30/06 TO 375

[Brithunter]

Hi Coyote Hunter,

         I surely do not know why your wasting your time as you will never get through that thick skull and then you will only meet a twisted closed mind if you did. Only a mind that is twisted could spout such nonsense  .

         I will however relate a little story about a first try out with factory ammo, you can understand so that makes it worth while. I just acquired a new to me rifle although the rifle was in fact used. This rifle is the most expensive one I own or have brought to date. The chambering is not that common here in the UK and I picked it up at Bisley Camp as the deal was done at an Arms fair and not from my usual Gunshop so went into Fultons at Bisley Camp to see what ammunition they had if any. They had some 30-30 but only Winchester 150 grain HP so I brought several boxes to try it with with the iron sights as although it had scope mounts I didn't have a scope spare to put on it. The Winchester factory ammo shot groups of about 6"-8" at 100 yards so I only shot a few then retired home to find a scope.

    Later I went over the wood where I hunt deer, rabbit and pheasent and put out a target at 50 pces and tried the iron sights again and at this distance I got some groups of 3"-4"  not good. After fitting a 6x42 scope and trying again on the rifle range at 100 yards it was discovered that this rifle dislikes the Winchester ammo and can only group it in about 3"-5" at 100 yards and I was quite disappointed to say the least. Well next step was to get some dies, my local shop didn't have any so I ordered a set then a week later whilst visiting another shop 20 miles away I found a set of 30-30 dies on the shelf so brought them so I now have two sets, one RCBS and one LEE in 30-30. As the rifle is a bolt action I used some data from an old Petersens Rifle Shooter article on high pressure handloads for the modern 30-30 and using H-335 and 130 grain Hornady Spire Point bullets found it shoots like this:-



3 shots at 100 yards on Bisley's Short Siberia from the benches 

I have tried the only other factory mmo I have seen offered and that was also Winchester 150 grain but this time Silver Tip and it does nto like that much either. The last tiem I tried it out I actually got teh best results with thsi ammo ever and I got a group of just under 2" so i wonder if it had improved with time as it's been in the cabinet now for three years.

If I had only tried factory ammo the rifle would have been declared inaccurate but clearly it is not, one day we hope to try it out with Winchester 170 grain ammunition which the rifle is regulated for but so far I have never seen any offered for sale. Other handloads have used the Sierra 150 grain Flat Point 30-30 bullet and I am currently working on some with the Hornady 150 grain RNSP bullet with H-380 powder as these don't like the H-335 in my rifle.

Of course my rifle is not a Remington  it was made in 1999 and there is no way I would give house room to a modern Remington rifle  .

[Drilling Man]

 

Hand load and accuracy should improve with the Ruger and you will probably have to do the same with any of the other new rifles to improve accuracy.

  At least with an H&H you have numerous factory ammo choises to try if you don't want to reload.

  DM

[Coyote Hunter]

...
Of course my rifle is not a Remington  it was made in 1999 and there is no way I would give house room to a modern Remington rifle  .

My 3rd .30-06 is a Remington M700, manufactured in 2005.  It's a "Special Purpose Wood" model, not an ADL/BDL/CDL.  It shoots well and I like it but it certainly isn't a "perfect rifle".  That said, its a keeper.

[Brithunter]

Hi Coyote Hunter,

         The Remington 700 feels awful to me and it's construction reminds of the Sten gun which was also made of pieces of tubular steel for the same reason speed of production and cost as a consequence I won't have one. There are so many other makes and models to choose from why have so that I find so distasteful. Now a Remington model 30 is another matter altogether  yes please!

We won't talk about their latest throw away models 

[Swampman]

I have to honestly say that I can't imagine spending good money on any other brand.  Remington is the brand professionals chose most often.  The 700 is the best looking, selling, and shooting bolt action rifle in the world.  No brag, just facts.

It's the reason the Model 70 and Winchester are gone, and I say good riddance.  There is an Austrian brand that shoots good, but it should at 3 times the price.

[Coyote Hunter]

I have to honestly say that I can't imagine spending good money on any other brand.  Remington is the brand professionals chose most often.  The 700 is the best looking, selling, and shooting bolt action rifle in the world.  No brag, just facts.

It's the reason the Model 70 and Winchester are gone, and I say good riddance.  There is an Austrian brand that shoots good, but it should at 3 times the price.

