Does anyone have any thoughts/disagreements with this article?

http://hunting.about.com/od/guns/l/aasttopriflecar.htm

It lists the tried and true 30-06 Springfield as the #1 cartridge of the last century, although there are some other cartridges that came is as runners-up that are arguably very good cartridges too such as the .270, .308 and .243.

I think it'd be more interesting to limit the challenge to cartridges created in the 21st century, or maybe the 10-15 years. The 30-06 debate is beat to death. The 30-06/.270/.308 debate centers around how long they've been around and their tried and true results. Newer cartridges don't have the benefit of that history: the speculation makes for the fun. But of course, all new cartridges are compared to what is already available and the canonized performances of the Three Kings, as it were.

jonas

My question is, which of these cartridges broke new ground? The .30-06 and .375 H&H did, pre WW I, and the .220 Swift did, pre WW II, as hunting cartridges. The .222 brought benchrest accuracy to the masses and the 6mm PPC is the only real improvement on it. The .270 Winchester and 7mm Remington magnum aren't much more than replacements for the .256 Newton and the .280 Ross. The .458 Winchester is another replacement cartridge. The .308 Winchester is a good but not great little brother of the .30-06. The .243 Winchester is a bit too much for varmints and not quite enough for big game for me. The .338 Winchester Magnum does fill the gap between the .30-06 and .375 H&H better than the .300 Weatherby Magnum.

Bye
Jack

Ok Jonas, that's an interesting way to put it, but is there anything wrong with the 30-06, .270 or .308? Aren't they actually great cartridges that deliver where it counts? Are there cartridges that have been developed in the past 10-15 years that really offer superior performance to those three? Keep in mind that this question for me is not rhetorical - I'm just now starting to devote the same kind of time and attention to the cartridges and loads themselves as to the guns that fire them.

Just to be a ringer here I think the new 204 Ruger is probably the greatest varmint cartridge to come along in the last 50 years. Now that's breaking new ground as Jack says. The folks that packaged a bullet traveling 4200 fps in a 223 sized case with ballistics slightly better than the 220 Swift and the 22-250 with recoil forces that equal the 17 Remington really hit a winner.

Like Jack says the 06/270/308 debate has been beat to death and there's not doubt they all are great cartridges.

Trickg brought up a good point.

this seems like a pretty good line up, except i think the .22-250 far out positions the .222 remington, i agree there should be a countdown of new cartridges including the .204 and .338 federal

I disagree with the "goodness" of a cartridge being any way connected with power.

I put the 7 X 57 ahead of the 30/06 and the .222 ahead of any of the other 22 calibers.

I disagree with the "goodness" of a cartridge being any way connected with power.

I put the 7 X 57 ahead of the 30/06 and the .222 ahead of any of the other 22 calibers.
I read an article that compared the 7 x 57 to the .308 in terms of accuracy performance - is that true?

On the subject of the .204, it does certainly seem to be getting a lot of good press. Dad always liked the 25-06 for varmints because he felt that the heavier bullet bucked wind a bit better than lighter rounds like the .223, and living in Nebraska, there was plenty of wind to buck because there's just nothing to stop it out there. :)

Without having read the article; the 30-06 is way better than its competitors because of its versatility>

Kudu40

If I wrote that article:

It would be hard for me to not include the .30-30 in a top 10 cartridges list.

Think we Americans tend to consider the 30-06 as the Holy Grail that all others are compared to.

The British, Canadians, Aussies, etc. will argue the case for the .303 Brit.

Scandinavian countries will vote for the 6.5x55, while the Germans will go with the 8x57.

Me, I think they're all great and am continually amused that the cartridges developed at the turn of the 20th Century are still around and new offerings are sorta hard pressed to equal or exceed in benefits.

the 7-8 x 57 do all that needs done
oh did i mention that they did it first and caused the birth of the new
hi vel cartridges

What about the 45/70? I know this list is supposed to be from the turn of the century, but it's one of the few cartridges to make the transition from black to smokeless successfully.

This list could go on and on with cartridges that have equal merit for different purposes.

KDUB, while I agree with your opinion on the 8mm ushering a new era of cartridges, I think it, along with the 6.5x55 is not as versatile as the 30-06 for killing creatures great and small; near and far. The 303 just isnt in the race.

