Re: The Better Round
the 30-06 has more recoil and only gets 50 fps more than the 308 (with federal GMM). making the 308 the better round.
the 30-06 has more recoil and only gets 50 fps more than the 308 (with federal GMM). making the 308 the better round.
Re: The Better Round
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LongShot94</div><div class="ubbcode-body">the 30-06 has more recoil and only gets 50 fps more than the 308 (with federal GMM). making the 308 the better round. </div></div>
If you step up to the heavier bullets and slow burning powders like RL22 then the '06 has a huge advantage. However the '06 will not fit in a short action as the COAL is similar to .300 WM. I would hardly say the .308 is "better".
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LongShot94</div><div class="ubbcode-body">the 30-06 has more recoil and only gets 50 fps more than the 308 (with federal GMM). making the 308 the better round. </div></div>
If you step up to the heavier bullets and slow burning powders like RL22 then the '06 has a huge advantage. However the '06 will not fit in a short action as the COAL is similar to .300 WM. I would hardly say the .308 is "better".
Re: The Better Round
Big Subject.
Search is your friend
Do you reload? If you don't then 308 .
Even if you do 308 has a lot of advantages.
Big Subject.
Search is your friend
Do you reload? If you don't then 308 .
Even if you do 308 has a lot of advantages.
Re: The Better Round
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Falar</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LongShot94</div><div class="ubbcode-body">the 30-06 has more recoil and only gets 50 fps more than the 308 (with federal GMM). making the 308 the better round. </div></div>
If you step up to the heavier bullets and slow burning powders like RL22 then the '06 has a huge advantage. However the '06 will not fit in a short action as the COAL is similar to .300 WM. I would hardly say the .308 is "better". </div></div>
if you dont reload(like me) than the 308 is the better round.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Falar</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LongShot94</div><div class="ubbcode-body">the 30-06 has more recoil and only gets 50 fps more than the 308 (with federal GMM). making the 308 the better round. </div></div>
If you step up to the heavier bullets and slow burning powders like RL22 then the '06 has a huge advantage. However the '06 will not fit in a short action as the COAL is similar to .300 WM. I would hardly say the .308 is "better". </div></div>
if you dont reload(like me) than the 308 is the better round.
Re: The Better Round
Even if you do reload, Id still recommend the .308. It's a great caliber in all respects. It also fits many detach mag systems, which the '06 will not.
Even if you do reload, Id still recommend the .308. It's a great caliber in all respects. It also fits many detach mag systems, which the '06 will not.
Re: The Better Round
The '06 is a cartridge which has improved with age, primarily because the cartridge components have become more versatile. Where the .308 may be LR marginal, the .30-'06 resolves such issues with significant authority. Recoil is an issue, especially for me, and I draw the limit at .30-'06 and 175gr bullets. There isn't a damned thing you can do with a .308 that you can't do better with a .30-'06 (or .260; I think the .260 and '06 shoot very similarly, aside from the energy levels).
Singly fed in a bolt gun, the '06 works fine in a short action. The problems appear when one wants to use the magazine, or extract an unfired round. The solution is deceptively easy for the second issue, simply trip the bolt release and withdraw the bolt a little further. The issue comes up so seldom I don't give it much thought.
Anything which can be rebarreled to a .308, can be rebarreled to a .260 with better performance. It's a no brainer, less powder, less recoil, very similar trajectory to the original .30-'06. You just need to be a handloader to get the full advantage.
Greg
The '06 is a cartridge which has improved with age, primarily because the cartridge components have become more versatile. Where the .308 may be LR marginal, the .30-'06 resolves such issues with significant authority. Recoil is an issue, especially for me, and I draw the limit at .30-'06 and 175gr bullets. There isn't a damned thing you can do with a .308 that you can't do better with a .30-'06 (or .260; I think the .260 and '06 shoot very similarly, aside from the energy levels).
Singly fed in a bolt gun, the '06 works fine in a short action. The problems appear when one wants to use the magazine, or extract an unfired round. The solution is deceptively easy for the second issue, simply trip the bolt release and withdraw the bolt a little further. The issue comes up so seldom I don't give it much thought.
Anything which can be rebarreled to a .308, can be rebarreled to a .260 with better performance. It's a no brainer, less powder, less recoil, very similar trajectory to the original .30-'06. You just need to be a handloader to get the full advantage.
Greg
Re: The Better Round
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Greg Langelius *</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The '06 is a cartridge which has improved with age, primarily because the cartridge components have become more versatile. Where the .308 may be LR marginal, the .30-'06 resolves such issues with significant authority. Recoil is an issue, especially for me, and I draw the limit at .30-'06 and 175gr bullets. There isn't a damned thing you can do with a .308 that you can't do better with a .30-'06 (or .260; I think the .260 and '06 shoot very similarly, aside from the energy levels).
Singly fed in a bolt gun, the '06 works fine in a short action. The problems appear when one wants to use the magazine, or extract an unfired round. The solution is deceptively easy for the second issue, simply trip the bolt release and withdraw the bolt a little further. The issue comes up so seldom I don't give it much thought.
Anything which can be rebarreled to a .308, can be rebarreled to a .260 with better performance. It's a no brainer, less powder, less recoil, very similar trajectory to the original .30-'06. You just need to be a handloader to get the full advantage.
Greg </div></div>
Very well said. Your experience with the 260 is starting to make me think about one more and more.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Greg Langelius *</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The '06 is a cartridge which has improved with age, primarily because the cartridge components have become more versatile. Where the .308 may be LR marginal, the .30-'06 resolves such issues with significant authority. Recoil is an issue, especially for me, and I draw the limit at .30-'06 and 175gr bullets. There isn't a damned thing you can do with a .308 that you can't do better with a .30-'06 (or .260; I think the .260 and '06 shoot very similarly, aside from the energy levels).
Singly fed in a bolt gun, the '06 works fine in a short action. The problems appear when one wants to use the magazine, or extract an unfired round. The solution is deceptively easy for the second issue, simply trip the bolt release and withdraw the bolt a little further. The issue comes up so seldom I don't give it much thought.
Anything which can be rebarreled to a .308, can be rebarreled to a .260 with better performance. It's a no brainer, less powder, less recoil, very similar trajectory to the original .30-'06. You just need to be a handloader to get the full advantage.
Greg </div></div>
Very well said. Your experience with the 260 is starting to make me think about one more and more.
Re: The Better Round
You need to understand, I'm kookoofercocoapuffs about the .260, so anything I say about it probably needs to be taken with a grain of salt. But trajectory-wise, and even energy-wise once one gets well out there, the '06 and '260 will outperform the .308.
Honestly; we do things with the .308 that it was never designed to do. It was press ganged into the sniper role because the '06 was being phased out in favor of the .308, which was also being rammed down NATO's thoat; but its primary role was that of a main battle rifle cartridge with limited usage beyond midrange.
What the '06 did at LR, the .308, very honestly, did less well at the same LR distances. The snipers made do mainly because the supply conduit simply wasn't going to be made more complex just to suit their needs. Like most things, the most permananent measures are those which nobody ever really expects to be anything more than temporary; and like many 'traditions' in the military, what is, is what is, will be, and pity the man who quibbles.
Now a lot of folks have cut their teeth on the .308 and are very happy with it. More power to them. The mass and inertia of the .308's usage in the snper fraternity is flatly legendary. It ain't gonna change soon, get my drift?
But that does not convey any technical superiority, and as a sniper cartridge, the .308 provides an excellent foundation upon which to build improvement. The .260 is one such improvement.
if I were to build a sniper platform, it would be built on a long action with a .473" diameter bolt face. My primary chambering would be '06, and I would have a pair of additional switch barrels, a .260, and (for ammo availability issues) a .308.
