The 30-06 is over 100 years old and the 1911 ACP will be very soon. Yet both are still considered to be a viable selection.
Why isn't there progress as compared to electronics, or automotive products?
whelennut

Because the things we are shooting haven't evolved to be any tougher.

Because of the physical limitations of chemical propellant.

The bullets fired by the .30-06 are infinitely better than they were 100 years ago.

Agree! The only way to drastically improve the cartridge�s performance (with current powders) is to increase pressure. Many older guns would not happily digest dramatically higher-pressure loads; they suffer heart-burn and so would the shooter. In fact, current guns would not happily digest them either.

Don't tell that to Clarkma here because he routinely runs pressures up near 100,000 psi in his 98 Mausers!!!

The first thing you have to identify is in what ways do they fail to do what they are intended to do, or in what ways will something do it better?

With all the magnums that are around, I'd say you've got the "how to do it better" covered in that it's very easy to pick a different cartridge that can deliver a bullet faster and flatter than 100 years ago. And a lot of new rifles that are plenty accurate right out of the box. And don't forget the optics available today. So there's a lot of "better" options available today.

Identifying how a 30-06 fails so that it shouldn't be used any more is the kicker.. it doesn't fail. It works just fine for what we want it for, which is killing game animals at ranges that exceed what the average hunter can actually shoot.

Heck, the 30-30 is even older and it still does just what it was designed for - killing critters dead at ranges that are good enough for 95% of actual hunting shots.

Just cuz something is old doesn't mean it's ineffective.

In the case of the 30.06 (I own one), I'd suggest ultimately it's because it turned out to be a better hunting cartridge than perhaps it was as a military caliber.

Read an interesting, and quite frank...if not controversial...article some time back, in which the author related some not so popularly recalled history of the development of the 30.06.

Having had their butts somewhat kicked during the Spanish-American war by the 7mm x 57 Mauser, creation of a better rifle led to the 1903 Springfield. Hand in hand with this came the desire for a better caliber to go with it than the 30.40 Krag. The thinking of the day was "bigger is better".

Bigger than the 30.40 Krag, bigger than the .303 Brit, and definitely bigger than the 7mm Mauser.

However...

The author was critical, as apparently were many at the time, of this decision. The resulting 30.06 Springfield was brutal with regard to recoil, certainly when compared to the current standards afore mentioned. Steel butt plates coupled with this recoil made for a somewhat miserable rifle with which to train troops, many with little or no experience with heavy caliber firearms, relative to the lever actions of the day that were most prevalent.

For many, it made for generally poor marksmanship, whether on the training range, or in the field of battle. Hundreds of rounds over the course of day quickly took its toll on a soldier's nerves and/or stamina.

Logically, the 7mm Mauser was a superior caliber for the military...or arguably even the 6mm Lee Navy. That NATO, prompted by the US, ultimately adopted the much lighter and less abusive 5.56 is testament to this truth.

But the 30.06 turned out, post WW1, to be a hell of a hunting round for both N. American and African big game...most notably, including those of the dangerous variety.

An abundance of surplus...meaning cheap...military rifles and ammo following the war made the decision for hunters to upgrade from their traditional lever guns infinitely easier.

The creation of the Super .30...i.e., .300 H&H Magnum...was for the most part an attempt by the Brits to jump on the 30.06 bandwagon. The fact that it was too long for standard 30.06 actions, and that it was rimmed to accommodate British doubles, didn't help their cause, or it might have done better over the long haul.

It's somewhat ironic that what started out to be a design based upon misguided criteria predicated upon nationalistic ego as much as anything else, turned out to be such an unintended smashing success in the marketplace...forget about how many other resulting and exceedingly popular cartridges owe their pedigrees to the good ol' 30.06.

All that said...

Nothing lasts forever, eh? The days of the 30.06's popularity are numbered, albeit that horizon is still a ways off.

Just about every conversation regarding, or validating, any new midsize caliber starts off with, "It's an improvement over the 30.06 because..."

And thus, sooner or later just about everybody is switching to something better, real or imagined, than a 30.06...as a survey of forum members here will almost certainly attest to.

I would like to see that statement qualified with model numbers, math, and source data.

Like that's going to happen

The 30-06 is registered with SAAMI at 60,000 psi max average and proof between 78,000 and 84,000 psi.

The 30-06 case head, the 1889 7.65x53mm Mauser case head when built with a large primer pocket is good for 65,000 psi in production, and reloaded at least once without primers to falling out.

I am not aware of any 30-06 rifles that are safe at 60,000 psi, but not at 65,000 psi.

There is much safety margin in the rifles, and little in the brass.


The brass is the weak link.

Focus on the brass.

30-06 rifles being old is a red herring.

After a lifetime of living in fear and ignorance spawned by mediocre load books, these are concepts difficult for some old men to internalize.... they don't get it.

Ammo has pretty much reached its full potential. Firearms are pretty much at their full potential. I certainly can't see the next step in firearms or ammo development. The Super Short mags were an attempt in both areas that didn't amount to much. Plus, there is still the laws of physics that control recoil and that may be the next thing to be got around.

New alloys may make guns lighter, and perhaps new formulas will make cartridges more efficient, but not by leaps and bounds.

There's an article by John Barsness in the latest Rifle mag that makes this case.

Development of slower burning powders, primarily post WW2, dramatically enhanced performance of many calibers.

The 25.06 Remington, during its early wildcat beginnings wasn't a terribly exciting round...until advancements in powder brought about its real potential, enough so that Remington finally made it legitimate.

Look at what's happening with the .45-70. One doesn't dare load modern ammo into many of the older rifles built around this cartridge.

Barsness notes that the once flagging .22 Hornet has regained popularity because new powders have upped its velocity by as much as 500 fps.

And now one can load perfectly sane and efficient hunting bullets such as a 130 gr Barnes TTSXs into a 30.06 and very safely spit 'em out the end of the barrel at 3300 fps, and thus rivaling a 150 gr .270 Win. for flat trajectory out to 350 yds! This wasn't even remotely dreamed of not all that long ago. It's only the quality of modern bullets over older cup & core versions, coupled with modern powders, that make this sort of performance achievable...all done without exceeding SAAMI specs regarding pressures.

Indeed, it's just such advancements in both powder and bullets that's giving additional life to the 30.06, simply because it brings into question the actual need for the greater costs/recoil in exchange for relatively marginal gains by moving up to magnum status.

I admit that one could be well served for a lifetime of hunting & defense needs with a 30-06 & a 45 ACP. However, I sure do like my 300 WSM. I'm glad we're not still stuck in 1903.

When I was a kid, I thought for sure that by the 21st Century, we'd have laser pistols capable of reducing a car to molten slag.

Not my first disappointment, but I'm still hoping ...

- Tom

sir springer's point about powders is an excellent one.

When the .30-06 was first developed, 180-grain factory hunting loads only got about 2500 fps. By the 1920's smokeless powders had improved enough so that what many still consider the .30-06/180 "maximum" of 2700 fps could be reached.

The reality is that several canister powders have allowed the .30-06 to reach 2800 fps with a 180-grain bullet for a number of years, and specialized factory powders allow it to get 2900 fps.

And 2900 fps with a 180 was what many of the early .30-caliber "magnums" strived for a century ago--and failed to reach.

So not only bullets have improved. Today the .30-06 is capable of what used to be considered .300 magnum velocities.

Imagine that!?

Im not a reloader, but im thinkin Hodgdons LVR would be one of those powders? Been readin some forums about guys loading 35 Rem to higher fps while raising pressure to 40k. Then look at Hodgdons data and see the same speeds might be had at lower pressure. I think it said 31K.

Some things are just difficult to improve on for their intended use. We're still using the carpenter's hammer, fixed blade skinning knives, axes, and cast iron skillets; all of which are a lot older than the 30/06 and the 1911.

M D: Which do you think have improved MOST the last 25 yrs, let alone 100 yrs; Powders or BULLETS. IMHO we are leaps and bounds ahead of everything 50 yrs. ago. i.e. guns, powders, primers, bullets, scopes, etc.

The 06 will be a viable cartridge LONGER than I live.

JWALL

If 30-06 evolution had stopped in 1950 it'd still be a much better round than it was in 1906. In 1950 we had the Nosler Partition and IMR 4350. 61 years later that is still all we really need

Agreed...

But if anything, the Nosler partitions made today are probably more consistently made and more accurate bullets than the ones made in the 1950s. These days, most rifles shoot partitions very well for a hunting bullet..

I agree, though on the basic design of both the bullet and powder- together they produce all the hunting performance anyone needs in an '06..

Then again, there are the Mono metal expanding Barnes ,Hornady and Nosler 150g-165 g slugs that do the same damage on game as a 180 lead core with less recoil and flatter trajectory.

Progress marches on. It may be incremental, but it is real, and over time it makes a difference.

Oregon45,
"In 1950 we had the Nosler Partition and IMR 4350. 61 years later that is still all we really need. grin"



Amish folks around here don't drive cars. Horses are all they really need.

Think about this guys; 6.5X55.
Mine shoots 120 barns 3000 fps!

That's a little different then the 1894 6.5X55 configuration.

But then I haven't shot any elephants with it.

Jim

JWALL,

In the past 25 years, I'd say powders have improved more than bullets. I know a lot of people think many of today's bullets are vast improvements, but I've used most of today's premoium bullets and still don't see any magic improvement over the Nosler Partition in how well they kill big game.

Actually, the big improvement I've seen is in varmint bullets. They're more accurate, fly flatter and open more violently than the standard soft-point and hollow-point bullets we used to use.

The bigbest improvement in powders is in temperature-resistance, though some powders also provide a little more zip as well. Many of today's powders burn a lot cleaner as well, and even include anti-coppering agents.

Scopes are much better overall. Twenty-five years ago the scopes with the best optics and adjustments often weren't truly waterproof, or very rugged. The toughest scopes often didn't have the best optics or great adjustments. Today we have many great combinations of optics, adjustments and toughness.

With today's powder and bullets the 7x57 Mauser is still one of the top choices. IMO the 7mm-08 is almost the same wine in a different bottle. It must to tough to be a gunwriter and talk the new stuff up when it is just the same old gal with a new dress.
whelennut (9x57)

M D: THANKS, I feel we are the beneficiaries of many things too.
I believe that many firearms are improved as well. Not every improvement is better tho, some SAFETIES for example.

Now we have a new thread going about N Ps and I agree that they are hard to beat. I prefer their action to the smaller frontal opening area of some others.

THANKS to your thread about getting the most out of the 06, I have a renewed interest in loading and hunting the 06. It's been a long time since I did any new loading or hunting w/ the 06 and I'm actually looking forward to next year.

We ordinary joes can learn a lot from you gun writers since you have much more access in the industry than we. Sometimes we don't learn from abstracts, we must attend the school of hard knocks. go figure! !

MERRY CHRISTMAS & HAPPY NEW YEAR

JWALL
_____________

An Old Handloader with all his finger and both eyes,

Just Deaf in Left Ear.