Why .30 caliber historically for military?

[Reloadron]

Reloadron:
Is one major reason for the Garand's design for the 30-06 (M2 Ball) because we had huge stockpiles of the ammo left over from WW1?
The primary US rifle by 1918 was the modified Enfield M1917.

Maybe this was Gen. MacArthur's prime motivation for the decision.

I have heard that theory kicked around. MacArthur liked the 30-06 round and to give credit where due MacArthur was well acquainted with the battlefield. This was a time when the then War Department actually listened to Generals with time in the field. Unfortunately those days ended long ago and now such decisions seem to be made by people within the cozy confines of the Department of Defense who never saw a battlefield or experienced battle. Along comes NATO and we sort of go with the flow and matters of war become politically aligned I guess.

Beats me!

Ron

 

[David4516]

I'm not saying anything against the Mauser, fine rifle, but what was so bad about the Krag?

Agreed. The Krag is a great rifle, had a friend who used to hunt with one (the previous owner had "sporterized" it). My dad ended up buying the rifle from my friend. I am amazed at how well it shoots for a 100+ year old firearm.

I decided I needed one too, found another "sporterized" one for sale for $200 and bought it. I have not had a chance to shoot it yet but hope to very soon (finally have all the reloading components I need for it).

The 30 Army (30-40) was loaded with a heavy 220 grain bullet. Switching to a 180 grain bullet would have added velocity

180 does seem to be the perfect bullet weight for this caliber. Preformance for .30-40 with 180gr isn't that much behind .308 / 7.62 NATO with the same bullet weight.

.30-40, 2400 FPS

.308 /7.62, 2550 FPS

 

[Vern Humphrey]

What was so bad about the Krag?

To understand the problem recognize that repeating military rifles were quite new. There had been the Spencer in the Civil War, but that was more of a glorified pistol. With smokeless powder, true small-bore repeaters (and machine guns) were possible.

One problem associated with these new smokeless repeaters was how does a soldier manage his ammunition in combat? Repeaters had a bad habit of being repeaters at long range, and suddenly running dry as the battle heated up. There were several possible solutions to the problem:

1. Large magazine capacity. That was the British approach. The Lee rifle had a 10 round magazine.

2. Switching magazines. The Lee was orginally issued with two spare magazines, which the soldier carried on his suspenders.

3. Continuous reloading. That was the Krag approach -- it could be reloaded with the bolt closed on a chambered round.

4. The stripper clip. That was the Mauser approach.

In the Spanish American war (1898), the Mauser delivered more firepower than the Krag. Coincidentally, the British had the same experience in the Second Boer War (1899 to 1901).

Attempts were made to modify the Krag for clip loading, but in the end it was decided to adopt a new rifle -- the Krag with its single locking lug had limited strength, and a dual locking lug system like the Mauser was seen as superior. Hence the M1903 Springfield.

Interestingly enough, the clip solution continued on into the M1 Garand. The Garand would have been simpler and quicker to mass produce if it had omitted the en bloc clip and simply used a sheet metal detatchable magazine like the BAR (and the later M14.)

 

[k_dawg]

Most men can not accurately fire a battle rifle firing a 30 caliber rifle cartridge. Most can handle a semi-automatic in 30 cal. Coupled with the desire to carry more rounds, many nations started to switch over to a smaller caliber [NATO 5.56 ], or a non rifle 30 caliber [7.62x39R]

 

[Kleanbore]

Most black powder breech loading military rifles were chambered for cartridges of 11MM or a little larger.

As previously mentioned, the French Lebel was chambered for an 8MM cartridge, and most, but not all, of the smokeless military rifles that were developed to compete were chambered for 7MM, 7.5MM. 7.62MM, 7.65MM 7.7MM (which would include .303 British), 7.92MM, or 8MM cartridges.

I think the reason for the similarity among black powder cartridges and among the smokeless cartridges most likely resulted from the military requirements--effective range and penetration-- that generally prevailed at the time.

