.30-.30 v. .308

Just some info that I had put on another site when talking about the 308

The original T-65 case was based on the 300 savage cartridge. The 300 was originally developed to duplicate the velocity of the 30/06 in a shorter length action which it did. Later as powders improved the advantage that the 30/06 had over the 300 savage increased. When the US military was looking to again duplicate the ballistics of a 30/06 they decided that the 300 savage was no longer close enough so they developed the T-65 which later became the 7.62 NATO.
As stated there is headspace differences between the 7.62 NATO and the 308, however the 308 is also loaded to higher SAAMI pressure specifications and the case for the 7.62 is generally thicker as well.
You should have no problem shooting a 7.62 round in your 308, however with some military issue rifles such as some of the old spanish mausers you may develope problems as they were not intended to work with the higher pressures that the 308 generates.
I think if you read Bovine's original comment he states that he hunts with a 308, I think the issue he has is recommending a Norinco as a hunting rifle especially for a new hunter.
I personally don't like the Norinco for hunting, but like a mini 14 they can be a real fun play around gun.
For hunting I would prefer a lighter, shorter rifle that is more reliable especially in inclement weather and lower temperatures.
One of the beauties of hunting though you can hunt with what suits you and what you like as long as it is legal
 
Either cartridge is a must have. I have scouts in both 308 and 30-30. I'd pick either in a pinch.
 
Mulder said:
The .307 rifle (model 94 Big Bore) is not designed to handle the pressures the 308 generates.
Click to expand...

That's kinda scary. I wish I could rememeber which reloading manual it was, it wasn't part of my library, where the only thing they had to say on .307 was to use .308 loads. I seem to recall a statement of similiar effect in Cartridges of the World, but I could be misremembering it. I retract my statement about the use of .308 in the .307. *bows*

Oh, and coyotebc, please do. I ask becuase I've never seen an official source on the development of the 7.62x51mm that mentioned word one about the .300 Savage, only stuff from Savage or people who are strong proponents of the cartridge. No offense to anyone, it is a kinda "culty" cartridge and unless I see documents from outside of that cartridges hard core devotes I'm hesitant. The cartridge cases are very similiar dimensionaly, but so are .38 Super and some of the pre-WWII oddball 9mm cartridges- not always a happy coincidence. I'm not questioning your belief in what you are saying, just the quality of the source.
 
I'm not even going to get technical with ya'll, all I know is I've shot a lot of deer with a lot of different calibers, but without a doubt my marlin lever action 30/30 is my gun of choice inside of 100 yds in the hardwood bottoms we hunt in, its devastaing, never lost a deer with that gun, its also a dream in a climber due to its size/weight. Someone a few post up mentioned the .243 although this is a light caliber rifle, in open green fields from a shootin house, when one typically has a rest and time for proper shot placement I have to agree that rifle is strong medicine on deer sized critters.
 
i dont know why savage would promote the 300 savage anymore they havent sold a rifle chambered for it in what, 30 yrs lol?

as far as 762/from 300 savage FWIW i read it in guns and ammo magazine, i just dont remember the issue.
 
The fine old Savage model 99 is an interesting rifle having a rotary magazine and a bolt that tilts up to lock in the ejection port of the frame. This style of magazine allows it to safely use any shape of bullet, including FMJ as used in 7.62 NATO rounds. I had one of their later .308 99 carbines with a straight lever, straight grip stock, a narrow forearm, and a shorter barrel, but I was dumb enough to trade it off one time. I still miss it, but at least a friend got it. Savage also made a pump action .30-30 for a time. I passed up a good one in a pawn shop because it rattled a lot. Should have bought it anyway.
 
SIFU1A said:
i dont know why savage would promote the 300 savage anymore they havent sold a rifle chambered for it in what, 30 yrs lol?
Click to expand...

Savage? Not any more. People who think the sun rises and sets by their pet cartridge? LOTS of them. I've seen the same information a couple of places, and all of them site sources that site sources that are 40 years old.

It's like the "Ackley Improved" family of wildcats- there are people who will scream until they are blue in the face if you point out to them while they might have had value once upon a time, factory loadings perform just as well if not better with modern powders. Or the myth that round projectiles work better in brush- I still hear that one to. Until I see an Army document, or the personal papers and/or statements from part of the development team, saying there was a link to the Savage round, it's just another shooter's legend.
 
since the 308 came out what 50 yrs or so ago it would make sense to me that info relating to how the cartridge was developed would be 40 or 50 yrs old lol.

why dont you research it and give us a link to the skinny on the .308, it'll save me going thru old G&As looking lol.
 
well i went ahead and found it, only took about a minute lol, oh and i also rest my case.

and yes the 7.62 nato was developed from the 300 savage NOT the '06.



link is in next post it wouldnt work here for some reason, the one below does work though.
 
I reload a lot of ammo to spectacular performance levels but I cant make the 30-30 match the 308. My current favorite 30-30 load is a 125 grn bullet moving at 2700 fps. In my marlin 336 I shoot flat nose hollow points but in my bolt action I shoot spbt's. This load shoots so much flatter and it really anchors deer. After loading these up I realized that the 30-30 is not as antiquated as I though.
 
*pats S1FUA on the head* Congratulations, you found wiki. Wikipedia is not a valid academic source due to the utter lack of provenience of the sources. Rumors, heresay, legend and myth exist side by side with facts, history, and science there.

Find me an official document or something credible and documentable as coming from a member of the development team. Surprise me.
 
ironraven said:
*pats S1FUA on the head* Congratulations, you found wiki. Wikipedia is not a valid academic source due to the utter lack of provenience of the sources. Rumors, heresay, legend and myth exist side by side with facts, history, and science there.

Find me an official document or something credible and documentable as coming from a member of the development team. Surprise me.
Click to expand...


hey, ya know what, its not worth argueing with you about something so silly, if ya dont care about knowing WTF its your problem not mine, FWIW i havent seen you post anything to support your arguement and will consider it a closed deal for me until you post something which does, and isnt it odd that they would say exactly what i did, as far as i'm concerned, arguement over and won.

i knwo i'm right so whats the difference lol.

why dont you suprise me bud.
 
I'm on the fence on this one. Earlier I found the wiki entry you linked to. But unlike other entries there's no cite for the information in the article, in particular the part regarding the .308 being based on the .300 savage.

IMO wikipedia can't be regarded as a credible source without citing where the information came from. I'll wait for more info to make up my mind.

SIFU1A said:
obviously you didnt click on the above link, you are wrong.
Click to expand...
 
Just checked my sierra reloading manual. It matches the wikipedia description. Settles it for me, unless someone can show us some sources with an opposing view.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top