Home Forums Hunting & Shooting General Big Game Is there a better weight bullet for the 30-06 than the 180gr?

For a long time now I thought the best weight bullet for the 30-06 was the 180 grains. But I've begun to think its probably too heavy for most the hunting that I do. Its mainly been deer, a few hogs and a couple of elk. I would like to hunt antelope in the next year or two, so I'm asking what weight bullet does everyone go to for all round use or do you change weights according to the game hunted? Its been my belief that you practice with what you hunt with in order to get to know your rifle/bullet can do. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/help.gif" alt="" />

I have always used 165's in the 30/06 and have never found a reason to complain. I think the 180's a better all around bullet in a bit bigger case like any of the 30 magnums offer. For the 30/06 a 165 grain bonded bullet is faster and flatter shooting and will have greater retained weight and a larger mushroom that any standard construction 180 grain bullet will. It's just all around perfect in my opinion. I know my 30/06 loves them and has killed hundreds of big game with them. I have never lost a single animal with a 165 grain bullet from that rifle either! Here is a little post from the Africa forum you can see how well they worked from this past season.

https://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php/Cat/0/Number/508506/an/0/page/0#508506

yep, I'd say either 165 or the 150's.

dsanders �

The 180g weight is a good choice for elk, probably the minimum I would choose with standard �cup and core� bullets. If you choose a premium (like the Trophy Bonded, North Fork or A-Frames), the 165�s should work fine even for elk. Federal�s High Energy 165g TSX load is rated at 3000fps which should give you all you need, but you can push the XLC a bit faster yet.

While I�ve been playing with different weights in my .257 Roberts, 300 Win Mag and .45-70, when it comes time to hunt I tend to stick with one weight and one load per cartridge for everything. In some cases I have less expensive loads for practice, but they shoot to about the same point of impact at 300 yards or they don�t become practice rounds. In the case of my 7mm Mag, I have only developed 160g loads for the last 20+ years (Grand Slam, Partition, XLC), and the only other weight I played with was 162g before that.

Not in Alaska. IMHO.

According to some tests done by Finn Aaguard, the 180 had the deepest penetration of any '06 bullet. This is probably important only on larger NA game.

I quit using anything else at least 15 years ago, for anything ( big bears are always a potential pop-up hazard), despite better accuracy with some 165's, which I thought blew up too soon on real field situations. But those weren't premium bullets so I reserve the right to change my mind should I ever become dis-satisfied with the 180's. I use either Remington Corelocts, or Partitions. A good friend won't use anything but Winchester Silvertips in 180, for moose.

Admittedly, the only 165's I've used were also the most accurate factory ammo (in this rifle) that I have used (I don't reload for this rifle- it has an asymetrical chamber- but shoots pretty darned good all the same!).
They were Federal Hi-Shocks, which in the space of 4 days killed a ram semi-dead at about 330 yards, and a 42" bull moose at 70 yards. Both took two shots, tho the first would have done it eventually, and all 4 bullets pretty much blew up on contact, but did do the job. More or less.

I went back to 180's and never looked back. I'd stick with 180's for elk or larger, but if living/hunting Outside for deer, etc, would certainly explore the 150/165 option more.

Unless you are hunting Key deer, coyotes, or pronghorns, stay away from the Hi-Shocks. They aren't suitable to hunting anything larger, IMO. Most any other plain-jane slug will likely do fine on deer and similar sized critters. Premiums are not really needed on such, but if you like them, go for it.

Confidence in the combined accuracy and terminal performance of the bullet is the bottom line. Can't do it on paper, either.

All I use in the '06 and .308 is 165s. 44gr RL15 in the .308 and JB's 57-58.5gr H4350 in the '06. Great accuracy, and many lbs of venison later, I see no reason to switch.

las, if I were limited to the standard bullets I would also use a 180 more then likely. with the premium bullets the amount of retained weight will easily be higher with a 165 then a 180 after impact. So my guess it Mr. Aggard did this test some time ago and used only standard bullets. I think a 150 would still retain more weight and penetrate further then a standrd construction lead core copper jacket non-bonded bullet would.

I see in the new Cabelas reloading catalog that 100count 165 grain bonded bullets can be purchased now for 26 dollars. That is the same price as a Nosler Partition for only 50. In other words they cost half what a partition will be and are a far more durable bullet, and much more accurate for me.

Most of the bonded 165's I have recoverd have been under the skin on the exit side even from animal over 1000 pounds. All have weighed more then 150 grains. Not many standard 180's I have recovered in my life have been in one piece and those that were were not very good at retaining weight.

We could argue this one for as long as people have written about the .30-06. Because of what I do, I tend to try a lot of different things, seeing if there really is a difference. Have used both the 165 and 180 a LOT in the '06, and have also shot a number of animals with the 150 and 200.

The 165 at 2900 or so is a great load, especially with some of today's super-bullets, but to be honest a 180 at 2750 wqorks just as well, even at long range. Have used both as all-around bullets in North America and on some African trips.

