You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
30-06 vs 308 question
- Thread starter chris in va
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
For me the real advantages are of 30-06 are more practical. I had already decided that I'd buy either a 30-06 or .308 bolt rifle for hunting, whichever presented me with the best deal. I discovered that there were way more options for me to choose from in 30-06. Also, it's easy for me to pick up decent 30-06 hunting ammo at Walmart or anywhere else. .308 doesn't offer as much of a choice from your usual retail outlets.
So, unless I'm missing something, for my purposes, I don't see any advantage to .308 in a hunting rifle. Don't get me wrong, I love this caliber for military style guns.
So, unless I'm missing something, for my purposes, I don't see any advantage to .308 in a hunting rifle. Don't get me wrong, I love this caliber for military style guns.
Advances in powders made the .308 Win possible. If ya look at the standard service rifle loads , both cartridges use 4895 and propel a 150gr bullet at about the same speed. The 30-06 (30-03) was originally a 220gr bullet and used a slower powder. Then came the 172gr FMJ-BT , then the 150gr bullet and 4895/4064 load standardized for the M-1 Garand. The new service round , which became the 7.62 NATO/.308 Win used a shorter action (M-14)and was more suitable for modern machine guns.
In commercial factory loads 165gr and under , there isn't enough difference to argue about. Those who think they can work that short action .308 rifle measurably faster than a long action 30-06 , or that action stiffness matters in a hunting rifle , probably ain't worth arguing with.
In commercial factory loads 165gr and under , there isn't enough difference to argue about. Those who think they can work that short action .308 rifle measurably faster than a long action 30-06 , or that action stiffness matters in a hunting rifle , probably ain't worth arguing with.
Can someone explain to me how the .308 could possibly be any more accurate than a 30-06? If you are comparing the same bullet weights and the same rate of twist of the barrel, the accuracy should be about the same between the two right? They do after all shoot the same projectiles, up to 180gr anyway.Except maybe a 100 fps of velocity in favor of the '06 and the fact that the .308 Winchester is at least 10% more accurate.
IsaacCarlson
Inactive
If you will be loading subsonic rounds, use the 308 as it will be more efficient. If you want raw power, use the 30-06.
I don't hunt with either, but I use both for target shooting.
The '06 allows for heavier bullets. I've pretty much went to the '06 for 1000 yard shooting in windy conditions, but thats a bolt gun, in a gas gun where you're limited to bullet weight I'll stick to the 308.
The 06 wont die out, CMP GSM competition shooting is growing by leaps and bounds, when you're talking surplus rifles (1917 Enfield, Springfield, and Garand) you're restricted to the '06.
But for hunting, I don't think you'll see a difference. Some say you have the advantage of a short action with the 308 but I really don't think that's a real advantage, The Marines use a short action for their M40s in 308 where the Army uses the long action on their M24s. There is not accuracy advantage of the M40 over the M24. I built a dern accurate 308 on a Remington Long Action, I don't think I could build the same rifle on a short action that could be any better.
If I was to buy either as a hunting rifle, I'd look at the rifle itself and wouldn't let it being 308 or '06 determine whether I buy it or not.
Meaning lets say, I was to buy another Model 70, in 308 or '06. If they were the same price, and same rifle, I'd probably pick the one I could reach first.
The '06 allows for heavier bullets. I've pretty much went to the '06 for 1000 yard shooting in windy conditions, but thats a bolt gun, in a gas gun where you're limited to bullet weight I'll stick to the 308.
The 06 wont die out, CMP GSM competition shooting is growing by leaps and bounds, when you're talking surplus rifles (1917 Enfield, Springfield, and Garand) you're restricted to the '06.
But for hunting, I don't think you'll see a difference. Some say you have the advantage of a short action with the 308 but I really don't think that's a real advantage, The Marines use a short action for their M40s in 308 where the Army uses the long action on their M24s. There is not accuracy advantage of the M40 over the M24. I built a dern accurate 308 on a Remington Long Action, I don't think I could build the same rifle on a short action that could be any better.
If I was to buy either as a hunting rifle, I'd look at the rifle itself and wouldn't let it being 308 or '06 determine whether I buy it or not.
Meaning lets say, I was to buy another Model 70, in 308 or '06. If they were the same price, and same rifle, I'd probably pick the one I could reach first.
I agree with that for the most part, the exception being if I was hunting very large game such as Moose, not to mention that where there are Moose, there are usually Grizzleys. In either case, that 220gr bullet would be nice. I really just would like some of these folks to explain how a .308 is inherently more accurate than a 30-06. More efficient in some cases maybe, but I can't see more accurate in either case.If I was to buy either as a hunting rifle, I'd look at the rifle itself and wouldn't let it being 308 or '06 determine whether I buy it or not.
There are a couple comments in this thread along the lines of "30-06 was just too long for automatic weapons." Did you ever hear of the BAR. or the M1919's or M2 Aircraft? All fired the .30-06 reliably. The M1 is semi-automatic and feeds and fires reliably.
Why the .308? NATO, 1/2" shorter, weighs less, easier to transport and will still kill or destroy your will to fight (the real reason for any military weapon). Multiply the difference in weight of those 1/2" shorter rounds times a couple hundred million and it makes a difference in logistics.
Why the .308? NATO, 1/2" shorter, weighs less, easier to transport and will still kill or destroy your will to fight (the real reason for any military weapon). Multiply the difference in weight of those 1/2" shorter rounds times a couple hundred million and it makes a difference in logistics.
The cyclic rate on the M2 is a lot slower, too. That long round does have its downsides.
Then again, the M2 is more of an anti-vehicle weapon, whereas the .30 machineguns tend to be more for area effect. Shorter action = higher cyclic rate = more rounds in suppressed area.
