Ideal rifle for ww2?

[The Basket]

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

 

[Ivan1GFP]

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

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

- Ivan.

 

[Shortround6]

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

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

 

[Gman109]

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

Disagree with the majority of this.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Could you explain this a bit more, I don't understand what you're saying exactly. The muzzle velocity of any bullet will always be it's fastest, and kinetic energy is KE = 1/2mv2, v being velocity. Rifle rounds striking the human body at close range, the lethality often depends on angle of entry and rotation (yaw factor), but certainly it doesn't "gain" anything at 50 yards+ that it wouldn't have at 0 to 50 yards, in fact the velocity will be slightly higher at less than 50 yards, if anything.

edit -

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

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

 

[Ivan1GFP]

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

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

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

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

- Ivan.

 

[The Basket]

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

 

[Shortround6]

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

- Ivan.

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

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

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

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

 

[Shortround6]

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

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

Who has said anything about the M-14?

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

 

[Ivan1GFP]

Thanks Shortround6,

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

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

- Ivan.

 

[Shortround6]

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

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

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

 

[The Basket]

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

 

[Shortround6]

Thanks Shortround6,

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

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

- Ivan.

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

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

 

[Shortround6]

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

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

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

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

 

[Ivan1GFP]

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

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

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

- Ivan.

 

[tyrodtom]

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

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

 

[Shortround6]

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

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

 

[The Basket]

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

 

[The Basket]

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

 

[Ivan1GFP]

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

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

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

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

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

- Ivan.

 

[tyrodtom]

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

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