Moose 30-06.

If you're just using factory ammo then definitely the 180gr is a bit better. Buy bullets loaded with Nosler Partitions, Nosler Accubonds or Trophy Bonded etc...

If you handload, then I would go up to a 200gr bullet, in something like a Nosler Accubond, Nosler Partition, Speer Grand Slam, Trophy Bonded etc...

Jasper2009138-1.jpg

Shot this bull in 2009 with a Winchester M-1985 and 200gr Nosler Partition handloads. Two shots at 150 yards.
 
H4831 said:
In four lines of print, about bullet weight in a 30-06 for moose, you mention accuracy three times directly and once indirectly!
In most big game hunting, but moose in particular, accuracy should be on the very bottom of considerations for what bullets to use.
Most people on these threads would likely consider a rifle combination that would group no better than 3 inches at 100 yards, as being inaccurate. But using such a combination for moose hunting would not handicap the shooter one iota, over a rifle comination that made half inch groups.
A rifle/shooter combination that would group only six inches at 100 yards would be completely adequate for at least 90% of the shots taken at moose.
Click to expand...

I agree. Although I Ike a rifle that shoots MOA I have shot plenty of deer with an old .303 and an SKS. The two moose I have shot were shot with basic cup and core bullets from a .30-06, one a 150gn at 260yds (admittedly not ideal, but the situation presented it while deer hunting), and the other with a 165gn bullet at 180yds. Both went home with me but the 150gn struck one went over 50yds before laying down.
That being said, when it is a one chance hunt, go for the heavier bullet, just for the confidence. Just make sure that you can put them all in an 8" paper plate at whatever range you are comfortable shooting at.
 
I really does not matter. Use whatever you want to. I use a .270 with 130 grain bullets for moose. 150 grain would suffice.
 
I hear everything you said, however, if I had a rifle that grouped 6" @ 100 yards it would be a short lived life for that unit.

What will handicap a shooter is not having confidence in their firearm and a 3" or 6" group may work wonders on a moose @ 100 yards but it will have some very negative effects on a shooters faith in their tools.

Accuracy trumps all, shouldn't be compromises.Accuracy should be primary when selecting bullets/components or we would all be using Superduty trucks to harvest our game.;)


H4831 said:
In four lines of print, about bullet weight in a 30-06 for moose, you mention accuracy three times directly and once indirectly!
In most big game hunting, but moose in particular, accuracy should be on the very bottom of considerations for what bullets to use.
Most people on these threads would likely consider a rifle combination that would group no better than 3 inches at 100 yards, as being inaccurate. But using such a combination for moose hunting would not handicap the shooter one iota, over a rifle comination that made half inch groups.
A rifle/shooter combination that would group only six inches at 100 yards would be completely adequate for at least 90% of the shots taken at moose.
Click to expand...
 
Kelly, I disagree. Accuracy is important, but its importance in big game hunting tends to be overstated. Accuracy is only beneficial to the extent that it can be exploited by the hunter or marksman. Had you said that accuracy was the single overwhelming element of a varmint rifle, I would be more inclined to agree, but I would still have to qualify the answer as the construction of the varmint bullet must be light enough to ensure rapid expansion to produce humane kills and reduce the likelihood of ricochets. But in any general discussion of bullets for big game hunting and of moose hunting specifically, a degree of accuracy is just another part of a package that that results in suitable ammunition. The construction of the bullet outweighs almost any other consideration. Consider that much North American big game is harvested each year with slug loaded shotguns. Now it would be a pretty miserable rifle that wouldn't hold tighter than a shotgun, yet Jack O'Conner made reference to a couple of deer hunter of his acquaintance who had trouble shooting 2' groups at 100, but always put meat in the freezer.

At a range of 100 yards, the level of accuracy needed to place your bullet within half an inch of you intended point of impact is not something that most of us can utilize. One does not first measure with a micrometer if he's bucking up wood for the stove with a chainsaw, neither does one need to worry about MOA accuracy on an 18" target shot at short to moderate ranges. Rifles that hold MOA make recreational shooting at the range interesting, but accuracy that you can't exploit in the field isn't of much benefit to the hunter, even if it that level of accuracy is comforting and allows us to make our shot with confidence. I would much rather have a rifle with an excellent trigger that shot 2 MOA (and I have a couple like that) than a MOA or sub MOA rifle that had a miserable trigger. A good trigger doesn't make a rifle more accurate, but it makes it much easier to exploit the accuracy that is available. When I can shoot up to a 2 minute rifle in the field, I'm having a good day indeed, but shooting a 2 MOA rifle doesn't cause me to shoot a 4 minute group, poor marksmanship is responsible for that.

