So, what exactly did US military gain by switching from 30-06 to .308?
- Thread starter ezmiraldo
- Start date
The difference between the rounds accuracy, all else being equal, is only measureable if you're a professional target shooter, who can constantly shoot under .5MOA
You're not likely going to notice 'more hit's' with the .308, the accuracy difference simply isn't that large. You will only notice the difference in perfect conditions, where your putting tiny groups on paper.
If the .308 you shot was getting 'more hits' it's because that rifle was built more accurately and/or you were able to shoot that rifle more accurately, not because the cartridge is more accurate. The differences we're talking about is roughly, like a .308 shooting .24 MOA groups and the .30-06 shooting .3MOA groups, and even that may be a greater difference than real world scenarios. The accuracy difference is only significant to high precision, world class target shooters.
Not exactly correct. They didn't lose ANY velocity switching from the .30-06 to the 7.62mm NATO. NONE!
The specs on GI ammo for both rounds are 10fps apart with 150gr bullet, and there is a 30fps +/- tolerance, so the are, essentially, identical. 150gr @ 2750fps +/-. NO DIFFERENCE!
The difference between .30-06 & .308 Winchester is only in civilian ammo, where the 06 averages 100fps faster than the .308. AND, both rounds, as civilian cartridges are loaded hotter (higher velocity) than the military specs.
The advantage to the 7.62mm Nato for the military was because of the 1/2" shorter case, being a) slightly cheaper and lighter, while still giving the full desired performance, B) the actions are the same 1/2" shorter (and maybe lighter), and C) the shorter case has fewer issues feeding and extracting in full automatic weapons.
When you are talking hundreds of thousands of guns and millions upon millions of rounds of ammo, it adds up to serious money.
We didn't drop the M14 because it was uncontrollable in full auto fire. (yes, the Army did make a big mistake with that, particularly the way they went about it, trying to make the M14 a do it all in one gun)
We dropped the M14 when we did because of US politics in the MacNamara defense dept. Used as a semi auto rifle, the M14 is an excellent rifle, as good as the Garand, and better in some ways. (note, I said rifle, not squad automatic, or SMG, or carbine. For those uses, there are better choices than the M14).
Note that we did not drop the 7.62mm Nato as our machinegun cartridge, even the whiz kids couldn't get us to abandon the proven .30 cal for the .22 like they did for a general issue rifle.
Mike Irwin
Staff
"And the 280 British, IIRC, was a very close approximation of the 280 Pedersen which was initially floated for the Garand rifle prior to WWII. Things that make you go "hmmmmm"
It was the .276 Pedersen, and yes, they had similar ballistics.
The .280 Enfield was about 10mm shorter overall, with similar bullet weights.
It was the .276 Pedersen, and yes, they had similar ballistics.
The .280 Enfield was about 10mm shorter overall, with similar bullet weights.
Mike Irwin
Staff
"We dropped the M14 when we did because of US politics in the MacNamara defense dept. Used as a semi auto rifle, the M14 is an excellent rifle, as good as the Garand, and better in some ways. (note, I said rifle, not squad automatic, or SMG, or carbine. For those uses, there are better choices than the M14)."
Actually, the M14 was dropped because it was the wave of the past. It was a rifleman's rifle in an age that was moving toward the concept of close combat weapons.
It was far heavier than the rifles that were coming online and against the AK-47 it was found to be seriously lacking firepower.
The M14 was designed with the idea in mind that battles were still fought at long range, that every rifleman was really a one-shot-one-kill sniper, and engagements could be won with a single magazine.
The procurers didn't take to heart the lessons of World War II and Korea, which showed pretty clearly that weight of firepower was an enormous factor.
Actually, the M14 was dropped because it was the wave of the past. It was a rifleman's rifle in an age that was moving toward the concept of close combat weapons.
It was far heavier than the rifles that were coming online and against the AK-47 it was found to be seriously lacking firepower.
The M14 was designed with the idea in mind that battles were still fought at long range, that every rifleman was really a one-shot-one-kill sniper, and engagements could be won with a single magazine.
The procurers didn't take to heart the lessons of World War II and Korea, which showed pretty clearly that weight of firepower was an enormous factor.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
Col. Cooper was, of course, a Marine.
"Every man is a rifleman."
"Every man is a rifleman."
Mike Irwin
Staff
"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."
Because everyone KNOWS that wars are won ONLY by the skills and abilities of the individual soldier, who fires single shots of full power .30-caliber ammunition at long ranges to score repeated one-shot kills, thus neutralizing the enemy's capabilities to wage war.
Yeah.
I always enjoyed the good Colonel's writings, but sometimes I really had to wonder if even he believed what he wrote, or if he was just joshing us.
That said, that kind of traditionalist, backward looking statement is indicative of the kind of thinking that drove development and adoption of the M-14, a full-size battle rifle, when it was more than apparent that the era of every man carting a full-size battle rifle firing a full-power cartridge was quickly coming to an end.
Because everyone KNOWS that wars are won ONLY by the skills and abilities of the individual soldier, who fires single shots of full power .30-caliber ammunition at long ranges to score repeated one-shot kills, thus neutralizing the enemy's capabilities to wage war.
Yeah.
I always enjoyed the good Colonel's writings, but sometimes I really had to wonder if even he believed what he wrote, or if he was just joshing us.
That said, that kind of traditionalist, backward looking statement is indicative of the kind of thinking that drove development and adoption of the M-14, a full-size battle rifle, when it was more than apparent that the era of every man carting a full-size battle rifle firing a full-power cartridge was quickly coming to an end.
While I can't (and won't) argue that is the way things turned out, I'd say not everyone recognized this until well after the US adopted the smaller, lighter rifle for general issue.
It is interesting to note that the M14 is having a bit of a resurgence as a designated marksman's rifle in combat today. Seems like there still some things that the 5.56mm just isn't the best at doing....
Of course, the service just can't issue out the old rifles for use, after all that would imply they make a mistake way back then. But trick them out with the latest bells & whistles, and they're fine to use. They may even be better at their job with bizzare looking (non-traditional) stocks and covered with rails, but they sure don't look like M14s anymore. Maybe that's why they're considered ok to use again?
Mike Irwin
Staff
"I'd say not everyone recognized this until well after the US adopted the smaller, lighter rifle for general issue."
No, not everyone recognized it, not in the United States, and certainly not in other nations, either.
But a flawed premise put into application is generally flawed.
There were more than enough indications that the nature of infantry combat was changing to seriously investigate what other nations were doing. The British, French, Germans, and Russians were all well ahead of the United States in that regard, yet the powers that were in place at that time were bound and determined to go backwards.
It's not unlike the military commanders of the 1870s and 1880s who slavishly adhered to Napoleonic tactics of tight formations and long, slow, orderly marches long after the American Civil War proved the primacy of the rifled musket.
"It is interesting to note that the M14 is having a bit of a resurgence as a designated marksman's rifle in combat today. Seems like there still some things that the 5.56mm just isn't the best at doing...."
No one weapon/rifle is perfect for accomplishing all tasks. That's why multiple types of weapons have been routinely fielded over the years.
No, not everyone recognized it, not in the United States, and certainly not in other nations, either.
But a flawed premise put into application is generally flawed.
There were more than enough indications that the nature of infantry combat was changing to seriously investigate what other nations were doing. The British, French, Germans, and Russians were all well ahead of the United States in that regard, yet the powers that were in place at that time were bound and determined to go backwards.
It's not unlike the military commanders of the 1870s and 1880s who slavishly adhered to Napoleonic tactics of tight formations and long, slow, orderly marches long after the American Civil War proved the primacy of the rifled musket.
"It is interesting to note that the M14 is having a bit of a resurgence as a designated marksman's rifle in combat today. Seems like there still some things that the 5.56mm just isn't the best at doing...."
No one weapon/rifle is perfect for accomplishing all tasks. That's why multiple types of weapons have been routinely fielded over the years.
buck460XVR
New member
As a kid growin' up and hunting in the late fifties and early sixties, I remember folks claiming that the venerable ought sixes, then so popular in the hunting community, were going to soon be a thing of the past, because of the new and much better .308. 60 years later and the ought-six is still with us and as popular as ever. If it weren't for the current boon in .308 ARs and Scout rifles, I wouldn't know a soul with a .308.
Mike Irwin
Staff
"If it weren't for the current boon in .308 ARs and Scout rifles, I wouldn't know a soul with a .308."
In the camp where I hunted as a kid in Pennsylvania, the .308 was extremely well represented.
In the camp where I hunted as a kid in Pennsylvania, the .308 was extremely well represented.
