Is there anything better than 30-06?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Incidentally, I get tired of people using Bell as an argument for the potency of their favorite small bore cartridge. What he did was a far cry from modern ethical hunting for starters. He was harvesting, not hunting. He had zero concern for how long it took the elephants he shot to die, and if one wandered off to die and wasn't found that was simply an economic loss, not an ethical problem like we'd consider it now.

Perhaps more importantly, he was lucky and had a lot of people taking his risks for him. He was never charged by an elephant, probably related to having hundreds of attendants on his hunts. Since most people can't afford to have a 100 person crew of trackers and what not to take all the risks for them on modern hunts, that's really no longer an option. And if you do get charged by an elephant, that .275 Rigby or .30-06 (or whatever small bore gets you excited) is no good. There's nothing on the front of an elephant it can hurt bad enough to stop it. The brain is behind 30+ inches of bone and gristle through the sinuses. You're going to need a LOT more rifle to get through all that bone - even a .375 H&H isn't typically enough. A .416 Rigby with solids is about right.

The kind of harvesting Bell did is thankfully consigned to the past and illegal more or less across the board. He was far from a role model.
 
Let's not forget that 30-06 basically saved the world as we know it.
Click to expand...

Give me a break.

I guess it wasn't the tanks, aircraft carriers, bombers, or the atomic bombs that saved the world... it was a .30 caliber rifle cartridge, one of many used all around the world at the time that share almost identical properties.

If anything, the 7.62x54mmR did more work to end WW2 than the .30-06 did. Contrary to popular belief (at least in this country), the US did NOT win WW2.
 
Incidentally, I get tired of people using Bell as an argument for the potency of their favorite small bore cartridge. What he did was a far cry from modern ethical hunting for starters. He was harvesting, not hunting. He had zero concern for how long it took the elephants he shot to die, and if one wandered off to die and wasn't found that was simply an economic loss, not an ethical problem like we'd consider it now.
Click to expand...

I would think before making a statement like this one you would at least do a smidgen of research. W D M Bell was a fantastic rifle shot, and relied on accurate shot placement over brute force of large caliber rifles. He dissected elephants so he understood their anatomy and where the shot could be placed that would always bring them down immediately (so he didn't lose the ivory). This shot became known as the "Bell Shot". He was an assiduous marksman, practicing daily on moving targets, firing from 30-50 shots until he had it perfect. His marksmanship was notable even among other professional hunters in that same area, several of whom were quite well known for their marksmanship. He was an example to those of us who consider ourselves riflemen and outdoorsmen.

And don't criticize him because of the size of his camp and baggage train. He took only as many men as needed (because those people had to be paid), cooked and cleaned for himself, and was very practical. A lot different than a lot of hunters I see in the field who bring a 5th wheel, ATVs, generators, TVs, DVD palyers, radios, and gas grills out for a simple weekend hunt and end up ruining the whole area for anyone else who is unfortunate enough to be nearby.
 
Oh, I'm well aware of what he did, and despite all the twisting and turning it's still not ethical hunting. Shooting small guns did however save him money, which if you've read anything he wrote was his primary concern. And I don't see any way to make passing off your risk onto others (who as recall did sometimes get charged and killed) as a good thing.

Bell was however an expert in self promotion, and quite a few people bought it.
 
Plenty of elephants downed with 30-06 class cartridges before African Hunting was big business.
Not really......: http://chuckhawks.com/bell_elephants.htm
Click to expand...
Are you saying 7x57 is in a different class than 30-06 or that Bell and his contemporaries did not bring many down? Did you miss that I put "class" behind 30-06?
However, if he had to do it all over again with a modern rifle he would choose a Winchester Model 70 in .308 Winchester loaded with homogenous bullets and sighted with a ghost ring rear aperture sight.
Click to expand...
.308 would be his choice now. A tiny step down from 30-06.

Bell was far from the only one out there. Plenty using .303 and other cartridges in the same class as 30-06.

If I'm using my "one rifle" to shoot an elephant I'm probably not within the bounds of your "modern ethical hunting" construction.

Rate of expiration is not a good measure of suffering. Spine shots are certainly far from the fastest, but if similar injuries in humans used as a gauge, probably low level of pain. Same for then slitting the throat with a sharp knife, which is often considered the most reliably painless ways to kill an animal. The "perfect" shot through the boiler room on a deer with an expanding bullet is probably quite painful, for instance. The choice to use it has little to do with suffering, but rather with percentage of success. Bell fans aren't the only ones guilty of romanticizing aspects of big game hunting.
 
Last edited:
It doesn't matter how fabulous a spine shot is, since there's no reasonable way to guarantee one. Too small a target and too much bone. And the surrounding tissue is largely non-vital, so if you miss or your bullet is deflected by bone you get a wounded animal.

