Common calibers, hunting ranges

[ArmedBear]

I'm new at hunting.

I've seen all sorts of conflicting information about the effectiveness of common ammunition for big game hunting.

In a magazine oriented towards selling stuff, an author referred to .30-30 as a cartridge good for deer out to around 100 yards, and .30-06 good to 300 for deer. He said magnum rounds would stretch that to 400 and allow you to hunt larger game like elk.

Now, I've been shooting for 25 years, off and on, anyway, so I know what ballistics tables mean. The numbers tossed around by these writers seem based on absolutely nothing.

.30-30 looks like it should be good out to at least 200 yards for deer; .30-06 should work on deer as far away as you can realistically hit the deer, and on elk out to maybe 300 yards.

But I have no clue, really.

Anyone with real experience have some good info that's not tied to selling me on buying some expensive new gun chambered in a whiz-bang Super-Duper-Short-Ultra-Magnum Shoulder Killer round?

Thanks!

 

[Lennyjoe]

The 30-30 has killed more deer than any cartridge made. That being said, the 30-30 does have its limitations. Bullet drop and energy loss becomes a factor in the 30-30 after 150 yds but have killed plenty of deer beyond that.

The -06 is a little more versitile in ammo selection. You can get plenty of store bought ammo for hunting deer and elk. The -06 has more energy and less bullet drop than the 30-30.

The 30-30 is a bit weak for Elk and the -06 would be a better choice. If you reload then the -06 would be the one to have. You can make specific loads for each type of animal you want to hunt.

All things being said, it depends primarily on where your going to hunt and what it is your after. More to follow from other fellow THR hunters I'm sure.

 

[dakotasin]

Bullet drop and energy loss

i believe that answers the question. in fact, you can remove 'bullet drop' from the equation if you want to be concise, and you can remove 'loss' if you want to be super concise.

1000 ft/lbs of energy is nice to have on tap at the target for killing deer. some would argue that 500 is an absolute minimum.

 

[Preacherman]

Remember that when the .30-30 came out, back in the 1890's, it was widely touted as a superb round for grizzly bear hunting!!!

That was because in comparison to the blackpowder loads that had preceded it in lever-action rifles, it was an outstandingly superior load. Of course, "better" loads soon came along (notably the .30-'06), but the .30-30 is still just as good as it was when it was introduced - in newer loadings such as Hornady's new offering, it's probably much improved.

I'd feel comfortable using a .30-30 out to 150-175 yards, with an appropriately-zeroed rifle. For longer ranges, I'd prefer something in the .308 or .30-'06 class, out to 250-300 yards. These two calibers would take care of any deer hunting I wanted to do, up to and including elk. If I wanted to go to moose or caribou, I'd still feel comfortable with a .30-'06, but would prefer to go up-gun to the .375 H&H for a bit of extra energy with a virtually identical ballistic profile (but without the nasty recoil of many cartridges in the .338 or uber-high-power .30 caliber class).

Hope this helps.

 

[IDriveB5]

is there a "rule-of-thumb" minimum amount of energy needed to kill certain game?

example(numbers random, i hae no idea):

deer - 500ft·lb
elk - 750ft·lb
black bear - 1000ft·lb
...

just wondering

 

[Art Eatman]

I go along with the Preacherman. I'll add that probably more deer have been wounded and lost via thutty-thutty than any other cartridge. Consder the typical iron sights, the problems with estimating range when beyond 150 yards or so, and the trajectory of a .30-30 out beyond 200 yards.

The world is full of deer cartridges that are reliable killers. Start around the.243 class, and move on up in caliber and bullet weight.

Elk? Same sort of deal, but with more Oomph! in the start-up cartridge sizes. .270, .308, .30-'06 would be good, but not necessarily for Mr. Way Over Yonder.

To me, the key to the whole deal is that you match your skill from a hasty rest position, limiting your range to that where you always hit the end of a beer can. If I have a really snuggly position against a rock or tree, I might be confident out to 400. Sometimes, only 100. Offhand? Varies with the day.

A good hit on an elk's neck with a .30-30 at 100 yards is probably gonna kill him. A body hit at 200 may well mean a long, long tracking distance and maybe failure.

Gunzines and salt shakers go well together...

, Art

 

[MNgoldenbear]

is there a "rule-of-thumb" minimum amount of energy needed to kill certain game?

example(numbers random, i hae no idea):

deer - 500ft·lb
elk - 750ft·lb
black bear - 1000ft·lb
...

just wondering

Not one that really works. Too many other factors besides KE of the bullet. Seen some "formulas", and they are usually designed to declare the preferred cartridge of the inventor as being suitable for whatever purpose they intend. Bullet construction and shot placement are huge contributors to overall effect of the shot.

 

[IDriveB5]

makes sense. i was hoping that there was some sort of guideline that would give you an idea how much energy you need to deliver to the vitals to get a kill. lots and lots of variables at play. no accurate model of nature is ever accurate, but you gotta start somewhere.

 

[Preacherman]

Energy measurement is a very, very imprecise way of working out what round to use for hunting specific game. The energy delivered (according to the ballistics charts) at various ranges is just that - energy on paper. Whether or not that energy is transferred to the target animal in an efficient way depends on the bullet - a military FMJ will make a small "knitting-needle" type hole all the way through, but not transfer much energy, whereas a SP or HP round will often mushroom and stop in the body, transferring all the energy.

It's also a question of the caliber involved. For example, if you compare the Remington .300 Ultra Mag with a 180gr. bullet to the .375 H&H Mag with a 270gr. bullet, the former, lighter caliber actually has more energy at any given range than the H&H, thanks to a significantly higher velocity. However, the lighter .300 bullet will not have near the penetration and damage potential on heavy game (e.g. Cape buffalo) that the slower, heavier .375 bullet will. So much depends on choosing the right caliber to deliver the energy.

Having said that, it also depends where the energy is delivered. If you put it in the "boiler room" (heart/lung area), and deliver enough energy, you've got your animal right there - provided that it doesn't get an adrenaline rush and charge off into the bush. It's still dead, but it hasn't admitted it yet! By the same token, if you break bone and put it down, it's a "mobility kill", but not necessarily a life-threatening wound (as some hunters have found to their cost, walking up to an animal they've shot!). Shot placement remains critical.

Even if you get it all right - bullet energy, efficient energy transfer, accurate shot placement - some animals are just plain ornery, and won't lie down and die. Hunting lore is full of stories of such critters, particularly in Africa, where some species (e.g. the Cape buffalo) have built up spectacular reputations for their ability (in some cases) to soak up bullets and keep on trucking. Nature's contrary that way, I guess...

 

[IDriveB5]

ok, so how do you decide what round to use for which animal? of course where you are hunting matter also. do you just say "ehh, i guess thats about right"?
ideally, you want a high velocity mass to dump all its KE into the target, very quickly, so you have the greatest KE and impact. i just find it hard to believe that someone hasnt come up with some sort of quantitative approximation for choosing a hunting round. all in all, when i get around to buying my own hunting rifle, i think ill get myself a .30-06 and a reloader

 

[Ankeny]

limiting your range to that where you always hit the end of a beer can

I can (and have) taken several elk well beyond the range where I can hit the end of a beer can cold and on demand. I can easily go prone and hit a 10 inch steel plate day in and day out at 500 yards round after round after round with my normal hunting rifle. Under good conditions, a 10 inch plate is pretty much toast out to 700 yards. Why on Earth would I want to pass up a trophy bull elk at 400 yards just because I can't always hit a 3-4 inch circle? FWIW, always hitting the end of a beer can, cold bore, under field conditions, at 400 yards isn't in the cards for anyone on this planet, period. Humanely killing a deer at 400 yards is a piece of cake for any accomplished rifleman.

 

[ArmedBear]

I have a .30-'06 that will shoot MOA if treated very well. It has a good 3-9x40mm scope on it with a reticle that shows bullet drop out to 500 yards.

Now I am aware that field conditions and range conditions are different.

However, if I can keep rounds in a 6" circle under a given set of conditions, it sounds like I can shoot a deer at any applicable range, then. Upwards of 400 yards, I can't trust that I can shoot that accurately under any conditions, but at 400 yards there's plenty of energy left in the bullet. If it's really windy, maybe I'm limited to 100 yards, but let's say that conditions are ideal, and let's assume that I have a good rangefinder to use with my ballistic reticle scope.

So why do people say that you should have a 300 Win Mag or better to shoot at 400 yards?

Is this just magnum mania, like in the handgun world where people are recommending .44 Magnum when .38 Special would work fine? Is it sales hype? Or is a .30-'06 more likely to just wound the deer but the .300 WM would drop it?

If I have a .30-'06 as a neophyte hunter, my limitations are due to my own lack of skill (and I pray, my own ethical and humble recognition of my limitations) than the round, right? Is there any reason to get a .300 Win Mag?

Thanks, all! I do appreciate the information!

 

[Preacherman]

ideally, you want a high velocity mass to dump all its KE into the target

Not necessarily. High velocity imparts energy, sure, but it all depends on the animal you're shooting as to whether or not you want a fast energy dump. Shooting varmints - sure. Shooting deer - not so much of an "instant" energy dump, as you want to ensure that your bullet penetrates deeply enough to take out vital organs. Dangerous game like Cape buffalo or elephant - you don't want an "energy dump" so much as really, really deep penetration, and the ability to break very heavy bones, which is why solids are so often used on these animals. Also, bear in mind that energy is imparted by mass, as well as velocity. If you propel a very light bullet very fast, or a very heavy bullet more slowly, you'll still have comparable energy figures, but very different bullet behavior. Personally, I tend towards heavier bullets, moving more slowly - this has worked for me on two continents (so far).

