Well something is going on with the military and a new service cartridge. Remington announced in their what's new for 2004 ammo about a new round called the 6.8mm SPC. SPC standing for special purpose cartridge. All they said was that it was based on the .30 Remington (could this possibly be the old 30 Rem that had the 32 twin?) and that it was made for the AR15/M16 type rifles.



Joe

The good news would be that Kalishnakov has come out of retirement to design a new rifle for us.

There is an article in the current Army Times that mentions the round. I don't have a copy at home, but I think I remember it to be a Special Operations development designed to extend the effective range of the M4 carbine and provide better killing power. I have been very fortunate (so far) and have never fired the M16 at a living target, but folks who have tell me the standard 5.56 from the 20 inch M16A2 is very effective. Apparently the same ammo doesn't do as well from the increasingly issued and very popular M4 carbine. Tony

ok since u aksed fer it.....there is a guy marketing an ar47......yup an ar15 style rifle chambered fer 7.62x39 AND THE KICKER.....takes ak mags......ok...i'm in line fer that one. i shoot an ak in some 3 gun matches cause the are quick and lots of rounds( mags are 5,10,20,30,40 and a 75 drum....)
the std ak draw backs are the sites and the thin bbl...niether great for longer distances say past 150.
there is an apature, metal windage adjust site on the market,,,,,but no great bbls...

Mike, I liked your post. M16 isn't a bad rifle now that all the bugs are out of it. Like you mentioned about the AK47 it has lousy sights, and it's no way as accurate as a M16. It's great for close up, with alot of firepower, and pretty damn reliable. I think the current M16's are damn reliable too. What strikes me funny is that the Israeli's are suppose to have top notch equipment and they supposely combined the best features of three top assault rifle to come up with their Galil, but all the news footage you see of Israeli soldiers shows them carrying M16's why? Don't give me that is because the U.S. gave them to them for just about nothing. I think they are are really concerned about having the best rifle. I take it as they think highly of the M16. That AR47 sounds pretty cool. One of the fall back to the AR15 when Colt brought it out in 7.62x39 was that the lower receiver was never designed to hold a very curved magazine. This fellow you are talking about found a way around that and that was to make a new bottom half.

Joe

Got to handle a M16 for the very first time in 68. Didn't like it then nor the next 26 years! It's a POS. About time for a change. btw, never had to use it in a combat situation. Still think its a POS. No flames, personal opinion. sundog

never owned an AR of any kind, never served Uncle Sam so can't comment on the service application either. However, I do own a couple Garand's and while they are fine old rifles....I think they are POS when it comes to lugging the thing around and fending off a horde of ragheads. I do have an AK variant, the MaK 90 and while it just bang and not ratta-tat-tat with each pull of the trigger, I think you'd be hard pressed to find a better combat implement. hell, it isn't meant to be a sniper rifle in the first place and when you're getting your lunch ate by some bad asses, I doubt you take a breath, let out half and then squeeze when shooting back! Point the damned thing at the bastard and let off a few. The main thing is the gun goes off....every time. Besides that, the AK is a disposable weapon and the M16 is too for that matter. They don't rebuild this stuff, it gets tossed out with the wash water when the good is gone. But i am sure the AK is much cheaper to make. Maybe we ought to just give the Russians a contract for military rifles!

as for a military round, i think the 260 remington would be tough to beat. that 6.5 bullet would penetrate like the devil and recoil is soft. I'd say downrange trajectories are excellent too.

I now have a couple of AR's. Didn't think much of them in '70 going through basic UNTIL on the range I aimed at that 350 meter target (kneeling position) and it dropped! THAT changed my mind. They seem to do woodchucks at 100 yards with iron sights OK.

The current breed of M16's and AR15's are pretty damn reliable. It may be true that you don't take a breath, let half out, and squeeze the trigger, just spray and pray. But guess what, that only works for close up and the AK47 is a POS after 100yd as far a accurate fire. The longest confirmed kill I heard of in Nam was 823 yds with an M16 and I'm not going into details. M16's are very rebuildable. The barrels screw out, the upper and lower receivers are two separate pieces and replaceable, and so are the bolt and carrier. The AK47 in my opinion is a long barreled handgun. It's for close up work, real close. The one thing I can fault with the M16 is I thing the cartridge should have been a slightly larger one. But look at the Russians, they even went smaller. The M16 got a bad rap stemming from back during Nam and 90% of the reasons weren't directly because of the rifle itself. If it was so horribly bad why is it going to end up being one of our longest running military rifles? The other thing that didn't help the M16 is this country went from a walnut stocked 30 caliber rifle that through the changes never really changed radically. The M16 was a radical change. Just read what someone said about the previous rifles our military fielded and he said: "Guess what? We aren't ever going back to them so get over it".

