.308 vs. .30-06 sniper round question

[Powderman]

From the viewpoint of the U.S. military, it's strictly a matter of logistics. The .308 will be the military's sniper round as long as the 7.62x51 round is being used in various other weapons. As for police and civilians usage, they tend to follow the military's lead. Although there are currently no factory tactical rifles being made in .30-06, there is absolutely no reason not to have one built for you, as I did. Should you go this route, the first thing you have to realize is, the .30-06 in a modern tactical rifle firing proper handloads, competes with the .300WM, not the .308 Winchester. Using the 190gr Sierra MatchKing bullet and modern powders (RL22), you will be able to reach 2900fps or slightly more, which puts you in the realm of factory .300WM ammo. I have been shooting at 1,000 yards for three years now (see rifle below), and a .30-06 set up like this has it all over a .308 at that distance in terms of both ballistics and wind drift. Drawbacks? No factory rifles and no factory ammo suitable to this purpose.

Don

Would it be poor form to drool all over your rifle? Pleeeeeeese???

 

[R.H. Lee]

It is however an interesting subject, as I've been pondering .308 vs 30-06. In addition to the 10FP, I have a Garand and a P17 Enfield. I'm considering rechambering the Garand to 7.62x51 simply for the milsurp ammo availability.

OTOH, I was also considering buying a nice scoped rifle, maybe a Model 70 or somesuch in 30-06 and working up some energetic accurate loads for it.

Too many decisions.............

 

[USSR]

R.H. Lee,

Shooting 7.62x51 in your .308 is not a problem, although, stay away from the Indian stuff. It's going the other way (.308 fired in a 7.62x51 chamber) that is potentially hazardous. The CMP was selling the current issue sniper ammo (M118LR) which uses the 175gr Sierra MatchKing for awhile, but I believe they are sold out. In any case, you are liable to find that Federal's Gold Medal Match and Black Hills Match ammo shoots better out of your Savage anyways.

Don

 

[USSR]

Powderman,

No problem, it's a tactical rifle and the scope caps are on.

Don

 

[artherd]

Right now it is logistics driven anyone want to make book on why the M24 is built on a a long action?????

To accept .300WinMag

 

[USSR]

Right now it is logistics driven anyone want to make book on why the M24 is built on a a long action?????

To accept .300WinMag

Yeah, the Army wanted both .308 and .300WM sniper rifles. The bean counters said "You only get one". Result: Army specified a long action thinking that sometime in the future they could convert them to .300WM. Doubt it will ever happen.

Don

 

[Sam]

Actually the spec ops types wanted the 300 and the Benning Boys wanted the 7.62. The Specops guys already had a few done.

Sam

 

[MachIVshooter]

A .308 is theoretically inherently more accurate than a .30-06. Supposedly this is due to the "burn front" or somesuch.

John

The most common arguments cite a short action as being more rigid (a component of the gun more than the cartridge itself) and the shorter powder columns giving a more uniform burn (debateable; depends on load density as well)

Having discussed this issue at length with several gunsmiths, it tends to be more a trend of factory short action guns being more rigid and having slightly tighter tolerances than their standard or long action counterparts. In the world of tuned custom riflesm, however, any cartridge can be made a precision round (available bullets providing).

I have shot both from many different factory rifles and could not tell any difference in accuracy and very little in terms of recoil.

Ballistically, they are all but identicle with light to medium bullets. With bullets of 180 grains and up, the .30-06 outclasses the .308 considerably.
I tend to favor the '06 because I like using 180 and 200 grain pills.

 

[USSR]

MachIVshooter brings up some interesting points. First, let me say, there are no "inherently" accurate cartridges. Some cartridges get this attached to them for various reasons. It may be that they come along at a time when there has just been a breakthrough in powder performance or bullet availability, or they may be the darling of the benchrest set and only highly accurate benchrest rifles are chambered for it. I guarantee you, that if you take a cartridge for which quality components are available, have a top-notch gunsmith chamber a premium barrel for it, you will have a great shooting rifle. As pointed out, a shorter cartridge has a theoretical advantage in having a shorter powder column and being chambered in a slightly stiffer short action. However, what we are talking about here are differences that could only be measured by firing from a machine rest in a controlled atmosphere. The biggest variables will always remain the consistency of the ammunition, the quality of the gunsmithing, and the ability of the shooter. Just MHO.

