Rifles and Machineguns of WW2

[renrich]

Yes, you are correct about 150 grain ball ammo. That is what was used when I trained with the M1. However, my references on a/c weaponry in ww2 show that the .30 cal gun had a rate of fire of 1200 rpm, with a bullet that weighed .0314 lbs or 220 grains at 2660 feet per second MV. I suppose that if the infantry was modifying a/c guns to use with a shoulder stock and a bipod, they might have used AAF ammunition also. That would have made a potent ground weapon with AP rounds.

 

[Matt308]

News to me that different loadings were used for US .30cal aircraft weapons versus ground use. I suspect that your numbers are incorrect.

 

[renrich]

The data came from a table in "America's Hundred Thousand" which seems to be very authoritative and well researched but it certainly could be in error. Interestingly in trying to research the 30 cal aircraft gun online I discovered that because the gun was lightened so much for aircraft use the rate of fire went from 600-700 rpm to 1200-1300 rpm. Also in the aforementioned table they listed the muzzle velocity of the 220 grain bullet as around 2600 fps whereas my handloading manual has the maximum muzzle velocity of the 220 gr bullet as 2447 fps. However the machine gun must have had a barrel in excess of 26 inches so with a slow burning powder they may have been able to attain the higher velocity with out excessive chamber pressure. I know this, if I was trying to bring down a Zero with a 30 cal from the after cockpit of an SBD I would much rather be shooting with 220 gr at 2600fps than with the 150 gr at 2750 fps given the better ballistic coefficent and better sectional density of the 220 gr bullet.

 

[Soren]

A 220gr bullet wasn't availabe in 30.cal, not even for a/c. The heaviest .30 cal projectile in use was the 172 gr M1 Ball or the Match round. (The latter not being available for the military)

Also the .30-06 round with a 220gr bullet would never achieve 2,660 fps, the caliber is simply to small. The German 8x57 IS round however would probably be capable of propelling a 220gr bullet to 2,600 + fps, however the pressures achieved would make it unsuitable for small-arms.

 

[CharlesBronson]

What about the Johnson automatic rifle ?

Extracted from: "The machine gun Vol I" James M. Chinn

 

[Matt308]

The integral 10rd magazine was somewhat problematic. But the quick change barrel and relatively light weight were plusses.

 

[Soren]

That thing will only go upwards from round one and up, and fast !

I'd rather have a FG-42 as its probably alot more accurate, faster firing and then its got a muzzle brake to lessen the enormous recoil generated by those full powered rifle rounds.

 

[Matt308]

...and it wasn't all that accurate. The paratroopers loved it though. With the detachable barrel and .30-06 chambering, it was deemed by some to be better equipment than the M1 carbine.

 

[renrich]

Speaking of machine guns and WW2 there is another thread where you gentlemen with experience are discussing the M60 and a sustained rate of fire. I fired an M60 on the range right after it came out and enjoyed my brief exposure. However, I saw on the history channel some time ago the story about the Browning cal.30 water cooled machine gun and when it was demonstrated to the US Army. I am afraid I can't remember how long it was fired without a stoppage but it was an unbelievable number of rounds and it seems like it was a number of hours. Whatever it was I bet they used a lot of water keeping it from melting.

 

[Soren]

Probably linked up to a water-pump, continiously pumping cool water into the container surrounding the barrell - these things could shoot for an amazing period of time:

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Speaking of machine guns and WW2 there is another thread where you gentlemen with experience are discussing the M60 and a sustained rate of fire. I fired an M60 on the range right after it came out and enjoyed my brief exposure.

I concur and I never had a problem with mine.

 

[renrich]

Soren, I think you are right because I remember seeing in the film something like a water pump hooked up to the water jacket. I wish I could remember the length of time it fired and the number of rounds.

 

[Matt308]

It was connected to an condensor can. Liquid water was heated around the barrel, converted to steam, condensed and recycled back to the water can. Efficent for emplacement sustained fire, but too cumbersome for field use.

 

[CharlesBronson]

Vickers ?...completely outdated for WW2.

The integral 10rd magazine was somewhat problematic. But the quick change barrel and relatively light weight were plusses.

I read somewhere that the side mag gave some stability troubles, I guess some weak hands guys in there.

 

[Soren]

It was connected to an condensor can. Liquid water was heated around the barrel, converted to steam, condensed and recycled back to the water can. Efficent for emplacement sustained fire, but too cumbersome for field use.

And one the reasons that it could sustain fire for so long was undoubtedly also because of the low RoF, some 400 rpm if I'm not mistaking.

 

[102first_hussars]

I concur and I never had a problem with mine.

Yeah i read about so many reliability problems, but never from the people who have actually fired the thing, the M240 GPMG, is an awesome weapon but its so easy to fold the barrel its not even funny, i dont understand why the US opted for it over the M-60

 

[ndicki]

I used to be a GPMG (FN MAG) gunner at one stage during my training - very good weapon! If you don't believe me, then why have nearly all the "serious" users preferred it over the M-60? Start with South Africa, Rhodesia, Israel, UK, New Zealand, etc, etc... I thought that apart from the belt problem inherent to all belt-fed guns, it was spot-on.

 

[trackend]

My old man liked the Lewis although a bit prone to stoppages he said it was very accurate with up to 700 rpm giving a fare rate of fire, and when he saw this pic he said it must have been better than he thought as even the imperial troops are still using them.

 

[renrich]

Yesterday I had an interesting discussion with a gentleman who is a retired western Colorado rancher. He has been a shooter all his life and said at one time he owned 17 firearms. His last elk hunting was done with a 264 Win Mag. I say all this to qualify what I am about quote him as saying.He and I were talking about how useless we felt the M1 carbine was and he was on Omaha Beach in the 1st Div on D-Day and said there were numerous carbines lying about where the owners had abandoned them in favor of a Garand when one became available.

 

[Matt308]

You bet. But your trading range for less ammo and about 4lbs. I would have done that too. Assuming I could also get the bandoliers for reloads. M1 Carbine is about a 200yd max weapon. Certainly it will shoot farther, but likelihood of hitting anything with decent cover at longer ranges is probably a waste of ammo. I own both and my Carbine has better inherent accuracy than most. 4-5 MOA just won't cut it at long ranges against enemy in defilade.