Infantry weapons, n-th time

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules


Hello Fliger747,
When comparing the K98 Mauser and M1903 in their original calibers, where are you getting your ammunition from? In straight military loadings, usually the 7.92 is a noticeably more powerful round and with their typical heavy bullet loads, their much heavier and often boat tailed bullets should be much better from a ballistic standpoint. US M2 Ball is normally a 152 grain flat base bullet at around 2650-2750 fps. I have to go back to my notes for chronograph velocities, but typical 7.92 x 57 is about a 170-something to a 196 grain bullet. The Chinese used much lighter about 150 grain concave base bullets in their 7.92 ammunition though.

There has been some mention of adapting the US M1/M2 Carbines to other calibers.
While this is an interesting idea, there are lots of problems with the basic design as a basis for an accurate rifle replacement.
The way the gas system and operating parts are held together and the way the gun is held together make it nearly impossible to improve for accuracy.
While the Johnson (semi)automatics have their advantages, they have a serious problem with maintaining acceptable levels of accuracy because of their recoil operation. The barrel to receiver alignment gets sloppy over time.

- Ivan.
 
As with many cartridges that stayed in service for decades the loadings changed a few times. The US 1903 load was a 220 grain bullet at 2200-2300fps. Same bullet as the 30-40Krag only a bit faster. The 1906 load was the 150-152 grain spitzer at 2700fps and they shortened the neck of the case a bit. In 1926 they introduced the M1 ball which is the 172-174.5 boat tail bullet at 2650fps. The M2 load (issued in 1939?) was a deliberate downloading to keep from battering the M1 rifle. Flat based bullets are easier to make and the difference in weight save material. The lower recoil was also supposed to help with training recruits.
Please note that the original 1906 load needed 52,000psi chamber pressure with the powders of the time to achieve the same velocity as the M2 load got with 42,000psi peak pressure.
There was room to get higher velocities if they wanted them.
Please note that US military standards called for the velocity to be measured 78ft from the muzzle so modern shooters with home chronographs are going to get slightly better results.
 

One wonders whether both Italians and Swedes were also using the 8mm for machineguns since they both fielded the cartridge with obsolete bullet that will be bad in retaining speed & energy downrange?
 
From Wiki
"From 1941 onwards, Sweden, which remained neutral during World War II, adopted skarp patron m/94 prickskytte m/41 (live cartridge m/94 sniping m/41) ammunition loaded with a 9.1 grams (140 gr) spitzer bullet (D-projectile) fired at a muzzle velocity of 800 m/s (2,625 ft/s) with 2,912 J (2,148 ft⋅lbf) muzzle energy from a 739 mm (29.1 in) long barrel.[12] Besides a pointed nose the m/41 D-projectile also had a boat tail. Originally developed for the m/41 sniper rifle, this new cartridge replaced the m/94 ammunition loaded with the M/94 projectile for general use."

This was after the 8mm cartridge was adopted for the big machine guns which was on 1932.
see; 8×63mm patron m/32 - Wikipedia

The Swedes obviously knew about spitzer boat tail bullets.
 

They certainly knew, but for one reason or another didn't adopted it for the 6.5mm until almost 10 years after the 8mm.
Sweden also used two LMG designs for 6.5mm, the BAR and Kg m/40, later supposedly good up to 1400 m range.
 

Kg m/40

I would doubt very highly if this thing was effective at 1400 meters unless mounted on a tripod.
The vast majority of bipod mounted machine guns are rated at 600-800 meters. This has to do much more with stability of the bipod system (using the firers shoulder as the rear support) rate of fire (recoil over time) and weight of the gun (inertia) than any individual cartridge or quality of the gun or barrel.
 
Machine guns then and still today have a job of long range artillery style plastering of a beat zone well beyond accuracy or the effective range of the gun.
In some cases not even seeing the target and shooting indirect fire over hills to rain down bullets 2kms away to keep heads down.
That's why machine gun rounds need extra power to meet this need so if they do hit something they can still give a nasty wound. A 6.5 round may not be capable of such shenanigans.

The 7.35 Carcano was pointy but the 6.5 Carcano never was. Italy was capable of designing and producing its own gun but was a very weak power. So the reasons why were either incapable of changing or not too concerned or the 7.35 was the change. Have to read up.

Maybe the 6.5 Carcano can be seen as an intermediate cartridge perfectly powered for the short ranges that most combat happens. I am not familiar with Italian military doctrine so if they based on squad tactics on a machine gun and had a DMR with full powered rifle then the shortcoming of the Carcano would be manageable. A head shot in 6.5 Carcano is still going to nip regardless of range.
 
Last edited:
The Basket said:
FG-42 equal to the BAR?
FG-42 is a better video game gun.
Click to expand...


tomo pauk said:
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.
Click to expand...

Errr...


Looks far more controllable than any full power weapon I've seen.
 
JAG88 said:
Looks far more controllable than any full power weapon I've seen.
Click to expand...
More controllable than any full power full-automatic rifle or more controllable than any full powered weapon?

It was probably was the most controllable full power full-automatic rifle built. Good muzzle brake, straight line stock, that short distance the receiver recoils into the stock to smooth things out a bit. The question is was it controllable enough?

Lots of videos of guns firing full auto and leaving the viewer to try and gauge the muzzle rise or muzzle movement. Darn few videos of a gun firing at a target where you can see the dispersion at a given range.
If gun A puts it's third round 8 feet high at distance X instead of 18ft high like gun B it is certainly much more controllable, but round 3 and any rounds after that are all pretty much useless. One reason that these guns are fired in short bursts.
Trouble was the the Germans (and post war the Americans and many nations that stuck bipods, 30 round mags and selector switches on battle rifles) were often trying to replace the squad LMG. And most (or all) of these light full power weapons, even on bipods, bounced around too much for effective longe range fire. Long range for a bipod mounted LMG being somewhere in the 500-800 meter area.
The FG 42 can be forgiven somewhat because of of it's specialized role, it is supposed to give covering fire or fire supremacy while the paratroopers find their equipment canisters and dig out their MG 34/42 belt fed LMGs in addition to beefing up the squad/platoons general firepower.

Now for the Germans the MG 42 wasn't the most steady gun around when fired from a bipod so perhaps the FG 42 is more controllable than it's big brother. But since the Bren gun is usually noted for it's controllability/long range accuracy we run into conflicting anecdotes. The bipod equipped, large magazine battle rifle as a substitute for the squad LMG was going away to some extent before the small caliber or intermediate cartridge phase finished it off. Armies were bring back the real LMGs because the pimped out battle rifle couldn't do the job, even if some of them go somewhat heavier barrels.

I admit I am biased, I am a target shooter and if you don't have a group on paper (or at least a score in the score book) then you don't have much for comparison. I don't expect rifle accuracy from full auto guns but keeping the 3rd round of a 3 round burst at least at man size height at range X would seem to be a good start.
 
Shortround6 said:
More controllable than any full power full-automatic rifle or more controllable than any full powered weapon?
Click to expand...

Rifle


You saw the gun firing, it wasnt jumping around, it was controllable even unsupported.


Did you see any bounce when prone?


Well, you were defending the BAR and offered the MG 08/15 as a comparison... The same applies here, you are trying to compare a 5Kg Automatic rifle with a 10Kg LMG with a longer barrel, how is that coherent or relevant?

The German riflemen would be using a FG42/MG42 combo, the British an Enfield/Bren one, which side would you prefer to be in?


Per post-war US tests 9" at 50y on 10r bursts. Not bad.
 
In looking at the functioning of the FG42 a while back, I was wondering how it could achieve any reasonable accuracy.
I think I just got my answer.
The level of accuracy quoted for semi automatic fire is comparable to that achievable by a pretty typical AK-47 assault rifle.
In other words, accuracy is pretty lousy.

- Ivan.
 
IOW it's accuracy is fine for a combat weapon. Not every nation embraces the fetish of accuracy that the US Army & Marines have - the understanding that combat happens at much shorter ranges and that only certain levels of accuracy are needed has been fought by them tooth and nail. The FAL in .280 NATO would have been smaller, lighter, far more controllable and useful as a soldiers rifle than the joke of the M-14. Only thanks to the Air Force did we end up with the M-16 to replace it, even though it too has a huge load of baggage and issues as well. It's a shame how we went from a very good rifle in WWII to an sort of adequate one now.
 
I should add that all the scopes used developed problems during the test.

An M 14 for comparison...

 
FG-42 is a very minor rifle.
A footnote in a history book.
The BAR is a proper rifle with a proper history. I would take a BAR every day of the week over a FG-42.
And I would take a M-16 AR-15 over a FG-42 every day and twice on Sundays.
 

Somehow, US Ordnance managed to disagree with you and even found accuracy comparable to the latest Garand version, perhaps a rifle with lousy accuracy as well:



 
Just so we stay on the same page (or at least chapter)

And E2 means you are on at least the 3rd variant. (T20, T20E1, T20E2)

I have no idea how good (or bad) the muzzle brake was, the stock is crappy from the point of view of preventing muzzle rise and there is no cushioning of the recoil in the stock or butt plate. No surprise that it was not as controllable as the Fg 42 in full auto fire.

more here Springfield Armory Museum - Collection Record,
including "Cyclic rate of fire 700 rpm. Weapon weighs approximately 9.6 lbs. without accessories. Complete with 20-round detachable box magazine and grenade launcher. Project terminated in March 1948"

That semi auto accuracy was "comparable" may need a little clarification. Almost as good? some groups better and some worse?

I will freely admit that some WW II American ammo was, shall we say, less than stellar in performance. My Father and some of his friends who shot as team using accurized M1 in the 50s and early 60s were delighted to find several cases of WRA 53 AP that shot 2 minutes of angle in all 5 guns the team had. Some of the team members worked for WInchester and one of them had access to the underground test tunnel. Some lots of ball shot OK and others were not so good. They had a decided advantage over some other team using ball ammo.

