308 vs 30-06 and other rounds? WHY is a 308 better?!?

[Kevin Thomas]

Just a quick word here about reloading manuals; they're not wrong, at least none of them that I've run across, despite the fact that they vary considerably from one company to the next. As far as JWPs post, his figures are about right, and that's pretty much what I'd expect to see. Problem is, we're looking at a lot of different factors here. Different barrels, different lots of powder (even if it's the "same" powder) different primers (same cautions apply), different brass (can make a tremendous amount of difference), not to mention different bullets. Add to this the likely possibility that two different techs worked up the separate data for these two calibers, and they will most likely interrpret pressure signs differently. My point is, a reloading manual is nothing more than a report, that they tried this particular combination, and these are the results they saw. Period. There's no guarantee that your rifle will deliver the same results. It may not be anything even remotely close. Welcome to the wonderful world of handloading.

As far as the performance level difference between these two, I expect the '06 to deliver a bit better performance than the .308, but 3-400 fps makes me question what else is different between the guns used in this particular series of data firings. There simply is not enough of a capacity difference between these two to account for this level of disparity, all else being equal. There WAS a longer barrel used in both of Hornady's '06 firings than they used in their .308 data, but I suspect there's several other factors as well. Whatever, the loads need to be worked up in your particular rifle, watching pressure signs all the while.

This sort of variability is why I always advise having a good variety of reloading manuals on the shelf, allowing you to make some comparisons and see if there's trends or consistencies, or areas that show wide separations. When viewed in that context, the fact is that the vast majority of manuals show the type of velocity differences between these two that Michael had cited, and that Hornady's is the widest single discrepancy that I found. Again, I'm not saying Hornady's data is wrong, just that there's some variables that we're clearly not privy too.

Bottom line, always, is that you need to watch your pressure signs in your rifle when you're working up a load. Don't be surprised if your results show some difference compared to the published loads, and just accept that there's differences somewhere in the systems.

Certainly not looking to add to flames here, but rather to cool them down a bit with a little insight into the industry. Fair enough?

Hope this helps,

Kevin Thomas
Lapua USA

 

[liltank]

Just a quick word here about reloading manuals; they're not wrong, at least none of them that I've run across, despite the fact that they vary considerably from one company to the next. As far as JWPs post, his figures are about right, and that's pretty much what I'd expect to see. Problem is, we're looking at a lot of different factors here. Different barrels, different lots of powder (even if it's the "same" powder) different primers (same cautions apply), different brass (can make a tremendous amount of difference), not to mention different bullets. Add to this the likely possibility that two different techs worked up the separate data for these two calibers, and they will most likely interrpret pressure signs differently. My point is, a reloading manual is nothing more than a report, that they tried this particular combination, and these are the results they saw. Period. There's no guarantee that your rifle will deliver the same results. It may not be anything even remotely close. Welcome to the wonderful world of handloading.

As far as the performance level difference between these two, I expect the '06 to deliver a bit better performance than the .308, but 3-400 fps makes me question what else is different between the guns used in this particular series of data firings. There simply is not enough of a capacity difference between these two to account for this level of disparity, all else being equal. There WAS a longer barrel used in both of Hornady's '06 firings than they used in their .308 data, but I suspect there's several other factors as well. Whatever, the loads need to be worked up in your particular rifle, watching pressure signs all the while.

This sort of variability is why I always advise having a good variety of reloading manuals on the shelf, allowing you to make some comparisons and see if there's trends or consistencies, or areas that show wide separations. When viewed in that context, the fact is that the vast majority of manuals show the type of velocity differences between these two that Michael had cited, and that Hornady's is the widest single discrepancy that I found. Again, I'm not saying Hornady's data is wrong, just that there's some variables that we're clearly not privy too.

Bottom line, always, is that you need to watch your pressure signs in your rifle when you're working up a load. Don't be surprised if your results show some difference compared to the published loads, and just accept that there's differences somewhere in the systems.

Certainly not looking to add to flames here, but rather to cool them down a bit with a little insight into the industry. Fair enough?

Hope this helps,

Kevin Thomas
Lapua USA

+1 on all accounts. I usually use off brand reloading manuals because they are not bias to the bullet. Sierra loads for Sierra bullets. Hornady loads for Hornady bullets. I like using manuals such as Lee and Lyman because they offer different brand powders for different bullets. The Lyman is a little more specific to what bullet was used for there load info, and they always post primer, barrel twist, length and action. Good stuff.

Tank

 

[RockyMtnMT]

Using jwp's formula, I figure the 06 is about 22% greater capacity. Which translates into about 5.5% greater velocity, equaling about 150fps increase. I think that this is what most find to be the difference between the two. I am sure that it will vary from one gun to another, and one powder to another.

