This is a discussion about the venerable old 06 case. I have come to the conclusion, after 55 years of hunting and lots of shooting and load development along with many discussions with others with much more experience than I... that the old 06 case is so practical and versatile that it is just about the perfect case size for 90% of the worlds hunting. When you reflect on the number of factory cartridges based on it, then add all of the wildcats, up to, and including the 400's, I honestly cannot think of anything on this earth that could not be taken,capably, with one of the offspring of this cartridge. With the advent of extremely high quality, well constructed bullets over the last couple of decades, they are even more effective than ever. I think that most would agree that the average big game taken by the majority of hunters occurs at under 300 yards and 06 based cartridges can handle these with ease. This is not an attack on magnums in any way, they always have their place in hunting, just, for most of us, under most conditions, a 280, 30/06, or 338/06 for example, would have killed them just as dead as their magnum counterparts did. As a big bore and magnum fan of many years, it took me a long time and many hunts to finally realize and appreciate just how great 06 based cartridges are.
Ok I’ll undercut a bit. While I agree the 30-06 is a great cartridge, the 338-06 and the 35 Whelen are superfluous while offering little if anything over it. Categorically the same game with the same results. Next 280(270 if I can throw it in), 30-06… 375 h&h or similar.
I think the Mauser family also deserves some credit also. If the Mausers had not come along the '06 may not have come along for a long time or been completely different. With the advent of the new powders coming along , new life has been put in a lot of old cartridges. I also agree that 300 yds for most hunters is all that is practical, and the '06 is an almost perfect cartridge.. Just some thoughts from an old man. Have a great day. Jim
lee, I tend to agree with you and I often carry a rifle on the 06 case and sometimes the 06 its self... Depending on how I am hunting, I often have a magnum in a case so if a long shot does crop up I have one at hand.. But as you said 90 percent of the time the 06 will do the job...
I can recall reading, probably a couple of times over the years, that the .222 (another perfect cartridge) was just a .30-06 scaled down to take a .224 bullet. I've never run the numbers to verify it.
The point of the topic is about the 06 case size and all of the great cartridges that have been developed off of it, not specifically the 30/06, although it is certainly is the father of them. My point was that it has an adequate capacity to work well with a wide range of bore sizes and in the larger bore sizes it becomes more effective for larger game. While the Mauser 57mm case was necked up and down, it was too shy on capacity, especially above 8mm, to be as effective as the US 63mm case. The original 06 capacity just works very well and may just be the most versatile made for non-magnum cartridges.
I can recall reading, probably a couple of times over the years, that the .222 (another perfect cartridge) was just a .30-06 scaled down to take a .224 bullet. I've never run the numbers to verify it.
...or that the 50 BMG was a scaled up version of the 30-06.
Every time I think about getting a different cartridge to hunt with I can't justify it. Actually using the .30-06 is being ''over-gunned'' for most of my hunting of deer and big hogs and at the very least adequate on the 300 to 400 pound Russian Boar that occasionally presents itself. There's a lot to be said for confidence in a cartridge and I can reliably hit a deer size target at 400 yards if I know the distance and have a good corn bag to rest on. The neighbors are sort of amused that I keep a bag of corn on the hood of my Toyota Tundra.
I'd seen in print several times over the years that the BMG was a scaled up 30-06...and when I googled it, sure enough there were websites confirming my recollection, but with names like "survivalmonkey.com" So I decided to do some quick calculations of some relevant case ratios. Body Length to Total Length, Neck Length to Total Length and Base Diameter to Total Length. In each case (with the exception of base diameter to total length, the BMG was a much closer scale up of the 30-06.
After some experimenting done by Winchester starting with a rimmed case from about April 1918, and then (at the prompting of the AEF and Ordnance) a rimless case, trialled in a couple of versions, and some work by Frankford Arsenal using a 13 mm German antitank rifle case as a starting point and testing a semi-rimmed case, FA did indeed end up simply scaling up the .30/06 (FA Drawing No B-7428, 28 April 1919). This design was forwarded to the US Ordnance on May 12 1919, and approved. With a couple of minor changes that is the design still in service.
FWIW there was also a .60 cal developed, in 1939, based initially on a scaled-up .50 (and, by extension, on a scaled up .30/06). It was tested with various solid bronze, steel-cored and banded bullets. Ballistics were impressive, such as a 1200 gn bullet at 3400 fps. However the experiments don't seem to have led to anything.
280 Remington, 24", 175 eldx & 180g Hornady eldm, Lapua brass is actually what a lot of others aspire to be. Even the 162 with Rem brass, 7828, at 2930 fps is the most accurate load in Nosler's #4 manual for their 160g partitions. With the heavier bullets, Lapua '06 brass is simply difficult to kill the primer pockets. Hard for most to believe the ballistics of a .796 BC bullet till you see it with your own eyes.
When I was in jr.high school, Townsend Whelan told me ...in his book Why Not Load Your Own...that the 30-06 was never a mistake on North American game. Jack O'Connor said it was more versatile than the 270. Elmer Keith said it was damn fine coyote rifle (or was that the then new 243 or the 270? Whatever.) I've had brief love affairs with a variety of cartridges from the 6mm Remington, 6.5x55, 7x57 (bless it), 7-08, 35 Whelan, 45-70's, 375 H&H and just to gild the lilly, a 458...and there were others I have probably fotgotten here, not to mention a whole passel of varmint cartridges.I still own most of them. They all have their uses.But, when it comes to getting serious, perhaps when a four digit check has been written for a hunt off in the boonies somewhere or just for a nostalgic trip to the old Vermont deer camp, the go to cartridge is most frequently the '06.
With it I have taken a truckload of deer most with one shot and three moose... all with one shot.Nothing surprising here. The cartridge is just plain...and may I add...boringly dependable. But, you knew that already.
The older I get , and I am now officialy old, and the more experience I have, I've come to believe cartridge selection means little and that bullet construction and placement is everything. What I done with the '06 I could just as well have done with a 270 or a 280. So there you have it. Ihave spent my entire adult life confirming what I knew in junior high.
"So there you have it. Ihave spent my entire adult life confirming what I knew in junior high."
Yeah, the 30-06 is never a mistake. I agree. Regardless of what I take on a hunt, there's always a 30-06 along as back up. Sometimes as back up the another 30-06. Paul B.
The -06 case was a distaster militarily, and useful but ultimately crippled as a hunting round.
For military use it was simply too big, with too big a bore diameter.
For hunting, it's too small a case diameter (high round counts in a magazine are not useful for non-DG rounds) with too much taper and too flat a shoulder. It was designed to maximize machine gun feeding, not be a good hunting round or reload well. That said, compared to what was domestically available when it was released it was an improvement and had a moment in the sun. As better rounds were imported and developed the -06 case fell further and further behind though.
Of course, there are always nuthuggers for nostalgia. We've got plenty here, and they're as pathetic as always
... the 338-06 and the 35 Whelen are superfluous while offering little if anything over it. ...
As a loving owner of both of those, I do get your point if you are talking about "compared to a 200 Partition in the 30-06", which I have several of too. Rex
I already said that the nostalgia nuthuggers would be in here, and right on time here they are
The fact is that the .30-06 cost twice as much, used twice as many precious raw materials, took up twice as much transport space, and weighed twice as much as it should have. Those are not of concern in a hunting round, where even counting sight-in it takes only a handful of rounds to kill and animal. But in a war where it took aproximately 10,000 rounds shipped to theater for every dead enemy, that's a major limitation.
There's a reason the STG-44, not the supposedly "great" Garand, was the pattern for infantry rifles going forward.
There's a reason everyone went to smaller cartridges after WWII, and it's not because the bigger cartridges were better
You're comparing a weapon that was developed over a century ago with what is available today. Bows and arrows were once effective militarily, but they would of course be a disaster today, Likewise, the Garand and the '06 would not be ideal today..
another 2 cents : yep the 30 - 06 is a great grand old cartridge as is the 308 but there is other families of cartridges 7 mm mauser another grand old cartridge that many cartridges were designed from or the 250 or 300 Savage that was another great old cartridge that is very close to the size and shape of a 6.5 Creedmoor . you can bet the famous guru of 24 Campfire if he chimes in he could really post some interesting history of caliber/cartridges as he has in his Gun Gack 3 - books with hopefully with a few more in the future with a wink .
Llama Bob must be unaware that during the early stages of the recent Afghan and Iraq wars, many USMC and USA combat troops were re-equipped with dusted off, modernized M-14 rifles in 7.62x51.
Due the long ranges encountered in the wide open plains of Afghnistan and Iraq, the 5.56x45 cartridge proved to be entirely inadequate.
And nostalgia has nothing to do with it. I haven't used a '06 for hunting since the early '60s. Not that it would not have done the job, but there are many other options that perform just as well. IMO the '06 has more juice than needed for bambi.
Llama Bob must be unaware that during the early stages of the recent Afghan and Iraq wars, many USMC and USA combat troops were re-equipped with dusted off, modernized M-14 rifles in 7.62x51.
Due the long ranges encountered in the wide open plains of Afghnistan and Iraq, the 5.56x45 cartridge proved to be entirely inadequate.
If you're looking for range, the .30-06 (or .308) is a disaster. Too big a bore, too small a case.
The reach of any .308 round in use today is barely longer than the 77gr SMK load
The -06 case was a distaster militarily, and useful but ultimately crippled as a hunting round.
For military use it was simply too big, with too big a bore diameter.
For hunting, it's too small a case diameter (high round counts in a magazine are not useful for non-DG rounds) with too much taper and too flat a shoulder. It was designed to maximize machine gun feeding, not be a good hunting round or reload well. That said, compared to what was domestically available when it was released it was an improvement and had a moment in the sun. As better rounds were imported and developed the -06 case fell further and further behind though.
Of course, there are always nuthuggers for nostalgia. We've got plenty here, and they're as pathetic as always
Yeah, it really sucked in WWI, WWII, Korea, and the limited use it saw in Vietnam. Your statement is one of the lamest I've heard around here in a while.
another 2 cents : yep the 30 - 06 is a great grand old cartridge as is the 308 but there is other families of cartridges 7 mm mauser another grand old cartridge that many cartridges were designed from or the 250 or 300 Savage that was another great old cartridge that is very close to the size and shape of a 6.5 Creedmoor . you can bet the famous guru of 24 Campfire if he chimes in he could really post some interesting history of caliber/cartridges as he has in his Gun Gack 3 - books with hopefully with a few more in the future with a wink .
