Why did the 308 replace the 30-06?
- Thread starter Gabe
- Start date
I have read that the .308 case is shorter and therefore feeds more reliably in auto and semi auto weapons.
Read this for more info
http://www.teleport.com/~chalu/30's.htm
Regards.
Read this for more info
http://www.teleport.com/~chalu/30's.htm
Regards.
Mike Irwin
Staff
Well, not really...
WW II era M2 ball in .30-06 and the 7.62x51/.308 M80 ball round had virtually identical ballistics.
In military loadings, about 25% of the .30-06's case, between the top of the powder charge and the base of the bullet -- was simply free space.
By reducing the length of the free space, the M80 cartridge maintained .30-06 ballistics, but allowed, in theory, at least, more compact weapons.
It also reduced the amount of brass necessary for making the case which, based on periodic WW II brass shortages, was seen to be a particularly valuable aspect if another major war was to break out.
WW II era M2 ball in .30-06 and the 7.62x51/.308 M80 ball round had virtually identical ballistics.
In military loadings, about 25% of the .30-06's case, between the top of the powder charge and the base of the bullet -- was simply free space.
By reducing the length of the free space, the M80 cartridge maintained .30-06 ballistics, but allowed, in theory, at least, more compact weapons.
It also reduced the amount of brass necessary for making the case which, based on periodic WW II brass shortages, was seen to be a particularly valuable aspect if another major war was to break out.
This thread - Can we revisit the 308 vs. the 3-06 one more time? I swear it is a good question - was a pretty in-depth discussion which focussed, in part, on the accuracy advantages of .308 over .30-06. For most people they are not noticible (myself included) but for match shooters, it makes a difference.
Art Eatman
Staff in Memoriam
No one single reason. Shorter case = shorter action = lighter rifle was a factor.
Among other things, the advent of computers and Ball powder allowed a design to esentially duplicate the military-load ballistics of the '06 but with the smaller case. The use of ball powder allowed better burning efficiency, such that a shorter barrel would deliver equivalent muzzle velocity as, say, the Garand.
When you start thinking of the ancillary problems, such as logistics and re-supply, even the size of containers becomes a factor.
There are many more factors in this sort of decision-making than just the ballistics of any particular cartridge. Battlefield philosophy plays a part, which is why it's piddling in the whiskey to compare U.S. cartridges with Russian cartridges as to efficacy. Or modern U.S. cartridges with the venerable '06, for that matter...
FWIW, Art
Among other things, the advent of computers and Ball powder allowed a design to esentially duplicate the military-load ballistics of the '06 but with the smaller case. The use of ball powder allowed better burning efficiency, such that a shorter barrel would deliver equivalent muzzle velocity as, say, the Garand.
When you start thinking of the ancillary problems, such as logistics and re-supply, even the size of containers becomes a factor.
There are many more factors in this sort of decision-making than just the ballistics of any particular cartridge. Battlefield philosophy plays a part, which is why it's piddling in the whiskey to compare U.S. cartridges with Russian cartridges as to efficacy. Or modern U.S. cartridges with the venerable '06, for that matter...
FWIW, Art
Economics, logistics and weapon design. The 30/06 was designed early in the 20th cent. and was excessively long to hold the early smokeless powders. As the US powder companies learned to manufacture better rifle powder the amount needed per case was reduced and the air space in the case increased. By the way, the original WW1 ballistics of the 30/06 was a 150 grain bullet at 2700 fps. By WW2 the M2 ball was going at 2800 fps, about the same as the 7.62x51.
The 7.62 uses less brass saving raw materials and because it is lighter, more can be carried by the GI. Weapons for the 7.62 are shorter in the reciever, again a savings in weight and materials.
The 30/06 is more versatile for the sportsman because it can handle heavier bullet weights.
The 7.62 uses less brass saving raw materials and because it is lighter, more can be carried by the GI. Weapons for the 7.62 are shorter in the reciever, again a savings in weight and materials.
The 30/06 is more versatile for the sportsman because it can handle heavier bullet weights.
If you have the time to read, your question will be answered in Clinton Ezell's, "The Great Rifle Controversy." It was his doctoral dissertation which he elected to have published. It earned him recognition as a scholar and eventually landed him a job as curator of firearms at the Smithsonian. Unfortunately, he passed away (prematurely in my opinion) and his position was not filled (and with the new round of budget cuts, be happy that there's still two curators for firearms).
