300 Win Mag vs. .30-06...Which would you choose?


PDA






chopper180
March 11, 2010, 12:13 AM
OK here's the deal: I'm looking at getting either a 300 win mag or a 30-06 and not sure which would be better.

For my 40th, my wife is sending me on a hunting trip. I don't turn 40 till 2011 but would like to plan ahead. Here's the problem: the only rifle I have at the moment is a Marlin 336 in .35 Remington. A fine rifle for sure, but I'm planning on doing some big game hunting that may involve 200+ yard shots. Just don't think the .35 is going to cover it, so looking into something with more "oomph" to it.

Any advice you could give would be appreciated.

Thanks!

If you enjoyed reading about "300 Win Mag vs. .30-06...Which would you choose?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Zak Smith
March 11, 2010, 12:18 AM
The .30-06 is sufficient for N.A. game.

chopper180
March 11, 2010, 12:20 AM
So is the 300 win mag overkill? Is there any distance advantage to be gained or is it negligible?

Omaha-BeenGlockin
March 11, 2010, 12:24 AM
.30-06

The .300 kicks like mule---ammo is less available out in the sticks---more expensive---any power gain is negligable(sp?)-----better off with a .338 if you're wanting more power than an ought 6.

Zak Smith
March 11, 2010, 12:27 AM
If you use a zero to give you a maximum point-blank range, the 300WM will only give a marginal (like less than 50-yard) increase in point-blank range. See this post for an explanation
http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=6283716&postcount=33

If you need to shoot beyond about 300 yards, you should dial your scope (or use reticle marks) anyway, and then it doesn't matter if you're holding 5 MOA or 3.5 MOA.

The .30-06 will be more "shootable" because of less recoil. However, if you build a rifle with this in mind, don't let me talk you out of 300WM. A rifle and scope put together for long-range shooting in .300WM is devastating on game at 500+ yards. On the other hand, a student of mine made first-round antelope kills with a .308 at around 500 yards.

At 300 yards or less, the .30-06 will work as well as the 300

-z

Uncle Mike
March 11, 2010, 12:28 AM
Well the 30-06 will fit the bill at 200y and well beyond, you don't mention the game just that it is big, how big, moose big or whitetail big?

The 30-06 is certainly more versatile, and I bet you would use it more than the 300, but since you have a 35, why not get the 300, you certainly will have all the bases covered with the it.

The 300 offers a bit flatter trajectory than the 30-06 with about 200y more useful range on average, and will drive heavier (200gr.) bullets somewhat better than the 30-06 will.

If your not after elk at 400y or moose at 100y, I might get the 30-06 though.

chopper180
March 11, 2010, 12:39 AM
Well the 30-06 will fit the bill at 200y and well beyond, you don't mention the game just that it is big, how big, moose big or whitetail big?

If your not after elk at 400y or moose at 100y, I might get the 30-06 though.

Most likely moose or elk since I've never hunted either, plus neither of them are in my area.

From what you guys are telling me it sounds like the 30-06 may be the way to go. My concern is that I get something that is too expensive to shoot and only sees very limited use.

In my neck of the woods, you're just not going to get a 3-400 yard shot, plus if you do; it ain't gonna be at an elk/moose.

Unfortunately I don't have the budget right now to have a different weapon for each scenario, so I have to have one that will do it all.

Uncle Mike
March 11, 2010, 12:46 AM
My concern is that I get something that is too expensive to shoot and only sees very limited use.

It's not all that bad of a price difference, if you need a 300, then the price you can live with.

In my neck of the woods, you're just not going to get a 3-400 yard shot, plus if you do; it ain't gonna be at an elk/moose.

If you plan on using this new rifle for your deer rifle back home, then the 30-06 would be my choice!

You can also elect to use Hornady Superformance ammo in that 30-06, it'll give you another 200fps over your standard stuff...shave about 1" off of the drop at 200y and offer quite a bit more energy also.

Big Bill
March 11, 2010, 12:55 AM
Most likely moose or elk since I've never hunted either, plus neither of them are in my area.If you hunt out west, it's not uncommon to take longer shots 400+ yards. I'd buy the 300 WM for sure. I had a 30-06 and sold it and bought a 300 WSM. I couldn't be happier. You'll push a heavier bullet faster with more energy than a 30-06 for a faster kill.

saturno_v
March 11, 2010, 01:16 AM
Chopper180


Congratulation on your 40th!!

I crossed that mark exactly last year and my wife bought me a Weatherby Vanguard in 338 Win Mag (I own three 30-06 as well..a bolt a pump and a semiauto)

I have to agree with the other posters...there is not much difference between the two rounds, especially if you buy a run of the mill commercial rifle with a regular 24" pipe

As Zak said already, you gain ony few more yards of MPBR (Maximum Point Blank Range)

Ammo availability is usually better for the 30-06 and less expensive...before the "ammo crisis" I could easily buy a box of regular 150 or 180 gr. soft point 30-06 ammo at Wal Mart for $11-12 a box where the 300 Win Mag was running already over $30...nowdays differences may be less extreme but they are still there...

The Hornady Superformance 30-06 ammo comes at spitting distance, performance wise, with a 300 Win Mag.

A custom rifle with a long match grade barrel could magnify the 300 WM slight advantage over the 30-06 but I don't know what is your budget...and if you take the custom route you may as well get a more "energic" cartridge like a 300 Weatherby Magnum or a 300 RUM.

The 300 WM may give you better wind deflection abilities at extreme ranges (well over 500 yards) and you will have more scope dialing range at even further distances (with the 30-06 eventually you run out of adjustment before the 300 WM) but this is well beyond the regular hunting shooting distances, even what is usually considered long range hunting.

I had a similar "dilemma"...I wanted a new rifle to "diversify" my collection and owning already a couple of 30-06 at that time, I was torn between the 300 Win Mag, the 300 Weatherby Magnum or the 338 Win Mag in a Weatherby Vanguard platform.

Eventually I decided on the 338 with carries significant more punch at long range spitting bigger pills (you can use bullet weight up to 300 gr.)..with the 338 I did jump class compared to an '06

The basic synthetic Vanguard can be bought for $399 regardless of the cartridge (up to 338 Win Mag and including the 300 Weatherby Magnum), IMHO at the moment is the best rifle for the money.... accuracy guaranteed from the box, with each individual rifle tested.

NWCP
March 11, 2010, 01:26 AM
I'd go with either a 30-06, or a .308. The 300 Win Mag is a bit much for the lower 48. JMHO

saturno_v
March 11, 2010, 01:35 AM
This is the ballistic data for two big game 30-06 loadings from Double Tap out of a 22" barrel rifle (a Remington 700)

180 gr. Nosler Accubond

Muzzle: 2800fps - 3135 ft./lbs

100yds - 1.7" high 2651fps / 2808ft/lbs
200yds - zeroed 2506fps / 2511ft/lbs
300yds - 7.3" low 2367fps / 2240ft/lbs
400yds - 20.7" low 2233fps / 1993ft/lbs
500yds - 41.2" low 2103fps / 1768ft/lbs

200 gr. Nosler Accubond

Muzzle: 2650fps - 3120 ft./lbs

100yds - 1.5" high 2525fps / 2831ft/lbs
200yds - zeroed 2403fps / 2565ft/lbs
300yds - 8.0" low 2285fps / 2320ft/lbs
400yds - 22.7" low 2171fps / 2094ft/lbs
500yds - 44.2" low 2060fps / 1884ft/lbs

At 500 yards you have almost the same energy of your 35 Rem at the muzzle...you can kill anything in Northamerica with these loads within the published distances...

bpl
March 11, 2010, 01:56 AM
I would choose the 30-06.

4288
March 11, 2010, 02:07 AM
So is the 300 win mag overkill? Is there any distance advantage to be gained or is it negligible?

Yes, there is a distance advantage to the 300 win mag. The added velocity means flatter trajectory, which is more forgiving of small ranging errors. It also means the bullet is less effected by the wind. But these accuracy advantages really only come in to play at LONG distances, way way further out than 200 yards. As far advantages in terminal performance at ultra long range, I haven't studied this as much so no comment. Happy hunting!

TehK1w1
March 11, 2010, 02:12 AM
IMHO you can't go wrong with either one. The 300 has a velocity and trajectory advantage, but it's not real significant until 300+ yds. It has significantly more recoil (all other factors held constant) and the ammo costs more.

And I know you didn't ask, but the savage 110 series and the Weatherby vanguard are both excellent, accurate, inexpensive rifles. For more $$, a new Winchester M70 or Ruger M77 Mk2 would both be great.

Birddog1911
March 11, 2010, 02:38 AM
I have to give another vote for 30-06. The cartridge is just so versital(sp?).

ms6852
March 11, 2010, 02:41 AM
Go with the 30-06. This caliber has the variety that will lend itself to coyote or varmint hunting using a 110gr or 125gr, without breaking the bank. You can use 150 or 165gr for deer and will also be good with elk using a 165gr or 180 gr. bullet. For black bear you can use your 35 remington or your 30-06 using 180 gr or 220 bullets. It seems to me that you really do not hunt alot and the 30-06 would be more practical because you can at least shoot targets for fun at a much more economical price that a 300 mag will. By the way it will not rattle your teeth like the 300 mag. does, it kicks like a mule at 2 or 3 times the price of regular 30-06 ammo.

R.W.Dale
March 11, 2010, 02:45 AM
cartridge 1 represents Winchesters 180grn 30-06 load

cartridge 2 is the same bullet in the 300win mag

both these represent a 200yd zero

http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=117489&d=1268293481

4288
March 11, 2010, 04:04 AM
Great graphic Krochus!!! Illustrates how close the two are ballistically (athough it's all subjective - I guess some might say how far apart they are :)), and illustrates the principle of flatter trajectories being more forgiving if range estimation is off. Informative addition!

Abel
March 11, 2010, 06:44 AM
30-06

pwillie
March 11, 2010, 07:30 AM
30-300yds,confidence is the master! I like the fact of hunting with the 300,it will take game animals up to 600 yds. I also use 150 gr Nosler BST.Flat and then flat!

natman
March 11, 2010, 07:45 AM
Unless you have a specific reason for requiring the extra range of the 300, I would definitely go with the 30-06. Recoil from a 300 is very unpleasant, like getting punched in the face for every shot.

