I planning a non trophy elk hunt this fall.
I am told I should get a look at a smaller bull.
I am actually just a meat hunter anyway.

Currently I hunt with a 30 06.
My do all load is a 165g nosler AB.

Problem is I have a 300 wsm that I have not shot yet.
If I did I would start with the H 4350 and a 180g nosler AB.

In my case is there a meaningful difference between 30 06 and 300 wsm under 400 yards?

Would you suggest a different bullet to start with for the 300?

the difference will be all but meaningless, shoot which ether caliber you like best, its almost always shot placement and bullet selected not minor differences in velocity or the numbers on the brass that will mater, personally I like the speer 200 grain in 30 cal for ELK
http://www.midsouthshooterssupply.com/item.asp?sku=000212211

I see your logic, you could also try the 200 gr. accubond and run the more accurate of the two (180 vs. 200). The trajectory of the 200 accubond should be very similar in the 300 wsm as compared to your 165 gr. load in the 30-06. I'm a "dyed in the wool" 30-06 fan and have recently had my eyes opened to the 300 wsm: My wsm is more accurate than any of my 30-06's and it hits harder, what more could you ask for. I'm thinking I'll even use it for long range deer hunting this year. However, if I were to use it on elk, I'd probably opt for the 200 accubond regardless of the range I were shooting. Take care.

Also, the nice thing about either cartridge is they will both get the job done with the myriad of bullets out there. You could also go the monolithic route and choose something like the 165 tsx, keep a stash of them because you're 30-06 may like them too

Hunt the '06, and with the time saved with load development for the wizzum, get in shape.

My wsm was very easy to load for rancho:


2 groups of 5 shots

Under 400 yds, the difference is pretty much negligible. I've shot 2 elk and 2 deer with my 300 WSM so far (all 300 or less) and I could have done it just as well with a 30-06. Just guessing, I'd say the 300 velocity at 400 yds is about the same as the '06 at maybe 300. Either is more than adequate for the job.

That WSM doesn't even penetrate. Look at them holes, you can plainly see the bullet penetrated the paper but not the wood behind!

Hemi

I've found that ease in development is inversely proportional to time available.

YMMV, MD..
(Your mileage my vary, mine don't.)

165's do great on elk in the 30-06 or the 300 wsm. I would take what ever shoots the best.

You guys shooting both rounds,how does recoil compare between the '06 and the .300 WSM?

..............Like everyone stated, within 300-400 yards, the killing power differences are negligible.

But for some real enlightment and some fun, I suggest you do the following if you haven`t done so already.

Choose the bullets and bullet weights you are more likely to use on your elk hunt and find out what their BCs are.

Next, log onto the Hornady site and find their external ballistics table. Type in all the info asked for; your approx MV, bullet BC, bullet weight, rifle zero in yardage, temps etc. You can also adjust the downrange increments in yardages. What you want to do, is compare the external downrange #s in velocity, energy and trajectories for the 30-06 vs the 300 WSM.

Although both are capable, doing the above will give you very good and accurate downrange comparisons.

Then pick the one that you feel will best do the job based on your best guess hunting situation. In the more wide open country where longer than 400 yard shots "could" occur, then I`d be more inclined to choose the 300 WSM.

And since you haven`t fired your 300 WSM yet, then get busy!!.. .... Using it as a paper weight or as a dust collector or something???...

[quote=tikka300

In my case is there a meaningful difference between 30 06 and 300 wsm under 400 yards?

[/quote]

Nope, no none nadda. The 168 TSx in an 06 @ 2900 or the 300 with a 180 @ 2950 or so I feel there's no diff. I mean real world how much diff can there be with the two rounds...at under 400 yds or about any range?

Dober

Using the same bullet and with the WSM moving about 200 fps faster, there's a difference. However, in most models of guns the WSM tends to be a bit heavier so that helps mollify the recoil just a little. Neither will tear your shoulder off by any means.

Two me, the two pretty much bump about the same, neither one has much recoil to speak of unless the rig gets really light and then it'll most likely have a light (sub .6" @ the mzl) barrel and will jump a bit. But, other than that neither one isn't much in the recoil dept.

