Should the Amercians have gone for the FN FAL instead of the M14 rifle ? Was it a case of "it ain't made here in the good old US of A" mentality ? Similarity with the Model 1917 rifle and the 03 Springfield.

What do you guys think ?

Hi well considering the standard NATO round was 7.62mm ,the USA usually does what it feels like ,when NATO still had the 7.62mm america decided to go with the M16 and the 5.56mm ,so yes I would say it should have gone for the FN FAL or SLR aswhat us brits called it ,this would have standardised weapons with a countries ,also since when has the USA really bought anything from europe in the last 50 years ? .

Thomas

The M1917 was not notably better the the existing M1903. They only bothered with a second pattern of rifle because it was already being manufactured in .303 for the British. After the Great War, they didn't need two different rifles in production and returned to their pre-war standard.

I'm not so sure that a standardized NATO rifle would ahve made much of a difference, especially as most nations would have insisted on making their own and parts for each version might not be interrchangable in any event. (Were Belgian, British, and Canadian FAL's interchangeable? I get the impression they were not but could be mistaken.)

As far as I can tell, performance of M14 and FAL were close enough to be identical. Unless the FAL would have been notably cheaper, there isn't any other reason to pick it over the M14 or vice versa.

What does seem to have been a mistake, was going to the M60 instead of the MAG 58, but they finally gave in on that one.

As for European small arms bought in the last half century, there is the Beretta 92F pistol and both the MAG and the MINIMI.

Hi the only thing different that the british one from the fn fal was we couldnt fire on automatic ,unless you knew how to do it that is ,everything else was the same .

The L1A1 had diagonal milling cuts in the bolt carrier to carry dirt away. IIRC it also lacked the hold-open feature found on metric FALs.

Hi you could open and hold on the SLR ! ,I fired it enough when I was in the TA for 15 years ,the SLR was my weapons before we got the SA80 .

I have read that the M14 was choosen because it was close in manufacturing to the M1 and would not require as much retooling. The Fal tested better than the M14.

Depends what you mean by "hold-open", Chris. There was a catch to hold the working parts back for inspection or changing mags, but the bolt carrier did not automatically lock to the rear after the last round. Which I assume is why they had the cunning bit of the APWT where you engaged a series of six targets with double-taps using a mag of five and a mag of seven...

all the best

BillB

[edited for appalling numeracy ]

All that was needed was the insertion of a pin about 5mm long by 1mm in the holing open devise. All the mags had the cut away in them for the pin to be operated by the plate as it came up. I acquired my holding open devise from an FN DP. The SLR could easily be modified to fire auto, but you better not get caught. another difference was that early FNs had only half the top cover, at the point where the ejection opening was on the SLR the cover was cut away and two prongs stuck out. This enabled you to charge the mag from clips through the top with out removing the mag. It had a fixed post in the rear sight and the gas plug was different.

Wow, a real "classic" thread :-)

IMHO: the FAL had a pistol grip - good
easier cleaning - good
anybody nowadays around useing the M 14 got it for free, LOTS of nations paid to get the FAL - ???
Scope mounting sucked with both

If only it would have been accepted with 7 mm reduced power round ( British ) and 25 to 30 round mags, it still would be king. Who the hell insisted on .308 ( not that its a bad round, just slightly too powerful )???

I would love a FAL ( even semi - no problem ) for pig hunting in .308, but the laws are against it!

H

Although Commonwealth and Metric FALs are very similar, they share only few interchangeable parts. In addition, inch pattern magazines do not fit to metric FALs; metric mags fit to inch pattern FALs but may not work properly.

As for the NATO standard rifle; I am unsure whether US decision had much real effect. I believe CETME/G3 was actually more popular within NATO than FAL. M14 and FAL test results were relatively close; the big factor in favour of M14 was it's supposed commonality with Garand and hence cost savings in manufacturing, but it appears that in reality such savings were relatively minor or non-existing. History has judged FAL as superior weapon as M-14 didn't score any real successes in export markets, but there may be other factors there.

Overall, the real blunder was already done when NATO failed to adopt 7*49 as their standard calibre, so whatever rifles were adopted in already-obsolete 7.62*51 was largely superfluous.

Would this be the same "obsolete" caliber that lasted well into the 1990's as a first line service rifle caliber, and which is still the standard machinegun caliber all over the world?

