.308 winchester vs other "fast" .30's


PDA






BornAgainBullseye
November 21, 2008, 11:39 AM
I am currently working up some loads for my cuz. He shoots a Winchester short action 300 mag. I was using some 165gr Nosler Ballistic tips that I use in my .308. According to the Nosler data book The 300 WSM knocks on the door of 3100 fps with a tad over 61 grains of RL-15!!!! Do you guys think that is wasteful or what. I mean my .308 does 2830's with 46 grains of Varget. This seems to be powder hog! I am thinking I need to get him some reduced charge loads that match 30-06 like performance. 2900fps or so. This .300WSM is a pig. The more I look at the .300 mag in various flavors makes me love my .308 even more. I can do almost the same thing with way less powder

If you enjoyed reading about ".308 winchester vs other "fast" .30's" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
USSR
November 21, 2008, 11:50 AM
I am currently working up some loads for my cuz. He shoots a Winchester short action 300 mag. I was using some 165gr Nosler Ballistic tips that I use in my .308. According to the Nosler data book The 300 WSM knocks on the door of 3100 fps with a tad over 61 grains of RL-15!!!! Do you guys think that is wasteful or what. I mean my .308 does 2830's with 46 grains of Varget. This seems to be powder hog! I am thinking I need to get him some reduced charge loads that match 30-06 like performance. 2900fps or so. This .300WSM is a pig. The more I look at the .300 mag in various flavors makes me love my .308 even more. I can do almost the same thing with way less powder

Wasteful? Not if you want or need that kind of performance. That's the beauty of reloading, you can vary the performance by varying the charge weight and bullet selection. As an aside, he can duplicate your .308's performance, but you can't duplicate his .300WSM's performance.

Don

Shawnee
November 21, 2008, 12:20 PM
Figure out what the 168-grainer at 3100 can do at 3100fps that it can't do at 2830fps. - then ask yourself if the difference serves any necessary or even significant purpose in the field. If it does - shovel that powder. If it doesn't - save the powder. I'm betting you'll be saving. :cool:

:cool:

db_tanker
November 21, 2008, 12:30 PM
I thought that everyone knew that a white-tail deer will shed off any bullet that is going less than 3000 fps?


:D

BornAgainBullseye
November 21, 2008, 12:57 PM
The point of this post was not making a .308 match a .300 WSM, but praising the .308win for doing over 90% of what the WSM can do with 75% of a WSM powder charge.

benEzra
November 21, 2008, 01:11 PM
By these numbers, the .308 gives 83% of the kinetic energy with 75% of the powder charge, using identical 165-grain bullets. There is some loss in efficiency with the higher velocity cartridge, but not as much as you might think just by looking at the velocity numbers.

BornAgainBullseye
November 21, 2008, 01:18 PM
define "may think" The numbers are layed out. 270fps slower and 25% less powder. That is an extra .308winchester charge for every 4 WSMs that are loaded. I am not saying it is a bad choice, just not the most efficient.

Shawnee
November 21, 2008, 01:46 PM
Hi "Bornagain..."...


The point you're making is 110% valid.

:cool:

skinewmexico
November 21, 2008, 01:52 PM
I'm with Shawnee. I haven't had my 300 Winmag out of the safe in almost 2 years. Hope it's still in there some where. Deer are just as dead.

benEzra
November 21, 2008, 02:12 PM
define "may think" The numbers are layed out. 270fps slower and 25% less powder. That is an extra .308winchester charge for every 4 WSMs that are loaded. I am not saying it is a bad choice, just not the most efficient.
I agree. I was just pointing out that energy and performance at range both relate to the square of the velocity, so the .308 is really not 90+% of a .300 WSM, more like 83%. It is still more efficient than .300 WSSM, just not by as wide a margin as the velocity numbers alone might suggest.

