Enfield P14

[Shortround6]

I agree the MAS 36 was obsolete but it was better than a Lebel.
The Madsen M47 was even worse!
But then again the 98k was the competition so the MAS 36 was perfectly ok for its time.

In the squad or platoon setting the Germans were depending on the Machine gun to be the main firepower. Once the MG 34 showed up it had roughly double the firepower of the French LMG ( the practical firepower being dependent on the ability to change barrels and the feed system) so the French were behind the curve on the LMG. So were many other countries but Germany was France's main enemy. The fact that the Italians or the Japanese or the Bulgarians didn't have better rifles and LMGs than the French doesn't really matter. Holding the Italians in the French Alps while Germany overran the rest of country wouldn't save them.
The Germans could afford to have a less than 1st class rifle as they had a 1st class machine-gun. They were introducing the sub-machine gun in numbers. The Germans also didn't waste time/money developing a "new" functionally obsolete rifle. They did go to several less than ideal semi-automatic rifles in trial quantities around the start of the war.
Granted tactics were in flux and many pre-war theories didn't work out in practice but the French rifle offered too few advantages over the old ones and certainly not enough to make up for the LMG.
British had a better combat rifle AND a Better LMG than the French, The quick change barrel on the Bren gun allowed for a much higher deliverable rate of fire (cycle rate actually has very little to do with deliverable firepower).
Fitting the MAS 36 with a magazine system like the SMLE would have at least been some sort of improvement instead of holding onto the status quo.

 

[The Basket]

From what I have read the .276 Garand was pushed and the .30 cal Garand was on the back burner about 1929.
Maybe I am reading it wrong but the .276 Garand was going to be selected in 1932 as the next battle rifle. It wasn't but it was very nearly.

The Pedersen lost out to the .276 Garand because of the waxy cartridge and more parts.

Again from what Ive read the .276 had its backers and it certainly had advantages but there was a massive issue in that you already had huge stocks of 30 cal plus BARs and M1917 and M1919 mgs and so even taking on the .276 would seem loony.

The .276 Garand would have been lighter better balanced less recoil and had 2 more rounds which is a win in my book. So with those advantages it not unreasonable to say the .276 could have worked very well.
The main advantage of the .30 or the 7.7 Japanese over the 6.5mm or .276 is that it will go through trees and other hard objects.
So fighting in a forest or jungle or urban environment the bigger bullet gets your more penetrating power.

 

[The Basket]

The infantry battle rifle is far less important than say having a nice shiny Spitfire so I would wager that had USA never had the Garand and only bolt action rifles the outcome would have been no different. The Carcano is another good example of a bland rifle doing a good job simply coz all a rifle has to do is go bang when you pull the trigger and throw lead at the enemy.
Hence why the SMLE was never replaced with another bolt action and the P13 is a history curio.

 

[Shortround6]

Actually the best penetraters were the old fashioned heavy round nose bullets. 160 grain round nose 6.5mm bullets were famous for penetration. They just had miserable trajectories, in part due to the low velocities that went with them. Few people wanted to use the 220 grain round nose 30 cal bullets. (30-40 Krag and original .30-03).
Armies even now struggle with using two different rounds in small units. The 5.56mm machine gun has pretty much gone away despite the introduction of longer, heavier bullets. Introducing 2 different rounds to the squad or platoon in the 1930s (pistol and sub-machine guns aside) probably wasn't going to happen. The US did get sucked into the .30 cal carbine thing a bit later but that was intended to be a replacement for pistols for non-combat troops or heavy weapons crews.

 

[Shortround6]

The infantry battle rifle is far less important than say having a nice shiny Spitfire so I would wager that had USA never had the Garand and only bolt action rifles the outcome would have been no different. The Carcano is another good example of a bland rifle doing a good job simply coz all a rifle has to do is go bang when you pull the trigger and throw lead at the enemy.
Hence why the SMLE was never replaced with another bolt action and the P13 is a history curio.

The US using bolt action rifles would have meant much higher US causalities vs the M1. The US troops being blessed/cursed with the BAR as a squad support weapon. It was a solid reliable weapon but it's ability to put out large volumes of fire was limited. With a fixed and probably too light barrel it was liable to overheating too quickly. The 20 round magazine was a minor limitation and the light weight meant less stability/accuracy for long rang fire. The US depended on the M-1 to make up the difference in firepower. At times it is about morale, convincing the enemy you can overpower him and force his withdrawal (or at least make him duck and stay down while your force advances and 6-8 guys with M-1s can certainly make a lot more noise than 6-8 guys with any kind of bolt action.
Italians were screwed because they were in competition with the Japanese for worlds worst light machine gun of WW II (French won for WW I if not for all time although that is shared with the US for the US version of the French gun). Italians also only issued LMGs at about 1/2 the rate of other armies. one gun for two squads. Or one gun for around 20-22 men. Fortunately the Italian MMG and 81 mm mortar teams were skilled and helped make up the difference in larger battles.
Much more credit should go to the Italian soldiers than is commonly given because of the 6 major Nations in WW II they had the widest variety of poor weapons in the infantry battalion. Bad hand grenades, poor pistols, a poor rifle (especially for desert use in the 7.35mm version), poor LMGs, mediocre MMG. Only their sub-machine guns and 81mm mortars were really world standard.

The SMLE, especially the No 4 MK I, was the high point of the bolt action combat rifle and needed replacement the least.

 

[The Basket]

BAR is certainly overrated but it was still useable although I wouldn't call it light!

The Krag shared a similar fate to the Enfield as that was done in by the 7mm Mauser although the Krag loading system was a pain.

The Garand was still a while away from being general issue especially for the Marines so they had to scrounge Johnsons to get some firepower

Early Garand had the gas trap system which is flawed and later replaced with the gas port.

Anyhow....the Pedersen was toggle blowback which I doubt could have worked in .30 cal.and I do love a nice toggle action! Always thought the Johnson rifle looked a little flimsy ,for the exposed barrel and the short recoil mech would seem prone to fouling.

Talking of firepower the Germans had the G43 which was flawed the FG42 which is my favourite although built in low numbers and of course the Sturmgewehr plus the MG42 so firepower was a 2 way street.

I was going to mention that the 3 main Americam guns were the M1 rifle M1 Carbine amd Thompson so if the Americans were trying to avoid logistics issues with having too many calibres then they made a mess of that!

 

[Token]

From what I have read the .276 Garand was pushed and the .30 cal Garand was on the back burner about 1929.

Maybe I am reading it wrong but the .276 Garand was going to be selected in 1932 as the next battle rifle. It wasn't but it was very nearly.

The .30 Garand was probably given less priority at SA because they knew they could not work all the bugs out before the test in 1929. As a business strategy you assess risk and assign priority to the most probable success. The .30 Garand model of 1924 faired poorly in the 1928 test, and the new .30 cal Garand was not ready for the testing in 1929.


The .276 Garand could not have been selected as the next Battle Rifle in 1932, short of a power like MacArthur directing it to happen. The report that identified it as a possible candidate, and that directed the procurement of 125 copies for extended testing, was published in early 1932. To deliver the weapons for testing would have taken months, possibly a year or more. The testing itself would have taken significant time. IF, and it is a very big if, the .276 Garand ended up being selected it would not have been before 1934, and I would bet later than that.


And this same report that recommended (it did not order or contract) those .276 test guns directed that the .30 caliber Garand should be refined, obviously even the people who gave the .276 Garand its best review still had hopes that the .30 caliber would work out.

Again from what Ive read the .276 had its backers and it certainly had advantages but there was a massive issue in that you already had huge stocks of 30 cal plus BARs and M1917 and M1919 mgs and so even taking on the .276 would seem loony.

The .276 backers were not in key decision making positions within the Army procurement system, or if they were they did not publish. Up until the day the .276 was killed every written specification I have seen said that the official policy of the military was that the 30-06 was the preferred round, if it was possible.

The .276 Garand would have been lighter better balanced less recoil and had 2 more rounds which is a win in my book. So with those advantages it not unreasonable to say the .276 could have worked very well.

The main advantage of the .30 or the 7.7 Japanese over the 6.5mm or .276 is that it will go through trees and other hard objects.

So fighting in a forest or jungle or urban environment the bigger bullet gets your more penetrating power.

