[twoblink]

Having done some ballistic homework, I'm fairly happy with my ownership of the 308 caliber.

Now I guess the follow up question then becomes; what's the biggest thing a 308 will kill (humanely)?

Is Elk too big?

[Northwest Cajun]

A .308 should work on an Elk, with high energy/light magnum 165gr loads. Know where to hit them and keep shots under 200yds. It probably can be done at 300 but I feel thats pushing it.
As for bigger animals, I wouldn't take it to Alaska for Grizzley bear.

Cajun

[Art Eatman]

Maybe a better question would be whether the .308 can put a bullet into an elk's neck and break the spine; I'd say yes. Can the .308 put a bullet into the heart/lung area and it be a kill shot? I'd say yes.

Other better questions would have to do with your own abilities as a marksman, and with your judgement as to whether or not to take a shot at all, no matter the cartridge.

Having an animal fold up and be Dead Right There is primarily a matter of shot placement. A gut shot with a .338 or a .375 won't do that. A neck shot with a .243 most likely will.

$0.02,

Art

[HSMITH]

For christmas sake. Take a look at 30-30 ballistics, and then remember that it is probable that more elk have been taken with a 30-30 than any other caliber and probably more than have been taken with all the magnum cartridges combined. Now take and compare the ballistics of a 30-30 to the 308, BIG difference. The 308 is a fargin' CANNON compared to what is needed to take elk quickly and humanely. If you can take your $9.95 box of Winchester 150 grain power points and put the bullet into the heart or lungs of an elk within 300 yards of your position it will DIE within 100 yards of where it stood when you shot it. The difference between that shot with the 308 and the same shot with a 340 Weatherby magnum? NOTHING. Put the bullet where it goes and there is no difference in the result. The 308 is a FINE elk rifle as is the 270, 280, 30-06, 284, 7x57, 8x57 and on and on. You don't need some cannon magnum to hunt elk and kill them as humanely as is possible. Shot placement is everything, if you can't put the bullet where it needs to go don't shoot. Stepping up to a 338 or a 340 buys a small margin of error in shot placement but it is not as big as most people think. Add to that the number of people who can actually handle the recoil of a 338 and up is very small and you come to the conclusion that the 30-06 class of cartridge, like the 308, is the best choice for all but a few people.

Pick a heavy for caliber bullet and make sure you can place it accurately. 180 grains for 30 cal is best in normal ammunition, 165's in premium loadings also work well. I have seen a few elk shot with a 308 using 180 Winchester Silvertips and it was very impressive, two holes and very dead elk. What more can you ask for?

[Baba Louie]

Karamojo Bell used a 6.5x54 on elephant, tho I don't know the comparison between a 7.62x51 and the smaller (diameter anyway) round.
http://www.african-hunter.com/6_5_x_54_mannlicher-schoenauer.htm
If anyone could post a comparison on rounds, then maybe you could filter out that as a factor and see if the hunter's technique is the difference.

[H&Hhunter]

YES!!!!!!!!

The .308 win makes a GREAT elk round. My favorite load is the 180gr Nosler PT in the federal HE loading. A 180gr bullet at 2700+fps.

Not only that but the .308 makes such a cute light weight mountain rifle. I love the .308 and have two of them. One in a Savage 99 (my favorite saddle gun in elk country) the other is a Styer scout.

Not only do I like the.308 on elk I recomend it. with the right bullets it's every bit as efective as a .300mag out to 300yds.

Now you'll hear me praise other rounds as well. I love the .375H&H but I'm here to tell you that is only a personal preferance thing with me insofar as I just like the .375.

A 180 gr .308 through the lungs will kill an elk just as dead as a .270gr .375 I promise you.

I've killed a goodly number of African plains game with a .308win and they all dies quite nicely. As have all the elk that I've shot with them. A good friend of mine did his Eland with a little ole .308 a couple of years ago. It died. And I wouldn't hesitate to use it on Moose.

[Dr.Rob]

Lots of buddies of mine have carried the .308 as an Elk rifle.. and they mostly carried carbine length rifles.. Winchester 88's, Remington 742's, etc. before I purchased my Savage 30-06 I was looking carefully at the Remingtom model 7 as the rifle to replace my 30-30. The biggest drawback of the .308 is the lackof AUTO loading rifles to chamber and fire the heavyweight 30's ala to 220gr roundnose. (like if one wanted to hunt moose)

Nothing at all wrong with a 308.

