Gents
I am considering purchasing a Ruger RSI (tang safety) in either a 308 or 30-06. My question is;
with only an 18.5 inch barrel is there any benefit ballisticily of the 30-06 over the 308? Any and all thoughts would be much appreciated.

I'd buy either one you have the hots for, or buy them both. You will experience some muzzle blast and lost velocity from either one but both will still be extremely deadly. I am a huge fan of the 30/06 so it will always be first choice for me but on the other hand the short action .308 really makes sense in a short barrelled fast handling rifle.
It's really up to you, whichever floats your boat, both cartridges will have pro's and cons depends on who you talk to.

You will always get a little better results with the 30-06 especially with the 180 gr. and over bullets..

I would be satisfied with any of the above as far as a hunting rifle for deer, elk, antelope, and Caribou at ranges up to 300 or so yards, and all this in a compact rifle that's very nice to pack around all day long.

Give me a Ruger RSI in a 30-06 and the right bullets, and I would hunt all the animals in the world, and feel comfortable enough to get by. Slowing down a bullet isn't a problem, speeding them up can be. That's why the .318 WR, 7x57, 333 Jeferys and 350 made a name for themselves, just good bullet performance at slower velocity. I think it was Bell who when asked what the perfect elephant rifle was and his reply was a .308 with 220 gr. solids. He should know!

Whichever cartridge you like best. I have a tang safety one in .308 and I dearly love it. It is one of the most accurate hunting rifles I have owned and is very handy. Plenty powerful for the things I'd hunt with an RSI.

You misspelled 7x57.

I have a 77RSI MkII in .308 so can only comment on that. I fire it very little but here are my findings. I bought it near new and have never had the action out of the stock nor have I messed with the trigger. It is, apparently, bone stock.
Over the chrono, Federal, WInchester, and Remington factory loads all went about 2565 fps 10 feet from the muzzle. If memory serves, that is about 250 fps below advertised, You make the conclusion you need to make.
Accuracy: After sighting in with three rounds, all three of the above named loads went into @.75" for three shot groups, which is very impressive in my estimation. Then the barrel got hot and accuracy after that was 2.3" to 3".
Two days ago I took the RSI .308 to the range. It was 94 degrees and the bugs were eating me so badly they were passing around a Rolaids.
I plinked a five rounds (load listed below) at 300 yards and they grouped into 4" in the wind. I then set up a target at 50 yards and fired a three shot group of 47 grains Varget/150 grain WW Power Point/FC case/CCI primer. With a hot barrel, the group was a perfect triangle of 1.25".
I let the rifle cool down for 15 minutes, dashed out of the car and fired only two shots of the same load because of the nasty flying critters. At 50 yards the group was a single hole. I actually thought somehow I had missed the target. At home I measured it at .397"-.308" = .089". Wish I could have fired more and chrono'ed the Varget load.
As an aside to this, I am surprised that Bill Ruger never chambered the RSI for the .260 Remington. Mr. Ruger was a big fan of the 1903 Mannlicher in 6.5x54 MS. The RSI .260 Remington would have been a natural update from the classic MS.

quote:

y) in either a 308 or 30-06. My question is;
with only an 18.5 inch barrel is there any benefit ballisticily of the 30-06

Not in the real world. either would be fine.

I have a 18.5 inch 06 scout rifle I get 2250 with 220 gr round nose bullets. Kills hogs and bears just fine.

Well, wheat harvest now officially over for another year. Back to my question. I understand there will be more muzzle blast from the 30-06, but up to bullet weights in the 165 to 180grs., would there be much of a commensurate gain in velocity of the 30-06 over the 308 in that short of a barrel?

You can never go wrong with a 30-06

That 18.5" Barrel should leave a nice ringing noise in your ears no matter what the caliber

I'd be very happy with either one.

Thank you all for your thoughts and opinions. I think I'm going with the 308 on the very least of all criteria. The 30-06 is a lovely rifle that looks like it was in the safe all the time.
The 308 looks like it was taken out every time he went hunting. The rifle is in great shape, but those familiar with an RSI know what the stock probably looks like. If I get the 06', it too will probably sit in the safe. But the 308 is going to the pickup with me with no remorse! He also mentioned that for everyday carry around; that the 125 grain BT was a good vermin bullet. As for getting them both: the wheat crop wasn't THAT good. Maybe next year if he hasn't sold it yet. Thanks all.

