Where does the 30-06 fit in?

[Slamfire]

Obsolete is the wrong word, but in hindsight both 30-30 and 30-06 were a step backwards in the evolution of firearms. The 6.5X55 and 7X57 were introduced in the early 1890's predating the 30-30 and 30-06 by 4-15 years.

An interesting perspective from a military round viewpoint. A flat trajectory was extremely important in 1900. the minds of the time really thought of 1000 yard plus engagement distances for service rifles. Today, 300 yards is considered long range, the Army trains at 25 yards. There is an Air Force group that shoots at a local range, their targets are never further than 25 yards, and that includes when they are using SAWS. I don't know what they think of us Bullseye Shooters, trying to put pistols rounds within four inches at 50 yards.

You know, the 6.5 X 55 Swede would have made an excellent service round, relatively low recoil, thick rim, lots of taper. Might still be inventory if we had adopted the thing, but it was not invented here. I do think if the US military had to have a 30 caliber, they should have copied the 7.5 X 55 Swiss. It has all the ballistics of the 308 Win, thick rim, plenty of taper, and it was shorter than the 30-06. It could still be in inventory. It was the length of the 30-06 that doomed it for automatic weapons. The 7.62 was a 30-06 short. I would have liked to be able to read just what characteristics were prioritized when the 30-03 was baselined. I do know, from an Army Ordnance Engineer, that the powders of the day were not optimal for the 30-06 case. Thankfully powder technology advanced, but something like that, does not speak well for the decision makers of the era.

 

[Officers'Wife]

As in all things, it's not the machine it's the operator. I have personally seen my dad kill coyotes at a thousand yards from the "Captain's walk" around the third floor of the home place using a 30-06 which tells me it is possible given the marksman with familiarity to his weapon. The 30-06 has both the speed to travel that distance and the accuracy to do the job. While it may not be "up-to-date" or even "fashionable" the fact that it has been done is proof that it can be done.

As for where it fits in… It fits into the hands of the person willing to make the commitment to learn the rifle and its capabilities. It's not where the machine fits in, it's where is the operator willing to make it their own.

 

[Bushpilot]

Springfield picked the .308 bore knowing that .264 and 284 would perform better (the 6.5 and 7mm Mausers were old news by then) because they had unused .30-40 Krag bullets and blanks to use up, it was obsolete.

The 30/03's 220 gr, round nose bullet may have been militarily obsolete but not the 30/06's 150 gr spitzer. Funny that essentially the same ballistic performance that the old 30/06 loading had, a 150gr .308 bullet at 2700 fps, is still basically what the current 7.62x51 NATO round has.

I've had a 40+ year love affair with the 30-06. But sadly it's day is past. There are simply better cartridges today.

There are some cartridges that are better than the 30/06 at some things but none that are better at everything, at least not when it comes to hunting. The 30/06 is about as versatile a hunting cartridge as there is...

The reality is that the .30-03/06 was obsolete the day it was created. The last century has simply been American shooters realizing what was painfully obvious to everyone else.

Well, it must not have been too obvious to the Germans (8mm), the Brits (.303), the Russians and the Finns (7.62x54), the French (7.5x54), the Swiss (7.5x55).... etc.... I don't see any ballistic Wunderkind cartridges in that lot that are "obviously" superior to the 30/06......

 

[hps1]

I started competing w/the Garand in '52 and hung it up in '99 with a 21 year hiatus between 62 & 83. Picked up the Garand again in 83 and somewhere along the line had to switch to a bolt gun as I could no longer see post sight. Built my first bolt gun and figured I'd dance with the girl that brung me. Of course that was before all the fancy new whizz bang 6.5mm's came on the scene. Some things never change, folks always looking for that new caliber or gadget to get the edge.

Wore out three or four (30-06) barrels over the years at around 7500 rounds each and got a good start on several others and never felt outgunned. As has been stated, nothing wrong with the '06 for starters out to 1000, fire it up and go with.



Regards,
hps

 

[Llama Bob]

The 30/03's 220 gr, round nose bullet may have been militarily obsolete but not the 30/06's 150 gr spitzer. Funny that essentially the same ballistic performance that the old 30/06 loading had, a 150gr .308 bullet at 2700 fps, is still basically what the current 7.62x51 NATO round has.