[smokemaker]

H&H, great ending quote my friend.
IIRC, they (being gunwriters) used to tout the 30-40 Krag as a great Wapiti round, and the Canadians love the ol' .303 Limey round for Elk and Moose. Both of those rounds have less energy, and in the old days, much less choice in bullets. So why not the .308?

Of course, when I went Elk hunting, the guys on the hunt with me gave me considerable crap about carrying the weakling .35 Whelen, but the locals thought it (and the .338-06) were the perfect elk rounds, so does the .358 Winchester rank higher?

Just call me Mr. Tangent

[twoblink]

I'm a "Bullet placement above all else" type of guy..

But for example, even if I place a .22LR in the lungs of a moose, it ain't going down.. not for like a few hours.. and a .22LR won't even break the hide of some animals...

My friend shoots 8mm mausers, and I think it's a tad bit more stout than the 308, but not by much.

Thanks H&H, I just wanted some first hand reassurance that Elk is not too big if you do your part...

[Wildalaska]

People use them for large bear,...

Wilditsessentiallya30-06Alaska

[JShirley]

Can we PLEASE stop bandying about Bell as an endorsement for foolish behaviour?

1. Bell only took head shots.

2. Sometimes the head shots DID NOT WORK.

3. Bell eventually moved to the 318 Westley Richards. (250 grain Soft Nose Bullet or Solid; Muzzle Velocity 2400 ft/sec. )

People have taken some of the biggest brown bears in the world with .22 LR.

They were damn lucky. I remember one story of an Inuit lady and a male friend that were hunting small game, some years ago. A very large brown bear began following them. They tried to evade, and eventually, the lady shot the brown in the head.

He fell. She then shot him another 10 or 11 times in the head as he lay, IIRC. This bear was the world record for some years.

Can it be done? Yes. Can it be done wisely? Until YOU are willing to go out in the wilds and face a behemoth with a dinky deer round, I would advise not touting it in endorsement of anything. Even then, all that will be proven, is that fate was merciful to you.

John

[JShirley]

Large bear?

WhythehellRUalwayspostingenormousblastersifa.30isenuffJohn

[smokemaker]

For the record, I never bandy'ed Bell about, I bandy'ed Selous.:rolleyes:

These "Is X- caliber OK for Y-species " questions always get a touch ugly, like we were arguing about the effectivness of buckshot or something.
Oh, crap, I mentioned buckshot...:cuss:

Hey, just because someone references that a guy used a smallish gun in the past doesn't mean we're all lining up to go after a dagga boy with a .243. (a Rem 700 at that)
The neaderthals used spears and rockslings and such, but I'm not trying to go that route, just saying they used 'em once.:banghead:

[Larry Ashcraft]

Back on topic:

Just this morning I had a conversation with my dad (76 years old, 35 some elk and countless deer under his belt) about this.

His Granddad, my great-grandfather, Marion Grant Ashcraft, used a Winchester 1895, 30-40 Krag for elk. His rifle was considered the "BIG" rifle in camp. Everybody else used a 30-30. Nobody lost game because they didn't have enough gun. Of course, the American rifleman of the 1930's-1940's was a different breed than many of today's rifleman.

Even more absurd, my grandma always went hunting with the men. When she wasn't working around camp (that's what women did back then), she hunted close around camp with a .250 Savage, took her share too.

My granddad broke the mold in the 1940's when he bought a "new-fangled" Winchester Model 70 in .270 Win. caliber.

A new era had begun. :)

[JShirley]

For the record, I never bandy'ed Bell about, I bandy'ed Selous.

I'm sorry, I must have missed the Selous reference in this thread.

Since the thread title mentions .308, perhaps we are safe...one can hope.

I'm a big fan of the .35 Whelen for just about all North American game. Wouldn't be my first choice on Cape Buff, though, nor my first choice on close bears. :)

[H&Hhunter]

Ok this is off subject but as long as we are talking Bell. Here are a few facts that Bell quoters always fail to mention.

