Infantry weapons, n-th time

[tomo pauk]

The US was not going to entertain the idea of a less than full powered rifle for nearly 15 years after the end of WW II.
Rightly or wrongly, that is the fact of the situation.

I know you are trying to present out the opinions of the US Army, not necessarily your own. US Army can take a look at FG-42 - a full power, full auto rifle that worked. In ww2.
On the other hand, the M2 Carbine didn't used full-power cartridge, and it was a far worse weapon that StG 44.

They may have thought the sheet metal receiver wasn't strong enough to stand up to the needs of military service.
But that too is a matter of opinion and detail design.

Probably; OTOH, sheet metal receivers were used widely in ww2 and beyond.

The US had left the type of sight the MP44 used behind several years before. Together with the short sight radius that made long range shooting a bit problematic.

Change of type of sight should not be a problem?

The US had plans for full auto M-1s with 20 round magazines.
The German pistols were nothing special and the submachine guns MP38 and MP40 were also not anything out of the ordinary by 1944-45.

As above - FG 42 was actually produced, issued and used.
MP 38 and 40 were very good when introduced, perhaps the best together with Berreta and Suomi? I've noted that German small arms were either equal or better than US, bar the semi-automatic rifle, pistols certainly qualify as 'equal'?.

It might be debatable if the MG 34 or MG 42 were really superior to the M1917 amd M1919 Brownings once you got them mounted on tripods and were using them for long range fire.
The MG 42 did well at a lot of things but may not have been the best in any one role.

If copying is the sincerest way of admiring, the MG 42 was very admired post-war.

 

[The Basket]

Quality of machine pistols? Try quantity of machine pistols! It was about make em cheap and lots of em.
Most ww2 weapons were much of a muchness so the 1911 v P38 v TT33 debate is pretty personal preference.
Only weapons like the Garand stand out for its goodness or the Nambu type 14 for sucklng.
FG-42 was built in very minor numbers so it's true value would have been not to be made at all.

 

[Shortround6]

I know you are trying to present out the opinions of the US Army, not necessarily your own. US Army can take a look at FG-42 - a full power, full auto rifle that worked. In ww2.
On the other hand, the M2 Carbine didn't used full-power cartridge, and it was a far worse weapon that StG 44.

I believe (but could be wrong) that elements of the FG-42 bolt design were used in the M-60 machine gun.
The MG-42 functioned but had the same problem/s that all light rifles firing full power cartridges had. Controllability although the the FG-42 uses both a straight line stock and a muzzle brake there is only so much they can do. The US Army didn't believe this and initially specified the weapon that would become the M-14 at 7.5 lbs.

The M2 Carbine wasn't really an assault rifle. The M1 Carbine was one of the first "Personal Defense Weapons" along the lines of cut down carbines used by many european armies

It was a replacement for the pistol for troops that couldn't be equipped with a full sized rifle while performing their other duties.
The M2 was simply the M1 fitted with a selector switch and a bigger magazine and more of an alternative submachine gun that substitute infantry rifle. The M1 carbine weighing about 5.8lbs (2.6 kg) compared to the MP44 10.12lbs (4.6kg)empty and 11. 3lbs (5.13kg) loaded. US had a bit of dilemma with submachine guns. The .45 round, whild powerful, was low velicity/short ranged and Thompson gun was expensive, even in simplified form. The M3 "grease gun" was about as low quality as the US was willing to go. It was designed as a "disposable" weapon but it was both a little too disposable (not quite sturdy enough) and not disposable enough (not enough made/issued) to be truly disposable and not enough spare parts available to be easily repaired at unit level.

Probably; OTOH, sheet metal receivers were used widely in ww2 and beyond.

See above with the M3 and the British Sten gun. These are the only real experience the US had with sheet metal receivers in production guns as users (the other experience being on the receiving end).
As a side note my father worked for a short period of time in the 70s on an automatic grenade launcher for Colt firearms (I don't know if was the Mk 19 or an alternative) and they had quite a bit of trouble fabricating the sheet metal receivers. They could punch out the metal parts and fold/bend them to shape all right but the bolt ran on machined rails that were spot welded to the sheet metal and the process of spot welding often warped the sheet metal receivers out of specification. Making guns out of sheet metal isn't quite as easy as some people make it out to be.

