So, what exactly did US military gain by switching from 30-06 to .308?

[Ben Towe]

Originally Posted by JimDandy

In today's military is there a difference between a specially equipped marksman and sniper? Does the military hand out .308 rifles to the good shots?

A designated marksman is an infantryman who carries a rifle equipped to take longer shots than the standard infantry carbine/rifle. In simple terms, he sort of fills the space between sniper and infantryman. He is there to take medium range shots that may require precision beyond what a normal soldier could be expected to achieve with standard equipment.

[Webleymkv]

Basically, the 7.62x51 was an attempt to have the cake and eat it too. The advantages of an intermediate-caliber rifle were shown during WWII and later in Korea with weapons like the Stg. 44 and SKS. However, many in various militaries, the U.S. military in particular, did not want to give up the long-range power and penetration of the .30-06 and other full-power battle rifle cartridges like .303 British and 7.92x57 Mauser. The 7.62x51 was the supposed solution as it offered a dimensionally smaller cartridge which would allow for lighter, more compact ammunition and a lighter, more compact gun to fire it (compared to a gun with the same features chambering one of the older, larger battle rifle cartridges) without the reduction in ballistics of true intermediate cartridges like 7.92x33 Kurz or 7.62x39 M43.

Unfortunately, while a step in the right direction, the 7.62 NATO wasn't a big enough step. Both the ammunition and the guns that fired it were still relatively large and heavy and the battle rifle ballistics came at the price of battle rifle recoil which made full-auto fire in anything smaller and lighter than a true light machine gun uncontrollable to the point of impracticality. When the first generation of NATO "assault rifles" were used in combat against true assault rifles like the AK-47, it was found that they were still unable to offset the firepower advantage of a true assault rifle.

This led to the rather hasty and poorly-executed adoption of both the 5.56x45 cartridge and the M16 rifle in order to field a true assault rifle. While both the 5.56x45 and M16 platform have both been developed into a satisfactory system over the past 50+ years, the teething problems it experienced due to being hastily adopted in the middle of a war created a stigma that still haunts both the cartridge and rifle to this day.

[SPEMack618]

The Squad Designated Marksman, or if you are in an unfortunate situation of being denied such luxuries down to the squad level, the Platoon Designated Marksman is generally a Soldier who has shown some level of prowess on the rifle range and sent through a quickie long range course and issued a Designated Marksman Rifle. At least that's how it was for us.

But mind you we were a National Guard Armored Cavalry Scout Troop that was told
"Hey, you guys in the funny hats, no Russian Bimps to kill, go patrol those mountain villages on foot and in hillbilly armored Humvees"

But I digress, our PDM was actually issued an M-16A3 with a really good Leupold scope atop of it. And the funny thing was, he was the kid that had never fired a rifle, not even in Boy Scouts, before OSUT.

However, other platoons in the Troop had refurbished M-14s/M-21s with scopes issued to their PDMs.

[44 AMP]

There is one school of thought that blames the 5.56 (and the 9mm) on the USAF. As one wag put it, General Lemay wanted his nuclear bombers guarded with something more modern than M1 Carbines, and the AR15 was space age enough to suit him. Of course the Army would not be outdone and bought the same.

That's one way to look at it. I don't think its fully correct, but it is a way to look at it.

In the version I heard, its still Lemay that's responsible, (and only for the 5.56mm, not the 9mm) but not because he wanted something "more modern". It was because he didn't have any other choice.

The Army was phasing out the M1 carbine. The Air Force got its small arms, and their support (spare parts) from the Army. With support for the carbine going away, Lemay had to find something else. He was introduced to the AR (and Stoner) and thought it would be a good gun for his airbase SP's (who, after all, don't normally get down in the mud like regular infantry).

A bit later, the MacNarama Defense Dept (whiz kids) decided that the AR & 5.56mm were the best for EVERYONE, and pushed them through as a "fully developed" weapon system, needing no further work.

Bugs/flaws did show up. Some of them were even possibly deliberately caused by those more interested in discrediting the weapon than in saving US blood. So sad.

The powers that be were determined to make the AR & 5.56mm work. Took decades to get the real flaws resolved, but they finally did it. (aside from the argument that the real flaw is the 5.56 caliber).

I believe that had the M14 been retained (in part, anyway) and given the same tinkering with, it would have wound up a much better rifle than it was when it was mothballed.

I do recall hearing about some guys who did some experimenting with the M14 gas system, reducing the cyclic rate with what was supposedly a fairly simple modification, and finding (guess what?) at a lower cyclic rate, the M14 is "controllable" in full auto fire. As far as I know, the military never even looked at that possibility.

Politics.

[gyvel]

Not sure if this is true or an old wive's tale, but I have heard and read more than once in the past that the .308 was "inspired" by the .300 Savage.

[pathdoc]

The .308 practically IS the .300 Savage, plus a few percent up in length and a substantial pressure hike.

