I have been hunting white tail and wild hogs in the GA/FL area for years now with my 91/30 Mosin being my tree stand gun and my AK (with 5 rd mags) being my brush gun and have done well with them, but only at 150 yards or less. I'm moving to Alaska soon and have heard great things about hunting Mule Deer, Elk, Moose, Bear, and Goats up in their mountains, but that presents a problem for me and my setup. So, I have decided to buy a bolt action hunting rifle (*Cough* Remington 700 *cough cough*...) that I can scope to better tackle Alaska's longer sight lines, which brings me to my point: Would I want said rifle to be chambered for .30-06 or .300 win mag. Even though it's more expensive per round, I like the 300 because of the flatter trajectory and bigger knockdown power. I do like that the .30-06 is cheaper per round and won't shoot out the barrel as quickly, but it also has very similar ballistics to the Mosin that I already have and I don't really want to double up. So what do you hunting experts think? .300 or .30-06? Or even some other round I haven't considered (but not 7mm). Thanks for the help guys!!! 5 star for best answer!!!
Slider7282013-07-02T21:23:38Z
Favorite Answer
Saying you want to hunt in Alaska is like saying you want to hunt in the lower 48. There are vastly different terrain types throughout the state. In some instances the 300 Win Mag might be a good choice and in other situations, I wouldn't want to be hauling the heavier weight and longer barrel that most Magnum rifles have.
The 30-06 will kill anything you need to kill in Alaska. However, the 300 WM also has some perks to it. You really need to take a look at where you will be hunting.
You mention chasing Goats. If you are planning on running up and down mountains, unless you are a 20 year old track star, you are going to want to carry as little as possible. The terrain in SE Alaska where a lot of Goat hunts take place is terribly thick with underbrush. For this type of hunt, I would be opting for a Remington 700 Mountain rifle (or something similar. I'm not sure Remington still makes the Mountain series and I can't check while on my VPN). I carry mine in a 280 Remington and love it.
A lot of SE Alaska can have terribly thick undergrowth. I like the shorter, lighter rifles for this type of hunting.
If you head up into the arctic regions, the terrain can be as flat as can be for long distances. In such an environment, maybe the flatter trajectory of a 300 WM might serve you better. As I mentioned, the extra weight and length might be an issue if you have to carry the rifle miles and miles. You can always get a lighter rifle with a shorter barrel, but your shoulder and ears might take a bit more punishment. You have to decide if that will work for you.
I love my rifles and own quite a few. I started with a 243 Win and a 30-30 Win and knew I had the capabilities of killing anything in North America except the largest of animals. I added a 308 Win and with handloads and high quality bonded bullets, I could take the largest animals as well. However, I found "excuses" to add more rifles. A 30-06 for more power. A 300 WM because it was on sale. A 300 WSM for bear but that was a bit heavy with the laminated stock, so I added a 35 Whelen for bear in the brush. A 308 Norma Mag a guy was selling at the range, etc.... So it is tough for me to pick one rifle, I always found an excuse to buy one more.
However, if I were to pick a single rifle, I would opt for a 300 WM in a light, short rifle. Recoil doesn't bother me and I've shot enough rounds in my life where I can't hear anything anyway.
For most other people, I would advise them to go with a 30-06. The Remington 700 is an excellent rifle. I own multiple Remington 700s I have to say it is my favorite platform. The 30-06 is the best balance of power, recoil, and cost effectiveness in my opinion. As I said, it will kill anything you need to kill in Alaska.
If it is worth anything, my "go to" rifle in Alaska is a 35 Whelen in a Remington 7600 with a fixed 4x scope. I have handloads with lighter bullets for deer hunting and 250 grain Kodiak bonded bullets loaded hot for times when I am treading in bear country.
BTW, I an unaware of mule deer in Alaska. The only deer I am aware of are Sitka Black Tail Deer. A big one in Alaska is the size of a small doe in the lower 48. They aren't much bigger than large dogs, so they really don't require a magnum rifle.
Where I live, a .30-06 is plenty sufficient since deer are the biggest thing to hunt and I won't shoot much over 300 yds at game animals. In Alaska, I would probably prefer a .300 Win Mag. Actually there, I would probably have a .30-06 for most things and one of the .338 Mags for the bigger stuff.
Is adequate for any animal in North America. Note I say Adequate, and not IDEAL.
Be realistic with your personal ability and the range of game you are planning to hunt. If you are used to shooting only about 150 yards, a .30/06 will easily outperform that, you may only be comfortable as an under 400 yard shooter, at which point the .300 mag would be over kill with its effective range. If you realistically think that you will be shooting 600+ yards consistently, then yea, maybe you'll want the flatter, harder hitting .300win mag.
.300 win mag is overkill for anything other than the biggest moose and biggest brown bears. If you are going to be hunting deer and elk 90% of the time, then you'll be fine with the .30/06. If you want a dedicated dangerous game gun, then go with the .300 win mag.
My best suggestion is to wait until you get to Alaska and see what the locals shoot and prefer.
I'm not gonna knock the .300 win mag, its a fantastic round. And Alaska is probably the only state in the US where it's appropriate.
For the best answers, search on this site https://shorturl.im/awDwd
Getting into shooting by starting at long-range shooting is like getting into medicine by starting out as a brain surgeon. Long range shooting requires a LOT of time, money, knowhow, and dedication. That's not meant to sound condescending; there are so many variables that go into long-range shooting that it just isn't worth the expense and frustration for the average shooting enthusiast. I fall into that group. If you are truly intent on getting into the hobby, then I will simply suggest that you start with research. Read everything that Google has to say on the subject, and then consider buying some books from reputable authors that will go into more detail and (hopefully) are vetted against inaccuracies. Not to be trite, but this isn't a hobby to get into by asking, "I saw two random rifles, which one should I get?" Do your homework, and you'll save yourself a lot of money and a lot of heartache. Moderate-range target shooting (300 yards) may be worth considering. The hardware needed is significantly less expensive, and the necessary knowledge is more limited. Basically, it's less planning and a lot less money for more shooting--and you still get the same holes in paper at the end of the day. 300 yards is a lot further than you think, too. In regard to your original 30-06 vs. .300 win mag question, I like the 30-06. The ammunition is cheaper, it's an accurate round within reasonable ranges, there are lots of ammunition choices available, and it will kill anything in the North American continent. The '06 has significant, but tolerable kick. The .300 win mag feels like getting hit in the shoulder with a baseball bat. Once you shoot it, you will very likely not want to shoot it again. The .270 is another caliber to consider, as is the .308. Again, some light reading will guide you to something that you're going to be happy with.