Cartridge stagnation?

[hrfunk]

I shoot the 30-06 cartridge out of an original M1903, an 03A4-gery, and most recently an M1 Garand, and the 107 year old cartridge never ceases to amaze me. Pondering that lead me to question just how far we've come in terms of cartridge performance in the past century or so. Certainly we've developed smaller and lighter cartridges that can be stuffed into proportionately smaller rifles, and we've developed some powder-gulping magnums that outclass the old '06; but by how much?

If you consider most anything else: cars, computers, aircraft, etc, you might expect small arms ammunition to be tantamount to some sort of short range artillery, or maybe a smart munition. So what do you guys think. Was the 30-06 just that far ahead of its time, or has ammunition development simply stagnated over the past hundred years?

HRF

 

[kimberseries1]

There are only so many combinations of: case capacity & design, projectile diameter, pressure, trajectory, etc. The improvement has come with the construction of the projectiles & barrels: Sectional density, tolerances, design, rifling, steel composition, etc. It's not like there's the formula of an engine: hundreds of parts working together in perfect timing with air/fuel mixture, HP-Weight ratio, suspension engineering, etc. It's as simple as brass + powder + projectile.

It also depends on needs: military needs are totally different than benchrest needs. For benchrest, look at the 6XC?, 6BR, 6.5X47L, and on and on and on. Military needs mass production, reliability, and the end results. That's it. And the .308Win / 7.62NATO & 5.56NATO meets those needs.

 

[hrfunk]

I agree, and I think you're making my point.

HRF

 

[kimberseries1]

Personally, I'm a .30-06 man myself. When hand-loaded, it's the most versatile cartridge out there. Near-Magnum performance without the cost and recoil.

However, the .308 does have a much higher cyclical rate of fire.


Your question reminds me of, "Why hasn't anyone made a better pistol than the 1911?" Over 100 years later, and it's hard to say there's a better platform.

 

[hrfunk]

Just to clarify, I'm not saying there are no better cartridges today than the 30-06. Clearly there are. What I AM saying is over a century after its creation, the cartridges of today are not as superior as one might expect. Mostly I'm just looking to start a friendly discussion.

HRF

 

[alfson]

The 6.5x55 is at least 10 years older than the 30-06 and is just as versatile. As far as any other cartridge being better than those two it all depends on your application.
But for all around do anything versatility you can't beat either one of those two.

 

[George Az]

If the 30-06 was introduced today and somehow labelled the "308 Magnum" or the "308 Win Long mag" it would sell like crazy.

 

[onethousandmeters]

I think the .30-06 is an outstanding cartridge, and is still applicable today, but just not in the same manner as it once was. The short action .308 is "good enough" for many of its intended purposes. However, as one poster above mentioned, it IS very versatile. If I had the equipment to reload that cartridge, I'd probably own another JRA 1903-A4. As such, I don't, and ended up selling that fine rifle. It's also hard to find 'custom' gun builders to offer a rifle in that caliber. A quick google search didn't turn up any M40-A3s in .30-06, sadly.

 

[hrfunk]

I think a good deal of apathy directed toward the '06 comes from two sources. Both are more or less related to marketing efforts directed at selling newer cartridges. One is the notion that a long-action rifle is only worth carrying if its chambered for a mega-magnum. The other was mentioned above, the various short action offerings are good enough.

HRF

 

[RTH1800]

The improvements have been incremental in the last 100+ years.

The 98 (1898) Mauser and the 7x57 (1892) ctg. are still quite viable.
Improvements have been in bullets, and to a lesser extent powders and primers. Brass has improved as well. The early bullets had many problems. Some did not expand, some over expanded. None were accurate as we know it today. .

One of the most famous of the old time elephant hunters, WDM Bell, was noted for his use of the 7x57 or 275 Rigby as he often called it. Much of his favor was based on reliable German ammunition that was made for that cal. Brass that did not fail, priming that always worked, FMJ bullets that did not deform, change course or break up. When good ammunition became available for the .318 Wesley Richards, he really came to prefer it. The 318 WR is a near twin to the 30-06 US ctg.

