.308

[den9]

how come the military uses a 308 for sniper rifles? i was lookin at ballistics and a 30-06 is better, and how come the military never adopted the 270? that is the flattest shooting rifle i know of.

[dgg9]

how come the military uses a 308 for sniper rifles? i was lookin at ballistics and a 30-06 is better, and how come the military never adopted the 270? that is the flattest shooting rifle i know of.

.308 long range ballistics are better. .30-06 has a little more power, but .308 has the better long range accuracy. And guns in .308 can have a much shorter action = more reliable, lighter, etc.

In any event, the military likes to centralize on calibers. .308 and .30-06 are too similar to stock both.

IIRC, the military was thinking about a .270-like caliber before the M1 Garand was ultimately chosen. There's a whole story behind that, which I have totally forgotten.

[762xIan]

After WW2 and the formation of NATO, the powers that be wanted to standardize ammo for all allied (NATO) forces.

There was a big brou-haha over the adaption of our .308, general consensus from the europeans was a .280 (7x43mm) round built around the FAL....well we won out on the .308 round but the Europeans all pretty much adopted FAL type weapons in the NATO version of .308 called 7.62x51mm (90 countries used FAL's at one time ). Why we didn't adopt an intermediate round then is beyond me, If we did, there probably wouldn't be any .223 today as we know it and old Eugene Stoners AR weapons would probably have worked quite nice with a 7mm round.

Anyway....The US adopted the M-14 and M-60 machine gun (.308), 30-06 was weened out and relegated to reserve and Gaurd units and generous portions shelled out overseas to other allies.

Ballistically the 30-06 has a very slight edge but .308 is right up there with it. So with the military still using and making .308, and the .223 not the best option for sniping, the .308 and the various sniper rifles (including many M-14's still in service BTW) is the cartridge of choice for our boys. Other than the lucky few who get to play with the Barret .50 BMG that is.

I'm sure I got a few details wrong...but that's the general gist of how things happened. Hope my ramblings are helpful.

[PA Rifleman]

...i was lookin at ballistics and a 30-06 is better,

The primary advantage of the .30-'06 is greater case capacity, which lends itself for throwing heavier bullets (200 grains and up). The weight range of military .308 bullets are 145-170 grains, making the .30-'06 superfluous. The real performance difference between .308 and .30'06 isn't apparent at distances under 800-1000 yards. Still, the .308 performs well enough at those distances that the military discontinued .30-'06.

What's more, the .308 allows more ammunition to be carried in the same given unit of space, an important consideration to military planners. The .308 is among the most accurate cartridges and the brass is almost everywhere in the world. While .30-'06 isn't any slouch, it's use is waning every year. Given the proliferation of military surplus 7.62mmx51 cases compared to 30-06, it makes economic sense to seriously consider the 308.

Given the similar performance at close & medium range, and the high accuracy potential of the .308 it just didn't make sense to continue using the .30-'06. I shot some surplus South American ball out of Remington 700 recently and easily achieved 3/4" groups at 100 yards. I had a hazy Tasco 3x9 scope that I cannibalized off an AR-15 mount. Search under my posts if you want to read the full account.

Not to worry, though. There are plenty of M1 Garand and M1903 Springfield rifles in both government and civilian hands. The Civilian Marksmanship Program continues releasing M1s and M1903s, and supplies the correct ball ammunition for competition use. The intent is clear - practice shooting service rifles in time of war or invasion. DEN9, since you're 19, consider going after one of these rifles while they're still around. there are a fixed number of them, and an endless supply of Springfield and Garand enthusiasts.

... how come the military never adopted the 270? that is the flattest shooting rifle i know of.

The current 5.56mm round matches the .270 in simple terms of velocity. There are much flatter shooting rifles than the 270, a good example of this is the .220 Swift. And, the 300 Winchester Magnum couples 3200 feet/sec velocity with 168 grain bullets particularly when using IMR-4831 powder. But, all these performance enhancements come at a price. The .22 caliber rounds have reduced penetration depth, the higher-velocity 30 caliber round (300 WM in particular) will have a substantial increase in recoil. The 300 WM will use about 30% more powder than the .30-'06, a serious concern for widespread deployment.

There are many more considerations than a nearly-flat flight path. Accuracy, terminal ballistics and logistical considerations to name a few.

