I read about the inherent accuracy of cartridges like the 6.5 CM. Where does the 06 rate in that category? Thanks for your thoughts.


I'm guessing a Tikka rifle will make it more inherently accurate...ha

I love the 06, no question, (although I'm down to 3 rifles now), but it most often needs tuning and tweaking of loads. Having transitioned to the .308 in the midst of a 40 year NRA Highpower...the .308's ate anything that was fed to it...gas gun and bolt...with minimal or no tweaking. I had a customer just recently back out on a Creed build, and I am stuck with it, and I have decided to break in the Krieger barrel (for the first time in my life)with a clean and shoot regimen. Maybe I'll learn about "inherent accuracy" in the process. The stock and action used was my old NRA bolt gun in .308, and I know what to expect...so it will be interesting to see how the Creed compares.

I’ve never owned a .30-06 that wasn’t accurate with at least a few loads. My Colt/NULA that retained the factory barrel.

Everyone "knows" that the .308 is "inherently" more accurate than the .30-06.

In my experience the .30-06 may not be "inherently" accurate, but ain't bad--depending on the rifle/chamber.

My ULA .30-06 (which weighs around 6.5-7 pounds depending on the scope) will still put five rounds loads it "likes" into into .75" at 100 yards, even after close to around 1000 rounds through the barrel. Its latest load uses the 175-grain Barnes LRX and IMR4451, and the first group at 100 was around .6--and it keeps shooting like that.

Also have a Griffin & Howe custom Springfield, which like many was apparently built on a 1903 "match" barreled action. I can confidently state this because the the NRA Match models had shorter throats, designed so the match ammo actually contacted the lands when chambered. It shoots VERY well with the lower-magnification scopes I've used in its 7/8" G&H rings, which have included the rifle's original 2.5x Lyman Alaskan, and a Leupold 4x "reproduction Alaskan."

But I wouldn't bet on any .30-06 grouping better than the average .308 Winchester.

I'm guessing you will not be disappointed at all.

If you chambered it right using a good barrel, it'll shoot. For the shakedown cruise get a box or two of Berger ammunition, part # 65-31010. This is loaded with their 140 grain hybrid target bullet. Shoot them after going through a box of whatever cheap stuff during that shoot clean shoot clean rigamarole.

I had to buy 5 different 308 rifles to see that. Generally the 30-06 is extremely easy to load for. I've never had an inaccurate one. The same can't be said for the 308's I've had and got rid of. It is often said the 308 is more "inherently" accurate than the 30-06 though. I have 1 308 that I am hanging on to right now. It is the only one that has really impressed me, that I have owned. I have a buddy that was given a heavy barreled stainless Tikka T3 varmint 308 winchester and that rifle is exceptional. At one time I had 6 30-06 rifles and they all shot around 1/2" for 5 shots. I think I still have 5 30-06 rifles, but 2 are not as precise as the others. Not bad for hunting rifles though. Of the 2 30-06 rifles I've sold in the last 10 years, both went to posters here on the fire. One to EricM, who has not posted for years. That rifle was a 1951 std wt Winchester model 70. It was one of my most accurate 30-06 rifles. He later sold all of his Tikka's and kept the old 30-06 and also a 270 Winchester he bought from Roger Rule. Another rifle I sold here was one of my favorites and it always shot well. 79s here bought it and he can testify as to how that rifle shoots. I was often able to shoot 1/2 moa 5 shot groups with that rifle. Both of these rifles are your classic hunting rifles, but shot damn well. There is one more 30-06 rifle that I really regret letting go. It was my BSA model D, that was built from a m1917 in England. I shot my best offhand group with that rifle: 5 shots into 1.057" at 100 yards. It would continually put 5 shots into the same hole, off the bench, with loads it liked.


Man, I wonder if there is a chart regarding a rifle cartridges "inherent" accuracy. We've heard it discussed before, but if I had to make a chart, it would go something like this for general hunting cartridges:

1. 6.5 Creedmoor
2. 308 Winchester
3. 22-250
4. 223 Remington
5. 270 Winchester
6. 300 Win mag
7. 30-06, 7mm Rem mag, 300WBY, 338WM, 7mm08, These are all about the same from what I've seen.

I'm not including the benchrest cartridges like the 6 PPC, BR's, or any of the new fandangled schidt you see now days, like the 6.8 Westerner, or the PRC's. The 6GT would definitely be near top, if I included newer cartridges.. Nor am I including the super old 300H&H, which we know has a good reputation for precision. We also know the 300WM replaced it when it made its debut. Similarly the 308 kind of pushed the 30-06 out of the spotlight.

IMO the 308 is handicapped by the sloppy SAAMI throat specs, and mass manufacturers aren't going to use reamers which start out on the minimum side of that spec either.

https://saami.org/wp-content/upload...CFR-Approved-2015-12-14-Posting-Copy.pdf

See pdf page 122/375 for the drawing. The minimum diameter of the cylindrical section of the throat is two thousandths over bullet diameter.

On pdf page 51/375 you'll see the similar spec for the 6.5 Creedmoor is one half thousandth over bullet diameter.

If you are going to make a chart you have to expect different opinions, for example #3 on your list. a 220 swift should be there instead. #4 a 222 Remington is more inherently accurate every day of the week, #9 a 300WM should be higher on the list
I could go on but will leave it at that

I'm not a gun writer, but have some experience regarding this subject.

On a quest to find a really consistently accurate .30-06, I've had built, bought, shot and traded or sold I would guess in the vicinity of 40 or 50 .30-06s. Maybe more. I've found it to be a really finicky cartridge. I wanted the versatility of something of .30-06 power level and availability that I could put most any load in and have it shoot well. Outside of maybe an accurate load or two, I don't think most .30-06s offer that level of consistency (at least to my standards). I haven't shot my current .30-06 much, but it appears to be really accurate (finally). It is a .30-06 AI (because that's the reamer the gunsmith had on hand) barreled by a gunsmith that specializes in benchrest rifles with a Bartlein barrel on a commercial FN Mauser action and stocked in walnut. I haven't had time since it was completed 3-4 years ago to do much load work up, but have been fireforming factory loads on various big game animals since it was built. I hope to eventually get around to handloading for it more.

If a person wants a consistently accurate big game rifle, I wouldn't try to go the .30-06 route as I did around 30 years ago. It's been a waste of money and effort for the most part. Instead I would buy three identical copies of a rifle that I liked in .270, 7mm-08, .308 or .300 Win Mag, all cartridges that in my experience have on average been much more consistently accurate than the .30-06. I would then tweak on all three rifles until I had them where I wanted them. I would sell the least accurate of the three, keep the second most accurate as a spare and hunt with the most accurate rifle. The other thing I've figured out is that a .300 Win Mag can be loaded down to .30-06 levels if wanted and has great availability in places where most people hunt worldwide.

On another note, I've yet to experience a 6.5 Creedmoor that isn't super accurate with a wide variety of ammo. I'm sure inaccurate Creedmoors exist, but I haven't found one yet.

I had a Tikka .30-06 that was more accurate than most .30-06s (though would not shoot the load I wanted at the time--180 Partitions with one of the 4350s) I sold it in 2009 as part of a gun sell-off to start my business. After money started coming back in, bought two more Tikkas in .30-06, neither of which matched the first.

My M98 with a heavy, 30-06, 27" "Finnish sniper barrel" per Sportsman's Guide where I bought it for about $100, already parkerized, will put 3 into an inch at 300 yards. Repeatedly. 11 lbs of rifle isn't exactly a sheep hunting rifle tho. Mostly I've carried it on snowmachine or ATV, for caribou.

150's, 165's or 180's. Every factory round I've yet tried. Win., Rem, Hornady, Federal. Have yet to hand load for it.



I just finished the Dyna-Tek bore-coat on it last night. Probably shoot it later in the week. We''ll see if I fugged up the accuracy....

The 260 Rem 725 is next. Already finished is a Ru77 tang in 270, 7x57 Win 70, Rem 770 in -06, and a RU77 tang in .338, all waiting for the range.

I'll shoot up all my remnant ammo first, to temper the bore-coat. Won't be able to tell much about "inherent accuracy" doing that, probably, but that's not the point, at this time.

Everyone knows the 30 TC laid all other 30 caliber chambers low for the same reason the 308 laid the 30-06 low.....inherent accuracy.

If the 30-06 had a 23 degree shoulder all problems would be solved.

I got a 308 classic M70 made in 92 that will put 3 handloads of Barnes 130 TTSX in an inch at 100 yds most any time I shoot it, with a 3 x 9 scope. Only bullet that I can do that with. Have shot 30-06 in the past but could never do that with the ones I owned because of the recoil….just me and not knocking the 06 but I have shoulder issues and the 06 is not good on the shoulder.

I’ve had a dozen 30-06’s, got good accuracy out of all of them.

All three of my 30-06 will shoot sub MOA with almost anything I put in them. One is a factory 80’s Remington 700 BDL, One is a Tikka Boar hunter I picked up here in the classifieds, and one is a Hill County custom.

“Inherent accuracy” of a cartridge, with unmodified or lightly modified factory rifles is pretty much an academic discussion.

So many variables involved with quality assurance, material lots, tooling wear, etc….

One could go through ten randomly selected, factory-stock .30-06s and find them all more accurate than one randomly selected, factory-stock .308.

Take 100 rifles of each caliber and compare them. One might find a difference, but I doubt if it would be significant enough to determine success or failure for real world big game hunting.

I have a few rifles chambered to the 30-06 and a few in .308 as well. All are rally just basic hunting rifles with generally decent hunting accuracy. A couple of the 30-06s have only been test fired with factory ammo and are J.C. Higgins M50s they were destined to be used in custom builds. I don't even remember what kind of groups they gave. No matter as all were more than sufficiently accurate for big game. There's a couple of Remington 700s, a BDL and a Classic that will run .75" to 1.0" depending on what hand load I'm using. These rifles are all strictly factory stock with one exception One of the Higgins was restocked in a Butler Creek stock because the original stock got broken when I took a bad fall during a hunt. Basic choices were save the rifle and die or save myself and let the rifle go. Tough decision.