Kudu40

Isn't the '06 an improved copy ofd the 8X57? If my memory serves me correctly there was a lawsuit about the patent infringement that we lost. I am not knocking the round it was wort copying. Many of the changes in the case design were found by the court to be attempts to avoin the patent infringements.

The best from the last century? A hard question. All the really good ones were already there by 1900.

The patent infringement case centered on the 1903 Springfield being borrowed heavily from the 1898 Mauser action. We paid a few hundred thousand dollars to settle the case and stopped the payments to Germany at the outbreak of WWI. Take care...
Oberndorf

Thanks for the clarification. I was goin on memory and that gets riskier every year. I looked through my Library and couldn't find the original article.

i agree the 30-06 debate has been beat to death. i find it interesting that quita a few of the all time greats, 30-06, 375 h&h, the brenneke cartridges, 416 rigby, h&h super 30, to name a few, all developed early part of the century, give up nothing to the newer cartridges of the 'magnum craze'.

The 20th Century's Top Rifle Cartridge is the title of the article.

If we're going outside the 20th Century, consider the .22 Short, which really did break new ground in 1857 as the first self contained cartridge that's still in production. While more than a bit light for most hunting, it's killed more Saskatchewan gophers than the .30-30 has deer.

If we stay in the 20th century, drop the 8x57, 7x57, 6.5x55, .30-30, .303, .45-70, and .204 Ruger from consideration.

Bye
Jack

Really, considering all the tried and true calibers out there, and all the new short mags and big or small game calibers that overlap, of course there are "better" new ones than any given caliber you may choose to compare it to. But with all the possibilities of handloading and bullet choice, you can arrive just about anywhere you want to, for your particular use. I think its safe to say pick 3 or 4 calibers of your choice and they can be adapted to anyone elses pick of 3 or 4 calibers. Is there really any "ONE" better than another? I think Solomon was right, there really isnt anything new under the sun. I think maybe the reason the caliber debate comes up so often is because it's so close to begin with, that for the most part the arguments are just splitting hairs.

Here's the thing about the ".30-06 et al. vs anything else" debate: one of the reasons people can legitimately argue that 2-3 classic cartridges can do anything newer cartridges can is because the use for them hasn't really changed in 100 years. People hunt the same animals in the same places. The only way to suggest a new cartridge would be somehow more useful is if we discovered some animal that was somehow impervious to a .30 bullet moving very quickly. As these debates make perfectly clear: a well placed, medium caliber bullet will kill just about anything. On the poles, you have varmint and elephants, and specialized cartridges for that kind of use.

Part of the debate that seems overlooked is not just the change in cartridge technology, but of rifle technology: better materials, improved(?) manufacturing, etc... It would be something if a .30-06 were the most accurate, but happened to wear thru barrels quickly, or something like that. Then, you'd have an argument about the inherent qualities of a cartridge, rather than the subjective aspects of usage (range, game, conditions, etc).
Maybe there's a bit of that in the accuracy of the .308, the flatness of the .270 and the versatility of the .30-06. Otherwise, they all do about the same thing. And yes, I know the purists out there will argue that for being a bit essentialist, but that's how I see it.

jonas

If I wrote that article:

It would be hard for me to not include the .30-30 in a top 10 cartridges list.
The only problem with the 30-30 is that it wasn't developed in the 20th Century - it came about just prior, but you are right - it is a fantastic cartridge and I have read where people estimate that there has been more big game taken with the venerable 30-30 than all other cartridges combined.

It's also the first US cartridge that was specifically designed for the new smokeless powder - 30 caliber bullet over 30 grains of smokeless.

We could sure get by with only 3-4 cartridges, but our gun manufacturer's can't. If a guy has his trusty 30-06, he's likely not going to go out and buy another one (looking at people other than us gunnuts here that see nothing wrong with having several 30-06's). For the most part, the only way our gun manufacturer's can sell another gun to certain people, and thus stay in business, is to come out with a new cartridge and chamber the new rifles in it, then convince us that we need it. Guns aren't like cars that wear out in 10-20 years; guns last lifetimes when taken care of.

But, I've strayed from the thread....30-06 is THE cartridge of the century....uhmmm, last century, that is!