As for the .280 British cartridge, when I read about all these new .264-.277" rounds being played around with, I thought "Someone owes the Brits a huge apology." The answer was there the whole time, and they knocked it on the head.

[Mike Irwin]

"How long had they been working on the T65 cartridge and soliciting guns for it?"

"Not sure if this is true or an old wive's tale, but I have heard and read more than once in the past that the .308 was "inspired" by the .300 Savage."

Investigation into what would eventually become the 7.62 round actually started before the end of World War II.

Supposedly a limited number of Garands and M1919 Browning Machine Guns were modified to chamber the .300 Savage cartridge as testbeds, and work proceeded from there.


Regarding the M16 in USAF service, I was once told, but don't know if this is true or not, that the reason the AF picked the gun is because even at close range the bullets wouldn't penetrate the casings of the nuclear weapons then in use, while at close range the .30 carbine would.

[Archie]

Other than the 7.62mm rifle round (commercial .308 Winchester) being roughly half an inch shorter, the web area of the case is thicker; it therefore is more reliable in semi and fully-automatic arms as the case head is not as likely to rip off. (Not that case failure was a major problem with the .30-06.)

The M14 rifle was replaced by the M16 was - notwithstanding McNamara and the whiz kids - there were never enough M14s built and issued to fully arm the U. S. Armed Forces. When Vietnam was entered into with vigor, the U. S. was short of battle rifles. Colt - who built the M16 - was the only manufacturer who could guarantee delivery of X number of units by the expected delivery date.

Yes, General LeMay promoted the AR15/M16 rifle. It seems he was overly impressed with 'new'. After all, the aircraft were mostly 'new' designs.

Cooper did predict 'difficulties' with the next war or two. Not because of the 5.56mm rifle being adopted, but because - true to form - the people in charge were busy thinking about how to fight the last war, not the next one.

The success of the M16 in Vietnam (such as it was) revolved around the practice of using the M16 more as a sub-machine gun than as a rifle. (Area and volume fire as opposed to aimed and specific fire.)

Now in the middle east, the engagement distance are further than during the Vietnam conflict. The 5.56mm round, complete with heavier bullet, still isn't doing all that well at ranges over 100 yards or so. Closer up, in street fighting or house clearing, it's doing as well as ever. Especially when shooting an adversary several times in rapid succession.

Was adopting the M16 a mistake? Probably not a mistake as much as desperation and "... seemed like a good idea at the time." I carried one for a while, qualified with one and never was impressed with the silly thing, over all.

Except when carrying it on forced marches.

[Slamfire]

How long had they been working on the T65 cartridge and soliciting guns for it?

This is from page 49 of the Oct 1973 American Rifleman. Sometimes keeping these old magazines is better than tossing them out!

History of T65 Cartridge


The preliminary drawing for the experimental cal 30 short cartridge was completed at Frankford Arsenal on Dec 12 1944, under the nomenclature Cartridge Ball, Cal. 30, T65. The T designation indicated a test items. The preliminary load development work was done at Aberdeen Proving Ground early in 1945.

On March 6, 1945, Frankford Arsenal was directed to produce 15,000 T65 cartridges for experimental test barrel firing. Manufacture of this ammunition, using IMR propellant, was completed in August 1945. This loading gave an average instrumental velocity of 2600 fps at 78 ft from the muzzle.

After the initial production by Frankford Arsenal, development of the T65 cartridge continued with the assistance of Olin Mathieson chemical Corp and Remington Arms Co. On Dec 15 1953, the final form of the T65 cartridge, the T65E3, was adopted as the 7.62 mm NATO by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization nations of Belgium, Canada, France, United Kingdom, and the United States. Formal standardization of this round as a U.S. rifle-caliber military cartridge occurred in August 1954.

Given that the development was during WW2, I cannot see how there would have been any support for a midpower round at the time.

I think the abandonment of the 276 Pedersen was the wrong decision at the wrong time. Just as the adoption of the 7.62 Nato was the wrong cartridge at the wrong time.

We should have just copied the 7.5 X 55 Swiss in 1903 instead of coming up with a new round. The Swiss case was shorter, has a very thick rim, and was an outstanding round. If we had copied it, we would not have had to change over to a shorter round, the 7.62 Nato, for machine guns.

[Jim Watson]

We should have just copied the 7.5 X 55 Swiss in 1903 instead of coming up with a new round.

Or we could have bought the whole 98 Mauser package instead of picking and choosing design features to carry over into the 1903. But I don't think a .30x2 1/4" (7.62x57 back in Oberndorf) would have had any different career other than to have carried over into post Garand rifles instead of being marginally improved as with .30-06 to .308. We would still have entered the assault rifle era after seeing German and Soviet weapons.

If we had then wanted to stick with the .30 instead of going with the 7 and 8mm Euroguns or a varmint rifle, it could have been done. Look at the 30x1.5 in CotW.

[RX-79G]

.308 was the mistake that followed the mistake of .30-06. In the early '30s everyone already was saying what they're saying now with 6.8mm intermediate rounds. They were saying it again in the late '40s. The bass-ackwords US armory board is a fine example of a group that is completely unable to learn from history.

When 7.62x51 became standard, a couple of smart countries downloaded it to make it into an intermediate cartridge. That's why the Japanese Type 64 has a reputation as the best full auto 7.62 rifle. The Spanish did the same thing.

The US Armory board also destroyed one of the AR-15s best features - 1:14 rifling.

Germany was going to skip 5.56 altogether. The G3 worked well enough and they were going to skip to the next generation with the G11. But then reunification occurred, and the need and budget went away.

I like .308 - accurate and powerful enough. Glad I never had to carry one in combat, though. What a pain.

[HiBC]

The Garand IMO,is a good rifle.That said,the necessary pressure curve,op rod bending issues,etc limit how much of the 30-06 case capacity that can be used.
"Yeah,buts" aside,the Garand was the reality of the time.

Suitable Garand loads come in at around 46 to 47 gr of appropriate powder.

That much fits in a.308 case.Committee/drawing board thing.

A full BAR mag vs a full M-14 mag....Which is better?

[44 AMP]

A full BAR mag vs a full M-14 mag....Which is better?

That depends whether I'm aiming individual shots, or laying down suppressive fire. At half the weight of a BAR, the M14 is a lot nicer to carry. For full auto fire, I'll take the heavier gun.

[Model12Win]

They gained a smaller cartridge with nearly identical ballistics.

The 7.62x51mm cartridge is shorter and lighter than the 7.62x63mm (.30-06) cartridge that it replaced, but was just as powerful.

A rifleman/machine gunner could carry more 7.62mm NATO ammo for the same weight of .30-06 ammo. Also his weapons could be slightly more compact and lighter because the receiver could be made shorter for the shorter cartridge.

It was a win-win situation and it was good choice. The 7.62x51mm NATO is a great and extremely versatile round that serves our military and many other militaries very well.

[HiBC]

44AMP,agreed,the weapons are different.Agreed,for a full auto roll,the BAR was built for it,and a full auto M-14 infantry rifle is questionable.The M-14E2 was more in the BAR roll.but that is a step off the trail.The BAR would be just as effective had it been designed around the7.62 Nato round.

A full 20 rd BAR 30-06 magazine ,side by side with a full 20 rd M-14 mag,or FAL mag,is a fair comparison relative to the OP question.

IIRC,the BAR was 18 lbs.Save 5 lbs on ammo weight,you step up to a 23 lb M-60.

In business and profit,racing,warfare,elections,3% here,5% there makes the difference.

In the mountains,uphill,downhill,or sidehill,every pound matters.

[Bart B.]

History of the .308......

http://riflemansjournal.blogspot.com...f-308.html?m=1

The .308 was first used in competition at the 1963 NRA Nationals; it won the match. In three years, all the records shot with .30-06 rifles were broken. And there were so many unbreakable ties shot with .308's the NRA reduced the scoring rings. Both the Army and Marine Corps M14NM rifles shot XM118 match more accurate than their 30 caliber Garands. But the USN and USAF Garands rebarreled to the NATO cartridge shot XM118 match ammo more accurate than with 30 caliber barrels shooting M72 .30-06 match ammo. By the late 1960's, the 7.62 service match grade semiautos would shoot good lots of commercial .308 match ammo inside 4 inches at 600 yards from accuracy test cradles.

People rebarreling their .30-06's to .308 using the same quality ones as well as components saw accuracy improve by about 40% over the .30-06; 3-inch test groups at 600 yards was common in good rifles. And average velocities with the same bullets was/is about 100 fps less than the .30-06; so says SAAMI specs.

Both the military .30-06 and 7.62 NATO rounds were spec'd at 50,000 cup and the NATO round shot equal bullets out about 100 fps slower. Winchester spec'd their .308 at 52,000 cup as they used a slightly different system.

[DaleA]

Interesting article about the .308. Thanks for posting the link.

[old roper]

I was with 4th Marines when we made change over from M-1 to M-14 which was about 1963 and that was issue weapon we had in Vietnam.

Only thing M-14 was good for was more ammo shot. Every company 4th Marines had light machine then Battalion had heavy machine gun and there was lot of fire powder with M-1 and BAR down to squad level.

Marine Corp, every year it was required Marine had to qualify with his issue rifle as Marksman,Sharpshooter,Expert and if you had to carry pistol you had to qualify with that also.

Company I was with guys that had hard time with M-1 had same problem with M-14 and guys that shot expert with M-1 did same with M-14. And we had NCO that serve WWII and Korea with M-1 and I had 3yrs with M-1.

I left Vietnam 1965 and looking back almost 50yrs I think they should of kept M-1 till they figure out what they really needed which wasn't M-14.