Exactly. Notice the long-lasting effects of that fateful decision.

Notice I meant its not the perfect Assault rifle caliber. Its a great caliber. Good for the GPMG.

But the good ole ´06 would have done nicely for the GPMG ( even better IMO ) and the 7.62x45 CZ or 6.5 mm Mannlicher Schönauer ( spitzer bullets ) or the 7 mm British or even the 25 Rem for the assault rifle.

Fine thread!

H

250 savage would be better imo than the 25 remington. though the remington had a smaller diameter case, it was iirc longer.

What effects? How "fateful" was the decision? The M-14, FAL, and G3 were all good, serivceable rifles. I would gladly carry any of them in combat. This whole discussion is about personal preference, not about anything real.

Nobody disputed those rifles weren't good. But they would have been lighter and handier with smaller caliber, with more useful automatic fire. Not to mention ammo being lighter and cheaper. Only advantage which 7.62*51 has is power, which I see as very trivial. It ain't coincidence that pretty much everyone has abandoned full powered battle rifles.

So? A "fateful" decision, in this context, would be one that made a difference to military operations at some point in time. I can't see that the initial or continued issue of 7.62mm battle rifles ever had that kind of effect. If anything, the issue of the M16 prior to being ready for prime time is the one small arm decision in recent history that qualifies as "fateful".

How does the 7.62 standard round compare to the 6.5mm as used by the Mauser? I'm asking since the GPMG/MAG/Ksp58/whatever originally was chambered for the 6.5 in Sweden (in an effort to reduce the immense number of rounds we had lying around). The MAG was designed specifically to be cheap to switch to 7.62 (Sweden was the initial customer for it). Could you have built an assault rifle using the 6.5?

Yes, and Americans would have won in WW2 even if they had retained M1903 and never adopted Garand. So what? It doesn't mean that latter is not a superior weapon.

308 is slightly more powerful than 6.5*55, but not by much. I think that 6.5 is an excellent caliber and by far the best of old (pre-WW2) military calibres which actually saw use; however it has the inherent problem that it is very old and it's pressure maxims are bit on the low side by todays standards and it can't quite take advantage of modern propellants; if it was designed today, it could be designed somewhat shorter without sacrificing any power. So by modern standards, although it still has excellent ballistics it has some "baggage" and it's not perhaps as 'efficient' as it could be. In my opinion not really very suitable to assault rifle calibre - slightly less power and recoil than 7.62*51 but just as heavy and bulky. For sniper rifle, though...

Here we go again. I think comments like these are better reserved for the FFZ as they are, even on the face of it, pretty facile. Right off the top of my head:
Harrier, Penguin, B-57, Beretta pistol, since this is Tanknet I'll toss in the Brit 105mm and German 120mm, OTO cannon on a lot of ships, in-country purchase of vehicles including that rotten VW diesel truck that maxed out at 55mph I had to drive the length of Germany, Sapphire engines (J65?), Shorts transport for in-country delivery, Minimi, I could continue but you get the point.

Now, to the "Grate Gun Debate ™."