Greg
You need to understand, I'm kookoofercocoapuffs about the .260, so anything I say about it probably needs to be taken with a grain of salt. But trajectory-wise, and even energy-wise once one gets well out there, the '06 and '260 will outperform the .308.
Honestly; we do things with the .308 that it was never designed to do. It was press ganged into the sniper role because the '06 was being phased out in favor of the .308, which was also being rammed down NATO's thoat; but its primary role was that of a main battle rifle cartridge with limited usage beyond midrange.
What the '06 did at LR, the .308, very honestly, did less well at the same LR distances. The snipers made do mainly because the supply conduit simply wasn't going to be made more complex just to suit their needs. Like most things, the most permananent measures are those which nobody ever really expects to be anything more than temporary; and like many 'traditions' in the military, what is, is what is, will be, and pity the man who quibbles.
Now a lot of folks have cut their teeth on the .308 and are very happy with it. More power to them. The mass and inertia of the .308's usage in the snper fraternity is flatly legendary. It ain't gonna change soon, get my drift?
But that does not convey any technical superiority, and as a sniper cartridge, the .308 provides an excellent foundation upon which to build improvement. The .260 is one such improvement.
if I were to build a sniper platform, it would be built on a long action with a .473" diameter bolt face. My primary chambering would be '06, and I would have a pair of additional switch barrels, a .260, and (for ammo availability issues) a .308.
Greg
Re: The Better Round
Greg you have some very good points.
the 30-06 or 260 is better balistically over a 308 I feel you Greg don't think all us 308 shooters think we have a superior round and its the end all be all far from it some may disagree with me ,I shoot the 308 because it makes me work harder and become better .
that said how well do you think a 260 or 30-O6 compare with a 308 and all 3 with 18.5" barrels?
just asking for my own thinking pool ...I like mobility and shorter works better for me.
Greg you have some very good points.
the 30-06 or 260 is better balistically over a 308 I feel you Greg don't think all us 308 shooters think we have a superior round and its the end all be all far from it some may disagree with me ,I shoot the 308 because it makes me work harder and become better .
that said how well do you think a 260 or 30-O6 compare with a 308 and all 3 with 18.5" barrels?
just asking for my own thinking pool ...I like mobility and shorter works better for me.
Re: The Better Round
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Rawburt</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I have read a lot about .308 as the superior long range round. My question is what about a 30-06. Obviously it is a larger more powerful, but what keeps it from joining .308's rank? </div></div>
Fill the '06 with half or 3/4s the amount of optimium powder to slow it down to the rainbow-like .308?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Rawburt</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I have read a lot about .308 as the superior long range round. My question is what about a 30-06. Obviously it is a larger more powerful, but what keeps it from joining .308's rank? </div></div>
Fill the '06 with half or 3/4s the amount of optimium powder to slow it down to the rainbow-like .308?
Re: The Better Round
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: palma</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Rawburt</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I have read a lot about .308 as the superior long range round. My question is what about a 30-06. Obviously it is a larger more powerful, but what keeps it from joining .308's rank? </div></div>
Fill the '06 with half or 3/4s the amount of optimium powder to slow it down to the rainbow-like .308? </div></div>
Hahaha, that made me snicker loud enough people looked at me strange.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: palma</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Rawburt</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I have read a lot about .308 as the superior long range round. My question is what about a 30-06. Obviously it is a larger more powerful, but what keeps it from joining .308's rank? </div></div>
Fill the '06 with half or 3/4s the amount of optimium powder to slow it down to the rainbow-like .308? </div></div>
Hahaha, that made me snicker loud enough people looked at me strange.
Re: The Better Round
I think it's fair to point out that 'superior round' is in the eye of the beholder. For some, 'superior' means reaching out the farthest with the most impact energy possible. For others, 'superior' means mobility and the ability to carry more ammo while delivering enough impact energy at realistic combat ranges to matter. For others still, 'superior' means widely available components that make our monthly trip to the range a lot more financially palatable in these economic conditions.
There is certainly something to be said about military adoption of a particular round. It makes civilian components much more available because the military bears the brunt of the initial development costs. The downside is that you end up with rounds that are less than ideal for civilian shooting because they were never intended to be such.
Had the military not adopted the 5.56 in Vietnam would we be talking about it today? I'm guessing not. Is it an awesome military round? Debatable, although it did allow us to put untrained troops into combat carrying a light weapon with lots of ammo, so you could make an argument that it was the right round for that conflict. We're seeing a push to move the military supply chain toward the .308 again because of our latest conflicts where the 5.56 is doing less well in the urban environment and in the expanses of the Afghan mountain ranges.
Since WWII, the venerable 30-06 has been relegated to hunting rifles where it excels, which is why we don't hear much about it as a viable long-range round. It's just that not a lot of people build precision rifles in 30-06. When faced with proven rounds and rifle designs in .308 and in .338 for precision work, people will choose those over the 30-06. It doesn't mean the 30-06 is an inferior round, it's just that it's been overcome by events and by the realities of so many other factors determining people's choice of shooting caliber.
I think it's fair to point out that 'superior round' is in the eye of the beholder. For some, 'superior' means reaching out the farthest with the most impact energy possible. For others, 'superior' means mobility and the ability to carry more ammo while delivering enough impact energy at realistic combat ranges to matter. For others still, 'superior' means widely available components that make our monthly trip to the range a lot more financially palatable in these economic conditions.
There is certainly something to be said about military adoption of a particular round. It makes civilian components much more available because the military bears the brunt of the initial development costs. The downside is that you end up with rounds that are less than ideal for civilian shooting because they were never intended to be such.
Had the military not adopted the 5.56 in Vietnam would we be talking about it today? I'm guessing not. Is it an awesome military round? Debatable, although it did allow us to put untrained troops into combat carrying a light weapon with lots of ammo, so you could make an argument that it was the right round for that conflict. We're seeing a push to move the military supply chain toward the .308 again because of our latest conflicts where the 5.56 is doing less well in the urban environment and in the expanses of the Afghan mountain ranges.
Since WWII, the venerable 30-06 has been relegated to hunting rifles where it excels, which is why we don't hear much about it as a viable long-range round. It's just that not a lot of people build precision rifles in 30-06. When faced with proven rounds and rifle designs in .308 and in .338 for precision work, people will choose those over the 30-06. It doesn't mean the 30-06 is an inferior round, it's just that it's been overcome by events and by the realities of so many other factors determining people's choice of shooting caliber.
Re: The Better Round
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cyberpuppy42</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I think it's fair to point out that 'superior round' is in the eye of the beholder. For some, 'superior' means reaching out the farthest with the most impact energy possible. For others, 'superior' means mobility and the ability to carry more ammo while delivering enough impact energy at realistic combat ranges to matter. For others still, 'superior' means widely available components that make our monthly trip to the range a lot more financially palatable in these economic conditions.
There is certainly something to be said about military adoption of a particular round. It makes civilian components much more available because the military bears the brunt of the initial development costs. The downside is that you end up with rounds that are less than ideal for civilian shooting because they were never intended to be such.
Had the military not adopted the 5.56 in Vietnam would we be talking about it today? I'm guessing not. Is it an awesome military round? Debatable, although it did allow us to put untrained troops into combat carrying a light weapon with lots of ammo, so you could make an argument that it was the right round for that conflict. We're seeing a push to move the military supply chain toward the .308 again because of our latest conflicts where the 5.56 is doing less well in the urban environment and in the expanses of the Afghan mountain ranges.