Dober

My experience as well. And the elk I've shot with both rounds died quickly, even though the ballistics of the .300 WSM were more than the .30-06.

The .300 WSM is pretty easy to load for, but in my experience the .30-06 is as well.

I pretty much figured just what you guys are saying.

My .300 WSM is a Winnie Featherweight, I haven't shot it yet, which is why I was wondering about a magnums recoil in a featherweight. Thanks...

Don't think you could tell the difference under 400 yds. the 300WSM should be better beyond, however. Shot my WY elk last yr with a 300WSM at 439 yds. Shot was broadside lung hit and 180gr Nosler passed right thru. Haven't chro'ed it yet, but I load 64.5gr of 4350. Shoots 1 1/2" at 200 yds.
John

Kenneth-my opinion of the 300 WSM/M70 Fwt is that they're anything but featherweights so I'm thinking it'll be no bigga deal.

"All up", scope, rings, rounds sling I'm betting it easily go 8 1/4's or better.

Not a slam on the rifle just an observation is all.

Dober

I think the fit of the rifle and confidence of what you are carrying will matter far more than any possible difference in terminal ballistics. If the 30-06 has been your go to gun for any length of time I would grab it and not even hesitate.

If the 300 is your new woman and you just wanna break it in on an elk that is reason enough to switch.

Understood and your spot on. The rifle it self is right at 7 lbs 4 oz. 2.5x8 lupy is another 11oz plus talleys and sling.

Guaranteed to hit 8 1/4.

While this thread is comparing the 300 WSM to the 30-06, a closer comparison would be the 300 WSM and the 300 WM. The WM is a little more powerful than the WSM, but not much. The WSM is much closer to the WM than it is to the 30-06. You might call it a WM Light. If you have experience with the WM, you pretty well know what the WSM will do.

If you have a 30/06 you have hunted a lot with, the advantage of being familiar with that rifle will FAR out weigh any nebulous advantage to the larger case capacity of the 300 WSM.

royce

The WSM will mount a shorter scope....dats it!

Nicely said, I've been thinking the same thing lately and almost willing to give up my 300 win mag since getting my new wsm. It's (300wm) the only left hander in the stable though, so I'm conflicted as to whether or not I should get rid of it

Somehow I managed to get both a .30-06 and a .300 WSM in the gun safe. They're both good rifles. My WSM is set up for longer range shooting, while the .30-06 is a generalist.

My standard '06 load is a 165 at 2750. It's only a 21" barrel, and I could push it harder, but it shoots well there.

The .300 WSM shoots a 200 at 2815 fps, from a 24" barrel.

Guy

IME, no.

I think the 300 WSM starts to shine past 500 yards, and with heavier bullets.

You won't go wrong with either provided you shoot them well.

Many rifle ctg combos will work. Pick something that appeals to you and in which you have confidence. Then practice.

Mac-do you have any kind of 200's sitting around bored that I can give a run?

I'd still like to run the 200 HC or Sierra in my short 30 mag.

The 190 Horn is another bullet I kind of like as well. I know Ingwe's filled up a few arks with that bullet out of his H&H and liked it so gotta believe it'll do well in a short mag. Right..? It shoots well in mine, but then again mines a jelly bean rifle...grin

Dober

I've got some 30 cal. 185 VLD's you can give a run..

I've now got some 200gr. GK's loaded over RL17 and Hunter to try out this week in my SAUM, and then we'll see where those go.

Dober, have 3 qty 200 NAB's and 3 Qty 200 NP's left. I got dibs on them

However, have a full box of 208 A-Max's and you're welcome to as many as you want. Gave them a run today... they shoot GREAT.

Good answer

I have also killed elk with both rounds and have to agree.

Mark,
I have some 200gr Partitions and Accubonds I can send if you want some. Oh, I have a bunch of 190 Hornadys as well. Just let me know.

Where the 300 WSM will shine is running the wonderful 200-gn Accubond (BC .588) at close to 2900 fps. There you've got a great setup from 7 yards to 700 yards.

