.30-06 vs .308

Status
Not open for further replies.
Note that arsenal match ammo lots for both 30-06 and 7.62 had bullets from 3 or 4 machines. Sometimes, different lots of jacket copper sheet metal were used in them. Their coin, cup, draw, trim, core and shape die's had small variables. One machine always made better bullets than the others.

Military teams often replaced the 172 FMJBT arsenal bullets with Sierra 168 or 180 HPMK's. These "Mexican Match" loads tested well under MOA at 600. USN rebuilt M1's tested in accuracy cradles shot 7.62 versions under 4", 30-06 versions under 6. In spite of a 3/10th grain spread in charges of IMR4895 in each.

Do you have anything current on whats being shot?
 
I don't have anything constructive to add but after reading all seven pages I really want to take my .308 to the range and give it a work out at the 300 and 500 yard distances.
 
My post #17 in:

https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/rifle-accuracy-evals.800180/#post-10209127

Must have Slamfire's target image. I got that some years ago in an email from someone on an M14 forum. Didn't know it was originally his.

Slamfire, if I mail you a $10 bill, will that cover your fee for using your image?

Do you have anything current on whats being shot?
No, but here's a link to Lake City arsenal's small arms ammo:

https://www.orbitalatk.com/defense-systems/small-caliber-systems/

Lots of data for each cartridge but none on powder charge specifics. Click on a cartridge listed.

Interesting data on LCAAP's 7.62 M118LR for its 1000 yard accuracy spec. Both extreme spread and spread standard deviation are the same.

I'm getting a detailed tour of LCAAP this October. My list of questions may yield interesting answers.
 
Last edited:
My post #17 in:

https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/rifle-accuracy-evals.800180/#post-10209127

Must have Slamfire's target image. I got that some years ago in an email from someone on an M14 forum. Didn't know it was originally his.

Slamfire, if I mail you a $10 bill, will that cover your fee for using your image?

No, but here's a link to Lake City arsenal's small arms ammo:

https://www.orbitalatk.com/defense-systems/small-caliber-systems/

Lots of data for each cartridge but none on powder charge specifics. Click on a cartridge listed.

Interesting data on LCAAP's 7.62 M118LR for its 1000 yard accuracy spec. Both extreme spread and spread standard deviation are the same.

I'm getting a detailed tour of LCAAP this October. My list of questions may yield interesting answers.
That's wrong.

According to the military specifications, MIL-DTL-32288, the average extreme spread at 1000 yards is 10.3 inches vertical and 14 inches horizontal, and the alternate 200 yard qualification specification is the average extreme spread 1.3 inches vertical and 1.5 inches horizontal.

It would be highly unlikely to shoot a batch of ammunition and get the extreme spread to be smaller than 3 to 4 standard deviations.

Think about it.

To calculate the standard deviation you:
  1. Work out the Mean (the simple average of the numbers)
  2. Then for each number: subtract the Mean and square the result.
  3. Then work out the mean of those squared differences.
  4. Take the square root of that mean.
Here is a typical distribution:

sd2_orig.png


The extreme tips of that curve is the maximum possible extreme spread for that lot. The center 95% is the most likely maximum extreme spread. In order to shoot a sample and have the extreme spread equal the standard deviation would require the entire sample to be in the center 34% of the lot.

That is like a teacher saying, "I need everybody in the class to get grades above the average grade for this class."

Or, they are throwing away a whole bunch of perfectly good ammo...
 
Elements of O 11-25-2014.jpg

This is from the book Hayes Elements of Ordnance 1938.
My father started designing guns using this book right after WWII.
The Israelis still occasionally use his M55 to shoot up Lebanon.
 
And to think I started all this from mentioning shooting moose with a 30-06...

What I was thinking too. LOL

Back on topic (sorta) - this is what my Tikka '06 gave me yesterday, so the rumors that an '06 can't hang with a .308 in the accuracy dept. are not going to get much traction with me.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_0458.JPG
    IMG_0458.JPG
    60.8 KB · Views: 9
  • IMG_0459.JPG
    IMG_0459.JPG
    69.9 KB · Views: 10
View attachment 235356

This is from the book Hayes Elements of Ordnance 1938.
My father started designing guns using this book right after WWII.
The Israelis still occasionally use his M55 to shoot up Lebanon.
Note that the area of maximum probability is about 2-1/4 standard deviations wide.

I was off by a bit (3 to 4 SD), but in my defense, I don't have the amount of data he had....
 
