• Watch Out for Scammers!

    We've now added a color code for all accounts. Orange accounts are new members, Blue are full members, and Green are Supporters. If you get a message about a sale from an orange account, make sure you pay attention before sending any money!

The History of 30 caliber twist rates

Brutas

Sergeant
Full Member
Minuteman
Nov 5, 2009
123
0
In 1892 the Army switched from the .45-70 Trapdoor Springfield Rifle to the .30-40 Krag-Jorgensen and there was much rejoicing. The .30-40 Krag was load with a 220 grain jacketed lead round nose bullet fired at around 2000 fps. This bullet required a 1 in 10 inch twist to stabilize this built. During the Spanish-American War in 1898 the .30-40 Krag cartridge and Krag-Jorgensen Rifle that fired proved less effective the Spanish Mauser and 7mm Mauser that was used against them.
So, back to the drawing bored again and the 1903 Springfield Rifle and the .30-03 cartridge to fired from it were born. The .30-03 kept the 220 grain bullet (and the 1-10 twist) but increased the velocity to about 2100 fps. About this time every other country in the world was implementing lighter, faster spitzer type bullets that were more accurate at longer ranges.
Back to the drawing board again for the .30-06. A 150 Grain bullet traveling at 2750 FPS was decided upon. And the cartridge renamed .30-06 At the time all of the tooling and all of the machines used to make rifle barrels were set-up for the 1-10 twist. Since the testing was conducted in a relatively short period time and tooling was extremely expensive at the 1-10 twist was retained. In actuality, a 1-14 Twist barrel is sufficient to stabilize the 150 grain bullet at that velocity. While the 1-10 twist is over-stabilizing the 150 grain bullet, accuracy was still “good enough for government work” and delivered under the 3” at 100 yards requirement. Also, it is a thick Full-metal jacket bullet, so there was no fear of jacket failure due to excess RPM.
On the commercial front, as gun manufacturers started to produce rifles and ammunition for the .30-06, the used the 1-10 twist because they had the tooling and accuracy was sufficient. Also several manufacturers continued to load the 220 grain bullets for hunting large and dangerous game which requires the 1-10 twist. So, commercial manufacturers use the 1-10 twist in .30-06.
After WWII and further reinforced during the Korean Conflict, The powers that be decided that they needed, reduced recoil and more “Firepower” and decided to switch to the M14 and the 7.62 x 51mm NATO and 147 Grain bullets. Again, the tooling available was mostly geared for the 1-10 twist and again it was good enough for Government work. It was not until the National Match teams started playing with the M14 did things change. First, the adoption of the best target bullet, at the time, was adopted, the 168 Sierra Match King. Second, Lake City NM Brass was made available and the M852 Match ammo was born. Third, a proper chamber was designed. And lastly, a better twist rate was chosen, the 1-12.0. In most circumstances a 1-13 would have been sufficient, but the 1-12 provides a little bit of insurance. Later on when the M852 was dropped in favor of the M118LR with the 175 grain Sierra Match King (which can stay supersonic to longer ranges than the 168 because of higher ballistic co-efficient), the 1-12.0 twist remained because it can actually stabilize a 185 grain bullet in most circumstances.
So why were most factory .308 Winchester guns still using a 1-10.0 twist? That's what they were still geared up for in .30 caliber production and accuracy was factory acceptable. This also why all .300 win mags are also a 1-10 twist.
So, where the hell did the 1-11.25 twist come from and why? Once upon a time the Military asked a well known barrel maker to make some barrels for them. They specified a 1-12.0 Twist. This barrel maker informed them that he did not have a gear for his machine that would make a 1-12.0. He could make a 1-11.25 twist or a 1-13.0 twist. They chose the 1-11.25 (faster is always better for the Military, see the 62 grain 5.56 bullet in a 1-7.0 twist barrel). The barrels shot much better than the barrels that they had been using, so on all future orders they listed a 1-11.25 twist and through the magic of red tape this became a requirement.
 
Re: The History of 30 caliber twist rates

Thanks for the info. That was very informative and interesting to read.
 
Re: The History of 30 caliber twist rates

Good info. I was reading that the M-856 should have a 1:6 twist for artic shooting but 1:7 was seteled on because most shooting does not happen in the artic or artic temps.
 
Re: The History of 30 caliber twist rates

Good read. I myself have a 1-10" on my .308, so I can shoot the heavier bullets.
 
Re: The History of 30 caliber twist rates

I've spoken w/ that certain barrel maker on several occasions over 20 yrs that made the 11.25 for the military; and he has never stated that was the reason. I thought that was the beauty of "cut rifling"; precise twist rates???
 
Re: The History of 30 caliber twist rates

Interesting read, funny I had just posted a question last night in regards to bullet weight use in my .308 with a 1-12 twist rate barrel.

Thanks for posting the article.
 
