30-06 vs 308

[andym79]

I hate to ask questions like this, but here it goes. I will be using a single shot rifle, will probably be buying a Ruger 1. The competition will be at 200 yards from the bench and prone a 50 shot match.

which cartridge is going to be better? The rifle will be used exclusively at the range and so muzzle energy and stopping power will be of no consequence, for this particular rifle I care only about accuracy.

So do I go 308 or 30-06?

 

[dprice3844444]

same basic cartridge

 

[jmr40]

At that range, zero difference for most shooters and rifles. The 308 is theoretically more accurate, but you have to have precision rifles to take advantage of it.

Based purely on the fact that 308 has slightly less recoil, and after lots of shots it does add up, I'd vote for the 308.

 

[smkummer]

another vote for 308. You will probably fine tune your OWN ammo rather than store bought and .308 uses less powder. The 30-06 can be made to shoot well. The 308 does shoot well and is the current choice of almost all that do that kind of shooting for several reasons.

 

[GuysModel94]

"The 30-06 can be made to shoot well", surely you jest!!LOL But you are correct about recoil, there is a felt difference after about 20 rds, for me any way.

 

[SEE IT LIKE A NATIVE]

If you are handloading and both are using the same bullet ,I dont see much difference ! I have no experience with the Ruger single shots . Are they as accurate as modern bolt guns ? I know TC claims sub moa for their single shots . Kevin

 

[25cschaefer]

At two hundred yards on a paper target, there is no need to launch a 220gr flat nose bullet as fast as you can. More than likely you will be shooting a match grade bullet at a moderate speed so the .308 would be better as the recoil is less and you wont flinch. The .308 also has the advantage of being used more heavily in competition so there are more match grade commercial/military surplus and handloads available. Did I mention cheaper if you are buying commercial?

 

[IndianaBoy]

If energy is of no consequence and you aren't trying to shoot heavy for caliber bullets, the 308 is probably more economical.


If economics aren't important, the 30-06 is more flexible.

 

[IndianaBoy]

The Ruger #1 can be a tricky rifle to get shooting well.

Check out the Ruger forum for tips and tricks to accurize these.

 

[john wall]

Since both calibers have a 1-10" twist in the Ruger, the only advantage the 308 will have is a little less powder used with the same bullets. I have had great luck with bullets over 168 gr with the 1-10" twist.

 

[LiveLife]

It's much easier and cheaper to find .308 brass than .30-06. I use plenty of once-fired LC military .308 cases and chose to reload .308 for this very reason.

As to accuracy, here's a comparison article of .308 vs .30-06 done by a long-range (1000 yard) competition shooter - http://riflemansjournal.blogspot.com/2011/04/cartridges-sibling-rivalry-308-vs-30-06.html

We built a .308 Model 70 and in all our testing, it outshot the .30-06, so I took it to Camp Perry ... That long-ago summer day at Camp Perry changed NRA Highpower shooting forever; over fifty years of unchallenged .30-06 domination quickly came to an end.

...

Mid-Range Comparison
In NRA Mid-Range matches (500 and 600 yards), the average score and percentage of possible score for each cartridge was as follows:

.308 - 597-36X (99.5%) 960 rounds fired
6XC - 596-35X (99.3%) 1260 rounds fired
.30-06 - 595-31X (99.2%) 2580 rounds fired

If we look at the score averages, the .308 comes out on top at the Mid-Range distances.


Long-Range Comparison
I rarely shoot the .308 in matches that are only 1000 yards; most of my 1000 yard .308 shooting is done in Palma matches which include 800, 900 and 1000 yards.

In NRA Long-Range and Palma matches, the average percentage of possible score for each cartridge at 1000 yards was as follows:

6XC - 98.9%, 360 rounds fired
.30-06 - 97.7%, 460 rounds fired
.308 - 97.3%, 490 rounds fired

As you can see, the .308 went from the top of the list at Mid-Range to the bottom at Long-Range. This isn't too surprising when one considers its limited case capacity for the bullet weights typically used in Long-Range shooting. They just run out of steam and dip perilously close to the transonic range as they approach 1000 yards of flight


A Few Concluding Thoughts
I wasn't particularly surprised by the results; the .308 has always been a tremendously accurate cartridge at 600 yards, Mid's conclusions from 1963 remain valid today. I was a bit surprised that the 6XC wasn't the top dog at Mid-Range, but that simply shows that our pre-conceptions can be wrong and data matters. At Long-Range, the cartridges finished in the exact order that I would have predicted. I know the 6XC is a great LR cartridge, and my results with the .30-06 at 1000 have been very satisfying, so there were no surprises there.

