# Infantry weapons, n-th time



## tomo pauk (Apr 17, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> The US was not going to entertain the idea of a less than full powered rifle for nearly 15 years after the end of WW II.
> Rightly or wrongly, that is the fact of the situation.



I know you are trying to present out the opinions of the US Army, not necessarily your own. US Army can take a look at FG-42 - a full power, full auto rifle that worked. In ww2.
On the other hand, the M2 Carbine didn't used full-power cartridge, and it was a far worse weapon that StG 44.



> They may have thought the sheet metal receiver wasn't strong enough to stand up to the needs of military service.
> But that too is a matter of opinion and detail design.



Probably; OTOH, sheet metal receivers were used widely in ww2 and beyond.



> The US had left the type of sight the MP44 used behind several years before. Together with the short sight radius that made long range shooting a bit problematic.



Change of type of sight should not be a problem?



> The US had plans for full auto M-1s with 20 round magazines.
> The German pistols were nothing special and the submachine guns MP38 and MP40 were also not anything out of the ordinary by 1944-45.



As above - FG 42 was actually produced, issued and used. 
MP 38 and 40 were very good when introduced, perhaps the best together with Berreta and Suomi? I've noted that German small arms were either equal or better than US, bar the semi-automatic rifle, pistols certainly qualify as 'equal'?.



> It might be debatable if the MG 34 or MG 42 were really superior to the M1917 amd M1919 Brownings once you got them mounted on tripods and were using them for long range fire.
> The MG 42 did well at a lot of things but may not have been the best in any one role.



If copying is the sincerest way of admiring, the MG 42 was very admired post-war.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Apr 17, 2019)

Quality of machine pistols? Try quantity of machine pistols! It was about make em cheap and lots of em.
Most ww2 weapons were much of a muchness so the 1911 v P38 v TT33 debate is pretty personal preference.
Only weapons like the Garand stand out for its goodness or the Nambu type 14 for sucklng.
FG-42 was built in very minor numbers so it's true value would have been not to be made at all.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 17, 2019)

tomo pauk said:


> I know you are trying to present out the opinions of the US Army, not necessarily your own. US Army can take a look at FG-42 - a full power, full auto rifle that worked. In ww2.
> On the other hand, the M2 Carbine didn't used full-power cartridge, and it was a far worse weapon that StG 44.



I believe (but could be wrong) that elements of the FG-42 bolt design were used in the M-60 machine gun. 
The MG-42 functioned but had the same problem/s that all light rifles firing full power cartridges had. Controllability although the the FG-42 uses both a straight line stock and a muzzle brake there is only so much they can do. The US Army didn't believe this and initially specified the weapon that would become the M-14 at 7.5 lbs. 

The M2 Carbine wasn't really an assault rifle. The M1 Carbine was one of the first "Personal Defense Weapons" along the lines of cut down carbines used by many european armies





It was a replacement for the pistol for troops that couldn't be equipped with a full sized rifle while performing their other duties. 
The M2 was simply the M1 fitted with a selector switch and a bigger magazine and more of an alternative submachine gun that substitute infantry rifle. The M1 carbine weighing about 5.8lbs (2.6 kg) compared to the MP44 10.12lbs (4.6kg)empty and 11. 3lbs (5.13kg) loaded. US had a bit of dilemma with submachine guns. The .45 round, whild powerful, was low velicity/short ranged and Thompson gun was expensive, even in simplified form. The M3 "grease gun" was about as low quality as the US was willing to go. It was designed as a "disposable" weapon but it was both a little too disposable (not quite sturdy enough) and not disposable enough (not enough made/issued) to be truly disposable and not enough spare parts available to be easily repaired at unit level. 



tomo pauk said:


> Probably; OTOH, sheet metal receivers were used widely in ww2 and beyond.


See above with the M3 and the British Sten gun. These are the only real experience the US had with sheet metal receivers in production guns as users (the other experience being on the receiving end). 
As a side note my father worked for a short period of time in the 70s on an automatic grenade launcher for Colt firearms (I don't know if was the Mk 19 or an alternative) and they had quite a bit of trouble fabricating the sheet metal receivers. They could punch out the metal parts and fold/bend them to shape all right but the bolt ran on machined rails that were spot welded to the sheet metal and the process of spot welding often warped the sheet metal receivers out of specification. Making guns out of sheet metal isn't quite as easy as some people make it out to be. 


tomo pauk said:


> Change of type of sight should not be a problem?



The US would probably want an aperture sight on the rear of the receiver. I have no idea if that was a problem or not. Just that a sight halfway between the shooters eye and the front sight isn't what the US would want.


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 17, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> I believe (but could be wrong) that elements of the FG-42 bolt design were used in the M-60 machine gun.
> The MG-42 functioned but had the same problem/s that all light rifles firing full power cartridges had. Controllability although the the FG-42 uses both a straight line stock and a muzzle brake there is only so much they can do. The US Army didn't believe this and initially specified the weapon that would become the M-14 at 7.5 lbs.



Certainly, I' will not advocate the FG 42 as ideal automatic rifle, but I'd argue that it was at least as good as the BAR as issued to the US military.
Granted, the BAR was a general issue weapon, and it was developed much earlier.



> The M2 Carbine wasn't really an assault rifle. The M1 Carbine was one of the first "Personal Defense Weapons" along the lines of cut down carbines used by many european armies
> It was a replacement for the pistol for troops that couldn't be equipped with a full sized rifle while performing their other duties.
> The M2 was simply the M1 fitted with a selector switch and a bigger magazine and more of an alternative submachine gun that substitute infantry rifle. The M1 carbine weighing about 5.8lbs (2.6 kg) compared to the MP44 10.12lbs (4.6kg)empty and 11. 3lbs (5.13kg) loaded. US had a bit of dilemma with submachine guns. The .45 round, whild powerful, was low velicity/short ranged and Thompson gun was expensive, even in simplified form. The M3 "grease gun" was about as low quality as the US was willing to go. It was designed as a "disposable" weapon but it was both a little too disposable (not quite sturdy enough) and not disposable enough (not enough made/issued) to be truly disposable and not enough spare parts available to be easily repaired at unit level.



As above, the German submachineguns (bar the questionable models of 1945) were at least as good as other people's stuff.
The StG 44 was more controlable in full auto than AK 47, let alone the M2 that was left down by too small the weight and not being designed for full auto from the let go.



> See above with the M3 and the British Sten gun. These are the only real experience the US had with sheet metal receivers in production guns as users (the other experience being on the receiving end).
> As a side note my father worked for a short period of time in the 70s on an automatic grenade launcher for Colt firearms (I don't know if was the Mk 19 or an alternative) and they had quite a bit of trouble fabricating the sheet metal receivers. They could punch out the metal parts and fold/bend them to shape all right but the bolt ran on machined rails that were spot welded to the sheet metal and the process of spot welding often warped the sheet metal receivers out of specification. Making guns out of sheet metal isn't quite as easy as some people make it out to be.



No quarrels there.



> The US would probably want an aperture sight on the rear of the receiver. I have no idea if that was a problem or not. Just that a sight halfway between the shooters eye and the front sight isn't what the US would want.



Okay, relocate the rear sight to the rearmost part of the receiver.


----------



## The Basket (Apr 17, 2019)

FG-42 equal to the BAR? 
FG-42 is a better video game gun.


----------



## fliger747 (Apr 17, 2019)

I collect and shoot various WWII rifles and pistols. My preference is for the 1903 Springfield over the K98K Mauser. A personal preference, neither is the weapon that M1 Garand is. The 30.06 round is probably a bit better than the 8mm Mauser, again a personal preference, but the smaller diameter gives a slightly better ballistic coefficient and sectional density. The original round for which the M1 was designed was a smaller caliber and lighter round. This probably would have been an excellent cartridge, but Doug McArthur, chief of staff of the Army vetoed it's introduction. The main reason during the days of the depression, millions upon millions of 30.06 ammunition remained from WWI stocks.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 17, 2019)

tomo pauk said:


> Certainly, I' will not advocate the FG 42 as ideal automatic rifle, but I'd argue that it was at least as good as the BAR as issued to the US military.
> Granted, the BAR was a general issue weapon, and it was developed much earlier.



We start to run into different design criteria. The FG 42 was (a least initially) a specialized weapon for German paratroopers. Due to doctrine and equipment (parachutes and harnesses?) the Early operations by the German Paratroops saw them run into a number of difficulties. The heavy weapons were dropped in separate containers and the troops often had to fight their way to the containers and unpack the support weapons while under fire. The FG 42 was to give them heavier firepower in this transition period without really being a full fledged light machine gun. The US actually had a similar gun 




The Johnson 1941 and there was a simplified 1944 version. Not quite as straight stocked as the FG 42 but shows that other people were addressing the problem. 

The BAR was about 24 year older and had been designed when the self powered machine gun itself was only about 33 years old 






So perhaps we can cut the BAR a bit of slack?
This is what the Germans were using about 2-3 years before the BAR showed up.





Granted the US was bit remiss in not coming up with something a bit better between the world wars but then the US was not depending on the BAR to be the major firepower of the infantry company. A lot of US infantry companies had a heavy weapons platoon with couple of tripod mounted M1919 air cooled Brownings and 3 60mm mortars. The Battalion heavy weapons company had 8-12 water cooled M1917s in the early part of the war. 
Design/doctrine/intent often was thwarted by the troops in the field. 




The rear monopod was often discarded by troops in the field to make the BAR easier to carry and due to the fact that the gun was rarely used at the longer ranges where the rear monopod's extra stability was a benefit. The US command may not have faced the fact that not all the members of the squad would show the same aggression and many of the rifle equipped troops would contribute little to a fire fight and so the expected firepower advantage of the Garand rarely came up to the level that the differences of the BAR were masked. 





> As above, the German submachine guns (bar the questionable models of 1945) were at least as good as other people's stuff.



This is true but while the MP 38/40 was rather innovative in 1938-40 by 1944-45 everybody else (mostly) had caught up. In the context of the other thread there was no real reason for anybody to write any reports about the German 9mm submachine guns as any reports/analysis had already been done on captured exemplars. 



> The StG 44 was more controlable in full auto than AK 47, let alone the M2 that was left down by too small the weight and not being designed for full auto from the let go.


That may be true, But like I said the M2 was never intended in that role and it's lower powered cartridge meant it was shorter ranged in any case. The Army didn't consider the 7.9 X 33 as powerful enough for a _general issue rifle. _The M2 still being considered a PDW for gun crews, vehicle crews, cooks, signalmen and the like.


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 18, 2019)

fliger747 said:


> I collect and shoot various WWII rifles and pistols. My preference is for the 1903 Springfield over the K98K Mauser. A personal preference, neither is the weapon that M1 Garand is. The 30.06 round is probably a bit better than the 8mm Mauser, again a personal preference, but the smaller diameter gives a slightly better ballistic coefficient and sectional density. The original round for which the M1 was designed was a smaller caliber and lighter round. This probably would have been an excellent cartridge, but Doug McArthur, chief of staff of the Army vetoed it's introduction. The main reason during the days of the depression, millions upon millions of 30.06 ammunition remained from WWI stocks.


The .276 round was not even close to the .30-06 in performance and MacAuther was smart by insisting that the M1 use the same ammunition that the Springfields used, which the U.S. had massive stockpiles of ammunition for.
As for the "smaller diameter" between the Mauser and the Springfield, how?
The 8mm Mauser is 7.92x57mm and the Springfield is 7.62x63mm = literally identical in .30 caliber.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 18, 2019)

For non metric it is a .308 bullet vs a .323 bullet. In order to say which one has an advantage you have to compare the a actual bullets used and the actual velocities. Not commercial ammo or special bullets. 
Even with military ammo you have to specify what you are comparing. For the .30-06 you had the 150-152 grain flat base bullet and the 172 grain boat tail and the AP bullet. Germans had several different loads for the 7.92.


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 18, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> We start to run into different design criteria. The FG 42 was (a least initially) a specialized weapon for German paratroopers. Due to doctrine and equipment (parachutes and harnesses?) the Early operations by the German Paratroops saw them run into a number of difficulties. The heavy weapons were dropped in separate containers and the troops often had to fight their way to the containers and unpack the support weapons while under fire. The FG 42 was to give them heavier firepower in this transition period without really being a full fledged light machine gun. The US actually had a similar gun
> The Johnson 1941 and there was a simplified 1944 version. Not quite as straight stocked as the FG 42 but shows that other people were addressing the problem.



Yes, the Johnson's wepons were very interesting, especially the LMGs.



> The BAR was about 24 year older and had been designed when the self powered machine gun itself was only about 33 years old
> So perhaps we can cut the BAR a bit of slack?
> This is what the Germans were using about 2-3 years before the BAR showed up.



I've already noted that BAR was an earlier design.



> This is true but while the MP 38/40 was rather innovative in 1938-40 by 1944-45 everybody else (mostly) had caught up. In the context of the other thread there was no real reason for anybody to write any reports about the German 9mm submachine guns as any reports/analysis had already been done on captured exemplars.



IIRC nobody suggested the report on the MP 40 on this board, but on the StG 44.



> That may be true, But like I said the M2 was never intended in that role and it's lower powered cartridge meant it was shorter ranged in any case. The Army didn't consider the 7.9 X 33 as powerful enough for a _general issue rifle. _The M2 still being considered a PDW for gun crews, vehicle crews, cooks, signalmen and the like.



Too bad that Army didn't considered a, say, a .30 Kurz for general issue.



GrauGeist said:


> The .276 round was not even close to the .30-06 in performance and MacAuther was smart by insisting that the M1 use the same ammunition that the Springfields used, which the U.S. had massive stockpiles of ammunition for.
> As for the "smaller diameter" between the Mauser and the Springfield, how?
> The 8mm Mauser is 7.92x57mm and the Springfield is 7.62x63mm = literally identical in .30 caliber.



