Author Topic: 30-06: A Military Mistake? (Read 4195 times)

lgm270 · « **on:** February 21, 2007, 10:27:40 AM »

This month's Petersen's RIFLE magazine has an article about the 30-06 arguing that it was a serious mistake from its inception, for a number of reasons.

1. It is needlessly powerful for a military round generating too much recoil for precision shooting by most shooters. He reported that upon the adoption of the 30-06, shooting scores went down and prompted the practice of paying a monetary bonus to personnel who shot well. With the adoption of the M-1 semi-automatic rifle and its recoil softening characteristics, shooting scores went back up. It also needlessly generated recoil for civilan shooters who were also adversely affected.

2. It's too long and too straightwalled. The straight walled 30-06 case, with its lack of taper, made it more problematic for use in automatic weapons. More tapered rounds such as the .303 British, 7.7 Jap, 8x57 Mauser worked far more reliably in machine guns. He cited the example of the Lewis machine gun that was very reliable in .303 Brit and 7.7 Jap, but hoplessly unreliable in the 30-06 version. Because the 30-06 was longer than contemporary rounds, it required larger, longer actions that were heavier and bulkier than weapons for contemporary rounds.

These are interesting points of view I never previously read. The adoption of the 7.62 mm Nato after WWII and ultimately less powerful rounds suggests this view might be right.

Does anyone else have any thoughts about these views?

SDS-GEN · « **Reply #1 on:** February 21, 2007, 10:36:48 AM »

The 06 was developed a long time ago and coming out of the era of black powder cartridges the 30 cal was a very small rifle bullet. I don't think the 30-06 was a mistake at the time of its invention, and there are thousands of Germans and Japanese that would attest to its effectiveness, Except they are all dead. A hundred years from now what will be said of the 308 or 223?

Buford · « **Reply #2 on:** February 21, 2007, 12:10:23 PM »

"shooting scores went down" - down from what?

Will Bison · « **Reply #3 on:** February 21, 2007, 12:17:28 PM »

The 1906 round was designed to serve several functions. It was a "compromise" round, it was overpower against soft targets but was effective against semi-hard targets and had an effective range of 1,000 yards or more. After more than 100 years, it's still one of the most popular rounds ever developed.

In the 1903 Springfield, the M1 Garand, the 1917 and 1919 Browning and BAR, it performs quite well. The Lewis gun is a problem of its own. I've shot quite a few of them and quality control was almost non-existant.

Around the turn of century, the military was trying to eliminate all the different calibers in use and get down to three or four common types of ammo.

Logistics and supply are big players in the game. By the 1920's the US was down to 30-06 and .45 ACP.

Are they perfect-----NO, but they won two wars.

Bill

Cement Man · « **Reply #4 on:** February 21, 2007, 12:25:53 PM »

I believe I read that article also - as usual, late at night when my bum hip was keeping me awake, so I may not have all the details accurate in my noggin. Anyway, I took it to be a tongue in cheek commentary about how the great old '06 wasn't as perfect for everything as the accolades that we give it now, make it out to be.
Yep, I guess one could retrospectively say that infantry tactics can be accomplished with a less powerful round. And yep, it may not be optimal for use in all types of mechanisms. And yep, there are other sporting cartridges that are better in different ways than the '06 for this or for that.
The key is putting these things all in proper historical context - in terms of cartridge development, military tactics, and firearms development and the logistics required to make things happen in a given time and at a given place. When you get to look backwards without regard to context, almost anything and any scenario could have been done better if differently.
We managed to do pretty well with that '06 anyway, didn't we?
Now I have to read that article again when I am awake!

wink_man · « **Reply #5 on:** February 21, 2007, 12:49:18 PM »

