7mm-08: Across the board as good as 30-06?

[mshootnit]

In looking at the history of cartridges, 7.62 NATO was designed to equal the ballistics of the 30-06 military cartridge, but do so in a shorter, lighter case and rifle in order to increase logistical efficiencies. It was found that a shorter case and slightly lighter M80 147 gr. bullet at 2733 fps could essentially duplicate the effectiveness of the ealier 150 gr. M2 Ball at 2800 muzzle fps.
Penetration of the 150 gr 30 cal projectile at 2800 was very good having shown the ability to penetrate multiple soldiers with one shot, period training video demonstrates M2 Ball penetrating a 10" live oak and a German steel helmet.
Enter 7mm-08 Remington. Designed in 1980, this cartridge typically sports a 140 gr. projectile at 2800 FPS. In other words, 10 gr. lighter but producing equal velocity to M2 Ball. However 7mm-08 has 10% higher sectional density, and 9% greater ballistic coefficient comparing 140gr. 7mm to 150 gr. 30 cal. This would lead to increased penetration especially at range.
When you combine these factors with the logistical advantages of smaller, lighter ammo, and smaller lighter rifles, I have to wonder: For most or all lower 48 sporting uses, is 7mm-08 Remington an across the board replacement for the 30-06?
With the devastating reliable penetration of today's modern solid expanding bullets such as the TTSX in 150gr. or 160 gr. TSX would 7mm-08 be a reasonable replacement for 30-06 in Alaska?

 

[Fine Figure of a Man]

In looking at the history of cartridges, 7.62 NATO was designed to equal the ballistics of the 30-06 military cartridge, but do so in a shorter, lighter case and rifle in order to increase logistical efficiencies. It was found that a shorter case and slightly lighter M80 147 gr. bullet at 2733 fps could essentially duplicate the effectiveness of the ealier 150 gr. M2 Ball at 2800 muzzle fps.
Penetration of the 150 gr 30 cal projectile at 2800 was very good having shown the ability to penetrate multiple soldiers with one shot, period training video demonstrates M2 Ball penetrating a 10" live oak and a German steel helmet.
Enter 7mm-08 Remington. Designed in 1980, this cartridge typically sports a 140 gr. projectile at 2800 FPS. In other words, 10 gr. lighter but producing equal velocity to M2 Ball. However 7mm-08 has 10% higher sectional density, and 9% greater ballistic coefficient comparing 140gr. 7mm to 150 gr. 30 cal. This would lead to increased penetration especially at range.
When you combine these factors with the logistical advantages of smaller, lighter ammo, and smaller lighter rifles, I have to wonder: For most or all lower 48 sporting uses, is 7mm-08 Remington an across the board replacement for the 30-06?
With the devastating reliable penetration of today's modern solid expanding bullets such as the TTSX in 150gr. or 160 gr. TSX would 7mm-08 be a reasonable replacement for 30-06 in Alaska?

Good points and I hope you are prepared for the coming onslaught.

 

[someguy2800]

Before this turns into 20 pages of bickering I will say I think there are about 250 cartridges that all fall into the same category of effectiveness as either of those two and if you shot a deer with each of them I don't think you would see much statistical difference in effectiveness between them. There is much hype on how great this caliber or this special bullet is and how this delivers more downrange energy and whatnot and I'm just not a believer that they really do to game animals what people say they do. I've shot about 20 deer in the last few years with Barnes TSX's, and I'll just say don't believe the hype. Of the half dozen other bullets I have also taken deer with in the same gun the tsx's were not the top performer. To the same effect I think if you shot 10 deer with a 30-30 and 10 with a 300 win mag you might be suprized how little difference there might be in the average distance each animal went.

 

[Scooter22]

I'd say no. You can compare a lot of stuff on paper then take it into the real world and have it be wrong. The 30-06 has more powder capacity and can handle much heavier bullets. That makes a difference in the real world. No way I would take a 7mm-08 over a heavy loaded 06 if bears are around. jmho

 

[hdwhit]

mshootnit wrote:
However 7mm-08 has 10% higher sectional density, and 9% greater ballistic coefficient comparing 140gr. 7mm to 150 gr. 30 cal. This would lead to increased penetration especially at range.

