25-06 for Mule Deer
12-05-2009, 01:33 AM
#21
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: A flat lander lost in the mountains of Northern,AZ
Posts: 3,171
a little light in my opinion just use 100+ grain ammo and make a good shot and it will work. I personally would opt for at least a 270 but if the 25-06 is all you have and its what you shoot well with then use it.
12-05-2009, 05:15 AM
#22
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: WY
Posts: 2,056
Wow.
While I'd expect this kind of debate regarding the .243, which is on the small end of "legal big game caliber" in most western states, I'd never have expected us to have graduated to making the case that the .25-06 is insufficient on deer as well.
What's next? The .270? After that, the .30-06? After all, they're not THAT much bigger than the .25-06 and are all based on the same case....
I lived in Archuleta County in my youth. It's where I started big-game hunting. My neighbors there owned Pagosa Hardware for a time. Back then, if you used a "magnum", you were using a .300 Win, Wby, or H&H. Mr. Alexander kept a few Weatherby rifles in the rack for "tourists", but most of what he sold and stocked ammo for amounted to .243, .30-30, .270, .30-06, and yes, .25-06. Alley Mercantile never sold rifles that I recall, but stocked ammo in basically the same calibers.
Why the history lesson? It wasn't until the "magnum-craze" of the late 80's into the 90's that suddenly the tried-and-true deer and elk calibers now became "too small". Now you go the ammo shelf and have to negotiate a myriad of .300s and 7mms. The deer must've mutated and are now larger than the record muley that was taken back in the early 70s.
Having taken antelope, all species of deer, as well as elk with the "tiny" .243, I take issue with the prior statement that "caliber plays a role". It takes a role, yes - but a far overrated one in comparison to shot placement. I saw plenty of deer hanging in camps this fall with holes blasted in them in nearly every body region BUT the boiler room. Yeah, they were all dead, but it often makes me wonder if that was the first deer the hunter shot at, and if not, how many wounded ones were left to crawl off and die? I heard an awful lot of multiple shots this year, where I should have heard just one.
A poor hit with a big cartridge is an irresponsible substitute for a good hit with a small cartridge. I'm no fan of the .25-06 (it's too in-between what I currently own), but I see no logical reason why one shouldn't use it on muleys, PROVIDED they handle it well.
While I'd expect this kind of debate regarding the .243, which is on the small end of "legal big game caliber" in most western states, I'd never have expected us to have graduated to making the case that the .25-06 is insufficient on deer as well.
What's next? The .270? After that, the .30-06? After all, they're not THAT much bigger than the .25-06 and are all based on the same case....
I lived in Archuleta County in my youth. It's where I started big-game hunting. My neighbors there owned Pagosa Hardware for a time. Back then, if you used a "magnum", you were using a .300 Win, Wby, or H&H. Mr. Alexander kept a few Weatherby rifles in the rack for "tourists", but most of what he sold and stocked ammo for amounted to .243, .30-30, .270, .30-06, and yes, .25-06. Alley Mercantile never sold rifles that I recall, but stocked ammo in basically the same calibers.
Why the history lesson? It wasn't until the "magnum-craze" of the late 80's into the 90's that suddenly the tried-and-true deer and elk calibers now became "too small". Now you go the ammo shelf and have to negotiate a myriad of .300s and 7mms. The deer must've mutated and are now larger than the record muley that was taken back in the early 70s.
Having taken antelope, all species of deer, as well as elk with the "tiny" .243, I take issue with the prior statement that "caliber plays a role". It takes a role, yes - but a far overrated one in comparison to shot placement. I saw plenty of deer hanging in camps this fall with holes blasted in them in nearly every body region BUT the boiler room. Yeah, they were all dead, but it often makes me wonder if that was the first deer the hunter shot at, and if not, how many wounded ones were left to crawl off and die? I heard an awful lot of multiple shots this year, where I should have heard just one.
A poor hit with a big cartridge is an irresponsible substitute for a good hit with a small cartridge. I'm no fan of the .25-06 (it's too in-between what I currently own), but I see no logical reason why one shouldn't use it on muleys, PROVIDED they handle it well.
12-05-2009, 05:39 PM
#24
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Huntin' In Colorado
Posts: 2,910
Wow.
While I'd expect this kind of debate regarding the .243, which is on the small end of "legal big game caliber" in most western states, I'd never have expected us to have graduated to making the case that the .25-06 is insufficient on deer as well.
What's next? The .270? After that, the .30-06? After all, they're not THAT much bigger than the .25-06 and are all based on the same case....
I lived in Archuleta County in my youth. It's where I started big-game hunting. My neighbors there owned Pagosa Hardware for a time. Back then, if you used a "magnum", you were using a .300 Win, Wby, or H&H. Mr. Alexander kept a few Weatherby rifles in the rack for "tourists", but most of what he sold and stocked ammo for amounted to .243, .30-30, .270, .30-06, and yes, .25-06. Alley Mercantile never sold rifles that I recall, but stocked ammo in basically the same calibers.
Why the history lesson? It wasn't until the "magnum-craze" of the late 80's into the 90's that suddenly the tried-and-true deer and elk calibers now became "too small". Now you go the ammo shelf and have to negotiate a myriad of .300s and 7mms. The deer must've mutated and are now larger than the record muley that was taken back in the early 70s.
Having taken antelope, all species of deer, as well as elk with the "tiny" .243, I take issue with the prior statement that "caliber plays a role". It takes a role, yes - but a far overrated one in comparison to shot placement. I saw plenty of deer hanging in camps this fall with holes blasted in them in nearly every body region BUT the boiler room. Yeah, they were all dead, but it often makes me wonder if that was the first deer the hunter shot at, and if not, how many wounded ones were left to crawl off and die? I heard an awful lot of multiple shots this year, where I should have heard just one.
A poor hit with a big cartridge is an irresponsible substitute for a good hit with a small cartridge. I'm no fan of the .25-06 (it's too in-between what I currently own), but I see no logical reason why one shouldn't use it on muleys, PROVIDED they handle it well.
While I'd expect this kind of debate regarding the .243, which is on the small end of "legal big game caliber" in most western states, I'd never have expected us to have graduated to making the case that the .25-06 is insufficient on deer as well.
What's next? The .270? After that, the .30-06? After all, they're not THAT much bigger than the .25-06 and are all based on the same case....
I lived in Archuleta County in my youth. It's where I started big-game hunting. My neighbors there owned Pagosa Hardware for a time. Back then, if you used a "magnum", you were using a .300 Win, Wby, or H&H. Mr. Alexander kept a few Weatherby rifles in the rack for "tourists", but most of what he sold and stocked ammo for amounted to .243, .30-30, .270, .30-06, and yes, .25-06. Alley Mercantile never sold rifles that I recall, but stocked ammo in basically the same calibers.
Why the history lesson? It wasn't until the "magnum-craze" of the late 80's into the 90's that suddenly the tried-and-true deer and elk calibers now became "too small". Now you go the ammo shelf and have to negotiate a myriad of .300s and 7mms. The deer must've mutated and are now larger than the record muley that was taken back in the early 70s.
Having taken antelope, all species of deer, as well as elk with the "tiny" .243, I take issue with the prior statement that "caliber plays a role". It takes a role, yes - but a far overrated one in comparison to shot placement. I saw plenty of deer hanging in camps this fall with holes blasted in them in nearly every body region BUT the boiler room. Yeah, they were all dead, but it often makes me wonder if that was the first deer the hunter shot at, and if not, how many wounded ones were left to crawl off and die? I heard an awful lot of multiple shots this year, where I should have heard just one.
A poor hit with a big cartridge is an irresponsible substitute for a good hit with a small cartridge. I'm no fan of the .25-06 (it's too in-between what I currently own), but I see no logical reason why one shouldn't use it on muleys, PROVIDED they handle it well.