Since WWII, the venerable 30-06 has been relegated to hunting rifles where it excels, which is why we don't hear much about it as a viable long-range round. It's just that not a lot of people build precision rifles in 30-06. When faced with proven rounds and rifle designs in .308 and in .338 for precision work, people will choose those over the 30-06. It doesn't mean the 30-06 is an inferior round, it's just that it's been overcome by events and by the realities of so many other factors determining people's choice of shooting caliber. </div></div>
WORD!
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cyberpuppy42</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I think it's fair to point out that 'superior round' is in the eye of the beholder. For some, 'superior' means reaching out the farthest with the most impact energy possible. For others, 'superior' means mobility and the ability to carry more ammo while delivering enough impact energy at realistic combat ranges to matter. For others still, 'superior' means widely available components that make our monthly trip to the range a lot more financially palatable in these economic conditions.
There is certainly something to be said about military adoption of a particular round. It makes civilian components much more available because the military bears the brunt of the initial development costs. The downside is that you end up with rounds that are less than ideal for civilian shooting because they were never intended to be such.
Had the military not adopted the 5.56 in Vietnam would we be talking about it today? I'm guessing not. Is it an awesome military round? Debatable, although it did allow us to put untrained troops into combat carrying a light weapon with lots of ammo, so you could make an argument that it was the right round for that conflict. We're seeing a push to move the military supply chain toward the .308 again because of our latest conflicts where the 5.56 is doing less well in the urban environment and in the expanses of the Afghan mountain ranges.
Since WWII, the venerable 30-06 has been relegated to hunting rifles where it excels, which is why we don't hear much about it as a viable long-range round. It's just that not a lot of people build precision rifles in 30-06. When faced with proven rounds and rifle designs in .308 and in .338 for precision work, people will choose those over the 30-06. It doesn't mean the 30-06 is an inferior round, it's just that it's been overcome by events and by the realities of so many other factors determining people's choice of shooting caliber. </div></div>
WORD!
Re: The Better Round
Dare I mention that the 7mm08, 280 AI or 7mm remmeg are all superior long range rounds to their 30 caliber brothers. It's all about sectional density. You can go way way back to the 280 Ross and see .284 is THE caliber!
Dare I mention that the 7mm08, 280 AI or 7mm remmeg are all superior long range rounds to their 30 caliber brothers. It's all about sectional density. You can go way way back to the 280 Ross and see .284 is THE caliber!
Re: The Better Round
Durability....gotta like a rifle you can put 7000+ rounds through and still produce good accuracy.
To me thats the biggest benefit of having a .308.
Durability....gotta like a rifle you can put 7000+ rounds through and still produce good accuracy.
To me thats the biggest benefit of having a .308.
Re: The Better Round
I believe use of the 30-06 fell out of favour because the .308 was noticeably more accurate. Some believe the shorter fatter case and its effects is responsible.
I believe use of the 30-06 fell out of favour because the .308 was noticeably more accurate. Some believe the shorter fatter case and its effects is responsible.
Re: The Better Round
I dont believe the 308 is MORE accurate. Most people tend to like a short action.
I dont believe the 308 is MORE accurate. Most people tend to like a short action.
Re: The Better Round
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Cartman</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I believe use of the 30-06 fell out of favour because the .308 was noticeably more accurate. Some believe the shorter fatter case and its effects is responsible. </div></div>
Some of the early National Match competitions were finding out that the .308 was more accurate than the 30-06, but I have to wonder if that's still the case given the state of our riflesmithing and ammo reloading technology. The .308 may have been more accurate when fired from the same M1 as the 30-06, but that could have easily been the rifle itself responding to the round.
It doesn't make sense to me that one round would be inherently more or less accurate than another, given similar quality components. I'd be surprised if you see any difference between the two in accuracy if you put two GAP rifles next to each other, one in .308 and one in 30-06.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Cartman</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I believe use of the 30-06 fell out of favour because the .308 was noticeably more accurate. Some believe the shorter fatter case and its effects is responsible. </div></div>
Some of the early National Match competitions were finding out that the .308 was more accurate than the 30-06, but I have to wonder if that's still the case given the state of our riflesmithing and ammo reloading technology. The .308 may have been more accurate when fired from the same M1 as the 30-06, but that could have easily been the rifle itself responding to the round.
It doesn't make sense to me that one round would be inherently more or less accurate than another, given similar quality components. I'd be surprised if you see any difference between the two in accuracy if you put two GAP rifles next to each other, one in .308 and one in 30-06.
Re: The Better Round
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cyberpuppy42</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Cartman</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I believe use of the 30-06 fell out of favour because the .308 was noticeably more accurate. Some believe the shorter fatter case and its effects is responsible. </div></div>
Some of the early National Match competitions were finding out that the .308 was more accurate than the 30-06, but I have to wonder if that's still the case given the state of our riflesmithing and ammo reloading technology. The .308 may have been more accurate when fired from the same M1 as the 30-06, but that could have easily been the rifle itself responding to the round.
It doesn't make sense to me that one round would be inherently more or less accurate than another, given similar quality components. I'd be surprised if you see any difference between the two in accuracy if you put two GAP rifles next to each other, one in .308 and one in 30-06. </div></div>
BINGO!
The time when people were making these comparisons in service rifles a good rifle shot less than 1.5 MOA and a great rifle shot 1 MOA. Now people setback or throw away a barrel when it "opens up" to 1 MOA.
The only benefits I see to the 308 being "better" come directly from it being the current NATO and US Military 30 caliber round, and that is availability of components and loaded ammo. The 30-06 meets or exceeds it in everything ballistically.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cyberpuppy42</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Cartman</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I believe use of the 30-06 fell out of favour because the .308 was noticeably more accurate. Some believe the shorter fatter case and its effects is responsible. </div></div>
Some of the early National Match competitions were finding out that the .308 was more accurate than the 30-06, but I have to wonder if that's still the case given the state of our riflesmithing and ammo reloading technology. The .308 may have been more accurate when fired from the same M1 as the 30-06, but that could have easily been the rifle itself responding to the round.
It doesn't make sense to me that one round would be inherently more or less accurate than another, given similar quality components. I'd be surprised if you see any difference between the two in accuracy if you put two GAP rifles next to each other, one in .308 and one in 30-06. </div></div>
BINGO!
The time when people were making these comparisons in service rifles a good rifle shot less than 1.5 MOA and a great rifle shot 1 MOA. Now people setback or throw away a barrel when it "opens up" to 1 MOA.
The only benefits I see to the 308 being "better" come directly from it being the current NATO and US Military 30 caliber round, and that is availability of components and loaded ammo. The 30-06 meets or exceeds it in everything ballistically.
Re: The Better Round
Here's a discussion about it by Bart Bobbit on Sniper Country. Please take the time to read the whole write up I linked to below. I could probably find many more discussions about this if I spent some time as this comports with what I've read in several places in various gun rags over the years.
http://www.snipercountry.com/Articles/AccuracyFacts.asp
"Most top highpower shooters feel the main reason the .308 is much more accurate than the .30-06 is its shorter, fatter case promotes more uniform and gentle push on the bullet due to a higher loading density (less air space) and a more easily uniformly ignitable powder charge."
Here's a discussion about it by Bart Bobbit on Sniper Country. Please take the time to read the whole write up I linked to below. I could probably find many more discussions about this if I spent some time as this comports with what I've read in several places in various gun rags over the years.
http://www.snipercountry.com/Articles/AccuracyFacts.asp
"Most top highpower shooters feel the main reason the .308 is much more accurate than the .30-06 is its shorter, fatter case promotes more uniform and gentle push on the bullet due to a higher loading density (less air space) and a more easily uniformly ignitable powder charge."
