Say there never was Caliber .30 Model 1906...

[Galil5.56]

What caliber would you have developed/adopted at that time period considering technology current for the time? maybe you would stick with it?

Even with the propellants of the era, I think I would have gone along the lines of say 7.62x53 (basically a tiny bit of a necked down 7.65 Belgium), a 7x55 or even 7.62x55 from the Swedish 6.5x55, even perhaps for a less intensive cartridge, say a necked up 6.5 Carcano to 7.62, or even 6.8/7mmx52. I surely love 30/06 for it's ability to handle heavy bullets driven pretty fast, and light bullets driven really fast with modern propellants, but can't help thinking that at even at the time, it was way too long/inefficient ballistically and resource wise. The US could have adopted any round they liked, and even if they stuck with the std Mauser rim diameter, I think could have come up with a better round that had equal/similar performance, used a shorter action, and less resources.

I know this is just fantasy; just the same it will be interesting to read of others thoughts and ideas. Thanks.

 

[labnoti]

.303 -- The Lee Enfield continues to be widely regarded as one of the best battle rifles until the advent of the M1 and more modern post-WWII rifles. For sporting use, I can't think of anything the .30-06 can do that the .303 isn't sufficient for. In 1903, there wasn't the enmity that would later develop between the US and Germany (in both wars) and Japan (in the second). But the alliance with the British has been pretty solid for more than the last 116 years.

7.92x57mm -- This one is probably ballistically a little closer to the .30-06 (~4000J energy) and works quite well with heavier bullets. It's rimless, but I'm not convinced that's very significant. Like the .30-06, it has a high energy and recoil level that's probably unnecessary high for most purposes that it's ever been popular for. It stands to reason it's sufficient for any sporting purpose for which the .30-06 would be.

6.5x50 Arisaka -- semi-rimmed, but if the 6.5 Creedmoor is better than the .308, the .30-06, the .303 and the 8mm Mauser, then so is the 6.5 Jap. It came to be regarded as "underpowered" during WWII (because the British and Americans had more), but that was before the 7.62x39 and 5.56x45. The velocity and trajectory of the 6.5 Jap with ~100-130 gr bullets of modern design would be very good and suitable for the same game as a .30-06. As it is, I've adopted the 6.5 Grendel which is like a 6.5x39mm and I don't feel it's underpowered for any soft target.

 

[troy fairweather]

i think paul mauser did it right in 1892. 7mm mauser for me.

 

[ThomasT]

The '06 daddy. The 8x57 Mauser. It will do everything the 06 does.

 

[25-5]

.303 with the 10 round mag.

 

[someguy2800]

Without the benefit of hindsight I think I would have voted for something slightly smaller than 30-06. Something about the size of 7.5x55 swiss, in either 30 or 7mm caliber.

Given the benefit of hindsight 113 years later, the best thing we could have had was an intermediate round along the lines of a 6.8 spc, in a rifle with a 20 round magazine. But we didn't know that yet, or nobody listened to the people that did!

I wonder if at the time the springfield 03, M1917, and Garand were used, WW1 to Korea, if any of the GI's that were responsible for using the things would have wanted anything different. By all accounts I've read and heard from veterans themselves, the service people at the time thought the M1 was a surpurb rifle. I wonder how many of them at the time would have rather had an M1 chambered in 7x57 or even smaller cartridge. The GI's in Korea always talked about when you hit someone with the M1 you were certain they were going down and staying down.

 

[the Black Spot]

303 or 7 mauser

 

[LRDGCO]

So, the question needs to have been, “ Say there was never a caliber .30 of 1903”?

The US Army had settled on the .30 caliber at the dawn of the smokeless era with a cartridge that was the British 303, turned up to 11, ie just a little bit more. 8mm was the other model of the era, having been adopted by the French and Germans. The Springfield rifle was of course the child of Roosevelt who was unimpressed by the Krag and very impressed with the Mauser and 7x57.

So, if the query is “what was the likely alternative to the .30 ‘03”, the answer is different to “what would I have chosen in 1903”?

Based on history, the answer is that the most likely alternative would have been some sort of 7mm-03/06, ie a case just different enough from 7x57.

The 6.5mm looks great in retrospect but at the time would not have really impressed Roosevelt, who would have viewed Norway, Sweden, Italy and Japan as second and third rate militaries. The 30-‘03 would have appealed to him as an 11 vs both the Brits and Germans which were the preeminent military powers of the day.

 

[labnoti]

The 6.5mm looks great in retrospect but at the time would not have really impressed Roosevelt, who would have viewed Norway, Sweden, Italy and Japan as second and third rate militaries. The 30-‘03 would have appealed to him as an 11 vs both the Brits and Germans which were the preeminent military powers of the day.

I agree with this. But as it turns out, the thinking was flawed. It was flawed not because the Norwegians, Swedes, Italians and Japanese necessarily had it figured better than the Americans, British and Germans, but because as you say, in retrospect, things changed. The US remained dogmatic with the T65 (7.62x51mm) even when the British, Germans and Russians had made marked departures (I'm counting the Germans for pioneering all their eventual departure with the 7.92×33mm Kurz, though Hitler was known to hold the same dogma as Roosevelt had.) Would the US had markedly different results in WWI, WWII, or Korea had they something more like the lower-powered 6.5 Arisaka, Swede, or Carcano (with a lighter spitzer bullet)? I doubt there would have been a practical effect, but if the troops or any significant portion of command believed their cartridge was putting them at a disadvantage, there could have been a morale issue. We saw something like that with the M1919 vs the MG42, but if the issue was as widespread as the main battle rifle it would have been difficult to sway opinion with persuasive propaganda. On a side-note, the Vickers G.O. matched the MG42's cyclic rate of fire, and it did it with a rimmed cartridge (the .303).

I believe there remains some of that same dogma in the area of sporting use, but more significantly, different dogmas plague our gun culture today. I don't have the hubris to think I can point them all out -- time will tell, and we'll all see it in retrospect. But we can probably take a clue that when we're comparing our choices and our equipment among friends and rivals and we're striving to best them "on paper" so to speak, we'd be better off doing our own homework and examining more innovative options from a fresh perspective.

 

[jeepnik]

We had the 30-03 changing bullet profile, powder and primer construction weren’t radical. We’d likely have had what we ended up with but still called the ‘03 with a mark or dash something.

It’s doubtful we’d have adopted another country’s round. We were feeling or oats and would have insisted on our own home grown cartridge.

I doubt it would have been a smaller diameter. Most likely something of .35 caliber. Case might have been a bit longer to go with the larger diameter.

Assuming that was in ‘03 similar changes would have been made to the bullet profile in ‘06.

 

[Scooter22]

Too bad the 300 Savage wasn't born 14 years earlier. We may have had a 7.62x51 size cartridge way earlier.

 

[NIGHTLORD40K]

Too bad the 300 Savage wasn't born 14 years earlier. We may have had a 7.62x51 size cartridge way earlier.

The .303 Savage was around, but it doesnt offer much over the Krag round.

 

[MTMilitiaman]

I think we were destined to end up with something like the .30-06. I wish we had stuck with 173 gr M1 load instead of the ballistically inferior M2 ball round. If you're gonna go big, go big. If it was up to me to design from the ground up, it would have looked more like the .270 Winchester, shooting a 130 gr bullet at 3000 fps.

The big questioned was fifty years later. Not to hijack a thread, but the opportunity we passed up in the 1950s was in many ways far bigger and more interesting. We could have adopted the FAL in 7.62 NATO. We could have developed the AR-10 into a 7 lbs .280 British. We could have seen the direction warfare was going and developed something to compete with the .280 British, like the 6.5 Grendel or 6.8 SPC.

 

[jmr40]

If cartridge development had stopped with 7X57 and 375 H&H magnum there would have realistically been no need for anything else for big game. I can see smaller rifle cartridges for varmints and cartridges developed specifically for military or self defense. There was no need to go any farther than 9mm with handguns.

 

[Scooter22]

The .303 Savage was around, but it doesnt offer much over the Krag round.