Many people assume because a 180's heavier that it somehow will refuse to open up on smaller game, but have had marvelous, show-stopping luck with it on game as small as whitetail does and, in Africa, springbok and bushbuck.

Also, by some chance have ended up with 180's in my 30-06's when the longest shots have occurred, including two caribou at 400+ and a kudu at around 375. All were clean kills. Have shot quite a few "deer-sized" animals (from springbok to caribou) with 180's and had perfect results.

Some people also assume that 150's are too light. With some of the newer 150's, especially the Triple Shock, the '06 does fine on elk-sized game.

With 200's it shoots a lot flatter than most people would guess, and really does the job on heavier stuff.

My conclusion is that a lot of bullet-weight discussion is like debating which cartridge is the greatest all-arounder. Unless we stubbornly stick to cup-and-core bullets, the .30-06 tends to work as an all-around big game round with many spitzers between 150 and 200 grains. Just pick the right one and the meat's in the pan.

MD

In my experience, in hunting small deer and pigs up to 250lbs or so, the 165gn BTs work wonderfully at 2800fps out to as far as I care to shoot. capt david <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

The argument about bullet weight became largely negated when the bullet manufacturers began offering competitvely priced premium grade bullets.

I usually start my ballistic seminars with the question "why do bullets exist in different weights" and the usual response is that it is a trick question.

It isn't. The reason is too simple for that. Bullet weights exist because they fall apart on impact. It is that simple. Adding weigh, lengthening, internal structural design is all based on the fact that bullets fall apart on impact.

If we desire that because we are varmint hunting, thats ok, we simply change the philosophy to trajectory needs instead.

If we shoot deer sized animals, traditional thought leads you to the 150-165 grain weight and you are covered. Overlap, will permit you to use most 165 grainers where you would choose a 180 such as for elk.

Let me use the Nosler Partition for an example, this is a bullet that was designed as the perfect marketable bullet. Hunters of 50 years ago were not satisfied with current bullets. The answer you know and was "real" not because of "controled" expansion, because that was never true, but because of "restricted" expansion.

The front half of the bullet is "plain Jayne" and opens as usual. At a point of expansion (the belt), the bullet is "restricted' from further expansion.

The obvious question is that if penetration is enhanced by this restriction (partition) then why do be need heavier bullets?

Do we? Well, the real truth may be that we are so used to having various bullets weights in our reloading practices that we cannot adopt our thinking to modern bullet structure.

How many reloaders load up with a 200 grain Partition and shoot a deer with it. What happened? The deer falls over dead, there is a small exit hole and many a novice claims that the bullet was too hard and didn't open up because it was a 200 grainer and too heavy for deer.

WRONG!

John Nosler knew back in 1948 that no matter what he designed and marketed, the average bloke was going to shoot a deer with it anyway. Hence the need to ensure that expansion characteristics were "business as usual" on the front end and if our man in the field used the same load on an elk, he would still be happy with the penetration.

I am very bored with scribes who quote S.D. as a reference in bullet selection for big game hunting, as it is largely an obsolete method or criteria for selection if the internal construction of the bullet, is not the usual lead core and jacket.

I have loaded several .300 RUM's with bullets from 150 to 220 grains and that is a huge range of options but was is really necessary? Absolutely not.

I know hunters in the US and Australia that use bullets from 150 to 180 grains though I have never met anyone that actually kills animals that thought he needed more bullet weight than that.

The hunters that use 150 grains, load premium bullets like the Barnes X or Partition Gold and hunt anything they please up to elk sized game.

The others tended to use 165 or 180's simply because of tradition rather than need based on factual observations in the field.

Bullet discussions are immensely interesting. I hope you all keep talking about this as nothing kills game except the bullet.

Rifles and cartridges can be our fantasy, pride and joy, customised dream gun, investment, or fetish, but they are still just the launching pad for the bullet.

Nothing is more important and nothing so important, can be taken for granted.

It is your complaints and feed back that has inspired the technology we enjoy today. Keep it coming and keep needling the writers to do better in covering what you want to know about.

It is your magazine as soon as you pay for it so it is right that you have a say it the content.

A treasure of information! Wonderful honest experience based comments and what makes this a great place for us trolls to learn from the "experts". Many thanks. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

I have been an '06 fan for years, and it is my go to gun for mulies. I used to shoot 180's until last year. I tried some 165's and got great results.

I finally settled on 56grs or W760, WLR primer, and Nosler Balistic tips in 165grs. It will shoot sub MOA off the bench.

I shot a mulie this fall with one and it dropped him like a lightning bolt. I would be leary of shooting an elk with a balistic tip in this weight though. It seems that these bullets pretty much explode after penetration.

I won't be shooting 180's again for deer since my gun loves 165's. The key is to find what YOUR gun likes to shoot and run with it. I never could get 165 gr Speers to shoot well in my gun even with various loads. GOOD LUCK!

Very well stated indeed Sir.

In my 30-06, I use Speer 165gn SP HotCors at 2800ft/s for all general hunting and the Woodleigh 200gn WCPP at 2500ft/s for Sambar. Although the Woodleigh 200gn doesn�t penetrate the same as the Partition 180gn, it certainly penetrates enough, expanding to create a very nasty wound channel while retaining over 90% of its original weight.

