# Versatile calibers



## Gumbo (Sep 22, 2007)

If you could only have one caliber for hunting in Utah, what would it be? I'm just trying to get some of your thoughts on the different versatile calibers for the hunting we do 90% of the time (deer, elk, antelope).


----------



## Al Hansen (Sep 7, 2007)

Elk makes me think slightly larger. If me and only one gun then it would be a 7mm mag. Go lighter bullet on the smaller antelope, Isn't America grand, I don't have that dilemma. :lol:


----------



## BRL1 (Sep 12, 2007)

I am stuck with one rifle. I have shot a 270 for the last 25 yrs. Used it for everything from jackrabbits up to elk. Works great on all of them.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

30-06.


----------



## Guest (Jan 11, 2008)

Both 270 and 7mm Mag are excellent choices for Utah big game hunting. I own only one big game rifle and I strongly considered both of these calibers when I was shopping for it. I went with the 7mm Mag just because I wanted a little more knockdown power on elk but I still think you could not go wrong with a 270. Shot placement and accuracy are the most important thing so you want something you can shoot comfortably. Magnums are not for everyone. I dont think you can go wrong with the good old 30-06 either. With loads and bullet selections ranging from 100 grains all the way to 220 grains it is by far the most versatile caliber for north American big game hunting. If you want more power and effective range than a 30-06 can offer, and you are comfortable shooting a magnum, the 300 Win Mag is tough to beat, its just a little overkill on mule deer, and it would not be a good choice for whitetail or blacktail deer. The 308 is a fine caliber for deer but a little too light for elk IMHO. For elk I would draw the line at 270 or 30-06. I have never shot any of the new short magnums, like 300 WSM and 270 WSM, but I hear great things about them. They may very well be the way of the future.


----------



## Gumbo (Sep 22, 2007)

WeakenedWarrior said:


> I dont think you can go wrong with the good old 30-06 either. With loads and bullet selections ranging from 100 grains all the way to 220 grains it is by far the most versatile caliber for north American big game hunting.


I agree with the 30.06. But this segways into my next question, which is comparing the 30.06 to the 7mm. Any comments on the two?


----------



## El Matador (Dec 21, 2007)

I vote for the .300 mag, either the original or short mag. If you are recoil-sensitive, a .30-06 would be almost as good with a little less kick. .270, .280, 7 mag, .270 wsm and similar calibers are not bad either, but in my experience you'll want a larger diameter bullet for elk if there's any possibility of having a shot past 200 yards. If you did go with a .270 or 7mm sized bullet, I'd for sure get the magnum if elk are on your agenda. That would extend your effective range a little.

Now if you could have 2 guns, a .338 would be ideal for elk. Or, if not, get the biggest caliber you can shoot effectively. And a .270 or 7mm, magnum or regular, would be just right for deer.

Gumbo: The 7mm shoots flatter, making it a better choice for long-range deer (past 400 yards). .30-06 gives you more frontal area and heavier bullets, which are both more desirable for elk or moose. The differences are not huge but those are the differences.


----------



## Guest (Jan 11, 2008)

El Matador said:


> .270, .280, 7 mag, .270 wsm and similar calibers are not bad either, but in my experience you'll want a larger diameter bullet for elk if there's any possibility of having a shot past 200 yards.


I've killed 3 elk with my 7mm, all at ranges beyond 200 yards (one about 300 yards). All three were clean one-shot kills. Again, the key with any rifle is shot placement. If you hit them right in the boiler it won't make much difference whether the bullet diameter is .270, .280 (7mm), or .30 caliber, they are going to go down. Shooting high quality bullets is also important. A high quality bullet will offer uniform expansion and high weight retention to penetrate deeply and maximize the amount of energy that is transferred to the animal. I shoot 165 grain Barnes bullets and they have performed extremely well.

If I could have two rifles I would probably get a 300 Win Mag for mule deer, elk, moose, etc, and a 243 for whitetails, coyotes, varmints, etc. My next rifle is going to be a 243.


----------



## El Matador (Dec 21, 2007)

WeakenedWarrior said:


> I've killed 3 elk with my 7mm, all at ranges beyond 200 yards (one about 300 yards). All three were clean one-shot kills. Again, the key with any rifle is shot placement. If you hit them right in the boiler it won't make much difference whether the bullet diameter is .270, .280 (7mm), or .30 caliber, they are going to go down.


I don't doubt that at all, in fact it's pretty common to hear experiences like this. But, keep hunting and you may change your mind. The longer the shot, the less likely you are to hit the "boiler room" dead center, and that's when you really need the extra knock-down power. I shot a spike at 300 yards right in the lungs with a .280 and he ran off, never to be recovered. I also shot a 6-point at 80 yards twice right behind the shoulder and he ran 120 yards into heavy trees before collapsing. That's not how a good elk rifle should perform. But I've also seen elk shot at fairly close range with similar calibers and they went down pretty quick. Hence, my assessment that a 7mm class rifle is best for short range where you can reliably hit the center of the vitals, and where your bullet still has a lot of energy. Do some reading, or talk to someone that hunts a LOT of elk, and most will agree that a .338 or similar is the best elk gun. 7mms are not bad for elk, but in my experienceare lacking in power to bring down a big animal if your shot placement is less than perfect.


----------



## Guest (Jan 11, 2008)

I agree completely, elk are TOUGH animals and it takes a lot to put one down. And clearly a 338 or 340 is a "better" elk rifle than a 7mm. The only thing I am saying is that for an all-purpose rifle for big game hunting in Utah you are probably going to be better off with something smaller... much smaller. The most common big game opportunities in Utah are deer, elk and antelope (in that order), with moose, buffalo, goat and sheep being once in a lifetime opportunities. So my list of best choices for Utah big game hunting, among the traditional calibers, are 270, 7mm, 30-06 and 300. Again, I would also give a serious look at the new short-magnums as well. If I could afford two rifles then I would add several other calibers to both ends of the spectrum. And, as I said, IMHO, the best rifle for elk, or any other animal for that matter, is the one you can shoot well, and for many people this is not going to be a heavy magnum. Better to use a rifle that you can shoot comfortably and accurately then a heavy magnum that punishes you and causes you to flinch.


----------



## Nibble Nuts (Sep 12, 2007)

For best all around cartridge, the 30.06 takes my vote.


----------



## sawsman (Sep 13, 2007)

30-06.


----------



## Mojo1 (Sep 8, 2007)

Well, if I had to get rid of all my hunting rifles but one; I'd keep my .270WSM!


----------



## stick_man (Sep 10, 2007)

My vote goes to the '06 as well. I agree with almost everything that has been said so far with the exception of the .308. If you look at ballistics tables and reloading data, the .308 is actually ballistically SUPERIOR to the .30-06 with the lighter weight bullets. They are almost identical with the 165gr bullets and the '06 benefits from greater case capacity with the heavier bullets. The biggest advantage to a .308 over the '06 would be overall cartridge length allows the .308 to be chambered in lighter, short action guns. Plus, have you ever shot the "sabot" loads? 55gr .224 bullets at 4000 fps from your .30 cal rifle. Smokin'!!!!

