# .308 vs 7mm-08



## Tom Bombadil (Mar 25, 2008)

So I was talking deer rifles with the BIL and his buddy got a 7mm-08 and was talking about how flat it shot - flatter than his old .308. Now, I don't have the ballistics charts memorized, but I seem to remember that the 7mm-08 dropped an extra inch or two at 300 meters compared to a .308 with similar grains moving downrange. Am I right or am I missing something?


----------



## Murray in ME (May 10, 2002)

In reality the ballistics are pretty much the same with similar bullet weights. Comparing the 139/140 grain bullet of the 7mm-08 and the 150 grain bullet of the .308, there's less than 2 inches difference in trajectory out to 400 yards. Assuming 200 yard zeros in both rifles, the 7mm-08 is 7.4 inches low at 300 yards and 21.5 inches low at 400. The .308 is 7.9 inches low at 300 and 23.1 inches low at 400. Past 400 yards, the .308 drops off quicker, mostly due to the greater ballistic coefficient of the longer 7mm bullet. I got these numbers from the Hornady web site.

If your BIL's buddy really is getting much flatter trajectory from the 7mm-08, my guess is that he was using the much heavier 180 grain bullets in his .308. That's the only thing I can think of to explain a large difference. The only ballistic reason anyway.


----------



## Tom Bombadil (Mar 25, 2008)

I thought the .308 was flatter if you fired 150 grain out of each - like 7 inch drop for .308 and 9 inch drop for 7mm-08 at 300 meters.


----------



## Murray in ME (May 10, 2002)

You're right Tom, the 150 grain bullet does drop less in .308 than 7mm-08. I compared the 139gr. 7mm-08 vs. the 150 gr. .308 because the two web sites I checked (Hornady and Remington) didn't offer 150 grain factory loaded ammo for the 7mm-08. I just checked the Federal web site and their stats show the 150 gr. 7mm-08 9.2 inches low at 300 yards and 26.5 inches low at 400. Again using a 200 yard zero.

It's still not much of a difference though. Less than 3.5 inches at 400 yards.


----------



## Tom Bombadil (Mar 25, 2008)

Yeah, I guess I just really have a sentimental attachment to the .308 and get a little defensive when someone tries to poke at it. The only thing in the "family" that I have fired and been convinced really is flatter is the 7mm mag. But for hunting, you can throw away meat using a 7mm mag so...


----------



## Tom Bombadil (Mar 25, 2008)

Oops ... wrong place.


----------



## Murray in ME (May 10, 2002)

Yeah, the .308's always been a favorite of mine. The 7mm-08 is a very good round but unless I could afford enough rifles that I just wanted something different, I'd pick the .308 over it every time. 

Any of the 7mm magnums will shoot flatter than the .308 (or my all time favorite .30-06) but I consider them more specialized tools than the .308 or 7mm-08. In general you need a longer, heavier rifle (except for the short magnums) plus, the ammo costs a lot more. Neither of those are generally good things in my opinion.


----------



## Tom Bombadil (Mar 25, 2008)

Yeah, when you are going to put a 22" barreled bolt-action rifle on your shoulder with a good scope to be "ready for anything" - hunting deer, killing a bear, etc. - then I think the .308 is just the best all around rifle. Yes, I got very friendly with it in the military so its always been the standard with which I judge all others, but nothing has replaced it yet. Of course, the "yet" proves I am just one rifle away...

I am hopefully going to get to fire the .416 Barrett early next year. I don't think that will replace the .308 as my "go to" round, but it might just become my new favorite.


----------



## Greg H. (Sep 27, 2008)

Tom Bombadil said:


> then I think the .308 is just the best all around rifle.



The .308 is fine for the folks that can't handle a 30.06 which will give another 200 yrds of use for the same bullet weight 


Now seriously - the 7.62 NATO has a lower working chamber pressure than the .308 Win and the .308 Win has tighter throat tolerances than the 7.62 NATO, so while they are visually identical, it's not a good idea to be swapping ammo between them, especial when you have older firearms that have been converted to take the more powerful 7.62 NATO - their receivers may not have enough margen of safety to handle .308 Win.


----------



## Tom Bombadil (Mar 25, 2008)

Greg H. said:


> The .308 is fine for the folks that can't handle a 30.06 which will give another 200 yrds of use for the same bullet weight
> 
> 
> Now seriously - the 7.62 NATO has a lower working chamber pressure than the .308 Win and the .308 Win has tighter throat tolerances than the 7.62 NATO, so while they are visually identical, it's not a good idea to be swapping ammo between them, especial when you have older firearms that have been converted to take the more powerful 7.62 NATO - their receivers may not have enough margen of safety to handle .308 Win.


