Why did the Nazi's or whoever switch from the 7x57 to 7.9x57


PDA






Beak50
March 9, 2012, 01:21 AM
Looking at the ballistics it would seem that they would have been more then content with the 7x57?http://www.thehighroad.org/images/smilies/confused.gif

If you enjoyed reading about "Why did the Nazi's or whoever switch from the 7x57 to 7.9x57" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Ian
March 9, 2012, 01:25 AM
The never adopted the 7x57 in the first place. The cartridge was adopted by many countries, but Germany's military used the 8x57 all the way back to the Gewehr 88. Ballistics are only a small part of why a military force chooses a cartridge.

Sam Cade
March 9, 2012, 01:26 AM
No facet of the German armed forces used 7x57. It was designed for export contracts.


8x57 Mauser as we know it is an incremental improvement of the 8mm cartridge of the Commission rifle of 1888.

briansmithwins
March 9, 2012, 01:33 AM
They did start switching to 7.92x33, but that was for the StG44.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7.92%C3%9733mm_Kurz

BSW

Onmilo
March 9, 2012, 01:55 AM
Germans settled on the 8X57J cartridge in the 1888 Commision rifle because it outperformed the French 8mm Lebel cartridge which was adopted in 1886.
This ballistic advantage was something the 7mm Mauser cartridge did not possess plus the 7mm became available, mainly for South American contracts starting with the Chileans, in 1891

The 8mm was firmly established as the new German service cartridge by that time.

wlewisiii
March 9, 2012, 02:40 AM
It's rather like why we didn't partake of the far superior .276 pedersen after WWI. There were these huge piles of already produced .30-06 sitting all over the US. No matter how much better the .276 pedersen was, there was no way someone like (that rat bastard) MacArthur would allow progress in the military if a few pennies could be saved.

Ar180shooter
March 9, 2012, 03:27 AM
As already mentioned, the Germans never used the 7mm Mauser. The 7mm Mauser was used by Spain, Mexico and several South American countries. Boers in the second Boer War also used Mausers in 7mm.

Beak50
March 9, 2012, 07:20 AM
I know the Nazis never used the 7x57 the question is why didn't they use it instead of the 8x57 that is slower.I know the German 8x57 196gr. had a high B.C.

Onmilo
March 9, 2012, 09:32 AM
If you actually read the replies to your original post, I believe you will find the answer,,,:rolleyes:

303tom
March 9, 2012, 10:17 AM
To make a long story short, the 8mm Mauser round is better than the 7mm Mauser !

Sam1911
March 9, 2012, 10:37 AM
As the technology of firearms changed in a long progression from the patched round ball, to the very large, very heavy conical projectile (like the Miniť ball), to cartridge versions of the same (like the .45-70 and all its cousins like the .45-90, .50-70 etc.), and finally to lighter but much faster metallic cartridge rounds like the .30-40 Krag, .30-'03/'06, 8x57 Mauser, .303 British, 7.62x54R and so forth, many evolutionary steps occurred and each new adoption represented a break with tradition.

Militaries don't LIKE to break with tradition. AT ALL. EVER. So while testing and objective study might have been able to show in the early part of the 20th Century (as it has over and over again since then) that a .30"+ caliber and a 150-200+ grain bullet was not at all necessary to killing the enemy on the battlefield at any range a human soldier can see and effectively engage another soldier -- and that such large, heavy, and heavy-recoiling rounds could be shown to be HARMFUL to the ability of soldiers to do their jobs well, the major militaries of the world were just not ready to accept that kind of thinking.

SOME folks did "get it" to one degree or another -- so there were small side trips into short-lived rounds like the 6mm Lee Navy, .276 Pedersen, .280 British, and the much more successful 7x57. But the major advantages these rounds could provide were not accepted by the large, established, hide-bound armies of the major powers.

Well...not until about 1964 when the dam started to burst and things went a bit haywire. ;)

nathan
March 9, 2012, 11:03 AM
8mm is like 32 caliber bullet . Spitting that amount of ammo and that fast in a M G 42 is an awesome sight. Many WW 2 vets knew what it can do. And for those who survived Normandy beach landings im sure they have words that we dont want to hear.

Ar180shooter
March 9, 2012, 11:44 AM
I know the Nazis never used the 7x57 the question is why didn't they use it instead of the 8x57 that is slower.I know the German 8x57 196gr. had a high B.C.
Basically, the military minds of the era didn't find the cost/benefit ratio of switching calibers to be high enough to justify a switch. Also remember that Hitler was very conservative in his views of infantry armament, and he even originally opposed development of the MKb 42 (The rifle was originally called the Maschinenkarabiner 1942, literally machine carbine, later to be developed in to the STG 44). The project was halted several times by Hitler, who did not like the idea of the project; however, eventually he was won over after having the weapon demonstrated to him.

Also, the thread is asking "Why did the Nazis ... switch from the 7x57 to 7.9x57?" This means that you're saying the Germans originally used the 7x57 and dropped it in favour of the 7.9x57, which they never did. In this respect, your question was answered; however, it appears that you asked the wrong question. You should have asked "Why didn't the Nazis switch to the 7x57 from 7.9x57?" Basically the same words, but a very different meaning. Grammar counts!

Old Time Hunter
March 9, 2012, 01:35 PM
The never adopted the 7x57 in the first place. The cartridge was adopted by many countries, but Germany's military used the 8x57 all the way back to the Gewehr 88. Ballistics are only a small part of why a military force chooses a cartridge.
During the design of the commission the idea was that a .32 cal offered a better "bleed" out hole. That and 7 was considered bad luck. Apparently 7.92 is not...

