Help me choose my cow elk rifle and load

[Newtosavage]

It's looking like I have two really good choices for my October cow elk hunt in Colorado. I'll probably bring both rifles anyway, but I'm curious which rifle and load you would choose to tote around. We'll be starting from the truck every morning and I expect we'll put about 3-6 miles on our boots every day, anywhere from 7K to 10K, depending on the weather, sign, hunting pressure, etc.

Rifle 1 is a stainless Savage 116 in 30-06.
It wears a 3-9x40 VX-1 w/ LR reticle.
Carry weight is 7 lbs. 2 oz. and it's 43" long
it shoots 168-grain TTSX's into cloverleafs at 2800 fps.

Rifle 2 is a stainless Savage LW Storm in 7mm-08.
It has a 2-7x33 VX-1 w/ LR reticle.
Carry weight is 6 lbs. 6 oz. and it's 40" long

I have two very accurate loads for it:
a) 131 Hammer Hunters cloverleaf @ 2985 fps, and
b) 140 Nosler Accubonds go 0.6" @ 2830 fps.

So you're leaving the truck an hour before daylight for an all-day hike. Which one you takin' and why? Thanks!

 

[Sykes]

I would take the 7-08 shooting the Hammers.

 

[wildwilderness]

#1-you probably shoot better farther, more power, gain an extra 100 yds?

 

[Newtosavage]

#1-you probably shoot better farther, more power, gain an extra 100 yds?

That's a consideration. The '06 is a legit 500-yard gun (maybe 600?). I'm not sure I'd shoot the 7mm-08 to 500 unless it was a follow-up shot.

 

[Newtosavage]

The Hammers are flatter shooting (0.6 MOA @ 500 yards), but the energy is only 1 ft. lb. different than the 140 Accubonds at that distance.

The '06 is carrying the same velocity and trajectory as the Accubonds, but has about 250 ft. lbs. more energy at 500 yards (1819 vs. 1588)

 

[Mule3006Elk]

I like to keep my impact velocity with TTSX > 2200 fps. Per my calc that puts you past 400 yards.
I think you're good there.

Those Hammers have recently really caught my interest. 5 projectiles and not as velocity sensitive as TTSX.

That's a tough one! My thought is whichever you have the MOST confidence in.

 

[Mule3006Elk]

With Barnes, I worry more about impact velocity vs. retained ft/lbs at impact. You want to make sure they have enough velocity to fully open.

If you're looking to shoot > 400 yards, IMO, Hammers.

 

[Ucsdryder]

How far are your shots? Which one do you like shooting more? Probably doesn’t matter. Cow elk aren’t that hard to kill and inside 500 yards I can’t imagine you’ll see much difference in dead.

 

[CApighunter]

I’d go 7-08 and hammers, but you could flip a coin. All your options are solid.

 

[KOK]

I would not over think it

 

[AnotherMile]

I like the higher magnification scope on the .06 and the heavier load.. if you are in shape for climbing mountains I would tote the
06. If the air feels pretty thin you may want to start off carrying the 7mm -08..good luck!!

 

[Newtosavage]

I would not over think it

I agree, but I'm always interested in learning.

 

[Newtosavage]

I like the higher magnification scope on the .06 and the heavier load.. if you are in shape for climbing mountains I would tote the
06. If the air feels pretty thin you may want to start off carrying the 7mm -08..good luck!!

Thank you!

 

[Next Ridge]

Take whichever one you shoot better, and which ever one you have more confidence in in the first cold bore shot.
What do you mean by “it’s looking like” - are they new or borrowed? If so, make sure you spend time on them before hunt. Shot placement matters more than specs once you are .270 and heavier in my opinion.

 

[Newtosavage]

Take whichever one you shoot better, and which ever one you have more confidence in in the first cold bore shot.
What do you mean by “it’s looking like” - are they new or borrowed? If so, make sure you spend time on them before hunt. Shot placement matters more than specs once you are .270 and heavier in my opinion.

Both are new to me, so I'm still getting to know them. 1st cold bore shot is what matters to me most, and I'll be evaluating that over the next month.

 

[Thomahawk]

Not Trying to be tact tard But it really comes down to the one that you’re most comfortable with and have trained with the most. Both of them will get the job done very easily with the well-placed shot.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[wyosam]

7-08 with the hammers. Without running the numbers, it might even maintain opening speed further than the Barnes in the 06. Not in pure speed, but the hammer has a couple hundred fps advantage in the bottom end of terminal performance. Either will do the job quite nicely.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[N2TRKYS]

No question, 7-08 and Accubonds.

 

[Newtosavage]

I was wondering if someone was going to vote for the Accubond load...

 

[Newtosavage]

7-08 with the hammers. Without running the numbers, it might even maintain opening speed further than the Barnes in the 06. Not in pure speed, but the hammer has a couple hundred fps advantage in the bottom end of terminal performance. Either will do the job quite nicely.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I ran the numbers, and at 8K feet, 40 deg., 23 in HG and 65% humidity:

The '06 168 TTSX is at 2200 fps. at 500 yards (1804 ft. lbs.)

By comparison, the 131 Hammer is at 2113 fps. at 500 (1329 ft. lbs.)

For the sake of comparison, the Accubond is at 2260 fps. at 500 (1588 ft. lbs.)