30-06 vs .308 for mid to long range?

Of course, the 30-06 will shoot a given bullet out faster than the 308 at the same peak pressure. It holds more powder. Surely, there's no valid claim otherwise with equal barrel dimensions.

And testing both for accuracy had better eliminate all variables outside of the ammo as much as possible. Not too many people know what they are and the effect each has on accuracy. There are 308's that have performed better accuracy wise than my 20-shot .41 moa one at 800. No 30-06 I know of has even come close.

There often are references to Salazar's comparison. Competitors winning matches and setting records did so with 308's and better scores than he did with either cartridge. They had several cartridges to choose but chose the most accurate one.
 
Last edited:
German Salazar has a detailed account of 308 vs 30-06 in the article linked below...complete with scores for lots of matches, compiled and averaged...mid range and long range.

The old 30-06 still has it, even with mild loads......at mid range, the 308 wins, at long range the 30-06 wins....well, actually the 6XC wins at long range...but between the 308 and 30-06, the 30-06 wins.

http://riflemansjournal.blogspot.com/2011/04/cartridges-sibling-rivalry-308-vs-30-06.html

And as Bart alluded to...the 30-06 rifles of today are, or can be, better than any of those of years ago...kind of amazing, a round thats 108 years old, and it can still hold its own against rounds such as the 6XC.

And Bart...thats one one hell of a group you shot, and it takes some serious skill to do that!

I'm not trying to deny that or belittle it in any way...I don't compete, and never have (don't have time), but I did do a lot of work with a 30-06 the past few years...and gained a great deal of respect for its accuracy potential.


I guess the bottom line is...it takes one darn good rifleman to be able to make use of the difference between the two rounds in question.
 
Last edited:
I wish this discussion would turn towards the somewhat recent trend (or look?) for barrel makers to go back to the idea of fewer lands. Several of them advertise 3-groove barrels.

I'd really like to see a comprehensive comparison between the 30's here in discussion with stainless 1:11 3-groove tubes over the useful lives of the two barrels.

Other than that, I don't have a dog in the fight as I mainly shoot 1903's, A3's, a 1917, M1, and an AR. But, Glen D. Zediker set my mind a-whirl with what he wrote about throat erosion and barrel life in his book 'Handloading for Competition.

I also wish someone would invite David Tubb to join this discussion as well. Just curious as to what his take on all this would be.
 
old roper,
I also had a bag under the stock toe shooting that .41 moa group at 800. Is there something about that F-class shooting position that you think isn't right for accuracy testing?
There's a few people shooting the winningest cartridges in all disciplines who've never won anything. Does that mean there's nothing magical about those cartridges, too ?

10-96,
David Tubb's Dad, George, was one of the few top ranked competitors who tested both cartridges swapping barrels in the same rifle. Tests were made with rifles clamped in machine rests. 30-06's shot about 5 inches at 600 yards, 308's about 3. They both used 308's thereafter; David won the Nationals a few times with it. His Mom, Polly, told me she would have shot a higher score had she shot a 308 the year she was High Woman at the Nationals. There's no doubt in my mind as to what David would say.
 
Last edited:
10-96, no, but any groove count will do well if properly made. Sometimes, fewer grooves work best with lighter bullets for a caliber than more grooves which do better with heavy bullets.

Ridgerunner,
I heartily disagree with your comments in post 82 on 30-06 accuracy. For every shooter who gets the same results as Salazar did, there's a dozen or more who shot the .308 more accurate at all ranges.

It takes less skill than you may think to shoot .41 MOA groups at 800 yards. It's easy to rest a rifle on two bags and aim it inside .125 MOA at 5:30 AM when there's no wind. Not much skills needed to reload very accurate ammo. I'll pass the skill accolades to the people who made the rifle and ammo components, those who made the reloading tools and those who assembled the rifle. Thanks, anyway.
 
Last edited:
Yeahhhh, if Bart and David Tubb say .308, I'm runnin' with that!


Although in the *heavy* gun format, my understand is that .308 Baer (or 6.5-284 Norma) is the way to go.... the really heavy ones (but not rail guns).
 
LC M118 match ammo shot test groups at 600 yards 4 to 5 inches smaller than LC M72 match ammo did with equal quality components and test barrels. Test groups had around 270 shots in them. .30-06 ones were about 16 inches extreme spread; 7.62 NATO ones were about 12 inches.

UD, what's a "heavy" gun format?
 
Last edited:
ok, so we learn that .308 vs. .30-06 is something significant when talking match rifles and long range match shooting. Valid point.

.308 vs. .30-06 when talking regular hunting rifles (and particularly budget grade rifles) isn't the same thing, and the difference between the two isn't as important, other factors have a larger influence.

Unless you are, or plan to be a match shooter, what one does better than the other in match rifles really doesn't matter much to you, does it?

What matters is how they perform in the kind of rifles and shooting you will be doing (informal target and hunting). And there, the difference is slight, and my be overridden by other factors, such as rifle design, etc.

Is there any thing else to discuss, or can we put this horse in the barn?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top