The Spitzer does better than the round ball obviously, but it was still obsolete. It's giving up about .040 of G1 BC vs. a 7mm of the same form and weight, and about a whopping 0.15 vs. a 6.5mm.140gr.

Slamfire is right that if we had adopted the 6.5x55, and especially if we'd used our Mauser license to build a gun as strong as the 1903 but sized to the cartridge so we could run higher pressures at reasonable weight, we would not only have had the best service rifle of WWI, but we'd still be using the cartridge. All the technology needed to get it right was readily available in 1900, we just ignored it.

 

[Bushpilot]

The Spitzer does better than the round ball obviously, but it was still obsolete. It's giving up about .040 of G1 BC vs. a 7mm of the same form and weight, and about a whopping 0.15 vs. a 6.5mm.140gr.

You can praise the attributes of both of these fine old cartridges all you want but that doesn't make your original claim any less false...

I think I understand the point you're trying to make but I think there are many other considerations and a higher BC by itself doesn't simply trump all of the rest...

Slamfire is right that if we had adopted the 6.5x55, and especially if we'd used our Mauser license to build a gun as strong as the 1903 but sized to the cartridge so we could run higher pressures at reasonable weight, we would not only have had the best service rifle of WWI, but we'd still be using the cartridge. All the technology needed to get it right was readily available in 1900, we just ignored it.

Well, we can also speculate with the "what ifs" but IMO your conclusions are wrong. Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think any military is using either cartridge today so why would we? I have nothing against the 6.5 swede or the 7x57, I have both and like them, (especially the swede) but I don't think either is as versatile a hunting cartridge as the 30/06. I also think the 30/06 has more than proven itself on the battle field and in the hunting field to refute your "obsolete" claim... IMO we (the USA) fielded some pretty darn good service rifles in both world wars as it was...

 

[Llama Bob]

The same velocity and weight, with higher BC and better penetration makes for a flat out better setup. Everything was in place in 1900 to get that better setup. We just failed to do so.

The abandonment of the 6.5x55 had everything to do with the US forcing 5.56 and 7.62x51 on NATO (and indirectly Sweden), and nothing to do with technical merit. While the 7.62x51 is clearly superior to the .30-06 as it achieves the same ballistics in less rifle, it none the less is a continuation of the same caliber error that was made because we had some extra Krag bullets left over. That's the thing about mistakes - one made they're very hard to unmake.

 

[Bushpilot]

The same velocity and weight, with higher BC and better penetration makes for a flat out better setup. Everything was in place in 1900 to get that better setup. We just failed to do so.

The abandonment of the 6.5x55 had everything to do with the US forcing 5.56 and 7.62x54 on NATO (and indirectly Sweden), and nothing to do with technical merit. While the 7.62x54 is clearly superior to the .30-06 as it achieves the same ballistics in less rifle, it none the less is a continuation of the same caliber error that was made because we had some extra Krag bullets left over. That's the thing about mistakes - one made they're very hard to unmake.

The US tried the smaller caliber, high BC route with the 276... It didn't penetrate as well, wasn't as suitable as a machine gun round and was less visible as a tracer... But it did have a higher BC...

I think your mixing your cartridges up. Do you actually mean the 7.62x51 (308 win)? The 7.62x51, great though it is, can't quite match the 06 as a hunting round either in velocity or with the heavy bullets.

I think you're flogging a dead horse here..

 

[Llama Bob]

You're mistaking ammo design problems for cartridge problems. The Pederson will (and does) outpenetrate the .30-06 at the same bullet weight and there's no problem whatsoever making a7mm tracer. There were some issues with reducing pressure too far in the Pederson in a mistaken belief that was needed to make an autoloader, but the only fundamental problem in chambering a machine gun for it was the cost of barrel replacement.

The thing is, it will only be a few years before someone fields a cartridge completely superior to the .308 and .30-06 - either the 6.5CM or something very very similar. The only question is whether it will be us or our enemies. And why we didn't do it in 1900.

 

[Slamfire]

The US tried the smaller caliber, high BC route with the 276... It didn't penetrate as well, wasn't as suitable as a machine gun round and was less visible as a tracer... But it did have a high BC...

I am of the opinion that the US Army really made a big mistake in not adopting the 276 Pedersen. It was the right time, it was the right cartridge, the 276 would have been an excellent service rifle cartridge. Shorter, lower recoil than the 30-06. It would have been a bit powerful for what is considered today, an intermediate round, but, it would have been a good one. The pig board showed it was lethal way beyond what is considered battle space today.