Re: The Better Round
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Cartman</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Here's a discussion about it by Bart Bobbit on Sniper Country. Please take the time to read the whole write up I linked to below. I could probably find many more discussions about this if I spent some time as this comports with what I've read in several places in various gun rags over the years.
http://www.snipercountry.com/Articles/AccuracyFacts.asp
"Most top highpower shooters feel the main reason the .308 is much more accurate than the .30-06 is its shorter, fatter case promotes more uniform and gentle push on the bullet due to a higher loading density (less air space) and a more easily uniformly ignitable powder charge."
</div></div>
That's one of the articles I was mentioning in my post as well. If you read carefully, you'll find references like "By the middle to late 1960s...", which makes me personally question the applicability of those field experiences to today's technologies. That was 50 years ago!!
The only way to settle this is to have someone bring up an example of a modern precision rifle in 30-06, and to compare it to the many examples we have of similar rifles in .308.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Cartman</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Here's a discussion about it by Bart Bobbit on Sniper Country. Please take the time to read the whole write up I linked to below. I could probably find many more discussions about this if I spent some time as this comports with what I've read in several places in various gun rags over the years.
http://www.snipercountry.com/Articles/AccuracyFacts.asp
"Most top highpower shooters feel the main reason the .308 is much more accurate than the .30-06 is its shorter, fatter case promotes more uniform and gentle push on the bullet due to a higher loading density (less air space) and a more easily uniformly ignitable powder charge."
</div></div>
That's one of the articles I was mentioning in my post as well. If you read carefully, you'll find references like "By the middle to late 1960s...", which makes me personally question the applicability of those field experiences to today's technologies. That was 50 years ago!!
The only way to settle this is to have someone bring up an example of a modern precision rifle in 30-06, and to compare it to the many examples we have of similar rifles in .308.
Re: The Better Round
I understand your point there, but I think he makes clear this was in comparable rifles. A better rifle, I would expect, would raise both results by a similar amount.
Moreover, I think this would explain, to some extent, the recent "short magnum" phenomenons.
Unfortunately I don't know first hand have never even owned a 30-06 opting for a .270 for hunting instead. I've just read the same thing for thirty years so figured there must be something to it. As with much conventional wisdom, however, it could be so much horsepucky. YMMV.
I understand your point there, but I think he makes clear this was in comparable rifles. A better rifle, I would expect, would raise both results by a similar amount.
Moreover, I think this would explain, to some extent, the recent "short magnum" phenomenons.
Unfortunately I don't know first hand have never even owned a 30-06 opting for a .270 for hunting instead. I've just read the same thing for thirty years so figured there must be something to it. As with much conventional wisdom, however, it could be so much horsepucky. YMMV.
Re: The Better Round
I think PGS had a very important point about durability or barrel life. It's amazing that a small change in caliber can reduce barrel life in half. I would guess that some of the military's decisions are based on that as well. Especially that the .308 is also a belt fed round.
I think PGS had a very important point about durability or barrel life. It's amazing that a small change in caliber can reduce barrel life in half. I would guess that some of the military's decisions are based on that as well. Especially that the .308 is also a belt fed round.
Re: The Better Round
Hmm, interesting responses.
To reply to the question, I think the .308 would probably be the better cartridge in the shorty barrel. Relative to the .308, both the .260 and the .30-'06 would have a higher expansion ratio (case volume to bore volume ratio) which favors the smaller case. In essence it means that with less powder to burn, the shorter barrel will probably get more complete combustion of the propellent charge. This is debatable, as some sources suggest that the critical portion of the charge gets burned regardless.
My only quibble is with the shorty barrel. I think it makes less sense to hobble a long gun with a short barrel. It's kinda counterproductive, IMHI. But then, I don't need to go toting rifles in tight places; and if I did, I'd be toting a short-ish shotgun. Bolt guns and CQB don't entice me. More properly, at nearly 63, any kind of combat fails to entice me.
If I had to indulge in CQB, and was limited to a rifle, I'd be hoping somebody made a carbine semi chambered in .44Mag. Body armor or not, they're going to feel it.
Failing that, a carbine length semi in 20ga. .20ga 7/8oz slugs have nearly identical energy and ballistics to the .44Mag (my tests with Rem Slugger 20ga 7/8oz rifled slugs out of a rifled choke were eye openers. Yes I know rifled slugs and rifled chokes are not supposed to mix, but for me, they group better than many rifles.). I've also tested 20ga #4 buck out of the same rifled choke, and the resulting dispersion actually opens up the pattern to a respectable distribution at short distances; enough so to blanket a hallway at about 7yd. Sometimes the 'wrong' thing is just the ticket for a particular application.
Greg
Hmm, interesting responses.
To reply to the question, I think the .308 would probably be the better cartridge in the shorty barrel. Relative to the .308, both the .260 and the .30-'06 would have a higher expansion ratio (case volume to bore volume ratio) which favors the smaller case. In essence it means that with less powder to burn, the shorter barrel will probably get more complete combustion of the propellent charge. This is debatable, as some sources suggest that the critical portion of the charge gets burned regardless.
My only quibble is with the shorty barrel. I think it makes less sense to hobble a long gun with a short barrel. It's kinda counterproductive, IMHI. But then, I don't need to go toting rifles in tight places; and if I did, I'd be toting a short-ish shotgun. Bolt guns and CQB don't entice me. More properly, at nearly 63, any kind of combat fails to entice me.
If I had to indulge in CQB, and was limited to a rifle, I'd be hoping somebody made a carbine semi chambered in .44Mag. Body armor or not, they're going to feel it.
Failing that, a carbine length semi in 20ga. .20ga 7/8oz slugs have nearly identical energy and ballistics to the .44Mag (my tests with Rem Slugger 20ga 7/8oz rifled slugs out of a rifled choke were eye openers. Yes I know rifled slugs and rifled chokes are not supposed to mix, but for me, they group better than many rifles.). I've also tested 20ga #4 buck out of the same rifled choke, and the resulting dispersion actually opens up the pattern to a respectable distribution at short distances; enough so to blanket a hallway at about 7yd. Sometimes the 'wrong' thing is just the ticket for a particular application.
Greg
Re: The Better Round
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cyberpuppy42</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Cartman</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Here's a discussion about it by Bart Bobbit on Sniper Country. Please take the time to read the whole write up I linked to below. I could probably find many more discussions about this if I spent some time as this comports with what I've read in several places in various gun rags over the years.
http://www.snipercountry.com/Articles/AccuracyFacts.asp
"Most top highpower shooters feel the main reason the .308 is much more accurate than the .30-06 is its shorter, fatter case promotes more uniform and gentle push on the bullet due to a higher loading density (less air space) and a more easily uniformly ignitable powder charge."
</div></div>
That's one of the articles I was mentioning in my post as well. If you read carefully, you'll find references like "By the middle to late 1960s...", which makes me personally question the applicability of those field experiences to today's technologies. That was 50 years ago!!
The only way to settle this is to have someone bring up an example of a modern precision rifle in 30-06, and to compare it to the many examples we have of similar rifles in .308. </div></div>
Here's a link from someone who's stretched his precision 30-06 rig WAY beyond what we all think is possible. We all know a 308 doesn't go that far either.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: MontanaMarine</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Accuracy differences between the 308 and 30-06 are indistinghuishable in the realm of tactical rifles/ammo.
In the BR world, maybe, but that's a whole different animal.
My 30-06 shoots .5 moa with pretty much everything I've ran through it from 110gr VMax up to 240gr Matchking. That's with a Douglas barrel, which isn't even considered a top-shelf barrel.
