Indians For Guns

An interesting read as it deals with 'the other side of the coin' and not the plauditory articles we have all come to expect whilst reading up on the subject.

http://www.rifleshootermag.com/ammunition/3006m_070607/

Mack The Knife

Interesting article, thanks for posting it Mack The Knife!

One of the issues I have with this is the assumption that militarily the largest thing to be shot at is a person at moderate range. Issues like shooting at long range with wind involved, or shooting at someone behind some barricade is where the '06 will outclass a lesser cartridge.

I find it interesting how the author can give examples of how a flinch is overcome, and yet chalks up poor shooting to recoil instead of a training issue.

Anyway, it is one thing to whine about a cartridge being too much for most people to handle but when you are in the woods alone at night the last thing on your mind is feeling overgunned IMHO.

Americans found the mild 6.5x50 Arisaka or 7.62x25 Tokarev could kill them just as dead...

First of all, the 6.5x50 was being replaced by the Japanese with the 7.7 right up to the time of WW2. The Italians were also making the move from their 6.5 Carcano to the 7.35. The reason for this was greater range with automatic weapons -- the smaller bullets just didn't have the killing power downrange needed for modern battlefield conditions. This is similar to the situation the long range varmint hunter faces today when using high powered .22 centerfires out past 250-300 yards: in such cases, folks start gravitating toward 6mm/.24 caliber and even .25 caliber bullets, for the improved downrange ballistics.

And what's 7.62x25 Tokarev got to do with this discussion? Does the author suggest that this is a sufficient military round for rifles, or a sufficient hunting round? I'm missing the point he's trying to make in bringing this cartridge up.

They immediately launched a program to design a better cartridge than the .303, which ultimately failed due to being overpowered.

I am wondering just how anyone can term the .303 and LE as a failure? It was improved and improved over the years and by the end of its service life, the combination was still arguably the best bolt action battle rifle in service anywhere.

Regarding the British work on what became the P14 Enfield and the associated .276 cartridge intended to replace the .303, EGB Reynolds, in his book The Lee-Enfield Rifle notes in Chapter 11, page 123 (The Pattern 1914 Enfield Rifle):

8. The recoil should be about the same as the S.M.L.E.
12. It should fire rimless cartridges.

Nowhere does Reynolds say that the British were dissatisfied because the .303 was "overpowered". The reason that the testing of this new rifle was suspended was due to the outbreak of WW1, according to Reynolds, although it was later modified to take the .303 round and used in service.

The U.S. was riding a crest of national pride that would have alarmed the staunchest of today's patriots, and, damn it, we would have a bigger cartridge than anybody. And we got it: No nation has ever used a longer casing for its service rifle.

Oh, pardner, spare me! This is so deep that I'm needing hip boots! Oh, the humanity!

.30-06 case length = 2.49"
.30-06 overall loaded length = 3.34"

280 Ross case length = 2.59"
280 Ross overall loaded length = 3.62"

(The 280 Ross was the Canadian rifle used in WW1. While Canadians in general are proud of their country and, from my experience, rightfully so, I don't see any evidence of the chest beating behavior in them that the author ascribes to national cartridge choice.)

The high pressure, long casing and needlessly heavy bullet demand heavy, cumbersome weapon designs. While beloved for its firepower, the BAR was loathed for its weight and reduced magazine capacity.

Sure, the BAR was loathed for its weight, because the poor GI (I knew one such WW2 vet pretty well) had to lug a 20 pound arm around when his fellows had weapons of half the weight. The concept was to give automatic fire support down to the squad level. The idea was to shoot in 3 round bursts, not spray the countryside -- it was not, after all, a belt-fed weapon.

BTW, I wonder how many jams were encountered with a BAR vs other types of similar weapons? The French Chauchat that he mentions was a notoriously unreliable piece of equipment by any standards.

Recoil from 220-grain ball was so severe, it kicked long-time shooters immediately into flinching.

The solution was a lighter pointed bullet. But even with a 150-grain spitzer in the 81?2-pound 1903, recoil was harsh.

What is the point here? That the .30-03 was modified into the .30-06 because the 220gr roundnose bullet had too much recoil? It is clear that most military forces modified their service cartridges around this time because the new lighter weight pointed spitzer bullets were ballistically superior to the older round nosed design, not because of recoil.

A tapered case is far more reliable, and this is immediately evident considering the number of weapons that were considered reliable in other tapered calibers but not in '06.

?

What? A simple look at the cartridge dimensions of the 7x57, .30-06, and 8x57 will put this to bed.

Contrast it with any number of shorter .30s that get almost the same velocity from a smaller capacity and with less recoil.

It is true that the 7.62x51 (.308 Win) replaced the .30-06 and was supposed to duplicate its ballistics in a shorter case, which made for lighter weapons, however by this time powder technology had improved to permit this. Yet, as a hunting round, the larger case capacity of the .30-06 permits increasing levels of performance over the .308 in heavier bullet weights -- and this is basically true with even larger cases.

But the claim of less recoil is false, as a 150gr bullet fired at the same velocity from a .308 and a .30-06 will have the same amount of recoil in a gun of equal weight -- to assert otherwise defies the laws of physics.

An attempt was made in 1932, with the almost-intro of the farsighted .276 Pedersen--which would even today be as close to perfect for men and deer as any casing ever devised--but it was blocked by Dugout Doug.

This statement is truly a bunch of hooey. First of all, the use of the name "Dugout Doug" can be thoroughly debated on political and military bases alone. Personally, I feel that the use of this sort of name-calling is unwarranted by the actual history. But that is not our purpose here at IFG.

The fact is, that the cartridge choice happened, as the author says, during the 30s, or during the Great Depression. Douglas MacArthur was Chief of Staff for the Army, and the military budgets were slashed to the very bone. MacArthur made the decision to deploy the Garand in .30-06 on the basis of the Army's tremendous amount of .30-06 ammunition still in its stocks. MacArthur's view was that, with his limited funding, he would "buy" more value for the Army by keeping as many trained soldiers and officers in the Army, rather than reducing the size of the Army and loosing experienced personnel so new 276 Pedersen cartridge stocks could be built up. I think he made the right decision, as he had more responsibilities than to fantasize about the "ideal gun" like a bunch of old geezers gathered around a warm stove.

Also, had we gone with the perfect Pedersen, we still might be using it instead of that ridiculous mouse cartridge with which we've been saddled for four decades.

This continues with more hooey. I am continually amazed at how new flocks of amateurs like this keep arising, and lending us the value of their vast expertise in military cartridges, as if the folks who study and do this for a living are all a bunch of fools and knaves. Truly, a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing. However, I do think that those same military people would be able to do a much better job of writing magazine articles that this person...

Or we could have adopted the 7.65x53 Belgian/Turkish/Argentine, which is so close to 7.62 NATO that we might have saved ourselves the trouble of procrastinating for 54 years.

One wonders why the author doesn't also criticize the Germans, who chose the 8x57 round rather than the 7.62x53 or the 7x57? I think he misses the point that these same rifle rounds were also used in machine guns, which required a certain effective range for battlefield tactics identified -- recoil was only a small part of the issue involved in choosing a cartridge. How the weapons will be used and how the troops will be deployed on the battlefield has more to do with cartridge/bullet performance in the eyes of the military.

From the way this guy talks about recoil, I wonder how many 03 Springfields in .30-06 he has actually shot? Frankly, his whining sounds a bit like what we'd call a "wuss" over here.

My father was in high school ROTC prepping for the 1936 National Matches. An old soldier at Presidio Monterrey saw some promise in him but noticed he was flinching. He tied a string around the trigger and had my father work the action, prone rapid, for several hundred rounds while the veteran marksman sat on a campaign chair behind the line, tugging the trigger. That took care of the flinch, and Dad went on to 16 summers at Perry. But with a lighter, but still lethal, chambering there wouldn't have been a flinch in the first place.

My Dad was on his regimental target team in 1941 (before WW2) and he shot all the time. He'd make fun of me when I'd come home from the range as a young man, complaining of a sore shoulder. He didn't go to Camp Perry; he went to North Africa, Sicily, Monte Cassino, Anzio, France, Germany, and Austria. I believe that this is what the .30-06 was intended for -- that it was used at Camp Perry was a result of it being the field round. To suggest that military rounds should be chosen on the basis of what's best for Camp Perry seems a bit odd to me.