FWIW, I don't care about the difference in speed between the two. The 06 is a little bigger cartridge and thus offers an increase in energy. My 30-338Lap imp runs about double the powder of my 06. I certainly don't get anywhere near the speed per grain of powder used. If I did I would get 4900fps out of a 180g bullet.

It is silly to argue the efficiency of one cartridge over the other. The smaller cartridges are more efficient. Speed vs powder used. There is always one step bigger, and it is always a little bigger.

The way I see it, the 30-06 is the biggest production caliber before going into the magnums.

Good thread,

Steve

 

[Kevin Thomas]

It is silly to argue the efficiency of one cartridge over the other. The smaller cartridges are more efficient. Speed vs powder used. There is always one step bigger, and it is always a little bigger.



Steve

Hey Steve, no, actually it isn't silly to argue efficiency, but it is educational. Problem is, too many folks confuse efficiency with effectiveness. In .22 caliber cartridges, the .22 LR is easily one of the most efficient cartridges going, while the 22/243 Middlestedt is one of the least efficient. However, if we want to whack a rockchuck at 600+, which cartridge makes more sense?

Efficiency is nothing more that energy in vs. energy out. You can figure on roughly 178 ft-lbs of potential energy per grain of single-based extruded powder, and that remains constant throughout the line. Simply running the numbers of muzzle energy gives you a pretty good feel for just how efficient (not effective) a given cartridge is with a particular bullet. For most centerfire cartridges, a 25-30% rate of return is pretty good. Uping the capacity and going to bigger cartridges will show an immediate drop in the efficiency, a true example of the laws of diminishing returns. However, the tradeoff is that they are unquestionably capable of higher levels of performance in terms of velocity and energy, and so it goes.

Always something worth taking a look at, thoughI wouldn't necessarily base my choice of cartridge for a particular application on this alone.

Kevin Thomas
Lapua USA

 

[RockyMtnMT]

Hey Steve, no, actually it isn't silly to argue efficiency, but it is educational. Problem is, too many folks confuse efficiency with effectiveness. In .22 caliber cartridges, the .22 LR is easily one of the most efficient cartridges going, while the 22/243 Middlestedt is one of the least efficient. However, if we want to whack a rockchuck at 600+, which cartridge makes more sense?

Efficiency is nothing more that energy in vs. energy out. You can figure on roughly 178 ft-lbs of potential energy per grain of single-based extruded powder, and that remains constant throughout the line. Simply running the numbers of muzzle energy gives you a pretty good feel for just how efficient (not effective) a given cartridge is with a particular bullet. For most centerfire cartridges, a 25-30% rate of return is pretty good. Uping the capacity and going to bigger cartridges will show an immediate drop in the efficiency, a true example of the laws of diminishing returns. However, the tradeoff is that they are unquestionably capable of higher levels of performance in terms of velocity and energy, and so it goes.

Always something worth taking a look at, thoughI wouldn't necessarily base my choice of cartridge for a particular application on this alone.

Kevin Thomas
Lapua USA

I agree with you Kevin. My choice of words may not have been the best. You clarified the point I was trying to make.

Steve

 

[chazmatic]

I shoot both 06 and 308 for long range comp. Say we have 20 shooters on any given day. One in 20 will have a 06 and maybe 6 will have a 308. The rest of the shooters will have hyper calibers as in ackley improved. They are out there trying super fast small cal. I enjoy out shooting the high dollar weapons!!
It doesn't get any better!!!

 

[load]

argue all ya'll want i'll stick with my 8mm mauser, 200 grain smk, 51 grains imr 4350 @ 2550 for medium game/medium range. i mean were talking about medium range here!

 

[Michael Eichele]

argue all ya'll want i'll stick with my 8mm mauser, 200 grain smk, 51 grains imr 4350 @ 2550 for medium game/medium range. i mean were talking about medium range here!

There is no argument. We are getting more velocity than that out of our 308's using the same bullet weight yet with a much higher BC.

