Best rifle, scope, caliber for deer, elk, bear in Western WA?

[aaronf]

Been looking around. The Remington 760 is not expensive. I see a model 70 in 300 Win. Mag. with a nice scope for $350. Seems good to me. There is a Browning A Bolt in 300 Win Mag as well. Nobody talked about the Winchester Model 70. My understanding is the Model 70 was the premier hunting rifle until the Remington 700 came out.

 

[aaronf]

A 22lr is enough for elk or bear with a properly placed shot. This discussion comes up about every 2 weeks on this forum. IMHO if anyone does not have enough hunting experience to pick a rifle to hunt with on there own, they should not hunt with a rifle that "CAN TAKE A BEAR OR ELK WITH A PROPERLY PLACED SHOT"!!!!!! THEY SHOULD ALWAYS DEFAULT TO A MUCH LARGER CALIBER THAT WILL TAKE AN ANIMAL WITH A POORLY PLACED SHOT.

So I'm considering the 300 Win Mag again. I talked to an acquaintance who is an avid hunter and he hunts everything with his 300 Win Mag Browning A Bolt.

 

[rickoshay]

I like a 270 I shoot a lot so 400 yards is not desperation for me I have had good luck on all big game in Oregon with a 270 140 gr Hornady SST at 3000 fps and I think a 4.5X14 is a good choice of scopes

 

[iusmc2002]

So I'm considering the 300 Win Mag again. I talked to an acquaintance who is an avid hunter and he hunts everything with his 300 Win Mag Browning A Bolt.

Don't consider the 300 WM because of that post! Consider it because it's what you want, not what you think you "need". I said the EXACT same thing that badclam did when I first got on this forum, and I got flamed SOOOOOOO bad because I told some of the senior members they were stupid to recommend a 270 for elk. I've since learned that a .270 is PLENTY of cartridge for deer, elk, bear and moose. Find a rifle that fits you well. If you're just getting into the sport, the recoil and noise from the 300 WM is going to turn you off, I'm willing to bet. But, for my opinion, I'd go with the 30.06 simply because of the wide array of bullets available for it and it's not going to kick your *** like the WM will.

 

[DieselScout]

So I'm considering the 300 Win Mag again. I talked to an acquaintance who is an avid hunter and he hunts everything with his 300 Win Mag Browning A Bolt.

I keep coming back to your original post, you're a western Washington hunter. The .30-06 is perfect for you. It will take deer, it will take elk, it will take anything in your state and at the end of the day you'll enjoy shooting it. There is no need for a 300 WM.

 

[slimmer13]

Whatever rifle you decide on look at the Redfield scopes. Made and backed by Leupold, great price and I have had only positive experience with them.

 

[blitz]

i would look into a savage 111. they usually go for around 390$ at bimart, they recently had a sale for 50$ off too but i think that is over with now.
i have owned one in 30-06 and 300wm and they were both great shooters. top that off with a nikon buckmaster (200$ bimart) and your set.
puts you right at 600$ with the background check.
i recently sold both of them so i could go with stainless for this year and i went for the savage 116 in 300wm. i like the little bit of an edge it has over the 30-06.
i am gonna be picking up the same model in 30-06 later on this year (before hunting season) but i figured just incase i am not able to afford it before then i would rather have the 300wm for my all around big game gun.
i will probably get a little grief for that but it is just personal preference.
so on that note i think 300wm is a good choice for a nice all around gun as long as you are prepared to pay a little extra in ammo cost.
i wouldnt go to cheap on the scope you might miss the only shot of a season due to the scope fogging, wandering off zero and so on.
the scope i have on the 116 is worth more then the gun.

i would not go with a remington 770 or a savage edge, not even if someone offered to just give it to me. for 70$-100$ more you can have a waaaay better gun.
if it is a little out of your price range buy either the gun or the scope for now and save up for the other

 

[badclam]

Don't consider the 300 WM because of that post! Consider it because it's what you want, not what you think you "need". I said the EXACT same thing that badclam did when I first got on this forum, and I got flamed SOOOOOOO bad because I told some of the senior members they were stupid to recommend a 270 for elk. I've since learned that a .270 is PLENTY of cartridge for deer, elk, bear and moose. Find a rifle that fits you well. If you're just getting into the sport, the recoil and noise from the 300 WM is going to turn you off, I'm willing to bet. But, for my opinion, I'd go with the 30.06 simply because of the wide array of bullets available for it and it's not going to kick your *** like the WM will.

