something flatter shooting or harder hitting to hit/kill our intended game?
Daughter #3 will be going on her first big game hunt ever this fall, a WY doe antelope hunt. Although she has her own .45Kimber, Smith Bodyguard .380 and AR-15, she is not a frequent bolt rifle shooter. Rather than saddle her with a .30-06 and associated recoil, I will be loaning her my .257 Roberts with 110g AccuBond loads, which she shoots well and provides way more than is needed to cleanly kill doe antelope, even at 500 yards - which is beyond where she will be shooting. Sure, I could develop some 110g or 125g loads for a .30-06 but why bother? At best the .30-06 would not shoot as flat as the .257 Roberts and terminal effect would be no better. At worst it would provide more recoil and blast, neither of which are desirable. So yes, a .30-06 would "work" but given the other options available it is not the best choice, either.
Daughter #1 (aka Diablo Rojo) will be joining us on the antelope hunt, her 3rd or 4th. She will also be going on her 1st elk hunt. She is a fairly petite woman and, like her younger sister, also has her own .45 Kimber, Smith Bodyguard .380 and AR-15. In addition she has a Springfield XD 9mm, and two AR-15 lowers she is building. While she has been shooting on and off for over 25 years, she is not a regular bolt rifle shooter. In the past she has used my .257 Roberts for antelope hunts but this year we got her a lefty rifle of her own. (All mine are right-handed.) After a lot of consideration we ended up getting her a .308 Win rather than a .30-06. At the ranges she will be shooting a .308 Win is just as good as a .30-06 but is a tad lighter and shorter. I anticipate she will be using 150g loads, which provide a level of recoil with which she is comfortable. That said, we will also look at 165-168g for elk and probably use whichever she shoots best. Would a .30-06 have worked? Yes, but it would not provide any significant advantage, whether for this year's hunts or any she is likely to take in the foreseeable future.
Coyote Hunter - NRA Patriot Life, NRA Whittington Center Life, GOA, DAD - and I VOTE!
No, I'm not a Ruger bigot - just an unabashed fan of their revolvers, M77's and #1's.
God question being how he's still alive to post about it......lol. I've never hunted griz/brown bears but I know I would just feel a little better with a 375 H&H in hand. I have no problem handling the recoil of my 300 WM so I'd feel pretty confident with a hefty 375 H&H.
Just curious: How do you know a .30-06 doesn't work o0n charging grizzlies?
I always thought if I was going to be charged by a Grizzly and could have anything I wanted in my hands it might very well be a Rem. 760 pump .30-06 with 220 Partitions.
My grandfather hunted his entire life with just 3 center fire rifles; 22-250, 30-06 and 375 H&H. He always said if you need something more than an '06, you need to step up to the .375 or .416.
My father is of similar thinking, but his primary big game rifles started with a .243 and 308 Winchester. The .308 he used for everything up to moose and grizzly. He later got interested in the .338 Federal and now uses it almost exclusively for anything from mule deer through a coastal brown bear. I don't think there is a whole lot of difference between a .338 Federal with 210 Partitions and a 30-06 souped-up with 200 grain Partitions, so I believe nothing in North America is out of bounds. Pop also used his .338 Federal on Asian water buffalo, so even the big bovines are within reason, with proper bullets and prudent marksmanship.
Just curious: How do you know a .30-06 doesn't work o0n charging grizzlies?
It might if your lucky or very good. What you really need to stop a charging grizzly is a double barrel in 458 rem mag or other cartridge with similar stopping power.
Just curious: How do you know a .30-06 doesn't work o0n charging grizzlies?
I happen to know - well, it's second-hand anyway- that a 338 Win Mag is perfectly capable of 'laming' a big bear without killing it, at least not before its winter hibernation………
And I happen to know - first-hand this time - that a 375 H&H, even in the hands of one not perfectly "slickety-slick", can be used to bore more than one magazine's worth of holes in a relatively small bear…….
So, therefore, a 30-06 must not be much good, Phil Shoemaker's evidence notwithstanding……he must just be lucky…
…….or perhaps being 'good' matters more than we want to believe.
Sometimes, the air you 'let in'matters less than the air you 'let out'.
Years back, there was this study conducted by USF&W about what rifle/cartridges would do the best job of protecting their workers in bear country. It ended up as an article in Rifle magazine (IIRC). (Was a guy named Thelonius the author?)
I can't recall the precise order of how the cartridges were ranked...and also the study was conducted mostly with factory C&C bullets and based on expansion, penetration, etc etc..
Those conducting the study concluded that the first few "winners" were the 460 Weatherby,the 458 Win,the 375H&H,the 338,and the 30/06.Mostly these conclusions were based on the use of the heaviest factory load bullets, i.e.,500 gr for the 45's and 300 gr for the 375 and 338.In the 30/06 the 220 was top dog.
The 30/06 with 220's ranked higher than any 300 magnum or 7mm magnum because it was felt that at close range, from the magnums,penetration was compromised too much by excessive expansion even with the heavier bullets,due to higher velocity.
The 30/06 is no punk cartridge.
I have never shot a charging brown bear with anything. Both of mine were shot with 375's and did not get a chance to charge.
I bet that people with real experience on charging brown bears are about as abundant as really proficient 1000 yard elk shots....maybe scarcer.
I read that study. It was done in the days when not many factories loaded "premium bullets."
I know somebody pretty well who has shot a number of charging grizzlies with both the .30-06 and .458 Winchester, as well as some other rounds, and so far hasn't been mauled, or even scratched. (Or at least he hadn't when I saw him in February, but it's bear season in Alaska right now.) While I strongly suspect my friend would choose the .458 over the .30-06, I was just wondering why Conrad could be so firm in his opinion that the .30-06 would "not work" on charging grizzlies.
There's also some mild curiosity about Conrad's recommendation of a .458 double.
“Montana seems to me to be what a small boy would think Texas is like from hearing Texans.” John Steinbeck
That fellow we aren't naming knows how to use what he's got in his hands at the moment well. And that was the point of my previous post - which knowing persons didn't miss, I'm sure. Lots of juice, placed poorly, is easily trumped by enough in the right place. The 30-06 has enough. (And even less has worked/been adequate in capable/lucky hands……….a certain Mini-14 event comes to mind……which reminds me, I need to buy more stock in Fruit-of-the-Loom. )
Sometimes, the air you 'let in'matters less than the air you 'let out'.
Years back, there was this study conducted by USF&W about what rifle/cartridges would do the best job of protecting their workers in bear country. It ended up as an article in Rifle magazine (IIRC). (Was a guy named Thelonius the author?)
I can't recall the precise order of how the cartridges were ranked...and also the study was conducted mostly with factory C&C bullets and based on expansion, penetration, etc etc..
Those conducting the study concluded that the first few "winners" were the 460 Weatherby,the 458 Win,the 375H&H,the 338,and the 30/06.Mostly these conclusions were based on the use of the heaviest factory load bullets, i.e.,500 gr for the 45's and 300 gr for the 375 and 338.In the 30/06 the 220 was top dog.
The 30/06 with 220's ranked higher than any 300 magnum or 7mm magnum because it was felt that at close range, from the magnums,penetration was compromised too much by excessive expansion even with the heavier bullets,due to higher velocity.
The 30/06 is no punk cartridge.
I have never shot a charging brown bear with anything. Both of mine were shot with 375's and did not get a chance to charge.
I bet that people with real experience on charging brown bears are about as abundant as really proficient 1000 yard elk shots....maybe scarcer.
Bob -
I did an analysis of that report and found glaring mathematical errors which severely skewed the results. I redid the calculations and have published them before. When I get home tonight i'll see if I can dig up my results and post them again.
Coyote Hunter - NRA Patriot Life, NRA Whittington Center Life, GOA, DAD - and I VOTE!
No, I'm not a Ruger bigot - just an unabashed fan of their revolvers, M77's and #1's.
I was having lunch with a rancher friend and an elk outfitter acquaintance some years back. We got to talking about grizzlies and rifles and the old outfitter related a great story that actually happened to him (he had the scars to prove it).
The outfitter's area was in the AB Wilderness off Paradise Valley. Seems he was going in to his camp when he found himself between a mama grizz and her cubs. The mama grizz got him in a pretty good "bear hug" (quite literally) and wouldn't let go. He was flailing around, unable to get lose. Finally he swung the butt of his 30-06 around and got mama right on the snout. She let loose and ran off.
He wryly told me, "don't let anyone ever tell you a 30-06 isn't enough for grizzly."
“Perfection is Achieved Not When There Is Nothing More to Add, But When There Is Nothing Left to Take Away” Antoine de Saint-Exupery
I've never hunted Brown Bears, but hopefully some day I will. I do, and have known and spoken with, many Guides and hunters who have. To those who had relatively uneventful hunts as is "there he is, wait until he stops, then shoot when you are ready" type of scenario, the 06 is PERFECTLY adequate. Then again those who've had a bit more exciting hunts, to a MAN, all wished that no matter what they were carrying, they wished they had something bigger. I have an uncle who was fortunate enough to hunt Polar Bears (in Norway I think) and he took his 458. Shot his bear up close as apparently those bears have zero fear of man and when they see you, they think "lunch"! and just come. He said he wished he had something bigger. When I go, I'll not be taking an 06...
A good principle to guide me through life: “This is all I have come to expect, standard lackluster performance. Trust nothing, believe no one and realize it will only get worse…”
IDK man. In Alaska the natives cartridge of choice is more often than not is a 223 for everything from seal, caribou, and polar bear and it seems to do the job.
I don't expect to ever hunt Grizzly or Brown Bears. But if was somewhere I needed protection from them I think I'd bring my HK91 loaded with 20 rounds of 308 Winchester hunting ammo. Quality and quantity together
The Tea Party Movement is pretty much the same as a bowel movement except that it smells worse and has far less in the way of intelligent content. --DancesWithGuns
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * The study is dated (1983) and the methodology used to calculate the results is horribly flawed, but the raw data is raw data. I entered that data into a spreadsheet and made my own calculations, with drastically different results. More about my results later, but first, some excerpts regarding the report’s methodology, and a few comments about its flaws:
Quote
We evaluated each cartridge-bullet weight-barrel length combination tested by four ballistic categories: striking energy, penetration, retained bullet weight, and bullet expansion. We also measured bullet velocity because energy is a function of bullet weight and velocity. … To determine expansion, we measured to the nearest 0.01 inch the maximum diameter of the bullet (or the largest fragment) and the diameter at 90 degrees to the maximum diameter. The cross-sectional area of this ellipse was determined by the formula A=3.1416 ab, where a = maximum diameter and b = diameter at 90 degrees to a. Both retained bullet weight and expansion were expressed as a percentage of the weight and cross-sectional area of an unfired bullet pulled from a cartridge identical to that fired in the tests. … Because we had no unbiased way to determine the relative importance of each ballistic category, we considered each to be equally important. Our first step in evaluating overall ballistic performance was to calculate the average value in each category for the three shots fired from each test combination. We then divided each average by the maximum average value in its category to convert it to a relative proportion of the maximum value encountered during the tests. We rounded the quotient to two significant decimal places and multiplied by 100 to eliminate decimals. This transformation also eliminated the different category units and allowed all four to be arithmetically combined into a single performance score. We calculated this score by multiplying the four relative scores of each test combination. To eliminate the use of unwieldy eight-digit numbers as scores, we divided the product by 100,000 and rounded the quotient to the nearest whole number. This provided a two- or three-digit score for each test combination, which we ranked in highest to lowest order.
Your government funded study can’t get the formula for the area of an ellipse correct, but there are even bigger problems. Accepting their definitions for ‘A’, ‘a’ and ‘b’, where ‘a’ and ‘b’ are diameter measurments, the correct formula is “A=3.1416 * 1/2a * 1/2b”, not “A=3.1416 a * b”. The formula error resulted in a calculated expansion that was 4x greater than it should be, and erroneously skewed the results in favor of expanding bullets regardless of their initial or final diameters.
Further, the authors don’t seem know the difference between “retained bullet weight” and “percent retained bullet weight”, or between “bullet expansion” and “percent bullet expansion”.
Consider the following bullets: .224” 55g, expanded 100% to .448” and retained weight of 100% or 55g, and .458” 405g expanded 64% to .750” and retained weight of 90% or 364g.
Using the author’s methodology and assuming expansion in a perfect circle, the .224” bullet would score 100 in both retained weight and expansion, while the .458” bullet would score 64 and 90 respectively. These interim scores are then multiplied together (along with those for striking energy and penetration, which we will ignore for now) to achieve a final score. Hence the .224” bullet scores 10,000 while the .458” bullet scores 5,760, or a little over half what the .224” bullet scores in these categories. The author’s methodology resulted in silly stuff like a 7x57 Mauser with a 175 grain bullet with a retained weight of 91g outscoring a 12 gauge 438g slug with a retained weight of 420g, even though the slug out-penetrated the 7mm bullet. The problem is exacerbated due to the author’s use of an incorrect formula for calculating the area of the expanded bullets, as previously explained.
It seems to me that it would make much more sense to compare retained weight in grains, not percent, and bullet expansion in inches instead of percent, and base the scores accordingly. In this manner, the .224 scores 55 and .448, which combine to form a score of 25.19, while the .458” bullet scores 364 and .75, for a combined score of 273. I think most of us would agree the .45-70 is more likely to be 10 times more effective than a .22-250 for the purposes cited, rather than half as effective, so this methodology at least passes the laugh test.
I used this method to recalculate scores for all the loads tested in the report, along with some Garrett Hammerhead loads and loads based on handload data.
Here are my results, based on ADDing the individual scores (Additive Rank) for energy, penetration, retained weigh and expansion. (Since I didn’t have weight retention and expansion data for the new loads, I used the averages for the original four .45-70 loads.) I also included a “Multiplier Rank” based on my methodology, which corresponds closely but not exactly to the “Additive Rank”:
My results aren’t perfect either, as the .300 Win Mag 180g bullet comes in dead last, but I think the overall results make far more sense than what the USFS concluded.
Although I determined the methodology first and built my spreadsheet accordingly (rather than build the spreadsheet to make the numbers come out a particular way), I was not surprised the .45-70 did better than in the USFS study. What did amaze me was 16 of the top 17 rankings went to a .458” bullet or bigger (12 gauge), and included ALL the .45-70 and 450 Marlin loads, even the original .45-70 loads tested by the USFS. The lone exception was a .375H&H load that came in at #11 (Multiplier Rank) or #8 (Additive Rank).
There is no doubt that one could spend more time on the subject and come up with better ways to rank the various loads based on the given data. I've thought about doing it myself, but, frankly, I have better things to do. If anyone else is so inclined, I'd be interested in their results.
Coyote Hunter - NRA Patriot Life, NRA Whittington Center Life, GOA, DAD - and I VOTE!
No, I'm not a Ruger bigot - just an unabashed fan of their revolvers, M77's and #1's.
The statement that someboody "wished" they had something bigger is one of the great cliches of hunting dangerous game, but unless something bad actually happened (and it usually hasn't) then it's just speculation. It has about as much relevance to what actually happens as a government study based on faulty math and zero actual bears.
Here is the signature line from the unnamed expert who hasn't posted here, probably because he's actually out guiding clients for very big grizzlies, generally known as brown bears:
"Anyone who claims the 30-06 is not effective has either not used one, or else is unwittingly commenting on their marksmanship."
As I noted in an earlier post, I'd bet he'd vote for the .458 Winchester over the .30-06 for charging grizzlies, but he has actually used both on several wounded, charging bears and hasn't been mauled yet. So to flatly claim the .30-06 "won't work" because somebody else who wasn't mauled has wished for a bigger gun, or some other sort of theory-based argument, is once again mere speculation.
“Montana seems to me to be what a small boy would think Texas is like from hearing Texans.” John Steinbeck
The statement that someboody "wished" they had something bigger is one of the great cliches of hunting dangerous game, but unless something bad actually happened (and it usually hasn't) then it's just speculation. It has about as much relevance to what actually happens as a government study based on faulty math and zero actual bears.
Here is the signature line from the unnamed expert who hasn't posted here, probably because he's actually out guiding clients for very big grizzlies, generally known as brown bears:
"Anyone who claims the 30-06 is not effective has either not used one, or else is unwittingly commenting on their marksmanship."
As I noted in an earlier post, I'd bet he'd vote for the .458 Winchester over the .30-06 for charging grizzlies, but he has actually used both on several wounded, charging bears and hasn't been mauled yet. So to flatly claim the .30-06 "won't work" because somebody else who wasn't mauled has wished for a bigger gun, or some other sort of theory-based argument, is once again mere speculation.
The only time a .30/06 will not work is when it is unloaded and packed in its case. Tremendously underrated Under complicated Vertatility that matches the greater majority of hunting applications Recoil within manageable levels. More than addquate bullets and powder choices Been everywhere, Done everything Progressively improves with time like a good wine which is a more perfect scenario than most users face.
When truth is ignored, it does not change an untruth from remaining a lie.
The statement that someboody "wished" they had something bigger is one of the great cliches of hunting dangerous game, but unless something bad actually happened (and it usually hasn't) then it's just speculation. It has about as much relevance to what actually happens as a government study based on faulty math and zero actual bears.
Here is the signature line from the unnamed expert who hasn't posted here, probably because he's actually out guiding clients for very big grizzlies, generally known as brown bears:
"Anyone who claims the 30-06 is not effective has either not used one, or else is unwittingly commenting on their marksmanship."
As I noted in an earlier post, I'd bet he'd vote for the .458 Winchester over the .30-06 for charging grizzlies, but he has actually used both on several wounded, charging bears and hasn't been mauled yet. So to flatly claim the .30-06 "won't work" because somebody else who wasn't mauled has wished for a bigger gun, or some other sort of theory-based argument, is once again mere speculation.
speculation to be sure, same goes for the "luck" factor. All I can tell you is that *I* won't be using an 06 when the day comes. I'm certainly not in your league or Phil's (and by a long shot) but experiencing what I have experienced, there is just no way I would even consider an 06 for brown bear. I know it will work, I'm just not willing to slice it that thin.
A good principle to guide me through life: “This is all I have come to expect, standard lackluster performance. Trust nothing, believe no one and realize it will only get worse…”
I can recall, quite a few years ago now, shooting a sub 150 pound caribou with a 200 NBT from a 340 Weatherby. Instead of squarely drilling that young meat animal in the lungs, I very neatly splattered the paunch. I had done a sighting check just a few days before in a pretty good crosswind and had made an excessive amount of appropriate adjustments apparently. What should have been either a neat tip-over, or at least a brief circle and down, instead turned into a defiant stance against the efforts of gravity. To say I was surprised that a small animal could withstand that much 'energy' would be an understatement. It certainly never occurred to me that I failed to bring enough gun. I was quite embarrassed about the errors I had made in directing the bullet however.
Enough gun falls behind 1.) enough placement, and 2.) enough bullet in my book...
Sometimes, the air you 'let in'matters less than the air you 'let out'.
The statement that someboody "wished" they had something bigger is one of the great cliches of hunting dangerous game, but unless something bad actually happened (and it usually hasn't) then it's just speculation. It has about as much relevance to what actually happens as a government study based on faulty math and zero actual bears. ...
Count me in with the people who wished they had used something bigger. Last year I lost a cow elk, after shooting it broadside at just under 400 yards. The cartridge used was a 7mm RM with 160g North Fork SS @ 3048fps. The calculated wind drift at that range is a hair over 13 inches with 2166fps and 1666fpe. This load has never let me down before. Based on blood trail evidence (very dark blood and lots of it, including blood chest high on the brush on both sides of the trail), I believe the North Fork bullet hit the liver behind the lungs just under the spine and exited.
