Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Range
Rifle & Shotgun Discussion
308 better than 30-06?
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="MadDawg" data-source="post: 1161929" data-attributes="member: 11627"><p>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.</p><p></p><p>Those who complain of modern examples of 600 dollar hammers should take note!</p><p></p><p>To make the point on what gets repeated as fact-</p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>Anywho the lineage of many cartridges has helped many an after the range beer go down.</p><p></p><p>The interweb is an interesting place, but not perfect.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="MadDawg, post: 1161929, member: 11627"] 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Range
Rifle & Shotgun Discussion
308 better than 30-06?
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom