What makes a .06 a .06
- Thread starter hsiddall
- Start date
- Status
whiskeytangofoxtrot
Member
I have read that 30-06 is the U.S. .30 cal round that was adopted in 1906. So there you get 30-06.
nalioth
Member
So how's that work with the 25-06 ?
SimpleIsGood229
Member
Somebody necked the .30-06 down to .25 and called it the .25-06. Same deal with necking the .308 down to 7mm: 7mm-08.
oneshooter
Member
The 30-06 is named such as it was the 30cal cartridge adopted by the US Goverment in 1906. This is a different cartridge than the 30cal 03, which was designed and adopted in 1903.
The 308 was adopted in 1955? for use in the M-14, it is a shortened 30-06 that uses the same 147gr .308dia bullet as the 30-06. Advances in powder technology allowed the use of a smaller cartridge, and powder charge to propel the same weight bullet at the same velocity and pressures.
Oneshooter
Livin in Texas
The 308 was adopted in 1955? for use in the M-14, it is a shortened 30-06 that uses the same 147gr .308dia bullet as the 30-06. Advances in powder technology allowed the use of a smaller cartridge, and powder charge to propel the same weight bullet at the same velocity and pressures.
Oneshooter
Livin in Texas
gvnwst
Member
what oneshooter is correct, the .308 was designed to give '06 performance in a shorter package. now, using the same powders in a '06, we can get a 100fps increase or so...
paintballdude902
Member
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2007
- Messages
- 2,872
yep and with the .30-30 its a .30 cal and originally used with 30 gr of smokeless powder
7.62 NATO, better known as .308 Win does not and never did use M-2 ball, 7.62 NATO is usually loaded with M-80 ball. Essentially the same weight, same diameter, different ogive, shorter OAL. 7.62 NATO was developed off the .300 Savage, thus is also a lineal descendent of 7.91x57 I Mauser round and not from modification of the .30-06 as usually assumed.
paintballdude902
Member
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2007
- Messages
- 2,872
im just gonna go ahead and say it .308 win is not exactly the same of 7.62 nato
gvnwst
Member
rr2241tx
did you get that from wikipedia?
did you get that from wikipedia?
dagger dog
Member
Actually the .308 Winchester was introduced first ,they ran with the cartridge as it was being developed by the military and Nato .
It is not a shortened 30-06 the neck is shorter and the sholder angle is different and it is a higher pressure round than the old workhorse 06 it even surpasses the 06 in some bullet loadings up to around 180 grs and the powders are generally a little faster than the ones used in the 06, but with heavier bullets the 06 has the edge.
It is not a shortened 30-06 the neck is shorter and the sholder angle is different and it is a higher pressure round than the old workhorse 06 it even surpasses the 06 in some bullet loadings up to around 180 grs and the powders are generally a little faster than the ones used in the 06, but with heavier bullets the 06 has the edge.
Omnivore
Member
Also, the '06 and the .308 Win use the same bolt face, FWIW.
Neckshot5seven
member
- Joined
- May 26, 2008
- Messages
- 128
other than nato using different(metric/inch )measurements nato and the .308 are the same
gvnwst
Member
it is, on the other hand, a shortened, improved version of the -06. how do you think you can get the same performance with a shorter case? you fatten it up, or just straiten out the walls....
highorder
Member
You also increase the chamber pressure.
gvnwst
Member
true...
Sunray
Member
"...how do you think you can get the same performance with a shorter case?..." You change the powder used. The whole point of the .308 was to take advantage of the then new powders available to get the same ballistics as the .30-06 in a shorter case.
gvnwst
Member
yes i was just saying in general... i know threr is many ways of getting more performance outta a smaller case.
gvnwst wrote:
As has been pointed out, that's just not true. Unless you want to call your Ford Mustang just an improved version of a Pontiac Firebird (or vise versa).
As highorder pointed out, there's a chamber pressure difference.
But as you surmised, the 7.62 NATO does in fact have straighter walls than the .30-06, allowing room for more powder and a slightly more efficient burn of that powder.
Sunray wrote:
If it was *just* the powder, they could have simply put the "better" powder in the .30-06 case. But as you pointed out, the design of the new 7.62 NATO is what allowed the new powder to be used to better advantage.
Don't forget that there's always a drive for a shorter action length and materials savings in military guns. I suspect if they could've gotten the .30-06 to work just as well with the new powders by simply shortening it to 7.62 NATO length, they would've done only that.
As J.D. Jones once said, "Gentlemen - there are no bargains in ballistics. If you are achieving significantly higher velocities than normal for a particular bullet in a particular cartridge, you have eiither performed a miracle or increased pressures accordingly."
FWIW Jones also said :"The .30/06 is usually considered an inefficient cartridge, but it is difficult to find another cartridge that has been or is as good a general-purpose cartridge than the .30/06. It's record in military, hunting, and target use is unmatched by any other cartridge."
As has been pointed out, that's just not true. Unless you want to call your Ford Mustang just an improved version of a Pontiac Firebird (or vise versa).
As highorder pointed out, there's a chamber pressure difference.
But as you surmised, the 7.62 NATO does in fact have straighter walls than the .30-06, allowing room for more powder and a slightly more efficient burn of that powder.