There were a few exceptions; Greece, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Romania, and Sweden chose 6.5MM chamberings. Reasons varied; I have heard recoil mentioned with respect to the Japanese Arisaka, and logistics (ammunition weight) mentioned as it concerned the 6.5X55.

All of these users eventually changed over to 7.62, 7.7, or 7.92 cartridges either during or after WWII. One reason may have had to do with the availability of supplies of US arms, but there is substantial evidence that the users were simply not satisfies with the performance of the 6.5MM rifles for military use, particularly in Italy and Japan.

It is interesting to note that many of the .45-70 and 45-90 black powder hunting rifles were replaced in this country by .30WCF, .30 Army, .303 Savage, and .32 Winchester Special rifles around a lot of campfires.

 

[pseudonymity]

Part of it may have to do with the fact that .30 was about the sweet size of portability and range when the Industrial Revolution really got into full swing.

Once you have a stockpile of hundreds of thousands or millions of rounds of ammo and a standing peacetime army of that size also, switching calibers is not quite as simple.

Especially after WW2, warfare became much more about remote power projection and force multipliers - mechanized land force and aerial bombing.

If I am fighting in infantry, I want as much ammo and clean water as I can carry, and close air support and evac to get me out if needed. If I am running the war, I want precision high explosives and reliable intelligence for targeting the enemy. Bombs do not sleep, eat, require training, promotion or pensions.

 

[denton]

The prevailing military theory of the early 20th century was built around the question of how many square feet of territory a soldier could control. If you had enough soldiers per square mile, you could theoretically control that territory.

If you could arm a soldier in a way that allowed him to control more territory, then you could reduce your soldier density and control more territory. Hence, the notion in some circles was that soldiers needed rifles that could kill effectively at longer distances. That gave rise to powerful cartridges like the 8x57, 7.62x54R, and 30-06.

Reality was a little different from that early theory. In some respects it is better to wound your enemy than kill him outright, most engagements were fought at fairly close range, and many soldiers weren't very good marksmen. That led toward a shift to firearms that weren't especially accurate, but could put a lot of lead downrange in a hurry, without a 500 yard "reach" or a lot of recoil. The AK-47 is a good example of this approach.

 

[gbeecher]

Real world use...

Smaller calibers were tried, such as the 6mm Lee-Navy, 6.5x50 Arisaka, 6.5x52 Mannlicher-Carcano, 6.5x54 Mannlicher-Schoenauer and so on. These were found to be somewhat lacking in power at longer ranges and had reduced terminal power compared to the .30 caliber rounds. However, the 7mm Mauser perfomed well. I personally think that the old .276 Pedersen or .280 British would have made an excellent all-around military cartridge.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

However, the 7mm Mauser perfomed well. I personally think that the old .276 Pedersen or .280 British would have made an excellent all-around military cartridge.

those were two very different approaches -- the .276 Petersen was about as powerful as the 7X57 Mauser, while the .280 British was a monster based on the .280 Ross and more powerful than the 7mm Remington Magnum -- and hugely over-bore for the powders of the day.

 

[dalesp]

I remember hearing that one of the military's requirements in the early 20th century be that the firearm should be able to dispatch a horse with a single shot at close range. They did not want to impart inhumane suffering onto wounded horses.

 

[Chisos]

Page 165 in Hatchers Notebook, tells of the demise of the .276 round by General MacArthur. Hatcher states that "This decision, which as proved by later events was eminently sound, ended the work on the .276 rifles."

 

[gbeecher]

those were two very different approaches -- the .276 Petersen was about as powerful as the 7X57 Mauser, while the .280 British was a monster based on the .280 Ross and more powerful than the 7mm Remington Magnum -- and hugely over-bore for the powders of the day.

The .280 British was not a 'monster'. It was developed in the mid to late 1940's as a replacement for the .303 British. Ballisticly, it was similar to the 6.5x54 Mannlicher-Schonauer cartridge. Both the .276 Pedersen and .280 British cartridges were attempts to design a better intermediate military cartridge. The German 7.92x33 Kurz round made a huge impact on firearm and cartridge designers after WWII.

 

[Steel Horse Rider]

Group think and the herd mentality are probably as good of a couple of reasons as any given the ways of humanity.

 

[MistWolf]

Reloadron:
Is one major reason for the Garand's design for the 30-06 (M2 Ball) because we had huge stockpiles of the ammo left over from WW1?
The primary US rifle by 1918 was the modified Enfield M1917.

Maybe this was Gen. MacArthur's prime motivation for the decision.

Yep

 

[Jim Watson]

The .280 British was not a 'monster'. It was developed in the mid to late 1940's as a replacement for the .303 British.

He is referring to what was known then as the ".276 inch" Enfield rifle of 1913. Some sources call it the .280 because of confusion with the .280 Ross, which it is not.

That was back when range and power were still important. They carefully calculated that a 7mm spitzer bullet would give the greatest range and penetration with bearable recoil.
It is commonly listed with a 165 gr bullet at 2800 fps, which is respectable but not a Magnum. I don't think you would want a .280 Ross or 7mm R.M. in an infantry rifle to be shot at Germans all day.



The huge stockpiles of .30-06 ammo left over from WW I is usually cited as the excuse for staying with the caliber and not going with the .276 Pedersen (in the Garand rifle.)
I don't know what they did with all that ammunition. A lot of it was of poor quality and it was all obsoleted in 1925 by the M1 round with 173 gr gilding metal jacketed boattail bullet. Better to have scrapped it except that by the time the automatic rifles like Garand and Pedersen were ready for prime time, it was the middle of the Depression.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

He is referring to what was known then as the ".276 inch" Enfield rifle of 1913. Some sources call it the .280 because of confusion with the .280 Ross, which it is not.

That was back when range and power were still important. They carefully calculated that a 7mm spitzer bullet would give the greatest range and penetration with bearable recoil.
It is commonly listed with a 165 gr bullet at 2800 fps, which is respectable but not a Magnum. I don't think you would want a .280 Ross or 7mm R.M. in an infantry rifle to be shot at Germans all day.

With modern powders, it would be much more powerful. The P13 was designed for the .280, and it spawned the P14 and M1917. The latter rifle will take 7 .30-06 rounds, so you can tell the original British cartridge was quite large.

The huge stockpiles of .30-06 ammo left over from WW I is usually cited as the excuse for staying with the caliber and not going with the .276 Pedersen (in the Garand rifle.)
I don't know what they did with all that ammunition. A lot of it was of poor quality and it was all obsoleted in 1925 by the M1 round with 173 gr gilding metal jacketed boattail bullet. Better to have scrapped it except that by the time the automatic rifles like Garand and Pedersen were ready for prime time, it was the middle of the Depression.

Actually, much of the logistics problem was that we already had a series of automatic weapons chambered for the .30-06, the M1917 water cooled machinegun, the M1918 Browning Automatic Rifle, and the M1919 air cooled machinegun. Those would all have to be replaced had we switched cartridges -- a much more expensive proposition than merely scrapping the ammo we had in stock.

 

[akodo]

Guns have been improving through the ages, along with steel and gunpowder. Weak steel and poor gunpowder have been limiting factors. You can pour more gunpowder into your muzzle loader, but you don't get any more velocity, just more muzzle flash. So to get more energy you have to combine a bigger charge with a bigger projectile.

Back in the musket days, there'd be 87 caliber muskets, 69 caliber, 54 caliber, etc. For hunting elephants they'd use '4 bore' and '2 bore' and other just giant guns...because the projectiles couldn't go that fast.

Technology improved, powders improved. Most infantrymen where chucking 69 caliber balls at each-other in our revolutionary war period. This is also the period where the grizzly got it's reputation for being nearly impossible to kill...using similar firearms (not many people were packing elephant guns into the Rockies). During the civil war the standard was .58 mini ball. Our first metallic cartridge was the 50-70 (50 caliber bullet on 70 grains of black powder) followed by the 45-70. There were less powerful cartridges like the 44 henry which had a lot less power but you could get 13 shots in a lever action. However, the armies of the day went with big powerful cartridges because these slow-firing guns had enough range that a unit could volley-fire at another unit a mile away and the smaller 44 henry couldn't do that. Part of this was also the lessons of the civil war hadn't really sunk in (troops wouldn't just march in from 3 miles away in nice tidy blocks of soldiers, and start taking hits at 1 mile and keep on marching forward) and part of it was the constant fear of soldiers wasting ammo if they had fast firing guns.

Notice anything here? The trend was to get smaller and smaller bullets.

At the 'end' of the black-powder age a very common deer cartridge was the 38-55, with things like the 45-70 being good for deer but also good big bear medicine.

Then along came the 30-30. It was considered to be nearly identical to the 38-55 as far as utility but a little bit more long range. It's name of course means a 30 caliber bullet on 30 grains of the newer better smokeless powder. So here you see another jump in getting smaller because things are getting faster.

Well, a lot of the armies of the world who WERE using 40 to 50 caliber bullets on roughly 60 to 70 of blackpowder moved over to smaller bullets of between 25 and 35 caliber on roughly 40 grains of smokeless powder. Bullet design was still being learned about, and not all types of the modern smokeless powder were equal. The brits had a real problem getting good killing power out of their 303...this is part of the reason they experimented with different home-remedies like making dum-dum bullets. They just weren't initially able to push the 30 caliber fast enough to get the same lethality as their 45 caliber Martini-Henry rifles.

The USA was just issuing the Krag Jorgensen in 30-40 when we got in a fight with the Spanish. Now, the Krag design was specifically chosen because it was thought to be slower to reload and hence the troops would waste more ammo. A lot of troops were still using 45-70s when we got in this fight. The Spanish were firing 7mm rifles at us. Their bullets were a lot faster, partly because they were more areodynamic. They were also a lot more potent. The 30-40 krag cartridge was throwing it's 220 grain projectile at just under 2000 fps while the 7mm was hitting in the 2400 fps range. (The army liked heavy projectiles because of how much retained energy it still had at half a mile out). Well that 7mm sure had some killing power. The US was suffering from the same problem as the brits had with the 303. Apparently you needed to push the bullet to around 2200 of 2300 fps and you'd get a lot better lethality.

So, the quality of the smokeless powder, the strength of the steel, and the need to be a bit over the 2000 ft-lb threshold meant that various calibers between 6.5mm and 8.5mm would be used.

again as powders got better and better and the armies of the world learned again and again how little shooting was ever done at close to maximum range, we got even smaller and even faster cartridges.


Note on Elephant guns. The 45 to 55 caliber black powder rifles in Africa were considered 'small bore' and suitable for shooting antelope, zebra, and the like with the big 4 bore (firing a quarter pound of lead with each shot) was 'big bore'. Once smokeless powder and the power it gave became common, the 45 to 55 class became the new 'big bore'...which is why you had 470 Nitro Express and 458 Winchester Magnums being used today for the elephant

 

[akodo]

In 1892 the US Army adopted the Krag in what is today called the 30-40. It's said that as a result of going up against Spanish Mausers in Cuba the Krag was deemed inadequate and the 30-03 & 30-06 developed. Now I'm not saying anything against the Mauser, fine rifle, but what was so bad about the Krag? Used to own one and never saw anything wrong with it. If nothing else, it was the smoothest action that ever came down the pike and very easy to load, doesn't even have use for stripper clips. Can load it wearing very heavy mittens.

Nothing was wrong with the Krag rifle. In fact it was originally picked because it was thought to be slower to reload, but the spanish had all sorts of trouble with their stripper clips.

