PDA

View Full Version : 300win. mag


Jeffly
January 8, 2000, 11:25 PM
I am considering a Rifle in 300 win. mag or 30.06.
How much more recoil does the 300 mag have over the 30.06?
And I like the Remington Sendro for the alluminum Bedded stock, but wonder if that would be too hevie to carry on a hunt.
Thanks for any INfo you can give me on this size gun.

Art Eatman
January 9, 2000, 12:20 AM
To begin, muzzle velocities for rifles are taken with 26" barrels as stamdard, unless otherwise stated. You can subtract about 70 ft/sec per inch shorter barrel.

Basically, the .300 will have around 200 to 300 ft/sec more muzzle velocity than the '06.

For any bullet weight, the .300 will recoil some 10%-15% more. Not all that big a deal. For a given bullet weight, divide the .300 muzzle velocity by the .30-'06 muzzle velocity, and you'll get the percentage of additional thump.

I'm six feet and 175 pounds. My .30-'06 has a 26" barrel and weighs 9 lbs. with ammo, scope and sling. I'll admit that it's heavier now after three or four miles than it was 20 years ago. But I'm 65.

Now, most .300s probably have 24" barrels, right?

It's my personal opinion, FWIW, that the practical difference between my normal-max handloads from my 26" barrel and the factory ammo for a .300 with a 22" or 24" barrel isn't enough to warrant the extra thump on the shoulder. And the target-animal probably can't tell the difference.

Obviously, I'm real partial to the '06...

FWIW, Art

JimmieII
January 9, 2000, 12:24 AM
Yes Art, then add in that 30-06 is both easier and cheaper to find.

Also you can get just about any bullet or wieght that you want.

I really like the 30-06.

------------------
I'm totin' this pistol because my SKS won't fit in my Dang holster

Rob Pincus
January 9, 2000, 12:27 AM
Art's point is well taken.
I was fired up about getting a .300 win mag last year, and I accidentally won an '06 in a raffle. I put a scope on it, dug out some old rounds and got all interested in the '06 again.. even dusted off my old '06. Decided that I really didn't want a .300 win mag that badly any more. (I never thought I needed one anyway....)

If you don't have either, I guess it is a bit of a toss up.. but, you will probably never have to worry about finding ammo for the '06, that may not always be the case with the .300.

------------------
-Essayons

headroom
January 9, 2000, 02:03 AM
I have shot the sendero in 300 win and have found the recoil to be not too bad, even off a bench with 180 gr. bullets. The 300 is very accurate and if you are looking to shoot a long way it is good for that. However the sendero is not a light rifle, those extra couple pounds get real heavy after walking 10 miles. I'd say if you want to go after something where a little more power and range is needed get the 300 but otherwise the 06' is probably the better rifle for most uses. One should also remember that many 300 loads use over 70 grains of powder so you'll go through a pound pretty fast.

Gale McMillan
January 9, 2000, 09:25 AM
We were making what we called the 300 short mag about 5 years before Winchester came out with them so we could use the Springfield with a mag case. There is much more difference between a 300 WM than is being stated. While there is only about 300 feet difference that 300 feet makes a world of difference in the field. I have used one over 40 years and have taken everything in North America except Polor bear with one shot kills In fact I can not ever remember having to shoot an animal more than once except to end its suffering before I field dressed it. I can not say the same with an 06. I really think the 300 is the greatest hunting cartridge I have ever used when used with the lighter bullets. I killed 35 moose with 130 grain spear bullets and you can't imagine what a fast killer that combination makes. You may say that with only the 300 feet difference in the two rifles why does it make so much difference. I would have to say bullet placement is one reason. When you pull another 300 fps off the 06 for that 350 yard shot you are pulling the velocity down below optimum performance of the bullet so you don't get the best performance out of the bullet it takes to give good clean one shot kills. Now having said that I will add that a lot of hunters would be better served with a 270 and a 130 grain bullet that with either of the 30s as a large number of people can't handle the punishment that either 30 puts out.

Art Eatman
January 9, 2000, 06:55 PM
Gale, I fully agree with you. However, I was thinking of the velocity loss with rifles whose barrels are less than 26".

I've had guys bring me 7mm Mags and .300 Mags to mount scopes and sight-in, with 22" and 23" barrels. You knock off 200 ft/sec or more, and where's the advantage of all that powder?

With my 26" barrel, my '06 is getting 3,000 ft/sec with a 150-grain. If a "short-barrelled" .300 is losing 200 ft/sec from the 3,300 it could have, what's the point of 100 ft/sec?