I came up with a "rule of thumb" for shot distribution for a hundred in a single group by a free recoiling rifle untouched by humans:

100 shots in a 10" group;

40 of the shots in the middle 40% of the group's extreme spread, the 4" center diameter circle.
30 in the next 30%, between the inner 4" circle out to a 7" circle.
20 in the next 20%, between the 7" circle out to a 9" circle.
10 in the last 10%, between the 9" circle out to the edge at 10" diameter.

I call it the '10, 20, 30, 40 percent' syndrome. Not exact like a statistics bell curve with marked standard deviations, but close enough for ease of use for ~ 97.654% (a "UWAG") of us.

Example when shooting a one MOA extreme spread load and how far the fired shots will miss point of aim:

10% of the shots will miss by .45 MOA to .50 MOA.
20% will miss by .35 to .45 MOA.
30% by .20 MOA to .35 MOA.
40% no more than .20 MOA.

Hold the rifle yourself and the percentages skew to match your own probability curve.
 
Last edited:
After seven pages of intense study I am unable to conclude which cartridge would be "better". I also fail to see how a 'cartridge' can be more accurate than another. With work and proper attention one should be able to make any rifle good to X numbers of minute of angle. Though this may entail changing many original parts.
To make a rifle shoot better, often the easiest part to change is the human.

While calculus is fun, it didn't help with my decision. I am choosing thirty aught six. It is fun to say and my grandfather gave me one in his passing. The two best reason I could think of. It has taken nearly a year, but I can get four holes to touch at one hundred yards. I cannot say what kind it is, for no one would believe me. Many of you have much more experience than I.
Thank you very kindly for the read gentleman. Have a great morning!
 
I also fail to see how a 'cartridge' can be more accurate than another.
There's lots of evidence that short, fat powder charges produce more uniform pressure curves that make muzzle velocities more consistent That also makes the barrels vibrate and wiggle more consistent. The 308 case has less shoulder setback from firing pin impact that the .30-06 which makes primers detonate more consistently. All of which means bullets have more repeatable trajectories. And therefore, bullets land on target closer together.

When the 308 was first used in competition, the same rifles previously in 30-06 had barrels of the same contour, bore and groove specs, but chambered for the 308. Same components except cases were used. 308's had many-shot test groups one-third or more smaller. Scores improved and a lot of unbreakable ties resulted. The NRA reduced the size of target scoring rings to better separate the top scores realistically. Sierra Bullets was finally to get their best 30 caliber match bullets to shoot under .2 MOA consistently from 308 cases; 30-06 test barrels never did that.

If you look at the popular cartridge cases used to win matches shooting smallest groups, short and fat is the preference.
 
There's lots of evidence that short, fat powder charges produce more uniform pressure curves that make muzzle velocities more consistent That also makes the barrels vibrate and wiggle more consistent. The 308 case has less shoulder setback from firing pin impact that the .30-06 which makes primers detonate more consistently. All of which means bullets have more repeatable trajectories. And therefore, bullets land on target closer together.

When the 308 was first used in competition, the same rifles previously in 30-06 had barrels of the same contour, bore and groove specs, but chambered for the 308. Same components except cases were used. 308's had many-shot test groups one-third or more smaller. Scores improved and a lot of unbreakable ties resulted. The NRA reduced the size of target scoring rings to better separate the top scores realistically. Sierra Bullets was finally to get their best 30 caliber match bullets to shoot under .2 MOA consistently from 308 cases; 30-06 test barrels never did that.

If you look at the popular cartridge cases used to win matches shooting smallest groups, short and fat is the preference.

I'm not sure what NRA changed on that target but this is the target.

NRA No. LR -
Aiming Black (inches)
Rings in White
(inches)
X ring ....... 10.00
10 ring....... 20.00
9 ring........ 30.00
8 ring........ 44.00
7 ring.......... 60.00
6 area . . . 72x72 square

If 308 is so accurate why need such large target

Why doesn't F-Class 308 use IBS 1000yd group target

http://www.nationaltarget.com/product_info.php/ibs-1000-p-166

What your really saying that 308 can hit from x ring up to 7 ring and get a score which maybe 60" group. It same with IBS target but smaller group.

What was scoring rings old target for 30-06.
 