But lets consider rifle accuracy as most of us measure it. If a rifle prints a 5 shot 4 minute group, generally we mean that the center to center distance between the two widest shots of the 5 shots fired measures 4" at 100 yards. We would say that was a 4 minute rifle even though no shot is more that 2" from our aiming point, provided the rifle is properly sighted. But if our rifle shoots 5 shot 4" groups, but always puts the first shot on center, is calling that rifle a 4 minute rifle representative of its usefulness at harvesting game in the field? Over normal hunting ranges, could a quarter minute rifle do it any better? I've shot a few groups in my life, although the importance of doing so has become suspect, and I've yet to shoot a donut where all the bullets landed in a concentric ring around the bull. Generally 80% or so of the rounds hit very close to the mark, but the group is measured by the 20% that land at the periphery of the group. That suggests to me that my first shot on a game animal will be closer to my point of aim, than it is to the maximum error suggested by the last group I fired. Yet if I'm forced to fire a follow-up shot that lands at the outside extent of that rifle's accuracy, it still hits in the vitals.

Once the bullet hits the game animal, the design limitations and construction of the bullet are all that matters. We might disagree on what terminal performance is most likely to produce a humane one shot stop, but at the very least the bullet must penetrate deeply enough to interfere with the organ's ability to supply the brain with oxygenated blood. When the brain is deprived of oxygen it dies. Some folks like inexpensive cup and core bullets that produce modest penetration and a wide wound cavity, while others prefer the performance of Partitions, TSXs, or A-Frames, there was even a crotchety old guy on here who swore by big caliber hard cast WFNs that didn't need to upset to kill well.

Nobody questions the ability of a .460 Weatherby to kill a moose provided the hunter who carries it could place his bullet in the vitals. But if that hunter chose a 300 gr Hornady hollowpoint bullet, that impacted at 3000 fps, would the combination give the performance we would like to see? Of course not, but the old Barnes 300 gr XFB would. If our .30/06 armed moose hunter chose a 130 gr Speer hollow point bullet that impacted at 3000 fps, would it produce the performance we would like to see? Absolutely not, but a 130 gr TTSX probably would, yet these bullets weigh the same in each case. In the case of a 150 gr bullet dsigned to perform well on deer sized game at .30/30 velocities, why would we expect it to perform equally well on moose sized game when it impacts at nearly 2900 fps when fired at full steam from a .30/06?
 
Demonical said:
If you're just using factory ammo then definitely the 180gr is a bit better. Buy bullets loaded with Nosler Partitions, Nosler Accubonds or Trophy Bonded etc...

If you handload, then I would go up to a 200gr bullet, in something like a Nosler Accubond, Nosler Partition, Speer Grand Slam, Trophy Bonded etc...

Jasper2009138-1.jpg

Shot this bull in 2009 with a Winchester M-1985 and 200gr Nosler Partition handloads. Two shots at 150 yards.
Click to expand...

That is one sweet rifle. Nice shootin'!
 
Since when does a good trigger not contribute to sub-moa accuracy?

And the kinds of people (generally) that find 6 moa "good enough" are the kind that don't really have any qualms about sending rounds willy nilly at game much further out. ~18" @ 300 is pretty ####ty, especially when you are now taking bullet drop into consideration. My 0.02
 
IMO I believe that accuracy in big game hunting isn't emphasized enough.How many hunters/shooters will just let fly at game running standing or walking and causing wounded and injured game.

How many times have we heard " I had the cross hairs right on him!, there is no was I could have missed."

Having a rifle that can confidently shoot 1 or 2 MOA in all situations is gonna do wonders for a shooters confidence and that is critical.

Now you get a hunter that is at best a poor marksman that is easily excited and add a tool that shoots very large groups, well , you have wounded and missed game regardless of 150,165 or 180 grain being able to do that job.