Change of type of sight should not be a problem?

The US would probably want an aperture sight on the rear of the receiver. I have no idea if that was a problem or not. Just that a sight halfway between the shooters eye and the front sight isn't what the US would want.

 

[tomo pauk]

I believe (but could be wrong) that elements of the FG-42 bolt design were used in the M-60 machine gun.
The MG-42 functioned but had the same problem/s that all light rifles firing full power cartridges had. Controllability although the the FG-42 uses both a straight line stock and a muzzle brake there is only so much they can do. The US Army didn't believe this and initially specified the weapon that would become the M-14 at 7.5 lbs.

Certainly, I' will not advocate the FG 42 as ideal automatic rifle, but I'd argue that it was at least as good as the BAR as issued to the US military.
Granted, the BAR was a general issue weapon, and it was developed much earlier.

The M2 Carbine wasn't really an assault rifle. The M1 Carbine was one of the first "Personal Defense Weapons" along the lines of cut down carbines used by many european armies
It was a replacement for the pistol for troops that couldn't be equipped with a full sized rifle while performing their other duties.
The M2 was simply the M1 fitted with a selector switch and a bigger magazine and more of an alternative submachine gun that substitute infantry rifle. The M1 carbine weighing about 5.8lbs (2.6 kg) compared to the MP44 10.12lbs (4.6kg)empty and 11. 3lbs (5.13kg) loaded. US had a bit of dilemma with submachine guns. The .45 round, whild powerful, was low velicity/short ranged and Thompson gun was expensive, even in simplified form. The M3 "grease gun" was about as low quality as the US was willing to go. It was designed as a "disposable" weapon but it was both a little too disposable (not quite sturdy enough) and not disposable enough (not enough made/issued) to be truly disposable and not enough spare parts available to be easily repaired at unit level.

As above, the German submachineguns (bar the questionable models of 1945) were at least as good as other people's stuff.
The StG 44 was more controlable in full auto than AK 47, let alone the M2 that was left down by too small the weight and not being designed for full auto from the let go.

See above with the M3 and the British Sten gun. These are the only real experience the US had with sheet metal receivers in production guns as users (the other experience being on the receiving end).
As a side note my father worked for a short period of time in the 70s on an automatic grenade launcher for Colt firearms (I don't know if was the Mk 19 or an alternative) and they had quite a bit of trouble fabricating the sheet metal receivers. They could punch out the metal parts and fold/bend them to shape all right but the bolt ran on machined rails that were spot welded to the sheet metal and the process of spot welding often warped the sheet metal receivers out of specification. Making guns out of sheet metal isn't quite as easy as some people make it out to be.

No quarrels there.

The US would probably want an aperture sight on the rear of the receiver. I have no idea if that was a problem or not. Just that a sight halfway between the shooters eye and the front sight isn't what the US would want.

Okay, relocate the rear sight to the rearmost part of the receiver.

 

[The Basket]

FG-42 equal to the BAR?
FG-42 is a better video game gun.

 

[fliger747]

I collect and shoot various WWII rifles and pistols. My preference is for the 1903 Springfield over the K98K Mauser. A personal preference, neither is the weapon that M1 Garand is. The 30.06 round is probably a bit better than the 8mm Mauser, again a personal preference, but the smaller diameter gives a slightly better ballistic coefficient and sectional density. The original round for which the M1 was designed was a smaller caliber and lighter round. This probably would have been an excellent cartridge, but Doug McArthur, chief of staff of the Army vetoed it's introduction. The main reason during the days of the depression, millions upon millions of 30.06 ammunition remained from WWI stocks.

 

[Shortround6]

Certainly, I' will not advocate the FG 42 as ideal automatic rifle, but I'd argue that it was at least as good as the BAR as issued to the US military.
Granted, the BAR was a general issue weapon, and it was developed much earlier.

We start to run into different design criteria. The FG 42 was (a least initially) a specialized weapon for German paratroopers. Due to doctrine and equipment (parachutes and harnesses?) the Early operations by the German Paratroops saw them run into a number of difficulties. The heavy weapons were dropped in separate containers and the troops often had to fight their way to the containers and unpack the support weapons while under fire. The FG 42 was to give them heavier firepower in this transition period without really being a full fledged light machine gun. The US actually had a similar gun

The Johnson 1941 and there was a simplified 1944 version. Not quite as straight stocked as the FG 42 but shows that other people were addressing the problem.

The BAR was about 24 year older and had been designed when the self powered machine gun itself was only about 33 years old

So perhaps we can cut the BAR a bit of slack?
This is what the Germans were using about 2-3 years before the BAR showed up.

Granted the US was bit remiss in not coming up with something a bit better between the world wars but then the US was not depending on the BAR to be the major firepower of the infantry company. A lot of US infantry companies had a heavy weapons platoon with couple of tripod mounted M1919 air cooled Brownings and 3 60mm mortars. The Battalion heavy weapons company had 8-12 water cooled M1917s in the early part of the war.
Design/doctrine/intent often was thwarted by the troops in the field.

The rear monopod was often discarded by troops in the field to make the BAR easier to carry and due to the fact that the gun was rarely used at the longer ranges where the rear monopod's extra stability was a benefit. The US command may not have faced the fact that not all the members of the squad would show the same aggression and many of the rifle equipped troops would contribute little to a fire fight and so the expected firepower advantage of the Garand rarely came up to the level that the differences of the BAR were masked.

As above, the German submachine guns (bar the questionable models of 1945) were at least as good as other people's stuff.

This is true but while the MP 38/40 was rather innovative in 1938-40 by 1944-45 everybody else (mostly) had caught up. In the context of the other thread there was no real reason for anybody to write any reports about the German 9mm submachine guns as any reports/analysis had already been done on captured exemplars.

The StG 44 was more controlable in full auto than AK 47, let alone the M2 that was left down by too small the weight and not being designed for full auto from the let go.

That may be true, But like I said the M2 was never intended in that role and it's lower powered cartridge meant it was shorter ranged in any case. The Army didn't consider the 7.9 X 33 as powerful enough for a general issue rifle. The M2 still being considered a PDW for gun crews, vehicle crews, cooks, signalmen and the like.

 

[GrauGeist]

I collect and shoot various WWII rifles and pistols. My preference is for the 1903 Springfield over the K98K Mauser. A personal preference, neither is the weapon that M1 Garand is. The 30.06 round is probably a bit better than the 8mm Mauser, again a personal preference, but the smaller diameter gives a slightly better ballistic coefficient and sectional density. The original round for which the M1 was designed was a smaller caliber and lighter round. This probably would have been an excellent cartridge, but Doug McArthur, chief of staff of the Army vetoed it's introduction. The main reason during the days of the depression, millions upon millions of 30.06 ammunition remained from WWI stocks.

The .276 round was not even close to the .30-06 in performance and MacAuther was smart by insisting that the M1 use the same ammunition that the Springfields used, which the U.S. had massive stockpiles of ammunition for.
As for the "smaller diameter" between the Mauser and the Springfield, how?
The 8mm Mauser is 7.92x57mm and the Springfield is 7.62x63mm = literally identical in .30 caliber.

 

[Shortround6]

For non metric it is a .308 bullet vs a .323 bullet. In order to say which one has an advantage you have to compare the a actual bullets used and the actual velocities. Not commercial ammo or special bullets.
Even with military ammo you have to specify what you are comparing. For the .30-06 you had the 150-152 grain flat base bullet and the 172 grain boat tail and the AP bullet. Germans had several different loads for the 7.92.