That being said, I love my .243 for deer hunting and I'm hunting antelope with it in the morning. Nothing wrong with a magnum though. They are just more advanced, more effective and far superior. Who's to say rifles can't get better? I've never seen a magnum shooter try and make a bad shot yet. I just wish the cost of ammo wasn't so much more. LOL
To the OP,......The 25.06 is a great choice and will do just fine.
Last edited by Colorado Luckydog; 12-05-2009 at 05:43 PM.
12-06-2009, 03:55 AM
#25
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: WY
Posts: 2,056
Unfortunately, I AM seeing a trend where guys who poorly hit animals, either losing them or causing a long trailing operation, are suggesting later that "they ought to just buy a bigger rifle", like it wouldn't have happened if the size of the rifle could make up for their poor shooting? If I'm comfortable and EFFECTIVE (key word) killing deer with a .243, do you think I'd be comfortable and effective killing deer with just about anything else that's bigger? I don't see the need to launch 300 grain .375 slugs at deer, but if it's all I had - I could do it.
The bullet fired from an "advanced" .300 WSM is often the same one fired by a cartridge developed nearly some 90 years earlier. It can also be the same bullet fired from the proprietor's "other" magnum of some 40 years earlier, at about the same velocity, just through a longer action.
Once that bullet leaves the barrel, the rifle and shooter's jobs are done. It's about the bullet, how it travels, and about what it does where it hits the animal. It matters none that it was fired through a .300 WSM, a .30-06, or a .300 Win Mag.
Remington.com reports that a 180 grain Premier Accu-tip travels at the same velocities and produces the same energy across all range increments, regardless of whether it's fired from an "advanced" .300 WSM or a 1963 .300 Win Mag.
Guys have been shooting "long range" years before all of these "advanced" rifles and cartridges showed up. Arguably, it might have been more difficult than it is now, but nonetheless, the ability of a rifleman to put that bullet into a target at just about any reasonable range has existed for longer than smokeless powder has been around. But, not all hunting is considered "long range".
The skills aren't new. The bullets are interchangeable and the velocities have been achieved before. Now, tell me again what's so "advanced" about these new rifle/cartridge combos?
On the other hand, not so much "advances" as they are "conveniences". A shorter action can save a few ounces of weight. Ammo may weigh a little less. If you reload, your powder may last you a round or two longer.
"Conveniences" are also things like fast food, power windows, and air conditioning. Some of us did without those things before, and we could get along just as well without them if we had to again. While you're out deciding that your diesel fuel jelled up overnight, I'll just bang a bit on the carburetor (anyone remember those) and be out to the goose pit before you this morning!
12-06-2009, 05:02 PM
#26
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Huntin' In Colorado
Posts: 2,910
"Advanced" is what you call it? I might buy that argument if you were talking projectiles, particularly if we're talking bullet-to-bullet consistency and jacket construction. However, all a rifle-cartridge combination does is get the projectile to the target, which it will not do without significant operator intervention.
Unfortunately, I AM seeing a trend where guys who poorly hit animals, either losing them or causing a long trailing operation, are suggesting later that "they ought to just buy a bigger rifle", like it wouldn't have happened if the size of the rifle could make up for their poor shooting? If I'm comfortable and EFFECTIVE (key word) killing deer with a .243, do you think I'd be comfortable and effective killing deer with just about anything else that's bigger? I don't see the need to launch 300 grain .375 slugs at deer, but if it's all I had - I could do it.
The bullet fired from an "advanced" .300 WSM is often the same one fired by a cartridge developed nearly some 90 years earlier. It can also be the same bullet fired from the proprietor's "other" magnum of some 40 years earlier, at about the same velocity, just through a longer action.
Once that bullet leaves the barrel, the rifle and shooter's jobs are done. It's about the bullet, how it travels, and about what it does where it hits the animal. It matters none that it was fired through a .300 WSM, a .30-06, or a .300 Win Mag.
Remington.com reports that a 180 grain Premier Accu-tip travels at the same velocities and produces the same energy across all range increments, regardless of whether it's fired from an "advanced" .300 WSM or a 1963 .300 Win Mag.
