WHAT CALIBER???

Buy lighter boots, spend more on a lighter pack or any other hunting support gear. Make sure your rifle can handle the hunt. At 12 pounds my rifle is as light as I can get it and still perform when I need to or one of my clients needs to take a shot.
 
I started the 30-06 piece of this and have been very interested in the replies. I started long range this year and have found that practice and form are the key. I am currently shooting iron at 500 yards using a mil-dot scope and concentrating on holdover rather than dialing in the drop for my shots. I am hitting very consistently and have an expectation of shooting out farther at some point. The purpose of the detail is to point out that although I am aiming for long distance hunting, it is never simple and the expectation should be that when hunting long range you have to be ready and capable of switching fast. Rifle weight, and barrel length becomes a concern, as does bullet performance at normal hunting ranges. Of three dear taken this year, a doe was taken with a tripod at 218 yds, a buck offhand at 50 yds, and a buck sitting offhand on a slope at from 20 feet. Based on the exit wounds, there was little or no expansion on the 180BT Nosler for the 218 and 50 yard kills. Their was no exit wound on the frontal shot on a 20 ft buck charging uphill at me. My rifle is a Model 700 in long range with a 26 inch barrel and at about 12 lbs it is a bear to bring on target at close range or for snap shots. I am going to move to a 200gr ELD-X for possible better expansion at close range and dependable penetration on longer range shots. More exercise is also on the agenda because of the rifle weight.
 
Since you Do Not Reload and factory ammo is a big consideration.

You can't go wrong with the
300 Win Mag

Not only is ammo available everywhere, but it is and always will be a proven cartridge
 
Their is nothing new about it from a technology stand point. Nothing is dumber for a consumer than to be stuck with something that only one company has rights too. Look what happened to Beta Max not only was their issues with tape length but Sony was stingy at first with licensing the technology and that is why it lost out! Same thing goes for Sony Mini-Disc. Anyone remember Chrysler doing their own thing with radio dimensions and lugnut being lefty tighty righty loosey just the opposite of the rest of the market in America sure it made people go to the dealership for even common parts but it hurt sales and loyalty in the long run. So much so that they needed a bail-out in the form of zero interest loans and a non-compete contract for the M1 Battle Tank and it's terrible turbine engine design which was no-compete contract as well! So proprietary seldom means anything good in many area's rifle cartridges being one of those area's!

I would love for you to educate us all on what "New Technology" if any of the PRC cartridges. In fact there is so little new in brass cartridges that outside of the powders today designed to fuel large capacity magnums the Americans and Germans could easily of made the 300 PRC or 6.5 PRC in 1903 or sooner. If you went back in time and gave them the aerodynamic info you would need to design a VLD bullet they could manufacture the bullets of modern aerodynamics. Like wise progressive stamping was in use in WWI to make the German Army Helmets so quality brass was not an issue. If you gave the Germans, Americans, French the idea of a partition bullet or the idea to solidly solder or bond the lead alloy to the gilding metal jacket the technology for that was also readily available. Most of the things we take for granted today where not technological advancements in manufacturing it was the idea to do it or that it was needed. Concentricity of jackets and cases could not be as tight as today but man power was so cheap you would just focus on sorting them better.

You save maybe 4 ounces in total weight going to a short action instead of a long action that is it. Shorter actions are not more accurate than longer actions or cannon breeches with interrupted threads instead of distinct lugs would be in use especially for BR competition or Remington Rolling Blocks would be the most accurate actions on Earth given their stiffness. These shorter cartridges do not do anything substantially better than cartridges from 1945-1970 do! The brass is the same old technology and materials, the powders on the market have not radically changed in the last 10 years not enough to amount to much. Primers same old technology. Bullet material technology nothing really new same lead alloys and same choices for gilding(sp) metals used. Actions and Barrel materials and technologies and ignition systems.

So the emperor has no clothes in the following area's:

1)Newer cartridges have new technology baring powders and VLD aerodynamics in materials or designs that could not have been achieved with WWII technology.
2)Short actions are more accurate than longer actions.
3)Steels used today for rifle receivers and barrels offers a meaningful improvement over those in use since WWII.

