Help choosing a Rifle

[jsj127]

Whenever I see threads like this I always remember what my dad told me when I was 15/16
He said, "son a 30.06 or 270, a 12 gauge and a 22 are all a man NEEDS. The rest are just WANTS."

I'm with the rest. 30.06, 270 or 308 for a one rifle gun cabinet.

 

[scythefwd]

I recently loaned out a 30-06 to a buddy of mine for hunting here in VA. The recoil is stout enough out of it (not bad.. but enough to give ya a good scope in the eye if you dont hold on) that I ask if folks have ever fired a 30-06 before and warn them before they shoot.

I've fired 300wby, 338 fed, 338 LM, those federal trueball slugs listed earlier.. I'm not exactly recoil shy but I do know that a lot of folks dont have the same tolerance as I do. End of the day, general concensus for most in the shooting community is that the 30-06 is at the top or near the top of the average persons recoil tolerances.. If you plan on hunting, you need to practice the shots you are going to do. Not just from a bench, but kneeling, of sticks, of field rests, sitting standing, etc. That takes a bit of practice.. and if your gun recoils uncomfortably hard after 1/2 box of ammo, you never really get those good practiced ingrained. 338 fed was fine for one shot.. but I'd not sit and shoot 100 at a time like I do with a 308... that one shot was enough.

 

[WTBguns10kOK]

Sorry, you're the one who failed reading comprehension. The poster said do the math, two shots from a .308 equals more energy than one shot from a .300wm. Energy does not kill. Read it again if you have to. The point is, it doesn't matter if his two shots deliver more energy if the one shot from the .300wm penetrates through the vitals that is all that is necessary.

You win, logic has no value.

 

[RentaCop]

I've taken elk in Wyoming with my .308 carbine. Two quick shots into the chest organs gets the job done fast. I can fire two quick shots due to moderate recoil whereas the hunter armed with a magnum can only fire one in same time period. Do the math, two .308 Winchester bullets hit the elk with more energy than just one magnum bullet.

Elk are tough but not armor-plated.

TR

Sorry friend, that is one of the most bizarre analogies I've heard in a while.

 

[Geno]

RentaCop said:

Sorry friend, that is one of the most bizarre analogies I've heard in a while.

RentaCop, TR is flat-out correct. Two (2) rounds of .308 Win to the vitals, will cause more physical damage than a single round of the .300 Win Mag, loaded with identical projectiles, regardless of velocities of each or either round.

Geno

 

[redneck2]

I don't know that I'd get too wrapped up over caliber. Does a deer really care if the 150 grain slug that whacks him comes from a 30-06 or a .308 or a .270? IMO, all the caliber wars stuff is nothing short of stupid. Get something that spits out the size slug you'll require in a caliber that has a good supply of ammo and you're good to go.

Personally, I'd wait until after the season and find somebody that wants to dump a nice used rifle. Typically, at that time they're hard up for money and you can get some great deals. Most likely, it will already have a scope.

I got a beautiful Savage 99 in .300 Savage for $400 that way. And I'd sure use it for anything you've listed. And I'll betcha the deer/elk/bear won't know the slug came from a .270/30-06/.308 instead of a .300WM. And, you won't take the beating the .300WM dishes out.

FWIW, fifty years ago the 30-06 was considered a very heavy round and commonly used for anything and everything in North America. And, I don't think the critters have gotten any tougher.

I just got back from an antelope hunt. Used a .243. Absolute pleasure to shoot as it has virtually zero recoil.

 

[dakotasouth]

I'll add to the group talking about .30-06. I have a featherweight model 70 that I like quite a lot for about any centerfire job there is...



Please understand that I am not trying to convince you otherwise, if you want .300 Win Mag, get a .300 Win Mag.

I have a .300 Wby in an ultralightweight Mk V bought for practically the same purpose you are talking about. All I will say is... hang on to it tight before you squeeze the bang switch.

Whether swayed to another caliber or not, this (http://www.winchesterguns.com/products/catalog/detail.asp?family=001C&mid=535200) is my lightweight rifle of choice.

 

[CB900F]

Fella's;

Fifty years ago I was actively shooting, hunting, and aware of the state-of-the-art in the firearms world. I can state that the .30-06 was not considered a very heavy round at that time. Remember, in 1964 there were literally millions of American men who had gone through WWII just twenty years prior to that. The vast majority of them used the .30-06 round in their primary infantry weapon. Heavy, no absolutely not, normal, yes. Heavy was the .375 H&H, very heavy was the relatively recently released .458 Winchester magnum.

900F

 

[wombat13]

RentaCop said:



RentaCop, TR is flat-out correct. Two (2) rounds of .308 Win to the vitals, will cause more physical damage than a single round of the .300 Win Mag, loaded with identical projectiles, regardless of velocities of each or either round.

