Was the 308 for economical reasons or is it truly more accurate?
If it is, is it because of less powder and less recoil ?
If it is, is it because of less powder and less recoil ?
308 & 3006
- Thread starter WhiteOak
- Start date
I for one don't buy in to the " .308 has the same Ballistics as a 30-06" argument I have read over and over on the Internet. I just don't see how a round that has less powder capacity would shoot the same ballisticaly as a larger capacity cased round keeping bullet weights and design the same. Sure one could be more efficient than the other, and the increase in performance may not be astronomically better, but the larger cased round would have more muzzle velocity and performance down range in my opinion.
I also believe a 30-06 loaded to modern standards probably would surprise a lot of people.
I also believe a 30-06 loaded to modern standards probably would surprise a lot of people.
[MENTION=109095]V8r[/MENTION], who says that the two are ballisticly the same? That is not true nor ever was. Do real research, not just reading Internet forum ramblings.
[MENTION=110070]WhiteOak[/MENTION], .308 is not more accurate inherently than .30-06, but it is more economical.
Guys, do some real searching and reading for cripes sake! Hell, even Wikipedia has better information than that!
[MENTION=110070]WhiteOak[/MENTION], .308 is not more accurate inherently than .30-06, but it is more economical.
Guys, do some real searching and reading for cripes sake! Hell, even Wikipedia has better information than that!
I have a brand new 3006, Weatherby Vanguard s2 and very happy
I have a Browning blr 308
This rifle only hits the bull when it heats up , made in 1990
I think your right, with today's technology things need to be reevaluated
I have a Browning blr 308
This rifle only hits the bull when it heats up , made in 1990
I think your right, with today's technology things need to be reevaluated
Either cartridge can be loaded to shoot very accurately, given a rifle platform of sufficient quality to take advantage of the caliber's abilities.
So your short answer is that you need a good rifle, in either caliber, and a good load for each rifle. Then you have to be able to shoot them well.
So your short answer is that you need a good rifle, in either caliber, and a good load for each rifle. Then you have to be able to shoot them well.
My understanding is that this theory is based on the 308 being more efficient ( which i believe it is looking at similar bullets and velocities over powder grs ) and that the shorter casing of the 308 gave it a more uniform and even burn column inside the case thus making it, in theory, more "inherently" accurate. There is no doubt that research backs this look at the reduction of group size at competitions like the wimbledon and how group size became smaller when people shifted to the 308 in the mid to late 60's. All this said though in today's climate the 30-06 has a better variety of stable powders and can be just as accurate as anything else. Nowadays accuracy has more to do with things like the sharpness of the reamer being used or how percise the ammo being loaded is. This is simply my understanding and I have been wrong before haha
Key word is WAS. In 1950 it was about a common nato round and more rounds per pound on your back ??
So there was a 308 is 'better than' a 30-06 mentality which sort of persists.
Ballistically they are close in some bullet weights and some loadings, however in heavier loads you would expect the 30-06 to perform better with modern reloading.
IS it more accurate? Probably not as I have seen some customs in 30-06 with superb accuracy. WAS it more accurate? There is some chat about target matches long time ago where the 308 moved the goal posts. Don't know, wasn't there.
The US military ball rounds - 150 gr for .06 and 147 gr for 7.62 - are ballistic almost the same, with the 147 7.62 being a little better at LR because of the boat tail bullet. That is what the military was after, in a shorter round. When we switched from the M1 to the M14, the rear sight was the same. The .06 is a better hunting round, but the .308 usually beats the .06 on the target range.
Yeah ! I don't they could chime in . Very funny !!!!!!
This all sounds logical to me.
Thanks for the replies.
This all sounds logical to me.
Thanks for the replies.
Two of my wife's uncles were in Korea. One night, after church on a rainy cold winter evening one of them looked at me and asked, "Was the M1 a 30.06?" I replied, "Yes". He nodded and said, "I thought it was but it's been so long. I only remember two things about the M1. It was heavy and it killed good. It killed real good." He had a look in his eyes I rarely see in some of the old uncles/great uncles (most are gone now). Then we went on talking about other things.
Wow, thanks for sharing sir.
Hell of a story, hell of a man. Definitely someone Id want on my side when the chaos pops off.
The rear sight design is the same. The m14 rear sight is scaled in meters, not yards like the m1
Take a 208 A-max or 215 Berger hybrid to the range and send them down to 1k at 2600-2750 and compare that to the best 308 load you got and tell me which one is better on target... paper or living.
The 06 is good for 200fps over the 308 and really shines at 185+ weights in modern firearms. Consider it a light Winchester magnum... but your going to have to load your own to get there as no factory would want the responsibility of backwoods joe blowing up his 100+ year old heirloom.
Last edited:
Hmm...I guess I did misread your post. I don't usually have issues with reading comprehension.
No problem bro. I too grow tired of the folks that keep saying the .308 has the same ballistics as the 30-06. I'm going to step out on a limb and say a 06 loaded to modern performance levels will probably be closer to a .300 win mag than a .308, or at least be in between.
Similar threads
