Probably Replacing the 30-06

1) I'll assume your 30-06 barrel is indeed worn out. I'd give it a good cleaning and shoot it again before I scrapped it though.

2) The 270 WSM is a non-starter for your situation. You'd require expensive bolt face and magazine work to get it to function and you would end up with a 270 WSM in a long action, which makes no sense at all.

3) Both the 280 Remington and the 270 Win are fine cartridges, but there isn't enough real world difference between them to overcome the ammunition availability advantage of the 270.
 
Hey Vicki, welcome to TFL. I've always favored my Remington 30-06's, too. The 30-06 Springfield round should always be around as long as there's shooters and hunters; a venerable tried and true caliber (IMO).


Hey RC20, this has been a good little confab about the M1917-P-17, Ol' '17 Enfield and whatever else it's been called through the years beginning with that Brit Pattern-13, and who made them, and where they were made. I've used the article I mentioned earlier as a reference guide for me since I printed it off many years ago. I thought it was quite thorough, and was about all I cared to know about my old Eddystone.

The Eddystone/Baldwin Locomotive Works/Remington of Delaware Co. and then, the Midvale Steel and Ordnance Company (which company I'd never heard of before), is truly an amazing story. It turns out that my Eddystone, M1917, which I found was mfg'd in August of 1918, would have been made by the Midvale Steel and Ordnance Co. during their time producing the M1917. I found this article below (just yesterday) that was written in August of 2018 (a hundred years to the month and year of my rifle's existence) and thought it quite good; an update to what I had for reference. The article was written with much reference to the Remington Society's write-up entitled, "The Story of Eddystone." The intricacies of the whole story of arming the Brits, and us, "U.S.," with rifles for the "Great War," involves J.P. Morgan and also Col. John T. Thompson (sub-machine inventor) who resigned from the U.S. Army to oversee construction of the Remington facility in Eddystone, and then remained in management as Works Supervisor there until he re-entered the service. (from the Remington Society's, "The Story of Eddystone.")

http://tincanbandit.blogspot.com/2018/08/firearm-factory-of-month-baldwin.html

At the end of the article I've given here above, you can click on the refence to the Remington Society for "The Story of Eddystone," if you want more info on the M1917.

So, RC20, the article I referenced earlier by Mr. Culver never mentioned the Midvale Steel and Ordnance Co., nor did Julian Hatcher in his classic Notebook on the "Brief History of the Enfield, U.S. Rifle Caliber .30, Model of 1917 (Hatcher's Notebook, P-12). So much went on at the Eddystone facility; rather staggering, really (IMO).

I guess then, my Eddystone was made during the time of Midvale Steel's run of the M1917, but on the equipment that Remington of Delaware set up, at the Baldwin Locomotive Works being under the supervision of John Thompson himself at the time when all this started under the satellite company of Remington of Delaware (at least that's how I understand it!). So right or wrong, I'm sure I'll still think of my "centenarian" Eddystone as a Remmy...Ha!

And to the OP, if I was personally going to change to a different caliber besides the '06, I'd still opt for the .280 Remington.

And a parting shot here on the M1917:

"Purists will tell you that calling the M1917 Rifle an Enfield or a P-17 is patently wrong, but common usage and habits die hard. Although we like to think of our armed forces meeting the Bosche using our tried and true "Ought Three Springfields," the truth is somewhat different. While our "official" service rifle remained the M1903, usage data from the era will tell you that approximately 2/3rds (some say 3/4ths number would not be correct until the end of hostilities) of the American Divisions in France were equipped with the M1917 Enfield." (from the Culver article)

Excerpt from Alvin York's Diary:
May 21, 1918

LeHavre, France: "So we got to France at LeHavre. There we tuned in our guns and got the British guns...I didn't like the British guns so well. I don't think they were as accurate as our American rifles. Ho ho."

I would guess that was the '03 turned in for the M1917.
 
