# German rifle production and rechambering of captured rifles



## Civettone (Jun 10, 2013)

The Wehrmacht entered World War II with a total number of 2,769,533 K98k rifles. In total 14 million were produced, which means an average production of at least 2 million rifles per year. This I find very strange. I assume that most troops were equipped with this rifle from the start. More rifles were definitely needed as the German army kept expanding until early 1944, several rifles were lost and a lot were given to second-line troops and police forces. I find it hard to believe that so many rifles needed to be added or replaced. The number of frontline troops was around 2 million, while I doubt second-line units lost that many rifles. I also believe that the number of casualties will be higher than the rifle losses. 

So, to think that it would require 2 million per year is difficult to believe, especially because the Germans had captured millions of rifles in Poland, Norway, Belgium, Holland, France, Yugoslavia, Greece, Italy and of course Russia. These were handed over to second-line units and police. 

Most of these were in a different calibre: the Dutch, Italians and Norwegians had their own 6,5 mm cartridge, the Belgians a 7,35, the French had either the 8 mm Lebel or the 7,5, the Russians a 7,62, etc. In some cases they also produced ammunition for these rifles. Some seem to have been rechambered. I wonder if someone could tell me if rechambering is a costly or time consuming process?? I assume it was considered to be more cost effective to simply produce the cartridges. 

And in general, the number of captured infantry weapons is simply astounding. In France and Russia they must have captured millions of pistols, rifles, machine guns and mortars, most as modern as their German equivalents. Yet, only a small part of the MAS 36s or Moisin--Nagant rifles were pressed into German service. Was it considered to be cheaper to produce a new Mauser, than to rechamber these foreign weapons? 

Kris


----------



## tyrodtom (Jun 10, 2013)

When rechambering a rifle from one round to another, there might be more than just rechanbering envolved.

Just take for instance, rechambering a British .303 N0 4 Mk 1 ( or do I have that backwards ) to 7.62 Nato. Not just just rechambering the breech, maybe drilling the whole barrel and regroving it, because the .303 is rimmed, and the 7.62 is recessed rim, then you have to design another magazine, and cartridge extractor. Test them and make sure your mods are reliable. Then set up a production line to do this.

It's maybe easier just to manufactor ammo in the rifles origional cartridge, since all you have to do is make new dies to stamp out new cartrides .
But then you might run into supply problems with certain formations having different ammo than others.
It's simpler maybe just to keep mass producing your own weapons.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 11, 2013)

In the case of the No 4 MK I they needed new barrels. The 7.62mm bing a few thousandths smaller than the .303.

For the rest of it you are basically correct. The Germans did pick up production facilities in Czechoslovakia and perhaps Poland for Mauser rifles. The Hungarians converted their rifles to 7.9x57mm. In many cases 2nd line troops got captured rifles. 

Re-chambering only works if the barrel diameter is correct for the bullet you want to use and is fairly quick and easy. It also helps a LOT if the new round in larger than than the old one in body diameter and length.

For instance the Russian 7.62 X 54 R is actually larger in diameter down the body than either the 7.62 NATO or the German 7.9 X 57. 












Re-boring the length of the barrel can be done but is a lot more work than just re-chambering. 

And then you have find out if the new cartridge will feed from the old magazine or if you are making single shot rifles. The length and taper of the new round have to match the angles of the feed lips of the old magazine or you get a lot of jams. (lips can be re-machined but that is more work).

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Civettone (Jun 11, 2013)

Great info, thanks!

So, it is easier to go from a Western 7.62 to a Soviet 7.62, than vice versa? Interesting !

I would have to check the exact dimensions, but I suppose the French and Belgian 7.5 and 7.35 would be excellent candidates for rechambering to a German 7.92. I recall the Carcano being rechambered to the new 7.35 cartridge, but also to the 7.92. It would surprise me if going from a 6.5 to a 7.92 would not automatically require re-boring the barrel.

Thanks again
Kris


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 11, 2013)

It would. 

The Italians did rebore 6.5mm rifles to 7.35mm but I guess that all depends on labor and tooling costs. Re-boring private rifles went out of fashion in the 1950s/60s in the US. The Cost of a new barrel and the labor of the gunsmith to install it was cheaper than reboring the old barrel. But that is higher priced labor working on one rifle at a time and not a specially equipped factory or shop. 

The next complication is you have to replace the rear sight with one calibrated for the new cartridge. Sporting sights were ussually more adjustabe than military sights which used either fixed height steps or a curve to adjust the sight to the trajecectory of the cartridge. Italians got around this by simple putting a fixed rear sight (200 meters?) on a number of the re-bore jobs. 






Throw in a few little national differences (French rifles do NOT have a mechanical safety) and converting some rifles is a lot more trouble than they are worth. FN in Belgium may have been produce Mauser 98s. Several other European countries had production lines for Mausers.


----------



## Civettone (Jun 11, 2013)

I noticed that is not that easy to say which is bigger. For instance, the German 7,92x57 had the biggest neck diameter, but the smallest shoulder diameter. As such, it would be very difficult to simply bore out the chamber without filling some other parts? 

The German 7.92x57 Mauser
Bullet diameter 8.08 mm / .318 (I and IR) 
Neck diameter 9.08 mm (0.357 in)
Shoulder diameter 10.95 mm (0.431 in)
Base diameter 11.94 mm (0.470 in)
Rim diameter 11.95 mm (0.470 in)
Rim thickness 1.30 mm (0.051 in)
Case length 57.00 mm (2.244 in)
Overall length 82.00 mm (3.228 in)

The French 7.5 x 54
Bullet diameter 7.8 mm (0.31 in)
Neck diameter 8.6 mm (0.34 in)
Shoulder diameter 11.2 mm (0.44 in)
Base diameter 12.2 mm (0.48 in)
Rim diameter 12.2 mm (0.48 in)
Rim thickness 1.4 mm (0.055 in)
Case length 54 mm (2.1 in)
Overall length 78 mm (3.1 in)

The French 8 mm Lebel
Bullet diameter 8.3 mm (0.33 in)
Neck diameter 8.9 mm (0.35 in)
Shoulder diameter 11.6 mm (0.46 in)
Base diameter 13.8 mm (0.54 in)
Rim diameter 16.0 mm (0.63 in)
Rim thickness 51 mm (2.0 in)
Case length 51 mm (2.0 in)
Overall length 70 mm (2.8 in)

