Why pick a .308?

[HELLSING]

I've been seeing a few pictures on other forums of "Tactical Bolt Action" rifles, where people try to dress their bolt-actions up like sniper rifles.

The majority of these rifles are .308 caliber. Why are there so many that are .308? Why not .270?

Isn't the .270 cheaper to shoot as well?

I might be wrong, but I'm still learning about bolt-actions.

[4Js]

The .308 7.62X51 has been the main US military sniper caliber round for many years. Basically all the homework has been done. Duplicate what military has used, and voila, an extremely accurate round.

Because of it's longevity, many high quality scopes are made with ballistic drop compensator reticules calibrated to that round.

A quick, readily available, affordable, highly accurate rifle.

[Badkarma 1]

Military surplus ammo! And .308 has a reputation (rightly earned) for accuracy and can thump things a long way out there.
You can go with another caliber, .30-06, .300 Win Mag, or even .338 Lapua. But the .308/7.62 NATO iS the backbone of the sniper world. Dale

[627 city hunter]

AR-10s
FALs
HK 91-93
Cetme
and of course M1s
AR variants
AK variants

Remington 700 series bolt actions

Many others.

Pretty much a 1 shot stop.

This is true for most rounds in rifle .3+

SLOW MOTION 308 Winchester Federal 150gr Fusion JSP impacting ballistic gelatin - YouTube

[LVSteve]

I only have .308 rifles because the ammo is readily available. I find that.308 can be quite nasty to shoot as ammo makers are trying to squeeze quart performance out of a pint pot.

As for 7.62 NATO, it was the answer to a question that did not need asking and saddled the Western world with a round that was too powerful to meet the original need of handheld full auto and then created added expense to replace it. The 7x44 and 7x49 intermediate rounds suggested after WWII were a better choice but the US ordnance board just would not be told.

[A10]

I think there are better choices in bolt guns but in a semi auto defense/multi purpose rifle I don't think it can be beat. The ammunition is reasonably priced and readily available (normally).

[627 city hunter]

.3+ calibers requires no double tap from what I can decipher through the internet.

.3+ penetrates many forms of body armor, buildings, and vehicles.

Basically, .308 (7.62x59mm), AK47 (7.62X39mm), and Russian - forgot the name exactly - (7.62x51mm) are excellent for uncertain times.

Hoard the ammo like Donkey Kong Country's Banana Hoard (SNES days lol after beating Krug or whoever). Fill up your shack with mo' ammo.

Forget about 'assault rifles' and buy real BATTLE RIFLES.

[LVSteve]

.3+ penetrates many forms of body armor, buildings, and vehicles.

True, but 6.5 mm and 7 mm rounds will penetrate as well or better at ranges under 500 yards because of their greater sectional density. .308 is not that great a penetrator without "ragged edge" loads.

Basically, .308 (7.62x51mm), AK47 (7.62X39mm), and 7.62x54R are excellent for uncertain times.

Fixed it for ya.

[Cdog]

The short action allows for a more rigid action platform than a longer one of the same strength.

The round is very powder friendly too. It's quite easy to load efficient rounds fired from a shorter tube than other calibers may require for optimum performance.

I've been shooting the .308 since I was 19, that was many moons back!

I've yet to find anything to dislike about it. Ample power, exceptional accuracy, and easy on the shooter/shoulder.

[kraigwy]

The real advantage of the 308s over the 270 is the availability of match quality bullets but that's changed the last few years with the introduction of high BC .277 bullets.

Try the Berger VLD .277 bullets and you'll be quite surprise. Berger and others limit the 270 to 150 grn bullets because of the twist weight of most 270 bullets.

However there are people out there making 165-175 bullets and if you have the faster twist bullets to stabilize these pencil bullets, there is no 30 cal bullets that will compete.

Get a good ballistic program (Berger Bullets Website has a great free program) and run the numbers.

Compare the 150 Berger, or the Hornady 150 grn SSTs with the bullets you NORMALLY find in 308s (meaning up to 180 gr) and you'll find that when you get out there, beyond 1000 yards, the 270 will more then hold its own.

[msinc]

Biggest reason to go with a 308 is the brass...keep all your empties. Because when you decide to convert the platform into a really great caliber {260 or 7mm-08} all ya gotta do is run the brass you already have thru the sizer die!!!!!

[mkk41]

The US military cartridges are also the most common match and target cartridges. The 30-06 , the .308 Winchester (7.62x51 NATO) and the .223 Remington (5.56x45NATO). More load development has been done with these rounds than most others combined. Data , brass , bullets are cheap and plentiful. There's military and commercial match ammo widely available.

Have never seen a single box of factory .270 match ammo.

[Joe Kent]

As a long time rifleman with multiple calibers of accurate rifles in the rack, we can argue /discuss {and enjoy doing it}"best" calibers all day, but in the end, just like the 45auto, we use the 30's because they work. They may not be the optimum round, but they do work and that is what most platforms are designed around , Sniping ,designated marksman, and for that matter serious rifleman quality battle rifles are still 7.62/308. Now I am also having a great time with the 6.5 calibers, but that is for another thread. All my best, Joe.

[Vegetaman]

I have an old hunting rifle in 7.62x51 NATO. It was built in... The 60s? Seems to be a good platform. Some guys can hit 400 yard targets at the range on iron sights...

[ACP230]

Surplus .308 brass used to be cheap.

That's one of the reasons I started recommending .308s to
people who wanted to know what rifle to get.

When I was reloading for the .308 I found it easy to make accurate
loads even though I wasn't using premium bullets.

[Texas Star]

Military ammo is one thing; hunting rifles are another.

For war and for match shooting, the .308 has the edge, if only because of availaiblitly and ease of feeding in auto weapons and commonality with machine guns using the same ammo.

The hunter wanting a ctg. with flatter trajetory may well prefer the excellent .270.

When the .308 came out, W.D.M. Bell was still living and he commented that the short action would have pleased him greatly when he was ivory hunting with his famed .275 Rigby (7X57mm with Rigby brand bullets). Not only is the .308 bolt throw shorter than for 7mm, .30/06, etc., the shorter action allows making a shorter rifle that's lighter.

Nonetheless, if I was looking for a rifle for pronghorn and other plains game, the .270 Winchester would be my first choice. If the plains game gets large, elk size, like the oryx or the sable antelope, it still works, as Jack O'connor proved. But I think I'd lean toward a .375 H&H Magnum for them. But O'Connor did find the 130 grain Nosler bullet in .270 worked well on lung shots. He also found that it killed moose as well as anything else he tried.

I think you should find and read,"The Rifle Book" and, "The Hunting Rifle" by O'Connor before buying a sporting rifle.

[mc5aw]

Before I sold it, my Socom 16 in .308 was a magnificent "battle" rifle ... easily maneuverable, a pleasure to shoot, and offered big .308 bang for the buck. I am looking to replace it with something more cost effective in a Russian contemporary platform ... 54R is very attractive, although my recently purchased Swiss 7.5 may fill the void quite nicely.

[4Js]

Shotguns are fun.

Handguns are a lot of fun.

But, rifles are interesting.

[R. G. Amos]

The 308 was designed to duplicate 30-06 performance in a more compact round. This is what the people who designed the post M1 Garand wanted in a battle rifle at the time.

[mkk41]

Originally Posted by 4Js

Shotguns are fun.

Handguns are a lot of fun.

But, rifles are interesting.

Only accurate rifles are interesting.

[David LaPell]

To me it depends on what you want. Do you want a strict "tactical" sniper rifle? Well then if that is the case the .308 can't be beat. If you want a hunting rifle, well it depends on what you are hunting. For my neck of the woods where a shot over 100 yards might be rare, with the right bullet it will flatten any deer walking.
I have really always wondered what happened to the old cartridges. When I grew up the old timers revolved in this neck of the woods around four rounds, the .30-30, the .30-06, the .300 Savage and the .308. Rarely did you hear of anything else, and if it was it was either a sporterized military rifle like a .30-40 Krag or maybe an occasional 7 x 57mm. I have seen .30-30's drop deer right on the spot, where I hunt it is still popular and quite a few guys in their 60's carry one. The .300 Savage has pretty much dropped off, mostly because of the ammo, you can get it but you need to handload it to keep up with the others. The .30-06, I had an uncle who shot a moose with every year without exception. He got it from my grandfather who didn't like it on whitetail, too much blood loss compared to his .30-30 and .308. As far as the .308, my grandfather had an old Remington Mohawk in .308, it was the only rifle next to his .30-30 he trusted on whitetail and bear, and he killed many with both. A few years back another older hunter up in the Adirondacks shot a beautiful deer with his Savage 99 .308, it was effective enough then too.
It just seems in the last few years that the older calibers that twenty years ago could do the job and still do are now deemed not worthy enough to hunt with. I see in the southern part of the state the .308's being replaced with the .300 Win Mag to shoot 130 pound deer. I actually saw a guy three years ago carrying a .375 H & H Magnum, I kid you not. Part of this I blame gun writers for. The new rounds come in with their flash and dash, get some good ink and then they seem to go away. I don't know anyone now carrying around one of the new Winchester short mags. The last one was a friend of mine who never took the gun out of the box.
To me the .308 is a wonderful round, and if you think you can't kill deer, antelope, bear, and even elk with it, then you have not seen someone who knows the bullet and the gun who is using. Personally I like big bores in my rifles, I would love to lay my hands on a .348 Winchester Model 71 because it will do everything I ask, but I know what a .308 will do, as well as a .30-30 and the other calibers. There is a reason they are around still today, because they work.
If I had a .308 and it was all I had to use, I would not count myself as undergunned in any stretch. With all due respect to the .270, and it is a great round don't get me wrong, Jack O'Connor was overly biased towards that caliber and pretty much that one only from what I have read of his writings, and he was very critical of anyone (including Elmer Keith) who even thought to dispute him on it. I have seen guys drop some pretty nice deer with the .270, and it will do the job on everything up to and including elk, but I am not sure if I would take on a big bear like a brown with it. I would leave that up to something with more diameter and lead.

[Popeye77]

A lot of reasons.
Short throw bolt (shorter action)
Short fat powder columns burn more efficiently and are more accurate;
Ammo availability
Can throw a heavier bullet more easily for long range. With better BC's
Snipers have forgotten more about their bullet trajectory than 99% of hunters who (like me). Only need to sight their .270's at about 250yds and not worry about hold over. Because most of can't hold on a target over 400 let alone see it.
There are exceptions of course.

[LVSteve]

Originally Posted by R. G. Amos

The 308 was designed to duplicate 30-06 performance in a more compact round. This is what the people who designed the post M1 Garand wanted in a battle rifle at the time.

It was what the US Ordnance Board wanted. Everybody else in the world had taken notice of how combat took place during WWII and had decided that a weapon of 30-06 power was not needed for general issue. Volume of fire with a smaller caliber that was controllable in full auto was the way to go. I'm not knocking the Garand or the M-14 as effective platforms for the rounds they shoot, but they were not the way to go in the longer term for general issue.

[BigBill]

The 308win/nato round was copied from the 300 savage. The 30-06 round was copied from the 7x57 mauser because of its being flatest shooting round there is.

My russian saiga in 308win will shoot 1 1/2" groups at 100yds using south african 308 surplus ball ammo. The russians at izmash did admit they found the american calibers of 223 and 308 to be a tad more accurate over the russian calibers and they think its the design of our brass case. They did make the saiga the most accurate of there ak/akm's as they said they would.

Now i'm hoping my used chinese norinco m14s can keep up with my saiga accuracy wise.

[4Js]

Originally Posted by mkk41

Only accurate rifles are interesting.

Right you are.
I do stand corrected.

[rcnixon]

The .308 will do everything the .30-06 will do but with a shorter, fatter powder column. There is thought that the height / diameter ratio of the powder column in the .308 adds to the accuracy. All of the other reasons put forth here add to the equation. It's a very accurate cartidge with enough power to be effective within its limits.

Russ

[627 city hunter]

Originally Posted by LVSteve

True, but 6.5 mm and 7 mm rounds will penetrate as well or better at ranges under 500 yards because of their greater sectional density. .308 is not that great a penetrator without "ragged edge" loads.



Fixed it for ya.

You are correct sir. It was late.

[Texas Star]

Originally Posted by David LaPell

To me it depends on what you want. Do you want a strict "tactical" sniper rifle? Well then if that is the case the .308 can't be beat. If you want a hunting rifle, well it depends on what you are hunting. For my neck of the woods where a shot over 100 yards might be rare, with the right bullet it will flatten any deer walking.
I have really always wondered what happened to the old cartridges. When I grew up the old timers revolved in this neck of the woods around four rounds, the .30-30, the .30-06, the .300 Savage and the .308. Rarely did you hear of anything else, and if it was it was either a sporterized military rifle like a .30-40 Krag or maybe an occasional 7 x 57mm. I have seen .30-30's drop deer right on the spot, where I hunt it is still popular and quite a few guys in their 60's carry one. The .300 Savage has pretty much dropped off, mostly because of the ammo, you can get it but you need to handload it to keep up with the others. The .30-06, I had an uncle who shot a moose with every year without exception. He got it from my grandfather who didn't like it on whitetail, too much blood loss compared to his .30-30 and .308. As far as the .308, my grandfather had an old Remington Mohawk in .308, it was the only rifle next to his .30-30 he trusted on whitetail and bear, and he killed many with both. A few years back another older hunter up in the Adirondacks shot a beautiful deer with his Savage 99 .308, it was effective enough then too.
It just seems in the last few years that the older calibers that twenty years ago could do the job and still do are now deemed not worthy enough to hunt with. I see in the southern part of the state the .308's being replaced with the .300 Win Mag to shoot 130 pound deer. I actually saw a guy three years ago carrying a .375 H & H Magnum, I kid you not. Part of this I blame gun writers for. The new rounds come in with their flash and dash, get some good ink and then they seem to go away. I don't know anyone now carrying around one of the new Winchester short mags. The last one was a friend of mine who never took the gun out of the box.
To me the .308 is a wonderful round, and if you think you can't kill deer, antelope, bear, and even elk with it, then you have not seen someone who knows the bullet and the gun who is using. Personally I like big bores in my rifles, I would love to lay my hands on a .348 Winchester Model 71 because it will do everything I ask, but I know what a .308 will do, as well as a .30-30 and the other calibers. There is a reason they are around still today, because they work.
If I had a .308 and it was all I had to use, I would not count myself as undergunned in any stretch. With all due respect to the .270, and it is a great round don't get me wrong, Jack O'Connor was overly biased towards that caliber and pretty much that one only from what I have read of his writings, and he was very critical of anyone (including Elmer Keith) who even thought to dispute him on it. I have seen guys drop some pretty nice deer with the .270, and it will do the job on everything up to and including elk, but I am not sure if I would take on a big bear like a brown with it. I would leave that up to something with more diameter and lead.

David, Jack O'Connor used a .338 on Alaskan bear, and he owned .375's and a couple of .416's. He was also very fond of the .30/06. His wife Eleanor used a 7X57mm and regarded her .30/06 as her big gun. She used the .30/06 even for a tiger. Don't think I'd have done that, but Jim Corbett sometimes used .275 (7mm) Rigby and Westley Richards rifles on known man-eaters. They were easier to carry on long walks than his .450.

Jack just found the .270 ideal for much of his hunting, and knew that its flat trajctory, high killing power, and mild recoil made it a superb choice for most hunters. He knew its limits, and used more when needed. I doubt that he'd even think seriously of shooting Cape buffalo, rhino, or elephant with the .270. And he took mostly lung shots, not raking, rear end shots that Keith often fired. That's one reason why Elmer favored .338 and similar rifles.

[rwsmith]

Originally Posted by R. G. Amos

The 308 was designed to duplicate 30-06 performance in a more compact round. This is what the people who designed the post M1 Garand wanted in a battle rifle at the time.

If I didn't have a 30-06 I would have a .308. The .30s are more versatile than any other caliber and with bullets 150 gr and lighter they are practically the same thing. There have been some lo-o-o-o-ong shots made with the .308, over 1300 yds. They have better wind bucking ability and are more consistent in their performance than other rounds, too.

[Joe Kent]

I find it interesting on both this forum/thread as well as magazine articles, that people look at 400 yds. as "long range" using open sights. For years and years,many of us who have or do shoot competition regularly shoot out to 600 yds. with open sights and can regularly hit the target. I will admit that it is tougher to shoot at 1000yds. but that is also done with some degree of success by a lot of people. As we age I find a whole new appreciation of good scopes . The 7.62/308 is what many of us used and were pleased with the results. However time is moving on with the advancement of bullet design and "new" calibers that are also effective.

[4Js]

Joe,

Everything you've said is true. Matches are shot all the time with iron sights out to 600 yards, and further, on a regular basis.

The problem is, not a lot of younger people breaking into long range rifle shooting are even aware that it's possible, much less commonplace. They buy publications or go to websites and are barraged with articles and posts that convince them that anything past four hundred yards is virtually impossible without a two to three thousand dollar US Optics, or Nightforce scope. This flies in the face of what snipers on both sides of WWII, Korea, and Vietnam were able to accomplish.

Don't get me wrong, those scopes are magnificently strong, have wonderfully crafted internal parts, and crystal clear glass. But a lot of would be long range shooters who will never be able to afford a scope like that are convinced long range shooting is something they simply can't afford.

Go to a long range/wannabe sniper internet forum and you'll find a post such as, "I've bought a, 'enter a decent entry level rifle' and I'm looking for a scope. I've got four hundred dollars to spend." The Gucci Gear Guys will pile on the poor kid and tell him, for all intents and purposes that he can't, nay shouldn't, be able to shoot anything past four hundred yards with out spending, on an optic, three time what he payed for the rifle.

The truth is, the kid can break into the game with a decent Nikon, Weaver, Bushnell, Vortex, or similar scope for the price he can afford. Something else us old timers know. Decent lenses nowdays, (just talking about the glass, not the mechanics) are better that some of the top of the line glass thirty years ago.

I went through a long range law enforcement rifle instructor school in the early 90's. We each had a wonderful custom rifle our department gunsmith had built, but our brass purchased a 4X12 Nikon hunting scope to put on the darn things. We ended up using velcro to stick a quarter to the scope tube so we could run our windage and elevation corrections in a timely manner. After the school we convinced them to buy us four Leupolds. Point is, the Nikons we had weren't the best choice for what we were doing, but we made it work.

I've rambled. We've addressed the original question on this thread. Are there better long range calibers than a .308 for precision long range shooting, certainly. For hunting, certainly. Will the average shooter know the difference. Nope. Can you break into this sport/hobby without a two thousand dollar scope and still have fun. Certainly.

[BigBill]

After some close calls upclose and personal with something going the other way in the very thick pines and brus i wanted to bump in power from my 444 marlin which can go thru 3/8" boiler plate as it was once advertised and my old trusty 30-06 that i hunted with for eons. back in '94 when the 338 win mag was one of the 338 calibers that was available I chose it over the 300 win mag and the 7mm rem mag. mainly because of its power. The 338win mag has 4,000 ftlbs @ muzzle and 2,700 ftlbs @ 200yds thats the muzzle energy of an '06 @ 200yds. I'm on the ground with bears i can't climb in a tree stand. Plus i planned ahead to "maybe" do a special hunt someday with the 338wm. As i get older my only problem is i should of purchased the semi auto brownings instead of the bolt actions there a tad easier on my old battered body. When were young and purchasing guns we need to plan on getting old. But i like my 338wm when my sons are hunting with me i can keep an eye on them at any range. This remington 700 '94 in 338wm i can put two rounds thru the same hole at 100yds benchrested using new winchester 338wm 225gr super x ammo. I have a 1 in a million accurate rifle. I know its so accurate why reload but i did buy the dies for it anyway. I thought back them to also purchase all the 338mag ammo i could at $25 a box of twenty. I thought that was expensive. I tried all the other brands of new ammo and the rem 700/338wm was only accurate with the winchester super x ammo.

Specs;

1994 remington 700 in 338 win mag
Bushnell 12x24 x 40 scope with BDC (bullet drop compisation from 100yds to 500yds with no hold over or error) and AO adjustable objective. The scope at the time was $150. Its very clear and even in low light i can stay in the woods later than most scopes of the same cost. I use all bushnell scopes with the older BDC dial in option on my saiga in 308 and my '72 mossberg in 30-06 too. For the cost and value they have been the best. To me this proves you don't need an expensive scope for hunting.

With the 308win round it takes less gun powder for the same performance over the 30-06. The snipers are using the 175gr FMJBT bullets in the sand box when the 308 is used.

[cowart]

Originally Posted by HELLSING

Isn't the .270 cheaper to shoot as well?

No, its more expensive. A review of the MidwayUSA site shows .270 starts at about 2 times as expensive as .308. Both are sold out right now.

Before the latest ammo crunch, places such as Big5 would have sales on 30-30 and .308 ammo. I have never seen .270 ammo on sale.

[Vegetaman]

Originally Posted by Joe Kent

I find it interesting on both this forum/thread as well as magazine articles, that people look at 400 yds. as "long range" using open sights. For years and years,many of us who have or do shoot competition regularly shoot out to 600 yds. with open sights and can regularly hit the target. I will admit that it is tougher to shoot at 1000yds. but that is also done with some degree of success by a lot of people. As we age I find a whole new appreciation of good scopes . The 7.62/308 is what many of us used and were pleased with the results. However time is moving on with the advancement of bullet design and "new" calibers that are also effective.

Well put. But it also depends on how large your target is when you place it at 400, 600, 800, or 1000 yards. Hard for me to hit what I can't even see.

Of course, for people like me, 400 yards really IS a long shot! And making it is a small personal victory, lol.

[627 city hunter]

I am really considering DSA FAL maybe over an AR-10.

I realize the AR-10 is lighter.

Any opinions?

FAL-SA58 Rifles-D S Arms

[LVSteve]

Originally Posted by BigBill

With the 308win round it takes less gun powder for the same performance over the 30-06. The snipers are using the 175gr FMJBT bullets in the sand box when the 308 is used.

Hmm. You do realise that the US snipers are loading their 7.62 NATO and 300 Win Mag rounds rather hotter than SAAMI specs to get the required performance. They can get away with this because they have no intention of reusing the brass and their guns are on a strict inspection, maintenance and rebuild schedule.

[627 city hunter]

LVSteve,

Whats your opinion of the DSA FAL-SA58 vs. the AR-10?

[310Pilot]

I assume the OP is talking about "combat" effectiveness, based on his references to "tactical" bolt action rifles. I have a lot of experience in that field, primarily with the M-14 (obviously not a bolt action, but the. 308/7.62 NATO cartridge). I also shot M-14s, both National Match and, later, service grade, in high power competition, when the course of fire included stages at 600, 800 and 1,000 yards, all using iron sights. I have also used the 223/5.56 in combat (that rates two thumbs down as a cartridge for use on the enemy). Obviously, I never used a 270 in combat. The 308 is inherently capable of excellent accuracy, capable of long range use, and delivers significant energy when it connects, all important considerations on the battlefield, especially for personnel in very small units without nearby support, the same for sniper teams. Official US doctrine is that wounding one enemy will take two more out of action to assist the one wounded, hence the varmint caliber for current general issue weapons. Of course, that only works if you are fighting forces with the same moral values as ours. In small unit tactics, I have always found it more effective to kill the enemy, and the 308 is quite effective in that role. That also translates to hunting use. While the 270 is an excellent cartridge, it is hard to beat the 308 in terms of flexibility, and it is well proven in the both military and civilian applications. I have two 270s, but seven or eight 308 rifles, reflecting my preferences and experience. BTW, I nearly bought an AR-10 recently, but was not impressed with the overall quality of the gun, and found that the manufacturer specs caled for accuracy of 2 to 2.5" 5-shot groups at 100 yards, far below my personal requirements. Can't comment on the commercially available civilian versions of the FAL, haven't used one. The older military FALs were pretty decent weapons, but I always felt their accuracy was not up to my standards (but certainly adequate for a general issue battle weapon).

[LVSteve]

Originally Posted by 627 city hunter

LVSteve,

Whats your opinion of the DSA FAL-SA58 vs. the AR-10?

I have never shot a new build FAL or an AR-10 so I cannot comment with first hand knowledge. However, one buddy had a Springfield SAR-48 and another still has an AR-10. Neither complained of poor accuracy. My own early Imbel FAL is a 2.5-3 inch gun with NATO surplus ammo. I am told they can do better with handloads but powder choice is very important despite the adjustable gas system.

[627 city hunter]

HK 91 anyone?

[Arik]

I had a FAL. Just sold it during the panic buys. Along with several thousand round of surplus ammo. I wasnt shooting it and at todays prices for 308 in a semi auto i wouldnt be shooting it. But they are nice. My major complaint has to be the adjustable gas piston. While a great idea, to me as a civilian, it was a waste of money. A country issues the rifle to its soldiers along with the ammo. They set it and forget it. I on the other hand have to spend time and waste ammo to re adjust the gas setting almost every time i buy a different brand of ammo.

For hunting i use a 30-06. Not because of any specific devotion to it. I wanted a caliber that was capable of wide range of hunting. 30-06 can drop deer, hogs and bigger animals. It also has distance. This way i dont have to have a 30-30 for deer and another rifle/caliber for other animals. Just a do it all caliber. 30-06 ammo is easily found in every gun shop and online distributors. In Pa you cannot hunt with a semi auto or mag capacity larger then 5. So that leaves bolt action rifles. But the major reason i bought a bolt action 30-06 is because im a lefty and there isnt a big selection of rifle for lefties. My LGS happened to have a Ruger M77 in 30-06, with a scope, for $500. So thats what i hunt with.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

[dcxplant]

With the way the ammo hoarding is going on right now, I'm sure it's just a matter of time before someone comes up with a .270 or other "civilian" chambering.

There isn't a round .308 available in the state of Arizona right now....

Lots of 270's though!

[M3Stuart]

Great thread. I too have often wondered about the .308 vs. 30-06 vs etc. I shot a SOCOM in .308 and really liked it. I used to have a 7.62X 39 AK variant but it was poorly made so I got rid of it.

Whatever I might have been thinking about getting into .308 or whatever is certainly on hold for now though.

[ChattanoogaPhil]

.308 ammo seems relatively cheap. I had been buying Fed 168 Sierra Matchking GMM for $17.99. As I started running low, I recently found it selling for $21.99 at PSA. My order of 200rds just arrived a couple days ago.

I don't know much about the subject, but I bought my first and only .308 a couple years ago. When asking around, the overwhelming response was to get a Remington 700 to start. From there you can build anything, I was told. I liked the idea of a shorter heavier barrel, so I decided on the SPS model. It only came in .223 and .308 so my choice of caliber was pretty much made for me-- 700 .308 SPS Tactical.