Personally, I would take the .308 over a .270 ONLY because of the wider variety of bullet weights available and because of the larger frontal diameter. It is, however, a very tough decision and you really couldn't go wrong with any of the calibers discussed so far as long as you could feel comfortable shooting it. For that matter, a 7mm-08 makes a pretty good all-around type caliber.

Since elk are in the picture, I would have to say the '06 still has my vote.


----------



## campfire (Sep 9, 2007)

The last question was to compare the 7mm mag. to the 30-06. Well, most, ahem, gun writers that I have read consider the balistics of the two rounds "equal". The 7mm mag has more velocity and flatter trogectory while the 06 loaded with heaver bullets retains more energy down range. I will relate an isolated experience. On a guided hunt in Colorado many years ago I shot a mature bull elk in the shoulder with my 30-06. The 180 grain Nosler Partition shattered the near side shoulder, penatrated the hart/lungs breaking ribs on both sides and lodging just under the skin on the opposite side with most of the bullet still intact. On aproaching the downed anamal it rolled over down hill and fearing it was going to get up the guide shot it in the "Texas Heart" with his 7mm mag. When I butchered the elk I found that the 7mm round penetrated only a couple of inches and completely disintigrated not ruining much meat. My point is that velocity is the enemy of bullet performance. With 30-06 velocity, you might get away with bulets of lesser quality but at 7mm mag. velocities, bullet construction is very important. With well constructed bullets I think the 7mm mag and the 30-06 are "a wash". My humble 2 cents.


----------



## hikein (Sep 19, 2007)

I love short actions and shorter overall length rifles, so the 308 family has always been my favorite. The 308 will do the job on anything in Utah, least it has for me.


----------



## marksman (Oct 4, 2007)

I was considering the same guns when I bought my last rifle. I think performance wise the 06 and the 7mm are very similar. So close in fact that the deciding factor for me was price and availability. And the 30-06 won out. not that 7mm rounds are that much more expensive or harder to find. Another factor was reloading. I don't reload but I've considered it and think I will probably do it in the future. I got the impression that the 06 was more convenient to reload with more options. I know that the differences in availability, price, and reloadability are minimal but since the 2 rounds are so close in performance that is what was the deciding factor.


----------



## Guest (Jan 14, 2008)

I don't have the ballistics right in front of me and I can't go to the Federal website at work, but I have compared the two in the past and they are essentially equal out to 300 yards or so, but the 7mm pulls away beyond 300 in both trajectory and energy because of its higher ballistic co-efficient. Don't get me wrong, I have the highest respect for the venerable old 30-06, and for pure versatility I don't think you can beat it. But for Utah/Wyo/Nev big game hunting I still like the 270 or 7mm just because of the wide open terrain that dominates the region, and the long shots that often entails. But if you are going to take the same rifle outside of the region and 300+ yard shots are not a big factor then I think the 30-06 wins out. I don't see how reloading makes a big difference though. Sure there are more choices available in .30 caliber, but there are still more than enough choices for .280/7mm, and the difference in price is negligible. Factory ammo is on average about $2-4/box cheaper for the 30-06 so that is something to consider if you plan to shoot a lot of rounds and don't reload.

As far as 308 vs 30-06, if you look at the ballistics for factory ammo (I like Federal) you will see that the 308 sacrifices on average about 200 ft/lbs for 165-80 grain loads. And you don't see any factory loads for 308 beyond 180 grains. For deer sized game this is negligible, but for elk I don't think it can be spared when the 30-06 is already borderline for elk. Of course the 308 can and has killed a lot of elk, but for me, given the choice of the two, would prefer the 30-06.


----------



## marksman (Oct 4, 2007)

WeakenedWarrior said:


> I don't have the ballistics right in front of me and I can't go to the Federal website at work, but I have compared the two in the past and they are essentially equal out to 300 yards or so, but the 7mm pulls away beyond 300 in both trajectory and energy because of its higher ballistic co-efficient. Don't get me wrong, I have the highest respect for the venerable old 30-06, and for pure versatility I don't think you can beat it. But for Utah/Wyo/Nev big game hunting I still like the 270 or 7mm just because of the wide open terrain that dominates the region, and the long shots that often entails. But if you are going to take the same rifle outside of the region and 300+ yard shots are not a big factor then I think the 30-06 wins out. I don't see how reloading makes a big difference though. Sure there are more choices available in .30 caliber, but there are still more than enough choices for .280/7mm, and the difference in price is negligible. Factory ammo is on average about $2-4/box cheaper for the 30-06 so that is something to consider if you plan to shoot a lot of rounds and don't reload.


Oh don't get me wrong the differences are minor but they tipped the scale for me when comparing 2 such capable calibers.


----------



## Nibble Nuts (Sep 12, 2007)

WeakenedWarrior said:


> I don't have the ballistics right in front of me and I can't go to the Federal website at work, but I have compared the two in the past and they are essentially equal out to 300 yards or so, but the 7mm pulls away beyond 300 in both trajectory and energy because of its higher ballistic co-efficient. Don't get me wrong, I have the highest respect for the venerable old 30-06, and for pure versatility I don't think you can beat it. But for Utah/Wyo/Nev big game hunting I still like the 270 or 7mm just because of the wide open terrain that dominates the region, and the long shots that often entails. But if you are going to take the same rifle outside of the region and 300+ yard shots are not a big factor then I think the 30-06 wins out. I don't see how reloading makes a big difference though. Sure there are more choices available in .30 caliber, but there are still more than enough choices for .280/7mm, and the difference in price is negligible. Factory ammo is on average about $2-4/box cheaper for the 30-06 so that is something to consider if you plan to shoot a lot of rounds and don't reload.
> 
> As far as 308 vs 30-06, if you look at the ballistics for factory ammo (I like Federal) you will see that the 308 sacrifices on average about 200 ft/lbs for 165-80 grain loads. And you don't see any factory loads for 308 beyond 180 grains. For deer sized game this is negligible, but for elk I don't think it can be spared when the 30-06 is already borderline for elk. Of course the 308 can and has killed a lot of elk, but for me, given the choice of the two, would prefer the 30-06.


I trust the heavier and wider 06 bullet anyday over the 7mm. There are more factors than energy that go into killing power. Whoever said the 06 is borderline for elk needs to learn to shoot. I've seen enough 1 shot kills on elk and moose to remove any doubt. Plus I can load up a 9mm to have alot more energy on paper than a 45 but which one are you gong to trust more. Going off of energy is very misleading, and too much of it will ruin the performance of many bullets.


----------



## Guest (Jan 15, 2008)

Nibble Nuts said:


> Whoever said the 06 is borderline for elk needs to learn to shoot.


Just about every elk hunting authority and professional guide will tell you that. Being borderline doesn't mean it is not a good choice, it just means you wouldn't want to go any lighter. Most consider 7mm to be borderline as well. Of course you can still kill an elk with a lighter caliber. You could kill one with a 223 if you shot it just right. But obviously to pursue elk with a caliber like that would be irresponsible. The 30-06 is a fine cartridge and I have said several times now that it is hands down the most versatile cartridge for big game hunting in North America. As such it is definitely in the spectrum of elk hunting calibers, but it is definitely in the lower end of the spectrum, with 338 Win Mag and others at the other end.



Nibble Nuts said:


> I trust the heavier and wider 06 bullet anyday over the 7mm.


Thats fine but you should compare apples to apples. The most commonly used bullet weight for 30-06 on elk is 180 grains. For 7mm it is 175. A difference of 5 grains. Negligible. The metric diameter of 30-06 is 7.62, a difference of 0.62mm. With quality expanding bullets this is also negligible. I shoot Barnes bullets because they are killing machines, expanding to twice their original diameter with 100% weight retention. If you are going to shoot cheap bullets out of both rifles then you may have to give the 30-06 the edge, otherwise its a wash. One thing that isnt a wash however is trajectory and down range energy past 300 yards. No question the 7mm has the advantage there.

Having said all that, I still would not shoot beyond 300 yards with either rifle. Shot placement is always the most important factor and beyond 300 yards that becomes exponentially more difficult and you owe it to the animal to try to make a clean one-shot kill.


----------



## Nibble Nuts (Sep 12, 2007)

I guess I don't consider the 7mm borderline for elk either. I believe both these guns are just fine. I think you will find there are just as many gun authorities out there that agree with this.
If anything, the 06 amd 7mm may be more gun than is necessary for deer sized game. I would take a 220grain 06 over the 175 7mm though. The 35 Whelen doesn't have the most outstanding trajectory or energy either, but I would have way more confidence with it than either its brother the 06 or the 7mm. Energy is only one part of the killing power equation. The 45-70 or the 450 Marlin don't have the most impressive energy stats, but they will deliver one hell of a punch.


----------



## El Matador (Dec 21, 2007)

I wouldn't discount the bullet diameter issue quite as much as Weakened Warrior does. Even though it's only .62mm, the .30 cal has almost 20% more frontal area. That is significant. And that number will only get bigger if each bullet expands to the same percentage of it's original diameter. If the 7mm bullet is going faster that would offset the difference a little, but mass and frontal area beat velocity in this case.

Even though I don't really like either caliber for elk, I tend to agree with Weakened Warrior when he says to keep it under 300 yards. Either of these calibers would be good for elk under 200 yards, and adequate out to 300. Beyond that you'd have to be a great marksman to _reliably_ kill elk.


----------



## SingleShot man (Dec 24, 2007)

Split the difference-
Get a .280 and a reloading press.
While the .270's and .30's are all excellent and proven choices, 7mm diameter projectiles have the advantage of much higher Sectional densities and Ballistic coefficients for their grain weight than the other popular calibers. Higher sectional density promotes penetration, particularly when striking hard muscle and bone. Higher B.C promotes velocity and energy retention downrange. 7mm's just tend to 'hit' harder than comparable calibers at comparable velocities. With your reloading press, you can load anything from squib loads for plinking and coyotes all the way up to hot rodded 160 grain boattails for elk. A 175 roundnose would even be arguably sufficient for moose at reasonable ranges. The only caliber I'm aware of that is perhaps even more efficient for its size is the 6.5 mm. Unfortunately, component availability is not as wide ranging as the 7mm. Nor are the caliber options. Although, the .264 Win Mag and .260 rem would be good deer calibers, they have short case necks; so the heavy 160 grainers don't seem to perform too well in those cases. Therefore, they're perhaps not the best options for anything bigger than deer. As for the .280, when aiming at an elk with this 'lighter' caliber, it would be wise to strike major bone. I aim just above the elbow joint (broadside) in the hope of breaking both front legs and taking out the major arteries at the top of the heart. Just use the right bullet for the job.
A .280 will do anything the bigger magnums will do (and the standard calibers as well) with less punishment on you shoulder, ears, and wallet. The trick is-
It's only an 'all around caliber' if you can HIT what's around you.


----------



## Nibble Nuts (Sep 12, 2007)

I subscribe to the under 300 yards philosophy, but I agree.


----------



## Guest (Jan 15, 2008)

SingleShot man said:


> Get a .280 and a reloading press.
> While the .270's and .30's are all excellent and proven choices, 7mm diameter projectiles have the advantage of much higher Sectional densities and Ballistic coefficients for their grain weight than the other popular calibers. Higher sectional density promotes penetration, particularly when striking hard muscle and bone. Higher B.C promotes velocity and energy retention downrange. 7mm's just tend to 'hit' harder than comparable calibers at comparable velocities.


Exactly. I don't understand why the 280 never really caught on. It is an excellent cartridge that shoots as flat as a 270, and hits as hard as a 30-06. I guess it is just the popularity of the .30 caliber cartridges in the US because of the 30-06 and 308, and the already entrenched 270 which is just a necked-down 30-06. The popularity of the 7mm probably doomed it as well (why get a Lite when you can get Lager). You would be hard pressed to find any practical benefit of the 7mm over the 280 inside of 300 yards though, and it is much better suited to the average shooter who is not able to shoot magnums well. I would definitely include it in my list of best all-around cartridges for Utah big game if it were more widely available. If you reload then it should definitely be a consideration. Remington used to make a model 7 Mountain Rifle in 280 that had a 20" barrel and weighed just 5 pounds sans scope. What a great gun for hunting in the backcountry that would make!


----------



## SingleShot man (Dec 24, 2007)

I had always wanted a 7mm Rem (I've been drooling over a Vanguard, in fact) until the rotator cuffs in both my shoulders were torn irreparably and I got fusions in my neck. Since, hard kickers have been something I tend to avoid.
The .280 is a great round, and in a mid-weight rifle, I can shoot it all day. That's the allure- if you can shoot your rifle all day, you can become quite proficient with it. Who needs a 'wonder cannon' when you DON'T miss? 
I've never actually owned a .280 per se, but I've had a very nicely sporterized 7X57 Argentine Mauser and a Belgian mauser in 7mm-06 Ackley Improved. The only difference between that round and the factory .280 is about 5deg 20' in shoulder angle. Same case capacity and pressure characteristics.
Anyway- just thinking out loud, sharing experience.

Another versatile caliber that gets no credit- 8X57 Mauser.
A good handload will really wake that round up- factory ammo is grossly underloaded.


----------



## Gumbo (Sep 22, 2007)

The 7mm comes in a WSM. Does that tilt the scales more in it's favor over the 30.06?


