reuben mishler
Member
If you remember, Marine Corpse Sniper in Vietnam, Hathcock, used the Winchester 70 in 30-06. I've always wanted one now because of him, and I believe he proves that the aught six was the way to go.
30-06 as a long range round?
- Thread starter o Unforgiven o
- Start date
- Status
lefteyedom
Member
The short action is a major help in building target grade rifles. The 308 is losing favour to better cartridges at the 1000 yards line. 6.5/284. 260 rem and others that work better down range than ether the r. The 308 or the 03/06.....
The 308 and 30-06 can both be used for long range shooting, but there are better choices than either. To make them work at long range requires extremely long barrels and carefull loaded hand loads that are really pushing either round beyond what it was designed to do.
I'd say the 308 is really better suited to medium range shooting, with the '06 giving you roughly 100 yards more useful range. The 308 is and will continue to be very popular with police snipers who need extreme precision, but at fairly close range. The military tends to need more range. They are phasing out the 308 and stepping up to the 300 win mag. For a hunting rifle I like the 7mm mags.
I'd say the 308 is really better suited to medium range shooting, with the '06 giving you roughly 100 yards more useful range. The 308 is and will continue to be very popular with police snipers who need extreme precision, but at fairly close range. The military tends to need more range. They are phasing out the 308 and stepping up to the 300 win mag. For a hunting rifle I like the 7mm mags.
USSR
Member
QUOTE:
I don't get how you do this Don. I run 165gr and can only pull like 2800 fps tops out of my 06 hunting rifle.
Not really. Lyman's 49th Edition Reloading Manual lists a 60.5gr load of RL22 behind a 190SMK - I use 60.7gr to reach 2900fps. I do benefit by having a 26" Krieger barrel though. One thing you've got to understand about Sierra's manuals - most loads listed as Max are nowhere's near that. I called them and spoke with one of their technicians about one of their loads listed as a Max load. Here is what they told me: "We don't have data as to what the pressure is for our Max loads, they are simply where we decided to stop". So much for Sierra's scientific testing and load development.
Don
I don't get how you do this Don. I run 165gr and can only pull like 2800 fps tops out of my 06 hunting rifle.
Not really. Lyman's 49th Edition Reloading Manual lists a 60.5gr load of RL22 behind a 190SMK - I use 60.7gr to reach 2900fps. I do benefit by having a 26" Krieger barrel though. One thing you've got to understand about Sierra's manuals - most loads listed as Max are nowhere's near that. I called them and spoke with one of their technicians about one of their loads listed as a Max load. Here is what they told me: "We don't have data as to what the pressure is for our Max loads, they are simply where we decided to stop". So much for Sierra's scientific testing and load development.
Don
essayons21
Member
I guess that's true, Alliant lists max load for RL22 as 60 gr, 56,600 PSI, which is still well below SAAMI max pressure for the round (60,200).
I have also noticed that my Brux barreled gun gets consistently higher MV than listed in reloading manuals.
Is > 60 gr of RL22 a compressed load with the 190 SMKs?
I have also noticed that my Brux barreled gun gets consistently higher MV than listed in reloading manuals.
Is > 60 gr of RL22 a compressed load with the 190 SMKs?
BoilerUP
Member
I'm pretty sure that's an urban legend, even running the HOTTEST of 7mmRM loads. Sure its overbore and will burn out a barrel, but I'd think 1000rd+ to be more realistic. Besides, I'm sure many folks would sacrifice a few hundred rounds of barrel life for the Seven's superior trajectory, BC & recoil relative to comparable .308 or .338 caliber offerings.
I don't think anyone could argue against the fact that anything the 308 can do, the '06 can do "better"...if you can deal with having fewer factory-loaded options.
MortalWombat
Member
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2007
- Messages
- 142
Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
The practical difference between .308 and .30-'06 for 1,000-yard shooting seems to be relatively minor. Problem is, "relatively minor" is the difference between winning and losing in top-level competition.
