Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 7/6/2002 3:47:00 PM EDT
I was told that the .06 was way more powerful but it would not stack as neatly in a detachable magazine as the .308. Is this so can you clarify? Just curious, my father-in-law asked me and I had no idea...
Link Posted: 7/6/2002 3:55:15 PM EDT
The .30-'06 is indeed more powerful, and its recoil makes it unsuitable for a full-auto infantry rifle. Thus, the M-14, the Garand's successor, was chambered for .308, and even with the smaller round the average person has trouble controlling it in full auto.
Link Posted: 7/6/2002 3:56:32 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/6/2002 3:57:09 PM EDT by poikilotrm]
Link Posted: 7/6/2002 5:09:02 PM EDT
now i am no expert but from i gather it is called......NATO........
Link Posted: 7/6/2002 5:59:06 PM EDT
I have read that they wanted a shorter action, and therefore went with a shorter bullet.

There is actually very little difference between the two rounds as far as power. The Army essentially wanted the 30-06 in a slightly shorter case. Our pals in NATO wanted something less powerful - a .280. We forced them into the .308, they all adopted .308 rifles, and then we went to .223. They were not happy.
Link Posted: 7/6/2002 6:13:25 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/6/2002 6:36:42 PM EDT by Arock]
Trying to remember where I read that the change from 30.06 to .308 came about when the military was no longer faced with neutralizing horses and mules as well as humans.

During War2 my Dad trained Chinese troops in India using pack mules for transport in the jungle and over the mountains into Burma. He was one of the 5307 Composite Provisional guys and worked out of Ramgarh. Mules take a lot more killing than a human.

I guess that was the last time equine transport was widespread. At least until those pics of our SF guys riding horses in the Afghan last fall.
Link Posted: 7/6/2002 6:38:51 PM EDT
30-06 and 308 would kill a mule or horse with equal effectiveness. Ballistically, they are quite similar.

Because of it's shorter powder column, the .308 is more efficient and tends to have a slight edge in accuracy over the 30-06.

Because it can hold a bit more powder, the 30-06 performs better than the .308 when bullets weighing 180 grains or more are used.

The Army primarilly wanted a shorter 30-06. It got it with the .308.
Link Posted: 7/6/2002 6:38:58 PM EDT
I deer hunt with the .30-06 and would not want to fire a full-auto chambered for this cartridge. It's not that it kicks terribly, just that it would be hard to control as Marvl said. I will tell you this though, the .30-06 will harness any North American game including Grizzly.
Link Posted: 7/6/2002 6:50:51 PM EDT

Originally Posted By WhiskeyBravo:
I deer hunt with the .30-06 and would not want to fire a full-auto chambered for this cartridge. It's not that it kicks terribly, just that it would be hard to control as Marvl said. I will tell you this though, the .30-06 will harness any North American game including Grizzly.



My Dad carried a BAR some of the time when they were in the jungle. He was a tall Texan General Stillwell called Tex. He said it was a good weapon but heavy.

Being an officer when he was in a jeep he had his M1 in a scabbard by his seat.
Link Posted: 7/6/2002 7:05:19 PM EDT
I think Boomer hit the nail on the head, and I would add the shorter cartridge makes the round useful in assault rifles (think para FAL).
Link Posted: 7/7/2002 10:54:10 PM EDT

Originally Posted By WhiskeyBravo:
I will tell you this though, the .30-06 will harness any North American game including Grizzly.



I have read, & I believe, that the 30-06 has harvested every game in the world including elephant. Of course, some of those loads may have been helped a bit. >gg<
Link Posted: 7/7/2002 11:07:06 PM EDT
The 7.62X51 allowed for a higher cyclic rate and reduced weight, while the power stayed almost exactly the same, due to advancements in powder development.
Link Posted: 7/7/2002 11:31:05 PM EDT
I believe there is only about a 100 feet per second difference in velocity.
Link Posted: 7/8/2002 6:46:40 AM EDT

Frankford Arsenal developed the (then) new .30 caliber cartridge using improved rifle propellants which gave the same energy but with less powder in the case. After experimentation it was found that the .300 Savage with an elongated neck was the optimum .30 caliber cartridge. The new cartridge would have a case 51 MM in length, almost one half inch shorter than the standard 30/06, yet provided the same exterior ballistics as the larger case.
(Initially designated as the T-65 round.)

The Brits had developed and liked the .280 - the U.S. military didn't believe this cartridge was powerful enough for military* use ........so, the U.S. goes with the T-44 rifle (a direct descendant of the M-1) chambered in .308. In 1957 the U.S. military selected the T-44 and changed the designator to U.S. Rifle, 7.62 MM M-14.



* Eugene Stoner also didn't believe the .280 (or the .223 (5.56MM) ) cartridges were powerful enough for military use. The prototypes Stoner brought with him to ArmaLite were 30/06 weapons.
___________________________________________

Armalite:

1953 -AR-1 designed by George Sullivan as a bolt-action parasniper was chambered in .308.

1954-55 Stoner comes to ArmaLite with his prototypes chambered in 30/06. (Stoner had been designing 'dental plates' just before ArmaLite)

1956 - ArmaLite patents the AR-3 but by this time the caliber has been changed from 30/06 to .308. (This was the first rifle (I believe) where the excess gas was routed out of the action and brought felt-recoil more under control. This same principle was used later in the AR-10, AR-15 and SR-25 rifles.)

1957 ish - The first AR-10 prototype comes but is chambered in 30/06 - all AR-10 prototypes after the first were chambered in .308.

Looks like after about 1957 all .30 caliber rifles had shifted to the .308.
-----------------------------------------

Most of the above is found in "The ArmaLite AR-10." book.
Link Posted: 7/8/2002 8:03:11 AM EDT

Originally Posted By 5subslr5:

..........the (then) new .30 caliber cartridge using improved rifle propellants which gave the same energy but with less powder in the case. After experimentation it was found that the .300 Savage with an elongated neck was the optimum .30 caliber cartridge. The new cartridge would have a case 51 MM in length, almost one half inch shorter than the standard 30/06, yet provided the same exterior ballistics as the larger case.



This is the short version and about the same answer as "Disgustipated" gave above.
Link Posted: 7/8/2002 2:16:25 PM EDT
Link Posted: 7/9/2002 1:07:29 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/9/2002 1:08:08 AM EDT by Fuzzbean]
As others have said, the ballistics of the .308 are just about identical to the military 150 grain bullet .30-06 load. With modern powders, the .30-06 can be loaded to beat the .308 significantly, but the military never loaded it that way.

The .308 used less brass than the .30-06, and allowed the soldier to carry a bit more ammo.

Also, making the cartridge 1/2 inch shorter means the bolt of the rifle can be 1/2 inch shorter. Then the bolt stroke can also be 1/2 inch shorter, which means the receiver of the rifle can potentially be a full inch shorter than before. It's a good thing.
Link Posted: 7/9/2002 6:04:29 AM EDT
The 06 is not way more powerful. Here are the comparative ballistics from Federal Cartridge using Sierra 165 GameKing bullets.

Velocity at 100yds 500 yds
30-06 2610fps 1910fps
308 2520fps 1830fps


Energy ft-lb
30-06 2490 1340
308 2310 1230

Both of these cartridges are loaded with the same bullet. Since the 06 has about 90fps higher velocity at 100 yds it will retain that advancage throughout its downrange flight....ECS
Top Top