# Ideal rifle for ww2?



## tomo pauk (Mar 4, 2013)

What kind of rifle could we consider as ideal for ww2 (major) combatants? A rifle based on what type/size/power of cartridge? Would a fully automatic rifle be too early for the ww2, doctrine-wise? 
You are allowed to start from scratch


----------



## davebender (Mar 4, 2013)

StG 45(M) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia






In a perfect world I'd prefer it was chambered for 5.56mm NATO but that's not going to happen during the 1940s.


----------



## The Basket (Mar 4, 2013)

M1 Garand is pretty much perfect as a main combat rifle.

Would take that over anything much else.

Of course, an assault rifle would have been nice but I is thinking to early for the WW2 in terms of mass use.


----------



## davebender (Mar 4, 2013)

M1 and follow-on M14 were most expensive mass production combat rifles in history. Only U.S. Army was willing to pay almost as much for a rifle as Germany paid for MG42 machinegun. 

M1 is a fine infantry rifle if money is no object.


----------



## Jack_Hill (Mar 4, 2013)

Rifles, would vote Garand M1, love this powerfull big piece of steel and wood, regreting M14 coming bit late.
Gewher 43 shoots fine, is as powerfull, reliable and accurate.
Regret the poor, irregular German military loadings.


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 4, 2013)

People, just a kind reminder: not what rifle was the best, but what design could be considered as ideal for ww2, manageable with ww2 technology. Eg. the Russians have had the fully automatic rifle in ww1 (not a typo) - maybe one for the ww2 would notbe displaced?


----------



## N4521U (Mar 4, 2013)

One that doesn't shoot Back!


----------



## davebender (Mar 4, 2013)

From what I've read Fedorov Avtomat had some problems. 

German StG44 was probably the first successful assault rifle and StG45 was better yet. Like all good infantry rifles (except M1 / M14) the German assault rifles were inexpensive to mass produce. In fact they cost about the same as a bolt action Mauser 98.


----------



## muscogeemike (Mar 4, 2013)

If, as Garand had wanted, the M-1 had been produced with a lighter cartridge then the 30.06 and with a detachable Mag (10-20 rds?) instead of the clip it would have been more effective. 
What if the US as adopted to Brit. .303? Would have made things a lot easier.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## dobbie (Mar 4, 2013)

Id go with the M-14 as the ideal battle rifle. Reliable, hits hard enough, magazine fed, accurate, good sights. Easily built on WWII machinery. The only drawback might have been jungle/short ranged engagements.


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 4, 2013)

Using the .303 introduces problems, not solves them. The rim causes problems in feeding. 

Full auto rifles using full power cartridges are almost worthless, they are uncontrollable in full auto fire. 

You have a tactical and logistic problem. Something like 98% of rifle fire is done at ranges under 400 meters. However 50% of MG fire is done at over 400 meters. The ideal cartridge for a rifle is far from the ideal cartridge for a machine gun. 

The Germans (and some other countries) decided that the light MG was the source of fire power for the squad. The rifles were to support the the MG. The use of a common ammo eased supply and meant that the riflemen could use their ammo to keep the MG going in theory, different clips, magazines, belts hindered the actual ability of a squad under fire to actual "swap" ammo although lulls in the fighting might allow for a transfer of ammo from "rifle" clips/magazines to the MG feed units. 

Other countries planned that the rifle provided the firepower of the squad and either allocated fewer MGs per squad/platoon/company or a vary light MG/auto rifle to "support" the riflemen. 

The US with the M1 had a much, much higher _rifle_ base of fire and the use of the BAR as a _support_ weapon didn't hurt them as much as a few other armies that used the BAR as the squad automatic with bolt action rifles. 

Using 2 different cartridges in the squad (7.9 X 33 for the assault rifles and 7.9 X 57 for the MG) makes sense from a tactical firepower standpoint but falls down a bit in logistics. 


As far as an _IDEAL_ WW II rifle goes there was nothing introduced in either materials or design until the mid/late 50s that could not have been manufactured in WW II. 

Many armies didn't train their soldiers to use the rifles they had effectively, 3 to 6 days on the range with 20-60 shots fired per day isn't enough. 

Crap sights don't help. That is to say sights that work OK ( and just OK) on good weather days a couple of hours after sun rise to an hour or more before sundown. 

Aside from the US only the British had a rifle sight that was worth anything. 

Remember, fire power is hitting the enemy, one hundred misses in the general direction of the enemy is _not_ firepower, a lesson often forgotten.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## dobbie (Mar 4, 2013)

Id have to agree on NOT using a rimmed cartridge for an autoloading or select fire weapon. I chose the M14 not only for the reasons stated earlier, but also for the cartridge it was designed around. The 7.62 NATO is 90% of a 30-06 in a shorter package, hits hard, has the range for nearly every conceivable engagement scenario, and a BAR or other squad automatic weapon would also be effective with the same cartridge. 
Im not a big fan of intermediate cartridges. While the "average engagement" range is 300 meters, give or take, it really depends on the terrain youre fighting on. A mountainous area is going to require longer shots on average, for example. A jungle enviornment puts you nearly face to face with your enemy. The advantage of a full power cartridge in dense growth is the ability to go thru the vegetation rather than being stopped by it. 
Full automatic fire for every infantryman's rifle is an ammo load you dont want to have to carry. Might not mean much for a mechanized infantry unit, but to a leg or airborne infantry outfit, every pound counts.


----------



## A4K (Mar 5, 2013)

Lee Enfield No.4 mk.I any day... fantastic rifle - great to fire and very reliable.


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 5, 2013)

Shortround6 said:


> Using the .303 introduces problems, not solves them. The rim causes problems in feeding.
> 
> Full auto rifles using full power cartridges are almost worthless, they are uncontrollable in full auto fire.
> 
> You have a tactical and logistic problem. Something like 98% of rifle fire is done at ranges under 400 meters. However 50% of MG fire is done at over 400 meters. The ideal cartridge for a rifle is far from the ideal cartridge for a machine gun.





> The Germans (and some other countries) decided that the light MG was the source of fire power for the squad. The rifles were to support the the MG. The use of a common ammo eased supply and meant that the riflemen could use their ammo to keep the MG going in theory, different clips, magazines, belts hindered the actual ability of a squad under fire to actual "swap" ammo although lulls in the fighting might allow for a transfer of ammo from "rifle" clips/magazines to the MG feed units.



Giving the ammo from K98 to MG34/42 in the lull would not alleviate any ammo the MG crew might experience. The ammo allowance for the K98 was some 50 rounds, and prior the lull the rifleman might be down to maybe 20-30 rounds. If the riflemen gives each 10 rds, that makes 100 rds for the MG, but the riflemen are down to 10-20 rds each - not a good prospect once the fighting resumes? 



> Other countries planned that the rifle provided the firepower of the squad and either allocated fewer MGs per squad/platoon/company or a vary light MG/auto rifle to "support" the riflemen.
> 
> The US with the M1 had a much, much higher _rifle_ base of fire and the use of the BAR as a _support_ weapon didn't hurt them as much as a few other armies that used the BAR as the squad automatic with bolt action rifles.



+1



> Using 2 different cartridges in the squad (7.9 X 33 for the assault rifles and 7.9 X 57 for the MG) makes sense from a tactical firepower standpoint but falls down a bit in logistics.



The benefits outweighting the shortcomings? The USA was also using the low power cartridge for their M1 Carbines, granted not in the same squads/platoons. 



> As far as an _IDEAL_ WW II rifle goes there was nothing introduced in either materials or design until the mid/late 50s that could not have been manufactured in WW II.
> 
> Many armies didn't train their soldiers to use the rifles they had effectively, 3 to 6 days on the range with 20-60 shots fired per day isn't enough.
> 
> Crap sights don't help. That is to say sights that work OK ( and just OK) on good weather days a couple of hours after sun rise to an hour or more before sundown.



Again good points.



> Aside from the US only the British had a rifle sight that was worth anything.



Deserving a thread on it's own?



> Remember, fire power is hitting the enemy, one hundred misses in the general direction of the enemy is _not_ firepower, a lesson often forgotten.



IIRC the Germans were relying on their MGs to lay down the suppressive power, so the infantry is able to get closer to the enemy in order to destroy it?


----------



## yulzari (Mar 5, 2013)

Thinking of the ideal rifle in the context of the infantry as a team: I would take away all the rifles except for snipers and replace them with a good 9mm SMG (I nominate a Patchett but would carry a Lanchester myself) and 2 BREN guns per platoon with lots of BREN ammunition distributed around the SMG peasantry. If the BREN could be altered to some rimless cartridge of less power than the US .30-06 so much the better (they were made in 7.92mm rimless for the Chinese.)

Mind you, with experienced soldiers like my grandfather in 1914, a Lee-Enfield would do me fine. The stock also makes it a first class half pike with a proper bayonet.


----------



## fastmongrel (Mar 5, 2013)

The M1 Carbine firing the British .280 round. Light, accurate and easier to mass produce than the Garand. I know the .280 was postwar but it was nothing special just a well thought out cartridge that could have been produced anytime from about 1900.


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 5, 2013)

tomo pauk said:


> Giving the ammo from K98 to MG34/42 in the lull would not alleviate any ammo the MG crew might experience. The ammo allowance for the K98 was some 50 rounds, and prior the lull the rifleman might be down to maybe 20-30 rounds. If the riflemen gives each 10 rds, that makes 100 rds for the MG, but the riflemen are down to 10-20 rds each - not a good prospect once the fighting resumes?



Well, it was the pre-war _theory_ in a lot of armies. As can be seen by the Japanese type 11 MG which used a hopper taking 5 round rifle clips. In actual practice a lot of troops just had one more squad member carry extra ammo for the MG over and above the the "standard" issue if they could get it. 








tomo pauk said:


> The benefits outweighting the shortcomings? The USA was also using the low power cartridge for their M1 Carbines, granted not in the same squads/platoons.



The benefits can outweight the shortcomings. While the US _was_ using the the M1 Carbines in the same squads/platoons, that was not the original intention. It was to replace the pistol for most service men who were not riflemen like heavy MG crew, mortar crew, radio men, artillery and the like. It's use spread, due to light weight and the 15 round magazine but it's lack of power was a bit of a problem. A cautionary tale to those who advocate equiping ALL squad members with SMGs 

US probably had less problems with logistics than most other countries. 

I would note that after the Soviets went to the AK 47 they used the RPD MG in the squad and then the RPK ( auto rifle?), Czechs used the Vz.52/57 MGin order to use the same ammo at squad/platoon level. 





tomo pauk said:


> IIRC the Germans were relying on their MGs to lay down the suppressive power, so the infantry is able to get closer to the enemy in order to destroy it?



That is part of the theory, British supposedly also used Bren gun fire to allow the riflemen to get into bayonet and hand grenade range 

But to be suppressed troops have to KNOW that they are the ones being shot at. Near misses or the crack as the bullet goes by, "Spray and Pray" doesn't do the job as well and requires a tremendous amount of ammunition. 


*IF* you have the time/money the ideal solution is a new cartridge of about 6.5-7mm caliber firing a 120-130 grain streamline bullet at about 2600fps. The recoil is much less than the standard rifle rounds making full auto fire in a 9-11lb rifle at least practical if not fully effective and such a round is still effective at 600 meters or more which means the squad/platoon doesn't need a bigger caliber MG traveling with it (you might want them at company level though?)


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 5, 2013)

Shortround6 said:


> Well, it was the pre-war _theory_ in a lot of armies. As can be seen by the Japanese type 11 MG which used a hopper taking 5 round rifle clips. In actual practice a lot of troops just had one more squad member carry extra ammo for the MG over and above the the "standard" issue if they could get it.



The expansion of the theory beig some modern LMGs, able to accept the assault rifle magazines?
The ex-Yu army was operating their LMGs (mostly copies of MG42 and PK) by two soldiers, one carrying MG and ammo, another carrying tripod and extra ammo. Don't remember who was carrying the spare barrel. 



> The benefits can outweight the shortcomings. While the US _was_ using the the M1 Carbines in the same squads/platoons, that was not the original intention. It was to replace the pistol for most service men who were not riflemen like heavy MG crew, mortar crew, radio men, artillery and the like. It's use spread, due to light weight and the 15 round magazine but it's lack of power was a bit of a problem. A cautionary tale to those who advocate equiping ALL squad members with SMGs



+1
The Sviets were equipping whole divisions with PPSh, due to dire circumstances, rather than due to having a choice.



> US probably had less problems with logistics than most other countries.



Agreed. They were not using foreign stuff, contrary to European armies. The British, for example, were using 3 LMG cartriges (.303; .30-06 and 7,92 (for Besa) in tanks), along with 2 SMG cartridges. Soviets were also mnaging with 3 LMG cartridges. Germans - who knows how many, and yet they went for a completely new cartridge.



> I would note that after the Soviets went to the AK 47 they used the RPD MG in the squad and then the RPK ( auto rifle?), Czechs used the Vz.52/57 MGin order to use the same ammo at squad/platoon level.



RPK is a bigger sibling of the AK-47, it's copy being a prized item back in our war of 1991-95, due to far better accuracy than the AK. FWIW, the ex-YU army infantry company was relocating it's LMGs, along with recoilles rifles and 82mm mortars in 'support platoons', once the RPK become available.



> That is part of the theory, British supposedly also used Bren gun fire to allow the riflemen to get into bayonet and hand grenade range



Well, it took guts to be a worthy infantryman 



> But to be suppressed troops have to KNOW that they are the ones being shot at. Near misses or the crack as the bullet goes by, "Spray and Pray" doesn't do the job as well and requires a tremendous amount of ammunition.



There is good suppression work, and then there is lousy suppression work? 



> *IF* you have the time/money the ideal solution is a new cartridge of about 6.5-7mm caliber firing a 120-130 grain streamline bullet at about 2600fps. The recoil is much less than the standard rifle rounds making full auto fire in a 9-11lb rifle at least practical if not fully effective and such a round is still effective at 600 meters or more which means the squad/platoon doesn't need a bigger caliber MG traveling with it (you might want them at company level though?)



Doh. 
Seems like Russians were on the money with caliber choice, back in ww1, when they choose Arisaka 6,5mm round for their assault rifle.


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 5, 2013)

tomo pauk said:


> The expansion of the theory beig some modern LMGs, able to accept the assault rifle magazines?
> The ex-Yu army was operating their LMGs (mostly copies of MG42 and PK) by two soldiers, one carrying MG and ammo, another carrying tripod and extra ammo. Don't remember who was carrying the spare barrel.



Yes, the whole strip rounds out of magazines and try to refill belts thing didn't work out very well. 

If needed 3rd and 4th men could be added as ammo carriers if belts were available and distances were great or hills/mountains high.





tomo pauk said:


> The Sviets were equipping whole divisions with PPSh, due to dire circumstances, rather than due to having a choice.



True. 



tomo pauk said:


> Agreed. ......Germans - who knows how many, and yet they went for a completely new cartridge.



They had learned that full auto 11-12lb rifles with 7.9X57 rounds were uncontrollable in full auto fire. Also 16in barrels and full power rounds don't get along well, _LOTS_ of muzzle flash and blast and lost velocity. If you chop 24mm from the length of the cartridge you also get smaller, lighter receivers and magazines and more rounds for the same weight. 





tomo pauk said:


> is a bigger sibling of the AK-47, it's copy being a prized item back in our war of 1991-95, due to far better accuracy than the AK. FWIW, the ex-YU army infantry company was relocating it's LMGs, along with recoilles rifles and 82mm mortars in 'support platoons', once the RPK become available.



Apparently the RPD had some feed problems despite going though 4 variations? And you are back to the belt vs magazine thing. Same ammo as the AK-47 but somebody isn't shooting if he is head down trying to refill a used belt. 




tomo pauk said:


> There is good suppression work, and then there is lousy suppression work?



True and there is plenty of newsreel footage of the US in SE Asia doing Pi** Poor suppression work.




tomo pauk said:


> Doh.
> Seems like Russians were on the money with caliber choice, back in ww1, when they choose Arisaka 6,5mm round for their assault rifle.



One could do a lot worse. 

Barrier penetration might not be up to the .30-06, .303, 7.62X54 and 7.9X57 but it would be a whole lot better than the 7.9X33, 7.62X39 and ANY sub-machine gun round.


----------



## stona (Mar 5, 2013)

Shortround6 said:


> Something like 98% of rifle fire is done at ranges under 400 meters. [/QUOTE
> 
> I'll have a Lee Enfield then please.
> 
> Steve


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 5, 2013)

Shortround6 said:


> ...
> If needed 3rd and 4th men could be added as ammo carriers if belts were available and distances were great or hills/mountains high.



A time when pack animals come in handy? Back in the war, we did have a donkey on the disposal when on hilly mountainous terrain, close to Bosnian border.



> They had learned that full auto 11-12lb rifles with 7.9X57 rounds were uncontrollable in full auto fire. Also 16in barrels and full power rounds don't get along well, _LOTS_ of muzzle flash and blast and lost velocity. If you chop 24mm from the length of the cartridge you also get smaller, lighter receivers and magazines and more rounds for the same weight.



The FG-42 ought to be one tough beast when firing in full auto. The more ammo for same weight gets often overlooked benefit of intermediate cartridges.



> Apparently the RPD had some feed problems despite going though 4 variations? And you are back to the belt vs magazine thing. Same ammo as the AK-47 but somebody isn't shooting if he is head down trying to refill a used belt.



The belt-fed weapons simply demanding the second crew member as an ammo carrier? 



> One could do a lot worse.
> 
> Barrier penetration might not be up to the .30-06, .303, 7.62X54 and 7.9X57 but it would be a whole lot better than the 7.9X33, 7.62X39 and ANY sub-machine gun round.



+1


----------



## yulzari (Mar 5, 2013)

tomo pauk said:


> A time when pack animals come in handy? Back in the war, we did have a donkey on the disposal when on hilly mountainous terrain, close to Bosnian border.
> +1


I recall my father telling me of using de-brayed mules in the Apennines to carry Vickers MMGs and ammunition. 

Maybe we need some sort of miniature donkey to carry LMG ammunition anywhere troops can go?

The 7.62mm LMG and SLR magazines were designed to be interchangeable (which is why metric FAL ones don't fit imperial SLRs.) 

I still hold to the view that if a target is too far away for an SMG to engage then leave it to the LMG. But an SMG is the ideal when close up in heavy vegetation or a built up area. The Sterling SMG L2A3 is an excellent all round SMG choice. Cheap, strong, reliable, folds small but has a good rigid butt when (easily) extended. The Lanchester is the executive choice but far too expensive for an army but my personal choice, with pouches for 6 x 50 round magazines and loader and a useable bayonet to boot.

Machine guns deny ground and suppress fire. Rifles kill chosen individuals at a distance. SMGs/grenades clear the enemy so that you can occupy the ground. Platoons have x2 LMGs for the first, snipers have rifles for the second and squaddies will clear the ground with the SMGs. 

If you have been taught properly (and not facing an enemy with Moisin Nagant 'pikes') the bayonet armed SMG can be very good in a close fight where you do not have time to change magazines: but you do need specific training. It is a little like a police side handled baton versus drunken lout with a big stick.

Give everyone assault rifle style rounds then you are left out ranged in open ground (SA80/M16 versus Taliban Lee-Enfield) and in urban fighting you are outgunned by SMG controllable automatic fire.

The assault rifle is the correct choice for ill trained conscripts and terrorists. In WW2 7.92mm LMGs and 9mm Patchetts were in service leaving the Lee-Enfield for the sniper.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Mar 5, 2013)

I'm no weapons expert by any means, but I owned one of these Swedish 6.5 mm semi-automatics for a number of years before trading it for a Marlin 30 lever action ... a much more sensible gun for the "bush". I only fired it occasionally but was very impressed by its high velocity flat trajectory. 

How does/did it stack up with similar infantry weapons on the Commonwealth, US and Soviet sides ...?

MM


----------



## parsifal (Mar 5, 2013)

I think I have to agree with Dave in this one. The STG-44 was really years ahead of its time, cheap to produce. STG-45 looks even better, but is competely unfamilar to me.


Its only problemm is that it arrived too late and in too few numbers to make a difference. about 300000 were made from memory


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 5, 2013)

yulzari said:


> I still hold to the view that if a target is too far away for an SMG to engage then leave it to the LMG. But an SMG is the ideal when close up in heavy vegetation or a built up area.


 
Machine guns deny ground and suppress fire. Rifles kill chosen individuals at a distance. SMGs/grenades clear the enemy so that you can occupy the ground. Platoons have x2 LMGs for the first, snipers have rifles for the second and squaddies will clear the ground with the SMGs. [/QUOTE]

A lot depends on the distances you want the troops to fight at. Sub-machine guns are great in cities and jungle/heavy forest (maybe). They turn to crap on open ground. If assault rifles are leave you out ranged on open ground the sub-machine gun armed troopers best friend is a shovel. 
Rifles were used for volley fire at extreme ranges before the MG, not very well though. There is no reason they cannot provide "suppression" fire at 300-600yds. Most troops do _not_ have the skill to hit individual targets at 500-600yds. The LMG, due to it's bipod is actually about as good as a rifle for point targets. 

But there is a world of difference between 200 yds and 400yds. The Sub-machine gun is pretty much maxed out at under 200yds. 

A study of WW II rifle and MG use showed that while 95-98% of rifle use was under 400 yds just about 50% of rifle use was over 200yds. The full power rifles were a waste but replacing them with sub-machine guns was not the answer. 

There is also the question of barrier penetration, at what point does concealment become cover? High powered rifle bullets can go though just under 2 feet of oak, over 1 foot of sand, 4-6 in of Brick and so on and at several hundred yds. Pistol bullets (SMG) are lucky to make it though 7-10in of pine 15 ft from the muzzle. 



yulzari said:


> Give everyone assault rifle style rounds then you are left out ranged in open ground (SA80/M16 versus Taliban Lee-Enfield) and in urban fighting you are outgunned by SMG controllable automatic fire.



A semi-auto rifle with 20 round magazines goes a long way in urban fighting. House clearing not so much but if you have to cross streets that have 100-200yd sight lines? 



yulzari said:


> The assault rifle is the correct choice for ill trained conscripts and terrorists. In WW2 7.92mm LMGs and 9mm Patchetts were in service leaving the Lee-Enfield for the sniper.



Lee-Enfields could be fired at around 20rpm into a 1 ft circle at 200yds from a rested position. ( some sargents could exceed 30rpm before WW I with a SMLE but such expertise was not at all common). A sub-machine gun is going to need divine intervention to place even 1/3 of it's shots in a 1 ft circle at 200yds.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 5, 2013)

michaelmaltby said:


> I'm no weapons expert by any means, but I owned one of these Swedish 6.5 mm semi-automatics for a number of years before trading it for a Marlin 30 lever action ... a much more sensible gun for the "bush". I only fired it occasionally but was very impressed by its high velocity flat trajectory.
> 
> How does/did it stack up with similar infantry weapons on the Commonwealth, US and Soviet sides ...?
> 
> MM



The Swedish AG-42 looks surprisingly similar to the Automat Fedorova (Fedorov's automatic rifle), the Swedish cartridge being slightly more powerful. The AG-42 was featuring the detachable magazine, like Fedorov's rifle and most of other European semi-automatics, but unlike the Garand. The intermediate cartridge should reduce the recoil, while allowing for more rounds to be carried. 
Suits the opening question well?


----------



## yulzari (Mar 5, 2013)

One could argue rifle versus SMG etc. for as long as one likes but it will ultimately tell you more about the experiences and prejudices of the protagonists.

The essential of the point I was alluding to is that the ideal rifle has to be seen as part of the whole all arms team and there will always be some occasion where you are left as the person who brought a knife to a gunfight.

As an individual infantry soldier in WW2 I would want a personal weapon to protect me. Hence my personal prejudice of wanting a Lanchester. In another example, in the Dhofar, the Omani contract soldier's SLR could both outrange an Adoo AK47 but also penetrate an improvised stone sangar and ensure a hit once, stays hit record.

Now if it is what is the coolest rifle for WW2, then the STG44 will attract most. Me, I would still have no problem with being issued a Lee-Enfield Mk4. If I could have it modified it would be to a 15 round detachable magazine I could top up in situ with 5 round charger strips and a battle sight a gnats smaller.


----------



## Matt308 (Mar 5, 2013)

A4K said:


> Lee Enfield No.4 mk.I any day... fantastic rifle - great to fire and very reliable.



I agree with the statement, but am still flummoxed with what brit rifle had sights that "...are worth anything". While enfield sights are okay, they are nothing special over any other adjustable leaf sights.

SKS hits alot of the marks to be a world beater for a design that just missed the end of the war.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Mar 5, 2013)

As stated, I know d*ck about guns, but learned to shoot with a 22-barreled Lee Enfield.... heavy mother for a 14 year old. But the fact that Canada's Eskimo Rangers still use the Mk 4 speaks volumes to me about reliability, punch and accuracy with standard sights. Their issued rifle is also their put-food-on-the-table rifle .... seal head shot at a couple hundred yards.

After the war, the cut down jungle carbine was very popular with Canadian hunters


----------



## fastmongrel (Mar 5, 2013)

michaelmaltby said:


> As stated, I know d*ck about guns, but learned to shoot with a 22-barreled Lee Enfield.... heavy mother for a 14 year old. But the fact that Canada's Eskimo Rangers still use the Mk 4 speaks volumes to me about reliability, punch and accuracy with standard sights. Their issued rifle is also their put-food-on-the-table rifle .... seal head shot at a couple hundred yards.
> 
> After the war, the cut down jungle carbine was very popular with Canadian hunters



After Nuclear armageddon only 2 machines will still work. The VW Beetle and the Lee Enfield rifle.


----------



## tyrodtom (Mar 5, 2013)

I got my first deer with a Enfield No.5 mk I, when I was 15, borrowed from a uncle. Always wanted one since then, 
I got a clone Jungle Carbine, about 10 years ago. My son-in-law got me a scope for it for Christmas a few years ago. Only thing i've took with it so far is a wild pig.


----------



## muscogeemike (Mar 5, 2013)

I understand why MacArthur insisted on Garand using the .30-06, and for the time he probably couldn’t have made any other decision. 

Yet the M-1 could have had a 7 mm rd and a 10 shot capacity (20% less reloading and more rds downrange). It also would have been easier to use and if the B.A.R. was re-designed to use the same round, it too would have had more firepower and been easier to keep on target.

Also, as I suggested, since reusable magazines were already in use by many countries (in MG‘s and auto rifles) , it is not unreasonable to think Garand could have put this feature in the M-1. This would have given the U.S. GI an even greater advantage.

I agree with all who have suggested the M-14, I trained and used this rifle and love it still. If I remember correctly we routinely fired on targets out to 600 meters. I would have one now if I could afford it.

But the M-14 was a 1950’s design, I think more realistic was the experimental T25 of 1945. If the Army could have started this train of thought at the time of the M-1’s development (and had the money) the US could have had a truly world beating rifle much earlier.

I saw a TV program that tested the Enfield against the .03 Springfield and the Bren against the B.A.R..
The conclusion was the S.M.L.E. action was by far smoother and faster, and the .303 was a much easier round to use then the .30-06; and 10 rds, of course, was twice the capacity of the Springfield. Recovery was much faster so regaining the target was also.

The same was true for the Bren, the top mounted mag was faster to switch out and, again, the .303 was much easier to keep on target.


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 5, 2013)

Matt308 said:


> I agree with the statement, but am still flummoxed with what brit rifle had sights that "...are worth anything". While enfield sights are okay, they are nothing special over any other adjustable leaf sights.



The No. 4 MK I Enfield had a decent battle sight. 






Some of them had a cheaper Stamped version and some had a simple "L" two aperture sight (no worse than some M1 carbine sights).






If we ignore the settings above 600yds we still have a pretty good sight for deliberate shooting (no windage but then few other people had windage on their rifle sights) and when folded down we have a pretty good "battle" sight out to 300yds or so. Better in poor light than many of those rear notch sights half way out the barrel. (many shooters tend to shoot high with those trying to see the "blade" on poor light)

Mauser rear sight.






Harder to use in a hurry or in poor light. 

Or if you are getting old and need glasses 

SMLE rear sight isn't enough different from Mausers or anybody else's to say so.


----------



## tyrodtom (Mar 5, 2013)

The only thing wrong with the .303 is that rim. I run into the problem with my scoped Enfield. If you don't load the rounds with each rim ahead of the rim of the round below it, you will have a failure to feed. No problem if you use the stripper clip, but you can't use the stripper clips with a scope. So you detach the magazine, and handload it, carefully.
You'd have no such problem if the .303 had a recessed rim.


----------



## muscogeemike (Mar 5, 2013)

I saw my cousin down a running hog at over 100 yds with a .303 Enfield and open sites.
I think it is a very fine weapon still.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Mar 5, 2013)

*Which would you rather have in a mouse-hole fight?
*
The premise of this thread was rifles .... and that expanded to assault rifles ... if I had to be in close combat ... the Pacific facing the Japanese at night, for example .... I would want the Thompson 45 in my hands and the Colt 45 on my hip .... not the German weapon (although I'm sure it's great). Lucky is right .... you can't beat old proven designs.

IIRC, there's a scene in Battle of The Bulge (B&W film circa 1955 starring Jack Palance) where an American infantry man is charging down a slope to a farm house where a German Officer is standing - unseen - in the doorway. He fires a single shot with his side arm - killing the American - who still remains on his feet until he crashes into the house. 

In close quarters - raw stopping power surely what you want ... but you also want/need riflemen with reliable - easy to use rifles - that can reach out.


----------



## Matt308 (Mar 5, 2013)

Shortround6 said:


> The No. 4 MK I Enfield had a decent battle sight.
> 
> View attachment 226944
> 
> ...



I stand corrected. I'm a MkI owner and forget that the later marks were improved. Good point buddy.


----------



## parsifal (Mar 6, 2013)

michaelmaltby said:


> *Which would you rather have in a mouse-hole fight?
> *
> The premise of this thread was rifles .... and that expanded to assault rifles ... if I had to be in close combat ... the Pacific facing the Japanese at night, for example .... I would want the Thompson 45 in my hands and the Colt 45 on my hip .... not the German weapon (although I'm sure it's great). Lucky is right .... you can't beat old proven designs.
> 
> ...




The photos you posted were 

1) SMG (Thompson)
2) Daves STG-45 An early Assault Rifle
3) A 9mm Browning Pistol

And then asked which type I would prefer.

SMGs offer a lot of fire power, but are not accurate and are relatively short ranged. Pistols are small and handy, good for work that is "in the hole", but not a serious weapon in most types of firefights. Ive used the 9mm in anger, and consider myself a reasonable shot. In a real situation, anything over 25-30 yards againsta moving target you are basically trying to scare them more than anything.

The Assault Rifle is a combination of the accuracy of the old bolt actions rifles with the firepower of the SMG....an SMG that is accurate and far more controllable. Thats why they have all but eclipsed SMGs on the modern battlefield.

There are semiautomatic ARs and fully automatic. In theory the fully automatic versions, like the Armalite and AK 47 have a big firepower advantage. im afraid Im old school on this. Whilst the AK47 can switch to autometic when required, a full mag will last less than 5 secs in burst. And the fire is still pretty innaccurate. When you are carrying around your entire ammunition supply on your back, the last thing you want is to waste that ammunition firing innaccurately. The SLR is more powerful because each shot is delivered accurately and in a controlled way. It has peep sights, which allow you to deliver accurate fire out to about 400m if you are even a half reasonable (that would be me)... 

The notion that an SMG is superior to assualt rifles is just not supported by post war policies. Every nation virutally abandoned SMGs in favour of a more general purpose rifle that was good for all situations, or more situations. the trouble with the SMG is that its a very specialised, and limited wepon. Pistols are good, but need a lot of practice to be better than a bad shot with them.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Mar 6, 2013)

Interesting analysis ... thought I was posting a picture of a Colt 45 automatic, not a Browning, but hey ... WTH ...

MM


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 6, 2013)

Getting back to the original question "_IDEAL_ rifle" and not best substitute or best available.

6.5mm cartridge with a 120-125 grain bullet (8 grams) spitzer boat tail at 2600fps (788ms).

Weight about 4-4.5 kg 

Pretty much a FN FAL 

20 round magazines although a 30 might be able to fit (or be interchangeable with the squad LMG?) 

Full auto depends on how controllable it is. With about 70% of the recoil of a 7.62 nato round it has a chance even if heavier recoil than the true intermediates. 

There is nothing in the FN FAL that didn't exist in WW II except perhaps for the _exact_ metallurgy which could be solved by making it just a bit heavier ( although with a bit small receiver it may be a wash?) 

