German rifle production and rechambering of captured rifles

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

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

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

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.

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!

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.

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!

Click to expand...

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.

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

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.

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;

Great pic!

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.

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.

View attachment 235746

View attachment 235747

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).

Click to expand...

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.

Hansie Bloeckmann said:

Savage M99 in .303 British

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Shortround6 said:

If you are lucky

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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

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

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.

M27 Lebel