Don

 

[Darth Ruger]

+1 what USSR said. That reminds me of something I read in one of the gun magazines last year. Someone wrote asking how one cartridge can be more "inherently" accurate than another. They replied, admitting that they aren't and that many people, including gun writers, use that phrase just because it's become a common belief that the cartridge is a major factor in determining the accuracy. The .308, for example, is generally regarded as one of the most accurate calibers for 1,000 yard target shooting. In reality, the determining factors are the rifle and the shooter. Other cartridges can be just as accurate within a reasonable range, but the .308 has become the cartridge of choice over the years because it's ideally suited to that application, leading to a common perception that it's #1 for accuracy. But within a reasonable range, any cartridge can be "inherently" accurate, if the rifle is done right and the shooter has the ability. Handloads can get more accuracy out of it, but that rule applies to all other cartridges as well.

I've heard of people getting sub-MOA accuracy out of customized bolt-action rifles chambered in .30-30, handloaded with spitzer bullets.

 

[CB900F]

Fella's;

I'd sure like to see Dr. Lou Palmisano or Ferris Pindell check in on the above two posts. Seeing as how they spent much time & energy creating the .22 & 6mm PPC cartridges to be inherently accurate. Of course all the benchrest competitions won by those cartridges are immaterial.

But that's just my poor little ole opinion.

900F

 

[cracked butt]

I'd sure like to see Dr. Lou Palmisano or Ferris Pindell check in on the above two posts. Seeing as how they spent much time & energy creating the .22 & 6mm PPC cartridges to be inherently accurate. Of course all the benchrest competitions won by those cartridges are immaterial.

But that's just my poor little ole opinion.

Its all relative. The two you mentioned work very well at short distances 100-200 yards, but how do they stack up to the .308 at 500 yards?

I have a .22 that will shoot <.75" groups at 50 yards, but that doesn't make it an inherently more accurate cartridge than my 30-06 that will shoot 3" groups at 200 yards.

 

[Darth Ruger]

Its all relative. The two you mentioned work very well at short distances 100-200 yards, but how do they stack up to the .308 at 500 yards?

You beat me to it. It's relative because the cartridge is better suited to that application.

Of course all the benchrest competitions won by those cartridges are immaterial.

Okay, if you want to play that card... Then I guess all the long-range competitions won by the .308 are immaterial.

Formula 1 and NASCAR both use pretty awesome cars, but you wouldn't choose a Formula 1 car to race NASCAR, or vice versa. They both excel at what they were designed to do, but they wouldn't be the best choice for other types of racing. Choose the design (whether it's cars or cartridges) best suited to a particular application for best results. That doesn't mean a rifle in a certain caliber that gives you 1/2MOA performance at 100 yards is more accurate than a rifle in another caliber that gives you 1/2MOA performance at 500 yards. In that case, I'd call them pretty much equally accurate, relatively speaking. If all you're concerned about is making the smallest groups possible at 100 yards, then forget the 6mm PPC. Get a .17HMR.

To get back to the original question, why is the .308 more popular for sniper rifles than the .30-06? As pointed out, the military wanted a cartridge that was more compact and lightweight (desirable features for military use) that could do the same thing as the .30-06 at 1,000 yards (put enemy soldiers out of action) and also work well in a variety of other weapons. Simply put, they came up with a cartridge that does that. Don't forget that the military's choice of calibers always has a big effect on what civilian shooters want, no matter how good or bad that choice may be. The .308 has been the cartridge of choice ever since, so you'll find more tactical rifles chambered for it than for .30-06. But you could also go with a .30-06 for a sniper rifle if you want and get great results. That's the simple answer and I'm officially tired of this thread now, so I'm done here.

