which round should I go with

With those specifications, 308 easily.
>cheaper plinking ammo
>NATO standard
>only benefit 30-06 has is stabilizing very long bullets, which is only useful for hunting

>>34211791
Off the shelf? .308
Handloads .30-06

>>34211791
Fuddy ought six will be easy to find and loot everywhere if SHTF.

>>34211791
If you're only going to have one rifle 30-06 all the way.

Really the only reason not to go 30-06 is if you plan on carrying a shit ton of ammo (just get a backpack for your doggo) or if the rifle you want only comes in .308

>>34211791
Neither is a good recreational round, as they are both expensive. The best recreational round is 22 LR.

For killing men and animals, they will both do the job, so you may as well get the 308 for its shorter action and reduced recoil. The animals won't know the difference.

However, 30-06 offers better velocity for any given bullet weight, especially the heavier bullet weights. This is important for long range shooting and killing big game like elk. That being said, the average hunter will never kill anything bigger than a deer or have a need to take a shot further than 100 yards.

>>34211806
>>34211808
>>34211812
>>34211814
>>34211835
thanks

File: hey I got a question.png (307KB, 542x426px) Image search: [Google]

307KB, 542x426px

>>34211791
not op but which of those two would be better for long range precision shooting?

.308 from an AR-10 or 30-06 from a Springfield M1A? My dad did scout/sniper in the Marines and uses 30-06 with a huge optic but I'd like a second opinion.

>>34212335
>30-06 from a Springfield M1A

M1As are .308, anon, and their actions are incredibly expensive to accurize by glass bedding.

>>34212335
Garands are the 30-06, not the M1A's. That being said you will want a bolt action for long range shooting. I personally like remington 700s. If you're hell bent on Semi auto I've found remington 742 woodsmasters to be more accurate than my AR-10

>>34211791
bETWEEN THE TWO, DEFINITELY .308

>>34211791
.308 for sure

The only reason 30-06 is still considered a better hunting round is its nearly 50yrs older. The difference in velocity is not significant enough to outweight .308's benefit of being easy to find in shtf and its shorter length. If you want to shoot .30cal flatter and faster get a .300 win mag.

Not OP, but seeing as his question was answered, i have one of my own. Seeing as the general consensus is .308 being better in more scenarios, what about .270 vs. 30-06? What i think i know, .270 was made in direct response to 30-06, .270 using the same casing, just necked down to use the lighter bullet. Here's what i think i understand, with .270 being lighter and a flatter flyer, it does tend to be more finicky from manufacturer to manufacturer, even before taking grain weight into consideration, and the gun using that round may prefer one very specific type over another. Whereas, I've never heard of 30-06 having that problem. Probably because that casing was designed for that heavy bullet. The next rifle i buy will be either .270 or 30-06, not .308 because of some stupid autistic reason of mine that i can't just get over.

>you can put .308 in a FAL, therfore it's not a precision round

>but you put 30-06 in a Garand, yet this doesn't trigger my autism

Maybe it's the sheer commonality and practicality of it that turns me away from it. It's as basic as 9mm. I like to think of myself as practical, but i know I'm not, i gotta go against the grain because >fuck me, I'M DIFFERENT IN A SPECIAL PLACE

That and my range buddy is getting a .308, i want to keep things interesting.

File: 1496888596549.gif (2MB, 202x360px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 202x360px

>FAL's are .308 thus .308 is not a precision cartridge.

Are you saying this in a serious tone?

>>34216492

Like i said, autism. I think what i was trying to say was that the round can be either fit for a battle rifle or for a precision platform, in such a way to diminish the overall potency of the round. To say that it shines in either one or the other, and certainly not at the same time (mounting a long range scope to a FAL)

I don't understand my illogical reasoning, I've tried changing my perspective, so has my range buddy, even a bunch of anons here, but i simply can't let go of my train of thought. Perhaps it's an inexperienced part of me. I've never owned a precision rifle before, but i have shot a 30-06 before.

>>34216578
>Has a hilarious break of logic and refuses to crush the mental association that you already understand to be dumb.

Give yourself a hit of LSD and stagger naked drunk in the streets of your local town for a couple nights, it will evaporate the stupid bullshit that resides inside you.

