For some reason I thought he was talking about hunting. I see now that's its just shooting and in that case I agree with kraig, if your just starting 30-06 or .308 are the way to go. Easy to load for, cheap to shoot, and very accurate. As kraig stated the .284s and 6.5s are going to be much more expensive to shoot in the long run. Your also looking at just moderate barrel life out of those where as a .308 should give you around 8,000rds probably more.
7mm or 30-06 for the long shot?
- Thread starter HALLAUSTIN
- Start date
Art Eatman
Staff in Memoriam
I've never shot beyond 500 yards, but from my table on my range, it seemed to me that sub-MOA was pretty much a gimme with my '06. I've not worried about trying for half-MOA, though; likely more of a challenge.
Scharfschuetzer
New member
Long Range Bullets for 30 Cal Rifles
The USMC issued the Lake City M-72 round for those Winchester Model 70s that were used in VN by Marine snipers. It was probably the best long range bullet available at that time and it is still a competitive load today. It is a 173 grain FMJ spitzer-boat-tail bullet based on the original M1 bullet originally issued for the 1903 Springfield rifle. The later M2 ball round of WWII and Korea pales in comparison to the original M1 load that the M-72 is based on.
The current 7.62 M-118LR round using the 175 grain match bullets modeled on that M-72 bullet (also used in the old 7.62 NATO White Box M118 and the later M-118 Special Ball load) is about as good as it gets for a 7.62 NATO or 30/06 rifle for long range shooting. Until the advent of the 175 grain Match King, the M-72/M118 bullet in good lots outperformed the 168 grain Match King at ranges beyond 800 yards as it stayed supersonic all the way to 1,000 yards and did not suffer the transition issues associated with dropping down to subsonic velocity. The 175 MK does not shoot significantly flatter than Hathcock's round, it just usually shoots a tighter group, rifle dependent of course.
I can't speak for Billy Dixon at the Battle of the Adobe Walls in North Texas, but I can say that US Military riflemen are well served with our current long range load in today's conflicts with our 7.62 calibre SWSs that in reality, do not shoot any flatter than the Model 70 that Gunny Hathcock shot so many years ago.
The USMC issued the Lake City M-72 round for those Winchester Model 70s that were used in VN by Marine snipers. It was probably the best long range bullet available at that time and it is still a competitive load today. It is a 173 grain FMJ spitzer-boat-tail bullet based on the original M1 bullet originally issued for the 1903 Springfield rifle. The later M2 ball round of WWII and Korea pales in comparison to the original M1 load that the M-72 is based on.
The current 7.62 M-118LR round using the 175 grain match bullets modeled on that M-72 bullet (also used in the old 7.62 NATO White Box M118 and the later M-118 Special Ball load) is about as good as it gets for a 7.62 NATO or 30/06 rifle for long range shooting. Until the advent of the 175 grain Match King, the M-72/M118 bullet in good lots outperformed the 168 grain Match King at ranges beyond 800 yards as it stayed supersonic all the way to 1,000 yards and did not suffer the transition issues associated with dropping down to subsonic velocity. The 175 MK does not shoot significantly flatter than Hathcock's round, it just usually shoots a tighter group, rifle dependent of course.
I can't speak for Billy Dixon at the Battle of the Adobe Walls in North Texas, but I can say that US Military riflemen are well served with our current long range load in today's conflicts with our 7.62 calibre SWSs that in reality, do not shoot any flatter than the Model 70 that Gunny Hathcock shot so many years ago.
Last edited:
Some folks may be interested in knowing that the .308 Winchester trumped the .30-06 for long range matches back in 1964. Yes, the '06 shoots a given bullet faster. But the .308 was (and still is) more accurate. Accuracy is how close together the bullet holes are at the target, not how little their trajectory arcs.
Yes, GySgt Hathcock used the '06 in 'Nam. It was the only cartridge the USMC Win. 70 sniper rifle was chambered for. When he retired from active duty, the folks at Quantico MCB checked his sniper rifle for accuracy; it shot about 20 inches at 1000 yards with M72 match ammo. He preferred a 30 caliber magnum for competition at 1000 yards as the USMC's .30-.338's and .300 Win. Mags were much more accurate.
That M2 military match bullet, while the standard for many years in both .30-06 and 7.62 military match ammo, was not all that accurate compared to what Sierra Bullets had to offer for the .30-06. Most lots of 30 caliber M72 match ammo tested in the 8 to 10 inch range at 600 yards from bolt action test barrels. Folks hand loading Sierra 190 and 200 HPMK's in their .30-06 could get 5 to 6 inches at 600. 'Course along came the .308 and test groups went down to 3 inches with Sierra's. Neither the M72 nor M118 match round was/is competitive along side Sierra's or Berger's 30 caliber match bullets. Even the military teams knew this and preferred commercial .308 Win. match ammo to use in their 7.62 NATO M14 and M1 rifles. Back when the 30 caliber Garand was the only rifle allowed in service rifle matches, folks bought Winchester white box match ammo that easily out performed the M72 round accuracy wise.
Note that after my good friend set the 1000-yard match record at the Nationals with a borrowed 7mm Rem. Mag. in 1970, that cartridge instantly became "the" one to use for long range competition. Problem was, Sierra had problems getting jacket material good enough to make bullets very uniform so they would shoot accurate.
It took another 10 years before consistantly good rolls of copper sheeting could be had for small caliber, long heavy match bullets. And it was another 8 or 10 years before 6.5mm match bullets were as good as the old 30 caliber ones were. When this finally happened, the 6.5-308 and 6.5-.284 became the favorite in high power competition. They were much easier to shoot accurately from the shoulder because they had less recoil while the bullet was going down the barrel.
Yes, GySgt Hathcock used the '06 in 'Nam. It was the only cartridge the USMC Win. 70 sniper rifle was chambered for. When he retired from active duty, the folks at Quantico MCB checked his sniper rifle for accuracy; it shot about 20 inches at 1000 yards with M72 match ammo. He preferred a 30 caliber magnum for competition at 1000 yards as the USMC's .30-.338's and .300 Win. Mags were much more accurate.
That M2 military match bullet, while the standard for many years in both .30-06 and 7.62 military match ammo, was not all that accurate compared to what Sierra Bullets had to offer for the .30-06. Most lots of 30 caliber M72 match ammo tested in the 8 to 10 inch range at 600 yards from bolt action test barrels. Folks hand loading Sierra 190 and 200 HPMK's in their .30-06 could get 5 to 6 inches at 600. 'Course along came the .308 and test groups went down to 3 inches with Sierra's. Neither the M72 nor M118 match round was/is competitive along side Sierra's or Berger's 30 caliber match bullets. Even the military teams knew this and preferred commercial .308 Win. match ammo to use in their 7.62 NATO M14 and M1 rifles. Back when the 30 caliber Garand was the only rifle allowed in service rifle matches, folks bought Winchester white box match ammo that easily out performed the M72 round accuracy wise.
Note that after my good friend set the 1000-yard match record at the Nationals with a borrowed 7mm Rem. Mag. in 1970, that cartridge instantly became "the" one to use for long range competition. Problem was, Sierra had problems getting jacket material good enough to make bullets very uniform so they would shoot accurate.
It took another 10 years before consistantly good rolls of copper sheeting could be had for small caliber, long heavy match bullets. And it was another 8 or 10 years before 6.5mm match bullets were as good as the old 30 caliber ones were. When this finally happened, the 6.5-308 and 6.5-.284 became the favorite in high power competition. They were much easier to shoot accurately from the shoulder because they had less recoil while the bullet was going down the barrel.
Last edited:
Recoil and Wind Drift are considerations
Dealing with recoil gets challenging as bullet weight increases, so the lightest bullets with sufficient velocity are preferred.
Known distance competition means that the range is fixed, so there is not much need for holdover adjustments except to account for variations in temperature and altitude. This adjustment is normally taken care of by the sighter shots.
The variable that is most challenging to control is wind drift. For this, the highest ballistic coefficient, coupled with good velocity reduces the error due to random changes in wind and errors in doping at shot-break.
The trick then is to get the best balance between recoil and minimum wind drift.
Here are some examples of high BC bullets from the Berger on-line catalog:
The recoil with the velocities needed for adequate performance will induce a fair bit of fatigue even with heavy rifles when using 168 grain and heavier bullets.
So -- one might consider looking at the smaller calibers. The 6.5 is frequently looked at as a good compromise when medium to large game is included in the shooting menu.
Dealing with recoil gets challenging as bullet weight increases, so the lightest bullets with sufficient velocity are preferred.
Known distance competition means that the range is fixed, so there is not much need for holdover adjustments except to account for variations in temperature and altitude. This adjustment is normally taken care of by the sighter shots.
The variable that is most challenging to control is wind drift. For this, the highest ballistic coefficient, coupled with good velocity reduces the error due to random changes in wind and errors in doping at shot-break.
The trick then is to get the best balance between recoil and minimum wind drift.
Here are some examples of high BC bullets from the Berger on-line catalog:
- .223 90 gr Match VLD Target G7 BC = 0.281
- .243 115 gr Match VLD Target G7 BC = 0.279
- 6.5 mm 140 gr Match VLD Target G7 BC = 0.313
The recoil with the velocities needed for adequate performance will induce a fair bit of fatigue even with heavy rifles when using 168 grain and heavier bullets.
So -- one might consider looking at the smaller calibers. The 6.5 is frequently looked at as a good compromise when medium to large game is included in the shooting menu.
When shooting at known ranges at paper having a flat shooting cartridge is not as important. I'm paraphrasing kraigwy here when he says it is just a matter of adjusting the sights.
Hunting is another matter. Shots can vary greatly in range so having a flat shooting round can make up for some errors in range estimation. Rangefinders, scopes with adjustable turrets, and long range reticles have greatly reduced the need for flat shooting cartridges. But you still need to deliver enough energy to cleanly kill an animal at the ranges you are shooting.
