Best all-around hunting rifle?

[craigcw]

I haven't hunted for years and would like to start up again next year. So, I thought a new rifle would be a nice Christmas present to myself....but...
What should I get?

I plan on hunting deer and elk and I would like to buy only one rifle. What should I buy?

[pythonwill]

Personally I would go with a nice 300 win mag, its not too big for deer and its great for elk. I have a Remington 700 I bought new in 1986 and has served me well over the years and I would never part with it

[WSU]

I bought the same gun python suggests for the same reasons you are asking about. I have shot deer, elk, and bear with it and it works great, and ammo is and always will be very available.

[Bait Bucket]

That's like asking for the best, all-round golf club.......

BUT..... if I had only one rifle, it would be chambered for .280.

[TheRogue]

Best, rifle, or cartridge, or both?

Price?


Plan on walking a lot? Sitting in one spot?

If money isn't a big issue....it would be hard for me to look past a Weatherby Ultralight in 30-06. Light, easy to carry. Common cartridge, can load down to "plink", load up to take moose, bears, etc.

Topped with a local-legend Leupold 3-9x40 VX-III, and you're ready for North America!! About $1600 total if you shop around for the rifle, less used.

Weight not an issue? Step up to the Accumark...maybe $100-$150 more

Less money? Same cartridge in a Tikka T-3 Lite and a VX-I, run you about 1/2 the price $700-$800 total.

My .02

TR

[baltz526]

stainless ruger m77markII from your local bimart store with a good scope on it in one of these cartrages 270, 7mm remington magnum,308 winchester, 30-06, 300 winchester magnum.

[280ackimp]

Originally Posted by Bait Bucket

That's like asking for the best, all-round golf club.......

BUT..... if I had only one rifle, it would be chambered for .280.

I like the 280 but would probably go with a 30-06. For the availability of ammo. I had a 300 mag, hated to shoot because kicked to hard. Built a 280 AI and sold my 300, the kick of the 280 was more tolerable.

[Dan in Alaska]

If I could only have one.....

I would probably choose a Remington 700 (choose your favorite flavor) in .30-06. It's not the most glamorus caliber out there, but it's one of the oldest and most popular for a reason!

Ammo is easy to find, there's a wide variety to choose from, and it's cheaper than the magnum calibers. With 150gr or 165gr bullets, it's flat enough for 300 yard shots on deer-sized game. With 200gr or 220gr bullets, it's got enough punch for just about anything in N. America.

[billc_sbio]

I like what Pythonwill said and totally AGREE if I could only have 1 rifle for everything!

In fact that's what I tell most people that ask me the same question.

I tell 'em, "If you're going to only have one rifle for everything, including a fair amount of Elk hunting, the .300 Win Mag. If you're going to have only one rifle and occasionally hunt Elk, then the 7mm Rem. Mag. If you're NOT planning on hunting Elk (but might), then the .270 Win."

I know, there are all kinds of Ultra Mags, Short Mags and Non-Mag Mags:grin: Those are fine too. But ammo for the older ones you can find just about everywhere (along with .30-06s) and they still work as good as they ever did.

Now if you were hunting in the woods of back east, your "ideal" rifle might be a lever action in .35 Remington.:blush:

[Chrome Bumper]

30-06, with as much rifle as you can pay for. Baltz526 sounds good.

[Chesapeake]

Originally Posted by baltz526

stainless ruger m77markII from your local bimart store with a good scope on it in one of these cartrages 270, 7mm remington magnum,308 winchester, 30-06, 300 winchester magnum.

What Baltz sait but I would also consider the Savage rifles. I dont think I would go all out until you hunt a little and have a better idea of what you want. You can buy the custom rifle down the road.

Given that you havent shot alot you may want to shy away from the 300 and go with something with a bit less recoil. No use in pounding a flinch into yourself.

[Hunt'nFish]

It really hard to out grow a .300mag or 7mmMag. I like stainless synthetic.

But if you take elk out of the mix, my .280 is my "goto" rifle. I have a new 7mmWSM, but I still reach for my .280rem. WHY? It's never failed me, cheap handloads, mild recoil.

But if I could only have ONE rifle it'd be a weather resistant .300mag of some sort w/ a 4-12 or 4-14x40mm scope.
Hunt'nFish

[billc_sbio]

Originally Posted by Hunt'nFish

It really hard to out grow a .300mag or 7mmMag. I like stainless synthetic.

But if I could only have ONE rifle it'd be a weather resistant .300mag of some sort w/ a 4-12 or 4-14x40mm scope.
Hunt'nFish

Uh huh...EXACTLY

Something like this



Except this one's a .338 (but then nobody told me I could ONLY have One! )

[Teton]

Originally Posted by Hunt'nFish

It really hard to out grow a .300mag or 7mmMag. I like stainless synthetic.Hunt'nFish

I agree. I outgrew my 30.06 many years ago, after years of dissapointing ballistics. An .06 is a great all around gun, but if I were to choose an ideal all around gun for all big game, the .300 or 7mmMag would be my choices. I've shot a .300 for many years, and use 150 gr bullets for deer and 180-200 gr for elk.

[jimh]

.300 mag for Deer and Elk. I'd even consider .338 mag. I'd rather have too much for Deer than not enough for Elk. If you like to practice alot, you can load it with lighter bullets to decrease the kick. I don't think there is a bad brand out there. Synthetic stocked Savages are hard to beat for price/accuracy. I'd probably paint/coat a stainless rifle, so I might as well paint/coat a blued one instead. Don't scrimp on the optics. Buy at least a Leopold scope with really good rings.

I'd probably buy a gun that has a safety that is similar in operation to my other guns or guns that I'm going to buy.

[Beeatease]

So many choices.....

Whatever you're comfortable with and can afford to shoot....

I have a couple .300 win mags I'll sell ya......pm me if you are interested.

My first rifle wayyyy back in the early 70's was a .30-06......very versatile caliber.

[StickFish]

Which ever one you can shoot the best. Some folks are sensitive to recoil and some are not - if you are (and there is nothing wrong with that either), than choose a rifle that doesn't kick like a moose/horse/mad wife with a frying pan. There is nothing worse than getting yourself a rifle you do not like to shoot - been there done that don't have that gun anymore. Have fun picking something out.

[cooky]

This is just me but if I was going to get a new all-around hunting rifle I would get a new remington model 798 in 300 win mag. The gun is built around the mauser 98 action and trigger group. They're new so there may be some uncertainty about them but I like to think that the mauser 98 is a timeless design. As far as scopes go, spend the money to do it right the first time so you don't have to do it again. Can't go wrong with leupold.

[SetNet]

338-06 anything an 30-06 will do and more
SetNet

[leadeyedbugger]

This is one of the beautiful things about rifle hunting.....there are alot of options and not alot of wrong answers. If you are looking for something to hunt both deer and elk in one rifle you have a ton of choices. My personal favorites are .280 and 7mm. 175 grain partitions have served my dad and I well through the years killing elk and smaller loads for deer.

Now...being objective. I would say that anything from a .270 or 7mm/08 up to whatever, say a .300 mag or 308 norma will suit your needs just fine. So that gives you around 15-20 rounds to choose from. If you haven't shot a big game rifle in a while or rarely maybe i would stay away from the big mags for recoil reasons. You will want something that you are comfortable shooting at targets and practicing with. Its the shot placement that is going to kill your animal and anything from a 270,280,7mm,30-06,308,300 and so on is going to have plenty of oomph to do the job as long as you do your job.

As far as the actual rifles i have owned a remington 700, ruger m77,savage 110 and winchester 70. All were fine rifles that shot well and never had any problems. I prefer the savage because i like the safety and......no other good reason.

[OuterLimits]

Originally Posted by billc_sbio

I like what Pythonwill said and totally AGREE if I could only have 1 rifle for everything!