They actually gained a little speed. Modern Commercial 30-06 loads run roughly 100 fps faster than commercial 308 hunting loads. But military spec 30-06 loads were actually a little slower than the 308 that replaced it.
In theory a 308 will be a tiny bit more accurate from the best target rifles, but from standard rifles with normal trigger pullers there isn't enough difference to matter.
308 has noticeably less recoil, even when being shot at the same speed because it is able to get those speeds with much less powder. When calculating recoil the weight of the powder must be factored in along with the bullet weight.
As a military round the 308/M-14 was a failed experiment. The idea was to give troops more firepower with a little less recoil and more ammo capacity. It was a good round and package in many ways, but did not accomplish the goals intended. While it didn't work out, it was a step in the right direction. The 30-06 won 2 wars, but I wouldn't want to fight another one with it.
It is as a target and hunting round that the 308 has found it's niche. The shorter cartridge fits in smaller, lighter guns where the reduced recoil is helpful. In really accurate rifles the slight edge in accuracy can be utilized. Modern 308 loadings are 200 fps faster than those used in WW-1 and 100 fps faster than WW-2 loadings. If the 30-06 was enough gun from 1906-1946, the 308 is more than enough in 2014.
Tucker 1371
New member
Being in the military and somewhat of a history nut, it just seems to me that our cartridge adoption process and the reasoning behind it has just been backwards since the 1960's. As I understand it one of the reasons behind adopting 5.56 over 7.62 was to have a controllable full auto weapon. Now we have burst and are by and large trained to never use it, everything is controlled pairs even in CQB. I don't disagree with the training but it does make the thought process behind the adoption of the 5.56 seem rather silly.
All that said I would hate to get into a firefight with less than our current standard combat load of 210 rounds and that much 7.62 would be HEAVY. I never envied our 240 gunners carrying a 30lb weapon and several hundred rounds of very heavy ammo.
All that said I would hate to get into a firefight with less than our current standard combat load of 210 rounds and that much 7.62 would be HEAVY. I never envied our 240 gunners carrying a 30lb weapon and several hundred rounds of very heavy ammo.
Looking at the history, there are times when I think the people who say "military intelligence is a contradiction in terms" are actually understating the case!
When you get an order to build a new truck, that hauls more and gets as good gas mileage than the one in service now, you do the best you can. Even if the contract also calls for five doors and a mini-bar.
When the customer comes back a little later and says "we don't want your truck anymore, now we want dune buggies", its not because you failed at building the truck.
When you get an order to build a new truck, that hauls more and gets as good gas mileage than the one in service now, you do the best you can. Even if the contract also calls for five doors and a mini-bar.
When the customer comes back a little later and says "we don't want your truck anymore, now we want dune buggies", its not because you failed at building the truck.
This has always been a big point for me when discussing 5.56mm as opposed to anything bigger.
For the most part civilian gun owners do not use full-auto fire. It seems to me that by using single round 5.56, they aren't able to utilize one of the major features of the round, controllable bursts. That's one major reason why I stick with a larger more powerful round the 7.62mm. It was designed to be more capable using aimed fire, even though it could (in theory, yeah right) be capable of "short bursts of aimed fire".
For the most part civilian gun owners do not use full-auto fire. It seems to me that by using single round 5.56, they aren't able to utilize one of the major features of the round, controllable bursts. That's one major reason why I stick with a larger more powerful round the 7.62mm. It was designed to be more capable using aimed fire, even though it could (in theory, yeah right) be capable of "short bursts of aimed fire".
Mike Irwin
Staff
"When the customer comes back a little later and says "we don't want your truck anymore, now we want dune buggies", its not because you failed at building the truck."
You do realize that that's not really an applicable comparison, right?
Because the in the case of the M 14 the customer and the developer were one and the same, right?
And, you do know that literally hundreds, if not thousands, of military procurement contracts have been terminated not because the military customer didn't know what it wanted, or wasn't clear on the specifications, but because the contractor simply couldn't deliver what was promised?
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here... but I don't think you're sure, either.
You do realize that that's not really an applicable comparison, right?
Because the in the case of the M 14 the customer and the developer were one and the same, right?
And, you do know that literally hundreds, if not thousands, of military procurement contracts have been terminated not because the military customer didn't know what it wanted, or wasn't clear on the specifications, but because the contractor simply couldn't deliver what was promised?
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here... but I don't think you're sure, either.