30 Mags

ExAgoradzo said:

i Googled ‘compare 30 magnums’ in a couple variations and found a Craig Boddington article. I couldn’t find anything else.

I would like to see if there is a factual comparison of the most popular (Win, WBY, Nosler, etc.). Some body has to have done some super research and published it.

I’d like to know also some thinking on bullet weight. So, the short of my theory is that in the .308 the 168gr class, then move up to 180 gr class in the .30-06, then if you get a mag (whatever flavor) move up to the 200 gr class. This should get you similar ballistics (all else being equal, which of course they never are...).

Anyway, my buddy has a 300 WBY and we started talking. As I have no 30 mag at all and really don’t intend to get one, I just wanted to have something to talk with some research backing the conversation.

Thanks,
Greg

Click to expand...

Unless you're trying to create a laser with a 130ish gr and a .300 win mag....lol when I still had my .300 win, my favorite was a 180, a good compromise of on game performance, velocity, b.c., and recoil (as far as .300s go, it suited my uses handily). But having moved to the 7 stw, my favorite flavor is a hot moving 162, oddly the 175s aren't even on my radar for the time being. Comparatively, in a realistic day to day for many people a 7-08 is plenty with a 140. I think that the chosen application makes the biggest decision, were I to entertain another .30 mag class bolt gun it'd likely still run 180s (maybe 165s) hard-barring the desperate preparation for nasty close work with a 220 of course. I can't find reason for the average Joe to use more than the '06 offers, largely because bullet technology has greatly leveled the field. The thing to really decide is which bullet do you wanna move how fast to achieve your goal? I realize that you're not getting one, but that's really what it comes down to.

Best comparisons I can think there are would be to peruse loading manuals.

horsey300 said:

Unless you're trying to create a laser with a 130ish gr and a .300 win mag....lol when I still had my .300 win, my favorite was a 180, a good compromise of on game performance, velocity, b.c., and recoil (as far as .300s go, it suited my uses handily). But having moved to the 7 stw, my favorite flavor is a hot moving 162, oddly the 175s aren't even on my radar for the time being. Comparatively, in a realistic day to day for many people a 7-08 is plenty with a 140. I think that the chosen application makes the biggest decision, were I to entertain another .30 mag class bolt gun it'd likely still run 180s (maybe 165s) hard-barring the desperate preparation for nasty close work with a 220 of course. I can't find reason for the average Joe to use more than the '06 offers, largely because bullet technology has greatly leveled the field. The thing to really decide is which bullet do you wanna move how fast to achieve your goal? I realize that you're not getting one, but that's really what it comes down to.

Click to expand...

I shot primarily 180s from my 300WMs also, and never had an issue.
My experience also mimics Horseys in that I dropped the 300s for a 7mm STW, and I went a step farther and eventually just went back to my 7mm Remington Magnum entirely.
My biggest complaint about the 300s, Is that for the amount of punishment they dont deliver significantly better down range performance. They give you some yardage, but dont really increase the size or type of game you can harvest.
I still want to try a wby, an ultra, and perhaps one of the even larger cased .30s
That said I think the Winchester is about as much punishment as I want from a regular weight rifle, and it wont realistically do anything my 7mag wont do nearly as well.

Grab a reloading manual and tabulate your own list, as the performance data is all rather simple to compare.

Then if you want some interesting weekend reading, consider some individual histories out there - for example, the fact some of the older 300wby rifles were originally 1:12” twist barrels (even 1:14”, I have been told), not suitable for the 200-230grn pills which would make use of such a large case. Consider the dimensional challenges some of these cartridges face, such as the 300 RUM not fitting in box mags, and the exceedingly short neck of the 300wm, or the uncommon bolt faces of the 300 Norma or 300 Dakota and extreme body taper and shoulder angle of the 300 H&H. Or the specific design criteria chosen for certain cartridges, such as the 300 wsm or Ruger Compact Magnum designed to fit into short actions. Consider shortcomings in brass design, like the double radius Weatherby shoulders, or the belts on so many of our favorite 300 mags. Supply chain and logistics can be critical for some of these too - sourcing brass for many of these big magnums is a chore, and often, the products are less than desirable compared to those available for some other cartridges on the market. Lots of interesting reading to be done, for sure.

