Is 30-06 obsolete or less accurate than .308? Why?

[Rustystud]

German and Others:

My first deer rifle was a 30-06 over 40 years ago. My second rifle was a 30-06 to replace the first that has over 2000 round of military ammo run through it. I still have that rifle a Remington 700BDL. It has harvested for me over 400 whitetails, several black bears, several elk and several mule deer and a few prong horns. I replaced it with a 300 Win mag and a 243 about 30 plus ears ago. I have since replaced all of them with a Remington model 7 in 308. I have shot deer for managment purposes and over the last 40 plus years I have shot more then most folks have seen in a life time.
I now shoot F-Class both open and FTR.

The only reason the 30-06 has been replaces by the 308 is recoil, shorter action and economics.

A few years ago I brought my 30-06 out of retirement for my son to bear hunt with. He shot a 515 pound bear with the 30-06. I could not have worked any better. I desided to shoot a few deer with it that year and what a pleasure to shoot.

I can hunt with any caliber and choose to hunt with a 308 in a moodel 7. But I would not think a second thought about taking out my 30-06 it has always worked wonderfully.

There was some resurgence for the 30-06 on the 100th aniversery.

Long live the 30-06.

Nat Lambeth

 

[mparsons911]

I just picked up a 1954 FN 30-06 with a 26" barrel (Almost 1 1/4" thick). Would your go to load still be 53-54 gr H4350 and a Berger 175?

 

[1000yardstare]

Shoot F Class - 6AI, .243, .308, .223, .300wsm in order of success and preference. Don`t see ought-sixes on the target ranges north of the border probably because the commercial target rifles are short action. If a long action over-the-counter target rifle was available then might see some Springfields.

Also hunt moose in northern Ontario in the Fall. Have had chances to buy many different rifles but my choice hands down is a Remington 7600 pump in .30-06. This cartridge can handle the heavier bullets such as the 200 gr Speer. Chronos at 2530 fps over a load of H4350. Prints 3 shot one inch groups at 100 metres. Ideal moose load.

So in my opinion the .30-06 is far from obsolete. Still an excellent cartridge a century after its inception.

 

[GermanS1]

Mparsons, yes, that load (53 H4350) is a good place to begin with the 175 and you can vary the bullet weight a bit as well as the charge as you determine what works best in your barrel.

I shot my new .30-06 at a 1000 yard match this weekend, it shot great, I was really happy with the way it turned out. I shot a 194, 196 and 199 (prone, irons, NRA match). That first string was kind of a settling-in deal and then it just got better and better!

 

[BoydAllen]

A goodly number of years ago C.E. Harris (Col.?) wrote an article on this subject that was published in The American Rifleman. It described an elaborate test using the same Hart barrels for each caliber in the standard twists for each caliber, 10" for the '06 and 12" for the .308. His conclusion was that the slower twist was better (with the same bullets) for the shorter ranges, and the faster, for the longer, regardless of the caliber. Since it is common for accuracy evaluations to be done at shorter ranges, the .308 would have a slight edge, not because of the case, but because of the standard twist rate.

 

[kountryboy2]

Interesting....I just finished an article claiming the 06 was abandoned by the military AND long range shooters due to the the better accuracy of the 308. :-\ I will try to find it and post it, although you know you can't believe everything on the net ;D
I have no investment in either caliber but find the debate interesting

I believe the real anwser was,the the military had the M14 (308) and the 30 06 was a bastard child. They wanted if needed the snipers to be able to shoot the same ammo as the M14. That way the military didn't have to worry about anything but 223 or 308. I guess in there eyes 2 was better than 3

 

[Laurie]

That way the military didn't have to worry about anything but 223 or 308. I guess in there eyes 2 was better than 3

The military will always do that for logistical reasons, normally very sensibly as each extra item is a procurement, storage and transport headache. Even if they saw the 7.62 as inferior to the .30-06, unlikely anyway, a .30-06 sniper rifle without cartridges is useless in the field while a 7.62mm M14 / M21 could use every other grunt's ammo, even tracer if need be.

Our Ministry of Defence tried to take this single calibre ammunition exercise to an illogical extreme in the 90s by attempting to withdraw the 7.62mm L7A1 GP machine-gun from service and force the troops to rely on the shorter-range and extremely unreliable L86A1 5.56mm Light Support Weapon, a 30-round box mag fed LMG version of the standard SA80 series rifle. (This was pre FN Minimi days.) The Parachute Regiment which was scheduled for deployment to the Balkans which was a live shooting war at the time, allegedly nearly mutinied and said no GPMG, no deployment. Our army still has the L7A1 GPMG in service and is currently using more 7.62mm than it has in many years over in Afghanistan.

Laurie,
York, England

 

[GermanS1]

Boyd, your comment on the twist rate affecting accuracy outcomes is interesting. As it happens, I have rifles with 1:11" twist barrels in .308 and .30-06; if I can find the moment to do it, it would be interesting to compare them with a load that each likes using the same bullet, say a Berger 175 or Sierra 190, both of which shoot very well in both rifles. You've got the gears turning in my head now!