Yeah, it really sucked in WWI, WWII, Korea, and the limited use it saw in Vietnam. Your statement is one of the lamest I've heard around here in a while.
If you just want to look at pre-WWI rounds we'd have been better off with the 6.5x55 in every one of those conflicts. The -06 was born obsolete as the -03 and remained obsolete at the -06. Being a little slow, it took us a while to realize it.
Or better yet 6mm Navy with a spire point bullet...
I like the 06, lot of performance, damn little recoil in my opinion. There is no truly perfect cartridge, guy’s been arguing this forever and will continue to do so.
In the many hunting camps I’ve been in, if you said you were hunting with the 06, heads would nod approving your choice.
The OP was discussing the use of the .30-06 for hunting, not its use by the military, which is an entirely different matter. As an all around cartridge for hunting, the 06 is pretty hard to beat. It's arguably the best single all around choice for North American big game as it will handle anything from antelope to the big bears without excessive recoil. And for plains game in Africa it's a great choice. There is no perfect cartridge for all situations, but the 06 is a very good compromise for most.
The OP was discussing the use of the .30-06 for hunting, not its use by the military, which is an entirely different matter. As an all around cartridge for hunting, the 06 is pretty hard to beat. It's arguably the best single all around choice for North American big game as it will handle anything from antelope to the big bears without excessive recoil. And for plains game in Africa it's a great choice. There is no perfect cartridge for all situations, but the 06 is a very good compromise for most.
If you're just talking about hunting, the WSM cass stomps the -06. More velocity, more efficient, short action instead of long action.
The -06 is nothing special. It was not special when it was created, and it's not special now. It's basically what a 'C-' in cartridge design looks like.
The OP was discussing the use of the .30-06 for hunting, not its use by the military, which is an entirely different matter. As an all around cartridge for hunting, the 06 is pretty hard to beat. It's arguably the best single all around choice for North American big game as it will handle anything from antelope to the big bears without excessive recoil. And for plains game in Africa it's a great choice. There is no perfect cartridge for all situations, but the 06 is a very good compromise for most.
If you're just talking about hunting, the WSM cass stomps the -06. More velocity, more efficient, short action instead of long action.
The -06 is nothing special. It was not special when it was created, and it's not special now. It's basically what a 'C-' in cartridge design looks like.
As the OP. if you read what I posted, it was not about the 30/06 cartridge, but the case itself. The whole point that keeps getting missed by some, is that as a sporting proposition, the 06 BRASS is one of the most useful sizes as to capacity, for a wide variety of factory and wildcat cartridges. You can neck it up and down and tailor cartridges that will out perform anything that can be done with the 308 or 7x57 case, especially above 8mm. You can neck the o6 casing up to 40cal and push a 400 grain bullet to match the velocity of the 450-400 3" and go elephant hunting and you sure can't do that with either the 308 or the 7x57 case size. This is not a discussion about the military aspects of any of them, but strictly from the sporting aspect. The case capacity of the U.S. 63mm (06) case, IMO is the most versatile of the non-belted cases for making cartridges that will efficiently handle any game in the world.
The OP was discussing the use of the .30-06 for hunting, not its use by the military, which is an entirely different matter. As an all around cartridge for hunting, the 06 is pretty hard to beat. It's arguably the best single all around choice for North American big game as it will handle anything from antelope to the big bears without excessive recoil. And for plains game in Africa it's a great choice. There is no perfect cartridge for all situations, but the 06 is a very good compromise for most.
If you're just talking about hunting, the WSM cass stomps the -06. More velocity, more efficient, short action instead of long action.
The -06 is nothing special. It was not special when it was created, and it's not special now. It's basically what a 'C-' in cartridge design looks like.
The 300 WSM has more recoil than an 06. Rifles in WSM generally only hold three rounds and sometimes more is useful. The short magnums also tend to have more feeding problems. I have nothing against them, but I think the 06 is more versatile, not to mention that ammo is widely available, even in small towns, something that cannot be said for the WSM's. In the end it's all about personal choice but that's my opinion, and by the way, the opinion of millions of shooters who use the 06 and not the WSM's.
My dad was a WW11 veteran. Couple other men I’ve known were Korean veterans. They sure loved the 30GOVT06. My dad bought a model 70 in 1941 and he bought my featherweight in 1955. Of course both are in 06. 110s to 250 Barnes and six rounds on board in the grizzly hills.
Worth noting that every big game species in North America has been successfully hunted with the good ol' 30-06 cartridge. This fellow did almost all of his hunts with the 165 grain Nosler Partition, bumping up to the 200 grain Nosler Partition for a few of the really big animals.
I like lots of different cartridges, but have to admit that the 30-06 & 25-06 are two of my favorites. Not sure there's anything 6mm - 40 cal on the .30-06 case that I wouldn't like. I've taken wolf, antelope, deer, elk, black bear and grizzly with my 30-06, it was absolutely "enough gun." Then again, I could have done that with a dozen different cartridges.
But... "perfect" ? I dunno. Is anything ever perfect?
This is a discussion about the venerable old 06 case. I have come to the conclusion, after 55 years of hunting and lots of shooting and load development along with many discussions with others with much more experience than I... that the old 06 case is so practical and versatile that it is just about the perfect case size for 90% of the worlds hunting. When you reflect on the number of factory cartridges based on it, then add all of the wildcats, up to, and including the 400's, I honestly cannot think of anything on this earth that could not be taken,capably, with one of the offspring of this cartridge. With the advent of extremely high quality, well constructed bullets over the last couple of decades, they are even more effective than ever. I think that most would agree that the average big game taken by the majority of hunters occurs at under 300 yards and 06 based cartridges can handle these with ease. This is not an attack on magnums in any way, they always have their place in hunting, just, for most of us, under most conditions, a 280, 30/06, or 338/06 for example, would have killed them just as dead as their magnum counterparts did. As a big bore and magnum fan of many years, it took me a long time and many hunts to finally realize and appreciate just how great 06 based cartridges are.
If you're looking for range, the .30-06 (or .308) is a disaster. Too big a bore, too small a case. The reach of any .308 round in use today is barely longer than the 77gr SMK load
When and if you hunt deer and elk size game what do you use?
Llama_Bob, curious what your choice of the perfect cartridge would be?
Who cares? Our military stayed with .30 in our battle rifles from 1892 clear up to the late 60's yet that squirrel tries to claim the 30-'06 was obsolete right from the getgo. What a clown
Case capacity and bore size is what makes the 30-06 such a great cartridge.Not too many cartridges can burn such a wide range of powders and shoot such a wide range of bullet weights like a 30-06.
When I was in jr.high school, Townsend Whelan told me ...in his book Why Not Load Your Own...that the 30-06 was never a mistake on North American game. So there you have it. Ihave spent my entire adult life confirming what I knew in junior high.
I cannot argue with that.
Old African hands will tell you the perefect safari battery is the 30-06 coupled with the .375 H & H. They shoot the same basic trajectory and are a highly effective pair to cover everything from duiker to elephant.
Llama_Bob, curious what your choice of the perfect cartridge would be?
Who cares? Our military stayed with .30 in our battle rifles from 1892 clear up to the late 60's yet that squirrel tries to claim the 30-'06 was obsolete right from the getgo. What a clown
In fairness your military was experimenting with calibres smaller than .30 from the early 1890s, and this continued up to, during and after the US participation in the last few months of WWI. They even tested a .25 based on the .30/06 case in 1917.
Of course you'd also know that your Navy and Marines adopted a 6 mm too, after considering a .32, and this was adopted after the Navy had also considered and tested the .30 Ball (.30-40), though after a comparatively short period of a few years the Navy decided to come into standardisation with the Army.
Through the 20s and early 30s work continued, with intermediate-sized 6.5 and 7 mm calibres favoured. There was a strong view that an intermediate-sized 7mm, the .276, was ideal, based on quite comprehensive tests of such things as lethality, and considerations of ammunition weight, recoil and package size. It was close to being adopted, and was specified for the trials for a new self-loading rifle for the Army, with the Garand which was ultimately adopted being designed around it. This all came to a halt in 1932, a decision based largely on economics, there being too many rifles, machine guns rounds of ammunition to replace at the height of the depression, and as a result the Garand was redesigned to suit the .30/06.
And of course after WWII work again started, more or less immediately, on a cartridge smaller and lighter than the .30/06, eventually leading to 5.56. More recently, as a matter of some irony, there have been some for whom the ideal service cartridge is an intermediate-sized one of about 7mm, whose ballistics more or less replicate the .276 of 1932 (and, for that matter, the .280 favoured by Britain and other allies for the NATO round in the late 1940s).
That is not to be taken as a criticism of the .30/06 as a hunting rifle cartridge. I've always had at least one, for the past 40-odd years. I think it is a good versatile sort of cartridge, and I've shot hundreds of animals with it, including pigs, goats and several species of deer. It has always done what I expect of it.
30-06 works fine everytime I use it. As a matter of fact that pile of 78 year old SL 43 brass I been using in it for 50 years could probably stand a cleaning though. Perfect is a word that needs to be defined by the individual using it. The 30-06 based cartridges I been using seem to be fine enough for me also. Don't have much use though for people who have 20/20 hindsight and can't see in front of them . Mb
i have not used a 30-06 cartridge rifle for 40 some years but i inherited a pre-64 30-06 a few years ago that i never will part with, this rifle has plenty history was made in the early 50`s like 1951 maybe ? just because i can i plan on deer hunting with this old pre-64 30-06 this year 2021, sure i have the latest and maybe even the greatest in todays manufactured rifles Red Ruger Precision AR bolt type 6.5 Creedmoor and it shoots great. but sometimes as we get older we think of the past and its nice to use a tool for hunting from the past ,besides when i pull up this old pre-64 30-06 Chev pickup it fits me better than my new Red Ruger AR Camaro of a 6.5 Creedmoor.
The 300 WSM has more recoil than an 06. Rifles in WSM generally only hold three rounds and sometimes more is useful. The short magnums also tend to have more feeding problems. I have nothing against them, but I think the 06 is more versatile, not to mention that ammo is widely available, even in small towns, something that cannot be said for the WSM's. In the end it's all about personal choice but that's my opinion, and by the way, the opinion of millions of shooters who use the 06 and not the WSM's.
The recoil for a .300 WSM is negligible. Are we arming little girls here? Oh, and the WSM case feeds just fine.
