Some observations on WW II small arms, and bit on artillery.

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

The main problem I have with Carcano's as an observer ( I haven't shot one) is that while the WW I version may have been OK or even pretty good, I am not sure what they had in WW II.

Trying to rechamber old rifles for new ammunition sometimes works and sometimes it doesn't. The old Carcano's used gain twist rifling, it either started out straight or with a gentle twist in front of the chamber and the twist changed as it went to muzzle ending the fast twist needed for long 6.5mm bullets. Switching to a shorter spitzer bullet or even a roughly the same length spitzer bullet means a long jump to the rifling which may hurt accuracy. The idea behind the expensive form of rifling was to keep the pressure down, 1890s/1900 powder built pressure quickly, was thought to deform the bullet less and offered better barrel live. It was not widely copied in small arms. I have no idea how well it worked.
Problems start with some of the later carbines where they just whack the barrel off an existing long rifle to save money. I have no idea what that did to the accuracy, perhaps nothing? perhaps made the rifles open their groups? Perhaps they did OK with the shorter range sights the carbines got?
A lot of questions.
The 7.35 conversion also has some questions.
Story goes that the 7.35 was chosen as the smallest change that clean out all the old rifling from existing barrels and allow them to be re-rifled. Seeing a trend for cheap here?
regardless we have problem in that the 7.35 Carcano rifle/carbines have about one of the worst sights used on a WW II military rifle.
Either 100% fixed or perhaps a single folding leave. Now got to Africa where the enemy can see you hundreds of yards away, Even the cheapest No 4 Enfield had a two position aperture to allow for some sort of engagement at 500-600yds.

Now this is compounded by the lack of machineguns in the Italian army. most armies had one machinegun per squad or 3-4 per platoon. One Italian infantry structure had sort of a 4 squad platoon? but it broke down into two units and each of these units had a LMG squad/section and a rifle squad. So your roughly 40 man platoon only had to two of the Breda M 30 ( in strong competition for the worst LMG ever built) and unlike the Americans where they counterbalanced the BAR ( a paragon compared to the Breda 30) with one the best rifles of the war. The Italian riflemen had about the worst sight for long range (500-600 yds) put on a rifle.

I am not trying to judge the condition or accuracy of 80 year old guns and ammo, I am trying to judge the concept/s tactical thinking of the weapon selection.
Ian from Forgotten Weapons actually considers the Model 38 Carcanos to be among the best World War II rifles built from the standpoint that they were simple, inexpensive, judges the fixed sights as a concession to realistic combat where most rifleman couldn't hit much of anything beyond 2-300 yards/meters, and that the 6.5 and 7.35mm rounds were more like modern intermediate rounds.

I will agree with the fixed sights not being ideal (the Finns, who received almost 200K 7.35mm Carcano rifles and carbines, certainly thought so). Even modern rifles like the HK416/417 and the SCAR 16/17 have adjustable sights on them (rear only for HKs, front and rear for the SCAR). Though in fairness, the iron sights are meant as back ups for optics, but that's not quite the point here.

For sure, the Breda Model 30 IMO is probably the worst automatic weapon ever made IMO. Even the Chauchat (at least the 8mm Lebel versions) were better.
And speaking of Italy, look at the motley collection of arms used in the AOI (Italian East Africa). This is where a lot of World War I reparation cast offs (Austrian Mannlicher straight pulls and Swartloze medium machine guns included) went. I'd bet that logistics there were a nightmare.

Users who are viewing this thread