The Russian 7.62x54R
Bullet diameter 7.92 mm (0.312 in)
Neck diameter 8.53 mm (0.336 in)
Shoulder diameter 11.61 mm (0.457 in)
Base diameter 12.37 mm (0.487 in)
Rim diameter 14.40 mm (0.567 in)
Rim thickness 1.6 mm (0.063 in)
Case length 53.72 mm (2.115 in)
Overall length 77.16 mm (3.038 in)

But then again, I read that the Italian Breda HMGs could fire the German Mauser cartridge even though they normally fired the 8x59. These are the measurements for the Italian cartridge versus the German:

Bullet diameter 8.36 mm (0.329 in) vs 8.08
Neck diameter 9.14 mm (0.360 in) vs 9.08
Shoulder diameter 10.80 mm (0.425 in) vs 10.95
Base diameter 12.49 mm (0.492 in) vs 11.94 mm
Rim diameter 11.92 mm (0.469 in) vs 11.95 mm
Rim thickness 1.40 mm (0.055 in) vs 1.30
Case length 58.84 mm (2.317 in) vs 57.00
Overall length 80.44 mm (3.167 in) vs 82

So the German cartridge is smaller, except for shoulder diameter, rim diameter and overall length. How is this possible?
Kris


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 11, 2013)

Some things are _possible_. If they are _wise_ is a different question. 

The fact that the German bullet is smaller in diameter helps as some gas will leak around it reducing the pressure. Rim diameter is so close as to not matter. Overall length doesn't matter in case. the length of the point on the bullet is not critical. As long as the extractor holds the cartridge against the bolt face for the firing pin to hit things should work ( but just), Shoulder dimension is the only hang up and if the 10.95mm is further towards the base it may not be as bad as it seems. Heavy bolt slamming the round into the chamber may partially crush fit. 

The big problem is the amount of space at the rear and the amount the case will stretch to fill it. With good brass it may not be a problem. With poor brass you may get splits in the side or head case separations. 

Filling in chambers was usually more trouble than it was worth. I have only heard of it being done by the US Navy on M-1 Grands to adapt them from 30-06 to 7.62 Nato. They used a really thick washer or short tube at the front of the chamber to move the shoulder back. Trying to add .015-.030 in to each side of the diameter for the length of a chamber would be almost impossible as a practical proposition. Yes you can electro 'plate' but then most of the metals used for electroplating (nickel or chrome) don't cut well and need to be ground. 
Most of the time a gunsmith would take off the barrel, cut off enough to get rid the large diameter chamber, re-chamber the barrel, re-thread it and screw it back into the action. Assuming there is enough "meat" (diameter) on the barrel at that point to hold the pressure. You may be able to get away with cutting 25-35mm off the back of the barrel although 40-45mm would probably be better. 

At some point you have to ask if converting the rifle really makes sense. Many Americans did "sporterise" any number of military rifles in the 1940s-50s-60s and convert them to other calibers but many times it was the owner doing the work ( or a large part of it) so the labor was "FREE".


----------



## fastmongrel (Jun 12, 2013)

Shortround6 said:


> At some point you have to ask if converting the rifle really makes sense. Many Americans did *ruin* any number of military rifles in the 1940s-50s-60s and convert them to other calibers



Fixed that for you SR6


----------



## davebender (Jun 12, 2013)

Germany supplied weapons to more then just the Wehrmacht. The various Polish, Russian and Ukrainian militias and police forces fighting against Stalin probably amounted to at least a million troops. Friendly forces in Croatia, Greece and the Baltic States need weapons too. And probably quite a few other nations such as Spain and Turkey.


----------



## nincomp (Jun 12, 2013)

Shortround6 said:


> The Italians did rebore 6.5mm rifles to 7.35mm but I guess that all depends on labor and tooling costs. Re-boring private rifles went out of fashion in the 1950s/60s in the US. The Cost of a new barrel and the labor of the gunsmith to install it was cheaper than reboring the old barrel. But that is higher priced labor working on one rifle at a time and not a specially equipped factory or shop.



That is a good summary. As far as I know, the Italians were the only ones who went about re-boring and re-chambering rifles that were already in service. Prior to WWII, the Italians had discovered that their loading of the the 6.5 Carcano (6.5x52mm) performed poorly in battle. They had decided to move to a larger diameter round (7.35x51) in the hope that their rifles would be like the "more deadly" .303 British.*
The new cartridge shape and bullet diameter were deliberately chosen to permit easy rechambering and re-boring of the existing 6.5mm barrels. The diameter of the new bullet was large enough that all of the rifling of 6.5 barrels would be cut away and new rifling cut into the virgin metal. This process also allowed formerly shot-out 6.5mm barrels to become "new" 7.35 barrels.

It is much more difficult to re-bore a barrel if all of the previous rifling has not been removed.
Also note that although several nations had rifles that used _approximately_ .30 caliber bullets, trying to cram a 3.18" or 3.12" diameter bullet down a barrel designed for .308" or smaller bullets is generally not a good idea. It is a doubly bad idea if the bullets are made of copper coated steel rather than copper covered lead.

As has been said before, it is possible to rechamber a barrel to a another cartridge that uses the same diameter bullet. If the new cartridge is larger and longer than the old, the process is relatively easy (although the new cartridge may be too long to fit in the old magazine). If the new cartridge is slightly smaller or shorter than the old one, an inch or more may be cut from the back of the barrel so that the new chamber reamer can cut out all of the old chamber. The new, shorter barrel may no longer fit correctly in its rifle stock, meaning that the stock now needs modification. Again the new cartridge may not fit or feed well from the old magazine. Overall, a serious pain in the behind.

If someone *really* wants to rechamber an existing barrel for another cartridge, it is possible to take the data you provided, enter it into a spreadsheet, run a few calculations and then compare the various cartridge shapes. I did that once when I was housebound after an injury and bored (very bored).

There you go. Have you been able to read all this without falling asleep? If not, at least you now have a cure for insomnia.



