308 vs 30-06

I hunt elk. They are tough and shot opportunities few. Once shot a bull elk at 400 yds just before dark. Took me until 2 AM to find it and almost gave up. 308 180 grn bullet went through one lung but not both. Obviously both is better. That experience caused me to move up a tad to 30-06, 7mm mag & a 300 wsm. If hunting tough game, i.e. elk or bear to me it is about confidence & that is subjective. Still like the 308 but a little extra edge gives me the hope I won't be tracking until 2 am or losing/wounding game. Just one real world experience. My hand loaded 30-06 shoots 180 grn bullets at approx 2800 fps on my chrono. I like that!!!!! If you don't hunt tough game or always get close shots the 308 is fine.
 
skidderman said:
I hunt elk. They are tough and shot opportunities few. Once shot a bull elk at 400 yds just before dark. Took me until 2 AM to find it and almost gave up. 308 180 grn bullet went through one lung but not both. Obviously both is better. That experience caused me to.... No longer take 400 yard shots on heavy duty animals just before dark.
Click to expand...

Fixed it for ya ;-)
 
Last edited:
An_elephanthy said:
I own a 30-06. A shooting pal has a 308. I'm not a big game hunter, but he is and he's had no trouble whatsoever taking a couple of Colorado elk in recent years. I like the -06 more for sentimental reasons than anything else. The 308's short action is nice in a bolt rifle, though. I think the real world performance difference between the two is pretty small. My advice (worth what you paid for it) would be to get whichever you may have a slight preference towards.
Click to expand...

When comparing rifle to rifle, the only advantage of a short action is an ounce or so of weight saving, all else being equal, which is seldom the case. When running the bolt, the rule is to run it hard and fast, in which case the slight difference in length is irrelevant. That said, the compact nature of a .308 carbine is appealing to those who favor a short rifle, and I am anxious to get my greedy mitts on one of the new Ranger rifles just to see if it lives up to 30 years of rumour and expectation. It would be fun to have a shoot off between it and a Ruger Gunsite Scout, or between it and a Steyr Scout.
 
Neo said:
Choosing between the two is more about the rifle than the cartridge. If you like lightweight short actions, .308 is your choice. If you like the feel of a wee bit more weight between your hands, choose a .30-06. IMHO, this is a far more important factor than the very slight difference in ballistics. Myself, I definitely shoot a mid-weight rifle a lot better than I shoot a light-weight -- it just settles faster and more steadily onto the target. And as for the extra bit of weight that makes me carry, I'm a very big fan of the late Bob Hagel, who more than once took the position that if a guy was so out of shape that he absolutely needed to trim a pound off a rifle, he had no business thinking he could pack out a dead animal :)
Click to expand...

I was like minded until I decided to climb a hill in the Yukon. My sea level lungs and legs were unappreciative of the experience, and had the rifle, a light Remington M-7 KS in .350 magnum, weighed half as much, I could have stuck it in my belt and carried on quite happily. The only reason that rifle isn't still up there is that it didn't belong to me. You guys in BC and Alberta can quit laughing any time. By contrast Nathan Foster, a Kiwi used to hunting in steep country, is of the opinion that if a woman can manage a 10 pound baby on her hip, a tough male hunter needn't fear a 10 pound rifle.
 
Boomer said:
When comparing rifle to rifle, the only advantage of a short action is an ounce or so of weight saving, all else being equal, which is seldom the case. When running the bolt, the rule is to run it hard and fast, in which case the slight difference in length is irrelevant. That said, the compact nature of a .308 carbine is appealing to those who favor a short rifle, and I am anxious to get my greedy mitts on one of the new Ranger rifles just to see if it lives up to 30 years of rumour and expectation. It would be fun to have a shoot off between it and a Ruger Gunsite Scout, or between it and a Steyr Scout.
Click to expand...

When it comes to working the action, you're right - it's six of one or half-dozen of the other. Where I find the SA vs. LA makes a difference is in where that extra length and bulk are. I just find that a shorter action feels more compact. However, that alone wouldn't make me choose one over the other. My son has a Tikka Battue in 300 WM which is a very nice little rifle, as handy as any 308 I've ever handled. I've always been partial to the '08, but as someone has said - it's like the Ford - GM- Chrysler debate.
 
Live long and prosper all of you 308 fans... JP.
vl5m2g0.jpg
 
I just sold a mint condition, lightweight and accurate Kimber Montana that fit me like a glove simply because it was a .308, not a 30-06. I guess that says it all for me.
 
Katana said:
The difference between the two are so miniscule that it's not every worth auguring about. To me if I'm going to shot a bullet from 150 to 168, I load my 308. If I'm going to load 180 and above, I load my 300WM. No need for me to own a 30-06.
Click to expand...

Or, just sell them both, get a really good 30-06, load it to 308 and 300 mag pressures, and use it for everything! :)

Ted
 
aakoksal said:
I think main difference between them is not the cartdridge itself but the rifling of the gun it fires. Military had 30.06 (7.62x54) rifles with 1:10 twist rate while .308 (7.62x51) was 1:12. And this is the reason 30.06 is capable to better stabilize heavier bullets.

If you're not interested in shooting 200gr+ projectiles, I would stick to .308.
Click to expand...

The older Browning and Husqvarna rifles, and some SAKOs, use 1:12 twist rifling in the 30-06. I have used them all, still have some, and never had a problem shooting 220 gr loads in that twist.

Ted
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom