U.S. Intelligence Report on Sturmgewehr 44

[Clay_Allison]

Renrich, I assume that you would also find the .223 Rem / 5.56NATO only marginally effective as a deer hunting cartridge too. It is quite effective in dispatching humans, even with fmj ammo though.

"I have a three screw Ruger Blackhawk in 41 magnum and the energy at 100 yards is about the same with a 210 grain bullet as the 30 carbine, 595 ft lbs. With the iron sights I can, from a rest, keep 3 rounds in a 20 inch bull at 100 yards so they seem to be somewhat close in performance."

I am looking at the Federal website and at 100 yards, the jhp 210gr .41 mag has 507fpe. The 30 Carbine 110gr fmj is listed at 597fpe at 100 yards. There is a 210 grain Swift A Frame bullet load for the .41 Mag that is showing 529fpe at 100 yards.

Neither one would I want to use in combat unless I had no other choice. "Ole ugly is better than ole nothing."

But the issue is whether in late 44 and 45 you would rather carry the Stg. 44 or .30 Carbine. I would rather carry an M1 Garand myself but as between the two at issue, I would rather have a .30 Carbine.

A friend of mine's uncle fought in WWII and get a medal for 11 confirmed kills. James doesn't know what medal it was. In any case he fought mostly in Italy and he said that the Carbine was very handy in those cramped Italian mountain towns.

 

[DAVIDICUS]

The Garand is a battle rifle. It's a big and heavy gun. It weighs about the same as the Stg. 44 assault rifle. The Stg. 44, just as heavy, is shorter affording better handling in tighter areas. The Garand also has much better sights and a much longer sight radius. The Stg. 44 wasn't very robust either while you could drive a jeep back and forth over the Garand no problem.

Robert Bruce's book "German Automatic Weapons Of World War II" published in 1997 discusses how the flimsy construction and heavy weight contributed to function impairing damage from merely dropping it on a concrete surface from a height of 1.65 meters ( 5' 5").

There is a story about how the British said that it could be damaged merely from being knocked over on a hard surface but that is an exaggeration.

 

[tomo pauk]

"With only 60% of energy (compared with 7,92 Kurz), I'd say .30 carbine is far less lethal."

Approximately 980fpe vs. 1,400fpe. It has 70%. But your math aside, you are again caught up in the energy as the measure for lethality.

Caught up!? Step out from the pedestal, please.
When comparing two cartridges firing not-that-different bullets, energy is indeed good measure. If you know a better way to compare those two, publish it.

The difference between the 7.62NATO in a battle rifle (2,520fpe) vs the improved 5.56NATO 77gr load out of an M4 assault rifle (1,246fpe) has the M4 with just 50% the energy of the M-14. By your logic, the 5.56NATO is "far less lethal" to a far greater degree than the .30 Carbine is to the 7.92Kurz.

Any logic would say 5.56 Nato is a great deal less lethal then 7.65 NATO, not only mine. Of course, 5.56 is capable to kill a man in normal battle conditions.

This is not the case so I again ask that you rethink your use of energy as the measure of lethality. Your conclusions would never prefer the use of assault rifles over battle rifles.

Now when I've said that? The assault rifle has all the lethality it needs, plus having automatic fire and greater ammo capacity then 'battle rifles" (I assume that FN FAL and M-14, along with other semi-auto rifles). OTOH, if we follow you logic, all today's armies would field a derivative of M-1 Carbine - not the case really.

"I agree with most of what you've said. But (always that 'but'), requiring from a soldier to hit the enemy in the stomach from 200-300 yds, while receiving enemy fire, is too much to ask."

This is the case with any rifle and a hit at 200-300 yards with a .30 Carbine or a 7.92Kurz would be indistinguishable to a doctor able to render immediate surgical aid. At 200 yards, both cartridges would likely fully penetrate a soldier as a 9mm at very close range with 124 gr fmj will fully penetrate a person's torso and the .30 Carbine with a 110gr. bullet at 200 yards has about the same velocity as the 9mm at the muzzle and has greater sectional density (.166) than the 9mm (.140). Moreover, the intelligence report was very critical of the Stg.'s accuracy but I do not know of any tests that would allow us to compare the two rifles against each other.

Since StG-44 was never bashed for it's "inaccuracy" by it's users (5 armed forces during or after the war, with some examples poping out in 21st century), I'd say that US intelligence report is in minority and conclude that StG-44 was as accurate as needed.

We're talking about the Stg 44 vs. the .30 Carbine. One weighs twice as much and is so unreliable in its operation that there is an official directive to refrain from full auto fire. It does have a 30 round capacity. The other weighs half, is fully automatic (.30 Carbines issued in the latter half of 1944 when the Stg. 44 were full auto), is very reliable but it has a magazine capacity of 15 rounds).

You would choose the Stg. 44. You apparently feel that the difference in lethality plus the higher magazine capacity would outweigh the reliability and weight issue.

Since the reliability was not an issue, while weight was normal for a fit soldier, I'd pick the StG-44 any day over M-1 Carbine.

I for one start from the position that any fully automatic rifle that is so unreliable as to trigger an official directive not to use full auto except in emergencies, and even then only in short bursts, is simply crap. There is no appreciable difference in lethality between the two. All things being equal, I believe that two forces, one with the .30 Carbine and one with the Stg. 44, would see the force with the .30 Carbine come out on top.

Since no army worth-speaking-of uses a variety of M-1 Carbine, while a vast majority uses the spiritual off-spring of StG-44, I'd say you're in minority.

.

 

[parsifal]

There are very good reasons for using short burst with automatic weapons. Controllability, and conserving your magazined ammo are the main reasons.

I have used automatic weapons in anger, and we never fired indisciminately. It was always short controlled bursts. spraying bulets everywhere is the stuff of Hollywood legend or the wild west, perhaps, but not for post war soldiering

 

[tomo pauk]

Yep, for longer bursts there are other weapons, mostly belt-fed ones, with tick barrels and bipod or tripod.

 

[DAVIDICUS]

"There are very good reasons for using short burst with automatic weapons. Controllability, and conserving your magazined ammo are the main reasons."

Yes. And had the intelligence report and German documents not stated that the reason was the inability to operate with sustained fire (jamming), I would never have started this post.

I would suggest Robert Bruce's book "German Automatic Weapons Of World War II" for further reading on complaints from German soldiers about reliability and the weapon's susceptibility to function impairing damage from merely being dropped on a concrete surface from 1.65 meters.

Also, on the issue of energy being a good indicator of lethality with "not-so-different bullets" I would recommend reading Martin Fackler's published tests and studies. He has debunked the "kinetic energy" killing theory. In reality, once you can hit the magical 12-14" of penetration, you are likely to kill and the .30 Carbine with it's 110gr. fmj bullet will do that easily at 350 yards through layers of denim. That extra 15 grains of lead and 250fps makes no practical effect. Dead, dead + 2 and dead + 6 all equal dead.

The Firearms Tactical Institute has also published extensively in this area as well. There are numerous ballistic gelatin tests that you can look up on the web that show the penetration of fmj 9mm bullets that have less sectional density than the .30 Carbine or 7.92Kurz. If a 124gr. 9mm fmj at 1,000 fps will penetrate 16-17", then you can bet that the .30 Carbine will make it past 12" through heavy clothing at 350 yards. At less than 300 yards, you are likely to get full penetration through the torso with the .30 Carbine just as you would get full penetration through a torso from a 9mm 124gr fmj bullet at the muzzle. With muzzle velocities in the 2,000-2,250fps range, you don't get permanent crush cavities. You are basically just poking a hole in your adversary and there is no practical difference in a 7.62mm and 7.92mm hole. (Again, read Dr. Fackler's work)

The Pig Board tests (Where they would shoot hundreds of pigs to figure out lethality and range), conducted by the US Army, found that the .30 Carbine had an effective range well beyond the 300 yards yards required by the Army.

Anyway something tells me that I am not going to change your mind.