Front sight an interchangeable blade to allow for zeroing ( various heights and the ability to be moved side ways) protected by wings.

Rear sight mounted on the back end of the receiver with elevation steps of 200, 300, 400 and 500 yds or meters depending on country. One or two steps each side for wind correction nice but not essential.


----------



## muscogeemike (Mar 6, 2013)

The US tested the FN FAL in the 50's and found it had problems when exposed to prolonged cold.
I believe FN adressed the problems but at the time of WWII using it on the E. Front or in the Alutians would have been problimatic.


----------



## yulzari (Mar 6, 2013)

Royal Marines found the SLR OK in Norwegian winters so they must have addressed any cold issues successfully.

I have used 30 round magazines on an SLR and it does make it hard to find good cover when prone. If the magazine could work as a double stack like the 9mm Finnish Suomi KP/31 or Argentine Hafdasa C-4 then that problem goes away. Myself I remain to be convinced how controllable any rifle can be in full automatic fire. Even an LMG will climb if fired standing despite the weight.

I wonder if we will be reinventing the EM-2 rifle and Taden MG in .280"?


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 6, 2013)

Close 

There may have been a bit of "fudging" going on the US tests to make the US rifle come out on top. Certainly even when comparing the early AR-15 to the M-14 some of the tests were less than fair or balanced. 
While the M-14 is a decent rifle a few US generals were way _too_ wedded to the "concept" and not the reality of the weapon. It was _supposed_ to replace the M1 rifle, the M1 carbine, the M3 grease gun and the BAR. It was _supposed_ to weigh only about 7 1/2 pounds and yet fire a round just as powerful as the .30-06 M2 ball. New powders meant the cartridge case could be smaller yet give the same performance. Just becasue you are a general does not mean you can repeal the laws of physics howver  

For instance ALL military M-14s have the "ability" to fire full automatic, they just have the selector switch removed. Given the amount of drop in the stock (distance from the axis of the barrel and the pivot point on the shoulder) and it's weight anything after the 2nd round (and that one was going high) was heading for the sky. One plan was for the squad leader to carry the selector switches in his shirt pocket and issue them out in case of an _emergency_ 

Civilian M-14 clones do not have the hole in the side of the receiver to take the selector switch.

The M-14 had a fixed gas system, some FNs have a two position or variable system were if the action is sluggish for any reason more gas can be admitted to the cylinder for a bit more _omph_. The Bren had a similar system pre-war and may not have been the first with that ability. 
A bit of playing with the rifles in cold weather to balance the amount of gas needed ( size of hole in the regulator) and the buffer strength should sort out most cold weather problems, there is very little in the inherent design of any gun that makes them more sensitive to cold than another design (except maybe tight tolerances?). If you can get a recoil operated gun to function in cold weather a gas gun should not be a problem. Recoil operated guns having a more "fixed" amount of power to work with since they balance moving part weights and springs. Not much adjustment on an already manufactured gun although a lot of tweaking can be done before production ( or the introduction of a MK II)


----------



## vinnye (Mar 6, 2013)

If I remember correctly, a lot of guys did not like the M1 Garands "ping" noise made by the clip ejecting when empty.
This is because in close quarters fighting, jungle, house to house etc - the noise told the enemy that you were out of ammo!
A good rifle, but my vote goes to the Lee Enfield 303, being bolt action encourages slower accurate fire rather than just letting loose with semi- auto.


----------



## parsifal (Mar 6, 2013)

michaelmaltby said:


> Interesting analysis ... thought I was posting a picture of a Colt 45 automatic, not a Browning, but hey ... WTH ...
> 
> MM



Oops, your right. Did not look closely enough. Have not had much to do with the US 45, automatically assumed it to be the Browning.


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 6, 2013)

The Czechoslovakians have had the round that has 'intermediate' written all around itself, namely the 7.62×45mm vz. 52. It was discontinued because of Warsaw pact standardization on 7.62×39mm - the similar situation with .280 British.


----------



## tyrodtom (Mar 6, 2013)

vinnye said:


> If I remember correctly, a lot of guys did not like the M1 Garands "ping" noise made by the clip ejecting when empty.
> This is because in close quarters fighting, jungle, house to house etc - the noise told the enemy that you were out of ammo!
> A good rifle, but my vote goes to the Lee Enfield 303, being bolt action encourages slower accurate fire rather than just letting loose with semi- auto.




That would come up only in very rare instances, it would have to be very close combat with only one M1 present, otherwise how would the enemy know who to charge. If several rifles were firing, they're not all going to run out at the same time, and who'd be able to hear the ping with several rifles firing.
At least with a Garand, you knew exactly when you were out of ammo, and the bolt stayed open ready for you to jam a clip in, and closed ready to fire soon a you pushed a fresh clip in. It'd close on your thumb if you weren't quick enough.


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 6, 2013)

The heel of the hand goes against the op-rod handle to prevent this. The only time I got caught was single loading in the prone position using my thumb to push the round into the chamber, joint of the thumb hit the follower releasing the bolt. 

Granted trying to load two rounds floating loose AND the clip one handed (left hand in shooting glove under the fore-end with sling running between left upper arm and sling swivel) gets a little awkward 

Being on the firing line with a number of M1s at a rifle match you can _sometimes_ hear the "ping" but knowing which rifle made the "ping" ????


you can also get more than one "ping" depending on the ground. Clip falling on grass/sand or rock/pavement.

Many rifles, including bolt actions, had bolt hold open devices to keep the bolt from closing on an empty chamber.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Mar 6, 2013)

I dont buy the "ping" argument either. however, the rebuttal you guys are giving is also suspect. 

In the jungle, in the Owen Stanleys (and i expect applicable to any mountainaous jungle situation) the front is often just the width of the track wide. Literally the front man of the squad is "the front". If that mans rifle goes "pingt" and the enemy sees him (a big ask) hes in trouble.

Often times in the Jungle, things can be deathly quiet. Giving away your position is basically asking for trouble. I dont think the "ping" is enough noise to make that much of a difference, but i guess its at least theoretically possible for some suicide jockey to be lying in ambush....his mates draw fire, the chamber makes the giveaway noise and up the little rice eater jumps to kill some poor surprised doughboy who has just run out ot bullets...

I think unjustified, but some Australians considered the garand unreliable 9prone to jams especially in mud) in the jungle compared to the Lee Enfields they were carrying. Probably arose from ignorance, but it was an opinion


----------



## tyrodtom (Mar 6, 2013)

I know a lot of rifles have a hold open after the last round, ( but my Enfield doesn't) but you may not notice it in the heat of action. That clip shooting up thru the air right in front of you eyes is hard to miss.

The sound of your rifle firing, and the muzzle flash is going to reveal your position, long before the ping of the clip ejecting.
A lot of infantrymen kept a ready clip in their upper pocket. A Garand is probably the fastest rifle to reload than any in the world.

That bugger hiding in the bush, waiting for you to reload, better be close and very quick.


----------



## Matt308 (Mar 6, 2013)

vinnye said:


> If I remember correctly, a lot of guys did not like the M1 Garands "ping" noise made by the clip ejecting when empty.
> This is because in close quarters fighting, jungle, house to house etc - the noise told the enemy that you were out of ammo!
> A good rifle, but my vote goes to the Lee Enfield 303, being bolt action encourages slower accurate fire rather than just letting loose with semi- auto.



Wive's tale. No truth to it. Hollywood may portray it as so, but anyone having been on a firing line will attest that ejection of a clip is not noticed except under extreme circumstances during prolonged firing. I know. I own one.


----------



## RCAFson (Mar 7, 2013)

An interesting take on the Garand versus Lee Enfield:


Military Channel: Wars, Weapons, Games, Top Ten Lists

Guess which one is ranked higher?


----------



## parsifal (Mar 7, 2013)

That is an interesting list. I wonder what the performance criteria were for the ordering


----------



## Airframes (Mar 7, 2013)

Hmm. Interesting. I too wonder on the criteria, more so when looking at the entry for the SMLE, which states it was in service up to 1956. 
Not quite correct - the SMLE began to be replaced, in 1941, by the Lee-Enfiled No. 4, as shown in the photo, which, although sharing many similarities, had a different bolt arrangement, simplified, graduated rear sight (even simpler on late -production variants), a slightly shorter barrel with exposed muzzle, and a number of other 'mods' to facilitate faster mass production. OK, performance was similar, but they were _not_ the same weapon.
Likewise with the FN Fal - those used by the UK were the British, licence-built version, the L1A1, semi-auto only, with a different selector and sight arrangement, slightly lighter barrel and bolt carrier, and a different flash suppressor, among other things. 
Nit-picking maybe, but again, it was different - different enough to question the statements and criteria in the posted 'Top 10' review.


----------



## parsifal (Mar 7, 2013)

we were still using lee Enfields...the old style, but with more modern sights in 1980. As a training weapon admittedly, but i wonder where 1956 comes from?


----------



## raumatibeach (Mar 7, 2013)

Do you think with rifles machine guns and possibly grenades going off near you including probably your own rifle going off near you ear you'd be able to pick out the ping of a Garand? Genuine question, if you don't have hearing protection when you're sighting a rifle in your ears will take a while to come back to normal, now multiply that by however many other weapons are going off at the same time.


----------



## raumatibeach (Mar 7, 2013)

parsifal said:


> we were still using lee Enfields...the old style, but with more modern sights in 1980. As a training weapon admittedly, but i wonder where 1956 comes from?



I'm not sure when the NZ army got rid of them but we were hunting with them into the 90s with ex army ammo. Mine was a relic of the Boer war, the butt was sawn off and a rubber recoil pad added because the stocks on those rifles seemed to be made for fairly short people.


----------



## parsifal (Mar 8, 2013)

Thats the thing about firefights, especially in the jungle.....ther can be all hell one minute then complete silence the next.

During the quiet, you can bet your boots some serious infliltration is being attempoterd, or the enemy is dead or out of ammo. You just never know. During those quiet times as you lie there stressing about what the enemy is doing, you hear every little thing happening around you....you are straining to hear twigs breaking or bushes rustling, so if you were close enough you would hear the ping of the Garand as the clip empties. Whether you could do anything about it, I am doubtful, but IMO opinion definately poosible for an enemy in close quarters to hear it.

In the jungle it is quite possible for an enemy to be just metres away and you not know it. It s a major factor in the war of nerves that is jungle warfare.

I should say that Ive never been in actual jungle compbat. 


However in 1980, Australia began to organise its Rapid Deployment Force using its 3rd Task Force. Whilst I was Navy, the RDF was sn sll srmds concept designed to allow fully intergated and self sufficient force projections to Battalion level, and needed support echelons from all three of the services. I volunteered ato join the RDF in 1983 and was granted permission to undertake some jungle training at Tully, the new jungle warfare school in north queensland. the course was admittedly focussed on developing the individual skills rather than groups training that were considered necessary for the development of good techniques i the jungle. It was a tough course, because it concentrated on developing your ability to survive and withstand the pschological challenges thrown up in the jungle environment. You spent a lot of time, in the pitch dark, no-oune around you, listening for breaking twigs and noises, and not moving unless you needed to, and prefereably if you knew wherere the enemy was, and in what strength. Moving in the Jungle usually meant making noise, and making noise was quite likley to draw fire. It was harrowing stuff I can tell you.


----------



## tyrodtom (Mar 8, 2013)

The garand ejects the clip as it ejects the last spent cartridge, in other words a fraction of a second after the last shot, your ears would still be dead and ringing from the last shot if you were close enough to have any chance of charging the shooter. 

I've never been in ground combat, but I have hunted deer and wild boar, and know how important hearing is to the hunt, but I also remember how dead my hearing is right after a shot without hearing protection.


----------



## dobbie (Mar 8, 2013)

The battlefield is an awfully noisy place. A ping from a sheet metal clip ejecting is not exactly going to stand out against rifle fire at any sort of distance. It is my understanding that some Marines used to carry an empty clip and would throw it against a nearby rock in order to get the enemy soldier to stick his head up, but that would be very close quarters battle.


----------



## Airframes (Mar 8, 2013)

Just to clarify for Michael (Parsifal) - the Lee-Enfield No.4, in its various versions, started to replace the WW1 Short, Magazine, Lee- Enfield (SMLE) rifle in 1941 in British and Commonwealth military service, although the SMLE still saw service in second-line units. The SMLE was virtually hand made, and tailored to the firere, with three different butt lengths available.
The No4 _theoretically _was available in 'short' and long' but length, but this seems rare!
In 1956, the British army finally took the decision to go 'semi-auto' and, after very lengthy trials of various weapons, including one, which, in much developed form, eventually became the _current_ UK rifle, opted for the FAL design which, built under licence to British requirements, became the L1A1 'SLR' (Self Loading Rifle), and entered _general _service in 1958, remaining the 'front line' weapon until the mid 1980s, when the current 'SA80' L-85 'bullpup' rifle started to enter service, although the SLR remained for some time with second-line units. 
I would have thought that NZ and Australian Forces would have had the No4 rifle (and/or the No.5 'Jungle Carbine') up to around 1958, when the SLR came into service, as most of the SMLEs were given, or sold, to former 'Empire' nations, in the Asian and African continents, or sold on the private market.


----------



## fastmongrel (Mar 8, 2013)

Airframes said:


> Just to clarify for Michael (Parsifal) - the Lee-Enfield No.4, in its various versions, started to replace the WW1 Short, Magazine, Lee- Enfield (SMLE) rifle in 1941 in British and Commonwealth military service, although the SMLE still saw service in second-line units. The SMLE was virtually hand made, and tailored to the firere, with three different butt lengths available.
> The No4 _theoretically _was available in 'short' and long' but length, but this seems rare!
> In 1956, the British army finally took the decision to go 'semi-auto' and, after very lengthy trials of various weapons, including one, which, in much developed form, eventually became the _current_ UK rifle, opted for the FAL design which, built under licence to British requirements, became the L1A1 'SLR' (Self Loading Rifle), and entered _general _service in 1958, remaining the 'front line' weapon until the mid 1980s, when the current 'SA80' L-85 'bullpup' rifle started to enter service, although the SLR remained for some time with second-line units.
> I would have thought that NZ and Australian Forces would have had the No4 rifle (and/or the No.5 'Jungle Carbine') up to around 1958, when the SLR came into service, as most of the SMLEs were given, or sold, to former 'Empire' nations, in the Asian and African continents, or sold on the private market.



The Aussies never got the No4 as far as I know they had the smelly MkIII made at the Australian Lithgow Small Arms factory till they went to the SLR at the same time as the British Army.


----------



## stona (Mar 8, 2013)

Airframes said:


> as most of the SMLEs were given, or sold, to former 'Empire' nations, in the Asian and African continents, or sold on the private market.



I saw plenty of them in Nigeria in the 1970s,post Biafra.
I even saw a few toted by what I assume were either soldiers or some kind of policemen,guarding tourist sites a few years ago in India.
I suppose millions of them were manufactured throughout the Commonwelth/Empire.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## parsifal (Mar 9, 2013)

fastmongrel said:


> The Aussies never got the No4 as far as I know they had the smelly MkIII made at the Australian Lithgow Small Arms factory till they went to the SLR at the same time as the British Army.



yes, correct, and we never used the cut down carbine version either, which was a bit of a disaster I have read. 

Our Lee Enfields even by my generation, who are SLP men through and through, basically worshipped the SMLE. And they were a joy to learn to shoot with. IIRC we even had a ).22 barrelled version, which actually fired really well....no kick on a heavy gun....perfect.


----------



## yulzari (Mar 9, 2013)

Not a major point but the design of the Lee-Enfield stock grip was designed to give a straight line grip as a half pike for using the bayonet. Proper bayonet that is. Not the pointy nail pig sticker thing. In a (very) mild defence of which, it was intended to allow the swift withdrawl of the bayonet from the victim. Thus avoiding having to wave your half pike about with a very cross human stuck on the end.

All very Edwardian like the volley sight so that your company could create a long distance beaten zone in lieu of an HMG or the cut off whereby you loaded rounds individually until you had then order 'rapid fire' at which you could open the cut off and use the full magazine.


----------



## fastmongrel (Mar 9, 2013)

The No4 pig sticker bayonet was very carefully designed and as a bayonet was excellent. It didnt stick in bone, did a lot of damage because a round hole that stays open is worse than a slit that closes up and because it was shorter and lighter than a knife bayonet it didnt ruin the aim when fitted. Unfortunately the designers forgot that a soldier doesnt use his bayonet to stab people very often and a pointy stick is useless for 99% of the tasks a soldier uses a bayonet for, like opening tincans, cutting firewood and most importantly digging small holes in the ground behind bushes.


----------



## Bernhart (Mar 9, 2013)

heard the pig sticker was good for holding candles too


----------



## stug3 (Mar 9, 2013)

I agree with Matt308 about the SKS, the Russians just missed the boat by a few years (also the AK-47 sort of, but not as close). It would be better with peep sights, but what the hell, it works.


----------



## Hansie Bloeckmann (Jan 7, 2018)

muscogeemike said:


> If, as Garand had wanted, the M-1 had been produced with a lighter cartridge then the 30.06 and with a detachable Mag (10-20 rds?) instead of the clip it would have been more effective.
> What if the US as adopted to Brit. .303? Would have made things a lot easier.


Correct: The initial caliber was .276--but as the BAR, Springfield 1903, some M1917 Enfields and the 1919A-1 Browning machine guns were already in std. 30-06 caliber . John Garand was "persuaded" by the Army Ordnance Dept. to build his prototype in .30-Gov't-06 Caliber. The Garand is heavy, kicks like a constipated mule, and the 8 rd. enbloc clip and coupled with the reloading with the "M-1 thumb" hazard, not too hard to overcome on the firing range, but a possible problem in a combat situation (mud, sand, snow, rain)--

Field & Stream rifle guru David Petzal once wrote about a neighbor, where he grew up in NJ - a surviving WW2 Veteran, "Big Red One"--and somewhere in the French bocage area in 1944- was charged by a huge German Feldwebel (Sgt.) carrying the MP-40, which was apparently empty, as he heard the click of the pin falling on an empty chamber- at close range he emptied 15 rounds into the German, none seemed to have any effect , a buddy pulled his 1911-A-1 .45 issue pistol, shot the German right between the eyes at about arm's length-- end of story. Our Army Ordnance thought the M-1 carbine with its light load would be the right weapon to augment the heavier Garand in combat scenarios.

I have no Army nor ordnance background, like others who post on this website-but I wondered why the Ranger team in the movie "Saving Pvt. Ryan" didn't all carry Garands, instead of the Sgt. (Tom Sizemore) with a M-1 carbine, the Brooklyn kid , with the BAR-- they would all have commonality of issue ammo, except for Tom Hank's character, with the Thompson SMG in 45 ACP, I also wondered why, when the lost the big Pfc. in the rain storm scene with the French civilians, as they were not set for air-drop re-supply on ammo, etc- they left the dead Ranger with his Garand and ammo belt, albiet they covered his body with a blanket. Tom Hanks did remove the dog tags, but the ammo could be used by the living to stay alive, I might think.


----------



## The Basket (Jan 10, 2018)

Ideal? Wow. That's a head scratcher.
Obviously a semi but they are expensive to build and still doubts over long term reliability especially in gunk. 
But if you look at the industrial power of say Japan or Italy and could they have built any garand type rifle in huge numbers quickly? No? 
One thing is that semi autos were about for many years before ww2 and this idea that the Garand was revolutionary is not true. The Mexicans and the French has service semi autos which served in ww1.

Individual rifles are of no concern so what you need is a rifle which can be built cheaply enough and quickly enough so you can equip your army in time of war based on what is possible. So will differ from country to country.


----------



## fastmongrel (Jan 10, 2018)

The Basket said:


> Individual rifles are of no concern so what you need is a rifle which can be built cheaply enough and quickly enough so you can equip your army in time of war based on what is possible. So will differ from country to country.



The MAS40 French self loader has been described as the best rifle of WW2 even though only a handful saw service right at the end of the war. If Germany hadnt invaded in May 1940 it would have gone into full production in June 1940. I have read that compared to a Garand it cost half as much, had half the parts and needed a third of the machining time, it was only about 15% more expensive than the MAS36 bolt action with which it shared many parts like barrel and stock.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Jan 27, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> Getting back to the original question "_IDEAL_ rifle" and not best substitute or best available.
> 
> 6.5mm cartridge with a 120-125 grain bullet (8 grams) spitzer boat tail at 2600fps (788ms).
> 
> ...



Hello Shortfound6, et al.

It really helps to read what has already been posted in a forum before posting something.
Why am I not surprised that most of what I was about to write was already covered by you several; years ago?


When thinking of a new rifle design, the question is how much of current knowledge and technology can be assumed to be available before or during WW2. Many materials that we use today were obviously not developed yet, but can we use the knowledge we have now that designers back then did not have? I think I will play a little loose with the rules here because no one has actually stated any yet.

We are in almost complete agreement about caliber:
I would choose a 6.5 mm with about a 140-150 grain bullet (A little heavier than your choice for better long range ballistics).
Ideally the cartridge case would be fairly short probably in the 45 mm to 50 mm range depending on what powder capacity needed to be to push a bullet to around 2600-2650 fps. Double base powders would offer more power in a smaller cartridge case as compared to the typical single base powders used in the military .30-06 of the time.
Basically this would be a ballistic twin of the 6.5 mm x 55 Swedish Mauser but in a more compact package and with a sharper case shoulder for good case volume.
There would be a second "standard" loading with a heavier bullet perhaps at a slightly lower velocity for longer ranged weapons such as a LMG but there would be no significant power level differences so that either cartridge could be used interchangeably in any of the weapons.
This is the same idea as the .30 M1 with a 170-something grain bullet, the M72 Match round with a 173 grain bullet and the .30 M2 round with a 152 grain bullet.
All would be boat tail spritzers.

The FAL is a cool design, but my preference would be something with a gas system closer to that of the SVD Dragunov and with a multiple lug rotating bolt. Ideally at least three locking lugs as on the Dragunov.
Front sight would be similar to the M1 Garand or M14 with adjustability for Windage.
Rear sight would probably be a clone of a late model M1 Garand which is pretty hard to beat or perhaps the micrometer style sight that is found on some No.4 Lee Enfield's but with provision for Windage adjustment.

More details on the gas system:
The White gas cutoff system as implemented on the M14 is an interesting idea but did not seem to work quite that well in practice.
It may actually self regulate, but seems to have a very limited range.
The manually regulated system of the FN FAL / SAFN or FN-49 is not bad but would require more work to set. I have personally run into more functioning issues with this system than with the M14 types. This feature was also partly responsible tor the failure of the FAL / T48 in US arctic tests.

Trigger would be similar to the FN-49 / M1 / M14. The FAL generally has a pretty horrible trigger. My own preference is also for a two stage trigger instead of single stage.

The Flash Suppressor / Muzzle Brake could be some kind of design that would reduce recoil and compensate for muzzle climb under full automatic fire.

Thoughts?

- Ivan.


----------



## Hansie Bloeckmann (Jan 27, 2018)

parsifal said:


> Oops, your right. Did not look closely enough. Have not had much to do with the US 45, automatically assumed it to be the Browning.


Browning designed the 1911 in 1908- in 1911 the US Army Ordnance Board approved it, and Colt was the first manufacturer of this pistol, in .45ACP Automatic Colt Pistol-great weapon yet today.


----------



## Hansie Bloeckmann (Jan 27, 2018)

Ivan1GFP said:


> Hello Shortfound6, et al.
> 
> It really helps to read what has already been posted in a forum before posting something.
> Why am I not surprised that most of what I was about to write was already covered by you several; years ago?
> ...


I think you mean: Boat tail spitzers- spritzers add "kick" to alcoholic drinks- or something like that. I like the Speer 168 grain Boat-Tail design bullets- spitzers to the tenth power--Hansie


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Jan 27, 2018)

Hansie Bloeckmann said:


> Browning designed the 1911 in 1908- in 1911 the US Army Ordnance Board approved it, and Colt was the first manufacturer of this pistol, in .45ACP Automatic Colt Pistol-great weapon yet today.



Hello Hansie Bloeckmann,

M1911A1 is definitely one of my favourites. If you have worked on them you probably have found some of the really goofy issues with these guns. There are about two or three areas of these guns I believe are really poorly designed:
1. The two piece Feed Ramp. There needs to be an overlap between frame ramp and barrel ramp which means that the ramp angles need to be very steep or the case head would be unsupported.
2. The Extractor is located in such a manner that without modification, it pulls the spent case directly against the right side wall of the Ejection Port.
Also, the Ejection Port is a little on the small side for clearing a loaded round with some configurations of bullets.
The lowering and extending of the ejection port is one of the more common modifications.
The Ejector is also often replaced and does help with more reliable ejection.
3. The Slide Stop has very little overlap with the typical Magazine Follower but has no room to extend further because a Round Nose bullet may contact it. Sometimes with not so tightly spec'ed guns, the follower rides past the slide stop.

There are a few other little things such as issues replacing the front sight but those are not really inherent problems in the design.

....Spritzer bullets! I can't stop laughing.
Thanks!

- Ivan.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Jan 28, 2018)

You would have to do this country to country. Italy was certainly not in a position to make whizz bang new rifles.


----------



## Hansie Bloeckmann (Jan 28, 2018)

Ivan1GFP said:


> Hello Hansie Bloeckmann,
> 
> M1911A1 is definitely one of my favourites. If you have worked on them you probably have found some of the really goofy issues with these guns. There are about two or three areas of these guns I believe are really poorly designed:
> 1. The two piece Feed Ramp. There needs to be an overlap between frame ramp and barrel ramp which means that the ramp angles need to be very steep or the case head would be unsupported.
> ...


Just wondering- is the 2. listing- Extractor location sometimes the cause of "stove-piping"?? I do not own a 1911-A-1 or any of its many "clones" available in today's market. I have a S&W M39 in 9mm-lightweight- and if you release the magazine, with a round in the chamber, there is an "interceptor" than dis-connects the firing linking- the magazine, whether empty of full, has to be firmly seated before you can fire the weapon. Why S&W designed this, I do not know. A hunting pal in CO. once told me the the 1911-A-1 has 4 distinct safety modes, and his theory was, as the US Army was still a cavalry based force in 1911- there was concern by the Army that a trooper could fire the weapon as he unholstered it, putting a bullet into his horse- I shudder to think of that scenario..


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Jan 28, 2018)

Hansie Bloeckmann said:


> Just wondering- is the 2. listing- Extractor location sometimes the cause of "stove-piping"?? I do not own a 1911-A-1 or any of its many "clones" available in today's market. I have a S&W M39 in 9mm-lightweight- and if you release the magazine, with a round in the chamber, there is an "interceptor" than dis-connects the firing linking- the magazine, whether empty of full, has to be firmly seated before you can fire the weapon. Why S&W designed this, I do not know. A hunting pal in CO. once told me the the 1911-A-1 has 4 distinct safety modes, and his theory was, as the US Army was still a cavalry based force in 1911- there was concern by the Army that a trooper could fire the weapon as he unholstered it, putting a bullet into his horse- I shudder to think of that scenario..



Hello Hansie Bloeckmann,
I believe that the extractor location along with the right wall of the ejection port ALONG WITH the short ejector is a cause of stove piping.
There needs to be a fair amount of extractor tension against the loaded cartridge / case rim and if there is not, it can release prematurely before it is clear o the gun.
Unmodified, the bottom edge of the extractor is pretty sharp and may hang (in theory) on the case rim.
It also pulls the case to the right directly against the right wall of the ejection port where it deflects up and out.
I have to look to see if I have an unmodified military style ejection port on one of these guns, but I don't believe I do.
The Ejector in my opinion should be longer than stock but not so long as the replacement parts come from the manufacturer.
There is a good balance between longer with enough energy to kick the spent case out and too long as to hang up on trying to eject a live round. There is a lot of manufacturing variation, so this is a part that needs to be cut to length and for reliability a touch shorter is better than a touch too long.

I am actually pretty familiar with the S&W Model 39 as well. I really like the balance and pointability of this gun.
Many years ago, a friend of mine told me that he choice of a defence gun would be the M39 which I found to be an odd choice because I knew he had a lot to choose from. When I asked him why, he told me about the handling and let me try it out. I was hooked.
It is a pity but the later single stack S&W 9 mm don't seem to point quite as well though the triggers are better.

Regarding other issues with the M1911:
My own preference is to have a full length guide rod for the recoil spring. 
I also like to have a "shock buffer" to take some of the impact from the slide against the spring guide.
I also like to have the ability to pull the slide back to release the slide stop after reloading when the slide is locked back.
The problem is that there is quite a lot of variation in the manufacturing of the slide stops and slide stop notches so that what works in one gun will not work in another when a shock buffer is in place.
A friend of mine had a gun (I think it was a AMT) that had fit problems with the grip safety because his frame was dimensioned incorrectly. Under my direction, he had to do a lot of adjustments to some parts, especially the 3 leaf spring behind the mainspring housing to get it to function. I still didn't like the result, but it worked.
I have also seen a description of another manufacturer that puts the disconnect notch in the wrong place so that the gun can fire even when not fully in battery.
I have seen a couple Charles Daly guns that had the feed ramps fit wrong. These were new guns and of the ones on the table at a Gun Show, the assembly was different between them in critical areas.... like the feed ramp.



The Basket said:


> You would have to do this country to country. Italy was certainly not in a position to make whizz bang new rifles.



Hello The Basket,
There are plenty of countries that really had no hope of building anything like what I was describing.
Finland and China come to mind.

- Ivan.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 28, 2018)

Ivan1GFP said:


> Hello Shortfound6, et al.
> 
> It really helps to read what has already been posted in a forum before posting something.
> Why am I not surprised that most of what I was about to write was already covered by you several; years ago?
> ...



For use in full auto you need to reduce recoil somewhat, how much is subject to argument but since recoil is proportional to momentum (weight/mass X velocity) and not energy you have two choices, cut bullet weight or cut velocity (or both). Keeping 140-150 grain Spitzers (with or without boat tails) doesn't cut the recoil enough to give you a controllable weapon in full auto. Please remember that the US M2 Ball .30-06 used a 150 grain bullet and the Nato 7.62 used a 147-150 grain bullet. Nobody made a controllable full auto rifle in either cartridge. I don't know if cutting recoil by 20-25% is enough but it is a much better start than cutting velocity by only 10% or so. 

In 6.5mm a 120 grain bullet will give (given the same shape) as good or better ballistics than a 150-168 grain .30 cal bullet. A 140 grain 6.5mm bullet acts like a 190-200 grain .30 cal. 
You don't need the heavy 6.5mm bullets (which also require quicker twist rifling) unless you are shooting to distances beyond the normal employment ranges of a bipod mounted machine gun. 

The US adopted the .30 M1 with a 170-something grain bullet for use in water cooled 1917 Brownings where it increased the max range by something like 1500-2000 yds. Effective range was increased but not by quite as much. Please note this was for indirect fire before 81mm mortars became standard issue.

Our Ideal "rifle" for squad use has no such need for that kind of capability.

I am not too sure how well sharp shoulders really feed in automatic weapons. In any case any advantages they have are mostly theoretical and usually will be unnoticed in a military grade rifle. After I had my 6.5 X .308 for a few years (bolt action) a fellow who shot on some of the teams I did had a rifle built in 6.5mm X .308 Ackley Improved (blown out, sharp shoulder) and he gave me an empty case. Weighing his case and mine empty and full of water to the top of the case mouth his case held slightly more than 1 grain of water more, out of just over 60 grains. Seating a bullet cuts in the capacity quite a bit, but a 2-3% increase in powder capacity doesn't really mean much and a military weapon is much better served with a slightly lower pressure level than going for that last 2% in performance. Short and fat has gotten some good results in bench rest shooting but please remember that the .30-06 had a fair amount of empty space in it when loaded with similar powders to the 7.62 X 51. Short and fat helps but once you have similar loading densities it's importance goes down and the advantage only shows up in guns/ammo that are shooting at under 1 minute of angle anyway. 
Design a cartridge that will work in -40 degrees and also work at 130 degrees F.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Jan 28, 2018)

Hello Shortround6,
Obviously you have done quite a lot of thinking about the different aspects of an ideal rifle cartridge.



Shortround6 said:


> For use in full auto you need to reduce recoil somewhat, how much is subject to argument but since recoil is proportional to momentum (weight/mass X velocity) and not energy you have two choices, cut bullet weight or cut velocity (or both). Keeping 140-150 grain Spitzers (with or without boat tails) doesn't cut the recoil enough to give you a controllable weapon in full auto. Please remember that the US M2 Ball .30-06 used a 150 grain bullet and the Nato 7.62 used a 147-150 grain bullet. Nobody made a controllable full auto rifle in either cartridge. I don't know if cutting recoil by 20-25% is enough but it is a much better start than cutting velocity by only 10% or so.



