OT - GI's shoulda been issued .270's !

[JohndeFresno]

I dont know about that long range trajectory deal pitting the .270 against the 30-06 ????

I read it to mean super accuracy at fairly long ranges, given the same amount of powder.

Sam Fadala wrote an article comparing the .270 with the .30-06 and similar calibers in 2005 in Guns Magazine. He stated that the .270 is a tad flatter shooting, but also stated,
"Ah, but when all of the romance is removed and bare ballistic facts stand naked before us, the .30-06 wins the prize from ranges three feet past a hunter's boots to 300-yards and farther. That's the unvarnished truth, like or not."

You can still see the link - for now - along with his various tests at:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m ... n15402279/

[madman4570]

I dont know about that long range trajectory deal pitting the .270 against the 30-06 ????

I read it to mean super accuracy at fairly long ranges, given the same amount of powder.

Sam Fadala wrote an article comparing the .270 with the .30-06 and similar calibers in 2005 in Guns Magazine. He stated that the .270 is a tad flatter shooting, but also stated,
"Ah, but when all of the romance is removed and bare ballistic facts stand naked before us, the .30-06 wins the prize from ranges three feet past a hunter's boots to 300-yards and farther. That's the unvarnished truth, like or not."

You can still see the link - for now - along with his various tests at:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m ... n15402279/

No doubt the .270 is a fantastic cartridge.
He quotes the 300yd drop of the 30-06 at 7.5" (what I shoot is 6.5" ?)
Same as what he quotes for the .270 ?
Anyway-------They are both fantastic cartridges.(ya can get carried away)
example: my buddy bought a rare old Winchester 70 chambered in .270 Weatherby(and was bragging how it whipped his .270 Win.
Asked him about 6 months later-----How"s that .270 hot rod shooting?
He said "only shot 10rds so far, cant afford to shoot it" said it was like $60 a box???
Said the brass was very expensive to get also for reloading

Guess I am just saying grab a Shooters Bible and look at the 30-06 ammo spec listings anymore and man oh man it aint like the old stuff.
Course as that goes up a notch so does the others above it!
Anyway good luck shooting and yes the .270 does indeed rock!

[RSY]

I dont know about that long range trajectory deal pitting the .270 against the 30-06 ????
I shoot a factory load 150gr Hornady 3100 fps and at 400yds shes doing 2219 fps
the Muzzle energy is 3200 ft-lbs and at 400 yds its 1624 ft-lbs
The trajectory drop at 400 yds when sighted in at 200 yds is a mere 19"

What factory load beats that with the .270 win ?

That sounds like the new Superformance stuff from Hornady. I cold match it with the Superformance .270 loads. Also, .30-06 and .270 Win. have the same max pressure, as I recall.

So, in the interest of keeping it "apples-to-apples" and period-correct let's keep the bullet weight at the 150-gr weight and GI FMJ, etc. They could have issued a 150-gr .270 FMJ loaded to the same OAL as the .30-06 round and I imagine the only thing they would have had to change would have been the barrels. Their case dimensions are nearly identical except for neck length, so similar OAL could have easily been maintained to ensure proper functioning of semi-auto and automatic weapons.

But, as already pointed out above it wouldn't have really made sense to do it due to the cost. Same weight bullet, case, and charge, so no weight savings, either. But, the better sectional density of the 150-gr .277" bullet does theoretically make it a better penetrator. Enough to matter? Probably not.

Scott

[Otto]

My question is, if the Garand was chambered in .30-'06 because of all the surplus ammo, what is the reasoning behind the M14? Given that they were looking at a new cartridge anyway, why not choose a .256 or .277? Especially since, in retrospect, they went to a much smaller .223 a few years later. Maybe if the M14 had been chambered in 6.8x51mm, the 5.56 would never have existed.

[madman4570]

OK----You guys really got me going now!


na, that stuff is around 8 years old from (Gander Mtn,Muncy Pa )

Bought 5 boxes of that (Hornady SST 150gr)
and 5 boxes of (watch it now, ) Federal HE 180 gr Nosler Partitions.

Ready---------------what you get at 400 yards?
180 grainers now! (are you sitting down?)
Velocity-----2150 fps Energy------------1885 ft lbs Drop------------20.6 IN

When I bought it back then that kicked the tush out of most all the .300 Win Mag stuff I was buying! I know stuff seems like every year to change some, maybe its a little different going in either direction but for that stuff I bought, lets see ya------


------MATCH THAT??????????

Now maybe somthing like -----Honey, where's my 7MM Rem Mag and those Max handloads?

[RSY]

My question is, if the Garand was chambered in .30-'06 because of all the surplus ammo, what is the reasoning behind the M14?

Because by the mid-1950s everything was well-used and nearing end of service life. That included all the Garands, BARs, and Browning light machine guns. So, in typical American fashion, it was decided a whole new platform was needed, to include a new cartridge.