The .30 Garand was the right choice. While the .276 may have turned out to be a great weapon (and the .30 M1 Garaand is historically proven to be such), the logistics tail required to support another round would have been large, all for one rifle. You can easily get away with this kind of thing for a secondary weapon, such as the M1 Carbine, but it is not preferable for your main combat rifle. Remember the number of other weapons using the 30-06 round, few if any of them would or could be converted to .276, especially before hostilities in Europe.


T!

 

[Shortround6]

BAR is certainly overrated but it was still useable although I wouldn't call it light!

One of the main problems with LMGs in delivering a large volume of fire was overheating the barrel. Cycle rate actually means next to nothing. Even water cooled tripod mounted guns were rated at 200rpm in sustained fire although they could a bit more if pressed. The LMGs with quick change barrels were good for around 120rpm. Without a quick change barrel you are down to 75-80rpm "sustained" although for very short periods of time or by seriously shortening the barrels life this can be exceeded. Before I get into arguments with M60 gunners these numbers are for WW II and before plain steel barrels. Plain includes alloys but NOT chrome plated bores or stellite inserts. To address the limited firepower of the BAR the US issued the M1919A6 Browning in limited numbers.

The troops were not fooled. At around 32lbs without ammo it wasn't a real LMG either. The barrel is only small portion of the overall weight of a LMG The M1922 Machine Rifle for the cavalry

went about 5lbs more than a M1918A2 BAR, a lot of it in the barrel for sustained fire.

The Krag shared a similar fate to the Enfield as that was done in by the 7mm Mauser although the Krag loading system was a pain.

Krag had a few other problems. My Grandfather had a sporterized Krag with .25 cal Niedner Barrel. It was a fine hunting rifle. But a single locking lug and case hardened receivers meant trouble was not far away if you pushed things. My Grandfather didn't. There are reasons that even two lug rifles had 3rd safety lugs back around WW I, poor heat treatment from batch to batch meant they were never sure when a bolt might depart the gun at high speed.

Talking of firepower the Germans had the G43 which was flawed the FG42 which is my favourite although built in low numbers and of course the Sturmgewehr plus the MG42 so firepower was a 2 way street.

The FG 42 was an interesting concept and an ingenious design but a weapon that light firing full power cartridges was a bit much to control in full auto fire.

I was going to mention that the 3 main Americam guns were the M1 rifle M1 Carbine amd Thompson so if the Americans were trying to avoid logistics issues with having too many calibres then they made a mess of that!

What was intended and what wound happening in war time aren't always the same thing. The US already had two calibers in the Platoon/company in 1918. The 30-06 for rifles and whatever LMG they had and the .45 ACP for the pistols. Pistols being issued not only to officers but the weapons crews including the gunner and possibly the assistant gunner of tripod mounted machine guns. At Battalion level the Pistols were issued to mortar crews and whatever other artillery may have been at battalion level. 37mm infantry guns? Granted Sub machine guns called for a much greater quantity of ammunition than the pistols.

Every army in the world had pistols so the US was certainly no different in that regard. Scale of issue of pistols may have been larger in the US as in many other armies the pistols tended to be officers only or for special duties (tank crew) where even those sawed off rifles some countries were so fond of were too big.

The .30 cal Carbine was intended to be a replacement for the pistol for the secondary troops. The gun crews, communications, cooks, truck drivers and others that had been issued pistols and whose jobs would prevent or be hindered by carrying a full sized rifle. It did tend to take on a life of it's own but in some cases it was more of a sub-machine gun replacement than battle rifle rifle replacement/substitute.

 

[Shortround6]

One of the requirements that lead to the .276 cartridge was the army wanted the new semi-automatic rifle to weigh as close to 8 lbs as possible and not to exceed 8 1/2 lbs. The 30-06 Grand misses by at least a full pound.
This was one of the things that held up the adoption of semi-automatic rifles in many countries. Unrealistic requirements for the new rifle compared to the old ones.

The Army would also not be happy trying to convert their existing machine guns to to .276 as you have not only the physical work/cost but you have a tremendous loss of capability. The US actually had two different .30-06 cartridges, The rifle round for the M1 was supposed to be the 150-152 grain flat based bullet at 2800fps and a max range of 3450 yds. The round for the machine guns was a 174 grain boat tail at around 2650fps and had a max range of 5500yds. In practical use the ranges were much shorter but the boat tail round did add over a thousand yds to the practical range of the machine guns.
Both rounds could be safely fired in either type of gun and sights could be adjusted to suit so the supply problem would rarely be an emergency as long as some rounds of either type were available.
The .276 didn't have the long range capability of the .30-06 and would never have been adopted as a machine gun round at the time.

 

[The Basket]

Remember that the Garand was redesigned in 1940 to rid the gas trap.
So no rush.
Next question.
How was the Pedersen cartridge waxed? Was every round waxed? Did that add extra time and cost? I hear the wax was solid and not wet so less likely to pick up dirt. Wouldn't the wax foul the barrel? Why not use an oiler?
I bet the Army would have been very unenthusiastic as soon as the waxing idea came about as it adds cost and complexity to it all.

 

[Shortround6]

It was hard wax applied at the factory but hard is a relative term. Hard at 15 C or hard at 38 C?
another key point is "less likely". Even bare brass can pick up some dirt in certain circumstances so anything that picks up dirt is suspect.
A number of machine guns used in WW II had problems with primary extraction and had oil pumps built in that would squirt a bit of oil on the cartridge as it entered the chamber as this was judged less of an evil than carrying loaded magazines/feed strips with pre-oiled cartridges. However oilers present their own problems, First you have to have oil at the gun position. 2nd was that oiling was never as precise as desired, usually that meant extra oil and soon the breech area of the gun was well coated with oil and dirt so there was a fair chance of the dirt making it in anyway. Not to mention a haze of smoke/vaporized oil around the action in prolonged firing.
Use of oilers and lubricated cartridges was to get around a problem with primary extraction. In a gun like the M1 the bolt turns a bit while moving back slowly, breaking the cartridge case free from the chamber walls. The caming effect of the bolt lugs riding in the lug recesses give a fair amount of leverage. This is the primary extraction, the first few millimeters of case movement. Once the lugs are free the bolt movement rearward speeds up considerably and the extraction is completed.
Some guns used a different method of changing the speed of the bolt from the first few mm of movement to the speed needed for the rest of the stroke.
Some did not and they had the most problems. Either the cartridge failed to extract and the bolt stayed forward resulting in much cursing and banging of hands, rocks and boot heels on the operating handle or the bolt went to the rear tearing away part of the rim and leaving the case in the chamber leading to even more cursing and cleaning rods being jammed down barrels with prayers of "don't bend!" directed at the appropriate deity.
Worst was the rear of the cartridge going back with the bolt and leaving the front part of the cartridge (now a tube) stuck in the chamber.
This called for the maximum quality and quantity of cursing, possible dismantling of the gun and the application of a spit case remover/broken shell extractor.
Please remember that the gun is more than likely extremely hot and the Indians are coming over the hill (apologies to native Americans).

Guns with quick change barrels had the luxury of simply changing barrels and continue firing while an assistant gunner ( rifleman from squad) worked on the stuck case. In some cases pouring water on the end of barrel might cool things enough to help un-stick things.

 

[The Basket]

One oiler gun I have always like is the Japanese Type 92 hmg.
This is an example of what exactly is considered good or bad.
The calibre conundrum is still alive today with 5.56mm so if the Army of the 1930s were having kittens over the .276 over the long range .30 they would have wept over the 5.56x45mm lol.

 

[Shortround6]

During the 70s and 80s there were all manner of 5.56x45mm machine guns offered for sale. And plenty of discussion about them. The US bought into the concept with the M249 in 1984 and the weapon was probably quite useful in jungle, forest or urban environments. Of course just 6-7 years later they were in the 1st Gulf war and it didn't look quite so good. The war in Afghanistan saw armories being scoured for for old 7.62X51 weapons after a few years.
How successful some weapons are depends a lot on the environment they are used in.
The .276 had a lot more range than the 5.56x45mm but then a lot of the combat support modern troops take for granted didn't exist in the 1930s. A machine gun company was common in many between the wars battalions and constituted the battalions long fire and organic support. the 3in-81 mortar was slowly introduced but actual experience with using the mortars as support was mostly theoretical.
Field phones and radios were not common and artillery wasn't really on call in the way it would be in WW II (at least the later years of WW II)
Pre WW I was even worse. Pre WW I an infantry battalion had it's rifles. It had Bayonets, It had the officers pistols and if lucky, it might have had four Machineguns as a general rule of thumb. Some US battalions had four Benet-Mercie machine rifles or Lewis guns.
No Hand Grenades, no mortars, no organic artillery (regiment might have something depending on army) and the signals unit used flags and pigeons so calling in artillery wasn't really an option unless the high command really approved. Picking a good rifle was very important but few countries had any real experience. Shooting up natives in Africa or Asia could only point out the most basic faults.
Nationalism was rampant and NIH was widespread in most of Europe, at least to the extent of picking different cartridges if they they didn't have the capacity to design their own rifle ( or were smart enough to just copy the Mauser rather than re-invent the club).
The same pretty much went for machine guns. From about 1890 to 1914 it was pretty much a free-for-all as designers practically fell from the trees offering new guns. By 1919 it was a LOT clearer what worked and what didn't but many countries were stuck with large amounts of surplus weapons and tight budgets.
How much nationalism and NIH counted in the 1930s I don't know but many countries went that way instead of adopting better weapons that already existed. The Hotchkiss and it's clones may have been decent weapons were hardly first rate. The Poles got a few batches of them in the 20s and by the early 30s they were cloning the Browning. The Swedes also built Brownings as did FN in Belgium for sales to small countries. The Maxium/Vickers were a better gun although heavy. An

AN honest test/evaluation should have weeded out some the turkeys (junk) but apparently there was same graft/corruption going on.

 

[The Basket]

So what went wrong?
Why has the 7.62 made an appearance? Why are M14 clones back? It's not like warfare is new and the technology is years old. Maybe the P14 will make a comeback as armies realises that a powerful cartridge fired accurately at long distance does have it's advantages.
The modern assault rifle replaced the sub machine gun and the rifle and was supposed to have the advantage of both. Although it also had the disadvantage of both.
Too short range for a battle rifle and too big and unwieldy for a SMG.

 

[tyrodtom]

Whenever possible you have to suit the weapon to the present battlefield, but what do you do when you have two radically different battlefield situations goin on at the same time ?

What's usually the best weapon for most situations in Iraq isn't the best weapon for most situations in Afghanistan.

You could have a mix of weapons within each platoon, and vary that mix for different areas, but then you introduce the supply problem of different calibers, plus the training problem of training each man well for different weapons.

 

[Shortround6]

So what went wrong?
Why has the 7.62 made an appearance? Why are M14 clones back? It's not like warfare is new and the technology is years old. Maybe the P14 will make a comeback as armies realises that a powerful cartridge fired accurately at long distance does have it's advantages.
The modern assault rifle replaced the sub machine gun and the rifle and was supposed to have the advantage of both. Although it also had the disadvantage of both.
Too short range for a battle rifle and too big and unwieldy for a SMG.

What went wrong was that instead of the modern battles/wars being fought on an "average" battle ground were something like 97-98% of all rifle fire was at 400 meters or less and 50% of all machine gun fire was at ranges over 400 meters ( we already have a disconnect in using the same cartridge for both roles) the major battles/wars are/were fought at the extremes.
Urban combat in cities with ranges well under 200 meters on average and rural combat in arid conditions with very little vegetation to block sight lines and engagements at 600-1000 meters at times.
Some people have suggested that small units in armies have a "golf bag" of weapons. Nobody tries to play golf with just a 4 iron.
Special forces units do use this concept to some degree, picking weapons and weapons mix to suit the mission but as tryodtom has pointed out, this is hardly practical for an entire army.

The old bolt actions are not coming back because they offer no practical advantages over the new bolt actions or new semi-automatic rifles. What is expected from new sniper rifles (or designated marksman rifles) is well beyond what the old, out of the box rifles were capable of. While good gunsmiths can certainly improve the old rifles it is labor intensive. Modern rifles are easier to work on and many of the rifles built in the last 20 years or so were built to higher standards on CNC machines and need a lot less re-working to true up even if fitted with new barrels. Making new tooling to make P-14s when you can get better actions of the shelf makes no sense.
Unfortunately we have also fallen into the same situation as what happened between the wars. Not enough money to throw everything out and start over. Which is why things like the 6.8 SPC and near clones popped up. Existing rifles could be converted with just new barrels and magazines, magazines would fit in existing magazine well.

 

[gjs238]

Take a look at US combat pistols.

The M1873 Colt Single Action Army revolver in caliber .45 Colt was in service 1873–1892.
The military "modernized" and "upgraded" to the Colt M1892 revolver in caliber .38 Long Colt.

When fighting Muslim fanatics (Moro guerrillas) during the Philippine–American War the Colt M1892 and .38 Long Colt were found to be under powered. Surprise surprise.
So the M1873 single-action revolver/.45 Colt were dusted off and returned to service.

These events led to the adoption of the M1911 semi-automatic pistol in caliber .45 ACP.

In 1982 the US military again "modernized" and "upgraded" to the Beretta M9 semi-automatic pistol in caliber 9×19mm Parabellum.
Many law enforcement agencies followed suit.

History repeats itself.
Many law enforcement agencies found the 9mm to be under powered and switched to pistols in .40 S&W.
Specialized military units continued using .45 ACP and more are switching back.

A similar roller coaster ride can be seen in the evolution of US military long guns as well.

 

[Shortround6]

A difference between military and police is that the military has to use "solid" bullets, ie non-expanding while the police do not.
However many police chiefs and officers are NOT weapons experts and tend to follow trends rather than do actual research.
During the switch to the 9mm for police use it became "fashionable" to copy what the US Special forces (and foreign special forces) were using for ammo. After all, if it's good enough for DELTA FORCE it should be good enough for the West Barkleyville township Police Dept.

Unfortunately what the special forces were using were 147 grain bullets at subsonic velocities (around 950fps) for silenced submachine guns for sentry elimination. A task NO police dept was faced with. Even substituting hollow points didn't help much as at the time jacket construction was such that at velocities much below 900fps expansion became problematic (iffy). Why a 158 grain bullet of .358 diameter at 855fps was totally obsolete while a 147 grain bullet of .355 diameter at 950fps was the answer to all policemen's prayers has always mystified me.

Some Police depts used lighter bullets at higher velocities and may have been more satisfied with the results using expanding bullets.
Not to say they didn't switch later to the .40 but comparing police and Military use is difficult.

 

[The Basket]

Odd. We have come full circle. The P13 was deliberately chosen for long range accurate target shooting. Because the Boers were showing the way.
On a dry veldt let's take the P13.
Oh mud and rain and trenches? Er....you never fight the war you plan for.
I sincerely doubt a rifle can ever be built that can shoot targets 1km away and then can be used in CQB like a Sten.
The Arisaka got around that by having a chuffing huge bayonet for close ups and of course a rifle is made of wood so use it as a club.
Size of rifle is important as can't be too heavy and has to fit into a jeep or helicopter. Something Mauser was not aware of! So bullpup or folding collapsing stock?
The best option is M16 for ranges of 3cm to 300 metres and designated marksman for 800 metres carrying M14/Dragunov semi auto. Hmm just described the Soviet order of things.
An individual soldier would have to carry a M9, HK5, M16,M14 and Remington Model 700 in backpack plus the different ammo to meet all the varied scenario he may encounter.

I do find it quite odd that the P14 would beat any modern assault rifle in long distance sniping. Shows that the old guys didn't need computer aided design and carbon composite to blow a hole in your targets noggin.

 

[herman1rg]

There were two different .276 cartridges. A not uncommon event. The number of 7.62mm cartridges is astounding.

Photo from Tony Williams website.
The British pre-WW I .276 is on the extreme left. The American between wars .276 is 3rd from the left. The 6.5mm Arisaka is between them. The 1st cartridge on left in the middle group (9th from left) is the 7.62mm NATO.

The British .276 was certainly no smaller or lighter than the .303. The American .276 was smaller and lighter than the .30-06 (10 would fit in prototype M1s instead of eight .30-06) but then you ran into the not only the large amount of surplus ammo but needing different ammo in the squad or platoon for the rifles and machine guns.

I would note that the French were using obsolescent rifles from about 1895 through 1940. Both the 1907 Berthier and the 1936 MAS being obsolete on the first day of issue.

Are you going to name them all?