The Krag and SMLE were contemporary. Both have a "disadvantage," and the actual effect of this weakness is almost nil but let's skip that for now, of having rimmed rounds. Prior to WW1, the US decided to go to a Mauser arm, after having seen Spanish ones in the S/A war. The Model 1903 was the result. Interestingly, documentation available shows that the German 1898 wasn't available for review when the design was made, although Mauser Engineers were, and design and review papers show it was an almalgamation of the 1898 Krag, the Spanish Mauser, and the 1888 Commission rifle. People have seen references to the "1898" and assume Gewehr when actually that refers to the Krag (mag cut-off is one thing borrowed, bolt was a heavy influence also). In any event, the 1903 went into production. The Brits also decided to "go Mauser" and the Pattern 14 was created. Skipping the Model of 1917 story, after the war the US was left with 1903s and 1917s. Which to go to? An actual study was done. It was decided that:
*) It didn't matter because a semi-automatic was needed.
*) There isn't much to choose between the 1903 and the 1917. Labor issues with the 1917 plants, and the fact that 1903s were made by the Government, favored the 1903 but with a new sight.
Work was started on the Garand. The '20s and '30s were a poor time to be working on military equipment due to lack of money but work proceeded. Let's toss in the "powder" issue. Smokeless powder from the early 1900s was "extruded" and had less power than "spherical" powder that came into being later. It was decided that, in addition to a new rifle, we might as well go with modern powder. The Garand was originally in .276 Pedersen. As a sidelight, the "spherical" powder, as made, isn't corrosive.
MacArthur approved the Garand for production (1936) but, looking at cost and existing inventory, opted for keeping the .30-06. WW2 finished with the Garand in .30-06. But, and this must be remembered when looking at M-14s, the work on an automatic Garand was done during WW2. I've got patent numbers if you're interested by the way. The designation was the T-20 and Garand was involved. If the war would have lasted longer, it would have entered production. 20 round magazine, grenade launcher, full-auto. In .30-06.
Work on the various "funny Garands" proceeded slowly after WW2 (shaded of the '20s) until Korea caught them off-guard. They started working on the "Automatic Garand" again. They also went back to the new powder. The ".30-06 with new powder" is the .308. Much smaller case but about the same power. The SAAMI pressures of the .308 case are higher than the .30-06 for the new powder.
The "advanced Garand" was the program that resulted in the M-14. But, and this is amusing, it was started as a backup program really. The question wasn't really between the M-14 and the FAL. The Army (read Springfield) was hot for the Special Purpose Individual Weapon (SPIW).
The SPIW, shades of the OICW, was a "weapons system" with a new rifle and grenade launcher. The SPIW weapons were never able to meet the design requirements but the under barrel grenade launcher designed for that weapon did (you'll see them hanging below the M-16). The SPIW program can be thought of as the
"real" replacement for the Garand. While that program was active, a program to replace the M1 Carbine was also active. The Small Caliber Hyper Velocity (SCHV) program was more successful than SPIW and the M-16 was the result. Interestingly, the AR-10 was the SPIW contestant from Armalite.


So, the M-14 wasn't ever intended to be a "premier" rifle. It was an updated Garand made until SPIW came on-line. Considering the Garand tooling in the US, why would we have adopted the FN-FAL in the stop-gap? Trust me, the FN-FAL would not have been able to compete with the SPIW. They were cool. So cool they never got them to work at all.

Maybe I should expand this with dates, names, show where the bodies are buried. It seems to come up again and again.

Last point. The "US didn't bail on NATO" on the 7.62mm. We were going to have 2 weapons to replace the Garand and the Carbine. Events, and a little war in a jungle, scrubbed the Garand replacement and we ended up with only the Carbine replacement. The SPIW program, and Springfield Armory with it, were scuttled during VN. If VN hadn't happened, it's likely US troops would have had a more modern weapon than the M-14. And I don't mean the M-16.

As a service user of both 5.56mm assault rifles and 7.62mm battle rifles, I would have to say that the suposed superiority of the former is mostly in people's imaginations.

Its claimed that only Indian manufactured L1a1 rifles are not, because they were not sold a license by FN. Apparently they used instead as a pattern parts from British and Australian rifles and then changed the dimensions slightly in the process (perhaps they traced around them on paper?). While that should have made no difference, apparently the resultant abortion is incompatable with either of its parents, which are compatable!

I find the comment about the 6.5 Swedish as being old and less powerful than the .308 interesting. I used to have a Swedish semi auto (MG42B?) in 6.5mm. According to the figures i saw, the round was faster and more stable than the .308 and had the same mass, due to the length. It's still a very popular calibre up here for hunting.

In General, Velocity at the same bullet weight is lower. Sectional density and ballistic coefficient at the same weight are higher, and so it tends to retain velocity better at longer ranges.

I'd love to shoot the Swedish 6.5x55 battle rifle.

[quote=FormerBlue,Mon 17 Jan 2005 0100]
Here we go again. I think comments like these are better reserved for the FFZ as they are, even on the face of it, pretty facile. Right off the top of my head:
Harrier, Penguin, B-57, Beretta pistol, since this is Tanknet I'll toss in the Brit 105mm and German 120mm, OTO cannon on a lot of ships, in-country purchase of vehicles including that rotten VW diesel truck that maxed out at 55mph I had to drive the length of Germany, Sapphire engines (J65?), Shorts transport for in-country delivery, Minimi, I could continue but you get the point.

@former blue
why you got a problem with the comments ? ,The usa does not like to buy from europe unless it has too !, one the current situation with the US101 program for the president for one thing they say it is unreliable ! ,dont think so i have been in the merlin which is the same aircraft ,3 engines it has are better then two and it it is in servie with how many countries ? the us choice isnt even in production ,the usa it has been said europe is always rubbish for military programs heck one USAF general said the tornado was too big ,but next to a F-111 at the time how big was the tornado ,about 3/4 its size ! .

OH yeah you forgot the 81mm mortar ! .

Excuse me if this is a little incoherent as your response was also.

US101? The Presidental Helicopter fleet? What, exactly, does that have to do with Military programs? That would be a program to give the Choctaw Indians employment right? What exactly is the total buy, maybe 5? Removing political considerations, UH-60s would probably do just fine. Off the shelf purchase of S-76s would have also filled the bill. But, more importantly, the answer to your question is "what is the current USCG helicopter?"

Regards the Tornado vs F-111. Just off the top of my head, wasn't first flight of the Tornado sometime about 1974 whereas the F-111 flew in 1964? So why didn't Europe just buy F-111s? (and for everyone else, no, I am not a fan of either of those aircraft).

Airbus, Tornado, helicopters, etc. I would submit Europe seems much more enamored of starting programs for political reasons instead of buying perfectly good US gear.

MBT-70 is kind of a case study for this issue. The US and Germany tried. The reasons it failed weren't political. It's also interesting that the German/French effort at about the same time failed also. So why do Germany and France each build a tank?

Part of the reason is delivery limitations. I'd have to dig, but there is an item in the US procurement system that was sourced to the Swiss. They stopped shipments over Iraq. That's the rub. We can't afford to "outsource" something an take the chance that the supply would be choked. The odds of this happening vary by country so I'd not refer to "Europe" as much as individual countries.

Lastly, the US101 and Tornado have absolutely nothing to do with the FN-FAL and M14 rifle. Maybe the better questions is "why didn't Europe adopt the Garand?"

Back on the topic of Rifles, and the US purchase thereof, this is interesting:
http://www.ffhsj.com/govtcon/ffgalert/gcarch/nb981206.htm

The US military was violating an agreement with Colt in order to buy from FN.

Nominally it's a Marine Corp programme, isn't it? The presidential puchase is slated as twenty something.

The real money is in potential future sales in the medium to heavy helicopter category (those Sea Kings are getting long in the tooth).

I would be happy to recommend the new book 'Assault Rifle: the Development of the Modern Military Rifle and its Ammunition' as covering this subject very thoroughly, but modesty forbids Details are on my website, as it happens...

However, here are some extracts dealing with a few of the issues raised (assembled from various sections of the book):

"Towards the end of World War 2 the USA had also begun thinking about replacing the .30-06 cartridge and associated weaponry, and had developed the concept of a selective-fire 'Lightweight Rifle'. What they really wanted was the selective-fire .30 M2 Carbine but with the hitting power of the .30 Garand, at a weight of 3.2 kg (7 lbs). It was rather ambitiously hoped that this one weapon would replace the M1 Garand and the .30 Browning Automatic Rifle (both in 7.62 x 63), the M1/2 Carbine in 7.62 x 33, and the M3 SMG in .45 calibre (11.5 x 23). The Lightweight Rifle was intended to chamber a shorter cartridge than the 7.62 x 63, but still with a reasonable long-range performance so it could entirely replace the older round; it was required to have "a stopping and wounding power which shall not be less than that of the standard calibre .30 ammunition [7.62 x 63] fired from the M1 at ranges of 400, 800, 1,200 and 2,000 yards [up to 1,830 m]". Many experiments followed but, contrary to all of the logic of ammunition design, the US Ordnance Department decided that they wanted to retain the .30 inch calibre. The Americans accordingly ended up with what was simply the .30-06 case shortened from 63 to 51 mm, but with a very similar performance at around 3,500 j (2,600 ft lbs) muzzle energy (made possible by improvements in propellant technology) and therefore very similar recoil. Inevitably, this meant that the planned new selective-fire rifle would prove uncontrollable in fully-automatic fire, and so it proved years before the M14 (based on the old .30-06 M1 Garand) finally entered service."