That does not mean their is not more advanced technology that we could use only that it is not in common use in this market segment. All of the modern design changes made post WWII have been made mostly to make a rifle cheaper. The Remington 700, Winchester Model 70 push feed, Savage 110 where all designed to make a rifle cheaper than a Mauser LR action. There is not a single action mass produced rifle today that is better than what was designed 1898 to about 1903. Now their are elements of many modern push feed round bar stock actions with out one piece forged bolts that make it far easier to achieve incredible accuracy much more consistently than older designs. Sadly the accuracy potential was not the reason for these designs each one of them and more have all come out of cost reduction. Every new rifle design is a step backwards in strength, durability, reliability, ease of maintenance and repair in field! The use of MIM, Sintered Metal and Cast parts does not improve anything that is about cost savings primarily. Making a bolt from many tiny components is not to make it better it is to make it cheaper.

The only thing that has really improved is the ease at which we can consistently build in mass production to tighter clearances and less tolerance stacking if we want too!

The weak point in a rifle is the brass which is why we do not see more advanced steels in use even though we have some incredible steels today. In fact far better steels could be used in barrel making but it would be much harder on tooling which drives up cost. In fact if you look at what Marlin made just a Decade or so ago compared to the more modern Remington made Marlins you see that the fit, finish, clearances and tolerances of the Marlins made a decade ago are much better to what is being made today. That is true of mechanical fit and cosmetic fit and the cosmetic finish and the metal to wood fitment.

I should add that BRNO/CZ/Howa for example these companies offer many different steels for barrels that the importer can select from other than just 416R and 41XX steels.

LW and the former BlackStar barrel company that used LW SS barrels had all kinds of Gunsmiths crying a river because their SS was so much harder to machine than 4140/4150 and 416R. You needed higher speeds, harder tooling and better coolant/lubricant to machine well. Not sure if they still use the same steel or if gunsmiths just got better tooling. This was about 15-20 years ago. So do not make me laugh when talking technology and mass produced rifles.

The former Chech. Republic was using CHF barrels on the M48 Mausers and SKS's they made post WWII. The Norwegian 7.62x51 barrels that everyone loves and call "match grade" or "Competition" barrels were also CHF. I think the only difference is it was not a rotary process as advanced as we see today. I think the difference was that chambers could not be hammered in and a separate profiling step was needed but I am not 100% sure on that. I think the Germans perfected CHF during WWII so even that is old technology.

Nothing really new or hi-tech in the Rifle and Rifle Cartridge world! In just about every way designs far better than what you can buy new today have been in the market place long before today! Keep in mind that Roy Weatherby had a lot of cartridges in the market by 1945. I think he his Mark V action came out between 56 and 68 I think so chew on that and then come talk to me about Technology in rifle actions and cartridges! LOL
ok, I chewed on that and I think you know a lot more than me about the history you have provided here. I respect your opinion on the 300 WM would be the best choice. thanks for the info, interesting. as far as me educating you on new technology, no I wont. I do think the idea of factory chambered firearms shooting factory loaded ammo with heavy long high bc bullets that fit into the mag is a good idea tho.
 
ok, I chewed on that and I think you know a lot more than me about the history you have provided here. I respect your opinion on the 300 WM would be the best choice. thanks for the info, interesting. as far as me educating you on new technology, no I wont. I do think the idea of factory chambered firearms shooting factory loaded ammo with heavy long high bc bullets that fit into the mag is a good idea tho.
Meh on the history lesson. New is cool! if supported it's typically better. If we want to go back and get a history lesson the 6.5x55 is one of the great grandfathers of all modern metallic high performance cartridges with modern metal, actions and chamberings I get 2900 plus FPS with 140s not bad for a 125 year old cartridge pre dates 30-06 by 12 years
 
Meh on the history lesson. New is cool! if supported it's typically better. If we want to go back and get a history lesson the 6.5x55 is one of the great grandfathers of all modern metallic high performance cartridges with modern metal, actions and chamberings I get 2900 plus FPS with 140s not bad for a 125 year old cartridge pre dates 30-06 by 12 years
There's nothing that can be done with a .30 caliber bullet inside of 1200yds that can't be done and done very well with a .300wm.
 
ok, I chewed on that and I think you know a lot more than me about the history you have provided here. I respect your opinion on the 300 WM would be the best choice. thanks for the info, interesting. as far as me educating you on new technology, no I wont. I do think the idea of factory chambered firearms shooting factory loaded ammo with heavy long high bc bullets that fit into the mag is a good idea tho.
When it comes to thoroughly proven cartridges in the US the two highest on the list would probably be the 06 and 300wm. From military use to medium, large, and dangerous game they've been doing the job for more than 70 years in the case of the WM and for over a hundred in the case of the 06.

