The Basket
Senior Master Sergeant
- 3,712
- Jun 27, 2007
The Americans also copied the 7mm Mauser rifle into the 1903 Springfield.
This was from the Spanish wars 1898.
This was from the Spanish wars 1898.
Infantry weapons, n-th time
- Thread starter tomo pauk
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
- Thread starter
- #62
If you don't have to ask, then why asking around?
FWIW, Wikipedia says:
The Pattern 1913 Enfield was mainly based on the Mauser line of bolt action rifles. Engineering concepts found in the German Gewehr 98 and American M1903 Springfield service rifle bolt actions were combined with design features of the British Short Magazine Lee–Enfield Mk III service rifle.
So, no word about copying the Mauser Model 1892, nor the 1893 (both used in US-Spanish war) nor of Mauser Model 1895 ( used by Boers).
No details - that info was passed to us, raw recruits in 1990, by the time both of those rifles were in reserve status.
Lol, yeah, you are confused, or pretending to be.
ThomasP
Senior Master Sergeant
Hey tomo pauk,
Even without the actual ranges your info was interesting.
Even without the actual ranges your info was interesting.
ThomasP
Senior Master Sergeant
Hey JAG88,
Seriously, look up the meaning of the words "ignore" and "denigrate", then compare the definitions in the dictionary to the words and phrasing you are using.
If you really do not realize what you are saying (as opposed to what you mean to say) I apologize for misinterpreting your intent.
Seriously, look up the meaning of the words "ignore" and "denigrate", then compare the definitions in the dictionary to the words and phrasing you are using.
If you really do not realize what you are saying (as opposed to what you mean to say) I apologize for misinterpreting your intent.
The Basket
Senior Master Sergeant
- 3,712
- Jun 27, 2007
So they didn't copy the 7mm Mauser?
I am confused. Because the P13 looks like a Mauser to me.
I told you why rimmed cartridges are no longer used because they are a pain in machine guns.
I am confused. Because the P13 looks like a Mauser to me.
I told you why rimmed cartridges are no longer used because they are a pain in machine guns.
Shortround6
Major General
The Spanish Mauser were the older ones. Any Mausers older than 1995/96 used a cock on closing mechanism. The M98 Mauser used a cock on opening mechanism.
The M1903 used a cock on opening, the P-13 and it's derivatives used a cock on closing.
The M1903 used enough Mauser features that they lost a lawsuit to Mauser and had to pay royalties.
There are a bunch of other features that aren't as obvious. such as the way the bedding screws work or are arranged, The way the barrel fits in the receiver and the the gas from pierced primers is handled, among them.
The M1903 and the P-13/17 were derived from the Mauser, it is more questionable if they were derived from the 7m mauser.
The M1903 used a cock on opening, the P-13 and it's derivatives used a cock on closing.
The M1903 used enough Mauser features that they lost a lawsuit to Mauser and had to pay royalties.
There are a bunch of other features that aren't as obvious. such as the way the bedding screws work or are arranged, The way the barrel fits in the receiver and the the gas from pierced primers is handled, among them.
The M1903 and the P-13/17 were derived from the Mauser, it is more questionable if they were derived from the 7m mauser.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
And Britain, France and the Soviet Union....
In regards to the Kreigsmarine's Radar, not investigating now it works just because one has a "mighty fleet" doesn't make sense. The German Navy didn't fail because of it's radar, they failed because their fleet was out-numbered from the start.
The Germans had a great deal of technology that was adopted after the war by all the Allies, like the V-2 rocket, which directly resulted in the US Army Redstone Rocket and ultimately space launch vehicles.
The Basket
Senior Master Sergeant
- 3,712
- Jun 27, 2007
Nope. The liquid fuelled rocket was an American invention.
Germans spent a boat load to make it big.
Of course the P13 was not a direct copy of the 7mm Mauser but a copy it was. Otherwise it wouldnt look like a Mauser.
The FG-42 was used in the Korsac EM-1 but only as prototypes and EM-2 used the flapper locks off the G43.
Germans spent a boat load to make it big.
Of course the P13 was not a direct copy of the 7mm Mauser but a copy it was. Otherwise it wouldnt look like a Mauser.
The FG-42 was used in the Korsac EM-1 but only as prototypes and EM-2 used the flapper locks off the G43.
Shortround6
Major General
Found this, How true any of it is I don't know.
USS Prinz Eugen
Apparently the US did take an interest in the Prinz Eugen and much of it's equipment.
Wither it was due to initial reports or in spite of them I have no idea.
One also has to be aware that the US ships in 1944-45 were sometimes fitted with more than one "generation" of radar/fire control, that is different ships even in the same task group had different outfits of radar. What was fitted to many ships might be one-two steps behind what was being worked on in the experimental area.
USS Prinz Eugen
Apparently the US did take an interest in the Prinz Eugen and much of it's equipment.
Wither it was due to initial reports or in spite of them I have no idea.
One also has to be aware that the US ships in 1944-45 were sometimes fitted with more than one "generation" of radar/fire control, that is different ships even in the same task group had different outfits of radar. What was fitted to many ships might be one-two steps behind what was being worked on in the experimental area.
Thx, very interesting, it is to be noted however that the text speculates as to the reason why the USN didnt master its use, and somehow confirms Schmalenbach's statement since the USN clearly didnt care enough to actually try and understand how it worked and check its performance.
They nuked it instead.
They nuked it instead.
Hello The Basket,
I believe there were more problems with the .303 British besides it being a rimmed cartridge. Note that the Japanese used a semi-rimmed 7.7 round in their ground machine guns without any notable issues and the Russians continued with their 7.62 x 54R in semi and auto weapons again without any obvious problems.
Note that the British already tried to get rid of the .303 once before with the P13 rifle but that cartridge did not work out so well.
Some WW2 era sniper guns and even regular issue rifles from decades before were not as bad as you are implying. The No.4 Mk.I(T) actually was quite an accurate gun for the time. While a modern sniper rifle may be better for pure accuracy, those old guns were easily as accurate as some of the modern Designated Marksman guns. Ammunition usually was not as good, but FMJ rounds don't tend to be the best for accuracy. The assembly and tuning of the "Target" No.4 was a very elaborate process.
Note also that when the US was issuing the M1 Garand (especially the M1D) as a sniper gun, it was recognized that its accuracy was not as good as the bolt action sniper guns.
Hello Shortround6,
The problem with differing courses of fire and different sized targets means that the numbers being quoted are not really comparable even for the same nation. Note that the target sizes changed even in US service between the time the M1903 served and when the M16 served. How would we compare the L85 which is a contemporary of the M16?
12 rounds per minute seems a bit fast for Aimed fire for a M1903 that can be sustained for any reasonable length of time.
If that is a realistic number, then 15 rounds per minute is much too slow for a M16 firing semi automatic. Also with a M16, heat buildup takes a pretty long time to build up to the same levels as for the bigger cartridges, so it can't be a heat limitation.
Hello Tomo Pauk,
This sounds a bit more realistic.
I wasn't really arguing the merits of the .280. I was just noting (and perhaps I am remembering badly) that the .280 was pretty comparable to the .303 in velocity and trajectory if not in energy. The point was that the British would not have been giving up any great range capability by changing to a new cartridge.
Hello JAG88,
By agreement, all captured ships had to be disposed of within one year, so perhaps there simply wasn't the time to give it proper consideration.
A lot of US personnel were exposed to more than a safe dose of radiation while examining these ships between the test explosions.
- Ivan.
I just find odd they didnt care to properly test the equipment, they could have just removed the radar prior to bikini to test later but... maybe simply they thought KM surface units didnt warrant the attention... still seems weird, they were happy to test pretty much everything else.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Ok, enough of the flag waving - yes, Goddard was the father of Rocketry.
But the Chinese invented gunpowder, that means all of modern warfare is a moot point as to who did what and this and that, Cuz China!
The only contribution to WWII that Goddard's rocketry innovations provided, was the Bazooka. And just barely.
There is nothing wrong with a nation taking another nation's invention and improving on it. Case in point: Goddard developed modern rockets, Germany turned that into the Ballistic Missile and the U.S. perfected it.
The U.S. developed the first flying bomb (Kettering Bug) and Germany perfected it (V-1) and today, we have the cruise missile.
And back to the radar issue...yes, the U.S. and Britain had advanced radar and so did Germany. The German radar developed on a linear path to the U.S./British radar but the Soviet Union was lagging behind.
And after the war, guess who had access to German radar technology? The Soviets...so taking a close look and better understanding how the German radar system worked, also gave a good insight to what the Soviets may have been working with.
The Basket
Senior Master Sergeant
- 3,712
- Jun 27, 2007
The 303 could still be used today.
But it would be a cartridge dating back to the 1880s.
If you think any service rifle from 1940 can match a modern sniper rifle then please enlighten me.
If you think rimmed cartridges are so good why are no modern cartridges rimmed?
But it would be a cartridge dating back to the 1880s.
