308 better than 30-06?

[MadDawg]

the 30/06 was the parent of the 308. The savage 300 is shorter than the 308. The military used shortened 30/06 brass in the beginning. Just my opinion but there is nothing wrong with the 300 savage, except availability.

Onething to consider when looking over all the cartridges that are 'better' than the 30 cals. if you get froggy and wish to compete in F-Class you will be in with every barrel burning cartridge ever dreamed of on bench rest gear.

The 308 goes into the F-tr class and competes against other 308s and a few 223s on a bipod.

There are many low recoil sub 30 cal choices. Last I heard the 6 or 6.5 x47 was in vogue. (that is a foriegn sub for the older savage 300/250 cartridges- it uses Lapua brass so as a sexy foreigner it turns heads) Some guys love comparing 'the numbers', the 6/6.5 x47 series has performance waaay beyond any numbers and has very low recoil. If I was just a paper killer to 1000, it would be the 6x47.

I used the 260 and 6.5x55 in comps and hunting. The long action 6.5x55 was perfect for the old mauser i have. but the 260 in modern short actions is a better choice i believe. both are great, until you put them up against the 6.5x284, which is what serious Open F-Class guys use.

All of that to say I back to the 308 and since there is now a special class for it I dont have to worry about the guys who change barrels every 700 rounds nor their wobble stick bench rests.

Whatever you decide, live with it a few years before caliber hopping. Better to develop skills than a gun safe full of rifles you dont use, or making the local gunsmith's house payment on a regular basis.

 

[WhiteyMacD]

Round development has nothing to do with the size. The .308 was developed based off the .300 Savage, thus making the .300 Savage the parent case for the .308 Winchester.

Look it up, you arent going to find a source that says 30.06 is the parent case for the .308 Winchester.

The .300 Savage distinguished itself further by serving as the parent to the .308 Winchester (7.62x51mm NATO) cartridge, a round that was developed for the US armed forces in the 1950s and which is still in use today.

Later, in the 1950's, the .300 Savage became the basis for experiments by the US Army that resulted in the development of the .308 Winchester cartridge.

The 7.62x51mm NATO cartridge started out as the experimental T65 cartridge. This should not be confused with the Incom T65 which is a much older & completely different military endeavor. The T65 was basically a lengthened version of the .300 Savage case & was a joint effort between the U.S. military & Winchester.

The test program continued for several years, including both the original .30-06 round and a modified .300 Savage (then known as the T65). In the end, the T65 cartridge demonstrated power roughly equal to the original .30-06, firing a 147-grain bullet at 2,750 feet per second (840 m/s) but was approximately .5 inches shorter. The eventual result of this competition was the T44 rifle.

FWIW, the T44 is basically the M14.

 

[338Shooter]

Negative, good buddy. 300 Savage is the parent case for .308.

color me corrected.

 

[MadDawg]

I love reading Mr. hawk's website. However the myth of the savage case is interesting. Did the Military lengthen a case or reduce another? I'd suggest like a board once cut, ya cant add to it. The savage was tested and found lacking in case cap for the available powders. but so were dozens of other cases and wildcats. In the end the conservative military just reduced the size of the 30/06 and called it good.

Those who complain of modern examples of 600 dollar hammers should take note!

To make the point on what gets repeated as fact-
The military 168 HPBT was developed for sniper marksman use. The wags online repeat over and over it was developed for 300meter matches- attempting to bolster the case for the 173 series.

Anyone who shoots short range matches knows this is silly. FLAT BASE bullets consistently shoot smaller groups compared to boat tails out to 300. Ask any serious benchrest shooter.

If the military was interested in short range accuracy the 168 HPBT would have been a 147-155 flatbase as the lighter bullet can be driven faster and the flat bottom produces tighter groups. Think short range palma where extreme BC is second to tight groups much closer in.

