quote:

We may not all like what history has to say but it ain't going to change.

It is what it is !!!

Warrior

/

Are you catching all this good info, Neddy? roger

quote:

When the US entered WW2 only 2 out of every 100 recruits were actually capable of shooting a rifle. This in sharp contrast to the Germans who introduced mandatory shooting skill training for civillian boys and men as early as 1934.

Gosh, this is not a nice testament. Perhaps there is more blame on the recruits than with the M1 or M14.

No doubt that a volley of fire will increase the probability of a kill - especially in a jungle with so many variables. Deserts warfare poses different challenges just like city warfare is a different animal again.

Warrior

The volume of fire/kill has dropped dramatically since Viet Nam. Both the army and marines have better marksmanship training than they did before in my opinion. One other factor in the current drop is that they are issuing 3 round burst M-4s in place of the full autos and equipping them with red-dot sights and some with lazers also. The full auto stuff is left to the guy carrying the SAW machine guns that will lay down 750-1000 rounds a minute depending on which mode they are in.

Desert warfare is indeed different, but very little warfare is going on in the desert. It is in a vicious urban environment. At 150 yards or less, the heavy bullet of the new .556 ammo is nothing to sneeze at. I would not want somebody shooting it at me at 600 yards, either!!

Snipers are there for the long shots, and the average guy just doesn't need to worry about it. If it is very far away, they call in a gunship anyway.

The '06 was fine for its time and no one seemed to know enough to change. The Garand is an awesome, accurate rifle, but the days of ultra-heavy guns and big calibers have gone by the wayside. That is why the AK has done so well. It is handy and has sufficient punch to do the job. All they have to do is wound someone. It does not have to be a kill to take a fighter out of combat.

Myself I think that the 06 is a great rifle no mater what anybody says.

Reading through this thread...
Just wanted to ask Idaho Sharpshooter.......
What do you really think about this article and its writer?????????

I read the article, and while the guy made some valid points, we all know how the generals think. Look at the resistance to changing from single shot rifles to repeaters. After all, the troops would be wasting all that ammo, right? The 30-06 was perfect for it's role in the first World War with it's trench warfare and long range surpressing fire. Even then, after the war, they were thinking about making changes in the cartridge. IIRC, It was General MacArthur who decided to stick with the 30-06 in 1937. Was this a mistake, or did he foresee the coming war? It takes time. Lots of time, especially in the military beaurocracy for change to take place. Could the new rifle (the M-1) in a new cartridge be ready in sufficient numbers? What about enough ammo. We had multiple stores of 30-06 ammo on hand. Even then, it apparently wasn't enough as most ammo for civilian use literally disappeared from gun shop shelves. Everything went to the war effort.
I remember that .22 LR and 30-30 was about all one could find. Most of that went to farmers (.22LR) and ranchers (30-30) to protect crops and animals from predation. At least, that's the way it was where I grew up.
Maybe the 30-06 was not the perfect cartridge for WW-2 and Korea. It still got the job done and that's what counts.
Paul B.

Oh God! Blasphemy! Heresy! Burn the witch, burn him!

Actually Bartsche, the article struck me as a well researched and written re-hash of some interesting history. I still remember a 98 lb. South Vietnamese college buddy's horror at the prospect of carrying or shooting an M1. The .30-06 was and remains overkill for most military or hunting purposes...but overkill works just fine.

Having read the article as well i thought that the author made many good points....

Hindsight is always 20/20, but just because it's hindsight that doesn't make certain points any less valid.

I find it interesting that all these years after the Germans introduced the SG-44, which all assault rifles are decended from, only recently have we seen fit to reinvent the wheel with the 6.8mm spc.

The .223 was made under the theory that wounding was good enough to take a man out of action, and you would tie up more enemy troops as they tended thier wounded.

I guess we may see if the idea of actually killing ones opponent with your first shot takes hold, and the 6.8mm spc becomes the next US standard.

..