I know a woman who's reliably bagged numerous elk and deer using a mild 6.5 Swede.

A lot of this depends on where one hunts. I've hunted areas where a .45-70 was ideal, because of the thick brush. Some guys hunt over long, open parks and a smaller caliber would be pushing it for the distances they shoot over. When someone starts trying to say what everyone else should be shooting, I take it with a grain of salt. I agree that a person should select a caliber that they can handle -- that one should be competent with the gun they intend to use before they take it into the field. Every reasonable person knows this. I don't see what his bashing of the .30-06 has to do with this, however.

I would agree that for some hunting, a 300 Savage would work fine (but here I will note that there's no way a 300 Savage is ballistically identical in performance with a .308 or .30-06, regardless of the developmental lineage). But there is also a place for the .30-06 and even for the .338, again, depending on the situation.

Also, many of us are not like sporting magazine writers, who get oodles of promotional stuff from manufacturers to tout the latest and greatest. Many have one or two high powered rifles that must be used for whatever is being hunted. This is fine, too, as long as the hunter always keeps their and their rifle's capabilities in mind. Hunting an elk with a 6.5x55 over, say, 400 yards would not be a good idea in many cases.

A 6.5x55 will launch a 140gr boattail at 2600 fps and at 400 yards, that bullet will have 1118 ft-lbs of energy -- pretty marginal.

A .30-06 will launge a 180gr boattail at 2800 fps and at 400 yards, that bullet will have 1853 ft-lbs of energy -- a much better proposition.

Just for comparison:

The author's 300 Savage will push the 180gr bullet out at 2400 fps, with 1311 ft-lbs of energy at 400 yards, and

A 300 Win MAgnum will launch the 180gr bullet at 3000 fps, for 2162 ft-lbs of energy.

There's simply different horses for different courses, and one size doesn't fit all. Smaller calibers are fine if they are used within their capabilities. Hunters should select a rifle/cartridge combination that they can shoot effectively for the sort of hunting they intend to do. None of this is any big news.

Regarding how the author attempts to tie the cartridge choice for hunting in with the US Army's choice of the .30-06 for military use falls completely flat on its face in my opinion. I think that his statements are too arbitrary and inaccurate to support the point he's trying to make.

Matter of fact, I think that what this guy is trying to do is to sell yet one more .30-06 magazine article (maybe the millionth or so of such) and do so by making hyperbolic statements to catch the eye -- after all, we've seen so many before, why should we pick up another?

Unfortunately, not only does he not make his point with me, he destroyed a lot of his credibility in the process.

Matter of fact, I think that what this guy is trying to do is to sell yet one more .30-06 magazine article (maybe the millionth or so of such) and do so by making hyperbolic statements to catch the eye -- after all, we've seen so many before, why should we pick up another?




Agreed, it seems the fatal affliction that has consumed most gun magazines is trying to creep into the internet too.....

The reasoning in the article has a number of aspects that don't jibe with facts or are irrational. For instance, the idea that the .30-06, or even the larger magnum rounds, are "bad" makes no sense. Any of these rounds mentioned may be better or less well suited to a particular use than another. Also, a person may simply like one cartridge better than another for whatever reason, or for no reason at all. Any of this is a reason to choose a cartridge, I think.

But to assert that the .30-06 is bad, especially that it is bad because it was a bad choice for a military round seems to me to be an irrational point based on another unproven, and in my opinion, wrong point.

If one were to take the view that the 8x57 had advantages over the .30-06 as a military cartridge because it got about the same performance from a shorter case, allowing weapons to be made more compact, that would be a valid point. (Although, it would not be the only point in such a discussion, nor do I feel that such a discussion would result in a clear-cut "best.)

If one were to make the point that the .30-06 and the 8x57 had advantages over the .303 and the 7.62x54r because rimmed cartridges aren't so tidy to handle through automatic weapons, I'd agree, though I would also note that the British and the Soviets seemed to deal with these issues pretty well.

