A quick question

[Sasquatch]

I was doing a bit of poking around on this forum the other day and started wondering about why the 30-30 was considered more then enough for deer, but at about the same time the army decided to use the 30-06. Does it make any sense to you? I mean, deer are about people sized and the 30-06 has a bit more 'oomph' then a 30-30. Sorry for the odd question, but i was kinda bored today. :mrgreen: To me it seems a little illogical.

Ps. sorry if this is in the wrong place.

[220swiftfn]

Well, deer don't shoot back....... The '06 is better for ranged fire, better ballistics, flatter shooting, spitzer, etc.....


Dan

[Freightman]

30-30 = rimmed cartage, 30-06 modern rimless, more reliable feeding more range, at the time all military thinking was we will be fighting at 500 yds or more.WW2 30-06 chosen because we had large store and MacArthur wanted it.

[x101airborne]

I believe it comes down to the rim. Modern military rifles were losing the rim for feeding / magazine purposes at that time.

[Sasquatch]

Ahh, good point about the rimmed bit. I imagine that would play hell in machine guns. And yeah deer dont shoot back.

But couldnt a rimless version of the 30-40 krag (ie similar ballistics) be a better compromise? better long range preformance without all that bulk (and a spitzer bullet)?

[Larry Gibson]

Ahh, good point about the rimmed bit. I imagine that would play hell in machine guns. And yeah deer dont shoot back.

But couldnt a rimless version of the 30-40 krag (ie similar ballistics) be a better compromise? better long range preformance without all that bulk (and a spitzer bullet)?

The original M1903 cartridge was a "rimless" 30-40 with increased case capacity. The increase in case capacity was necessary to keep psi's in check with the smokeless powder available then to achieve the desired ballistics for the 220 gr RN bullet. The M1906 cartridge (the 30-06 we know and love today) is a minor modification of the '03 cartridge to use 150 gr spitzer bullets.

Larry Gibson

[Bulltipper]

The 30-30 is more than enough for deer (at under 150 yards)...

[doubs43]

The original M1903 cartridge was a "rimless" 30-40 with increased case capacity. The increase in case capacity was necessary to keep psi's in check with the smokeless powder available then to achieve the desired ballistics for the 220 gr RN bullet. The M1906 cartridge (the 30-06 we know and love today) is a minor modification of the '03 cartridge to use 150 gr spitzer bullets.

Larry Gibson

The 30-03 cartridge was based on a lengthened 7x57mm Mauser case and has essentially the same rim size. (The 30-40 Krag case hasn't a thing to do with the 30-03 or 30-06 cases) Our military wanted a 30 caliber cartridge using a 220 grain bullet and that's the original cartridge for the Model 1903 rifle. In short order they decided upon a lighter Spitzer design bullet that increased velocity and effective range. All Model 1903 rifles were sent back to the armories where the barrels had a thread removed and the chambers reamed for the new 30-06 cartridge. That's why 1903 barrels are an odd length of, IIRC, 23 7/8 inches.

A great reference for the evolution of the 30-06 service cartridge is "Hatcher's Notebook". Tests during the WW1 years showed that the 30-06 was deficient in effective range when compared to the .303 Enfield bullet and also the French "Balle D" bronze bullet. They greatly out-distanced our early 30-06 bullets and tests resulted in the 9-degree boat tail bullet design that improved our cartridges.

To answer the OP's question, the two cartridges were developed for different purposes. The 30-30 was intended to be chambered in light, handy rifles for game and rather short range use. Generally speaking, it's pretty useless past 150 yards. The 30-06 was a military cartridge from the very beginning with an effective range greatly surpassing the 30-30. Like most US military cartridges, the 30-06 is a great for deer and even larger game animals but that's just the happy by-product of a superb cartridge.

[waksupi]

Lots easier to shoot stuff at 1000 yards with a .30-06, than it is with a .30-30.

[Larry Gibson]

doubs43

My apologies for confusing you. I did not say the '03/'06 was based on the 30-40. I did not mean to imply at all that the cartridge was "based" on the 30-40 only that the desire was for a "rimless" cartridge that equaled and preferably exceeded the 30-40's performance. That's why "rimless" was in quotation.

The point was they wanted to improve on the ballistics of the 220 gr RN 30-40 bullet to 2300 fps in the shorter barreled rifle (M1903), hence the case capacity of the '03 case to keep psi's and throat erosion at a reasonable level with the smokeless powders available then. Hatcher only breifly touches on the subject in his Notebook. Philip Sharpe's book, The Rifle in America gives a much better explanation and Captain E. C. Crossman's The Book Of The Springfield provides the best explanation.

Larry Gibson

[doubs43]

doubs43, My apologies for confusing you. I did not say the '03/'06 was based on the 30-40. I did not mean to imply at all that the cartridge was "based" on the 30-40 only that the desire was for a "rimless" cartridge that equaled and preferably exceeded the 30-40's performance. That's why "rimless" was in quotation.