By Bells own admission the first full charge Bell faced from an elephant nearly killed him. His tracker was in fact killed in that incident. And when he faced his second charge in thick cover he did so with a .416 Rigby in his hands. While Bell perfered the 7mm he always carried a .450/400 and later the .416 while following up in thick cover.

This is not ment to trash anyone or to cast dispersions. Just a little known yet true fact about Bell and common sense while hunting dangerous game.:)

Wildalaska put me on his ignore list after I disagreed with him about .308's on brown bears and then accused me of having no hunting experience because I like a little more on big bears. So I think his statement is probably aimed at getting my goat.

H&Hneverbeenagunstorecommandohunter.

[Wildalaska]

WhythehellRUalwayspostingenormousblastersifa.30isenuffJohn

Hey J Where did I say it was enough? I said people use it. Just like 30-06


WildilistentocaliberdebatesalldaylongAlaska

[JShirley]

WA, if you just say "people use it", it sounds like an endorsement. Glad to see that you don't agree. Everyone should take most internet advice with some salt, but still, I'd hate to suggest something that may well get someone killed. WildilistentocaliberdebatesalldaylongAlaska

Fair enough. :)

OH- to get back to the original question- I think a heavy, solidly constructed .308 round, well placed, will work fine for elk, though I'd like an even heavier bullet for moose. Used a .308 PSS loaded with a 165 grain SXT to drop a deer Jan 2, believe it was. Performance led me to believe that round would have gone through AT LEAST another deer, and maybe two.

[smokemaker]

Shirley, I was kinda referring to the ".308 for Brown Bear and such" thread, where you made comment to my "Selous used a 6.5 on elephant" statement, and in your reply, you mentioned Bell and his use of smallbores.
On the other hand...
I think the .35 Whelen is maybe the best all around medium-to-big game cartridge for northern North America. Packs a good hard punch, not too hard on the shooter or the gun, shoots flat enough for a majority of shots taken above the Mason-Dixon Line.
But if I were restricted to short-action only, it'd be a .308.

[Wildalaska]

WA, if you just say "people use it", it sounds like an endorsement

On the other hand J, I know at least one Kodiak Guide that uses 06 (functionally equivalent to the 308)...

And of course need we mention the Natives who routinely shoot Polar Bears with 243.

Next time one of the Guides stops by, Ill ask him how they feel about clients using 308 on bear. I suspect that they might say it depened on how good a shot the client is..

WildbutitsallacademicanywayAlaska

[Art Eatman]

Considering the first half of the 20th century, and before we get to rhapsodizing about the good ol' daze and how men wuz men and the women wuz glad of it and everybody killed monster elk with a thutty-thutty and shot out gnats' eyes at a gazillion yards:

In many hunting areas the animals were not as wary, and often there were just flatout more critters. By and large, in those "old days" with the U.S. population of less than half what it is now, there was less hunting pressure in the regulated areas. Hunting skills may have allowed closer approaches, but I'm not even sure of that. At any rate, most shots were at closer range due to the known limits of the .30-30 and the Krag. With more animals, "If not today, then tomorrow." wasn't an uncommon attitude.

It is often mentioned that the primary reason for the popularity of such as the 7mm Rem Mag was the ability to play Ma Bell. Fewer and more wary elk played an important role in the development and use of such cartridges.

And so it's back to the usual deal: If you're a patient sitter or a skilled stalker, and you're a good marksman, it's not that hard to take large animals with relatively "small" cartridges.

:), Art

[schromf]

First one of the best elk hunters I know packs a Belgium BLR in .308, I have seen him only not fill his tags once in 10 years, and that was after a bad winterkill. Must work for him.

Comment on a .308 and short action, my choice would be the ever unpopular .358, 9x57, 9.3x57 and 375x57 on big critters I subscibe to Elmer Keith theories. None of these would be my first pick for a big brown in a willow thicket.

Somewhere buried in my reloading room I have a study and report done by the U.S. Forest Service on the effective cartridges against bears. It was given to me by a friend who worked as a surveyor in coastal Alaska. Seems the Forest Circus was having problems with brown (grizzly) bears and particularly survey teams. A small problem of multiple engagements with the teams that the human side usually lost. Got to be a civil servants nightmare, liability, insurance, survivors benefits, neglegence, etc. So they proceded to spend our tax dollars to figure out what was effective on stopping a bear. They pretty much went through the gambit of readily available hardware and cartridges, ( there is none more cautious or thorough than a civil servant covering his ???).