If you think any service rifle from 1940 can match a modern sniper rifle then please enlighten me.
If you think rimmed cartridges are so good why are no modern cartridges rimmed?
Shortround6
Major General
Rimmed cartridges had a few advantages in the late 1800s and very early 1900s. As we move into the later parts of the 20th century these advantages pretty much disappear.
The advantages had to do with the ability to insure reliable extraction of the fired case from the chamber. As the quality of the cartridge case material/s improved and the heat treatment of the material/s improved reliability extraction could be provided with much smaller rims and extractors.
With magazine and belt fed guns the rims present problems to gun design. In some cases the problems can be gotten around but if you don't need to deal with them in first place then why use a rimmed round?
I don't know how they rate different guns for rate of fire but I can think of a few variables. I also think that the 'fatigue' factor is a bit over blown but that may depend on the rifle in question. and perhaps even the weather
Some rifles were noted for the smoothness and ease with which the bolt moved. I don't have a lot of experience with the 1903 but I will tell you that getting your thumb jammed into your cheek (or the stock wacking your cheek bone) 10-12 times a minute is a lot more fatiguing than the effort it takes to operate the bolt. The 1903 (and some other old bolt actions) have a crappy design of stock for handling recoil.
A fair amount of muzzle rise when fired due to the drop in the stock.
Depending on the ammo, some batches had more tendency to stick in the chamber than other batches. Requiring more effort to raise the bolt handle but not pull it back. In hot weather (I wasn't kidding) or with a hot gun, or both, the pressure in the chamber is higher, the case is stretched a bit more and doesn't return to original shape quite as well making it harder to break free of the chamber walls, done on the lift of the bolt handle. If the bolt handle is all the way up and the case is still sticking you are in serious trouble.
I used to know a few target shooters that used different loads for the 200-300yd rapid fire stages than the 600yd slow fire stage. You don't need the last bit of velocity at 200-300yds. You do need a smooth running gun.
Dirt, sand, etc can muck things up and slow down cycling the bolt but is more getting crud in the chamber and causing extraction problems that increased friction in sliding the bolt back and forth. British deliberately used over sized chambers on the .303 to allow for this (an advantage of the rimmed case, case location in the chamber was governed by the rim and not the fit between the case and chamber walls). I don't know if other users of rimmed cases did that or not.
there are a number of factors that come into evaluating rifle accuracy. You have the difference in the rifles themselves, both design and manufacturing quality. you have differences in ammo. Both of those combine for mechanical accuracy. How good the sights are, trigger pull and how the rifle fits the shooter affect practical accuracy.
Most military rifles had to pass a firing test at the factory, this differed from country to country and differed at different time periods in the same country.
A typical test would consist of one or more "proof" rounds (special high pressure loads) to make sure there was no undiscovered manufacturing defect that would cause the gun to fail after a few service rounds were fired. Accuracy testing was often done with the gun dropped into a cradle and clamped down.
Lithgow Arsenal during WW II.
often selected lots of ammo would be used, you don't want to reject a bunch of guns because you used test ammo that just barely met specification.
But note the human eyesight and the testers ability to shoot has been removed from the test. If the gun fired an acceptable group , even if a bit high or low, left or right, it passed. Sight adjustment could be done.
However duplicating the factory test target with a soldier firing the gun is going to be a bit difficult.
The advantages had to do with the ability to insure reliable extraction of the fired case from the chamber. As the quality of the cartridge case material/s improved and the heat treatment of the material/s improved reliability extraction could be provided with much smaller rims and extractors.
With magazine and belt fed guns the rims present problems to gun design. In some cases the problems can be gotten around but if you don't need to deal with them in first place then why use a rimmed round?
I don't know how they rate different guns for rate of fire but I can think of a few variables. I also think that the 'fatigue' factor is a bit over blown but that may depend on the rifle in question. and perhaps even the weather
Some rifles were noted for the smoothness and ease with which the bolt moved. I don't have a lot of experience with the 1903 but I will tell you that getting your thumb jammed into your cheek (or the stock wacking your cheek bone) 10-12 times a minute is a lot more fatiguing than the effort it takes to operate the bolt. The 1903 (and some other old bolt actions) have a crappy design of stock for handling recoil.
A fair amount of muzzle rise when fired due to the drop in the stock.
Depending on the ammo, some batches had more tendency to stick in the chamber than other batches. Requiring more effort to raise the bolt handle but not pull it back. In hot weather (I wasn't kidding) or with a hot gun, or both, the pressure in the chamber is higher, the case is stretched a bit more and doesn't return to original shape quite as well making it harder to break free of the chamber walls, done on the lift of the bolt handle. If the bolt handle is all the way up and the case is still sticking you are in serious trouble.
