Rifles and Machineguns of WW2

[renrich]

I trained and qualified(expert) with the Garand in the US Army and I don't recall any mention of replacing a partially filled clip with a full clip and it seems to me it would be a difficult evolution especially on the battlefield. I also qualified with the M14 later and have fired the M1A quite a lot and I still prefer the Garand as far as reloading a fresh clip versus the magazine of the M14. You don't have to rotate the weapon and look down and make sure the magazine is fed in correctly but of course you don't have to reload the M14 as often. The M1 clips are less bulky to carry also.

 

[Matt308]

Bravo Renrich. Expert even. Interesting that you prefer the M1 vs the M14. Do you think that is prejudice from your training, or a real technical advantage. The M14 has stripper clips too. But I have found that most users just keep full mags on hand versus bandoliers of stripper clips.

I think we are getting a little off topic with our discussions of M14s. And for that I apologize, as I was the dolt the introduced that point.

And f-d-l, my apologies for using the Einstein label. You had my ire up. Wish you hadn't held back and left your original post with "less civil tone". I would have liked to see that.

 

[fer-de-lance]

It is obviously not SOP in the U.S. armed forces but the M1 was supplied to Allied Forces. As late as the 1980's, University students in some Asian countries received their military training as part of national service using the M1. This specific question of not being able to "top up" was raised and an instructor demonstrated this nifty move to prove that you could have a fully loaded M1 rather quickly a pinch.

Yes, I am aware what happens to the rounds when a partial clip is ejected. Matter of fact, I actually have the experience of having my @ss in the air picking up loose 30-06 bullets from an ejected M1 clip in the home of an ex-USMC NCO ...

Given that one only carry 100 rounds, is it practical to do this on a regular basis? I don't think the wide-eyed students witnessing the move were thinking about that! It was a very narrowly defined question of can it be done in a pinch and the answer was YES.

Regarding wound ballistics, unless you are prepared to follow up on my question regarding the relevance of Strasbourg to the present discussion on rifle bullets, let's just leave the speculation about anyone "parrotting" things from "textbooks" .. (especially when one had not not quoted.)

Without some of the very lively debate seen in the journals like the ones I quoted, one should be very worried about whether the most appropriate and evidence-based treatments are brought to bear should one sustain a wound from a high velocity projectile. It's fine and dandy as an academic discussion but when one's own "sorry @ss" is on the line ... or the operating table ...!?

Consider the debate on the necessity of "radical debridement" for managing high velocity projectile wounds that was still going on in the 1990's.

Why should you care? Because, taken to one extreme, surgeons would be excising (cutting off) good tissue simply because of a belief that it was necessary when the wound was caused by a high velocity projectile. That tissue in question could be muscle in a limb - consider the consequences.

This "belief" was reinforced by years of "tradition" and lecturing like it was the gospel. Trust me, I've heard those lectures in the 80s (and believed them ..). Conversion from the "eminence-based" to an "evidence-based" approach was not a short and easy process ...

 

[fer-de-lance]

And f-d-l, my apologies for using the Einstein label. You had my ire up. Wish you hadn't held back and left your original post with "less civil tone". I would have liked to see that.

No apology needed, but what purpose would an uncivil tone and a partisan approach serve?

Can I not get my point across in a calm but firm and reasonable manner ...(okay ... without resorting to quoting journal references ...) ?

 

[Matt308]

No apology needed, but what purpose would an uncivil tone and a partisan approach serve?

Can I not get my point across in a calm but firm and reasonable manner ...(okay ... without resorting to quoting journal references ...) ?

It would have made the discussion more lively, if nothing else.

And "radical debridgement"??? I'll ask again, where do you find this $hit. Your 1935 quotes seem spot on. You go, man.

 

[fer-de-lance]

Okay, you got me on that one ... I will have to "Parrot" a textbook (actually 2): ...

"Debridement" is a medical term referring to the removal of dead, damaged, or infected tissue to improve the healing potential of the remaining healthy tissue. The word "débridement" is originally French. It was used for the first time during the eighteenth century in the surgical context and meant "wound incision." For French surgeons, it has retained to this day its original meaning.

Eh, yes, it is "-bride" but pronounced with a short "i" by the purists ... Perhaps to avoid snide allusions to the "Droit de Cuissage" (right of a feudal lord to sleep with the bride of a vassal on her wedding night ... You know, "de-bride" ... Oh, never mind!)

Left untreated, high velocity projectile wounds with much tissue destroyed and bacterial contamination would likely become infected. Gas gangrene can ensue, resulting in ... amputation ... death.

Surgically removing as much dead tissue you can find (and may be some that looks "marginal") and delaying closing of the wound has been shown to be the best way to prevent infection in the pre-antibiotic days.

With improvements in antibiotics etc, adjustments have been made to try and preserve more viable tissue.

However, if you don't have anything else to deal with an infected wound, maggots (fly larvae) have been used. Johns Hopkins pioneered it in the 1930's and now (after a hiatus of many years due in part to people being "grossed out") there is now a "growing" business for supplying disinfected Lucilia sericata larvae as "medicinal maggots" to practitioners for dealing with things like infected diabetic leg ulcers ...

The maggots basically eat the dead and infected tissue and leave healthy tissue unaffected. This biological "debridement" help prevent worsening of the infection. Medicinal maggots have saved many an infected limbs from amputation ... (I will spare you the published references but there are many). When the dead tissue is gone, the maggots starve and die - sad (for the fly), but conventient (for the patient).

There are stories of medics in POW camps lacking medical supplies and surgical facilities using maggots to treat infected high velocity projectile wounds.

There were descriptions of dressings left opened to allow flies to lay eggs in the wounds. When you had no other options (the wound is infected and a known proportion of patients is expected to die of infection anyway), the incremental risk of the fly bringing bacteria to the wound is outweighed by the potential good of the maggots debriding the wound.

It's pretty gruesome but during WWII and the Korean War, lives and limbs in POW camps have been saved this way. It was one of the dirty/clean little secrets that the medics kept to themselves ... (Imagine getting the patient's consent for this procedure!)

 

[renrich]

I was in "hog heaven" in basic having that war winning Garand and an almost unlimited supply of free ammo on the KD range. I had never fired a big bore rifle but had grown up hunting jack rabbits on a farm in Gonzales County, Texas with my Grandfather"s "target" a 22 bolt action Winchester and a box of 22 shorts (all I could afford) which cost 35 cents in those days. The little rifle had open sights and, maybe a faulty memory, but because of a lot of shooting and learning the proper hold over, I killed a number of rabbits at ranges out to 120 yards while they were sitting and got to be fair at hitting them on the run. Anyway, the Garand was a lot of fun for me and my particular issued rifle seemed to be quite accurate and I never had a stoppage, maybe because I gave it lavish care. I am prejudiced toward the Garand but later when using the M14 I just never liked that big box magazine sticking out. I also qualified with the M1 carbine but would not want to carry one in combat. Also qualified with the 1911 Government Model and have one of those in my house as well as many other pieces. I was never in combat(thank the Lord) but have killed many a head of big game since those days on the KD range and have done a lot of hand loading. Any comparison of the wound ballistics of the German, British and US service calibers as far as the issue muskets is concerned would show there is not much advantage for any of them over the others. The 3006 round which is the fodder the Garand used might be a little light for some of the dangerous species but properly loaded and with proper placement of the bullet it will kill any game animal in the world and is way more than adequate for the human animal. As far as reaching out the Garand and it's bullet will out perform almost any rifleman using it with the issue peep sight.

 

[Matt308]

Any comparison of the wound ballistics of the German, British and US service calibers as far as the issue muskets is concerned would show there is not much advantage for any of them over the others.

From one fellow handloader to another, may I say thankyou for a respite of common sense. Bravo.

 

[Matt308]

Okay, you got me on that one ... I will have to "Parrot" a textbook (actually 2): ...

"Debridement" is a medical term referring to the removal of dead, damaged, or infected tissue to improve the healing potential of the remaining healthy tissue. The word "débridement" is originally French. It was used for the first time during the eighteenth century in the surgical context and meant "wound incision." For French surgeons, it has retained to this day its original meaning.

Eh, yes, it is "-bride" but pronounced with a short "i" by the purists ... Perhaps to avoid snide allusions to the "Droit de Cuissage" (right of a feudal lord to sleep with the bride of a vassal on her wedding night ... You know, "de-bride" ... Oh, never mind!)

Left untreated, high velocity projectile wounds with much tissue destroyed and bacterial contamination would likely become infected. Gas gangrene can ensue, resulting in ... amputation ... death.

Surgically removing as much dead tissue you can find (and may be some that looks "marginal") and delaying closing of the wound has been shown to be the best way to prevent infection in the pre-antibiotic days.

With improvements in antibiotics etc, adjustments have been made to try and preserve more viable tissue.

