Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters Mule Deer -- .30-06 and .300 H&H

Were the elk/moose standing undisturbed? Or, fearing for their lives hopped up on adrenaline?

Shooting undisturbed animals is no real test. Just use a 257 Roberts and your argument will apply.

Not all shots hit the heart lung area on a hunt. How about
solid muscle in the shoulder area. Delivering more shock
with 300 fps out of a 300 win mag. Your telling me that will
have no "more" affect on an elk/moose?



Would you stand by your 375 and 30-06 comparison for Cape Buffalo?

This is a general comment not aimed at anyone in particular.

We have another case of extrapolating information offered to help people. This is not healthy comment.

Why not read someome's contribution, think on it, and compare it to your own experience quietly and leave it at that. If you can offer advise, (not opinion) based on your experience that differs, then that is fine.

This is not going to work if people slander anothers comments in order to dominate the discussion and even more so, if people keep reinterpreting comments made and fabricating analagies.

As I stated perviously, this discussion has nothing to do with dangerous game so there is no point going there. It started out and still should be, on track to openly discuss your experiences and provide information noted when using the .30/06 or .300 magnums (.300H&H?)on game, which for the majority of us, will be deer and elk sized non dangerous game.

AGW

Well said Aussie...

John,

I'm going to go off on the tangent here but it's obvious you are an "empirical evidence guy" which is the approach science teaches us in order to make sense of our observations.

This is a tough thing to bring to bear in determining the relative "killing power" of cartridges because (and it's here I may sound a bit too loony) we can never eliminate all the contributing factors except one - the cartridge - in any game-taking scenario. Even in a "lab" project, we would have to use a different animal. For example, we can kill that animal only once; theoretically at least, a different animal of the same species may differ in viability, attitude, strength, and toughness. The same creature may even react differently at different times in its life. How many times has each of us even killed two of the same species of the same age and weight at the exactly same range, same conditions, same rifle, etc. with the same load let alone done so with the "competing" load so that we could observe the difference real or imagined? So, many of our determinations are the sum of many unregulated observations; at what point they become more than anecdotal I think becomes apparent to the shooter but someone else could rightly have "about" the same observations with a different cartridge. Mostly our opinions are based on many anecdotes but they are not, cannot be rigidly controlled. Even the "elk study" and the European "moose study" are really not purely scientific although the elk one is about as close as we might come.

Many make the distinction between two cartridges, i.e., the 30-06 and the 300 Win mag, without even differentiating between the different bullet types, weights, factory loads or handloads. How can anyone meaningfully differentiate killing power between a "slow" factory 300 win mag with a tin foil bullet and a warm '06 handload with a premium bullet and be confident it represents the meaningful difference between the two cartridges in the field? I know the above comment does not pertain to truly experienced hunters and riflemen but it does to others. Too many other factors are at play like the game, the distance, the bullet placement, and on and on.

IIRC, the 300 mags got their press boost esp in the Elgin Gates (to name one), Wby hunter awards period when these globe-trotters spread the fame of the mags esp the 300 Wby. But just look at the bullets we have now compared to then. I remember Ross Seyfried hunting feral donkeys in Aussieland with the then new X-bullet from Barnes and describing how the little '06 now thought it was a .340 in its effect on these tough little horses with the new premium. New bullets have lifted a cartridges effectiveness. It's true it's lifted them all , the mags too.

It's intuitive to us that when one bullet is fired faster than another that is exactly of the same type that there should be a difference in killing power, advantage to speed, all other things equal. Yet in the field there are too many other mitigating factors that can not be eliminated that could neutralize that advantage.

Allen, you and John are woefully ahead of me in experience and that's OK; I will never catch up and don't need to; my experience in shooting some game with each more nearly parallels Johns but I don't doubt yours at all. But I wonder how different your "record" would be had you stayed with the 30-06? I would submit that your ability as a hunter and rifleman would make-up for the "disadvantage" of the '06.