Serious mistake??? Ok, exactly why I don't read the gun rags anymore !!! We all know all the things the 06 has done, no need to re-mention them. Someone above said ithe cartridge was a compromise, and I've always said that the 06 does nothing excellently, yet everything very well. It may be a mistake in someones eyes, but I am glad I have several rifles chambered for that 'serious mistake'. I think our soldiers were thankful for it also, I'd hate to be defending myself with a 223. Why is it you hear of soldiers in Iraq liking and wanting to get a hold of the enemies Ak-47's?? Maybe not quite an 06, but I think most anything would beat a 223 for combat. Just my personal thoughts and opinions.

dw06 · « **Reply #6 on:** February 21, 2007, 02:07:04 PM »

I guess in this day and age anything can be picked apart.Must of been a slow month at the gun rag.Seriously tho,the 30-06 has become my all time favorite over the last 25 years,so of course I don't buy it.

jdt48653 · « **Reply #7 on:** February 21, 2007, 03:11:40 PM »

check the history,the 06 held more records with the military,then any other cal.
i zeroed my m1 in with 3 shots,100 meters,open sights.we had guys that could take you out at 400 meters.

nomosendero · « **Reply #8 on:** February 21, 2007, 04:55:46 PM »

Quote from: wink_man on February 21, 2007, 12:49:18 PM

Serious mistake??? Ok, exactly why I don't read the gun rags anymore !!! We all know all the things the 06 has done, no need to re-mention them. Someone above said ithe cartridge was a compromise, and I've always said that the 06 does nothing excellently, yet everything very well. It may be a mistake in someones eyes, but I am glad I have several rifles chambered for that 'serious mistake'. I think our soldiers were thankful for it also, I'd hate to be defending myself with a 223. Why is it you hear of soldiers in Iraq liking and wanting to get a hold of the enemies Ak-47's?? Maybe not quite an 06, but I think most anything would beat a 223 for combat. Just my personal thoughts and opinions.

I agree! Many M14's are being used in Irac & I understand soldiers want more of them. The M14 308 is a little heavy for the average couch potatoe, but our soldiers like them. One older local friend told me the Garand was heavy to march with for him (smaller guy, but tough) but he liked what happened when he needed it.

Gun writers look for stuff to write about from month to month. 6 months from now the same guy is likely to talk about how great the Garand was.
I have seen Wayne Van Z. for example talk about how we don't need a mag & the next month he promotes one. Whatever sells, I guess.
Do you know of any wars lost because the soldiers were shooting a 30-06? Many of the Nazi boys were shooting an 8mm Mau. & I know they feared & respected the Garand. Many a Nippon bit the dust as well! We won every War in which the 30-06 was the primary weapon.

It also needlessly generated recoil for civilian shooter. Well, wah wah wah

Are there better Mil. rounds? Well, yea, the 260 & 7-08 for example would be great. But this clown is arguing with success for that era.

Slamfire · « **Reply #9 on:** February 21, 2007, 05:33:20 PM »

Imagine that, too powerful for the military,.and barely adequate for mulies.

nomosendero · « **Reply #10 on:** February 21, 2007, 05:48:51 PM »

Quote from: Slamfire on February 21, 2007, 05:33:20 PM

Imagine that, too powerful for the military,.and barely adequate for mulies.

Good one!!

dw06 · « **Reply #11 on:** February 21, 2007, 11:12:42 PM »

Thats so good ones guys,guess I better all the whitetail deer and few mulies I shot with 06,you really aint dead!

qajaq59 · « **Reply #12 on:** February 22, 2007, 02:02:31 AM »

Thanks for reminding me why I stopped buying those silly magazines.

Dave in WV · « **Reply #13 on:** February 22, 2007, 06:28:25 AM »

The .30 cal. US Govt. round (30-03) was developed with "all of the power and recoil the average conscript could shoot accurately" as was the .45acp. The 30-03 was canged to shoot a 150gr bullet instead of the 220 bullet. The 30-03/30-06 did not have the velocity back them as it does now due to the powder available at the time.The Brits were going to change to a 7mm rimless cartridge in the '30s but Hitler changed that. The .303 and 7.7 cartridges are rimmed and they were a pain in the auto loaders if the magazines were not loaded correctly. The 30-06 has plenty of body taper. It was a great cartridge then as it is now. The 7.62 x 51 (.308) doesn't have more body taper than the '06 and it was developed for auto loaders.

jvs · « **Reply #14 on:** February 22, 2007, 10:40:29 AM »

So, we make it back to 1906. Is it really time to start throwing away what out fore fathers invented and used for decades?

I am convinced that one day, in the not too distant future, some scribbler will write an article telling us how outdated the Constitution is and writing it and living by it is a mistake because it doesn't have anything to do with todays modern world.

I admit my picture of the future isn't too enthusiastic when it comes to some of the stuff that is written in publications today.

lgm270 · « **Reply #15 on:** February 22, 2007, 11:56:43 AM »

Quote from: jvs on February 22, 2007, 10:40:29 AM

So, we make it back to 1906. Is it really time to start throwing away what out fore fathers invented and used for decades?

I am convinced that one day, in the not too distant future, some scribbler will write an article telling us how outdated the Constitution is and writing it and living by it is a mistake because it doesn't have anything to do with todays modern world.

I admit my picture of the future isn't too enthusiastic when it comes to some of the stuff that is written in publications today.

Well, the 30-06 has already been thrown out, as a military cartridge and there were proposals to replace it with the 276 Pederson round in the 1930's. It was a smaller, slightly less powerful, less recoiling cartridge but the recommendation was vetoed by Gen. Douglas MacArthur for reasons that I'm not aware of . I know the defense budget was cut during the early years of FDR and MacArthur probably believed that money was better spent in light of existing large inventories of 30-06 ammo on hand.

I don't think it's unpatriotic to study and reexamine history. I think a smaller lighter recoiling round would have contributed to better shooting and being able to carry more ammo. I've taken people out shooting (the best way to convert people from being anti-gun to pro-gun is to show them how much fun shooting is) and they all enjoy shooting the .223 Rem and 7.62 Russin SKS and did well with them. I was introduced to CF rifle shooting with a 30-06 and it was too much gun for me as a skinny teenager. IT knocked me all over the place. I suspect a lot of drafees with no shooting experience felt the same way. My shooting, and my enjoyment of it, improved greatly when I got my first .270 WCF at age 18.

I used to do alot of shooting with cheap 8mm mauser ammo when it was available and I have to say that after a sixty rounds or so, my shoulder was bruised and discolored and my jaw was swollen from the recoil. I gained a real sense of respect for guys who had to fight with these things and shoot hundreds of rounds in savage combat. The .303 Enfield was another hard kicker. Harder kicking, more powerful rounds cause fatigue and poor shooting. By comparson, I can shoot all day with a 6.5x55 and I'm none the worse for wear. The .308 seems to kick alot less than either the 8mm mauser or the 30-06. If I had to go into combat and shoot hundreds of rounds in comparable rifles, I would choose the 6.5x55 if given the choice.

Is it really unpatriotic or treasonous to reflect back on the history of our military small arms and ammo?

victorcharlie · « **Reply #16 on:** February 22, 2007, 12:22:05 PM »

I wish I was dumb enough to make mistakes like that every day!

Hey.....if I'm going to make a mistake......let them be like this one!

454Puma · « **Reply #17 on:** February 22, 2007, 06:01:06 PM »

lgm270
The '06 was a mistake? Whom ever wrote that peace is a fool to be sure! The '06 is the best all around hunting caliber there is -plain a simple from varmits to the big five it has taken every game animal in the world!! Barely adequate for mulies-that guy's smoking something and it isn't tobacco!

As far as the miltary use there are way to many dead folks to say it was a very good fight stopper! My dad can atest to that! He still got his M1A1 he carried through out Europe, he's still here and many Germans are not with us!!

Cement Man · « **Reply #18 on:** February 22, 2007, 06:15:16 PM »

I re-read the article. I believe I had it right. It is "tongue in cheek" commentary.
First - the title asks if it is the "National Mistake" instead of "Military Mistake" (not that it makes much difference). The author does point out that for all the various uses the '06 has been put to in the last century, one could argue that there was/is something that could have been a little better. (like the 7X57 - easier to shoot accurately for an infantryman) In the end though, he suggests that the capabilities of this great, versatile cartridge did so many things well for hunters and was so effective in the field for an American fighting man, that it has given sportsmen and soldiers confidence - and an "emotional advantage". He even quotes Napolean - "The moral is to the physical as three is to one."

Anyway, instead of "damning with faint praise", this was "praising with faint damnation", in my opinion. Actually, I think it was an interesting peice, really more entertaining than analytically complete.

I suspect the author is really quite an'06 fan. I know I am.

nomosendero · « **Reply #19 on:** February 23, 2007, 03:02:36 AM »

Just an article to keep the checks coming, it has allready drawn more attention than it was worth. And because of that, I am bored & done with it.

Cement Man · « **Reply #20 on:** February 23, 2007, 03:20:19 AM »

Well I enjoyed the article and the discussion.

coyotejoe · « **Reply #21 on:** February 23, 2007, 03:31:22 AM »

I was totally blown away one morning to hear National Public Radio do several minutes in tribute to the 100th anniversary of the 30/06 cartridge! Another accolade for the '06, the only cartridge ever praised on NPR!

Cement Man · « **Reply #22 on:** February 23, 2007, 04:19:42 AM »

That would have blown me away too! Wow! I would have liked to have heard that. No hidden agenda??

That's kind of like a Zumbo inside out.

Slamfire · « **Reply #23 on:** February 23, 2007, 07:18:20 PM »

I'd never admit to listenin' to NPR!

Coyote Hunter · « **Reply #24 on:** February 24, 2007, 05:41:04 PM »

When I read the article I couldn't help but think the answer made no difference - the fact is the .30-06 was chosen and it served very well through two World Wars and the Korean War before being replaced. Could another cartridge have served as well? Perhaps. I could have been born rich, too, but I wasn't.

For hunters, the choice was fortuitous as the .30-06 has proven itself to be an extremely versatile cartidge, easily taking everything from antelope and small deer to big bears and moose. It's progeny include the .25-06, .270, .280, .338-06 and .35 Whelen, all fine cartridges in their own right but none as versatile as the .30-06 in my opinion.

billy_56081 · « **Reply #25 on:** February 24, 2007, 05:57:56 PM »

Only the greatest country in the world could make a mistake as good as the 30-06 springfield.

charles p · « **Reply #26 on:** February 25, 2007, 02:50:24 PM »

Well, I shot the 30-06, the 308, and the 223 during my 27 years in the military. I qualified best with the 223 (especially standing and sitting), but by then I was a better shot also. The best darn hunting rifle I ever owned was a 700 Classic in 30-06 (back before they went to one caliber per year). Inside 300 yds I was automatic and shots at 400-500 yds were high probability kills on whitetails. Now at age 60, I can't repeat that with semi custom rifles of any caliber. I expect the 7mm-08 could have been the best all around choice for a military cartridge, but it has never been used by the military.

Coyote Hunter · « **Reply #27 on:** February 26, 2007, 01:54:35 PM »

Quote from: charles p on February 25, 2007, 02:50:24 PM

...I expect the 7mm-08 could have been the best all around choice for a military cartridge, but it has never been used by the military.

Or a 7x57 loaded to modern pressures....

hrminer92 · « **Reply #28 on:** February 26, 2007, 06:15:51 PM »

Hindsight is 20-20

Yes, there are probably better calibers for military purposes that have appeared in the last 100 years., but the fact that it's still a popular cartridge around the world speaks volumes. I wish my "mistakes" were as successful.

missouri dave · « **Reply #29 on:** March 04, 2007, 01:03:16 PM »

I read the article too and if I may misquote George C. Scott as General Patton. The man who wrote knows no more about the 30-06 cartridge or shooting in general than he does about fornicating!