Joe

If this 6.8 dealie is for real, I will be one of the first to make a bolt gun with it. I've always had a short 270 with slow twist in the back of my mind. Several times I put money on the table for a 270PPC, but I wanted to have a round with standard taper or a little slope-ier, like a 30-30. Maybe a case designed for a fast acting full auto carbine will have this ideal "cast" shootin' round. Well, the custom barrel will have a slow twist. I bet theirs will be at least a 9 or so. ... felix

Joe, sure can't argue with you. The M16 has served well, for the most part. The 'bloody nose' it got in the beginning wasn't necessarily all the rifle's fault. I doubt if my personal feelings about it will change though. Looking forward to see what comes next. sundog

Interesting thread. After school I branched Ordnance in the Army- worked a couple of staff-puke type jobs before becoming the CO of a Supply and Transportation company. In that job and as a staffer it was my job to push fuel, food and ammunition forward. The job gets super complicated the more components are added to the mix i.e. it's not too bad to service a handful of 105 arty batteries- but toss in armor support and a few Corps support 8" batteries and ammo becomes a nightmare- 105, 8", 30mm, TOW missiles and all that crap. That's challenging enough- I'd hate to have a bunch of diff'rent small arms to feed too.

I gotta believe that any change in the current type of small arms used by US foreces will be driven by logistics. This was an enormous factor in going from .45 to 9mm- the 9mm was and is the NATO pistol round. It'd make a helluva lot more sense to rechamber the M16A2 to 7.62 NATO- .308 Winchester. If I were back pushing ammo forward I'd love the idea that I could go to the Brit or the German unit next door and get the small arms ammo I need- an' vice versa. Bad news if each NATO force is using different small arms calibers.....just a thought from an old log's fart......

Regards.....

AHA!! A fellow loggie! We're the little angels sitting on the general's shoulder, screaming in his ear, "YOU CAN'T DO THAT!!!" Caesar Augustas, Washington, Lee, Patton, and President Carter hated us.

"But," they will say, "now that computers keep track of everything, who cares if we have 839 types of ammo for our soldiers to use?" We sadly reply, "Hell, boss, I can explain the problems to you, but I can't make you listen. Bedford Forrest may have wanted to be the 'firstest with the mostest,' but he didn't stop to think about 'mostest' of what."

When taken to the crux, all wars begin based on economics; and, all wars end based on logistics.

Let's watch the new weapons and ammo as they are fielded, and try to keep a straight face. It will be, at the least, entertaining.

Bits has a point. It ain't gonna fly if it can't be gotten past NATO.

But the M16 can't be modified to .308, either, and we would not do it if it could. Both the ammo and the recoil is too heavy for current doctrine.

First I heard of this cartridge, I thought the poster had time warped back to 1938. There was an experimental cartridge of that time that sounds a lot like this. Think it was called the .276 Pedersen. I also think the Brits had a go at something similar just before NATO.

I wish I could warp back to the past. Then I would stock up on a whole bunch of the desirable rifles and handguns and warp back and sell em to my buddies on here.

My best friend and I have talked and battled for years about the best cartridge/rifle. He trained with the M14 and loves the 308. I said yeah, if there was someone that I had to take out at 800 yards or more, sure I'd love some super duper big long range cartridge built on some Weatherby magnum. But it's not practical for all around situations. I had a Marine friend that did three or more tours in Nam. He was a savy gun nut and when back to the states on his first tour he and a gunsmith friend of his built for him a full auto Winchester 22 magnum rimfire weapon with 18 inch barrel. He said it was just the ticket in thick jungle fighting because it was light, could carry an amazing amount of ammo, was effective, and he said quiet enough that the enemy couldn't figure out exactly where the firing was coming from. He also stated that his CO made him carry his M16 too. I don't think that there is one rifle and caliber that can server all situations.
My opinion on Nato, the hell with them. It tears me up how war has rules. Like not softpoint or hollow point ammo but yet you can throw a grenade on a guy, or shred him to pieces with a 50 cal. I think the U.S. should go with what they want. I've heard that more and more service men are becoming disgrunted with the 9mm and want the 45 back. You're right they can't turn the M16 into a 308 but the sure as hell can chamber it for a more effective round and that looks like it is happening. There is the AR10's that are 308 and 243, maybe they should take a hard look at those.