Like I said earlier I have no issues with a 6MOA shooting rifle being able to down a moose @ 100 yards, my concern is leaving that as the limit of the rifle/shooter and saying it is "good enough" and not wanting to achieve any better.We don't buy new equipment and make improvements to NOT improve accuracy and consistency.

As for triggers, I believe that it makes the shooter more accurate and more confident.

Again, shot placement is always priority to me, and next ,proper bullet choice for the game being hunted.

I guess we have to decide if it is the accuracy of the shooter or the accuracy of the rifle that we are trying to find the weak link in.

Sorry that I am off topic but just is why I think that in this case the choice between 150, 165 or 180 grain bullets is a non-issue.

As for using a heavier bullet to try to have less deflection when shooting through brush.If you don't have a clear shot/line of sight, you shouldn't be shooting and praying that the bullet stays on course based on weight.Any object the bullet touches will have unknown effects regardless of weight.

Boomer said:
Kelly, I disagree. Accuracy is important, but its importance in big game hunting tends to be overstated. Accuracy is only beneficial to the extent that it can be exploited by the hunter or marksman. Had you said that accuracy was the single overwhelming element of a varmint rifle, I would be more inclined to agree, but I would still have to qualify the answer as the construction of the varmint bullet must be light enough to ensure rapid expansion to produce humane kills and reduce the likelihood of ricochets. But in any general discussion of bullets for big game hunting and of moose hunting specifically, a degree of accuracy is just another part of a package that that results in suitable ammunition. The construction of the bullet outweighs almost any other consideration. Consider that much North American big game is harvested each year with slug loaded shotguns. Now it would be a pretty miserable rifle that wouldn't hold tighter than a shotgun, yet Jack O'Conner made reference to a couple of deer hunter of his acquaintance who had trouble shooting 2' groups at 100, but always put meat in the freezer.

At a range of 100 yards, the level of accuracy needed to place your bullet within half an inch of you intended point of impact is not something that most of us can utilize. One does not first measure with a micrometer if he's bucking up wood for the stove with a chainsaw, neither does one need to worry about MOA accuracy on an 18" target shot at short to moderate ranges. Rifles that hold MOA make recreational shooting at the range interesting, but accuracy that you can't exploit in the field isn't of much benefit to the hunter, even if it that level of accuracy is comforting and allows us to make our shot with confidence. I would much rather have a rifle with an excellent trigger that shot 2 MOA (and I have a couple like that) than a MOA or sub MOA rifle that had a miserable trigger. A good trigger doesn't make a rifle more accurate, but it makes it much easier to exploit the accuracy that is available. When I can shoot up to a 2 minute rifle in the field, I'm having a good day indeed, but shooting a 2 MOA rifle doesn't cause me to shoot a 4 minute group, poor marksmanship is responsible for that.

But lets consider rifle accuracy as most of us measure it. If a rifle prints a 5 shot 4 minute group, generally we mean that the center to center distance between the two widest shots of the 5 shots fired measures 4" at 100 yards. We would say that was a 4 minute rifle even though no shot is more that 2" from our aiming point, provided the rifle is properly sighted. But if our rifle shoots 5 shot 4" groups, but always puts the first shot on center, is calling that rifle a 4 minute rifle representative of its usefulness at harvesting game in the field? Over normal hunting ranges, could a quarter minute rifle do it any better? I've shot a few groups in my life, although the importance of doing so has become suspect, and I've yet to shoot a donut where all the bullets landed in a concentric ring around the bull. Generally 80% or so of the rounds hit very close to the mark, but the group is measured by the 20% that land at the periphery of the group. That suggests to me that my first shot on a game animal will be closer to my point of aim, than it is to the maximum error suggested by the last group I fired. Yet if I'm forced to fire a follow-up shot that lands at the outside extent of that rifle's accuracy, it still hits in the vitals.

Once the bullet hits the game animal, the design limitations and construction of the bullet are all that matters. We might disagree on what terminal performance is most likely to produce a humane one shot stop, but at the very least the bullet must penetrate deeply enough to interfere with the organ's ability to supply the brain with oxygenated blood. When the brain is deprived of oxygen it dies. Some folks like inexpensive cup and core bullets that produce modest penetration and a wide wound cavity, while others prefer the performance of Partitions, TSXs, or A-Frames, there was even a crotchety old guy on here who swore by big caliber hard cast WFNs that didn't need to upset to kill well.