I did not say a .270 was a stupid elk caliber. I said,

"IMHO if anyone does not have enough hunting experience to pick a rifle to hunt with on there own, they should not hunt with a rifle that "CAN TAKE A BEAR OR ELK WITH A PROPERLY PLACED SHOT"!!!!!! THEY SHOULD ALWAYS DEFAULT TO A MUCH LARGER CALIBER THAT WILL TAKE AN ANIMAL WITH A POORLY PLACED SHOT. We're not talking about what we more experienced hunter's can do with a .270.

A 270 is on the bottom rung of energy of commonly excepted cartridges for elk. It is the minimum caliber that most people think should be used. A good choice in the right hands especially if your a season hunter or recoil sensitive.

If you read my post I pushed for the 30-06. The 300 win mag IS a better choice because everything about the cartridges performance is better. The ONLY real draw back to the 300 win. mag. is it kicks a bit.

Again I'm not talking about what calibers an experienced hunter should use. If you are experienced you already know what you can do with what ever cartridge you use.
I'm standing by my philosophy that for a newbie hunter a 30-06 makes the most sense. A 30-06 is almost as flat shooting at medium ranges as the .270, but has more energy. With proper bullet selection it is a fine caliber and doesn't kick much.
Again,my $.02 worth

 

[blitz]

another one to look into would be the vanguard s1 or s2 i have had the series 1 in both 338wm and 300wm they are excellent shooters. i personally did not think they had THAT bad of an out of the box trigger which alot of people say they are horrible. only problem i had with it is it would easily accumulate surface rust but a little bit of rem oil will fix that.
the s2's have a way better trigger and finish.

 

[blitz]

i never noticed a big difference in felt recoil between a 30-06 and 300wm either. the 338 was a different story though, that was my borderline. i could shoot well with it but i didnt like to shoot it at all and couldnt get as much range time in.
i am a wee little guy at 155 #'s

 

[M67]

I'm thinking $600 for a sensible rifle and a nice scope. I just don't have $1000-$1500 for one rifle. Considering the "apocolyptic-collapse-of-society" aspect may add another dimension to my deliberations.

A savage 30-06 rifle will fit all your needs for north america. As for the scope. I tested many brands side by side at our range, for me the winner was Nikon. Nikon has better clarity and gathers more light, than any of the brands tested, including Leupold.

 

[huntpotter]

.308 or .30-06 is good for anything in Washington. Ruger 77 is the strongest bolt action, currently made.

Anything with Leupold on it will be good.

 

[dklime]

You can't go wrong with the 30.06. As previously stated, it has killed more North American game animals than any other caliber. Great round. I'm not a fan of the 300 win mag or wsm. I've seen too many elk get away after good hits with it. I'm talking of good "behind the shoulders" shots. Not so with the 30.06. I'm a Ruger fan myself which has the modified Mauser action. Used to be the most accurate out of the box and price is comparible to the Remington's 700 adl and bdl. As per unklekippy's comment on long shots, I disagree about being irresponsible. If you are capable of a head or neck shot at that range which most Marines active and inactive are, then go for it. Sometimes in open country, it's nearly impossible to get close to a herd of elk. Yeah, I love the 200yd. minus shots because it don't take a lot of skill to hit anything at that range, off-hand or otherwise. However, keep in mind that the average hunter isn't effective past about 200 yards. Happy hunting!

 

[aaronf]

I hope to become above average.

 

[Gaius]

I have a Savage 110 in a 30-06 with a Cabela's Alpha scope on it. The scope is half off now and is a real good scope so far. Not quite as good the Leupold's I've had in the past, but for $80 it truly can't be beat for the price.

 

[Buano]

Let me staart with 2 observations:
1) Any 1-rifle battery for deer, elk & bear will be a compromise.
2) Most posts on this thread are people cheering for what they use, or what they have been told others use and do not look at terminal ballistics on the game you want to hunt.

Now, a TARGET rifle can be any caliber, but a hunting rifle should be powerful enough for a clean kill even if shot placement isn't "perfect". That means a 1-rifle hunter should equip himself for the game requiring the greatest range and greatest knock-down power that he is apt to hunt and accept that he may have a little "overkill" on smaller game. Elk are the hardest to kill of the game you mentioned. Although elk are routinely killed with small calibers, from .243-7mm, many are also shot with these calibers only to wander off & die somewhere later. Good Elk cartridges START with a .300 mag (WSM, Win, Weatherby or RUM), and great elk cartridges are the .325 WSM, .338 Win mag, .340 Weatherby & .338 RUM.

Since most of your hunting won't justify the expense or recoil of a .338, I strongly suggest you shop for a .300 mag.

Your rifle needs to be totally reliable & reasonably accurate. Thankfully, virtually every manufacturer makes a bolt-action rifle fitting these requirements in a .300 magnum.

Your rifle should also be resilient enough to spend long days in sloppy weather without damage. For this reason I prefer stainless rifles with composite stocks. If your budget won't allow for a good stainless/composite rifle, it's better to get a quality rifle that you have to protect from rust than a junk rifle that is weatherproof.

CZ rifles are inexpensive & have a great reputation for accuracy.
Savage rifles are the best deal for an American made rifle that should be VERY accurate. Models with the accutrigger are worth the extra money if you can afford them.
Remington 700 rifles are very nice but I wouldn't hunt with one unless I first replaced the trigger — lawsuits about the 700 triggers can be pulled up on the web. (Not many fail by %, but is it acceptable for ANY rifle to go off without the trigger being pulled?)
Winchester Model 70 rifles & Ruger rifles are both nice and reasonably accurate. The Weatherby Vanguard rifles are accurate & reasonably priced. My next elk rifle will likely be a Weatherby Mark V Accumark.

You don't say the range of the shots you are apt to take or how much walking over rough ground. Those two things will impact what weight rifle is optimal for you. A heavier rifle will deliver much less recoil to your shoulder & generally be more accurate than a light rifle — but be no fun hiking up & down mountainsides. Unless you have done a lot of shooting & are certain recoil doesn't bother you I counsel you NOT to buy an ultra-light rifle.

 

[moose]

Not sure I totally agree with you, you seem to be saying a bigger gun makes up for poor marksmanship, poor decision making skills and not knowing the limitations of the weapon a person is using.

I suppose a bigger gun makes the kill zone on an animal slightly larger, but shoot an elk in the wrong spot with a 700 nitro and it still will run off and die somewhere. Its not about the gun, its about the hunter making sure that what he/she shoots at, dies.

 

[mortre]

I don't think a bigger gun makes for worse marksmanship, within reason. But there is a point where recoil will begin to effect accuracy. What I would recommend to the OP is if he is not used to shooting high powered rifles, then drop the 300 of the table. If he is used to shooting high power rifles, well, take it for what it's worth then.

I say that because I did it, and it was a mistake. Recoil was heavy, rifle was heavy, and good lord the muzzle blast! Keep in mind this is western Washington, 95% of shot's will be under 100 yards. There is no need for a 400 yard rifle in a temperate rainforest LOL. Start with something that is polite in the recoil and muzzle blast department, and cheap to practice with. Then practice a lot with cheap ammo, and then re-sight yourself in with premium ammo before the season opens. For what it's worth, when I sold the 300 magnum I bought a 7x57 Mauser. Which is the ballistic equivalent of the 7mm-08 the wife uses.

 

[Jamie6.5]

I agree mortre.
In western OR/WA, the odds of a shot beyond 100 yds aren't near what they are on the east side.
I want a quicker follow up shot, from a cartridge that has the ability to "anchor" an elk on the spot. That means a relatively heavy bullet, and the more frontal area (read:caliber) the better. The .338-06 or .35Whelen fill this bill nicely, with less recoil that may hamper a second shot.

Another factor in anchoring the animal is stopping it's ability to make it to the nearest nasty thicket, that I will have to haul it out of.
Chances are, shot opportunities will come in small shooting lanes and/or small open areas. The number of large clearcuts in the coast ranges is way down, and tracking a blood trail through 15-20 year-old reprod isn't my idea of ideal.

 

[Gaius]

2) Most posts on this thread are people cheering for what they use, or what they have been told others use and do not look at terminal ballistics on the game you want to hunt..

There might be a reason that they (and me) posted up what we hunt with. 1) That we chose that rifle for a reason and 2) We actually live and hunt here and can actually comment what combo may work very well here.

I have nothing to say about NC hunting, so I don't recommend anything to anyone there. Might be a start for you?