Best 30-06?

Status
Not open for further replies.

theboyscout

Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2012
Messages
397
Location
FL
I'm looking to get new rifle in 30-06. I would like iron sights as well as scope mounting ability. I have a model 1917 30-06 now but think I'm going to trade/sell my way to a better one. But I do not know which model to get that is been seen as the best now. I also have a Remington model 783 chambered in .308 it shoots great. Just wanted to see what's out there.
 
I'm looking to get new rifle in 30-06. I would like iron sights as well as scope mounting ability. I have a model 1917 30-06 now but think I'm going to trade/sell my way to a better one. But I do not know which model to get that is been seen as the best now. I also have a Remington model 783 chambered in .308 it shoots great. Just wanted to see what's out there.
Bolt? Semi auto? Budget? I've been staring at one so hard my eyes bled, so I know you can get em with open sights, benelli r1.
 
Well you left a lot of what you'd like unspecified, but personally if I wanted a .30-06 with sights I'd take a hard look at a Winchester M70 Alaskan. It's above your price range, but as .30-06 bolts with sights go it's the one to have IMO.
 
Ok, let's forgot the open sights. I know a gun smith that can do that work. Best 30-06 period
 
Remington 700 BDL is a fine bolt rifle. Chamberings include 30-06. Has irons as well as a drilled and tapped receiver for scope mounting. Average price is around $750 new.
I saw the 700 series had a major recall not to long ago, and I thought the 783 was a better made rifle. Any opinions on that
 
"BEST" is relative. What is more important to you, aesthetics, or performance. If aesthetics are important a Winchester Featherweight, Ruger Hawkeye or Remington 700 is where I'd start looking. In that order. Winchester makes several versions of the 70, but the Featherweight can be found right at your $800 budget. Most of the other versions will be over budget.

Forget iron sights. Most manufacturers stopped using them for good reasons. If you must have them you'll have better luck on the used market. I'll soon be 60, there haven't been any commercial rifles made with decent irons in my lifetime. Most are cheap, and most modern scopes do everything better. It ain't expensive to get a rifle drilled and tapped for irons if you buy one without them. Good aftermarket irons are available, but will cost more than a decent scope. Even if you buy a rifle with irons, I'd replace them with something better if I actually planned on using them. I just took mine off so they don't hang up on brush.

If performance and value are more important look at Tikka, Howa, Weatherby Vanguard, Savage, and others.

And since you already have a 308, stay with that caliber. Common 308 rounds easily out perform 30-06 loads from just a few years ago, and do it with about 25% less recoil. Of course modern 30-06 hand loads will still beat 308, but unless you're moose hunting at extended ranges no animal will ever know the difference.
 
I disagree on the 783 being a "better made rifle". 700's from 2006-2014 may be defective. 700's before '06 and after '14 are considered to be safe and defect free. If you happen across one made in that time frame, Remington will fix the defect free of charge.
 
The 783s what remington did to the very good Marlin X7 series. They were always meant to be "budget" rifles, im honestly surprised remington even kept them in the lineup at all, considering they already have the ADLs.
Compared to a NEW BDL, Id take the BDL and feel like it was a decent upgrade for the cost.
Couple things that ARE going for the 783, is if they kept the barrel threading the same, which i think they did, you can use savage small shank prefit barrels on them. This makes its a fairly easy rifle to switch barrels with. Also, since its a revamped x7 copy the stocks etc for the x7s should fit.

Right now in the under/near 800 dollar range MY personal suggestions, one push feed the other CRF.

Bergara b-14 hunter/woodsman
Winchester M70 sporter or perhaps featherweight
 
I saw the 700 series had a major recall not to long ago, and I thought the 783 was a better made rifle. Any opinions on that
783 is the focus to the Taurus 700, replaced the 770 pos mistake. Savage, vanguard, and howa top the list for push feed, crf would of course be Winchester or ruger. Each have their own fanbases based on varying merits, but a used Winchester would be a fine addition on your budget. Nothing against Remington, they have plenty of aftermarket support, there are just others that have proven themselves in quality and price well enough that Remington is on the list, but not at the top.
 
Well you left a lot of what you'd like unspecified, but personally if I wanted a .30-06 with sights I'd take a hard look at a Winchester M70 Alaskan. It's above your price range, but as .30-06 bolts with sights go it's the one to have IMO.