The point was they wanted to improve on the ballistics of the 220 gr RN 30-40 bullet to 2300 fps in the shorter barreled rifle (M1903), hence the case capacity of the '03 case to keep psi's and throat erosion at a reasonable level with the smokeless powders available then. Hatcher only breifly touches on the subject in his Notebook. Philip Sharpe's book, The Rifle in America gives a much better explanation and Captain E. C. Crossman's The Book Of The Springfield provides the best explanation. Larry Gibson

Larry, thank you for the additional information. Hatcher, Sharpe and Crossman are all great references.

The development of the 1903 rifle and the new cartridge for it is quite interesting; well worth researching.

[Larry Gibson]

doubs43

The development of the 1903 rifle and the new cartridge for it is quite interesting; well worth researching.

Most definately! Also shooting the old M1903/M1903A3s isn't bad either:drinks:

Larry gibson

[Multigunner]

The Texas Rangers used the .30-30 1894 Winchester as a fighting weapon rather than for sporting purposes and considered it adequate for their purposes at ranges of up to 300 yards. When professional criminal gangs began to obtain more effective weaponry and many began to keep older longer range rifles such as buffalo guns handy the Rangers then switched to the .30-40 1895 Winchester which they considered good for better than 400 yards. Only real limitation there as lack of sturdy telescopic sights suitable for a fighting rifle.
Few soldiers could expect to hit a man hiding in a trench or behind a barricade at any great distance using iron sights, especially if the enemy was shooting back They might hit a standing target at great range, if they had all the time in the world to take aim, but mainly the military rifleman was just expected to keep a low profile and put enough bullets into the general area that he was bound to hit something before the enemy could advance or take cover, he might fire dozens of rounds for every hit and that would still be highly effective compared to the MG which raked areas and used up hundreds or rounds for every hit. More often than not the individual soldier seldom if ever saw the individual enemy, only the muzzle flashes of their rifles.

Early in WW2 the U S military found they had to unlearn the old training to never fire unless you had a clear target. They began to train troops to fire on suspected enemy positions whether they actually saw the enemy or not. The Germans and Japanese had become very proficient at camouflage and you were not likely to see them before they saw you.
Better to waste rounds than waste lives.
At worst even if a speculative shot hit nothing the enemy would usually open up before they could spring their trap properly. Then they'd find themselves the center of attention with .30 bullets flying like hail stones in and through their position while some enterpising individual with a bazooka or flamethrower worked his way around to ruin their entire day or someone called in mortars.

Higher velocities meant less likelyhood of shooting over or under the target at un measured distances. With lower velocities and arched trajectories there was greater possibility of missing if the range were not known and sights set accordingly.

The .40-80 bottleneck cartridge , similar to many of the late 19th century military cartridges like the 11mm Mauser or .43 spanish, held the record for smallest group at one thousand yards till the 1960's. It would not have made a good military rifle cartridge though because group size and potential accuracy could not be exploited due to the difficulties in determining exact range under combat conditions.

Most of the WW1 era military cartridges could be used with fixed elevation battle sights up to 400 yards, since differences in point of impact from muzzle to that range were only a few inches. For more precise shooting they would use the ladder sight and carefully adjust for range.
At one point the British considered using a fixed battle sight set for 600 yards for a cheap to produce Volunteer rifle, they didn't proceed with it, but the Italians and Japanese later used similar fixed sights when wartime production made manufacture of quality adjustable sights difficult.

Back to the .30-30.
The .30 Remington was long used as a police rifle, ranges were less than the Texas Rangers dealt with in open country, and may have inspired the 7.62X39. Balistics of the 125 gr bullet from a .30-30 or .30 Remington are near identical to the 7.62X39.
There were military versions of the Remington auto loaders in .30, don't know much about those.

[Sasquatch]

Thats interesting stuff. Im no military history expert, so Its news to me that you shoot at things you dont see (except with a machine gun or artillery). But wouldn't a wounding hit be good enough to knock most folks out of the fight?

[spqrzilla]

Rifle tactics were quite different before WWI. Even after WWI, the US military was unhappy that our allies' rifle cartridges had larger maximum ranges than ours. Well explained in Hatcher's Notebook.

[Wayne Smith]

Im suprised that nobody has mentioned that we did not develop the 30-03 and the 30-06 in isolation. The Springfield is a copy of the Mauser and we and Mauser copied the Swiss bullet. The Springfield is so much a copy that we paid Mauser royalties. I think the 30-03 was probably based as much on the 7.9mm Mauser cartridge - which has the same case as the 7mm Mauser. It was the ballistics of the 7.9mm Mauser that we were chasing in the development of the 30-06.

[Bret4207]

Just a couple points-

Rimmed cartridges work great in machine guns designed for them. The British Commonwealth nations had excellent results with the 303 into what? The 80's?

The NYSP also used the 94 in 30-30 into the 1950's with complete success. Unfortunately the 30-30 and Colt New Service in 45 Colt went the way of the horse around 1955.

The Winchester self loading rifles in 351 and 401 Winchester were also popular police rounds at one time. Times change.