.308 Winchester/7.62mm NATO, a short .30-06 or a long .300 Savage?

[lysanderxiii]

Which makes sense, as .308 was actually based on the .300 savage scaled up, rather than a 30-06 scaled down as most perceive.

This topic was way off-topic for the thread is was introduced in but warranted discussion.

In 1944, the Army realized that Cartridge, Ball, Caliber .30, M2, when loaded with the current propellant left considerable empty space in the case. And thus started what would later be known as the Lightweight Rifle Cartridge Program, which would later in 1954 yield the 7.62mm NATO cartridge. As a starting point, the Army selected the .300 Savage, but where did the .300 Savage come from?

It turns out that in the late 19-teens, Savage wanted a cartridge that would work in a .30-30 length action but have the performance of the U.S. Service Cartridge, Caliber .30 (.30-06). This they found they could do with then modern propellants. So they shortened a .30-06 case down so that the overall length with a 150 grain bullet was 2.60 inches. The original .300 Savage load was a 150 grain bullet at 2700 fps, which matched Caliber .30, Ball, M1906 performance.

The Army, around 1941 (skipping the M1 Ball story) bumped the velocity of M2 ball up to 2800 fps, which starts to push the capabilities of .300 Savage, so the development of the T65 cartridge (7.62mm NATO) sees the case volume increase as time goes on. That is a story in itself that I will go into later if you want me to, but for now the answer to the question in the title is:

BOTH are correct.

 

[Heir Kommt Die Sonne]

So the .300 Savage was the original .308 in concept, and the Army came to the same result later on.

But still, this is very unique information.
Does the .300 use the same bullet diameter as the .308?


EDIT: By the way, general gun discussions may be too vague for this topic. Either in Handloading or Rifle would be more appropriate.

 

[caribou]

The 30-06 (7.62x63) was litterally shortened into the 7.62x51 (.308W)
The civilian market in the US is always leaps and bounds ahead of the military when allowed to develop arms and such.

 

[Heir Kommt Die Sonne]

30-06 (7.62x63) was litterally shortened into the 7.62x51 (.308W)

Not quite, the shoulder and neck is different.

 

[citizenconn]

The history of the 7.62x51 is so convoluted that the actual developmental nuances are lost to time at this point, in my opinion. There were certainly political as well as ballistic factors as to why the .300 Savage was rejected and then given little to no credit in the creation of the 7.62x51, not the least of which is that the govt does not like to pay royalties if they can avoid it by means both benign and nefarious. I'm not sure exactly what the OP is asking or stating.

My 2 cents worth is that the .300 Savage is the base design the govt looked at when coming up with the 7.62x51. They made at least a couple changes to the over 50 year case design given the much higher pressure and velocity they required and thus was born the 7.62x51. A couple tweaks later and we got the .308 Win for commercial use even before the 7.62x51 was officially adopted.

Could it be viewed the other way, that the .30/06 (or the .30/03) was more in the minds of the designers than the .300 Savage at the time of development? Unfortunately they are not around to ask, and I have read so many contradictory accounts and there is no definitive primary source information available to convince me that there is no way to know for certain.

So many things evolved concurrently with the development of the 7.62x51/.308 design including better metallurgy, improved bullets and propellants, better machining, etc... that it is too simplistic to attribute the creation of the 7.62x51/.308 simply to changing the case size. Rather it was a whole cloth paradigm shift in creating a more advanced 30 caliber platform. Your opinion may vary.

 

[Jim Watson]

I have read that there was an eye on the 7.5 French, too.

 

[Slamfire]

This is an abbreviated portion of what the American Rifleman had to say about the development of the 7.62 Nato round:

History of T65 Cartridge

Reference: page 49 Oct 1973 American Rifleman

The preliminary drawing for the experimental cal 30 short cartridge was completed at Frankford Arsenal on Dec 12 1944, under the nomenclature Cartridge Ball, Cal. 30, T65. The T designation indicated a test items. The preliminary load development work was done at Aberdeen Proving Ground early in 1945.

On March 6, 1945, Frankford Arsenal was directed to produce 15,000 T65 cartridges for experimental test barrel firing. Manufacture of this ammunition, using IMR propellant, was completed in August 1945. This loading gave an average instrumental velocity of 2600 fps at 78 ft from the muzzle.

After the initial production by Frankford Arsenal, development of the T65 cartridge continued with the assistance of Olin Mathewson chemical Corp and Remington Arms Co. On Dec 15 1953, the final form of the T65 cartridge, the T65E3, was adopted as the 7.62 mm NATO by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization nations of Belgium, Canada, France, United Kingdom, and the United States. Formal standardization of this round as a U.S. rifle-caliber military cartridge occurred in August 1954.