So why do people say that you should have a 300 Win Mag or better to shoot at 400 yards?

I don't know why you "should" have such a cartridge. The good ol' .30-'06 will do a good job out to several hundred yards, provided you know its trajectory well enough to allow for bullet drop. The .300 Win. Mag. will have a somewhat flatter trajectory, and something like the Remington .300 Ultra Mag will be flatter still. Both will deliver more energy on target, due to their higher velocity, but if you hit your target in the right place with an efficiently-performing bullet, you'll get the job done with a slower cartridge every time.

Jeff Cooper maintains (and I agree) that under normal circumstances, no hunter should take a shot at more than 300 yards. If you're an exceptionally good shot, with a steady rest, and a rifle that can be accurate and deliver sufficient energy at longer ranges, then I guess it's up to you to make your own decision about longer shots. Personally, I've never taken a hunting shot at more than 200 yards: I try to get closer to the animal, relying on fieldcraft skills to do so. I would not shoot at further than 300 yards.

 

[Gunpacker]

I disagree with the 30-30 ever being a "superior to black powder loads of the time" for grizzly especially. The 30-30 has never been in the same class of killing power as the big .45s, or 50 cal BP rifles. It was simply hype. With the public unknowing, it was irresponsible for the gun companies to promote them as such.
The .45-70 will outperform the 30-30 at any range on any game. Then you go up to the 45-90, 45-110, or the various 50s. The 45-70 is still a viable gun for any game including grizzly bear, with few modern cartridges being as capable.

 

[sumpnz]

Is this just magnum mania

Ayup. My 6.5x55mm rifle (roughly equivalent to .260 Rem) killed a large cow elk just fine. Some folks would say that even a .270 Win (6.8x63mm) is too light a caliber and say you need at least a .300 Win Mag. Horse hockey, as a cantakerous colonel from M*A*S*H would have said. For deer, if you already have a .30-06 (7.62x63mm) you have all the gun you'll ever need. That round has enough killing power to reach out well past what your skills and ethics will allow.

For elk, and especially moose, I could see the point in up-gunning, especially if you wanted to be able to take longer shots, or just have a bit more insurance on being able to anchor the animal at shorter ranges. But there's still not much *need* for a magnum in those cases. 8x57 Mauser, 9.3x62mm, .35 Whelen, etc will all accomplish that job.

 

[Preacherman]

I disagree with the 30-30 ever being a "superior to black powder loads of the time" for grizzly especially.

Gunpacker, I agree with you, except that the quote was:

in comparison to the blackpowder loads that had preceded it in lever-action rifles

I'm sure you'll agree that in comparison to the ubiquitous .44-40, the .30-30 was a huge improvement. It did well even in comparison to the bigger lever-action rounds (e.g. the Winchester .45-75 in the Model 1876, which was not very common). Sure, the Model 1886 could handle more powerful stuff, as could the Marlin lever-actions, but most of those who used the .45-70, -90, -110, etc. used the Sharps or Remington single-shot rifles, which were much heavier and less easy to carry than the handy lever-action carbines and rifles. IIRC, the .44-40 was by far the most commonly used round in lever-action rifles for a very long time, outselling (several times over) all the other lever-action calibers combined (e.g. .32-20, .38-40, etc.)

 

[berettashotgun]

I will add that bullet selection is a HUGE part of the picture. Last weekend I shot a white tail at 255 yards with a 7mm Rem mag, homerolled with 150gr win/nosler failsafe moly coated bullets. High hip shot. Was using a ruger #1, stainless laminated , and although I was able to exactly go straight in a line to the "percieved" spot of the shot, the deer was nowhere to be found and there was no blood. I heard the bullet impact- after a few minutes searching the deer was 15 yards behind me laying in knee high grass. NO BLOOD anywhere, the bullet had passed thru the upper hip, clipped the spine and she had passed. NO blood on the ground. Body cavity was full upon gutting the carcass, but I swore off those bullets for any deer for the rest of my deer hunting days. Bullets are vitally important if you don't get a great chest shot or spine shot. BTW, both my kids used a 243 with excellent results. A 300 win is plenty for most anything in the lower 48, but big bears require BIG bullets.

 

[Art Eatman]

ArmedBear, you can get a feel from even conflicting stories in the gunrags.

