Wayward Son
Contributor
if a woodchuck could chuck FOOM!!!
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
the extra size is now a negative, kind of like driving a 1970' muscle car. Is it a cool toy, hell yes. A great feeling of nostalgia, fun to work with and it will get the job down. Not so practical nor efficient.
You see, there's the difference between a bleedin' heart librul Euro view on guns and the red-blooded 'murrican view: we don't automatically think about killing people, we see guns as tools for hunting and target shooting. And with that perspective, there's nothing obsolete with the century-plus old cartridge constuctions like the .30-06 or the 6.5x55 8)
The size of the casing needed in turn of the 20th century powders and bullets was larger than today. Smaller cartridges with better powder and bullets fill the same need. Thus the overall down-sizing of ammo for the same need in the military and even most hunting. No question the 30.06 will get the job done, but the smaller, faster calibers will generally have less drop over distance and less effect from the wind (rather important where I live on the plains). These guns are also easier for the casual shooter (most of us) to handle.
Does anyone else keep their pole spear or spear gun handy for a second use as a weapon for home defense?
I always keep my spear gun next to my bed as well as a sharp pole spear as a home protection measure.
I don't have the spear gun loaded, but I can do it very quickly if I had to. I always maintain the tip on it very sharp.
My pole spear is a 5 foot jbl also has a very sharp tip on it, and it would probably be my first choice because it is longer and just as lethal.
Its seems perfectly good to have this instead of a loaded gun in your bed room, as long as the spear gun is not loaded.
Would you or do you do this? If not, I would like to know why would it be a bad idea.
You keep repeating the "modern rifle powders" mantra. I guess the .300WM with its even larger case capacity is even more obsolete than the .30-06, then? Uh, wait. That cartridge is younger than the .308Win, and the US Army's M24 and M2010 are chambered for it. Hm. ....
You keep repeating the "modern rifle powders" mantra. I guess the .300WM with its even larger case capacity is even more obsolete than the .30-06, then? Uh, wait. That cartridge is younger than the .308Win, and the US Army's M24 and M2010 are chambered for it. Hm.
The .30-06 lies comfortably about mid-way between the .308Win and the .300WM in terms of case capacity, speed and recoil. You were worried about recoil, weren't you? Then you'd better not touch the .300WM with a 3.048 meter pole.
If you live on the plains and really are a shooter, you should know that speed isn't everything for hitting your target. In fact, if you consider wind drift, speed is definitely secondary to BC. If I'm worried about wind drift, I'd much rather have a .5 BC bullet (.30 cal Sierra 155gr) in 3000fps than a .25 BC bullet (.22 cal Sierra 52gr) in 3200fps. In fact, I'd chuck both of those loads for a .6 BC bullet (.264 cal Sierra 142gr) in 2800fps. Oh, wait, that load is for the 6.5x55 cartridge, which is even older - and I guess even more obsolete - than the .30-06. Rank those three loads in terms of wind drift, and it's bleedin' obvious to any shooter worth his powder that the highest BC wins, and the lowest BC loses.
Yeah, the .223 in 3200+ fps shoots flat. The .22-250 shoots even flatter. But the "flat shooting" argument loses if you want to hit a target at some distance. It's a lot easier to estimate distance than wind. In fact, if I have problems guesstimating distance I can buy a laser rangefinder that can give me the distance to the nearest meter (or yard, if you're of that persuasion). There's no instrument that can give me the crosswinds from my stance all the way out to my target with any kind of accuracy, estimating crosswinds is still WAGs and experience. Elevation is a piece of cake, windage is what separates the shooters from the dilettantes.
So, what about the recoil you're worried about? Well, I've shot quite a few rounds with .30-06 and also quite a few with .308Win, and frankly, the difference is negligible. You get a lot more effect on recoil from stock design, rifle weight and barrel length. Try a short-barreled lightweight .308 with a hogs-back or MC stock and a normal-barreled normal weight .30-06 with a "modern classic" straight stock, and you'll prefer the .30-06 over the .308. Now, if I wanted a round with noticeably lower recoil and excellent wind drift resistance, I'd go for the 6.5x55. Oh, wait, that round is even older than the .30-06, so I guess it's even more obsolete.
The reason that your armed forces abandoned the .30-06 for the 7.62 NATO, and the 7.62 NATO for the 5.56 NATO was logistics and full auto fire. A short cartridge gives a shorter bolt throw than a long cartridge, so it's better suited for SAWs when you need suppressing fire. And each round takes up less space, weighs less and uses less resources in production. As long as the cartridge is adequate, those are very good reasons for adopting a shorter, smaller, lighter round (however, the Afghanistan theater clearly showed that the 5.56 NATO is not adequate in quite a few situations). But that the shorter cartridge is adequate doesn't mean the shorter cartridge can duplicate the performance of the longer cartridge, because the longer cartridge also benefits from the modern powders you're so obsessed with. If you want a shorter bolt throw and choose the .308Win, or if you're worried about the recoil of a .30 cal gun and wants the cute little .223, by all means. They're very good cartridges and delivers more than adequate performance when used for the right purpose. But there's no way they can match the performance of a larger, longer cartridge when you start trying to get the maximum out of your round.
Ever considered moving!