quote:

Originally posted by Woodjack:
300H&H excells in classic rigs like this:You'd deserve a good slap if you chambered a rifle like that in .300win.
No, 300hh ammo/components are not common on the shelf, but class is not common in society in general.

You forgot the mandatory double ugly Hubble sized German scope mounted with a standard rear ring and a huge ring around the objective.


BTW I think if you can control the head space of a .35 Remington you can control the head space of a .300 H&H easily.

In looking at the Barnes reloading manual it shows that the 300 H&H is a near equal to the 300 Win and behind the the 300 Weatherby, It equals the Weatherby with 200 grain bullets and exceeds the 300 Win. With 220 grain bullets it lists higher velocities than for the 300 Win or 300 Weatherby. Seems that makes it a better cartridge for larger animals. Who would have guessed?

465H&H

A lot of 300 H&H rifles have a 26 inch barrel so they might gain a tiny bit there.

My pre-65 M70 has a 26" barrel. It is a long friggin rifle especially when compared to my pre-64 30-06.

My contention is ... gaining 20 grains of bullet mass (going up from 180 grains to 200 grains) is more important than trivial velocity differences between the various .300 Magnums.

Chris

There is something here that I do not understand. If I disregard tradition, and use logic in the bullet selection for the 300H&H, I see it like this:

Almost all the .30 calibers have a 1:10" twist so all of these will technically stabilise the same bullets equally. A 300 Lapua Magnum is tighter and will be better with longer bullets and a 300 Savage is slower and would want shorter bullets.

The bullet length will determine to a large extent whether a case will handle a particular bullet. A 220gr bullet will not work well in a 308 Win but this limitation of case capacity does not apply to the 300H&H.

A 220gr bullet could get up to 2600fps and a 160gr bullet could get up to 3300fps in a 300H&H.

220 gr hunting bullets are all round nosed flat based bullets. In 160gr there is a large selection of bullets and I would choose a hollow point, boat tail monometal bullet. There are a number of manufacturers who make these and I like them.


Launching these bullets at the speeds mentioned above, with both zeroed at 200m, results in the 220gr bullet going 3.3" over line of sight at 100/125m and 5.5" low at 250m. The 160gr bullet will be 1.6" high at 100/125m and 2.7" low at 250m. The 160gr bullet is twice as good.

Wind drift at 250m is 15.5" with the 220gr bullet and 7.3" with the 160gr bullet. (15mph crosswind) The 160gr bullet is twice as good.

Momentum and deformed cross section will determine how deep the bullet will go. One can debate what the deformation of the respective bullets will be but the 220gr bullet only has a small momentum edge on the 160gr bullet for the first 150m. After that, the 160 carries more momentum to the target. Nothing much to choose between the two.

Energy cannot kill the animal but it does determine roughly what the wound channel volume will be. More energy produces larger volumes. The 220gr bullet starts the race with 3303 ft-lb and retains 1672 ft-lb at 250m. The 160gr bullet starts with 3870 ft-lb and retains 2548 ft-lb. The 160gr bullet is a whole lot better.

If the wound channel is of similar depth between the two bullets but one produces a channel of larger volume, I would venture that it would kill more effectively.

Time of flight to 250m is 35% quicker with the 160gr bullet.

If I take the numbers to 500m, it is even more of a no contest. The 220gr bullet is barely supersonic at that distance.

The question I have is: Why would I want to handicap myself by shooting a 220gr bullet in my 300H&H? Job number one, shot placement, is much easier with the 160gr bullet and terminal performance is arguably better.

If the answer is tradition, I cannot argue with it. If there is a logical reason,
what could it be?

Gerard!

Let's look at more realistic velocities for the two bullet weights you mention. The 220 gr/2600 fps figure you give is for the the original Holland $ Holland load. Modern powders allow 2800 to 2850 fps velocities. Also 3,200 is a more realistic velocity max for the 160 grain. I don't think anyone would select a 220 grain RN bullet if shots were expected at 250 or more yards. A 160-180 grain pointed bullet would be a much better choice. A 200 or 220 grain may be better for bush veld conditions on large animals where most shots are less than 100 yds with a max of 150. At those ranges the 160 has no advantage.

465H&H

what 465H&H said.

The 30 Holland's Super is a two bullet rifle cartridge. 165 for light boned animals out to 300 yards pretty flat. The 200/220 in a heavy jacketed RFN or RN for everything else except the Big Three, and out to perhaps 200yds. The two bullets allow you to operate either a ferrari or a bulldozer.

Rich
NRA Life Member
DRSS

I used the 200 grain North Fork in my Super 30 and it was a devastating combo in Zim's lowveld last year. Shots were from very near to "sheep hunting" distance. Though it did seem a little light when surrounded by buffalo and being bluffed by elephants...

I finally bit the bullet and have a 300 H&H on the way. My son has been pestering me for one for a while. he has gotten into reloading and really like the looks of this round.

Anyone got a few empty brass they would be willing to part with?

For now 375 HH brass makes a good emergency 300 HH case. Just FL size them.

quote:

Originally posted by Savage99:
For now 375 HH brass makes a good emergency 300 HH case. Just FL size them.

...or .300 Weath.

quote:

Why would I want to handicap myself by shooting a 220gr bullet in my 300H&H?

Gerard have you ever fired a single 220 grain bullet in a 30 caliber? Have you ever killed anything with one?

I believe Col Askins is the initiator of that gun writer cultural memory that starts off as “In 1937 Ben Comfort won the Wimbledon Cup with the 300 H&H Magnumâ€. Period. Apparently time stopped, history ended, and nothing of any significance has happened since 1937. Charles Askins, was a very dishonest gunwriter: he loved to create controversy in print to create a buzz as a way of self promotion. His promotion of the 300 H&H over the 30-06 is what kept this 1937 memory alive even as it gets garbled with age.

In a August 1962 Gun World article proclaimed “Is the 30-06 Obsolete?, the good Col states “for almost thirty years now, the 300 Magge has gotten the nod over the lighter, smaller, and slower cartridge.â€â€¦ “ The ’06 as a far range proposition is as dead as cock robinâ€.

The Good Col was of course playing on the ignorance of the audience. Which was even more ignorant than him about what was going on at the National Matches. Even in 1962 the 30-06 was the most popular cartridge at the National Matches. This was due to many factors a couple of which were free ammo and rules that required shooters to use a service rifle. At that time there were a few 03’s still out there, but the most popular service rifle was the NM M1 Garand. The M14 was something that only the Service Teams had in any quantity. Across the course Match Rifle shooters were required to use the 30-06, or so I have been told by an active shooter of the period. As I recall, Carlos Heathcock won the Wimbleton with a 30-06, and I know of a Mr. Larry Moore who also won the Wimbleton in the 60’s with a 30-06. I bet there were more. The 30-06 was a popular and competitive Long Range Cartridge all the way through that decade. Long Range rifles in 300 H&H are rare enough to be the highlight of a gun collection.

Incidentally I read an NRA publication which touched on the 1937 Match. Mr. Comfort was looking for a competitive edge over the 30-06, had two M70’s built into 300 H&H’s and won the Wimbleton match with one. Congratulations to the man for a win. Not to throw mud at the man, but the publication mentioned that shooter’s two through four fired the same numerical score, (with 30-06’s) but were out V’d by Mr. Comfort. I forget if the second place guy, or the fourth place guy used a M1903 service rifle.

Anyone who has shot a long range match knows that the cartridge selection is important, but between cartridges of the same ballistic coefficient a little increase in velocity is not as important as good wind reading ability and just plain luck. What makes a tremendous advantage is going to from a cartridge with a ballistic coefficient of lets say .468 to one of .600.

Evidently the 300 H&H did not provide enough of a competitive advantage to dominate the firing line, and the disadvantages of expensive brass, short case life, outweighed the benefits. Today, a few people shoot the 300 Win Mag, but it kicks too much, and the rounds that dominate the long range class are the 6.5’s. Outstanding ballistics and low recoil.

In the history books…

All jesting aside, when I was in high school(early 60s), I bought a new model 70 300 H&H from Sears and Roebucks. I traded it off before I graduated from high school, but to this day I can still remember its serial number—500,020. Kinda wish I still owned that old gal. CP.

quote:

I believe Col Askins is the initiator of that gun writer cultural memory that starts off as “In 1937 Ben Comfort won the Wimbledon Cup with the 300 H&H Magnumâ€. Period. Apparently time stopped, history ended, and nothing of any significance has happened since 1937. Charles Askins, was a very dishonest gunwriter: he loved to create controversy in print to create a buzz as a way of self promotion. His promotion of the 300 H&H over the 30-06 is what kept this 1937 memory alive even as it gets garbled with age.