One 30-06 does stand out. A commercial FN Mauser that was rebarreled by the late Cal Albrite. He was a hobby gunsmith that had a reputation of being a meticulous metal man. He ran the Sears catalog store in Winnemucca Nevada and played gunsmith as a hobby. He did good deals to people he liked and I guess I was one. We were talking guns and I mentioned I had this FN 06 and the barrel was bad. He told me to bring it in and said to leave it. He called me about a week later and asked if I had a spare $100. I said yeah and said to come over, He'd replaced the barrel, brand unknown and even made a new stock for the rifle. The old one was pretty well beat up. He told me the twist was 1 in12" which was OK by me as that's a better twist for cast bullets. I figured I'd work up a hunting load with the 180 gr. Sierra Pro-Hunters I like so well in the 06 and never could get a group worth keeping This was back around 1973/4 BTW. I set the rifle asode and tried every once in a while to get it to shoot a 180 gr. bullet but no luck. Got a job transfer to Tucson in 1979 and acouple of years later I drove up to the Phoenix area and stopped by the McMillan plant. I asked if they had anything laying around that might work on my FN and they had one that a customer backed out on. He quoted a price and I took it home. I glass bedded the rifle into the stock but when I tried shooting my 180 gr. load, same old problem, poor accuracy. I put the rifle aside and went on with another, a .270 I was playing with.

One day I was on here and griped about the poor accuracy and IIRC, it was Mule Deer who suggested trying a lighter weight bullet. I ran some 165 gr. Accubonds I had on hand with W760 and got decent speed and sub MOA groups, a few even smaller than half inch. I've tried to get the twist rate of that barrel but I've not had any luck. I know how to do it but this rifle does not like to cooperate. I have some 165 gr. Speer Hot Cores and Partitions to try once it warms up some. I like to do load work ups in the summer as pressure shows up sooner when it's 100*+ in the shade. Any load that is safe then will be safe during hunting season.

On the .308s, I have two that sre MOA or slightly sub-MOA. The rest are Ruger 77 RSIs and the best they do is 1.25 to 1.50". Good enough for deer most of the time.
PJ

i always had good accuracy with my 30-06 cartridges , but my question is on the chart of listed cartridge accuracy where is the poor old 243 Win ? which would probably be #3 right after #2 6.5 Creedmoor because #1 is 222 Remington cartridge hands down.

6.5 CM, .308, etc., may be more forgiving, prob shoot a wider variety of loads very well.

But with some work, trial and error, a good ‘06 should shoot with about anything. That’s been my experience. Just gotta find what your ‘06 likes. Your pet load may not be the same load mine likes.

DF

Was your G&H rifle built with an NRA Sporter barreled action or a M1903 National Match barreled action? Both utilized Star Gauged barrels, but the NRA Sporter barrel has a slightly heavier barrel contour than the Service rifle barrel used in the NM rifles.

First I ever heard of special throat configurations in NM or Sporter barrels. I always understood the match ammo to be configured for a perfect fit in the standard Ball Seat throat as used in all gov't .30 barrels. I guess I'll be doing some chamber casts on my Springfield collection, which includes their target rifles and service rifles and an NRA Sporter. You got me wondering now! (I will say that the throats in all of them seem to have the same throat, as my standard go-to accuracy load with 168 Matchkings works universally. I even keep a dummy round in the die box to ease setting of the same OAL when switching back to that bullet. With an array of rifles like these I'm forced to full length size all the "universally applied ammo" and I seat the Matchkings to the same length. Luckily none of them have throat erosion issues that would dictate different seating depths.)

Accuracy is how you define it. Back in 1903 they developed the 30-03 with 220 gr loads and revised that in 1906 with a little shorter case design to be used with a lighter higher bc Spitzer bullet to increase effective range. The same cartridge with national match loads were used at Camp Perry for many years (late 1960's?). I know for sure there are LC 62 & 63 match brass in my stash. 60 years of use at camp Perry? You might say that sort of establishes it as " inherently accurate". I'll bet that box of LC 67 173 GR @2640 FPS 30-06 in my stash will still shoot better than what most people are capable of. If it wasn't accurate enough, it would of been dropped faster than a used condom in the early 50's, for the use of the then new 308 aka 7.62x51. How long did the 308 last before the 5.56x45 pushed it out of the majority use? Technology advances have affected the accuracy capabilites of all cartridges. The 308's I have all shoot well so do the 223's. You can't get it done with the 30-06 no 308 will enable you. Just my 2cts worth...mb

I have a little over a dozen thirty-ought-sixes.

I keep track of all the groups I shoot with my rifles. Generally, the varmint rifles (17 Hornet, through 6mm's) shoot more accurately than the "big game" cartridges. One of my 270's shoots on average better than most of my 30-06's. One of my 280's shoots better than most of my 30-06's. I have a new CZ 308 and a newly put together heavy barrel 700 308. They do not shoot as accurately as any of my Remington bolt action 30-06's. They are almost as accurate as my 03-A3's. The other big game cartridges from 25's through the 375 H&H AI normally do not shoot on average as well as many of my 30-06's due on average.
The 30-06 Mauser may not be all that accurate as it still has the military sights and 'accuracy, me and iron sights' should not be in the same sentence, though the older I get the better I once was.
The M1's I have been more accurate than the M14's or the AR 308 I've shot.
The 30-06 760 I now own is nowhere near accurate - pie plates are somewhat in danger at 100 yards with that rifle. I've owned a 76 and 7600's that were very accurate, however.
The 700's, the 721's, and the 03's and the 03-A3's are all 'accurate', that is they are all sub-minute-of-angle accurate. Though one of my 03-A3's wears Olympic sights, I can get under 1" groups but not commonly with that rifle.
If we are talking under sub-minute-of-angle the 30-06 is about as good as any. If we are talking shooting in the "1's" or "2's", you will not likely find many 30-06's in that crowd.

That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it.

I’d be curious to know from those who have had them how the Serengeti reamer does - as I believe from reading that in large part this was its raison dêtre.

I'll agree with the concept of "inherent accuracy" being mainly an academic debate. If a guy wanted to determine said proficiency he would have to assemble a dizzying array of absolutely identical barrels made for the same action in the same stock, of the same steel and contour, and calibers and chamberings absolutely conforming to SAAMI specs, and thoroughly test them all with another dizzying array of loadings under exactly the same weather/wind conditions off the same bench at the the same time of day, ad nauseum. And what would all that prove? Nothing.

Anecdotally, I've owned a sh*tpile of .30-06's in my life, from early iterations of military rifles (Pre-WWI '03's) through modern commercial sporters, and everything in between. Yeah, I've been a .30-06 slut. Bore dimensions and throats have been all over the map, as well as barrel quality and stock fit. Pretty much what you can say about any other cartridge/chamberings in all the rifles we humans have employed over the last 100+ years. I'll only state what I've observed in my own experience: simply put, the .30-06 is A-ok. The most accurate? Maybe, maybe not. Versatile, especially if one has the good sense to handload for it with an amazing selection of bullets and powders? You damn betcha. More versatile than a bunch of other cartridges? Again, maybe, maybe not.

To debate the "inherent accuracy" (whateverinhell that is) of any one cartridge is akin to the old saints debating about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Especially when across the board accuracy of any given modern rifle cartridge is dependent upon how well it's configured to the codified specs set down for it and compared to how well other cartridges are likewise.

A good and valid point...putting "inherent accuracy" in quotes and questioning the definition. Just for hypothetical discussion, could we go to Joe's Pawn Shop and buy, for instance 10 .30-06 bolt sporters, 10 .308 bolt sporters, a large supply of Federal Gold Medal Match for each, test them under duplicate conditions? Measure the overall aggregate group size? When the data was gathered, could we say one is better than the other...more inherently accurate? I am biased to the .308 to win, although my favorite is still the 06. Perhaps it is time for Mathman to come in and slay my hypothetical inherency test. Or perhaps I should open another Pilsner.

Crack another beer. That's what I'm doing, watching the Bengals and Bills.

What's a Bengal? Or for that matter a Bill? If it's football, as I suspect, I'm ignorant, having patently ignored such stuff for about 40 years now!!

Oh for Pete's sake, I'm fairly sure you know brass balled Jim Corbett killed some maneaters there with a fairly puny cartridge that was not inherently accurate.

Oh, that Bengal?!! Of course! I have a couple Savage .22 HiPowers (and they're pretty accurate)!

Bugger, if you have a heavy barrel 308 on a 700 action and it's not putting up tight clusters there's something amiss.

Ive seen some very accurate shooting with two or three older M700ADLs in 30-06. None of them were mine, but the friends that owned them allowed me to shoot them and I was really impressed with how they performed

That is my opinion as well. I can't say anything bad about 30-06. That was my primary cartridge for most of my life and it served me well, but I do find my 308's a touch more accurate. And I haven't seen nor shot a 6.5CM that wasn't more accurate than anything I've shot.

And lots of guys may not want to admit it, but the reduced recoil is probably a big part of why we shoot those more accurately.

Keep in mind, it took a very short time for the .308 to rise to dominate benchrest, pre 1971....I doubt the 06 was ever competitive anywhere but the 1,000 yd line, and even at that the Hollands .30 Super dominated mostly. But in fairness the .308 was edged out in the early 70's with the 6mm's. It is surprising to me how often the .308 is still a player in FTR.

There's nothing magical about a bunch of super-modern cartridges, that is unless you discount the strictly codified chamber/throat dimensions that cartridges of yore never enjoyed, and the up to date bullet designs/constructions that are tailored to them. Had the '06 enjoyed that kind of pampering by every concern that ever made them and the fodder for them there would be a different take on it today.

Exactly...I often wonder where the lowly .270 would be today if the attention to detail lavished on the wunderkind had been applied to the old .270. When tales are spun over coffee, almost everyone has an anecdote of half minute groups with tailored hunting ammo out of a sporting weight .270 boltgun.

I think that's the key.

Chamber two barrels as carefully as you want, fitted to a "machine rest" breech of some type. One is 30-06 and the other is 6PPC. What happens?

Yes, the National Match Springfields had different chamber/throat dimensions. As mentioned earlier, many of Griffin & Howe's more expensive sporters were built on National Match barreled actions. In fact, the article I published on my rifle--built in 1930, a few months before Ernest Hemingway's G&H sporter--mentioned that Townsend Whelen personally selected the National Match barreled action for Hemingway's rifle. (Whelen had a connection to G&H, of course, because James Howe worked for Whelen for several years.)

