Why do we not still use 30-06 from a military standpoint? the

556 is cheaper

File: 800px-Val_Browning_M1918_BAR.jpg (111KB, 800x976px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 800x976px

>Wanting to lug around a 25 lb. service rifle
Have fun with that

>>28863642
5.56 isn't the alternative to 30-06, faggot.
>>28863619
.308 works just fine.

>>28863664
>the BAR is the only gun chambered in 30-06
garands were under 10 pounds. and the BAR used in ww1 was only around 15. still a heavy fucker, but not 25 pounds.

File: HCAR.jpg (41KB, 600x300px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 600x300px

I want one of these so damn bad.

>>28863619
Not much of a performance boost over .308; it's only a few hundred fps faster.

>>28863725
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.

>>28863619
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)

>>28863619
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

>>28863685
so...you want to bring up a 8 round, internal magazine service rifle?

a m4 weighs 7.5 pounds with a loaded 30 round magazine.

>>28863761
>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

>>28863770
hmm, 10 pounds of 556 loaded in 30 round magazines would be about 240 rounds,

File: 1454638884073.jpg (57KB, 720x594px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 720x594px

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)

>>28863809
and 10lbs 30-06 would be...

>>28863719
never understood the use for full power rifle cartridge carbine, especially when engagement ranges tend to be under 500 yards

>>28863808
All four are pretty similar

>>28863794
I want to bring up that a 30-06 service rifle doesn't have to be 25 fucking pounds. I wasn't saying we should issue garands over m4s.

>>28863619
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.

>>28863761
>you fuckers
>military needs are the same as civilian shooters

yeah okay faggot, lets just do everything in the military based on what /k/ wants. What could go wrong?

>>28863821
it disable the use of concrete walls as a valid cover for the enemy

>>28863825
yes, but that doesn't change what I said.

>>28863821
For wrecking armored commie stormtroopers in the irradiated ruins of Berlin.

>>28863808
dimensions wise, they are really similar, the only big difference is that 30-06 is taller.
>>28863821
why do you not want to use rifle rounds in CQB? do you not want to vaporize kebabs?

>>28863818
not sure.

but i know 308 weighs twice as much as 5.56 (5.56 is 37 rounds per pound raw no magazine, and 308 is 18.6 rounds per pound

>>28863871
why can't we just like make the casing half as thick so it weighs less?

>>28863619

Modern .308 has the same performance.

>>28863619
Because the side that fires the most rounds generally wins and you get more rounds with 5.56 for the same weight.

.308 is a short action cartridge, .30-06 is not. If we were to go long actions there are much better choices (7mm rem mag, .338 lapua)

>>28863875
Do you like your hands?

>>28863882
wouldn't modern 30-06 be able to perform better?

>>28863865
>commie stormtroopers
Those exist?

>>28863897
They perform almost identically.
30-06 has a very minor advantage in range.

>>28863897
Not enough to justify switching back

>>28863896
just reinforce the rifle, duh. muskets didn't even have casings, and they managed just fine. I don't see why you couldn't just use paper casings or something to reduce weight.

>>28863897
Lower pressure.
The only thing that 30-06 can do better than 308 is fire bullets in the 200-250 grain range.

>>28863853
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.

>>28863851
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?

>>28863915
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.

>>28863932
if you want to kill a wall, you need low-speed, high-weight rounds. or just use a M2HB.

File: 1449838256773.jpg (48KB, 899x1599px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 899x1599px

>>28863915
Then how about sticking to .308 instead of spending funds on ''reinforcing'', also paper casings are unreliable.

>>28863915
damn im surprised no manufacturer since the 1880s thought of that

>>28863619
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.

>>28863619
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.

>>28863947
>M2HB
>.50BMG
>"low speed"

no anon, that is high speed, high weight

>>28863821
>Oh hey there Mr. Wall!
>What's that?
>There's a dirty raghead hiding behind you?
>You don't think my M-4 will penetrate?
>Good news! I have something bigger!
>BLAMBLAMBLAMBLAMBLAMBLAM

>>28863619
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.

>>28863915
>>28863946
>>28863953
>>28863954
Paper would also result in a worse gas seal as it wouldn't expand and seal as well as a brass.

File: jinroh.gif (1021KB, 500x269px) Image search: [Google]

1021KB, 500x269px

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.

File: IMG_2261.jpg (241KB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

241KB, 1600x1200px

>>28863818
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.

>>28863966
Please learn to read.

>>28863959
We do use it in several precision rifles

File: tumblr_inline_mqrh26jIU11qz4rgp.jpg (77KB, 383x750px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 383x750px

>>28863944
FUND IT

>We Jawa now

>>28863970
fun fact.

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.

>>28863619
Another question. Why isn't there a VEPR in .30-06?

>>28863619

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.

>>28864066
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).

>>28863619
Because soldiers simply don't engage past 300-400ft so why the fuck use a rifle with more range than that?

Do we hate battle rifles now too? Man... /k/ hates everything anymore.

>>28863808
Military 30-06 is loaded to be basically the same as 308/x54r. That's one reason they went to 308 to begin with.

>>28863665

Main battle rifle WWII: 30-06

Current issue: 5.56

In terms of what was used vs. what is used by the vast majority of troops, yeah, it is the "alternative".

>>28863685
>garands were under 10 pounds
Only barely.

>>28863761
>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?

>>28863831
>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?

>>28864123
>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.

>>28864205
>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.

>>28864271
>scar referenced
>discussing 30-06
>30-06 scar 17
my body is ready

>>28864205
>But why? What do you think .30-06 will do that .223 can't?
nigger. that's not what I'm arguing at all. fuck

>>28863915
>firefight in the rain
>oh shit nothing works anymore cause paper casing
>how did I fuck up my life so bad that I'm fighting using paper casings

>>28863619

Because anything we would use 30-06 for a .300 win mag can do better.

>>28863946
>>28863953
>>28863954
>>28863975
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

File: 1455036842552.png (546KB, 752x420px) Image search: [Google]

546KB, 752x420px

>>28863875
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.

>>28863915
>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
B; moisture
C; fragility
D; gas sealing
E; ejection
F; extraction

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.

>>28863973
>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.

>>28864332
>combustible gas
>combat
this is not a good plan

>>28864332
>plastic bullet

Have fun with your terrible ballistic coefficients/form factors

>>28864363
why not? it should be easy enough to do. just have like a super good seal on the bullet, and it won't leak or anything.

File: image.jpg (52KB, 337x424px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 337x424px

>>28863999

File: 4056376_02_308_7_62x51_nato_training_ammo_640[1].jpg (27KB, 640x426px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 640x426px

>>28864391

>>28864394
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.

>>28864419
That's training ammo, which has comparatively terrible form factors and ballistic coefficients, just like I said.

>>28864308
>want to make a .30-06 service rifle
That's what you said.

>>28864391
kind of like what hornady found out with their a-max bullets (tips melted mid flight) and why they now developed the heat shielded version

>>28864457
I never said that. at all.

>>28864436
push the bullet back really really far and make it really high pressure. come on, it could easily be done.

>>28864465
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.
>>28864494
And you'd still end up having those pressures deform and push out the bullet. Tell me how you plan to stop that?

>>28864505
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.

>>28864505
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.

File: 800px-The_Rover_Winchester_2.jpg (65KB, 800x333px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 800x333px

>>28863619
30-30 for everyone

>>28864529
>>28864505
here, this is what I mean. just like add a primer and seal the back and it's done

>>28864539
Are you retarded?

BC=SD/FF

if you decrease sd you decrease BC

Are you really this retarded?

>>28864481
Oh, hold on, I misread that.
Nevermind then.

>>28863619
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.

>>28864708
>25 LBS
there are 30-06 ar uppers. they don't weigh anything close to 25 pounds.

>>28863944
But where would the sea water systems feed from?

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.

>>28864760
if only we had the tech to reverse the whole water-to-oxygen systems, so we could turn oxygen into water.
science, fix this shit!

>>28864600
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)

>>28864864
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

>>28864864
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/

>>28864876
Using form factor and SD you get BC

the equation is BC=SD/FF

so if you decrease as you decrease bc

>>28864914

Extremely useful, for lead projectile

Breaks down when talking about plastic though

>>28864931
Explain how. I really find that doubtful seeing as physics doesn't make exception for your fantasies.

>>28864931
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
>drag
air = drag. again, not as smooth or will fly as well as metal, in any case
>end force
unless you want to piss off the enemy or you're sending the round at light speed, it's not gonna hurt shit