30-06 inappropriate to hunt sheep

[RolandtheHeadless]

Where there are sheep, there also be bears. I've heard too many sheep hunter and bear stories to make me feel confident with less than thirty caliber.

.30-06 is a good starting point.

Boddington's not the best of gun writers, but he may be what we're stuck with these days. It's like rock n' roll. All the greats are gone, or dropping like flies.

 

[Ryan]

Which sheep? Honestly most Dall sheep in Alaska where I live are shot under 300 yards, mine was at maybe 100. I have a coworker who uses a 7mm STW, but not past 300 because he believes it's not hunting past that, just shooting, and he knows he can get within that. He's taken a few. Among Dall sheep hunters I've never heard anyone complain about a 30-06. I took mine in 2010 with my 30-06 and 150 grain Hornady Interbonds. Wish they still made those rounds, my rifle shot them well enough I trusted it to 350. That's my personal limit with a good solid rest, the rifle could shoot farther. Of the other sheep hunters I know of I can recall the 7mm STW mentioned previously,.308, 300 WM, 338 RM, and .270. All of them did the job because the person behind it knew how it shot. Use what you're comfortable with and know how it shoots, you'll do fine with it.

 

[Red Leg]

Ballistic reticle scopes or those with hunting turrets have changed the rules beyond 300 yards. Trajectory means little any more.

I said "most people" and I think the statement is still accurate. I am sure it is old thinking and sure to irritate some, but I am also appalled at most of this ultra long range shooting at game animals. It is using an animal as a target rather than as a quarry to be "hunted." And I have heard all the "what is the difference between........." arguments. I get the point - I still find it an unfortunate way to use a game animal.

 

[Pheroze]

Ballistic reticle scopes or those with hunting turrets have changed the rules beyond 300 yards. Trajectory means little any more.

My concern would be getting enough practise at those ranges. I would want to shoot in different weather a lot. I am also concerned about the crazy wind currents. I spent some time hiking up and down mountains in Austria a while ago. I imagine the terrain would create some funky wind currents.

 

[Pheroze]

Accubond comes in a long range version. The 30 cal offering is either 190gr or 210. The BC is 0.64 and 0.73 respectively. However, when I ran it through Shooters Calculator I could not find an advantage over the 165 or 150 gr versions. I suspect these heavier bullets are for the magnum 30 cals.

 

[JES Adventures]

To be clear, 2.5 - 3 inches high at 100 is roughly equivalent to a 250 yd zero.

Exactly 2.5" high with 165 gr bullet

 

[JES Adventures]

150 gr .270 and 150 gr 30'06 have essentially identical trajectories out to 450 yards. Beyond that, most people aren't shooting - they are praying.

Amen!

 

[lcq]

Accubond comes in a long range version. The 30 cal offering is either 190gr or 210. The BC is 0.64 and 0.73 respectively. However, when I ran it through Shooters Calculator I could not find an advantage over the 165 or 150 gr versions. I suspect these heavier bullets are for the magnum 30 cals.

The advantage of 6.5mm, 7mm and 270 is that you get ballistic coefficients superior to 30 cals using much lighter bullets. You are correct about running the numbers and finding no real advantage at reasonable ranges. I was very surprised that there wasn't much trajectory advantage at less than 350yds between most popular calibers, but there is sure a hell of an energy advantage and the 30 cal leaves a much bigger hole

 

[IronCowboy]

The ballistic advantage between a .270win and a .30-06 is largely academic. We hear about it all of the time, and the difference IS obvious on paper, but when it comes to the hunting field, it really doesn't matter at any reasonable range where either are truly effective on game (500-600yrds).

With similar bullet weights, the .270win runs a higher BC and higher SD, but it loses a bit of speed, so at 500yrds, the difference seen on paper really doesn't make much difference in the field. For my loads with 150grn NBT's in both end up about 100fps faster in the .30-06 than the .270, the SD's .226 vs. .279, respectively, and BC's .435 and .496 respectively. Seems like a big difference, no? But at 500yrds, I only have ONE INCH of difference in trajectory, and within about 30fps, favoring the .270win. IN THEORY - I get a little better penetration with the higher SD .270win, but get a little harder hit from the fatter 30cal, but I can honestly say, I've had a whitetail write me a letter of complaint with either of them.