Another reason: There was "money in the bank" for such twofold projects (rifle + cartridge), whereas in the '30s the government coffers were still suffering somewhat from the effects of the Great Depression.

[Otto]

My question is, if the Garand was chambered in .30-'06 because of all the surplus ammo, what is the reasoning behind the M14?

Because by the 1950s everything was well-used and nearing end of service life. That included all the Garands, BARs, and Browning light machine guns. So, in typical American fashion, it was decided a whole new platform was needed, to include a new cartridge.

Another reason: There was "money in the bank" for such twofold projects (rifle + cartridge), whereas in the '30s the government coffers were still suffering somewhat from the effects of the Great Depression.

So, why .308? Why not revisit the smaller caliber question at this time?

[RSY]

So, why .308? Why not revisit the smaller caliber question at this time?

There may be no logical explanation, aside from just the American obsession with all things .30-caliber.

I do think at that time they were still wedded to the long-standing idea of rifles and light/medium machine guns sharing a cartridge for logistical reasons. Plus, they had just been through almost 15 years of the .30-cal bullet doing everything they wanted it to. In their mind back then, why change? Want more rounds per unit of weight? OK. We'll just shorten the case and fill it with a quicker powder to maintain the old velocities.

Honestly, just like the move away from the M1911, the move away from a .30-cal. battle rifle cartridge still puzzles me. There were no flies on the 7.62x51mm.

[Gary7]

So, why .308? Why not revisit the smaller caliber question at this time?

There may be no logical explanation, aside from just the American obsession with all things .30-caliber.

I do think at that time they were still wedded to the long-standing idea of rifles and light/medium machine guns sharing a cartridge for logistical reasons. Plus, they had just been through almost 15 years of the .30-cal bullet doing everything they wanted it to. In their mind back then, why change? Want more rounds per unit of weight? OK. We'll just shorten the case and fill it with a quicker powder to maintain the old velocities.

Honestly, just like the move away from the M1911, the move away from a .30-cal. battle rifle cartridge still puzzles me. There were no flies on the 7.62x51mm.

I think RECOIL was the main issue. The trend was toward lighter battle weapons. The Army and Marines had already seen that even in a heavy rifle like the M14, 7.62 at full auto was nearly unmanageable and beat the shooter up pretty good. In a lighter weapon like Stoner's AR it would be even worse.

[piller]

I have both a .270 and a .30-06, and I like both of them. I don't really think there would have been much difference with using a 150 grain .270 versus a 165 grain .30-06 in battlefield situations. In everything I have read or heard of about battles, things rarely go according to plan or statistics. Just my opinion, but a change in bullet would have been a better idea. The ban on dum-dum bullets does not really prevent the use of all expanding bullets, and a soft point of the kind where little to no lead goes beyond the jacket seems like a good idea to me in the military firearms.
By the way, didn't General Westmoreland own or have a majority share in Colt firearms when the M16 was adopted? I had heard that, but I am not sure if it is true. If true, it would have probably been a huge factor in his decision.

[junkbug]

Well, I don't have all the answers;
but long range for machine gun usage is really different than it is for a rifle. It is counter-intuitive, but with the 7.92x57mm round, a 198 grain boatail shoots flatter at really long range than a 150 grain flat base. With the 198 gr bullet starting out at nearly 400 fps slower. Of course, that bullet technology can be used for any cartridge.

However, then was the percieved failure of the 6.5mm rounds, mostly at machine gun ranges. The 6.5mm and .270 caliber are pretty close. Really long range leathality problems.

I find it fascinating that both the Japanese and Italians, independent of each other sought to replace their 6.5mm cartridges with round that basically emulated the .303 British, a rather lackluster round whose battlefield performance is out of proportion to its ballistics.

I bet a nice hot loaded .270 Winchester would burn up a machine gun a lot faster than the issue US .30 cal Government. You can download the .270, but then your right back to the US .30 Cal. With less bullet diameter and probably weight.

There is a lot more going on besides what works best in a bolt action rifle, even with a scope. Don't forget the basically crummy scopes they had available before WWII.

Dissatisfaction with 6.5mm is well known. The 7mm Mauser was also well known, worked fine in automatic weapons, but still failed to impress. Not really sure why. However, I've never heard or read of anyone complaining the the US Cal 30 Government was inanequate or a flawed cartridge. It worked well with WWI bolt action rifle, BAR, and water cooled machine gun technology, and continued working just as well with WWII M-1 Garand, BAR, and aircooled medium machine gun technology. My vote is they got it just right. BUT THAT IS JUST MY PERSONAL OPINION.

The most important thing to remember that this is hind-sight. We can't change the past.

I like talking about old guns and cartridges. As to what should be done today, with the current situation, well, nobody has even left me spam email asking my opinion about it yet. Curses!

[RSY]

I don't really think there would have been much difference with using a 150 grain .270 versus a 165 grain .30-06 in battlefield situations.

Except that in WWII and Korea, the .30-06 load had a 152-gr bullet.