Infantry weapons, n-th time

[tomo pauk]

If I may:

Hey JAG88,
I am not sure but I think you misunderstood what I was trying to say. Also, I believe we were talking about the StG44, not the FG42.
My point is that the UK and US did not ignore or denigrate the StG44 in any way due to its being a German weapon. They did not say the StG44 was worthless. They simply had their own requirements (smarter or not), which the StG44 did not meet.

At least in the current 2-thread discussion about small arms, nobody accused UK for ignoring or denigrating the StG44.

If it helps to understand what I am saying, ask yourself the following questions:
1. Should the UK and US have discarded their rifles and SMGs at war's end, along with the several billion rounds of ammunition, and immediately started an emergency production program for the StG44? If so, why??

2. What reason did the UK and US have in 1945 to decide they should introduce another caliber of ammunition? Remember, one of the main reasons the US did not adopt the .276 or similar round was a requirement that their primary infantry rifle use the same ammunition as their light and medium MG. (It should be noted that a debate similar to this is going on today in the US armed forces.)

As above - nobody suggested that those two countries start an emergency program for the (copying? countering?) the StG44. The US Army adopted the M1 Garand due to their feeling that it will be able to use hills and mountains of the .30-06 ammo, it transpired that all new ammo type was needed for the M1 Garand, while MGs and bolt-action rifle still could use the old ammo.
Seems like the UK have had a very real reason for a new caliber of ammunition, otherwise they wouldn't authorised the .270 (later re-designetd as .280) round for the next-gen rifle.

3. Did you ever read any reports from WWII where Allied soldiers said things like "Oh my God in heaven, here come the sturmtruppen with their StG44s, run away!! Run away!! Ignore the troops with the K98 and all the other German infantry weapons, they cannot compare to the effectiveness of the StG44." or "No Fred, do not advance, your ______ (insert any infantry rifle or SMG in the blank area) is no match for their StG44. Go over there and advance into the K98s, MG38s, MG42s,... At least you will have a chance to live!" You can imagine this being said in the King's English, American English, French, Russian, or any other language you choose - if you can keep a straight face when saying it yourself, let me know. To be fair, I would challenge anyone to do the same concerning modern infantry assault rifles as well.

I'm not sure where this came from.
But, at any rate, Soviets, Germans and British reached conclusions that full-power rifle cartridge is a wrong choice for hand-held automatic weapons, and started planing the next-gen of small arms around a new cartridge each. The British choice being probably the best, combining long-range usability of a full-power cartridge with controlability of a reduced-power cartridge.

I may have been unclear as to the time frame of the selection of the M14, EM-2, FAL, etc. I meant that by the time the UK and US were ready to adopt a new weapon and associated ammunition (~1950, at the beginning of the NATO standardization process) they already had designs they considered better for their requirements. And yes, some of those designs used bits and pieces of other nations designs, including German designs such as the StG44, FG42, MG42, etc.

Your point of making the weapon cheap is valid to a certain extent. For certain it would apply to a war-time army that is in dire straights production-wise. (I started to say ...and/or already losing the war, but that by its self negates the value of the concept.) The problem with this concept is that an army spends most of its time in peace, not war. If you make the weapons cheap you have to replace them more often, with the replacement cost exceeding the difference in any savings due to a low unit cost. (It should be noted that a debate similar to this is going on today in the US armed forces.)

Cheaper weapons might mean a difference between actually replacing obsolete weapons a decade after the last war vs. still having obsolete weapons decades after the war and hope that a new war does not happen. Granted, over-doing the cheapness will bite back.

 

[Shortround6]

The M1 actually used the original .30-06 load/ballistics as used in the 1903 Springfield, the mottly collection of US MGs until the Browning 1917/1919 was adopted (and even they used it for 7-9 years) and the same round the 1918 BAR was developed for.
The .30-06 M1 Ball with the 172 Grain boat tail bullet was not adopted until 1926 (although tested several years earlier?) to increase the range of machine guns. Any surplus .30-06 ammo left over from WW I was this 150-152 flat based bullet.

It took until 1936 or so to use up most of the old 1906 ammo. So when the decision was made to keep the .30-06 for the Garand a fair amount of the ammo in stock was the old 1906 load which had a few problems of it's own, like using a cupro-nickel jacket instead of gilding metal which resulted in much more jacket fouling in the barrels.

