Short and fat or long and thin?

[El Chivo]

Which is better for accuracy in a cartridge? For example, .308 or 30-06 - same caliber and similar capacity, but one is short and fat and one is long and thin.

This also goes to the newer short and fat magnum rifle calibers - do they work better?

Also, is it a matter of the powders used - do long cartridges do better with slower powders, etc.

[Marc]

The gospel is that short and fat is more accurate because more of the powder is closer to the primer and thus ignition is more uniform. Also short actions are stiffer than long actions.

Does it matter to you and me? It certainly doesn't matter to me. I can get all the accuracy I need from long and thin. There are plenty of long action rifles chambered in long cartridges that shoot tiny groups.

The short fat cartridges are marketing gimmicks. Some would argue that since you can shave 4 ounces off a long action by going short that the short is superior. That is the only real world benefit I see.

[new pig hunter]

having absolutely no knowledge of such things, but being a mechanical engineer (of sorts), I am thus "qualified" to offer an IMHO.

From a "system engineering" viewpoint I just don't see case size having any measureable effect upon accuracy. There are so many variables affecting "accuracy" I cannot see how one could reasonably isolate "case size" as a single variable in a testing program. That is, I'm thinking "the other known variables" during testing will affect accuracy in such a way that any statistical measure of "case size accuracy" will be suspect.
Such other variables might include: barrel temp, powder temp, primer performance variability, inaccurate powder measure, powder performance variability, barrel erosion, loading technique variabilities, crimp force variabilities ..... I'm sure there are others that probably cannot be definitively controlled from shot to shot such that only "case size" dominates accuracy.

As I learned long ago, boring engineers know how to ruin the fun of a cool new project being discussed around the campfire .......

Cheers,

Carl

[Pisgah]

>Which is better for accuracy in a cartridge? For example, .308 or 30-06 - same caliber and similar capacity, but one is short and fat and one is long and thin.>

Absolutely!

>This also goes to the newer short and fat magnum rifle calibers - do they work better?

Well, yes and no.

>Also, is it a matter of the powders used - do long cartridges do better with slower powders, etc.

Without a doubt, except for the ones that like faster powders.

[jeepnik]

Well, I'd have to say as to the mechanical accuracy of any cartridge, it depends on the more firearm than the cartridge, no matter how "good" the cartridge, a poor quality firearm won't let it live up to its potential. Now the useable accuracy depends mostly on the shooter, a lousy shooter can't hit anything with the best cartridge/firearm combination. And most importantly, are the cartridge/firearm/shooter having a good day. Some days the best combination there is just can't hit the broad side of a barn. Such is life.

[WCF3030]

The gospel is that short and fat is more accurate because more of the powder is closer to the primer and thus ignition is more uniform. Also short actions are stiffer than long actions.

Does it matter to you and me? It certainly doesn't matter to me. I can get all the accuracy I need from long and thin. There are plenty of long action rifles chambered in long cartridges that shoot tiny groups.

The short fat cartridges are marketing gimmicks. Some would argue that since you can shave 4 ounces off a long action by going short that the short is superior. That is the only real world benefit I see.

+1
I've gotten great results from both.

[piller]

Is taht why the .45 ACP is superior to the .357 Magnum?

[MZ5]

I shoot a 25 WSSM, so I read that section of load manuals, and articles on the cartridge, and so forth. The 25 WSSM is commonly remarked upon by ballistics labs to show extremely consistent pressures. That is a 'feature' of the short, fat powder column.

I've also read German Salazar's accuracy comparison of the 308 vs. 30-06. His comparison is of his own identical rifles in the competitions he fired them in over a period of time. The 308 shows a slightly higher average aggregate score than the '06 from ~300 - 600 yards. Beyond that, out to 1000 yards (IIRC), the '06 has a higher average aggregate score.

This suggests to me that different cartridges are best suited to different tasks, and that accordingly the proclamations of absolute accuracy superiority are not quite right.

[Les Staley]

Well, yes ... and No..... depends....

[cshold]

Hummm!
I just asked J if she likes them long and thin or
Short and fat. Just got a funny look and took an
elbow to the ribs

[AJMD429]

Is that why the .45 ACP is superior to the .357 Magnum?

[Jayhawker]

In a hunting rifle, there is no discernible difference. Given the same attention to detail in a hunting rifle, a 30-06 can be just as accurate as a 308. Ask Cooper Firearms or NULA if they have any trouble making an accurate 30-06. Case prep and loading details will have a larger influence on cartridge accuracy than the shape of the brass for the vast majority of us.

You are well into benchrest territory by the time you can detect any accuracy advantage of the short/fat cartridges and case prep can be so tedious and laborious that most of us would lose interest.

[Borregos]

Hummm!
I just asked J if she likes them long and thin or
Short and fat. Just got a funny look and took an
elbow to the ribs

I got the same reaction from W

[Chuck 100 yd]

[SteveR]

Hummm!
I just asked J if she likes them long and thin or
Short and fat. Just got a funny look and took an
elbow to the ribs

I asked my gf and got an answer...................

Steve

[jeepnik]

Hummm!
I just asked J if she likes them long and thin or
Short and fat. Just got a funny look and took an
elbow to the ribs

I got the same reaction from W

You guys are braver than I am. Somethings it just doesn't pay to ask about, cuz it's bound to be brought up at another time and used as ammunition.

[handirifle]

Oh, and by the way, the 308 is NOT a short and fat cartridge, compared to the 30-06. Both cases have a .470 dia base. The 308 shows .454 at the shoulder, but since the shoulder of the '06 is nearly 1/2" farther out, odds are good that the '06 dia at the same point where the 308's shoulder would be, is nearly identical. they are at LEAST close enough to make ZERO difference in performance.

The 308 ONLY became viable in the military because it was loaded with 1, more modern powders, and 2 loaded to higher pressures than the 30-06, thus it performed as well as the mil spec '06 loads. Loaded with the same bullets to the same pressures, the '06 will ALWAYS be faster, and like was mentioned, in a good rifle/barrel setup, you will never know the difference accuracy wise. The 308 was beating the '06 in military competitions, but in my opinion, the barrels were not true equals.

If you're going to use heavier bullets on big game, always go with the bigger capacity round, as it will out run the smaller cap round, when again, using heavy bullets. Case in point, the 325 WSM was marketed as an equal to the 338WM, but that was with a slightly smaller/lighter bullet and when loaded with the heavy bullets, where the longer bullet intrudes on powder space, the WSM loses out. Not sure if that's the case in all the others, but it does hold true for the '06 and '08 comparison.

[madman4570]

To be fair with that comparison every thing (case capacity etc would have to be the same)From all the loads I have tried at least with those two you mentioned(.308 vs 30-06)the longer 30-06 definitely has an edge.(more case volume)so really that wouldn't be a fair comparison.(You would need both cases to launch exact same bullet/hold same case volume with similar powder.
Try shooting a 220gr .308 ??????????

When I try to acheive even close (power)from the .308 vs 30-06 to get even close to the 06 you are about at compressed loads(.308)still short they kick more and seem generally less accurate at that requirement than the 06(from what I have tried)

However if you are willing to give up 150-200fps in velocity(that .308)is about as accurate as one can hold!

Myself,-------gimme(long and thinner)than short and fat

Personally--------Hunting about anything in NA------the good ole 30-06(is King)everything considered!
Walk into any mom/pop shop------and there will almost always be two calibers(30-30 and 30-06)

[bgmkithaca]

Unless you are deep into bench rest shooting it does not make much difference what you use-short and fat or long and slender. In a decent rifle they will all shoot better than most of us can hold. As a side note you won't find anything in bench rest except short and fat cartridges but bench rest rifles are a whole different ball game than hunting rifles.

[handirifle]

Yes and the old '06 isn't the number one selling cartridge in the world for no good reason either. It just plain gets the job done.