30-06 is my very close number 2. My SIL just got a deer rifle in 30-06 and it is awesome.


----------



## Chuck R. (Apr 24, 2008)

Greg H. said:


> The .308 is fine for the folks that can't handle a 30.06 which will give another 200 yrds of use for the same bullet weight


Actually with factory ammo the 06 and the .308 are pretty compareable. This is due to the SAAMI specs for the two cartridges, the .308 being "younger" it's loaded to slightly higher pressure.

The 30-06 is just about 200 FPS faster than a .308 with the same bullets in both the 150 and 180 grain loadings. The muzzle energies are also similar, within 200 FTLBs and with the same bullets the trajectories are only about 2 inches of each other out to 500 yards with a 180 grain bullet. If you use the Maximum Point Blank Range method of sighting in, the 30-06 will give you about a 30-50 yard advantage on a 6" kill zone, meaning that it will stay within 3 inches below line of sight for a little longer distance:

http://www.remington.com/products/ammun ... WA*PG308W3

No animal on this planet will appreciate the difference based on the ballistics out to normal hunting distances. 

Now if you handload in a modern rifle, there's "no replacement for displacement" and you can eek out more velocity out of an 06. But, when compared with the .308s advantages in being able to be chambered in a short stiff action allowing for a lighter rifle, combined with the .308s slightly better accuracy, it really isn't that big a plus.

Chuck


----------



## Greg H. (Sep 27, 2008)

Tom Bombadil said:


> 30-06 is my very close number 2. My SIL just got a deer rifle in 30-06 and it is awesome.



My Springfield 1903A3 always goes to the range with me - it doesn't matter what other firearm goes or doesn't go, the 03A3 is always there.


----------



## Greg H. (Sep 27, 2008)

Chuck R. said:


> Actually with factory ammo the 06 and the .308 are pretty compareable. This is due to the SAAMI specs for the two cartridges, the .308 being "younger" it's loaded to slightly higher pressure.
> 
> 
> The 30-06 is just about 200 FPS faster than a .308 with the same bullets in both the 150 and 180 grain loadings.


You have hit the nail on the head.

The only reasion that the .308 comes that close to the 30.06 is because of the increased pressure - Personaly I have never been convinced that increased pressure is nessasarly a good thing - may not be a bad thing either, but not nessesarly a good thing.

Take a look at the 7.62 NATO, which is loaded to the same pressure as the 30.06, and they have to reduce bullet weight in order to get the same velocity 152 grns for the 30.06 and 147 for the 7.62 NATO and the velocities still don't equal, and you start loosing effective range. 



Chuck R. said:


> The muzzle energies are also similar, within 200 FTLBs and with the same bullets the trajectories are only about 2 inches of each other out to 500 yards with a 180 grain bullet. If you use the Maximum Point Blank Range method of sighting in, the 30-06 will give you about a 30-50 yard advantage on a 6" kill zone, meaning that it will stay within 3 inches below line of sight for a little longer distance:
> 
> http://www.remington.com/products/ammun ... WA*PG308W3
> 
> ...


There is an advantage to a short stiff action?
What is it?

The only advantage the .308 has in accuracy is with light weight bullets due to the usualy faster twist, when it comes to 150 grns it's about the break even point, with anything higher, the 30.06 ( at least wise with older .06's )has the advantage in accuracy. 

Most older 30.06's used to run to 1-12 but as the .308 and lighter bullets became popular, the newer rifles used the same 1-10 twist for the .06 as they were for the .308 barrels - but we are talking about a function of barrel twist, and bullet weight. 

I have been getting some nice surplus Greek ammo for my .06 and it's 155 grs at 2975 fps, which stiff even compared to .308 Win commerical loadings.


----------



## reluctantpatriot (Mar 9, 2003)

Within sane, ethical hunting ranges there is very little difference between the 7mm-08 Remington, .308 Winchester, and .30-06 Springfield save for felt recoil out to 200 yards. All three will take down deer within that range.

If you are shooting beyond 300 yards as a matter of course then you would need to be an expert shot at that range because wind and drop become all the more important factors in hitting where you aim.

Ninety percent of deer are taken at 100 yards or less and 95 percent are taken at 200 yards or less.


----------



## Chuck R. (Apr 24, 2008)

Greg H. said:


> There is an advantage to a short stiff action?
> What is it?
> 
> The only advantage the .308 has in accuracy is with light weight bullets due to the usualy faster twist, when it comes to 150 grns it's about the break even point, with anything higher, the 30.06 ( at least wise with older .06's )has the advantage in accuracy.
> ...


The shorter stiffer action aids with the overall "harmonics"
of the barrel/action. 

The .308 does have an accuracy advantage even with the same twist barrels and the same bullets. Itâs got to do with the expansion ratio: bore to chamber size. The longer powder column is more difficult to get an even consistent ignition and burn. When chronographed it's easier to get good stats IE standard deviation and extreme spread from a cartridge with a good expansion ratio. At the longer distances the inconsistencies translate into vertical stringing. 

Hereâs a pretty good article on it:

http://www.snipercountry.com/Articles/AccuracyFacts.asp

The bottom line is the .308 eclipsed the 30-06 as a target cartridge for a reason. 


Chuck


----------



## hunter63 (Jan 4, 2005)

Tom Bombadil said:


> Yeah, I guess I just really have a sentimental attachment to the .308 and get a little defensive when someone tries to poke at it. The only thing in the "family" that I have fired and been convinced really is flatter is the 7mm mag. But for hunting, you can throw away meat using a 7mm mag so...


I have not found this to be true:[/QUOTE] 7mm mag. But for hunting, you can throw away meat using a 7mm mag so......[/QUOTE]

I have killed many white tails, mules, elk and never have destroyed any meat, unless you talking heart/lungs.
Factory Rem. 150 gr cor-loc's.
Ranges have varied from 300 yds to 6 ft.
I suspect shot placement has a lot to do with this.



> Yeah, I guess I just really have a sentimental attachment to the .308 and get a little defensive when someone tries to poke at it.
> 
> 
> > I would agree that the .308 is a good all-round, round, as is the 30-06, but for me the Rem 7mm mag is "my" favorite.
> ...


----------



## quietstar (Dec 11, 2002)

Back to the question from the OP...All elements being equal including bullet weight and shape, The 7mm/08 will shoot flatter (drop less) and the advantage will increase with the range. Simple ballistics...Glen


----------



## Tom Bombadil (Mar 25, 2008)

hunter63 said:


> I would agree that the .308 is a good all-round, round, as is the 30-06, but for me the Rem 7mm mag is "my" favorite.
> Working with a .300 wsm now, so we'll see if my affection changes.
> 
> Most people "go with what they know" and shoot best when they feel confident/comfortable with a particular round/rifle.
> ...


One of the hunting crew at work basically blew the leg off a doe with a 7mm mag at less than 50 yards. Yes, he blew the shot and it was his poor aim that was ultimately to blame, but I have never seen that happen with a .308.


----------



## hunter63 (Jan 4, 2005)

Tom Bombadil said:


> One of the hunting crew at work basically blew the leg off a doe with a 7mm mag at less than 50 yards. Yes, he blew the shot and it was his poor aim that was ultimately to blame, but I have never seen that happen with a .308.


This was the reason for saying that 7 mag ruins meat?
I would guess this would happen with most any high powered load. 

I've only seen this once, on a small spike buck that I killed, someone (don't know what it was shot with), had shot off a foot.

Each to his own, but I still disagree with you, based on my experience, not "I heard about............from a guy......... etc".


----------



## Murray in ME (May 10, 2002)

quietstar said:


> Back to the question from the OP...All elements being equal including bullet weight and shape, The 7mm/08 will shoot flatter (drop less) and the advantage will increase with the range. Simple ballistics...Glen



Simple ballistics yes...but in favor of the .308 not the 7mm-08. Using the same bullet weight (150 grains for numbers quoted) and same barrel length, the .308 drops about 3.5 inches less at 400 yards than the 7mm-08. I used the 150 grain bullet because it is the only weight I could find in both calibers in factory ammo.


----------



## Chuck R. (Apr 24, 2008)

Murray in ME said:


> Simple ballistics yes...but in favor of the .308 not the 7mm-08. Using the same bullet weight (150 grains for numbers quoted) and same barrel length, the .308 drops about 3.5 inches less at 400 yards than the 7mm-08. I used the 150 grain bullet because it is the only weight I could find in both calibers in factory ammo.


But, 

If you switch to the 140 grain 7mm-08 and compare it to the 150 .308 Ballistics favor the 7mm-08 at 400:


Energy Tajectory
7mm-08 1228 22.9
.308 1048 26.2

The 140 grain &mm bullet has a better BC and higher SD.

http://www.remington.com/products/a...ve_ballistics_results.aspx?data=R308W1*R7M081

Chuck


----------



## reluctantpatriot (Mar 9, 2003)

How far out are you trying to make a game taking shot? How well can you consistently place ethical game taking shots out to 200, 300, 400 or 500 yards?

I concede on technical data that certain cartridges may have an advantage at long ranges. However, unless you are a long range target shooter or an expert hunter who consistently groups shots out at 300 to 1,000 yards the real world difference is minimal. The reason is shot placement matters more than energy unless you are talking long range shot, in which case both would be of equal concern.

If placed properly for the cartridge, bullet design and weight and animal, there is little difference between cartridges from .22-250 Remington up through .338 Winchester Magnum. The main difference is that the larger the bullet diameter, the heavier the weight, the more energy and velocity it has the less precise it might need to be at a longer range to do the job. Personally, I would rather be able to precisely place a .22-250 or 7mm-08 round in a perfect neck shot that drops a deer within moments if not immediately at 100 yards than making a bad, but functional, shot on a deer at 300 yards with a 7mm Remington Magnum or .338 Winchester Magnum that mostly mained the deer and thus will take hours for it to die and I have to track it miles.


----------



## Greg H. (Sep 27, 2008)

reluctantpatriot said:


> Within sane, ethical hunting ranges there is very little difference between the 7mm-08 Remington, .308 Winchester, and .30-06 Springfield save for felt recoil out to 200 yards. All three will take down deer within that range.
> 
> If you are shooting beyond 300 yards as a matter of course then you would need to be an expert shot at that range because wind and drop become all the more important factors in hitting where you aim.
> 
> Ninety percent of deer are taken at 100 yards or less and 95 percent are taken at 200 yards or less.



Sorry, that makes little sense.

I have been places were ranges of 75yrds was considered extreme range and other places where 150 yrds was considered to be on the long side of short range.

Available terrain and what the local vegetation is, can make major differences, in the distances that game is commonly harvested at. The caliber being used can also make a big difference, a .300 Win Mag will make short work of distances that a .308 Win would have an iffy shot.

With a pistol I can hit a 4 inch target @ 100 yrds 2/3rds to 3/4ths of the time and all shots are inside of 6 inches with iron sights, yet I would be hesitant to go after deer with at anything over 75 yrds, without a scope, but inside 75yrds - I wouldn't hesitate at all to take a whitetail with it, even if I didn't have a scope.


----------



## Greg H. (Sep 27, 2008)

Chuck R. said:


> The shorter stiffer action aids with the overall "harmonics"
> of the barrel/action.


I don't know about 'overall harmonics', I have not seen any data other than shorter barrels being better for harmonics.



Chuck R. said:


> The .308 does have an accuracy advantage even with the same twist barrels and the same bullets. Itâs got to do with the expansion ratio: bore to chamber size. The longer powder column is more difficult to get an even consistent ignition and burn. When chronographed it's easier to get good stats IE standard deviation and extreme spread from a cartridge with a good expansion ratio. At the longer distances the inconsistencies translate into vertical stringing.
> 
> Hereâs a pretty good article on it:
> 
> ...


I saw that artical sometime ago, and there are plenty of problems with it.

I think the term is "Weasel word" ( where someone is trying to imply something without actualy giving any useable data ), and the artical is loaded with them, and that casts alot of suspition on what the real data is.

Take a look at what a weasel word is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_word 

and then reread the artical:
http://www.snipercountry.com/Articles/AccuracyFacts.asp 

I think you will then find that the artical is not as good as you once thought, because it lacks substance ( actual data that supports the belief ).


----------



## Tom Bombadil (Mar 25, 2008)

reluctantpatriot said:


> How far out are you trying to make a game taking shot? How well can you consistently place ethical game taking shots out to 200, 300, 400 or 500 yards?


I don't know about y'all, but down here in Georgia a 300 meter shot is an extremely long shot. We hunt in the woods and usually you are less than 100 meters if your deer stand was in a good spot. The spots my family usually hunts are usually 50-100 meters away from the deer unless they come towards you and walk right under your stand - that has happened too.

