That is a good question. Many will suggest that the .308 Winchester is a "jack of all trades, master of none" kind of a cartridge. At first glance, you may agree with that. After all, the .30-06 has more potential velocity if you break away from factory-loaded ammunition, but you're going to be forced into a long action. For hunting, why stop at the '06 when you can go straight to the .300 Winchester? If you're going short-action, the 7mm-08 or 6.5 Creedmoor offer less recoil and slightly higher ballistic coefficient bullets that provide for somewhat better trajectory. There is even the .260 Remington for the Creedmoor haters that potentially out-performs either of the other darlings if you want to be individualistic and perhaps a few more FPS of bragging rights. So why would anybody want a .308 Winchester?
Those claiming the .308 Winchester to be anemic must also claim the .300 Winchester is anemic. Let me explain. In a density altitude of 1050, a 175 gr from a .308 Winchester fired at 2670 fps will have 3 mRad or 63.78" of drop at 575 yards. In the wind, the same load would drift 1.4 mRad or 32.8" in a 10mph wind at full-value. Remaining energy is around 1260 FPE with a remaining velocity of 1800 fps. This is the expansion floor for most bullets. What pathetic performance, right?
Let us compare to the mighty .300 Winchester with a similar bullet. We can expect the same 175 gr bullet to reach around 2960; ~300 fps faster in the .300 Winchester. To reach the same drop values and remaining velocity we can extend our range to a whopping 675 yards in the same density altitude to achieve the same numbers. That's it, a .300 Winchester gets you 100 yards!
Or think of it this way, an animal hit with a .300 Winchester at 675 yards is the same as hitting the same animal with a .308 at 575 yards. According to polling on this very forum, most hunters won't shoot past 300 yards or so on game. How could the .308 Winchester be ineffective and anemic if it will maintain the velocity floor faster than the average hunter is willing to take the shot anyway? Few would argue the .300 Winchester as being "anemic' at 675 yards so the .308 Winchester is absolutely fine under 575.
So why not choose a 6.5 Creedmoor? Surely the .308 couldn't get close. To be honest, my Tikka CTR 20" could never achieve the advertised Creedmoor velocities. Others suggest 2740 fps is common with their rifles and a 140 gr bullet. My Tikka would get a mere 2550 fps with the Hornady 143 gr ELD-X factory ammo, but we'll go with the popular number. The 6.5 Creedmoor will maintain the 1800 fps velocity floor in the same atmosphere quoted above to approximately 710 yards, but has a lower energy of 1070 FPE. If we go equal energy to the .308 with the 175 class bullet, energy equalizes with the .308 Winchester at around the same 575 yards, though the Creedmoor will drift 1.07 mils and around an impressive 23" of wind drift.
So we must conclude that the .308 Winchester is more than an adequate cartridge for big game hunting North America to the distances most on this website would be willing to take a shot. That, however, doesn't answer the question, "where does the .308 Winchester EXCEL?" Sure, we can comment on the wide range of available bullet weights, great variety of adequate powders, quality brass availability, and one of the largest varieties of factory loaded ammo at a reasonable price, but those arguments have been beat to death and the same advantages exist for .30-06 and daresay the 6.5 Creedmoor these days. But where does the .308 REALLY excel?
As previously mentioned, my short little 20" 6.5 Creedmoor actually could not match my .308 Winchester's velocity in the same length gun. In fact, my 2o" .308 actually out-performed the 20" 6.5 Creedmoor in REAL WORLD shooting...and running the numbers, the .308 won on the ballistic calculator out past 700 yards! We're told this is impossible. In fact, I had to get to a 22" Creedmoor to match the 20" .308 Winchester and over 24" to get to the velocity most claim from the 6.5 Creedmoor--which is fine, and likely the length of test-barrels for Hornady's data. But that brings to light exactly where the .308 Winchester excels; under 22" barrels. With any of the other cartridges, you're really handicapping them going below 22".