A 308 or 223 may well shoot just as accurately at 1000 yards as a 300 magnum and do it cheaper and with less recoil. With proper sights, at known ranges it is simply a matter of adjusting them for the range. But the magnum round has more energy at 600 yards than the 308 at 400. Depending on the game hunted, the range, and the skill of the shooter that could matter. If the shooter doesn't have the skills, then he cannot take advantage of the more powerful round.
While a 7mm-08 is a good round it's just not what i look for in .284 IMO. When i think .284 i immediately want to shoot 180gr Hunting VLDs or the new 195gr Hybrid hunting (whenever they're released) @ 2800-2900fps that which the 7mm-08 isn't capable of. I've seen some reports on getting the 168s to 2700fps but not too many, and most at max loads or near max. Maybe a 7mm-08AI would be pretty advantageous depending on the percent increase for that particular cartridge. I love however the .284win, 7WSM, and 7SAUM. I prefer the aesthetics of the .284 over the later but they're all great performing cartridges.
kraigwy comments:
The Army standardized a version of the AR-10 as a "Service Rifle" .... I think they call it an M110. It's also listed in the NRA rules as a service rifle. I guess the AMU got tired of a couple of USN folks showing them up at Perry kicking 5.56 users' back side with their M1A's and McCoy 7.62 M1s.
While there were a few 5.56's that did well, the US Army's AMU learned their lesson some time ago.
The Army standardized a version of the AR-10 as a "Service Rifle" .... I think they call it an M110. It's also listed in the NRA rules as a service rifle. I guess the AMU got tired of a couple of USN folks showing them up at Perry kicking 5.56 users' back side with their M1A's and McCoy 7.62 M1s.
True, the NRA did, but the CMP doesn't recognize AR10/M110's as service rifles in EIC, Presidents Hundred, etc matches.
Even in NRA matches, walk down the line at Perry or any other large service rifle match. the AR/223s dominate.
And I say this as a huge M1A/M14 fan, which got me my distinguished badge.
Kraigwy says about AR-10's listed by the NRA as a service rifle:
But in the NRA matches at short and medium ranges, bolt guns shoot the best scores. They do so at long range, too. Semiauto service rifles have too many parts to get back into batter at exactly the same place with the same force and the same angle/fit for each shot, even single round loaded, to shoot as accurate as bolt guns.
This thread's about "long shot" rifles. I wouldn't shoot a 7.62 NATO service rifle in short nor medium range matches, in which the EIC, Presidents Hundred and other CMP matches. The 5.56's are much easier to shoot good scores in that venue, especially in rapid fire.
But in the NRA matches at short and medium ranges, bolt guns shoot the best scores. They do so at long range, too. Semiauto service rifles have too many parts to get back into batter at exactly the same place with the same force and the same angle/fit for each shot, even single round loaded, to shoot as accurate as bolt guns.
Art Eatman
Staff in Memoriam
Let's don't wander off into arguments about "better" or arguments about how or why.
"What I've learned first-hand from experience about long-range shooting" is a lot better...
"What I've learned first-hand from experience about long-range shooting" is a lot better...
Typically bolt guns have a better sighting system than those found on a service rifle. Bolt guns are not as popular today as they once were in the match rifle category. Most of the down fall of a bolt gun is the bolt manipulation during rapid fire strings. Watching a bolt gunner doing his thing during rapids was a sight to see and left the service rifle guys shaking their heads in amazement.
Today, the bolt gun has mostly been replaced by “space guns” which are based on the AR for national match shooting at least.
Now between '06 and 7mm Mag I would think the 7mm would be better. The only expirence I have at a 1000 is with a M-14 and a 300 Win Mag. Shooting the M-14 at a 1000 was no fun using M-852. (GI match) The 300 Win Mag was much better and seemed to go where I put the cross hair if I had the right dope on.
Last edited:
mapsjanhere
New member
300 RUM, 210 gr Berger VLD, Reloader 25 in the mid'90s gr range. You never look back.
MOshooter65202
New member
I have both calibers and either will work for long range,my first centerfire rifle was the 06' in 1975.
I prefer the 7mm rem mag out in the field hunting,I just have more long range experience and confidence with the 7mm rem mag. bolt gun which is one of my most accurate rifles!
I prefer the 7mm rem mag out in the field hunting,I just have more long range experience and confidence with the 7mm rem mag. bolt gun which is one of my most accurate rifles!
Kreyzhorse
New member
So, you want a 1,000 yard rifle but are worried about dragging it out? 
Out of the two, either makes a fine deer rifle. I prefer the 7mm Rem Mag but it is really just a matter of preference. As far as recoil, I think the 7mm recoils a bit harder than the 30.06 but just a bit. The 30.06 recoils just a bit harder than the .308.
Out of the two, either makes a fine deer rifle. I prefer the 7mm Rem Mag but it is really just a matter of preference. As far as recoil, I think the 7mm recoils a bit harder than the 30.06 but just a bit. The 30.06 recoils just a bit harder than the .308.