I was wondering what kind of range you can accurately shoot them. Is there a big difference?

Maximum range with a beanfield rifle you can hit a man sized/deer sized target at 1100M with a .308 and out to about 900M with a .223. There will be guys who will chime in and claim all sorts of outlandish things they did or saw but those numbers are the max reality-wise.
There is a very large difference both in accuracy and knockdown power.

Are you saying that the .308 is more accurate?

Quoted: Are you saying that the .308 is more accurate?

Sometimes. Clearly the heavier .308 will be less prone to blow off target from wind. IMO, up to 200-300 yards the .223 will be a bit more accurate. After that it'll probably be fairly equal. Your mileage may vary.

The rifle will have more to do with accuracy than the caliber; the rifle and the shooter. If you are going to shoot at more than 300 yards you might need a .308.

I've shot an M1A (.308) out to a 1000 yards with iron sights.  I'm not real good with iron sights but I did manage about a 20 inch group.  Top level shooters under ideal conditions could manage about 5 inches.

Before anyone gets their panties in a bunch, one of the main contributors to the development of the .223 was the results of studies of earlier fighting encounters (wwii) where most battles for the small arms were within 400 yrds (or much less). When you make the trade offs for lighter ammo and less recoil, you give up distance and knock down power. It's just the law of physics.

If you want to stick with the AR clan and shoot long range, get yourself an AR-10T. If not, then there are plenty of other things to look into.  

Here is some actual data from Federal Cartridge:

308:
180gr Nosler
Energy at muzzle = 2745
Energy at 500 yds = 1200
Wind drift/10mph/500yds = 25.7 in.


223:
55gr Nosler
Energy at Muzzle = 1280
Energy at 500 yds = 335
Wind drift/10mph/500yds = 32.9

I think that 900 M range for a .223 is stretching it a bit.  I know there are a couple of people experimenting with 90 grain bullets for 1000 yard matches.  They are getting hits but not competing with the .308.

All things being equal, bullets with higher ballistic coefficients (BC) will fly flatter.

Generally speaking heavier bullets have higher BCs.

.308 bullets are heavier than .223.

  Just buy them both that way you will have all the bases covered. they both have their uses and I have found that they are both very accurate, (depends on the rifle you are shooting and what load) the gentleman that stated the .223 is more accurate out to 300 must not have had any decent rifles to shoot in the past. i have shot both since i was a young teen and enjoy both. What are trying to use the rifle for? Place both on the table and see which will suit you better. (you need a ford truck, or a toyota?)

900 and 1100 meters no way! not with my shootin skilz.hacko.gif

"Energy” ratings are simply theoretical equations that have absolutely no bearing on a rounds terminal capability. They in no way factor bullet design, or terminal performance on soft tissue, which is the most critical factor in the job bullets are called upon to do. Anyone who has ever hunted animals to any extent knows this factor well.
Imagine you went bowling, and took a bowling ball and a hand grenade.
You hurled the bowling ball at the pins. It smacked them, and sent them flying.
Strike.
Now, imagine you took a hand grenade, pulled the pin, and slowly lobbed it underhand into the pin deck. While it might weigh less than the bowling ball, and be traveling slower, it completely blows the pins into bits. Its ability to terminate the pins is greater since it utilizes a more efficient terminal function (“exploding” rather than “impacting”).
Same goes for the .223 vs. .308 debate.
The .308 arrives on target, and delivers a heavy bullet at a moderately high speed. It punches a hole, and displaces tissue. It’s terminal capability is reliant on it’s ability to strike critical organs upon impact.  
The .223 arrives on target a lot faster, and by virtue of it’s lightweight design, undertakes an entirely different ballistic operation when it impacts the target.
Instead of “punching a hole” like the 7.62, the .223 tumbles, or fragments. This tumbling causes a more destructive displacement of tissue, which translates to a higher degree of terminal capability. The fragmenting causes secondary missiles, which not only increase the chances of impacting a critical organ, but also delivers a higher degree of hydrostatic shock. Read the stories from Vietnam about soldiers shooting gooks and completely blowing their limbs clean off with a single .223 round… My favorite quote…

“I shot him with the black rifle, and it opened up his chest and spilled his guts so lightning quick you would have thought he had swallowed a lit stick of dynamite…”

Ya ain’t gunna get that with a .308.
Also, you have to consider the practical operating characteristics of each round are different as well. You can carry more .223 ammo afield than you can 7.62. The .223 recoils less, thus recovers faster to engage other targets. A milder recoiling round is also MUCH easier to shoot under stress. I am by no means a recoil sensitive individual, but in a stressful situation shooting at targets a long ways away, less recoil is always better.
Of course, the .223 has a lesser practical range than the .308. And the .223 sucks ass at punching through improvised cover. The .308 is better in those arenas.
But the .223 still has it’s place for certain operations, just like the M1 Carbine had a place for roles the Garand couldn’t fill. They both do different things.
They were both “guns”, but they had different roles. But to say the .308 is better because it’s bigger is like saying a bowling ball is better than a hand grenade.
Terminal ballistic function can’t be measured by a simple mathematical formula like “energy ratings”, but they are the most important dynamic of round selection.
I really don’t give a dog’s ass, as I own both .308’s and .223’s. They both have a purpose. I don’t try and call on my PSS to fill the role of an AR no more than I would call on a M1 Carbine to fill the role of a Garand.

The .308 has a longer max range then the .223.

The rifles and rounds are more accurate then you will be for the first decade of shooting and coaching.

Quoted: The rifles and rounds are more accurate then you will be for the first decade of shooting and coaching.

Amen.

I shoot 2 days a week, USPSA and informal, at least 200 rds a week (Not including rimfire) and I still don't own a rifle I can outshoot.

It's quit simply a trade off.  I don't know anyone that wouldn't prefer to be shooting at the enemy with a .308 rather than a .223 EXCEPT for recoil and weight.  You can simply carry more ammo of .223 than .308 for the same weight penalty.  Obviously the .308 is gonna hit harder and farther.  What is really up to debate is the real world application of humping ammo and tolerating recoil.  If you can hang with .308 you will be superiorly armed.

Bunch wussies.  Real men use .50BMGs



Seriously though--ECS, if you have the link or info for the .50bmg from the same source, I'd be interested in seeing it compare.

In the world of high power shooting a very heavy (69grain) .223 has taken over the field and is smearing the .308.  We aren't talking down range knockdown power, merely accuracy.  In the real world where knockdown counts, it is hard for me to conceive of any round I appreciate more than a .308 - lots of power and knockdown; plenty of accuracy; plus it doesn'tbeat you to death.  I just sold one of my .308's and am in deep mourning....wished I had never done it, all for a new digital camera.

What about the 308 vs the 8mm Mauser? Not rifles but basic comparison of the rounds.

Quoted: Quoted: The rifles and rounds are more accurate then you will be for the first decade of shooting and coaching. Amen. I shoot 2 days a week, USPSA and informal, at least 200 rds a week (Not including rimfire) and I still don't own a rifle I can outshoot.

A mirror isomer of mcuzi....hummmmm....

back to the thread...Camp Perry this year the 223 won the 1000 yard. With that said, and owning a 26" barrel 308 and 24" 223, I will stay with the 308 for shots that really count at long range.

Since .223 beat the .308 at 1000yds Id say they are equally accurate but .308 has a greater range of terminal effectiveness.

I've shot .308 and .223 to a target at 100 yards.  It ain't about accuracy.  It's about how big the hole is.

How does the old saying go
"What is cover for .223 is only concealment for .308"