My point is that, it is not that all of these rounds are the same or just as good as one another, but that there are advantages and disadvantages to all of these military cartridges, and there are different uses to which they were put to use where one may shine more than the others. These same advantages in design and in use also apply to their suitability in hunting use.

But the part that I find very questionable in the article is the supposed foolishness of US military authorities in their choice. For instance, the author seems to take great pains to establish that the choice of the 30-06 was based on nationalistic and "macho" traits prevalent in the USA at the time. From a historical perspective, am I to believe from his article that nationalist and macho tendencies were more pronounced in the USA than they were in Japan or Germany? First of all, the author hasn't established this as fact, and secondly, I don't think that he could.

We had a discussion earlier about the best all-around cartridge. I did vote for the .30-06 at that time. But really, what does all-around mean? Must the cartridge handle everything from small varmints to big game, like the Cape Buffalo shown in the article? Or are a smaller range of game envisioned in the question, or in the answers each of us gave? I think it reasonable to assume that each of us have our own personal hunting scenarios in mind when we answer the "all-around" question.

I think it would be correct to say that cartridge X, Y, or Z would be very good all-around choices. For instance, I think a .30-06 would be a better all around choice than a 300 Weatherby or a 375 H&H. (I'd certainly be much more comfortable with the .375 when hunting Cape Buffalo, however!) But to make dogmatic statements at to what is "best" isn't particularly pertinent, I think.

Also, I hardly think that old tales along the lines of, "I knew a midget that killed a blue whale with a .22 lr" hardly constitutes a useful data sample of the subject.

Personally, I don't much care for big magnum cartridges. I find military cartridges to be more than powerful enough within a particular caliber for my shooting needs. However, that's a choice that has more to do with the sort of shooting I like to do than it does with whether a particular cartridge is "good" or "bad." Given certain shooting situations, I could well want a magnum cartridge to take with me.

It`s a point of view......but not one that I completely agree with.
Yes, a major complaint against the 30-06 from a military point of view is that the calibre produced too much recoil for many troops - it wasn`t an ideal calibre for training purposes - however it`s also a fact that the great majority of those who who had previous experience of shooting in hunting had no problems with the calibre.
It has to be remembered however that from a military point of view the 30-06 utilises a long case and therefore requires a long action. The 7.62x51 was introduced primarily to duplicate 30-06 ballistics in a more compact package.
Recoil was never much of an issue with the 7.62 as the rifle it was used with - the M14 - was heavy enough to negate much of the recoil - the same applies to it`s 30-06 predecessor the M1. An example of replacing the calibre without changing the rifle and all-in-all a pointless exercise.
There aren`t many who would deny that the 30-06 is a less than ideal military calibre but what makes the article truly irrelevant is that as the 30-06 ceased use as a military calibre rather a long time ago it`s use is now confined to hunting - and limited target shooting. Criticising the 30-06 as a hunting cartridge is just plain silly. Yes, there are calibres that produce less recoil. Yes there are calibres that produce as much energy ....... but so what ? If the 30-06 suits an individual it is an ideal hunting calibre and has the huge advantage that no other calibre offers the range of bullet weights available. Versatility is key.
By the way, I noticed no criticism of the Lee Enfield rifle in the article and the writer did NOT say that the .303 was overpowered. What he said was :

"They immediately launched a program to design a better cartridge than the .303, which ultimately failed due to being overpowered."

Check the punctuation.

All in all I think that Mark`s assessment of the article is spot-on.

A very educative post.Thank you all for the interesting inputs.

Best-
Vikram

I fully agree with grumpy's statement that the military qualities of the .30-06 have little bearing on the cartridge for hunting use. However, considering this:

There aren`t many who would deny that the 30-06 is a less than ideal military calibre...