Varminterror said:

Grab a reloading manual and tabulate your own list, as the performance data is all rather simple to compare.

Click to expand...

This, the older book manuals I have have a short history written for every cartridge. As a kid I read every one of them.

I take anything written by Chuck Hawlks with a grain of salt.

I've had a couple of 300 WM's over the years, and a 300 WSM. Here is the short version. The 30 magnums, 30-06, and 308 all shoot the same bullets. At under 400 yards no animal will ever notice the difference. The 30 magnums don't kill anything any deader than a 308 at that range. As long as impact speeds are above 1800 fps any of them will kill anything in North America with 165-180 gr bullets. Once impact velocities fall below that 1800 fps threshold then you may not get reliable expansion. Trajectory with the magnums is a LITTLE flatter, but not enough that it couldn't easily be compensated for with modern optics.

With that standard set a 308 is a 400-450 yard rifle. The 30-06 gets you to 500-550, the 30 caliber magnums 600+. The faster magnums will add a few more yards than the slower 30 magnums. The question becomes, how far do you have the skills to shoot? I came to the conclusion that about 400 was my limit so I let all of my magnums go. I still have a 30-06 with too much history to sell, but rarely use it anymore deferring to my 308's.

Going to high BC 200-240 gr bullets will stretch that range even more in 30-06 and the 300's. The 308 won't shoot high BC bullets that heavy fast enough to be an advantage. It will shoot shorter 200-220 gr RN hunting bullets quite well, as will the 30-06 and 300 magnums. With those bullets even a 308 gives up nothing to a 338 WM at close range on the really big stuff. The biggest advantage your 338 has is the ability to shoot heavy 225+ high BC bullets with flat trajectories out at long ranges. It doesn't really do anything a 30-06 or 300 WM won't do just as well. Your 375 is the next real step up in performance over 30-06.

The 300 WSM has tolerable recoil. Not much more than 30-06 in equal weight rifles. But starting with 300 WM recoil becomes significantly more, even with much heavier rifles.

Get a .300 H&H to go with your .375. Still my favorite .300 mag., though I never owned one. I did have a .300 Win. Mag., and that would be my second recommendation. I'm not a fan of the short mags, too many ended up in the shop with feeding problems, usually user-induced.

The 308 Norma Magnum is best.
The End

Varminterror makes some good points. Grab a loading manual and do your own comparisons. Many of them have a paragraph about their history and any cautions about cases, rifle actions, ect. I have had 4 of the 30 magnums and still own 3 of them. Like all cartridges, they all have some advantages and disadvantages.

For efficiency you have the Norma and WSM in the middle is the H&H and WM. Then you get the most inefficient ones like the Weatherby, Ultramag, and NOSLER.

I looked at max velocity. Then look at powder charge for the velocity. Finally compare each bullet weight velocity.
This left me wanting a 308Norma or 300 wsm.
Like Loonwolf, I find the 300WM to be the top of my recoil threshold. A 7mm is much better.

I would agree that the most factual comparison of the 30 caliber mags would be a reloading manual. With that, you can see the difference between the charge weights and the exit velocities. The biggest thing to note is to not judge cartridges designed in the 1960's through the lens of 2019.

So, what are the 30 mags designed to do?

Of course the magnumitis wars raged to have the most powerful 30 caliber ever for advertising. Winchester, Remington, Norma, Dakota, Weatherby, Lazzeroni, etc. There is a point of diminishing returns. When Remington started making their power level ammo for the 30 RUM, it was apparent that the average person didn't want to shoot full power 30 RUM ammo. Ammo that was similar to 300WM (power level 2) or 30-06 (power level 1) was more palatable for most owners of a 30 RUM rifle.

