Home Forums Hunting & Shooting General Big Game "The 30-06 is obsolete!"

Apparently you missed the attachment in the following post:

https://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbt...03/re-the-30-06-is-obsolete#Post12100203

It's actually theoretically possible to exceed the load you posted in .308 with RL-26 within SAAMI pressure, but the resulting load has a very high load ratio and probably would require a drop tube so I didn't include it

So you refuse to accept Hodgdon pressure data, which is actually tested in a lab, and submit theoretical "Predicted Data" that has never been tested and whose source warns may actually exceed SAAMI MAP if tested?

Please provide .308 load data that has actually been tested - either something from a major manufacturer or load data with pressure test results. People can buy the Winchester and Federal loads off the shelf. Where are the .308 Win equivalents???

Accepted definition of "obsolete" with regard to classic cartridges??

See, you know so little about this topic that all I feel like wasting time doing is proving you wrong with quick load. If you don't like it, that's your problem. Quickload has forgotten more about bottleneck cartridge interior ballistics than you will even know.

Quickload is a guesstimate. Albeit a very educated one, it's still just a guesstimate.

For standard powders in standard bottleneck cartridges, it is as good as any other load data - that is to say, the error is likely to be less than the difference in brass, primers, chamber size, etc that make up normal differences in velocity. Several component manufacturers provide their load data straight out of QL.

.308 and RL-17 are so common that if there was some problem, literally 100s of shooters would have found it by now.

Quite frankly I have no interest in further arguing the point. I'm correct. Coyote is ignorant. If he wants to go on believing otherwise, he can do so but it doesn't change the facts.

Point is, the only way to know the pressure is to test it at the proper facility or with proper equipment, not Quickload, as it is an educated guess.

That sort of testing is less valuable than most people think. If you want to know pressure in your rifle, you have to test with a strain gauge on your rifle. Differences in chamber, bore and throat geometry are some of the largest non-mistake-related sources of velocity and pressure variance.

The right way to use quick load is to know that it's sometime (slightly) wrong about the load, just like reloading manuals. But it's essentially never wrong about the relationship between pressure and velocity. If you load to the velocity it says you will get after setting all relevant parameters, you will be VERY close to the pressure it says, regardless of what the charge weight ends up being.

In years of using QL for wildcat and obsolete cartridges with a strain gauge, I have never seen it be seriously wrong on a bottleneck rifle cartridge, and when it's slightly wrong it's almost always conservative as it assumes you have a min spec chamber but that's not likely true. Straight wall rifle is fine too if you read the manual and make the required corrections. I have seen far more gross errors in commercial load data and various loading books and magazines.

Look, I could care less about all that crap, as I find this argument irrelevant and quite frankly, stupid. Any experienced hunter with half a brain knows the '06 will kill the crap out of 98% of the big game animals in North America quite easily, even with good 'ol factory ammo. All of these arguments based on pressures that you and Coyote have posted are based on nothing but guessing, as I'm sure none of you have ever used a strain gauge, or taken your rifle and loads to a proper lab to test, except for Mule Deer of course, who didn't make any of these stupid arguments.

I don't use QL, and have no need for it.

Why can't you just man up and admit you can't find a comparable load? A real one. I provided two for the .30-06 - off the shelf and available to all.

Here's another. How about a 210 AccuBond (B.C. .730, S.D. .316) at 2646fps per Nosler? I'd like to see a .308 come close to that, too. The closest I've found is the Nosler 190g AB (B.C. .640, S.D. .286) @ 2424fps per Nosler. Unfortunately, it really isn't very close What the .308 delivers at 300 yards the .30-06 delivers at 500 yards - 2307fps/2245fpe at 300 yards vs 2188fps/ 2233fpe at 500 yards.

Once again that is not a 100 yard advantage for the .30-06 - my math makes it out to be 200 yards. Maybe your math give the advantage to the .308 Win?

Keep searching - if the .308 can do what the .30-06 can do there must be a real loads out there that show it. [laughing...]

Uhh, you do realize that strain gauges are commercially available and relatively cheap, right? I've owned one and used it for years for added safety on wildcat cartridges. I've never needed it because QL has always been correct, but it is nice insurance.

And if you've never used QL, you're spouting off about things you don't understand.

Wow, coyote, you are a total clown and utter fool. I provided a load, which was a mistake because you have no interest in honest discussion. So now I'm just going to laugh at your ignorance.

You literally have no clue what you are talking about.

I understand it all very well. In fact well enough to know your arguments based on estimated pressures is ridiculous. I also know that I'be been in hunting camps in Africa several times, and a couple in Sonora, MX. I always like to look over their camp rifles in case some day I don't want to bring my own and use theirs. Guess what? I haven't seen the first .308 in anyone's rack. Several '06's were present though, as well as a few .375's.

Good Luck J.G.


Jerry

Maybe knowledgeable and experienced guys who squabble over mostly inconsequential stuff, and call one another names - are becoming obsolete.

Commercially available strain gauges have nothing to do with commercially available ammunition or the availability of load data with test pressures.

And yes, I'm aware of strain gauges and have been for decades. As to Quickloads, the data provided is theoretical until proven and even the Quickload software states that the pressures are estimated and may exceed SAAMI standards.

You provided an untested, theoretical load. Provide a real one.

I think the name calling has been one-sided, on the part of Llama_Bob. Maybe people who can comprehend and accurately articulate what they read are becoming obsolete.

It was a mistake to waste any time on a clown like you. And a mistake I won't make again. Now I just laugh at your stupid antics.

Don't be bashful. Provide real, tested data that proves your point.

If you can.