More personal preferences and judgements ignorantly promoted as facts.

Whether the M700 is the top seller or not does not make it the "perfect rifle".  There are many other rifles sold and their numbers are greater than the numbers of M700's sold.   

Nor is the M700 the "best looking" rifle in everyone's eyes.  I, for example, prefer the lines of the Rugers.

As to "best shooting", I see no significant difference between my Ruger, Remington and Savage .30-06's.  The Remington may have some theoretical advantage, or not, but in either case it doesn't produce better groups from the bench.

As to cost, my Savage was under $300 new in the box.  And it shoots as well as the much more expensive Remington.   The differences are more cosmetic than functional.

[Coyote Hunter]

Brithunter -

We've often disagreed in the past but your comment about the similarity of the Remington M700's receiver to the Sten gun is on the mark as far as my eyes go.  One of the reasons I prefer the looks of the Ruger M77/M77 MKII is the squarish receiver. 

Of course I prefer the Ruger's Mauser style extraction, too, not because I hunt dangerous game but because of the one-handed control it gives me over how the brass is ejected.  At the bench I usually just pull the bolt back far enough to angle the brass out to where I can easily grab it - no need to use two hands to prevent flying brass.

[Swampman]

The Ruger receiver has to be massive and square because it's made out of cast metal.  The use of cast metal makes all Rugers heavy and overbuilt.  I'm not sure if it contributes to their inaccuracy or not.  I'm thinking that's caused by the goofy way the action is secured in the stock.

"At the bench I usually just pull the bolt back far enough to angle the brass out to where I can easily grab it - no need to use two hands to prevent flying brass."

It works exactly the same way with the Remington if you know how to operate the rifle.

[Drilling Man]

  I'm not going to sit here and say this rifle or that rifle is better than someone elses, as i'm not living in your shoes.  I haven't bought a new centerfire rifle in a long time, so things may have changed.  But, back when i owned a gunshop, and shot all kinds of competition including BR, I can honestly say i never saw a Ruger CF rifle win a BR match, of any kind.  EVERY time it was Rem. winning, and i'm including hunter and "hunting rifle" classes too, not just custom BR guns.  In later years, custom BR actions came on the scene, and they kinda took over.

  Ruger bbls were so rough they didn't stand a chance, and bedding a Ruger is MUCH harder to get right than a Rem...  I've seen more Rugers with cracked stocks than Rem. too, and when it comes to other problems i worked on, it's probably a draw between all the top brands.  Every company has let a problem gun through from time to time.

  I built my DG gun on an Rem. 700 action, and it's never failed me.  It's been through hell and back hunting big bears, and following up other hunters ?  mistakes, always fireing when i pulled the trigger.  I still have it, and if i needed to track and follow up a wounded bear tomorrow, it's the rifle i'd take, push feed non claw extractor and all.

  DM

[Brithunter]

I'm not going to sit here and say this rifle or that rifle is better than someone elses, as i'm not living in your shoes.  I haven't bought a new centerfire rifle in a long time, so things may have changed.  But, back when i owned a gunshop, and shot all kinds of competition including BR, I can honestly say i never saw a Ruger CF rifle win a BR match, of any kind.  EVERY time it was Rem. winning, and i'm including hunter and "hunting rifle" classes too, not just custom BR guns.  In later years, custom BR actions came on the scene, and they kinda took over.

  Ahhh remington actions are used because being nowt but a few pieces of tube steel they are easily sleeved and trued up. Let's face it as they come off the production line they leave a lot to be desired. Clever marketing and the ease of replacing substandard bits are easy on a bit of tube. These bench rest guns or competition guns how many still have the Remington made :-

Trigger?
Barrel?
Stock?

    I seem to recall that Ken waters brought a special Custom shop 40-XB 6x47mm rifle that turend out to be a pretty poor performer accuracy wise. One culd say I suppose it was KeN waters not shooting well or knowing how to Handlaod for accuracy  but of course that's baloney it took the skills of Seely Masker to strip it and blueprint it including cutting off the sloppt chambering and truign the barrel and threadign it treu to teh bore then chambering it properly to get it to shoot properly. Masker recommended scrapp9ign the barrel but Waters refused this idea.

You obviously like Remingtons, well that's up to you, true Ruger had problems with their barrel supplier as they didn't actually make theri own barrels. I am not sure if this has changed or not but Rugers barrel quality has improved according to what I read, I do not own any Rugers, in fact I don't own any American made rifles but I did have to buy a modern American made rifle then Ruger would be a serious contender however Remington would not even be considered.

[Coyote Hunter]

...true Ruger had problems with their barrel supplier as they didn't actually make theri own barrels. I am not sure if this has changed or not but Rugers barrel quality has improved according to what I read, I do not own any Rugers, in fact I don't own any American made rifles but I did have to buy a modern American made rifle then Ruger would be a serious contender however Remington would not even be considered.

Brithunter -

The Ruger barrel problems were resolved many years ago when Ruger started manufacturing their own barrels on a hammer forging machine.

And Remingtons aren't THAT bad!

[Coyote Hunter]

The Ruger receiver has to be massive and square because it's made out of cast metal.  The use of cast metal makes all Rugers heavy and overbuilt.  I'm not sure if it contributes to their inaccuracy or not.  I'm thinking that's caused by the goofy way the action is secured in the stock.

"At the bench I usually just pull the bolt back far enough to angle the brass out to where I can easily grab it - no need to use two hands to prevent flying brass."

It works exactly the same way with the Remington if you know how to operate the rifle.

Many very high quality parts are made of cast steel and such parts actually have some advantages when it comes to stress and tensile strength.  Their strength is uniform in all directions while for parts made from bar stock the tensile strength is maximum along the axis and less in the radial directions.  Ruger, BTW, is a technology leader in investment cast processes.

If the Ruger is ‘heavy”” I guess the Remington M700 is as well – they both weigh 7-1/2 pounds per the manufacturer specifications.

The “goofy” way the Ruger actions are secured to the stock is the reason I’ve never had to bed a Ruger to get it to shoot well – tightening the angled screw draws both the receiver body and recoil lug down tight to the stock and does not allow the kind of slippage you can get with a Remington where the recoil lug may or may not contact anything..

Your Remington M700 must work differently than mine, which does NOT work “exactly the same way” as my Ruger.  When I draw the bolt back on my M700 the case or cartridge angles out until it hits the receiver.  Draw the bolt back a bit more and the case or cartridge goes flying.  I could probably remove empty cases or unfired cartridges one-handed but it would be considerably more awkward than with Ruger’s Mauser-style extraction.

By the way, another reason I like the Ruger rifles is the integral scope mounting system, which is as good a system as any you will find anywhere – no itty-bitty screws to hold the scope bases in place as with the Remington M700. 


Your arguments just get dumber and dumber...

[Swampman]

Another one of the many reasons I dislike Ruger rifles is the integral scope mounting system, which you are stuck with.  Cast metal is not as strong as machined or forged steel.  Cast steel is used because it's cheap.  It's nearly impossible to blow up the action of a Remington 700.

You just can't beat a Remington.

[Drilling Man]

I'm not going to sit here and say this rifle or that rifle is better than someone elses, as i'm not living in your shoes.  I haven't bought a new centerfire rifle in a long time, so things may have changed.  But, back when i owned a gunshop, and shot all kinds of competition including BR, I can honestly say i never saw a Ruger CF rifle win a BR match, of any kind.  EVERY time it was Rem. winning, and i'm including hunter and "hunting rifle" classes too, not just custom BR guns.  In later years, custom BR actions came on the scene, and they kinda took over.

  Ahhh remington actions are used because being nowt but a few pieces of tube steel they are easily sleeved and trued up. Let's face it as they come off the production line they leave a lot to be desired. Clever marketing and the ease of replacing substandard bits are easy on a bit of tube. These bench rest guns or competition guns how many still have the Remington made :-

Trigger?
Barrel?
Stock?

  I really don't care wether you like the 700's or not...  It's a non-issue to me, because they have proven themselves to me over and over durning my 25 year career of hunting in the Alaskan bush.  If they were the junk some here would like everyone to believe, i would have found that out in the many thousands of rounds i've put through them since i bought the first one nearly 40 years ago...

  As to your above questions...  It all depended on what class was being shot.  A pure hunting class required the rifle to be store bought stock, with only minor adjustments being allowed...  As you moved up the ladder to tougher classes, some replaced the bbls., but many didn't!  Further up, some reworked the triggers, and most did bedding...  Then at the top, some did major trigger work or replaced the triggers altogether to get reliable 2 oz. or lighter pulls...  Also, everyone went to fiberglass stocks on them, and of course the actions were trued, bedded and rebarreled.

  No matter, i NEVER saw even one Mauser/Ruger/Wby./Winchester win anything above the bottom class...  None of them could compete with a Rem., and it didn't take long for everyone to give up what ever they had (even if they tried new bbls. ect..) and switch to Rem. for there BR gun...

  It was common knowledge at the club i was in, and quite a few world record groups were shot there at that time.

  DM

[kyelkhunter3006]

Another one of the many reasons I dislike Ruger rifles is the integral scope mounting system, which you are stuck with.  Cast metal is not as strong as machined or forged steel.  Cast steel is used because it's cheap.  It's nearly impossible to blow up the action of a Remington 700.

You just can't beat a Remington.

Um, well, all steel really starts out as a casting.  You get the iron ore from the rock, and you then melt it and add other elements depending on the composition of the steel you're making.  Then it's poured into ingot molds.  That's casting.     You can't machine or forge it until it's been cast to form the steel you desire.

Remington actions aren't forged or machined, they're cut off of a big tube, the needed cuts are made on the tube, it's threaded, and then heat treated. 

Honestly, it's nearly impossible to blow up any bolt action rifle.  I mean, how many times have you heard of someone blowing a gun apart from handloads that are too hot?  Bad headspace?  Chambering a .308 in an overly long .270 chamber?  Etc?  It's few and far between.

Remington claims the strongest action, but a test by P.O. Ackley proved that the strongest action was the Japanese Arisaka bolt action.  It kept going long after all of the big name actions available back then blew to pieces. 

I've read that Weatherby has done pressure testing in the Mark V action up to 200,000 psi without failure.  I'm not sure that a Remington with it's multi-piece bolt could take that pressure.

[Brithunter]

Ahhh now if we look at the standard proofing the strongest is the Ross M10 or 1910 as in the 280 chambering this was proofed to 28 Tons. For comparison the 270 Wins proof is 19 Tons!


  As for this:-

   No matter, i NEVER saw even one Mauser/Ruger/Wby./Winchester win anything above the bottom class...  None of them could compete with a Rem., and it didn't take long for everyone to give up what ever they had (even if they tried new bbls. ect..) and switch to Rem. for there BR gun...

  It was common knowledge at the club i was in, and quite a few world record groups were shot there at that time.

   Well I have a buddy in Missouri who shoots competative BR, 600 yard BR and he also shoots High power. he built a rifle on a Savage 112BV rifle first in 22-250 using the Savage barrel then due to wind spreadign the groups horizontally he had a new barrel made up by Lija in 243 AI with which he took the Missouri state championship in combined gun a few year ago. After using the gun for several years he relegated it to huntign from the stand and built up a ne one. He has just finished a third and this one has a rem 700 action, that's about all and Butch who built it up for him scrapped most of the rem 700 to make it work it's chambered in 6.5-284 and has  broughton barrel. In fact both new rifle are chambered the same but one is a heavy huntign rifle the other a Comp gun and as he brought the reamer that he gave to butch to use on the barrels they can both use the same ammo. Yep the chambers are identical.
So folks do use other rifles and actions. Perhaps not in your club but elsewhere they do and win with them.

As for intergral scope mounting systems well they should be more accurate than the drilled and tapped remingtons as then you need bases and then rings and each layer you add you have to allow for tolerences. More layers you have the more chances of mis-alignment due to those very same tolerences.  No I think you will find that Remington use that system because it's quick and cheap not because it's best. Why do custom builder who use a Rem action often fit the bases then machine them on the rifle? Why because they know that the holes are often out of alignment with the bore.

[Coyote Hunter]

Another one of the many reasons I dislike Ruger rifles is the integral scope mounting system, which you are stuck with.  

No extra cost, strong as Hell, I don’t need anything else.  “Stuck” is just your opinion – I prefer the system.

Cast metal is not as strong as machined or forged steel.  Cast steel is used because it's cheap.  It's nearly impossible to blow up the action of a Remington 700.

Again your ignorance is showing.  Cast can be extremely strong if done right, and more uniformly so, and Ruger isn’t using pot metal.  They use cast parts which are cast very close to final tolerances to eliminate expensive machining processes and time.  Nothing wrong with that.

