.308Win. vs. 7.62x54R

bowhunter57

bowhunter57

New member
I was in a discussion with a competition bench/target shooter and he mentioned the 7.62x54R is a more efficient (ballistically) cartridge than the .308Win. As he talked, I listened and what he had to say made sense. I had never been presented with this comparison, so I became curious if there's any validity to this comparison. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused1.gif

Do you agree with this comparison?
Are there any links or other reading material available to confirm or deny this comparison?

Thank you, Bowhunter57
 
I shoot the Mosin/Nagant 91/30 rifle and had a Rem 788 in .308.

Developed, I would not be surprised to see this be true.

Both are very adequate rounds, with the .308 having more choices from popularity alone.
 
At least on paper, the 7.62X54R will slightly outperform the .308. As far as more "efficient" goes, that is a subjective term really. A round could be more efficient in the manner in which it burns powder or give more velocity per grain of powder, but what does that really mean to the shooter?

The least efficent rounds are our overbore magnums, but don't try to tell that to a game animal that has been hit by one!

As far as ammo and reloading component availability, the 7.62X54R is not very "efficicient" at all. OTOH, there are a few prople like myself who think that packing an old misurp rifle in an odd caliber like the 54R is loads of fun!
 
I've got a Savage model 11F in .308 and a Nagant M44. Ballistically the bullet performance seems very similar.

However, there is a huge difference in the platforms available for each round. The 7.62X54R is effectively limited to ratty FMJ rounds in crude old milsurp firearms, which can't hold a candle to what's available for the .308 in terms of bullet type and shooting platforms.

FWIW, I love my $60 Nagant as a truck and camp gun, but it's nowhere near as refined as my basic .308 bolt action Savage.

Comparing those rifles is like comparing a new "Snap-on" crescent wrench to a "Husky" crescent wrench that you found after it was laying in a river for a few years. With some clean-up they are both serviceable and have nearly identical capabilities.... but the "Snap-on" just totally outclasses the other. And while you wouldn't use your "Snap-on" wrench to pound in tent stakes, you have no issues abusing the beater "husky".
 
Last edited:
I doubt it. One of the gun mags ran an article on cartridge efficiency a while back. They compared on the basis of foot-pounds of energy vs grains of powder burned. I don't recall if the 7.62X54R was in the data but I do recall that very few cartridges beat the .308. One of the few that did was the 8mm Mauser. Some of the large bore rifle cartridges did also.
 
You can keep the 7.62x54 and give me the 308. I guess i will just have to suffer . Very few rounds beat the 308 for the power, with the amount of powder burned. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smiliesmack.gif
 
I think the problem with the 7.62x54r is the design of the cartridge itself, Its a dated round, I personally don't think it can hold a candle to the 308, in effeciency, accuracy and being able to take high pressure, The problem with it, is its a rimmed cartridge, feeding is not as good, also headspacing on the cartridge rim is LESS than ideal, and its sloping shoulder doesn't help if you want to headspace on the neck. the 308 headspaces right on the much more angled shoulder everytime, This is a big accuracy factor.
 
I think Weedwacker is refering to the Mar/Apr 2005 RifleShooter article titled "Cartridge Efficiency". The author did not test the 7.62x54.

He did find the .308 exceptionally efficient, as were the 35 whelen, the 358 win, 350 rem mag, 8x57 mauser, and the big bore african cartridges.

To measure efficiency the author chose a bullet and load that maximized retained energy at 200 yards, then divided by the number of grains of powder= energy/grains of powder.

In the 308 he used a 165 bullet, 44 grains of powder, 2750 muzzle velocity, 2375 fps at 200, 2060 ftpds at 200, =46.82 energy/grain.

Most typical rounds had energy/gr from the high twenties to the mid thirties.
 
Thank you, to all that have replied and any furture replies. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cool.gif

I used to own a Finnish M39 that shot 1 1/2" groups at 200 yards with S&B ammo and open sights. As good as that sounds I'd take the Remington 788 in .308, that I used to own, that would shoot a touching "clover leaf" group at 100 yards with a Hornady 110gr. V-Max.

I'll have to look into purchasing a Savage and admire the Milsurp rifles for what they were in their era. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grinning-smiley-003.gif

Good hunting, Bowhunter57
 
Yup that one. Thanks Todd M. It's buried deep in the stack of mags on the back of the toilet and I'm much to lazy to go find it. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif
 
Last edited:
Anybody who writes the equation can make anything look best.

Who cares about a few more grains of powder.

The 308 is one of the best chambers out there, inherently accurate, low recoil for the caliber, long barrel life and available in every corner drug store.

Jack
 
I'll second what Jack said. All good attributes of a very fine cartridge that has done a tremendous job over the years. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grinning-smiley-006.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grinning-smiley-006.gif
 
I think what your friend said about efficiency refered to expansion ratio. That has to do with the volume of the chamber , case, and bore. relitive to the case capacity.
The old 54 r has a bit more expansion room due to a longer barrel and chamber than the standard .308, but only a benchrest shooter would even care about such an esoteric comparison as it has NOTHING to do with real world ballistics
 
Back
Top