I don´t know if you know the story. After the war the US pressed the NATO allies to adopt a common cartridge, which ended being a shortened version of the 30-06, the case was reduced from 63 mm to 51 mm. All this against the wishes of some of the allies, as the UK, who was lobbying for theirs 7 mm ammo. The sad part is that after standardizing this, the US went back adopting the 5.56 mm.
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last. Sir Winston Churchill
Then came the revenge. When the 5.56 was finally adopted by NATO, the bullet chosen was the Belgian SS-109, instead of the American M-193, what I believe made the US rebarrell the M-16 rifles.
I fired M-16s for a number of years, and we didn't change ammunition when we got the new models. The different barrel was part of a product improvement.
Of course, some people would still like to have a 7.62mm rifle. Afghanistan in particular involves longer ranges and if your standard of training permits long range engagement, it would be nice for the bullet to do something when it gets there.
With respect to the M-14, it appears in the move "Black Hawk Down", used by one of the Delta guys trying to protect Durant. That was the type of weapon the real guy carried.
marcelo_malara wrote:A litlte worst, because of the higher power of the 30.06 ammo.
The 30-06 is not really more powerful than the .308 (7.62 NATO) cartridge. Muzzle energies are pretty much the same. The 7.62 has a shorter case but it's a bit wider with nearly the same capacity as the 30-06.
lwd wrote:The 30-06 is not really more powerful than the .308 (7.62 NATO) cartridge. Muzzle energies are pretty much the same. The 7.62 has a shorter case but it's a bit wider with nearly the same capacity as the 30-06.
That is pretty much true if we are talking military ammo. The 30-06 case has more volume, but didn't use significantly more powder because it was designed to function well in the M-1 Garand's semiauto action. If you hand load with a slower burning powder and fill up the case, I think you will find you can get better performance with the 30-06. That's really irrelevant for military folks though, and I do think the NATO 7.62 is more accurate because the case is filled with powder and acceleration is more consistent.
Bgile wrote: ... because it was designed to function well in the M-1 Garand's semiauto action. If you hand load with a slower burning powder and fill up the case, I think you will find you can get better performance with the 30-06. That's really irrelevant for military folks though, and I do think the NATO 7.62 is more accurate because the case is filled with powder and acceleration is more consistent.
Edit: I got that info from a "reliable source", but it has since occurred to me that that can't be right, because 30-06 ammunition preceded the M-1 Garand by at least one war. I do believe the standard military round did employ a case that wasn't filled with powder up to the bullet's base. The M-1 Garand obviously had to be designed to use that round and function properly. Obviously a bolt action rifle like the Springfield wasn't fussy.
"In 1940, the 150 gr flat-base bullet was readopted as the Cartridge, Ball, caliber 30, M2 and that was the load used in WWII. The return to the lighter bullet came about, at least in part, because of difficulties adapting the new Garand semiauto rifle to handle the 172 gr load" (Cartridges of the world, Barnes).
marcelo_malara wrote:"In 1940, the 150 gr flat-base bullet was readopted as the Cartridge, Ball, caliber 30, M2 and that was the load used in WWII. The return to the lighter bullet came about, at least in part, because of difficulties adapting the new Garand semiauto rifle to handle the 172 gr load" (Cartridges of the world, Barnes).
Edit: I got that info from a "reliable source", but it has since occurred to me that that can't be right, because 30-06 ammunition preceded the M-1 Garand by at least one war. I do believe the standard military round did employ a case that wasn't filled with powder up to the bullet's base. The M-1 Garand obviously had to be designed to use that round and function properly. Obviously a bolt action rifle like the Springfield wasn't fussy.
Hi Steve,
The 30-06 was developed from the 30-03 cartridge for the 30 Model 1903 Service rifle. The 30-03 was intended to replace the 30 US Army rimmed case of the 1890s, and had a fairly long round nosed metal clad bullet. However, developments in Europe showed that a spitzer-type pointed bullet was superior realistically and in 1906 a new cartridge was adopted as the 30-06. It had the new bullet pointed bullet, and slightly different case shoulder and shorter case neck. All existing 30-03 rifles were recalled and re chambered for the new cartridge (save for a handful which are quite rare). At the same time as the bullet and case change, a new cooler burning powder was adopted which did not quite fill up the case, so yes, powder charge in the 30-06 and the 7,62 Nato are very similar and the ballistics are practically the same. For handloaders, the 30-06 does have more potential for larger powder charges and would thus be a more powerful round if loaded up to its safe limits than the Nato round.
Their shoulders held the sky suspended;
They stood and Earth's foundations stay;
What God abandoned these defended;
And saved the sum of things for pay.
7.62 NATO (AKA .308) vs. 30-06: to correct something I saw earlier - case diameter is the same on .308 and 30-06.
non-military info: they're pretty close with 150gr bullets. As others have mentioned, the 30-06 definitely has a longer, more capacious case (63mm vs 51mm) than the .308, and when handloading has more hotrod potential. Where the 30-06 has substantial advantage with factory ammo, is with heavy bullets - 180 and especially 200gr loads (in case you want to bump off a grizzly or maybe a large truck)
In the real world, a deer will never know the diff. While I've owned a 30-06 sporter, I'm a 30-30 lever kind of guy, myself - killed a big one this morning! I'd post a picture, but that would be serious thread drift...
7.62 NATO (AKA .308) vs. 30-06: to correct something I saw earlier - case diameter is the same on .308 and 30-06.
I was about to correct that too, but reviewing Barne´s, I noticed that both have a very slight taper, the 30-06´s being slightly more pronounced than the 308´s. While the difference is far from compensating the shorter lenght, the original statement is true.
Another thing worth mentioning, is that both cartridges are accepted up to bear size game, what makes them grossly overpowered for human "game", barring the fact that the power is needed for long range effectiveness.
7.62 NATO (AKA .308) vs. 30-06: to correct something I saw earlier - case diameter is the same on .308 and 30-06.
I was about to correct that too, but reviewing Barne´s, I noticed that both have a very slight taper, the 30-06´s being slightly more pronounced than the 308´s. While the difference is far from compensating the shorter lenght, the original statement is true.
You're generous; that minuscule taper diff has negligible - if even that? - effect on case capacity. Some say the .308 was the start of the 'short-fat' movement. I'd say... it might have been short, but it certainly wasn't fat.
another thing worth mentioning, is that both cartridges are accepted up to bear size game, what makes them grossly overpowered for human "game", barring the fact that the power is needed for long range effectiveness.
Well... some of the Knowledgeable say you shouldn't use them for browns/grizzly. Not being one of the Knowledgeable... I'd be willing to use a 30-06 on a Grizz. In fact... if someone wants to pay my way on a hunt in Alaska, I'll take my 30-30 and kill it with that!
