Home Forums Hunting & Shooting General Big Game What caliber for plains muleys/pronghorns and the occassional elk?

I've got an old .25-06 I been shooting for a few years, and a combination of factors (worn out barrel, cracked pistol grip, lost my reload recipe) is conspiring to make me think I should get a new rifle. The .25-06 has been pretty good, but I think I'd like something abit bigger that can handle elk pretty well too. I'm torn between the 7mm Remington Mag, the .270 Winchester, and the .30-06. Which should I get? Or should I go even bigger? My partner swears by his .338 for elk, but isn't that too much gun for muleys and pronghorns?<BR>Thanks for the help.<P>Jack

Jack:<BR>It sounds to me like you hunt speedgoats and mulies on the plains, where a flat caliber like that .25-06 is just the ticket. Throw elk into the equation, however, and I agree that you just gotta go bigger. If it were me, I'd go with a .30-06. Smokes elk decisively, and still flat enough for plains game. I'd choose it over the 7mm Remington because in my experience the .30-06 hits published velocities with a 22-inch barrel, while a 7mm is gonna need a 24- or 26-inch pipe. If you're gonna go that long, might as well go for the .300 Winchester, which is an order of magnitude above the 7mm IMO.<P>Good luck, and let us know what you decide.<P>Tim

Wyoming Jack:<BR>Remington's 7Mag should do the trick for you. .284 bullets are famous for having excellent sectional density, which means good wind-bucking on the plains when you're hunting 'lopes, and good penetration when you're hunting elk. Plus, 7mm's seem to be more accurate in general than .30's, at least to me.<P>The .30-06 is nice, but the 7Mag is a better caliber by far, especially for what you want to do.<P>green<BR>

The best caliber for open country hunting by far is the 270. Even Jack O'Connor knew that. The 270 is as accurate as they come and will floor an elk if you do your part. For antelope and mule deer, the 270 is absolutely perfect.<P>The 7 magnums are too big, have too much recoil, and are not as accurate. The 3006 is good but not as fast as the 270.<P>Ask anyone, the 270 is the way to go.

Well I think you ought to go with something a bit bigger than the .25-06, I don't much care to be limited to 120 grain bullets when hunting elk. Just about anything will do from the 6.5mm on up.

I feel the .270 win. is enough punch for open range. I got one for the flatter trajectory and speed. And I think it's fine for elk too because I'm not going to flinch from the recoil like I would from the .300 win. mag. Although I don't believe it's gonna be enough for a 400 yrd elk shot, anything under 300 on an elk should be effective enough. I also have a Swede in 6.5 I'm in the process of customizing to take along as a back up for such endeavors.

I agree with Rick Lauder, but I would go with the 30-06. It kicks jsut about the same as a 270, but you'll have the option of much bigger bullets when you go after elk. <P>And as for Teacher, the 06 is proven to be the best caliber for all types of hunting. You just can't go wrong with the 30-06.<P>way

I thought the question was; only if for an occaisional elk; but mostly for plains shooting. Then if I could only own one rifle it would be a .270........If I could only own one rifle for a more moutainous or thicker growth area where I'd be able to hunt elk or bear every other year; The choice would be the 30-06......I just like the .270 where the shot may happen to be quite a bit farther than I'd prefer because of the flatter trajectory and speed to buck the wind.

There is no better caliber for hunting here in the southwest than the 30-06. From what you need, Mr. WyomingJack, I'd say it's the right choice for you too.<P>The 270 will be great IF you'll never hunt anything bigger, but despite the flatter trajectory of the 130 grain pill over the heavier 150 and 165 of the 30-06, it's WIND DRIFT and not flatness which will kill you on those long shots. And the heavier bullets of the 30-06 wll drift less.<P>Also, there's no doubt that when you go to shoot elk, the 30-06 will be much better. Yeas, the 270 will do the job, but I'd much rather be slinging 180 grain bullets at a trophy bull than 130 grain 270s.<P>The benefits of the 30-06 far outweight the benefits of the 270. <P>As to the 7mm Remington, I agree with Timber that the 22 inch barrel is much handier for a foot rifle. Dante

Why not the .300 Winchester or Weatherby magnums? Think of them as big .270's or .30/06's with goat glands. They are versitile enough for just about any big game situation. As far as the 7 mm magnums are concerned, the rifles are the same size and weight as the .300 magnums, but don't equal the ballistics.

Nobody here has mentioned the .280 Remington. I don't think there is any question that it is superior to the .270 in that it has virtually identical ballistics, yet you have the entire spectrum of .284 bullets available. You have the SD and flat trajectories of the 7mm's with the short barrel of the .30-06, and without the recoil and extra weight of the magnums.<P>And I disagree with John Duarte, though I respect your opinion, John, about the 300 magnums. Yes they have an edge ballistically to the 7mm magnums, but they also kick a heck of a lot more. Also, 7mm magnums have more than enough power to flatten anything up to and including elk. Beyond that into the great bears, no .308 or .284 caliber is heavy enough. So the extra power of the .300 Mags is pretty much of no real benefit.<P>I still say go with the .280 Remington, though, as you'll have plenty of rifle and won't get beat on.<P>elian

Elian, your point about the 7mm magnums versus the .300 magnums is well taken. But, I still think that the heavier punch from the .300's is worth taking the extra recoil.There is really no such thing as "overkill"; with a well stocked rifle the recoil levels of the .300 magnums can be easily tolerated.The writer Bob Hagel once wrote that the .300 magnums tear up a little more meat and deliver a bit more shock, therefore, they are a little more versatile. Its an interesting discussion,you may very well be right about there being very little difference between the two calibers,but I think the advantage, however small, is with the .300 magnums.

