30-06 inappropriate to hunt sheep

[gizmo]

While I respect Boddington for his accomplishments I disagree 100000000000000% with his opinion on this. 06 can, has, and will kill sheep. Period. We've killed a hellava lot of sheep, mind you in Texas, with an 06. If it will kill a aoudad it will kill any of the sheep. A crap ton, neh, a metric crap ton of aoudad have fallen to an 06. Dall, stone, and big horn while certainly difficult to hunt do not show the toughness of the aoudad. 06 will do fine. We've killed plenty of sheep on my place with a hellava lot less than an 06.

 

[IronCowboy]

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 shoot 180grn Interbonds at 2750fps out of one of my 30-06's, I use a 225yrd zero which puts me at just under 2.5" high at 100yrds. At 450, running hold over with no dialing, I have 31" of hold over, or 6.5MOA (in Kansas at 40degrees outside). I usually dial elevation and hold dead on, but since I use Mil-Dot reticles, that's only 1.5MOA of hold using the top of the post as my aiming reference - meaning I'd have to hold hold the top of the lower post about 7" above the desired POI. Unless you're shooting something really small, standing on a ridge with sky above it, 7" above the hold is within the backline of most deer/sheep sized game.

Holding over for range does take practice. I shoot a 45-70 at 250-400yrds quite often which has oodles of air under its trajectory by the time it gets there (30" at 250yrds), and I do it with hold over in a plex reticle. Good opportunity to practice hold over without needing a 4wheeler or a partner in a bunker to spot my shots - I get as much drop and wind drift with this rifle at 300yrds as my .30-06 at 1,000!!

 

[colorado]

I used to shoot crows with my friend at his Dad's ranch in Montana with my 270. Thousands of them would fly south every fall and feed in his wheat field. Honor bound we wouldn't shoot at any closer than 200 yards, and often hit crows at 300 yards. I was shooting handloaded 90g Sierra HPBTs at 3400 fps. They would all rise up like a Steven King movie after every shot as one crow would explode into a black firework display. I have to admit we did have a picnic table and sandbags to use (and a beer cooler) on the porch we would shoot from. Though a lot of times we would shoot sitting with a sling to practice for elk season. Our thinking was if you could hit a crow at 300 yards, an elk at 400 yards wasn't much of a challenge. His Dad was always glad when we showed up. I guess a couple of thousand crows can eat a lot of wheat in a day.

 

[Southwind]

If you re-read the article he states that the 30/06 is his all time favorite cartridge. I believe he is bestowing the virtues of O'Conner and his choice as much as anything in the article. It a nut shell he says you don't need anything more than a .30 cal and that there are probably better choices than the 30/06 considering rifle weight etc, etc, etc. for sheep.

I really like Boddington, he is very prolific writer and he has walked the walk so he can talk the talk. You have to remember that these guys will write things from time to time to be a little controversial because it's part of what keeps us reading and coming back for more.

I remember this article, I see it was from 2010.

 

[sestoppelman]

And also to Southwinds point, CB never said the 'o6 was not adequate or lacking in power or anything else, he simply opined that there are more appropriate choices and I would agree. The fast moving 270's and 7mms or even the 6.5-284 we discussed on another thread would all be great choices. CB knows what he is talking about and has hunted much more than probably anyone on this forum, certainly in Africa, so his opinion does have weight. He also said the 06 would do the job, but set he it aside to review other rounds.

 

[sheephunterab]

I shoot 180grn Interbonds at 2750fps out of one of my 30-06's, I use a 225yrd zero which puts me at just under 2.5" high at 100yrds. At 450, running hold over with no dialing, I have 31" of hold over, or 6.5MOA (in Kansas at 40degrees outside). I usually dial elevation and hold dead on, but since I use Mil-Dot reticles, that's only 1.5MOA of hold using the top of the post as my aiming reference - meaning I'd have to hold hold the top of the lower post about 7" above the desired POI. Unless you're shooting something really small, standing on a ridge with sky above it, 7" above the hold is within the backline of most deer/sheep sized game.

Holding over for range does take practice. I shoot a 45-70 at 250-400yrds quite often which has oodles of air under its trajectory by the time it gets there (30" at 250yrds), and I do it with hold over in a plex reticle. Good opportunity to practice hold over without needing a 4wheeler or a partner in a bunker to spot my shots - I get as much drop and wind drift with this rifle at 300yrds as my .30-06 at 1,000!!

I'd rather hold the 450 yard crosshairs exactly where I want to hit.. I'd say the chance of perfectly placing a 600 yard shot with a 600 yard crosshair is far better than guessing where three feet of holdover is at 450 yards.

 

[IronCowboy]

I do agree, holding dead on is usually more accurate than holding over. But 3ft isn't unmanageable, and like I said before, using a mil-dot scope, I'm not holding 3ft. I'm holding 7", and 7" isn't 3 ft.

As I mentioned, I usually dial for range anyway, but I do practice a lot of hold over - and I use graduated reticles (almost exclusively mil-dot) to let me make those shots.

Whether you're holding or dialing, it does depend on your ability to accurately estimate range and evaluate conditions. If you estimate the wrong range - even by 10-20yrds - or don't account for density altitude correctly, or don't read the wind cues properly, you're not going to connect. No equipment or cartridge or bullet shape can make up for all of those issues.

Moral of the story - there's no free lunch. Holding dead on or not, or using a ranging reticle, none of it matters if you can't accurately estimate range, judge conditions, and appropriately run your corrections for your load.

 

[sheephunterab]

A mil-dot is a rudementary ballistic reticle. Laser range finder go without saying. No need to run any corrections on an advanced ballistic reticle other than wind.

 

[IronCowboy]

Two examples of why that line of thinking isn't correct:

1) Environmental effects on one load. In most seasons, I spend time shooting the same rifle and load for coyotes in a handful of states - including Colorado, Kansas (home), and Arizona. Where I hunt in Arizona is the same elevation as home, but usually about 30-40degrees warmer and much more dry. Where I hunt in Colorado often ends up about the same temp as home, but is about 5,200ft elevation above home.

At 400yrds, even shooting the same load (50grn V-Max over 27.3grn of Varget), the difference in POI between these 3 locations means the difference in a kill and a complete miss on a coyote. So if I was irresponsible and just tried to rely upon an "advanced ballistic reticle," I'd either end up missing or crippling game. There's no scope in the world which corrects the aiming point for different loads and environmental conditions.

2) Different loads from the same rifle. I take the same rifle to TX or OK most years for hogs, shooting a 60grn Partition instead of a 50grn V-max, which puts me about 150fps slower, with a BC of .171 instead of a .242 for the Vmax. It drops an extra 12" at 400yrds compared to my V-max load. But an advanced ballistic reticle doesn't know I changed ammunition, so if I call coyotes in the evening then go shoot hogs over the feeder in the morning, it still says I'll hit my target at 300yrds if I use that 2nd dot... But I won't...

These are the reasons I use standard graduation Mil-dot scopes instead of "advanced ballistic reticles." "Drop Compensating" reticles are only right for one set of conditions with one bullet at one velocity. Nikon even offer's their SpotOn app for free, which gives you new ranges for your dots for every load and condition to compensate for this weakness.

There are no free lunches. If you want to shoot long, you need to know your load and how it reacts to different environmental conditions. But ultimately, we'll have to agree to disagree, as it seems there's no bringing you to middle ground.

 

[TallGrassHunter]

I guess gun writers have to really dig to come up with an article that hasn't been written 20 times (or more) before. The Canadian sheep hunts I know about are also in brown bear territory, which in my opinion makes the 06 much more attractive than a 270 Win. Maybe I'm just biased, but I can't think of anything in North America that the 06 isn't suitable for. I'm glad I hunted plenty before the 06 didn't work because stupid me kept using it.

 

[sheephunterab]

Two examples of why that line of thinking isn't correct:

1) Environmental effects on one load. In most seasons, I spend time shooting the same rifle and load for coyotes in a handful of states - including Colorado, Kansas (home), and Arizona. Where I hunt in Arizona is the same elevation as home, but usually about 30-40degrees warmer and much more dry. Where I hunt in Colorado often ends up about the same temp as home, but is about 5,200ft elevation above home.

At 400yrds, even shooting the same load (50grn V-Max over 27.3grn of Varget), the difference in POI between these 3 locations means the difference in a kill and a complete miss on a coyote. So if I was irresponsible and just tried to rely upon an "advanced ballistic reticle," I'd either end up missing or crippling game. There's no scope in the world which corrects the aiming point for different loads and environmental conditions.

2) Different loads from the same rifle. I take the same rifle to TX or OK most years for hogs, shooting a 60grn Partition instead of a 50grn V-max, which puts me about 150fps slower, with a BC of .171 instead of a .242 for the Vmax. It drops an extra 12" at 400yrds compared to my V-max load. But an advanced ballistic reticle doesn't know I changed ammunition, so if I call coyotes in the evening then go shoot hogs over the feeder in the morning, it still says I'll hit my target at 300yrds if I use that 2nd dot... But I won't...

These are the reasons I use standard graduation Mil-dot scopes instead of "advanced ballistic reticles." "Drop Compensating" reticles are only right for one set of conditions with one bullet at one velocity. Nikon even offer's their SpotOn app for free, which gives you new ranges for your dots for every load and condition to compensate for this weakness.

There are no free lunches. If you want to shoot long, you need to know your load and how it reacts to different environmental conditions. But ultimately, we'll have to agree to disagree, as it seems there's no bringing you to middle ground.

How did we go from sheep rifles to varmint rifles? I suspect it was to make your point. Obviously when you travel you rezero your rifle at the hunting location and then you are good to go. I'm not really sure that had to be said...it's pretty obvious.