I cheat--I handload, and use Mr. Sierra's boat-tailed bullets. If a guy buys factory ammo with flat-based bullets, who's ahead, out at 300 to 400 yards?

Again, I'm in accord with you, and was using a rather special case. But a person who thinks it all out, about barrel lengths and reloading, can do as well as, if not better, with the '06 than many with the .300.

Were I regularly hunting elk, moose and big bear, I would have a 26" barrel on my .300 Mag or my .338-sized magnum, and load my own ammo for it.

:), Art

Ankeny
January 9, 2000, 11:12 PM
I have killed a good many animals with the 30-06. In fact, I have used the '06 for the majority of my life. I was brought up to believe that the .30 magnums were just plain hog wash. My how things do change. I now hunt big game almost exclusively with a 26 inch custom rifle in .30-338. I kind of like the longer neck on the .30-338 as opposed to the .300 magnum, but there probably isn't a hill of beans difference in the two.

Several years ago I started paying very close attention to a concept known as maximum point blank range. As a trophy hunter, I shoot alomost all animals right in the boiler room, none of the neck or head baloney. I have found that the flatter the rifle shoots the better chance the hunter has to connect at an unknown yardage. I'll take any advantage I can get when it comes to making a quick, clean, humane kill.

If I step on it, I can get a 180 grain Sierra to do 2730 fps out of my favorite '06 with a 24" tube. BTW, 24" or less is standard on the '06. Some folks shoot them faster, but all of my rifles show signs of excessive pressure if I try to go much faster. By comparison, I can get 3100 fps with the same bullet out of my 26" .30-338 (and that's about the limit of sanity). Also note, the Sendero has a 26" tube as do a good many magnums. OK, so there is only about 370 fps difference. With the same barrel length, the difference would be even less. But my what a difference that is. Maximum point blank range with the magnum is 380 yards with the rifle zeroed at 310 yards. With the '06 the MPBR is 330 yards with the rifle zeroed at 270 yards. Not only is the magnum more forgiving of errors in range estimation, the additional velocity makes quite a difference in the terminal performance of the bullet. You see, at 500 yards the magnum is going along at 2264 fps. The 06 is going 2225 fps at 300 yards. Obviously, the bullet will perform similarly at 500 yards out of the magnum as it does at 300 out of the '06.

I am not trying to convert anyone to a magnum. They are not for everyone and the worst thing you can do is to move up to a cartridge that induces a "flinch". However, for shooters who can handle them, the .30 magnums do indeed have some very real advantages.

Art Eatman
January 11, 2000, 12:30 AM
Ankeny, you for sure have worked out what functions best for you. Just like Gale.

My system, I guess, gets about the most out of the '06. I sight in for a zero of 200 yards, which puts me 2" high at 100 and 6" low at 300. This sight-in works pretty good for all "300-yard guns", by which I mean most everything from .243 to .30-'06 except the .264 and 7mm Mag...

While I have killed deer at 350 to 450 with one-shot boiler-room hits, I had good rests and cooperative deer. The vast majority of my deer have been taken at 75 to 150 yards, about half-and-half/body shots.

:), Art

BMAC
January 13, 2000, 06:43 AM
Looking for first gun - all-round capabilities to cover deer and moose to 300 yds ... good quality / lifetime investment. Currently leaning to Sako. At the moment, the decision seems to be between the 300 WIN and the 06. The only listings I can find show 06's with 22" barrels and 300 Wins with 24". I don't want to replace the barrel. Will I be able to get factory or hand-load the 06 to have a "comfortable" (i.e. not minimal) energy for moose. Also ... should I consider the 7mm mags as an in-between alternative? ... Are the smaller diameter bullets effective for larger moosese?

......BMAC

LOCHFAL
January 13, 2000, 08:23 PM
The Remington Sendero in either 7mm Mag or 300 win Mag are both great choices. I tend to like the 300 better myself. I'm sure the 06 is fine to hunt elk and moose with but I prefer the greater range and power of 300 win mag.

Art Eatman
January 13, 2000, 11:16 PM
BMAC: I don't know if Weatherby still offers it, but they used to have the Mark V with a "#2 profile barrel", 26" long and in .30-'06. The #2 profile is a bit thicker in diameter, and thus a little heavier than the usual whippy Wby barrel.

I can tell you for sure that Mr. Canjar's trigger works a lot better than what came with the gun...

If you're serious about moose to 300 yards, I'd follow Gale's advice and go with the .300 WinMag. Deer and elk, you could also do well with the 7mmRemMag.

FWIW, Art