Additionally, having several of the "hot" rounds including 6.5 Creedmoor, .260 Remington, 6.5 PRC, .270 Winchester, and several others, none of them have exhibited excellent barrel-life. My 6.5-284 was dead in as little as 900 rounds. A couple of .260 Remington barrels died between 1700 and 2000 rounds. I have a .270 on its last leg with an estimated 2000 rounds on it. 6.5 Creedmoor barrels have run around 2500 before giving up the ghost. 6.5x47 Lapua seems to be the only round that has made it beyond 3,000 rounds for me...with one exception: the .308 Winchester. Currently in my battery is a .308 with over 5,000 rounds on it. My previous .308 barrel approached 8,000 rounds. One high-end .308 semi-auto of mine has a "guarantee" of sub-MOA performance for 10,000 or a free barrel replacement! Yes, the .308 Winchester excels at barrel-life like no other cartridge capable of being a solid 400 yard big game cartridge! If you want a rifle you can use, practice, and master at the range and still take it out to kill game with, there is absolutely no equal to the .308 Winchester.
Thanks for typing that out... excellent information.
If you are not actively engaging EVERY enemy you encounter... you are allowing another to fight for you... and that is cowardice... plain and simple.
That is a good question. Many will suggest that the .308 Winchester is a "jack of all trades, master of none" kind of a cartridge. At first glance, you may agree with that. After all, the .30-06 has more potential velocity if you break away from factory-loaded ammunition, but you're going to be forced into a long action. For hunting, why stop at the '06 when you can go straight to the .300 Winchester? If you're going short-action, the 7mm-08 or 6.5 Creedmoor offer less recoil and slightly higher ballistic coefficient bullets that provide for somewhat better trajectory. There is even the .260 Remington for the Creedmoor haters that potentially out-performs either of the other darlings if you want to be individualistic and perhaps a few more FPS of bragging rights. So why would anybody want a .308 Winchester?
Those claiming the .308 Winchester to be anemic must also claim the .300 Winchester is anemic. Let me explain. In a density altitude of 1050, a 175 gr from a .308 Winchester fired at 2670 fps will have 3 mRad or 63.78" of drop at 575 yards. In the wind, the same load would drift 1.4 mRad or 32.8" in a 10mph wind at full-value. Remaining energy is around 1260 FPE with a remaining velocity of 1800 fps. This is the expansion floor for most bullets. What pathetic performance, right?
Let us compare to the mighty .300 Winchester with a similar bullet. We can expect the same 175 gr bullet to reach around 2960; ~300 fps faster in the .300 Winchester. To reach the same drop values and remaining velocity we can extend our range to a whopping 675 yards in the same density altitude to achieve the same numbers. That's it, a .300 Winchester gets you 100 yards!
Or think of it this way, an animal hit with a .300 Winchester at 675 yards is the same as hitting the same animal with a .308 at 575 yards. According to polling on this very forum, most hunters won't shoot past 300 yards or so on game. How could the .308 Winchester be ineffective and anemic if it will maintain the velocity floor faster than the average hunter is willing to take the shot anyway? Few would argue the .300 Winchester as being "anemic' at 675 yards so the .308 Winchester is absolutely fine under 575.
So why not choose a 6.5 Creedmoor? Surely the .308 couldn't get close. To be honest, my Tikka CTR 20" could never achieve the advertised Creedmoor velocities. Others suggest 2740 fps is common with their rifles and a 140 gr bullet. My Tikka would get a mere 2550 fps with the Hornady 143 gr ELD-X factory ammo, but we'll go with the popular number. The 6.5 Creedmoor will maintain the 1800 fps velocity floor in the same atmosphere quoted above to approximately 710 yards, but has a lower energy of 1070 FPE. If we go equal energy to the .308 with the 175 class bullet, energy equalizes with the .308 Winchester at around the same 575 yards, though the Creedmoor will drift 1.07 mils and around an impressive 23" of wind drift.
So we must conclude that the .308 Winchester is more than an adequate cartridge for big game hunting North America to the distances most on this website would be willing to take a shot. That, however, doesn't answer the question, "where does the .308 Winchester EXCEL?" Sure, we can comment on the wide range of available bullet weights, great variety of adequate powders, quality brass availability, and one of the largest varieties of factory loaded ammo at a reasonable price, but those arguments have been beat to death and the same advantages exist for .30-06 and daresay the 6.5 Creedmoor these days. But where does the .308 REALLY excel?
