Gun_nut said:What is the best for oregon 200-300yards away and say im hunting elk wich round would perform better with brush and being in a clearcut
dooooooh!..........sorrymolonlabe said:30-06
You did say .303 not .308
I beg to differ. In every modern commerical load or handload using bullets ranging from 125gr to 220gr, the 30-06 has at LEAST a 300fps advantage. It can't help it - it's got more powder capacity and operates at a higher pressure. The only time that 303R gets close to the 30-06 is when you're comparing modern 150gr 303R loads with M2 30-06 ball specs, and that hardly seems an appropriate comparison.Ehhhhhhh, in some loadings the two are ballistic twins.
I believe that 'bush' performance is really a combination of two factors; the rifle needs to be suited for fast snap shots, and the bullet used needs to be relatively impervious to lightweight brush. A key point here is that NO chambering or bullet shy of dangerous game fodder can plow through branches and twigs as if they're not there. Having said that, round nose or flat nose bullets (in any caliber) seem to be less affected by small brush that would a spitzer of equal weight/caliber.Would the .303 performe better in brush then the 30-06?
Agree with the premise that comfort with the rifle is at least equal in importance as is the chambering, but I cannot agree that these cartridges are 'so similar'. I've shot and loaded for both for a number of years now, and there is just no WAY that anyone can make the case (based upon actual empirical numbers, not just stating something without proof) that the 303R is on par with the 30-06 using modern loads as the point of reference.These two cartridges are so similar that I think you should pick the one that makes you feel better.
rbernie said:Agree with the premise that comfort with the rifle is at least equal in importance as is the chambering, but I cannot agree that these cartridges are 'so similar'. I've shot and loaded for both for a number of years now, and there is just no WAY that anyone can make the case (based upon actual empirical numbers, not just stating something without proof) that the 303R is on par with the 30-06 using modern loads as the point of reference.
QUOTE]
The word 'similar' in the dictionary that I am looking at says "nearly but not exactly the same or alike". I did not say that the 303 British and the 30-06 were the same, but similar. I still beleive that for the application proposed in the initial part of this thread that the 303 British is as capable as the 30-06.