You do have me on one point though - the .30-06 is PERFECT for the sort of guy who forgets his ammo. The ignorance of ballistics that created it goes perfectly with a fellow who can't remember to bring his ammo
I agree with the OP. Availability of brass and actions aside, if the -06 case wasn't close enough to perfect, wildcatters would have based so many of our cartridges on something else. But of course having owned at least one since the '60's, I admit to a certain amount of prejudice. And anyone who doesn't own at least one is a commie pinko kweer.
When and if you hunt deer and elk size game what do you use?
Originally Posted by ChrisF
Llama_Bob, curious what your choice of the perfect cartridge would be?
I don't put any particular stock in "perfect" cartridges as design work continues. For example it's quite likely in 10-20 years time we'll be mostly shooting cartridges with steel case heads at 80+KPSI. The .277 SIG demonstrated this is feasible, now it's just a matter of making hunting type cases on the same principle and the guns to go with them.
But of the current choices, for hunting I think the WSM case and Nosler case are very well though out. Currently I'm using a .28 Nosler, .300 WSM, or .375 WSM depending on circumstances and the level of bear threat. I've used a 7mm WSM in the past quite a bit as well.
LBob: you make some good points. But, IMO stating that the '06 was a disaster militarily might have been a tiney bit overstated. As you said in your post above, design work continues. So does that mean that all current cartridges are a disaster because future improvement may come? Hardly.
Sorry, but General Patton's opinion carries more weight than yours, in this case.
I'm only comparing the -06 to what was available at the turn of the centry. The fact is we would have been FAR better off with the 6mm Navy with a spire point or a 6.5x55 or any of a number of smaller bore, smaller case cartridges. As I said, it was acceptable as a hunting cartridge at that point, mostly because of the poor availability of superior cartridges. It was a disaster as a military cartridge.
And it's standard for the nostalia nuthugger to tote out some old quote. To the nuthugger, things said long ago are more important than the facts of the matter The Garand had the merit of being the first widely deployed autoloading rifle in that weight class. That was good. The cartridge was bad, and the Arsenal knew it which is why the .276 Pedersen was created. Confusing the cartridge and the rifle is stupid.
The recoil for a .300 WSM is negligible. Are we arming little girls here? Oh, and the WSM case feeds just fine.
You've said a lot of over-the-top nonsense on this thread, but this one takes the cake.
Are you seriously suggesting that an adult male shooter with no physical infrmities should be concerned about 300 WSM recoil? I will be the first to acknowledge that there are some women, children, and people with various injuries that hunt for which a recoil reduced load is a good idea. But that's a special case, and not a particular strength of the -06 either.
And, LBob, you can't seem to have an adult conversion involving differences of opinions without throwing out childish, condescending insults...
I just refuses to tolerate nostaligic nonsense. There are plenty of things that are old that are crap, and the -06 case happens to be one of them. If people want to engage on the technical merits of the design rather than blather about WWII that's different, but I'm unlikely to get many takers because it was and is an obviously inferior design both for military and hunting applications, abeit for different reasons.
I used a .30-06 for many years before "upgrading" to a .300WM. After several years and a fair pile of dead critters I can't think of a single shot on game that I took with the .300 that would have been impossible or even unethical with a .30-06 (thanks in large part to laser range finders). The only significant difference is my original .30-06 was a finicky featherweight that would throw a wild cold bore. My .300 is steady eddy in the cold bore department. When compared to the .300WM I happen to appreciate the '06s 2" less barrel length, more rounds down in the mag, 17+ less grains of powder and a little less abuse on the shooter all while doing about the same amount of heavy lifting.
I recently acquired a very consistent .30-06 that will likely see more action in coming years. It will for sure be in Alaska in September in my son's hands. I will likely have my .35 Whelen. One rifle with 165's at 2900 and one with 250s at 2625 should cover things pretty well near or far...all from the same case.
Lb are you related to Mike Werner or just his Sock puppet? 30-06 might be disaster to you but the wsm's are all but dead sales wise. Those are the facts.
Lb are you related to Mike Werner or just his Sock puppet? 30-06 might be disaster to you but the wsm's are all but dead sales wise. Those are the facts.
Popularity has very little to do with quality. McDonalds makes the most popular hamburger in the US. They do not make the best.
The WSMs are plenty well supported for anyone who wants the advantages of shooting them.
If the question was what case is most popular, you'd get different answers.
Ran over to an older neighbor and sprayed weeds around his place. Got to see his trophy room, pretty impressive seven by seven elk times four. All with a Remington 721 in 30/06 and 150 grain bullet. He’s too old to hunt now and takes pleasure in telling the stories of each animal killed and giving his stuff to grandsons. He had given the 721 away and bought himself a browning 300 wsm. Gave that to his oldest son as he couldn’t stand it. Don’t know why, maybe I’ll ask. Growing up with a featherweight model 70 in 06 was sure an interesting trip. Prairie dogs to bull sharks and lots more.
Ran over to an older neighbor and sprayed weeds around his place. Got to see his trophy room, pretty impressive seven by seven elk times four. All with a Remington 721 in 30/06 and 150 grain bullet. He’s too old to hunt now and takes pleasure in telling the stories of each animal killed and giving his stuff to grandsons. He had given the 721 away and bought himself a browning 300 wsm. Gave that to his oldest son as he couldn’t stand it. Don’t know why, maybe I’ll ask. Growing up with a featherweight model 70 in 06 was sure an interesting trip. Prairie dogs to bull sharks and lots more.
Frank, you can't throw bull sharks out there and not tell the story!
After reading through all the thoughts here I've come to the conclusion that Llama Bob doth protesteth too much. I may not have as much experience on some big game as most on here but I have taken enough deer and elk to at least form a reasonably solid opinion of what works and what doesn't. Case in point, I was banned from a site dedicated to the short magnum for making the comment, "If one already has a .300 Winchester magnum, I see no need to get or replace it with a .300 WSM. The both do literally the same thing." There's a damn good reason the 30-06 is still around. I just flat out works. When I do an elk hunt, regardless of what I plan on for the hunt, the back up rifle is always a 30-06. Sometimes a 30-06 backs up the main rifle which is also a 30-06. Not very often but it does happen. I like playing with other cartridges. It's fun and educational but there wills always be a 30-06 in the wings. Why? Because it works. Sorry Bob, your arguments just do not hold water. Paul B.
But of the current choices, for hunting I think the WSM case and Nosler case are very well though out. Currently I'm using a .28 Nosler, .300 WSM, or .375 WSM depending on circumstances and the level of bear threat. I've used a 7mm WSM in the past quite a bit as well.
Thanks for answering. Nothing wrong with those choices at all. At my age and stage I will stick with .30-06. It is good enough, I have confidence in it, and I have plenty of components for it. The powder/primer/case/bullet availability issue counts for something these days and I don't have to experiment with loads.
But of the current choices, for hunting I think the WSM case and Nosler case are very well though out. Currently I'm using a .28 Nosler, .300 WSM, or .375 WSM depending on circumstances and the level of bear threat. I've used a 7mm WSM in the past quite a bit as well.
Thanks for answering. Nothing wrong with those choices at all. At my age and stage I will stick with .30-06. It is good enough, I have confidence in it, and I have plenty of components for it. The powder/primer/case/bullet availability issue counts for something these days and I don't have to experiment with loads.
You won't get any argument from me about the 30-06 being good enough. That's very different from "about perfect" obviously. I have one of the Portugal M70 FWTs in .30-06 as a camp/loaner gun. Forget your gun or ammo, or your gun or scope goes toes up, you get to shoot 180gr Core Lokts. Serves you right Seriously, it is an OK setup. You can abosolutely take game with it. I can think of exactly zero circumstances when I'd swap it for my M70 classic .300 WSM shooting 200gr Terminal Ascents though.
Component availability can be funny - I set up the .28 Nosler during the pandemic, and it was expensive but everything was available. Last I checked .30-06 brass is range pickups only. It's not always easier to bring up the common cartridges during a shortage.
And, LBob, you can't seem to have an adult conversion involving differences of opinions without throwing out childish, condescending insults...
I just refuses to tolerate nostaligic nonsense. There are plenty of things that are old that are crap, and the -06 case happens to be one of them. If people want to engage on the technical merits of the design rather than blather about WWII that's different, but I'm unlikely to get many takers because it was and is an obviously inferior design both for military and hunting applications, abeit for different reasons.
Absolutely.
The .30-03 was the perfect case.
Just wait, though.
In a few years? Your .300 squat-n-loud will be just nostalgic nonsense, too.
And, LBob, you can't seem to have an adult conversion involving differences of opinions without throwing out childish, condescending insults...
I just refuses to tolerate nostaligic nonsense. There are plenty of things that are old that are crap, and the -06 case happens to be one of them. If people want to engage on the technical merits of the design rather than blather about WWII that's different, but I'm unlikely to get many takers because it was and is an obviously inferior design both for military and hunting applications, abeit for different reasons.
LB, your haughty and condescending stance is telling, and a turn off to most thinking folks, especially when you offer nothing but "opinion" for your supposedly desired discussion of "technical merits". You inserted the fuzzy term "nostalgia" apparently as an intended means to generally criticize the actual knowledge and insights gained by hands-on efforts and outcomes experienced by thousands of shooters. Attacking the persons or the alleged "nostalgia" is weak and not productive - and certainly not related to any "technical merits". If you have half the brain and knowledge you pretend, you do know that "technical merits" are simply that - estimates of potential success based upon assumptions about comparative designs - not on-target outcomes. These "nostalgic" folks you decry are evidence based. And, it was you that blathered about military usefulness and flatly condemned the 30:06. What is your platform, anyway?
The -03 was such a disaster we didn't even try to use it before [bleep] it. It was the result of the idiots in army supply thinking they needed to resuse Krag bullets.
The .270 derived off the -03 was almost an improvement, but Winchester being ingorant of the effect of twist rate chose the wrong one and crippled their new bore diameter. Had they simply copied the twist of the 7x57 they would have been much better off. Combine that with an inefficient case with too small a capacity, and they've got an also-ran round.
There are no realistic concerns about the longevity of the WSM case. With 10s of thousands of rifles and 5-6 brass manufacturers it'll be around in a centrury. If we're not using it, it'll be because something yet better has come along, which will put the -06 (and -03) yet farther behind.
And, LBob, you can't seem to have an adult conversion involving differences of opinions without throwing out childish, condescending insults...
