Probably Replacing the 30-06

The ONLY source of magic for the 6.5 bore dia is tight twists,like 1 in 9 or 1 in 8.5,have been relatively standard in factory rifles and milsurps.
That has allowed the bullet folks to make long,sleek bullets for the guns.

If you can deal with the recoil,and buy a custom barrel,the 30 cal long range bullets are there.As are .338's.

277,or 257,or 8mm, IF there was a market,bullets and barrels could make about any bore dia "magic"

If your answer to long range shooting is slower twists and lighter bullets,,,,it seems like Remington has tried that a few times.
 
The 6.5 is not magic its a sweet spot with the right combo bullet weight for hunting and the performance out to long distances for shooting (and short)

All rifles need the right twist with the right bullet weights though the 06 is somewhat oddly more wide ranging.

I don't like any more recoil than I have to. 30-06 is more than enough for me.

I shot my 7 mm Rem Mag to ensure it worked before I sold it. Arghhhh.
 
It seems like everyone forgets that the fatter cases sacrifice magazine capacity for whatever else they promise.....
My most accurate load in my 270 Winchester clocks right at 3,000 fps with 150 grain Nosler Partition bullets. And the rifle holds 5 in the magazine plus another in the chamber. What would any 264 Winchester Magnum or 270 WSM/Weatherby or 7mm WSM/Remington do for me on a hunt that I couldn't get done, just as well, as with my 270? Or, for that matter, almost any decent, 24" barreled 30-'06?
I'm thinking that a 270WSM will kick just as much as a 30'06, all else being close to equal. So then, you are back up to the recoil that was a prime point of objection to that 30-'06. If it really was a valid objection in the first place, then one ought to forget about any cartridge that comes close in that respect.
Therefore, calibers like the 243 Winchester or 6.5 Creedmoor are what might actually be needed.
On the other hand; this all looks like someone trying to justify to another, (wife, perhaps?), why they need this other rifle that in reality will do the same thing as the old rifle, with virtually identical recoil!;)
 
Last edited:
I really respect the thought you've put into the process. I can't dispute any of your methods or results.

Due to my eyesight and skill level, I probably wouldn't take the shot unless within 250 yards. At that distance, there are a lot of other softer shooting options that will drop the game. In the 'I like what I am familiar with' category, I favor the 7x57 Mauser round as I've had that rifle in the family since before Sputnik was launched.

However, I don't hunt anything larger than deer, and, again, not over 250 yards. I can't be sure I'll make a clean shot beyond that, so it isn't fair for me to try.




Out to 400 yards and you have some good choices already identified.

Let us know what you decide!
 
I'll second "jmstr's" post. I have an '06 built on a Mauser action that is a bit heavy for hiking as I age, and not horrible but not necessarily comfortable off the bench.

I had a 7x57 built on a 03A3 action that I had..... and I am done looking for a medium bore.

I hand load [not pushing any "mini-mag" envelope] and at my self enforced range limits, say around 300 yards, it hits where I aim and will effectively harvest any game animal on my continent. Did I mention that it is very comfortable to shoot whether off the bench or off hand?
 
The 7 x 57, the 7.5 Swiss and the 06 are all in the same general class and only the wide spread dispersal of the 06 had it better (7 x 57 more so in some parts of the world)

You can add in 300 wm and 7mm and they all are in that area. Those two hotter but realistically?

The 6.5 just happens to fall in an area that today you can have it work 100 to 1000 and a really good job better than the 30s.

For most no issue, recoil shooting a lot is an aspect and for target that raises the ante and its long distance BC combo.

Nothing wrong with any of them and they all will work.
 
Perhaps a Browning BAR gas-operated action would work well for you.

.30-06 or less in a cartridge easily found anywhere and reign in the distance a bit to 250.

An older model with the BOSS system would allow you to dial in the cartridge you choose.

Enjoy your pursuit! :)
 
darkgael said:
Recoil: a 150 grain bullet out of an 8lb gun using a load of IMR 4895
.30-06 = 13.8 ft.lbs free recoil (2700 fps w. 46.3 grs. IMR 4895)
.270 Win = 13.54 ft. lbs free recoil (2700fps w. 44.9 grs IMR 4895).
.308 Win. = 14.10 ft.lbs Free recoil (2777 fps w. 45 grs, IMR 4895)
Free recoil is within a few ounces across the three cartridges.
Velocity and load data from Lyman.
Recoil info from "Recoil Calculator" at Handloads.com.
Click to expand...

Academic.

The 150 gr. 270 Win. has both the BC and SD of the 180 gr. .308., so it will essentially perform like the 180 gr. .308.

So, the .270 Win. gives the performance of a 180 gr. 30-06 (at a high velocity)... with the recoil of a 150 gr. 30-06.




Red
 
Have re-barreled 2 with Shaw 280 Rem in 24" and 26". I reload, so the choice was easier. Most 140gr bullets can go 3050 and shoot 1/2". If I didn't load, it would be the 270.
 
I guess I may have not seen this but the question I ask:

Are you reloading or factory ammo?

If you don't reload then honestly with all the math as a factor the 270 is the way to go. Factory ammo is much more readily available if you need to run to the corner for a sudden hunt of opportunity. Now if you handload then its back to the math board lol.

I over analyze and crunch numbers too....nature of my job in the Air Force. Just be sure to include common sense along with the math. My father wanted a more obscure cartridge and I was able to build him one....now since we live 1800 miles apart and he doesn't reload himself, he is limited to what I can produce for him. He loves it to death but ended up back with his 30-06 due to factory ammo availability.