Nobody questions the ability of a .460 Weatherby to kill a moose provided the hunter who carries it could place his bullet in the vitals. But if that hunter chose a 300 gr Hornady hollowpoint bullet, that impacted at 3000 fps, would the combination give the performance we would like to see? Of course not, but the old Barnes 300 gr XFB would. If our .30/06 armed moose hunter chose a 130 gr Speer hollow point bullet that impacted at 3000 fps, would it produce the performance we would like to see? Absolutely not, but a 130 gr TTSX probably would, yet these bullets weigh the same in each case. In the case of a 150 gr bullet dsigned to perform well on deer sized game at .30/30 velocities, why would we expect it to perform equally well on moose sized game when it impacts at nearly 2900 fps when fired at full steam from a .30/06?
Click to expand...
 
Sakonut said:
Since when does a good trigger not contribute to sub-moa accuracy?

And the kinds of people (generally) that find 6 moa "good enough" are the kind that don't really have any qualms about sending rounds willy nilly at game much further out. ~18" @ 300 is pretty s**tty, especially when you are now taking bullet drop into consideration. My 0.02
Click to expand...

A good trigger has nothing to do with the intrinsic accuracy of a rifle, it has everything to do with marksmanship, which is the ability to exploit the degree of accuracy the rifle is capable of.

Describe when the last time was that you had to shoot a group to kill an animal. A rifle's ability to produce tiny groups on the range has little or nothing to do with a hunter's ability to harvest game. If we use your example of a 6 MOA rifle, the worst shot possible with that rifle will never strike farther than half that distance from the point of aim, provided the marksman is competent and the rifle is correctly zeroed. The chances of the first cold barrel shot striking even 3 MOA from the target, again given a good marksman, is unlikely in that cold bore shot tends to be the most accurate from the barrel and is the one most likely to hit the point of aim.

A good field shot is someone who can shoot up to the capability of his rifle, and only uses his rifle when he is certain of a killing shot. Thus, since he understands that his rifle can only stay within 3 minutes of his aiming point, he might well decide to limit his shots to less than 200 yards. He is also aware of the environmental conditions which can cause him to shoot poorly, and he acts accordingly. Wind can bounce him around making a shot from any viable field position other than prone impossible and prone might not be in the cards if vegetation or terrain is in the way. Wind can also make his eyes tear up so he can't see to shoot; sleet, snow, and rain likewise. If he gets cold and begins to shiver, he might not be able to make his shot. Heavy exertion might prevent him from making a shot before he can rest. Being aware of these issues and the limitations they place on him is far more important to the practical field shot than having a rifle that shoots MOA.
 
I believe that people get theoretic mechanical grouping accuracy confused with the ability to hit things on the first try. I'm assumeing that nobody is promoteing trying to use a total piece of ####.

At extended ranges wind starts mattering more and long before mechanical accuracy will let you down.You can have both, but shaveing inches off a group doesn't help as much as shaveing feet off of drift.

At not so extended ranges a flatter trajectory will get you farther than shaveing 1/2 MOA off of short range groups.

At short range (Under 300 yards) shooter ability to breath and squeeze is close to the only thing that matters. Cartridge choices can be made by such odd and unusual methods like what kills the best.
 
Kelly Timoffee said:
IMO I believe that accuracy in big game hunting isn't emphasized enough.How many hunters/shooters will just let fly at game running standing or walking and causing wounded and injured game.

How many times have we heard " I had the cross hairs right on him!, there is no was I could have missed."

Having a rifle that can confidently shoot 1 or 2 MOA in all situations is gonna do wonders for a shooters confidence and that is critical.

Now you get a hunter that is at best a poor marksman that is easily excited and add a tool that shoots very large groups, well , you have wounded and missed game regardless of 150,165 or 180 grain being able to do that job.

Like I said earlier I have no issues with a 6MOA shooting rifle being able to down a moose @ 100 yards, my concern is leaving that as the limit of the rifle/shooter and saying it is "good enough" and not wanting to achieve any better.We don't buy new equipment and make improvements to NOT improve accuracy and consistency.

As for triggers, I believe that it makes the shooter more accurate and more confident.

Again, shot placement is always priority to me, and next ,proper bullet choice for the game being hunted.