Take elk hunting. The authors tout everything from the .308 to one of the .30 magnums or a .338. Okay, fine. That tells me that most anything within that power range is gonna work. .270, .30-'06, .300 WinMag, for instance. Or, add in such as the 7mm Rem Mag or equivalent.

Distance? Any of those cartridges will work just fine out to 300 yards. The control is your own skill level. And that's not to say that a really good field shooter can't do just fine at 400.

Deer? Almost any centerfire will work, once you get above the pipsqueaks like the .22 Hornet. It's not that a Hornet won't kill a deer, but the idea of a clean, ethical kill means "kill quickly".

A .222 or a .223 into a deer's neck is a one-time event. Same for a .243, but the .243 can also do well on a heart/lung shot, from my own experience. If you want to reach out farther than a couple of hundred yards, something like a .270/.308/'06 will do just fine.

So a lot of this stuff is more for the sake of argument than any fixed "rule". About the same BS as politics or horse-racing. Just opinion, based on some sort of limited experience.

Look: I've been reloading for and shooting an '06 since 1950. That doesn't make me an expert on the .375 H&H and African hunting, but I do know a bunch about Texas whitetails and various other cartridges' performance than just the '06.

But I figure I wouldn't have a problem doing my first shooting at an elk up in the Rockies, just based on what I've seen from bullet performance on deer and steel and from reading comments about various bullets. It's just not all that big a deal beyond some common sense.

, Art

 

[Southern Shooter]

30-06 and 30-30 bullet weights for white tail dear?

I live in the deep South and have heard many opinions about what bullet weight should be used in these two calibers for white tail deer. I would like some input from sources outside of the local "hunting camp". My son shoots a Savage model 110 bolt action 30-06 and I shoot a Marlin 336 30-30.

What weight bullet would ya'll use and why and why not the other(s)?

30-30...150 or 170 grain?

30-06...150, 165, 180, other grain?

 

[Preacherman]

Well, I'll give you my choices, but others may differ.

.30-30: I shoot 150gr. Remington flat-points 90% of the time. They're 2 MOA accurate in my Marlins, and do a great job on Louisiana-size whitetail. Sometimes they penetrate through-and-through, other times they stay under the skin on the off side. I've used 170gr. loads, and they function just as well, but since the 150gr. stuff is perfectly functional, I've not seen the need to re-zero for the heavier bullet. If I were shooting bigger deer, or hogs, with my .30-30, I'd probably go for the heavier bullet.

.308/.30-'06: I tend to standardise on the 165gr. loads as being "all things to all men". They tend to do a great job on everything from small to large deer. I think the fact that they're relatively new loads, with new-technology bullets (the 150gr. and 180gr. loads have been around for decades) makes them rather more efficient at what they do. However, for Louisiana-size whitetail, almost any .30-'06 load is "overkill", as it's more than you need, given our smaller animals and typically sub-100-yard ranges. I use .30-30 and .44 Magnum lever-action rifles and carbines far more than bigger-cartridge bolt guns.

 

[Art Eatman]

I don't think there's a nickle's worth of difference between the 150 and the 170 in a .30-30. The gun is more limited by the sights than anything else, really, and when used where shorter distances are the rule, it's plenty good to 100 or 150 yards with either bullet. As usual, shot placement...

I've mostly used 150-grain bullets in my '06. Less recoil is the main reason. I've messed with 165s, but they seem to me to be a bit more than needed for whitetail, and possibly a bit light for elk. For the latter, I'd go to a 180-grain bullet.

The largetst buck I've shot with an '06 dressed out at 150 pounds. A neck shot, but I was way too close for the particular style of bullet. I was using a Sierra SPBT 150-grain at about 3,000 ft/sec, and the deer was only some 30 yards off. The bullet blew up in his neck. A flat-based Sierra SP would have blown on through.

I've never lost a deer from a body shot with a 150-grain '06 load. All but a couple were one-shot kills. I've had to make a coup de grace shot on a couple of running bucks that I hit a bit far back, but the spinal hit anchored them.

I had a cross-body shot on a buck at 350 yards. The 150-grain Bronze Point blew on through, hitting a rib on the way out and leaving a 2" hole in the off side. DRT.

So, generally, the old standard 150-grain bullet is about as good as it gets for whitetail...

I get excellent accuracy from the Federal Premium High Energy load with the Sierra 165-grain HPBT. I just wish it came in a 150-grain load. The only thing I've shot with it was a poor old coyote at maybe 40 yards, and it removed a big handful of chest, heart and other bodily parts. Serious yuck.

Art

 

[Lennyjoe]

I use 165gr Sierra Gamekings in my -06 and they haven't failed yet. Of course I've only shot 3 deer with them to this point.

When I had a 30-30 I used 150gr soft points on deer and hogs. They worked well.