Thanks for all the replys, I'm sorting through all the links. One statement I came across was regaring the 7.62x54R. It is said that the rimmed cartrige causes feeding problems. This I understand, but also it is said that it is "too powerful" for machine guns. I don't understand the reasons. Would the 30-06, or a more powerful round, be too powerful for the military?
Art Eatman
Staff in Memoriam
Gabe, with no context, I can't really respond to the "too powerful" idea--except that I don't believe it.
, Art
, ArtSame reasons as for adopting the great short-range M193 round in 5.56mm: less materials (strategic concerns), in this case for almost equal performance; less weight = soldier gets a few more rounds while carrying the same battle pounds; smaller = more rounds per cubic foot of packaging; and an opportunity to actually improve the mid-range performance.
Yes, the M80 Ball out-does the M2 Ball at longer ranges. M80 is still supersonic at 600 yards. The boattail and slightly better ogive do this.
Yes, the M80 Ball out-does the M2 Ball at longer ranges. M80 is still supersonic at 600 yards. The boattail and slightly better ogive do this.
teufelmann55
New member
I am not sure as to all the reasons myself for the switch to 7.62x51 Nato from the 30/06 most of the reasons stated here sound good and were probably part/if not all of the reasons. What I can tell you though with extreme certainaity is that the 7.62x54 is and has been chambered in machine guns from the Colt/Browning model 1895 "Potato Digger" to the current Soviet PKM (that is still in 1st line use).
As far as accuracy I've heard the reverse is true of the two cartridges with the accuracy edge going to the 7.62Nato/308Win and beating out the 30-06. Go back a few decades to when the 308 was being introduced and was new on the scene, fairly young in it's life as a cartridge it was beating out long held records that were obtained using the 30-06. Combined with all the other things talked about in this thread it's a round that won the favor of match shooters.
Just a couple bits of trivia...
The precursor to the 7.62 Nato or .308 Win was the .300 Savage. Introduced in 1920 to put power equivilent to .30-06 into a lever rifle. (The Savage 99, of course.) Factory loads showed a 150 grain bullet at 2600 f/s. Not much under the then current .30-06 load. Much handier rifle.
Another reason for the .308 case was to make it more suitable for semi and fully automatic weapons. Not only is it shorter, reducing the length of actions, recoil springs and magazines, the web area of the head is thicker and stronger. There was a concern the head of the older 06 case might pull off in full auto usage. I have no information regarding the rate of occurance of such problem.
All the other factors mentioned are just as correct.
Oh, the concept of "too powerful" relates to a fully automatic hand-held weapons. Certainly a .30-06 is harder to control than the 7.62x39; especially in equal weight weapons. At least for spray and pray tactics. Some of this is affected by the tactical situation. A 1000 yard target rifle is out of place in a house search, as is a submachine gun in the plains.
The precursor to the 7.62 Nato or .308 Win was the .300 Savage. Introduced in 1920 to put power equivilent to .30-06 into a lever rifle. (The Savage 99, of course.) Factory loads showed a 150 grain bullet at 2600 f/s. Not much under the then current .30-06 load. Much handier rifle.
Another reason for the .308 case was to make it more suitable for semi and fully automatic weapons. Not only is it shorter, reducing the length of actions, recoil springs and magazines, the web area of the head is thicker and stronger. There was a concern the head of the older 06 case might pull off in full auto usage. I have no information regarding the rate of occurance of such problem.
All the other factors mentioned are just as correct.
Oh, the concept of "too powerful" relates to a fully automatic hand-held weapons. Certainly a .30-06 is harder to control than the 7.62x39; especially in equal weight weapons. At least for spray and pray tactics. Some of this is affected by the tactical situation. A 1000 yard target rifle is out of place in a house search, as is a submachine gun in the plains.
Going to smaller cartridges to save a bit of brass may seem pointless to civilians but consider that from early 1942 to mid-1945, Frankford Arsenal, the government's main ammo factory, produced 1.9 million rounds of .30 ammo - per day. Winchester, Remington and other plants equalled or exceeded that rate.
