Home Forums Hunting & Shooting General Big Game "The 30-06 is obsolete!"

It is so "obsolete" that it has been one of the top 5 cartridges for over a hundred years. Prolly still be "obsolete" in another hundred.................YMMV

I love the old 1917 Enfield, ( sporterized, with a new barrel on it) being "Obsolete" that recently came my way.

as much as I love to hear how obsolete the 06 cartridge its chambered in is "Obsolete"...

so when it works, I can be proud of the "obsolete results" it gives me...

Hell, I'm obsolete, so why shouldn't my equipment be obsolete also?

It's so obsolete that I just got another one!

Should I start hoarding brass in case they quit making it after 2050?

Used to be the easiest brass to find, but it seems to jump off the shelf these days. I usually end up buying it on the internet.

If I hadn't adjusted that two clicks left on the Leupold VXIII 3.5-10.......





Then I adjusted down 4 clicks... no test fire - that stuff is expensive! Been there a couple years, and a half dozen caribou, now. And one head-shot moose at 30 yards. Seems to work. I think I'll leave it the hell alone! I do test fire a round when first going out in the fall if I haven 't shot in, say, 6 months (always!).... more for me than the rifle, which is trustworthy. . I did do another 3 shoot-for-group last year at 300. They went POA, (funny how that works) Wasn't quite as good as the photo - went a whole little bit over an inch....

Bought a box of GMX to see if the hype is right. 'sposed to mirror the SST load... Also, there are sometimes these big holes with the SST...

Definitely obsolete- but you ain't buying mine!

The 17 inch barreled RU77 puts 5 into an inch and a quarter or so. I've killed to almost 400 yards with that one. You ain't buying it either.

Neither are something you might want on display.....

The old 30-06 is just hard to beat. It is a real winner.

I remember back somewhere in the first week of turkey season, somebody said their outfitter had told them the 30-06 was obsolete. I have yet to find out what that means. I always thought it meant you could not find ammo for it anymore. I remember putting in my comment in support of 30-06. I've got 8 of them on the rack, and obsolete or not, they all whack a whitetail pretty well.

I go turkey hunting, I get back. I go again. I fill all my tags. When I get back, my company converts to Oracle. I won't bore you with all the stuff about Trump, the stuff with ISIS, the Kentucky Derby, the Indy 500, Mother's Day, Memorial Day, Flag Day and all that. I build a new reloading bench and buy a new progressive reloader. I start cranking out 9mm like there's no tomorrow. I pop in for a quick look to see what's going on and I see this thread is still at the top. WT?

Please, besides JeffO, has there been anybody actually supporting the outfitter's original supposition? Is there anyone out there that really wants to say 30-06 has passed its Sell-By date? I see 7 pages currently. I suspect they're all pro-06.

For practical purposes, there is no difference. Any .30-06 load under about 3000 ft-lbs in a 24" barrel can be duplicated in a .308 case within SAAMI max pressure. That includes all the loads offered by Winchester, Remington and Federal for example.

Now theoretically it IS possible to squeeze a tiny bit more juice than that out of the .30-06, but the fact of the matter is that the cartridge achieved its hunting and military reputation firing loads that can easily be duplicated in .308.

The.30-06 use for wildcats was more an issue of timing and lack of other available parent cases than anything. It doesn't reflect any efficiency on the part of the .30-06 - which makes sense, since the .30-06 is on the inefficient side for a bottleneck cartridge. As to case taper and shoulder angle, there is exactly zero advantage to a high taper and shallow shoulder at this point. It's just a waste of case capacity and needlessly decreasing the efficiency of the capacity you do have for no good reason.