Joe

sundog....I have to agree...100% worth on the M16 and I've even shot the dolled up versions in competition with handloaded, tweaked military ammo.

I've trained with the Springfield, I've trained with the M-1, I've fought a tour with the M-14 and I've fought a tour with the M-16.

Ain't nothing beats the Springfield for shooting.

I've fired all 4 in competition and ain't nothing as accurate as the Springfield. The M-14 comes close but no cigar. Never did like to shoot targets with a rifle that I could bend the barrel on with sling pressure and the M-16 has that fault. The M-1 takes a platoon of armorers to keep even the NM version going.

Now there.....that's my story and I'm sticking to it./beagle

beagle

If you are indeed talking about 30-06 1903 and all it's variations as being the most accurate you're wrong and I don't care what you have shot in competition. Hell mike in co has an AR10 that has shot groups smaller then any springfiels ever has. I love the springfield, but it's not the most accurate of the guns you named. Here are some rifles that will shoot circles around it: AR10, NM M14 (don't know the ones you saw shoot or that you shot) SP1 HK's, and Stoner 25's. I'm talking accuracy not keeping them going, of course anything that has more moving parts then just a turn bolt requires more maintenance. By the way the built AR15 with the free floating barrels and the aluminum forearm tube, or carbon fiber, are uneffected by sling pressure. Yes the old M16 were and so were alot of other rifles. Just my opinion and two cents.
Joe

with all them short m4 m16's playing in the dessert there is also a bunch of
...guess what
....ar10/7.62nato/308win.......
so many shot so much that the sand is wearing out the plastic follower and armalite is now producing, and soon for the public, a FORGED ALLOY follower.

stay tuned....owner of 4 ar15's, 2 ar10's and an ak.....

....and there you have it from our correspondent in Aurora....thank you Mike

Joe

Jumptrap - I carried and shot the Garand a lot in the Army. If you got one in good shape and took reasonable care of it, the thing was an amazing rifle. But keep in mind the Garand was mostly opposed by bolt action Jap and German rifles.......which meant that an M-1 Garand was almost like something out of Star Wars to the enemy.

Sure 50 years later there are better rifles available today, but ya gotta compare apples to apples to have a valid test. When the M-1 came out it was pretty much ahead of its time.

Joe, please keep in mind folks are talking their military experiences. I have never served any military position as a GI, but have played with real killing machines as simulations on gummit computers at Fort Levenworth and at Arlington. Yes, all of these guns, including the new ones, discussed on this thread will fill the need contemplated for police action, now or in the future. That's why it is indeed imperative the bad guys don't come up with what I have simulated back in the 60s. ... felix

This new round is a SOCOM specific development that regular line units will never see. The replacement for the M16 family will likely be a variant of the H&K XM8 design. The Army is currently testing and will make a decision on the replacement for the aging M16 rifles soon. The decision may be to keep them, but I haven't seen any discussion of a caliber change at all. Tony

Felix, I have never run simulations, but I put in a week's skull sweat and computer time back in early October '91 looking for doable terrorist targets in the US and came to the conclusion that they are both incompetent and few in number.

If they had 300 competent actives and someone with half a brain running them. we'd be doomed.

Felix, you're right and all I can say to that is because the M16 was fielded in Nam in it's infancy with lousy ammo, no chromed bores (when all other rifles had chromed bore, even the SKS) and the soldiers were told it's a wonder rifle that doesn't need cleaned, thus no cleaning training or implements...then one shouldn't judge the M16 that came after them or the ones of today.
Remember most guns have initial problems when new and first fielded. The Garand had a gas system problem and it was very hated before the changes were made. The M1 carbine had problems, one of which the front sight would fall off. So to base an opinion on a Vietnam issue early M16 and speak about the newer ones today is wrong. In 1955 when Chevrolet came out with their new 265 cubic inch engine it was found that the rings weren't seated from the factory and they weren't going to seat. One of the things the dealerships were told was that they could lightly sprinkle Bon Ami cleanser powder over top the carb of a running engine to seat the rings. The cleanser has a fine abrasive in it thus helping the rings to seat. Then GM fixed the problem. So if you were unfortunated to have bought one of those 55 chevy V8's could you honestly say then that all chevies made after that aren't any good? No, I don't think so. If the military comes out with a new rifle and caliber watch the ones that grew up on the M16 platform complain about how terrible it is and the military chose a new wrong weapon.