They also discovered that the boat tail bullets, with their ability to travel almost 2000yds further than the old 1906 load, were unsafe to use on some training ranges as the bullets, if fired at an odd elevation by accident would travel well beyond the safety zone and onto adjoining property or other parts of the training facility. They hastily came up with the M2 Ball which pretty much duplicated the old 1906 load as far as ballistics goes but at lower internal pressure and using the Gilding metal jacket material.

While the .30-06 M1 load would, eventually, cause some extra battering/wear on the M1 rifle many M1 rifles have fired hundreds if not thousands of rounds of the 30-06 M1 load without suffering any catastrophic failure.

The M1 rifles gas port is pretty much at the of the barrel and most of the ammo for it doesn't vary in pressure that much even if the the peak pressure 1-2inches in front of the chamber does. Handloaders after WW II could mess things up by using the slower commercial and surplus powders that became available. These could result in higher port pressures and lead to bent operating rods but there was no real need to use these powders.

The UK wanted to get rid of the rimmed .303 case after WW II. (they had wanted to get rid of it much earlier but financial considerations alway blocked the change,)


Cheap weapons do have certain attraction for the military but too cheap means they have to be replaced more often than is really desirable for countries that are supplying troops thousands of miles from the factories. Every crate of stamped, sheet metal wonder guns put on a freighter to replace bent/dented guns is a crate of something else that isn't going to get there.

 

[ThomasP]

Hey tomopauk,

From JAG88's post#143 in the proximity fuse thread: "In general, I think it is normal and human to look down on the weapons of the defeated enemy, and that could cause some people to overlook otherwise interesting developments as in this case... which was the point of bringing up this example in the thread."

I have assumed that JAG88's comment is referring back to (or has similar intent to) Basil's earlier comment in his post#123 in the proximity fuse thread: "At the end of WW2 the Allies had a very satisfactorily working VT fuze in combat for over a year and the fact the the Germans were working on similar devices certainly was not sensational for the CIOS or BIOS teams. There were many other similar researches in technical fields which did not find much mention." and some comments of others that seem to imply that the Allies had ignored German technology (radar, weapons, industrial prowess, etc.) simply because it was not sensational, and/or that because they were the losers in WWII their technology was not worthy of consideration (i.e. denigrating).

As for my questions 1-3, it may seem that they are somewhat facetious (well, #3 is phrased in a humorous manner), but those 3 questions (or other ones similar in meaning) would have to result in answers that would give reason to over-ride the requirements that the UK and US had in mind at the time, or there is no reason to think that the StG44 was superior in any way that mattered, at least in any big picture sense (not sure if I phrased that clearly?). In effect, even if the entire German army had been equipped with the StG44 by early-1944 (or beginning of the war?), it was not going to turn the tide of the war, any major battle, or most likely any minor battle that mattered. And any superior firepower effect that the StG44 may have had was not enough to have any impact in the minds of the opposing forces in the field, or at least not any worthy of notable record (I could be wrong about the notable record part, but that is part of why I put question #3 in the post).


Interesting info, from the training manuals of the UK and US:

Model 1903 Springfield aimed shots per minute ~12 (iron sights)
Enfield aimed shots per minute ~12 (iron sights)
M1 Garand aimed shots per minute ~12 (iron sights)
L85 aimed shots per minute 12-15 (iron sights)
M16 aimed shots per minute 12-15 (iron sights)

The additional 3 shots per minute for the modern rifles are attributed to the lighter recoil with commensurate shorter recovery time.

 

[Ivan1GFP]

Interesting info, from the training manuals of the UK and US:

Model 1903 Springfield aimed shots per minute ~12 (iron sights)
Enfield aimed shots per minute ~12 (iron sights)
M1 Garand aimed shots per minute ~12 (iron sights)
L85 aimed shots per minute 12-15 (iron sights)
M16 aimed shots per minute 12-15 (iron sights)

The additional 3 shots per minute for the modern rifles are attributed to the lighter recoil with commensurate shorter recovery time.

Hello ThomasP,
The firing rates you are quoting are not terribly realistic. I would strongly suggest that you actually take a M98 Mauser or M1903 Springfield out to the range and see if you can get 12 aimed shots per minute. Keep in mind that even with a full magazine, you will need two reloads. If we are discussing Lee-Enfields, they have a much smoother bolt and only need one reload as does the M1 Garand. I have no firing experience with the L85 but it seems not so good for handling but easily better than any bolt gun for speed of fire.
I have watched some very good match rifle shooters with bolt action rifles firing rapid fire practice and it is an amazing thing to see 10 aimed shots and two reloads in a minute. In the National Matches, there is also a competition called the Infantry Trophy Match that shows just how many well aimed shots can be put downrange in a minute by any of the semi autos and I can tell you it is quite a bit more than 12 on the average.

