Ok reading the old timers (Hemingway, Annabel,Rourke et al) and there seemed quite a lot of use of 220 grn solids and softs back in the day. Used them on the bigger stuff. How good is this combo and why don't we use it today? Besides caliber restrictions? Curious

In terms of real world application I don't think you gain much going beyond 180gr in the 30-06 besides a greater chance at bullet instability. Part of the reason for abandoning the heavy for caliber bullets is due to better construction and advancements in design throughout the bullet industry, we have come a long way in the last 20 or so years. Keep in mind that as bullet construction gets stronger the velocity potential before fragmentation/upset also increases. A 150gr TSX will almost certainly out penetrate a heavier cup and core bullet simply because there is less upset thus less resistance. I also think that culturally we tend to value performance over real world application. That 220gr SP will pretty much do the same thing as a much lighter bonded or mono metal bullet of modern design.

Back in the day, .455 Webley was a renowned defense calibre, in revolvers.

But no longer. Because simply the cartridge loaders stopped loading it. So I am guessing that the cartridge loaders stopped loading 30-06 220 grain bullet loads.

That and because it had low velocity that it didn't appeal after the .270 Winchester came along.

Lastly I am guessing that with the arrival of quality but affordable telescopis sights folks no longer needed a bullet that killed at close range but instead a flat shooting bullet that killed at long range.

I haven't seen here in UK a box of 220 grain 30-06 for years. 150 grain, 165 grain, 180 grain but not 220 grain.

Why it's just NOT HIGH TECH ! roger

I sent some of my Hornaday 220gr solids to my friend Michael McCourry and had him sling them down the range. Wasn't exactly pretty, or predictable, but sure would have killed some stuff.

220 softs at 2550fs will kill every brown bear ad moose on the planet, and most other game of that size and larger, I'd think. A while back, though, I stuck a 220 sp into a whitetail buck at 130 yards. He bucked as if heart shot, and ran off. Sign at the point of impact agreed with a good chest hit. I tracked him for a 1/2 mile in light snow, then the blood trail stopped and his tracks mixed with the rest of the herd. He was the only deer I shot that I have not found. 200s Sierras are not for small game.

Accuracy wise, a 1-10 twist is ideal.

220 gr bullets (i.e., Nosler Partitions or Woodleigh PPs) would be a tremendous big-game combo for the 30-06. With 24" of barrel and Norma MRP, ~2700 fps plus is possible and stay within 65,000 PSI.

for some reason, probably the 300 Magnum, the 30-06 shooters gradually drifted to the 180gr bullets for a bit more velocity by WWII.
I use nothing but 180's in mine.

The combo is excellent. Both work just like they always have. The softs are reliable on large game and the solids just keep on going like a good solid should.
With all the modern bullets and the easy, fairly low priced availability of larger caliber rifles, the '06 is rarely used beyond it's 180 grain "role" today. Phil in Alaska is an exception to that by choice and there are others no doubt.

All I've shot for years is 220s. Have tried 200 noslers lately. The 220 hornady and Remington are sure killers as is the nosler. I completely trust the nosler 220 in my featherweight model 70.

quote:

I stuck a 220 sp into a whitetail buck at 130 yards. He bucked as if heart shot, and ran off

Simple answer you did not hit it in the heart or lungs.

I shot a luck of hogs and few deer with 220s out on an 06 works real well.

One good compromise could be 200 grain NORMA Oryx. It´s my favourite with .30-06.

Probably no expansion and over penetration missing vitals?

quote:

Originally posted by HPMaster:
220 softs at 2550fs will kill every brown bear ad moose on the planet, and most other game of that size and larger, I'd think. A while back, though, I stuck a 220 sp into a whitetail buck at 130 yards. He bucked as if heart shot, and ran off. Sign at the point of impact agreed with a good chest hit. I tracked him for a 1/2 mile in light snow, then the blood trail stopped and his tracks mixed with the rest of the herd. He was the only deer I shot that I have not found. 200s Sierras are not for small game.

Accuracy wise, a 1-10 twist is ideal.

I still have a box of 220 grain Remington CoreLokt's. Years ago they were popular for Roosevelt elk in western Washington. Of course most shots were taken at bayonet range in the thick brush!

Loads, please. Thank in advance, Hector

quote:

Originally posted by igorrock:
One good compromise could be 200 grain NORMA Oryx. It´s my favourite with .30-06.

Isn't quite a hard bullet?
From Swedish forums I've understood it to be harder than the 180 version. Thus, the 200 would be best suited for larger game such as moose and bear. However, there seem to be few experiences with the heavier version.
What's your experience?

- Lars/Finland

I'm always on heavy side when talking about bullets weights. As you could see in NORMA´s homepage the 13g (200gr) bullet´s speed at 100 meter is 715 m/s (=2368 f/s) and 11,7g (180 gr) speed at 100 is 740 m/s (2451 f/s). So I don´t think factory will make harder bullet for slower speed...?