BUT, aside from the advantages of the higher SD of the 200 NAB over the 165 NAB on closer shots (the 200 will out-penetrate on average), the 200 from the wizzum won't show a meaningful advantage until you get out past 400 yds or so, and/or in windy conditions. At that point the 200 will thoroughly trounce the 165 (I shoot both, from an '06 and a 300 WM).

The 200 NAB from the WSM is better in every way, close to far, but does it actually matter? Not on a broadside elk, and not under 400-ish yards. If you are desiring the ability to take tougher-angled shots that broadside and/or shooting longer than 400 I'd go WSM/200 Accubond all the way.

IMHO.

Jeff
You keep getting farther and farther from what it takes to kill an elk in the field. Sectional density doesn't kill an elk and small differences in wind drift don't either.
What kills elk is somebody that can hit a basketball sized target quickly from field positions with a decent bullet. A reasonably light rifle is a big help as is a rugged scope.
To hit a basketball sized target quickly requires frequent practice and familiarity with the rifle. MOST PEOPLE cannot handle the recoil of a 200 grain bullet at 300 WSM velocities in a light rifle. That is said after years of working the sight in day at rifle ranges, and years of watching big tough guys from back east show up to hunt and not being able to hit a deer or an at 100 yards with their beloved magnums.
I also know there are lots of people here that shoot enough to handle a 300 WSM- I didn't say no one could handle the recoil, I said that most people can't-
I get the drizzling shizits every time an elk rifle discussion starts and people yard out their ballistic charts, wind meters, micrometers to measure group size to the nearest 10/1000 inch. Fer craps sake, elk hunting IS NOT precision riflery except under the most unusual circumstances. I wonder how many people that sort through bullets to trim a 1/16 of an inch off their group size could put three shoots from offhand into an 8 inch circle at 100 yards.
And I have never ever heard of an elk struck by any decent bullet from a 30/06 that got away when a 300 WSM would have killed him with the same placement.

Fred

Fred...I think a great deal of this is theoretical vs. actual...

One of the better quotes I've heard at work (in regards to elk hunting):

"Just get to where you can make the shot, and shoot it through the [bleep] lungs."

We're not building rockets..

Ingwe
LOL Yea, but the poor OPer just was just wanting to know if he should take a 30/06 that he has used a lot or a 300 WSM that was new to him on an elk hunt. Seemed like the thread got a long way off track. Somebody should tell the guy that the kind of boots he wears has a lot more to do with his elk hunting than the differences in terminal ballistics between an 06 and a 300 WSM-

Fred

I think you just did Fred...


Now if someone would just get it through to JeffO....

see that wall over there? It would understand a lot quicker..

and [bleep], if a 165 AB outta a '06 ain't good enough to kill any elk living, I'm getting out of the game.

Never messed w/ a WSM, but Im guessing my 06' load pushing the 200 NP @2700, the difference wouldn't be noticed by any game animal to 400 yds.

Gunner

Point conceded, but having flung many hundreds of each downrange out to 600+ yds, the 200-NAB from the Winnie (or I presume WSM) far outclasses the 165 from an '06 in terms of ability to hit. It's not subtle.

The 200 will drive deeper up close too. Areas I hunt elk are nothing like the terrain you got that nice bull with your 7 SAUM.... I'd take the deer-penetrating bullet for a quartering- away shot that might need to go through some wadded up grass, any day, over the 165.

It's really simple. What works? Why, both do of course. What works best from the two choices? The 200 from the WSM, running away.

.... and he already owns the 300 WSM...

Silly me.. I thought the "ability to hit" was all up to the shooter.

This is [bleep] crazy. When stupid chit like this can drive a discussion on this forum, stick a fork in it.. It's done.

The best days of this website are long gone.

There was an article in the local paper lately about a young hunter that died unexpectedly at the tender age of 93 or so. He had spent the last 80 years hunting and guiding in the Mission Mountains and in the Bob Marshall Wilderness. For a lot of those years, according to that article he used a 30/30 that was given to him when he was about 12. The fella that gave it to him had killed 30 grizzlies with that 30/30. The article didn't say, but I am assuming he actually shot the grizzlies and didn't beat them to death with ballistic minutiae.
Neither one of the poor bastids apparently had enough time to read what some guy from New Jersey thinks makes a good elk rifle!

