ArcherandShooter
Member
change from the .30-06 in the M1 to the .308 in the M14?
Anybody know the history of that?
Anybody know the history of that?
Why did the Army...
- Thread starter ArcherandShooter
- Start date
- Status
Bazooka Joe71
Member
edit: Oops I misread your question.
But a .308 is smaller and lighter, so I'm sure that has something to do with it.
But a .308 is smaller and lighter, so I'm sure that has something to do with it.
ponyboy314
Member
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2007
- Messages
- 7
Well, there are a lot of so-called reasons behind that.
During World War II, everyone had their own caliber. The US had the .30-06, the British had the .303, the French had the 7.5mm, and so on and so forth. With the creation of the Warsaw Pact, the Western nations, which is to say NATO, was then locked in a cold war against the Soviet Union and its "allies."
It was believed that should the war turn hot, that all of NATO would be at war with the Soviets, who had standardized behind Soviet weapons. For the sake of mutual supply and logistics, it was decided by NATO to standardize on the same round, but certainly not to standardize on the weapons to fire them.
And thus, we get the .308 NATO round. With the US M14, the British (which is to say Belgian) L1A1, the German G3, and so on, NATO countries were firing the same round out of different weapons. I am told that the adoption of the Beretta M9 in the mid-1980s was part of the same plan to standardize. Of course, that meant that the US took a 9mm pistol, which everyone else already had, and gave up the Colt M1911, the greatest military sidearm of all time. Even today, a lot of American servicemen think it was not a good idea.
If your question is why that specific round was chosen, I'm afraid I can't help you there. Maybe it's just what everyone could agree on. Who knows?
During World War II, everyone had their own caliber. The US had the .30-06, the British had the .303, the French had the 7.5mm, and so on and so forth. With the creation of the Warsaw Pact, the Western nations, which is to say NATO, was then locked in a cold war against the Soviet Union and its "allies."
It was believed that should the war turn hot, that all of NATO would be at war with the Soviets, who had standardized behind Soviet weapons. For the sake of mutual supply and logistics, it was decided by NATO to standardize on the same round, but certainly not to standardize on the weapons to fire them.
And thus, we get the .308 NATO round. With the US M14, the British (which is to say Belgian) L1A1, the German G3, and so on, NATO countries were firing the same round out of different weapons. I am told that the adoption of the Beretta M9 in the mid-1980s was part of the same plan to standardize. Of course, that meant that the US took a 9mm pistol, which everyone else already had, and gave up the Colt M1911, the greatest military sidearm of all time. Even today, a lot of American servicemen think it was not a good idea.
If your question is why that specific round was chosen, I'm afraid I can't help you there. Maybe it's just what everyone could agree on. Who knows?
RockyMtnTactical
Member
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2006
- Messages
- 3,539
They wanted to utilize F/A and the .308 was billed to be practically the same cartridge performance up to something like 500 yards... or something like that... not to mention that kills with small arms were at ranges of 300 or less meters in WWII. They didn't need a 1000 yard round.
Geronimo45
Member
Reason for the cartridge change:
The .308 was pretty much ballistically identical to the .30-06 that the military was using. Only it was in a shorter package, and thus lighter weight. This is good.
(Some) Reasons for rifle change:
The universal rifle concept. WWII was aberrant in many ways... not the least in the weapons fielded. For the US, you had BARs, 1903 Springfields, M1 Garands, M1 Carbines, and M1 Thompsons. That's three different cartridges - all of which your army needs a lot of. Before WWII, there was one standard rifle. You go off to war, everybody is issued pretty much the same rifle. For logistics purposes, a single cartridge that you can use in your GPMGs and GP rifles is a great idea. You only need alternate ammo for the 1911 - and usually not much of it.
The BAR was probably the idol of designers. But it was a pig. A 20lb rifle is not a technological advance over the 10lb Garand. Designers seemed to take the detachable mags and capacity of the BAR (the idea, not the mags... though I do wonder why they didn't use BAR mags), along with FA fire, and put it in a Garand-shaped package. Essentially a BAR-lite.
