Ideal rifle for ww2?

[The Basket]

If you look what Volkswagen did with diesel testing then you're right.
They knew exactly what the test will be so can cheat.
Critics of the NCAP say that it doesn't replicate a true crash but how can you replicate every crash? Impossibility.

 

[Hansie Bloeckmann]

An accurate rifle is a "joy" to own, and a treasure to shoot, whether hunting or on the range, target shooting. In all the great discussions on this website about WW11 military weapons, very little mention of the usage of "riot" shotguns by ground troops. FWIW-- Hansie

 

[Hansie Bloeckmann]

Hello Hansie Bloeckmann,
It sounds like you have a beautiful classic sporterized Springfield circa about the mid 1950's or so. I am no expert or even particularly knowledgeable on sporting rifles but everything except the Timney trigger sounds like it is from that era. Are you sure your barrel is a 1-12 inch twist? It sounds from the description that it was a star gauged military barrel and I thought those were 1-10 inch twist. I also thought that the star stamp was just in front of the front sight.

If this is a star gauged barrel, then it might explain the accuracy. Barrels were tested by running a gauge shaped like a "star" to fit into the rifling grooves through the barrel. Air was pumped through the gauge and variations in flow were noted as the gauge moved down the barrel.
Barrels that did particularly well were stamped with a star near the muzzle.
This is just from written descriptions. I obviously have never seen this done because most of this testing happened before my parents were even old enough to walk.

Regarding the BSA-Martini:
I do remember comments from the fellow at the school range who told me that this was a "Left handed" rifle and that the spent cases were ejected to left side of the gun. I have had a lot of success with .22 pistols but never had much luck with .22 rifles.

- Ivan.

Thanks, Ivan. Both rifles are very accurate, both on the range and in a hunting/varmint shooting scenario. I am not 100% sure about the rate of twist, I just assumed the 4 groove barrels had a 1/12 and the 2 groove had the 1/10- but from a manufacturing standpoint, makes sense to have ROT as standard for all the .30 cal. barrels used on the various 1903 series rifles- I can't remember exactly which way the BSA Martini .22LR kicks the spent casing, maybe to the left side. Hansie

 

[Barrett]

IIRC Garand developed the nascent M1 with a .276 cal. round, which made a lot of sense ballistically. However, Big Army (MacArthur, I believe) had the pragmatic objection that there were tons and tons and tons of .06 in storage. As far as MGs, there was lots to be said for retaining .30 cals but logistically that woulda been complex, difficult and maybe fattening. Barrier penetration also is/was a factor although I do not recall seeing/hearing that it was mentioned in tests.

 

[Hansie Bloeckmann]

IIRC Garand developed the nascent M1 with a .276 cal. round, which made a lot of sense ballistically. However, Big Army (MacArthur, I believe) had the pragmatic objection that there were tons and tons and tons of .06 in storage. As far as MGs, there was lots to be said for retaining .30 cals but logistically that woulda been complex, difficult and maybe fattening. Barrier penetration also is/was a factor although I do not recall seeing/hearing that it was mentioned in tests.

The .276 cal. was also what I read, believe John Garand started on his M-1 design in late 1920's-early 1930's-- when many folks believed that WW1 was truly "The War to End ALL Wars"-- Wasn't Julian Hatcher the head of the US Army's Ordnance Board back then?? I am sure Douglas MacArthur added his opinions- bashful he was NOT.

 

[Hansie Bloeckmann]

Sounds like you have a nice sporter there. As long as it shoots all is good
The Winchester 75 was sort of a high school gun, back when high schools had rifle teams. It is pretty much a model 69 with a longer, heavier barrel and bigger stock. .22s are all over the place as far as accuracy goes, so much depends on ammo, get a batch of ammo that barrel likes and it will put more expensive rifles to shame. But a batch of expensive ammo the barrel doesn't like? might as well throw rocks.
Knew a few people with .22 BSA Martini's, mostly left handers who didn't want to fool with right bolt actions. Saw at least one bolt handle the extended down and under the gun so a left hander could operate the bolt with the gun fired from the left shoulder. Germans coming out with left handed guns was a godsend to lefties

My M75 likes Eley Match grade ammo-I do a lot of squirrel and short-range varmint shooting the the BSA Martini .22- as it is scoped, iron sights removed by a gunsmith before I bought it-and I use CCI hollow points in it, try for head shots. I once shot 25 rounds on the range with the BSA with the Eley Match Grade ammo- outstanding results at 50 yards-- but as the Eley ammo was not designed for small game shooting, that was just an "experiment".. A friend has a Winchester M69 as you mentioned- next time I see him I'll bring along the M75 and look for the common points- I think his also has the Lyman sights, as on my M75. I also use a sling with both these .22 rifles.

Now, one of many reasons I like small game hunting with a .22LR- scoped- is what I learned as a lad- "If you want to be a good deer hunter, first learn to be a good squirrel hunter." Words of wisdom--

 

[Ivan1GFP]

If you look what Volkswagen did with diesel testing then you're right.
They knew exactly what the test will be so can cheat.
Critics of the NCAP say that it doesn't replicate a true crash but how can you replicate every crash? Impossibility.

Hello The Basket,
You just made a really great case for preferring statistics from the field over contrived test results.

For what it's worth, I don't have much faith in any of the EPA (American) emissions / mileage testing.
The mileage cycle was intended for non-overdrive V-8 engines and doesn't match up well with reality.
If a car does particularly well in the EPA highway test, it actually is more likely to do relatively poorly in actual use where speeds are much higher.
The current emissions testing is also quite stupid: Ask the car's computer how it has been doing....
I watched the emissions test for my old Mustang which does not have the OBD II system.
It was kind of silly watching the fellow try to maintain 3000 RPM for 2 minutes so that the tail pipe sniffer and test computer would be satisfied.
A 302 engine generates a fair amount of power at 3000 RPM and without inertia, it isn't easy to hold at a precise RPM. It took about 4 tries to get a good run.
Now keep in mind also that a sustained 3000 RPM run is pretty meaningless in this car. In 5th gear, you'd be going just a touch over 120 MPH.
It got even more screwy when I was renewing the tags (reason for emissions test). I sat next to a lady who also was doing the same thing and when we compared test results, we found that my older car had test LIMITS were tighter than for hers. Her car would have had trouble meeting the test limits for my car.

- Ivan.

 

[kettbo]

Quite the thread....it won't die and covers a multitude of ideas! It has been quite some time since I've been on WW2AC, I remember this thread when I last dropped in.

I find it interesting that the US Army would not change from .30-06 to .276 for the Garand yet come up with an entirely new round AND weapon, and make some 6.2 million of them. Talking about the M1 Carbine family.

re not changing to .276 for the Garand
When a new rifle comes on line, it may take years to change over all the units. Pre-WW2, not a huge problem because the US Army was small yet the units were scattered all over the place. Plenty of Springfields around, all the Machineguns around....so from a logistics point of view, perhaps a good decision. Then the build-ups....1940-onward
From the operator/capability point of view, another matter. For the larger, more powerful round, the Garand had to be larger and with that the weight penalty. Quite the beast of a weapon as it was yet a smaller/lighter version with a shorter action would allow more rounds in the weapon and on the person of the soldier. Perhaps an opportunity missed.
My US Cavalry career, M16/M4 family of weapons. I carried 210 rounds (way more than a WW2 load) with more in my ruck in magazines. This in addition to WATER (lots), some food in the pockets, body armor, helmet, grenades, commo gear. Are 210 rounds really needed? Well, rounds left in the FOB are like planes needing altitude and airspeed to fly, lack of either can be a problem.

OK, now for the M1 Carbine
Battle Rifle? No. Compared to a Garand, range and put-down power, the carbine falls short. But that is apples and oranges comparison. Compare the carbine to rightly to pistols and SMGs, what it was designed to replace, and it is a whole new sheriff in town. Pistols, a 25m shot is max. SMGs, rated at 200m. Hmmmmm, suppression maybe. I'd say 100m against a team and maybe 50m vs a point target like a head poking out around a building corner. Deadly at 25m. The M1 Carbine was designed as a Personal Defensive Weapon (PDW) around a rather dubious cartridge with the goal of providing NON-RIFLEMEN and CREW-SERVED WEAPONS, Drivers, Signalers, Artillerymen etc something easier to use and more effective than a pistol. Then-Current SMGs were in the 10 pound range. So the "Ass and Trash" as the line troops calls everybody else got the Carbine, lots of them. Stated range of 300 yards shots would actually be random for all but the most practiced, reasonable accuracy at 250, good results at 200yds. (I hate using yards but that is how things were then)
Way more punch with the .30 cal Carbine round compared to SMG ammo and far better down range ballistics.
Carbine is easier to shoot than a pistol
Light weight, low recoil, self loading, high capacity magazine means you get your weapon to your eye faster, your shot does not upset your aim, reloading is taken care of so your sight picture does not change, and 15 rounds means it is not a big deal if you need to fire another round to get the job done. I cannot imagine situation like the Battle of the Bulge where small clusters of non-Infantry; clerks, service and support troops, cannoneers sans the big guns, truck drivers etc plugged gaps, manned outposts and road blocks. I'd imagine the volume of fire a squad of pissed-off soldiers with Carbines could lay down and the lethality at 200m and below would sound like a far greater force.

An opportunity missed here. With a new Carbine cartridge anyway, no need in my judgement to keep .30 cal other then using existing boring and rifling machine bits.....a somewhat hotter round in the same overall length, necked-down case...would have pushed the effective range out to 300m and greater. I'll leave the bullet diameter and weight to others. This would have pushed the M2 select fire carbine from being a PDW into being an Assault Rifle.

STG44. BIG and HEAVY. Yet this worked....moderate recoil so the sight picture would remain solid for a second shot at rifle ranges and still good effect with short bursts. IN this regard, the lower RoF and greater weight make this more controllable, a better killer than the AK family. Plenty of STGs were made. My looking into this shows that they tended to be issued to units in quantity rather than piecemeal. This gives greater effect and somewhat eases the ammo supply burden. This is to say going to specific units rather than front-wide penny packets.
Ammo production was slow ramping up to the goal of 1000 rds/wpn/month.
STG45. YES! Alas, too late. Far too late.

 

[tomo pauk]

...
An opportunity missed here. With a new Carbine cartridge anyway, no need in my judgement to keep .30 cal other then using existing boring and rifling machine bits.....a somewhat hotter round in the same overall length, necked-down case...would have pushed the effective range out to 300m and greater. I'll leave the bullet diameter and weight to others. This would have pushed the M2 select fire carbine from being a PDW into being an Assault Rifle.

Welcom back, George
The 'original' .30 Carbine round was pushing a 110 gr bulet at 1990 fps. There was a necked-down spin-off, the .22 Spitfire made by Johnson of the Johnson LMG fame, pushing a 40 or 50 gr bullet between 3000 and 2700 fps.
So - make a .25 Carbine (= necked down .30 Crabine), 70-80 gr bullet, 2500-2300 fps, selective fire of course.

 

[Shortround6]

You are up against the same problem that bedevils modern day developers of improved M-16s.
Limited length in the magazine.

There was a wildcat based on the Rem. 222 case

It could do about 2700FPS with a 75 grain bullet from a 19 3/8 in (490mm?) barrel was operating at about 20% higher pressure than the carbine.

Pushing back the bullets into the case to meet the magazine limit restricts the powder capacity even more.
.223 cartridge dimensions

 

[Shortround6]

I would note that the .30 cal Carbine, for all it's bad press fires a .308 diameter 110 grain bullet at about 1990 fps while the Russian 7.62x 25 pistol/submachine gun cartridge fires a .310-312 85 grain bullet at around 1500-1600fps depending on load and barrel.

trying to turn the .30 cal carbine into anything but a hot submachine gun cartridge is probably a lost cause.

 

[Hansie Bloeckmann]

Quite the thread....it won't die and covers a multitude of ideas! It has been quite some time since I've been on WW2AC, I remember this thread when I last dropped in.