I used to know a few target shooters that used different loads for the 200-300yd rapid fire stages than the 600yd slow fire stage. You don't need the last bit of velocity at 200-300yds. You do need a smooth running gun.
Dirt, sand, etc can muck things up and slow down cycling the bolt but is more getting crud in the chamber and causing extraction problems that increased friction in sliding the bolt back and forth. British deliberately used over sized chambers on the .303 to allow for this (an advantage of the rimmed case, case location in the chamber was governed by the rim and not the fit between the case and chamber walls). I don't know if other users of rimmed cases did that or not.
there are a number of factors that come into evaluating rifle accuracy. You have the difference in the rifles themselves, both design and manufacturing quality. you have differences in ammo. Both of those combine for mechanical accuracy. How good the sights are, trigger pull and how the rifle fits the shooter affect practical accuracy.
Most military rifles had to pass a firing test at the factory, this differed from country to country and differed at different time periods in the same country.
A typical test would consist of one or more "proof" rounds (special high pressure loads) to make sure there was no undiscovered manufacturing defect that would cause the gun to fail after a few service rounds were fired. Accuracy testing was often done with the gun dropped into a cradle and clamped down.
Lithgow Arsenal during WW II.
often selected lots of ammo would be used, you don't want to reject a bunch of guns because you used test ammo that just barely met specification.
But note the human eyesight and the testers ability to shoot has been removed from the test. If the gun fired an acceptable group , even if a bit high or low, left or right, it passed. Sight adjustment could be done.
However duplicating the factory test target with a soldier firing the gun is going to be a bit difficult.
No, AFAIK, the first flying "bomb" was actually the Siemens Schuckert fying torpedo developed throughout WW1.
Yep, rockets are an old technology, you correctly pointed to the V2 as the basis for many post war developments, and you got a 'Murica! response by someone else pointing to earlier and yet unrealized research the impact of which is still under discussion:
Robert Goddard Was the Father of American Rocketry. But Did He Have Much Impact? | Daily Planet | Air & Space Magazine
And you are right, a closer look to German radar would have given the west a better understanding of the Soviet starting point.
- Thread starter
- #79
They didn't copy the 'Mauser rifle in 7mm', nor the other two weapns that you did not provided any sources to back up the claims.
That's got nothing to do with me.
Rimmed cartridges are very much still in use, and are/were in used at decent/good/excellent machineguns for the last 130 years.
Seems to me that you are looking to much at what color the cat is, rather than whether it can catch the mice.
??
Nobody said that rimmed cartridges are the best thing after the canned beer.
Hello The Basket,
I believe the 7.62 x 54R Russian round was first used in the M1891 rifles which would make it about the same age.
It served through a revolution, two world wars, a bunch of smaller wars and is still in service today.
This was the cartridge used in the ShKAS aircraft machine guns which IIRC had a cyclic rate of up to 1800 rounds per minute.
There are a few notable differences between the 7.62 x 54R and the .303 British:
There isn't nearly the same amount of taper in the body of the case.
The chambers, from the few Soviet guns I have had a chance to look at, do not appear to have the same oversize radial dimensions and somewhat random case shoulder location.
I don't have headspace gauges for the 7.62 x 54R, but I do for the .303 British and if the surplus guns are any indication, the specifications are quite "generous" and tend to be on the long side in actual guns.
Service rifle versus a modern target / sniper rifle is not a fair comparison. You might want to compare older sniper rifles to modern "Designated Marksman" rifles. In a few cases I can think of, there isn't any real difference though there should be with modern technology improvements.
My belief is that in many cases, the ammunition of the time was a greater limitation than the quality of the firearm.
In comparing older sniper rifles to current guns, another great change is that modern optics are a tremendous improvement over the old rifle telescopes. Basically, $15-$20 at Walmart buys a better telescope than most of those mounted on WW2 era sniper rifles. Somewhere around here, I have an old Lyman scope of the same kind that was mounted on the M1903A4 sniper and it is NOT a particularly good instrument.
Rimmed cartridges are not ideal for self loading guns, but obviously they can be made to work reliably.
There are some kinds of guns for which they are still quite useful and there are still plenty of modern cartridges that are rimmed. When was the last time you saw a rimless revolver cartridge? (Yeah, I know .45 ACP and 9 mm Para CAN both be fired from some revolvers.)
- Ivan.
