308 vs 30.06

kennyc

Well-Known Member
Of course I'll drop this on the table. As HEYM SR20 alluded to. The .30-06 is Meuse Argonne; Wake Island; Bastogne; Chosin. The 7.62 NATO is to that what exactly? Part of what I do enjoy is the connection, the links, that something that binds us to those we knew, or never knew, that came before. Like using my late father's shotgun that he had new in 1919 as a twelfth birthday present. Or an old hammer gun wondering who owned it and what they did with it and indeed what became of them. The .30-06 is overlong, antiquated, uses more powder, needs a longer action. But maybe it needs that extra length to also accommodate the ghosts of history that it carries within it. The .308 is a good, efficient, effective and etc., etc., cartridge of 52mm length. And it has that shorter case as it contains no soul.
if you forget the US use, then Malaysia, Northern Ireland, the Falklands,Vietnam, The first Gulf war (and probably the second) Afghanistan, Rhodesia, generally in various bush wars and insurgencies, and as many other Historical conflicts as you could manage to research!
 

dodgyknees

Well-Known Member
a friend got one, he loves it, it has had to go back for a set of new sight, which he is less than impressed about as the new set solve some problems and insert new problems, overall he is a happy bunny, but whoa! it was spendy to buy !
The Colt C-19 version is manufactured with sights made to a different design, to the specs and satisfaction of the Rangers. In the selection process, the Rangers also changed the trigger design (to a 3 position safety). The first batch of Tikka consumer Arctic CTRs had a surprisingly poor quality sight design that Beretta then replaced with the C-19 sight design under warranty.

Interestingly, the Rangers get to choose what optic they want mount... up to the individual!

The Rangers also got to specify what ammunition they wanted, and they decided on a staunch load under the Nosler 180gr Accubond. Now I think it sounds pretty cool, the whole story of engagement and field testing, design changes and extended Arctic trials... and a bullet specifically designed for large, heavy animals. The new service rifle is intended to be standard issue for 30+ years!

I had no idea that the Tikka consumer version is retailing for such a ridiculous price compared to a normal CTR!

@alberta boy do you have anything to correct or add to this story?
 

Konnari

Well-Known Member
No. 30-06 has a 60% higher felt recoil for something like less than 10% more mv. You can quite happily push a .308 to 180gr.
you should recalculate that recoil difference of yours ! It’s more like 10% difference in recoil with same bullet weight which is very minimal and with a moderator I can’t tell the difference
 

Attachments

alberta boy

Well-Known Member
The Colt C-19 version is manufactured with sights made to a different design, to the specs and satisfaction of the Rangers. In the selection process, the Rangers also changed the trigger design (to a 3 position safety). The first batch of Tikka consumer Arctic CTRs had a surprisingly poor quality sight design that Beretta then replaced with the C-19 sight design under warranty.

Interestingly, the Rangers get to choose what optic they want mount... up to the individual!

The Rangers also got to specify what ammunition they wanted, and they decided on a staunch load under the Nosler 180gr Accubond. Now I think it sounds pretty cool, the whole story of engagement and field testing, design changes and extended Arctic trials... and a bullet specifically designed for large, heavy animals. The new service rifle is intended to be standard issue for 30+ years!

I had no idea that the Tikka consumer version is retailing for such a ridiculous price compared to a normal CTR!

@alberta boy do you have anything to correct or add to this story?
Nope , you pretty much covered it . I do know a few Rangers and had the opportunity to put a few rounds down range through one of their rifles . Overall , a very nice rifle , and very accurate with the issue sights . You're also right about the original sights , they weren't very durable , I believe that's what the commercial version still has , I may be wrong , I've only seen the early production commercial models ( I've compared them side by side , they are not the same ) .
It is a very good choice for it's intended purpose , whether it's as durable as the Lee Enfield No4's remains to be seen . You wouldn't believe the beating these rifles endure year round . Undoubtedly , there will be some issues in the future , there always is , but I'm sure the Armourers will come up with a maintenance routine . Most on here would be surprised with the optics showing up , the majority are low powered variables and .... gasp ..... fixed 4 powers , maybe the Inuit know something we don't lol .
By the way , if you want to see what will go wrong with your T3 in about 20 years , check in with me next spring . A rifles lifespan in the Arctic is kinda like dog years , only a little worse , about 10 to 1 .


AB
AB
 

enfieldspares

Well-Known Member
I would have thought it cheaper just to re-barrel the old No4 rifles. In, yes, .303, but not machining the bayonet lugs if that saved cost. Apart from the extractor claw and its spring I don't actually think that there's much that does break or wear out on a No4 that isn't in 2020 a simple lost wax casting or CNC operation. And no top handguard so leaving an exposed steel barrel on a rifle used sub-zero sounds not quite sensible. The "worn out magazine" argument doesn't hold water...again it'd be cheaper just to make five thousand new magazines surely? And butts and furniture can be AND IS injection moulded for the No4 currently.
 