I have just about all the 06 spawn except the 30-06 itself. My 300 win mag with good brake shoots like a pussycat--so I never bothered getting a 30 06.
 
reinert:

Agreed, the 1917 got the sort end of the stick publicity wise. The Sherman was a great tank, it did not look great and got dissed. So it goes, we can hope to change that and the Sherman is now getting its due.

If despite all the evidence (sigh) you want to think of your Eddystone as a Remy, so be it. I did try (another big sigh)

LeHavre, France: "So we got to France at LeHavre. There we tuned in our guns and got the British guns...I didn't like the British guns so well. I don't think they were as accurate as our American rifles. Ho ho."

I would guess that was the '03 turned in for the M1917.
Click to expand...

That is a myth that likely will never die. The US troops working for a time with the Brits were issued SMLE as the ammo issuance was a problem for 30-06.

One of the researchers has gone so far as to dig up the transit and transport records and the 1917s (with which they trained) were shipped overseas with Sgt York and they were reunited with the 1917s when they went under the main US command (attachment to Brit and French groups were for purposes of getting initial combat experience - they had found all new groups did not do well without it)

I will dig up the Link on that report.
 
I've been having problems with my 30-06 hunting rifle and have decided I will replace it or rebarrel it.
Click to expand...

Cleaning with Carbon Killer 2000 and or Bore Tech Eliminator would likely find its just fouled. Few cleaners get all the carbon out and it builds up.

A 30-06 is good for 8,000 rounds, 20 years of hunting would not do that.

We had a family Sako 270 that my brother (who is a good shot) could not get to shoot. I took it on as a project - while my re-loads did better than factory, the best I could do was 1.5 inches.

It had alwyas been cleaned and oil after use, but that was 50 years of Hoppees (yep 50) and it had a serious carbon build up.

That was the hardest gun I had to clean, layer on layer of carbon (very little copper) . But it took it out, it now shoots 3/4 to 7/8 MOA with a course cross hair hunting scope and the stock trigger (pretty stiff but good for hunting and I was not going to disturb it)

The CK2k is very good on carbon. Bore Tech is very good on copper and decent on carbon.

Drizzle either on a nylon brush, though to the muzzle, drizzle once more (I used an eye dropper) and then 4 strokes , last one out the muzzle, drizzle again, bring all the way out, run a patch through.

After 100 rounds it takes me about 4 cycles with CK2k to clean a gun.

It took me about 2 days off and on to get the Sako clean.
 
spread sheets and the weak link

ndking,

The weak link in your process as I see it, is using published velocities as a base line for your calculations. Individual rifles can vary widely in the velocities they generate, even using the same barrel length with the same ammo.

In recent years I finally acquired a chronograph, it has has been an eye opening experience. Most of my loads do NOT make the velocities I was expecting as derived from loading tables, and certainly from published data. As a classic example, most mfg's will state that their .270/130 combinations will make 3000 fps +. Well, ....not my .270. Admittedly, handicapped with a 22" bbl, it is not optimum, but will serve as an example.

From a practical standpoint, I'd avoid .270 WSM as the WSM's are on their last legs already. Feeding the rifle could be a real problem. Since velocity and numbers matter to you, I'd only select a 24" bbl rifle, as the longer tube should boost velocity if all holds to form. A .280 splits the difference with .270/.30 on paper should be the answer. Again though, .280 is not a common cartridge off the shelf in a lot of stores. Modern premium bullets supposedly can take the .270 into another dimension for bigger game like elk, but I've never shot an elk, or likely ever will.
 
If anyone is interested, I couldn't leave well enough alone and ran the numbers for a 150gr 30-06. The average velocity was 2946 fps and came back with the least amount of recoil. Considering the weighted score, it finished in second, barely passing the 270WSM. I was surprised by that.

The only caveat would be the wind drift @ 400 was quite poor (13.4"). Because the cartridges were generally close in wind drift, I didn't include that in the comparison. Certainly the poor performance would drop the 150gr in the overall standings if I were to add wind drift. I could see myself working up a 150gr load to shoot deer with, but I don't see using it on elk unless it was a Barnes TTSX or similar and I'd likely have to cap it at 300 yards because of velocity requirements.

using published velocities as a base line for your calculations.
Click to expand...