In fact that's what I tell most people that ask me the same question.

I tell 'em, "If you're going to only have one rifle for everything, including a fair amount of Elk hunting, the .300 Win Mag. If you're going to have only one rifle and occasionally hunt Elk, then the 7mm Rem. Mag. If you're NOT planning on hunting Elk (but might), then the .270 Win."

I know, there are all kinds of Ultra Mags, Short Mags and Non-Mag Mags:grin: Those are fine too. But ammo for the older ones you can find just about everywhere (along with .30-06s) and they still work as good as they ever did.

Now if you were hunting in the woods of back east, your "ideal" rifle might be a lever action in .35 Remington.:blush:

Billc has it right, depends on what you are hunting. I have all 3 rifles for the same purpose. A .338 Win Mag might be considered if you primarily hunt elk and moose. Each rifle has a unique application and sized for the appropriate game animal....bottom line, you can never have enought firearms!!

[johndeeregreen]

Anything but a savage, They-are-crap In my opinion

[lentz]

I have a Ruger 7mm Rem Mag topped with a Leupold VXIII 3.5x10x40 and it does a great job. The only thing that i would change is the fact that it is wood w/ a blued barrel. I wish i would have went with the synthetic stock w/ the stainless barrel. I've been looking for the older style stock with the grooved out butt plate.

[Subtlety]

Whatever you shoot the best because gut shot with a cannon is still gut shot..

[jimh]

johndeergreen, what problem did you have or hear about with a savage?

[Silver Eagle]

Originally Posted by Subtlety

Whatever you shoot the best because gut shot with a cannon is still gut shot..

At least with a gut shot animal you waste no Meat, try taking out
both rear quarters with a 338 and see which you like best, a little
mess or no mean.............Just my observation.........Ray

[adobe wall]

Remington 700 in .300 Win Mag- for the reasons posted above. You can always load a .300 back to -06 performance if that's what you want and still have that versatility.

Ruger firearms in general are extraordinarily well designed but- and I base this on too much personal experience- they are generally only "acceptably" accurate. I firmly believe that Ruger has a general accuracy spec that is probably around 2 moa for bolt guns and if the weapon meets that minimum, then it's shipped.

The company is well run, probably the only firearms manufacturer that is on solid ground financially. Ruger has had the opportunity at one time or another to purchase all of it's American handgun competitors.

I like the way Rugers fit and they are reliable, but the rifles I shot or shared a range with have never been all that impressive in terms of accuracy. The rifle receivers are cast, which means they must have more mass in order to attain the same strength as a forged model 700.

Yeah I know now all the Ruger folks are going to jump on me for the post. What anyone else owns is not an issue to me. However, if I'm recommending something I don't recommend Rugers for that one reason- accuracy. If you want to buy one rifle, and you want it to be accurate, you will rarely (if ever) be disappointed with a Remington. Savage rifles? Aside from being a bit homely, every one I've shot has been quite accurate. The spanner nut method used to secure the barrel is butt ugly but is the best design out there.

jmho aw

[billc_sbio]

Originally Posted by adobe wall

Remington 700 in .300 Win Mag- for the reasons posted above. You can always load a .300 back to -06 performance if that's what you want and still have that versatility.

Ruger firearms in general are extraordinarily well designed but- and I base this on too much personal experience- they are generally only "acceptably" accurate. I firmly believe that Ruger has a general accuracy spec that is probably around 2 moa for bolt guns and if the weapon meets that minimum, then it's shipped.jmho aw

I had an acquaintance and former coworker, who once had his own FFL.

(Naturally) he had a nice selection of his own, private, firearms also.

One time he got himself a Ruger M77 in .280 Rem. He took this rifle out to the range repeatedly, and worked on it and worked on it. The BEST he could get it to shoot was 1-1/2" groups at 100 yd.s (1.5 moa).

He was disappointed with its performance and boxed it up and sent it back to Ruger along with his complaint and findings.

Ruger test fired it and returned it along with a note stating that it shot within their Specs, which ARE 2.0 moa, and his rifle was shooting BETTER than what the Specs called for.

Other than that, the design (well there are a few problems there), workmanship, and price of the Rugers is attractive.

But that's why I now buy Rem. 700s instead.

[biederboat]

Definitely need not go any larger than a 300 win mag, I couldn't argue that choice except to say that you should shoot a bunch and 300 WM is significantly more expensive than 270 or 30-06 which are also fine calibers. If you have a weak shoulder it will be easier on yourself. But, if I had only one choice, it would probably be the 300 WM.

Now, about the gun, I use older Rugers that you can find at the gun shows with the sliding "tang" safety. It's just what I'm used to. I think they are fine guns but I'm sure many others are as well. I like the drop plate which I think the newer ones have as well. I would NOT recommend getting an ultra-light. Heavier guns shoot better. My only exception to my Ruger is a 25-06 I use for many deer hunts, an old Enfield. It's a TANK, I bet it weighs over 12 lb. with a scope and I always complain about it until I make the shot and it NEVER misses. I think I'm 19/20 (you can't make a shot without a bullet in the pipe, doh!!!).

Good luck and welcome back to the sport,
Biederboat

[SeanD]

Any elk rifle makes a good all rounder. A 30-06 or 300 win mag makes a lot of sense. I dont think you will outgrow a 30-06, I sold off my 7 rem mag and 300 win mag and still use a 30-06. Does the same job as the others with less recoil. I also use a 35 whelen, so I'm not really a believer that the >3000 fps cartriges offer any advantage to me. But most folks think they need a rifle that will kill elk at 500 yards. A 300 mag has a little advantage there, but a 30-06 still shoots flat enough to get it done with a rangefinder and turrets. I'm not good enough to shoot that far anyway. I know a lot of folks think they are, but set a milk just out at 500 yards and very few will actually bust it with the first shot from a field rest. The ones that can do it with a 300 win mag can probably do it with a 30-06......

[PGJPJ]

Well, I’ll jump in to defend the Ruger.

The question was asked, what’s the “Best all-around hunting rifle?” I think the Ruger M77 is a fine all around working mans hunting rifle. It might not be the best at the range, but for probably 75% of the hunting public that only shoots 1 box of ammo a year, the difference in accuracy between a Remington and a Ruger won’t mean anything. They are a solid rifle, for a great price.

As a disclaimer, I have both a Remington 700 and a Ruger M77, and I do like my Remington better.

As for caliber? I’ll vote for the one that I don’t have, but admire. The 30-06.

[tracker]

I did not read through all the replies here. So if this has been said then I am sorry!

But as a Big Game guide from long ago, I would suggest shooting many different calibers and choosing the one that does not make you flinch. Because no matter how big the bullet is, if it misses the target because you are afraid of the gun it is no good.
Back when I was guiding we had five hunters come from Florida. For most of their lifes they shot 22/250's. The biggest gun any of them had shot was an M-16 in the army! Not really bigger than the 22/250. Anyway so here they were, all friends and coming to Wyoming to hunt the mighty Elk and Mule Deer. Oh the stories they had read about how much gun they would need to kill and elk! So together they went to a gun shop and bought 300 Weatherby magnums. That is what they were advised to do. So they show up to base camp. They were nice guys and were fun to be with for the ten days they were there. All but one of them had matching scars above the left eye. Call it what you want, but the scope had come back and got them. The gun as a result, cared them and was worthless in their hands. The one without the scar got his deer and elk with his gun. I watched one guy miss the largest deer I have ever seen. He was looking to the side when the gun went off. He was scared of that gun! Neither him or his other three friends got a deer that hunt! They did however get their elk. They used my little pop gun to do it! A .243 savage! 85 grain , handloaded bullets! They were not afraid f it and were able to place the bullets well. The elk died quickly with only 85 grains. We did not have to go all over the mountains searching for the elk. On the other hand, I got my nickname "Tracker" following an elk shot with a .375 for a day and a half. Different hunter but same problem. Scared of his gun! We were close when he shot the elk but it did not go down. It was getting late and we were not far from camp so I sent him back to camp while I went to look for the elk. Anyway it was not till the next afternoon before I came up on the elk and finished it off with my little popgun of a .243. He had hit the elk low through the belly. It had bled very little and I had followed the tracks in the snow for the most part. Only when the elk laid down would I find blood. Fat was protruding through the wounds (Exit & Entry) stopping the flow of blood. I am sure this elk would have died eventually from its woulds but it was very much alive when I found it.

