Something between 7.62x39 and .308

Status
Not open for further replies.
300 Savage,
30/30
8MM Mauser
303 British,
30/40 Kraig,
Just to mention a few common ones. There must be at least 50 that fall into that catagory
Click to expand...

Not that I can find. Of your examples, most are rimmed cartridges that are effectively obsolete and arguably closer to the .308 than anything else.

Bolt action and 1000 ft. lbs. at 300 yards with a 150 grain bullet. A 30-30 can nearly do that, but no real bolt action options.
 
Best thing to do is sell a R-15 in .30 AR...lol I'll never sell mine just send me the ones you find my way.

I agree in a bolt gun a .30 AR doesn't make sense, it's a niche cartridge and if are wanting to fill that niche it really is the best option.
 
So anytime I'm hunting deer with a round that has >1000 ft-lbs of energy at the maximum range I expect to shoot, I'm now overgunned?

7.62x39 and 308 are popular because they're military rounds. That makes them popular. There's nothing popular between the two because most folks have decided that it just isn't necessary. You're in the extremely slim minority who thinks a .308 is just too much gun for a deer at 300 yds. Hell, it isn't even a minority; you're a total outlier.
 
Let's say that at SHOT Show this year someone releases a new cartridge that fits your specs precisely. It delivers a 30 cal 150 gr bullet at exactly 1000 ft-lbs at 300 yds.

What have they done besides introduce a round with less energy that doesn't even shoot as flat as .308? What is the point? It's not like .308 just disintegrates deer inside of 300 yds.
 
The point would be it doesn't deliver 16 pounds of felt recoil with a 150-grain bullet.

There is a reason the 30-30 is so popular for deer hunters.

There just isn't room between .308 and 7.62x39 for much of anything.
Click to expand...

I disagree. Not only does the 30-30 seem to rest nicely between them, there is a lot of room between 6 and 16 lbs. of recoil, and 1000 ft. lbs. of energy at 150 and 500 yards.
 
I guess what I'm surprised by is that as popular as the 30-30 has been with deer hunters for a century, why didn't a bolt action with similar recoil, energy and ballistics ever take off? Or at a minimum, why did all the major companies basically give up on that round in a bolt action?
 
The reason some American hunters embrace the sub-30 calibers is because they sacrifice some energy in exchange for a flatter trajectory. Softer recoil is nice, but it's not really much of a factor for hunters; they aren't sitting on the range shooting hundreds of rounds. Your dream round sacrifices energy in exchange for nothing.
 
.300 Savage really isn't that much different than a .308.

.30 Remington looks interesting however. Would love to see it in a bolt action.

Your dream round sacrifices energy in exchange for nothing.
Click to expand...

LOL. Then all of us still shooting 30-30's need to just give them up. :D

And I think you meant to say "sacrifices trajectory" not energy.
 
No, meant energy. It delivers less and has a rainbow trajectory. I just don't see a company releasing such a round and anyone getting excited, except you and a few others. What would their marketing be? "Our new round delivers .30-30 ballistics in a bolt gun that is otherwise identical to your .308!"
 
It delivers the same energy (1000 ft. lbs.) but trajectory that isn't as flat. That's the logical argument, and probably the reason they haven't done this already in a bolt-action 30-30. Folks are willing to sacrifice trajectory in a carbine lever gun, and I get that.

Just seems odd to me that if you want to stay in a .30-caliber bullet, you have to go jump from the 7.62x39 all the way to the .308, a round that is nearly 3x the energy and recoil.

Thank goodness for H4895 powder, I guess.
 
Ah, now a compact bolt gun that is smaller than the typical .308 sporter and delivers .30-30 ballistics is a whole 'nother thing. I could definitely see a niche for something like that.
 
I've been down a similar road. There are no readily available 30 cal. Cartridges that fill this specific niche. Closest you will come is 7x57 or 6.5 swede with 140-160 bullets (or 260, 7mm-08, etc).

It's the 150gr plus bullets that limit your options, honestly. A 257 Roberts or 25-06 will cleanly kill a tx whitetail at those ranges with a 100 gr bullet movi g at a mvof 3000 fps. 257 Bob isn't readily available and 25-06 factory loads can have a bit more punch than it sounds like you want.

243 is always a point if contention but it too would work.