 

[CB900F]

Fella's;

I see we're now going from: "First, let me say, there are no "inherently" accurate cartridges." & "+1 what USSR said." To: Quote:

Originally Posted by cracked butt
Its all relative. The two you mentioned work very well at short distances 100-200 yards, but how do they stack up to the .308 at 500 yards?

And:

You beat me to it. It's relative because the cartridge is better suited to that application.

Methinks they changes the rules in the middle of the argument to suit themselves.

900F

 

[USSR]

CB900F,

Allow me to expand upon the statement "There are no inherently accurate cartridges". If a cartridge were "inherently" accurate, it wouldn't matter whether the action was trued or not, what grade of barrel was used, or even the skill (or lack thereof) of the gunsmith. I think we all know, this is not the case. The PPC cartridges were designed to work within a specific framework: benchrest shooting. It's designers took advantage of the benefits of a short powder column to design a cartridge having optimal accuracy potential and low recoil at a specific benchrest distance. All PPC chambered rifles are custom built using the finest components, as is the ammo they shoot. I think if you had Bubba, the backyard gunsmith, chamber a factory rifle in a PPC cartridge, using a barrel he bought for $79.95, the cartridge's "inherent" accuracy would not be able to overcome Bubba's (my apology to anyone named Bubba) lack of sense and skill. On the other hand, you take a quality gunsmith such as George Gardner of GA Precision or Terry Cross at KMW, and I have no doubt that they could turn out a precision rifle in the most obscure and unlikely cartridge that would run rings around Bubba's creation, provided that quality reloading components are available for it. In summary, I would be more likely to say specific cartridges have "a reputation for accuracy", rather than being "inherently accurate". Again, just MHO.

Don

 

[CB900F]

USSR;

Let's take a look at your argument from the other side of the coin, as it were.
And, while I'm at it, we'll cover the longer range fantasies also.

The benchrest and 1000 yard shooters, the serious one's, dump serious money into the guns. Stolle and Nesika actions aren't cheap to say the least and that's just the start of the check writing. But, these people are dedicated to pursuing the last .001" in accuracy and are willing to pay the price to get it. Which is also to say that they'll switch out a barrel and absorb the expense without qualms, if it'll give them that accuracy.

So, given that they'll have the best equipment they can afford, the question has to be asked; why are they moving away from the .308 and into the 6.5 and 6mm cartridges? Because they've found those cartridges to be inherently more accurate than the various .30 caliber rounds, .308 most assuredly included.

When you've got equipment equal in quality to the guy on the next bench, and he consistently outscores you at 600, 800, and 1000 yards, you get an eye exam, and you pay very close attention to the round he's shooting.

Recently, the world 1000 yard record was set by Kyle Brown of Whitefish Montana. He used a Nesika action, Shilen barrel, and the cartridge was 6mmBR. Lapua brass and Hornady 105 grain A-max bullets, which have a book B/C of .500. And the group size? 4.2278" at a thousand yards.

900F

 

[vmfrantz]

308 vs 30-06

hey everyone is straying from the two calibers in question. When i was in the USMC there was a sniper in my platoon. there is a big difference between 1000yd bench comps and putting a bullet into a human at 1000 yd. in a bench comp. you mesure your groups, in combat it just matters that your target is dead.

 

[Gewehr98]

Which world record category was that?

Recently, the world 1000 yard record was set by Kyle Brown of Whitefish Montana. He used a Nesika action, Shilen barrel, and the cartridge was 6mmBR. Lapua brass and Hornady 105 grain A-max bullets, which have a book B/C of .500. And the group size? 4.2278" at a thousand yards.

Because Rich deSimone's 1000 yard 5-round group went into 1.564" from this 6.5x284 Improved rig, and it still holds last I looked.