[COSteve]

First, the 308 vs 30-06 case comparison isn't a short and fat vs long and thin comparison because both cases are the same diameter. The difference is basically only case length. However, with modern powders the 308 has emerged to be a bit more accurate than the 30-06 and Winchester's techs give the reason for it as the difference in case density. He told me that one reason why the 30-06 using a 150grn bullet is more accurate with 60grns of Winchester 760 powder (max charge) vs 48grns of 748 (also max charge) is that the 748 doesn't fill the case nearly as full as 760 and that can hurt accuracy.

[6pt-sika]

In relative terms the optimum discussion of "short and fat versus long and short" is best shown in the 22 PPC versus the 222 REM and the 6mm PPC versus the 6mmx47 ( the 222 REM MAG necjed up to 6mm) .

Back in the late 50's and to early 70's the 222 REM and 6x47 were the darlings of the registered benchrest circuit . Then along come Pindell and Palmisano with their chopped 220 Russian case making the 22 and 6mm PPC and they took the benchrest crowd by storm . And to the best of my knowledge the VAST majority of the BR boys shoot PPC's which are the short and fat of the choices above .

The trend in SAUM and WSM's were I think trying to make good on the PPC wave . And the same can be said about the WSSM series of cartridges .


I am an advocate of the 06 based cartridges as well as the 308 based cartridges as well as the belted magnum cases .

Does that mean I don't care for the short mags or super short mags ?
Certainly not I like and have owned most of them over the last 10 years .

When we get to the more benchrest varmint category of cartridges do I prefer the PPC's over say the 222 and 6x47 certainly not . But I like the PPC and BR cartridges as well .

IMHO the ones who actually "see" the difference I think would be the dyed in the wool competitive benchrest shooters . I shoot what would be considered a fair amount of benchrest . But it's just me shooting what I want at 100 yards and sometimes at 200 and possibly 350 .

I've owned PPC's , BR's and of course 222's . And to be honest I've shot groups with all of them at .2" or less at 100 yards . But none in my hands were that much better then the other version of that particular caliber .

So for me personally I kinda work on the premis if I like the gun it's in or can build a bench gun inexpensively enough then I try it plain and simple .

For the record I own oe have owned 4 of the older Remington 700 BDL Varmint Specials in 222 REM and ALL of them were capable of 1/4 MOA if you could hold the gun correctly .
I've owned a pair of Ruger 77 MK-II VT's in 6mm PPC and 204 Ruger and both of those were easily capable of 1/4 MOA .
I've had several of the Remington 700 VS and VSSF guns in 22-250 , 208 and 220 Swift and all of them were easily cpapble of 4/10ths MOA . Heck I even had a pair of Remington Stainloess Fluted Sendero's in 25-06 and 7mm REM MAG . The big 7 was a 4/10's MOA rifle while the 25-06 with the Sierra 87 grainer was 1/4 MOA rifle .

To top it all off I had a pair of Winchester Pre 64 Model 70 Varmints with factory stainless barrels in 243 WIN and 220 Swift . The Swift was made in 1960 and the 243 was made in 1956 . These two were old already when I got them and they were both capable of 1/2 MOA . Any groundhogs I ever killed past 200 yards were done in with these two old rifles .

I suppose you can say what I written here proves nothing for one over the other as far as Joe Blow average shooter is concerned and even for a person like myself that wastes far more time then is considered necessary by most of the female population .

This may sound totally absurd to a good many of you , but I've owned guns over the years that shot so well with just about ANYTHING that I truely lost intrest in them and hence sold or traded them off .

While some folks scowl when new things are brought out like the short mags etc etc I kinda like trying the new stuff even though I still like the old stuff as well !

The latest one thats sparked my intrest is the 6.5x47 Lapua . But if I get around to one of them anytime soon it's gonna be in a semi full blown bench gun on a 700 short action with most likely a Shilen or Krieger barrel of 1-8 twist with about a #6 contour and stainless .