American Hunter and the .308 v .30-06

Status
Not open for further replies.
Kidding aside, I’d like to see your list and how you came to your rankings
Here's the list from fewest issues to most. There are lots of ties.
upload_2019-5-27_10-15-54.png
Issues for which a cartridge gets moved down the list:
  • Being a wildcat or dropped from manufacturer support
  • Requires an action larger than similar or more capable cartridges
  • Caliber has limited SD/BC bullets available
  • Unnecessary belt
  • Rebated rim
  • Excessive case wall taper
  • Insufficient shoulder angle
  • Pressure limited by a population of weak actions (results in poor load data)
  • Commonly offered with a twist rate insufficient to stabilize SD .300+ bullets at 0F/sealevel
  • Excessive recoil
  • Awkward size between common action sizes
  • Requires a powder slower than Retumbo for top performance with heavy bullets
  • High-SD bullets are too heavy to be driven fast given case capacity
  • Brass must be formed
  • Limited brass (limited for parent if formed)
Nearly everything checks at least some of those boxes. The ones at the bottom of the list check a lot.

This also goes a long ways to explaining the runaway popularity of the 6.5CM. It's really hard to find something actually wrong with it, other than great-grandpa didn't shoot it in his service rifle.

The view here is from the perspective of the skilled reloader and hunter. Moreso elk hunting than deer hunting. Many cartridges that scored poorly may for example function well in machine guns, but that's not a big concern of mine.
 
Last edited:
IMHO if the Garand had not been changed and kept the .276 Pedersen chambering, the 30.06 would be in the same class at the .45-70.
More like the .30-40 Krag. Both it and the .30-06 are suited to a wide variety of big game. Both are poor designs.
 
Bullets skip to and bounce off deer, unless you shoot as 6.5 Quagmire.

Absolutely. The Hi-Tech deer of 2019 are much different than the steam-powered deer of 100 years ago.

It is well known that a factory 405 grain .45-70 bullet will simply hit the dirt 20 yards in front of your muzzle unless you elevate your rifle like a mortar.
And if it does hit a deer it is likely to annoy it but do no harm.
The Quagmire on the other hand will kill any animal on the planet at 1000 yards or more.
 
Heh, my 375H&H didn't even make the list. Sucks that I have to struggle with such an inferior cartridge. :scrutiny:

You can't go wrong with either the 308 or 30-06. For a light weight rifle that will be handy and do well with pretty much any bullet, get the 308. If you want to push 200+ gr bullets the 06 might serve you better.
 
This also goes a long ways to explaining the runaway popularity of the 6.5CM. It's really hard to find something actually wrong with it, other than great-grandpa didn't shoot it in his service rifle.

If he was Swedish he did. :D
 
Heh, my 375H&H didn't even make the list. Sucks that I have to struggle with such an inferior cartridge. :scrutiny:
It stops at .33 cal - criteria for dangerous game cartridges would be different. You could also argue the 8mms and .338s are getting short changed if intended as a a bear stopping/long range crossover.
 
Maybe I've slept under a rock, but I never see AI ammo in factory form.
If we are allowing such reloads on the list, then other wildcats should be too IMHO.
No Lazzeroni stuff on there ;)
 
I recently purchased a boring old .30-06.
Because it works, and was in a rifle I like.

For me, I don't need the best, whatever that is.........am perfectly content with "good enough".
 
Maybe I've slept under a rock, but I never see AI ammo in factory form.
If we are allowing such reloads on the list, then other wildcats should be too IMHO.
No Lazzeroni stuff on there ;)
Maybe you missed the part about it being for the reloader.

Less popular wildcats are omitted. There's too many to keep track of when you get down to it. Some of the Lazzeroni cartridges would score well - similar to the Noslers.
 
@Llama Bob - if your calculator is meant to be an objective technical comparison of cartridge design efficiency and performance, then I cannot support some of your scoring metrics.

Some of your metrics have nothing to do with the cartridge design, such you’re not making an honest and unbiased comparison of cartridge designs.

I culled out reasonable technical metrics, but unfortunately, more than half of your list remains. The list below reflects your metrics which are:

A) Subjective
B) Consider rifles, barrels, components, and markets, rather than cartridge design
C) Are irrationally biased against common reloading practices or components

  • Being a wildcat or dropped from manufacturer support
  • Pressure limited by a population of weak actions (results in poor load data)
  • Commonly offered with a twist rate insufficient to stabilize SD .300+ bullets at 0F/sealevel
  • Excessive recoil
  • Awkward size between common action sizes
  • Requires a powder slower than Retumbo for top performance with heavy bullets
  • Brass must be formed
  • Limited brass (limited for parent if formed)

So in reviewing the “cartridge design comparison” you have made, I will state, it absolutely does not appear to actually be a comparison of cartridge designs, but an amalgam of random market influences, cartridge design features, rifle design features, and reloading considerations.
 
@Llama Bob - if your calculator is meant to be an objective technical comparison of cartridge design efficiency and performance, then I cannot support some of your scoring metrics.

Some of your metrics have nothing to do with the cartridge design, such you’re not making an honest and unbiased comparison of cartridge designs.

I culled out reasonable technical metrics, but unfortunately, more than half of your list remains. The list below reflects your metrics which are:

A) Subjective
B) Consider rifles, barrels, components, and markets, rather than cartridge design
C) Are irrationally biased against common reloading practices or components


So in reviewing the “cartridge design comparison” you have made, I will state, it absolutely does not appear to actually be a comparison of cartridge designs, but an amalgam of random market influences, cartridge design features, rifle design features, and reloading considerations.