 

[tomo pauk]

I really appreciate your inputs, mate

And I really do belive that M-1 Carbine is real threat to anyone's health if that person gets hit in the right part. The quirk is to really aim to the enemy, then the bullet negotiates the obstacles it could met, then the bullet hits where it counts. The bullet with greater energy would have more 'flat' trajectory, will less suffer (both in speed direction) if it hits a branch, part of a vehicle, window, part of light field fortification, piece of enemy gear, and retain more energy when entering the body.
In other words, if the enemy is exposed standing, he'd be killed without problems by M1 carbine (and by PPSh-41). Now if he's laying down behind a heap of earth, or behind a tree, or behind a vehicle, or running behind some picket fence, the same weapons would be in disadvantage vs. a more powerful one.

 

[Clay_Allison]

Give my grandfather an M1 carbine right now (he's 78 ) and I doubt you would stand at 300 yards telling him he can't hurt you with his inferior rifle.

 

[DAVIDICUS]

We don't ave to agree and I always learn a lot from everyone on this board including you. Truth be told, I also think the .30 Carbine is underpowered. I just don't think there is much practical difference between the two but you raise a good point about trajectory and more effective strikes through fence boards, glass, doors, etc.

The US military has been getting complaints about the 5.56NATO not putting the bad guys down with center of mass hits at longer ranges, especially in Afghanistan. Apparently, the use of the M4 with 14.5" barrel (as opposed to the M-16 with 20" barrel) bleeds just enough velocity off of the 62grain bullet to impact its effectiveness. The military was studying a switch to a 6.5mm 115-120grain bullet at about 2,500fps but perhaps due to the military unfriendly atmosphere in Washington with democrats controlling the executive and legislative branches and the monetary and political costs involved, they are apparently going to go with a 77 grain bullet (Mk 262) that will develop about 2,650fps and 1,200fpe in the M4. This round in testing has been shown to perform well up to of 300 yards. It is a v-e-r-y long bullet and begins to yaw after about 5" of penetration creating a more effective wound channel.

 

[DAVIDICUS]

Give my grandfather an M1 carbine right now (he's 78 ) and I doubt you would stand at 300 yards telling him he can't hurt you with his inferior rifle.

I wouldn't stand in front of a .22Lr at 300 yards! Dr. Fackler, who was a battlefield surgeon, established that you need less than 250fps to get a bullet to penetrate into a human body.

This is an interesting read that discusses temporary and permanent crush cavities. There is also a discussion regarding energy under "The Kinetic Energy Fallacy" at about page 6.

http://ammo.ar15.com/project/Fackler_Articles/effects_of_small_arms.pdf

WOUND PROFILE
...
Despite the greatly increased velocity (and more than double the kinetic energy) possessed by the new jacketed bullets, reliable historical accounts are unanimous in their observations that the tissue disruption and overall effect they caused was far less than that produced by earlier and slower lead bullets. [The newer bullets were of smaller caliber thus making smaller holes]


THE KINETIC ENERGY FALLACY
The erroneous assumption that the amount of kinetic energy "deposited" by a projectile is a measure of the damage it produces continues to mislead.
...
A large slow projectile will crush a large amount of tissue, whereas a small fast missile with the same kinetic energy will stretch more but crush less.
...
The kinetic energy fallacy is a smokescreen which hides the actual ways in which the projectile interacts with tissue. Authors who use "kinetic energy transfer" as an explanation of how a projectile causes a particular injury are missing the crux of wound ballistics, as well as spreading the worst kind of misinformation; that which induces complacency by masquerading as knowledge. How much better off the field would be if the words "kinetic energy" were erased from its vocabulary; then one would be forced to look into the mechanical interactions of projectiles and tissue wherein lies the key to understanding.


CONCLUSION
...
Recognizing that the penetrating projectile simply crushes tissue to form its hole and that the walls of certain parts of this hole may be dilated or stretched for a few milliseconds after the projectile passes, provides the basic foundation needed to understand the effects of projectiles on tissue. The characteristic wound produced by a given projectile is most accurately described by illustrating both crush and stretch tissue disruption along the entire tissue path. This foundation can be built upon by those who need more detail, but it must remain the logical basis for understanding.

