.30-06 Ammo.. 165gr or 180gr?

[mtnkid85]

If your shooting factory loads try a box of each and let the rifle tell you which it prefers. If your hand loading you can probably work up a load for either one that will shoot well, either one will work sufficiently on deer/elk.
Ive shot a 30-06 my entire hunting career, bounced between the 165-180 weights, shot the 168 ttsxs for awhile and finally settled in on the old reliable 180 Accubonds.

 

[nemthunter]

Everyone I know that shoots a 30-06 shoots 165 to 168 grain bullet and have no issues taking elk. I shoot the 160 out of the 7mm Rem Mag without issues. Until I read this post I thought the 180 grain bullet in the 30-06 was about dead.

My brother uses 165s on elk. No problems. A lot of it depends on the bullet used and shot placement. But if you are looking to shoot elk at long rang then I feel the 165 just does not retain the energy needed to do the job. thats the reason I shoot the 215 grain hybrid from Berger. The BC is excellent.

 

[cornfedkiller]

Did a little shooting over the weekend, and my gun seems to like the 165s a little better than the 180s (although I only tried one brand of 180). There was also a noticeable difference in recoil. Not that I can't handle it, but would rather not if I didn't have to.

I think I'll reload these with some good 165s and call it good.

Obviously leaning toward Accubonds per all the replies on this site (and reviews online), but what's the difference between those and the Partitions? Is one better than the other?

 

[rileybassman]

Did a little shooting over the weekend, and my gun seems to like the 165s a little better than the 180s (although I only tried one brand of 180). There was also a noticeable difference in recoil. Not that I can't handle it, but would rather not if I didn't have to.

I think I'll reload these with some good 165s and call it good.

Obviously leaning toward Accubonds per all the replies on this site (and reviews online), but what's the difference between those and the Partitions? Is one better than the other?

I would play with some Barnes -start with the 168s in that weight class... They hit like heavier bullets since they retain their weight. They have always been accurate for me in all my 06s... Try working up to around 57 gr imr 4350 at 3.330 coal

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

 

[black dawg]

Did a little shooting over the weekend, and my gun seems to like the 165s a little better than the 180s (although I only tried one brand of 180). There was also a noticeable difference in recoil. Not that I can't handle it, but would rather not if I didn't have to.

I think I'll reload these with some good 165s and call it good.

Obviously leaning toward Accubonds per all the replies on this site (and reviews online), but what's the difference between those and the Partitions? Is one better than the other?

besides the usually big difference in BC, the AB is a bonded controlled expansion bullet. The partition is a (generally) fast expanding cup and core bullet with a partition, that insures that the rear chunk of bullet will most likely exit. I have never used an AB on game yet, but lots of experience with partitions. the only partition that I was not impressed with (almost no wound channel at 40 yds) was the 180 protected point out of my 3006. Later was told that it was designed for 300wm velocity. Used the 180 spitzer and it functioned just like it should.

 

[Dlgies]

If elk is on the menu, or you’re hunting in bear country, I’d opt for the 180 Accubond or Partition. If no bear, and only hunting deer, the 165 is an excellent load. The 165 would work on elk as well but I prefer the additional SD of the 180’s

 

[robtattoo]

165 Partition in an ought-six around 2800fps is about the perfect rifle/bullet combo for everything that walks.

 

[coiloil37]

I’ve shot the ‘06 exclusively for twenty years. Everything from grouse to elk/moose have fallen to it and I’ve used everything from 130 Barnes to 220 partitions. In my experience the 165/168 accubond/ttsx is nearly perfect. Imr 4064 will get them scooting at 3k FPS from a 24” barrel and accuracy has always been excellent in the half doz rifles I’ve used that load in. The 180 tsx also killed a lot of game for me with a book load of imr 4350 at 2850 FPS.
Seems to me if you want more penetration you pick a mono, if you want a larger wound channel and less penetration you pick something else. I can tell you even a 130 ttsx at 3300+ will go through a moose’s shoulder and out the far side.
If I was stuck between those weights and could get them to shoot I would take the 165

 

[JAC8504]

Seems like my 30 calibers like 165 size the most but both work well in the 06

 

[ArcherAdam]

Don't loose sleep over 165 grain bullets. They will drop anything in NA. That being said, that's all I shot for the last 10 years. As luck would have it, I ran out during that pandemic and all I could find were 180s. Needless to say the 180s shoot better out of my gun so I am sticking with them. Less pandemic, I would be shooting the 165s forever!

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

 

[3325]

To answer the question that was asked, 165s. I wouldn’t hesitate to use 150s on elk if it was a Barnes TTSX.

I seriously doubt that 180s provide any additional life insurance in close encounters of the ursine kind.