The biggest difference in the two is the added velocity and energy of the wm.
 
A lot of guys have touted reloading and everything they say about better more consistent ammo is true! But if you consider the costs of everything you really need to produce a first class round? Then if your time is worth anything ..just how many
rounds do you have to reload before you are in the black.. not saving just the break even point?
 
To be able to shoot LR accurately you have to put in the TIME. To be able to do it accurately it has to be consistent. Learning to shoot LR is not cheap and takes time. If you wanna cut corners then I dont think your 100 dedicated to what it takes. You dont have to have some of the bells and whistles to put together good rounds. 5 boxs of 60.00 ammo Equalls 300.00 and that's just about enough to get a RCBS kit and get started.
It takes 100 rounds just to get the barrel settled down to to where it should be consistent so you already got 300.00 to that point.
 
A lot of guys have touted reloading and everything they say about better more consistent ammo is true! But if you consider the costs of everything you really need to produce a first class round? Then if your time is worth anything ..just how many
rounds do you have to reload before you are in the black.. not saving just the break even point?
It all depends on how much you are going to shoot and what kind of performance you want. If you take the 300 wm for an example there are only a couple places where you can get custom ammo made that would be equivalent to what you can create reloading. Let's use Copper Creek Cartidge https://coppercreekammo.com/. For custom ammo with the 215 Berger Hybrid and quality Norma brass you're looking at $80 per box of 20.
I don't factor in the cost of my reloading equipment because I think it's pretty hard to try and amortize it over a lifetime plus as most of my equipment will be passed down to my kids. Also loading for multiple cartridges adds to the complexity of figuring that out.
I think the only reasonable cost comparison is using the above mentioned custom ammo verses the cartridge components.

Powder - H1000 76.5gr = $0.27 per shell at $25/lb
Bullet - 215 Berger $0.57
Primer - CCI 250 = $0.03
Brass - Winchester = $0.55 ea usable 10 time = $0.05
Total cost = $0.92 ea x 20 = $18.40 per box compared to $80

It doesn't take alot of shooting over a few years to recover you initial spend.
 
If you don't have any equipment press dies scales tube mic. calipers case prep stuff
and components. You have to look at the total outlay? So I think at least 3X's your total would be a fair starting point. I'm talking starting from scratch with nothing..
Can you finish 1 box an hour? I have been Seriously looking into buying everything
and try to consider as much information as possible And I'm using myself as the example...?.
 
If you're going into reloading to "save money" you're doing it wrong and just stick to factory ammo
 
Last edited:
If you don't have any equipment press dies scales tube mic. calipers case prep stuff
and components. You have to look at the total outlay? So I think at least 3X's your total would be a fair starting point. I'm talking starting from scratch with nothing..
Can you finish 1 box an hour? I have been Seriously looking into buying everything
and try to consider as much information as possible And I'm using myself as the example...?.
You'll have to come up with you own formula then. How many years and rounds loaded are you going to use for your amortization schedule to come up with that value per cartridge?
Wanting to shoot long range consistently is not a cheap proposition. If you're able to find everything that meets your expectations at a cost that you are happy with, more power to you.
I think you'll find that most of the folks on here that actually hunt long range and or seriously target shoot long range, meaning 600 yards and beyond reload mainly for two reasons.
1 - Often it is not possible to find factory ammo equivalent to what you can create reloading.
2 - If you can find it the cost is usually similar to what I quoted you you above and it doesn't take alot of shooting to recover that.

Anyhow buddy, it's all a personal choice you'll have to make.

Best of luck to you....
 
Warning! This thread is more than 6 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