Actualy, Elmer Keith may be the first to discuss the Ben Comfort win in his 1946 book "Keith's Rifles for Large Game". In rthat book he tells of siting in a sheep camp in the Big Horn Crags of Idaho discussing the Wimbeldon match and recommended to Ben that he consider using the 300 H&H. He then goes on to say that Comfort won the match in 1937 with a 300 H&H Magnum.

465H&H

I can recall looking at the American Rifleman from 1937 and there was a picture of Ben Comfort holding the Wimbleton trophy looking all hot and sweaty. His picture was in an ad, might have been a Remington ammunition ad. I guess that series of ads helped contribute to the cultural legacy. 1937 was 69 years ago, there are at least four different and separate 1000 yards matches along with cumulative long range, Palma, Porter Cup, etc, each year. I suspect the 300 Win Mag has won more of them than the 300 H&H, and I suspect the 30-06 has more wins cumulative than any other cartridge. But folks trying to promote the 300 H&H never say, "the 300 H&H won in 1937 and the 30-06 won the Wimbleton cup in 1920, 1921, 1922, 1923, 1924, 1925 ,1926, 1927, 1928, 1929, 1930, 1931, 1932, 1933, 1934, 1935, 1936, 1938, 1939, 1950, 1951, 1952, 1953, 1954,1955,1956,....." . Actually I have no idea of what won in those dates, but it is probable it was the 30-06. Which was a competitive cartridge until the 30 caliber restrictions were dropped and good long range bullets in other calibers arrived on the market.

Now days, if you win the Wimbleton cup, you don't get to hold the trophy, rather you are given a plaque with a picture of the trophy. The competitor keeps the plaque. Those old trophies are actually rather beaten up. And if they let the competitor take it home, they would never get it back.

I won't believe any of this nay-saying tripe until you at least get the date right. Ben Comfort won the Wimbledon Cup in 1935.

Blast, you are right. At least according to my Volume II High Power Match Rifle Shooting, printed 1995. On page 76 the author, Creighton Audette (deceased) states that “the belted magnum case, which has dominated thousand yard shooting since 1935, the year that Ben Comfort, a St. Louis oil man, won the Wimbledon with a .300 H & H Magnum.†A little later in the article, “there were 1480 entries in the Wimbledon that year and only eight possibles were fired. Comfort was the best of these, with a total of 14V’s. It is of note that fourth place went to a Massachusetts civilian, who fired a service Springfield with service sights “

Later in the article Mr. Audette discusses the various 30 caliber magnums in use, listed were the .30-338, the .300 Winchester, 308 Norma. As the first edition of this booklet was 1981, this article was likely written in the late seventies.

I still think it was Col Askins who maintained the 1935 Ben Comfort memory as he lambasted as obsolete the 30-06 a number of times. I have read other articles, I think a Ken Waters load development for one, who repeat the same folklore. The shill gunwriter community is small and a very tight group; when one of those gibbons gabble, the others howl in harmony.

Incidentally, 1480 for one match exceeds the total number of people now attending the largest event at the National Matches, The Presidents's and the Garand match. Prior to WWII the Government supported civilian marksmanship, and now it does not. In many ways, the Government actively discourages civilian marksmanship. Last year there were less than 600 people who shot NRA Highpower, and I think the 1000 yard matches were around 200 people.

quote:

Gerard have you ever fired a single 220 grain bullet in a 30 caliber? Have you ever killed anything with one?

I have never killed any animal with a 220gr 30 cal bullet. In fact, I have never personally witnessed an animal killed with a such a bullet. I have seen a hunter try to, and wound the animal (kudu) at just under 200m. This is no doubt due to one of, or a combination of:
the useless trajectory,
bullets breaking up at close range
bullets not expanding at longer range
slow time of flight
excessive wind drift
big recoil.

Range testing with a 300WM convinced me that I would have no use for a rifle/bullet combination that is capable of performing on game up to eland only up to 150m. The purpose of a 300 Magnum is to reach out. I worked through several boxes of 220, 200 and 180gr .30 cal lead core bullets between 1993 and 1997. I hunt bush and plains and the hassle of going back and forth between two loads for short and longer range is just too much trouble. With a 160gr expanding mono, I can shoot anything with the same or better effect, than any 220gr lead core bullet inside 150 to 200m. Then I also have 400m capability, should it be required. A 160gr bullet that will not break makes job #1 so much easier. Job #1 is bullet placement. When you do not know how far the shot is going to be and you have to perform on demand, there is not time to fiddle with two different loads.