>>34216590

Again? Oh, wait, that wasn't LSD last time. Not entirely sure where i can get any, but it never hurts to ask around.

>>34211835
>have a need to take a shot further than 100 yards.
better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it

>>34216473
>using the same casing

Not quite. .270's parent case is 30-03, which is slightly longer.

>>34213147
>whoopsie.gif
>>34213230
not hell bent on semi-auto, but definitely preferred. Why a bolt action? And thank you for the suggestions.

File: the-thinker.jpg (107KB, 283x424px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 283x424px

>>34211791

If the .30-06 is so much better than .308 as people in this thread are claiming, why did the Army abandon .30-06 in favor of .308?

>>34211791
.30-06 if you handload. Its versatility is highly underappreciated.

what you guys lowest price per round on handloaded .308 and .30-06?

>>34211791
.30-06 sells more reloading dies per year than any other cartridge. That may tell you something.

>>34219124
Politics and payola.

>>34219898
.30-06 is the way to go.

>>34219124
lrn2read

>>34219663
That it's more expensive commercially.

>>34219663
That fudds think bigger=better?

>>34219124
Short action semi auto rifles are more plentiful and cheaper.

>>34211791

PTR-91 with a 20" barrel (thats where the sweet spot is).

Magazines are cheap as fuck.

File: 1.jpg (382KB, 1200x548px) Image search: [Google]

382KB, 1200x548px

>>34220249
btw this IS THE type of weapon that the gun grabbers actually want to get rid of

they dont care about pistols and shotguns, its .308 class semi-autos that bear the biggest danger to an invading army on domestic soil

they'd like to get rid of the ARs and AKs too but... nothing says helmet splitting like a .308 even at 300 yards

>>34219124
>The 7.62x51mm offers the same ballistic performance as the original 1906 load for the .30-06 Springfield, the cartridge it replaced in U.S. service. Modern propellants allowed for similar performance from a smaller case with less capacity, a case that requires less brass and yields a shorter cartridge. This shorter cartridge allows a slight reduction in the size and weight of firearms that chamber it, and somewhat better cycling in automatic and semi-automatic rifles.

so in other words because of modern gunpowder, they didn't need to load the cartridges full like in 1906 to get the same performance with the longer shell and wanted to save money on brass and gunpowder.

they didn't even consider the fact they could use the same cartridge with modern gunpowder for a super 30-06

there is a reason why 30-06 is the standard for lvl IV penetration

>>34220340
muh 55 grain XM193 @ 3200fps tho

>>34220631
>they didn't even consider the fact they could use the same cartridge with modern gunpowder for a super 30-06

Why design a new gun using the same size cartridge but overpowered when 30-06, and subsequently .308, is already more than enough? I know this board jerks off over battle rifles and I do too, but there's a reason why we don't use them anymore.

>>34220631
The Garand couldn't have handled super .30-06 anyways. They needed a new gun so decided to go for smaller cartridges and box mags.

>>34220744
>>34220765
they needed a new gun anyway so it wouldn't have mattered if they designed something that worked with modern loaded 30-06

in anycase its a moot point and either a plastic cased 7.62x51 or 6.5 creedmoor is going to replace both the 5.56 and 7.62

>>34220765
The real fuckup was not using the garand in its designed caliber. Then when they made the m14 it might have actually been good

>>34220813
Yea, a 6.5mm round is about perfect for a infantry rifle, hopefully it doesn't get fucked up somewhere along the line

>>34220835
>hopefully it doesn't get fucked up somewhere along the line
it will

File: 1497144883611.png (339KB, 900x900px) Image search: [Google]

339KB, 900x900px

>>34220835
>DoD procurement
>hopefully it won't get fucked up
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

>>34220835

>Yea, a 6.5mm round is about perfect for a infantry rifle

I used to think like this. Fortunately I have no seen the error of my ways. There is no credible benefit for a 6.5 round. 5.56 does its job well. 7.62 does its job well. Both fill a niche and fill it will enough that there is no reason to introduce a third rifle caliber.