The old, original NRA high power 1000 yard "C" target was ringed as follows in the late 1800's through early 1970's:

V ring, 20" added in 1922.
5 ring, 36"
4 ring, 54"
3 area, 72" square
2 wing, 24" x 72" high on each side. Removed in the 1920's when the 172 FMJBT bullet was used that bucked the wind better that 150's and more firing points could be used on ranges.

The current NRA LR target you dimensioned above came about in the early 1970's. Too many unbreakable ties with good match bullets good marksmen could keep inside the C target's 20" V ring all day long in good conditions with 30 caliber magnums and 308 Winchesters. 30-06's were hard pressed to keep elevation spreads inside 20" and fell out of favor by top shots.

The rifles were hand held slung up in prone. Good shooters could hold in a 2/3 MOA area on paper getting most shots off called inside it and with a 2/3 MOA rifle and ammo plus their own holding variables, none kept all shots in the 2 MOA V ring in normal conditions. Most winning scores were 98 or 99 -15V to 100 - 15V for a 20 shot match.

Here's the winning scores for the NRA Wimbledon Cup, 1000 yard, any sight match at the Nationals:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wimbledon_Cup#Trophy_Winners

Black powder 40 and 45 calibers were originally used and targets had square "rings" instead of round ones. I think the 30-40 Krag won once before 1903. 30-03 and 30-06 were the norm starting in 1904. 30 caliber magnums were in vogue starting in 1935. 7mm Rem was used in 1970 and later. Then different 26 caliber wildcats were popular after the late 1990's.
 
Last edited:
I've scanned the entire thread, and won't argue the merits of one over the other. I have owned rifles in both cartridges, and took my first whitetail with a .30-06. A few years ago I started consolidating cartridges and settled on the .308 as my .30 caliber. I've shot .308s to 1,000 yards, and my "go to" hunting rifle is a Model 7 in .308. The cartridge does everything I want it to in either a heavy target gun or a lightweight sporter. Nothing at all wrong with the '06; I just prefer the .308.
 
It seems to me if the strike of a firing pin is setting back the shoulder of a case, my press is undue power, aswell as the rifle needing a good tuning. When compared to six and one half creedmore or twenty-two benchrest, three zero eight more closley resembles the thirty aught six.

None of this seems as important as being still in God's land, being patient in the presence of game and knowing where the heart of the matter is.

This started out with wonderful stories of first rifles, first deer and cherished relations. But has dwindled somewhat.



Just my 'take' of it. But I am just a...



Edited to remove poor adittude. Apologies.
 
Last edited:
It seems to me if the strike of a firing pin is setting back the shoulder of a case, my press is undue power, as well as the rifle needing a good tuning.
No rifle tuning needed. Shoulder setback happens with all cases headspacing on their shoulders. Shoulders with small area and less angle set back the most. Benchrest cartridges have a lot of shoulder area and steeper angles; they set back very little.

I've measured .002" to .003" shoulder setback on primed 308 brass cases; more on nickel plated ones. Hatcher reported in his notebook that 30-06 service ammo shoulders setting back .006" or more in semiauto rifles from chambering alone.
 
My post #17 in:

https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/rifle-accuracy-evals.800180/#post-10209127

Must have Slamfire's target image. I got that some years ago in an email from someone on an M14 forum. Didn't know it was originally his.

What a charming tale! It ought to start out as "once upon a time"....

My recollection of the first time I posted these National Match composite targets was in a thread years ago about the 30-06/308 Win cartridge. A poster in that thread was passionate about the 308 Win as a target round, stated that the 30-06 had never shot as well, eventually all the great target shooters moved over to the 308 Win and broke every record that the 30-06 held. Does that sound familiar to anyone.? I posted these same targets in that thread, commented on them, and was very surprised to find some time later, that someone had gotten into my photo account and deleted the photo.

Photo sharing is rather common and I don’t really mind it. I have used, sometimes with permission, sometimes not, pictures that amplified a point, and this is very common. As long as it expands human knowledge, this is not really a bad thing. But, going into someone’s account and deleting photos, I consider that malicious behavior. What sort of vile vermin does that? What are their motivations?, jealousy?, win at all costs?

Given enough posts and time, the personality of posters will reveal themselves. Some are very competitive; they will fabricate evidence and lie to "win" a pointless argument. This is good reason why all should challenge “authority” and demand auditable data. Nullius in Verba https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullius_in_verba

An unfortunate part of this was that I had not saved the original scan on my computer, I posted it direct in my photo account. But I was able to dig through my book boxes of reference material to find the paper original and rescan. I hope these stay up a little longer. What I have done in the passing years is to make my picture account private, to make it more difficult for individuals to get in there an delete images. And, on data that I spent a considerable amount of time and effort finding, I am watermarking. At least that will cause the next person to make an effort erasing the watermark. It will be interesting to see just whom is using the technical data and where.