Sunray wrote:
If it was *just* the powder, they could have simply put the "better" powder in the .30-06 case. But as you pointed out, the design of the new 7.62 NATO is what allowed the new powder to be used to better advantage.
Don't forget that there's always a drive for a shorter action length and materials savings in military guns. I suspect if they could've gotten the .30-06 to work just as well with the new powders by simply shortening it to 7.62 NATO length, they would've done only that.
As J.D. Jones once said, "Gentlemen - there are no bargains in ballistics. If you are achieving significantly higher velocities than normal for a particular bullet in a particular cartridge, you have eiither performed a miracle or increased pressures accordingly."
FWIW Jones also said :"The .30/06 is usually considered an inefficient cartridge, but it is difficult to find another cartridge that has been or is as good a general-purpose cartridge than the .30/06. It's record in military, hunting, and target use is unmatched by any other cartridge."
gvnwst
Member
maybe i am wrong about the being based off the '06 part, but as i said, fattening the case is not the only way to get a performance increase, i was using that as an example....
High Planes Drifter
Member
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2006
- Messages
- 1,204
Im not aware of any factory loads, where a .308 actually meets .30-06 ballistics when comparing same wieght bullets. It (.308) approaches .30-06 performance, but again, I dont believe it actually meets .30-06 ballistics; much less passes it. I would like to see ballistics chart from a factory where it does (pass .30-06 ballistics when comparing same wieght bullets).....
gvnwst
Member
well, if you compare the hornady .308 win 150gr light mag stuff to the regular '06 150gr, the .308 beats it by 100ft/lbs. that is again from advances in powder and new ways of loading the bullets....
In answer to the original question.
Because they did and can. When I carried a 30-06 everyone called it the M1. Very excellent gun too.
Don't feel bad about the question either. I'm old and still didn't know the "why". After reading all the replies, I still know the "why" other than the year. I won't loose any sleep over it though.
Because they did and can. When I carried a 30-06 everyone called it the M1. Very excellent gun too.
Don't feel bad about the question either. I'm old and still didn't know the "why". After reading all the replies, I still know the "why" other than the year. I won't loose any sleep over it though.
Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
First came the .30-'03, which was first loaded with basically the same 220-grain round-nosed bullet as the Krag. They then went to the Mauser idea of a lighter, spitzer bullet. The shorter bullet did not need as long a case neck. After the shortening of the neck in 1906, the cartridge then became the .30-'06.
There was all manner of R&D for the 172-grain boat-tail and the 153-grain Ball M2. For a while, the heavier bullet was used as a machine-gun load. It was complained of when used in the Springfield; too much recoil. Eventually, the Ball M2 round became the standard.
When the .308 came out, it was loaded to a chamber pressure of some 55,000 psi. The standard for the '06 was around 47,000 psi, which was safe in the old Springfields. The pressure difference is why the performance of factory rounds is similar. If loaded to equal pressures, the '06 is a tad better in the velocity department. Nowadays, SFAIK, the '06 factory loads are up around 51,000 to 55,000 psi. Dunno what that is in CUP.
The .308 is commonly sold in rifles with 20" to 22" barrels. Handloading an '06 in a 26" barrel to 55,000 psi gives around 300 ft/sec better performance than a .308, for equal-weight bullets.
There was all manner of R&D for the 172-grain boat-tail and the 153-grain Ball M2. For a while, the heavier bullet was used as a machine-gun load. It was complained of when used in the Springfield; too much recoil. Eventually, the Ball M2 round became the standard.
When the .308 came out, it was loaded to a chamber pressure of some 55,000 psi. The standard for the '06 was around 47,000 psi, which was safe in the old Springfields. The pressure difference is why the performance of factory rounds is similar. If loaded to equal pressures, the '06 is a tad better in the velocity department. Nowadays, SFAIK, the '06 factory loads are up around 51,000 to 55,000 psi. Dunno what that is in CUP.
The .308 is commonly sold in rifles with 20" to 22" barrels. Handloading an '06 in a 26" barrel to 55,000 psi gives around 300 ft/sec better performance than a .308, for equal-weight bullets.
Ridgerunner665
Member
The 308 can not beat the 30-06 these days...but if you reload it comes close enough to matching it that anything shot with it won't know the difference with bullets weighing 175 grains or less.
The 30-06 is a VERY inefficient round, so are most of its offspring (25-06, 270, 280) that's why they need longer barrels...so they can burn all of that slow burning powder.
The 308 uses medium burn rate powders in barrels over 20 inches...in single shot handguns (T/C) and very short rifles it uses powders on the slower end of FAST.
I can get 2300 fps from a 14 inch T/C Contender with 175 grain bullets (AA2230)...and 2500 fps from 168's (W748).
The 308 can do alot...in many forms and fashions...it is what they always said it was...VERSATILE.
The 30-06 is a VERY inefficient round, so are most of its offspring (25-06, 270, 280) that's why they need longer barrels...so they can burn all of that slow burning powder.
The 308 uses medium burn rate powders in barrels over 20 inches...in single shot handguns (T/C) and very short rifles it uses powders on the slower end of FAST.
I can get 2300 fps from a 14 inch T/C Contender with 175 grain bullets (AA2230)...and 2500 fps from 168's (W748).
The 308 can do alot...in many forms and fashions...it is what they always said it was...VERSATILE.
- Status