I started this thread because of a flippant remark from an arrogant outfitter that had way too much starch in his collar! Not to spark a debate on what cartridge is "better", or shoulder angles, or case capacity, or ..... whatever! This great cartridge won two world wars and still gets it done today, 111 years later. Are there better cartridges? Are there worse cartridges? Too much recoil? Not enough energy? Too much energy? We all know the '06 is nowhere near obsolete. But like any cartridge/gun combination, it's only as good as the person using it. It's been interesting reading all the different comments and view points. Imagine how boring it would be if we were all the same! Like I said in a couple posts back, the '06 is so obsolete that I just bought another one! The better bullets today make it better than ever!

The .308 gets much of its oft vaunted “efficiency” through the use of higher MAP than the .30-06 (62KPSI vs 60KPSI). Load them to the same pressure and the .308’s “efficiency” proves to be rather ephemeral at best. In any case, efficiency is one thing you often sacrifice when striving for higher velocity. Load a .308 and a 30-06 to the same pressure with the same bullet and powder and you’ll get higher velocity with the .30-06. Alternatively, load both to the same velocity with the same bullet and powder and you’ll get lower pressures with the .30-06.

As a side note, the lower pressure of the .30-06 for a given velocity aids in longer brass and barrel life.

The .308 is great with lighter bullets but as bullet weight increases the extra case capacity of the .30-06 gives handloaders an undeniable edge when it comes to velocity. Loaded to at least the same pressure as the .308 Win, as one would assume would be done with a new cartridge design, the .30-06 becomes a “.308 Magnum” with no loss of magazine capacity.

You’ll note I did not say a “modern” .30-06 would be “identical” to the 1906 design but rather “it could end up pretty much as it is now”. Emphasis on the word “could” as it was an intential qualifier. No one knows what a “modern” .30-06 would look like unless or until one appears.

I’m not a big fan of sharp shoulders and straighter, and therefore marginally fatter, cases - they are something I would generally give up for a smoother feeding and easier extracting cartridge. I say “generally” because I did go with an AI with my custom 6.5-06. The reason the sharper shoulder and straighter case of the 6.5-06AI was chosen was not so much to maximize velocity potential as it was to prevent someone from trying to stuff one of my loaded rounds, which use .25-06 headstamped brass, into a .25-06 rifle.

The 6.5 Creedmoor is about as “modern” a cartridge as you can find. It is .2mm fatter at the shoulder than the .308 Winchester (zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz) but the shoulder taper is so nearly the same I can’t tell any difference by looking at photos of the two. It is also shorter with less case capacity. It can push a 130g bullet to about 2700fps with carefully selected powders, By contrast, a standard 6.5-06 easily adds 200fps to that value with a wide variety of powders.

“Efficiency” is only important to the degree that “efficiency” is the goal. Other factors being equal, you can’t beat case capacity if higher velocity is the goal. I own more rifles than most (but still less than many others) and have yet to select one based primarily on “efficiency” – it has simply been one of several considerations and never the most important. If “modern” cartridge designers are stuck on “efficiency” first and foremost, a new .30 caliber cartridge would be much smaller than the .308 Win. In terms of fps/grain of powder, my .300 Blackout beats my .308 Win rifles by a wide margin.

Yep C H, those are facts.

As long as you are NOT the lead dog ....

The view never changes.

In equal pressure loadings, the 308 is always looking at the 30-06's tail pipe.

Jerry

There's really four ways you can increase efficiency:

• Smaller case
• Higher pressure
• Shoulder that catches more powder
• Longer barrel

Relative to the .30-06, the .308 improves on all four (by being short action, you get more usable barrel for the same nominal length/weight). It's not any one that's the source of the benefit.



Call me crazy, but it should be a BIG part of the goal. Otherwise we'd all be shooting .30-378 Weatherbys or .30-338 Lapuas and making fun of jwall's puny .30-06 and it's pathetic external ballistics. All you're going to see is the dog's rear, jwall! See how stupid that is?

