Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters Bullet question for 30-06

I don't know why this ruffled so many feathers. If I look at it one statement at a time...


True statement. Why anyone would spend an inordinate amount of time shooting a hunting rifle from a bench is beyond me.


True statement. I also agree with BSA that a comparison of bench rest competition and hunting bullets isn't apples to apples and really can't be made.


True statement. Let's compare a 1.5 MOA gun and a 1 MOA gun, both groups centered on the aim point. Every 100 yards there's roughly 0.25 inches point of impact difference between a 1.5 MOA gun and a 1 MOA gun. That means at 200 yards...half inch difference. 300 yards...3/4 inch difference. 400 yards...inch difference, and wind is a MUCH bigger factor beyond 300.

There's some point of whether you have a 1/2 inch all day long gun or a MOA gun...or whether your gun is really a 1.5 MOA gun. I think 1/2 inch guns are mostly 1.5 MOA guns carried by guys that shoot 3 shot groups. And you can type until you are blue in the face about your 1/2 inch gun, and I'll believe it when you post a 20 shot group (or two 10-shot groups) that are half an inch. Just go look at the 24HC Black Rifle Challenge results! That's some good [bleep] right there. And damn, Scenarshooter has both some ability and a fantastic rifle. BSA has some fine groups all on one sheet of paper, but I think with a non-black rifle. Not that it matters, I've seen black rifles that will outshoot bolt guns, and vice versa.

At 400 yards a 1.5 MOA gun is, what, 3 inches off point of impact (assuming no adjustment for wind, true point of impact, etc.). Hell, my elk rifle is 4 inches off point of aim at 175 yards if sighted in at 300 yards just due to bullet trajectory. Yes, spinning turrets could reduce this. But then you have to [bleep] with turrets.

True, some hunters take game at longer distances. But I bet they think a lot more about the wind while they are shooting than thinking about a quarter MOA per hundred yard difference.



True statement.

Arguing on the internet is for ninnies, especially because the root cause of most of the arguments is poor reading comprehension.

Spec - I was hoping M D would chime in or others well versed in Tang 77s.

I don't know what you've tried so... here are a couple of suggestions.

A. The funky front angled action screw can be finicky as to how it affects accuracy.

B. I'd also check the bedding around the action. & along the barrel.

C. It's well known that Ruger had a period of barrels that were SUB standard. I don't recall what yrs or the maker but that's a possibility.

I'd check these things out before REbarreling.

Good Luck

Jerry

Ruger will rebarrel your 77 at a very reasonable price. That is the way to go.

Amen

Sounds like a lot of fun, at least something I could enjoy winning a bet with.

You've got some nerve spewing all that anti-loony logic, and all in one post too!

I hunted for years with factory ammo that could be counted on to deliver 1 1/2-2" three-shot groups and it was never a factor in how well I did. Since I began hunting exclusively with handloads, I haven't had to settle for that, but could, despite no doubt a nagging sense of inadequacy. I'd rather hunt with a 2" rifle with good bullets than a tack-driver pushing pointy marshmallows.

I just scored a couple hundred Partition overruns that are destined for my '06 and they'll do just fine, though with the 2.5x scope I'll probably never really know just exactly how well they shoot.

This is, of course, my personal take on the subject so feel free to obsess over accuracy or anything else you care to. It's all good.

Depends on the rifle.

I have a 760 30-06 that will put 130 grain TTSXs into an inch every time with Varget loads of 51.5-53.5 grains once the seating depth is right. That's consistent with that broad of a charge range. It stays there warm or cold. I would happily use that rifle for anything with those bullets, and no matter the size I would still expect two holes.

The same rifle refuses to shoot TSX 130s into an inch or even close to it, and no amount of changing powders and seating depth will change it's mind. Meanwhile, my 300 WM will quite happily spit the TSX-130 into tiny groups at warp speed.

Out of 15-20 30-06s I have seen some with preferences for heavier bullets, some with preferences for lighter bullets. I have not seen what I would hang my hat on as a preference for 30-06s out of bullets, nor of a bullet weight preference by 30-06s.

I've used 30-06s with light bullets, 130s mainly, for a long time and found them capable of excellent accuracy, just lousy choices for deer. I have never been a fan of 200/220s with a 30-06, but have used 150s, 165/168s and 180s. I really can't say that any of them stand out as getting along with the 30-06 better. Until we got the Barnes 130 TSX/TTSX bullets I used to use 150s to 168s because they performed better on deer than 130s, especially at close range.

Yes, it depends on the rifle.

My NULA .30-06, which I've had for 20 years now, will shoot about anything accurately enough to kill big game at 400 yards or even more, including factory ammo. In fact, the only bulletd I can recall it NOT shooting well were some original Barnes X's, before the TSX. Other than that it just plunks them in there. But NULA's are exceptional rifles in several ways.

That was an interesting comment. I have actually shot 55 gallon steel drums full of water with both the 220 30-06 load as well as the 200 NBT from a 340 Weatherby. Neither of them got that done. But they are both bad news for moose!