30-06: A Military Mistake?

[williamlayton]

Having grown up with the 06 and having used the M-14 I can say that there certainly was better choices. A Marine friend of mine who was in WWII and a vetran of the islands agrees with me.
On full auto the M14 soon becomes airborn.
Lighter and better rifle calibers do/did exist but the military brass at the arsenal--who didn't have too shoot it--were in love with the range and power.
Most shots in WWII were less than 200 yards as in Korea and Nam.
It makes sense to have the power only if there is a need and battles have not proven to require the range. Now if you want too know--the marines of WWII had to reteach the replacements that what was needed was a strong field of fire and to hay with waiting for a target too appear.
If the folks ask us too fight a battle thay should be willing to supply the ammo not worry about keeping the cost down.
Blessings

[Sourdough]

If the 30-06 was such a mistake, why is it still one of the most populer sporting cartridges made?  Why do I own six of them? 

[williamlayton]

We are discussing military.
Blessings

[Mikey]

Well, let's see:  it won a war in europe, twice; it pushed the commies back across the dmz in Korea and it busted on through rattan and bamboo better than any dang 5.56, so No, it wasn't a mistake in my book.  Mikey.

[jro45]

I know it wasn't a mistake. It is to this day it is an excellent rifle. It can shoot the 150gr bullet over 3000 fps witch back then the powders weren't available. The velocity then was 2700 FPS witch can go to 400 or 500 yds no problem. It can shoot heavy bullets or it can go light. I've shot the 130gr bullet at 3200 fps out of mine.

[Mr. Joe]

Was it a mistake...No.  Was it the best choice...No.  I think the .308 is better, but it wasnt around when we adopted the .30-06.  I think either the 7x57 or the 6.5x55 would have been better, but hindsight is 20-20.  I love the .30-06, but im not fighting a war, im hunting.  If i had to shoot 300 rounds a day, i would want less recoil.   Its funny that the Germans didnt go with the 7x57 though even though they invinted it.  They went with the 8x57 wich kicks as hard as any .30-06.  The 8x57 as the Germans loaded it was the baddest round in the war though, make no mistake.  It shot a larger caliber bullet almost 300 fps faster than the .30-06 with the same bullet weight at 150gr. or thereabouts.  Then they switched to the 196gr.load wich was badder yet!

[jro45]

I was in the ARMY back in the 60's during the Veitnam war and I shot the 308 it was called the M14. Had to qualify with it to 500 yds. No problem. The 308 is a all right by me. The 06 has more power tho.

[montveil]

Talk about Monday morning quarterbacking.

I seems to me that 100 years later it is still a populsr caliber and is exceedingly versitile.
I wish I could make such a "mistake" that lasted 100 years.
The 30-06 and acp 45 are still around which is great testimony to both calibers.
There may be better calibers 100 years later but it took 100 years to challange the old guys

I would love to have been a fly on the wall when these guys adopted the 30-06 in light of the options and powders available at the time.

[Sourdough]

Don't know what all the fuss is about recoil!  My .308 Parker Haile kicks just as bad as my 30-06 Remington 760 or my Handi 30-06.

To me there is no differance in recoil, so again what is the fuss about recoil?  The only reason I retired my .308 is that it don't shoot heavy bullets well.  Thinking about relocating it to Tennessee, or Texas, for Whitetail.

[DanP]

In the context of the technology (1903 Sprg, M1 Garand, Browning, to M14, etc) it drove innovations that ultimately made its replacement attractive; at the same time, it came from innovations, from .30-40 Krag, etc, that showed a distinct path from .45-70 to a cartridge that did very well in a number of military applications -- versatile for the same reason they are versatile for hunters.  While military tradition could be blamed for its long life, it still did very well for a reason... if it hadn't, tradition would not have preserved it.

Yes, there were other European calibers that would have been more like some of the more modern cartridges that appear attractive for military applications today, but it does not take into account the perceptions and technology of the years through which the '06 moved, which ultimately did make the other calibers much more attractive than they would have appeared in those prior decades.

Dan

[BUSTER51]

I you live long enough you will hear and see some strange stuff. the 06 was right for it's time and even today it is very hard to beat for hunting .

[corbanzo]

Yes, whoever wrote this article is exactly right.

Yes, whoever wrote this article is exactly wrong.

Confused?

Of course every round ever made has its application, to the shooter of course.  The 06 though developed for the military is now the most popular hunting caliber of all time.  The military gave it up because others found what they though as a better cartridge, different people, new cartridge. 

So our military no longer uses it, so the people who run things don't see it as the best, the writer is correct, but where was the .223 in 1906?  More new development.

The 06 did have its use, and still does though not in the military.

So was it a mistake?  Not at all, they knew what they were doing, and just moved on from there.  Change always happens. 