So don't just think in terms of saving brass, think of saving powder and bullet material; saving space in rail cars, ships and planes; fewer depots; less weight to move around in the supply system; less weight to carry for the grunt and MG ammo bearers.
The adoption of the 5.56 was primarily to allow use of a rifle that could be controlled in full auto fire (the M14 could not), but savings in material, cost, and weight were considerations as well.
Jim
So don't just think in terms of saving brass, think of saving powder and bullet material; saving space in rail cars, ships and planes; fewer depots; less weight to move around in the supply system; less weight to carry for the grunt and MG ammo bearers.
The adoption of the 5.56 was primarily to allow use of a rifle that could be controlled in full auto fire (the M14 could not), but savings in material, cost, and weight were considerations as well.
Jim
308 / 30-06
The 308 aka 7.62 mm NATO was adopted by the U.S. because we were a NATO member. Also because the U.S. would foot the bill for the ammo, ha! We had developed the M-14 rifle and we had the M-60 Machine Gun, both used the 7.62 mm NATO round. It was explained to me in 1965 that all NATO members now had a common rifle round for the troops. This was so we NATO, didn't have a British trooper with 10,000 rds of .303 for his Enfield in a fox hole with a U.S. trooper out of 30-06 ammo for his M-1.
But things and times change.
Clem
USMC retired
The 308 aka 7.62 mm NATO was adopted by the U.S. because we were a NATO member. Also because the U.S. would foot the bill for the ammo, ha! We had developed the M-14 rifle and we had the M-60 Machine Gun, both used the 7.62 mm NATO round. It was explained to me in 1965 that all NATO members now had a common rifle round for the troops. This was so we NATO, didn't have a British trooper with 10,000 rds of .303 for his Enfield in a fox hole with a U.S. trooper out of 30-06 ammo for his M-1.
But things and times change.
Clem
USMC retired
Mike Irwin
Staff
Clem,
Actually the United States adopted the 7.62x51 and then rammed it down the rest of NATO's throats.
Actually the United States adopted the 7.62x51 and then rammed it down the rest of NATO's throats.
I think Mike Irwin is correct..................
The British were advocating intermediate cartridge in 7mm (.280 calibre). USA strongly opposed the use of a caliber less than .30 (7.62mm). NATO counries, however, were ready for a cartridge with shorter case ala Germany's 7.92 pistole patron 43. The 51mm long cartridge was kind of like our "compromise" to the short cased cartridge request from the NATO countries, primarily the British.
A side note, the British were VERY upset when we adopted the M-16 with its 5.56 x 45mm cartridge to be used in all theater operations outside of NATO's.
Johannes
The British were advocating intermediate cartridge in 7mm (.280 calibre). USA strongly opposed the use of a caliber less than .30 (7.62mm). NATO counries, however, were ready for a cartridge with shorter case ala Germany's 7.92 pistole patron 43. The 51mm long cartridge was kind of like our "compromise" to the short cased cartridge request from the NATO countries, primarily the British.
A side note, the British were VERY upset when we adopted the M-16 with its 5.56 x 45mm cartridge to be used in all theater operations outside of NATO's.
Johannes
Hi, Mike and Johan762,
The 7.62x51 vs. the British .280 controversy got so hot it finally was settled at a rather high level - Truman and Churchill. No kidding, the whole thing got that high up. Churchill, who was always a realist, recognized that what Britain wanted didn't matter a lead farthing any more, and conceded. The round was rammed down the throats of the rest of NATO, then just as everybody had tooled up and bought or built new rifles, the U.S. said, "Oh, by the way, we have this 5.56mm..." How do you say "pi**ed off" in nine languages?
The U.S. did the same thing in other areas, like commo formats, but that is another story.
Jim
The 7.62x51 vs. the British .280 controversy got so hot it finally was settled at a rather high level - Truman and Churchill. No kidding, the whole thing got that high up. Churchill, who was always a realist, recognized that what Britain wanted didn't matter a lead farthing any more, and conceded. The round was rammed down the throats of the rest of NATO, then just as everybody had tooled up and bought or built new rifles, the U.S. said, "Oh, by the way, we have this 5.56mm..." How do you say "pi**ed off" in nine languages?
The U.S. did the same thing in other areas, like commo formats, but that is another story.
Jim