Best 30-06?

Status
Not open for further replies.
If I were looking for a .30-06 rifle, and were limited to 800$, I would take a serious look at a nicely used Savage M110 or M111. These can be found wth a quality optic for between 350$ (with a Redfield 4X) to 500$ (with a Leupold V2, 3-9).

Next, I would add a B&C Gold Medalist stock and grin all the way through the next many years of shooting.

When it comes time to rebarrel, I would order an ER Shaw barrel and reflect on what a wise decision I had made...a point of rationality purchase, and a modular platform.

JMHO, and point of disclosure, this what I actually am doing. I like my controlled-feed M70s, and have no plan to sell them, but such a rifle setup will be dandy, affordable, modifiable.

Geno
 
MCMXI said:
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.
Click to expand...
This drives me crazy. I have been hunting Alaska for over 20 years. From the southeast rain forests to the open tundra of Western Alaska. My primary gun? A 1951 Win model 70 30-06. Often 200 miles from the nearest road. Two week hunts. Gun fails hunt over. I have NEVER had a problem with it despite the "fragile" wood and blue steel. Yes the blue is getting worn and the stock has some nicks but I consider them signs of character and memory's of hunts gone by that a synthetic stainless gun will never have.
If my M70 is not a "Alaska gun" there simply is no such thing.
 
Last edited:
I have owned 2 30-06s. One was a Ruger 77 MKII and one a Thompson center venture. Both used and under $800. Both performed and were accurate. I currently am using the Venture. I really like it. Only got rid of the Ruger cause I needed the money at the time.
 
This drives me crazy. I have been hunting Alaska for over 20 years. From the southeast rain forests to the open tundra of Western Alaska. My primary gun? A 1951 Win model 70 30-06. Often 200 miles from the nearest road. Two week hunts. Gun fails hunt over. I have NEVER had a problem with it despite the "fragile" wood and blue steel. Yes the blue is getting worn and the stock has some nicks but I consider them signs of character and memory's of hunts gone by that a synthetic stainless gun will never have.
If my M70 is not a "Alaska gun" there simply is no such thing.
Click to expand...

OK, so you like the name and you like wood stocked and blued rifles in corrosive environments whereas I don't like either. Big deal! And it is helpful to recommend a rifle that costs 50% more than the indicated budget ... not really.
 
MCMXI said:
OK, so you like the name and you like wood stocked and blued rifles in corrosive environments whereas I don't like either. Big deal! And it is helpful to recommend a rifle that costs 50% more than the indicated budget ... not really.
Click to expand...


Right! I mean the guy who actually lives and hunts in Alaska (not, by the way, a criteria outlined by the OP who may hunt predominantly in the Sonoran desert for all we know but, whatever) talking about his own experience of the rifle in question? What does he know?!

It wasn't a matter of like or dislike. It was your expression of outrage that one might possibly propose the M70 Alaskan when the question asked by the OP (without even stipulation of the environment it would be used in) was recommendations for "the best 30-06" with iron sights. You are of course welcome to your opinion, one undoubtedly valued by the OP, but when you impugn the opinion of others on such an absurd basis, you cannot possibly expect to go unscathed.
 
It wasn't a matter of like or dislike. It was your expression of outrage that one might possibly propose the M70 Alaskan when the question asked by the OP (without even stipulation of the environment it would be used in) was recommendations for "the best 30-06" with iron sights. You are of course welcome to your opinion, one undoubtedly valued by the OP, but when you impugn the opinion of others on such an absurd basis, you cannot possibly expect to go unscathed.
Click to expand...

You recommended a rifle that's 50% over budget and that weighs 8-1/2 lb ... that's my issue. The OP asked for the "best" $800 .30-06 Sprg rifle available and decided against iron sights. The whole name thing is just my personal opinion. As for Jim and his experience in Alaska hunting with his wood/blued rifle ... good for him. He's happy with what he has and that's the important thing. If you want to believe that wood and blued carbon steel is a better choice for corrosive environments that's your choice. I have no interest in wood stocked hunting rifles or blued carbon steel. I'll make my choices and I'll voice my opinion and there isn't a damn thing you can do about it.
 
MCMXI said:
And it is helpful to recommend a rifle that costs 50% more than the indicated budget ... not really.
Click to expand...

Budget? Don't we all pretty much accept the fact that when we're talking guns, the concept of a budget is notional at best?

