This will probably get me tarred and feathered, but here goes. All opinions my own only. The thought process is more important than the exact answer.
IMO, the type of rifle and the caliber makes almost no difference to whether it will kill elk or shoot accurately for hunting purposes. Manufacturers have learned how to make cheap, accurate rifles in the last 20 years. They are so good today that almost all of them will work. We are also very unlikely to wear them out. If you want to spend more for looks or steel magazines, go for it. Most of the inaccuracy and poor results is due to shooter error. I am just as prone to this as anybody else.
On this web site, considering Howa as a rifle choice is at least good karma, and not a bad choice from what I can see. I bought a Tikka just before Howa started sponsoring, and have had other worse issues than needing a new rifle since then.
Bullets (along with jumper cables) are a bad place to save money. I have been shooting Accubonds in factory ammo or handloads - I think they are cool and they do an excellent job. I stray occasionally to copper bullets.
The only difference between a .300 Win Mag and a .308 is about the same velocity the bullet would lose by travelling 150 yards. It does not move the elk closer or kill it deader. As long as the bullet has enough velocity to open, and it is in a good spot, the effect will be virtually the same. When I bought my first hunting rifle I did a long involved analysis of range and recoil and bought a 7 mag. By this time I have a sentimental attachment to the caliber, but if I were starting over, I would probably get a .280.
When shooting at game, I never notice the recoil, and the muzzle blast happens way off somewhere else. Other sounds, like brass hitting the rocks, come in sharp and clear. When recoil does make a difference is when you shoot those 200 -500 shots each year to practice. That is also where ammo cost comes in, and handloads or that cheap ammo from Walmart looks real good. As much as Nosler makes great bullets, I see no need to practice with Accubonds.
IMO, the type of rifle and the caliber makes almost no difference to whether it will kill elk or shoot accurately for hunting purposes. Manufacturers have learned how to make cheap, accurate rifles in the last 20 years. They are so good today that almost all of them will work. We are also very unlikely to wear them out. If you want to spend more for looks or steel magazines, go for it. Most of the inaccuracy and poor results is due to shooter error. I am just as prone to this as anybody else.
On this web site, considering Howa as a rifle choice is at least good karma, and not a bad choice from what I can see. I bought a Tikka just before Howa started sponsoring, and have had other worse issues than needing a new rifle since then.
Bullets (along with jumper cables) are a bad place to save money. I have been shooting Accubonds in factory ammo or handloads - I think they are cool and they do an excellent job. I stray occasionally to copper bullets.
The only difference between a .300 Win Mag and a .308 is about the same velocity the bullet would lose by travelling 150 yards. It does not move the elk closer or kill it deader. As long as the bullet has enough velocity to open, and it is in a good spot, the effect will be virtually the same. When I bought my first hunting rifle I did a long involved analysis of range and recoil and bought a 7 mag. By this time I have a sentimental attachment to the caliber, but if I were starting over, I would probably get a .280.
When shooting at game, I never notice the recoil, and the muzzle blast happens way off somewhere else. Other sounds, like brass hitting the rocks, come in sharp and clear. When recoil does make a difference is when you shoot those 200 -500 shots each year to practice. That is also where ammo cost comes in, and handloads or that cheap ammo from Walmart looks real good. As much as Nosler makes great bullets, I see no need to practice with Accubonds.
