Why do we not still use 30-06 from a military standpoint? the recoil is manageable, and it can send a 220 grain round at 2,602 fps, on the highest end. knowing the military it would probably settle around 2300, but I digress.
the round has that nice tail on the end of the bullet so it flies straighter than other rounds. it's much bigger than .308 and has much more potential power, why don't we use it? it's not like it's hard to make or in short supply.
pic related shows size difference, .308 is on top
>Wanting to lug around a 25 lb. service rifle
Have fun with that
yeah, but I figure given how much you fuckers love 7.62x54r, you'd love 30-06. it seems like a practical round, bigger than most everything comparable and pretty fucking fast. just imagine a 240B in 30-06.
because with modern propellants 308 has roughly the same performance as military 30-06, furthermore, there was a shift in strategy which lead to units carrying many more rounds of smaller caliber amunition (the advent of teh intermediate cartridge)
has to do with engagement distance and weight/capacity ratio. 10lbs of 556 is a lot more ammo than you would get in 30-06, and its rare to engage at distances where the 30-06 gives you a definitive edge
>given how much you fuckers love 7.62x54r, you'd love 30-06.
someone call me a retard if I'm wrong, but isn't 308 a lot more similar to 7.62x54r than 30-06 is? 30-06 would be more akin to 8mm mauser
Because the 308 can be thrown into a shorter action, making automatic fire easier as the bolt does not have to traverse as far.
mags are slightly smaller too.
308 is ballistically similar enough to not be worth using .30-06 within the expected combat range (less than 600m)
Because the military ball loadings of 30-06 and 7.62x51mm are equivilent, yes for handloading 30-06 is advantageous but for what the army does 7.62x51 is much better as it allows the action of to be shorter.
dimensions wise, they are really similar, the only big difference is that 30-06 is taller.
why do you not want to use rifle rounds in CQB? do you not want to vaporize kebabs?
no...it really wouldn't
when a highspeed round hits concrete, the round shatters, so does the concrete, 30-06 is not some magical penetrating round, things that will stop 308, will ALSO stop 30-06 in most cases, this includes concrete walls.
Knowing that we'd have an Arleigh Burke dragged up on the Iraqi shore and fitted with tracks to make a real-life sandcrawler but with a hell of a lot more guns and more muhreens.
Is this so bad anon?
Then the weight moves from the ammunition to the weapon. You increased the number of rounds per pound, yet also decreased the amount a soldier can carry due to the added reinforcement on the weapon.
Then how about sticking to .308 instead of spending funds on ''reinforcing'', also paper casings are unreliable.
Because at both NATO and SAAMI pressure levels (universally safe levels) .308 and .30-06 are damn near ballistically identical (within 20fps of each other from same-length barrels with the same bullet), yet the .30-06 weighs more (both the round and the gun), kicks harder due to burning 30% more powder (~45gr instead of 65gr) to achieve those same velocities due to inefficient case geometry, and costs more due to a higher raw material need.
In every category .30-06 is 100% OBSOLETE.
>b-but my 220gr HPBT @ 2600fps!
Same can be done with .308 from the same length barrel at the same pressure. In fact, with a modern commercial-spec .308 chamber and barrel, you can have about a 70fps lead on your super-overpressure '06.
Why do we not use .300 Win Mag from a military standpoint? the recoil is manageable, and it can send a 220 grain round at 2,850 fps, on the highest end.
The round has that nice tail on the end of the bullet so it flies straighter than other rounds. it's much bigger than .308 and has much more potential power, why don't we use it? it's not like it's hard to make or in short supply.
>Oh hey there Mr. Wall!
>There's a dirty raghead hiding behind you?
>You don't think my M-4 will penetrate?
>Good news! I have something bigger!
Because in WW2 the highest kill count were done by submachineguns. However the BAR was never really used on thw 600R/M setting and the M 14 well was the answer to the M1A2. The military found out that controlled volume of fire was a lot better than kill or no kill shots of suppressive fire.
You can shoot .308 to about 1200m using machine guns with a reasonable amount of accuracy and still having a trace to follow out to around that range depending on conditions.
If you want more range you use either vehicle mounted autocannons, HMGs, tanks, indirect fire or fire support.
Maybe a designated marksmen would want a heavier faster round but no one else is complaining that the .308 isn't doing the job it's slotted into.
Not calculating for mags or belts-
10lbs of 150gr .30-06 is about 166 rounds.
10lbs of 62gr 5.56x45mm is about 370 rounds.
Just for grins -
10lbs of 110gr .30 Carbine is about 348 rounds.
concrete walls HAVE been defeated by 22 LR
besides, if i truly had to, and a concrete wall was prevent my unit or myself from killing a raghead behind it, i would just lob a 40mm grenade at said wall, anything that can stand up to a 40mm grenade will sure as shit standup to a 308, or 30-06, but unlike designing my entire weapon system around a unlikely scenerio, i would have the addaptability 5.56 and a 40mm gl would give me.
Because we don't fight long drawn out wars of attrition in the trenches sice 1920s.
Modern mechanized combat relies on supression/keeping the enemy pinned down with burst/automatic fire while other units manuver around or air support/drones fire missiles and blow the whole area up.
The round is entirely too long to be reasonably doable.
Remember they literally use off-the-shelf RPK receivers for their .308 and x54r models, both of which have extremely similar COAL's, and both of which are a solid 12mm shorter than a loaded .30-06 with a 150gr or larger bullet (54mm brass vs. 63mm brass plus a longer bullet for the same weight since it's .002" skinnier).
>garands were under 10 pounds
>but I figure given how much you fuckers love 7.62x54r
Because it's dirt cheap for what it is.
That's literally why. If it was only available at the same prices as .308 or .30-06 and there was no slav milsurp here to use it, do you think anyone here would throw it even one glance?
>I want to bring up that a 30-06 service rifle doesn't have to be 25 fucking pounds
But why? What do you think .30-06 will do that .223 can't?
Infantry doesn't fight at the ranges where .30-06 would be useful, so why not use a lighter, cheaper, less recoiling cartridge that does good enough damage for it's purposes instead?
>Do we hate battle rifles now too?
Nobody hates battle rifles but it's not the 1950's.
A battle rifle makes for a good DMR, or even a sniper's rifle under the right circumstances, but it's hardly practical for the average infantryman when compared to any assault rifle.
>but it's hardly practical for the average infantryman when compared to any assault rifle
A SCAR17 weighs less and kicks about the same as a wood-stocked VZ58, and thanks to the ridiculously overbuilt steel mags for the VZ, ammunition weight for the same number of rounds will be close.
Going to the civilian side, a 16.5" barreled DPMS G2 with current-gen keymod/mlok freefloat rail and popular collapsible stock (sopmod, ACS-L, STR, CTR, etc) weighs SIGNIFICANTLY less than an AKM with a triangle folder. Seriously, it's 7.25lbs unloaded (G2 AP4 and G2 MOE) in factory configuration and you can shave a few ounces off that with aftermarket.
guys, we have better technology now, we should easily be able to make paper or carbon fiber casing that can handle the pressure. paper casing with a plastic bullet would be ultra fucking light. and replace powder with a combustible gas. fuck, I'm gonna go start a kickstarter for this
Because nobody likes case-head separation or having to shake out bits of brass from the action after every shot.
Or dangerous ammunition.
An example, .45ACP has relatively skinny brass, you can only load it so hot before it becomes unsafe. Standard loadings are fine, but if you want to really hotrod .45ACP, then you must use .45 Super brass, because once you reach a certain pressure, that brass is just not going to be able to contain it.
>I don't see why you couldn't just use paper casings or something to reduce weight.
A; it's not the 1800's anymore
D; gas sealing
You're seriously cracking me up here.
>muskets didn't even have casings, and they managed just fine
They also were designed for black powder, which has a lower pressure curve, burns much dirtier, to the point that you would probably have to clean your gun multiple times during a battle.
Oh yeah, and reloading is a project.
>Because in WW2 the highest kill count were done by submachineguns
Which leads me to this:
Intense research into all the recorded battles of WW2 found one common denominator in all winning sides; the side that had the most ammunition would typically win.
The people who carried the most ammo where those who carried subguns, M1 carbines and Sturmgewehrs, enough power for their applications, and each had more or less enough range to be useful at the ranges that infantry engage at, but most importantly, this ammo was the lightest by far and thus you could carry much more of it.
The M1 Carbine was largely devised as a weapon for rear echelon troops, but goddamn if it didn't prove itself to be a very useful weapon on the frontline.
But you seriously want a plastic bullet? And just use powder, gases won't produce the pressures you're looking for until they are destroying your casings unless your casings are made out of metal and your plastic bullet will just be deformed and pushed out unless you switch to traditional bullets then your seal would have to be so tight it might just explode your brass when you fire instead of shooting the actual bullet.
I'm not talking about melting, do you know what a form factor or ballistic coefficient are?
You'd need a plastic that's just as dense as lead and copper (or steel/tungsten/du) to get the form factors and ballistic coefficients required to make plastic ammo worth it, and at that point you remove any advantage to plastic ammo.
And you'd still end up having those pressures deform and push out the bullet. Tell me how you plan to stop that?
seal it better. or like totally seal the casing. kind of like picture a nagant revolver round, but instead of the bullet just being recessed, the brass is totally sealed in front of the bullet. but instead of brass, it's paper or carbon fiber.
Yes, I know what a bc is. I'm not the guy you were talking to and I'm not advocating plastic ammo.
Apparently you don't though because you think weight has anything to do with it. If the plastic maintains its shape under pressure from firing and doesn't melt from air friction the BC will not change. The only thing you are losing by going down in weight is sectional density.
As an infantry Marine currently enlisted let me tell you. Bullets get fucking heavy. the 30-06 is heavier than the 5.56. And generally the rifles are heavier too. 25 LBS. Fuck you. I rather carry around a milled AK.
Nobody posted the real reason.
.308 was -designed- to be more ballistically predictable. 06 becomes proportionally less stable when passing from super to sub sonic. .308 was designed to minimize that.
Uh, what? Form factor isn't even a measurement in ballistics, stop saying it. It means nothing.
b.c = how aerodynamic a bullet is shaped
s.d = a rating of stacked density (relative weight for the diameter of the projectile)
and please note that the only reason they seem related is because bullets are typically more aerodynamic the longer and skinnier they are, which also increases sectional density since there is more weight behind a smaller point but they are not the same thing
Do you even know who Bryan litz is?
He's the chief ballistician for Berger. And here is an article he wrote about form factor: http://www.bergerbullets.com/form-factors-a-useful-analysis-tool/
Using form factor and SD you get BC
the equation is BC=SD/FF
so if you decrease as you decrease bc
plastic bullets just don't work for many reasons
>all plastic melts
the gases in a gun are facemeltingly hot, not a lot of plastic is gonna survive that
>weight/accuracy while flying
to put it this way, if a 308 round (or similar) is one of those rc helicopters from toysrus, a plastic bullet is a paper airplane. it just won't fly well, not enough weight
air = drag. again, not as smooth or will fly as well as metal, in any case
unless you want to piss off the enemy or you're sending the round at light speed, it's not gonna hurt shit