Why doesn't anyone make a 30-06 AR/MSR yet?

[barnbwt]

There's also the 30-06 Yugo M76's OOW has been making. The root problem with the concept is that the case is long, and long cases mean long actions, and long actions are heavy, and heavy & long actions increasingly have trouble siphoning the needed energy to operate from the practically instantaneous pressure pulse of a fired cartridge. 30-06 is probably the longest service cartridge ever fielded.

The second problem is that 30-06 magazines basically don't exist (there's old clapped out FND and BAR mags, but that's it), so a new hi-cap platform would need proprietary magazines. Long rounds mean a long flat wall on the mag body, which means it has to be beefed up to be rigid enough for reliability. Most people won't suffer a bulky, heavy magazine. Making the magazine light, as SIG did with the STGW57 in 7.5 Swiss, is expensive and does nothing about the bulk issue.

TCB

 

[kdunn]

There's also the 30-06 Yugo M76's OOW has been making.



TCB

Now that is something that interests me. I just went to the website and they are still in the pre-ordering stage with not really any Specs available, but it looks like they know what they're doing and the price is right! $1300 and it comes with a lot of extras including a case and scope... I will be contacting them for specs and possibly an order before the end of the year. Thanks for the info barnbwt!

 

[Tirod]

If you want a "military style" rifle in 30-06 just get a Garand.
It is without doubt the toughest, most proven design of semi auto ever made in that caliber.

Dog gone, you were going great until that.

The Garand was about the shortest lived issue rifle we've had in American history. It was originally designed for the .276 Pedersen, an intermediate cartridge. When scaled up to meet the logistical and political decision to keep the .30-06, it suffered and had numerous issues. Well documented, I won't digress with links as other recent threads already exist here. Suffice it to say even the "improved" M14 didn't last long. They were technically obsolete before they were issued. Convention and traditionalism don't design good guns.

In the OP's particular situation, he's looking to remain a one cartridge shooter. His choice. There are AR's available, pick one. They are custom low production guns, no discounts for military or volume sales. And it would exhibit all the same issues the FNFAL or HK91 has shooting larger calibers. They are as a class heavy, with significant recoil, and cause higher rates of exertion carrying them in the field. Because of the weight and recoil, shooters as an aggregate are not as accurate with them because of perceived recoil affects, and they generally won't be as likely to use a follow up shot.

As researched and proven in combat surveys. The .30-06 and .308 are better suited to longer range shots set up with time to spare, not close range under 500m guns with rich target zones.

You don't find too many hog hunters with .308 autoloaders. They tend to run with AR's in a caliber like the 6.8 - the same class as the .276 Pedersen.

If looking for an AR to handle the .30-06, it won't be a light, agile, or inexpensive gun, it will be largely proprietary, and it won't be an AR15. It will be a custom low production modified AR10 chassis.

Frankly, better off with the standard .308 version, like the LWRC which was sold to the Brits as a sniper rifle. Despite the amount of .30-06 investment, it would be better to branch off into something more modern, with even more resources, in a familiar format, and discover it's lighter and more compact in the field. Long term, parts are more available than a niche gun. Those makers have a track record of not surviving past ten years. At the point you start worrying about breaking it, it becomes a safe queen, not the shooter you might have meant it to be.

Like the guy hotrodding his mom's Impala station wagon, sometimes we tend to focus too narrowly and wind up running down a rabbit hole. In this case adopting a more common .308 AR10 will net the same ballistic results, and offer a balance of ammo in your inventory as panics come and go.

 

[Swampman]

Dog gone, you were going great until that.

So enlighten me, what 30-06 semi auto do you consider to be the toughest and most proven?

When scaled up to meet the logistical and political decision to keep the .30-06, it suffered and had numerous issues.

I don't deny that the Garand had issues, any weapon that's issued in the millions is going to.
I will say that compared to the fiasco surrounding the introduction of the M16, problems with the M1 rifle were fairly minor.

I've spoken with quite a few WWII and Korean War vets, almost without exception they praised the Garand and felt that it was superior to the rifles of their foes. I've spoken with even more 'Nam vets and I've found very few line Infantryman or Marines that remembered the M16 with anything akin to the fondness felt by older vets for the M1.

Suffice it to say even the "improved" M14 didn't last long.

Yep! Retired early and then hauled out of mothballs when we needed real rifles in Afghanistan.

Convention and traditionalism don't design good guns.

I'm not sure I agree with that, sometimes incremental change works better than a "great leap forward".