Sav .250
March 11, 2010, 07:52 AM
You didn`t state what the "big game" was so I`d go with the 300 Win Mag.

Murphys Law
March 11, 2010, 09:57 AM
Another vote for 30-06. Todays modern premium bullets have made it even more deadly than it was the past and even loaded with conventional (old tech) bullets its taken everything on this continent.

Arkansas Paul
March 11, 2010, 10:04 AM
"In my neck of the woods, you're just not going to get a 3-400 yard shot, plus if you do; it ain't gonna be at an elk/moose."

That being the case, I'd go with the '06, but you do what you want.

chopper180
March 11, 2010, 10:32 AM
Like being punched in the face - so basically it's like going to work?

Robert
March 11, 2010, 10:50 AM
Between the two listed, 30-06. Elk are not bullet proof and more have been taken with the 06 that just about every other caliber combined. If you do you part with good shot placement then the 06 will be more than enough.

Now allow me to be "that guy" and offer up a third. Have you looked at 35 Whelen at all? Enough for Elk or Moose and everything but Bison.

chopper180
March 11, 2010, 10:56 AM
Actually I was leaning more toward the 30-06 but wanted more input before I made my decision. I may trade my .35 in on the 30-06 just to save some funds (times being what they are)

The biggest advantages for the 30-06 are the versatility and abundance of the ammo

bpl
March 11, 2010, 11:04 AM
The 30-06 should be fine for 3-400 yard shots on elk or moose anyway. You'd need to make an adjustment for wind, then probably hold on the top of the back. This would depend on your cartridge and zero, of course.

LEVRLOVR
March 11, 2010, 11:14 AM
My choice is the .300.

I have both and would choose the .300 for that once in a lifetime trip, just for the added margin of error it affords.

jimmyraythomason
March 11, 2010, 11:29 AM
My choice would be the 30.06. I've owned several rifles in both calibers and for me the .300 is just too much flash and boom for so little up over the .06.

nathan
March 11, 2010, 11:34 AM
Cost of ammo is higher on the magnum. .3006 all the way.

Sunray
March 11, 2010, 11:44 AM
There's no game in North America that requires a magnum of any kind.
Go with a .30-06 using 165 grain hunting bullets and you'll be set for any game you care to hunt without the excess muzzle blast, noise and felt recoil of a .300 Mag.
"...using 180 gr or 220 bullets..." No black bear needs bullets of that weight. A deer load will do nicely.

nathan
March 11, 2010, 11:50 AM
Just an offshoot comment, the 180 gr SP 7.62 x 54R is more than capable to down any four legged mammal in N America provided you hit them at the right spot.

Casefull
March 11, 2010, 12:10 PM
I hunt with a 300 but it sounds like the 06 would be good for you. It will seem flat shooting compared to what you have been using. When hunting I never feel the recoil or hear the shot anyway.

jimmyraythomason
March 11, 2010, 01:00 PM
When hunting I never feel the recoil or hear the shot Nor do I but it limits range time considerably.

Old Time Hunter
March 11, 2010, 01:23 PM
This is a brainless decision as there is only one choice. Get it chambered for the .300WM and load it to 30-06 specs until you feel you need it.

ArmedBear
March 11, 2010, 01:45 PM
Get it chambered for the .300WM and load it to 30-06 specs until you feel you need it.

Not when you can get a lighter, better-balanced rifle in .30-06.

If you are going to get a 9.5 lb. scoped rifle, yeah, get it in whatever cartridge you want, and download it if you want.

If you're looking for a rifle that handles well and doesn't weigh too much, for all-around hunting on foot, the .30-06 often offers better options in a production rifle. That's one reason my latest rifle purchase was a .30-06 and I put a 2-7x33mm scope on it, on a lightweight low mounting system. At 7 1/2 lbs. scoped, a gun like that won't make you wish you had the lever gun back, but it is good for hunting good-sized game out to a good distance -- and it's fun to practice with it. Full-power .30-06 hunting loads are comfortable to shoot with a modern recoil pad, for as long as you want, in a rifle that doesn't weigh too much.

Past 400 yards, a .300 WinMag can offer something worthwhile -- but if you REALLY think you'll be hunting past 400 yards a lot, there are flatter-shooting rounds. And if you REALLY think you need to hit harder with a bigger bullet, there are bigger bores. That doesn't mean one shouldn't get a .300 WinMag, but it does mean that there are other options to consider before jumping to a decision.

Gregaw
March 11, 2010, 01:47 PM
I think you will enjoy the 06 more overall, since it sounds like the better fit for your area as well. It is plenty of gun for elk and moose inside a normal hunter's shooting range. This is recommendation is doubled if you are using factory ammo and not reloading.

UnTainted
March 11, 2010, 02:35 PM
I've seen the '06 kill deer at 800 yards, and I've seen the 300 WM do the same, by the same shooter.

The only difference was how the exit wound looked, which was slight though noticeable.


I'd say get the 300wm if you can learn not to flinch with the recoil and maybe even muzzle brake it.

vermont88993
March 11, 2010, 03:19 PM
For the purposes you have stated for what you want to hunt i say go for the 30-06..... then again i have no shots fired with either caliber since Im looking to buy my own ought 06.......Im looking at the marlin XL7 with a redfield 3-9X40 scope but thats going to be for vermont white-tale deer and yotes.... going to be cheap but effective!

P.S.
I just joined a couple days ago after lurking around reading about different calibers and "bargin" bolt-action rifles

Flatbush Harry
March 11, 2010, 03:44 PM
Being a CO guy, I have some sense of western hunting. My two medium to large game rifles are a .308 Win R700 and a .30-06 Spfd Savage 116, each equipped with Zeiss Conquest 3-9x40mm scopes with Rapid Z600 reticles. I've sighted in each for a 200 yd zero and practiced with each out to 600 yds so I know relevant sighting adjustments for long shots. Both of my rifles shoot to less than 1MOA with 168 gr match ammo (from a Caldwell LeadSled), and a bit more with hunting bullets. Now, since the vitals of a decent-sized deer is a 6-9" area and I don't like lugging my LeadSled on my back in the field, I'd feel less than comfortable with a shot longer than 400yd. I'll leave the really long shots to others. Out to 400 yds, .308s and .30-06s in the 165 to 180gr range still have killing power, and don't beat me up when I practice, which I try to do at least monthly. I've shot .300 WMs and, while there are some advantages for really long range shooting, I find the recoil unpleasant and would not practice with that cal as much.

All IMHO and YMMV.

FH

goldie
March 11, 2010, 03:49 PM
(Hornady Superformance 30-06 ammo) its ammo developements like this that make the 30-06 such a great all around choice.if recoil is too heavy,you can always go to a less hot round.hard to do with a magnum unless you handload.....

Hokkmike
March 11, 2010, 03:50 PM
.06 easily. You can load for everything from chipmunks to grizzly bears!

Why kill your shoulder unnecessarily?

AzBuckfever
March 11, 2010, 03:56 PM
Question you can ask yourself is, when you see that nice buck, or that big bull, and you squeeze the trigger; how often do you even feel the recoil when actually shooting at something? You could take a freakin Tyrannasaur and not feel the recoil when you shoot at something (a little exageration) :) If you're worried about recoil for sighting in, get a Caldwell Lead slead or something similar.
The only reason I mentioned this is because there are a lot of people talking about recoil and the 300 kicking a lot more, which it can. Personally, I would opt for the .300 (Vanguard 300 WSM or a Browning A-Bolt since the Browning comes standard with a 26" barrel). Other reason is you mentioned elk. I live in Arizona so a 400 yard shot is not uncommon....and with that long of a shot, you want a heavier bullet. As listed....a .300 can push a 200 grn. bullet just as fast as an -06 pushing a 180grn. Even out in my parts a 300 yard shot on deer is not uncommon....Too much open country :D I'm 30 so I don't see recoil as much of an issue; but I'm still a kid that believes, there is no such thing as overkill.

I've had a 300 WSM and I still have a 30-06....Unlike you, I'll be saving up for different guns for different purposes. My next purchase (depending on draw results) will probably be a Browning A-Bolt 300WSM...or the new Winchesters.....then, it'll be a .300 RUM....now there's some kickin' power :)

Arkansas Paul
March 11, 2010, 04:07 PM
I love the .30-06, in fact it's probably my favorite rifle cartridge. However, I don't think I'd go after grizzly with one. I know it'll do it under good conditions, but I'm thinking more along the lines of a .338 Win Mag minimum. I have this thing about not getting eaten by bears. Don't know what it is.

wyohome
March 11, 2010, 04:10 PM
I would get a 300WM. I already have a bunch of .308s, so for me a 30-06 wouldn't really be an upgrade. If I needed a long action rifle I would buy a 300. How many of you 'Big Game' hunters use so much ammo that you need to resupply 'out in the sticks' a few times per hunt?

FatChance
March 11, 2010, 04:23 PM
.30-06 all the way.

BTW, if you have to take shots out to 400 yards and beyond, you're not doing it right. Learn how to stalk your game. I don't think there are any legitimate reasons, IMHO, for the vast majority of people to take shots that long at an unwounded animal. Most of the time when people do that it is because they are lazy, impatient, out of shape, unskilled or don't want to make the effort to get any closer. OK, bring it on!

AzBuckfever
March 11, 2010, 04:26 PM
I agree with the re-supply. Don't know about y'all but all I carry if a box of ammo (20 rnds) and under normal circumstances, I come home with 19. No less than 15. Don't ask me why I carry 20, guess it's just an easy box to have :) I have high standard for myself. I don't take "maybe" shots. (Maybe it'll hit, maybe it wont) and I also believe that anyone who takes more than a box of 20 on a hunting trip and uses all of them, shouldn't be hunting in the first place. I can't stand it when I'm hunting and hear multiple shots in succesion.....BOOM.....BOOM.....BOOM.....BOOM.....Wait 20 seconds to reload....BOOM.....BOOM.....BOOM....

Anyway, that being said, being as it's not a plinking rifle. You're not going to reload that much so I would also exclude cost of ammuntion in the equation for which rifle to get.

ArmedBear
March 11, 2010, 04:27 PM
lazy, impatient, out of shape, unskilled or don't want to make the effort

http://rosemck1.tripod.com/animated-american-flag.gif

Seriously... 400 yards is pretty far away, too, when you're trying to hold a rifle steady in the field, even if the air is still. A quick check with a rangefinder when you're hiking around will confirm this. Pick a rock or something that's "pretty far away". Chances are it's no more than 400 yards away, even here in the Mountain West. That doesn't mean you will never want to take a 400-yard shot; it will probably be a special case, though, like pronghorn hunting in open country.

