Why did the U.S. Military give up on the .30/06 and .45?

[Exposure]

Like the title says, can anyone give some actual legitimate reasons for leaving these rounds behind?

I once started a very similar thread about why we gave up on the M14 so quickly and it got some very interesting responses. Therefore I thought this thread might stir up some interesting conversation and viewpoints.

I really can't see a good reason for abandoning these rounds. I have multiple firearms chambered in the older rounds. I also have mulitple firearms chambered for the newer rounds to replace them, both .223 and 9mm. If I was in a fight for my life I would want the heavier hitting rounds coming from my weapon.

I think the .223 is a fine round for target shooting, and I know there are many, many confirmed kills with it. I also think the 9mm is a fine do it all round. I love my P38 and Sig P226, they are great, accurate firearms. That being said, I just can't see the logic in going away from such proven hard hitting rounds as the .30/06 and .45, I understand the argument about being able to carry more ammunition, but there simply HAS to be other factors at work here beyond a larger amount of rounds per soldier.

Any input is appreciated.

 

[R.W.Dale]

In the case of the 06 it can be summed up by the phrase "fire and maneuver"

You get a whole lote more FIRE to maneuver with when you're packin 5.56mm ammo vs 30-06

Kinda the same thing with the 9mm you have more shots to FIRE in order to keep the enemys head down so you can MANEUVER to that rifle you should have had with you to begin with.

 

[Werewolf]

NATO - and an effort to have all member nations use the same ammunition.

In the case of the 30-06 we didn't lose much. .308 is about as close to 30-06 without being one that you can get. About all the 30-06 can do the .308 can't (and some have tried with a little bit of success) is fire 200gr bullets.

9mm on the other hand - well the stories coming out of Iraq are highly indicative of the 9mm being a less than stellar performer when it comes to stopping power but then the 9mm fan boys will claim that's only because we can't use hollow points. I suppose there's some truth to that - a little anyway. Still 230gr vs 125gr is a real big difference.

 

[Geronimo45]

Full automatic fire. They wanted a rifle that could be fired in full auto, and the M14 was too hard to control. The M16, on the other hand, is pretty easy in full-auto, and it's a light weapon. What's more, the .223 was considered effective within the normal distances where combat takes place. Also allowed for a soldier to carry a lot more ammo with the same weight, which helps. A soldier does a lot more walking and running than shooting.
As for the .45, the 1911s they had were beat up and ratty. The things needed replacement - so they opted to replace the whole pistol. Some people had trouble with the .45's recoil, and the wonder nines were around. So the army decided to take to a DA/SA pistol with greater capacity and lesser kick - besides, a lot of the other NATO allies had 9mm, and common caliber helps a lot with logistics.

 

[ajkurp]

Girls

..demanded combat pay.

 

[trainwreck100]

It worked...that's reason enough

And what he said ^

 

[Zen21Tao]

When I was in the infantry I was told the decision to use 5.56 over 7.62 and .30-06 was that it is more effective in terms of oppertunity cost to wound an enemy soldier than to kill them. That is, every wounded soldier has to be fed and cared for. Not only do you take him out of the number of enemy you actively face but you also take out those charged with providing him care. Plus, these individuals that are no longer part of the battle against you are still using up food rations and supplies.

 

[Huddog]

I agree with the NATO answer. Not that it makes it the right thing to do.

 

[madmike]

.30-06--same reason we got rid of .30-40, .45-70, .58 minie and .69 ball. Nuff said.

.45--Europe was going UP from "powerful" .32 rounds, we were using .45 and .44. They moved up to the "big 9mm manstopper" and demanded we did, too.

of course, they are now being convinced of the error of their ways.

After all, 9mm only has as much energy at the muzzle as 5.56mm does at 600 yards...whereas .45 has as much energy at the muzzle as 5.56mm does at 500 yards.

Which is why 5.56mm isn't a manstopper but .45 is...

 

[rangerruck]

lets make it simple , weight and weight. you can carry way more 9 milly and 223 , than any others right now.

 

[cracked butt]

The 30-06 was awfully long in the tooth by WWII. The only reason why the M1 was chambered in 30-06 instead of a much more efficient cartridge was because the goobermint had a few billion rounds of 30-06 in stock.

 

[Gewehr98]

They didn't give up on the .30-06.

They improved the round by making it shorter and nearly duplicating the ballistics at a higher chamber pressure, then called it the 7.62mm NATO round. Lighter rifle, lighter ammo, therefore more hot lead in the air per dispensing troop.

You want even more hot lead zipping through the air, keeping the enemy's head down until artillery or close air support arrives, then you go with a smaller and even lighter weapon/ammo combination, hence the 5.56mm NATO round and the Stoner family of poodleshooters we have now.