Some of my 308/30-06 targets:
http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v461/montanamarine/Targets/?start=all
</div></div>
http://www.snipershide.com/forum/ubbthre...000#Post1120000
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cyberpuppy42</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Cartman</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Here's a discussion about it by Bart Bobbit on Sniper Country. Please take the time to read the whole write up I linked to below. I could probably find many more discussions about this if I spent some time as this comports with what I've read in several places in various gun rags over the years.
http://www.snipercountry.com/Articles/AccuracyFacts.asp
"Most top highpower shooters feel the main reason the .308 is much more accurate than the .30-06 is its shorter, fatter case promotes more uniform and gentle push on the bullet due to a higher loading density (less air space) and a more easily uniformly ignitable powder charge."
</div></div>
That's one of the articles I was mentioning in my post as well. If you read carefully, you'll find references like "By the middle to late 1960s...", which makes me personally question the applicability of those field experiences to today's technologies. That was 50 years ago!!
The only way to settle this is to have someone bring up an example of a modern precision rifle in 30-06, and to compare it to the many examples we have of similar rifles in .308. </div></div>
Here's a link from someone who's stretched his precision 30-06 rig WAY beyond what we all think is possible. We all know a 308 doesn't go that far either.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: MontanaMarine</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Accuracy differences between the 308 and 30-06 are indistinghuishable in the realm of tactical rifles/ammo.
In the BR world, maybe, but that's a whole different animal.
My 30-06 shoots .5 moa with pretty much everything I've ran through it from 110gr VMax up to 240gr Matchking. That's with a Douglas barrel, which isn't even considered a top-shelf barrel.
Some of my 308/30-06 targets:
http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v461/montanamarine/Targets/?start=all
</div></div>
http://www.snipershide.com/forum/ubbthre...000#Post1120000
Re: The Better Round
Here is some more good 30-06 info. I took the 4th, 8th, and 9th pic used in this article BTW.
http://www.6mmbr.com/gunweek091.html
The 30-06 has a trajectory/wind advantage when pushing heavy bullets due to its increased case capacity. With those heavy bullets come more recoil.
Accuracy is not really the issue when you start stretching the distance - shootability (ability to deliver a consistent POI thru control of the rifle) and down range ballistics are. Once you get an extreme spread of under 20 FPS in your load/rifle combo in order to maintain your elevation point of impact, both will have basically the same inherent accuracy. Pushing the higher BC/heavier bullets will give the 30-06 an edge. BUT, if you are a recoil weenie like me, with 155s and 175s the 308 gets the job done as well as the 30-06.
The 308 first debuted in the M14. The M1 it replaced has an inherent issue relating to powder burn rate - it cannot be used in its issue form with powders slower than 4064 and bullets over 175 grs. With these limits, the M14 in 308, M80 ball round versus M2 ball round, the two are identical performers. The 308 makes the same velocity with less powder and less air space in the case, so more efficient it is and with the shorter/fatter column, more consistent its ignition and burn it is.
When you take the M1 out of the equation and stretch the full capabilities of the '06 case with slower powder and heavy bullets, there is a long range performance gap between the two chamberings.
No doubt, German's tube gun with heavy hot 30-06 loads produces a considerable amount of recoil. It is manageable by him, a triple distinguished shooter that is still near the top of the sling-and-coat rifle game, though he readily admits his absolute top pick for a 1k sling-and-coat gun has a 6mm hole in the barrel.
Here is some more good 30-06 info. I took the 4th, 8th, and 9th pic used in this article BTW.
http://www.6mmbr.com/gunweek091.html
The 30-06 has a trajectory/wind advantage when pushing heavy bullets due to its increased case capacity. With those heavy bullets come more recoil.
Accuracy is not really the issue when you start stretching the distance - shootability (ability to deliver a consistent POI thru control of the rifle) and down range ballistics are. Once you get an extreme spread of under 20 FPS in your load/rifle combo in order to maintain your elevation point of impact, both will have basically the same inherent accuracy. Pushing the higher BC/heavier bullets will give the 30-06 an edge. BUT, if you are a recoil weenie like me, with 155s and 175s the 308 gets the job done as well as the 30-06.
The 308 first debuted in the M14. The M1 it replaced has an inherent issue relating to powder burn rate - it cannot be used in its issue form with powders slower than 4064 and bullets over 175 grs. With these limits, the M14 in 308, M80 ball round versus M2 ball round, the two are identical performers. The 308 makes the same velocity with less powder and less air space in the case, so more efficient it is and with the shorter/fatter column, more consistent its ignition and burn it is.
When you take the M1 out of the equation and stretch the full capabilities of the '06 case with slower powder and heavy bullets, there is a long range performance gap between the two chamberings.
No doubt, German's tube gun with heavy hot 30-06 loads produces a considerable amount of recoil. It is manageable by him, a triple distinguished shooter that is still near the top of the sling-and-coat rifle game, though he readily admits his absolute top pick for a 1k sling-and-coat gun has a 6mm hole in the barrel.
Re: The Better Round
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Greg Langelius *</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Hmm, interesting responses.
To reply to the question, I think the .308 would probably be the better cartridge in the shorty barrel. Relative to the .308, both the .260 and the .30-'06 would have a higher expansion ratio (case volume to bore volume ratio) which favors the smaller case. In essence it means that with less powder to burn, the shorter barrel will probably get more complete combustion of the propellent charge. This is debatable, as some sources suggest that the critical portion of the charge gets burned regardless.
My only quibble is with the shorty barrel. I think it makes less sense to hobble a long gun with a short barrel. It's kinda counterproductive, IMHI. But then, I don't need to go toting rifles in tight places; and if I did, I'd be toting a short-ish shotgun. Bolt guns and CQB don't entice me. More properly, at nearly 63, any kind of combat fails to entice me.
If I had to indulge in CQB, and was limited to a rifle, I'd be hoping somebody made a carbine semi chambered in .44Mag. Body armor or not, they're going to feel it.
Failing that, a carbine length semi in 20ga. .20ga 7/8oz slugs have nearly identical energy and ballistics to the .44Mag (my tests with Rem Slugger 20ga 7/8oz rifled slugs out of a rifled choke were eye openers. Yes I know rifled slugs and rifled chokes are not supposed to mix, but for me, they group better than many rifles.). I've also tested 20ga #4 buck out of the same rifled choke, and the resulting dispersion actually opens up the pattern to a respectable distribution at short distances; enough so to blanket a hallway at about 7yd. Sometimes the 'wrong' thing is just the ticket for a particular application.
Greg </div></div>
Greg
Just a walk threw the woods will show much results with a shorter barrel,I think it all depends on what each user is doing with there rig,Ive used 16" to 27" and can say anything longer than 20" is a PITA to carry threw any wooded vine infested swamp or mountainside.
I am not in Land warfare,But I do use my gear for long range shooting of steel or ? and its not always from the truck to a bench or shooting MAT.. the loss of velocity is greatly outweight by mobility for me and my use ..
I think anyone that reads anything on any forum should look close at what looks good on paper vs what is actually needed and think about what they are actually doing vs what every one else may be doing as the rule..
My gear is built around my use and not anyone else and i don't need a vine snag-er barrel to get me on steel at 1k,but I wouldn't expect to show anyone up at an F class ether,But I guarantee if the need arise with extreme prejudice one wouldn't want me with TWO rounds to my name and 1K worth of air between us .
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Greg Langelius *</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Hmm, interesting responses.
To reply to the question, I think the .308 would probably be the better cartridge in the shorty barrel. Relative to the .308, both the .260 and the .30-'06 would have a higher expansion ratio (case volume to bore volume ratio) which favors the smaller case. In essence it means that with less powder to burn, the shorter barrel will probably get more complete combustion of the propellent charge. This is debatable, as some sources suggest that the critical portion of the charge gets burned regardless.