ArmedBear
March 11, 2010, 04:28 PM
I agree with the re-supply.

I didn't see anyone but wyohome ever mention that in this thread, so I'm not sure what or whom he was arguing with.

wyohome
March 11, 2010, 04:50 PM
The .300 kicks like mule---ammo is less available out in the sticks

^This^ Post #4

full metal
March 11, 2010, 05:03 PM
30-06

BushyGuy
March 11, 2010, 05:04 PM
If money is no issue i would get the .300 Win Magnum , then you have a gun for any big game on this side of the world. ought 6 is pretty close but i rather have the 300 magnum cuz it will give me better trajectory and more flatter shooting during a very windy day during hunting season.

MNgunhead
March 11, 2010, 05:41 PM
I was pondering the same question and I ended up with a 30-06. I have a 338 win mag and it is a great shooter, but not very fun due to harsh recoil. I'm not skittish at all when it comes to recoil, but it isn't as fun to shoot. The 30-06 has plenty of steam to effectively kill anything in North America if you choose the proper bullet and keep your shots at a reasonable distance. At the range you were saying your shots would be, I don't think it's necessary to shoot a 300 win mag.

joed
March 11, 2010, 05:46 PM
My concern is that I get something that is too expensive to shoot and only sees very limited use.

Then the choice is easy, get a .30-06 and be done with it. I have a Rem 700 Classic in .300 H&H Mag which is pretty much ballistically similar to the .300 Win Mag, I haven't even shot it in 4 years. It's a killer, even bought a shoulder pad to wear with it. But in my opinion the 06 kicks pretty good too.

Arkansas Paul
March 11, 2010, 05:47 PM
MNgunhead, if you already have a .338, you did the logical thing by getting the '06. I've never fired a .338, but I imagine it's a little harsh on the shoulder.

UpTheIrons
March 11, 2010, 05:48 PM
I've got to vote for the .30-06 on this one. You said your hunt "may" involve 200+ yard shots. Not knowing where exactly you are going, I can't help too much, but let me add one anecdote to counter the "every elk shot is 300+ yards!" crowd.

Three years ago, my father's hunting group took four elk near Montrose, CO. The combined yardage of all four shots was 150 yards, with the closest shot being 25 yards.

That's not to say you won't have a long shot where you are going, but I think the '06 will do the job, according to what you've said so far. Plus, the milder and more affordable ammo will give you more range time to be confident on a longer shot.

Just because the gun can throw a slug 600 yards, doeasn't mean it will throw it where you want it, especially if you devlop a flinch from the cannon that is the 300WM.

Of course, YMMV, and IMHO. :evil:

sarduy
March 11, 2010, 06:04 PM
can a 300 wm reach at 2640 yards...?

ArmedBear
March 11, 2010, 06:25 PM
Ah. Missed that. Maybe he lives in the sticks, and doesn't travel to them.:D

Arkel23
March 11, 2010, 06:28 PM
I myself would go with the .300 Win mag, it has extra knock down power and you can be confident with it, if you shoot it comfortably.

Al LaVodka
March 11, 2010, 07:29 PM
.30-06 Ackley Improved The 300 Mag. really is too big and painful for general applications. Thunk of the above as a .308 Magnum.
Al

jimbeam
March 11, 2010, 07:43 PM
Having hunted with and shooting all of the above-mentioned, if I were to buy one gun now it would be a 300 Winchester Short Magnum, A-bolt or such. Lighter and shorter gun, just about same balistics as the big brother.

Personal preference and need for everyone is different, but the 300 WSM has a lot going for it.

Dookie
March 11, 2010, 08:59 PM
I will take the 300win over the 30-06.
I don't get where the recoil is anywhere more noticeable, if you can't handle it there are plenty of butt pads to choose from.
What is this some have wrote about the 300 being heavier? They run the same action, only the bolt face and chamber are different.
When I purchased a rifle, 300win, I did a lot of research on ballistics, cost and how I would shoot.
Ballistics - They are close, within 200 yards it does not matter on 90% of all game. past that there is a noticeable difference.
Using a ballistics chart I have using factory loaded ammo this is what is stated.

30-06 using 180 gr soft point.
Yards....300.......400.....500
FPS.......2009.....1804...1613
Ft. Lbs..1617......1301...1041
Drop......9.1.......36.9....55.5

300 Win using 180 gr soft point.
Yards...300........400.....500
FPS......2341......2135...1942
Ft. Lbs..2190......1823...1507
Drop......7...........20.1...40.9

If you look at the data there is a significant difference of power and velocity. I knew that I could make a longer shot easier if I had to with the 300 rather than the -06.
Plus, I can easily load down to -06 or 308 ballistics, still trying to find a sub sonic data for the 300 out of curiosity. But you can't ever get the 30-06 to be as powerful as the 300.

Cost - The ammo prices per box were within a couple of dollars, so not much at all, not enough to worry about. I also started reloading so it dropped the price much more, right around $30 for 50 for my specific hunting loads, 200 grain Nosler Accubond.

How I shoot - I hunt in an area where the shots can range from 10 feet, a buddy got his from that far with his -06, to well past 600 yards. Visibility is as far as your eyes can see. So I prefer the extra boost of the 300, if I am in the woods the .243 does me just fine.

I personally don't see anything wrong with either choice. I have a 1917 -06 right now I may use this year but am not positive, I may just trade it off. If you are in a heavy brush area your current rifle would be great or another lever in a bigger caliber. If you want to be different an AR10 would be a spectacular choice, 308, 243, or anything else that can fit the magwell.

Just make sure YOU are satisfied with what you buy.

Geno
March 11, 2010, 09:27 PM
I own both, and will keep both. That said, if I had to choose an either/or, I would opt for the (either). Toss a coin. They're both great.

If you are recoil sensitive, or never foresee needing to fire a 200 or 220 grain projectiles, go with the .30-06 and don't look back. If you're a sectional-density nut, go for the .300 Win Mag and have to with the 200s and 220s. Heck, they make 250 grain if you want.

Since you are accustomed to a .35 Rem, I think you better launch a few rounds from each before you make the purchase. So, all that said, I had to make this very choice when I purchased my Winchester Super Grade. Since I already owned the .30-06 and the .300 Win, for me, it was not a matter of either or.

I went with the .30-06 for nostalgia reasons.

Geno

Visionz45
March 11, 2010, 09:39 PM
.30-06, Ive shoot whitetail in NW Ontario out to 480 yds and moose within 300. Great round, I can push 2800+ w/ RL-22 and H4831sc behind 180 accubonds and great accuracy out of my 24 1/4" Douglas. All shots were ethical broad side shots.

Maelstrom
March 11, 2010, 09:48 PM
the only rifle I have at the moment is a Marlin 336 in .35 Remington. A fine rifle for sure, but I'm planning on doing some big game hunting that may involve 200+ yard shots. Just don't think the .35 is going to cover it,

If you're looking for a reason to buy another rifle then that's fine. The .30-06 now has light magnum loads that bridge the gap between standard .30-06 and the .300.

However, you might be overlooking the simple answer which is the LeveRevolution ammo from Hornady which is available for your .35 Rem and really does make it a viable 300 yard rifle.

Kentucky_Rifleman
March 11, 2010, 10:48 PM
Count me in for the 30-06. It's still one of the most flexible cartridges ever chambered, and brass/loaded ammo will be easier to find and cheaper than the WinMag. As a plus, I'm a fan of the older cartridges. One last thought, if you're into older rifles at all (I collect the old Remington 721/722 series) opting for the 06 will offer you a much broader range of rifles to pick from.

KR

Maverick223
March 11, 2010, 10:51 PM
Hello neighbor, amongst the two the .30-06 is probably the best choice for your use. To be honest the .260Rem, 6.5x55mm, 6.5Creedmoor, or 7mm-08 is probably a better choice than either. For a larger cartridge (in the '06 class) I prefer the .280Rem. but the .30-06 is probably a better bet for someone that doesn't reload.

:)

Quoheleth
March 11, 2010, 11:06 PM
I would take a .308 any day of the week and twice on Sunday. Shorter gun, shorter action, lighter to carry and faster on target.

Q

Zak Smith
March 11, 2010, 11:18 PM
I agree with Maverick223. On the .30-06 case, I'd take the .280 Rem (ie 7mm-06). On an actual short-action based on the .308 case head, I'd take a 7-08 or .260REM for up to midrange shots on non-carnivorous N.A. game.

X-Rap
March 11, 2010, 11:30 PM
OK so if you are opening it up to all calibers I have to say the 30-06 will not make my cut. Personally I would choose 223, something in 6mm, 280, 300 win mag, and 45-70. I only offer the other smaller and larger calibers as a rational for my choices.
Of course living in the land of the free I am not bridled by any silly limitations so I own many in between those noted and enjoy them all including the 06 there just is no reason to have it if you have the other two that can offer more versatility.

Maverick223
March 11, 2010, 11:38 PM
OK so if you are opening it up to all calibers...I don't think the OP said that...I just opened my big mouth, and interjected my thoughts on hunting cartridges. http://forums.nitroexpress.com/images/graemlins/smilies/general/footinmouth.gif

grubbylabs
March 12, 2010, 12:01 AM
If you are conserned about cost look into the Marlin XL or XS line you can get them in 30-06. I am very happy with my Marlin XS7 308.

I paid 329 for it. I bet you could look in 1/2 the trucks in this country and find an 06 shell even if they don't hunt.

X-Rap
March 12, 2010, 12:11 AM
Well the fact remains that the incremental difference between the 06 and 300win mag is probably similar to that of the 308 and then that of the 300 sav. then that of the 30-40 and onto the 30-30.
They will all kill elk but strapping yourself to a 30 only mentality is to limiting.
Of the two options given by the OP I take the 300. As he fills out his arsenal he will more likely see the need for smaller diameters and can then appreciate that he probably won't need to go over the 300 win mag to accomplish most of his hunting needs at the high end.

AKElroy
March 12, 2010, 12:16 AM
30.06

saturno_v
March 12, 2010, 12:30 AM
Basically performance wise the 308 Win is to the 30-06 what the 30-06 is to the 300 Win Mag.....