I find it interesting that the US Army would not change from .30-06 to .276 for the Garand yet come up with an entirely new round AND weapon, and make some 6.2 million of them. Talking about the M1 Carbine family.

re not changing to .276 for the Garand
When a new rifle comes on line, it may take years to change over all the units. Pre-WW2, not a huge problem because the US Army was small yet the units were scattered all over the place. Plenty of Springfields around, all the Machineguns around....so from a logistics point of view, perhaps a good decision. Then the build-ups....1940-onward
From the operator/capability point of view, another matter. For the larger, more powerful round, the Garand had to be larger and with that the weight penalty. Quite the beast of a weapon as it was yet a smaller/lighter version with a shorter action would allow more rounds in the weapon and on the person of the soldier. Perhaps an opportunity missed.
My US Cavalry career, M16/M4 family of weapons. I carried 210 rounds (way more than a WW2 load) with more in my ruck in magazines. This in addition to WATER (lots), some food in the pockets, body armor, helmet, grenades, commo gear. Are 210 rounds really needed? Well, rounds left in the FOB are like planes needing altitude and airspeed to fly, lack of either can be a problem.

OK, now for the M1 Carbine
Battle Rifle? No. Compared to a Garand, range and put-down power, the carbine falls short. But that is apples and oranges comparison. Compare the carbine to rightly to pistols and SMGs, what it was designed to replace, and it is a whole new sheriff in town. Pistols, a 25m shot is max. SMGs, rated at 200m. Hmmmmm, suppression maybe. I'd say 100m against a team and maybe 50m vs a point target like a head poking out around a building corner. Deadly at 25m. The M1 Carbine was designed as a Personal Defensive Weapon (PDW) around a rather dubious cartridge with the goal of providing NON-RIFLEMEN and CREW-SERVED WEAPONS, Drivers, Signalers, Artillerymen etc something easier to use and more effective than a pistol. Then-Current SMGs were in the 10 pound range. So the "Ass and Trash" as the line troops calls everybody else got the Carbine, lots of them. Stated range of 300 yards shots would actually be random for all but the most practiced, reasonable accuracy at 250, good results at 200yds. (I hate using yards but that is how things were then)
Way more punch with the .30 cal Carbine round compared to SMG ammo and far better down range ballistics.
Carbine is easier to shoot than a pistol
Light weight, low recoil, self loading, high capacity magazine means you get your weapon to your eye faster, your shot does not upset your aim, reloading is taken care of so your sight picture does not change, and 15 rounds means it is not a big deal if you need to fire another round to get the job done. I cannot imagine situation like the Battle of the Bulge where small clusters of non-Infantry; clerks, service and support troops, cannoneers sans the big guns, truck drivers etc plugged gaps, manned outposts and road blocks. I'd imagine the volume of fire a squad of pissed-off soldiers with Carbines could lay down and the lethality at 200m and below would sound like a far greater force.

An opportunity missed here. With a new Carbine cartridge anyway, no need in my judgement to keep .30 cal other then using existing boring and rifling machine bits.....a somewhat hotter round in the same overall length, necked-down case...would have pushed the effective range out to 300m and greater. I'll leave the bullet diameter and weight to others. This would have pushed the M2 select fire carbine from being a PDW into being an Assault Rifle.

STG44. BIG and HEAVY. Yet this worked....moderate recoil so the sight picture would remain solid for a second shot at rifle ranges and still good effect with short bursts. IN this regard, the lower RoF and greater weight make this more controllable, a better killer than the AK family. Plenty of STGs were made. My looking into this shows that they tended to be issued to units in quantity rather than piecemeal. This gives greater effect and somewhat eases the ammo supply burden. This is to say going to specific units rather than front-wide penny packets.
Ammo production was slow ramping up to the goal of 1000 rds/wpn/month.
STG45. YES! Alas, too late. Far too late.