Regarding speeds with 220gr bullets, I could not get more than 2 to 3 reloads out of any case at more than 2700fps with 220gr bullets. At anything over 2750 fps, primers started loosening badly. At 2600fps, cases would go 8 or more reloads. 3300fps is routine for a 160gr HV bullet.

Doublegun,

The 300 H&H is my primary long-range tool and happens to be my most accurate rifle as well. Just got rid of my .243 Winchester. I am not in a position that it is my only rifle, so I pick my calibers based on application. For bushveld hunting I use a 7x57 and a 9,3 x62.

Before we discuss bullet mass as an issue, we need to make sure that we compare choices amongst premium bullets, and not compare cheap frangible bullets that shatter at close range when the velocity is still high. Mono metals generally retain their weight better than Softs, but the premium Softs, unlike the outdated conventional lead-core bullets, generally retain between 95% and 98%. So weight loss is no longer a major issue anymore.

There are excellent choices in the premium grade bullet category for the 300 H&H. Let us first stay with the lead-core premium category and confine myself to just 3 bullets that are readily available in the USA:

Northfork - 200 gr ............ BC = .444
Swift A-Frame - 200 gr ..... BC = .440
Woodleigh - 200 gr PP ...... BC = .450
Woodleigh - 220 gr RN ...... BC = .367
IN SA only Wdl is currently available, but I believe soon we will have Swift A-Frames as well.

When it comes to mono-metal bullets, there is Barnes TSX and GSC .
In Barnes, the most popular bullet is the 180 grainer, but they also offer a 168 and 200 grainers.
The Barnes TSX BT 180 grainer has a BC of .453 which is fairly high.
The 160 gr GSC-HV offers a BC of .530

My choice of bullet would depend on a bullet that mushrooms wide, and not throwing its petals off within the first few inches before it reaches the vitals. That is my take on things. All bullets will kill, but I prefer a bigger hole through the heart/lungs to drop them as quickly as possible.

Trajectory is not really a problem as that gets fixed with the zero distance for the selected terrain. You have to re-zero in any case when you flip-flop from bushveld to plains. I would therefore opt for the various premium 200 grainers (Semi-Spitzers) rather than the heavier 220 grain bullet that comes with a RN. There are very few premium bullets available in the 220 gr category. A 200 grainer at 2,750 fps will carry you out comfortably to 350 yards, but I will always try to get closer to minimize my mistakes and the accuracy potential of my rifle.

Most of the time animals can be taken within 300 yards in plains terrain. The average distance of 14 animals (between 5 hunters), Gemsbok & Blue Wildebeest, that we shot in the Kalahari dessert was measured with rangefinders between 235 yds and 292 yds. One was shot at 90 yards within 2 dunes, which was not so common. I am not in the running for 400+ yard shots in any event.

If your hunting is going to be mostly 350 yards plus, I would go along with Gerard to focus more on a high-BC precision made bullet, but still maintain that I still prefer the impact velocity to be such that one can maintain the petals of the bullet.

Chris

quote:

If your hunting is going to be mostly 350 yards plus

It isn't (350 yards) and I think game shooting at that distance is more of a stunt than fair chase. I would ask you the same question. Not theoretical no BCs or SDs but real experience...
Have you ever fired a 220 grain bullet out of a 30 caliber rifle and killed anything with it?

ireload2,
The obvious question that must be asked is: Have you used a 160gr expanding mono to kill anything. We have it on record that it works on a frontal brain shot on an elephant, takes down 1800lb eland at 200 to 250m with authority and will go end to end on kudu and black wildebeest at 50 to 150m. Plains game at 400 is as much of a challenge as plains game at 200 with a 220gr bullet.

How about you. What have you experienced with it?

quote:

I think game shooting at that distance is more of a stunt than fair chase.

It is actually routine if you have the equipment to do so. It is also neccessary if a hunter has messed up and saves many hours of tracking and suffering of the animal.

quote:

I have never killed any animal with a 220gr 30 cal bullet. In fact, I have never personally witnessed an animal killed with a such a bullet.