I started wondering about the chamber dimensions when I tried both factory ammo and handloads I'd worked up in other .30-06s in my G&H. Here's a quote from my article:

"During this process I found the chamber throat was slightly shorter than my other .30-06s, and wondered if this was standard with National Match rifles. The answer appeared in my copy of William Brophy’s great 1985 book, The Springfield 1903 Rifles, in a quote from a 1921 article in Arms & The Man: “Radical improvements have been made in the “leade” or throating from chamber to bore proper, with the result that the bullet is seated well into the barrel with the normal bolt thrust.”

I also want to thank others who have posted various opinions on this thread, because I'll be writing an article on this very subject for Rifle Loony News--about exactly why the .308 tends to be more accurate than theh .30-06. I checked my loading notes this afternoon, and have handloaded for 16 .308s and 23 .30-06s, which should be a pretty good sample--and have also talked to a bunch of industry people on this subject, which also provided a bunch of information over the years. There are also small but meaningful chamber differences between the two rounds.

I did two chamber casts so far now, then I got side tracked. I did find the chamber cast, and the notes I made back when it was freshly done (Cerrosafe castings need to be measured one hour after popping out of the chamber), of the M1903A1 Service rifle so thank goodness I didn't have to do a third casting today. The throat in a 1930 National Match (Star Gauged barrel) mics at .309 with the rifling starting slightly closer to the end of the chamber neck than in the 1903A1 service rifle close to it in age, which also has a .309" throat. (Although the bores are bright and crisp and they shoot sweetly I can't swear to how heavily they've been used, obviously.) Strangely enough the throat in a 1929-vintage NRA Sporter (Star Gauge barrel also*) mics .3085" and the rifling leade is the same as the Service rifle.**


* Star Gauge doesn't make a barrel special in terms of construction. It merely means that it conforms within tolerances for the .30 Springfield barrels. During production, all barrels were gauged with the device and only those that met requirements perfectly were given the Star Gauge stamp of approval on the barrel crown. Legend has it that a healthy percentage of all barrels met the standards anyway.

** NRA Sporters were intended to be hunting rifles so maybe that explains it. Although, I've read where Sporters were popular as target rifles back then too. I don't know, I wasn't there. Ask Pappy348, I think he was there.

I have two '06s; a Parker-Ballard 98 Mauser that I bought in 1974 and a 1952 vintage M70. Both group under 1" with 58gr H4350 and 165gr Hornadys. The P-B shot 1/2=3/4" consistently with 125gr Sierras and IMR4320 when it was my only rifle and I used it for groundhogs as well as deer. Both rifles wear 4x scopes. Not match grade accuracy, bit not too shabby, either.

I can't say about inherent accuracy, but I have a Rem 760 and a stainless Win. M70 FW in a Winlite stock that are very accurate with the same load.

Carlos Hathcock could have told us.

I can hit a moose at 100 yards consistently with my 30/06

You're stronger than I am. Can't throw mine near that far.....

I have 3 270 rifles and all three are easily capable of 3 shot 3/4 inch or slightly smaller groups. The only reason I have three 270's is I can't decide which to sell.

That's the way I see it too. The throat on the 6.5 CM is completely different than the 308 and that's what I believe contributes to it's "inherent" accuracy. And the 30 TC too (page 94 on the PDF) has a similar throat design to the 6.5CM. Everybody and their brother hacks on it like it's the worst round ever created but the one gun I had chambered for it shot exceptionally well.

All cartridges from those era's suffered from the same thing. Less was known, manufacturing tolerances weren't as tight, bullets weren't as consistent, that's just the way it goes. If my 1950 Chevy was made in a 2023 Porche factory it would've run a lot better too

I'm looking forward to it, John.

Did you happen to know German Salazar by any chance or recall his experiments with the .308 vs. .30-06? He shared some interesting information from what I recall until he got out of rifle shooting.

I bought one rifle from you back around that time. It was a 30-06. A winchester model 70 Extreme Weather. It had a bedding issue from the factory, that you told me about. I glass bedded it and all was good. I later put it in a Mcmillan hunters compact stock and it shot the same:

That rifle balanced perfectly in that stock, but my pre 64 featherweight would out shoot it every time I took them to the range. I even started a thread on the subject. I sent the EW down the road, even though it was a moa shooter. I generally expect better out of even hunting rifles.


You can build customs all you want, but sometimes you'll get lucky with an old one like some of the ones I've posted. The picture here shows how my '56 FWT shoots, and I would not trade that for anything..

No we couldn't. Not until they are all glass bedded properly. Then after that, we could do your test. I'd have all 10 of those rifles glass bedded in a day too. Want to put some money on that??? ha ha.. I wouldn't trust schidt until it has a proper foundation. Just sayin.

I took delivery on a 30-06 Serengeti recently and will be working up some loads in about a month.

I wonder how well the Remington 40X sold in 30-06 caliber

Like that schidt hasn't been written about 100 times before.

German definitely liked his 30-06 target rifle and shot it well to say the least. He did use a custom reamer to better suit target use. A friend of mine owns several of his rifles including that Remington and the reamer. Unfortunately German passed away last year. He was constantly experimenting and always enjoyed sharing his knowledge.

Thanks for sharing that about your friend, the rifles, and reamer. Very cool, Mike.

Too bad about German. He definitely shared a lot of information.

I have a 1903 Spfld built by Wundhammer that shoots under 1 moa even with my 74 year old eyes and peep sights.
And a Borden Rimrock 30-06 lightweight hunting rifle that is a quarter minute gun if I do my part.

Bottom line is the 30-06 remains a viable target cartridge

Thanks, my buddy is a lefty like German and an exceptional shooter (US Palma Team), so the rifles have the perfect home.

An interesting thing is that the 30-06 has a 1-13" twist barrel that was a set back and re-chambering of a used .308 Palma barrel given to German by another local shooter. It stabilizes some pretty heavy target bullets.

I first met German years ago when I just had to strike up a conversation with the guy a few benches over at the Ben Avery range who was bench testing some crazy looking target rifles (Eliseo tube guns) with strain gauges epoxied to the barrel shanks!

I started out my competition days in 1964 shooting an 03 Springfield I bought at Montgomery Wards for $12. After I figured out what I was doing, I was shooting right along with M1 Garand shooters, and many times better.

I think it really first come comes down to the chamber of the rifle, how true and tight the throat is, but also the loading. Most of the soft point hunting out there is going to be 1-2 moa from most rifles. If you use some modern premium ammo, that'll shrink some. But this is all just on average. There will be outliers at both ends.

The 06 makes a bigger hole?

Inherent accuracy is a myth. In fact, most of us seek precision as a means to evaluate a rifle. But here are some cold hard facts:

The cartridge chambering itself doesn't determine the precision of a rifle.
The quality of the barrel has a huge influence over the precision of a rifle.
Chamber dimensions vary depending on reamer design and desired bullet. Matching them correctly will result in optimal results, but that isn't done in most commercial markets.
Factory rifles tend to be designed such that they are first safe, but then tolerant to a wide variety of cartridges.
Some rounds get a reputation for being "inherently accurate" because the maker has done a good job of matching the reamer design to the bullets and cartridges the end-user will be using.
Some cartridges are easier to "tune" because the capacity results in putting a bullet in the node which the bullet the user has chosen is optimized.

The bigger hole deal reminds me about sighting in a few firearms.

My buddy, who owned the range we were at , had a 6.5 x 55 Swede ( Ruger M 77 in a
Mannlicher stock.) Fresh out of Brockmans custom shop.

I had a Savage 220 20 gauge shot gun.

Even though the 6.5 might have had a tighter group , the 20 ga. Holes made the 220 group appear more inherently accurate!

I have never had an 06 that wasnt pretty darn good for hunting for sure, and most have been extremely accurate regardless of manufacturer or age.

I know that you're probably quoting to point out a contradiction, but pay close attention. That isn't a matter of potential, rather a cartridge putting a given bullet where it wants to be. The problem is the user choosing the wrong bullet. Neither has any bearing on the potential of precision from the cartridge.

So how do you assess the 222 Rem vs. 22 PPC and then 6mm PPC?

Who's reamers? Who's bullets? What's the discipline?

drop_point,

There is indeed such a thing as inherent accuracy--and the 6mm PPC is a perfect example, along with several others designed for accuracy. I have explained a lot of this in my articles and books.

A big difference tends to be in the shape/dimensions of the chamber throat, but there are other factors.

The dimensions and chamber of the throat...that is exactly what I'm talking about. Prints, bullets, quality of brass tend to matter much, much more than the shape of the cartridge.

The thing about it is that people in benchrest play follow the leader and myth is born around it.

ETA: the recent revelations about 6mm-6.5x47 Lapua and its bad reputation for being hard to "tune". It turns out, everybody was building reamers off a bad reamer print and that it was no less "inherently accurate" than the similar size and capacity 6mm BR variants. I stand by the notion that given the proper chamber dimensions, bullet, and brass quality, any cartridge is capable of accuracy. It just so happens people don't bother.

Top level short range benchrest competition. That's the bleeding edge of precision group shooting. The rifles are built by the best gunsmiths using optimized reamers and the shooters use very precisely made bullets. There are no compromises suffered by one cartridge but not the other. All of the "mechanical excuses" have been dispensed with.

Added: I think any kinks in the reamer print for the competition 222 were worked out long before the PPC came along.

Yes, the shape of the cartridge also matters, along with shoulder angle. Plenty of evidence for this has been published--including the history of how and why the 6mm PPC was designed--along with later big game cartridges, including the short-fats.

There's also plenty of evidence in various ways. Before the .300 WSM appeared, a major bullet company used to be all their accuracy testing of new manufacturing batches of bullets with the .308 Winchester with lighter bullets, and with heavier bullets the .300 Winchester Magnum. And ALL their testing, as with most bullet companies, is done indoors in tunnels.

After the .300 WSM appeared, they started using it to accuracy-test ALL their bullets--because it has the combination of factors that result in consistent velocities, including a relatively short powder column 30-degree shoulder angle. And then there's the throat dimensions. All of them made a difference.