I just refuses to tolerate nostaligic nonsense. There are plenty of things that are old that are crap, and the -06 case happens to be one of them. If people want to engage on the technical merits of the design rather than blather about WWII that's different, but I'm unlikely to get many takers because it was and is an obviously inferior design both for military and hunting applications, abeit for different reasons.
LB, your haughty and condescending stance is telling, and a turn off to most thinking folks, especially when you offer nothing but "opinion" for your supposedly desired discussion of "technical merits". You inserted the fuzzy term "nostalgia" apparently as an intended means to generally criticize the actual knowledge and insights gained by hands-on efforts and outcomes experienced by thousands of shooters. Attacking the persons or the alleged "nostalgia" is weak and not productive - and certainly not related to any "technical merits". If you have half the brain and knowledge you pretend, you do know that "technical merits" are simply that - estimates of potential success based upon assumptions about comparative designs - not on-target outcomes. These "nostalgic" folks you decry are evidence based. And, it was you that blathered about military usefulness and flatly condemned the 30:06. What is your platform, anyway?
The small case, excessive taper, and excessively steep shoulder of the .30-06 are facts. They are not opinion. And they make the .30-06 less effective as a hunting round (and as a parent for hunting rounds) than it would otherwise be. You get less velocity, poor efficiency, and worse accuracy and reloadability than you would get with a better designed case.
Those are facts.
Now, if someone want to get all nostalgic that grandaddy was holding an -06 when he brought up the rear on Guadalcanal, well, that's their business. But it doesn't change the facts.
"We would've been better off with the 6mm Lee Navy" Yeah right. The Japanese began WWII with all their eggs in the 6.5x50 basket. They found it lacking and quickly brought out the 7.7 JAP
Incoming tide on the Brazos River, bull sharks would come up. We would sit in the rail road bridge and shoot the bastards with ball ammo. Real dirty water but you could the belly flash as they rolled over after a hit. My buddy had an 06 of course, got our stuff from Cookseys gun shop in Clute. Good times
"We would've been better off with the 6mm Lee Navy" Yeah right. The Japanese began WWII with all their eggs in the 6.5x50 basket. They found it lacking and quickly brought out the 7.7 JAP
You're talking about rounds that have almost twice the energy of our current battle rifle, squad marksman, and squad machine gun round.
They were (and are) certainly adequate with a suitable projectile.
I agree that the '06 case is a great one for all-purpose hunting, not too much and not too little. If we're talking target shooting I like one that's milder but for hunting it's just about perfect.
Especially after it's AI-ed and necked down to 7 mm or 6.5.
The .30-03/6, as both a military case for the M1 rifle, as well as a hunting case for a century of outstanding hunting cartridges, is a resounding success.
The 1:10 twist being optimum for ethical hunting ranges.
Too bad about your .300 squat-n-loud, what w/ it already bein' antiquated.
But then, who will miss the li'l loud-mouth, anyway.
The .30-03/6, as both a military case for the M1 rifle, as well as a hunting case for a decade of outstanding hunting cartridges, is a resounding success.
If you consider spending twice as much resouirces for no bennefit a "success"
Hell, you probably actually think stupid [bleep] like that...
"The small case, excessive taper, and excessively steep shoulder of the .30-06 are facts"
Excessively steep shoulder?? The shoulder on your beloved WSM is 35 degrees, much steeper than, the '06 shoulder (17 degree, 30 minute). Once again, you have your "facts" confused. Climbed a steep hill lately?
BTW, I use a 270 WSM a lot, and enjoy it. But as a practical matter, I can see nothing it can do that my 270 WCFs can't. Marginally increase velocity? The animals cant tell the difference and the trajectory difference is not material at "normal" hunting range. oh, yeah, almost forgot: the action is .28" shorter. Wow,
Please explain how these marginal "improvements" would make the '06 a "more effective hunting round"? Yes, "steeper" shoulders, reduced taper, incremental MV increases are technically an improvement. But most are marginal improvements at best.
We can debate whether the government's decision to pick the '06 design over others was the best , and I'd probably agree with you. But how much difference would that have made in WW1 and WW2, etc? Certainly didn't make the 30/06 a "disaster".
The .30-03/6, as both a military case for the M1 rifle, as well as a hunting case for a century of outstanding hunting cartridges, is a resounding success.
If you consider spending twice as much resouirces for no bennefit a "success"
Hell, you probably actually think stupid [bleep] like that...
"The small case, excessive taper, and excessively steep shoulder of the .30-06 are facts"
Excessively steep shoulder?? The shoulder on your beloved WSM is 35 degrees, much steeper than, the '06 shoulder (17 degree, 30 minute). Once again, you have your "facts" confused.
Wrong direction rocket scientist. The shoulder of the WSM is superior to the 30-06. But that's sort of like saying water is wet, because as a hunting cartidge everything about the WSM is superior
One of the things that didn't get brought up is real simple, cost. You don't see 300-400 dollar wsm's you do with 30-06 based cartridges. Ammo , cheapest box of 300's wsm's I ever saw was fed blue box at $33/ box. At the same time 30-06 and 270 were $18/ BOX . I don't see a 50-65% performance increase for the 300 wsm either but the cost increase is there. My point? Some ass clowns just get off trolling. Mb
"The small case, excessive taper, and excessively steep shoulder of the .30-06 are facts"
Excessively steep shoulder?? The shoulder on your beloved WSM is 35 degrees, much steeper than, the '06 shoulder (17 degree, 30 minute). Once again, you have your "facts" confused.
Wrong direction rocket scientist. The shoulder of the WSM is superior to the 30-06. But that's sort of like saying water is wet, because as a hunting cartidge everything about the WSM is superior
So even the definition of “steep” is above your head? That explains a lot!
Guys Y’all are having an intelligence battle with a fellow
Who is UNarmed !!
I’ve never read such foolishness per the 06 case. I won’t waste my time further.
Jerry
exactly! Why are you guys debating such a dumbass? Why are so many of these guys posting in the fire? This place is getting really hard to read. Remember how it use to be?
So even the definition of “steep” is above your head? That explains a lot!
You just keep beclowning yourself. It's great. You act like an clown, I laugh at you, and all the nostalgia nuthuggers can have a big circle jerk and tell eachother they shot a doe in '72 and boy did grandpa's -06 more or less work.
And, LBob, you can't seem to have an adult conversion involving differences of opinions without throwing out childish, condescending insults...
I just refuses to tolerate nostaligic nonsense. There are plenty of things that are old that are crap, and the -06 case happens to be one of them. If people want to engage on the technical merits of the design rather than blather about WWII that's different, but I'm unlikely to get many takers because it was and is an obviously inferior design both for military and hunting applications, abeit for different reasons.
LB, your haughty and condescending stance is telling, and a turn off to most thinking folks, especially when you offer nothing but "opinion" for your supposedly desired discussion of "technical merits". You inserted the fuzzy term "nostalgia" apparently as an intended means to generally criticize the actual knowledge and insights gained by hands-on efforts and outcomes experienced by thousands of shooters. Attacking the persons or the alleged "nostalgia" is weak and not productive - and certainly not related to any "technical merits". If you have half the brain and knowledge you pretend, you do know that "technical merits" are simply that - estimates of potential success based upon assumptions about comparative designs - not on-target outcomes. These "nostalgic" folks you decry are evidence based. And, it was you that blathered about military usefulness and flatly condemned the 30:06. What is your platform, anyway?
The small case, excessive taper, and excessively steep shoulder of the .30-06 are facts. They are not opinion. And they make the .30-06 less effective as a hunting round (and as a parent for hunting rounds) than it would otherwise be. You get less velocity, poor efficiency, and worse accuracy and reloadability than you would get with a better designed case.
Those are facts.
Now, if someone want to get all nostalgic that grandaddy was holding an -06 when he brought up the rear on Guadalcanal, well, that's their business. But it doesn't change the facts.
Sounds like more blather. I get the distinct impression that you are a WSM lover with a deep inferiority syndrome - its own form of nostalgia - and even through your love affair and investment you have noted the hype, the fading rep and dismal long term future of WSMs. Sometimes love is not easy.
And yet the WSMs are still better hunting cartridges in ever way than the -06. So I'll just stick with the better cartridge, and you can go jerk off the other nostalgia boys and everyone will be happy
One of the things that didn't get brought up is real simple, cost. You don't see 300-400 dollar wsm's you do with 30-06 based cartridges. Ammo , cheapest box of 300's wsm's I ever saw was fed blue box at $33/ box. At the same time 30-06 and 270 were $18/ BOX . I don't see a 50-65% performance increase for the 300 wsm either but the cost increase is there. My point? Some ass clowns just get off trolling. Mb
The same rifle costs the same in any chambering. The cost to reload a WSM is maybe a few cents per round higher than a -06 - if that. In terms of the cost of hunting, it costs effectively nothing to hunt with the superior cartridge.
And yet the WSMs are still better hunting cartridges in ever way than the -06. So I'll just stick with the better cartridge, and you can go jerk off the other nostalgia boys and everyone will be happy
Big opinion with bluster - very little practically experienced substance - and you can';t seem to resist lowering yourself to derogatory vulgarity toward other folks.
To each his own - but the downward spiral of the WSMs seems quite palpable. How could "nostalgia" and hard experience dare to fly into the face of "technical" superiority?
And yet the WSMs are still better hunting cartridges in ever way than the -06. So I'll just stick with the better cartridge, and you can go jerk off the other nostalgia boys and everyone will be happy
Well... when you step back and look at'em?
Your .300 squat-n-loud: - Burns more powder. - Has more recoil. - Has more muzzle blast. - Has more expensive cases. - Has more expensive/harder to find ammo. - Requires longer Bbl's. - Is harder on Bbl's. - Holds fewer rounds in the magazine. - Can't be long loaded. - Has feeding issues. - Is awkward to handle. - Doesn't kill any better at normal hunting ranges.
No wonder it's a dying cartridge.
Looks like Winchester has dropped the .300 squat-n-loud from its own EW/SS rifle line.
Couldn't keep it up, what w/ little dick types buyin'em, to compensate.
And it doesn't make up for poor marksmanship skills, either.
In fact, w/o special folks like you?
... it would already be dead.
But then, who would miss it.
P.S. the EW/SS rifle?
...Is still chambered in both .30-06 and .270 Win.
Mind you, I have more 30-06 rifles on the rack than anything else, and most of my other deer rifles are '06 derivatives.
