Home Forums Hunting & Shooting General Big Game "The 30-06 is obsolete!"

Llama Bob reminds me of that Bob Wills guy who showed up here a while back. Everybody else was ignorant and he was here to enlighten us.

He didn't last long.

Whoa there, that simulation was a real thing.

The fact is you cannot point to ONE real, tested load to match those I've provided for the 30-06. Not ONE.

You've already got loads. And they're plenty tested. Meanwhile I'm just laughing at your clownish inability to deal with this Back to the circle jerk with you.

Back in the day, other than using it in a short action automatic receiver, why was the 308(7.62 NATO) even invented? They didn't have the powders that make it a great round. I am a '06 fan, but I do like the '08. Booth are great. I feel the '06 just offers more. Only slightly heavier, longer. This pissing contest is just a Coke is better than Pepsi argument. Nothing Will be solved.

You can name call and create fake quotes but you seem incapable of an adult discussion.

You've provided theoretical, untested load data. Please provide REAL, TESTED data.

But you won't, because you can't.

On the other hand, I've provided multiple loads from those commercially available to load data from major manufacturers. Those loads beat the .308 Win every, from 110g to 220g.

If you had real load data that proved your claims you would have posted it by now.

See, your confusion lies in believing that load data comes from major manufacturers. It doesn't any more. They provide only a couple of loads, and generally not at full pressure. They know everyone who takes reloading seriously just uses Quick Load, so why bother? The few manufacturers that do provide comprehensive data mostly just use Quick Load too - the entire Berger manual is just Quick Load results.

Technology has moved on, and left you (and the .30-06) behind.

Do us all a favor and do what you said you were going to do. Perhaps you might find a forum with fewer "clowns", one that is more befitting our your clearly superior intellect. Why do you continue to waste your valuable time here?

Let's add case geometry to this. And no, I do not understand it myself.

I note when looking at Noslers data that the improved 30-06 has a .2 gain in case capacity over the standard. That's looking at 175-180 grain data. The charges of H4831 and R22 are the same, yet the velocity is higher with the IMP.

I don't get that.

I did read one article in which the man, who claimed to be an engineer, said it had to do with the reflective angle of the neck wall and the apex of that reflection. He made a convincing argument for his hypothesis, but I don't know if I buy it.

Let's take a look at what the 30-06 does have,a long neck.This gives it a great advantage when shooting real world hunting bullets.The long neck allows you to shoot a wide range of bullet weights without eating up a lot of your case capacity.Here is some examples of 30-06 vs 308 with 150gr BT,168gr BT,180gr AB and 200gr AB.

The 308 is preferred by two known lefties on the Fire. Just saying....

This is a common misconception. Capacity in the neck of the case counts more or less the same as capacity in the body. What matters from a capacity loss perspective is the amount of the bullet below the rim, which in turn is a function of bullet length, case length, and OAL. Neck length doesn't come into it. The .30-06 would be improved by moving the shoulder forward to allow powder to be seated around the base of the bullet.

?????????? I'm sorry,I was just born yesterday and have not yet reached your level of intelligence.

Good examples baldhunter. Mr Magoo can see which one has more powder capacity.

The first thing going on here is that most load data is wrong. For any reasonable .30-06AI chamber you'd get a lot more than 0.2gr extra case capacity. The actual gain is somewhere between 2 and 6 grains depending on the two reamers being compared and whether you're comparing to pre or post firing .30-06 brass.

The second thing you've discovered is what's called Sebert's factor, discovered by a 19th century French ballistician. What he figured out is that some of the powder travels down the barrel with the bullet. This acts as if the bullet is heavier (the powder has to be accelerated) but doesn't give you any benefit in terms of bullet velocity. It's just an inefficiency. An ideal cartridge would keep all the powder inside the case for the entire combustion, just venting gas out the mouth. Of course, there's no way to make that happen. For highly efficient cartridges with shoulders that trap powder well, as little as 30% of the powder weight has to be added to the bullet weight. For highly inefficient straight wall cartridges, it can be as much as 75%. The .30-06 is on the inefficient side for a bottleneck (small shoulder diameter, shallow shoulder angle). The .30-06 AI is much better (both parameters are improved).

Please provide a reference for Sebert's factor

As far as I know, the primary reference is Sebert & Hugoniot, 'Etude Des Effects De La Poudre' (Paris). 1882. It appears in some form (perhaps not by name) in most discussion of internal ballistics however since it's an important part of understanding efficiency, more so in the 20th century with the takeover of bottleneck cartridges. It's less interesting for most artillery (no shoulder, generally), although still important - I remember seeing a discussion of Sebert's work in an early 20th century Journal of The United States Artillery but I don't remember the exact year. Probably around 1905 or so.

Is that the reason for the strange shape of the 8 × 51 R Lebel? Introduced in 1886.

That obsolete ole 06 will continue to kill a lot of stuff world wide years after some of today's flavors have come and gone.

I don't know for sure, but I doubt it. That's not a good looking shoulder from an efficiency perspective. I've heard it had to do with their weird scheme for getting spire points to tilt so they would work in a tube magazine, but I've never seen a coherent explanation of that either.