I will point out that there was recently a post in the reloading forum (https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...ing-of-bc-the-wrong-way.821175/#post-10547071) pointing out the foibles of how the ballistic coefficient is used (misused) when it is divorced from considerations of velocity and bullet configuration.

 

[hdwhit]

mshootnit wrote:
Across the board as good as 30-06?

NO.

The 7mm-08 also loses out because it can't be loaded with the small stockpile of leftover "Accelerator" sabot bullets that I picked up from Remington wheny discontinued that line intending to load them into 30 Carbine rounds.

Of course, the problem is that you didn't specify any criteria to use in your assessment of the 7mm-08 versus the 30-06, so any deficiency - however absurb - like my Accelerator bullet criteria can be used to judge the cartridge not as good.

I recently had a post up asking for assistance in choosing between 270, 7mm-08, 308 and 30-06 for a new rifle that I want to purchase. Although there were some very passionate dissents, the concensus of the majority of respondents was that for my needs (deer and small game inside of 200 yards) they were all capable of doing the job. The choice ultimately came down to the fact that the LGS - which I want to patronize to the extent it is economically rational to do so - could more easily get 30 caliber components than 7mm.

I think if you decide what it is you want to do with the gun and then submit a post asking people to share their expertise and experiences with you regarding 7mm-08 vs 30-06, you will get some very good advice that you can use to make an informed decision.

 

[KansasSasquatch]

You can realistically get another 200fps out of the .30-06. M2 Ball ammo loaded on the light side.

 

[mshootnit]

Good points and I hope you are prepared for the coming onslaught.

I hear ya : - )

 

[VoodooMountain]

As far as I understand the military is currently testing new calibers and early reports seem to favor something of the 6.5 flavor for all the reasons you mentioned.

There are a lot of good options though

 

[cdb1]

Before this turns into 20 pages of bickering I will say I think there are about 250 cartridges that all fall into the same category of effectiveness as either of those two and if you shot a deer with each of them I don't think you would see much statistical difference in effectiveness between them. There is much hype on how great this caliber or this special bullet is and how this delivers more downrange energy and whatnot and I'm just not a believer that they really do to game animals what people say they do. I've shot about 20 deer in the last few years with Barnes TSX's, and I'll just say don't believe the hype. Of the half dozen other bullets I have also taken deer with in the same gun the tsx's were not the top performer. To the same effect I think if you shot 10 deer with a 30-30 and 10 with a 300 win mag you might be suprized how little difference there might be in the average distance each animal went.

Good post.

 

[Llama Bob]

For the vast majority of applications, they're interchangeable in terms of ballistics but the 7mm-08 is more pleasant to shoot. Both will handles anything in North America except for the great bears and bison. The 7mm-08 may need a bit more handloading, since there are good projectiles available that aren't loaded in factory ammo such as the 175gr partition. I do have a slight preference for the 7mm magnum over the 7mm-08 for elk - I really like the A-Frame bullet, but the 7mm-08 doesn't drive it fast enough to function correctly at longer ranges. Hence why I'd use the softer partition in the 7mm-08. But we're talking niggling differences.

.30-06 has a slight edge for the great bears and bison, but it's only marginal for them and we're talking about extremely expensive hunts. In the event I were going to pony up to go after either one, I'd choose a more appropriate rifle - perhaps something in .35 Whelen, .375 H&H, .404 Jeffery or even a big straight wall depending on likely shot distance.

In my personal rifle battery I use 7mm-08 for all deer, sheep, goats, antelope, black bears and hogs. Mostly I shoot 120gr Fusions. I move up to a 7mm magnum for elk or combo hunts and hypothetically might use one for very large black bears. Dangerous game I'll use either my .375 H&H or my magnumized .45-90.

 

[Mosin Bubba]

I agree with what other people have said, these caliber wars are overblown, and the real-world difference between most rounds isn't that great. I've hunted mule deer with a 243, and the guy I hunt with takes a 300 H&H. I can't say we have a huge sample size, but both rounds have dropped deer dead in their tracks. Two drastically different rounds in terms of energy, but I'd feel fine hunting with either one. And the difference between 7mm-08 and 30-06 isn't even close to that large.