 

[Laurie]

German,

yes do that please. That would be a very interesting subject that could either back 'received wisdom' or help demolish a myth depending on how it turns out!

Happy New Year - and may 2010 be a great shooting year for you.

Laurie

 

[mattc]

Shoot F Class - 6AI, .243, .308, .223, .300wsm in order of success and preference. Don`t see ought-sixes on the target ranges north of the border probably because the commercial target rifles are short action. If a long action over-the-counter target rifle was available then might see some Springfields.

Also hunt moose in northern Ontario in the Fall. Have had chances to buy many different rifles but my choice hands down is a Remington 7600 pump in .30-06. This cartridge can handle the heavier bullets such as the 200 gr Speer. Chronos at 2530 fps over a load of H4350. Prints 3 shot one inch groups at 100 metres. Ideal moose load.

So in my opinion the .30-06 is far from obsolete. Still an excellent cartridge a century after its inception.

Yes I would love to get a target rifle in 30-06 . I tryed to get one and could not. I ended up with a 308 that will do the job but its not a 06.

 

[mattri]

Not to get off topic, and this may be a dumb question anyway but if the 06 is good, wouldn't a .270 be better? Flatter, faster etc. Is the major hancicap to the .270 just the lack of decent bullets or is there something else that makes it less desireable?

 

[1000yardstare]

I was thinking of a .270wsm as an F class rifle but the anemic selection of match bullets disuaded me.

There are probably more match bullets available in .308 than any other caliber.

Also the requirement for the 7.62x51 (.308 win) in International matches such as the Palma with a max bullet weight of 155 grs has driven research and development of the .308 155 beyond all others.

 

[hogan]

Many world class bullets in 7mm. The 280 Rem especially Ackley Improved is the ticket there, or read the Reloader 17 article and see Robt Whitleys results with the plain-Jane .284 Winchester.

Then there's that other 100+ yo warhorse, the 6.5x55mm Swedish Mauser... For some reason, the .277s just have been snubbed in the race for good bullets, rather like .25 caliber.

How about the .338-06 with the .675BC hornady 250gr bthp bullet for LR Precision???

 

[Laurie]

Some of it is historical - until the 6.8mm Rem SPC came along, no country's military adopted .270 calibre so far as I know. You had 6.5mm, 7mm, 7.5mm, .30 (7.62mm) and .303 (7.7mm) but never .270.

Mind you, both your guys in the USA and our (British) War Office looked at .270 on more than one occasion, but 7mm sectional densities and ballistics always won out in the practical tests with prototypes.

Winchester got a winner with the .270WCF, but even then nobody ever seemed to go further with the calibre apart from Weatherby and now Winchester again with the WSM. P.O. Ackley describes the .270-08 wildcat as one of the best deerhunting cartridges he'd ever tried and couldn't understand why no manufacturer picked up on it.

It may just be that 7mm is inherently superior to .270 in terms of long-range ballistics, and that's all there is to it, or there's no real benefit either way, but happenstance means there's lots of top quality match 7mm designs to be had and hardly any .270s.

Either way, we are where we are as an old boss of mine used to say, which translated into "stop yacking about how we got into this mess, and get on with the job at hand!"

Now if only I could find some 115gn 0.277" Sierra MatchKings somewhere in the UK for my new 6.8mm Rem SPC, I'd be happier!

Laurie,
York, England

PS Bill - do you really want a 270WSM for F-Class? We have truckloads of 7mmWSMs in our F-Open here and the going rate for a £500 barrel (plus chambering, fitting etc) is max 600 rounds - but the view is they're over the hill and on the slippery slope for accuracy after half that. 270WSM would be worse with the smaller bore. Our less rich F-Classers are either joining the peasants (like me) in F/TR or adopting the almost 7WSM performance but much better barrel life .284 Win LT.

 

[Steve Blair]

Laurie: What is the "LT" in ".284 Win LT", please?

Steve

 

[Laurie]

Steve,

'Long-throat' to distinguish it from Winchester's 2.800" COAL original. Really, .284 Win as most people now use it is either a new cartridge or a wildcat depending on your point of view.

The amended extra-length version is a really great long-range cartridge, not just on ranges too. I have an article in one of the American magazines somewhere in the house (Wolfe's 'Rifle' probably) extolling it years ago in custom deer rifles built on long actions and which dates from years before you heard of anybody mentioning it in F-Class or your any calibre prone long-range conventional target shooting.

Regards,

Laurie

 

[Steve Blair]

Would you mean Layne Simpson's article, "Appreciating the .284 Winchester", in Handloader #115, May-June 1988? I just happened to be reading this several weeks ago.

 

[GermanS1]

I have to say that I'm really enjoying this thread and am glad it got started.

