Choosing best all around caliber?

[asmith]

I lived in MM for 58 years and every elk hunter I ever met used either a 30-06 or 7mm mag except for one friend that uses a .338.....never heard of using anything smaller.....

[Mystro]

Actually, the 280 has identical muzzle energy as the 270 except it drops 2 more inches at 500 yards. This is according to Hornady using the latest SST Superformance loads.

http://www.hornady.com/store/280-Rem...Superformance/

[taylorce1]

Originally Posted by Brian Pfleuger

I'll never understand the opinions on this stuff. Look at the CO Wildlife Division, it's almost schizophrenic. They have an entire article on elk hunting, including chapters on firearms and cartridge selection.

Imagine this:

1)Handguns need 550 ft/lbs at 50 yards to be sufficient for elk.
2)Rifles need 1,500 ft/lbs at impact.

Close but not quite right. Here is the article I'm guessing you were referencing.

Laws and Ethical Limits

Before selecting a firearm for hunting elk, we should first look at the laws on legal method of take for big game:


Center fire rifles, 24 caliber (6mm) or larger and produce an impact energy of 1000 ft/lbs at 100yds. Barrel must be at least 16" and total length at least 26".
Muzzle loaders for elk hunting must be 50 caliber or larger and only open sights are allowed.
Electronic ignitions are not legal for muzzle loading season in Colorado.
Shotguns must be 20 gauge or larger with 18" or longer barrel and minimum 26" total length.
Handguns, 24 caliber (6mm) or larger and produce an impact energy of 550 ft/lbs at 50 yards as rated by the manufacturer. Four inches is minimum length for handgun barrels.
For a complete list of legal hunting methods, see the Big Game Brochure.

Since we are mainly talking about rifles, here is the actual regulation for rifle hunting in Colorado.

2013 Colorado Big Game Hunting
1. CENTERFIRE RIFLES
a. Must be minimum of .24 caliber (6 mm).
b. Must have a minimum 16-inch barrel and be at least 26 inches long.
c. If semiautomatic, a maximum of six rounds are allowed in the magazine
and chamber combined.
d. Must use expanding bullets that weigh minimum 70 grains for deer,
pronghorn and bear, 85 grains for elk and moose, and have an impact
energy (at 100 yards) of 1,000-ft. pounds as rated by manufacturer.

Um... ok

3).243Win is marginal
4).30-30, .35Rem and even .32Win Spec are all perfectly fine.

While I wouldn't call the above cartridges perfectly fine in the article they were mentioned for:

Short Range (Heavy Timber, Still Hunting, Small Parks, Crossing Trails)

This is the type of hunting that, on public land, can produce elk any time after noon on opening day. Animals are spotted at close range (under 100 yards). Long barrels and actions are at a disadvantage when moving or shooting in these circumstances.

There are many slower velocity cartridges that are suitable for short range hunting; a short list follows. The bottom four carry their killing energy out to some very long ranges but the bullet path looks like a rainbow.

Caliber Bullet Wt. (Grams) Muzzle Vel Firearm Wt. (lbs.) Muzzle Energy Recoil Energy 
32 Win Special 170 2240 8 1892 10.94 
35 Rem 180 2232 8 1989 12.32 
30/30 Win 150 2461 8 2015 10.59 
444 Marlin 300 2082 8 2884 25.01 
45/70 Lever Action 350 2086 8 3377 37.28 
450 Marlin 350 2196 8 3743 39.66 
45/70 Ruger #1 350 2300 8 4106 41.94

Plus used within the limitations all including the .243 will work for elk. However none of the above are used commonly in any elk camp I've been in. Although I took a .30-30 as my back up rifle on my first elk hunt, but I used a .30-06 to kill my first cow elk on that hunt at around 25-30 yards. I have no doubt the .30-30 would have been just as effective at that range.

[Mystro]

This is very revealing and a bit of a reality check.
Check out this monster moose being dumped by a 30-30.

Go to 24:50 for the shot.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xZsg...UHderIK7Ng0BZQ

[JD0x0]

Actually, the 280 has identical muzzle energy as the 270 except it drops 2 more inches at 500 yards.

As much as I love the .270 I have to disagree if we're talking hand loaded ammo. Factory ammo, yes, the .280 rem has about the same ME as the .270 win, but it seems like a majority of factory .280 rem ammo is loaded fairly mild.
Generally, with the 06' cases the larger the diameter bullet the neck is sized for, the more potential ME you are capable of safely achieving, up to about .35caliber, where it begins to fall off in potential. The sweet spot for the 06' case seems to be between .277 and .338 for the most efficient loads.
Even so, hand loaded, the .270 versus the .280, the differences in ME is fairly negligible, we're only talking maybe 100ft/lbs difference, if that. No game, or piece of paper you're shooting at is going to know the difference between the two.

[t4terrific]

Originally Posted by tahunua001

care to elaborate on that? 308 has cropped up very little on this particular thread, probably with good reason. I think I am sensing a pattern here.
lets take a look at your second most recent post:


no other posts regarding 308 and nothing with any detail whatsoever. if you see a thread and want to contribute that's fine and dandy but to contribute without actually contributing anything is pretty pointless. sorry if I'm being blunt but your post offers nothing but an opinion without any amplifying data to allow the discussion to carry on.

Exactly. I like .308 the best.

[jimbob86]

While I have, and love the .270WIN, the .280 has a slightly higher SAAMI presure limit (mostly in deference to the many really old guns out there chambered for it), and bullet selection is greater.

It's not enough of an advantage for me to run out and get a .280, though ...... I've got a .270WIN and a load for it that works pretty well.

[JD0x0]

While I have, and love the .270WIN, the .280 has a slightly higher SAAMI presure limit (mostly in deference to the many really old guns out there chambered for it), and bullet selection is greater.

I have two sources that conflict what you say about max SAAMI pressure limit. I agree with your statement about bullet selection, though.

The sources I found list the .270 Winchester at 65,000PSI and the .280 Rem is listed as 60,000 psi max.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.280_Remington
http://www.lasc.us/SAAMIMaxPressure.htm

I believe this pressure was for the early made .280rem's with weaker chambers, and it's plausible to safely load .280rem up to 65,000psi like the other 06' based cartridges, even though the SAAMI max for the .30-06 is listed at 60,200psi. I believe newer actions can safely be loaded to 65,000PSI as well.

[Mystro]

There are too many variables when throwing hand loads into the mix. How can hand loads be objectively proved? I picked the latest greatest high performance Superformance loads that are the fastest in the industry at the present time. Hornady is not sandbagging the 280 Superformance load over the 270. To suggest there is some magic variable in hand loading that can bring more out in one caliber and not another is absurd.

[taylorce1]

Originally Posted by Mystro

There are too many variables when throwing hand loads into the mix. How can hand loads be objectively proved?

They can't and neither can the loads you post all the time from Hornady. Hornady's speeds came out of their test barrels, not shot from actual rifles. There is no indicator as to how accurate those loads were either, what is Hornady's acceptable accuracy standard? Plus there is no telling how accurately your personal rifle will digest those loads.

Your just looking at paper ballistics put out by a manufacturer, which might be totally different from the real world ballistics from your rifle. They only way is for each shooter to get an objective opinion of any load is to shoot it through their own rifle. You might find what Hornady puts on paper might be far different from what you get in real conditions.

Plus without shooting any of these loads across a chronograph you'll never really know how they are performing. That is the only way for me to actually prove that my ammunition I load is doing what I say it does. That way I know that my loads are close to the published reloading data I use.

You should really take what the manufacturer published data with a grain of salt. Even if you shoot factory loads if you really want to know what they are doing spend a little money on a chronograph and tripod. Go to the range and shoot a 10 shot string across the chrony and then you'll actually have an idea of what the cartridge is doing.

Originally Posted by JD0x0

I believe this pressure was for the early made .280rem's with weaker chambers, and it's plausible to safely load .280rem up to 65,000psi like the other 06' based cartridges, even though the SAAMI max for the .30-06 is listed at 60,200psi. I believe newer actions can safely be loaded to 65,000PSI as well.

You are correct to a point the .280 Rem was introduced in a Remington auto loader and pump rifles first. They really don't have weaker lock up or "chambers" as these rifles were already chambered in .270 Win. There isn't enough difference the two cartridges to allow one to operate at 65,000 psi and not blow up and to force the other to operate at 60,000 for fear of damaging the action. What I'd imagine was really the problem is if Remington loaded to 65,000 psi like the .270, the 7mm Rem Mag sales might have been hurt.

At 65K psi the .280 would be nipping on the heels of the 7mm RM and possibly beating it with certain weight bullets. Remington already had a successful thing going with the Rem Mag, but they had downloaded the cartridge to where it only slightly out performed the .270. This was probably done to make the recoil from such a small bullet more tolerable IMO.

