Post by Travis on Jun 21, 2009 18:10:17 GMT -5
I hear all the talk and the buzz either online or in "Gun Rags" about the M-1 Garand vs. the M-14. Similar arguments about the .30-06 vs. .308 and other garble of similar ".30-06 children" too. {Frankly, it is getting thin and old}
I'll try to sum this up as quickly as possible:
First of all, if you never had the M-1 Garand you'd never have the M-14. Plain and simple. Then you hear the: "Well, the M-14 has a 20 round box magazine.". Or, "The M-14 is an accurate masterpiece for a full / semi auto rifle.". Well, simply enough the M-14 is to the .308 as to what the M-1 Garand is to the .30-06. Not really you say?
Well, here it is. At first John Cantius Garand wanted to make "his" rifle in the .276 caliber which was grossly tapered and short and in 7mm and even somewhat ballistically inferior to the .270. So basically Gen. Douglas MacArthur said: "We still have tremendous stockpiles of ".30 Gov't" ammo left from WWI so we need to burn this ammo up and use what we have left, so make the rifle fire .30 Gov't.". And so the rest is history. There are .308 caliber "M-1's" but those just make me queezy. Who says you cannot make ANY M-1 Garand as accurate as an M-14? Even Mr. Garand was present when the M-14 was made from his original M-1's. {.30 Gov't is .30-06 of the era} and then other "ideas" were made from the original "M-1" ammo.
Here is another thing I hear: "The .308 Winchester is far more accurate and superior to the AGED and almost OBSOLETE .30-06.". Bull Pucky! Who died and left that moron in charge? There is no reason that any good .30-06 caliber rifle and a person that knows his S*** about reloading can't make a round and rifle in the .30-06 designation any less accurate. Whether it is an M-1 Garand or a beat down and / or old M-1903 Springfield or M-1917 Enfield or a newer Ruger M-77, some of the so called "experts" that write these rags or write online or are on a TV channel have no REAL hands on firearms knowledge or reloading experience or have ever delved into "amateur gunsmithing" Or have MOST of them ever served too?
Just think about this for a few moments folks. Who copied the German K98K Mauser to design / to make the M-1903 Springfield and the 7.92x57mm German round to make the .30-06? WE / America did, and if you use a caliper or a micrometer you will see the "case head / rim" is the SAME diameter, .473"! Ok, we used a .308" projectile instead of a .323" projectile and lengthened the casing from 57mm to 63mm, and generally copied the shoulder angle too. Pretty damn similar if you balance it out. Even the British Pattern 14 or the "brother" M-1917 Enfield's copied the basic Mauser action of the time proven K98K Mauser.
Then you hear: "How much the .270 spanks the ass of the .30-06!". Again, BULL PUCKY, same moron left in charge!! If it was not for the .30-06.... Where would the .270 be? Even Mr. Jack O'Connor himself admitted: "If the .280 would have come out first, I'd have taken it over the .270.". Am I knocking the .270.... honestly.... Yes! Sorry if I offend any or all of you, but that is a round that has been proven to be obsolete over the .280, but not as old of course as the .30-06. Basically, the .308 Win. is about 1/3 shorter than the .30-06 but was actually based off the .300 Savage, just given a longer neck and probably a bit less taper in the case body. Been a good while since I've seen said round{s}. Then you got the 6.8 S.P.C., which is basically a .30 Rem casing modified and shortened a bit to accept a lightweight .270 bullet. Can it be called a ".270 Lite"? Even the 6.5 Grendel has more popularity in the AR platforms!!
The .270.... Oh God what a tragedy! Look at that ugly LONG neck and taper of the shoulder and body. Looks like a Cordite round and as ugly as the outdated .300 H&H Magnum {which really isn't much more than a .30-06 Ackley Improved}! Why consider a .270, when the .280 has MANY more projectile selections to go on and then you may as well add the .30-06 to your collection for even MORE projectile selections.
Then even though it is a wildcat you may consider the 6.5-06. It is a .264" projectile to go along with the .264 Win. Mag. or the 6.5 Rem. Mag. and the 6.5mm / .264" is making a true come back whereas the .270 is fading off, hence the 6.5x284. If you don't want to consider the 6.5-06, you have the PROVEN 6.5x55 Swedish or the "Johnny come lately, why fix it if it ain't broken" .260 Rem. too. I know this is a lot to muster and grab onto here folks, but why go "off the wall" when you can follow the K.I.S.S. methods?
Try finding your favorite .270 loads that are "As accurate as a laser beam" in some backwoods General Store or Hardware Store. Same goes for all of the loads mentioned above, but chances are you'll find more .30-06 or .308 that will come close and still bring home the venison or wild hog bacon. Would I own another .308? YES! But then I also have a 7.62x54Rmm that I love, but again. Try finding that ammo at "Mom & Pop's".
Pretty much in my neck of the woods, some of the older milsurp calibers are the king {around here} like the 6.5x55mm, .30-40 Krag, 7.92x57mm / 8mm Mauser, .303 British, 7.62x54Rmm, etc. . But then again you have the .30-30, .32 Win. Spl., .30-06, .308, and whatever, even the .300 Win. Mag.!! {Dread the thought for deer}
The choice of course is yours, but that damned ol' dried up .270 has to fade out as well as the .300 H&H Mag. too. Polish a turd, and it's still a turd!
I tried to do this write up like Craig Boddington would do in his opinions of what should be dried up and what should stay. But he is an "Older New School Feller" that sees those new wiz bang Short Mags. and Super Short Mags, and Ultra Mags, etc., being the "Saviours of the World!". In reality, most of the Short Mags, and Super Short Magnums aren't much better than Ackley Improved rounds with same projectile sizes. Parker Otto Ackley was REALLY a Pioneer / Legend before his time. Like I said above. "Why fix what ain't broken"?
I'll try to sum this up as quickly as possible:
First of all, if you never had the M-1 Garand you'd never have the M-14. Plain and simple. Then you hear the: "Well, the M-14 has a 20 round box magazine.". Or, "The M-14 is an accurate masterpiece for a full / semi auto rifle.". Well, simply enough the M-14 is to the .308 as to what the M-1 Garand is to the .30-06. Not really you say?
Well, here it is. At first John Cantius Garand wanted to make "his" rifle in the .276 caliber which was grossly tapered and short and in 7mm and even somewhat ballistically inferior to the .270. So basically Gen. Douglas MacArthur said: "We still have tremendous stockpiles of ".30 Gov't" ammo left from WWI so we need to burn this ammo up and use what we have left, so make the rifle fire .30 Gov't.". And so the rest is history. There are .308 caliber "M-1's" but those just make me queezy. Who says you cannot make ANY M-1 Garand as accurate as an M-14? Even Mr. Garand was present when the M-14 was made from his original M-1's. {.30 Gov't is .30-06 of the era} and then other "ideas" were made from the original "M-1" ammo.
Here is another thing I hear: "The .308 Winchester is far more accurate and superior to the AGED and almost OBSOLETE .30-06.". Bull Pucky! Who died and left that moron in charge? There is no reason that any good .30-06 caliber rifle and a person that knows his S*** about reloading can't make a round and rifle in the .30-06 designation any less accurate. Whether it is an M-1 Garand or a beat down and / or old M-1903 Springfield or M-1917 Enfield or a newer Ruger M-77, some of the so called "experts" that write these rags or write online or are on a TV channel have no REAL hands on firearms knowledge or reloading experience or have ever delved into "amateur gunsmithing" Or have MOST of them ever served too?
Just think about this for a few moments folks. Who copied the German K98K Mauser to design / to make the M-1903 Springfield and the 7.92x57mm German round to make the .30-06? WE / America did, and if you use a caliper or a micrometer you will see the "case head / rim" is the SAME diameter, .473"! Ok, we used a .308" projectile instead of a .323" projectile and lengthened the casing from 57mm to 63mm, and generally copied the shoulder angle too. Pretty damn similar if you balance it out. Even the British Pattern 14 or the "brother" M-1917 Enfield's copied the basic Mauser action of the time proven K98K Mauser.
Then you hear: "How much the .270 spanks the ass of the .30-06!". Again, BULL PUCKY, same moron left in charge!! If it was not for the .30-06.... Where would the .270 be? Even Mr. Jack O'Connor himself admitted: "If the .280 would have come out first, I'd have taken it over the .270.". Am I knocking the .270.... honestly.... Yes! Sorry if I offend any or all of you, but that is a round that has been proven to be obsolete over the .280, but not as old of course as the .30-06. Basically, the .308 Win. is about 1/3 shorter than the .30-06 but was actually based off the .300 Savage, just given a longer neck and probably a bit less taper in the case body. Been a good while since I've seen said round{s}. Then you got the 6.8 S.P.C., which is basically a .30 Rem casing modified and shortened a bit to accept a lightweight .270 bullet. Can it be called a ".270 Lite"? Even the 6.5 Grendel has more popularity in the AR platforms!!
The .270.... Oh God what a tragedy! Look at that ugly LONG neck and taper of the shoulder and body. Looks like a Cordite round and as ugly as the outdated .300 H&H Magnum {which really isn't much more than a .30-06 Ackley Improved}! Why consider a .270, when the .280 has MANY more projectile selections to go on and then you may as well add the .30-06 to your collection for even MORE projectile selections.
Then even though it is a wildcat you may consider the 6.5-06. It is a .264" projectile to go along with the .264 Win. Mag. or the 6.5 Rem. Mag. and the 6.5mm / .264" is making a true come back whereas the .270 is fading off, hence the 6.5x284. If you don't want to consider the 6.5-06, you have the PROVEN 6.5x55 Swedish or the "Johnny come lately, why fix it if it ain't broken" .260 Rem. too. I know this is a lot to muster and grab onto here folks, but why go "off the wall" when you can follow the K.I.S.S. methods?
Try finding your favorite .270 loads that are "As accurate as a laser beam" in some backwoods General Store or Hardware Store. Same goes for all of the loads mentioned above, but chances are you'll find more .30-06 or .308 that will come close and still bring home the venison or wild hog bacon. Would I own another .308? YES! But then I also have a 7.62x54Rmm that I love, but again. Try finding that ammo at "Mom & Pop's".
Pretty much in my neck of the woods, some of the older milsurp calibers are the king {around here} like the 6.5x55mm, .30-40 Krag, 7.92x57mm / 8mm Mauser, .303 British, 7.62x54Rmm, etc. . But then again you have the .30-30, .32 Win. Spl., .30-06, .308, and whatever, even the .300 Win. Mag.!! {Dread the thought for deer}
The choice of course is yours, but that damned ol' dried up .270 has to fade out as well as the .300 H&H Mag. too. Polish a turd, and it's still a turd!
I tried to do this write up like Craig Boddington would do in his opinions of what should be dried up and what should stay. But he is an "Older New School Feller" that sees those new wiz bang Short Mags. and Super Short Mags, and Ultra Mags, etc., being the "Saviours of the World!". In reality, most of the Short Mags, and Super Short Magnums aren't much better than Ackley Improved rounds with same projectile sizes. Parker Otto Ackley was REALLY a Pioneer / Legend before his time. Like I said above. "Why fix what ain't broken"?