So anyway my point is, a large caliber rifle is not need to kill an elk. A well placed bullet is more important and you should be man enough to choose what it right for you. If a bigger gun causes you some concern get something you will be comfortable with! That will be your best all around gun!

[Just Fish]

I have killed 16 bulls and five cows with the the 30-06 most with 165 gr nosler partion.My farthest shot close 400 yards in hells canyon.It just gets it done.

[stlhdr1]

Originally Posted by Subtlety

Whatever you shoot the best because gut shot with a cannon is still gut shot..

I don't know that I've ever read anything on Ifish that has made that much sense....

Keith

[alaskan]

Originally Posted by stlhdr1

I don't know that I've ever read anything on Ifish that has made that much sense....

Keith

[Boatfool]

Like has already been said,it's not so much the caliber as being comfortable with the gun.There are many good calibers and if I only could choose one it would be the 300mag.Regardless find one you like and spend a lot of time at the range.Also don't forget to spend time in the field,whether it's for coyotes or varmits.

[younggun20]

Originally Posted by Silver Eagle

At least with a gut shot animal you waste no Meat, try taking out
both rear quarters with a 338 and see which you like best, a little
mess or no mean.............Just my observation.........Ray

Who shoots 'em in the hind quarters? That is a TERRIBLE miss , hopefully you weren't trying for a Texas heart shot.

Go with the 300 win mag.

[scottishsetter]

Ok I'll bite; I love my 35 Whelen Rem 700 in a Lone Wolf stock. I'm good to 300yrds. I like the frontal area of a 35cal bullet.One that expands like a Horn. but the partition is also up there. I swear mine shoots 'softer' than an '06, and it's approx. 7 1/4lbs while hunting.It fits, carries all day and I can shoot it.

[Ethical hunter]

Remington 700 in 7mm rem mag.

RH

[PC Tumbleweed]

I like the 300WSM not as muck kick as the 300 Win Mag.

[SlyHawk]

You need a gun that you can reliably shoot with confidence. Stick with the old reliable and documented calibers like 30-06 ot 270 winchester if you have not shot for awhile. Too many choices out there that when you get down to it, don't do any better ballistically. Keep doing 'yer research on the subject! And, once you've found your flavor----Practice, Practice, etc.

[roadsend]

"Its the shot placement that is going to kill your animal and anything from a 270,280,7mm,30-06,308,300 and so on is going to have plenty of oomph to do the job as long as you do your job."



Shot pacement is the most critical factor. My missus's .243 has killed at least six elk. She has never lost an animal.
I personally favor my 7mm, my son - his .270 and my brother - his .30-06.

[WSU]

I have a .300 win. mag, and haven't shot anything more than once since I was probably 16, although that's only been about 7 years. I never was good with any rifle until I spent time shooting it in the field. All the target practice in the world did not amount to one fall/winter of hunting coyotes. Target practice is important, but so is shooting in non-target practice type situations.