----------



## Nibble Nuts (Sep 12, 2007)

Gumbo said:


> The 7mm comes in a WSM. Does that tilt the scales more in it's favor over the 30.06?


An .06 magnum is the 300 magnum, which also comes in a short mag, so no difference yet.


----------



## El Matador (Dec 21, 2007)

The 7mm WSM is a pretty cool cartridge. Its interesting that of the standard magnums (7mm, 300, 338), the 300 is about .10 inch longer in the case, giving it a little more power. In the short magnums, its the 7mm which is longer than the 270, 300, and 325. Of all the magnums in that range, I like the 7mm best for deer and antelope because you get about another 100fps over the 270. But since the 270 came out first, it is more popular and more widely available. 

But does that tip the scales? I still think they have the same differences: Lighter, narrower bullet faster vs bigger bullet not as fast. 

I actually own a .280. It was my first rifle, and I chose it because most people said it was one of the best all-around calibers. It has been superb as a deer round. Although, since my latest hunts have found me wanting to extend my shooting range as much as possible, I'm going to be using a .270 WSM this year. I probably would stick with the .280 if it were strictly a ballistics issue, as the .270 is only giving me like 200 fps more. But I wanted a synthetic stainless and since I was getting a new gun anyway, the .270 it was. And I've not been too impressed with what the .280 does on elk. I've switched to a .338 for those but haven't shot anything with it yet.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

So, jumping back to the original question - best all around cartridge for big game in Utah - so not too big for deer or too small for elk - 
Any of the following would be good for what we might encounter here:

.270 (including wsm)
.280
7mm mag
7mm -08
.308
30-06

And all in all, practice practice practice.


----------



## Nibble Nuts (Sep 12, 2007)

GaryFish said:


> So, jumping back to the original question - best all around cartridge for big game in Utah - so not too big for deer or too small for elk -
> Any of the following would be good for what we might encounter here:
> 
> .270 (including wsm)
> ...


Yeah, that pretty much sums it up. I still favor the .06 though.


----------



## threshershark (Sep 7, 2007)

+1 to pretty much everything El Matador has said. All the calibers mentioned here are very popular for good reason, they're all solid and if you already have one by all means use it and don't spin your wheels too much.

If you are buying a new rifle, and want just one "versatile" round, my advice is to consider the biggest animal you may be hunting and your personal maximum effective range as the key decision points.

If you're going to hunt elk, 7mm should be a starting point and .30 caliber would be better. If your typical shot is under 200 yards, a non-magnum caliber is fine. Beyond 200 yards on elk, start at 7mm Mag and work up, with .300 Mag/.300 WSM or .338/.325 WSM as good options.

With the bigger calibers, the good news is that you can generally go with lighter, faster bullets if you want to. It doesn't quite go the other way as easily though, if you want a 180+ grain slug for elk your options are pretty limited under .30, and even more scant under 7mm.

I'd say the .270, .280, .30-06, 7mm-08 etc are excellent deer rounds to 350 yards, and solid elk rounds under 200 yards. Beyond those generalized thresholds, the magnums perform better. Lately I've been using a .300 WSM for deer and elk. I've also killed 5 elk with a .284 Winchester (ballistically identical to the .280 Rem), all of them under 150 yards with clean kills on each.


----------



## campfire (Sep 9, 2007)

One more thought. Single shot man mentioned getting a little more performance from hand loads. Hand loading or now with the factory loaded "high energy" rounds, 30-06 velocities are within 90 fps of standard 300 Win Mag velocities with 180 grain bullets. That is a pretty potent round and just another plus for versatility. So, with factory ammo, if you have a 30-06 you can shoot rounds "suitable" for varmints, rounds "ideal" for deer and rounds that are arguably more than suitable for elk or Moose. You can also shoot factory loaded "reduced recoil" rounds. We were talking about versatility were we not?


----------



## Nibble Nuts (Sep 12, 2007)

campfire said:


> One more thought. Single shot man mentioned getting a little more performance from hand loads. Hand loading or now with the factory loaded "high energy" rounds, 30-06 velocities are within 90 fps of standard 300 Win Mag velocities with 180 grain bullets. That is a pretty potent round and just another plus for versatility. So, with factory ammo, if you have a 30-06 you can shoot rounds "suitable" for varmints, rounds "ideal" for deer and rounds that are arguably more than suitable for elk or Moose. You can also shoot factory loaded "reduced recoil" rounds. We were talking about versatility were we not?


Very good/valid point.


----------



## Gumbo (Sep 22, 2007)

You guys are an amazing information resource. Thank you very for sharing your knowledge and experience.


----------



## Guest (Jan 16, 2008)

campfire said:


> So, with factory ammo, if you have a 30-06 you can shoot rounds "suitable" for varmints, rounds "ideal" for deer and rounds that are arguably more than suitable for elk or Moose. You can also shoot factory loaded "reduced recoil" rounds. We were talking about versatility were we not?


I have read a few comments made about the 30-06 being "suitable" for varmints. If these are in reference to the 55 grain Accelerators (a 22 caliber bullet with a sabot), I think they stopped making those a while back, and besides every review I have read on those has been less than enthusiastic about their accuracy. The smallest 30 caliber bullets I have seen is 100 grains so I guess you could load those for varmints but if you are after pelts then you will need a much smaller gun. If you just like to shoot little critters to make pink mist then any rifle is "suitable".


----------



## campfire (Sep 9, 2007)

WeakenedWarrior said:


> campfire said:
> 
> 
> > So, with factory ammo, if you have a 30-06 you can shoot rounds "suitable" for varmints, rounds "ideal" for deer and rounds that are arguably more than suitable for elk or Moose. You can also shoot factory loaded "reduced recoil" rounds. We were talking about versatility were we not?
> ...


You are spot on. Are there guns more "suitable " for varmints than the 06 like a 204 Ruger, 22-250, ect.? Absolutly! Are there guns better suited for Elk and Moose than the 06 like a 338 mag ? Absolutely! Are there guns more "ideal" for deer? I would argue that a 270 or 280 or even a 7mm-o8 might be more "ideal" for deer than an 06. But then we were talking about VERSITILITY were we not?


----------



## Guest (Jan 16, 2008)

campfire said:


> You are spot on. Are there guns more "suitable " for varmints than the 06 like a 204 Ruger, 22-250, ect.? Absolutly! Are there guns better suited for Elk and Moose than the 06 like a 338 mag ? Absolutely! Are there guns more "ideal" for deer? I would argue that a 270 or 280 or even a 7mm-o8 might be more "ideal" for deer than an 06. But then we were talking about VERSITILITY were we not?


Sure, and for big game versatility you can't beat 30-06 as I have said many times now, but I think you have to draw the line some where, and I think extending that versatility to varmints as well is a bit of a stretch, IMHO. A 30-06 is going to make an absolute MESS of ANY varmint sized animal you shoot with it. Now if that is all you are after, and many varminters are, then versatility is a mute point. Versatility has its limits though. You can't use a hammer to tighten a screw.