If you consider that the 8 rd. enbloc clip for the Garand would not fit any of the other shoulder weapons, or even MG's of that between WW1 and WW11 era- it might have been a good move to go with that effective cal. I don't know, would the enbloc clip in .276 cal. hold more than 8 rds.?? But a common ammo in a combat scenario-has a great advantage-- to some extent. How easy is it to strip rounds from an enbloc Garand clip, to supply a fellow soldier carrying a Springfield '03?? How easy is it to remove rds. from a MG belt to supply either a Garand or a '03 rifleman. What you can do with some degree of facility on the range on in a field exercise, becomes a "whole 'nother ball game" in a combat scenario. Judged with 20-20 hindsight, I think the Army Ordnance group made the right call in insisting on the .30cal for the Garand-- The extra weight and bulk, and somewhat complicated feed mechanism nonwithstanding, the Garand did the job for America in WW11 and Korea-

 

[tomo pauk]

...
trying to turn the .30 cal carbine into anything but a hot submachine gun cartridge is probably a lost cause.

The resulting .25 Carbine is indeed weak for a rifle, even if it is automatic. However, a SMG designed around it should've been quite a weapon, not bulkier or heavier than the M2 Carbine, with even softer recoil to emable more accurate automatic fire.

 

[Shortround6]

If you consider that the 8 rd. enbloc clip for the Garand would not fit any of the other shoulder weapons, or even MG's of that between WW1 and WW11 era- it might have been a good move to go with that effective cal. I don't know, would the enbloc clip in .276 cal. hold more than 8 rds.?? But a common ammo in a combat scenario-has a great advantage-- to some extent. How easy is it to strip rounds from an enbloc Garand clip, to supply a fellow soldier carrying a Springfield '03?? How easy is it to remove rds. from a MG belt to supply either a Garand or a '03 rifleman. What you can do with some degree of facility on the range on in a field exercise, becomes a "whole 'nother ball game" in a combat scenario. Judged with 20-20 hindsight, I think the Army Ordnance group made the right call in insisting on the .30cal for the Garand-- The extra weight and bulk, and somewhat complicated feed mechanism nonwithstanding, the Garand did the job for America in WW11 and Korea-

The problem for the Americans actually went the other way around, they were expected to strip ammo from 5 round Springfield clips or the 8 round M1 clips in order to refill BAR magazines. Trying to refill WW II belts was not easy without a belt loading machine, likewise trying to pull rounds out was a hard process with sore if not bloody fingers.

 

[Hansie Bloeckmann]

The problem for the Americans actually went the other way around, they were expected to strip ammo from 5 round Springfield clips or the 8 round M1 clips in order to refill BAR magazines. Trying to refill WW II belts was not easy without a belt loading machine, likewise trying to pull rounds out was a hard process with sore if not bloody fingers.

Great answer--I wondered about the ammo supply for the BAR --does your answer also imply that the soldier with the BAR was trained to keep his empty magazines, for possible refills from others in his unit with either a Garand or a 1903 rifle?? In WW11, were the American .30cal. Browning MG's fed with cloth belts, that required a belt loading machine to reload same. ?? Many thanks, Hansie.

 

[Shortround6]

The BAR, at least in 1941, came with 25 magazines. On the March (foot) some were carried by the gunner, some by the assistant gunner and some by the ammo carrier, the rest were carried on some sort of truck/trailer that carried all the extra "stuff" the troops couldn't fit in belts and backbacks. Extra ammo over and above the amount in those magazines was carried in the standard US bandoliers.

There was actually very little difference, if any (beside lettering) between the bandoliers for the SPringfield and the M-1. The Bandoliers for the Springfield just put two 5 round 'clips' in each pouch instead of one 8 round "clip". Bandolier held 60 rounds vs 48.
Ammo came from factories (or supply depots) already clipped and packed into the bandoliers and then in boxes/crates. Machine gun ammo came in belts and eas boxed.

When combat was judged "iminent" the extra ammo was issued to the men and they had to carry it from that point on. ANy further reserves of ammo were packed the same way. WHat happened later in the war I don't know but I don't believe the BAR magazines were considered disposable.