It seems the major of the responses do use a lighter bullet than the 180 grains. So...I will start trying some of the 165 grain bonded bullets and the Barnes X in the 150 grain weight. My 742 does well with the X's in 180 grains. But I also agree with that "you got to hit'em in the right spot to get'em!" So after the trial period if things don't work out in accuracy, I can always go back the the 180s. Thanks for your suggestion as to what type and weight bullets to try.

d sanders,

bullet choice makes for a good discussion, and we all like to jump on the wagon and preach..... i was a light bullet guy for years and pumped every thing that i shot for the last few FPS gain

my dad was always a heavy bullet guy, and, though i respected his opinions, i usually took a different path...

a few years back my brother and one of his buddies had a bear hunt planned in montana with a mutual friend who lived out there and volunteered to be their guide for most of a week...
a couple of months before the trip the buddy had to drop out and brother asked me to go.... welll,,,, OK.....
i was getting ready and called my brothers friend in montana for some information... during the course of the call we discussed bear size and the guy mentioned that the area we were to hunt had a few grizzlies... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/ooo.gif" alt="" />...
i started to consider my dads opinions and bought some 200 partitions... shot a box up, and loaded a box for the hunt....

my brother and i both took nice bears... i used my 30-06 200 and he used the .243 that he borrowed from me in 1980!!! he carried 100 gr. corelokt factory loads...
towards the end of the week we had a little informal shooting match... me, brother, his friend jerry, and a couple of jerry's local friends.....
jerry was easily the best offhand shot, with his rem. 7mm mag... i asked him what load he used, and he replied something to the effect that he pretty much always used remingtons.....
i inquired a little deeper, and he was aware that there were different loads available, but seemed to feel indifference as to bullet construction or weight....

i live in illinois and hunt other areas as frequently as i have the opportunity... this was my first hunt in country that had a verifiable grizzly population....and i went out of my way to prepare loads that i considered suitable for a grizzly encounter....
jerry who lives in grizzly country and hunts there extensively, was all about the hunt, and seemed to regard his rifle and load kinda like a ditch digger considers a shovel....
i do believe that if he had to make a choice between carrying a rifle and carrying a lunch, he'd hunt with a thermos... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

anyway... i shot 1 round at the bear...
( i'da shot again but the bolt fell out of my remington as i cycled the action.... fortunately the bear went only a few yards as brother and jerry were still laughing their a$$es off about me getting my 15E boot caught in the stirrup as i unassed the horse to shoot!!!)
i shot 19 more of my handloads during our shooting session the last day there.... i brought 30 loads of 200 gr partitions home and used them on hogs, deer, antelope, and coyotes over the next year or two.....
these 2600 fps loads shot plenty flat for general use, and killed everything that i shot dead... i actually thought that they might not expand well on stuff like coyotes, but never had a good hit fail to drop anything.....



i reckon that if what i had worked well, and i had no specific complaints, i'd use it and feel comfortable....
on the other hand, if you want to play around with something else, i'm sure that you can make it work too... have a ball, live big and try a new bullet..... john w

I use 180 grain bullets for whitetails and blackbears they seem to work good but these aien't premium ammo either.

I have only hunted whitetails so far and 165gr. bullets have done well by me. I have used mostly 165gr. Remington Core-lokts handloaded to around 308 velocities(maybe less) and they tend to leave nickel sized exit wounds and don't tear up much meat. The deer I shoot weigh less than I do and most are within 100 yards or so.

When using partitions I've noticed that no matter what the distance, the entry and exit wounds look the same whether its a 180 or 165 grain.

So I've settled for the 180 grain partition. It will open just fine, and will always give me the insurance of extra penetration.

JJ - You have vastly more experience on game than I, so I respect your opinion. I use the 180 for three reasons.

First, I got tired of screwing around with the various bullet weights and decided to settle on one weight suitable for everything I hunt here in Alaska. Or might meet.

2. I LIKE the 180! (As you do the 165. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> )

3. I'd rather face off a Griz with 180 than a 165, all other things being equal..

You are correct, I think, in that Aaguard tested plain-jane bullets, before the advent of premium bullets other than the Partition.


For my son's caribou hunt, I'll be packing Stub, my 17 inch barrelled '06. in brown bear country. I just bought some 165's for the trip ( I changed scopes too), but I'll have a half-dozen "serious" premium "point-blank" 180 loads along as well! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> He will be using an in-progress, rebarrelled .260 Rem 725, with either 140 or 120 grain rounds, depending on what works out best.

Recently, I've seen ads for Ruger's 16.5 inch barreled "Frontier" rifle, up to and including .300 short magnum (how dumb is that?)

So, I was only about 10 years ahead of them with "Stub" ??? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> I suspect, not having cronographed it, that I get about factory .308, 22 inch barrel velocities out of Stub. But it kills just fine in excess of 300 yards, with 180 grs - and I just bought a rangefinder.

the 165's have always worked for me...and are VERY accurate