I think that it is all rather silly. I like 30-06 more than 308 for no rational reason at all. Any cartridge on that list works just fine. So does just about any cartridge not on that list. Don't have any interest in Creedmore. I think hunting with a .75 caliber matchlock would be more fun. I have to get one of those some time.
 
@Llama Bob - if your calculator is meant to be an objective technical comparison of cartridge design efficiency and performance, then I cannot support some of your scoring metrics.

That's nice. All those factors matter to the reloading western hunter, and are an aspect of the cartridge. Some are not purely "design" but they matter none the less. if you go back to my original post, you'll see it says "designed and supported" so the confusion is on your part, not mine. I specifically stated it was not merely a list of design factors.
 
Last edited:
All those factors matter to the reloading western hunter,

Well, I’m that, and the factors I copied don’t matter to me.

I’m sure there are plenty of reloaders who are scared of fire-forming cartridges. That’s their malfunction, not an inherent mistake in the cartridge design.

Your insistence that factory rifle support is important is contrary to cutting edge design. Inherently, there will never be great market support for the newest technology on the market. This was witnessed in the 6.5 creedmoor launch. By the time most major manufacturers had one in their line up, the twist was already too slow for the new best bullet for it, and the 6mm version had already dethroned the 6.5 at its own game - literally.

Low pressure standards in factory ammunition, in concession to older rifle designs doesn’t seem very pertinent to me, AS A RELOADER. I can put whatever powder charge I want in my cases, and do.

I’ve seen you mention your list multiple times, with piqued interest, hoping it would truly be an objective comparison. But in finally seeing your list of metrics, it seems to be just another subjectively biased exercise in card stacking and pseudo-science.
 
I’m sure there are plenty of reloaders who are scared of fire-forming cartridges.
It takes time, money, and effort which could otherwise be spent on shooting. It's not a fatal flaw - several cartridges with less than ideal brass supplies appear high on the list. But it is a downside. Just like having to swage your own high-SD bullets because the caliber is full of slow-twist cartridges isn't impossible, but is a substantial downside.

Similarly, the presence of a large number of low-pressure guns like afflicts the .30-06, 7x57 etc. is a downside from a support perspective because load data tends to be heavily lawyered, and you have to sort out what's what. It's not impossible by any means, but it makes life harder than it has to be.

You're certainly welcome to make your own list with whatever factors matter to you. But the factors I included are objective, and do matter to a large number of reloaders and for good reason.
 
Nope. Because of a large number of design flaws that make it less useful than it otherwise could be.

Would you care to list that long list of design flaws?
I suspect that they are only defined as such by your own skewed parameters.
It has the same ballistics using the same bullets, and it would perform identically in a rifle with the same barrel used by a 6.5 Creedmoor.
And it would achieve the same velocities with less chamber pressure.
 
Would you care to list that long list of design flaws?
  • Excessive taper
  • Insufficient shoulder angle
  • Requires an action bigger than equivalent cartridges
  • Requires an unusual/intermediate size action
  • Pressure limited by a population of weak actions (even the euro flavor)
All problems the 6.5x55 has that the CM fixed.
 
Requires an unusual/intermediate size action

There you go again, not true. It doesn’t REQUIRE an unsual/intermediate size action. It works perfectly well in a standard long action, as evidenced by the fact almost all, if not all 6.5x55’s made today are done so in a long action.

What you state as fact in so many posts is merely YOUR opinion with no real relevant data to back it up.
 
  • Excessive taper
  • Insufficient shoulder angle
  • Requires an action bigger than equivalent cartridges
  • Requires an unusual/intermediate size action
  • Pressure limited by a population of weak actions (even the euro flavor)
All problems the 6.5x55 has that the CM fixed.

Not a large number, even with your odd requirements.

Can you explain what you mean by insufficient shoulder angle and excessive taper? This seems to me to be just another example of your skewed parameters designed to elevate the Creedmoor artificially to the top of your list. What effects have been reported about these alleged flaws by experts over the last century and more?

When you say that the Swedish requires an action bigger than equivalent cartridges, are you admitting that the Creedmoor is merely an equivalent cartridge? If not, what cartridges? Also, in what way is requiring a slightly longer action in any way a disadvantage when you consider that the Creedmoor is used for target shooting using large telescopes and heavier rifles?

The Swedish does not require an intermediate or unusual action. It can be used effectively in any action that the .30-06 family of cartridges can use. On average the .30-06 is only 5mm (less than 1/4") longer.

But the factors I included are objective, and do matter to a large number of reloaders and for good reason.

Since you reload the Creedmoor, you can't get away with limiting the Swedish ballistics to the most ancient of actions. In fact, the Swedish can easily duplicate the hottest of loads for the Creedmoor in any modern rifle with less chamber pressure.
And published data for the 6.5 Swedish equals or exceeds the ballistics of 6.5 Creedmoor.

140 grain bullet / 2854 FPS - 6.5X55 Swedish (Maximum 51,000 PSI) - Hodgdon Reloading
143 grain bullet / 2710 FPS - 6.5 Creedmoor (Maximum 63,091 PSI) - Hodgdon Reloading


The Creedmoor has only fixed artificial problems of your own manufacture in my opinion.
 
The 6.5 Creedmoor seems to be the darling at this time ... Its a heck of a long range cartridge,, its has a soft recoil ... , functions in a short action.. and the ability to use long 140 gr bullets ..... The high sectional density 140gr 6.5 bullet drives deep in game ..

Im happy with my 270 . I like 150gr RN bullet .. opens up quick .. pentrates tbrough and through..
 
For what I do the .308 is just fine. I grew up with the 30.06 and have a lot of respect for it. I prefer the .308.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top