*It was later discovered that the long round-tipped 6.5mm bullet was a major problem. It tended to stay point-foreward and make a relatively small clean hole through the enemy. The spitzer (pointed) bullets used by the British and Germans tended to yaw and spend some time sideways inside the bodies of their victims, causing more severe damage. The yaw also created a larger "temporary cavity" inside the victim that could cause additional damage and, in some cases, stun them long enough that they would die before being able to get up and, however briefly, continue to fight. Hunters often call this the DRT or "Dead Right There" effect.


----------



## parsifal (Jun 13, 2013)

Interesting debate, and Im not going to pretend that I can add anything to the technical side of the discussion. Just a quick observation....front line strength of the German Armed forces was not ever around 3 million. According to the quarterly returns from the Ersatzheer, the total manpower went from 4.7 million in 1939 to a peak of 9.5 million in June 1943. Of greater significance are the number mobilsed annually. Germany took in new manpower in "waves....early in the war there were generally about four waves per year. This applied to new formations, but reconstituted divisions were rebuilt from cadres and the mirror formations in the Replacement Army. The German system was extremely effeicient, but as the war progresed it became overloaded and eventually broke under the strain. Divisions were linked to a miliary district, a "wehrkreis" so that divisions remained territorial and "tribal" with volk connections for the personnel (there were exceptions such as the technical or specialist units like the Panzer formations)

Anyway, Germany entered the war in 1939 with 4.7 million men already mobilized. 13.7 million further men (and boys and old men in the finish) were mobilized during the war, making a total of 18.3 million men mobilized. This does not include the non-military police and any other non-military units, but it does include the navy, SS, Air Force and Replacement Army. The Germans also needed to provide a small number of weapons to equip Vlasovs Free Russian Army, and some of the other satellite forces. 

Thats a lot of rifles needed, especially as it can reasonably be expected that many of the troops in the front line would go through moree than one rifle in their service career. A man that becomes a casualty cannot be expected to bring out his rifle, so the number of casualties suffered year by year is a good surrogate indicatopr of the wastage rate of German small arms......and they suffered a lot of casualties

(in millions)
1939: (<0.1)
1940: (0.1)
1941: (0.4)
1942: (0.7)
1943: (1.7)
1944: (4.7)
1945: (6.1)


There were never enough small arms to go around, and frequently the Germans were reduced to issuing second string rifles to reserve and militia units.


----------



## Civettone (Jun 13, 2013)

Nincomp, that was very informative. Feel free to elaborate further. I am quite illiterate in these technical matters, I have never even fired a rifle in my life. I am trying to visualize what you and Shortround are saying but I guess I need to find out how exactly the chamber looks like and how it encapsulates a cartridge. 



parsifal said:


> Interesting debate, and Im not going to pretend that I can add anything to the technical side of the discussion. Just a quick observation....front line strength of the German Armed forces was not ever around 3 million. According to the quarterly returns from the Ersatzheer, the total manpower went from 4.7 million in 1939 to a peak of 9.5 million in June 1943. Of greater significance are the number mobilsed annually. Germany took in new manpower in "waves....early in the war there were generally about four waves per year.
> 
> Anyway, Germany entered the war in 1939 with 4.7 million men already mobilized. 13.7 million further men (and boys and old men in the finish) were mobilized during the war, making a total of 18.3 million men mobilized. This does not include the non-military police and any other non-military units, but it does include the navy, SS, Air Force and Replacement Army. The Germans also needed to provide a small number of weapons to equip Vlasovs Free Russian Army, and some of the other satellite forces.
> 
> ...


Thanks Parsifal. I still have my doubts though. They did mobilize all those millions. 

But how many actually carried a rifle?? 3/4 of the men in a 1939 style German division carried a rifle. This decreased later in the war in return for more automatic weapons. What about all those men in administration, logistics, maintenance, communication, desk jobs, ... Many of them carried rifles, many did not.
Some weapons went to the allied troops but rather few. All German allies had their own rifle production with their own calibre. Only Hungary switched to the 7.92. However, Hungary produced a number of Mauser style rifles for Germany. So did Belgium. 

More importantly however, there is not a sufficient increase from mid 1941 to mid 1944 to comprehend a production of many millions of rifles. In 1941, the Army had 5 million men, in 1943/44 it had 6.5 million. Plus half a million Waffen SS. So that is an increase of 2 million men over 3 years. But again, how many of these carried a rifle? I guess 1 million? And yet, in that same time they produced more than 4 million Mauser rifles.

What's more, I have my doubts about the losses of rifles. I believe that the losses of rifles will actually be less than losses of lives. From mid 41 to mid 44 they lost 2-3 million men. But is a rifle as fragile as a man? Soldiers get killed easier than rifles get destroyed, at least that is how I see it.

Finally, what to think of those millions of rifles they had captured in France and Russia? What happened to them? I find it hard to believe that they were distributed among second-line troops and police forces. You do not need millions of rifles for that.

But maybe I am missing some points. Maybe rifles break down more easily than often said. Maybe malfunctions or wear will lead to immediate replacement. And maybe a lot of captured rifles are not redistributed, but are melted down and used for newly produced Mausers.

Kris


----------



## parsifal (Jun 14, 2013)

> Thanks Parsifal. I still have my doubts though. They did mobilize all those millions.



Your welcome. In terms of the numbers mobilised, Im drawing the figures from a source that says these figures were drawn from the Replaqement Army's quarterly returns. 




> But how many actually carried a rifle?? 3/4 of the men in a 1939 style German division carried a rifle. This decreased later in the war in return for more automatic weapons. What about all those men in administration, logistics, maintenance, communication, desk jobs, ... Many of them carried rifles, many did not.



I dont really know how many carried rifles, but I would say that as a general rule of thumb there were more rifles than there were people. Many rifles would need to be repaire, you needed a reserve of rifles to cover emergencies and the like. In a tactical sense, hown many times does a division get called upon to throw its cooks, clerks and orderlies into the front line.. this basically meant giving these men a rifle (and somethimes some other weapon as well) which had to be on hand for them to be issued. 

Nearly all frontline troops carried a persoanl weapon of some sort. even radio operators, gunners, truck drivers and the like carried rifles. 



> ome weapons went to the allied troops but rather few. All German allies had their own rifle production with their own calibre. Only Hungary switched to the 7.92. However, Hungary produced a number of Mauser style rifles for Germany. So did Belgium.



I agree, but some forces like the Free Russian Army did not have their own stocks. Other nations like Spain took dlivery of German arms as payment for supplies of one sort or another. But I agree substantially with what you are saying




> More importantly however, there is not a sufficient increase from mid 1941 to mid 1944 to comprehend a production of many millions of rifles. In 1941, the Army had 5 million men, in 1943/44 it had 6.5 million. Plus half a million Waffen SS. So that is an increase of 2 million men over 3 years. But again, how many of these carried a rifle? I guess 1 million? And yet, in that same time they produced more than 4 million Mauser rifles


.

Your not taking into account the losses. Between June 1942 and June 1944, the armed forces suffered about 7.1 million casualties. And i think your estimate of just 1 in 5 carrying a rifle is way too low. By 1944, the germans were putting less and less into the rear echelons and calling on field formations to meet emergency after emergency. That meant handing a rifle to a normal "non-combatant" and sending them into fight. An Infantry Division in 1944 had a theoretical manpower level of about 12000 men, of which about 3000 were combat riflemen. But the days of that sort of neat demarcation in the formations was long gone. most of the combat riflemen were dead or wounded, and increasingly the divisions were called upon to find substitutes from their other specialisation. Typically on the eastern front a division would have close to normal strength on paper, but in reality was fighting with about 40% of its manpower. The rest were usually either dead, captured, or more usually convaslecing, but the point is, virtually all of the division had to be able to fight at any time, and that in turn meant just about every many had to be equipped with a rifle. 



> What's more, I have my doubts about the losses of rifles. I believe that the losses of rifles will actually be less than losses of lives. From mid 41 to mid 44 they lost 2-3 million men. But is a rifle as fragile as a man? Soldiers get killed easier than rifles get destroyed, at least that is how I see it


.

I think the instances of lost weapons over lost men would be far greater.....for example those numerous instance when depots were captured or destroyed. And your casualty rates are way too low. All casualties (ie not just dead, but including all men incapitated and not retuerned to service ....might be captured, MIA, wounded and discharged, whatever) from 1941 until 1944 was a whopping 7.5 million men, again using the Germans own records. 



> Finally, what to think of those millions of rifles they had captured in France and Russia? What happened to them? I find it hard to believe that they were distributed among second-line troops and police forces. You do not need millions of rifles for that


.


I dont know either, but dont forget the VG formations....virtually every man in Germany was called upon to carry a weapon at the end of the war. Those weapopns had to come from somewhere.



> But maybe I am missing some points. Maybe rifles break down more easily than often said. Maybe malfunctions or wear will lead to immediate replacement. And maybe a lot of captured rifles are not redistributed, but are melted down and used for newly produced Mausers.



My stepfather after he was wounded at stalingrad eventualy was rehabilitated. Because he was both a machine gunner and a toolmaker, he was assigned to a battalion sized unit to service and repair Army Machine guns. The unit was based in the west (Holland) but even for the west, was servicing and repairing more than a1000 MGs per week. If you assume roughly 60 Divs under OB West control at that time, that a theoretical total of about 5000 MGs (I think). How many rifles would need similar repairs. Maybe similar......


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 14, 2013)

Civettone said:


> Nincomp, that was very informative. Feel free to elaborate further. I am quite illiterate in these technical matters, I have never even fired a rifle in my life. I am trying to visualize what you and Shortround are saying but I guess I need to find out how exactly the chamber looks like and how it encapsulates a cartridge.



The chamber is just slightly larger than the cartridge as per the drawings shown above. Smallest production tolerance chamber has to accept the largest production tolerance cartridge. Cartridges are mostly brass with being some soft steel. They cannot withstand the firing pressure without the support of the chamber. The case will stretch to fill the chamber and then shrink slightly when the pressure drops which allows extraction. The case does form a gas tight seal between the "barrel" where the bullet is and the rear of the chamber where the bolt face is. Without this seal you get a blast of high pressure gas coming back into the action which, if large enough, can wreck the action and sometimes injure the firer. 
The larger the chamber is over the size of the cartridge the greater the danger of the case splitting up the side and leaking gas back into the action. 






If the chamber is bigger in diameter than the cartridge you want to use you can take the barrel out of the action (see threads in picture) cut off the large diameter chamber section, re-chamber and re-thread the barrel and screw it back in. Only works if the bore diameter is the same size. If the chamber is smaller than the cartridge you want to use just run a chambering reamer into the breech end of the barrel and this may be quite possible without removing the barrel from the receiver. Again it only works if bore sizes ( bullets) are the same diameter. 
Both jobs are much easier than boring out the entire length of the barrel and and re-rifling it or installing a rifled liner. 

Smokeless powder is strange stuff. The more pressure it is under the faster it burns. Most rifle cartridges hit peak pressure with the bullet about 2-4 inches from the chamber. High power rifles operate at 50-60,000 psi peak pressure. Trying to fire .312 bullets though a .308 bore will raise the pressure, you may get away for a while, you may not. It depends on the brass or soft steel case sealing the chamber. Fire too big a bullet through a small barrel and you can get way over 100,000psi. 



Civettone said:


> But is a rifle as fragile as a man? Soldiers get killed easier than rifles get destroyed, at least that is how I see it.



Many times a man helping his buddy back to the aid station will drop his rifle, stocks get broken getting out of trucks. Rifles that are not cleaned properly after firing will get rust in the barrels, the primers in use at the time used salts that attracted water from the air and were highly corrosive. German doctrine was if the machine gunner got hit another squad member picked up the machine gun and they continued on, usually losing the rifle in the process. 
Many armies had teams that went over battle fields looking for abandoned weapons (from both sides), number of rifles picked up usually exceeded the causalities. 



Civettone said:


> Finally, what to think of those millions of rifles they had captured in France and Russia? What happened to them? I find it hard to believe that they were distributed among second-line troops and police forces. You do not need millions of rifles for that.
> 
> But maybe I am missing some points. Maybe rifles break down more easily than often said. Maybe malfunctions or wear will lead to immediate replacement. And maybe a lot of captured rifles are not redistributed, but are melted down and used for newly produced Mausers.



Issuing non-standard rifles to second line troops/police helps simplify the ammunition supply. And again you have a reserve of rifles for re-issue when/if the second line troops/police manage to break the rifles they are issued. (look at the guards on the front sights of some combat rifles to get an idea of what some officers thought troops could do to rifles.


----------



## Civettone (Jun 14, 2013)

parsifal said:


> And i think your estimate of just 1 in 5 carrying a rifle is way too low.


Oh, I meant out of the 2 million men increase from 1941 to 1942, only half would be issued a rifle. 

I agree with the things you are saying. All good points. But my main point is that I see the German army doing all those things you say and losing all those men as early as 1941-1942. Yet losses remained somewhat stable until Bagration and D-Day in the Summer of 1944. It is only then that they started losing millions of men, that they started to arm the Volkssturm and the ROA. Apparently they were able to arm their men in 1941-1942, but production of another 4 million rifles until mid 1944 should have been plentiful.

But I agree about your comments on losses of rifles. War leads to loss of large amounts of weapons and equipment. 




Shortround6 said:


> The chamber is just slightly larger than the cartridge as per the drawings shown above. Smallest production tolerance chamber has to accept the largest production tolerance cartridge. Cartridges are mostly brass with being some soft steel. They cannot withstand the firing pressure without the support of the chamber. The case will stretch to fill the chamber and then shrink slightly when the pressure drops which allows extraction. The case does form a gas tight seal between the "barrel" where the bullet is and the rear of the chamber where the bolt face is. Without this seal you get a blast of high pressure gas coming back into the action which, if large enough, can wreck the action and sometimes injure the firer.
> The larger the chamber is over the size of the cartridge the greater the danger of the case splitting up the side and leaking gas back into the action.
> 
> View attachment 235994


SR, thanks for the cutaway! What is that insertion under the chamber? Looks like it holds a little metal object.
Kris


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 14, 2013)

Many bolt action rifles had a cleaning rod stored under the barrel although in some cases it took two units screwed together to be long enough. Even with the rod the soldier needed cleaning fluid ( or hot water) and patches AND time/energy to clean the rifle after use. 






See end of rod sticking out below the barrel.


----------



## tyrodtom (Jun 15, 2013)

Another way to explain the great number of Mausers produced in comparision with the men under arms is every armory has spare weapons.
Whenever I was in a US Army company armory there was always more weapons stored there than men in the company, and more M60 than we needed for the aircraft we had, etc. 
If you had a weapon malfunction bad enough to require a armorer's time, you didn't take it to the armory and wait for it to be repaired. You left it and got another.
I have no idea how many extra weapons the TO&E authorized, but i'd bet all military armories would operate on the same principle.


----------



## gjs238 (Jun 16, 2013)

From Wikipedia:
_After the German Army captured large numbers of the PPSh-41 during World War II, a program was instituted to convert the weapon to the standard German submachine gun cartridge - 9mm Parabellum. The Wehrmacht officially adopted the converted PPSh-41 as the MP41(r); unconverted PPSh-41s were designated MP717(r) and supplied with 7.63x25mm Mauser ammunition (which is dimensionally identical to 7.62x25mm, but somewhat less powerful). German-language manuals for the use of captured PPShs were printed and distributed in the Wehrmacht.[6]_


----------



## dutchman (Aug 12, 2013)

Wow, what a great topic, Becareful though about rechambering the Italian 6.5mm It would be easy to drop a new barrel and chamber on to make it an 8mm but the action would be pushed to it's absolute limit. They tried selling these years ago and they were pulled off the market for blowing up!!! (they wanted to make a deadlier gun, they did). Most of the rifles used in WW2 had their roots in the first world war. The Semi auto's being an exception. The 4 best bolt actions in my humble opinoin would have been the Britsih Enfield, the German Mauser, the American Springfield and the Russian Nagant. I have owned and shot all of them. I find the Mauser sights the least friendly. The Springfield was a joy but the stock design was too straight and it kicked like a mule. I loved the Enfield, but the stock was a touch short. The Nagant had good power and good sights but it was crude in comparison to the others, but it worked, I've also had the 7.7 Jap, the 6.5 carcaino, a French 8mm Lebel, These guns were just not in the same class. For the effort it would take to rework a lesser gun into an "also ran" weapon in 8mm mauser, it would be easier to just build the new Mauser. But if you had a source of captured weapons they could still be used by police, or as training tools, as well as equiping your allies. If German sent the Italians 100,000 Enfields it would have been a big upgrade for their infantry. The Vichy french were in need of weapons Even the Japanese could have made use of a captured supply of high quality frontline infantry rifles. keeping the right ammo with the right units would be a logistical headache, but it could be done. 
I also have had a chance to own and fire the M1 Garrand and the G 43. I have to give the edge to the Garrand. Better sights, quicker reload offsets the 2 round disadvantage. The 30-06 edges out the 8mm Mauser. I know that stir up some folks. ENJOY!!!!


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 13, 2013)

The Germans also had access to the WWI stockpiles which had been stored away after the armistice. My 7x57 Mauser of WWI vintage was pressed into service during the early stages of WWII.

We also have a Mauser that is chambered for .22 that was used as a practice rifle in the 1930's.

There is also the case of the Austrian straight-pull Steyrs that were re-issued to police units during the occupation of Austria and you'll still find ammunition that bore the Imperial crest on the casing and a year later, bore the Reichsadler.


----------



## Civettone (Aug 13, 2013)

Dutchman, how would you rate the Carcano? You say it is not in the same league, but how is that? I have never fired a rifle in my life, so please endulge me in your wisdom 

You also say it would be easier to build the new Mauser, but I guess this is not true in terms of man hours and definitely not true in terms of resources used. 

As Shortround explained, ideal is a chmaber which is slightly smaller than the 8mm Mauser. I guess this makes it difficult to convert those 6.5mm Norwegian, Dutch and Italian rifles. French and Belgian 7.5mm-7.35mm would be good though. 

Kris


----------



## dutchman (Aug 13, 2013)

I think you'll find the man hours and the material is about a wash between the two. To run a rifle up that is uniformed and mass produced on you're own machines is a rather efficient process. Now those rifles will require a barrel and chamber made to your specs the same as any attempt to caliber a rifle. 

The Carcano was a pretty rifle I had one that was mint and the wood was an excellent fit and the finish was good, but when they tried selling the carcanos that had been converted to 8mm Mauser it was found the receivers were not strong enough to stand up to the strain that cartridge produced. They were removed from the market and recalled for safety. Back then I was a Gun Dealer and the guns were cheap and a real hard hitting rifle. We sold alot of those and then had to get them all back. They might have done better converting them to the 7mm Mauser, less back pressure and still a good cartridge.

A factory can tell you to the minute what it will take to make a rifle. Those numbers are what determine production costs and production deadline. But lets look at the other side of the recycle process. First take the captured rifle, disassemble it into it's components. Check them all for wear and tear. Check the receiver for cracks and make sure it's still true. Then you can start reprocessing, recut the barrel threads to match your barrel, if the gun is a large ring receiver it should have enough material to do that without weakining it too much. Now the new barrel has the chamber on it so the heavy lifting is done. But the bolt has to be reworked so the bolt face lines up, locks up and can fire and extract the bullet. Once this is done, which may require much hand fitting instead of mass production you start to see the problem. Of course we have to have new sights for the rifle so the bullet drop is accurately marked at the different ranges. Now we have to make a new stock as the barrel profile won't match the original and we have a bayonet lug to attach. In short what you have reused is the receiver after inspection and rebuilding, the back half of the bolt, after the front was reworked. The savings are in question and the components that the rifle had can be recyled to conserve materials. 

If any of these weapons had been heated and then cooled with water the receivers and barrels would be too dangerous to use. That's why id you have a house fire and the guns get real hot and sprayed by the fire department we don't mess with them, But if they cool down slow like being in a gun safe they are likely fine. But when you're talking battlefield pick ups who knows what the history is??? 

The carcano was a nice rifle in it's own. It was a fair caliber that could do a good job, and it was simple in design which is a great trait for a combat weapon. The safety could give a little trouble but was a minor difficulty. The tolerances were very forgiving which gave it the appearance of being "sloppy" when the action was open, but when locked up and ready to fire it was tight and solid. That's fine, as long as it's tight when it goes bang bad things don't happen!!! But the 6.5mm was close to the max for the receiver. The quality of the steel may not have been quite as good as it should have been. Unlike the 98 Mauser that had a receiver so over built it could handle much more powerful bullets. The mauser had a "giant" extractor claw that covered about 20% of the shells ring to pull it out. That's about 3 times bigger then most. If it can't pull it out, it ain't coming out!!! The Mauser extractor is the best I've ever seen. The sights on the Carcano are fair, they have a long sight radius which helps to increase aimimg ability, it also has a long barrel which allows the use of slower burning powder in the bullet which hold the pressure down a bit. The Nagant used the same logic and it worked well for both rifles. If you fire a carbine version of either rifle you will see a huge muzzle flash. This is caused because the bullet has left the barrel before all thre powder is burned. The flash is wasted energy and a marker to show where the shooter is. I will say the sectional density of the bullet was very good. This helped the performance of the gun in accuracy and penetration. Overall a workable rifle that is fine to shoot, but the Enfield, Springfield, Mauser and the Nagant will probably out preform and out live it. 

Just my humble opinion


----------



## parsifal (Aug 15, 2013)

my opinion is that the problems associated or alleged for the carcano are overrated. It was a workable design, with limited magazine capacity that could not be easily altered, and with a limited supply this was a bit of a disadvantage when ranged against the 10 round Lee Enfield mags. It had a reputation for being innaccurate, due to the poor tolerances of the late run production (1938 and after) but i think that criticism is really overblown. It had a reputation of being underpowered, and this led to a very late run by the italian Army to re-chamber them to 7.35mm and even 7.92mm (to take German ammnuition). The 7.92mm conversion was actually somewhat dangerous, but the 7.35mm conversion seems to have worked okay. Biggest problem arising from the re-chambering was that it generated logistical nightmares for the italians, and this really was a huge problem. It seems all the more ironic, that in reality there was not too much wrong with the original 6.5mm rounds. The Italians thought they had a problem, and then created a real problem trying to solve an imaginary or minor one. 

The gun is a fast action, pleasant to fire, well balanced amd quite accurate. it packed an adequate punch. It deserves a better rap than it usually gets


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 15, 2013)

Two problems with the Carcano that were more important than it's 6 round capacity is that the magazine could not be 'topped off' with loose rounds like a Mauser or Lee-Enfield. If you fired two rounds then you either stayed at 4 or ejected the partially used clip and put in a new one and the is a hole in the bottom of the magazine for the used clip to fall out of. It also means their is a hole in the bottom of the rifle for dirt,sand, crud to get into. 
It was an adequate military rifle but no more than that. The late fixed sight versions might not have seemed so bad if they weren't used in the desert with it's more open ranges but that is not a fault of the action or basic design. 
It suffers a bit from being one of the older design rifles used in WW II being about 7 years older the the Mauser. The rifles that were manufactures in 7.9 Mauser _may_ have been OK, it depends on heat treatment and proof testing. Converting a 6.5mm rifle to 7.9 Mauser may NOT be OK due to the age of the original rifle and it's heat treatment ( American 1903 Springfields built before 1916/17 should not be fired due to questionable heat treatment).

American civilian shooters tend to judge military rifles not on their abilities as military rifles but on the abilities as sporting rifles (hunting and target shooting) including suitability to be rebuilt into something else. The Carcano isn't very good at those things but that wasn't it's job and to judge it that way kind of misses the point for a military rifle.


----------



## dutchman (Aug 15, 2013)

Let me say I didn't mean to infer the Italian carcano was an un usable rifle that was not deserving of being built. It filled the need of the Italian military. My point was that in my opinion The Springfield, the Mauser 98, the British Enfield and even the Russian Nagant were better rifles. I have had carcanos and they were fairly accurate, good enough for a combat weapon. If I were shooting for Olympic gold it would not be my first choice. But everyone must realize all weapons have shortfalls, To get back to the question at hand, rechambering weapons into the 8mm Mauser round, doesn,t save any money or time and creates alot of issues that are problimatic. 

One would be far better off to simply make the ammo for the captured weapons and use them in secondary rolls, or if possible recycle them or sell them to 3rd world allies!


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 15, 2013)

If I were shooting for Olympic gold NONE of them would be my first choice 

Even just taking the Action and throwing away everything else including the trigger mechanism none of them would be my first choice. 

That said the _practical_ accuracy difference between these rifles has a lot more to do with the the sights, trigger pull and general quality of assembly than any other design features like location of locking lugs, type of rifling, size of receiver, etc.


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 15, 2013)

dutchman said:


> ...One would be far better off to simply make the ammo for the captured weapons and use them in secondary rolls, or if possible recycle them or sell them to 3rd world allies!


And the Germans did this...

In Austria, they seized the stores of Steyr M95 and issued them to "home guard" units and Police units and continued the manufacture of the 8x56R ammunition. The transition from Austrian state manufactured ammo (bearing the Imperial crest) to Nazi state manufactured ammo (bearing the Reichsadler) is evident.


----------



## stona (Aug 15, 2013)

Last time I looked, some time ago, the Enfield still held all the 1,000yd records at Bisley. I only know this because I have a cousin (of some sort!) who used to shoot one there many years ago.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## dutchman (Aug 15, 2013)

I would not be surprized if the Enfield still held 1000 yard records. It is a beautiful weapon and likely my second favorite rifle. But as I said don't discount the accuracy of the Nagant. It shoots far better then it looks or feels. Here's a snipit from wikipedia. 

"Klas Lestander (born April 18, 1931 in Arjeplog) is a Swedish biathlete and Olympic champion. He won a gold medal at the 1960 Winter Olympics in Squaw Valley.[1] He used a Mosin Nagant Rifle, chambered in 7.62x54mm. Also using 7.62x54R ammunition. This model rifle was used to win 4 of the 5 gold medals.

By todays standards all of these rifles are not state of the art! but they have their place in history and well earned. Many shooters love these old girls and will shoot them as long as they can. Today I'm building a scope mount for an Enfield. The weapon is 70 years old. The scope mount will last 100 years plus. So tell me what else we build that has the life span of a weapon. Anyone driving a 70 year old car everyday? Want to see what your computer looks like in 100 years?? 

For long range shooting I still use a Husky in 30-06. It does a very nice job, the rifle shoots far better then I do. And I have no doubt it will outlive me! For fun I love my M1 Garrand. But beyond 5-6 hundred yards The Husky has a huge edge over the M1. 

The Mauser action is without doubt the most duplicated action in the gun world. That in itself speaks volumes for it's design and quality. Almost anyone I know that builds custom guns prefers to start with the Mauser action as the platform for the rifle. Even my dear Husky has to admit to Mauser bloodlines as you look at it it can't be denied.


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 15, 2013)

For high grade competition target work nobody uses old military actions unless forced to. Some gunsmiths won't even work on Winchester 70 or Remington 700 actions because they take too much work to get up to target standards. Some matches _require_ a certain type of rifle or caliber ( or issue ammunition) that dictates what is used. 
For things like Plama matches old Military rifles went out the window a number of years back. I shot the Canadian Nationals about 11-12 years back and converted Enfields were going very cheap. None were to be seen on the firing line out of around 300 competitors. 
That said I have seen some very good shooting done with a converted Enfield, enough to give lie to the stories about rear locking lugs. But beating 75% of the fancier rifles still doesn't get _first place._ 

But these are levels of accuracy that 99.9% of the soldiers of the world cannot make use of. Large, robust sights with a few simple adjustments would have done more to increase effectiveness than lots of fancy gunsmithing or theoretical advantages of forward locking lugs and the crap sights than most WW II rifles were fitted with. 

BTW picture of Klas Lestander's Mosin Nagant;


----------



## Matt308 (Aug 16, 2013)

Great pic!


----------



## Hansie Bloeckmann (Jan 7, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> In the case of the No 4 MK I they needed new barrels. The 7.62mm bing a few thousandths smaller than the .303.
> 
> For the rest of it you are basically correct. The Germans did pick up production facilities in Czechoslovakia and perhaps Poland for Mauser rifles. The Hungarians converted their rifles to 7.9x57mm. In many cases 2nd line troops got captured rifles.
> 
> ...


Correct, Sir. the .308 caliber weapons are just that, .308""- the British .303 actually mikes at .311" Nominal Bore Dia.--actually, our .30 caliber USA designed weapons are .308" in Nominal BD-- the Winchester 30-30, the 30-06, the various .300 magnum clones. I have a hunting partner, and fellow rifle collector, who has a Savage M99 in .303 British, also a Winchester M1895 on that same caliber.


----------



## fastmongrel (Jan 8, 2018)

Hansie Bloeckmann said:


> Savage M99 in .303 British



I thought Savage only made the M99 in Savage .303 which is a different round to British .303, even WWI Canadian Home Guard M99Ds were in Savage .303 as rebarreling would have been uneconomic and taken too long.

Unless it is a rebarreled job but even then I am surprised it could be done the M99 is usually restricted to case lengths of 52mm max.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 8, 2018)

What happens when you fire a .303 Savage in a .303 British




If you are lucky 

I remember working in the gunstore at the range and customer coming and buying a box of .303 and returning in 10-15 minutes because they wouldn't fit in his Savage lever action.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fastmongrel (Jan 8, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> If you are lucky



I doubt you could get a .303 to fit into a Savage chamber without a hammer but I bet someone has tried and is still wondering where his face is.


----------



## taly01 (Jan 8, 2018)

The Germans did rechamber captured enemy artillery guns in WW2, notably the excellent Soviet 76.2mm Field Gun by the thousands. 

Lots of captured weapons that were obsolete or in too small quantities for Wehrmacht use were sent to AXIS allies or used in third rate "home defence" units.