As for the switch from .45 ACP to 9mm Luger Parabellum, I was there when they took my 1911 from me and handed me that fat, oversized 9mm Beretta. Heavy sigh...

 

[el44vaquero]

weight+round count= more is better

 

[MatthewVanitas]

When I was in the infantry I was told the decision to use 5.56 over 7.62 and .30-06 was that it is more effective in terms of oppertunity cost to wound an enemy soldier than to kill them.

This, like the "illegal to use .50BMG on humans" appears to be one of many military myths. IIRC, nobody has ever proven on this board that the military deliberately chose 5.56 to "wound instead of kill".

A guy with his lower leg shattered can still shoot back at you. A guy with one arm can still chuck a grenade at you as you approach.

That is, every wounded soldier has to be fed and cared for. Not only do you take him out of the number of enemy you actively face but you also take out those charged with providing him care. Plus, these individuals that are no longer part of the battle against you are still using up food rations and supplies.

If his side is losing, his buddies might not be too eager to assemble a four-man stretcher team to take him off the battlefield. They'll bail on him, leaving him for U.S. forces to find and care for.

The Geneva Convention (not the Hague Accords) mandates that _we_ pick up and medically provide for each wounded enemy we find, so he's "no longer part of the battle" but is still using up _our_ food and supplies while sitting in a EPW camp until the war ends.

Oh, and IRT giving up on the .30-06 and .45ACP: it's because they were newfangled flimsy junk that couldn't hold a candle to a proper Brown Bess musket. I've never trusted these varmint rounds, I'll stick with a good ol' .75 caliber chunk of lead.

-MV

 

[madmike]

Oh, and IRT giving up on the .30-06 and .45ACP: it's because they were newfangled flimsy junk that couldn't hold a candle to a proper Brown Bess musket. I've never trusted these varmint rounds, I'll stick with a good ol' .75 caliber chunk of lead.

That's what I've been saying for years.

As to the other, while the .50 cal theory is a myth, the 5.56 was in fact designed around the amount of trauma necessary to cause a critical wound that is sufficient for a mission kill--enemy soldier rendered non-effective. And it is, in fact, a valid doctrine that wounded troops take more support than dead ones. The argument that an enemy won't care doesn't change the fact that a guy with a leg shattered or innards hanging out is NOT able to maneuver and fire in a useful fashion. The relationship between the two is a useful coincidence. But the root question was, "How much bullet is necessary to render an enemy hors de combat?"

As to us caring for the enemy wounded...sure, AFTER the battle, assuming we hold the ground in question and are not busy caring for our own wounded or defending against further attack, which are recognized as legitimate priorities.

And no US soldier has ever been advised to bayonet the wiggling enemy wounded in lieu of caring for them.

http://www.thegunzone.com/556dw.html .22 experiments only started in 1894...so there wasn't enough time for any REAL research into the effects of smaller bullets.

1963...ArmaLite project engineer Arthur Miller scales down Stoner's 7.62mm NATO AR-16 design into the 5.56mm AR-18. Enticed by Stoner to join him at Cadillac Gage, L. James Sullivan and Robert Fremont scale down the 7.62mm NATO Stoner 62 into the 5.56mm Stoner 63. Beretta and SIG join forces for a 5.56mm rifle project. Heckler & Koch begin development of a scaled down 7.62mm NATO G3, the 5.56mm HK 33.

This much is true.

I still offer my challenge, since the 5.56mm is so "ineffective": I will challenge anyone with .308 or .30-06 to swap fire, standing, at 500 yards.

Oh, I get to shoot first

Since the 5.56mm isn't actually effective, my opponent has nothing to worry about, right?

And since at 500 yards, the 5.56 ONLY has 200 or so ft lbs of energy--equivalent to a .45 at the muzzle, no REAL man should carry one of those wussy .45 1911s, either. .58 cal lead ball, BABY!

 

[madmike]

Girls
..demanded combat pay.

I'd call that inflammatory and not useful...seeing as 5.56mm was adopted in the 1960s, and women are still not technically allowed in combat units...and weren't allowed to handle weapons until the 1970s...

There's a whole different thread there, and a whole bunch of female vets who'd love to discuss that with you...

 

[BigG]

I was told the decision to use 5.56 over 7.62 and .30-06 was that it is more effective in terms of oppertunity cost to wound an enemy soldier than to kill them.

... nobody has ever proven on this board that the military deliberately chose 5.56 to "wound instead of kill".

The first guy is correct. From a rear area beancounter standpoint - I should say sitpoint - the logistics of tying up manpower and supplies caring for wounded is a very real opportunity to wear your enemy down.

This reasoning came from the same guys who started the bodycount method of measuring combat effectiveness. Totally meaningless, if you ask me. It may have been Eisenhower who would not let troops advance till they had incurred so many casualties.