No, the problem was the bullet being used. It was a big old round nosed 220 grain bullet, barely making 2000 fps at the muzzle (the carbines couldn't even make that) Turns out to really get superior terminal performance out of a small bore you need 2200 or so fps. The Spanish Mauser was using a 170 grain bullet .28 caliber, going 2300. It was also a spitzer shape.

So the USA packed more powder into the 30-40 cartridge, got it up to 2200 fps, but the rifles started to show signs of not handling the higher pressure...so the cartridges were loaded back down to 2000 fps and we went shopping for a new cartridge and gun. Enter the Springfield Mauser Copy and the 30-45 also known as the 30-03. A few years later we went to a pointy bullet and renamed the 30-03 the 30-06.

Had we followed the advice of the Norwegians we'd have gotten the 6.5x55mm version of the Krag-Jorgensen rifle and who knows what direction our arms would have gone after that. One thing for sure we'd have not needed to upgrade to the Springfeild rifle, our guns would have matched the spanish mausers and anything found in WW1. Our machineguns may have been at a slight disadvantage however

 

[Jim Watson]

Actually, much of the logistics problem was that we already had a series of automatic weapons chambered for the .30-06, the M1917 water cooled machinegun, the M1918 Browning Automatic Rifle, and the M1919 air cooled machinegun. Those would all have to be replaced had we switched cartridges -- a much more expensive proposition than merely scrapping the ammo we had in stock.

Why?
Are we not doing just that very thing right now?
We have 5.56 and 7.62 rifles and machine guns in service side by side.

The new infantry rifle could have been supplied with .276 on enbloc clips and the existing machine guns and BARs with .30 on belts and boxes.

With modern powders, it (.276 pattern 1913) would be much more powerful.

Well, yeah, but that would defeat the design criterion of good ballistics with moderate recoil. You can stand the kick of a heavy hunting rifle on one critter, but sustained fire with a magnum type will degrade your accuracy and rate of fire. A friend has a biography of a "gentleman ranker" in the British army vs Napoleon. One day's note "Fired 70 rounds ball today. My shoulder is black."

The Spanish Mauser was using a 170 grain bullet .28 caliber, going 2300. It was also a spitzer shape.

This is news to me, it is described as a roundnose in my sources. I saw a letter from W.D.M Bell to Rigby management with concern that barrels rifled for their then new 145 grain semi-spitzer might not handle the 175 grain full patch he depended on.

Had we followed the advice of the Norwegians we'd have gotten the 6.5x55mm version of the Krag-Jorgensen rifle

That is a disagreeable thought.
I have wondered if we might not have come out better to have just bought the whole design package from Mauser and issued a .30x2 1/4" (7.62x57.) Model 1898 instead of a Colonial Knockoff.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Why?
Are we not doing just that very thing right now?
We have 5.56 and 7.62 rifles and machine guns in service side by side.

We are also a much richer nation, with massive logistics capabilities that we did not have in those days.

Well, yeah, but that would defeat the design criterion of good ballistics with moderate recoil. You can stand the kick of a heavy hunting rifle on one critter, but sustained fire with a magnum type will degrade your accuracy and rate of fire. A friend has a biography of a "gentleman ranker" in the British army vs Napoleon. One day's note "Fired 70 rounds ball today. My shoulder is black."

The British did not have a design criterion of moderate recoil -- they wanted all the power they could get.

I have wondered if we might not have come out better to have just bought the whole design package from Mauser and issued a .30x2 1/4" (7.62x57.) Model 1898 instead of a Colonial Knockoff

We tried that, but Mauser wanted too much money.

 

[HorseSoldier]

We ended up fighting the war while having to support 30-06, 30 Carbine, and 45 cal shoulder fired weapons.

The story with the 276 Pedersen Garand is that it would have been a couple pounds lighter than the 30-06 Garand (plus two more rounds in the mag), which might have voided the need for the M1Carbine entirely, either as is or in a rifle caliber carbine version of the 276 Garand.