I have a suspicion that older rifles will be able to handle heavier bullets.
My TypeA Mauser looks to have a pretty fast twist but I will have to measure it read up on what it is.
I don't gave an '06 any newer than the '20s so can't say for sure if the newer Winchesters etc. are rifled for lighter bullets.

Huvious that is definitely a possibility.

The 1926 Mauser summary of rifling for sporting rifles (from Speed's book) lists the rate of twist for the .300US at 250mm which is 9.84"
Winchester used a 1 in 10" twist from what I have read and Remington even used a 1 in 12" for their model 700 Varmint.

I don't know if there would be any discernable difference between a 1 in 9.84" or 1 in 10" but it surely wouldn't hurt with heavier bullets.

I tried 220 hornady on 2 wild boar this year and found that I did not get the penetration that I did with 200 partitions in the past. Not enough to prove anything, just my limited observation.

I found this picture on the web.
Kynoch ball ammo was normally 150grs and this is sporting ammo here.
I don't know what weights they offered for sporting though.

quote:

Originally posted by gunslinger55:
Ok reading the old timers (Hemingway, Annabel,Rourke et al) and there seemed quite a lot of use of 220 grn solids and softs back in the day. Used them on the bigger stuff. How good is this combo and why don't we use it today? Besides caliber restrictions? Curious

Hemmingway, Rourke, et al were primarily African hunters and writers. They had to contend with more than eland size plains game foe their livelyhoods.

Today the most common use of the .30-06 is deer and mostly whitetails at that. On animals of that size, it's just not at all necessary to throw such weighty projectiles. Even on moose the 220 grain bullets are simply more than needed and (as previously stated) today's bonded bullets provide better trajectories with the same penetration of heavier loads.

Back in the olden days (IIRC) the .30-40 Krag was our military cartridge and was loaded with 220 grain bullets. Why?......I'll hazard a guess.....because the thinking of the 45-70 was still fresh in the military's minds. Moving from a 400+ grain bullet to one half the weight was a stretch for them so they just couldn't perceive in going lighter yet.

During WWII the 150 grain bullet in the .30-06 had become popular but I'm not at all sure what the original loading was for military rounds....someone out there know what the original loads was for the .30-03/.30-06? I doubt that it was as heavy as the bullets used in the Krag.

But lets get back to the use of the .30-06 in Africa.....the originally posted issue. When one must contend with the possibility of a lion or other nasty type of critter that can eat you, one wants to carry the best "thumper" he can.....and the heavier bullets were the thinking of the time.

Teddy Roosevelt was the man that made the .30-06 popular as an African cartridge as he used a 1903 Springfield for the task and IIRC it wasn't using the 220 grain bullets which gave credibility to the possibility of lighter bullets being effective as well......besides.....he had an entire entourage to handle a wandering cape buff if that proved necessary. He also carried a lever gun in a much larger caliber for dealing with such an occasion.

The seeds had been planted for the .30-06 to be used primarily as a plains game rifle even though many "die hards" still saw it as a cartridge effective only with heavier bullets....mostly because of tradition, and as we know, traditions die hard especially when one's well being is at stake.

It's taken us until a few decades ago to move to the .224 diameter bullets as the main infantry round.....a long ways from the .45-70 one would say....even then we had some folks that insisted on heavy bullets for the "AR' of the NATO gun.

Further, today I'd say that the most effective rounds for hunting the whitetail are the .24, .25, and 26 calibers. I've killed them with a short barreled .222 (where it was legal)and tomorrow the .224 diameters might be the standard of the trade. The same evolution of calibers can be said to apply world wide. It's just thw way things work.

I have found the 220 Sierra RN and 220 Nosler Partition to work just fine in the '06 on African game.

quote:

During WWII the 150 grain bullet in the .30-06 had become popular but I'm not at all sure what the original loading was for military rounds....someone out there know what the original loads was for the .30-03/.30-06?

Same as the Krag; 220 grain I believe.

The '03 load was a 220 rn at about 2350, the '06 load was a slightly longer neck and a 173 spitzer by fmj at around 2550 iirc. The 173 grn load was very effective and ranges were taxed by its max range. The 150/152 fmj flat based bullet was adopted to see range issues. The 173 was used in mgs and match rifle loads while the 150-168 ish AP loads became the common combat load in the '03 and M1 rifles. Hatcher's notebook has this info and more. I commonly use 175 bthps @ 2650 in service rifle comp from my nm m1. I lose nothing to the m1a or the ar's other than due to recoil and ergonomic issues.

quote:

All I've shot for years is 220s.

Me too. I've got 3 30-06s, two bolts and a double, and 220s are all I've used for years, either a Hornady roundnose for practice and deer or a partition for everything else, both over 53.5 grains of IMR4831.