You just can't beat a Remington.

No, YOU can’t beat a Remington.  I can and have - with Ruger, with Marlins, with Savage, and with Browning (albeit a .22 in that case).  It just depends on what the requirements are and a Remington M700 isn't always the best suited for a particular situation.

[kyelkhunter3006]

Ahhh now if we look at the standard proofing the strongest is the Ross M10 or 1910 as in the 280 chambering this was proofed to 28 Tons. For comparison the 270 Wins proof is 19 Tons!


  As for this:-

   No matter, i NEVER saw even one Mauser/Ruger/Wby./Winchester win anything above the bottom class...  None of them could compete with a Rem., and it didn't take long for everyone to give up what ever they had (even if they tried new bbls. ect..) and switch to Rem. for there BR gun...

  It was common knowledge at the club i was in, and quite a few world record groups were shot there at that time.

   Well I have a buddy in Missouri who shoots competative BR, 600 yard BR and he also shoots High power. he built a rifle on a Savage 112BV rifle first in 22-250 using the Savage barrel then due to wind spreadign the groups horizontally he had a new barrel made up by Lija in 243 AI with which he took the Missouri state championship in combined gun a few year ago. After using the gun for several years he relegated it to huntign from the stand and built up a ne one. He has just finished a third and this one has a rem 700 action, that's about all and Butch who built it up for him scrapped most of the rem 700 to make it work it's chambered in 6.5-284 and has  broughton barrel. In fact both new rifle are chambered the same but one is a heavy huntign rifle the other a Comp gun and as he brought the reamer that he gave to butch to use on the barrels they can both use the same ammo. Yep the chambers are identical.
So folks do use other rifles and actions. Perhaps not in your club but elsewhere they do and win with them.

As for intergral scope mounting systems well they should be more accurate than the drilled and tapped remingtons as then you need bases and then rings and each layer you add you have to allow for tolerences. More layers you have the more chances of mis-alignment due to those very same tolerences.  No I think you will find that Remington use that system because it's quick and cheap not because it's best. Why do custom builder who use a Rem action often fit the bases then machine them on the rifle? Why because they know that the holes are often out of alignment with the bore.

Let's clarify, that would be the .280 Ross cartridge, NOT the .280 Remington.  The .280 Ross was really a magnum class round well before magnum class bullets were readily available.  The Ross rifle also has multiple locking lugs on the bolt head too.  I had read once (in RIFLE, I think) that in some of the rifles, the heat treat on the locking lugs isn't quite right, leaving the metal a bit soft, and the lugs would shear off at high pressure.  It was also a bit of a different rifle, as when re-inserting the bolt, if it (the bolt itself) wasn't properly installed, the front lugs would still lock-up, leaving excessive head space in the chamber. 

[Swampman]

At any rate, back to the original question.  Why ruin a good .30-06, buy yourself one of the new Remington SPSs in .375 H&H.  That will give you 2 of the 3 calibers needed for world wide hunting in the best production rifle in the world.

[Brithunter]

Ahhh now if we look at the standard proofing the strongest is the Ross M10 or 1910 as in the 280 chambering this was proofed to 28 Tons. For comparison the 270 Wins proof is 19 Tons!


  As for this:-

   No matter, i NEVER saw even one Mauser/Ruger/Wby./Winchester win anything above the bottom class...  None of them could compete with a Rem., and it didn't take long for everyone to give up what ever they had (even if they tried new bbls. ect..) and switch to Rem. for there BR gun...

  It was common knowledge at the club i was in, and quite a few world record groups were shot there at that time.

   Well I have a buddy in Missouri who shoots competative BR, 600 yard BR and he also shoots High power. he built a rifle on a Savage 112BV rifle first in 22-250 using the Savage barrel then due to wind spreadign the groups horizontally he had a new barrel made up by Lija in 243 AI with which he took the Missouri state championship in combined gun a few year ago. After using the gun for several years he relegated it to huntign from the stand and built up a ne one. He has just finished a third and this one has a rem 700 action, that's about all and Butch who built it up for him scrapped most of the rem 700 to make it work it's chambered in 6.5-284 and has  broughton barrel. In fact both new rifle are chambered the same but one is a heavy huntign rifle the other a Comp gun and as he brought the reamer that he gave to butch to use on the barrels they can both use the same ammo. Yep the chambers are identical.
So folks do use other rifles and actions. Perhaps not in your club but elsewhere they do and win with them.

