Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters .308 accuracy again....

Recently we had a thread here, started by the question:
"Is there a definitive anwer to the question 'Is the .308 Winchester inherently more accurate than the .30-06 Springfield?'"

That was it. There were no other questions beyond that point, such as:

1) Can you tell the difference in accuracy when shooting at deer?
2) Is the .308 the best benchrest cartridge?
3) What do I mean by inherent?

A great number of people answered, some with pretty definitive answers, including me--who voted yes, it is more accurate, and gave a couple of reasons why, both my experience (I have shot quite a few firearms in both calibers, of various types) and Bob Nosler's, who wears out barrels by the, well, barrel-full in testing Nosler bullets.

Somebody else chimed in with the 1968 GUN DIGEST article by Warren Page, which showed the accuracy results of hundreds of different 40X Remington rifles in various chamberings. Not dozens, hundreds or rifles, and thousands of groups.

The thread then wandered. Some people felt compelled to defend the .30-06 (which in my opinion needs no defending), though none of these provided any evidence that the '06 was more accurate than the .308. One post quoted another gun writer at length about the accuracy of the .30-06, but the quote never mentioned the .308. Another, once again, suggested that we would never notice the difference in the big game field. (This to me is obvious. There are dozens if not hundreds of cartridges that are sufficiently accurate to neatly kill big game at normal ranges.)

Yet another suggested we have a custom accuracy gunsmith build 10 rifles in .308, and another 10 in .30-06 and see what happened. (To me, after the Remington "tests," this seems not only irrelevant, but quite strange. Why perform a much smaller--and hence less likely to be statistically valid--test long after vastly more extensive shooting has already been done?)

Many answers did not address the original question. "Field accuracy" was not the question. Some also questioned the question ("What is inherent?"), or stretched the scope of the question beyond common ranges (noting that the .308 is not chosen for 1000-yard target shooting).

Another questioned the validity of the Remington statistics, because they did not mention varistion. (My own suggestion here is that hundreds of barrels and thousands of groups do not really require "standard deviation" to come up with a statistically valid result. If more than 30 groups are fired, you can count on SD being about half the average group diameter.)

So, what sort of answer would convince the posters on the Campfire of a definitive answer, one way or another? Do we need to fire another 1000+ groups out of hundreds of barrels? Or do we need more anecdotal evidence from, say, a dozen top custom riflemakers? Or perhaps we need to ask the people in the test labs of several major ammunition manufacturers, all of whom accuracy test lots of ammo in very controlled conditions? Do we need to compue standard deviation on the results?

I'd like to do it so some "definitive" answer might convince at least the majority of readers one way or another. Then maybe some gun writer could do an article on the subject and not be deluged with dozens of letters objecting to the procedure.

MD

So then provide all of the information from every source that you mentioned! Frankly I am satisfied with the 40X data.

As you infered it does not matter a lot when shooting at big game, at least not to me.

Today the 30-06 (#1A) outshot the 308 (84M). The best load was military armor piercing.

NONE... prejudice is a magnificent thing, facts be damned.

Hmmm.

I don't know. But I think that the statement that one cartridge is inherently more accurate that another takes in a lot of terratory.

1) On a mounted test barrel is the cartridge itself inherently more accurate?

2) In typical like-class rifles is the 308 more accurate?

3) In practical hunting rifles does the average shooter attain more accuracy with the 308?

Three similar questions, but the answers I would wager are probably very dissimilar. I'd buy 2 and 3 pretty easily. In my experience the aught-six pumps out just about enough recoil to disturb most hunter/shooters in about a dozen rounds. The shorter action probably helps too.

But number 1... that one will take some doing. The aught-six has just enough accuracy potential and reputation that this one might be a bear to accomplish for most 30-06 afficienados.

No one will come up short on opinions though. We all draw from what we see. And although I cannot explain it I submit that the 30-06s son, and the 308s cousin, the 270 is not in a league with either. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" />

Will

Assuming the '68 Gun Digest story produced reliable results (I use the caveat only because I haven't seen the data/analysis to judge the reliability for myself), I would say that study would be sufficient for me regarding the cartridges in the study.

That being said, it would be interesting to see how the 7mm-08, .260, WSMs, and RSAUMs, would stack up against the older chamberings, particularly the .308. Personally, I think it would be cost prohibitive to do a definitive study unless it was part of something that some manufacturer already does as part of their business. However, I think you could probably do a statistically valid (albeit still expensive and exhausting) study with as few as five or ten barrels in each chambering if you fired enough rounds and had exacting standards for the various variables including barrel and ammo manufacturing.

I wonder if one of the rifle manufacturers who test fires every rifle for groups, not just function, (e.g., Weatherby) would be able to collect similar data for hundreds of barrels. As you mentioned, a manufacturer like Nosler could probably also provide good data. For the old cartridges, I think the data from the Remington study suffices for me. However, I would be interested in your doing an article that goes over the old Remington study with new data comparing the newer short/fat cartridges I mentioned above to the .308 and a few other cartridges in the old study (e.g., .30-06, .270).

Yes to all the above and we need someone with a reputation of saying it like it is to write it up. Wolfe publications should back the testing and the research. But heck to what end? It won't sell more rifles nor more ammo & people will still have their pet calibres. Sounds an expensive undertaking too! But if you do, do it I'd love to read your results.

Regards
JohnT

MD
You are a glutton for punishment and a dreamer.

Maybe that's why we like you.
T <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

MuleDeer,
You are a glutton for punishment, but thanks for all you do! Perhaps a synopsis of the various companies that test for accuracy. Nosler, Sierra, Remington, etc. You could lead the article by diffusing the reader abit as you did in this post. Open the readers mind to the question at hand. Did I read that some gun writers do not accept the notion of "inherent accuracy"? Perhaps the article should be intitled "Inherent Accuracy: fact or fiction". The comments you and others made on the original thread answered my questions. I would enjoy reading an article on the subject. I still love the 30-06 as much as I always have, there is so much more to a cartridge than accuracy!! In fact, although I believe the .308 to be more accurate than the 06, I am more fond of the latter simply because of its history.

MD:

Oh, man, I'm sure I could think of a list of time-consuming things to study that I'd rather you spend your time on! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />

- TJM

There always has been interest in the topics of inherent accuracy or is one round more accurate than another.

If I was a gun writer I might just string it out and go from one relevant sub topic to the other, back and forth, over the years.

For instance an entire article could be written on "Does It Matter?" and of course conclude that it matters to some and not to others and in most circumstances it does not matter anyway no matter what the hunter thinks about relevant cartridge accuracy. Now that would just cover hunters. Target shooters are like lemmings or buffalo.

Then in another article two months later perhaps discuss specific facts on particular cartridges.

The thing about it all is that I see no end to it discussion wise until we all carry rifles made by Accuracy International and I don't think that we will as they are gone!

Mule Deer,

To do the comparison you need to eliminate as many variables as possible. While I haven't read Warren Page's Gun Digest article about 40X accuracy, that comes close to eliminating a lot of the variables (same mode action, same barrel source, etc.) but not all of them

I would suggest that (if the dimensions of the cartridge allow it) that a 308 be test-fired to your heart's conent to establish it's accuracy and then have it rechambered to 30-06 with no other work. Same barrel screwed into the same action and the stock stock with the same scope. Retest the accuracy with the same regimen (same attention to reloading detail, similar atmospheric conditions (no wind), same bullets) and see what happens.

I'm a No.3: Define inherent accuracy.
What I'd like to see: Match-grade heavy varmint contoured 30cal barrel ... chambered to "match-tolerance" 308Win. Use highest quality available components to assemble loads ... basically follow a "benchrest shooter" regime. Shoot for absolute accuracy. Then repeat by rechambering to "match-tolerance" 30/06 and likewise assemble loads with the highest quality components available. Not interested in velocity achieved ... only accuracy from the same barrel.
Of greater personal interest would be the above repeated but with standard chambers to SAAMI spec and suitable for factory ammunition. No assembled loads this time, but rather a selection of factory ammunition covering a variety of projectile weights. With factory ammunition I'm interested in which chambering gives the best average accuracy.
Would any of this really matter ... probably not! But it would be interesting.
Cheers...
Con

Black Hills--

That's a very interesting idea, and probably the most sensible yet.