Being a pack rat, I have collected all manor of shooting related items, including old bullets. Many an old Mauser rifle in good condition of bore will shoot amazingly small groups. But not with vintage ammo, or with bullets of the 1920's era, or even the 40's-60's era. I have tried many of them.

In a related area, scopes, we have made huge gains. Barrel uniformity is better, but a good barrel from the 100 years ago can still shoot great.

 

[ksthomas]

Guys, the last three major, truly revolutionary advances in small caliber ammunition all occurred within about a 20 year period around the turn of the 19th Century. The rest since then have been nothing but minor, incremental steps in design. Those three advances were (in chronological order) the development of smokeless propellants in lieu of black powder, the design and adoption of jacketed bullets, and finally, the realization that pointed (spitzer) bullets offered greatly enhanced downrange ballistic performance. Frankly, I think the comments about new and revolutionary designs since then are nothing but gunwriter hype. The 30-06 is a good design, and (minor) advancements in powder technology have allowed similar performance in slightly smaller packages (such as the 308 Win), but there has been very, very little in the way of major advances in the field of small arms ammunition. since about 1905.

Might sound harsh, but it's a fact.

 

[hlee]

I would add an additional major advancement, the in invention of the self contained metallic cartridge. But, all told I think the comparison of ammunition to cars and computers is poor. A better example would be to compare ammunition to automotive fuel or to electricity and electrical transmission systems.

 

[hrfunk]

It sounds like a lot of us are thinking along the same lines. Specifically, there hasn't been a great deal of advancement in the past century.

HRF

 

[aur0ra145]

I agree with just about everything above. I do believe that the manufacturing/development of firearms has been hindered by the different gun control acts and limitations which resulted in detriment to firearms and cartridges. With less people to tinker with firearms and run with their own imaginations due to government controls , we end up seeing less innovation. This isn't an "OMFG SCREW THE GOV!" type thing. I just think that we're all scared to hell of violating ATF rules---even by accident---that we don't even start messing with firearms. Also, with a move away from the manufacturing culture in our country (Like back in the early 1900's) to service based stuff, we end up with less people who know how to actually manufacture their ideas. Furthermore, their ideas are subject to a litany of laws which you'd have to wade through to make your idea conform to current law.

Several of us (myself included) have thrown around the idea of becoming a manufacture with basic bolt rifle ideas (specifically to me, double rifles), to then expand later on. However, the investment cost for licensing, tooling and training makes your market point nearly impossible to get into. Not to mention the real players in the game have decade/century old companies. I have seen some success like Mr. Dixon and the GAP guys. Which is very encouraging; but, it's not something I'm willing to bet all my income, well being, and possible quality of life on. It's not because I don't fear making a start up, but rather my ability to get to market with a product that will generate enough income is nearly impossible (from the numbers and people I've talked to.) Having enough money for R&D to at least break even to develop new things just isn't there, even with a small operation. This is why I view this more as a hobby for the development of new firearms and cartridges. Coupled with that, I know very little about making barrels and projectiles. Hence, you're pretty much stuck with what is already on the market. I've always though that something like a .25 Fireball would knock peoples socks off. Progressive rifling is another thing I'd like to really run the numbers on. What about duplex/triplex loads on a bore that goes from say .311 to .308 along the length of the bore? There is so much stuff I'd like to experiment with, but I don't have an endless supply of money. That and safety. I don't have a "Kaboom chamber" in my backyard to test this stuff with.

I do agree with the cartridge stagnation argument. A lot of things have not been changed up simply because we have something that works well enough (and NATO happened.) Plus barrels. Barrels seem to be the real stopping point, that and projectiles. Trying to develop something in a wildcat with a non-popular caliber seems freaking impossible.

Also, I'm calling my .30-06's a ".308 Win Long Mag" from now on.