Most people do just fine with a 30-30 around here. For me, a .308 is something that has plenty of power and can kill anything non-varmint we would hunt at 100 meters.


----------



## Greg H. (Sep 27, 2008)

reluctantpatriot said:


> How far out are you trying to make a game taking shot? How well can you consistently place ethical game taking shots out to 200, 300, 400 or 500 yards?
> 
> I concede on technical data that certain cartridges may have an advantage at long ranges. However, unless you are a long range target shooter or an expert hunter who consistently groups shots out at 300 to 1,000 yards the real world difference is minimal. The reason is shot placement matters more than energy unless you are talking long range shot, in which case both would be of equal concern.
> 
> Snip



I would have to slightly disagree - but only slightly.

There are many hunters that never fire a shot, except when sighting in their scope once a year or so - and frankly I wouldn't trust them to make an ethical kill over 50-75 yrds ( and in some cases not even then ). Too many of these folks end up spending more money obtaining a firearm that takes bigger bullets, when they should be spending more money on range time learning how to shoot. :grit:


OTOH, there are others, that will spend years fine tuning their rifle and the loads they use, and to them, 300 yrds is not all that far. If someone trains to shoot 300, 400, or even 500 yrds ( or more ), and can make the shots consistently then I see little reason to say that they shouldn't be able to hunt at those ranges.


Me? I assume that all of my targets are going to be at least 200 yrds or more, so that's how I practice when I get the chance, and all the skill learned ( earned ), still holds true even when the target is 75 yrds away, but the reverse is not true. 

I can not conceive of not trying to shoot 300 yrds ( or more ) during practice if I have the range available, for me, up to 100 yrds is plinking range with a rifle.


----------



## quietstar (Dec 11, 2002)

Hey Chuck, we have to watch the apples and oranges when the answer is so fine. That's why my comment was qualified by "All things being equal" I used the Nosler Spitzer for comparison. The 150 gr. 30 cal. has a sectional density of .226 and Ballistic Coeffceint of .393. The 7mm 150 gr. is superior with a S.D. of .266 and B.C. of .459.

Both rounds are great and balanced, using the strong 7.62 NATO brass like the .243 Win. and the hard to find .358 Win.(I'm looking) 

I stumbled accross a strong example of this ballistic effect years ago with the old 6.55mmX55 Swedish military loading with a 156gr. bullet over 600 meters and a mild 2550fps at the muzzle. Bullet shape always shows up downrange...Glen


----------



## reluctantpatriot (Mar 9, 2003)

Greg H. said:


> Sorry, that makes little sense.
> 
> I have been places were ranges of 75yrds was considered extreme range and other places where 150 yrds was considered to be on the long side of short range.
> 
> Available terrain and what the local vegetation is, can make major differences, in the distances that game is commonly harvested at. The caliber being used can also make a big difference, a .300 Win Mag will make short work of distances that a .308 Win would have an iffy shot.


On this I can agree. However, I also know from personal experience that there are quite a few hunters where I grew up in Missouri that thought that more powerful was better, that is, such as using a .300 Winchester Magnum at 100 yards when the .30-30 Winchester the hunter used last year would have been just fine if they had worked on precision and accuracy rather than thinking that a more potent cartridge would make up for their lack of shooting skill.

Additionally, most hunting I have seen done (Missouri, Eastern Kansas), unless someone is trying all the time for long range shots, is done at 100 yards or less. At most 200 yards. However, most hunters don't practice shooting at that range or beyond. I am the only hunter I know in the area I grew up in that actually took the time to true his scope to the mount and rifle, accuracy test ammunition to make the most accurate load I could and double check my zero before opening day.

Most hunters I have seen fire perhaps a handful of rounds, call it good and go out in the field months later.

The majority of hunters do not regularly shoot at 300 yards or more. While I can understand the downrange ballistic differences, what matters more is accuracy and precision over raw power.


----------



## Chuck R. (Apr 24, 2008)

Greg H. said:


> I saw that artical sometime ago, and there are plenty of problems with it.
> 
> I think the term is "Weasel word" ( where someone is trying to imply something without actualy giving any useable data ), and the artical is loaded with them, and that casts alot of suspition on what the real data is.
> 
> ...


Actually Greg, his main point is in a round about way a fact. 

His basic argument is that the .308 turned in better scores and has eclipsed the 30-06. There could be any number of reasons, but the bottom line is the 308 went on to become a favorite for matches and has become the standard chambering for sniper rifles. 

