Sacred Cows make great Hamburger. In America today, the .308 Winchester cartridge enjoys the position of being a Sacred Cow. It’s venerated for its power, praised for its effective range, and glorified for its military service.
But I don’t like it one bit.
In fact, the 308 is one of my least favorite cartridges.
Give me a few minutes, and I’ll explain why the Military KNEW the .308 was NOT a good cartridge when they adopted it.
Let’s fire up that grill and make some sacred Hamburgers.
To fully understand why the 308 sucks, lets take a short trip down history lane. After WWI, the US military looked at the .30-06 cartridge used in the 1903 Springfield and thought
“Wow, that’s too much gun.”
They wanted something that was effective in Close Quarters Combat (CQC) and out to around 500-600 yards. The 30-06 was too heavy and had too much recoil to fit the bill.
So in the 1920s and early 1930s, they spent millions of dollars developing a suitable cartridge. Keep in mind, this was so important that the military spent these millions during the height of the depression.
The military decided it should be between 6.5mm & 7mm in diameter, and should weigh no more than 120-130 grains. (BTW: the .308 military loading is a 147 grain 7.62mm bullet at 2800 fps)
They designed the cartridge and called it the .276 Pedersen. It fired a 125gr 7mm bullet at roughly 2700fps. (Wikipedia’s .275 Pedersen Article got this stat wrong)
The Army’s chief of staff single-handedly overturned the decision to change cartridges. He decided we should stick with the 30-06 and ordered the M1 Garand be built in 30-06. (It was originally designed for the .276 Pedersen)
That wasted millions of R&D dollars and gave our troops a cartridge known to be over-powered.
Oh well.
So then after WWII the military looked at the 30-06 and thought:
“Wow, that’s too much gun”
Imagine that.
Anyway, they set about designing a new cartridge and ended up with the .308 Winchester. Here’s the Problem:
- The 30-06 fired a 150 grain bullet at 2800 fps (M2 Ball ammo)
- The .308 fired a 147 grain bullet at 2800 fps (M80 Ball ammo)
3 grains lighter, exact same velocity!!!
Are you Kidding me!!!
So we get into the Vietnam Conflict and it doesn’t take long before the Military looks at the 308 and thinks:
“Wow, that’s too much gun”
Duh!
The British tried talking some sense into us. They designed the .280 British (140 grain bullet at 2550 fps) that had WAY less recoil and a similar effective range. Did we listen?
Nope.
If we didn’t listen when our own R&D, why would we listen to theirs?
So why does the .308 suck? Maybe because we have almost 100 years of experience and 2 World Wars that says it does. (or says bullets that size and velocity suck anyway)
But…
But…
But…
What about all it’s wonderful attributes that people love so much? I’m glad you asked. I have a confession, it’s not .308 that I dislike so much – I don’t like ANY 30 caliber bullets.
ANY of them. (except maybe the .300 blackout with 220gr+subsonic bullets. That’s pretty cool)
.30 caliber bullets are just too fat to be aerodynamic. There’s a reason the military concluded that our bullets shouldn’t be bigger than 7mm.
They get too fat. (full explanation in my article about Sectional Density, Short version below)
- Fat bullets are less aerodynamic = less effective at long range.
- Slim bullet are more aerodynamic = more effective at long range.
Example: The .308 M80 Ball (147 grain bullet @ 2800) slows to about 1320 fps at 800 yards. It’s still considered lethal at 800 yards.
So lets say that any 147 grain bullet at 1320 fps is lethal. (If you disagree, you’re welcome to stand in front of one. No takers? I thought so)
If we take a 147 grain 7mm bullet at the same velocity (and same aerodynamic form factor), it would slow to around 1530 fps at 800 yards.
That’s over 200 FPS difference…
Starting at the same velocity!
(Plus, the wind wouldn’t push the bullet around so much)
Lets go even further. The military said a bullet as small as 6.5mm would be lethal. a 147 grain 6.5mm bullet is VERY aerodynamic because it’s so slim and needle-like.