I must agree with John on this one. As good as the 7mm Remington Magnum is, the .300's are a cut above. I especially like the .300 WinMag. With a 200-grain bullet at 2950 fps, the WinMag has a substantial edge on the 7mm with a 175-grain bullet. Especially for elk, that extra bullet weight, frontal area, and energy is well worth it. Also, the flexbility to use a larger bullet negates the 7mm's traditional edge in sectional density, which usually pays dividends in the wind drift and penetration departments. A 200-grain bullet out of a WinMag will outperform a 175 .284 in all of these categories.<P>As to recoil, I also agree with John. Yes, the .300 WinMag kicks harder than the 7mm RemMag, but not by much. Get a good stock and recoil pad and you're in business. My M700 in 30-06 hurts much more than my M70 in .300 WinMag because the M70's stock fits me much better.<P>Any extra recoil the .300 WinMag delivers after this is done is more than made up for both in exterior ballistics and terminal ballistics.<P>Rick Bin

Speed is overrated, if you're going to tolerate more recoil you may as well have a bigger diameter barrel. Also, there is no such thing as killing an animal too dead. <P>While I don't have my reloading manual here in front of me, I find it hard to believe that there is any grand difference in the trajectory of a .270, '06, .280, or 7mm Mag. I mean really, what are we talking, several inches at 300 yards, eight or so at 400? How many people are HONESTLY good enough shots that they should be shooting at that kind of distance? If you truly are you're a better shot than me.<P>I used to own a .300 Winny and swore by it. Finally decided it wasn't worth all the gunpowder and sore shoulder for the minimal return. In terms of versatility (if you reload), availability of ammo, selection of guns, recoil, ballistics, bullet diameter and selection, yada yada yada yada it's really tough to beat an '06.

I'd rather be a little overgunned on every mule deer and antelope than undergunned on one elk. <P><p>[This message has been edited by Bigmuley (edited October 16, 2000).]

I think we're getting away from Jack's original question. He isn't after an elk caliber. He's after a deer/antelope caliber that will also handle elk.<P>I think the 7mm Magnum is just what he needs. The flat trajectory and higher velocity will serve him well on the plains when he is hunting muleys or antelope, and there's no way anyone can tell me that the 7mm Magnum is not a good elk caliber!<P>If he were asking for an elk rifle that will work on the plains, I'd say go with an ought-six or a .300. But for the opposite leaning, I'll take a 7mm anyday. Jack you will have the right rifle in both instances.

You don't need any magnums for either size game. A good short-action rifle will pay big dividends both in the plains and in the mountains. I like a 7mm-08. I shoot it for elk and it is deadly. It'll also work great on the plains and not blow your arm off. <P>Forget the magnums. Get a rifleman's rifle and learn how to use it.

Good post Dad. FWIW, I firmly believe that for antelope and mulies you can't beat the .270. If elk hunts are rare, this would be a fine gun. If you are going to do an elk hunt every other year or so, I still think the 30-06 is the way to go. Heavier bullets, larger frontal diameter, more momentum to punch through bone, etc.<P>As a side note, my reloading manuals show that a .300 Winny will give you about 2 inches less drop at 300 yards and 7 inches less drop at 400 yards than the '06. Is the glass half empty or half full? I don't see this as a tremendous advantage. Bottom line, whatever you shoot learn to use it and be sure to shoot at the distances you plan to shoot when hunting. I know folks who wouldn't hesitate to shoot out to 400 yards, but put a pie plate up at that distance and they'd be lucky to hit it regardless of what they were using. <p>[This message has been edited by Bigmuley (edited October 24, 2000).]

Any of the calibers you mentioned would do you fine. Choose the one that is more comfortable for you and that you can handle. It is a choice that only you can make. Consider recoil in all the listed calibers. You have given a fine choice to choose from, and they will all do what you want them to do.

Lots of good advice here WyomingJack. But what makes a horse race is opinions and I'll give you mine. I have a 25-06 myself, but for what you are doing I would choose a 7 Rem Mag or a 7 STW. I have taken more game with my 300 Win than anything else but it bucks and bellers like a bronco off the bench. Took a big 5x5 elk with it in September so I know it works.I recently picked up a 7 Rem Mag in an Rem 700 "FS/ADL" model. With the Brown-Precision fibreglass stock it kicks less off the bench than my 25-06 with a walnut ADL stock and a plastic butt pad. I'm loading a 139 Hornady to about 3300 (so far) which would be a good pronhorn/mulie combo. I also loaded some 175 Core Locts (got 'em with the rifle) which should make it a decent elk rifle. Not in the league of my 300 Win with 200 gr. Grand Slams but I'm sure it'll work. For a "do everything" load I would use a 160 gr. "premium" bullet in the 7 Rem Mag and call it good.