The purpose of the "boiler room" lungs + heart shot with a suitable cartridge is that it's guaranteed to work and fairly fast.

Bell's most common shot was simply a lung shot with that 7x57. Which would eventually be fatal, but frequently took a long time. It was your basic poacher's shot. That's why hunting the way Bell did is illegal across Africa today. The bit about shooting elephants in the brain made good copy, but that's about it.
 
If you include ammo availability the .30-06 is tough to beat. Other cartridges like the .270 win. and .308 win are close as well as they are vastly popular and have similar ballistics.

For an all around round, I'd take a .300 WSM mag. Shoots the same bullets as the .308 and .30-06 but does it in spades. It's the most popular of the WSM line and I see ammo all over the place. Even the .270 WSM would make a great all around round and would be the second most popular in this line.


1. The 308 runsure out of umpff before the -06. That extra 200 or so fps gives it more lethal range. Not that I would want to be in front of a 308 at 1000yds.
Click to expand...
Comparing the same cartridge type/brand and bullet styles/weights with the same barrel lengths. There is usually only a 90 fps difference between the two. Even the Hornady Superformance loads only have a difference of 80 fps. You can get the .308 is a little lighter and/or shorter gun. You could also add a little extra barrel length to the .308 gun to get a similar overall length and close the velocity difference a little more.



I wonder if the 26, 28, and 30 Nosler are considered over rated by some since there is no mention of Magnum in their title.
 
"Bell's most common shot was simply a lung shot with that 7x57. Which would eventually be fatal, but frequently took a long time. It was your basic poacher's shot. That's why hunting the way Bell did is illegal across Africa today. The bit about shooting elephants in the brain made good copy, but that's about it. "

Total BS. - From start to finish.

Those of us who actually read on the subject know that Bell started off with an old rifle and not much else. When he finally did manage to kill an elephant, (heart-lung shot iirc) then he sectioned the animal' skull, and identified a good place and angle to put in a brain shot.

Nobody else had thought to do that, or took the trouble to do so, if they did think of it. In that era, large caliber black powder elephant guns were still in vogue.

Thereafter, over 95% of the 1,000+ elephants that he downed went to brain shots. This is how he managed to kill so many with 6.5 and 7mm rifles without getting killed, himself.

Your BS claim about him killing all of them with lung shots is utterly ridiculous.

- But it's your reputation... Go ahead and keep making things up, if you really believe it makes you sound well-informed.

Or you could try cracking a book every now and then, so that you might actually have a clue on what you are talking about.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

When you are dead, you won't even know that you are dead... It's a pain only felt by others.

- Same thing when you are stupid.
 
Last edited:
Given that I've read what he actually had to say on the topic, I'll take his word over yours.

Oh, and he was baffled by "unexplained misses" with the small bores too, which of course were simply failures of terminal ballistics. They got less common when he moved to a medium bore surprisingly enough...

Seriously, you might want to actually try reading rather than repeating what you heard.
 
The purpose of the "boiler room" lungs + heart shot with a suitable cartridge is that it's guaranteed to work and fairly fast.

Bell's most common shot was simply a lung shot with that 7x57. Which would eventually be fatal, but frequently took a long time. It was your basic poacher's shot.
Click to expand...
Hold it! If a heart/lung shot is
guaranteed to work and fairly fast
Click to expand...
, then it's not unethical. If, on the other hand,
eventually be fatal, but frequently took a long time
Click to expand...
, then it's unethical. You can't have it both ways. Your words.

And most poachers I have known over the years go for a CNS shot because it is fast and they don't want to have to look for a downed animal.

As for the cartridge, "that 7X57" launches a 154 gr bullet at 2,600 fps, about the same as the 30-06 original loading. Of course, the 7mm bullet has a higher sectional density and will penetrate better, but we won't split hairs. So, assuming the 7X57 is unethical, that makes the 30-06 . . . unethical? ;) Hmmmmm . . .
 
I had a long post half typed then I realized the ethics of elephant hunting aren't entirely relevant(as in I don't care as I don't even intend to hunt them unless I'm very hungry and the zookeeper is a zombie).

Ethical or not, one can take any land animal on the planet reliably with a 30-06 or similar cartridge, from squirrel to elephant. It isn't the best for squirrel or elephant, but it can get the job done reliably if the shooter does their part. The cartridge has also proved itself over the last century in warfare.
It can probably also take most things in the sea given a breached shot.
What else do you want?
 
Any cartridge that can kill anything that walks and also has a few ME-109's and Zero's under it's belt has to be pretty high on the "The Best All Around Cartridge" list.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top