.308 vs 300 sav.
In a world before all the fat magnums and 6.8's etc there was a .300 savage, designed to compete with the 30/06 which it did. Looking at the reloading tables and comparing speed energy and bullet weights, why was it necessary to create a .308 Win?
And a wonderful cartridge like the 7mm-08 exists, why mess around with 6.5's and 6.8's? Just looking for some reason.
And a wonderful cartridge like the 7mm-08 exists, why mess around with 6.5's and 6.8's? Just looking for some reason.
0
-
I wondered that about the .308 myself. The .308 does have a longer neck tho, maybe the military designers preferred that to the short neck of the .300 Savage, allowing the bullet to be seated a bit farther out and thus increasing case capacity. 0 -
Because of the 7.62x51, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7.62x51mm_NATO 0 -
Difference in the web, meaning strength (capability to withstand higher pressures) means the 308 will almost always be able to work at a higher operating pressure. Rifling rates and the aforementioned case capacity increase and associated longer loaded length make the 308 capable of handling a better variety and weight of projectile. These factors surely helped reduce the popularity of the 300 Savage (one of my personnal faves though!) to the point that not much brass is produced any more so again, the 308 gets a leg up. In the end, I feel there is not a lot the 308 will do that the 300 can't be made to do, but +p ing everything is NOT the way to go these days! You want a 300 WSM? Buy a 300WSM!
As far as the 6.5's go. Everything old is new again! The 6.5 x 55 Swede was and still is doing quite well since 1894 or so. The 6.5 and 7mm bullets, partially because of the fast rifling twists they were designed for, are able to handle heavy, long bullets. This makes the projectiles weight very high compared to the diameter of the bore. This makes them ballistically more efficient than a bullet that is shorter in the barrel. In other words: The standard bullet weight in a 308 is around 155 grains. The standard military loading of a 6.5 x 55 was 160 grains, later 140 grains. With the older 160 grain 6.5 bullet, when comparing to the 155 grain 308 standard projectile, and considering the 6.5's diameter is ".264 and the 308, obviously, is ".308, you can see the length in the 6.5 barrel given nearly identical weights, will be much longer. Long, skinny bullets are more efficient, and will retain proportionately more of their energy downrange. For those that say a 6.5 can't provide sufficient energy compared to a 308, ask the millions of Moose that have fallen to it in Scandanavia. The 6.5 is still the most popular round for that purpose in that area, and when you think that there are just MILLIONS of 308 Moisins over there and people have a choice between the two, you see how the better penetration of the 6.5 along with proportionately heavier bullets makes it the king of the woods.
The newer 6.5's (6.5 x 284 for example) Use heavily boat tailed bullets of, again, heavy for bore weight length in a VLD format to make some of the best target/distance cartridges out there.0 -
There actually was a US Army T designation for a round that was pretty much a .300 Savage FMJ. I think they went to the .308/7.62 for a little greater case capacity to be sure of equalling early .30-06 ballistics with a longer neck and heavier construction for use in machine guns.
The 6.5s have their own background going back farther than even the .300 Savage, and perform very well. I understand the 6.8mm caliber was chosen by a big shot whose favorite rifle was a .270 Winchester and he determined that the new military cartridge should fire the same diameter bullet.0 -
The 5.56, 6.8 and 6.5 work in the AR-15. The 308 and 243 work in the AR-10. The 30.06 is even longer. Lee 0 -
quote:Originally posted by woodchuckjohn
In a world before all the fat magnums and 6.8's etc there was a .300 savage, designed to compete with the 30/06 which it did. Looking at the reloading tables and comparing speed energy and bullet weights, why was it necessary to create a .308 Win?
And a wonderful cartridge like the 7mm-08 exists, why mess around with 6.5's and 6.8's? Just looking for some reason.
Alot of it comes down to profit - like toothpaste, people enjoy variety in their guns and such. Some cartridges fill a niche, some are indeed a bit better than others.
The 6.5s have been around alot longer than the 7-08. I enjoy the heck out of my 788 carbine in 7-08, but it probably can't do anything a good old 6.5 Swede can't do as well. I have a 99 in 300 Savage, it's nice but doesn't have the range of a 721 in 300 H & H and the H & H handles heavier bullets.0 -
The .308/7.62x51 NATO was borne of the .300 Savage. One might call the .308 a .30-06'erized .300 Sav. The initial designation of the case was the T65 and it was the .300 Savage in original form. The final form, the T65E3 of the .308/7.62x51 was a change in the shoulder angle from 30 deg. (Sav) to 20 deg.(.308). This caused a slight overall increase in case length. This was done to help reliably feed the rounds in a machine gun. Second the actual neck length was extended as well giving the overall final case length of 2.015. Up from 1.912 of the Savage. Supposedly for the same reason. And lastly, the case had the shoulder blown out slightly from .447 to .454. This was done to better grip the chamber walls, although the 7.62 doesn't really employ high enough pressures to really make that an issue (such as the Ackley cases gripping chamber walls). Developers also noted it was easier to build magazines for the straighter cases. 0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
7 comments