Talk:.30-06 Springfield: Difference between revisions

 

Line 74: Line 74:

:: There is a huge disconnect between the velocity table in the infobox and the one in the “Performance” section. I suggest we simply delete the one in the infobox. The one in the “Performance” section has multiple sources.

:: There is a huge disconnect between the velocity table in the infobox and the one in the “Performance” section. I suggest we simply delete the one in the infobox. The one in the “Performance” section has multiple sources.

:: The alternative is that someone fixes the infobox by using that good section, including its sources. Does anyone want to do that, or can we agree on just deleting the figures from the infobox? — [[User:Valjean|Valjean]] ([[User talk:Valjean|talk]]) (PING me) 03:50, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

:: The alternative is that someone fixes the infobox by using that good section, including its sources. Does anyone want to do that, or can we agree on just deleting the figures from the infobox? — [[User:Valjean|Valjean]] ([[User talk:Valjean|talk]]) (PING me) 03:50, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

{{od}}

You can easily compare the tables on this subpage: [[User:Valjean/.30-06 Springfield velocity]] — [[User:Valjean|Valjean]] ([[User talk:Valjean|talk]]) (PING me) 04:03, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

== Dimension specifications ==

== Dimension specifications ==

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history This article is within the scope of WikiProject Firearms, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of firearms on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FirearmsWikipedia:WikiProject FirearmsTemplate:WikiProject FirearmsFirearms Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project’s importance scale.

	.30-06 Springfield was a Warfare good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Current status: Former good article nominee

Reading the article it sounds like the 30-03 were an original development, while in fact both the cartridge and the gun it was used in, were based on Mauser or other German developments.

AFAIK the 30-03 cartridge was designed by lengthening the 7 x 57 or 7.92 x 57 case. The design was done after the US army encountered the 7 x 57 in the Spanish American war. The aim was to produce a cartridge more powerful than the 7 x 57 or 7.92 X 57. You can compare the measurements of any of the 57mm Mauser cartridges, that are again based on the M88 pattern German cartridge or 8 x 57 I. The measurements are nearly identical, but the length.
The agreed upon payments for patent infringement never happened because the advent of the great war.

The change from the 30-03 to 30-06 again copies the development in Europe. First the French changed the 8 mm Lebel to a 198 grain spitzer boat tailed bullet and than the German changed the 7.92 x 57 to a 153 grain spitzer bullet with a muzzle velocity of 2880 ft/s.
Looking at those developments, the US changed the cartridge to the 30-06 version with a 150 grain spitzer bullet with a muzzle velocity of 2700 ft/s, about copying the performance of the 7.92 x 57 S.Jochum (talk) 04:51, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

a reference for the above https://www.chuckhawks.com/great_cartridge_families.htm Jochum (talk) 05:34, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The unit or designation of measure is Caliber. Caliber is a unit “based” on inches and/or millimeter (mm). When using the designation of caliber it is not represented directly as a measurement of inches. Refer to the definition of caliber. Caliber is expressed in hundredths or thousands of an inch depending on the number of digits. When referring to cartridges, bullets or chambers the units or designation used is caliber. This would be expressed without any leading decimal. Example: 22 LR is the 22 caliber Long Rifle cartridge. It may be approximately 0.22 inches in diameter; however, the Caliber is 22.

Leaving the decimal out of imperial specifications is intentional. It is not common language to say “Point 22 LR” or “Dot 22 LR”, the common phrase is “Twenty Two LR”. It is also easy to miss read or not see markings with a leading dot, thus another reason the unit of caliber is used.

This page is for specifications in caliber, This is what is used in the industry. Expressing it incorrectly as for example .45 caliber would translate a measurement in inches of 0.45/100 equaling 0.0045 inches. Another example .223 Rem. If this is a caliber unit it would translate to 0.223 thousandths (0.223/1000), which would equate to 0.000223 inches. for empirical units caliber designation never has a decimal place. Metric calibers are also often but not exclusively written and used without a decimal (i.e. Caliber 762).

The title of these pages should be updated as well as the content to avoid confusion for people learning or understanding the correct terms.

Further information on the correct way to specify values and units. Values and the units used are separated by a space. Example 7 mm is correct, 7mm is not correct. Correct case of letters (upper, lower) is also important, mm = millimeters, MM who knows that that would be. Another example (5.56 x 45 mm). Both 5.46 and 45 are in mm (millimeters), note the spacing around the x and between the number (value) and the units (mm).

216.160.0.104 (talk) 21:10, 2 May 2022 (UTC)Scimernet[reply]

.30-06 is .306-.309 Apoc41 (talk) 06:57, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The .306 caliber designation was correct Apoc41 (talk) 06:58, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Then it should be simple to provide a reliable source for this. Canterbury Tail talk 17:32, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Someone incorrectly edited a calibration designation of Dr. Ira Leviton’s. I tried to revert it back. My edit was reverted but not the incorrect one of War Raven’s. When will my edit be validated and applied? Apoc41 (talk) 16:55, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide a reliable source for your claim. Canterbury Tail talk 20:15, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen plenty of references to the “.30 Govn’t” round, referring to whatever cartridge was in standard use at that time, especially in the 1920s and 30s before we had two different .30 rounds. And then the .30 Carbine is called just that. No doubt there is a convention where they specified “.30 Govn’t (’06)” vs “.30 Govn’t (’03)”, since they never overlapped in general service I have never seen either in common use. The .30 Govn’t designation itself isn’t very common outside period, but I have never seen it used with the clarifying addition. Although I believe .”30-06″ essentially is a shorthand abbreviation for that designation. For most users it was just “.30 cal”, only sportsmen would even need to clarify the “Government” part. Idumea47b (talk) 17:04, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think the 30 06 can do 2700 m/s. Looks like the numbers are ft/s and mixed up the units. ~2025-42056-28 (talk) 21:01, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the sources that the data links back to, yeah. Someone got Feet Per Second and Meters Per Second mixed up and then applied the conversion to the inflated Meters Per Second giving some truly interesting velocities. I’m still new and can’t for the life of me find when the change happened, but it definitely needs to be corrected. I’m out of energy to go through and double check the velocities to manually fix it to the standards it deserves, but it needs some serious work or a change to be reverted. MishaFurry (talk) 02:55, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a huge disconnect between the velocity table in the infobox and the one in the “Performance” section. I suggest we simply delete the one in the infobox. The one in the “Performance” section has multiple sources.

The alternative is that someone fixes the infobox by using that good section, including its sources. Does anyone want to do that, or can we agree on just deleting the figures from the infobox? — Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:50, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can easily compare the tables on this subpage: User:Valjean/.30-06 Springfield velocity — Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:03, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The numbers for the dimensions are wrong. The numbers that they say are in millimeters are actually in inches, therefore, the inch values that are given are completely wrong since they are based off the wrong millimeters. ~2025-42107-89 (talk) 01:45, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a reliable source with the right numbers? — Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:51, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]