In the end, the observations of an experienced rifleman and hunter form his conclusions but I suspect that as oft been stated, "there's more than one way to skin a cat". That these same conclusions could have been formed from using any number of cartridges. Again, as someone quite well known has once said, "there's nothing new under the sun".

Alright, I'll go take my medicine now and go to bed.

George

AGW,

You quote my post then say "this is not aimed at anyone in particular" Huh?



What's good for the goose....

I say a 303, 308, 30-06 or 300 H&H all do a great job when placed in the vitals....with that said, I would like to resite a saying that has always made me glad I own a 30-06.

"There just ain't much that a man can't fix with eight hundred dollars and a thirty od six" Ain't that cool?

SU35,

I would guess the elk were relatively undisturbed, since on the Bison Range they are not hunted, so are somewhat used to humans.

I would guess that the moose were almost all up and running from moosehounds, since that is the way most moose are hunted in Sweden and Finland.

As for bullet placement, we can assume that when the numbers of animals killed get up in the thousands that this pretty well evens out. That's the reason most studies of anything strive to use the largest sample size possible.

As far as Cape buffalo are concerned (and as Aussie pointed out, they were not part of the original discussion) I will give some "anecdotal evidence." When hunting in Africa a few years ago, my PH was a veteran who often described hmself as a Rhodesian, which dates him some. I'd brought two rifles on the trip, a .30-06 and .375 H&H, and toward the end of the trip made a nearly 400-yard shot on a kudu bull, dropping it cleanly with one 180-grain Partition from the .30-06. Afterward Kevin commented, "And there are those that claim the .30-06 isn't enough for African game...."

So I asked, "What's the largest African game you'd hunt with the .30-06?"

He said, very quickly, "Buffalo." It turned out he'd literally killed hundreds of buffalo on control with a .30-06--and 180-grain Nosler Partitions. Almost all were chest shots.

How's that for an anecdote?


Goodnews,

I agree to your points, but again I would look at the sample size. The larger the sample size, the more valid the data.

Again, I have yet to see the vast difference in killing power between the .30-06 and .300 Winchester Magnum that some claim. Maybe it will show up as I see more game killed.

Your bullet book went out today. Thanks, both for the order and the note!

JB

Johnny B,

That is a good anecdote.

Thank you for a good post.

You're welcome!

JB

Wolfe publishing had the scandic test in one of their mags a couple years ago,relating to moose kills. The 6.5x55 and 30/06 had the most data or number of kills. The bottom line was,there wasn't much differance like mule deer said in distance traveled after the shot. Wether it was a magnum or standard cartridge.

One thing not mentioned,is if you're carrying an ultra mag. Without fail the shots will be under 200 yards. If you're carrying a .303 savage with open sights,you'll be presented with copious amounts of 500 yard offerings.

Carrying a 300 magnum is a mental game for many. It in fact builds confidence in alot of hunters and keeps them believing that they have an edge. That belief can make all the differance in the world,even if it really isn't needed or isn't true.

There is just something about a well balanced 30/06,with a lighter contour barrel of 22 inches or less,in a classic stock. That simply trumps a similar designed magnum,when it comes to usefulness.

As for the 06 on cape buffalo. Theres plenty of footage available of elephant culls involving the use of a FAL in .308,being used with complete devastation to the dozens of elephants involved. It lends a ton of credibility to WM Bell's use of the 7x57.

Since I have your attention, sorry for straying here, but it does involve a 300.

I have this itch, I want to neck down a 375 Ruger to 300 Ruger.

I think the 375R case perfect for my needs, not to Short, not to
Ultra, has no belt. Just right.

Would a L61R make a good donor for the project?
Any alterations?




Has any heard of Ruger making plans to make a 300 Ruger

Murphy's Law...........

Anything would be better then using a ruger action or rifle.

Regardless of any real or percieved flaws. A nonbelted 300 mag without the beer can capacity of the ultramags and smoother feeding then the wsm's would and should have been offered in the first place.