Re: The History of 30 caliber twist rates

Where did this article come from? I'd like to hear what Boots has to say about this since he puts a lot of R+D into his products.
 
Re: The History of 30 caliber twist rates

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Turk</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> I thought that was the beauty of "cut rifling"; precise twist rates??? </div></div>

This is true, but as originally designed, Pratt & Whitney Hydraulic rifling machines had the twist controlled by the leader bar. Changing the leader bar, required dismantling the machine and replacing a very expensive part. These machines have been retro-fitted with gear boxes to eliminate that problem and make changing twist rates easier.

We by-passed the problem entirely with CNC Servo driven machines that we designed and built ourselves.

I wrote the original post myself.
 
Re: The History of 30 caliber twist rates

When I called Krieger about a match barrel for my M1A they assured me a 1-12 twist was sufficient for anything up to 175gr. The guy told me the 1-10 twists were popular because match shooters had been using them on M1A's for decades, probably for the reasons the OP stated, so everyone felt like they needed that twist rate. He basically told me they made the 1-11's for the people who couldn't decide.
 
Re: The History of 30 caliber twist rates

Brutas, Great read on barrel twist rates for 30 cal bullets.

If a 30-06 is over-stabilizing in a standard Remington 700 1-10 twist should we shoot bigger slower bullets to be more accurate long distance in existing guns? Typically use 165-180g bullets hunting.

What should the twist be with more powder behind a 30 cal bullet. For example starting near the top, what barrel twist is best for something like a 300 RUM / 300 LM / 30-378 Weatherby as all three have 'relatively similar' trajectory? What is the normal twist rate in a Remington ADL 300 RUM factory shipped barrel?

Not to leave out the middle what twist is best for a 300 Win Mag in between the big 30 cals and the 3006?

And for completeness is a progressive / variable twist rate ever recommended in situations for any of the 30 cal guns or is a fixed twist rate best?

<span style="color: #009900">BACKUP DATA:
Without my notebook (and always double-check before loading anything so this is not gospel) going from memory we usually start at about 57.5g of powder in a 30-06, 74g in a 300 WM, and about 94g in the 300 RUM (and the 3006 powder is faster burning). Compared to about 49g of a third kind of even faster powder in a .308. And on one day when took the time to notice and compare the .308 flies a 150g faster than the 3006 throws a 150g according to the chronograph which surprised me with less faster powder.

Like to figure at least 1200 ft lbs when hit my elk to take them out fast. When shooting normal ammo a 3006 has it out to about 500yd. 300WM to about 800yd. Have not figured the 300 RUM yet as just starting to use one, and while nice to know but nearly never shoot past 500yd at elk with many 3006 successes.
</span>
 
Re: The History of 30 caliber twist rates

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: oregon</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Brutas, Great read on barrel twist rates for 30 cal bullets.

If a 30-06 is over-stabilizing in a standard Remington 700 1-10 twist should we shoot bigger slower bullets to be more accurate long distance in existing guns? Typically use 165-180g bullets hunting....</div></div>

Remember hunters, especially hunters of old, used 180-220 grain round nosed bullets for hunting. The twist was not designed for target shooting.

Not all 1-10 twists will shoot the lighter <=150 grains as tightly as they do 190 grain SMK etc. Only way to see if your rifle is going to shoot a bullet/load is to try it in your particular rifle. Also, there has been allot of bullet refinements since the .30-40 was vogue. Lot of people on this board are shooting heavier 190-208 grain bullets in a 1-12. Again, your only going to know if you try them in your barrel.

Good luck

Jerry
 
Re: The History of 30 caliber twist rates

The twist is actually 11.273
grin.gif

Nice write up Brian.

Paul
 
Re: The History of 30 caliber twist rates

Neat read, interesting and yet somehow not surprising considering how Uncle Sugar all too often functions.
I have long believed the old saw about the Krag's supposed underperformance was and is just that; an old saw. I believe a very firm case could be made that the Norwegian designed Krag had infuriated the old guard at the national armory and others in Congress and industry who wanted a domestic rifle. Therefore they bided their time until an opportunity presented itself and it turned out to be the Span-Am war.
The performance and casualty rates of the hastily thrown together US troops led by officers employing dubious tactics cried out for a scapegoat and the Krag was very convenient.
A hue and cry was raised and it was curtains for the Krag; Springfield Armory was back in business and business was good! A slight problem arose in copying the patents and design of the Mausers but that was later settled in court to the tune of millions$$. In the finest traditions of the military industrial complex a win-win resulted for all involved. Except Ole und Erik.
 