As to why not the .270 for long-rnage shooting, apart from the bullet issue the answer is: history, man, history! Heck, we're overrun with ballistically superior cartridges, but they have no soul, no history in long-range shooting. It's like listening to disco when there's DooWop or techno when there's classical instead. The .30-06 has soul. The .270 has great history as a hunting cartridge, but never as a target cartridge.

Now, a confession, true shame. Yesterday we had a 600 yard prone match (53 shooters, 70 degrees, not a cloud in the sky, 5 mph wind - apologies to those in cooler climes). I was registering everyone and it was obvious that this was going to be one hotly contested match just from who was there. I had the .30-06 with me and the 6XC; yes, shamefully, I shot the subcaliber. I feel so dirty now - and it only got me third place! Forgive me father, for I have sinned... Next week back to the '06.

 

[Laurie]

Sleepygator,

possibly - Ive been reading 'Handloader' for years and years - the wife keeps moaning about all the gun magazines 'cluttering up the house'. Any words such as 'good investment', 'keeps me out of the pub' ['out of bars' in US-speak] and suchlike invariably fall on deaf ears.

The trouble is I remember an article from somewhere that's suddenly become relevant for some reason or another, and I'm sure it's in Such & Such a title from 'around five years ago'. After I've wasted half a day trying to find it in 100 old copies of 'Such & Such', I either give up or discover it by chance in something else entirely from what I remembered.

Still, at least I don't do a Grandpa Simpson and fall asleep half way through a sentence - yet!

Laurie

 

[Laurie]

German,

returning to topic and the .30-06, I do the odd spot of work for a large (by our standards) gunshop which is also a significant importer / distributor of things. Nowadays it's largely scatterguns that earn the retail side its bread, but when I moved to [Old] York in 1986 they had a cramped little city centre shop full of surplus historic military rifles of almost every type and calibre you can think of from Chassepots and Lebels to the Armalite AR18.

Seven years ago the business moved to large new out of town premises and all sorts of things were found in the move that had lain hidden for many long years known only to the spiders. Amongst them was a crate of the dirtiest old surplus ammunition you'd ever seen, much of it badly corroded.

It was all allegedly .30-06 ball and I agreed to pull it all and in payment get to keep any components that I wanted. It wasn't actually all .30-06 - amongst other things I found five Kynoch .318 Westley Richards Nitro-Express rounds in a Springfield stripper clip, bullet types split between 250gn RN 'solids' (FMJ) and RNSPs. (Easy mistake as the .318 NE is really just a necked up .30-06 with .330" dia bullets.) There were 6.5X52 Carcano rounds with 160gn RNFMJs just like the notorious Lee Harvey Oswald stuff, and all sorts of things. Even the .30-06s weren't all ball and I have a few Remington 220gn RNSP bullets for my collection of interesting ammo and ammo bits - not much call for the 220gn SP in the UK.

Anyway .... to cut a long story short, there were two quite interesting .30-06 milspec lots of pearls amongst the filthy swine.

The first was getting on for 100 rounds of 1920s headstamped M1 173gn FMJBT ammo, the stuff that Hatcher writes about as length in his 'Notebook' as the answer to the maiden's prayer over the WW1 doughboy machinegunner's problems with the original .30-06 and its lack of range in barrage-fire. The cases were junk, the IMR powder inside reduced to a slurry, but the bullets were all perfect and cleaned up beautifully in a case tumbler.

The other was several hundred rounds of mid (1942-3) WW2 Winchester Western M2 152gn FMJ ammo loaded with what was then the newly invented WW ball powder. While every round with stick powders had seen the charge deteriorate - often to a corrosive slurry that rotted the case from the inside out, many breaking in two when I tried to pull the bullet - these were still apparently perfect after 65 years. The powder looks and smells just fine - no dust, no sign of chemical breakdown at all.

I still have about 4lbs of it in the garage and use it for home-made (and rather feeble) November 5th fireworks in old beer cans. I've been occasionally tempted to try the powder in a .308 or something, but even I am not that stupid. (I know several who are though if I were ever persuaded to give it to them!)

I did however try a few of the 173gn M1 bullets in an old .30-06 BSA CF2 deer rifle I had at the time. Despite their not miking out as oversize or anything, they generated very high pressures using what should have been mild starting loads of H4350 for 180gn bullets and can only assume that either they are very hard compared to modern bullets or have an unusually long bearing surface. I still have around 50 examples with no obvious use - but who knows? HM Government might have a radical rethink on our firearms laws and Santa could legally bring me a Browning M1919A4 in 361 days time. (Oh look, there's a squadron of pigs flying past!)

Regards,

Laurie

PS I don't think you should beat yourself up and feel "so dirty" - I'm having a 6XC 'Light Gun' built for 1,000yd BR hopefully arriving before the first UKBRA match in early April. I know now it's got to be a super-wise choice if you shot a rifle in this calibre in preference to a .30-06! If I'm able to say "it only got me third place", I will be more than happy.