There is no real difference between the .270 and .280 except on paper. In modern bolt action rifles they are ballistic twins when loaded with equal weight bullets at equal pressures. Both are great cartridges in their own right.

[Mystro]

A test barrel keeps a level playing field for a even comparison. All I can tell you that independent tests on YouTube confirms their speed. I can see a difference between normal SST and Superrgormance SST out at 300 yards. Not much, but it would make a bigger difference at 400-500 yards. In my gun 130 SST Superormance are tack drivers. I sight my gun in to be good for 0-300 yards without hold over.


..I would be lucky to reload this accurate for my JOC rifle.
3 shot 100 yard group. I am going to chronograph them this week for a free custom turret for my Leupold VX6.

[taylorce1]

Originally Posted by Mystro

..I would be lucky to reload this accurate for my JOC rifle.

Not if you use quality components, and have a good reloading technique. Plus the rifle and shooter has to be up to the task as well. However, this is getting way off topic and the OP has already chosen the .25-06.

Nice group, but I'll stick to reloading as I can do the same thing cheaper in the long run.

[Geo_Erudite]

If you're a .280 Remington aficionado, odds are you eventually get .280 ai. Nosler makes brass and ammunition for this round (Nosler actually SAAMI standardized the round) , and heck, Kimber chambers rifles in this caliber. With a .280 ai you get close to 7mm Remington Magnum performance with less recoil.

Some reading materials here and here

[taylorce1]

Originally Posted by Geo_Erudite

If you're a .280 Remington aficionado, odds are you eventually get .280 ai. Nosler makes brass and ammunition for this round (Nosler actually SAAMI standardized the round) , and heck, Kimber chambers rifles in this caliber. With a .280 ai you get 7mm Remington Magnum performance with less recoil.

You can't have your cake and eat it too. The .280 AI uses nearly the exact same powder charges as the 7mm RM to get nearly the same velocities, so it is going to have similar recoil. .280's are usually a lighter rifle as well than a 7mm RM so you have to factor that in as well.

Plus if you load a .280 in a modern bolt action to 62-65K psi you won't see an appreciable difference between it and the AI version as far as speed goes. The AI isn't anything magical or wondrous about the 40 degree shoulder. Larger powder charges with smaller cases produce more pressure that creates velocity an recoil simple as that.

[jimbob86]

The .280 AI uses nearly the exact same powder charges as the 7mm RM to get nearly the same velocities, ....

A quick look at my Nolser fifth ed. shows about 5 to 10 grains more powder for the 7Mag than the .280AI, with modest (50 to 150 f/sec) gains in velocity ...... 10-15% more powder for less than 5% (in most cases, 2-3%) increased velocity.



On the bright side, .280 don't have the stupid belt the 7 Mag does ..... and brass can be formed cheaply.

[Geo_Erudite]

Originally Posted by taylorce1

Plus if you load a .280 in a modern bolt action to 62-65K psi you won't see an appreciable difference between it and the AI version as far as speed goes. The AI isn't anything magical or wondrous about the 40 degree shoulder. Larger powder charges with smaller cases produce more pressure that creates velocity an recoil simple as that.

There are two versions of the .280 AI, one has a 40 degree and the other (the Nosler .280 AI SAAMI standardized) has a 30 degree shoulder and is a little shorter. I edited my original post to include two articles on the .280 AI as well as changing the original post statement (bold font). If your loading your .280 to 62-65k psi you are going to do the same with your 280 AI. In that case you will always have a 100-150 fps advantage over the original when loaded to the same pressure for each.

[taylorce1]

Originally Posted by Geo_Erudite

If you're a .280 Remington aficionado, odds are you eventually get .280 ai. Nosler makes brass and ammunition for this round (Nosler actually SAAMI standardized the round) , and heck, Kimber chambers rifles in this caliber. With a .280 ai you get close to 7mm Remington Magnum performance with less recoil.

This is what I meant by you can't have your cake and eat it too. Kimber doesn't make a 7mm RM in their Montana rifle but if they did it would weigh 6.813 lbs. So I used the M70 EW which has a 7 lbs weight.