 

[tomo pauk]

We start to run into different design criteria. The FG 42 was (a least initially) a specialized weapon for German paratroopers. Due to doctrine and equipment (parachutes and harnesses?) the Early operations by the German Paratroops saw them run into a number of difficulties. The heavy weapons were dropped in separate containers and the troops often had to fight their way to the containers and unpack the support weapons while under fire. The FG 42 was to give them heavier firepower in this transition period without really being a full fledged light machine gun. The US actually had a similar gun
The Johnson 1941 and there was a simplified 1944 version. Not quite as straight stocked as the FG 42 but shows that other people were addressing the problem.

Yes, the Johnson's wepons were very interesting, especially the LMGs.

The BAR was about 24 year older and had been designed when the self powered machine gun itself was only about 33 years old
So perhaps we can cut the BAR a bit of slack?
This is what the Germans were using about 2-3 years before the BAR showed up.

I've already noted that BAR was an earlier design.

This is true but while the MP 38/40 was rather innovative in 1938-40 by 1944-45 everybody else (mostly) had caught up. In the context of the other thread there was no real reason for anybody to write any reports about the German 9mm submachine guns as any reports/analysis had already been done on captured exemplars.

IIRC nobody suggested the report on the MP 40 on this board, but on the StG 44.

That may be true, But like I said the M2 was never intended in that role and it's lower powered cartridge meant it was shorter ranged in any case. The Army didn't consider the 7.9 X 33 as powerful enough for a general issue rifle. The M2 still being considered a PDW for gun crews, vehicle crews, cooks, signalmen and the like.

Too bad that Army didn't considered a, say, a .30 Kurz for general issue.

The .276 round was not even close to the .30-06 in performance and MacAuther was smart by insisting that the M1 use the same ammunition that the Springfields used, which the U.S. had massive stockpiles of ammunition for.
As for the "smaller diameter" between the Mauser and the Springfield, how?
The 8mm Mauser is 7.92x57mm and the Springfield is 7.62x63mm = literally identical in .30 caliber.

The .30-06 M1 ball ammo, that US warehouses have had up to the brims, was useless on the M1 Garand. Thus the M2 ammo was developed in 1938. So the logistical part of the equation that M1 Garand will use existing ammo was not present.
The .276 round will kick less, infantrymen will carry more of them, the rifle can be lighter, the rifle will hold 10 rounds instead of 8 with .30-06, and anyone properly hit by .276 will be very dead - evey bit as dead as when properly hit by a bullet from .30-06 bullet.

 

[The Basket]

. 276 may have not been strong enough for machine guns.

 

[tomo pauk]

. 276 may have not been strong enough for machine guns.

Strong enough? Perhaps you mean machine gun not being strong enough?

 

[Shortround6]

Yes, the Johnson's wepons were very interesting, especially the LMGs.

True.

I've already noted that BAR was an earlier design.

It also changed roles several times before WW II and then during WW II so consideration has to be made of what year(s) and what role(s).

Too bad that Army didn't considered a, say, a .30 Kurz for general issue.

we run into a several problems with this, not the least of which a 5-6KG weapon is hardly a substitute for a pistol.

The .30-06 M1 ball ammo, that US warehouses have had up to the brims, was useless on the M1 Garand. Thus the M2 ammo was developed in 1938. So the logistical part of the equation that M1 Garand will use existing ammo was not present.
The .276 round will kick less, infantrymen will carry more of them, the rifle can be lighter, the rifle will hold 10 rounds instead of 8 with .30-06, and anyone properly hit by .276 will be very dead - evey bit as dead as when properly hit by a bullet from .30-06 bullet.

the .30-06 M2 Ball was ballistically identical (externally) to the old M1906 load which the US had by the millions. The M1 Ball load was the long range machine gun round with the boat tail bullet. The M1 load did tend to batter the Garand rifle a bit with extended use but it could be fired if the need was there.
The M2 Ball did use lower pressures than the old M1906 load due to modern powders. The M1906 was the standard round for the 1903 Springfield rifle. It was also the round the M1917 and M1919 machine guns were developed for even though replaced by the M1 Ball.