The .30-06 M1 ball ammo, that US warehouses have had up to the brims, was useless on the M1 Garand. Thus the M2 ammo was developed in 1938. So the logistical part of the equation that M1 Garand will use existing ammo was not present.
The .276 round will kick less, infantrymen will carry more of them, the rifle can be lighter, the rifle will hold 10 rounds instead of 8 with .30-06, and anyone properly hit by .276 will be very dead - evey bit as dead as when properly hit by a bullet from .30-06 bullet.


----------



## The Basket (Apr 18, 2019)

. 276 may have not been strong enough for machine guns.


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 18, 2019)

The Basket said:


> . 276 may have not been strong enough for machine guns.



Strong enough? Perhaps you mean machine gun not being strong enough?


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 18, 2019)

tomo pauk said:


> Yes, the Johnson's wepons were very interesting, especially the LMGs.



True. 



> I've already noted that BAR was an earlier design.


It also changed roles several times before WW II and then during WW II so consideration has to be made of what year(s) and what role(s).




> Too bad that Army didn't considered a, say, a .30 Kurz for general issue.



we run into a several problems with this, not the least of which a 5-6KG weapon is hardly a substitute for a pistol. 





> The *.30-06 M1 ball ammo*, that US warehouses have had up to the brims, was useless on the M1 Garand. Thus the* M2 ammo was developed in 1938*. So the logistical part of the equation that M1 Garand will use existing ammo was not present.
> The .276 round will kick less, infantrymen will carry more of them, the rifle can be lighter, the rifle will hold 10 rounds instead of 8 with .30-06, and anyone properly hit by .276 will be very dead - evey bit as dead as when properly hit by a bullet from .30-06 bullet.



the .30-06 M2 Ball was ballistically identical (externally) to the old M1906 load which the US had by the millions. The M1 Ball load was the long range machine gun round with the boat tail bullet. The M1 load did tend to batter the Garand rifle a bit with extended use but it could be fired if the need was there. 
The M2 Ball did use lower pressures than the old M1906 load due to modern powders. The M1906 was the standard round for the 1903 Springfield rifle. It was also the round the M1917 and M1919 machine guns were developed for even though replaced by the M1 Ball. 

It is not only just ammo in warehouses. It is what the ammo production lines are tooled up for. An ammo plant can switch from M2 ball to M1 ball and back again in a few hours depending on bullet and powder supplies. Switching from .30-06 to and from a different size case takes somewhat longer. 

Modern bullet making machine




To change calibers means most of the die stations have to changed or adjusted. 


I would note that both the 7.92 X 33 and the 7.62 X 39 were adopted with the idea of saving on tooling costs both in barrel making equipment and in ammunition making equipment (less so for the 7.62 X 39). 

For the US a .30 Kurz is contrary to US doctrine/tactics. US doctrine/tactics may have been firmly rooted in fantasyland instead of reality but until you got the generals in charge to change their minds the .30 Kurz had zero chance. I would also note that the Germans never made or intended to make the 7.9 Kurz a "general issue" round. That is in the sense of replacing the 7.9 X 57 in the squad/platoon/company machine guns. It was only going to replace the 7.9 X 57 in the squads rifles and perhaps the 9mm submachine guns. 

The Russians did try to use the 7.62 X 39 in a squad/platoon automatic or LMG but gave up and reverted to the 7.62 X 54R for that role while using some heavy barreled AKs with 40 round magazines for the squad role. It part due to training/logistics rather than combat effectiveness.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 18, 2019)

tomo pauk said:


> Strong enough? Perhaps you mean machine gun not being strong enough?



The .276 may not have had the long range effect that was wanted.

Max _effective_ range of a 1917 Browning is given as 4000yds using M1 Ball and 3000 yrds using M1906 or M2 ball.
absolute max range is almost 2000yrds different.

Please remember changing calibers in 1930s meant 81 mortars were nowhere near as common as they would become later. Not to mention their ranges were shorter than than they would be later, US used two different weight bombs, the light one went 3,290yds and the heavy was good for 2,655yds. Radios were nowhere near as common as later and getting a field phone network set up to call in artillery fire would take time (and equipment was limited).
In many armies the tripod mounted machine guns of the Battalion were it's primary long range fire power and adopting low powered cartridges for them was NOT going to happen.

Please note the Swedes used an 8 x 63 cartridge for their large machineguns and the Italians used an 8 X 59 cartridge in their heavy machine guns instead of their respective 6.5mm cartridges.

This was also part of the motivation for the Japanese to switch from the 6.5mm to the 7.7. more effective machinegun fire.


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 18, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> ...
> we run into a several problems with this, not the least of which a 5-6KG weapon is hardly a substitute for a pistol.



Very true. The no free lunch rule applies as always.



> the .30-06 M2 Ball was ballistically identical (externally) to the old M1906 load which the US had by the millions. The M1 Ball load was the long range machine gun round with the boat tail bullet. The M1 load did tend to batter the Garand rifle a bit with extended use but it could be fired if the need was there.
> The M2 Ball did use lower pressures than the old M1906 load due to modern powders. The M1906 was the standard round for the 1903 Springfield rifle. It was also the round the M1917 and M1919 machine guns were developed for even though replaced by the M1 Ball.
> 
> It is not only just ammo in warehouses. It is what the ammo production lines are tooled up for. An ammo plant can switch from M2 ball to M1 ball and back again in a few hours depending on bullet and powder supplies. Switching from .30-06 to and from a different size case takes somewhat longer.
> ...



Agreed again. 
OTOH, I think that we can agree that US was in best position in the world to put any new cartridge in production if they wanted it, in any year we pick.



> I would note that both the 7.92 X 33 and the 7.62 X 39 were adopted with the idea of saving on tooling costs both in barrel making equipment and in ammunition making equipment (less so for the 7.62 X 39).
> 
> For the US a .30 Kurz is contrary to US doctrine/tactics. US doctrine/tactics may have been firmly rooted in fantasyland instead of reality but until you got the generals in charge to change their minds the .30 Kurz had zero chance. I would also note that the Germans never made or intended to make the 7.9 Kurz a "general issue" round. That is in the sense of replacing the 7.9 X 57 in the squad/platoon/company machine guns. It was only going to replace the 7.9 X 57 in the squads rifles and perhaps the 9mm submachine guns.
> 
> The Russians did try to use the 7.62 X 39 in a squad/platoon automatic or LMG but gave up and reverted to the 7.62 X 54R for that role while using some heavy barreled AKs with 40 round magazines for the squad role. It part due to training/logistics rather than combat effectiveness.



All good points. Please note that I don't advocate that introduction of .30 Kurz also mean there is no full-power rifle cartridge in use.



Shortround6 said:


> The .276 may not have had the long range effect that was wanted.
> 
> Max _effective_ range of a 1917 Browning is given as 4000yds using M1 Ball and 3000 yrds using M1906 or M2 ball.
> absolute max range is almost 2000yrds different.
> ...



The 276 Pedersen was more of equivalent of the 7mm Mauser, than of the 6.5mm cartridges, especially when compared with Japanese or Italian types.


----------



## wlewisiii (Apr 18, 2019)

If we had only ripped off the Mauser 7x57 at the same time we copied the Mauser rifle as the 1903. A beautiful military cartridge that was excellent in both battle rifles and machine guns. Would have made the whole .276 mess unnecessary.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 18, 2019)

wlewisiii said:


> If we had only ripped off the Mauser 7x57 at the same time we copied the Mauser rifle as the 1903. A beautiful military cartridge that was excellent in both battle rifles and machine guns. Would have made the whole .276 mess unnecessary.



Hmm, the BAR in 7x57 with 30 rd mag....


----------



## The Basket (Apr 18, 2019)

As a follower of gun lore, one of the mystery is the glorification of the Germanic bang sticks which is obvious in auction prices. The Brownings and the Lees are secondary to the Walthers and Mausers. 
The greatest designers are mostly American. And so give the BAR its due and not falsely bare witness for FG-42 which is only a video game trinket.

Reactions: Dislike Dislike:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wlewisiii (Apr 18, 2019)

tomo pauk said:


> Hmm, the BAR in 7x57 with 30 rd mag....



Yep. My favorite idea is a semi-auto gas operated rifle in between the Garand and the Carbine in size with a 20 round box mag. 

The actual carbine as a PDW is still a decent idea. A decent cartridge though, say 7x40, would be interesting.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 18, 2019)

tomo pauk said:


> All good points. Please note that I don't advocate that introduction of .30 Kurz also mean there is no full-power rifle cartridge in use.


The question is where does the change over take place? 

As I said the Germans were willing to use both the 7.9mm Kurz and the standard 7.9mm in an 8-12 man squad. Other armies made the change over at platoon or company level. 
In part it depends on what ranges the different units were expected to fight at. Some ink is spent on how many yards or meters of frontage different units were expected to cover (differs on attack and defense) a lot less ink is spent on how far away a squad or platoon was expected to engage the enemy. 





> The 276 Pedersen was more of equivalent of the 7mm Mauser, than of the 6.5mm cartridges, especially when compared with Japanese or Italian types.


Actually the 276 Pedersen was closer to the small 6.5s




6.5 Carcano on the the left with a .276 Pedersen next to it. 7.62x39 is the 4th from the left. 
The Italians never loaded the Carcano with a Spitzer bullet which would have solved a bunch of their problems. It might have created a few new ones though considering the rifling they used in the Carcano. 
Those long, long round nosed bullets ran up the pressure if you tried to push them. On the other hand trying to use a bullet like the Pedersen's in an existing Carcano would mean quite a jump before the bullet hit the rifling and a fair amount of gas escaping around it.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Apr 18, 2019)

fliger747 said:


> I collect and shoot various WWII rifles and pistols. My preference is for the 1903 Springfield over the K98K Mauser. A personal preference, neither is the weapon that M1 Garand is. The 30.06 round is probably a bit better than the 8mm Mauser, again a personal preference, but the smaller diameter gives a slightly better ballistic coefficient and sectional density. The original round for which the M1 was designed was a smaller caliber and lighter round. This probably would have been an excellent cartridge, but Doug McArthur, chief of staff of the Army vetoed it's introduction. The main reason during the days of the depression, millions upon millions of 30.06 ammunition remained from WWI stocks.



Hello Fliger747,
When comparing the K98 Mauser and M1903 in their original calibers, where are you getting your ammunition from? In straight military loadings, usually the 7.92 is a noticeably more powerful round and with their typical heavy bullet loads, their much heavier and often boat tailed bullets should be much better from a ballistic standpoint. US M2 Ball is normally a 152 grain flat base bullet at around 2650-2750 fps. I have to go back to my notes for chronograph velocities, but typical 7.92 x 57 is about a 170-something to a 196 grain bullet. The Chinese used much lighter about 150 grain concave base bullets in their 7.92 ammunition though.

There has been some mention of adapting the US M1/M2 Carbines to other calibers.
While this is an interesting idea, there are lots of problems with the basic design as a basis for an accurate rifle replacement.
The way the gas system and operating parts are held together and the way the gun is held together make it nearly impossible to improve for accuracy.
While the Johnson (semi)automatics have their advantages, they have a serious problem with maintaining acceptable levels of accuracy because of their recoil operation. The barrel to receiver alignment gets sloppy over time.

- Ivan.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 19, 2019)

As with many cartridges that stayed in service for decades the loadings changed a few times. The US 1903 load was a 220 grain bullet at 2200-2300fps. Same bullet as the 30-40Krag only a bit faster. The 1906 load was the 150-152 grain spitzer at 2700fps and they shortened the neck of the case a bit. In 1926 they introduced the M1 ball which is the 172-174.5 boat tail bullet at 2650fps. The M2 load (issued in 1939?) was a deliberate downloading to keep from battering the M1 rifle. Flat based bullets are easier to make and the difference in weight save material. The lower recoil was also supposed to help with training recruits. 
Please note that the original 1906 load needed 52,000psi chamber pressure with the powders of the time to achieve the same velocity as the M2 load got with 42,000psi peak pressure. 
There was room to get higher velocities if they wanted them. 
Please note that US military standards called for the velocity to be measured 78ft from the muzzle so modern shooters with home chronographs are going to get slightly better results.


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 19, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> Actually the 276 Pedersen was closer to the small 6.5s
> View attachment 535504
> 
> 6.5 Carcano on the the left with a .276 Pedersen next to it. 7.62x39 is the 4th from the left.
> The Italians never loaded the Carcano with a Spitzer bullet which would have solved a bunch of their problems. It might have created a few new ones though considering the rifling they used in the Carcano.



One wonders whether both Italians and Swedes were also using the 8mm for machineguns since they both fielded the cartridge with obsolete bullet that will be bad in retaining speed & energy downrange?


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 19, 2019)

From Wiki
"From 1941 onwards, Sweden, which remained neutral during World War II, adopted _skarp patron m/94 prickskytte m/41_ (live cartridge m/94 sniping m/41) ammunition loaded with a 9.1 grams (140 gr) spitzer bullet (D-projectile) fired at a muzzle velocity of 800 m/s (2,625 ft/s) with 2,912 J (2,148 ft⋅lbf) muzzle energy from a 739 mm (29.1 in) long barrel.[12] Besides a pointed nose the m/41 D-projectile also had a boat tail. Originally developed for the m/41 sniper rifle, this new cartridge replaced the m/94 ammunition loaded with the M/94 projectile for general use."

This was after the 8mm cartridge was adopted for the big machine guns which was on 1932.
see; 8×63mm patron m/32 - Wikipedia 

The Swedes obviously knew about spitzer boat tail bullets.


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 19, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> From Wiki
> "From 1941 onwards, Sweden, which remained neutral during World War II, adopted _skarp patron m/94 prickskytte m/41_ (live cartridge m/94 sniping m/41) ammunition loaded with a 9.1 grams (140 gr) spitzer bullet (D-projectile) fired at a muzzle velocity of 800 m/s (2,625 ft/s) with 2,912 J (2,148 ft⋅lbf) muzzle energy from a 739 mm (29.1 in) long barrel.[12] Besides a pointed nose the m/41 D-projectile also had a boat tail. Originally developed for the m/41 sniper rifle, this new cartridge replaced the m/94 ammunition loaded with the M/94 projectile for general use."
> 
> This was after the 8mm cartridge was adopted for the big machine guns which was on 1932.
> ...



They certainly knew, but for one reason or another didn't adopted it for the 6.5mm until almost 10 years after the 8mm.
Sweden also used two LMG designs for 6.5mm, the BAR and Kg m/40, later supposedly good up to 1400 m range.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 19, 2019)

Kg m/40 

I would doubt very highly if this thing was effective at 1400 meters unless mounted on a tripod.
The vast majority of bipod mounted machine guns are rated at 600-800 meters. This has to do much more with stability of the bipod system (using the firers shoulder as the rear support) rate of fire (recoil over time) and weight of the gun (inertia) than any individual cartridge or quality of the gun or barrel.


----------



## The Basket (Apr 20, 2019)

Machine guns then and still today have a job of long range artillery style plastering of a beat zone well beyond accuracy or the effective range of the gun.
In some cases not even seeing the target and shooting indirect fire over hills to rain down bullets 2kms away to keep heads down.
That's why machine gun rounds need extra power to meet this need so if they do hit something they can still give a nasty wound. A 6.5 round may not be capable of such shenanigans.

The 7.35 Carcano was pointy but the 6.5 Carcano never was. Italy was capable of designing and producing its own gun but was a very weak power. So the reasons why were either incapable of changing or not too concerned or the 7.35 was the change. Have to read up.

Maybe the 6.5 Carcano can be seen as an intermediate cartridge perfectly powered for the short ranges that most combat happens. I am not familiar with Italian military doctrine so if they based on squad tactics on a machine gun and had a DMR with full powered rifle then the shortcoming of the Carcano would be manageable. A head shot in 6.5 Carcano is still going to nip regardless of range.


----------



## JAG88 (Apr 27, 2019)

The Basket said:


> FG-42 equal to the BAR?
> FG-42 is a better video game gun.





Shortround6 said:


> I believe (but could be wrong) that elements of the FG-42 bolt design were used in the M-60 machine gun.
> The MG-42 functioned but had the same problem/s that all light rifles firing full power cartridges had. Controllability although the the FG-42 uses both a straight line stock and a muzzle brake there is only so much they can do. The US Army didn't believe this and initially specified the weapon that would become the M-14 at 7.5 lbs.





tomo pauk said:


> Certainly, I' will not advocate the FG 42 as ideal automatic rifle, but I'd argue that it was at least as good as the BAR as issued to the US military.
> Granted, the BAR was a general issue weapon, and it was developed much earlier.



Errr...

 

Looks far more controllable than any full power weapon I've seen.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 27, 2019)

JAG88 said:


> Looks far more controllable than any full power weapon I've seen.


More controllable than any full power full-automatic _rifle_ or more controllable than any full powered _weapon_?

It was probably was the most controllable full power full-automatic rifle built. Good muzzle brake, straight line stock, that short distance the receiver recoils into the stock to smooth things out a bit. The question is was it controllable enough? 

Lots of videos of guns firing full auto and leaving the viewer to try and gauge the muzzle rise or muzzle movement. Darn few videos of a gun firing at a target where you can see the dispersion at a given range. 
If gun A puts it's third round 8 feet high at distance X instead of 18ft high like gun B it is certainly much more controllable, but round 3 and any rounds after that are all pretty much useless. One reason that these guns are fired in short bursts. 
Trouble was the the Germans (and post war the Americans and many nations that stuck bipods, 30 round mags and selector switches on battle rifles) were often trying to replace the squad LMG. And most (or all) of these light full power weapons, even on bipods, bounced around too much for effective longe range fire. Long range for a bipod mounted LMG being somewhere in the 500-800 meter area. 
The FG 42 can be forgiven somewhat because of of it's specialized role, it is supposed to give covering fire or fire supremacy while the paratroopers find their equipment canisters and dig out their MG 34/42 belt fed LMGs in addition to beefing up the squad/platoons general firepower. 

Now for the Germans the MG 42 wasn't the most steady gun around when fired from a bipod so perhaps the FG 42 is more controllable than it's big brother. But since the Bren gun is usually noted for it's controllability/long range accuracy we run into conflicting anecdotes. The bipod equipped, large magazine battle rifle as a substitute for the squad LMG was going away to some extent before the small caliber or intermediate cartridge phase finished it off. Armies were bring back the real LMGs because the pimped out battle rifle couldn't do the job, even if some of them go somewhat heavier barrels. 

I admit I am biased, I am a target shooter and if you don't have a group on paper (or at least a score in the score book) then you don't have much for comparison. I don't expect rifle accuracy from full auto guns but keeping the 3rd round of a 3 round burst at least at man size height at range X would seem to be a good start.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## JAG88 (Apr 28, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> We start to run into different design criteria. The FG 42 was (a least initially) a specialized weapon for German paratroopers. Due to doctrine and equipment (parachutes and harnesses?) the Early operations by the German Paratroops saw them run into a number of difficulties. The heavy weapons were dropped in separate containers and the troops often had to fight their way to the containers and unpack the support weapons while under fire. The FG 42 was to give them heavier firepower in this transition period without really being a full fledged light machine gun.





Shortround6 said:


> More controllable than any full power full-automatic _rifle_ or more controllable than any full powered _weapon_?



Rifle



> It was probably was the most controllable full power full-automatic rifle built. Good muzzle brake, straight line stock, that short distance the receiver recoils into the stock to smooth things out a bit. The question is was it controllable enough?
> 
> Lots of videos of guns firing full auto and leaving the viewer to try and gauge the muzzle rise or muzzle movement. Darn few videos of a gun firing at a target where you can see the dispersion at a given range.
> If gun A puts it's third round 8 feet high at distance X instead of 18ft high like gun B it is certainly much more controllable, but round 3 and any rounds after that are all pretty much useless. One reason that these guns are fired in short bursts.



You saw the gun firing, it wasnt jumping around, it was controllable even unsupported.



> Trouble was the the Germans (and post war the Americans and many nations that stuck bipods, 30 round mags and selector switches on battle rifles) were often trying to replace the squad LMG. And most (or all) of these light full power weapons, even on bipods, bounced around too much for effective longe range fire. Long range for a bipod mounted LMG being somewhere in the 500-800 meter area.



Did you see any bounce when prone?



> The FG 42 can be forgiven somewhat because of of it's specialized role, it is supposed to give covering fire or fire supremacy while the paratroopers find their equipment canisters and dig out their MG 34/42 belt fed LMGs in addition to beefing up the squad/platoons general firepower.
> 
> Now for the Germans the MG 42 wasn't the most steady gun around when fired from a bipod so perhaps the FG 42 is more controllable than it's big brother. But since the Bren gun is usually noted for it's controllability/long range accuracy we run into conflicting anecdotes. The bipod equipped, large magazine battle rifle as a substitute for the squad LMG was going away to some extent before the small caliber or intermediate cartridge phase finished it off. Armies were bring back the real LMGs because the pimped out battle rifle couldn't do the job, even if some of them go somewhat heavier barrels.



Well, you were defending the BAR and offered the MG 08/15 as a comparison... The same applies here, you are trying to compare a 5Kg Automatic rifle with a 10Kg LMG with a longer barrel, how is that coherent or relevant?

The German riflemen would be using a FG42/MG42 combo, the British an Enfield/Bren one, which side would you prefer to be in?



> I admit I am biased, I am a target shooter and if you don't have a group on paper (or at least a score in the score book) then you don't have much for comparison. I don't expect rifle accuracy from full auto guns but keeping the 3rd round of a 3 round burst at least at man size height at range X would seem to be a good start.



Per post-war US tests 9" at 50y on 10r bursts. Not bad.


----------



## JAG88 (Apr 28, 2019)

"Death from Above", Dugelby and Stevens


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Apr 28, 2019)

In looking at the functioning of the FG42 a while back, I was wondering how it could achieve any reasonable accuracy.
I think I just got my answer.
The level of accuracy quoted for semi automatic fire is comparable to that achievable by a pretty typical AK-47 assault rifle.
In other words, accuracy is pretty lousy. 

- Ivan.


----------



## wlewisiii (Apr 28, 2019)

IOW it's accuracy is fine for a combat weapon. Not every nation embraces the fetish of accuracy that the US Army & Marines have - the understanding that combat happens at much shorter ranges and that only certain levels of accuracy are needed has been fought by them tooth and nail. The FAL in .280 NATO would have been smaller, lighter, far more controllable and useful as a soldiers rifle than the joke of the M-14. Only thanks to the Air Force did we end up with the M-16 to replace it, even though it too has a huge load of baggage and issues as well. It's a shame how we went from a very good rifle in WWII to an sort of adequate one now.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## JAG88 (Apr 28, 2019)

I should add that all the scopes used developed problems during the test. 

An M 14 for comparison...


----------



## The Basket (Apr 28, 2019)

FG-42 is a very minor rifle. 
A footnote in a history book. 
The BAR is a proper rifle with a proper history. I would take a BAR every day of the week over a FG-42. 
And I would take a M-16 AR-15 over a FG-42 every day and twice on Sundays.


----------



## JAG88 (Apr 28, 2019)

Ivan1GFP said:


> In looking at the functioning of the FG42 a while back, I was wondering how it could achieve any reasonable accuracy.
> I think I just got my answer.
> The level of accuracy quoted for semi automatic fire is comparable to that achievable by a pretty typical AK-47 assault rifle.
> In other words, accuracy is pretty lousy.
> ...



Somehow, US Ordnance managed to disagree with you and even found accuracy comparable to the latest Garand version, perhaps a rifle with lousy accuracy as well:

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 28, 2019)

Just so we stay on the same page (or at least chapter)




And E2 means you are on at least the 3rd variant. (T20, T20E1, T20E2) 

I have no idea how good (or bad) the muzzle brake was, the stock is crappy from the point of view of preventing muzzle rise and there is no cushioning of the recoil in the stock or butt plate. No surprise that it was not as controllable as the Fg 42 in full auto fire. 

more here Springfield Armory Museum - Collection Record, 
including "Cyclic rate of fire 700 rpm. Weapon weighs approximately 9.6 lbs. without accessories. Complete with 20-round detachable box magazine and grenade launcher. Project terminated in March 1948"

That semi auto accuracy was "comparable" may need a little clarification. Almost as good? some groups better and some worse? 

I will freely admit that some WW II American ammo was, shall we say, less than stellar in performance. My Father and some of his friends who shot as team using accurized M1 in the 50s and early 60s were delighted to find several cases of WRA 53 AP that shot 2 minutes of angle in all 5 guns the team had. Some of the team members worked for WInchester and one of them had access to the underground test tunnel. Some lots of ball shot OK and others were not so good. They had a decided advantage over some other team using ball ammo. 

I would also note that the tests for ammo acceptance were performed with special single shot guns using very heavy barrels and fired from heavy benches. Accuracy test for service rifles was done with selected lots of ammunition. Put a gun that barely passed the accuracy test together with a poor lot of ammo and the results could be pretty disappointing. 
Modern commercial ammo (even the military equivalent plain box stuff) is ahead of most wartime manufactured ammo. 

One of the guys I used to shoot with worked at Aberdeen proving grounds in late 40s and early 50s when a lot of this testing was going on. The British .280 cartridge impressed him enough that he built several 7mm target rifles using modified .30-30 cases (to get a smaller case capacity than the .30-06/.308. These worked quite well at 200-300yds (the only ranges I say him shoot at). But he was a worker bee and not a decision maker. 

The US did make a hash of the small arms development after WW II but that doesn't mean they didn't investigate or do reports on German weapon development. It means they adopted what they liked and ignored what didn't fit some of their preconceived ideas.


----------



## JAG88 (Apr 28, 2019)

The FG-42s were "rescues", they had no idea how much use they had before the trials and they used 8mm ammo made in the US for a Chinese contract...

In that context, achieving results comparable to the Garand is impressive, a least to me, US Ord seemed to be as well. Whatever its meaning, it certainly does not seem to indicate a large difference in performance, that and an absence of accuracy complains settles the matter, at least for me. *Evidence* to the contrary is always welcome.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Apr 28, 2019)

wlewisiii said:


> IOW it's accuracy is fine for a combat weapon. Not every nation embraces the fetish of accuracy that the US Army & Marines have - the understanding that combat happens at much shorter ranges and that only certain levels of accuracy are needed has been fought by them tooth and nail. The FAL in .280 NATO would have been smaller, lighter, far more controllable and useful as a soldiers rifle than the joke of the M-14. Only thanks to the Air Force did we end up with the M-16 to replace it, even though it too has a huge load of baggage and issues as well. It's a shame how we went from a very good rifle in WWII to an sort of adequate one now.



Hello Wlewisiii,
Perhaps not EVERY nation embraces the "fetish" of accuracy, but more nations care about accuracy in their rifles than you might think.
The Soviets had a pretty fair semi automatic in their SVT-40 except that it just didn't do so well for accuracy and never really replaced their M1891/30 rifle. The British seemed to be quite particular about the accuracy of their Lee Enfield rifles and that was a serious consideration when the Rifle No.4 was designed to replace No.1 Mk.III*.

Regarding the .280 NATO, I believe you are confusing long range effectiveness with accuracy. Personally I believe the .280 would have been a pretty good choice and there is nothing to suggest that the accuracy of the cartridge was poor.
As for calling the M14 a joke, I actually have a fair amount of experience with variants of the M14, FAL, and M16 and although the M16 types are a B*tch to clean, there is nothing majorly wrong with any of those gun designs (IMO).
What do you see is wrong with the M14 and M16 types?
If you are thinking of the poor reliability of the M16 in Vietnam, that was due mostly to the lack of proper equipment such as cleaning tools and also an unsuitable formulation of propellant that was loaded into the cartridges.
Properly tuned, both guns are quite reliable, durable, easily maintainable and accurate.
The FAL on the other hand in general has a pretty crappy trigger pull and rather mediocre sights and the provisions for mounting a telescope / optics is rather poor and in the same caliber the FAL isn't any lighter than a M14.
I know the FAL trigger CAN be tuned but most of the ones I have fired including new out of the box were pretty lousy.

- Ivan.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 28, 2019)

Thank you.

Service Garands using WW II ball ammo will not do as well as new guns (or reconditioned guns) using new ammo so the accuracy you describe is perfectly understandable.

The Whole T20 project was pretty much doomed from the beginning. I would note that the Johnson LMG, like the FG 42 had provision to fire open bolt full auto and closed bolt semi auto. I see no mention of such a feature on the T20 or indeed on the M14. This means the ability to fire full auto for very long is rather suspect as the barrel will heat up and cook offs will start happening. A major limitation when trying to fill the LMG (or even squad automatic) role.




A later M-14 with a new stock (and folded bipod) to try to solve the muzzle rise problem.
There was a heavy barrel M-15 issued for troop trials but it was not heavy enough (and the first version had the poor stock layout of the M1) adding weight to barrel delays the time until cook offs occur but do little to help the gun cool off faster or dissipate heat better.

The whole T-20 though M-14/15 saga is a poster case for NIH and/or refusing to back down from an impossible initial specification.

Men in the field in Germany can write all the reports they can on what they find, what their superiors do with the reports is another story. The gentleman I referred to earlier who worked at Aberdeen was with Army ordnance in WW II and went through a number of German arms plants at the end of the war. He did come home with a number of Mauser actions in his duffle bag which he built some of his target rifles on. 

Part of the Garands reputation is, in my opinion, due to the sights which are easier to use than many other rifle sights. Those V or U notch rear sights mounted in front of the receiver ar not a good set up for fast, poor light shooting. The lack of adjustment for windage is also a bit of problem, forget adjusting for windage in the field, different lots of ammo (or the stock soaking up moisture or drying out) will change the point of impact and without some sort of easy way to adjust practical accuracy goes away. trying to tap the front sight back and forth in a dove tail slot is poor substitute.


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 30, 2019)

If I may:



ThomasP said:


> Hey JAG88,
> I am not sure but I think you misunderstood what I was trying to say. Also, I believe we were talking about the StG44, not the FG42.
> My point is that the UK and US did not ignore or denigrate the StG44 in any way due to its being a German weapon. They did not say the StG44 was worthless. They simply had their own requirements (smarter or not), which the StG44 did not meet.



At least in the current 2-thread discussion about small arms, nobody accused UK for ignoring or denigrating the StG44.



> If it helps to understand what I am saying, ask yourself the following questions:
> 1. Should the UK and US have discarded their rifles and SMGs at war's end, along with the several billion rounds of ammunition, and immediately started an emergency production program for the StG44? If so, why??
> 
> 2. What reason did the UK and US have in 1945 to decide they should introduce another caliber of ammunition? Remember, one of the main reasons the US did not adopt the .276 or similar round was a requirement that their primary infantry rifle use the same ammunition as their light and medium MG. (It should be noted that a debate similar to this is going on today in the US armed forces.)



As above - nobody suggested that those two countries start an emergency program for the (copying? countering?) the StG44. The US Army adopted the M1 Garand due to their feeling that it will be able to use hills and mountains of the .30-06 ammo, it transpired that all new ammo type was needed for the M1 Garand, while MGs and bolt-action rifle still could use the old ammo.
Seems like the UK have had a very real reason for a new caliber of ammunition, otherwise they wouldn't authorised the .270 (later re-designetd as .280) round for the next-gen rifle.



> 3. Did you ever read any reports from WWII where Allied soldiers said things like "Oh my God in heaven, here come the sturmtruppen with their StG44s, run away!! Run away!! Ignore the troops with the K98 and all the other German infantry weapons, they cannot compare to the effectiveness of the StG44." or "No Fred, do not advance, your ______ (insert any infantry rifle or SMG in the blank area) is no match for their StG44. Go over there and advance into the K98s, MG38s, MG42s,... At least you will have a chance to live!" You can imagine this being said in the King's English, American English, French, Russian, or any other language you choose - if you can keep a straight face when saying it yourself, let me know. To be fair, I would challenge anyone to do the same concerning modern infantry assault rifles as well.



I'm not sure where this came from. 
But, at any rate, Soviets, Germans and British reached conclusions that full-power rifle cartridge is a wrong choice for hand-held automatic weapons, and started planing the next-gen of small arms around a new cartridge each. The British choice being probably the best, combining long-range usability of a full-power cartridge with controlability of a reduced-power cartridge.



> I may have been unclear as to the time frame of the selection of the M14, EM-2, FAL, etc. I meant that by the time the UK and US were ready to adopt a new weapon and associated ammunition (~1950, at the beginning of the NATO standardization process) they already had designs they considered better for their requirements. And yes, some of those designs used bits and pieces of other nations designs, including German designs such as the StG44, FG42, MG42, etc.
> 
> Your point of making the weapon cheap is valid to a certain extent. For certain it would apply to a war-time army that is in dire straights production-wise. (I started to say ...and/or already losing the war, but that by its self negates the value of the concept.) The problem with this concept is that an army spends most of its time in peace, not war. If you make the weapons cheap you have to replace them more often, with the replacement cost exceeding the difference in any savings due to a low unit cost. (It should be noted that a debate similar to this is going on today in the US armed forces.)



Cheaper weapons might mean a difference between actually replacing obsolete weapons a decade after the last war vs. still having obsolete weapons decades after the war and hope that a new war does not happen. Granted, over-doing the cheapness will bite back.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 30, 2019)

The M1 actually used the original .30-06 load/ballistics as used in the 1903 Springfield, the mottly collection of US MGs until the Browning 1917/1919 was adopted (and even they used it for 7-9 years) and the same round the 1918 BAR was developed for. 
The .30-06 M1 Ball with the 172 Grain boat tail bullet was not adopted until 1926 (although tested several years earlier?) to increase the range of machine guns. Any surplus .30-06 ammo left over from WW I was this 150-152 flat based bullet. 

It took until 1936 or so to use up most of the old 1906 ammo. So when the decision was made to keep the .30-06 for the Garand a fair amount of the ammo in stock was the old 1906 load which had a few problems of it's own, like using a cupro-nickel jacket instead of gilding metal which resulted in much more jacket fouling in the barrels. 

They also discovered that the boat tail bullets, with their ability to travel almost 2000yds further than the old 1906 load, were unsafe to use on some training ranges as the bullets, if fired at an odd elevation by accident would travel well beyond the safety zone and onto adjoining property or other parts of the training facility. They hastily came up with the M2 Ball which pretty much duplicated the old 1906 load as far as ballistics goes but at lower internal pressure and using the Gilding metal jacket material. 

While the .30-06 M1 load would, eventually, cause some extra battering/wear on the M1 rifle many M1 rifles have fired hundreds if not thousands of rounds of the 30-06 M1 load without suffering any catastrophic failure. 

The M1 rifles gas port is pretty much at the of the barrel and most of the ammo for it doesn't vary in pressure that much even if the the peak pressure 1-2inches in front of the chamber does. Handloaders after WW II could mess things up by using the slower commercial and surplus powders that became available. These could result in higher port pressures and lead to bent operating rods but there was no real need to use these powders. 

The UK wanted to get rid of the rimmed .303 case after WW II. (they had wanted to get rid of it much earlier but financial considerations alway blocked the change,)


Cheap weapons do have certain attraction for the military but too cheap means they have to be replaced more often than is really desirable for countries that are supplying troops thousands of miles from the factories. Every crate of stamped, sheet metal wonder guns put on a freighter to replace bent/dented guns is a crate of something else that isn't going to get there.


----------



## ThomasP (Apr 30, 2019)

Hey tomopauk,

From JAG88's post#143 in the proximity fuse thread: "In general, I think it is normal and human to look down on the weapons of the defeated enemy, and that could cause some people to overlook otherwise interesting developments as in this case... which was the point of bringing up this example in the thread."

I have assumed that JAG88's comment is referring back to (or has similar intent to) Basil's earlier comment in his post#123 in the proximity fuse thread: "At the end of WW2 the Allies had a very satisfactorily working VT fuze in combat for over a year and the fact the the Germans were working on similar devices certainly was not sensational for the CIOS or BIOS teams. There were many other similar researches in technical fields which did not find much mention." and some comments of others that seem to imply that the Allies had ignored German technology (radar, weapons, industrial prowess, etc.) simply because it was not sensational, and/or that because they were the losers in WWII their technology was not worthy of consideration (i.e. denigrating).

As for my questions 1-3, it may seem that they are somewhat facetious (well, #3 is phrased in a humorous manner), but those 3 questions (or other ones similar in meaning) would have to result in answers that would give reason to over-ride the requirements that the UK and US had in mind at the time, or there is no reason to think that the StG44 was superior in any way that mattered, at least in any big picture sense (not sure if I phrased that clearly?). In effect, even if the entire German army had been equipped with the StG44 by early-1944 (or beginning of the war?), it was not going to turn the tide of the war, any major battle, or most likely any minor battle that mattered. And any superior firepower effect that the StG44 may have had was not enough to have any impact in the minds of the opposing forces in the field, or at least not any worthy of notable record (I could be wrong about the notable record part, but that is part of why I put question #3 in the post).


Interesting info, from the training manuals of the UK and US:

Model 1903 Springfield aimed shots per minute ~12 (iron sights)
Enfield aimed shots per minute ~12 (iron sights)
M1 Garand aimed shots per minute ~12 (iron sights)
L85 aimed shots per minute 12-15 (iron sights)
M16 aimed shots per minute 12-15 (iron sights)

The additional 3 shots per minute for the modern rifles are attributed to the lighter recoil with commensurate shorter recovery time.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (May 1, 2019)

ThomasP said:


> Interesting info, from the training manuals of the UK and US:
> 
> Model 1903 Springfield aimed shots per minute ~12 (iron sights)
> Enfield aimed shots per minute ~12 (iron sights)
> ...



Hello ThomasP,
The firing rates you are quoting are not terribly realistic. I would strongly suggest that you actually take a M98 Mauser or M1903 Springfield out to the range and see if you can get 12 aimed shots per minute. Keep in mind that even with a full magazine, you will need two reloads. If we are discussing Lee-Enfields, they have a much smoother bolt and only need one reload as does the M1 Garand. I have no firing experience with the L85 but it seems not so good for handling but easily better than any bolt gun for speed of fire.
I have watched some very good match rifle shooters with bolt action rifles firing rapid fire practice and it is an amazing thing to see 10 aimed shots and two reloads in a minute. In the National Matches, there is also a competition called the Infantry Trophy Match that shows just how many well aimed shots can be put downrange in a minute by any of the semi autos and I can tell you it is quite a bit more than 12 on the average.



Shortround6 said:


> The M1 rifles gas port is pretty much at the of the barrel and most of the ammo for it doesn't vary in pressure that much even if the the peak pressure 1-2inches in front of the chamber does. Handloaders after WW II could mess things up by using the slower commercial and surplus powders that became available. These could result in higher port pressures and lead to bent operating rods but there was no real need to use these powders.



Hello Shortround6,
Port pressure should range from 4000 to 8000 PSI if I remember right. The M1 does tend to be somewhat sensitive to powder speeds as does the M14 types.
Regarding use of the 173 grain bullets, note that the M72 Match load uses a 173 grain boat tail bullet at the same velocities (2640 FPS instrumental at 78 feet)
as the old MG round. It was the preferred Sniper / Target load for the M1, so this weight bullet must have been acceptable for the M1 Rifle.
With powder that supplies too much port pressure, sometimes on the older receivers, it is possible for the bolt to crack the back of the receiver with prolonged use.

Hello Tomo Pauk,
Do you suppose that the requirements for a rifle caliber for infantry weapons would also be determined by whether or not the new caliber would be the ONLY caliber to be used by infantry rifles, LMG, Squad Automatics, etc?
I am thinking that if a country is intending to replace the ammunition for ALL of those weapons, it will settle only for something that will perform at least adequately in the LMG while if it intends to retain a second caliber for the LMG, it can pick something much smaller.
The choices of the various countries seem to follow that pattern:
The Germans kept the 7.92 x 57, so the little 7.92 x 33 was just fine as a sort of high power SMG / Carbine.
The British wanted to replace .303 so they needed something bigger such as the .280 which wasn't that different.
The US wanted to replace 30-06, so they wanted something that was its ballistic equivalent.
The Soviets intended to keep the 762 x 54R for the long range role, so a 7.62 x 39 was a good supplement.

- Ivan.


----------



## The Basket (May 1, 2019)

The British wanted rid of the 303 because it was rimmed. Which is a pain especially for machine guns.
The British thrice directly copied the enemy rifle...7mm Mauser rifle and the G43 and FG-42.
The Federov was doing what Sturmgewehr was doing well before. Sturmgewehr was only new and revolutionary in the sense it was fielded. 
FG-42 was fielded in very small numbers so is as irrelevant as the Federov in war winning.
The EM-2 was the British Sturmgewehr but was killed off by USA as it wanted battle rifles. American insistence on long range battle rifles for accuracy proved to be correct at least in current Afghan combat.

Just as in the Boer War. You can learn lessons in war which are not always relevant to the next.

Accuracy in ww2 is not really accurate as it was well below what we today would call accurate. Even a sniping rifle was not as accurate as today's standards. So accuracy in 1940 and 2019 is not the same. Rate of fire is important as a bolt action is quite a tiring muscle memory thing and can be very difficult to keep up for long duration. Semi auto takes the effort out and so allows a constant rate of fire.


----------



## ThomasP (May 1, 2019)

Hey Ivan1GFP,

The aimed shots per minute are from the actual training manuals of the UK and US from the time periods of their use, all from pre-2000. I doubt either country would overstate or understate the rates they expected were achievable by the majority of their soldiers after training. As an example, over time the US Army's expected aimed shots per minute decreased from 20 at the time of the introduction of the M1 Garand in 1940, to 12 by the Korea war period.

Also, we may be talking about significantly different parameters here. In general (in the UK and US anyway) aimed fire was usually from a minimum of 200m to a maximum of 500-600m. The 12-15 aimed shots per minute were (are?) usually achieved at the shorter ranges of 200-300m.

Today the standard UK and US rifleman qualification testing is usually done at 300m maximum, but the type of targets and times involved are so varied that a summary of the training and qualification courses is impractical to post here.

I do not know what ranges and parameters are used in the competitions you refer to, but (obviously) these aimed shots per minute rates are not meant to be comparable to those achieved in any kind of national competitions.

I have never had the opportunity to fire a K98 (and yes I realize that the Model 1903 Springfield uses a Mauser action).

I have never practiced quick reloading of the WWII era rifles using stripper clips, but with practice I do not think that the aimed fire rates would be a problem.

I have fired all the other weapons I mentioned at ranges upto 500m and find the aimed fire rates quite realistic.


----------



## Shortround6 (May 1, 2019)

The rate of fire thing has several huge variables. 

One is the amount of training the troops/shooters had. 
Another is the what is defined as "aimed fire". for the British before WW I (and for quite a while after?) it was number of shots fired on a 2 ft by 2 ft target at 200yds? open to correction.

The US used about a 10in black bullseye (5 ring) at the time with a 4 ring and 3 ring in the white, I don't know what score or metric was used. The US, even in army matches, not infantry training? used rapid fire sitting at 200yds and rapid fire prone at 300yds with an extra 10 seconds (70 seconds?).

In the old match rules from the 60s and 70s the bolt guns got an extra 10 seconds, M1/M14 shooters got 50 seconds for 10 shots in sitting instead of 60 seconds and prone at 300 got 60 seconds instead of 70. later the longer time was used for both to simplify squading (trying to put all the guns of one type on the same relay) 

For infantry training and rate of fire the "12 shots" may be an average of shots fired?

Melvin Johnson uses higher rates of fire but he was trying to promote the use of the semi-auto rifle (his). 

Hitting a 2 x 2 target (or larger?) can be done fairly quickly. Hitting a target 1/4 that size takes a bit more aiming time. There were also 'tricks' used by target shooters that are not applicable in the field. The target shooter uses the sling to help support the gun and in fact early US WW II training films show instructors teaching the use of the sling. I am not saying you couldn't use a sling in combat but it's use was not common. For the British the gun was almost laying on the ground. the left hand gripped the sling right below the sling swivel like a fist and the bottom edge of the hand rested on the ground and the rifles was on the upper edge of the hand, elevation was controlled by how hard of fist the shooter made. The butt was on the ground the the firerer's shoulder was on top of it. the bolt was grasped between thumb and fore finger and the trigger was pulled by the middle finger without ever letting go of the bolt. 
I don't believe combat rates of fire ever equaled rates of fire on the range but given time to prepare (dig holes or rearrange the dirt) there is little doubt that much higher than 12 rounds per minute could be obtained. However firing out of windows, over logs, and other barriers was going to drop the rate of fire and/or accuracy considerably. 

I had somebody watch me once while I practiced sitting with a bolt rifle using dummy cartridges. I was cycling the gun about every 3 seconds. Now factor in reloads. 
I would also note that US match shooting with time limits I gave had the shooters start in standing up. (although some rather extreme crouches could be seen) so by the time the shooter got laying down (or sitting) and properly lined up with the target with all elbows and knees where he wanted them 12-20 seconds of the "minute" had already gone by. 

Something else to consider when comparing range shooting to combat shooting. 

I also got some advice from my father when shooting the M1 rapid fire. He told me to count in my head. Fire the rifle then count one, two, three, four and fire the rifle on the count of four, repeat. That took care of the recoil, recoil recovery, realigning the sights, squeezing, not yanking, the trigger and was fast enough that you wouldn't run out of time( the count was faster than 4 seconds). 

I would also note that training manual rates of fire may (or may not) be for sustained fire. That rate of fire for several minutes (or longer) at which point gun heating may start to play a part. Or might not. Some manuals don't give good explanations as to why they have the numbers they do and other manuals do have explanations.


----------



## tomo pauk (May 1, 2019)

ThomasP said:


> Hey tomopauk,
> 
> From JAG88's post#143 in the proximity fuse thread: "In general, I think it is normal and human to look down on the weapons of the defeated enemy, and that could cause some people to overlook otherwise interesting developments as in this case... which was the point of bringing up this example in the thread."
> 
> I have assumed that JAG88's comment is referring back to (or has similar intent to) Basil's earlier comment in his post#123 in the proximity fuse thread: "At the end of WW2 the Allies had a very satisfactorily working VT fuze in combat for over a year and the fact the the Germans were working on similar devices certainly was not sensational for the CIOS or BIOS teams. There were many other similar researches in technical fields which did not find much mention." and some comments of others that seem to imply that the Allies had ignored German technology (radar, weapons, industrial prowess, etc.) simply because it was not sensational, and/or that because they were the losers in WWII their technology was not worthy of consideration (i.e. denigrating).



Allies were certainly not ignoring German technology, they were burning the midnight oil to get German stuff researched and, if possible, replicated in many cases. Reason why I've started this thread is that, sometimes, reports on German techy stuff were either partly biased, or 'diluted' for general public (civilians).



> As for my questions 1-3, it may seem that they are somewhat facetious (well, #3 is phrased in a humorous manner), but those 3 questions (or other ones similar in meaning) would have to result in answers that would give reason to over-ride the requirements that the UK and US had in mind at the time, or there is no reason to think that the StG44 was superior in any way that mattered, at least in any big picture sense (not sure if I phrased that clearly?). In effect, even if the entire German army had been equipped with the StG44 by early-1944 (or beginning of the war?), it was not going to turn the tide of the war, any major battle, or most likely any minor battle that mattered. And any superior firepower effect that the StG44 may have had was not enough to have any impact in the minds of the opposing forces in the field, or at least not any worthy of notable record (I could be wrong about the notable record part, but that is part of why I put question #3 in the post).



Germany lost the war by 1942. By 1944, in case they don't field jet-propelled intercontinintal bombers (or rockets) aremd with nuclear devices en masse, they still loose it. Infantry weapons have too much a tactical footprint in the era where aircraft, tanks, ships and artillery rule the battlefield and seas. 
With that said, better infantry weapons can lower the butcher's bill, so every belligerent country tried to improve in that field.



> Interesting info, from the training manuals of the UK and US:
> 
> Model 1903 Springfield aimed shots per minute ~12 (iron sights)
> Enfield aimed shots per minute ~12 (iron sights)
> ...



The M48 (Yugo Mauser) - 10 aimed shots. M-59/66 (Yugo SKS) - 20 aimed shots. 
Aimed shots are just a part of the equation. Bolt-action rifles, eve semi-auto rifles can't supress well the enemy since they cant fire in bursts, while automatics can do it well. You can also take a look at some videos of 'In range' series by Gun Jesus, where he stipulates that each shot from bolt-action rifle is a 'new shot' - each separately aimed and fired, while the ones from sem-autos just follow up one after another, in case the target is not hit the 1st time. Bolt action requires getting the butt stock down, get the handle, work the mechanism, get the butt stock at shoulder, aim, fire - much greater number of operations that a self-loader reduces by more than half by default.



Ivan1GFP said:


> Hello Tomo Pauk,
> Do you suppose that the requirements for a rifle caliber for infantry weapons would also be determined by whether or not the new caliber would be the ONLY caliber to be used by infantry rifles, LMG, Squad Automatics, etc?
> I am thinking that if a country is intending to replace the ammunition for ALL of those weapons, it will settle only for something that will perform at least adequately in the LMG while if it intends to retain a second caliber for the LMG, it can pick something much smaller.
> The choices of the various countries seem to follow that pattern:
> ...



One caliber to rule them all? Probably too much of an effort, when two calibers will probably cover the needs better?
The .280 was different enough vs. the .303 - the .280 it produced 60% of the energy of the .303. That will mean several benefits from the shooter's and constructor's points of view: recoil becomes easy to control, even on automatic fire, more ammo can be carried for same weight allowance, gun will not be too heavy or cumbersome, less chance of breakage of internals because of lower stress etc. We can see that .280 is very similar to the 6.5 Grendel in power, and a bit more powerful than 6.8 SPC; when fired from the long barrel of the EM-2, the .280 will excel at ranges the 7.62x39 can just dream about, even when fired from the SKS or RPK. For 99% of ranges, shooters and situations, there will be no need for anything more powerful than .280, while both Soviet and German wepons chambered in short cartridges still required the wepons chambered in long cartridges as a back-up.


----------



## tomo pauk (May 1, 2019)

The Basket said:


> The British wanted rid of the 303 because it was rimmed. Which is a pain especially for machine guns.
> The British thrice directly copied the enemy rifle...7mm Mauser rifle and the G43 and FG-42.
> The Federov was doing what Sturmgewehr was doing well before. Sturmgewehr was only new and revolutionary in the sense it was fielded.
> FG-42 was fielded in very small numbers so is as irrelevant as the Federov in war winning.
> The EM-2 was the British Sturmgewehr but was killed off by USA as it wanted battle rifles. American insistence on long range battle rifles for accuracy proved to be correct at least in current Afghan combat.



Rimmed rounds worked in ww1, ww2, Cold War, and they work in 21 st century. Bolt-action, semi-auto, detachable magazines (box, pan, drum), belts. Rates of fire more than 1000 rpm.
British never copied the Mauser rifle in 7mm calibre. Source for the British copying G43 and FG43?
Fedorov's automat (while indeed available earlier than StG-44 indeed) contibuted next to nothing in either loosing the war (the ww1) nor the war winning (ww2).
EM-2 was the British 'automat' - usable for long range fire, as well as bursts. Much better at great ranges than StG-44 or the M4 (that will be the US StG-44?), so no weaknesses in Afghanistan's 'hill-to-hill' fire.


----------



## JAG88 (May 1, 2019)

ThomasP said:


> Hey tomopauk,
> 
> From JAG88's post#143 in the proximity fuse thread: "In general, I think it is normal and human to look down on the weapons of the defeated enemy, and that could cause some people to overlook otherwise interesting developments as in this case... which was the point of bringing up this example in the thread."
> 
> I have assumed that JAG88's comment is referring back to (or has similar intent to) Basil's earlier comment in his post#123 in the proximity fuse thread: "At the end of WW2 the Allies had a very satisfactorily working VT fuze in combat for over a year and the fact the the Germans were working on similar devices certainly was not sensational for the CIOS or BIOS teams. There were many other similar researches in technical fields which did not find much mention." and some comments of others that seem to imply that the Allies had ignored German technology (radar, weapons, industrial prowess, etc.) simply because it was not sensational, and/or that because they were the losers in WWII their technology was not worthy of consideration (i.e. denigrating).



Irrelevant, my point was clear and gave a very detailed example on the US evaluation of the StG 44, nobody else was confused.

The rest...


----------



## JAG88 (May 1, 2019)

I dont have Schmalenbach's book, but delcyros does:

"PRINZ EUGEN´s radar suite was never examined in detail by USN investigators. As a matter of fact, Schmalenbach, who was there when the ship was examined states explicitely, that the USN service persons were simply not interested in these pieces of equipment (multiple sets) and when given opportunity to study it´s working principles rejected to do so, claiming that they have much superior radar. They collected the aviable manuals* and went on with other buisnesses (particularly integration of FCS with it´s advanced master stable element) without switching the radar on for a single time. Then they went on to even install an USN radar for navigational purposes as they laid claim that they don´t rely on german radar at all.
Any information on it´s technical capabilities therefore -from US sorces at least- cannot possibly be based on empirical studies of PRINZ EUGEN´s set(s). "

South Dakota class vs Tirptiz class

The allies were VERY interested in German technology, but we are all human, we do screw up and make assumptions based on our own prejudices.


----------



## The Basket (May 1, 2019)

Never said the Federov won anything. 

Both the French and British wanted rid of rimmed cartridges. Why go to such effort if rimmed cartridges are so good? 

Why do you think the 7mm Mauser was not copied?


----------



## The Basket (May 1, 2019)

Why should the USN be interested in German naval radar?


----------



## tomo pauk (May 1, 2019)

The Basket said:


> Both the French and British wanted rid of rimmed cartridges. Why go to such effort if rimmed cartridges are so good?



Perhaps asking them would've been a good idea?



> Why do you think the 7mm Mauser was not copied?



I did not said that 7mm Mauser was not copied. Cartridge != rifle.


----------



## GrauGeist (May 1, 2019)

The Basket said:


> Why should the USN be interested in German naval radar?


Why not?
The Allies were interested in other German technologies...


----------



## JAG88 (May 1, 2019)

GrauGeist said:


> Why not?
> The Allies were interested in other German technologies...



Cuz 'Murica!


----------



## JAG88 (May 1, 2019)

The Basket said:


> Why should the USN be interested in German naval radar?



Thx for proving my point btw.


----------



## The Basket (May 1, 2019)

The USN is the most powerful navy ever in 1945. And the Kreigsmarine is at the bottom of the sea. So I know which radar set I would use. Just because it's German doesn't mean anything.

I know why the rimmed cartridges were rid of. Don't have to ask. 

You did say the 7mm Mauser rifle was not copied. So What is the P13? The P14? Or the American M1917? They were not based on a Mosin!


----------



## ThomasP (May 1, 2019)

Hey JAG88, 

from your posts#143 in the proximity fuse thread, and your posts#50 & 51 in this thread:

"In general, I think it is normal and human to look down on the weapons of the defeated enemy, and that could cause some people to overlook otherwise interesting developments as in this case... which was the point of bringing up this example in the thread."

"Irrelevant, my point was clear and gave a very detailed example on the US evaluation of the StG 44, nobody else was confused."

"The allies were VERY interested in German technology, but we are all human, we do screw up and make assumptions based on our own prejudices."


I was not confused, and doubt anyone else was.


----------



## ThomasP (May 1, 2019)

Hey tomo pauk,

re: "The M48 (Yugo Mauser) - 10 aimed shots. M-59/66 (Yugo SKS) - 20 aimed shots."

Do you have the range details for the above by any chance? Seriously, I am interested.


----------



## The Basket (May 1, 2019)

The Americans also copied the 7mm Mauser rifle into the 1903 Springfield. 
This was from the Spanish wars 1898.


----------



## tomo pauk (May 1, 2019)

The Basket said:


> The USN is the most powerful navy ever in 1945. And the Kreigsmarine is at the bottom of the sea. So I know which radar set I would use. Just because it's German doesn't mean anything.
> 
> I know why the rimmed cartridges were rid of. Don't have to ask.
> 
> You did say the 7mm Mauser rifle was not copied. So What is the P13? The P14? Or the American M1917? They were not based on a Mosin!



If you don't have to ask, then why asking around?
FWIW, Wikipedia says:

_The Pattern 1913 Enfield was mainly based on the Mauser line of bolt action rifles. Engineering concepts found in the German Gewehr 98 and American M1903 Springfield service rifle bolt actions were combined with design features of the British Short Magazine Lee–Enfield Mk III service rifle. _

So, no word about copying the Mauser Model 1892, nor the 1893 (both used in US-Spanish war) nor of Mauser Model 1895 ( used by Boers).



ThomasP said:


> Hey tomo pauk,
> 
> re: "The M48 (Yugo Mauser) - 10 aimed shots. M-59/66 (Yugo SKS) - 20 aimed shots."
> 
> Do you have the range details for the above by any chance? Seriously, I am interested.



No details - that info was passed to us, raw recruits in 1990, by the time both of those rifles were in reserve status.


----------



## JAG88 (May 1, 2019)

ThomasP said:


> Hey JAG88,
> 
> from your posts#143 in the proximity fuse thread, and your posts#50 & 51 in this thread:
> 
> ...



Lol, yeah, you are confused, or pretending to be.


----------



## ThomasP (May 1, 2019)

Hey tomo pauk,

Even without the actual ranges your info was interesting.


----------



## ThomasP (May 1, 2019)

Hey JAG88,

Seriously, look up the meaning of the words "ignore" and "denigrate", then compare the definitions in the dictionary to the words and phrasing you are using. 

If you really do not realize what you are saying (as opposed to what you mean to say) I apologize for misinterpreting your intent.


----------



## The Basket (May 1, 2019)

So they didn't copy the 7mm Mauser? 
I am confused. Because the P13 looks like a Mauser to me. 
I told you why rimmed cartridges are no longer used because they are a pain in machine guns.


----------



## Shortround6 (May 1, 2019)

The Spanish Mauser were the older ones. Any Mausers older than 1995/96 used a cock on closing mechanism. The M98 Mauser used a cock on opening mechanism.
The M1903 used a cock on opening, the P-13 and it's derivatives used a cock on closing. 

The M1903 used enough Mauser features that they lost a lawsuit to Mauser and had to pay royalties. 

There are a bunch of other features that aren't as obvious. such as the way the bedding screws work or are arranged, The way the barrel fits in the receiver and the the gas from pierced primers is handled, among them. 

The M1903 and the P-13/17 were derived from the Mauser, it is more questionable if they were derived from the 7m mauser.


----------



## GrauGeist (May 1, 2019)

JAG88 said:


> Cuz 'Murica!


And Britain, France and the Soviet Union....

In regards to the Kreigsmarine's Radar, not investigating now it works just because one has a "mighty fleet" doesn't make sense. The German Navy didn't fail because of it's radar, they failed because their fleet was out-numbered from the start.

The Germans had a great deal of technology that was adopted after the war by all the Allies, like the V-2 rocket, which directly resulted in the US Army Redstone Rocket and ultimately space launch vehicles.


----------



## The Basket (May 1, 2019)

Nope. The liquid fuelled rocket was an American invention.
Germans spent a boat load to make it big. 
Of course the P13 was not a direct copy of the 7mm Mauser but a copy it was. Otherwise it wouldnt look like a Mauser.

The FG-42 was used in the Korsac EM-1 but only as prototypes and EM-2 used the flapper locks off the G43.


----------



## JAG88 (May 1, 2019)

GrauGeist said:


> And Britain, France and the Soviet Union....
> 
> In regards to the Kreigsmarine's Radar, not investigating now it works just because one has a "mighty fleet" doesn't make sense. The German Navy didn't fail because of it's radar, they failed because their fleet was out-numbered from the start.
> 
> The Germans had a great deal of technology that was adopted after the war by all the Allies, like the V-2 rocket, which directly resulted in the US Army Redstone Rocket and ultimately space launch vehicles.





The Basket said:


> Nope. The liquid fuelled rocket was an American invention.
> Germans spent a boat load to make it big.



See what I mean GrauGeist?

Cuz 'Murica!


----------



## Shortround6 (May 1, 2019)

Found this, How true any of it is I don't know. 

USS Prinz Eugen 

Apparently the US did take an interest in the Prinz Eugen and much of it's equipment. 

Wither it was due to initial reports or in spite of them I have no idea. 

One also has to be aware that the US ships in 1944-45 were sometimes fitted with more than one "generation" of radar/fire control, that is different ships even in the same task group had different outfits of radar. What was fitted to many ships might be one-two steps behind what was being worked on in the experimental area.


----------



## JAG88 (May 1, 2019)

Thx, very interesting, it is to be noted however that the text speculates as to the reason why the USN didnt master its use, and somehow confirms Schmalenbach's statement since the USN clearly didnt care enough to actually try and understand how it worked and check its performance.

They nuked it instead.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (May 1, 2019)

The Basket said:


> The British wanted rid of the 303 because it was rimmed. Which is a pain especially for machine guns.



Hello The Basket,
I believe there were more problems with the .303 British besides it being a rimmed cartridge. Note that the Japanese used a semi-rimmed 7.7 round in their ground machine guns without any notable issues and the Russians continued with their 7.62 x 54R in semi and auto weapons again without any obvious problems.
Note that the British already tried to get rid of the .303 once before with the P13 rifle but that cartridge did not work out so well.



The Basket said:


> Accuracy in ww2 is not really accurate as it was well below what we today would call accurate. Even a sniping rifle was not as accurate as today's standards. So accuracy in 1940 and 2019 is not the same. Rate of fire is important as a bolt action is quite a tiring muscle memory thing and can be very difficult to keep up for long duration. Semi auto takes the effort out and so allows a constant rate of fire.



Some WW2 era sniper guns and even regular issue rifles from decades before were not as bad as you are implying. The No.4 Mk.I(T) actually was quite an accurate gun for the time. While a modern sniper rifle may be better for pure accuracy, those old guns were easily as accurate as some of the modern Designated Marksman guns. Ammunition usually was not as good, but FMJ rounds don't tend to be the best for accuracy. The assembly and tuning of the "Target" No.4 was a very elaborate process.
Note also that when the US was issuing the M1 Garand (especially the M1D) as a sniper gun, it was recognized that its accuracy was not as good as the bolt action sniper guns.

Hello Shortround6,
The problem with differing courses of fire and different sized targets means that the numbers being quoted are not really comparable even for the same nation. Note that the target sizes changed even in US service between the time the M1903 served and when the M16 served. How would we compare the L85 which is a contemporary of the M16?
12 rounds per minute seems a bit fast for Aimed fire for a M1903 that can be sustained for any reasonable length of time.
If that is a realistic number, then 15 rounds per minute is much too slow for a M16 firing semi automatic. Also with a M16, heat buildup takes a pretty long time to build up to the same levels as for the bigger cartridges, so it can't be a heat limitation.



tomo pauk said:


> The M48 (Yugo Mauser) - 10 aimed shots. M-59/66 (Yugo SKS) - 20 aimed shots.



Hello Tomo Pauk,
This sounds a bit more realistic.



tomo pauk said:


> One caliber to rule them all? Probably too much of an effort, when two calibers will probably cover the needs better?
> The .280 was different enough vs. the .303 - the .280 it produced 60% of the energy of the .303. That will mean several benefits from the shooter's and constructor's points of view: recoil becomes easy to control, even on automatic fire, more ammo can be carried for same weight allowance, gun will not be too heavy or cumbersome, less chance of breakage of internals because of lower stress etc.



I wasn't really arguing the merits of the .280. I was just noting (and perhaps I am remembering badly) that the .280 was pretty comparable to the .303 in velocity and trajectory if not in energy. The point was that the British would not have been giving up any great range capability by changing to a new cartridge.



JAG88 said:


> Thx, very interesting, it is to be noted however that the text speculates as to the reason why the USN didnt master its use, and somehow confirms Schmalenbach's statement since the USN clearly didnt care enough to actually try and understand how it worked and check its performance.
> 
> They nuked it instead.



Hello JAG88,
By agreement, all captured ships had to be disposed of within one year, so perhaps there simply wasn't the time to give it proper consideration.
A lot of US personnel were exposed to more than a safe dose of radiation while examining these ships between the test explosions.

- Ivan.


----------



## JAG88 (May 1, 2019)

Ivan1GFP said:


> Hello JAG88,
> By agreement, all captured ships had to be disposed of within one year, so perhaps there simply wasn't the time to give it proper consideration.
> A lot of US personnel were exposed to more than a safe dose of radiation while examining these ships between the test explosions.
> 
> - Ivan.



I just find odd they didnt care to properly test the equipment, they could have just removed the radar prior to bikini to test later but... maybe simply they thought KM surface units didnt warrant the attention... still seems weird, they were happy to test pretty much everything else.


----------



## GrauGeist (May 2, 2019)

JAG88 said:


> See what I mean GrauGeist?
> 
> Cuz 'Murica!


Ok, enough of the flag waving - yes, Goddard was the father of Rocketry. 

But the Chinese invented gunpowder, that means all of modern warfare is a moot point as to who did what and this and that, Cuz China!

The only contribution to WWII that Goddard's rocketry innovations provided, was the Bazooka. And just barely.

There is nothing wrong with a nation taking another nation's invention and improving on it. Case in point: Goddard developed modern rockets, Germany turned that into the Ballistic Missile and the U.S. perfected it.

The U.S. developed the first flying bomb (Kettering Bug) and Germany perfected it (V-1) and today, we have the cruise missile.

And back to the radar issue...yes, the U.S. and Britain had advanced radar and so did Germany. The German radar developed on a linear path to the U.S./British radar but the Soviet Union was lagging behind.
And after the war, guess who had access to German radar technology? The Soviets...so taking a close look and better understanding how the German radar system worked, also gave a good insight to what the Soviets may have been working with.


----------



## The Basket (May 2, 2019)

The 303 could still be used today.
But it would be a cartridge dating back to the 1880s.

If you think any service rifle from 1940 can match a modern sniper rifle then please enlighten me.

If you think rimmed cartridges are so good why are no modern cartridges rimmed?


----------



## Shortround6 (May 2, 2019)

Rimmed cartridges had a few advantages in the late 1800s and very early 1900s. As we move into the later parts of the 20th century these advantages pretty much disappear.

The advantages had to do with the ability to insure reliable extraction of the fired case from the chamber. As the quality of the cartridge case material/s improved and the heat treatment of the material/s improved reliability extraction could be provided with much smaller rims and extractors.
With magazine and belt fed guns the rims present problems to gun design. In some cases the problems can be gotten around but if you don't need to deal with them in first place then why use a rimmed round?

I don't know how they rate different guns for rate of fire but I can think of a few variables. I also think that the 'fatigue' factor is a bit over blown but that may depend on the rifle in question. and perhaps even the weather 

Some rifles were noted for the smoothness and ease with which the bolt moved. I don't have a lot of experience with the 1903 but I will tell you that getting your thumb jammed into your cheek (or the stock wacking your cheek bone) 10-12 times a minute is a lot more fatiguing than the effort it takes to operate the bolt. The 1903 (and some other old bolt actions) have a crappy design of stock for handling recoil.





A fair amount of muzzle rise when fired due to the drop in the stock.

Depending on the ammo, some batches had more tendency to stick in the chamber than other batches. Requiring more effort to raise the bolt handle but not pull it back. In hot weather (I wasn't kidding) or with a hot gun, or both, the pressure in the chamber is higher, the case is stretched a bit more and doesn't return to original shape quite as well making it harder to break free of the chamber walls, done on the lift of the bolt handle. If the bolt handle is all the way up and the case is still sticking you are in serious trouble.

I used to know a few target shooters that used different loads for the 200-300yd rapid fire stages than the 600yd slow fire stage. You don't need the last bit of velocity at 200-300yds. You do need a smooth running gun.

Dirt, sand, etc can muck things up and slow down cycling the bolt but is more getting crud in the chamber and causing extraction problems that increased friction in sliding the bolt back and forth. British deliberately used over sized chambers on the .303 to allow for this (an advantage of the rimmed case, case location in the chamber was governed by the rim and not the fit between the case and chamber walls). I don't know if other users of rimmed cases did that or not.

there are a number of factors that come into evaluating rifle accuracy. You have the difference in the rifles themselves, both design and manufacturing quality. you have differences in ammo. Both of those combine for mechanical accuracy. How good the sights are, trigger pull and how the rifle fits the shooter affect practical accuracy.

Most military rifles had to pass a firing test at the factory, this differed from country to country and differed at different time periods in the same country.

A typical test would consist of one or more "proof" rounds (special high pressure loads) to make sure there was no undiscovered manufacturing defect that would cause the gun to fail after a few service rounds were fired. Accuracy testing was often done with the gun dropped into a cradle and clamped down.




Lithgow Arsenal during WW II.

often selected lots of ammo would be used, you don't want to reject a bunch of guns because you used test ammo that just barely met specification.

But note the human eyesight and the testers ability to shoot has been removed from the test. If the gun fired an acceptable group , even if a bit high or low, left or right, it passed. Sight adjustment could be done. 

However duplicating the factory test target with a soldier firing the gun is going to be a bit difficult.


----------



## JAG88 (May 2, 2019)

GrauGeist said:


> Ok, enough of the flag waving - yes, Goddard was the father of Rocketry.
> 
> But the Chinese invented gunpowder, that means all of modern warfare is a moot point as to who did what and this and that, Cuz China!
> 
> ...



No, AFAIK, the first flying "bomb" was actually the Siemens Schuckert fying torpedo developed throughout WW1.






Yep, rockets are an old technology, you correctly pointed to the V2 as the basis for many post war developments, and you got a 'Murica! response by someone else pointing to earlier and yet unrealized research the impact of which is still under discussion:

Robert Goddard Was the Father of American Rocketry. But Did He Have Much Impact? | Daily Planet | Air & Space Magazine 

And you are right, a closer look to German radar would have given the west a better understanding of the Soviet starting point.


----------



## tomo pauk (May 2, 2019)

The Basket said:


> So they didn't copy the 7mm Mauser?



They didn't copy the 'Mauser rifle in 7mm', nor the other two weapns that you did not provided any sources to back up the claims.



> I am confused. Because the P13 looks like a Mauser to me.



That's got nothing to do with me.



> I told you why rimmed cartridges are no longer used because they are a pain in machine guns.



Rimmed cartridges are very much still in use, and are/were in used at decent/good/excellent machineguns for the last 130 years.



The Basket said:


> The 303 could still be used today.
> But it would be a cartridge dating back to the 1880s.



Seems to me that you are looking to much at what color the cat is, rather than whether it can catch the mice.



> If you think any service rifle from 1940 can match a modern sniper rifle then please enlighten me.



??



> If you think rimmed cartridges are so good why are no modern cartridges rimmed?



Nobody said that rimmed cartridges are the best thing after the canned beer.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (May 2, 2019)

The Basket said:


> The 303 could still be used today.
> But it would be a cartridge dating back to the 1880s.



Hello The Basket,
I believe the 7.62 x 54R Russian round was first used in the M1891 rifles which would make it about the same age.
It served through a revolution, two world wars, a bunch of smaller wars and is still in service today.
This was the cartridge used in the ShKAS aircraft machine guns which IIRC had a cyclic rate of up to 1800 rounds per minute.
There are a few notable differences between the 7.62 x 54R and the .303 British:
There isn't nearly the same amount of taper in the body of the case.
The chambers, from the few Soviet guns I have had a chance to look at, do not appear to have the same oversize radial dimensions and somewhat random case shoulder location.
I don't have headspace gauges for the 7.62 x 54R, but I do for the .303 British and if the surplus guns are any indication, the specifications are quite "generous" and tend to be on the long side in actual guns.



The Basket said:


> If you think any service rifle from 1940 can match a modern sniper rifle then please enlighten me.



Service rifle versus a modern target / sniper rifle is not a fair comparison. You might want to compare older sniper rifles to modern "Designated Marksman" rifles. In a few cases I can think of, there isn't any real difference though there should be with modern technology improvements.
My belief is that in many cases, the ammunition of the time was a greater limitation than the quality of the firearm.
In comparing older sniper rifles to current guns, another great change is that modern optics are a tremendous improvement over the old rifle telescopes. Basically, $15-$20 at Walmart buys a better telescope than most of those mounted on WW2 era sniper rifles. Somewhere around here, I have an old Lyman scope of the same kind that was mounted on the M1903A4 sniper and it is NOT a particularly good instrument.



The Basket said:


> If you think rimmed cartridges are so good why are no modern cartridges rimmed?



Rimmed cartridges are not ideal for self loading guns, but obviously they can be made to work reliably.
There are some kinds of guns for which they are still quite useful and there are still plenty of modern cartridges that are rimmed. When was the last time you saw a rimless revolver cartridge? (Yeah, I know .45 ACP and 9 mm Para CAN both be fired from some revolvers.)

- Ivan.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (May 2, 2019)

Ivan1GFP said:


> I wasn't really arguing the merits of the .280. I was just noting (and perhaps I am remembering badly) that the .280 was pretty comparable to the .303 in velocity and trajectory if not in energy. The point was that the British would not have been giving up any great range capability by changing to a new cartridge.



Agreed all the way.


----------



## Shortround6 (May 2, 2019)

"the British would not have been giving up any great range capability by changing to a new cartridge. "

That was the intention. 











Notice the different trigger group/unit. Tapered "rails' on the left rear of the receiver were for the long range dial sight, 





Taden gun used a non disintegrating belt that seems to have pushed through rather than pulling the cartridge back before feeding.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (May 2, 2019)

Flintlock and musket are still viable weapons . Even spears. 
7.62x54R was not replaced. Doesn't mean it shouldn't have.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (May 3, 2019)

The Basket said:


> Flintlock and musket are still viable weapons . Even spears.
> 7.62x54R was not replaced. Doesn't mean it shouldn't have.



Hello The Basket,
The Flintlock / Musket / Spear are vastly inferior in performance in comparison to their modern equivalents.
The same cannot be said of the 7.62 x 54R. It is quite comparable in performance to equivalent rounds in current use by other nations.
It may offend your sense of aesthetics, but that is hardly a good enough reason for replacement.

- Ivan.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (May 3, 2019)

The Soviets did replace the rimmed cartridge with the 7.62x39 which itself was replaced by 5.45x39. So the 7.62x54R was no longer in the main infantry weapon.
But we go back to the main issue of machine gun v infantry rifle. The RPD and other AK machine guns were not cutting it as they didn't have the extreme ranges that was expected. So we get the PK. 

It's a huge cost to replace one round to another especially for very specialised roles such as machine gun or DRM so using the 54R makes perfect sense as it's in production and also it means that the millions of Mosins also can be brought back to use. 
However both the French and British had similar issues and scrapped their obsolete rounds in the 1920s and 1950s.
The Italians kept the bottle nosed Carcano 6.5x52 until the adoption of the Garand so keeping hold of an obsolete cartridge for production reasons can backfire.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (May 3, 2019)

The Basket said:


> The Soviets did replace the rimmed cartridge with the 7.62x39 which itself was replaced by 5.45x39. So the 7.62x54R was no longer in the main infantry weapon.
> But we go back to the main issue of machine gun v infantry rifle. The RPD and other AK machine guns were not cutting it as they didn't have the extreme ranges that was expected. So we get the PK.
> 
> It's a huge cost to replace one round to another especially for very specialised roles such as machine gun or DRM so using the 54R makes perfect sense as it's in production and also it means that the millions of Mosins also can be brought back to use.
> ...



Hello The Basket,
I believe you have a very odd interpretation of events.

At no point did the Soviets stop using the 7.62 x 54R as a military cartridge in at least some of their infantry weapons, so how was it "replaced"? I do not believe that keeping the caliber in production in order to allow the continued availability of millions of Mosin Nagants is a likely reason. Note that during this time a LOT of effort was spent to replace the Mosin Nagant as the sniper rifle. The Soviets do not seem to have any big issues with creating very specialized cartridges for a specialised weapon. How many nations do you know of that have built a "rifle" for use under water? If they had thought the 7.62 x 54R was not suitable as the new sniper round, they would have replaced it instead of building the SVD around it. Sniper ammunition tends to be manufactured to different specifications than other round in the same caliber anyway, so it would have been easy to just create a whole new caliber if they had wanted to.

The point I had brought up earlier with Tomo Pauk was that if a country intends to replace just the caliber of the infantry rifle and retain their older and larger caliber for LMG use, it appears that they are more likely to go with something smaller than if they intend to replace the caliber for both infantry rifles AND LMG with the new caliber. The course chosen by the Soviets seems to fit that pattern pretty well.

- Ivan.


----------



## The Basket (May 3, 2019)

SVD is not a sniper rifle.
The Vintorez is a sniper rifle and uses specialist rounds.
The main rifle of the WarPac was either 7.62x39 or 5.45x39, not 54R.

Ths Sniper Mosin used 54R so it would make sense to keep the round in specialist roles. But virtually every other country changed from a rimmed to a non rimmed cartridge. Either France and UK was wrong and the Soviets were right or vice versa.

It is hugely impractical to change calibres and rifles because you make everything before obsolete and have to start from scratch. So it is usually done very rarely and never on a whim. So the Soviets didn't obsolete the 54R as the British and French did. That's a decision they made and its easy to see why.

Whether this is true I don't know but Mosins are been stockpiled by the Ukraine in case of Russian invasion. Which is stopping them entering the milsurp market. So the idea of the Soviets having huge numbers of Mosins for emergencies or shipping them as military aid is not unknown.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (May 3, 2019)

Hello The Basket,
Your recollection of history is quite interesting.



The Basket said:


> SVD is not a sniper rifle.
> The Vintorez is a sniper rifle and uses specialist rounds.
> The main rifle of the WarPac was either 7.62x39 or 5.45x39, not 54R.



The Soviets certainly thought of the SVD as a sniper rifle regardless of your opinion.
The Vintorez (VSS) is a 1980's era gun. The SVD pre-dates that by around 25 years and served as the primary sniper gun for quite some time. I believe the first example in US hands was captured in Vietnam in the early 1960;s.
My own experience with the SVD is that its accuracy potential is about the same as a match tuned M14. I believe with good ammunition it should shoot around 0.75 MOA to 1 MOA. The problem is that good quality 7.62 x 54R is pretty hard to get in the US and so are the .310 diameter bullets in a weight that is appropriate to a x54R target load.
Soldier of Fortune had an article describing a test of a SVD that was chambered in .308 Winchester. Accuracy they got in testing is about what I described above.
The biggest limitation on shooting the SVD accurately is that the standard optics are quite poor. 4X isn't really enough power for good precision work and the scope has a fairly small objective and isn't very bright.
The trigger is a little odd. IIRC, it has a very long pull and doesn't stack. It takes some getting used to but there is nothing really wrong with it.



The Basket said:


> Ths Sniper Mosin used 54R so it would make sense to keep the round in specialist roles. But virtually every other country changed from a rimmed to a non rimmed cartridge. Either France and UK was wrong and the Soviets were right or vice versa.



I believe my Son would call this kind of argument an "appeal to popularity".
If you think about it from a logical standpoint, Where each nation was starting from might also influence its decisions.
The French were starting with a 8 mm Lebel. They switched to a 7.5 mm rimless round before WW2 and the era of assault rifles we are discussing here.
The British were starting with a .303 rimmed round and wanted to go with a .280 intermediate cartridge but ended up with the 7,62 NATO. They ended up with a cartridge with better ballistic capabilities than their older rimmed round.
Neither the French nor British rimmed rounds were at the same performance level as the German 7.92, US .30-06 or the 7.62 NATO rounds. The Soviet 7.62 x 54R fro a performance standpoint IS at the same performance level as a 7.62 NATO, 7.92 x 57 or .30-06.

The argument that you are making is like this:
Your neighbours all bought new cars, so you should too.
My response is:
The neighbours bought new cars because their previous cars could not do what they wanted.
Mine is running fine and does what I want, so I think I will keep it.

- Ivan.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (May 4, 2019)

By that logic the Soviets should have kept the Mosin. 
And to say the 8mm Lebel or 303 is underpowered or lacking compared to the German 7.92 is nonsense. 
In the military context it matters zero.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (May 4, 2019)

The Basket said:


> By that logic the Soviets should have kept the Mosin.
> And to say the 8mm Lebel or 303 is underpowered or lacking compared to the German 7.92 is nonsense.
> In the military context it matters zero.



Hello The Basket,
So if I understand you correctly, a lack of performance in a military rifle cartridge "matters zero" but the presence of a rim on the cartridge case is a better reason to replace it. That doesn't seem to make much sense.
This kind of reasoning also has a lot of other implications, but I believe folks can come to their own conclusions.

Regarding the Mosin Nagant as a sniper rifle, the Soviets chose to replace it with a more modern weapon and did so with the Dragunov. By what logic should they have kept the Mosin? 

- Ivan.


----------



## Shortround6 (May 4, 2019)

Sniping and the evolution of sniper rifles is a subject for books (or several of them). 

Long range sniping requires a special skill set on the part of the shooter (and often support from a 'spotter') that makes comparison of sniper rifles and cartridges from different time periods and countries rather difficult. 
Sniping was carried out in WW I (and actually in the US civil war if not before) but the ranges were much less (usually, there are few a exceptions) than what is considered "normal" today. 

The use of a certain cartridge or rifle for "sniper use" doesn't prove much of anything one way or another as expected engagement ranges changed. Tactics/methods changed and even the expected objectives of the different sniper programs changed. 

Sniper selection could vary from "Smith is a pain in the ass, give him one of the unit sniper rifles and let him do his own thing, out of sight, out of mind and maybe we will get lucky and the enemy will kill him" to "Jones is the best shot to come through basic training in several months, lets send him to special training and see if he has what it takes to be a sniper".

On cartridges the shape of a cartridge has darn little to do with the accuracy of cartridge, bullet, barrel combination once you go further back than the neck. Or at least very little difference in practical accuracy if you are not competing in the bench rest game where 0.010 difference in 5 shot group size is the difference between 1st and 5th place. 

Bullet quality and barrel quality are by far the determining factors in accuracy. Both made tremendous strides in the last 100 years. At least in large quantity production. 

However the rimmed cases, especially the ones with a lot of taper, make designing automatic guns more difficult. Obviously they did make successful guns using rimmed tapered cartridges but it often took a bit of extra work. 

For belt fed guns if you use a push though type belt you can make the receiver about 1 to 2 inches shorter (depending on cartridge) than a gun that has to pull the cartridge to the rear to clear the belt before pushing it forward to chamber it. This means the receiver can be shorter and lighter. 
This does not apply to magazine fed weapons. However a rimless case needs a smaller magazine than an equivalent rimmed case for the same number of rounds. 

The amount of case taper needed depends somewhat on the type and quality of the case material and the requirements for extraction. Tapered cases also tend to put more pressure on the bolt face. Really straight cases tend to stick more although the 7.62 NATO doesn't seem to have a lot of trouble in gas operated guns (I am not saying no trouble) The G3 and it's brothers/cousins use fluted chambers that float the outside of the case on a layer of gas to avoid the sticking problem (or tearing the extractor through the rim leaving the case in the chamber).

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## yulzari (May 4, 2019)

The rimmed .303 in 1888 was an easier manufacturing choice but crucially, spacing on the rim left chamber dimensions less critical so made manufacturing a reliable rifle easier, let the chamber be looser and ammunition dimensions less critical as the chamber both needed less precise machining and could cope with wider variations in size. Anyone familiar with the Long Lee's predecessors chambers will realise how far factory machining came in 40 years. My Martini Henry is dated 1887. It made sense in 1888. Soon after one would have chosen rimless but there was a logic at the time and remained viable but only survived as a legacy. Post South African War research was always into rimless replacement but a passing war rather got in the way. Incidentally the amenability of the Lee to variable ammunition was no help to the over finely made Ross Rifle and led the RFC and RNAS to get specially selected .303 supplies for their aerial machine guns.

