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="WhiteyMacD" data-source="post: 1162212" data-attributes="member: 7633"><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="WhiteyMacD, post: 1162212, member: 7633"] 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Range
Rifle & Shotgun Discussion
308 better than 30-06?
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom