30-06
1 - 20 of 25 Posts
Joined
·
1,116 Posts
The Remington 700/.30-06 combo will be just fine for virtually any game in North America with the right loads. Equip it with a low power scope, I prefer fixed versus variables, and a good shooting sling and you are set for anything but close encounters with Kodiaks and an angry moose.
Ruben, I have owned several .30-06 bolt action rifles over the years and it is still my favorite round for most hunting. I currently hunt with an old M70 in .30-06, it was made in 1961 and is as accurate as any new one I have seen. I will throw in a comment on the scope; fixed scopes are fine, I have a 3x and a 4x on two other rifles. But, on my .30-06 I have a Leupold Vari-X-III in 2.5-8x36mm, and I like it very much - it seems to match the rifle very well. The two M700's I have owned in the past were fine rifles as well (a 6mm Rem and a .300 Win Mag). Odessa
Joined
·
3,366 Posts
Sure, I do like the big bores, they're fun and they are amazing in the right environment, but for all around hunting on any continent there are truly very few places that you would be poorly gunned with a properly loaded .30-06! Sure with the big five on the Dark Continent and with perhaps a close encounter with a moose or big bear up north, but for most everything else, yoiu can't go too far wrong! The Remingotn 700 series of rifles has been both reliable and accurate for many years... just like Fords and Chevy's, they all have their place, and a Remington will place that bullet with the same precision as a Winchester or Ruger of the same price!
Enjoy and go hunting! ( Up here in the Idaho Panhandle last year at elk camp, I carried a .444 Marlin, and everyone else in camp carried .30-06's, and mine stayed in the Suburban as a backup gun!)
God Bless,
Marshall
Enjoy and go hunting! ( Up here in the Idaho Panhandle last year at elk camp, I carried a .444 Marlin, and everyone else in camp carried .30-06's, and mine stayed in the Suburban as a backup gun!)
God Bless,
Marshall
Joined
·
1,116 Posts
Ruben,
Scope installation is very easy if you follow the directions. I've done it on all my own rifles that were optically equipped, as well as those for a couple friends.
If you're worried about the job, the gunshop from which you purchase your rifle and/or scope will do it no charge or at most for a modest fee.
When you asked about cost, did you mean the rifle, optics, or the entire setup? And don't forget that shooting sling I mentioned. Properly used it will increase your field accuracy by at least 50%.
Scope installation is very easy if you follow the directions. I've done it on all my own rifles that were optically equipped, as well as those for a couple friends.
If you're worried about the job, the gunshop from which you purchase your rifle and/or scope will do it no charge or at most for a modest fee.
When you asked about cost, did you mean the rifle, optics, or the entire setup? And don't forget that shooting sling I mentioned. Properly used it will increase your field accuracy by at least 50%.
Bill
I was refering to the cost of a scope and the accessories i will be needing to mounted it on,im not really looking into spending alot one one.A friend told me that they sell some good ones over at wal-mart.I was trying to find out about how much i needed to save up for one(i will be picking up the rifle in about three weeks).The thing is that there are so many out there whit all these numbers that i really don't understand and this being my first one im kind of confused .I mean whats the differens between a 3x,4x and a 2.5-8x36mm those are the ones that ODESSA recomended (thanks)i just don't know what the differens is.
Thanks
Ruben
I was refering to the cost of a scope and the accessories i will be needing to mounted it on,im not really looking into spending alot one one.A friend told me that they sell some good ones over at wal-mart.I was trying to find out about how much i needed to save up for one(i will be picking up the rifle in about three weeks).The thing is that there are so many out there whit all these numbers that i really don't understand and this being my first one im kind of confused .I mean whats the differens between a 3x,4x and a 2.5-8x36mm those are the ones that ODESSA recomended (thanks)i just don't know what the differens is.
Thanks
Ruben
Joined
·
37,277 Posts
There's a lot to learn about scopes but I'll try to get you started.
The '#x' is the magnification of the scope... that is, 3x is a three-times magnification, 4x is four times, etc.
Two numbers and an 'x' is a variable power scope. Example.... 2.5-8x is a scope which can be adjusted between 2.5x and 8x. For the record, I have one of these and it's a pretty useful power range. 2.5x is good on close shots, and 8x works pretty well out a couple of hundred yards.
If you get a number followed by 'mm', that's the diameter of the objective (front) lens in millimeters. This has to do with the light-gathering properties of the scope and is kinda complicated if you don't know anything about optics. Suffice to say that most scopes will have a reasonable-sized objective, say in the range of 36mm to 40mm and even up to 50mm.