"It must be noted that the T44E4 [which became the M14] was extensively tested against the only other entry in the US trials, the T48 rifle (the Belgian FN FAL rifle made under licence in the USA by H&R Inc.). The trials took place between 1952 and 1956, with first the T48 then the T44 gaining an advantage. Both rifles eventually passed the trials with equally high results, but the Chief of Staff of the US Army finally settled on the T44 because it was slightly lighter, similar to the M1 Garand in manufacturing and operation, and, above all, a "Native American" design."

"Frustratingly for the intermediate-calibre supporters, while one branch of the US military was perfecting what became the M14, other parts were carrying out critical investigations of what actually happened in rifle combat, rather than what senior officers thought happened. There were several outcomes from this, leading to a number of development programmes during the 1950s and 1960s. One was that the hit probability with rifles in combat was very low, but could be dramatically improved if several shots could be fired simultaneously as opposed to sequentially as in an automatic rifle. This led to Project SALVO (also described in more detail in Chapter 4), which initiated a series of experiments including multi-bullet loadings of conventional cartridges, multiple flechette loadings of shotguns and, ultimately, the abortive SPIW programme based around high-velocity single flechette rounds."

"The M14 proved unsatisfactory for various reasons and its production was stopped in 1963. A small batch of AR-15 rifles was purchased (and designated M16) to tide the US Army over until the SPIW was perfected. As the flechette weapons never were perfected, more M16s were bought and it gradually took over as the Army's standard rifle."

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and Discussion forum

Yeah, the famed AG42B Ljungman. Seen some but never fired one; said to be most accurate of all self-loading battle rifles. Elegant looking weapon with typically high manufacturing standards. Unfortunately, it also employs some, err, peculiar technical solutions...Egyptians copied it and used them against Israeli.

My sis owns a m38 Swedish Mauser; a sweet gun if there ever was one. Arguably the finest bolt-action battle rifle made...

"Lastly, the US101 and Tornado have absolutely nothing to do with the FN-FAL and M14 rifle. Maybe the better questions is "why didn't Europe adopt the Garand?""

Italy did. Beretta made them and then modified them into the M14-like BM59.

Interesting. The AR-15 was demonstrated to "the brass" five days before, or after, I don't recall, the M-14 was adopted.

T44E1. Good. I didn't bother digging into the follow-ons to the T20. I'd guess there were 24ish right?

The M-14 was a stopgap. The SPIW will promote world peace, save the whales, and stick people to trees.

I've don't have your book. Do you cover the whole sad saga of Springfield Armory's last years? The fact that, in addition to building M14s, they were rebuilding M1s all around the country because the Cuban Missile crisis caught them without enough rifles?

I seemed to recall H&R were used to "front" the FAL, you've mentioned that. Maybe I need to buy the book but you are no doubt aware of the "bad feelings" between H&R and SA? WRA and SA? TRW and SA? IHC and SA? HRA bailing out IHC after SA tried to sabatoge them? Nobody got along with SA, I think I see a pattern. Regards the FAL, nobody has provided a compelling reason to pick it. For a real limited run given the high hopes of the SPIW.

Whereas you emphasise the "Native American," I'd lend more importance to existing tooling and skills. The cleaning kits alone would have cost money but are common to the M1 and M14.

Good to see the propellant raised regards .30-06 and .308. Most people think I'm off my rocker when I mention the shorter .308 has about the same power and ballistics as the aught six.

The US military rifle program isn't that easy to pigeon-hole. Lots of dynamics at work.

Yama, you just have to watch your fingers when the bolt of the AG42B Ljungman, slams forward. You can release it by flicking the safety off and jerking the rifle. It was a really nice rifle and I might buy one again if i get $400 to spare. Still have to get my Norinco M305, 1911, Woodsman and Jungle Carbine first.

To be accurate, the 7.62x51 service round had about the same ballistics as the .30-06 service round which was an earlier development. Same level of technology and same pressure levels the 06 cannot help but outperform the 08.

You fans of the ballyhooed British medium cartridge should accept that said round is merely the offspring of the 6mm Lee Navy and the .30-40 Krag.

...and "QUOTE(FormerBlue @ Mon 17 Jan 2005 1949)
Good to see the propellant raised regards .30-06 and .308. Most people think I'm off my rocker when I mention the shorter .308 has about the same power and ballistics as the aught six."