I will continue to remark about the reason I am watermarking some photo’s and Bart B. is perfectly welcome to jump in and state to all that he is not the vile vermin who deleted images from my photo account. I just love the engrossing story that some mysterious person (possibly from M14 forum) must have been the culprit. Reminds me of the mysterious Veiled Lady from the Dreyfus affair. Really does not matter which twisted individual did it, like I said earlier, I can’t prove a thing.

Slamfire, if I mail you a $10 bill, will that cover your fee for using your image?


How considerate of you! , but, all things considered, I am not interested in being doxed on the internet. You know, there are all sorts of vile vermin out there. So if it really, really, bothers you, donate that $10.00 to your favorite charity.
 
Last week I drove to CMP Talladega to shoot up more old ammunition. I also wanted to practice prone with a 308 Match rifle. I took my 1937 manufacture M70 in 30-06. I rebedded the thing in December 2016, free floated the barrel, came to the conclusion the rifle shoots very well for a sporter rifle.
C:\Users\brian\AppData\Local\Temp\msohtmlclip1\01\clip_image002.jpg



This is my velocity data from January with cartridges in this rifle. I believe I am pushing the bullet at lower pressures for the same velocity, than if this was a 308 Win cartridge.


Code:
 175 SMK 48.0 grs AA4064, wtd, lot 2398 Czech, TW54 CCI #34 OAL 3.30"   
23-Jan-17 T = 59 °F  
     
 Ave Vel = 2590        
Std Dev = 30       
ES = 97        
Low = 2551       
High = 2648       
N = 10       
  
175 SMK 48.0 grs AA4064, lot 5902 TW54 CCI #34 OAL 3.30"    
23-Jan-17 T = 60 °F    
   
Ave Vel = 2508        
Std Dev = 32       
ES = 127        
Low = 2465       
High = 2592       
N = 12       
     
eleven cracked case necks!       


175 SMK 48.0 grs IMR4064 wtd, lot E89AU, 1989 powder,  TW54 CCI #34 OAL 3.30"  
  
23-Jan-17 T = 60 °F 
       
Ave Vel = 2563          
Std Dev = 27        
ES = 92        
Low = 2525       
High = 2617       
N = 10
I was very pleased to see that first shot at 300 yards, from a cold bore barrel, was in the X ring at three hundred yards. I zeroed the rifle at CMP earlier in the year at 300 yards. The ten shot group at that distance was 5.0 inches in diameter, which I consider to be more than adequate.




Mainly out of curiosity, I shot the M70 at 600 yards. I was very surprised how well it shot once the scope was adjusted for distance.



This hunting rifle was able to put seven shots within seven and three quarters of an inch at 600 yards, which for me is even more remarkable considering I was using ammunition loaded in the 1980's , thrown charges, and Remington Core Lokt bullets.! The reason I stopped at seven rounds is because that was the last seven out of 20 rounds in that box of ammunition. The previous 13 rounds were expended getting the scope zeroed at distance!




Recently I read a thread where the poster wanted advice on the best scope to put on his Mosin Nagant so he could shoot at targets 1500 yards away. Shooters have this expectation that they can just dial in some book value and they will be able to hit dead center at any distance. I adjusted my scope 12 MOA up from my 300 yard zero and was shooting above the target. I determined this by aiming above the target, below the target, strictly a trial and error process as when you are not hitting the target, you don't know where the bullet is traveling. Luckily, the target registered a shot even though it was not within the scoring rings. From there I was able to adjust down and around to get the group in the middle. It turns out that the click adjustment on this scope is closer to 1/3 MOA than 1/4 MOA and this is not apparent till the distance increases. In my experience, you have to verify your rifle's zero at distance, with the load you plan to use, to have a reasonable chance of having the point of impact and point of aim coincide in any future attempts.

I think the CMP has found that many shooter's don't know that. The safety briefing now requires that rifles be shot at 200 yards to verify zero before going out further. CMP range staff have all sorts of stories of shooters with bench mounted 338 Lapua magnums who can't stay on target at any distance. Guys show up with expensive equipment, intensively indoctrinated by internet stories about 1000 yard shots, they put up the 600 yard target, dial on their internet settings, and their bullets land in the Gulf of Mexico!