OK.... what do you buy? Most people generally get a variable power scope, 3-9x, 3.5-10x, or similar being the most common. I have a 2.5-8x Leupold on my .3-06 and like it very much, also own a 3-9x (338 Win mag) and a 3.5-10x (.257 Roberts). They all work.
Brands..... given people advice on scope brands is like trying to buy shoes for them. In general, the more you pay, the better quality you get. BUT - you need to look through them and see what works for your eyes. Some people just naturally see better with some brands than others.
There is a lot more information on lens coatings, etc., which we'll not try to cover here.
My advice is to go to the store, look through a few, especially looking at objects in shadows or dark corners, as far away as you can. Everything looks good in bright daylight. Personally I can't imagine that Wal-mart carries anything decent, at least the ones around here don't. I'd expect to pay as much for a scope as the rifle.
Mounting - Weaver-style rings and bases are pretty easy. The Redfield-style or dovetail rings are a little harder and I'd not attempt that without supervision. Easy to bend the scope tube if done incorrectly. If you have open (iron) sights the Weaver rings are nice as you can generally take the scope off the base and put it back on without messing up the zero.
Hope this helps... feel free to ask more questions.
The '#x' is the magnification of the scope... that is, 3x is a three-times magnification, 4x is four times, etc.
Two numbers and an 'x' is a variable power scope. Example.... 2.5-8x is a scope which can be adjusted between 2.5x and 8x. For the record, I have one of these and it's a pretty useful power range. 2.5x is good on close shots, and 8x works pretty well out a couple of hundred yards.
If you get a number followed by 'mm', that's the diameter of the objective (front) lens in millimeters. This has to do with the light-gathering properties of the scope and is kinda complicated if you don't know anything about optics. Suffice to say that most scopes will have a reasonable-sized objective, say in the range of 36mm to 40mm and even up to 50mm.
OK.... what do you buy? Most people generally get a variable power scope, 3-9x, 3.5-10x, or similar being the most common. I have a 2.5-8x Leupold on my .3-06 and like it very much, also own a 3-9x (338 Win mag) and a 3.5-10x (.257 Roberts). They all work.
Brands..... given people advice on scope brands is like trying to buy shoes for them. In general, the more you pay, the better quality you get. BUT - you need to look through them and see what works for your eyes. Some people just naturally see better with some brands than others.
There is a lot more information on lens coatings, etc., which we'll not try to cover here.
My advice is to go to the store, look through a few, especially looking at objects in shadows or dark corners, as far away as you can. Everything looks good in bright daylight. Personally I can't imagine that Wal-mart carries anything decent, at least the ones around here don't. I'd expect to pay as much for a scope as the rifle.
Mounting - Weaver-style rings and bases are pretty easy. The Redfield-style or dovetail rings are a little harder and I'd not attempt that without supervision. Easy to bend the scope tube if done incorrectly. If you have open (iron) sights the Weaver rings are nice as you can generally take the scope off the base and put it back on without messing up the zero.
Hope this helps... feel free to ask more questions.
Joined
·
1,116 Posts
Ruben,
Mike's post is an excellent primer for scopes and I could not improve upon it in facts. But let me interject some personal preferences. Like Mike said, scope choice is a
very personal thing.
I prefer fixed, lower power scopes like the 2.5X and 4X for almost all huntign situations. For me the added magnification of a 3-9X or 4-12X is outweighed by reduced field of view, increased cost for equal quality, and above all else, durability. All the problems I've ever seen with optics were with variable scopes. Water leaks and broken reticles (cross hairs) mostly. Now that's not to say those problems don't happen with fixed power scopes, it's just in my experience they are more sturdy and trouble-free.
Since this is your first rifle, I will second Mike's suggestion for using Weaver rings and bases. They are somewhat easier to install and allow use of backup iron sights if your rifle is so equipped.
I've had good experience with Redfield and Weaver brand scopes. They are both reasonably priced and I've found them to be as durable as any of the more expensive names like Leupold or Burris when standard cartridges such as the the '06, .270, etc. are used.
I'd also agree with Mike that checking-out a bunch of scopes firsthand is the best way to determine what is best for you. Keep us posted on your endeavours.
Mike's post is an excellent primer for scopes and I could not improve upon it in facts. But let me interject some personal preferences. Like Mike said, scope choice is a
very personal thing.
I prefer fixed, lower power scopes like the 2.5X and 4X for almost all huntign situations. For me the added magnification of a 3-9X or 4-12X is outweighed by reduced field of view, increased cost for equal quality, and above all else, durability. All the problems I've ever seen with optics were with variable scopes. Water leaks and broken reticles (cross hairs) mostly. Now that's not to say those problems don't happen with fixed power scopes, it's just in my experience they are more sturdy and trouble-free.
