A17Shooter wrote:

I suppose the military did it so the rifles would have the same capability, trajectory, recoil, etc. Who knows? I hope it made sense to them at the time.

They went to their new powders so they can "lighten" the ammunition a solider carried by shrinking the size of the case, but still achieve the same spec's as the 30-06, the 30-06 M2 rounds were developed to work best with the M1 Rifle.

Dimitri

Dimitri wrote:

They went to their new powders so they can "lighten" the ammunition a solider carried by shrinking the size of the case, but still achieve the same spec's as the 30-06, the 30-06 M2 rounds were developed to work best with the M1 Rifle.

I am not sure what you are saying about specs. Doctrine changed during VietNam, and the concept of a main battle rifle went by the wayside. Warfighting doctrine is fundamental. What changed in VietNam was that there were no longer any definable "fronts", so that there were no abilities to intstall systemic logistics. Logistics became more distributed than monolithic, like in WWII. It is true that the desire for smaller ammo was part of the equation, so that the soldier could carry more rounds. But, the 223 was not intended to be measured by the same criteria as the 308. It is a different round for different objectives.

You bring up an excellent point about the M2 Ball round. There are many powders suitable for the 30-06 which are not suitable for the Garand and will tear up an operating rod in short order.

Phil,

When they developed the 7.62x51mm NATO round the requirements of the project was to produce a shortened (and therefor reduce the weight) with the same specifications (308 caliber, 150gr, and smiliar velocity) of the then standard 30-06Spring round.

The 5.56x45mm NATO (223 Rem) was indeed produced for a different kind of warfare.

Remember in this thread we are comparing the 308Win and the 30-06Spring not the 223 Rem.

Dimitri

When I make my own loads for my rifles, I am happy with 0,3"-0,4" groups/100yards. It is easy with 222 Rem, 223 Rem, 22-250 Rem, 308 Win and 30-06 Spr. With 9,3x57 Mauser 1" ok, because there is no scope.

Dimitri wrote:

Phil, When they developed the 7.62x51mm NATO round the requirements of the project was to produce a shortened (and therefor reduce the weight) with the same specifications (308 caliber, 150gr, and smiliar velocity) of the then standard 30-06Spring round.

I'm not so sure that weight was the issue as much as was short action full auto MBRs. In all my collecting/shooting days, I never heard that reduced weight was a criteria for the T65 program.

From wikipedia:

Quote::

The development work that would eventually develop into the 7.62x51mm started just after World War I, when it became clear that the long cartridge of the U.S. standard .30-06 round made it difficult to use in semi- and fully automatic weapons (the .30-06 was in turn derived from an earlier .30-03 cartridge), and had more case capacity than was needed.

From www.nps.gov:

Quote::

Fact Sheet #4 POST-WWII RIFLE DEVELOPMENT During World War II, wartime experience with the M1 Rifle showed the need for a lighter rifle with a larger magazine capacity and "selective" fire (full or semi-automatic) capability. The search for these sometimes incompatible goals dominated the history of Springfield Armory during its final two decades. Experiments to improve the Ml, designated the M1E series, began as early as December 1942. Modifications, such as the White, Ljungman, and short tappet systems, and the M1E5 "carbine" followed. All "E" series rifles were semi-automatic and retained the 8-round, Ml-type clip feed system. John Garand completed the T20 in October 1944. The first of the "T" series, it was equipped with a B.A.R.-style magazine and a "lengthened" Ml receiver and had selective fire capabilities. The T20E1 and T20E2 followed with further variations. In 1945, procurement of 100,000 T20E2's was ordered, but the atomic bombs brought an unexpectedly quick end to the war before any of the improved rifles were purchased. <snip> T27 rifle The T23 and T24 rifles were merely Ml's converted to selective fire, but retaining the 8 round capacity. These were the last of the "T" series to use the .30-06 cartridge. German developments in late WWII with smaller cartridges and American advances in propellant technology allowed a shorter cartridge to be developed with about the same range and ballistics as the .30-06. As a result, the U.S. adopted a new cartridge, designated the T65. Earle Harvey's T25 was the first rifle designed around the new cartridge. Shorter and less powerful cartridges opened up additional design possibilities. Studies of WWII German weapons led to the development of the T28 chambered for the T65 round. This weapon used low-cost fabrication methods. The prototypes were tested by late 1948, but the design was discarded as a result of poor reliability in the 1950 Aberdeen and Fort Benning trials. <snip> In his last major project before retiring, John Garand developed the innovative T31. Using the T65 cartridge and having selective fire capability, the T31 project had been suspended by the time of Garand's retirement in 1953. The T31 magazine, however, was retained and eventually used in the T44 program. Meanwhile, experiments were done to convert M1 rifles and B.A.R.'s to the new T65 cartridge. The first Ml's were converted in 1948 and designated T35, followed by the B.A.R. conversions, designated T34. While Ordnance officials continued to favor the Harvey T25 rifle, the T20 series, derived from Garand's Ml, was retained--possibly as a backup in case the T25 fell through. In its final form (October 1951) the Harvey rifle evolved into the T47. As problems persisted with the T47, the Garand types were given a new lease on life. The long receiver T20E2's were converted to the now-standard T65 cartridge around 1949 and designated the T36 and T37 series. These led to the T44. Trials held at Fort Benning in 1952 showed continuing trouble with the T47, and it was dropped the following year. Attention now shifted to the Belgian FN and the early T44, both of which had outperformed the T47 at Fort Benning. The Summer of 1953 nearly brought an end to the T44 program. Tests conducted at Fort Benning revealed problems with the magazine design and the T20E2 receiver of the early T44's. By August it was recommended that the T44 be dropped and development of the FN continued. Later, these recommendations were modified only to permit the T44 to go to the Arctic tests later that year. Col. Roy Rayle, the new commander of Springfield's R&D division, viewed this as the last chance to save the Springfield design. Lacking time and funding to redesign the receiver, technicians at Springfield fine tuned the existing T44's and submitted them for the trials beginning Dec. 8, 1953, near Fairbanks, Alaska. Unexpectedly severe problems with the FN during the Alaska tests granted the T44 a stay of execution. Nevertheless, by 1954, U.S. acceptance of the FN seemed almost assured. The Army decided to produce an "American" FN to test production methods. The High Standard Co. of New Haven, Conn., was given the task of converting the metric drawings to inch dimensions, making suggested changes, and producing the first 12 rifles from the drawings. Later, Harrington & Richardson was awarded the contract to produce 500 of these rifles, designated the T48. Concurrently with the T48 project, the Army decided to produce 500 of the redesigned T44 (designated T44E4). In further rounds of testing, the T44E4 performed at least as well as the T48. Overriding objections of the NATO allies, the Secretary of the Army announced on May 1, 1957 that the T44E4 had been approved. Designated the M14, this weapon was slated to replace the M1 rifle, M2 carbine, and M3A1 submachine gun. Production did not begin until 1959. <snip> Developed too late to be a competitor to the T44 and T48, the AR10, designed by Eugene Stoner, suffered from insufficient testing before being submitted. Withdrawn from trials in 1956 after a barrel blew up, it nevertheless impressed Gen. William G. Wyman, commanding officer of the Continental Army Command (CONARC). During 1957-58, working for the Armalite Division of Fairchild, Stoner began development of the AR15 to CONARC specifications. By scaling down the AR10 to .223 caliber, Stoner developed the prototype AR15 in less than nine months and turned it over to the Army for testing. Armalite's lack of a large engineering and test staff caused its prototypes to show poorly in testing in 1958. It was this rifle that later evolved into the M16.

