HuntingNut
HuntingNut
   Login or Register
HomeCommunity ForumsPhoto AlbumsRegister
     
 

User Info

Welcome Anonymous


Membership:
Latest: Left-eye
New Today: 0
New Yesterday: 1
Overall: 12441

People Online:
Members: 0
Visitors: 126
BOT: 5
Total: 131
Who Is Where:
 Visitors:
01: Forums
02: Forums
03: Statistics
04: Forums
05: Home
06: Forums
07: Forums
08: Forums
09: Forums
10: Forums
11: Forums
12: Forums
13: Photo Albums
14: Forums
15: Forums
16: Forums
17: Forums
18: Home
19: Forums
20: Forums
21: Your Account
22: Forums
23: Forums
24: Forums
25: Forums
26: Forums
27: Forums
28: Forums
29: Forums
30: News
31: Forums
32: Your Account
33: Forums
34: Photo Albums
35: Home
36: News
37: Forums
38: Home
39: Forums
40: Forums
41: Forums
42: Forums
43: Photo Albums
44: Forums
45: Photo Albums
46: Forums
47: Photo Albums
48: Your Account
49: Forums
50: Forums
51: Photo Albums
52: Forums
53: Photo Albums
54: Forums
55: Forums
56: Forums
57: Forums
58: Forums
59: Forums
60: Forums
61: Photo Albums
62: Forums
63: Forums
64: Forums
65: Photo Albums
66: Forums
67: Home
68: Forums
69: Forums
70: Photo Albums
71: Forums
72: Forums
73: Forums
74: Forums
75: Forums
76: Photo Albums
77: Forums
78: Forums
79: Home
80: Forums
81: Forums
82: Forums
83: News
84: Forums
85: Forums
86: Photo Albums
87: Forums
88: Photo Albums
89: News
90: Forums
91: Forums
92: Forums
93: Forums
94: Forums
95: Forums
96: Forums
97: Forums
98: Forums
99: Forums
100: Forums
101: Forums
102: Forums
103: Forums
104: Forums
105: Photo Albums
106: Forums
107: Forums
108: Forums
109: Photo Albums
110: Forums
111: Forums
112: Forums
113: Forums
114: Your Account
115: Photo Albums
116: Forums
117: Forums
118: Forums
119: Forums
120: Forums
121: Forums
122: Forums
123: Forums
124: Forums
125: Forums
126: Forums
  BOT:
01: Your Account
02: Forums
03: Forums
04: Forums
05: Forums

Staff Online:

No staff members are online!
 

Coppermine Stats
Photo Albums
 Albums: 301
 Pictures: 2358
  · Views: 284878
  · Votes: 1297
  · Comments: 86
 

Support our Advertisers

  The Great .308 versus .30-06 Debate

ShootingThe Great .308 versus .30-06 Debate
A chat room discussion got me looking hard at the “.308 Winchester vs. .30-06 Springfield” debate. My contention was that there was no significant difference between the ballistics of the two in hunting situations, or for that matter in any other situation. So let’s examine the ballistics of both cartridges and compare.
First we’ll take a quick look at the history of both cartridges. The .30-06 Springfield started life as a US military cartridge in 1906. It was derived from the “.30 Model 1903” cartridge that was designed to replace the .30-40 Krag. The ’03 cartridge used the same 220 grain round nosed bullet as the .30-40. The ’06 is essentially the same case as the ’03 with a 150 grain spitzer bullet at 2800 ft/sec. The .30-06 was the primary cartridge for the US military until it was “replaced” by the .308 Winchester/7.62x51mm NATO in 1954. The .308’s original load was a 149 grain spitzer at 2800 ft/sec. Both cartridges have certainly been very successful in military, match and hunting use! (Reference “Handloading” by William C. Davis, Jr.)

To quote the Speer #13 manual, “In the hunting field, ballistic differences between the 308 and the 30-06 are negligible.” The .308 was designed to duplicate the .30-06 for military use, but in a half inch shorter package. Both guns use the same 0.308” bullets. These bullets range from 100 grains to 250 grains in various styles. I figured that the .30-06 would have an advantage as the bullets get over 180 grains because its case was originally designed for the heavier bullets.
The most common hunting bullet weights for these cartridges are the 150, 165 and 180 grain. I realize that there are tons of loads for each cartridge but you’ve gotta start somewhere. I looked in the Speer #13 manual and compared their loads for both cartridges. I figure this is a pretty good comparison as loads for both cartridges were fired in the same type rifle, a Remington 700 with a 22” barrel. In each case I took the bullet with the highest ballistic coefficient and the highest velocity listed.