[Grantspastor]

You'll never get a consensus opinion because there are so many good choices. If you're only going to have one rifle the .300 or .300 WSM makes a lot of sense. Personally I like the .270 for Deer and the .338 Win Mag for Moose and Elk

[scooby]

Originally Posted by SeanD

Any elk rifle makes a good all rounder. A 30-06 or 300 win mag makes a lot of sense. I dont think you will outgrow a 30-06, I sold off my 7 rem mag and 300 win mag and still use a 30-06. Does the same job as the others with less recoil.

the 06 is ballistically inferior to the 300 WM or WSM. may still get the job done, but does not have the velocity or energy at 200-300 yards that the mangums have. Muzzle Velocity is not what matters, it is the downerange velocity/energy that makes the catridge superior to the 06. I think I read once that when you get below 1800fps in velocity downrange you risk the loss of bullet expansion.

As far as recoil, with todays advancements in brakes (BOSS etc) and pads you can get a 300 to feel like a 270Win.
"Cartridge (Wb + type) MV (fps) V @ 200 yds ME (ft lb) E @ 200 yds.
30-06 Spfd. (180 Sp) 2700 2023 2913 1635.
300 WSM (180 Sp) 2970 2549 3526 2598
.300 Win. Mag. (180 Sp) 2960 2540 3501 2578

[Half fast Toyn]

30-30 with open sites...anything else is plain cheating.

This question is loaded to cause controversy... and the only thing gonna come outta this is hurt feelings, opinions, and preferences. There IS NO BEST ALL AROUND RIFLE. Otherwise we would have just ONE. Might as well ask for the best all around WIFE, TRUCK, JOB, FISHING ROD, SHAMPOO, SODA POP.....

[toas243]

I like my .270 win hand loads ,I have shot 3 russian boars with mine and shot placement is golden ,bad shot means bad shot ................... BTW I can shoot a .125 holes with my tack driver

[Washington Hunter]

Originally Posted by scooby

the 06 is ballistically inferior to the 300 WM or WSM. may still get the job done, but does not have the velocity or energy at 200-300 yards that the mangums have.

No animal will ever know the difference between a 30-06 and a 300 magnum. You're only talking about 300 feet per second, at the most, and that's not enough to make any difference in performance until you get out to 400 yards and farther. At 200 to 300 yards there is virtually no difference in performance between a bullet from a 30-06 and the same bullet shot from a 300 magnum. Most people will be better off with a 30-06 because of the lighter recoil and the fact that most people will never shoot beyond 300 yards. If you never shoot beyond 300 yards, you don't need a magnum.

[adobe wall]

I agree to an extent- if you can't shoot a particular caliber (or type of rifle) due to recoil then the extra power isn't helping anyone.

However, hunting situations are always fluid and the animal is rarely parked broadside at 100 yards, perfectly still, waiting for the hunter to get a perfect rest. If that were the case we'd all get along nicely with pretty dadgum light rifles. Heck, how many thousand elephants did W.D.M. "Karamoja" Bell kill with a 6.5 mm Mauser?

The good old 30-06 has killed most, maybe all, types of game animals hunted and has certainly killed everything that the .300 win mag has killed. All that being said, my argument for a .300 vs. an -06 is simply that it is more versatile and can easily be loaded down to duplicate a 30-06.

While "a gut shot is a gut shot" is certainly the case- as other posters have mentioned- a magnum does buy the shooter more margin for error. Hit a bit of brush and put a round into the animals hindquarters? A .300 would have more chance of breaking the pelvis and anchoring the animal.

I've seen deer shot nearly every way imaginable. Stuff happens all the time- one buddy put a round through a buck's hindquarters after hitting a strand of barb wire fencing. What are the odd's of that? The rifle in that case was a 7mm mag- but the round shattered the pelvis and blew a chuck of bone through one of the femoral arteries. The buck didn't go 40 yards- the lack of hind legs immediately anchored the deer. It would have bled out very quickly- the femoral artery is a small target but a lethal wound. Not having any ability to move it's hind legs kept the deer on the ground. I'd have hated to see what would have happened with a lighter caliber. Maybe the bullet would have just disintegrated on impact with the barb wire, maybe not.