 

[renrich]

Davidicus, my info on the 41 magnum came from page 276 of the NRA Handloading Guide and it was based on factory ballistics with a six inch barrel. The MV was 1350 fps and ME was 850 ft lbs. At 100 yards the bullet was still kicking along at 1130 fps. The ballistics on the 30 carbine were taken from the Hornaday Handbook and the bullet was a 110 grain round nose with a BC of .135. I really think we are in agreement on the 30 carbine, rifle and cartridge. The cartridge is underpowered and the rifle is not very accurate but still better than a pistol, in most cases. If we had gone to Europe in 62 to confront the Warsaw Pact, I promised myself that I would get something more effective than the carbine but fortunately for the US and the 49th AD, and me, we did not have to go. As I mentioned in another thread though, Karamojo Bell is supposed to have killed hundreds of African elephants with either the 6.5 Mannlicher or the 7x57 Mauser. That does not prove that those cartridges are good to hunt elephant with. In fact trying those cartridges against elephant is a good formula for getting oneself killed. Concerning the 30 carbine, when you combine the poor accuracy inherent in the firearm and cartridge, the rainbow trajectory and the lack of "stopping power", I still say that most of those who liked it did so because of it's portability. I agree also with you that I don't want to stand 300 yards in front of anyone with a 22 LR and Clay don't be discriminating against us seventy somethings. I am almost 75 and can still shoot a little.

 

[tomo pauk]

Give my grandfather an M1 carbine right now (he's 78 ) and I doubt you would stand at 300 yards telling him he can't hurt you with his inferior rifle.

Ditto what DAVIDICUS said

 

[tomo pauk]

We don't ave to agree and I always learn a lot from everyone on this board including you. Truth be told, I also think the .30 Carbine is underpowered. I just don't think there is much practical difference between the two but you raise a good point about trajectory and more effective strikes through fence boards, glass, doors, etc.

The US military has been getting complaints about the 5.56NATO not putting the bad guys down with center of mass hits at longer ranges, especially in Afghanistan. Apparently, the use of the M4 with 14.5" barrel (as opposed to the M-16 with 20" barrel) bleeds just enough velocity off of the 62grain bullet to impact its effectiveness. The military was studying a switch to a 6.5mm 115-120grain bullet at about 2,500fps but perhaps due to the military unfriendly atmosphere in Washington with democrats controlling the executive and legislative branches and the monetary and political costs involved, they are apparently going to go with a 77 grain bullet (Mk 262) that will develop about 2,650fps and 1,200fpe in the M4. This round in testing has been shown to perform well up to of 300 yards. It is a v-e-r-y long bullet and begins to yaw after about 5" of penetration creating a more effective wound channel.

Glad to know there is no bad blood

For the standard 5.56 in M-4, it does have the issues light--fast bullets have - if one 'steals' a small amount of velocity out of it, the energy drops noticeably. That's why I like the proposed 6.8 6.5mm cartridges, but guess only small quantities would be issued, if any, to the military.

 

[DAVIDICUS]

"For the standard 5.56 in M-4, it does have the issues light--fast bullets have - if one 'steals' a small amount of velocity out of it, the energy drops noticeably."

The new Mk. 262 round has less energy than the 62 gr round. Remember that velocity is a greater component of energy than weight. Double the weight and you double the energy. Double the velocity and you quadruple the energy. Moving up to a heavier bullet eats up energy through the loss of velocity more than can be made up by having a heavier projectile.

The newer Mk. 262 round is more effective because of its yawing properties. The standard 62gr round needs a certain amount of velocity to penetrate, yaw and fragment and the bleed off from the 14.5" barrels, at long range, leaves the operator just punching little .22 cal holes in the bad guys.

The 77gr round in the M4 is more effective than the 62gr round out of the 20" barrel.

 

[renrich]

Does the new longer bullet have a better BC so that it retains it's velocity better? For instance, what is it's velocity compared to the standard bullet a t 250 yards.

 

[DAVIDICUS]

"For instance, what is it's velocity compared to the standard bullet a t 250 yards."

I don't know but the problem with the 62grain bullet in the M4 was that at long range, it didn't achieve the designed penetration then yaw and fragmentation characteristics that allowed the use of such a small round. The new l-o-n-g bullet makes a very effective permanent crush cavity when it yaws.

 

[Clay_Allison]

Does the new longer bullet have a better BC so that it retains it's velocity better? For instance, what is it's velocity compared to the standard bullet a t 250 yards.

Yes, it actually started life as a Match Target round and carries energy downrange very well for a .223.