Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Long Range Hunting 308 vs 30-06 vs 300wm - theoretical accuracy

Hey there - new to the campfire and hoping you guys can answer a question for me (no real experience past 300 yards).

People are using 308's for 1000 yard shooting with good success, and that cartridge is much more popular than the 30-06 for long range shooting. The more efficient case and/or shorter action are generally cited as reasons for slightly better accuracy, but then the 300 win mag is also used with regularity when going long. The ratio of diameter to case length is much closer to the 30-06 than the 308, and it's obviously long action.

So why does the 30-06 have the reputation for not being as accurate? What do the 308 and 300 win mag have that the 30-06 doesn't?

Thanks and looking forward to the replies.

The 30-06 is just plain boring. Been around for far far longer than the 308 or 300wm. People are allured to the newer stuff like the 6.5 CM for example..

The 30-06 accuracy story likely comes from the M1 Garand vs M14 Service rifle days.

I have a heavy precision style 30-06 bolt gun that shoots lights out.

Build it for precision, and it can deliver.

Time was the 300 H&H was THE long range cartridge , now it is practically unknown.


Mike

I have a .30/06 Winchester Featherweight which is one of the most accurate rifles I ever shot, or saw shot.

I've had an extremely accurate .308 Win (Rem M700) but sold it. None of my .30-06 rifles are quite as accurate, but with one exception (and that rifle will go down the road for multiple reasons), they are not far off. The difference may be due more to the loads developed for them than the cartridge - I've tended to develop .30-06 loads for my original .30-06 and later work back up to them so I can use the same load in all. Not the best method for best accuracy, but adequate for my needs (600 yard accuracy).

First I'll throw out an answer in the most general terms.
Warren Page wrote an article "The Bigger the Package", based on the Remington custom shop records which documented the accuracy of the 40x rifles test fired at the shop for the various calibers produced. It was a fascinating piece because you had rifles built the same way to the same standard with the same action shot for accuracy by people who knew what they were doing. The average group sizes trended with recoil of the cartridge. The 308 average was 0.562", the 30-06 average was 0.768" and the 300 Win Mag was 1.00"


In many cases, folk are shooting the 308 at 1K not necessarily because it is the best, but rather because there are matches where the 308 is the only round allowed in the match. The Palma Matches allow only the 308 shot at 800, 900 and 1000 yards with a bullet lighter than 156 gr. (yes there are some instances where you can shoot a 223)

The 300 magnums get used because they can throw the heavier better bc'd bullets at a decent velocity to battle the wind which is a major factor at long range.


There's truth in what Montana Marine says. Back in the days of M1 Garand, the 30-06 ammo was limited in burn rate and bullet weight because of the sensitivities of the Garand gas system. That resulted in the 30-06 match ammo of the day throwing a 173 bullet around 2550-2600 fps. That also resulted in the loading density of the powder in the cases being less than ideal (there was a good amount of air space in the cases) which wasn't great for accuracy. These days a well built 30-06 bolt gun can shoot great at long range as Montana Marine has shown us. For long range competitive shooting, the pendulum swung back from the big 30's toward smaller, high bc bullets that are gentler on the shoulder without stopping at the mid 30's like the 06...

With all that said, I'll grab a 30-06 for hunting nine times out of ten and I don't feel handicapped in the least alongside my friends shooting Creedmoors, 30 Magnums etc.

With a 308 Bart Bobbitt shot a 20-shot 3.325" group at 800 yards as shown in May 1997 issue of Precision Shooting [Krieger barrel ad].

Bart was a longtime competitor at Camp Perry and was contributing to rec.guns on usenet before the www had gun forums.

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/rec.guns/iL7zv-cktJc

Over the years he has explained the accuracy limit of 308, 30-06, and 300WinMag.

Here he is saying in 1994 that the 308 is twice as accurate as the 30-06, but competitive shooters were not good enough to tell the difference.
https://yarchive.net/gun/rifle/30-06_vs_308.html


https://www.google.com/search?q=bart+bobbitt+800+yards&biw=1573&bih=546&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=t0x8Gb9UIOtV6M%253A%252CTwbt9zsuwTZZ6M%252C_&usg=AI4_-kQtLVXPY_8gENdPKbOfrqPTm_Ux_Q&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiwxdmt3oLfAhUrIDQIHe5_DHgQ9QEwA3oECAYQBA#imgdii=9BxOdRZfsjAfBM:&imgrc=vPEaL-corsXuMM:

Over the years I have tried to read everything Bart has written. I know he says that 300WinMag is the most accurate on the first shot, and reloaded brass not so much.

That's ole Bart.
Here's a funny tangent. Bart mentions the NRA changing the targets from the 5V to the 10X in 1966 so that they could discriminate better the scores that the supposedly more accurate 308 was now posting and the 30-06 shooters complaining about the change. I guess Eric England didn't get the memo because in 1968 he fired a 998 on a 1000pt aggregate with a 30-06 and set the longest lasting record (41 years) in Highpower Rifle competition (and it wasn't a 308 that finally broke that record).

Hang on to that one. I have one myself. It's a pre 64 too..

It's funnier than fhuqk,when a Long Action's Swan Song...is that it will "almost" hang with a Short Action.

Hint.

Laughing!..................

I have all three, all shoot great, but I ain’t all that as s shooter. I get a rifle to shoot an inch or better at a 100 yards, I’m happy.

A "good" day for you,is when you don't schit your pants.

Congratulations?!?......................

Your question about theoretical accuracy of the 308 vs 30-06 vs 300wm is well asked and in fact may have more to it then even you know.
The key word here being "theoretical"

Anytime theory and fact disagree, it's easy to figure out which is wrong. But theory is often made into religion by members of the shooting world and facts are ignored.

The truth is as follows (at least in part)

The 30-06 was developed between 1904 and 1906 and was sized to use a case nearly full of the powder needed to achieve the desired velocity with the powders available in 1904. It was fitted to the Springfield m1903 rifle. As time went on the cartridges were loaded with different weights of bullets and also with better powders both by the US Military and also by all civilian manufacturers. It was (and is) a grand old cartridge and still one of the very best all-around shells the world has ever seen. Perhaps the very best.

In the late 40s and early 50s the military load for the 30-06 was loaded with powders that filled the shell only about 85% full and the M2 load (for the M-1 Garand rifle) used a 150 grain flat base bullet. So with the formation of NATO and the idea of a cartridge for all members to use in their rifles so ammo can be shared the idea of using the same diameter bullet as the 30-06 was something US Military leadership was unwilling to give up, and because 80% of the budget for NATO came from the USA, the US Military got it's way. So the new shell (called M65) was reshaped to bring the brass shoulder back to fit the powder charge, and thereby making the cartridge fit into auto-loaders easier and allows for a more compact action with basically the same ballistics as what we had with the M1 Rifle.

Now the new shell was made on more modern machines and the M14 rifles were also more modern and made on machines that were not worn. Such an improvement in manufacture made for a bit tighter tolerances and all US military rifles made for the new 7.62NATO (308) were made this way, so overall the M14s were a bit more accurate then the M1s.

In comparing the 308 Winchester rifles made in the 50s and 60s to the 30-06s, we see comparisons made many times of the best and latest 308 barrels and ammo against some 30-06s that may be of the same quality and same age, but also made against some that were older and somewhat worn, or against guns and barrels made all the way back to 1906. So it's "a given" the average was going to favor the 308 in accuracy.
"Reasons" were often quoted as having to do with short actions being stiffer, but that really has nothing to do with the issue at all. See the accuracy results of various guns used in competition with new barrels since the 60s to the present day and you'll see no direct relationship of groups to action length. Yes, most shooter use the short actions because the short shells use a bit less powder, and so get better bore life, but the advance of the accuracy standard is NOT related directly to the action length as we see by so many good and winning groups shot by those shooting the 300 magnums and some of the 7MM mags over the last 50-60 years.

If the short action was really more ACCURATE we would never see a long action ever win a match again. As we can say that bi-wing prop driven aircraft are not as fast as jet fighters and be 100% correct. You NEVER see an air race with a prop driven bi-plane win against jets. That's something we can say with certainty.
But you cannot say you never see a long action rifle win a match. In fact I can't say that my short action rifles are more accurate then my long action rifles at all. (or less accurate) Accuracy is by far more effected by quality of the barrel and how it's fitted to the action, quality inletting as well as quality of the ammo. The bullet has no idea how long the action was that held it in the magazine ---and "doesn't care".

I do not deny that most of the best accuracy we see today is being shown to us with rifles made on short actions, but not all. And because it's not all I think we can safely say the action length is used for other reasons but really has nothing o do with accuracy per se.

So if the quality of 3 barrels and the workmanship of each rifle, and the quality of all 3 cartridges were equal, I would say there is no real difference in accuracy between a 308, a 30-06 or a 300 mag.

I think the biggest reason the 30-06 is not used in competition much these days is more simple.

The 308 does all the 30-06 will do and gives better barrel life using bullets up to 168 grains. The 30-06 does beat the 308 with heavier bullets but the difference is small enough that if a 30 cal shooter wants more then the 308 gives him, he usually jumps over the 30-06 and goes straight to one of the 300 magnums. It's about speed--- which reduces fight time.
But not intrinsic accuracy.

Recoil is in my opinion more of a factor than any one cartridge being more accurate. That’s why the little 6 br or a blown out version are setting world records now. On the 6 br forums a target shooter built identical rifles Iin 308 and 30-06. The 308 had a slight advantage in short range but the 06 did better long range. Ed k

6 BR?

Never heard of it.

What's it based on?..................

My best 3 shot group ever, came from my 30-378. The hole could be completely obscured with a dime.

How about fifteen that fit under a quarter? (Usual 100 yard assumption)

Exceptionally Precise rifles,are easily scored in this day & age.

Not much to it.

Hint...............

You used to post great pictures. Now all we get are hints. Where's the pictures?