Stuff happens out in the field and I will tolerate a lot of bloodshot meat before I tolerate a lost animal- and I am very conservative with my shots.

jmho, aw

[scooby]

Originally Posted by Washington Hunter

No animal will ever know the difference between a 30-06 and a 300 magnum. You're only talking about 300 feet per second, at the most, .

Uh, 300 FPS is huge in ballestics as this also creats additional retained energy and punch when it hits. The above chart shows a difference even greater than that, plus the difference in retained energy is much larger. The retained energy alone at 200 yards is 1900 06 vs 2500 300. that is noticeable. The 06 may get the job done, but is inferior to the 300

[Washington Hunter]

No, foot-lbs of energy is just a number. A bullet from a 30-06 will completely penetrate an elk at 300 yards. So you've got an entrance hole and an exit hole. If that bullet is going 300 feet per second faster, it will kill the animal no deader than the 30-06. In case you don't know, a 300 magnum bullet and a 30-06 bullet are identical. And velocity is overrated. If you think your 300 magnum gives you a great advantage over a 30-06, that is great because you have confidence in it, and that's a good thing. I just don't want people reading this and thinking they NEED a "magnum" for long shots, because a 30-06 will do just as good in most situations, and is much easier to shoot and become proficient with.

Another thing, you keep mentioning "retained energy." Well, the 30-06 "retains" velocity and therefore energy just as well as the 300 magnums. It's just that it starts out at the muzzle 300 feet per second slower. But like I said, the bullets are the same, so a magnum doesn't "retain" energy any better than a 30-06. A 30-06 if fully capable of taking a deer or elk at 400 yards.

[Duckwheat]

Get something you can afford to shoot, A LOT!!!. If you can shoot a lot, you will most likely develop some skill and confidence.

Get a good scope and bases. I think more guys that have trouble scrimp on the scope and bases.

Good luck.

Duckwheat

[TH]

I wouldn't worry about recoli,
for $150 or so you can have a very nice muzzle break put on any rifle.
My wife shoots a Rem SPS SS .300 mag with a break
shoots the heck out of it too.

I would concentrate on how you will be hunting/shooting? Making long shots? or very well placed shoots up close?

After seeing with the muzzle break did to my wife's 300 mag I am having one pit on my A-Bolt 300 and will be steeping my son up to a 270 with a break next summer.

Soot lots, shoot in lots of different positions learn how your guns shoots at 100-400 yeards and oh yeah, shoot lots!
Plus its fun!

[Mr. BrownTrout]

I got back into hunting this year, went out and bought a Remington 700 synthic/stainless 300 SAUM and love it, I had a muzzle break put on it and now my girlfriend even loves to shoot it, it killed two muleys this year, shooting 150gr nosler accubonds. I have a 4 x 16 sightron scope on it.

[Washington Hunter]

Problem with a muzzle brake is you need to wear ear protection at all times. Kind of inconvenient when hunting. Other than that muzzle brakes work great. It's just not practical for a hunting rifle, unless you do the type of hunting where you have plenty of time to put on ear protection before you shoot.

[Katie Ann II]

i have a 300 win mag with a muzzel break kicks like a 22 and the noise you dont hear it when you are foucseing on a animal but when sighting in you need ear plugs

[SeanD]

I would wear muff AND earplugs at the range. You say you dont hear it but it DOES cause more damage to your ears than a rifle w/out a brake. Your choice I guess, but an unbraked rifle is plenty loud enough for me w/out plugs when hunting. I would never use a brake on a hunting rifle.

[SeanD]

Ever go to the range with the braked rifle and notice that nobody ever sets up next to you? Even with ear plugs it is too loud.

[Norski]

My .300 WSM, Weatherby, out of the box 5th shoot 100Yards Bullseye, I have put on a limbsaver, and thinking on braking it (Boss) system, it's not the kick, it's how close the scope comes from my glasses, when at the range, but in the field, so-so.
I have 2 & 1/2 inches from scope travel to my glasses, and it has been close.