 

[aur0ra145]

Double post:

The other thing I wonder about is cartridge case dimensions. What if we were to develop a round with a super thick casing (for higher pressures) and shoot that? The Ackley Improved cartridges all seemed to be about powder capacity in a case (similar to the fashion of a 7.5x55 Swiss idea.) But what if you take a case, make it super thick and shoot that. It goes along the lines of the Lapua brass concept of having less case capacity due to thick walls and creating higher pressures with less powder.

Just a thought.

 

[longguntoter]

I shoot the 30-06 cartridge out of an original M1903, an 03A4-gery, and most recently an M1 Garand, and the 107 year old cartridge never ceases to amaze me. Pondering that lead me to question just how far we've come in terms of cartridge performance in the past century or so. Certainly we've developed smaller and lighter cartridges that can be stuffed into proportionately smaller rifles, and we've developed some powder-gulping magnums that outclass the old '06; but by how much?

If you consider most anything else: cars, computers, aircraft, etc, you might expect small arms ammunition to be tantamount to some sort of short range artillery, or maybe a smart munition. So what do you guys think. Was the 30-06 just that far ahead of its time, or has ammunition development simply stagnated over the past hundred years?

HRF

I don't know about the "stagnation" of projectile design. Yea, I suppose the metallic cartridge has had just about the same components from it's inception, but the components have improved quite a bit and the quality of bullets have been improved as well.

I look at it from a standpoint of what am I using a cartridge for. If I were a sniper on the battlefield, I would probably go with 6.5mm bullet over the 7.62mm round of the .30-06. I feel as though the 6.5's "fly" better, for a longer distance. If I were shooting large game during hunting season, I would rather have the heavier/fatter bullet the .30-06 round offers. I have never shot at a deer beyond 250 yards, personal choice, and at that distance the '06 shoots plenty flat enough for my skill level of shooting to hit my target and take it out.

 

[wilecoyote]

ABOUT CALIBERS : t's a well known fact that in 1944 some really knowing guys, and among them an Olimpic shooter (Herr Gehmann), advised the Oberkommando Wehrmacht about the recipe to produce a decent real sniper rifle, with an adequate trigger,a quality barrel and a caliber/cartridge choice gravitating around the civvy 7x64_ without entering in the details,or into the reasons behind the failure of this proposal, it's enough to take note how this simple and savvy advise seemed unheared not only at "their" times, but even today_
ABOUT RIFLES : on the other side of the world, nothing less than Mr. Jeff Cooper stated that, nothwitstanding his love for all his rifles and the progress of the after WWII technologies, his ancient Krag was enough to fullfill the most part of "His" needings about rifle shooting (and personally I don't consider so low "His" shooting standards) _
both those facts have a deep sense, for me, when I'm lost evaluating, being tempted, the latest market gizmos...

 

[hlee]

This topic started about the "stagnation" of cartridge design. But, with the number of wildcat cartridges that have been produced over the years it is hard to argue that there is any stagnation at all. That very few become popular is more a result of the fact that, due to constraints imposed by materials science and engineering (barrels and brass are only so strong and resilient), chamber pressures for all modern rifles operate within a very narrow band. As a result, magnum cases only give you an incrimental increase in performance (if any at all, and then generally only with slower powders and longer barrels), and there is only so much room to play with bullet diameter, weight, powder charge, and burn rate. A revolutionary shift in propellant would necessitate a revolutionary change in barrel and brass strength.

I think, rather than stagnation, what we see is the "sliced bread" of ammunition was developed when the self contained cartridge was married to the jacketed bullet and smokeless powder. They already run at the ragged edge of what a firearm can support.

 

[hrfunk]

I think you're on to something there. When I started this thread, I never suggested there were not reasons for the lack of advancement in self-contained ammunition cartridges as compared to other items. I guess what surprises me is given the progress in the areas like electronics, aeronautics, and, of course, beer, we haven't found a way to overcome the limitations inherent in firearms and ammunition, so as to boost their performance far beyond where they are today. Certainly, if you compare the 30-40 Krag to the .338 Lapua, you see vastly improved ballistics; but, a century's worth of improvement? I wonder. Consider that in less than that span, we went from animal and steam powered transportation to supersonic flight and the moon landing. It just seems like our improvements in small arms and ammunition pale in comparison. Maybe I'm all wet, but it does make me wonder. Hence, this thread.