Quoted: "Energy” ratings are simply theoretical equations that have absolutely no bearing on a rounds terminal capability. They in no way factor bullet design, or terminal performance on soft tissue, which is the most critical factor in the job bullets are called upon to do. Anyone who has ever hunted animals to any extent knows this factor well. Imagine you went bowling, and took a bowling ball and a hand grenade. You hurled the bowling ball at the pins. It smacked them, and sent them flying. Strike. Now, imagine you took a hand grenade, pulled the pin, and slowly lobbed it underhand into the pin deck. While it might weigh less than the bowling ball, and be traveling slower, it completely blows the pins into bits. Its ability to terminate the pins is greater since it utilizes a more efficient terminal function (“exploding” rather than “impacting”). Same goes for the .223 vs. .308 debate. The .308 arrives on target, and delivers a heavy bullet at a moderately high speed. It punches a hole, and displaces tissue. It’s terminal capability is reliant on it’s ability to strike critical organs upon impact.   The .223 arrives on target a lot faster, and by virtue of it’s lightweight design, undertakes an entirely different ballistic operation when it impacts the target. Instead of “punching a hole” like the 7.62, the .223 tumbles, or fragments. This tumbling causes a more destructive displacement of tissue, which translates to a higher degree of terminal capability. The fragmenting causes secondary missiles, which not only increase the chances of impacting a critical organ, but also delivers a higher degree of hydrostatic shock. Read the stories from Vietnam about soldiers shooting gooks and completely blowing their limbs clean off with a single .223 round… My favorite quote… “I shot him with the black rifle, and it opened up his chest and spilled his guts so lightning quick you would have thought he had swallowed a lit stick of dynamite…” Ya ain’t gunna get that with a .308. Also, you have to consider the practical operating characteristics of each round are different as well. You can carry more .223 ammo afield than you can 7.62. The .223 recoils less, thus recovers faster to engage other targets. A milder recoiling round is also MUCH easier to shoot under stress. I am by no means a recoil sensitive individual, but in a stressful situation shooting at targets a long ways away, less recoil is always better. Of course, the .223 has a lesser practical range than the .308. And the .223 sucks ass at punching through improvised cover. The .308 is better in those arenas. But the .223 still has it’s place for certain operations, just like the M1 Carbine had a place for roles the Garand couldn’t fill. They both do different things. They were both “guns”, but they had different roles. But to say the .308 is better because it’s bigger is like saying a bowling ball is better than a hand grenade. Terminal ballistic function can’t be measured by a simple mathematical formula like “energy ratings”, but they are the most important dynamic of round selection. I really don’t give a dog’s ass, as I own both .308’s and .223’s. They both have a purpose. I don’t try and call on my PSS to fill the role of an AR no more than I would call on a M1 Carbine to fill the role of a Garand.

Well this is just almost a bunch of crap. Since when did the .223 (sticking with rounds for human targets) start flying lots faster than the .308? They are very similar in speed. In fact, the .308 typically maintains its speed over distance much better than the .223. All this talk about grenades is sort of interesting but we're not talking about exploding bullets here.

The reports on the instability of the .223 on soft targets and its destruction to tissue are more based on closer targets (under 200 yrds.). While both rounds (even the .223) have more than enough energy at this distance, the .223 would fail to achieve the same effect at 500-800 yds. It just doesn't have the energy any longer. You're gonna need to .308 for that.

Quoted: A mirror isomer of mcuzi....hummmmm.... back to the thread...Camp Perry this year the 223 won the 1000 yard. With that said, and owning a 26" barrel 308 and 24" 223, I will stay with the 308 for shots that really count at long range.

I figured it was only a matter of time before some one got it to shoot that far.  I've missed the Nationals the last 2 years.  Any details on the load/rifle combination?

Quoted: Bunch wussies.  Real men use .50BMGs www.hunting-pictures.com/members/AFARR/10230439.jpg Seriously though--ECS, if you have the link or info for the .50bmg from the same source, I'd be interested in seeing it compare.

Sorry I didn't see the 50 BMG.

Here's the 470 Nitro Express - its a dangerous game cartridge.

470 NE / 500gr / 5130Ft-lbs muzzle / 1750 @500 yds.

Drift is 39.7 at 500 yds.

I'm sure the 223 would be better though since it fragments when it hits stuff.

..and tumbles.  

Don't forget the tumbling affect.

Uuuuuuu, wicked tumbling.

AR_Clint, I was wondering what kind of range you can accurately shoot them. Is there a big difference?

There is no difference. All bullshit and fancy numbers aside, they will shoot as accurately as you can shoot to the range you can hit from a realistic position. What you can do, every time, anytime, is how accurate you are, really doesnt matter what your shooting now does it?