How light to go on a 30-06 round for deer?

[RayinAK]

It's a lot easier to choose an ammo/load, and stick with it for everything. For example, a 180-grain bullet should be fine for deer to elk-size game. But lets say that I don't plan to hunt elk, ever, then I would choose a lighter bullet and stick with that one. The idea is that once you have sighted your rifle and know the ballistics for that specific load, you will always know where it hits its mark downrange. No guessing.

[rifleman]

I have used my personal Ultra-Light Arms custom rifle chambered in the wonderfully accurate, hi-velocity and superbly flat-shooting .250-3000 Ackley Improved (with either 100 gr and 117 gr bullets) to take typically large B.C. mule deer, elk and caribou. All dropped within a few yards and seconds of being shot in the heart-lung area, or in one case, a head shot.

Additionally, I built a custom rifle chambered in .257 Roberts Ackley Imp that is used regularly each year by my customer to take large B.C. moose with one shot. OK; in one instance it took two! Big deal, huh?

The point is, perhaps accuracy is the more important attribute, but retained bullet energy is also of some importance, and does cover a multitude of sins if the bullet's placement is not ideal. Therefore, for heavier and more "resistant" big game, I would usually recommend one of the premium .308 caliber hunting bullets now available if you reload, or via such commercial loads as Federal's Premium factory loads as well as handloading options.

The 180gr and higher weights (eg: 200s and 220s, as well as a rare 250 gr option!) would be useful if you were specifically going after, say, big moose or bull caribou, or even potentially dangerous black or interior grizzly bears (but excluding the polar bears, which really do demand an extra margin of safety via penetration and impact energy!). Of course, recoil you'd have to absorb would also rise, which tends to degrade accuracy because flinches are hard to resist, especially if the shooter actually practices enough to be a good shot!

Result: Heavier bullets create a performance dichotomy! Recoil versus effectiveness on larger game.

Enjoy your hunt! And remember: practice, practice, PRACTICE!

[Flyover_Country]

Originally Posted by rifleman

I have used my personal Ultra-Light Arms custom rifle chambered in the wonderfully accurate, hi-velocity and superbly flat-shooting .250-3000 Ackley Improved (with either 100 gr and 117 gr bullets) to take typically large B.C. mule deer, elk and caribou. All dropped within a few yards and seconds of being shot in the heart-lung area, or in one case, a head shot.

Additionally, I built a custom rifle chambered in .257 Roberts Ackley Imp that is used regularly each year by my customer to take large B.C. moose with one shot. OK; in one instance it took two! Big deal, huh?

I think the biggest deal is that somebody was willing to go with a round that wasn't some super-magnum shoulder-pounder that they could stand to shoot and thus be able to hit what they are aiming at. I know a lot of folks who won't shoot anything smaller than a .338 Win Mag at an elk and can't shoot worth squat because a .338 in a 7 1/2 lb rifle kicks like the dickens.

The point is, perhaps accuracy is the more important attribute, but retained bullet energy is also of some importance, and does cover a multitude of sins if the bullet's placement is not ideal. Therefore, for heavier and more "resistant" big game, I would usually recommend one of the premium .308 caliber hunting bullets now available if you reload, or via such commercial loads as Federal's Premium factory loads as well as handloading options.

The 180gr and higher weights (eg: 200s and 220s, as well as a rare 250 gr option!) would be useful if you were specifically going after, say, big moose or bull caribou, or even potentially dangerous black or interior grizzly bears (but excluding the polar bears, which really do demand an extra margin of safety via penetration and impact energy!). Of course, recoil you'd have to absorb would also rise, which tends to degrade accuracy because flinches are hard to resist, especially if the shooter actually practices enough to be a good shot!

The Alaska DNR did a test in the 1980s of rifles for bear defense. Of course they liked the really big guys like the .458 Win Mag and .375 H&H but the good 'ol '06 with 220 gr bullets did very well, better than the high-velocity medium and large-bore numbers like the .378 Wby due to the massive recoil and the poor performance of the bullets of the day being driven at that high of speeds. They specifically mentioned that the 220 gr .30-06 loads were preferred for those who weren't immune to recoil as they were the lightest kicking loads by quite a bit.