P.S. Deon, "WHAT?"

quote:

You misspelled 7x57

Your choice either will work. But the 308 gives up very little to the 30-06 in that short of a barrel. I would go 308 and save some powder and blast.

Steyrsteve,
The reason Bill Ruger didn't go with the .260 Rem might be because he passed away before the .260 came about?? or so it seems to my recollection??

Jfromswk,
I did a lot of chronograph work on a Ruger RSI .308 and with certain loads it could be made to equal the 30-06 with 150 gr. bullets, or at least come very close.

That said, and since the guns weight and balance, recoil, etc. is the same in both calibers I see no reason to not go with the 30-06 and get the benefit of using the heavy 180, 200 and 220 gr. bullets, and that is where the difference showed up according to my chronograph. As to length of the bolt throw, what a bunch of BS that is. The difference is less than a quarter of an inch. Whoever came up with that one was really reaching!

Ray, the .260 Remington came out in '97. Mr. Ruger died in 2002. Could'a been done but I got the feeling few folks at Ruger went to bat for the RSI. There were so many possibilities for it but very little corporate "push".

I ran out (Ok, figuratively) and bought a 1st year RSI in .308 as soon as they were available. My dad picked up another a couple years later. By then the bbl profile was slightly thicker.

They (mine especially) are a delight to carry, but not tack-drivers. I put an Aimpoint on mine and it is handy as heck. Sorta like a M-94 .30-30 carbine on steroids. I have not had a POI/bedding issue with either gun.

Out to 200 yds I don't see how I'd separate the .308 and .30-06 - unless I wanted to use 200-220 gr projos. I would not want one in something with more recoil than '06.

Sam

Speaking from actual experience (not conjecture), I've had both the 308 and 30-06 in the RSI configuration. The 30-06 was obnoxious in a barrel that short and I'd never do a 30-06 shorter than 21". The 308, OTOH, was a pussy cat and a pleasure to shoot.

The 308 is what carbines are all about... the 30-06, not so much.

I really can't fathom the reason for the 30-06 in the RSI...

I had this thought BEFORE I read the same thought by Jack O'Connor in his book The Hunting Rifle. The beauty of the .308 is it being a short cartridge works better in actions OTHER THAN bolt than a long cartridge (30-06). If buying a bolt action, you don't use the beauty of the .308, so get the 30-06. This is not a knock on the .308, a fine round. I gave my grandson a .308 in Win 88 (Lever action) and it has been magic for him.

I really like the .308.
The 06 also , but i get a kick out of getting so much pop from the little .308 and using less powder to accomplish more or less the same.
That said, if you want to hunt big stuff like moose , get the 06 !But for deer i think the .308 is as good as it gets...tj3006

quote:

Originally posted by carpetman1:
I had this thought BEFORE I read the same thought by Jack O'Connor in his book The Hunting Rifle. The beauty of the .308 is it being a short cartridge works better in actions OTHER THAN bolt than a long cartridge (30-06). If buying a bolt action, you don't use the beauty of the .308, so get the 30-06. This is not a knock on the .308, a fine round. I gave my grandson a .308 in Win 88 (Lever action) and it has been magic for him.

Hmmm... that makes absolutely no sense given there is such a thing as a short bolt action.

Throughout the early and middle years of Jacks writing career there were no genuine short actions.

You've got to put some of what JO says in context of the time it was written...

I can't tell any difference in the two as far as handling. The only difference is the 06 has a longer bolt throw, about a quarter of an inch and that ain't a bunch IMO. That said, why then is the .308 such a better option inasmuch as it isn't up to snuff with 180, 200, and 220 gr. bullets. Surly that 1/4 inch bolt throw isn't all that important, the both use the same action and stock, the .308 simply has a block in the magazine and a shorter bolt stop, otherwise its the same rifle.

Sorry but I just can't see the .308 except in a Savage 99, or BLR, that's where is shines. I am a fan of the .308 but it has limited application IMO. My 99 shoots 150 gr. bullets at the same velocity as my 30-06s and its my deer and elk gun if I'm horse back. I use the TTSX on elk and the corelokts on deer.

I'll pick the 30-06 in a Ruger 77 INT. for that reason. I get more velocity in the 06 and in that short tube its needed or rather its a perk.