Here is a chart of the muzzle velocities for each bullet for both cartridges, the difference between them (.30-06 minus .308) and the percentage of that difference:
Bullet weight .308 .30-06 Difference %
150 2919 2847 -72 ft/sec -2.5
165 2812 2803 -9 ft/sec -0.3
180 2623 2756 133 ft/sec 4.8

From the chart we can see that the average difference in velocities for the three bullets is 17 ft/sec, or 0.6%, in favor of the .30-06. Now don’t forget that these are average velocities. In a string of shots a cartridge/gun’s velocity can easily have a standard deviation of 1% or more. In other words the normal variations in loads result in a built-in error that pretty much means we can’t count on such a small difference to be meaningful.

So, what does all this mean downrange? We’ll zero both guns at 200 yards and compare the bullet energy there. Let’s also take a look at what the bullets will be doing at 400 yards, which is a heck of a long shot for hunting. I used the “PointBlank” ballistics program to make the comparisons.

With the 150 grain bullet the .308 has 2093 foot-pounds of energy at 200 yards while the .30-06 has 1985 foot-pounds. Out at 400 yards the .308 will have dropped 20.9 inches, and still has 1512 foot-pounds. The .30-06 will have dropped 22.13 inches and maintains 1428 foot-pounds. The .308 shows 5.9% more energy at 400 yards.

Then with the 165 grain bullet 200 yards the .308 shows 2202 foot-pounds versus 2187 foot-pounds for the .30-06. At 400 yards the .308 drops 21.90 inches and has 1645 foot-pounds. The .30-06 drops 22.06 inches with 1633 foot-pounds left. At 400 yards the .308 has a tiny 0.7% energy advantage.

Finally we take the 180 grain bullet, which should give the biggest advantage to the .30-06. At the 200 yard mark the .308 will have an energy of 2143 foot-pounds and the .30-06 will have 2379 foot-pounds. The .30-06 has about 11% more energy. When we get out to 400 yards the .308 will be 24.64 inches low and still have 1647 foot-pounds while the .30-06 will be 22.10 inches low and still carry 1840 foot-pounds. That means that at 400 yards the .30-06 has an 11.7% advantage in energy.

Now I’m sure that folks will look up their favorite of these two and “prove” that it is better in some manual or another. I looked in some other manuals too and found varying velocities. One thing I noticed in one manual was that, with 250 grain bullets (yes, that is two hundred and fifty grains), there was only 100 feet per sec difference in the velocities of the two cartridges. That particular manual doesn’t give any barrel lengths though.

Just for giggles I also looked at the .270 Winchester and .280 Remington loads in the same Speer manual. With a 22” barrel and a 150 grain bullet at 2907 feet per second the .270 has 2170 foot-pounds at 200 yards and 1648 foot-pounds at 400 yards, while dropping 19.98 inches. The .280, with a 24” barrel and a 145 grain bullet at 2975 feet per second, shows 2209 foot-pounds at 200 yards and 1689 foot-pounds at 400 yards, while dropping 18.83”. So, both of these cartridges “beat” the .30 caliber rounds in energy and trajectory.

When it’s all said and done does either the .308 or the .30-06 really have any ballistic advantage over the other? I’ll concede that an 11% difference in energy with the 180 grain bullet is an advantage but I wonder if a deer on the receiving end tell the difference between 1647 and 1840 foot-pounds of energy? Considering the overall differences and performance of both cartridges I’ll stick to my assertion that there is no SIGNIFICANT ballistic advantage with either cartridge. Now just pick which ever you like and enjoy shooting it!

Posted by Pumpkinslinger on Tuesday, October 16, 2007 (18:29:48) (30895 reads) [ Administration ]
Related Links
 More about Shooting

Most read story about Shooting:
BUILDING THE SWEDISH MAUSER SPORTER
 

Article Rating
Average Score: 4.62
Votes: 45


Please take a second and vote for this article:

Excellent
Very Good
Good
Regular
Bad

 

 


Valid CSS! Valid HTML 4.01!
Click to check if this page is realy HTML 4.01 compliant for speed :)

All logos and trademarks in this site are property of HuntingNut.com.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2011 by HuntingNut.com
Interactive software released under GNU GPL, Code Credits, Privacy Policy

.: Upgraded to DragonFly 9.2 by Dizfunkshunal :.