 

[winmag]

This is kinda goofy. people are always trying for a bit more than whatever they have. 308, 30-06, 300win mag, 300wby, 300Rum each is a bit faster and flatter than the one to its left. Seems to me to be an apples to oranges contest from the start. It is a personal preferance thing for the task at hand IMO. One thing that tipped the scales for me when I was 13 was that the neighbor lady (74 years of age) shot her 308 for her elk gun, and a 243 for deer. Now theres nothing at all wrong with either of those two cartriges. But when your a 13year old boy, you dont want to shoot an old lady gun. I got an -06. I love that ol rifle, and someday my son will get it. But looking back, my choice was made for reasons only a 13 year old boy thinks matter. Id have been fine with either cartrige, but you couldnt have told me that back then. I still had buddies that teased me for havin a ''pop gun'' cause they had a 7mag or a 300. But Gunny Hathcock had an -06 and if it worked for him it would surely do for me. Now a days I dont hardly ever shoot my trusty ol -06 because I have ''a bit faster and a bit flatter'' shooting cartriges. But I still love that rifle, and it feels like an old friend when I shoulder it. 30-06 gets my vote on sentimental reasons alone. Not because its any better or worse than the 308(my apples vs your oranges). Its just a personal preferance thing like I said at the begining of this post. Theyre simmilar, but not compareable.
Oh, and that 74 year old lady killed a pile of elk with her ''old lady rifle''.

 

[RBrowning]

I just spent a little time looking at various web sights comparing the ammo and rifles that are commercially available in both calibers.

First the ammo. At Federal you can buy both with 168gr SMK and the 308 is listed at 2650 FPS while the 30-06 is listed at 2700. But if you look at a hunting load of 180gr Partitions the 308 is getting 2570 while the 30-06 is still listed at 2700FPS. This makes me thing that the match 30-06 is down loaded to maintain a preordained velocity requirement.

When I looked at rifles I found that Remington doesn't list weights so I left them out. But a Browning X-bolt 308 is 1 ounce less than a 30-06 in the same model. A Savage model 14/114 are both listed at 7 lb. 8 oz. A Tika T3 Lite are both listed at 6lb. 3oz. The Browning 30-06 is listed at 1" longer while the Savage is 3/4" and the Tika are listed at the same length.

So if 1" of overall rifle length, or 1 ounce of weight is going to break your ability to hike from your truck to your shooting position, by all means, go with the 308.

If recoil is your issue and you want to shoot a given weight bullet, go with the heavier rifle to help absorb the energy so your shoulder doesn't have to. If you want to shoot the 168 gr SMK, then the 1 ounce heavier 30-06 may make up for the 50 FPS velocity difference. Or get a recoil pad.

If you want to shoot heavier bullets to get better BC benefits at longer ranges, you are probably better off with the 30-06.

As far as the reason the military chose the 308 over the 30-06, I have always read that it was the weight and volume that the solders had to carry. 200 rounds of 308 will weigh less and take up less space that 200 rounds of 30-06. I've never carried 200 rounds out for a days hunt. Even on a prairie dog shoot I went back to the truck after each case to get more. So this isn't a real issue to me and I really question that it would be for any hunter.

Historically more records have been set with the 308 than the 30-06. Do you think that in the 50 years of lag between one and the other any variable changed that would give the second cartridge an advantage that the first did not get? Do you think maybe that the consistency of the components are better today than they were 104 years ago? Do you think that the shooters have learned a few techniques in the past 40 years that weren't around a century ago? Or maybe the design and manufacturing processes have evolved just a tad here and there over time? Unless you have the resources to do a controlled test, you really can't say that one cartridge is better, just that something changed over time.

There is a ton of ballistic info available on both, but more on the 308 because it is the current military round of choice. If you want to shoot heavier bullets the 30-06 will give you a slight advantage. If you want to be TakTaKool buy a 308. If you want a round that your grand kids can shoot thousands of STANDARD velocity rounds out of, it doesn't really matter which you get, they both work just fine.

 

[J E Custom]

guys this guestion has bothered me for a LONG time.

How come people say they'de take a 308 over a 30-06 or 7mm or some of the other more common hunting rounds? I havent read anything that makes the 308 a better caliber than a 30-06... at least I havent found anything that makes it a superior round to a 30-06? It obviously a little more effecient to be pushing similair velocities i guess.

I just can't see how it gets put up there as one of the best calibers out there. You can go to any forum and ask somebody to recommend a caliber MOST likely the 308 will be mentioned at least once in the first 5 replies?

I'm not trying to knock it but I just don't see where its soo great?​

Each caliber has it's strong points and weak points and the 308 and 3006 are not any different
so it comes down to personal preference and the intended use.

To say that one caliber is better than the other is apples and oranges and not a good comparison Because it still depends on use and likes and dislikes.

It's a great argument but not a valid one.

Just my opinion

J E CUSTOM

 

[Miller Outdoors]

I think .308 is better than .30-06 because it has a history of being a more accurate round. Also because it has noticeably less felt recoil with virtually no noticeable loss in performance. Plus, they're generally a fraction lighter to lug around.

They can both be classified as 'great' cartridges. Two cartridges can be great with one of them being just a bit better - and that's the relationship of .308 v. .30-06.

 

[chazmatic]

Very good assment miller!!!

 

[tackb]

neither is any better than the other really so just buy the one you like most and don't worry?