 

[Hansie Bloeckmann]

The BAR, at least in 1941, came with 25 magazines. On the March (foot) some were carried by the gunner, some by the assistant gunner and some by the ammo carrier, the rest were carried on some sort of truck/trailer that carried all the extra "stuff" the troops couldn't fit in belts and backbacks. Extra ammo over and above the amount in those magazines was carried in the standard US bandoliers.
View attachment 481810
There was actually very little difference, if any (beside lettering) between the bandoliers for the SPringfield and the M-1. The Bandoliers for the Springfield just put two 5 round 'clips' in each pouch instead of one 8 round "clip". Bandolier held 60 rounds vs 48.
Ammo came from factories (or supply depots) already clipped and packed into the bandoliers and then in boxes/crates. Machine gun ammo came in belts and eas boxed.

When combat was judged "iminent" the extra ammo was issued to the men and they had to carry it from that point on. ANy further reserves of ammo were packed the same way. WHat happened later in the war I don't know but I don't believe the BAR magazines were considered disposable.

Thanks SR6- great fotos- the LC stamping on the bandoliers- Lake City Arsenal??

 

[Ivan1GFP]

Hello Kettbo,
Welcome back.

Quite the thread....it won't die and covers a multitude of ideas! It has been quite some time since I've been on WW2AC, I remember this thread when I last dropped in.

We are hardly staying on the original topic and I am one of the more easily distracted and guilty parties.

re not changing to .276 for the Garand
When a new rifle comes on line, it may take years to change over all the units. Pre-WW2, not a huge problem because the US Army was small yet the units were scattered all over the place. Plenty of Springfields around, all the Machineguns around....so from a logistics point of view, perhaps a good decision. Then the build-ups....1940-onward
From the operator/capability point of view, another matter. For the larger, more powerful round, the Garand had to be larger and with that the weight penalty. Quite the beast of a weapon as it was yet a smaller/lighter version with a shorter action would allow more rounds in the weapon and on the person of the soldier. Perhaps an opportunity missed.

My understanding was that the M1 Garand was originally designed for the .30-06 anyway and the chance from .276 to .30-06 basically cost 2 rounds of magazine capacity.

An opportunity missed here. With a new Carbine cartridge anyway, no need in my judgement to keep .30 cal other then using existing boring and rifling machine bits.....a somewhat hotter round in the same overall length, necked-down case...would have pushed the effective range out to 300m and greater. I'll leave the bullet diameter and weight to others. This would have pushed the M2 select fire carbine from being a PDW into being an Assault Rifle.

The same nominal bore diameter doesn't necessarily mean the same boring / drilling and rifling tools. Even with the change to two groove barrels for the M1903A3 and the No.4 Mk.I* rifles, the actual bore diameter is slightly different (larger) because there is no longer as much volume of the bullet that fit into the rifling grooves. The change from 4/5 groove down to 2 groove certainly requires a different rifling broach as would a different rifling twist.
At close range (100 yards), the M1 Carbine (sample size perhaps a half dozen) tends to be about as accurate as the M1 Garand.

- Ivan.

 

[The Basket]

An interesting idea.
Ditch the M1 carbine and give the secondarily troops a 1903 so you don't have supply issues.
Not the worst idea. The Thompson was big heavy and expensive so was not ideal and the grease gun was a late starter. The 30.06 was a stout cartridge so making a smaller carbine was not practical.
The French had similar ideas. Give the front line the semi and the rear the bolt action. Probably if the US was lacking in resources then certainty a good idea.

 

[swampyankee]

When i said 9mm i actually meant .380 ACP...hehehe...or was it the Glisenti?
So many 9mm to choose from. Anyhoo i agree that the 7.62 NATO round was a US invention although fortunately we could get the SLR and not force fed the M-14.
I do declare that American sticking to there guns was a backwards step and may critics of the M-16 used the 5.56 against it as well.
British police do not carry fireams although a quick armed response unit is usuallly only a few minutes away. Oddly, they also have to carry out mundane police tasks so you could get a speeding ticket from someone carrying.
Old chestnut of whether a 6 shot revolver with 38 special is no longer good enough. It was good enough so the gun hasnt changed but the perception of been attacked by 20 ninjas and needing better has

Part of the reason for the increase in police firepower in the US was the result of one group of heavily armed and armor-vest wearing bank robbers in California.