Basically blowing out unburnt powder which we don't want at the shooting range😅 it never amazes me how people think they're Magnum revolver shoots better than the regular 22 but I'm next to them in the booth watching all the powder hit the ground😅😅😅
That's a valid point. doubtless they could be hand-tailored for better performance in shorter barrels. I only know what I see in ballistic tests other people conduct, but is appears that the .308 doesn't lose a whole lot in velocity until the barrel length goes below 16".
@@MrElwoodCaudillTo an extent, but the reality is that none of the rifles are anywhere close to an ideal configuration for their caliber - least of all the .30-06 with an 18.5" barrel. The bubbafied Mosin alone should tell you that these are meme guns.
That is true but not only the short barrel length but the ammo was VERY weak for those calibers as well. 1835 ft lbs for the 30-06 is laughable… it’s not uncommon for it to be 3,000 foot lbs or higher. 150 grainer at 2,300 for the 06 is insane… standard loading the 06 should go 2,700 FPS with a 180 grainer… and that’s not even super hot either
Yeah this wasn't really a valid test. He really should use the same brand of ammo across the 3 and try to match up the barrel lengths. While isn't not a super significant difference, all things being equal .30-06 will also outperform .308 by a little. All things were not equal in this test though.
Yeah, and the highest-quality 30-06 can match the ballistic performance of lower quality 375 H&H up to around 300 meters. Obviously 375 H&H does way more damage and has better long-range performance, so you still need it for traditional 375 H&H applications like hunting big game. Case in point, modern bullet technologies and powders can really enhance the power of cartridges beyond expected, so it shouldn't be surprising that cartridges still in military use like .308 or 7.62x54r can outmatch an old 30-06
It's not the age of the ammo. I fired a regular ball round of .30-'06, vintage 1943, out of my Winchester Mod. 70 hunting rifle, from about 30 yards at 1/2" mild steel plate, and it went right through and kept going. I fired a 1970s 7.62 NATO ball round out of an M1A at the same plate and it made an impressive bulge but didn't go through.
What do you mean by properly loaded? To spec for old rifles with old powders? Or new powders that get more velocity while still staying under the pressure standard? Or are you talking about using more modern pressure standards like 65,000 psi and is not safe to shoot in vintage rifles? “Properly” is a matter of perspective.
@@dondavis8021 In an M1 Garand, rounds loaded to standard WWII ball ammo specs are fine, but a lot of modern loads - even factory loaded ammo - will beat it up. From the Sierra Loading Manual: _"Powders in the medium burning range must be used when loading for a Garand. Due to its system of operation, the Garand can be damaged by improper powder selection even if the loads themselves are perfectly safe."_ Lots of guys who didn't know better have ended up with bent op-rods (and worse) by shooting the wrong ammo in their Garand.
Good video! We got Mosins back in like 04 and that bulk spam can ammo ripped through whatever we shot, I think it was steel core. But the days of a $60 prepper rifle and 440 rounds for $50 are gone 😂 I miss those days
@@jong2359 Those plastic mosin stocks remind me of the crappy plastic tapco stuff they made for the SKS. Looked cool, but never really beat the original nice wood stocks.
The velocities were super weird for these rounds. The 54R and 30-06 were significantly under-powered and the 308 was INCREDIBLY hot. Need some load data.
Actually 2800fps for a 150gr .308 is pretty standard. Even cheap Palmetto AAC 150gr .308 is listed as 2850fps on the box. The other 2 were much slower than expected though, especially the 30-06
It's been mentioned, and I forget where, but apparently Garands like light loads, and you have to stay away from modern loadings. Is that a true thing, I honestly don't know. Had an 03-A3 once, it didn't care :).
@@thomasbeirne8213 Not really, the discrepancy was the fact that the ammo manufacturers used slightly different CUP measurements. Realistically the difference between modern 30-06 and GI 30-06 from back then is at most 2000 PSI, which is one standard deviation. So insignificant.
I don't own a 7.62X54R rifle... but just want to say when you look at when this round went it to service... no matter the results.. it is an impressive round.
@hardingdies7811 but it isn't used anywhere anymore except for recreational shootint. 54r is still used in a number of militaries in a number of weapon systems around the world
@@scottythebody0811 I watch his videos. Great channel. I guess hand loading is the way to go to get the benefits of the larger case capacity. 35 Whelen is a beast!
Sadly, the M2 ball ammo is one of the weakest .30-06 cartridges available. The power of the cartridge had to be significantly reduced for use in the M1 Garand rifle to keep from bending the op-rods. I'd love to see how this would work with the original full power WW1 loading through a full length 26" barrel.
That was some awfully weak M2 ball. I have chronographed Greek M2 ball at around 2750 feet per second from an M1 Garand. It's also a myth that .30-06 was reduced in power for the M1 Garand. The M1 Garand was originally designed to fire M1 ball, which was a 175 grain bullet at about 2650 feet per second.
yes, and no. it is a soft ball load, but it predates the M1 Garand. the ordnance board just found full house 30-06 was over kill, and found a milder loading was easier for the troops to shoot, safer in case of rounds over the berm, and cheaper. later on they optimized a cartridge for the loading and that is how 308 came about. that said, his velocity was ridiculously low. it should have been around 2700 fps.
I have an M1917 Remington. First time I shot it, I had a block of some soft hardwood. Loaded with cheap Federal 150 grain, the block entirely exploded after the bullet traveled eight inches along the grain.
The M1 garand was designed to use all military loadings of the 30 06 which included ww1 loadings, the op rod is a myth ruclips.net/video/UOSdswZHJUc/видео.htmlsi=YpAXVU7zXop2bURu
The 30 ought 6 ammunition appeared to be of the M1 Grand type. That required a little lower pressure and velocity in order to keep from bending up the action. 2800 ft per second is approximately what that stuff runs, instead of the 3,000 to 3200 ft per second from the 1903 type round. Let me know I've done very good job explaining, but there is a difference.
My son bought a Mosin, don't know what ammo it was, whatever comes in that big ass tuna can you have to cut open. Kicks like a mule and I forget how many feet of lumber it went through. They ran out before finding out what it takes to stop but it sure as hell was a couple of feet!
He's talking about lighter loads bud. Not max 300wm loads. I've bought factory 300wm ammo loaded with 165gr that only chronoed at 2920 with a 26" barrel.
@@danya822 I said the guy at the begining was talking about light loads for the 300wm. There is overlap between 308 and 30-06, it was literally shown in this video. And there is overlap between 30-06 and 300wm.