Bamaranger, you're not wrong. Unfortunately there's no good way to do that other than buy a rifle, dies, bullets and cases in each caliber and find out actual velocities. The finances don't allow for that, so I had to come up with numbers some how. Averaging maxes from a reputable company that (in theory) loaded each round with the same methodology and loading practices was the best way to deal with the uncertainty in my opinion. Others have mentioned that I could have used numbers from other companies like Hodgdon or Alliant, and they are right. I actually tried to run the numbers using velocities from Hodgdon, but they listed the 280 Rem 150 gr at about 300 fps slower.. so low that it didn't pass the common sense test. After researching, it looks like the 280 is one of the rounds that is hindered by lower pressure because of the Rem 742 couldn't handle it. Of course, that's just what I read on the internet and don't have any way to verify it. I recently bought a chronograph and so far my experience has mirrored yours. My 243 was shooting a particular factory ammo 160 fps slower than advertised and my 30-06 shot Remington factory ammo at 80 fps slower. It was 33* outside, so that probably explains away some of the delta.
 
Keep in mind that unless you are shooting one of the 3500 to 4000 fps calibers, all of them are going to have a large drop regardless of wind. The 270 (as much as I like it) has it to.

At 400 yards its 26 inches or so starting at 3060 fps (130 gr)

http://gundata.org/blog/post/270-win-ballistics-chart/

So compared to your half that 13 inch drift (which is not a given and drop is?)
 
RC, I think what you are saying is that the drop may be the more important thing since we know itll have to be accounted for with distance. Wind may or may not be there so it could be of lesser concern.

If that's what your saying, distance is a known variable. I have a range finder and itll give me exactly how far away the animal is and even how many degrees of angle the shot is at. With good ballistics data for my rifle and bullet combo, I can easily adjust for drop. Wind, on the other hand is an unknown. It may be blowing 7mph to my left where I am and then 13 mph strait forward 200 yards away from me. For me, wind drift is a greater problem to overcome than drop.
 
pressure

I dunno. The .280 is not necessarily hindered by low pressure, a quick check seems to indicate that it operates at slightly less pressure than the '06. As you know, the 7 series rifles from Rem all were chambered in'06. And the .270 is only a tad behind both in operating pressue. So the 7 series rifles should handle the .280 easily.

The .280 had a murky start, and has never really had a big following or noted as a successful cartridge. It even had a different names when first released in '57. As the .280 is little more than an '06 case necked to 7mm, I have to wonder if Remington didn't purposely keep it loaded down, so as to not impede (or anticipation of the release of) on the success of the 7mm Mag, which was released just 5 years later, in '62.

All that is speculation on my part, and my source, Wiki, may or may not be right in the figures and dates.
 
bamaranger said:
I dunno. The .280 is not necessarily hindered by low pressure, a quick check seems to indicate that it operates at slightly less pressure than the '06. As you know, the 7 series rifles from Rem all were chambered in'06. And the .270 is only a tad behind both in operating pressue. So the 7 series rifles should handle the .280 easily.

The .280 had a murky start, and has never really had a big following or noted as a successful cartridge. It even had a different names when first released in '57. As the .280 is little more than an '06 case necked to 7mm, I have to wonder if Remington didn't purposely keep it loaded down, so as to not impede (or anticipation of the release of) on the success of the 7mm Mag, which was released just 5 years later, in '62.

All that is speculation on my part, and my source, Wiki, may or may not be right in the figures and dates.
Click to expand...
Well...

As for Cartridge Chamber Pressures...?

.30-06 Spg. (60,000 PSI)
.280 Rem. (60,000 PSI)
.270 Win. (65,000 PSI)

As for why?

"The .280 Remington, also known as the 7mm-06 Remington and 7mm Express Remington, was introduced in 1957 for the Remington model 740 and 760 rifles..."