Especially when the "leap" involves the application of unproven ideas like adapting wiffle bat technology to a combat weapon.

Besides, if you don't believe in "Convention and traditionalism" why are you touting the AR-10?
The design is damn near 60 years old, if it's not "conventional" by now, then neither was the Brown Bess back in it's day.

 

[Darkbob]

Question: So if a manufacturer made an AR type rifle scaled up for the long action, would it then be possible to have an upper built chambered for .375 Ruger?

Because, That, would be quite a thumper!

 

[kdunn]

Besides, if you don't believe in "Convention and traditionalism" why are you touting the AR-10?
The design is damn near 60 years old, if it's not "conventional" by now, then neither was the Brown Bess back in it's day.

Swampman,

I think what Tirod was trying to say was that the -06 round was assimilated into the Garand because of "convention and traditionalism" (aka politics). The AR had a ton of problems when it was first introduced because of the conditions/environment it was first used in. Once they realized this, changes were made to create the A2's, which began its transition into the reliable and functioning weapon it is today.

 

[kdunn]

Question: So if a manufacturer made an AR type rifle scaled up for the long action, would it then be possible to have an upper built chambered for .375 Ruger?

Because, That, would be quite a thumper!

Yes, a longer action and upper/lower receivers would be able to facilitate the larger round, it just hasn't been done yet on a large scale. From what I am learning from this thread, I am one of very few that would be interested in having something like this, which is probably why it has not been done yet.

I would love to see large frame receivers capable of mixing and matching calibers by simply switching uppers, just like you can with AR-15s. While I don't know if this aspect of it is feasible, it would be nice just to have more options.

 

[kdunn]

In the OP's particular situation, he's looking to remain a one cartridge shooter. His choice. There are AR's available, pick one. They are custom low production guns, no discounts for military or volume sales. And it would exhibit all the same issues the FNFAL or HK91 has shooting larger calibers. They are as a class heavy, with significant recoil, and cause higher rates of exertion carrying them in the field. Because of the weight and recoil, shooters as an aggregate are not as accurate with them because of perceived recoil affects, and they generally won't be as likely to use a follow up shot.

^^^This is correct, I would like to stick with calibers I already have, and use the resources I already have.




Frankly, better off with the standard .308 version, like the LWRC which was sold to the Brits as a sniper rifle. Despite the amount of .30-06 investment, it would be better to branch off into something more modern, with even more resources, in a familiar format, and discover it's lighter and more compact in the field. Long term, parts are more available than a niche gun. Those makers have a track record of not surviving past ten years. At the point you start worrying about breaking it, it becomes a safe queen, not the shooter you might have meant it to be.

Tirod, I agree that long term it would probably pay off to just purchase an AR-10, and I probably will at some point. I just would like to have both options available to me.

 

[Darkbob]

I'm just thinking that, while it's true that there is not a huge performance increase going from .308 to .30-06, there is an enormous difference when going with something like the .375 Ruger!

I think that having an AR chambered in a round big enough to hunt the "Big 5" would get some peoples attention.

 

[Lycidas Janwor]

With all of the calibers popping up in the AR platform these days, why hasn't anyone introduced a 30-06 AR yet? I know Browning makes a BAR in 30-06 but that's still more of your "hunting rifle" than an AR/MSR. And Ohio Ordinance makes the HCAR (a modern take on the M1918 BAR), but that thing is nearly $5,000 and weighs a whopping 12 pounds bone stock.

The 30-06 is one of my favorite cartridges and it is an extremely popular round. It just makes me wonder why no one has produced it in the AR platform yet? I know I'd buy one in a heartbeat if someone put it out.

Ever held an AR10 platform rifle? This may answer your question: it's a beast.

 

[kdunn]

Ever held an AR10 platform rifle? This may answer your question: it's a beast.

I have not. At this point I only own AR-15s. Why is it a "beast"? Is the recoil bad on them or something?

 

[barnbwt]

They're big. Something intrinsic to all full-power autoloaders. My STGW57 has comically large box mags, and they only hold 24rnds; the modified MG13 mags that fit the M76 are even worse (25rnds, but longer/skinnier). The 30rnd BREN and Madsen magazines are also hopelessly massive. The BAR 20 rounders are barely passable, but still voluminous.

Add to that the basic constraints on any full-power design;
-Longer length, adds to extraction travel (receiver length), magazine length (more receiver length)
-Heavier parts (longer parts, receiver length), require additional length to buffer properly (receiver length)
-Larger diameter bolt (receiver width)
-Higher bolt thrust (beefier receiver/extension walls)
-Higher recoil (beefier stock parts)

With the quasi-exception of the Madsen*, all the higher-capacity autoloaders in 8mm and above are pretty dang enormous. The STGW in particular seems like it was intended to be wielded by 8ft supermen.

