30.06 Caliber for the M1 Garand

eclancy · 03-24-2008, 09:35 AM

Gentlemen,
This data is for some of the new guys. Here is the Order that stated the M1 Garand would be in caliber 30.06.
1.Do you know who signed this Order?
2.Do you think this was the right Caliber for US Ordnance to go with ?
Just something for you to look at and study.

A Veteran, whether active duty, retired, national guard, or reserve, is someone who, at one point in his life, wrote a blank check made payable to “The United States of America” for an amount of “up to and including my life.”

Thanks again for taking the time and effort to read this data. I hope you have learned a little of the history of the M1 Garand.
Clancy
ps Could use some hits. I hope to have both sites update in soon. Have fun hope you enjoy and learn.
NRA Life Endowment
NRA Training Counselor
NRA Instructor
FSS 90% / BW X Speed Div by 1000 = PF

rfc357 · 03-24-2008, 04:12 PM

Can't see your images. Problem is at my end.

1. Douglas MacArthur?
2. We won, didn't we?

nathangdad · 03-25-2008, 01:43 AM

I do not feel the .30-06 was the best caliber for the M1.*&!@#% It was, however, the cartridge of WW1 and senior military such as General Douglas MacArthur (often cited as the final decider on theissue) wanted to stay with the .30-06.*&!@#%On the downside, even in a gun with the weight of the M1 Garand, recoil issues made the gun a lost cause for accuracy with many of the troops.*&!@#% The rear sight was capable of being set fordistances beyond comprehension for the average G.I. to either estimate in distance or to hit a human target.*&!@#%A more realistic, yet less powerful smaller caliber, would have added rounds to the clip adventageous in a firefight, been more recoil friendly/accuracy attainable for the average G.I., and perhaps given more of our troops a greater feeling of confidence while in combat.*&!@#%Although we cannot relive history, I have always wondered how it would have worked out to have a cartridge based on perhaps something in the range of a new case for perhaps a 6.5 mm diameter bullet.

Although people do get good with a Garand given high quality instruction and practice
this often did not occur during WW2 training. Remember, they were mass producing soldiers - not trained marksmen. Mass firepower was a criteria in giving a semi-auto to millions of men who had no previous experience with a rifle.

eclancy · 03-26-2008, 09:08 AM

Gentlemen,
The answer to who signed it is:
Gen. Douglas MacArthur
Ordanance stayed with the 30.06
Thanks again
Clancy

wunhunglo · 03-26-2008, 09:24 AM

Yes, but the Brits were proved right in the long term; it would have been better to have gone with the .276" or similar.

rfc357 · 03-26-2008, 04:58 PM

Perhaps some other cartridge would have been "better" than the .30-06, but I can't imagine how you could tell or what your criteria would be.

Any adult of average physical ability can shoot a Garand after a little competent instruction, if he or she wants to. I have taught nine year old girls to hit the black at 200. Anyone who can't shoot a Garand just isn't trying, or has not received competent instruction.

wunhunglo · 03-27-2008, 01:43 AM

You can easily check out the criteria for the adoption of the T65/7.62 nato cartridge, there are countless articles on it on the web, try wikipedia, "7.62mm nato".

kygunsmith · 03-27-2008, 09:41 PM

Though the garand would have been as effective in several ctgs, The logistics demanded the 30-06. Can you imagine finding the ammo you just lugged in was 30-06 not the 276 rnd? The japs fell prey to this w 6.5 and 7.7 ammo, plus special 7.7 for MG's! By sticking w the 06 rounds could be stripped from belts or 03 strippers and loaded into the M1 clip in emergency. Plus ! What was wrong w the '06? The difference in the 276 vs 308 was minimal for military usage. The 8 rnd semi-auto 30-06 issued by the millions overpowered any poor enemy w bolt rifles. It created the tactical revolution, forever successful, of shoot and scoot. Covering an advancing comrade with a bolt rifle was differetn than an 8 shot 30!! Plus an 06 BAR and belt fed 06, too.

jpwilly · 03-29-2008, 02:41 PM

30-06 is better choice in my opinion. The 1903 shot it and was also in service along side the M1 so was the BAR and Browning MG...why bother with 276? If we were standardized on the 30-30 that's what the Garand would have been chambered in. If the 1911 was a 9mm the tommy gun would have been a 9mm too.

03-24-2008, 09:35 AM	#1
eclancy Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: N. Catasauqua, Pa Posts: 1,338	30.06 Caliber for the M1 Garand Gentlemen, This data is for some of the new guys. Here is the Order that stated the M1 Garand would be in caliber 30.06. 1.Do you know who signed this Order? 2.Do you think this was the right Caliber for US Ordnance to go with ? Just something for you to look at and study. A Veteran, whether active duty, retired, national guard, or reserve, is someone who, at one point in his life, wrote a blank check made payable to “The United States of America” for an amount of “up to and including my life.” Thanks again for taking the time and effort to read this data. I hope you have learned a little of the history of the M1 Garand. Clancy ps Could use some hits. I hope to have both sites update in soon. Have fun hope you enjoy and learn. NRA Life Endowment NRA Training Counselor NRA Instructor FSS 90% / BW X Speed Div by 1000 = PF __________________ http://www.garandm1rifle.com http://www.users.fast.net/~eclancy

03-25-2008, 01:43 AM	#3
nathangdad Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 2,432	I do not feel the .30-06 was the best caliber for the M1.&!@#% It was, however, the cartridge of WW1 and senior military such as General Douglas MacArthur (often cited as the final decider on theissue) wanted to stay with the .30-06.&!@#%On the downside, even in a gun with the weight of the M1 Garand, recoil issues made the gun a lost cause for accuracy with many of the troops.&!@#% The rear sight was capable of being set fordistances beyond comprehension for the average G.I. to either estimate in distance or to hit a human target.&!@#%A more realistic, yet less powerful smaller caliber, would have added rounds to the clip adventageous in a firefight, been more recoil friendly/accuracy attainable for the average G.I., and perhaps given more of our troops a greater feeling of confidence while in combat.&!@#%Although we cannot relive history, I have always wondered how it would have worked out to have a cartridge based on perhaps something in the range of a new case for perhaps a 6.5 mm diameter bullet. Although people do get good with a Garand given high quality instruction and practice this often did not occur during WW2 training. Remember, they were mass producing soldiers - not trained marksmen. Mass firepower was a criteria in giving a semi-auto to millions of men who had no previous experience with a rifle. Last edited by nathangdad; 03-26-2008 at 05:47 PM. Reason: addition*

03-26-2008, 09:08 AM	#4
eclancy Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: N. Catasauqua, Pa Posts: 1,338	Gentlemen, The answer to who signed it is: Gen. Douglas MacArthur Ordanance stayed with the 30.06 Thanks again Clancy __________________ http://www.garandm1rifle.com http://www.users.fast.net/~eclancy

03-24-2008, 04:12 PM	#2
rfc357 Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 741	Can't see your images. Problem is at my end. 1. Douglas MacArthur? 2. We won, didn't we?

03-26-2008, 09:24 AM	#5
wunhunglo Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: currently "Sunny West Africa" Posts: 1,648	Yes, but the Brits were proved right in the long term; it would have been better to have gone with the .276" or similar.

03-26-2008, 04:58 PM	#6
rfc357 Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 741	Perhaps some other cartridge would have been "better" than the .30-06, but I can't imagine how you could tell or what your criteria would be. Any adult of average physical ability can shoot a Garand after a little competent instruction, if he or she wants to. I have taught nine year old girls to hit the black at 200. Anyone who can't shoot a Garand just isn't trying, or has not received competent instruction.

03-27-2008, 01:43 AM	#7
wunhunglo Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: currently "Sunny West Africa" Posts: 1,648	You can easily check out the criteria for the adoption of the T65/7.62 nato cartridge, there are countless articles on it on the web, try wikipedia, "7.62mm nato".

03-27-2008, 09:41 PM	#8
kygunsmith Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Kentucky Posts: 140	Though the garand would have been as effective in several ctgs, The logistics demanded the 30-06. Can you imagine finding the ammo you just lugged in was 30-06 not the 276 rnd? The japs fell prey to this w 6.5 and 7.7 ammo, plus special 7.7 for MG's! By sticking w the 06 rounds could be stripped from belts or 03 strippers and loaded into the M1 clip in emergency. Plus ! What was wrong w the '06? The difference in the 276 vs 308 was minimal for military usage. The 8 rnd semi-auto 30-06 issued by the millions overpowered any poor enemy w bolt rifles. It created the tactical revolution, forever successful, of shoot and scoot. Covering an advancing comrade with a bolt rifle was differetn than an 8 shot 30!! Plus an 06 BAR and belt fed 06, too.

03-29-2008, 02:41 PM	#9
jpwilly Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Phoenix, AZ Posts: 70	30-06 is better choice in my opinion. The 1903 shot it and was also in service along side the M1 so was the BAR and Browning MG...why bother with 276? If we were standardized on the 30-30 that's what the Garand would have been chambered in. If the 1911 was a 9mm the tommy gun would have been a 9mm too.