In short, the .303 was rimmed for a reason. That reason went away but it remained and worked well for 80 years in British use and 100 in Indian use. It wasn't broken so it wasn't fixed. 

The very original 1888 pattern Lee Metford continues today as the arm of the Duke of Atholl's Army.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (May 4, 2019)

Ivan1GFP said:


> Hello The Basket,
> So if I understand you correctly, a lack of performance in a military rifle cartridge "matters zero" but the presence of a rim on the cartridge case is a better reason to replace it. That doesn't seem to make much sense.
> This kind of reasoning also has a lot of other implications, but I believe folks can come to their own conclusions.
> 
> ...


The ability of a cartridge say 8mm Lebel or 303 is going to be better than the average squaddie who can shoot it. 
So extreme accuracy or range becomes pointless beyond a certain range as only a very small percentage of troops can shoot that good. Also standard wartime production ammo was not always the best quality so even if the rifle and shooter can do the ranges, the ammo cannot. This is not talking about snipers but general infantry. 

A good example is that the M1917 could hold 6 rounds and the P14 held 5. So there is an advantage to having a more modern cartridge. Also a machine gun or rifle can fire rimmed cartridges but this has to be engineered into the rifle or magazine. A look at a bren gun with different calibres will say this. 

If change is not necessary then why didn't the Soviets keep the Mosin? Or keep the 7.62x54R and make a new rifle?


----------



## Shortround6 (May 4, 2019)

yulzari said:


> The very original 1888 pattern Lee Metford continues today as the arm of the Duke of Atholl's Army.



The 2nd company Governor's Foot Guard of Connecticut has a number of 30-40 Krags. 2nd Company Governor's Foot Guard of Connecticut 

Although the "service" rifle is the 1903 Springfield. 

I was a member for over 35 years. 

Not sure what the "arms" of ceremonial units have to do with the discussion though.


----------



## Shortround6 (May 4, 2019)

yulzari said:


> Incidentally the amenability of the Lee to variable ammunition was no help to the over finely made Ross Rifle and led the RFC and RNAS to get specially selected .303 supplies for their aerial machine guns.



At one point in WW II US .30-06 ammo was separated into three classes. 
Grade 1 was aircraft machine gun.
Grade 2 was ground machine gun.
Grade 3 was for rifles.

This was based entirely on brass quality and functioning ( Head separations or case splits, extractors pulling through rims and so on) and had nothing to do with either power or accuracy. I have no idea how long this grading lasted for. 

Please remember that in WW I the heat treatment of 1903 springfield receivers was done by "eye". A rack of receivers was put in an oven and heated up until the receivers reached a certain color as judged by the furnace operator before being taken out and quenched. It was either in late 1917 or 1918 that they got instruments that allowed them to actually measure the temperature of the receivers. 
Rifle brass is heated up and allowed to cool at least once in manufacturing and often twice (or more?) to prevent it from becoming too brittle and splitting/cracking on firing. However that is the forward part of the case. The rear part of the case was often in a water bath to keep it somewhat harder than the front, too soft a rim and the extractor pulls though and/or the primer pocket enlarges, the primer falls (is blown) out and high pressure gas gets back into the action. 

Even rudimentary modern manufacturing techniques/methods and tools are the stuff of science fiction to a 1880s-1915 metallurgist. 
The solutions to problems they found through trial and error in some cases no longer apply. The problem/s have simply disappeared due to better manufacturing techniques and tools.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (May 4, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> On cartridges the shape of a cartridge has darn little to do with the accuracy of cartridge, bullet, barrel combination once you go further back than the neck. Or at least very little difference in practical accuracy if you are not competing in the bench rest game where 0.010 difference in 5 shot group size is the difference between 1st and 5th place.
> 
> Bullet quality and barrel quality are by far the62 determining factors in accuracy. Both made tremendous strides in the last 100 years. At least in large quantity production.



Hello Shortround6,
In the practical sense, I believe you are correct. Differences in cartridge shape are most likely to have a greater than 0.010 inch difference in AVERAGE group size though.
I am sure that you already know this: When the US military switched from .30-06 to 7.62 NATO, one of the interesting side effects was that the accuracy of service rifles increased noticeably. One might attribute this also to the change in the rifle from M1 Garand to M14, but the accuracy improvement also showed up in Navy M1 Garands that had been converted to 7.62 NATO (properly converted rather than just sleeved).
It appears that in general, the higher loading density and shorter powder column in the 7.62 case resulted in GENERALLY better accuracy. 
The reason for so many qualifiers such as "generally" and "average" is that there exist plenty of exceptional rifles in both calibers.



Shortround6 said:


> The amount of case taper needed depends somewhat on the type and quality of the case material and the requirements for extraction. Tapered cases also tend to put more pressure on the bolt face. Really straight cases tend to stick more although the 7.62 NATO doesn't seem to have a lot of trouble in gas operated guns (I am not saying no trouble) The G3 and it's brothers/cousins use fluted chambers that float the outside of the case on a layer of gas to avoid the sticking problem (or tearing the extractor through the rim leaving the case in the chamber).



The issue of case taper and fluted chambers for better primary extraction does tend to depend on the case material (plated or lacquered steel versus brass) and quality, but it also depends very much on factors relating to the operating "system" of the firearm itself.
Ideally, the unlocking and primary extraction starts AFTER the chamber pressure has dropped to very near outside ambient pressure.
In many guns, this is not what actually happens.
The German G3 / CETME system for example uses a "roller lock" that requires that two rollers which are resisting the rearward movement of the bolt be moved into recesses to allow the bolt to move. The problem is that although the mechanical leverage is very high, there IS some movement of the bolt as soon as the cartridge fires and "primary extraction" is starting at peak chamber pressure. The G3 / CETME is really a delayed blowback operated gun.
On other guns, there is a certain amount of "dwell time" designed into the system.
On the M1 Garand for example, the gas port is about 1.5 inches from the end of the barrel.
Gas pressure is applied to the operating rod when the bullet has passed the gas port which means that it has only another 1 inch or so to go before the barrel is open to the atmosphere.
In that amount of time, the Operating Rod needs to move back about 1/4 inch (IIRC) before it even begins to cam open the bolt so by the time it reaches the bolt, there should be no chamber pressure.
On the M14, this dwell time is pretty marginal to non-existent but can be adjusted by selectively fitting certain pieces.
The easiest way to check this is to measure the cartridge headspace on fired cases using the RCBS Precision Mic.
If the action is unlocking with some pressure, I believe this can be seen by the somewhat random stretch of the spent cases.
There are of course some other guns (such as SVT-40) that use a fluted chamber because the operating cycle is so violent.

- Ivan.


----------



## Shortround6 (May 5, 2019)

Ivan1GFP said:


> In the practical sense, I believe you are correct. Differences in cartridge shape are most likely to have a greater than 0.010 inch difference in AVERAGE group size though.
> I am sure that you already know this: When the US military switched from .30-06 to 7.62 NATO, one of the interesting side effects was that the accuracy of service rifles increased noticeably. One might attribute this also to the change in the rifle from M1 Garand to M14, but the accuracy improvement also showed up in Navy M1 Garands that had been converted to 7.62 NATO (properly converted rather than just sleeved).
> It appears that in general, the higher loading density and shorter powder column in the 7.62 case resulted in GENERALLY better accuracy.
> The reason for so many qualifiers such as "generally" and "average" is that there exist plenty of exceptional rifles in both calibers.



I may have exaggerated slightly. 

But there are often other factors at work that confuse things. Most .30-06s use a 1-10 twist while 7.62 NATO/.308 are more varied. Often 1-11 or 1-12. Throats are often different leading to different distances/jumps for the bullet to travel before hitting rifling (the sleeved M1s to .308 have problem here, a 12mm increase in bullet travel before hitting rifling even if everything else was the same). Due to changes in propellent powders most .30-06 loads have more empty space than .308 loads which allows for more variation in the powder location, unless using bulky slow burning powders in the .30-06 and these are the ones that can screw up the gas port pressure.
The length to diameter ratio changed between the two cases but only the length really changed. 

I have two 6.5mm rifles, one is a 6.5mm/308 (.260 Rem) and the other is a 6.5mm Rem benchrest.




From left to right: 6mm SAW, 6.5 Grendel, 6.8 SPC, _7mm Bench Rest_, .280/30 British, _7mm-08_, 7mm Second Optimum (Liviano), .276 Pedersen, .308×1.75", 7.62×51 NATO. 

Like the 4th round from the left only a bit smaller bullet. Just like the 6.5mm-08 is just a slightly smaller bullet 7mm-08. 
I was NOT filling the 6.5mm-08 up to the base of the bullet with most of the loads I was using the most so the whole powder density thing may not have worked right. 
The two guns use different rates of twist, I don't know if or what the differences in the chamber throat are. Neither chamber requires neck turning. 
And this is a "sample" of only one barrel in each caliber which is way too small to be statistically valid. Top Bench rest shooters will often order ten barrels at a time, test fire all ten and keep only the 3-4 best. 

Some people claim you can over spin bullets which degrades accuracy, not anywhere near as bad as under spinning them though  

In my case the rifle with the short case is more accurate than the rifle with the long case, BUT, one is a Winchester action, one is a Remington, both are Hart barrels, they have different stocks (one glass/one wood), there is a 2in difference in barrel length between the two guns and the two barrels do not have identical contours. 
I use 30.5 grains of 4895 in the short case and 36.5 grains of 4895 in the big case. In part due to the fact that the old powder measure I use will throw charges of 4895 to within +/- 1/10th of grain all day long. Doesn't deal with ball powder at all (jams the powder measure) so the long case has room for the power to move around. 

So personally I have have a few interesting points of data but too many variables to claim any sort of conclusion. 

BTW the 6.5-08 once shot a 596 out of 600 aggregate at 600yds. and held the range record (800-64Xs out of 800, 600 yd target reduced for 300yds)for years at a local 300yd range, so it is not an inaccurate rifle.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## yulzari (May 5, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> The 2nd company Governor's Foot Guard of Connecticut has a number of 30-40 Krags. 2nd Company Governor's Foot Guard of Connecticut. Although the "service" rifle is the 1903 Springfield. I was a member for over 35 years.
> 
> Not sure what the "arms" of ceremonial units have to do with the discussion though.


Just an amusing aside. Technically the Duke of Atholls Highlanders are an actual army and neither civilian nor British. BTW I see that the last .303 cartridge to be approved for British use was the _Round .303 inch Ball L1A1 _which was made in the mid 1980's.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (May 5, 2019)

Hello Shortround6,
I had already come to the conclusion that you were quite an experienced and knowledgeable rifleman.
I also suspect that for most things firearms related, we would tend to agree in general principles though perhaps not in degree.

The conclusion of difference in accuracy between .30-06 and 7.62 NATO, however, is not mine.
Civilians unless they work in the firearms industry will most likely never be able to test the thousands of guns needed to be able to come to this kind of conclusion.
My own experience would suggest that there is no significant difference but I also have not chosen to test the M1 Garand in .308 cal. The accuracy I have been able to get in .30-06 is quite good and was very easy to achieve. I believe the current limitation is the optics I am able to mount on the M1. Results are better with the M14 types, but it is also easier to mount a big telescope on the M14/M1A.



Shortround6 said:


> But there are often other factors at work that confuse things. Most .30-06s use a 1-10 twist while 7.62 NATO/.308 are more varied. Often 1-11 or 1-12. Throats are often different leading to different distances/jumps for the bullet to travel before hitting rifling (the sleeved M1s to .308 have problem here, a 12mm increase in bullet travel before hitting rifling even if everything else was the same). Due to changes in propellent powders most .30-06 loads have more empty space than .308 loads which allows for more variation in the powder location, unless using bulky slow burning powders in the .30-06 and these are the ones that can screw up the gas port pressure.
> The length to diameter ratio changed between the two cases but only the length really changed.



I believe that some of these factors are not as prominent as they might seem. First of all, although the typical rifling twist for a .308 is 1-12, National Match and Target guns are usually re-barreled to a faster twist which is typically 1-10 as well.
I believe the throat dimensions at least for the .30 cal service guns are either the same or very close. The easy way to check would be to compare the Throat Erosion Gauges used for the M1 and M14.
I do agree with you that with a lot of air space inside the cartridge case, there is a variation of velocity depending on whether the powder is at the front or back of the case. (Powder at the back gives higher velocities.) 
This gets to be quite important when the case volume is VERY large and the powder charge is small such as (IIRC) 28 grains of powder in a .45-70 case. I seem to remember that although there were no noticeable differences in shot impact location at 100 yards, the velocity difference was 75-100 fps. It is obviously much much less with a larger powder charge in a smaller case and it becomes even less observable with a bottle necked case.
Another thing to remember is that with a gas-operated service rifle, the shot to shot variation in velocity will be a bit higher than a simple bolt gun. With a very consistent load, the Standard Deviations only go down to about 15 FPS and even that may be high enough to mask a lot of the variation in velocity caused by powder location. I should probably check to see if the same loads have a better SD in a bolt gun but my understanding is that good target load there will have SD down around 9-10 FPS or better. With higher SD, I don't think it would matter very much.

With target loads in .308, it is possible with some single base powders to get about 100% loading density but I also have not noticed that this improves things. I believe that many other factors are more important than a LITTLE air space in the case.

- Ivan.


----------



## The Basket (May 5, 2019)

yulzari said:


> Just an amusing aside. Technically the Duke of Atholls Highlanders are an actual army and neither civilian nor British. BTW I see that the last .303 cartridge to be approved for British use was the _Round .303 inch Ball L1A1 _which was made in the mid 1980's.


The. 303 was used quite recently by the Canadian Rangers and Bangladesh police. So Lee-Enfield rifles certainly has stuck around. Would be interesting to know where these last rounds went.


----------