Seriously, he's going over his budget. (if we have anything to do with it :))
 
JackSprat said:
I would not buy a non-sighted rifle with the intention of taking it to a gunsmith for sights..I would just buy one with sights,that leaves out budget rifles,but by the time you buy the sights,and pay the smith then you will have more than spent the savings of a budget priced rifle..
Click to expand...
Plus when you get done putting sights on the budget rifle, you'll have spend the same money and still have a budget rifle.

To the OP, you also need to think about weight. Light rifles in large centerfire calibers don't tend to be fun. That's why I recommended a full sporter weight rifle. But if what you want is a light/mountain rifle, you'll get different recommendations. They almost never come with factory sights.
 
Have a look at Cabelas "Gun Library" for Remington 700 30-06. Stick to older manf. date. Some even have scopes. New is not always better and hunting rifles are generally well kept with good bores.
 
MCMXI said:
OK, so you like the name and you like wood stocked and blued rifles in corrosive environments whereas I don't like either. Big deal! And it is helpful to recommend a rifle that costs 50% more than the indicated budget ... not really.
Click to expand...
You're way off base. I was not referring to the OP's question. If he prefers a stainless/synthetic gun that's fine. I sure see no harm in it. I was responding to your statement that calling a blued/wood gun the Alaskan is some sort of false advertising (and by implication not suitable for Alaska) when I know it very much is.
Corrosive environment? Really? I do hunt near the ocean occasionally but that's rare. Rain is the most common "corrosive" I deal with, and that's handled with a quick oil wipe down at the end of the day.
You make it sound like Alaska is full of boiling sulfur springs.
 
How many people here have had wood stocked guns break in the field or rust out in spite of proper care? What about being thrown severely off zero due to changing temps and humidity?

This is actually a serious question, not my usual smarta$$ery.

I'm just wondering if the new synthetic and stainless rifles really offer a noticeable advantage over the walnut and blue guns or if it's sort of high-Def televisions. After a certain resolution, your eye can't tell the difference anyway.
 
I was responding to your statement that calling a blued/wood gun the Alaskan is some sort of false advertising (and by implication not suitable for Alaska) when I know it very much is.
Corrosive environment? Really? I do hunt near the ocean occasionally but that's rare. Rain is the most common "corrosive" I deal with, and that's handled with a quick oil wipe down at the end of the day.
You make it sound like Alaska is full of boiling sulfur springs.
Click to expand...

So a very noble metal such as copper in a steel barrel forming a strong galvanic couple combined with the byproducts of combustion and high humidity doesn't count as a corrosive environment? In addition, is wood the best choice for dimensional stability from -20F to 100F? You've mentioned that your rifle is suitable for Alaska but I'm talking about something being more suitable and demonstrably superior. Clearly you're taking this personally but why get so bent out of shape because someone on a forum doesn't like what you like? We use what we have but that doesn't mean that what we have or what we've had success with make that choice the best choice.

If as @Nature Boy suggested the OP is going to go over budget, then why not a Ruger Guide Gun as Deaf Smith suggested. It's lighter, better suited to harsh conditions if needed (stainless steel and laminate wood), it has an optional brake for those that need it, a shorter barrel for ease of carry/use and it costs less? At the end of the day it makes no difference to me what the OP chooses. It's good that he/she is thinking about the choice and perhaps some of our posts help them to make a decision that's right for them.

http://www.ruger-firearms.com/products/guideGun/specSheets/47118.html?buy=1
 
Last edited:
Jason_W said:
How many people here have had wood stocked guns break in the field or rust out in spite of proper care? What about being thrown severely off zero due to changing temps and humidity?

This is actually a serious question, not my usual smarta$$ery.

I'm just wondering if the new synthetic and stainless rifles really offer a noticeable advantage over the walnut and blue guns or if it's sort of high-Def televisions. After a certain resolution, your eye can't tell the difference anyway.
Click to expand...
I glass bed the action and first 3/4 inch of the barrel on all my wood guns. Rest of barrel free floated. I mean free floated with a very noticeable gap. Never had a zero change.
 
MCMXI said:
So a very noble metal such as copper in a steel barrel forming a strong galvanic couple combined with the byproducts of combustion and high humidity doesn't count as a corrosive environment? In addition, is wood the best choice for dimensional stability from -20F to 100F? You've mentioned that your rifle is suitable for Alaska but I'm talking about something being more suitable and demonstrably superior. Clearly you're taking this personally but why get so bent out of shape because someone on a forum doesn't like what you like? We use what we have but that doesn't mean that what we have or what we've had success with make that choice the best choice.