I don't have a quibble with this observation, but I would like to add my own comment as a qualifier: When one compares the original .30-03 with other military rounds using a heavy, round nosed bullet:

.30-03, 220gr round nose @ 2300 fps
.303 British 215gr round nose (Mk VI) @ ~2000 fps
8x57 226gr round nose 2093 fps

Military loads using a spitzer bullet

.30-06 150gr spitzer 2700 fps
.30-06 172gr boattail 2640 fps
.303 British 175gr (Mk VII) @ 2440 fps
7.62x54r 147gr BT 2666 fps
8x57 154gr spitzer 2880 fps

When I look at these data, the first question that arises in my mind is why the .30=06 required a longer overall loaded length (e.g., .30-06 = 3.34", 7.62x54r = 3.02", 8x57 = 3.17") to achieve the ballistics it did in comparison with other military cartridges. I will note here that the difference between .30-06 and 8x57 is ~ 3/16" -- not a tremendous amount of difference (and, in fact, only minimal modifications to an M98 are needed to allow it to handle a .30-06 cartridge).

I think that, given pressures and all, the difference probably lies in the powders that were available when the cartridge was designed back at the turn of the century. If the US military wanted a level of performance that was comparable to cartridges in use by other nations, they would have to use a case of greater capacity to achieve equal ballistics at equal pressures. However, the notion that the .30-06 has more recoil than other military arms is a bit stretched: I've shot a number of 03 Springfields and they simply don't have the felt recoil of my wz29 Radom (a Polish version of the M98 in 8x57).

I agree that, if one can get the same performance with a smaller case, the smaller case comes out better in the comparison. However, I also hold that the military, having established a performance requirement based on tactical doctrines, would have had to have used the materials (powder) available at that time (which were not the same materials available to other military establishments). In other words, I still am not accepting the author's notion that the US military authorities were foolhardy cowboys regarding the .30-06 choice.

Secondly:

"They immediately launched a program to design a better cartridge than the .303, which ultimately failed due to being overpowered."

Check the punctuation.

Your point with regard to my interpretation is well taken. However, I don't think that this gets the author off the hook with regard to making, at the least, an unsubstantiated comment, rather than a fact. Going back to my copy of EGB Reynolds' The Lee Enfield Rifle, Reynolds lists the the attributes of the experimental 7mm cartridge to be used in the P14 rifle:

The cartridge case was rimless
The bullet. The cor was lead and antimony and the envelope was mild steel plated with cupro-nickel. Its diameter was .282 in. and it weighed 165 grains.
The charge was 49.3 grains of cordite M.D.T.
The overall length of the catridge was 3.230 in.
Muzzle velocity 2,785 fs as against the 2440 fs of the .303 in. Mark VII cartridge.

First, I will note that this new British cartridge was even closer in length to the .30-06, and similar in length to a few other military cartridges in use.

This round would have had a muzzle energy of ~2800 foot pounds

The .30-06 150gr spitzer @ 2700 fps would have a muzzle energy of ~2400 foot pounds

When considering recoil, one should remember that the P14 Enfield was over 1/2 pound heavier than the 03 Springfield.

My point being that, even accounting for my error in interpreting the author's statement with regard to punctuation, this error still does not change the fact that the author's statement is unsubstantiated by the facts: the experimental 7mm British round was not rejected because it was "overpowered," it was rejected because WW1 started and it was not a good time to change the rifle cartridge of the British Army.

Development of the 7mm round ceased on the outbreak of WWI but the calibre did have problems:

"The .276" cartridge was semirimless, loaded with a 165-grain bullet producing 2,800 fps from the Pattern 13's 26" barrel. While from the standpoint of ballistics, the .276 was more efficient than the .303, "The flash and the violence of the blast issuing from the muzzle were unduly great." Loaded with cordite powder, the 7mm cartridge quickly eroded barrels and reportedly produced high-pressure spikes when rifle and cartridges got hot."
( 1929 Textbook of Small Arms. )

HOWEVER I agree that none of the above substantiate the claim that the calibre was `overpowered`. The problems would have been solved by using a suitable powder rather than cordite.
Nor do I believe that the 30-06 was developed by the US military as a `macho` ( "Our military cartridge is longer than yours" ) exercise - the 30-03 showed excellent potential and was improved ( for military purposes ) by the adoption of a more-modern and lighter spitzer bullet.

Hey Mack The Knife - my 30-06 is bigger than yours ! LOL.