What makes a .06 a .06
- Thread starter hsiddall
- Start date
- Status
Ridgerunner665
Member
It is painful...and I don't shoot those loads.
A friend and I tried them a few times just to see what we could get out of the 14 inch barrel...I only mentioned them to make my point.
Nothing wrong with the 30-06...but the 308 does what I want.
I like history too...the ONLY pistol that goes in my hand is a 1911.
A friend and I tried them a few times just to see what we could get out of the 14 inch barrel...I only mentioned them to make my point.
Nothing wrong with the 30-06...but the 308 does what I want.
I like history too...the ONLY pistol that goes in my hand is a 1911.
dagger dog
Member
You do have to handload to take advantage of the .308 Win. ballistic advantage over the '06.
It was a great day in 1906 when the old 30-06 was "born". A cartridge with a track record like that is a lead pipe cinch to be around another 100 yrs. plus!
It was a great day in 1906 when the old 30-06 was "born". A cartridge with a track record like that is a lead pipe cinch to be around another 100 yrs. plus!
Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
Somebody is gonna have to explain to me about "inefficiency" of an '06, given that I've gotten inside of one MOA at my 500 yard range with a hunting rifle. Not a target rig, not at all. It's 35 years young, and I've put somewhere in the neighborhood of around 4,000 rounds through it. And the last time I tested a new loading, I got about 0.4 MOA.
And I really don't believe that anybody is gonna get higher muzzle velocities from a .308 handload vs. a .30-'06 handload. My only "weasel-words" about that is that the '06 doesn't do well with barrel lengths below 24 or 25 inches, but my pet is 26". I grant that from 18 to 20 inches the .308 is better, but that's not what I'm talking about. Anyhow, I'd give the .308 some help by using a 150-grain bullet. The .308's plumb on hard times if you go to 180 or 200.
Art
And I really don't believe that anybody is gonna get higher muzzle velocities from a .308 handload vs. a .30-'06 handload. My only "weasel-words" about that is that the '06 doesn't do well with barrel lengths below 24 or 25 inches, but my pet is 26". I grant that from 18 to 20 inches the .308 is better, but that's not what I'm talking about. Anyhow, I'd give the .308 some help by using a 150-grain bullet. The .308's plumb on hard times if you go to 180 or 200.
Art
Ridgerunner665
Member
By "inefficiency" I mean that the 30-06 takes much more powder to do its work...nothing to do with accuracy.
The 308 is efficient...it does nearly the same work with much less powder and barrel.
The more efficiently a round burns its powder...the shorter the barrel can be.
I prefer 168 and 175 grain bullets in my 308's...speed is not everything.
The 308 is efficient...it does nearly the same work with much less powder and barrel.
The more efficiently a round burns its powder...the shorter the barrel can be.
I prefer 168 and 175 grain bullets in my 308's...speed is not everything.
wanderinwalker
Member
Most of my manuals show that beating published '06 factory loads isn't a trick at all.
The '06 is only "inefficient" as it relates to 150 and 165 grain loadings. The .308 can come close, using around 10-grains less powder. But pump up the volume and it's as they say, "No replacement for displacement." There are no great mysteries here; to get more speed, we need to burn more powder, to burn more powder, we need more cartridge capacity.
As a bonus, I've noticed that handloading for the '06 is relatively easy. I haven't met one yet that was super picky. Can't say the same for the .260 I had; it could shoot well, but you had to remember to be careful and feed it only precise loads.
But the fact that the cartridge was adopted as the U.S. Rifle Cal. 30 of 1906, is what makes it an '06. The case also serves as a rough base for the .25-06, .270 Winchester, .280 Remington, .338-06 and .35 Whelen, among others. Oh, almost forgot the wildcats 6mm-06 and 6.5mm-06.
Of course, the .308 Winchester served as the base for the .243 Win, .260 Remington, 7mm-08 Remington, .358 Winchester and now the .338 Federal.
The '06 is only "inefficient" as it relates to 150 and 165 grain loadings. The .308 can come close, using around 10-grains less powder. But pump up the volume and it's as they say, "No replacement for displacement." There are no great mysteries here; to get more speed, we need to burn more powder, to burn more powder, we need more cartridge capacity.
As a bonus, I've noticed that handloading for the '06 is relatively easy. I haven't met one yet that was super picky. Can't say the same for the .260 I had; it could shoot well, but you had to remember to be careful and feed it only precise loads.
But the fact that the cartridge was adopted as the U.S. Rifle Cal. 30 of 1906, is what makes it an '06. The case also serves as a rough base for the .25-06, .270 Winchester, .280 Remington, .338-06 and .35 Whelen, among others. Oh, almost forgot the wildcats 6mm-06 and 6.5mm-06.
Of course, the .308 Winchester served as the base for the .243 Win, .260 Remington, 7mm-08 Remington, .358 Winchester and now the .338 Federal.
Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow
member
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2007
- Messages
- 13,146
If 7mm-08 is the name of a round based on .308, then 6.5-.284 Win/Norma should be shortened to 6.5mm-84.
People used to say "naught 1, naught 2, naught 3", etc., with the "naught" as a shorthand for "zero", meaning "01", "02", "03" back at the turn of the 20th century. People would say "back in naught six" which, when pronounced, sounds like, "back in aught-six" or "ought-six", so the "n" was dropped from naught to get "ought" or even just "ot". For whatever reason, the "naught" terminology does not seem to be catching on here in the first decade of the 21st century. Most people say "Oh one", "Oh two", etc. instead.