Lysander as a Government employee/Contractor has access to the classified documents on DTIC, and thus ought to be able to access better information on the development of the 7.62 Nato round than what we outsiders can read in the American Rifleman, and the reasons behind creation. of the 7.62 Nato round.

Savage of course, had to fit its 300 Savage cartridge in its Model 99 lever action. Phillip Sharpe was about 100 years closer to the creation of this cartridge than we, and an adult when it was put on the market. According to Mr Sharpe the 300 Savage was "created by Savage Arms closely approaching the ballistics of the 30/06 cartridge". In his handbook, Sharpe recommended not loading the cartridge more than 40 K psia in the lever action.

With so many cartridges infinitesimally different from each other, (just look at Cartridges of the World,) it is easy to claim that one cartridge copied another. However the Government is quite a closed organization, accountable to none. It is quite the presumption to claim that the people inside the Government actually know what is available outside the Government. Why should they? They exist inside their own infinitely large bubble. They don't coordinate with each other, the people down the hall don't know what the guys at the other end of the building are doing. The branches of Government are extremely tribal within, and arrogantly dismissive about those in industry. Given their habitual navel gazing, it is more likely that they just re invented the wheel again. Happenstance happens.

Given the parameters, what else do you expect?

 

[lysanderxiii]

Not quite, the shoulder and neck is different.

And the rim dimensions, and the body taper . . . 7.62mm NATO is actually quite a different case from .30-06.

 

[NIGHTLORD40K]

All I have to add is that the Savage 99 action is a lot happier shooting .300 Savage than 7.62 Nato loads (in the .308-marked guns). Receiver stretch is a thing.

 

[lysanderxiii]

This is an abbreviated portion of what the American Rifleman had to say about the development of the 7.62 Nato round:

History of T65 Cartridge

Reference: page 49 Oct 1973 American Rifleman



Lysander as a Government employee/Contractor has access to the classified documents on DTIC, and thus ought to be able to access better information on the development of the 7.62 Nato round than what we outsiders can read in the American Rifleman, and the reasons behind creation. of the 7.62 Nato round.

Savage of course, had to fit its 300 Savage cartridge in its Model 99 lever action. Phillip Sharpe was about 100 years closer to the creation of this cartridge than we, and an adult when it was put on the market. According to Mr Sharpe the 300 Savage was "created by Savage Arms closely approaching the ballistics of the 30/06 cartridge". In his handbook, Sharpe recommended not loading the cartridge more than 40 K psia in the lever action.

With so many cartridges infinitesimally different from each other, (just look at Cartridges of the World,) it is easy to claim that one cartridge copied another. However the Government is quite a closed organization, accountable to none. It is quite the presumption to claim that the people inside the Government actually know what is available outside the Government. Why should they? They exist inside their own infinitely large bubble. They don't coordinate with each other, the people down the hall don't know what the guys at the other end of the building are doing. The branches of Government are extremely tribal within, and arrogantly dismissive about those in industry. Given their habitual navel gazing, it is more likely that they just re invented the wheel again. Happenstance happens.

Given the parameters, what else do you expect?

Actually, all of the information in that first post came from reading the International Ammunition Association's forum. Those guys have more information on the development of the NATO standard cartridge than anybody. If you really want to learn something about ammunition development (from any country), that is the best place to start.

One such informative discussion is this one: https://forum.cartridgecollectors.org/t/7mm-compromise-t65-7mm/10053/37

 

[citizenconn]

All I have to add is that the Savage 99 action is a lot happier shooting .300 Savage than 7.62 Nato loads (in the .308-marked guns). Receiver stretch is a thing.

I really enjoy shooting the .300 Savage load. Mostly nowadays I download my .308 loads to .300 Savage levels when I take folks shooting and even the young uns don't complain about the recoil, especially with a can on the gun. I'm selfish but I reserve shooting the actual .300 Savage rifle for me and my old Dad because I figure even though it has lasted for a century it might not last forever.

 

[herrwalther]

My basis of history understanding is 30-06 -> 300 Savage -> 308 Winchester. (That is lead to the next, not greater/less than) First paragraph supports the generally accepted history of the three cartridges.

30 LIGHT RIFLE (T-65) | Cartridge Collector

cartridgecollector.net

The original cases used in T65 experimentation were 30-06 cases cut down to 308 Winchester length and tapered. While the 300 Savage is the official parent case of 308, I consider it to be just on the side of 30-06's son instead. Because the parent case of 300 Savage is 250 Savage. And the parent case of 250 Savage is...30-06. Just my opinion.