The second guy, Mathewvanitas, is putting the first statement in absolute terms nobody has ever proven ... - these kind of decisions are never documented. The actual decision to use 5.56 would be based on some quasi quantifiable benefits, lighter, easier to carry, etc. But that doesn't mean the wounding idea never entered the decision makers' heads.

This has been rambling, I know, but try to think like some ivory tower decison maker with no stake in the results of his decision, i.e. no skin in the game to lose. That's your classic bureaucrat mindset and probably foreign and repulsive as heck to you. But nonetheless, accurate.

 

[4v50 Gary]

The Great Rifle Controversy covers the discarding of the 30-06 in favor of the 7.62 mm Nato. While the U.S. was willing to accept a shorter 30 caliber cartridge, it did not want to sacrifice the potency of the 30-06. The 7.62 mm Nato fit the bill.

The adoption of the 9mm was to standardize with our Nato allies. That was a mistake. We should have made Nato adopt the .45 ACP. It appears that we have to relearn what we've known before, but that isn't anything new. Our on-again, off-again love affair with snipers (and before them sharpshooters and riflemen) goes all the way back to the Revolution.

 

[STAGE 2]

Along with some of the reasons give I think one big one is the change in troops over the years. During dubya dubya two, America was a much more rural nation and consequently, more people had exposure to rifles and shooting in general. It's just easier to teach someone how to shoot with an M16 than an M1. Especially the dope smokers (60's) and the overweight epileptic gamers (today).

I still offer my challenge, since the 5.56mm is so "ineffective": I will challenge anyone with .308 or .30-06 to swap fire, standing, at 500 yards.

I ain't volunteering by any means. But I sure wouldn't take that bet if a garand was on the opposing end.

In the case of the 06 it can be summed up by the phrase "fire and maneuver"

You get a whole lote more FIRE to maneuver with when you're packin 5.56mm ammo vs 30-06

True, but thats why every single person wasn't issued an M1 back in the day. Different weapons for different members in the squad. Going to the 5.56 is a necessary evil of having pretty much every soldier carry the same weapon in that it needs to perform the role of rifle and submachine gun.

 

[SDC]

As far as the 30-06 goes, mainly because it made sense; for exactly the same reason the Germans developed the 8mm Kurz round. The 8mm Mauser and 30-06 are way overpowered for what most infantry are expected to use them for; they can hit a target at out to 2000 metres (nice for MG fire, but basically pointless for most other uses). Since most soldiers never even SEE an enemy soldier at any distance past 200-300 metres, giving them a 30-06-class cartridge is like giving them a Patriot missile battery to keep the mosquitos away.

 

[Deathrider1579]

I think it has to do with military theory more than anything; it seems to me that before the adoption of the .223 our military had a mindset to go and kill the enemy destroy our opponents on the battlefield and worry about picking up the pieces later; but about the time the .223 was adopted we started with this political correct warfare crap. -Philosophical stuff

OK we all know that the .223 will kill you a .22LR will kill you if it hits you in the right spot or you don't get medical treatment soonish. But the simple fact of the matter is that a .30+ cal round will kill you better and faster than a .223 in most cases. I don't see why we aren’t arming our guys with a .308 cal MBR of some fashion or another, it seems to me that a bigger bullet would work better in more situations than a smaller bullet, but then again I have never been in combat I could be wrong.

-DR

 

[madmike]

My fault in part for pulling it away from the original.

.308 is a more modern, better designed cartridge. So my original comment vis a vis .30-40, .45-70, etc, stands. .308 does what .30-06 does, but better.

The other opinions are largely uneducated repetitions of folklore. The volunteer military is FAR more professional than the conscript military. But that aside, the 5.56 haters conveniently ignore that EVERY major nation has gone to a .22 range bullet--us, the Russians, even the Indonesians. EVERBODY. A .30 is not necessary to kill or disable a person. Just like a 3 lb ball peen will pound nails...but it's not the easiest tool to use.

OK we all know that the .223 will kill you a .22LR will kill you if it hits you in the right spot or you don't get medical treatment soonish. But the simple fact of the matter is that a .30+ cal round will kill you better and faster than a .223 in most cases.

Well, that depends. It's not a "Simple fact" just because you'd like it to be.

I don't see why we aren’t arming our guys with a .308 cal MBR of some fashion or another, it seems to me that a bigger bullet would work better in more situations than a smaller bullet, but then again I have never been in combat I could be wrong.

You've haven't done 116 years of ballistic tests either, with various targets, records of data and comparisons, so your "Seems to" is an opinion not borne of any knowledge, but comes back to "bigger must be better."

