So, what exactly did US military gain by switching from 30-06 to .308?
- Thread starter ezmiraldo
- Start date
Gary L. Griffiths
New member
Supposedly the 7.62X51, being about a half-inch shorter, feeds better in automatic weapons. I've never been a fanboy of the .308, but I really love my M1A Scout Squad!
Shorter case is better for cycling in automatic guns.
Slightly more efficient in powder usage.
Slightly lighter, means a soldier could carry slightly more ammo for a given weight.
For a .30 it's fine. If you need to step it up a notch or two, they have the .338 lapua and .50BMG
That velocity loss isn't going to make any noticeable real world difference in terminal performance, and the difference in trajectory is pretty negligible, considering most engagements occur at short(ish) ranges, and sharpshooters and marksmen would likely have optics where they could easily adjust elevation.
Slightly more efficient in powder usage.
Slightly lighter, means a soldier could carry slightly more ammo for a given weight.
For a .30 it's fine. If you need to step it up a notch or two, they have the .338 lapua and .50BMG
That velocity loss isn't going to make any noticeable real world difference in terminal performance, and the difference in trajectory is pretty negligible, considering most engagements occur at short(ish) ranges, and sharpshooters and marksmen would likely have optics where they could easily adjust elevation.
As stated above, cycling an automatic weapon would be faster with it. Also the average distance at which firefights with small arms occurs is well within the effective range of the shorter cartridge.
Mathematically speaking, the 308 has something like 95% of the velocity of a 30-06.
Mathematically speaking, the 308 has something like 95% of the velocity of a 30-06.
Last edited:
carguychris
New member
Also consumes less raw materials to manufacture.
Because it is a NATO round. Same reason why we use 9mm and 5.56. I imagine that it was chosen as such due to a cross between acceptable ballistics, manufacturing costs, and availability on an international level.
Before someone says anything, the military does use non standrad cartridges as well, but they are not issued to the majority.
Before someone says anything, the military does use non standrad cartridges as well, but they are not issued to the majority.
Mike Irwin
Staff
It became the NATO standard because we forced it on NATO. we did not adopt it because it was already the NATO standard round.
The same is true with a 5.56. in fact, when the United States developed an adopted the 5.56 round, it caused a lot of anger with our NATO allies, because we force them to spend money to develop fire arms for the 7.62, and then we abandoned it.
A number of NATO nations did not move away from the 7.62 for decades, in large part because they were still angry at the United States.
one important reason for the 7.62 being developed was that during World War II, the copper used in the cartridge cases was an extremely short supply, leading to a serious ammunition shortages.
it might only seem like a little bit of brass on one case, but it adds up very quickly.
The same is true with a 5.56. in fact, when the United States developed an adopted the 5.56 round, it caused a lot of anger with our NATO allies, because we force them to spend money to develop fire arms for the 7.62, and then we abandoned it.
A number of NATO nations did not move away from the 7.62 for decades, in large part because they were still angry at the United States.
one important reason for the 7.62 being developed was that during World War II, the copper used in the cartridge cases was an extremely short supply, leading to a serious ammunition shortages.
it might only seem like a little bit of brass on one case, but it adds up very quickly.
I stand corrected, Mike. After reading about it a little more, it seems like the desire for standardization with NATO was a greater factor than finding the "perfect" round, and the US had a large part in pushing for the 7.62. I'm sure there was a bit of unwillingness to move too far away from the the 30-06 along with a desire to save money.
kilimanjaro
New member
Less recoil, less weight being carried by troops and combat vehicles, less brass usage, less packaging required, smaller volume when packed, more rounds on the supply truck axle for the same weight, more rounds in an airlift supply, etc., etc.
Not to mention the .30-06 is more than what is required to incapacitate enemy personnel.
Not to mention the .30-06 is more than what is required to incapacitate enemy personnel.
There seems to be an accuracy advantage for short actions over long actions.
Search the rifle forum for several threads on .308 vs .30-06
The 7.62 didn't last all that long as a rifle round once the US found that the M-14 was almost uncontrollable as an automatic.
We adopted the 5.56 at almost lightning speed...well for the military anyway.
chris in va
New member
If they had shortened it even more, we'd probably have a better battle round than the 5.56.
Yes, I went there.
Yes, I went there.
Mike Irwin
Staff
"I stand corrected, Mike. After reading about it a little more, it seems like the desire for standardization with NATO was a greater factor than finding the "perfect" round, and the US had a large part in pushing for the 7.62. I'm sure there was a bit of unwillingness to move too far away from the the 30-06 along with a desire to save money."
The United States was firmly wedded to the .30 caliber, and in a lot of cases, for all of the wrong reasons.
The British, at the same time, were working on the .280 Enfield, which was actually showing quite a bit of promise ballistically, as was the prototype rifle, the EM 1 and EM 2 rifles. The EM 2 was a bullpup design, which later resurfaced in the SA80 rifle design.
The French were also working on a number of cartridge designs, as were the Belgians.
At NATO discussions and equipment trials, the United States made it very clear that we wouldn't accept anything less than a .30 caliber round, all in the name of common interoperability.
So, with the United States paying the lion's share of defense money for most of the NATO allies at that time, everyone knuckled under and adopted the 7.62. Except for the French. They stuck largely with the 7.5x54 (and in some units the .30-06), until they adopted the 5.56 FAMAS in the 1970s.
A decade later, when the United States suddenly adopted the 5.56, a lot of our NATO allies were either financially unable or politically unwilling to go through the process of adopting new firearms.
The British went to war in the Falklands with the FN-designed LAR.
Germany didn't drop the 7.62 as the primary rifle round until 1997 with the adoption of the G36.
The United States was firmly wedded to the .30 caliber, and in a lot of cases, for all of the wrong reasons.
The British, at the same time, were working on the .280 Enfield, which was actually showing quite a bit of promise ballistically, as was the prototype rifle, the EM 1 and EM 2 rifles. The EM 2 was a bullpup design, which later resurfaced in the SA80 rifle design.
The French were also working on a number of cartridge designs, as were the Belgians.
At NATO discussions and equipment trials, the United States made it very clear that we wouldn't accept anything less than a .30 caliber round, all in the name of common interoperability.
So, with the United States paying the lion's share of defense money for most of the NATO allies at that time, everyone knuckled under and adopted the 7.62. Except for the French. They stuck largely with the 7.5x54 (and in some units the .30-06), until they adopted the 5.56 FAMAS in the 1970s.
A decade later, when the United States suddenly adopted the 5.56, a lot of our NATO allies were either financially unable or politically unwilling to go through the process of adopting new firearms.
The British went to war in the Falklands with the FN-designed LAR.
Germany didn't drop the 7.62 as the primary rifle round until 1997 with the adoption of the G36.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
Correct me if I am wrong but I remember reading Jeff Cooper saying that the change to the 308 was the end of the world and we will lose the next set of wars.