----------



## campfire (Sep 9, 2007)

WeakenedWarrior said:


> campfire said:
> 
> 
> > You are spot on. Are there guns more "suitable " for varmints than the 06 like a 204 Ruger, 22-250, ect.? Absolutly! Are there guns better suited for Elk and Moose than the 06 like a 338 mag ? Absolutely! Are there guns more "ideal" for deer? I would argue that a 270 or 280 or even a 7mm-o8 might be more "ideal" for deer than an 06. But then we were talking about VERSITILITY were we not?
> ...


I shot a coyote durring the deer hunt a few years ago with a Fedral 180 grain high energy Nosler Partition from my 30-06. MMMMMMMM I could not ague that point further.


----------



## Surfer Coyote (Jan 14, 2008)

A lots already been said on the subject, but based on cost, availability, and use on a variety of big game my list would be like this:

1. .30-06
2. .308
3. .270
4. 7mm
5. .300 Magnums


----------



## James (Oct 7, 2007)

BRL1, I am with you. 270

Everyone I know who has a belted magnum has at some time got a black eye from the scope, and ever after can't shoot worth a crap because of a flinch that won't go away. The ammo is also too expensive for my tastes.


----------



## SingleShot man (Dec 24, 2007)

If I had to pick ONE-
.30-06. With the exception of a .22 LR, I've fired more rounds of '06 than any other. .308 Win, second.

versatility-
Pick up one of those "One book-One Caliber" publications at Sportsman's. Sure- full power loads will be catastrophic to any varmint.
Try these ones-

18.0 grains 4227 w/ 110 gr Speer short jacket hp= 2300 fps
27.0 grains 3031 w/ 86 gr Sierra RN sp (handgun bullet)= 2550 fps
29.0 " " w/ 110 Speer sp/ hp (spitzer)= 2450 fps

There are many, many others. I'm currently developing a coyote load for my .30-30. Haven't shot at anything but water jugs yet, but the results are less than catastrophic. My goal is to save pelts- these loads will do it!

These loads give good results, oddly enough, in both the .308 AND .30-06. Do a little tinkering for best accuracy in your rifle.
Hell, with some patience you can throttle that thing down to mimic a .30 M1 carbine. Won't cycle an auto, though.


----------



## Frisco Pete (Sep 22, 2007)

*This is an extremely long post, but the very, very best common-sense coupled with intelligent observation article I've ever seen. It was by John Barsness in Rifle magazine a couple of years back and really deserves a broader read by those interested in debating calibers:*

*ADEQUATE RIFLES - TOUGH GAME*

How much gun/caliber is enough? How much bigger caliber do you need for elk or moose than for northern whitetail? Must we always use heavy bullets and "magnum" cartridges on the tough stuff, while wimpier animals fall easily to wimpy loads?

No, not necessarily. If hit right, all big game animals succumb even to relatively light bullets pushed at moderate velocities. "Hit right" means through both lungs and the major blood vessels that carry blood between heart and lungs. The original size, weight and speed of the bullet doesn't really matter - as long as it gets inside the animals chest and makes a decent hole. A precisely placed bullet from the .30-06 will do the job on everything from reputedly tough 450-pound gemsbok and elk, and the less "tough" moose, and 1300-pound eland. Few would travel more than 50 yards before collapsing.

Where does the tough part come in? Mostly when game animals aren't hit precisely. Hit and of the "tough" animals around the fringes of the lungs, and they can go an awfully long way, and sometimes even recover. Elk and gemsbok sometimes live fruitful lives after bullet placement around the margins of the lungs.

Will bigger rifles kill "better" with imprecise bullet placement? Not as much as some hunters like to believe. Certainly a 250-grain bullet from a .340 Weatherby Magnum makes a bigger hole than a 150-grain bullet from a 7x57, and the bigger bullet will break larger bones and still penetrate deeply. But it won't make much difference if a .340 bullet fringes the rear of the lungs on an elk or gemsbok.. We end up chasing a long, thin blood trail regardless of how many foot-pounds or KO Factor or whatever the .340's bullet carries.

So "tough" means they'll go a ways if hit around the edges.

Here I would like to add pronghorn and whitetail to The List. Many hunters consider both easy to kill, but if you hunt either long enough, you'll learn differently. I've seen poorly hit whitetails and prairie goats, neither weighing more than 100 pounds, pack an incredible amount of lead for several hundred yards.

Why do most hunters think pronghorns and whitetails aren't tough? Deer hunters usually start out young. Relatives with decades of experience usually choose their first rifles. Consequently, 99 percent of pronghorn and deer hunters hunt with something milder than a .300 magnum. Since most pronghorn and deer hunters aren't afraid of their rifles, they put the bullet in the right place, and the chase ends.

Most of us, however, don't hunt larger game very often so tend to depend on "gun writers" for advice about what works. We read that anything smaller than a .338 Winchester Magnum is "inadequate" for elk, or that a .375 H&H is too small for Cape buffalo. This isn't what the majority of elk outfitters and African professional hunters say, but with rare exceptions, elk outfitters and African PHs aren't gun writers.

So a deer hunter who normally shoots a .30-06 (in my experience a totally adequate elk rifle) books his first elk hunt and buys a .338 Winchester Magnum. He can't shoot it very accurately, but "knows" anything less is inadequate. On the fifth day of the hunt, he shoots a middling 5-point bull in the rear of the rib cage, and the bull trots over the mountain before they track it down. Elk sure are tough! Shot right through the lungs with a big ol' .338 and kept on truckin'!

An actual example would be a 110-pound whitetail doe I recently witnessed shot at 250 yards with a 100-grain Barnes Triple-Shock through the ribs with a .257 Roberts. The deer (as they almost always do when lung-shot) ran about 35 yards before keeling over. The X-Bullet left an excellent blood trail. After butchering, the shoulder meat wasn't even bruised.

Similar shot placement, however, doesn't always work all that well once we get to animals over 500 pounds, for a couple of reasons. First, there's relatively less bullet hole. Probably, if we averaged all the deer rifles and all the deer in North America, we'd find the average deer bullet to be .27 inch in diameter and weigh 150 grains. We'd also find the average deer to weigh about 150 pounds: one grain for each pound of deer. Generally a bullet this size will almost totally collapse the lungs of the average deer.

To match that on elk we'd have to use 500 to 800 grains of bullet, and on Cape buffalo or bison we'd have to use 1,500 to 2,000-grain bullets. They'd also have to be a lot fatter, around .45 caliber on elk and .60 caliber on the big boys. Instead the bullets we use on elk probably average about .30 inch and 200 grains, and perhaps .40 and 400 grains on buffalo and bison. These do not collapse the lungs of elk and buffalo. Instead they punch holes.

