# Rifles and Machineguns of WW2



## CharlesBronson (Mar 10, 2005)

A nice video of the legendary Browning cal .50


----------



## CharlesBronson (Mar 10, 2005)

The flashes you can see in the impact zone, are caused by the use of incendiary ammo.


----------



## Brunner (Mar 22, 2005)

I'm only testing my profile


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 22, 2005)

Not a bad one Brunner!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 22, 2005)

very nice.........


----------



## Brunner (Mar 22, 2005)

Thx guys, but tell me one thing. Why, the hell, my signature pic isn't visible? I uploaded a pic to the album and got its URL, typed it in the signature box and..... nothing, it drives me MAD


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 22, 2005)

Its working fine now 8)


----------



## Brunner (Mar 22, 2005)

at last


----------



## trackend (Mar 27, 2005)

I like it Brunner, just one suggestion perhaps your handle in small writing above the starboard wing. what do you think?


----------



## CharlesBronson (Mar 27, 2005)

Hmmmm.....back on topic boys


MG-42 speaking loud.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Apr 22, 2005)

Sturmgewerh STG 44 in action ¡¡


----------



## Nonskimmer (Apr 23, 2005)

Not bad. 
Is that first one the MG42 or the more modern MG3? Basically the same machine gun, but the MG3 is calibred to 7.62mm NATO standard, and the wooden stock has been replaced with a black plastic one. I was trying to tell by the ammo belt, but I couldn't really.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Apr 23, 2005)

Its a MG-42, the MG-3 has a heavier bolt ans it shoot at an very slower rate.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Apr 23, 2005)

Slower? The rate of fire is about the same between the two. Maximum rate of fire is approximately 1200rpm, but I'll take your word for it. 

I was just curious, is all. Thanks.


----------



## elmilitaro (May 18, 2005)

Hey I think Nonskimmer is right it was preety much the same.


----------



## Douglas Jr. (May 24, 2005)

Hi,

You are right: the main difference between the MG42 and the new MG3 is the rate of fire. The WWII gun was capable to fire at 1.200 rpm rate.

Douglas.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Douglas Jr. (May 24, 2005)

And here is a nice picture of the old and nice MG42 during the lunch break! 8) 

Wishes,

Douglas.


----------



## Nonskimmer (May 24, 2005)

No, the rate of fire is approximately the same between the two. The only significant difference is a _slight_ reduction in calibre for the MG3. The earlier MG34 had a slower max rate of fire of around 750-800 rpm.


----------



## trackend (May 25, 2005)

A machine gun linked more with WW1 that was used considrably in WW2 was the Old US designed Lewis gun speaking to some body who actually used one in anger he said that apart from a few stoppage problems he found it a pretty good weapon as it only weighed 12 kg it could be fired from the hip. On D-day as a group of LCA's approached the beach a Spandau open fire on the eight landing craft, immediatley all eight boats emptied their pans of ammo at the pill box slit. With a quite reasonably 600 round per minute rate of fire and 97 round magazines fitted nearly 800 bullets peppered the slit in just over 6 seconds The MG42 ceased firing.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 25, 2005)

yes it truely is one of the great weapons, along witha personal favourite of mine, the bren gun, smaller magazine but much lighter and a truely great weapon..........


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 25, 2005)

Great pic Douglas Jr.! 8) I love the MG42.


----------



## trackend (May 25, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> yes it truely is one of the great weapons, along witha personal favourite of mine, the bren gun, smaller magazine but much lighter and a truely great weapon..........


The Bren was a very good weapon as you say Lanc in my opinion much better than the BAR and very accurate when used in only short few round bursts


----------



## Douglas Jr. (May 25, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> yes it truely is one of the great weapons, along witha personal favourite of mine, the bren gun, smaller magazine but much lighter and a truely great weapon..........



Oh yeah! The Bren is a very nice weapon and a modern version of it was used even during the Falklands War (1982) - I think it is called L1A1, but I´m not sure. But remember: its design is based on the Czech machine gun ZB26 / ZB 30.

Douglas.


----------



## plan_D (May 25, 2005)

The Bren Gun was the most accurate LMG of the war. They had to off-set the barrel to stop all the rounds hitting in the same place, the gun would strafe itself. 

It was heavier than the BAR but in the cartridge it carried 30 rounds instead of 20. It was also a better support weapon because of a sturdier support. 

The Bren was also extremely effective when used from the hip in the jungle.


----------



## BombTaxi (May 25, 2005)

The Bren used in the Falklands, and allegedly in Desert Storm too was chambered for 7.62mm NATO ammunition and designated L4A1. However, they were used in small numbers as the L7A1 GPMG was the favorite of troops in the field. To this day, the Gimpy is the only belt-fed, sustained-fire weapon to be issued to British infantry.


----------



## plan_D (May 25, 2005)

I have a picture of my dad on one of them in the Gulf. But I don't have a fuck-in' scanner!


----------



## trackend (May 26, 2005)

Got a mate at work in the TA who used one in Iraq he quite liked the gimpy.

Found these pic of an GPMG and a L4A1
_image co modernarms.com_


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jun 2, 2005)

Finnish antitank rifle Lathi L-39 cal 20mm ( 20x138b, the same of 2cm Flak 30/38 )


----------



## P38 Pilot (Jun 20, 2005)

I think the best rifle and best sub-machine gun used in the U.S Army, marines, ect. had to be the M1Garand and Thompson! M1 Garand using the good ol' .30 cal while the Tommy gun use the traditonal .45 cal slug! Whenever i watch a movie like Band of Brothers, Saving Private Ryan, Patton, Sands of Iwo Jima, Windtalkers, etc., i always love to see those guns giving the Germans or Japanese a run for their money!


----------



## trackend (Jun 21, 2005)

I think your right about the Tommy gun P38 the British preferred it too The British Sten gun was made as cheap as possible. at the time it was costing 12s6d to produce which is 75p or a little under a $1 in todays money problem was it was unreliable and used a heavy shock activated bolt with a floppy spring and it was possible to fire off a round by banging the butt on the ground.
The Thompson was a much more refined weapon as for the Grand it was undoubtedly a good rifle but let down to a certian degree by a small clip size this reduced its rate of fire considrably due to the constantant requirement to reload I think the M! carbine was a more advanced weapon.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 21, 2005)

The only defining feature of the M1 Garand was the semi-automatic ability of it. It lacked the stopping power, accuracy and range of standard British and German bolt action rifles. 

The clip wasn't small; it carried 8 rounds but it couldn't be reloaded mid-clip. The Lee Enfield Mk.IV was one of the best rifles of the war, it wasn't revolutionary but it was a good solid build and would easily stop someone in one shot. 

The German K98 was another great rifle, comparable to the Lee Enfield. The Gewher 43 was a semi-automatic rifle used by the German forces but I don't know how it performed. And of course, the Stg.44 the most most weapon personal firearm to come forth from World War 2; the assault rifle. 

Best fixed position LMG - MG42. Best squad support LMG - Bren. Best sub-machine gun - Thompson or MP40. Best rifle - K98 or Lee Enfield, although you have to give the Mosin Nagnant some credit. Best Assault Rifle, well there was only one the Stg.44!


----------



## trackend (Jun 21, 2005)

I put it badly D sorry I meant small as in for a semi automatic as you tend to get through rounds at a fair rate of knots for the Sub Id always pick the Tommy gun the .45 rounds used where not very far from dum dum with there very thin copper sheath even a hit in the arm will blow big lumps off Ideal for building/room clearance I don't think the Schmisser,s 9mm had the same stopping power. I go with you on the Bren almost as accurate as a rifle in the right hands.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 21, 2005)

and of course you'd have one hell of a struggle trying to get past a good soldier with a Lee Enfeild No.4............


----------



## plan_D (Jun 21, 2005)

The MP40 didn't have as much kick as the Thompson in sustained fire, I think 9 mm would do enough damage to stop people especially in close quarters room combat. It also packed a whole TWO more rounds.


----------



## wmaxt (Jun 21, 2005)

plan_D said:


> The MP40 didn't have as much kick as the Thompson in sustained fire, I think 9 mm would do enough damage to stop people especially in close quarters room combat. It also packed a whole TWO more rounds.



The .45 was created after the US fought the Phillipenoes in the first few years of the 20th century. The .38 (Virtualy the same as a 9mm) could not stop the attackers and their bambo armor. The .45 could knock them down anyway.

In the '80s the FBI went from the 45 to the 9mm. When they did they found the stopping power reduced to the point that people they had shot several times were shooting back and killing agents, they created the .40 calibre (they were too embarassed to admit they made a mistake by going back to the 45).

wmaxt


----------



## plan_D (Jun 21, 2005)

The MP-5 is one of the best, if not the best, SMGs in the world today, it is 9 mm. It will practically cut anyone in half. The MP40 packed 32 9 mm rounds, now I don't know about you but I wouldn't want someone pointing one of those things at me. 

If you burst into a room with a MP40 and unload that entire clip, I will safely say you'll probably drop at least 4 or 5 people in the room, if not more.


----------



## Wildcat (Jun 22, 2005)

What about the good old Vicker's Machine gun? How did it compare to the MG42 or the US 30 Cal. ?


----------



## plan_D (Jun 22, 2005)

It was a sturdy and reliable gun, I'd say equal to the US .30 but inferior to the MG42.


----------



## trackend (Jun 23, 2005)

The Vickers was an old weapon by ww2 but as you say D very reliable by using water cooling it could maintain continuous firing for long periods with out problems. 
The problem with all high rate of fire weapons like the (excellent)MG42 is the amount of ammunition that they use.
In ww2 for example it is forgotten that transport was not all by truck or half-track most squaddies walked everywhere 
Troops even in blitzkrieg walk into battle this means all the ammo and equipment has to be carried. some times a high rate of fire is not always an advantage especially if your the poor mug who has to hump the stuff about.
The H&K MP5 is a good weapon but you cant compare a 1920's weapon with a modern firearm as I said the Schmisser lacked the hitting power compared to the Thompson the other problem with the Schmisser is its a machine pistol with only a rudimentary skeleton stock this makes accuracy of any sort very poor.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jun 26, 2005)

Panzer-terror in action.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 26, 2005)

Nice 8)


----------



## trackend (Jun 26, 2005)

I can tell you now a good film when you see it CC Bullit is a classic and the music is so cool.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 26, 2005)

Definately! 8)


----------



## P38 Pilot (Jun 27, 2005)

I dont know about the vickers. It was a great machine gun to lay down fire with but i would got with the M2 Browning or the German MG42 anytime. The Scmessier (Mp40) seemed like a good submachine gun to use but like I posted earlier I would prefer the Tommy Gun anyday. But back to the MG42, its rate of fire was so deadly that soldiers were being taught how to get down when they heard the sound!


----------



## plan_D (Jun 27, 2005)

The Vickers was just as good as the U.S .30 cal. I hardly believe that people were trained to get down when they heard the MG42, first off you don't need to train someone to shit themselves and duck. And secondly that could possibly be one of the worst things, you don't get down and duck if you're advancing. You keep your enemies heads down and advance. Why do you think German soldiers were so good? Because they advanced QUICKLY to cover, they never just hit the deck. 

One thing about MG42 crews though, which I thought was quite smart, they used to have two MG42s set up, one loaded with tracer ammo and the other not. They'd test fire the tracer loaded one at night so it could be seen, and they'd fire it above head height so Allied soldiers thought it couldn't be depressed anymore. 
Then the other was set up below that so it COULD hit the enemy, the Allied soldiers were advance thinking they were out of the field of fire of the MG 'cos it was firing above them...and by the time they'd realised that another one was hitting them, half the squad was dead or dying.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 27, 2005)

bloody hell that's clever.........


----------



## Wildcat (Jun 27, 2005)

As sub machine guns go, the Owen gun was one of the best especially in jungle environments. It was very reliable with stoppages being very rare and when tested against the Thompson and sten in water, mud and sand it was the only one to continue firing.

For more info see http://www.diggerhistory.info/pages-weapons/omc.htm


----------



## P38 Pilot (Jun 27, 2005)

Ok, Ok, i have a new one. What do u guys think about the Browning Automatic Rifle (BAR) I personly think it was a great knock down weapon but the thing was just damn too big! What do u guys think about it?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 27, 2005)

The BAR was pretty great.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 27, 2005)

The BAR was a good squad support weapon for laying down accurate support fire quickly. It was cumbersome though, and it only had 20 rounds. 

The Bren was better because it wasn't much heavier, it carried a 30 round clip, it could be belt fed and it was more accurate.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 27, 2005)

phenominally reliable too.......


----------



## plan_D (Jun 27, 2005)

Unless it was using Indian built ammo...


----------



## Glider (Jun 27, 2005)

The Bren also had the ability to change barrels and was a true LMG. 

Would anyone disagree that the worst SMG was the STEN


----------



## plan_D (Jun 28, 2005)

I would because it was never built to last. It was a cheap weapon and it worked. It was only kept in massive production because it was sent to the partisans in Europe. 

It could still do a lot of damage and was the perfect room clearing weapon. Accuracy isn't a must for SMGs, they're for close quarters combat. The Sten gun could do the job perfectly well. And I know everyone says that if they were dropped they would fall to pieces but you know, you shouldn't drop any gun because it tends to damage them.


----------



## jrk (Aug 8, 2005)

the sten was light and effective so sorry yes i would disagree that the sten was ineffective.shipped to many countries and a widely used partisan weapon.


----------



## P38 Pilot (Aug 8, 2005)

Yeah the Sten was pretty cheap. But hey im an American so im always going to stick by American made guns. I would prefer the M3A1 Sub machine gun, or the Grease Gun.


----------



## plan_D (Aug 8, 2005)

The "Grease Gun" was the M3A1. For personal firearms give me the Stg.44, much superior to any other firearm in World War 2. It was the worlds first assault rifle.


----------



## Glider (Aug 8, 2005)

It was standard practice in some British regiments to replace the Stens with captured MP40's. Certainly the Essex regiment had such a policy. Its not as silly as it sounds as they fired the same ammunition and being reliable supply wasn't a problem.
Stens were certainly cheap, thats why they were designed but there was a design flaw in the magazine which made it easy to damage, and when you magazine is sticking out of the side its easy to damage.


----------



## HealzDevo (Aug 8, 2005)

I think what is being argued is not that the Stens weren't effective but that there were some reliability issues and that which made it not as good a combat weapon.


----------



## plan_D (Aug 8, 2005)

It did it's job. And I can believe that about the MP40, they were great SMGs.


----------



## HealzDevo (Aug 9, 2005)

These are very good videos thank-you. I look forward to seeing more eventually.


----------



## P38 Pilot (Aug 11, 2005)

I have a new question now. Do you think that the Reising Sub Machine gun was really needed? It may have been light weight but how it was made was unreliable. I know for a fact that the Marine Paratroopers in the pacific used them.


----------



## James Pickering (Jan 6, 2006)

plan_D said:


> The only defining feature of the M1 Garand was the semi-automatic ability of it. It lacked the stopping power, accuracy and range of standard British and German bolt action rifles.
> 
> The clip wasn't small; it carried 8 rounds but it couldn't be reloaded mid-clip .....


Official nomenclature -- _US rifle, cal.30, M1_

I will refer to these rifles as "_Garands_" (after the inventor, John C. Garand) hereafter as a matter of convenience for that was a term of endearment and convenience employed by so many GIs.

I have shot many thousands of rounds using the _Garand_ rifle (in match competition) -- it was indeed a superb Infantry weapon. In addition to its superior rate of aimed fire, it had the best issue sights I have encountered on a military rifle (peep rear sight with positive click adjustments for elevation and windage), was extremely accurate and very reliable. 

I was issued two Premium Grade _Garands_ in the US military and fired several different ones in my capacity as Base NCOIC Marksmanship Training/Range Officer.

They made up into excellent target rifles and accurized versions were produced by Military Marksmanship Centers -- with polished sears/hammer hooks, crisply adjusted trigger pulls and carefully bedded barrelled actions in the stocks -- I have scored several possibles (100x100) at 600 yds on the "B" (National Match course) target using two such rifles.

I have also fired several _Springfield_ bolt action rifles (_US Rifle, cal.30, Model 1903, A1 and A3_). This was also a fine Infantry weapon although the rate of aimed fire was naturally not on a par with the _Garand _and the sights were inferior by comparison. Additionally, I have fired British Lee-Enfield miltary rifles (SMLE Mk III 4) and German Military Mauser rifles in their various configurations on the firing range and found them to be adequately accurate. In my experience, the _Garand_ is much more accurate at longer ranges (500, 600 1000 yards) due to its superior sights.

Both the _Garand_ and _Springfield 1903 _rifles used the 30/06 rimless cartridge -- a very powerful and accurate round. The commonest cartridge configuration issued in WWII used the 150 grain flat based cupro-nickle bullet at muzzle velocity of approx. 2800 fps -- tracer, incendiary and armor-piercing versions were issued in lesser quantities. Some long range cartridges (AKA competition cartridges) using a 172 grain boat-tail cupro-nickle bullet at a muzzle velocity of approx 2650 fps were issued, mainly for use in sniper rifles (equipped with leather cheek pieces and telescopic scope sights).

Both rifles were equipped with leather (older pre-war) or web adjustable slings and the _Springfield_ with the M1 (earlier WWI vintage) bayonet and the _Garand _with either the M1 or M5 (short WWII) bayonet. 

Incidentally, the_ Garand _can be readily loaded with a partial clip by those who attain the skill -- usually target competition shooters who are used to initially loading with a partial clip of two rounds at the start of each rapid fire string (loading with a full eight round clip after the first two rounds are discharged) -- I can load a partial clip with ease and reasonable rapidity (I have had a lot of practice). I think the old saw about a weakness of the _Garand_ being the "ping" of the ejected clip allowing a rush by an opponent during the reloading of a new clip in combat is overblown and somewhat of a myth. Even a moderately dexterous soldier can reload very rapidly and resume delivering aimed fire in a split second. Partially expended clips can be easily ejected via the clip release latch on the side of the receiver. It can also be loaded and fired as a single shot weapon if the need should arise, in fact, that is the way it is used in competitive/qualification long range shooting (600 1000 yards). 

The _Garand_ was the standard US issue Infantry rifle in WWII (and also in the Korean War). It was in general use by early 1942. The last unit to use _1903 Springfield _rifles as standard issue was the US Marine Corps at Guadalcanal -- once they saw the effectiveness of the _Garands_ in the hands of the Army units they soon adopted that weapon (and some Johnson rotary magazine semi-automatic rifles). The _Springfield 1903 _rifle was issued and used in a sniper configuration on a limited basis during WWII (and also in the Korean War).

In my opinion the best features of the "Garand" are its property of being able to deliver rapid aimed fire, its rugged reliability dependability and its excellent sights.

The feared "M1 thumb" is a rookie mistake experienced when first learning to handle the rifle in basic training -- it is a result of incorrect handling during dissassembly and assembly training and dry firing exercises -- depressing the follower with the bolt locked open without controlling the operating rod handle -- the bolt then slams shut on the thumb (or fingers) producing a painful bruise. The correct drill is to position the heel of the right hand against the operating rod handle to prevent it from flying forward as the thumb depresses the follower -- just allowing the bolt to engage the bevelled rear of the follower then swinging the hand up and away thereby allowing the bolt to lock home.

Most recruits experience an "M1 thumb" at least once (the painful lesson is usually well learned) and it is considered a rite of passage by many small arms instructors. This situation does not occur during live firing as the top round in the clip controls the operating rod closure.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jan 6, 2006)

Good post. If I'm not mistaken, the M-14 was a direct continuation of the M-1 Garand design. Basically an improved "Garand".


----------



## James Pickering (Jan 6, 2006)

Nonskimmer said:


> Good post. If I'm not mistaken, the M-14 was a direct continuation of the M-1 Garand design. Basically an improved "Garand".


Yes, actually an upgrade -- chambering for the 7.62mm NATO cartridge, substitution of a box magazine for the en-bloc clip of the Garand and provision of a selector lever in order to chose semi-automatic or full-automatic fire.


----------



## Glider (Jan 6, 2006)

May I also add excellent shooting. A possible at 600 yards with a standard rifle is impressive.


----------



## James Pickering (Jan 6, 2006)

Glider said:


> May I also add excellent shooting. A possible at 600 yards with a standard rifle is impressive.


Actually not that unusual with an accurized Garand. There would usually be several clean 600 yard targets by NRA Master class shooters in High Power rifle matches.


----------



## Glider (Jan 6, 2006)

I suggest there is a whole world of difference between a Master Class shooter, and a Glider Class shooter.


----------



## James Pickering (Jan 6, 2006)

While I was sorting through my rifle shooting photographs, I came across the attached one of me dry firing a Winchester model 70 heavy barrel target rifle (Redfield International Mk 8 sights) in 30/06 caliber in preparation for a high power rifle match. I thought it would be instructional to post it and the accompanying story in this thread for it illustrates aimed rapid fire function of a semi-automatic versus a bolt action rifle.

Although I was issued two match grade _Garands_, I opted to use this bolt rifle in the NRA matches -- it was extremely accurate at 600 yards.

The rapid fire strings in the National match course are 10 shots, standing to sitting, at 200 yards in 50 seconds and 10 shots, standing to prone, at 300 yards in 60 seconds -- for semi-automatic rifles. For bolt action rifles the time allowances are 60 seconds and 70 seconds respectively if they are assigned their own relay. If it is impractical to assign them their own relay (just one or two in the match, for instance) they are mixed in with the semi-automatic rifles and all shooters get the longer rapid fire time limits. 

Actually, I soon became proficient at working the bolt rapidly and got off my shots within the lower time limits with the same accuracy as with my _Garands_.


----------



## P38 Pilot (Jan 6, 2006)

The M1 Garand is not only a great infantry rifle but very beautiful. I like it. 

But I have another question: What are your opinions on the Reising SMG? I have heard about it jamming up and being light weight.


----------



## James Pickering (Jan 6, 2006)

P38 Pilot said:


> ..... What are your opinions on the Reising SMG?.....


I have never fired a Reising SMG and the only knowledge I have of it are as a result of reading written articles and on-line search references.


----------



## Soren (Jan 7, 2006)

James Pickering said:


> Official nomenclature -- _US rifle, cal.30, M1_
> 
> I will refer to these rifles as "_Garands_" (after the inventor, John C. Garand) hereafter as a matter of convenience for that was a term of endearment and convenience employed by so many GIs.
> 
> ...



Your absolutely right James, I've shot the Garand a good couple of times myself and it is a very accurate rifle, and it certainly doesn't lack power.

However as it uses a gas driven reloading mechanism it is inherently less accurate than a bolt action rifle. However as you said yourself the main deciding factor for accuracy is the sights, and the Garand sure did have better sights than both the K98k and SMLE No.4.

If you ask me the Garand is the best battle rifle of WW2.

The most accurate rifle of WW2 however, is the K98k, the best Sniper-rifle of WW2. 

The best 'bolt action' battle rifle has got to be the SMLE No.4, with its smooth action and good iron sights.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 7, 2006)

> "Incidentally, the Garand can be readily loaded with a partial clip by those who attain the skill -- usually target competition shooters who are used to initially loading with a partial clip of two rounds at the start of each rapid fire string (loading with a full eight round clip after the first two rounds are discharged) -- I can load a partial clip with ease and reasonable rapidity (I have had a lot of practice)."



The post was very good. However, while talking of the rifle in combat this paragraph means nothing. While you are able to reload mid-clip, with a lot of practice, a rookie soldier in the midst of conflict would not be able to. And the trademark 'ping' of the Garand would have been some problem, as you never want to tell the enemy when you've ran out of ammo.


----------



## James Pickering (Jan 7, 2006)

plan_D said:


> ..... And the trademark 'ping' of the Garand would have been some problem, as you never want to tell the enemy when you've ran out of ammo.



Not so, never was a problem -- an anecdotal myth.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 7, 2006)

I'm sorry, I was never aware that you have an account of every single situation that a U.S soldier had to deal with during World War II.


----------



## wmaxt (Jan 7, 2006)

plan_D said:


> I'm sorry, I was never aware that you have an account of every single situation that a U.S soldier had to deal with during World War II.



Plan if the enemy soldier is close enough to hear the ping in combat then your not going to be thinking about shooting him with your rifle anymore anyway, loaded or not.

wmaxt


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jan 7, 2006)

You would think that in most combat scenarios like those that occurred in WWII, the "ping" probably wasn't heard by the enemy very often anyway. With rifle and machine-gun fire going off all around, and at any kind of distance, an enemy isn't going to hear that kind of sound coming from your weapon. In any case, GI's and marines were pretty proficient at reloading their weapons quickly. If it's close enough for hand-to-hand, you're in sh*t anyway.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 7, 2006)

If you're close enough to hear the 'ping', you're still going to be in a situation to shoot someone. It's exactly the same as if the enemy realises a machine gun is reloading, or changing the barrel. In urban combat it could very well end up in a situation where a U.S soldier was rushed, and killed because the enemy heard he was out of ammo. Even if he rushed him and stabbed him because the soldier had no way of defending himself while reloading. No matter how quick someone is at reloading, there's still time involved. I'm not saying the 'ping' was a major problem, I'm not saying it's even a problem that needed fixing. I'm saying that at some point during the war, a U.S soldier would have been killed because the enemy heard he was out of ammo and saw/heard his chance. And unless you have every single combat encounter a U.S soldier ever had while using the Garand in any war, then you can't say it _never_ was a problem. It's simple logic, you'd never-ever-ever-ever-ever want to inform your enemy that you're reloading.


----------



## James Pickering (Jan 7, 2006)

wmaxt said:


> Plan if the enemy soldier is close enough to hear the ping in combat then your not going to be thinking about shooting him with your rifle anymore anyway, loaded or not.
> 
> wmaxt


In the midst of combat that "ping" is swallowed by the "sound of battle". I never remember hearing it in the midst of rifle fire. Recruits are required to reload during rapid fire strings -- 10 shots, initial loading with two cartridges, reloading with a full clip in 50/60 seconds -- on the firing range, and they were amazed to find that this could be accomplished in two or three seconds -- finger on the trigger. Such reloading is soon an automatic response. I believe an enemy would have to be within about ten yards in order to successfully press home an assault on a Garand equipped soldier in the act of reloading -- if he could even hear the "ping" -- avoid the bayonet point -- and the most probable eventuality that the soldier had successfully reloaded with his finger on the trigger. 

I do not remember any such a documented report during the Korean war, nor have I been able to trace one. I also checked with "Gunner" Kenton (see post bearing his name on this Forum) who spent WW2 as a USMC Ordinance Gunnery Sergeant in the Pacific -- and was in charge of a Division small arms Battlefield recovery unit -- to see if he could recall such a documented event. He couldn't.


----------



## James Pickering (Jan 7, 2006)

Nonskimmer said:


> You would think that in most combat scenarios like those that occurred in WWII, the "ping" probably wasn't heard by the enemy very often anyway. With rifle and machine-gun fire going off all around, and at any kind of distance, an enemy isn't going to hear that kind of sound coming from your weapon. In any case, GI's and marines were pretty proficient at reloading their weapons quickly. If it's close enough for hand-to-hand, you're in sh*t anyway.


I agree -- please see my previous posting on this subject.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jan 7, 2006)

I already have. Again, good post.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 7, 2006)

You couldn't find a documented report on the subject. Well, if it happened in the midst of battle and the person died, he's hardly going to get up the next morning and tell the U.S War Department that the Mr.Bad German found out he'd ran out of rounds, ran around the corner and stabbed him in his freakin' eye, is he?


----------



## James Pickering (Jan 7, 2006)

A trivial anecdote relating to the Sten gun:

My father was a corporal in the Home Guard and he was issued a Sten gun (MkII) in 1940 which he kept at home (no ammunition -- common in his unit -- Burnley HG).

I used to take it to bed with me at night and pretend there were German paratroopers invading our house -- I would "mow them down" (accompanied by my own sound effects).

The first night I did that, I woke up in the middle of the night with painfully burning eyes -- my father rinsed them out using copious amounts of water -- they remained red and swollen all the next day.

My father determined there was flux residue on the welds (Sten guns were utilitarian weapons hastily assembled and shipped without niceties of finish due to the pressures of wartime production requirements). I had rubbed my eyes after handling the weapon and had transferred the chemical flux residue to them. My father rinsed the entire Sten gun with hot water and dried it well. I experienced no further problems when handling it.

My father was a metallurgical inspector with Joseph Lucas Ltd. working throughout WW2 on the Jet engine development project (we didn't know that, however, because it was secret) thus his knowledge of brazing/welding fluxes.

James


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jan 7, 2006)

At some point during his service in the airborne, my great-uncle carried a Sten Mk.II. It was a real love/hate relationship, apparently. Not so much to do with the welds though.


----------



## James Pickering (Jan 7, 2006)

P38 Pilot said:


> Ok, Ok, i have a new one. What do u guys think about the Browning Automatic Rifle (BAR) I personly think it was a great knock down weapon but the thing was just damn too big! What do u guys think about it?


I was in charge (NCOIC/Chief Range Officer) of the small arms firing training programs and range at Yokota Air Base (Tama Army Airfield) some twenty five miles north of Tokyo in the early 1960s ..... among the weapons in my inventory were two M1918A2 Browning Automatic Rifles (BAR) which were required for range instructor fully automatic fire familiarization and training (BAR and M2 carbine) and thus I fired that weapon extensively. It is indeed a heavy and cumbersome weapon with a limited magazine capacity although it was much liked by infantrymen as a squad weapon. I found it quite easy to hold on target in slow fire mode but hard to keep from climbing in fast fire mode.


----------



## James Pickering (Jan 8, 2006)

I will only be able to contribute occasionally to this forum in the future. I now have seriuos health problems (particularly prostate cancer) that sap my energies and affect my ability to concentrate. I need to devote most of my time and energy to my family and the accomplishment of a multitude of projects to which I am committed. I have enjoyed my brief participation on this Forum and have learned much from all of you -- thank you for your gracious acceptance. I will contribute from time to time as I am able. 

I will continue to maintain my non-commercial/non-profit website http://jp29.org/ -- please visit it periodically for updates and additions.


----------



## wmaxt (Jan 8, 2006)

James Pickering said:


> I will only be able to contribute occasionally to this forum in the future. I now have seriuos health problems (particularly prostate cancer) that sap my energies and affect my ability to concentrate. I need to devote most of my time and energy to my family and the accomplishment of a multitude of projects to which I am committed. I have enjoyed my brief participation on this Forum and have learned much from all of you -- thank you for your gracious acceptance. I will contribute from time to time as I am able.
> 
> I will continue to maintain my non-commercial/non-profit website http://jp29.org/ -- please visit it periodically for updates and additions.



Hang in there James!

wmaxt


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 8, 2006)

Yes good luck and my prayers.


----------



## Soren (Jan 9, 2006)

Just incase it can help: http://www.health.uab.edu/show.asp?durki=71808

All the best of luck James.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jan 11, 2006)

Maschine Pistole MP-40 in the wrong hands


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 12, 2006)

CharlesBronson said:


> Maschine Pistole MP-40 in the wrong hands



LOL


----------



## Soren (Jan 12, 2006)

Oh my god !


----------



## Gnomey (Jan 12, 2006)




----------



## Soren (Jan 12, 2006)

Well considering what I've seen old somali women do with an AK47, I guess it aint THAT outrages. 

But it only happens in a America though


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jan 12, 2006)

Who needs a 12 gauge when you've got one of those, eh?


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Jan 12, 2006)

heh-heh  

Reminds me of that MP40 gatehouse biddy on Golfinger.

Also that Sten-granny on IF was amusing.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Feb 24, 2006)

Stg 44 in the firing range.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 25, 2006)

pretty sweet, i never realised quite how much it looks like the AK-47 before...........


----------



## Gnomey (Feb 25, 2006)

That is because the AK-47 is a soviet copy of it...

Good clip CB.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 25, 2006)

i thought it was just influenced by it i never realised it was a direct copy?


----------



## CharlesBronson (Feb 25, 2006)

Well, not exactly a copy but very much inspired. 8)


----------



## Gnomey (Feb 25, 2006)

I am fairly sure it is a copy, if it isn't it is very closely related to it, sort of an evolution of it...


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Feb 26, 2006)

The AK is not an StG copy!

The concept is the same.

A rough history of Assault Rifles:

Cei-Rigotti = Italian, turn of Century, 6.5mm full power, gas-operated, 25 round box mag, 900rpm, innacurate, not adopted.

Fedorov Avtomat = Russian, 1916, 6.5mm intermediate round (later converted to Jap Arisaka full-power), gas-operated, versions similar to AKSU RPK, used in WW1 and Red Revolution - but not adopted.

MKb42/MP43/MP44/StG44 = German, 1942-45, 7.92 intermediate round (KurzPatrone), gas-operated, adopted at squad-section level and intended to replace SMG's LMG's and Rifles, too little too late.

AK47 = Russian, 1949-present, 7.62 intermediate round, gas-operated, adopted by Soviets and just about everyone else!

Borrowed feaures from PPK44 and M1 Garand, but not StG44 as everyone thinks (but was influenced by it and the MP40 Schmeisser).

Hugo Schmeisser more or less directly responsible for AKM and AK47S/AKMS upgrades.


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Feb 26, 2006)

had the StG been in the wehrmacht as early as the garand was with the Yanks, .... war would have prolonged?


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Feb 28, 2006)

I honestly don't know.

The Garand's entry date can be controversial, as it was officially adopted in '37 I think - but was still not exactly sufficient as to be called 'standard issue' in '41.

Hitler was very much opposed to the MKb/StG himself, Goering was the one who blocked the Me262 I think?

Also Goering developed the FG42 almost purely to annoy the Heer with it's G41 MKb42, though it was a useful weapon.

This infighting made Hitler doubly sure it wouldn't be adopted.

I at 1st thought that having yet another ammo type would cause problems, but now I think I was wrong. I'm sure this thought will have occured to the Minister of Armaments or Hitler.


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Mar 9, 2006)

an FG42 could actually be a LMG


----------



## Desert Fox (Mar 10, 2006)

Well, id have to say that the MG42 was much better. Also, many more were produced. The Germans had the industry to produce thousands of weapons, maybe not THE best of the war, but they had quantity and counts towards a lot in a war.


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Mar 10, 2006)

the MG42 was a modified MG34 for ease of production and maintenance


----------



## CharlesBronson (May 9, 2006)

Mauser K-98K with ZF-39

http://media.putfile.com/mauser_m41b


Moisin Nagant sniper M1891/30 with 3,5x PU scope.

http://media.putfile.com/mosin_nagant_9130_pu


----------



## elmilitaro (May 10, 2006)

Nice videos.


----------



## Joe2 (Oct 26, 2006)

Where are all the British guns????


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 26, 2006)

Should there be any?

Not saying that there should not. There were many great British weapons of WW2 but why dont you discuss which ones and why to get the conversation going rather than asking where they are?


----------



## 102first_hussars (Oct 26, 2006)

My favorite British weapon would have to be the Lee Enfield no.4 rifle, in Cadets thats all we ever used but it was such a fun rifle to use


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 26, 2006)

I like the Lee Enfield just dont think it was the best compared to other weapons of WW2.


----------



## ndicki (Oct 26, 2006)

The MG3 uses NATO disintegrating link, while the MG42 uses non-disintegrating re-fillable metal belts.


----------



## Matt308 (Oct 26, 2006)

Lee Enfield Mk III. A great weapon for its ruggedness and ability to manipulate the bolt for inefilade fire by multiple troops. While some of the Mauser supporters are exactly right about it being a great gun, the Enfield served the Empire more than admirably for numerous decades.

I noticed that some have made claims that the Garand was underpowered, compared to other WWII rifles. This is incorrect, as the Garand utilized a cartridge that was ballistically equivalent to the 8X57, .303 and other .30+ cartriges fielded in rifle and machine guns of warring nations. Perhaps the confusion existes between the Garand and Carbine. The Garand fired the .30-06 (165gr bullet at about 2800ft/sec). The Carbine fires the .30 Carbine (110gr bullet at about 1900ft/sec).

I own various versions of all three. But the Enfield just speaks volumes for what most consider an ugly rifle.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 26, 2006)

she's a beauty! but as far as British weapons why not mention the Lewis gun? i believe chezk in origin (so i can't spell  ) but we made it what it was..........


----------



## Matt308 (Oct 26, 2006)

I'm less familiar with the Lewis gun. But I do know, that the very first post of the "Ma Duece" is actually a .30 Browning. Model 1919 if I'm not mistaken. But still VERY cool. You can buy these now, though they have been civilianized for semi-auto only. They run about $2,000 minus tripod.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 27, 2006)

I own several K98 Mausers and have fired several of them. I love the gun to shoot. I do not think she was best gun of the war though. I think the Garand and the K98 were the best of there class in the war with the Garand having the edge.

The best small arms though of WW2 in my opinion was the Sturmgewehr 44


----------



## Matt308 (Oct 27, 2006)

It certainly was innovative. The precursor of the "assault rifle" of today and the SKS/AK-47. It is my understanding that during the Gulf War, lots of StG44 were found in Iraqi hands during sweeps. Now how cool would that be for a war trophy. Some of the pics that I saw, they were in about NRA 10%-30% condition, but what a piece of history.

Claims are that the StG44 would have made a bigger difference in the war if they had more of them and issued them to more of the regular troops (as opposed to SS).

I love the Garand. But [email protected] I hate the 8rd en bloc clip. What a pain the @ss. You can't top up. And it makes one hell of a racket when you run out of ammo and the thing "sproings" 10 ft into the air screaming "Shoot me! I have to reload!".

Now an M-14. That's what I'm talking about! [ref my avatar]


----------



## ndicki (Oct 27, 2006)

And when I was younger, I used to do WW2 battle re-enactment, not in public, but with a couple of hundred of us on a huge site, with loads of blanks and pyros - and yes, as I was uniformed as a German, I can tell you, I've offed a fair few Yanks when their Garands ejected the empty clip!

Makes up for the steel-shod boots we had to wear, compared to the Americans with their rubber soles.

Best rifle of WW2? Lee-Enfield No.IV MkI* ; I had my own when I was a cadet... The only thing is that the bayonet is utter rubbish.

The bolt is easier to manoeuvre than most bolt-action rifles, and it has a 10 round mag - literally a lifesaver.


----------



## Matt308 (Oct 27, 2006)

I always like the No 1 MkIII. Came with a 15" (or maybe 17") blade bayonet. I'd have to measure mine.8) 

Not a pic of my SMLE, but same type.


----------



## Matt308 (Oct 27, 2006)

By the way, beautiful stock. Not original finish is it.


----------



## ndicki (Oct 27, 2006)

17 inches the bayonet is, and the stock in that photo IS original. The furniture on SMLEs has to be seen to be believed; mine is Australian-made, as is my bayonet - hence the brown scabbard, as opposed to the British black type.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Oct 27, 2006)

Big [email protected]


The bayonet that is.


----------



## Matt308 (Oct 27, 2006)

Same as mine. Wondered where the bayonet was made. I bought my SMLE for $270 mint. My stock too is original, but you don't see mint SMLEs too often. Nice piece you have there.

The bayo I bought later. It's in virtually new condition, but the scabbard leather is saturated with grease (cosmoline maybe?).


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 28, 2006)

Nice rifles there. It is such a pain in the *** to register and keep them here in Germany. I bought my K98s in North Carolina for between $150 to $300 a piece and I have 4 of them. My uncle in N. Carolina has them for the time being until I get back to the States where it is so much more easier to have them.


----------



## ndicki (Oct 29, 2006)

Here in Froschreich, the legislation is a bit more relaxed - they have two classes of ammunition - military calibre and civilian calibre. The distinction is in fact not based on performance, but simple availability; military ammunition in common WW2 calibres is/was generally not too hard to find on the alternative market, while ammo in civilian calibres has to be obtained from a gunshop, which leaves a paper trail. Many WW2 weapons have been re-barrlede to take the closest civilian rounds. The problem is that blanks are not available in these calibres, although you could I suppose make your own.

All my rifles and SMGs have been legally "castrated" - a shame, I know, but one which enables me to take them out to shows and so on without too much hassle.

Just as well - a neighbour - we are NOT friends - denounced me to the Gendarmes for my collection of bits and pieces - they came round, were very polite and friendly (the Gendarmes are military, unlike the normal French Police, who are total ar*eholes) and had an hour of fun playing with the toys! They also failed very diplomatically to notice that one, which I got rid of subsequently, was not neutralized...

Finally, the No.IV MkI in the photo is not mine - I've got a No.I MkIII which was made in Australia in 1944.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 29, 2006)

What a prick. I would wage war with my neibhbour if he did that.


----------



## ndicki (Oct 30, 2006)

I did. It cost him about 50,000 French francs - about $7,500. Admittedly, the only one who made a profit was the lawyer, but I wasn't paying my legal costs anyway. And he had to pay them back to my insurance company.

Sometimes it's more effective than smashing his head in.


----------



## Matt308 (Oct 30, 2006)

Lawyers. Can't live with them. Can't live without them. But I would sure like to try.


----------



## ndicki (Oct 30, 2006)

Relax, they did the work. I didn't have to pay a penny, and I was represented by a big-gun Parisian lawyer, against my neighbour's I-have-to-pay-for-this airhead local effort. Well worth the fun. And my insurance company did the lot.

And I got pretty much what I wanted.


----------



## Matt308 (Oct 30, 2006)

..and that's why I support the NRA-ILA.


----------



## Parmigiano (Oct 30, 2006)

Just a question: how about the Russian light weapons? 

I always heard that PPSHA 41 'burp gun' was very reliable, had a 71 round magazine (even if it was normally loaded with 'only' 60 rounds to avoid misfeeding) and a muzzle of 900m/s
Plus, was the only weapon that always worked in the Russian winter, and apparently the Germans were happy to capture PPSHA and use them (they were rebarreled to 9mm to fire standard German bullets)

Also the lighter PPS43 seems to be a remarkable weapon.

Degtyarev DP28 is famous to be demostrated as still perfectly working after being buried in the mud (a legend?) and this ruggedness was not detrimental to performances, while the heavy DSHKM is considered a very good 12,7


----------



## ndicki (Oct 31, 2006)

I had both a PPSh41 and a PPS43, although both were neutralized.

I wouldn't carry either. The PPSh is far too heavy even with an empty mag, and with a full one, it's really something. Even the Sovs issued 30-rd stick mags later on in the war. It is no more accurate, I understand, than most SMGs, and not significantly more reliable.

The pps43 is the Soviet Sten gun; cheap and nasty, although perhaps not so cheap and nasty as the Sten! That would be difficult...

I think if the Germans carried them on occasion - most were given to allies - it's for the same reason that Brits and Yanks in the West used to like to get their hands on MP40s, P.38s and Lugers - the grass is always greener...

Apart from the fact that I don't like SMGs anyway, except for FIBUA, I wonder about the Patchett. It became the Stirling, which from experience I can say is really not a bad weapon at all.


----------



## Matt308 (Nov 2, 2006)

And ndicki, don't forget the PPSHA rate of fire was so high, that unless trained properly, troops whizzed through ammo. Because we all know that full-auto always beats a well trained firing cadence.


----------



## ndicki (Nov 3, 2006)

And given the high degree of training given to ANY army which has ever been equipped with either...


----------



## Matt308 (Nov 3, 2006)




----------



## Soren (Nov 4, 2006)

I agree with ndicki, the PPSH is a very unhandy weapon. I'd much rather like a MP-40 or Thompson (although the Thompson rattles abit to much IMO)


----------



## ndicki (Nov 5, 2006)

The Thompson weighs a ton and is even more unwieldy than the PPSh.


----------



## Soren (Nov 5, 2006)

The Thompson might weigh more, however thats no problemo for me, but its far more handy to shoot with than the PPSH, IMO.


----------



## Desert Fox (Nov 6, 2006)

I agree, the PPSh has no foregrip, so you have to grip the magazine...very unwieldly.


----------



## ndicki (Nov 6, 2006)

NEVER use the mag as a foregrip, you'll get stoppages; one of the reasons why the Sten got such a poor reputation was because of the ill-trained using it incorrectly. The same goes for any magazine-fed weapon.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 6, 2006)

That is why most weapons have a grip around the barrel for you to grip it with like a rifle.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Nov 27, 2006)

It is usually OK to hold a weapon by the magazine housing, like with the MP40 or MP44. The Sten's housing rotated however and it did have a foregrip, very crude - but then so was the entire weapon!


----------



## ndicki (Nov 30, 2006)

I still say that if I have to have an SMG, I'd take a Patchett. Quite a handy weapon, and I like having the mag out on the side - keeps you nice and close to the ground!

(For info, the Patchett is little more than an early Sterling - which is not a bad weapon, as SMGs go.)


----------



## Wildcat (Dec 1, 2006)

For a SMG I still wouldn't go past the Owen gun.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 1, 2006)

schwarzpanzer said:


> It is usually OK to hold a weapon by the magazine housing, like with the MP40 or MP44. The Sten's housing rotated however and it did have a foregrip, very crude - but then so was the entire weapon!



Are you talking about where you slide the magazine into the weapon. That is okay but if you hold it by the magazine itself not it is not. If you do so, you change the position of the rounds and how they enter the gun at a different angle which causes the weapon to jam. That is true of all guns that are magazine fed.


----------



## ndicki (Dec 1, 2006)

Which is wot I sed but cleverer sounding.


----------



## Matt308 (Dec 1, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Are you talking about where you slide the magazine into the weapon. That is okay but if you hold it by the magazine itself not it is not. If you do so, you change the position of the rounds and how they enter the gun at a different angle which causes the weapon to jam. That is true of all guns that are magazine fed.



Well at least all crappy designed/worn out guns that are magazine fed.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 1, 2006)

Yeah I read what you said, but I am not sure if schwarzpanzer said the opposite a few posts later or not.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 1, 2006)

Damn Matt posted before me!


----------



## Soren (Dec 1, 2006)

Not all weapons jam when you hold them by the magazine, however I wouldn't be surprised if a Russian made weapon jams under such treatment as they usually don't fit exactly together. The Stg.44 was often held by the mag or just above as it enabled you to press the weapon more firmly to your shoulder, but it hardly ever jammed.


----------



## ndicki (Dec 1, 2006)

I had a PPSh41 at one stage, and while it was actually pretty well made - sorry - the drum mag was such a tight fit you could hardly get the bl**dy thing off. Potentially embarassing in a firefight.


----------



## Soren (Dec 1, 2006)

ndicki said:


> I had a PPSh41 at one stage, and while it was actually pretty well made - sorry - the drum mag was such a tight fit you could hardly get the bl**dy thing off. Potentially embarassing in a firefight.



Sounds odd it should jam because of it then, being that tight. Anyways the guns internals is often the place where the Russian ones don't fit like a glove - not only yhe AK-47 has this problem.

How would you rate the 7.65mm round for combat use btw ndicki ??


----------



## Matt308 (Dec 1, 2006)

I own many magazine fed weapons and have yet to find one that binds with a hand on the magazine. For what it's worth.


----------



## ndicki (Dec 2, 2006)

7.65x17, you mean? No idea, never used it. Skorpions get good press, that's about all I can say.

Or did you mean 7.62x25 Tokarev?


----------



## Matt308 (Dec 2, 2006)

90gr at about 1450fps. Not bad for a pistol round. They make a hell of a lot of noise.


----------



## Soren (Dec 2, 2006)

ndicki said:


> 7.65x17, you mean? No idea, never used it. Skorpions get good press, that's about all I can say.
> 
> Or did you mean 7.62x25 Tokarev?



Whoops, sorry, meant the 7.62x25 Tokarev - remembered it as 7.65mm though.


----------



## bananafoothead (Dec 29, 2006)

testing...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 29, 2006)

Testing what?


----------



## Matt308 (Dec 29, 2006)

Reality check I guess.


----------



## bananafoothead (Jan 3, 2007)

my sig. sorry for the offence


----------



## Matt308 (Jan 3, 2007)

No problem...er... Banana...Foot...Head.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jan 3, 2007)

Quite amusing name.  

The Pzb 39 in practice shooting, the muzzle velocity of this anti-armor rifle was 1180 m/s.


----------



## bananafoothead (Jan 5, 2007)

After reading this thread, I see a lot of people consider the M1 the best rifle of the war. Nothing against the Garand (designed by a Canadian by the way) but I fail to see any advantage it would have over a G43. G43 having a 10 round detachable box magazine. I have heard that the rifle was a little flimsy for the 7.92mm cartridge, thus affecting aim, but nobody has ever backed that up. Any info?


----------



## bananafoothead (Jan 5, 2007)

Now Im gonna go waste a few americans with my Kar98k on Call of duty 3 awaiting a few replies.


----------



## Matt308 (Jan 5, 2007)

It was fairly good weapon, but not as robust as the M1. Claims are that it would have made a bit of difference if it was made in larger quantities. There was also a sniper version that was even more rare. Would have put the Wermacht on better par with M1 and SVT-40.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jan 5, 2007)

The loading system in the G-43 was far better but the the muzzle energy was minor than the Garand M-1. The Garand had a muzzle bullet speed of 850 m/s, the G-43 just 745 m/s.

Off course in the close combat a dead is a dead and nobody would feel much difference.


----------



## Matt308 (Jan 5, 2007)

Yep. En bloc clip is a pain. The BM-59 and M-14 solved that one though. By the way the G-43 shown above with original scope and markings would be worth a princely sum here in US. Off the top of my head in the $5k range.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Jan 5, 2007)

Id still buy it, but here in Canada, its more likely to be a fake though


----------



## Matt308 (Jan 5, 2007)

Best I know, you CAN'T buy that in Canada. Can you?? A guy at work had a cousin in BC that had a FAL and he was trying to dump it in the late 90s because of gov't confiscation...or so I thought. Maybe I'm just thinking of Australia. I know that they chopped up theirs.

And a fake one (ie one put together with piece parts would go for almost that much anyway. One with "pedigree" (ie one that is traceable to some historical lineage would be off the charts.


----------



## bananafoothead (Jan 5, 2007)

could the muzzle energy disparity be explained by the fact that the .30 o6 cartridge was larger? perhaps the 7.92mm was more effective in offering less recoil, and as a result less fatigue for the shooter? I dunno, just speculation. I know that the swedish mauser with the 6.5mm cardridge was often called more effective because of the redused recoil. And the ranges that the majority of fights would be at, the redused energy wouldnt make a difference. Sorry about the horrible spelling, but I am focused on the hockey game right now, which Canada is leading Russia 3-0


----------



## bananafoothead (Jan 5, 2007)

The Canadain gun laws are very arbitrary. Why the FN FAL is labled "prohibited", and the M-14 is just "restricted", is anybodys guess. Both being pinned for semi-auto only of course.


----------



## bananafoothead (Jan 5, 2007)

Hey Hussars, where did you go to cadets? I was in 570 squadron from Edmonton.


----------



## Matt308 (Jan 5, 2007)

bananafoothead said:


> could the muzzle energy disparity be explained by the fact that the .30 o6 cartridge was larger? perhaps the 7.92mm was more effective in offering less recoil, and as a result less fatigue for the shooter? I dunno, just speculation. I know that the swedish mauser with the 6.5mm cardridge was often called more effective because of the redused recoil. And the ranges that the majority of fights would be at, the redused energy wouldnt make a difference. Sorry about the horrible spelling, but I am focused on the hockey game right now, which Canada is leading Russia 3-0



One of the problems with the G-43 was its rather unique (by battle rifle standards) use of tapping the propellent gases at the muzzle and not in the barrel. This apparently made fouling a significant issue in battlefield conditions.

Also recoil is slightly less because the KE of the 8mm round for virtually same weight is almost 300fps slower.


----------



## bananafoothead (Jan 5, 2007)

Less energy, maybe because the .30 06 round is 63mm long vs. 57mm for the mauser? It seems to me that the .30 06 may be a fine sniper, or specialist cardridge but overpowered for the average soldier. Do you think that if the Garand was rechambered for something like the 6.5mm or even the 7.62 NATO (I realize it was post war) it could have been even better? I suspect magazine capacity would be increased as well, for no penalty in weight.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Jan 5, 2007)

Matt308 said:


> Best I know, you CAN'T buy that in Canada. Can you?? A guy at work had a cousin in BC that had a FAL and he was trying to dump it in the late 90s because of gov't confiscation...or so I thought. Maybe I'm just thinking of Australia. I know that they chopped up theirs.



If it was full-auto its illegal even with an urestricted license, its really strict out here, a Semi-Auto FAL is legal out here though


----------



## Matt308 (Jan 5, 2007)

bananafoothead said:


> Less energy, maybe because the .30 06 round is 63mm long vs. 57mm for the mauser? It seems to me that the .30 06 may be a fine sniper, or specialist cardridge but overpowered for the average soldier. Do you think that if the Garand was rechambered for something like the 6.5mm or even the 7.62 NATO (I realize it was post war) it could have been even better? I suspect magazine capacity would be increased as well, for no penalty in weight.




8mm is developed to 35,000cup. .30-06 to 50,000cup. Neither cartridge creates that much recoil. Now .308 (7.62X51) is developed to 62,000cup. Twice that of 8mm. This is why .30-06 and .308 are virtually identical ballistically. They did develop the Garand for .308 post WWII. However, the .30-06 and .308 cartridges are virtually the same in diameter for the en bloc clip and thus same capacity. Only detachable box magazine solves this problem.


----------



## Matt308 (Jan 5, 2007)

102first_hussars said:


> If it was full-auto its illegal even with an urestricted license, its really strict out here, a Semi-Auto FAL is legal out here though



Okay it is legal. But did't you have to register (or re-register) your firearms and then semi0-auto rifles (defined somehow - like with >10rd mag) had to be stored at register gun ranges and your rifle could not be moved from premises without a separate approval mechanism through gov't? I recall it was so damn onerous that either you submitted, got rid of your guns, or moved underground. Damn shame for law abiding citizens. Like that is going to affect a single criminal.


----------



## bananafoothead (Jan 5, 2007)

agreed, the gun registry in this country is a billion dollar joke. Controlling handguns, which are intended specifically for killing humans is one thing, but harrasing farmers with golpher killing .22's is just plain wasteful.

Matt308, are you mistaking the muzzle trap system on the failed G41 with the G43? After many problems in combat with the G41, engineers mated the G41's action with the successful gas system of captured soviet SVT-40's, producing the Gewehr 43.


----------



## Matt308 (Jan 5, 2007)

Ah yes. You are right. Sorry.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jan 5, 2007)

G-41 in action.


*Gewehr 41 Walther.*


----------



## bananafoothead (Jan 5, 2007)

Matt308 said:


> Okay it is legal. But did't you have to register (or re-register) your firearms and then semi0-auto rifles (defined somehow - like with >10rd mag) had to be stored at register gun ranges and your rifle could not be moved from premises without a separate approval mechanism through gov't? I recall it was so damn onerous that either you submitted, got rid of your guns, or moved underground. Damn shame for law abiding citizens. Like that is going to affect a single criminal.




FN FAL and all variants have been prohibited in Canada since 1995.

List of Restricted and Prohibited Firearms

Pasted from Canadian Firearms Centre website:

"Former Prohibited Weapons Order No. 13 (in effect since January 1, 1995)

·	The firearm of the design commonly known as the FN-FAL (FN-LAR) rifle, and any variant or modified version of it, including the FN 308 Model 44, FN-FAL (FN-LAR) Competition Auto, FN-FAL (FN-LAR) Heavy Barrel 308 Match, FN-FAL (FN-LAR) Paratrooper 308 Match 50-64 and FN 308 Model 50-63."


----------



## spacemoose (Jan 5, 2007)

bananafoothead said:


> FN FAL and all variants have been prohibited in Canada since 1995.
> 
> List of Restricted and Prohibited Firearms
> 
> ...




What do you work for the man or something?


----------



## Matt308 (Jan 5, 2007)

Sorry my Northern friends. Please be sure and vote.


----------



## bananafoothead (Jan 5, 2007)

could be worse. Gun violence is not a big problem here, unfortunatly, a couple high profile cases have swayed many, with no stake in the matter either way, to the side of political reactionaries.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jan 5, 2007)

It's why I got rid of my hunting rifles years ago. Face it boys, this country has become so goddamed leftist and pussified, we make Luxemburg look threatening by comparison. What a %#@-ing joke.


----------



## Matt308 (Jan 6, 2007)

Well, NS, the US is migrating in that direction too. Too bad really. It will come back to haunt us.

UN 7th Crime report on countries.

Murder per capita:
#1 Columbia 0.617847 per 1,000 people 
#24 US 0.042802 per 1,000 people 
#44 Canada 0.0149063 per 1,000 people 

Rapes:
#1 US
#3 Canada

Murders with firearms per capita
#8 US
#20 Canada

Assaults per capita:
#6 US
#9 Canada


----------



## mkloby (Jan 6, 2007)

Matt - not in all states. Florida recently expanded it's laws to allow further legal leeway for self defense. It was put to the test recently in Pensacola, shortly before I left. A woman shot a fool breaking into her house, he was not yet inside the home at the moment he was shot. Sheriff said woman was fully within her rights...


----------



## pbfoot (Jan 6, 2007)

bananafoothead said:


> could be worse. Gun violence is not a big problem here, unfortunatly, a couple high profile cases have swayed many, with no stake in the matter either way, to the side of political reactionaries.


It has become a problem we are just becoming use to it


----------



## 102first_hussars (Jan 6, 2007)

Yeah, gun violence in Canada is considerably lower, but stabbings are considerably high in Canada


----------



## Matt308 (Jan 6, 2007)

Mkloby you are right. The right to carry has increased considerably in the last 10 years. Thanks to Clinton for his bans causing the biggest rush of gun buying in 30 years and then the Republican Congress not allowing anymore silliness. However, you better hold them to your chest. Pelosi is now in office and likely a Demo will win in 08. You can bet they will try again.

[NRA Member and damn proud of it]


----------



## bananafoothead (Jan 7, 2007)

Question for you guys, I am quite sure at this point in time that I need a walther P38. I dont know why, but I certainly can not get the idea out of my head. Anybody own/fired one? any wisdom to pass on?


----------



## mkloby (Jan 7, 2007)

Matt308 said:


> Mkloby you are right. The right to carry has increased considerably in the last 10 years. Thanks to Clinton for his bans causing the biggest rush of gun buying in 30 years and then the Republican Congress not allowing anymore silliness. However, you better hold them to your chest. Pelosi is now in office and likely a Demo will win in 08. You can bet they will try again.
> 
> [NRA Member and damn proud of it]



I don't think that will happen, Matt. Democrats from the south will be voted out in droves in 2010 if they pushed through national gun control bills... liberals need to realize there is a 2nd Amendment no matter how much they hate it.


----------



## bananafoothead (Jan 7, 2007)

I found a post war P38 for $450. Supposedly in excelent condition, and comes with leather holster and extra magazine. Does this seem like a resonable price?


----------



## Matt308 (Jan 7, 2007)

Sounds reasonable. It is postwar and thus no pedigree. Excellent condition? Even better. Do you have any inkling on how it shoots? Can you take her for a spin and see if the extractor works, the springs aren't worn? Look down the barrel with a flashlight to see if there is any pitting or if there is wear on the muzzle crown. Either will affect accuracy. Can you shake it and not hear a loose rattle? Does it lock up nice and tight? Can you get it to feed with vigorous racking of the slide? [exercise extreme caution here]. Does the mag fit tightly and securely?

Finish means nothing if it is reliable and accurate.


----------



## bananafoothead (Jan 7, 2007)

Cool, thanks for the info. I will have to check it out. Ill post some pics on here if I do get it.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jan 16, 2007)

*A couple of rare guns*, the Stg 44AR in 7,92 mm kurz and the Garand for the 7,65x54mm argentine cartrigde. The further developmet of this were dropped in favor of the FAL. Both were made in very few numbers by the Military factory of Rosario.


----------



## Matt308 (Jan 16, 2007)

I'm not a historian of the Garand, but I would have to say that with the bolt etc in white that is likely not a highly collectible version. But loved the pics of the Stg44, CB. Nice.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jan 16, 2007)

You kidding ?, this variant is pretty rare, aniway the nickel plated was an original characteristics.


----------



## Soren (Jan 16, 2007)

A good site for info on the Stg.44 : MP44.nl - Welcome to my new Website


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Jan 17, 2007)

- and for those doubting Thomases that were adamant that no Assault Rifle preceded the StG44:

Modern Firearms - Fedorov "Avtomat" assault rifle


Hi CharlesBronson,



7 said:


> Was that used in your FN FAL rifles?
> 
> Nice piccies BTW.
> 
> On the Garand article, does it mention the magazine ejector? It shows a close-up, so it might?


----------



## Soren (Jan 17, 2007)

Schwarz the Fedorov "Avtomat" is no more an assault rifle than the US M1918 BAR, both are not true assault rifles.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Jan 17, 2007)

The Fedorov was designed around an intermediate cartridge.

The situation dictated that they were rechambered for captured Arisaka rounds.

The Arisaka round was designed for the small, lightweight Japanese soldiers.

It was used as a SMG, so can be considered an Assault Rifle IMO.

I take it you would consider the Cei-Rigotti and BAR as rifles? - me too, though they are tricky to classify. I suppose Battle Rifle is the best way of desribing the Cei-Rigotti and L1A1 SLR, but the BAR wasn't intended to be used as an LMG originally. Would SAW do, do you think?

What would you class the M1 Carbine as Soren?

I'd call it a PDW - the bullet is much more like a pistol than a rifle. I'd say a carbine is a shortened rifle, admittedly the M1C's action resembles a scaled-down Garands...

As you may be able to tell, I find classification a nightmare.

The Simonov is also a pain, a Battle Rifle firing an Intermediate cartridge.

The M16A2 too, it lacks full-auto - so is it really an Assault Rifle?

The M4A1 - SMG or Assault Rifle? - At least this is a genuine carbine.

The Meiji 38th Carbine and Kar98k - can they realy be considered carbines, or even short carbines?

A little off the subject, but would you consider the IS tank a medium, heavy or super-heavy? Heavy IMO.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jan 17, 2007)

> Hi CharlesBronson,
> 
> 
> 
> ...




The Argentine Fal used the standar 7,62mm NATO ammo (7,62x51 or .308 winchester as you like).








No more details of that rifle unfortunately, I think that there was no much difference with the original U.S rifle.


----------



## Soren (Jan 18, 2007)

Schwarz, the BAR and Fedorov are both automatic rifles (The BAR might be considered a LMG), they're not true assault rifles. 

The Fedorov would be far less of a pain to shoot in full auto compared to the BAR though...


----------



## Matt308 (Jan 18, 2007)

CharlesBronson said:


> You kidding ?, this variant is pretty rare, aniway the nickel plated was an original characteristics.



Out of the US during the war? What manufacturer? Looks like a post manufacture modification by third party.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jan 18, 2007)

It seems that I am speaking chinese lately, quote to self:



> Both were made in very few numbers by the Military factory of Rosario.



With "both" I mean the Garand and the STG-44ar.


----------



## Matt308 (Jan 18, 2007)

Ah. Sorry. Collectors stateside would appreciate the unique origin, but it is the lower SN US manufacturers that garner most collectibility. Especially with pedigree.

How many did Rosario make CB?


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jan 18, 2007)

Less than 10 of each Model.


----------



## Matt308 (Jan 18, 2007)

Less than 10! LESS THAN 10! That's not a manufacturer, that's a local gunsmith making custom rifles. No wonder. 

Changes the discussion completely. What does one cost in US?


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jan 18, 2007)

Well ,you have to take account that was merely for experimental purposes, the FN Fal surpassed both designs.



> Changes the discussion completely. What does one cost in US?



I dont know even if in the U.S is knowledge that the Garand was fabricated in this rare caliber.


----------



## Matt308 (Jan 18, 2007)

Wasn't licensed. Probably not with only 10 produced and US manufacturers not involved. A guy in a back shop in the boonies doesn't need a license. The storyline seems very odd though.


----------



## merlin (Jan 20, 2007)

After German lost the war, it was stripped of military equipement - jets rockets etc for use by the Allied nations.
So how come nothing happened in this respect to the MG-42!? 
With its rate of fire, what a difference it might have made if US, British other UN troops had had this weapon in Korea '48/52.
Any comments.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 20, 2007)

The reason the MG42 was not used by the allis after the war is because it fired a 7.92mm round rather than a 7.62mm NATO round. The MG42 however was used to develop other weapons after the war including the US M60 Machine Gun.

The Germans after the war developed the MG1 and MG2 which was essentially a MG42 that fired a 7.62mm NATO round. The MG2 led to the MG3 which is really nothing more than an improved MG42 that fires the 7.62mm NATO round.

The MG3 which was developed in 1968 is still the main machine gun for the modern German military today and is also used by:

Denmark 
Estonia 
Germany 
Greece (license production by EAS) 
Italy (license production by Beretta) 
Lithuania 
Norway 
Portugal (as M960) 
Spain 
Poland 
Turkey (license production, by MKE in Kirikkale since 1974). 
Australia (used in the Leopard tank) 
Austria (derivative MG74 developed by Steyr and Beretta in 1974) 
Chile 
Finland (as 7,62 KK MG3) 
Iran (license production by DIO) 
Pakistan (license production by Pakistan Ordnance Factories) 
Saudi Arabia 
Sweden (as Ksp 94, used as a tank MG) 
Switzerland 
Yugoslavia (clone) 

*MG3*

Type General Purpose Machine Gun 
Place of origin Germany 
Service history 
In service 1968 – 
Production history 
Designed 1966 
Manufacturer Rheinmetall 
Specifications 
Weight 10.5 kg (23.1 lb) 
11.5 kg (25.3 lb) with bipod 

Length 1225 mm 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cartridge 7.62 × 51 mm NATO 
Action Recoil operated, roller locked 
Rate of fire 1150 rounds/minute (+/- 150) 
Muzzle velocity 820 m/s 
Effective range 800 m (bipod) 
1500 m (mounted) 

Maximum range 3750 m 
Feed system 50-round non-disintegrating belts (can be combined in drum), 120-round disintregrating belt (in plastic box). 
Sights Iron sights 

Below is a pic of the MG3


----------



## Soren (Jan 20, 2007)

Would be awesome to have that one in that helicopter of yours huh Adler ?


----------



## Soren (Jan 20, 2007)

8)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 20, 2007)

Well I dont have a helicopter anymore...

But yeah it might have been nice to try one out from the Blackhawk. When I went and qualified for the German Shooting Chored (qualification badge in the US) we had to shoot the MG3 among other weapons. She had a good reach on her and was really accurate in my opinion.

Overall how the MG3 is I can not say though, because other than that qualification shoot, I did not get to shoot it again because we did not use it in the US Army.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jan 21, 2007)

Another german gun wich used the delayed roller locking system of the MG-42, the assault rifle StG 45, Mauser design. only 30 were made by 1945.






the caliber was the 7,92mm short.


----------



## Matt308 (Jan 21, 2007)

Basis for the G3 perhaps? The roller locking system is attributed to greater recoil upon the user based upon its physics. One reason why it never really caught on as an assault rifle basis.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jan 22, 2007)

Actually the first rifle in use after the WW2 the roller locking device was the spanish CETME in the earliy 1950 because one of the german Mauser technicians went to work to that country.

An then yes in the G-3 7,62mm.















*CETMEs*


----------



## Matt308 (Jan 22, 2007)




----------



## ndicki (Jan 27, 2007)

I read a story somewhere that in fact the US Army was so impressed with the MG42 - difficult not to be! - that they did attempt to copy it just after the war. The problem was that the design plans were metric, and had to be converted into Imperial measurements for use by US manufacturers. However, it seems that there were some problems with the conversion, and that although a couple of guns were produced, they suffered terribly from jamming, stoppages, etc, owing to the difference in parts tolerances. Also, the 30-06 ammo used was not ideal, or something. 

It may even be true - no idea!

Also, the feed system of the MG42 was combined with the gas system of the Bren gun/BAR to produce the FN MAG / L7 GPMG, which along with the MG3 is one of the most successful post-war Western machine guns.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 27, 2007)

The did try to copy it with 30-06 ammo. It was called the T24 but there was some design flaw and it was cancelled after one prototype was built.


----------



## ndicki (Jan 27, 2007)

OK, so it wasn't bullsh*t


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jan 27, 2007)

> The did try to copy it with 30-06 ammo. It was called the T24 but there was some design flaw and it was cancelled after one prototype was built.




They also develop a copy of the Luftwaffe automatic rifle FG-42 wich were designated T-44, let see if I get some pictures of this.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jan 29, 2007)

And here is the T-44 of 7,92 mm MG, M-60 was derivated from this.


----------



## Soren (Jan 30, 2007)

You wouldn't happen to know how many examples of the T-44 were made ??


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jan 30, 2007)

No idea, I guess as a experimental weapon not many, maybe 5 or 6.


----------



## Soren (Jan 31, 2007)

A nice little video: 
_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yp3ZYNh8dec_


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Feb 7, 2007)

That T44 pic is interesting.

Here's a decent link on Assault rifle history:

ASSAULT RIFLES AND THEIR AMMUNITION:

- note the MKb35.

I'm interested in the Taden GPMG and EM1 LSW. Any more info on either would be appreciated.

There is (or was) a picture on Wikipedia of the Fedorov Avtomat SMG and LMG - kinda the pre-WW1 equivalent of the AKSU and RPK.


----------



## bananafoothead (Feb 18, 2007)

my new p38...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 18, 2007)

Very nice but that should have probably been posted in the handguns thread. Still very nice and thanks for sharing.


----------



## bananafoothead (Feb 19, 2007)

Sorry, I would have, but the handguns thread has become a little mean spirited with the big 9mm vs. .45 debate.
ANYWAYS, back to rifles, It would be difficult to strip the STG 44 title of father of all assault rifles in so far as it coined the term.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 19, 2007)

Naw that is normal around here. It gets mean spirited but we all drink a vertual beer at the end of the day. Dont worry about that thread. No one will bite your head off.


----------



## Soren (Feb 19, 2007)




----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 19, 2007)




----------



## renrich (Feb 24, 2007)

Interesting article in THE AMERICAN RIFLEMAN several months ago about American infantry in WW2 taking 30 cal machine guns from fighter aircraft and bombers and adapting them for ground use. If memory serves the aircraft weapon had a rate of fire of 1200 rpm whereas our standard A6 air cooled 30 cal was about 600 rpm. I think also the aircraft weapon used a 220 gr bullet at about 2600fps. The article stated that the ground troops installed a shoulder stock on it and used it very effectively. Seems like it would have compared favorably with the MG42. Anyone shed light on this? I no longer have that issue of TAR.


----------



## Matt308 (Feb 28, 2007)

220gr bullet in .30-06 during WWII? Not very likely. MilSpec was 150-174gr if I recall correctly. Most being M2 ball at 150gr. And certainly we are not talking about .50cal.


----------



## renrich (Mar 4, 2007)

Yes, you are correct about 150 grain ball ammo. That is what was used when I trained with the M1. However, my references on a/c weaponry in ww2 show that the .30 cal gun had a rate of fire of 1200 rpm, with a bullet that weighed .0314 lbs or 220 grains at 2660 feet per second MV. I suppose that if the infantry was modifying a/c guns to use with a shoulder stock and a bipod, they might have used AAF ammunition also. That would have made a potent ground weapon with AP rounds.


----------



## Matt308 (Mar 5, 2007)

News to me that different loadings were used for US .30cal aircraft weapons versus ground use. I suspect that your numbers are incorrect.


----------



## renrich (Mar 6, 2007)

The data came from a table in "America's Hundred Thousand" which seems to be very authoritative and well researched but it certainly could be in error. Interestingly in trying to research the 30 cal aircraft gun online I discovered that because the gun was lightened so much for aircraft use the rate of fire went from 600-700 rpm to 1200-1300 rpm. Also in the aforementioned table they listed the muzzle velocity of the 220 grain bullet as around 2600 fps whereas my handloading manual has the maximum muzzle velocity of the 220 gr bullet as 2447 fps. However the machine gun must have had a barrel in excess of 26 inches so with a slow burning powder they may have been able to attain the higher velocity with out excessive chamber pressure. I know this, if I was trying to bring down a Zero with a 30 cal from the after cockpit of an SBD I would much rather be shooting with 220 gr at 2600fps than with the 150 gr at 2750 fps given the better ballistic coefficent and better sectional density of the 220 gr bullet.


----------



## Soren (Mar 6, 2007)

A 220gr bullet wasn't availabe in 30.cal, not even for a/c. The heaviest .30 cal projectile in use was the 172 gr M1 Ball or the Match round. (The latter not being available for the military)

Also the .30-06 round with a 220gr bullet would never achieve 2,660 fps, the caliber is simply to small. The German 8x57 IS round however would probably be capable of propelling a 220gr bullet to 2,600 + fps, however the pressures achieved would make it unsuitable for small-arms.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Mar 11, 2007)

What about the Johnson automatic rifle ?


























Extracted from: "The machine gun Vol I" James M. Chinn


----------



## Matt308 (Mar 11, 2007)

The integral 10rd magazine was somewhat problematic. But the quick change barrel and relatively light weight were plusses.


----------



## Soren (Mar 13, 2007)

That thing will only go upwards from round one and up, and fast !

I'd rather have a FG-42 as its probably alot more accurate, faster firing and then its got a muzzle brake to lessen the enormous recoil generated by those full powered rifle rounds.


----------



## Matt308 (Mar 13, 2007)

...and it wasn't all that accurate. The paratroopers loved it though. With the detachable barrel and .30-06 chambering, it was deemed by some to be better equipment than the M1 carbine.


----------



## renrich (Mar 15, 2007)

Speaking of machine guns and WW2 there is another thread where you gentlemen with experience are discussing the M60 and a sustained rate of fire. I fired an M60 on the range right after it came out and enjoyed my brief exposure. However, I saw on the history channel some time ago the story about the Browning cal.30 water cooled machine gun and when it was demonstrated to the US Army. I am afraid I can't remember how long it was fired without a stoppage but it was an unbelievable number of rounds and it seems like it was a number of hours. Whatever it was I bet they used a lot of water keeping it from melting.


----------



## Soren (Mar 16, 2007)

Probably linked up to a water-pump, continiously pumping cool water into the container surrounding the barrell - these things could shoot for an amazing period of time:


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 16, 2007)

renrich said:


> Speaking of machine guns and WW2 there is another thread where you gentlemen with experience are discussing the M60 and a sustained rate of fire. I fired an M60 on the range right after it came out and enjoyed my brief exposure.



I concur and I never had a problem with mine.


----------



## renrich (Mar 17, 2007)

Soren, I think you are right because I remember seeing in the film something like a water pump hooked up to the water jacket. I wish I could remember the length of time it fired and the number of rounds.


----------



## Matt308 (Mar 19, 2007)

It was connected to an condensor can. Liquid water was heated around the barrel, converted to steam, condensed and recycled back to the water can. Efficent for emplacement sustained fire, but too cumbersome for field use.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Mar 19, 2007)

Vickers ?...completely outdated for WW2.



> The integral 10rd magazine was somewhat problematic. But the quick change barrel and relatively light weight were plusses.



I read somewhere that the side mag gave some stability troubles, I guess some weak hands guys in there.


----------



## Soren (Mar 20, 2007)

Matt308 said:


> It was connected to an condensor can. Liquid water was heated around the barrel, converted to steam, condensed and recycled back to the water can. Efficent for emplacement sustained fire, but too cumbersome for field use.




And one the reasons that it could sustain fire for so long was undoubtedly also because of the low RoF, some 400 rpm if I'm not mistaking.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Mar 21, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I concur and I never had a problem with mine.



Yeah i read about so many reliability problems, but never from the people who have actually fired the thing, the M240 GPMG, is an awesome weapon but its so easy to fold the barrel its not even funny, i dont understand why the US opted for it over the M-60


----------



## ndicki (Mar 22, 2007)

I used to be a GPMG (FN MAG) gunner at one stage during my training - very good weapon! If you don't believe me, then why have nearly all the "serious" users preferred it over the M-60? Start with South Africa, Rhodesia, Israel, UK, New Zealand, etc, etc... I thought that apart from the belt problem inherent to all belt-fed guns, it was spot-on.


----------



## trackend (Mar 25, 2007)

My old man liked the Lewis although a bit prone to stoppages he said it was very accurate with up to 700 rpm giving a fare rate of fire, and when he saw this pic he said it must have been better than he thought as even the imperial troops are still using them.


----------



## renrich (Apr 2, 2007)

Yesterday I had an interesting discussion with a gentleman who is a retired western Colorado rancher. He has been a shooter all his life and said at one time he owned 17 firearms. His last elk hunting was done with a 264 Win Mag. I say all this to qualify what I am about quote him as saying.He and I were talking about how useless we felt the M1 carbine was and he was on Omaha Beach in the 1st Div on D-Day and said there were numerous carbines lying about where the owners had abandoned them in favor of a Garand when one became available.


----------



## Matt308 (Apr 3, 2007)

You bet. But your trading range for less ammo and about 4lbs. I would have done that too. Assuming I could also get the bandoliers for reloads. M1 Carbine is about a 200yd max weapon. Certainly it will shoot farther, but likelihood of hitting anything with decent cover at longer ranges is probably a waste of ammo. I own both and my Carbine has better inherent accuracy than most. 4-5 MOA just won't cut it at long ranges against enemy in defilade.


----------



## renrich (Apr 3, 2007)

Right, I carried a carbine during our maneuvers in Louisiana in 61-62 and it was a wonderful weapon to carry but I had to qualify with one on the range and felt in a real fight I would be terribly undergunned. Always thought I would trade it off for something more powerful if they sent us against the Warsaw Pact people. I magine there was a decent supply of Garands and bandoliers on that beach in Normandy after the first wave hit.


----------



## Matt308 (Apr 3, 2007)

Unfortunately, yes I suspect there were.


----------



## renrich (Apr 7, 2007)

Matt, went to a cutting today and had another conversation with the retired rancher who was at Omaha beach. This man really loves good horses. He said as they were finally moving off the beach he spotted a German horse team that had been pulling an artillery piece. One horse was down, killed, the other was still hitched standing there in shock. My friend went over and cut loose the living horse. He said he was so shocked he barely moved. Many people don't realise to the extent that German transport was horse drawn.


----------



## Matt308 (Apr 8, 2007)

Yep. Take a look at old footage and you can see that they relied rather heavily upon traditional calvary for things such as moving artillery pieces. What a dichotomy. The worlds leading technological war machine in so many areas and yet utterly reliant upon WWI types of horse drawn movement in others. Amazing.


----------



## renrich (Apr 9, 2007)

I remember seeing photos taken of the Falaise Pocket after the Jabos had finshed. There were corpses of horses everywhere. Yes it was a paradox about their use of draft animals. At least they could find feed for the animals probably easier than gasoline.


----------



## Woods (Aug 12, 2007)

The M-1 Garand #1


----------



## trackend (Aug 12, 2007)

It is a myth or rather a misconception that most German and indeed allied infantry were mechanized the Germans used vast numbers of horses but the main mode of transport on all sides was a pair of ammo boots or as we say in the UK Shankses pony.


----------



## HoHun (Aug 12, 2007)

Hi Trackend,

>It is a myth or rather a misconception that most German and indeed allied infantry were mechanized 

In the case of the Wehrmacht, this myth was deliberately created by the ministry of propaganda that issued regulations to show only (or predominantly) mechanized transport and tanks in the newsreels.

>or as we say in the UK Shankses pony.

Interesting - the German parallel is "auf Schusters Rappen" (on shoemaker's black horses).

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## drgondog (Aug 12, 2007)

renrich said:


> Right, I carried a carbine during our maneuvers in Louisiana in 61-62 and it was a wonderful weapon to carry but I had to qualify with one on the range and felt in a real fight I would be terribly undergunned. Always thought I would trade it off for something more powerful if they sent us against the Warsaw Pact people. I magine there was a decent supply of Garands and bandoliers on that beach in Normandy after the first wave hit.



If I recall correctly, the purpose of the M-1 Carbine was to replace the 1911A1 primarily - if so it would put the utility of the weapon in a slightly more favorable light from 50-200 yards.

I didn't bother to verify that old memory so it could easily be wrong


----------



## Woods (Aug 13, 2007)

I beleive you are correct drgondog. That .30 cal was still kind of under powered though.


----------



## lucanus (Aug 18, 2007)

You know guys a couple of years ago I bought a Johnson in a Pawn Shop
cause the owner wasn't sure what it was....ran just under 400 bills...
traded for a Valmet from a buddy...I got the best end of that one.


----------



## fer-de-lance (Aug 30, 2007)

> The only defining feature of the M1 Garand was the semi-automatic ability of it. It lacked the stopping power, accuracy and range of standard British and German bolt action rifles.



Care to quote a reference to support a higher wounding potential (stopping power) for the 7.7mm X 56R and 7.92mm X 57 being significiantly higher than the 7.62mm X 63. 

It should be remembered that the 7.62mm X 51 NATO round adopted to replace the 7.7mm X 56R was based on the 7.62mm X 63 used in the M1.

Again, do you have references for the SLR giving anything away in "lethality" compared to the "Smelly" or the No.4?

I will guarantee you that a West German 7.62mm X 51 (a downgraded M1 round) would produce a wound destroying more tissue than any 7.7mm X 56R. Has to do with the construction of the bullet itself and certainly run counter to your assumption that the 7.7mm X 56R intrinsically having greater "stopping power" than the full up 7.62mm X 63.

The M1 military grade rifle is guaranteed to be under 2.5 M.O.A. when using quality match grade ammunition. But for a battle rifle, what the expert marksman (the minority) can achieve is less important than what the average squad / section G.I. / squaddie can do with the rifle.

It is important to remember that the M1 has a much lower recoil than the Lee-Enfield and the Mauser. Firing the same 7.62mm X 63 round, the M1 with its gas operated semi-automatic operation has a markedly lower recoil impulse than the bolt action M1903. Compared to the K98 and any Lee-Enfield, the difference in recoil with the M1 is even more marked. 

THAT, I would submit, makes a big difference when the average soldier is doing the shooting.



> The clip wasn't small; it carried 8 rounds but it couldn't be reloaded mid-clip.


 . 

Anyone who has handled an M1 will tell you that you can eject the partially expended clip and replace it with a full one very quickly. Probably more quickly than any bolt action topping up with more than a couple of rounds.



> The Lee Enfield Mk.IV was one of the best rifles of the war, it wasn't revolutionary but it was a good solid build and would easily stop someone in one shot



Sure it was good but the M1 fired faster while achieving essentially comparable lethality and accuracy. Oh yeah, the M1 is also very robust.


----------



## Matt308 (Sep 7, 2007)

Agree fer-de-lance. The M1 was "the finest battle implement of the war". Comparisons of wound ballistics are an art at best. For the most part, all major powers fielded battle rifles that had virtually similar wound ballistics. However, the M1 using a high power cartridge comparable to other bolt action rifles, its semi-auto capability, inherent accuracy, and maintainability in battlefield conditions makes this a world class battle rifle. I do have to perhaps, not disagree, but clarify that the M1 was criticized for its 8-rnd enbloc clip. It could not be topped up and was "supposedly" prone to giving a position away with its ejection. While I can sympathize with the first, the latter is likely myth. In the heat of a firefight, you are not going to hear a "sproing" of sheet metal.

Finally, I own both an Enfield MkIII and an M1. The Enfield has a sharp kick that, while not unnerving, is a marked contrast from the Garand. But I do love my Enfield.

Having said all that, if I had to trundle into the thick of it, I would take an Enfield for sheer ability to abuse the &hit out of it and still expect it to fire.


----------



## Matt308 (Sep 7, 2007)

lucanus said:


> You know guys a couple of years ago I bought a Johnson in a Pawn Shop
> cause the owner wasn't sure what it was....ran just under 400 bills...
> traded for a Valmet from a buddy...I got the best end of that one.



Then I must assume that the Johnson was a piece of $hit. Otherwise you got taken my friend.


----------



## fer-de-lance (Sep 8, 2007)

Wasn't suggesting the M1 didn't have its short comings. That darned "ping" when the empty clip was ejected was one of them. Some old hands would toss an empty clip to fool an unsuspecting enemy into believing that there was empty rifle in the middle of a fire fight ... 

My Dad could pull a clip out, hold it in his right hand, push back the operating rod with the heel of his hand, push the clip in with his thumb far enough to release the bolt and pull his hand away while the bolt closes to chamber a round. All this in one smooth motion, (without the thumb being caught) - probably faster than most peole can push the magazine release, pull a fresh magazine out, insert it and chamber a round with the M-16 ... 

If there was a partially empty clip, the operating rod could be pulled back to extract the chambered round and holding the bolt open, depressing the magazine catch would eject the partially empty clip. All this is done with the right hand, of course (heel on operating rod handle, thumb depressing the catch and catching the ejected clip). A full 8-round clip could then be loaded, usually faster than a bolt action can be "topped up" with loose rounds.

A half empty "Smelly" (SMLE) could be topped up with a 5 round clip ... but then who could count so precisely in the excitment of action!?

Re: wound ballistics, the first study of the 30-06 was done on goats (French and Callender of the US Army, 1935). The amount of devitalized tissue was somewhat exaggerated because the tests did not control for hitting bone(!) Explosive comminution ... Modern tests are done on anesthetized hogs - usually on a hind limb avoiding hitting bone. All WWII FMJ rifle rounds performed pretty much the same according to the publications I've seen.


----------



## Matt308 (Sep 8, 2007)

fer-de-lance said:


> Wasn't suggesting the M1 didn't have its short comings. That darned "ping" when the empty clip was ejected was one of them. Some old hands would toss an empty clip to fool an unsuspecting enemy into believing that there was empty rifle in the middle of a fire fight ...
> 
> My Dad could pull a clip out, hold it in his right hand, push back the operating rod with the heel of his hand, push the clip in with his thumb far enough to release the bolt and pull his hand away while the bolt closes to chamber a round. All this in one smooth motion, (without the thumb being caught) - probably faster than most peole can push the magazine release, pull a fresh magazine out, insert it and chamber a round with the M-16 ...
> 
> ...



Where do you find this $hit.

Your analogies of the M1 versus a bolt action are illogical. The same shortcomings of topping up hold true for the M1 or any bolt action. Ever ejected a partially empty 8-rnd enbloc M1 clip? Yeah, so what happens Enstein?

And regarding the goats, are you referring to the Strausburg tests?

I don't wish to be the @sshole that I am, but you might wish to ease yourself into these subjects to test whether those who are interested are significantly more informed than you are before posting.


----------



## fer-de-lance (Sep 9, 2007)

Where do I get this from?

Callender GR, French. RW (1935). Wound ballistics – studies in the mechanisms of wound. production by rifle bullets; Milit. Surg., 77:177-201, 

Berlin R, Gelin LE, Janzon B, et al: Local effects of assault rifle bullets in live tissues. Acta Chir Scand Suppl 1976; 459: 1-49. 

More references on more recent wound ballistics controveries are also available if you care to discuss. 

Strasbourg tests (1993 ASLET International Training Conference, Reno, Nevada)? Perhaps I should be asking why you should be bringing this up in when the discussion has been on terminal ballistics of rifle bullets. I've had plenty of time "easing" myself into this field and know the difference between the mechanism for incapacitation by hand gun bullets and the rifle bullets we have been discussing so far. 

I don't recall making an "analogy" between the M1 and a bolt action rifle. What is it that you are referring to? 

Reference to "Einstein" aside re: where the rounds may go when you eject a partially expended clip from an M1 ... the question I pose is, can the M1 be emptied of the clip and the unexpended rounds in the manner I described and then reloaded with a fresh clip so that you have a full loaded rifle?


----------



## Matt308 (Sep 9, 2007)

f-d-l your references only confirm that you are parroting text from a book. Thus my reason for asking where you find this stuff.

While it may be faster to insert a new clip into an M1 vs topping off 5rds in a bolt action by hand, that is not always the case. Depends on how many rds you need to top up.

And with respect to my question, you must not know then. You eject a partially full enbloc clip in an M1 and you will be spending the next minute with your @ss in the air trying find where those remaining rounds went. When your average soldier did not run around with a can full of loaded enbloc clips, those rds became precious and topping up was not taught as SOP. I'm not knocking the M1, it was and is a fantastic weapon and years ahead of all bolt action battle rifles.

The enbloc clip was deemed to be the failing feature of the M1. And rectified with the M14.

I own them both. Thus my comments do not originate from a text book.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 9, 2007)




----------



## Matt308 (Sep 9, 2007)




----------



## renrich (Sep 9, 2007)

I trained and qualified(expert) with the Garand in the US Army and I don't recall any mention of replacing a partially filled clip with a full clip and it seems to me it would be a difficult evolution especially on the battlefield. I also qualified with the M14 later and have fired the M1A quite a lot and I still prefer the Garand as far as reloading a fresh clip versus the magazine of the M14. You don't have to rotate the weapon and look down and make sure the magazine is fed in correctly but of course you don't have to reload the M14 as often. The M1 clips are less bulky to carry also.


----------



## Matt308 (Sep 9, 2007)

Bravo Renrich. Expert even. Interesting that you prefer the M1 vs the M14. Do you think that is prejudice from your training, or a real technical advantage. The M14 has stripper clips too. But I have found that most users just keep full mags on hand versus bandoliers of stripper clips.

I think we are getting a little off topic with our discussions of M14s. And for that I apologize, as I was the dolt the introduced that point.

And f-d-l, my apologies for using the Einstein label. You had my ire up. Wish you hadn't held back and left your original post with "less civil tone". I would have liked to see that.


----------



## fer-de-lance (Sep 9, 2007)

It is obviously not SOP in the U.S. armed forces but the M1 was supplied to Allied Forces. As late as the 1980's, University students in some Asian countries received their military training as part of national service using the M1. This specific question of not being able to "top up" was raised and an instructor demonstrated this nifty move to prove that you could have a fully loaded M1 rather quickly a pinch. 

Yes, I am aware what happens to the rounds when a partial clip is ejected. Matter of fact, I actually have the experience of having my @ss in the air picking up loose 30-06 bullets from an ejected M1 clip in the home of an ex-USMC NCO ...

Given that one only carry 100 rounds, is it practical to do this on a regular basis? I don't think the wide-eyed students witnessing the move were thinking about that! It was a very narrowly defined question of can it be done in a pinch and the answer was YES.

Regarding wound ballistics, unless you are prepared to follow up on my question regarding the relevance of Strasbourg to the present discussion on rifle bullets, let's just leave the speculation about anyone "parrotting" things from "textbooks" .. (especially when one had not not quoted.)

Without some of the very lively debate seen in the journals like the ones I quoted, one should be very worried about whether the most appropriate and evidence-based treatments are brought to bear should one sustain a wound from a high velocity projectile. It's fine and dandy as an academic discussion but when one's own "sorry @ss" is on the line ... or the operating table ...!?

Consider the debate on the necessity of "radical debridement" for managing high velocity projectile wounds that was still going on in the 1990's. 

Why should you care? Because, taken to one extreme, surgeons would be excising (cutting off) good tissue simply because of a belief that it was necessary when the wound was caused by a high velocity projectile. That tissue in question could be muscle in a limb - consider the consequences.

This "belief" was reinforced by years of "tradition" and lecturing like it was the gospel. Trust me, I've heard those lectures in the 80s (and believed them ..). Conversion from the "eminence-based" to an "evidence-based" approach was not a short and easy process ...


----------



## fer-de-lance (Sep 9, 2007)

> And f-d-l, my apologies for using the Einstein label. You had my ire up. Wish you hadn't held back and left your original post with "less civil tone". I would have liked to see that.



No apology needed, but what purpose would an uncivil tone and a partisan approach serve?

Can I not get my point across in a calm but firm and reasonable manner ...(okay ... without resorting to quoting journal references ...) ?


----------



## Matt308 (Sep 9, 2007)

fer-de-lance said:


> No apology needed, but what purpose would an uncivil tone and a partisan approach serve?
> 
> Can I not get my point across in a calm but firm and reasonable manner ...(okay ... without resorting to quoting journal references ...) ?



It would have made the discussion more lively, if nothing else.

And "radical debridgement"??? I'll ask again, where do you find this $hit. Your 1935 quotes seem spot on. You go, man.


----------



## fer-de-lance (Sep 10, 2007)

Okay, you got me on that one ... I will have to "Parrot" a textbook (actually 2): ... 

"Debridement" is a medical term referring to the removal of dead, damaged, or infected tissue to improve the healing potential of the remaining healthy tissue. The word “débridement” is originally French. It was used for the first time during the eighteenth century in the surgical context and meant “wound incision.” For French surgeons, it has retained to this day its original meaning.

Eh, yes, it is "-bride" but pronounced with a short "i" by the purists ... Perhaps to avoid snide allusions to the "Droit de Cuissage" (right of a feudal lord to sleep with the bride of a vassal on her wedding night ... You know, "de-bride" ... Oh, never mind!)

Left untreated, high velocity projectile wounds with much tissue destroyed and bacterial contamination would likely become infected. Gas gangrene can ensue, resulting in ... amputation ... death.

Surgically removing as much dead tissue you can find (and may be some that looks "marginal") and delaying closing of the wound has been shown to be the best way to prevent infection in the pre-antibiotic days.

With improvements in antibiotics etc, adjustments have been made to try and preserve more viable tissue.

However, if you don't have anything else to deal with an infected wound, maggots (fly larvae) have been used. Johns Hopkins pioneered it in the 1930's and now (after a hiatus of many years due in part to people being "grossed out") there is now a "growing" business for supplying disinfected Lucilia sericata larvae as "medicinal maggots" to practitioners for dealing with things like infected diabetic leg ulcers ... 

The maggots basically eat the dead and infected tissue and leave healthy tissue unaffected. This biological "debridement" help prevent worsening of the infection. Medicinal maggots have saved many an infected limbs from amputation ... (I will spare you the published references but there are many). When the dead tissue is gone, the maggots starve and die - sad (for the fly), but conventient (for the patient).

There are stories of medics in POW camps lacking medical supplies and surgical facilities using maggots to treat infected high velocity projectile wounds. 

There were descriptions of dressings left opened to allow flies to lay eggs in the wounds. When you had no other options (the wound is infected and a known proportion of patients is expected to die of infection anyway), the incremental risk of the fly bringing bacteria to the wound is outweighed by the potential good of the maggots debriding the wound.

It's pretty gruesome but during WWII and the Korean War, lives and limbs in POW camps have been saved this way. It was one of the dirty/clean little secrets that the medics kept to themselves ... (Imagine getting the patient's consent for this procedure!)


----------



## renrich (Sep 10, 2007)

I was in "hog heaven" in basic having that war winning Garand and an almost unlimited supply of free ammo on the KD range. I had never fired a big bore rifle but had grown up hunting jack rabbits on a farm in Gonzales County, Texas with my Grandfather"s "target" a 22 bolt action Winchester and a box of 22 shorts (all I could afford) which cost 35 cents in those days. The little rifle had open sights and, maybe a faulty memory, but because of a lot of shooting and learning the proper hold over, I killed a number of rabbits at ranges out to 120 yards while they were sitting and got to be fair at hitting them on the run. Anyway, the Garand was a lot of fun for me and my particular issued rifle seemed to be quite accurate and I never had a stoppage, maybe because I gave it lavish care. I am prejudiced toward the Garand but later when using the M14 I just never liked that big box magazine sticking out. I also qualified with the M1 carbine but would not want to carry one in combat. Also qualified with the 1911 Government Model and have one of those in my house as well as many other pieces. I was never in combat(thank the Lord) but have killed many a head of big game since those days on the KD range and have done a lot of hand loading. Any comparison of the wound ballistics of the German, British and US service calibers as far as the issue muskets is concerned would show there is not much advantage for any of them over the others. The 3006 round which is the fodder the Garand used might be a little light for some of the dangerous species but properly loaded and with proper placement of the bullet it will kill any game animal in the world and is way more than adequate for the human animal. As far as reaching out the Garand and it's bullet will out perform almost any rifleman using it with the issue peep sight.


----------



## Matt308 (Sep 10, 2007)

renrich said:


> Any comparison of the wound ballistics of the German, British and US service calibers as far as the issue muskets is concerned would show there is not much advantage for any of them over the others.



From one fellow handloader to another, may I say thankyou for a respite of common sense. Bravo.


----------



## Matt308 (Sep 10, 2007)

fer-de-lance said:


> Okay, you got me on that one ... I will have to "Parrot" a textbook (actually 2): ...
> 
> "Debridement" is a medical term referring to the removal of dead, damaged, or infected tissue to improve the healing potential of the remaining healthy tissue. The word “débridement” is originally French. It was used for the first time during the eighteenth century in the surgical context and meant “wound incision.” For French surgeons, it has retained to this day its original meaning.
> 
> ...



 Excellent.


----------



## renrich (Sep 11, 2007)

Thanks Matt. Handloading is the best way I know of to really learn about the effectiveness of all the different loads and calibers out there.


----------



## Snautzer01 (Sep 11, 2007)

Maybe this paper is of intrest to you all


----------



## bf109 Emil (May 11, 2008)

you gota like the .303 caliber De Wilde ammo used in Spits and hurricanes...makes a nice flash when it hits it's target, and doesn't give away bouncing an enemy does like silly tracer rounds for the poor aiming lads...
Dad brought tons of this back, and on the farm i think us kids used to shot nearly every tree and old car in the fields just to see this...

bf109 Emil


----------



## Soren (May 12, 2008)

Fer-de-lance,

The 7.92x57mm IS does have more stopping power than the 30.06 and may be used for larger game as-well. The rifles chambered in 7.92x57mm IS were used as elefant guns by both British Americans hunters in Africa because it was the only regular round capable of taking down an elefant, the .30 cal and .303 proving inadequate. Now this is also much in part because of the much heavier and efficient projectiles used in the 7.92x57mm round at that time offering a much better penetrative performance. 

Now against a human being within 500m there's no difference, all three rounds are just as lethal nomatter where you hit, the cavitation effect being enormous.


----------



## Phantom Rocks (Aug 25, 2008)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> very nice.........



i dont get it, if the lancaster kicks ass, you do you have a picture of a meteor?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 25, 2008)

Phantom Rocks said:


> i dont get it, if the lancaster kicks ass, you do you have a picture of a meteor?



If the Phantom rocks so much, why dont you have a picture of a phantom?


----------



## CharlesBronson (Feb 16, 2009)

MG 34 and MG 34s emplacements in concrete and steel bunkers.

The quoted muzzle velocity ( 755 mps) is only with the SS ( schweres spitzgeschoss, heavy pointed bullet) ammunition, with the S.m.E and S.m.K it increased between 5 to 10 %.


----------



## renrich (Mar 19, 2009)

The German machine pistol, I think it was called the Schmeiser(?) was chambered for the 9mm para bellum and some of the British Sten guns were also. Just finished reading an article about the 38 Super and had this thought. The 38 Super had more muzzle energy with some bullets than the 45 ACP, which was what the Thompson gun used and the 9 MM. Seems like an updated 38 Super in the Thompson and the M3(?) grease gun would have made a fine sub machine gun cartridge. In fact, it might still be a better cartridge than the 9 MM in that use in the modern guns. Any thoughts?


----------



## CharlesBronson (Mar 19, 2009)

Is not a bad idea, the 38 super left the muzzle with about 415-430 mps, compared with 370-90 in the 9x19 para.

The only submachineguns using this 9x23mm I think were spanish. Actually it wasnt the 38 super but a very similar catrigde, the 9mm largo, the largo is a 38mm super without the semi-rim, otherwise the power and dimensions are the same.

An example is this the *Star Z-45*, copy of the MP-40 ( wich by the way was designed by Heinrich Vollmer of _Erfurter Maschinenfabrik_ ERMA) but in the 9mm largo, the 9x19 wasnt used in Spain until 1982.


----------



## renrich (Mar 20, 2009)

I read online that some Super 38 rounds, out of a pistol barrel, had 495 foot pounds of muzzle energy and one might think it would retain velocity better than the 45 ACP.


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 20, 2009)

Sure enough, .45 is a sucker when it comes down to aerodynamics.

Folks, were the 10mm Auto and/or .40 S&W ever considered as the choice for SMG rounds?


----------



## CharlesBronson (Mar 20, 2009)

Sure do, Heckler Koch manufactured its legendary MP5 design for both calibers.


----------



## renrich (Mar 20, 2009)

I am sure that the 45ACP was picked for the Thompson and Sten partly because of ammo commonality but the M1 Carbine did not have any commonality with any other weapon.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Mar 20, 2009)

45 acp in the Sten ?, never heard of .

The M1 carine was a completely new design specily dmade for paratrooper and for providing something beast than a pistol to second line soldier like artillery,communications, etc. Completely new design so it was logic to use a new catrigde.


----------



## renrich (Mar 21, 2009)

I am quite familiar with the carbine having qualified with it and carrying one for a year. I was not fond of it except it was easy to carry. My point was that the US did not seem reluctant to introduce another type of ammo into the logistical stream. Speaking of the carbine, it may well have been the first "assault rifle'"


----------



## CharlesBronson (Mar 23, 2009)

Well, evidently the U.S army was confident in its industrial support.


----------



## adam426 (Apr 26, 2009)

rifle - M1 garand
SMG - Tommy gun
LMG - Bren
Machine Gun - MG42


----------



## Soren (Apr 26, 2009)

The Sten gun didn't use .45 ACP, it used 9mm Parabellum.


----------



## renrich (May 15, 2009)

Some Stens were made in 45 ACP. I am sure(I think) that I read somewhere that some Stens were made in 45 ACP. Probably in an "American Rifleman." I can't find the reference so I stand corrected. The Sten came only in 9 mm parabellum. It still would have been a neat weapon if the Thompson had been chambered in 38 Super.


----------



## glennasher (May 15, 2009)

Actually, Auto Ordnance DID make some .38 Super Thompsons, a total of three, I think it was. I've seen photos of them in a book I foolishly loaned out, (it was never returned). I think a Super .38 Thompson would be a mistake, though, the semi-rimmed cartridge would be a pain to load in a double-column magazine, it would require due diligence to make sure the rims didn't overlap and cause a feeding malfunction, which is, I'm guessing, why Thompson A/O didn't make any more than three of them.

I could really like a 10mm Thompson, though.................


Don't ever look at paper ballistics, though, and assume that the Super was better than a .45 ACP, it shot flatter, but didn't hit nearly as hard as a .45. I've loaded for 9mm, .38 Super, 10mm, and .45 ACP, among others (and had pistols for all these chamberings, and only the 10mm comes close to the .45, and only comes close, it doesn't surpass it in any way. I shot competition a lot before arthritis took the fun out of it, (every weekend for nearly 17 years, in fact), so I've dealt with all those and the major revolver cartridges, too, .38 Spl. .357, 41 Mag, .44 Spl and Magnum, and .45 Colt. I've hunted with most of those, too, and seen what they do on game (stick with rifles!).


----------



## Glider (May 15, 2009)

Something I just read about British WW2 SMG's. A book called 18 Platoon which describes the history of one platoon from D Day to the end of the war the writer who was the Platoon leader for the period, describes the Sten as a wretched weapon which was normally replaced by the MP40 as it was a far superior weapon. However his unit came across some Beretta SMG's which were being used by the Germans and preferred these over the MP40.

The Beretta was more accurate for single shots and had two triggers one for single shot and one for automatic. 

Its a good read and describes life in an infantry platton in a different manner than most books. Its required reading at Sandhurst so must have something going for it.


----------



## Soren (May 15, 2009)

The Beretta 38/42 SMG:


----------



## vikingBerserker (May 16, 2009)

I think when it comes to SMG, Suomi m/1931 from Finland has got to be either the best or one of the best during WWII. It was accurate up to 300m - which I think is unusual for a SMG.


----------



## renrich (May 16, 2009)

Thanks,glen, what you say about the magazine and feed problems for a Thompson in 38 Super makes sense. The tables I have seen show the 38 Super to have more ME than 45 ACP and I would assume more at say 75 or 100 yards. I do understand that some 38 Super ammo is downloaded for liability reasons. I have a friend, close friend of my brother who is a retired Texas Ranger and a real pistolero. His carry gun is a 38 Super and he seems to prefer it over 45 ACP although he has a number of 45s. I have hunted often with 41 Mag but never scored. I missed a mulie in the Davis Mountains one time that was no more than ten yards away although I was looking over my shoulder and shooting with one hand. It was funny as I was sitting down resting with my hunting buddy, a big yellow Lab named Hud. He looked behind me and huffed and I turned my head almost 180 degrees and there stood a little buck partially obscured by a little scrub bush with his head and front of his chest exposed. I had a No 1 Ruger in 270 Win but wanted to try with the Ruger 41 Mag. I eased it out of the holster and still looking behind me extended the one hand and tried to squeeze off a round. No ear protection and it went off. The buck disappeared, my ears were ringing and Hud looked kind of ed. My best chance to score with a pistol and I blew it.


----------



## Soren (May 16, 2009)

I agree with beserker about the Suomi KP/-31 in that it was probably the best SMG of the war, but it was expensive to manufacture, too expensive for a large army. But aside from that it seems as the highest quality SMG of the war.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (May 17, 2009)

Hello Glennasher,
Why do you think the .45 ACP is better than the 10 mm?
I shoot the .45 ACP much more than the 10 mm and reload for both. I also stay away from the top end 10 mm loads because I don't really have a need for that kind of power, but I do appreciate that the possibility is there. Even at nearly the same power levels, the 10 mm has more choices of powder because of the much higher pressure limits. The accuracy I get isn't terribly different between them with 1.5 inch 5 shot groups at 25 yards although they are shot out of very dissimilar pistols. Sometimes I have done better with the .45 ACP, but I have also tried out many more loads there as well.

The .45 ACP usually tends to be a very dirty round which I believe is because of the low pressure. I actually tuned one gun to have a slightly longer lockup and it seemed to stay much cleaner, but haven't shot it enough to come to many other conclusions.

- Ivan.


----------



## glennasher (May 17, 2009)

Sheer momentum of the heavier bullets tends to favor the .45 over the 10mm. I had a very early Delta Elite Colt, and it was put together RIGHT, but even with the heavier 200 grain loads, it doesn't hold up with the .45 really. Using a +P load with 230s in a .45 makes it a better round for hunting, too. You also can't ignore the great diameter of the bullet, size DOES matter, and probably always will.
As far as the Super goes, it's llke the difference between a 5.56 and a 7.62 Nato, it's just no comparison when it comes to ooomph. Texas Rangers always liked the Super because it shoots flat for longer distances, and ranges in Texas are "indeterminate" most of the time, it's simply easier to hit with the Super than the .45 when the yardage is longer. Hits matter, too.A 10mm would split that difference nicely, of course.

My pistols were customized for IPSC shooting, compensated, all the gadgets and gewgaws, etc. and I'd taken pains with them to shoot well. The Super had a Barsto barrel, the 10 had a Barsto, and a Hienie compensated barrel, and the .45 had another brand of good quality barrel, all smithed by guys who knew their business. The 10mm was probably the most accurate of the three, but it was nip and tuck. By far and away, the .45 was more reliable, and more comfortable to shoot.

I never found cleaning a pistol to be a real chore, Ivan, so I never let it bother me. Try some Accurate #7 powder in your 10mm, or some HS-7 with the 200s, you should get close to 1300 with the 200s, scary good accuracy, too. I shot 231 in the .45 mostly, especially at the USPSA/IPSC Nationals, when I had to shoot well. I came in 5th in my class in 1989 (C, Open).

I sure do miss my pistol shooting, but the arthritis took all the fun out of it. I still carry around a Colt Custom Shop 1991A1 Limited model, but I can't do the competition thing any more, my rheumatologist forbids it. I REALLY miss the Lightweight Commanders I was carrying, but they hurt to shoot.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (May 19, 2009)

Hello Glennasher,

Seems like you know your business with handguns.
I believe part of your discussion is contradictory though: You state the .45 auto has greater momentum with 230 grain bullets, but the numbers you quote for the 10 mm clearly show it has greater momentum at 1200-1300 fps even if it were shooting 180 grain bullets. 

I tend to load my 10 mm rounds with a 180 grain bullet at 1000 to 1100 fps. My .45 Autos typically get fed with 230 grain truncated cone bullets (Lee Mould) at about 850 fps to duplicate military ball. Most of my .45 Auto loads use W231 but I still haven't settled on a powder for 10 mm yet. Just about everything seems to work pretty well. I don't have any experience at all with a .38 Super.

With the .45 ACP in a M1911 type, I notice that powder residue seems to get everywhere. It is especially noticeable in a stainless gun because black stains are so much more obvious. It isn't that any one place is all that difficult, but there are lots of corners, lug recesses, and angles on the breech face that need cleaning. Generally some time before I finish, I end up with a ripped up paper towel and toothpicks to pick out all the residue in the corners.

- Ivan.


----------



## glennasher (May 19, 2009)

The .45 is a bit dirty shooting, but most all cast bullet loads are, to some degree. Jacketed bullets are cleaner, of course. 231`isn't the cleanest burning powder for a .45, either, try some Universal Clays for clean shooting, if it really bothers you, it's similar to Unique in loads, but it's a LOT cleaner.

180s are good in the 10mm, but you have to factor in the diameter of the bullets, too, and the .45 has a good bit better cross-section. You can, judiciously, hit nearly 1000fps with a 230, if you've got a well-fitted gun and stiffer springs. I wouldn't use a load like that everyday, of course, but limited use won't hurt anything.

Most of the time, in my 10mm, I shot a 200 gr. SWC (cast) (CP Bullets out of Toledo or nearby) using AA#2, for 950 fps. It duplicated, numbers-wise, the load I used for IPSC shooting my .45s, and it was back when Accurate Powders were substantially less expensive than 231, and easier to find locally. I finally switched the .45 over to AA#2, also, it was a bit cleaner than 231, but VERY similar. Back in those days, data was "where you found it" or "whatever you could come up with on your own", which was interesting, you never could predict what was going to happen. I had some data sheets from Sierra and Hornady to help a little, but no manuals had anything in them until later. I never had good luck with the recommended AA#5, that powder and I didn't get along well, but AA#7 is superlative for warmer loads in 10mm, try it and see.


I had scads of data I'd worked up, in a notebook, but that notebook has gotten away from me somehow. I'd worked some with the .41 Action Express, too, at one time. The notebook had data for everything I'd been ing around with. I think it got lost in a move, somewhere along the line.


----------



## renrich (May 28, 2009)

Interesting article in latest "American Rifleman" about guns of D day. One of the German defenders at Omaha beach was using a Czech version of the Browning water cooled MG not the Mg42. Another good story was that a Airborne sergeant landed on the steeple of the church at Ste Mere Eglise and was shot in the stomach by a German soldier. The German turned to shoot another paratrooper and the soldier shot in the stomach pulled his 1911 Government Model and shot the German in the back of the head before he died. Sounds like a heck of a shot.


----------



## Soren (Jun 7, 2009)

Velocity matters more than size, and this is a well proven fact. 

As for the .45 ACP being a man-stopper = pure rubbish. The .45 ACP stops a man no better than a 9mm Parabellum, and that is despite what some smartass cop may claim. That a .45 ACP supposedly does stop a man better than a 9mm is just another one of those ever persisting urban myths out there. 

To be even more clear however, safe from some of those freak of nature guns out there, there's pretty much no handgun in the world that could ever be classified as a "man stopper", and if there really was I'd never want to be the one using it.

A handgun is a sidearm, and 90% of the time your last ditch weapon if something goes wrong with your primary. Only in very close quarters, such as inside a small house or room is it your primary weapon. 

A pistol will not stop a running man dead in his tracks, be it even a .50 cal Desert Eagle, if it would then you'd be thrown back on your ass every time you fired it. 

*Newtons third law of motion: *
_To every action there is an equal and opposite reaction_

That having been said a pistol round can be just as lethal as a rifle round if you know what to aim for, and one of the obvious places is the head ofcourse, but there are other places as-well, such as directly centermass. If you hit a man centermass with a std. 9mm parabellum round it will go straight through his organs and sever his spinal chord = instant relaxation. And this is something a .45 ACP for example can have issues with because of its lower penetrative capabilities.

But aside from that the .45 ACP does make a bigger hole, and a bigger hole means higher bloodloss, so if hit anywhere other than the head spine, then a .45 ACP is a deadlier round long term than the 9mm. But that's not really of much importance in the heat of battle where you want your enemy to die as soon as you hit him and not a second after as that could cost you your life. (Also explains why the military went for the 9mm) But in that case you're most of the time also far better off NOT choosing the pistol over your rifle.

If you're looking for a weapon which will stop a man 100% of the time nearly nomatter where you hit him, then you need look no further than your own 12 gauge shotgun and fill it with slugs. Now there's something which will stop a man very quickly.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jun 7, 2009)

Soren said:


> If you're looking for a weapon which will stop a man 100% of the time nearly nomatter where you hit him, then you need look no further than your own 12 gauge shotgun and fill it with slugs. Now there's something which will stop a man very quickly.



A-fricken men!!!!


----------



## renrich (Jun 20, 2009)

An interesting article in the latest "American Rifleman." outlines the development of the Garand rifle and it's competition, the Pederson. At one point, the Garand was to be chambered for the 276 Pederson, an intermediate powered catridge, (a 140 or 150 grain bullet at around 2400 fps) It appears that General MacArthur put the quietus on that so the Garand went back to the 3006 Springfield. If the 276 Pederson had been adopted, the first true assault rifle might have been not far behind and the 223 Remington might have never happened.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Aug 27, 2009)

Two rarities in action, japanese Nambu type 11 and type 96, both gas operated in 6,5x51sr arisaka.


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOeHH54v4AA_


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Aug 28, 2009)

Hi Soren,

If you are talking about changing the momentum of a 180 pound dead weight, then obviously no handgun or shoulder fired rifle or shotgun will do it (12 gauge included). Even a small cannon shell may not transfer enough momentum to the target because the shell would likely pass through the target. I believe what we are discussing is the best handgun for causing enough structural damage, hydrostatic shock, neural disruption, overpressure, embarrassment, or whatever to stop an average person from doing whatever they are doing that requires that you shoot them to begin with.

As such, a Taser firing some little bitty needles with a fair amount of electric charge to be applied doesn't have enough momentum to argue about, but the effect is generally quite reliable. A Laser that burns a two inch hole through a person's chest also doesn't have momentum enough to discuss, but would also work well enough. Same goes for overpressure from a Nuke or Fuel-Air bomb. No momentum. Instant incapacitation. If the victim were running toward you, their momentum would not change, but they would probably fall down and no longer be an issue.

I personally am not dogmatic about a particular caliber or firearm, but I do believe some handguns are considerably more reliable "Man-Stoppers" than others. I don't think there really is a whole lot of difference between a 9 mm and a .45 ACP but I'll leave that to the experts who have the statistics. As far as I'm concerned, the endless discussion about the momentum of the .45 ACP versus the energy of a 9mm or .357 is something to sell magazines to folks who like to read the same thing over and over again.

- Ivan.


----------



## Soren (Aug 30, 2009)

We are in complete agreement on this Ivan.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Nov 9, 2009)

German soldier capturing russian with no magazine in its submachinegun. Almost funny.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Nov 10, 2009)

Perhaps there is a round in the chamber??? Naaah, SMGs fire from an open bolt. Guess that Ivan doesn't know the gun is empty.

Better yet, perhaps that Ivan is fairly smart and Fritz is stupid. Ivan knows that another Fritz is taking a picture, and probably yet another Fritz has a gun here. Ivan is probably the only one of his bunch left alive.

- Ivan.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 10, 2009)

Of course it is a staged photo, lots of pictures like this were taken by everyone from all sides. No one is stupid there...


----------



## CharlesBronson (Nov 15, 2009)

Some interesting photos of the MG 34 in use by the Wehrmacht:

- As AAA weapon, France 1943

- In Bunker barbette, Norway 1943

- Zwilling AAA emplacements Italy 1943

- Used by the "Freies Indien" in the atlantic wall, 1944.


----------



## vinnye (Jan 15, 2010)

I am with Soren - a 12 gauge is a pretty potent weapon with a slug in it!
I am not sure about other countries but in the UK you need a different licence for a SLUG than any other shot gun round. A slug means you need a FIREARMS licence but any other neeeds a shotgun licence. The difference is you need to show a reason for having a firearms licence not just because you want one! I do believe it will get harder to get both in the future!


----------



## Soren (Jan 15, 2010)

Slugs are illegal in many countries, and they are often refered to as the Brenneke Ideal.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 16, 2010)

Ah, Brenneke Ideal...
Favorite of many Croatian hunters, vs. wild boars of course. 

Re. banned slugs: the simple repeating hunting rifle is as deadly as shotgun with slug, yet those are allowed


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Jan 17, 2010)

The original 10mm load was a 200 grain bullet at 1,200fps from a 5" barrel. A 200 grain 10mm bullet has greater sectional density than a 230 grain .45ACP bullet and the 10mm is flatter shooting and penetrates deeper where the bullets are of equal construction.

The run of the mill retail stuff on the market today, unlike the .45ACP offerings, is loaded well below the SAAMI pressure spec established for the 10mm (37,500psi). The .45ACP is 21,000psi.

Double Tap ammunition company sells 10mm ammo that is much hotter yet still within SAAMI specs. One of their loads features a 200 grain bullet at 1,300fps which develops 750fpe. (This is chrono'd out of a Glock 20 with a 4.6" barrel as opposed to .45ACP loads which are chrono'd out of 5" barrels) A hot .45ACP driving a 200 grain bullet, even at a +P pressure level of 23,000psi will only make 1,100fps and that's out of a 5" tube. 

I have extensive experience with both the .45ACP and 10mm and I will tell you that the 10mm is more lethal and maintains lethality at a greater range than the .45ACP. For wild pig, the consensus of hunters (including myself) is that the 10mm is the minimum handgun to reliably anchor what can be dangerous beasts at handgun ranges. There is a reason why no one uses the .45ACP to hunt pig even though many more hunters own .45's than 10mm's. The 10mm also offers better barrier penetration.


Below is a picture of my Glock 20 SF with Lone Wolf 5" Tactical Match barrel. (A stock barrel is 4.6" so the 5" tube sticks out a bit.) With 15 rounds in the clip, it is my go to handgun in case of zombies. 







Here's an interesting demonstration of a 10mm with 180 grain bullet at 1,350fps:



_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0n1waGa4sLM_
.
.
.


----------



## renrich (Jan 20, 2010)

The video at the beginning of this thread shows an M2 being fired. I fired one of those at Fort Hood in 60 or 61 and it was quite an experience. We had only cotton for our ears in those days and it was loud. I just finished a historical novel based on the memoirs of a Brit in WW2 in North Africa. The title is "Killing Rommel" by Pressfield and I highly recommend it. The story is about a mission planned for the SAS and LRDG to attempt to kill Rommel. As we all know, the mission failed but it was highly interesting to read about the vehicles used and the weapons carried. To begin with, there was a high degree of using the opposites sides weapons and vehicles, particularly by the Germans. The British lost many tanks because of mechanical problems and the Germans salvaged them and used them as well as many trucks. The LRDG favored a truck called the 41-42 Chevrolet thirty hundred weight, which was a right hand drive, made in Canada, one and a half ton Chevrolet. These were two wheel drive,(for better gas mileage) and were field modified for desert use. They mounted various combinations of Twin Vickers with drum magazines, Maxims, M2 Brownings and the Italian Breda 20 mm if they could get them. The individual weapons were Enfield 303, of course, Thompson guns, all types of handguns and sometimes German and Italian weapons. They also used Willy Jeeps when they could get them with auto weapons mounted on them.


----------



## stug3 (Apr 30, 2013)

A soldier working on a Bren gun in the desert


----------



## razor1uk (Apr 30, 2013)

Davidicus, discussions for modern weapons should by perchance be within the 'Guns We Own' thread.. 
Nice rare-ish pics there (as always) Stug  and from from great contributers 

Can I ask if the MG15 (or is it the MG17) is a MG34 that has a removed and a different triggering group/system for pneumatic cocking/decocking (the latter sounds painful...) and the interupted controlled electical firing (either by solonoid servo operated trigger /or 'hotwire' precursor cap ignition)?


----------



## Njaco (Apr 30, 2013)

razor1uk said:


> Davidicus, discussions for modern weapons should by perchance be within the 'Guns We Own' thread..



That post was 3 years ago.................


----------



## razor1uk (Apr 30, 2013)

Sheet, didn't spot that, sorry Njaco Davidicus (if he's still about...)

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxBJA2jT5SA_


----------



## stug3 (May 26, 2013)

Tracer ammunition being fired from Bren guns over the heads of troops crossing a lake in collapsible boats, during a night exercise at Llanberis in Wales, 7 May 1942. 






The King inspects an airborne jeep fitted with a Vickers machine-gun during a visit to airborne forces in Southern Command, 21 May 1942. With him is Major-General Frederick 'Boy' Browning, GOC 1st Airborne Division. A Sten SMG is also 
on the jeep.


----------



## stug3 (May 27, 2013)

Business end of an SMLE. A Gurkha soldier at a camouflaged position in the Arakan jungle.


----------



## stug3 (Jun 6, 2013)

A Bren gunner and rifleman take up defensive positions on the beach during combined operations training in the Gulf of Aqaba, 1943.


----------



## stug3 (Jul 24, 2013)

German infantry manning a trench on the Eastern Front, 1942, with anti tank rifle centre.





I cant imagine that AT rifle being very effective on anything larger than the engine block of a truck if it got lucky.


----------



## dutchman (Jul 25, 2013)

Granted you don't want to square off against a heavy tank, but you can "play the edges". Look for targets that are vulnerable to your weapon. If they were facing US equipment, (I say that because I'm more familiar with that then Russian) It could handed any truck or jeep a halftrack out to 500 meters at least. Armoured cars or light recon tanks would be possible as well. Another application that might have been tried was the ability to engauge a machine gun position with the ATR. much like our troops do today with the 50 cals. Many of these guns could go through 30mm of plate at 500-1000 meters, if you can get a side shot even a medium tank is at risk. They won't do the work of an anti tank gun, but having a couple in a unit of infantry makes the troops feel better. Moral booster!


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 25, 2013)

By 1942 they were almost a morale drag. Somebody had to cart the thing around (and it was heavier than a machinegun) and when used it was almost worthless. 

The Russian 14.5mm gun barely makes through 30mm of armor at 500meters. It may work against armored cars or halftracks but against medium tanks is was way too "iffy". It is not enough to make a small hole (German gun makes tiny hole) in armor, you have to kill/wound the crew behind the armor or destroy mechanical parts/set fire to the vehicle. 

Most WW II AT rifles had crap sights which makes long range precision shooting a joke. many had a single elevation setting or two elevation/range settings. good enough for aiming at a tank but lousy for aiming at a "MG" position. 

Normal WW II rifle rounds will punch holes in engine blocks and transmission cases, maybe they won't bring the the engine to a screeching halt but with the coolant and/or oil gone the engine won't last long. 

Most were replaced by Grenade launchers, rocket launchers or in the case of the British the PIAT.


----------



## dutchman (Jul 26, 2013)

A friend and I have discussed this for some time. He makes the point that the Bren is easier to load dure to the top mag. I favor the BAR pointing out that of all guns developed the top mag has shown not to be a great advantage. I'd love to get a fresh set of eyes on this one. What do you think. I would call them about even with no clear advantage to set one above the other.


----------



## stug3 (Jul 26, 2013)

Top loading was one of the reasons the Bren was so reliable. They both got the job done. I dont think you could go wrong with either one. BAR was a bit lighter, Bren had greater magazine capacity. They still should have just copied the MG42.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 26, 2013)

dutchman said:


> A friend and I have discussed this for some time. He makes the point that the Bren is easier to load dure to the top mag. I favor the BAR pointing out that of all guns developed the top mag has shown not to be a great advantage. I'd love to get a fresh set of eyes on this one. What do you think. I would call them about even with no clear advantage to set one above the other.



No contest. the Bren gun wins six ways til Tuesday. 

But then they weren't really _intended_ to do the same job. 

The BAR was what is name said. Browning _Automatic Rifle_. It was NOT a light machine gun even if some nations tried to use it as one. It was well built, it was reliable, it fired a powerful cartridge. However it was too light for good automatic accuracy, most versions did NOT have a quick change barrel (or even a barrel that didn't need an armorer to change) which limited it's actual rate of fire. The Bren gun could fire 4 magazines per minute (120rpm) changing the barrel every 10 magazines until the ammo ran out. The BAR firing the 30-06 round was good for about 75 rounds per minute if you didn't want to wreck the barrel. 
The Bren could be fitted with a 100 round drum for anti-aircraft work ( it also had a 4 position gas regulator and was often run with the biggest opening for a higher rate of fire for AA work) and in some cases there were reserve tripods for firing on "fixed lines" (night work in defensive positions). 

But the Bren is a heavier gun and needs more support from the squad to do it's best work.


----------



## fastmongrel (Jul 28, 2013)

Shortround6 said:


> But the Bren is a heavier gun and needs more support from the squad to do it's best work.



Depends which model Bren your talking about. We used the Bren L4A2 (rebarreled MkIII) which empty weighed iirc 19 pounds and 21.5 pounds loaded. A 1918A2 BAR weighs according to wiki 19 pounds empty. 

Lumping round the Bren wasnt much fun but it was a featherweight compared to the FN GPMG that the infantry carried.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 28, 2013)

You are right, the early Brens ( MK I II) were 2-3lbs (?) heavier than the later ones. The Bren was also issued with 25 magazines which, when full, went about another 85lbs. I believe some of them were spread around to other squad members besides the gunner and his assistant, at least in WW II or until some magazines were lost? Add the weight of the spare barrel (around 6lbs depending on model) and parts kit and the load on the squad was somewhat higher than the load imposed by one BAR ( I doubt the BAR had 35 magazines issued for it for even 700 rounds in magazines).


----------



## Glider (Jul 28, 2013)

I think I am right that every member of the platoon carried 2 mags which eased the load


----------



## parsifal (Jul 30, 2013)

Shortround6 said:


> You are right, the early Brens ( MK I II) were 2-3lbs (?) heavier than the later ones. The Bren was also issued with 25 magazines which, when full, went about another 85lbs. I believe some of them were spread around to other squad members besides the gunner and his assistant, at least in WW II or until some magazines were lost? Add the weight of the spare barrel (around 6lbs depending on model) and parts kit and the load on the squad was somewhat higher than the load imposed by one BAR ( I doubt the BAR had 35 magazines issued for it for even 700 rounds in magazines).



It was still standard Infantry training even as late as the 60's, when the squad came under fire for every man in the 12 man squad, to pass magazines they were carrying to the Bren. the Bren was seen as the main firepower of the squad. this was not always the case before the war the British tended to think of the MG as a support weapon, with the rifles providing the main firepower. They had some very unfortunate encounters with the Germans early on, which clearly showed this doctrine to be a very faulty concept. As a result, during the war, the Bren tried to fill a number of roles. It was used as designed...a squad weapon supporting the squad Infantry and providing the squad with most of its firepower. it was used as a support gun, providing suppressive fire at a more removed level 9it was not ideal at this, given its limited ammunition supply, but it could do the job. But it also was used at times as an assault weapon, particulalry in the jungle, where it was often used to fire from the hip as the Infantry advanced. This was similar to the role for which the BAR was designed and used.

All in all, I would contend the Bren was a more verstile design than the BAR, though only marginally so. The BAR realy could not undertake the support gun role, and as a squad weapon was more limited than the Bren. Matter of opinion of course.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 30, 2013)

I am not so sure about "marginally". The Marines wound up with 3 BAR's per 12-13 man squad at the end of the war. 

The BAR simply cannot provide high volume fire without wrecking the weapon. Not only does the BAR provide only about 60-65% of the fire of a Bren in a measured sustained fire role ( not really done in combat?) but should a high volume of fire be needed for several minutes (say 200 rounds per minute or more) the BAR's barrel can be destroyed or the _gun_ itself and not just the barrel can overheat. Melvin Johnson destroyed one in a test in about 700-800 rounds. Fore end on fire (visible flames and not just smoking but it may very well have been one of the older ones with the big fore-end) and main spring (in the butt) lost it's temper and the gun stopped functioning. Very extreme to be sure, but a Bren even if the barrel is not changed according to the book/drill and the barrel ruined can be "fixed" by the squad in about 10 seconds. The BAR equipped unit needs to draw a new gun from supply.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fastmongrel (Jul 30, 2013)

Did the USMC ever ask for a Bren equivalent they seem to have been ideal users. A 30-06 version should have been easy to aquire Inglis were building them in 7.92 for China.


----------



## MacArther (Jul 30, 2013)

So here is a question from left field, why didn't more weapons (during and after WWII) use the reliable top feed method that the Owen SMG and Bren LMG employed? Was it just because of the hassle of mounting the sights correctly on the sides?


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 30, 2013)

Well, for light machine guns you had the French Mac 1924/29. The Danish Madsen ( used by several dozen countries) the Vickers Berthier, The Mexican Mendoza, the Bren's daddy the VB 26 and it's decedents including several Japanese machine guns. 

Then you have the question of some of the drum fed guns like the Lewis and the Russian DP. they used a drum to present the ammo into an upward facing feed way. Since the Bren could be feed from either the box magazine or a drum one wonders if some of those drum feed guns could have been feed from a suitable box magazine ?


----------



## dutchman (Jul 30, 2013)

I would think that a top loading mag, would stick up too high for comfort. It has to make the weapon visable in the prone position? It also could create a blind spot for the shooter that would cover several degrees in his field of fire.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 30, 2013)

You have choice, large magazine sticking-up (and not really that far):






Large magazine sticking down and hitting the ground keeping the whole gun and gunners head up in the air.

Small magazines requiring more frequent changes, smaller target but less firepower.

The Bren gun was a two-man gun (or more) like any proper light machine gun. Loader and extra rifleman can cover and blind arcs besides which, the squad commander is best employed directing the Bren guns fire (picking targets/threats)


----------



## parsifal (Jul 30, 2013)

there is one other option, and this is the one generally adopted after the war..belt fed MGs similar to the German GPMGs


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 30, 2013)

These bring a few of their own problems, weight for one, and in the movies Rambo (or Arnold) never have the dangling belt catch on the shrubbery 

The Australians came up with two solutions for that for the M-60. A sheet metal ammo holder that would hold about 40 (?) rounds of belted ammo just below the feed way for assault or fire while moving and a fabric sleeve that would hold a short length of belt and be laid on the ground next to the gun and keep the belt clean and free of debris. 
Most other armies tended to ignore the problem although the Germans had used the 50 round can on the Mg 42 back in WW II. 
Trying to put 100-200 round belt boxes under the GPMGs tends to run up the weight on the guns using full power ammo. (add 12-14lbs to the weight of a GPMG, now run with it with box sticking out each side).


----------



## Hansie Bloeckmann (Feb 4, 2018)

Douglas Jr. said:


> Hi,
> 
> You are right: the main difference between the MG42 and the new MG3 is the rate of fire. The WWII gun was capable to fire at 1.200 rpm rate.
> 
> Douglas.


I believe the main reason for the high rate of fire of the MG-42 was the brilliant German design of having the bolt run on rollers, perhaps the first usage of that design. I do not know if it was continued on the MG3-had to involve more machining costs on the MG-42. Did the Germans use Stellite barrel linings on either of these WW11 MG's- as America did later on with its 1959 developed "clone" which was the MG-60 (in 7.62x51 NATO cal.)


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 5, 2018)

Reason for the high rate of fire was the the use of the gun in the AA role. Post war Italian guns used a different weight bolt and had a much lower rate of fire so it could have been done at anytime if the Germans had desired it. Italians actually had two bolts which were interchangeable in the gun so it really wasn't a big deal.


----------



## Hansie Bloeckmann (Feb 5, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> I am not so sure about "marginally". The Marines wound up with 3 BAR's per 12-13 man squad at the end of the war.
> 
> The BAR simply cannot provide high volume fire without wrecking the weapon. Not only does the BAR provide only about 60-65% of the fire of a Bren in a measured sustained fire role ( not really done in combat?) but should a high volume of fire be needed for several minutes (say 200 rounds per minute or more) the BAR's barrel can be destroyed or the _gun_ itself and not just the barrel can overheat. Melvin Johnson destroyed one in a test in about 700-800 rounds. Fore end on fire (visible flames and not just smoking but it may very well have been one of the older ones with the big fore-end) and main spring (in the butt) lost it's temper and the gun stopped functioning. Very extreme to be sure, but a Bren even if the barrel is not changed according to the book/drill and the barrel ruined can be "fixed" by the squad in about 10 seconds. The BAR equipped unit needs to draw a new gun from supply.


_I have read in the American Rifleman magazine about a short-run Colt mfg. version of the BAR, named the "Monitor"-- a favorite of Bonnie & Clyde, and others of that lawless 1930's era. Shorter barrel, no bipod, one cyclical rate of fire (450 RPM??)- shorter forearm, better pistol grip on the buttstock, and as others have said- at combat range, an AP .30 cal round can puncture radiators, oil pans and other vitals other than the engine block of a pursuit LE car--the Thompson .45ACP, maybe not so much effective at other than Close Quarter gunfights. I don't know, I don't have a Class 3 FFL-shot a 1921 Thompson once, with a 20 rd. stick magazine-that's my only experience, Hansie_


----------