Now that being said, OP's question specified Alaska. If we're talking moose and big bears, what 7mm load is going to keep up with 220 grain '06s?

 

[cdb1]

I missed the part about Alaska. Lower 48 give me a 7mm-08, Alaska I'll take a 30-06.

 

[Llama Bob]

Now that being said, OP's question specified Alaska. If we're talking moose and big bears, what 7mm load is going to keep up with 220 grain '06s?

175 partition will handle moose no problem. Bears, the .30-06 is better but a .375 H&H is better still.

 

[CraigC]

Before this turns into 20 pages of bickering I will say I think there are about 250 cartridges that all fall into the same category of effectiveness as either of those two and if you shot a deer with each of them I don't think you would see much statistical difference in effectiveness between them.

Exactly! Contrary to the rhetoric surrounding a certain 111yr old cartridge, there is A LOT of overlap in the world of rifle cartridges. That cartridge does not have a monopoly on the oft-tooted horn of "versatility". Rather than clinging to this imaginary crown the king has been wearing, we should be eternally grateful to have such a huge selection of wonderfully designed bullets for nearly every conceivable cartridge.

 

[Varminterror]

Have you ever killed game with either before citing the cartridge specs and making this assertion? I'd be interested in hearing your experience regarding the effectiveness of the 7-08 with 140-160grn bullets on elk or black bear compared to 180-220grn bullets in the 30-06?

Or is that not part of the board you read across?

I'm oft one to tout the above sentiment such there are many "right answers" to the same question, but when the only consideration you made is the killing of helmets and pine boards, not of larger game animals, I think the assertion the 7-08 is equal across the board is pretty bold.

ETA: I forgot about the Alaska part - I took a caribou on the Canadian side with a 7-08, grossly underestimated the body size when I took it up with me. The colleague who was playing "guide" for me was none too impressed when I called him out of camp to help me track it. It was hit well enough, but it made tracks a long ways, and bleeding from only one hole doesn't do the hunter any favors.

 

[jmr40]

Realistically everything from 243 up to, but not including 375 mag will take all of the same game, which would include deer, elk, moose, and any most bear. I'd probably draw the line on the 1000+ lb coastal brown bear with anything smaller than 7-08. Especially with todays bullets, 30 years ago I'd have probably not included anything smaller than 26 caliber. You reach another level at 375. The only real difference is effective range, the magnums do the same thing at longer ranges.

. Some people seem to think that the difference between 30 caliber and 28 caliber or a heavier of bullet is somehow significant. If anything it can be a negative. Bullet weight nor caliber is a good predictor of performance. The 2 most important factors are shot placement and bullet penetration. Everything else being the same a bullets sectional density (SD) is the best predictor of penetration. A bullets length in relation to weight is the key A 175 gr 7mm bullet will do anything a 220 gr 30 caliber bullet will do. And long lean bullets retain speed much better at long range which means better long range performance.

People are killing elk at near 1/2 mile with 243's and 6.5 caliber rifles, why would anyone question a 7-08 not being able to do the same. And this isn't new, it is just that American shooters are slow learners. The 7X57 was developed in 1893 and has been used to take every animal on planet earth by the rest of the world while Americans stayed with the much inferior 30-30 which came out AFTER the 7X57. WD Bell killed over 1,100 elephant during his career and virtually all with his favorite 7X57. The 7-08 is almost identical performance wise. The 6.5X55 beat 7X57 by 2 years and it's ballistic twin, the 6.5Creedmoor is just being discovered. With 140gr or heavier bullets it out perfroms 300 WM at long range not only in deeper penetration, but flatter trajectory.

 

[mshootnit]

I wanted to share this comparison using i formation provided by Nosler load data and the Hornady basic ballistics calculator.
7mm-08 160gr. Accubond BC .531, SD .283. Muzzle Velocity 2750 fps.
300 yd Vel. 2261, Energy 1815 ft lb, 7.8" drop using 200 yd. zero 1.5" sight height. 26" barrel.

30-06 180gr Accubond BC .507 SD .271
Muzzle Vel 2750 fps.
300 yd Vel. 2239, Energy 2003 ft lb, 7.9" drop using 200 yd zero 1.5" sight height 24" barrel.
the 7mm-08 bullet at 300 would be moving slightly faster with slightly better sectional density. The test barrel was a 26" however instead of a 24".
The 30-06 @ this range has 185 lb ft more energy.