Consequently, the bigger the game, the closer we have to aim for the top of the heart - and a bullet placed there also punches through the biggest part of both lungs. Essentially this means putting a bullet in the shoulder, either the bone itself or the shoulder meat. The average deer hunter isn't conditioned to shoot for the shoulder, but somewhere behind it, one reason so many deer hunters find larger game tough to kill.

Over the years I've made it a point to hunt with as many different cartridges as possible, and to accompany other hunters, either as a guide or simple observer. Over the decades I've made careful shooting notes on several hundred big game animals of all sizes. When hit through the top of the heart, or within a few inches of that ideal spot, there doesn't seem to be much difference in how quickly most big game calibers kill game. Yet many American hunters (perhaps over-fed on shooting propaganda) believe that 10 or 15 grains of bullet weight, a few thousandths of an inch in bullet diameter or a 5 percent increase in muzzle velocity can make one cartridge "inadequate" and another as devastating as a medium-sized volcano.

This doesn't mean there isn't an increase in "killing power" from, say, the .243 Winchester to the .460 Weatherby Magnum. Obviously there is. But probably 95 percent of the "big game" taken in the world weighs less than 700 pounds (including most elk), and 95 percent of the cartridges use bullets weighing between 150 and 200 grains at velocities between 2,700 and 3,100 fps, generating 2,500 to 3,500 foot-pounds (ft-lbs) of muzzle energy. Compared to the gulf between the .243 and .460, that's pretty narrow. Claiming one cartridge in this bunch is magic and another anemic simply isn't rational.

Sometimes this perception is because certain gun writers may come down many times against lighter cartridges for elk. Some may draw a firm .30-caliber line and state that any .270 or 7mm cartridge isn't their idea of an elk cartridge.

This despite the fact that they have never shot an elk with such a cartridge. Some of them eventually have to use a small caliber because of an odd, unwritten law of gun writing: Only personal experience counts. So [_true story of unnamed writer who favors the 8mm Rem. Mag and bigger_] they use a .270 Winchester on a trophy hunt in New Mexico, handloaded with 150-grain Nosler Partitions. They kill a good 6-point bull at longer range than he'd ever shot an elk - and the bull went down quicker than any of his previous chest-shot bulls.

Fortunately for us, they are soon penning a new article "Are You Overgunned?" He seems to be mellowing, partly because of that elk - and partly because he recently took his daughter and her friend to Africa and watched them slay elk-sized African game with a 7mm-08 Remington and 150-grain Swift Scirocco bullets.

However, we'll never lack for gun writers who insist only larger cartridges are "truly adequate." Many of them suggest that "resident" elk hunters often get by with such truly inadequate rounds as the .270 WCF and .30-06 because residents can go hunting any time they want to, so pass up "marginal" shots.

This is truly a crock. I was born and raised and live in Montana. We have a five-week rifle season, longer than most other elk states. Montana elk hunters, like most hunters in North America, are working people, so Montana hunters mostly hunt weekends - and usually not every day of every weekend. Consequently their elk season is about as long as the 7-to 10-day elk hunt booked by nonresidents. Most Montana resident also hunt public land where (and when) everybody else hunts, unlike nonresidents who do their hunting a long horseback ride into the wilderness or on some private ranch.

Most Montan elk hunters (like most hunters) don't read gun magazines, so remain ignorant of the latest Magic Rifles and Super Cartridges. Consequently they mostly use average rifles, often purchased at Wal-Mart: Remingtons, Rugers, Savages, and Winchesters chambered for the .270 Winchester, 7mm Remington Magnum and .30-06. A relatively small minority use .300 magnums of any sort, and I can count the .338 Winchester Magnums I've encountered over 40 years of hunting Montana on the fingers of one hand (and that hand carried one of those .338s). These residents take any shot they can get,because their time is just as limited as that of any nonresident. If they shoot well, they do well, the secret to using "inadequate" elk rifles.

Something similar happens when American hunters venture to Africa, whether for plains game or big stuff. They read hunting magazines and decide that African game is nearly bulletproof.

Yet upon arrival, they find that most African hunters hold the .30-06 in high regard for anything smaller than eland, and many even use it on those Alaskan moose-sized antelope. Here I mean "professional" hunters, the guides of Africa. Often African gun writers spout the same big-bore stuff that flows from the laptops of many American gun writers. But the Africans who escort amateurs into the field year after year generally recommend the .30-06 for any plains game, or something very much like it, perhaps the 7mm Remington Magnum. If they prefer something larger on eland, it's generally a .375 H&H, not some cutting-edge300 magnum that may develop as many foot-pounds as the .375 but doesn't penetrate eland bones any better than a .30-06. (One reason many Africans like the .30-06 is that it doesn't require bullets costing several dollars apiece - and that's how much some of our "premium" bullets cost by the time they travel across the Atlantic.)

African game is tough - just as tough as white-tailed deer and elk. Deer-sized African animals fall neatly to deer cartridges, and elk-sized African animals fall easily to the .30-06. Eland are just as easy to kill as moose. Yet many Americans show up for plains game with some super-fast magnum, bragging about how they shoot deer at 600 yards, whereupon their PH yawns and wonders how they'll do on kudu at 60 yards in the thornbrush.

When after Cape buffalo in Botswana last year, I asked my PH Russell Tarr how many dangerous game hunters show up with big-bore rifles that make them flinch. Russell thought a short moment, then said, "The majority." Like many African PHs, Russell carries a .458 Winchester or .470 Nitro Express when backing up over-gunned clients - but hunts buffalo and elephants himself with a .375 H&H.

You might guess that I'm prejudiced against larger cartridges. Not at all. The last five years might be a good example. During that time I hunted big game in nine American states from Alaska to South Texas, several Canadian provinces and territories, Old Mexico and three countries in Africa. The cartridges used included the .250 Savage, .257 Roberts, 6.5x55 "Swedish" Mauser, .270 Winchester, .270 WSM, .270 Weatherby Magnum, 7x57mm Mauser, 7mm Remington SAUM, 7mm STW, .300 Savage, .30-40 Krag, .30-06, .300 WSM, .300 H&H, .300 Winchester Magnum, .338 Winchester Magnum, 9.3x62mm Mauser, .375 H&H, .416 Rigby and .45-70. Oh, and 20- and 12-gauge "slug guns," and a Thompson/Center Hawken .50-caliber muzzleloader.

The .30-06 probably shouldn't have been on the list because I already knew what it would and wouldn't do. One went to Africa anyway, to prove a point about plains game. This ancient round worked just fine, naturally, even making the longest shot I've attempted over there, a one-shot kill on a kudu at almost 400 yards.