The R&D $$$ and effort in rifle development has been greater for the .308, these last thrity or so years.
As far as off-the-rack commercial bolt-action rifles, 22" barrels are more common than most other lengths. That's fine for the .308, given what Remington said about the design criteria. But it's too short for the slightly-overbore '06, which does much better with a 26" barrel. About 300 ft/sec better than a 22" .308.
For a long time, the factory .308 ammo at around 55,000 psi was definitely the equal of factory '06 due to the '06 loadings being at a lesser pressure. Lots of ancient '06 rifles out there. Factory '06 generally ran about 49,000 to 50,000 psi. IIRC one of the first 55K psi loads for an '06 was in the 1960s with a 110-grain varmint bullet. Could be that all factory stuff is up in that pressure range, now, but as a handloader I just haven't paid attention to what the factories are producing.
My own solution, since I've always been an '06 guy, was for handloads and a 26" barrel. After my usual miscellaneous tweakings with the rifle, I have easily stayed sub-MOA since around 1970, and I guess I got halfway proud with 0.8 MOA on my 500-yard target a dozen years back. Not bad for an Olde Phart with trifocals.
But I've never gone beyond 500 yards...
The R&D $$$ and effort in rifle development has been greater for the .308, these last thrity or so years.
As far as off-the-rack commercial bolt-action rifles, 22" barrels are more common than most other lengths. That's fine for the .308, given what Remington said about the design criteria. But it's too short for the slightly-overbore '06, which does much better with a 26" barrel. About 300 ft/sec better than a 22" .308.
For a long time, the factory .308 ammo at around 55,000 psi was definitely the equal of factory '06 due to the '06 loadings being at a lesser pressure. Lots of ancient '06 rifles out there. Factory '06 generally ran about 49,000 to 50,000 psi. IIRC one of the first 55K psi loads for an '06 was in the 1960s with a 110-grain varmint bullet. Could be that all factory stuff is up in that pressure range, now, but as a handloader I just haven't paid attention to what the factories are producing.
My own solution, since I've always been an '06 guy, was for handloads and a 26" barrel. After my usual miscellaneous tweakings with the rifle, I have easily stayed sub-MOA since around 1970, and I guess I got halfway proud with 0.8 MOA on my 500-yard target a dozen years back. Not bad for an Olde Phart with trifocals.
But I've never gone beyond 500 yards...
Fella's;
The Marine who won the Wimbledon cup in 1965 was Carlos Hathcock, also a famous sniper in Nam.
First prove you have the ability to out-shoot the supposed limitations of the standard length action before playing the short action card.
900F
The Marine who won the Wimbledon cup in 1965 was Carlos Hathcock, also a famous sniper in Nam.
First prove you have the ability to out-shoot the supposed limitations of the standard length action before playing the short action card.
900F
USSR
Member
Pretty much. But that's the beauty of RL22 in a heavy bullet load in the '06 - you get maximum velocity without getting into trouble pressure-wise.
Don
I have to ask to the experts...can a sporterized Mauser 98 in 30-06 (the receiver was made in the 1930's, it has nazi stampings) take the beating of a full SAAMI spec loads??
A lot of folks told me yes, pointing to the notorious fact that the '98 action is one of the strongest out there....however it doesn't hurt to ask the opinions of more people....
So what specifically "old rifles" are not that safe with full house 30-06 loads??
Thanks
Last edited:
harrygrey382
Member
yes they can. And plenty more. They are often chambered in 270 for starters, which are loaded to 65000 psi so way more than a book max 30-06 load. But apart from that, they are at least as strong as the average modern action like a remmy 700, win M70 etc..
HarcyPervin
Member
I'm buying a deer rifle, I'm pretty set on the Tikka. Their standard barrel length is 22 7/16", or right in that area, am I doing myself any favors by looking at a 30-06 over the .308?
Lazerbeans
Member
I tend to think one of the bigger reasons for the .308 popularity is that its tacti-cool. The military wanted a smaller shell, and shorter action for the solider that approached the .30-06's ballistics. Which makes the rifle lighter and enhanced the ability of the solider to carry more rounds. These reasons dont make the .308 better than the .30-06 at longer ranges. And knowing the human element, the only reason the .308 might be more accurate is that the recoil is lighter. This MIGHT make it easier to shoot accurately, but not more accurate. The fact that the .30-06 carries its energy further, tends to make me think that out around 1000yrds it would be more accurate. Really the only definitive way to figure out this out is remove the human element and use a machine or a gun remotely shot and solidly mounted. Sounds like a excellent excuse for me to buy another gun; empirical evidence. I already have the .30-06
Years back, lots of guys shot the '06 in competition. Since it was the service cartridge, for some types of competition it was the only chambering allowed. Then some guys started shooting the 308 against the 30-06. After a while, the guys who were using the 308's were doing most of the winning. Pretty soon, just about everybody was shooting the 308.
If the '06 was accurate than the 308, competitive shooters would be shooting the '06. Competition sorts out what works.
If the '06 was accurate than the 308, competitive shooters would be shooting the '06. Competition sorts out what works.
USSR
Member
Maybe in regards to commercial cartridges in civilian competitions, but when you are talking about military cartridges, there are other things that factor in. When a new military round is established, it benefits for years of R&D and recent breakthroughs in components and manufacturing (new tooling, etc.). Also, when a new cartridge comes along, often times the military shooting teams are required to use the new round as another means of further development of the round. And, you have to look no farther than F Class competition in the T/R class to see the '06 frozen out (the class is restricted to .308 and .223).
Don
BoilerUP
Member
And if the 308 was as accurate as any 6.5mm loading...etc etc etc.
Lazerbeans
Member
For me here is the $100,000 question; how is a cartridge that has the same bullet diameter, virtually same B.C.(sometimes slightly better), but has more powder behind it, so therefore carries more energy down range, significantly, less accurate than the .308?
Again there is a difference between being easier to shoot accurately(less recoil), and accuracy. I have truly wondered that for a long time; teach me something.
Again there is a difference between being easier to shoot accurately(less recoil), and accuracy. I have truly wondered that for a long time; teach me something.
google winchester ballistics calculator
Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
saturno v, odds are that the Springfield '03 is the most likely rifle to see problems. Ignoring the "low number" versions, the firing pin has been known to be a weak spot.
Back when Remington first introduced the 721, they tested four rifles: Springfield '03, Model 70, 1917 Enfield and the 721, all in .30-'06. They used a full case of 4064 and a 220-grain bullet for the first test. The Springfield locked uip.
Then, two bullets. The Model 70 quit. The Enfield locked up with three. The 721's bolt opened after shooting the case full of powder and four 220-grain bullets.
Overall, I don't have any definitive answer. But there were a lot of rifles chambered for the '06 during the period of 1906-1920s which might well have been a concern for the ammo folks.
As far as the low-number Springfields, I have read that they worked okay for chamber pressures of no more than 47,000 psi, said to be the GI loading. That does not mean I'd shoot one, however.
Back when Remington first introduced the 721, they tested four rifles: Springfield '03, Model 70, 1917 Enfield and the 721, all in .30-'06. They used a full case of 4064 and a 220-grain bullet for the first test. The Springfield locked uip.
Then, two bullets. The Model 70 quit. The Enfield locked up with three. The 721's bolt opened after shooting the case full of powder and four 220-grain bullets.
Overall, I don't have any definitive answer. But there were a lot of rifles chambered for the '06 during the period of 1906-1920s which might well have been a concern for the ammo folks.
As far as the low-number Springfields, I have read that they worked okay for chamber pressures of no more than 47,000 psi, said to be the GI loading. That does not mean I'd shoot one, however.