Assuming I could have made the shot with the same POA and my .338WM and a 225g AB launched at 2742fps, wind drift would have been a calculated 10.2 inches, possibly enough difference to hit the back of the lungs, and drop would have put POI about 3 inches lower. The bullet would have retained about 2144fps, not much different, but with 2296fpe, a 38% increase. Would the difference in POI (possibly three inches further forward and 3 inches lower), the additional frontal area of an expanded .338 AB bullet and an additional 600+fpe in retained energy made any difference? Unfortunately, no one can answer that question with any authority.
It is possible that I might have shot poorly with the .338WM, with similar results, although my last elk taken with the .338WM was at 487 yards with similar shooting conditions. After running through the scene hundreds of times in my mind, my own feeling is that it may have been one of those marginal situations where "something bigger" like my .338 might have made a difference in the final outcome, even if POI had been the same.
Sample of one, and no one will ever know for sure.
Coyote Hunter - NRA Patriot Life, NRA Whittington Center Life, GOA, DAD - and I VOTE!
No, I'm not a Ruger bigot - just an unabashed fan of their revolvers, M77's and #1's.
What does losing one cow elk right with a 7mm Remington Magnum have to do with when the .30-06 won't work? You can quote all the theoretical numbers you want, but any cartridge "won't work" when you shoot animals in the wrong place.
“Montana seems to me to be what a small boy would think Texas is like from hearing Texans.” John Steinbeck
+1 Size will rarely, if ever make up for a poor shot. Had the bullet been through the lungs, it would not have been an issue. If a 7 mag won't get it done on an elk then nothing else will either. As to the 30-06 I have one that shoots very well, and I have complete confidence in it to 600yds, although I have not had to shoot any game with it that far. Last big mule deer I killed with it was 200yds, and a coyote at 310yds. If and when I can hunt one of our Montana grizzlies, I will use it. If I lived where the big coastal bears were I would go up to a .338, but not down here.
Accordingly, as "bwinters" asks, the 30-06 will not work when the user fails their intended purpose by poor shot placement. The 30-06 will always work if aimed properly.
My home is the "sanctuary residence" for my firearms.
Bla Bla bla bla bla, all I can tell you is that this Grizzly was mighty close and that hole is from a 25-35. I have heard people claim a 30-06 will bounce of a grizzly skull, well I haven't seen that happen...
Ah yes the semi regular thread where guys who have never seen or hunted grizzlies "know" they need a huge gun and those who do seem to somehow survive using guns that average smaller
Bla Bla bla bla bla, all I can tell you is that this Grizzly was mighty close and that hole is from a 25-35. I have heard people claim a 30-06 will bounce of a grizzly skull, well I haven't seen that happen...
Can we also talk about the 22 LR in this thread? (Seen a skull being fleshed once which also turned into an "unleading" procedure as a 40 grain - or was it 36 grains?- lead slug was extracted from a similar location on the skull's surface. [I'm calling the chicken who did that a decent shot, but a weak hunter: he should have gotten closer. ] ).
….. or used the more commonly issued Hornet.
Last edited by Klikitarik; 05/09/15.
Sometimes, the air you 'let in'matters less than the air you 'let out'.
What does losing one cow elk right with a 7mm Remington Magnum have to do with when the .30-06 won't work? You can quote all the theoretical numbers you want, but any cartridge "won't work" when you shoot animals in the wrong place.
Did you not read your own post, to which I was responding?
Originally Posted by Mule Deer
Jorge,
The statement that someboody "wished" they had something bigger is one of the great cliches of hunting dangerous game, but unless something bad actually happened (and it usually hasn't) then it's just speculation. It has about as much relevance to what actually happens as a government study based on faulty math and zero actual bears. ...
My response was to point out that there are in fact times when people wished they had used "something bigger" because "something bad" actually did happen. Admittedly this was a sample of one, as I pointed out. While it had nothing to do with dangerous game, that was not a requirement in the OP's original question. In this case it had nothing to do with a .30-06, either, but if you read your post, it did not specify a .30-06 as the base level cartridge against which the desired "something bigger" cartridge was measured.
Lastly, it is my belief, as stated in my post, "that it may have been one of those marginal situations where "something bigger" like my .338 might have made a difference in the final outcome, even if POI had been the same. " So in this particular case for me, wishing I had used something bigger is not just a "great cliche".
Coyote Hunter - NRA Patriot Life, NRA Whittington Center Life, GOA, DAD - and I VOTE!
No, I'm not a Ruger bigot - just an unabashed fan of their revolvers, M77's and #1's.
For years on the Campfire you've been one of those guys who insists on using super-bullets (especially expensive bullets) like the North Fork even on deer, because you don't want "a bullet that will work when everything goes right, but when things go wrong." What good did your North Fork do when things went wrong?
Now you've morphed into another cliche: The guy who makes a lousy shot and all of sudden a cartridge that's been proven for decades on big game isn't enough. You've decided, through some mathematical rationalizations, that a much bigger cartridge would have killed the poor cow elk. You gonna use North Forks in the .338 too, and hope the combination of a really expensive bullet in an Elmer Keith cartridge will kill cow elk when you hit them in the wrong place?
No, I didn't specify the .30-06 in my post because after dozens of posts on this thread, all on the specific subject "When will .30-06 not work?" I assumed EVEN YOU might realize my post was about the .30-06 as the "base level cartridge."
“Montana seems to me to be what a small boy would think Texas is like from hearing Texans.” John Steinbeck
...You may not be able to understand it but believe me when I say that most Alaskan guides have more confidence when they see a hunter show up with a well worn 30-06, or even a 270, than with a 338 or 375. The 30-06 has been a favorite brown bear cartridge for a number of experienced guides and gov't hunters and biologists...
Back about twenty five years ago or so, I was talking with Mike McDonald, the now retired biologist for ADF&G, about bear guns. Since he did most of the necropsies on bears killed in "Defense of Life & Property" I was wondering what he saw successfully used and his answer took me by surprise. He said that more bears were killed with a 180 grain bullet out of a .30-06 than any other, by a large margin. He said that included DLP cases where it was killed or be killed. He said that most DLP cases were by folks moose or caribou hunting and had a run in with Ursus Horribilis.
Living in Alaksa for most of my life, carrying a .270 Win with 150gr C&C bullets for 14 years for everything, then moving up to a .338WM and a .458WM for another twenty some years, I finally settled on a .30-06 with either 165gr or 180gr bullets as my primary smokeless centerfire rifle.