There are always attempts to standardize on one round for pistol, carbine, rifle, machine gun, machine gun cannon. One round for combinations of two, or three, or all of them. It always ends in failure with a proliferation of rounds. But, the US Army by not making the decision to replace the 30-06, there is a straight line from that failed decision to the 5.56. Which is a much worse service round.

The 223 round was not so much “designed” as it was a wildcat. The guys who came up with the round wanted a certain velocity at a certain range. I read the 1971 Guns & Ammo article “The 223 is here to stay” by Robert Hutton. Robert Hutton was technical editor of Guns and Ammo magazine and must have been very wealthy as he owned a big piece of real estate in Topanga Canyon California. It was called Hutton’s Shooting Ranch. What the adoption of the 223 round as a service round shows is how well connected wealthy elites run the country. Hutton’s article documents how he developed the 223 round. If you have any sort of technical background, it is apparent he is an amateur and his cartridge represents what an amateur would do. He took an existing cartridge, necked it up and down, blew the shoulder out, changed shoulder angles, he had a chronograph, got the velocity he wanted at distance. The crowning achievement in the article was punching holes in the wobble pot helmet at 500 yards. That is about all the lethality testing Hutton did, punching holes in a helmet. He used the Powell Computer, a paper slide rule, to estimate pressures. He did not pressure test his cartridge. This cartridge was then adopted as the US service round.

I have no idea of his background, maybe he was the typical liberal arts major you find in the print industry, obviously he was a firearm enthusiast, and being the Technical Editor of a Gun magazine made him well connected. What an ego trip it must have been to have his cartridge adopted as the US service round. Imagine all the bragging you get to do at the dinner parties, “I developed the service round for the Army”. Unfortunately, amateurs don’t have the time, equipment, or understanding to really sweat out the tiny details. These guys did not have the analytical capability nor probably, had the comprehension to thoroughly study cartridge case design. William Davis, the Government Technical Expert at the Icord hearings, said on the History Channel that the technical data provided the Government on the 223 round did not come with a pressure curve. These guys developed a cartridge and never thought of documenting what the pressure curve looked like. Pressure curve is absolutely critical to the timing of an automatic weapon. How long energy is available, the maximum pressure and how fast it drops off is fundamental to the design of a automatic gas mechanism.



This is from Chinn's Machine Gun series.



Hutton did not look at case hardness, taper, expansion or contraction. A professional would have looked at the expansion and contraction of the case in the chamber and adjusted case taper, thickness, and established case hardness in the sidewalls and case head. You would have to work with manufacturing to determine realistic hardness parameters throughout the case, but this is important as it affects the Young’s Modulus. As it turns out, the brass case 223 drags on extraction, there is not enough clearance between the case and chamber. Steel case is even worse. I have seen many failures to extract steel case ammunition on the firing line with AR15’s.

It turns out the 223 is fairly straight tapered. This was a fad, highly promoted by P.O Ackley, and widely copied. I am not a fan of very straight tapered cartridges. The one and only advantage of a very straight taper is maximizing the amount of powder you can get in the case. The wildcat era of the late 1940’s through the 1960’s was all about high velocity, and only high velocity. It was one dimensional thinking, ignoring other aspects of cartridge design that are very important. One of the things you trade off for a straight case is that the cartridge does not “steer” well during feeding. Anyone can test this, which shape feeds better into the end of the tube, a taper, or a straight cylinder? Alignment to bore is important for feeding with all cartridges, but the really straight ones are going to jam up more often when alignment gets slightly out of whack. Straight cartridges will drag on extraction because the case walls are relaxing off the chamber walls in a straight line, not a diagonal. It turns out portions of the 223 case are still sticking to the chamber walls during extraction and a major reason for extractor lift. Understanding Extractor Lift in the M16 Family of Weapons www.dtic.mil/ndia/2003/smallarms/din.ppt This is very undesirable as jams will get you killed in combat. Lots of good American Boys died in Vietnam with jammed M16’s in their hands. Ideally, the case will be fully relaxed off the chamber walls during unlock and there will not be any resistance between case and chamber during the residual blowback period. If you look at good case design, the Russian 7.62 X 39 and the recent Chinese service cartridge, both have more case taper than the 5.56 Nato and both were designed with steel as a case material. Both have nice thick rims, which is also important for machine gun rounds.