The match guys pretty much gravitate to what works. When I competed in NRA silhouette, once a caliber load combo started winning, it was copied. It was the same at the benchrest club where I shot. 

I agree that at practical hunting distances it's pretty much a moot point, and the average hunter is never going to need/use the extra potential. The longest shot I've ever made was at 430 meters from ridge to ridge on a nice buck Chamois. Then there was no choice other than climbing down a mountain and up another to get closer. Most dear and the couple Elk I've killed have been under 200. 

Even here in hilly Eastern KS you can encounter longer shots though with the row-crop fields.

Chuck


----------



## Chuck R. (Apr 24, 2008)

quietstar said:


> Hey Chuck, we have to watch the apples and oranges when the answer is so fine. That's why my comment was qualified by "All things being equal" I used the Nosler Spitzer for comparison. The 150 gr. 30 cal. has a sectional density of .226 and Ballistic Coeffceint of .393. The 7mm 150 gr. is superior with a S.D. of .266 and B.C. of .459.
> 
> Both rounds are great and balanced, using the strong 7.62 NATO brass like the .243 Win. and the hard to find .358 Win.(I'm looking)
> 
> I stumbled accross a strong example of this ballistic effect years ago with the old 6.55mmX55 Swedish military loading with a 156gr. bullet over 600 meters and a mild 2550fps at the muzzle. Bullet shape always shows up downrange...Glen


Glen,

I agree on the apples and oranges, I couldn't find a 150 grain load for the 7mm-08! The .30s really don't shine ballistically till they get in the 180-200 grain range, I think that's why the .25s, 6.5s, .277s, and 7mms really make great deer calibers.

BTW my FIL gave me a 6.5x57 Steyr Mannlicher, problem is it's sitting with him in Austria and I've no way to get it back. When I was stationed in Germany I used it for Chamios loaded with 140 Nosler BTs. Great cartridge, just a hair faster than the 6.5x55. He was a Forestmeister and used it to cull stag with the local Jaegermeister. That 6.5 impressed me enough that I'm thinking of getting my boy a .260 REM for his first deer rifle.

Chuck


----------



## Murray in ME (May 10, 2002)

Chuck R. said:


> But,
> 
> If you switch to the 140 grain 7mm-08 and compare it to the 150 .308 Ballistics favor the 7mm-08 at 400:
> 
> ...



Very true. I said the same thing back on post #2. Great minds think alike, eh?  Practically speaking, the .308 and 7mm-08 are both great cartridges and will do an equally good job with similar loadings.

By the way, Federal makes a 150 grain factory load for the 7mm-08.


----------



## Tom Bombadil (Mar 25, 2008)

There is another side to this. 7mm-08 is basically a hunting round while .308 can be used in hunting rifles and other kinds of rifles - if that is important to you.


----------



## Greg H. (Sep 27, 2008)

Chuck R. said:


> Actually Greg, his main point is in a round about way a fact.



Chuck, 

He implies allot of things, but he does not supply any data to back anything up in his article.

" folks who used each quickly agreed on one thing " - What folks and how many?

" By the middle to late 1960s, all the top high power shooters and virtually all the rest had switched to the .308 " - Who are the shooters? How many were still shooting something other than .308? Were they interviewed to see why they switched or is the reason just being assumed ? 

" Most top high power shooters feel the main reason the .308 is much more accurate " - How many and who said this?


When someone fills an article with things like "Most top shooters", "virtually all the rest", "folks who used", and similar phrases, without actually supplying any data to back it up, they either don't actually know and/or they have only one agenda and that is to get folks to believe exactly what it is they are trying to say, without actually passing on all the facts.

In the same way the article talks about the .308, I can say that the 5.56 NATO/.233 Rem is more accurate than the 6.5 Grendel, because more top shooters shoot the 5.56 NATO/.223 Rem. 

Now there is some truth to that, but it is very limited, and in reality, it comes very close to being a lie, because it misinforms the reader. 

The first time a 6.5 Grendel was used in a match, there was only 1 and it actual scored higher than any 5.56 NATO/.223 Rem, coming in at 4th place --- this is why knowing what the data is the important thing and not just going with something someone said.


----------



## quietstar (Dec 11, 2002)

Chuck..Your son is a lucky young man to have a father willing to provide such a quality start to what I hope is a life long love of shooting. Being older, I have to deal with a grandson who is casting a hungry eye on my pet 6mm Rem. deer rifle...Glen


----------