Fred

Fred, don't disagree per se, but the OP asked the question & ownes the rifles already. Bozos at the range aside, I personally can do better with what I described... that not theoretical, it's just what I know to be true from shooting pretty much exactly what the OP is asking about....

I'll contest that SD is meaningless in this instance. Two bullets of identical construction, similar MV's (edge to the WSM actually), and a 200-gn bullet vs. a 165? That 200 is gonna dig deeper and not by a little. Could matter.

Anyway I'm off to the river then to the beach then to dinner then to fireworks... best get rollin'... happy 4th to y'all!

Yes Royce, key word here is HUNTER, that old dude was probably within spittin' distance when he dropped the hammer on that 30-30.

Gunner

Stop being a whiner. Jesus H. dude.

"Ability to hit" starts with the shooter but can be derailed by equipment at any step. He asked what was best from his two choices. I told him. I've hunted elk with a 165 Accubond in an '06, you dope. Nobody is saying it won't work.

A bullet's "ability to hit"..

That's just as [bleep] stupid as "tired hands".

Jeff,

A more accurate comparison between the .30-06 and .300 WSM would be with the 180- and 200-grain AccuBonds, since in the same length barrel these can be given about the same muzzle velocity. I know this because I've loaded for both rounds a lot.

The actual G1 BC's of the 180 and 200 Ab's, according to Bryan Litz, are .481 and .524. Let's start each at 2850 fps, which in my experience is a sane max for both rounds.

According to Bryan's program, at 700 yards the 200-grain drifts about 4 inches less in a 10-mph crosswind. Please explain how this would make a vast difference in "hittability."

The 180 would also be going 83 fps slower. Please explain how this would cause the 180 to fail to penetrate.

I'll take a mono 165 out of a 3006/308 over a 200 Hndy out of a .338... from my own rifles that is... from experience of my own rifles that is, from over 30 elk... 80% DRT with the 165... 0% DRT with the 200... same placement... not guessing... and I'd take a mono over a AB... but that's me.

165 mono in 30 cal is bad medicine for elk in either caliber, hunt the most 'huntable' gun for the circumstances in the field. Sometimes that means miles of light carry over long barrel and weight.

Kent

Jeff
I'd be more interested in how you do shooting coyotes or prairie dogs on a walk about hunt than paper punching.

Fred

That's been my observation as well... in fact was thinking that very same thing today shooting 200's out of my 23" bbl'd 300 WSM at 2,800-2,840.

Getting all amped-up over the 300 WSM vs. 30-06 is sort of silly IMO. To me it's more about the platform than the round. Either is totally elk capable as far as a competent shooter can shoot. 180's? 200's? Either will work... finding a good bull is an entirely different matter.

As the old saw goes, "the best elk rifle is whatever the best elk hunter has in his hands."

Eenie-meenie-minie-mo......

There's no difference, even tho'

Some on here would make it so.....

That is my rifle, this is my computer,
I like it better, even though I can't shoo 'er
Cuz she always shoots itty bity groups, near and far,
from the couch or the bar...

Fred think we both tipped a few to celebrate the 4th!

So, Happy 4th O' July!

Good one!!
You nailed it.
Happy 4th!

Happy Fourth back atcha, Bob!

Fred

eyeguy: Thanks! You, too!

I can't tell any difference in recoil between my 30-06 and .300 WSM. They weigh about the same and are in similar rifles (.300 WSM Featherweight and .30-06 Extreme Weather). In fact I notice more difference in recoil between a .270 and .30-06. Also, ballistics are not much different (a couple hundred feet per second at the VERY MOST and I think that may be stretching it in that most loads in my WSM are about 100 fps faster than a good '06).

Haven't hunted elk with a .300 WSM, but have with a .30-06 and .300 Win Mag. I am not the elk expert, but say they will both work. Take the rifle that you shoot best with.