Bob Hutton did not spend time and money examining issues such as pressure curve, contraction or relaxation. Not understanding or examining these issues created function issues in combat that got a lot of Americans killed. It cost the US Army hundreds of millions of dollars to fix what could be fixed, but some flaws are so fundamental, they can't be fixed. You can read all the rifle and ammunition issues from the Vietnam period here:

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/index.html

Report of the M16 Review Panel Appendix 4 Appendix 4 Ammunition Development Program.
Report of the M16 Rifle Review Panel Volume 7 Appendix 6 review and analysis of M16 System Reliability.
Report of the M16 Review Panel Appendix 5 Procurement
Report of the M16 Review Panel Appendix 7 Vietnam Surveys
Report of the M16 Panel appendix 10 the small arms program
Report of the M16 Review Panel Summary Report.

There are lots of posts on forum with shooters having malfunctions with steel cases in their AR15’s. That is all due to the cartridge being a wildcat and Bob Hutton not examining steel as a case material, and adjusting case parameters for reliable function.


The Russians took into account the material characteristics of steel as a case material, examining the expansion and contraction, along with the production technology, aiding the excellent function design of SKS's and AK47's. As such, these steel rounds are outstanding in feed and extraction. The 5.56 was created without spending any time or effort on alternatives, alternate materials, anything. As such, given the fact the case shape is not optimum for brass, it most certainly is not optimal for steel.

All the 5.56 has is velocity. Its bullet is a tiny little pill, about 77 grains is the maximum bullet weight you can go and still have the thing be within magazine dimensions. This has always been an issue as all the Army can do to bump up performance is increase the combustion pressures. There has been an incremental bump up of pressure from the early 1960's to date. The early M16's had a 20 inch barrel, then the M4 went to 16 inches, to get the velocity back, and any lethality back, the Army just bumps the pressures up some more. At some point, brass won't take it, jams happen, lugs crack. Etc, etc.

 

[Sistema1927]

.30-06 obsolete? Next somebody will say that the .30-30 can't kill deer anymore.

 

[sage5907]

I've had a 40+ year love affair with the 30-06. But sadly it's day is past. There are simply better cartridges today. There were better cartridges 100 years ago, but most of us didn't realize it. Other than for nostalgia I'd not recommend one to anyone anymore.

I'm curious as to what you would recommend?

Tell us the one cartridge that is your perfect replacement for a 30-06 and then explain why it is better?

 

[LoonWulf]

I dont shoot at 1k very offten, as in almost never. If im REALLY bored i might take a couple shots at a rock near where i exit the my normal evening hunting area that i know is somewhere around 1000yds. I hit it maybe 1 in 10 shots, and its a big rock.
Anyway I say that to highlight my LACK of ability at range.

All that said, I can obviously use all the help I can get.
The smaller higher BC bullets shoot flatter with less drift and recoil. I've had fewer "wow, that got blown farther than i thought" with smaller faster rounds, at the 400ish yards I'm more comfortable with. Drop really isn't an issue, even running stock data a bc calculator will get you pretty close inside of 500yds or so, close enough that making second round hits on fairly small targets isn't that hard. Gauging that suddent 10-15mph gust or lull in the wind tho, that's interesting.
For target shooting I'll happily give up payload on target for reduced wind drift and recoil.

If we're talking about hunting, I think there are a number of rounds that outclass the 06. The .280 and 7mm magnum come to mind as common options, unless you have reason to shoot heavier than 180gr bullets.
The 06 has the advantage of availability, tho usually if you can get 06, you can get 7mm.
I own an 06, probably always will just because every time I don't have one I find myself really WANTING one.
I rarely choose to use it, tho. It's my most common loaner gun, cause it's reliable and everyone know the 06 kills stuff. Confidence is more important than perfection.

 

[EIB0879]

.30-06 obsolete? Next somebody will say that the .30-30 can't kill deer anymore.

Because we know deer have made strides in technology in armor that render all but the newest rifle calibers ineffective.

 

[Bushpilot]

The Pederson will (and does) outpenetrate the .30-06 at the same bullet weight...