No arguing Bob's logic. If it was me I'd save a little longer and get the Alaskan if you have to have an iron site option
 
700's from 2006-2014 may be defective. 700's before '06 and after '14 are considered to be safe and defect free. If you happen across one made in that time frame, Remington will fix the defect free of charge.

Negative:

All Remington bolt rifles (except the 788) made 1946-2006 have flawed triggers. Remington recalled some, but as yet has not admitted fault. But there are lawsuits in the works that will allow those guns to have the trigger replaced. Remington replaced the flawed trigger design in late 2006, but a few rifles made between 2006 and 2014 got adhesive in the trigger mechanism during assembly. That is the reason for this recall.

Remington bolt guns made since 2014 have a trigger that functions properly. Not necessarily a "good" trigger. But it won't allow the gun to fire with no trigger pull.
 
Negative:

All Remington bolt rifles (except the 788) made 1946-2006 have flawed triggers. Remington recalled some, but as yet has not admitted fault. But there are lawsuits in the works that will allow those guns to have the trigger replaced. Remington replaced the flawed trigger design in late 2006, but a few rifles made between 2006 and 2014 got adhesive in the trigger mechanism during assembly. That is the reason for this recall.

Remington bolt guns made since 2014 have a trigger that functions properly. Not necessarily a "good" trigger. But it won't allow the gun to fire with no trigger pull.
Well, the issue with the pre '06 Walker Trigger is that dirt or rust can become lodged behind the trigger connector, reducing sear engagement and making an AD more likely if the weapon is jarred or dropped. Of course this is not an issue if Rule 1 is followed: keep the muzzle of a loaded gun pointed in a safe direction. Or, don't chamber a round until you're ready to fire and this is a non issue. A properly functioning 700 trigger is one of the slickest factory switches around....but as with anything it should be cleaned and inspected once in awhile.
As to the OPs question, as far as current production, you can't go wrong with a 700, Vanguard, or a Sav. 110/111. I've shot all 3 and own the first 2- but, for me, ya the '03 Springfield is the BEST '06 bolt gun ever......got 3 of those.
 
Last edited:
Jmr40, its the adhesive trigger recall Im assuming the op was concerned with. Figured I'd address the years under recall and let him know new 700's are defect free in that department.
 
If you can find a used one.. A Ruger Guide Gun on '06. Might hit the $800 mark without scope!

Deaf
 
A Winchester Alaskan.... seriuosly?! A wood stocked, carbon steel, blued 8-1/2lb rifle that's way over $800. What an odd name for that rifle given the wood and blued steel. How about a Tikka T3X Light Stainless or Kimber 84L Hunter? If weight is a big issue and you want CRF I'd suggest the Hunter. If you want a push feed and weight isn't as important then the Tikka is a good choice. As for iron sights, it's tough to get the proper cheek weld with both irons and an optic unless you use a cheek riser when the optic is mounted.
 
You're right. How did anyone ever hunt with wood and steel?! Why until those carbon fiber stainless steel rifles came along in the early 1870s, nobody had made a dent in the great buffalo herds. And plastic stocked rifles were the only thing that ever allowed anyone to kill Mr. Griz. Why, those Alaskan brown bears just used to eat the morons who tried to shoot them with rifles like the M70 Alaskan, and then use the rifle for a tooth pick. Those stupid Canuck Scouts that used the 303 Enfield for 5 decades in the NW Territories were like a government sponsored bear feeding program! Why, I once heard that people used to shoot deer with those wood and steel guns. Couldn't have hit anything with them of course, dummies. Especially with open sights!!! Who ever heard of hunting with iron sights? It's madness! Cats and dogs living together...
 
Last edited:
And people have killed all manner of things with rocks and sharp sticks until something better came along. Despite the fact that I've said nothing against the use of iron sights, why have those involved in the most dangerous form of hunting there is moved on from iron sights... go figure?
 
Last edited:
Killed many, many deer with a $300 Rem 700 ADL in 30-06 acquired over 20 years ago with a Leupold 3.5-10 scope. Bedding the cheap plastic stock improved accuracy significantly, but the bedding job tanked a couple years later, so I put an HS Precision stock on it.

For a walking around rifle to point quickly, it's hard to beat. And it does well enough out to 300 yards. Shot an F-Class match with it a while ago - didn't win, but did ok.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top