I read the article, I think it's just a crock of shit to stir controversy and increase sales of another ad rag gun mag. I don't know about current markmanship training in the miltary, but the markmanship training in the Marine Corps during the Vietnam War was quite intensive. I qualified Expert as did more than a few guys in my platoon. BTW, I didn't buy the magazine, I borrowed it.

quote:

Originally posted by Idaho Sharpshooter:
IMHO, which is just that...the guy couldn't get published if his grandmother owned the print outlet. Nobody else wanted the grief. So, they give this goober, whom I have honestly NEVER!!! heard of, the job. He probably thinks he is some sort of historian and ballistician. He does a "my hindsight is 20:20" and throws a lot of suppositions and half-truths, and innuendo and outright bullshit together and presents it as Nobel Prize level literature. "...women and children don't shoot the old '06 very well, so it had to be a poor battle rifle...". Garbage!
I've known literally hundreds of WWII and Korea combat veterans and to a man, they credited the Garand and its cartridge for bringing them home safe and sound from the wars. The 308 he praises never amounted to a popcorn fart for the US in any conflict. He's just a mediocre wanna-be writer who has nothing of substance to offer the world...but wants to see his name in print.

Rich
DRSS

You know, I've met Richard many times. I haven't read the article but he's a nice guy, fun to talk to and not pretentious. He even offered to do an article of a full stocked Mauser I was building in .338 Federal. I just couldn't finish it in time. He's a big fan of military cartridges and shoots rifles chambered for them all the time.

The .30-06 is my favorite round. Period! But I've known many friends who thought it kicked too much. The simple fact is people react differently to recoil for a variety of reasons. I don't give a shit what cartridge a person shoots, as long as they shoot it well and put the meat on the table with it.

I personally don't think the 30/06 needs to apologize to anyone for any reason....

If one can't handle the caliber they shouldn't use it.... there are plenty of other lighter calibers...

But someone who can't handle it, it isn't the fault of the round, it is the fault of the shooter....

And as far as criticizing weapons such as the M1 being the wrong rifle at the time... those that had to put their lives on the line with it, sure preferred it over the bolt action Springfields and Enfields....

bet there are a lot of soldiers in Iraq that would rather hump an M1 or M14 than an M16 or M4 Carbine, when the shooting starts....

Nov. 3, 1967 I was drafted into the Army. Went to basic with a m14, fired several hunderd rounds per day during rifle training, never got a sore soldier. Went to Signal school, got orders for viet nam spent 1 day on the range with a m16 that jamed every 3 rounds, Range officer cleared it by stepping on the bolt tab(he should have shot himself with it) Viet nam vets told stories being saved by full auto fire from m16. Went to nam, assigned to advanced team 43 pushing gooks. They were all assigned wwII weapons. We carried what we wanted, mostly m1's but the gooks mostly carried m2-3 carbines. After our pf got m16's most of shifted to m14 because the locals had m60's. I have shot people with m1's, m14's & car15's. but my sample is not large enough or the conditions uniform enough to say anything about the comparative kill power of the above. I will say,1 The smartest thing the army ever did was taking the fully auto feature off the m16. 2.Where I was given a choice between a m14 & m16 the m14 would win out..3.I have seen a lot of people shot with Sks, ak47's & they cause more damage than a 223 remington 4. Our PF"S & RF's never had marksmanship training so the safest place to be was where they were trying to shoot.5. The m79 rules as a small arms weapon.

"The M-1 is the greatest battle implement ever devised"
I might not have the quote perfect
But Patton was an olympic shooter , fought in the trenches in WW1 and lived every wakeing moment for war.
you may know that the army and marines have put many many M-14s back in service in Iraq and afgainistan.
Shoot,
mabye if we would have used a better cartridge we might have won the word wars
...tj3006

I quit taking that magazine four months back! Yet, I agree somewhat with the idea that the "development" of the '03 and '06 rounds was at least predicated on the "not invented here" syndrome that has pervaded our choice of small arms over the last two centuries. As a matter of fact, I am amazed that the early U.S. flintlock muskets appear to be nothing more than a version of the French Charleville, made in USA! Of course, the alternative would probably have been a version of the "King's Musket", and we were mad at the king right then!

However, after receiving the benefit of the 7mm Mauser round in Spanish hands, then seeing what it did when used against the Brits in the Boer War, and being at least somewhat familiar with the 8X57J round in use in Germany, our failure to adopt one or the other of these great cartridges is a bit hard to fathom.