The findings were somewhat as expected in some cases, and big suprises on others. The minimum recommended cartridge was a 30-06 with 200gr bullets, big suprise ( to me anyway ) was a 12 guage shotgun with slugs ( buckshot sucked ) and the 3" mags are what they recommended. The other tested guns were 458 winchester, Weatherbies Magnums, 338 mag, 30 Mags, 45-70 and 375 H&H. The Weatherby magnums overpenetrated and were less effective. The 458 didn't do bad but didn't fare as well as I had thought it might. The most effective ( at least in our governments eyes ) was a 375 H&H mag, with 300gr bullets, with the barrel sawed off to 18". Longer barrels than that were deamed to difficult to wield rapidly in thick timber and brush ( seems that is one of the things they really disliked about the Weatherby rifles). Remember this was done for close in encounters of the personal kind. They wanted to stop a charging bear at 10 ft dead.

I believe in all good traditions of our most esteemed civil servents there now is a policy in place ( in Washington ? who knows ), where survey teams have one member of the survey team is issued a sawed of 375 which he cares at all times in bear country. I think there standard rules of engagement are they are to shoot any bears closer than 15 yds. ( I need to find that article cause I want to check that range again as it has been several years ).

If it works for them who am I to second guess my government tax dollars at work.

Comment on 243 against polar bears. Yea I been to Barrow and the locals seem to prefer the 243 for everything. But they do some really stupid things on a regular basis, I wouldn't call heading of across 35+ miles of ice blind drunk in -50 degree weather real smart, yet that was a Darwin award during my time there. They hunt the bears usually with their dogs, and almost always have much greater distance between them and the bear, than a typical encounter with a coastal brown.

Edited: I must be drinkng too much caffiene and reading Kafka

[JShirley]

( buckshot sucked )

NO!

;)

[H&Hhunter]

They hunt the bears usually with their dogs, and almost always have much greater distance between them and the bear, than a typical encounter with a coastal brown.

Yeah I've mentioned that before on another guns&bears thread. But that is not really what this thread is about.

PS my .375H&H is shaved to 20" just for that reason....

What you ment to say I'm sure is that buckshot "sucked" the air out of the surrounding 10 square miles and killed all living beings. therefore was deemed to dangerous for human consumption.:D

(I edited this because I had made a childish and stupid remark towards another member. I apologize to everyone on this board)

H&Hunter

[schromf]

Remember they were evaluating performance at very close range, and a one shot quick kill was all they were looking for. Sucked is a poor chioce of words on my part, but it was one of the worst performers in the test. It shotguns in general were nowhere near being the best performers. These were all wieghted neatly with performance percentages. Other honorable mentions were the 45-70, a 50 Alaskan, and a 338 mag. The 45-70 was hurt by available off the shelf ammuniton and bullet selection, the 444 Marlin suffered the same fate.

A point to remember was if they couldn't buy it, it wasn't evaluated. Wasn't there a fellow in Coopers Ferry ( Landing) that developed the 50 Alaskan? seems he used a sawed off Model 71 Winchester, will a 50 cal barrel. I think he took 50 Cal machine guns bullets cut them off and loaded them backwards so the boatailed end was out. Must be where they got the one they tested, but wasn't selected cause it wasn't common enough.

I also seem to remember the final rifle selection was the Interarms Mark X, chopped of with some fiddle on the iron sights, NO SCOPE.

[twoblink]

I know there's a story that a .22LR killed an elephant.. and I'm sure a 9mm up the snout will kill a bear; the problem is getting that close (or do you REALLY want to be that close??)

hehehe

A small problem of multiple engagements with the teams that the human side usually lost.

You have a way with understatements my friend..

800-1000lb bear vs. 175lb human. 6" retractable claws vs. 3" pocket knife.

BTW.. From what my friend who works up in Oregon as a park Ranger says; a 3" buck knife against a bear will not penetrate the blubber...

