.280 vs .30-06 vs. 300 Win Mag

NM_HighPlains

NM_HighPlains

New member
I have a .280 that I love and that shoot like a laser beam but my recent elk hunt had me thinking about bigger bullets. And thanks to a recent thread here, I got to thinking about .30-06's and .300 Win Mags. In looking over the ballistics, it looks to me like the '06 isn't really all that much more than the .280 and it looks like I'd have to go to a .300 Win Mag to really get significantly more elk power than the my current .280.

Do you agree or not?
 
Yes I agree. I have shot a 280 for about thirty years now. I live in southern New Mexico and here we have long shots when deer hunting. Most of the times three hundred yards or more. Now some may say that is over kill for a mule deer but when I see that big boy he is going down. The 300 win mag is a great round. I have even won a 800 yd shooting contest with it. If I had to have only one it would be my 300.I have great sucess with deer and elk. I shot a oryx at 425 yds here using a swift bullet and it did perfect.
go with the 300!!!!
 
Why do you want more power? I've put several Elk on the ground with the .280.I myself don't like to punish myself with those belted magnums.But if you think you really do need a bigger cannon to do the job you might as well get a .338.
smirk.gif
 
300 win mag is definately a step up in power from the 280 or 30-06. Gives you a little more insurance on elk IMO.

If you can handle the recoil, the 300 WIN or 338 WIN are a lot better elk round then a 06 base case...
 
I've had all three and still have the '06 & .300. The .300 is very manageable for recoil. A well designed stock will reduce the felt recoil. I don't consider it overkill for deer having made some very nice clean kill shots. It is also easily enough for elk. The .338 is good too but you are really stepping up in recoil with it.
 
All are good but I would suggest to invest in the premium bullets in the .280 for elk hunting and you will not be disappointed. Please forgive me if you want a new gun though...
 
300 win mag is great for elk. A 7mm rem mag is also great for elk....dear...bear etc.

But really a lot of 30.06's have taken elk. Heck a lot the old timers on the coast are still using 30-30 lever actions for the last 50 years. I was talkig to a 93 year old guy last year looking to fill his tag with one....again.

I don't think you need a cannon like a 300 wm or 7mm rm to take an elk but if it makes ya happy, why not!
 
Originally Posted By: dogtiredAll are good but I would suggest to invest in the premium bullets in the .280 for elk hunting and you will not be disappointed. Please forgive me if you want a new gun though...

I shot my cow elk with a 160 gr Nosler Partition with double-lung shot at 240 yards. Elk ran about 400 yards and I found it, but there was NO blood. If that had been thick timber or similar, I dunno if I would have found it. Like I said, I love the .280, but if I'm shooting at a once-in-several-lifetimes bull (and I saw one such critter!), I'm thinking I want to anchor it faster. Thus, the bigger gun.

And yeah... I kind of want another rifle.
smile.gif
I fully agree that the '06 and 7mm RM are great guns, but my point is that with the .280 already in the stable, it looks like the .30-06 and 7 mm Rem Mag would be redundant (I mean, I did buy the .280 instead of those in the first place) and I'd have to go to at least a .300 Win Mag to really gain a significant difference.



 
If you look at real world ballistics in many high power loads you'll see how similar they all really are. People can brag about what they have and how the massive mags are needed for xxx, but do that math and you see they're almost arguing about what color rifle shoots best. And saying you get 10" less drop at 600 yards doesn't matter to me, I'm not shooting 600 yards regardless of the caliber.

I carry a ruger m77 in 30-06 with a loopy scope 90% of the time, not because of the massive power but because it's the honda civic of my gun collection. The combo is so reliable it's downright boring. I have lots that are more interesting, but if I have 1 day to hunt I don't want interesting.

But the -06 punches through and elk shoulder to shoulder and dumps a bunch of energy into the hillside and the elk goes no-where. I could use a 300 ultra and I would have a dead elk in the same spot with just more energy into the hillside. I can do a poor shot with either and have a mile long track, or the right shot with either and just complain about having to dress and drag.

If you're just wanting a new rifle, that all goes out the window. Just get what makes you happy and don't bother trying to justify it. 90% of my collection has no purpose, but they made me happy when I got them. Much like the .44 carbine I just picked up, I'm going to have to drive a long way to justify a 150 yard rifle when you've got 5 miles visibility when hunting
laugh.gif
 
Highplains, in my opinion, the 338 hurts me less than the 7mm & 300 mags. I believe it's due to the speed of recoil - to me, the 7 & 300 mags are like getting punched by a boxer, and the 338 is like getting pushed hard by a wrestler - more comparable to a shotgun recoil, if you will. That may just be due to my physical build, however.
Mark
 
I would say the 300 win mag is the #1 elk cartridge in Montana by a wide
margin. It delivers the most energy and speed with the most efficiency and widest variety of
bullets of all the big .30's . I hunt with a seven mm but didn't live up here
when I chose it, if I had been here it would have been the 300 and still would
be today.
 
Last edited:
I've shot elk with a .270, .308, 30-06, .300WSM and .35 Whelan. They all went down about the same. Shot placement and bullet performance make a bigger difference than a couple hundred fps. By the way, have you seen how well a round-nose bullet performs on a large animal?
 
Originally Posted By: 204GunnerLoad a 160 Accubond in your 280 and kill the biggest bull you ever saw.

If the bullets shoots well. I loaded some older Barnes-X and they didn't group very well at all- there's a whole thread on it back around early October. But, I'll get Accubonds and see how they fly.
 
then there's always the beat of a different drummer.... .338/280 ackley imp...56.0 grns of IMR4064 = 2950fps (200grn X)...26" ruger #1....still thumps ya but not sharply....like a mag 12ga...
 
I've killed a lot of elk, and one thing I've noticed is that even with a double lung shot the elk will stay on it's feet for another 15-20 seconds after impact (assuming no shoulder bones are broken and the bullet remains intact)........and swapping around bullets or cartridges doesn't change that a whole lot. That being said, I still prefer the 300 mag primarily because it has more punch at the longer ranges. Inside 400 yards however, I don't think the difference is as critical as bullet placement.
 
Originally Posted By: CacheCreekI've killed a lot of elk, and one thing I've noticed is that even with a double lung shot the elk will stay on it's feet for another 15-20 seconds after impact


And this elk went downhill, so 15 seconds is lot of ground.

400 yards is about my max distance anyway. I think I'll just stick with the .280 and try the Accubonds. That means, of course, I've got to go elk hunting again in order to try the bullet out....
smile.gif
 
I would agree that the 30-06 is close to the 280, in your situation I would look at the 300 WSM, close to the same ballistics as the 300WM with less powder and probably less recoil unless you get a much lighter rifle.
 
Try the 140 TSX Bullet. I have not used it on elk yet, but the damage and resulting "bang flop" of the deer I've shot it with is more than convincing to use it on elk! Those deer have been shot between 100-325 yards.
 
Back
Top