TCB

*its odd feed system and bolt operation allow it to cycle with shorter reciprocation than a cartridge length, so it's a squat & compact action, but its old-school receiver is still as beefy as any other LMG.

 

[kdunn]

They're big. Something intrinsic to all full-power autoloaders. My STGW57 has comically large box mags, and they only hold 24rnds; the modified MG13 mags that fit the M76 are even worse (25rnds, but longer/skinnier). The 30rnd BREN and Madsen magazines are also hopelessly massive. The BAR 20 rounders are barely passable, but still voluminous.



Add to that the basic constraints on any full-power design;

-Longer length, adds to extraction travel (receiver length), magazine length (more receiver length)

-Heavier parts (longer parts, receiver length), require additional length to buffer properly (receiver length)

-Larger diameter bolt (receiver width)

-Higher bolt thrust (beefier receiver/extension walls)

-Higher recoil (beefier stock parts)



With the quasi-exception of the Madsen*, all the higher-capacity autoloaders in 8mm and above are pretty dang enormous. The STGW in particular seems like it was intended to be wielded by 8ft supermen.



TCB



*its odd feed system and bolt operation allow it to cycle with shorter reciprocation than a cartridge length, so it's a squat & compact action, but its old-school receiver is still as beefy as any other LMG.

You make a good point here barnbwt. I've never shot an AR-10 or other full sized auto loaders so if they really are just massive guns I could see why they would be a turn off to a lot of people.
And while size and weight are a factor for me, I think I'd still be willing to go up a few pounds and inches to have a 30-06 AR

 

[MachIVshooter]

You make a good point here barnbwt. I've never shot an AR-10 or other full sized auto loaders so if they really are just massive guns I could see why they would be a turn off to a lot of people.

I wouldn't call the .308 AR massive. Barnbwt is really referring to rifles chambered in cartridges longer than the .308, such as the 8x57 and 7.52x54. And he's right; the G43, Hakim, SVT38/40, Dragunov/NDM86, PSL, etc. are long and ungainly weapons. Not all of them are especially heavy, but they are quite awkward when compared even to the .308 AR, particularly carbine (or semi-carbine) versions. I had an Armalite AR10A2C 16" and currently own a PSA 18" .308 built on an Ares lower, and they are much handier than my SVT-40, Garand or the PSL I had.

They are still, however, much slower in dynamic shooting. My times in our informal competitions with the AR-10 or FAL para run 15%-20% slower than with the lighter and softer recoiling 5.56mm ARs. Time on target and follow up shots are where it's at, and a ~7 lb gun that barely moves is gonna be faster than a 10 or 11 pound rifle that recoils enough to necessitate that you reacquire the target for each shot.

 

[barnbwt]

"Big," not "massive." The AR10 wasn't built for full auto (even if it is capable of it). The other 'light' full power rifles were likewise not built for full auto, and universally (except for the AR) have smallish magazines, around 10 or so shots, to function as DMR or Main Battle type rifles. The higher cap offerings are all several multiples heavier, for sustaining fire in an LMG role.

TCB

 

[Sam1911]

The AR10 wasn't built for full auto (even if it is capable of it).

From the wiki:

The AR-10 is a 7.62 mm battle rifle developed by Eugene Stoner in the late 1950s (1954, actually) at ArmaLite ... a small arm significantly easier to control in automatic fire and over 1 lb (0.45 kg) lighter than other infantry rifles of the day. ... In 1957, the basic AR-10 design was rescaled and substantially modified by ArmaLite to accommodate the .223 Remington cartridge, and given the designation AR-15.

Here's Mr. Miculek to tell you more!

 

[Lycidas Janwor]

I have not. At this point I only own AR-15s. Why is it a "beast"? Is the recoil bad on them or something?

I've got a LaRue .308 and it's a fantastic rifle, but I'm not going to lug it around in the mountains in order to hunt with it. It's just too big and heavy. Also, the hunting regulations say that you cannot have more than 3 rounds in a magazine, so the 20 round mag is cumbersome, especially with only 2-3 rounds in it. The smallest magazine I can find for this rifle is a 10 round magazine, still too much for hunting purposes.