Yeah the .303Sav was their answer to the 30WCF(30-30). Basically ballistic twins but IIRC the .303 had a 190grn load that was suppose to penetrate better than the 150/170gr 30-30s. The old 30-40 Krag is no slouch in a solid action like a Win 1895 L/A or some of the single shots and bolt actions. It's always been loaded based on the old Krags strength. Hand loaded for a stronger action it's close to the .308.

 

[Jim Watson]

A hypothetical .30 x 2 1/4" otherwise known as 7.62x57 in a real '98 Mauser. We could have just bought the whole package from Mauser.
The '98 seems to have done better with turn of the century metallurgy than Slamfire describes for the 1903.

Second choice, stay with .30-40 Krag in a Remington Lee action. Clip loading with the superior rimmed cartridge.

 

[George P]

7x57, 6.5x55, 8mm mauser were proven (and still are) great cartridges.

 

[Mosin Bubba]

I don't know the whole story, but apparently the 8mm Mauser is very impressive ballistically. The Germans rolled with it for 50 years, it inspired our own '06, and apparently the British were this close to adopting 8mm Mauser during WWII (before word of the Kurz round got about and changed the whole plot). I only know it as a punchier '06 type round, but armies of the day were very concerned with extreme long-range ballistics and apparently the 8mm excels there.

I'd have probably gone with a 7mm Mauser personally. The range of the cartridge is very adequate as seen during the charge up San Juan Hill and the Boer Wars, and the recoil is much less punishing than some of those hot 8mm loads.

 

[Jim Watson]

British were this close to adopting 8mm Mauser during WWII

The British DID adopt 8mm Mauser.
For the BESA machine gun used on tanks and other AFVs.
They liked the gun well enough to provide ammo for it when it could not reasonably be adapted to rimmed .303.
The Czechs are good gun designers.

 

[Mosin Bubba]

The British DID adopt 8mm Mauser.
For the BESA machine gun used on tanks and other AFVs.
They liked the gun well enough to provide ammo for it when it could not reasonably be adapted to rimmed .303.
The Czechs are good gun designers.

I remember that (cause it always struck me as odd), but they were going to replace their 303 Enfields with it as well.

 

[Scooter22]

I like reading the debates on all the old military rounds and shooting them in milsurps. They all have their place in history. BUT whats the only one still active for well over a century and very effective?? I have quite a few in this chambering and will be loading for it with cast boolits in the future.

 

[Mowgli Terry]

We gotta factor in powder of the time. Check out what was there in 1903. Also, side by side compare 303 and 30-40 Krag. Those old-time guys did not ride up on a turnip truck.

 

[Dibbs]

The '06 daddy. The 8x57 Mauser. It will do everything the 06 does.

Or maybe the Enfield .303, or even the 7.62X54R.Something in the same range would have taken the place
of 30.06, as a favorite parent cartridge, if 30.06 didn't exist.

 

[DeepSouth]

I prefer the .303 British even today.

 

[Random 8]

There was a push after the Spanish American War to chamber the new Sprinfield rifle in 7x57, or a slightly different version to ensure no patent infringements. I believe the original colt "potato digger" machine guns were chambered in this round. The logistics of producing barrels and bullets of a new diameter trumped this consideration. It is somewhat surprising they did not adopt a .30x57, but the powders probably were not quite there at the time to launch a 220 grain projectile at the intended velocities for the .30-03 given the lower case capacity that would result. When the Kaiser set the world on it's ear with their high velocity spitzer loading in 7.92, the .30-03 case was already in service, and the simple expedient of slightly modifying it for use with a lighter spitzer style bullet made sense, and the die was cast for 70 years of domination by a .308 150 gr at ~2700fps. The Canadians did field the .280 Ross cartridge which largely failed due to the rifles it was chambered in, and prior to WWI a .280 cartridge was to replace the .303 in British service, but wartime production needs trumped the new round. I believe both rounds were comparable to 7x57 sporting loadings. This was a blessing for us as the P14 was readily modified and mass produced in .30-06 to supply our troops. When you're playing catch up, logistics tend to favor "good enough" vs optimal.

Personally, I would have just adopted the 7.5x55 Swiss cartridge and been done with it, since retaining a .308 bore was a prime consideration.