Just my $0.02
Ed
"Not in an open forum, where truth has less value than opinions, where all opinions are equally welcome regardless of their origins, rationale, inanity, or truth, where opinions are neither of equal value nor decisive." Ken Howell
The '06 is so ubiquitous that it is likely to show up in the top of any 'I killed it with this' list. Anyone who thinks the '06 is inadequate on anything in North America given its track record over the past century is...well...(I'm trying not to call Elmer a fool). If anything, modern bullet tech has elevated the '06 to the only thing you need for the entire continent.
Buy a .30-06, a .223, a 12 gauge, and a .22 and go kill every game animal on the continent and never lack for anything caliber wise. Of course, that's not the rifle looney way.
Use the wrong bullet at the wrong distance (velocity / energy)on the wrong critter and failure will be the order of the day. Put the right bullet for the job in the right spot,at the right distance,and the 06 will provide all the success you could want.
If you want more than that it's easy to find. Unfortunately bullet selection becomes more critical. The wrong bullet takes on more meaning from say a 300 ultra. More likely to need (want) a premium pill for a given job. The same can be said for the 243. You will be more likely to use a premium bullet in the same situation that an old cup and core would be applicable in the 06. At least that is what we are led to believe here in the funny papers. The 80gr TTSX in a 243 is touted to be a lightning strike on moose to mice. But,we still can't come to grips with the good old 30/06.
Hey,my 243(s) have been good to me. It's one of my favorite rounds.As is the 300 Ultra. I chose these 2 chamberings as examples based on personal experience. The 30/06 won't work when you are convinced you need a new rig. But you need to know that no matter what you choose,it has limitations. And not always in the form of effective range. I shot a little whitetail with a 270 Weatherby once with a 130 gr cup and core. Talk about bullet failure! Softball size entrance. Apparently 125 yards was a little too close. Had it been 450 yds,I'm sure I would have been quite pleased with the performance. On the same animal,at that same distance with say a 30/06 165gr cup and core of your choosing I bet the results would have been text book.
If the bullet selection and given velocity achieved from the 30/06 isn't suitable for your style of hunting don't buy one. I'm just lucky to be one of the fellers that can live out my days with the old girl. I've never seen a polar bear or rhino in the Gunny. No cape buff here in PA either. Oh it may be a little much for 200 lb deer. They never complained. Heck,now a days the 308 can be loaded to nearly 06 levels,and folks think it's the bee's knees for deer.
Summer time is the time to discuss the finer points of the 30/06. It's all about perspective. Cut and dried? He!! no. Thank goodness. I just love these threads.
"Political Correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."
Maybe but I've rather enjoyed the conversation. I also think it demonstrates that a 30-06 with today's bullets (if you consider the Partition as one if today's bullets) covers a lot of ground as witnessed by the testimony of many on this thread.
If we skip over the discussion of which bear we are hunting, the 400 lb version or his 1000 lb cousin and we ignore bad shooting, something we have all done or lie about not doing, we can get back to the OP's question. If you load the dang thing, have modest marksmanship skills, have confidence in the rifle and your ability to use it and match the bullet to the game, there are an extremely small number of anecdotal incidences to supply the exceptions to the idea that .30-06 Springfield is an entirely adequate firearm for hunting just about anything and everything. The venerable ought-six is about as close to the fanciful "all-around" hunting rifle anyone could want. But then none of us want just ONE perfect rifle.......... It's easier to find the "perfect woman" or win the lottery than it is to live with one rifle. m2c
Why does a man who is 50 pounds overweight complain about a 10 pound rifle being too heavy? SCI Life Member 4**
For years on the Campfire you've been one of those guys who insists on using super-bullets (especially expensive bullets) like the North Fork even on deer, because you don't want "a bullet that will work when everything goes right, but when things go wrong." What good did your North Fork do when things went wrong?
"Super bullets" like AccuBond, TTSX, Grand Slam, Scirocco II, A-Frame and North Fork? It is true I trust them more than standard cup and core bullets, but so do lots of other folk. When I load them up I often pay less per box of 20 than others pay for factory cup and core ammo. At best the cost of the premium bullets is a very small percentage of what I spend to hunt and the money I could save using cup and core bullets is even less. Several times I have calculated those differences and discovered the money saved using cup-and-core bullets in a year where I bagged two elk, a deer and an antelope wouldn't buy me a glass of cheap wine with dinner. Expensive? Not really. Expensive is blowing the dual-mass flywheel in my F250, 20 miles west of Laramie on the way to elk camp.
Yes, I often use North Forks for deer but the primary reason is that I hunt deer and elk in the same season using the same rifle. While I haven't used them for antelope, I see no reason not to do so and in fact may well do so this fall when I plan to take my .280 Rem antelope hunting. Most likely it will be stoked with 140g North Fork as I have a good supply of the hollow point design Mike Brady was testing before he sold the company and the current plan is to use the same rifle and load for elk and deer a month later. As in my 7mm RM, they are exquisitely accurate in the .280 Rem and using the 7MM RM I've driven them the length of a mulie buck. I trust them to do the job.
The North Fork didn't fail on the cow - it penetrated and exited, leaving what started out as a massive blood trail - the largest I have ever seen. I failed to take into account wind drift and have admitted as much. The blood trail slowly petered out as we followed it over two ridges, finally losing it at dusk. We tried again the next morning but found no more blood beyond where we lost it the night before.
Several times you have claimed I chose bullets BECAUSE they were expensive. Even after I stated that my reasons had to do with a) confidence in the design, which I verify in the field or reject the bullet, as I did with Barnes XLC and TSX, b) accuracy in my rifles and c) that cost was a minor concern at best, you continued to misrepresent my reasons for choosing the bullets I do. On one occasion you claimed I changed my posts after you had responded to them, even though an analysis of the time stamps clearly showed my changes were made long before you had made any posts in response. In other words, you lied.
Unlike you, no one compensates me in any way for my hunting activities. I choose the rifles and scopes and bullets I use because they work, and every penny comes out of my own hard-earned money. Why you have a problem with that and continue to misrepresent what I have written I can't imagine, but it is petty and pathetic.
Quote
Now you've morphed into another cliche: The guy who makes a lousy shot and all of sudden a cartridge that's been proven for decades on big game isn't enough. You've decided, through some mathematical rationalizations, that a much bigger cartridge would have killed the poor cow elk. You gonna use North Forks in the .338 too, and hope the combination of a really expensive bullet in an Elmer Keith cartridge will kill cow elk when you hit them in the wrong place?
No, I didn't specify the .30-06 in my post because after dozens of posts on this thread, all on the specific subject "When will .30-06 not work?" I assumed EVEN YOU might realize my post was about the .30-06 as the "base level cartridge."
There is nothing wrong with the 7mm RM and I have never stated there was. Mine served me well for 20+ years as my only centerfire big game rifle with no problems taking down elk. Over the years it has accounted for more elk than all my other rifles put together. Again, for those that are tone deaf, I blew the shot and have admitted as much. Further, I will continue to use my 7mm RM with the confidence it has earned since 1982.
Nor have I decided that " a much bigger cartridge would have killed the poor cow elk". This is a fantasy in your mind. What I clearly stated but you chose to disregard, is that the additional frontal area and energy provided by an expanded .338 bullet "might" have made a difference but that no one can know for sure. Apparently you have reading comprehension problems.
BTW, I don't use North Fork in the .338WM, I use 225g AccuBonds with 225g SST as my practice loads. I've only taken two elk with it but it does make noticeably bigger holes than the 7mm RM and so far all bullets have exited. The last elk I killed with it was in 2013 at 487 yards and bullet placement was very similar to where I think I hit the cow with the 7mm RM last year - a few inches under the spine and a little further back than I wanted. The difference is the cow shot with the .338WM, or what is left of her, is in my freezer.
A final note about bullet selection. While I readily use cup-and-core bullets in my hand and lever guns, I've only taken one head of big game with them using a bolt gun. That was my first elk, back in 1983 or 1984 (I didn't keep track back then) when I used the 7mm RM and a 162g BTSP Hornady InterLock. I didn't know much about bullets back then except that Partitions were "expensive". As a result I chose the BTSP primarily for its B.C. and calculated trajectory. The BTSP grounded the elk but retained less than 50% of its original weight, even though all it hit was a single rib. I was not impressed and the next year I started using Grand Slam bullets. It was nearly 20 years before I recovered one and although that one had destroyed both shoulder joints of a 5x5 bull elk it retained over 70% of its original weight. When Speer changed the way Grand Slams were made I went looking for something different, which resulted in my trying and rejecting Barnes XLC and TSX bullets. These days I primarily use AccuBond, TTSX, A-Frame and North Fork, depending on the rifle, and make no apologies to anyone for doing so.
Last edited by Coyote_Hunter; 05/10/15. Reason: clarity
Coyote Hunter - NRA Patriot Life, NRA Whittington Center Life, GOA, DAD - and I VOTE!
No, I'm not a Ruger bigot - just an unabashed fan of their revolvers, M77's and #1's.
I am willing to bet I spend MORE money than you do every year on guns and bullets I choose to use, and hunting I choose to do. Yeah, when somebody invites me on a hunt I use what they provide, but I spend far more hunting on my own, with my own guns and ammo, around half of it on public land.
So now you're justifying using North Forks for deer hunting when you might see an elk, but when we got into another discussion a couple years ago about all this, the thread was started by somebody specifically asking about bullets for whitetails. You posted that super-bullets should be used, because they were obviously better than "ordinary" bullets like the Hornady Interlocks and Ballistic Tips several other people suggested, or other bullets that don't meet your standards.
Since you don't know exactly where you hit the cow that was lost, I don't see how you can claim another cow killed with a .338 proves anything.
Keep posting. You never state exactly what you eventually claim to really mean the first time anyway.
“Montana seems to me to be what a small boy would think Texas is like from hearing Texans.” John Steinbeck
BTW, I don't use North Fork in the .338WM, I use 225g AccuBonds with 225g SST as my practice loads. I've only taken two elk with it but it does make noticeably bigger holes than the 7mm RM and so far all bullets have exited. The last elk I killed with it was in 2013 at 487 yards and bullet placement was very similar to where I think I hit the cow with the 7mm RM last year - a few inches under the spine and a little further back than I wanted. The difference is the cow shot with the .338WM, or what is left of her, is in my freezer.
If a bigger faster bullet is the answer to poor shot placement you might want to look into a 50BMG....
What I've noticed about Coyote Hunter over the years is that he often theorizes, whether by number-crunching, or claiming a tougher bullet will make a difference in every situation, or "thinking" he hit a lost cow elk somewhere. This is normally the sign of a relatively inexperienced hunter, but he claims to be pretty experienced.
“Montana seems to me to be what a small boy would think Texas is like from hearing Texans.” John Steinbeck
There isn't an elk walking on this earth that can take a 150-180grain coreloct through the lungs and live to tell about it,but you have to put it there. A coreloct in the lungs beats a fancy bullet through the guts every time.
A double lung or a heart shot rom just about anything will take anything down. The question is, how long does it take. Could be a DRT or a couple of hundred yards.
I love this stuff, hunters and shooters are the biggest group of experts on their sport. It does not matter if it is the drunk at the bar telling you his 303 is the best deer gun, or A rifle crank with A 22cf imp kills like lighting. The only time the 06 will fail is with a weak bullet and bad placement. Is that not the reason for the 35 whelen, and todays bullets have fixed that.Peace...
There is one place that the 30/06 will not work, and I think at least one other poster has mentioned it. With full power loads, it is not a cartridge to begin training a young shooter with. The recoil is about at the tolerance level for adult men. Trying to teach breathing techniques, trigger control, follow through and how to call the shot to a 12 year old with a rifle that is difficult to hold and has a rather stout recoil isn't going to instill a love of shooting in a young person. Not when they can go play video games with instant gratification and no pain.
I don't think there exists any reasonably scientific study that concludes that a .300 magnum kills better than a 30-06, although we "think it should." An exception might be Texas heart shots with very stiff bullets for all I know.
I suspect the 30-06 might work just fine on African dangerous game. A Cape buffalo weighs less than a big moose. A 220 grain solid has the same SD as a .458 500 grain solid and should penetrate an elephant's skull just as well. Lions only weigh about 450 pounds. The one I shot (with a .375) would have been just as dead with a 180 grain NNP. And leopards are even easier to kill.
Don't blame me. I voted for Trump.
Democrats would burn this country to the ground, if they could rule over the ashes.
There is one place that the 30/06 will not work, and I think at least one other poster has mentioned it. With full power loads, it is not a cartridge to begin training a young shooter with. The recoil is about at the tolerance level for adult men. Trying to teach breathing techniques, trigger control, follow through and how to call the shot to a 12 year old with a rifle that is difficult to hold and has a rather stout recoil isn't going to instill a love of shooting in a young person. Not when they can go play video games with instant gratification and no pain.
I think you're right. I started off with the 'pathetic' 243. I didn't learn it was inadequate till after I quit using it.
I am willing to bet I spend MORE money than you do every year on guns and bullets I choose to use, and hunting I choose to do. Yeah, when somebody invites me on a hunt I use what they provide, but I spend far more hunting on my own, with my own guns and ammo, around half of it on public land.
You probably do spend more. And that is relevant how? The point is I can write what I want and not worry about offending any manufacturer because none of them have ever given me a single penny to promote their products, either directly or indirectly.
Quote
So now you're justifying using North Forks for deer hunting when you might see an elk, but when we got into another discussion a couple years ago about all this, the thread was started by somebody specifically asking about bullets for whitetails. You posted that super-bullets should be used, because they were obviously better than "ordinary" bullets like the Hornady Interlocks and Ballistic Tips several other people suggested, or other bullets that don't meet your standards.
I don't think I've ever stated "super-bullets" or even premium bullets "should" be used. I challenge you to post a link proving your claim.
To the contrary, I've often stated most bullets will work most of the time, that my loads get used for both elk and deer, that I choose premiums and my reasons for doing so, and that I don't care what other people use. On occasion I have recommended people just buy standard cup-and-core bullets as long as they shoot well in their rifle. When my son-in-law started hunting I got him some (gasp) white box Winchester Power-Points. They shot well in his rifle and he used them to take his first elk on a cross-canyon shot.
Do I think North Fork, AccuBond, A-Frame and TTSX are better bullets than InterLock and Ballistic Tip bullets for my purposes? Yes, and I will continue to use them, with no apologies to anyone.
Hell, I use premiums (100g TTSX and 110g AccuBond) in my Roberts for antelope and see no reason to change. They are very accurate, work reliably and don't come apart and destroy meat like some other bullets do. These are the only big game loads I have for my bolt guns that don't get used for elk and deer as well. When the Roberts gets carried during elk and deer season it gets stuffed with 120g A-Frames, again with no apologies to anyone.
Quote
Since you don't know exactly where you hit the cow that was lost, I don't see how you can claim another cow killed with a .338 proves anything.
Keep posting. You never state exactly what you eventually claim to really mean the first time anyway.
You are right that I don't know exactly where I hit the elk with the North Fork. Years of experience shooting that rifle and load, blood high on brush along the trail, an obvious exit, the dark color of the blood, the position of the elk when the shot was fired and the direction of the wind all suggest to me a hit below the spine, behind the lungs in the liver. It is a reasonable supposition but it may be incorrect.
Once again you are writing about a fiction in your head. I did not in any way claim killing another cow with the .338 "proves" anything. What I stated was that the .338 makes "noticeably bigger holes than the 7mm RM", that I believe bullet placement was "very similar", and that the cow is now in the freezer. This proves nothing but it does lead me to wonder what would have happened had I hit the cow last year with the .338 instead of the 7mm RM. I don't believe extra thump provided by the .338 would have resulted in a worse outcome and the .338 ***might*** have done more damage resulting in a better outcome. I don't know one way or another and have explicitly stated as much. Neither you nor anyone else knows for sure either but in my opinion those who contend that extra thump never makes a difference are fools who ignore the fact that marginal differences often result in drastically different outcomes. A little extra traction going around a corner can make the difference between life and death.
I don't really believe someone who makes their living writing has such poor reading comprehension skills - instead I think you deliberately misrepresent what I write. As I said before, that's petty and pathetic.
Coyote Hunter - NRA Patriot Life, NRA Whittington Center Life, GOA, DAD - and I VOTE!
No, I'm not a Ruger bigot - just an unabashed fan of their revolvers, M77's and #1's.
What I've noticed about Coyote Hunter over the years is that he often theorizes, whether by number-crunching, or claiming a tougher bullet will make a difference in every situation, or "thinking" he hit a lost cow elk somewhere. This is normally the sign of a relatively inexperienced hunter, but he claims to be pretty experienced.
Do you never get tired of posting bullschit?
I have NEVER claimed a premium bullet will " make a difference in every situation". Quite to the contrary, I have often stated most bullets will work most of the time.
As I stated in my last post, "You are right that I don't know exactly where I hit the elk with the North Fork. Years of experience shooting that rifle and load, blood high on brush along the trail, an obvious exit, the dark color of the blood, the position of the elk when the shot was fired and the direction of the wind all suggest to me a hit below the spine, behind the lungs in the liver. It is a reasonable supposition but it may be incorrect."
Coyote Hunter - NRA Patriot Life, NRA Whittington Center Life, GOA, DAD - and I VOTE!
No, I'm not a Ruger bigot - just an unabashed fan of their revolvers, M77's and #1's.
After shooting two elk at over 400 yards and hitting both too far back, you might consider not shooting at elk over 400 yards--not a bigger cartridge.
Originally Posted by Coyote_Hunter
Originally Posted by Centex Bill
I have a chance to go elk hunting? Is 308 Winc big enough for elk.
Bill
In a word, "Yes".
Although I've always used bigger (7mm RM, .30-06, .300WM, .45-70), in 31 years I've never "needed" anything bigger. My longest shot was this year, 399 yards, and I'm quite sure a .308 would have done just fine.
The trick is placement. With good placement almost anything will work.
I've also found that, aside from being easy to shoot and kill things, the 30-06 is easy to load for. I've used powders from Unique to Magpro, and bullets from 110 to 245 grains. I keep collecting various weights and constructions of 30 cals, including 6 moulds. They all have shot from adequately to admirably in a 30-06.
In response to concern over recoil for the sensitive, it is a simple thing to load 125gr bullets to the low 2000's with a fast powder for a mild and lethal combo. Start the kid off with cast bullets and unique in the low teens and work them up, and Bob's your uncle.
I have loaded 39 different bullets and 20 powders in the .30/06 and still have a couple of bullets and powders on the shelf I have not yet tried.
With this background, I only had 1 bullet fail during culling that caused me to drop it. That was a 130gn ADI HP that simply could not take the under 3200fps velocities I was generating. John
When truth is ignored, it does not change an untruth from remaining a lie.
Couple of points.. First of all, in my post, I said "full power loads" were not good to start a youngster with. Second point, if a beginning shoot is the size of a typical 11 or 12 year old, many 30/06 rifles are a little to heavy to be an ideal starting rifle. Have seen way too many 12 year old first year hunters lugging around Dad's model 700 30/06 that weighs close to 9 pounds with scope, sling, and a full magazine of full power factory loads.
Tremendously underrated Under complicated Vertatility that matches the greater majority of hunting applications Recoil within manageable levels. More than addquate bullets and powder choices Been everywhere, Done everything
Couple of points.. First of all, in my post, I said "full power loads" were not good to start a youngster with. Second point, if a beginning shoot is the size of a typical 11 or 12 year old, many 30/06 rifles are a little to heavy to be an ideal starting rifle. Have seen way too many 12 year old first year hunters lugging around Dad's model 700 30/06 that weighs close to 9 pounds with scope, sling, and a full magazine of full power factory loads.
