lysanderxiii
Member
Really? So much of this is just wrong.2) The 03 -> 06 line of cartridge development was a disaster from day one. The bore diameter was too big. The case capacity was too big, and became ridiculously so as powders improved. The fact that the 03 was incompatible with boat tail spire points was pure incompetence since the Lebel was well known when it was designed. Yet army supply couldn't bring themselves to give up the .30 bore diameter despite seeing the superiority of the .276 Pedersen during the Garand trials. The case and sholder tapers were too high - supposedly for machine gun feeding when in reality the way to improve that was a shorter round. You'd be hard pressed to find anything right about the 03/06 really.
The Caliber .30, M1906 case is too big? No, it is the correct size for most of its life. When loaded with typical propellants of the day it had 90% to 95% case fill. The partial fill you get from IMR 4895 is a late development, IMR 4895 only comes about in the early to mid-1940s. And, the mid 1940's is when they started to look at a shorter cartridge case, 1944 to be exact.
Also, the case volume of the .30-06 is about the same as the British .276 Enfield. The Enfield is slightly shorter because it had a larger rim diameter. The two cartridges had similar performance.
The Caliber .30, M1906 was incompatible with "tall spire points"? Well, first off, the bullet for the M1906 cartridge was shorter than the one for the M1903. And the M1906 bullet is anything but "tall". The M1903 case was longer in the neck to support the longer 220 grain bullet. They could have left the case the same length with the long neck, but it was not required, so they shortened it.
The British .303, Mk VII was not introduced until 1910. The Spanish Mauser used a round nosed bullet, it did not change until 1913. The 6.5mm Carcano and the 8mm Mannlicher used a round nosed bullet throughout their entire service life, which ended in the 1930s. The German 7.9mm Spitzgeschoß was fielded in 1904-05. All of these were after the introduction of the French Balle D in 1898. So, I guess according to you, everybody except the French were incompetent.
Anytime an army studies bullet diameter, they figure 7mm is about right. The British in 1910-13 with the .276 Enfield, the Germans in the late 1930s when they were designing what would become the 7.92 Kurtz, the US in the late 1920s with .276 Pedersen, the British again in the late 1940 with the .280/30. However, military development is tied to strategic reality. Would it have been smart for the British to switch to .276 in 1913? Why did the Germans adopt 7.9mm instead of 7mm for the MKb project? So, why does everyone say the US not going to .276 on the eve of a major war was a bad decision?
And, last the shoulder angle was what it was because they copied the 7.92mm Mauser, so I guess the Germans weren't all that bright either.
And Wikipedia cited "problems" of erosion in the .30-03 due to the "heavy bullet" are incorrect. You can shoot 220 grain bullets out of a .30-06 or .308 without erosion problems. The bullet weight is not the cause of erosion. Erosion is the result of high temperature propellants, high pressures, and their relationship to the surface area. The early double based propellants used were very erosive. The later DuPont MR single based propellants introduced around 1903 were adopted due to their better erosion qualities.