Considering that the chest width of a 50 percent male is 13.1 inches, (from https://msis.jsc.nasa.gov/sections/section03.htm) I think any rifle and cartridge combination that will put all rounds into 13 inches at 600 yards is more than acceptable for any practical purpose. My 1937 hunting rifle put seven rounds into 7 3/4" inches at that distance, which more or less proves to me, that the 30-06 is plenty accurate for a hunting, or even, a combat round. Image that, not adequate for target shooting but adequate to win two world wars!

The come ups for my 223, 308, 30-06 rifles, from a 200 yard zero to a 300 center is 3 MOA and that is a very consistent value, plus or minus a little, from rifle to rifle. From 300 to 500 yards it is 8 MOA, and 12 MOA to 600 yards. I have not shot on paper at 400 yards, but all things considered, if the average elevation increase from 200 to 300 yards is 9 inches, I am sure that the drop at 400 yards is more and exceeds my ability to judge distance. I have no plans to shoot at any living creature beyond 300 yards, especially something at 500 or 600 yards, as I know just how bad of a shooter I am, how uncertain wind conditions are, and how unlikely my elevation and windage guesses will put the bullet in the middle of the target. When you are paper punching, you get sighter shots. But you are only putting holes in paper.

The last year the Marine Corp fielded the M14 as an across the course rifle, I asked the Armorers at Camp Perry what accuracy they required for their match M14's, and they told me their accuracy standard was ten shots within 3 inches at 300 yards. These rifles had heavy match barrels, glassbedded, matched out in every respect, and were shot from a machine rest. Three inches is the diameter of the X ring at 300 yards so as a standard, their match M14 rifles were able to hold half the ten ring at all distances, which meant if the shooters did their thing, all Marine Team shooters should be able to clean the target at all distances. I believe they are still using the same accuracy criteria for their 5.56 M16 but that rifle and cartridge is more accurate than the 308 Win, and scores show that. Service rifle shooters are shooting higher scores on average than they ever did with the 308 Win in a M1a or M14. The 223 cartridge kicks less, and is more accurate.

Whether the 308 Win is a more accurate target round than the 30-06 would have been a valid debate issue in the target shooting game up to the 1990's. The game however, has moved on even though there are angry old men, standing on the cemetery fence, shaking their fists at the tombstones, crying "I was right!". Nathaniel Grigsby needs competition in the angry epithet competition. https://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=25400862 In my experience, the 30-06 kicks more for the same velocity, which causes me to flinch, the longer bolt throw requires me to move more in the rapid fires, and cheap NM match brass stopped being available in the mid 1960's. While the 308 Win ruled the firing line for decades, what I noticed, starting in the middle 90's, was that the classic 308 Win bolt gun disappeared from XTC, replaced by the 223 Space gun and Tubb Rifles. As a target round, the 223 is extremely accurate, good bullets made it wind competitive at 600 yards, though it does not have the ballistic coefficient of a 190 grain 308 Match bullet. But then, wind judgment, poor sight alignment and trigger pull, move the bullet more than slight changes in ballistic coefficient. All things being equal, a higher ballistic coefficient is better, but the confounding factor is that all things are never equal. What I have seen past the turn of the century is the sub caliber, 6mm or 6.5 mm bullets, taking over the firing line in bolt guns, and in semi auto mechanisms. While the 308 Win is still a very accurate round, it is primarily used in those classes or competitions which mandate the cartridge, to equalize things out between competitors. The Army has finally woken up that the 5.56 round is underpowered for a combat round, https://www.armytimes.com/articles/...inside-the-armys-plan-to-ditch-the-m4-and-556 and if the Army every adopts a 6.5 Creedmore, or equivalent, I predict the tactical rules will be changed and the 308 Win will join the 30-06 on the target round ash heap of history.

I am not one who can hold inside the inherent accuracy of either round, and few shooters can, it will be safe to predict that outside of paper punching, the future for both will be well. However, because of its large case capacity, the 30-06 can do everything that the 308 Win can do, and at lower pressure. And, because of its larger case capacity, the 30-06 can fire heavier bullets. This might make a difference as legislation is moving the market moves away from lead core bullets. The 30-06 can accept longer bullets without suffering a crippling loss in powder volume. The 308 Win, or rather the 7.62, was basically optimized for a 150 FMJ with IMR 4895. It will shoot 174's very well, but it is hard to push anything heavier than a 174 at a respectable speed without going overpressure.


