The Drew said:...almost unheard of in other nations that we may be fighting in...
i was wondering, with the .308 being merely a shortened version of the .30-06, why is the .308 more popular for sniper type rifles? both rounds were used by the US, so that's can't really change anything...
i was wondering, with the .308 being merely a shortened version of the .30-06, why is the .308 more popular for sniper type rifles? both rounds were used by the US, so that's can't really change anything...
I know the .30-06 is older than the .300 Savage. And about three decades after the introduction of the Savage, the 7.62 NATO (T65) was introduced. I don't understand your point about their age.CB900F said:The 06 of .30-06 refers to it's introduction date of 1906, therefore it precedes the .300 Savage by over a decade.
Wrong. The .300 Savage has a shoulder of 30 degrees. The .308 is 20 degrees.Note that the .300 Savage has a .473" case head diameter and 20 degree shoulder.
I think what you're saying is the .300 Savage was based on the .30-06, which would make the 7.62x51 more of a 'grandchild', rather than the 'child' of the .30-06, is that right? I haven't been able to find specific references about the development of the .300 Savage, but I think it was based on the earlier .250 Savage, which was developed in 1912 by Charles Newton for Arthur Savage and also had a head diameter of .473".The .300 Savage is a derivative of the .30-06 itself....Regardless of any intermediary cartridges, such as the .300 Savage, the .308 is a child of the .30-06.
http://carnival.saysuncle.com/002453.htmlThe 7.62x51mm NATO cartridge started out as the experimental T65 cartridge... The T65 was basically a lengthened version of the .300 Savage case & was a joint effort between the U.S. military & Winchester...The T65 if you haven't guessed became the 7.62x51mm NATO cartridge (actually the T65E3 was the final version before it was adopted if I recall). But Winchester introduced their version of the T65 in 1952 as the .308 Winchester.
http://www.users.fast.net/~jasmine/308.htmWinchester introduced the 308 in September 1952 as a sporting cartridge. It was a commercial adaptation of the Army Ordnance T65 rifle and machine gun cartridge....Post war ammunition research lasted nine years and experiments ranged from a cartridge closely resembling the 300 Savage to the T-65 round. The main difference between the 300 Savage and the T-65 was the 3/16" longer neck of the latter.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7.62_x_51_mmThe development work that would eventually develop into the 7.62 × 51 started just after World War I, when it became clear that the long cartridge of the US standard .30-06 round made it difficult to use in semi- and fully-automatic weapons...The test program continued for several years, including not only the original .30-06, but a modified .300 Savage (then known as the T65) as well. In the end, the T65 design demonstrated power roughly equal to the original .30-06, while being somewhat shorter and much more reliable in feeding.
http://www.chuckhawks.com/savage_99.htm...the .300 Savage went on to become one of the most popular short action .30-caliber deer and elk cartridges of all time. Later it was to become the basis of the experiments conducted by the U.S. military when they began developing a replacement for the .30-06 service rifle cartridge. Ultimately, the 7.62mm NATO/.308 Winchester was the result.
- America's Great Gunmakers, Wayne Van Zwoll, 1992...the .308 owes it's existence to Savage's .300. In the early 1950's, when ordnance experts were looking for a cartridge to replace the .30-06 in battle rifles, they turned first to the .300 Savage. They knew it would function well in short actions and that it had enough punch for most applications. But when they found it's neck was too short for reliable functioning in some mechanisms, they redesigned the cartridge by lengthening the neck and reducing the shoulder angle by 10 degrees. This experimental round was called the T65 at first, then the .308 Winchester. The U.S. Army adopted it as the 7.62 NATO in 1955.
How ever these two cartridges may or may not be related, the simple fact that one is older than the other doesn't automatically mean the older one was the basis for the later one. If that's the case, then the .270 was based on the .22 rimfire.CB900F said:The point of the dates of introduction were to establish that the 06 preceeded the .300 Savage & therefore the Savage is considered a development of the .30-06.
The flintlock thing was just an example to illustrate my point.The context is not all firearms, ie flintlocks to vulcans, the context is the .308's development.
You're right, there isn't much that's the same. That's because, as you said, a whole lot of development went on. I never said the cases were identical. Remember, the .308 is a later variation of the T65 (later named the 7.62 NATO, or 7.62x51). The .300 Savage was altered in various ways because it was for NATO use. It had to be reliable in a bunch of different types of weapons, so it was designed to have more of a loose fit to ensure feeding and reliability. To compensate for the looser fit, the case walls were made thicker to better withstand the stretching that happens upon firing. This cartridge, the T65 (the final version was actually called the T65E3), was later named the 7.62 NATO (commonly referred to as the 7.62x51) when it was adopted by the military. Then Winchester made a variation of that, with tighter tolerances than the 7.62 NATO that would be more conducive to better accuracy, since reliability of feeding in semi-auto and full-auto weapons wasn't necessary for a civilian rifle cartridge (incidentally, Winchester introduced it's new .308 a couple of years before the 7.62 NATO was officially adopted by the military, so it may appear that the .308 came first, but the 7.62 NATO was designed first and was the basis for the .308 Winchester). That's why the 7.62x51 NATO and the .308 Winchester are not the same, contrary to what many people believe. Firing a .308 cartridge in a weapon chambered for 7.62 NATO can be dangerous, and vice versa (before I get beat over the head for saying that, note that I didn't say it is dangerous, but it can be, depending on the circumstances). Check out these articles for detailed explanations of how the 7.62x51 and the .308 differ, including the measurements, and why mixing them up can be dangerous:...the .300 Savage & the .308 do share the same case head diameter, and not much else. Not even the same rim thickness. In fact, other than primer size, I can't find a common sizing point between the cartridges other than the one's mentioned. Therefore, if the .308 was developed from the .300 Savage, a whole lot development went on.
That's pretty good. I admire the way you're able to interpret history according to your own opinion in order to suit what you prefer to believe.Enough to make me strongly doubt that the developers did much more than look at the .300 Savage, and discard it for an independent project. Which brings us right back to the .308 being a child of the .30-06.
Is the bottom line that if I reload 7.62x51 too many times and continue to fire it in my .308 that eventually I'll have a case failure/rupture/kaboom?
Dunno, never tried it myself. With the potential safety problem and with commercial stuff being so readily available, I wouldn't use milsurp 7.62 brass in a .308, but that's me. So I can only go by what the experts say in this case. As the first article explains, I think an important factor is the condition of the rifle's chamber. If you continue to do that, you should probably have the headspace checked on a regular basis (depending on how much you shoot) to make sure the numbers are within the safe parameters as explained in that first article. USSR's advice above also sounds good.Is the bottom line that if I reload 7.62x51 too many times and continue to fire it in my .308 that eventually I'll have a case failure/rupture/kaboom?
Probably. I'm aware that lots of people have been doing it for years. Still, these issues do exist and the info is there for anyone that wants to look into it. And the fact remains that the 7.62x51 was based on the .300 Savage....I think the subject is largely academic.