A sensible hunter has an animal (or animals) they want to kill, knows what bullets will provide good terminal performance on that animal and at what velocities, knows what trajectory they need, and then is looking for an efficient cartridge that gets that done with the minimum rifle weight and recoil. That analysis almost always favors the factors I listed above, as well as smaller calibers with high sectional density premium bullets. Looking at those factors .30-06 pretty much is never the right answer. It is however what great grandpa carried in the trenches in France. But grandpapa hated the darn thing (an inaccurate metal butt plate .30-06 with an eternity-long lock time - horrible idea) and I don't care for it one way or the other.

Canada eh ? Metric system.... it's not a .30-06 - it's a 7.62x63 - that would have thrown him off.

Seems I have some old French made ammo that has 7.62x63 on the head stamp.

Mine isn't.
It is still growing on me and I bought it in 1993.

Yeah, until we're all running .30-378's and .300 RUM's we have no business damning the .308 for being somewhat slower than the .30-06. The 30-06 is slower than a whole bunch of .30 caliber rounds.

I mean come on, the military is running 175 grain bullets in the .308 out to 8-900 meters. You're not going to tell me the .308 dogs out with 180 grain bullets while the '06 handles them with aplomb.

Naw, I just take the '06 out and kill chit. I don't even contemplate all that other stuff. Besides, I use recoil pads.

If velocity is the goal, “efficiency” is at least secondary and maybe further down the line.

Generally speaking, a "shoulder that catches more powder” means a “larger case capacity” that is counter-productive to “efficiency”, whether you measure it in terms of fps/grain or fpe/grain.

A “longer barrel” has nothing to do with cartridge efficiency. Increasing or decreasing barrel length may change velocity but it does nothing to change a cartridge’s innate characteristics.

“Higher pressure” means more powder per volume with diminishing velocity per grain of powder, which REDUCES ”efficiency”. Think otherwise? Compare the pressure and “efficiency” of standard loads with subsonics. The 300 Blackout hits a fps/grain “efficiency” of 209 with 110g bullet and a pressure of 18,600 PSI (Hodgdon data). The .308 Win is WAY oversized by comparison, requiring a larger, heavier rifle and failing to achieve the same “efficiency”. That said, using “higher pressure” in cartridge “A” and lower pressure in cartridge “B” can skew “efficiency” measurements in favor of cartridge “A” – the .308 Win in this case. Load the .308 Win and .30-06 to the same pressures and the .30-06 wins the velocity race.

“Smaller cases” do tend to increase cartridge “efficiency” (fps/grain or fpe/grain). A .300 Blackout can push a 110g bullet to 2474fps with 21.0g powder, according to Hodgdon, giving it a fps/grain “efficiency of 117.8. By contrast, and again using Hodgdon data, a .308 is stuck in the high 70’s with the same bullet weight. Switching to a 150g bullet, the .300 Blackout comes in at a high of about 120 while the .308 rates in the 50’s and 60’s. If “efficiency” is your goal, why don’t you shoot a .300 Blackout or something similar? (Hint: Because “efficiency" is NOT your primary goal.)



For me, “efficiency” in hunting rounds is a minor part of the “goal”. My .300 Blackout is “efficient”. So are ALL my other .308 caliber rifles, be they .30-30, .308 Win, .30-06 or .300 WM. By “efficient”, I mean they burn a reasonable amount of powder for the velocity they produce. Whether I spend $0.14 to fill a .308 case or $0.18 to fill a .30-06, the difference in powder cost is minor compared to the differences in bullet costs. A cheap FMJ plinking bullet might cost $0.21 each while my preferred hunting bullets cost several times that. A 168 grain Barnes TTSX, for example, currently runs $0.76 each at Midwayusa. When the difference between $0.95 and $0.99 handloads breaks the bank (Barnes 168g TTSX in .308 Win and .30-06 respectively), it is long past time to give up shooting altogether.

Your grandpa’s battle rifle has nothing to do with the relative merits of the .308 Win and .30-06. Maybe you should start a thread on the merits of such rifles compared to modern commercial rifles.