I can understand the retention of .308" bullets-we had the barrel making equipment already set up at Springfield due to the .30/40 Krag; and, the Swiss had already proven the validity of the caliber choice with their 7.5X55mm round. But we could have used .308" bullets in a 57mm case by necking up the 7X57mm or necking down the 8X57mm.

In addition, we could have just started off by paying Mauser for a license to make the M98 action here, chambered for the Cartridge, Ball, 7.62X57mm U.S., and skipped the whole .30'03-.30-06-7.62X51mm NATO and 1903 Springfield nonsense entirely, as the 7.62X57mm U.S. would be short enough for the uses for which the 51mm NATO round was eventually developed! In addition the Mauser is a better action design than the 1903 Springfield.

/

quote:

But we could have used .308" bullets in a 57mm case by necking up the 7X57mm or necking down the 8X57mm.

Great idea, just can't believe they never considered it. Would have saved a lot of time and effort.

You are also quite right about the excellent performance of the 7x57 in the hands of the Spanish and the Boers. Flexible & low recoiling cartridge.

Warrior

quote:

it has to to with the controllability of the arm when fired in short auto bursts i.e the probability of multiple hits on a target of certain size at set distance when fired in full auto mode.

That is why the AK47 was such a stunning success. Kalasnikov rebelled against the introduction of the AK74 to shoot lighter bullets similar to the 5.56mm

Warrior

I have almost read most of these post's and one thing seem's painfully clear. If American's were better shot's in general, the cost of war would go way down.

Someone mentioned that in Veitnam the shots per kill ratio was in the neighborhood of 50,000 to 1. We know the government spends to much for everything so lets say they get their ammo from the WalMart and it costs $5 a box of 20. It takes 2500 boxes of ammo to kill one (1) enemy combatant. Thats $12,500 per kill. Using an off the wall figure of 300,000 ground troops durning the war, Wal Mart would have taken in $3,750,000,000 in the sale of 223 ammo just so each of our ground troops could kill one enemy combatant each. What if they all killed two????

It would seem that rather than concerning ourselves with what kind of cartridges we have for the military, we should better teach them how to shoot! Imagine what we could do to the enemy if each guy could score 5 kills per 50,000 rounds!

The 30-06 is a great cartridge, who could say different with a straight face. There are in my opinion better choices for a war cartridge but then I wasn't around in 1903 to council them!

Patton also led a cavalry/infantry pincer movement that pushed thousands of impoverished homeless WWI veterans (who had coalesced at Washington DC to protest never getting their war bonus in the very early 1930's)out of the shanty town they had built and burned the shacks. Bayonets and Sabers against the soldiers who fought for the US in France and into Germany. The best documented ocurrance of use of US troops against US citizens until last September. Don't start me on that popcorn pimp.

The 30-06 was just the most effective battle cartridge this country has ever had, because of the men who used it.

The issue is not marksmanship training, or improvements in the "tools of the trade"; it's about breaking down the human reluctance to kill another human being, and then dealing with it after that soldier returns to the civilian world. I went thru the training, Paratrooper and then Airborne Ranger Schools, then the Jungle Warfare School in Panama...then to Vietnam. Twenty-five months and ten days worth. I say this not for recognition, but as a litany of facts to make the case that killing other human beings is the ultimate tabooo. My training to go to war was several months of intensive training...my reorientation to the civilian world was a 20 minute lecture that basically said "...no saying f**K all the time, no pissing in public, use all the toilet paper you want, you are now in the land of the 24-hour generator, use all the ice you want, yes drinks are available cold if you want, no, people here don't get "gook sores", do not have to check their scrotum area for leeches in their spare time while out on missions, food now comes on plates instead of in a can, you can wear any color combination of clothes you want, vehicles come in many colors as well; and oh, by the way, you may no longer shoot people you come into conflict with...have a good life Sargeant, errrrrrrrrrrr Mr Kayser.." Once you cross that line and kill when you feel you need to, or on orders, you are never quite the same again...
I apologize, I'm getting way off-topic. What you have just read is the essence of warfare on a personal basis, it's why we'd like to just fly over and drop bombs and be done with it.

regards,

Rich
DRSS
Sua Sponte

My casual reading of the 6.5 Grendel is that the rou nd is somehow "copyrighted" or whatever and the holder wants money for any commercial use of the product.