However, if you don't have anything else to deal with an infected wound, maggots (fly larvae) have been used. Johns Hopkins pioneered it in the 1930's and now (after a hiatus of many years due in part to people being "grossed out") there is now a "growing" business for supplying disinfected Lucilia sericata larvae as "medicinal maggots" to practitioners for dealing with things like infected diabetic leg ulcers ...

The maggots basically eat the dead and infected tissue and leave healthy tissue unaffected. This biological "debridement" help prevent worsening of the infection. Medicinal maggots have saved many an infected limbs from amputation ... (I will spare you the published references but there are many). When the dead tissue is gone, the maggots starve and die - sad (for the fly), but conventient (for the patient).

There are stories of medics in POW camps lacking medical supplies and surgical facilities using maggots to treat infected high velocity projectile wounds.

There were descriptions of dressings left opened to allow flies to lay eggs in the wounds. When you had no other options (the wound is infected and a known proportion of patients is expected to die of infection anyway), the incremental risk of the fly bringing bacteria to the wound is outweighed by the potential good of the maggots debriding the wound.

It's pretty gruesome but during WWII and the Korean War, lives and limbs in POW camps have been saved this way. It was one of the dirty/clean little secrets that the medics kept to themselves ... (Imagine getting the patient's consent for this procedure!)

Excellent.

 

[renrich]

Thanks Matt. Handloading is the best way I know of to really learn about the effectiveness of all the different loads and calibers out there.

 

[Snautzer01]

Maybe this paper is of intrest to you all

 

[bf109 Emil]

you gota like the .303 caliber De Wilde ammo used in Spits and hurricanes...makes a nice flash when it hits it's target, and doesn't give away bouncing an enemy does like silly tracer rounds for the poor aiming lads...
Dad brought tons of this back, and on the farm i think us kids used to shot nearly every tree and old car in the fields just to see this...

bf109 Emil

 

[Soren]

Fer-de-lance,

The 7.92x57mm IS does have more stopping power than the 30.06 and may be used for larger game as-well. The rifles chambered in 7.92x57mm IS were used as elefant guns by both British Americans hunters in Africa because it was the only regular round capable of taking down an elefant, the .30 cal and .303 proving inadequate. Now this is also much in part because of the much heavier and efficient projectiles used in the 7.92x57mm round at that time offering a much better penetrative performance.

Now against a human being within 500m there's no difference, all three rounds are just as lethal nomatter where you hit, the cavitation effect being enormous.

 

[Phantom Rocks]

very nice.........

i dont get it, if the lancaster kicks ass, you do you have a picture of a meteor?

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

i dont get it, if the lancaster kicks ass, you do you have a picture of a meteor?

If the Phantom rocks so much, why dont you have a picture of a phantom?

 

[CharlesBronson]

MG 34 and MG 34s emplacements in concrete and steel bunkers.

The quoted muzzle velocity ( 755 mps) is only with the SS ( schweres spitzgeschoss, heavy pointed bullet) ammunition, with the S.m.E and S.m.K it increased between 5 to 10 %.

 

[renrich]

The German machine pistol, I think it was called the Schmeiser(?) was chambered for the 9mm para bellum and some of the British Sten guns were also. Just finished reading an article about the 38 Super and had this thought. The 38 Super had more muzzle energy with some bullets than the 45 ACP, which was what the Thompson gun used and the 9 MM. Seems like an updated 38 Super in the Thompson and the M3(?) grease gun would have made a fine sub machine gun cartridge. In fact, it might still be a better cartridge than the 9 MM in that use in the modern guns. Any thoughts?

 

[CharlesBronson]

Is not a bad idea, the 38 super left the muzzle with about 415-430 mps, compared with 370-90 in the 9x19 para.

The only submachineguns using this 9x23mm I think were spanish. Actually it wasnt the 38 super but a very similar catrigde, the 9mm largo, the largo is a 38mm super without the semi-rim, otherwise the power and dimensions are the same.

An example is this the Star Z-45, copy of the MP-40 ( wich by the way was designed by Heinrich Vollmer of Erfurter Maschinenfabrik ERMA) but in the 9mm largo, the 9x19 wasnt used in Spain until 1982.

 

[renrich]

I read online that some Super 38 rounds, out of a pistol barrel, had 495 foot pounds of muzzle energy and one might think it would retain velocity better than the 45 ACP.

 

[tomo pauk]

Sure enough, .45 is a sucker when it comes down to aerodynamics.

Folks, were the 10mm Auto and/or .40 S&W ever considered as the choice for SMG rounds?