30-06 Springfield

Boomer said:
That is simply nonsense. I have owned rifle barrels with very fast twists and I witnessed no loss of accuracy with light bullets. In a .30 caliber rifle a 1:10 twist will stabilize a very wide range of bullet weights - one of the most accurate bullets I've shot in a 1:10 barrel was Sierra's 125 gr flat base spitzer.

The only effect fast twists (1:7) have on light bullets is the explosive impacts from varmint bullets like Sierra's Blitz or Hornady's SX. In my experience accuracy is not effected.
Click to expand...

With due all respect what kind of accuracy we talking about?

Have you ever hear about Greenhill formula?

One of the first persons to try to develop a formula for calculating the correct rate of twist for firearms, was George Greenhill, a mathematics lecturer at Emanuel College in Cambridge, England. His formula is based on the rule that the twist required in calibers equals 150 divided by the length of the bullet in calibers. This can be simplified to:

Twist = 150 X D2/L

Where:
D = bullet diameter in inches
L= bullet length in inches
150 = a constant

This formula had limitations, but worked well up to and in the vicinity of about 1,800 f.p.s. For higher velocities most ballistic experts suggest substituting 180 for 150 in the formula. The twist formulas used in the Load From a Disk program, featured at this web site, uses a modified Greenhill formula in which the "150" constant is replaced by a series of equations that allow corrections for muzzle velocity from 1,100 to 4,000 fps.

Also here is a simple link to Steve site which can help with bullet lenghts/twist question.

http://stevespages.com/page8e.htm
 
I dunno what the problem is, you try as many different loads as you can in your rifle, and shoot the load that shoots the best in your rifle. I knew a guy who shot everything with a 30'06 and factory 150 SP's, moose elk, deer, bear, they all died within a few steps of where they were shot. I am a great advocate of 165's in any 30 cal, moose are no where as tanacious to live as an elk, so any bullet of reasonable construction placed where it belongs, should result in the game pole being full.
Good Luck
 
Rifleboy said:
With due all respect what kind of accuracy we talking about?

Have you ever hear about Greenhill formula?

One of the first persons to try to develop a formula for calculating the correct rate of twist for firearms, was George Greenhill, a mathematics lecturer at Emanuel College in Cambridge, England. His formula is based on the rule that the twist required in calibers equals 150 divided by the length of the bullet in calibers. This can be simplified to:

Twist = 150 X D2/L

Where:
D = bullet diameter in inches
L= bullet length in inches
150 = a constant

This formula had limitations, but worked well up to and in the vicinity of about 1,800 f.p.s. For higher velocities most ballistic experts suggest substituting 180 for 150 in the formula. The twist formulas used in the Load From a Disk program, featured at this web site, uses a modified Greenhill formula in which the "150" constant is replaced by a series of equations that allow corrections for muzzle velocity from 1,100 to 4,000 fps.

Also here is a simple link to Steve site which can help with bullet lenghts/twist question.

http://stevespages.com/page8e.htm
Click to expand...

YA,YA,YA - but all that goes out the window once you get on the range with a specific rifle. I know the theory. The bottom line is that any twist will stabalize a wide variety of bullet lengths. The groups in question with the 125 gr Sierra were too small for me to measure with a caliper. The rifle was a '17 Enfield in .30-06 with a 1:10 twist barrel. My .308 target rifle has a 1:8 twist - and again the groups I've shot with light bullets have never heard of the Greehill formula. These formulas are useful for deciding on a rate of twist for a theoritical purpose such as building a Palma Rifle - but do you actually end up with a more accurate rifle - only if alot of other variables line up as well. It just means that a specific bullet weight (length) is in the middle of the useful range, given the twist that pops out of the formula.
 
Boomer said:
That is simply nonsense. I have owned rifle barrels with very fast twists and I witnessed no loss of accuracy with light bullets. In a .30 caliber rifle a 1:10 twist will stabilize a very wide range of bullet weights - one of the most accurate bullets I've shot in a 1:10 barrel was Sierra's 125 gr flat base spitzer.

The only effect fast twists (1:7) have on light bullets is the explosive impacts from varmint bullets like Sierra's Blitz or Hornady's SX. In my experience accuracy is not effected.
Click to expand...

That's nice to know Boomer, cause I'd really like to try some 110 gr. zingers! I've heard there accurate in .308 with a 1-10 twist? 110 grainer at 3500 fps. Talk about your coyote medicine:eek: Splat!
 
Boomer,

I agree this is a theory, but on this theory most of the rifles are build.
Take a look at Tikka and Sako, they do not bother with 1-10" twist because after years of research they found out that most of guys shooting .30-06 or .308Win don't go above 180grains. So there is not really an application for faster twist.
I have few rifles in .308 cal/twist 1-10" (IMO most versatile) and I can tell from my experience is that best performance I get with bullets from 165 to 200 grain, either hunting or target.
Once I tried an experiment and used 150gr NBT bullet in my .308Win/.30-06/.300RUM and I wasn't very happy. I tried many loads and only in .30-06 I had some decent groupings around 1-1/2" from three bullets. My .308 rifle which is very accurate (best group so far with 175SMK/ 5shoots 0.3") was all over with all loads.
Well, it is an interesting topic, and Greenhill formula stands for something either we like it or not.

Greetings,,

RB
 
Try 180gr TSX with Imr 4350 ,seem to have misplaced my card for that load, but it shure worked good on moose, through both shoulders at 200 yds.
 
Here is a load with a slghtly different twist if you will pardon the pun.

