Thread: Interesting view on the 308 v new calibres

These days my main work rifle is a .223 , over 20x rounds gets a bit tedious with a .308 these days. However, I have owned and used .308's for 42 years for hunting and target shooting out to 900 yds. Have taken every game species in NZ with one and have never felt the need for using another caliber. While I have taken game at some fairly long ranges I tend to live by the rule of being a better hunter and stalking closer. No-one makes a perfect shot every time at long range and it's not a nice feeling to lose a wounded animal. Just my 2c worth. Long live the mighty .308.

Originally Posted by Kiwi Sapper

OOhhhhhhhhhhh eeeerrrrrrr.............What was it and what caused it?

Just, pulling tentmans chain as it's a mouser action Mauser by interpretation
The older ones were not super strong as the tentman knows quite well.
Nothing to do with 308, like his comment.
KH

If people have managed to kill deer with longbows and spears for thousands of years...

Originally Posted by Bagheera

The 308 owes its ongoing popularity to:
Nato standard cartridge
Required in many shooting competition rules
Large existing market, knowledge base, production facilities and economies of scale.

Any cartridge that's even slightly inferior to the 308 (303, 8x57, 30/30) is one a one way trip to history, unless it has some decisive compensating feature (300 AAC, 358 federal, 44 Mag)

Therefore almost every other hunting and target cartridge in common use today is in some way better than the 308. (270, 6.5Cr,300WSM etc etc)

In my opinion, the 308 is a baseline benchmark everyone feels familiar with and its just a question how much better any other cartridge is by comparison, for whatever special niche or all round useage.

Everything is a trade-off. There is no "better" without giving something up in other areas. I think you worded it correctly when you said "is in some way better", as when all factors are considered im unaware of anything that is better all-round.

eg the cartridges you mention, all have pro's as well as cons vs the .308

.270 - reduced barrel life, long action, minimal efficient high-bc pills available.
The .300WSM is in a different class being a magnum cambering. Substantially increased ammo ammo costs, reduced barrel life, more recoil, reduced ammo availability, comparatively low capacity magazines etc.
With the 6.5cm - less barrel life, less energy out to ethical hunting ranges. At the point that a 6.5cm has more energy than a .308 you should probably be using a larger caliber anyway (600+ m), and to 600m there is very little meaningful difference in drop or windage when a fair comparison is run (most writers pit the 6.5cm with highly efficient ELD type bullets vs frumpy soft point flat base projectiles for a non-fair comparison). In fact last time i shot 700m with .308 I needed about 1.5mil less elevation than a 6.5cm that was next to me.


IMO when all factors are considered and fair ballistic comparisons are run, the .308 still has a lot to offer against any cambering.
Ill be shooting .308 out to about 1050m this weekend assuming the weather is OK.

The funny thing is, back in the day I never heard anyone saying 270's (or even 243s as I read somewhere recently) were barrel burners especially when using factory ammo.
They were all good for several thousand rounds minimum when looked after properly. 5k seems to be a number that popped up back then for centerfires.
maybe 22-250 and some of the magnums like the 7mm rem mag.
unless you were culling and only shot a couple of deer a year with a sight check every know and again, they were meant to last for yonks.

Originally Posted by rambo-6mmrem

My veiw on 308 if you’re a hunter who shoots off the shelf factory ammunition only
And wants a basic off the shelf rifle to shoot on game 300 or less
Go for it fantastic caliber for that imo you can get ammunition almost anywhere farm supplies etc where you may not find other common calibers like 7mm-08 for example

That’s where it ends for me if you a reloader/target shooter long range hunter etc etc then there’s far better calibers out there than 308.

I think the .308 is a fantastic cartridge for reloading and I haven't bought a factory round for one since 1987. It'll do anything any other cartridge can do up to 300m and do it well. Add to that it's far more versatile than most cartridges. By that I mean it will work in short barrels without too much in lost velocity, made for shorter actions and is generally an inherently accurate cartridge.

Originally Posted by andyanimal31

Then there is Todd Hodnett shooting 308s out to mile and getting on the steel.
Probably some footage on YouTube.

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

Then there is also whacking steel at 2 km

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnA1y3GDE_s

Originally Posted by csmiffy

The funny thing is, back in the day I never heard anyone saying 270's (or even 243s as I read somewhere recently) were barrel burners especially when using factory ammo.
They were all good for several thousand rounds minimum when looked after properly. 5k seems to be a number that popped up back then for centerfires.
maybe 22-250 and some of the magnums like the 7mm rem mag.
unless you were culling and only shot a couple of deer a year with a sight check every know and again, they were meant to last for yonks.

Not saying they are barrel burners as such, just that part of the trade off when going with a smaller caliber for a given powder capacity is reduced barrel life. I would class 7mm RUM, .264win mag, some of the Nosler cartridges etc as true barrel burners, some being poked at 600-800 rounds.
The more powder a cartridge has for a given bore diameter the less barrel life it will have.
eg .243, .260, 7mm-08, .308, all have similar powder capacities being based off the same parent case, so barrel life will follow from the smallest diameter having the least barrel life (.243), to the largest diameter having the longest barrel life (.308). The .243 would the most "overbore", and the .308 the least overbore out of the options mentioned.
A .243 barrel may be good for say 2500 rounds and the .308 good for 5000 + rounds. (im just making numbers up but they are probably in the ballpark - .308 may even be higher).
For some its may not be a factor worth considering, and for others it may be a fairly important consideration.

My point is nothing is for free when it comes to cartridges, everything has a trade-off in some form or another.
Is a few less clicks on the elevation turret worth a couple thousand rounds less barrel life? Is less energy at 0-600m hunting ranges, and slightly more energy at 600-1000 at the expense of a couple thousand rounds of barrel life a trade-off you would like to make? Is a couple inches more wind drift at 500 (so even less at closer ranges) worth a couple thousand rounds barrel life?

Im not sure, to each his own..
One thing is for sure, im glad we have so many great options to choose from.

@ChrisW all good mate. I do understand where you are coming from.
years ago 500m was a long, long shot. if you wanted to get something out that far it was 7mm rem mags, maybe the odd 300 and I did hear about a couple of 338's floating around my way back in the 90's.
if you told people you routinely shot game out past 6 hundy you would've been looked upon as a liar.
Nowadays it completely possible as we all know. Better rangefinders/scopes, powders and projectiles etc

Sweet, so is the 6.5 gaymore in the clear now?

Originally Posted by stevodog

Sweet, so is the 6.5 gaymore in the clear now?

6.5 is king no matter the case

I have a very accurate 6.5 Creedmoor. However, when after the big boys around these parts I prefer to use the .308. I'm not saying that the 6.5 CM won't kill them because it will with the right placement but the .308 gives me an advantage in being able to use 180gr bullets in pretty thick bush in a reasonably short rifle. A bullet that will smash the shoulder on a massive stag. I'm talking potential trophy heads of a lifetime that are possible in my local area and not stuffing it up with an adrenalin filled shot with a 140gr 6.5mm bullet.