These were semi-automatic and pump-action rifles, lacking the camming action of a bolt gun. Hence the lower (.30-06) pressure.

The .270 Win., however, was introduced as a high performance bolt-gun (Model 54) cartridge.




Red
 
RC20 said:
Keep in mind that unless you are shooting one of the 3500 to 4000 fps calibers, all of them are going to have a large drop regardless of wind. The 270 (as much as I like it) has it to.

At 400 yards its 26 inches or so starting at 3060 fps (130 gr)

http://gundata.org/blog/post/270-win-ballistics-chart/

So compared to your half that 13 inch drift (which is not a given and drop is?)
Click to expand...
But, instead of sighting in at 100 yards, you sight in at +3"@100 yards? (262 yards zero/22" scoped barrel/2990 muzzle velocity)

The drop at 400 yards is only 15", or a top-of-back hold.




Red
 
For my faithful followers...

I have made my decision and even spent some money! I bought a used Savage 110 with a beat up wooden stock for cheap. I'll refinish the stock and try to resell for a couple of bucks. Even if it doesn't sell, it still sounds like a fun project.

I am going to buy a Bell and Carlson sporter style stock, as I have been really happy with my Medalist. I've got a few other miscellaneous items taking up space in my gun cabinet to sell and hopefully I'll have enough for the new barrel. I'll buy it before too long either way.

I'm going with 280 Rem. I'll buy a Shilen from NSS because I like Shilen and they are one of the few companies left that offer blued match barrels - happy to do my part in showing there is still demand for them, haha. Right now I'm planning on 24" and heavy sporter. The rifle, as it sits is in 30-06 with a sporter barrel on it. I'll see how it balances and looks in the B&C stock and make a final decision on length and contour.

Thank you for all the comments and input! I'm really happy with the decision and I can't wait to get it all together.
 
Remington is one to beat a dead dog. They did the same with 244/ 6mm Rem. The 243 blew it out of the water. The 280/ 7express is same thing. The 270 is hard to beat in its class. It's a fad thing just like all the 6.5s now popular. Unless military adopts one they will
be dead dogs too. There really isn't such a thing as a bad cartridge, only bad rifles. The right twist on good action should produce good results. I've had a couple 280s both 700 Rems. They were ok but not enough different from 270 to make any difference.
 
270 and 280 are very similar animals, that's for sure. I like the heavier bullets available to the 280 as I hope to hunt elk again one day. I reload, sotwhat's on the shelf and how much it costs isn't a real consideration for me. (270 is the obvious winner there.)

There's no doubt in my mind the 6.5s are here to stay. I read on multiple websites the Special Operations Command selected the 6.5C as their intermediate sniper round. But aside from that the public consumption of the round is enough. It makes so much more sense than the last fad (the magnums) for the majority of people who buy it. Of course, the magnums are here to stay, also. I'm not speaking negatively of them.
 
I shoot 270,30-06 and 280AI and Hornady is making brass cost less than Nosler brass. It's Saami Spec and Hornady has loading data new manual.

It's good step up from 270 and as much as I like 270 I've never shot elk with it and I live Co.
 
I'm going with 280 Rem. I'll buy a Shilen from NSS because I like Shilen and they are one of the few companies left that offer blued match barrels - happy to do my part in showing there is still demand for them, haha. Right now I'm planning on 24" and heavy sporter. The rifle, as it sits is in 30-06 with a sporter barrel on it. I'll see how it balances and looks in the B&C stock and make a final decision on length and contour.
Click to expand...

Good choice on both the caliber and the barrel maker.

I shoot the 280 in a Model 70 SG and it's a great performer exceeding 2900 FPS with 160 grain bullets without much effort. I have a 9" twisted Shilen barrel on a 7mm08 build I am doing on a Rem 700 Action and a PTG bolt.

If you can, get a 9" twist as it will serve you well with any bullet you should want to shoot. I have a 10" twist in my Winchester and it's fine for the 160's but may be marginal with 175's.

Have fun!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top