As previously mentioned, my short little 20" 6.5 Creedmoor actually could not match my .308 Winchester's velocity in the same length gun. In fact, my 2o" .308 actually out-performed the 20" 6.5 Creedmoor in REAL WORLD shooting...and running the numbers, the .308 won on the ballistic calculator out past 700 yards! We're told this is impossible. In fact, I had to get to a 22" Creedmoor to match the 20" .308 Winchester and over 24" to get to the velocity most claim from the 6.5 Creedmoor--which is fine, and likely the length of test-barrels for Hornady's data. But that brings to light exactly where the .308 Winchester excels; under 22" barrels. With any of the other cartridges, you're really handicapping them going below 22".
Additionally, having several of the "hot" rounds including 6.5 Creedmoor, .260 Remington, 6.5 PRC, .270 Winchester, and several others, none of them have exhibited excellent barrel-life. My 6.5-284 was dead in as little as 900 rounds. A couple of .260 Remington barrels died between 1700 and 2000 rounds. I have a .270 on its last leg with an estimated 2000 rounds on it. 6.5 Creedmoor barrels have run around 2500 before giving up the ghost. 6.5x47 Lapua seems to be the only round that has made it beyond 3,000 rounds for me...with one exception: the .308 Winchester. Currently in my battery is a .308 with over 5,000 rounds on it. My previous .308 barrel approached 8,000 rounds. One high-end .308 semi-auto of mine has a "guarantee" of sub-MOA performance for 10,000 or a free barrel replacement! Yes, the .308 Winchester excels at barrel-life like no other cartridge capable of being a solid 400 yard big game cartridge! If you want a rifle you can use, practice, and master at the range and still take it out to kill game with, there is absolutely no equal to the .308 Winchester.
Thanks for typing that out... excellent information.
You’re welcome.
"Full time night woman? I never could find no tracks on a woman's heart. I packed me a squaw for ten year, Pilgrim. Cheyenne, she were, and the meanest bitch that ever balled for beads."
I’m always amazed at the amount of detail and volume of information on rifle ballistics, loads and bullets here on the fire. I live in a state where you couldn’t hunt with rifles until recently but I’ve been drawn to them since I was a little kid . Ive got a few nice rifles but I’ll likely never take them out West except for mule deer one day. Ive fell in love with September archery for elk. I have a Weatherby 7mm markV deluxe I did take a decent buck with at home , and I’m glad I did , but it sure was overkill as I’ve always used slugs in a shotgun . I’ve since used a Marlin 44 mag 1894 and I do like it. I appreciate reading these threads. Thank you
I used to think the 308 was as obsolete and as worthless as the 30-30... now that I have "matured" I own 3 of them and the 308 has made the 30-06 obsolete....
Originally Posted by Judman PS, if you think Trump is “good” you’re way stupider than I thought! Haha
Youse guys calls it the .308, ok, I prefer the T65 circa 1952, in any case it's a dandy, can't argue that. But credit where credit is due, Paul Mauser dreamed up the 7.65x53 Mauser in 1889...it is what the .308 should have been, by 1905, it was bye bye 210 gr round nose, it then featured a 174 gr spitzer boat tail at 2560 from a 23 inch bbl. Sierra's .308 175 gr match wunderkind does scarcely better out of a 26 inch barrel. Don't for a second think the T65 engineers didn't notice this performance. Nah, prolly just coincidence. In case any of you ballistics nerds question the numbers...do not use the data from anemic piss poor loadings of the 7.65 Argentine.
Well this is a fine pickle we're in, should'a listened to Joe McCarthy and George Orwell I guess.
The 308 has gone the way of the Dodo Bird and the 260 with the introduction of the 7.62 Creedmoor.
Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Give a man a welfare check, a forty ounce malt liquor, a crack pipe, an Obama phone, free health insurance. and some Air Jordan's and he votes Democrat for a lifetime.
In regards to the OP, I'd not spend the money on a 308 if I had a 6.5 in the same make/model. I'd spend the money it'd take to buy, set up the new rifle, on a trip to take the 6.5 hunting.
I ask my buddy about the 308, and he wrote that the 308 was never intended to excel at anything. It is a conglomerate of compromises designed to reliably kill or wound more bad guys per $. Acceptable recoil, satisfactory feed reliability across multiple platforms, component economy (raw brass and powder needed), weight and portability, etc. There are better cartridges for everything the 308 does, including the original intent.
Your buddy may think he's smarter than Jim Carmichael about the .308, but Jim's opinion carries a lot more weight with me. Carmichael called the .308 one of the finest cartridges ever for North American game as well as a superb heavy target round.
One of the things I like about this place, is all the different opinions and not being shy about expressing them. Facts be damned! The 308 Win is a great tool, one of many great tools and certainly not the only tool for us to use. As with any tool, you need to learn how to use it and use the tool for its intended purpose, not ask it to be a different tool, something it isn't. I have one of these tools, bigger and smaller ones too and enjoy the crap out of all of them.
It isn't what happens to you that defines you, it's what you DO about what happens to you that defines you!
Your buddy may think he's smarter than Jim Carmichael about the .308, but Jim's opinion carries a lot more weight with me. Carmichael called the .308 one of the finest cartridges ever for North American game as well as a superb heavy target round.
I respect Jim's opinion and I respect my buds opinion...I do not see where my bud thinks he is smarter than anyone about the 308...
One of the things I like about this place, is all the different opinions and not being shy about expressing them. Facts be damned! The 308 Win is a great tool, one of many great tools and certainly not the only tool for us to use. As with any tool, you need to learn how to use it and use the tool for its intended purpose, not ask it to be a different tool, something it isn't. I have one of these tools, bigger and smaller ones too and enjoy the crap out of all of them.
Hey... screw you... my great grandfather used the 308 for everything , therefore it's the best..
Originally Posted by Judman PS, if you think Trump is “good” you’re way stupider than I thought! Haha
308 will get the job done with a wide range of bullet choices in factory ammo. only arguments I have seen where it excels is teaching a shooter to dope the wind. A finding factory ammo tends to be a relatively easy task.
Boils down to load development & load / bullet choice. & there is a pile of load data out there to support the 308.
As a reloader & for my needs 308 is generally more than I need or want by a large margin. YMMV
As you can see, a .308 Winchester with a heavy bullet actually walks away from the darling 6.5 Creedmoor, when loaded with a proper projectile. The punchline is that you end up with a heavier bullet that hits harder.
The thing is everyone compares the very best 6.5 bullets with mediocre .30 cal bullets like 150 grain bullets with low BCs and says " Look, my sports car beats your pickup truck". Lots of people have been bombarded with successful advertisement, and it has certainly worked. If you tell the same BS long enough, it becomes a truth..
The funny thing is the .30 cal ELD shown is not even the highest BC .30 cal available from Hornady, but it is one that is quite capable in a .308, if a person knows how to load properly.
There is not a thing wrong with the 6.5 CM (or .260s), and I have both, and have killed multiple elk using 6.5 caliber bullets. But as shown above, when loaded with heavy bullets, the .308 actually has some advantages that cannot be denied.
THE CHAIR IS AGAINST THE WALL.
The Tikka T3 in .308 Winchester is the Glock 19 of the rifle world.
As you can see, a .308 Winchester with a heavy bullet actually walks away from the darling 6.5 Creedmoor, when loaded with a proper projectile. The punchline is that you end up with a heavier bullet that hits harder.
The thing is everyone compares the very best 6.5 bullets with mediocre .30 cal bullets like 150 grain bullets with low BCs and says " Look, my sports car beats your pickup truck". Lots of people have been bombarded with successful advertisement, and it has certainly worked. If you tell the same BS long enough, it becomes a truth..
The funny thing is the .30 cal ELD shown is not even the highest BC .30 cal available from Hornady, but it is one that is quite capable in a .308, if a person knows how to load properly.
There is not a thing wrong with the 6.5 CM (or .260s), and I have both, and have killed multiple elk using 6.5 caliber bullets. But as shown above, when loaded with heavy bullets, the .308 actually has some advantages that cannot be denied.
This is true. I experimented with a 208 Amax with a stiff charge of RL17, got 2500 fps. Problem was the 1/12 twist was marginal and accuracy was ok, for long range I want better than ok
Originally Posted by Judman PS, if you think Trump is “good” you’re way stupider than I thought! Haha
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/Z8N56Ns.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/S2W2LM2.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/phrl1jX.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/bgRu9Od.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/39pAJWk.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/TGHc7og.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/1P5OBSr.jpg)