Since this is your first rifle, I will second Mike's suggestion for using Weaver rings and bases. They are somewhat easier to install and allow use of backup iron sights if your rifle is so equipped.
I've had good experience with Redfield and Weaver brand scopes. They are both reasonably priced and I've found them to be as durable as any of the more expensive names like Leupold or Burris when standard cartridges such as the the '06, .270, etc. are used.
I'd also agree with Mike that checking-out a bunch of scopes firsthand is the best way to determine what is best for you. Keep us posted on your endeavours.
Joined
·
3,366 Posts
Both Mike and Bill's posts are most excellent counsel!
I might interject something here just for your information and comfort, when you are working on a tight budget.
In looking at today's scopes, as mentioned, the dollars expended generally reflect the quality recieved... to a degree. Here I'd like to point out the apex of technology we now enjoy, and compare it, with our CNC machining, the lazer technology that guides optical lens production and the list goes on. When comparing, even the most modestly prices rifle scopes on today's market with the Leupold's, Redfield's and Burris scopes of 1970's and even early 80's manufacture, these relatively inexpensive scopes available at discount and department stores rival the quality of the "best scopes"available 20 years ago!
It's interesting how, in some comparisons that I've been doing lately with some of those older scops that sit on guns in my safe, how even the two cheap tasco scopes that I put on the .444 Marlins for the series of tests done for the articles we are posting, rival those older scopes in every way! Too they are rugged, take the .444's and the tasco scopes mentioned above, and they have been subject to at least a couple thousand exceedingly heavy recoiling rounds out of the .444 Marlin's and have not yet lost their zero, nor repeatability. Those scopes were purchased from Midsouth Shooter's Supply for under ษ each!
<a href="www.midsouthshooterssupply.com" target='_blank'>www.midsouthshooterssupply.com</a>
I purposefully purchased those inexpensive scopes for the purposes of punishing them, then in a later tech note this winter do some serious, quantitative light transmission reports when compared not only to today's "best scopes", but to those of a couple of decades ago. The results are amazing in regard to the quality of scope, the clarity of lens and light transmission in some of the lesser priced equipment. No, I'm not for a minute going to tell you that today's best scopes aren't indeed superior to these department store price leader bargain scopes, far from it, but what I will tell you is that those inexpensive scopes for the most part are well on a par with the best available twenty years ago. We had some great scopes then!
Don't filch on scope mounts. Buy good solid mounts of the best quality you can afford, then get a scope that fits your budget and go hunting! If you want another scope later, you can certainly do so, but you don't have to spend three hundred dollars right now on a scope to get reliable hunting optics!
Wow, sorry, this has turned into a long post, and I'm on a soap box, so I'll get off! Perhaps this info will help!
God Bless,
Marshall
I might interject something here just for your information and comfort, when you are working on a tight budget.
In looking at today's scopes, as mentioned, the dollars expended generally reflect the quality recieved... to a degree. Here I'd like to point out the apex of technology we now enjoy, and compare it, with our CNC machining, the lazer technology that guides optical lens production and the list goes on. When comparing, even the most modestly prices rifle scopes on today's market with the Leupold's, Redfield's and Burris scopes of 1970's and even early 80's manufacture, these relatively inexpensive scopes available at discount and department stores rival the quality of the "best scopes"available 20 years ago!
It's interesting how, in some comparisons that I've been doing lately with some of those older scops that sit on guns in my safe, how even the two cheap tasco scopes that I put on the .444 Marlins for the series of tests done for the articles we are posting, rival those older scopes in every way! Too they are rugged, take the .444's and the tasco scopes mentioned above, and they have been subject to at least a couple thousand exceedingly heavy recoiling rounds out of the .444 Marlin's and have not yet lost their zero, nor repeatability. Those scopes were purchased from Midsouth Shooter's Supply for under ษ each!
<a href="www.midsouthshooterssupply.com" target='_blank'>www.midsouthshooterssupply.com</a>
I purposefully purchased those inexpensive scopes for the purposes of punishing them, then in a later tech note this winter do some serious, quantitative light transmission reports when compared not only to today's "best scopes", but to those of a couple of decades ago. The results are amazing in regard to the quality of scope, the clarity of lens and light transmission in some of the lesser priced equipment. No, I'm not for a minute going to tell you that today's best scopes aren't indeed superior to these department store price leader bargain scopes, far from it, but what I will tell you is that those inexpensive scopes for the most part are well on a par with the best available twenty years ago. We had some great scopes then!
