300 winmag in comparison to 30-06

[ArmedBear]

Several posters claimed the 30-06 was as good as the 300, which in turn sounded like "300 winmag = not necesary."

.300 Win Mag is not necessary for most things that most lower-48 Americans hunt near their homes. Many would argue that the .30-06 is overkill, too, and that something like the .260 Remington will shoot flatter, recoil less, and fit in a smaller, lighter gun for hiking around. They'd be right, generally.

That doesn't mean the .30-06, the .260 and the .300 have the same ballistics, nor does it mean that .300 Win Mag isn't a very effective, flat-shooting, long distance hunting round for use on almost any game in the world.

There really is a place for every cartridge. That's why they exist.

 

[JesseL]

I've made the argument in previous threads that someone with a .30-06 doesn't have all that much to gain by buying a .300 Win Mag, but if you don't have anything similar the .300 Win Mag may be a good choice. Remember that the extra energy and flatter trajectory will come at the price of more expensive ammunition, and greater recoil and muzzle blast.

 

[ArmedBear]

I'm with JesseL.

I have a .30-06 right now. My next gun will probably be shorter and lighter, with an appropriate round. If I have a real use for a bigger gun the .30-06, I will be looking at something bigger than .300 Win Mag, because I might as well go for a bigger performance jump than the .300 offers over the '06.

HOWEVER... If I didn't have a long, heavy hunting rifle already, a .300 Win Mag would be a fine choice, with a bit more velocity and a lot more with heavier bullets. I shoot very few .30-06 rounds per year anyway; ammo price doesn't matter much when it's a dedicated hunting rifle, at least around here. Last year when I picked up a deer tag from DFG, the woman behind the counter smiled and said, "Thanks for the donation." She was right on.

And both .30-06 and .300 Win Mag are overkill for plinking.

 

[Art Eatman]

My feathers get ruffled in these arguments because it seems to me that many people look only at the cartridge--as though it were independent of such things as barrel length.

It's more noticeable in the AR discussions. To me, one of the reasons a .223 is effective is because of the velocity. Cut the barrel back to "shorty" and you might as well have a .22 Hornet.

I realize that most .300 Win Mags are likely to be 24" in barrel length. If they're 22", though, the muzzle velocity is likely to be some 300 ft/sec or even more below the published numbers.

And I show up with my 26" barrelled 06, and guess what? I'm right at the same velocity as the "better" cartridge.

Which is why I'm generally underwhelmed by some discussions...

, Art

 

[ArmedBear]

I realize that most .300 Win Mags are likely to be 24" in barrel length. If they're 22", though, the muzzle velocity is likely to be some 300 ft/sec or even more below the published numbers.

Good point. I assumed at least 24".

By and large, I wouldn't want to hunt with the rifle that would make sense with a .300 Win Mag.

 

[cracked butt]

If you can't be easily killed with a 30-06, you'll need something bigger than a 300 WM anyway. If you're interested in punching paper a long ways away, any of the moderate 6.5 mm cartridges will outperform either.

 

[lencac]

300 Win Mag is a 30.06 with a 150 shot of NOS. Remember you are comparing a turn of the century cartridge and firearm technology with current cartridge and firearm technology. So in light of that fact the 30.06 has proved itself time and time again. While the 30.06 is a wonderful round for both hunting and recreational use the 300 Win Mag is just plain awesome but it wears on you after 5 or 6 shots. My only complaint about the 300 WM is Springfield does make an M1A for it

 

[ArmedBear]

Remember you are comparing a turn of the century cartridge and firearm technology with current cartridge and firearm technology.

The .300 Win Mag was introduced in 1963.

Neither round is "current", but the loads now found in .30-06 are sure not the same as those used in 1906.

Every rifle round is pretty much the same, no matter when it was introduced: a bullet in a necked brass shell full of powder. Doesn't matter if it's old or new -- what matters are what the bullet does, and in what sort of rifle.

 

[USSR]

Every rifle round is pretty much the same, no matter when it was introduced: a bullet in a necked brass shell full of powder. Doesn't matter if it's old or new -- what matters are what the bullet does, and in what sort of rifle.

+1. Well said, ArmedBear.

Don

 

[lencac]

So the pressures generated by a 300 win mag not to mention handloaded is the same as a 30.06?

 

[JesseL]

So the pressures generated by a 300 win mag not to mention handloaded is the same as a 30.06?

SAAMI does give the .300 Win Mag does a higher allowable pressure than the .30-06.

