Perfect Union banner

21 - 40 of 48 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
4,076 Posts
Sorry Durango, I'm that Black Sheep Sailor in the family. Army hasn't won in what 5 years? Oh lets double that, 10 years? Still not enough you say, Okay how about 15 Years?
:lol: :lol: :lol:
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
4,076 Posts
COSteve, I was in the NAVY, they don't even let us play with rifles. Full disclosure? I did win the Basic USMC Shooting Contest at their Course. I did cheat, I got to use their Rifles. Once I got to the Fleet they took away the Bang Sticks and Made Me use an Old Knife. I didn't get to play with Rifles again until We got to the Edge of the Mangroves. After that Uncle Sam Figured I'd be Okay with a Souped Up Model of the M-14. If I could only have been a Marine they would have let me be an 8541, but the Navy would hear of no such thing, so they made me Swim as penance! :lol:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,049 Posts
Here's what I think

COSteve, I was in the NAVY, they don't even let us play with rifles. Full disclosure? I did win the Basic USMC Shooting Contest at their Course. I did cheat, I got to use their Rifles. Once I got to the Fleet they took away the Bang Sticks and Made Me use an Old Knife. I didn't get to play with Rifles again until We got to the Edge of the Mangroves. After that Uncle Sam Figured I'd be Okay with a Souped Up Model of the M-14. If I could only have been a Marine they would have let me be an 8541, but the Navy would hear of no such thing, so they made me Swim as penance! :lol:
Now that's funny ! :lol:............:lol:................:lol:............

Sometimes my squid friend you just outdo yourself ! ;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
171 Posts
Have a Garand redone, and prutty too!, to .308.
Also have an M1A redone, and NOT MARKED!, to .243!

gawd that last thing is 12.8 lbs empty!

coastie

[Guns? Why there are no guns here.
And the'Droids you were looking for were
two fields over three nights ago.]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
97 Posts
The conclusion is ironclad, based upon over fifty years of scores. It ran in GUN DIGEST MONTHLY, but is not a casual piece.

No, the .308 Garand is NOT and never was an exclusively Navy "thing". Indeed, the Navy trophy and match specimens were a very tiny part of the whole delineation. However, armorers who handled match prepped rifles pronounced the 7.62x51 units more accurate than any of the .30's they'd ever tested or set up.

Garands firing the newer, shortly cartridge are still competing, and with only one exception I can locate, still defeating the .30/06 rifles. I don't recall seeing a .30 US M1906 competition rifle in the old cartridge after about 1970.

In point of fact, the original cartridge for the M1 Garand was, as noted in the piece, .276 Pedersen, a cartridge physically more similar to the .308 than the .30/06, also unanimously reported in the literature, became the service chambering ONLY because of the pre-existing stocks of .30 Caliber, Model of 1906, long since proven in both Pedersen and Garand designs (please read the documentation, which is extensive and complete) was found to be more efficient and accurate than the already old, longer cartridge.

Garands for the shorter cartridge were produced as such by H&R and the Armory here in the U.S. (no, the bushings never were used on factory M1's, and NEVER were "factory" items at all, anywhere), and in far great numbers for Indonesia, Nigeria, and others in Italy. Beretta in fact was probably producing barrels in the NATO 7.62x51 loading before the Navy experiments (that trail is not as heavily tracked).

None of this is even controversial.

The literature verifies the article 100%.

Yes, I did author the piece, and I have been shooting M1's for a very long time, owning and prepping them since 1963. THE COMPLETE M1 GARAND and THE CLASSIC M1 GARAND are my volumes, but everyone who writes on the subject affirms the newer cartridge's overall superiority. "Shaking shell" and air space are peripheral and irrelevant miscellany.

Again, the research is unanimous, and there are not even any gray areas. It has to do with the much more efficient "burn" of the shorter cartridges, and Garand's papers note that as early as 1929, in his case discussing the .276 Pedersen.

Every armorer I know, including Gabriel, Ronninger, and others agree with the conclusions in the article.

Assertions, hearsay, rumors, opinions and so on are amusing. Calling the truth a "fallacy" when it's backed by 100+ volumes of hard data and all the literature is hilarious.

Research is worth reporting.

So I did.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
171 Posts
jimthompson502002,
Sir, would you provide a link to that [and other related] articles, please?
thanks, coastie

[ya know, maybe them 'Droids were three fields over two nights ago..]
 

·
Thoughtcriminal
Joined
·
106 Posts
I looked through this article and it states that .308 M-1s are much more accurate than the .30-06 version.
I dunno know about a direct comparison of .30/06 vs .308 in an M1.

I do know that up until the early 70s when Mid Tompkins won everything at Camp Perry with a .308 Model 70, the .30/06 was the cartridge. After that, the .30/06 was obsolete. Question is, did it deserve obsolescence or was that just another example of shooter herd mentality? I have learned that shooters jump on every bandwagon they see. Sometimes for the good, sometimes just a fad.

Per the best info I can find, the edge the .308 has is real but slight out to 600 Some believe the .30/06 is better than the .308 at 800 to 1,000 yards.

I have .30/06 and .308 target rifles. The way I shoot no one could tell the difference.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
97 Posts
The article in question was about M1 Garands, of which I have owned and documented over 500. I have handled, inspected, and fired--literally!!--another huge pile of rifles, probably an additional thousand or, more likely, a great many more. Grand total handled, examined, photographed, analyzed? Thousands.

I also reviewed competition/match records going back to 1946, but with special emphasis on 7.62x51/.308 Garands.

I'm not recollecting or blue skying. I'm reporting on real data. Many volumes of it, thousands of targets, hundreds of shooters.

Moreover, the military match teams that tried both IMMEDIATELY switched to the newer cartridge. Every historian who deals with the M1 records that. Yes, Duff, too.

I stand with the hard data. All of it.


Anecdotes? They're amusing.

The N.R.A. made the same observations, also based upon real information, as early as 1971, and has published it many, many times. Roberts' last works on the M1 likewise viewed the "Navy style" rifles and their cartridge as more accurate.

The conclusion is ironclad: The shorter, newer cartridge is inherently more efficient, particularly in the M1. That is the conclusion of every authentic scholar, firearms statistician and target shooting student and 'smith I know or have spoken with, including the litany of those named. Before even starting to collate data for my first book, thousands of results were mathematically analyzed.

Boland, Gabriel, Ronninger, others--they were using the cartridge long ago, and getting the same sorts of results.

.308 shot at great range requires special loads in the M1, and sometimes gas system relief, but again, the aggregate scores have been higher, in aggregate over time. This is especially so at the upper echelons of competition.

Fads are irrelevant.

Ammo cost, however, isn't. Long term, and especially after .30 Model of 1906's current "last hurrah" of surplus ammo dries up (Korean and HXP Greek), the newer cartridge will be even more attractive financially. And that matters to all shooters, even casual ones.

It's understandable that certain traditionalists want everything to stay in its "accepted original" configuration and chambering.

But again: .276 Pedersen Center Fire, the same cartridge length as the .308, and nearly as efficient, was the rifle's original loading, and it, too, was regarded by Garand and the Armory staff as more accurate than the old .30.

Again: These are heavily recorded facts, not reminiscences or recollections or muses. There's no guesswork or memory involved.

I can no longer hold steady enough, see well enough, or release cleanly enough to see the difference on any single target. But doing the kind of long-term testing we did for over a decade, off the bench, using rifles identically prepared save for chambering, .308 was obviously more accurate. That work was done with M1 Garand rifles.

What I did not expect was, the edge held even with loads where many "experts" said it could not.

Others have published similar results, some showing this propensity more profoundly than the research I've done.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
97 Posts
Correct analysis

The analysis of 760 is virtually bang on. Olin's P.R. staff told me something very similar about thirty-five years ago.

I was able, in a pinch, to use 760 in a Garand, but as noted in my book THE COMPLETE M1 GARAND, at much reduced velocities. And I'd not have even tried had it not been a new product test for publication on a tight deadline when I had no other rifle powder.

Over more than fifty years, shooting M14's and M1's, when they're similarly prepared, there's precious little difference in overall accuracy, presuming same chambering. With 2" more rifled barrel, M1 should develop a tad more velocity, and does, but the difference in bullet spread has rarely been measurable.

I prefer the Garand for the very simple reason that it's the last real military rifle intended for general U.S. infantry issue that a citizen can own without a nightmare of paperwork. I've owned G.I. M14's, SEI, Armscorp, Fulton, and even two SAI "M1A" cast units--but the ones that have no military history tend to bore me rather quickly.

I'm working with what might be my last M1 "show" build now, on a Breda receiver. It should be amusing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
97 Posts
Facts disagree

Anecdotes and strange assertions are certainly amusing. At no point did I even express an opinion, let alone rave about one that was somehow "superior".

Like your weird and ungrounded name calling, that would be meaningless and of no value.

Do you mean Carlos Hathcock? You do know, I suppose, that was over four decades ago?

When one uses references to authority figures, and particularly old-line "big names, especially when demonstrating disregard for authenticated facts, it's customary to be at least a little specific. This is particularly so about hard ballistics.

The insult, of course, is duly noted. "Keyboard warrior" is, quite frankly, a ridiculous remark, much more than an insult, outright fraud.

I shall not respond in kind, and probably shouldn't have responded at all.

You can look up my qualifications in quite a few places. I don't find any for you, or even a real identity or name. I've been on these forums for about 12 years, and have tried hard to be informative and helpful.

Using a non-name is the first mark of a coward.

Apparently not willing or able to dispute facts, and for some personal reason not worth discussing, a decision was made to try some kind of character assassination via innuendo or inference.

One notices immediately that your absurd generalizations do not even refute a syllable of the authoritative data presented. Not even indirectly.

Conversations of that infantile sort are wastes of time.

What isn't: well over fifty years of very broad high quality performance by the enlarged .300 Savage cartridge once called 7.62x51 NATO, but know by its commercial title, ".308 Winchester". A competition target selection from most any club in the country corroborates.

One detail: I can't find where that article said there was a HUGE difference (that's not just a misquotation, but it's an absurd oversimplification), but what continuing difference exists in accuracy favors the newer, shorter cartridge.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
97 Posts
factory velocities

Factory velocities are not even the issue being discussed.

Nor were they ever.

Uniformity of muzzle velocities, however, IS pertinent, and this joke doesn't even discuss that.

They're determined from fixed platforms, with the loads applied.

Inserts? They were never practical. I tried one in 1965, haven't even touched one since. That, too, is NOTHING about which anyone is posting or analyzing. Modern .308 M1's are built for the shorter cartridge, with new barrels.

Why those irrelevances and stupidities are even brought up is baffling.

It's in the literature. ALL the literature...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
97 Posts
Not interested....

Again: velocity is NOT all there is to accuracy. Would suggest reading a book, if you can. CONSISTENT BURN refers to consistent velocities, and seems to be a term which eludes that person, or which is unknown to it, the latter being more likely.

The 190-data is interesting. But that's all it is. A full house reloading discussion is not relevant here, and way outside the parameters of this conversation.

Deviations in velocity, generally measured most accurately at the muzzle, are lower in every study I've ever seen than in most longer cartridges. It isn't raw velocity which determines accuracy, it is CONSISTENCY.

Way back at the beginning of all these weird distractions, I mentioned "efficient burn". That's not merely "air space", which is another voodoo/ignorance-based distraction. Read P.O. Ackley for more details than are useful here.

Were mere velocity "all there is"... Well, never mind, that's a whole other and equally irrelevant area. There are reasons .220 Swift and the big Weatherby mags aren't doing diddly in unlimited competition, worldwide.

Again: Read some books.

There are a lot of reasons that the 7.62x51/.308 cartridge became the darling of active police/military sharpshooters and most salient competitors almost immediately upon becoming well worked out in the literature in the sixties or so. .30/06 was never as ubiquitous.

Moreover, in M1 Garand shooting, your evasions and "straw man" sidebars are as irrelevant as the remainder of these "beliefs" and even more unsupported.

Not interested in further verbal interaction on this topic. The data presented is valid.

No point in even discussing "hissy fit" level diversions and non sequiturs.

Interesting on that ridiculous personal anecdotal level, but I do not know and have never met an M1 Garand shooter who's tried both who does not prefer the newer, shorter cartridge, and the reason they ALL enunciate is, "It's more accurate". The second reason is, "It recoils a little bit less at the same velocity levels". The second is a tad subjective, but having heard it so many times and seeming to have experienced it myself, it's at least worth considering.

Irrelevancies aren't.

This conversation has become extraneous and absurd. Apparently it cannot be brought back even to a civil or rational level.

And I'm all done trying.

.30 Caliber U.S. Model of 1906 was retired from its last military application decades ago. No new military arms in that loading have been produced for same decades. 7.62x51, despite the ravings of the deranged, is not only still the current support caliber of the entire western world, the L7/MAG/M240 and various other similar firearms have been in full production within the last few months, and probably still are.

Another salient note: shifting ground and falsified personal attacks are the mark of a cowardly pathological liar, and the ravings thus contrived are wastes of time. These are particularly so when initiated by someone with no actual credentials, or even a name or real identity of any kind.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
97 Posts
Another ridiculous confabulation, expanded and exaggerated, then attacked in purely fake and fraudulent manner. At no point did I even suggest that .30 Caliber, Model of 1906 was "inaccurate". That's somewhat worse than a mere misquotation.

Nor did I assert that there are not exceptional shooters getting superb results out of the now-110-year-old load.

You're arguing, fraudulently, with things no one here said at all.

Moreover, no one but you is discussing great range exclusively.

Ackley said it best: "Accuracy IS consistency. And consistent muzzle velocities will always prove that downrange." Go ahead, argue with him.

Nor did I even suggest I'd talked with "every M1 shooter".

The dishonest tactics define you.

That's why I shall no longer attempt to have a conversation with you.

This isn't about anger. It's about facts and relevance. Again: You present NOTHING remotely pertinent.

You make up a fake argument that is only distantly related to the original statement, then refute that instead of the facts or the ideas.

That's absurd and worse.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
97 Posts
He's some kind of flim-flam and fraud. Ground shifting cowards amaze me, continually, and so do those who don't understand what terms like "relegate" mean and then prevaricate BESIDES.

Doesn't matter what kind. The irrelevant crocks he posts are nonsense, off topic "straw men", and horribly confused, as he is. I would imagine he has no idea who Ackley was or of the mass of supporting statistics and ballistics behind the statement in the article, which he doesn't even dispute.

7.62x51mm. support and sniper weapons for military use are still in current manufacture in half a dozen countries. U.S. .30 Caliber Model of 1906 has not been the chambering of a military product firearm for over half a century.

The reasons for that are as legion as the baloney from the noted source.

Ackley and the White Labs and Aberdeen used the real instruments of test--fixtures, optimum ammo, etc., etc.--and established the superior accuracy of the shorter cartridge. That's been reaffirmed endlessly and continuously since.

Sick b.s. by unqualified bozos on the internet do NOT in any way impinge on the genuine hard data.

I've blocked the ridiculous loudmouth.

COSteve, what he has not even remotely confronted and cannot is the simple mass of evidence that the .308, overall, has been shooting higher scores, particularly in the M1, for over half a century. And without information, he hasn't any concept that scrupulous, meticulous M1 and M14 shooters can generally equal the performance of the old .30 Model of 1906 deep downrange, too, with stiff handloading and careful, careful protection of the operating rod and gas system.

Many used bullets they were told were not usable in the M1, and got great results with overloads. No one will publish those details, because of course the liability factor is such that someone would, very quickly, damage a rifle or create some other sort of brannigan. But it's been going on for several decades.

Hilariously, his ridiculous assertions about the old .30 being "better" are not merely baloney, they're directly in conflict with the service's conclusions about accuracy and overall performance. Every single nation on the planet has corroborated that. Even at that, NOBODY even offered an inference the older, longer cartridge was "inaccurate"...he just made up that hogwash as a "straw man" about which he could conflate more sick exaggerations and fiction.

He has a great deal to pontificate about, all of it off base and irrelevant. And the rest of his ravings are exaggeration and fiction.

And hotheaded.

No point conversing with a loud noise without facts or focus.

Mean time, if someone sane wants to discuss facts, real, solid data is all over the place.

Not sure why some folks are "loyal" to cartridges. Perhaps it's their investment in brass or hardware. If something as accessible but in some way superior to .308 came up, I might change myself, and would surely consider it. I don't shoot 10% of what I did two decades ago, nor as well, so it wouldn't matter as much.

Cartridges aren't sports teams, religions, countries, or ideologies.

Denying facts, though, does dip into that "cult religion" area.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
97 Posts
Those were NOT M1A's. That's a cast civilian thing from SAI. The U.S. government has NEVER issued an M1A, not to anyone. The rifles deployed were refurbished and reconfigured actual issued M14's. They're now virtually all been replaced by AR10 variants in the same chambering, which is a somewhat easier piece to take care of.

Some "designated sharpshooters" at a company level might still maintain the old M14, but not in its original configuration. Not for a LONG time!!

The ridiculous idea from some stupid scumbag that reality is "not real" and facts are not data is ridiculous. That Ackley and Aberdeen info is not on some crackpot website convenient for a sleazy "link" is hardly amazing.

But you're right--7.62x51mm. is nowhere near obsolete, or merely a "specialist's" loading. Every GPMG manufactured in the west since 1955 or so, many long before that, has been in the 7.62x51 loading. And that includes recent M240's, L7's, and MG42/59's (MG3).

Of course, the SAW M249 ( the F.N. Minimi by another name) is the light support weapon, and it's 5.56mm.

The demented ravings that this is mere "preference" is ludicrous and downright sick.

Also, what Browning rifle caliber guns, even the few Vickers M1912 still surviving, and a lot of older weapons once in .30 Model of 1906 have been upgraded to the newer loading.

This is NEVER referred to anywhere as anything but an "upgrade".

"Straw man" conversations are fundamentally annoying diversions.

As far back as 1952, in twenty different countries, the overall accuracy of the cartridge was praised over its predecessors. That, again, is not to say their might not be some small window of performance (the "exception that proves the rule") where some ancient loading is momentarily a better performer, especially in a particular set of hands, but the evidence is overwhelming and universal.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
4,076 Posts
M1-m14-m16-m4?

Interesting, I thought the M1As they were shipping over to the Sand Box were doing a good job for their assigned roles and that's why the troops who used them considered them superior to the M16 and M4.

The troops I've talked to who were there and shot them told me that they wouldn't trade their 7.62x51 for a 5.56 for any mission, and these weren't snipers, just designated marksmen in a rifle company. They were the ones in harm's way depending upon them to keep safe, but heck, I guess nac82xx knows better . . . . . . . . . .
See your still instigating with hearsay. But H2O MAN can give you the factual low down on the crazy-horse M14 modifications. But I thought this was the M1 Garand forum?
 
21 - 40 of 48 Posts
Top