Long Range hunting cal.

scott_r

scott_r

CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Rating - 99.6%
223   1   0
Location
Behind a .204 Ruger
Im looking to try and do a little more longer range hunting in the next few years and am wondering what cal I should decide on?? So many choices :DIm looking to take game up to and around 500 yards and am thinking a 30-06.

I have shot a 300 rem Ultra mag and the recoil was sharp but didnt bother me and am somewhat interested in a 300 win mag? Does the 300 mag really have alot up on the 30-06 on shots out to 500 yards

Then you have the 7mm mag and see that its used alot on long range hunting shows taking game over 700 yards but then you hear it doesnt have much on the 30-06.

Ive got all sorts of brass, bullets, powder for the 06 but would be willing to try a new cal out if need be.

Cheers!!
 
6.5-06, resizing 30-06 brass is easy to do and find, long range, and great accuracy, plus it fits in a standard long action or magazine if you like that game.
 
Are you hunting whitetails? For moose and elk don't you have to be closer to count them spikes before you squeeze?
 
Isn't the objective for hunting to try not to have to take 500yard + shots?
I never leave the house assuming I am gonna be pumping off shots at that distance. I try, as I assume most hunters do, to get as close as humanly possible to my quarry, before pulling the trigger. Stalking skills are very important in my eyes. I have a .300 win mag, and it doesn't do much more than my .30-06 except use up more money out of my wallet for ammo.
If I was you, I'd work on developing skills to creep up on animals so that they dont hear/smell you, rather than just giving up on the stalking, and popping off low percentage shots that seem to wound a lot of game. Please dont take this as a personal attack, I just see alot of threads lately that extoll the virtue of long shot hunting, and this goes against what my Grandfather and father preached into my brain. They said to never let a powerful gun take the place of skill and common sense. Thats why they considered a .30-06 to be a cannon. They said anything bigger just made lazy hunters.
 
Sgt. Rock...obviously they didn't brainwash you enough..you still bought a 300 win mag...scott R...to answer your question a 30-06 will cleanly kill anything up to 500yards the key is what are you hunting...if you were going after moose and elk at that range then i would definitely opt for the 300 win mag..it is quite a jump from the 30-06 and you can launch larger bullets alot faster..it's a great long range cartridge..but i guess to give sgt. rock some credit he has a good point you really need to practice practice practice..get a good laser rangefinder and be totally confident in your shooting before you endeavour to fire at game at that range...but the rant about 30-06 being a cannon is nonsense...it all depends on the game you're hunting but 300 win mag would certainly fill the ticket nicely.
 
What I meant by the ".30-06 is a cannon" bit, was that they considered it as big a gun as one would ever need, as at 100 - 200 yards, they had loads of power for the biggest game animals. They just cringed at someone taking long distance shots just because they could. IF A LONG DISTANCE SHOT is all that was available before the animal dissappeared or nightfall fell, they said necessity for food made it OK. BUT if you took it , and there was a way to get a closer shot, they would call a man lazy and foolhardy. ALWAYS take the closest shot you can within reason. I didn't actually MEAN IT WAS A CANNON, just that it was cannon enough for any animal if you did your part to stalk. I dont want to slag the .300 win mag, it is a bigger .30-06. I have several .30-06's and one .300 The .300 is mainly for wolves on large frozen northern lakes. They are often at 5-700 yards and in full gallop. Chasing them on snowmobile is not cool to me, and not fair, Once I spot one, I stop, range and fire. If the .300 even tags him anywhere he is toast.
But for all my main hunting (Moose, Caribou, black bear, wolverine, ) the .30-06 is plenty enough.
 
sgt.rock said:
Isn't the objective for hunting to try not to have to take 500yard + shots?
I never leave the house assuming I am gonna be pumping off shots at that distance. I try, as I assume most hunters do, to get as close as humanly possible to my quarry, before pulling the trigger. Stalking skills are very important in my eyes. I have a .300 win mag, and it doesn't do much more than my .30-06 except use up more money out of my wallet for ammo.
If I was you, I'd work on developing skills to creep up on animals so that they dont hear/smell you, rather than just giving up on the stalking, and popping off low percentage shots that seem to wound a lot of game. Please dont take this as a personal attack, I just see alot of threads lately that extoll the virtue of long shot hunting, and this goes against what my Grandfather and father preached into my brain. They said to never let a powerful gun take the place of skill and common sense. Thats why they considered a .30-06 to be a cannon. They said anything bigger just made lazy hunters.
Click to expand...