Wasn't there talk of a slug from a 4 gauge shotgun for bears I seem to recall? Talk about a shoulder buster!! :uhoh: :what:

[Wildalaska]

also seem to remember the final rifle selection was the Interarms Mark X, chopped of with some fiddle on the iron sights, NO SCOPE.

Actually, USFS uses 375 H+H winchester 70s chopped down, of various vintages (O! to see a pre 64 model 70 totally trashed) with iron sights (some Williams peeps, some Wild West Ghost rings) and rem 870s, USGS uses 45/70s or 457 mags in Marlins, BLM uses uses Rem 870s IMMSMC...

USFS has a number of pre 64 70s in 30-06 that they have retired but dont have the heart to destroy....

WildandsomeofemaretotallytrashedAlaska

[schromf]

I think my report was from the mid 80's and seems that Winchester's of that era weren't controlled feed. Doesn't suprise me at all there is a mixed bag of equipment though, especially across different agencies. I thought they had picked up the Interarms cause of cost at that time somewhere around 400 bucks per rifle and the controlled round feed. Politics might have changed that, and I think Winchester brought the controlled round feed back somewhere not long after that.

Yeah it wouldn't suprise me at all on the condition of those rifles, coastal Alaska is as rough as it gets and I bet the gun bearer really could care less until he really needs the rifle. Just something else to carry for a survey crew.

The 475 Marlin didn't exist then.

[HankB]

I just finished reading Mahohboh, a book by Ron Thompson. He worked for many years as a game warden in Rhodesia, later Zimbabwe, and during his career he cropped thousands of elephants. He preferred a .458, but quite a few elephant were - and still are - being cropped by military self loading rifles - namely, FAL variants, chambered in 7.62 x 51 NATO.

Also known as the .308.

When I hunted Zimbabwe, I remember hearing much the same from both my PH and the warden of the Gonarezhou Park. (Who also used it on poachers . . . but that's another story.)

In any case, Thompson seemed to like the rapid fire qualities of the SLR, useful when cropping a whole herd of elephants. But he noted that there was a world of difference in using this cartridge on cow elephants vs. the much larger mature bull elephants. He has one tale of a bull absorbing multiple head shots, only to - luckily - be dropped by the last bullet in his magazine. The military bullets just wouldn't penetrate all that bone mass and reach the brain.

I certainly wouldn't advocate hunting elephant with a .308, but with the right ammo and good shot placement, it ought to do for all thin-skinned, non-dangerous game in the world, with the POSSIBLE exceptions of eland and giraffe.

[twoblink]

Well, I'm not too worried about elephants.. I doubt the San Diego Zoo's gonna let me shoot their herd :D

308 should do most anything in north america.. and that's probably the end of my concern there...

[labgrade]

.308, with properly constructed bullets in the right place will kill anything on this earth. "In the right place" makes a big difference, depending upon the critter, how dangerous, how close - yada.

It wouldn't be my first choice for any dangerous game, nor for some of the bigger stuff offered, as there's better out there, but still.

As I've mentioned maybe way too many times, I'm currently shooting a Rem M7 18.5" bbl & a Barnes 165 gr XBT at 2400 fps for elk - rightly equivalent to a .30-40 Krag/.300 Savage to make no difference.

It takes elk all day long. I can see no difference whatsoever between my old Fed Premium (& handload equivalent) of a Sierra Gameking 180 in .30-06 - other than the ballistics. I'm sure the bullet construction helps, although I've yet to recover one. I've recovered plenty of the '06 bullets, but not one yet from the .308 - says something, somehow.

Equivalent elk, same-same shot - distance/placement, etc. & the .308 shot clean through while the '06 stayed within.

I dunno.

Thing is, both got to have the "after check" done - had to have dead elk to do that. ;)

.308's plenty enough if you do your part.

[JShirley]

With expanding ammo, slower rounds will usually penetrate deeper. For the first and second generation hollow points in defensive pistols, this lead to some professionals preferring "good ole hardball", because some of the early JHP weren't penetrating deeply enough.

This phenomenon is also why a lightly constructed rifle bullet is less of an overpenetration threat when used defensively, than a handgun bullet. (As you get further away, the light rifle bullet will penetrate more deeply, at least until one reaches a certain point.)

