Carcano rifle (1 Viewer)

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

When evaluating military weapons, or other things, a number of factors com into play.
Even for things like rifles they actually have to viewed as a "weapons system" even though a simple one.
The Carcano was a well built rifle that is-- good forgings, well machined, good finish (for the most part, many war time guns from many nations were poorly finished). Many rifles have idiosyncrasies that don't make sense at first glance to people familiar to other guns/tactics.
However as a "system" the rifle is largely dependent on ammunition and here the Carcano was let down, both by Italian military ammunition and in the American market. To deliver good "accuracy" a rifle needs good ammo. Not only good new ammo but good old ammo (ammo that has been in storage for 20-40 years) and here the Carcano ran into trouble, some lots of ammo having poor sealing around the primer allowing moisture to get into the primer and powder making the cartridges inconsistent. It has hard to get a good group if the ammo is going bang, bang, bang. pop, BOOM, bang. The Carcano also used an oddball bullet. It was .268 in diameter instead of the much more common .263-.264 of many other 6.5mm cartridges which meant even American handloaders had trouble making ammunition for it. It was only after about 2002 that an American company offered a .268 bullet so from the end of WW II on even American experimenters were using undersized bullets when trying to evaluate or compare the Carcano to other rifles.
Many countries had problems with ammunition quality during war time and at times accepted some pretty poor stuff.
A 3rd consideration is the sights and ergonomics. The Carcano never got a decent set of sights. They were stuck with the pre turn of 20th century sight system until just before WW II when the Italians turned to the simplified fixed sight setup. Perhaps that was an attempt to simplify things for the troops in combat.
Military rifles were often regulated (or sighted in) at the factory or arsenal by using different height front sight blades (or filing) and drifting the front sight left and right in the front sight base to establish a "zero". However different "lots" of ammunition will often shoot to to different points of impact even if the velocity is the the same. A few inches left or right may be acceptable for military use but leaves civilian users less than impressed. Trying to use different bullets or hand loads can really shift point of impact even if the group size is small.
The Short barreled Carcanos suffer due to the short sight radius. The greater the distance between the sights the less the point of impact will shift for the same sighting error (front sight not in exact center of rear sight). This is true for many of the short carbines but very few of the European short carbines showed up in the US in numbers (except for the Swedish Mauser Carbines).
One source claims the short carbines were built using cut down rifle barrels. The Carcano rifles (long barrel) used gain twist rifling in which the rifling twist started slow (about one turn in 19in of barrel) and the twist changed as the rifling went to the muzzle with the twist ending at somewhere between 1 in 8 or 1 in 9. Cutting the barrel back to just under 18in inches may have left the the final rifling twist to slow to stabilize the long 162 grain bullet.
Point of personal information, My 6.5 Rem bench rest rifle has a 1 in 10 barrel and while phenomenally accurate using 120 grain bullets it threw Sierra 142 grain match kings sideways in a pattern (not group) the one time I tried at 100yds. My 6.5X 308 rifle uses a 1 in 9 barrel and with the higher velocity with it's larger powder charge shoots 142 grain bullets just fine at any range I have tried (1000 yds max).
Later Short rifle Carcanos (1938 and later) used a constant rate of twist rifling.

With the large variety of different Carcanos and the difficulty in making sure you have good ammo ( post war testers or civilians could hand load most different calibers to evaluate different rifles without depending on factory/government ammunition) evaluation of the Carcano in the 50s and 60s could have had very mixed results.
I would note that US practice called for the rifles to be accuracy tested at the factories with certain lots of ammo of known performance while ammo was accuracy tested in special test guns ( universal receivers fasted to heavy duty benches/tables and with very large diameter barrels) in order to reduce the variables. Ammo testing was NOT done with standard service rifles and rifle accuracy testing was NOT done with what ever batch of ammo that was handy. Function tests or durability tests would be done with whatever would go bang.
 
The Jungle Carbine was a shorty version but still used full power 303 which seems slightly mad. The Carcano carbines used a weaker round to begin with but recoil will be much harder and flash will be a proplem with a cut down SMLE.

I suppose anyone familiar with Italian engineering such as Ducati or Alfa Romeo will probably run a mile from an Italian rifle!
 