Geno

Geno, T.R., and WTBGuns, the point I was trying to make is that simply pointing out that two rounds of .308 has more energy than one round of .300wm is irrelevant to determining which round is better for hunting elk (or anything else for that matter). Look at the data from the following table:

http://www.chuckhawks.com/rifle_ballistics_table2.htm

Energy @ 200 yards:

.308 win (165 gr.): 1,995 ft-lbs
.220 swift (55 gr.): 1,010 ft-lbs
.22-250 (55 gr.): 1,010 ft-lbs
.223 wssm (55 gr.): 1,051 ft-lbs
.243 win (95 gr.): 1,455 ft-lbs

You will notice that two rounds of .220 swift, .22-250, .223 wssm, and .243 win all have more energy than one round of .308. By the posters logic, that means that all of those rounds are better for elk hunting than .308. They all have considerably less recoil than .308, so the shooter should be able to get off multiple rounds of any of them in the time it takes to shoot one .308, at least by that poster's logic. In fact, the .308 has about 3x the recoil of the .22 cal rounds listed above!

http://www.chuckhawks.com/recoil_table.htm

Okay, you all convinced me. I'll leave my .300WM at home when I get an elk tag. I'll take a .22-250 instead.

 

[wombat13]

Fella's;

Fifty years ago I was actively shooting, hunting, and aware of the state-of-the-art in the firearms world. I can state that the .30-06 was not considered a very heavy round at that time. Remember, in 1964 there were literally millions of American men who had gone through WWII just twenty years prior to that. The vast majority of them used the .30-06 round in their primary infantry weapon. Heavy, no absolutely not, normal, yes. Heavy was the .375 H&H, very heavy was the relatively recently released .458 Winchester magnum.

900F

That's the point I was trying to make. The recoil in a .300WM isn't that bad. The recoil in a .300WM runs about 26 ft-lbs while a .30-06 runs about 20 ft-lbs. Somehow, that extra 6 ft-lbs is the difference between acceptable recoil for a great all around rifle and enough recoil to render one unable to shoot straight! A .338WM or .375 H&H runs about 7-10 ft-lbs more recoil than a .300WM. I guess it must be nearly impossible to shoot either of those accurately. Btw, 6 ft-lbs is the difference between 7mm-08 and .308 win. It just isn't all that much difference.

 

[CB900F]

Wombat;

And the point the rest of us are trying to make is that the difference in recoil energy between the .30-06 and the .300 Winchester magnum can make all the difference in the world to Joe Average. You say it's minor, most of us disagree with you. I believe that when the .30-03 was adopted, the Army did some studies on how much recoil ole Joe could withstand and still be an effective marksman. It was a factor in the design of the cartridge and the modification of it to the present .30-06. To them, at that time, the .30 was at the top of what they considered the recoil parameter to be.

Also, my son has a .300 Winchester magnum, and besides several other hunting rifles, I have a .30-06. We've traded off, shooting them side-by-side, and I might note that the stocks on each are good designs, known to handle recoil well. There's no doubt about it in our minds, the .300 wallops quite noticeably more than the .30-06. Enough more to breed flinch in a whole lotta shooters too I might add. I also shoot a .338 Winchester magnum, using 225 grain bullets at about 2850 fps, and there's not a real noticeable difference between that & the .300 flinging 180's faster. How much faster? I'm not sure, I don't have my son's load book for the gun.

Given what the O.P. has stated about his firearms experience, the majority of us think he's better off with the ought-6. However, as noted, he'll get what he wants to.

900F

 

[PistolPete45]

Just to add in the 7MM magnum . you have a great time shopping now so many great calibers & manufactures .

 

[wombat13]

Cb900f,

I agree that there isn't much noticeable difference in recoil between .300 and .338. I have a Ruger in .300 and my FIL has the same rifle in .338. I think many posters in this thread missed that the OP stated that he has hunted successfully with his father's .300 rum (one of his follow up posts). If he can handle that, the .300wm should not be a problem.

 

[Cee Zee]

.300wm 180gr @ 2960 6.5 lb rifle 34 ft-lbs

Where did you get that bit of info? It sure doesn't come from the Chuck Hawks site you linked to. They only list 8.5 lb rifles when talking about .300 Winmag recoil. In fact I consulted that very table before I made my post just to make sure. And if you think there's just a 8 lb. difference in recoil between a 8.5 lb rifle and a 6.5 lb. rifle I can only say that certainly hasn't been my experience. Others mention shotguns and their recoil. Let's talk about this post:

Winchester 12 ga slugs. 385 grains at 1725 fps. I guessed at 35 grains of powder and an 8 lb shotgun. Guess what? 26 Ftlbs of recoil, same as the typical .300wm.