Result: Heavier bullets create a performance dichotomy! Recoil versus effectiveness on larger game.

Enjoy your hunt! And remember: practice, practice, PRACTICE!

I've shot a lot of slugs and also fast small-bore rifles. As a result I definitely fall in the "moderation" camp. You don't shoot very well when getting pounded by your firearm (slugs) despite slugs being extremely effective if they hit a vital area of the deer at a short range. Nor do you do very well on average in shooting a truly not powerful enough rifle that DEMANDS perfect shot placement to kill (many of the .22 centerfires). A rifle that falls in the middle which doesn't beat you up but has plenty of power is really ideal. That is one reason I chose an '06, the others are that it is chambered in pretty well any long action rifle out there and you can find ammunition everywhere.

[M3 Mitch]

Originally Posted by Vizio

I'm considering a 140 gr....but I've heard 150 is about as light as you want. Anyone have an opinion?

"Deer" covers a lot of range in animal size - where are you hunting? How big are the deer, and in what kind of country? What range do you expect as a maximum?

Typically 130 g and smaller bullets in 30 caliber are varmint bullets with thin jackets, not so good for big game.

What are you trying to accomplish? Reduce recoil? You may be better off with a 150 grain and a somewhat less than max load, than a max load and a 140. Mostly based on how the rifle shoots with each load. If you can find any, the Remington "Managed Recoil" ammo might give you an "off the shelf" answer to your question.

[M3 Mitch]

Originally Posted by ElkHunter

I use 180's. Not so much because of knock down power, but my Garand makes good use of 180's. Lighter or heavier and I start loosing accuracy. What is the sweet spot for your gun?

Also, my deer and elk are hunted at the same time, same area, so whichever I see first, is what I will shoot. 200-600 yards, so the heavier 180 is much nicer.

I have read that a slow-burning powder and heavy bullet can cause operating rod bending on the Garand. That said one of the military loads IIRC is a 173 grain bullet, so 180 is not that much of a stretch.

So, what powder are you using? I would guess IMR 4895 (which IIRC was first formulated specifically for the Garand).

I bring this up mostly so the "kids" who are not long-time familiar with the Garand will realize there probably is a limit on how heavy a bullet and slow a powder you want to use in one (or for you to refute this as an old wive's tale...)

[Flyover_Country]

Originally Posted by M3 Mitch

"Deer" covers a lot of range in animal size - where are you hunting? How big are the deer, and in what kind of country? What range do you expect as a maximum?

Typically 130 g and smaller bullets in 30 caliber are varmint bullets with thin jackets, not so good for big game.

What are you trying to accomplish? Reduce recoil? You may be better off with a 150 grain and a somewhat less than max load, than a max load and a 140. Mostly based on how the rifle shoots with each load. If you can find any, the Remington "Managed Recoil" ammo might give you an "off the shelf" answer to your question.

I'd go with the reduced velocity 150 gr handloads rather than the managed recoil loads. Remington's managed recoil load for the .30-06 (and the .308) uses the .308 diameter 125 grain bullet they use in their 7.62x39 loads, driven at 2660 fps. That short bullet may not stabilize well in a typical 1:10" twist .30-06 barrel. However a 150 grain bullet driven at the .30-30's 2300-2400 fps would also kick just a little over half as much as a "full power" 2900-3000 fps 150 grain .30-06 load but would likely be much more accurate. That would be my choice if I wanted a lighter-kicking .30-06 round. Somebody worried about recoil should also pay attention to rifle weight as well. Many rifles today are pretty lightweight and light weight means more recoil. I intentionally got a fairly heavy by current standards wood-stocked 24" regular contour barrel '06 because it is easier to hold steady and has less recoil than the 20-22" light contour barrel models with a plastic stock. Not to mention I think mine is much prettier and feels better in the hands as well

Originally Posted by M3 Mitch

I have read that a slow-burning powder and heavy bullet can cause operating rod bending on the Garand. That said one of the military loads IIRC is a 173 grain bullet, so 180 is not that much of a stretch.

So, what powder are you using? I would guess IMR 4895 (which IIRC was first formulated specifically for the Garand).