It is not only just ammo in warehouses. It is what the ammo production lines are tooled up for. An ammo plant can switch from M2 ball to M1 ball and back again in a few hours depending on bullet and powder supplies. Switching from .30-06 to and from a different size case takes somewhat longer.

Modern bullet making machine

To change calibers means most of the die stations have to changed or adjusted.


I would note that both the 7.92 X 33 and the 7.62 X 39 were adopted with the idea of saving on tooling costs both in barrel making equipment and in ammunition making equipment (less so for the 7.62 X 39).

For the US a .30 Kurz is contrary to US doctrine/tactics. US doctrine/tactics may have been firmly rooted in fantasyland instead of reality but until you got the generals in charge to change their minds the .30 Kurz had zero chance. I would also note that the Germans never made or intended to make the 7.9 Kurz a "general issue" round. That is in the sense of replacing the 7.9 X 57 in the squad/platoon/company machine guns. It was only going to replace the 7.9 X 57 in the squads rifles and perhaps the 9mm submachine guns.

The Russians did try to use the 7.62 X 39 in a squad/platoon automatic or LMG but gave up and reverted to the 7.62 X 54R for that role while using some heavy barreled AKs with 40 round magazines for the squad role. It part due to training/logistics rather than combat effectiveness.

 

[Shortround6]

Strong enough? Perhaps you mean machine gun not being strong enough?

The .276 may not have had the long range effect that was wanted.

Max effective range of a 1917 Browning is given as 4000yds using M1 Ball and 3000 yrds using M1906 or M2 ball.
absolute max range is almost 2000yrds different.

Please remember changing calibers in 1930s meant 81 mortars were nowhere near as common as they would become later. Not to mention their ranges were shorter than than they would be later, US used two different weight bombs, the light one went 3,290yds and the heavy was good for 2,655yds. Radios were nowhere near as common as later and getting a field phone network set up to call in artillery fire would take time (and equipment was limited).
In many armies the tripod mounted machine guns of the Battalion were it's primary long range fire power and adopting low powered cartridges for them was NOT going to happen.

Please note the Swedes used an 8 x 63 cartridge for their large machineguns and the Italians used an 8 X 59 cartridge in their heavy machine guns instead of their respective 6.5mm cartridges.

This was also part of the motivation for the Japanese to switch from the 6.5mm to the 7.7. more effective machinegun fire.

 

[tomo pauk]

...
we run into a several problems with this, not the least of which a 5-6KG weapon is hardly a substitute for a pistol.

Very true. The no free lunch rule applies as always.

the .30-06 M2 Ball was ballistically identical (externally) to the old M1906 load which the US had by the millions. The M1 Ball load was the long range machine gun round with the boat tail bullet. The M1 load did tend to batter the Garand rifle a bit with extended use but it could be fired if the need was there.
The M2 Ball did use lower pressures than the old M1906 load due to modern powders. The M1906 was the standard round for the 1903 Springfield rifle. It was also the round the M1917 and M1919 machine guns were developed for even though replaced by the M1 Ball.

It is not only just ammo in warehouses. It is what the ammo production lines are tooled up for. An ammo plant can switch from M2 ball to M1 ball and back again in a few hours depending on bullet and powder supplies. Switching from .30-06 to and from a different size case takes somewhat longer.

Modern bullet making machine
To change calibers means most of the die stations have to changed or adjusted.

Agreed again.
OTOH, I think that we can agree that US was in best position in the world to put any new cartridge in production if they wanted it, in any year we pick.

I would note that both the 7.92 X 33 and the 7.62 X 39 were adopted with the idea of saving on tooling costs both in barrel making equipment and in ammunition making equipment (less so for the 7.62 X 39).

For the US a .30 Kurz is contrary to US doctrine/tactics. US doctrine/tactics may have been firmly rooted in fantasyland instead of reality but until you got the generals in charge to change their minds the .30 Kurz had zero chance. I would also note that the Germans never made or intended to make the 7.9 Kurz a "general issue" round. That is in the sense of replacing the 7.9 X 57 in the squad/platoon/company machine guns. It was only going to replace the 7.9 X 57 in the squads rifles and perhaps the 9mm submachine guns.