 

[Greg Langelius *]

The 7x64 is a bit on the exotic side, but something very similar can be obtained from the .280 Rem. The capacity difference is measured in about 2gr of water, the cartridge base diameter is very common; and brass, bullets, and barrels all work pretty well in an action made for the .30-'06. I think of the '06 case capacity as being the upper end of reasonable, and that further performance improvements could/should come from a modest bore diameter decrease; making the .280 an effective and underappreciated gem.

My respect for Jeff Cooper is immense, I just see his interests as being more confined to Infantry Combat distances. I'm probably undereducated in this regard, but I think his LR interests may have been minimal.

Greg

 

[turbo54]

Work = Force * Distance

Work in a piston/cylinder device (like a gun barrel) is defined as ʃP*dV (pressure times change in volume).

Because both the pressure and volume are constantly changing, you must evaluate it in tiny little timesteps, and then add up each little piece.

My point here is that we've got a finite amount of volume to work with for any given boresize and barrel length.

Thus, the only thing in our control is pressure. Higher pressure while the changing-volume event ocurrs means more work was done (higher velocity). Unfortunately, the materials we have to work with are pretty much at their mechanical limits at ~70,000 (peak) psi.

Higher AVERAVE pressure would produce more work (higher velocity)... If your pressure vessel can handle 70ksi, ideally you'd want a *fast* pressure rise right up to 70ksi, and for it to flatline there for the duration of the bullet's acceleration down the bore (changing volume).

We haven't developed propellants that do this yet, and that is where a key technological advancement could ocurr.

Case in point: Reloder 17. That is the "magic" of this powder. It is designed to have a "peak and hold" pressure curve, instead of the traditional fast pressure rise and then fairly-fast pressure drop. However, it comes nowhere close to "flatlining" the pressure.

Bullets would go **way** faster if we could maintain, say, 50ksi continuously, rather than a quick spike to 70ksi followed by a drop to 15ksi (or so) at the muzzle.

Muzzlebrakes would work GREAT, muzzleblast would be insane, and suppressors would hate life.

 

[Jhnmdahl]

Double base propellants and other advances make a 30-06 capable of performing much better than it did 100 years ago, but at a cost of barrel life, etc. I suspect if it were introduced today, people would compare it to the 300 win mag rather than the .308, and it would fight for adoption in a pretty crowded field of cartridges.

 

[hlee]

How about a 50bmg cartridge with a 6mm projectile carried in a sabot? I'm thinking along the lines of a KE penetrator round, but for small arms- and not nevessarily to penetrate armor. How fast can a 50bmg push a 200 grain dart? I'm thinking match directors would hate it...

In 1900 autimobile technology was a "developing technology." In 1900 small arms ammunition technology was a "mature technology."

In my industry we talk a lot about "low hanging fruit" and "the tallest nails." Low hanging fruit is easily picked and the tallest nails are the most in need of hammering. Immature tech has a lot of low hanging fruit, and generally lots of easily hammered tall nails. In 1890, ANY land craft that moved without animal input was an advance- lots of low hanging fruit.

Tall nail: remove animal.
Low hanging fruit: steam power is proven tech adaptable to personal land craft.

You have to go back to The Renaissance to make a comparable statement about firearms tech. Today, there are lots of very tall nails in the way of revolutionary advancements in firearms tech.

 

[wilecoyote]

The 7x64 is a bit on the exotic side, but something very similar can be obtained from the .280 Rem. The capacity difference is measured in about 2gr of water, the cartridge base diameter is very common; and brass, bullets, and barrels all work pretty well in an action made for the .30-'06. I think of the '06 case capacity as being the upper end of reasonable, and that further performance improvements could/should come from a modest bore diameter decrease; making the .280 an effective and underappreciated gem.

My respect for Jeff Cooper is immense, I just see his interests as being more confined to Infantry Combat distances. I'm probably undereducated in this regard, but I think his LR interests may have been minimal.

Greg

more than the exotic side,it's the other side (of the pond), but I'm with you with the "upper end reasonability" of the '06 case_ on the "other side", I'm impressed from the unique mindset necessary to proposing somewhat as a 1917(!) ol'sporting cartridge to some relatively conservative military organization of the other side , and the same Gehmann,if I don'go wrong, managed after the WWII to boost the 7x64, creating the 7x66 Vom Hofe S.E. in the 1956 (quite stubborn guy,I'm supposing) _

About the never too much revered Col.Cooper, I must admit that his Infantry Combat distances are only a bit LONGER than our average longest european 300meters shooting stand's distances (Switzerland excluded,of course)_

 

[sinister]

I'm not sure how one can say cartridge technology and design have stagnated over the last hundred years as there are far more calibers and cases available today.

Firearms design has, in fact, progressed remarkably far (the AR/M-16 with its aluminum receivers, select-fire capability, magazine capacity, length-to-weight and capability per inch, and modularity being huge factors).

The 30-06 still exists and is in full production -- there just aren't any militaries or governments who use it for first-line use.

The US military uses a system to evaluate a whole gamut of factors (Doctrine, Organization, Training and Education, Manpower, Leadership, Personnel, and Facilities) to determine system application and value/cost -- it's not just a matter of saying something's cool, we should keep it, buy it, or revive it.

There are a whole lot of weapons and equipment in US War Stocks that haven't been scrapped (M1911A1s, 81 and 60mm mortars, M16A1s and M14s, 105 and 155mm howitzers and 4.2-inch mortars, etc.). If it's truly excess and obsolete it might be gifted as aid or scrapped.

The CMP funds its operations exclusively on the sale of M1 Garand, Springfield, M1 Carbine, and surplus Army rimfire target rifle sales.

 

[sandwarrior]

I would have to disagree with the statement that cartridge stagnation has hit us. Granted as KSThomas has said the three biggest developments have already hit us, but each little incremental improvement is a lot when considering how much individuality needs to be changed to implement a change. Most changes are based around what one or another military does, and wildcats that are successful are based on those.

Remember, just because it's popular doesn't mean it's the best. It merely means that the powers that controlled that thing/function stopped there.

Cartridges haven't stagnated as I see it because there are so many variations of them. In the meantime, advances made in smokeless powder (even blackpowder alternatives), bullets and primers and cases have brought even old cartridges back to life. Along with a better understanding of rifles today and the metallurgy we put into them to handle more pressure and be more consistent. Barrel twists and how rifle barrels are cut/twisted is making old cartridges look new again. Today's 6mmXC is really a 30 deg. shouldered 6mm International Improved. If you're thinking Ackley, keep in mind Fred Huntingdon also created one in a 28 deg. shoulder. Not very far at all from the 6mmXC and 6mm Creedmoor. But, todays' powder and brass along with a better manufactured more accurate twist in the barrel make these cartridges outstanding over other choices of today. Less recoil, but still get better ballistics is hard to beat.

 

[wilecoyote]

cartridges haven't stagnated: their living targets have stagnated, and when we consider the hunting or miliary use about small arms, I'm quite puzzled to think to something newer more apt to over-overkill them,even inside the limits allowed from optic devices only_
sporting use, intended as anything where nobody will try to eat you or return fire, can be a field test, and that's limited only from the economic resources of the competitors_
personally,if I could afford the money/time combo, I would more interested to the "precision shooting" developement of some old horses coupled with today's Gunsmiths,barrels,technologies,dedicated bullets,etc.,and for old horses I mean 7x64Brenneke,30.06, and 8x68Schuler, but I understand that I'm only dreaming,now_

 

[TorF]

I think the 30-06 is the best all round civilian cartrige. As a military round I like the 8x57 better due to much better barrellife in MG's.

As I side note; many years ago a friend of mine converted a Browning 1919A1 from 30-06 to 9.3x62. It worked great With 286gr bullets. Think about this conversion in a 8 gun Spitfire in 1940/BoB.with explosive bullets compared to the 303 popguns...