Debate? What debate? It is the .30-06. I guess we can debate who is #2.

It's also the first US cartridge that was specifically designed for the new smokeless powder - 30 caliber bullet over 30 grains of smokeless.

Not quite. The .30-40 Krag (1892) beat the .30-30 (1895) by three years.

Bye
Jack

It's also the first US cartridge that was specifically designed for the new smokeless powder - 30 caliber bullet over 30 grains of smokeless.

Not quite. The .30-40 Krag (1892) beat the .30-30 (1895) by three years.

Bye
Jack
Ah - right you are. Quoted from Wikipediaa:

"The .30-30, as it is most commonly known, was America's first small-bore, sporting rifle cartridge designed for smokeless powder."

I guess I misunderstood that, and I didn't know the history behind the 30-40 - a mistake I won't make again. :)

I've owned and loaded for several 30-06's over the years, and it's a hard cartridge to beat in many ways. But I don't own one anymore.

I think the 7mm Mag is a Super round, the 7mm-08 is a winner. The .243 is a great little cartridge, but I'll never figure out how it bumped off the .257 Roberts. If I lived in Alaska, or Africa, I'd have a .375 H&H, and is there really a better cartridge for plains game than a .270? And it's amazing how well a 150gr Winchester Power Point in a .30-30 works.

I stopped by Cabela's last week, and they had piles of the short magnum fodder on sale. All sizes and brands. Not .223 Remington, or 270 Winchester, no 30-06 ammo in the sale pile. Because they don't need to mark it down to get rid of it. For all of the disadvantages of belted cartridges, they seem to still be in the game. And Ultramags? I have to wonder about a cartridge that can take out a barrel in a thousand rounds. I regularly maintain firearms for friends, and one of my buddies has a .30-378 Weatherby. I know he shoots it a bit, but he's not a rabid shooter by any means. The gun is 5 years or so old, and has the worst case of throat erosion I've ever seen.

Thinking about it, it's interesting how many cartridges that were around when I was a kid in the 50's/60's are still the rounds of choice of the majority of shooters. Could be herd instinct, or it could be that nothing truly better has come along.

One of the things that I think is so interesting about guns is that in many regards, there haven't been any major developments in a long time. I'm not talking tweaks - there have been some pretty neat developments in cartridges and guns, but nothing that is totally new - a cartridge still works on the same properties - case, primer, propellant and projectile. It still gets fired from a gun with a rifled barrel. Take the Marlin 39A .22 rifle - that design is very nearly the same as it was 100 years ago - there just wasn't a need to improve it.

The 30-06 cartridge is over 100 years old. The 30-30 cartridge is over 100 years old. The .22 LR cartridge is over 100 years old. That's pretty cool when you think about it.

Patrick, now you're onto something. If there were available caseless ammunition--as has been tried with the military--, or something new like that, then it'd be a real debate. But if comes down to hunting, the 'debate' gets boring, fast. What usually is discussed is a particular aspect of shooting/hunting: long-range vs. brush hunting, recoil, reloading, etc...

The only way to make a real, logical discussion out of it is to define parameters: what exactly is being defined as important? When one person says 'well, the .30-06 has been the basis of so many other cartridges', and the response to that is 'well, the .270 shoots flatter...', you're not really going to get anywhere.

Then again, if we really cared to end the debate, my guess is Shooters' Forum would have come to a grinding halt years ago... :D

We all have all own needs and wants, so we all find the cartridge(s) that fill those needs and wants. And as Shawn rightly mentioned, the manufacturers seem to have figured out that little detail some time ago, and are banking on it....

jonas

You folks are sure getting wound up about this article, especially considering it was published almost EIGHT YEARS AGO!

There was an article published a long time ago about the new .30-06 cartridge. The author though it killed deer as well as the .40-65 Winchester. :D

Bye
Jack

You folks are sure getting wound up about this article, especially considering it was published almost EIGHT YEARS AGO!
That might be true, however, most of the cartridges listed are well over 8 years old and are still just as relevant today as they were when they were developed.

The author says that it's ok to disagree too and that those were only his opinions on the matter.