If the velocities were equal maybe, but they're not....... According to Cartridges of the World 6th ed., the 276 Pedersen was tested with bullets ranging from 120 to 150 gr. The velocity for the 120gr was 2550 fps and the 150gr was 2360 fps. Not very impressive velocity numbers... According to the History of Modern U.S. Military Small Arms Ammunition, Vol. I the higher velocity 30/06 exhibited better armor penetration than the 276 Pedersen.

 

[theotherwaldo]

As I understand it, the .30-06 was intended to engage targets in excess of 1000 yards range - in volley fire mode. By and large, the military leaders of the time had a great deal of contempt for the general abilities of their troops, especially their marksmanship. I have found several statements that the common troops shouldn't even have sights on their rifles - their sergeants should have a mechanism that connected all of their weapons together so that the sergeants could properly direct their fire. As this was impossible at the time (until the machine gun filled that role), sights were reluctantly added to the rifles of the common soldiers.
Thus, the .30-06 was designed to carry well over 1,000 yards, but fine accuracy was not the primary goal. Rather, massed fire and hitting power were the desired results. As smaller rounds could not deliver these results at this range, the .30 cartridge has been retained for longer ranged military weapons - unless even larger rounds like the .50 BMG were used.

 

[boom boom]

First, the .30-06 can be a jack of all trades with wide bullet selection, excellent availability, very good lethality for hunting or other purposes, etc. It may be technically obsolete but in trained hands and appropriate ammo selection does what is needed for most people. That being said, the design is over a century old and better powders, bullets, and glass exist so it won't be optimal for most applications today. That is leaving out the whole long action versus short, weight of the rifle, barrel lengths, etc.

On the broader use of small arms in the U.S. Military.

Small arms represented a backwater for the U.S. military (and really most militaries) during the twentieth century. Most casualties were caused by artillery, aerial bombs, mortars, etc. Rifles and pistols cause a pretty small fraction of deaths. Machine guns including those by aircraft also played a part along with booby traps, mines, etc. In some campaigns, diseases and weather conditions cause more casualties than did fighting.

In the era of mass armies of the twentieth century, the individual rifleman was often treated as cannon fodder. So is there any wonder why U.S. armies were ill-equipped in WWI and WWII in small arms (quantity). Lack of adequate training and unit replacement policies made it worst.

There is also the role of logistics--it is more difficult to have multiple different cartridges and supply ammo when needed. Thus, the tendency is to simply do what is good enough in a large bureaucratic organization--e.g. aiming to satisfice multiple different requirements. Thus, the Army Air Corp. used army developed cartridges for their machine guns as did the Navy and so forth despite the fact that cartridges optimized for particular uses might be better.

Regarding the Pedersen .276, or the British WWI era .276 P13 cartridge, or for that matter, the later British .280 British experimental rounds, the existing stocks of .30-06 and the need to change over machine guns etc or have two cartridges in logistics made that decision unpalatable to a Depression era Army budget levels. Spending money on a new small arms cartridge could very well have resulted in cutting R&D on tanks, aircraft, artillery etc. that would be critical in WWII. Historically speaking in a broader context, Gen. MacArthur probably did the right thing in demanding the .30-06 be kept giving the conditions when he made that decision. Had the interwar peace continued, it is possible that the U.S. would have changed its small arms eventually.

The British .276 had some teething problems in 1913 as new cartridges do but with the Brits involved in WWI by 1914 and the British were unprepared to field a large army, resources during the Great War were spent on other things rather than changing the British .303 cartridge despite its origin in black powder. The obsolete Lebel cartridge soldiered on to WWII with the major improvement being Balle D. in 1898 despite the 7.5x54 French cartridge development of the newer Mas 36 rifles. The French spent most of their money during the interwar years on airplanes, the Maginot line, tanks, and keeping their Navy up to date.

The era from 1890's to 1914 demonstrated a burst of creative energy in developing small arms cartridges because of the era of smokeless powder coupled with better steel alloys and production methods. Black powder small arms were made so obsolete that all militaries were forced to update.

Small arms cartridges moved from large slow bullets to smaller faster ones. Barrel rifling had to be adjusted as did barrel lengths with musket length barrels becoming obsolete. Bullet composition had to change as well and with the Hague conventions, newer ways to promote lethality, range, etc. were being examined. Each nation also sought to develop their own arms industries using components produced in that country as much as possible and tried to keep newer developments from other nations.