Brad, I'm confused, when did short actions come out? I thought way before Jack O'Connor.

quote:

Originally posted by carpetman1:
Brad, I'm confused, when did short actions come out? I thought way before Jack O'Connor.

Only if you consider the Mauser 98 a "short" action... it's actually a mid length action.

Short actions didn't become widely available until the 1960's (with a couple exceptions in the late 40's and 50's)... until then short action rounds were mostly chambered in long actions.

Winchester didn't have a SA in the 40's or 50's, and that action, and the Mauser, were O'Connor's action of choice, not something like the Remington 722.

quote:

Originally posted by Atkinson:
I can't tell any difference in the two as far as handling. The only difference is the 06 has a longer bolt throw, about a quarter of an inch and that ain't a bunch IMO. That said, why then is the .308 such a better option inasmuch as it isn't up to snuff with 180, 200, and 220 gr. bullets. Surly that 1/4 inch bolt throw isn't all that important, the both use the same action and stock, the .308 simply has a block in the magazine and a shorter bolt stop, otherwise its the same rifle.

Sorry but I just can't see the .308 except in a Savage 99, or BLR, that's where is shines. I am a fan of the .308 but it has limited application IMO. My 99 shoots 150 gr. bullets at the same velocity as my 30-06s and its my deer and elk gun if I'm horse back. I use the TTSX on elk and the corelokts on deer.

I'll pick the 30-06 in a Ruger 77 INT. for that reason. I get more velocity in the 06 and in that short tube its needed or rather its a perk.

I've had both the 18.5" 308 and 18.5" 30-06... the point of the 308 over the 30-06 is not bolt throw, it's NOISE... the 30-06 holds some 25% more powder and is a LOT louder in an 18.5" barrel.

I've killed elk with both the 30-06 and 165's and 180's, and the 308 with 165's and 150's... I've never seen any difference, and I didn't kill them on the internet or behind a high fence.

Brad, the Jack O'Connor book I referenced was written 1970.

quote:

Originally posted by carpetman1:
Brad, I'm confused, when did short actions come out? I thought way before Jack O'Connor.

Jack O'Connor began writing in the 1930's... and he used M70's which had no SA in 1970...

Brad, first off, Jack O'Connor started writing in the 20's. The Win .270 was developed 1923 and released 1925 and you will not read anywhere that he was not instrumental in that. He was not limited to model 70's and I'm sure by 1970 he was aware of what was available. I fully understand and agree with him.

He was teaching writing in the 20's... his career as a writer took off in the 30's.

OConnor said many thing, including that he once used an 18.5" barreled 30-06 and that it was a fire-breathing, kicking mule, and that a 308 made more sense in a carbine.

THAT'S WHAT THIS THREAD IS ABOUT. CARBINES.

I don't need to quote St. Jack, as I've used both and you obviously haven't... those that guess pull quotes from their favorite writers, and generally out of context... like you.

Well, went ahead and got the 308. It shoots pretty good; as good as I need it to anyway. The 30-06 wasn't too bad; at least with 150 grain factorys. Who in the world thought that a 270 would be a good choice for the RSI? Good Night!
What a loudenboomergaflaminblaster!! It's enough to have even put O'Connor off the 270. I'm not sure it's one of the better cartridges for this short barrel profile. I think the 7-08 would have been a better regular run for the RSI, instead of the few they made; even though I haven't shot that caliber. Just saying, because the 308 seems to be pretty mild mannered compared to the 06 and the 270.

I think you made an excellent choice.
I Have 3 .308s Slap a good low power variable scope ,on it . I like leupolds Vx2 2x7 , or if you dont mind spending some cash get a vx3 1.25x6 or 2.5x8... just my 2cents worth ...tj

Early on a few Rem 722s and early Sakos were available in .308..These are impossible to find but one could re-chamber a 300 savage to the .308. I did that, nice gun but I sold it.

My chronograph tells me a 18.5 inch .308 is balistically a 300 Savage and a 18.5 inch 30-06 is a .308.

I liked both my 308 and 30-06 in the RSI..I wouldn't be too concerned which one I used. Muzzle blast didn't bother me but if you used a slow burning powder you could tell the difference if your a scardy cat!

My next RSI is going to be a SS with wood stock 250-3000. Normally I dislike SS but this one is a super neat gun, but they have become hard to find, I waited too long.