Maybe the 35 Whelen will make a come back, big bullet, standard length case, shoots well out to 300 yards.

Still, I had fun practicing prone with my 308 bolt rifle, even if it is obsolete:


 
Last week I drove to CMP Talladega to shoot up more old ammunition. I also wanted to practice prone with a 308 Match rifle. I took my 1937 manufacture M70 in 30-06. I rebedded the thing in December 2016, free floated the barrel, came to the conclusion the rifle shoots very well for a sporter rifle.
C:\Users\brian\AppData\Local\Temp\msohtmlclip1\01\clip_image002.jpg



This is my velocity data from January with cartridges in this rifle. I believe I am pushing the bullet at lower pressures for the same velocity, than if this was a 308 Win cartridge.


Code:
 175 SMK 48.0 grs AA4064, wtd, lot 2398 Czech, TW54 CCI #34 OAL 3.30"  
23-Jan-17 T = 59 °F 
    
 Ave Vel = 2590       
Std Dev = 30      
ES = 97       
Low = 2551      
High = 2648      
N = 10      
 
175 SMK 48.0 grs AA4064, lot 5902 TW54 CCI #34 OAL 3.30"   
23-Jan-17 T = 60 °F   
  
Ave Vel = 2508       
Std Dev = 32      
ES = 127       
Low = 2465      
High = 2592      
N = 12      
    
eleven cracked case necks!      


175 SMK 48.0 grs IMR4064 wtd, lot E89AU, 1989 powder,  TW54 CCI #34 OAL 3.30" 
 
23-Jan-17 T = 60 °F
      
Ave Vel = 2563         
Std Dev = 27       
ES = 92       
Low = 2525      
High = 2617      
N = 10
I was very pleased to see that first shot at 300 yards, from a cold bore barrel, was in the X ring at three hundred yards. I zeroed the rifle at CMP earlier in the year at 300 yards. The ten shot group at that distance was 5.0 inches in diameter, which I consider to be more than adequate.




Mainly out of curiosity, I shot the M70 at 600 yards. I was very surprised how well it shot once the scope was adjusted for distance.



This hunting rifle was able to put seven shots within seven and three quarters of an inch at 600 yards, which for me is even more remarkable considering I was using ammunition loaded in the 1980's , thrown charges, and Remington Core Lokt bullets.! The reason I stopped at seven rounds is because that was the last seven out of 20 rounds in that box of ammunition. The previous 13 rounds were expended getting the scope zeroed at distance!




Recently I read a thread where the poster wanted advice on the best scope to put on his Mosin Nagant so he could shoot at targets 1500 yards away. Shooters have this expectation that they can just dial in some book value and they will be able to hit dead center at any distance. I adjusted my scope 12 MOA up from my 300 yard zero and was shooting above the target. I determined this by aiming above the target, below the target, strictly a trial and error process as when you are not hitting the target, you don't know where the bullet is traveling. Luckily, the target registered a shot even though it was not within the scoring rings. From there I was able to adjust down and around to get the group in the middle. It turns out that the click adjustment on this scope is closer to 1/3 MOA than 1/4 MOA and this is not apparent till the distance increases. In my experience, you have to verify your rifle's zero at distance, with the load you plan to use, to have a reasonable chance of having the point of impact and point of aim coincide in any future attempts.

I think the CMP has found that many shooter's don't know that. The safety briefing now requires that rifles be shot at 200 yards to verify zero before going out further. CMP range staff have all sorts of stories of shooters with bench mounted 338 Lapua magnums who can't stay on target at any distance. Guys show up with expensive equipment, intensively indoctrinated by internet stories about 1000 yard shots, they put up the 600 yard target, dial on their internet settings, and their bullets land in the Gulf of Mexico!

Considering that the chest width of a 50 percent male is 13.1 inches, (from https://msis.jsc.nasa.gov/sections/section03.htm) I think any rifle and cartridge combination that will put all rounds into 13 inches at 600 yards is more than acceptable for any practical purpose. My 1937 hunting rifle put seven rounds into 7 3/4" inches at that distance, which more or less proves to me, that the 30-06 is plenty accurate for a hunting, or even, a combat round. Image that, not adequate for target shooting but adequate to win two world wars!