Was it the best choice?  To those people at the time, but not now.  The 06 is one of the best bolt rifle cartridges ever designed, for a bolt action.  Get something else for for machines guns, and yet another for snipers, and yet another for hand guns, there is no all around cartridge for everything.

Calling the 06 a mistake is idiocy.  You just have to realize that no one round will take care of every application.  Thinking that you can have a light carry machine gun and a sniper rifle in one is once again stupid.

Is this same writer saying that the 416 Barret is a failure because you can't shoot it out of an M-16 action?


Why the author is right that its a failure:

Nope, the 06 won't shoot as fast and carry as light as a .223.
Nope, the 06 won't shoot as far accurately and carry as much energy as a .416 barret.

Why he is wrong:

It's not a .223, it's not a .416 - it's an 06; and in my experience for my purposes, that is one bad round.

[handirifle]

As far as I'm concerned the 223 is WAY more of a mistake than the 30-06.  While some may have complained that the recoil was harsh, NONE ever complained it didn't do it's job, to kill the enemy.  There are AMNY documented cases of the 223 (5.56 NATO) of not stopping the target, especially when used from the shorter barresls and taking longer shots, meaning over 100yds.

I really have to laugh at the comments people make in cutting down the 223 for deer hunting, but very seldom is it talked about as harshly for the job it was invented for.

I say that 100 years ago when designed the 30-06 was PERFECT for the job.  They have come a long way with powder development since then and the performance of smaller calibers could not have compared as they do now.  Something like the 6.5 Grendell, or 6.8 SPC, to me, seems almost perfect for the average soldier.  Snipers will always require something different, but they are not average.

I have carried and fired the M-14 and the M-16 (A-1) and MUCH peferrred the 14.  Sure it was heavier, but that weight absorbed the extra recoil, and you knew when you pulled the trigger, and your aim was right, the target WOULD drop.

[NONYA]

The only mistake they made was when the quit using it.

[Coyote Hunter]

Yesterday I was at the range shooting my first handloads for the .30-06 I picked up last November.  Two different powders, 18 rounds total, each round with a powder charge 0.5g different than its nearest neighbor.

I was shooting in a t-shirt, factory 1984 Ruger stock.  (That is to say it didn't have a nice recoil absorbing pad.)  Recoil?  Sorry, didn't notice. The first 10 shots with H4350 went into a 1" group.  The next 8 with BL(C)-2 did the same. 

Forgot to flinch.  Maybe next time.   

[dw06]

The only mistake they made was when the quit using it.

+1 wish I'd said that.

[prairiedog555]

I love and shoot a number of '06s, my most accurate deer rifle is a sporterized '03.  But IF you were making the choice now for a US military round I'm sure we would all make a different choice when given the logistics of modern warfare. (not the .223)
 I'm sure my dad would have liked to have 10 rds in his M1 at Normandy, and be able to carry 25% more ammo, and I'm sure he would have liked to eliminate that awful " PLING" sound when you are empty)

[NONYA]

i LOVE that plinnng sound,it makes shooting the M1 worthwhile,it a great piece of American history.

[kombi1976]

The 30-06 was a product of it's time.
It was certainly up to date in 1906 when it was finalised.
Keep in mind, the military were trying to create a SUPER 7x57.
And the US Army isn't known for it's foresight.
I think the 30/40 Krag is an excellent example of that.
As for the failure of the 276 Pederson....I think there was more than a little of the "we don't shoot those weird Yurop cals here" in MacArthur's veto.
Certainly the 30-06 is very long to be used in a sliding action like the Garand but it had heavy knockdown and needed the space to generate similar velocities as the 8x57 with less advanced powders.
The Lewis gun was a strange beastie.
I think Japan had 2 different 7.7mm cases and one was semi-rimmed for use in machine guns.
But aside of all that, the 303 Brit was already 15 years out of date when the '06 was finished and it lasted through 2 world wars and other conflicts.
Just because a cartridge becomes obsolete does not mean it is ineffective.
100 years of service in battle and the hunting field has proven that about both of these old warhorses.

[sluggo]

...i didn't read the article, but i do know this, the 6mm's are still trying to catch the 30 cal's in 1000 yd match.

[kombi1976]

...i didn't read the article, but i do know this, the 6mm's are still trying to catch the 30 cal's in 1000 yd match.

Comparing a 6mm to a 30 cal for long range work is apples to oranges.
The extra weight of 30 cal over 6mm is huge.
At 1000yds that makes a lot of difference.

[RangerRiz]

I think the article was well written. The author got it to do what he wanted it to.  He wanted it to make people think.  In purely military terms it did do a great job and fought in many conflicts, but it was far from perfect.  What would it have been like if the average GI could have carried twice the ammo in combat.  The military did test on the best over all combat cartridge and it would have had ballistics very similar to the 7mm-08.  I think i read something once that it would have been 132 grain 7mm in a case like a 300 Savage.  If they would have had time to implement it between the wars we probably still using it.  I think the 06 is about as good as it gets as a sporting cartridge.  I am having a full custom bolt gun made in it.  You can get ammo in 55 grain to 250 grains.  It has ben used to kill every game animal on earth. I think  more credit should be given to the men who used it in battle and their traning, than to the cartrage.  The men and women in the U.S. military are the reason we have the mightiest military on earth.  They have done it with led balls to 62 grain 5.65 ball ammo and will keep doing it with whatever the brass sticks in there hands.  Anyhow i dont think the author of the article ment to insulte anyone.


                                                                                                                                                                                             Justin

[Black Jaque Janaviac]

The author of that article succeeded only in pointing out weaknesses in the .30-06.  But that doesn't mean it was a mistake.  A mistake would be that there were superior rounds available THAT WOULD ENABLE THE U.S. ARMY TO EXPLOIT ITS ENEMIES WEAKNESSES, and the military chose not to go with that round.

So far, it doesn't appear that this was the case.

You have to look at what the enemies were using in WWI, WWII, and Korea.  I don't know a whole lot about WWI and Korea, but in WWII the German mausers and Jap arisakas were very similar in size and power.

I would imagine that one of the worst things to have happen in battle is to run out of ammo.  If a solder can only carry so much gear, you obviously are going to get more shots per pound of ammo when carrying 5.56 or 7.62x39 than a big ol' .30-06.  But when the '06 was in combat, it wasn't up agains the smaller cartridges - it was up against mausers and arisakas.

In Japan the U.S. did have the .30 carbine which did not earn a good reputation.  So evidently some that had to fire their weapons saw the need for greater power, in spite of the .30 carbine's ability to keep a strong field of fire.

[elmer]

Too much recoil? My wife owns a .243, but can shoot my Savage in 30-06 just as well. Of course I'm only shooting 168gr not the 180's. Heck, I keep hearing people talking about needing a 300 Win mag or 338 for whitetail.

I have two rifles in that cartridge and am toying with the idea of buying a Garand.

[kombi1976]

You have to look at what the enemies were using in WWI, WWII, and Korea.  I don't know a whole lot about WWI and Korea, but in WWII the German mausers and Jap arisakas were very similar in size and power.

I would imagine that one of the worst things to have happen in battle is to run out of ammo.  If a solder can only carry so much gear, you obviously are going to get more shots per pound of ammo when carrying 5.56 or 7.62x39 than a big ol' .30-06.  But when the '06 was in combat, it wasn't up against the smaller cartridges - it was up against mausers and arisakas.

The 30-06 was similar in performance to the 8x57, in fact with a 150gn bullet the 8mm was more powerful due to powder superiority.
But more than half of the Japanese troops were using the 6.5x50R and this was quite different to the 30-06.
It's closer to modern rounds and parallels or betters the performance of the 6.8 SPC.
The 6.5 Arisaka was in fact so good that Australian soldiers in New Guinea used them to snipe at the enemy when they found the rifles and ammo with fallen Japanese soldiers.
The lighter recoil and innate accuracy made them a great rifle.
But yes, the 7.7mm Jap was identical to the 303 Brit in performance and more like the 30-06.

[Slamfire]

You have to look at what the enemies were using in WWI, WWII, and Korea.  I don't know a whole lot about WWI and Korea, but in WWII the German mausers and Jap arisakas were very similar in size and power.

I would imagine that one of the worst things to have happen in battle is to run out of ammo.  If a solder can only carry so much gear, you obviously are going to get more shots per pound of ammo when carrying 5.56 or 7.62x39 than a big ol' .30-06.  But when the '06 was in combat, it wasn't up against the smaller cartridges - it was up against mausers and arisakas.

The 30-06 was similar in performance to the 8x57, in fact with a 150gn bullet the 8mm was more powerful due to powder superiority.
But more than half of the Japanese troops were using the 6.5x50R and this was quite different to the 30-06.
It's closer to modern rounds and parallels or betters the performance of the 6.8 SPC.
The 6.5 Arisaka was in fact so good that Australian soldiers in New Guinea used them to snipe at the enemy when they found the rifles and ammo with fallen Japanese soldiers.
The lighter recoil and innate accuracy made them a great rifle.
But yes, the 7.7mm Jap was identical to the 303 Brit in performance and more like the 30-06.

The use of the enemy's weapons, while sniping, or on patrol, is pretty widespread. Your guys know what you are using, and the enemy isn't alarmed when they hear the report of their own weapons. The .256 tested when the Army was developing the Garand, fired a 125 grain bullet at 2700 fps, clearly superior ballistics to the 6.8.