I bring this up mostly so the "kids" who are not long-time familiar with the Garand will realize there probably is a limit on how heavy a bullet and slow a powder you want to use in one (or for you to refute this as an old wive's tale...)

There is also a 147 grain loading for the Garand as well. I am probably a couple decades younger than you but I have also heard the part about not using an extremely heavy bullet and slow powder in a Garand. I don't have a Garand but in shooting an '06 I see a lot of ammunition produced specifically for it. All of it that I have seen is 147 gr FMJ driven at 2750 fps, which is definitely in the medium powder burn rate category for the .30-06.

[rifleman]

FYI on military semi-auto military rifles, Fly-Over ewlde chep.... (I'm a now officially geriatricly aged 65.6 yrs old!)

I purchased a NatMatch M1A last year and immediately noticed the special reduced Service Rifle loads listed in the Hornady manual. And yup, they do indeed list recipes for somewhat reduced velocities. My load uses a 165gr Hornady bullet, plus 43gr AA2520 [the "Camp Perry Powder"...] in once-fired Lake City mil-surp cases, properly sized and with the primer-crimp removed, plus CCI #34 military-spec primers. This produces a measured 2700 fps ± 20 fps {vs the standard & regular loads @ ≈ 2850 fps}. My particular rifle puts those bullets, for at least the first 3 - 4 rounds, into ≈0.8" @ 100 yards! Reliably. Quite spectacular, and not necessarily typical. Mos M1A types say this type usually produces ≈ 1.2" loads at best!

The thing is, Springfield Armory tells you NOT TO USE reloads, or you'll lose your warranty. Instead, they tell you to use proper non-reloaded mil-surp loads. But their concerns, quite understandably, have to do with proper headspacing, plus a lighter load, to prevent op-rod bending, excessive action slamming and other problems. The infamous "slam-fire" condition.

When I first bought this rifle, I hurriedly went out and purchased some commercial Remington 180 gr hunting loads. They really kicked in my new rifle acquisition, but fortunately I only fired about 5 rounds before reading the info on reduced load recommendations in all military semi-autos (By the way, this actually also applies to hot handloads in AR/M-4 type chassis' as well!).

[ElkHunter]

Originally Posted by M3 Mitch

I have read that a slow-burning powder and heavy bullet can cause operating rod bending on the Garand. That said one of the military loads IIRC is a 173 grain bullet, so 180 is not that much of a stretch.

So, what powder are you using? I would guess IMR 4895 (which IIRC was first formulated specifically for the Garand).

I bring this up mostly so the "kids" who are not long-time familiar with the Garand will realize there probably is a limit on how heavy a bullet and slow a powder you want to use in one (or for you to refute this as an old wive's tale...)

I do not reload for a Garand. For any competition, I have to use factory loads, so I put together all my dope tables using various factory ammunition. I don't want to use reloads and get used to a load that is seriously 'different' than what I am used to. Plus I have a good source for Lake City surplus.

My garand does digest Springfield and Winchester quite well, if I have to.

My reloading is reserved for guns that I don't compete with. My long range stuff.

[Vizio]

Originally Posted by M3 Mitch

"Deer" covers a lot of range in animal size - where are you hunting? How big are the deer, and in what kind of country? What range do you expect as a maximum?

Typically 130 g and smaller bullets in 30 caliber are varmint bullets with thin jackets, not so good for big game.

What are you trying to accomplish? Reduce recoil? You may be better off with a 150 grain and a somewhat less than max load, than a max load and a 140. Mostly based on how the rifle shoots with each load. If you can find any, the Remington "Managed Recoil" ammo might give you an "off the shelf" answer to your question.

Recoil is my main concern. The gun I use is pretty lightweight, and kicks like a mule with 180 grain. I've picked up some 150 grain and I'm going to give that a try.

I'm going for whitetails....they're decent sized, but not like they're elk. I'm just hoping to put a couple of nice fat does in the freezer this fall. I've also got a 50 cal muzzleloader that I plan on using in December after the early season. Around here we get a couple weeks in November, then a couple more in January, with a month in December for black powder.