WWI tended to lock in what was already tried and proven due to the necessity of mass production techniques and leftovers from the Great War made it difficult to adopt new small arms technology until the pressure of events in WWII caused a new burst in development. Technology that would have languished in a lab and development phases during ordinary times and budgets were put in to immediate use and development occurred in the field. In some ways, it is remarkable that the U.S. fielded a semi-automatic rifle for general issue in WWII when every other nation was relying on a bolt action as their main issue weapon. During the War, the more general use of submachine guns in WWII and the experiences from the M1 Carbine and the Sturmgewehr became the grounds for developing assault rifle cartridges such as the 7.62x39 Russian as good enough and so forth.

The 1950's era of massive retaliation through atomic weapons in Europe made development of new small arms cartridges less important than developing missiles, new atomic artillery shells, and aircraft for the nuclear world. Is there any wonder that Springfield Armory simply adapted the M1 into the M14 do it all weapon to replace the BAR, M1, the M1 carbine, etc.? It just wasn't viewed at the strategic level as that important and money was scarce to feed the newly drafted large peacetime Army.

The M16 came about because the Air Force needed replacements for their M1 and M2 Carbines. It was McNamara's decision to drop the M14 and move to the M16 as the new general use rifle. Unfortunately, there was a war going on and moving to a new rifle and a new cartridge in the midst of a war is generally not advisable. Mistakes happened such as deemphasizing cleaning the rifle and inadequate supply of cleaning kits, lack of chrome lining, the change in powder type for the cartridge, and inadequate training using the new rifle caused people to get killed.

So, leaving aside spec-ops types, the challenge for the military today is how to spend scarce resources for general issue and how long to develop these weapons. A change in cartridge from the 5.56 will necessitate changing light machine guns, planning for a transition including stockpiling ammunition, developing and supervising contractors, etc., changing training to adapt to the new cartridge, bullet development for the military's peculiar needs such as incendiary rounds and penetration of helmets at range, staying withing the Hague convention's requirements as interpreted by JAG officers, changes in range backstops and distances if the new cartridge is a far flier, issues in correcting marksmanship if the new cartridge recoils more which can affect performance by gender or stature size, dealing with interservice rivalry as the Army cannot technically demand the Marines, Air Force, or Navy adopt the new cartridge, gas or piston action of the new rifle, barrel length, integral silencer or not, the politics of where the stuff is made and built, dealing with bureaucratic backlash from people whose ox is being gored, and so on. I am sure that I am leaving out a bunch of additional factors.

An individual choosing a cartridge can adopt one that meets an individual's needs. It is relatively simple on logistics as an individual can have multiple cartridges for different needs (varmint versus deer versus bear) with few repercussions. Thus, we can all enjoy discussing boattail versus flat based, different powder types and performance, crimping, primers, etc. and choose to buy or handload particular ammo to make a rifle perform to its optimal level in range and accuracy (and perhaps lethality).

When you are adopting a cartridge for general issue in the military, it will be a cartridge adopted by a committee and oversaw by general officers, contractors and their lobbyists, and politicians with widely different views on the appropriate use of military force and the role of the military in general. Is there any wonder that the Army bureaucracy simply falls back to the status quo rather than risking making an error? Then there is always the shimmering of potential new technologies such as lasers, caseless projectiles, railguns, etc. that will make all current small arms obsolete. Is there any wonder that the military simply falls back to the keeping the Stoner system and tweaking it (shorter barrels, different bullets, different pressure levels, etc. ) rather than risk screwing up? Look at the small scale debacle of the 6.8 SPC rollout with Remington screwing up the chamber dimensions or the larger debacles of the M14 transition from the M1 or the M16 implementation problems in Vietnam. Bureaucracies are risk averse and will normally prefer the devil they know versus uncharted lands.

 

[hps1]

An individual choosing a cartridge can adopt one that meets an individual's needs. It is relatively simple on logistics as an individual can have multiple cartridges for different needs (varmint versus deer versus bear) with few repercussions. Thus, we can all enjoy discussing boattail versus flat based, different powder types and performance, crimping, primers, etc. and choose to buy or handload particular ammo to make a rifle perform to its optimal level in range and accuracy (and perhaps lethality).

Great analysis, boom boom! And this brings us right back to the good old 30-06. While not perfect in all roles, it will do them all.