[twoblink]

I saw some differences between bullet tips and it's a big difference. I have no idea why, but my friend shot a deer with a 308 but a softpoint, and it was a perfect heart shot (I should know, I pulled the bullet out of the heart when we dressed it) and the internals were like liquid, but one entry and no exit.. But I've seen him shoot with a nosler, and that was like "Bang!" and the deer just dropped.

[Bottom Gun]

Although I prefer to use my .338 Win for elk, this year it was raining the morning the season opened so I took my foul weather rifle (AR-10 in .308) out instead. I had never shot anything with a .308 but was confident it would perform adequately since I had taken elk in the past using my 30/06.

An hour into the season, I made a lung shot on an elk at about 225 yards. I was using my handloads with 180 gr Nosler Partitions in front of Win 748 powder.

At the shot, the elk stopped in its tracks, stood for a moment, walked another 15-20 yards, and dropped.
The bullet lodged in the lung on the far side and did not exit.

The bottom line is, the .308 worked for elk. It didn't put the animal down with as much authority as my .33 caliber, but it did work.

[labgrade]

I used the same gun/velocities, etc. with a 165 Nosler BT for deer - figured it'd be a slayer.

Only once, but I shot a doe deer (~120 lbs) 5 stinking times to finally bring her down. Good hits - yada. When finally cleaning her out, I found all five bullets on the off-side, expanded as expected .....darned thing just wouldn't die, I guess.

Same load with a Barnes does elk all day long, but with the mentioned bullet, didn't do deer for squat. Likely a 110-130 would've done much better - maybe.

I dunno.

For every deer-thing I've ever done, a .243 just slays them DRT - the .308 hasn't.

Had one deer, shot with the elk-load go over 100 yards - shot at about 15 yards, & kinda expectced it in a way.

Everything deer I've ever shot with 6the .243 just drops, maybe with a bit of a jump, but dies immediately.

The .308 seems to take a bit longer somehow - except for one elk at 15 yards & shot straight through the butt & did drop right there.

[Bottom Gun]

It may be that the .243, with it's higher velocity, imparts a little more shock to deer sized game than the .308 does with less velocity and heavier bullets.

[twoblink]

Have you considered a slighly lighter bullet, like a 147 or 155 grain? A bit more zip might provide a little bit more shock to the animal.

[Bottom Gun]

I've found the 150 and 165 gr Hornady SST bullets work well in my AR-10 since these rifles prefer very pointed bullets and the nylon tips keep deformation to a minimum.
They are accurate and expand well but I wouldn't want to use them for anything larger than a deer.

[labgrade]

Beats me, Guys,

I haven't kilt a huge number of bigg(ger) game, but have some experience, & just passing it on. FWIW.

I've shot a 1/2 dozen deer with .243's 87 gr'ers & they always died easily within their initial jumps.

I've shot 2 deer, one with the 165 Nosler & one with the Barnes 165 XBT - the first took 5 hits to bring down - the second ran over 100 yards.

Not drawing any conclusions here, just mentiong what happened.

But, Evey elk I've shot with this same load dropped rather rapidly - easiely within 30-40 yards - & with relatively same-same hits.

That one doe with the .308 Noslers should have been DRT & ended up running off perhaps 1-1/2 miles, with decent enough subsequent hits.

I dunno.

I figure from my experience/s, deer should have a maximum velocity, while elk need more penetrative.

Again, I dunno, I'm not an expert.

Any event, the .308 will drop & kill anything this world's got to offer - just depends on whether r not you can live through the time it takes to kill it. :D

[twoblink]

Well, from what I'm reading from the reload bench's website...

.308 110 grainers will push 3100-3300 or so fps... So what kind of velocities can you make a .243 87 grainer cough up??

[Art Eatman]

Mr. Sierra sez the .243 87-grainer will make around 3,200 to 3,300 ft/sec from a 20" barrel.

I wouldn't use this bullet for a body shot on larger deer. Sure does ruin necks, though. About 20, that way...

:), Art

[twoblink]

Then I see the 110 grain Vmax to be somewhat in the neighborhood of the .243 87grainer..

I'm reading a lot about "other" loads for the 308, and most anything outside the 155-180 grain range all seem to be reload country, as most labels don't provide off the shelf bullets for the two extreme ends..