Oh I see my mistake.

Still didn't the BAR and other Machine guns use the 30-06 with some good success in the end ??

I mean the M1 for example seems to be a pretty solid reliable rifle even with the long 30-06 round.

Dimitri

Dimitri wrote:

Oh I see my mistake. Still didn't the BAR and other Machine guns use the 30-06 with some good success in the end ?? I mean the M1 for example seems to be a pretty solid reliable rifle even with the long 30-06 round. Dimitri

Yes, they do. The original 1919 belt-fed was in 30-06. I never heard anyone complain about the BAR's reliability, BUT, if you ever handled a BAR (I have shot 2), you know it is one heavy gun. I think the goal was to get a full-auto MBR down to 10 pounds. I will say this: a 10 pound full-auto in 308/7.62 NATO is not easy to control and I seriously doubt the utility of full auto on a platform that light using that cartridge. Unless you can counter-balance, muzzle rise is stupendous. I have shot FA M14s and FALs. From an offhand position, you have no idea where the 3rd round ends up. We used to aim at a point 4 feet to the left of the target's feet when on FA, and generally would score a hit.

Phil,

Lucky guy! Getting to shoot all of thouse full auto rifles.

Someday I'm going to have to go to the US if only just to shoot a full auto rifle or 2.

Dimitri

Dimitri wrote:

Phil, Lucky guy! Getting to shoot all of thouse full auto rifles. Someday I'm going to have to go to the US if only just to shoot a full auto rifle or 2. Dimitri

Come on down. I have a spare bed and access to a range where the owner has more toys than you can shake a stick at. Just bring money. Full-auto is expensive! You'd be amazed how fast you can shoot up ammo.

Phil,

Thanks for the offer I may just have to take you up on it!

Not this year though, already booked my "vacation time" and bought the plane tickets today actually to go see my grandfather in Greece.

Dimitri

Shot the BAR when I was a young'un in the U.S. Navy. Pulled the trigger and couldn't get my finger off that damned trigger until I came up against the life line on the other side of a 33' wide ship. Thankful for the life line or me and that BAR would have gone for a swim. Thankfully I have shot the .50 BMG that was mounted on a bulwork of the bridge of my Mine Sweeper. Was shooting mines that we had cut and had floated to the surface. WW II contact mines. NOW THAT WAS FUN!!!

That does sound fun there Bushy.

d_hoffman wrote:

That does sound fun there Bushy.

The military does give you some neat toys to play with. They only want two things in return, your life and soul.

A17shooter...From 1964 to 1986...It was a greet time. At least for me it was...Yup...Life, body and soul. But after 22 years they give it back with bonuses...

Bushmaster wrote:

A17shooter...From 1964 to 1986...It was a greet time. At least for me it was...Yup...Life, body and soul. But after 22 years they give it back with bonuses...

AMEN Sir, ah ... Chief.

Cheers , Vince