Have you ever fired one of those slugs in a 6 lb. H&R single shot, breakdown shotgun? It will kick like a mule. I shot 3 Brenneke slugs (not much different than those Winchester slugs mentioned here) in a Topper once. I got a bruise that lasted a month. And I don't bruise easily at all. Put the same round in a 870, which weighs about 7.5 lbs. and the recoil drops drastically. Weight makes a huge difference when it comes to felt recoil.

There is a huge difference in shooting a powerful round in a 8.5 lb. rifle and a 6.5 lb. rifle like the Tikka T3 Lite. A HUGE difference.

Since you brought Hawks into this let's look at another of his pages. It's here:

http://www.chuckhawks.com/rifle_weight.htm

You will find this information on that page:

"Rifles for cartridges such as the .257 Weatherby Magnum, .264 Winchester Magnum, .270 Weatherby Magnum, 7mm Remington Magnum, 7mm STW, 7mm Weatherby Magnum, 7mm Ultra Mag, .300 SAUM, .300 WSM, .300 H&H Magnum, .308 Norma Magnum, .300 Winchester Magnum, .338-06, .35 Whelen, .350 Remington Magnum, 9.3x74R, and .444 Marlin should not be lighter than 8.5 pounds or heavier than about 9.5 pounds."

That's a full 2 pounds more than the T3 Lite. And what does Hawks think a 6.5 lb. rifle should cover? Read this:

".22 centerfire rifles intended for small game and predator hunting, as well as rifles chambered for light military cartridges such as the .223, .30 Carbine and 7.62x39 used for the same purposes, should ideally weigh between 6.5 and 7.5 pounds.. Rifles chambered for revolver cartridges such as .32-20, .357 Magnum, .44-40, and .45 Colt are also well suited for rifles weighing 6.5 to 7.5 pounds."

If you want to quote Hawks let's get it right. Again there's no listing for a 6.5 lb. rifle shooting .300 Winmag ammo. The only listings are for 8.5 lbs.. And the maximum rifle round for a 6.5 lb. rifle like the T3 should be no more than a .45 Long Colt. There's a whopping difference between that round and a .300 Winmag.

 

[Inebriated]

OP, if you've been effective with a .300 RUM, you'll be fine with a .300 Win Mag. And if you can afford the ammo for the .300 Win Mag, go for it.

Personally, I don't care for the added cost of ammo or the jump in recoil for the marginal (in regards to elk and deer) benefits of a magnum. A box of 180gr CoreLokts will run you $19 or so and be effective.

 

[wombat13]

Where did you get that bit of info? It sure doesn't come from the Chuck Hawks site you linked to. They only list 8.5 lb rifles when talking about .300 Winmag recoil. In fact I consulted that very table before I made my post just to make sure. And if you think there's just a 8 lb. difference in recoil between a 8.5 lb rifle and a 6.5 lb. rifle I can only say that certainly hasn't been my experience. Others mention shotguns and their recoil. Let's talk about this post:



Have you ever fired one of those slugs in a 6 lb. H&R single shot, breakdown shotgun? It will kick like a mule. I shot 3 Brenneke slugs (not much different than those Winchester slugs mentioned here) in a Topper once. I got a bruise that lasted a month. And I don't bruise easily at all. Put the same round in a 870, which weighs about 7.5 lbs. and the recoil drops drastically. Weight makes a huge difference when it comes to felt recoil.

There is a huge difference in shooting a powerful round in a 8.5 lb. rifle and a 6.5 lb. rifle like the Tikka T3 Lite. A HUGE difference.

Since you brought Hawks into this let's look at another of his pages. It's here:

http://www.chuckhawks.com/rifle_weight.htm

You will find this information on that page:

"Rifles for cartridges such as the .257 Weatherby Magnum, .264 Winchester Magnum, .270 Weatherby Magnum, 7mm Remington Magnum, 7mm STW, 7mm Weatherby Magnum, 7mm Ultra Mag, .300 SAUM, .300 WSM, .300 H&H Magnum, .308 Norma Magnum, .300 Winchester Magnum, .338-06, .35 Whelen, .350 Remington Magnum, 9.3x74R, and .444 Marlin should not be lighter than 8.5 pounds or heavier than about 9.5 pounds."

That's a full 2 pounds more than the T3 Lite. And what does Hawks think a 6.5 lb. rifle should cover? Read this:

".22 centerfire rifles intended for small game and predator hunting, as well as rifles chambered for light military cartridges such as the .223, .30 Carbine and 7.62x39 used for the same purposes, should ideally weigh between 6.5 and 7.5 pounds.. Rifles chambered for revolver cartridges such as .32-20, .357 Magnum, .44-40, and .45 Colt are also well suited for rifles weighing 6.5 to 7.5 pounds."

