New rifle ... Should I go 30-06 or a magnum?

I went to Colorado with some friends who went elk hunting with guides. I went as a spotter and beer drinker. Several had 300 Winchester Magnums. One has a 300 Weatherby Magnum. One had a 375HH Magnum. I asked the guides about what would be a good elk caliber. Consensus was 30-06. If you hit it right it will go down. If bullet drop is a concern get a Leupold Boone and Crocket scope to help you judge aim point.

One guy with a 300 Winchester Mag took serveral shots/hits to stop his.
The elk hit with the 375HH never knew what hit him and fell in his tracks.
 
The 30-06 is the parent cartridge of the 25-06, 270, 280. These will out perform the 06 maybe by 5% if you shoot really light bullets. Put 150s in a 270 and 150s in a 06 and the 06 will shoot flatter and faster.

Now let's talk about this flatter and faster. You do get that in mags that are close to the 06. About 8-10% more. And you typically have to burn 15 to 20% more powder. I think the short mags are a bit more efficient.

So you gain 8 % flatter. Now you have to realize your rifle shoots to the exact same point evertime. Uhhh, no. If you are good you get minute of angle. Now what does that look like at 500 yards? Does it really matter at 500yards that you are 8% flatter? What really matters is HITTING at 500. By the time you figure in the 8-10% you would gain and then figure in the moa at 500, I don't think it matters if you are shooting a 06 or 300wsm. I don't think most of us will have a one inch group at 500 yards. So the 8% gain of shooting flatter will be lost in the fact we are probably lucky to keep it in a ten inch circle at 500.

Ok let's gain say 25%. Would that matter? Probably. But then you are talking a massive shoulder cannon. Say 300-378 or something like that. You know a pound of powder with a small bullet sitting on top.

I have owned a bunch of 06 class cartridges as I have come to call them. My favs are the. 280 and the 30-06. Currently own 30-06.

I worked in a gun shop. Let's talk budget. Buy a solid rifle. And for crying out loud put decent glass on top of it. I saw customer after customer that would buy the high dollar rifle and put a fifty dollar scope on it. Then drag it back in to trade. It wont shoot straight! Really? I scrimped on scopes until the last ten years. Made me mad at myself when I cut back on the rifle budget and saw what I gained in glass and what that did for me in the field. I should have bought a little less rifle and a little more scope years ago!
 
Last edited:
wohlwend hits the subject on the head. any shooter can only do as good as he can see. it's certainly better to spend more on your scope & less on the rifle if you have limited funds. regardless how well you shoot from the bench the field is a much tougher medium to shoot from.bench shooting does give you gun confidence but few people can hit a deer at 250 yds.if you are doing the long distance thing , lazers are great & you can tape the bullet drop on your stock, i advise one to actually target shoot to 300 because the info on the box & even the reloading manual may not be the results you see with your rifle.--dennis
 
Yes, I plan probably to spend more on the scope than on the rifle. I have already become accustomed to the prices of optics since I do photography. You will probably see a scope post up here soon. One concern will be weight of course ... both in terms of the added weight that I have to lug around as well as added weight when I am shooting in the field without any sort of rest.
 
You won't have to spend a thousand dollars or more to get good optics. Sure some say the Swarovskis are the one to have, but I don't go with that camp.

I've been a fan of Leupolds for many years. They have proven themselves durable for many years, and the upper end scopes have great optics.
PLUS, they have outstanding customer service. Even if you buy a used scope, you can send it in to them for service, and they will go through it for no charge. I have yet to have a scope gone any more than 7 days when sent in for service....

The Nikon Monarch scopes have good glass in them as well. Very clean.
Can't vouch for the durability though, as I've only used one a couple times for hunting.

Irregardless, which ever scope you get, make sure the lenses are kept clean.Its amazing how many people never clean the lenses. Match the scope to the type of shooting and hunting you will be doing. I hunt in timber, as well as open desert areas, and finally settled on a fixed 4 power scope. Simple, and durable. It is plenty of magnification to shoot at any reasonable diatance I will be using it for. If I do use a variable, its a 2.5x8. For me it gives good versatility, especially being able to go down in power. And they aren't bulky in size.
 
Mike summed it up perfect. Any scope brand as long as it has a gold ring and starts with the letter L.... lol. And less is more here too. I have the 3x9s. I think one is 3.5-10. I usually put them on 4 and leave them. Made my longest shot ever with my scope set at 4 and it was on top an 06.
 
I would be looking for something like a 7-08, 260, 257 Roberts, .243, 7 Mauser, 6.5 Swede, etc. When you experience the recoil, muzzle blast and cost per cartridge of even the .30-06 and factor in that if you aren't hunting elk or brown bears the smaller bores will do the job just fine, the magnums don't look very good anymore. Shorter barrel life, development of flinches from recoil, excessive meat damage at normal hunting ranges, etc. I sold a Winchester Model 70 Super Grade .300 Winchester magnum that I had a few years ago because it was uncomfortable to shoot, needlessly overpowerful and the ammo was just ridiculously expensive. Anything other than Remington or Winchester's basic ammo lines costed $40 for a box of twenty rounds. My brother in law shoots a 7mm Remington magnum, and the time I went hunting with them the average shot for all the deers taken that weekend in the hunting camp was less than fifty yards, all from tree stands. The longest shot was 250 yards over a greenfield, and it would not have taken any expensive hard recoiling round to have done that.
 
certainly the best scopes for america are leapold. only if you are hunting leopards in africa then i would opt for zeiss.--dennis
 
I do think things would probably change going to Africa. I would want the absolute best if I we're flying that far for a once in a lifetime hunt. Most of the advice I dished out above is for the north american hunter.... really good advice in this thread
 
DennisStrickland said:
certainly the best scopes for america are leapold. only if you are hunting leopards in africa then i would opt for zeiss.--dennis
Click to expand...

I have a Zeiss Conquest in 3.5-10x44 and my hunting buddy has the equivalent VX-III. I can tell you that when I put them side by side on hunting trips, the VX-III has a clearer sight picture. I would consider these to be competitive optics in both quality and price, but I really wish I had bought the Leupold. Don't get me wrong, the Zeiss is a great scope, but side by side, I see better through my buddy's Leupold. I also have friends with Kahles and Swarovsky scopes and those are in a whole different class of optical clarity. I had laser eye surgery a couple years back and my eye sight is excellent. Just my .02.
 
One of the sweetest shooting magnums I had was a 7mm Rem mag in model 70xtr. Had a trigger job and bedded action and free floated barrel. I developed a handload that would put the first two through the same hole nearly everytime. The third would open it up to about a 1/3 inch. I then ran my pet load over the cronograph. Turns out I was shooting a 140 grn at 2950fps. Lol..... that is basicaly. 280 performance. When I stepped the load up to max the groups would open up to an inch.
 
In the 1980s I owned a Weatherby Mk V .240 Weatherby Magnum cartridge (picture a very hot .243). Loved that rifle but I do admit the ammo was expensive since I never got into reloading.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top