i saw your answer to my post but i still don't know the difference between 30-06 & 30-06sprg. is there a diff. i used your site to get the clip but i'm still confused about the difference

 

lenny im not blue oval but i did some research for you,

first of all, if you see .30-06 or .30-06sprng, they are the same thing
the old type was a .30-03 meaning .30 caliber invented in 1903 for the US military this type had a ball for a bullet, then in 1906 the cartridge was adapted to neck a regular pointed bullet, thus giving you the ".30-06". so if you see 30-06 or 30-06 sprng theres no difference. they are both .30 caliber and have the same length and diameter, people just got accustomed to saying 30-06 instead of 30-06 sprng. another thing that might be related is that in world war 2 the military was making the .30 caliber round for the springfield 1906 m1 rifle and adapted the same exact round to the browning BAR and .30 machine guns, but these had a tracer tip on every 5 rounds so to keep them out of the m1 they just called the m1 round a 30-06 sprng even though they were the same exact round.

hope this helps you out.

 

thanks alot 4x4triton. you helped alot on my last ??. i have a 12 pt up here you need to kill for me lol. did i get a good deal buying a rem 7400 .30-06 for $180

 

i added to my last post to even help you further, and i sure wouldnt mind taking that 12 pt off of your hands for you. and yes $180.00 for a 7400 is a sweet deal clip or no clip, is it a wood stock or synthetic? if it is wood then thats a heck of a deal, youll never see that again for that price. at least not in louisiana, they usually go used for about 300.00, new usually goes for 500.00- the sky.

 

wood stock dude, you couldn't give me a syn stock and thank you soooooo much for all your input. & that 12 pt is just here haning out. the S.O.B. he knows i'm a cripple so he taunts me lol.

 

Just a quick note, most of you probably know already - the 30-06 sprng is referring to the Springfield armory, where it was designed, built & tested.

 

i did know that as you posted.... alchyist, but im still lost as to the diff in caliber

 

First off, allow me to start off by saying that I am FAR from being an expert on the subject, but, I am 'experienced' in the subject.
Well done, except the (bolt action) rifle in use during WWII was the '03 Springfield, chambered in the .30-'06 round. Those rifles were known as 1903 Springfield; '03 Springfield; '03-A3; '03-A4 (the A#s denote revisions) - then eventually, the (semi-automatic) .30 caliber M1 Garand was chambered in .30-'06.
Point of fact, the name comes from the caliber, which is .30 (.308") and the round was adapted by the military in 1906, hence the nomenclature .30-'06 Springfield, and as stated, 'the' Springfield Armory (not to be confused with the company of the same name) was the main small arms manufacturing complex during the war (early to mid 20th century, actually).

More names for the .30-'06 Springfield

.30-'06 Springfield
.30-'06
.30 caliber M1 (Not to be confused with the .30 M1 carbine - different animal, altogether)
M2 Ball (Military designation)
.30 caliber M1 Match
'06
'06 Springfield
Thuh-dee Aught-six
Aught-six
Ought-Six
"A .308 Win grown up." (Sorry guys. Not my opinion, just stating what it's been called.)


Bottom line. . . . the venerable '06 has been around for 99 years, now. It has been and still is one fantastic cartridge!!!!

Keith

 

lenny:
As for synthetic vs. wood. . . synthetic may not look as nice as the wood, but, it IS better, especially on a rifle that will be used 'out in the elements.'
It is more stable, and will not (well, it's not supposed to) crack, split, or warp.

A friend has/had a Remington 742 (predecessor to the 7400) and the forend on his rifle split from being out in the weather. (It cost him big $$$ to replace.)

Synthetic ain't so bad. . . . .

Keith

 

i agree w/ you an the quality aspect, but i'm "old school" & imho you cant beat the look & feel of wood on a hunting weapon. & thanks for your response.
carl

 

Im with lenny on this one too. synthetic is good but when I personally buy a firearm I want one that looks as good as it shoots, but thats just me.

 

You'll get no argument from me. None.

Blue Steel and Walnut (or Coco Bolo; Rosewood; or Goncalo Alves, even laminated) is what I really like. Synthetic IS more stable, though.

I just bought a Remington 11-87 'Youth' 20 ga. for my wife that has a synthetic stock. It's not too hard to get used to.


Keith

 

now ill agree with that, the laminates with the nice wood patterns look great. just curious, do they hold up well or do they fade some with use?

 

4x4triton, from what ive been reading, the coloring should be pretty much bullet proof unless left in the sun for like 11 yrs. & as 00Blue said the stocks are tougher than wood-pecker lips & stable, but in my gun safe its strictly wood & blued metal. ill replace the wood before i put plastic on my "gems". just my 2 cents, though you & 00Blue seem to validate my love of wood

 

As for looks, the laminates that I have are utilitarian. They are on K98k Mauser rifles. One built 1941. The other 1943.
They ain't pretty, but, they are verrrrrrrrrrrrrry stable. I retract that. One is very nice looking. I suppose some would say that I 'Bubba-ized' one stock. I completely refinished it, and it is very easy to look at. I say that I just 'restored it to it's original look.'
These two old rifles still shoot under 2-1/2' at 150 yds.
(I've thought about buying a laminated stock for my M1 Garand.) I dunno, though.

Keith