Murphys Law
March 12, 2010, 12:41 AM
and the .300 Savage is to the .308 Win what the .308 Win is to the 30-06 :D

Maverick223
March 12, 2010, 01:04 AM
Basically performance wise the 308 Win is to the 30-06 what the 30-06 is to the 300 Win Mag...Yep, and the .300WM is closest to the ideal caliber/case capacity relationship IMO (just right, not over or underbore), however the problem lies with what your going to use it for, and for hunting there isn't much that it is good for that the '06 (or a .280Rem.) can't do. The few cases that you might need a little more is when I would want a .375H&H, .338WM, or at least a stout .45-70Govt./.35Whelen instead.

:)

Hangingrock
March 12, 2010, 08:31 AM
Itís not the ďHammerĒ but the ďCarpenterĒ which applies. Most people talk technology related cartridge, rifle, scope, and etcetera. Few talk marksmanship ability and when they do itís usually over stated.

Iím an observer of shooters. What I see is a lot of shooting from the bench rest. So when the same shooters go ďWestĒ to hunt they report of extended range shooting with shots being taken at 300 yards plus. Iím skeptical.

Being a competitive shooter 200Yds Ė 300Yds Ė 500/600Yds and 1000Yds Iíve learned my limitations. Iím shooting a known distance at stationary targets with the nettlesome aspects mirage and wind deflection.

Out of respect for the wildlife being hunted I limit the range at which shots are taken. My comfort zone is two hundred yards and under (under is much-much better). I can place my shots past that range limitation under certain practical circumstances. Would it be ethical? That friends and neighbors is youíre decision.

After owning such heavy hitters as the 416-Remington and 375-H&H Iím some what tolerant of recoil but Iím not a masochist either. With in reason the 308-Winchester would be my selection but the question was either the 30-06 or 300- Win Magnum. Iíd defer to the 30-06.

Which ever you choose learn to shoot it. Use field shooting positions. Learn your strengths and weaknesses above all honest with your self.

Enjoy the experience.:)

SlamFire1
March 12, 2010, 09:23 AM
I have lots of 30-06 rifles, not one 300 Win Mag.

Maybe I'll get one, but I don't see a reason why other to have it.

glazer1972
March 12, 2010, 03:39 PM
.30-06 gets my vote from those two.

bad_aim_billy
March 12, 2010, 05:20 PM
So when the same shooters go “West” to hunt they report of extended range shooting with shots being taken at 300 yards plus. I’m skeptical.


And you should be. All my shots, as well as those hunting with me, were 125 yards and under this past season. Just because Joe-Bob on some hunting show goes out to Montana and takes a 600 yard shot on an elk doesn't mean that's real life....

Personally, I can't ever imagine owning a .300 mag, but I don't like recoil, and /06 is plenty for me.

oneshotNL
March 12, 2010, 05:32 PM
well every newfoundlander has a 30-06 for da moose but the 300 mag is biger

ArmedBear
March 12, 2010, 05:40 PM
And you should be. All my shots, as well as those hunting with me, were 125 yards and under this past season.

Yeah. I was on top of a mountain peak, looking down on some deer that seemed pretty far away. My handy-dandy pocket laser thingie said it was only 289 yards. Even that, I opted not to do, because it was blowing about 25 MPH steady with harder gusts, and after about a half hour of trying, I never found a way to hike down to where the deer was. So I hiked around to the deer instead, and I jumped it by accident, with the scope still set on 9X for the long shot. Oops.

In my defense, I was still feeling pretty sick from the 'flu or something, and was pretty exhausted and kinda shaky. I ended up missing the thing. Three times. And it was starting to snow on me, too. It was cold, and miserable. The last thing I really needed was a cartridge good for 200 more FPS. What I needed was to have my head straighter and my scope cranked down.

And that's in the open country of the Mountain West, with sparse, high-desert vegetation.

Al LaVodka
March 12, 2010, 07:56 PM
But there's my point about the .30-06 Ackley Improved being made for me. It uses a plain .30-06 cartridge, the most versatile and common, too but if loaded in the Improved case gains 100 FPS. No 300 anything Mag needed.

Yeah, I KNOW the Improved is a variation on the .30-06, BUT, its still a .30-06! See my point!?

Al

FatChance
March 12, 2010, 08:40 PM
I have an old FN Mauser Supreme chambered in .30-06 Ackley Improved and while agreeing with you and think it is the best compromise of all, the subtleties are beyond the scope of this discussion.

WYcoyote
March 12, 2010, 09:49 PM
If you use it for elk hunting...
30-06 = adequate
300 Win Mag = ideal
338 Win Mag = near perfect

Uncle Mike
March 12, 2010, 09:54 PM
I tell ya, the WYcoyote has the right idea...IMO

xXxplosive
March 12, 2010, 10:20 PM
I agree with WYC also, I own all three Cal. rifles.
For real knockem' down power the .338 Win Mag or the .350 Rem Mag are tops depending on what your asking the gun to do. The '06 will take most everything on the N. American Continent the .300 WM will do it all....

knights_armorer
March 12, 2010, 10:54 PM
get an m1 garand, and when you think you need the 300, just squeeze twice.

seriously though, the 06 is what you want. you will love it, and will have an overwhelming desire to own at least one '06 for the rest of your life.

Casefull
March 12, 2010, 11:25 PM
You 06 guys are stuck in the past. It was the best we had for a long time so it has a great following. It is like the small block chevy of cartridges...but it is not the best when compared to the newer cartridges...it is long and skinny guys. The short magnums are better. You can have a shorter lighter rifle with better ballistics.

AzBuckfever
March 13, 2010, 12:36 AM
I didn't see anyone but wyohome ever mention that in this thread, so I'm not sure what or whom he was arguing with.
Not quite sure what you're getting at in the idea of arguing with anyone or anything. I said I agree with the re-supply. Maybe I should have excluded the hyphen and it would be easier to understand.

chopper180
March 13, 2010, 12:55 AM
Just a quick note to say thanks to everyone for their responses. Couple of quick follow up questions:

Would the Hornady LeveRevolution ammo make the .35 suitable for big game (elk/moose) @ 200 - 250 yds?

If not, what would be the effective range?

I actually have the .35 up for sale/trade here so will see what happens. If I don't get any bites, I may keep it and try some different ammo

saturno_v
March 13, 2010, 01:43 AM
Just a quick note to say thanks to everyone for their responses. Couple of quick follow up questions:

Would the Hornady LeveRevolution ammo make the .35 suitable for big game (elk/moose) @ 200 - 250 yds?

If not, what would be the effective range?

I actually have the .35 up for sale/trade here so will see what happens. If I don't get any bites, I may keep it and try some different ammo

Chopper

Even in the Leverevolution format, the 35 Rem start losing steam past 200 yards...it can be done and it has been done....some folks, superb shooters, did use the 30-30 Leverevolution on elk at 250 or so....I'm not an hunting expert or anything, but that is definitely stretching it a lot

If that is the hunt of a lifetime for your 40th birthday I would rely on a more capable rifle for the big stuff to be taken at long range...

I do not know your budget but nowdays a good new 30-06 rifle or even a 300 Win Mag or 7mm Rem Mag (synthetic stock..no wood!!!) with a decent scope on it doesn't break the bank...you can be done, comfortably, with under $500...and I would keep the 35 leveraction...

If you live or you are close to a big city, the big box sporting goods retailer have special sales all the time as combo (rifle + scope and case)

CZguy
March 13, 2010, 02:35 AM
You 06 guys are stuck in the past. It was the best we had for a long time so it has a great following. It is like the small block chevy of cartridges...but it is not the best when compared to the newer cartridges...it is long and skinny guys. The short magnums are better. You can have a shorter lighter rifle with better ballistics.

I started to consider the merits of your argument,..................but then I remembered that I'm stuck in the past, so I decided to just keep loving the 06. :D

MistWolf
March 13, 2010, 03:11 AM
The 30-06 is the caliber against which all others are compared. I'd choose an '06 over a 300 magnum

grubbylabs
March 13, 2010, 09:29 AM
"small block Chevy of cartridges"? I thought the 06 was a pretty good cartridge.:confused:

ArmedBear
March 13, 2010, 11:09 AM
You can have a shorter lighter rifle with better ballistics.

And that's why, when I looked at the .300 WSM in the real world, I was a lot less excited about it than I expected it to be. The cartridge does not offer the free lunch that Winchester promised, or that you claim it does.

Rifles chambered in it are not shorter, and they're not lighter. Look at real spec's of real rifles. The rifles tend to be longer, a tad heavier, and have lower magazine capacity than a .30-06, in return for a couple hundred fps. It's a tradeoff like anything else.

There's nothing wrong with the .300 WSM. It's a good cartridge option among several. But it doesn't violate any laws of physics, either.

Art Eatman
March 13, 2010, 12:40 PM
I grabbed my Speer book and it fell open to .35 Remington. A 158-grain bullet at 2,400 seems a lot like a .30-30, to me. Test rifle was a 336.

If you know your trajectory, and thus your holdover, I don't see the problem at 250 yards or thereabouts. It's up to the shooter's eyes and the quailty of the sights.

I know from my and my father's experience with the '06 that a kill on deer to 450 and 500 yards is easy. The hit might not be easy, but the kill is easily a DRT insofar as cartridge capability. BTDT.

The old '06 may be old and all that, but dead is still dead, and some new hot-tip cartridge won't make a critter any deader.

I've sighted in .300s for friends. That's the downside of having a benchrest at home--your shoulder sometimes gets pounded. Bummer. I have a benchrest on my front porch, now, but don't be bringing your 300 thinking I'm gonna mess with it. You're on your own. :D

CZguy
March 13, 2010, 02:25 PM
The old '06 may be old and all that, but dead is still dead, and some new hot-tip cartridge won't make a critter any deader.