Rifle 7mm RM Winchester M70 EW

Bullet weight in grains: 140
Velocity in fps: 3220
Powder charge in grains: 66 (IMR 4831)
Weight of firearm in lbs: 7.0

Recoil Impulse in (lbs sec): 3.17
Velocity of recoiling firearm (fps): 14.59
Free recoil energy in (ft/lbs): 23.13

Rifle Kimber 84L .280 AI Montana

Bullet weight in grains: 140
Velocity in fps: 3222
Powder charge in grains: 60 (IMR 4831)
Weight of firearm in lbs: 5.625

Recoil Impulse in (lbs sec): 3.07
Velocity of recoiling firearm (fps): 17.55
Free recoil energy in (ft/lbs): 26.91

I'd have to drop below a 6 lb 7mm RM rifle before the numbers start to favor the .280 AI. Can you imagine touching off full power loads on the .280 AI Mountain Ascent weighing in at 5.313 lbs without a muzzle brake? The simple fact is if you get 7mm RM performance your going to get 7mm RM recoil, that is why I've never been enamored with the .280 AI.

[Geo_Erudite]

You have to compare rifles of equal weight. You're comparing apples to oranges. What is the kick if you had a custom Kimber Mountain Ascent chambered in 7mm Remington Magnum, more than 26.91 ft/lbs of recoil from the .280 AI I would guess. What is the kick if you had a rifle weighing 7.0 lbs for the 7mm Remington Magnum and the .280 AI?

[taylorce1]

Originally Posted by Geo_Erudite

You have to compare rifles of equal weight. You're comparing apples to oranges. What is the kick if you had a custom Kimber Mountain Ascent chambered in 7mm Remington Magnum, more than 26.91 ft/lbs of recoil from the .280 AI I would guess. What is the kick if you had a rifle weighing 7.0 lbs for the 7mm Remington Magnum and the .280 AI?

First off the Mountain Ascent action won't fit a magnum cartridge that is why you get a .280 AI instead. Plus by nature a 7mm RM will always weigh a little more in a factory rifle than a .270 Win or .280. I also made a few assumptions that these rifles would produce published velocities for loads that Nosler has online. You can go to hanloads.com and use their recoil calculator to figure it out. However, with equal weight rifles you get:

Rifle 7mm RM

Bullet weight in grains: 140
Velocity in fps: 3220
Powder charge in grains: 66 (IMR 4831)
Weight of firearm in lbs: 7.0

Recoil Impulse in (lbs sec): 3.17
Velocity of recoiling firearm (fps): 14.59
Free recoil energy in (ft/lbs): 23.13

Rifle .280 AI

Bullet weight in grains: 140
Velocity in fps: 3222
Powder charge in grains: 60 (IMR 4831)
Weight of firearm in lbs: 7.0

Recoil Impulse in (lbs sec): 3.07
Velocity of recoiling firearm (fps): 14.10
Free recoil energy in (ft/lbs): 21.62

You get more recoil with the 7mm RM @ .49 fps and 1.51 ft/lbs of energy, but the .280 AI will always have a faster recoil impulse. This is probably so close you can't tell the difference. You can't have similar performance and not have similar recoil its just simple physics. So simply because the .280 AI's being offered are going to weigh less than the factory 7mm RM you're actually going to have to deal with more recoil.

[Geo_Erudite]

Originally Posted by taylorce1

So simply because the .280 AI's being offered are going to weigh less than the factory 7mm RM you're actually going to have to deal with more recoil.

That is why you buy a Savage 16 FCSS in 338 Winchester Magnum for brown bear, and buy a 280 AI barrel for everything else!

[Garycw]

I think I've decided the .270 is the best for me. It's mainly going to be used for target, coyote & deer in that order. Anything bigger or tougher like black bear or feral hogs could possibly be doable with specialized hi performance rounds. . I would like to have a nikon zoom scope with illuminated cross hairs. I have some larger & smaller cal. rifles so the .270 seems to be the best all around- middle of the road choice for me. Ammo shouldn't be hard to find either.

[Brian Pfleuger]

You don't need "specialized rounds" to use a .270 on black bear and certainly not feral hogs.

[ThomasT]

I hate to derail the thread and get it back on topic. The OP has chosen a 25-06 and its a good choice. But a 257 roberts might have been better. It should have a longer barrel life and if reloading use a little less powder and most of all be better for elk or bear if he gets a chance at those. Better than a 243 I would think.

But if it were me I would get a 7-08 in a slightly heavier gun than my remington model 7 with the 18.5" barrel. A winchester model 70 featherweight might be my first choice. But any 22" barreled 7-08 should be a light recoiling gun. And better than a 243 for almost all hunting.

[MarkCO]

Didn't he say he decided on the .270 just 2 posts up?

[Brian Pfleuger]

Choice made, nothing more to see here.