But expert after expert repeats the 300meter match rational. I'm more inclined to believe the military developed a round suitable for 300m BUT much more accurate to 600, the sniper standard, than the then in production 173s. Army sniper doctrine tests snipers to 600. The 168HPBT is excellent to that distance and the 173's of today dont give you any real advantage at those ranges.

Anywho the lineage of many cartridges has helped many an after the range beer go down.

The interweb is an interesting place, but not perfect.

 

[WhiteyMacD]

I love reading Mr. hawk's website. However the myth of the savage case is interesting. Did the Military lengthen a case or reduce another? I'd suggest like a board once cut, ya cant add to it. The savage was tested and found lacking in case cap for the available powders. but so were dozens of other cases and wildcats. In the end the conservative military just reduced the size of the 30/06 and called it good.

Those who complain of modern examples of 600 dollar hammers should take note!

To make the point on what gets repeated as fact-
The military 168 HPBT was developed for sniper marksman use. The wags online repeat over and over it was developed for 300meter matches- attempting to bolster the case for the 173 series.

Anyone who shoots short range matches knows this is silly. FLAT BASE bullets consistently shoot smaller groups compared to boat tails out to 300. Ask any serious benchrest shooter.

If the military was interested in short range accuracy the 168 HPBT would have been a 147-155 flatbase as the lighter bullet can be driven faster and the flat bottom produces tighter groups. Think short range palma where extreme BC is second to tight groups much closer in.

But expert after expert repeats the 300meter match rational. I'm more inclined to believe the military developed a round suitable for 300m BUT much more accurate to 600, the sniper standard, than the then in production 173s. Army sniper doctrine tests snipers to 600. The 168HPBT is excellent to that distance and the 173's of today dont give you any real advantage at those ranges.

Anywho the lineage of many cartridges has helped many an after the range beer go down.

The interweb is an interesting place, but not perfect.

Really? So this book published by the US gov't is false is it? Interesting. Ill need to contact them to ask why they would hide such a dark past of the T65. Your view is based on conjecture. I am relaying published fact.

Youre sources? Ide be more than happy to scan a copy of my little book and make it available online if Mr Hawks is so unreliable as a source.

 

[MadDawg]

Mr Hawks has much of his work on the interwebz no need to scan. I didnt realize he wrote the offical history of the M14 and the 7.62x51.

Would like the TM# of the 'official' history that you cite. I cant find any references past a super truncated overview that has the military spending many years tested two cartridges and 'selecting' the 300 savage, but not really as it had to be lengthened.

Can tell you what the 'old guys' at the AMU said years ago and after a few beverages, that while the 300 savage is close, it didnt have the case cap for the review board. So 47mm was too small and 51 was seen as better. but they didnt get there with just two attempts, the 30/06 was reworked a dozen ways come sunday. The rifle went through a dozen different forms and the testers must have thought they had real job security before it was all said and done.

I suppose the 300 savage myth continues because it is a simple storyline. Can tell you this, so many cartridges have the .473 rim that almost any lineage can be mapped. If the savage 300 was all that and a bag of chips it would have been soooo much simplier to just adopt it. just why did the Army NOT select the savage if it was 'the parent'? Why was 3mm so imporant? If the savage was the parent why add 3mm? if its velocity was so great why not keep it as is?

Well you have your ideas and I have mine. Would like more proof than a oft repeated one line one the internet.

If you could send me the TM# I'd appreciate it.

 

[WhiteyMacD]

Mr Hawks has much of his work on the interwebz no need to scan. I didnt realize he wrote the offical history of the M14 and the 7.62x51.

Would like the TM# of the 'official' history that you cite. I cant find any references past a super truncated overview that has the military spending many years tested two cartridges and 'selecting' the 300 savage, but not really as it had to be lengthened.

Can tell you what the 'old guys' at the AMU said years ago and after a few beverages, that while the 300 savage is close, it didnt have the case cap for the review board. So 47mm was too small and 51 was seen as better. but they didnt get there with just two attempts, the 30/06 was reworked a dozen ways come sunday. The rifle went through a dozen different forms and the testers must have thought they had real job security before it was all said and done.