The come ups for my 223, 308, 30-06 rifles, from a 200 yard zero to a 300 center is 3 MOA and that is a very consistent value, plus or minus a little, from rifle to rifle. From 300 to 500 yards it is 8 MOA, and 12 MOA to 600 yards. I have not shot on paper at 400 yards, but all things considered, if the average elevation increase from 200 to 300 yards is 9 inches, I am sure that the drop at 400 yards is more and exceeds my ability to judge distance. I have no plans to shoot at any living creature beyond 300 yards, especially something at 500 or 600 yards, as I know just how bad of a shooter I am, how uncertain wind conditions are, and how unlikely my elevation and windage guesses will put the bullet in the middle of the target. When you are paper punching, you get sighter shots. But you are only putting holes in paper.

The last year the Marine Corp fielded the M14 as an across the course rifle, I asked the Armorers at Camp Perry what accuracy they required for their match M14's, and they told me their accuracy standard was ten shots within 3 inches at 300 yards. These rifles had heavy match barrels, glassbedded, matched out in every respect, and were shot from a machine rest. Three inches is the diameter of the X ring at 300 yards so as a standard, their match M14 rifles were able to hold half the ten ring at all distances, which meant if the shooters did their thing, all Marine Team shooters should be able to clean the target at all distances. I believe they are still using the same accuracy criteria for their 5.56 M16 but that rifle and cartridge is more accurate than the 308 Win, and scores show that. Service rifle shooters are shooting higher scores on average than they ever did with the 308 Win in a M1a or M14. The 223 cartridge kicks less, and is more accurate.

Whether the 308 Win is a more accurate target round than the 30-06 would have been a valid debate issue in the target shooting game up to the 1990's. The game however, has moved on even though there are angry old men, standing on the cemetery fence, shaking their fists at the tombstones, crying "I was right!". Nathaniel Grigsby needs competition in the angry epithet competition. https://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=25400862 In my experience, the 30-06 kicks more for the same velocity, which causes me to flinch, the longer bolt throw requires me to move more in the rapid fires, and cheap NM match brass stopped being available in the mid 1960's. While the 308 Win ruled the firing line for decades, what I noticed, starting in the middle 90's, was that the classic 308 Win bolt gun disappeared from XTC, replaced by the 223 Space gun and Tubb Rifles. As a target round, the 223 is extremely accurate, good bullets made it wind competitive at 600 yards, though it does not have the ballistic coefficient of a 190 grain 308 Match bullet. But then, wind judgment, poor sight alignment and trigger pull, move the bullet more than slight changes in ballistic coefficient. All things being equal, a higher ballistic coefficient is better, but the confounding factor is that all things are never equal. What I have seen past the turn of the century is the sub caliber, 6mm or 6.5 mm bullets, taking over the firing line in bolt guns, and in semi auto mechanisms. While the 308 Win is still a very accurate round, it is primarily used in those classes or competitions which mandate the cartridge, to equalize things out between competitors. The Army has finally woken up that the 5.56 round is underpowered for a combat round, https://www.armytimes.com/articles/...inside-the-armys-plan-to-ditch-the-m4-and-556 and if the Army every adopts a 6.5 Creedmore, or equivalent, I predict the tactical rules will be changed and the 308 Win will join the 30-06 on the target round ash heap of history.

I am not one who can hold inside the inherent accuracy of either round, and few shooters can, it will be safe to predict that outside of paper punching, the future for both will be well. However, because of its large case capacity, the 30-06 can do everything that the 308 Win can do, and at lower pressure. And, because of its larger case capacity, the 30-06 can fire heavier bullets. This might make a difference as legislation is moving the market moves away from lead core bullets. The 30-06 can accept longer bullets without suffering a crippling loss in powder volume. The 308 Win, or rather the 7.62, was basically optimized for a 150 FMJ with IMR 4895. It will shoot 174's very well, but it is hard to push anything heavier than a 174 at a respectable speed without going overpressure.


Maybe the 35 Whelen will make a come back, big bullet, standard length case, shoots well out to 300 yards.

Still, I had fun practicing prone with my 308 bolt rifle, even if it is obsolete:


how could you have shot that good at 600 yds with such a wildly inaccurate round as the 30-06 a sporting rifle with only a 6X scope not a 32X scope with cheap bullets and not berger match bullets? just kidding that is fantastic shooting and real world results. Love the stories about the guys that show up with fire belching magnums. I have a switch barrel Sig 30-06 that shoots like that
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top