Lazerbeans
Member
I have seen that article many times, and in fact its the only one I have seen that says that. I love to see another source of information along those lines. I believe the .30-06's being cited in article were loaded with the Springfield in mind, therefore was down on pressure. It not comparing apples to apples. If the .308 is more accurate I really don't care. But if you think about it does it make sense for the .30-06 to have roughly double the sized groups as the .308, when they both are very similar. Does it make sense the .30-06 having more powder and a longer bullet being that much less accurate, when both of those factors could and should positively contribute to it having better accuracy?
essayons21
Member
Lazerbeans,
I believe that article is a good example of the myth that correlation = causation.
The claim that .308 is 2-3 times more accurate than 30-06 is simply false.
This was a group from a 30-06. 7 shots into about 3/10ths of an inch. That "flyer" was the last shot The same gun will hold about 3 inch groups at 500 yards.
Find me a .308 that will shoot 2-3 times more accurately... That would have to be 7 shots into one .308" diameter hole, something I still have yet to see.
However a variety of reasons could contribute to .308 shooting more accurately in competition that have nothing to do with the cartridge itself. Most of these reasons have to do with advances in firearms, bullets, and shooting technique.
I believe the author of that article is a poster here on THR, maybe he will be along to debate his point, but we've been over it many times before.
To answer your $100,000 question, there are a few reasons why the .308 could be a slightly more inherently accurate round than the 30-06.
First, it has a shorter powder column, which allows for more consistent ignition of the powder. Consistency often translates to accuracy. The same phenomena is responsible for the popularity and accuracy of the Short Magnum cartridges.
Also, MOST .308 loads fill a larger volume of the case than 30-06 loads with modern powder. This can also contribute to more consistent ignition.
Lastly, the .308 is a short-action caliber, where the 30-06 requires a long action. A shorter action in a firearm is stiffer with more rigidity, which also translates to more accuracy. This however has been negated by modern materials and firearms.
Keep in mind, the .308 is a 30-06 which was scaled down to be more controllable in automatic and rapid fire. The Army realized that the idea of every infantryman being able to engage at 1000 yards was outdated, and traded long range performance for volume of fire.
PM me and I'll give you the address to send that $100,000 check to.
I believe that article is a good example of the myth that correlation = causation.
The claim that .308 is 2-3 times more accurate than 30-06 is simply false.
This was a group from a 30-06. 7 shots into about 3/10ths of an inch. That "flyer" was the last shot
The same gun will hold about 3 inch groups at 500 yards.
Find me a .308 that will shoot 2-3 times more accurately... That would have to be 7 shots into one .308" diameter hole, something I still have yet to see.
However a variety of reasons could contribute to .308 shooting more accurately in competition that have nothing to do with the cartridge itself. Most of these reasons have to do with advances in firearms, bullets, and shooting technique.
I believe the author of that article is a poster here on THR, maybe he will be along to debate his point, but we've been over it many times before.
To answer your $100,000 question, there are a few reasons why the .308 could be a slightly more inherently accurate round than the 30-06.
First, it has a shorter powder column, which allows for more consistent ignition of the powder. Consistency often translates to accuracy. The same phenomena is responsible for the popularity and accuracy of the Short Magnum cartridges.
Also, MOST .308 loads fill a larger volume of the case than 30-06 loads with modern powder. This can also contribute to more consistent ignition.
Lastly, the .308 is a short-action caliber, where the 30-06 requires a long action. A shorter action in a firearm is stiffer with more rigidity, which also translates to more accuracy. This however has been negated by modern materials and firearms.
Keep in mind, the .308 is a 30-06 which was scaled down to be more controllable in automatic and rapid fire. The Army realized that the idea of every infantryman being able to engage at 1000 yards was outdated, and traded long range performance for volume of fire.
PM me and I'll give you the address to send that $100,000 check to.
Last edited:
- Status