[Delmar]

For a lot of years, the 308 has been my choice for deer, and its been my experience that 150 grains is probably the most effective performer in most bullet styles.

Tried some 165 grain ballistic tips loaded max and they did really well if they struck something tougher than the hide and did break bones on occasion, but I had a few which missed anything really solid and I was getting quarter sized exit holes.

Moved down to 150 grain softnose Hornady's or Winchester PP in a bulk pack, and the exit hole was huge:what: Stops them right here, right now. I handload for a 26 inch barreled Remington, so I tend to go to slightly slower burning powders than W748 to take max effect of the barrel length.

[twoblink]

dime size in, basketball size out??

I've noticed though, that most of what I've seen the 308's do, they don't "bang" and the deer drops. But the deer does die.... maybe only 10 yards away..

you get the same with the 165 grainers, or they just drop?

btw... 26" barrel?? :what: :evil:

[Delmar]

Twoblink, I have only had a couple deer take more than 10 steps when using 165 grain bullets. and most of them went down within a step or two.
I like the 150's better as they seem to knock them over right where they stand, especially when hit low on the neck which is my favorite shot when the opportunity presents itself, and ONLY when it clearly does.

And yes, I am a believer in long barrels-to me, its free velocity. I know all the rage is for short barrels, and in some situations, a short barrel is very desirable. As a handloader, I can use slightly slower burning powders to take advantage of that long tube. Understand that I am hunting over shale rock and cactus with short hills all around. Put a stand up on top of one of those hills, and you have shots ranging from 50 to 500 yards. My primary 308 is a Rem Varmint Synthetic and clearly NOT a walking weapon-unless you want to put wheels on it.

You can get really picky in the Texas hill country. Where I go, you can take 2 bucks and 2 doe on a single license, and since the die off they had in 1996, the deer are very plentiful. Provided its a decent size, I'll take the first one I see-buck or doe for the meat locker, and then I can get particular.

After hunting there for better than a dozen years with a 308, I aquired a 270 a couple of years back in a Rem 700. As the classic load seems to be a 130 grain over varying amounts of 4831, I loaded up a few and the first deer I shot with it was 100-125 yards and holy-moly, it blew up the chest so badly I almost didn't have a wind pipe on the animal to pull on when I field dressed it. I've since went to 140 grain Hornadys and they do the job instantly but the damage is less.

[Art Eatman]

Twoblink, I'm with Delmar on the 26" barrel, but like he said, it's because of the terrain. In my part of SW Texas, deer are sparse. Your only shot of the entire season might be at 400 to 500 yards. I want all the "goody" I can get. My hunting is mostly walking across country, so the long tube is no bother.

Another point: Compare the ballistics of an '06 in a 26" barrel with the ballistics of a .300 WinMag from a 22" barrel. They're pretty darned close.

:), Art

[twoblink]

Art,

where can I find ballistics data on 308 with respect to velocity of different length barrels?

hmm..

"Honey... I need a 26" barreled gun.."

"Why?"

"Cause Art and Delmar said so.." :evil:

[Delmar]

"Cause Art and Delmar said so.."

That should be sufficient for the Mrs:rolleyes: :D

[Art Eatman]

twoblink, most of the reloading handbooks will give the length of the barrel on their test rifle.

Hokay: Mr. Hodgon sez 26". A 150-grain bullet ahead of 51.0 grains of H380 gives 2876 ft/sec @ 51,500 CUP.

Mr. Speer doesn't give a barrel length.

Mr. Sierra's Second Edition sez 26", and 2,900 ft/sec on about the same load as Mr. Hodgon.

Some here and back at TFL have claimed higher velocities. I dunno.

Anyhow, for shorter barrels, subtract 50 ft/sec/inch.

FWIW, an '06 wil lose about 70 ft/sec/inch, as will the other somewhat overbore cartridges such as the .270 and .25-'06. The "Maggies" will lose even more.

Art

[twoblink]

I personally believe if you can push 150 grain nosler @ 3,000fps... then you can pretty much kill anything that is walking on 2 or 4 legs in this world...

Thanks Art for then numbers.. Now I'll need to start researching my choices of 26" rifles...