I guess we have to decide if it is the accuracy of the shooter or the accuracy of the rifle that we are trying to find the weak link in.

Sorry that I am off topic but just is why I think that in this case the choice between 150, 165 or 180 grain bullets is a non-issue.

As for using a heavier bullet to try to have less deflection when shooting through brush.If you don't have a clear shot/line of sight, you shouldn't be shooting and praying that the bullet stays on course based on weight.Any object the bullet touches will have unknown effects regardless of weight.
Click to expand...

I on the other hand believe that practical field marksmanship is not emphasized enough, because we do hear folks say, "how could of I missed, I had him cold!" But we have lots of folks who have, or claim to have half minute rifles that deal death at 500 yards. Confidence is a byproduct of good experiences. A rifle that a talented marksman can shoot well, and has accumulated successes in the field with, produces more confidence, than does the need of a caliper to measure his group size.

Having a rifle that can shoot MOA in all situations is great, now we only need a man who can shoot MOA under all circumstances, but he hasn't been born yet.

Having seen the results that can occur when bullets fail, I won't say that bullet weight necessarily is the issue, but bullet design and construction is. And when light for caliber bullets are chosen for their high impact velocity, that construction is even more important.

I agree, shooting through brush at a live target is a poor idea.
 
Boomer said:
A good trigger has nothing to do with the intrinsic accuracy of a rifle, it has everything to do with marksmanship, which is the ability to exploit the degree of accuracy the rifle is capable of.

Describe when the last time was that you had to shoot a group to kill an animal. A rifle's ability to produce tiny groups on the range has little or nothing to do with a hunter's ability to harvest game. If we use your example of a 6 MOA rifle, the worst shot possible with that rifle will never strike farther than half that distance from the point of aim, provided the marksman is competent and the rifle is correctly zeroed. The chances of the first cold barrel shot striking even 3 MOA from the target, again given a good marksman, is unlikely in that cold bore shot tends to be the most accurate from the barrel and is the one most likely to hit the point of aim.

A good field shot is someone who can shoot up to the capability of his rifle, and only uses his rifle when he is certain of a killing shot. Thus, since he understands that his rifle can only stay within 3 minutes of his aiming point, he might well decide to limit his shots to less than 200 yards. He is also aware of the environmental conditions which can cause him to shoot poorly, and he acts accordingly. Wind can bounce him around making a shot from any viable field position other than prone impossible and prone might not be in the cards if vegetation or terrain is in the way. Wind can also make his eyes tear up so he can't see to shoot; sleet, snow, and rain likewise. If he gets cold and begins to shiver, he might not be able to make his shot. Heavy exertion might prevent him from making a shot before he can rest. Being aware of these issues and the limitations they place on him is far more important to the practical field shot than having a rifle that shoots MOA.
Click to expand...

Very well written. Thank you. You have changed my mind a bit. I still like accuracy though.:D
 
I was born in 1974. :p




Boomer said:
I on the other hand believe that practical field marksmanship is not emphasized enough, because we do hear folks say, "how could of I missed, I had him cold!" But we have lots of folks who have, or claim to have half minute rifles that deal death at 500 yards. Confidence is a byproduct of good experiences. A rifle that a talented marksman can shoot well, and has accumulated successes in the field with, produces more confidence, than does the need of a caliper to measure his group size.

Having a rifle that can shoot MOA in all situations is great, now we only need a man who can shoot MOA under all circumstances, but he hasn't been born yet.

Having seen the results that can occur when bullets fail, I won't say that bullet weight necessarily is the issue, but bullet design and construction is. And when light for caliber bullets are chosen for their high impact velocity, that construction is even more important.

I agree, shooting through brush at a live target is a poor idea.
Click to expand...
 
An accurate rifle, in a suitable caliber, good bullet selection and a realistic grasp of one's limitations are the most important... To say an accurate rifle is not important doesn't wash with me - it's part of the whole package that makes safe and humane kills.
Personally, you can keep your 300 yard shots, I'd rather put the sneak on the animal and get as close as I can before pulling the trigger. Last year I spotted moose from a kilometer away, then stalked up to 75 yards in the snow before passing on the shot. That's hunting - not taking 300 yard shots with an inaccurate rifle shooting an improper bullet. Guns that aren't accurate are crap not worth hunting with...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom