Why the pppularity of 30-caliber rifles?

[Indy_Guy_77]

Whether in English units or Metric enumerations, why is .30-ish so darned popular? .30-30, .30-06, .308, .30-40, .303 British and Savage, .300 Remington, Savage, WSM, Remington Magnum, 7.62 x 38, 39, 45, 52, 54, etc etc etc.

Aside from designers wanting "propriatary" cartridge design for their own firearms, why keep coming back to .30/7.62 -ish diameters?

Any theories?

My entirely unresearched, and therefore unsubstantiated, theory is that the .30 projectile just lends itself to having better proportions. Meaning that for a given projectile length, it makes for a "slicker", more aerodynamic chunk than do bullets of larger diameter when you begin to draw the nose of the bullet down into a point.

What say you?

-J-

[MrMurphy]

Excellent performance at all ranges, depending on the caliber, up to a thousand yards (most of the older service rounds). Packs enough punch to do the job on pretty much anything needing shooting in a handy package.

With modern powders (post 1890s) the .30/7.6mm size rounds have enough bullet weight, velocity and general usefulness to keep around.

[io_joe]

All of the world's militaries developed smokeless service rounds with bullet diameters between 6.5mm and 8mm. I'm not certain if this relates to some form of optimal caliber for the early smokeless powders or simply occurred due to a power vs. recoil relationship.

BTW, bullets in 6.5 to 7mm seem to have a bit better ballistic coefficients and sectional densities than do .30 caliber bullets. At least this is true for the more common bullet weights in each caliber.

[PlasticGuy]

I believe it's a combination of two things:

1) 30 caliber bullets offer a respectable amount of power and range without excessive recoil.

2) 30 caliber bullets worked well with the early smokeless powders around the turn of the century, and became an established norm that other calibers needed to significantly out-perform in order to earn their own place in history.

[Indy_Guy_77]

Ahhh... I see...

So in order to get reliable performance out of a projectile and NOT beat up the shooter nor the firearm itself, just kind of fell into the zone of "this general size and loading"...which just happened to be around the .30/7.6 zone?

Pretty fortuitous...

So, before smokeless poweders were the norm, were cartridges more likely to be in the .40 range? Like the .45-70, 90, 110, etc?

-J-

[bamarammin87]

they rock

[PlasticGuy]

...So, before smokeless poweders were the norm, were cartridges more likely to be in the .40 range? Like the .45-70, 90, 110, etc?

-J-
Exactly. Blackpowder has a much slower burn rate, and is most efficient with straight walled cartridges (or at least nearly straight). The way to generate large amounts of power with straight walled cartridges is to make the cartridge wider and longer, and the .40-.50 caliber cartridges seemed to be most appropriate for both combat and hunting big game. Smaller than that didn't generate enough power for some uses, and larger than that meant so much recoil that the average shooter couldn't shoot them accurately enough.

[Indy_Guy_77]

I think this is nifty stuff... About what all may have contributed to modern caliber designs n' such!

-J-

[Guyver]

It does make me wonder what the AR would have been like, if they went with a 30 calliber over the .223, would it have actually made any difference in Vietnam, the Gulf War(s)?

:dunno:

[Esox357]

Whats wrong with the 30's. They have been proven time and again for over 100 years for some, like the 30.06. The 30's are what all other calibers are measured by! The U.S. always shunned the metric calibers with the exception of a few like the 7mm. They are versatile and happen to be the upper recoil limits for the average shooter. They do it all in a economic and lethal combination whats not to like. Esox357.

[Highball]

It does make me wonder what the AR would have been like, if they went with a 30 calliber over the .223, would it have actually made any difference in Vietnam, the Gulf War(s)?

:dunno:


It would have been like the AR10

[MrMurphy]

Stoner was a WW2 vet and originally intended the AR to be in .30-06. With NATO and the adoption of the 7.62 he changed it. One more time to 5.56 and it was finally adopted. The AR10 didn't make it on the scene soon enough, the FAL/G3/M14 had taken over already. Only off by a few years......but that's all it took.

[Nemesis Lead]

Militaries in the late 1800's (when bolt action rifles with brass cartridges were being introduced) believed that you had to have a .30 round minimum in order to be effective (this belief hung around until the 1950s in the US). They also expected folks to sometimes be shooting out to 800 meters, so the cartridges were fairly high powered with fairly heavy bullets.

Ammo companies like to make ammo that is close (or at) mil-spec for commerical use. Making .30-06 ammo for the Army? Tout it's effectiveness as a deer killer!

Taken together.....it is no surprise that we are at where we are at.

[Nemesis Lead]

Whats wrong with the 30's. They have been proven time and again for over 100 years for some, like the 30.06. The 30's are what all other calibers are measured by! The U.S. always shunned the metric calibers with the exception of a few like the 7mm. They are versatile and happen to be the upper recoil limits for the average shooter. They do it all in a economic and lethal combination whats not to like. Esox357.

The .30s are great rounds--no one can argue that!

We have moved away from them because they are too heavy. An AR with 400 rounds weighs less than an M14 with 200.

The individual 7.62mm bullet is certainly more lethal than the 5.56mm bullet but....is it twice as lethal? Some would argue yes and some no, but most militaries have gone 5.56, 5.74, or 5.8.

With the introduction of excellent body armor....I wonder if we will go back to battle rifle rounds, however.

[JerryO]

The above kinda explain why the .30 caliber have been developed and adopted by the military.

Personaly, I buy .224, .308 and .355 (to .357) calibers as I can get bullets (pulled or excess) cheap.

And the .22 LR is cheapest of all.


JerryO

[hogship]

It does make me wonder what the AR would have been like, if they went with a 30 calliber over the .223, would it have actually made any difference in Vietnam, the Gulf War(s)?

:dunno:

Might have changed a few statistics a little, but not by much.

Would it have made a difference?......no

hog