 

[sandwarrior]

I think the 30-06 is the best all round civilian cartrige. As a military round I like the 8x57 better due to much better barrellife in MG's.

As I side note; many years ago a friend of mine converted a Browning 1919A1 from 30-06 to 9.3x62. It worked great With 286gr bullets. Think about this conversion in a 8 gun Spitfire in 1940/BoB.with explosive bullets compared to the 303 popguns...

I hate to tell ya, but .30 U.S., .303 British and 7.92 German were nothing better than spotting rounds. Effective cartridges in aviation started with the .50 U.S. and went up from there. 20mm was a good balance between destructive and weight a WWII aircraft could carry. 30 and 37mm were too heavy for piston engined fighters. The U.S. .50 was successful because typically WWII fighters didn't carry all that much armor and you could carry a lot of it. Which translated to a lot of hits. 20mm's took a lot less hits to knock something down, but still had numbers enough to effectively arm an aircraft. 30's and 37's were devastating but carrying any more than 20 or so rounds kept the aircraft from being maneuverable. You were out of bullets just when you got started.

The 9.3, while a good game gun, is way too slow and still too light for aviation.

 

[TorF]

Well, the 303 and 9,3x62 have app the same muzzle velocity. I've shot a few rounds with German 8x57 B-patrone and seen the effect. A 9,3 with double payload would be more effective.

Remember, I was talking about improving firepower in 8-gun rifle calibre fighters during BoB. They fixed the problem with firepower by fitting a pair of 20mm in the Spitfire a few months later. I think the Hurricanes sold to Belgium just before WW2 were fitted with four .50 cal Brownings. Britain should have copied this installation.

PS: The German 30mm cannons fitted to the Me262 jet fighter had mv of app 2000fps..

 

[sandwarrior]

Well, the 303 and 9,3x62 have app the same muzzle velocity. I've shot a few rounds with German 8x57 B-patrone and seen the effect. A 9,3 with double payload would be more effective.

Remember, I was talking about improving firepower in 8-gun rifle calibre fighters during BoB. They fixed the problem with firepower by fitting a pair of 20mm in the Spitfire a few months later. I think the Hurricanes sold to Belgium just before WW2 were fitted with four .50 cal Brownings. Britain should have copied this installation.

PS: The German 30mm cannons fitted to the Me262 jet fighter had mv of app 2000fps..

Agreed on the .50's for England. It might have even been a lopsided victory in favor of the British had they used the .50's which were available to them early in WWII. There are many, many accounts of British fighters hitting their targets with their .303's and not doing much of anything to the aircraft at all. .50's would have ripped the German aircraft apart and really settled the account at that time.

Regarding the ME262, it was a case of WAAAAY to fast for the British and American bombers to hang on while the 262's tore them up. With a 100 mph advantage over the fastest Allied fighters of the day, and a 365 mph advantage over the bombers, all the Allies could hope for was a deflection shot at the 262's and hope they ruined their chances for a shot as they passed. It was basically deflecting the 262's off the formations. When Allied fighters weren't in position, Allied bombers got HAM-DAMMERED! One such meeting had 52 American bombers shot down in under 3 minutes. While completely effective against bombers, they were hardly effective against the fighters of the day. Unless, they jumped them by surprise. Not cartridge related, but the lack of range of the ME262 and still superior maneuverability of the piston/prop fighters made it equal at full speed combat and very much in favor of the piston/prop aircraft when the ME262's had to get out of the fight, i.e, land.

Muzzle velocity didn't have so much to do with it as mass of the bullet and because of that, the ability for it to carry explosives. Naturally 20's had the advantage over .50's. And, 30/37mm had the advantage over 20. But pretty much anything under .50 didn't have much ability to carry an explosive warhead. Remember, even .50's were undersized. The key to them being successful was a high number of hits. A 9.3 is going to fit into the category of undersized when it comes to an explosive warhead capable of doing enough damage to an aircraft to effectively knock them out of the sky.

FWIW, I have a 9.3x62 and think it's a hammer. But, I wouldn't consider it adequate in an air war.