Yeah Royce, I have seen the same and have the same comical picture in my head as I type this, where the gun seems to dwarf the kid. I knew several cohorts when I was 12 who lugged dad's 30-06 their first years out in the field, including at least one Garand. I agree it's not ideal. Those kids got their deer though. We aren't talking about ideal here; we're talking about whether the 30-06 will work.
I grew up with a hand-loading father, so the concept of non-tailored ammo is somewhat foreign to me. Even my dad's "full power loads" were often far from it, because he worked up loads for what was most accurate, starting low and stopping when he saw what he wanted. He did not own a chronograph. I have gone far beyond the explorations he did, and have learned that it is a simple thing for the relatively experienced handloader to micromanage how a load will perform in terms of component consumption, velocity, trajectory, etc. Bringing this all back to the 30-06: this vanilla cartridge has over 100 years of load data out there doing just this sort of purpose tailoring, from gallery practice loads to tusker slaying. My point is that the proven flexibility of the round speaks to it's formidable utility.
Back to a kid's first gun for deer/antelope, I lean more and more toward an inexpensive light, compact, fast-twist 223 that a youngster or recoil-/report-shy greenhorn can quickly and easily learn to master for shots as far away as the shooter is comfortable with, namely 100-200 yards. The Ruger Easy-Bake Oven.
The question that started this thread wasn't, "What would you use if you ever hunted brown bears? Instead it was: "When will .30-06 not work?"
Please explain how your post has anything to do with answering that question.
Not trying to be a smart-ass, just trying to stay on point.
Then I mis-spoke and (not trying to be a smart ass either) I should start a thread "when will the 22lr not work"?
A good principle to guide me through life: “This is all I have come to expect, standard lackluster performance. Trust nothing, believe no one and realize it will only get worse…”
A rifle platform too large for a younger shooter isn't really the theme or intent of the thread as a rifle too large for the user could apply to just about any cartridge?
When truth is ignored, it does not change an untruth from remaining a lie.
Aussie A platform too large for a young shooter is probably not relevant but I think the 30/06 being too much for beginning shooters is relevant, just because it occurs so often.
After shooting two elk at over 400 yards and hitting both too far back, you might consider not shooting at elk over 400 yards--not a bigger cartridge.
You're not defending the lies you put forth in your previous posts. I'll accept that as your tacit admission you know they were lies and cannot be defended.
As to the two elk, it is debatable whether both were hit "too far back". Definitely true for the second, but we've been eating on the first for 1-1/2 years now, which was shot at 487 yards. What I said about it was I hit it "a little further back than I wanted". Nevertheless the .338WM and 225g AB put it on the ground in short order.
If you can claim you always hit exactly where you want, good for you - but I doubt it.
Losing one animal in 33 years of hunting isn't a perfect record but it isn't bad, either.
Coyote Hunter - NRA Patriot Life, NRA Whittington Center Life, GOA, DAD - and I VOTE!
No, I'm not a Ruger bigot - just an unabashed fan of their revolvers, M77's and #1's.
Just an antidotal story--- About 5 years ago when I was combing the gun racks at a local gun/reloading shop in Superior WI, a man in in his late 60's said to me " do you see any Hornady 165 g Interlocks ? " I showed him where they were on the shelf. He said that he hadn't bought any since they changed the label on the box a few years back, hence the confusion. He then proceeded to put 10 boxes of the bullets on the counter. I said to him, " you must really like those bullets." He replied to me, " I could save you a lot of time and grief. You see all of those guns on the rack over there? All you need is a 30-06, with these bullets, over 57 grains of 4350. I am the hand loader for our group up in Ontario Canada, where I am from. I have been loading these bullets for all 8 of our group members including me since 1972, before they were called Interlocks just spire points. Each member of our group has taken a moose and a deer every year since then and we have never lost an animal. That combination ( 30-06 / 165 Hornady Interlock ) has proven itself over and over. It is all that you need. " It would be hard to argue with a track record like that.
I have a chance to go elk hunting? Is 308 Winc big enough for elk.
Bill
In a word, "Yes".
Although I've always used bigger (7mm RM, .30-06, .300WM, .45-70), in 31 years I've never "needed" anything bigger. My longest shot was this year, 399 yards, and I'm quite sure a .308 would have done just fine.
The trick is placement. With good placement almost anything will work.
David
My oldest daughter will be going on her first elk hunt this year. She is a fairly petite woman but she likes my Ruger Scout in .308W. Since she is a lefty and now a full-time CO resident again, I suggested it was time for her to get her own rifle. On my recommendation she is now the proud owner of a wood/blue Ruger Hawkeye .308W that she will use for both WY antelope and CO elk this fall.
By the time those hunts come around I expect to have a new son-in-law, too. As a wedding gift he will get a .30-06 rifle, same as I gave my first son-in-law on his wedding day..
Last edited by Coyote_Hunter; 05/11/15.
Coyote Hunter - NRA Patriot Life, NRA Whittington Center Life, GOA, DAD - and I VOTE!
No, I'm not a Ruger bigot - just an unabashed fan of their revolvers, M77's and #1's.
Didn't John H. Brandt use ole' sporterized .30-06 Springfield to bring to bear problematic tigers, gaur, bears and panthers? To answer the question not a whole lot unless one wants to hunt dangerous African game and at least 9,3x62 or 9,5x73 is minimum required by law.
. Been using one since I was 12 and it's always worked great.. 
![[Linked Image]](http://s280.photobucket.com/user/Grizskins/media/P1000725.jpg.html)
![[Linked Image]](http://s280.photobucket.com/user/Grizskins/media/PhilampIbex.jpg.html)
![[Linked Image]](http://s280.photobucket.com/user/Grizskins/media/30-06beartracks-1.jpg.html)
Laughin' here.........yeah, they were all dead; & on animals killed with either, not much difference in effectiveness.........but that isn't on dangerous game.
![[Linked Image]](http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc437/jorgeIg/culo_zpsecducjln.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](http://s117.photobucket.com/user/baw0000/media/moose1Small.jpg.html)
![[Linked Image]](http://www.hunt101.com/data/524/medium/IMG_008310.JPG)
![[Linked Image from ]]( https://legalinsurrection.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Trump-Tweet-Image-Im-Just-in-the-Way-e1577149651503.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/11/14/1415970757962_wps_38_Saartjie_Baartman_A_Pair_.jpg)
- that a 375 H&H, even in the hands of one not perfectly "slickety-slick", can be used to bore more than one magazine's worth of holes in a relatively small bear…….
![[Linked Image]](http://i235.photobucket.com/albums/ee202/bridgershooters/Trophies/100_0265.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/G9RDVKXr/DSCN4329.jpg)
