I think we're beginning to see eye to eye.
In response to your last sentence....
absolutely! But that is circular error probablity (cone of fire, dispersion, etc.) due to normal manufacturing tolerances and/or quality control. Not necessarily a rounds BC.
My only quibble now would be with the following because my statement is not
completely false.
Secondly the 30.06 was downloaded for the Garand because of excessive recoil, not because its accuracy diminished, to state otherwise is completely false. Try shooting 168 or 180 gr FMJBTs with the Garand, it is very accurate with these loadings!
Starting with the last sentence first....
With regard to the higher bullet wgts, I have to assume that you know there is more to accuracy than just bullet wgt for a given caliber; and that powder burn rates, powder wgt, powder volume and bullet characteristics(BC, profile, etc.)
all factor into a particular "load's" accuracy within a particular weapon. And also that there are a myriad of powders and burn rates that can be used today (far more than 45 years ago). Just as (and contrary to what I deduce your example to indicate) higher calibers do not necessarily mean higher recoil, higher pressure does not necessarily mean more recoil either. I've seen guys shoot modern handloads with a 220gr bullet through the M1 comfortably, safely and accurately. Why would they do that? Who knows? Because they can, I guess...lol.
Several of us went through a big debate some 8-9 years ago when we were tweaking the weapons characteristics on our MoH:AA server. One of the coders was just adamant that the BAR was more powerful and shot a 'hotter' round and/or a larger caliber bullet and did more 'damage'. We all researched the military use of the .30-06. Sadly, I've looked and don't have the info at hand to give you for a citation, nor can I find it quickly on the internet (geesh, there's about 1000x more 'hits' in a search today on the subject than back then), but I'm pretty sure the excessive recoil you are referring to was from the M1 bullet deveoloped between the two world wars. And iirc, it was a 172gr boat-tailed bullet and powder combo that worked great in machine guns. However, the military didn't think the common GI's shoulder would fare too well from using this round. They fell back to the old standby 1906 bullet. The 1906 load became the infamous M2 ball ammo. I guess perhaps I errantly called that the 'original' load. My reference was to ammunition testing done in the meantime (or maybe during the war, I don't recall off hand) at the Frankford Arsenal. There were pressure issues with some of the existing slower burning powder/bullet combinations that could bend the operating rod. And there were also some other lower pressure loads that simply just did not perform well with the weapon. None of these ever made it to production. (Btw, if you find any experimental loads in original boxes from FA, some of them are quite the collector's items).
I think we're close enough in terminology and thought to end this derailment of Capt. Cool's thread......
Sorry, Capt. Cool. I'll hush now.