A 147 grain 6.5mm bullet at 2800 fps would slow to around 1650 fps at 800 yards. That’s almost 350 fps faster starting at the same velocity!
So to achieve our “lethal” (according to the military) velocity of 1320 fps with a 147 grain bullet, here’s what velocity our three calibers need to start at: (approximate)
- .308 needs 2800 fps Starting velocity to reach 1320 at 800 Yards
- 7mm needs 2510 fps Starting velocity to reach 1320 at 800 Yards
- 6.5mm needs 2370 fps Starting velocity to reach 1320 at 800 Yards
You don’t need 2800 fps velocity to be lethal at 800 yards. You need a more aerodynamic bullet.
This goes double so because of the recoil factor. The .308 has 25% more recoil than the 7mm bullet above, and 35% more recoil than the 6.5 mm bullet.
Lower recoil = more effective at Close Quarters Combat because you can have faster aimed follow-up shots.
Lower velocity = lower recoil (assuming the same bullet weight)
The British figured this out and wanted NATO to adopt their .280 British cartridge instead of the .308. It fired a 140 grain 7mm bullet at about 2550 fps. Hmm, does that sound familiar? (if not, you need to go back up several lines)
They got it.
We blew it.
Unfortunately for our soldiers, the US had more influence in NATO. So the US convinced NATO to choose the .308 over the FAR better performing .280 British. That’s politics for you.
Our troops were given an inferior cartridge because America’s love affair with .30 caliber bullets outweighed Millions of dollars in R&D by two different countries.
So that’s the sad, sordid history of the .308. It was chosen over a FAR better competitor due to politics.
Yes it’s still lethal at 800 yards and will put targets down with authority. But because of it’s big, fat bullets it needs much more velocity (read: “recoil”) to do it.
The military around the world needs to adopt the 6.5 Grendel! Does everything that a military round needs to get done.
The Grendel would certainly be a step in the right direction. I actually have a pet cartridge I like better though. Let me know what you think. General Purpose Combat Cartridge Revisited
243 winchester would be good too.
Easy on logistics for the military
I agree that the 243 has everything you need performance wise. The only downside is barrel life, which is why I like a slightly small 6mm cartridge. But yeah, I do like the 243.
The 6.5 grendel won’t function reliably in a belt fed light machine gun. I do agree that a 6.5mm round is way better than a .308 though
What were the British .280 AP capabilities compared to the .308?
I believe the .280 British would beat out the 308 because of it’s higher Sectional Density despite the 308 coming out faster. That’s assuming identically constructed bullets of course.
There’s a table on the 280 British Wikipedia Page that shows it beat out out a .303 British in penetration. The muzzle velocity numbers are very similar to a 308, so I stand by the .280 British would be better for penetration.
You are a gnat hair splitting ****** [Profanity deleted by admin]. Typical gunshop monkey
In a combat situation the .308( and 30-06) kicks the shit out of most of the calibers you have listed.
If you dont like a .308 is because you have not actually USED one enough to realize how well they work.
I don’t deny the .308 (and 30-06) has been putting people in body bags for a long time. But that doesn’t make it a good cartridge.
If you will do some research, you will find that virtually every study conducted by the military has concluded that the 308 has too much recoil to be an effective close quarters cartridge. Because of the very poor aerodynamics of the bullet, it also makes a poor long-range cartridge. If you disagree about the aerodynamics, please read “What’s wrong with 30 caliber” by Byan Litz. (a Bigwig at Berger bullets)
On a more technical note, the 308 lacks enough space for a properly aerodynamic ogive. Because of that, it’s absolutely limited to bullets with relatively blunt noses so it can’t be very aerodynamic.
Also, no profanity or name calling in the comments unless you want your comment deleted and your email and/or IP address banned.
Actually it does make it a good cartridge.
Being able to put people in body bags is what a war cartridge should do, above and beyond all other functions. Further, the comparisons are false, because at this time, most infantry weapons were iron sighted weapons whose range was sight limited to a few hundred yards. The .30 does that just fine.