JB,
Your comments about the .30/06 on Cape Buffalo is very interesting. I have a documentary about buffalo culling in Australia in the 1970's where a pro shooter called Henry Daioso killed thousands of buffalo which are larger and heavier than the African Cape variety, with a Ruger Heavy Barrel in .308.

Also in the 70's, was a very familiar face on the hunting magazine covers with writer Dick Eussen, who shot countless buffalo using a 270 Weatherby loaded with 150 or 160gn Nosler Partitions.

I am not surprised as the hunting was mostly in open country in those days before they became more wary with the government helicopter gun ships that were employed en mass, to thin out the herds.

Anything in the 270-340 does much the same job and it takes a dangerous turn of events to make these cartridges appear inadequate.

Good thing we didn't include Corbett hunting tigers with his 7x57. The magnum lovers would go to bed grinding their teeth tonite.

AGW

PS, I am a magnum lover too, but choose my time and place to take them, not so much by the animal species, unless it is potentially dangerous, and that is a separate argument.

PS, I am a magnum lover too, but choose my time and place to take them, not so much by the animal species, unless it is potentially dangerous, and that is a separate argument.

Why is potentially dangerous game a separate argument.

375 Whelan = 375 H&H???
400 Whelan = 416 Rem???

I assume MuleDeer uses the 375 Whelan and 400 Whelan for big game and may use the 375/08 and 400/08.

According to MuleDeer no difference in killing power between 300 Mag and 30/06. The big game scenario removes the differences trajectory from the equation. So 375 Whelan should be the way to go.

OR, does MuleDeer suffer from gunwriter inconsistency?

Mike

I've been wondering myself why potentially dangerous game is a separate discusssion ?

After all , if there is no greater killing effect gained from a large capacity case , a standard case would be of even MORE advantage used against dangerous game ; you'd have a rifle that carries more ammunition , and could be fired more quickly for repeat hits .

And if a 6.5x55 = a 30/06 and a 30/06 = a 340 , a man is a fool to even use the 06 . The 6.5 has all the shootability advantages of lessor recoil and blast over the 06 , same as the 06 has those advantages over even larger cartridges.

JB

Of course your large sample sizes are significant and your "anecdotes" too; my point is to all this fuss about differences in "killing power" between two cartridges of the same caliber, one with a little bigger engine, is that the differences in the field are hard to separate from all the other factors involved and therefore hard to attribute only to the effect of the bigger "engine". There, I guess I could've said it that way the first time and not been so long winded.

Thanks for the book; I'll be looking for it.

Gdv

I don't presume to speak for JB but here's where reading comprehension comes in. I don't think he's saying there's no difference between the two cartridges but rather that the difference is hard to observe.

George

Here's what I don't get about the discussion. It seems to me the only relevant velocity and energy in terms of effect on the animal are the impact velocity and impact energy.

Using figures from Norma's online ballistic calculator, if you have a .300 magnum that launches a 180 Norma Alaskan at 3000 fps m.v., and shoot an animal at 200 yards, impact velocity is 2280 fps and impact energy is 2080 fps. That's the same impact velocity and (for some reason that's escaping me) 2 ft.-lbs. more energy than the same bullet from a .30-06 (m.v. 2700 fps) at 121 yards.

The same bullet hitting at the same velocity ought to work exactly the same (all other factors being equal) so I would think a fairer claim for the magnums isn't that they "hit harder" but that they hit "just as hard, farther away." But even then, there would have to be some reason to think that a 180-gr. bullet hitting a 200-yard animal at 2280 fps is going to have some effect that's different in a relevant way from the same bullet hitting at 2031 fps (the impact velocity for the hypothetical .30-06 at the same range).

Who was it that said all any of these cartridges do is launch bullets?

George.

From one of his postings.....

You are simply not going to see any long-term difference in the way a .300 H&H and .30-06 kill. That is because their performance overlaps so much. Same with a .300 Winchester and .30-06.