Bushmaster wrote:

I am not going to get into this except to say I have no use for the .308 winchester (nato) round. Why would I need a round between .30-30 and .30-06??? .30-06 150grain can be pushed to 3,000 fps

Kind of the way I feel about the .30-06. Why would I need a round between the .308 and .300 Win Mag?

Nosler 5th:
.30-30 = 150g = Not available
.308 = 150g @ 3001fps
.30-06 = 150g @ 3000fps
.300 Win Mag = 150g @ 3420fps

Barnes 3rd:
.30-30 = 150g @ 2282fps
.308 = 150g @ 2998fps
.30-06 = 150g @ 3042fps
.300 Win Mag = 150g @ 3295fps

Hodgdon Annual Manual 2004
.30-30 = 150g @ 2390fps
.308 = 150g @ 2937fps
.30-06 = 150g @ 3068fps
.300 Win Mag = 150g @ 3255fps

Averages of above:
.30-30 = 150g @ 2336fps
.308 = 150g @ 2978fps
.30-06 = 150g @ 3036fps
.300 Win Mag = 150g @ 3336fps

Now, I’m not knocking the .30-06, just trying to show that the .308 is not exactly a slouch when compared to the .30-06.

While the .30-06 has a slight advantage over the .308 with 150g bullets (58fps average), the .300 has a significant advantage over the .30-06 (300fps average). If we take the velocities above and use the .30-06 as 100%:

77% = .30-30
98% = .308
100% = .30-06
110% = .300

For myself, I prefer my battery of a .30-30, .308 and .300 to a battery consisting of a .30-30, .30-06 and .300. But to each their own.

Now, I’m not knocking the .30-06, just trying to show that the .308 is not exactly a slouch when compared to the .30-06.

For myself, I prefer my battery of a .30-30, .308 and .300 to a battery consisting of a .30-30, .30-06 and .300. But to each their own.[/quote]


If we consider 150gr bullets only, then your point is well made in discussing 308 vs 30-06. The majority of 06 ammo, however, that is sold in our area uses 180gr. At this bullet weight, the 06 shows its versatility and even moreso when we go to the 200gr. Too, many manuals standardize barrel length for comparison purposes, however, 24" 308s are far less common than 24" 30-06s.

These discussions and comparisons get a tad pedantic, however, when the hunter is in the field with the firearm of his choice. Well placed bullets of proper construction outweigh a lot of other issues.

Hodgdon Data 150 gr
.308 2937 fps 50,300 CUP 24" bbl
.30-06 3068 fps 48,400 CUP 24" bbl

IMR Data 150 gr
.308 2936 fps 59,800 PSI 24" bbl
.30-06 3016 fps 58,000 PSI 24" bbl

.308 average 2936
.30-06 average 3042

diff 106 fps & 111 fpe

As you can see there is lots of diff data, but the 06 has an edge,
and I agree with you Handloader

Handloader wrote:

If we consider 150gr bullets only, then your point is well made in discussing 308 vs 30-06. The majority of 06 ammo, however, that is sold in our area uses 180gr. At this bullet weight, the 06 shows its versatility and even moreso when we go to the 200gr. Too, many manuals standardize barrel length for comparison purposes, however, 24" 308s are far less common than 24" 30-06s. These discussions and comparisons get a tad pedantic, however, when the hunter is in the field with the firearm of his choice. Well placed bullets of proper construction outweigh a lot of other issues.

Handloader –

I completely agree the .30-06 has an advantage with heavier bullets when compared to the .308. My comments, however, were specifically in response to Bushmaster’s comments regarding 150g bullet weights and his question as to “Why would I need a round between .30-30 and .30-06???” While I cannot answer for Bushmaster, there are many good reasons in my case.

1. The .308 is a short-action and typically comes with a 22” barrel. This makes for a very handy package with plenty of the “right stuff” for most hunting needs.
2. The .308 is optimum with bullets in the 150g to 168g weight range. This is exactly the weight ranges I wanted to use.
3. The .308, while not quite equaling the .30-06 even with 150-168g bullets, offers a substantial improvement over the .30-30 in terms of downrange performance and accuracy.
4. When building 165-168g target loads in the vicinity of 2650fps, I prefer to start with the smaller .308 case.
5. In over 20 years of hunting Colorado big game with a 7mm Rem Mag, I have never taken a shot that I could not have taken just as easily with a .308. That includes elk, deer and antelope.
6. My primary purpose for the .308 was a target rifle, although the .308 will be used extensively for hunting as well.
7. Feeding the .308 costs slightly less than feeding a .30-06, whether handloading or not.
8. For bullets in the 180-220g weight range I would – and did – choose a .300 Win Mag over a .30-06.
9.