All in all I would say a comparable performance envelope looking at these numbers. Granted this was only one manual.

 

[horsey300]

I'm not a fan of all of Bell's tactics nor exploits, but I do find that most people underrate a 6.5 or 7mm more than they should, and I've run my .300 wm for 12 years, I've never NEEDED it either but I'll tell ya, I don't track.....course when I or the wife grabs the .243, well.......... I don't track.

 

[horsey300]

I wanted to share this comparison using i formation provided by Nosler load data and the Hornady basic ballistics calculator.
7mm-08 160gr. Accubond BC .531, SD .283. Muzzle Velocity 2750 fps.
300 yd Vel. 2261, Energy 1815 ft lb, 7.8" drop using 200 yd. zero 1.5" sight height. 26" barrel.

30-06 180gr Accubond BC .507 SD .271
Muzzle Vel 2750 fps.
300 yd Vel. 2239, Energy 2003 ft lb, 7.9" drop using 200 yd zero 1.5" sight height 24" barrel.
the 7mm-08 bullet at 300 would be moving slightly faster with slightly better sectional density. The test barrel was a 26" however instead of a 24".
The 30-06 @ this range has 185 lb ft more energy.

All in all I would say a comparable performance envelope looking at these numbers. Granted this was only one manual.

I would only add that the whole energy rating is much outdated, such standards were developed to determine how hard you had to hit an elephant to knock it out. With modern weapons, bullets, propellants, and ranging equipment the numbers I'm more concerned with are the sectional density and impact velocity, as they will ultimately decide the effectiveness of the shot presented/taken. With partitions, bonded, and monometals available to be driven to impact velocities above 1800 fps (most bullets will still at least begin to open at that speed) at most normal hunting distances, the NEED for the HEAVY thirty cal is more of a want, I also run a 7 stw occasionally and can't say I'll need it worse than a .260 (properly loaded) for practical scenarios, but thank goodness I get to CHOOSE!

 

[RPRNY]

Across the board? No. Within the parameters you describe? Yes.

 

[LoonWulf]

a different take perhaps, as i like bullets that expand violently this matters to me and may not to others.......while bullets of similar SD, and velocity SHOULD penetrate similarly, a bullet thats heavier has more mass to SHED and still achieve similar penetration. Ive shot similar size animals with my 7mm loaded with 140grn ballistic tips loaded to around 3200fps, and my .300WM with 165s loaded around the same. both would go clean thru a 100-150lb deer, the 7mm made 2-3" exit wounds, and the .300 made 5" or larger on broad side shots. When hit quartering, dead on, or dead away, the .300 always penetrated a bit father and usually caused more damage before coming apart.
Damage wise, my hot loaded 06, which drives the 165s to 3k, produces similar damage to my 7mm with 162s at 3100 and penetrates nearly the same. So again with fast expanding bullets added weight seems more of an important factor than with slower expanding bullets.

 

[mshootnit]

Looking across more sources with 160 gr. loads in 7mm-08, velocities might be 2650-2700 for 22-24" barrels.
@2700 300 yd. velocity is 2216, energy is 1744 lb ft, 8.1" drop.

 

[Art Eatman]

A common 7mm08 factory load is a 139- or 140-grain bullet at about 2,800 ft/sec. IOW, a .308 with ten grains less bullet.

A comparable '06 factory load is a 150-grain bullet at about 2,800 ft/sec, mas o menos.

Now, some comments about the '06: The traditional factory load is at about 50,000 psi, vs. about 55,000 for the 7mm08. A handloader with a modern rifle can go up to that 55,000 psi level. That adds a couple of hundred ft/sec to the '06 performance. As near as I could tell from trajectory at my 500-yard range at my house, my 150-grain handloads in my 26" '06 gave me about 3,150 ft/sec. (Sierra handbook tables.)

 

[MCMXI]

Bullet weight nor caliber is a good predictor of performance. The 2 most important factors are shot placement and bullet penetration. Everything else being the same a bullets sectional density (SD) is the best predictor of penetration.

What do you mean by everything else being the same?