Is the .308 Winchester more inherently accurate than the .30-06 Springfield? I'm one who will never buy into that gunrag lore. Rather, I'd support the notion that it's easier to tune a precision rifle to the interior ballistics of the .308 Winchester than it is the .30-06 Springfield. Easier, but not impossible.

Give me the money to properly smith a Nesika Bay action with Krieger or Hart barrel, and I'll deliver a .308 Winchester or .30-06 Springfield that will both give equally tight groups, although I'd lean heavily on the .30-06 for accuracy past 800 yards. And that's where the sniper application of those two rounds comes into play, too. Sniper guns don't have to be 1/8 MOA benchrest rigs. They do, however, need to have predictable cold-bore first shot accuracy, out to their intended range. I don't consider my Remington 700PSS to be a 1000 yard sniper rig. 800, maybe 900 yards, but out towards 1000 I'll switch to either a .30-06 or 6.5-06, because I know they have enough steam to reach out there without going transsonic and losing accuracy. Plus, they're gonna work well on living, breathing targets, vs. paper.

As for the PPC and BR family of squat little cartridges, they're simply tuned well for their particular application, which is 200 meter benchrest. They're so specialized, they even run flat based bullets, because they don't need the extra BC for that 200 meter run to paper.

The next big thing in long range centerfire accuracy will be the barrel tuners/harmonic balancers already in vogue on the rimfire benchrest circuit. Mark my words, the Browning/Winchester BOSS was just the beginning.

 

[JShirley]

If all you're concerned about is making the smallest groups possible at 100 yards, then forget the 6mm PPC. Get a .17HMR.

Well, actually, that's false for a bunch of reasons, but you're trying to be ironic. The thing is, you're going the wrong direction w/ your caliber. All other factors being equal, a LARGER CALIBER (in context, diameter bullet) could shoot a SMALLER group because group size is measured from the center of your bullet holes.

I've read some reports from snipers going from Winchester Model 70s to Rem 700s in 'Nam, and the snipers thought they lost some range. Hell, I remember reading an article some years ago from some folks named...hm, who were they...oh, McMillan, saying basically the same thing, and suggesting that the .300 Win Mag was a much better sniper round than .308.

John

 

[Hugo]

Wow if you stop to think

I think we've found a new argument to replace the 9 mm vs .45

.308 vs .30-06 !!!????!

Just flip a coin already and buy the other caliber next month or next year! They both work great!!!

 

[idakfan]

.3006 Ap

I'm surprised somebody hasn't mentioned the availability of .30-06 AP projectiles... It seems to me that the .30-06 is most versatile, ESPECIALLY since you can buy and load your own AP.

I guess I'm thinking beyond hunting though...

 

[USSR]

Sniper guns don't have to be 1/8 MOA benchrest rigs. They do, however, need to have predictable cold-bore first shot accuracy, out to their intended range.

Well said, Gewehr98. A couple other points that need to be made is: wind is a factor, A BIG FACTOR, when shooting at long range, and the 6mm's just don't cut it on anything other than a calm day at 1,000 yards. At Williamsport, PA where I shoot, the ability (or lack thereof) to read wind is the difference between a good score and a so-so score. And while Stolle and Nesika actions may be the actions du jour for the benchrest set, the tight tolerances in these actions will quickly put them out of action when deployed in a tactical situation, which is what I believe we are talking about. Once you are laying down prone on a 1,000 yard range with the wind flags blowing various directions, all those 1/8 MOA groups fired at 100 yards are meaningless.

Don

 

[vmfrantz]

I agree ussr on that. a 6mm round could not compete in a tactical situation with the 30 cal rounds. and the 1/8 inch moa wont mean much eiter

 

[Beethoven]

Right now it is logistics driven anyone want to make book on why the M24 is built on a a long action?????

Because the military wanted the ability to snipe in .300 WM if it so desired.

However, the M24/M40 has been in use for at least a decade, if not more, and I've seen no hint that they plan on switching anytime soon.

Do you have any concrete information that contradicts me?

 

[CB900F]

Gewehr98;

Just took that off the Nesika site.

900F