Long range hunting has evolved a long ways since your Grandfather preached to you. The tools of the game are far more advanced. If you don't like long range hunting don't do it. Being a long range hunter takes plenty of skill and many, many hours of practice and there is nothing lazy about it :sniper:

I myself do not see anything wrong with either style of hunting, long range or spot and stalk. If done properly and both can be effective and both take plenty of practice, skill and dedication.
 
Last edited:
I think you would find that at 500 yards you would see a noticeble difference between 300 WM and 30.06.

Its at the longer distances that some of these boomers start to shine Same goes for 7 RM, 264 WM , 7 STW .....the list goes on......

Most don't see all the advantages because most of the game is taken inside 200 yards.

Just run some ballistics calculations on the Hornady website and you will see.
 
The problem is that VERY FEW people equip themselves with the tools needed to do this effectively. I know TONS of people that use only factory ammo, unaltered shelf guns, average scopes, no range finders, etc and barely spend enough time at the range to get the "magic 3 inches over bullseye", yet try to pop off shot after inaccurate shot at game far beyond their skill level. This is the case with a large contingent of shooters. OF COURSE there are those that truly have skill, and use the best equipment possible, BUT THOSE ARENT THE ONES I AM CONCERNED ABOUT. Hunting hasn't changed THAT much since my "poppy and father" hunted. People still use generally the same guns and ammo now that were used 20-40 years ago. How old is the .308 and .30-06? What percentage of hunters just buy any old ammo at the cheapest price they can, using an average gun, with a scope that lost its zero years ago?
Dont get me wrong, I do trust you when you say you can and do hunt at long range, My little diatribe wasn't directed at you, but at the hapless hunters I see each and every season who "reach for the moon, but stumble on the lift off platform" .
If everyone was as concerned about developing the skills needed as you have, and sacrificed the money it takes to truly make a reliable long range tackdriver, then I wouldn't have piped up at all. BUT they dont. I just believe that a vast majority of hunters often take shots they are ill equipped to take , either skill wise or other. Those are the people I am referring to. They are the ones I feel need to "buck up" on their stalking skills. As I doubt many will actually do what it takes to become GOOD long range shooters.
 
sgt.rock said:
The problem is that VERY FEW people equip themselves with the tools needed to do this effectively. I know TONS of people that use only factory ammo, unaltered shelf guns, average scopes, no range finders, etc and barely spend enough time at the range to get the "magic 3 inches over bullseye", yet try to pop off shot after inaccurate shot at game far beyond their skill level. This is the case with a large contingent of shooters. OF COURSE there are those that truly have skill, and use the best equipment possible, BUT THOSE ARENT THE ONES I AM CONCERNED ABOUT. Hunting hasn't changed THAT much since my "poppy and father" hunted. People still use generally the same guns and ammo now that were used 20-40 years ago. How old is the .308 and .30-06? What percentage of hunters just buy any old ammo at the cheapest price they can, using an average gun, with a scope that lost its zero years ago?
Dont get me wrong, I do trust you when you say you can and do hunt at long range, My little diatribe wasn't directed at you, but at the hapless hunters I see each and every season who "reach for the moon, but stumble on the lift off platform" .
If everyone was as concerned about developing the skills needed as you have, and sacrificed the money it takes to truly make a reliable long range tackdriver, then I wouldn't have piped up at all. BUT they dont. I just believe that a vast majority of hunters often take shots they are ill equipped to take , either skill wise or other. Those are the people I am referring to. They are the ones I feel need to "buck up" on their stalking skills. As I doubt many will actually do what it takes to become GOOD long range shooters.
Click to expand...

I'm with Sgt Rock on this one. Every year I see some long range wannabe slinging shots at something way beyond their capability "because" that's what magnums are all about!!! Drives me crazy. Practice, Practice, Practice, and then more practice at long range is what it take, and that in field positions. Along with at least a MOA rifle and good tailored ammo. That will kill game dependably out beyond 400 yards. Regards, Eagleye
 
When I practice at the range for actual hunting, I often run around a bit first and get half out of breath. Then I practice offhand shooting from different positions like kneeling and standing, and even prone. This is more of a real world shooting simulation, because RARELY have I ever encountered game on foot, when I wasn't somewhat out of breath and having the scope move up and down while aiming. If I wasn't wearing heavy clothes, big boots, carrying a big sack and a rifle, I might be able to pace myself and be steady on the draw, BUT that wouldn't be hunting.
 