So for factory offerings the 260, 7mm-08, 6.5 swede, 243, and 25-06 all fill the market. And a 150 grain bullet does nothing better than a lighter bullet would for a smaller Caliber when used for deer.

You will actually improve the terminal effect on game with a 100 gr bullet at 3000 fps as opposed to a 150 at 2400. I guarantee that. You will have hydrostatic shock out to 150 yards or so and you are also using the bullet for its intended velocity. The 6.5 is much the same way as the 25 with very little recoil. The 7mm can do well as well.
You could also try the Barnes 130ttsx.
 
Ah, now a compact bolt gun that is smaller than the typical .308 sporter and delivers .30-30 ballistics is a whole 'nother thing. I could definitely see a niche for something like that.
Click to expand...

I'm imagining a CZ 527 mini-mauser with another 100 yards-worth of punch and under 7 lbs. scoped. Now that would be a heck of a deer gun.

You will actually improve the terminal effect on game with a 100 gr bullet at 3000 fps as opposed to a 150 at 2400. I guarantee that.
Click to expand...

If the goal is to drop them where they stand, or as close as possible to where they stand, then I agree that will do the trick. My daughter's .243 shooting 100 grain bullets nearly dropped a 150# buck where he stood a few years back. But while hydrostatic shock may be desireable for most, esp. those who don't want to have to blood trail an animal, it isn't all that desireable if you want to reduce meat damage - which I do.

In 30+ years of shooting Texas whitetails, I've learned that a 150+ grain bullet moving under 2000 fps. will punch nice holes without blowing up too much meat. This was once again confirmed with the buck I took last Saturday using my Savage 10 in 7.62x39. Winchester soft point moving at a reasonable rate of speed made two nice little holes at 100 yards, he ran about 40 yards and very little meat was damaged. I've had even better results with the 170-grain 30-30 bullets at similar distances.

Folks like to see animals "DRT" but it's not so appealing when the skin comes off. Being a long-time bowhunter, I'm not afraid to poke a couple holes and then go find them, if it means I can keep another 10 lbs. (or more) of meat.

That's the reason for my heavier, slower bullet.

And I understand that not all .308 caliber bullets are designed to expand very much below 2000 fps., but some will, and a caliber with these specs would of course have to be loaded with bullets that perform in that range.
 
Last edited:
Out of curiosity, I reviewed the Hornady Ballistics Chart for rifles that deliver ~1000 ft. lbs. at 300 yards. Here's what I came up with:

.243
25-06 in a light bullet
6.8 Rem SPC
30-30

And that's about it. Everything below those are in the 600-700 ft. lbs. range at that distance. Anything above those is 1200 ft. lbs. or more.

This is really surprising me actually. It's almost universally known that 1000 ft. lbs. of energy is recommended for White-tailed deer - the most hunted "big" game in North America. It's also almost universally known that 300 yards is the outer limit for the majority of shooters.

And yet not many but MOST of the high-powered centerfire rifles being sold are designed to deliver 1200 ft. lbs. or more at 300 yards and will easily produce 16 lbs.+ of recoil. It's no wonder the average whitetail hunter can't shoot any better than they do. They don't want to shoot their "deer rifles" and I don't blame them!
 
Why do you believe you need 1000k of striking energy? Because you read it in a gun magazine? Its just a number somebody pulled out of their butt. People have been killing deer with a 357 handgun for decades and it has as its best around 600 foot pounds of energy at the muzzle and is considered a 50 yard round for deer.

If you are downloading the 308 you are matching any other round that could be invented in 30 caliber. How many 300 yard shots do you take? My longest deer kill was 250 yards with a 243. Every other kill I have made on big game including elk has been 80 yards or less. But I am a deer hunter not a deer sniper. I take pride in being able to get close to the game.

I think the only way you will get what you are looking for is to go down in caliber and bullet weight and let velocity do the work on the game. But if you have killed as many hogs as you say and other game to boot I don't think I would change a thing. You seem to have it figured out.

I would love to have a light 308 rifle. I would just make a super 30-30 out of it by downloading 150 and 170gr flat nosed 30-30 bullets to around 2400fps and limit shots to 200 yards.

I did have a 308 remington 700 carbine bolt action and thought it was hell to shoot. It kicked much more than my 30-06 that weighed a couple pounds more. I stupidly sold it before I tried reduced loads in it. So I understand your quest, I just don't think you will find it without changing you parameters.
 
Let me be clear here. I already have a solution to my "quest" (as some have put it). I've been happily hand loading my .308 to precisely the parameters I have suggested, and not only is it a joy to shoot, it's accurate and more affordable too.

I'm just wondering out loud why there are so few popular commercial rounds designed to equal the two most common parameters in North American whitetail deer hunting. Just makes sense to me. But then, when has anyone ever looked at a rifle and said "that should be all I need" ? LOL.

Nope. We run out and buy more rifle than we need - because we can - and then get the He!! kicked out of us at the range, leading to a significant lack of practice for rifles that carry enough energy well beyond where we should be shooting. Ha, ha. I guess that's the "Murican" way. :D
 
Newtosavage said:
Let me be clear here. I already have a solution to my "quest" (as some have put it). I've been happily hand loading my .308 to precisely the parameters I have suggested, and not only is it a joy to shoot, it's accurate and more affordable too.

I'm just wondering out loud why there are so few popular commercial rounds designed to equal the two most common parameters in North American whitetail deer hunting. Just makes sense to me. But then, when has anyone ever looked at a rifle and said "that should be all I need" ? LOL.

Nope. We run out and buy more rifle than we need - because we can - and then get the He!! kicked out of us at the range, leading to a significant lack of practice for rifles that carry enough energy well beyond where we should be shooting. Ha, ha. I guess that's the "Murican" way. :D
Click to expand...


Have you ever considered that you are more recoil adverse than most other shooters?

I would assert that ammunition COST and lack of suitable ranges plays a larger role in how much people practice than recoil.

On those accounts 308 and 30/30 win and have no effect
 
Have you ever considered that you are more recoil adverse than most other shooters?
Click to expand...

That's what you get from this question? :banghead:

Let me ask you something. If you have a common framing nail that needs to be driven, do you reach for the 22 oz. framing hammer, or the 3 lb. sledge?
 
I'm just wondering out loud why there are so few popular commercial rounds designed to equal the two most common parameters in North American whitetail deer hunting. Just makes sense to me. But then, when has anyone ever looked at a rifle and said "that should be all I need" ? LOL.
Click to expand...

I say "thats all I need" all the time. But it doesn't stop me from looking and thinking about new guns and new conquest. But remember the last few new cartridges introduced have not fared well. The short mags and super short mags are a good example. They don't really do anymore than what is already available and don't offer any real advantage. Of course a rifle buff can always make a case for a new round (bad pun) but gun companies know a new round is a big risk. Especially with shortages and the fact that it is getting harder to find places to shoot. You are a good example. You are killing everything you are shooting at. What else do you need?

Nope. We run out and buy more rifle than we need - because we can - and then get the He!! kicked out of us at the range, leading to a significant lack of practice for rifles that carry enough energy well beyond where we should be shooting. Ha, ha. I guess that's the "Murican" way.
Click to expand...

I personally don't spend a lot of time at the range. Once sighted in I am ready to hunt. But its fun to pop off rounds. I would just rather do it but finding a hill with rocks and stuff on it and practice from field rest. Bench shooting to me is just to sight in a rifle.
 
Yes it is.

3lb shop hammer

Because as a steel fabricator that's what I'm used to swinging.

Hand me a framing hammer and I'll smash my finger every time. If you can't handle the 3lb hammer by all means stick to a 22oz
 
I understand what you are trying to find. Instead of a bolt gun maybe a semi-auto would help. That would still give the punch you want with lessoned recoil. And a whole lot more brass chasing.:D

My buddies brother had a model 100 in 308, and 284 and 243. The 308 was a pussy cat to shoot. Not quite as accurate as a bolt but good enough for hunting. Maybe a browning BAR?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

N
  • Locked
Something between 7.62x39 and .308...
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Replies
185
Views
8K
Ironhand54
Ironhand54
B
  • Locked
Recoil question
2
Replies
44
Views
1K
Legionnaire
Legionnaire
D
  • Locked
Winchester 94 Trapper Ammo
Replies
6
Views
821
Abel
A
M
  • Locked
AR15 7.62x39 for hunting?
Replies
6
Views
942
R.W.Dale
R
S
  • Locked
Choosing a new caliber: .243, ,270, or .308?
2 3
Replies
54
Views
26K
obx-shooter
O
Back
Top