Also, we have been sold a pickled lunch for nearly as long as I have been alive with the .223. Every war vet talks about how you can’t put ’em down with the .223, yet battle after battle and war after war we continue with this crappy round for just the reasons you give (better ballistics, better aerodynamics, lighter bullets so the soldier can carry “more” etc.) and it has turned out to be a bunch of crap.
The ultimate range of the battle rifle is rarely beyond 300 yards and will probably be so till the end of time. There is no reason to stretch the battle rifle to do what sniper rifles (in even worse calibers (by your definition)) like .300 Win Mag and .338 Lapua.
Battle rifles should hit hard and put down the enemy, something the .223 does poorly (according to the troops) even at less than 100 yards, well within your energy parameters. Probably the best illustration of this was the book “BlackHawk Down”, where men with 223’s were huddled around the ones with M14’s as the “Big Thirty” kept putting them down shot after shot. These experimental rounds need to be tested in combat, that is true, but until then we should arm our boys with what works, even if it causes some of the little darlings to complain about the recoil.
What’s Right About 6.5/7mm
Glad to see that this subject matter is still in active discussion. There has been a lot of discussion over almost the last 100 years about what is the ideal cartridge and the answer has been found many times and it is always nearly the same: 6.5mm to 7mm at velocities in the mid 2000s fps.
Over the last 250 or so years there has been trend of higher velocities and smaller bores. Much of that trend was due improvements in industrial manufacturing allowing more complicated repeating guns, metallic cartridges to be developed. Smaller calibers were made possible by better machine tools and allowed gun manufacturers to offer new cartridges for civilian use that cost less and reduced recoil while still putting meat on the table. The US military was resistant to these changes and only reluctantly did so after seeing foreign governments adopt smaller, faster calibers.
The same reluctance played out before WWII, the 276 Pedersen vs the 30-06, and again after WWII, 280 British vs T65. Only the 5.56 NATO bucked the trend, in which the military decided that suppressive fire and mythical buzz saw bullets were the desirable than bullet power. The 5.56s short comings at longer range were evident early on with the military repeatedly reaching for the back into the inventory for 30-06 Springfields and Winchesters and 308 M-14s and Remingtons for the last 50 years.
The holy grail of the general purpose cartridge has been identified repeatedly and variations have been developed. They all have similar characteristics: bullets in the 120 to 140 grain weight range, velocities in the 2400 to 2800 fps range, improved ballistic coefficients for better performance at longer ranges. Cartridges with these characteristics offer greater mass and range than the 5.56 and less recoil and better accuracy than the 7.62.
There is a long list of candidate cartridges that can be researched. Some are match cartridges, developed for reduced recoil but improved accuracy. Some are tax payer funded, military development cartridges. Some of these cartridges even have been successfully field tested in both hunting and military applications and their performance is well established.
Two things are need if the military is to ever adopt an improved general purpose cartridge: 1) a fire arm designed to accept a cartridge length between 2.5” and 2.6” and a case head diameter between .422” and .472”, 2) the political will to make the change after 50 years.
Great minds think alike. I believe you would enjoy my General Purpose Combat Cartridge and General Purpose Combat Cartridge Revisited Articles.
Again Abe,great article and observations.Both US and Soviets looked at 6.5 mm
after WWII nut neither dared to pull the trigger.308 bullets used in 7.62 simply
lack the ballistics.147 gr M80 ball has bc around 370-390 which is only good
for 600 yards.Decent bullets in 30 cal. start around 170 grains.
Please notice,is it only my observation that in most American designed cartridges
you got a lot of powder and very little bullet(short and light for caliber)
Just think,how many people shoot 7 mag with 175 grain bullets? Very few.
I shoot them all day long in my 7×57 in full power loads,no problem recoil is
very mild.Other cartridges are handicapped by short action length and severe
bullet setback like .260 or 7-08 to name couple or long cases and not enough
space left in magazine for longer higher bc bullets.
Very few people shoot .308 with bullets that can really perform.
