300 Win Mag or 30-06

SAFireman · Oct 15, 2021

OK Riflemen,

If you were going to chose a base for a long range hunting gun, but light enough to pack in the mountains, which would you choose - 300 Win Mag, or 30-06?

This would be for game - Elk, bear, deer, goat, antelope, and maybe even a moose. Good to average marksman (yes, I know you can call a grizzly with a 22 LR with a shot through the eye and into the brain - but I ain't that good, or lucky!

)

Thanks for your opinion.

diyj98 · Oct 15, 2021

Either will work, but if I planned to pursue the bigger animals, the 300 would probably get my vote. You’ll get a little more recoil and less barrel life, but since it’s a hunting role and not for target shooting, I’d go for the increased horsepower of the 300.

Llance · Oct 15, 2021

There is no North American animal which can not be taken cleanly with a .30-06. And done at reasonable ranges. In my mind it's not hunting if you are shooting a game animal from more than 200 yards. If beyond that range you are just shooting, not hunting. As I see it, all these game shows where the shot is taken at extream ranges is pure BS. The only excuse i can think of for taking a shot beyond 200 yds is if you are in open savannah and there is no chance of getting closer. And then it had better be dangerous game. JMHO.

DGNY · Oct 15, 2021

Many of us will envy your desire to go hunting under such circumstances, namely @ long range. I would expect over 200 yards a very long endeavor. Possibly if canyons involved, but that means difficult, even negative odds of retrieval using human power.

So... the same "many of us" would probably recommend 30-06, as such a classic. Basically talking about 200 ft./s difference vs 300 Mag with 180 to 200 grain bullets, I should think. I personally would go with controlled round feed (CRF).

All best and please let us know your decision, and the iron/scope you select.

rockquarry · Oct 15, 2021

A .300 magnum offers no advantage and several drawbacks in comparison with the .30-06 UNLESS you are a practiced, better than average marksman with good shooting skills at ranges beyond 300 - 350 or so yards where a .300 magnum would have an edge in terms of trajectory and retained energy.

Recoil is felt differently by different persons, but a .300 magnum has significant recoil in a light rifle. Even in a sporter of moderate weight, recoil is a bit more than the most can handle well. Others like to debate this point, but the best way to realize the recoil is to do some shooting.

I've found the .270, .308, and 7x61 Sharpe & Hart (about like a 7mm Remington Magnum) more than adequate for bull elk at ranges somewhat beyond 300 yards. A .30-06 is roughly in the same category as these cartridges. No doubt my .300 H&H Magnum and my .300 Winchester Magnum would also work, but for my purposes, neither is necessary.

Hair Trigger · Oct 15, 2021

Llance said:
There is no North American animal which can not be taken cleanly with a .30-06. And done at reasonable ranges. In my mind it's not hunting if you are shooting a game animal from more than 200 yards. If beyond that range you are just shooting, not hunting. As I see it, all these game shows where the shot is taken at extream ranges is pure BS. The only excuse i can think of for taking a shot beyond 200 yds is if you are in open savannah and there is no chance of getting closer. And then it had better be dangerous game. JMHO.

I agree with you regarding the ranges one should not attempt taking game beyond. Anything over 300 yards takes serious practice to consistently put a round in the kill zone, and a 30-06 will easily do it at that range. I've owned a 300 win Mag, and a gun heavy enough to absorb any significant part of that beast's recoil is more gun than I want to be toting through the outback, and you're gonna want a scope (more weight) even for the 300 yard shots, much less anything longer.

As far as taking dangerous game at 200 yards or greater; if it's that far out, it is no danger to you, unless it's shooting back.

sigp220.45 · Oct 15, 2021

I would definitely go with the .300 Magnum.

After a convoluted series of trades I wound up with a stainless Ruger M-77 .300 with the old “canoe paddle” synthetic stock and a store brand 3-9X scope on it. The rifle was a by-product of the main trade, thrown in to make it happen. A homelier rifle you have never seen. I was living in northern Montana at the time and meant to trade it off, but of course I had to shoot it first.

The cheapo scope was crystal clear and held its zero. The recoil was stout, but not bad. .300 ammo was plentiful and not much more expensive than 30/06.

I hunted with it that season and killed a couple of deer and an antelope. The antelope was way out there. I won’t say how far because I don’t want to be abused but it was one shot, no way to get closer without him heading for the hills, and laser ranged. His last thought was “Haha, this oughta be good!”

I also killed elk and one porcupine with it. I took it bear hunting but didn’t see any bears.

I never had to shoot anything twice with it.

I have some 30/06s, but next time I go hunting I’ll probably take that old .300 with me.