I shoot cast boolits out of my Husquavarna 30-06. I use the Lyman 311291 boolit cast from wheelweights with a touch of tin added. It is a gas check boolit. 20 gr of 2400 yeilds about 1780 fps. Using a scope and a rest gun will shoot sub 1/2" groups at 100 yards all day long. Load is easy on the shoulder and the gun. Will try this load on local deal population only cast the boolit with a sift lead tip.

If you think rate of twist has no effect on accuracy take a 9MM pistol out with a 1 : 10 twist and compare your results with a barrel with a 1:16 twist. Bar Sto makes barrels in 1 : 16 twist for the 9MM which is a much better rate than the 1:10 used in most 9MM.

Take Care

Bob
 
Okay I have been reading all the posts and see that some people are pretty particular with all the science mumbo jumbo ..Maybe I'm somewhat unsophisticated I just started relaoding rifle ammo after aquiring a Ruger 77 mark 2 all weater in 30.06 .. got a Lee Load All some IMR 4064 used the dipper that is included in the load all ( the dipper guide claims its 45.6 grins) and dropped three 150 grain remington bullets into a group small enough to cover with a Loonie at 400 yrds.. Not so sure why people go on and on about digital scales over beam scales, tricklers and so forth .. Lee keeps it pretty simple .. yet some people wanna make it complicated .. just my two cents
 
Last edited:
Volume loading has been going on for years and I am certain in most cases provides just as good a results as loading by weight. Not so sure I would trust volume loading though for fast pistol powder where loads were approaching max but that is another issue.

Take Care

Bob
 
I'm a proponent of finding one bullet weight that works best for most of my hunting rifles.

For a wide range of game in the 30-06, 165s or 180s would be fine.

I load 57 grains of 4350 for the 165s, and about 55 grains for the 180s. Note that the loads for IMR4350 and H4350 are slightly different, as the IMR burns a little faster.
 
I agree wholeheartedly with Martinbns's post, though my personal load is slightly different.

I agree that the 168 Barnes TSX is close to the ideal hunting bullet in the .30-06, and I don't see myself changing it any time soon. In my Remington 700 Stainless Mountain Rifle I use 64.0 grains of Vihtavuori N560 with that bullet, ignited by a WLR primer, and I am getting a solid 3,000+ fps over the chronograph. Every time I have tried it, I have put the first three shots into about an inch or a bit better at 200 metres. As people like Foxer and Todbartel will attest, that particular bullet will go end to end through a moose at 250+ yards, even if started at 2,800 fps.

Last November my load stopped a large Muley in his tracks from 300 yards.

I no longer see the advantage of heavier bullets.

The only time I would use a heavier bullet is if I was doing long-range (ie 800 yards plus) match or sniper shooting with a .30-06. In such a case, something like the 175 Sierra, 178 AMAX or even the 180 Accubond would be ideal, and would likely do well at 1,000 yards and beyond.
 
I always used the powders like 4064 H&IMR4350 H414 with respectable results, using many different 30.06s over the years, but tryed some RL19 and speer & Sierra Match 168gr in same gun you bought Rem 700 BDL 22" had a 4shot group going but one got away on me or would have had 4 in just over a 1" at 300 yards and a three shot group under.400 at 100 yards
Give it a try it worked for me
P1040081.jpg
 
BrockPython said:
Okay I have been reading all the posts and see that some people are pretty particular with all the science mumbo jumbo ..Maybe I'm somewhat unsophisticated I just started relaoding rifle ammo after aquiring a Ruger 77 mark 2 all weater in 30.06 .. got a Lee Load All some IMR 4064 used the dipper that is included in the load all ( the dipper guide claims its 45.6 grins) and dropped three 150 grain remington bullets into a group small enough to cover with a Loonie at 400 yrds.. Not so sure why people go on and on about digital scales over beam scales, tricklers and so forth .. Lee keeps it pretty simple .. yet some people wanna make it complicated .. just my two cents
Click to expand...
Brock Python I would say you where very lucky if you acutually did shoot 3 bullets under the size of a loonie at 400 yards, I went and tryed your way of measuring powder with a lee dipper and to get 45.6gr with each dip is almost imposible the variance I got was +or- .5 and that is to much a differance to group under the size of a loonie at 400 yards a loonie measures 1.094" that means your gun can shoot app .250" at 100yards possible but highly unlikly. all the gentlmen that gave this new shooter sound advice was extreemly good.And you saying that a powder dip measure is better than scales etc is absolutly wrong.
 
manitou210

Careful there about what is right or what is wrong. I won't comment on the shooting but guys have been loading by volume vs weighing charges for a very long time and I know of several bench rest shooters who swear by that method.


Having said that I prefer to weigh all my charges, particularly handgun.

My Husky will do under 1/2" from a rest with a scope using Lyman 311291 boolits over 20 gr. 2400 but I doubt I could see a target clear enough at 400 yds to shoot under an inch at that range. Hell I know I can't gauge the wind well enough and at those distances to shoot that kind of group but I am sure some can. I just can't.

Take Care

Bob
 
After playing with 30-06 for quite a while, load up a good 165 and shoot everything with it, coyotes to moose, I guess gophers too and it will never let you down. Perfect comprimise between weight versus speed. Just my two cents (or 2.23 American cents):D
 
manitou210 said:
I always used the powders like 4064 H&IMR4350 H414 with respectable results, using many different 30.06s over the years, but tryed some RL19 and speer & Sierra Match 168gr in same gun you bought Rem 700 BDL 22" had a 4shot group going but one got away on me or would have had 4 in just over a 1" at 300 yards and a three shot group under.400 at 100 yards
Give it a try it worked for me
P1040081.jpg
Click to expand...


I thought groups were measured from center of hole to center of hole???
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom