The .30-06 (stupid things the government does)
- Thread starter Come and take it.
- Start date
- Status
Art Eatman
Staff in Memoriam
TheBear, given the R&D that's gone into development of rifles and loadings for the .308, that's true for competition match shooting.
However, for most all other uses, the difference is too small an amount to warrant consideration.
However, for most all other uses, the difference is too small an amount to warrant consideration.
kilimanjaro
New member
We could have gone to the 8mm Mauser round for machine guns in WWII and adopted the MG 42, we tried to adapt it to 30.06 and didn't make it work. That round is even better than .30 M2 ball.
We didn't want another caliber in the supply chain, already had enough logistics issues, what with rifles, carbines, pistols, revolvers, etc.
We've got a lot of .50 caliber weapons for dealing with folks behind the wall.
We didn't want another caliber in the supply chain, already had enough logistics issues, what with rifles, carbines, pistols, revolvers, etc.
We've got a lot of .50 caliber weapons for dealing with folks behind the wall.
Scubasimmons
New member
Sorry...Ignorant question, how/why is the .308 more accurate than the. 30-06? I thought ballistically the slugs are very similar but the bigger .30-06 case hold more powder.
shadowviper
New member
Body armor is essentially a non issue in our current conflicts, anyone smart enough and well supplied enough to wear body armor is also smart enough to have you outgunned, outnumbered and outmaneuvered. You're either dead or calling indirect, unless maybe you're sf.
The new sniper systems are designed to be multi caliber for various situations. 308 is still going to be the norm because of most engagement distances and if you need to step up from that, might as well go all the way to the lapua.
Besides, the military does very thorough research, most of the time, and they are going to do what they want either way.
The new sniper systems are designed to be multi caliber for various situations. 308 is still going to be the norm because of most engagement distances and if you need to step up from that, might as well go all the way to the lapua.
Besides, the military does very thorough research, most of the time, and they are going to do what they want either way.
......Um ........ unless your average initial range of engagement is 500 meters (A-stan) ...... then it sucks (big rocks right up off the ground) that your maximum effective range on a point target ends about where you need it 50+% of the time ....... so the Army, in it's infinite wisdom (and insurmountable doctrinal and logistical inertia) comes up with the idea of the SDM ...... lets give one guy a rifle capable of engaging the enemy and teach him to shoot ..... it's cheaper than teaching everyone to shoot, certainly ....... and we won't have to rearm everyone ...... what would we do with all the pea-shooters if we gave everyone a rifle?
I don't know why I bother posting this- I've had this discussion before .... and heard all the argments already, probably from the very same people that will make them in this thread ....... among them was "not every War will be in A-stan, and we should not re-equip the entire Army based on that" ...... IIRC, I first heard that almost 10 years ago ...... AND YET WE ARE STILL THERE.
I'm sure Bart B. or kraigwy could tell you more of the Physics and Interior Ballistics of it ...... but the short answer is that the US Army studied the problem and found that they could get M2 Ball (IIRC, 150gr @2750f/sec) performance out of a shorter, more efficient cartidge using the same bullet ..... and it proved to be more accurate. Also IIRC, they started with the 300 Savage....... and ended up with the 7.62x51NATO/.308WIN .
Art Eatman
Staff in Memoriam
Scubasimmons, shorter receivers are stiffer, an aid to consistency from shot to shot. Another allegation is that the shorter case is more efficient in the burning of the powder, another indicator of consistency. (Or greater consistency indicates better efficiency, take your pick.)
Last is that there has been far more R&D with the .308 than with the '06. SFAIK, this is mostly a case of more people trying more different powders and doing more workover with the rifles themselves.
Body armor issues are off topic, by the way.
Last is that there has been far more R&D with the .308 than with the '06. SFAIK, this is mostly a case of more people trying more different powders and doing more workover with the rifles themselves.
Body armor issues are off topic, by the way.
Come and take it.
New member
I had mentioned armor penetration in the OP. So it is on topic. Body armor is a very critical issue to discuss in anything involving todays combat cartridges.
Even if yesterdays 30-06 ball loads did not exceed the 7.62 NATOs (M2 ap loads were hotter however), modern sniper rifles could certainly take advantage of maximum loads and reloads for the .30-06.
.308 accuracy supremacy is a result of opinionated facts. People who have cast their lot with the 7.62 NATO will do everything they can to prove its superiority to the .30-06. The truth is that in military shooting the reasons for the accuracy improvement would be that older guns were not built as accurately as newer guns. Older gunners used .30-06. Newer gunners most often use 7.62 NATO. The young crowd always does everything they can to prove the old geezers wrong. Any serious reloader who has reloaded for both cartridges using the same gun tit for tat will admit that there is no difference.
Accuracy in rifles is another claim. It is based on theoretical science. which is near factual but in the field the results are not so clear. Take for instance the savage 110 which always used a full length action for every cartridge including short actions. Yet savages have been known for very accurate lock and barrels.
A more factually proven science on bolt rifles involves single shot versus magazine fed. This significantly makes the receiver more rigid but as it is not cartridge specific it basically is a mute point. There is a lot more metal involved in magazine versus single shot. And the magazine hole is located at a serious stress bearing area.
This myth is clearly proven when comparing the .300 Winchester magnum to the .300 Winchester short magnum. There is no difference in accuracy and the .300 win mag still wins trophies at 1000 yard matches.
Even if yesterdays 30-06 ball loads did not exceed the 7.62 NATOs (M2 ap loads were hotter however), modern sniper rifles could certainly take advantage of maximum loads and reloads for the .30-06.
.308 accuracy supremacy is a result of opinionated facts. People who have cast their lot with the 7.62 NATO will do everything they can to prove its superiority to the .30-06. The truth is that in military shooting the reasons for the accuracy improvement would be that older guns were not built as accurately as newer guns. Older gunners used .30-06. Newer gunners most often use 7.62 NATO. The young crowd always does everything they can to prove the old geezers wrong. Any serious reloader who has reloaded for both cartridges using the same gun tit for tat will admit that there is no difference.
Accuracy in rifles is another claim. It is based on theoretical science. which is near factual but in the field the results are not so clear. Take for instance the savage 110 which always used a full length action for every cartridge including short actions. Yet savages have been known for very accurate lock and barrels.
A more factually proven science on bolt rifles involves single shot versus magazine fed. This significantly makes the receiver more rigid but as it is not cartridge specific it basically is a mute point. There is a lot more metal involved in magazine versus single shot. And the magazine hole is located at a serious stress bearing area.
This myth is clearly proven when comparing the .300 Winchester magnum to the .300 Winchester short magnum. There is no difference in accuracy and the .300 win mag still wins trophies at 1000 yard matches.
Mike Irwin
Staff
IF there is a difference in armor penetration between old .30-06 and newer NATO 7.62 rounds, it is NOT a velocity issue.
It is a bullet design and construction issue.
The were a number of primary reasons why the military wanted to shorten the .30-06 into the 7.62:
1. Reduce the raw material burden. About 1/2 of an inch of the .30-06 was air space, and it was unnecessary. During World War II there had been critical shortages of copper, which translated to ammunition shortages.
That small amount of brass savings might not seem like much, but when you multiply it by 10-12 billion (a rough estimate for how many rounds of .30-06 were produced yearly during the war years), it adds up...
2. A lighter cartridge means a soldier can carry more. Not as dramatic a difference when you look at the difference between 7.62 and 5.56, but it's there.
3. The powders in use at the time burned more efficiently and uniformly when they were slightly compressed. The same is true today with IMR-4895.
4. A shorter receiver is a stiffer receiver, meaning overall better accuracy potential.
As for the M-14, no, it wasn't a failed experiment. It was a failed main battle rifle. As a specialists weapon it's been resurrected and is providing fine service.
It is a bullet design and construction issue.
The were a number of primary reasons why the military wanted to shorten the .30-06 into the 7.62:
1. Reduce the raw material burden. About 1/2 of an inch of the .30-06 was air space, and it was unnecessary. During World War II there had been critical shortages of copper, which translated to ammunition shortages.
That small amount of brass savings might not seem like much, but when you multiply it by 10-12 billion (a rough estimate for how many rounds of .30-06 were produced yearly during the war years), it adds up...
2. A lighter cartridge means a soldier can carry more. Not as dramatic a difference when you look at the difference between 7.62 and 5.56, but it's there.
3. The powders in use at the time burned more efficiently and uniformly when they were slightly compressed. The same is true today with IMR-4895.
4. A shorter receiver is a stiffer receiver, meaning overall better accuracy potential.
As for the M-14, no, it wasn't a failed experiment. It was a failed main battle rifle. As a specialists weapon it's been resurrected and is providing fine service.
CharlieDeltaJuliet
New member
I understand what you are saying but you have to take into fact that the modern snipers are using SMK or other type bullets with very low drag an good ballistic co-efficient. Trust me with what the Army is doing with the 300WM is going beyond the .308. The new M24A4 in 300WM are being used at ranges beyond 1500 yards. The Mk248mod1 is one of the hottest "factory" loads I have ever seen. But to put any type of penetrator or AP as a replacement for a open tip match would greatly reduce the accuracy and usefulness of the caliber at long ranges.
Most targets are "soft targets". Many of these have never seen body armor much less wear it. If we go to war with people that use equipment on par with our own, then they will rethink the ideas.
As far as the .308 vs the 30-06, both have their advantages and disadvantages.
Most targets are "soft targets". Many of these have never seen body armor much less wear it. If we go to war with people that use equipment on par with our own, then they will rethink the ideas.
As far as the .308 vs the 30-06, both have their advantages and disadvantages.
.308, more efficient out of a shorter barre; .30-06 can use larger bullets and greater case capacity allows greater velocity out of a longer barrel.
That's pretty much holy writ.
My question is why the .30-06? If we're worrying about the short comings of the .308 and we want a more powerful cartridge, then why stop at the .30-06? Nostalgia?
There are plenty of more powerful .30 caliber cartridges out there which out preform the .30-06.
AFAIK the .300 WSM would deliver far more energy in a smaller case than the .30-06. Why not that as a replacement for the .308/7.62?
That's pretty much holy writ.
My question is why the .30-06? If we're worrying about the short comings of the .308 and we want a more powerful cartridge, then why stop at the .30-06? Nostalgia?
There are plenty of more powerful .30 caliber cartridges out there which out preform the .30-06.
AFAIK the .300 WSM would deliver far more energy in a smaller case than the .30-06. Why not that as a replacement for the .308/7.62?
Last edited:
CharlieDeltaJuliet
New member
I am not very versed in the 300WSM. So you guys just lost me..lol. Now my curiosity is running wild....
The thing is, study after study of previous wars showed that volume of fire, not size of the rounds fired, was normally the best predictor of battlefield effectiveness.
Going back to the .30-06, or even the .308, as a primary rifle would defy statistics.
The marksman concept is actually pretty solid.
The other thing that people tend to forget is that most of the open space engagement areas are likely to involve heavy weapons, whether tower mounted, vehicle mounted, or aerial.
Going back to the .30-06, or even the .308, as a primary rifle would defy statistics.
The marksman concept is actually pretty solid.
The other thing that people tend to forget is that most of the open space engagement areas are likely to involve heavy weapons, whether tower mounted, vehicle mounted, or aerial.
Scubasimmons
New member
I think I can accept more efficient/consistent powder burn, but the 308 receiver is shorter therefore stiffer than the .30-06? I'm not sure I buy that. Has someone actually measured the deflection during operation? I haven't done the actual math, but assuming they have the same strain curve the deflection difference for the slightly longer 30-06 receiver would be negligible or at least within the error band of the shooter.
Mike Irwin
Staff
"The thing is, study after study of previous wars showed that volume of fire, not size of the rounds fired, was normally the best predictor of battlefield effectiveness."
And that was one of the biggest complaints against the M-14 in combat in Vietnam -- it simply wasn't capable of generating the volumn of fire that the AK was, and that was having a negative effect in combat.
And that was one of the biggest complaints against the M-14 in combat in Vietnam -- it simply wasn't capable of generating the volumn of fire that the AK was, and that was having a negative effect in combat.
Mike Irwin
Staff
"Has someone actually measured the deflection during operation?"
Yep.
The various rifle companies making long vs. short actions.
Yep.
The various rifle companies making long vs. short actions.
This "stiffer than" syndrome oft times comes up in rifle accuracy discussions. It's been applied to barrels, stocks, receivers, bolts and everything else that bends. Even cartridges themselves could be compared for stiffness.
But it's all a waste of time in my opinion. As long as each part bends, wiggles, twists, or any other physical shape change or deflection the same amount and direction for each shot, precision accuracy is at hand. Accuracy is repeatability of every moving and bending part involved. Not the range of movement each part has.
On another note, why are benchresters using longer receivers than shorter ones that are available? Shorter ones are much stiffer.
But it's all a waste of time in my opinion. As long as each part bends, wiggles, twists, or any other physical shape change or deflection the same amount and direction for each shot, precision accuracy is at hand. Accuracy is repeatability of every moving and bending part involved. Not the range of movement each part has.
On another note, why are benchresters using longer receivers than shorter ones that are available? Shorter ones are much stiffer.
Last edited:
- Status