 

[Kachok]

The Ruger #1 would be about the LAST rifle I would use in a match. 1.5 MOA is the genral rule, any one of my savages will shoot half of that easly. While the #1 is perfectly fine for hunting in the woods it is no bench king. There is little difference between the 06 and 308 at 200 yards, I perfer the 06 but flip a coin if you are just punching paper. The 06 is better if you are trying to throw ultra low drag 210 VLDs or bison thumping 240gr Weldcores, but 175 Match Kings work well in both.

 

[diesel]

.308or 3006

good morning
i own both 308 and 3006 in remington 700 actions the 308 is rem700 vtr
im no expert but the 308 ammo seems to be alot cheeper than the long action 06 i shoot fed prem 150gr with a 1 in 12 rh twist barrel and at 200yds its a tac driver my 06 could not group as good at that distance
both have 3 1/2lb triggers

 

[GeorgeGa]

Do the rules require either .30-06 or .308 Win? If not, I would go with a smaller bore cartridge like 6mm Remington or .260 Remington. Much less recoil, less powder used, less expensive bullets.

 

[atblis]

Sounds to me like a 223 would be perfect.

 

[egg250]

The .308 has more inherent accuracy than the .30-06. My thoughts are it has to do with the short, fatter case of the .308 versus the longer, thinner case of the .30-06. I believe the case dimensions of the .308 lend itself to fewer variations that affect accuracy. Not that the .30-06 isn't or can't be accurate, but the .308 will be more accurate out to longer ranges.

 

[Lizard1911]

"Not that the .30-06 isn't or can't be accurate, but the .308 will be more accurate out to longer ranges."


Post #11 suggests otherwise...

 

[lmccrock]

"Not that the .30-06 isn't or can't be accurate, but the .308 will be more accurate out to longer ranges."

Post #11 suggests otherwise...

Post #11 is data from 1963. With a bit more development, the 0.4% delta has probably been overcome. If 30-06 were more accurate at long range, the Palma shooters would be using it.

If you already have a 30-06 rifle shoot it. If buying a new one, 308 has the edge.

 

[atblis]

3.3.3 U.S. Palma Rifle:
(a) A rifle with metallic sights chambered for the unmodified .308/7.62 or
.223/5.56 NATO cartridge case. Rifles which also meet Rules 3.1 (.308 only)
or 3.1.1 (.308 only) are authorized.

(b) A rifle with metallic sights chambered for the unmodified .308/7.62 NATO
cartridge case. Rifles which also meet Rules 3.1 (.308 only) or 3.1.1 (.308
only or 3.1.2 (.223 only) are authorized.

That 0.4% could have widened for all we know.

 

[LiveLife]

Post #11 is data from 1963.

No, the actual competition data used were from 1/3/09 - 3/31/11 - http://riflemansjournal.blogspot.com/2011/04/cartridges-sibling-rivalry-308-vs-30-06.html

 

[dprice3844444]

or go 243,less recoil,same accuracy

 

[dprice3844444]

is 30 cal a prerequisite for the match?for 200 yds a 243 or 223 would be cheaper,and easier on the shoulders.

 

[JimBoIHN]

How about the new Lapua .308 Palma, said to enhance accuracy. If you are serious, might as well go with the best.

 

[lmccrock]

No, the actual competition data used were from 1/3/09 - 3/31/11

Oops, reading is fundamental. :banghead:

However, those scores were one guy with 4 30 cal rifles, 2 in 30-06, 2 in 308. There were many shots fired, but the data are only applicable to those 4 rifles. Broaden the population, then let us know.

 

[Bobson]

Post #11 is data from 1963.

Not trying to be a jerk here, but why would that make any difference - even if it really was data from 1963? In other words, what would have changed that would potentially make this type of data inaccurate? I realize there were likely new developments in powder and whatnot, but wouldn't any increase in performance apply to both cartridges, if it applied to either?

Just trying to understand this. Thanks.