If you want to quote Hawks let's get it right. Again there's no listing for a 6.5 lb. rifle shooting .300 Winmag ammo. The only listings are for 8.5 lbs.. And the maximum rifle round for a 6.5 lb. rifle like the T3 should be no more than a .45 Long Colt. There's a whopping difference between that round and a .300 Winmag.

I gave the link in my previous post:

http://www.handloads.com/calc/recoil.asp

The calculator allows you to vary the weight of the rifle. I used a 180 gr. projectile at 2,960 fps, with 76 grains of powder (the actual charge I use for my 180 grain loads) and a 6.5 lb rifle. Plug those numbers in and you'll get 34 ft-lbs. If you use 8.5 lb rifle weight, the calculator yields 26.1 ft-lbs or recoil, which very closely matches the Chuck Hawks table (25.9 ft-lbs).

Of course a lighter rifle increases the recoil. You will notice that in one of my previous posts I suggested that the OP get a heavier rifle than the Tikka if he really wants a .300WM. He's 20 years old. He should be able to carry a 7.5 lb rifle. Then again, the OP has hunted effectively with a .300 rum which produces about the same recoil as a 6.5 lb rifle in .300WM would.

 

[AJumbo]

I had this same question on my mind when I was your age. I ended up with a Remington 760 in 30-06, thinking I could add my "Holy Grail" .300 Winchester M70 some time down the line. Thirty years later, I own that M70, but my go-to rifles are a Mauser-based .270 and my reliable old Remington pump.

On the elk's end of the deal, there is little difference between a .270 or in '06. On my end of it, I can practice more with theses two rounds than I can with the .300. Ammo is easier to find. In these days of whiz-bang death ray bullets, I find that 180 gr. Core-Lokts still put meat on the table just fine. Bullet placement is ALWAYS king, and placement comes from practice. Compare prices between a box of .270 or '06 vs. the belted magnum of your choice, just sayin'...

 

[AJumbo]

OK, my dad just read this thread, and offers you this sage advice-

"You're young and presumably fairly vigorous, or you wouldn't be hunting in the first place. Get a decent-weight rifle [Dad likes the Remington 760 as well, and loves him some Savage bolt guns], put good glass on it and PRACTICE. You can show everybody how tough you are by carrying a full-weight rifle, instead of by hammering your shoulder to pieces and teaching yourself to flinch with a lightweight/overpowered rifle that won't make your elk any deader than a .308, '06, or .270."

Inasmuch as Dad, a recovering recoil junkie, has had his shoulder rebuilt by a skilled and expensive surgeon, I believe you may profit from his words and example.

 

[X-Rap]

So your dad needed his shoulder rebuilt from shooting300 Win Mag ?

 

[Field Tester]

You guys are going on about recoil, which is a warranted concern with a novice shooter learning bad habits, while I'm over here thinking about the cost difference in ammo and how much the OP is going to spend on practicing before he takes his quarry.
We all owe it to the animals we harvest, to make a quick, clean and efficient kill. Practice helps ensure that goal.
OP, please listen to the advice given in this thread before your purchase. That is if the OP has even been back to read it.

 

[B!ngoFuelUSN]

Tikka makes a great rifle at a great price. Smooth action, lightweight, very accurate, durable in the weather. And I believe they make a 300 WM but I'd check with your insurance company to make sure that your shoulder is covered first time you fire it.
B

 

[CB900F]

Fella's;

While it's true that the O.P. stated that he's been able to use his father's .300RUM, he gave us no idea how much use was involved. Somehow I doubt that his round count using the gun has been all that high. But, on the bright side, you would be hard put to find a round better at creating a flinch. If that's what you wanted to do of course. Somehow I doubt that also.

900F

 

[Buckdown]

Thanks for the feedback guy but what's with the drama lol its like a took a trip back to high school!!
I practice / sight in my dad's 300 ultra mag it kicks but I didn't think it was that bad...?

 

[savanahsdad]

I have a 7mmWSM , I got it from a friend that hated the recoil , and I would agree , but like other have said some can take it others can't, some even like it , a few say go with a heavier rifle to take up the recoil , however the OP said he wanted a lighter rifle and he WANTS a 300WM , So to the OP "Go for it !" My 7mm WSM is a Savage mod 16 with a Nikon 3-9X40 BDC , common weight hunting rifle. wood stock. 26' tapered barrel . not a heavy weight and not a ultra light , and it beat me up with 160gr Sierra Game Kings, that was in tell I put on a nice recoil pad and a muzzle brake , it now kicks like me Savage 110's in 270win with Sierra 140gr bullets , yes a big mag in a light gun will kick but that can be fixed ,

 

[Cee Zee]

I gave the link in my previous post:

You put it right under the info you got from Chuck Hawks in the very same format. Who would think it was from a different source?