How close does .303 compare to 30-06 which is the best?

[Sprenfield_Fan1932]

Old old post but . iMHO the the 06 can do everything 303 can do the reverse can't be claimed.

I second the old post, but if I can put my 2 cents in, the question arising between .30-06 and .303 is negligible. Sure, the .303 is a BIT slower. Sure, it is rimmed compared to rimless cartridges like 7mm & 8mm Mauser. But nobody is asking the question which is more important: Does it matter?

Frankly, the answer is no. 10 years back or so I recall a Field and Stream article where a man bagged a Grizzly-Polar bear hybrid with a Lee-Enfield. Put me in that situation and I wouldn't trade that 10 round mag capacity for anything aside from maybe a Garand.

Which is better? Honestly, in bolt guns I prefer .303 because it kicks less and target reacquisition is much quicker. However, I love my Garand and in my eyes that thing is great. The gas action softens that recoil nicely. So it's a matter of function and opinion. To me, the Enfield and Krag are the apex of bolt guns because of their smoothness. That's just my opinion.

In summary, your statement that the .303 can't do what the .30-06 can do is correct, but only in terms of FPS. The Brits didn't keep it on Spitfires til 1946 for nothing...

[Pilot321]

Pretty much.

Trying to kill African "big gam"e with a round not even up to 30-06 ballistic standards is like hunting deer with a .22. Sounds like something the Brits would do really. Guess the .303 didn't work out so great or large caliber rifles (which look more like beefy shotguns) would have never been developed. Guess they got tired of shooting something a dozen times to kill it.

Hence the .416 Rigby.

[SgtRecon]

Lets keep this thread alive...I have to add this

[Gunplummer]

Nothing wrong with the .303. I had one I bought that was roughly cut down and stripped to hunt with. It had enough ordnance stamps on it to have been around the world 3 times. Very accurate with Remington ammo, BUT it is not even close to an '06. Nobody was ever fool enough to even rebarrel one to .308, except the Indian model. The truth is that the Brits simply did not want to spend the money(Just like the Russians). I worked with them in the early 80's and they had issues with their 1919 machineguns. I went to take a look and the cloth belts, You read that right, the cloth belts were dry rotted and pulling part. The Brits simply will not spend the money on the military.

[gsteele531]

I would offer the following, for perspective: there's no difference. Prove me wrong.

[Gunplummer]

Read my previous post. There is the proof. It does not even compare to a 7.62x54 because it is a black powder cartridge that slipped over into smokeless powder because the British simply refuse to spend money on their military.

[gsteele531]

Read my previous post. There is the proof. It does not even compare to a 7.62x54 because it is a black powder cartridge that slipped over into smokeless powder because the British simply refuse to spend money on their military.

That's all nice to know, but what Brits do or do not do with cloth belts and black powder (ages ago), budget decisions and logistics doesn't address the question. Prove me wrong that there's no difference.

[Pilot321]

For a 150 grain bullet, the 06 has about a 200 - 250 FPS advantage over the 303 depending on powder.

[Tacgunner]

In comparing the .303 Brit, .30-06, and the 8mm Mauser, we have to ask: "best" at what? All 3 work as intended as main battle rifle cartridges. The platforms they shoot from varies, and thus might have an effect on accuracy. All 3 do work as intended for military use.

"Best" for accuracy from a bench mounted test barrel? Depends on your intended purpose. What range would that be? Then it depends on bullet type and propellant. Refining the question would be asking: which rifle/system is better for what intended purpose. Again, all 3 calibers (and rifles, Enfield, Springfield and Mauser) work fine for infantry use in two world wars.

There are differences between all 3 with military issued ammo. But does that matter if using the intended rifle, or a test barrel? It all depends on what rifle and what caliber, not just a sterile look at the cartridges by themselves. Comparing the P14 and the M1917 rifle might be a better question (one in .303, the other in 30-06).

[USMC3531]

303 vs 308 would be closer. 303 is obsolete surplus has just about dried up, new manufactured ammo (like ppu) is underpowered to keep the old guns alive. Reloading components are harder to find and there are only a few options for rifles to fire 303 from. There is nowhere that the 303 beats the 308 or 3006