DWalt · Oct 15, 2021

It's uncommon for most U.S. hunters to take shots beyond 200-300 yards, and in much of the USA east of the Rockies, it's more like 100 yards or less. Even if a long shot (>300 yards) presents itself, it is the rare hunter who has enough marksmanship expertise in judging distance, wind speed and direction, etc. to reliably hit anything smaller than a 747 that far away. The .30-'06, given the use of proper bullet design and weight, is all that 99% of American hunters will ever need for any large or medium game. I might include the .270 Winchester in that same assessment. While the .30-'06 might not be the best choice for really large and dangerous game, few large and dangerous game species are found anywhere in the USA.

CB3 · Oct 15, 2021

If weight is a primary consideration, you can find a light 06 easier than a 300. If terminal velocity is more important at ranges over 350, then a solid copper Barnes TSX or tipped TSX is lighter than lead, recoils a little less therefore, is very accurate and has good terminal ballistics to 500 yards where all bullets are failing to expand predictably.

I have hunted the west and BC for bear and other big game, and there are just times when because of terrain you are not likely to get another shot when trying to cover a half mile down and up through brush to get a closer shot 45 minutes later. You have to be practiced and familiar with your equipment and have a steady rest, little to no wind for the correct long shot.

The shoulder shot on big game is an area about 18” tall and 12” wide. All dead game can be retrieved, especially with help and when it is cut up. It’s a planned hunt. It is hunting, and very good shooting instead of average shooting.

Fishinfool · Oct 15, 2021

For long range use, both would need relatively heavy for caliber, high BC bullets. The .300 would give you a little less drop and a little better wind drift, due to it's slightly higher velocity. It will also kick harder, and be especially noticeable in a light weight rifle. Some handle recoil better than others, but for many shooters, it does make it harder to shoot accurately.

A good choice might be the 7mm mag. Long range potential just as good as the .300 mag with lighter bullets and less kick. Any of the three will kill game cleanly with proper big game bullets and shot placement.

And that last statement - shot placement - is the rub. Lots of shooters try their hand at the long range game at the range, and many shoot some pretty impressive groups at 5,6,and even 700 yards or more. They also usually have wind flags, super steady rests, known range, no adrenaline flowing, not breathing hard, ect.

Most of those above factors are usually not present out in the field hunting. A little gust of wind, or slight range estimation mistake can cause your bullet to off enough to cause a gut shot.

Now I know a lot of "riflemen" pride themselves on taking game at say 700 yards. More power to them, but how many wound game? - Not something you might brag about. I have shot enough rifle to know that the law of averages will sooner or later catch up to you playing that game. My personal opinion is reserve the super long range shooting for the range. I think most hunters are better served limiting themselves to about 300 yards, and that is only if they know their rifles drop and cross wind numbers. For me, part of the fun is getting close, not seeing how far away I can hit a game animal - you might find your limit the hard way by unnecessarily wounding an animal. My opinion, anyway.

Larry

Imissedagain · Oct 15, 2021

How would a 7mm-08 compare?

Old Arkansawyer · Oct 15, 2021

I would go with the 30-06 do to less recoil, ammo easily found at any
cross roads and probably more demand if you ever sell it. I have sold
both of my 06's due to if I want to hunt in my area, deer, they can be
killed with 30-30, .54 black powder and .44 special. Haven't shot a deer
since the year before my older brother passed away in 2015. Besides
Arkansas now has CWD in my area and I choose not to eat venison.

M29since14 · Oct 15, 2021

SAFireman said:
OK Riflemen,

If you were going to chose a base for a long range hunting gun, but light enough to pack in the mountains, which would you choose - 300 Win Mag, or 30-06?

At my age, first and foremost, I’d want a reasonably lightweight rifle if I am going to carry it much, and with my limited experience in long-range field shooting, I’d be thinking to confine my shots to ~300 yards. Given that, a .30-06 would be perfectly adequate. Or even a .280. The .300 is a fun rifle on the target range, with enough weight to soak up some recoil, and particularly with a good muzzle brake, but a 7-8 pound .300 magnum is not so much fun, and is more difficult to shoot accurately than a similar .30-06 or .280. Lugging a 9-10 pound rifle around is a young man’s sport.

Just my .02.

Drm50 · Oct 15, 2021

I live in Ohio and if I were going on that hunt with that menu I would take the 300Win. Actually I like 30/06 better but 300 gives you a slight edge. I light rifles they will boot you. But hunting you got to weight the benefits of a light rifle against accuracy of standard Sporter.
One of few times I actually got hurt with a rifle was a new Rem 700 in 300 Win Mag. The owner of local company came in bought the rifle, Leupold scope, mints & rings, case, ammo, sling— the full meal deal. He wanted to pick it up sighted in and ready to go. I had rifle sandbagged and had my left hand laying flat on the bench. Right under and behind pistol grip. When I touched that dude off it felt like a sledge hammer came down on my hand. It swelled up like a small ham. That rig probably weighed in at 8lb.
If I have opportunity to take a hunt that you aren’t going to get to experience very often, I want a rifle that is more than capable of the job.
Not that the old 30/06 wouldn’t handle 99% of shots. I’m no expert on long range shots on game. My personal best was about 250 yds on deer with a Win 70 , 308 / K6 scope. Off a rest would be confident twice that.