People used to say "naught 1, naught 2, naught 3", etc., with the "naught" as a shorthand for "zero", meaning "01", "02", "03" back at the turn of the 20th century. People would say "back in naught six" which, when pronounced, sounds like, "back in aught-six" or "ought-six", so the "n" was dropped from naught to get "ought" or even just "ot". For whatever reason, the "naught" terminology does not seem to be catching on here in the first decade of the 21st century. Most people say "Oh one", "Oh two", etc. instead.
langenc
Member
30-06 vs 308..
Kinda like the newer 300 WSM vs 300 Win mag.
Shorter, fatter?? and as mentioned better powders make the 308 95% of a 06.. Some may disagree but I recommend 308 regularly but dont own one. Foe a young/small/lady shooter they are excellent.
See Hodgdons site for reduced loads-for any caliber to make it(them) even better for youth. Granddaughter uses 300 WSM with reduced loads. DO NOT just reduce any load-DO NOT. Hodgdons site gives SAFE details.
Kinda like the newer 300 WSM vs 300 Win mag.
Shorter, fatter?? and as mentioned better powders make the 308 95% of a 06.. Some may disagree but I recommend 308 regularly but dont own one. Foe a young/small/lady shooter they are excellent.
See Hodgdons site for reduced loads-for any caliber to make it(them) even better for youth. Granddaughter uses 300 WSM with reduced loads. DO NOT just reduce any load-DO NOT. Hodgdons site gives SAFE details.
Ridgerunner665
Member
Exactly...same deal.
Longer (heavier) bullets in the 300 WSM reduce powder capacity...and the 300 Win mag is slightly better with the heavies.
Longer (heavier) bullets in the 300 WSM reduce powder capacity...and the 300 Win mag is slightly better with the heavies.
Vern Humphrey
Member
At equal pressures, the .30-06 will always outshoot the .308. That's simple physics -- the larger case will have more gas to push the bullet at equal pressures.
The SAAMI standard pressure for the .30-06 is lower than that for the .308, which is supposedly because of the "weak" Springfield action. However, for many years Springfields have been successfully converted to .300 Win Mag and stood those pressures very well.
It might also be pointed out that the .300 Win Mag, having a larger head than the .30-06 produces more bolt thrust.
So it is perfectly safe to load the .30-06 to pressures equal to the .308.
The SAAMI standard pressure for the .30-06 is lower than that for the .308, which is supposedly because of the "weak" Springfield action. However, for many years Springfields have been successfully converted to .300 Win Mag and stood those pressures very well.
It might also be pointed out that the .300 Win Mag, having a larger head than the .30-06 produces more bolt thrust.
So it is perfectly safe to load the .30-06 to pressures equal to the .308.
PercyShelley
Member
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2007
- Messages
- 1,075
If we wanted ideal thermodynamic efficiency (bullet muzzle energy/propellant energy) in medium weight rifle cartridges we would all shoot 110 grain bullets out of .358 winchester rifles with 42" polygonal rifled bores. The cartridge is such a small component of the total mass and bulk of the rifle that its efficiency is relatively unimportant so long as it is sufficient.
Vern Humphrey
Member
Actually, that would be an extremely inefficient set up -- long and heavy, and the bullet would quickly lose velocity.
Art Eatman wrote:
Actually, the story begins before that.
The origin of the basic .30-40 Krag cartridge, adopted in 1892, is lost in the sands of time. But it probably was initiated at Springfield Arsenal around 1888-89.
Over the years, the .30-40 Krag was gradually developed until they arrived at the ".30-01", .30-03, and the .30-06.
Actually, the story begins before that.
The origin of the basic .30-40 Krag cartridge, adopted in 1892, is lost in the sands of time. But it probably was initiated at Springfield Arsenal around 1888-89.
Over the years, the .30-40 Krag was gradually developed until they arrived at the ".30-01", .30-03, and the .30-06.
Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
I was trying to avoid the nit-picky. The FA folks were responding to the better performance of the Mauser cartriidge over the Krag in the Cuba war. So, first the bigger case and then the smaller bullet.
No biggie...
Edit-add: All manner of R&D was going on in the 1880s and 1890s, here and in Europe. The advent of "semi-smokeless" and the early smokeless powders brought about higher chamber pressures and a whole different pressure curve. Smaller diameters. Lighter bullets. Shorter barrels. Accuracy studies, like Mann's "The Bullet's Flight from Powder to Target", for example. Bolt-action receivers. Semi-auto and then full-auto. All this R&D continued right on into the "19-oughts".
No biggie...
Edit-add: All manner of R&D was going on in the 1880s and 1890s, here and in Europe. The advent of "semi-smokeless" and the early smokeless powders brought about higher chamber pressures and a whole different pressure curve. Smaller diameters. Lighter bullets. Shorter barrels. Accuracy studies, like Mann's "The Bullet's Flight from Powder to Target", for example. Bolt-action receivers. Semi-auto and then full-auto. All this R&D continued right on into the "19-oughts".
Vern Humphrey
Member
The .30-06 (and the .30-03) case is based on the Mauser case -- specifically the 7X57mm that we faced in the Spanish-American War -- and not the rimmed .30-40.
Look at the dimensions -- same head size (0.473"), same web diameter (0.470"), same extraction groove width, depth and angle.
Look at the dimensions -- same head size (0.473"), same web diameter (0.470"), same extraction groove width, depth and angle.
- Status