Joe

The M16A2 is the most usefully accurate service rifle we have fielded, and I have shot them all in competetion to include the 1903 and the 1917. No Johnson though. Anyhow, that's neither here nor there.

The 6.8x43 is designed to work in the same rifles as the 5.56 will work in, so upgrading the rifles can be easy. It uses a .277 dia bullet, with a 115gn bullet at about 2650fps from a 16" barrel.

NATO sucks if it means we take it in the shorts to use their sorry ammo(9mm Para case in point). Worked with NATO types, had friends who did several joint ops with those guys and guess what, the only limit on ammo was the bureaucrat log types always saying no instead of moving the damn ammo to the guys asking for it. They worked harder saying no, than they did to get the ammo for the guys who wanted it. No offense to anyone present, but the logistics branchs of the US mil need to be purged stalin style and filled with people concerned with mission accomplishment, not keeping the proper forms filed in an attractive manner that looks good for the IG.

Anyhow, the XM8 isn't close to being a done deal, as it doesn't bring any advances to the table, it's still a 5.56 rifle, same as the M16. Which is hardly needed as we're supposed to field a uberweapon(XM29 OICW) in the next ten-15 years anyways, so why waste time and money on XM8, except to enrich HK's pockets?

Enough ranting, sorry. Remington might very well introduce a 6.8x43 boltgun at SHOT this year, as they are loading the ammo for the USG. The 6.8 project is a shing example of good things being done in spite of USG bureaucrats. I've seen some good reasons stated for not fielding it, and some good reasons for. IMO, if we go to it US DOD wide, it'll be a winner. If it's just a toy for SOCOM, it'll die on the vine as a novelty. The US had a chance to do the right thing with the 276Pederson in the 1930's and Bugout Doug shot it down due to his lack of vision and general cheapness. In the long run, that decision has cost use countless lives and three nonoptimal generations of weapons, M1, M14 and M16(A1, A2 and M4 to be precise). We're back where we started 70 years ago. S/F...Ken M

So, it's basically a 270-30 Rem.
I like it. Casehead is right in between the 223 and 308, and ammo weight will likely be right in the middle as well. I heard that another big reason for going 5.56mm, besides recoil under auto fire, was that a 308 bullet weighed the same as a 223 round.
I've never shot anyone, but always felt that 62g was a bit on the light side. Double sounds about right.
Wonder how long before someone wildcats their AR to accept the new round?

That round should be a perfect match for the Daly/Mk. X Mini Mauser action (or Sako A1 or CZ 527), IMO. With the right bullet, a 5 lb., 250 yd. low recoil deer rifle. Wonder what an Ackley Improved version would do?... (I'm guessing 120gr.@3000fps)

Joe....Now, we're talking about the accuracy here of military rifles and not some dolled up version of something with $2,000 worth of accuracy gizmos from Brownells.

Back in the old days of the late 60s, we'd shoot in the "leg" matches with the old timers using Springfields and we'd get whooped soundly at ever turn....even in the rapid fire stages.

We were shooting the NM M-14s maintained by the 1st Army's MTU armorers and had unlimited practice time and NM ammo. Now, I can outshoot an M-14 with a Springfield. My son has two M1As....one of the gee whiz models and a regular one. I can clean his clock with a Springfield any day.

The so called "match" M-16 didn't show me much either. We were required to use ball ammo. We'd pull and weigh and neck size and seat. Create our own "match" ammo and it wasn't as good as even our M-14 results.

The old M-1s back in the 50s were all dolled up by the armorers and would shoot good for a while and then go nuts on you....usually right in the middle of a match. Rod slap, binding, loose gas cylinder, sight play. Even with match ammo.

None of that crap ever happened with the Springfield.

I had a early M-16...came off a KIA at Khe Sanh. That was the jammingest rifle I ever had. Finally we'd carry it along to shoot birds out of the chopper with as it shot fine on rock and roll. The second one I had was reliable but couldn't hit a bull in the butt at 100 yards.