My only quibble is with the shorty barrel. I think it makes less sense to hobble a long gun with a short barrel. It's kinda counterproductive, IMHI. But then, I don't need to go toting rifles in tight places; and if I did, I'd be toting a short-ish shotgun. Bolt guns and CQB don't entice me. More properly, at nearly 63, any kind of combat fails to entice me.
If I had to indulge in CQB, and was limited to a rifle, I'd be hoping somebody made a carbine semi chambered in .44Mag. Body armor or not, they're going to feel it.
Failing that, a carbine length semi in 20ga. .20ga 7/8oz slugs have nearly identical energy and ballistics to the .44Mag (my tests with Rem Slugger 20ga 7/8oz rifled slugs out of a rifled choke were eye openers. Yes I know rifled slugs and rifled chokes are not supposed to mix, but for me, they group better than many rifles.). I've also tested 20ga #4 buck out of the same rifled choke, and the resulting dispersion actually opens up the pattern to a respectable distribution at short distances; enough so to blanket a hallway at about 7yd. Sometimes the 'wrong' thing is just the ticket for a particular application.
Greg </div></div>
Greg
Just a walk threw the woods will show much results with a shorter barrel,I think it all depends on what each user is doing with there rig,Ive used 16" to 27" and can say anything longer than 20" is a PITA to carry threw any wooded vine infested swamp or mountainside.
I am not in Land warfare,But I do use my gear for long range shooting of steel or ? and its not always from the truck to a bench or shooting MAT.. the loss of velocity is greatly outweight by mobility for me and my use ..
I think anyone that reads anything on any forum should look close at what looks good on paper vs what is actually needed and think about what they are actually doing vs what every one else may be doing as the rule..
My gear is built around my use and not anyone else and i don't need a vine snag-er barrel to get me on steel at 1k,but I wouldn't expect to show anyone up at an F class ether,But I guarantee if the need arise with extreme prejudice one wouldn't want me with TWO rounds to my name and 1K worth of air between us .
Re: The Better Round
No argument there. But understand, I'm 6 1/2" tall to begin with. A walk in the woods is hard enough to thread my oversized frame through the underbrush, and I still do it during deer season despite my advancing age. For me, the length of the firearm probably has less relevence compared to my own basic size issues.
And to be more clear, My hunters use 22" barrels or less. For deer, my preferred rifles are an 18" Win 94 Trapper .44Mag or a Win 70 .30-'06 with a lightweight 22" barrel. Some counties still require shotguns, and I use a scoped 870 12ga with a rifled 20" tube. That's because in my woody locale, shots well beyond 70yd are a rarity.
Please forgive my previous lack of clarity. We were talking about LR IRRC. As it happens, I am still trying to locate a shorter barrel for my Chas Daly 20ga Semi (they make one for the youth model, and I'm looking for that one because the Chas Daly barrels accept Remchokes), and a reliable means for mounting a dot scope.
When I speak of longer barrels, I'm talking about competitive shooting, where my distances generally vary between 200yd and 1000yd; and that demands a completely different firearm.
Greg
No argument there. But understand, I'm 6 1/2" tall to begin with. A walk in the woods is hard enough to thread my oversized frame through the underbrush, and I still do it during deer season despite my advancing age. For me, the length of the firearm probably has less relevence compared to my own basic size issues.
And to be more clear, My hunters use 22" barrels or less. For deer, my preferred rifles are an 18" Win 94 Trapper .44Mag or a Win 70 .30-'06 with a lightweight 22" barrel. Some counties still require shotguns, and I use a scoped 870 12ga with a rifled 20" tube. That's because in my woody locale, shots well beyond 70yd are a rarity.
Please forgive my previous lack of clarity. We were talking about LR IRRC. As it happens, I am still trying to locate a shorter barrel for my Chas Daly 20ga Semi (they make one for the youth model, and I'm looking for that one because the Chas Daly barrels accept Remchokes), and a reliable means for mounting a dot scope.
When I speak of longer barrels, I'm talking about competitive shooting, where my distances generally vary between 200yd and 1000yd; and that demands a completely different firearm.
Greg
Re: The Better Round
With you 100% Greg.
I think there is debate and friction from time to time with FT/R or the like and Tactical steel shooters and they (WE ME) don't even know it if they actually looked each has whats needed for that game I wouldn't want a 1K BR ring to HUMP and I wouldn't want a 18.5" hump rifle for a BR rig nor an FT/R for ether or vise vs X ,But I would argue with the fact if I didn't step back from time to time and think about there side and there need/use isn't even close to what I or we are talking about .
Maybe I am over thinking the AM REDBULL REDBULL NO MORE..
peace out guys I gotta Go Finish building some 1Obolts axles with 456's and Detroit's that i actually know about LOL...
With you 100% Greg.
I think there is debate and friction from time to time with FT/R or the like and Tactical steel shooters and they (WE ME) don't even know it if they actually looked each has whats needed for that game I wouldn't want a 1K BR ring to HUMP and I wouldn't want a 18.5" hump rifle for a BR rig nor an FT/R for ether or vise vs X ,But I would argue with the fact if I didn't step back from time to time and think about there side and there need/use isn't even close to what I or we are talking about .
Maybe I am over thinking the AM REDBULL REDBULL NO MORE..
peace out guys I gotta Go Finish building some 1Obolts axles with 456's and Detroit's that i actually know about LOL...
Re: The Better Round
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Cartman</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I understand your point there, but I think he makes clear this was in comparable rifles. A better rifle, I would expect, would raise both results by a similar amount.
</div></div>
Yes, comparable rifles, but I take issue with the those rifles themselves - that's the crux of my argument. I'm saying that loaded with modern components, and fired from modern precision weapons, both rounds would have similar accuracies, and the 30-06 would be able to go farther because of the larger powder capacity.
Think about this for a second: an M1A match grade is maybe 1 MOA accurate with a match-grade .308, whereas a GAP or a TacOps is something like 1/4 MOA accurate with the same match-grade .308. Does that mean the .308 round fired in the M1A is somehow less inherently accurate than the .308 round fired through those bolt guns? No, it means the rifles through which they're fired have a HUGE effect on the downrange accuracy of those rounds.
The only conclusion you can draw from the study we both referenced is that .308 rounds loaded with components available in the 50's fired from National Match Garands was more accurate than 30-06 rounds loaded with components available in the 50's from those same rifles. That's it. The data doesn't support you extrapolating those limited results to other rifles, and to today's technologies.
I'm glad someone posted real world results for a 30-06 in a modern precision weapon. It helps dispel some of the myths of the .308 being somehow an inherently more accurate round.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Cartman</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I understand your point there, but I think he makes clear this was in comparable rifles. A better rifle, I would expect, would raise both results by a similar amount.
</div></div>
Yes, comparable rifles, but I take issue with the those rifles themselves - that's the crux of my argument. I'm saying that loaded with modern components, and fired from modern precision weapons, both rounds would have similar accuracies, and the 30-06 would be able to go farther because of the larger powder capacity.
Think about this for a second: an M1A match grade is maybe 1 MOA accurate with a match-grade .308, whereas a GAP or a TacOps is something like 1/4 MOA accurate with the same match-grade .308. Does that mean the .308 round fired in the M1A is somehow less inherently accurate than the .308 round fired through those bolt guns? No, it means the rifles through which they're fired have a HUGE effect on the downrange accuracy of those rounds.