What you are stating is pretty much conventional wisdom on the subject of recoil.
I believe there are a couple other factors to consider.
First of all, using the .30-06 M2 Ball as an example, what comes out the muzzle is a 152 grain bullet at 2800 fps but there is also around 50 grains of solid propellant that is also converted to gas and sent out the muzzle at a speed even higher than the bullet.
If we have a lesser amount of propellant, there is less mass being sent out the muzzle.
Next, consider that the typical battle rifle of the time either did not have a muzzle brake or did not have an efficient muzzle brake.
I have experienced what a really good muzzle brake can accomplish.
A fellow brought a .50 caliber BMG bolt action (McMillan) rifle to the range one day and wanted to know how fast his handloads were.
Since I had a chronograph in operation, he asked me to fire a few rounds for him. The idea was that if I blew up my own chronograph, he was not to blame. His 650 grain bullets moving at around 2650 fps felt about the same in recoil as the 7,92mm Mauser I had at the range. The muzzle blast was horrendous, but the recoil was not painful. Of course his rifle was fairly heavy but I believe it was because of a very efficient muzzle brake he had on the gun which make it look like a miniature anti-tank gun.
I believe that a proper muzzle brake can do a lot to reduce felt recoil.



Shortround6 said:


> In 6.5mm a 120 grain bullet will give (given the same shape) as good or better ballistics than a 150-168 grain .30 cal bullet. A 140 grain 6.5mm bullet acts like a 190-200 grain .30 cal.
> You don't need the heavy 6.5mm bullets (which also require quicker twist rifling) unless you are shooting to distances beyond the normal employment ranges of a bipod mounted machine gun.



Part of the reason for keeping a heavier bullet is to keep the hitting power fairly high even at long range. A 120 grain bullet weighs less and must make up for it with a higher velocity. On a paper target, it does not matter but that isn't the kind of target that we are going for.

Besides, what is the disadvantage for a quicker rifling twist?
I have had bullets come apart in 1 in 7 inch twist .223, but those were very flimsy bullets.
In general, when barrel quality is questionable as it would be in a mass production military rifle, faster rifling twist is better than slower.
To be honest, I am not that set on a super heavy 6.5 mm bullet in the standard rifle cartridge. My idea is that such an option should be available for long range use and the rifle should be capable of using it.

Please note that the Swedish Mauser uses anything from a 120 grain up to about a 160 grain bullet with a rifling twist that is around 1 turn in 8 inch or 8.5 inch.



Shortround6 said:


> The US adopted the .30 M1 with a 170-something grain bullet for use in water cooled 1917 Brownings where it increased the max range by something like 1500-2000 yds. Effective range was increased but not by quite as much. Please note this was for indirect fire before 81mm mortars became standard issue.
> 
> Our Ideal "rifle" for squad use has no such need for that kind of capability.



in .30 Caliber, the 173 grain match bullet seems to behave reasonably even when going through the trans sonic region.
The typical 168 grain HPBT match bullet does not behave so well and becomes unstable as it drops through trans sonic.
For a 168 grain bullet fired from a .308 Winchester at about 2600-2650 fps, it goes trans sonic just beyond 900 yards IIRC.
That was the main reason for the creating of the 155 grain Palma bullet. It needed to remain accurate beyond 1000 yards so needed to be pushed faster at the muzzle. (There is a lot more to the story but the point is that the ballistic coefficients we are seeing with these bullets are no guarantee that they are accurate to the ranges needed by a machine gun.



Shortround6 said:


> I am not too sure how well sharp shoulders really feed in automatic weapons. In any case any advantages they have are mostly theoretical and usually will be unnoticed in a military grade rifle. After I had my 6.5 X .308 for a few years (bolt action) a fellow who shot on some of the teams I did had a rifle built in 6.5mm X .308 Ackley Improved (blown out, sharp shoulder) and he gave me an empty case. Weighing his case and mine empty and full of water to the top of the case mouth his case held slightly more than 1 grain of water more, out of just over 60 grains. Seating a bullet cuts in the capacity quite a bit, but a 2-3% increase in powder capacity doesn't really mean much and a military weapon is much better served with a slightly lower pressure level than going for that last 2% in performance. Short and fat has gotten some good results in bench rest shooting but please remember that the .30-06 had a fair amount of empty space in it when loaded with similar powders to the 7.62 X 51. Short and fat helps but once you have similar loading densities it's importance goes down and the advantage only shows up in guns/ammo that are shooting at under 1 minute of angle anyway.
> Design a cartridge that will work in -40 degrees and also work at 130 degrees F.



Sharp shoulder is relative. I was thinking of something at about 30 degrees as in the 6 mm PPC cartridge. Even 25 degrees would do and that beats the 17.5 degrees of the .30-06.
The .308 Winchester by reputation does not seem to gain much when Ackley Improved and I suppose the offspring based upon it would not gain much either. As you pointed out, the shape really does not change by much.
Parker Ackley's "Improved" chambers were a pretty good idea back in the day when the typical cartridge case had a very tapered body with only a slight shoulder angle. Lots of folks "improved" chambers by reaming them larger but Ackley's were special in that the improved chamber was still capable of safely firing the factor "non-improved" ammunition.
(I am sure you know this but some folks here probably don't.)
You are absolutely correct that the .30-06 has a lot of empty space in typical military loadings and I believe that is not optimal and has been stated as one of the reasons why the .308W is inherently more accurate.
There does need to be enough capacity to allow flexibility in bullet weights and different compositions of powder.
The idea of a sharper shoulder case with very little taper is to avoid designs like the 7.62 mm x 39.

- Ivan.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 28, 2018)

Well, as some of the people on this forum know because I have blathered on about it before, I have had two rifles built with custom 6.5mm cartridges. 
The first was the 6.5mm X 308, this cartridge does date from the 1950s so I certainly didn't invent it. Remington finally commercialized it in 1997, about 6 years after I had mine built. I shot out one barrel in about 5,000 rounds. I also had a 6.5mm Remington Benchrest (cartridge) rifle built. .308 case shortened by about 0.5 inches. First gun uses a 1-9 twist and will fire at least 140 Grain Serria's with accuracy to 1000 yds. Most of my shooting was with 120 grain Sierras at shorter distances. The Short cartridge rifle uses a 1-10 twist and was used mainly with 120 grain Serrias. One attempt to use 140s had bullets sideways at 100yds. Reason for the first rifle was I got tired of firing 168 grain Serrias from a heavy barreled .30-06 bolt gun. I was competing in a local league and we fired 40 rounds prone at 300yds (plus 4 sighters) in the morning with iron sights and another 44 rounds in the afternoon with anysight (mostly scopes). I found that at round 36 or so I was looking over at the ammo block and thinking "only 4 rounds left" which is certainly *not* the way to win matches 

The 6.5 certainly was more comfortable to shoot. It didn't have any more trouble with wind than the .30 cal rifles had. 

as to recoil my experience with muzzle breaks is non-existent. You couldn't use them in competition at the time. I once was next to guy using a .300 magnum and the muzzle blast from his rifle (no muzzle brake) was bad enough that I waited to fire until after he did after the first time I was squeezing the trigger and got hit with the blast wave._ Effective_ Muzzle brakes are not friendly to squad mates  

Recoil is proportional to the weight of the rifle. Double the rifle's weight and the felt recoil will be cut in half, not practical for a military rifle.  
Most military rofles are going to wind up close to each other in weight unless you can really change the materials (aluminum receivers/plastic stocks). 
You are correct about the effects of the powder charge adding to recoil, however most people figure the escaping gases as a constant ( the same for all rifles, not quite true but trying to measure the average velocity of the escaping gases is almost impossible) and for most military cartridges the weight of propellent isn't that far apart until you get to the either the 5.56mm or 7.62 x 39mm class cartridges. 

My 6.5 X 308 used charges between 36-40 grains depending on exact type of propellent and bullet I was using and I used 46.5 grains in my Palma gun (308 with 155 grain bullets ) DO NOT USE in semi autos. Granted the .30-06 will use a bit more. The older 1906 loading and the 172 grian M1 loading using about 50 grains (exact amount depended on the lot of powder). However cutting 10 grains of powder from the charge isn't going to really change the recoil as much as cutting 30-50 grains from the weight of the bullet.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 30, 2018)

There is plenty of youtube videos where the 6.5mm Creedmore and .224 Valkyre show excellent results beyoond 1000 yds. The ammo of Valkyre fits the Ar-15 receiver as-is.
There was automatic rifle in 6.5mm Arisaka calibre in use 100 years ago, granted by ww2 people will be able to come out with even better rifle.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 30, 2018)

The Arisaka case (or Carcano) would be good starting points in the 1930s, different powders that some people use now. I have used IMR 4895 which is a pre WW II powder. I didn't use them (or the 6.5 Swede) because of the higher cost of Brass ( I had over 500 rounds of the 6.5 X 308 which I actually made by necking up .243 cases.) and the non standard rim diameters. I didn't want to pay for modifying extractors on one-off rifles. 

The main problem with both the small 6.5 rounds were the bullets, and by extension the rifling. All of the old 6.5mm military cartridges (including 6.5 Greek, 6.5 Dutch and Romanian, and 6.5 Portuguese) started with 155-160 grain round nosed bullets at around 2000-2400fps and needed a quick twist in the rifling to stabilize the long bullets. Please note that the .30-03 cartridge in the first Springfields used a 220 grain round nose and that is why the .30-06 used a 1-10 twist, legacy.
Going to lighter but just as long bullets with pointy ends means you can use a bit less twist in the rifling and still get the needed spin on the bullets because of the higher velocity. 
If you seperate your rifles and squad/company machine guns from your battalion/AFV machine guns you don't need the power/size of the larger rifle rounds but can still have much more range than the 7.92 x 33 Kurtz and the 7.62 X 39 which were also victims of legacy tooling (both barrel making tooling and bullet making tooling), which have short, squatty bullets of relatively poor ballistic shape. Please note the Russians kept 7.62 X 54 machine guns at the company level.


----------



## The Basket (Jan 30, 2018)

Not aware of a 6.5mm Japanese auto rifle in 1918 period. A machine gun but not a rifle. Please advise.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 30, 2018)

The Basket said:


> Not aware of a 6.5mm Japanese auto rifle in 1918 period. A machine gun but not a rifle. Please advise.



Russian rifle that used Japanese cartridge: link


----------



## The Basket (Jan 30, 2018)

Good show.
The Fedorov used 6.5mm Japanese. I thought you meant a Japanese rifle.
So me got confused


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 30, 2018)

I would also note that many of the countries that changed from the round nosed bullets to spitzers were somewhat constrained by existing chamber dimensions, make the bullet too light and it is too short and has a long jump before it hits the rifling which can affect accuracy. 





No 5 being the closest to the original military bullet. You can't seat the bullets out too far for military ammo or you may not get a good grip on the bullet (soldiers have an amazing ability to dent, damage, bend all sorts of things) and the magazine will only handle cartridges of a certain length.
As the barrel wore on my 6.5 X 308 I seated the bullets out longer and longer to keep them close to the rifling. At one point they were 0.050 (1.27mm) too long to fit in the magazine. Not a problem in rifle matches that required single loading and gave you one minute per shot


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Jan 30, 2018)

Hello Shortround6,
After your last post, I decided to do some poking around to see what was already out there.
It turns out that the 6.5 mm x 47 Lapua case is pretty close though I was thinking of even smaller than that.
Also, it seems that the 6.5 mm Creedmoor also has the 30 degree shoulder I was originally proposing and appears to have no issue running in a semi auto rifle.

Regarding the issue with a muzzle brake:
There are two issues with recoil that would affect full auto fire: Actual Recoil and Muzzle Climb.
Either can be greatly affected with a well designed and ergonomic rifle, perhaps one with a straight line stock as on the FG42 and maybe even incorporating a buffer system as the FG42 did.
A practical muzzle brake can also affect both the recoil impulse and muzzle climb. An example of this can be found on the AK-74.
Full sized rifle versions can be found on many of the pre-war Russian semi autos. It doesn't have to be quite as severe as on the McMillan.



Shortround6 said:


> The main problem with both the small 6.5 rounds were the bullets, and by extension the rifling. All of the old 6.5mm military cartridges (including 6.5 Greek, 6.5 Dutch and Romanian, and 6.5 Portuguese) started with 155-160 grain round nosed bullets at around 2000-2400fps and needed a quick twist in the rifling to stabilize the long bullets. Please note that the .30-03 cartridge in the first Springfields used a 220 grain round nose and that is why the .30-06 used a 1-10 twist, legacy.



Is there something inherently wrong with fast twist rifling?
In the field of Benchrest shooting, an overly fast twist over stabilizes the bullet so that it takes longer to "go to sleep" but that really only makes a difference of tenths of an inch in group size. With military rifles, it makes no difference, not even in lethality if the bullet is designed properly.
Regarding .30-06 and 1-10 inch twist, I do not see any better twist rate for the cartridge.
Typical twist rate for the .308 Winchester is 1-12 inch but when I was shopping for match grade replacement barrels, I was actually finding that the better manufacturers were making 1-10 inch. It has been a few years since I replaced a barrel, so I don't know if there is a different standard today.
With very finely made bullets, you can get away with less rifling twist. When bullets are less precise such as for military ammunition, a bit faster rifling may be needed to keep the bullets stable.



Shortround6 said:


> Going to lighter but just as long bullets with pointy ends means you can use a bit less twist in the rifling and still get the needed spin on the bullets because of the higher velocity.



While what you stated here is technically correct, it may not be the best advice.
If a bullet is not spinning fast enough to be stable at a certain velocity, then pushing it faster MAY make it stable but only very marginally so and it may not stay stable for very long.
Another factor worth pointing (no pun intended) is that round nose bullets are fairly short for their weight while equivalent weight spitzers (I had to correct the autocorrect that time), are longer for the same weight and require faster rifling twists to remain stable.
That is because they have less rotational inertia because more of their mass is at a closer radius to the centerline of the bullet and apparently it is the rotational momentum of the bullet that is important.

- Ivan.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 31, 2018)

Ivan1GFP said:


> Hello Shortround6,
> After your last post, I decided to do some poking around to see what was already out there.
> It turns out that the 6.5 mm x 47 Lapua case is pretty close though I was thinking of even smaller than that.
> Also, it seems that the 6.5 mm Creedmoor also has the 30 degree shoulder I was originally proposing and appears to have no issue running in a semi auto rifle.



see 6.5×47mm Lapua - Wikipedia

The 6.5 Lapua may be a very fine cartridge indeed but most of it's features are not needed in a military rifle, especially one of WW II vintage. 

It seems to be a .308 with a small primer and the shoulder and neck pushed back 4mm and the shoulder changed to 30 degrees. Main advantage over the 6.5 x 308 is that when loaded to the same overall length the bullet, since it sticks out further, doesn't stick back into the case as much, this _may help accuracy, _and helps the case be reloaded many more times. Not a factor in military ammunition. It is also using modern powders and is being loaded to rather high pressures. Higher than either .308 commercial (unless some sort of "magnum" load") or 7.62 NATO. Target shooters can flirt with pressures a bit above normal, military cartridges should not. In fact military cartridges should err on the side of caution, especially in the WW II and before era when climate testing was either not done or done in a rather sketchy fashion. 



> Regarding the issue with a muzzle brake:
> 
> There are two issues with recoil that would affect full auto fire: Actual Recoil and Muzzle Climb.
> Either can be greatly affected with a well designed and ergonomic rifle, perhaps one with a straight line stock as on the FG42 and maybe even incorporating a buffer system as the FG42 did.
> ...



Some sort of muzzle brake could probably be used, given the small powder charges it shouldn't be that much of a problem, Even the Thompson gun had one for a while, however it was deleted due to manufacturing costs. 




Might have worked better if the slots were angled rearward. Also the gas volume and velocity from a .45ACP powder charge wasn't that large, especially from a long submachine gun barrel. 





> Is there something inherently wrong with fast twist rifling?
> In the field of Benchrest shooting, an overly fast twist over stabilizes the bullet so that it takes longer to "go to sleep" but that really only makes a difference of tenths of an inch in group size. With military rifles, it makes no difference, not even in lethality if the bullet is designed properly.
> Regarding .30-06 and 1-10 inch twist, I do not see any better twist rate for the cartridge.
> Typical twist rate for the .308 Winchester is 1-12 inch but when I was shopping for match grade replacement barrels, I was actually finding that the better manufacturers were making 1-10 inch. It has been a few years since I replaced a barrel, so I don't know if there is a different standard today.
> With very finely made bullets, you can get away with less rifling twist. When bullets are less precise such as for military ammunition, a bit faster rifling may be needed to keep the bullets stable.



A too fast rifling twist is better than a too slow one but a fast one tends to raise pressure a bit. Not as much as some people have claimed but a bit. It also places more stress on the bullet/jacket. take a bullet doing 2600fps with a 1-12 twist, the bullet is spinning at 156,000 revolutions per minute. with a 1-10 twist it is spinning at 187,200rpm. I would note that many Palma rifles are built with 1-13 twist or even 1-13.5 but then they are never intended to shoot bullets heavier than 155 grains and with their long barrels and often higher than factory pressures could get the rate of spin needed. Some M-14/M1-A shooters would use 175-190 grain bullets in the 600 yd stage (and 168s at the shorter stages) and were somewhat pressure limited to avoid damage to the gas system (bent op rod) so they may have prefered a quicker twist for the heavy bullets. Just what I heard a number of years ago. 

One of the claims to fame for the .30-06 as a hunting cartridge was, back in the days when the average man could only afford a very few rifles, was that the .30-06 could be used for practically anything on the North American continent. It may not have been ideal but it was useable, factory loads came with bullets from 110 grains to 220 grains. Using a slower twist might have meant giving up the long heavy bullets beloved by moose, elk and large bear hunters. 





> While what you stated here is technically correct, it may not be the best advice.
> If a bullet is not spinning fast enough to be stable at a certain velocity, then pushing it faster MAY make it stable but only very marginally so and it may not stay stable for very long.
> Another factor worth pointing (no pun intended) is that round nose bullets are fairly short for their weight while equivalent weight spitzers (I had to correct the autocorrect that time), are longer for the same weight and require faster rifling twists to remain stable.
> That is because they have less rotational inertia because more of their mass is at a closer radius to the centerline of the bullet and apparently it is the rotational momentum of the bullet that is important.
> ...



Most of the old military round nose bullets from the 1890s were very heavy, 220 grains for the .30 Krag and .30-03, 215 grains for the British .303, 175 grains for most of the 7mm and the already mentioned 155-160 for the 6.5mms. Yes a modern 140 grain 6.5mm match bullet is longer than the old round nose but then you can drive it several hundred FPS faster. Please note that the really long spitzer boat tails only date from the 1990s or so. Like Serrias 107 being longer than the 120 or the 142 being longer than the discontinued (?) 155.
The shorter 120 grain HSBT and 140 HSBTs have shorter boat tails and less pointy ogives and perhaps less empty space in the nose. In any case a military SBT of WW II vintage would have the lead inserted from the rear and would have no hollow cavity (or perhaps a filler) in the nose. 
While not ideal from a 2018 point of view Such bullets were an advance over plain base spitzers and would work perfectly well out to any distance a regular rifleman or even bipod machine gun would be expected to work at. 
The art of bullet making has advanced an awful lot in the last century or more. More uniform jacket thickness, more uniformity in weight (old match shooters in the 1930s would weigh their bullets and sort them, weighing modern match bullets is an exercise in futility) and more uniform shape. 
A slight excess in twist helped make up for some of those differences. 
Most military ammunition of WW II was doing very good if it could shoot 2 minutes of angle, some of it couldn't hold 3 minutes of angle, mostly due to the bullets, tricks like 30 degree shoulders, small primers and the like are not going help poor bullets. 
They could have made ammunition with better ballistics without new technology, but they also needed to able to produce the cartridge cases, primers and bullets with existing knowledge and tooling ability and make them by the 10s of millions.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Jan 31, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> The 6.5 Lapua may be a very fine cartridge indeed but most of it's features are not needed in a military rifle, especially one of WW II vintage.
> 
> It seems to be a .308 with a small primer and the shoulder and neck pushed back 4mm and the shoulder changed to 30 degrees. Main advantage over the 6.5 x 308 is that when loaded to the same overall length the bullet, since it sticks out further, doesn't stick back into the case as much, this _may help accuracy, _and helps the case be reloaded many more times. Not a factor in military ammunition. It is also using modern powders and is being loaded to rather high pressures. Higher than either .308 commercial (unless some sort of "magnum" load") or 7.62 NATO. Target shooters can flirt with pressures a bit above normal, military cartridges should not. In fact military cartridges should err on the side of caution, especially in the WW II and before era when climate testing was either not done or done in a rather sketchy fashion.



The only intended common features with the 6.5 Lapua would be the shape and approximate length of the cartridge case.
Primer sizes and pressures would be more common with something along the lines of a 7.92 x 57 or .308 Winchester.
Cartridge OAL would be considerably less than the .308W considering that a conventional spitzer bullet design would be used instead of a modern VLD design.



Shortround6 said:


> Some sort of muzzle brake could probably be used, given the small powder charges it shouldn't be that much of a problem, Even the Thompson gun had one for a while, however it was deleted due to manufacturing costs.
> 
> Might have worked better if the slots were angled rearward. Also the gas volume and velocity from a .45ACP powder charge wasn't that large, especially from a long submachine gun barrel.



The kind of muzzle brake I had in mind would be along the lines of the AVS-36 or AK-74 which might have some effect on recoil
The Cutts Compensator on the Thompson and various shotguns isn't very sophisticated and really only addresses muzzle climb which is quite appropriate considering that the typical M1927 Thompson weighs around 18 pounds with a loaded 50 round magazine.
Many items were deleted with mass production. Among them were the Blish lock, cooling fins, drum magazines, and top mounted operating handle, but those older guns were beautiful if not efficient.



Shortround6 said:


> A too fast rifling twist is better than a too slow one but a fast one tends to raise pressure a bit. Not as much as some people have claimed but a bit. It also places more stress on the bullet/jacket. take a bullet doing 2600fps with a 1-12 twist, the bullet is spinning at 156,000 revolutions per minute. with a 1-10 twist it is spinning at 187,200rpm. I would note that many Palma rifles are built with 1-13 twist or even 1-13.5 but then they are never intended to shoot bullets heavier than 155 grains and with their long barrels and often higher than factory pressures could get the rate of spin needed. Some M-14/M1-A shooters would use 175-190 grain bullets in the 600 yd stage (and 168s at the shorter stages) and were somewhat pressure limited to avoid damage to the gas system (bent op rod) so they may have prefered a quicker twist for the heavy bullets. Just what I heard a number of years ago.
> 
> One of the claims to fame for the .30-06 as a hunting cartridge was, back in the days when the average man could only afford a very few rifles, was that the .30-06 could be used for practically anything on the North American continent. It may not have been ideal but it was useable, factory loads came with bullets from 110 grains to 220 grains. Using a slower twist might have meant giving up the long heavy bullets beloved by moose, elk and large bear hunters.



There was a fellow who did a test many years back with faster and faster rifling and how it affected pressures.
The general conclusion was that for all practical purposes, the pressure differences due to rifling twist were less than the shot to shot variation in chamber pressures. I have never worked out the exact numbers, but the amount of rotational energy in a bullet is extremely small in relation to the translational energy.
Your comparison between a Palma match gun and a M14 service rifle is entirely unfair. The Palma gun typically has a 30 inch barrel and as you noted operates over the SAAMI specification for the .308 Winchester. The M14 is gas operated and uses a 22 inch barrel.

Also, the 600 yard slow fire stage is not a reasonable example of ammunition suitable for a M14 because most of the time that ammunition will not even fit into the magazine and will not cycle through the gun in semi auto. To me that is pure game and regardless of what it is called has nothing to do with a military rifle. Heck, one could get away with a lot of Benchrest techniques such as very fragile ammunition and indexing cases if you know the ammunition will be fired that way! I actually have played around quite a lot with the M14 type platform and would be glad to discuss, but it seems off topic here. I will warn you in advance that my philosophy is quite different from the typical High Power shooter.

Since you picked the .30-06 as an example, do you see any advantage to having a 1-12 inch twist in that caliber as opposed to 1-10 inch twist that is standard these days?

As for a "fast" rifling twist, there are quite a few calibers / platforms that use a fairly fast twist and are quite successful.
The AR-15 / M16 series started with 1-14 inch in prototypes which actually exhibited rather poor accuracy and then went to 1-12 inch with the M16 / M16A1 and went to an even faster 1-7 inch twist with the M16A2. My own experience is that the 1-7 inch twist is the best among those choices for accuracy though for pure target use, I would probably go with 1-9 inch.
The 6.5 mm Swedish Mauser typically is rifled at 1-8 inch or 1-8.5 inch and has a great reputation for accuracy.



Shortround6 said:


> Most of the old military round nose bullets from the 1890s were very heavy, 220 grains for the .30 Krag and .30-03, 215 grains for the British .303, 175 grains for most of the 7mm and the already mentioned 155-160 for the 6.5mms. Yes a modern 140 grain 6.5mm match bullet is longer than the old round nose but then you can drive it several hundred FPS faster. Please note that the really long spitzer boat tails only date from the 1990s or so. Like Serrias 107 being longer than the 120 or the 142 being longer than the discontinued (?) 155.
> The shorter 120 grain HSBT and 140 HSBTs have shorter boat tails and less pointy ogives and perhaps less empty space in the nose. In any case a military SBT of WW II vintage would have the lead inserted from the rear and would have no hollow cavity (or perhaps a filler) in the nose.
> While not ideal from a 2018 point of view Such bullets were an advance over plain base spitzers and would work perfectly well out to any distance a regular rifleman or even bipod machine gun would be expected to work at.
> The art of bullet making has advanced an awful lot in the last century or more. More uniform jacket thickness, more uniformity in weight (old match shooters in the 1930s would weigh their bullets and sort them, weighing modern match bullets is an exercise in futility) and more uniform shape.
> ...



Much of what you are describing is relevant only on the target range. At this point in time, there was no JAG to determine that a HPBT bullet does not violate the terms of the Hague Convention. Bullets would be full patch open base spitzers.
The idea of a bullet that was long for its caliber was already done by the British by putting an aluminium spacer in the front of their bullets and later by the Russians by placing the core in such a manner as to leave an air space at the nose.

As for a basic rifle cartridge design, this was intended to be a ballistic clone of the 6.5 mm Swede but with a few "modern" changes.
The case would be shorter, have a sharper shoulder, and use spitzer bullets. While I agree that a sharp case shoulder may not improve the accuracy of military ball ammunition, it also does not cost anything in performance either, so why not build in the potential for better accuracy using the same cartridge in something like a sniper rifle and long range potential for a similar LMG?

- Ivan.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 31, 2018)

A lot of the bench rest stuff in case design only comes into play when you get the accuracy well under 1 minute of angle to begin with. When I had the short case rifle built I asked the gunsmith about turning the case necks and getting a chambering reamer to suit. He told me it was unnecessary unless you looking at under 1/2 minute of angle. So it was built to take 6mm BR cases necked up with no case turning. The gun is stunningly accurate and you can pick what part of the X ring you want to shoot up at 300yds (MR-63 target 2.85in X ring) and then give the sight a couple of clicks and shoot up another part of the X ring. Personal best was 26 consecutive Xs. 
26 in Barrel, 30.5 grains of 4895 (thrown charges) behind the 120 Grain Sierra. MV was just about 2600fps. So yes you don't need the big cases unless you are looking for *high* performance. 

The 260 Remington will shoot 120 bullets at about 2900fps and 140s at around 2700-2750fps. 

Boat tail bullets date back to before the turn of the century and there is no reason not to use at least a modest boat tail on an "ideal" rifle round.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Feb 1, 2018)

Hello Shortround6,
I suspect that in general we would be more in agreement regarding rifle accuracy that it appears from this discussion.

When folks started shooting the M14 in service rifle competition in place of the M1 Garand, they gradually noticed that the scores were higher on average than they were back in the days of the Garand. Some folks thought it was because the M14 was an inherently more accurate rifle (when tuned). Other folks were noted that the Navy was shooting just as high scores with re chambered M1s, so their conclusion was that it was a difference in inherent accuracy of the new cartridge.
This is a story I have heard a couple times. I obviously was not around during the period in discussion and proving it would be difficult, but I tend to believe it.

We all know there are some cartridges that develop a reputation for accuracy and others that do not. I also believe there are very few cartridges that absolutely prohibit excellent accuracy, so given just about any cartridge, someone is bound to find an example of a gun that shoots amazingly well. I see no point in not designing in all the advantages we can from the start if we are starting on a brand new design.

The process of neck turning cases does not really fall into Benchrest case design but more into case preparation. I would tend to agree with your gunsmith regarding chambering to fit ONLY neck turned cases, though there is nothing actually stopping you from neck turning your cases anyway. I actually do quite a few of the one-time Benchrest case prep even for semi autos. It is also part of my initial case inspection.

How well does your 6.5 mm target gun actually do from a MOA standpoint at close range? Obviously it is sub-MOA out to 300 yards or more.
Now keep in mind that as a target shooter that reloads, you have the luxury of loading down a bit for short range while the military cartridge we are discussing is a single standard rifle load for all ranges. You are also probably using VLD bullets which fly a bit better than the boat tail spitzers of the pre war era. I had been figuring about 35 grains of powder pushing a 140 grain bullet to around 2600 fps to 2650 fps from perhaps a 22 inch barrel.
Perhaps we should really take this into another thread?
My own loads for the M14 / M1A are just about anyone's 168 grain HPBT Match (I used a lot of Hornady's because I got them cheap) with either IMR 4064, W748, or IMR 4895 and match or BR primer. Exact powder charge varies slightly but runs about 43.5 grains or 42.5 grains or so depending on lot of powder to push bullets to around 2625-2640 fps for 7 foot instrumental velocity.
My basic idea is to duplicate the Federal .308 Match load or M852 and this combination seems to do it pretty reliably.
The only big gotcha is NOT to use standard Federal rifle primers. It doesn't seem to matter so much with the M1A / M14, but with other semi autos, they will cause slam fires. The same thing does not seem to happen with Federal Match primers.

- Ivan.


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 1, 2018)

Well, trying to back on track, you can duplicate (or come darn close) the ballistics = trajectory/wind drift of the .308 NM Load with a 6.5 using a BT bullet of between 120-130 grains and not a VLD either. 
You can certainly duplicate the 7.62 NATO with it's 147-150 grain bullet and skimpy BT. Original goal of the .308 was to duplicate the .30-06 M2 load which used a 150 grain flat base bullet. 

Now going back to our "Ideal" rifle we would be smart to ask what we want it to do. Unlike the US which asked for a rifle of the power of the M-1 Garand with the M2 ball, weighing 2lbs less than the M-1 and firing full auto to boot (and with 20 round magazine), an obvious recipe for disaster  

Most people consider the German StG 44 and AK 47 as too short ranged to be "ideal" even though they were a good compromise. They did a number of studies and found that about 50% or rifle use was at 200yds or under and something like 95-98% was under 400 yds (could be meters?). The problems come in when the same/similar studies came up with 50% of machine gun use being over 400yds/meters so you can't use the short range rifle cartridge in the squad/company machineguns. You also have to be careful about designing to "averages" as that means you are going to be at a varying degree of disadvantage 50% of the time. How far you tip to one side or the other is the big question.

Giving every trooper a 1000yd rifle isn't a really good answer as very few troops can really make any use of such a rifle at that distance or indeed hundreds of yards short of that distance. However the StG 44, AK 47 and M-16 can leave the troops with little in the way of effective return fire _should _the ranges open out to 400 yds or beyond. 
We could try to define a 'danger' space, like a distance above and below the line of sight that our "soldier" could hit without changing the sight (battlesight range), we could also see what might be an acceptable amount of wind drift at a given range. 
We may find that 500-600yd _effective _range is all that is needed or perhaps all that is obtainable without sacrificing something else. 
By going to the 6.5mm caliber and adding about 300fps to the 7.62x39 we can get much better long range ballistics without a major increase in recoil or even a major increase in raw materials for the cartridges.
In a 10lb (empty) rifle we may even get somewhat useable full auto fire with a modest muzzle brake.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 1, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> ...
> We may find that 500-600yd _effective _range is all that is needed or perhaps all that is obtainable without sacrificing something else.
> By going to the 6.5mm caliber and adding about 300fps to the 7.62x39 we can get much better long range ballistics without a major increase in recoil or even a major increase in raw materials for the cartridges.
> In a 10lb (empty) rifle we may even get somewhat useable full auto fire with a modest muzzle brake.



The 6.5mm Grendel is basically the Russian cartridge with new, fast bullet. 
Gossips have it that Serbians are moving to the Grendel for their new rifle. Makes plenty of sense - for a slight change of tooling they will get a far more accurate rifle, especially past 300 m. Less susceptible to the wind drift, too.


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 1, 2018)

The 6.5 Grendel is interesting, I _may_ build one day as I have a mini-mauser in 7.62x 39 and the old barrel from the 6.5 x308 that can be cut off and rechambered. 
However the 6.5 Grendel and 6.9 x43 SPC show the limitations of legacy weapons development.




Because both cartridges are limited in overall length so as to fit AR-15 magazines and magazine wells they are limited in bullet length (ballistic coefficient) or long bullets suck up powder space. 
With a clean sheet of paper gun both cartridges could use high ballistic coefficient bullets and have more volume for powder.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 2, 2018)

The 6.5mm 'lineup' picture: link
6.5mm Creedmoor offers ~20% greater muzzle energy than the 6.5mm Grendel, quirk being that your national miltary rifle factory will indeed have to came out with a brand new rifle & tooling for that rifle to use the 6.5mm Creedmoor.
An interesting round for 'our' rifle might've been the .25-3000 Savage, but using a heavier (110-120 gr) bullet rather than the light & fast one (75-90 gr).


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 2, 2018)

The .250 Savage is a nice hunting round and is rather underappreciated now. However as a military cartridge, especially for a large capacity magazine is has more taper in the body than may be desired. Not as bad as the .303 or the 7.62 X 54 rimmed rounds. 
It also uses the same rim/body diameter as the 30-06 and 8mm mauser. 
Using a skinnier body _may _allow you to fit 11 rounds in the space of 10 or even a bit more in a double column magazine or make your 20 round magazine a bit smaller. Whether this is of any practical difference I don't know  
The .250 Savage is one of the cartridges that made P O Ackley's reputation. When he modified it he not only changed the shoulder angle he took out a lot of the body taper and gained most of the increase in powder capacity that way. With the available powders of the time he came pretty close to the max ballistics you could get in a .25 cal bore. The Bigger .257 Roberts and .25-06 used a lot more powder for very little increase in velocity. Post-war the story changed with the greater availability of slower burning powders.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Feb 2, 2018)

Hello Gentlemen,
I don't mind a discussion of the merits of rifle cartridges but neither the 6.5 Creedmoor or the .250-3000 really fit in with the available technology or the proper parameters of a general issue military rifle cartridge in my opinion.
Shortround6, your comment about the excessive taper of the .250-3000 is interesting because there have obviously been much more tapered rounds that have been quite successful in military rifles and automatics: the .303 British and 7.62 mm x 39 being very prominent examples.

As I see it, a cartridge with the powder capacity of the .250-3000 would just about guarantee a fairly short barrel life especially for a full automatic.
The 6.5 Creedmoor also seems to me to be too much case capacity and pressure and overall length for the caliber, especially considering that VLD bullets would have been a pretty radical departure in technology for the time.

Hello Shortround6,
I believe in general, we are pretty close in agreement but for about 100 fps muzzle velocity and 10-20 grains of bullet weight.
I was getting pretty specific about cartridge shape but realistically these are features that can be added to anything without changes to the basic performance parameters.

I agree that there is no reason to ensure that every infantry rifle be capable of 1000 yard accuracy, but there is also no reason to ensure that the standard infantry rifle be incapable of effective fire at 1000 yards either.
My basic reason for selecting a 140 grain 6.5 mm bullet was for terminal effect on the target. Although a lighter bullet may still be accurate at a distance, there needs to be some minimal bullet mass for wounding effect because the retained velocity will be fairly low.
I was hoping for an effective range of at least 600 yards and closer to 800 yards if possible.
The main reason for wanting 2600-2650 fps muzzle velocity was to ensure a relatively flat trajectory that was at least comparable to the .30-06 M2 Ball.
The M1903 Springfield had a battle sight zero of 275 yards (?) for a maximum point blank range of 550 yards and I would hope that its replacement could achieve similar results. I do not have a ballistics program to check, but the velocity should be sufficient so that the midrange trajectory out to 550 yards with a 140 grain bullet should be no more than 30 inches but with a flat base bullet.
The reason for checking ballistics with a flat base bullet is that computer programs tend to be somewhat optimistic and real world ballistics tend to be not quite as good. When this is combined with less than match grade barrels and military production bullets, things may get a bit worse than expected.

Now with a higher recoil round, the controllability of full automatic fire might be a bit worse, but keep in mind that full auto fire from a rifle is not really a long range proposition. Also, there are other factors that can compensate for recoil to an extent: muzzle brakes, straight line stocks, and even a reduction in cyclic rate. Given a choice between effective range and lethality versus easily controlled full auto fire, I believe range and lethality are more important but it is really a balance and subject to opinion.

Regarding lethality: As I have heard from folks and found in articles, the AK-47 round is really somewhat inadequate for stopping power; There are a lot of guys who have been shot with AK's and are still walking around. My own experience on the firing ranges suggests that the AK-47 bullet (125 grains at 2350 fps) really doesn't penetrate all that well. It is the only common rifle bullet besides black powder and .22 rimfire that can be found on the surface of the backstop after it has rained. Other rifle bullets dig themselves much deeper.
Bottom line is that although the 7.62 x 39 functions well in an assault rifle, it really is a bit under powered.

- Ivan.


----------



## The Basket (Feb 2, 2018)

If you love 6.5mm Japanese but want a handy rifle then the Arisaka Type 44 with folding bayonet is your poison.
Better than a AK for 600 metres.


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 2, 2018)

In regards to cartridge taper, the thread title does say "ideal". 

The .303 was a legacy cartridge (like the 8mm Lebel and the 7.62X 54 Russian) the .303 was originally loaded with black powder in 1888 was only 9 years out from the rolled brass foil and iron head .450/.577 Martini–Henry Ammo that famously jammed if looked at wrong. 
The science/technology of drawn cartridge cases advanced quite a bit from the 1890s to the 1930s and even more today. Likewise propellants (British had problems with cordite causing higher pressures in hot climates than nitrocellulose powders) which meant the "ideal" cartridge shape of 1890-95 may very well be not the same "ideal" cartridge shape of 1938-39 let alone today. Brass in general, has more 'spring' that steel. That is to say it will expand more and shrink back more than the soft steel used in military cases (this assumes good quality brass, not always the case in war time ammo). The taper used on the 7.92 X 33 and 7.62 X 39 _may_ be due to the planned use of steel cases and the desire to minimize extraction problems in hot guns (full auto) using such cases. Or not, it may have been due to the conservative members of the selection committee.  

Tapered cases have been used, doesn't mean they are "ideal" but then really straight cases may present a few problems of their own. 

The .250-3000 has somewhat less powder capacity than the .308 Remington and in fact is about 1/2 way between the 6.5 Grendel and the .308. 
My short 6.5 had about 10% more capacity than the Grendel. 

Here is picture of some bullets.




Scrapping the VLD form for the WW II era we can see that the 6.5mm 120 has about the same or better sectional density that 147-150 grain .30 cal bullets and should have similar penetration (at least in soft stuff). The 140 doesn't give enough recoil reduction and needs a quicker twist and has more bullet length in contact with the bore (more friction). If we want full auto, even as a sometimes option, dropping bullet weight 10 grains (6-7%) isn't going to do it even with a muzzle brake. 
The 120 will give a 20% reduction and will hit at any practical range (including 1000 yds) with about 75-80% energy of the .30-06 150 grain load.
At some ranges (700-800yds) it will hit with twice the energy of the 7.62 X 39. 

Yes the 140 will do even better but what are you giving up to get it?


----------



## fastmongrel (Feb 3, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> rolled brass foil and iron head .450/.577 Martini–Henry Ammo that famously jammed if looked at wrong.



There was more to the Martini problems in the Sudan campaign than just the ammunition.
The Martini-Henry Rifle


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 3, 2018)

Ivan1GFP said:


> Hello Gentlemen,
> I don't mind a discussion of the merits of rifle cartridges but neither the 6.5 Creedmoor or the .250-3000 really fit in with the available technology or the proper parameters of a general issue military rifle cartridge in my opinion.
> Shortround6, your comment about the excessive taper of the .250-3000 is interesting because there have obviously been much more tapered rounds that have been quite successful in military rifles and automatics: the .303 British and 7.62 mm x 39 being very prominent examples.
> 
> ...



The .250 Savage with 120 gr bullet probably wouldn't be a barrel burner. The round was 'invented' in 1915.



> ...
> Regarding lethality: As I have heard from folks and found in articles, the AK-47 round is really somewhat inadequate for stopping power; There are a lot of guys who have been shot with AK's and are still walking around. My own experience on the firing ranges suggests that the AK-47 bullet (125 grains at 2350 fps) really doesn't penetrate all that well. It is the only common rifle bullet besides black powder and .22 rimfire that can be found on the surface of the backstop after it has rained. Other rifle bullets dig themselves much deeper.
> Bottom line is that although the 7.62 x 39 functions well in an assault rifle, it really is a bit under powered.
> 
> - Ivan.



Let's not mix three things - stopping power, penetration capability, and the fact that some people have more luck than others. The AK-47 round will not kill anyone that got hit into hand, leg, or even some part of torso, provided the victim received prompt and half-decent mecical care. Stopping power of that round was certainly bigger than 5.56, probably better than of the 7.92 Kurtz, and perhaps two times as good of the PPSh submachine gun. Penetration will not be as good when compared with cartridges firing much faster bullets, but it was certainly good to hurt a person behind car doors or similar obstacle.
More about luck in combat: my grandfather was hit by the blunt side of an axe back in ww2, laid down without conscience for several hours, got help from people from his unit, and lived another 40 years. The nasty scar was visible just above his ear.
Back in 1993, I was peeking through the 5x1 ft opening towards Bosnian Serb positions just north of Dubrovnik, Croatia. Someone from there fired a bullet that went two feet to my right. With less luck on my part, that someone might've been a bette shot and hit what he intended to hit.
In my brigade, from 1993-95, we have had perhaps two people killed by rifle bullet, but also 6-7 people that got killed by land mines (2-3 of them after the armistice!), and perhaps as much by artillery/mortar fire.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Feb 3, 2018)

Hello Tomo Pauk,



tomo pauk said:


> The .250 Savage with 120 gr bullet probably wouldn't be a barrel burner. The round was 'invented' in 1915.



Age really has nothing to do with things. The British Pattern 14 / Rifle No.3 / M1917 Enfield was originally designed with a different cartridge which turned out to have too short a barrel life to be useful. Perhaps you are right. The .25 calibers do split the difference nicely between the rather tiny 6 mm and the 6.5 mm. I haven't played much with guns in .25 caliber recently and mine were a bit bigger.



tomo pauk said:


> Let's not mix three things - stopping power, penetration capability, and the fact that some people have more luck than others. The AK-47 round will not kill anyone that got hit into hand, leg, or even some part of torso, provided the victim received prompt and half-decent mecical care. Stopping power of that round was certainly bigger than 5.56, probably better than of the 7.92 Kurtz, and perhaps two times as good of the PPSh submachine gun. Penetration will not be as good when compared with cartridges firing much faster bullets, but it was certainly good to hurt a person behind car doors or similar obstacle.
> .



It is interesting that you should contrast this to a 5.56 because the rest of that quote was that "There are fewer guys walking around today who have been shot with a .223". Apparently this high lethality for the .223 is only good out to about 200 yards because past that, there is so much velocity lost that the bullet does not disintegrate. I only know what I read on the subject.... and to an extent what I have learned from disassembling deer that have been shot. I personally don't hunt, but I have examined the wounds from quite a few deer. Unfortunately, the bullets tend to be very well placed in the chest cavity, so the big difference is really whether the bullet hit a rib going in or not. There have also been a few hits in heavy muscle that obviously were not so well placed.

Hello Shortround6,

There is very little difference between our choices. You favour a lower recoil impulse while I favour greater hitting power.
As for bullet bearing surface and friction, that is really just a rather esoteric consideration in my opinion. The difference is really fairly small and using the 6.5 mm Swede as a model, the heavier bullets obviously worked. Whether they would be still necessary with a better ballistic shape is where we are disagreeing.
In the hypothetical world where this 6.5 mm rifle cartridge would exist, any number of things might happen.
I suspect that no matter how the original design went, it would probably end up with a light bullet anyway because if the military is willing to equip soldiers with assault rifles and M1 Carbines, then obviously not a high as I would like.

- Ivan.


----------



## The Basket (Feb 4, 2018)

A car door is not an obstacle for a bullet. And a shot to the leg will kill if it hits the artery.
So here is the deal.
You can choose any variant of the SVD Dragunov Yugo, Chinese, Romanian or Soviet or any variant of the AK-74 or AKM. 
If you choose the SVD then it will be street fighting against multiple targets in buildings and also using the bayonet.
If you choose the AKM it will be against snipers at night using only iron sights using Canadian law 5 round mags.
Choose wisely.


----------



## The Basket (Feb 4, 2018)

Reading the comments is not the ideal rifle but the ideal target rifle.
What a combat rifle and what a target rifle is nothing to do with each other.
The perfect combat rifle is something that fires a round when you're covered in mud and your own poop for weeks and you haven't slept in days in a water filled fox hole and you're hungry and tired and all you want to do is go home. In that scenario who cares if it's 5.56mm. maybe the soldier is wearing mittens or NBC suit and the enemy is shelling you.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Elmas (Feb 4, 2018)

Probably has been already said, 6,5 Carcano had a progressive rifling.


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 4, 2018)

I don't get too excited about the difference between a .25 caliber (.257 bullet diameter) and the 6.5s (.263-.264 bullet diameter, Italians excepted) as it is about the smallest 'step' between popular calibers. What was more important most of the time was that the .25 cal rifles were made with slower twist rifling and commonly available bullets tended to be pretty poor for long range work, like 117 grain round nose. The 6.5s had quicker twist and heavier bullets in general.
There was no reason you couldn't get a quick twist .25 cal barrel made and some custom bullets but why bother.

Everybody has a bit different idea was to what constitutes "ideal" but if you use a a bullet almost as heavy as the .30-06 (in singe digits percentage wise) you are going to need more powder to drive it the same speed. The larger diameter bullets have a greater 'piston' area and are more efficient. Please see velocities of the .243, the .308 and the .358 Winchester with similar weight bullets. Or put another way, you need more powder to accelerate higher sectional density bullets to the same speed. 

Smokeless powder is strange stuff, the more pressure it is under the faster it burns and creates more pressure. This is why when you are operating near the limit things like the friction of the long bullets (or perhaps the effort to engrave rifling on a larger area of the bullet?) matter. If you are willing to back off 50-100fps on the velocity the problems go away. 
For WW II you had less knowledge about powders than you have today. For instance the IMR series of powders that seem old hat today were first introduced in the mid 1930s and showed considerable improvement over the powders they replaced. Ball powder was _introduced _during WW II But " ball propellants metered more uniformly through measuring machinery used to load cartridges, had a longer storage life in loaded cartridges, and reduced erosion of rifle barrels when those cartridges were fired. On the other hand, ball propellant loadings were more difficult to ignite, produced brighter muzzle flash, and left heavier fouling in rifle barrels than had been common with IMR propellants. Some ball propellants burned satisfactorily over a narrower pressure range than IMR propellants." The fouling problem is part of what lead to the early M-16 fiasco in Vietnam. 

as far as wounding/kill ability and penetration go, they are actually conflicting requirements. And for penetration you have decide what, a metal plate or certain amount of wood or sand or........
The old 6mm Lee navy (112 grain round nose FMJ) was claimed to go through 60 7/8s in soft pine boards at 15ft. This assumes that the bullet stays point on during it's journey through the wood. However it's ability to inflict grievous wounds (except for organs/bones directly in it's path) is rather dubious. 
Winchester claimed penetrations of 56 boards for a 215 grain FMJ .303 British load and even 50 boards for a 170 grain FMJ .30-30 (I have no idea what that load was intended for but it is in the catalog). Penetration of soft points fell to 12, 13 and 11 respectively. Bullets that yaw and turn sideways will obviously have much less penetration in such a test but will have better wounding/killing ability depending on how soon they yaw. 
Unhardened steel plate can actually have holes punched in it by softnose nose ammunition, let alone FMJ, depending on thickness but effect behind the plate is pretty much limited to the metal blown out of the plate and the pretty much molten lead that squirts through the hole, see tank masks in WW I. A fair amount of the lead/jacket will be splashed over the face of the plate. Steel cored ammo works better on barriers but doesn't work so good for wounding/killing (unless it yaws) but steel core ammo is lighter than lead core and screws up the sectional density. Yes there is steel core 5.56 but if the same shape bullet had an entirely lead core it would be heavier. 

First requirement should be getting hits at any practical range. And practical is a lot shorter than 1000 yds and yet longer than 300yds if proper training is given.

Ease of use ties in with above. Some troops are _never _going to be good rifle shots no matter what rifle you give them. Some will do better with lighter recoiling rifles and with some it doesn't really matter unless you start issuing elephant guns  
A soldier who has confidence in his weapon and his ability with it is "more likely" to use it properly in combat. No guarantee he won't just stick it up over a wall at arms length and pull the trigger if he fires at all though. 






Smaller/lighter cartridges are cheaper and ease the logistic/raw material burden. Shaving even 10% in weight of some components can result in savings of thousands of tons of raw materials. 

Infantry rifles, while they are the base of the army (or tied with LMGs) are not operating alone most of the time. The mentioned LMGs, handgrenades for house/bunker/trench clearing (subject to supply), rifle grenades/small mortars were often supplied at squad/platoon level and at company level even somewhat heavier weapons (or optional equipment, ie heavy tripods) showed up. 
An "ideal" rifle has to integrate with the system.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Feb 4, 2018)

The Basket said:


> A car door is not an obstacle for a bullet. And a shot to the leg will kill if it hits the artery.
> So here is the deal.
> You can choose any variant of the SVD Dragunov Yugo, Chinese, Romanian or Soviet or any variant of the AK-74 or AKM.
> If you choose the SVD then it will be street fighting against multiple targets in buildings and also using the bayonet.
> ...



Hello The Basket,

Basically what you are saying is that any round will kill if it hits in the right place, but it is more a matter of increasing the number of "right places" that got us to this discussion. A .22 LR will do the same thing if it hits an artery (maybe not quite as much) but it is hardly the stuff you want all your troops to be armed with as a standard weapon. If it were, then I suppose the M1 Carbine round would do even better and we know historically that it did not do so well.

As for SVD clones, you need to distinguish between the true clones of the SVD such as the Chinese NDM-86 or the stretched versions of the AK-47 such as the Yugoslav guns. I don't know about some of the others, but I believe the Romanian is also a stretched AK.
The way to tell from a distance is that the AK clones have a Top-Bottom handguard while Dragunov clones have a Left-Right handguard.
The gas system is actually quite different with the AK clones having a piston pinned to the bolt carrier.
Also, superficially the bolts from both guns will look very similar, but they rotate in opposite directions to lock. This can be seen by looking through the magazine well while slowly cycling the bolt.

Hello Shortround6,

The big advantage of ball powders in this application is that they are denser and have a higher energy content for the same volume.
Thus it might let you go to a smaller cartridge case for the same performance.

The big problem with the fouling in the thin little gas tubes of Vietnam era M16 rifles was mostly due to the formulation of the ball propellants of the time:
Ball (sorry to Winchester for infringing on their trademarked name) propellants are formulated from Nitrocellulose and Nitroglycerin while the IMR "stick" powders were Nitrocellulose (generalizing a bit here). The problem was that there was some residual nitric acid left in the ball powder and the government was concerned that it would affect shelf life. They added a chemical to neutralize the acid residue and the result upon combustion was Calcium Carbonate deposits. They did not make much if any difference in the bigger bore weapons but in the soda straw gas tube of the M16, they left deposits that could not be removed. The gas tubes are not user maintainable. The issue was resolved long ago and ball powders (double base propellants) are no issue at all in the AR-15 / M16 platform today.

Regarding the differences in flash between ball powder versus stick / IMR powders, it is really a matter of the deterrent coatings. I personally have loaded "IMR 4895" that I bought in bulk that had noticeably greater flash than regular IMR 4895. This was confirmed by my shooting buddies who had also bought from the same lot. There was no noticeable velocity difference or pressure indications or even visual difference between what we bought and regular canister IMR 4895.

Regarding cost differences between bullets because of a few percent difference in weight of materials, keep in mind that bullets are about the least expensive thing in the military budget. In the big scheme of things, these differences are so far down in the noise as to be meaningless.
Thousands of tons of raw material sounds serious but is pretty trivial when compared to the resources expended for other weapons.
If you are really looking for greater savings, reduce the weight of the HMG 12.7 / 13.2 / 14.5 mm bullets by 20-30 grains each..... Or perhaps make medium artillery rounds a pound lighter?

I believe you made a pretty good argument about why a 120 grain bullet was sufficient in the military 6.5 mm cartridge, but the pressure difference with a longer bullet isn't a very strong argument. A military cartridge should be designed with a fair amount of margin for pressure to account for differences in climate, temperature, etc, so if it is that marginal with its intended bullet weight, it should have been designed differently from the beginning.
Consider also that we are theorizing on the best approach to a military rifle cartridge along with a delivery platform. The fact that a .25 caliber historically has had a slower twist or that a 6.5 mm typically has a faster twist doesn't matter because we would also be specifying the requirements for the rifle and not just piecing things together as we do today as hobbyists.

- Ivan.


----------



## The Basket (Feb 4, 2018)

Pretty much every military round will kill due to infection.


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 4, 2018)

In reverse order, a .257 bullet that weighs 117 grains has a sectional density of .253, a .264 bullet that weighs 123 grains has a sectional density of .252. 

An army could specify whatever they want based on theories or prejudices, but with so small a real life difference the actual results are going to be just about identical. Please note that a .224 bullet needs to weigh 90 grains to get to .256 Sectional density, a 7mm bullet needs to weigh 140 grains for .246, and .308 bullet needs to weigh 168 grains to reach .253 and an 8mm bullet would have to weigh 185 grains to hit .253. 
Ballistic coefficient is not sectional density. 

I calculated in another thread that the .276 Enfield cartridge of Pre WW I era would have cost the British alone over 6000 tons of cordite if produced at the same rate as .303 ammo in WW I. I didn't bother with any other raw materials. 6000 tons of propellent isn't exactly trivial. 

For most anybody but the US the amount of heavy machine gun ammo was trivial in comparison to the amount of rifle caliber ammo. Especially in "Army" use as opposed to aircraft use. 

the question may very well be if you want to replace the battalion HMGs (Vickers, M1917s, Maxims and so on) with the smaller cartridge or if you want to keep the older full size ammo for such weapons. A summer of 1941 list for the Americans shows 8250 rounds for each 1917 machine gun, 6000 rounds for each 1919 air cooled gun, around 1700 rounds for each BAR and 328 rounds for each M1 Garand. Granted there are an awful lot of M1s in the battalion. BTW each .50 cal machinegun (listed as an anti-tank machinegun at this time) had 2800 rounds per gun. 

Ball powder was in it's infancy (barely out of the cradle) in WW II, whatever its attributes later. It's use in a WW II "ideal" cartridge might be fine, it might be questionable. The Americans used for lend lease .303 ammo but not much else.


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 4, 2018)

duplicate


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 4, 2018)

The Basket said:


> Pretty much every military round will kill due to infection.



The .22 short was noted for that but that is hardly the cartridge you want to go into combat with, stopping the other guy from shooting back at you is the goal of the soldiers even if not the goal of the number crunchers who came up with the idea that one wounded soldier took 2-3 others out of the fight to care for him. 

No cartridge is going to work 100% of the time in 100% of the possible situations. However getting one to work a large majority of the time shouldn't be all that difficult.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Feb 4, 2018)

Hello The Basket,

Killing via infection and occupying 2-3 other soldiers by wounding one isn't really optimal from a tactical standpoint.
The fellow who will die from infection in a month will still be causing a lot of mischief before that.
The wounded fellow who needs a couple stretcher bearers to leave the battlefield occupies those assets later, after everything has been decided on the battlefield. The chances are pretty good that the wounded soldier will be back in service at some point instead of just requiring another few guys for a burial detail. The returning soldier means one less soldier needs to be trained.

Hello Shortround6,

Perhaps there is not much difference between a .25 caliber and .264 caliber for sectional density. That wasn't the argument I was trying to make. It wasn't about Ballistic Coefficient either though that helps. I was really thinking of hitting power or momentum transferred to the target which only involves mass and terminal velocity. How fast that transfer happens is a function of bullet design and obviously we are discussing Hague Convention stuff rather than hunting bullets. There are a few tricks that have been used in the past, but I think they are beyond the scope here.

Regarding the differences of 6000 tons of Cordite if the British had switched to the .276 cal P13 rifle:
How does that 6000 tons compare to the total amount of Cordite or other propellant used in everything else the British used during the war?
I am thinking Naval Guns, Land Artillery, Small Arms, etc.? I bet the percentage is pretty small.
Suppose that the introduction of a new cartridge would have SAVED 6000 tons of propellant.
Would it be worth the logistics issues of introducing another cartridge in 1913?
What happens to existing rifles and machine guns or do the British end up with a bunch of different calibers like the Japanese did in WW2?

Your listing of ammunition is for what the military unit is supposed to have in its possession.
A better question would be what are the ammunition expenditures PER DAY for the same battalion in combat?
That number is much more meaningful because it is the amount of production needed to sustain the unit.
For a unit engaged in combat, the ammunition expended is only a small part of the logistics needed to sustain.
There is also the wastage of equipment which is much harder to replace, the casualties which generally cannot be sustained, and of course the matter of keeping the unit fed and supplied with fuel.
A few hundred rounds of rifle ammunition per soldier is pretty low on the scale of difficult things to supply.

Regarding Ball Powder / Spherical Powder / Double Base Propellants:
I used this as a generic term for double base propellants. They may have been unusual in US military rifle ammunition but keep in mind that Cordite is also double base and was in British service since about the turn of the century. The Europeans (I know for sure the Germans) also used some double base flake type propellants in rifle cartridges. You mentioned US production of .303 British, but I believe ..30 Cal Carbine ammunition was also loaded with "ball powder". I am actually pretty sure that ball / spherical / double base propellants were used in some lots of military .30-06 quite some time before the war. 
If you look at the history of canister (for reloaders) double base propellants, some date back way before WW2.
This was hardly a new technology for the time. 

- Ivan.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Feb 4, 2018)

A wounded soldier becomes a burden and needs medevac and this uses up resources and so on. Most soldiers shot with high powered rifle ww2 rounds ain't going to be combat ready so it's safe to say the war is over for them guys.
The P13 was designed for a very small expedition force whose role was to go to some far flung remote hellhole and shoot the natives. It wasn't to face millions of Germans in a muddy bog. So it was designed for empire policing and not war. The P13 was nowhere near ready and certainly not ready in 1914. So it's use of cordite would be negligible in the shooting native scheme of things. Although not getting rid of the 303 was a missed opportunity.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Hansie Bloeckmann (Feb 4, 2018)

The Basket said:


> A wounded soldier becomes a burden and needs medevac and this uses up resources and so on. Most soldiers shot with high powered rifle ww2 rounds ain't going to be combat ready so it's safe to say the war is over for them guys.
> The P13 was designed for a very small expedition force whose role was to go to some far flung remote hellhole and shoot the natives. It wasn't to face millions of Germans in a muddy bog. So it was designed for empire policing and not war. The P13 was nowhere near ready and certainly not ready in 1914. So it's use of cordite would be negligible in the shooting native scheme of things. Although not getting rid of the 303 was a missed opportunity.


----------



## fastmongrel (Feb 5, 2018)

The Basket said:


> Although not getting rid of the 303 was a missed opportunity.



Adopting a rimless round would be a good idea. I think the small calibre rounds are not ideal as Shortround has explained so which would be the ideal round to adopt. I like the look of the Belgian 7.65x53mm Mauser round it is almost identical to the .303 in performance, case capacity, bullet weight and uses a virtually identical diameter bullet 7.94mm compared to .312" 7.92mm. Its within the .303 tolerance which iirc went up to .318" so its possible the original .303 barrels could be re-used.

7.65×53mm Mauser - Wikipedia
.303 British - Wikipedia

Reactions: Dislike Dislike:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 5, 2018)

Trying to reuse barrels is a false economy. Unless you are trying to make RSMLE rifles (REALLY Short Magazine Lee Enfield) as you usually have to take the barrels off, cut them back a bit and then rechamber to make sure you have cleaned up the chamber area. the question is how far you have to cut them off. 




Surplus SMLE barrels. two with parts of the receiver still attached. You don't have a lot of "meat" out in the barrel. If you have to cut off very much of the threads you are moving the mouth of the chamber out into the thin part of the barrel. If you are trying to save the sights you have to cut the barrels off in full turns of the threads (and that gets very tricky screwing them back into the receiver to get the the sights back on top.) Or you pull the sights off and reinstall them. 




2nd from top may never have been fitted on a gun. 

Manufacturing got a lot better from the 1890s/ before WW I to the 1930s and barrel tolerances were reduced. Yes you could gauge the barrels and scrap the really oversized ones. 
If you are going to use the old barrels on a new receiver do you want to keep the old threads? 

If you are building guns by the 10s of thousands (if not 100s of thousands) you may be better off just building everything from new and eliminating a lot of the handfit/hand select work needed by old parts. 

I actually think a 6.5mm rifle and LMG might have been the way to go in WW II, at least for some countries. I just don't expect the 6.5mm to do ALL the jobs the 7.62-8mm machine guns did.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Feb 5, 2018)

The Basket said:


> A wounded soldier becomes a burden and needs medevac and this uses up resources and so on. Most soldiers shot with high powered rifle ww2 rounds ain't going to be combat ready so it's safe to say the war is over for them guys.
> The P13 was designed for a very small expedition force whose role was to go to some far flung remote hellhole and shoot the natives. It wasn't to face millions of Germans in a muddy bog. So it was designed for empire policing and not war. The P13 was nowhere near ready and certainly not ready in 1914. So it's use of cordite would be negligible in the shooting native scheme of things. Although not getting rid of the 303 was a missed opportunity.



Hello The Basket,
It really depends on where the soldier gets shot. In an old Soldier of Fortune magazine there was a pretty good article about wound ballistics and how much tissue a bullet needs to go through before it starts to yaw and produce a large permanent wound cavity. I suppose the general conclusion from this article was that caliber pretty much didn't make that much difference unless we start discussing really high velocity stuff like the .223 that starts to yaw very quickly and then disintegrates into multiple missiles.
In a lot of places on the torso, I suppose it really doesn't matter what the caliber is because almost anything will do.

It IS rather interesting that the descendant of the P13 ended up in the trenches facing hundreds of thousands of Germans anyway.

The cartridge used in the P13 just was not right for whatever reason. It apparently eroded barrels pretty quickly. Perhaps it was something that could have been fixed but we will never know.

Hello Shortround6,
Regarding double base propellants, it turns out that my recollection was not correct that it was used in the .30-06 before the war.
Quite a few other powders were used but they were apparently all single base powders. The actual use of a double base propellant was in early loadings for the .30-40 Krag. There is mention of it along with other double base powders of the time in Hatcher's Notebook starting around page 313. Hercules Bullseye was a notable powder in use at the time that is still in use today.

Tracing the history of various brands of powders gets to be very confusing at times because often there is one manufacturer but another company that markets it. Or even worse is when the original manufacturer (Winchester) may manufacture the powder and market it under one name while another company (Hodgdon) markets "the same" powder under a different name. One might think the two would be interchangeable but they are not because although they are manufactured by the same process in the same shop, the result may meet one set of pressure specifications but not the other. This is just for canister grade powders.
With non-canister grade, the factories have a pretty easy job: They test the lot and know it is suitable for perhaps a .30-06 cartridge and load a million rounds and are done. If the home reloader gets some of this stuff, they generally have no pressure testing equipment and perhaps it came with a data sheet listing a couple calibers (such as .30-06). If the reloader gets "really smart" and figures that the stuff looks just like IMR 4895 and decides to load it in something with a radically different pressure (such as a .45-70), they might be in for an unpleasant surprise. There is a lot more to this, but it is definitely off topic.
I suspect that batch of "IMR 4895" that I got was probably from a non-canister lot but it worked great in a .30-06.

- Ivan.


----------



## Hansie Bloeckmann (Feb 5, 2018)

Ivan1GFP said:


> Hello The Basket,
> It really depends on where the soldier gets shot. In an old Soldier of Fortune magazine there was a pretty good article about wound ballistics and how much tissue a bullet needs to go through before it starts to yaw and produce a large permanent wound cavity. I suppose the general conclusion from this article was that caliber pretty much didn't make that much difference unless we start discussing really high velocity stuff like the .223 that starts to yaw very quickly and then disintegrates into multiple missiles.
> In a lot of places on the torso, I suppose it really doesn't matter what the caliber is because almost anything will do.
> 
> ...


What is the difference between canister lots of gun powder, and any other type used today, for either commercial or military ammo? I do not reload, I prefer Hornady or Federal ammo for my CF rifles, and Federal or RST for my shotguns. Hansie


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 5, 2018)

For arsenal loading (or commercial factory) if a batch of powder (10,000lbs or whatever size batch they deal with) is a little bit "off" they just change the amount of powder used to give the ballistics desired (as long as they are still safe). This was the way the US did it for years. Specification for ammo never listed a powder charge in grains, It was always written as a the charge needed to get the desired velocity, type of powder was often not even specified as it was meaningless in regards to what the private citizen could get. 
For canister grade (commercial sale) powder things get a bit tricker. If lot 87B burns just a bit quicker than lot 86A you can wind up wrecking rifles as the same amount of powder will give higher pressures. If the new lot burns a bit slower you get a bit lower velocity but still be safe. In the days before personal chronographs they may have gotten away with it. Nowadays somebody is going to post to a message board that Lot 87B is crap/defective. 
Reloading manuals always used to state (and maybe still do) that when switching to a new lot of powder the reloader should back off 10% and work his/her way back up to the charges used before if the charge was at the high end of the recommendations. 
Very few reloaders have personal pressure reading equipment although it is not totally out of reach of home experimenters.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Feb 5, 2018)

Hansie Bloeckmann said:


> What is the difference between canister lots of gun powder, and any other type used today, for either commercial or military ammo? I do not reload, I prefer Hornady or Federal ammo for my CF rifles, and Federal or RST for my shotguns. Hansie



Hello Hansie Bloeckmann,
Shortround6 covered the general idea pretty well, but there is a bit more that I was hinting at with my prior post.
Commercial / Military factories buy a lot of powder, test to see variations as Shortround6 described and then use it up. The chances are pretty good that if the factory makes many different calibers, the powder will be suited to at least one caliber.
There are many more powders that are used in industry that are not available in a canister grade; there are probably at least a dozen times more non-canister powder types. Sometimes even a lot of powder made with the process that is used for a branded canister grade powder does not end up meeting ALL the pressure tests and is sold as non-canister lot.

As an example of the kinds of pressure testing that a canister lot must pass, I will use Hercules Blue Dot.
(The description is hypothetical of course.)
Blue Dot is a powder that is suitable for a wide range of pistol cartridge applications.
It can be used in medium-low pressure pistol rounds, and even fairly high pressure pistol rounds.
Let's say that this lot of "Blue Dot" works fine in loading the .45 ACP and .38 Special standard loads with pressures and velocity as expected.
Let's also say that this lot seems to have some inconsistencies when loading for higher pressure rounds such as a .357 Magnum or a .38 Super or a 9 mm Parabellum.
It should not be sold as canister grade because it cannot meet all of the applications that are claimed for the product but a factory would have no problem with it.
As stated before, this is just a hypothetical story to illustrate a possible situation. I actually find Hercules (now Alliant) Blue Dot to be a very useful product.

As another example (real this time), Winchester W846 was used in military .303 British loads and also eventually for 7.62 NATO ammunition.
After the end of WW2, Bruce Hodgdon bought a mess of this powder and marketed it as BL-C(2) for reloaders. Of course it is no longer a "Ball Powder" because that is a Winchester trademark, so it would be called a "Spherical" powder instead....
The background of some of this stuff can get pretty interesting but I would suggest never to get too creative when reloading you own ammunition. That is why I pick a powder that well suited for the purpose and a velocity that can easily be achieved without a maximum load and just leave it at that.

By the way, regarding double base powders in military .30-06 loads, perhaps I didn't dig far enough last night.
Apparently Hercules HiVEL 2 was used in some years'.30-06 match loads between the wars with pretty good results and I believe that was a double base powder. During the Great War, apparently Pyro DG was the typical rifle powder for .30-06 loads. There were quite a few other propellants used until they settled on IMR 4895 in the late 1930's (from what I have been able to find).

- Ivan.

- Ivan.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Hansie Bloeckmann (Feb 5, 2018)

Ivan1GFP said:


> Hello Hansie Bloeckmann,
> Shortround6 covered the general idea pretty well, but there is a bit more that I was hinting at with my prior post.
> Commercial / Military factories buy a lot of powder, test to see variations as Shortround6 described and then use it up. The chances are pretty good that if the factory makes many different calibers, the powder will be suited to at least one caliber.
> There are many more powders that are used in industry that are not available in a canister grade; there are probably at least a dozen times more non-canister powder types. Sometimes even a lot of powder made with the process that is used for a branded canister grade powder does not end up meeting ALL the pressure tests and is sold as non-canister lot.
> ...


Many thanks- you must be a serious reloader and shooter. Handgun, CF rifles, do you also reload shotgun shells?

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Feb 5, 2018)

I used to be a military medic so am familiar with gunshot wounds. I don't want to be shot by 8mm Nambu nevermind 8mm Mauser.
The replacement for the 303 was 7.62 NATO which is just bizarre considering the 303 was outdated before ww1.
I have no recollection other than the EM-2 of the British changing the Lee Enfield before the SLR. The French did go to the 7.5mm interwar but then again the Lebel did really deserve to be dumped. 
It was the Americans who used the M1917 in the trenches, the P14 was hardly used. 

I often wonder if the Japanese changed from 6.5 to 7.7 based on genuine statistics or just some old excrement spouted by the barrack room loudmouth. Problem with the 38 special v 9mm arguement is that the only logical conclusion is that you need a tankgewehr because bigger is better.


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 5, 2018)

The British didn't really have a choice in the 7.62 NATO as the US pretty much ramed the 7.62 NATO down all of Europe's throat. The British .280 (NOT the .280 Ross) was actually a much better choice. 

A number of countries got caught by changing weapons/tactics. They went for either bigger cartridges or boat tail bullets in order to have long range machine guns capable of firing 2500-3500 yds ( max range 4000-5000+ yds) after long range machine guns barrages were used in WW I. By WW II when all of the major combatants (and even a few neutrals, Sweden went for an 8mm X 63 ) had the upgraded machineguns they also were issuing 81 mm mortars that could shoot to the same ranges (except for the British) and had better communications for calling artillery support. The long range machine gun barrages that these guns/cartridges were intended for fell into disuse/obscurity. 

I rather like the 38 special v 9mm argument for the sheer absurdity of it as it evolved in the US. Other nations stayed out of this one.

38 special (.357 diameter) with a 158 grain bullet at about 855fps out of revolver was hopelessly inadequate but a 9mm (.355 diameter) 147 grain bullet at 950fps was the answer to any law enforcement officer's dreams/desires. 

Both were much better police cartridges with lighter, higher velocity expanding bullets. Less chance of ricochet and less chance of over penetration endangering bystanders in addition to better stopping power. I did say better, not guaranteed by any means


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Feb 6, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> I rather like the 38 special v 9mm argument for the sheer absurdity of it as it evolved in the US. Other nations stayed out of this one.
> 
> 38 special (.357 diameter) with a 158 grain bullet at about 855fps out of revolver was hopelessly inadequate but a 9mm (.355 diameter) 147 grain bullet at 950fps was the answer to any law enforcement officer's dreams/desires.
> 
> Both were much better police cartridges with lighter, higher velocity expanding bullets. Less chance of ricochet and less chance of over penetration endangering bystanders in addition to better stopping power. I did say better, not guaranteed by any means



Hello Shortround6 et al.
I only brought up the .38 Special versus 9 mm Parabellum as two cartridges with significantly different pressure limits for reloading purposes.
There was no intention of discussing relative merits of the two.
It has actually been quite a while since the 9 mm x 19 was thought of as the ideal police cartridge. I believe the .40 S&W took its place but perhaps it too is out of fashion now.

For what it's worth, the general debate is more along the lines of whether the .45 ACP or the 9 mm Luger is better. There is probably a new article written every week on the average and that debate gets pretty old.

Regarding differences between .38 Special and 9 mm "Whatever" you mentioned, I believe you got the numbers pretty well for the .38 Special +P load (the standard .38 Special with a 158 grain bullet is only about 750 fps) but the load you are describing for the 9 mm Is the heavy bullet subsonic load.
It is intended for guns equipped with silencers so that there is no "crack" from supersonic bullets.

The reason I called it the 9 mm "Whatever" is because there are a bunch of different load standards for the 9 mm x 19 case.
My terminology / naming may not be entirely correct but I will attempt to distinguish them.
The original 9 mm cartridge as used in the P.08 "Luger" pistol was what I will call the "Parabellum" here.
It was the service cartridge with lots of variations for a number of countries up through WW2.
Typical ballistics were along the lines of 115 or 123 grain bullet at around 1175 fps (from foggy memory).
There were a lot of variations depending on manufacturer.
The "same" round which I will call the 9 mm Luger loaded in the United States to SAAMI specifications is a bit lighter with a 115 grain bullet at about 1125 fps. Yes, it is not quite as powerful.
Then there is 9 mm NATO which I believe is a touch hotter than the old Parabellum round.
I believe the 9 mm NATO chamber uses a slight amount of freebore to reduce pressure with a hotter load.
Then there is sub machine gun ammunition which is loaded even hotter and typically marked with a black tip on the bullet.

Then there are the variations between modern commercial ammunition.
The hottest stuff I have every chronographed was some 9 mm made by GECO of Germany.
123 grain bullet at about 1220 fps.
This was not the hottest stuff I have ever fired though.
Before I owned the chronographs, I came across some 9 mm (factory loads) and noticed that the stuff had a pretty stout recoil out of an all steel pistol. I was surprised. I was even more surprised when I noticed that shock from the recoil had hidden the fact that after just a couple magazines of the stuff, I had a blood blister on the web of my hand.

- Ivan.


----------



## The Basket (Feb 6, 2018)

When i said 9mm i actually meant .380 ACP...hehehe...or was it the Glisenti?
So many 9mm to choose from. Anyhoo i agree that the 7.62 NATO round was a US invention although fortunately we could get the SLR and not force fed the M-14. 
I do declare that American sticking to there guns was a backwards step and may critics of the M-16 used the 5.56 against it as well.
British police do not carry fireams although a quick armed response unit is usuallly only a few minutes away. Oddly, they also have to carry out mundane police tasks so you could get a speeding ticket from someone carrying. 
Old chestnut of whether a 6 shot revolver with 38 special is no longer good enough. It was good enough so the gun hasnt changed but the perception of been attacked by 20 ninjas and needing better has


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 6, 2018)

A number of US police forces adopted the 147grain 9mm load at one point. Mosty without doing ANY testing. Hey, if Military Special forces use _it must be good, right "_

It took a while but just about all of them changed to something else.
However it does point to fads or trends not being a good way to select arms or ammunition.

The need for a better _cartridge_ than the .38 special was not really an issue at the time, it was seen as needed. However at the time of the big change over the expanding pistol bullet was in it's infancy and the .38 special 158 grain round nose lead bullet was actually a pretty poor choice and had 30-40 years of experience to back that up. Better than .32s and short .38s but still not good. Unfortunately it took a while to get expanding bullets to actually expand at the velocities the .38 could fire them unless you dropped the weight to 125 grains or under and used +P pressure levels. The .45 ACP had the same problem, early expanding bullets didn't.

Getting back to our original subject, an "ideal' rifle cartridge is not an ideal machine gun cartridge and at some point a decision has to made about which gun gets compromised the most. Or if two different cartridges are acceptable and at what level of issue. The last gains in importance as the logistic problems mount/change. What is acceptable to armies like the US and British in Europe in 1944 may not be acceptable to the same armies in Burma in 1944 let alone the Japanese or Italian armies at any time. The Japanese or Italian armies were forced into the problem for various reasons however unacceptable the results wound up being.
Please note both the Italians and Swedes adopted large 8mm cartridges for machine gun use while keeping the 6.5mm rounds for rifle and LMG work.
I am not sure I trust Wiki but it claims the Japanese made two 7.7mm cartridges for the army (leave the Navy copy of the .303 out of this) a rimless version for rifles using a 175grain bullet at 2440fps and semi rimed version for machine guns that fired a 202 grain bullet at 2200fps.
Even if you get either round to chamber in "wrong" gun the sights are going to be off at anything but close range.
I would note that the US was using two different loads in .30-06 but the different adjustment of the American WW II rifles allowed for easier compensation, *IF* the troops remembered their training.

I happen to believe that a good 6.5 bullet (non-VLD) will work out to 6-700 yds and cover most of the squad/platoon needs. This is several hundred yds further than the 7.9 x 33 or 7.62 x 39. However the company _may _and the Battalion *will *require weapons with longer effective range.


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 6, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> ...
> I happen to believe that a good 6.5 bullet (non-VLD) will work out to 6-700 yds and cover most of the squad/platoon needs. This is several hundred yds further than the 7.9 x 33 or 7.62 x 39. However the company _may _and the Battalion *will *require weapons with longer effective range.



Methinks that this closes the case


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 6, 2018)

Maybe 
Please note that the Russians modified the DPM light machine gun to the RP-46 belt feed with heavier barrel as a company level machinegun and used it during the late 40s and all during the 50s as they changed over to the SKS and AK-47 in the squads and issued the RPD as the squad automatic. They kept the bigger SGM at battalion level? 
Greater use of mortars also means the battalion relied less on tripod mounted machine guns for support.


----------



## The Basket (Feb 6, 2018)

I am curious.
Why is the 38 special not good enough?
I understand about hollow points but I am still wondering as from a medic point of view it's better than been poked with a stick and still got kills. John Lennon was killed with 38 special and President Reagan was almost killed with a 22 fired by probably the worst gun ever and it wasn't even a direct hit! So I understand that a 357 magnum is powerful and a 38 special is less but it's more than enough to send you to the River Styx.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Feb 6, 2018)

The Basket said:


> When i said 9mm i actually meant .380 ACP...hehehe...or was it the Glisenti?
> So many 9mm to choose from. Anyhoo i agree that the 7.62 NATO round was a US invention although fortunately we could get the SLR and not force fed the M-14.
> I do declare that American sticking to there guns was a backwards step and may critics of the M-16 used the 5.56 against it as well.
> British police do not carry fireams although a quick armed response unit is usuallly only a few minutes away. Oddly, they also have to carry out mundane police tasks so you could get a speeding ticket from someone carrying.
> Old chestnut of whether a 6 shot revolver with 38 special is no longer good enough. It was good enough so the gun hasnt changed but the perception of been attacked by 20 ninjas and needing better has



Hello The Basket,
There are a zillion different 9 mm besides the ones you listed. How about a 9 mm Largo, .38 Super, .357 SIG.
Everybody seems to have their own ideas of the best 9 mm cartridge and sometimes it is because of some kind of game.
Ever heard of 9 mm Major? That is a very hot load for a regular 9 mm x 19 that would "make Major" with a power factor greater than 175 for certain pistol competitions. (Multiply Bullet Weight by Muzzle Velocity. It was to distinguish between the pipsqueak "Minor" calibers and the "Major" calibers such as the .45 ACP.) I believe it is no longer allowed because it was so dangerous to do it in a 9 x 19 case.

My own opinion of the 5.56 is that it really isn't an ideal military cartridge because the ammunition is so fragile and because the bore is so small it isn't very tolerant of silly things like a few drops of water in the bore. Sometimes it is hard to avoid and I have heard that it will bulge the barrel. There are a lot of observations and personal experiences to support this conclusion that are again beyond the scope here.

The discussion about revolver versus automatic (yeah, semi auto) for police use has been going for a few decades since it was first proposed to replace the "service revolver" with an automatic pistol (back in the 1960's?). Reliable revolver versus Jam-amatic auto pistol. Forget military history in this discussion....
The advocates for the auto pistol claimed that with the superior ammunition capacity, there was a higher chance of survival while revolver advocates brought in the statistic that only 2-3 rounds were fired in the average police gunfight. I have no real opinion or stake here.
The end result as you all know was that the auto pistol replaced the revolver but another side effect was that the hit percentages went down by a lot and the number of rounds fired also went up by a lot though I don't know the statistic here.

Hello Shortround6,
I don't know much about the others and until recently, I didn't know that much about the Japanese either.
It seems like the Japanese had a pretty messed up logistics situation.
The Army used the 7.7 mm x 58 for their rifles (and of course the 6.5 as well).
They used the 7.7 mm x 58SR for their aerial and infantry machine guns.
The Navy used the 7.7 mm x 56R (.303 British) for their aerial machine guns and some ground machine guns.
They used 7.7 mm x 58 for their rifles and 7.7 x 58SR for other infantry machine guns.
The ballistics for the guns was originally intended to be different but ended up all being nearly identical.
The aerial machine gun loads for both Army and Navy appear to match their infantry rifle loads at least according to TAIC and some other sources I have seen.

In a fairly long discussion with HoHun a while back, I came to agree with him that the packaging in which the ammunition is issued pretty much determines how it will be used. No one spends the time to unbelt aerial MG ammunition for use in rifles.
If there were ballistics differences of 175 grain versus 202 grain bullets, the difference in trajectory is well within the accuracy limitations of the typical assault rifle anyway. I don't believe there were actually any significant ballistic differences in any case.

- Ivan.


----------



## The Basket (Feb 6, 2018)

The Japanese Navy and Army were 2 totally separate organisation with there own powerbase and so only answerable to the emperor. The navy and army were rivals so they would rather chew thier legs off than co-operate so you get a bizarre situation were shared problems are ignored and so get a duplication of what limited resources they had.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Feb 6, 2018)

The Basket said:


> I am curious.
> Why is the 38 special not good enough?
> I understand about hollow points but I am still wondering as from a medic point of view it's better than been poked with a stick and still got kills. John Lennon was killed with 38 special and President Reagan was almost killed with a 22 fired by probably the worst gun ever and it wasn't even a direct hit! So I understand that a 357 magnum is powerful and a 38 special is less but it's more than enough to send you to the River Styx.



Hello The Basket,
The objective in a defence handgun is not necessarily to kill the target but to stop them from doing whatever they are doing.
Stopping power and killing power are not the same thing. A higher cross sectional area dumps the bullet's energy into the target more quickly and hopefully makes the target fall down faster.

- Ivan.


----------



## Hansie Bloeckmann (Feb 6, 2018)

The Basket said:


> The Japanese Navy and Army were 2 totally separate organisation with there own powerbase and so only answerable to the emperor. The navy and army were rivals so they would rather chew thier legs off than co-operate so you get a bizarre situation were shared problems are ignored and so get a duplication of what limited resources they had.


Probably one of many valid reasons they lost the Pacific and WW11-


----------



## The Basket (Feb 6, 2018)

Is there a scientific study to clarify if a full sized man drops with a 9mm whereas he runs marathons and jet skis after been shot by a 380? I always take calibre flame wars with a pinch of salt.


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 6, 2018)

The Basket said:


> I am curious.
> Why is the 38 special not good enough?
> I understand about hollow points but I am still wondering as from a medic point of view it's better than been poked with a stick and still got kills. John Lennon was killed with 38 special and President Reagan was almost killed with a 22 fired by probably the worst gun ever and it wasn't even a direct hit! So I understand that a 357 magnum is powerful and a 38 special is less but it's more than enough to send you to the River Styx.




It is not the job of the police to kill people. It is their job to stop people from killing/harming other people as fast as possible and with least possible danger to innocent bystanders. 
Until we can issue police with Star Trek phasers (set to stun) unfortunately that means inflicting enough trauma on the suspect/perpetrator that death is often the outcome even if not the actual goal. 
Shooting the suspect/perpetrator several times and having the suspect/perpetrator return fire (or wield knife/club)for even a short period of time means more police officers and civilians killed or wounded, so using guns/cartridges that are the bare minimum for "killing" is not a good solution. 
Back in the day of the 158 grain round nose lead .38 special there were several large police departments that skipped over the "double-tap" tactic and went to triple-taps in training. This was in response to some incidents were multiple hits to the body failed to stop the suspect/perpetrator in a timely fashion. While nation wide the _average_ police shooting was only 2-3 rounds fired a department that taught this technique was limiting it's officers to just two firing opportunities per cylinder full of ammo. Against multiple suspects/perpetrators?????

Other considerations/differences between police use and military is that for police use barrier penetration is seldom a good thing. Any rounds fired, if they hit the suspect/perpetrator, should ideally stop within the suspect/perpetrator and not hit someone behind them. Likewise any misses should penetrate the fewest number of walls/partitions inside a building to reduce the danger to people behind those walls/partitions. Outdoors slow moving lead projectiles are one of the greatest projectiles for ricocheting known to man. They tend to bounce off hard surfaces with very little reduction in mass/velocity if the impact angle is shallow and have killed/injured people a number of blocks from the actual shooting scene. Counter intuitively, higher velocity ammunition often poses less of a problem as the bullet strikes the first surface with enough force to cause the bullet to break up. The smaller pieces don't fly as far and being smaller have less energy. Likewise inside a building the higher energy bullets _if designed to expand _will often show less penetration as the deformed (expanded) bullet tries to make bigger holes in the barriers and actually has less energy per unit of frontal area. 

Training and theory often go out the window in real situations and has been noted the switch to high capacity semi-autos had shown a rather remarkable increase in the number of rounds fired per incident on average. Without a corresponding increase in the number of hits.


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 6, 2018)

The Basket said:


> Is there a scientific study to clarify if a full sized man drops with a 9mm whereas he runs marathons and jet skis after been shot by a 380? I always take calibre flame wars with a pinch of salt.



He doesn't need to run marathons and jet ski. He just needs to be able to squeeze a trigger and/or stab with a knife for a few minutes or even seconds. 

There were quite a number of studies done back in the 70s and 80s concerning "one shot" stops. You are partially correct, The worst (if memory serves) was the .22LR with just under 50% (48 or 49% ?) while the absolute best (among the rounds with enough incidents to form any sort of valid conclusion) were in the low 90% range. Everything else was in between and even the .44 magnum was not 100%. 
So in a number of comparisons you might be comparing 70% to 80% effectiveness between two particular cartridges. 
Including multiple hit incidents was not done as it included too many variables. 

Now do you want to bet your life (or the lives of friends/relatives) on ammo with a 60% track record or with an 80% track record???? 

I would note that none of the Full metal jacket ammo was near the top. Not even the .45ACP.


----------



## Hansie Bloeckmann (Feb 6, 2018)

muscogeemike said:


> If, as Garand had wanted, the M-1 had been produced with a lighter cartridge then the 30.06 and with a detachable Mag (10-20 rds?) instead of the clip it would have been more effective.
> What if the US as adopted to Brit. .303? Would have made things a lot easier.


Makes me think a "what if"- If the Army Ordnance board planned on using the Garand along with the Springfield 1903 in combat theaters-both firing the same .30 cal round-- along with support from the BAR in the same cal.-- one advantage both the 1903 and the Garand have, the soldier can get in a closer to the ground prone position in combat, or from the lip of a foxhole, than he could with the 20 rd. box magazine and the bipod of the heavier BAR.

Special Ops. combat units, like the Rangers and the OSS units could have 1903-A-3 Springfield scope sighted for sniper and counter-sniper usage, as the Springfield BA will accept a telescopic sight much easier than a Garand-- Also, stripper 5 rd. clips for the unscoped 1903's, and 8 rd. enbloc clips for the Garand are more "compact" and less likely to be lost than the 20 rd. box magazines for the BAR-- How many empty BAR magazines were recovered and refilled in a combat operation??Or, for that matter, for the Thompson SMG??

Browning designed the BAR for "walking fire" as developed by the French in WW1- The French
Chaquat (sic) automatic, fired from the hip as the soldier moved forward, spraying rounds to keep the enemy "pinned down" was a flawed design, so I have told.

Browning's was way better, but like the Thompson SMG, both became more "notorious" during the lawless Prohibition era, used by both the criminals and LE groups. The Germans had the better concept of usage of MG's in combat- with the MG 34 and the MG 42 supported by the K98- all firing the same exact round.

I think of the movie "Saving Pvt. Ryan" and think, if I were the CO-- I'd ditch the Bar, and have that Ranger carry a Garand, ditto the First Sgt.- ditch the M-1 carbine, and also carry a Garand- You have to be in superb physical condition to serve in a Ranger unit, so carrying a 10.5 lb. Garand should NOT be an issue- and you can carry more ammo for a Garand than if you have to carry a BAR with bipod, and however many 20 rd. magazines you are issued. Just my concept of : (1) common ammo for all soldiers in the unit- and (2) common weapons with interchangeable parts- maybe not so much a deal in basic training and the rifle range, but more relevant in the mud, rain and gloom of a combat situation.

IMO, in a combat scenario, the M-1 Garand stands in a class by itself- a feeling shared by Gen. George S. Patton Jr. (and others)--


----------



## The Basket (Feb 6, 2018)

My answer would be move to 357 magnum hollow point and nowadays not all revolvers are 6 shooters.
In my military days, I was told that each round was accountable so the idea of a police officer with a wonder 9 going full on Tarantino and emptied a magazine in some fleeing suspect beggars belief. 
Maybe they got so many rounds they can shoot them off where a revolver each round is a good percentage of your firepower so gotta make em count. 
With suicide bombers and the like then instant kills and head shots has become the norm. But that is more about good aim. 38 special lead bullet is always more effective to the head than the 44 magnum that misses.


----------



## parsifal (Feb 6, 2018)

Most police forces across the world, don't shoot to maim, they shoot to suppress the threat. If a weapon is drawn, police will intend to kill you. They do not draw their weapons with the intent to just scare you.

ive done some police training. If you draw your weapon, you are taught to shoot for lethality, and shoot instinctively. Its otherwise hard to start pulling the trigger withe intent of hitting a human being. It has to be an instinctive response, used only when deadly force is required. .

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Feb 6, 2018)

If your shooting away with your weapon then you can be a bigger risk than the actual criminal.
Firing a weapon should be the absolute last resort and drawing a weapon doesn't mean you have to shoot.
A rifle round can go for miles so when I had my SA80 if was comforting to know I would never be put in that position since the rifle had a very small chance of actually firing.


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 6, 2018)

You have been able to use


The Basket said:


> My answer would be move to 357 magnum hollow point and nowadays not all revolvers are 6 shooters..................
> 38 special lead bullet is always more effective to the head than the 44 magnum that misses.



The .38 Special is 120 years old this year and has gone through a number of changes over the years. There is no reason on earth to use the original design bullet at near original velocities (first loaded with black powder) for anything but sport shooting. 
There were several attempts to improve effectiveness back in the 1920s/30s let alone in the 60s/70s. First was the use of a 200 grain bullet instead of the 158. The longer bullet tended to flop sideways (but by no means was this guaranteed) and this bullet design/idea was transplanted to the British .380/200 load. The 2nd improvement was to simply use more/different powder to achieve higher velocity. This was first used in a S & W revolver using a .44 caliber frame and was called the .38/44. Colt quickly followed with the announcement that their Official Police model could handle the same ammo. With "auto-mobile bandits" capturing the headlines of the day versions of this loading with metal cased or metal capped bullets were marketed as especially suitable for penetrating automobile bodies. The 150 grain load was supposed reach 1175fps from a 5 in barrel. (this is hotter than the .38+P+)Full metal jacket bullets weren't what was wanted for shooting human bodies however. 
By 1972 a load was marketed called the "FBI" load that used a hollow point 158 grain lead bullet. This bullet gave the most reliable expansion over the greatest variety of velocities (2in to 6 in barrels) and was good for about 1000fps from a 6 in barrel (+P level) 
In the late 60s and early 70s many jacketed hollow points showed very iffy expansion in the .38 special, the jackets were often too thick. Things have gotten better over the years since. 
I would note that 7 or 8 shot revolvers are rather large beasts and not something most officers want to carry around on their hips all day. 
I would also note that the Colt Official Police is the same frame as used on the Python and while not as big as a Smith N frame it is a substantial revolver compared to the Police Positive.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Feb 6, 2018)

The Basket said:


> Is there a scientific study to clarify if a full sized man drops with a 9mm whereas he runs marathons and jet skis after been shot by a 380? I always take calibre flame wars with a pinch of salt.



Hello The Basket,
There have been numerous studies. The least faulty in my opinion are the "Computer Man" and conclusions drawn from the shooting statistics collected by Evan Marshall. There is probably a correct name for what I am calling the "Computer Man". It was an analysis of the parts of the human body that would be damaged by a bullet hit in a particular location as determined by typical penetration, fragmenting, etc.
The Evan Marshall statistics do have a few anomalies and must be qualified by noting that data collected is for single hits. I believe if a person is shot multiple times, the data point would not be included.
Oops. I see Shortfound6 has already given a summary of the Marshall statistics.

Regarding revolvers:
Just about every revolver in a reasonable defence caliber is either a 5 shot or 6 shot. There is occasionally a 7 shot but that is about it for modern stuff. I say bring back the old LeMat!
Although I like target shooting with a .357 and even a .44 Magnum to a lesser extent, I believe the muzzle blast and concussion to be a little too extreme. Another problem especially with the .357 Magnum is that in low light, the muzzle flash is pretty horrendous. I was doing some night firing tests with a friend of mine many years back to test his reloads and when we were done with his stuff, I fired a few .of my ..357 handloads. The fire ball was about 3-4 feet long and has a pretty serious effect on night vision.

- Ivan.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Feb 6, 2018)

Hansie Bloeckmann said:


> Makes me think a "what if"- If the Army Ordnance board planned on using the Garand along with the Springfield 1903 in combat theaters-both firing the same .30 cal round-- along with support from the BAR in the same cal.-- one advantage both the 1903 and the Garand have, the soldier can get in a closer to the ground prone position in combat, or from the lip of a foxhole, than he could with the 20 rd. box magazine and the bipod of the heavier BAR.



I have no experience with the BAR, but with the M14 with its 20 round magazine, there is essentially no difference firing from prone as compared to the M1 Garand. The toe of the stock is similar height from the sight line in both guns and is pretty low. Also, when firing from prone, even the toe of the stock is not on the ground.



Hansie Bloeckmann said:


> Special Ops. combat units, like the Rangers and the OSS units could have 1903-A-3 Springfield scope sighted for sniper and counter-sniper usage, as the Springfield BA will accept a telescopic sight much easier than a Garand-- Also, stripper 5 rd. clips for the unscoped 1903's, and 8 rd. enbloc clips for the Garand are more "compact" and less likely to be lost than the 20 rd. box magazines for the BAR-- How many empty BAR magazines were recovered and refilled in a combat operation??Or, for that matter, for the Thompson SMG??



The scope sighted M1903 was the M1903A4. That would be for the Army. The obvious recognition feature is that it does not have a front sight.
I believe the Marines used a much longer and better scope (Unertl?) on a M1903A1 rifle. I have never played with a Unertl scope, but actually own one of the Lyman scopes of the same type that would have been mounted on the 03A4. The optics are lousy.
The M1C and M1D Garands are not as horrible as they look. The optics are not good in general, and they are awfully heavy and kinda goofy with the cheek pad, but from reports I have seen, the accuracy isn't bad, especially for the M1C.



Hansie Bloeckmann said:


> I think of the movie "Saving Pvt. Ryan" and think, if I were the CO-- I'd ditch the Bar, and have that Ranger carry a Garand, ditto the First Sgt.- ditch the M-1 carbine, and also carry a Garand- You have to be in superb physical condition to serve in a Ranger unit, so carrying a 10.5 lb. Garand should NOT be an issue- and you can carry more ammo for a Garand than if you have to carry a BAR with bipod, and however many 20 rd. magazines you are issued. Just my concept of : (1) common ammo for all soldiers in the unit- and (2) common weapons with interchangeable parts- maybe not so much a deal in basic training and the rifle range, but more relevant in the mud, rain and gloom of a combat situation.



While I share your opinion that the Garand is a very good battle rifle, my belief is that the BAR is much more resistant to dirt and rain because less of the mechanism is exposed.

- Ivan.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Feb 7, 2018)

Not difficult.
Shot to the head with 44 magnum = fatal.
Shot to big toe = not fatal.
The old Dirty Harry thing is pulling out his cannon which can be intimidated all by itself. Imagine looking down a barrel of a model 29 and it be easy to realise the error of your ways.
Plenty of evidence that a guy has survived plenty of 9mm but also plenty of evidence that someone died from a 22. So certainly not convinced about stopping power or that 38 special is not good enough anymore. Each case would have to be taken on its own merit.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Feb 7, 2018)

The Basket said:


> Not difficult.
> Shot to the head with 44 magnum = fatal.
> Shot to big toe = not fatal.
> The old Dirty Harry thing is pulling out his cannon which can be intimidated all by itself. Imagine looking down a barrel of a model 29 and it be easy to realise the error of your ways.
> Plenty of evidence that a guy has survived plenty of 9mm but also plenty of evidence that someone died from a 22. So certainly not convinced about stopping power or that 38 special is not good enough anymore. Each case would have to be taken on its own merit.



Hello The Basket,
There is no doubt that each case needs to be taken on a case by case basis.
The problem with that idea is that it gives no guidance as to weapons selection and caliber differences and we know there must be some differences.

That is the value of the Marshall statistics; When the results are collected from a significant number of shootings and compared, there are some noticeable differences.
When one caliber results in a one shot stop in 80% of known cases and another results in only a 50% one shot stop, one can be reasonably certain (assuming enough shooting cases) that the first caliber was superior.
When the result is a 65% to a 70% or one does not believe that there are "enough" cases to be meaningful, then the results are not as obviousl.
The raw data is useful. The conclusions are subject to debate especially if they are fairly close in percentages.

Regarding Movie Guns:
As I have always told my kids, Movie Guns are special.
In the hands of a bad guy, they usually miss. In the hands of the good guys, they often hit regardless of how unlikely or absurd that hit would be in real life. Movie Guns also have infinite magazine capacity and never run out of ammunition.
In Dirty Harry's case, the impact of a hit is often so powerful that it throws the victim backwards. Laws of Physics are irrelevant.
Dirty Harry's S&W Model 29 was special in yet another way: Unlike any gun I have ever seen, its barrel length changes depending on the scene and camera angle.to be even more intimidating when needed!

I wish I had a Movie Gun. I may not be a hero, but I think I am a good guy.
I would never need to practice or even to aim. Heck, I would not even have to have ammunition!

- Ivan.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Feb 7, 2018)

Dirty Harry ran out of ammunition.
Because you had to feel lucky if he shot 5 or 6 because in all the excitement he forgot himself. Well....do ya?
I trust statistics not one jot. 38 special? Which brand which weight, what jacket and so on. Where did it hit and was body armour worn and the guy is he short or tall male or female? On drugs? Steroid warrior? So many variations and variables so who know.
What was the ambient temperature? What altitude? There can be different m/s from the same ammo in the same box! Was the person shot in good shape? Or very poor condition? Ad infinitum. 4 inch barrel? Snub? 7 yards? 7 meters? 7 kilometres?


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 7, 2018)

The Basket said:


> Plenty of evidence that a guy has survived plenty of 9mm but also plenty of evidence that someone died from a 22. .



You keep focusing on the "died" part and ignoring the "how quickly" or was 'incapable of further offensive action' part. Yes plenty of people have died from .22 hits, some of them instantly, but then more people have been shot with the .22 (non military) than practically any other cartridge (.22 dates back to before American civil war).





introduced in 1857, first Smith & Wesson cartridge revolver. 

Sooo, percentage wise it is a bit like going to the casino, playing roulette and betting odd/even or black/red. you may win, you may lose, and with the zero/s, the odds are less than 50/50. you are betting lives, not money. 
Me, I would choose something other than a .22 if given the choice and even something other than a round nose .38 special standard velocity if given the choice.


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 7, 2018)

The Basket said:


> Dirty Harry ran out of ammunition.
> Because you had to feel lucky if he shot 5 or 6 because in all the excitement he forgot himself. Well....do ya?
> I trust statistics not one jot. 38 special? Which brand which weight, what jacket and so on. Where did it hit and was body armour worn and the guy is he short or tall male or female? On drugs? Steroid warrior? So many variations and variables so who know.
> What was the ambient temperature? What altitude? There can be different m/s from the same ammo in the same box! Was the person shot in good shape? Or very poor condition? Ad infinitum. 4 inch barrel? Snub? 7 yards? 7 meters? 7 kilometres?



Why don't you read the report before trashing it? or at least a few reviews of it. Some of your criticisms were covered. 

One should be critical of statistics but to ignore them completely dooms us to a rather ignorant view of things. We could be having a similar argument about seat belts, I come up with an anecdote about about someone saved by a seat belt and you come up with an anecdote about someone who was pinned in place or could not escape a burning car because of one. However, the much loathed statistics tell us we are much safer using them on average. Maybe you have disabled yours, I don't know.


----------



## Hansie Bloeckmann (Feb 7, 2018)

Ivan1GFP said:


> I have no experience with the BAR, but with the M14 with its 20 round magazine, there is essentially no difference firing from prone as compared to the M1 Garand. The toe of the stock is similar height from the sight line in both guns and is pretty low. Also, when firing from prone, even the toe of the stock is not on the ground.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thanks for the clarification on the nomenclature of the M1903A4 and the M1903A1-- I infer that as far as gas operated semi-auto rifles and those that can fire in full automatic mode- The BAR and the M-14 with selector switch installed- the exposed mechanism of the Garand could be factor in harsh weather conditions- Not "apples to oranges" but aren't BA rifles, such as The Mauser, Enfield and Springfield series used in WW1 and WW11 have somewhat exposed breech mechanism-especially when the bolt is cycled reward??

Somebody-, with combat experience and being familiar with the Garand once commented that many soldiers carried 2 toothbrushes in their field packs, one for the obvious, the other for removing the mud and debris from the breech of their Garand rifle.

As far as scopes, I have a Unertl scope on a BSA single shot drop lever action target barreled .22LR- heavy, 26" barrel, full target stock, but deadly on woodchucks out to 75 yards with the proper loads. Also a great squirrel rifle, if you are sitting down and can find a field rest for the forearm. Sweet trigger, no designed safety lever, you have to drop down the lever to set it on "safe"--


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 7, 2018)

I would note that the Unertl scopes came with a rather astonishing variety of front lenses, like 1", 1 1/4", 1 1/2" and even 2". most of these were post war and post war scopes got better lens coatings. 
The Lyman scope also came in several varieties. 




This is a Lyman target spot Junior. There was a target spot with a bigger objective lens and finally (post war?) the super targetspot with an even bigger objective lens. 




I would note, as far as military use goes, none of these scopes were "sealed" and it is quite possible to unscrew both the front objective lens and rear eye piece from the main tube. These scopes have a limited field of view and and are not the brightest scopes to look through. A 6-8 power scope with a small front lens will never be particularly bright. 
I used 6 and 8 power Lyman Juniors for indoor 50 ft shooting for over 30 years and never had a problem and my scores were as good or better than many people using 15-20 power scopes. 
That said they do have a few more problems for military use, Please note the spring on the scope in the lower picture. It returns to the scope to the rearward position after each shot for consistency. Even on a 13-14lb .22 I had to manually pull back the scope every shot or two on the Juniors like the top scope without springs as the gun would recoil out from under the scope. On high power rifles this being independent of the rifle saved crosshairs and lenses from damage on high recoil guns. On a high power rifle without the spring the scope can move several inches under the right conditions making rapid repeat shots a bit of a problem. They can, however be removed from the gun and be replaced fairly quickly and with no change in zero.


----------



## The Basket (Feb 7, 2018)

Wearing seat belts is mandatory in my country and was before I started driving so becomes part of the procedure. My car also chimes when I don't wear it so becomes very distracting. Didn't wear a seatbelt on my motorcycle though. I have cutter in my car for the seat belt although what are the statistics for a car catching fire in a crash? 
As mentioned before I am trained so know more than the usual internet jockey and statistics can prove whatever you want them to prove.


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 7, 2018)

Please look up the study in question before criticizing it. Unfortunately many internet sites take great delight in trashing it without going into any of the details. 

It is not the gospel as handed down from the Temple Mount but on the other had it was a large and rather inclusive study and has never been repeated so it is all we have to go on.

It only counted hits to the torso. 
It listed the recorded average diameters of recovered bullets.
It gave the average depth of penetration. 
It sorted by barrel length when applicable. 
for instance for the .38 special +P using 158 grain bullets it listed 7 "loads" used in a total of 1644 shootings. Some of the "loads" were duplicated but separated by 2in and 4in barrel lengths. 
Number of shootings with each load are given so the reader can attach his own significance to each listing such as one bullet/load used out of a 4in barrel was used 401 times. A different bullet weight and brand was used 10 times so a thinking person might well wonder at the percentage given to it. The standard 158 grain round nose was used in 592 shootings from a 4 in barrel and another 421 times from a 2 in barrel. 

Now readers that seize on the percentage alone and disregard the number of shootings that generate that percentage are like some of the people who talk about WW II aircraft and cherry pick the facts they use to support their opinion. It is like picking one test flight to claim performance for all models/versions of an aircraft.

It has often been misused as internet warriors have argued about a 2-3% difference among loads that don't have a large number of shootings and other internet warriors have made fun of them (and rightly so) but that does not invalidate the basic study. 

Here are a number of of the charts from the book online, judge for yourself.
Handloads.Com - Stopping Power


----------



## fastmongrel (Feb 7, 2018)

For when you want your opponent to sit down and lose interest in killing you. The .577 Tranter revolver. Of course if you miss with the first round 




A .577 next to a 9mm




.577 caliber Tranter Revolver

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Feb 7, 2018)

Hansie Bloeckmann said:


> Thanks for the clarification on the nomenclature of the M1903A4 and the M1903A1-- I infer that as far as gas operated semi-auto rifles and those that can fire in full automatic mode- The BAR and the M-14 with selector switch installed- the exposed mechanism of the Garand could be factor in harsh weather conditions- Not "apples to oranges" but aren't BA rifles, such as The Mauser, Enfield and Springfield series used in WW1 and WW11 have somewhat exposed breech mechanism-especially when the bolt is cycled reward??
> 
> Somebody-, with combat experience and being familiar with the Garand once commented that many soldiers carried 2 toothbrushes in their field packs, one for the obvious, the other for removing the mud and debris from the breech of their Garand rifle.
> 
> As far as scopes, I have a Unertl scope on a BSA single shot drop lever action target barreled .22LR- heavy, 26" barrel, full target stock, but deadly on woodchucks out to 75 yards with the proper loads. Also a great squirrel rifle, if you are sitting down and can find a field rest for the forearm. Sweet trigger, no designed safety lever, you have to drop down the lever to set it on "safe"--



Hello Hansie Bloeckmann,
The only real difference between the M1903 and M1903A1 is that the M1903A1 has a full pistol grip stock while the M1903 has a straight stock. Later 03s had a stock with a very rounded off pistol grip called a "scant" stock. Personally I think those are kind of ugly.
The M1903A4 was not really an ideal sniper rifle.
The action was the same as the M1903A3 which I believe was nickel steel and a bit "gummy" in operation. It can be cycled fast, but doesn't feel as smooth as earlier guns. As mentioned before, the optics are poor. I believe that the two groove barrels were the standard when the 03A4 was in production. This was intended as a simplification to speed manufacturing. The 2 groove barrels were supposedly less accurate than the regular 4 groove barrels. (The same thing was done to some No.4 Mk.I and Mk.I* rifles produced in North America by Savage and Long Branch.) I have shot similar rifles in 2 groove and 4/5 groove and can't tell the difference but maybe a better marksman could.

Regarding the M1 / M14 exposed mechanisms:
Every gun is vulnerable to dirt and foreign matter in certain places as you know. Even the "reliable" revolver can get hung up by just a few grains of unburned powder under the extractor star. Some self loaders try to address this by putting a larger gas port to increase the power to the gas system. There is also the idea that a very heavy bolt carrier mass in relation to bolt mass will improve reliability.
The AK-47 uses both these features. I believe that the M1 / M14 uses neither.
The biggest problem was that a prolonged rain would wash the grease out from between the operating rod and bolt. This would cause the bolt to bind and gall and not cycle semi automatically. This was partially addressed during the war by improved lubricants such as Lubriplate (130 ?) grease that would resist being washed away by rain. The consistency is about the same as automotive wheel bearing grease.
The situation was improved yet again by adding a roller to the bolt where it is cammed open and closed by the Operating Rod. Although the situation was improved, it was not eliminated.
I believe that the big advantage in reliability with bolt actions is that manual operation allows a lot more force to open and close the action if it is not operating smoothly.

Is that BSA .22 on a Martini action? We had something like that at the range when I was in college. It was a personal gun so I never had a chance to try it out.


Hello The Basket,
I believe that Shortround6 is giving you a pretty good summary of what the Evan Marshall statistics are about.
It is hard to dispute the data that has been recorded. As I commented earlier, not everyone comes to the same conclusion based on this data or even accepts the data as being entirely representative of all factors. 
For Example, Does the lack of inclusion of multiple hits skew the data against certain calibers?

As a medical person, you know that it matters where the target gets hit, but as the person holding the pistol, can you really tell what organ you are shooting at or what you actually hit? All you really know is that the target was moving around and you fired one shot and hit 'em in the torso and either the target fell down or didn't. It would be really cool if we were great marksmen and the targets were cooperative enough to stand still and let us choose where to shoot, but such is not reality.

Marshall's statistics are an extensive summary of shootings of this type along with the equipment used and the outcomes.
It may not be perfect information but it is the best information we currently have.
You need to determine whether the information is useful to you or whether you would prefer to go with something else.

- Ivan.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Hansie Bloeckmann (Feb 7, 2018)

Ivan1GFP said:


> Hello Hansie Bloeckmann,
> The only real difference between the M1903 and M1903A1 is that the M1903A1 has a full pistol grip stock while the M1903 has a straight stock. Later 03s had a stock with a very rounded off pistol grip called a "scant" stock. Personally I think those are kind of ugly.
> The M1903A4 was not really an ideal sniper rifle.
> The action was the same as the M1903A3 which I believe was nickel steel and a bit "gummy" in operation. It can be cycled fast, but doesn't feel as smooth as earlier guns. As mentioned before, the optics are poor. I believe that the two groove barrels were the standard when the 03A4 was in production. This was intended as a simplification to speed manufacturing. The 2 groove barrels were supposedly less accurate than the regular 4 groove barrels. (The same thing was done to some No.4 Mk.I and Mk.I* rifles produced in North America by Savage and Long Branch.) I have shot similar rifles in 2 groove and 4/5 groove and can't tell the difference but maybe a better marksman could.
> ...


Thanks Ivan, for your insightful analysis of the military weapons we have been discussing. My 30-06 was built from Remington 1903 -- you can barely see the lower section of the serial number, due to the Buehler scope mounts the gunsmith installed- the front sight was removed, and the barrel was lathe turned to a sporter configuration, and it is a 4 groove barrel, with a Star stamped just behind the front sight ramp- gunsmith took photos to document this for me. It has a Timney Match trigger, releases at an even 3.25 lbs. every time, and the Buehler "mauser modifed" safety- as the original "paddle wing" would interfere with the scope mounting.Custom walnut stock with the Paul Wundhammer shaped pg, and a Pachmayr solid recoil pad, and std. QD swivels for the sling- weight unloaded is 8.75 lbs. with scope-- _ would not want it any lighter. It shoots 165 grain Federal Premium factory loads like "Gangbusters"--But this is a civilian sporter built on a fine and dependable controlled feed military rifle. I think one reason for the accuracy is the 4 groove barrel with the std. 1/12 twist. My feeling is, that if such a rifle worked well in a combat scenario, as it did, with the right "modifications", it should also work well for sporting/hunting scenarios as well. I prefer the 30-06 over other popular CF cartridges, as you can find ammo for this caliber world wide- same can be said for a 12 gauge shotgun, FWIW. I have gained a great deal of knowledge from reading your posts and replies here, very much appreciated.Oh--before I close- Yes, you are right- The BSA is a Martini action- drop lever to open the breech block- close lever to lock- This is more accurate with the scope than my Target model Winchester M75 .22 Hansie_


----------



## The Basket (Feb 7, 2018)

Ok.
Seatbelts were mentioned so i do a study of a thousand car crashes near me in which a seatbelt may have saved lives or serious injury.
And I run into problems. Different cars different speeds old people young people and it's nonsense because statistics is based on repeated data but this is not repeated data. Even if I could get a good sample of the same car they would be going different speeds and so on.
If I found 100 cases of when 25 ACP was fatal I can say statistics proves that in the 100 cases 25 ACP is fatal 100%. Which is true based on my sample. 
The best way to prove something is to do something repeated so a human analogue like ballistics gel or a pig will prove more than an actual shooting. That's a scientific method and can be repeated by anyone else.
The Euro NCAP safety rating is a good example. Each car is crashed in exactly the same way at exactly the same speed and so I am comparing like for like using the same test dummies. All the variables are removed and I can come to a conclusion.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 7, 2018)

Hansie Bloeckmann said:


> Thanks Ivan, for your insightful analysis of the military weapons we have been discussing. My 30-06 was built from Remington 1903 -- you can barely see the lower section of the serial number, due to the Buehler scope mounts the gunsmith installed- the front sight was removed, and the barrel was lathe turned to a sporter configuration, and it is a 4 groove barrel, with a Star stamped just behind the front sight ramp- gunsmith took photos to document this for me. It has a Timney Match trigger, releases at an even 3.25 lbs. every time, and the Buehler "mauser modifed" safety- as the original "paddle wing" would interfere with the scope mounting.Custom walnut stock with the Paul Wundhammer shaped pg, and a Pachmayr solid recoil pad, and std. QD swivels for the sling- weight unloaded is 8.75 lbs. with scope-- _ would not want it any lighter. It shoots 165 grain Federal Premium factory loads like "Gangbusters"--But this is a civilian sporter built on a fine and dependable controlled feed military rifle. I think one reason for the accuracy is the 4 groove barrel with the std. 1/12 twist. My feeling is, that if such a rifle worked well in a combat scenario, as it did, with the right "modifications", it should also work well for sporting/hunting scenarios as well. I prefer the 30-06 over other popular CF cartridges, as you can find ammo for this caliber world wide- same can be said for a 12 gauge shotgun, FWIW. I have gained a great deal of knowledge from reading your posts and replies here, very much appreciated.Oh--before I close- Yes, you are right- The BSA is a Martini action- drop lever to open the breech block- close lever to lock- This is more accurate with the scope than my Target model Winchester M75 .22 Hansie_




Sounds like you have a nice sporter there. As long as it shoots all is good 
The Winchester 75 was sort of a high school gun, back when high schools had rifle teams. It is pretty much a model 69 with a longer, heavier barrel and bigger stock. .22s are all over the place as far as accuracy goes, so much depends on ammo, get a batch of ammo that barrel likes and it will put more expensive rifles to shame. But a batch of expensive ammo the barrel doesn't like? might as well throw rocks. 
Knew a few people with .22 BSA Martini's, mostly left handers who didn't want to fool with right bolt actions. Saw at least one bolt handle the extended down and under the gun so a left hander could operate the bolt with the gun fired from the left shoulder. Germans coming out with left handed guns was a godsend to lefties

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Feb 7, 2018)

The Basket said:


> Ok.
> Seatbelts were mentioned so i do a study of a thousand car crashes near me in which a seatbelt may have saved lives or serious injury.
> And I run into problems. Different cars different speeds old people young people and it's nonsense because statistics is based on repeated data but this is not repeated data. Even if I could get a good sample of the same car they would be going different speeds and so on.
> If I found 100 cases of when 25 ACP was fatal I can say statistics proves that in the 100 cases 25 ACP is fatal 100%. Which is true based on my sample.
> ...



Hello The Basket,
Handgun tests on "Human Analogues" were conducted back in 1904 by the US Army before settling on the .45 caliber for the service handgun. 
These are the (in)famous Thompson-LaGarde tests. Targets were live cattle and dead human bodies.

Regarding seat belt testing:
It is nice to have repeatable results, but what happens when an actual car is crashed in a manner different from the method tested (perhaps an oblique angle)? How do you determine if the speed you have selected to crash the cars is representative of the kinds of crashes that actually occur? Does it matter WHAT the car crashes into and whether it moves under impact?
How many different ways can a car roll over or spin as a result of the crash?
You really can't say "All the variables are removed".

I suppose this is the kind of test you meant when you suggested ballistic gelatin.
Ballistic gelatin tests have been conducted pretty exhaustively and yet the suggested results often don't tally with the results in actual shootings. When the results in the lab and the results in the field do not agree, which do you go with?

One of the main objections to ballistic gelatin is that it is not representative of actual targets because unless your assailants are on a beach or at a swimming pool, there is probably some clothing in the way.
Another objection is that ballistic gelatin tends to over emphasize the temporary wound cavity which does not seem to correspond with the severity of wounds which are more represented by the permanent wound cavity.

- Ivan.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Feb 7, 2018)

Hansie Bloeckmann said:


> Thanks Ivan, for your insightful analysis of the military weapons we have been discussing. My 30-06 was built from Remington 1903 -- you can barely see the lower section of the serial number, due to the Buehler scope mounts the gunsmith installed- the front sight was removed, and the barrel was lathe turned to a sporter configuration, and it is a 4 groove barrel, with a Star stamped just behind the front sight ramp- gunsmith took photos to document this for me. It has a Timney Match trigger, releases at an even 3.25 lbs. every time, and the Buehler "mauser modifed" safety- as the original "paddle wing" would interfere with the scope mounting.Custom walnut stock with the Paul Wundhammer shaped pg, and a Pachmayr solid recoil pad, and std. QD swivels for the sling- weight unloaded is 8.75 lbs. with scope-- _ would not want it any lighter. It shoots 165 grain Federal Premium factory loads like "Gangbusters"--But this is a civilian sporter built on a fine and dependable controlled feed military rifle. I think one reason for the accuracy is the 4 groove barrel with the std. 1/12 twist. My feeling is, that if such a rifle worked well in a combat scenario, as it did, with the right "modifications", it should also work well for sporting/hunting scenarios as well. I prefer the 30-06 over other popular CF cartridges, as you can find ammo for this caliber world wide- same can be said for a 12 gauge shotgun, FWIW. I have gained a great deal of knowledge from reading your posts and replies here, very much appreciated.Oh--before I close- Yes, you are right- The BSA is a Martini action- drop lever to open the breech block- close lever to lock- This is more accurate with the scope than my Target model Winchester M75 .22 Hansie_



Hello Hansie Bloeckmann,
It sounds like you have a beautiful classic sporterized Springfield circa about the mid 1950's or so. I am no expert or even particularly knowledgeable on sporting rifles but everything except the Timney trigger sounds like it is from that era. Are you sure your barrel is a 1-12 inch twist? It sounds from the description that it was a star gauged military barrel and I thought those were 1-10 inch twist. I also thought that the star stamp was just in front of the front sight.

If this is a star gauged barrel, then it might explain the accuracy. Barrels were tested by running a gauge shaped like a "star" to fit into the rifling grooves through the barrel. Air was pumped through the gauge and variations in flow were noted as the gauge moved down the barrel.
Barrels that did particularly well were stamped with a star near the muzzle.
This is just from written descriptions. I obviously have never seen this done because most of this testing happened before my parents were even old enough to walk.

Regarding the BSA-Martini:
I do remember comments from the fellow at the school range who told me that this was a "Left handed" rifle and that the spent cases were ejected to left side of the gun. I have had a lot of success with .22 pistols but never had much luck with .22 rifles.

- Ivan.

Reactions: Friendly Friendly:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Feb 8, 2018)

If you look what Volkswagen did with diesel testing then you're right.
They knew exactly what the test will be so can cheat.
Critics of the NCAP say that it doesn't replicate a true crash but how can you replicate every crash? Impossibility.


----------



## Hansie Bloeckmann (Feb 8, 2018)

An accurate rifle is a "joy" to own, and a treasure to shoot, whether hunting or on the range, target shooting. In all the great discussions on this website about WW11 military weapons, very little mention of the usage of "riot" shotguns by ground troops. FWIW-- Hansie


----------



## Hansie Bloeckmann (Feb 8, 2018)

Ivan1GFP said:


> Hello Hansie Bloeckmann,
> It sounds like you have a beautiful classic sporterized Springfield circa about the mid 1950's or so. I am no expert or even particularly knowledgeable on sporting rifles but everything except the Timney trigger sounds like it is from that era. Are you sure your barrel is a 1-12 inch twist? It sounds from the description that it was a star gauged military barrel and I thought those were 1-10 inch twist. I also thought that the star stamp was just in front of the front sight.
> 
> If this is a star gauged barrel, then it might explain the accuracy. Barrels were tested by running a gauge shaped like a "star" to fit into the rifling grooves through the barrel. Air was pumped through the gauge and variations in flow were noted as the gauge moved down the barrel.
> ...


Thanks, Ivan. Both rifles are very accurate, both on the range and in a hunting/varmint shooting scenario. I am not 100% sure about the rate of twist, I just assumed the 4 groove barrels had a 1/12 and the 2 groove had the 1/10- but from a manufacturing standpoint, makes sense to have ROT as standard for all the .30 cal. barrels used on the various 1903 series rifles- I can't remember exactly which way the BSA Martini .22LR kicks the spent casing, maybe to the left side. Hansie


----------



## Barrett (Feb 8, 2018)

IIRC Garand developed the nascent M1 with a .276 cal. round, which made a lot of sense ballistically. However, Big Army (MacArthur, I believe) had the pragmatic objection that there were tons and tons and tons of .06 in storage. As far as MGs, there was lots to be said for retaining .30 cals but logistically that woulda been complex, difficult and maybe fattening. Barrier penetration also is/was a factor although I do not recall seeing/hearing that it was mentioned in tests.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Hansie Bloeckmann (Feb 8, 2018)

Barrett said:


> IIRC Garand developed the nascent M1 with a .276 cal. round, which made a lot of sense ballistically. However, Big Army (MacArthur, I believe) had the pragmatic objection that there were tons and tons and tons of .06 in storage. As far as MGs, there was lots to be said for retaining .30 cals but logistically that woulda been complex, difficult and maybe fattening. Barrier penetration also is/was a factor although I do not recall seeing/hearing that it was mentioned in tests.


The .276 cal. was also what I read, believe John Garand started on his M-1 design in late 1920's-early 1930's-- when many folks believed that WW1 was truly "The War to End ALL Wars"-- Wasn't Julian Hatcher the head of the US Army's Ordnance Board back then?? I am sure Douglas MacArthur added his opinions- bashful he was NOT.


----------



## Hansie Bloeckmann (Feb 8, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> Sounds like you have a nice sporter there. As long as it shoots all is good
> The Winchester 75 was sort of a high school gun, back when high schools had rifle teams. It is pretty much a model 69 with a longer, heavier barrel and bigger stock. .22s are all over the place as far as accuracy goes, so much depends on ammo, get a batch of ammo that barrel likes and it will put more expensive rifles to shame. But a batch of expensive ammo the barrel doesn't like? might as well throw rocks.
> Knew a few people with .22 BSA Martini's, mostly left handers who didn't want to fool with right bolt actions. Saw at least one bolt handle the extended down and under the gun so a left hander could operate the bolt with the gun fired from the left shoulder. Germans coming out with left handed guns was a godsend to lefties


My M75 likes Eley Match grade ammo-I do a lot of squirrel and short-range varmint shooting the the BSA Martini .22- as it is scoped, iron sights removed by a gunsmith before I bought it-and I use CCI hollow points in it, try for head shots. I once shot 25 rounds on the range with the BSA with the Eley Match Grade ammo- outstanding results at 50 yards-- but as the Eley ammo was not designed for small game shooting, that was just an "experiment".. A friend has a Winchester M69 as you mentioned- next time I see him I'll bring along the M75 and look for the common points- I think his also has the Lyman sights, as on my M75. I also use a sling with both these .22 rifles.

Now, one of many reasons I like small game hunting with a .22LR- scoped- is what I learned as a lad- "If you want to be a good deer hunter, first learn to be a good squirrel hunter." Words of wisdom--


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Feb 8, 2018)

The Basket said:


> If you look what Volkswagen did with diesel testing then you're right.
> They knew exactly what the test will be so can cheat.
> Critics of the NCAP say that it doesn't replicate a true crash but how can you replicate every crash? Impossibility.



Hello The Basket,
You just made a really great case for preferring statistics from the field over contrived test results.

For what it's worth, I don't have much faith in any of the EPA (American) emissions / mileage testing.
The mileage cycle was intended for non-overdrive V-8 engines and doesn't match up well with reality.
If a car does particularly well in the EPA highway test, it actually is more likely to do relatively poorly in actual use where speeds are much higher.
The current emissions testing is also quite stupid: Ask the car's computer how it has been doing.... 
I watched the emissions test for my old Mustang which does not have the OBD II system.
It was kind of silly watching the fellow try to maintain 3000 RPM for 2 minutes so that the tail pipe sniffer and test computer would be satisfied.
A 302 engine generates a fair amount of power at 3000 RPM and without inertia, it isn't easy to hold at a precise RPM. It took about 4 tries to get a good run.
Now keep in mind also that a sustained 3000 RPM run is pretty meaningless in this car. In 5th gear, you'd be going just a touch over 120 MPH.
It got even more screwy when I was renewing the tags (reason for emissions test). I sat next to a lady who also was doing the same thing and when we compared test results, we found that my older car had test LIMITS were tighter than for hers. Her car would have had trouble meeting the test limits for my car.

- Ivan.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## kettbo (Feb 8, 2018)

Quite the thread....it won't die and covers a multitude of ideas! It has been quite some time since I've been on WW2AC, I remember this thread when I last dropped in.

I find it interesting that the US Army would not change from .30-06 to .276 for the Garand yet come up with an entirely new round AND weapon, and make some 6.2 million of them. Talking about the M1 Carbine family.

re not changing to .276 for the Garand
When a new rifle comes on line, it may take years to change over all the units. Pre-WW2, not a huge problem because the US Army was small yet the units were scattered all over the place. Plenty of Springfields around, all the Machineguns around....so from a logistics point of view, perhaps a good decision. Then the build-ups....1940-onward
From the operator/capability point of view, another matter. For the larger, more powerful round, the Garand had to be larger and with that the weight penalty. Quite the beast of a weapon as it was yet a smaller/lighter version with a shorter action would allow more rounds in the weapon and on the person of the soldier. Perhaps an opportunity missed.
My US Cavalry career, M16/M4 family of weapons. I carried 210 rounds (way more than a WW2 load) with more in my ruck in magazines. This in addition to WATER (lots), some food in the pockets, body armor, helmet, grenades, commo gear. Are 210 rounds really needed? Well, rounds left in the FOB are like planes needing altitude and airspeed to fly, lack of either can be a problem. 

OK, now for the M1 Carbine
Battle Rifle? No. Compared to a Garand, range and put-down power, the carbine falls short. But that is apples and oranges comparison. Compare the carbine to rightly to pistols and SMGs, what it was designed to replace, and it is a whole new sheriff in town. Pistols, a 25m shot is max. SMGs, rated at 200m. Hmmmmm, suppression maybe. I'd say 100m against a team and maybe 50m vs a point target like a head poking out around a building corner. Deadly at 25m. The M1 Carbine was designed as a Personal Defensive Weapon (PDW) around a rather dubious cartridge with the goal of providing NON-RIFLEMEN and CREW-SERVED WEAPONS, Drivers, Signalers, Artillerymen etc something easier to use and more effective than a pistol. Then-Current SMGs were in the 10 pound range. So the "Ass and Trash" as the line troops calls everybody else got the Carbine, lots of them. Stated range of 300 yards shots would actually be random for all but the most practiced, reasonable accuracy at 250, good results at 200yds. (I hate using yards but that is how things were then)
Way more punch with the .30 cal Carbine round compared to SMG ammo and far better down range ballistics.
Carbine is easier to shoot than a pistol
Light weight, low recoil, self loading, high capacity magazine means you get your weapon to your eye faster, your shot does not upset your aim, reloading is taken care of so your sight picture does not change, and 15 rounds means it is not a big deal if you need to fire another round to get the job done. I cannot imagine situation like the Battle of the Bulge where small clusters of non-Infantry; clerks, service and support troops, cannoneers sans the big guns, truck drivers etc plugged gaps, manned outposts and road blocks. I'd imagine the volume of fire a squad of pissed-off soldiers with Carbines could lay down and the lethality at 200m and below would sound like a far greater force.

An opportunity missed here. With a new Carbine cartridge anyway, no need in my judgement to keep .30 cal other then using existing boring and rifling machine bits.....a somewhat hotter round in the same overall length, necked-down case...would have pushed the effective range out to 300m and greater. I'll leave the bullet diameter and weight to others. This would have pushed the M2 select fire carbine from being a PDW into being an Assault Rifle.

STG44. BIG and HEAVY. Yet this worked....moderate recoil so the sight picture would remain solid for a second shot at rifle ranges and still good effect with short bursts. IN this regard, the lower RoF and greater weight make this more controllable, a better killer than the AK family. Plenty of STGs were made. My looking into this shows that they tended to be issued to units in quantity rather than piecemeal. This gives greater effect and somewhat eases the ammo supply burden. This is to say going to specific units rather than front-wide penny packets.
Ammo production was slow ramping up to the goal of 1000 rds/wpn/month.
STG45. YES! Alas, too late. Far too late.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 8, 2018)

kettbo said:


> ...
> An opportunity missed here. With a new Carbine cartridge anyway, no need in my judgement to keep .30 cal other then using existing boring and rifling machine bits.....a somewhat hotter round in the same overall length, necked-down case...would have pushed the effective range out to 300m and greater. I'll leave the bullet diameter and weight to others. This would have pushed the M2 select fire carbine from being a PDW into being an Assault Rifle.



Welcom back, George 
The 'original' .30 Carbine round was pushing a 110 gr bulet at 1990 fps. There was a necked-down spin-off, the .22 Spitfire made by Johnson of the Johnson LMG fame, pushing a 40 or 50 gr bullet between 3000 and 2700 fps. 
So - make a .25 Carbine (= necked down .30 Crabine), 70-80 gr bullet, 2500-2300 fps, selective fire of course.


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 8, 2018)

You are up against the same problem that bedevils modern day developers of improved M-16s.
Limited length in the magazine.









There was a wildcat based on the Rem. 222 case




It could do about 2700FPS with a 75 grain bullet from a 19 3/8 in (490mm?) barrel was operating at about 20% higher pressure than the carbine.

Pushing back the bullets into the case to meet the magazine limit restricts the powder capacity even more. 
.223 cartridge dimensions

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 8, 2018)

I would note that the .30 cal Carbine, for all it's bad press fires a .308 diameter 110 grain bullet at about 1990 fps while the Russian 7.62x 25 pistol/submachine gun cartridge fires a .310-312 85 grain bullet at around 1500-1600fps depending on load and barrel. 





trying to turn the .30 cal carbine into anything but a hot submachine gun cartridge is probably a lost cause.


----------



## Hansie Bloeckmann (Feb 8, 2018)

kettbo said:


> Quite the thread....it won't die and covers a multitude of ideas! It has been quite some time since I've been on WW2AC, I remember this thread when I last dropped in.
> 
> I find it interesting that the US Army would not change from .30-06 to .276 for the Garand yet come up with an entirely new round AND weapon, and make some 6.2 million of them. Talking about the M1 Carbine family.
> 
> ...


If you consider that the 8 rd. enbloc clip for the Garand would not fit any of the other shoulder weapons, or even MG's of that between WW1 and WW11 era- it might have been a good move to go with that effective cal. I don't know, would the enbloc clip in .276 cal. hold more than 8 rds.?? But a common ammo in a combat scenario-has a great advantage-- to some extent. How easy is it to strip rounds from an enbloc Garand clip, to supply a fellow soldier carrying a Springfield '03?? How easy is it to remove rds. from a MG belt to supply either a Garand or a '03 rifleman. What you can do with some degree of facility on the range on in a field exercise, becomes a "whole 'nother ball game" in a combat scenario. Judged with 20-20 hindsight, I think the Army Ordnance group made the right call in insisting on the .30cal for the Garand-- The extra weight and bulk, and somewhat complicated feed mechanism nonwithstanding, the Garand did the job for America in WW11 and Korea-


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 8, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> ...
> trying to turn the .30 cal carbine into anything but a hot submachine gun cartridge is probably a lost cause.



The resulting .25 Carbine is indeed weak for a rifle, even if it is automatic. However, a SMG designed around it should've been quite a weapon, not bulkier or heavier than the M2 Carbine, with even softer recoil to emable more accurate automatic fire.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 8, 2018)

Hansie Bloeckmann said:


> If you consider that the 8 rd. enbloc clip for the Garand would not fit any of the other shoulder weapons, or even MG's of that between WW1 and WW11 era- it might have been a good move to go with that effective cal. I don't know, would the enbloc clip in .276 cal. hold more than 8 rds.?? But a common ammo in a combat scenario-has a great advantage-- to some extent. How easy is it to strip rounds from an enbloc Garand clip, to supply a fellow soldier carrying a Springfield '03?? How easy is it to remove rds. from a MG belt to supply either a Garand or a '03 rifleman. What you can do with some degree of facility on the range on in a field exercise, becomes a "whole 'nother ball game" in a combat scenario. Judged with 20-20 hindsight, I think the Army Ordnance group made the right call in insisting on the .30cal for the Garand-- The extra weight and bulk, and somewhat complicated feed mechanism nonwithstanding, the Garand did the job for America in WW11 and Korea-



The problem for the Americans actually went the other way around, they were _expected_ to strip ammo from 5 round Springfield clips or the 8 round M1 clips in order to refill BAR magazines. Trying to refill WW II belts was not easy without a belt loading machine, likewise trying to pull rounds out was a hard process with sore if not bloody fingers.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Hansie Bloeckmann (Feb 8, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> The problem for the Americans actually went the other way around, they were _expected_ to strip ammo from 5 round Springfield clips or the 8 round M1 clips in order to refill BAR magazines. Trying to refill WW II belts was not easy without a belt loading machine, likewise trying to pull rounds out was a hard process with sore if not bloody fingers.


Great answer--I wondered about the ammo supply for the BAR --does your answer also imply that the soldier with the BAR was trained to keep his empty magazines, for possible refills from others in his unit with either a Garand or a 1903 rifle?? In WW11, were the American .30cal. Browning MG's fed with cloth belts, that required a belt loading machine to reload same. ?? Many thanks, Hansie.


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 8, 2018)

The BAR, at least in 1941, came with 25 magazines. On the March (foot) some were carried by the gunner, some by the assistant gunner and some by the ammo carrier, the rest were carried on some sort of truck/trailer that carried all the extra "stuff" the troops couldn't fit in belts and backbacks. Extra ammo over and above the amount in those magazines was carried in the standard US bandoliers.




There was actually very little difference, if any (beside lettering) between the bandoliers for the SPringfield and the M-1. The Bandoliers for the Springfield just put two 5 round 'clips' in each pouch instead of one 8 round "clip". Bandolier held 60 rounds vs 48. 
Ammo came from factories (or supply depots) already clipped and packed into the bandoliers and then in boxes/crates. Machine gun ammo came in belts and eas boxed. 

When combat was judged "iminent" the extra ammo was issued to the men and they had to carry it from that point on. ANy further reserves of ammo were packed the same way. WHat happened later in the war I don't know but I don't believe the BAR magazines were considered disposable.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Hansie Bloeckmann (Feb 8, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> The BAR, at least in 1941, came with 25 magazines. On the March (foot) some were carried by the gunner, some by the assistant gunner and some by the ammo carrier, the rest were carried on some sort of truck/trailer that carried all the extra "stuff" the troops couldn't fit in belts and backbacks. Extra ammo over and above the amount in those magazines was carried in the standard US bandoliers.
> View attachment 481810
> 
> There was actually very little difference, if any (beside lettering) between the bandoliers for the SPringfield and the M-1. The Bandoliers for the Springfield just put two 5 round 'clips' in each pouch instead of one 8 round "clip". Bandolier held 60 rounds vs 48.
> ...


Thanks SR6- great fotos- the LC stamping on the bandoliers- Lake City Arsenal??


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Feb 8, 2018)

Hello Kettbo,
Welcome back.



kettbo said:


> Quite the thread....it won't die and covers a multitude of ideas! It has been quite some time since I've been on WW2AC, I remember this thread when I last dropped in.



We are hardly staying on the original topic and I am one of the more easily distracted and guilty parties.



kettbo said:


> re not changing to .276 for the Garand
> When a new rifle comes on line, it may take years to change over all the units. Pre-WW2, not a huge problem because the US Army was small yet the units were scattered all over the place. Plenty of Springfields around, all the Machineguns around....so from a logistics point of view, perhaps a good decision. Then the build-ups....1940-onward
> From the operator/capability point of view, another matter. For the larger, more powerful round, the Garand had to be larger and with that the weight penalty. Quite the beast of a weapon as it was yet a smaller/lighter version with a shorter action would allow more rounds in the weapon and on the person of the soldier. Perhaps an opportunity missed.



My understanding was that the M1 Garand was originally designed for the .30-06 anyway and the chance from .276 to .30-06 basically cost 2 rounds of magazine capacity.



kettbo said:


> An opportunity missed here. With a new Carbine cartridge anyway, no need in my judgement to keep .30 cal other then using existing boring and rifling machine bits.....a somewhat hotter round in the same overall length, necked-down case...would have pushed the effective range out to 300m and greater. I'll leave the bullet diameter and weight to others. This would have pushed the M2 select fire carbine from being a PDW into being an Assault Rifle.



The same nominal bore diameter doesn't necessarily mean the same boring / drilling and rifling tools. Even with the change to two groove barrels for the M1903A3 and the No.4 Mk.I* rifles, the actual bore diameter is slightly different (larger) because there is no longer as much volume of the bullet that fit into the rifling grooves. The change from 4/5 groove down to 2 groove certainly requires a different rifling broach as would a different rifling twist.
At close range (100 yards), the M1 Carbine (sample size perhaps a half dozen) tends to be about as accurate as the M1 Garand.

- Ivan.


----------



## The Basket (Feb 8, 2018)

An interesting idea.
Ditch the M1 carbine and give the secondarily troops a 1903 so you don't have supply issues.
Not the worst idea. The Thompson was big heavy and expensive so was not ideal and the grease gun was a late starter. The 30.06 was a stout cartridge so making a smaller carbine was not practical. 
The French had similar ideas. Give the front line the semi and the rear the bolt action. Probably if the US was lacking in resources then certainty a good idea.


----------



## swampyankee (Feb 9, 2018)

The Basket said:


> When i said 9mm i actually meant .380 ACP...hehehe...or was it the Glisenti?
> So many 9mm to choose from. Anyhoo i agree that the 7.62 NATO round was a US invention although fortunately we could get the SLR and not force fed the M-14.
> I do declare that American sticking to there guns was a backwards step and may critics of the M-16 used the 5.56 against it as well.
> British police do not carry fireams although a quick armed response unit is usuallly only a few minutes away. Oddly, they also have to carry out mundane police tasks so you could get a speeding ticket from someone carrying.
> Old chestnut of whether a 6 shot revolver with 38 special is no longer good enough. It was good enough so the gun hasnt changed but the perception of been attacked by 20 ninjas and needing better has



Part of the reason for the increase in police firepower in the US was the result of one group of heavily armed and armor-vest wearing bank robbers in California.


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 9, 2018)

The idea behind the .30 carbine was to give the "2nd line troops" something more effective than a pistol and yet something less cumbersome than a full sized rifle. Giving them Springfields does away with that "advantage". I would note that many european countries had used short barreled carbines for some 2nd line troops although 2nd line isn't quite an accurate description of artillerymen, engineers(sappers) and other combat troops who's primary job is NOT weilding a rifle. The Springfield and SMLE had been given 24in barrels instead of the near standard 29-31in barrels of "full" sized military rifles and the 16-20in barrels of the carbines in the hope that one medium rifle could cover both uses. 
Armies had changed from before WW I to the 1930s with many more troops being used in "auxiliary" roles, like truck drivers and support weapon crews. What rifle do you give mortar men if you expect them to carry either mortar parts (barrel, baseplate,etc) or mortar shells on backs or in hands? I believe the "idea" was that the short light carbine would be kept readier to hand (like on the soldier) more often than kept in a rack or stacked in a group at some not so convenient distance from where the work was being done. The US had issued a considerable number of pistols and the idea was that .30 carbine would replace a number of those. Full size bolt action rifles weren't really going to replace pistols and were not going to really free up any large number of full sized M 1 rifles for front line troops. 





What the Ordnance Dept thought and what troops did in the field were often different things.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 9, 2018)

Couple of charts I found while poking around on the internet.
Windrift.









and for comparison 





and for recoil





WW II rifle would weigh more than 7lbs

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Hansie Bloeckmann (Feb 9, 2018)

Ivan1GFP said:


> Hello The Basket,
> There is no doubt that each case needs to be taken on a case by case basis.
> The problem with that idea is that it gives no guidance as to weapons selection and caliber differences and we know there must be some differences.
> 
> ...


We often, as lads and the Sat. afternoon Matinees and Westerns, wondered how the heroes and villains could keep on firing their Colt 6 shooters w/o ever reloading-and hit a target more in rifle range than for a Colt SA .45 revolver, while riding full tilt on horseback over rough terrain. Here's my "Movie Guns" FUBAR-- The great Clint Eastwood/Gene Hackman movie- Unforgiven: takes place in the West, WY? maybe, in a fictional town named "Big Whiskey"--1881-- near the end, when Hackman rounds up a volunteer posse, one of the members said something like this, if memory serves: "Hey, Little Bill (Daggett-Hackman's character)-- "blank name here-possibly owner of the town gunshop- "Won't give us any 30-30 shells on credit!" Sounds about right, the owner wanted to be paid in cash for any ammo- as always uncertain who would be coming back from such a "excursion" after desperadoes, right? OK- except the 30-30 Winchester didn't come on the scene until 1894- some 13 years later--

Want another, this one in the shotgun motif? OK- the movie "Tombstone" with Val Kilmer as Doc Holiday, Kurt Russell as Wyatt Earp- the scene at the OK corral, "Doc" has the double barreled shotgun, fires his first shot skyward, and spooks the riders horse, then shoots the rider, and one more member of the Clanton gang- without ever opening the breech to remove the fired cases, and then reload the chambers- 3 shots from a 2 shot shotgun- some "Hat Trick"???

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Hansie Bloeckmann (Feb 9, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> The idea behind the .30 carbine was to give the "2nd line troops" something more effective than a pistol and yet something less cumbersome than a full sized rifle. Giving them Springfields does away with that "advantage". I would note that many european countries had used short barreled carbines for some 2nd line troops although 2nd line isn't quite an accurate description of artillerymen, engineers(sappers) and other combat troops who's primary job is NOT weilding a rifle. The Springfield and SMLE had been given 24in barrels instead of the near standard 29-31in barrels of "full" sized military rifles and the 16-20in barrels of the carbines in the hope that one medium rifle could cover both uses.
> Armies had changed from before WW I to the 1930s with many more troops being used in "auxiliary" roles, like truck drivers and support weapon crews. What rifle do you give mortar men if you expect them to carry either mortar parts (barrel, baseplate,etc) or mortar shells on backs or in hands? I believe the "idea" was that the short light carbine would be kept readier to hand (like on the soldier) more often than kept in a rack or stacked in a group at some not so convenient distance from where the work was being done. The US had issued a considerable number of pistols and the idea was that .30 carbine would replace a number of those. Full size bolt action rifles weren't really going to replace pistols and were not going to really free up any large number of full sized M 1 rifles for front line troops.
> View attachment 481847
> 
> What the Ordnance Dept thought and what troops did in the field were often different things.


3 Garands in "tripod mode" with the front stacking swivels employed. My guess, early 1940=1941== I believe that later in WW11 the cotton webbing style sling replaced the leather sling-maybe not 100%, but cotton or fabric would hold up better to wet and nasty battlefield conditions, and would be way cheaper to mfg.-just my guess.. Hansie


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 9, 2018)

Picture may be from modern re-enactors? But shows the problem of issuing full sized rifles to non-front line troops. They are going to put them someplace out of the way while they perform their normal duties. This was still a big problem in Vietnam and the mideast where infiltrators/suicide attackers were much more common than in WW II. 






I had to search a few minutes to find this picture which is probably posed and/or taken for propaganda purposes as you have to look a lot to find an action picture of a gun crew with a rifle or carbine anywhere in the picture let alone slung over the backs of the gunners.


----------



## BAGTIC (Feb 9, 2018)

dobbie said:


> Id have to agree on NOT using a rimmed cartridge for an autoloading or select fire weapon. I chose the M14 not only for the reasons stated earlier, but also for the cartridge it was designed around. The 7.62 NATO is 90% of a 30-06 in a shorter package, hits hard, has the range for nearly every conceivable engagement scenario, and a BAR or other squad automatic weapon would also be effective with the same cartridge.
> Im not a big fan of intermediate cartridges. While the "average engagement" range is 300 meters, give or take, it really depends on the terrain youre fighting on. A mountainous area is going to require longer shots on average, for example. A jungle enviornment puts you nearly face to face with your enemy. The advantage of a full power cartridge in dense growth is the ability to go thru the vegetation rather than being stopped by it.
> Full automatic fire for every infantryman's rifle is an ammo load you dont want to have to carry. Might not mean much for a mechanized infantry unit, but to a leg or airborne infantry outfit, every pound counts.


No difference between ballistics of 7.62 and 30-06. Both too powerful A 7mm similar to 7-08 would have offered better long range trajectory. Even smaller would have been better. 7mm Pedersen was about right, no need for anything heavier. A 7mm rimless version of the 25 Remington loaded to 50-55 thousand psi with 125 grain bullet would have been enough.


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 9, 2018)

Couple of more charts scanned from an old copy of Jane's Infantry weapons.








This shows the the needs/expected ranges of the rifle and LMG are different. I do question the 2nd graph as to weither it is for bipod mounted machine guns or for all rifle caliber machine guns.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 9, 2018)

BAGTIC said:


> No difference between ballistics of 7.62 and 30-06. Both too powerful A 7mm similar to 7-08 would have offered better long range trajectory. Even smaller would have been better. 7mm Pedersen was about right, no need for anything heavier. A 7mm rimless version of the 25 Remington loaded to 50-55 thousand psi with 125 grain bullet would have been enough.



I knew a man who worked at Aberdeen Proving ground during the late 40s and early 50s during the time they were working on the 7.62 nato and they had the British .280 there for testing. He became convinced that the 7mm caliber was the way to go, to the point of building several 7mm wildcats including at least two 7mms that started off as .30-30 cases (practically identical to the 25 Remington), since he used an old Winchester 54 action and a Mauser he wasn't too worried about the pressure levels although he did not use max loads. 
His theory was that since most bullets use the same thickness jacket (at least at that time) going much smaller than 7mm meant a larger percentage of the bullet was made up of jacket and not lead so you needed a longer bullet, proportionally to get the weight you wanted. Going too small also magnified the effect of any flaws, If jacket material is not 100% uniform in thickness, means the center of gravity is not in the center of the bullet (on the axis). This is not something most people even worry about with modern commercial bullets. How true it was in the 1940s and early 50s with government issue ammo I have no idea. However there are reasons that people use match bullets in rifle matches, they work  
I will note that the 7mm doesn't really give you a large reduction in bullet weight compared to the .30 cal and 8mm if you are looking to reduce recoil while keeping your long range ballistics up. 

to recap and going by sectional density (you can squash the weight into any shape you wish, I don't want to argue about specific ballistic coefficients )
6.5mm...............107 grains........SD...219
6.5mm...............120 grains........SD...246
7mm..................120 grains........SD...213
7mm..................130 grains........SD...230
7mm..................140 grains........SD...248
.30 cal................125 grains........SD...188
.30 cal................150 grains........SD...226
.30 cal................165 grains........SD...248

When I built my 6.5s I was looking for a bigger change in recoil than the 7mm would provide and in the early 90s there was a bigger selection of 6.5 match bullets than 7mm.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Feb 10, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> This is not something most people even worry about with modern commercial bullets. How true it was in the 1940s and early 50s with government issue ammo I have no idea. However there are reasons that people use match bullets in rifle matches, they work
> I will note that the 7mm doesn't really give you a large reduction in bullet weight compared to the .30 cal and 8mm if you are looking to reduce recoil while keeping your long range ballistics up.



Hello Shortround6,
I can tell you from personal experience that military bullets (ball ammunition) even 10-15 years ago were pretty poorly made. I have bought a few bulk packs of military 55 grain .223 and 147 grain steel jacket 147 grain and no amount of selecting from a batch of those will give decent accuracy. Sometimes the base closures may have excess lead or slight visible differences.... But they WERE inexpensive and sufficiently good for casual shooting with iron sights.
The generally poor quality is why shooters were making "Mexican Match" ammunition by pulling those bullets and replacing them with Match grade bullets.

Regarding Match grade bullets: I am not convinced that 95% of high power shooters would notice if regular commercial hunting bullets were substituted for their match bullets. I state this from observing the targets of local high power shooters over the years. Some are good enough to tell. Most are not. With iron sights, I am not good enough to tell.
My own experiments with a service rifle capable of around 5/8 inch groups now but at the time was doing more like 3/4 inch groups, substituting bulk pack non premium hunting bullets would give a group size around 1.25 to about 1.5 inch. The only way I can reliably tell is by shooting off a bench with a rest and some pretty good optics.
I have heard a few shooters (some were very good friends of mine) tell me their M1A shoots under an inch and then pull a target that has a pattern that is about 5 inches in diameter.
I have also seen a piece-o-cr*p rifle with only one locking lug making contact go from a 4-5 inch group down to around 1.5 inch with a "bedding job" done with Post-It notes. (That was the only thing we could find to use at the range at the time!)  I have seen some pretty fancy looking glass bedded service rifles not do any better because of some not so obvious fault in assembly.

- Ivan.


----------



## The Basket (Feb 10, 2018)

In my day you had to keep your weapon with you at all times. At least arms reach. 
The Japanese and Italians made some very nice carbine but they had the weaker 6.5mm round so having a shorty was less issue.
The 1903 was already short so taking more off would be cutting it too fine as recoil and blast would come into it.
My point is or was that America could have given front lines troops the Garand and others kept the 1903. I would assume that is what armies with less money or industrial horsepower would have done


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Feb 10, 2018)

The Basket said:


> In my day you had to keep your weapon with you at all times. At least arms reach.
> The Japanese and Italians made some very nice carbine but they had the weaker 6.5mm round so having a shorty was less issue.
> The 1903 was already short so taking more off would be cutting it too fine as recoil and blast would come into it.
> My point is or was that America could have given front lines troops the Garand and others kept the 1903. I would assume that is what armies with less money or industrial horsepower would have done



Hello The Basket,
Perhaps those other less well-off armies would have just equipped their heavy weapons crews with pistols.
Pistols are relatively cheap to make and make neat souvenirs for the other side as well.
The problem with the M1 Carbine was the same problem as with the Battlecruiser.
A Battlecruiser looks like a Battleship, so Admirals would put it into the battleline where it would face firepower it was not built to withstand.
The M1 Carbine looks like a battle rifle so soldiers used it for the same purpose.

- Ivan.


----------



## The Basket (Feb 10, 2018)

I can guess why a troop would go for the carbine because it's lighter and smaller. And that goes a long way if your the mule having to lump it around Europe. A few pounds a few inches make difference.
The 1911 was not cheap and it's 45 round was not novice friendly so the carbine was a good shout. Although I have heard said the M1 carbine was not that reliable.
Some armies do use old kit which the Americans didn't have to due to said budget and industrial power.


----------



## Fighterguy (Feb 15, 2018)

I'll go with what's regarded as the best service rifle of the period, the M1 Garand. Rugged and reliable. Next would be the SKS. Smaller cartridge, easy to maintain, very reliable and rugged.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## drewwizard (Mar 12, 2018)

as a general rifle available in WWII, I would see Sturmgewehr 44 as the best rifle weapon for the general troops. The smaller lighter ammo means you can carry and transport more using the same truck. Cost in materials and labor to produce the ammo is smaller. A MG43 chambered for this smaller round would be a good complement. 6.5mm would have been an ideal cartridge size with improvement in ballistics, but the cartridge is close to the AK-47 which is time tested. On the allied side, the M1A3 Carbine. (select fire version). 

Ideal for a squad - Sturmgeware 44, MG43 as the SAW, and a PTRS with a sniper scope.


----------



## Gman109 (Mar 12, 2018)

I think either a Garand with a more mid-range caliber, or the STG44 - equip either with a decent optic of the day as standard issue as well. Well it's mostly accurate that the vast amount of shots taken in battle at an identified target with a proper sight picture was around 100m in WW2, this was a function of many things. IMO the most critical factor with that was the lack of an optical sighting system. The book "A rifleman went to war", which was in fact written about WW1, had a lot of interesting material regarding this I found, and another major fact that isn't widely discusses is that Hitler himself wanted every issued rifle after 1944 to have the best optic Germany could manufacture mounted on it (he didn't get his wish)- the power of that day would be similar to the combat optics used by infantrymen today, at least roughly similar enough in terms of magnification if not field of view which was obviously much less in WW2 times what with the very narrow diameters of the tubes.

That's what I'd want to equip myself and other troops with in WW2 - a 10 round Garand in a lighter/faster caliber, somewhere in between 556 and 3006, and for the German team the STG44 would serve just fine for the times once a decent optic system such as the Zeiss ZF4 was mounted IMO. A removable box feed magazine would be something I would strongly consider for the uber-Garand, regardless of what it would do to the logistic system. It'd still have the ability to load from stripper clips same as say the M14, but in combat the ability to reload more rapidly with a removable box system would be a +, and a box magazine system would be far faster than the Garand en-bloc 8 round clip system, especially with gloves on, which was 1/2 the war in Europe or more. Box is faster, more capacity, and is more gross motor skill than the en-bloc.

Regarding ammunition - if there were no treaties in play in this experimental world/time, I would absolutely create explosive rounds for both Allied and Axis rifles. Massive effect on lethality.

That'd be my rifles for both sides in WW2.


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 12, 2018)

When considering rifles you also have to consider the light machine guns/squad automatics and an armies tactical thinking/philosophy. 
The squad cannot be considered a world of it's own. It is the building block of the platoon/company and to a large part the Battalion. 
Some armies had different ideas as to what level got different amounts of support weapons. A heavy weapons company at battalion level or a heavy weapons platoon at company level? Or...........
Going to an intermediate cartridge for the light machine gun/squad automatic really limits the platoon/company firepower. 
While squads on their own may not be expected to fight at over 300-400 meters platoons were and companies most certainly were. Both the British and Germans were _supposed _to have a certain number of tripods held at company level to fit the squad machine guns on for long range fire or for firing on fixed lines. How often these got lost I have no idea. The Americans simply gave each company a pair of tripod mounted M1919 Brownings. The Russians, once they moved to the 7.62 x 39 in the squad/platoon issued a few 7.62 x 54 machine guns at company level.
Granted city fighting or jungle fighting have different priorities than dessert or open terrain fighting but you don't have trucks of guns following you around and you don't get to draw "weapons of the day " based on mission. 

Explosive ammunition for rifles/ground machine guns is pretty much a needless expense and complication. AS are most things, ammunition is a compromise and HE rifle bullets require much more care in both manufacturing and handling than Ball, AP or even tracer. HE rifle bullets also really suck at penetration. Full power rifle ammo will go through 12-24 in of sand (depending on exact bullet and if sand is wet or dry), several feet of wood ( big change from pine to oak) 3-6 ins of masonry and other assorted obstacles. Little tiny bangs on the outside of such barriers can turn conclement into cover. British .303 may not have been the best at penetrating but with the nose of the bullet full of aluminium or some other filler it flopped sideways most of the time pretty quickly. A .303 bullet going sideways has pretty good stopping power


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Mar 13, 2018)

Hello Gentlemen,

Welcome to the discussion. The original point of the discussion as I saw it was to determine the ideal rifle design and cartridge using the technology available in WW2. Some hindsight and modern knowledge is allowed and surprisingly with the discussion thus far, no one has actually cried "foul" for any of the proposals.

We also seemed to get stuck in the cartridge design phase and never actually got to a discussion of weapons design.
As a bit of history, Shortround6 and myself have probably been the most opinionated but surprisingly there is actually much more in agreement than one might expect. It seems like we all agree that a 6.5 mm cartridge with about a 45 mm to 50 mm case would be about right for size.
The differences are mostly opinions of ideal power level. I prefer a bullet of about 140 grains at MV of around 2600-2650 FPS and Shortround6 preferred a lighter 120 grain bullet moving a bit slower for less recoil for more controllable full automatic fire.

I hope I have characterized the discussion accurately.


Hello Shortround6,

I have no argument that the standard infantry rifle must fit into the "big picture", but how much of that big picture is determined by the weapons that are available? Is the weapon the cause of the doctrine or the effect of the doctrine?
A couple points worth noting in your discussion:
I don't believe the 7,62 x 39 M43 cartridge was a factor with the Russians in the Great Patriotic War. It came way too late to really have much effect on THAT war. As I understand it, the first service weapon to use that cartridge was the SKS-45 which didn't see much if any service before the war ended.
Another factor that is worth mentioning for rifle penetration is that the distance to the target is VERY important. Up very close, the penetration of a rifle bullet tends to be extremely poor relative to backing off 30-50 yards so the bullet has a chance to "go to sleep" before hitting the obstacle.

- Ivan.


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 13, 2018)

My only real reason for bringing in the Russian short cartridge was as a counter point to the the suggestion that the Germans should have fielded a belt fed machine gun chambered for the the 7.9 x 33 to accompany the STG44. It might have worked fine in heavily forested areas or cities but would have severely limited any armies options in more open terrain. 

AS to penetration, some times even 200yds is barely enough to allow a bullet to "go to sleep". 
I have never seen any penetration tables for either the short German cartridge or the short Russian but tend to doubt their ability at 200-600yds compared to the full power rifle rounds, not only due to the lower initial power but the short, stumpy bullets will loose power even faster than the full power rounds. 
I do have penetration tables for some between the wars US rounds.


----------



## The Basket (Mar 13, 2018)

10 round Garand with a smaller calibre round? If only.....that actually did happen and was rejected. 
StG 44 was on the way out if the war had continued replaced by the StG 45(M). 
Explosive rounds was not a mass produced item. 
Box magazines are not the miracle cure as an external box magazine can be trouble and the 8 round en bloc clip for the Garand was certainly fast enough and easy enough certainly over a stripper clip.


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 13, 2018)

Box magazines have two advantages over En bloc clips, neither of which is really critical.
If you want more magazine capacity then a bigger (longer) detachable box is an easy upgrade and retro fit to already existing weapons.

Detachable box magazines make reloading scoped rifles quick and easy and do not require offset mounts and poor head position.


----------



## The Basket (Mar 13, 2018)

Box mags must be seen in the pros cons ratio and not a given. The Lee Enfield had a detachable box magazine and Lee patented the idea in 1879 but was never used as a detachable magazine and was a weak point in the rifle. 
The Russians lost 80,000 rifles a month in ww1 so rifles must be disposable as well and giving all rifles scopes or solid gold bolts is not cost effective.
Of course how disposable a rifle or rifleman is will depend country to country.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Mar 13, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> AS to penetration, some times even 200yds is barely enough to allow a bullet to "go to sleep".
> I have never seen any penetration tables for either the short German cartridge or the short Russian but tend to doubt their ability at 200-600yds compared to the full power rifle rounds, not only due to the lower initial power but the short, stumpy bullets will loose power even faster than the full power rounds.
> I do have penetration tables for some between the wars US rounds.



Regarding penetration, the optimal range for something like the .30-06 is about 20-30 yards. It is enough for the bullet to stabilize or "go to sleep" but not so far as to lose a lot of velocity. I forget where I saw the results of this kind of testing but it was for US military .30-06 rounds.

- Ivan.


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 13, 2018)

How was the detachable box magazine a weak point of the SMLE? Or any Lee Enfield. 

I did say that that the use of detachable box magazines was not critical. You can make a perfectly satisfactory rifle without a detachable box magazine but then the thread title is "Ideal Rifle" not pretty good rifle or satisfactory rifle. 
Having your sniper rifles (of what ever percentage of issue you choose) have to use Rube Goldberg scope mounts or reload using single rounds is hardly ideal.


----------



## Gman109 (Mar 13, 2018)

> 10 round Garand with a smaller calibre round? If only.....that actually did happen and was rejected.
> StG 44 was on the way out if the war had continued replaced by the StG 45(M).
> Explosive rounds was not a mass produced item.
> Box magazines are not the miracle cure as an external box magazine can be trouble and the 8 round en bloc clip for the Garand was certainly fast enough and easy enough certainly over a stripper clip.



Disagree with the majority of this.

The OP's question didn't ask to factor in manufacturing cost, and that was the really big advantage the STG45 had over the 44 - also 44 certainly was NOT on the "way out", as only a handful, as in less than 100 STG45s were produced by the time Germany surrendered.

