My heavens, I'd like to start seeing the cites for some of the information floating around here this week?! Believe it or not, there's a rather significant difference between the .30-40 case and the .30-06. For one, the .30-40 is rimmed, the .30-06 is rimless, My manuals list the length of the .30-40 case at 58.78mm, the .30-06 at 63.34mm. The .30-06 is descended of the .30-03, which was in turn loosely modeled on the 7x57mm and 8x57mm Mauser. As its nomenclature suggests, the .30-06 was fielded in 1906. The .308 (aka T65, 7.62x51mm) came on the scene in 1952. Let's do some math: 1952 -1906 = "more than 100 years old". Hmmm, must be that "new math"?

.30-40 used black powder? No - incorrect. It used the blackpowder designation ("40"), but was distinctive in that is was the first cartridge adopted by the U.S. military to use smokeless powder.

.30-06 an update of the .30-40? No - incorrect. More specifically, it was an update of the .30-03, which was the replacement for the .30-40.

http://www.reloadbench.com/cartridges/3040k.html

http://www.reloadbench.com/cartridges/3006s.html

http://www.reloadbench.com/cartridges/308w.html

Even the normally questionable wiki tends to be corroborrate reloadbench.com/Hodgdon:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.30-40_Krag

I don't mean to pick apart the details of every post here, but when a post includes such gross inaccuracies, the errors begin to overpower any valid points that may have been included. I think most of us cut a lot of slack here when it comes to what are clearly opinions, but please check your facts!