>>34218990

not the same anon but bolt action rifles are inherintly more accurate by design. The diversion of gas to operate the cycling mechanism in a semi auto causes a slight drop in the maximum accuracy possible.

Realistically its really not that big of a deal. But if you are into competitive shooting, or otherwise want to have sub MOA groupings, bolt action is the way to go.

Plenty of options for semi-autos, basically just look at WW2+ milsurp. For bolt actions there also plenty of options; take a peak at tikka or savage. Tikka t3x will shoot sub MOA right out of the box and has an absolutely amazing trigger and action - goes for about a grand. Savage makes some good rifles that are maybe a touch less accurate but still damn good and slightly cheaper. Rem700 is pretty basic but not a bad choice, and has basically endless modifications/upgrades available. It wont shoot as well out of the box but people can turn it into a pretty nasty rifle by throwing money at it.

>>34221015
Hell, even a Henry Long Ranger levergun will do about 1MOA.

>>34220852
>>34220862
Hey a little hope never killed too many. The project is so under the radar compared to the Ford class carriers and the F-35 that it might not get dicked with too much

>>34220883
I don't see why it couldn't. 6.5 grendel for example is comparable to 7.62 at long range, with slightly more recoil than 5.56

I had this same issue 6 months ago, but I was between a 308, 300blk, 300 win mag and 06. I went with a 30-06.

-tinfoil prep time, heres why.
30-06 is faster, therefore will hammer through higher class body armor and vehicles easier. Its easier to find old ap 3006 rounds than ap 7.62.
5 dudes in my group already had 308 ar10s but no one had an 06 so as far as scavenging went, I didnt want to split resources a third time. Also for scavenging, 3006 is wildly popular among older fudds. Also this rifle was replacing an old mauser im tired of lugging around innawoods, and innashrubgrass. My next is a supressed 300 blk bolt, that im going to buy a nice thermal scope for.

OP here. I forgot about this thread but just found it again. Decided on the .308. >>34220344

>>34220883
>Both fill a niche and fill it will enough that there is no reason to introduce a third rifle caliber.
I feel like this line of thinking will bite us in the ass one day. If we're capable of creating a better caliber and building a new system around it then we should, costs be damned.

>>34221263
you have chosen, poorly

>>34216681
Unless you have thousands of dollars to spend on a elk or sheep hunt out west in the mountains, you will never have a need for long range shooting. You can hunt deer in the eastern USA for decades and never take a shot over 100 yards.

>>34221479

>not living out west

>>34221492
We can't all live out west
t. Ohioan who wants to live out west.

>>34221404
Explain why or gtfo

>>34221203
I'm coming to a similar decision point, but as a lefty shooter I'm limited to a very few bolt guns. If I go .308 I get an 18" lefty Ruger Scout. If I go .30-06 I get a Tikka T3x. I'm leaning towards the Tikka because I already have a 10+1 .44mag for dense brush.

>>34221519
.308 is a weak calibre designed to cut "waste" in an era where they couldn't fathom bodyarmor becoming light enough and rigid enough would ever be developed
I spell it out here.
>>34220631
>there is a reason why 30-06 is the standard for lvl IV penetration

>>34211812
Someone says this every time. Yes every fudd in the world has a 30-06 however they probably shoot 30 rounds a year so they probably don't have a huge stockpile. Those that do shoot a fair amount also have .308s.

>>34221543
You're forgetting the really old fudds and CMP scalpers with thousands of rounds of M2 ball for their Garands.

>>34218990
In SHTF you will never need sub MOA. Semis can offer MOA fairly cheaply. Fudds believe their bolt actions are more accurate, which is true, the part that they get wrong is that they believe semi auto is inherently inaccurate. I've built 500 dollar ars that shot MOA, the FNAR shoots way below MOA. TLDR; you can buy a 300 dollar bolt gun that will out shoot a 600 dollar AR, but not in any meaningful way.

File: 1411517396311.jpg (404KB, 1192x1241px) Image search: [Google]

404KB, 1192x1241px

>>34211808
On this note anyone know what a hot velocity of 30-06 vs .308 is? Also could one load black powder 30-06. I am too retarded to do a search

.308, 30-06 is mostly used fudds and milsurp anymore, ballistics are almost same.

File: 1471482803344.jpg (7KB, 250x237px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 250x237px

>>34221565
Don't you worry about the scalpers, they're gone 1st

>>34221606
>ballistics are almost same.
not even close

>>34221597
You can load black powder in everything. In modern rifles it is always going to be a compressed charge. However you will need to clean .30 caliber rifles often because of fouling. There is a reason black powder rifles were generally larger .45 caliber.

>>34221631
.45-70 is generally a good round for BP. Doesn't foul too quickly, guns and brass are common, and you can reload on a stump or a flat rock.

>>34221512

Its ok, im inna rugged ass desert, not yuge mountains

>>34221621
100fps is close

>>34221597
You can load .30-06 FAR hotter than .308 due to case length, and due to most guns for fuddy ought six are bolt action you can load BP just it will be a bitch to clean.

File: 1373565248043.jpg (39KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 500x375px

>>34221542
>.308 is a weak calibre designed to cut "waste" in an era where they couldn't fathom bodyarmor becoming light enough and rigid enough would ever be developed

some would say if you're shooting at folks who would make .308 worthless with armor protection you probably shouldn't be shooting at them with just rifles

so you choose a heavier cartridge that is slightly more powerful because you're imagining some kind of hollywood film scenario where it's you and your 30-06 vs a squad of ultimate badasses armored head to toe

i hope you can aim, because at the very least you definitely won't be carrying as many chances to try again

>>34221631
Also to add you can't get the same velocities with black powder as you would smokeless, not even close.

If you're using cast bullets it would be a non issue because you don't want the bullets going faster than 1500~ generally so the barrel doesn't lead.

>>34221520

I went with a ruger American and have zero complaints. I love that rifle. And they come in lefty but im not sure in what calibers

>>34221646
if the 30-06 is loaded to 1906 specs with modern powder it blows it the fuck out

>>34221653
This is also why .45-70 has monstrous 500+gr cast bullets available.

Seriously if you're afraid of having to make your own black powder in a major SHTF, just get a .45-70.

>>34221650
the point is, level IV plates have to stop 30-06, not .308 to be certified.
why is that?

>>34221646

Please show me 3k fps factory ammo in 308

File: .308vs30-06.png (72KB, 698x1106px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 698x1106px

>>34221621
>muh superior threee-ooo-six

>>34221738
>nerfing the 30-06 so the 308 has a chance

>>34221738

>s...see guys, its barely better

>>34221702
You seem to think that people are arguing that -06 isn't a powerful cartridge, even more powerful than .308. We aren't. We are saying it doesn't fucking matter.

>>34221747
http://gundata.org/ballistic-calculator/

Go try it yourself.

>>34211791

Get a 308. If you really want to hunt and you need more than 308 get 300 Win Mag.

>>34222221
>>34222222

>>34219190
I hand load 30-06 for 60 cents a round. The cheapest stuff in Walmart is about 80 a round and not nearly as accurate

>>34221738
What fucking barrel length? What kind of shitty data representation doesn't list all variables?

>>34222307

You're right about that, but it does give wind resistance, humidity, elevation, atmospheric pressure, and even have a drag function option, all being completely customizable.

>>34211791
Unless you have a pingerator, 7.62 REAL FUCKING NATO every time.

>>34211791
>SHTF
.30-06. If IT HAPPENS .308 will be taken by a bunch of mall ninjas who think 5.56 isn't enough while hunters won't get quite as nervous.

>>34211791
.308, because money.

I don't really like .30-06, because in the modern gun world it fills a niche that doesn't need to be there. Want a cheap, good hunting round that can be found everywhere? .308. Want a round with some balls, for long ranges or large animals? .300WM. There doesn't need to be anything in between IMO

>>34223927
Fuck that. .264 win mag for long range deer shootery is best.

>>34224181

The 300 Win Mag and 308 use the same bullets. If you roll your own you can buy say a 180 gr bullets and then load them for both guns.

With the 264 you now have to buy different bullets.

>>34221671
>.45-70 government
taste the rainbow. shoot the rainbow.

>>34221671

It's the only government you can trust.

>>34216614
Not him, but definitely kill yourself.