MygunisaS&Wrevolver · Oct 15, 2021

7 MM-08, light recoil and a great great deer round. I know that some will chime in about Caramejo Bell killing hundreds of elephants with a 7MM Mauser which has about the same ballistics, but I doubt that any one in this forum has the same degree of accurate rifle marksmanship as he did and couple that with nerves of steel when confronted with charging dangerous game. I would just not hunt elk with anything less that a 30-06 and a 300 Win mag would be better. I must say that I have never felt the recoil when shooting at a game animal.

6GUNSONLY · Oct 15, 2021

My last elk hunt I convinced myself I needed to be capable of taking a shot at 400 yards, if necessary. Got my old Ruger 7 mag set up to do just that with my carefully assembled 160 grain Nosler Partition handloads. Was confident at 400 or a little further. Killed a 5x5 bull the first afrernonn... at 75 yards.

Mule Packer · Oct 15, 2021

I'm showing my age here, but years ago, it seemed like the two most popular rifle calibers, at least here in the west, were the .30-30 and the .30-06. Every hardware store, sporting goods store, and gas station carried 'em. And it seemed that those two calibers were successful in getting elk and mule deer...at least in this part of the country.

Then, for some reason, folks started going more towards the larger calibers...then even larger. Figured it would kill stuff better.

I've owned both. If I could only pick one, it would be the .30-06 hands down. More versatile, in my opinion, especially if you do your own reloading. And it'll take anything here in North America. I admit, though, I pretty much keep my shots well under 300 yards. Anything over that, in my opinion, isn't hunting. It's shooting. But, to each his own.

Of course, if you go with the .300 Win Mag, someone will suggest the .300 Weatherby Mag. Then someone will say, "Why not go with the Remington .338 Ultra Mag?...or better yet, the .358 Norma Magnum!" Then another "expert" will suggest the .375 H&H Magnum. And the list goes on.

I guess I have to ask the question, "Just how much deader than dead can you kill somethin'?"

Mike SC Hunter · Oct 15, 2021

DWalt said:
It's uncommon for most U.S. hunters to take shots beyond 200-300 yards, and in much of the USA east of the Rockies, it's more like 100 yards or less. Even if a long shot (>300 yards) presents itself, it is the rare hunter who has enough marksmanship expertise in judging distance, wind speed and direction, etc. to reliably hit anything smaller than a 747 that far away. The .30-'06, given the use of proper bullet design and weight, is all that 99% of American hunters will ever need for any large or medium game. I might include the .270 Winchester in that same assessment. While the .30-'06 might not be the best choice for really large and dangerous game, few large and dangerous game species are found anywhere in the USA.

Don't know where you fellers get the idea that "eastern" shots are mostly 100 yards or less...........It's BS myth that you western fellers need to stop. We have large fields. Power and gas line right of ways. Long firelanes around pine savannahs and other openings. We can and do shoot long ranges like ya'll do. So stop saying all we need is a musket.

hittman77 · Oct 15, 2021

I’ve never had either of those calibers but several friends and relatives have 30-06 and it seems a very capable round.

If you explore other options, maybe look at the 257 Weatherby Magnum but good luck finding ammo these days.

lrrifleman · Oct 15, 2021

@SAFireman,

I think that you need to define what you perceive to be "long-range"!

When I compete in long-range matches (sling before becoming disabled, F class after becoming disabled), you are talking 800 to 1000 yards. When I shot long-range with a sling, I shot both 308 and 30-'06. Now, with F class, I started with a 7 Rem Mag and I'm now shifting to 224 Valkyrie. Honestly, while I might be able to make the shot at game humanely to about 800 yards, I don't see it as ethical.

I know that I can keep a 10 shot group on a paper plate at about 450 yards, so I would limit my shots to 400 yards. Four hundred yards would be my ethical "long-range". For a 400 (+/-) yard shot, I would prefer an '06 or 270 to any magnum, since it would be less pounding on my shoulder which would translate into more pre-hunt practice. Many skills need to be honed before trying to drop game at any "long-range". How good are you at judging distance and reading the wind? For reading the wind, will you read the mirage or trust the movement of tall grass and leaves?

I'm not trying to be a pessimist, but we don't know what your skill level is with a rifle. Not knowing what your skill is, would intimate that we should consider your ability to be limited. Sorry if I insulted you!

300 Win Mag or 30-06

Member

Member

US Veteran

Member

Member

US Veteran

US Veteran

Attachments

Member

Member

Member

US Veteran

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Similar threads