The M1 rifles gas port is pretty much at the of the barrel and most of the ammo for it doesn't vary in pressure that much even if the the peak pressure 1-2inches in front of the chamber does. Handloaders after WW II could mess things up by using the slower commercial and surplus powders that became available. These could result in higher port pressures and lead to bent operating rods but there was no real need to use these powders.

Hello Shortround6,
Port pressure should range from 4000 to 8000 PSI if I remember right. The M1 does tend to be somewhat sensitive to powder speeds as does the M14 types.
Regarding use of the 173 grain bullets, note that the M72 Match load uses a 173 grain boat tail bullet at the same velocities (2640 FPS instrumental at 78 feet)
as the old MG round. It was the preferred Sniper / Target load for the M1, so this weight bullet must have been acceptable for the M1 Rifle.
With powder that supplies too much port pressure, sometimes on the older receivers, it is possible for the bolt to crack the back of the receiver with prolonged use.

Hello Tomo Pauk,
Do you suppose that the requirements for a rifle caliber for infantry weapons would also be determined by whether or not the new caliber would be the ONLY caliber to be used by infantry rifles, LMG, Squad Automatics, etc?
I am thinking that if a country is intending to replace the ammunition for ALL of those weapons, it will settle only for something that will perform at least adequately in the LMG while if it intends to retain a second caliber for the LMG, it can pick something much smaller.
The choices of the various countries seem to follow that pattern:
The Germans kept the 7.92 x 57, so the little 7.92 x 33 was just fine as a sort of high power SMG / Carbine.
The British wanted to replace .303 so they needed something bigger such as the .280 which wasn't that different.
The US wanted to replace 30-06, so they wanted something that was its ballistic equivalent.
The Soviets intended to keep the 762 x 54R for the long range role, so a 7.62 x 39 was a good supplement.

- Ivan.

 

[The Basket]

The British wanted rid of the 303 because it was rimmed. Which is a pain especially for machine guns.
The British thrice directly copied the enemy rifle...7mm Mauser rifle and the G43 and FG-42.
The Federov was doing what Sturmgewehr was doing well before. Sturmgewehr was only new and revolutionary in the sense it was fielded.
FG-42 was fielded in very small numbers so is as irrelevant as the Federov in war winning.
The EM-2 was the British Sturmgewehr but was killed off by USA as it wanted battle rifles. American insistence on long range battle rifles for accuracy proved to be correct at least in current Afghan combat.

Just as in the Boer War. You can learn lessons in war which are not always relevant to the next.

Accuracy in ww2 is not really accurate as it was well below what we today would call accurate. Even a sniping rifle was not as accurate as today's standards. So accuracy in 1940 and 2019 is not the same. Rate of fire is important as a bolt action is quite a tiring muscle memory thing and can be very difficult to keep up for long duration. Semi auto takes the effort out and so allows a constant rate of fire.

 

[ThomasP]

Hey Ivan1GFP,

The aimed shots per minute are from the actual training manuals of the UK and US from the time periods of their use, all from pre-2000. I doubt either country would overstate or understate the rates they expected were achievable by the majority of their soldiers after training. As an example, over time the US Army's expected aimed shots per minute decreased from 20 at the time of the introduction of the M1 Garand in 1940, to 12 by the Korea war period.

Also, we may be talking about significantly different parameters here. In general (in the UK and US anyway) aimed fire was usually from a minimum of 200m to a maximum of 500-600m. The 12-15 aimed shots per minute were (are?) usually achieved at the shorter ranges of 200-300m.

Today the standard UK and US rifleman qualification testing is usually done at 300m maximum, but the type of targets and times involved are so varied that a summary of the training and qualification courses is impractical to post here.

I do not know what ranges and parameters are used in the competitions you refer to, but (obviously) these aimed shots per minute rates are not meant to be comparable to those achieved in any kind of national competitions.

I have never had the opportunity to fire a K98 (and yes I realize that the Model 1903 Springfield uses a Mauser action).

I have never practiced quick reloading of the WWII era rifles using stripper clips, but with practice I do not think that the aimed fire rates would be a problem.

I have fired all the other weapons I mentioned at ranges upto 500m and find the aimed fire rates quite realistic.

 

[Shortround6]

The rate of fire thing has several huge variables.