The second time I drew a Kodiak tag I used 220 partitions and they did just fine and I recovered only 1 of three bullets. I carried one last fall backing up a friend for moose and didn't feel a bit undergunned.

quote:

I don't know what weights they offered for sporting though.

Box says "Metal covered soft nose bullet 220 grains".

quote:

Originally posted by enfieldspares:

quote:

I don't know what weights they offered for sporting though.

Box says "Metal covered soft nose bullet 220 grains".

I wasn't clear.
I should have said what OTHER weights or was the 220gr the only offering?

On this note - anyone who can give me a hint where to find .30cal 220grs solids in Finland or Sweden?
The importers of Woodleigh don't seem to have it on stock.

- Lars/Finland

I have some old outdoor life's and the like from the 20's and 30's. They do talk a lot about the 220s in 30-06 for big game. In many cases they describe them as 220 gr. hollow points. Anyone know of who put out that design and how exactly it was made. Kind of doubt they were Bergers.

The iron sights on my 30-06 are sighted in for Rn 220 grain bullets and they penetrate as well as 300 gr 375 bullets.
they are as good a choice today as they have ever been.

My great uncles used 220 grain round noses, Core Locts I believe, to great effect on elk, moose and bear with their 30/40 Krag.

Yeah my intention was for larger game and such. Not deer etc. I know a 150-180 works great on them. Seems like the 220's would be a good combo for the bigger stuff without magnum mania

Was hoping you'd weigh in, Phil.

quote:

Originally posted by 458Win:
The iron sights on my 30-06 are sighted in for Rn 220 grain bullets and they penetrate as well as 300 gr 375 bullets.
they are as good a choice today as they have ever been.

Finn Aagard said the same. An endorsement from either gent is gospel.

Looking at Midway, I see Sierra and Hornady make traditional 308" 220 RN SP's. Which of these two is best? In the super-zapper category we have Nosler partitions, Woodleigh weldcore, and I'm sure Hawk makes a bonded 220 .308". Anyone have informed opinions on all of these? Thanks
Matt

Your mileage may vary...
Sierra were very accurate for me, killed whitetail well and you could eat up to the hole.
Hornady were plenty accurate in the same rifle, around an inch, and killed whitetail well, you could eat up to the maybe smaller hole. Never used any of the rest you list. My 220 Partitions remain in the box until I can point them at an Elk.

It comes down to the markets hunger for better performing bullets that started with the Barnes X and all other manufacturers trying to keep up. The Nosler Partition was THE premium bullet for a long time. Barnes came along with a bullet that was as different as the Partition was originally, and boosted performance to the same degree as the Partition did Vs. the cup and core. The race was on and a new awareness came to the average hunter about trajectory, expansion, BC and SD. At the same time cost and availability of tags from elk all the way down to the lowly speed goat made success on a hunt more important than ever. You don't wait 7 years for an $800.00 elk tag, spend thousands on outfitters and land use fees, take your only 6 days of available free time and go home empty handed. So what if you double the price of your projectile, you spent an extra $25.00! A 165 grain TSX will beat the 220 in every aspect from the 06. Trajectory, muzzle and down-range energy, penetration, and accuracy. So if your elk or bear is close enough to smell or it's the last days of the hunt and your only shot is at 350 yards, you have a great possibility for success. Now add Accubonds, Interbonds, Bear Claws, Sciroccos, GMX, and on and on that will allow you to use a more versatile bullet weight you see the end of popularity for the 220.

Quintus, there is iron in your words, but some of us are just plain Luddite throw-backs from an earlier century, and stubbornly glory in heavy-for-caliber bullets, to wit: 160-grain in 6.5 mm, 175 grain in 7mm, 220 in .308, 215 in .311 ...

quote:

Originally posted by gunslinger55:
Ok reading the old timers (Hemingway, Annabel,Rourke et al) and there seemed quite a lot of use of 220 grn solids and softs back in the day. Used them on the bigger stuff. How good is this combo and why don't we use it today? Besides caliber restrictions? Curious

Because using the 220s would "NOT" put the users in the in crowd. "MOST" use of the modern high tech bullets to my way of thinking are just an ego fed, unnecessary waste of money , stemming from the glamour of using ultra velocity rifles and promoted by profit oriented , rather good, marketing ( Hey ,Look ,New and Wonderful ).
Are the high tech bullets a better design? Yes, I think many are great performers. Are they really necessary? IMHO only a very small percentage of the time they are used.

Having grown old and recoil sensitive, However, there is something to be said for using a modern 150 over a cup and core or solid 220 .

If indeed the 220s were meant for short to moderate hunting distances, then their performance would be as adequate as the modern designed bullets. Dead is dead. Specialty bullets for long range sniper distances are another story. A modern spire ,depleted uranium bullet could well fill the bill. Back to the roger