Re: The History of 30 caliber twist rates

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Brutas</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In 1892 the Army switched from the .45-70 Trapdoor Springfield Rifle to the .30-40 Krag-Jorgensen and there was much rejoicing. The .30-40 Krag was load with a 220 grain jacketed lead round nose bullet fired at around 2000 fps. This bullet required a 1 in 10 inch twist to stabilize this built. During the Spanish-American War in 1898 the .30-40 Krag cartridge and Krag-Jorgensen Rifle that fired proved less effective the Spanish Mauser and 7mm Mauser that was used against them.
So, back to the drawing bored again and the 1903 Springfield Rifle and the .30-03 cartridge to fired from it were born. The .30-03 kept the 220 grain bullet (and the 1-10 twist) but increased the velocity to about 2100 fps. About this time every other country in the world was implementing lighter, faster spitzer type bullets that were more accurate at longer ranges.
Back to the drawing board again for the .30-06. A 150 Grain bullet traveling at 2750 FPS was decided upon. And the cartridge renamed .30-06 At the time all of the tooling and all of the machines used to make rifle barrels were set-up for the 1-10 twist. Since the testing was conducted in a relatively short period time and tooling was extremely expensive at the 1-10 twist was retained. In actuality, a 1-14 Twist barrel is sufficient to stabilize the 150 grain bullet at that velocity. While the 1-10 twist is over-stabilizing the 150 grain bullet, accuracy was still “good enough for government work” and delivered under the 3” at 100 yards requirement. Also, it is a thick Full-metal jacket bullet, so there was no fear of jacket failure due to excess RPM.
On the commercial front, as gun manufacturers started to produce rifles and ammunition for the .30-06, the used the 1-10 twist because they had the tooling and accuracy was sufficient. Also several manufacturers continued to load the 220 grain bullets for hunting large and dangerous game which requires the 1-10 twist. So, commercial manufacturers use the 1-10 twist in .30-06.
After WWII and further reinforced during the Korean Conflict, The powers that be decided that they needed, reduced recoil and more “Firepower” and decided to switch to the M14 and the 7.62 x 51mm NATO and 147 Grain bullets. Again, the tooling available was mostly geared for the 1-10 twist and again it was good enough for Government work. It was not until the National Match teams started playing with the M14 did things change. First, the adoption of the best target bullet, at the time, was adopted, the 168 Sierra Match King. Second, Lake City NM Brass was made available and the M852 Match ammo was born. Third, a proper chamber was designed. And lastly, a better twist rate was chosen, the 1-12.0. In most circumstances a 1-13 would have been sufficient, but the 1-12 provides a little bit of insurance. Later on when the M852 was dropped in favor of the M118LR with the 175 grain Sierra Match King (which can stay supersonic to longer ranges than the 168 because of higher ballistic co-efficient), the 1-12.0 twist remained because it can actually stabilize a 185 grain bullet in most circumstances.
So why were most factory .308 Winchester guns still using a 1-10.0 twist? That's what they were still geared up for in .30 caliber production and accuracy was factory acceptable. This also why all .300 win mags are also a 1-10 twist.
So, where the hell did the 1-11.25 twist come from and why? Once upon a time the Military asked a well known barrel maker to make some barrels for them. They specified a 1-12.0 Twist. This barrel maker informed them that he did not have a gear for his machine that would make a 1-12.0. He could make a 1-11.25 twist or a 1-13.0 twist. They chose the 1-11.25 (faster is always better for the Military, see the 62 grain 5.56 bullet in a 1-7.0 twist barrel). The barrels shot much better than the barrels that they had been using, so on all future orders they listed a 1-11.25 twist and through the magic of red tape this became a requirement. </div></div>

It is funny, ain't it..And I heard there was a short run back on either the 30-40 or likely 30-06 where someone read the sine bar grads improperly and was producing 1-12 twist rifles which shot phenomenally well.
 
Re: The History of 30 caliber twist rates

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Turk</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I've spoken w/ that certain barrel maker on several occasions over 20 yrs that made the 11.25 for the military; and he has never stated that was the reason. I thought that was the beauty of "cut rifling"; precise twist rates??? </div></div>

Uniformity of twist rate moreso. You can be as precise as you like, what matters more is the twist remains uniform for the length, or at very least with progressive twist doesn't slow towards the muzzle..
 
Re: The History of 30 caliber twist rates

Where did the 173 gr SMK fit in during the time frame? I thought it was the original match round.
 
Re: The History of 30 caliber twist rates

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: spot69221</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Where did the 173 gr SMK fit in during the time frame? I thought it was the original match round. </div></div>

The 173 grain match bullet was a Full Metal Jacket boat-tail, not a SMK.

My understanding is that there was a 173 grain load between the 220 grain and the 150 grain ball that wound up being used in the M1 Garand.

Good luck

Jerry
 
Re: The History of 30 caliber twist rates

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Shooter5</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Neat read, interesting and yet somehow not surprising considering how Uncle Sugar all too often functions.
</div></div>

You think that's bad flip through a SAMMI book and try to figure out how they came up with "Standards".

Poor yourself a stiff one first, you'll need it.