Did the magnums kill any better than the smaller cartridges? Not noticeably. I've taken most of my elk with the .30-caliber, 200-grain Nosler Partition, mostly from .30-06s but also a couple of .300 magnums. Generally elk go about 35 to 40 yards before keeling over when shot with that bullet, regardless of the cartridge, and generally the long Partition goes right through. I've never lost an elk shot with the 200-grain Partition, and only shot one twice - with a .300 Winchester Magnum. (The second wasn't necessary, but powder and bullets are relatively cheap insurance.)

I've also used the .338 Winchester Magnum a lot on game animals weighing 500 to 1,500 pounds. For several years no animal required more than one shot, but then one day the first shot on a blue wildebeest went a little high. The bull started to run off, and a second shot also went a little high. A third went into the rump as the bull turned away. Did three 250-grain bullets make up for poor bullet placement? No, not even the rear-end shot, which ended up inside the chest. We caught up with the bull an hour and most of a mile later, just at dusk. I shot him again, at 30 yards - and he fell and got up again. Another big bullet through both shoulders finally ended it.

Does bullet design make a difference? I know folks who firmly believe in bullets that don't fully penetrate an animal's chest - and others who adamantly prefer bullets that always exit. The first set tends to believe in "releasing all the bullet's energy" in the animal instead of the wilderness beyond, while the second group prefers two holes "to let the blood out and the air in." My hunting notes from the past four decades indicate that as long as the bullet puts a decent hole through the vitals, there isn't much difference in whether it penetrates the off-side skin.

Some bullets, of course, have expanded too much over those years, not penetrating the vitals. Others have expanded very little. Neither killed as quickly as bullets that punched a good hole through the pumping and breathing mechanism. The too-quick expanders often required repeated applications to finish the job - the reason I slightly prefer the deeper divers, but don't make a federal case of it.

Like cartridges, most bullets work. There really isn't a universe of difference between how quickly a Nosler Ballistic Tip or a Barnes X-Bullet kills if either hits the right place. Neither will always drop themin their tracks, and neither prevents some lung-shot game from going 50 yards before collapsing. *This is because it takes about 12 seconds for an animal's blood pressure to drop after a bullet punches a hole through its heart and lungs. There's an interval before the brain blacks out.*

I've also learned to distrust two kinds of opinions: those that proclaim something The Absolute Best/Worst or those resulting from biased experience. The first almost always means the opinion-holder has limited experience (perhaps a sample of one) with the cartridge or bullet in question. The second often means the opinion-holder has no experience at all.

I tend to disregard, for instance, opinions about the .270 WCF and large game held by people who've rarely or never seen one used. I've used the .270 to take more big game thatn any other cartridge. So has my wife, and I've watched her take almost all her big game. The animals in question ranged from pronghorn and whitetails up to elk and moose. If the .270 truly sucks as a big game cartridge, we would have quit using it long ago. We haven't.

All of this is contrary to much advice published in sporting firearms publications, where we read "absolute best" and "bigger is better" over and over again. The human brain (the origin of all our technology) is evidently wired to expect vast improvements in tools. There have been a bunch of new hunting bullets and cartridges introduced in the past half-century. The new short magnums are neat little rounds; I own rifles chambered for two and have taken over a dozen animals with them. I use all sorts of bullets and, while my prejudices about turning edible venison into blood gravy affect my personal choices, no bullet I've tried in the last decade has been absolute junk - if used within what engineers might call its "design parameters."

We discovered perhaps 90 percent of what we know today about big game rifles, cartridges and bullets in the first half-century of smokeless powder. John Nosler, for instance, invented his marvelous bullet only 50-odd years after Winchester produced the first American sporting rifle chambered for a smokeless cartridge. (For the curious: the 1885 Single Shot in .30-40 Krag, in 1892.) The next 50-odd years have seen some refinements in sporting rifles and ammunition but nothing like the improvements before 1950.

What does all this have to do with tough game? Quite a bit. None of the animals on The List are other-worldly tough if we: 
1)	Put enough practice rounds through rifles that don't scare us.
2)	We must learn big game anatomy.
3)	Develop judgement about when not to pull the trigger. 
All this takes time, effort and expense. If we don't put all three into our shooting, many game animals will prove very tough, even if not on somebody's list - and even if we use the latest wonder-magnum and bullets costing $2 apiece. Tough game, it turns out, is often something hunters create for themselves.


----------



## Guest (Jan 17, 2008)

Interesting article. Thanks for posting.


----------



## marksman (Oct 4, 2007)

I think the article posted by Frisco Pete is correct. However even though pretty much any rifle (within reason) is adequate for most big game people will keep asking and debating which is best. The reason they debate won't go away is that it's a debate that each hunter must undergo personally each time they go to buy a new rifle (or choose which of their current rifles to use for any given hunt). When trying to decided between the huge number of options the hunter must decide which to buy and therefor must ask themselves "Which one of these is the best?". An offshoot of that question comes from the hunter that is limited to only one gun (for whatever reason) but would like to hunt a variety of game and that question is "Which one of these is most versatile for game?". As we seek answers to these questions people will naturally consult whatever sources they can including this forum. And other hunters will doubtfully share the answers they have found when they were trying to make the same decision.


----------



## sagebrush (Sep 8, 2007)

there are some good points in the article the one that stands out the most is about shot placement this is something that is ignored most often. So to help some of you out here. I have this picture of a deer anatomy to help in knowing where the organs are.


----------



## Guest (Jan 17, 2008)

While I agree with everything the author states in the article posted by Frisco Pete I would still argue that there is a lot to be said for bullet energy, often referred to as "knockdown power". It is true that bullets kill by making holes in vital organs and severing arteries, and all that good stuff, but they ALSO kill by causing massive impact trauma. When a bullet strikes an animal it transfers an enormous amount of energy to the body which travels through the body in the form of hydrostatic shock waves (remember that body tissue is mostly water), even before the bullet has penetrated to any vital organs or arteries. Watch a slow motion capture of a bullet impacting an animal, or ballistic gelatin, and you can see these energy waves ripple through it. These shock waves cause significant trauma and damage of their own by rupturing the cell membranes of blood vessels, muscle tissue, and organs. This massive impact trauma also stuns the animal, and ideally, knocks it down (hence the name) so that the animal is unable to recover its feet and get back up, making for the perfect one-shot kill. Contrast this with the way an arrow kills. The broadhead of the arrow cuts an even larger swath through the animal, but because of its comparatively slow velocity there is little or no shock to the animal from impact trauma. Usually the animal runs off with no visible sign of injury while the hunter waits patiently for it to bleed out. I'm not saying that an arrow is in any way inadequate, I'm just making the point that the perfect recipe for a clean one-shot kill of big game animals is a combination of penetration of vital organs/arteries AND massive impact trauma that ideally knocks the animal off its feet. Add the two together and you have an animal that is NOT going to get back up.