The only conclusion you can draw from the study we both referenced is that .308 rounds loaded with components available in the 50's fired from National Match Garands was more accurate than 30-06 rounds loaded with components available in the 50's from those same rifles. That's it. The data doesn't support you extrapolating those limited results to other rifles, and to today's technologies.
I'm glad someone posted real world results for a 30-06 in a modern precision weapon. It helps dispel some of the myths of the .308 being somehow an inherently more accurate round.
Re: The Better Round
Cyberpuppy, there is an article in the October 2007 Handloader magazine "Does Inherent Accuracy Really Exist?" by John Barsness that may provide the answer. I went ahead and ordered a copy.
I think it concludes that smaller case capacity equals inherently more accurate.
Obviously we're talking splitting gnats arses here, not field work, as an academic question.
Hence, 308 over 30/06, and the dominance of rounds like the 6mm BR -- unless you want to opine that in the bench rest game a modern precision weapon in 30/06 can successfully compete at the highest levels of BR shooting with the 6mm BR? I am open to any possibility.
Cyberpuppy, there is an article in the October 2007 Handloader magazine "Does Inherent Accuracy Really Exist?" by John Barsness that may provide the answer. I went ahead and ordered a copy.
I think it concludes that smaller case capacity equals inherently more accurate.
Obviously we're talking splitting gnats arses here, not field work, as an academic question.
Hence, 308 over 30/06, and the dominance of rounds like the 6mm BR -- unless you want to opine that in the bench rest game a modern precision weapon in 30/06 can successfully compete at the highest levels of BR shooting with the 6mm BR? I am open to any possibility.
Re: The Better Round
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Cartman</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Cyberpuppy, there is an article in the October 2007 Handloader magazine "Does Inherent Accuracy Really Exist?" by John Barsness that may provide the answer. I went ahead and ordered a copy.
I think it concludes that smaller case capacity equals inherently more accurate.
Obviously we're talking splitting gnats arses here, not field work, as an academic question.</div></div>
Cool! I'd love to read it or at least hear what they have to say. I'm always open to new information that changes my paradigm.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Cartman</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Hence, 308 over 30/06, and the dominance of rounds like the 6mm BR -- unless you want to opine that in the bench rest game a modern precision weapon in 30/06 can successfully compete at the highest levels of BR shooting with the 6mm BR? I am open to any possibility. </div></div>
Well, I guess I just don't know if anyone has tried BR 30-06 rounds. Like I said, I find it hard to believe the round design itself has such a huge impact on accuracy to the level which the original article was quoting (3x accuracy improvement in a .308 over a 30-06!), but I'm open to having my knowledge upended. Maybe the 6mm BR has less recoil, and because of that people are shooting it better.
Here's what I'm asking myself: does it really matter how a particular bullet got to the muzzle velocity at the point of leaving the rifle? As long as it's spinning at the correct spin rate for it's particular aerodynamic properties, and as long as the MV is at the rate at which the bullet trajectory is optimized, does anything else matter given everything else being constant?
The true measure of inherent accuracy for any particular round design would be an experiment that took out any other variables - infinitely rigid barrel shot out of a fixed bench, with the barrel length and twist optimized for the particular bullet of interest for that round. I'm curious to see what this article you mentioned says.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Cartman</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Cyberpuppy, there is an article in the October 2007 Handloader magazine "Does Inherent Accuracy Really Exist?" by John Barsness that may provide the answer. I went ahead and ordered a copy.
I think it concludes that smaller case capacity equals inherently more accurate.
Obviously we're talking splitting gnats arses here, not field work, as an academic question.</div></div>
Cool! I'd love to read it or at least hear what they have to say. I'm always open to new information that changes my paradigm.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Cartman</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Hence, 308 over 30/06, and the dominance of rounds like the 6mm BR -- unless you want to opine that in the bench rest game a modern precision weapon in 30/06 can successfully compete at the highest levels of BR shooting with the 6mm BR? I am open to any possibility. </div></div>
Well, I guess I just don't know if anyone has tried BR 30-06 rounds. Like I said, I find it hard to believe the round design itself has such a huge impact on accuracy to the level which the original article was quoting (3x accuracy improvement in a .308 over a 30-06!), but I'm open to having my knowledge upended. Maybe the 6mm BR has less recoil, and because of that people are shooting it better.
Here's what I'm asking myself: does it really matter how a particular bullet got to the muzzle velocity at the point of leaving the rifle? As long as it's spinning at the correct spin rate for it's particular aerodynamic properties, and as long as the MV is at the rate at which the bullet trajectory is optimized, does anything else matter given everything else being constant?
The true measure of inherent accuracy for any particular round design would be an experiment that took out any other variables - infinitely rigid barrel shot out of a fixed bench, with the barrel length and twist optimized for the particular bullet of interest for that round. I'm curious to see what this article you mentioned says.
Re: The Better Round
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ASM1</div><div class="ubbcode-body">1Obolts axles with 456's and Detroit's that i actually know about LOL... </div></div>
I hope you are running small tires! 456s and detroit in a 10 bolt? Talk about polishing a turd!!
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ASM1</div><div class="ubbcode-body">1Obolts axles with 456's and Detroit's that i actually know about LOL... </div></div>
I hope you are running small tires! 456s and detroit in a 10 bolt? Talk about polishing a turd!!
Re: The Better Round
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 19Scout77</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ASM1</div><div class="ubbcode-body">1Obolts axles with 456's and Detroit's that i actually know about LOL... </div></div>
I hope you are running small tires! 456s and detroit in a 10 bolt? Talk about polishing a turd!! </div></div>
35" swampers and its a customers truck,Ive had my dealings with some bigger axles
those that know who I am are grining..
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 19Scout77</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ASM1</div><div class="ubbcode-body">1Obolts axles with 456's and Detroit's that i actually know about LOL... </div></div>
I hope you are running small tires! 456s and detroit in a 10 bolt? Talk about polishing a turd!! </div></div>
35" swampers and its a customers truck,Ive had my dealings with some bigger axles
Re: The Better Round
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Mr. Humble</div><div class="ubbcode-body">.284 will out shoot any .308
end of story </div></div>
Are you referring to .284 Win vs .308 Win, or bullet diameters in general?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Mr. Humble</div><div class="ubbcode-body">.284 will out shoot any .308
end of story </div></div>
Are you referring to .284 Win vs .308 Win, or bullet diameters in general?
Re: The Better Round
not one round can out shoot another round its all in the rifle. a custom GAP 308 will out shoot any factory 284(if there are any) and a custom 284 will out shoot a factory 308.
not one round can out shoot another round its all in the rifle. a custom GAP 308 will out shoot any factory 284(if there are any) and a custom 284 will out shoot a factory 308.
Re: The Better Round
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Mr. Humble</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Bullet diameter. it's all about sectional density at long range. </div></div>
But what about .300 magnums firing 240gr SMKs?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Mr. Humble</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Bullet diameter. it's all about sectional density at long range. </div></div>
But what about .300 magnums firing 240gr SMKs?
Re: The Better Round
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Mr. Humble</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Bullet diameter. it's all about sectional density at long range. </div></div>
Correction, it's all about Ballistic Coefficient at long range.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Mr. Humble</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Bullet diameter. it's all about sectional density at long range. </div></div>
Correction, it's all about Ballistic Coefficient at long range.
Re: The Better Round
Enjoyable discussion.... I have nothing to add that hasn't already been stated, but it has been a good read...
Enjoyable discussion.... I have nothing to add that hasn't already been stated, but it has been a good read...
Re: The Better Round
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cyberpuppy42</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Cartman</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Cyberpuppy, there is an article in the October 2007 Handloader magazine "Does Inherent Accuracy Really Exist?" by John Barsness that may provide the answer. I went ahead and ordered a copy.