Either way, the caliber footprint would have been a wash with what actually happened, and the guys at the sharp end would have had a better optimized long gun than they had. Adopting the Garand was one of the few high points in US small arms back when the generals (MacArthur and otherwise) were pulling ideas out of their backsides and shafting the troops with them. It put the US briefly ahead of everyone else. Had they adopted it in 276 with a 20 round detachable box magazine (another concept that was anathema to those wise generals in the 20s and 30s) we would have gone into WW2 with a weapon that, even semi-auto only, would have been just as revolutionary as the StG-44.

 

[justice06rr]

The calibers you mention were considered small bore, and lighter recoiling for that time period (late 1800's/early 1900's).

The 7.62x54R has considerable recoil and was used in the 1900's and has a significant amount of recoil....

I'm no expert, but I'd say that we've seen a long-term (as in multi-century) drive toward smaller calibers as technology improved. .70 cal, to .50 cal, then .45, then .30, then .22...

The number of 30's you're seeing may just be a function of metallurgy and cartridge technology mixed with typical military conservatism, plus logistics concerns.

I tend to agree with this. 30cal is a great caliber, but a .22cal (5.56NATO) is sufficient and allows you to carry a more rounds and lighter loadout.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

We ended up fighting the war while having to support 30-06, 30 Carbine, and 45 cal shoulder fired weapons.

The story with the 276 Pedersen Garand is that it would have been a couple pounds lighter than the 30-06 Garand (plus two more rounds in the mag), which might have voided the need for the M1Carbine entirely, either as is or in a rifle caliber carbine version of the 276 Garand.

Either way, the caliber footprint would have been a wash with what actually happened, and the guys at the sharp end would have had a better optimized long gun than they had. Adopting the Garand was one of the few high points in US small arms back when the generals (MacArthur and otherwise) were pulling ideas out of their backsides and shafting the troops with them. It put the US briefly ahead of everyone else. Had they adopted it in 276 with a 20 round detachable box magazine (another concept that was anathema to those wise generals in the 20s and 30s) we would have gone into WW2 with a weapon that, even semi-auto only, would have been just as revolutionary as the StG-44.

Has anyone here actually used the .30-06 Garand in combat?

I was one of the last infantrymen trained on the Garand, and in 1966 was an adviser with 4/48 ARVN infantry. My issue weapon was the M2 Carbine, which got wrapped around a tree. I bummed an M1 Garand from the ARVN and used that for the rest of my tour.

My second tour, I bullied my battalion commander into getting me two M14 sniper rifles (pre-M 21) and since I had only one school-trained sniper in the company, I carried the other one.

Let me assure you, keeping the .30-06 (and the later 7.62X51mm NATO) was not a mistake! Those two rifles, the M1 and M14 are head and shoulders above any competing smaller caliber weapon in real combat.

MacArthur was right when he said, "Infantrymen have to shoot through things."

 

[Sergei Mosin]

Vern, you've mentioned the incident with your M2 before, but not elaborated to my knowledge. If you don't mind telling the story, just how did it get wrapped around a tree?

 

[JohnKSa]

My theory is that a process something like evolution, selects calibers that work best for the application at hand. By "work best", I mean that they provide the needed result while not requiring unnecessarily heavy penalties in terms of weight, recoil, etc.

That means that you can get a feel for what works by looking at what's most commonly used, and, in turn, what is most commonly used gives you a feel for what the "environment" has selected as providing the best balance of performance and "cost" based on the currently available technology.

When smoothbore muskets were state of the art, .60 to .70 caliber was what the process selected as "fittest".

When rifles came on the scene, military bore sizes gradually declined to about .45 to .46 caliber and stayed there.

When smokeless powder became common, military rifle calibers initially settled in the .308-.312 range.

As smokeless powder technology improved and bullet design/engineering developed, we've seen a further reduction in caliber that leaves the .308 as the upper limit for general purpose applications and that has widened the range all the way down to .22 caliber.

I suspect that .22 caliber will be the lower limit because below that point, very small bore sizes begin to impose other practical limitations due to sensitivity to fouling, more fragile cleaning equipment, etc.