30-30 Win versus: 6.5 Grendel, 6.8 SPC, 300 AAC Blackout, 50 Beowulf

[melensdad]

Sometimes the newest, greatest, is not really much better (if any) than the tried and true cartridges that are 100+ years old.

Using a Ballistics Calculator on the interwebs, and some published data from various manufacturers I came up with this comparison that may be of interest to some folks.

Its amazing how well the 100+ year old 30-30 Winchester stacks up against a variety of new cartridges. While at modest ranged the big 50 Beowulf dominates the energy category, the 30-30 is also bested by the 6.5 Grendel but not that not by much. The old 30-30 clearly beats the standard loads for the 6.8 SPC and the 300 AAC Blackout and is roughly the equal of the high pressure Tactical 6.8 loads at the 100 yard mark, which is a pretty reasonable hunting range here in Indiana.

Add a couple inches to each barrel, or add another 100 yards to the range and go out to 200 yards and the 6.5 Grendel starts to show clear superiority to all the choices. The biggest downside to the old Winchester 30-30 is that won't cycle through a modern AR15 rifle. Assuming an ethical hunting minimum energy of 1000 ft lbs puts the 300 AAC Blackout with an absolute maximum ethical range of 100 yards.


30-30 WINCHESTER 150grain: 2390 fps / 1902 ft lbs energy
At 100 yards . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2018 fps / 1356 ft lbs energy


MODERN CARTRIDGES OUT OF A 16" BARREL: AT THE MUZZLE
6.5 Grendel 123grain: . . . . . 2480 fps / 1680 ft lbs energy
6.8 SPC 115grain: . . . . . . . . 2500 fps / 1590 ft lbs energy
6.8 SPCII Tactical 115grain. . 2575 fps / 1694 ft lbs energy
300 AAC Blackout 123 grain: 2315 fps / 1462 fl lbs energy
50 BEOWULF 325grain. . . . . 1950 fps / 2745 fl lbs energy


MODERN CARTRIDGES AT 100 yards:
6.5 Grendel 123grain: . . . . . 2325 fps / 1476 ft lbs energy
6.8 SPC 115grain. . . . . . . . . 2253 fps / 1297 ft lbs energy
6.8 SPCII Tactical 115grain: . 2323 fps / 1378 ft lbs energy
300 AAC Blackout 123 grain: 1907 fps / 993 ft lbs energy
50 BEOWULF 325 grain:. . . . 1490 fps / 1603 ft lbs energy

*Muzzle velocity and energy figures all from manufacturers stated published data from Winchester, Alexander Arms, Silver State Armory and Advanced Armament.

**100 yard figures for both 6.8 rounds and the 300 AAC Blackout were calculated using this Ballistics Calculator

 

[kludge]

Out to 200 yards or so I'd probably take a .35 Remington hunting over any of those catridges on any given species of game.

Now if you start talking about the WSSM and its varaints... I'd probably change my mind rather quickly... but you'd have to allow me a 20"-22" barrel.

The WSSM's don't really fall into the category of "tacticool" because magazine capacity limits, but for hunting that's not an issue.

 

[melensdad]

The reason I chose the cartridges above is because a 16" AR15 carbine is roughly the modern day equivalent of a typical lever action Marlin or Winchester lever action carbine.

The modern AR15 is pretty much the technological peak of commonly owned weapons today.

The lever action carbine was roughly the technological peak of commonly owned weapons when the smokeless Win 30-30 was introduced.

Clearly there are many rounds that beat the living snot out of these little cartridges, but if we use the limits of the AR15 as practical choice, and the limits of the commonly available 30-30 lever action carbines as the fair comparison, it eliminates many other rounds and makes the comparison easy and practical.

 

[kludge]

The modern AR15 is pretty much the technological peak of commonly owned weapons today.

I don't particularly care for the platform, but I won't argue your point at all.

However, along that line of thinking, it's amazing how little progress there has been in 50 years.

I wonder what would be different had the military not been married to the platform all this time. All we've managed to do in 50 years is lop off the barrel and make our standard issue ammunition (more?) ineffective at range. (yes, I'm grossly oversimplifying.)

I will say though that the 6.5 Grendel is turning out to be (from my reading) an outstanding little cartridge, but to be supersonic at 1000 yards still requires a 20" barrel. It makes you wonder though, what might have happened if the .280 British had been adopted as the NATO round instead of the 7.62x51.

I only mentioned the .35 Rem because you started your post talking about how good 100 year old cartridges are, plus it was designed with semi-auto operation in mind (rimless case). The development and popularity of the Mauser and Springfield rifles (and the ammunition)... well, as they say... the rest is history.

 

[melensdad]

I think we need a REVOLUTIONARY rather than EVOLUTIONARY change in firearms to see any significant differences. From what I can tell, even the solid propellent cartridgeless designs don't really preform any better than the current crop of metallic case ammo. Its going to have to go to something like a "rail gun" concept that can be shoulder fired or some sort of pulse type weapon. I think the laws of physics come into play with combustion and wind drag on projectile ammo, regardless of the case, design, etc.

 

[kludge]

Yeah, I haven't seen anything lately in small arms development that screams "revolutionary".

 

[Dorky_D]

I just wish the 6.5 was more popular. I know it may catch on more, but right now it is expensive to shoot. (no, I do not own one)

 

[melensdad]

I just wish the 6.5 was more popular. I know it may catch on more, but right now it is expensive to shoot. (no, I do not own one)

50 cents a shot (delivered in bulk) is too expensive for an inherently accurate round? Even the premium ammo is just over $1. Not that that is cheap, but rounds like the 6.8SPC start out close to $1 and go up from there.

No, its not available on the surplus market, but its not overpriced by any stretch.

 

[Dorky_D]

I am not saying the price is not worth it, I am just a huge cheapskate and have 4 kids. I shoot Russian ammo if I can. I know it is not the nicest stuff and I am OK with that. When I can shoot Russian .223 for $.20 per round, I can shoot a lot more for a lot less.
I have also not been shooting long, so I am still building up my arsenal and supply..... It all costs money....

 

[mrunnebo]

I bought a 50 Beowulf a couple years ago because I can deer hunt with an AR15 using a beowulf upper. It is a legal deer round in the state while the other rounds you mentioned are not. It may be a little overkill but I don't have to track far and if you have good shot placement, little is waisted.

 

[Broom_jm]

The closest thing to a 30/30 Win, in an AR, is the 30 Remington AR. With the lighter bullets, anyway, it keeps right up with the 130 year-old 30/30.

The AR-15 is at a disadvantage because it is designed for use with smaller case head cartridges, and for a modest operating pressure. Step up to the AR-10 and you open a whole new world of powerful cartridges that far exceed the 30/30.

 

[mrunnebo]

The closest thing to a 30/30 Win, in an AR, is the 30 Remington AR. With the lighter bullets, anyway, it keeps right up with the 130 year-old 30/30.

The AR-15 is at a disadvantage because it is designed for use with smaller case head cartridges, and for a modest operating pressure. Step up to the AR-10 and you open a whole new world of powerful cartridges that far exceed the 30/30.

The worst part about the AR10 is that they are not mil-spec. They are all proprietary. If you get a lower made by one company, an upper made by another company may not fit.

 

[Broom_jm]

The worst part about the AR10 is that they are not mil-spec. They are all proprietary. If you get a lower made by one company, an upper made by another company may not fit.

I guess I don't see how that would be a huge disadvantage, once a given rifle is set up to shoot.

 

[mrunnebo]

I guess I don't see how that would be a huge disadvantage, once a given rifle is set up to shoot.

I guess your right. Setting it up could be more of a pain. It you bought an aftermarket trigger for instance. There is no certainty that it would fit. If you are buying a stock rifle and are not planning on changing it, no big deal though.

 

[Broom_jm]

I guess your right. Setting it up could be more of a pain. It you bought an aftermarket trigger for instance. There is no certainty that it would fit. If you are buying a stock rifle and are not planning on changing it, no big deal though.

I imagine if the trigger you bought was made for that particular AR-10, it would fit just fine. This is no different than buying an aftermarket trigger for a "bolt-action" rifle...you have to buy the one that is made to fit the model rifle you own.

I suppose a lot of guys like the ability to swap things around on an AR-15, but how useful is that, really? I've got two Contender frames, with 4 barrels and various grips/stocks/forends. I swap 'em around once in a while, when I want to shoot a different barrel, but for the most part they stay in one configuration most of the time. If I had an AR of any kind, I imagine that's about how it would go.

 

[mrunnebo]

I agree. One of the AR15's most talked about trait is that is the most customizable firearm on the market. I just think it is worth pointing out that while the AR10 is very customizable, it's not quite to the extent of the AR15.

 

[Redskinsfan]

Melensdad: Thanks for posting your comparison. I appreciate your effort in this.

 

[ScouT6a]

mrunnebo,
There is no such thing as "overkill". You can't kill a critter deader than dead.

 

[IndyDave1776]

It makes you wonder though, what might have happened if the .280 British had been adopted as the NATO round instead of the 7.62x51.

Let's see...

The British would have a really spectacular bullpup rifle that would have been introduced in the early 1950s and some derivative of it would still be in service today rather than that POS L85.

We probably would have ended up with something not dissimilar with the M14 platform, only with more longevity in service as it could have served as a sturmgewer in addition to serving the role of the battle rifle. Then again, the .280 should have been perfectly at home in a rifle more or less like the M16. Stoner would have had no more difficulty than any of the folks making larger bore ARs today. He just didn't have the motive to try it.

The less intense cartridge may well have not been of adequate power to stretch the frame on an M60 such that it would still be in service. Then again, maybe the design would have been entirely different.

Speculation could abound, but those seem like pretty reasonable expectations to me.

 

[Leo]

I kind of always liked the 30-30 in a sweet handling little lever gun. Easy enough to shoot left or right handed. An inexpensive Williams peep sight on back is about all you would ever need. Of course that chassis just really does not lend itself to Bipods, forward handles, collapsable butt stocks, flash lights, lazer pointers etc. Lever guns are not easy to convert to other calibers. That kind of takes the tacticool fun out of it. It would also be a shame to paint the nice checkered walnut black. It is fun to dial the clock back and see just how useful firearms of the past still can be. Something elegant about simplicity.


What more do we need? We are still hunting the same flesh covered skeletons that have been roaming the earth since creation. Since the job has not changed, the old tools still work.