Gerard,
I thought so......so you have no experience with the 220s you are talking about. If you think the trajectory is bad you need to shoot learn how to shoot. A game animal is a huge target compared to shooting groups.
You used "we have it on record". What is "we". What about you?
The 220s and 215s were in use long before you and the expanding monometals were born. The 220s are not necessarily softs by the way...

Like I said shooting at that distance is not fair chase....you defended it by saying it is necessary if a hunter messes up. That is a poor defense... that is no longer fair chase that is not the hunt....that is a screw up.

ireload2,
To my quote above you should ad the rest of it and not just read and quote the part that suits you.

quote:

I have seen a hunter try to, and wound the animal (kudu) at just under 200m.

In addition to my observation of the hunting failure, I concluded with shooting trajectories and drift routines that a 220gr bullet from a 30 cal rifle will not do what I required. At that stage of my business, it was to ensure that wounded animals are effectively anchored when I have to mind a novice hunter. We were all novices once, not so? Having concluded that a 160gr monometal bullet will do all a 220/200gr lead core bullet will do at usual ranges plus give me the ability to reach to 400, I ask: "Why use a 220gr bullet with it's limitations?"

quote:

so you have no experience with the 220s you are talking about

I do not understand this statement. Having determined that it is easier for me to hit the spot at 300m in wind with a 160gr HV than with a 220/200 lead core, you think I should have loaded the 220/200gr bullets anyway? In a backup role, that would be irresponsible I think.

quote:

you need to shoot learn how to shoot

That is a hoot!!

quote:

A game animal is a huge target compared to shooting groups.

It is thinking like this that makes backup a neccesity.

quote:

What is "we". What about you?

If 10 people have used a bullet and report the same result to me, why would I go out and see for myself if they are telling me the truth? You must remember that you are the minder of a few calibers and I am looking after the entire spectrum from .172 to .700". I will never live long enough to do it all myself. By your reasoning I must go and shoot all calibers and all animals myself. That is a strange point of view. Like telling Michael Schumacher he must build his own engines, laminate his own tyres put the whole car together and then drive in the races while he does the time keeping as well.

quote:

Like I said shooting at that distance is not fair chase....you defended it by saying it is necessary if a hunter messes up. That is a poor defense... that is no longer fair chase that is not the hunt....that is a screw up.

The fact is that it happens whether you like it or not. If you take a two wheel drive vehicle onto the beach regularly and one day you get stuck and I come along with my 4x4 and pull you out, I ask: "Why did you not use a 4x4 in the first place?" The answer is obvious: No one told you what would happen and you gained the experience to learn what equipment you should use in that situation. If you went back to the beach with your two wheel drive and got stuck again the next day, would that be an intelligent move?

quote:

Earlier this year I bought a .300 H&H because I wanted one

Where does it excel? In the field of nostalgia only! It is NOT better in any way than the myriad of shorter-cased .300 Mags that can be put into a standard-length action.

As a matter of fact, for modern propellants, the design is not only archaic, but inefficient as well.

But like you, a lot of people still want one, just to have it...which is a good enough reason!

As far as it being ineffeciant a quick glance at any manual will say just the opposite. That being said it's not much different than any of the other medium mags-just feeds a lot SLICKER and is usually housed in pretty neat rifles.

quote:

Originally posted by Gerard:
ireload2,
To my quote above you should ad the rest of it and not just read and quote the part that suits you.

quote:

I have seen a hunter try to, and wound the animal (kudu) at just under 200m.

In addition to my observation of the hunting failure, I concluded with shooting trajectories and drift routines that a 220gr bullet from a 30 cal rifle will not do what I required. At that stage of my business, it was to ensure that wounded animals are effectively anchored when I have to mind a novice hunter. We were all novices once, not so? Having concluded that a 160gr monometal bullet will do all a 220/200gr lead core bullet will do at usual ranges plus give me the ability to reach to 400, I ask: "Why use a 220gr bullet with it's limitations?"

quote:

so you have no experience with the 220s you are talking about

I do not understand this statement. Having determined that it is easier for me to hit the spot at 300m in wind with a 160gr HV than with a 220/200 lead core, you think I should have loaded the 220/200gr bullets anyway? In a backup role, that would be irresponsible I think.

quote:

you need to shoot learn how to shoot

That is a hoot!!

quote:

A game animal is a huge target compared to shooting groups.

It is thinking like this that makes backup a neccesity.

quote:

What is "we". What about you?