It is largely a game of "follow the leader". Are records set with 6mmPPC because of the cartridge or because the best in the game chose it and optimized it? Would those records have been different should there have been 50 years of research, development, and optimizing a different cartridge?

You're seemingly missing what I said about the 222. If there is a cartridge that had the holy heck optimized out of it before the PPC came along the 222 is it. The best in the game used and optimized it. These same best in the game people were subsequently able to get better results from the PPC.

They all went to the PPC because it became dominant immediately

Yet the run of the mill .300 WSM is no more precise than any other chambering out there. Was it truly chosen because of "inherent accuracy", or because it is squarely in the velocity windows which the users will use those bullets? You mention again throat dimensions, but those throat dimensions can be applied to any cartridge should one choose to have a reamer ground in such a way. I believe that we understand this as an industry now and recognize that is part of the success we are seeing with cartridges like the 6.5 Creedmoor seeming so much more accurate than cartridges of old.

It seems like you are deviating from cartridge design and discussing rifle chamber design. If a '06 or .270 Win chamber is built to the same dimensional tolerances and throat dimension:bullet diameter ratio as, let's say the darling of the moment, where does "inherent accuracy" come into play?

Full disclosure... love me my 6.5x55, 30-06, and .270 Win. Old School Stuff.

See my comments about the 222 vs the PPC cartridges in benchrest competition.

Link?

That is precisely my point. Much of what is thought of as "inherent accuracy" is related to chamber design more so than the boiler room.

I actually agree that chambering dimensions/considerations are the biggest part of getting precision out of any cartridge. But once all of that is taken care of there are finer differences that can appear.

Yet the smallest group in competition shot with a .222 Rem stood from 1973 to 2013 despite the superior "inherent accuracy" of the 6mm PPC, and when that record was broken, it was done so by a wildcat .30 cal based on the 6.5 Grendel.

OK .... let's establish a baseline. When we talk about "inherent accuracy" are we talking about the cartridge design? Are we talking about SAAMI chamber specs? Are we talking about the cartridge specs and chamber specs both as a system?

May sound like semantics but when I hear "inherent accuracy" my brain defaults to cartridge design. For the purposes of this discussion we should stick to cartridge design because every cartridge chamber can be built to establish a level playing field.

I believe with can both agree that it isn't going to be an ascendable difference on the average hunting rifle.

Those are the statistical outliers. The whole "body of work" is what I'm considering.

Therein lies the problem. SAAMI specs are a range of minimum and maximum dimensions that leave a lot of ambiguity and leeway to the maker.

There are definitely things an average hunting rifle won't reliably show, but that's not the question.

Once again, please see my comments re 222 vs PPC.

Many, many changes in technology, powders, bullet quality, stock stock design, optics, and in general our whole body of knowledge from the days when .222 Rem reigned to the 80s when the 6mm PPC came on the scene. I would wager many of the changes and improvements were not attributable to the cartridge design, either way, good discussion and appreciate your responses, Mathman and Mule Deer!

Once again, be specific. I have read your posts.... not connecting the dots. Restate your argument here if you will.

OK, but there was a time when both cartridges were in play simultaneously, Changes in powders, bullet quality, stock design, optics et cetera would apply equally and yet the PPC came out on top.

Top level BR competition washes out considerations about chamber design and what not. The 222 had the bejeezus optimized out of it and yet the PPC was able to take over in head to head competition.

Your comments seem anecdotal and lack ...... substance.

OK, but why?

OK, but why?

Possibly the shorter powder column and 30 degree shoulder which have been shown to produce more consistent pressure curves as tested in the lab.

My point is there is something there besides precisely specified, optimized and machined chamber dimensions/clearances because that consideration has been dispensed with. It isn't that. So what's left?

Mathman, yeah powder column and shoulder angle tend to be on the short list. I wonder if the combination of shoulder angle and bullet diameter and neck length somehow work together for an optimized cartridge design?

That's exactly what they do--which is why Lou Palmisano and Ferris Pindell tried all sorts of combinations of not just the factors you mention, but primer-flash length when creating the 6mm PPC.

And yes, the 30-degree shoulder angle of the 6mm PPC did turn out to result in the most consistent muzzle velocities--and has in many other cartridges. I know this partly due to having access to more than one major ballistic laboratory, and getting to talk extensively with the technicians. One of these was Ron Reiber, who ran the Hodgdon lab for decades before retiring maybe 3 years ago. He said that a 30-degree shoulder angle definitely resulted in the most consistent muzzle velocities, though anywhere from 25-35 degrees worked better than anything steeper or or more sloping.

We also had long discussion about stuff like primers for different purposes, and he often volunteered the powders that worked most consistently in certain cartridges when I was working on various articles for Handloader magazine. You can learn a LOT from somebody who spends their working career dealing with such stuff--and Hodgdon was not the only company where I had such access to the head technician.

Can you link to where aggregates were demonstrably lower across the board with those shooting 22 PPC or 6 PPC during the same time period when the switch happened? Or was it a case of "follow the leader"? I've looked fairly deeply into this subject and cannot find anything to support any real difference. From what I've read, people made the switches looking for easier shooting in the wind.

I have not researched it that way.

Mule Deer, thanks for your reply. Did the Hodgdon guys specify powder types? ie is 30 degree shoulder best for single base extruded powders? Or is 30 degree shoulder best with double based ball powders too? How 'bout double based extruded powders?

Guess I'll have to buy your latest book to see if there are these kind of correlations?

So many experiments ..... so little time. Ain't it fun though?

Yep, it's fun!

Hodgdon's results included ALL powders with 30-degree shoulders.

Since my experience seems to indicate that the 270 is slightly more accurate than the 30-06 is it throated differently?

Hope you guys don't think I'm flippant with my questions ..... been reloading many years but just got bit by the rifle loony bug kinda late in life.

Talk of 30 degrees providing most consistent muzzle velocities may be very true, however, since we've chosen bench rest as our measure, most bench rest top competitors ignore muzzle velocities and chase groups. This was reiterated in the "Houston Warehouse" article as well. As prudent shooters, we recognize that consistent muzzle velocity does impact long range groups and score, however, while it has minimal impact at short range.

But what of the simple fact that a 6mm bullet is slightly better at bucking the wind? Wasn't that a deciding factor too, in the quest for shaving thousandths of an inch off of 100 yard group sizes, and the general shift from .22's of any form to 6mm domination?

So then what happened to the 6x47?


I'll admit I was lying in wait for that question.

I brought it up earlier, we would have to ignore speed. Back to that question of getting bullets to their happy place.

And I stepped right in it!!

Thought I'd post a photo of a CZ 557 in .308 that I borrowed from CZ-USA a few years ago for a review in a magazine. The photo shows the results from a handload that was NOT developed for the CZ, but is the standard hunting load for my Merkel K-1, the 150-grain Nosler AccuBond with 46.5 grains of Varget.

In the Merkel--a break-action single-shot--the load will average around .9 inch for 3-shot groups, but it has a very light 24-inch barrel and weighs a little under 7 pounds with a 15-ounce Meopta scope.

Have had some other factory .308s that grouped like this as well, including a Franchi Momentum and a Ruger American Rifle--one reason I didn't keep the CZ, though it was tempting.



The only .30-06s that I've owned (all hunting rifles) would shoot anything like this are my NULA Model 24, which of course cost quite a bit more than a CZ 557--and a pre-'64 Model 70 "standard weight" that would do it with some ammo when the forend screw was screwed in tight.

Part of the difference between the .30-06 and .308 is the standard SAAMI chamber throat. In the .30-06 it's tapered, as on many rifles of its era. In the .308 there's a short cylindrical section measuring .310 in diameter before the bullet enters the rifling. This is a little like the throats of newer 6.5s such as the PRC and Creedmoor, but their cylindrical section only measures .645 inch, much closer to bullet diameter--which tends to keep the bullet "straighter" as it enters the rifling. But either beats a tapered throat.

From one of my herd of 308s:

LC15 brass, thrown charges of IMR4895, Hornady 168 bthp, SS 6x MQ scope, 100 yards, 17 rounds

Unless of course one breech seats a lead bullet fully into the rifling right up almost to it's base, ahead of the chamber.😁 I do that routinely with a couple .32-40 single shot target rifles and on a whim tried it with an '06. It works in that too. Much improved accuracy, but not a trick you want to try in the deer woods (or with a jacketed bullet🙂).

What's accuracy?

I bought a 760 because it was $150.
A 30-06.

A gun I disliked, a round I had no use for.

I like 308 and 300WM.

Looking around, I found a partial box of 180gr Pro Hunters.
Looked at the Lee Dipper set and manuals.
H4831 lined up as a choice from the shelf.

Mounted a 3x9x50 Tasco. (The effort involved is embarrassing)

And the M)*^$#@$^*!!!&%#×$%;!!!! shoots just under an inch, 3 shot groups.
Only a few, this rig is not much loved.
The Tasco left its elevation turret loose one year when it needed adjusted, now
there is a vari x 3x9 on it.


Still don't live 760s.
Respect them though.

Do kinda want a gun I like in 30-06.

Better send that old 760 to a good home! Let someone appreciate that old 06

Never a serious benchrester, I did follow it for years. This is one unpleasant fact, whatever cartridge/equipment in the winners circle...the next year you can bet the farm...70% of the competitors will be using that cartridge or equipment. I know an accuracy gunsmith in Washington that got caught with 20 Hart bbls...in two short years he couldn't get rid of them and had to sell them at cost to varminters.

Inherent accuracy is an ethereal confluence of heavenly elements that cannot be explained. It is incorruptible. It is spiritual. It is pursued by those of unshakable faith and limitless devotion. The result will be a oneness that no one can attain in this life.

- Stephen Redgwell, 1984

Herd mentality in all forms of competition shooting. Everybody is looking for an edge...so long as it isn't practice and skill development.

I have one that I bought used on G/B several years ago. I have no idea how many rounds it already had through it but it shoots as well as I can. 😊 It likes 155s, 168s and 175s. For powders H4895, IMR4350 and IMR4451 have all provided good groups and velocities. As mentioned earlier, German Salazar put a lot of work and time into optimizing his ‘06s for competition.

I also have a 40-X in 300 H&H but I haven’t put as much work in it as I have my 308s and 30/06.