Box magazines can be trouble? Sure, any part of a rifle system "can" be trouble, however that doesn't preclude using a detachable magazine. Hence pretty much every main battle rifle in the WORLD using one right now. The primary reason I included it has already been stated by another, if you run optics, you have to offset them for a top loading en-bloc system. Optics would be the biggest single improvement to any WW2 rifle, and this is also why going to a mid range caliber in the M1 would be a huge advantage, as recoil management so far as it relates to that rifle is far better (faster) with a mid range caliber than the 30 caliber version is. IE going to a lower recoiling round would increase the performance that adding an optical advantage to the rifle would give, significantly.

I strongly disagree that the 8 rnd en bloc system was "fast enough" compared to a detach box mag would be. Try running your Garand quickly with gloves on, reloading a detach mag vs the 8 rnd clip in those conditions is laughably faster. Also, 8 rnd clips can be just as much, if not MORE trouble than a detach box mag, as it's far easier to snag them on threads/clothing/etc with the rounds being exposed the way they are, and they are far more exposed to debris getting into the clip/rounds. Again, there was a reason the M14 went to a detach box, as did every other main battle rifle from then to now. I mostly used box mag as one of my wish list items primarily to help facilitate mounting optics on every US main battle rifle so far as the OP's question went.





> Explosive ammunition for rifles/ground machine guns is pretty much a needless expense and complication. AS are most things, ammunition is a compromise and HE rifle bullets require much more care in both manufacturing and handling than Ball, AP or even tracer. HE rifle bullets also really suck at penetration. Full power rifle ammo will go through 12-24 in of sand (depending on exact bullet and if sand is wet or dry), several feet of wood ( big change from pine to oak) 3-6 ins of masonry and other assorted obstacles. Little tiny bangs on the outside of such barriers can turn conclement into cover. British .303 may not have been the best at penetrating but with the nose of the bullet full of aluminium or some other filler it flopped sideways most of the time pretty quickly. A .303 bullet going sideways has pretty good stopping power




I don't disagree, but it is a "wish list" post, and considering that penetration isn't as big a concern in WW2 as today (although still a concern, granted) due to there being little to no use of body armor, I'd prefer the massive increase in lethality of any strike in the cone of vulnerability of the target over depth of penetration a ball or AP rounds gives. I agree with everything you posted regarding the increase in cost and time in manufacturing exploding rounds, but again, it's a wish list as a end user of the rifle, that's how I took the OP, if it was a based in reality list, obviously logistics is critical.

Also, IMO you can use mid caliber rounds in an MG and have it still be reasonably effective out to 3 or 400 yards. In fact the RPDs our counter assault teams used while in Iraq and Afghanistan worked at least as well or better than the SAWs we ran later on, but both were pretty effective at that range. In fact as an LMG I feel it's more optimal than a 30 caliber weapon, which typically needs as you said a decent(heavy) mount.

DARPA and other agencies are working on mid-range caliber in the 6mm-ish class right now for a replacement for both the 556 SAWs and the 762 240s, some with telescoping tech ammunition, some not, but the common thread is a mid range caliber.



> Up very close, the penetration of a rifle bullet tends to be extremely poor relative to backing off 30-50 yards so the bullet has a chance to "go to sleep" before hitting the obstacle.



Could you explain this a bit more, I don't understand what you're saying exactly. The muzzle velocity of any bullet will always be it's fastest, and kinetic energy is KE = 1/2_mv_2, v being velocity. Rifle rounds striking the human body at close range, the lethality often depends on angle of entry and rotation (yaw factor), but certainly it doesn't "gain" anything at 50 yards+ that it wouldn't have at 0 to 50 yards, in fact the velocity will be slightly higher at less than 50 yards, if anything.

edit -


> Regarding penetration, the optimal range for something like the .30-06 is about 20-30 yards. It is enough for the bullet to stabilize or "go to sleep" but not so far as to lose a lot of velocity. I forget where I saw the results of this kind of testing but it was for US military .30-06 rounds.


Ok, thanks for the response, I understand what you were saying now. Stabilization is a pretty variable subject, as twist rate, barrel length, bullet shape, weight, composition, etc, all play a factor in that. I do agree that rifle rounds less than 50 yards can be pretty variable in the path they take in the target, but even that variability has it's own variations and set of factors.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Mar 13, 2018)

The Basket said:


> Box mags must be seen in the pros cons ratio and not a given. The Lee Enfield had a detachable box magazine and Lee patented the idea in 1879 but was never used as a detachable magazine and was a weak point in the rifle.
> The Russians lost 80,000 rifles a month in ww1 so rifles must be disposable as well and giving all rifles scopes or solid gold bolts is not cost effective.
> Of course how disposable a rifle or rifleman is will depend country to country.



The Russians are hardly a good standard to use for how quickly weapons are consumed.
Rifles were not the only thing they were losing at alarming rates and while weapons can be manufactured quickly, Riflemen, Pilots and Tank Crews take a few years to raise....

If you are satisfied with a manually operated rifle or perhaps even a semi auto, then a box magazine isn't really essential even though it would be better, but as soon as automatic fire is included, there really isn't a substitute for a detachable box magazine that can be quickly replaced with a loaded one. Stripper clips just won't do for replenishing a full auto.

Hello Gman109,
It isn't so much that the bullets are taking a different path.
Except possibly for vertical dispersion, angular dispersions don't improve with distance.
It is more like spinning up a Gyroscope or a Toy Top.
When the bullet is in the barrel, it is constrained in movement by the barrel so it rotates about its center of form.
As the bullet leaves the barrel, the muzzle blast is moving faster than the bullet so effective the bullet is flying backwards for a few inches which is also not optimal for stability.
As soon as leaves the muzzle, it wants to rotate about its own Center of Gravity which probably doesn't exactly coincide with its center of form and the point moves in tiny circles until it overcomes the mess at the muzzle and stabilizes.
Before it stabilizes, there is a slight yaw which is great for dumping energy on a target but not so great for penetration.

- Ivan.


----------



## The Basket (Mar 13, 2018)

The Lee Enfield mags were made out of thin metal so could be dented. 
The StG45 would have replaced the StG44 had the war gone on. 
This discussion is about ww2 and not post war. The M14 is many years away.
I have disagreed with all your comments so far as well.


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 13, 2018)

Ivan1GFP said:


> Regarding penetration, the optimal range for something like the .30-06 is about 20-30 yards. It is enough for the bullet to stabilize or "go to sleep" but not so far as to lose a lot of velocity. I forget where I saw the results of this kind of testing but it was for US military .30-06 rounds.
> 
> - Ivan.




Just for information purposes. penetration of the US M1 30-06 *ball* (174.5 grain boat tail) ammo in inches

............................200 yards....................600yards..................1500yards
.....................average.........max............average.......max..........average..........max
1/4in armor..........0.1..............................0....................................0...................
Gravel.................7.0............8.0............4.5...............5.0.............4.1..............5.5
Brick Masonry.......4.3............6.5............2.2...............3.6.............1.5.............1.9
Concrete..............4.0............................1.0.................................0.5................
Solid Oak.............13.8..........18.0..........12.0.............13.6............2.1.............3.8
Dry Sand.............6.5.............8.2...........7.1................8.5.............8.2............9.0
moist sand...........7.3.............9.2...........9.6..............11.2.............8.7............9.5
Loam..................24.1...........24.5.........24.0..............25.0...........22.7...........26.2
Greasy Clay.........24.6...........29.0.........22.0..............23.0...........14.2...........15.0 
Loose earth..........19.0*.........................15.8.....................................................

The table had a number of notes, ALL results for 1500yds were actually fired at 78ft with reduced charges.
For brick masonry bullets that hit mortar have considerably more penetration. , also the longer ranges were fired at 78 ft with reduced charges. 
In sand they credit the increase penetration at 600 yds to less yaw of the bullet at that range compared to 200yds. 
the 200yd penetration of loose earth is actually the average at 400yds. 
This was the _standard machine gun cartridge. _

The rifle round was the M2 ball which had almost identical ballistics to the M1906 round, for which there is another table in the book, although a different propellent allowed the same velocity and significantly lower pressure Since the penetration tests were done several decades apart the test targets were often different (thickness of coal between 1 in boards and such) so trying to compare results, even in what should be the same medium, might be viewed with suspicion. I will note however that in trap rock in a sack, loam between 1 in boards (type of wood not given) and sand between 1 in boards all show more penetration at 400 yds than at 200 yds. 
also of interest is that the M1906 round (or M2 ball?) will penetrate 1/4 of _ low steel_ at all ranges below 400 yds. 
Wood targets include solid oak, oak 1in boards, Pine (white) in boards and Pine (yellow) 1 in boards.


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 13, 2018)

The Basket said:


> The Lee Enfield mags were made out of thin metal so could be dented.
> The StG 45 would have replaced the StG44 had the war gone on.
> This discussion is about ww2 and not post war. The M14 is many years away.
> I have disagreed with all your comments so far as well.



Have you tried denting one?
Granted almost nothing is soldier proof. But a badly dented one could be replaced pretty quick and minor dents in the bottom or lower sides are really going to bother things. 

Who has said anything about the M-14?

I have noticed you have disagreed, usually by going off on tangents rather than dealing with the facts. 
The US went from not wanting a detachable box magazine in the M1 rifle to using (and building them by the millions) for the M 1 carbine, the Thompson gun, the M3 Grease gun and they had been issuing 25 magazine per BAR for years. It doesn't take any great stretch of imagination to have a service rifle with a detachable box magazine well before the M-14 shows up.
after all the Ger 43 used one, the Russian SVT series used them, the Czech ZH-29 used them (in 3 sizes) just off the top of my head.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Mar 13, 2018)

Thanks Shortround6,

So these would be the numbers for .30 Cal M1 Ball or .30 Cal M72 Match at 2700 fps nominal.
I would imagine the .30 Cal M2 Ball at 2800 fps would do quite a bit worse.
It doesn't come up often when shooting at paper, but it always amazes me how much raw power there is in a full power rifle bullet.

I know this isn't your test, but you do realise that there are problems with trying to simulate long range penetration with a reduced load at short range:
Bullets' rotational velocity doesn't change all that much with distance, certainly not nearly as much as translational velocity.
With a reduced load, the rotational velocity would reduced as much as translational velocity which probably does not help penetration.

- Ivan.


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 13, 2018)

Gman109 said:


> Also, IMO you can use mid caliber rounds in an MG and have it still be reasonably effective out to 3 or 400 yards. In fact the RPDs our counter assault teams used while in Iraq and Afghanistan worked at least as well or better than the SAWs we ran later on, but both were pretty effective at that range. In fact as an LMG I feel it's more optimal than a 30 caliber weapon, which typically needs as you said a decent(heavy) mount.
> 
> DARPA and other agencies are working on mid-range caliber in the 6mm-ish class right now for a replacement for both the 556 SAWs and the 762 240s, some with telescoping tech ammunition, some not, but the common thread is a mid range caliber.



The US spent more than few million dollars on the 6mm SAW program back in the 70s before trashing the whole thing and trying totake the cheap way out (longer bullet in the 5.56 case) 
see: 6×45mm SAW - Wikipedia
for an extremely short overview. 
Basic goal was to have a squad automatic effective out to 800 meters. 
There plenty of other experimental cartridges and concepts at the time, most were a colossal waste of taxpayer money. Instead of taking the 90% solution staring them in the face they kept going for the 99% solution that _might _come to fruition a decade down the road, assuming the needed advances in propellants and materials.


----------



## The Basket (Mar 13, 2018)

The box magazine on the Lee Enfield was considered a weak point which is why the P13/P14 didn't have one.
Wasn't the G43 loaded usually with stripper clips?
Most of the weapons you specified are autos which obviously need capacity.
Not saying box magazine is not good but they were not common in WW2 on rifles although obviously common on smgs.


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 13, 2018)

Ivan1GFP said:


> Thanks Shortround6,
> 
> So these would be the numbers for .30 Cal M1 Ball or .30 Cal M72 Match at 2700 fps nominal.
> I would imagine the .30 Cal M2 Ball at 2800 fps would do quite a bit worse.
> ...


 Just giving you what was in some old book/s by Johnson (yes, that Johnson) and Haven as I haven't seen the information anywhere else. 

I can also imagine the difficulty in hitting test targets at 1500yds


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 13, 2018)

The Basket said:


> The box magazine on the Lee Enfield was considered a weak point which is why the P13/P14 didn't have one.
> Wasn't the G43 loaded usually with stripper clips?
> Most of the weapons you specified are autos which obviously need capacity.
> Not saying box magazine is not good but they were not common in WW2 on rifles although obviously common on smgs.


 For some reason you believe the P13/P14 was the high point of rifle design and it has all been downhill ever since. 
The P13/P14 was the wrong answer to the question and was too heavily influenced by the target shooters and theorists of the time. 

In WW I the British seemed to find that the detachable box on the SMLE wasn't that big a problem or they would have gotten rid of it on the No 4 rifle. 

Unless you have stories of hundreds or even dozens of SMLEs being rendered unusable in a single large battle due to dented magazines?


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Mar 13, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> Just giving you what was in some old book/s by Johnson (yes, that Johnson) and Haven as I haven't seen the information anywhere else.
> 
> I can also imagine the difficulty in hitting test targets at 1500yds



Would that be the Machine Gun book by Melvin Johnson? I have that book though I do not remember which room it would be in at the moment. I had not even thought about looking there. Now that you mention that as a source, perhaps something similar can be found in Hatcher's Notebook?

- Ivan.


----------



## tyrodtom (Mar 13, 2018)

I've got several SMLE magazines, none perfectly straight. But they all function fine. And they're over 70 years old, like me.
Pretty thick, hard, steel. About the only place you could dent it and cause a malfunction would be in the 2 ribs down each side, and that would take something very sharp. Most of the magazine is inside the rifle, only about the lower two rounds are exposed outside the stock, the rest is spring.

I'd measure how thick the steel is, but my micrometer is in the garage, and it's snowing.


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 13, 2018)

This is a 370 page hard cover Titled "Ammunition" by Johnson and Haven copyright 1943. Has the Johnson LMG logo embossed in the cover.
Sort of a companion to "Automatic Arms" by the same authors.

Picture of the old paper jacket (long since gone on my copy)


----------



## The Basket (Mar 13, 2018)

The P14/ M1917 was considered by some to be the best rifle of ww1 and one of the best bolt action rifle a ever made. 
The decision to remove the magazine was taken by the designers and the small arms committee and not by me. Again the fact it was removed was for the reasons specified.
If we are talking ideal rifles then the Lee Enfield and the 303 cartridge should not have made it to 1941 but there we go.


----------



## The Basket (Mar 13, 2018)

A magazine can be in service for many years and can be dropped, stolen, trod on or even simply worn out. The fact you have a pristine example in factory condition doesn't tell anything.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Mar 13, 2018)

tyrodtom said:


> I've got several SMLE magazines, none perfectly straight. But they all function fine. And they're over 70 years old, like me.
> Pretty thick, hard, steel. About the only place you could dent it and cause a malfunction would be in the 2 ribs down each side, and that would take something very sharp. Most of the magazine is inside the rifle, only about the lower two rounds are exposed outside the stock, the rest is spring.
> 
> I'd measure how thick the steel is, but my micrometer is in the garage, and it's snowing.



Hello TyroTom,
0.048 Inch. Rifle No.1 Mk.III or Mk.III*. I call this gun "Frankenstein".

Hello The Basket,
There are so many other parts of a rifle that are much more fragile than a box magazine.
Besides, one of the nice things about a removable box magazine is that it is easily removed and replaced and I believe that at least two were issued per rifle.
Also, if you look at how the magazine fits in the rifle, it would take a pretty directed blow to damage it.

While I also like the P.13/14 and M1917 rifles and believe they are more accurate than the typical Lee Enfield, they are also quite a bit heavier. Although the accuracy is nice on the target range if you can even tell the difference, I don't believe one would notice the difference on the battlefield.
It also has its share of fragile parts (such as the Ejector) and is basically just another Mauser type rifle.
The only real practical advantage I can see with these guns is that that they cock on closing.

- Ivan.


----------



## tyrodtom (Mar 14, 2018)

The Basket said:


> A magazine can be in service for many years and can be dropped, stolen, trod on or even simply worn out. The fact you have a pristine example in factory condition doesn't tell anything.



What do you think the term "none perfectly straight " means ??
They're all dented, but they still work fine.


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 14, 2018)

The Basket said:


> The P14/ M1917 was considered by some to be the best rifle of ww1 and one of the best bolt action rifle a ever made.



Well, you know what they say about opinions. Now in fairness to General Hatcher I don't know it what context he made the statement about the M1917 being the best rifle of WW I or what his crtieria was. I will say that I doubt he could see into the future and declare the M1917 one of the best of all time. Where that comes from I have no idea. 
The M1903 has a rather overblown reputation, at least as far as WW I goes, and one can very well make an argument that the M1917 was a better rifle. Many of the pre 1918 1903s had receivers of rather dubious heat treatment and some failed in service with as few as 252 rounds fired. It took quite a while to sort out the problem/s and even longer (into the late 20s or early 30s) to get all the early guns out of service. How much this influenced the regard of the M1917 I don't know. 
The M1917 may have also been easier to manufacture, a key point to an ordinance man. There is little doubt that the M1917 had the best rear sight put on a military rifle at that time (at least service rifles and not experimental).
The P13/P14/M1917 was a very good gun of it's time but that does not mean it was one of the best of all time, especially now that all time spans another 100 years after it's debut. 




> The decision to remove the magazine was taken by the designers and the small arms committee and not by me. Again the fact it was removed was for the reasons specified.



It wouldn't be the first time, or the last, that a committee made a retro grade step or a poor decision. 

There was a general feeling among some officers and upper class that most troops were bone heads that were lucky to be able to march in formation, chewing gum at the same time might lead to falling out of step and making uncommanded turns. Small arms were to be a simple as possible to keep the troops from damaging them. New troops were cheaper than new rifles (an exaggeration). 
The P13 and cartridge were designed with a bit too much input from the target range and target shooters. There also seems to have been a bit of one ups manship going on. AS has been noted before, the easy way out of the problems they had in South Africa would have been to adopt a spitzer bullet (done before the P13 made it to trials) fit the MK III with a bit heavier barrel (done on the NO 4 rifle) and fit a better back sight (also done on the No 4). 
Instead they tried to out Mauser the Mauser. A bigger receiver to hold a bigger cartridge and aside from the back sight, no real improvement over a pre 1898 Mauser. 
Some people are too smart for their own good. Winchester in the late 1950s and early 60s introduced a bunch of new cartridges, many of them flopped in short order. Remington, in the same time period, simply made factory versions of cartridges that wildcatters (amature experimenters) had been working with for years and went from sales success to sales success. Winchester had told some of their employees that there weren't interested in 'old thinking'. and it was just about this time (1964) that the 'new thinkers' just about crashed the company. 

BTW "the fact it was removed was for the reasons specified." you have only given one reason, the fact that the magazine could possibly be damaged. How many more reasons are there? 

I have seen the video on "Forgotten Weapons" in which the forward locking lugs of the P13 are held to be superior to the rear locking lugs of the Lee-Enfield.
In theory they are. In actual practice it is much harder to prove the difference _assuming _equal ammunition, equal barrels, and equal heat treatment of the recievers. The forward lugs may prove to better for very high intensity cartridges, but the .303 was not that high intensity, operating at around 80% of a mauser or 30-06 and by 1938-39 the US rifle cartridge was operating at about 80% of the pressure it was in WWI.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Mar 14, 2018)

The Basket said:


> A magazine can be in service for many years and can be dropped, stolen, trod on or even simply worn out. The fact you have a pristine example in factory condition doesn't tell anything.



Hello The Basket,
It seems to me that the reasons you stated here are just to be argumentative rather than following any kind of logic.
What failures of a removable magazine that you have listed cannot also be applied to the bolt of a rifle?
The difference is that if a bolt is damaged, it isn't that easy to replace while a magazine generally isn't fitted to the gun and is pretty easy to replace.




Shortround6 said:


> I have seen the video on "Forgotten Weapons" in which the forward locking lugs of the P13 are held to be superior to the rear locking lugs of the Lee-Enfield.
> In theory they are. In actual practice it is much harder to prove the difference _assuming _equal ammunition, equal barrels, and equal heat treatment of the recievers. The forward lugs may prove to better for very high intensity cartridges, but the .303 was not that high intensity, operating at around 80% of a mauser or 30-06 and by 1938-39 the US rifle cartridge was operating at about 80% of the pressure it was in WWI.



Hello Shorround6,
I don't really agree with you on this aspect of rifle design.
As I see it, the rear locking lugs has the advantage that there is less space that is difficult to access for cleaning (locking lug recesses).
The forward locking lug has the advantage that less of the receiver and bolt need to be stressed to contain chamber pressure and that with force applied over a much shorter distance, there is less flexing of the receiver / body.
Even though the chamber pressure is pretty low with the .303 British, there is a lot of force being applied through an irregular cross section of receiver between the bolt head and the locking lugs which would result in lateral force through the receiver.

- Ivan.


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 14, 2018)

Ivan1GFP said:


> Hello Shorround6,
> I don't really agree with you on this aspect of rifle design.
> As I see it, the rear locking lugs has the advantage that there is less space that is difficult to access for cleaning (locking lug recesses).
> The forward locking lug has the advantage that less of the receiver and bolt need to be stressed to contain chamber pressure and that with force applied over a much shorter distance, there is less flexing of the receiver / body.
> ...



I have a converted No 4 rifle in .308 with a hammer forged Enfield barrel like they used for just about all the British and Canadian (and maybe australian? I don't know) conversions that has been speed locked and mounted in a one piece stock. I use a 150 grain Serria match bullet and reduce the powder charge from my palma rifle by 10%. On a 4 position course of fire (10 shots prone, 10 sitting, 10 kneeling and 10 standing) on the standard SR 200 target I averaged over 20 Xs per match over a summer season of 5 matches, 3 in diameter X ring. All the bad shots were called before the target came back up. There were NO mystery shots (how did that get there!!!) so there is no blaming the rifle for a bad score.

No, I wouldn't use it for championship shooting but the _gun_ will out shoot over 95% of the shooters on the line. It is a little light in the barrel and a little short in the stock to be a good fit which makes it a bit harder to shoot in long prone matches (my heart beat makes it bounce a bit more) than some of my heavier guns. But I sure can't Blame the action or any lack of theoretical stiffness of the action for lack of accuracy.
I tried it once at 300 yds on the MR-52 target (600 yds reduced for 200yds but we shot it at 300yds) 1.79in X ring and 3.79 in ten ring. I had a 196 out of 200 (20 shots) one eight and two nines, all called when the gun went off and over 10 Xs. If the gun puts them where I point them I can't ask for more than that accuracy wise.

I know what the theory says. I know what that gun does. ( and for well over 200 rounds so it is not a 3 shot or 5 shot or 10 shot fluke) You need to be looking at a much higher standard of accuracy than military rifles shoot at using military ammo before the position of the locking lugs makes any practical difference.
How the locking lugs fit and other details can make a difference. Many match rifles have their locking lugs lapped in to make sure they are making equal contact. A refinement that NO standard military rifle had.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Mar 14, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> I have a converted No 4 rifle in .308 with a hammer forged Enfield barrel like they used for just about all the British and Canadian (and maybe australian? I don't know) conversions that has been speed locked and mounted in a one piece stock. I use a 150 grain Serria match bullet and reduce the powder charge from my palma rifle by 10%. On a 4 position course of fire (10 shots prone, 10 sitting, 10 kneeling and 10 standing) on the standard SR 200 target I averaged over 20 Xs per match over a summer season of 5 matches, 3 in diameter X ring. All the bad shots were called before the target came back up. There were NO mystery shots (how did that get there!!!) so there is no blaming the rifle for a bad score.
> 
> No, I wouldn't use it for championship shooting but the _gun_ will out shoot over 95% of the shooters on the line. It is a little light in the barrel and a little short in the stock to be a good fit which makes it a bit harder to shoot in long prone matches (my heart beat makes it bounce a bit more) than some of my heavier guns. But I sure can't Blame the action or any lack of theoretical stiffness of the action for lack of accuracy.
> I tried it once at 300 yds on the MR-52 target (600 yds reduced for 200yds but we shot it at 300yds) 1.79in X ring and 3.79 in ten ring. I had a 196 out of 200 (20 shots) one eight and two nines, all called when the gun went off and over 10 Xs. If the gun puts them where I point them I can't ask for more than that accuracy wise.
> ...



Hello Shortround6,

Note that for conversion to .308 Winchester / 7.62 NATO, the No.1 rifles simply were not suitable.
The No.4 rifles had to be individually inspected before conversion. This suggests that the strength of the receiver does not have a lot of margin for the pressure of a .308W. I don't know whether the L42A1 were built from No.4 actions or new manufacture actions.
It is also interesting that the Ishapore 2A rifles which in appearance are No.1 Mk.III* actions had no issues when manufactured in 7.62 NATO but I have also heard that they used a different metallurgy.

Now you have me wondering how one goes about putting a No.4 action into a one piece stock. Does the receiver still have the socket?

We are obviously approaching this from different viewpoints. You shoot for score. I shoot for group size.
Can you tell me how well your gun does from a MOA perspective off a rest?
Shooting for score in a competition environment hints at a rifle doing well but too much depends on weather conditions, sighting equipment and the shooter and because of that, I don't believe it tells nearly as much as an average group size.
I shoot a lot of military rifles, but I have more of a Benchrest shooter mentality.
If you think about it, 200 out of 200 is a great score but you don't need better than 2 MOA accuracy to shoot a clean score and 2 MOA isn't particularly great accuracy for a target rifle.

When doing load development, the kinds of things I was seeing when firing with a scope would not even be visible if I were not using a scope. I can't see a 1/4 MOA difference in group size and probably can't even see a 1/2 MOA difference unless I am using a telescopic sight. Another issue is that if you are shooting that far out, unless you are in a tunnel range, the wind conditions may make things a bit less than reliable for comparison.
A few of my friends who were shooting in the local service rifle matches just picked a recipe and cranked out their loads. When asked, they would claim sub-MOA accuracy but I am certain they never really knew how well or poorly their guns were actually shooting.
I also learned a few things about the methods of some rifle builders. Some folks really impressed me. A few did not and reputation was often not an indication of how well they actually knew their craft.

Now, I won't argue that a No.4 Lee Enfield is sufficiently accurate as a military rifle and perhaps with very few modifications is quite suitable as a sniper rifle, but I will argue that if you are starting with a blank piece of paper, you try to design in as few accuracy compromises as possible unless it buys a serious advantage elsewhere. Production is certain to introduce other factors to degrade performance.

Regarding Group Size versus X count, there was an article (I believe in the American Rifleman) many years back.
It described loading match ammunition with Lapua 168 grain bullets as compared to Sierra 168 grain bullets.
The Lapua bullets generally had the higher X count but the Sierra bullets had the lower extreme spread.
Which would you choose?

- Ivan the Opinionated.


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 14, 2018)

I figure that since most of the Xs were picked up in prone and sitting ( a couple of ten x strings) that the combination of gun, ammo and me (with iron sights) was good for under 1.5 minutes of angle at 200 yds.

I have posted these before but.......









There is no magazine, just wood showing when the bolt is open. 
I fired exactly 5 rounds off the bench for load development. Got 5 shots all touching each other at 100 yards with the first load tried and figured that was good enough. 

I would go with least extreme spread, a score of 199 with 14Xs loses to a score of 200-11Xs. 
I have had a few rifles that showed a difference in scores. My 6.5 x 308 could shoot 800s ( two strings of 40 shots prone at 300yds on the 600 yd reduced target) but I could never get more than 6 Xs in a row even though I was getting 50-60 Xs per day. The 6.5mm Rem benchrest gun (cartridge not style of gun)




once shot 24 consecutive Xs on the same target. 2.85 in X ring but if you land a bullet touching the outside of the scoring ring it counts. 5 round groups could be tiny relatively speaking at 300yds. Like landing 3-4 shots on one side of the X ring and putting tow clicks windage on the sight to shoot up the other side. 
But Remington 700 actions, Hart barrels and pillar bedding are a far cry from service rifles. Due to the weight of the grey stocked rifle it wasn't quite as easy to shoot off hand as the No 4 and the scores weren't much different. 

But the point was that the rear locking lugs are not the handicap for service rifles that many people believe. 

If I am going to shoot 1000yds in serious competition I am taking this rifle 




and not the No 4  
Just using it for a frame of reference. I was quite surprised by the No 4 and did not expect it to shoot as well as it did. 
But being obsolete or out moded in international competition (pink sticker on the bottom gun was from the Canadian national matches) is still a whole different catagory than military rifles.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## wlewisiii (Mar 15, 2018)

We had the perfect weapon in our hands but the penny pinching of MacArthur killed it. 

T3E2 in .276 Pederson






_View: https://youtu.be/AwntZVIoPpI_


Smaller, lighter, 10 round clips, everything good about the M1 plus more. But MacArthur using the same amount of intelligence he would bring to his disasters in the PI & later in Korea forced the Army to stick to the .30-06 in the rifle instead of relegating it to MG only use as it should have been. While not a true intermediate cartridge, the .276 would have been a huge step in the right direction and would have prevented the .308/7.62 NATO foolishness in the 50's.


----------



## Fighterguy (Mar 15, 2018)

As for bolt action rifles, in my opinion, the gold standard goes to the Mauser K98. To be clear, I think the SMLE pattern rifles are excellent, and very good shooters, but the K98 has the edge in combat ruggedness. The M1903 was a copy of the Mauser design (the U.S. was impressed by it during the Spanish-American war), and in fact, a U.S. Patent Court found that the Army had violated Mauser’s patents and required the U.S. Army to pay the manufacturer, Ludwig & Loewe/DWM, patent royalties until war with Germany was declared.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Mar 15, 2018)

Hello Shortround6,
Thanks for the eye candy!
That No.4 Lee Enfield has me a little confused. I see it has a one piece stock but I also know that the receiver like other L-E's has a socket at the back where the back piece of the stock fits. Did someone cut that socket off and if so, then what acts as the recoil shoulder now?

There is no doubt that you and your gun are doing well, but that one group for testing reminds me of a Black Powder Sharps I had.
The first two shots fired on paper at 50 yards were touching and a couple of my friends on the range (who always seem more interested in Black Powder stuff than modern stuff) were congratulating me on really good shooting with a good rifle. I wasn't that confident.
That particular rifle never shot that well again. In fact, it could not keep 5 shots on the paper at 100 yards with any of the bullets and powder loads I tried. The next BP Sharps was not nearly so difficult, so there apparently was nothing really wrong with my bullet casting, lubes or powder selection. Although they were nominally the same caliber, the actual bore diameters with a bit different but that should not have made that much of a difference except in the moulds I used for casting.

Here is a photograph of the gun I have probably worked on the most over the years. The scope on top is a Leupold 6.5-2 EFR.
The ejected cases don't really clear the cover for the Windage knob so there are several layers of bicycle inner tube wrapped around it to avoid the unsightly dents. The right side of the stock shows a zillion little dents up close from ejected cases, but that is how these guns operate.






- Ivan.


----------



## drewwizard (Mar 16, 2018)

200 to 300 yards is not a big factor in the smaller diameter round. The Squad automatic weapon used today is 5.56. good for 500 to 600 yards effective range. More important to put twice as many small diameter bullets down range. I agree with the posts on explosive bullets, I would rather have the extra power in the cartridge for higher shock damage. 

Interesting comment on the M1 Garand, but isn't a Garand with a clip essentially a BAR?

How about a FN-FAL in 308 reduced to 6.5mm? Fast, light, and relatively low recoil!!! The FN-FAL came out in 1946 using the STG 45 round (7.92x33mm), so the technology was there during WWII


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 17, 2018)

The ~6.5mm seems to be hitting the swet spot when talking about automatic rifles. The FAL in the intermediate calibre sounds great.
A necked-down 7.92mm Kurz necked down to 6.5mm would've also provided flatter trajectory, while being even more controlable than the Stg-44.


----------



## The Basket (Mar 30, 2018)

FN was occupied so I doubt they wanted to make new designs for the Germans.
The British certainly post war had a bizarre thing for bullpups which puzzles me but must have had a strong personality who loved them. 
FAL is too late for ww2 but the FN-49 isn't.

The Fedorov Automat using the 6.5mm Japanese cartridge seems incredibly futuristic for 1915. Bolt action rifles should have been obsolete by 1940 but huge stockpiles and limited funds and money better spent on more important weapons meant the development in self loaders happened post war.


----------