----------



## Hansie Bloeckmann (Jan 8, 2018)

fastmongrel said:


> I thought Savage only made the M99 in Savage .303 which is a different round to British .303, even WWI Canadian Home Guard M99Ds were in Savage .303 as rebarreling would have been uneconomic and taken too long.
> 
> Unless it is a rebarreled job but even then I am surprised it could be done the M99 is usually restricted to case lengths of 52mm max.


Thanks for the point of correction, I just assumed his Savage and Winchester lever rifles, if marked .303- were for the British .303. I do not own or shoot any lever-action rifles-- all my CF hunting rifles are BA, based on the unsurpassed Mauser 98 action. I have shot an Enfield Mark 111- belongs to a shooting pal, we were on the range on day, I had my National Match Springfield, and he had his Enfield. I liked the rifle, but the cocking on opening, the unusual safety design, were not quite the same as on my Springfield- but either would be a good choice for a BA combat rifle- accurate, reliable action, and with the proper loads, also fine for hunting, if you do not want a scope on your rifle. Just my opinion, that's all. Hansie


----------



## The Basket (Jan 19, 2018)

A lot of occupied Europe had firearm making abilities so some weapons had same ammo as Germans such as 9mm so you could issue troops with Hi-powers or Radoms.

Usually captured rifles had captured ammunition so that's how that worked.

If you want an example of this the French did change Labels and Bertiers to 7.5mm so can use this as a guide

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 19, 2018)

You can't re-chamber from 8mm Lebel to 7.5 MAS.





you need a new barrel, there is an .018 difference in diameter of the bullets. This is quite possible but rather more expensive.
I doubt very highly that the French converted more than a handful of Lebels to 7.5 x 54, The 1886 Lebel and it's descendants used a tube magazine which worked ok with the extremely tapered 8mm cartridge, getting it to work with the 7.5 x 54 is a lot tricker. Putting pointy bullets with hard jackets in line with other cartridges primers is asking for an accident (magazine explosion). Please note that you would probably have to change the diameter of magazine tube in any case.


----------



## The Basket (Jan 20, 2018)

M27 Lebel


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 20, 2018)

I stand corrected.
However:
" The conversion was a success from a usability standpoint but that was not enough. Cost and machine time were just too high and the 7.5mm Lebel was dropped. Instead, efforts were focused on adapting the Berthier since it already featured a vertical magazine design. Surplus Lebels did continue to receive attention through the adoption of the Mle.1886 M93 R35 which was simply a rifle shortened into a carbine, still in 8x50mmR. When Germany invaded the small number of M27 rifles saw service in the scramble for small arms."

Fitting a new, mauser style, magazine to the existing 1886 action was not cheap.


----------



## The Basket (Jan 21, 2018)

Never said it was a good idea.
But historical fascinating for the rifle fan.
Remember if you find squillions of rifles with ammunition then that means your industry doesn't have to build it so it's a win win. Even a Mosin is better than no rifle at all.


----------



## Hansie Bloeckmann (Feb 5, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> In the case of the No 4 MK I they needed new barrels. The 7.62mm bing a few thousandths smaller than the .303.
> 
> For the rest of it you are basically correct. The Germans did pick up production facilities in Czechoslovakia and perhaps Poland for Mauser rifles. The Hungarians converted their rifles to 7.9x57mm. In many cases 2nd line troops got captured rifles.
> 
> ...


You make a good point. I believe that all 7.62x whatever length in mm- gives a NBD of .308"-- The British .303 has a NBD of .311"- .003" greater, but still a .30 caliber. Overall length of case, developed angle at the shoulder, and the rim or rimless (even the belted .30cal. Magnum series) all have their individual characteristics--I have a neighbor who is an avid varmint and target shooter, reloads quite a few popular calibers, and has taught me a great deal about rifle ballistics, both in his reloading den, and also on the rifle range. One question comes to mind, when re-boring and re-chambering a rifle barrel-- how does the rate of twist affect this procedure? Thanks, and I have learned a lot from your replies..


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 5, 2018)

If you rebore you drill and ream the barrel to a larger size and take out all the old rifling. Then you cut new rifling to whatever twist you want (or your available tooling allows). Obviously this is labor intensive procedure. You also have to be careful that you don't overheat the barrel or otherwise cause stress that could result in the barrel "bending". Regular barrels are drilled, bored, reamed and rifled from a an over sized rod of steel. 





once rifled they turned to the desired outside contour, threaded for the appropriate action and rough chambered. depending on procedure, action type and cartridge finish chambering is done once the nearly finished barrel is fastened into the action. Please note there is plenty of "meat" to help withstand the stress of drilling, boring and rifling. I would also note that most rifle factories had barrel straightening machines.




A few skilled, experienced workers could bend barrels to make them straight when nearly done. 

When you rechamber that is usually the only part of the barrel that is touched (although recrowning may be done) , you cut a bigger chamber that the barrel was originally manufactured with. 

Times and labor costs change. At one time it was somewhat common to have a well used rifle with a shot out throat "rechambered" to bring it back into spec. The gunsmith (or home machinist) took the barrel off, cut one or two threads off, cut a new shoulder on the barrel and cut one or two new turns of thread. The barrel was reinstalled and a chambering reamer cut the shortened chamber back to full length and hopefully this move the start of the rifling that much closer to the chamber, restoring accuracy. 
I hope I have explained that correctly and at least somewhat clearly.
This has fallen out of favor as you don't really get a new barrel or barrel surface in front of the chamber. The rifling is a bit worn or at least rounded off and you have microscopic cracks or checks in the surface of the steel from thousands of shots that aren't there on a new barrel. This "rechambering" job won't have the same life (number of shots fired) before accuracy falls of again. If you are paying modern gunsmith labor prices and not doing the work yourself the labor cost of this "repair" is about the same as fitting a new barrel. And if the new barrel lasts twice as long then the cost per shot in barrel wear comes out about the same. New barrel lasts 5000 shots while the "rechamber" lasts 2500 rounds for example. 

recrowning is taking a skim cut across the muzzle to eliminate any defects (dents/burrs) and then chamfering the ends of the rifling, this depends on the gunsmiths and customers beliefs are there are several schools and techniques  

If you are rechambering a rifle to a different cartridge (larger case) you are stuck with the rifling in the existing barrel. A lot of times this is no big deal but in some cases it leads to restricted bullet choices.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------