Years ago, and I don’t remember where I saw it, Remington’s accuracy guarantee for 40-Xs was published and in general as case capacity and bore size went up, the standard was loosened somewhat.

i have owned a 6PPC and yes it shot excellent and i should have kept that rifle , now i have 6 BR`s , 222 and 22 BR , i even have a 22 mag 40x custom , but i got a question . > yes the 6PPC wins plenty at 100-200 yards but after that the 6 BR does much better at 600 yards and 1000 yards why ?

PPC's don't have quite enough umph to push the heavy high BC bullets fast enough for long range

This thread has included some interesting posts and a few gems of insight/info.

When first noting the thread title, a wry smile popped up along with a dose of caution. If "inherent" in this thread carries the most common meaning for the term: " an essential constituent or characteristic", how could any cartridge, in and of itself, meet such a criterion?
Probably why, in addition to the 30:06, so many others were touted. So, which are actually inherently accurate.

Still wearing a wry smile.

They maybe accurate but there is no such thing as inherently accurate.

i do question that some yet there are a lot of cartridges with more umph that a 6 BR . so shouldn`t a 6 PPC at least do well at 600 yards ?

Or, usually, the rifling twist.

ok that i can believe that about rifle twist , so no one tries a 6 PPC at 600 yards with a different barrel twist ? or is also that fire forming Lapua 220 Russian case to make a 6 PPC is a pain too ?

Hmm. Please let us know how you would define "inherently."

I have asked a lot of pressure-lab ballisticians whether "inherently" accurate rifle cartridges exist, in powder, bullet and ammunition factories, where everything's shot on indoor ranges. Have been doing this for over 25 years, and so far their answer has always been "yes"--followed by examples.

Would love to hear why you don't believe they're wrong.

i have friends that test ammo all day long for their jobs in a indoor 100 yard tunnel and they say and use the term inherently more accurate when i ask them questions on cartridges they test.

Still nothing specific, just other people say so without going into details about chambers, reamers, types of bullets, etc.

Hmmm

Can't it's previous owner was a friend.
Gotta bunch of them. That one was Joe's.

It hunts on occasion.
Another frustrating habit is it never loses zero enough to matter for most of our
hunting. I check. Only time I remember needing to adjust was when the turret screwed
out of the Tasco.

If the .222 were more accurate Short Range BR guys would still be using it. It is always follow the leader. Nobody follows the looser. Same as in every other sport, otherwise people would be still racing formula 1 cars with carburators and bias ply tires. One day maybe the 6PPC will be usurped like the 222 when someone stumbles on another case design that for whatever reason proves to win more in that discipline. There have been thousands of case designes used in short range BR, so far the 6ppc is king.

Care to share the statistics for this? How much better did the 6mm PPC agg out the gate? Any idea of how much improvement the top shooters improved from the switch?

Right now 6.5 PRC wildcats necked to 7mm are gaining steam in F-Open. How much of that has to do with Alex Wheeler toting the merits and YouTube personalities promoting it or are scores demonstrably better?

Why not just go out and show how it's done then with a 222?

Seems to me, considering what happens inside a case when the powder ignites, that the shape of the combustion chamber, it's size, etc. could definitely be optimized for consistency. Given that we need these things to chamber and extract, we can't fool with spherical cases or inverted cone shapes or multiple primers, but the short, fat case design providing more consistent combustion and expansion and therefore accuracy makes sense to me. I'm curious if the steep shoulder thing helps with consistent combustion or more precise headspacing?

It doesn’t have to be a .222 Rem. You can make damn near any cartridge work with good tuning, a good chamber, and good components. You can give the best shooters anything within reason and they will still manage to win. At the end of the day, you cannot provide any empirical evidence one way or the other.

There is more to cartridge selection than “inherent accuracy”.

It may help with both--but 30 degrees isn't a really "steep" shoulder. Several factory rifle rounds have shoulder angles of more than 30.

People have tried it, it didn't work as well as other cartridges. I don't know what else to tell ya. Build one and go compete with it if you're convinced it's better

Then we have to consider fatigue on the shooter. Many don’t shoot magnums because a weekend of recoil is taxing despite the ability to “cheat” the wind before the fatigue sets in.

If they didn't shoot well, we wouldn't be talking about them 117 years later.

It is funny when people quote themselves, even Canadians.

It's even funnier when someone else mentions it.

Interesting. Thanks, MD. Makes me more curious about shoulder angles/shapes regarding ignition and flow of gas - I'm guessing the most efficient design would be impractical to produce.

Yea, that can be a factor. The steepest shoulder-angle of any commercial rifle cartridge I know if is 45-degrees--in the .416 Rigby. But it isn't a very wide shoulder!

I'd like to see a two-angled shoulder. Start out with that 45 degree from the case wall to half way to the neck then 15-20 degree to the neck. No science here - I just think that would be very inherently accurate!

I would hazard a guess (based partly on a collection of Precision Shooter magazines going back to the 1960s) that not nearly as many benchesters were shooting 6mm PPCs during the first several years after it appeared as there were .222 shooters. This was no doubt due to the .222 being so entrenched, and hence so many gunsmiths, components, handloading tools, etc. concentrating on the .222.

In any sort of technology it takes a while for relatively small advances to become more widespread. Somebody already mentioned auto racing as an example.

Maybe some amibitious benchrester should start shooting a .219 Improved Zipper. Those were evidently the real deal 75 years ago. No doubt the Zipper would shoot much smaller groups with today's barrels, bullets, powders and scopes.

Unfortunately the .222 killed it off....

Hmm.
INHERENT (def.): Existing as an essential constituent or characteristic; intrinsic; existing as a natural or basic part of something; permanently existing in something; inseparably attached or connected; naturally pertaining to; innate; inalienable; essential character of something; a natural or basic part of something; etc..

The definition, from several agreeing sources, speaks for itself. What you have presented is hearsay information from third parties - even though they may be reputable "pressure lab ballisticians". Those folks may be working with insufficient understanding of "inherent", or simply choosing an inaccurate term, or they may be wrong.

The concept that a particular case design (cartridge) in and of itself is inherently "accurate" as compared with others that are not - as an innate inalienable, and essential aspect - regardless of powder, primer, projectile, barrel, twist, etc., etc. - seems a stretch. Experienced comments in this thread tell a story.

It seems difficult, then, to help with your wish for explanation why others. "don't believe they are wrong" - whatever that means.

I have enjoyed and appreciated many of your posts. Thanks.

Even the mighty 6 PPC got killed off by the 30 BR in score shooting, it's a dog eat dog world at the cutting edge of competition.

All this 30-06 "inherent accuracy" bs made me go out and buy another 30-06 rifle!!!! You guys ought to be ashamed of yourselves!!!!

On the other hand you should be ashamed of yourself for the daily garbage you spread here on the fire !!!!

And then there is the Weatherby double radius shoulder, which increases velocity via escaping gasses with a venturi effect. Hey, who knows. It's beyond my pay grade.

Is that because bigger holes cut higher scoring rings even if the center of the hole is a little farther away from target center?

Exactly. Extremely close to the PPC in raw precision, add the bigger hole, everybody switched over.

Sounds like a keeper for sure!

CCCC,

I fail to see how the definitions you pick of "inherently" disprove my points. But I could go to my big printed copies of the Oxford English Dictionary of the English Language and my American Merriams-Webster, and probably find at least one definition that matches better with "mine."
But would also point out that when Noah Webster published his first dictionary of American English in 1828, he chose to define words by "common usage," and none of the ballistics people I interviewed misunderstood what I was asking. My first question also turned out to be the title of my article on the subject "Does Inherent Accuracy Exist?" This was published in the December 2007 edition of Handloader magazine, and the then-editor subtitled it "Barsness Interviews Top Ballisticians."

I named all of them, including Ron Reiber, the long-time head ballistician at Hodgdon, and Bob Nosler. Can't remember the others, and am not about to go through my collection of Handloader magazines to dig out that particular issue. But they all read the article when it appeared, and nobody objected to their quotes included in the article. In fact, some contacted me afterward with further comments.

So no, my previous post was not exactly "hearsay," and all the folks I interview plainly understood my question, apparently due to "common usage."

inherently accurate”
The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary. Click on a spelling suggestion below or try again using the.


^^ i just looked this up ^^

Thanks for the reply. I did not provide the definition in order to disprove your point. I did so because you requested that.

It is good that your ballistic sources did not deny their quotes and your entire post did not seem to be hearsay, but that supporting evidence is. Repeated scientifically based observation of consistent high accuracy using a very particular case design - regardless of loading, barrel, sights, etc. - would be demonstration of inherent accuracy of a case design. If, indeed, that does exist. Thanks again.

Inherently accurate? At what range and compared to what? It could be compared to the 30-40 Krag, or any of the other military cartridges loaded with long heavy round nose bullets. But the Germans made it change when they rolled out the 7mm Mauser loaded with a 150gr spitzer.

Was Inherent accuracy a thing in 1906? What we have here is a 17.5 degree shoulder and lots of body taper. It was made to function quickly, feed quickly and meet acceptable accuracy standards. It's a warhorse that can be trained to prance in a parade, but it prefers the the faster action of a Browning 1919. Turns out fast action also happens afield so it's a superb sporting round.

It represents a major development in the arena of military small arms. Logistically is was a step backwards as it's size and bulk limited firepower. At the same time it bolstered confidence being the most powerful chambering to ever serve in active duty. In short inherent accuracy really isn't it's thing, but it really isn't necessary to get the job done.

After working in a gun store, and talking to countless "hunters" coming in the store, i came to the conclusion that there are more "inheretly accurate" cartridges than shooters.

Good point mathman. That's why everyone hated it when I brought my 9.3x62mm to the hunting rifle centerfire shoots at my club in Washington....


One guy tried to keep up with his 338wm, but firing off 10 shots was too much for him.. ha ha.. Now, speaking of "inherently accurate" cartridges, I'll bet that 9.3x62mm cartridge places right up there around the 223..

The Canadian part?

Might be wrong but are we confusing accuracy with precision?

Depends on which person you talk to. Apparently the two terms started meaning different things due to benchresters, and some other shooters, in the 1950s. Or at least I never found a reference that "precision" means small groups, while "accuracy" is hitting what you're aiming at in my extensive library before a 1952 book edited by Townsend Whelen.