If 10 people have used a bullet and report the same result to me, why would I go out and see for myself if they are telling me the truth? You must remember that you are the minder of a few calibers and I am looking after the entire spectrum from .172 to .700". I will never live long enough to do it all myself. By your reasoning I must go and shoot all calibers and all animals myself. That is a strange point of view. Like telling Michael Schumacher he must build his own engines, laminate his own tyres put the whole car together and then drive in the races while he does the time keeping as well.

quote:

Like I said shooting at that distance is not fair chase....you defended it by saying it is necessary if a hunter messes up. That is a poor defense... that is no longer fair chase that is not the hunt....that is a screw up.

The fact is that it happens whether you like it or not. If you take a two wheel drive vehicle onto the beach regularly and one day you get stuck and I come along with my 4x4 and pull you out, I ask: "Why did you not use a 4x4 in the first place?" The answer is obvious: No one told you what would happen and you gained the experience to learn what equipment you should use in that situation. If you went back to the beach with your two wheel drive and got stuck again the next day, would that be an intelligent move?

Actually past 300 yards you are effectively huntting with a 30/30. Same energy and accuracy as the hunter using a 30/30 under a hundred yards.

BTW,
Do you hunt at the beach? I don't.
Suppose I take a P-51 and you take a Spitfire.
And I shoot you down. Then you take the P-51 and I take a Spitfire and I still shoot you down.
What did you learn from that?

If you can't figure out how to perform with a 300 H&H you shouldn't be hunting

quote:

Originally posted by El Deguello:

quote:

Earlier this year I bought a .300 H&H because I wanted one

Where does it excel? In the field of nostalgia only! It is NOT better in any way than the myriad of shorter-cased .300 Mags that can be put into a standard-length action.

As a matter of fact, for modern propellants, the design is not only archaic, but inefficient as well.

But like you, a lot of people still want one, just to have it...which is a good enough reason!

At least one guy here says it like it is.

ireload2

quote:

Actually past 300 yards you are effectively huntting with a 30/30. Same energy and accuracy as the hunter using a 30/30 under a hundred yards.

At 100yds a 30-30 with 170gr bullets delivers 47.5lb-f/s momentum and 1443 ft-lb energy.
At 300yds a 300H&H with 220gr bullets delivers 55.2lb-f/s momentum and 1508 ft-lb energy.

So you are correct about that when using 220gr bullets in the 300H&H. That is why I use 165gr monos because it only drops to those levels of performance at around 600yds.

quote:

Suppose I take a P-51 and you take a Spitfire.
And I shoot you down. Then you take the P-51 and I take a Spitfire and I still shoot you down.
What did you learn from that?

I learn from that that we have wasted two Spitfires, probably the last two that were flying. Your point is?

quote:

If you can't figure out how to perform with a 300 H&H you shouldn't be hunting

I have no complaints about the performance of a 300 H&H. I figured it out ten years ago and this is what I have been trying to tell you. The 300H&H performs very well with 160gr monos. Just look at the numbers I have given you thus far. Couple that to the field peformance of several dozen animals taken with the 160gr bullet from a variety of 300 Magnums (way more animals if we take customers into account as well), and the evidence cannot be ignored. More reliable at close range and able to reach out like a 300 should.

I must conclude that you have never tried a 160gr mono, let alone compare the two (160 Mono and 220 LC) side by side as I have. Try it sometime, you will be delighted with the step up in performance, with no recoil or other penalty.

Where? Everywhere

The .300 H&H excels in SMOOTH, and loaded with 180 to 220 grain slugs it is such a winner. I couldn't believe getting half inch groups out of my Steyr with nearly every handloading recipe I tried. The only drawback I noted (besides difficulty in locating brass and case life) is the weightiness of the rifle, but that goes with any of the large magnum styled rifles. The .300 H&H is an antique winner !!

LLS
Mannlicher Collector

Ummm, well from a 30-06 user who uses 180 sp rounds, I just like to add, I have tried 220 and I have killed with them, and for what I do, I went back to my 180`s,just prefer them.
A friend of mine has a pre `64 Winchester in 300 H&H and I have shot it in Africa, and yes it`s a great rifle and a great round, but I won`t be changing from my 30-06, I like it, and it feels like part of me.
Though IMO theres not alot to choose between the 2 rounds, it`s what I prefer, which is same as the debate between 180`s and 220`s in 30-06