Don't filch on scope mounts. Buy good solid mounts of the best quality you can afford, then get a scope that fits your budget and go hunting! If you want another scope later, you can certainly do so, but you don't have to spend three hundred dollars right now on a scope to get reliable hunting optics!
Wow, sorry, this has turned into a long post, and I'm on a soap box, so I'll get off! Perhaps this info will help!
God Bless,
Marshall
Joined
·
3,366 Posts
Ruben,
In your quest for a new rifle, consider the article that I jut posted in our Tech Notes, here's the link:
Perhaps it will shed some light for you!
God Bless,
Marshall
In your quest for a new rifle, consider the article that I jut posted in our Tech Notes, here's the link:
<a href="http://beartoothbullets.com/tech_notes/index.htm" target='_blank'>http://beartoothbullets.com/tech_notes/index.htm</a>
Perhaps it will shed some light for you!
God Bless,
Marshall
Joined
·
2,428 Posts
Indeed! These answers are some of the finest I have had the pleasure to read here or elsewhere. This is what this forum is, and should be, about! My compliments, gentlemen!
The .30-06 Springfield has been my favorite for all my shooting years. At times I was fickle and played with other calibers, yet have always come back.
At present I have only two...a Ruger Light Sporter and a custom 1938 DWM Mauser I built as an all-weather rifle.
There's one thing I would like to add....This week I have been testing some of Marshall's .310" 170 gr LMNGC bullets in my Ruger. I want a load that will hit on at abiut 75 yards when my Ruger is sighted in at +1" at 100 yards. I think I have found it by using Col.Whelen's load of 24 grs of IMR 4198 @approx 1800'/". That load will shoot 5 shot clover leafs in my rifle at 75 yards and should an excellent turkey, etc. load. With the Ruger SS it is nothing to quietly replace the 180 gr Ballistic Tip with the cast round. I even think it might be a good small game load, with little meat damage. Just another way to have fun!
Best Regards To All, James
The .30-06 Springfield has been my favorite for all my shooting years. At times I was fickle and played with other calibers, yet have always come back.
At present I have only two...a Ruger Light Sporter and a custom 1938 DWM Mauser I built as an all-weather rifle.
There's one thing I would like to add....This week I have been testing some of Marshall's .310" 170 gr LMNGC bullets in my Ruger. I want a load that will hit on at abiut 75 yards when my Ruger is sighted in at +1" at 100 yards. I think I have found it by using Col.Whelen's load of 24 grs of IMR 4198 @approx 1800'/". That load will shoot 5 shot clover leafs in my rifle at 75 yards and should an excellent turkey, etc. load. With the Ruger SS it is nothing to quietly replace the 180 gr Ballistic Tip with the cast round. I even think it might be a good small game load, with little meat damage. Just another way to have fun!
Best Regards To All, James
I'm pretty new to this center fire rifle game myself. I bought an old Rem. 760 slide gun last year in 30.06 and it is a gem. I've got some medium loads that shoot great and the thing is fairly light and talk about a quick follow up shot. You can find these in several calibers including 35 rem, 270, 308, and 06. I got mine for under 300$ including an old redfield 4X scope that is just about as good as it gets for the thick woods of S.C.
Joined
·
1,116 Posts
The Remington pump '06 is extremely popular up here in Pennsylvania as well. In fact there was a run about ten years ago or so for 18.5" carbines that was only sold in the Keystone state. As you mentioned, you'd be hard pressed for a quicker aimed second shot with a semi-auto.
I shoot a Ruger all weather in 300 win mag, and I love it. However I do have an OLD Rem 760 Gamemaster collecting dust. The scope on it doesn't maintain zero, and I can't seem to get the open sights to zero either, shoots way too high. I was wondering about a couple of things, such as are there better scope rings out there for this gun than the one piece rings that tighten on the side? Can this gun be Ackley improved? Or rechambered to 338'06? Does the Ack imp still shoot cast bullets well? And where and how much for a replacement stock? A lot of questions I know, but I am totally against neglecting a gun by not shooting it. Thanks guys, you really are a bunch of Gems in the rough 8^)
Dave Beeman
Dave Beeman
I too greatly enjoyed Marshall's article on the first rifle('06). I have long considered the 30-06 to be the all round rifle and I have two: a Savage 110 restocked in a Bell & Carlson synthetic and a Rem. 760 18.5 inch carbine that I restocked with RamLine synthetic. I put Williams excellent little apeture sight on the 760 carbine and it shoots great. I have been considering the question of which of my rifles to use as a camp rifle when we buy a camp. Marshalls article sealed the decision for the Rem. 760 as I will develop some light loads in case my wife needs to use it. I will probably use some SR4759 reduced loads with some odds and ends .30-30 bullets I have around.