The 7.62x54R was introduced in the late 1880s in the Imperial Russian era like the .303 British and still has that rimmed case. The 06 was never loaded to its potential in 1906 until reloaders cranked it up with modern powders. The US Gov. Ball ammo is on the weak side.
Yep. As loaded for military equivalent ball, the 7,62x54R 147 gr. Ball and .30-06 M2 ball are equivalent, about 2700-2800 fps. out of equivalent barrels. 7,62x51 is pretty much the same-ish as regular ball ammo. The 7,62R is obviously the older design (circa 1891, with improvements in 1908+) being rimmed. It’s shorter than .30-06 but fatter. The .30-06 is very long-7,62x63. Too long really considering it’s not outperforming any of its contemporaries like the 7,92x57 which it was ultimately based on and which itself came out in 1888. The 7,62x51 was a more efficient and modern round and got comparable performance from a significantly shorter case.
That Bulgarian 54R will shoot some flames in a carbine. Honestly WWII ammo is loaded pretty low due to the M1 Garand. When you hand load for the M1 you have to stick to medium burning powder, mid range bullet weights, and lower pressures to prevent damage to the op rod.
That’s a myth ruclips.net/video/UOSdswZHJUc/видео.htmlsi=YpAXVU7zXop2bURu WW2 30 06 ammo was also used in machine guns, it wasn’t loaded lower for the M1 garand, which was designed to use every military 30 06 loading including machine gun ammo
@@Future-Preps35 m2 ball was a 150 grain bullet propelled at 2740 ft/s, maximum average pressure of 50,000 psi m1 ball was a 174 grain bullet propelled at 2647 ft/s, maximum average pressure of 48,000 psi The original loading, m1906, was a 150 grain bullet propelled at 2700 ft/s They’re all very similar pressures, you’re right about the down loading of m2 for range safety and marines proffering to use m1, but m2 is loaded to a higher average pressure, and the garand was in service in 1936, m2 ball didn’t come out until 1938
@@Future-Preps35 This wasn't necessarily because it was so much more powerful, it was because M1 Ball was manufactured with up-to-date bullets that were heavier and had boattails utilized in their design. When the 30-40 Krag was retired, spitzers were just developed - and that's one of the defining factors between .30-03 and .30-06. M1906 ball was a flat-based spitzer bullet that was around 150gr leaving the muzzle at ~2800, whereas M1 was around 170 gr was leaving the muzzle at ~2600fps. That's not a world of difference for power, until you get downrange where the ballistic coefficient of the newer M1 ball begins to show, and that's what worried the military range offices. (Side note: You'll also note that the raw numbers here isn't too different from the 7.62x54r that was used in this test.) The reason old 30-06 is not as powerful compared to modern 30-06 is because high performance powders in slower burn rates weren't available yet. IMR 4350 came out in 1940, and that was a game changer. Lucky for the 30-06 it had the capacity to fit these slower burning powders and larger bullets, and that's because it's direct parent, .30-03, was aiming to launch a 220gr pill down a barrel at 2300fps. They got close to achieving that performance level with the 30-40 Krag, but stress-testing revealed they were starting to crack lugs on the inherently weak single-lugged actions; the .30-03 was developed to achieve that performance level consistently and safely, and a lot of that was simply having a comically large case capacity.
usually so. the performance window of 54R puts it on the heels of 06, but it is almost always loaded soft and lands on the warm side of 308. his 06 load was comically light, and his 308 was questionably hot.
@@nathanielyoungman4454 exactly right. M2 ball was lower pressure ammo because the M1 Garand operating rod would suffer failures if loaded with higher pressure ammo. New gas plugs that restrict gas flow to the piston solves that issue, but the military never installed those, so M2 ammo is still low pressure loaded. Full power rounds are a different animal and wouldn't even be in the same conversation as the other two.
I got one for ya. WW2 battle cartridges. USA = 30-06. British = 303. France = 7.5x54mm. Germany = 8mm Mauser. Soviet = 7.62x54 R. Japanese and Italians? Bro they have a few cartridges they used during WW2..lets ignore them for now.
That is either not m2 ball or it is a WAYYYY out of spec batch. M2 should be about 2800 out of a 24”. I call shenanigans on this batch of testing in light of those velocities
Because there are so many old 30-06 rifles, so there is a lot more demand for low-pressure 30-06, especially in rifles that degraded over time. But yeah, good 30-06 can do better than what we saw today
My experience with off the shelf ammo lines up pretty close to this: 54R and 30-06 are usually mild loads relative to what they load up typical 308 rounds these days.
The original government spec for m2 AP .30-06 was over 2,700 fps. The rounds you had were at least 15% too slow (no way you could have known before buying/acquiring them of course). Future video idea: pull the projectiles and load your own, creating a few varieties at 2750, 2850, and maybe one option above that as well. Whatever the max is in the loading tables. Do the video just about those velocity differences. I think it’s worthwhile because this round/projectiles are the most accessible to all of us fellow peasants; they predate our ruling class overlords clamping down on such things.
That M2 ball ammo wasn’t hot and didn’t need to be that’s why you can’t run hunting 30-06 ammo in an M1 Garand without changing gas tube insert, anyhow awesome video
@@donwyoming1936 yeah good deal they make a opened gas key or something that goes in the end of the gas tube to allow gas to escape to run the hotter stuff
Biggest problem with .30-06 is how underloaded they are for old wartime rifles from before the turn of the last century. It's capable of doing so very much more when loaded properly for modern rifles built to handle pressures the .30-06 cartridge is really capable of. It's like many of the war cartridges that began life over a hundred years ago. Not to mention modern loads with better, newer designed bullets and components, the industry has to load for "most average" and the safety and "fudge factors" they must operate under for legal reason.
I deal with midway usa quite a bit. Very happy with them just wish shipping was as good as them. It's not there falt because i order from many places and shipping seams to have slowed down from everyone.
It's hard to get a fair comparison. Unless you are using the exact same riffle for all 3 or at least the same barrel length and of course the same action of riffle and the same manufacturer and type of bullet used. Then you will get an accurate comparison. Don't for get all the and and and ands in there
Apparently a lot of guys either don't pay attention to all parts of the equation or they just don't know what they are talking about. The .308 round was a 149 grain round. Typical velocities for typical .308 hunting rounds with 150 grain bullets are between 2820 and 2900 FPS so that was NOT a hot .308. Yes, that was a very under powered .30-06 but for those saying the .30-06 is terribly under loaded these days, well, it is, but not by a lot. Typical velocities for .30-06 rounds with 180 bullets from 30 or so years ago were published at around 2800 FPS. Now that is more typically 2700 to 2750 FPS. Only the Hornady Superformance 180 grain rounds exceed 2800 FPS at 2820 and those are usually 120 to 200 FPS faster than their typical counterparts with equal bullet weights. So at roughly 60 FPS from the fastest non hopped up .30-06 round it's safe to say that, no, the .30-06 is not greatly under loaded today. And while I have one and have never been let down by it. Geez, dudes, get over it. I know it's your pet and you need approval from everyone to reassure you that your rifle choice is the right one but there are countless versatile cartridges. And the "if you hand load" argument can be applied to all of them. The .30-06 is a great all rounder but not a true specialist of anything. Attempts to load it up or down just compromise the round and lead to other choices being better for the task. Stick to bullet weights from 165 to 180 grains in it and leave it at that. If you're going to shoot 130 to 150 grain bullets use a 6.5 mm , a 7mm or a .270. If you think you need 200 or more grains use a .300 magnum, a .338, or even the .35 Whelen.
30--06 was designed for the Springfield bolt action originally, and then the M1 Garand. So it has always been under powered on purpose for military loadings. 2400fps. Modern hunting rifles can take a lot more pressure, and that is why you don't use modern hunting 30-06 in a Garand, as it wil blow the op-rod off.
@@losi8ightyew I know m2 ball is weaker than commercial 30-06 but it’s nowhere near 2400 when loaded to spec. It should be about 2800 at the muzzle from a 24”.
No, it won’t ruclips.net/video/UOSdswZHJUc/видео.htmlsi=YpAXVU7zXop2bURu It wouldn’t “blow the op rod off” anyway, it would bend it, but it doesn’t doesn’t do that either
On steel, it would appear that the 54R and 30-06 didn't actually make it through the first target but punched out the back. Those two rounds actually came straight back at you
Yeah, that would be a very good test, as 7.92x57 Mauser was in fact the most used 30-cal ammo before the United States came in and made everyone use .308, and would probably have remained so if the Americans didn't get their way (and of course, to clarify, .280 British would take up the rifle roles in that case, and the Mauser would remain the machine gun round. Instead, the Americans got .308 for both)
Kind of surprised the 30-06 did so poorly as I had always heard that it was on par with .308. The 54R performed solidly enough with the civilian load you were firing - if you were firing the mil surplus stuff it would have kept up with the .308 as that stuff is a heck of a lot hotter - that and the fact that you had the bipod and recoil pads is why you didn't find the kick all that impressive - fire the real ammo from a real Nagant with a wooden stock and you'll change your tune real fast.
The 29" M1891 will send the surplus 185gr an average of 50fps faster than a 20" 308 178gr And leaves a hole that looks like you used a drill on 1/2 mild steel. And that's a gong so some energy is being lost making it swing. Got some machine gun rounds too, but they consistently make my bolt stick, so I stopped using them. I assume the 30-06 would also benefit from a longer barrel since it'll be loaded with a slower burning powder. Now just to be clear if I were to go into battle, I'm not picking the Mosin over my AR-10.
That sucks that your 30-06 ammo wasn't factory loaded neaarrrrly to typical spec. 2,300 FPS when it should be closer to 2,900-3,000 FPS. Heck, 150 grain 300 Blk rounds can reach 2,000 FPS. Either way, that means you typically should see muzzle energies closer to 2,800+ ft-lbs., and you obviously got *1,000 ft-lbs. less* than that. That is definitely the biggest reason for the discrepancy and variance in performance!
Mil Std .30-06 spec for use in the M1 Garand is 150 gr ball with lower pressure to prevent the action rod from bending. There is a caution from CMP when purchasing a Garand not to use 'modern' .30-06 cartridges without replacing the gas plug that bleeds off excess pressure. Even the 1903 Springfield rifles in early manufacturing are unsafe with 'modern' .30-06 cartridges.
Would be cool to see you do 303 vs 308 vs 243. Heck, I can send you my 303 and some ppu ammo to borrow for the video! I like your style of penetration tests. Glass is another good medium to test. If I’m not mistaken, glass is probably about close to the cost of the 6x6. I also suggest trying shooting at different angles, like say hit the targets at about 45ish degrees eyeballing it to see if penetration results change.
M1 ball cartridge was 178gr Spitzer boat tail at 2800 fps designed for the 1903 rifle, but the Army wanted the M1 Garand, originally designed for the .277 Peterson cartridge to shoot 30.06 they already had. Unfortunately, the M1 rifle couldn’t handle the M1 cartridge resulting in the 150gr M2 ball leaving the 24” barrel at 2500 fps. It is no wonder that WW2 snipers sought stores of M1 ball for their M1903A4 rifles.
Something is up with that M2 AP load you have there. I had some M2 AP, 1958 made iirc and I tested it when I got my first chronograph and it was cooking along at 2900 fps avg with 2 of 8 shots hitting over 3,000, however 2 others clocked in below 2750. Yes, it easily punched a nice little hole through a 3/4 inch boiler plate we had made up as a target back around 1995.
Two of my uncles fought in WW2. The both said that they'd manually pop in a black tip when an enemy was hiding behind a tree, and it would usually penetrate through (but not some huge old-growth tree).
Lots of blah. From comparable length barrel 7.62x54R is between .308 and .30-06. Both 7.62x54R and .30-06 loads were either tame or from pretty short barrel.
Weak .30-06 load. Even though the M2 ball rounds are some of the weaker 06 rounds.. but still seemed real underpowered. A correctly loaded 06 is superior to both the .308 and 54R. And the .308 seemed hot hot
I don't know who loaded your ammunition but your 308 is pushing to 30-06 velocity, hot by roughly 100-200fps, idk about rusky ammo, but the 30-06 is absolutely NOT supposed to be anywhere near that speed. 3000 fps is 30-06 cup of tea, your pushing 300 blackout velocity! Who's loading this, bubba's hot load 308 and aunt Dixie's soft no bake 30-06? Having a barrel length that makes a m16 blush for a 30-06 is also terrible for its ballistics.
Some of that old 150gr .30-06 military ball was only loaded to 2700 fps, as opposed to the typical modern 150gr .30-06 loaded to 2920 fps. That probably explains these results. That .308 might also be a Hornady Superformance.
M2 ball is funny cartridge. It was chosen as a cost saving measure, M1 ball was a better load but the berms at existing Army ranges weren't rated for it. So M2 ball is intentionally worse performing. This was done in 1937 before the ramp up for WW2. They never did officially switch back to M1 though and stuck with M2 until 7.62 NATO was adopted.
I'm nitpicking but 308 has not and never will be a military round. 7.62x51 NATO has slightly different dimensions, has much lower pressure per SAMMI specification, and it's dangerous to shoot 308 in a 7.62x51 barrel.
Fun fact! M2 ball is ballistically the same as .30-40 Krag (the round it replaced). When M1 ball was adopted, Army brass realized they'd have to make huge and costly changes to existing range setups with all new safety margins. So they dialed it back to match the old round
WTF come on man I don't care which caliber wins but do a decent test! Nosler doesn't have a single load in the Load Data database for 150grain 30-06 below 2650 fps. NOT A SINGLE LOAD, and their hot 150 grains are over 3000fps. In fact their avg 220 grain is over 2400 (please read that again and try to comprehend how far off your test was). This one was pretty bad dude. If your doing this for clickbait it works but you're better than that.
That 30-06 was extremely under loaded. 2,300 fps with a 150 grainer is extremely weak. A standard 180 grainer(so 30 grains heavier) should be going around 2,700 at the muzzle. However, if you hand load your own 30-06 ammo you can get very very close to 300 win mag territory. Both the 54R and the 30-06 are more powerful than the 308. Don’t get me wrong the 308 is a great performing round… but the reason it won in this test was because the others were loaded very weak especially the -06. Edit: at the end I saw 1835 foot lbs for the 30-06 which is almost half of what it should be producing. It’s not uncommon for a 30-06 load to produce 3,000 ft lbs of energy or higher. Hopefully you can redo the test in the future with modern 54R and 06 ammo.
EXACT opposite of what you'd expect. .30-06 has the highest capacity case at 68 gr H2O, 7.62x54R at 64 gr H2O, and 308 down around 56gr H2O. This has more to do with the actual loadings, as shown on the chrono, and the projectiles used. No way the 308 should outperform the other two. The 30-06 can be using 20% more powder.
according to those velocities, that was a tame 54R, a stupid hot 308, and an abysmal 30-06.
That .30 AP is all older.
I agree, this is not making sense. We need load data
@michaelmiller9692
I haven't shot any of the AP through my M1 in decades, can't remember what they punched through
Was just about to write exact same thing. Also, Bulgariam silver tip is hardly AP round...
Also, unequal barrel lengths. The .30-06 barrel used was only 18.5”
The extra power of 30-06 and 54R is completely taken away by those short barrels.
Old ammo is also part of the underlying problem.
Basically blowing out unburnt powder which we don't want at the shooting range😅 it never amazes me how people think they're Magnum revolver shoots better than the regular 22 but I'm next to them in the booth watching all the powder hit the ground😅😅😅
That's a valid point. doubtless they could be hand-tailored for better performance in shorter barrels. I only know what I see in ballistic tests other people conduct, but is appears that the .308 doesn't lose a whole lot in velocity until the barrel length goes below 16".
@@MrElwoodCaudillTo an extent, but the reality is that none of the rifles are anywhere close to an ideal configuration for their caliber - least of all the .30-06 with an 18.5" barrel. The bubbafied Mosin alone should tell you that these are meme guns.
That is true but not only the short barrel length but the ammo was VERY weak for those calibers as well. 1835 ft lbs for the 30-06 is laughable… it’s not uncommon for it to be 3,000 foot lbs or higher. 150 grainer at 2,300 for the 06 is insane… standard loading the 06 should go 2,700 FPS with a 180 grainer… and that’s not even super hot either
i love your channel, but, you know longer case needs a longer barrel; maybe the 06 was at a disadvantage.
That Romanian 7.62x54r are steel core and pretty light about 150g.
I agree with you on that one, credit card debt is worse than scoliosis. 👍🤣
That 30-06 round u used was way underpowered 🤣
Yeah this wasn't really a valid test. He really should use the same brand of ammo across the 3 and try to match up the barrel lengths. While isn't not a super significant difference, all things being equal .30-06 will also outperform .308 by a little. All things were not equal in this test though.
He mentioned it being M2 ball. Modern 30-06 is spicier than M2, so that would explain the results.
Yeah, and the highest-quality 30-06 can match the ballistic performance of lower quality 375 H&H up to around 300 meters. Obviously 375 H&H does way more damage and has better long-range performance, so you still need it for traditional 375 H&H applications like hunting big game. Case in point, modern bullet technologies and powders can really enhance the power of cartridges beyond expected, so it shouldn't be surprising that cartridges still in military use like .308 or 7.62x54r can outmatch an old 30-06
It's not the age of the ammo. I fired a regular ball round of .30-'06, vintage 1943, out of my Winchester Mod. 70 hunting rifle, from about 30 yards at 1/2" mild steel plate, and it went right through and kept going.
I fired a 1970s 7.62 NATO ball round out of an M1A at the same plate and it made an impressive bulge but didn't go through.
It's because the barrel on that 30-06 rifle is way too short.
The 30/06 properly loaded is THE standard by which others are measured.
What do you mean by properly loaded? To spec for old rifles with old powders? Or new powders that get more velocity while still staying under the pressure standard? Or are you talking about using more modern pressure standards like 65,000 psi and is not safe to shoot in vintage rifles? “Properly” is a matter of perspective.
@@jaydunbar7538What vintage 30-06 requires lower pressure rounds ?
@@dondavis8021 In an M1 Garand, rounds loaded to standard WWII ball ammo specs are fine, but a lot of modern loads - even factory loaded ammo - will beat it up. From the Sierra Loading Manual: _"Powders in the medium burning range must be used when loading for a Garand. Due to its system of operation, the Garand can be damaged by improper powder selection even if the loads themselves are perfectly safe."_ Lots of guys who didn't know better have ended up with bent op-rods (and worse) by shooting the wrong ammo in their Garand.
Good video! We got Mosins back in like 04 and that bulk spam can ammo ripped through whatever we shot, I think it was steel core. But the days of a $60 prepper rifle and 440 rounds for $50 are gone 😂 I miss those days
Yep. Agree. 100%
Getting burned on your cheek is your punishment for the crime of not having a wooden stock
I personally couldn't care less, but functionally all of those "aftermarket" mosin parts are complete garbage - only reason I wouldn't use them.
@@jong2359 Those plastic mosin stocks remind me of the crappy plastic tapco stuff they made for the SKS. Looked cool, but never really beat the original nice wood stocks.
The velocities were super weird for these rounds. The 54R and 30-06 were significantly under-powered and the 308 was INCREDIBLY hot. Need some load data.
Actually 2800fps for a 150gr .308 is pretty standard. Even cheap Palmetto AAC 150gr .308 is listed as 2850fps on the box. The other 2 were much slower than expected though, especially the 30-06
@@TheRuffLifeWithBrody 30-06 is often loaded light for certain actions.
@@josephahner3031 M1 Garand says let's see how hot a load you can handle when you're 80 years old.
It's been mentioned, and I forget where, but apparently Garands like light loads, and you have to stay away from modern loadings. Is that a true thing, I honestly don't know. Had an 03-A3 once, it didn't care :).
@@thomasbeirne8213 Not really, the discrepancy was the fact that the ammo manufacturers used slightly different CUP measurements. Realistically the difference between modern 30-06 and GI 30-06 from back then is at most 2000 PSI, which is one standard deviation. So insignificant.
I don't own a 7.62X54R rifle... but just want to say when you look at when this round went it to service... no matter the results.. it is an impressive round.
And the .303 British also went into wervice in the1880's - 1883. And it's still very accurate with the right round and powder + rifle .
@hardingdies7811 but it isn't used anywhere anymore except for recreational shootint. 54r is still used in a number of militaries in a number of weapon systems around the world
@@mirwazzanmarri4964 .303 is still in limited military use, but not really by any notable country.
Have you seen the 1000yd mosin?
@@hardingdies7811 i have two...303...and a 7.65x54 Russ rifle
Would like to see a current 30-06 in this test.
Most factory loads are nearly identical to 308 from a 22” barrel. Check out Masons Leather.
@@scottythebody0811 I watch his videos. Great channel. I guess hand loading is the way to go to get the benefits of the larger case capacity. 35 Whelen is a beast!
how about a modern 7,62x54R gun in the first place?
@@JonFox-t5x
Absolutely!
Honestly, I'd love to see modern loads for all of these. I think that would be a lot more comparable
Sadly, the M2 ball ammo is one of the weakest .30-06 cartridges available. The power of the cartridge had to be significantly reduced for use in the M1 Garand rifle to keep from bending the op-rods. I'd love to see how this would work with the original full power WW1 loading through a full length 26" barrel.
That was some awfully weak M2 ball. I have chronographed Greek M2 ball at around 2750 feet per second from an M1 Garand. It's also a myth that .30-06 was reduced in power for the M1 Garand. The M1 Garand was originally designed to fire M1 ball, which was a 175 grain bullet at about 2650 feet per second.
yes, and no. it is a soft ball load, but it predates the M1 Garand. the ordnance board just found full house 30-06 was over kill, and found a milder loading was easier for the troops to shoot, safer in case of rounds over the berm, and cheaper. later on they optimized a cartridge for the loading and that is how 308 came about. that said, his velocity was ridiculously low. it should have been around 2700 fps.
I have an M1917 Remington. First time I shot it, I had a block of some soft hardwood. Loaded with cheap Federal 150 grain, the block entirely exploded after the bullet traveled eight inches along the grain.
That 30-06 load is weak as F. Something wrong with it.
The M1 garand was designed to use all military loadings of the 30 06 which included ww1 loadings, the op rod is a myth
ruclips.net/video/UOSdswZHJUc/видео.htmlsi=YpAXVU7zXop2bURu
I freakin love your content, man. Light hearted, informative, and just plain fun to watch. Thanks for doing what do you.
What he said.
And then everyone comes to the comments and argues anyway
@@kwrzesien17 I know. It sucks.
I find the expertise in the comment section quite entertaining 😂@@kwrzesien17
The 30 ought 6 ammunition appeared to be of the M1 Grand type. That required a little lower pressure and velocity in order to keep from bending up the action. 2800 ft per second is approximately what that stuff runs, instead of the 3,000 to 3200 ft per second from the 1903 type round.
Let me know I've done very good job explaining, but there is a difference.
Comfort tip: pop up canopy over the bench might help. Good video.
My PPU 76254r seems to have way more power than my mil surp.
My son bought a Mosin, don't know what ammo it was, whatever comes in that big ass tuna can you have to cut open. Kicks like a mule and I forget how many feet of lumber it went through. They ran out before finding out what it takes to stop but it sure as hell was a couple of feet!
In stock form, Mosins DO kick. Throw on a buttpad or custom stock and they're fine.
Mine doesn't kick nearly as bad as my 308 and my mosin still has the OG wood stock.
Toilet Man needs to negotiate a new contract with the show. Give him more lines. 😂
Prime advantage to .30-06 is the wide power range if hand loading you can push it to nearly .300WM levels if you have a good action.
Really? 30-06 pushing a 230gr bullet to 2800+ fps? I'd like to see it.
He's talking about lighter loads bud. Not max 300wm loads. I've bought factory 300wm ammo loaded with 165gr that only chronoed at 2920 with a 26" barrel.
@@jsaction33 nowhere did he say light loads, which is cherry picking. 30-06 can't do what 300WM can, same as 308 can't do what 30-06 can.
@@danya822 I said the guy at the begining was talking about light loads for the 300wm. There is overlap between 308 and 30-06, it was literally shown in this video. And there is overlap between 30-06 and 300wm.
30-06 loadings are definitely more common, but couldn't you also handload 7.62x54?
The chrono told the real story...the 308 was cooking and the other 2 were loafers.
👍👍
Is this a "pinky test" emoji???🤙
😂
The 7.62x54R was introduced in the late 1880s in the Imperial Russian era like the .303 British and still has that rimmed case. The 06 was never loaded to its potential in 1906 until reloaders cranked it up with modern powders. The US Gov. Ball ammo is on the weak side.
Yep. As loaded for military equivalent ball, the 7,62x54R 147 gr. Ball and .30-06 M2 ball are equivalent, about 2700-2800 fps. out of equivalent barrels. 7,62x51 is pretty much the same-ish as regular ball ammo.
The 7,62R is obviously the older design (circa 1891, with improvements in 1908+) being rimmed. It’s shorter than .30-06 but fatter. The .30-06 is very long-7,62x63. Too long really considering it’s not outperforming any of its contemporaries like the 7,92x57 which it was ultimately based on and which itself came out in 1888. The 7,62x51 was a more efficient and modern round and got comparable performance from a significantly shorter case.
That was a fun video. Thanks for all the great content ;)
That Bulgarian 54R will shoot some flames in a carbine. Honestly WWII ammo is loaded pretty low due to the M1 Garand. When you hand load for the M1 you have to stick to medium burning powder, mid range bullet weights, and lower pressures to prevent damage to the op rod.
That’s a myth
ruclips.net/video/UOSdswZHJUc/видео.htmlsi=YpAXVU7zXop2bURu
WW2 30 06 ammo was also used in machine guns, it wasn’t loaded lower for the M1 garand, which was designed to use every military 30 06 loading including machine gun ammo
Can confirm. My literature has a section specifically labeled for the garand.
Bolt actions can be pushed to the limits...
@@Future-Preps35 m2 ball was a 150 grain bullet propelled at 2740 ft/s, maximum average pressure of 50,000 psi
m1 ball was a 174 grain bullet propelled at 2647 ft/s, maximum average pressure of 48,000 psi
The original loading, m1906, was a 150 grain bullet propelled at 2700 ft/s
They’re all very similar pressures, you’re right about the down loading of m2 for range safety and marines proffering to use m1, but m2 is loaded to a higher average pressure, and the garand was in service in 1936, m2 ball didn’t come out until 1938
@@Future-Preps35 This wasn't necessarily because it was so much more powerful, it was because M1 Ball was manufactured with up-to-date bullets that were heavier and had boattails utilized in their design. When the 30-40 Krag was retired, spitzers were just developed - and that's one of the defining factors between .30-03 and .30-06. M1906 ball was a flat-based spitzer bullet that was around 150gr leaving the muzzle at ~2800, whereas M1 was around 170 gr was leaving the muzzle at ~2600fps. That's not a world of difference for power, until you get downrange where the ballistic coefficient of the newer M1 ball begins to show, and that's what worried the military range offices. (Side note: You'll also note that the raw numbers here isn't too different from the 7.62x54r that was used in this test.)
The reason old 30-06 is not as powerful compared to modern 30-06 is because high performance powders in slower burn rates weren't available yet. IMR 4350 came out in 1940, and that was a game changer. Lucky for the 30-06 it had the capacity to fit these slower burning powders and larger bullets, and that's because it's direct parent, .30-03, was aiming to launch a 220gr pill down a barrel at 2300fps. They got close to achieving that performance level with the 30-40 Krag, but stress-testing revealed they were starting to crack lugs on the inherently weak single-lugged actions; the .30-03 was developed to achieve that performance level consistently and safely, and a lot of that was simply having a comically large case capacity.
the 308 is bad *ss!!!!
Banana you have a unique voice, this was funny especially talking to your ballistic dummy lol
The gun tuber world's answer to Ray Romano
Energy wise I always thought 7.62x54R landed between the two American cartridges
It usually does. About a mid-hot load of 308. The 06 ammo he is using is downloaded
usually so. the performance window of 54R puts it on the heels of 06, but it is almost always loaded soft and lands on the warm side of 308. his 06 load was comically light, and his 308 was questionably hot.
@@nathanielyoungman4454 exactly right. M2 ball was lower pressure ammo because the M1 Garand operating rod would suffer failures if loaded with higher pressure ammo. New gas plugs that restrict gas flow to the piston solves that issue, but the military never installed those, so M2 ammo is still low pressure loaded.
Full power rounds are a different animal and wouldn't even be in the same conversation as the other two.
@@nathanielyoungman4454 M1 Garand ammo maybe?
@@angry_zerglingno
I don't know if I learned much, but it was entertaining. The comments posted say the ammo was screwy.
It's just the 30-06 chodes being morons and refusing to see that 308 is a great round too. The only difference is if you hand load the rounds.
I got one for ya.
WW2 battle cartridges.
USA = 30-06.
British = 303.
France = 7.5x54mm.
Germany = 8mm Mauser.
Soviet = 7.62x54 R.
Japanese and Italians? Bro they have a few cartridges they used during WW2..lets ignore them for now.
That is either not m2 ball or it is a WAYYYY out of spec batch. M2 should be about 2800 out of a 24”. I call shenanigans on this batch of testing in light of those velocities
I know this would be a real hard one to find, but you should try and test a .220 swift if possible.
30-06 is criminally underloaded now days. It's about as significant as modern .357 vs 9mm
Because there are so many old 30-06 rifles, so there is a lot more demand for low-pressure 30-06, especially in rifles that degraded over time. But yeah, good 30-06 can do better than what we saw today
Could you try it with modern .30-06?
My experience with off the shelf ammo lines up pretty close to this: 54R and 30-06 are usually mild loads relative to what they load up typical 308 rounds these days.
The original government spec for m2 AP .30-06 was over 2,700 fps. The rounds you had were at least 15% too slow (no way you could have known before buying/acquiring them of course). Future video idea: pull the projectiles and load your own, creating a few varieties at 2750, 2850, and maybe one option above that as well. Whatever the max is in the loading tables. Do the video just about those velocity differences. I think it’s worthwhile because this round/projectiles are the most accessible to all of us fellow peasants; they predate our ruling class overlords clamping down on such things.
Plus the .30-06 he used had the shortest barrel of the three rifles.
Hot 30-06 is super underrated
Military wise the 308 being shorter than the 30-06 their by it lessens the amount of bolt. Travel for full automatic use.
As a .308 fanboy, this is my favourite 54R vs 30-06 vs .308 comparison video on YT! 🤣
That M2 ball ammo wasn’t hot and didn’t need to be that’s why you can’t run hunting 30-06 ammo in an M1 Garand without changing gas tube insert, anyhow awesome video
Exactly what I was going to say. It's like racing a C8 Vette against a C3.
Recent tested has shown you can run full power hunting ammo through Garands without hurting them at all. Am I going to do it? No.
@@donwyoming1936 yeah good deal they make a opened gas key or something that goes in the end of the gas tube to allow gas to escape to run the hotter stuff
@@ThemantleofElijahNo, it was on unmodified M1’s
@@ThemantleofElijah
ruclips.net/video/UOSdswZHJUc/видео.htmlsi=YpAXVU7zXop2bURu
With the 30-06 traveling at 2300 fps it didn't stand a chance. What a wimpy load !!!!!!!
Interesting how the rounds made such clean small holes in the wood. Most of your other tests blow out the backside of the block.
Biggest problem with .30-06 is how underloaded they are for old wartime rifles from before the turn of the last century. It's capable of doing so very much more when loaded properly for modern rifles built to handle pressures the .30-06 cartridge is really capable of. It's like many of the war cartridges that began life over a hundred years ago. Not to mention modern loads with better, newer designed bullets and components, the industry has to load for "most average" and the safety and "fudge factors" they must operate under for legal reason.
Seems I will get a Ruger Ranch Gen 2 in 308 nice rifle and ty for the lean 😊
In a typical loading .308 < 7.62x54r < .30-06 by textbook muzzle energy
Those were the weakest 30-06 rounds I've ever seen. But still a great video!
How did the 308 out perform the 30 06
I deal with midway usa quite a bit. Very happy with them just wish shipping was as good as them. It's not there falt because i order from many places and shipping seams to have slowed down from everyone.
It's hard to get a fair comparison. Unless you are using the exact same riffle for all 3 or at least the same barrel length and of course the same action of riffle and the same manufacturer and type of bullet used. Then you will get an accurate comparison. Don't for get all the and and and ands in there
That was the lamest .30-06 ammo i've ever seen. Was that practice ammo for the USO?
Sounds like a bunch of 308 haters I'll keep what I got.
M2 ball is very tame compared to modern loadings in 30-06.
Why use antiquated 30-06 against modem 54r?
6:18 you put a hair piece on that alien face and you have Pennywise.
Terry doesn’t have scoliosis, he has “Banana Back”.
Apparently a lot of guys either don't pay attention to all parts of the equation or they just don't know what they are talking about. The .308 round was a 149 grain round. Typical velocities for typical .308 hunting rounds with 150 grain bullets are between 2820 and 2900 FPS so that was NOT a hot .308. Yes, that was a very under powered .30-06 but for those saying the .30-06 is terribly under loaded these days, well, it is, but not by a lot. Typical velocities for .30-06 rounds with 180 bullets from 30 or so years ago were published at around 2800 FPS. Now that is more typically 2700 to 2750 FPS. Only the Hornady Superformance 180 grain rounds exceed 2800 FPS at 2820 and those are usually 120 to 200 FPS faster than their typical counterparts with equal bullet weights. So at roughly 60 FPS from the fastest non hopped up .30-06 round it's safe to say that, no, the .30-06 is not greatly under loaded today. And while I have one and have never been let down by it. Geez, dudes, get over it. I know it's your pet and you need approval from everyone to reassure you that your rifle choice is the right one but there are countless versatile cartridges. And the "if you hand load" argument can be applied to all of them. The .30-06 is a great all rounder but not a true specialist of anything. Attempts to load it up or down just compromise the round and lead to other choices being better for the task. Stick to bullet weights from 165 to 180 grains in it and leave it at that. If you're going to shoot 130 to 150 grain bullets use a 6.5 mm , a 7mm or a .270. If you think you need 200 or more grains use a .300 magnum, a .338, or even the .35 Whelen.
I'd say 308 is probably the best "all-rounder" really. For what you get, accuracy, price, knock down. It's really hard to beat.
30--06 was designed for the Springfield bolt action originally, and then the M1 Garand. So it has always been under powered on purpose for military loadings. 2400fps. Modern hunting rifles can take a lot more pressure, and that is why you don't use modern hunting 30-06 in a Garand, as it wil blow the op-rod off.
If you think 2400fps is a normal velocity for m2 ball, then you should stop talking about topics that you know nothing about.
@@Almost_Made_It That stuff is MUCH weaker than regular 30-06 tho dude lol
@@losi8ightyew I know m2 ball is weaker than commercial 30-06 but it’s nowhere near 2400 when loaded to spec. It should be about 2800 at the muzzle from a 24”.
No, it won’t
ruclips.net/video/UOSdswZHJUc/видео.htmlsi=YpAXVU7zXop2bURu
It wouldn’t “blow the op rod off” anyway, it would bend it, but it doesn’t doesn’t do that either
Pretty sure the government spec was 2700 fps minimum.
One of my newest favorite guntube channels. Subscribed
Great video and I was FIRST to click thumbs up. Surely one of the highlights in my life. Now only if I could make my voice deep, hummmm.
Always looking forward to your videos. Those darn aliens...
cool video! the 54r would have done more damage if you were using a 91/30 instead of the short barreled the m44 or type53 👍
Geez is everything short how about some barrel length
On steel, it would appear that the 54R and 30-06 didn't actually make it through the first target but punched out the back. Those two rounds actually came straight back at you
Where did you get the anemic 30-06 ammo?
I put surplus blk tip 30-'06 through 3/4 " plate out of a 1917 Edystone. Make fine desk paper weights !
You should try the Remington accelerator rounds in 30/06,
All my commemts get erased by screw-tube
Absolutely love 54r, wish they still made guns in it. would be very silly to have a modern bolt action in 54r
I'd love a nice Stainless rifle in 54 R. Could you imagine?
Thanks for being considerate of your spider friend! 😁👍
"Three of history's most popular military 30 cals".
Uhm......303 British and German 8mm Mauser?
Hence the word "three" ... could have been any 3 of the popular military rounds, nothing says he can't add on another two later.
Yeah, that would be a very good test, as 7.92x57 Mauser was in fact the most used 30-cal ammo before the United States came in and made everyone use .308, and would probably have remained so if the Americans didn't get their way
(and of course, to clarify, .280 British would take up the rifle roles in that case, and the Mauser would remain the machine gun round. Instead, the Americans got .308 for both)
7.62x39mm anyone???
@@TheRuffLifeWithBrody That is an intermediate cartridge, it has so much less power it legitimately performs differently
.204 Ruger test when?
What happened to that poor Mosin!?
that is what i was asking!
Banana ballistics - 💪💯!!!
Lots of new guntubers have been in my feed lately and you are the first one that is really enjoyable and interesting.
Kind of surprised the 30-06 did so poorly as I had always heard that it was on par with .308.
The 54R performed solidly enough with the civilian load you were firing - if you were firing the mil surplus stuff it would have kept up with the .308 as that stuff is a heck of a lot hotter - that and the fact that you had the bipod and recoil pads is why you didn't find the kick all that impressive - fire the real ammo from a real Nagant with a wooden stock and you'll change your tune real fast.
Yeah and the steel buttplate makes sure you'll feel every round! Kicks like a mule with Russian milsurp ammo.
@@deniswauchope3788 It builds character - and shoulder calluses - though. ;-)
But what about .303 British?
The 29" M1891 will send the surplus 185gr an average of 50fps faster than a 20" 308 178gr
And leaves a hole that looks like you used a drill on 1/2 mild steel. And that's a gong so some energy is being lost making it swing.
