Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters Why isn't the 308 more popular?

Bullet speed can be an asset or a detriment; bullets do the work.

Every cartridge has limits, as does every bullet or alloy. Some at the low end, some at the high end. You can destroy a low end bullet at the high end and have less than desirable results with a high end bullet at the low end speed.

Are you now saying the 7 Mouser is a better killer than the 30/40 Krag or its ballistic twin, the 303? That would be a lot of speculation and dead animals that didn't care.

I know I'd take a 30 carbine and a solid flatnose through both shoulders before I picked a 300 Lazzeroni with a 110 V-Max.

Why not run solids through both of them to determine how well they kill? Or are you relying more on the bullet, not the speed?

Nothing at all wrong with a 308,and I was under the impression that it's enormously popular.Lots of guys back here really like it and I suspect there are more 30/06's and 308's in use in Maine,for example,than anything else.

I never got into the cartridge because I have always,from the time I started shooting had at least one 30/06 hanging around. I think the 308 is a solid cartridge but the tasks I would have for it are performed just as well by other cartridges,so I have no real need for it.

The conversation between Hawk and Johnw was interesting and I think both are right,with the caveat about good bullets suited to the task.Cartridges of moderate velocity like the 7x57,6.5's and 318WR had reputations as good killers with solid bullets or heavy-for-caliber expanding bullets that penetrated large animals well,or so I read.I did not spend a lot of time in Africa in the 1st half of the 20th Century

As you increase velocity, it's good to have bullets that can take higher impact velocity,still expand properly without coming unglued,or at least that's my opinion and not shared by everyone.IMO that's when "speed kills".

If I were to save up all of my hard earned pesos to have one nice little custom built, the cartridge of choice would definately be a 308 win.. And that would work for a Kimber Montana or a NULA, Too.

The 308 is accurate and powerful enough for anything in the lower 48, although for big bears, I'd prefer something heavier. It is very popular, but boring and common. Gun enthusiasts go for the exotic calibers, others just want a rifle that gets the job done.

Ammo is available in any cross-roads store. It IS popular and widely used. I currently have 3 and have owed another 5-6 in the past.

NULA's are nice rifles, accurate and lightweight. I keep saving my pennies to buy one, but always get sidetracked by another rifle. Someday....

I have a .308W, .30-06 and a .300WM. Have yet to use the .308W on game. For the .30-06 and .300WM and the ranges I use them at-around 350max, and rarely that far-the animals have not shown any preference. I suspect the same will apply with the .308W. It will also kick less and carry easier.

No doubt the other two can hit harder at all ranges and use bigger bullets more efficiently, but is that always necessary or diminish the practical use of a .308W? Also none have mentioned the barrel lengths it takes for the other two to run at their best: 24 and 26in. I think it was Montana Marine who cut his .308W down to 20in without any appreciable loss of velocity. Feel free to correct me on that if I'm wrong.

To my way of thinking the .30-06 is the odd man out, although you could easily make the case it makes the other two unnecessary. They all have a place.

+1.

The .308 Win is an ideal compromise of many things, including velocity and energy. More pop than a 30-30, but less than a 30-06, both of which work quite well. A short action, and accurate as any caliber out there. Others have more umph, or are more glamorous, but the .308 keeps bringing home the bacon.

I'm a fan. It's such a well rounded catridge. Performs well and can play in most any game from tactical to lightweight hunter. You can find something "better" depending on the standards you use, but there's nothing "wrong" with a .308

The .308 isn't as "popular" with gun nuts for the reason illustrated by this thread:

Any discussion of the .308 always turns into a .308 vs. .30-06 debate.

The truth is that they're very similar, each having debatable strong points over the other. For most people, and most purposes, these differences are so insignificant as to be negligible.

Enthusiasts of any ilk love to debate minutia that non-enthusiasts would never consider. It's fun.

I've got a .308 and it's amazingly accurate. I wouldn't sell it. I would be just as happy with a .30-06 if it shot as well.

-nosualc

Around here it is challenging to even find a 308 chambered rifle on the shelf at a gun store. I'm not clear on why that is, but even the 243 seems more common here.

Speed kills??? i was under the impression that destroying the working parts of an animals anatomy killed it??? Guess i better throw my bow away

There aint no flies on the .308win and for good reason, it just gets it done. To all those who subscribe to the Wheatherby mantra of "speed kills" i suggest getting a rifle in .358win and shooting some animals and then tell that speed kills

I was going to bring up the arrow part, but decided it did not apply, and I was wrong. Somehow a bow and stick is acceptable but the .308W and some lesser calibers are marginal? That always has caused me to wonder for short periods of time.

I think the 03 and the Mauser system was picked over the -30-40 Krag because of the loading system. The speed wasn't all that different back in the heavy bullet pre-06 days.

Nobody said anything about shock, DRT, and psychobabble except you. However, the fact is a bullet that holds together, remins stable, and completely penetrates makes a bigger wound channel the faster it goes. A bigger wound channel means more tissue damage, and more tissue damage often results in quicker kills.

Often is a word I seldom use...



Is this hole large enough for a quick kill? It is an entrance wound, and the deer went darn close to 200 yds....

If you are saying that a 300 is better for longer shots, allows for less drift and holdover with longer, heavier bullets, then yes, it has it all over the 308. Ballistically, the 300 is obviously "better".

Placement trumps all else, even the size of the "hole" at times; people seem to care, arguing degrees of dead, animals don't.

FWIW it wouldn't have gone as far with a smaller, slower bullet hole with the shoulders collected..

In a word-MARKETING

I have always wondered why the pawnshops and gunshops
dont have a selection of used Remington and Savage bolt actions
in .308 Win.

"speed kills...

the .308 has the necessary speed to kill reliably, but the speed to kill impressively evades it..."


I'm gonna hafta call "Crapola" to that, as I've shot critters for 40 years with the .308 and have never noticed that it killed with any less efficiency or quickness than faster cartridges. In fact, the quickest kill I ever saw was a bull moose that my youngest son put down, DRT, with a 180-gr. NP from the lowly .308. So, am I supposed to conclude that the .308 is superior to all the other cartridges I've seen used on moose?

A buddy of mine is a horseman, black bear guide, and a died-in-the-wool moose hunter. He, his son, and other family members go to Northern BC every year on a long horseback hunt, and have for 35 years. They've shot a lot of moose. He used to use the .308 almost exclusively, then he went to the .338 WinMag. He went back to the .308 a couple of years ago because his .308 is a lot easier to carry and because he noticed that the .338 didn't kill moose any quicker than the .308. He says that over and over again it is proven to him that it's simply where you put the bullet that matters more than anything else.

Bullet placement and bullet construction trump everything else - and velocity is well down the list of important factors.

I'm glad they aren't more popular. It's a little tough finding brass for a .308 compared to a lot of other guns.

You miss the point. If that same bullet had impacted faster, stayed stable, and completely penetrated, the wound channel would have been bigger. A bigger wound channel means more damage.

No one is talking about shot placement, ballistic superiority, or degrees of dead. Further, deer are not hard to kill, so how a deer reacts isn't a good standard. A better standard is how hogs, elk, or bear react. With the few of those critters I have shot, in every case, the properly placed bullet that did the most damage resulted in the quickest kill. And the faster the bullet--again as long as it stays stable and compeltely penetrates, does the most damage.

That isn't even a point to be debated, and that is my only point here.