If as @Nature Boy suggested the OP is going to go over budget, then why not a Ruger Guide Gun as Deaf Smith suggested. It's lighter, better suited to harsh conditions if needed (stainless steel and laminate wood), it has an optional brake for those that need it, a shorter barrel for ease of carry/use and it costs less? At the end of the day it makes no difference to me what the OP chooses. It's good that he/she is thinking about the choice and perhaps some of our posts help them to make a decision that's right for them.

http://www.ruger-firearms.com/products/guideGun/specSheets/47118.html?buy=1
Click to expand...
This is getting way to far off the OP so I will not pursue it further. Perhaps in a new thread?
By the way, copper is not a very noble metal. In fact it's not even a regular noble metal.
 
Remington is the first that comes to mind. If the rifle doesn't have iron sights there are plenty of aftermarket options.

I went with a Tikka in 30-06. No iron sights but an amazing action and trigger.
 
You can probably get the biggest bang per buck going used along with your iron sights criteria. Otherwise, you can also haunt CDNN's website which often has fantastic deals on .30-06 closeout rifles from various sources.

Of the rifles mentioned above, if new, I would probably go with a Tikka or Savage as cost effective, accurate rifles, but not sure whether iron sights come standard nor what you want in a stock--synthetic is cheaper than full figured wood.
 
boom boom said:
You can probably get the biggest bang per buck going used along with your iron sights criteria. Otherwise, you can also haunt CDNN's website which often has fantastic deals on .30-06 closeout rifles from various sources.

Of the rifles mentioned above, if new, I would probably go with a Tikka or Savage as cost effective, accurate rifles, but not sure whether iron sights come standard nor what you want in a stock--synthetic is cheaper than full figured wood.
Click to expand...
I agree used is the way to go,espicially if your not stuck on one particular brand,or model..It's getting close enough to deer seasons that it may not be a buyers market,but around Christmas,and early summer seems to be the time of year that I have gotten the best deals on used rifles.I have gotten some good deals at one particular pawn shop in town,and there is another one in town that wants an arm and a leg for their guns..You can always go with a good low power scope if you can't find something that suits you with sights.
 
I own a Winchester Shadow in -06 as well as a 700 BDL in the same. A few moons back my father had a Browning A-Bolt SS with BOSS, again same chambering.

If I were ranking in order of accuracy:
Winchester
Browning
Remington

If by reliability:

3-way tie

If I ordered by looks:
Remington
Browning
Winchester

By ergonomics:
Winchester
Remington/Browning

If I could own just one of the above, the Winchester. Despite being purchased used, despite the original flexy plastic stock, despite the matte finish, and cheap recoil pad, I simply appreciate its accuracy and smooth action. Think I gave $220 for it 7 or 8 years ago which left plenty of breathing room for needful things.

It need not be a Model 70 specifically but I agree with others who suggest going used to a quality rifle you can upgrade at any time.
 
CZ 550 fs or Win 70 Alaskan if factory sights are important to you.

Id pick the CZ all day everyday. CRF, set trigger, as accurate as you can get, 20.5" bbl will be handy, heavy but balanced and makes for mild recoil, and sharp too!

If sights are not important then i personally would go with a CZ still(550 or 557), or Wby series2/Howa, Tikka T3, Savage 10, or Ruger American. In that order.
 
By the way, copper is not a very noble metal. In fact it's not even a regular noble metal.
Click to expand...

It's noble compared to carbon steel which is all that matters. When you add in the mixed potential theory of a galvanic couple the steel barrel will anodically protect the copper with the corrosion potential of the steel driven well above its corrosion potential in the uncoupled state. As a result that steel becomes a sacrificial anode resulting in pitting if there's a suitable electrolyte present. This effect is much less of an issue with 416 or 416R stainless barrels which are common in the industry.

The OP asked about the "best" .30-06 Sprg for $800 or less so it's worth thinking about corrosion resistance if the objective is "the best".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

F
  • Locked
  • Poll
30-06 or .308 for 1000 yds sniping?
2 3
Replies
50
Views
8K
Firepower!
F
robbt
  • Locked
reproduction model 1917 military 30-06 barrels
Replies
0
Views
299
robbt
robbt
HoosierQ
  • Locked
1903 and 1917 with Modern 30-06
Replies
6
Views
978
snowtigger
S
minutemen1776
  • Locked
.30-06 Handi with iron sights?
Replies
22
Views
3K
RPRNY
RPRNY
M
  • Locked
Review: Remington 783 ...
Replies
3
Views
2K
Caliper_Mi
C
Back
Top