Well, I'll just step in and offer this...The 30-06 offers no significant advantages over the .308 in military loadings and in bullet weights more commonly associated with the .308...say around 160-170 gr. Any advantage of a 30-06 only becomes apparent with heavier bullet weights, such as might be used in hunting larger game. Or put another way, the 30-06 pushes a heavier bullet with the same efficiency as a .308 pushes a lighter one, irrelevant in bullets intended for human targets.
If you're going after moose or something at long range, then an argument can be made for the '06.

So...I think you're both right.

Not in detail, no. The book is essentially about the development of the weapons and their ammunition, rather than the companies which made them.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion
forum

I think most reasonably well informed people understand that the .308 and .30-06 are about the same. It's the ones that see the cases and get that puzzled looks on their faces that are hard to deal with. My solution is to pull out a .45-70 and let them know that if case size matters, we should have never dropped that caliber.

But it does bring up the point that on previous threads on calibers, I've seen people time and again mention that .270ish is about right for a round. The Swede and Japanese 6.5 rounds are always mentioned. The Japanese moved to the 7.7 after they found that their 6.5 didn't have enough pop.

While I have no doubt that 6.5 would be a perfectly good caliber, the Swedish and Japanese rounds were using old powder. I'd have to chase my tables but I doubt that the case pressures are that high. Then it quickly degenerates into a discussion on the differences between piezo and cups ....

The Winchester .270 can handle an even higher pressure than the .308. I wonder if the military was still aiming low.

I've not found tables that include steel cases. I wonder if that really matters though as I'd think blowing the primer out is the limitation. Maybe I'm wrong.

FormerBlue...
I have no experience of steel cases either. I'd wonder if the military was even interested in higher pressures in 7.62mm for reasons of wear, realiability, and the average soldiers' capacity to deal with any more recoil than already confronted with.

I handload in 7.62, and used to in 30-06. Toyed with hotted up 7.62 just for grins and while I never saw a primer push out, I did notice stretching at the base just above the rim....after only one round. Since mine is an autoloader, and cases ain't cheap, I stopped playing with that. I'm a huge fan of the 7.62 just like it is, given the latitude to vary bullets and load for specific applications.

Another quote from 'Assault Rifle: the Development of the Modern Military Rifle and its Ammunition':

"In fact, despite the evidence that most shooting during WW1 was at short range, armies continued to show an interest in FP rifle / MG rounds. The USN had already dispensed with their 6 mm Lee rifle and cartridge, which were really ahead of their time. The Japanese Army planned to replace their 6.5 x 50SR cartridge with a new 7.7 x 58 calibre, although they never completed the changeover. The Italians were similarly caught at the start of World War 2 part-way through a change from their 6.5 x 52 Mannlicher-Carcano rifle to a 7.35 x 51 calibre.

Why was this? Partly because the existing 6 – 6.5 mm cartridges were found to be less effective than hoped, which was in fact more a function of the bullet design than the calibre. Probably also because the need for a fully automatic rifle was generally resisted on the grounds of economy. Automatic rifles were much more expensive and required more maintenance than bolt-action ones, and there was also the fear that soldiers would just spray ammunition around at a great rate, causing increased cost and supply problems. This latter concern was, of course, fully justified, but has been addressed by improving supply arrangements. So even the one nation wealthy enough to afford an automatic rifle – the USA – restricted the M1 Garand to semi-automatic fire, and FP rounds biased towards MG use prevailed. Incidentally, the USA did have the FP Browning Automatic Rifle in service, but that was too heavy to be a rifle replacement and was used as a light machine gun."

The point about calibres of around 6.5mm is that they permit a decent long range performance (good enough to replace the 7.62mm) with lighter ammunition whose recoil is light enough to be used in a fully-automatic shoulder gun. The 6.5x55 Swedish is a great hunting/sniping round, but is too big and powerful to use in an automatic rifle.

In the back of 'Assault Rifle' there is an ammunition table (covering service and experimental) which among other things includes a calculated recoil factor which allows the recoil generated by different cartridges to be compared (obviously, the recoil experienced by the firer will only be comparable if the rounds are fired in otherwise identical guns). The following is an extract:

5.56x45 SS109/M855 = 32
7.62x39 (AK 47) = 59
7.62x51 NATO = 142

6.5x55 = 116
6.8x43 (Rem SPC) = 71
7x43 (EM-2) = 90

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and Discussion forum

Well, the Japanese cartridge was also rimmed, which may have been one factor against it. That said, at one time, it was pretty widely distributed in Europe, especially in Russia which possessed large amount of those rifles and bought more during WW1 to supplement their chronic shortage of armament.

Given that all of our rifle and pistol rounds are used in autoloaders, and most in full auto weapons sooner or later, the prospects for stuck cases or ejected primers kinda limits pressures. In fact, my main beef with 5.56x45 is that it runs at a higher pressure than I'd like in a carbine/light assault round.

Why do I get the impression that wars are always fought with the restrictions emplaced by stogie smoking generals that last heard the guns fired in anger 40 years previous?

After the US "Civil War," the Army persisted with the Trapdoor until 1892. It's not like the Henry lever was unknown. Remington was selling rolling blocks like they were going out of style. Europe wasn't any better - the massive drive for repeaters came after the Turks "Winchestered" the Russians out of their saddles. The German 1871? bolt received a rework among others. Those wonderful "spoon" round lifters in that generation.

Yet the Krag, and the 1903, had that Magazine cutoff. "The troops can fire single shot, keeping the extra rounds in battery, until the enemy attacks. Martinis all around, fetch me another Havana James."


I will nit this though. On 2 counts.
The Russians could have done it. Bad experiences during the Finnish incursion turned them off to this in favor, effectively, of SMGs which eat rounds even worse. While I think their semi-auto was fine, the soldiers apparently weren't keen. I just got done reading an account by a Belorussian whom, when cleaning his, watched a spring take off. No more gun. More a training issue no doubt.

Nit 2 is the US had no intention of it being fully automatic at the design point. This wasn't due to cost. I think they fully understood full-auto would be a bit much. Feel free to change my mind on this though. I haven't dug through the post-WW1 records yet.

I was doing some work with my 1903 Mark 1 the other day and it hit me. The solution to world peace, poor rifles, and the great cartridge debate. No, I'm not talking about outlawing smokeless powder and returning to muskets, I'm talking about the Pedersen device. Consider:

2 schools. School A wants to "reach out and touch someone." Let's say, for sake of argument, that the AK and '16 can't do it. 7,62x51 can.

School B wants to get "up close and personal" with people they are mildly familiar with. While I think I'd prefer a 10 Gauge with darts for that game, the crowd that has taken to the field wants short guns and inclines towards "Carbines."

Enter John Pedersen, by way of Former Blue.

AK is 7,62x39 right? Nato is 7,62x51. Diameter match.

Pedersen designed a device, a bolt really, that allowed a special "Carbine size" round to be shot from the M1903 in rock 'n roll mode. Why not now?

A bullpup, just to please the Brits. Actually, what I'm after here is what they are - long barrel, short gun.

Two bolts (or one very interestingly designed one, I'm available for a reasonable rate) that allows swapping of same diameter rounds; long and short. Heck, with an interesting bolt, you could probably load every other round short and long. If nothing else, Toot-tot-toot-tot-toot-tot-toot would rhythmatically be less likely to put you to sleep than rat-a-tat-tat-tat-tat-tat-tat-tat-tat-tat-tat-tat-.

I'll trademark it. Make a million I tell you.

Sorry for the metaphors. I'm under quota and really have to peddle 'em where I can.

Scabble bonus claimed for using rhythmatically.

Doug, you just remember there is a young man in the mid-west with tears in his eyes because he doesn't own a TRW.

Interesting point on the case rim. I've never tried to overload but, looking at factory rounds fired, case rim distortion should have hit me. Most of my .30-06s show some. I guess I was thinking of Garand's attempts, before he discovered the joys of gas, to use the primer to recock the rifle.

Felt recoil, being a function of the round and weight of the rifle, I'd think the M-14 isn't the monster most claim. I've seen clips of people firing full auto but maybe they are just tougher than me. Maybe not. If one isn't careful, there is a tendency with the Garand to have the "rock back" set off the next round as your finger is still in the pull position. I've experienced it (ok, so I was trying for that effect). Wasn't too bad. Heavy rifle.

