hunting (Flat: live, prices, versus)

[snowboarder396]

Alright everyone i was looking getting rifle sometime soon maybe for big game hunting the two i was looking at are 30.06 and 300 winmag.. i was leaning more towards 30.06 cause of ammo prices and the variety in grain figure it would be plenty for most all big game. question is are there any instances or reasons anyone would think 300 winmag would be better then getting 30.06?

[Marty Van Diest]

Good choice. Get the 30.06. You can get another gun later but the 30.06 will do you well

[RayinAK]

The .30-06 is a good choice. You can use the .300WM if you like, but all it does is to provided more velocity and energy from the same bullets you use with the .30-06. Another way to put it: the .300 will stretch the distance to perhaps around 150-200 yards past the .30-06 with the same bullet. But it's not going to give you any advantage in relation to bullet sectional density. For this you would have to go to a .338WM.

[usafracer]

I have both. A Remington 742 30.06 and a 700 300 win mag. The only time the win mag comes out is when I head north for caribou. Other than that is stays on the shelf and the 30.06 goes with me.

[Glitch]

Originally Posted by snowboarder396

Alright everyone i was looking getting rifle sometime soon maybe for big game hunting the two i was looking at are 30.06 and 300 winmag.. i was leaning more towards 30.06 cause of ammo prices and the variety in grain figure it would be plenty for most all big game. question is are there any instances or reasons anyone would think 300 winmag would be better then getting 30.06?

That depends on what you are hunting. In the lower-48 you can take any large game with a .3006. However, the game in the lower-48 is not that large when compared to Alaska.

A .3006 is a fine choice for sheep, caribou, moose, and small bear at around 150 yards or closer. For Alaskan brown bears, anything smaller than a .40 caliber round and you are asking for trouble.

The key to determining the whether the rifle is adequate or not is by knowing your maximum range (typically determined by vegetation and geography) and being able to deliver at least 2,000 foot pounds of energy at that maximum range.

In Alaska, your typical range is going to be between 50 and 150 yards. Very rarely (unless you on the tundra or above the tree-line) will you see your game further than 150 yards away.

Since a 125 grain .3006 round, with a velocity of 2,034 feet per second, has 1,964 foot pounds of energy at 200 yards, it is a perfectly adequate hunting rifle for most Alaskan large game at a maximum range of 150 yards.

A 300 Win Mag not only has a faster velocity (2,636 feet per second at 200 yards) and a heavier round (150 grains) it will deliver more foot pounds of energy at 200 yards (2,314 foot pounds of energy).

If your typical ranges were 150 to 250 yards, I would recommend the 300 Win Mag instead of the .3006, but that is not the case in most of Alaska.

[snowboarder396]

what does everyone prefer as far as wood stocks or synthetic stocks go? i prefer the look of a nice wood stock esp on the older guns. the thing i was wondering is camo painted synthetic stocks actually do anything for hunting or is it just an asthetic look people like?

[RayinAK]

Originally Posted by snowboarder396

what does everyone prefer as far as wood stocks or synthetic stocks go? i prefer the look of a nice wood stock esp on the older guns. the thing i was wondering is camo painted synthetic stocks actually do anything for hunting or is it just an asthetic look people like?

You can have the "camo look" if you like, but in reality it makes no difference. In relation to synthetic versus wood, the former is more stable if it gets wet or something, while the later can swell and put pressure points along the barrel or action if it gets wet.

[Marty Van Diest]

Synthetic is better for a hunting rifle. If you are after looks, get wood. Camo doesn't matter. Flat black synthetic is good.

[Glitch]

Originally Posted by snowboarder396

what does everyone prefer as far as wood stocks or synthetic stocks go? i prefer the look of a nice wood stock esp on the older guns. the thing i was wondering is camo painted synthetic stocks actually do anything for hunting or is it just an asthetic look people like?

I agree with Ray and Marty, synthetic is the way to go. Not only are synthetic stocks lighter than wood, they can take being knocked about better than wood stocks.

Do not get a camouflaged stock, because as soon as you put the weapon down in the bush you will have difficulty finding it again. The only time that camouflage is necessary is when you are hunting duck or geese. You do not need camouflage to hunt anything else.

[Dusty Rhodes]

Hummmmm, interesting......I would suspect that two of the main "tricks" of a successful hunter is A. knowing exactly where to put the bullet. B. being able to hit that target. I have used my .270 on a variety of N. American game animals and very rarely have I had to shoot the same target twice. Study the anatomy of the game specie you seek, and do a fair amount of target practice, it comes in handy. And.....I agree with Glitch, my Browning A-bolt has a dark grey synthetic stock and a matte finished Burris scope. I also have a Browning 7mm Mag, it's fun to plink with, it's a really good noise maker. If I ever go up to Alaska, hunting, I may well gun up.