BornAgainBullseye
November 21, 2008, 02:40 PM
I was talking velocity, And yes actually it is 91.2% of the velocity of the WSM and uses 75.4% of the powder of the load I am referring to. Energy is a different story and at range the b.c. of the bullet will have a sloping effect. I know it may shine in the 200grain selection as it can lob a 220 grain monolithic round nose at the speed of my 165 boat tail, but Im not hunting rino either.

30mag
November 21, 2008, 02:50 PM
You have a valid point.

However, I have a friend who killed two hogs with one shot from his .338 Win Mag.
My point is that you don't usually buy a magnum round to load it light.

I'm with you though. A hog is just as dead with a .30-06, and it's cheaper.

M'bogo
November 21, 2008, 02:55 PM
Well being that the old .300 Savage can launch a 165gr bullet at 2,670 fps why not just sell the big guns and shoot the smaller more efficient .300 Savage?

M'bogo

taprackbang
November 21, 2008, 03:01 PM
Hogdon's website says that you can use 8.0 grains (!!) of Titegroup sending out a 168 grain Sierra HPBT.
I verified this to be true and a reputable reloading manual confirms this. This means one pound of Varget will load 175 rounds, and one pound of Titegroup will load you 800 rounds!!

Just DON"T double charge!!

I remember Waco daily

USSR
November 21, 2008, 03:40 PM
Well being that the old .300 Savage can launch a 165gr bullet at 2,670 fps why not just sell the big guns and shoot the smaller more efficient .300 Savage?

Exactly. You can play this efficiency game both with going to another cartridge (as above), or also by going to a slightly faster burn rate powder in which you will use less powder to reach a particular velocity.

Don

BornAgainBullseye
November 21, 2008, 04:31 PM
Im going to spill it and tell everybody that Im afraid of Titegroup. I wonder what kind of performance you would get if that powder charge was at the front of the case, like you raised the barrel up from the ground and fired. Verses up in the air and down to your target????? 8 grains?? what is it made of?? Does this stuff go Nuclear when you drop a bottle of it.

longdayjake
November 21, 2008, 08:31 PM
Hogdon's website says that you can use 8.0 grains (!!) of Titegroup sending out a 168 grain Sierra HPBT.
I verified this to be true and a reputable reloading manual confirms this. This means one pound of Varget will load 175 rounds, and one pound of Titegroup will load you 800 rounds!!


I just went to the website and I am sorry to say I could not find this anywhere. Where exactly did you find this?

Found it!

168 GR. SIE HPBT Hodgdon Titegroup .308" 2.800" 8.0 1080 25,000 CUP

Looks like it is a weak load. I wonder if you added a couple of grains what would happen. hmmm...

Envisaged
November 21, 2008, 08:46 PM
Born Again:

I will not use titegroup in rifle rounds - but is really efficient in handgun rounds. I have no idea what it is made of - but it really works.:)

USSR
November 21, 2008, 08:59 PM
Using a small amount of pistol powder in a large cased rifle cartridge creates what was called a Gallery load years ago. They are short range loads at best.

Don

LeonCarr
November 21, 2008, 09:12 PM
The .300 WSM is probably the most efficient of the .30 caliber magnums. Compare the performance of the .300 WSM with the .300 WM. Per the Hodgdon web page, using IMR 4350 the .300 WSM with a 180 bullet gets 2991 fps with 65 grains, and the .300 WM gets 2974 fps with 71 grains.

I love the .308, and 99.5% of the deer and hogs (and 100% of the wild turkeys :)) I have shot have been shot with the .308. If you decide to kick it up a notch, the .30 caliber magnums would be a definite step up, even if less efficient than the .308.

Just my .02,
LeonCarr

taprackbang
November 21, 2008, 09:17 PM
I will not use titegroup in rifle rounds - but is really efficient in handgun rounds. I have no idea what it is made of - but it really works.

The drawback is that 8.0 grains will not top the case off.
But I know that if it is published data, it can be safely (and sanely) accepted as reliable. Worth a try, huh??