I would also note that the tests for ammo acceptance were performed with special single shot guns using very heavy barrels and fired from heavy benches. Accuracy test for service rifles was done with selected lots of ammunition. Put a gun that barely passed the accuracy test together with a poor lot of ammo and the results could be pretty disappointing.
Modern commercial ammo (even the military equivalent plain box stuff) is ahead of most wartime manufactured ammo.

One of the guys I used to shoot with worked at Aberdeen proving grounds in late 40s and early 50s when a lot of this testing was going on. The British .280 cartridge impressed him enough that he built several 7mm target rifles using modified .30-30 cases (to get a smaller case capacity than the .30-06/.308. These worked quite well at 200-300yds (the only ranges I say him shoot at). But he was a worker bee and not a decision maker.

The US did make a hash of the small arms development after WW II but that doesn't mean they didn't investigate or do reports on German weapon development. It means they adopted what they liked and ignored what didn't fit some of their preconceived ideas.
 
The FG-42s were "rescues", they had no idea how much use they had before the trials and they used 8mm ammo made in the US for a Chinese contract...

In that context, achieving results comparable to the Garand is impressive, a least to me, US Ord seemed to be as well. Whatever its meaning, it certainly does not seem to indicate a large difference in performance, that and an absence of accuracy complains settles the matter, at least for me. Evidence to the contrary is always welcome.
 

Hello Wlewisiii,
Perhaps not EVERY nation embraces the "fetish" of accuracy, but more nations care about accuracy in their rifles than you might think.
The Soviets had a pretty fair semi automatic in their SVT-40 except that it just didn't do so well for accuracy and never really replaced their M1891/30 rifle. The British seemed to be quite particular about the accuracy of their Lee Enfield rifles and that was a serious consideration when the Rifle No.4 was designed to replace No.1 Mk.III*.

Regarding the .280 NATO, I believe you are confusing long range effectiveness with accuracy. Personally I believe the .280 would have been a pretty good choice and there is nothing to suggest that the accuracy of the cartridge was poor.
As for calling the M14 a joke, I actually have a fair amount of experience with variants of the M14, FAL, and M16 and although the M16 types are a B*tch to clean, there is nothing majorly wrong with any of those gun designs (IMO).
What do you see is wrong with the M14 and M16 types?
If you are thinking of the poor reliability of the M16 in Vietnam, that was due mostly to the lack of proper equipment such as cleaning tools and also an unsuitable formulation of propellant that was loaded into the cartridges.
Properly tuned, both guns are quite reliable, durable, easily maintainable and accurate.
The FAL on the other hand in general has a pretty crappy trigger pull and rather mediocre sights and the provisions for mounting a telescope / optics is rather poor and in the same caliber the FAL isn't any lighter than a M14.
I know the FAL trigger CAN be tuned but most of the ones I have fired including new out of the box were pretty lousy.

- Ivan.
 
Thank you.

Service Garands using WW II ball ammo will not do as well as new guns (or reconditioned guns) using new ammo so the accuracy you describe is perfectly understandable.

The Whole T20 project was pretty much doomed from the beginning. I would note that the Johnson LMG, like the FG 42 had provision to fire open bolt full auto and closed bolt semi auto. I see no mention of such a feature on the T20 or indeed on the M14. This means the ability to fire full auto for very long is rather suspect as the barrel will heat up and cook offs will start happening. A major limitation when trying to fill the LMG (or even squad automatic) role.

A later M-14 with a new stock (and folded bipod) to try to solve the muzzle rise problem.
There was a heavy barrel M-15 issued for troop trials but it was not heavy enough (and the first version had the poor stock layout of the M1) adding weight to barrel delays the time until cook offs occur but do little to help the gun cool off faster or dissipate heat better.

The whole T-20 though M-14/15 saga is a poster case for NIH and/or refusing to back down from an impossible initial specification.

Men in the field in Germany can write all the reports they can on what they find, what their superiors do with the reports is another story. The gentleman I referred to earlier who worked at Aberdeen was with Army ordnance in WW II and went through a number of German arms plants at the end of the war. He did come home with a number of Mauser actions in his duffle bag which he built some of his target rifles on.

Part of the Garands reputation is, in my opinion, due to the sights which are easier to use than many other rifle sights. Those V or U notch rear sights mounted in front of the receiver ar not a good set up for fast, poor light shooting. The lack of adjustment for windage is also a bit of problem, forget adjusting for windage in the field, different lots of ammo (or the stock soaking up moisture or drying out) will change the point of impact and without some sort of easy way to adjust practical accuracy goes away. trying to tap the front sight back and forth in a dove tail slot is poor substitute.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Infantry anti-tank weapons: the good, bad and ugly.
Replies
19
Views
2K
WARSPITER
Time Ghost Army videos
Replies
5
Views
835
MiTasol
From WW2 Bachem's Ba 349 Natter (Viper), to the cold war
Replies
1
Views
494
Gnomey
Capt Wallace N Emmer
Replies
4
Views
686
manta22
M
The D-Day Naval Gun Battle
Replies
0
Views
722
MIflyer
M
Menu
Log in
Register