A study of arrows, atl atl darts, every projectile ever used, even nukes, shows a trend from large and inefficient to small and much more efficient. This is a natural development of refining technology. Notice that normal passenger cars (not race cars) today generate more horsepower than 1950s passenger cars from substantially smaller, lighter engines. I'll always love the 426 Hemi (Almost wrote ".426" ), but the Quad 4 in my Grand Am does everything I need a family automobile to do.

The .45 is still with us and making a comeback, but it's been much refined over its predecessor. Compare the lead rounds in the first Colt with the jacketed rounds in a new Glock.

Consider this:

central nervous system or critical organ hit (heart, liver, lungs, kidneys)--ANY successful penetration is disabling and kills in short order.

Traumatic wound--depends on the nature of the wound, a function of terminal ballistics, which can be controlled by velocity, energy, fragmentation, bullet design, etc. Smaller does not mean less effective, with the proper design.

Energy on target--requires bullet to hit and dump energy into target to effect a kill. It's quite possible to bore a hole straight through with a larger round. "But it's more powerful!" Yes...but you didn't APPLY that power to the target! Net gain: 0. This, btw, is why the 9mm is not as effective as the .45. Lots of penetration, less energy applied to target.

It's not a case of size, velocity, power, but how that energy is applied. And all things being equal, even as a 6', 180 lb, 39 year old male who can STILL run 5 miles, ruck 100 lbs and do 65 pushups in 60 seconds ("overweight epileptic gamer" my @$$ ! Not in MY platoon, buddy), I'd rather shoot a 5.56mm all day (or an M14 than a Garand in .30 cals) than a .30-06. It's less cumulative damage to me, and I can shoot it more accurately.

Illustrative example: assume you are attacked by 210 doped up Somalis. Assume every shot you fire hits. With a basic combat load of an M16, you hit and injure or kill 210 of them. Your situation is greatly improved. M14 and basic combat load, you hit and kill 100 of them...you're still screwed.

More chances to hit the enemy with a more controllable weapon increases your survivability. This enables you to bring your most effective weapon to bear: the A10 on the far end of the radio.

But in any category, efficiency improves with time. .308 is ballistically equivalent to .30-06, uses less brass, less propellant and needs a smaller, lighter mechanism to accomplish the same task. So .30-06 is still adequate for hunting, but not desireable for a military context.

Hah! I'll show YOU how to ramble, BigG!

 

[CornCod]

There were a lot of studies done at the end of WW2 by the military analizing firefights and most of the major powers concluded that most people were killed by rifle bullets at well under 300 yards and that carrying around those big, heavy rounds that could kill at 500 yards was kinda useless. You really can't teach quickly trained WARTIME conscripts to shoot to 500 yards anyway. So the Germans in late WW2 developed the 7.92Kurtz and the Reds did the 7.62X39. Then the Americans did the .223.

Actually, I prefer the German and Russian solution rather than the American (though I think the AR-15/M-16 series is good for light duty...like guarding airfields) which was a modified varmint round. I like the shortened .30 round for penetrating walls urban environments ect.

A lot of the hoopy-doopy commando outfits in Iraq are using a round that looks suspiciously like a 7.62X39 (on modern ballistic steroids) which proves my theory that the intermediate .30 round is the cat's meow.

 

[madmike]

I like the shortened .30 round for penetrating walls urban environments ect.

That's odd. There are no studies that indicate these rounds accomplish that. This would be another case of "I think," "I feel" without any supporting evidence.

A lot of the hoopy-doopy commando outfits in Iraq are using a round that looks suspiciously like a 7.62X39 (on modern ballistic steroids) which proves my theory that the intermediate .30 round is the cat's meow.

No, they're using a 6.8mm, close to the 7mm the Brits proposed in 1948, and the jury is still out on whether or not it's an improvement.

http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/bot7.htm penetration against sand, a standard military cover. 7.62 NATO does no better than 5.56. With less power behind it, 7.62 Wusski won't do any better.

http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/bot24.htm 5.56 will penetrate most armor. Three vests, in fact, or two hard vests. Not a great range, granted, but you think it'll punch ONE vest at a reasonable distance? Care to try?

http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/bot29.htm 5.56 will punch through a kevlar helmet at most urban ranges.

http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/bot1.htm 9 inches of pine will not stop a 5.56mm

And yes, I'd do the test against someone who brought a Garand...as long as I get to shoot first.

I ran an entire battalion through rifle qual a few months ago. It was easy to tell who was going to suck. They complained about the M16 for jamming and being underpowered...then they shot for crap. The trained, competent professionals, many of them back from Ashcanistan, lined up, shot, scored and went home.

Keeping it on .30-06 vs .308, I have a .30-06 because it's still reasonably common. Same for 8mm. I have .308 rifles because it's a good round and accurate. Nothing against .30-06, but .308 is better.

 

[slzy]

we would have swapped out 30-06 before ww2 if we had not had so much on hand,and could see an almost immediate need.