The BAR-lite worked well as a Garand replacement - about the same weight with over double the capacity. It didn't work as a BAR replacement... full-auto was a real handful. Then came the AR design. All space-agey and cool-looking. It also worked very well, in various tests, though the Army didn't seem to care. The Green Berets were using 'em, and liked 'em. Since there were problems, I understand, with supplying enough M14s, MacNamara's band decided to ixnay the M14 and replace it with the M16.
As Murphy would have it, the doctrine of using FA fire (that seemed to be the reason behind the M14, then the AR) has been put aside since that time, and there's now a BAR substitute in the M249... lighter weight with much higher capacity... but with a lighter cartridge. FA is controllable, as a consequence.
The .308 was pretty much ballistically identical to the .30-06 that the military was using. Only it was in a shorter package, and thus lighter weight. This is good.
(Some) Reasons for rifle change:
The universal rifle concept. WWII was aberrant in many ways... not the least in the weapons fielded. For the US, you had BARs, 1903 Springfields, M1 Garands, M1 Carbines, and M1 Thompsons. That's three different cartridges - all of which your army needs a lot of. Before WWII, there was one standard rifle. You go off to war, everybody is issued pretty much the same rifle. For logistics purposes, a single cartridge that you can use in your GPMGs and GP rifles is a great idea. You only need alternate ammo for the 1911 - and usually not much of it.
The BAR was probably the idol of designers. But it was a pig. A 20lb rifle is not a technological advance over the 10lb Garand. Designers seemed to take the detachable mags and capacity of the BAR (the idea, not the mags... though I do wonder why they didn't use BAR mags), along with FA fire, and put it in a Garand-shaped package. Essentially a BAR-lite.
The BAR-lite worked well as a Garand replacement - about the same weight with over double the capacity. It didn't work as a BAR replacement... full-auto was a real handful. Then came the AR design. All space-agey and cool-looking. It also worked very well, in various tests, though the Army didn't seem to care. The Green Berets were using 'em, and liked 'em. Since there were problems, I understand, with supplying enough M14s, MacNamara's band decided to ixnay the M14 and replace it with the M16.
As Murphy would have it, the doctrine of using FA fire (that seemed to be the reason behind the M14, then the AR) has been put aside since that time, and there's now a BAR substitute in the M249... lighter weight with much higher capacity... but with a lighter cartridge. FA is controllable, as a consequence.
Timthinker
Member
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2006
- Messages
- 815
This may not be true, but I understood the .308 chambered better on full auto than the .30-06. Lighter weight and standardization were also factors as others have stated. For civilians such as myself, the .30-06 and .308 are very similar in terms of performance and much perferable to the .223. Please remember, I am speaking in terms of civilian usage with the last point.
Timthinker
Timthinker
Just a slight correrction folks.
Just like .223 - 5.56, the military round is not a .308 it is a 7.62 round. The ballistics, chamber pressure etc do vary (somewhat) between the two.
A little of the politics and BS around this decision is noted in the development and failure to deploy the British Army's EM2 rifle.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EM-2
I particularly like the comment around how the .280 round was derided by the US Army as "underpowered" when they where, within less than 2 years, developing the round that became the 5.56.
Not of course that the "Not Invented Here" syndrome reared it's ugly head....
Just like .223 - 5.56, the military round is not a .308 it is a 7.62 round. The ballistics, chamber pressure etc do vary (somewhat) between the two.
A little of the politics and BS around this decision is noted in the development and failure to deploy the British Army's EM2 rifle.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EM-2
I particularly like the comment around how the .280 round was derided by the US Army as "underpowered" when they where, within less than 2 years, developing the round that became the 5.56.
Not of course that the "Not Invented Here" syndrome reared it's ugly head....
The 7.62x51mm requires a shorter receiver. After NATO argued about what rifle and round would be selected for all NATO countries, the US finally got to pick the cartridge with the understanding that the FAL would become the universal rifle. A short catridge was required for a number of reasons.
Of course the US promptly ignored the agreement and developed their own rifle, the M14. But the Europeans were already stuck with the 308, when other cartridges like the British 280 were preferred.
Of course the US promptly ignored the agreement and developed their own rifle, the M14. But the Europeans were already stuck with the 308, when other cartridges like the British 280 were preferred.
Timthinker
Member
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2006
- Messages
- 815
Everallm, your distinction between the cartridges is correct. That said, I still believe the 7.62, from what I have heard, jams less on full auto than the old .30-06. Some of the older guys may be able to confirm this.
Also, it is ironic that the U.S. Army rejected one "anemic" cartridge only to adopt another. Even today, the .280 is still discussed as a potential successor to the 5.56 round, although far more realistic attention is paid to the 6.5 and 6.8 rounds for use in the M-16 platform.
Timthinker
Also, it is ironic that the U.S. Army rejected one "anemic" cartridge only to adopt another. Even today, the .280 is still discussed as a potential successor to the 5.56 round, although far more realistic attention is paid to the 6.5 and 6.8 rounds for use in the M-16 platform.
Timthinker
Never No More
Member
Tim
The .308 and 30-06 are both 7.62mm. .308 and 7.62mm are the same thing.
The 30-06 case is longer 7.62x64mm VS 7.62x51mm
Just like .223 cal and 5.56mm are the same thing.
The 308 is smaller and lighter so you can carry more. Jsu tlike the 223 is smaller and lighter and you can carry more than the 308.
As far as jamming, the 223 is supreme at that.
The BAR and M1 Garand had a far less jam average than the M14, and all of these beat the M-16s hands down.
The .308 and 30-06 are both 7.62mm. .308 and 7.62mm are the same thing.
The 30-06 case is longer 7.62x64mm VS 7.62x51mm
Just like .223 cal and 5.56mm are the same thing.
The 308 is smaller and lighter so you can carry more. Jsu tlike the 223 is smaller and lighter and you can carry more than the 308.
As far as jamming, the 223 is supreme at that.
The BAR and M1 Garand had a far less jam average than the M14, and all of these beat the M-16s hands down.
mljdeckard
Member
If you think that .308 and 7.62 are the same thing, crank off 100 rds of .308 in an AR-10 chambered for 7.62 and see what happens.
HorseSoldier
Member
As other posts and links have noted, .308/7.62x51 was basically just .30-06/7.62x63 re-engineered to take advantage of improvements in powders. It provided identical performance to 150 grain M2 ball 30-06 ammo in a 1/2" (or so) shorter case. This helped a little with both the soldier's carried load as well as helping somewhat at the big picture logistics level -- though not dramatically at either.
The reasons for the switch instead of a move to something like the British 7x43/280 round or the Russian 7.62x39 round was because the US Infantry and Ordnance resisted any suggestion that a round optimized for closer engagement ranges was needed. Part of this was logistically somewhat logical (common ammo for MGs and infantry rifles), but part of it was simply confused and ill-informed wishful thinking (i.e. the logic that a select-fire M14 was workable, or a suitable replacement for a whole range of weapons from the SMG and M1 Carbine through the rifle and on to the BAR).
The reasons for the switch instead of a move to something like the British 7x43/280 round or the Russian 7.62x39 round was because the US Infantry and Ordnance resisted any suggestion that a round optimized for closer engagement ranges was needed. Part of this was logistically somewhat logical (common ammo for MGs and infantry rifles), but part of it was simply confused and ill-informed wishful thinking (i.e. the logic that a select-fire M14 was workable, or a suitable replacement for a whole range of weapons from the SMG and M1 Carbine through the rifle and on to the BAR).
Timthinker
Member
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2006
- Messages
- 815
I refer to the .30-06 as a .30-06 out of habit, but you are correct that it is a 7.62x63mm cartridge. As I stated in my first posting on this topic, lighter weight and the desire for standardization contributed to the adoption of the 7.62x51mm in the 1950s. Since the 7.62x51mm cartridge is shorter than the old .30-06 (7.62x63mm), it was said to chamber more reliably than its longer predecessor, but I can not confirm this as fact. I thought this might prove an interesting point for discussion. It has.
As a civilian, I tend to like larger rounds over smaller ones for hunting or self-defense. But my needs are different from those who must lug hundreds of rounds on their person for a potential firefight.
Timthinker
As a civilian, I tend to like larger rounds over smaller ones for hunting or self-defense. But my needs are different from those who must lug hundreds of rounds on their person for a potential firefight.
Timthinker
Last edited:
nicholst55
Member
The BAR magazine was tried in select-fire M1 derivatives repeatedly, without marked success, by no less than John C. Garand himself. Why it worked superbly in the BAR and not in the experimental rifle, I don't know. Perhaps they needed to have that other legendary firearms designer John Moses Browning's input. Too bad he was dead.
The Army was effectively designing the perfect rifle for the last war when they began development of what became the M14. This story is told in 'From John Garand to the M21,' by Blake Stevens.
http://www.amazon.com/US-Rifle-M14-John-Garand/dp/0889351104
The Army was effectively designing the perfect rifle for the last war when they began development of what became the M14. This story is told in 'From John Garand to the M21,' by Blake Stevens.
http://www.amazon.com/US-Rifle-M14-John-Garand/dp/0889351104
"US Rifle M14" is a great read for all M14 fans.
It should be noted that one of the reasons for pushing the M14 is that a few uniformed types were sure that the M14 could be easily manufactured on modified Garand machinery, thus making for an easy transition and low cost weapon.
That proved not the case. The M14 proved to be much more difficult to manufacturer, and ost of the manufacturers had difficulty meeting Army specifications. It wasn't until TRW build a facility with spcialized machinery specifically to manufacture the M14 that thing finally got working right. The plant cost over 6 million dollars in the mid 1960s, and TRW lost money in the first year of production. They expected top make that up in subsequent years, but by then the M14 program had been cancelled.
The M14 debacle resulted in the closing of the US military arsenal at Springfield, and all subsequent military small arms have been manufactured by private concerns.
It should be noted that one of the reasons for pushing the M14 is that a few uniformed types were sure that the M14 could be easily manufactured on modified Garand machinery, thus making for an easy transition and low cost weapon.
That proved not the case. The M14 proved to be much more difficult to manufacturer, and ost of the manufacturers had difficulty meeting Army specifications. It wasn't until TRW build a facility with spcialized machinery specifically to manufacture the M14 that thing finally got working right. The plant cost over 6 million dollars in the mid 1960s, and TRW lost money in the first year of production. They expected top make that up in subsequent years, but by then the M14 program had been cancelled.
The M14 debacle resulted in the closing of the US military arsenal at Springfield, and all subsequent military small arms have been manufactured by private concerns.
esmith
Member
The diameter of the bullet is both 7.62 and .308. Yet .308 winchester and 7.61x51 are not interchangable. Im pretty sure that the .308's pressures are greater than that of the 7.62 x 51. Firing cartridges that guns are not chambered in can pose a safety problem.
Nolo
Member
The original "BAR-Lite" actually did use BAR magazines. The T20, basically a full-auto Garand with detachable BAR magazines instead of en-blocs, was the precursor to the M14. In fact, the T20 was only killed off by the lack of an invasion of mainland Japan.
When 7.62x51mm was standardized, the T20 was revised for that cartridge, and, thus, the BAR magazines were rendered incompatible.
When 7.62x51mm was standardized, the T20 was revised for that cartridge, and, thus, the BAR magazines were rendered incompatible.
Pigspitter
Member
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2007
- Messages
- 614
Good point, but you can still get 1000 yard shots out of a .308 with enough skill.
HorseSoldier
Member
It should be noted it also weighed 12.5 pounds empty, was not very controllable when fired automatic, required special magazine springs instead of standard BAR mags, and had a tendency to catch fire during sustained fire, none of which boded well for its service use (and were, at least partly, issues for any select fire battle rifle that should have been learned with the development of the M14, but weren't).
Um yeah, pretty much every AR manufacturer disagrees with you. While the exterior dimensions of the cartridges are the same, the pressures they operate are not and neither are the chambers of the guns the cartridges go into. Firing 5.56 NATO rounds in a match .223 Rem chamber is bad news.
Nolo
Member
Hahahaha! Oh, that sounds funny! I mean, I knew it wasn't controllable, but catching fire? I guess that's because of the wood all along the barrel and, if you fire it enough, it'd get pretty darn hot under there...
rangerruck
Member
also , the origional round chosen was the 300 savage, with a tweak here, and a non belt there, and a no rim the other, and waa laa!!! 308 was born.
- Status