The US military *did* ponder adopting a flatter shooting round in the late 1930s, but two factors set that school of thought back 25 years. One was huge stockpiles of leftover .30 caliber ball ammunition, and a certain event called World War II. You can get the details by clicking here. Not my website, but the same Richard Davis (author). By the time World War II ended, the victors were pondering the spoils. Among the trophies were a new gun which we would call today the "assault rifle" [sic]. We were struggling with the basic concept of reducing power and increasing firepower (volume), and I guess the Pentagon really wasn't ready for the reduced power feature by 1953-55. Like many guns, the Garand's replacement started with the cartridge. We were pondering a reduced length round as early as 1944, but not reduced power. Initially we were playing around with the 300 Savage cartridge, but it was given low priority at the time. By January 1945, the Savage 300 cartridge testing had mutated into a new cartridge whose head dimensions were later standardized with the existing 30-06 cartridge, and given the subsequent prototype designation "Cartridge, T-65". This round, called the T65 during trials and acceptance went on to become 7.62x51, or what most people regard as 308*. So, as you can see, we totally missed the point with the assault rifle until much later when Eugene Stoner rolled out the AR-15 ten years later. And this is the primary reason why the M14 wasn't considered a success in full automatic...we were repeating many of of the same mistakes, and quite ordinarily, getting the same results.

The Russians got the point very early. They had moles in Berlin and were tinkering around with a true intermediate round as early as 1943-44. The SKS was in acceptance testing in 1945, according to the Russians. I've read that SKSs were used in limited numbers against the German somewhere in the Belorussian front, but by 1945 the Soviets were past Belarus and well into Yugoslavia.

Rick
*But 7.62x51 and .308 Win aren't the same cartridge...but they are. More on this later.

[Tomcat088]

I did want to mention that there are some snipers in the US military who are using the .300 winmag. As others stated though, overall, it's probably not the best suited caliber for the military. The .300 winmag suffers "overbore" by alot, and so you burn alot more powder than the .308, but can't push the bullet as fast as should be possible from the case volume. Also, alot of shooters are recoil sensitive, the .300 winmag is definately not the rifle if you are. Another factor to consider is that the barrel life on the .300 winmag is significantly shorter than the .308. I'm sure when weighing all the factors, it's part of the reason that we haven't changed to anything else. Not to mention, there are some great consistent loads already developed for the .308.

[Suburban]

I did want to mention that there are some snipers in the US military who are using the .300 winmag. As others stated though, overall, it's probably not the best suited caliber for the military. The .300 winmag suffers "overbore" by alot, and so you burn alot more powder than the .308, but can't push the bullet as fast as should be possible from the case volume. Also, alot of shooters are recoil sensitive, the .300 winmag is definately not the rifle if you are. Another factor to consider is that the barrel life on the .300 winmag is significantly shorter than the .308. I'm sure when weighing all the factors, it's part of the reason that we haven't changed to anything else. Not to mention, there are some great consistent loads already developed for the .308.

IIRC, the Army's M24 is a long action, as they were thinking of converting to .300 Win Mag, or one of the other .300 mags.

[PA Rifleman]

IIRC, the Army's M24 is a long action, as they were thinking of converting to .300 Win Mag, or one of the other .300 mags.

Here's the M24 manual online, pdf format.

[DrakinClaw]

From what i have read of .308 vs 30.06.....well they are close, but ultimatly the 30.06 has slightly better ballistics . Although by no means am i saying a .308 is a bad round.

in the end a 30.06 is a better bullet, but quantity(of guns using .308) won out over quality!
Drakin

[Suburban]

Here's the M24 manual online, pdf format.

If the picture on page 55 is to scale, then I might be correct, but it doesn't say anything about long action or .300 Win Mag that I could find.

The Marine's M40 predates the .300 Win Mag, I think, so it probably wasn't that U.S. sniper rifle that I was thinking about.

The field manual should be usefull when I get around to detail cleaning the bolt of my 40X.


http://www.snipercentral.com/m24.htm
Hmm, well there you go. It's in the first paragraph.

[PA Rifleman]

...

The Marine's M40 predates the .300 Win Mag, I think, so it probably wasn't that U.S. sniper rifle that I was thinking about.

...

Remington ran a bunch of VN era M40s off for collectors. Details.