I agree with all of your points, but feel that you forgot one major aspect of larger diameter bullets.
Barrel life.
A 6.5 Creedmoor starts losing accuracy at about 1,500 rounds.
A 308 Win starts losing accuracy at about 5,000 rounds.
That’s 4 times the barrel life for a M240 gpmg.
The 6.5 Grendel starts losing accuracy at about 5,000 rounds.
A 5.56 NATO starts losing accuracy around 10,000 rounds.
That’s twice the barrel life for an M-16 rifle.
The need for a lighter recoiling round that is effective at 300 or so meters is the reason we adopted the 5.56 NATO for individual weapons. Greater power and range is why we still use the .308 for machine guns.
This is a HUGE deal for the military because they shoot thousands of rounds per year just training. In combat, they can go through thousands of rounds per week. Replacing barrels twice or three times as often is a big deal.
If you’re a hunter and shoot a couple hundred rounds per year, a 6.5 Creedmoor makes sense. If you shoot a couple thousand rounds each year, a 6.5 Grendel is good.
But the military, long distance competitors and hunters have very different needs so you need to look at the differences and not let personal biases cloud your thinking.
My preference for 6.5 and 7mm cartridges actually comes from learning about the military testing that says they are the best option. However I agree the 6.5 Creedmore’s barrel life is too low for a military rifle. Personally, I would rather have a 6mm GPCC, though I’d hear an argument for something like the 224 Valkyrie and if the barrel life is good. (which is suspect, but possible)
Also remember that barrel life isn’t just a function of caliber, it’s also a function of pressure. The 6.5 SAUM (Short Action Ultra Magnum) beats the 6.5 Creedmore handily in performance with about the same barrel life (still not a good military cartridge though). How? More powder at a lower pressure. You can drastically reduce barrel wear by using lower pressures. You can ask any serious reloader or match shooter and they’ll confirm this.
Also, Grendel operates at a lower pressure with a larger bore than 5.56. Why would it have half the barrel life? (it doesn’t)
Barrel material as well as the twist rate of rifling also influences barrel life.
True that the .30cals might have been over the top for use in military battle rifles, and that for certain hunting applications you can get along with less powder/lead/brass. But keep in mind that sometimes, energetical advantages are very much wanted, especially @hunting distances, where the 30cals definitely surpass any low recoil alternative that is not faster as well. It’s not like the thirties are inherently less aerodynamic. We make the choice of loading/buying bad long range solutions for those. There’s no physical law that keeps .308 diameter projectiles from having equally good SD / BC values when compared to 6/6.5/7mm ones. It’s just that the caliber has established itself as versatile/multipurpose, and people keep buying the light for caliber bullets because …they are usually cheaper, they can have crazy/explosive terminal performance, most game is taken within 200yards anyway, and having a long MRD/GEE is great for lazy people who don’t care to adjust their zeroing/hold if possible. Rifles are sold in popular twist rates as a result. When comparing long range ballistics of calibers like 6.5 Grendel to .308Win, why not just try to find similar load? And by that I don’t mean similar weight. Of course the smaller-diameter-same-weight bullet will tend to have better BC values. It also needs more pressure or barrel length to achieve that velocity though. Look at the weight and coefficients of the bullets that can be launched by a .308Win at Grendel-velocities, it will narrow the Grendel’s ballistic advantage if not completely negate it. And with two same-speed-same-BC (different caliber and different weight) loads, deciding on one becomes a choice of whether or not you need those extra foot pounds (at the expense of kick/cost) or not.
It’s always the same: find the right solution for your problem/need. If that need happens to be for a versatile, full power, moderate cost rifle caliber with an astronomical amount of widespread, always available factory loadings, bullet designs and weights …that you can use for both hunting/plinking and that will allow you to make long range shots with little drawbacks as compared to many hyped non-magnum benchrest cartridges…why not?
The only issue I have with the .308Win is that it keeps other fancy calibers (.260Rem, 7mm-08, …) from becoming more popular/available/cheap here in Germany especially, because people (myself included) buy those friggen thirties. Argh. Which is why I am partially happy to have people like you point out those awesome alternatives to potential/future shooters.
Bad choice of “fancy calibers”, since those are based on the 308, but you guys know what I mean.
It sounds like you know your ballistics. 🙂 You might enjoy reading “What’s Wrong with 30 Caliber” by Bryan Litz (the chief ballistics guy at Berger Bullets) I also recommend “Understanding Long Range Ballistics and Scaling“, also by Bryan Litz.
Long story short, I prefer the smaller calibers because the recoil required to make 30 cal bullets perform like 6mm/6.5mm/7mm bullets is just crazy. (think 300 win-mag) However, I’m a self-professed and unashamed recoil baby… So that may just be me.
For hunting in North America, 6.5mm (like 260 Remington or 6.5 Creedmore) is plenty for everything but the largest game, so I see no reason to go larger. But then again, I don’t like recoil.
I’ve got an old M77 Ruger 270 that kicks just as hard if not harder than any 30.06 I’ve ever shot. It’s a 7mm bullet and isn’t really any better than a .30.06 other than trajectory. I like my .270. I got a 308 because it’s a NATO round. It is ballisticaly close to my 270 out to about 500 yds with 150 gr Hornady bullets. Recoil is much less. I’m not saying there aren’t better rounds than the 308 but it certainly doesn’t suck. It will put down about anything in North America with the right bullet and a good shot. I’ll be building a 6.5 grendel simply because I want an AR platform rifle that will kill anything I want to shoot in my neck of the woods and an AR 10 just costs too much to build. The grendel will handle that job. Why won’t I get a creedmoor? Because I have a 308 and where I live I have to look hard for a shot over 400-500 yds. My daughter shoots my 308 and doesn’t complain about recoil at all. If it has too much recoil for you then you need to buck up. I don’t like recoil either and as a kid I was small. Developed quite a flinch shooting rifles that tore me up. 308 doesn’t kick for hunting purposes.
Everyone pretty much agrees that today the ‘ideal’ round from a ballistics perspective is somewhere between 6mm and 6.5mm. It’s been proven in shooting matches to be an excellent and accurate range of calibers that are easier to shoot than the older 30-06 and .308. But that doesn’t mean that the 30 caliber bullet is a poor choice for hunting/military use.
In the 1930’s, Douglas MacArthur (Army Chief of Staff at the time) selected 30-06 for the Garand over the Pederson 276 because the United States had huge stockpiles of 30-06 ammo in the military armories around the world. With it being ‘The Depression’ the military was basically begging and borrowing to keep up with payroll, they weren’t going to create a new round and then have to restock armory locations around the world just to secure a little less recoil and better SD.
For those who are really adverse to recoil, just build a 20 pound rifle and then shoot whatever you like through it. If the idea of lugging a 20 pound rifle around isn’t something on your hunting To-Do list, then you must be willing to absorb a little recoil in exchange for a lighter bang stick.
As with all things in life, there are a series of trade-offs that need to be made. No one gun can do everything well. Anyone who says so is overlooking some key facts or trying to sell something. If the bullet has to hit something hard at 1000 yards, it probably won’t be a good CQB round and vice versa.
I don’t even think you hate 30 caliber so much, you just don’t like stubby, low BC 30 cals for CQC. Actually, then later you said you are a recoil baby and a 200+ grain high BC bullet would kick enough to make some brain in the Pentagon push for a 15-20 lb rifle.
Your article interested me because I recently learned about the US general who pushed for the development and adoption of the 30-06 short (aka 308 Win/7.62 NATO) over the 280 Brit and outright lied to FN about our willingness to adopt the FN-FAL in exchange for broader European support for the 30-06 short.
The situation is actually worse than you described. Millions were wasted in the 30’s as our military strength atrophied on the eve of the biggest war ever, and then millions were wasted again in the depths of the cold war for a battle rifle that was just a box magazine-fed M1 with a short cartridge that was only used for 5-6 years before being replaced. We could have adopted the FN-FAL sooner, faster, and with the superior 280 Brit cartridge and it would have served us better for much longer. …except the Springfield Armory engineers rigged the tests to save their jobs and so one general could make his laurels (OER).
Interestingly, we are still suffering from this decision today. Talk to most Designated Marksmen, and they will tell you the EBR is a dog. It is way too heavy and their selection criteria was a base rifle shooting 2 MOA at 100 yards. Of the snipers who left first hand accounts or approved biographies after Vietnam (e.g, Carlos Hathcock among others), they preferred the 30-06 in their Winchester M70s over the 7.62 NATO for their work, but DM’s are still stuck with the 7.62 NATO. While snipers have more choices today, our inventory is 5.56, 7.62, 300 WinMag, 338 Lapua, 408CT, and 50 BMG when the 30-06 could nicely fill the gap between what the 5.56 and 338 can do.
Another story I’d be interested in learning about is the decision by the Japanese to ditch the 6.5mm Arisaka for the 7.7mm. The 6.5 JAP already used a 140 gn bullet with MV around 2500 fps…ideal per the standards you described.
There’s a great PDF article by Brian Litz (head ballistician of Berger Bullets) named “What’s wrong with 30 caliber“. If you look at the numbers and available bullets, 7mm can do everything the 30 cal can, just with less recoil.
I’ve heard two theories on why the Japanese went to the 7.7. First, they were using poor bullet technology so the 6.5 weren’t creating good wound channels. Second, as a component of national psychology, they didn’t like that everyone else was using a more powerful cartridge; they thought they were “outgunned”, not realizing that was a good thing. Not sure either is correct, but it’s interesting.
Japanese 7.7 was for MGs first and foremost, they never finished replacing 6.5 in their rifles before the war ended. The 6.5 originally had an ineffective round nosed bullet, but when they replaced it with a spitzer it worked fine. See http://quarryhs.co.uk/256brit.htm,
The weird thing is, going on the Wiki numbers, I don’t even see a ballistic advantage for the 7.7, although obviously it has more energy and tracer/incendiary capacity.
The 6.5 has slightly higher sectional density as well as muzzle velocity – it is a very heavy bullet for its caliber. Perhaps the 7.7 form factor is much better, but I can’t find any info on that, and visually there doesn’t seem to be a dramatic difference .
As a former 0311 Infantry Rifleman in the USMC and having read numerous volumes on warfare, I would have to disagree. I’ve always been a fan of big, heavy and slow bullets. They kill better. Always have and always will. The US Cavalry was issued 45-70 lever guns during the Indian Wars and hated them because they were too small and couldn’t knock down their intended target with desired effect. I’m also wary of your cited studies. I would lay a bet not one of the people who performed those studies had ever killed a man in combat before. The most common complaint: guns are too small and don’t have enough knock down power.
What you forget when saying we need a needle like bullet is that a fat bullet like a 30 cal imparts more energy to the target. It hits harder so it actually has more knock down power. That’s why socom commissioned the. 458 for being chambered in an m4 they say the. 556 not having enough stopping power against “determined targets”.
“Stopping Power” is primarily a function of the shooter’s accuracy. The Bullet’s energy is only an indication of what is possible. Higher energy does NOT necessarily mean higher damage, just a higher potential for damage. (Bullet design decides how the energy is applied.)
As for the 5.56, it is perfectly capable of dropping targets with authority if the proper ammunition is used. You can read my article on why the 5.56 is both the best and worst AR-15 cartridge for more information.
The important factor [word] energy was only mentioned twice prior to today, that’s nuts.
Sure a .380 or 9mm will put holes in things all day, yet some still prefer .45’s. Energy is important for many reasons in rifles and handguns.
Bullet energy actually isn’t very important at all, especially in handguns. To quote the FBI’s justification for going to back to 9mm.
For more info – especially on bullet energy – please check out my response to “A1” just above. You may also enjoy my articles on how many rounds you need for concealed carry and 9mm vs 40 vs 45.