One is the amount of training the troops/shooters had.
Another is the what is defined as "aimed fire". for the British before WW I (and for quite a while after?) it was number of shots fired on a 2 ft by 2 ft target at 200yds? open to correction.

The US used about a 10in black bullseye (5 ring) at the time with a 4 ring and 3 ring in the white, I don't know what score or metric was used. The US, even in army matches, not infantry training? used rapid fire sitting at 200yds and rapid fire prone at 300yds with an extra 10 seconds (70 seconds?).

In the old match rules from the 60s and 70s the bolt guns got an extra 10 seconds, M1/M14 shooters got 50 seconds for 10 shots in sitting instead of 60 seconds and prone at 300 got 60 seconds instead of 70. later the longer time was used for both to simplify squading (trying to put all the guns of one type on the same relay)

For infantry training and rate of fire the "12 shots" may be an average of shots fired?

Melvin Johnson uses higher rates of fire but he was trying to promote the use of the semi-auto rifle (his).

Hitting a 2 x 2 target (or larger?) can be done fairly quickly. Hitting a target 1/4 that size takes a bit more aiming time. There were also 'tricks' used by target shooters that are not applicable in the field. The target shooter uses the sling to help support the gun and in fact early US WW II training films show instructors teaching the use of the sling. I am not saying you couldn't use a sling in combat but it's use was not common. For the British the gun was almost laying on the ground. the left hand gripped the sling right below the sling swivel like a fist and the bottom edge of the hand rested on the ground and the rifles was on the upper edge of the hand, elevation was controlled by how hard of fist the shooter made. The butt was on the ground the the firerer's shoulder was on top of it. the bolt was grasped between thumb and fore finger and the trigger was pulled by the middle finger without ever letting go of the bolt.
I don't believe combat rates of fire ever equaled rates of fire on the range but given time to prepare (dig holes or rearrange the dirt) there is little doubt that much higher than 12 rounds per minute could be obtained. However firing out of windows, over logs, and other barriers was going to drop the rate of fire and/or accuracy considerably.

I had somebody watch me once while I practiced sitting with a bolt rifle using dummy cartridges. I was cycling the gun about every 3 seconds. Now factor in reloads.
I would also note that US match shooting with time limits I gave had the shooters start in standing up. (although some rather extreme crouches could be seen) so by the time the shooter got laying down (or sitting) and properly lined up with the target with all elbows and knees where he wanted them 12-20 seconds of the "minute" had already gone by.

Something else to consider when comparing range shooting to combat shooting.

I also got some advice from my father when shooting the M1 rapid fire. He told me to count in my head. Fire the rifle then count one, two, three, four and fire the rifle on the count of four, repeat. That took care of the recoil, recoil recovery, realigning the sights, squeezing, not yanking, the trigger and was fast enough that you wouldn't run out of time( the count was faster than 4 seconds).

I would also note that training manual rates of fire may (or may not) be for sustained fire. That rate of fire for several minutes (or longer) at which point gun heating may start to play a part. Or might not. Some manuals don't give good explanations as to why they have the numbers they do and other manuals do have explanations.

 

[tomo pauk]

Hey tomopauk,

From JAG88's post#143 in the proximity fuse thread: "In general, I think it is normal and human to look down on the weapons of the defeated enemy, and that could cause some people to overlook otherwise interesting developments as in this case... which was the point of bringing up this example in the thread."

I have assumed that JAG88's comment is referring back to (or has similar intent to) Basil's earlier comment in his post#123 in the proximity fuse thread: "At the end of WW2 the Allies had a very satisfactorily working VT fuze in combat for over a year and the fact the the Germans were working on similar devices certainly was not sensational for the CIOS or BIOS teams. There were many other similar researches in technical fields which did not find much mention." and some comments of others that seem to imply that the Allies had ignored German technology (radar, weapons, industrial prowess, etc.) simply because it was not sensational, and/or that because they were the losers in WWII their technology was not worthy of consideration (i.e. denigrating).

Allies were certainly not ignoring German technology, they were burning the midnight oil to get German stuff researched and, if possible, replicated in many cases. Reason why I've started this thread is that, sometimes, reports on German techy stuff were either partly biased, or 'diluted' for general public (civilians).