As a matter of fact a noted custom riflemaker is doing a similar test right now for Wolfe, using the same barrel chambered to the .300 H&H and then to the .300 WSM, to see what difference in accuracy/pressure turn up in two case that a VERY similar in case capacity but totally different in shape. The rifle is a 35-pounder, set up with a full-diameter barrel, and all firing will be in an indoor range. (Yes, this can be done, since both chambers will essentially use the same throat. The overall length of the barrel will be slightly different, but the length from case mouth to muzzle will be the same. He had to order a special H&H chambering reamer with the same throat as the .300 WSM--basically almost no throat.)

As an aside, I actually have written about this subject before, off and on, because it is one that interests readers. One of the conclusions I reached some years ago was that some cartridges suffer from poor-quality brass. The 284 Winchester was one until a few years ago, because demand was low and so Winchester did not retool for a long time. The worn-out dies produced really lop-sized cases. But they re-tooled a few years ago and things improved, including .284 accuracy.

Somebody on the other thread suggested that I had written a relatively recent article claiming "inherent" accuracy did not exist. I believe they were confusing me with Ross Seyfried (not an easy thing to do, since not only is Ross about half a foot taller but blond), who did write something to that effect for Wolfe. As I recall Ross's piece was not based on any tests or data, but was his own conclusions--though he did admit that maybe the .22 Hornet wasn't near as accurate as most other .22 centerfires.

I have seen enough data from various sources (as well as my own shooting) to be convinced otherwise, and for the very reasons Warren Page outlined in his GD piece almost 40 years ago: To a certain extent we do know what makes some cartridges more accurate than others--a shorter powder column, and less powder capacity for the bore--but "proving" (or disproving) it sufficiently to convince many shooters might be a trick, since so many shooters are prejudiced. Hell, even supposed scientists are: Look at what's been going on for so long on the 168 TSX/180 AccuBond thread.

I would also urge any interested in the question to find a copy of the 1968 GD and read Page's piece.

MD

Only caveat is more than one rifle should get this treatment... that will get epensive quick. Course a one-rifle test is a good way to reintroduce the 1968 data in, say, an upcoming article... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

If I might offer an opinion John, I think the biggest reason why you have problems getting folks to buy into the inherent accuracy argument is the lack on an overarching theory as to why.

Does the shorter case have a more reliable and consistent ignition and subsequent burn?

Is it that the 308 often comes in the short action and it has an accuracy edge due to stiffness and less flex?

Things like this are argued to the point where an average hunters head spins and he has no idea if he is being fed a line or not. So I would offer that without either lots of emperical data with recent components it is difficult for folks to know when to be skeptical and when to listen and learn.

I know I might be asking too much. But I think that might do the trick if backed up with a good test like the ones mentioned above.

Will

I now think "Perfection is the enemy of 'good enough'," but that's a recent epiphany, and a month ago I'd have wanted those "couple or three tenths at 100 yards." I suspect the non-loony crowd with one rifle are wedded to what they've spent their money on, sweated up and down ridgelines, and slung while dragging that buck over deadfalls and through creeks. They won't want to admit that Ol' Betsy is less than perfection.

To persuade them otherwise will take the combined weight of several folks they trust - maybe the statements of many noted barrel-makers and benchrest winners. Still, you'll have to give them something. Maybe, for instance, all the testimony might say, "Yes, the .308 tends to be more accurate over thousands of barrels, but any individual 30-06 might be more accurate than an individual 308." It has the benefit of being true, and allow face-saving over a decades-old choice.

Maybe, OTOH, you give them "huntability;" "Yes, in its competitive form, the 308 is more accurate, but those bull barrels are hard to carry..."

Jaywalker

I think the first think one should ask is, �Does inherently more accurate mean better, and if so, when?�

Inherent accuracy aside: Benchresters don�t choose the .308 because it has too much recoil. 1000 yard shooters don�t choose it because it doesn�t have enough velocity. Considering everything in between, the minute difference in �inherent accuracy� would amount to nothing on a practical level.

The only place where I�ve ever seen �inherent accuracy� really make a true difference is in Benchrest Competition. I bought a Shilen DGA Benchrest rifle in .222 just about the time the PPC rounds were becoming popular. In a short time, everyone but me had a PPC and I just couldn�t win anymore. Other than that, I�ve yet to see �inherent accuracy� ever amount to �better.�

Better �inherent accuracy� doesn�t make it a better game harvester, because we know through decades of use in the hunting fields (as MD has already mentioned), hundreds of other cartridges will get the same job done just fine.