As for intergral scope mounting systems well they should be more accurate than the drilled and tapped remingtons as then you need bases and then rings and each layer you add you have to allow for tolerences. More layers you have the more chances of mis-alignment due to those very same tolerences.  No I think you will find that Remington use that system because it's quick and cheap not because it's best. Why do custom builder who use a Rem action often fit the bases then machine them on the rifle? Why because they know that the holes are often out of alignment with the bore.

Let's clarify, that would be the .280 Ross cartridge, NOT the .280 Remington.  The .280 Ross was really a magnum class round well before magnum class bullets were readily available.  The Ross rifle also has multiple locking lugs on the bolt head too.  I had read once (in RIFLE, I think) that in some of the rifles, the heat treat on the locking lugs isn't quite right, leaving the metal a bit soft, and the lugs would shear off at high pressure.  It was also a bit of a different rifle, as when re-inserting the bolt, if it (the bolt itself) wasn't properly installed, the front lugs would still lock-up, leaving excessive head space in the chamber. 

Yes I was talking about the original 280 Ross cartridge which dates from around 1906. later Kynoch developed the 280 Nitro on the same case that had reduced pressures as it was discovered that even the Mauser 98 developed lug set back at the high Ross pressures. The 280 Ross case is of course a tapered case and we equally well know now that this is good design for feeding smoothly but very poor for transmitting back thrust to the bolt and locking lugs.

The M10 or Model 1910 has mulitple locking lugs similar to artillery pieces, the problem with incorrect bolt assembly is well known and also blown out of all proportion by certain well known American qwriters. Phil Sharpe being a prime example  To put an incorrectly assembled bolt into the action of the rifle requires lots of force and more often than not some sort of lever and a third hand. Lots of rumours but no substance, there seems to be no substianciated reports of this actually happening, rumour and vague reports but not photos or medical reports?

Presently I do not have a Ross rifle of any description nut do intend to correct that, very nearly had a very nice M10 in 280 Ross :-







and those are photos of the rifle that despite having half the price of from me the dealer sold it to someone who offered more for it. Of course I have never had any dealings with him ever since after getting my money refunded  Oh and the Redfield bases I understand are contempory as Redfield pattented them in 1916 or so I was told.

the front lugs would still lock-up, leaving excessive head space in the chamber.   

Actually if the bolt locked up there would be no prblems as with the bolt locked there could be no excessive headspace. No the problem is that the bolt head could be forced back passed the extractor detent so it collapsed back to the closed position which is some 5/8" back from it's extended out of battery position. It could then be forced into the action with some considerable effort and a cartridge fed in to the cbamber opening with the case head being held back against the bolt face by the extractor and fired in the totally unlocked position. The Ross rifle was a high quality accurate rifle but expensive and certain writers of the day took it upon them selves to trash it. I wonder if that would ahve happened if it had been an American design and make? The first Ross rifles were actually made in the US until Charles Ross built his factory in Canada then production switched to there. Ross had an agency in America but supplies were limited as the rifles sold well around the Empire, Canada being part of the British Empire and those orders seemed to get priority. The rifle and ammunition were suitable for large thin skinned game and like today providing the correct bullet was chosen and just like today there are those who insist on using the incorrect bullets in the wrong appication on the wrong quarry species and end up wth problems.

Weatherby of course has had the same problems but clever hype and marketing have got around the problems plus it's and American firm even if they don't actually make anything themselves 

[kyelkhunter3006]

That's Brit, for clarifying the workings of the rifle.  As I typed that about the bolt, I was wondering if I was remembering correctly.     They seem to be a great classic rifle. 

WOW, are we off topic or what?

Short story ending:  It's a real pain in the ass to re-work a 30-06 push feed Remington 700 rifle to .375 H&H.  Just buy a .375 something or the other in whatever rifle you happen to like!   

[Brithunter]

Whoops your right we have wandered a bit off the beaten track 

  I can see the conversion costing more than originally envisaged, opening up the bolt face for one, feed rails opening out slightly for the larger case and a new magazine and floor plate to handle the magnum case. Yep kyelkhunter3006 is right I also think you would be far better off getting rifle already set up to handle the magnum cartridges.