Regards,
hps

 

[Varminterror]

The nail gun didn’t make the roofing hammer obsolete, but it’s not a good idea to start a roofing business without air compressors in mind.

 

[boom boom]

The nail gun didn’t make the roofing hammer obsolete, but it’s not a good idea to start a roofing business without air compressors in mind.

Bad analogy.

A better one is like using a roofing specific hammer with a cool ergo grip versus a conventional jack of all trades 16 oz claw hammer. Both can work but the other works better at its intended task.

Spray and pray is not any better using an air compressor and roofing nail gun route than mag dumps from an AK. I have seen too many construction jobs where monkeys with air compressors manage to hit studs or rafters only occasionally by accident. Compressor fed nail guns are more comparable with large capacity "assault nailers" er I mean assault rifles. Obviously we need nail gun control as the risk of drive by nailings of innocent roofs and houses mandate magazine limits and the need to return to single nail hammers.

 

[Varminterror]

My note had nothing to do with speed, only suggesting a better tool for the job exists. A guy can still roof a house with a hammer, and a hammer isn’t without any use - aka, obsolete - but it doesn’t make much sense to build your business around a hammer, rather than the better tools.

 

[LoonWulf]

Bad analogy.

A better one is like using a roofing specific hammer with a cool ergo grip versus a conventional jack of all trades 16 oz claw hammer. Both can work but the other works better at its intended task.

Spray and pray is not any better using an air compressor and roofing nail gun route than mag dumps from an AK. I have seen too many construction jobs where monkeys with air compressors manage to hit studs or rafters only occasionally by accident. Compressor fed nail guns are more comparable with large capacity "assault nailers" er I mean assault rifles. Obviously we need nail gun control as the risk of drive by nailings of innocent roofs and houses mandate magazine limits and the need to return to single nail hammers.

"Monkey with a nail gun" is going to be my new range insult for my construction buddies.

 

[Slamfire]

I believe the reason given, in General MacArthur’s DF ending the 276 program, “we have in our wartime accumulations, as well in our current affairs, committed ourselves to the larger caliber .30” is a fallacious argument. I just looked this up, I think it could be called an Argument from Ignorance We, 80 years later, don’t really know the state of the ammunition stockpile, and like our representatives in Congress at the time, we generally believe that gunpowder, ammunition, lasts forever. Someone, in another thread, had a copy of a report about the status of the pre WW2 ammunition stockpile. He had specific numbers, and I wish I remembered the thread, and I wish I had his report. What I recall, is that the numbers were bad.

Let us remember, that those vast stockpiles of WW1 ammunition, were getting to be 20 plus years old in 1939. I really doubt much of that stockpile was lasting ten years, never mind 20 years.

Powder technology was such, that Picatinny Arsenal stated in this article:

Army Ordnance Magazine, June 1931, page 445 :

“Smokeless powder constitutes one of the greatest hazards from a storage standpoint, due to the fact that it is subject to deterioration and at the best cannot be expected to have a life greater than about twenty years…….Master samples of all lots of smokeless powder are under constant observation in the laboratories at Picatinny Arsenal. Should any of these samples indicate rapid deterioration, notification is given at once, and steps are taken to use this deteriorating material within a very short period, if possible, or else withdraw it from service.”

Picatinny Arsenal was a mite touchy about ammunition explosions, having had 600,000 tons of the stuff go kaboom in July 1926 http://thevane.gawker.com/july-10-1926-the-day-nature-blew-up-a-town-in-new-jer-1602586498

Hercules was bragging about gunpowder that was lasting 25 years.



If you examine material on the web, what you find does not provide any confidence that the munitions stockpile, left over from WW1, was in particularly good shape:

THE ORDNANCE DEPARTMENT: PLANNING MUNITIONS FOR WAR

Pg 62

Ammunition storage and maintenance caused the most trouble during these years. More money than for any other one purpose was earmarked for maintenance of the War Reserve; and of the total sum, annually about three fifths was for preservation of ammunition. To maintain a usable War Reserve, periodic surveillance of stocks was necessary, a careful testing of representative lots to detect incipient deterioration; lots that were no longer good must be renovated or replaced. In 1926 Public Law 318 authorized exchange of deteriorated ammunition for new, but adequate funds for renovation continued to be hard to get from congressmen who, despite the yearly attempts of Ordnance Department spokesmen to explain the chemistry of ammunition deterioration, found the argument unconvincing.