I've shot Stoners, Johnsons, 1917s, M-1 Carbines, Galils, Armalites and nothing beats the simplicity and accuracy of a Springfield....MHO./beagle

beagle
I hear ya pardner. I love the 1903 Springfield. As good as the 30-06 is the 308 is an inheretly more accurate round. That's why you don't see many 30-06's at matchs anymore. Like anything out there, there is alot of junk. I don't doubt that you have had and shot some pretty bad M16's and AR15's . I must be lucky as I haven't. I have an early preban HBAR AR15. One of the most accurate rifles I've owned. I can't tell you the number of times that I praire dog hunted with it and pissed off alot of fellow 22-250 hunters. And they were shooting heavy barreled varmint rifles with the big scopes. It's not that they were lousy shots because they weren't. They couldn't believe how accurate and flat shooting my HBAR was. They were also impressed, as were I, how even with Nam issue 55 gr FMJ, torn the dogs to pieces more so then their soft pointed 22-250's. The reason being my AR has the 1/7 twist so that bullet is really spinning when it hits something. I just can't understand why you haven't come across any accurate M1A's. I've seem more then a few of these shoot incredibly. Beagle I love all these guns. The way I feel about guns is the way Will Rogers felt about men. He said "I've never met a man I didn't like" Well I've never met a gun I didn't like..good or bad they are all interesting.
Joe

They are gonna have to rework the AR some to use that cartridge. Folks been necking .223 up and playing with some Sov bloc cartridge that's a stretched 7.62x39 and they report breaking locking lugs with stuff like 7mm TCU.

ok no fire fights here.......

I got no in country shooting.......

I have a 1/14 twist ar15 shoots 52's in the 3's ( low is .25 5 shot grp at 100, norm is .34) this is a heavy bench only gun.

I have a self built a2 config with 1/8 twist bbl and match sights. shoots 75's .75 moa(as in 1.5 at 200). this is a cmp/dcm looks like issue match rifle , shoot 3 position. if I could shoot standing or sitting worth shit this would be a kick butt rifle.

I have a used 1/8 Krieger bbl a2 with bells and whistles. It�s built as a wantabe 3 gun rifle. it has a flared magwell, a hollow butt stock that caries a 30rd mag...mag is a very fast reload(not out the back, out the bottom in shooting position). bi pod, laser..... I shoot 55/62/69 out of this blasting rifle. holds 2" at 300yds.

a pair of ar10's that plain kick ass. one is a benchrest gun one is a prone 600yd gun.

so here�s my take:
as great as '06 is(bolt or gas gun) it is not soldier friendly in weight, recoil or close in fire power.
308 win/7.62 NATO is a great round for which we never had a great rifle. m14's are ok as issue, but match they ain't and neither is any of the current m1a's. they are high maintance in match config. support sucks in that mags and ammo are heavy and expensive. again not a great close in gun.
m16...
was a great design screwed up(well documented) by people pinching pennies and killing soldiers. the people that dropped the chrome chamber and substituted powder should have been shot period.
at the very least sent to nam with their weapon and ammo ...straight to the front.

the 1/12 was correct for the ball 55 gr ammo, but when tracer ammo was added it was too slow.
in my humble opinion, the military then went too far with the 7 twist bbl. 1/8 will shoot 55 to 77 grain bullets from 100 to 500yds from a mag very well.( it should be noted here , for those that don�t know, that the only way an m16 match rifle can shoot 600 yds in competition is that the ammo is basically .25" longer than the mag, and is single loaded....not a field weapon at all)

on the other side of the world there is:
8mm.....see our '06 comments

7.62x54r(or 53r).....European equivalent of our '06.(well almost.. less pressure, almost the same volume. has set international long distance records, taken more game, and pissed the Russians off in Afghanistan). lack of standards is a problem with iron curtain mil weapons but it is in the same lot with our '06 weapons. to heavy, to slow, too much cost in support......lots of guns built from 20 to 29 inch bbls. the finn39 and Russian 91/30's make great sniper rifles.

7.62x39.....someone on the right path. the sks was a battle field weapon, made better with the 20rd mag well of the Chinese version. next big step was recognizing the benefits and limitations. the gun functions period, ten or 20 rds was a limit...enter the detachable mag ak47; 20/30/40 rd mags and 75/100 rd drums.
if you can get close and flood the fields with these you gonna do some damage.

