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

[Tacgunner]

.303 is a dead-end like 8X56R Hungarian is. Brass is limited, surplus ammo is more collectible than usable. .303 hangs on because so many Enfields were made. A fine rifle, like many it has its quirks (bedding issues). For those dedicated to Milsurp guns, have at it. Like I have told others who were buying up cheap Mosins years ago: just get an off the rack .308 and be happy. No, they wanted to "Bubba" their Mosins into a cheap sniper rifle. Years later, those same guys are still crying about how their old Mosin still "needs work" to be more better. My Howa in .308 has shot fine from day one with no extra tuning or bubba work.

Comparing .308 to 30-06 isn't fair. The .308 was an improvement to the 30-06 (better powder). Handloaded 30-06 in a modern action can be better than a .308, but you might not want to fire those hotter rounds thru your collectable Springfield.

Cartridges are an evolution of technology. Just look at the dizzying array of calibers for the AR rifle. None are a "does it all" caliber. You have to pick what fits your needs. If you reload, you can take that 30-06 and load rounds for squirrel, and other rounds can be loaded for elk. Reloading your own ammo means the argument of "best caliber" becomes moot. To a certain degree you have your own "kitchen" and can bake your own cookies, your way.

........puts last shovel of dirt on necro-thread.......

[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.

Side note: .30-06 is not 7.62x54; 7.62x54 is Mosin-Nagant ammunition developed in 1891 as a service cartridge. .30-06 is 7.62x63, and if we are talking military to military, then .30-06 M2 ball ammo is what has to be compared with .303 British (7.7x56) service ammo.

I can see that my challenge gave rise to some interesting comments, which was, of course, the objective. Can you find a .30-06 with better ballistics than .303 commercial ammo? Yes. Is there a wider range of .30-06 ammo loadings, particularly bullet weights, than there is for .303 British? Yes. Can you handload .30-06 to higher performance than .303, owing in particular to the greater case capacity? Yes. Is there a vastly greater number of rifles chambered for the .30-06 than there is for the .303? Without question. How about variety of bullet weights and types for handloading? Same answer.

The question is, however, do these differences make a difference? I maintain that the answer is no. For nearly any use to which such a caliber would normally be put - in hunting, for example - the nominal bullet weight that you would choose for either is "within spitting distance" of the other. For hunting as well, the bulk of large caliber hunting rifles are bolt action, so the existence of .30-06 semi-auto rifles is a largely superfluous characteristic - particularly since semi-autos are noticeably pickier about ammunition choice than are bolt actions. Is a .30-06 harder-hitting than a .303 of the same bullet weight - barrel lengths, etc. being the same? Sure - but being hit by a Chevy and being hit by a Buick pretty much ends up with the same outcome, curb weight differences notwithstanding.

We (at least in my own case, and among a fair number of my cohorts) tend to obsess over ballistics, 0-60 times, etc. to the exclusion of the bigger picture that many things are far more alike than they are different. Using a hunting round example, a typical choice in .30-06 is 180 grain soft point, at 2,700 f/s muzzle velocity; an equivalent for .303 British is a 174 grain soft point at 2,500 f/s muzzle velocity. For a whitetail or mulie buck, is it anyone's thesis that the British round's lethality is measurably subordinate to that of the .30-06? Would the deer take one more step before dropping if hit with a .303? That is, is the difference - quantitatively measurable, for sure - reflective of any realistic difference in the field - in practice?

We aren't comparing a .243 with a .375 H&H Magnum; we are comparing - indeed, splitting hairs over - two very closely matched cartridges, with billions of rounds of each fired in battle and in the field with nearly identical results. While it may be in the interests of gun manufacturers to whip up excitement over the next new 100 f/s muzzle velocity, or .10 inch reduction in group size, and in the interest of gun enthusiasts to, well, be enthusiastic about such improvements (we are, after all, enjoying ourselves with this stuff, life is short, and it's not the miles you've traveled but the smiles you've had over the miles, etc.) it is all too easy to get marketed into an obsession over details that aren't really of much consequence in effect. Isn't that what marketing and sales exist to accomplish?

So: I persist. They are the same. Prove me wrong.

[USMC3531]

Being the same and both getting the job done are two totally different things. Your own post proves they aren't the same....

[gsteele531]

Nice cop-out on the challenge, but your post doesn't prove they are different in the sense that one is materially - materially, now - better than the other. I'm not sure, in fact, that if measured by "getting the job done" proves them equal that they aren't equal, period - since the only reason to have a tool is to get a job done.

[USMC3531]

Nice cop-out on the challenge, but your post doesn't prove they are different in the sense that one is materially - materially, now - better than the other. I'm not sure, in fact, that if measured by "getting the job done" proves them equal that they aren't equal, period - since the only reason to have a tool is to get a job done.

All you are doing is talking in circles. There is nothing the 303 can do that the 06 cant do . 06 beats it in every category price,availability, selection,better and more options in reloading, etc etc. The only reason to own a 303 is for nostalgia and collecting old rifles. There is nothing "the same" about them

[Delkal]

A 250 FPS increase in velocity shooting the same weight bullet is a significant jump in performance. For a 50-100 FPS I would concede there is not enough difference to pick one over the other (.308 vs 30-06). But by the time you get to 250FPS you are in another class. A 300 Win Mag has about a 300 FPS increase over the 30-06. Not many people will say they are "the same".

Yes a perfectly hit whitetail wouldn't know the difference and if you have a .303 it will work just fine. A 30-30 shoots 200FPS slower than the .303 and it will work too.

[Gunplummer]

Why not re-barrel a mark III to 30-06 and see how "The same" they are. Go ahead. Run a box through and tell us the result. I used the 7.62x54 as an example because it came about around the same time the .303 did and it is still lagging behind the 30-06. I used to rework .303 British cases to 6.5 Japanese and I split one(.303) down the middle to check thickness and head location. OK for 6.5 Japanese, but not nearly strong enough for an '06 load. My .303 Savage has a case as strong, if not stronger than a .303 British case.

[gsteele531]

Yes - I believe it is ~possible to re-barrel an Enfield action for .30-06 - despite the latter having an overall cartridge length 10% longer than the .303 - with a LOT of work, but I don't know about the steel in the earlier Enfields being up to the task; maybe one of the more modern actions from Ishapore. During WWI, P14 rifles - originally designed for the .276 and then the .303, were barreled as .30-06 when shortages of the Springfield led arms manufacturers to use the P14 machinery to manufacture the M1917, but that's not the same as crowding a .30-06 into a Mk III. Moreover, I don't think the magazines would accommodate the .30-06's greater overall length.

Interesting finding on the thickness of the British case; of course, the .303 is designed for lower pressure than the .30-06 (45,000 CUP vs. 50,000 CUP), so that's not unexpected. Have you ever cut open a .30-06 case to compare with the .303?

Your comments do fall exactly in line with my point, of course - without measuring things like minor differences in velocity, or thickness of case brass, the differences are nominal - sort of like extolling the virtues of a car with more cup holders (not a bad idea, actually) that nonetheless doesn't get you to work any faster. Note that I haven't said that the .30-06 doesn't exhibit differences in performance from the .303 - only that the differences are nominal enough that they are essentially the same. And if I were to manage to cram a .30-06 magically into my Number 5 Mk I with a rebarrel and action job, I'm not sure I'd want to shoot it, as it already beats you up pretty well with a .303, thanks to its light weight and the flash hider effect. The dialog continues - no convincing arguments yet.

[Gunplummer]

Oh yeah, I have split a 30-06 case to check use for a 7.7 Japanese case. Absolutely heavier in both the military and commercial brands. Nothing hard about re-barreling a Mark III. You simply use it single shot. Go ahead, try it. Don't even re-barrel, just re-cut the chamber to 30-06 and let it rip. I would heat up the loads in my 8MMx50 Berthier before I would trust to do it in a .303. Stop talking and start doing.

[USMC3531]

Yes - I believe it is ~possible to re-barrel an Enfield action for .30-06 - despite the latter having an overall cartridge length 10% longer than the .303 - with a LOT of work, but I don't know about the steel in the earlier Enfields being up to the task; maybe one of the more modern actions from Ishapore. During WWI, P14 rifles - originally designed for the .276 and then the .303, were barreled as .30-06 when shortages of the Springfield led arms manufacturers to use the P14 machinery to manufacture the M1917, but that's not the same as crowding a .30-06 into a Mk III. Moreover, I don't think the magazines would accommodate the .30-06's greater overall length.

Interesting finding on the thickness of the British case; of course, the .303 is designed for lower pressure than the .30-06 (45,000 CUP vs. 50,000 CUP), so that's not unexpected. Have you ever cut open a .30-06 case to compare with the .303?

Your comments do fall exactly in line with my point, of course - without measuring things like minor differences in velocity, or thickness of case brass, the differences are nominal - sort of like extolling the virtues of a car with more cup holders (not a bad idea, actually) that nonetheless doesn't get you to work any faster. Note that I haven't said that the .30-06 doesn't exhibit differences in performance from the .303 - only that the differences are nominal enough that they are essentially the same. And if I were to manage to cram a .30-06 magically into my Number 5 Mk I with a rebarrel and action job, I'm not sure I'd want to shoot it, as it already beats you up pretty well with a .303, thanks to its light weight and the flash hider effect. The dialog continues - no convincing arguments yet.

So your arguement is because the both have bullets and can be fired from a gun they are the same. Since we aren't allowed to use science or measure anything about their size or performance.......