My view is that we might be looking at it a tad backwards. What I mean is that 30-06 has been with us in some form or other since 1903. The brass has been there, the bullets have been there. The powder companies made their formulations to match the brass and the bullets available. The whole shooting world on this side of the pond seems to have wrapped itself around the 30-06 for over a century.
Rather than the 30-06 being the epitome, I would submit that it is just a very deep rut we're in. I say that, and I don't mean to disparage 30-06 or anything about it in the least. It was once just a track in the dark woods of evolving ballistic science that got us where we needed to go.
". . . then came the churches, then came the schools. Then came the lawyers, then came the rules."
It’s stupid to judge the 30-06 by today’s standards. Militarily the 30-06 is what it is because it had to be big enough to reliably put down horses that cavalry would be using and to be utilized in machine guns to volley fire and create a beaten zone behind enemy lines in indirect fire. The fact that cavalry ceased to be relevant soon after the 30-06 was designed and that massed machine guns never really got used to create beaten zones through indirect fire, is t the fault of the cartridge. The fact is the 30-06 was an almost ballistic twin to the German 8x57 and the Germans at the time set the standard shows the thinking.
The Swedes used the 6.5x55 but they also used the the 8x57 in machine guns and based upon their evaluation of the data from the wars in the early 20th century developed the 8x63 for machine gun use. And the Japanese quickly dumped their small bore for a clone of the .303. The fact is that in the first half of the 20th Century everyone went the same way with cartridge design.
It’s stupid to judge the 30-06 by today’s standards. Militarily the 30-06 is what it is because it had to be big enough to reliably put down horses that cavalry would be using and to be utilized in machine guns to volley fire and create a beaten zone behind enemy lines in indirect fire. The fact that cavalry ceased to be relevant soon after the 30-06 was designed and that massed machine guns never really got used to create beaten zones through indirect fire, is t the fault of the cartridge. The fact is the 30-06 was an almost ballistic twin to the German 8x57 and the Germans at the time set the standard shows the thinking.
In other words, the .30-06 was the child of two gross errors in military doctrine and the mistakes simply proceeded from there. I couldn't agree more.
And far from everyone made theose mistakes. The Navy understood which way things were headed, but got run over by the army.
Quote
In making what may appear a radical departure in its selection of a caliber smaller than as yet adopted elsewhere...the Bureau is convinced it is looking to the future … it is surely wise to attempt to advance with one stride as far as existing conditions allow toward the goal to which the world is moving with slow steps.
In doing so they made a cartridge better than what we had in 1945 - in 1895. But as with many things that are right, it can take a long long time for other to recognize they are right.
In other words, the .30-06 was the child of two gross errors in military doctrine and the mistakes simply proceeded from there. I couldn't agree more.
Doesn't matter to me how or why it was designed the way it was, but the fact is, the '06 is one of the most versatile cartridges there is. It's popularity and it's use by people like the one of the most respected bear guides in Alaska who also posts here bears that out.
Its shape might not be optimal to get the utmost accuracy or fit in a short action but its shape makes it one of the most reliable feeding cartridges there is, better than WSMs.
You can argue ad nauseum about it and everybody has an opinion but those are facts.
Hmm, I have never once had a WSM cartridge fail to feed in a WSM action. You nuthuggers are really grasping at straws here aren't you?
The WSM's feed pretty well in single stack-type actions made for them, and well in the M70 action (though the early one's needing some tweaking). In June 2004 I had an early Kimber 8400 MT in 300 WSM that didn't feed worth a chit. I studied how it fed and determined the feedramp was too steep. I called a friend at Kimber and told him. He studied it and calculated it was 10* too steep. He changed it on CAD, but it didn't go into production until the 8400's in stock were used up. So yeah, the early Kimber's feed like chit. Also, every M700 feeds the WSM's like chit.
"Failing to feed" and "feeding well" are two different things. No short, fat, sharp-shouldered cartridge will ever feed like slippery sausages ala the 30-06 case.
Hmm, I have never once had a WSM cartridge fail to feed in a WSM action. You nuthuggers are really grasping at straws here aren't you?
LOL, a sample of one person's experience and you think that means something.
If you aren't familiar with feeding problems in WSMs that just shows your ignorance, they're well-documented. And it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that a long, tapered cartridge with a narrow shoulder is inherently going to feed better than a short fat cartridge with no taper and a wider shoulder.
And as far as samples of one, I bought a Remington chambered in 300 WSM at Sportsman's Warehouse and they have a policy of no returns on rifles.
When I showed the manager the total clusterf*ck of the rifle's feeding, he took it back and gave me a full refund. So if I use your logic and conclude that my own personal experience is all-encompassing,, all WSMs have feeding problems.
Hmm, I have never once had a WSM cartridge fail to feed in a WSM action. You nuthuggers are really grasping at straws here aren't you?
The WSM's feed pretty well in single stack-type actions made for them, and well in the M70 action (though the early one's needing some tweaking). In June 2004 I had an early Kimber 8400 MT in 300 WSM that didn't feed worth a chit. I studied how it fed and determined the feedramp was too steep. I called a friend at Kimber and told him. He studied it and calculated it was 10* too steep. He changed it on CAD, but it didn't go into production until the 8400's in stock were used up. So yeah, the early Kimber's feed like chit. Also, every M700 feeds the WSM's like chit.
"Failing to feed" and "feeding well" are two different things. No short, fat, sharp-shouldered cartridge will ever feed like slippery sausages ala the 30-06 case.
Well anyone who buys from Remington deserves what they get. I'm sure they're capable of making literally anything not feed.
I shoot Winchester classics. They feed. There is no problem. The -06 is still a joke for any hunter buying their gun any time recently.
this is kind of like the 308 vs 06 articles of days gone by. one advantage these 30s have is that most of the 30 cal bullets are designed with them in mind, as that's what the majority are going to be shot in. in rifle or handloader some years ago, a comparison was done on terminal bullet performance with 180 gr 30 cal bullets. premium bullets were included with ordinary cup and core types. the velocities ranged from 1800 fps up to magnum vel, as i remember.
the ones which performed best over a large velocity range were roundnose 180s. not sexy but effective. anyway, these discussions are what leads to all the variety we have to pick from. i'm pretty certain that these are more hunters than target shooters anyway.
i have taken target shooters hunting and one thing you have to emphasize is anatomy and that the target is likely to move. the next best argument around the campfire is always... where to you aim?
as to the military use, i'd rather have a couple hundred 223s than 80 308s any day.
The fact that ...massed machine guns never really got used to create beaten zones through indirect fire, ...
That's not true. In fact in WWI machine guns being used in indirect fire to create beaten zones was definitely a thing. When the US joined in the last few months of the war it was realised that they were singularly under-resourced in this department, and so large numbers of machine guns and their ammunition were borrowed or purchased. For example the US sourced well over 600 million rounds of 8 mm Lebel ammunition, and tens of millions of .303, to use in machine guns.
Not only that, but as a direct result of what was perceived to be a shortfall in performance of the .30/06 ball round in this role intensive experimentation to improve ranging and beaten zone commenced before the war was even over, leading to the .30 Ball M1 loading, with a heavier boat-tailed bullet, being adopted in 1926. Unfortunately it turned out that this was rather too much of a good thing for rifle use, and so by 1937 work was under way to revert to something closer to the original 1906 loading, which was initially adopted for all non beltfed arms in 1939 as the Ball M2 and later standardised for all bar the US Navy and aircraft machine guns.
Originally Posted by JoeBob
The Swedes used the 6.5x55 but they also used the the 8x57 in machine guns and based upon their evaluation of the data from the wars in the early 20th century developed the 8x63 for machine gun use. And the Japanese quickly dumped their small bore for a clone of the .303.
Both of these were products of the same thinking that led to the US .30 Ball M1 load. The thinking was to have something more powerful for medium and heavy machine guns, to give additional reach and power. In the case of the Japanese the 7.7 was explicitly developed for this reason, and it entered service in semi-rimmed form in 1930. It was later reworked into a rimless design with the intention of having one cartridge for rifles and machine guns to address the logistical problem of having two different loads in service. This took place in 1940, and if anything exacerbated the logistics problem as the 6.5 stayed in service alongside both the rimless and semirimmed versions of the 7.7. This was fully ten years after the 7.7 first entered service.
The thing is though that the decision to adopt the 7.7 for rifle use was not based on any concern about the performance of the 6.5 as a rifle round. It had been in service for over 40 years by then, through several wars. It was not "quickly dumped" by the Japanese. It had also been used by quite a number of other countries including Russia, Britain and others. In the Type 38 loading used in WWII it was noted by US forces to be very effective, with a pointed bullet which yawed on impact to increase wounding, in common with this type, and thus far more effective than those which used a long round-nosed bullet.
Well anyone who buys from Remington deserves what they get. I'm sure they're capable of making literally anything not feed.
I shoot Winchester classics. They feed. There is no problem. The -06 is still a joke for any hunter buying their gun any time recently.
Well just because i can, i ordered a new Ruger 30-06 S.S. with a laminated stock i plan on taking this rifle to my 1st and only trip to Africa in the next year or 2 ,reason is 30-06 ammo over there will be easy to find if i need more ammo and the 30-06 has been kill`n animals a very long time so i will handload Nosler partitions in my 30-06 rifle to use in Africa . do i need the newest , latest or the greatest cartridge ever designed ? here is my simple answer = NO
And far from everyone made theose mistakes. The Navy understood which way things were headed, but got run over by the army.
Quote
In making what may appear a radical departure in its selection of a caliber smaller than as yet adopted elsewhere...the Bureau is convinced it is looking to the future … it is surely wise to attempt to advance with one stride as far as existing conditions allow toward the goal to which the world is moving with slow steps.
In doing so they made a cartridge better than what we had in 1945 - in 1895. But as with many things that are right, it can take a long long time for other to recognize they are right.
Actually the Navy made mistakes too, and the 1895 cartridge had its own issues The Navy was rather fixated on penetration, as they wanted a round which would penetrate the hull of boats operated by raiding parties approaching their ships. This was a big part of the reasoning behind a smaller bore with a very long round-nosed bullet. This limited effectiveness on enemy soldiers.
Now had the rifle been loaded with a spitzer bullet, or perhaps one of the other options which was already around in 1895 like the Krnka-Hebler or the Farley, not only might beaten zone have increased but also lethality.