Is it easier to build an accurate .308 than it is to build an accurate .30-06? When I was building rifles, I seemed to think it was, but the difference was rarely more than � MOA when all other things were the same. Would that � MOA ever mean anything in the hunting fields? Of course not.

So, let�s just say the .308 is inherently more accurate. I think by taking a good look at hunting in general, that �inherent accuracy� edge really amounts to nothing but Loony discussions. At the risk of offending or even initiating a Holy War, I�ll go as far as to say; for deer hunting, everything being the same (rifle, bullet, reasonable range, angle, field conditions etc) there isn�t a plug-nickle difference terminally with any cartridge from .257 to .30-06. The only differences are in our heads, and that�s why we�re Loonies.

Gungeek that is some really good stuff. We argue the heck out of differences that may not even exist. Tiny differences in performance seem to be magnified and some very good stuff in gun history has been axed on nothing more than fly specks.

I am not intending to highjack the thread but a better question might be this: The benchrest phenomena has truly helped the hunting community attain higher accuracy but has it perverted our perception of what makes a good hunting rifle and an accurate marksman?

I had two benchrest guys at the range last friday almost fall out of their chairs when they saw me going through the procedure of the NRA sporting rifle match. Offhand? Prone? Sitting for crying out loud?

I had to smile. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Will

MD, I really do think we have a definitive answer, simply because of the overwhelming amount of evidence from the target shooting community over the last forty years says that the 308's more accurate. That's good enough for me, although that answer comes from a world in which the issue of winning and losing is measured in thousandths of an inch.

Does that mean that the 30-06 isn't capable of super-accuracy? No, and there's plenty of evidence to prove that the '06 is "inherently accurate" in it's own right. Its record speaks for itself...........

Quite honestly, I don't care if the 308's more inherently accurate or not. My interest is big game hunting -- not winning target shooting tournaments. I've seen and/or have owned so many astonishingly accurate HUNTING rifles in so many different calibers (belted and non-belted) between .257 and .416 -- rifles that consistently produced sub-MOA groups (or even 1/2 MOA) time and again with good hunting bullets -- that I really don't take all of this "inherent accuracy" stuff very seriously. It's a fun topic for conversation, but for what I do, the discussion is fundamentally irrelevant.

AD

MD-
This is a first response to your initial post of this thread. You singled out for critique some of my points from the earlier 308 vs 30-06 discussion.

I can make one point quickly. A reply about another point will have to be posted later, because it is important enough to require crafting with some care and cogitation.

About your statement that, "... we have a custom accuracy gunsmith build 10 rifles in .308, and another 10 in .30-06 and see what happened. (To me, after the Remington "tests," this seems not only irrelevant, but quite strange..."

This was not what I suggested. In particular, I did not say that there should be a comparison of such rifles.

I was trying to get at the question (just as you are) of what forum readers would accept as a measure of inherent accuracy of any cartridge. I proposed a couple of alternatives that seemed plausible, and apologize for lack of clarity. I suggested that one possible measure of inherent accuracy for a cartridge might be group size produced by rifles and ammunition produced with the utmost precision and chambered for the cartridge. (I picked Mr. Coleman because I suspect that he can turn out .308 rifles that are about as accurate as any custom builder's, and that can almost certainly shoot group sizes smaller than the 0.572 of the 40-Xs produced by Remington forty years ago.)

My other suggestion, which seemed equally plausible for measuring inherent accuracy, was to find group size produced by a whole bunch of factory hunting rifles chambered for a particular cartridge. I did not write that either of these measurements would provide a definitive answer to the question of how to measure inherent accuracy. They were given rhetorically to get at the question of what exactly do we mean by "inherent accuracy". My couple of examples of possible ways of collecting data were intended to prompt thinking about how to measure inherent accuracy.

Once there exists an agreed-upon method of measuring the "inherent accuracy" of any cartridge, then we'll know what we mean by that term. One hopes that this present thread might produce such a method.

I think my earlier statement is still operative: that methods for measuring accuracy of a rifle exist, but not for measuring accuracy of a cartridge.

More later.
--Bob