Interestingly though, if we were to build two otherwise identical rifles - one chambered for .300 Win Mag and the other for .30-06, which do you think could tolerate higher pressures before catastrophic failure (ignoring the wisdom of SAAMI)?

The aught-six would likely handle higher pressures due to it's smaller internal case head diameter yielding lower bolt thrust for a given pressure.

Despite all that, pressure alone doesn't equal ballistic performance. What is important is the area under the whole pressure curve. The .300 can utilize more, slower, powder to create a fatter pressure curve than the '06 can do, simply by virtue of it's greater case volume.

The .300 Win Mag does have superior performance, but it's not because it is 'more modern' or technologically superior in any way. It's just bigger.

 

[Geno]

JesseL:

They would fail at identical levels. I had a Weatherby Mark V in .30-06 and a Weatherby Mark V in .300 Win Mag. Both were identical actions and barrels.



Doc2005

 

[JesseL]

Sorry Doc,

A magnum sized case will generate about 19% more bolt thrust for a given pressure than an '06 sized case, due to it's larger internal diameter. That and the correspondingly thinner walls of the magnum chamber, mean that in identical actions the '06 has more pressure tolerance than the magnum.

See here for all you never wanted to know about bolt thrust:
http://www.riflebarrels.com/articles/custom_actions/bolt_lug_strength.htm

 

[lencac]

Thanks jesse for making my point .... well said

 

[sarduy]

check this charts

http://www.remington.com/products/a...ballistics_results.aspx?data=PRSC3006C*R300W1

http://www.remington.com/products/a...llistics_results.aspx?data=PRSC3006C*PRC300WA

http://www.remington.com/products/a...llistics_results.aspx?data=PRSC3006B*PRA300WC

 

[Seafarer12]

I have never heard anyone try to argue that the 300 mag is the same as the 06. I mean the 300 mag has a few hundred fps over the 06. It is hard to argue that. Personally I have no use for them. I like my shoulder too much.

 

[Geno]

JesseL:

That explanation is a gross under-simplification of the physics involved. The author, of the website you list, acknowledges that sum-of-the-whole of the variables that contribute to catastrophic failure are to too complicated to describe therein. I have read every word of that website (a couple of times) and a good dozen other websites as well. They are all under-simplified.

In the end, the contact that had made the most sense to me was Weatherby, Inc itself. I had specific questions for them regarding my uncle's extreme handloads using "custom-made, stainless steel based .300 Wea. Mag. cartridges". I won't list the precise load details here for concern that someone might actually try to replicate the load in a non-Mark V action.

In short, we are talking apples and oranges. Don't take my word for it. Give Weatherby a call and ask them about the nature and extent of Weatherby's tests of the Mark V action, and if the Mark V .300 Win Mag action will withstand any less than the .30-06 Sprg. I suspect they will advise that the action probably will not be what fails.

Here is my point: One will find it exceedingly difficult to bring a 9-lug, Mark V action in .300 Win Mag to fail. One will find it to be equally difficult to bring a 9-lug, Mark V action in .30-06 to fail. The barrel's threads...now that is a different story. The first thing to give is usually the cartridge’s head/primer pocket, etc. My uncle solved that...custom-made, stainless steel cartridge heads. Yeap, you read that correct. Those employed, the next failure will likely be the cartridge’s walls...that gets ugly because now the cartridge does not have friction on the chamber’s walls. If all parts of the cartridge and bolt holds together, and CUP (copper-under-pressure) rises too high, too fast, the next failure is likely headspace. Like I said, over-simple, apples and oranges, and way, way off topic for the thread.

Doc2005

 

[JesseL]

Doc:

Yes, what goes into to understanding when and how an action will fail is enormously complicated. There is simply no way though, that given identical actions and pressures, a larger diameter case won't cause more stress and less safety margin than a smaller one.

Of course any modern rifle will be perfectly safe for the cartridge it's chambered for, with plenty of safety margin. That's beside my original point, which was simply that there is nothing especially advanced from the .30-06 to the .300 Win Mag that allows the Magnum to handle higher pressures.

 

[kcshooter]

Winmag is going to outperform 30-06 in almost every case. Sometimes by a small margin, sometimes by a larger one. However, it's most likely going to be overkill in almost every case.

30-06 has a lot more factory loads available for it. These can easily be duplicated for winmag rounds if you handload.

So did you need to go with winmag over 30-06? Probably not. But that doesn't mean the purchase isn't justified.

Do you like the rifle? OK, problem solved. If given the choice between the two in the same rifle, I'd buy a 300 over a 30-06 myself. Doubt I could put more than 10 rounds down range in one day due to my bad shoulder, but I'd have fun trying!