To be honest, I think the definition of "long range" has changed a lot. My Dad considered any shot past 100 yards a long shot, and thought any sport hunter (including me) who used a scope and a 300-yard capable rifle to be cheating game of its sporting chance. Mind you, he hunted for food only, and quit hunting when it was no longer a necessity.
That was really old-school. In the last 20 years there seems to have been a real growth in hunters who want to shoot game at ranges out to 800, 900, a thousand yards. I'll admit that some of them have developed tremendous shooting skills, but I have concerns about wind doping, or being unable to find the exact spot where the animal was standing if it runs after a hit, lethal or not. I suspect that factor leads to many animals lost every year; I know how hard it can be to find that first drop of blood sometimes on a hundred-yard chip shot.
Still, with the advances in scopes, rifle accuracy, rangefinders and so on, I think 500 yards isn't as far as it used to be, metaphorically speaking. I know I can't do it, nor do I wish to. I try to hold shots to under 200 yards, and won't even consider a shot at 300 unless the conditions are ideal, but I'm not a great shot from field positions. I certainly agree with Sgt. Rock about how we need to develop the skills our forefathers took for granted. My braggin' shots on game are the ones where I get up close. In the last few years my shots have all been about 50 yards or closer; several under 50 feet. Exciting hunting and, if not foolproof, at least high-percentage.
Most of the deer were shot in Alberta, some here in Ontario. I have never hunted the true flatlands, so I can't really judge how close you can hope to get there. It's one thing to shoot deer at long range if the terrain dictates that you can't close up on them. Shooting deer at extreme ranges just because you want to make long shots bothers me morally. I don't think we have the right to decrease our odds of a perfect shot, and increase our margin of erreor, at the risk of causing pain and suffering to our quarry. To make a hunt challenging, it seems to me that shots at game should be difficult to get, but easy to make. Not the other way around.

Enough hijacking! Sorry. If I were looking realistically at 500 yard shots on deer, I'd consider the 7 STW. But then I'd have to learn to shoot it well.
 
sgt.rock said:
What I meant by the ".30-06 is a cannon" bit, was that they considered it as big a gun as one would ever need, as at 100 - 200 yards, they had loads of power for the biggest game animals. They just cringed at someone taking long distance shots just because they could. IF A LONG DISTANCE SHOT is all that was available before the animal dissappeared or nightfall fell, they said necessity for food made it OK. BUT if you took it , and there was a way to get a closer shot, they would call a man lazy and foolhardy. ALWAYS take the closest shot you can within reason. I didn't actually MEAN IT WAS A CANNON, just that it was cannon enough for any animal if you did your part to stalk. I dont want to slag the .300 win mag, it is a bigger .30-06. I have several .30-06's and one .300 The .300 is mainly for wolves on large frozen northern lakes. They are often at 5-700 yards and in full gallop. Chasing them on snowmobile is not cool to me, and not fair, Once I spot one, I stop, range and fire. If the .300 even tags him anywhere he is toast.
But for all my main hunting (Moose, Caribou, black bear, wolverine, ) the .30-06 is plenty enough.
Click to expand...


sgt.rock

Did i misunderstand your post or are you actually saying you don't agree with shooting at big game long range because it is a lazy way to hunt but then you turn around and say that you shoot at running wolves at 5-700 yards and that is okay???


Why is one lazy and the other okay??? Are you saying that you can consistantly kill running animals at that distance??

You are a far better shot then anyone i have ever seen if that is the case.

I am sorry but i think the comment about tagging one anywhere and its dead is absurd.

I admittidly i have never shot a wolve.I have over the years shot in the hundreds of coyote's and if you don't put a shot in the vitals they can go a very long ways.It doesen't matter what caliber either.

I have seen people here loose them with poorly placed shot's with even yes, 300 win mags.

A poor shot is a poor shot no matter what caliber it was made with and bigger cartridges don't make up for poorly placed shot's.

I can see no reason why a wolve would be any different if not even tougher then coyote's.

Not trying to pick at you or start a fight or anything i am just really confused by what your point of view seems to be.


i don't understand why you don't think it is okay for someone else to shoot at big game long range but it's okay for you to shoot at running wolves at 500-700 yards.

Are the wolves a lesser animal in your eyes and it is okay by you to wound them but not acceptable to wound big game??

Anyways ,Just confused by your seemingly different point of view on one being okay to do and one being lazy hunting.


have a good day.
 
sgt.rock said:
The problem is that VERY FEW people equip themselves with the tools needed to do this effectively.
Click to expand...

That is not the point of this thread. The origional poster is asking a question about a rifle, not wether you think long range hunting is ethical or not. You have no idea how he is going to equip himself other than the rifle choices he is asking about.

If you want to start a long range hunting ethics thread start your own.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom