Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Posted: 10/29/2006 7:59:12 AM EST
Just curious as to the consensus on why the tacitcool bolt guns are heavily biased towards the .308 round. I figure it's likely because of military acceptance of the caliber but maybe there's another factor?

Is there that much difference between a long and short action bolt gun? All I have are long action guns so I dont know if it's a significant diff or not.
It it smoother, quicker, or ??

There seems to be so many better cartridges out ther for a tactical bolt gun


Note: I am not a long range shooter, hell I really suck at it.
Link Posted: 10/29/2006 8:04:29 AM EST
well, .308 is military standard, so that might play a huge role in why 'tacticool' bolt guns are mostly .308 and the 308 cna still reach out and touch something at 1000 yards.
Link Posted: 10/29/2006 8:06:57 AM EST
Lots of options and availability in ammo.
Link Posted: 10/29/2006 9:30:55 AM EST
It is a military standard cartridge, both inside and outside of NATO, so it is widespread. It is a very accurate cartridge- supposedly the shorter case length makes it more accurate than the .30-06 and other longer cartridges, as shorter columns of powder produce better accuracy. I suppose there is also some speed advantage in a shorter action as well.
Link Posted: 10/29/2006 10:08:22 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/30/2006 7:35:02 AM EST by raf]
Link Posted: 10/29/2006 5:18:01 PM EST

Originally Posted By Lumpy196:
Lots of options and availability in ammo.


This hits the nail firmly on the head. There are lots of other cailbers that do not do anything better than a 308 gun other than seperate their owners from their money.
Link Posted: 10/29/2006 8:18:02 PM EST

Originally Posted By twistedcomrade:

Originally Posted By Lumpy196:
Lots of options and availability in ammo.


This hits the nail firmly on the head. There are lots of other cailbers that do not do anything better than a 308 gun other than seperate their owners from their money.


I see what you guys are saying, but if say another cartridge had been adopted there would be just as many options for it as there are for the .308 now.

Besides, when the .308 was first adopted, there were not very many options. So why go with the .308 from the begining?
Link Posted: 10/29/2006 9:33:47 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/29/2006 10:15:18 PM EST by fundummy]
Actually it was designed to improve the 30-06.

The intial design of the 308 was to:

1. Keep the same ballististics with 147 to 180 grain bullets.

2. Improve propellant ignition uniformity, the 06 case was too long .. designed for the the propellant used back then.... they even used cordite and shit.

3. The shortened overall length speeded up the cyclic rate, especially of belt fed machineguns... the shorter the bolt throw.. the faster the weapon will run.

4. Weight factor.

The 30-06 is still a super versatile round.. especially since you can load it to near 300 Win Mag. With the accuracy advantage of NOT- using the belted case for the headspacing.
It has it's place in modern, high velocity, heavy bullet, useage. especially in bolt guns.

30 cal. all the way for power punchin' wind resistant accuracy


Link Posted: 10/29/2006 11:44:52 PM EST

Originally Posted By HoodyHoo21:

Originally Posted By twistedcomrade:

Originally Posted By Lumpy196:
Lots of options and availability in ammo.


This hits the nail firmly on the head. There are lots of other cailbers that do not do anything better than a 308 gun other than seperate their owners from their money.


I see what you guys are saying, but if say another cartridge had been adopted there would be just as many options for it as there are for the .308 now.

Besides, when the .308 was first adopted, there were not very many options. So why go with the .308 from the begining?


Because while the rest of NATO wanted an intermediate cartridge (7.92x39mm, aka '8mm Short') the US (still stuck in a WWI 800m-killing-rifle-fire mentality) insisted on a 'full power' cartridge in a smaller package, which *had* to be 7.62mm...

The result was a shrunken 30-06, 7.62x51 NATO, which was commercially sold as .308 Winchester...
Link Posted: 10/30/2006 4:13:17 AM EST
I think the adoption of the full powered 7.62 X 51 cartridge by Nato was a blessing in someways. IF we went along and adopted an intermediate cartridge, we would have no uniform caliber for our GPMGs. Sure that NATO's rifles and SAWs would use a uniform intermediate cartridge, but what about the GPMGs? Each nation would still have to use the calibers they had from WWII. The British would still have to use the .303, the Germans 7.92 X 57mm and the French with their 7.5mm cartridge. It would be a logistical nightmare.

Granted, we (US and NATO) could have adopted 7.62 X 51mm for the GPMG and an intermediate cartridge for our rifles and squad light automatic (that's what ended up happening anyway)
Link Posted: 10/30/2006 4:28:47 AM EST

Originally Posted By Lindy_Hoppin_Gun_Nut:
I think the adoption of the full powered 7.62 X 51 cartridge by Nato was a blessing in someways. IF we went along and adopted an intermediate cartridge, we would have no uniform caliber for our GPMGs. Sure that NATO's rifles and SAWs would use a uniform intermediate cartridge, but what about the GPMGs? Each nation would still have to use the calibers they had from WWII. The British would still have to use the .303, the Germans 7.92 X 57mm and the French with their 7.5mm cartridge. It would be a logistical nightmare.

Granted, we (US and NATO) could have adopted 7.62 X 51mm for the GPMG and an intermediate cartridge for our rifles and squad light automatic (that's what ended up happening anyway)


From what I've read most of the intermediate cartridges under consideration were ballistically more similar to the 6.8 SPC than to the 7.62x39 or 5.56x45. Had we decided to go with such a cartridge we could have used it for both service rifles and GPMGs.
Link Posted: 10/30/2006 9:31:35 AM EST

Originally Posted By Dave_A:

Originally Posted By HoodyHoo21:

Originally Posted By twistedcomrade:

Originally Posted By Lumpy196:
Lots of options and availability in ammo.


This hits the nail firmly on the head. There are lots of other cailbers that do not do anything better than a 308 gun other than seperate their owners from their money.


I see what you guys are saying, but if say another cartridge had been adopted there would be just as many options for it as there are for the .308 now.

Besides, when the .308 was first adopted, there were not very many options. So why go with the .308 from the begining?


Because while the rest of NATO wanted an intermediate cartridge (7.92x39mm, aka '8mm Short') the US (still stuck in a WWI 800m-killing-rifle-fire mentality) insisted on a 'full power' cartridge in a smaller package, which *had* to be 7.62mm...

The result was a shrunken 30-06, 7.62x51 NATO, which was commercially sold as .308 Winchester...


After thinking about it.....this answer really makes the most sense to me.
Link Posted: 10/30/2006 3:05:35 PM EST

Originally Posted By elmehfudd:
From what I've read most of the intermediate cartridges under consideration were ballistically more similar to the 6.8 SPC than to the 7.62x39 or 5.56x45. Had we decided to go with such a cartridge we could have used it for both service rifles and GPMGs.


One size does not fit all, though the Chineese are thinking otherwise.
Top Top