I agree that Chuck Hawk's opinions have to be viewed as coming from a paid advertiser. There can be both personal bias and advertising bias at work. It is no secret that his articles lean away from most magnum cartridges and lean toward a world where everyone uses a Marlin lever action, with a Bushnell riflescope, in Weaver rings, using Hornady ammo, sighted with Caldwell accessories, to take their CPX2 deer.... you get the idea. A quick look at the recommendation articles make easy determination of where the income lies.

Trying to weed through the opinion to the facts can be a little difficult, but he mentions mean point blank range (MPBR) in the article. He is totally right about this - the 30 mags were designed to be hunting rifles that extended the MPBR further than standard cartridges. Long before the days where some bearded guy with tattoos drops a video on youtube every week, suggesting that every hunter shoot X number of rounds in their rifle before taking to the field........ people who went elk hunting would buy four boxes of magnum ammo for their hunt. They sighted in their 30 mag elk rifle with about 10 rounds or less and put the POI 2-3" high at 100 yards. Thirty mag exit velocities vary, but in general - with that zero, they are good to about 400 yards and do not have to aim their duplex recticle scope above the top of the back of their target. See the elk on the other side of the valley? - no problem. Get your shooting sticks out and collect your trophy. Yearly round count on your 30 mag elk rifle - less than 20. With four boxes of the same lot number ammo, you've got at least five years worth of ammo before you need to sight in again. Belts? Radiused necks? Who cares since the ammo cost was cheap compared to the total cost of the hunt.

Cartridges that were made for hunting are looked upon as luddite pieces of old technology in comparison to the latest, high bc, fad-named cartridge advertised to shoot targets at 1,300 yards out of a 12lb rifle with a 2lb+ scope.
It's not that the 30 mags (or 270 win, or 7mm mags) do anything different than what they were designed to do. Today, more people target shoot and fewer people hunt game where it is ideal to use a 30 mag. Couple that with a "264 crew" that doesn't understand why anyone wouldn't use a .264" and that goes a long way to explaining the disdain for 30 cal anything.

Thanks for reading.

A factor seldom mentioned, when at all, in discussions of the .30Mags, is their accuracy. But it became a matter of considerable interest, even controversy, in the summer of 1935 when a guy by the name of Ben Comfort won the 1000 yard Wimbledon Cup match at Camp Perry using a rifle chambered for .300 H&H magnum. His win was protested because the Magnum's higher velocity gave him an advantage over the .30'06's used by other competitors. Ben's win was upheld by the tournament judges and within two years Winchester introduced their M-70 Target rifle in .300 H&H, which ruled long range for next several years. About 1960 and a few years thereafter, the .300 H&H had been largely replaced in 1000 yd target competition by a wildcat Magnum called the .30/338, which was the .338 Win Mag necked down to .30 cal. It was a fine cartridge, and along with the better rifles and optical sights coming along about then won matches and set records. And then in 1963 Winchester introduced their .300 Win Mag, which, like the .30/338, offered good case capacity while fitting in standard length rifle actions. (The longer .300 H&H cartridge required a longer action.) Even though the new .300 Win Mag seemed a natural for long range target shooting, many fans of the .30/338 offered thumbs down opinions of the new .300 because, among other things, "the neck was too shot for good accuracy." About that time I was finally out of college, had a decent job, was active in high power rifle competition, and was was in the mood to build my own 1000 yd target rifle for Wimbledon and similar competitions. (Which were fired from unsupported prone position, with iron or any(scope) sights.) That was 50 years ago-a half century-and the resulting rifle is show here. Built on Pre-64 M-70 action, wood stock (that was before synthetics) Canjar trigger, and fitted with three Douglas stainless barrels. Scope shown is Redfield 3200, which was pretty fancy stuff back then. Now the rifle is on it's third and last barrel, have worn out the first two in competitions over the years. The point is that old Magnum would still be competitive against the newest rifles chambered in calibers with snazzy names. The reason I know is because I bench tested it recently using some ammo I loaded for the Wimbledon Cup match back in 1994. It still has the right stuff.