When you talk about "ideal weight for bore" bullets between the two, say the 130/140's for the .270win and the 165/180's for the .30-06, then you start talking about less of a difference in BC and SD. I also shoot the .277" 130 and .308" 165 Hornady Interbonds, with BC's of .460 and .447 respectively, and SD's of .242 and .248, again, respectively. In my loads with these bullets, the smaller .270win is running about 200fps faster than the .30-06. At 500yrds, I only see about 7-8" difference between the two, which SEEMS LIKE a lot, until you recall, that's only ~1.5MOA difference between the two. Dialing 34 clicks instead of 29 clicks really isn't a big deal, and alternatively, if you're HOLDING instead of dialing, if you can accurately hold 38", then you can equally accurately hold 46" (200yrd zero).

Anything longer than 500-600yrds (maybe stretched to 750yrds if I'm honest), I tend to throw a magnum round with a heavier bullet, stepping up an entire class (or two) in performance.

 

[colorado]

The ballistic advantage between a .270win and a .30-06 is largely academic. We hear about it all of the time, and the difference IS obvious on paper, but when it comes to the hunting field, it really doesn't matter at any reasonable range where either are truly effective on game (500-600yrds).

With similar bullet weights, the .270win runs a higher BC and higher SD, but it loses a bit of speed, so at 500yrds, the difference seen on paper really doesn't make much difference in the field. For my loads with 150grn NBT's in both end up about 100fps faster in the .30-06 than the .270, the SD's .226 vs. .279, respectively, and BC's .435 and .496 respectively. Seems like a big difference, no? But at 500yrds, I only have ONE INCH of difference in trajectory, and within about 30fps, favoring the .270win. IN THEORY - I get a little better penetration with the higher SD .270win, but get a little harder hit from the fatter 30cal, but I can honestly say, I've had a whitetail write me a letter of complaint with either of them.

When you talk about "ideal weight for bore" bullets between the two, say the 130/140's for the .270win and the 165/180's for the .30-06, then you start talking about less of a difference in BC and SD. I also shoot the .277" 130 and .308" 165 Hornady Interbonds, with BC's of .460 and .447 respectively, and SD's of .242 and .248, again, respectively. In my loads with these bullets, the smaller .270win is running about 200fps faster than the .30-06. At 500yrds, I only see about 7-8" difference between the two, which SEEMS LIKE a lot, until you recall, that's only ~1.5MOA difference between the two. Dialing 34 clicks instead of 29 clicks really isn't a big deal, and alternatively, if you're HOLDING instead of dialing, if you can accurately hold 38", then you can equally accurately hold 46" (200yrd zero).

Anything longer than 500-600yrds (maybe stretched to 750yrds if I'm honest), I tend to throw a magnum round with a heavier bullet, stepping up an entire class (or two) in performance.

I'm a big 270 fan, but in general except for recoil being a bit less and the 270 shooting a tad flatter, in my mind they are interchangeable until you start loading 200g or 220g bullets in the 30-06. With the heavier bullets of good construction (A-Frame, etc) they are a better choice if you're going after grizzlies. If you're going after sheep and you're shooting 130g or 150g Partitions in the 270, or 165 or 180g Partitions in the 30-06 and run into a bear you have to shoot, it's going to be all about placement and how calm you are under pressure.

 

[Nicholas Barcomb]

Sorry, but I am a .30-06 guy from way back. Okay, so I was 16 when I was given my first 1903A3 in .30-06 SPR, about 31 years ago. I have found that handloading a Woodleigh 165 gr PPRN in my Tikka T3 Lite SS, has been just the ticket. I usually use a 6.5 x 55 SE and either 140 gr SSTs or Woodleigh PPRNs and know those will work plenty fine for sheep. Don't let anyone dissuade you or tell you a .30-o6 isn't good enough. Hell a .30-40 Krag was good enough back in the day, as was the .40-110!.

 

[sheephunterab]

I said "most people" and I think the statement is still accurate. I am sure it is old thinking and sure to irritate some, but I am also appalled at most of this ultra long range shooting at game animals. It is using an animal as a target rather than as a quarry to be "hunted." And I have heard all the "what is the difference between........." arguments. I get the point - I still find it an unfortunate way to use a game animal.

Red Leg, you were the one talking about 450 yard shots. At 450 yards there a whole lot of holdover with a regular hunting scope which means a whole lot of guessing. My point was that at ranges beyond 300 yards, ballistic reticle and hunting turret scopes allow precise hold on....not hold over guestimating. I wasn't advocating ultra long range shots at all....just bringing into perspective that 450 yards is a long freaking shot and that new scopes have taken the guesswork out of them. My ethical view on shooting is that if you can't place the crosshair exactly where you want to hit you shouldn't take the shot. At 450 yards with a regular hunting scope 2.5" high at 100 yards...you'd be aiming at the sky at 450 yards with a 270 or 30-06. I think that's an unfortunate way to use a game animal! POA and POI should always be the same or you you shouldn't pull the trigger because you are just guessing at that point.

 

[Nicholas Barcomb]

Red Leg, you were the one talking about 450 yard shots. At 450 yards there a whole lot of holdover with a regular hunting scope which means a whole lot of guessing. My point was that at ranges beyond 300 yards, ballistic reticle and hunting turret scopes allow precise hold on....not hold over guestimating. I wasn't advocating ultra long range shots at all....just bringing into perspective that 450 yards is a long freaking shot and that new scopes have taken the guesswork out of them. My ethical view on shooting is that if you can't place the crosshair exactly where you want to hit you shouldn't take the shot. At 450 yards with a regular hunting scope 2.5" high at 100 yards...you'd be aiming at the sky at 450 yards with a 270 or 30-06. I think that's an unfortunate way to use a game animal! POA and POI should always be the same or you you shouldn't pull the trigger because you are just guessing at that point.

I don't think you'd be pointing at the sky, but there would be almost 40 inches of elevation. Even so, the .30-06 with a 165 gr bullet at that distance should be adequate. It should actually be adequate out to 700 yards with a 165 gr bullet travelling at 3000 fps from the muzzle.

 

[colorado]

With my 270 shooting 150g Partitions at 3000 fps I used to use the 1, 2, 4 foot rule (only shot at targets with the 4 foot) so for elk dead on at 300 yards, 1 foot high at 400 (2/3 up the body), 2 feet high at 500 yards (top of the back, right behind the shoulder adjust for wind). We would routinely shoot at targets (gongs) sitting at 600 yards, but really never took a shot at elk much past 400. Never lost one either.

 

[IronCowboy]

Ballistic reticles or not, if you're hunting, 300-450yrds is not a give-away shot. Elevation is one thing, but wind reading is an entirely different thing. I can't think of the last time I shot at 100yrds outdoors with a rifle, only with a handgun. My go to rifle range (my private property) is 275yrds, surrounded by trees, with a nice crown in the middle between the shooting position and the berm. If a guy isn't reading wind, hitting a 10" plate isn't always a gimme in a Kansas wind swirling around that crown and over the trees. I can back up to about 750yrds there also, but the trees kill the wind for about 200yrds of it - if I can read at 275-350, I can read 750 just as easily there... But reading the 275-350 isn't easy at all in anything above about a 5mph wind, gusting 10-15. I shoot to 1,200yrds once a month at another of my ranges, which is in a rather protected valley - if you can't read wind, a fancy scope won't mean jack shit. Almost anyone you take into the field will miss most often to left and right, with very small error high or low (assuming they ran their ballistic calculator before sitting onto the bench). Elevation is the easy part, its the wind calls which change - the spotter usually spends more time walking them sideways towards the target, with very few calls for elevation change after the first sighting shots.

Personally, I think it's foolishly irresponsible (and would prefer to prefix that with a different F word) of optics manufacturers to put 500 and 600yrd dots on "entry level" or "budget friendly" scopes, and market them as taking out all of the guess work. There is no free lunch in 600yrd shooting, especially at game. If you're going to throw a shot at an animal at 600yrds, I don't care if you have a dot showing you the correct elevation correction or not, you damned well better know the right windage call, otherwise you're crippling game, and giving the rest of us ethical and responsible long range hunters a bad name.

So while all of these tools do make the hunter's life a little easier, there's no free meal. New scopes are no easier than old scopes to shoot at range - elevation has always been easy, windage has always been, and will always be the challenging part.

 

[sheephunterab]

I don't think you'd be pointing at the sky, but there would be almost 40 inches of elevation. Even so, the .30-06 with a 165 gr bullet at that distance should be adequate. It should actually be adequate out to 700 yards with a 165 gr bullet travelling at 3000 fps from the muzzle.

That's pretty fast or a 165 but doable I suppose. I look at the 30-06 as a very adequate 500 yard chamberings. I like to keep impact velocities near 2,000fps with premium bullets but you could go lower with more specialized long-range bullets I guess.

 

[sheephunterab]

Learning to dope the wind is definitely a skill that takes experience. Learning when not shoot is tougher to learn for many.

 

[JGRaider]

I said "most people" and I think the statement is still accurate. I am sure it is old thinking and sure to irritate some, but I am also appalled at most of this ultra long range shooting at game animals. It is using an animal as a target rather than as a quarry to be "hunted." And I have heard all the "what is the difference between........." arguments. I get the point - I still find it an unfortunate way to use a game animal.

Agree 100%, and with the others that commented on wind doping. In spite of what many long range internet experts say, it's a tough deal unless conditions are perfect.

I hunt whitetails up in the TX Panhandle, and right next door to our place is where Todd Hodnett (google it and be impressed) trains the most elite snipers in the world, from all over the world. We've seen many of the elite USA forces shoot, as well as the Israelis and Canadians. If anyone knows about wind doping, it's Hodnett and his "guys". They like to shoot in that area because the wind blows everyday. Sometimes a little, often times quite a bit, and the numerous canyons and coulees add to the challenge (thermals). Point being.... every shooter has a spotter, and in swirling and gusting winds these experts do not hit their targets every time the first shot. That's why the spotter is calling the hits and misses. Granted their targets are often 800 meters +. If they cannot make first shot confirmed hits in wind, nobody else can either. Flip side is I've seen them whack prarie dogs at 1000m when the atmosphere cooperates.

David Tubb is also right down the road. Seen him shoot as well. Same song, second verse, and nobody knows more about it than Tubb.

 

[thi9elsp]

Seems like the general consensus is shoot the rifle you are most comfortable with and the 30-06 will do the job. Practice extensively to your comfortable range out. Then if the animal gets in that range take it. If it's outside your comfort range, don't rely on all of the new technology. Rely on your legs to get you closer.

In New Zealand last year we had my rifle zeroed at 300. Had a Tahr come out around 470. We popped off two shots (with suppressor) and neither the guide nor I knew where they hit. We turned the turret back to zero, huffed it up the mountain about 3-400 feet. The Tahr came out a ridge at 317. One shot, dead and falling down the slope. I learned my lesson - I am not a guy that shoot's 1000's of rounds and I need to stay within my comfort level. If the animal doesn't enter that zone, the animal wins that day.

 

[colorado]

I don't disagree. I was younger then with steadier hands, better eyes and shot with a retired Recon sniper twice a week. For the past twenty years my favorite way to hunt elk is jump shooting them in the black timber. Shots are typcially taken running at less than 30 yards. The hard part is finding them and then counting antler points while you're swinging your rifle. Great fun though and one of the few ways to be regularly successful on public land.