# Enfield P14



## The Basket (Aug 7, 2016)

So why wasn't the P14 kept o. If the plan was to replace the SMLE?
Why wasn't the P13 picked up again after the war if the .276 cartridge was a good idea?
Why did the Enfield 1917 not replace the Springfield in American service after the war if it was more numerous?
Seemed that both the P14 and the M1917 Enfield disappeared even thought it merited better


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 7, 2016)

A lot of reasons that intermingle.
The .276 cartridge wasn't really a good idea at the time. It needed better powders than were available at the time. As a target round it better than the .303 and the .30-06 but it wore out barrels quicker, it had more muzzle flash and was really more powerful than needed.
It turned out that the SMLE was a much better rifle for WW I style combat than the P14/M1917. The SMLE was easier to clean the action on (get mud and dirt out of) as the rifles with forward locking lugs can be a real bitch to get mud/dirt out of the locking lug recesses with what soldiers have readily available. The SMLE bolt was also much easier/faster to operate. Many "sporter" conversions of the P14/M1917 entailing a conversion of cock on opening. Although the angles/cam surfaces of the locking arrangement may have had a lot to do with it. 
How much of the better accuracy was due to a heavier barrel is hard to say. The P14/M1917 had been designed for long range rifle fire in open conditions. The SMLE was much better at trench warfare and close combat. 
Some of the SMLE's deficiencies were addressed/corrected with the No 1 MK V and the No 4 Mk 1, like better sights. 
The No 4 Mk 1 and No. 4 Mk 2 probably being the best combat bolt action rifles ever built. 

For the US it may have been a case of NIH. The P14/M1917 was a bit heavier and the action a bit bulkier than the other two. While the rear sight was much better than the WW I rifles it was a bit awkward and tended to catch on things. The P14/M1917 was quite popular between the wars and post WW II for building magnum hunting and target rifles on as it was both strong enough to handle the loads and was big enough to handle most of the cartridges with little or no modification unlike the Springfield or G.98. But such attributes mean nothing to it's service use.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Aug 7, 2016)

More questions. Why bother with the P14 at all?
Why not just get Remington and Winchester to make SMLEs?
Would the SMLE have taken the 30 odd 6? 
In this scenario the dough boys would have had virtually the same rifle as the British.
Also the P14 held less rounds than the SMLE. Although the RN bought Arisakas so any rifle would do! Even firing the 6.5mm Japanese! 
To cap off the P14 / M1917 is considered the finest rifle of ww1 but as its troubled upbringing meant it was orphaned quickly.

Odd point but had ww1 not happened the main battle rifle of the British army in 1940 would have been the P13 firing the .276 cartridge! And holding 5 rounds.


----------



## Token (Aug 7, 2016)

I freely admit here that I am not really well versed in this history. I own several of the rifles being discussed and their contemporaries, but I have not delved deep into the history. Possibly I should correct that.


However, I will give you my take on the questions you have asked.




The Basket said:


> So why wasn't the P14 kept o. If the plan was to replace the SMLE?




At a guess rate of fire played a big role. The P14 had a 5 shot magazine, ok, a 6 round magazine in .303, but the stripper clips were 5 rounds. The SMLE, and considered replacements, had 10 round magazines. The P14 was similar to the Mauser 98 action, and not as slick and fast as the SMLE action. In the Mad Minute an SMLE would fair considerably better than a P14.




The Basket said:


> Why wasn't the P13 picked up again after the war if the .276 cartridge was a good idea?




Military logistics is often very resistant to adopting a new cartridge. For the overlap period you have to have large supplies of both the new and the old cartridge, and shifting everything over is not something to be taken lightly, it is very expensive, far more expensive than fielding a new rifle in your existing standard cartridge. Further, following the war there was a LOT of ammunition and rifles in .303, they would sustain military needs for many years.

And .276 rifles would have had a shorter service life. Higher pressures mean faster throat erosion, higher velocities mean faster barrel wear, etc. In the pull downs after the war those kinds of factors would have been considered.




The Basket said:


> Why did the Enfield 1917 not replace the Springfield in American service after the war if it was more numerous?




The only reason the US made 1917s for its own use was that it was easier to modify the weapon (already in production in the US for the British) to the standard US .30 caliber round than to restart the assembly lines to make M1903 rifles. And while the American Expeditionary Force did use this as their primary rifle, almost all of the 1917's went to Europe, meaning the 1903 was in use by units in the US, and closer to the decision makers. To replace the 1903 as the standard US battle rifle with the 1917 after the war would have required the standard selection process for a new rifle by the military acquisitions folks, even though some US forces were already using it.


With military acquisitions it is never as simple as saying "I like this one best, lets use it" or "we already have a lot of these, lets make them the standard", nor should it be that simple, who decides that, and will you like my decision if that person is me? Everyone else who might have made millions on providing a new rifle is going to want a justification for the selection. So to make such a selection you set out timelines, requirements documents, and testing criteria, then you do the test under documented conditions with any and all rifles provided by people responding to the requirements. It can take years to select a new rifle.


And yes, in the US military, especially at that time, the thought of adopting a foreign designed rifle might have been opposed a bit, even if the rifle was very good.


T!


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 7, 2016)

The Basket said:


> More questions. Why bother with the P14 at all?



Some of it had to do with tooling, according to one source some of the tooling Vickers had for the P13/14 was shipped to the US while Vickers in England concentrated on machine-guns. 



> Why not just get Remington and Winchester to make SMLEs?


 Part answered above. The SMLE also dates from the 1880s in basic design and may have required more machining operations and/or hand work than the P13/14, This was a change in the No 4 rifle, much easier to manufacture. 



> Would the SMLE have taken the 30 odd 6?


 Not as it existed. 





The receiver and bolt (and magazine well) would have had to been made longer. This also assumes that the SMLE action would stand up to the higher pressure of the 30-06 round. Not from the stand point of bursting but rather a slow stretching from repeated firings. Please remember that heat treatment was nowhere near the science it would become even in the 1930s. Practically ALL M1903 Springfield's dating from 1917 or earlier should NOT be fired due to suspect heat treatment. It varies a bit depending on factory. This was not actually discovered until well after the war. 



> Also the P14 held less rounds than the SMLE. Although the RN bought Arisakas so any rifle would do! Even firing the 6.5mm Japanese!



I believe the Arisakas were pretty much as drill or training rifles. A number may have been supplied to the White Russians in 1919. 
The Arisakas were actually rather well built rifles. A few features may have been odd but in post WW II experiments P.O. Ackley ( noted gunsmith, cartridge developer and experimenter) test a number of rifle actions to destruction. He said the Arisaka was the only one he never blew up using overloads. It did have few features that prevented it from being popular for converting to a hunting rifle.



> To cap off the P14 / M1917 is considered the finest rifle of ww1 but as its troubled upbringing meant it was orphaned quickly.


That may depend on who was doing the evaluating. It did have some good features and again, do not confuse accuracy with effectiveness as a combat rifle. You do need a minimum standard of accuracy and power but too much emphasis on certain characteristics might mean others were neglected. Remington did continue to make civilian versions up until 1940 but they were not big sellers. 



> Odd point but had ww1 not happened the main battle rifle of the British army in 1940 would have been the P13 firing the .276 cartridge! And holding 5 rounds.


Hopefully not as the P-13 certainly offered very little over teh No 4 rifle. British mistake in the 1930s was not converting to the No 4 earlier or in more quantity. Australia and India kept producing No 1 MK IIIs for far too long.


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 7, 2016)

Token said:


> I freely admit here that I am not really well versed in this history. I own several of the rifles being discussed and their contemporaries,.............................
> 
> Military logistics is often very resistant to adopting a new cartridge. For the overlap period you have to have large supplies of both the new and the old cartridge, and shifting everything over is not something to be taken lightly, it is very expensive, far more expensive than fielding a new rifle in your existing standard cartridge. Further, following the war there was a LOT of ammunition and rifles in .303, they would sustain military needs for many years.
> 
> ...



You have several good points in your post. 
The .276 would have made a lousy MG cartridge with the powders of the time. The smaller the bore for a given powder charge the greater the barrel wear. Using two different cartridges for the rifle and MG would have been a logistics nightmare. Even the powders in use in 1918-1920, while a considerable improvement over the ones in use in 1913-14 were not as good as the ones available in the mid to late 1930s. For instance the US was able to equal the ballistics of the original 30-06 load in the late 30s using 42,000lb pressure compared to the original loading's 50,000lb peak pressure. A more gradual pressure rise and fall meant the "average" pressure acting on the bullet was higher while reducing the peak pressure/stress on the gun. 
Trying to make .276 tracer and incendiary bullets would have been more difficult. Certainly not impossible or as hard as making 6.5mm tracers/incendiary (but note the Japanese kept 7.7mm/.303 for aircraft machine guns).

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Aug 8, 2016)

My issue is the P14/M1917 was a very good rifle which compares favourably with the best and certainly would hold its own against the Lebel of Carcano or Mosin. So to me its performance was far better than its place in history as a afterthought. I am sure the Canadians would have preferred a P14 to a Ross.

My thoughts on the Arisaka in British service is the 6.5mm cartridge and the fact it didn't have the character of the main British rifle. Where did the 6.5mm rounds come from? I assume Japan as no point manufacturing them in the UK. Also training involves maintainenece and memory which you cant do on a different rifle.

I suppose changing one bolt action rifle for another is a bit pointless as it would offer very little more than you already have.
It seems the lessons of the Boer War would have had no input into the mud of the Somme so in many ways the UK was very lucky that the P13 didn't come around any sooner otherwise we could have been lumbered with a lesser rifle. Although the lessons of the .276 cartridge were fair and I am sure the problems encountered with the rifle would have been ironed out with time. The P13 was still been tested right up until summer 1914 so there was no resolutions sought.

Of course mixing and match the calibres of your rifle especially in time of war is silly. The Japanese mixed the 7.7mm and the 6.5mm together with poor consequences. And the Americans went through the whole process of having a .276 rifle and then changing it to the 30 odd 6 because it made better sense...at the last minute.


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 8, 2016)

A few notes.

The British did load the 6.5 Arisaka, at first from components imported from Japan and later with UK components. In fact the British may have supplied up to 558,947,000 rounds to the Russians during WW I. At least that is how many *Cartridge S.A. Ball .256 inch Mark II *were made. Load was a 160 grain round nose bullet at 2300fps. The MK I loading used a 139 grain spitzer at 2450-2500fps. 22,339,100 rounds were made. You had to suit the round to the rifle as the sights were set up to use one load or the other. 
There were 4 different types of drill round,

For British Military small arms ammo this is the Best site I have seen. 

British Military Small Arms Ammo

There is NO "30 odd 6" cartridge unless you are trying to be derogatory. It was the 30-06 or 30 aught 6 or 30 ought 6. Aught/ought (alternative spellings) being a noun meaning the numeral zero. Often used in dating referring to the first decade of a century ( the aughts) as in 1900-1901-1902 etc. 

Having the P14/M1917 stand up to the Lebel or Carcano is damning with faint praise. While both are solid, serviceable weapons when used with appropriate ammo the Lebel dates from 1886 and the Carcano from at least 1891. The Mauser went through the 1888 commission rifle versions, the 1892/93 small ring versions and the large ring model '98 version/s before being copied by the Springfield (the US had to pay royalties after a court case) and P14/M1917. I would hope that a few things had been learned in the 15-20 years since small bore (compared to black powder breech loaders) rifles came on the scene.


----------



## yulzari (Aug 8, 2016)

Apart from the mountain of .303 ammunition in store after the Great War the role of long range mass infantry fire had been taken over by machine guns and mortars. The accuracy of the SMLE was perfectly adequate at post Great War rifleman ranges and the rifle was as robust as you could ask for. 

The only remaining benefit in military use of the .276 was it's lesser weight and bulk. When you are near broke and have far more .303 ammunition than you can think of a use for it then you are not going to invest in a replacement with marginal advantages in actual use to replace a rifle that has the confidence of the troops and has been proved effective.

A nice target rifle but not needed for the soldiers.

BTW was the .30-06 not referred to as .300 in British use?


----------



## The Basket (Aug 8, 2016)

Of course by the wars end you have huge stocks of surplus rifles and ammo so building a new rifle with a different cartridge is not exactly smart.
I would compare the Carcano or Lebel to the P14 simply because they served at the same time. If the French was using an obsolescent rifle then that's the French fault. I am not too concerned with the Carcano as the Italians would have struggled to do better.


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 8, 2016)

There were two different .276 cartridges. A not uncommon event. The number of 7.62mm cartridges is astounding. 





Photo from Tony Williams website. 
The British pre-WW I .276 is on the extreme left. The American between wars .276 is 3rd from the left. The 6.5mm Arisaka is between them. The 1st cartridge on left in the middle group (9th from left) is the 7.62mm NATO. 

The British .276 was certainly no smaller or lighter than the .303. The American .276 was smaller and lighter than the .30-06 (10 would fit in prototype M1s instead of eight .30-06) but then you ran into the not only the large amount of surplus ammo but needing different ammo in the squad or platoon for the rifles and machine guns. 

I would note that the French were using obsolescent rifles from about 1895 through 1940. Both the 1907 Berthier and the 1936 MAS being obsolete on the first day of issue.


----------



## The Basket (Aug 8, 2016)

I have a soft spot for the MAS 36 so can't let that go! Why you think it's obsolete?
Did the P14 and M1917 serve in the home guard in the UK in WW2? I find conflicting info on this.
One can be controversial and say all bolt actions were obsolete by WW2 and self loaders should be standard issue. M1 is better than any bolt action. And I would wager no dissent on that.


----------



## Token (Aug 8, 2016)

The Basket said:


> And the Americans went through the whole process of having a .276 rifle and then changing it to the 30 odd 6 because it made better sense...at the last minute.




Not really sure what you mean by this, the US never had or procured in any number rifles in .276, nor was that actually a goal of any specification.


After WW I the US Army wanted a semi-auto rifle.


In 1921 the War Department published a requirement for a semi-auto rifle, with specifications that must be met as well as desirable features, and the testing that the rifles would be subjected to. The first requirement was "The rifle must be a self-loading type, adapted to function with the US Cartridge, Caliber .30, Model of 1906", this was the then standard 30-06 cartridge. None of the rifles submitted in response to this requirement were acceptable for a variety of reasons, complexity and weight were prominent among the complaints for all of them. Garand did not submit a rifle.


Why were all the rifles to complex and heavy? The 30-06 cartridge is rather long and high pressure, rifle design just was not up to the task yet. These rifles were necessarily heavier to be stronger, and they exceeded the weight specification of the requirement.


The .276 Pedersen was a slightly shorter, lower pressure, cartridge than the 30-06. Obviously, no Pedersen .276 was tested in response to this requirement, and after the 1921 testing Pedersen realized this was an opportunity, and spent the next several years perfecting his rifle. By 1926 his rifle had been demonstrated in several smaller scale tests, and there was growing acceptance of an other than .30 caliber rifle possibility. However the Garand rifle was also being improved, and the .30 caliber Garand Model 1924 (not the M1 Garand we know today) had been tested along with the .276 Pedersen.


In mid 1926 the Ordinance Committee directed that more testing was needed to determine if the .276 or the .30 was more desired. It also recommended the construction of "one caliber .30 semiautomatic rifle of Garands design".


But there was a problem, in 1925 the Army had changed the design of the 30-06 cartridge itself, now using a different powder and bullet. The new 30-06 moved a heavier bullet (172 grain vs 150 grain) at near the same velovity (2640 fps vs 2700 fps). This caused higher pressures and a different pressure curve, important features to an autoloader. And the Army moved to crimped primers, making the existing Garand design (a primer actuated mechanism) unreliable. The existing Garand design of 1924 was not suitable, and Garand basically started over.


In late 1927 a new rifle requirement was released, this one saying (of caliber) that "The rifle must be of a self-loading type adapted to function with cartridges of not less than .25 caliber or not greater than .30 caliber, of good military characteristics, and preferably to fire the US Cartridge, Caliber .30, Model of 1906". So they were officially considering sub caliber rounds, but still had a preference to the existing 30-06.


Around this time two other things happened, the Ordinance Committee recommended that a Garand rifle be built in .276, but in the .276 experimental cartridge of the Frankford Arsenal. This cartridge had a heavier bullet than the Pedersen .276. However the Garand was built in the standard .276 Pedersen cartridge. This rifle is the father of the M1 Garand that was to come a bit later, very close, in fact, except for caliber.


In 1928, 29, and 31 testing of rifles continued, now with some parties in the military leaning towards the .276, but still not willing to give up on the 30-06. The 1928 "Pig Board" test actually resulted in a recommendation that a .276 be adopted as the standard shoulder rifle cartridge. It should also be noted that they recommended for a cartridge that was virtually identical to the .276 Pedersen. The 1929 test ("Goat Board") found the .276 Garand and .276 Pedersen to be the superior rifles of the several tested. Note that no .30 caliber Garand was tested, but the board called for the resumption of development of that .30 claiber rifle, and basically stated that until such a rifle was available the board would not make a caliber decision.


The 1931 testing found that both the Pedersen and the Garand in .276 were excellent rifles, with the Garand the favored, but no recommendation to change the standard rifle caliber resulted. In Dec of 1931 the Chief of Infantry reported that "it is believed that no recommendation as to change in caliber should be made until it has been definitely settled by proper experimentation and test that it is impractical to produce, within the weight limit prescribed, a satisfactory caliber .30 semiautomatic shoulder rifle".


In 1932 it was recommended that over a hundred T3E2 .276 Garand rifles be procured for further testing, but that the development of a .30 caliber version should continue. Basically this ended things for the Pedersen rifle.



80 T1E2 .30 caliber Garand rifles were ordered in late 1932. While that batch was still being manufactured the designation was changed to "US Semiautomatic Rifle, Caliber .30, M1", and the M1 as we know it was born. The weapons were tested and changes recommended, and by late 1935 it was recommended for adoption. In early 1936 is was standardized as the weapon to replace the 1903 Springfield.



So the Americans did not go through a process of having a .276 rifle and change to .30 at the last minute. The US military wanted a .30 caliber (30-06) semiauto rifle from the start, but when that proved problematic they considered and tested smaller caliber rifles. Before the smaller caliber rifles were refined to acceptable levels and a caliber change decision was made, the technology caught up and a .30 caliber rifle in the desired cartridge became possible.


While I own several M1 Garands, in both 30-06 and 7.62 NATO (I am a sucker for .308 Garands), I would love to get my hands on a .276 Garand to add to the collection. However, since a nice one is going to cost on the far side of $30,000, and maybe in the six figures, that is not likely to happen.


T!

(edit) Sorry for the length of the post, I did not realize how long I was going until after I saw it once posted .

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Aug 9, 2016)

To my knowledge A Garand in .276 was chosen as winner in 1932 but a letter from MacArthur stated that .30 calibre has to be chosen due to logistics and so any trail with a .276 cartridge was total waste of time
They didn't specify cartridge but the .276 was favoured over the .30 and a .276 Garand won over the Pederson.

The French did field a semi in WW1 called the RSC M1917 in 8mm Lebel which was built in big numbers. Problem with Semi auto in this time frame is cost. In the great scheme of things, infantry rifles are well down the order so the fact bolt action rifles are still in use by WW2 is simply time and cost. The SVT 40 v Mosin in the USSR proves that.


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 9, 2016)

The Basket said:


> I have a soft spot for the MAS 36 so can't let that go! Why you think it's obsolete?
> Did the P14 and M1917 serve in the home guard in the UK in WW2? I find conflicting info on this.
> One can be controversial and say all bolt actions were obsolete by WW2 and self loaders should be standard issue. M1 is better than any bolt action. And I would wager no dissent on that.



The trouble with the MAS 36 was that it offered NO advance over the P14/M1917 despite being 20 years newer. Sight system may have had a very slight advantage in trained hands but ammo capacity, rate of fire, ease of handling and so on aren't much, if any different and in fact, aside from sights and a bent bolt handle show no improvement over 40 year old Mausers. It is one thing to keep an old bolt action rifle in production as an economy measure when you have existing tooling and existing (although reduced in number from war time) trained workers. Designing and building production tooling for a new rifle with such similar characteristics as the old rifles (aside from change in cartridge) was a waste of effort. At least make one with a larger magazine. The British had the 10 round magazine from the 1890s. 
The French LMG was only a bit better in firepower than the American BAR and nowhere near the firepower of the German MG 34 or the Bren gun (or it's Czeck predecessors) . The Americans were going for the semi-auto rifle to increase the squads firepower. The French had neither a high firepower machine gun or high firepower rifles.


----------



## yulzari (Aug 9, 2016)

The Basket said:


> Did the P14 and M1917 serve in the home guard in the UK in WW2? I find conflicting info on this.


The Pattern 1917 was a prime weapon of the Home Guard in .300 (.30-06) and the fore end carried a broad red painted stripe to indicate the ammunition. More than 800,000 were purchased. The Pattern 1914 was also issued but in lesser numbers. Both were progressively replaced by the SMLE as production increased later and also by the Sten SMG. For logistical reasons the desire was to eliminate the supply of .300 and non SMLE rifles. Not because of a shortage (armoured vehicles increasingly used the .300 Browning rather than the 7.92 BESA) but to allow just .303 and 9mm as ammunition within a given unit and common amoury support.


----------



## Token (Aug 9, 2016)

The Basket said:


> To my knowledge A Garand in .276 was chosen as winner in 1932 but a letter from MacArthur stated that .30 calibre has to be chosen due to logistics and so any trail with a .276 cartridge was total waste of time
> 
> They didn't specify cartridge but the .276 was favoured over the .30 and a .276 Garand won over the Pederson.




Between 1924 and 1932 a rifle in .276 caliber “won” tests several times, none of these wins resulted in serial production orders or a recommendation to change the standard shoulder rifle cartridge to .276 (one possible exception, in 1928, recommended adoption of the .276, but not replacement of the 30-06).


What test are you talking about in 1932 when the .276 Garand was “chosen”? The late 1931 test was published in 1932, and in this test the .276 Garand was the clear winner of that series of tests, the .30 caliber version still not being ready to compete (it suffered a broken bolt early in the test series). This win did not select the rifle as the next service rifle, but it would have made strong ammunition in such a selection.


I think the timeline is pretty clear and the quotes in my post on the subject are from documents of the day.


The US military wanted a semiauto rifle, and they wanted it only in 30-06. Technology did not support the fielding of any semiauto rifle meeting the original specifications, in any caliber. Eventually, to meet the weight requirement, the specifications were changed and a smaller caliber was allowed for, however the preferred caliber was still *stated* in the same document as 30-06. Some gun makers and designers, *not the military itself* (that could be an interesting point, as Garand was a civil servant working at a government facility), focused on smaller caliber weapons, specifically .276, to meet the requirement. Between the Pedersen and the Garand (both in .276) the Garand rose as the winner of testing in late 1931, remember that the .30 Garand broke in this testing. This testing resulted in the order of a small batch (about 125) of .276 Garands for further evaluation, however 30-06 was still the stated *preferred* cartridge to many in the military.


The last paragraph in the January 1932 report stating that the .276 Garand was the winner, and should be considered for adoption, said *“That pending the outcome of the extended service tests of the caliber .276 the development of a caliber .30 semiautomatic shoulder rifle be continued.”*


At this point, after extended testing, the .276 Garand might have eventually been ordered into serial production, and the US military shifted over to the .276 as a shoulder rifle cartridge. However, that recommendation never came.


In February of 1932 the Chief of Staff of the Army, General MacArthur, disapproved the potential change in caliber. For a variety of stated reasons, including existing “war accumulations” he directed that the .30 caliber version of the rifle be refined, and that 77 of them be produced for extended testing.


During all of this 12+ year cycle the 30-06 was the preferred cartridge in all of the requirements documents. On multiple occasions over that process the military said, in writing, that it would not consider changing to a different caliber than 30-06 until after a .30 caliber rifle had been matured to the point it could be compared to the .276.


Once it became apparent that a .30 caliber version of the Garand was feasible this is the rifle that was ordered into serial production, and became the standard shoulder rifle of US forces. Yes, MacArthur directed that the .30 caliber M1 be perfected, however all of the previous reports said essentially the same thing. MacArthur just eventually put his foot down and said “make it happen”, while all of the others danced around with legal verbiage. The letter making this happen was not actually from MacArthur, although it is well known he was the driving force behind it. Rather the letter was from the Secretary of War, Patrick Hurley, and signed by the Adjutant General, John Shuman (on 25 Feb, 1932).


T!


----------



## The Basket (Aug 9, 2016)

Er ...
If the US army wanted only 30 cal then why entertain Pedersen at all and why did Garand make a .276 rifle specifically for the reason to rival over the Pedersen? And at one point drop the 30 cal Garand? 
If the army wanted a 30 cal rifle only before 1932 they were testing an awful lot of .276 rifles for some reason. In your own reply you agree that the .276 Garand did win a limited production contract to build test rifles in 1932 which was then blasted by MacArthur for 30 cal only.
Why was the Pedersen confident his rifle would be chosen? Why was the Thompson rifle also tested in .276 Pedersen?


----------



## The Basket (Aug 9, 2016)

I agree the MAS 36 was obsolete but it was better than a Lebel.
The Madsen M47 was even worse!
But then again the 98k was the competition so the MAS 36 was perfectly ok for its time.


----------



## Token (Aug 9, 2016)

The Basket said:


> If the US army wanted only 30 cal then why entertain Pedersen at all and why did Garand make a .276 rifle specifically for the reason to rival over the Pedersen?




I thought I addressed that.


The US Army wanted a .30 caliber semiautomatic rifle in 30-06, that is clear by the stated preferences in all of the released specifications back to 1921. I quoted some of the pertinent wording in my first post. However rifle technology was not up to that yet. In around 1925 it became apparent that a rifle in 30-06 could not be made, with the firearms technology of the day, that would meet the specifications published.


After Pedersen had demonstrated his rifle, in .276 caliber, the military specifications for a new rifle were expanded to allow caliber from .25 to .30, prior to that date ONLY 30-06 had been allowed. The same specification document that now allowed .25 to .30 caliber stated in no uncertain terms that *30-06* was still the preferred cartridge. It said they would consider other calibers, but 30-06 was preferred.


Pedersens rifle, along with a few other sub-caliber rifles, showed promise, although they were not yet technically mature. Still, they were closer to done than 30-06 designs.


Garand developed the .276 rifle because of these reasons. If the Pedersen met the requirement with his .276, and Garand (Springfield Armory) showed up with a working .30 caliber rifle that did not meet the other requirements (such as weight or dependability), they would have lost without putting up a fight. Not only would it be easier to build a .276 rifle that met the requirement than to build one in 30-06, but to show up without a competitor to the Pedersen would give Pedersen an advantage. Ideally you would show to such a test with a rifle working in each .30 and .276 and allow the military to choose which it preferred.




The Basket said:


> And at one point drop the 30 cal Garand?




When did they (the military) drop the .30 Garand? Garand himself, and Springfield Armory, dropped the original 1924 .30 Garand (this is not the same deign that would become the M1) after the change in 30-06 ammunition specifications in 1925 made the 1924 primer actuated rifle unreliable. Whether he wanted to drop it or not did not matter, the 1924 Garand design no longer functioned well with the new crimped primer ammunition, and it is unlikely it ever would.


Sometime after that point Garand started over on both a new .30 design and a .276 design. A .30 Garand participated in the same set of 1931 testing that found the .276 Garand superior to the Pedersen, the test and report that might have eventually led to adoption of the .276 Garand. However the .30 Garand in this series of testing broke…because technology could not yet support this caliber in a light enough rifle to meet the spec.


Garand never abandon the idea of a .30 caliber rifle, but had to start over after 1925 (because of the ammo change) and had to pursue a .276 rifle as it was easier to meet the weight spec with such a rifle. Even if Garand was convinced he could make a .30 rifle and meet the weight spec, doing so in .276 would be quicker and easier. This meant that competitors would have an advantage in time and cost of development, unless he also delivered a .276 version.


As far as I know the 1929 test was the only one that did not include a .30 caliber Garand rifle. The 1924 design had proven unreliable in the 1928 test, and the new .30 caliber design (the same rifle as the .276 Garand, but in 30-06) was not yet ready.




The Basket said:


> If the army wanted a 30 cal rifle only before 1932 they were testing an awful lot of .276 rifles for some reason.




Because they needed a semi-auto rifle, and the .30 caliber offerings were not cutting it.


They tested the .276 rifles because that was what the rifle designers were submitting for tests, not because the military wanted .276. Designers were having an easier time making .276 work within the published performance specifications.


When you put out a spec like this you have to test all of the submitted examples that meet the specifications, even if you don’t really want them. To not include them in tests leaves you open to legal issues. So you test them all, and document what you do and do not like.


Regardless of if the military wanted 30-06 or not, the designers were submitting other than 30-06 designs for testing because the specification allowed it, and frankly the smaller caliber weapons were testing more dependable than the .30 caliber weapons. As I have said several times, the technology of the day was not up to using 30-06 and meeting the published specifications.




The Basket said:


> In your own reply you agree that the .276 Garand did win a limited production contract to build test rifles in 1932 which was then blasted by MacArthur for 30 cal only.




Over the years many rifles had won recommendations to procure small numbers for testing, and that is what happened with the .276 Garand. About 125 Garand rifles in .276 were recommended for further, extended, testing. The very same document recommended that the .30 caliber rifle continue to be improved. Earlier documents made it clear that no consideration to conversion to .276 (with any rifle) would be entertained until a .30 caliber rifle meeting the same spec could be tested against it.


And remember that MacArthur was not the only one in the military that wanted .30 caliber, but he had the horsepower to make it stick. He stated that even if it took a few more years before the 30-06 semiauto was operational it would be worth the wait.




The Basket said:


> Why was the Pedersen confident his rifle would be chosen? Why was the Thompson rifle also tested in .276 Pedersen?




He was convinced, even before the military changed the specs to allow sub .30 caliber weapons, that his rifle was better than the others. Inventors / developers tend to be that way, they think they have the answer, or their approach is better.


Back to the top. Pedersen original showed his rifle to the military because he was convinced that he could make it work and meet the specifications published (except the requirement to be in 30-06), while he believed (and testing was bearing him out) that a 30-06 rifle could not work. This is the same reason that almost all the makers went to .276 or some other sub .30 caliber round.


The weapon developers, not the military, were driving towards the .276 round because it was easier. The military was being dragged reluctantly as they came to realize the 30-06 rifle was further away in time. The .30 may have been what they wanted, but they had been looking at semiautomatic rifles for 12 years. MacArthur put his foot down and said, paraphrasing, that I don’t care if it is further away in time, it is what we need.


T!


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 9, 2016)

The Basket said:


> I agree the MAS 36 was obsolete but it was better than a Lebel.
> The Madsen M47 was even worse!
> But then again the 98k was the competition so the MAS 36 was perfectly ok for its time.



In the squad or platoon setting the Germans were depending on the Machine gun to be the main firepower. Once the MG 34 showed up it had roughly double the firepower of the French LMG ( the _practical _firepower being dependent on the ability to change barrels and the feed system) so the French were behind the curve on the LMG. So were many other countries but Germany was France's main enemy. The fact that the Italians or the Japanese or the Bulgarians didn't have better rifles and LMGs than the French doesn't really matter. Holding the Italians in the French Alps while Germany overran the rest of country wouldn't save them. 
The Germans could afford to have a less than 1st class rifle as they had a 1st class machine-gun. They were introducing the sub-machine gun in numbers. The Germans also didn't waste time/money developing a "new" functionally obsolete rifle. They did go to several less than ideal semi-automatic rifles in trial quantities around the start of the war. 
Granted tactics were in flux and many pre-war theories didn't work out in practice but the French rifle offered too few advantages over the old ones and certainly not enough to make up for the LMG.
British had a better combat rifle AND a Better LMG than the French, The quick change barrel on the Bren gun allowed for a much higher deliverable rate of fire (cycle rate actually has very little to do with deliverable firepower). 
Fitting the MAS 36 with a magazine system like the SMLE would have at least been some sort of improvement instead of holding onto the status quo.


----------



## The Basket (Aug 9, 2016)

From what I have read the .276 Garand was pushed and the .30 cal Garand was on the back burner about 1929.
Maybe I am reading it wrong but the .276 Garand was going to be selected in 1932 as the next battle rifle. It wasn't but it was very nearly.

The Pedersen lost out to the .276 Garand because of the waxy cartridge and more parts.

Again from what Ive read the .276 had its backers and it certainly had advantages but there was a massive issue in that you already had huge stocks of 30 cal plus BARs and M1917 and M1919 mgs and so even taking on the .276 would seem loony.

The .276 Garand would have been lighter better balanced less recoil and had 2 more rounds which is a win in my book. So with those advantages it not unreasonable to say the .276 could have worked very well.
The main advantage of the .30 or the 7.7 Japanese over the 6.5mm or .276 is that it will go through trees and other hard objects. 
So fighting in a forest or jungle or urban environment the bigger bullet gets your more penetrating power.


----------



## The Basket (Aug 9, 2016)

The infantry battle rifle is far less important than say having a nice shiny Spitfire so I would wager that had USA never had the Garand and only bolt action rifles the outcome would have been no different. The Carcano is another good example of a bland rifle doing a good job simply coz all a rifle has to do is go bang when you pull the trigger and throw lead at the enemy.
Hence why the SMLE was never replaced with another bolt action and the P13 is a history curio.


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 9, 2016)

Actually the best penetraters were the old fashioned heavy round nose bullets. 160 grain round nose 6.5mm bullets were famous for penetration. They just had miserable trajectories, in part due to the low velocities that went with them. Few people wanted to use the 220 grain round nose 30 cal bullets. (30-40 Krag and original .30-03). 
Armies even now struggle with using two different rounds in small units. The 5.56mm machine gun has pretty much gone away despite the introduction of longer, heavier bullets. Introducing 2 different rounds to the squad or platoon in the 1930s (pistol and sub-machine guns aside) probably wasn't going to happen. The US did get sucked into the .30 cal carbine thing a bit later but that was _intended _to be a replacement for pistols for non-combat troops or heavy weapons crews.


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 9, 2016)

The Basket said:


> The infantry battle rifle is far less important than say having a nice shiny Spitfire so I would wager that had USA never had the Garand and only bolt action rifles the outcome would have been no different. The Carcano is another good example of a bland rifle doing a good job simply coz all a rifle has to do is go bang when you pull the trigger and throw lead at the enemy.
> Hence why the SMLE was never replaced with another bolt action and the P13 is a history curio.



The US using bolt action rifles would have meant much higher US causalities vs the M1. The US troops being blessed/cursed with the BAR as a squad support weapon. It was a solid reliable weapon but it's ability to put out large volumes of fire was limited. With a fixed and probably too light barrel it was liable to overheating too quickly. The 20 round magazine was a minor limitation and the light weight meant less stability/accuracy for long rang fire. The US depended on the M-1 to make up the difference in firepower. At times it is about morale, convincing the enemy you can overpower him and force his withdrawal (or at least make him duck and stay down while your force advances and 6-8 guys with M-1s can certainly make a lot more noise than 6-8 guys with any kind of bolt action. 
Italians were screwed because they were in competition with the Japanese for worlds worst light machine gun of WW II (French won for WW I if not for all time although that is shared with the US for the US version of the French gun). Italians also only issued LMGs at about 1/2 the rate of other armies. one gun for two squads. Or one gun for around 20-22 men. Fortunately the Italian MMG and 81 mm mortar teams were skilled and helped make up the difference in larger battles. 
Much more credit should go to the Italian soldiers than is commonly given because of the 6 major Nations in WW II they had the widest variety of poor weapons in the infantry battalion. Bad hand grenades, poor pistols, a poor rifle (especially for desert use in the 7.35mm version), poor LMGs, mediocre MMG. Only their sub-machine guns and 81mm mortars were really world standard.

The SMLE, especially the No 4 MK I, was the high point of the bolt action combat rifle and needed replacement the least.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Aug 10, 2016)

BAR is certainly overrated but it was still useable although I wouldn't call it light!

The Krag shared a similar fate to the Enfield as that was done in by the 7mm Mauser although the Krag loading system was a pain.

The Garand was still a while away from being general issue especially for the Marines so they had to scrounge Johnsons to get some firepower 

Early Garand had the gas trap system which is flawed and later replaced with the gas port.

Anyhow....the Pedersen was toggle blowback which I doubt could have worked in .30 cal.and I do love a nice toggle action! Always thought the Johnson rifle looked a little flimsy ,for the exposed barrel and the short recoil mech would seem prone to fouling. 

Talking of firepower the Germans had the G43 which was flawed the FG42 which is my favourite although built in low numbers and of course the Sturmgewehr plus the MG42 so firepower was a 2 way street. 

I was going to mention that the 3 main Americam guns were the M1 rifle M1 Carbine amd Thompson so if the Americans were trying to avoid logistics issues with having too many calibres then they made a mess of that!


----------



## Token (Aug 10, 2016)

The Basket said:


> From what I have read the .276 Garand was pushed and the .30 cal Garand was on the back burner about 1929.
> 
> Maybe I am reading it wrong but the .276 Garand was going to be selected in 1932 as the next battle rifle. It wasn't but it was very nearly.




The .30 Garand was probably given less priority at SA because they knew they could not work all the bugs out before the test in 1929. As a business strategy you assess risk and assign priority to the most probable success. The .30 Garand model of 1924 faired poorly in the 1928 test, and the new .30 cal Garand was not ready for the testing in 1929.


The .276 Garand could not have been selected as the next Battle Rifle in 1932, short of a power like MacArthur directing it to happen. The report that identified it as a possible candidate, and that directed the procurement of 125 copies for extended testing, was published in early 1932. To deliver the weapons for testing would have taken months, possibly a year or more. The testing itself would have taken significant time. IF, and it is a very big if, the .276 Garand ended up being selected it would not have been before 1934, and I would bet later than that.


And this same report that recommended (it did not order or contract) those .276 test guns directed that the .30 caliber Garand should be refined, obviously even the people who gave the .276 Garand its best review still had hopes that the .30 caliber would work out.




The Basket said:


> Again from what Ive read the .276 had its backers and it certainly had advantages but there was a massive issue in that you already had huge stocks of 30 cal plus BARs and M1917 and M1919 mgs and so even taking on the .276 would seem loony.




The .276 backers were not in key decision making positions within the Army procurement system, or if they were they did not publish. Up until the day the .276 was killed every written specification I have seen said that the official policy of the military was that the 30-06 was the preferred round, if it was possible.




The Basket said:


> The .276 Garand would have been lighter better balanced less recoil and had 2 more rounds which is a win in my book. So with those advantages it not unreasonable to say the .276 could have worked very well.
> 
> The main advantage of the .30 or the 7.7 Japanese over the 6.5mm or .276 is that it will go through trees and other hard objects.
> 
> So fighting in a forest or jungle or urban environment the bigger bullet gets your more penetrating power.




The .30 Garand was the right choice. While the .276 may have turned out to be a great weapon (and the .30 M1 Garaand is historically proven to be such), the logistics tail required to support another round would have been large, all for one rifle. You can easily get away with this kind of thing for a secondary weapon, such as the M1 Carbine, but it is not preferable for your main combat rifle. Remember the number of other weapons using the 30-06 round, few if any of them would or could be converted to .276, especially before hostilities in Europe.


T!


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 10, 2016)

The Basket said:


> BAR is certainly overrated but it was still useable although I wouldn't call it light!



One of the main problems with LMGs in _delivering_ a large volume of fire was overheating the barrel. Cycle rate actually means next to nothing. Even water cooled tripod mounted guns were rated at 200rpm in sustained fire although they could a bit more if pressed. The LMGs with quick change barrels were good for around 120rpm. Without a quick change barrel you are down to 75-80rpm "sustained" although for very short periods of time or by seriously shortening the barrels life this can be exceeded. Before I get into arguments with M60 gunners these numbers are for WW II and before plain steel barrels. Plain includes alloys but NOT chrome plated bores or stellite inserts. To address the limited firepower of the BAR the US issued the M1919A6 Browning in limited numbers.





The troops were not fooled. At around 32lbs without ammo it wasn't a real LMG either. The barrel is only small portion of the overall weight of a LMG The M1922 Machine Rifle for the cavalry




went about 5lbs more than a M1918A2 BAR, a lot of it in the barrel for sustained fire. 



> The Krag shared a similar fate to the Enfield as that was done in by the 7mm Mauser although the Krag loading system was a pain.


Krag had a few other problems. My Grandfather had a sporterized Krag with .25 cal Niedner Barrel. It was a fine hunting rifle. But a single locking lug and case hardened receivers meant trouble was not far away if you pushed things. My Grandfather didn't. There are reasons that even two lug rifles had 3rd safety lugs back around WW I, poor heat treatment from batch to batch meant they were never sure when a bolt might depart the gun at high speed. 



> Talking of firepower the Germans had the G43 which was flawed the FG42 which is my favourite although built in low numbers and of course the Sturmgewehr plus the MG42 so firepower was a 2 way street.


The FG 42 was an interesting concept and an ingenious design but a weapon that light firing full power cartridges was a bit much to control in full auto fire. 



> I was going to mention that the 3 main Americam guns were the M1 rifle M1 Carbine amd Thompson so if the Americans were trying to avoid logistics issues with having too many calibres then they made a mess of that!



What was intended and what wound happening in war time aren't always the same thing. The US already had two calibers in the Platoon/company in 1918. The 30-06 for rifles and whatever LMG they had and the .45 ACP for the pistols. Pistols being issued not only to officers but the weapons crews including the gunner and possibly the assistant gunner of tripod mounted machine guns. At Battalion level the Pistols were issued to mortar crews and whatever other artillery may have been at battalion level. 37mm infantry guns? Granted Sub machine guns called for a much greater quantity of ammunition than the pistols. 

Every army in the world had pistols so the US was certainly no different in that regard. Scale of issue of pistols may have been larger in the US as in many other armies the pistols tended to be officers only or for special duties (tank crew) where even those sawed off rifles some countries were so fond of were too big. 

The .30 cal Carbine was _intended_ to be a replacement for the pistol for the secondary troops. The gun crews, communications, cooks, truck drivers and others that had been issued pistols and whose jobs would prevent or be hindered by carrying a full sized rifle. It did tend to take on a life of it's own but in some cases it was more of a sub-machine gun replacement than battle rifle rifle replacement/substitute.


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 10, 2016)

One of the requirements that lead to the .276 cartridge was the army wanted the new semi-automatic rifle to weigh as close to 8 lbs as possible and not to exceed 8 1/2 lbs. The 30-06 Grand misses by at least a full pound. 
This was one of the things that held up the adoption of semi-automatic rifles in many countries. Unrealistic requirements for the new rifle compared to the old ones. 

The Army would also not be happy trying to convert their existing machine guns to to .276 as you have not only the physical work/cost but you have a tremendous loss of capability. The US actually had two different .30-06 cartridges, The rifle round for the M1 was supposed to be the 150-152 grain flat based bullet at 2800fps and a max range of 3450 yds. The round for the machine guns was a 174 grain boat tail at around 2650fps and had a max range of 5500yds. In practical use the ranges were much shorter but the boat tail round did add over a thousand yds to the practical range of the machine guns. 
Both rounds could be safely fired in either type of gun and sights could be adjusted to suit so the supply problem would rarely be an emergency as long as some rounds of either type were available. 
The .276 didn't have the long range capability of the .30-06 and would never have been adopted as a machine gun round at the time.


----------



## The Basket (Aug 10, 2016)

Remember that the Garand was redesigned in 1940 to rid the gas trap.
So no rush. 
Next question.
How was the Pedersen cartridge waxed? Was every round waxed? Did that add extra time and cost? I hear the wax was solid and not wet so less likely to pick up dirt. Wouldn't the wax foul the barrel? Why not use an oiler? 
I bet the Army would have been very unenthusiastic as soon as the waxing idea came about as it adds cost and complexity to it all.


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 10, 2016)

It was hard wax applied at the factory but hard is a relative term. Hard at 15 C or hard at 38 C?
another key point is "less likely". Even bare brass can pick up some dirt in certain circumstances so anything that picks up dirt is suspect.
A number of machine guns used in WW II had problems with primary extraction and had oil pumps built in that would squirt a bit of oil on the cartridge as it entered the chamber as this was judged less of an evil than carrying loaded magazines/feed strips with pre-oiled cartridges. However oilers present their own problems, First you have to have oil at the gun position. 2nd was that oiling was never as precise as desired, usually that meant extra oil and soon the breech area of the gun was well coated with oil and dirt so there was a fair chance of the dirt making it in anyway. Not to mention a haze of smoke/vaporized oil around the action in prolonged firing.
Use of oilers and lubricated cartridges was to get around a problem with primary extraction. In a gun like the M1 the bolt turns a bit while moving back slowly, breaking the cartridge case free from the chamber walls. The caming effect of the bolt lugs riding in the lug recesses give a fair amount of leverage. This is the primary extraction, the first few millimeters of case movement. Once the lugs are free the bolt movement rearward speeds up considerably and the extraction is completed.
Some guns used a different method of changing the speed of the bolt from the first few mm of movement to the speed needed for the rest of the stroke.
Some did not and they had the most problems. Either the cartridge failed to extract and the bolt stayed forward resulting in much cursing and banging of hands, rocks and boot heels on the operating handle or the bolt went to the rear tearing away part of the rim and leaving the case in the chamber leading to even more cursing and cleaning rods being jammed down barrels with prayers of "don't bend!" directed at the appropriate deity.
Worst was the rear of the cartridge going back with the bolt and leaving the front part of the cartridge (now a tube) stuck in the chamber.
This called for the maximum quality and quantity of cursing, possible dismantling of the gun and the application of a spit case remover/broken shell extractor.
Please remember that the gun is more than likely extremely hot and the Indians are coming over the hill (apologies to native Americans).

Guns with quick change barrels had the luxury of simply changing barrels and continue firing while an assistant gunner ( rifleman from squad) worked on the stuck case. In some cases pouring water on the end of barrel might cool things enough to help un-stick things.


----------



## The Basket (Aug 10, 2016)

One oiler gun I have always like is the Japanese Type 92 hmg.
This is an example of what exactly is considered good or bad.
The calibre conundrum is still alive today with 5.56mm so if the Army of the 1930s were having kittens over the .276 over the long range .30 they would have wept over the 5.56x45mm lol.


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 10, 2016)

During the 70s and 80s there were all manner of 5.56x45mm machine guns offered for sale. And plenty of discussion about them. The US bought into the concept with the M249 in 1984 and the weapon was probably quite useful in jungle, forest or urban environments. Of course just 6-7 years later they were in the 1st Gulf war and it didn't look quite so good. The war in Afghanistan saw armories being scoured for for old 7.62X51 weapons after a few years. 
How successful some weapons are depends a lot on the environment they are used in. 
The .276 had a lot more range than the 5.56x45mm but then a lot of the combat support modern troops take for granted didn't exist in the 1930s. A machine gun company was common in many between the wars battalions and constituted the battalions long fire and organic support. the 3in-81 mortar was slowly introduced but actual experience with using the mortars as support was mostly theoretical. 
Field phones and radios were not common and artillery wasn't really on call in the way it would be in WW II (at least the later years of WW II) 
Pre WW I was even worse. Pre WW I an infantry battalion had it's rifles. It had Bayonets, It had the officers pistols and if lucky, it might have had four Machineguns as a general rule of thumb. Some US battalions had four Benet-Mercie machine rifles or Lewis guns. 
No Hand Grenades, no mortars, no organic artillery (regiment _might _have something depending on army) and the signals unit used flags and pigeons so calling in artillery wasn't really an option unless the high command really approved. Picking a good rifle was very important but few countries had any real experience. Shooting up natives in Africa or Asia could only point out the most basic faults. 
Nationalism was rampant and NIH was widespread in most of Europe, at least to the extent of picking different cartridges if they they didn't have the capacity to design their own rifle ( or were smart enough to just copy the Mauser rather than re-invent the club). 
The same pretty much went for machine guns. From about 1890 to 1914 it was pretty much a free-for-all as designers practically fell from the trees offering new guns. By 1919 it was a _LOT _clearer what worked and what didn't but many countries were stuck with large amounts of surplus weapons and tight budgets. 
How much nationalism and NIH counted in the 1930s I don't know but many countries went that way instead of adopting better weapons that already existed. The Hotchkiss and it's clones may have been decent weapons were hardly first rate. The Poles got a few batches of them in the 20s and by the early 30s they were cloning the Browning. The Swedes also built Brownings as did FN in Belgium for sales to small countries. The Maxium/Vickers were a better gun although heavy. An 

AN _honest _test/evaluation should have weeded out some the turkeys (junk) but apparently there was same graft/corruption going on.


----------



## The Basket (Aug 11, 2016)

So what went wrong?
Why has the 7.62 made an appearance? Why are M14 clones back? It's not like warfare is new and the technology is years old. Maybe the P14 will make a comeback as armies realises that a powerful cartridge fired accurately at long distance does have it's advantages.
The modern assault rifle replaced the sub machine gun and the rifle and was supposed to have the advantage of both. Although it also had the disadvantage of both.
Too short range for a battle rifle and too big and unwieldy for a SMG.


----------



## tyrodtom (Aug 11, 2016)

Whenever possible you have to suit the weapon to the present battlefield, but what do you do when you have two radically different battlefield situations goin on at the same time ?

What's usually the best weapon for most situations in Iraq isn't the best weapon for most situations in Afghanistan.

You could have a mix of weapons within each platoon, and vary that mix for different areas, but then you introduce the supply problem of different calibers, plus the training problem of training each man well for different weapons.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 11, 2016)

The Basket said:


> So what went wrong?
> Why has the 7.62 made an appearance? Why are M14 clones back? It's not like warfare is new and the technology is years old. Maybe the P14 will make a comeback as armies realises that a powerful cartridge fired accurately at long distance does have it's advantages.
> The modern assault rifle replaced the sub machine gun and the rifle and was supposed to have the advantage of both. Although it also had the disadvantage of both.
> Too short range for a battle rifle and too big and unwieldy for a SMG.



What went wrong was that instead of the modern battles/wars being fought on an "average" battle ground were something like 97-98% of all rifle fire was at 400 meters or less and 50% of all machine gun fire was at ranges over 400 meters ( we already have a disconnect in using the same cartridge for both roles) the major battles/wars are/were fought at the extremes.
Urban combat in cities with ranges well under 200 meters on average and rural combat in arid conditions with very little vegetation to block sight lines and engagements at 600-1000 meters at times. 
Some people have suggested that small units in armies have a "golf bag" of weapons. Nobody tries to play golf with just a 4 iron. 
Special forces units do use this concept to some degree, picking weapons and weapons mix to suit the mission but as tryodtom has pointed out, this is hardly practical for an entire army.

The old bolt actions are not coming back because they offer no practical advantages over the new bolt actions or new semi-automatic rifles. What is expected from new sniper rifles (or designated marksman rifles) is well beyond what the old, out of the box rifles were capable of. While _good _gunsmiths can certainly improve the old rifles it is labor intensive. Modern rifles are easier to work on and many of the rifles built in the last 20 years or so were built to higher standards on CNC machines and need a lot less re-working to true up even if fitted with new barrels. Making new tooling to make P-14s when you can get better actions of the shelf makes no sense. 
Unfortunately we have also fallen into the same situation as what happened between the wars. Not enough money to throw everything out and start over. Which is why things like the 6.8 SPC and near clones popped up. Existing rifles could be converted with just new barrels and magazines, magazines would fit in existing magazine well.


----------



## gjs238 (Aug 11, 2016)

Take a look at US combat pistols.

The M1873 Colt Single Action Army revolver in caliber .45 Colt was in service 1873–1892.
The military "modernized" and "upgraded" to the Colt M1892 revolver in caliber .38 Long Colt.

When fighting Muslim fanatics (Moro guerrillas) during the Philippine–American War the Colt M1892 and .38 Long Colt were found to be under powered. Surprise surprise.
So the M1873 single-action revolver/.45 Colt were dusted off and returned to service.

These events led to the adoption of the M1911 semi-automatic pistol in caliber .45 ACP.

In 1982 the US military again "modernized" and "upgraded" to the Beretta M9 semi-automatic pistol in caliber 9×19mm Parabellum.
Many law enforcement agencies followed suit.

History repeats itself.
Many law enforcement agencies found the 9mm to be under powered and switched to pistols in .40 S&W.
Specialized military units continued using .45 ACP and more are switching back.

A similar roller coaster ride can be seen in the evolution of US military long guns as well.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 11, 2016)

A difference between military and police is that the military has to use "solid" bullets, ie non-expanding while the police do not. 
However many police chiefs and officers are NOT weapons experts and tend to follow trends rather than do actual research. 
During the switch to the 9mm for police use it became "fashionable" to copy what the US Special forces (and foreign special forces) were using for ammo. After all, _if it's good enough for DELTA FORCE it should be good enough for the West Barkleyville township Police Dept.
_
Unfortunately what the special forces were using were 147 grain bullets at subsonic velocities (around 950fps) for silenced submachine guns for sentry elimination. A task NO police dept was faced with. Even substituting hollow points didn't help much as at the time jacket construction was such that at velocities much below 900fps expansion became problematic (iffy). Why a 158 grain bullet of .358 diameter at 855fps was totally obsolete while a 147 grain bullet of .355 diameter at 950fps was the answer to all policemen's prayers has always mystified me.

Some Police depts used lighter bullets at higher velocities and may have been more satisfied with the results using expanding bullets. 
Not to say they didn't switch later to the .40 but comparing police and Military use is difficult.


----------



## The Basket (Aug 11, 2016)

Odd. We have come full circle. The P13 was deliberately chosen for long range accurate target shooting. Because the Boers were showing the way. 
On a dry veldt let's take the P13. 
Oh mud and rain and trenches? Er....you never fight the war you plan for.
I sincerely doubt a rifle can ever be built that can shoot targets 1km away and then can be used in CQB like a Sten.
The Arisaka got around that by having a chuffing huge bayonet for close ups and of course a rifle is made of wood so use it as a club.
Size of rifle is important as can't be too heavy and has to fit into a jeep or helicopter. Something Mauser was not aware of! So bullpup or folding collapsing stock?
The best option is M16 for ranges of 3cm to 300 metres and designated marksman for 800 metres carrying M14/Dragunov semi auto. Hmm just described the Soviet order of things.
An individual soldier would have to carry a M9, HK5, M16,M14 and Remington Model 700 in backpack plus the different ammo to meet all the varied scenario he may encounter.

I do find it quite odd that the P14 would beat any modern assault rifle in long distance sniping. Shows that the old guys didn't need computer aided design and carbon composite to blow a hole in your targets noggin.


----------



## herman1rg (Aug 11, 2016)

Shortround6 said:


> There were two different .276 cartridges. A not uncommon event. The number of 7.62mm cartridges is astounding.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Are you going to name them all?


----------



## Token (Aug 12, 2016)

herman1rg said:


> Are you going to name them all?




My guesses at what these cartridges are, there are 2 that could be several possible cartridges each, so I am not trying to guess them, there are 3 I have no idea on. There are 17 shown, starting from the left in the image:

1. .276 Enfield Pattern 13
2. 6.5 x 50SR Arisaka
3. .276 Pedersen
4. Some kind of 6.8
5. .280 British
6. Unk possible 6 or 6.25mm?
7. Unk possible 6 or 6.25mm?
8. Unk possible 6mm?
9. 7.62 NATO
10. 5.56 NATO
11. 6.8 SPC
12. 6.5 Grendel
13. Unk possible 7mm
14. 7.62 x 54R
15. 7.62 x 39
16. 5.45 x 39
17. 5.8 x 42 Chinese ?

T!


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 12, 2016)

Token said:


> My guesses at what these cartridges are, there are 2 that could be several possible cartridges each, so I am not trying to guess them, there are 3 I have no idea on. There are 17 shown, starting from the left in the image:
> 
> 1. .276 Enfield Pattern 13
> 2. 6.5 x 50SR Arisaka
> ...


Thank you and very good. The caption says 
4. .270 British or _(6.8x46)_
6. _6.25mm British prototype (6.25x43)_
7. _6.25mm British proposed (6.25x46)
8. 6mm SAW (6x45) _Squad Automatic Weapon, Experimental back in the 70s for a light machine gun round to supplement or replace the 5.56.
13. _7mm UIAC (7x46)
_
All other identifications are correct.


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 12, 2016)

The Basket said:


> Odd. We have come full circle. The P13 was deliberately chosen for long range accurate target shooting. Because the Boers were showing the way.



Problem comes in that the Boers had a high percentage of hunters/marksmen and this is a real consideration when _planning _rifle selection. Just like not all fighter pilots are equal not all soldiers are equal marksmen, especially with the rather dismal amount of marksmanship training _most _soldiers get/got. 



> I sincerely doubt a rifle can ever be built that can shoot targets 1km away and then can be used in CQB like a Sten.
> The Arisaka got around that by having a chuffing huge bayonet for close ups and of course a rifle is made of wood so use it as a club.


 1st part is right but the second is rather iffy. Long bayonets look good in a group (bring back the Greek phalanx?) and according to wiki " The design was intended to give the average Japanese infantryman a long enough reach to pierce the abdomen of a cavalryman" sicking this thing on longer than average Japanese rifle actually gave the Japanese soldier a rather clumsy weapon for really close quarters work unless they dismounted it and used it as a short sword. 



> Size of rifle is important as can't be too heavy and has to fit into a jeep or helicopter. Something Mauser was not aware of! So bullpup or folding collapsing stock?


Hold that thought



> The best option is M16 for ranges of 3cm to 300 metres and designated marksman for 800 metres carrying M14/Dragunov semi auto. Hmm just described the Soviet order of things


.
Actually the M16 using 62 grain bullets can extend it's range a bit. Problem here is that M16s are getting more than bit scarce as it was thought that their 20" barrels were too long to fit into jeeps/helicopters and they were replaced with M4s with 14.5" barrels which cost a few hundred FPS in velocity. Want to trying firing a .276 British with a 14.5in barrel? At night? 



> I do find it quite odd that the P14 would beat any modern assault rifle in long distance sniping. Shows that the old guys didn't need computer aided design and carbon composite to blow a hole in your targets noggin.


 Yep and the Model T Ford was a better car than post 2000 Honda Accord too 

First you need soldiers that can actually HIT a man sized target at over 400yds with a single shot from a rifle (any rifle). This is rarer than you might think outside of elite units. 2nd is that standards of accuracy have changed. I would like to compare actual test results and .not statements like " it was considered to be an accurate rifle" which actually says almost nothing except the rifle wasn't junk.
3rd try comparing the sights. The P-14 had no windage adjustment. In a cross wind the rifleman had to estimate how far off target to point the rifle to compensate for the wind. A _SKILLED _rifleman with an M-16 or M4 can twist a knob dial in a correction and then put his front sight right on the target. 

As a personal note I was an active competitive shooter (sometimes 3 clubs at once) from my late teens to my late 50s and include several matches of a state militia team I was a member of against state/unit National Guard teams They lost all but one match and usually badly. I also knew a number of members of the Connecticut State National Guard team back in the 70s and 80s and what they could do with M16s was amazing, however they were also the champion National Guard team at the All Army Annual matches for a number of years and usually beat whatever regular army teams were put up against them. So you have what the gun could do (from a mechanical stand point)(or selected guns) vs what the vast majority of men issued the gun could do with it. Some guns are easier to use than others but that is a huge consideration in evaluating all small arms.


----------



## The Basket (Aug 12, 2016)

Of course the vast majority of soldiers in the world today are conscripts who would rather be somewhere else and even the bulk of professional armies are cooks and suppliers and techs who are not front line so their sharpshooting is not ideal either. 
My military service was done using a bullpup. A few years earlier it would have been the SMLE or SLR or Sterling. The SLR was a genuine contender for long range but was long and unwieldy hence the Sterling.

The Arisaka design is pretty old so the idea of using the bayonet as anti Calvary makes perfect sense. Calvary was still considered a viable weapon even when the type 38 was new. The Johnson rifle was not considered due to bayonet issues... allegedly although the Johnson came too late. Whether it's genuine military doctrine or some old duffers pretending to romanticise the past the rifles of WW1 came from the late 1800s and were still in service WW2 so the bayonet was still a major concern.

It's said the AK is not a replacement for a Mosin but a replacement for the PPSh 41. No 1 km range needed.

The bayonet is certainly no longer a consideration as it was years ago. the bayonet on the SA80 was tiny and made of some awful metal that easily snapped. Also the weapon wasn't robust so doing the clubbing with it would result in a broken gun. 

I sincerely doubt the AK or AR15 platforms will be replaced by a similar weapon. Too expensive for a few percent better. Until the advent of directed energy weapons although if Star Wars has taught us anything it has taught us that large imperial forces can't shoot straight with them either.


----------



## The Basket (Aug 13, 2016)

I got me an idea.

How to make a short manageable rifle into a big long range rifle.
Interchangeable barrels! Genius.
U is in an urban environment in a jeep or the jungle so you keep your 9 inch barrel for close engagement.
Then once on the plains bring the 29 incher out for those 1km moments.

I haven't decided on the calibre or type but I suspect a .276 round would suffice. This must have been tried.....surely?

I know soldiers are forgetful and may lose a barrel or too. But it surely has merit


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 13, 2016)

Not quite the same but:






With optical sights the idea has some merit, with iron sights it gets harder. 
And the ammo is going to give you real problems. Powder that gives the best results in a 29 in barrel is going to blowing out the muzzle of a 9 in barrel partial unburnt. Huge muzzle flash and large velocity variation. Best powder for a 9in barrel doesn't really need a 29in barrel. Velocity gain in the last several inches will be minimal. Different loads will not work well because in a gas operated rifle you will have different pressures at the gas port. See problems with the SR80 for an example. 
Target shooters love long barrels because of the distance between the sights. However long barrels can have whip or increase barrel time(time bullet spends in the bore after trigger is pulled. Hot modern set up is a shorter, stiffer barrel with a 2-8in extension tube to hold the front sight, commonly called "bloop tube" 




Use of optical sights removes need for long sight radius.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Aug 14, 2016)

The length of the barrels would have to be tested both short and long to see which is best.
The cartridge also.
The TERA rifle of the Arisaka would be an interesting starting point plus the AUG which also has an easily removed barrel.
Of course using a weaker round for SMG and a more stout round for distance would be preferable but now we are going too far as this means 2 different rounds with the logistics to go with it. Plus more parts to lose. So an intermediate round like the Carcano 6.5mm or smaller would be chosen. Again trial and error. 

The rifle is a battlefield rifle so accuracy only has to be adequate at distance.


----------



## Elvis (Feb 5, 2017)

The Basket said:


> So why wasn't the P14 kept o. If the plan was to replace the SMLE?
> Why wasn't the P13 picked up again after the war if the .276 cartridge was a good idea?
> Why did the Enfield 1917 not replace the Springfield in American service after the war if it was more numerous?
> Seemed that both the P14 and the M1917 Enfield disappeared even thought it merited better


Well, not in the military, but in the public sector, the P17 (or a version of it, anyway) soldiered on as the Remington Model 30 for many years.


----------