A full size military nrifle in .30 cal won't necessarily fit everyone especially if it's an M-1 or M-14. With the larger plastic die cast pistol grip designs some of the discomfort disappears in large calibers and certainly with the .223 family. I went through the M-14, M-1, and M-16 in military service.

If you want to inflict damage regardless of range some sort of a .30 caliber is best. If that were pushed a reloaded .30-06 round in a modern gas rifle designed to handle it is needed.

For aircraft applications this is serious as range and hitting power are needed if a light machinegun must be used. The NRA magazine had a recent article indicating the Browning designs as modified for aircraft had higher rates of fire, lighter barrels and receivers, and thus met aircraft needs. The Germans had some odd 7mm guns used in the rear seat of some twins but dropped them.

Helicopter door gunners, gatling guns on copters, etc, all require something light which has the reach and the .30 cal family will do it.

quote:

Originally posted by Idaho Sharpshooter:
Don't start me on that popcorn pimp.

The 30-06 was just the most effective battle cartridge this country has ever had, because of the men who used it.

I apologize, I'm getting way off-topic. regards,Rich DRSS Sua Sponte

No apology necessary You can hijack any of my threads whenever you want. roger

Idaho Sharpshooter,

Great post, no apology necessary.

quote:

The 30-06 is a great cartridge, who could say different with a straight face. There are in my opinion better choices for a war cartridge but then I wasn't around in 1903 to council them!

Things were indeed very differnt in 1903.

Here is a comparison:

The standard AK-47 (7.62x39 mm) fires a 123 gr bullet at 2,329 fps. (Was intended for close combat)

The new 6.5 Grendel fires a 123 gr bullet at 2,600 fps. (Sleek 6.5 mm bullets have high BC's)

The 7.62x51 Nato a 146 gr bullet at 2,750 fps. (the recoil was the problem in full automatic mode, but otherwise devastating)

The US army had already begun the switch over from M14's to M16's by 1965, but didn't get large numbers of the weapon until 1967. The marines switched over years later, depended on the unit on what weapon they were armed with. Marine snipers continued to use modified M14s until very recently. Some may still use them today.

The M1 Garand Rifle (.30-06) is best known for its role as the United States Armed Forces' main battle rifle during World War Two and Korea, whereas the M1 also saw service in Vietnam, especially during the early years, until it was replaced by the M14 and the M16. The M1 fired A 150 gr bullet at 2,800 fps.

Warrior

I've never shot anyone.
Anyone who has a chance and the interst should pick up a copy of Lt Col. Grossman's "On Killing." It's an exellent resource on the mental/psychological element and points to a much deeper "problem" lying behind the low kill:bullet ratio than simply cartridge performance or even marksmanship training.
It was recommended to me by my self-defense pistol instructor, 7-yr LA SWAT member, as a self-discussion starter regarding using a weapon in self-defense.
Excellent reading, and offers some points of interest to this discussion vis a vis the 30-06 being too much for the shooter.
[edited to add:]
I LOVE the 30-06!!! What an amazing round! Maybe not the best military round (not being .264" round and 3.06" long) but damn does it get the job done. 180g at 2850?! Are you shitting me?!
Oh yeah.
And if they hadn't made it, we wouldn't have the even-better 280, or the 35 Whelen, two rounds which together cover anything in NA. It makes a fine 6.5 as well, don't it?

quote:

Originally posted by Idaho Sharpshooter:
Patton also led a cavalry/infantry pincer movement that pushed thousands of impoverished homeless WWI veterans (who had coalesced at Washington DC to protest never getting their war bonus in the very early 1930's)out of the shanty town they had built and burned the shacks. Bayonets and Sabers against the soldiers who fought for the US in France and into Germany. The best documented ocurrance of use of US troops against US citizens until last September. Don't start me on that popcorn pimp.

The Idaho Lowshooter strikes again. MAJOR Patton was ORDERED by CHIEF OF STAFF General Douglas MacArthur to disperse the "Bonus Army". The "Bonus Army" included Joe Angelino, the enlisted man who drug Patton back to their lines after he was hit by machine gun fire during a tank advance in 1918, and who won the DSC for doing so. Patton wasn't happy about it. No officer would have been. In your military career, how many PEREMPTORY orders did YOU receive direct from four-star heaven, and of those, how many did YOU treat as "optional", hmmmm?

You can't make a point without insulting somebody. You're quite the little "popcorn pimp" yourself.
------------------------------------------------
"Serious rifles have two barrels, everything else just burns gunpowder."

quote:

Originally posted by Savage99:
I don't read gun magazines any longer. I tried again to read them but its just the same old same old written around the paying advertisers.

One place that does not cater to paying advertisers is: http://www.gun-tests.com/

Try them out.

Barstooler

quote:

Originally posted by Idaho Sharpshooter:
Patton also led a cavalry/infantry pincer movement that pushed thousands of impoverished homeless WWI veterans (who had coalesced at Washington DC to protest never getting their war bonus in the very early 1930's)out of the shanty town they had built and burned the shacks. Bayonets and Sabers against the soldiers who fought for the US in France and into Germany. The best documented ocurrance of use of US troops against US citizens until last September. Don't start me on that popcorn pimp.

Patton led a battalion and two calvary squadrons, but was acting under McArthur, then Chief of Staff of the Army, who took personal command of the operation.

http://coat.ncf.ca/our_magazine/links/53/4.pdf

Barstooler

By the way. I love the 06. I grew up where it was the big guy on the block. Those who could not afford one normaly packed a 300 Savage or some surplus 30-40 Krag.

Barstooler

/

All this talk about the article is exactly what they wanted to generate when they printed it. I would not be shocked if it tuned out Bodington wrote the article under a pen name just to avoid the flack.

They might as well have come out and said religion is fake.

The 30-03 was the replacement for the 30-40Krag, and came whe the Army was still getting over moving from the 45-70 to a 30 caliber round. The -06 was a compromise with the original 220gr, I believe, round nose bullet being "accepted" by the old guys as the equal of the 400gr 45-70 round. (Please remember that the 45-70 was issued to many troops in the Spanish American War and was substitute standard in WWI; and that the Springfield '03 was a reaction to the excellent 7X57 Mausers used by the Spanish.)

We could have adopted any of the excellent Mauser cartridges; however, we were woefully behind the Europeans in small arms design at the turn of the last century. We showed some sense by designing a rifle that was so close to the Mauser that we had to pay them royalties for the 03 Springfield. However, that was unintentional and design of the 30-03 cartridge probably reflected an effort to avoid paying royalties. Remember, we were not the rich USA then.

I own and have fired the 8mm Mauser, 7mm Mauser, 7.5Swiss, 7.5 Argentine and the 30-06 in military rifles and I don't believe there is any appreciable difference in recoil between any of the cartridges listed above. The 6.5mm cartridges are a different story; however, none of these cartridges is in the class of the 7.62x39 or .223Rem.

Most of the countries which fielded full sized cartridges used them for the rifles and machine guns. These were machine guns that could reach out and touch someone, and shoot through things when they got there. Logistics is simplified when you use one round for all your weapons. Like the machine guns, the rifles were intended to lay down massed fire out to a mile away.

The size of all of these cartridges was dictated by the powders available at the time. By the end of WWII, powder technology had advanced to the point at which we could duplicate the orginal 30-06 (7.62x60) performance with the 308Win (7.63x51); however, both these cartridges reflected our military's doctrine of engagement of the enemy at long range, and defensive tactics.

The effectiveness of several of the combatants' automatic weapons and limitations of the clip fed M1 led to adoption of the M14; however, at about this time, there was a reassessment of our tactical doctrine with greater emphasis on offensive warfare. Because our potential enemies had more men that we had and a military philosophy calling for massed mechanized attacks, we wanted a short, automatic weapon that would maim but not kill, and do so within the constraints of the Geneva Convention.

The M16 was not intended so much to kill, as it was to injure severely requiring a significant log effort by the enemy to evacuate, treat and care for the wounded soldier. The 30-06 and 308 reflected a military desire to engage and kill the enemy at a distance, not just hurt him. We see in our again fielding weapons in these calibers as long range sniper or designated marksman's weapons a recognition of the desirability of killing the enemy in some circumstances.

The improvement of powders has resulted in the 30-06 being able to achieve the performance of the 300HH at the time it was adopted; the 308 achieving the performance of the 30-06 and the new 30 T/C equalling the 30-06. Therefore, it is unrealistic to compare the 30-06 of today with the 30-06 of a hundred years ago.

The 30-06 has stood the test of time just like the 8mm Mauser, 7mmMauser, 6.5Swede, 7.5Swiss and 7.62x54R Russian. It is an extremely efficient, well balanced cartridge that is with in physical limits of most men and many women. It will propel a bullet of significant weight at velocities that make it deadly on most any animal within reasonable hunting ranges.

Because it was the standard military cartridge for fifty years, it has a head start on most similar cartridges in the US. Because of the military aid provided allies for nearly a century, the world has been exposed to it.

The 30-03/30-06 case has been the basis for cartridges in 25, 6.5, 270, 280, 338, 9.3mm and 40 caliber. Its powder capacity provides a great balance between what shooters can accept and velocity and throw weight required for lethality.

It is unrealistic to discuss the utility of the 30-06 outside the context of the military doctrine which spawned it. Clearly, it will be with us until someone invents a projectile launcher that has no recoil, doing the job that it does so well. Kudude

Well if you compare a few rounds from WW2 lets look at size and recoil.
8x57
7.62x54
.303 British
30-06
I would say these are the the most popular major players.
I would rather shoot my M1 all day than a K98 or a Mosin Nagant. None of the above rounds are the most recoil friendly but they worked.

400NE,

until you face a man and put a knife in him, and hold onto him as he tries to twist away from the blade, and feel his life's blood running across your fingers and down your arm as you feel him die, don't talk to me about soldiers and duty, etc. What combat unit did you serve with in Vietnam, or where was it? I don't believe I recall you mentioning that in your post. When I made Sargeant I used to tell people "...don't call me sir, I work for a living...".
As for Pershing, I would have told him that I was NOT going to tell soldiers on horseback to draw sabers, and infantry soldiers to fix bayonets and advance on their former comrades in arms and kill them if they do not retreat. That's a job he would have had to do himself.

I really do want to read all about your illustrious military career, my service is a matter of public record, as is my most treasured military award, the Combat Infantryman's Badge. Don't fail me by not responding son...one might say your sorry ass is up for inspection, and judgement right here and now.

Rich
Co G/75th Inf (Abn) the Ranger Companies.

The .223 family of ammo was not designed to "main" someone as opposed to killing them. That is more of an urban legend which arose once the behavior of the round (and its early versions) was explained to a public which knew nothing of varmint round behavior. There were logistic considerations and the ever going experiments to fit "smaller allied troops" or adopt to new tactics and missions. The Japs had no stated problem with their version of the Brit full stocked .303 to my knowledge.

"Maimed" troops can keep going for a while. Having taken an M-16 round in the chest at about 25 yards I have some experience in that though hard breathing and bleeding to death will inhibit what you can do.

quote:

until you face a man and put a knife in him, and hold onto him as he tries to twist away from the blade, and feel his life's blood running across your fingers and down your arm as you feel him die

I actually stuck a Gerber II in a VC but do not remember feeling the blood because I was sweaty as hell, his blood was about the same temp as the air & I was busy trying to figure out how to get my knife back.

I do believe that this thread has drifted a little. roger

Roger.....if I may post my opinion of the 30-06 as a military round.....

IMO the ideal miitary round is something more like the 25 Remington.....or better yet a 6.5mm in a .308 case but of case head about .430 instead of .473.

Something to push a 125 grain bullet to about 2,500'/sec

Something to have a lot more impact than a .223 and something a lot easier to shoot fully auto than a .308.

Something to get almost twice the number of rounds per pound for firepower if needed.

If I sat on a military board and was deciding on the next military round it wouldn't be a 30-06 or a .308. Both are a lot more than necessary for killing humans!

The 6.5 Grendel is under going military testing and indications are that it is favoured over the 6.8 SPC. The 6.5 Grendel by Alexander Arms was designed in cooperation with Lapua and Dr. Lou Palmisano. It has an edge over the 5.56 Nato in lethality and much better against armor protected men. The 5.56 Nato ammo weigh 9.0 pounds per 300 rounds. The 6.5 Grendel rounds weigh only 28 percent more than 5.56mm, and recoil is only slightly higher than the 5.56 despite the weight difference, and about half that of 7.62 NATO.

Warrior