The .30-06 (stupid things the government does)

[Come and take it.]

So they gave up the 30-06 for the 308. Seems like a good idea if you listen to the government only that they gave up a critical 150-200 fps which doesn't sound like much if you are a deer hunter but when it comes to penetration of hard targets you are talking about a decrease in range of about 100 yards. (something that is critical now that body armor is increasingly becoming very effective).

Than it comes full circle. The 308 it turns out doesn't have the range (duh) that bigger cases provide for long range or penetration, so they turn to the 300 Winchester magnum (which would be an impossible machine gun cartridge) or the 338 (which is being considered for a heavy machine gun.)

The problem is that the 30-06 provides the perfect compromise of all. I wonder how much money was spent and is going to be spent to accomplish a task that a hundred year old cartridge did perfectly.

It shows that the old school had it right. Perhaps in this case the young school should not have moved the old corner posts.

Of course one can argue that modern powders close the gap between the 308 and 30-06. I beg to differ because modern powders if used in the 30-06 drive it into a range that challenges some 300 Winchester magnum loads.

So although it will never happen if my voice were to be heard by the US military than I would suggest for them to bring back the 30-06 for machine gun and sniper rifle use.

 

[shouldazagged]

So although it will never happen if my voice were to be heard by the US military than I would suggest for them to bring back the 30-06 for machine gun and sniper rifle use.

Same phenomenon as doing away with the 1911A1 and then needing to return to it or keep it in service with some units that needed what it offered.

But that theme has been done to death.

 

[mxsailor803]

I'll add a little more fuel to the fire lol. What about goin from the .308 to the .223/5.56? Granted back then and even now, many people never shot before they went active and realistically wouldn't be accurate with the 7.62

 

[Come and take it.]

I wonder if the Mexican army is still using the RM-2 light machine gun? It is chambered in 30-06 and some articles seem to refer to it in the present tense instead of the past tense.

If this is true than is there a current production of 30-06 military ammo?

 

[Art Eatman]

The .308 is equal to the government loading of the .30-'06. All that the government was interested in insofar as performance was the muzzle velocity with the M2 Ball bullet.

Whether a Garand or an M-14, the muzzle velocities are as nearly the same as makes no difference.

 

[jmr40]

There are several things wrong with your assessment. The military never gave up any velocity when they changed to the 308. The specs for military 308 and 30-06 were basically the same. In a bolt rifle a hunter can get 100- 150 fps more from a 30-06, but in order to cycle through a Garand the velocity was essentially the same as the M-14 and the 308.

The M-14 was a failed experiment, that is true. The goal was to produce a rifle that was lighter, softer recoiling, and held more ammo. Other than more ammo the M-14 doesn't offer any improvement over the Garand. The M-16 we have right now is a far better rifle than either.

Going to the 30-06 would be a step backwards. There is almost zero difference between 308 performance and 30-06. There is a much larger gap when you compare 30-06 to 300 WM. When the 308 was selected as our long range sniper round it was to be able to use a common ammo with foot soldiers. Since we are now using 2 different loads, there is no reason to stay with 308 or 30-06 when it is just as easy to move up to the much better 300 WM.

 

[kraigwy]

Art is correct, there is no significant difference between the military loadings of the 308 & 30-06 as far as velocity & power.

However, the shorter 308 case does work better in full auto machine guns.

As too a sniping round. There are exceptions but a huge majority of sniper shots are well within the limits of the 308. Actually most are well within the range of the 223.

The problem being is logistics. Sure in Iraq and Afghan there really isn't a problem getting re-supplied, but we can't base our whole war fighting capabilities on the Iraq/Afghan wars.

If we become engaged in something like Vietnam Jungles, or like we are engaged in Africa, then you may run into re-supply problems and the ability to use ammo integrated in the rifle squad is a benefit.

That's why the Army went to the long action on their M-24's where the Marines went to the short action.

The M-24s can be easily converted to the 300 WM where the M40's can't. You have to be ready for any condition. Another advantage of the M-24 is the ability to use iron sights. In the South Pacific jungles the Marines discovered the 8X scopes on their M1941s didn't work at short distances, the M1903A4s with their 2.5X worked much better, but again the M1941s had the ability to use iron sights.

Now days with high power scopes you need the ability to use iron sights because of the limited field of view of the high powered scopes.

I know this is a tad off topic, but it explains why the 308 and even the 223 is better for the military then the '06 in my humble opinion.

We've always had problem of gearing up for future wars based on tactics and equipment from the last war.

 

[arizona98tj]

So they gave up the 30-06 for the 308. Seems like a good idea if you listen to the government only that they gave up a critical 150-200 fps which doesn't sound like much if you are a deer hunter but when it comes to penetration of hard targets you are talking about a decrease in range of about 100 yards. (something that is critical now that body armor is increasingly becoming very effective).

I'm just wondering how many enemy combatants/soldiers were using body armor when the switch from .30-06 to .308 occurred? Maybe the body armor crystal ball was out for cleaning right about then.

 

[Come and take it.]

I notice those who claim the .308 matches 30-06 velocity and power. My counter would be if that is true than why did the military take it upon themselves to upgrade from level III hard plate to level IV hard plate body armor? Because rounds like 7.62 x 54 Russian black tip and 30-06 black tip could zip right through the level III while 7.62 NATO AP with even a tungsten core struggled to make it through.

velocity is king when it comes to armor piercing. I am not talking using the 30-06 as a service rifle round but for medium machine gun and designated rifle applications it would be quite impressive. I recall a ww2 veteran talking about how pouring 30-06 ap onto Japanese tanks from the browning machine guns resulted in disabling hits and even penetration into the crew compartment from advantageous angles.

It was funny how it was considered impractical for an infantryman to be running around with 1/2 inch steel plates back in world war 1 and world war 2 but it is practical now. Perhaps that is because of the larger cased rounds being used back then.

 

[44 AMP]

The military loading of the .30-06 and the .308 (7.62x51 NATO) are the same. Exactly the same, within the tolerance specs for the rounds. The same bullet, at the same muzzle velocity, a 150gr @ 2750fps +/-

As was mentioned, there is no difference in the ballistics or the down range performance. None.

The only place where the .30-06 shows that 100-200fps advantage is with commercial hunting ammo, which the military does not use.

The M14 was not a failed expiriment, it was a discarded expiriment. The M14 is slightly shorter than the Garand, a pound lighter, uses a 20rnd box instead of an 8rnd enbloc clip, and has an improved gas system. It is a fine rifle.

But what it is not is a fine carbine, submachinegun, or squad automatic rifle. And I believe the automatic fire problems could have been fixed by reducing the cyclic rate, something the military never attempted.

The never did because of the politics (in and out of the military) pushed for, and got the AR (M-16) as a replacement for the M-14. I consider the M-14 to be an improved Garand, and the last real "battle rifle" we used.

Now, the M16family (once they finally got the bugs worked out) has proven to be a pretty good fit, for the way we do war these days. Its shorter length, lighter weight and low recoil, and (easily achievable) 300yd effective range have been a beneficial advantage for today's mechanized troops, and generally good enough for the majority of tactical situations. But there are still times (as the military has relearned) when a rifle is more useful than an assault rifle. (and yes, I do make a disctinction between the two terms)

The military didn't lose anything by going from the .30-06 to the .308, in fact, they got a net gain, by keeping the same performance and getting a case that was 1/2" shorter, which made it slightly lighter, slightly cheaper, and better suited to feeding in automatic weapons.

Where they lost was (I believe) in the specific weapons they chose to replace their .30-06s with. Had the M14 been given the chance, used the same way the M1 Garand was, I think it would have done very well.

The replacements for the .30 Browning machineguns, however were NOT as good guns as the ones they replaced. The M60 is lighter than the Browning 1919, (and is cheaper to make) but is not as good a gun from a mechanical/functional point of view. And don't get me started on the M73/M73A1/M219 series of guns we put into the tanks, and tried to make work, when we took the Brownings out.

The .30-06 is a fine round. The .308's use as the NATO standard rifle (at one time) and current LMG round proves it is also a fine round. The military's decision to go from a .30 caliber rifle to a .22 caliber rifle for standard use had nothing to do with any percieved lack in the .30-06 or .308 but in percieved advantages to the smaller, lighter round for general combat use. It was fiercely opposed at first, but its been a done deal for a long time now, and seems to work well enough with the troops and tactics in use today.

 

[Gunplummer]

Wow! I had forgotten about the 73's and 219's. What a piece of junk they were. Kind of like a "Greasegun" built up into a belt fed. The M-85 was hit or miss. A really good one was unstoppable. A bad one was a nightmare to find the problem. I really did like the bolt lock up on them. Lot of changes over the years. If I remember correctly, the 1919 was up to the A-6 model when I last worked on them. Sometimes you just can't test out all the "Real world" problems.

 

[Bart B.]

Folks believing the 7.62 NATO round puts the same bullet out as fast as the .30-06 with equal peak pressures need to do a bit of research. Even with the common sniper rounds at 50,000 CUP peak pressure with the same 172-gr. bullet in both, velocity at 26 yards (standard measuring distance for MIL SPEC's) had the bullet from a .30-06 moving about 90 fps faster. It also left the barrel about the same amount faster.

One huge improvement the NATO round had/has over the 30 caliber one was its shoulder set back a lot less when chambered in full auto machine guns; fewer head stretching/separation problems. 5 to 7 thousandths case shoulder setback in 30 caliber machine guns did happen but the NATO rounds' shoulders in M60s rarely set back over 4 thousandths. To say nothing about the more robust extractor groove in the NATO case and its matching part in the full and semiautos.

 

[Art Eatman]

For years, the standard loading for commercial '06 ammo was around 49,000 to 50,000 psi. My understanding is that the GI load was 47,000 psi.

When the .308 was introduced, it was loaded to 55,000 psi.

 

[Buzzcook]

I recall a ww2 veteran talking about how pouring 30-06 ap onto Japanese tanks from the browning machine guns resulted in disabling hits and even penetration into the crew compartment from advantageous angles.

That says more about the poor armor and mechanics of the Japanese tanks than it does about how powerful the .30-06 is.

By comparison a Thompson Submachine-gun took out an Italian tank. That says more about how lucky the soldier was than how awesome the .45acp is.

 

[CharlieDeltaJuliet]

While I agree with quite a bit the OP stated. I have to agree with this choice of the army in converting the M24 into the M24A4. The 300WM just offers a little more when compared to the 30-06 as far as long range. Of course the rifles are put under higher than normal pressures. The Mk248mod1 is a very hot cartridge and has turned out to be very temperature insensitive. So far it is proving that 1500+ yards a great range for their setup. It was a ess expensive answer to the .338LM. They just loaded it a little hotter with H1000 and a 220gr SMK, bang, it is getting the job done for medium to long range engagements.

The 30-06 is still my favorite all around caliber. It is one of he best North American hunting calibers there has ever been. I have a feeling this round will continue to be the favorite of many shooters for a long time to come.

 

[DaleA]

The M14 was not a failed expiriment, it was a discarded expiriment. The M14 is slightly shorter than the Garand, a pound lighter, uses a 20rnd box instead of an 8rnd enbloc clip, and has an improved gas system. It is a fine rifle.

Thank you 44 AMP.

 

[Bacteriophage]

What about goin from the .308 to the .223/5.56? Granted back then and even now, many people never shot before they went active and realistically wouldn't be accurate with the 7.62

Realistically, most soldiers aren't accurate at all. The vast majority of ammo spent in wartime is aimed to miss. It's fired as covering fire, recon-by-fire, out of panic, or deliberately aimed to miss because the soldier doesn't want to kill anyone. Historically, only special forces have hit rates that can be measured without very small decimals.

The modern U.S. military has training comparable to most historical special forces, so we are currently dealing with a unique situation, and they still think the 5.56 is the most practical round. The reason being it is the most effective round at wounding targets for its weight. Given a choice between carrying X number of 7.62 rounds or 3 times as many 5.56, a smart soldier will carry the 5.56. The exceptions are special circumstances like CQB and sniping, where the 6.8mm SPC, 7.62, .300 mag, .338 Lapua, and .50 BMG may be better for certain missions. And even in those roles, the 5.56 has a place.

I always see lots of discussion about replacing the 5.56 with more powerful rounds, but that's not what the military wants. They want smaller rounds that penetrate better, because while getting through body armor is important, not running out of ammo is essential. Rule 1 of winning a gunfight: have a loaded gun.

All this hold true, in lesser amounts, for the switch from .30-06 to .308. The .308 was just a stepping stone to the 5.56, like the 7.62x39 was a stepping stone to the 5.45 for the Soviets.

 

[Bart B.]

Art Eatman, your pressure numbers for both cartidges:

For years, the standard loading for commercial '06 ammo was around 49,000 to 50,000 psi. My understanding is that the GI load was 47,000 psi.

When the .308 was introduced, it was loaded to 55,000 psi.

. . . . need to be corrected as follows:

.30-06 MIL SPEC and SAAMI max average pressure; 50,000 CUP or about 60,000 PSI

.308 Win. as developed by Winchester and accepted by SAAMI, max average pressure 52,000 CUP or about 61,000 PSI.

The 7.62 NATO round's max average pressure was MIL SPEC'd at 50,000 CUP; same as the .30 caliber stuff.

 

[Art Eatman]

Choice of weaponry is controlled to a great extent by battlefield doctrine. At the time of selection of the M16, the idea was to be able to control one's environment to 200 meters while using the primary weapon, the radio, to call in air or artillery.

The M16/.223 pretty much does that. In that situation, the larger quantity of ammo which can be carried is a definite advantage over the .308.

Arguing whether or not that was a good idea is for some other forum. And, as usual, there is no One Size Fits All.

 

[TheBear]

the .308 is more accurate then the 30-06, thats fact.