I thought the idea of getting more loads out of a pound of powder was really an economical approach, too.
I use Titegroup for my .40 SW reloads.

35 Whelen
November 21, 2008, 09:32 PM
I am currently working up some loads for my cuz. He shoots a Winchester short action 300 mag. I was using some 165gr Nosler Ballistic tips that I use in my .308. According to the Nosler data book The 300 WSM knocks on the door of 3100 fps with a tad over 61 grains of RL-15!!!! Do you guys think that is wasteful or what. I mean my .308 does 2830's with 46 grains of Varget. This seems to be powder hog! I am thinking I need to get him some reduced charge loads that match 30-06 like performance. 2900fps or so. This .300WSM is a pig. The more I look at the .300 mag in various flavors makes me love my .308 even more. I can do almost the same thing with way less powder

You think it's wasteful with a RL-15?!?!? Take a look at how much of the slower burning powder it takes for about the same velocity: 70+ grs. of H4831, RL-22, et al.!!!

I'm with you, as far as these magnums go. I only own one magnum and that is my 358 Norma with which I occassionally hunt elk. And really, it's not all that inefficient as it's a relatively large diameter bullet in a 338 WM case. 70 grs. of RL-15 and a 225 gr. Barnes TSX nets right at 3000 fps. For comparison, the 340 Weatherby requires from 80-88 grs. of powder to run a like weight bullet the same speed!
But between my father and I we've killed 3 nice bulls with a 35 Whelen, and I also killed one with the lowly 7x57 Mauser.
To each his own, but I have little use for the small-bore, powder gobbling magnums. I think they're all to keep the R&D departments on ammo companies busy.
35W

Shawnee
November 22, 2008, 12:01 AM
I'm not a fan of .30 calibers (except the .30/30) but of all the .30 calibers (except the .30/30), the .308 is easily the most sensible caliber for the North American hunter there is - hands down.

:cool:

RonE
November 22, 2008, 02:09 AM
You are compareing the same bullet but different powders... What would the two calibers do with the same powders?

Everyone knows that if you don't have a .30 cal rifle that pushes a 180 grain bullet in excess of 3,000fps that you have to turn in your man card.

Art Eatman
November 22, 2008, 09:31 AM
As near as I can tell from a half-century of listening to or from reading discussions about magnums, the primary utility is not the "killing power". It's to reduce the problems of range estimation and dealing with trajectory.

A .308 or a .30-'06 will kill a deer dead, dead, dead at 500 yards. No problem whatsoever. The problem is in knowing if that deer is 400 yards away or 500 yards. I've watched numerous people be off by 100 yards in their guesstimations. Heck, sometimes even worse. So, a flatter trajectory is helpful...

25 grains of powder is what, about 7 worth, mas o menos?

35 Whelen
November 22, 2008, 11:02 AM
As near as I can tell from a half-century of listening to or from reading discussions about magnums, the primary utility is not the "killing power". It's to reduce the problems of range estimation and dealing with trajectory.

A .308 or a .30-'06 will kill a deer dead, dead, dead at 500 yards. No problem whatsoever. The problem is in knowing if that deer is 400 yards away or 500 yards. I've watched numerous people be off by 100 yards in their guesstimations. Heck, sometimes even worse. So, a flatter trajectory is helpful...

Agreed. However, with the advent of cheaper (less expensive) and more accurate range finders, it seems to me that the flat trajectory of the magnnums is far less an issue these days.
35W

1911 guy
November 22, 2008, 11:39 AM
If someone wants a "fast .30", the recent incarnations such as the WSSM and RSAUM, more power to them. I just hope they don't actually think they're getting anything tangible from the price tag and recoil.

It's been my theory, backed by limited experience with doofus hunters, that the guy who will try an unpracticed shot at 500 with a .308 or .30-06 will do it at 600 or 700 if he thinks he's got a better cartridge. Negating the advantage of flatter trajectory, of course. And angering all us other hunters in the process.