That would make a pretty good bumper sticker. ;)

Silent Sam
March 13, 2010, 02:34 PM
I think there is a bit of slightly 'skewed' info on this thread. The ranging ability of the 300 is superior to the 30-06. If you put them both zeroed at 200 yds the difference looks negligible and is because you are not taking advantage of what the 300 offers. If you are taking shots in unfamiliar territory on unfamiliar game a properly zeroed 300 offers some real advantages, both in range and windage. The catch is you need the confidence and the ability to take advantage of it. The weight difference is also usually overstated but it does exist. 300's will generally have a longer and possibly heavier profile barrel and balance differently. Recoil is always a hot topic and the 300 will have noticeably more assuming the same bullet weight and that both are properly loaded. Is it too much? Depends on the shooter. For some the 30-06 is too much. The 300 will also generally 'bark' more which can add to the perceived recoil. I always smile a little when I hear the argument that you won't notice recoil when you are hunting. It is true I don't remember the recoil from any shot on big game but, I remember plenty at the range getting ready for a hunt. At the range is where you build confidence and that makes a huge difference in the field. If you are anticipating getting the snot knocked out of you at the range every time you pull the trigger it will have an effect when hunting whether you remember it or not. If all you have ever hunted with is a 35Rem both are going to be a step up in recoil and it will be easier and cheaper to get acquainted with a 30-06 than a 300. If you are hunting local whitetails on your own stomping grounds with 'maybe' a dream hunt for elk, moose or bear in the future, the 30-06 is probably a better choice. If you are globe-trotting trophy hunter a 300 is a superior choice assuming you are comfortable with it and have confidence in it.
As far as Hornady's new Superformance ammo, I'm going to have to go the Missouri route and say "show me". I have chronographed their light and heavy magnum offerings in a few calibers and there was no appreciable difference over the standard cartridges. If it requires some super whamodyne powder formulation all that does is tie you into using their premium priced ammo. The fact remains that the case capacity is the same and much like car engines, there is no replacement for displacement.
A bit off topic but mentioned in this thread is the short mag option. Most of the advertising IS hype in my opinion. But they do offer advantages if what they offer is an advantage to YOU. In a bolt action, short or long doesn't really matter to me, but to some it matters a lot. If you compare the 300WSM to a 308 the performance differences are very, very real and yes you will give up one round in the magazine. I have yet to empty the magazine of any rifle I was hunting with (excepting a Ruger #1). I happen to like Browning BLRs. In that platform the difference between the short action and long action is huge. In fact I won't own a long action BLR. To me they handle like railroad ties but the short actions are an absolute joy to hunt with. For me, the 300WSM or even the 270WSM in a BLR is a fantastic choice over what was available before the short mags came out.
Coming up from a 35Rem I would whole-heartily endorse the 30-06. Decide on the load and get a bunch of it. Get a precise zero maximizing your point blank range for what you are hunting and shoot the p*ss out of it incrementally out past the range you expect your intended game at. Once you get to know the trajectory of your load out of your gun, get your butt off the bench and shoot from field positions. All those ballistic tables are is at best starting points and campfire discussion points. Confidence is key.

saturno_v
March 13, 2010, 04:05 PM
If you are globe-trotting trophy hunter a 300 is a superior choice assuming you are comfortable with it and have confidence in it.


The 300 doesn't really allow you to step up in the game size category compared to the 30-06....in Africa, for example, is not like the 300 really gives you an extra edge on anything over a 30-06 at least for your average shooter....all you get is a little bit of extra range, that's all

However, it is important to mention that if you do not own already any high intensity 30 cal. rifle, nowadays you can buy a good 300 Win Mag (or even 300 Wby...a Vanguard for example) rifle at the same price of a 30-06...ammo cost and brutal recoil aside.

is the same and much like car engines, there is no replacement for displacement.


There are turbochargers....:D:D

ArmedBear
March 13, 2010, 04:18 PM
is the same and much like car engines, there is no replacement for displacement.


Displacement isn't even worth replacing...

1580 bhp
0-100 km/h 2.7 sec.
0-200 km/h 5.3 sec
>390 km/h top speed (>240 mph)

5.0 liter displacement.

Almost 40 years ago, no less, without the benefit of four more decades of technological advancement. The vehicle that every Zuffenhausen fan wants to take for a spin, but is scared to take for a spin, at the same time...:D

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/35/Porsche_917-30_Goodwood.jpg/200px-Porsche_917-30_Goodwood.jpg

I wasn't suggesting that you really need 5 shots instead of 4 in a hunting rifle. OTOH you really don't need a lever action, either. My point is just that the .300 WSM doesn't offer what was promised when it was first introduced, which is a bolt gun with .308 spec's and .300 WM ballistics.

The .300 WSM is a good cartridge in its own right, with upsides and downsides, but it's not magic, either.

A BLR is probably the single best application for the .300 WSM, and the .300 WSM may be the single best cartridge for the BLR. You'll get no argument from me, on that, or anything else you posted, other than the distinctly American belief about what makes a car.:)

Legionnaire
March 13, 2010, 04:32 PM
Both are great cartridges. Had rifles in both. Still have the .30-06; don't have the .300 Win Mag. But I live in Pennsylvania. If I decided I needed something bigger than the '06, think I'd go to the .338 Win Mag. Don't think the .300 provides sufficient marginal value added over the '06 to justify adding it to the battery.

ArmedBear
March 13, 2010, 04:49 PM
If I decided I needed something bigger than the '06, think I'd go to the .338 Win Mag. Don't think the .300 provides sufficient marginal value added over the '06 to justify adding it to the battery.

You needn't live in PA to think the same.:)

What I'd really like is a .338-06 A-Square, which gets .30-06 velocities with heavier, bigger bullets, from a .30-06 case (which BTW suggests that the .300 WinMag is NOT the best match between case volume and bullet, with modern powders). Sadly, A-Square went belly-up, Weatherby bought the rights, and Weatherby has too many other uncommon cartridges already, so they quit chambering for it in production guns.

saturno_v
March 13, 2010, 05:07 PM
Both are great cartridges. Had rifles in both. Still have the .30-06; don't have the .300 Win Mag. But I live in Pennsylvania. If I decided I needed something bigger than the '06, think I'd go to the .338 Win Mag. Don't think the .300 provides sufficient marginal value added over the '06 to justify adding it to the battery.


Exactly what happened to me....I already had more than one 30-06 and when I decided to "diversify" my battery I went for the 338 Win Mag. With its premium 250 gr. highly aerodynamic bullets it is a real long range thumper.

Silent Sam
March 13, 2010, 05:31 PM
Well I don't really disagree w/ anyone's comments. That 5.0 liter engine is relatively large by today's standards. Why aren't they using 3 liter engines instead? And that is only one application. I'll bet those professional tractor pullers aren't using 5 liter engines. If you apply the same technology to a small engine and large engine, which will produce more power, torque or whatever you are after? You can compensate for using less displacement but you can't replace it. A bigger engine working at the same load will generally last a lot longer than a smaller engine of the same quality. Really depends on what your goals are.
I do agree concerning the advertising BS surrounding the short mags. Velocity sells in this country and light weight rifles are the new 'mantra'. That's why they are always compared to the standard length mags instead of short action cartridges which just makes more sense to me. Ranging and pushing heavy bullets faster is the 300's advantage, if it is an advantage to you and you can use the gains. I also agree that if you have a good 30-06 and want to step up in killing power a 338 chambering is a better choice than a 300 magnum. That would be an increase in displacement btw. :) Maybe that's why I don't own a 300 WinMag ;).

FoMoGo
March 13, 2010, 05:43 PM
I had the choice to make...
I own a .300 win mag.
I can shoot it at the range all afternoon without the soreness I hear people complaining about.
Maybe I am more recoil tolerant than most.
Maybe the 26" heavy barrel helps, a proper recoil pad does also...
But I have NO doubts that anything I decide to hunt... can be taken with confidence... by 1 rifle.


Jim

Silent Sam
March 13, 2010, 06:20 PM
That's what it all really boils down to, confidence in your rifle and the ability to use it which only comes by shooting it.

If I hadn't won a beautifully stocked Ruger 30-06 many years ago as a gun show door prize for a $5 ticket, I don't know what I would have chosen for a 30 cal rifle. Although now in 30 caliber I have 7.62x39, 7.5x55, 308, 7.62x54R, and 300WSM, none have replaced (or displaced ;).) that 30-06.

saturno_v
March 13, 2010, 07:17 PM
But I have NO doubts that anything I decide to hunt... can be taken with confidence... by 1 rifle.


Totally agree. The same can be said of a 30-06 though...;)

dougwx12
March 13, 2010, 08:07 PM
I carry a 300 for elk, but if you don't know you need/want a magnum, don't do it. And if you want to flatten out the '06, get a .270.

Old Time Hunter
March 13, 2010, 09:37 PM
I posted earlier, and not one person addressed it. Maybe I am on the wrong forum, but why would anyone buy a .30-06 over the .300 WinMag? And I do not want to hear about short action vs. long action because the guy wants to hunt with it and to me I never notice the difference. But my main arguement is that the .300 WM can be downloaded to .30-06 specs, actually mirror the ballistics in velocity and energy, but because of the larger case size you will have less felt recoil than an actual .30-06. Guess I just don't get it:confused::confused::confused:

Al LaVodka
March 13, 2010, 09:46 PM
I agree. You are correct Sir. You don't.
And you are not an old time hunter. Except maybe on, like, State Street in Madison, dude? The main exception is that a 300 WM is preferable for Badgers...
Al

jbkebert
March 13, 2010, 10:20 PM
I carry a 300 for elk, but if you don't know you need/want a magnum, don't do it. And if you want to flatten out the '06, get a .270.


I had the choice to make...
I own a .300 win mag.
I can shoot it at the range all afternoon without the soreness I hear people complaining about.
Maybe I am more recoil tolerant than most.
Maybe the 26" heavy barrel helps, a proper recoil pad does also...
But I have NO doubts that anything I decide to hunt... can be taken with confidence... by 1 rifle.

I agree with both of these statements 100%. I have never owned a 30/06 and really never cared to. I got my first deer rifle when I was 14 and it was a .270. I later bought a .300 win mag. If there rare exception comes along that I want more than the .270 I'll take the .300 win. I also wonder how many people who trash magnum calibers have ever owned or fired one. Or have they just heard that they are horrible from some inexperinced shooter that they kicked. Yes I have had my bells rung shooting a ultra-light mountain rifle in a heavy caliber. Any gun in a moderate to heavy weight with a good pad is a joy to shoot. I have put dozens of rounds down range in a day shooting prone without a problem.

ArmedBear
March 13, 2010, 10:47 PM
Heavy rifles are fun toys at the range, where the extra weight helps tame recoil, and you don't have to carry them very far.

I didn't think that's what we were talking about.