For bolt action purposes, I agree with kraigwy. The 06 will handle heavier bullets, if those are needed; otherwise, the difference doesn't matter much.
Then again, the M2 is more of an anti-vehicle weapon, whereas the .30 machineguns tend to be more for area effect. Shorter action = higher cyclic rate = more rounds in suppressed area.
For bolt action purposes, I agree with kraigwy. The 06 will handle heavier bullets, if those are needed; otherwise, the difference doesn't matter much.
The cyclic rate of fire is the maximum achievable rate of fire. Sustained rate of fire is most important because the limiting factor of the rate of fire is heat, not the length of the round.
Again from Wikipedia:
"The M2 has varying cyclic rates of fire, depending upon the model. The M2HB (heavy barrel) air-cooled ground gun has a cyclic rate of 450-575 rounds per minute.[11] The early M2 water-cooled AA guns had a cyclic rate of around 450–600 rpm.[12] The AN/M2 aircraft gun has a cyclic rate of 750–850 rpm; this increases to 1,200 rpm or more for AN/M3 aircraft guns fitted with electric or mechanical feed boost mechanisms.[4] These maximum rates of fire are generally not achieved in use, as sustained fire at that rate will wear out the bore within a few thousand rounds, necessitating replacement. For the M2HB, slow fire is less than 40 rounds per minute and rapid fire more than 40 rounds per minute."
Again from Wikipedia:
"The M2 has varying cyclic rates of fire, depending upon the model. The M2HB (heavy barrel) air-cooled ground gun has a cyclic rate of 450-575 rounds per minute.[11] The early M2 water-cooled AA guns had a cyclic rate of around 450–600 rpm.[12] The AN/M2 aircraft gun has a cyclic rate of 750–850 rpm; this increases to 1,200 rpm or more for AN/M3 aircraft guns fitted with electric or mechanical feed boost mechanisms.[4] These maximum rates of fire are generally not achieved in use, as sustained fire at that rate will wear out the bore within a few thousand rounds, necessitating replacement. For the M2HB, slow fire is less than 40 rounds per minute and rapid fire more than 40 rounds per minute."
Sure you could do it....Once. The rifle is likely to be in several pieces with a few impaled into your face after that one shot.30-06 @ 3000+ fps with 180 grain bullets?
"the fact that the .308 Winchester is at least 10% more accurate. "
Ok Nate, I'll bite.
What "fact" do you base this statement on?
In theory, yes. In the real world of target shooting it has been proven. I'm not sure 10% is accurate, and most folks cannot shoot well enough to take advantage of the difference.
The case design makes for more efficient burning of powder, resulting in 3 advantages. #1 You need less powder to get equal velocity. My 30-06 needs 11.5 gr more powder to get only 70 extra fps. over my 308's shooting the same bullets. #2 Since the powder burns more efficiently you get more consistent velocity from each round. #3 For equal bullet weights, at equal velocity, you get less recoil if you can use less powder. Any time you can decrease recoil, folks tend to shoot better.
Can someone explain to me how the .308 could possibly be any more accurate than a 30-06?
2 thoughts?
Short actions are stiffer, pound for pound, than long actions.
The more efficient case of the .308 allows better performance in shorter barrels, allowing a stiffer barrel for the same weight.
OK but then you are comparing two different things. To say that the .308 is more accurate, you would have to be talking same barrel length, same rate of twist and same bullet w/same bc. Yes I can see that the .308 is more efficient, I already stated that but more accurate? Shorter action is stiffer? I just cant buy that. The difference in length of the action is not enough to matter where "stiffness" is concerned IMO. If the long action were twice as long I might could see it. but what are we talking here 1' difference 1.25"? Now if you have some data that proves me wrong I'd be happy to reconsider.
"the fact that the .308 Winchester is at least 10% more accurate. "
Ok Nate, I'll bite.
What "fact" do you base this statement on?
By virtue of the fact that the .308 Winchester has broken every accuracy record previously set by the .30-06, by a considerable margin.
My saying 'at least 10% more accurate' was being kind. The .308 is in reality 2-3 times more accurate than the .30-06.
pound for pound
You miss that?
There are a couple comments in this thread along the lines of "30-06 was just too long for automatic weapons." Did you ever hear of the BAR. or the M1919's or M2 Aircraft? All fired the .30-06 reliably. The M1 is semi-automatic and feeds and fires reliably.
No argument , but to the military bean-counter mindset , shorter cartridge = less distance traveled = faster - more efficient. That 1/2in shorter round also weighs less and costs less in raw material. Not much , but when you're talking billions of rounds. And yes , Garands and M1919 machine guns were adopted to take the shorter and less tapered* round , but new weapons were designed around the shorter 'more efficient' round.
Less tapered cartridge = less bolt thrust , or so they say.
BigMikey76
New member
Can someone explain to me how the .308 could possibly be any more accurate than a 30-06? If you are comparing the same bullet weights and the same rate of twist of the barrel, the accuracy should be about the same between the two right? They do after all shoot the same projectiles, up to 180gr anyway.
If all other elements are equal, and it becomes a true comparison of bullet to bullet, the big difference that presents itself to me is the difference in recoil. Less recoil tends to mean better accuracy. Even if you take out the human factor (flinch, fatigue from repeated firing...) a lighter recoil means less barrel movement during firing, which naturally results in more accuracy and more consistency. It could be argued, I suppose, that it is not the bullet that is inherently more accurate in this case. You could argue that it is the physics, the newtonian reaction of the rifle and shooter to the pressures the bullet produces, but I'm sure no one here would want to split hairs like that...
- Status
- Not open for further replies.