PDA

View Full Version : Back to square one :p


WeedWacker
October 9, 2007, 12:17 AM
Ok some of you know I WAS looking into getting an elk gun for this year but my $$$ is limited. I can't pay $2 a round so it throws out any of the wby mags (if what I am seeing online is true) and some of the other mags. I can't afford either $$ or time for a press/die for reloading so I need factory ammo :barf: although alot of remington has kept me happy:)

Been doing a little more research and read that 2000 ft lb's is an accepted minimum for elk. I only plan on making up to 300 or 350 yard shots (which I am comfortable with) but might need to stretch out to 400. Any suggestions on an AFFORDABLE cartridge for these ranges?

So far I liked the 7mm rem mag out to 300 yards (2080 ft lb's) but I'd like some input from you guys before I go for it (I have heard some ppl put down the 7mm rem mag for elk)

Here is the table I have been using for ranges out to 300 yards:

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

FirstFreedom
October 9, 2007, 12:19 AM
If you want cheaper ammo, then run with .270 win or .30-'06.

But the 7mm remmag and .280 rem would be good choices, too, though definitely more expensive than .270 or .30-06. Of those 2, if you don't handload, go with the 7mm remmag.

But the most affordable long range round is the .30-'06 springfield. You'll have quite a bit of drop at 400 yards, so you'll have to practice a fair amount, and making a cheat sheet for your trajectory and slappibg it on the side of your rifle wouldn't hurt.

WeedWacker
October 9, 2007, 12:31 AM
SO it would be a clean kill at 400 yards with a .30-06? Could it possible make a through and through? Cause if it can what about the 7.62 x 54(r)? (I really like the Mosin nagant. It's cheep and if I felt like it I could mod it out alot and not wreck anything expensive :cool:)

FrontSight
October 9, 2007, 01:05 AM
+ 1 on the .30-06...

I think I'd go with 180 grains, but others can offer you better advice on that then I can. Also, not sure about 7.62 x 54(r) - once again, I defer to others much more expert than myself.

But I do know that a .30-06 won't steer you wrong, long as you practice...

Gunner69
October 9, 2007, 06:10 AM
PM sent from a fellow Idahoan.. Go with the .06 with 180gr as stated before and if you are going to be shooting at 400 yards make sure you practice at that range. The .06 does have some pretty decent drop at that range.

Art Eatman
October 9, 2007, 08:31 AM
I don't see why most any .308 or '06 wouldn't be plenty good to around 300 yards. Beyond 300, the problem is more the shooter than the gun.

With a 200-yard zero, even the Fancy Maggies are gonna have a foot and a half of drop out around 400; the .308 and '06 are about two feet, which isn't really all that much worse.

A little late in the year to start from scratch...

Art

Dirty_Harry
October 9, 2007, 08:41 AM
The 7.62x54 has in between the 06 and .308 for power. It would kill them as dead as anything else. Another vote for the .30-06 here. Definatly not as expensive as the magnums and is almost as good.

lockedcj7
October 9, 2007, 05:13 PM
For serious shooting (and I consider all hunting to be serious) at up to 400 yds, you need an accurate rifle, good scope and solid mounts. I think you're going to have a hard time:

a. finding a Mosin-Nagant that gives acceptable accuracy at that range.
b. finding accurate soft-point ammo.
c. mounting a good scope well enough that it will hold zero.

I would go with a Rem. ADL synthetic in .30-06 with a 3-9x40 Leupold VX-II scope. I would use 180 failsafe ammo and I would practice enough to be confident at that range. There are many other combinations that would work but I've given my choice.

You can hunt Elk with a much lesser equipment but you need to keep your ranges under 200 yds.