A special program of surveillance and renovation was started in 1928, when the Department not only exchanged some 4,000, 000 pounds of unserviceable powder for 360,000 pounds of new flashless, non hygroscopic powder, but also opened its first special renovation plants. …..While the 1929 Army survey and the 1930 inspections of Ordnance depots showed that storage depots contained seriously deteriorated stock "far in excess of quantities which [could] be properly maintained with available maintenance funds," by 1933 the Department was able to draw upon public works funds for some of its renovation work.


History of the Ammunition Industrial Base - Joint Munitions Command

http://www.jmc.army.mil/Docs/History/Ammunition Industrial Base v2 - 2010 update.pdf


Despite planning efforts, storage and maintenance of ammunition brought great challenges between WWI and WWII. More money was earmarked for maintenance of the war reserve than for any other purpose. Of the total sum , about 60% of the ammunition budget was spent annually for ammunition preservation. To maintain a useable War Reserve, periodic surveillance of stocks and careful testing of representative lots to detect incipient deterioration was necessary . Ammunition lots that were unserviceable had to be renovated or replaced. In 1926 , Public Law 318 authorized exchange of deteriorated ammunition for new, but adequate funding for renovation continued to be hard to obtain . Despite the yearly attempts of ordnance spokesmen n to explain the chemistry of ammunition deterioration, Congressmen found the argument unconvincing. By 1928, a special program of surveillance and renovation was started . The OD exchanged 4 million pounds of unserviceable powder for 350 K pounds of new flashless powder and also opened the firs t special renovation plants. Up to WWII , leaders continuously debated whether it was better to renovate old stocks than to buy all new ammunition . In October 1938, t he Ammunition Supply Division of Field Service estimated it would co st $19 million to renovate the ammunition items required to meet the war reserve for the Initial Protective Force. The OD decided to renovate artillery ammunition stocks, but realized future war requirements would require a large build up of the base.

Throughout the 1920s and 1930s research and modernization lagged. The DuPont Company was visionary in that they operated the nations sole TNT plant at low production levels in order to maintain the equipment, process , and expertise. As ammunition supplies were expended, there was no major resupply or modernization effort. At the same time, developments in weapons and doctrine, primarily abroad, rendered much of the stored ammunition obsolete. Poor storage conditions led to the deterioration of viable modern stocks and Congressional budgets for ammunition were at a starvation rate. Thus, the ammunition stockpile was not maintained properly .


So, while there is an absence of good definitive records, such as stockpile surveillance reports, what you can read is that the ammunition stockpile is rapidly deteriorating, is costing the Army a major chunk of its 1930’s money, and, if you have any understanding of the topic, old ammunition does not get better with age.

I am of the opinion that the reasoning given in the memo : “we have in our wartime accumulations, as well in our current affairs, committed ourselves to the larger caliber .30” is a do nothing decision. The do nothing decision is easy to make; you just do nothing. Do nothing decisions are made all the time. Individuals, organizations, love the status quo, are committed to the status quo, and will fight to keep the status quo. Doing nothing turns out to have a lot of support and supporters. And, you can create a library of reasons, to do nothing.

So, the Army made a do nothing decision prior to WW2, but after WW2, they do change the cartridge. I wish I was around and had the documentation to know what conditions created the topple point. I believe all large organizations are incapable of self-reform, they only change because of external influences. Something created the conditions, that high level people in the organization realized, the 30-06 was is too long and it was about time to get a new service round. Somebody or group of some bodies had the tenure, the power, and authority, to force through change, inside an organization that does not accept change well.What they ended up getting was the 30-06 short, the 7.62 Nato round. While I like the 7.62 Nato, probably would have been a supporter of the 7.62 Nato round, history shows, I was on the wrong side of history. I do believe the 276 Pedersen was a good round and would have made an excellent service round.

Notice the 276 Pedersen is coated in a wax lubricant:

 

[792mauser]

"Monkey with a nailgun"
That's priceless.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

So, the Army made a do nothing decision prior to WW2, but after WW2, they do change the cartridge. I wish I was around and had the documentation to know what conditions created the topple point.

The development of ball powder (originally for the .30 carbine round) made it possible to duplicate the .30 Cal M2 ballistics with a case half an inch shorter. When you're buying cartridges by the billions, a half inch represents a huge savings in brass.