Obviously the ballistic reticle doesn't know you changed elevation and temperature but you do so you simply run the new parameters through the calculator for the new conditions. This seems to be another of those things that doesn't need to be said. Advanced Ballistic reticles like the Zeiss Rapid Z are good for whatever load you shoot. It's a simple matter of running the numbers. 400 yards is always 400 yards...500 yards is always 500 yards......600 yards is always 600 yards. You don't seem to fully understand how ballistic reticles work and I think that's where the confusion lies in this conversation. I've traveled the world and at times elevations that were 10,000 feet higher than home. I had to do no more than rezero, something I would have done regardless and then just use the setting provided by the calculator. It really is that simple. Same when I go to an extremely hot or cold climate. All you need to know is the environmental conditions, the calculator precisely calculates how the bullet reacts to those conditions and are more rudimentary ballistic reticles like the Nikon shows you the new values for the hashmarks and more advanced reticles like the Rapid Z it's a simple magnification adjustment to retain yardage indicated hashmarks. It's exactly the same when I change loads or even put the scope on a different rifle in a different chambering. Perhaps this video will help you better understand.

 

[IronCowboy]

This will be my last in this conversation, as again, you're stuck in your understanding.

I did only bring up the varmint rifle because I know the different elevations/conditions AND the resulting DOPE for each off of the top of my head. Doesn't change the facts - big bullets obey gravity the same as little ones, so criticizing that deviation is moot.

I'm also very familiar with Zeiss's suggestion for how to utilize the Rapid Z reticle - I'm a fan of the Conquest 6.5-20x scopes, and all 4 of mine have Rapid Z 1000 reticles. But how they suggest to use it doesn't make their reticle any more "advance" than any other BDC reticle or ranging reticle on the market.

There's absolutely nothing different about a Rapid Z vs. a Nikon or Bushnell BDC or mil-dot or TMR or HORUS or any other graduated reticle. The Rapid Z is just a fixed subtension graduated reticle in a Second Focal Plane optic. If you change the magnification on ANY graduated SFP scope, the subtension changes, so the process described in the video works for any of them, not just the Rapid Z. You can do the same "500 is always 500" process with any of these scopes. There's nothing magic or "advanced" about the Zeiss. Whether you use the Nikon method of keeping the magnification constant and changing the yardage for each mark, or the Zeiss method of keeping yardage constant and changing the magnification, you still have to know your load and what change has to be made for different environmental conditions.

(For a First Focal Plane scope, the above magnification varying option goes away, because the hash marks keep the same subtension/same range value no matter what zoom setting you choose.)

There are no free lunches - the shooter has to know the load and how it changes with environmental conditions. It's not difficult, but it's a lot more involved than strapping on a BDC scope and suddenly becoming a 600yrd game hunter.

 

[sheephunterab]

I'm stuck in my understanding because I understand how it works. Absolutely the Rapid Z is different from all other ballistic reticles...they have the patent to prove it. It's the only one where the hashmarks stay yardage indicated regardless of load or environmental conditions. How they "suggest" to use it is exactly how to use it. What chamberings do you have your RZ1000s on? It was actually designed calibre specific for the 308. The 600 and 800 are the ones designed for a variety of hunting chamberings and they are far less complicated reticles designed with hunting in mind.. You seem to missing the point that the computer does all the work for you in regards to changes in environmental conditions. Input the correct data and it is basically a free lunch...you don't need to know anything about how the bullet reacts to changing environmental conditions as the computer calculates that for you. Input solid data and you get solid results. If you watched the video you'd understand. I agree it is more difficult than strapping on a scope and becoming a 600 yard shooter but not for the reasons you seem to profess. You still need to become a proficient shooter at those ranges but you really don't need to know anything about how temperature or elevation affects the bullet as long as you input the correct info into the calculator and zero at 200 yards. No matter where you are in the world, if you are zeroed at 200 yards and input the correct variables into the calculator, the hashmarks will be dead on if you follow the "suggestions"

 

[tedthorn]

Ballistic reticals suck....used them and they have several issues

Mill dots in the horizontal plane are fine but spinning the erector and building your dope charts from real shooting is 100% the way to go

On all of my rifles that I consider "long" the zero stop is set at the 250 yard line

At 2733 fps a .308 180 grn Accubond with a 507BC has a real drop of only 11.5" at 350 yards.

Thats just an upper half hold.....not wishful air hold.

Most guys need to spend a couple thousand bullets of practice.....but most never put in the time

 

[sheephunterab]

Ballistic reticals suck....used them and they have several issues

And what issues would those be? I believe we were talking 450 yards?

 

[tedthorn]

A baluster retical has a very hard/impossible task of being something that it isn't.

Most are marketed as yardage but without real range testing you will never know what yardage coincide with said hash mark and power settings.

Spinning the erector and lots of trigger time is the better option

 

[sheephunterab]

I fail to see your point...spinning the erector requires the same real range testing. Once you've confirmed your ballistic reticle, there's nothing to remember and nothing to turn. It becomes as simple as point and shoot. The ballistic reticle allows way faster target acquisition and is as simple as it gets. Turrets have their place but for hunting to 600 yards or so the ballistic reticle is a far better option.

 

[tedthorn]

Then by all means please use them.....

 

[sheephunterab]

I do!

 

[tedthorn]

Well if you fail to see my point then you might see that I'm not a salesman and won't loose any sleep over what you choose to use or what I prefer