I'm a bit surprised that the .308 isn't the number 1 cartridge due to it's inherent accuracy and ballistic similarity to the 30-06 up to about 500 yards.

I'd agree that about 1/2 of them are great cartridges. The rest are redundant or useless. It seems to me that the US Military/Government has used (or created) all the cartridges I really care for. I could live without the rest.

There was an article published a long time ago about the new .30-06 cartridge. The author though it killed deer as well as the .40-65 Winchester. :D

Bye
Jack

And just how old were you when you read that article Jack :D? Blessed are we to have such aged historians of gunlore at our disposal on this finest of shooting forums :p.

I can't remember where I read that, but my neighbour was restoring his grandfather-in-law's early Winchester 1886 about a dozen years ago, and I was keeping my eye's open for .40-65 data when I spotted that tidbit.

Bye
Jack

american rifleman also had an article that said the same thing about 2 years back. this is a tough question. its hard to group all hunting calibers because of the knock down power needed for each animal. for medium size game, the .30-06 is a great cartridge. it offers a variety of loads from 55gr to 220gr. this covers most animals that will be hunted in the u.s.. however i think some other factors need to be considered. 1)price and availability (try walking into a store that sells ammo anywhere in the midwest and not find .30-06 available). 2) versatility (what type of game can it be used on). 3) availability of weapons cahmbered for the caliber. 4) knockdown power. 5) shootability (kick, etc.) every person will have a specific caliber that they feel is best. i personally love the .30-06. .308 and .270 ahve a good argument also. i guess geographic location plays a big factor also. if oyu are hunting in heavy brush why use anything than a .30-30 lever? anyways, this will always be argued and there is no right answer. i think if a person has a caliber that fits the qualifiers above, then that is the best caliber for them.

I too am a supporter of the 30-06. A more versital cartridge is hard to find; in over 50 years of shooting and hunting, I have fired everything in it from the 87 grain Luger bullet to the 250 grain Barnes, and practically everything in between. It has performed great in all cases (a few rifling twists perform better than others obviously) from chucks to bear. One other desirable factor is, its recognition and availability....you can literally walk into any drugstore in the world and buy a box of ammo!
Well, that's my take, over
gatguy

there is a mistatement i believe in this article also. correct me if im wrong, but the .30-06 was originally the .30-03 in 1903 and in 1906 it was altered to be more easily manufactured (i think it had something to do with the case neck). although it was very similar, i dont believe the .30-06 became what we currently know it to be until 1906.

Well guys and gals, I hate to be a thorn in the side of history, but.......

Let's see, my first 30-06 was a Remington 760 pump. Yes I was young, but M. Ward sold it with an inexpensive scope and see through mounts. It kicked mercilessly and was replaced by a 30-30, shortly after I shot it from the prone position a few times.
Then there was the 1917 Eddystone(sp), which was ok, but only had the open sights. Further modification would have made a good rifle of it, I'm sure.
The 1903 Springfield, never had a chance with me. Once I got the cosmoline cleaned out of it, I discovered the stock was too short and again no scope option. Couldn't hit a trash cart at 50 yards. Neither could anyone else.
There was a Remington 700, which I could shoot well, but I was in a shotgun phase and it got away.
It was replaced with a Winchester model 70 Featherweight. What a nice looking rifle. Never got it to shoot better than about 2" groups though.
I inherited a Remington 742, that after 14 rounds downrange, (in it's lifetime) locked up and went to the gunsmiths. At that time, it was stolen and recovered in junk condition years later.
Alas, I came across a 30-06 in the form of a Savage lightweight. Fitting a proper scope to it, I was sure to be happy. No such luck. That little thing kicked so horribly, that I ran back to my 300 Win mag.
Somewhere in there, I am still convinced that the 30-06 must be a nice cartridge and I am sure another will come along soon enough. I have loaded enough and shot enough factory ammo, to appreciate it's forgiving nature. But some of the rifles chambered for it, leave me wondering how the cartridge survived as long as it has!
Bestboss

I'm afraid the limiting factor in balistics is nitrocellulose based powders. Until a better propellant is discovered we will simply run around in circles discovering the same cartridges over and over again. The maximum theoretical velocity with nitro powders is 6,000 fps. The maximum practical velocity is 4,000 and we're there.