The Russians did try to use the 7.62 X 39 in a squad/platoon automatic or LMG but gave up and reverted to the 7.62 X 54R for that role while using some heavy barreled AKs with 40 round magazines for the squad role. It part due to training/logistics rather than combat effectiveness.

All good points. Please note that I don't advocate that introduction of .30 Kurz also mean there is no full-power rifle cartridge in use.

The .276 may not have had the long range effect that was wanted.

Max effective range of a 1917 Browning is given as 4000yds using M1 Ball and 3000 yrds using M1906 or M2 ball.
absolute max range is almost 2000yrds different.

Please remember changing calibers in 1930s meant 81 mortars were nowhere near as common as they would become later. Not to mention their ranges were shorter than than they would be later, US used two different weight bombs, the light one went 3,290yds and the heavy was good for 2,655yds. Radios were nowhere near as common as later and getting a field phone network set up to call in artillery fire would take time (and equipment was limited).
In many armies the tripod mounted machine guns of the Battalion were it's primary long range fire power and adopting low powered cartridges for them was NOT going to happen.

Please note the Swedes used an 8 x 63 cartridge for their large machineguns and the Italians used an 8 X 59 cartridge in their heavy machine guns instead of their respective 6.5mm cartridges.

This was also part of the motivation for the Japanese to switch from the 6.5mm to the 7.7. more effective machinegun fire.

The 276 Pedersen was more of equivalent of the 7mm Mauser, than of the 6.5mm cartridges, especially when compared with Japanese or Italian types.

 

[wlewisiii]

If we had only ripped off the Mauser 7x57 at the same time we copied the Mauser rifle as the 1903. A beautiful military cartridge that was excellent in both battle rifles and machine guns. Would have made the whole .276 mess unnecessary.

 

[tomo pauk]

If we had only ripped off the Mauser 7x57 at the same time we copied the Mauser rifle as the 1903. A beautiful military cartridge that was excellent in both battle rifles and machine guns. Would have made the whole .276 mess unnecessary.

Hmm, the BAR in 7x57 with 30 rd mag....

 

[The Basket]

As a follower of gun lore, one of the mystery is the glorification of the Germanic bang sticks which is obvious in auction prices. The Brownings and the Lees are secondary to the Walthers and Mausers.
The greatest designers are mostly American. And so give the BAR its due and not falsely bare witness for FG-42 which is only a video game trinket.

 

[wlewisiii]

Hmm, the BAR in 7x57 with 30 rd mag....

Yep. My favorite idea is a semi-auto gas operated rifle in between the Garand and the Carbine in size with a 20 round box mag.

The actual carbine as a PDW is still a decent idea. A decent cartridge though, say 7x40, would be interesting.

 

[Shortround6]

All good points. Please note that I don't advocate that introduction of .30 Kurz also mean there is no full-power rifle cartridge in use.

The question is where does the change over take place?

As I said the Germans were willing to use both the 7.9mm Kurz and the standard 7.9mm in an 8-12 man squad. Other armies made the change over at platoon or company level.
In part it depends on what ranges the different units were expected to fight at. Some ink is spent on how many yards or meters of frontage different units were expected to cover (differs on attack and defense) a lot less ink is spent on how far away a squad or platoon was expected to engage the enemy.

The 276 Pedersen was more of equivalent of the 7mm Mauser, than of the 6.5mm cartridges, especially when compared with Japanese or Italian types.

Actually the 276 Pedersen was closer to the small 6.5s

6.5 Carcano on the the left with a .276 Pedersen next to it. 7.62x39 is the 4th from the left.
The Italians never loaded the Carcano with a Spitzer bullet which would have solved a bunch of their problems. It might have created a few new ones though considering the rifling they used in the Carcano.
Those long, long round nosed bullets ran up the pressure if you tried to push them. On the other hand trying to use a bullet like the Pedersen's in an existing Carcano would mean quite a jump before the bullet hit the rifling and a fair amount of gas escaping around it.