As for my questions 1-3, it may seem that they are somewhat facetious (well, #3 is phrased in a humorous manner), but those 3 questions (or other ones similar in meaning) would have to result in answers that would give reason to over-ride the requirements that the UK and US had in mind at the time, or there is no reason to think that the StG44 was superior in any way that mattered, at least in any big picture sense (not sure if I phrased that clearly?). In effect, even if the entire German army had been equipped with the StG44 by early-1944 (or beginning of the war?), it was not going to turn the tide of the war, any major battle, or most likely any minor battle that mattered. And any superior firepower effect that the StG44 may have had was not enough to have any impact in the minds of the opposing forces in the field, or at least not any worthy of notable record (I could be wrong about the notable record part, but that is part of why I put question #3 in the post).

Germany lost the war by 1942. By 1944, in case they don't field jet-propelled intercontinintal bombers (or rockets) aremd with nuclear devices en masse, they still loose it. Infantry weapons have too much a tactical footprint in the era where aircraft, tanks, ships and artillery rule the battlefield and seas.
With that said, better infantry weapons can lower the butcher's bill, so every belligerent country tried to improve in that field.

Interesting info, from the training manuals of the UK and US:

Model 1903 Springfield aimed shots per minute ~12 (iron sights)
Enfield aimed shots per minute ~12 (iron sights)
M1 Garand aimed shots per minute ~12 (iron sights)
L85 aimed shots per minute 12-15 (iron sights)
M16 aimed shots per minute 12-15 (iron sights)

The M48 (Yugo Mauser) - 10 aimed shots. M-59/66 (Yugo SKS) - 20 aimed shots.
Aimed shots are just a part of the equation. Bolt-action rifles, eve semi-auto rifles can't supress well the enemy since they cant fire in bursts, while automatics can do it well. You can also take a look at some videos of 'In range' series by Gun Jesus, where he stipulates that each shot from bolt-action rifle is a 'new shot' - each separately aimed and fired, while the ones from sem-autos just follow up one after another, in case the target is not hit the 1st time. Bolt action requires getting the butt stock down, get the handle, work the mechanism, get the butt stock at shoulder, aim, fire - much greater number of operations that a self-loader reduces by more than half by default.

Hello Tomo Pauk,
Do you suppose that the requirements for a rifle caliber for infantry weapons would also be determined by whether or not the new caliber would be the ONLY caliber to be used by infantry rifles, LMG, Squad Automatics, etc?
I am thinking that if a country is intending to replace the ammunition for ALL of those weapons, it will settle only for something that will perform at least adequately in the LMG while if it intends to retain a second caliber for the LMG, it can pick something much smaller.
The choices of the various countries seem to follow that pattern:
The Germans kept the 7.92 x 57, so the little 7.92 x 33 was just fine as a sort of high power SMG / Carbine.
The British wanted to replace .303 so they needed something bigger such as the .280 which wasn't that different.
The US wanted to replace 30-06, so they wanted something that was its ballistic equivalent.
The Soviets intended to keep the 762 x 54R for the long range role, so a 7.62 x 39 was a good supplement.

- Ivan.

One caliber to rule them all? Probably too much of an effort, when two calibers will probably cover the needs better?
The .280 was different enough vs. the .303 - the .280 it produced 60% of the energy of the .303. That will mean several benefits from the shooter's and constructor's points of view: recoil becomes easy to control, even on automatic fire, more ammo can be carried for same weight allowance, gun will not be too heavy or cumbersome, less chance of breakage of internals because of lower stress etc. We can see that .280 is very similar to the 6.5 Grendel in power, and a bit more powerful than 6.8 SPC; when fired from the long barrel of the EM-2, the .280 will excel at ranges the 7.62x39 can just dream about, even when fired from the SKS or RPK. For 99% of ranges, shooters and situations, there will be no need for anything more powerful than .280, while both Soviet and German wepons chambered in short cartridges still required the wepons chambered in long cartridges as a back-up.

 

[tomo pauk]

The British wanted rid of the 303 because it was rimmed. Which is a pain especially for machine guns.
The British thrice directly copied the enemy rifle...7mm Mauser rifle and the G43 and FG-42.
The Federov was doing what Sturmgewehr was doing well before. Sturmgewehr was only new and revolutionary in the sense it was fielded.
FG-42 was fielded in very small numbers so is as irrelevant as the Federov in war winning.
The EM-2 was the British Sturmgewehr but was killed off by USA as it wanted battle rifles. American insistence on long range battle rifles for accuracy proved to be correct at least in current Afghan combat.