CZguy
March 13, 2010, 10:58 PM
It's simple really. Shoot the rifle that you are comfortable with and have confidence in your ability to shoot well at the distances you plan to hunt in.

Where I hunt, I use a 30-06 but don't really need to. A 30-30 would do just fine. But I'm comfortable with that old 06.

They come out with all of these new cartridges, and I just plain don't see a need to have almost any cartridge that hasn't been around for 100 years or so. I do make an exception for my Ruger No 1 in .270. :D

tactikel
March 13, 2010, 11:07 PM
I hunt with a .30-06 and am proficient with it if the range is known. You really would be better off with the .300 mag IF: recoil dosent bother you, your game demands a larger bullet (elk, moose, bear), and range is a guess. Perhaps a .270 or 8mm-06 would serve you better. If recoil is a problem (and it is for me) you have so many options now: .260, .270, .280, or even a .25-06! With the outstanding loads available today .30-06 will take anything in NorthAmerica (excepting great bears) with a well placed shot.

Kentucky_Rifleman
March 13, 2010, 11:54 PM
my main arguement is that the .300 WM can be downloaded to .30-06 specs, actually mirror the ballistics in velocity and energy, but because of the larger case size you will have less felt recoil than an actual .30-06.

Assuming the rifles are identical except for cartridge, and assuming they are firing the same bullets using the same loads, the cartridge capacity will have no bearing on recoil.

KR

bad_aim_billy
March 13, 2010, 11:54 PM
why would anyone buy a .30-06 over the .300 WinMag?

I'll bite.

1. Cheaper ammo.
2. Less recoil.
3. Same general killing power in most situations.
4. Yes, the .300 can be downloaded, but the /06 can be uploaded, even in factory ammo. Check the specs on a 200 gr Doubletap Accubond--1900 ft/lbs at 500 yards. Does anyone really need more power than that in the lower 48?

These are all reasons why I never even considered a magnum cartridge when looking for an elk/deer gun...

Maverick223
March 14, 2010, 01:30 AM
Assuming the rifles are identical except for cartridge, and assuming they are firing the same bullets using the same loads, the cartridge capacity will have no bearing on recoil.+1

I'll bite.

1. Cheaper ammo.
2. Less recoil.
3. Same general killing power in most situations.
4. Yes, the .300 can be downloaded, but the /06 can be uploaded, even in factory ammo. Check the specs on a 200 gr Doubletap Accubond--1900 ft/lbs at 500 yards. Does anyone really need more power than that in the lower 48?+1 more.

Don't get me wrong I love magnums, and have a .300WM of my own, but I don't believe that it is necessary for game. If I need more than the .30-06, I generally need more than a .30cal. magnum, and the .375H&H (or a .338WM) suits that requirement quite well.

:)

Old Time Hunter
March 14, 2010, 11:46 AM
I agree. You are correct Sir. You don't.
And you are not an old time hunter. Except maybe on, like, State Street in Madison, dude? The main exception is that a 300 WM is preferable for Badgers...
Al
AL, your assumptions do not really merit reponse, but...I have not been close to my alma mater since I graduated back in '76. And yes, I do understand being an Old Time Hunter, as I was mentored buy my Grandfather, who hunted for food and not sport. Because of his limited means, his most powerful gun was a .44-40 Model '92 Winchester handed down to him from his Dad(he bought it new in 1896). The gun my Grandfather started me out on was a .25-20 single shot Ideal #1, with explicit orders not to even attempt shooting at game unless I could hit it throwing a rock, Son, that calls for HUNTING not shooting. That started back in '62, so I am guessing you were not even born yet since you used the vernacular "dude", which was atributed to a slicked up town cowboy when I was a kid. By the way, my Granfather never purchased "store bought" ammo, we've always made our own (yes, we have bought components now and then, bought he actually even made saltpeter from the compost pits on the property).

As far as:

Assuming the rifles are identical except for cartridge, and assuming they are firing the same bullets using the same loads, the cartridge capacity will have no bearing on recoil.


I was going to address this with the technical equations of pressure within a confined space, but I am just going to refer you to Lee's Second Edition of Reloading. In the charts he has the pressure reduction standards of reducing pressure per reduction of grains of powder. From real life experience and loading thousands upon thousands of different cartridges, larger cases with reduced loads are more shoulder friendly than smaller cases with the same load when using the same bullet.

CZguy
March 14, 2010, 01:17 PM
larger cases with reduced loads are more shoulder friendly than smaller cases with the same load when using the same bullet.

Yep, you are right.

Maverick223
March 14, 2010, 01:21 PM
Yep, you are right.Physics doesn't agree. OTOH, most rifles chambered for a magnum cartridge have a longer bbl and therefore weigh more, additionally they often have better recoil pads, these features reduce the perceived recoil, nevertheless recoil is equivalent with equal loads.

:)

saturno_v
March 14, 2010, 02:18 PM
With the outstanding loads available today .30-06 will take anything in NorthAmerica (excepting great bears) ....

Too bad they forgot to tell that to the countless bears that has been taken and will be taken in the future with the good old 30-06....;)

CZguy
March 14, 2010, 02:58 PM
Physics doesn't agree. OTOH, most rifles chambered for a magnum cartridge have a longer bbl and therefore weigh more, additionally they often have better recoil pads, these features reduce the perceived recoil, nevertheless recoil is equivalent with equal loads.

This hasn't been my experience. Can you (or anyone) expand on this?

For the sake of argument, lets say the rifles are the same weight with the same recoil pads.

Kentucky_Rifleman
March 14, 2010, 03:44 PM
Basic physics would seem to indicate that the recoil would be the same; two equal actions (Primer A, igniting Powder B, pushing identical 150 gr bullets out of a barrel at 3000 fps, say) would generate the exact same amount of reaction (recoil) , assuming the rifles were identical.

I left my Lee manual at work. I'll look at the pressure reduction tables tomorrow. It may be that you're right, and I'm certainly no laboratory physicist, but it seems to go against common sense. If you reduced a load, and lowered pressure, thereby reducing recoil, wouldn't that invariably drop muzzle velocity as well? We were discussing identical rifles and circumstances, including velocity, as a factor in recoil, yes?

KR

Zak Smith
March 14, 2010, 03:50 PM
If you use the exact same load in .300WM that you use in .30-06 or .308, it will not hit the same pressure because the initial volume is less, and it will probably not match the same velocity.

However, you can build reduced loads in the larger case that duplicate the ballistics of a smaller case - it just won't be the same load you'd use in the smaller case. In this situation, there is a component of impulse that results from the powder mass (now gas) being expelled from the muzzle (at an escape velocity higher than the bullet velocity). However, the difference in recoil resulting from this difference in combusted-powder mass will be minute - just a little more than the difference in powder mass itself as a proportion of the total powder mass plus bullet mass (it is more because the gas velocity is higher than the bullet velocity).

Maverick223
March 14, 2010, 04:00 PM
This hasn't been my experience. Can you (or anyone) expand on this?Sure can, and Mr. Newton can help...every action has a reaction equal in magnitude and opposite in direction (3rd Law of Motion) or more precisely the recoil is equivalent to the maximum (muzzle) energy. So with everything being equal (stock design, weight, recoil pad, and other recoil reducing measures) save for case capacity and pressure, the perceived recoil should be the same; and even if the rifle design differs as it often does, the actual recoil will be nearly equivalent. The one caveat that may effect recoil is case efficiency, however larger cartridges are generally less efficient than smaller ones (even with reduced loads, though it is more pronounced with a full charge), thus requiring more powder, thus increasing the recoil (both actual and perceived). Note that this small factor is often negligible when compared to other factors.

:)

Al LaVodka
March 14, 2010, 04:23 PM
Maybe its that extra airspace in the case that makes the recoil feel less and the 300 WM better? Must be. I still think the .30-06 and its versatile improved version are good 'n plenty despite actually being a century-old real old-time hunter.

Speaking of which, I missed the drug revolution going on across the steeet from the Cheesehead Capital Building. Also never ate the hemp-laced icecream at UW's Aggie store nor drank the Kool-Aid. But what's good for me obviously isn't for everyone...

Al

wormserco
March 14, 2010, 04:27 PM
I owned a Browning Abolt 300 win mag. After shooting it about 6 times I sold it. The recoil made it not fun to shoot.. besides the fact in North America there's not anything you cannot drop with a 30-06.

I'd take 30-06 over 300 all day...

Old Time Hunter
March 14, 2010, 04:35 PM
FYI, pressure is a function of volume, the Win 300 Mag cartridge has more volume. Therefore the gas has an opportunity to expand within the cartridge, however slightly, before the bullet even starts to move. Once the gas moves the bullet all things should be equal as gas is moving within equalizing volumes, just at different distances from the bolt face. An example:

Using the same 180 grain bullet in both the .30-06 and the .300 WinMag and using Hodgdon's H4350 powder a max load for the .30-06 is, from page 451 in Lee's Second Edition of Modern Reloading shows:

Velocity: 2798 fps
Pressure: 59,160 PSI

On page 473, the 300 WinMag with the same Hodgdon's 4350 powder and a 180 grain jacket bullet has the max load as such:

Velocity: 2918 fps
Pressure: 62,933 PSI

But, by reducing the max charge by just two grains on the Win 300 Mag, using the same powder and same bullet you end up with this:

Velocity: 2,836 fps
Pressure: 58,824 PSI Already lower than the .30-06

Lower it by one more grain and this is the result:

Velocity: 2,795 fps
Pressure: 56,871 FPS

So wouldn't common sense dictate that a projectile moving equivalent velocities but using 3000 PSI less to do it would not have less felt recoil?

Zak Smith
March 14, 2010, 04:46 PM
So wouldn't common sense dictate that a projectile moving equivalent velocities but using 3000 PSI less to do it would not have less felt recoil?
If by felt recoil you are referring to total rearward momentum of the rifle, then what does the internal pressure have to do with it, given the same momentum exiting the muzzle forward?

Maverick223
March 14, 2010, 04:58 PM
So wouldn't common sense dictate that a projectile moving equivalent velocities but using 3000 PSI less to do it would not have less felt recoil?No, pressure has nothing to do with it. The bolt thrust may be slightly less, though I doubt it would be because of the additional case head area in the magnum cartridge, and I don't feel like calculating it. Point is pressure has nothing to do with recoil. Take a large cartridge at very low pressure, and a small cartridge with extremely high pressure, it will be the exact same recoil if you negate the additional mass due to the additional powder required from the less efficient (larger) case.

