30-06 Reloading, new to it

The Hammer Hunter 166g .308 was designed with the 30-06 in mind. This bullet will keep about 90% on weight retention, which after impact makes it bigger from that point on than the larger bullets loosing 50% of their weight.

Depending on your barrel length you will be able to run the 166 in the 2900 fps range. This will give a max point blank range of 350y and solid game performance out 700 yards. Calced at 3000' elev.

If you want a solid performer regardless of range out to 700 I don't think you can beat this with your '06.

If you have a 10" twist Hammer Hunters come in a 181g version that would work great as well. But at '06 velocity it does not perform as well as the 166g. The extra 150 fps for the 166g takes it further with better energy.

Steve
 
The Hammer Hunter 166g .308 was designed with the 30-06 in mind. This bullet will keep about 90% on weight retention, which after impact makes it bigger from that point on than the larger bullets loosing 50% of their weight.

Depending on your barrel length you will be able to run the 166 in the 2900 fps range. This will give a max point blank range of 350y and solid game performance out 700 yards. Calced at 3000' elev.

If you want a solid performer regardless of range out to 700 I don't think you can beat this with your '06.

If you have a 10" twist Hammer Hunters come in a 181g version that would work great as well. But at '06 velocity it does not perform as well as the 166g. The extra 150 fps for the 166g takes it further with better energy.

Steve
Very interesting, what's the BC of your 166 and 181. I need the G7 and sectional density, if you don't mind me asking?
 
Very interesting, what's the BC of your 166 and 181. I need the G7 and sectional density, if you don't mind me asking?

Litz will be done soon with testing. Until then here is mine. 166g G7=.227 sectional density=.249. 181g G7=.272 sectional density=.272.

Hope that helps.

Hoping I did not make an error when I quickly ran ballistics this morning. Only had one cup of coffee.:rolleyes:

Steve
 
Litz will be done soon with testing. Until then here is mine. 166g G7=.227 sectional density=.249. 181g G7=.272 sectional density=.272.

Hope that helps.

Hoping I did not make an error when I quickly ran ballistics this morning. Only had one cup of coffee.:rolleyes:

Steve

Thanks for replying Steve.
I'm not second guessing you at all, I just like to run the numbers on each bullet to determine form factor and see which bullet would be better for my application...
Thanks again..
 
Thanks for replying Steve.
I'm not second guessing you at all, I just like to run the numbers on each bullet to determine form factor and see which bullet would be better for my application...
Thanks again..

No worries. I have been known to input the wrong number and not catch it. Too often:rolleyes:. So if I did correct it for me.

Steve
 
So I loaded up 5 more round of load 52.5, 53, and 54. Went out and shot again today, very early in the morning to avoid any wind. I started with 54 grain load in the bottom circle, each of which is one inch. Cold bore shot was 1/2 inch high, next three rounds were a perfect clover leaf. I got super excited and experienced the "sumb****" shot. Pulled it left.

Second group was 53 grains in the top right circle. Stacked 4 rounds all together in 3/4 of an inch. And then that sumb**** came back. Pulled it left again.

At this point, I wasn't really caring what 52.5 was because I was pretty set on getting more velocity with pretty good accuracy. I shot it anyway, totally flubbed the first shot, next 3 were ok and blew the 5th shot.

Overall, I'm gonna go with the 54 grain load. I think being that little bit off with cold bore, and knowing I yanked the last shot, I think that group is better than the 53 grain load. Would you guys agree with that assessment?

I will eventually get some 180 Accubonds for my hunt, but for a fun round/ deer round I like this load pretty well.
 

Attachments

  • 20160522_063918.jpg
    20160522_063918.jpg
    60.2 KB · Views: 91
  • 20160522_065020.jpg
    20160522_065020.jpg
    29.4 KB · Views: 97
  • 20160522_070328.jpg
    20160522_070328.jpg
    65.2 KB · Views: 123
Warning! This thread is more than 9 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Recent Posts

Top