I suppose the 300 savage myth continues because it is a simple storyline. Can tell you this, so many cartridges have the .473 rim that almost any lineage can be mapped. If the savage 300 was all that and a bag of chips it would have been soooo much simplier to just adopt it. just why did the Army NOT select the savage if it was 'the parent'? Why was 3mm so imporant? If the savage was the parent why add 3mm? if its velocity was so great why not keep it as is?

Well you have your ideas and I have mine. Would like more proof than a oft repeated one line one the internet.

If you could send me the TM# I'd appreciate it.

The 300 Sav never competed with the .30-06, and nowhere did I ever say it did. However, they *were* looking for a cartridge that could compete with the .30-06 while using less propellant, less brass, shorter OAL and could be shot from a small host and perform more efficiently in semi-auto firearms. Before the T65, another round (cant remember which one, but it was smaller than a .30 ... ~.27?) was attempted, but after proving the .30-06 could be used in a semi-auto rifle, the round was dropped from development, yet they still wanted a smaller round that could be used with a lighter weapon.

The only reason the .300 Sav was used in experiments was specifically in its similarities in size to the -06 but with a smaller OAL. The .300 Sav was not altered into the .308 Win, but immediately modified (as a base cartridge). This was the T65. The whole goal was a .30-06ish round that was suitable to be fired from lighter weapons, capable of reasonable full auto while still maintaining single shot accuracy. The point was not to "tame" or "size down" a .30-06. The point was to develop a new round with the above characteristics. And you are completely correct, if the .300 Sav was the bees' knees, it would have ended right there. But they werent using it as a base for its ballistic properties, but for its size. The .300 Sav was developed to compete with the .30-06 and fell short in the veolcity department, however it did surpass other .30 cal cartridges of the time.

So if you want a compromise, performace wise, .30-06 would be the parent *cartridge* in respects to ballistic predecession, but the size, case parent, and intended use would be the .300 Sav.

 

[ez bake]

The 300 Sav never competed with the .30-06, and nowhere did I ever say it did. However, they *were* looking for a cartridge that could compete with the .30-06 while using less propellant, less brass, shorter OAL and could be shot from a small host and perform more efficiently in semi-auto firearms. Before the T65, another round (cant remember which one, but it was smaller than a .30 ... ~.27?) was attempted, but after proving the .30-06 could be used in a semi-auto rifle, the round was dropped from development, yet they still wanted a smaller round that could be used with a lighter weapon.

The only reason the .300 Sav was used in experiments was specifically in its similarities in size to the -06 but with a smaller OAL. The .300 Sav was not altered into the .308 Win, but immediately modified (as a base cartridge). This was the T65. The whole goal was a .30-06ish round that was suitable to be fired from lighter weapons, capable of reasonable full auto while still maintaining single shot accuracy. The point was not to "tame" or "size down" a .30-06. The point was to develop a new round with the above characteristics. And you are completely correct, if the .300 Sav was the bees' knees, it would have ended right there. But they werent using it as a base for its ballistic properties, but for its size. The .300 Sav was developed to compete with the .30-06 and fell short in the veolcity department, however it did surpass other .30 cal cartridges of the time.

So if you want a compromise, performace wise, .30-06 would be the parent *cartridge* in respects to ballistic predecession, but the size, case parent, and intended use would be the .300 Sav.

Nuh-Uh.

 

[Thorgrim]

Ok. So then what is the best round for long range. 800ish yards

What do you want to shoot at 800 yards? If it's just paper, the .308Win is just fine. If you want to shoot deer or elk at those ranges then something else with more hp and a better bc would be preferable.

 

[z06man]

What do you want to shoot at 800 yards? If it's just paper, the .308Win is just fine. If you want to shoot deer or elk at those ranges then something else with more hp and a better bc would be preferable.

What is 'hp'?