I think it concludes that smaller case capacity equals inherently more accurate.
Obviously we're talking splitting gnats arses here, not field work, as an academic question.</div></div>
Cool! I'd love to read it or at least hear what they have to say. I'm always open to new information that changes my paradigm.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Cartman</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Hence, 308 over 30/06, and the dominance of rounds like the 6mm BR -- unless you want to opine that in the bench rest game a modern precision weapon in 30/06 can successfully compete at the highest levels of BR shooting with the 6mm BR? I am open to any possibility. </div></div>
Well, I guess I just don't know if anyone has tried BR 30-06 rounds. Like I said, I find it hard to believe the round design itself has such a huge impact on accuracy to the level which the original article was quoting (3x accuracy improvement in a .308 over a 30-06!), but I'm open to having my knowledge upended. Maybe the 6mm BR has less recoil, and because of that people are shooting it better.
Here's what I'm asking myself: does it really matter how a particular bullet got to the muzzle velocity at the point of leaving the rifle? As long as it's spinning at the correct spin rate for it's particular aerodynamic properties, and as long as the MV is at the rate at which the bullet trajectory is optimized, does anything else matter given everything else being constant?
The true measure of inherent accuracy for any particular round design would be an experiment that took out any other variables - infinitely rigid barrel shot out of a fixed bench, with the barrel length and twist optimized for the particular bullet of interest for that round. I'm curious to see what this article you mentioned says. </div></div>
I'm curious to see it too and I'll let you know when I get it. Apparently many companies have wondered the same thing and have done what you want to see done.
I think the answer is yes, there is inherent accuracy and all other things being equal the case dimensions matter -- though I am unclear as to whether this is because they can be filled with powder completely, ignite evenly, or what? But take a look at a 6mm BR http://www.6mmbr.com/6mmbr.html and 6PPC http://www.6mmbr.com/6PPC.html
They're both short and fat. I don't know more than what I've read, but bench rest shooters are more fanatical about accuracy than I'll ever be. If it works for them, I'm guessing there's something to it.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cyberpuppy42</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Cartman</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Cyberpuppy, there is an article in the October 2007 Handloader magazine "Does Inherent Accuracy Really Exist?" by John Barsness that may provide the answer. I went ahead and ordered a copy.
I think it concludes that smaller case capacity equals inherently more accurate.
Obviously we're talking splitting gnats arses here, not field work, as an academic question.</div></div>
Cool! I'd love to read it or at least hear what they have to say. I'm always open to new information that changes my paradigm.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Cartman</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Hence, 308 over 30/06, and the dominance of rounds like the 6mm BR -- unless you want to opine that in the bench rest game a modern precision weapon in 30/06 can successfully compete at the highest levels of BR shooting with the 6mm BR? I am open to any possibility. </div></div>
Well, I guess I just don't know if anyone has tried BR 30-06 rounds. Like I said, I find it hard to believe the round design itself has such a huge impact on accuracy to the level which the original article was quoting (3x accuracy improvement in a .308 over a 30-06!), but I'm open to having my knowledge upended. Maybe the 6mm BR has less recoil, and because of that people are shooting it better.
Here's what I'm asking myself: does it really matter how a particular bullet got to the muzzle velocity at the point of leaving the rifle? As long as it's spinning at the correct spin rate for it's particular aerodynamic properties, and as long as the MV is at the rate at which the bullet trajectory is optimized, does anything else matter given everything else being constant?
The true measure of inherent accuracy for any particular round design would be an experiment that took out any other variables - infinitely rigid barrel shot out of a fixed bench, with the barrel length and twist optimized for the particular bullet of interest for that round. I'm curious to see what this article you mentioned says. </div></div>
I'm curious to see it too and I'll let you know when I get it. Apparently many companies have wondered the same thing and have done what you want to see done.
I think the answer is yes, there is inherent accuracy and all other things being equal the case dimensions matter -- though I am unclear as to whether this is because they can be filled with powder completely, ignite evenly, or what? But take a look at a 6mm BR http://www.6mmbr.com/6mmbr.html and 6PPC http://www.6mmbr.com/6PPC.html
They're both short and fat. I don't know more than what I've read, but bench rest shooters are more fanatical about accuracy than I'll ever be. If it works for them, I'm guessing there's something to it.
Re: The Better Round
Absolute accuracy may be no better with a .308 than 30-06 or .260 or whatever, but achieving great accuracy probably is.
My limited experience with loading for .308 has showed that it is stupid simple to build a load that will shoot great in the .308.
Size the case FL, prime, pour in some pwder, seat a bullet and bang bang bang bang bang. Sub MOA load. Pour in more or less powder chrono reads very little change in velocity for ammount of powder used when near top velocity, and loads are still MOA or less. Change component brands of bullet, powder, primer or brass and .308 does not really care. Still easy to find a MOA load whatever the combination.
I have found this to be true in 3 different rifles in the last year. 2 are Rem 700VS, one a 5-R.
Varget, RL-15, either 4895, 4064, all will make MOA ammo once reasonable pressures are met in the rifle for over a grain of powder change.
All 3 rifles shoot 168and175 SMK MOA or less.
All 3 shoot FGMM MOA or less.
I think this is where the "Inherent accuracy" claim comes from.
Factory ammo is subject to shoot great in a anyone's .308.
I have seen FGMM 168 that every round showed where the bullet jacket was shaved when seated and the ammo still printed decent groups.
Load development is so easy for .308 that it is difficult to settle on a particular load because groups are great with about every load that is reasonably well tuned to the rifle.
I have not loaded ammo for every chambering, but have for quite a few '06 included and I have never seen one so easy to find accuracy in.
.308 does not care so much about fouling, shoots great clean or dirty.
Temperature seems to affect .308 much less than my more overbore chamberings.
The .308 just plain lays them in there no matter what.
Maybe my confidence level in the round makes me shoot it better.
I never was impressed with .308 just looking at its ballistics, but if I really had only one shot, .308 would be my choice.
Absolute accuracy may be no better with a .308 than 30-06 or .260 or whatever, but achieving great accuracy probably is.
My limited experience with loading for .308 has showed that it is stupid simple to build a load that will shoot great in the .308.
Size the case FL, prime, pour in some pwder, seat a bullet and bang bang bang bang bang. Sub MOA load. Pour in more or less powder chrono reads very little change in velocity for ammount of powder used when near top velocity, and loads are still MOA or less. Change component brands of bullet, powder, primer or brass and .308 does not really care. Still easy to find a MOA load whatever the combination.
I have found this to be true in 3 different rifles in the last year. 2 are Rem 700VS, one a 5-R.
Varget, RL-15, either 4895, 4064, all will make MOA ammo once reasonable pressures are met in the rifle for over a grain of powder change.
All 3 rifles shoot 168and175 SMK MOA or less.
All 3 shoot FGMM MOA or less.
I think this is where the "Inherent accuracy" claim comes from.
Factory ammo is subject to shoot great in a anyone's .308.
I have seen FGMM 168 that every round showed where the bullet jacket was shaved when seated and the ammo still printed decent groups.
Load development is so easy for .308 that it is difficult to settle on a particular load because groups are great with about every load that is reasonably well tuned to the rifle.
I have not loaded ammo for every chambering, but have for quite a few '06 included and I have never seen one so easy to find accuracy in.
.308 does not care so much about fouling, shoots great clean or dirty.
Temperature seems to affect .308 much less than my more overbore chamberings.
The .308 just plain lays them in there no matter what.
Maybe my confidence level in the round makes me shoot it better.
I never was impressed with .308 just looking at its ballistics, but if I really had only one shot, .308 would be my choice.