Right now I have a Enfield No.4, Mk1, but shortened to Jungle carbine length, and with the flash hider and upper hand guard, a fake jungle carbine, but without the mill cuts in the receiver, and chamber area, to cut weight, that the Number 5 had. Those cuts to lighten it are generally considered the reasons for the No.5 not holding a zero. My fake No.5 may be a little harsh recoil wise, but a .303 is not a .308, and it has no problem with a changing zero.

Still a fairly good deer gun for the type of country I hunt, just a little heavy.
 
Sounds right.
Most jungle carbines are cut no.4
Not true no.5
So yours should be ok.
 
What rifles were around in 1963 that the average man in the street could buy for $20?
Surely Oswald would go Garand. He trained on one of those in the Marines. It just the choice of the Carcano is so odd. I doubt Carcanos were very popular or common.

The Jungle Carbine was a nickname and never official. It didn't serve in the uk for long due to wandering zero. So how did it find itself on the US market?

I bought a Model 95 Mauser 7x57 in 1966 for $19.95 in never-issued condition, still in the original Deutsche Waffen cosmoline. Coulda had a '98 in 7x57 for ten bucks more, but on $45 a week, that was a bit of a stretch. In high school ('61-'65) I drooled over the surplus ads, some as low as $14.95, and my friends all had SMLE Jungle Carbines, Carcanos, M1917 Enfields, etc. By the time I was in the market, Garands were up to $125, and the ones available were pretty sloppy and worn out. Garands were still being issued at that time. All Guard units had them, and I humped one around in ROTC from '65 to '67, then in Navy boot camp in 1970. To this day, back country general stores around here carry .303, 7x57, 8x57, 7.65 Mauser, 7.7 Arisaka, and of course, 7.62 Russian.
 
Sweet have you still got it that would be a collectors item now especially if it had the Orange Free State mark on it.

No such luck! It's marked: "MAUSER CHILENO 1998", and it's not rare. They were imported by the tens of thousands in the mid '60s, and mostly sold in this part of the country. As a peacetime Mauser, it's a pretty gun, though, with the Chilean coat of arms and the Deutsche Waffen logo engraved in the blued receiver. It's had about 30 rounds down the barrel in 50 years. More time cleaning than shooting.
 
Ian from forgotten weapons used a 7.35mm Carcano in a shooting match and although he praised the rifle beforehand the match was not easy.
He was less impressed afterwards.
Firing a weapon under stress...even artificial stress can show up weakness that isn't there on a sunny day.
 
To be fair Ian was using an old rifle of unknown history with modern ammunition so feed issues are always possible unless the modern ammunition and clips are matches to service ones; not to mention operating a right hand bolt action left handed. Carcanos are not noted for feed issues with service quality rounds and undamaged clips. Even though the service clips were loaded from mixes of random different ammunition batches and manufacturers. I agree with his video above and with a 6.5mm the flat trajectory difference drop between 50 to 300 metres is so trivial to even allow for. One fixed sight does the job.

I agree with the stress issue. Training makes all of the actions automatic by sheer repetition. Poor Ian (oh the horror!) has to cope with a new gun monthly. It all contrasts with lobbing my musket balls in like 0.76: shoulder mortar where the drop from 50 to 200 metres is measured in metres not centimetres.

Ian and Othias (and Rob on Britishmuzzleloaders) are the pinnacles of well researched and well presented serious Youtube vidoes on old guns. Would that others used them as models to emulate. Especially the 'Yee Hah!' and the 'mumble Hi this is me mumble and I have no script and am making up the dialogue as I go' brigades.
 
I would take issue with the following

I agree with his video above and with a 6.5mm the flat trajectory difference drop between 50 to 300 metres is so trivial to even allow for. One fixed sight does the job.

The Italian 6.5 had among the worst bullet and the lowest muzzle velocity of any of the service 6.5mm rounds.
160-162 grain round nose bullets have a miserable ballistic co-efferent despite the great sectional density and a MV of around 2200fps when fired from a short barreled carbine means the trajectory is worse than an AK-47 or SKS.

I ran a ballistic program using the numbers from Hornady's 160 grain .267 bullet for Carcano's and if sighted dead on at 200 yds (not meters) it is 17in low at 300 yds. In meters it is worse. 200 meter zero is 22.5cm low at 250 meters (still good) but 58.4cm low at 300 meters and 110 cm low at 350 meters.

going to the 7.35 Carcano improves things somewhat. 200 yd zero is 13.5in low at 300 yds or in metric a 200 meter zero means 18cm low at 250meters, 46.5cm low at 300 metes and 87.1 cm low at 350 meters.

Being 14cm high or so at 100 meters may be trivial in combat. But that fixed rear sight may have been a real problem in North Africa. Remember, only ONE Breda 30 LMG for every two squads or a bit over 20 men so "firepower" at much over 300 meters is a bit lacking for a platoon.

I would be a lot less critical if the Italians had even fitted something like this.
690716.jpg

semi finished.
keep the 200meter zero and give a 2nd sight blade/leaf for a longer range (at longer range they should have time to fool with the sight.)

For comparison the US .30-06 M2 load (150 grain flat based bullet at 2700fps) was good for something like 8.4 cm high at 100 meters with a 200 meter zero and would be about 13cm low at 250, 33cm low at 300 and 61cm low at 350meters, at 400 meters the round would only be 98cm low with the 200 meter zero. In other words the US rifleman had about an extra 50 meters of range (400 vs 350) for the same drop as the Carcano (average).

Most other military rifles will fall somewhere between the two.
For Jungle or urban fighting perhaps you can do without the adjustable rear sight but for dessert fighting (as we have relearned) or even mountain fighting limiting the effective engagement of your soldiers to under 300 meters is and was a mistake.
 
Last edited:
I agree totally that the Italian 6.5mm round had the worst ballistics of the period 6.5mm but still quite useable. My point was only that it was flatter within the 50 to 300 metre range than the 7.35mm even though they deliberately made the 7.35mm quite light for a flatter initial trajectory. They had twigged that, in a modern army v army fight over 300 metres (more like 200) you use the machine gun. Rare snipers excepted. In the same circumstance individual small unit actions take place at the shorter distances so a simple robust match of sights to ammunition and rifle is the optimum for the average conscript.

In assymetric warfare the lesser enemy has no requirement to take or hold ground. Merely to inflict casualties so it makes sense for them to use 'stand off' rifles which prompts the reaction of the greater force to change it's rifles for ones with greater range to meet the threat.

The Carcano 38TS is not a great rifle but it was a very sensible choice for the users at the time.

The Soviets, post WW2, sought a better SMG replacement for the same distances and went for the 7.62x39 which sacrificed controllability for power. Personally (FWIW ,which is very little) I would be happy with a more powerful SMG than 9x19 or 7.62x25. Possibly 9x25 controllable with a slow rate of fire and a light bipod and an adjustable sight for the arching trajectory. Crucially backed up by a full power LMG gun group. The Italians went over what they could make in quantity and the 38 TS seems a very sound choice. Not the best possible but a sound one they could actually make then. If you started from scratch you would not make a 38 TS.
 
265_3.jpg

Originally chambered for either 9mm Steyr or 9mm Mauser export. War time production for Germans was 9mm parabellum.
Had a removable weight in the bolt to adjust rate of fire.

The 7.35 Carcano had a flatter trajectory than the 6.5. Both weren't very good compared to other rifles although good enough below 300 meters and 300 meters is pushing it with that fixed sight.
 
I doubt anyone would consider the Carcano brilliant. Is firing an old rifle with old ammo fair? Dunno but it's entertaining and certainly brings up points rather than sitting at a bench taking aim at 25m. You know that Ian is going to be fair and objective as he seems to love old underdog guns. The 7.35mm Is rare so its good he shoots anything.
Boer war lessons again. How far can average infantry joe shoot with iron sights?
 
How far can average infantry joe shoot with iron sights?

That depends on the sights, the training and the field of view/terrain.
It also depends on the expected targets.

Designing your weapons for average conditions means your troops are in deep excrement when forced to fight in conditions that are NOT average.

The Carcano used poor sights, so did many other rifles. Not just the fixed part but that V notch is hard to use. Front blades varied.
POV-Carcano-M38-Cavalry-f.jpg

now in poor light or target in shade this is a difficult sight set up to use and leads to poor shooting.
df8a500ddbc5c2a902c9924af4c4872a001e54fc.jpg

This is better (different model Carcano) but even better would be a square rear notch.

even better is a rear aperture but that is hard to rig up on a Carcano.

Italians went to the 7.35 because of the poor performance of the 6.5 in North Africa and East Africa. Places that had longer fields of view/ranges than much of Europe. Then they crippled it with the fixed sight.

From one web site " The Italians had made the ambitious decision that most engagements were at a range best suited to a 200 meter battle sight (ultimately true in much of WWII) and that an adjustable sight was likely just a distraction. Ranged engagement should be handled by more appropriate equipment than riflemen."

bold part by me. Good theory, trouble is that the more appropriate equipment either didn't exist in the Italian Army or was in short supply. We have been over the Breda 30 MG before. It has the same trajectory problems as the Italian carbines as it used a short barrel. It was issued at about 1/2 the rate that many other armies issued LMGs. That is one Breda 30 for every 20-24 men. The infantry company got a boost in fire power with the attachment of a 45mm mortar squad form the Battalion mortar platoon. three 45mm Brixa Mortars with a max range of 520 meters effective range being a bit shorter. This pretty much means that "Ranged engagements" need to be handled by the Company/Battalion Breda 37 tripod mounted MGs and 81 mm mortars. German, American and British Armies had better radios/field phones--artillery support to handle the "ranged engagement" scenario also.

The 200 meter idea works pretty well in urban fighting or in the Italian hills/mountains, not so good in North Africa.
The British used a two position sight on a number of No 4 Lee-Enfields (and then complicated things with a bunch of instructions on how fitting and removing the bayonet would change impact of the two settings).

If your troops can not handle the "distraction" of a two position sight you either need to look at the quality of your recruits or your training program. Many Beretta 38 submachine guns used a position flip sight so the concept is neither new or novel.

There was a study done years ago (one of many such studies) that showed about 98% of all rifle fire was done at 400 meters or less, 50% of rifle fire was done at 200 meters or less which means that 50% of all rifle fire was done OVER 200 meters.
Granted studies vary from army to army depending on last war fought and terrain they were fought in but blowing off the 250/275meter to 400 meter range band and saying you will use other weapons to cover it (and then not providing adequate weapons to do so) seems like a big mistake.
 
Amongst other things I use an Enfield Snider with the classic period 'looking at the pyramid of Ghiza down a railway cutting' 'V' rear sight. I have learned that it is most useful in intermediate distance settings. At 100 yards I use a fine sight (ie the tip of the fore sight is only just visible. At 150 yards the tip should reach the top of the 'V', At 200 yards move the tangent forward to the 200 position and so forth. With a flat shooting modern (by comparison) rifle this is far less necessary but I have made use of the system even then but an aperture sight has more merit. All of this presumes a soldier with extensive training and practice. The average Italian conscript might be better off with less to think about under stress. I know that applies to me. Few can even judge how far away is 200 metres and 200 metres looks bloody close when you are looking at people who intend to kill you however far away it seems when you look at a target on a range.

I do recall a Bundeswehr report of the 1950's where they surveyed ex WW2 soldiers experiences and over 50% of Mauser 98K users had never ever adjusted their sights. I recall my L2A1 SMG training where the instructor said that the weapon had sights for 100 and 200 yards. 'Do not use it at 200 yards as it will only draw you to the attention of the enemy and may annoy them'. He was the same chap in L9A1 pistol training who passed each of us a house brick and invited us to throw it down range. 'Right' he said ' don't bother to use this pistol at any greater range except to make the buggers duck or run away'

Anyway. As I said you would not choose to make a 38 TS if you began from scratch in 1938 but I differ in that I think it was a sound choice from what they could do. As a period bolt action the Carcano was a simple to make sound period rifle. Not outstanding but perfectly useable. With Italian manufacturing at the time it was as well to leave it broadly alone and concentrate on more and better LMGs and MMGs. This is the bit that went wrong rather than the rifles. There were any number of foreign good LMGs they could have licenced like Britain did but Fascist NIH syndrome prevented that.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back