Either know how to estimate range or buy a rangefinder, then shoot the daylights out of your hunting rifle. Too many think gadgets and new calibers are the answer to their lack of skill with a rifle.

If you NEED something bigger than a standard .30, you need to get in the big leagues with the .33 and .40 caliber rifles.
But, like I said, some just like them because they're different than the same old calibers. Go for it.

elmerfudd
November 22, 2008, 02:51 PM
I'm not a fan of .30 calibers (except the .30/30) but of all the .30 calibers (except the .30/30), the .308 is easily the most sensible caliber for the North American hunter there is - hands down.

If you like the 30/30, then why not the 7.62x39? It's everything the 30/30 is but much more affordable and with spitzer bullets.

As far as other .30's go, I don't think the .308 is really significantly different than any of the other 30 caliber military cartridges. They all have very similar ballistics. Commercial magnums are another story. Since I don't have any place or need to shoot past 400 yards, I don't get any benefit by using them and if I'm going to fire a bruising cartridge I'd rather use a 45-70.

Shawnee
November 22, 2008, 03:09 PM
Hi Elmer...

"If you like the 30/30, then why not the 7.62x39? It's everything the 30/30 is but much more affordable and with spitzer bullets."

Why a 7.62x39 ?????

The .30/30 can be loaded with spitzers and the 7.62x39 comes in rifles that weight 70%-80% more than a Winnie 94 - aren't near the quality, and are butt-ugly. Since I don't care about saving a few stinking cents on ammo or piddly dollars on the gun, the 7.62x39 is 100% disadvantage.

YMMV :cool:

tblt
November 22, 2008, 03:58 PM
Shot placement is what matters.
I have a 7 mm mag shooting 140 gr. bullet @ 3200 but I carry my 7 x 57 shooting 120 gr. bullet @2900 more often because its lighter.My mag is newer and more accurate it is a winchester syn stainless w/a boss it shoots 1/2 groups a 100 yards. my 7 x 57 shoots 1" groups at 100 yards.I bought it when I used to hunt peanut fields in georgia and could see 600 yards or more.My 7 x 57 I got when I was 12 years old, 26 years later I still love this little gun.

elmerfudd
November 22, 2008, 04:07 PM
A CZ 527 weighs more and is of lessor quality than a Winchester? Guess again. It's lighter and more accurate.

If you don't shoot a lot, you're not going to be a good shot. IMO, that requires a minimum of at least 1000 rounds a year and preferably much more, (I order pellets in sleeves of 5000). Now it's true that a lot of that shooting can be done with rimfires or airguns, but if you're not shooting at least 100 rounds a year with your hunting rifle, you're not really familiar with it. Since 30-30 cartridges cost 10 times as much that means 10x's less practice and a lot less proficiency.

The 7.62x39 is also rimless. Big improvement right there.

Shawnee
November 22, 2008, 04:24 PM
Well pee in my Wheaties - I didn't know the CZ came in the x39 !

It also costs twice as much (if you can find one) and, once the scope is on it it will weigh more and won't do a single thing the 30/30 hasn't been doing for a century.

You're certainly welcome to a CZ 527 - in fact, you can have all mine too.

;)

Oldcoyote
November 22, 2008, 04:30 PM
And there's always the recoil issue.

elmerfudd
November 22, 2008, 04:45 PM
Yep. It's a sweet little rifle too. If it weren't for the current political situation and a sudden interest in muzzleloaders I'd get one.

I shot one at the range about a year ago and I was impressed. It was shooting about 2 MOA with cheap Russian ammo, but I don't really recall which brand. I think it had the set trigger on it too.

The only thing I can find to criticize on a CZ is the bolt handle. I don't like not having the option of a low mounted scope.

If you enjoyed reading about ".308 winchester vs other "fast" .30's" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!