I am interested which you end up with since I have enjoyed the thread. keep the rest of us nerds / enthusiasts posted!
 
I am not asking for feedback on which caliber/bullet weight I should choose, only curious in feedback on my methodology in comparing the cartridges.
Click to expand...
Your maths are way over my head. However, I am a big fan of process simplification. Here's my take: If the .30-06 has served you well, and you feel a change is in order, my humble opinion would be to consider the 7.62x63.


Yeah, I know.
 
10-96 said:
Your maths are way over my head. However, I am a big fan of process simplification. Here's my take: If the .30-06 has served you well, and you feel a change is in order, my humble opinion would be to consider the 7.62x63.


Yeah, I know.
Click to expand...
Do I sense some Sarcasm here? LOL. The 30-06 is 7.62x63.....
 
I have three '06s, two M700s and an Eddystone M1917 (for all practical purposes, that's a Remington, too). I'm a hunter, and all my shooting and reloading is for that purpose. I love the '06, it's all I need for the game I hunt, generally it's elk with the '06. Really, I don't need anymore rifles, am at the age where I truly have what I need for firearms.

That being said, and being an old guy, and if I had the inkling and the disposable cash to do it, without a second thought, I'd contact Kenny Jarrett and put in an order for a bare bones Beanfield Rifle in .280 Remington (a.k.a. 7MM-06 and/or the 7MM Express Remington). Wouldn't have another thought about it. I had a Ruger M77 in .280 Rem quite a number of years ago, but had to sell it. Wish I wouldn't have had to...old guy thoughts, nothing more.
 
Eddystone 1917 or all practical purposes, that's a Remington, too
Click to expand...

I am sorry break this to you, its really Enfield P14 modified to shoot 30-06.

More correctly, its an Enfield P13 that spawned two children, the P14 and the 1917.

Eddsytone was just a stand alone mfg site that did not make guns before nor after. The relationship to Remington was pretty odd.
 
Hey RC20,

My old "Enfield" '06 says this right on the receiver, and right about where the cartridge headstamp would be on a loaded round with the bolt closed:

U.S.
Model of 1917
Eddystone
S#......

My particular M1917 was mfg. in August of 1918. From my understanding on the rifle, the Eddystone name on the receiver meant that it was mfg'd at the Baldwin Locomotive Works in Eddystone, Pennsylvania, a subsidiary of Remington(Remington of Delaware Corp.). I understand, too, about the Brit P-14s and the .303 business and arms being in dire need for the Great War.

I've had this rifle for more than 20 years, and always enjoy showing it off to hunting cohort buddies. Whoever "sporterized" the old rifle did a fine job on it.

Anyway, I have a paper I printed off a long time ago, and I thought I might add a comment from it to go with this:

"Confusion in Rifle Nomenclature"

"Modern collectors and purists are quick to point out that referring to the M-1917 Rifle as a P-17 or an Enfield is incorrect. British .303s were referred to as P-14s, but they then point out that this is "British-Speak" not U.S. nomenclature. To this I must answer, "Well, yeah, but..." How the confusion and intermixing of terms came about is perfectly understandable if you know how the rifles came by their names."

From: Dick Culver, "The U.S. Rifle, caliber .30, M1917" (2003)

I'm certainly open to any corrections you may have on my old '06, and where it came from. Here's the Dick Culver article I referenced:

www.odcmp.org/503/rifle.pdf

reinert

One other thing to your comment on "The relationship to Remington was pretty odd." I'll just add this from the Culver article that probably made my misunderstanding of what Remington outfit it was that helped with the war effort:

"The P-13 was redesigned to handle the .303 cartridge, and re-designated the P-14 Enfield Rifle. Rather than tool up to produce the new rifle themselves, England contracted with Remington and Winchester to build the P-14 for them in the United States. Remington even formed another corporation, "Remington of Delaware," to speed up the process..." At Eddystone, Pennsylvania. So, was the "Remington" company in the article not the Remington Arms Co.? Help me out here, I'd like to get that cleared up. I also understand (according to Culver) the P-13 was an experimental rifle in .276 cal., redesigned to handle the .303.
 
I like discusssin this as its great for others and possible learning both ways.


While it was said in some jest, having researched the Baldwin facility, only Remington Delftware managed it (or took contracts) , but the whole operation was setup by Baldwin.

As near as I could determine, no Remington personal were involved. That is why I state an
odd
Click to expand...
relationship.

Remington/Eddystone/ Winchester made the P14, but it was wholly off British design. Contract manufacturing would be the right term in my view.

While it was an amazing undertaking, there was no R or W design in those rifles.

Rather than redesigned, I would say modified for 303 and 30-06 (chamber different and the feed parts, bolt head)

The P-13 was a .276 Caliber rifle with a new rimless high pressure modern cartridge. Very few were made. That made it the perfect change to 30-06 high pressure (303 was of course not an issue)

The P-14 was retooled for the 303 (WWI was on and they decide not to change ammo) The US faced the same but less immediate situation prior to WWII and had the M1 modified to 30-06 form a 276 caliber.

The P-17 (yes I am one of those) is either descended directly from the P-14 or is a fraternal twin. I think of more as a fraternal twin as the base for both was the high pressure P-13.

Realistically, other than a stamped name, there were no difference between R,W,E.

All were made from the same metal, same specifications etc.

Oddly, there are some miner stock difference in the grasping grove and the bolt recess. Why? Not a clue. They do cross bit just fine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top