Joined
·
2,428 Posts
Bill Lester, as always, passes our some very sound advice concerning the Remington 760/7600 series rifles (and carbines). These rifles have been made in all the popular calibers, including the .222 rem in the 1960's. The most popular listing down here in Florida is the 30-06 and .35 Whelen. We are on what all the time for good ones with metal bolt covers. Interesting enough, there is the beginning of these rifles being rebarreled to calibers like the .260 Rem.
As for scope mounts..I favor the one piece Leupold base and rings on this action.
He is correct on fast smooth follow up shots, where the trigger finger/hand never leaves its position on the stock of these pumps. There were two runs of this rifle in .35 Rem and these can push a 180 bullet very hot.
For those interested in conversions om the 760/7600....contact Howard at the A.W. Peterson Gun Shop at Mt. Dora, Florida.
Best Regards, James
As for scope mounts..I favor the one piece Leupold base and rings on this action.
He is correct on fast smooth follow up shots, where the trigger finger/hand never leaves its position on the stock of these pumps. There were two runs of this rifle in .35 Rem and these can push a 180 bullet very hot.
For those interested in conversions om the 760/7600....contact Howard at the A.W. Peterson Gun Shop at Mt. Dora, Florida.
Best Regards, James
Joined
·
1,116 Posts
Beeman,
Your Remington can certainly be rechambered to the .30-06 Ackley Improved or .338-06. I have read the latter is somewhat of a popular conversion in grizzly bear states.
The suitability of either with cast loads is something I cannot emphatically answer, as I have only used such bullets in the standard .30-06 myself. I believe either Marshall or James can better answer this point than I.
As for your scope woes, I think that before you invest in a new set of quality rings you should remove the entire setup and properly remount. Often such problems as a wandering zero are caused by loose or misaligned rings/mount/scope, rather than any defect in one of the components. If your problems remain after remounting the optics, I'd look at the scope itself as the problem. It's been my experience that the mounts and rings themselves are pretty near foolproof if properly installed.
Your Remington can certainly be rechambered to the .30-06 Ackley Improved or .338-06. I have read the latter is somewhat of a popular conversion in grizzly bear states.
The suitability of either with cast loads is something I cannot emphatically answer, as I have only used such bullets in the standard .30-06 myself. I believe either Marshall or James can better answer this point than I.
As for your scope woes, I think that before you invest in a new set of quality rings you should remove the entire setup and properly remount. Often such problems as a wandering zero are caused by loose or misaligned rings/mount/scope, rather than any defect in one of the components. If your problems remain after remounting the optics, I'd look at the scope itself as the problem. It's been my experience that the mounts and rings themselves are pretty near foolproof if properly installed.
Joined
·
2,428 Posts
Indeed, do as Bill suggested and check out the scope and mounts with care before anything else!
As for cast bullets.......my rule of the thumb has always been that .35 caliber was the break point for switching to cast. I'm well aware the one can heat soften the nose of smaller cast bullets and somewhat duplicate the expansion of jacketed bullets very well, making them into excellent game bullets. When one gets to .35 caliber, and up, an entire new horizon opens up with cast bullets. As an example, I have just received a call concerning a 1600 pound steer that was put done...dead on its feet, with Marshall's .358" 185 gr FNGC at a muzzlw velocity of 1780 fps out of a Marlin with a 16.5" barrel. That load blew a hole all the way through its head. I do enjoy playing with Marshall's excellent 170 gr .310" LMNGC in my 06's for turkey loads, etc.
If you decide to rebarrel, I would consider the .35 Whelen on that action. Then both jacketed and cast can be used.
Best Regards, James
As for cast bullets.......my rule of the thumb has always been that .35 caliber was the break point for switching to cast. I'm well aware the one can heat soften the nose of smaller cast bullets and somewhat duplicate the expansion of jacketed bullets very well, making them into excellent game bullets. When one gets to .35 caliber, and up, an entire new horizon opens up with cast bullets. As an example, I have just received a call concerning a 1600 pound steer that was put done...dead on its feet, with Marshall's .358" 185 gr FNGC at a muzzlw velocity of 1780 fps out of a Marlin with a 16.5" barrel. That load blew a hole all the way through its head. I do enjoy playing with Marshall's excellent 170 gr .310" LMNGC in my 06's for turkey loads, etc.
If you decide to rebarrel, I would consider the .35 Whelen on that action. Then both jacketed and cast can be used.
Best Regards, James
1 - 20 of 25 Posts
Join the discussion
Join now to ask and comment!