I love the rifle for what it is, a very accurate, well made, semi-auto sporting rifle that I can use to hunt with, and/or personal home defense. Love it. That being said, when I go hunting, I'll take my trusty old .30-06 hunting rifle because it's lighter, less cumbersome, and accurate at distances farther than I am capable of shooting the rifle at.

My advice is to find someone you know who has an AR10 platform rifle and ask that person if you can shoot it, or borrow it, to get a feel for the rifle. Or, if you have a sporting goods store that you can go to and hold one in your hands, this too will help you get an idea of just what a .308 AR10 platform rifle is.

I'm guessing that the reason there are no .30-06 AR10 platform rifles is because there is simply no need or demand for them?

 

[greyghost01]

They make a 30-06 and a 300WM and a 338 I think, There expensive and heavy, I have a SIG 716 DMR its a 12# rifle naked, Its very accurate but has its place and purpose.
I want a 357 Mag Auto and Coonan makes one, Is it practical, I also want a 40 S&W revolver, But Im probably the only one who wants one, Smith made one but wont go there!
If you want it somebody will make it, You just have to pay for it!!

 

[barnbwt]

"The AR10 wasn't built for full auto (even if it is capable of it)."
My bad; I really meant "wasn't intended for full auto as a primary function." The dated notion of "every man a machine gunner" was still rampant then, but the AR10 was one of the first of those platforms that was pitifully lightweight to be laying out "controlled" sustained fire. Judging by how a pro like Miculek was pushed around by that stupid-high rate of fire (what is that, 800rpm or so?), I think Stoner's claims of improvement there were 'overstated' to put it politely (recoil from moving mass is lower than an M14's, but talk about a drop in the bucket ). That looked more violent than an FAL (but probably felt nicer on the shoulder than a G3)

Here's that Swiss I mentioned earlier

It's a hell of a gun that can dwarf a 6" long pistol grip (the DTM drum modification is a one-off; the 24rnd box mags were standard, as shown in the earlier attached picture). I think it's like 14lbs or something unloaded (a two-foot barrel helps, but the gun does still balance at that carry handle)

TCB

 

[kdunn]

I've got a LaRue .308 and it's a fantastic rifle, but I'm not going to lug it around in the mountains in order to hunt with it. It's just too big and heavy. Also, the hunting regulations say that you cannot have more than 3 rounds in a magazine, so the 20 round mag is cumbersome, especially with only 2-3 rounds in it. The smallest magazine I can find for this rifle is a 10 round magazine, still too much for hunting


^^^ no limit on mag capacity while hunting in Texas so not a problem for me.

My advice is to find someone you know who has an AR10 platform rifle and ask that person if you can shoot it, or borrow it, to get a feel for the rifle. Or, if you have a sporting goods store that you can go to and hold one in your hands, this too will help you get an idea of just what a .308 AR10 platform rifle is.

All my buddies have AR-15s, but I'll check at a local range and see if I can't rent an AR-10 to get a feel for size!

 

[kdunn]

"The AR10 wasn't built for full auto (even if it is capable of it)."

My bad; I really meant "wasn't intended for full auto as a primary function." The dated notion of "every man a machine gunner" was still rampant then, but the AR10 was one of the first of those platforms that was pitifully lightweight to be laying out "controlled" sustained fire. Judging by how a pro like Miculek was pushed around by that stupid-high rate of fire (what is that, 800rpm or so?), I think Stoner's claims of improvement there were 'overstated' to put it politely (recoil from moving mass is lower than an M14's, but talk about a drop in the bucket ). That looked more violent than an FAL (but probably felt nicer on the shoulder than a G3)



Here's that Swiss I mentioned earlier

It's a hell of a gun that can dwarf a 6" long pistol grip (the DTM drum modification is a one-off; the 24rnd box mags were standard, as shown in the earlier attached picture). I think it's like 14lbs or something unloaded (a two-foot barrel helps, but the gun does still balance at that carry handle)



TCB

I agree that for most people the 7.62 round is a little much for full auto (speaking from a controlled shot placement standpoint).

Also, sweet looking rifle!!

 

[strambo]

The DPMS GII is a very size and weight efficient AR10, not much bigger/heavier than an AR15. 30-06 would be a beast for little performance gain (without going to a long barrel), and lots of increased cost.

 

[kdunn]

The DPMS GII is a very size and weight efficient AR10, not much bigger/heavier than an AR15. 30-06 would be a beast for little performance gain (without going to a long barrel), and lots of increased cost.

That DPMS GII looks impressive. Looks like they're trying to also supplement 223 hardware into the 308 rifle. Could end up bad but good idea.