Rimmed rounds worked in ww1, ww2, Cold War, and they work in 21 st century. Bolt-action, semi-auto, detachable magazines (box, pan, drum), belts. Rates of fire more than 1000 rpm.
British never copied the Mauser rifle in 7mm calibre. Source for the British copying G43 and FG43?
Fedorov's automat (while indeed available earlier than StG-44 indeed) contibuted next to nothing in either loosing the war (the ww1) nor the war winning (ww2).
EM-2 was the British 'automat' - usable for long range fire, as well as bursts. Much better at great ranges than StG-44 or the M4 (that will be the US StG-44?), so no weaknesses in Afghanistan's 'hill-to-hill' fire.

 

[JAG88]

Hey tomopauk,

From JAG88's post#143 in the proximity fuse thread: "In general, I think it is normal and human to look down on the weapons of the defeated enemy, and that could cause some people to overlook otherwise interesting developments as in this case... which was the point of bringing up this example in the thread."

I have assumed that JAG88's comment is referring back to (or has similar intent to) Basil's earlier comment in his post#123 in the proximity fuse thread: "At the end of WW2 the Allies had a very satisfactorily working VT fuze in combat for over a year and the fact the the Germans were working on similar devices certainly was not sensational for the CIOS or BIOS teams. There were many other similar researches in technical fields which did not find much mention." and some comments of others that seem to imply that the Allies had ignored German technology (radar, weapons, industrial prowess, etc.) simply because it was not sensational, and/or that because they were the losers in WWII their technology was not worthy of consideration (i.e. denigrating).

Irrelevant, my point was clear and gave a very detailed example on the US evaluation of the StG 44, nobody else was confused.

The rest...

 

[JAG88]

I dont have Schmalenbach's book, but delcyros does:

"PRINZ EUGEN´s radar suite was never examined in detail by USN investigators. As a matter of fact, Schmalenbach, who was there when the ship was examined states explicitely, that the USN service persons were simply not interested in these pieces of equipment (multiple sets) and when given opportunity to study it´s working principles rejected to do so, claiming that they have much superior radar. They collected the aviable manuals* and went on with other buisnesses (particularly integration of FCS with it´s advanced master stable element) without switching the radar on for a single time. Then they went on to even install an USN radar for navigational purposes as they laid claim that they don´t rely on german radar at all.
Any information on it´s technical capabilities therefore -from US sorces at least- cannot possibly be based on empirical studies of PRINZ EUGEN´s set(s). "

South Dakota class vs Tirptiz class

The allies were VERY interested in German technology, but we are all human, we do screw up and make assumptions based on our own prejudices.

 

[The Basket]

Never said the Federov won anything.

Both the French and British wanted rid of rimmed cartridges. Why go to such effort if rimmed cartridges are so good?

Why do you think the 7mm Mauser was not copied?

 

[The Basket]

Why should the USN be interested in German naval radar?

 

[tomo pauk]

Both the French and British wanted rid of rimmed cartridges. Why go to such effort if rimmed cartridges are so good?

Perhaps asking them would've been a good idea?

Why do you think the 7mm Mauser was not copied?

I did not said that 7mm Mauser was not copied. Cartridge != rifle.

 

[GrauGeist]

Why should the USN be interested in German naval radar?

Why not?
The Allies were interested in other German technologies...

 

[JAG88]

Why not?
The Allies were interested in other German technologies...

Cuz 'Murica!

 

[JAG88]

Why should the USN be interested in German naval radar?

Thx for proving my point btw.

 

[The Basket]

The USN is the most powerful navy ever in 1945. And the Kreigsmarine is at the bottom of the sea. So I know which radar set I would use. Just because it's German doesn't mean anything.

I know why the rimmed cartridges were rid of. Don't have to ask.

You did say the 7mm Mauser rifle was not copied. So What is the P13? The P14? Or the American M1917? They were not based on a Mosin!

 

[ThomasP]

Hey JAG88,

from your posts#143 in the proximity fuse thread, and your posts#50 & 51 in this thread:

"In general, I think it is normal and human to look down on the weapons of the defeated enemy, and that could cause some people to overlook otherwise interesting developments as in this case... which was the point of bringing up this example in the thread."

"Irrelevant, my point was clear and gave a very detailed example on the US evaluation of the StG 44, nobody else was confused."

"The allies were VERY interested in German technology, but we are all human, we do screw up and make assumptions based on our own prejudices."


I was not confused, and doubt anyone else was.

 

[ThomasP]

Hey tomo pauk,

re: "The M48 (Yugo Mauser) - 10 aimed shots. M-59/66 (Yugo SKS) - 20 aimed shots."

Do you have the range details for the above by any chance? Seriously, I am interested.