I agree completely “Well placed bullets of proper construction outweigh a lot of other issues”, including any differences between a .308 or .30-06. Bushmaster chose the .30-06 for whatever reasons, I chose the .308 for others. Neither of us is “wrong”.

And the Bushmaster will go down in history for starting the .308/.30-06 wars...L O L. I agree...To each his own. I would rather spend my money on a different cartridge that would cover a totally different range catigory then putting a .308 between my .30-30 and .30-06. I will never own a .300 of anything as I am of light frame and the .30-06 is as much recoil as I wish to deal with.

Good job everyone. (and the .308 is not related to the .30-06 ) By The Way...The T65 was a Savage entry. A modified .300 savage...

Bushmaster wrote:

And the Bushmaster will go down in history for starting the .308/.30-06 wars...L O L. I agree...To each his own. I would rather spend my money on a different cartridge that would cover a totally different range catigory then putting a .308 between my .30-30 and .30-06. I will never own a .300 of anything as I am of light frame and the .30-06 is as much recoil as I wish to deal with. Good job everyone. (and the .308 is not related to the .30-06 ) By The Way...The T65 was a Savage entry. A modified .300 savage...

Thanks Bushy..........

and I also agree to each his own, and pick what ever caliber you want and shoot it well.

This is what i couldn't find yesterday. You can read it here Dimitri.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7.62_mm_NATO

Well...Why didn't you say so 1895ss. This is one of my references that I used to compile my arg...discussion on.

Well I was sure I wasn't suffering from CRS that badly but I couldn't find my proof online so these guys could see for themselves. Oh well it was a good debate and it sure made some of us think, and hey some people learned something from it. No harm done by that.

Interesting

Dimitri

I must say you all have made this one of the better topics of late. I have enjoyed all the replies. If I was as full of knowledge as you all, I would try to add some. My .06's have served me well, and hopefully for a long time to come yet. Good job all of you!--tr

moose2 wrote:

I must say you all have made this one of the better topics of late. I have enjoyed all the replies. If I was as full of knowledge as you all, I would try to add some. My .06's have served me well, and hopefully for a long time to come yet. Good job all of you!--tr

I believe you're right, and everybody kept their cool and it was fun.
Okay Bushy bring on the next topic........

Interestingly enough. My uncle had sold his 06 because he thought he "needed" a magnum to hunt west even though i tried to talk him out of it. After a few months he worked a load up that proved to be as accurate as his 06 and that load unfortunately, i don't have the data for however, he chronographed at 3222 fps which is shy of being 200 fps faster, but.....It beats the hell out of him as to where the 06 was sweeter, smoother, and easier for him. I tease him asking how mocho is his arm and 300 are doing

1895,
HHMMM, very interesting,I read the article in the link you provided.Thats the first time I ever read that the T-65 was developed from the 300 Savage.I knew that the Ordnance Department was very interested in the 300 Savage as it showed the possibilities of a shorter 30 caliber round and even did some testing of it. However everything I ever read stated that the end result(7.62 NATO) was a shortened version of the 30-06,as the info Dimitri posted "the T-65 was no more than the 30-06 case shortened by 1/2 inch" and " The Ordnance Technical Committee came up with a shortened version of the old .30 caliber M2 cartridge". I guess what this boils down to is if I am wrong its because I read reputable sources stating what I stated. If you are wrong it is because you read reputable sources stating what you stated. Anyway,good discussion,no hard feelings.

Roklok. In a way it is a cut down .30-06, but so is the .300 savage. You must remember that every rifle, old or new is compared with the .30-06. That does not mean that someone cut a .30-06 case down and renecked it. (you should try this sometime using your .308 dies). To save me the trouble of embarrassing myself by not being able to post a photo or scanned page from my Sierra load manual 5th edition. Find one and go to page 534 and read...