Besides, if you are going to download a magnum cartridge to a lower power level in an equivalent cartridge, why not just go with the original? The original load (in this case the .30-06) will do the exact same thing at less expense (even if you reload you have to buy cases, and the magnum will consume more powder), and generally in a lighter smaller package.

Now lets get back to the essence of the debate of .30-06 vs. the .300WM.

:)

Kentucky_Rifleman
March 14, 2010, 05:31 PM
Now lets get back to the essence of the debate of .30-06 vs. the .300WM.

There you go, enough nits harvested today!

I've been reading this thread and several others, so forgive me if someone already mentioned this, but I'd go with the rifle I liked best instead of the caliber. If you can buy rifle A in .300WM & rifle B in .30-06 for the same price, pick the rifle that suits you best. I can't think of a long action rifle model that hasn't been chambered in the .06 since the cartridge came out. There have been some manufacturers who for whatever reason didn't chamber the .300.

Old Time Hunter
March 14, 2010, 05:51 PM
If by felt recoil you are referring to total rearward momentum of the rifle, then what does the internal pressure have to do with it, given the same momentum exiting the muzzle forward?
Moment of acceleration.

Zak Smith
March 14, 2010, 05:59 PM
Given less overall momentum at the end of the event, I don't think a higher peak level of acceleration will cause a higher level of perceived recoil. I believe the the opposite is true, actually.

I believe a longer push at a lower sustained max acceleration that has more total momentum will have more perceived recoil than an even with a higher peak recoil but less overall impulse. I base this on shooting a variety of small and large bore rifle and pistol cartridges.

In any case, the most accepted model of recoil - Free Recoil Energy - does not depend on any pressure curve information.

Old Time Hunter
March 14, 2010, 07:38 PM
I guess after 30+ years as an engineer, I stand corrected by laymen...have a great day.

Maverick223
March 14, 2010, 07:49 PM
I guess after 30+ years as an engineer, I stand corrected by laymen...have a great day.Probably won't be the last time either.

I don't know about Kentucky Rifleman, but Zak and myself are also engineers. There are probably scores of other engineers on here as well...what is your point...are engineers somehow infallible? I have been wrong before, and if I live long enough I will be again, heck I'm in the business of fixing other engineers' mistakes. :confused:

wyohome
March 14, 2010, 08:08 PM
I'm in the business of fixing other engineers' mistakes.

I am one of the dummies that had to learn stuff the hard way. Most of us correct engineer's mistakes on a pretty regular basis.

SharpsDressedMan
March 14, 2010, 08:33 PM
Recoil of the .300 WM does not bother me. I do not shoot enough to have ammo cost factor in, and I handload anyway. If push came to shove, I could do anything I need to do with the .300WM. Having said that, I love my Garand, and have a Remington 700 Scout rifle in .30-06 that will ALSO do about anything. I have a Rem 700 .300WM for long range and tactical shooting. It is a lot heavier than my purpose built Scout. Humping the .300 is less fun, but it will reach out another 400 yards past the '06 Scout as set up. So, to sum up, the .300 will do everything ballistically better than the .30-06, but given practicality, I'd grab the .30-06 and not feel undergunned, and feel a whole lot more comfortable when packing it.

Hangingrock
March 14, 2010, 08:59 PM
Lets see the difference between the 30-06 and 300-Winchester Magnum is 250fps Ė 300fps MV per given bullet weight on average. At what yard line is the difference meaningful. Itís probably at a distance Iím not comfortable shooting a wild game animal. There are most likely more proficient keyboard operators than there are marksmen responding to this subject. ;):)

SharpsDressedMan
March 14, 2010, 09:52 PM
My .300WM has a 6.5-20x scope with mill dots. I shoot some 1000 yard competitions with it, but consistent with the police tactical training I received years ago, I normally keep the rifle sighted at 700 yards, and have mil dot "zeros" for all ranges out to 1100 yards, and can click up for the 1200 yard range. I would never attempt a deer or elk shot beyond 600 yards, due to the variables, and because it just isn't necessary. Stalking IS part of hunting, just as much as dragging the the darn thing back to your camp/vehicle/etc. By comparison, my 2 3/4x '06 Scout rifle is good out to about 450 yards for hunting, but I could make a tactical shot out to 800 pretty easily. As with any 2-3x optic, if you can see it with the naked eye, you can certainly give it a shot with any scoped rifle, and 800 seems to be the combat extreme for unassisted observation. Knowing your rifle and equipment is the key.

sig220mw
March 14, 2010, 09:55 PM
Physics smysics........every one I know that has a 300 says it kicks hard.
I'd get a 30-06.

SharpsDressedMan
March 14, 2010, 10:10 PM
Anyone ever tell you that when you are hunting, you don't feel the recoil?:D

X-Rap
March 14, 2010, 10:16 PM
All this recoil sensitivity, you guys hold the butt against your chins?? I know girls who don't whine about recoil as much.
A 12 ga is worse than any 300 and guys shoot many rounds of trap a day.
Heard of dove hunting? Goose?

SpeedAKL
March 14, 2010, 11:11 PM
Displacement isn't even worth replacing...

1580 bhp
0-100 km/h 2.7 sec.
0-200 km/h 5.3 sec
>390 km/h top speed (>240 mph)

5.0 liter displacement.

Almost 40 years ago, no less, without the benefit of four more decades of technological advancement. The vehicle that every Zuffenhausen fan wants to take for a spin, but is scared to take for a spin, at the same time...:D

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/35/Porsche_917-30_Goodwood.jpg/200px-Porsche_917-30_Goodwood.jpg

I wasn't suggesting that you really need 5 shots instead of 4 in a hunting rifle. OTOH you really don't need a lever action, either. My point is just that the .300 WSM doesn't offer what was promised when it was first introduced, which is a bolt gun with .308 spec's and .300 WM ballistics.

The .300 WSM is a good cartridge in its own right, with upsides and downsides, but it's not magic, either.

A BLR is probably the single best application for the .300 WSM, and the .300 WSM may be the single best cartridge for the BLR. You'll get no argument from me, on that, or anything else you posted, other than the distinctly American belief about what makes a car.:)
Ah, the infamous 917/30. As Mark Donohue would say, "Unless it is burning the rear tires up in 6th gear on the back stretch of Daytona, it does not have enough power."

Casefull
March 14, 2010, 11:21 PM
My sentiments exactly...wussies. I like a rifle that kicks hard. I shoot squirrls out of high trees with a .22 cause my lab wants me to...I notice the recoil on the 300 wm when shooting game just as much as the recoil on that .22.

Zak Smith
March 14, 2010, 11:26 PM
Wussy comments aside-- the same shooter will be able to shoot a lower-recoil cartridge more accurately longer (more rounds) than a higher-recoil cartridge. If you are going to sight in and take a few shots a year hunting, this might not matter.

Uncle Mike
March 14, 2010, 11:30 PM
Well...it's better to have the power and not need it, than to need the power and not have it!

I would like to see the rule book, law, ethical directives or whatever, on the minimum and maximum power that MUST be used on a specific animal!

Some of you guys act as though if a guy shoots a whitetail with a 300 Magnum, or a dove with a 12ga 3" Mag. 2oz. load of #4 shot that there has, the cardinal sin, been committed...say it ain't so!

While these rounds may not be ideal for said game, I can't really condemn a man for using them! Not that, that is going on here...I'm just saying!

If the big 300's give you the warm fuzzies while hunting with them....then by all means, please, take one to field with you!

The 30-06 will do everything you want it to, within reason...and so will the 300 mags, just the 300's will do it a bit better, but you pay for it...

Hey, it's the American way to go big and overboard!

slabuda
March 14, 2010, 11:35 PM
Anyone ever tell you that when you are hunting, you don't feel the recoil?

Very true. I can shoot 3" duck loads all day in the blind and even 3 1/2" goose loads. But would not want to shoot them at a trap range as I feel them more when not hunting.

Which brings me here...if the recoil is even mentally perceived as too much you can develop a flinch practicing. So even if you dont feel it hunting you still may flinch.

Having said that I have a .270 WSM 9yea not as hard hitting as a .300WM) and shoot 3" turkey loads with out much of an issue and Im a small guy at 5'2" and 125 lbs. A lot of recoil is in the mind and not as bad as you think it is. Unless you have a physical issue just man up and shoot the .300 WM ;)

X-Rap
March 14, 2010, 11:35 PM
Wussy comments aside-- the same shooter will be able to shoot a lower-recoil cartridge more accurately longer (more rounds) than a higher-recoil cartridge. If you are going to sight in and take a few shots a year hunting, this might not matter.

Agreed but the overall difference between the two rounds in question given the same rifle will be negligible IMO. If we are talking about dropping down to a 243 or 260 then that would come into play in a much bigger way.
I just think the recoil and poor marksmanship comments come as an insult to those who take the time to shoot and improve their abilities and in any big vs bigger debate that card is always played. Next comes irresponsible and lazy shooting

Kentucky_Rifleman
March 14, 2010, 11:57 PM
I don't know about Kentucky Rifleman, but Zak and myself are also engineers.

Nope. I teach high school English. :D

KR

Maverick223
March 15, 2010, 12:01 AM
Nope. I teach high school English.I remember HS English...I feel for ya'. :p

Kentucky_Rifleman
March 15, 2010, 12:02 AM
My sentiments exactly...wussies. I like a rifle that kicks hard. I shoot squirrls out of high trees

Whew! When I was reading this, for a just second there I thought you were going to tell us you shot squirrels out of high trees with a 300 WinMag. That would just be wrong.

KR

X-Rap
March 15, 2010, 12:13 AM
Whew! When I was reading this, for a just second there I thought you were going to tell us you shot squirrels out of high trees with a 300 WinMag. That would just be wrong.

KR


Heck I just use my 300 mag to blow the tree out from under them and they die from the fall.