Have I mentioned I really really want an M-14?

Maybe this is the next grate debate but I don't notice more muzzle climb with the Garand than an AR-15. That's in "rapid single fire" mode though. Maybe a faster cycle would vary that. The M1 Carbine is horrible with muzzle climb. At least for me anyway.

Maybe it's more a function of person size too. My 14 year old niece didn't have much problem with the Garand either though. Well, she was more partial to the AR for the "back recoil" to be fair. Not an issue for me either. That's the solution I guess. Only allow big people to have the big guns.

As soon as it warms up I'll conduct another test. Maybe a couple so I have enough data points.

Fixed some really horrible typos. My English skills are reversing.

Yeah, I agree...in slow fire, the recoil of the M14 class is VERY manageable. I did get to fire a couple in full auto in RVN and it's a beast in that mode. I believe the favorable muzzle-climb comparison with the AR-15 family is due to weight and where it is (long barrel, flash suppresor, etc.) that mitigates against climb in the "big guns".

I've had two slam-fires at the range...that draws a lot of unwelcome attention.

Oh...the specs (just to torment the kid in the midwest)...New...with TRW bolt, NM iron sights and barrel (SA was running short of the standard ones at the time) and NRA rated "excellent" genuine G.I. Walnut stock - $675 at Gallenson's Guns in SLC, UT in 1988. They had two exactly the same...and I'm still kicking myself for not buying both.

I do not expect to ever buy another rifle....

Cheers!

Hmm. Actually the two rounds have a slightly different calibre (the Russian job fires .310 bullets rather than .308) although that might not matter for military purposes. The problem would be that the Russian case is only fractionally narrower than the NATO one, with not enough space to get a chamber insert to make up the difference. Then you have the issue of entirely different gas pressure characteristics to operate the system. There are probably a few other little technical difficulties...

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion
forum

Lee-Enfield had similar feature. Pretty much all of the generals had started their military careers when muzzle-loaders were still a standard, and even single-shot breech loader was an enormous firepower improvment over that. Few people thought that incredible firepower of magazine repeteer rifle would offer nothing more than waste of ammo...



Actually, Winter War did not seriously curtail Soviet plans to switch to automatic rifles, although it did reveal shortcomings in existing models which had to be addressed (not helped by poor preparation and training: brand-new rifles were issued with thick factory grease still on; combined with sub-zero temperaturs, problems ensued...). Stalin was a big fan of firepower and 'industrialized' warfare in general, which was probably his only truly positive contribution to Soviet war effort: he said that one soldier with self-loading rifle is worth of ten soldiers with bolt-action rifles; good thing that Jeff Cooper didn't meet him

As it was, Russians almost "did it". TO&E of 1941 infantry division had one-third of rifle armament as SVT's. Over one million SVT-40's were produced in 1941. In fact, Garand production didn't catch up with SVT until early 1943! (but after that, Garand production pulled away very quickly). However, as you noted, training became an issue, because pretty much entire pre-war army was destroyed in 1941. New recruits were generally not terribly well educated and SVT, although not very complex by todays standards, was still pretty demanding and delicate for an average soldier with only couple of months (if lucky) training, especially in winter. Huge amount of rifles were lost to the enemy. Also SVT was more costly and demanding to build than older rifles (which had estabilished production lines), to say nothing about submachineguns which were cheap to make and simple to maintain. So Soviets switched their preferences.

I love the 6.5x55, but imo the finest bolt action battle rifle was the SMLE.

I only have 2 of them.

My wife has a sporterized m38 carbine, I haven't been able to wring it out yet.

If they would re-spec the .30-06 for modern rifles, (60k psi) it would be pretty impressive. Also probably blow up a few old Springfields, etc.
Even with the old pressure levels, hornady matches the old 300 H&H with their .30-06 Light magnum loads (though They don't use 200+ grain bullets).


The 6.5x55 is even lower pressure, iirc. I think the 6.5 is a 45k psi, the 30-06 about 50k, and the 7.62x51 about 52k.

Anybody got the books at hand?

I keep thinking "What if's" about if Federyov (SP?) had been allowed to finish his assault rifle in time to get it to the troops. Might Russia not have collapsed?
Might the "White RUssians" have been able to win if they had many thousands of them?

What would history have shown?