Got some machine gun rounds too, but they consistently make my bolt stick, so I stopped using them.
I assume the 30-06 would also benefit from a longer barrel since it'll be loaded with a slower burning powder.
Now just to be clear if I were to go into battle, I'm not picking the Mosin over my AR-10.
definitely need to retest the .30-06 with a proper, modern load. not a light M1 Garand load
That was extremely slow for an m1 garand load
Imo it was a unfair test you used the new m80a1 bullets for the 308 shouldve used just all regular fmj's
That sucks that your 30-06 ammo wasn't factory loaded neaarrrrly to typical spec. 2,300 FPS when it should be closer to 2,900-3,000 FPS. Heck, 150 grain 300 Blk rounds can reach 2,000 FPS. Either way, that means you typically should see muzzle energies closer to 2,800+ ft-lbs., and you obviously got *1,000 ft-lbs. less* than that. That is definitely the biggest reason for the discrepancy and variance in performance!
Mil Std .30-06 spec for use in the M1 Garand is 150 gr ball with lower pressure to prevent the action rod from bending. There is a caution from CMP when purchasing a Garand not to use 'modern' .30-06 cartridges without replacing the gas plug that bleeds off excess pressure. Even the 1903 Springfield rifles in early manufacturing are unsafe with 'modern' .30-06 cartridges.
Would be cool to see you do 303 vs 308 vs 243. Heck, I can send you my 303 and some ppu ammo to borrow for the video! I like your style of penetration tests. Glass is another good medium to test. If I’m not mistaken, glass is probably about close to the cost of the 6x6. I also suggest trying shooting at different angles, like say hit the targets at about 45ish degrees eyeballing it to see if penetration results change.
Is that a 16-inch 30-06?
groovy tunes between shots, and a color coordination between the shirt and the alien. thumbs up!
M1 ball cartridge was 178gr Spitzer boat tail at 2800 fps designed for the 1903 rifle, but the Army wanted the M1 Garand, originally designed for the .277 Peterson cartridge to shoot 30.06 they already had. Unfortunately, the M1 rifle couldn’t handle the M1 cartridge resulting in the 150gr M2 ball leaving the 24” barrel at 2500 fps. It is no wonder that WW2 snipers sought stores of M1 ball for their M1903A4 rifles.
Something is up with that M2 AP load you have there. I had some M2 AP, 1958 made iirc and I tested it when I got my first chronograph and it was cooking along at 2900 fps avg with 2 of 8 shots hitting over 3,000, however 2 others clocked in below 2750. Yes, it easily punched a nice little hole through a 3/4 inch boiler plate we had made up as a target back around 1995.
Two of my uncles fought in WW2. The both said that they'd manually pop in a black tip when an enemy was hiding behind a tree, and it would usually penetrate through (but not some huge old-growth tree).
Lots of blah. From comparable length barrel 7.62x54R is between .308 and .30-06. Both 7.62x54R and .30-06 loads were either tame or from pretty short barrel.
Weak .30-06 load. Even though the M2 ball rounds are some of the weaker 06 rounds.. but still seemed real underpowered. A correctly loaded 06 is superior to both the .308 and 54R.
And the .308 seemed hot hot
I don't know who loaded your ammunition but your 308 is pushing to 30-06 velocity, hot by roughly 100-200fps, idk about rusky ammo, but the 30-06 is absolutely NOT supposed to be anywhere near that speed. 3000 fps is 30-06 cup of tea, your pushing 300 blackout velocity! Who's loading this, bubba's hot load 308 and aunt Dixie's soft no bake 30-06? Having a barrel length that makes a m16 blush for a 30-06 is also terrible for its ballistics.
Some of that old 150gr .30-06 military ball was only loaded to 2700 fps, as opposed to the typical modern 150gr .30-06 loaded to 2920 fps. That probably explains these results. That .308 might also be a Hornady Superformance.
M2 ball is funny cartridge. It was chosen as a cost saving measure, M1 ball was a better load but the berms at existing Army ranges weren't rated for it. So M2 ball is intentionally worse performing. This was done in 1937 before the ramp up for WW2. They never did officially switch back to M1 though and stuck with M2 until 7.62 NATO was adopted.
I have a 12gauge/30-06 over under combo and love it! The CZ584 is the do it all combo gun. I have it showcased on my channel
I'm nitpicking but 308 has not and never will be a military round. 7.62x51 NATO has slightly different dimensions, has much lower pressure per SAMMI specification, and it's dangerous to shoot 308 in a 7.62x51 barrel.
Fun fact! M2 ball is ballistically the same as .30-40 Krag (the round it replaced). When M1 ball was adopted, Army brass realized they'd have to make huge and costly changes to existing range setups with all new safety margins. So they dialed it back to match the old round
WTF come on man I don't care which caliber wins but do a decent test! Nosler doesn't have a single load in the Load Data database for 150grain 30-06 below 2650 fps. NOT A SINGLE LOAD, and their hot 150 grains are over 3000fps. In fact their avg 220 grain is over 2400 (please read that again and try to comprehend how far off your test was). This one was pretty bad dude.
If your doing this for clickbait it works but you're better than that.
That 30-06 was extremely under loaded. 2,300 fps with a 150 grainer is extremely weak. A standard 180 grainer(so 30 grains heavier) should be going around 2,700 at the muzzle. However, if you hand load your own 30-06 ammo you can get very very close to 300 win mag territory. Both the 54R and the 30-06 are more powerful than the 308. Don’t get me wrong the 308 is a great performing round… but the reason it won in this test was because the others were loaded very weak especially the -06.
Edit: at the end I saw 1835 foot lbs for the 30-06 which is almost half of what it should be producing. It’s not uncommon for a 30-06 load to produce 3,000 ft lbs of energy or higher. Hopefully you can redo the test in the future with modern 54R and 06 ammo.
EXACT opposite of what you'd expect. .30-06 has the highest capacity case at 68 gr H2O, 7.62x54R at 64 gr H2O, and 308 down around 56gr H2O.
This has more to do with the actual loadings, as shown on the chrono, and the projectiles used.
No way the 308 should outperform the other two. The 30-06 can be using 20% more powder.
ALL should be called 30cal
for easier saying 30-30, 30 RUS,
30-06, 30 Tok, 30 carb, 30 AK,
30 Nat, etc
0:20 Is that planks cousin? xD
Ya that's his cousin block