Getting back to the hunting use, I've had great success with the .30/06. Literally truckloads of game and pests. In fact there have been individual days when I've knocked dozens of pigs, one after another, and I've shot a lot of deer of several species, goats and other stuff with it. There are other calibres that will do as well - I've used some older than the .30/06 and some newer - but it does work well.
I don't have much use for WSMs though, I have to say. I can't see any benefit, and you usually lose a round in the mag, which is not a factor if you are just going to shoot one animal, but is a downside when you want to shoot a mob of them. If I want more than the .30/06 offers I'll go to a bigger bore. I suspect our man is just trolling though.
The -06 is still a joke for any hunter buying their gun any time recently.
LOL, please explain why the '06 is a "joke."
Well, if you want an inferior hunting cartridge that gets you into the nostalgia nuthugger group, it might be just the joke for you!
Yep, that's what I thought. Nothing but bullshyte and blather. And if there was any doubt, your comments about Phill Shoemaker removed the last traces of it.
This is a discussion about the venerable old 06 case. I have come to the conclusion, after 55 years of hunting and lots of shooting and load development along with many discussions with others with much more experience than I... that the old 06 case is so practical and versatile that it is just about the perfect case size for 90% of the worlds hunting...
I agree with everything you say, but you meant to say 303 British. With bullet and powder advances, I would say the 303 British is perfect for all the world's hunting.
Love the 06. Have 2 and never feel under gunned. Wish I had more calibers based on it , besides just the 270 which has been stellar, If I were to start over I’d get everyone one these on top of that I got 6.5-06, 280 ai, 338-06, 35w
This was a different thread in the Alaska forum, where Mr. Shoemaker was explaining how he shot the client's bear in the ass. He thought it proved something about bullet construction, but mostly he just came across as pathetic. Who would have though we have TWO professional ass shooters on the same forum though?
Is Mama Bob just Bent Stick with better grammar? Let's see, make disparaging remarks, defend your inane position, boost your post count, repeat. Just earned my ignore.
This was a different thread in the Alaska forum, where Mr. Shoemaker was explaining how he shot the client's bear in the ass. He thought it proved something about bullet construction, but mostly he just came across as pathetic. Who would have though we have TWO professional ass shooters on the same forum though?
This was a different thread in the Alaska forum, where Mr. Shoemaker was explaining how he shot the client's bear in the ass. He thought it proved something about bullet construction, but mostly he just came across as pathetic. Who would have though we have TWO professional ass shooters on the same forum though?
3 including you
Oh not me, I would never claim to shoot bears in the ass the way Phil does. I might be able to manage the sort of amateur shoot safariman did, but Phil's a pro
Is Mama Bob just Bent Stick with better grammar? Let's see, make disparaging remarks, defend your inane position, boost your post count, repeat. Just earned my ignore.
I was thinking the same thing. Maybe little dick changed his medicine and this is what you get. Ho does the ignore button work again? Can't remember
Is Mama Bob just Bent Stick with better grammar? Let's see, make disparaging remarks, defend your inane position, boost your post count, repeat. Just earned my ignore.
I was thinking the same thing. Maybe little dick changed his medicine and this is what you get. Ho does the ignore button work again? Can't remember
I do hope you figure it out. Far be it from me to expose you to unwanted facts
Europeans where far ahead on the ballistics side of things at the time of the 30-06 inception. Not to mention the abortion of the 7.62x51 the US pushed on NATO.
There where better European cartridges before 1906... and better European cartridges before 1954.
Still, my two primary big game rifles are 30-06 and 308 just because I can find ammo anywhere. Thanks to military surplus driving costs down.. creating the market.
Not because its perfect.. but because its abundant and cheap.
I agree with everything you say, but you meant to say 303 British. With bullet and powder advances, I would say the 303 British is perfect for all the world's hunting.
Great topic!
The 303 is a very good choice except most of the rifles it is chambered in are re-worked military LE sporters which are sorely lacking for sporter use when compared to any modern sporting rifle offered since the pre-64 M70.
To consider a cartridge and it's merits, one needs to consider as well the rifles it comes in. While I don't own a 30-06 right now, do agree that it is pretty much perfect for sporting use. I could (& might) sell a whole slew of guns in the safe and replace them with one '06 as a part of latter life downsizing.
One of the things that didn't get brought up is real simple, cost. You don't see 300-400 dollar wsm's you do with 30-06 based cartridges. Ammo , cheapest box of 300's wsm's I ever saw was fed blue box at $33/ box. At the same time 30-06 and 270 were $18/ BOX . I don't see a 50-65% performance increase for the 300 wsm either but the cost increase is there. My point? Some ass clowns just get off trolling. Mb
The same rifle costs the same in any chambering. The cost to reload a WSM is maybe a few cents per round higher than a -06 - if that. In terms of the cost of hunting, it costs effectively nothing to hunt with the superior cartridge.
Guess again ........ Not all shooters are reloaders, in fact many are not.
The '06 is far and beyond a better choice than the WSMs for availability, load choices and ammo cost alone not to mention the '06 coming in every type rifle offered to sportsman. The WSMs are good but come up short in comparision.
Europeans where far ahead on the ballistics side of things at the time of the 30-06 inception. Not to mention the abortion of the 7.62x51 the US pushed on NATO.
There where better European cartridges before 1906... and better European cartridges before 1954.
Still, my two primary big game rifles are 30-06 and 308 just because I can find ammo anywhere. Thanks to military surplus driving costs down.. creating the market.
Not because its perfect.. but because its abundant and cheap.
Schidt another one! "8x57 is perfect and 7.62x51 sucks". "But I use the 30-06 and the 308" 🥴
Up late moosemike, so late I made coffee real early. I once bought 3000 gi 06 cases once fired stuff mostly lake city and tw headstamps 50 's and 60 s vintage for $30. I thought it a good deal, last time I bought GI 7.62x51 they cost me 10 cents a piece about the going rate at the time. Ain't seen any wsm brass for less tha a $1 a casing. I'd rather spend extra cash on a better scope or more bullets , primers, powder, condoms or beer than stuff for a 300wsm to get it to shoot. Some folks got to much money or fail to appreciate it's value I guess. Either way ole lb just made my trolls list. Mb
Oh not me, I would never claim to shoot bears in the ass the way Phil does. I might be able to manage the sort of amateur shoot safariman did, but Phil's a pro
You're a pro too, bob. Not at shooting anything in the ass, at showing the world your own.
Is Mama Bob just Bent Stick with better grammar? Let's see, make disparaging remarks, defend your inane position, boost your post count, repeat. Just earned my ignore.
I was thinking the same thing. Maybe little dick changed his medicine and this is what you get. Ho does the ignore button work again? Can't remember
I do hope you figure it out. Far be it from me to expose you to unwanted facts
you stated the 06 was a failure as a military round. What makes that a fact? Because you say so? What is your military experience?
The 303 is a very good choice except most of the rifles it is chambered in are re-worked military LE sporters which are sorely lacking for sporter use when compared to any modern sporting rifle offered since the pre-64 M70.
To consider a cartridge and it's merits, one needs to consider as well the rifles it comes in. While I don't own a 30-06 right now, do agree that it is pretty much perfect for sporting use. I could (& might) sell a whole slew of guns in the safe and replace them with one '06 as a part of latter life downsizing.
Thanks Cub, I've been biting my 'tongue' and k m m s.
I owned a 303 B in the 70s and someone had swapped the bolt with another one. After ONE shot you could see (naked eye) the case had stretched. I wanted to load it but that was impossible.
THE problem with the 8mm is bullet selection. Compared to 30 cal. the 8 has to stand in the corner with it's hat on!
I have an 8 R M so.......
Jerry
In the 8mm mag, I would choose either the 200 grain Nosler Partition, 200/220 grain Swift A-Frame or the 220 grain Sierra. With the NP or SAF I could get by just fine for anything in NA or plains game in Africa.
Don't need a billion bullet selections to hunt big game.
My Friend in La. who bought the gun new had Sierra 220s - I still have piece of THAT original box. Seriously, I shot HIS gun more than he did...so I'm practically the original owner.
>>>> this must be 30-06 month ? rather you like 30-06 or dislike like this grand old cartridge the 30-06 or you guys are just bored tell hunting season ? but the 30-06 is still very popular in the world , has killed one heck of a lot of game in the world , plus the 30-06 probably has killed every dang big game animal in the world over the years . the 30-06 helped win a few wars too ,helped save many lives, so tell me a cartridge that has done all that ? 30-06 use too even win National target match trophies and that dang old 30-06 probably will continue to do more good in the world of hunting .
Guess again ........ Not all shooters are reloaders, in fact many are not.
We're really developing a profile of the -06 shooter here
Lacks the tools and skills to reload
So cheap he wants to save a few cents (or even a whole dollar!) a round on a hunting rifle despite the cost of hunts
Afraid of lound noises (I would hesitate to mention this, but one of y'all nuthuggers brought it up!)
Ignorant of ballistics
So desperate to be part of a club that he bases his cartridge choice on others. If he can't use Patton, he'll use a man who shoots bears on the ass for a living
Doesn't understand rifle feed geometry
Has the recoil tolerance of a child, woman, or inexperienced shooter
So now we're getting to the bottom of the -06's appeal - the flaws of the cartridge and the flaws of the shooters are made for eachother
Ahh yes, you can always trust a nuthugger to be dishonest, and moosemike sure delivers
From earlier in that thread:
Quote
I have a 7MM Remington Magnum. A 270 Weatherby Magnum. A 30/06, a 270 Winchester and a 308 Winchester to choose from.
I will happily stipulate the .30-06 is a marginally better buffalo gun than his other options. It's also not a very good buffalo gun, and I recommended a superior alternative.
Guess again ........ Not all shooters are reloaders, in fact many are not.
We're really developing a profile of the -06 shooter here
Lacks the tools and skills to reload
So cheap he wants to save a few cents (or even a whole dollar!) a round on a hunting rifle despite the cost of hunts
Afraid of lound noises (I would hesitate to mention this, but one of y'all nuthuggers brought it up!)
Ignorant of ballistics
So desperate to be part of a club that he bases his cartridge choice on others. If he can't use Patton, he'll use a man who shoots bears on the ass for a living
Doesn't understand rifle feed geometry
Has the recoil tolerance of a child, woman, or inexperienced shooter
So now we're getting to the bottom of the -06's appeal - the flaws of the cartridge and the flaws of the shooters are made for eachother
Boy, if ever there was living breathing proof. That there is no sense being stupid, if you can’t show it! BAM!!!!! Here it is live and colorful. LMFAO!!!!!