Last edited:

alberta boy

Well-Known Member
I would have thought it cheaper just to re-barrel the old No4 rifles. In, yes, .303, but not machining the bayonet lugs if that saved cost. Apart from the extractor claw and its spring I don't actually think that there's much that does break or wear out on a No4 that isn't in 2020 a simple lost wax casting or CNC operation. And no top handguard so leaving an exposed steel barrel on a rifle used sub-zero sounds not quite sensible. The "worn out magazine" argument doesn't hold water...again it'd be cheaper just to make five thousand new magazines surely? And butts and furniture can be AND IS injection moulded for the No4 currently.
There is a large amount of that going on privately around here . Truth be told , the majority of the Rangers I know didn't want to switch to the Tikka . There's nothing wrong with the new rifle , but Lee Enfields of all Marks have a long history in this country . It's not nostalgia , they just work under all conditions , so their reluctance isn't without reason . I have more Lee Enfields , Enfields ( and one Lee Metford ) than I care to admit . If I were limited to one rifle , God forbid , I wouldn't feel handicapped if all I had was a decent No4 ............... that being said , I'll still buy another Tikka lol .

AB
 

dodgyknees

Well-Known Member
I am not surprised to hear that lots of guys didn’t want to change over. That is an entirely normal perspective after so many years of trusting critical equipment that is proven in the harshest of environments, the kind of equipment that can quite literally determine life or death. We come across resistance to these kinds of changes in all aspects of life.

This is an example of resistance to change that has credibility. Unlike all the whinging Swede shooters every time they hear the word Creedmoor!
 

alberta boy

Well-Known Member
I would have thought it cheaper just to re-barrel the old No4 rifles. In, yes, .303, but not machining the bayonet lugs if that saved cost. Apart from the extractor claw and its spring I don't actually think that there's much that does break or wear out on a No4 that isn't in 2020 a simple lost wax casting or CNC operation. And no top handguard so leaving an exposed steel barrel on a rifle used sub-zero sounds not quite sensible. The "worn out magazine" argument doesn't hold water...again it'd be cheaper just to make five thousand new magazines surely? And butts and furniture can be AND IS injection moulded for the No4 currently.
It's a case of the entire rifle just getting worn out . Receivers that are worn out of spec causing bolt binding issues , bolt head guide rails worn down to the point where the bolt will jump out of engagement . It's in no way a condemnation of the rifle or it's design , the opposite in fact . There are few rifles made today that could endure the amount of punishment these rifles have seen , they've just reached the end of the line . The Lee Enfield is a classic battle rifle in every sense of the word , I'll never be without one , but the Rangers were in need of something new . Will the Tikka stand up to fifty years of the same treatment ? Probably not , but in their defense , they weren't designed to . The No4 was designed in the past , they did things differently then . For better or worse , we don't build rifles like that anymore .

AB
 

secondtry

Active Member
A 30.06 with a 22" barrel using factory ammo is only a whisker in front of a 308 using factory ammo, and will have more blast and recoil.

I expect that in the UK you will be chopping the barrel to no more than 20" and fitting a mod. If that's the case the 06 will have nothing over the 308 except more noise and recoil.

I have loaded for several rifle of both calibres, and for 165/180s and bigger animals, I am a big fan of the 06; but for your likely usage and conditions, the 308 is a hands down winner.
 

Heym SR20

Well-Known Member
Picking up on some earlier comments. 303 and 30-06 definately on the winning side in major conflicts - both world wars which ended in surrender.

However did we really win the Cold War? And in plenty of the smaller nasty little conflicts Korea, Malaya, Vietnam, Rhodesia, Border War the 308/7.62 was on the side that at best resulted in a stalemate, but in reality was a tactical withdrawal / defeat / sold down the river by politicians type result. And the 7.62 has largely been put to one side in favour of the 5.56.

Now if really want a good 30 Calibre it must be the 7.62x39 as in AK47 Cartridge. And its the weapon all the elephant poachers use so clearly capable on all animals. :)
 

Kalahari

Well-Known Member
A 30.06 with a 22" barrel using factory ammo is only a whisker in front of a 308 using factory ammo, and will have more blast and recoil.

I expect that in the UK you will be chopping the barrel to no more than 20" and fitting a mod. If that's the case the 06 will have nothing over the 308 except more noise and recoil.

I have loaded for several rifle of both calibres, and for 165/180s and bigger animals, I am a big fan of the 06; but for your likely usage and conditions, the 308 is a hands down winner.
I have to agree that you won't get the best out of a 30-06 with a short barrel. 24" to make the best of the cartidge capacity and a burn rate for a smooth push rather than a sharp bump.

David.
 

dodgyknees

Well-Known Member
I’m loving this thread. The OP made his mind up in post #10, but we’re all chundering along at post #59 with all sorts of action.

Military history, barrel length, drugs, ballistics, bears, recoil, Inuit Rangers, Blasers (oh no), all sorts of interesting stuff, with contributions from all over the world!

AND WE HAVEN’T STARTED FIGHTING YET!

Blimey. Long like .30 cal, seems like it’s some kind of panacea in today’s mad world, something we can all agree on...
 

geoshot

Well-Known Member

Looks like even the Department of Fish & Game in Alaska have changed their minds :oops: - they've moved away from recommending the magnums for new hunters in Alaska
They must have had to rescue too many googans or pepsi-max hunters of late

In short, they advise you bring a rifle that you can actually shoot rather than a magnum you've barely sighted in, but a 30-06 shooting 200grain "premium" bullets is reckoned to be "bare minimum" - maybe that should be bear minimum in this case
As ever, it's all about the bullet & where you place it - better one smaller calibre bullet in the right place than five or six big lumps in the guts
Having seen Alaskan coastal brown bears up close & personal in the sort of terrain and vegetation they thrive in, I still reckon I'd take my .375H&H if I was to go and hunt one of them though
 

Top