According to dictionaries (including the O.E.D. and modern versions of Webster's) the two terms basically mean the same thing: Precision is listed as a synonym for accuracy, and accuracy as a synonym for precision. This is probably another example of "common usage," rather than the jargon some people use for special applications.

30-06 delivering the mail at 2800 yards,

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/ELZLO2pISJo


I had a heavy 30-06 built back in 2000. It's a 16-pound rifle. It shoots everything (handload) I've tried with consistent sub-moa accuracy.

I have a sporter weight 30-06 that is picky about what it likes. Shoots fair to middlin' with medium weight bullets, doesn't like the heavies.

This is the heavy rifle,




Most common load is 208 AMax at 2700 fps.

Here are some examples of 100-yard groups with various bullets from the heavy rifle,

208 AMax,


210gr Berger. Wife shot this for a postal match we were participating in,



190gr Sierra,


110gr VMax,


210gr Berger,


155gr Scenar,


240gr Sierra,

That rifle is a shooter for sure. Did you order a match chamber or use the standard drawing?

Montana-

Great shooting rig on the heavy. Except for the one just a touch off the 155 Scenars were killer! Good work!

Spending time on Accurate shooter Shooters forum. Occasionally the argument appears. I agree with your assessment.

It's a standard chamber. I only resize the necks.

Barrel is a Douglas #7 contour, stainless, 1/10 twist.

I wouldn't claim the 30-06 is "inherently accurate".

It can be made accurate by building the rifle properly, and loading the ammo properly, for best results.

I don't see a problem myself. I have felt generally that the accuracy of a rifle depends on the quality of components and assembly.

Yeah, we've had the discussion on the Campfire before too!

But most of all, the shooter.

Nice work, MM!

Yep.

I would consider the 6BR as an 'inherently accurate" round. And by "coincidence", the ammo and rifles just happen to be made to precision standards.

Pretty sure the reason so many 6.5 Creeds are fine shooters is because the chamber has all the best design features. Factory ammo in many cases is excellent also. That said my 260 Remington has the standard factory chamber and I really can't use any more accuracy than it provides.

Agreed. Things have come a long way since the 30-06 was introduced.

Wow, that is some shooting. imagine what MontanaMarine could do with an inherently well designed 30 cal, such as 300 RSAUM... reputed to be a well designed cartridge that failed due to market timing and Remington being Remington...

Yep, IMO it's a common usage vs technical usage thing. In common usage they're basically synonymous/interchangeable. In school I remembering learning about accuracy vs precision multiple times in different classes and they always used bullet holes and a target as the example.

Very common distinction in science. Accuracy is lack of bias, precision is a measure of repeatability.

my old Winchester model 70 pre-64 30-06 made in 1953 made the same year i was born that shoots 3/4 -1 inch 3 shot groups with a 180 grain Nosler Partition i will just use a 5 cent word its accurate enough for me .

Pete….my model 70 in 30-06 was also made in 1953 its serial number is 2772xx

Knew a guy who had a rifle rebarreled and he said the gunsmith made the chamber "tight" it was a very accurate rifle, but he had to reload for it. Factory ammunition would give him cycling issues almost all of the time. I believe it was a 222 REM

cool and i bet it is accurate enough too . i think i will black bear hunt this year with my old model 70 ,this model 70 was from a dear old friend no longer with us .

I already made that point.

I've got nothing to add to this except that my Remington 700 30/06 is MOA elk. Elk don't care if it's the top of heart, dead center or bottom of the heart. They just know they are going to be right next to the mashed potatoes & gravy.

I like the way you think.

'06 in inherently accurate in a Tikka T3

Yep--and also in my Ultra Light Arms Model 24 (which I pointed out before in this thread) which weighs less than 7 pounds with scope--and will still consistently group three shots in half an inch even with almost 1000 rounds through the barrel, which shows obvious wear in a bore-scope. But that's partly because it's so accurate and light that I've used it a LOT to test scopes over the past 20+ years.

But I also have also owned several ULAs and NULAs (as has Eileen), and the .30-06 is NOT the most accurate of all of them. Right now am preparing to start testing a 6.5-.284 Model 20 which was unfired except for Melvin's testing when I purchased it a couple months ago.....

Last NULA off Melvins bench? Pretty heartless to just casually mention an unfired 6.5-.284 around here right now

If 30-06 and .308 were both legal in palma , 30-06 would hold every record.

I am curious if there are others in this thread that have Cooper Rifles, specifically the early Model 52s and 22s that were made early on in 30/06 and in 308 Winchester. I am wondering if they used a tight match reamer and minimized freebore in their actions. They are tight actions and shoot extremely tight groups in 270 Winchester and 30/06. Strangely some people complain about the accuracy of 7 Rem Mag Coopers. They say that they are accurate but not dead nuts accurate.

It is also interesting to me that the 222 would be considered very inherently accurate when it is a complete mini-me copy of the 30/06.

It was made in 2014 for Tom McIntyre, the well-known hunting writer. He died suddenly a couple months ago, and when I called his wife Elaine the next day (as soon as I heard) she said people were already calling, and even stopping by, to try to buy his guns. She also suspected--with good reason--that they were offering less money than the guns were worth.

I'd known known Tom and Elaine a LONG time, so I volunteered to drive to Sheridan and help sort things out--which would get the "vultures" off her back. Spent two days there sorting through everything, which was helped considerably by their son Bryan, who drove up from his home in Colorado.

Among the other firearms, there were three Ultra Lights. One was a .30-06, which Tom bought used in the mid 1990s, and first hunted with during a mule deer hunt with me in the Missouri Breaks in 1996. Another was a .243 WSSM, which Melvin built on a shortened Model 28 action, and had been shot some. (Eileen bought it.) The third was the 6.5-.284, which apparently Tom never had time to use much. (He was a rifle loony, but not like most of the rest of us.)

I called Melvin, and he remembered making the rifle, but neither he nor I remembered Tom ever writing about it. It looked unfired, both with my Hawkeye bore-scope and otherwise. So I bought it, but also haven't had time (or weather) to shoot the rifle, though did buy dies and brass, and mounted one of the 3-dozen scopes he had on hand, which I also purchased.

Actually, the case dimensions of the .222 are closer to the 7x57 Mauser than the .30-06--and the 7x57 has never been never noted as a particularly accurate round, primarily due to the throat dimensions, which were typical "military" for the day--a long taper.

Have owned a number of 7x57s, including one chambered with a PT&G "American Target" reamer. The most accurate, however, was a custom built on a VZ-24 military action with a Shilen pre-chambered barrel from Brownells. It would regularly put three 140-grain Nosler Partitions into 1/2" or less. Why? I dunno, but have never owned another 7x57 as accurate (or "precise")--and have had 2-3 other customs, including a NULA.

Not so sure about that. Local shooter Oliver Milanovic holds the National 1000 yard long range (prone/sling) record of 200-19x. He actually shares it with another shooter, who used an any/any rifle, but to Oliver's credit he shot it with his .308 Palma rifle and iron sights. I have also seen him tie it while shooting next to him at one of our 1000 yard practices, but that wasn't an official sanctioned match.

A lot of less informed posters are not comparing apple to apple.

SAMMI spec factory chamber shooting SAMMI spec factory ammo.

The 30-06 is fine for most hunting but compared to other better designed rounds it fall a bit short for accuracy.

A non SAMMI spec throat/chamber and quality handloads will do wonders for the 06 but then it's really not a 30-06 but a wildcat.

SAMMI spec factory rifles in 6.5mm CM shooting factory ammo will be much more inherenty accurate than the 30-06 in SAMMI spec.

By a lot.

But for most hunters it would not matter.

Well, it found a good home. And, good on you keeping the vultures at bay. I had a similar experience at my grandfather's funeral. It's almost unbelievable - the lack of class, lack of respect for grief, and greed you can encounter.

On another note and somewhat on topic, I got a box from Rifles and Recipes in the mail yesterday. Been sniping through some Gun Gack chapters and was laughing out loud over the B-29 incident. Maybe if Monica Lewinsky chambered a 3006 barrel it would be inherently accurate...

JB, did you have your ULA .30-06 built similar to the specifications of Tom's ULA? I seem to remember reading in one of your GG books you had your rifle built in 1996? Some other writers have even used your name when describing a ULA rifle with a Douglas #2 in 30-06!

I ordered my .30-06 ULA before I ever saw Tom's rifle, with a black stock and 24" #2 Douglas barrel. But Melvin was really busy at the time, and a year or so later called and asked if I'd "accept" an already-made rifle

He'd built two .30-06s to "my" specs for a gun store in Germany. They'd sold one, but the other kept hanging around, and they wondered if he'd take it back. He called me and asked if I'd take it, and I said sure--which is why I own one of the few ULAs in existence with German proof-marks stamped on the barrel, including the tiny red stag.

There's more to the story, but the very first 3-shot group I fired with the rifle--using a handload worked up for another .30-06--measured slightly over 1/2", and its grouped similarly with a number of different handloads ever since.

Edited to add: Tom's .30-06 had a 22" #1 contour barrel, and the early standard ULA "stripe" paint-job.

I used to belong to a large old time fly fishing club and there were a few vultures, one utterly shameless POS in particular, that would deliberately move in and start schmoozing old frail guys that had nice collections and try to get in good with their spouses. Before the body was cold he was in there trying to get his slimy mitts on everything he could. It was disgusting.

Inherently accurate or not, the .30-06 will always be my favorite .30 caliber, probably because of the guns I shoot it in and the fact that its been one of the few constants in my life for over half a century. Had Springfield opted for a .32 caliber, or a metric one, 120 years ago when the '03 Springfield was born I would probably be singing different praises.

Over the last twenty years or so, I have occasionally posted on threads like this and my opinion has not changed. The 30/06 is neither inherently accurate or inaccurate. In a purpose-built match rifle, it will perform quite well. However, it will not, with all else being equal, shoot as well as a 308. I have built rifles in 30/06, shot them, then set the barrel back and rechambered to the 308. Every time, the 308 shot better. I think it has more to do with case capacity than case shape, but there it is.
I was an avid benchrest shooter and gunsmith when the BR world was transitioning from the 222 and 6x47 to the 6PPC. I had started out shooting a 40XBR in 6x47 and had enjoyed considerable success with it. However, it was a little fussy and the best loads would loosen primer pockets enough to ruin the brass in a half dozen firings. Nonetheless, I won trophies, plaques, and even money with that rifle and shot many groups under .2 moa, in competition. This was in the late '70's and aggregates in the low .2's were remarkable.
In 1979, I built my first 6 PPC. My first group was under .2". I shot loads with 748, 322, and 4895. All shot so well, it was hard to choose a favorite.
I was still kind of fond of the 6x47 though, so I built a duplicate of my PPC, just to see. Same action type, same barrel maker, same stock, same methodology. It shot pretty good but it wasn't close to the PPC. A 223, on that same action, WAS very nearly as good as the PPC, and I shot some tiny groups with it; I could never shoot it as consistently though. I have to say, this might have been because I just couldn't shoot quite as well with the .22 cal bullet.
By the way, about this same time, I put together a 10 1/2 pound 308; I had a factory 308 which shot very well (sub 1/2) and I wondered what a real good one would do. It did pretty darned well. In the context of hunting, the 308, especially in a fairly heavy rifle, doesn't kick all that much, but in a BR match, after 30 shots or so, it starts to wear on you! So it was that at one match, I was shooting well under 1/4 moa until I blew up the last group with a 5/8 incher. Still, I shot an aggregate of around .2700 moa. The best group was a .108! I don't think I could have done this with any 30/06, no matter how I built it. I'm not really a masochist though, and didn't use it again. Since then, I have built a number of 308's which shot right round the 1/4 moa level. My best 30/06's would shoot under 1/2 but never 3/8 or better. In fairness, none of the 30/06's were built as short range BR rifles. Still, similar 308's would shoot 3/8.
Regarding throating: 40 years ago, I knew it all. A proper throat featured a parallel start, just over bullet diameter, and was long enough to allow the bullet to be seated just ahead of the neck/shoulder juncture (interestingly, 6x47's always shot best with a little longer throat than the 6PPC favoured. Possibly to yield similar capacity). This might be true for BR or "F" class rifles but the most accurate 30/06 hunting rifle I ever had featured the long, tapered European throat. Today, I accept that I may not know it all. By the way, the 7x57 American Target reamer, mentioned by MD, might be the one I spec'd to PTG, years ago, but I can't say for sure.
I could go on but I reckon the audience is sleepy enough already. GD

Well I stayed awake...and enjoyed it, thanks.

I didn't know this would be such a controversial question, but I appreciate all the response. It's been interesting to follow. I guess I'll keep my '06 anyway.

Smart move.

I do not believe in inherent accuracy.It is all the rifle and the guy pulling the trigger.

It's January on the 'fire, everything is controversial

Because of this thread, I bought a new 30-06. Thanks!!!!



It's about as "inherently" accurate as the rest in the safe..


Took a little work, that I normally do though. Glass bedding, trigger adjustment, and freefloating the barrel. When I start on load development, we will really see how "inherently" accurate it is. Showing pretty good promise so far though..

Seasons are over for a lot of us, boredom sets in, irritability skyrockets; hurry up Spring Turkey!

A 30-06 is accurate, a 308 is just more accurate.
Anything you kill with either will be just as dead.
"Minute of Elk" is 3"

Ain't that the truth!

Sorry I'm late to the party...I've just gotten done with reading through 21 pages of posts to see if anyone invoked Warren Page's article...no one did directly. Shame on you MuleDeer!

Warren Page gained access to the Remington Custom Shop's test firing records for their ultra accurate 40-X's in it's various chamberings. This is for hundreds of rifles test fired under ideal conditions (same very experienced shooter, benched in a tunnel). Keep in mind that Remington had a reputation to uphold because they provided a 1/2" guarantee for certain calibers. Also keep in mind that Mike Walker was a serious benchrest competitor. Page's article provides a graph of average group size for each cartridge. The graph starts on the left with the 222 Rem averaging .363" and as the caliber increase, so does the group size...except the 308 Win which is an anomaly in the trend at just over a half inch. The 30-06 is the next largest cartridge and it shows a significant jump in group size at 0.768"

Since others have mentioned the 30-06 for Highpower Rifle Competition, I'll offer that one of the longest standing records in the sport, the 1000pt aggregate was set by in 1968 by Eric England of the USMC shooting a 30-06 Win-M70 bolt gun; 998-45X. This record stood for over 4 decades through the rise of the 308. It took Sheri Gallagher of the USAMU shooting a TUBB-2000 in 260 Rem to beat it.

Other's have mentioned German Salazar's work comparing the 308 and the 30-06 prone on the 600 yard NRA Highpower target. Other's have dismissed it as "meh" or BTDT. That speaks to "you don't know German". He had identical rifles built with different chamberings, and loaded them both to his extremely high standard. He then tested and competed with both over the course of many matches, rounds and months. At the end of the day, the two cartridges ended in a statistical dead heat.

The NRA Highpower Target lacks resolution to separate accuracy between the two cartridges. These two examples are a testament to the skill of the shooters. But the 30-06 can certainly deliver on the NRA Highpower Target.

Thank you for taking the time.
That was informative as hell.

As I read through the 21 pages of posts, I jotted down notes on the ones I thought I had something to offer;


...Remington used to do that...and Warren Page reported on it. See above.

Someone did try the 6mm PPC at 600 yards. Scott Lindley from Montana built a PPC Space Gun and campaigned it across the course. He made NRA High Master with it but to my knowledge never won big with it. He shot 107 Sierra's (the best of the day) out of an appropriately twisted barrel out to 600 and 1K IIRC. I want to say he was getting 2500 or 2600 which was just a bit more than the 6x45 (223 necked up). Others improved the PPC case; Robert Whitley's 6mmAR and the 6mm RAT were similarly used by Space Gunners. But when freed up from the mag length limitation of the AR, folks shooting 6mm's inevitably went bigger...ie David Tubb and his 6XC.

You're right, Chris! But I started getting pretty weary of this thread....

Might also mention that while I don't shoot much competition, do shoot a lot of prairie dogs. Have used the 6mm PPC out to around 550 yards--but the 6XC works pretty well out to at least 700, even in typical high-plains wind conditions.

Very. Great reading.

Ahhh…winter cabin fever seems to always bring out a 308 vs 30-06 thread! I appreciated the opportunity to share about Eric England and German Salazar.

If anyone wants to learn more about England, read “The Phantom of Phu Bai”. He was so much more than a Highpower shooter. More kills than Hathcock but without the publicity that Hathcock got.

German Salazar did so much to share his knowledge (which I might add is still available in archived form if one was motivated to look beyond google.

That’s for the heads up on England!

Chris, thanks for the information on Page, Salazar, and England. Good stuff.

Just as a FYI, Englands book is 16 bucks on Amazon should anyone want a copy…

I just got the eBook version.

https://www.amazon.com/SNIPER-HUNTE...swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=

I'm happy to see there's interest in Eric England's story. Amazing Marine...amazing man. That book had been out of print for a long time. I wanted to read it for a long time and even scoured the used book sites and ebay. I eventually settled on the ebook. A few months ago I saw it available in print, so I grabbed one. Who knows how long it will continue to be available in hard copy.

I don't want push this thread further off track, so to maintain the theme...Carlos Hathcock is probably the most famous Marine Sniper thanks to the book about him by Henderson (title "Marine Sniper"). He shot a 30-06. Two Marine Snipers who actually had more kills than Hathcock (kills don't tell the whole story of a scout sniper, but it's what get's talked about)l; Eric England who shot a 30-06, and Chuck Mawhinney who shot a 308 (7.62).

Chris- i shot here in arizona with German' he was amazing and meticulous in his shooting. if the 30-06 was legal in palma, Every record would be held by the 30-06.

I don't see that as an inherent accuracy isssue.

For sure. All great Marines and still Legends in the Corps.

Neither do I. Beyond a certain range, muzzle/retained velocity makes a big difference.

I do know that the .30-06 wasn't used as a "short-range" (200-300 yard) benchrest cartridge, as the .308 was for a while a few decades ago--and then abandoned because even in 13-pound rifles it kicked too much, despite how little its bullets wind-drifted compared to, say, the .222.

Back in 1955, bullets were not the same. Now run an 88gr in a fast twist 222 and see what happens. The al mighty 308w might just get its azz whipped even more now..

I don't have anything technical to add to this discussion but I do like the .30-06 and use one pretty regularly. In my experience, it is easier to get a.308 to shoot well. I know many other have said the same thing and both are great cartridges.

Yes, but who WINS the "discussion"?

I don't think anyone or any cartridge wins. The 30-06 has slightly more power than a .308, but perhaps a little less intrinsic accuracy. For most applications, the slight differences don't matter much. The rifle that shoots the cartridge is usually more important than the cartridge design in determining accuracy. I like and shoot both.

Wasn't really meant to be answered. I was just pointing out that too many people view discussions like this as competitions where their position must "win".

Or they view what they perceive as the slightest negative comment concerning their favorite as an indication the commenter hates "their" round.

I posted early on here that over the decades I've owned 15 .308 Winchesters and 23 .30-06s. Will also add that I've taken more big game animals with the .30-06 that any other cartridge. In fact, at one point maybe a decade ago I had six .30-06s, including a Sauer drilling, Browning Lever Rifle, Remington 760, Ruger No. 1A and two bolt-actions, a pre-'64 Model 70 and the NULA Model 24 I've taken more big game with than any other rifle since acquiring it in 1997.

Am down to two .30-06s now, partly due to reducing my overall rifle collection while easing into semi-retirement, the NULA and a Griffin & Howe 1903 Springfield sporter built in 1930. Both are very accurate, the NULA because it's a NULA, and the G&H because it was built on a National Match barreled action. (On the other hand, my shotgun collection has increased somewhat during the same period, perhaps because I've found gamebirds easier to pack out than big game, especially during the past decade.)

Am down to three .308s, a Merkel K1 break-action single-shot, one of the Lilja barrels for my Sisk switch-barrel STAR rifle (though right now its 6XC barrel is one the action), and a Husqvarna FFV competition rifle made in the 1960s, recently purchased from Jim Carmichel.

Might have to buy another .30-06 to even things up....

Can I get a participation trophy?

I don’t know who wins but the general rule is….”first liar loses” 😁

I've been loading for the 300 Savage for a number of years. My rifle is a tuned up Remington 700 Classic, and it has been quite easy to get good loads with a variety of bullets.

With its relatively short powder column and 30 degree shoulder the little 300 has the makings for precision. If somebody spec'd out a 300 Savage reamer with tight throat dimensions and chambered up a top notch barrel I'm sure it would be a winner.

A .300 Savage with "tight" throat dimensions pretty much describes the .30 Thompson/Center. Both rounds feature parallel throats, but the Savage's listed by SAAMI is .3095" in diameter, and the TC's .3085". The T/C is also what Hornady claimed the 6.5 Creedmoor was based on, claiming it was a completely new design.)

Doesn't the TC have a bit longer neck?

A little, but not much.

MD has touched on an important distinction when discussing cartridges; there is a difference between a SAAMI cartridge or chamber and that which might be cut by a gunsmith, depending on what the goal of the 'smith might be. I can cut various chambers which will accept 30/06 ammunition, and they will vary in different ways. Throat length, throat diameter, case body clearance, neck diameter, and headspace are all things which might be varied, depending on who is doing the chambering and what his purpose might be. The same is true with most cartridges. I have a 260 which is chambered with a longer, parallel throat to accommodate a particular bullet which has a very long bearing surface (it's single shot rifle so cartridge OAL doesn't much matter). While it is still a 260, it is not a standard 260. I have a half dozen different 308 reamers and different 30/06 and 300 Mag reamers.
The one thing I have finally settled on as being most important is alignment and concentricity of the chamber. Getting this perfect is more important than any other aspect IMO. You can't ignore throat configuration and dimensions, but if it's crooked, nothing will help. A straight 30/06 will outshoot a crooked 308. GD

GD,

I have a Remington 40X that i call a 308, but it's actually marked 7.62x51. I haven't had a chamber cast done so I don't know for sure if its throat is cut to the looser 7.62x51 spec, but I figure it is pretty straight and concentric given how it shoots.

I guess if one was crooked, you could load crooked ammo for it.

Brilliant

My friend has a 40-XBBR which was Remington’s factory Benchrest gun. It had etched maker/model markings on it because they didn’t want to risk distorting the receiver with a roll stamp. His has the original factory barrel and it’s marked 7.62 NATO. Shoots like you’d expect an XBBR to shoot…basically one hole.

Now I'm wondering if mine is marked 7.62 NATO. It isn't stored where I am now, and my memory may not have been accurate.

I believe you’re on to something there.

One of my .30-06 TCR83 Aristocrat barrels wouldn’t shoot worth do do. There was much tool chatter marking in the rifling. Even after a full course of Tubb fire lapping, improvement was only minimal.

Don’t now recall what possessed me to even try it. But, I found that fired cases would not re-enter the chamber if rotated even a quarter turn. So, I started firing all rounds with the headstamp oriented to 12 o’clock in the chamber. I also oriented cases the same way during each step in the reloading process (neck sized - not full length). Results, while unlikely to win matches, were much improved:


At 200 yards.

Potato...Tomato...what I find interesting is that a factory benchrest rifle is labelled with a cartridge that I don't exactly associate with gilt edge acccuracy. When I hear 7.62 NATO I think of FMJ's shot out of a chamber designed to digest anything and everything. Maybe someone at the Custom Shop had a sense of humor.

Here's one for sale;
https://www.gunsinternational.com/g...-7-62-nato--r21650-.cfm?gun_id=100970567

A good rifle, chambered to 7.62 Nato specs, will be capable of 1/2 moa accuracy, or better; this providing the chamber is straight and concentric, and the ammunition is the same. GD

I hold up my end.

...but would you "choose" a 7.62 NATO reamer for a rifle purpose built for accuracy (benchrest accuracy) like the 40XBR? BR is not my game, but for long range sling shooting I'm picking a 95 Palma, Obie or Bisley reamer and NOT a 7.62 NATO.

Could be wrong but I feel a throat with parallel sides and just a bit over bullet diameter seems to be the way to go no matter the cartridge.

...unless there's a chance it will have to digest corroded, dirty, dented or poorly spec'd ammo as is sometimes the case on the battlefield.

FWIW, I suspect Remington was using a match type chamber and the "7.62 NATO" label was just that...a poorly descriptive label.

Like I said before, I can't speak to the throat diameter, but I can tell you mine doesn't have a tight chamber neck. Fired brass comes out of it at .344" so it's larger than that.

Bernchrest accuracy is a little different and I have a tight neck reamer (334) specifically for that. I have another with a no-turn neck and a parallel throat for F/TR, an Obermeyer, and a generic Palma (there are a bunch of variations). I have two reamers with no throat and cut the throats separately. I have throaters which are .3080, 3083, 3085 and 309.
Back when DCRA shooters had to use issue ammunition, there were all sorts of theories as to what made the best shooting barrel. One of the favored barrels was made by Schulz&Larsen. The throat was a funnel which started at about .313. They shot as well as anything could with issue ammunition and shot very well with good handloads. They seemed to handle crooked ammo better than most other barrels would.
The best factory 308 I ever had was a Remington 700 Varmint. It shot well under 1/2 moa with 168 Sierras, and a solid 3 moa with IVI issue! A friend had one just like it but with a decidedly eccentric chamber; his shot 1.5 moa at best. Like I said, straightness and concentricity are the most important factors. GD

I've run into some M118 match ammo that had .309" diameter bullets.

Since we're already off topic...might as well go whole hog!

I'll see your Canucks and raise you a Palma! Remember when the Palma matches were not only shot with ammo provided by the host country, but also with rifles provided by the host country! One year the Palma Matches were shot with M14's!!! But at least it wasn't an equipment race and all competitors had to center up with more less the same accuracy. Trying to gain an equipment edge has always been part of human nature. The Brits weight sorted their Bob Jensen issued ammo. They won that year. Coincidence? Story goes that Boots started cutting tightbore .298's because the British RG was all over the map on diameter. ...and squeezing them a skosh more gave better accuracy.

That said...with the other lengths they went through with the XBR's (ie etching the receiver instead of roll stamping it to avoid distortion) it's a mystery to me why Remington would chamber their factory BR rifle with a NATO reamer.

There's always the Imperial Meeting at Bisley for those that want to compete with issued 7.62 ammo and oversized chamber specifications...

30/06 rifle also have chamber and throat dimensions which are all over the map, but again, as long as the chamber and throat are straight and concentric, all will perform well. The most accurate 30/06 hunting rifle I ever owned had a very long tapered throat.
It is obvious that ammunition plays a major part and I mentioned the use of issued ammo only to illustrate that the ammo could, in fact, negate any rifle building efforts. With good ammunition, one could see some improvements but they were surprisingly minor. I feel that neck diameter, for instance, is pretty well meaningless.
The real bottom line, at least for this discussion is: 308's will shooter better than 30/06's, if all else is equal. GD

Understood and agreed with.

"30/06 rifle also have chamber and throat dimensions which are all over the map..."

Begs the question as to which 30 caliber cartridges are locked on to precise tolerances across manufacturer(s) today? I imagine the 30TC was, but it didn't make it commercially...

These two questions/statements speak to the genius of the 6.5 Creedmoor, As initially envisioned by DeMille and Emary, the creedmoor chamber was designed to shoot accurately with long match bullets for Highpower Rifle. Ammo matched the throating and loads were printed on the box.

Two examples of mismatch; I have a Winchester M70 Match Rifle. It still wears the 30-06 factory barrel. It appears to be throated for M72 Match ammo which is a bit long. When I fired it with Federal 30-06 Gold Medal Match it grouped terrible. Then I started playing with seating depths. FGMM at the time was seated very deep. I pulled and reseated the 168 Sierras closer to the lands and then I started getting bugholes.

I had the same experience with Hornady Precision Hunter in 30-06 Due to a shortage of reloading time, I bought off the rack (and paid a pretty penny) with the thought that the HPH with 178 ELD's were my best bet. Turns out those are seated way deep and were jumping too far in my 30-06 hunting rifle. Grouped terrible...like 4 to 6 inches terrible. I'm not pulling and reseating. I'm going to suck it up and plan better to make the time to reload well before the next hunt.

Are you sure there wasn't some other type of incompatibility besides jump? I've shot a very large number of good groups with .308" bullets jumping at or near 1/8" in several rifles.

Careful that you don't get vaccinated (or worse!).

Not that end.

Pureblood here too.

Ya know...good question. I didn't do the "pull-push" as I did with the FGMM. ...and I don't have experience shooting the 178 ELD outside of that. I will say that the jump was probably a bit more than 1/8". The gap right now is time...but I'm thinking when I have some, a date with the puller and a stoney-point might be interesting.

I went and got my 40XB-KS and it is marked 7.62 NATO. This evening I did a little checking and factory Federal Gold Medal match with 168 grain Match Kings loaded to 2.8" will have just shy of a 1/8" jump to engage the lands.

Mine looks like this one:

Nice rifle! While I'm not a 40X expert, I'm going to take a SWAG that it's a 90's or 20 ought rifle from the SS Receiver and the KS stock?

During that era, I do know that some PD's were using 40X's as sniper rifles, so it makes sense that a NATO chamber would be used as those were expected to digest all kinds of ammo. I'll chalk up the NATO chamber in the XBR as one of those "things that make you go hmmm?"

greydog's statement just adds to the "hmmm"

Random question; Your rifle is sans clip slot right?

I'm miles away from it right now and it has a rail on the top so a call to the woman at home won't get me an answer, but I think it has a clip slot.

I assembled some spec ammo last night and shot it this morning. I put a SWFA 6x42 milquad on it and after getting zeroed I shot two sub 1/2" five shot groups at 100 yards.

LC67 NM brass on its sixth loading, Rem 9 1/2, 41.5 gr IMR 4895 and a 168 gr Match King seated to the old 2.83" M852 spec length.

I did seat a couple long for the jump check and the rifling Mark's were very even and well aligned, so it seems like its generous chamber is in there straight.

168 grain TTSX 2950 FPS out of Kimber Classic Select Federal 215 primer, max load of Ramshot Hunter
Group shot at 200 yards