WYcoyote
March 15, 2010, 12:45 AM
I love the posters that decribe the 300 WM's brutal punishing recoil and in the same breath say the 06 is just as effective on game. ???
There is no free lunch in ballistics. Yes, the 300 kicks harder, and yes, the 250fps velocity gain makes it hit harder.
There are many situations while elk hunting when a 06 is fine. Like ranges under 250 yds when they are standing pretty in the meadow in the morning.
But when that drooling rutting bull that can scratch his butt with his horns steps out of the black timbered canyon at dusk and he's 325 yds out, standing quartering towards you?
That's why I use the 300WM. And a 338WM would be better yet.
When they say the 06 is capable for all North American game it is.
Just maybe not ideal for all North American game situations.

dougw47
March 15, 2010, 05:34 AM
Academy has Remington 700 ADL's on sale for $350 this week...

ADL black synthetic stock. 243, 270, 30-06 and 7 mag.

Silent Sam
March 15, 2010, 06:32 AM
"Yes, the .300 can be downloaded, but the /06 can be uploaded, even in factory ammo. Check the specs on a 200 gr Doubletap Accubond--1900 ft/lbs at 500 yards."

I am not familiar with this load so I ran the numbers. It would require a muzzle velocity of 2800fps and 2100fps at 500yds assuming that .588bc holds. I'd really like to see that actually chronographed at both ends out of 22" barrel 30-06 hunting rifle - someone else's, not mine. Paper ballistics never killed anything except maybe some truth. If you want that level of performance why not use a cartridge that will do it at standard pressures?

Al LaVodka
March 15, 2010, 07:28 AM
I guess after 30+ years as an engineer, I stand corrected by laymen...have a great day.

You can always tell an engineer, but you can't tell him much.
:rolleyes:
Al

wombat13
March 15, 2010, 12:05 PM
I'm no longer an engineer, but I used to be, so am I allowed to comment?

When comparing the recoil of the .45 acp and the .40 S&W, people tend to use the word "snappy" or similar for the .40 and "push" or similar for the .45. Take a look at the stats listed in the box on the right hand side of the two following pages:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.45_ACP

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.40_S%26W

You will notice that the two chamberings will launch a bullet of the same weight at nearly the same velocity (look at the 200 gr. loads). So why do most people perceive different recoil characteristics? Look at the SAAMI pressures for each.

.45 acp - 21,000 psi
.40 S&W - 32,633 psi

The pressure is more than 50% higher in the .40 S&W. The higher pressure creates a greater "jerk", the rate of change of acceleration, (or moment of acceleration as Old Time Hunter called it) which yields a "snappier" recoil.

Here is a link to a brief discussion of jerk:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/jerk.html

Note the following: "As its name suggests, jerk is important when evaluating the destructive effect of motion on a mechanism or the discomfort caused to passengers in a vehicle." I would add to this that jerk is important when evaluating the discomfort of perceived recoil.

So, from a physics standpoint, Old Time Hunter is correct. All else being equal, lower pressure is going to produce recoil with lower jerk, which many people will perceive as more comfortable (than recoil with higher jerk).

wombat13
March 15, 2010, 12:06 PM
You can always tell an engineer, but you can't tell him much.
:rolleyes:
Al
This reminds me of a good old joke:

A man is flying in a hot air balloon and realizes he is lost. He reduces height and spots a man down below. He lowers the balloon further and shouts, "Excuse me. Can you help me? I promised my friend I would meet him half an hour ago, but I don't know where I am."

The man below says, "Yes, you are in a hot air balloon hovering approximately 40 feet above this field. You are between 46 & 48 degrees N latitude and between 52 & 56 degrees W. longitude."

"You must be an engineer," says the balloonist.

"I am," replies the man. "How did you know?"

"Well," says the balloonist, "everything you have told me is technically correct but I have no idea what to make of your information and the fact is I am still lost."

The man below says, "You must be a Manager"

"I am," replies the balloonist, "but how did you know?"

"Well," says the man below, "you don't know where you are or where you are going. You have made a promise which you have no idea how to keep and you expect me to solve your problem. The fact is you are in exactly the same position you were in before we met but now it is somehow my fault."

SharpsDressedMan
March 15, 2010, 12:31 PM
A heavy load in my 7.5 pound .30-06 might not be perceived TOO differently than my 11+ pound .300WM. 20-30 shots prone does leave a bruise during a long rang shoot, UNLESS I wear a P.A.S.T. pad (which I normally forget). Even a little bruise from the .300WM doesn't incapacitate me. It goes away in a few days. Kind of like being punched in the shoulder back in high school. We worry about it TOO much (unless you are 90 years old and blood clots are a problem).

Zak Smith
March 15, 2010, 12:34 PM
people tend to use the word "snappy" or similar for the .40 and "push" or similar for the .45.
While people do use these terms to describe .40SW vs. .45 ACP, all is not held equal. No surprise, people are shooting typical pistols chambered in .40SW and typical pistols chambered in .45 ACP to come to this conclusion. Most .40SW handguns have a smaller and lighter frame - actually a 9x19 size frame - but most .45 ACP handguns have a larger and heavier frame. The canonical .45ACP handgun (and its "native platform") is a 1911, which has a heavy steel frame, while the platforms .40SW is most common in are 1990-2000's era polymer pistols such as the Glock. I have shot .40SW from a Glock 20/21 platform (ie, 45 ACP pistol) and it had less recoil than shooting .45 from it.

wombat13
March 15, 2010, 01:14 PM
While people do use these terms to describe .40SW vs. .45 ACP, all is not held equal. No surprise, people are shooting typical pistols chambered in .40SW and typical pistols chambered in .45 ACP to come to this conclusion. Most .40SW handguns have a smaller and lighter frame - actually a 9x19 size frame - but most .45 ACP handguns have a larger and heavier frame. The canonical .45ACP handgun (and its "native platform") is a 1911, which has a heavy steel frame, while the platforms .40SW is most common in are 1990-2000's era polymer pistols such as the Glock. I have shot .40SW from a Glock 20/21 platform (ie, 45 ACP pistol) and it had less recoil than shooting .45 from it.
Yet you here exactly the same discussion when people compare the two chamberings in polymer handguns. I've spent a good deal of time over the past three years at XDtalk and posters use similar terms comparing .40 vs .45 when shot out of XDs.

Zak Smith
March 15, 2010, 01:15 PM
Yet you here exactly the same discussion when people compare the two chamberings in polymer handguns. I've spent a good deal of time over the past three years at XDtalk and posters use similar terms comparing .40 vs .45 when shot out of XDs.
I am not familiar with the sizes of the XD's, but in the Glocks the 20/21 frame is larger and the slide is heavier than the 17/22 frame.

Silent Sam
March 15, 2010, 01:36 PM
Are you guys arguing about 'felt" recoil? I would think that would be in the shoulder of the beholder;).
I am not an engineer, a manager or an english teacher but my shoulder has told me over the years that a similar weight bullet at a similar velocity in a similar rifle recoils about the same. Doesn't even have to be the same caliber. If one of those rifles doesn't fit me, recoil will be more unpleasant than if it did. Also, if one of those rifles has an appreciably louder report and or concussion that can easily be (mis)translated into heavier or sharper felt recoil. If you have grown accustomed to a certain level of recoil for a year or twenty and then you increase the velocity 200-300fps with the same bullet you will probably find that recoil unpleasant. If you are talking about recoil velocity that can be percieved as more or less recoil even though the calculated ft/lbs delivered are the same. That's why 45-70s feel different than 340Wbys. Mostly though if you expect it to hurt it probably will. The mind is a wonderful thing... What are we arguing about again?

Maverick223
March 15, 2010, 01:55 PM
You can always tell an engineer, but you can't tell him much.

Al
This reminds me of a good old joke:

[...] "you don't know where you are or where you are going. You have made a promise which you have no idea how to keep and you expect me to solve your problem. The fact is you are in exactly the same position you were in before we met but now it is somehow my fault."That is a good one, never heard it.

While people do use these terms to describe .40SW vs. .45 ACP, all is not held equal.Exactly, and is the same phenomena common to rifles when comparing magnum vs. standard cartridges of similar power.

:)

chopper180
March 15, 2010, 02:05 PM
Hello everyone!

Its me, the OP!

First, let me thank everyone for the responses - I certainly got some good info.

Second, I think this may be getting a bit out of hand. I never meant to start WWIII here, I just wasn't sure if one had any advantages over the other. From what I've read here, can we all agree that:

1. The 30-06 ammo is cheaper and more abundant
2. The 300 WM has a greater effective range
3. Either one will work for 250 yds and in
4. The 300 WM tends to have more recoil, whether perceived or real

Going back to the OP, it seems that the 30-06 may be the better choice for me, and here's why:

1. Cheaper ammo = more range time
2. Still able to use when dream hunt is over (remember, 200yds is a MILE where I live)
3. Probably easier for me to shoot more effectively due to ammo and recoil (I know you can get used to the add'l recoil, but I could also get used to being mule kicked in the groin - doesn't make it a good time)
4. I usually hunt with a bow, so any rifle I get will see limited use. Bow season is longer here and like I said, you don't get a ton of long shots. This is how I have an unfired .35 - the few times I hunt with a rifle, I use a friend of mines since his is sighted in

Like I said, I really appreciate the help, and feel a little guilty for causing a donnybrook. Somehow we've gone from a rifle question to the 40 vs 45 debate (do we really need another one of those?)

X-Rap
March 15, 2010, 02:50 PM
180 you picked one of the hot buttons as a topic, the only way to top it is to add distance to the debate.

chopper180
March 15, 2010, 02:57 PM
180 you picked one of the hot buttons as a topic, the only way to top it is to add distance to the debate.
Maybe I should have asked: Glock or 1911?

Maverick223
March 15, 2010, 04:11 PM
I know you can get used to the add'l recoil, but I could also get used to being mule kicked in the groin - doesn't make it a good timeIf you want to experiment with it, just fire a .300WM "down there"...hope you don't plan to have [more] kids. :evil:

Al LaVodka
March 15, 2010, 07:17 PM
What kind of gun is this going to be fired in, a bolt or a semi-auto? And are you looking for bullet velocity or weight!?
;)
Al

375shooter
March 16, 2010, 10:38 PM
Chopper180:

Have you considered a 300 RCM or 300 WSM? They can be had in a short action so will be lighter and handier. The ballistics are sort of a compromise between the 30-06 and 300 Win Mag. Really all these calibers will work fine as long as you don't use too light of a bullet. I wouldn't go below 165 grains. The most important thing is to place the shot properly. If that's done, there will be no issues.

If you enjoyed reading about "300 Win Mag vs. .30-06...Which would you choose?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!