Getting back to the topic of big game hunting calibers, a good rule of thumb I have read from many noted authorities is that, on average, it takes a minimum of 1600 ft/lbs of energy to knock down a mature bull elk, while it only takes about 800 ft/lbs to knock down a mature buck. Obviously these numbers will vary a bit from animal to animal. One bull elk might go down with only 1200 ft/lbs, while another requires 2000 or more, but in my opinion they are a good guide to consider when selecting a rifle. IMHO, you should study the ballistics for numerous factory loads in the calibers you are considering and pick one that is going to offer enough energy at the ranges you plan to be shooting for the animals you plan to shoot. Just my $0.02 anyway. This has been a good discussion. :mrgreen:


----------



## Al Hansen (Sep 7, 2007)

I "used to get" Best of the West on the Satellite until they cancelled the Mens' Channel (what idiots) , John Burns from Wyoming used what he called the High Shoulder shot on his game (Elk , Deer) and it put them down right on the spot (or DRT) . I will assume that that put the bullet on the spine after looking at your image Sage. John obviously spent a lot of time shooting and hunting and produced a video on the subject. Great for entertainment, but as far as duplicating his same results I don't think so. Give me the heart lung shot everytime within a reasonable distance. Now, on I my Prairy Dogs I try for the heart and lung, but seems as though I miss them quite often, but the results are the same anywhere on the P-dog. DRT or they end up within a ten yard radius. :lol:


----------



## Nibble Nuts (Sep 12, 2007)

The whole concept of knockdown power is debatable. No bullet has true knockdown power and hitting the vitals is a must.The reason rifles can get away with using smaller bullets then handguns is because they travel at a velocity that is fast enough to overcome the elasticity in flesh, lungs, etc. leaving more of a tear in the flesh. That being said, no matter how much energy your ballistics show, you will not knock down most big game especially with poorly placed shots. Think about the article Frisco posted where it talks about shooting the animal poorly 5 times with a 338. Disrupting vitals is a must. We slaughter cows using a 22 magnum. That is because we can get good shot placement into the brain stem area. It only takes one shot.


----------



## .45 (Sep 21, 2007)

sagebrush said:


> there are some good points in the article the one that stands out the most is about shot placement this is something that is ignored most often. So to help some of you out here. I have this picture of a deer anatomy to help in knowing where the organs are.


Good point sagebrush!! Between the 3rd and 4th rib, 7 inches up. It's allways worked for me..

I like a 25-06...


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

So, going back to the original post:



> If you could only have one caliber for hunting in Utah, what would it be? I'm just trying to get some of your thoughts on the different versatile calibers for the hunting we do 90% of the time (deer, elk, antelope).


From all the discussion, and Frisco Pete's article supports the idea, any of the following would meet your request:

270/280
7mm rem
308
30-06

All are calibers you can get in pretty much any rifle, at any store, and find ammo anywhere you go. I guess there is a reason these are the most popular hunting calibers around.

As a parting note, the feature article in July 2007's Field and Stream was a David Petzal's ranking of the best hunting cartridges. He put them in different categories - Varmits, Varmits and Big Game, Big Game Light Kickers, Big Game - The All Around Rounds, Big Game at Long Range, and Heavy or Dangerous North American Game. The question you asked fits into the "Big Game: The All Around Rounds." He describes this as "They're too powerful for prairie dogs, and I wouldn't hunt brown bears wtih them, but for everything in between, these are great."

His first choice - 30-06.
"You thought I was going to pick something else and get drummed out of the Gun Writers' Guild and spend the rest of my life being hunted like a criminal? Fat chance. Nope, sorry, the '06 is the unquestioned champ in the do-everything category. now it its 101st year, the '06 is loaded with bullets ranging in weight from 125 grains to 220 grains, but of these the most useful are 150 grains at 2900 fps, 164 grains at 2800 fps, and 180 grains at 2700 fps."

Anyway, I thought that interesting. His second place was the 270/280, which he seems to think are so relatively similar, that there is no need to discuss them separately. He also grouped the 7mm rem mag with the 270/280 - again noting that they are so similar, no need to separate. Its a good article though and worth reading on this subject. Entertaining in the least.


----------



## marksman (Oct 4, 2007)

I believe that energy of the projectile (largely in combination with the sectional density) has an impact on the deadliness of a shot. However bullet energy alone cannot kill. Consider a person shot with a 9mm pistol at 7 or 8 yards in the chest. That person would probably be dead. If however you consider a person shot with the same bullet but wearing a kevlar vest who would probably survive. Both people absorbed the same amount of energy (minus an insignificant amount absorbed by the kevlar's inertia and absorbed and released by the kevlar in the form of heat) The difference is that due to the kevlar's tensile strength it didn't tear as easily as human flesh so the bullet never disrupted vital organ function (may have broken a rib but didn't stop your heart lungs etc) and instead the energy was dispersed over a larger surface area of the person's body. another thing to consider is that when you fire a rifle your shoulder absorbs the muzzle energy of the round you just fired. but since it is distributed differently than the energy of the bullet it isn't lethal. Energy alone won't kill. (at least in the ammounts that we are talking about)


----------



## Nibble Nuts (Sep 12, 2007)

I think I would hunt a brown bear with a 220 grain .06 if I had the chance. Sure a 338 or something would be better for the job in question, but I think the .06 would do fine. I am just going off of pure specualtion though because I've never had the opportunity to hunt brown bears, let alone bears in general, so I may be way off base here.


----------



## Nibble Nuts (Sep 12, 2007)

marksman said:


> Energy alone won't kill. (at least in the ammounts that we are talking about)


True. Think of how punishing it would be to shoot that gun if it had that kind of energy.


----------



## Guest (Jan 18, 2008)

My vote is for 300 ultra mag, load light for small, heavy for big, wide range of power. :idea:


----------



## woollybugger (Oct 13, 2007)

I wouldn't place all my chips on energy alone. Bullet construction, sectional density, and most importantly: shot placement; is where I place my trust. Lighter bullets going faster can yeild higher energy at shorter distances, but don't equally translate to more game put to the ground for keeps. If energy alone were the key component to the killing ability of a weapon, then what about muzzleloaders and archery equipment that have only a fraction of the energy of a high power rifle, that drop game within short distances? I'm not an advocate of the 'one gun for everything'. If I am hunting deer with a rifle, I want a .243, a 25-06, or some other medium bore rifle. If I hunt elk, I want something starting at 30-06 capablities and only going upwards from there. Why have just one gun? If you do have a deer tag while hunting elk, just shoot it with your 300 mag. No big deal. If you are hunting deer, there is no reason to cannon blast the thing with an over sized rifle if you don't have to. Shoot a medium caliber. They are so much funner to shoot anyway.


----------



## sawsman (Sep 13, 2007)

For the mentioned big game in Utah (deer, elk and antelope), 30-06.

Proper bullet weight and placement using the time proven 30-06 will take out cleanly any North American big game, any day.  

You cannot and will not go wrong with this caliber. This is the one I would keep if I had to choose only one.

sawsman


----------

