Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Do you think there is..M1

Discussion in 'Rifle Country' started by eclancy, May 28, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. eclancy

    eclancy Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    1,114
    Location:
    N. Catasauqua, Pa
    Gentlemen,

    ...chance that the US Military would go back to a round equal to or surpass the 30:06 for standard issue to all US combat troops. I know that it would be a heavy load. However, your fathers or grandfathers carried the load in WW2 to just about every Nation. You would carry a heavy load again but what a punch your rifle would have.
    Just my .02 cents

    Thanks again
    Clancy

    Might have to go to Donations soon
    NRA Life Endowment
    NRA Training Counselor
    NRA Instructor NRA Life Endowment
     
  2. Deer Hunter

    Deer Hunter Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2005
    Messages:
    4,097
    Run! Run while you still can! The poodle shooters are coming! The poodle shooters are coming!

    Not likely going to happen. We're sticking with the 5.56 for a long time. We may upgrade to something heavier, but not much heavier.
     
  3. R.W.Dale

    R.W.Dale Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2005
    Messages:
    11,359
    Location:
    Northwest Arkansas
    NO


    Think about it If you wer to be shot in the torso with a 5.56 round do you really think you'ed have any more fight left in you than if you had been shot with M1 ball.......... Didn't think so.

    5.56x45 will be the last cartrige the army ever adopts, it'll brobably be replaced with some form of caseless ammo or possibly the metalstorm system or mabye even with a directed energy weapon. There are a lot of VERY promising technologies currently in development.
     
  4. DMK

    DMK Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    8,763
    Location:
    Over the hills and far, far away
    It's not even likely that a 7.62x51 chambered rifle would be fielded widely and the U.S. has a lot of that round in stock with contracts for much more.

    It is extremely unlikely that anything similar to 30.06 will ever be a general issue military round ever again.

    Now, as a sniper round...maybe.
     
  5. Rosstradamus

    Rosstradamus Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2004
    Messages:
    159
    Location:
    Big D
    The trend has been to smaller, lighter, faster ever since the French 8mm Lebel was introduced in 1886. Get over it.
     
  6. jagdpanzer347

    jagdpanzer347 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    744
    Location:
    Southwest Ohio
    I would say for general issue, no. Alot of recruits would probably have a hard time qualifying with a round that powerful. Earlier generations seem to have had alot more shooting/hunting experience than is the case today. Therefore the M1 was an easier transition for them.

    Also with modern infantry tactics firepower seems to be the primary concern and not advanced rifle marksmanship. Although there does seem to be a fair amount of M14s in use in Afghanistan and Iraq.

    Just my two cents.

    -jagd
     
  7. Owen

    Owen Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    5,928
    Location:
    Georgetown, TX
    Depends on what happens with personal armor.
     
  8. iamkris

    iamkris Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2003
    Messages:
    2,839
    Location:
    My own little slice of Purgatory
    Actually before that.

    .69 cal smoothbore to .58 cal Minie ball
    .58 cal Minie ball to .50-70
    .50-70 to .45-70
    .45-70 to .30-40
    .30-40 to .30-03
    .30-03 to .30-06
    .30-06 to .308 (an anamoly...a wash in bullet weight and velocity)
    .308 to

    I personally would like to see a small step up to heavier bullets...say the 6.8SPC...but that's it for general issue. I do think the designated marksman concept with the larger cartridge concept (at least 1 per squad) makes a lot of sense.

    The Soviets with the 7.62x39 and 7.62x54R had the squad concept right IMHO...infantry general issue with an intermediate cartridge...light enough to carry lots and lay down fire superiority but heavy enough to make strong hits within 250 yards...a squad automatic machine gun in the same caliber to create a constant wall of lead to allow manuevering...a DM in a larger caliber to reach out and touch someone and/or punch thorugh hard cover.

    That's how I'd construct a squad at least.
     
  9. Onmilo

    Onmilo Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2004
    Messages:
    9,773
    Location:
    Illinois`
    NOPE.
    Since everything seems to run on batteries nowadays, I am guessing a lazer pulse rifle in the 40 watt range is in our future,,,,,,
     
  10. richardschennberg

    richardschennberg Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2005
    Messages:
    199
    Navy Seals use .50 BMG for long range sniping, but only when mission requirements preclude getting close enough for a .308 (about 800-1000 yards).
    Our top sniper in Vietnam used a Remington 700 .308-7mm, which has more velocity than the .30-06, less energy, and equal or better ballistics.

    As far as other countries, the top Canadian (longest shot ever in combat) used .50 BMG and the top off-continent shooter used .300 Win Mag during his military service and also to set the world record for breaking an egg at 1,000 yards with the fewest number of shots (yes, its in the Guiness BoWR).
    Richard
    Schennberg.com
     
  11. MGKelly

    MGKelly Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2006
    Messages:
    17
    Location:
    GR, MI, USA
    A friend of mine once referred to the '06 as "7.62 magnum". The '06 is a great cartridge, and at long ranges. The US Marines at Bellau Wood were taking out German troops at 500 to 800 yards with 1903 Springfield rifles with iron sights! (Totaly baffled the Germans by the way. :scrutiny: )

    But today most engagements occur at 100 yards or less (most of the time less) and the '06 is just overkill. I can get plenty of knock-down power out of a 7.62x39 or even a 5.56 at these shorter ranges plus I can carry more of it due to reduced weight. As far as long rang work goes, 7.62x51 and .338 are good choices, and as the previous poster said... .50BMG!

    I don't think 30.06 will be back any time soon in the military, but as a sport cartridge or as fodder for all the Garands that are out there it will never go away.


    MG
     
  12. roscoe

    roscoe Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Messages:
    2,264
    Location:
    NV
    Seems like weight is not so much the issue (although we have had some mighty threads on the topic), but the issue of controlability on FA or burst fire.
     
  13. chopinbloc

    chopinbloc Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2005
    Messages:
    2,240
    Location:
    sweet home arizona
    total weight that soldiers have carried into combat hasn't changed drastically since the roman days up until very recently. generally speaking, soldiers are likely to carry the same weight of ammo into battle in the same situation but can be much more effective with an accurate, intermediate cartridge. the army calls this a combat multiplier. as much as some may pine for the old days when men were men and women... well, they were men too, we have learne some important lessons since 1906, paid for thos lessons in blood and won't likely be going back.
     
  14. High Planes Drifter

    High Planes Drifter Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2006
    Messages:
    1,204
    At first thought I would agree with just about everyone here and say there is no way our military would go back with a .30 for standard infantry issue. But consider what owen said: Depends on what happens with personal armor..

    Perhaps there will come a time when 5.56 is no longer able to defeat armor; perhaps there will be another issue that will demand the swing towards a larger, more powerfull caliber. Never say never. After all, it seems our military is returning to the .45.
     
  15. Mikee Loxxer

    Mikee Loxxer Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2006
    Messages:
    781
    Location:
    Lincoln NE
    I could be wrong but wasn't 7.62 NATO considered to be the ballistic equivalent of the 30’06 ball cartridge used in WWII and Korea? The improvement in propellants allowed for the shorter case which was considered more suitable for autoloading actions than was 30’06. If that is the case I can see them working with 7.62 NATO instead of going back to 30’06.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page