5.45x39....(ak74) almost a 22 like our m16 built on an AK platform. troops like the lighter round as more can be carried, or less weight for the same round count). my guess is this is a compromise round. still ok for short range, but not the knock down power of the 7.62x39.

so what�s best??? there ain�t ONE best.

the lite rounds need a mid/long range support team( don�t believe me ask the Russians, they got their collective butts kicked out of Afghanistan because they could not get close enough to use their ak's. they were beat(in the field) by bolt action 7.62x54r long guns.)
for logistics and cost I think a sub 30/bigger than 22, short round for the field/grunt. ...260x39(ak)....????? 260x47(m16)????
then a mid range marksman gun/round.....my choice an ar10 24" scoped in 308 with 168/175 gr match ammo in the hands of a trained marksman. this might be replaced by a new short magnum round but need some time to see how those work.
and then we still need true snipers....they seem to do well at picking what they need for the job.
( I don�t know what none-rimmed ammo the eastern block has in this area, but do know the rim is a draw back)

I read some place that the Coast Guard went to a .50 caliber rifle because of the knockdown power in close quarters. They are in a little different logistic situation(no long marchs, carry large amounts of ammo on their "cutters). Does anyone here have any data on this round?

Ed B

Grumble, if the process is causing the problems, we need to fix the process. I think we can leave this lay. Suffice it to say if the combat arms types used as many excuses for why things could not get done as the supply types, we'd be worse off(if not quite speaking Russian). Maybe it's a recent thing, maybe it's because we don't have a real threat to the CONUS since the obvious Russian threat went away. Maybe it's because the Congress budgeted more money towards toilet paper than training. Regardless, we all know what excuses are like. No one cares about excuses, performance is what matters.

Shooting service ammo, the average(or even the master) rifleman will achieve far more hits, faster with the M16A2 than with any other rifle we've fielded. It wouldn't surprise me if they grouped smaller as well. That's rack grade, not star gauged for groups. The 1903 was fine target rifle, but we have moved on.

The 6.8 works fine with mostly stock M16 parts. The bolt needs to be modified, and the mags need new followers IIRC. S/F...Ken M

Oh, you were just talking about SUPPLY types! You said "logistics," and I made the mistake of thinking you knew what you were talking about!

Well, I'd agree that some supply folks can be pretty narrow minded. I guess they just don't want to go to jail -- no spunk at all.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ed Barrett:
[QB]I read some place that the Coast Guard went to a .50 caliber rifle because of the knockdown power in close quarters.

yes coast tosties bought 50 cal ar's

there were two diff manufactures at the shot show this yr with 50 cal ar based guns.

my guess( maybe a tostie will wade in from work and let us know) was that 223 made little holes and little damage to boats as in hulls and engines, and that maybe the 50 was a good anti-boat round. mod 20rd mags held 7/8 rounds, mod 30's (usgi/leo only) held 12/13 if i remeber correctly.

Mike

My fast twist Colt HBAR shoots all the bullets throught just fine. That's from pulled 40gr 22mag bullets, to the 69 grainers. I haven't seen any difference in shooting 52 and 53 grainers as opposed to the heavier ones. I was one of the first people to report back to Sierra company results of their then new 69 gr hollow point. They said your rifle must have been made on a Wedensday and not to do anything to it and try not to over clean it alot. I think I got a lucky one.

Joe

At a macro level, the log types have physical limits on what they can move, no problems, we all have to deal with what's possible. The log problems of the US are to be solved at the multistar and elected level, no lower.

Lower level S4 types just generally seem to be obstructionist for reasons known only to them. Maybe just local, but I hear an awful lot of the same stories from different people. Maybe us grunts are just unreasonable, or maybe not. S/F...Ken M

[QUOTE]Originally posted by starmetal:
[QB]beagle
"As good as the 30-06 is the 308 is an inheretly more accurate round."

Do you really believe that a .308 is ( what ever the word )more accurate than a 30-06? What features make this a fact? Believe me I'm willing to get educated here. Any proff you can supply will be appriciated. roger

Some DoD organisation, Springfield, Picatinny or Rock Island IIRC tested 308Win vs 30-06 in test fixtures at either 600 or 800yds(don't recall exactly) and 308Win was more consistant. With a shorter powder column at higher operating pressure pressure, this should not be surprising. This was discussed on the now defunct Firing Line, I believe the search function still works if you care to look. In the real world, I'm not sure how the 308's inherant greater accuracy would trade off against the 30-06's ability to throw the nice heavy VLD's faster, thus making shooter error less of a problem. I do know that there are damned few 30-06's on the 1000yd line when I shoot. It's 308's, 6.5-284, some magnum dinosaurs and a few guys with their 6mm's. S/F...Ken M