No surprise there, the 30-06 held it's own well, as I expected. Although, the ammo was basically the same, I would suspect that the 30-06 had a 22" barrel, and the .300 win mag, a 24" barrel? A better comparison, would have been to have two exact rifles, like the Weatherby Vanguard, where both barrels are 24".
About the only real ballistic difference (using same bullet) between a 300 win mag and a 30-06, is the 300 win mag is like getting a 100 yard start on the 30-06. At 100 yards, the 300 is almost the same as the 30-06 at the muzzle only with more recoil.
Both are great cartridges. I happen to be a fan of the "tweener" myself, the .300SM. I own a couple of them and love that they are shorter and lighter than the venerable '06, while also providing better velocities from the 20 & 22" barrels than a similar typical factory 06 load from a 24" barrel. Win, Win for me. YMMV
16 paper plates out of what looks like over 1000 penetrated is noting, BUT DID THE BULLETS CREATE EQUALLY SIZED WOUND CHANNELS?
I’d like to see these two rounds fired into blocks of clay or putty and the volume of the permanent wound cavity measured. (Easy enough to do... stand the block on its back end and pour measured amounts of water in the bullet cavity until you fill it. See how much water that required.)
I just think they guy did the video, as an experiment, basically to see what happens, when you compare one to the other. It really doesn’t give a lot of scientific feedback, as things could have been made as a more an apples to apples comparison.
Like I said, a better choice would have been to compare two exact rifles, in the two different calibers. I just think that’s the two rifles, he had access to, so he just used those two. The results, are pretty typical to what I would have guessed. So what have we learned by this? Not too much, ha!