Guys have been shooting "long range" years before all of these "advanced" rifles and cartridges showed up. Arguably, it might have been more difficult than it is now, but nonetheless, the ability of a rifleman to put that bullet into a target at just about any reasonable range has existed for longer than smokeless powder has been around. But, not all hunting is considered "long range".
The skills aren't new. The bullets are interchangeable and the velocities have been achieved before. Now, tell me again what's so "advanced" about these new rifle/cartridge combos?
On the other hand, not so much "advances" as they are "conveniences". A shorter action can save a few ounces of weight. Ammo may weigh a little less. If you reload, your powder may last you a round or two longer.
"Conveniences" are also things like fast food, power windows, and air conditioning. Some of us did without those things before, and we could get along just as well without them if we had to again. While you're out deciding that your diesel fuel jelled up overnight, I'll just bang a bit on the carburetor (anyone remember those) and be out to the goose pit before you this morning!
Unfortunately, I AM seeing a trend where guys who poorly hit animals, either losing them or causing a long trailing operation, are suggesting later that "they ought to just buy a bigger rifle", like it wouldn't have happened if the size of the rifle could make up for their poor shooting? If I'm comfortable and EFFECTIVE (key word) killing deer with a .243, do you think I'd be comfortable and effective killing deer with just about anything else that's bigger? I don't see the need to launch 300 grain .375 slugs at deer, but if it's all I had - I could do it.
The bullet fired from an "advanced" .300 WSM is often the same one fired by a cartridge developed nearly some 90 years earlier. It can also be the same bullet fired from the proprietor's "other" magnum of some 40 years earlier, at about the same velocity, just through a longer action.
Once that bullet leaves the barrel, the rifle and shooter's jobs are done. It's about the bullet, how it travels, and about what it does where it hits the animal. It matters none that it was fired through a .300 WSM, a .30-06, or a .300 Win Mag.
Remington.com reports that a 180 grain Premier Accu-tip travels at the same velocities and produces the same energy across all range increments, regardless of whether it's fired from an "advanced" .300 WSM or a 1963 .300 Win Mag.
Guys have been shooting "long range" years before all of these "advanced" rifles and cartridges showed up. Arguably, it might have been more difficult than it is now, but nonetheless, the ability of a rifleman to put that bullet into a target at just about any reasonable range has existed for longer than smokeless powder has been around. But, not all hunting is considered "long range".
The skills aren't new. The bullets are interchangeable and the velocities have been achieved before. Now, tell me again what's so "advanced" about these new rifle/cartridge combos?
On the other hand, not so much "advances" as they are "conveniences". A shorter action can save a few ounces of weight. Ammo may weigh a little less. If you reload, your powder may last you a round or two longer.
"Conveniences" are also things like fast food, power windows, and air conditioning. Some of us did without those things before, and we could get along just as well without them if we had to again. While you're out deciding that your diesel fuel jelled up overnight, I'll just bang a bit on the carburetor (anyone remember those) and be out to the goose pit before you this morning!
12-06-2009, 05:15 PM
#27
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: West NE
Posts: 1,455
Love my 25-06. No better round for deer, though many are as good. Flat shooting, light recoil, and powerful. Mule deer are just deer. Lightest load I've used is a 75gr hdy HP, no problem to drop a deer with that. 100gr+ are even better.
12-07-2009, 09:07 AM
#28
Typical Buck
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Cedar Valley Utah
Posts: 977
Please don't put something on us that we never said.
12-08-2009, 09:49 PM
#30
Giant Nontypical
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Saskatchewan Canada
Posts: 6,921
2506 is fine. Mine shoots 100gr barnes tsx's & 110Ab's very well, either one would be a solid choice. Another would be a Nosler Partition. Somebody mentioned the 117gr Hornady Interlock a good buddy of mine loads these which he's taken many large bodied canadian mulies and whitetail with. while the 280 is a great choice it sounds like you have more confidence in the 2506 setup. IME lack of confidence in your equipment isn't a good thing when it comes to hunting.
Good Luck
Good Luck