Ahh yes, you can always trust a nuthugger to be dishonest, and moosemike sure delivers
From earlier in that thread:
Quote
I have a 7MM Remington Magnum. A 270 Weatherby Magnum. A 30/06, a 270 Winchester and a 308 Winchester to choose from.
I will happily stipulate the .30-06 is a marginally better buffalo gun than his other options. It's also not a very good buffalo gun, and I recommended a superior alternative.
I know you're a flat out retard and this is hard for you, but he asked which of the guns he had was the best option. I told him which one was the best option. It is also a mediocre option. That's pretty much the nature of the .30-06 - mediocre.
And you're helping expand the profile of the .30-06 shooter:
Lacks the tools and skills to reload
So cheap he wants to save a few cents (or even a whole dollar!) a round on a hunting rifle despite the cost of hunts
Afraid of lound noises (I would hesitate to mention this, but one of y'all nuthuggers brought it up!)
Ignorant of ballistics
So desperate to be part of a club that he bases his cartridge choice on others. If he can't use Patton, he'll use a man who shoots bears on the ass for a living
Doesn't understand rifle feed geometry
Has the recoil tolerance of a child, woman, or inexperienced shooter
Simply stupid (moosemike helped us out clarifying this one )
You just keep being stupid 'ol you. I know it's hard do understand the difference between picking from a list of poorly suited guns, and the best gun. So since you're stupid, you can just go on not understanding the difference.
My Friend in La. who bought the gun new had Sierra 220s - I still have piece of THAT original box. Seriously, I shot HIS gun more than he did...so I'm practically the original owner.
I feel 220s are just too heavy for WT.
Jerry
Hell Bells, I used a 270 grain SAF on a springbok from my .375 H&H! No such thing as "too heavy" IMO.
Also used 500 grain Hornady's DGX on jackrabbits in my .460 Wby.
What's wrong with you Jerry? Don't you know the campfire "rules"? You're supposed to be mad and denigrate anyone who uses something other than your pet rifle/load! Get with the program!
What's wrong with you Jerry? Don't you know the campfire "rules"? You're supposed to be mad and denigrate anyone who uses something other than your pet rifle/load! Get with the program!
Under restraint I have NOT said that the thought of a 30-30 or 308 makes me gag ! Now what would that generate in discussions ? So I won’t say it.
What's wrong with you Jerry? Don't you know the campfire "rules"? You're supposed to be mad and denigrate anyone who uses something other than your pet rifle/load! Get with the program!
The 303 is a very good choice except most of the rifles it is chambered in are re-worked military LE sporters which are sorely lacking for sporter use when compared to any modern sporting rifle offered since the pre-64 M70.
To consider a cartridge and it's merits, one needs to consider as well the rifles it comes in. While I don't own a 30-06 right now, do agree that it is pretty much perfect for sporting use. I could (& might) sell a whole slew of guns in the safe and replace them with one '06 as a part of latter life downsizing.
Thanks Cub, I've been biting my 'tongue' and k m m s.
I owned a 303 B in the 70s and someone had swapped the bolt with another one. After ONE shot you could see (naked eye) the case had stretched. I wanted to load it but that was impossible.
The 303 ain't bad but it IS what it IS.
Jerry
Not the fault of the round, nor even the action. Swapping bolts willy nilly is pretty near always a bad plan.
The .303 is of course rather older than the .30/06, but it has a pretty good track record, especially in the countries where it was a service round. It has a sterling record in battle over a longer period than the .30/06 too, and even your US forces used substantial quantities of .303 in battle in WWI.
It can account for much the same game as the .30/06 too, though you do give away some velocity of course. It also has a rim, which is an advantage in some applications, such as break actions. FWIW it was also the basis of a whole range of wildcats here in Oz and in other countries. Some of these even became factory loads.
The Lee-Enfield action is also not without its advantages, especially when it comes to getting rounds downrange quickly. They are still seen in service rifle comps here. I have a couple of these myself, and 40-odd years experience with them in hunting and competition.
It has to be admitted though that with very few factory rifles being made now the old .303 and its derivatives is probably more one for enthusiasts and the nostalgic, something nobody but a fool or a troll would say of the .30/06.
The 303 is a very good choice except most of the rifles it is chambered in are re-worked military LE sporters which are sorely lacking for sporter use when compared to any modern sporting rifle offered since the pre-64 M70.
To consider a cartridge and it's merits, one needs to consider as well the rifles it comes in. While I don't own a 30-06 right now, do agree that it is pretty much perfect for sporting use. I could (& might) sell a whole slew of guns in the safe and replace them with one '06 as a part of latter life downsizing.
Thanks Cub, I've been biting my 'tongue' and k m m s.
I owned a 303 B in the 70s and someone had swapped the bolt with another one. After ONE shot you could see (naked eye) the case had stretched. I wanted to load it but that was impossible.
The 303 ain't bad but it IS what it IS.
Jerry
Not the fault of the round, nor even the action. Swapping bolts willy nilly is pretty near always a bad plan.
The .303 is of course rather older than the .30/06, but it has a pretty good track record, especially in the countries where it was a service round. It has a sterling record in battle over a longer period than the .30/06 too, and even your US forces used substantial quantities of .303 in battle in WWI.
It can account for much the same game as the .30/06 too, though you do give away some velocity of course. It also has a rim, which is an advantage in some applications, such as break actions. FWIW it was also the basis of a whole range of wildcats here in Oz and in other countries. Some of these even became factory loads.
The Lee-Enfield action is also not without its advantages, especially when it comes to getting rounds downrange quickly. They are still seen in service rifle comps here. I have a couple of these myself, and 40-odd years experience with them in hunting and competition.
It has to be admitted though that with very few factory rifles being made now the old .303 and its derivatives is probably more one for enthusiasts and the nostalgic, something nobody but a fool or a troll would say of the .30/06.
Most of it was for .303 Vickers machine guns, and some for Hotchkiss Portative light machine guns. The AEF was singularly under equipped, but most particularly in machine guns.
As well, there were US units placed under British and Australian command and equipped with SMLE rifles and Lewis guns, as well as Vickers guns, all in .303. An example is the detachment of 10 companies (about 2500 soldiers) of US Army infantry brought to combat readiness by our Anzac troops and placed under the command of Australia's General John Monash. Unfortunately when General Pershing learned that they were to accompany their digger mates in the battle of Hamel he withdrew six companies, but the remaining four companies joined the battle alongside the Anzacs and acquitted themselves well.
The US purchased about 28 million rounds of .303 during WWI.
As well as machine guns in .303 the US also managed to get hold of about 7,000 French Hotchkiss machine guns and a large number of CSRG light machineguns in 8 mm Lebel. The total number of rounds of 8 mm Lebel ammunition purchased for WWI was about 365 million, with another nearly 268 million rounds produced in the US.
Most of it was for .303 Vickers machine guns, and some for Hotchkiss Portative light machine guns. The AEF was singularly under equipped, but most particularly in machine guns.
As well, there were US units placed under British and Australian command and equipped with SMLE rifles and Lewis guns, as well as Vickers guns, all in .303. An example is the detachment of 10 companies (about 2500 soldiers) of US Army infantry brought to combat readiness by our Anzac troops and placed under the command of Australia's General John Monash. Unfortunately when General Pershing learned that they were to accompany their digger mates in the battle of Hamel he withdrew six companies, but the remaining four companies joined the battle alongside the Anzacs and acquitted themselves well.
The US purchased about 28 million rounds of .303 during WWI.
As well as machine guns in .303 the US also managed to get hold of about 7,000 French Hotchkiss machine guns and a large number of CSRG light machineguns in 8 mm Lebel. The total number of rounds of 8 mm Lebel ammunition purchased for WWI was about 365 million, with another nearly 268 million rounds produced in the US.
Dan, Enjoy your posts. It's refreshing and all too rare on these forums to hear from someone who knows what they are talking about. You have obviously researched this subject extensively. Cheers, Russ
As well as machine guns in .303 the US also managed to get hold of about 7,000 French Hotchkiss machine guns and a large number of CSRG light machineguns in 8 mm Lebel. The total number of rounds of 8 mm Lebel ammunition purchased for WWI was about 365 million, with another nearly 268 million rounds produced in the US.
Dan, Enjoy your posts. It's refreshing and all too rare on these forums to hear from someone who knows what they are talking about. You have obviously researched this subject extensively. Cheers, Russ
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Yes, he's well informed ! ! Could it be he LIVED thru that ? NAW - he ain't THAT old?
We interrupt our regular program, already in progress...
The US development of the 30-06 was the culmination of lessons learned from Europe. Etonnante! Them Euros sure was smart! Specifically, the British and their 303 cartridge, and maybe a teensy bit from the Germans.
Remember the 30-40 and the Krag rifle? Holy Hannah! The 20th century was just about to bust out all over! A repeater with Euro roots! The 30-40 cartridge and the Krag rifle were almost a good idea but...
Yer 30-40 (left) and the 303 British (the other left)
It was a valiant try copying the 303 British and using a 308 bullet. The cartridge was pretty good, but the Krag's magazine! Oh, the horror! That was a tactical error. What were they thinking?!? But along came Peter Paul Mauser and his rifles. Ah! Combining British and German brilliance with the lessons learned from the Krag rifle, (and a false start with the 30-03), eh voila! The 30-06!
I know what you're thinking. Why not stick with what already proved to be a success? The 303 British? America should have bought a few boatloads of No 1s! Well, they wasn't American. It's also important to mention that the Krag Jorgenson was sort of the 19th century version of the Edsel. We all have a cross to bear, but things got better.
Calling all cars! Calling all cars! Be on the lookout for the Springfield M1903! It's considered armed and dangerous!
That Springfield was pretty slick, right? But nothing stands still, which brings us to the present day. The 303 still rules.
You can have the best of both worlds with a 30-303. You can rechamber a Lee Enfield or buy or rechamber a single shot like this. It's powerful. Sexy. Has a history. Yadda yadda.
Seems everything I buy these days Has got a foreign name From the kind of car I drive To my video game I got a Nikon camera A Sony color TV But the one that I love is from the USA. And standing next to me.
My baby is American made Born and bred in the USA. From her silky long tube To her sexy long stock My baby is American Made!
Voici le 30-303 par Thompson Center. Une compilation de the technologie de la 20eme siecle. Puissant et joli!
Most of it was for .303 Vickers machine guns, and some for Hotchkiss Portative light machine guns. The AEF was singularly under equipped, but most particularly in machine guns.
As well, there were US units placed under British and Australian command and equipped with SMLE rifles and Lewis guns, as well as Vickers guns, all in .303. An example is the detachment of 10 companies (about 2500 soldiers) of US Army infantry brought to combat readiness by our Anzac troops and placed under the command of Australia's General John Monash. Unfortunately when General Pershing learned that they were to accompany their digger mates in the battle of Hamel he withdrew six companies, but the remaining four companies joined the battle alongside the Anzacs and acquitted themselves well.
The US purchased about 28 million rounds of .303 during WWI.
As well as machine guns in .303 the US also managed to get hold of about 7,000 French Hotchkiss machine guns and a large number of CSRG light machineguns in 8 mm Lebel. The total number of rounds of 8 mm Lebel ammunition purchased for WWI was about 365 million, with another nearly 268 million rounds produced in the US.
I'm enjoying my popcorn on the sidelines...but I would like to say I enjoy dan_oz's posts for his rational thought and his historical perspective. I learn something each time from his posts. Of late I've been called a "flat earther" and "antediluvian" on this board. And now I'm posting here certain to be called a "nuthugger". I grew up hunting with dad and his friends (the "uncles") who all shot 30-06's. Dad and I shot 308's. When I got old enough to buy my own gear, I was certain I wanted a 7mm STW which was the wizbang cartridge of the moment. Never mind that we never knew if the hunts would be a drive/push with shots at running game, or cross ridge sniping. Funny thing is those 30-06's and 308's put a lot of game on the ground. ...so add "empiricist" to my labels .
I never did get that STW, though I had opportunities. I did ultimately build a 260 for dad (wrong choice for unexpected reasons...ascendancy of the Creedmoor). I also have a WSM...for which I'll receive another label..."little girl". My experience has taught me that to reliably hit game, I need to practice. The 300 WSM makes it difficult from two directions; 1) the cost of ammo is high and the availability is low. 2) I do not look forward to practicing with my unbraked, 5.5lb WSM (kimber montana). Didn't someone say that the ultimate goal was a lighter rifle?
It's funny to see stones cast at the 30-06 for poor bullet shape. Yes, it did start out with a round nose, but that was more the rule of the day than the exception. The Lee also had a round nose as did the Carcano. The arsenals eventually got a clue and redesigned the projectile and did too good a job even exceeding machine gun practice range limitations. The US Military not long ago took a look at the 6.8 SPC and the 6.5 Grendel which check boxes discussed on this thread, and they passed on these supposed "better" cartridges.
Today I mostly hunt with a 30-06. I put it together as a parts gun to hunt feral goats with (lots of shooting, some long shots, and rough rifle breaking country). It's not pretty, but it's kinda grown on me. It's old reliable (though on this last hunt it became a 2min gun and it might need a rebed or a scope check). Feeds rounds like oiled bananas...and I've probably shot more game with this rifle than any other I own. Some were at ranges long enough to have people shaking their heads when they ask Creedmoor or PRC?...and I tell them 30-06 (again..."empiricist").
The US development of the 30-06 was the culmination of lessons learned from Europe. Etonnante! Them Euros sure was smart! Specifically, the British and their 303 cartridge, and maybe a teensy bit from the Germans. crazy
The .303 and .30-40 do share the same parentage. The .303 was directly derived from the cartridges developed by Rubin in Switzerland. In the case of the .30-40 the US Ordnance Department got hold of a box of Rubin cartridges via the US military attache in Paris, and sent them to Frankford Arsenal in April 1890 with a request to make up a batch of experimental cartridges based on these. After a few fits and starts the 1891 Small Arms Board cartridge was the outcome. More development followed, and rimless designs were also trialled (as was the Belgian 7.65 mm Mauser) before the final version of the .30 Ball was put into production in October 1893.
The US development of the 30-06 was the culmination of lessons learned from Europe. Etonnante! Them Euros sure was smart! Specifically, the British and their 303 cartridge, and maybe a teensy bit from the Germans. crazy
The .303 and .30-40 do share the same parentage. The .303 was directly derived from the cartridges developed by Rubin in Switzerland. In the case of the .30-40 the US Ordnance Department got hold of a box of Rubin cartridges via the US military attache in Paris, and sent them to Frankford Arsenal in April 1890 with a request to make up a batch of experimental cartridges based on these. After a few fits and starts the 1891 Small Arms Board cartridge was the outcome. More development followed, and rimless designs were also trialled (as was the Belgian 7.65 mm Mauser) before the final version of the .30 Ball was put into production in October 1893.
The crucible of rifle shooting is on a range with scored targets. A gentleman named Germain Salazar did a bit of shooting at one thousand yards on paper in front of witnesses for score. He used to write an interesting blog but no longer. Anybody can claim whatever but a target doesn’t lie.
While I don't believe the call out for photo's was directed at me, I do agree that this thread is missing photos...so here's my contribution.
First photo is what I believe is my first animal taken with a 30-06 (prior to that I hunted with a 308). Dad brought home a rifle from an old ill friend that wanted me to try his rifle that he had built for running game. It was an old pre-64 Target rifle that he had bought as surplus (complete with "US Property" markings). He realized the barrel was probably shot out, but had a local gunsmith turn down the barrel to a bit more than a featherweight, and restocked it with a high combed sporter stock. It was topped of with Griffin and Howe mounts and a 1-3/4 power Redfield. Turns out that he loaned this rifle to my dad when he first started hunting deer (prior to that he just hunted pigs around the farm). When I visited to share some of the mouflon that we had smoked and share the photos and stories from the hunt, he asked how I like the rifle? I told him it was great! and he said he'd like me to have it. He passed away shortly after that, and I still have that rifle and think about him each time I see it.
There were things that needed to be tended to on that M70, so I set it aside for a bit and decided I would put a rifles together from an old beater M700 I had as a project gun. I bought a take-off barrel from an ad in Shotgun News. I wanted stainless because our environment is hell on steel, and a barrel in 30-06 was the first stainless one I found. I slapped on an old Redfield 2-7 Post and crosshair that was laying around my dad's house and went hunting. TIme stamp says 2005.
Rifle is now on it's 3rd scope (with a possible 4th upcoming). What made this rifle a favorite is that it shot to the same poi day in and day out. It was a boring 3/4" rifle. But before leaving on this trip, the Rifle was throwing shots . However when I grabbed an old box of ammo it shot tight again so it made the trip with me. After landing we went to check zeroes and it was throwing shots again (2+ inch groups). I decided that I would limit my range on this hunt to 100 and maybe 200. Got this one inside of 100. I have some work ahead of me. Bedding? Ammo? Scope? Shooter (gasp!)?
...so there. Animals with a 30-06 in 4 decades. 98, 05, 12 and 21. I have other rifles I hunt with in other calibers...but many times I end up with ole ugly here. I guess I started off as an accidental 30-06 shooter and have evolved into a 30-06 advocate. That 7mm barrel that I had intended for this rifle has sat unused for some years now. That reminds me I'd better check it for rust.
[quote=ChrisF]I'm enjoying my popcorn on the sidelines...but I would like to say I enjoy dan_oz's posts for his rational thought and his historical perspective.
well i made popcorn too ! > i am having trouble with should i use just regular salt or sea salt ? but i am using real butter for sure. myself i have lost the joy in a lot of recoil in bigger calibers with a rifle these days so just hand me my old 30-06 and some 130 grain bullets or my 25 caliber rifles.
But now “boringly” 3/4” accuracy..... come on now, how about all the bolt handles that fell off ? . Beside 700s are SO yesterday ! And 30-06, seriously man that’s A Century old.
Goes to show you.. Some things just keep on working.
I have & have had more 700s than ANY other brand/model AND have not had 1 single solitary problem including accuracy.
Well…there are very few certainties in life and my comprehension might not be the best while browsing on a phone …but that little disclaimer is there to not step on your tiff with llama_bob.
Quote
So llama, let’s see some of the BIG, big game you’ve put on the turf with the 300WSM… something for which the 30-06 would not have been the equal.
Quote
You've made all kinds of claims about the superiority of the 300 WSM over the 30-06 with no reference to game size or range.
It's time for show and tell from you.
Someone so profoundly opinionated must have a lot of experience with both rounds...
Quote
It's certainly not surprising you show up when Llama can't post one BG photo of a kill he's made with a 300 WSM...
…like I said, I could be wrong, and in the event it was directed toward me, please let me know and I’ll be sure to pull the photos because I wouldn’t want to be a part of any forum bickering.
If you loaded the 308, 30-06, and 300 WSM at the same pressure wouldn’t the efficiency be ranked the highest from the smallest case to the lowest in the largest?
If you loaded the 308, 30-06, and 300 WSM at the same pressure wouldn’t the efficiency be ranked the highest from the smallest case to the lowest in the largest?
I think I see what you're getting out....BUT
efficiency doesn't = speed & trajectory. There is that to some of us.
If you loaded the 308, 30-06, and 300 WSM at the same pressure wouldn’t the efficiency be ranked the highest from the smallest case to the lowest in the largest?
I think I see what you're getting out....BUT
efficiency doesn't = speed & trajectory. There is that to some of us.
Notice, I didn't mention E (energy).
Jerry
I meant given the same bullet weight, velocity per grain of propellant.
I always find it funny that so many cartridges are compared at the end of specific velocity envelop in yards rather than the hunting distances you are typically going to hunt or able to hunt.
"I always find it funny that so many cartridges are compared at the end of specific velocity envelop in yards rather than the hunting distances you are typically going to hunt or able to hunt."
I can only speak for myself. Where I've hunted most of my hunting life (not all but mostly) 300-400 yds is/was possible for needing to take a shot. SO... MY requirements are Speed and Trajectory.
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/FAeM6Dfl.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/C1kkqRKD/270-bronze-point.jpg)
![[Linked Image from 1.bp.blogspot.com]](https://1.bp.blogspot.com/_uoNDRtC8tRs/SHktdsBmoeI/AAAAAAAAAEM/4k6nRYFaAjY/s1600/automotivator-7.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/cMdvK61.jpg)
![[Linked Image from americanrifleman.org]](https://www.americanrifleman.org/media/aofiykj5/artv2713f-2.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/lybozyp.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/p7u389a.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/ItzjXWc.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/2NpFCpe.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/c4iQRro.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/XxNyOT7.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/vgpjkkH.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/PaozQWq.jpg)