Dain Bramage
March 9, 2012, 01:59 PM
After the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor, they decided they needed a larger caliber round than the American .30-06 they were going to face.

A better question would be why DID the Japanese switch from the 6.5x50mm to the 7.7x58mm, and the Italians from the 6.5x52mm to the 7.35x51mm?

Limey46
March 9, 2012, 02:36 PM
Read your history, man! The Germans never bombed Pearl Harbor! They tried, but the instructions for their Norden bomb sights were in French, so they hit Tahiti instead, and the Japs had to go cover for them.

murdoc rose
March 9, 2012, 04:34 PM
lol

Cosmoline
March 9, 2012, 04:52 PM
Well there is an interesting issue here, though it has nada to do with Nazis. The German's first response to the Lebel was the 88 Commission which was chambered in 8x57J as we know. Subsequent Mauser designs from the Beligian/Argie to the Spanish went with smaller diameter rounds, which were really an improvement because they used fewer resources to accomplish the same results. Less powder, less lead, slightly less weight.

The question is really why the Germans didn't retool for a 7mm round when they adopted the 98 a decade later. That I do not know. I suspect that if they'd known they'd be redesigning the 8x57J in a few short years anyway, they would have gone with a 7 or 7.5mm. And if they'd known the kind of material shortages they would be facing in the later stages of WWII, I'm sure they would have done it.

Kachok
March 9, 2012, 05:03 PM
These days we have gotten better at making spritzers yaw shortly after contact, but back then larger caliber ment larger hole, I will make historical note that the old 303 had a bullet that would realiably yaw on contact, but that was the exception at the time. These days the 7x57 would be a shoe in for the military round over the 8x57, heck I think they are even better then the 308, but speaking from a ballistics standpoint a 260 Rem whoops all of them and is capable of delivering massive soft tissue damage as well, much better then our 147gr currently dishes out, but still not as much as the 175gr SMKs our snipers use :D those things are nasty, don't ever shoot a deer with one.

R.W.Dale
March 9, 2012, 05:06 PM
Rather than debate a caliber change that never happened over a century ago lets discuss one slightly more recent that goes counter to everything ballistic we think we know today.

Why in mid conflict did the Japanese feel compelled to drop the well balanced 6.5x50mm cartridge in favor of 7.7x58mm mid conflict.

posted via mobile device.

Vaarok
March 9, 2012, 06:04 PM
You have to understand, the very idea of changing from 8x57 to 7x57 is ridiculous. The French came out with a terrible in performance AND in potential round in 1886. Every military on earth collectively dispensed bricks and panicked. The smokeless rifle round was FAR more terrifying than nuclear weapons to the established military order.

EVERY soldier suddenly equipped with a rifle whose rounds could shoot noiselessly*, flat as an arrow, and faster than lightning, with no pall of smoke exposing their position, was a huge game changer.

The Germans were naturally the most horrified, and when a deserter showed up with a bunch of ammo and a Lebel, they shoved bucketloads of cash into his pockets and crash-developed the Gew88 with every engineer they could lay hands on.

Packet loading for lightning fast reloads, like the Italians and Austrians were using. Barrel jacket for better accuracy and harmonics. Rimless, bottleneck smokeless cartridge design borrowed from the Swiss, pushing a ridiculously tiny bullet twice as fast as a 11mm Mauser out of the formerly state-of-the-art, four-year-old Gew71/84s currently in use...

And then they proceeded to crank out tons of the new rifles and new ammo. Within two years their frontline divisions had the new rifle, ready to hold off the French who were still sore over the Franco-Prussian War.

And thus, with huge stocks of ammo and just re-equipped for the second time in a decade, there was ZERO economic or logistical reason to re-equip with a commercial cartridge like 7x57.

Yes, the US did something similar in Vietnam with the M14 and M-16, but it's more akin to the German adoption of the Gew98 and 8x57IS, and for similar reasons- namely the stopgap design (Gew88, M14) did not meet expectations but had filled a role for a few years while a newer/better design was worked up.

Beak50
March 9, 2012, 07:35 PM
Thanks everyone I never thought about the cost it would have been or the thinking of the time "Bigger is better" I guess.Thank's,Beak

Jaymo
March 9, 2012, 07:42 PM
Bigger IS better.

Sam1911
March 9, 2012, 07:52 PM
Bigger IS better.
Exactly! Which is why REAL operators go to war with .45-70s!

:D

twofifty
March 9, 2012, 08:42 PM
Thanks for the interesting development stories.

Wrt the French being first with a smokeless infantry cartridge [and the German's feverish response wherein they dumped their 2 year old 11mm for the 8mm] these developments also happened in the context of the French developing their 75mm field gun.

The French 75 was the first hydraulically-dampened field gun, a huge combat advantage. The French kept this technology a secret until a traitor/spy gave the design to the Germans.

Too bad Mr. Browning 'only' designed small arms.

Don357
March 9, 2012, 09:13 PM
After the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor, they decided they needed a larger caliber round than the American .30-06 they were going to face.

:what::confused:

Cosmoline
March 9, 2012, 09:54 PM
And thus, with huge stocks of ammo and just re-equipped for the second time in a decade, there was ZERO economic or logistical reason to re-equip with a commercial cartridge like 7x57.

But a lot of nations were playing musical cartridges at that time, and I don't think the German military forces were fiscally wedded to an 8mm round by 98. There was an explosion of new rounds available. They could have adopted a new cartridge for the new rifle at that time, or had a new one custom made. Look at the many ammo changes made by the Turks and others around that time. Mauser was more than willing to accommodate those demands and help retrofit as needed. They had fantastic customer service.

Knowing the Germans, I'll bet there's a paper around there in the archives considering this very issue from the mid 1890's and deciding for some reason that 8mm is better.

Maybe the field weakness of the 6.5mm round in the Russo-Japanese war had some bearing on this choice.

Vaarok
March 10, 2012, 03:37 AM
The Turks started with 7.65 and kept with 7.65 straight through from 1890 to 1915, barring the war aid in 8x57 from the Germans. I can't think of any nation save the Austrians who changed their blackpowder-to-smokeless rifle or round between 1888 and WW1. And the Commissiongewehr was a German Army Commission invention. Mauser had no influence or government contract work between 1888 and 1898, they were VERY busy making guns for Spain, South America, and Turkey.

30.06
March 10, 2012, 04:08 AM
Yeah ,that danged French writing can confuse anyone .

Well actually , there are two reasons not yet mentioned , basically the same reasons that the US and Britain didn't go to 7mm as well .

All three had actually considered a smaller caliber , 7mm for the US and Brits , and the Germans were seriously looking at 6.5 .

But alas this was in the aftermath of "The Great War" , and therefore there was no great rush by the US or the Brits , and the Germans , at that time , couldn't hardly afford , enough Cabbage and Turnips , to keep themselves from Starving .

Then later the Depression hit the US and the British .

That was one factor , economic wherewithall .

The other factor was the idea , supposedly to help logistics , that the Infantrymen would carry the same round as the Machineguns .

And the Machineguns were expected to be able to kill the engine blocks on enemy trucks out to 1200 yds .

As someone has already stated , Militaries Hate change , that was also a big factor .

.45Guy
March 10, 2012, 09:18 AM
As stated, 7.9x57 was adopted with the Gew 88. As to why there was no shift to 7mm aside from not fixing what isn't broken, I'm sure the reports from the Spanish American war weren't falling on deaf ears. If nothing else, the links posted make for some interesting reading.


http://history.amedd.army.mil/booksdocs/spanam/ARSG1898/index.htm

http://history.amedd.army.mil/booksdocs/spanam/ARSG1898/ARSG1898ReportsLaGarde.html
When we contrast the ravages inflicted by leaden bullets of large caliber with the humane effects of the projectile of reduced caliber noted in this battle, it is not extravagant to say that the portable hand weapons of to-day have largely reduced the subject of military surgery to first-aid work.
The character of wounds-The wounds inflicted by the improved Mauser did not differ from the wounds of the reduced caliber weapons generally. They correspond to the wounds inflicted with the new arm by experimenters on the cadaver, dead and living animals, as well as those heretofore noted on man by accident and in war. The explosive effects so often noted in wounds at close range were not seen, for the reason that none of the wounds were received within the zone of explosive effects, which, under some conditions, though rarely, may extend to 500 yards. Those organs containing tissues rich in fluids, incased in cavities with bony walls, are more apt to show these highly destructive effects. The absence of these ugly wounds was often commented upon by surgeons. It is safe to say that examination of the dead on the field could have shown evidences of explosive effects in the wounds of the head, the heart, liver, spleen, intestines, etc. In reckoning upon explosive effects one should always remember the factors upon which they depend. To be brief, destructive effects are commensurate with velocity and sectional area of the projectile on the one hand, and with resistance in the body on the other. High velocity, greater sectional area, and greater resistance exhibit explosive effects, and vice versa.

It should also he borne in mind that only two things offer resistance in the body, viz, (a) compact bony tissue and (b) water. The fractures of the long bones were attended with but little comminution, and in quite a number of instances with guttering and perforation unattended with fracture. More than a score of gunshot wounds of the kneejoint were treated by immobilization and simple dressings alone with the happiest of results. Injuries of the joint ends of bones were invariably marked by clean-cut perforations. The injuries of the soft parts were comparatively trivial. Wounds of the head involving injury to the brain matter had to be opened up on several occasions on account of sepsis. The skullcap invariably showed fissures radiating between the wounds of entrance and exit, and islands of bone, sometimes free from dura and periosteum, but more often attached. All wounds of the lungs were recovering rapidly without apparent complications when received in hospital. The wounds that astounded us all were those of the abdomen. Four were noted of such wounds which, from the anatomical regions traversed, must have involved the caliber of the intestines numbers of times, and yet recovery had taken place with no apparent sequelae or ill effects of any kind. These cases were very wisely kept at the field hospitals, well to the front, until recovery was assured. Capital operations, such as amputations and opening of the larger joints, were done but seldom, and then only for

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

216

sepsis, which, in the nature of things, would seem to be unavoidable in war in a certain proportion of cases.

Another circumstance which rather puzzled us was the frequency with which lodged balls were seen. This was variously attributed to (1) defective ammunition, (2) ricochet shots, and (3) long range. By testing the penetration of the two ammunitions in blocks of yellow pine, Capt. Charles A. Worden, United States Army, was able to demonstrate for me the fallacy of the first of these theories. The Spanish ammunition penetrated as much as 9 inches farther in the wood than ours, a fact which is not surprising, since the muzzle velocity of the Mauser is greater than that of the Krag-Jorgensen, and since, also, the sectional area of its projectile is slightly less. The lodged balls were evidently due, therefore to ricochet shots through the thick underbrush and to long range. Acting Asst Surg. W. E. Parker visited Santiago late in July to confer with the Spanish surgeons upon their observations concerning the character of the wounds from our guns. He informs me that their conclusions tallied with ours in every respect. They remarked especially on the number of lodged balls, which they attributed to long range, and the number of recoveries from gunshot wounds of the abdomen with undoubted intestinal perforations.


http://history.amedd.army.mil/booksdocs/spanam/ARSG1898/ARSG1898ReportsJohnson.html
The wounds inflicted upon our men by the small caliber Mauser bullets were much less severe than I had expected from the literature read on the subject. I certainly consider it a humane bullet in every sense of the term. There were a number of gunshot wounds of the skull where the bullet simply perforated the bones without any comminution or apparent splintering. In the case of Sergeant C- a bullet entered the right parietal bone near its junction with the frontal and emerged at the posterior border of that bone, lacerating the brain substance. The first two days after admission to this hospital he was partially unconscious, but on the third day became rational and began to improve. When transferred to Siboney a few days later his condition was better, and beyond some blunting of the mental faculties, with peevishness and irritability of temper, gave fair prospects of ultimate recovery.

Private B- received a perforating gunshot wound of the neck, the ball entering the right sterno-mastoid muscle at its middle, passing through the pharynx in its course, and emerging at the anterior border of the left sterno-mastoid at the same level. This patient was scarcely confined to bed, and up to the time of his transfer to Siboney, experienced very little difficulty from the injury. Perforating wounds of the chest, abdomen, and every other portion of the body healed kindly by first intention when not previously infected. Occasionally a ball seemed to pass directly through a bone without producing a fracture, but in the majority of cases-noticeably of the femur-a solution of continuity resulted. From what I have seen of the injuries inflicted by the Krag-Jorgensen rifle upon Spanish prisoners falling into our hands after the receipt of wounds, I have come to the conclusion that it is a munch more effective weapon and produces wounds of far greater gravity than the Mauser.

Art Eatman
March 10, 2012, 10:00 AM
Dredging some remembrance from reading, a half-century back, wasn't the WW I cartridge the 8x60? And then as part of the Versailles Treaty, that cartridge was outlawed--which led then to the change to 8x57. Just set the barrel back by three millimeters.

Wasn't the first wartime use of the 7mm in the Spanish-American war? Mauser made rifles for Spain, but Germany wasn't involved in the shooting.

Were I a guessing fella, I'd figure that the rationale for the 8x60 was for better penetration than with a 7mm and a flatter trajectory than the .30-40 Krag.

.45Guy
March 10, 2012, 10:06 AM
Wouldn't that be the other way around? I always thought that was the basis for various European laws barring civilian use of "military calibers." Sort of like the .416 Barret loophole.

.45Guy
March 10, 2012, 10:16 AM
Since someone mentioned the Russo Japanese war:

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA438108
have not regarded this as an authenticated statement.
From what I have been able to gather from conversation
with Russian surgeons, I think it probable that we will have
no occasion to modify our views regarding the effects of
high-powered bullets at different ranges. Doctor Wreden
writes:
The explosive effects of the Japanese bullet in spongy bone tissue is
observed only at close range (100 m.), beyond which the distinction
is slight, but in dense osseus tissue explosive effects are observed up
to 800 m. Within 200 m. wounds of the cranium are usually fatal,
the hydrodynamic effects being most marked, and within 100 m. the
calvarium is greatly comminuted. Beyond 200 m. tangental wounds
of the head are not usually fatal, but penetrating wounds are lethal
up to a 1,000 m.

Doctor Wreden regards wounds of the face and neck as
serious, and if th e tter are complicated by injuries to arteries,
trachea, or e nagus they are usually fatal. Colonel
Havard reports a wound of the cervical region in the case of
Prince Murat in which the bullet transversed the neck from
200 MILITARY OBSERVATIONS-RUSSO-JAPANESE WAR.
side to side, coming out close to the internal carotid artery,
and another case in which the missile entered at the point of
the chin and emerged close to the spine on the right side.
Both of these cases were convalescing.
So far as I could ascertain, there is a general consensus of
opinion that bullet wounds of the lungs are not serious.
The impression left on my mind is that celiotomy for any
purpose was a rare operation. This impression was gained
not from statistics, for such were not obtainable except from
a single hospital here and there, but from conversation with
many surgeons. The only really definite statement I have
on the subject is found in a report made by a chief surgeon,
of which I will submit a free translation:
Among the most serious wounds we have encountered are those
of the abdomen, in the treatment of which very little has been accomplished.
We can only say that the more rest the patient can have from
the very moment of the infliction of the wound the better the result.
The character of the missile-bullet, shrapnel, shell, or cold steel-is
of great importance in determining the result, and lesions caused by
each of these should be considered separately.
The severity of wounds of the abdominal region caused by the
modern bullet is directly proportionate to the range. As the result
of the experience gained in several operations done for penetrating
gunshot wounds of the abdomen at close range, I was deeply impressed
with the great explosive effect of the modern bullet. In some of the
cases in which the stomach was full it was burst into pieces and entirely
separated from the surrounding organs. A like result followed
with a full bladder, and great havoc was wrought in liver, spleen, and
kidneys. In such cases, as was to be expected, the symptoms of shock
were pronounced and resembled those of internal hemorrhage. The
wounded man almost invariably fell to the ground, complaining of
intense pain in the belly, but did not lose consciousness. If left
quiet, the pain subsided and the shock disappeared.
The report adds:
These cases never spoil the statistics of the rear hospitals, for they
die on the field or at the dressing station.
Beyond 400 meters the explosive effects were not observed, and the
patients did not at once fall. Soon, however, symptoms of shock supervened,
with vomiting, especially in alcoholics, and the wounded man
laid down. This condition usually continued for several days and has
led to early operative interference, which only resulted unfortunately.
The reporter estimated the mortality from rifle-bullet
wounds of the abdomen at 40 per cent of such cases. This
was based upon nine months' experience in the Far East.

1911Tuner
March 10, 2012, 10:27 AM
A point that I notice hasn't been made...

During the era that these rounds were being used, the troops still practiced long-range volleys...or area fire...to break up concentrations of enemy personnel. The rear tangent sights on the rifles were graduated to as much as 2,000 yards/meters. Heavier bullets perform better than light bullets at such distances...even with lower initial velocities....plunging into troop concentrations from high angles

This is reflected by the US M1 Ball round that consisted of a 175 grain bullet. The original German 8X57 was loaded with a 196-grain bullet.

During WW2, and the highly moblie "Lightning War" tactics...using rifles in volleys for area fire was pretty much abandoned in favor of armor and accurate artillery...so the bullet weights were reduced to 152 and 154 grains respectively with attendant higher velocities and flat trajectories that allowed a "Battlesight" zero to be effective at the engagement ranges most often encountered...which proved to be a maximum of about 300 yards...without the need to adjust the sights.

303tom
March 10, 2012, 10:29 AM
After the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor, they decided they needed a larger caliber round than the American .30-06 they were going to face.

A better question would be why DID the Japanese switch from the 6.5x50mm to the 7.7x58mm, and the Italians from the 6.5x52mm to the 7.35x51mm?
I think he was being sarcastic, because everyone knows that the 7x57 that the Spanish used was nether Faster nor harder hitting than the German 7.92x57. The fact is the 8mm Mauser was some 3 to 500 fps faster & had over a 1000 ft-lbs more energy. (case design) & no just because one is 7x57 & the other is 7.92x57 the case IS NOT the same...........

Sam1911
March 10, 2012, 10:49 AM
Heavier bullets perform better than light bullets at such distances...even with lower initial velocities....plunging into troop concentrations from high angles.

I think modern ballistics understanding would say that bullets with better ballistic coefficients perform better at long range -- because they retain their velocity better.

Much of the time a longer, heavier bullet will have a better B.C. -- in the same caliber.

But it is clearly true that a smaller caliber bullet in a heavy-for-caliber form could have a better B.C. and better long-range performance than a larger caliber bullet with a low B.C.

But these things were not well understood when 8x57 and other such cartridges were being developed.

1911Tuner
March 10, 2012, 10:56 AM
I think modern ballistics understanding would say that bullets with better ballistic coefficients perform better at long range -- because they retain their velocity better.

I think they understood it back then, just as we do today...but bullet mass plays a more important role in long-range plunging fire than velocity.

I remember some years ago of a penetration test performed with a .45-70 Sharps rifle in which the testers set up some wooden baffles at an angle some 1500 yards distant. The plunging 405 grain bullets did well, defeating all but one of the 7 baffles. All rounds were loaded with the spec black powder charges for each respective cartridge. The 500-grain bullets went through all 7 baffles and 10 inches into the dirt.

Sam1911
March 10, 2012, 11:08 AM
...but bullet mass plays a more important role in long-range plunging fire than velocity.

...The plunging 405 grain bullets did well, defeating all but one of the 7 baffles. ... The 500-grain bullets went through all baffles and 10 inches into the dirt.

Can you explain why that might be? I'm thinking it might have something to do with terminal velocity of plunging bullets with very similar (extremely low) ballistic coefficients. In other words, both bullets were probably going about the same speed when they hit the target, so the heavy bullet performed better.

If a lighter bullet with a much higher b.c. was to hit that target with far greater retained velocity, I'd expect much better performance due to the squared value of velocity in the energy calculation.

But that's just my theory...

.45Guy
March 10, 2012, 12:00 PM
Can you explain why that might be? I'm thinking it might have something to do with terminal velocity of plunging bullets with very similar (extremely low) ballistic coefficients. In other words, both bullets were probably going about the same speed when they hit the target, so the heavy bullet performed better.

If a lighter bullet with a much higher b.c. was to hit that target with far greater retained velocity, I'd expect much better performance due to the squared value of velocity in the energy calculation.


Terminal velocity wouldn't be the proper term to apply to the tests mentioned. At 1,500 the .45-70 405 and 500 are both still decelerating, and far from dropping like a rock. From the Springfield Armory Longmeadow tests, the following elevation was required to achieve hits at 1,000 and 1,500 with the 405 and its .214 BC: .45-70-405 Springfield Service 3d 6' 37" 5d 20' 4". Of course maximum range of the 405 at 30 degree elevation is ~3,333, far behind the 7x57 175 @~4,500. However, at such ranges you will either end up with a .284 or .458 diameter hole. For the simple purpose of killing things, bigger is better. As to penetration at range, peruse the reports in post 30.

Kachok
March 10, 2012, 12:42 PM
For the simple purpose of killing things, bigger is better.
That is kind of like caveman terminal ballistics, "ug bigger bullet make bigger hole" If you are talking penatration then yes for sure the larger the caliber, the higher the SD, the faster the bullet the more penatration you will get with a given bullet construction. But the kicker is that at rifle speeds bullets behave very differently then we would imagine seeing them in a static state.
Take two bullets of similar energy, a 308 loaded with 175gr Matchkings and a 45-70 loaded with 405gr RN (modern pressures) Both legal for use in the military. Now fire them at human sized/depth targets at a variety of ranges the 175gr SMK will provide much greater soft tissue damage across the board because of it's nasty habit of heavy fragmentation while the 45-70 will make a cleaner hole in and out albeit a nice sized hole for a RN.
OK reset the experment, now shoot cape buffalo with both, and the 45-70 makes the 308 look silly, 4 feet+ of penatration means you can easly reach and pass through the vitals of the anamals, with the 175 SMK you are hardly getting through their hide/fat and I hope you can climb a tree really fast.
OK one more now compare an expanding 405gr SP to a 180gr 308 SP. The make similar sized wound tracts for the first 8-12" but past that the 45-70 romps all over it, the 308 is out of steam at about 16-22" and the 45 cal will pass through a 30" DP block still making a nice sized wound canal.
What do we learn from this? Terminal ballistics are a very three-dimensional equation and blanket statements are almost never correct in all cases. You can say that with bullet construction designed for the same level of penatration, and the same energy larger caliber/heavier bullets will do more damage then smaller and lighter bullets. That would be true, but working under the assumption that a bullet does more damage just because of it's larger caliber is like assuming one car is faster then another because it has a larger exaust tip :D

.45Guy
March 10, 2012, 12:47 PM
Kachok, again refer to the primary source documents of post 30. At range the terminal ballistics are more dependant upon diameter rather than velocity. Caveman or not, evidence points to the fact at ranges exceeding 300-400 yards all you will have is a neat .284 hole. Combine that with the anomalous penetration reports and one can see that real world terminal ballistics are not so cut and dry.

Kachok
March 10, 2012, 12:51 PM
Again 175 SMKs are well known to yaw/fragment making massive tissue damage at ranges in excess of 600yd, just ask any sniper. Caliber helps, but it is only one piece of the terminal ballistics equation. Though with turn of the century bullets I tend to agree with you, a bigger bullet would have a tendency to produce a larger wound canal.

.45Guy
March 10, 2012, 12:53 PM
but working under the assumption that a bullet does more damage just because of it's larger caliber is like assuming one car is faster then another because it has a larger exaust tip

The discussion at hand was in regard to very specific loads. The 175 grain .284 fmj is an entirely different animal from a .308 SMK. If we are to open it up to such comparisons, might as well put a 305 leverlution at Ruger #1 velocities into gel...

Terminal velocity wouldn't be the proper term to apply to the tests mentioned. At 1,500 the .45-70 405 and 500 are both still decelerating, and far from dropping like a rock. From the Springfield Armory Longmeadow tests, the following elevation was required to achieve hits at 1,000 and 1,500 with the 405 and its .214 BC: .45-70-405 Springfield Service 3d 6' 37" 5d 20' 4". Of course maximum range of the 405 at 30 degree elevation is ~3,333, far behind the 7x57 175 @~4,500. However, at such ranges you will either end up with a .284 or .458 diameter hole. For the simple purpose of killing things, bigger is better.

A comparison of two specific loads does not a blanket statement make.

Kachok
March 10, 2012, 12:57 PM
Just correcting a blanket statement, not trying to jump headlong into that firefight. BTW the original 7x57 load was a 173gr bullet @2300fps.

.45Guy
March 10, 2012, 12:58 PM
Again, the thread pertains to why 7x57 was or was not adopted. Modern, lightly constructed, fragmenting projectiles are not part of the equation.

Kachok
March 10, 2012, 01:15 PM
Ok I know it is not 7x57 or 7.92x57, but lets just for a second look at the extream end of the spectrum, if caliber was the primamry factor of bullet terminal performance why on earth were the old 54 and 58cal muskets not instant killers? They were very poor performers at range because of their near lack of energy. Now that I have made the point for the opposing side let me say again that my bet would be on the 8mm Mauser given the bullets avalible at the time. Weather or not that extra damage made up for it's 200fps slower speeds and hence reduced range that is another story, but put them both on target and the 8mm would do the trick for sure.

1911Tuner
March 10, 2012, 01:20 PM
If a lighter bullet with a much higher b.c. was to hit that target with far greater retained velocity, I'd expect much better performance due to the squared value of velocity in the energy calculation.

At that range, it's doubtful that there was a "far greater" retained velocity, given that neither one exactly set the world on fire speed-swise. The deciding factor was momentum...not energy.

Also consider that...at such ranges...the heavier bullet was likely carrying more velocity than the lighter one, even though the lighter one started at a higher velocity. Again...momentum is in play. The more massive it is, the harder it fights outside forces that are trying to decelerate it.

And finally...the faster the object is moving when it hits the air, the harder the air fights it. A 150-grain bullet at 2800 fps MV loses a greater percentage of that initial speed at 100 yards than a 165 at 2600 with all else assumed to be equal. Simple physics. In this case...the 3rd law of action and reaction. In layman's terms...the harder the bullet hits the target, the harder the target hits the bullet.

It's long been my belief...and this is supported by my own experience...that if you need more killing power, you need more bullet rather than more speed. Within reasonable, practical ranges, velocity serves mainly to flatten trajectory. Velocity, energy, and momentum are all variable, while mass is constant.

Another way to look at is is...

Two round balls dropped from a height of 2,000 feet. One weighs a pound and one weighs an ounce. Both strike at the same velocity, but which one do you least want to be struck by?

MachIVshooter
March 10, 2012, 01:28 PM
there was no way someone like (that rat bastard) MacArthur would allow progress in the military if a few pennies could be saved.

A few pennies? More like millions of dollars.

The fact is the 8mm Mauser was some 3 to 500 fps faster & had over a 1000 ft-lbs more energy. (case design) & no just because one is 7x57 & the other is 7.92x57 the case IS NOT the same...........

Other than the shoulder being a little further forward and 0.023" wider, they are, in fact, the same case. One can easily fire-form 7x57 in an 8x57 chamber, or resize 8x57 into 7x57. About the same as .270 Win. vs. .280 Rem.

And no, the 8x57 wasn't that much more potent. 7x57 loads ranged from under 2,000 ft/lbs (Mexican loading) to 2,600 ft/lbs (Brazilian loading); 8x57IS 154 gr. was 2,835 ft/lbs

A better question would be why DID the Japanese switch from the 6.5x50mm to the 7.7x58mm, and the Italians from the 6.5x52mm to the 7.35x51mm?

Well, the Italians never really did switch. They went back to 6.5 because they couldn't sufficiently supply 7.35mm ammunition.

The Japs simply decided they wanted something more on par with the 8x57 and .30-06. The 6.5 Jap was pretty anemic compard to most of it's contemporaries (.303, 7.5x54, 7.5x55, 7.62x54, .30-06, 8x57)

.45Guy
March 10, 2012, 01:29 PM
if caliber was the primamry factor of bullet terminal performance why on earth were the old 54 and 58cal muskets not instant killers? They were very poor performers at range because of their near lack of energy.
Again, please refer to the primary source documents, specifically the sections pertaining to long bone strikes. The wounds created by the .58's were actually quite horrific. Not a laser beam by any means, but far more likely to be debilitating or fatal. Here is a modern study, since shooting gelatin is apparently more trustworthy than actual vivisection. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19485111

1911Tuner
March 10, 2012, 01:49 PM
The test that I mentioned above was basically a reenactment of the old Sandy Hook test that was performed in 1879.

Some of my numbers were wrong, due to the fact that it's been about 25 years since I read it...so with all due apologies.

Too long to post, here's an exerpt that was at the end of the report.

While these tests may be considered mere oddities today, they proved extremely useful at the time. The fact that the 500-grain bullet penetrated through the three-plank target and eight inches into sand meant that it could kill or wound enemy troops at extreme distances, even if they were partially protected and that was significant military information in a period when it was quite usual for large masses of troops to form up within view of defenders.


Since the tests showed that the 405-grain service bullet failed to perform as well as the 500-grain, and that the 500-grain bullet showed relatively little difference when propelled by either 70 or 80 grains of black powder, the .45-70-500 load in the service 2.1-inch case was adopted as standard for rifles. Thus those little-remembered Sandy Hook tests of 1879 had a lasting impact on firearms history without them, the gun companies might have recently resurrected the .45-80.

Here's the link for those who are interested.

http://home.earthlink.net/~sharpsshtr/CritterPhotos/SandyHook/SandyHook.html

Kachok
March 10, 2012, 02:24 PM
I have heard of people surviving torso hits from .58 cal muskets, but in all my time in the Army I have never seen or even heard of someone surviving a torso hit from a .50 BMG, not at any range, again their is more to termial performance the the caliber of the bullet in flight, My "puney" little 6.5x55 make a horrific bloody soup of the entire chest cavity of any deer I shoot, to say that is wounding beyond it's caliber is a massive understatement. Sorry if that is not a major case study, but that is real life.

.45Guy
March 10, 2012, 02:37 PM
Again, a 6.5 with expanding projectiles at hunting distances is an apples to oranges comparison. But, even the much vaunted 6.5x55 loses velocity over time, once the velocity dependant temporary cavity ceases to be an issue, results will be less impressive.

1911Tuner
March 10, 2012, 02:44 PM
I have heard of people surviving torso hits from .58 cal muskets, but in all my time in the Army I have never seen or even heard of someone surviving a torso hit from a .50 BMG, not at any range,

Not surprising, considering that the .50 BMG Ball round carries with it more of the things that cause a bullet to kill at 2 miles than the .58 Minie does at the muzzle. (490 grain bullet/60 grains powder/960 fps nominal mv)

Because the Minie's shape caused it to lose velocity quickly, it's doubtful that the bullets fired at 200 yards...average initial engagement distance for a volley in a set/piece Civil War battle...impacted at much more than about 650-700 fps. I've read reports of soldiers actually being able to see the swarm of bullets coming when distances got longer than about 150 yards and the sun was at their backs. The .50 Browning is in a completely different class. Apples to oranges, I'm afraid. Rather like comparing a .22 Short to a .22-250.

.45Guy
March 10, 2012, 02:48 PM
I'm not going to keep searching the databases, but there are many documented instances of aircrew survival after hits from 12.75mm.

Kachok
March 10, 2012, 02:52 PM
Again, a 6.5 with expanding projectiles at hunting distances is an apples to oranges comparison. But, even the much vaunted 6.5x55 loses velocity over time, once the velocity dependant temporary cavity ceases to be an issue, results will be less impressive.
Agreed, that is why they make 160gr :D but until they invent a 700lbs whitetail I am perfectly fine with the little 120s and 140s that fill the freezer every year. I am afraid it is hard to find a proper ballistics gel test for either of the original loads for the 7x57 or 7.92x57, we can compare them with modern bullets but as you have already said that really is apples to oranges, so anything we can say here is speculation at best unless we are talking about the core principlas of terminal ballistics, which as you pointed out tend to favor the larger caliber. Now if we were talking about the 7.92x57 vs the 303 that would be a different story. The Brits figured out early on that if they make spritzers very base heavy they yaw in a very quick and nasty fashion. That was easly the most effective manstopper of the medium bore world for many years. In my humble oppinion it outperformes our modern 147gr 7.62x51 on soft targets.

.45Guy
March 10, 2012, 02:58 PM
but in all my time in the Army I have never seen or even heard of someone surviving a torso hit from a .50 BMG

And some of the instructors at SOI on Geiger liked to spout off about near misses taking a limb clean off... The records of survivors are out there.

Kachok
March 10, 2012, 03:05 PM
BTW a 140gr 6.5x55 can maintain 7.92x57 muzzle speeds at 500yds and still has over 1500fps at 1,000 so I am getting a healthy shock cavity out at ranges I can hardly see. Good enough in my book :)

.45Guy
March 10, 2012, 03:07 PM
I am afraid it is hard to find a proper ballistics gel test for either of the original loads for the 7x57 or 7.92x57

The problem with gelatin tests is that they are conducted at ranges that demonstrate the effects of velocity dependant temporary cavity. That is why the reports of vivisection of combat casualties are a tad more useful in discussing terminal ballistics in regard to military use. M-855 from an M-4 does impressive things in a block at 30 meters, however documented wounding on living targets at range is somewhat less impressive.

.45Guy
March 10, 2012, 03:12 PM
BTW a 140gr 6.5x55 can maintain 7.92x57 muzzle speeds at 500yds and still has over 1500fps at 1,000 so I am getting a healthy shock cavity out at ranges I can hardly see. Good enough in my book
How hot are you loading it? I'm showing a .264 140 with bc of .496 retaining 1873 FPS @ 500 if it starts at 2700... 2036 if 2900...

Kachok
March 10, 2012, 03:13 PM
Yes but the HUGE problem with that is that we are not messuring anything and the report is highly subject to the bias of any one resercher, hence not very usefull. You would have to be dealing with a double blind to keep information accurate and none of those studies did that to my knowlage. No I perfer to stick to things that I can messure because "reserchers" give contradictory information with such boring regularity that we have come to expect it.
Burger VLD 140gr .612BC 2800fps 52gr H1000 and a win primer. That is a standard pressure load, some folks do compressed loads of RL22 and have pushed over 3000fps, not in my baby though. I can get .490BC out of flat base partitions, no the capabilities of the 6.5 are much higher then that. 2100fps at 500 and 1500fps at 1000, that is why 6.5s are still so popular with long range shooters.

.45Guy
March 10, 2012, 03:20 PM
Awww crap, now I have to order some. Thanks for giving me something else to pee money away on!:D Damn, shaves almost an inch off the mid range... Order placed.

Kachok
March 10, 2012, 03:24 PM
Awww crap, now I have to order some. Thanks for giving me something else to pee money away on!:D Damn, shaves almost an inch off the mid range... Order placed.
You are welcome :D and if you hunt try 120BTs over 45gr IMR4350, accurate as all getup and the deer won't know what hit them, guys at the hunt camp swear I am blasting them with some large cal belted mag, the internal damage is THAT nasty. Needless to say I don't track my deer, you can bet money they all fall within 20 feet max of where I shot them.

.45Guy
March 10, 2012, 03:30 PM
I may just give 4350 a shot once the 4895 runs out.

Kachok
March 10, 2012, 03:34 PM
RL-19 works too, little over 3000fps with a .458BC trajectory wise you would swear you were shooting a 130gr 270 win except the recoil is noticably lighter

Jaws
March 10, 2012, 03:54 PM
With the bullet designed back then, against humans, I'm sure the 8mm Mauser was more lethal than the 7mm Mauser.
Another aspect not mentioned yet in this thread is the platform that shot them. The few weapons available, capable of repeating fire, (the new machine guns), were large, heavy, crew served, area weapons.
If the 7mm cartridge was selected, the troops would use the same type of slow reloading bolt gun anyway. The heavier recoil of the 8mm round was not really affecting the accuracy of the followup shots as the soldier had to reload between shots.

I guess the 7x57mm mauser showed up too early to be used effectively as infantry cartridge. There were no modern bullets to maximize it's potential, there were no automatic or semiautomatic rifles and carbines to take advantage of the milder recoil, and last but I think the most important point, the fighting strategies and doctrines were so old and primitive, that military organizations couldn't even understand the potential advantages of the 7x57mm.

Shadow 7D
March 10, 2012, 04:03 PM
I've personally seen a guy who survived 3 torso it's from a Ma Duce,
as for the switch, wasn't 7mm a Spanish round and the 93 a export gun?
so the germans never switched

Kachok
March 10, 2012, 04:12 PM
Send me that link, I don't want to get too graphic but I have seen large chunks go flying, like a supersized varmint round, I have a HARD time seeing anyone survive 3 hits from that unless the were very grazing shots.

Shadow 7D
March 10, 2012, 04:18 PM
Don't have pics, like I said, PERSONALLY, I was a medic and he was the evac (claimed sheep herder trying to get a sheep unstuck from the exterior wire at a known infiltration point...)

he lost an arm, and a kidney, and wasn't purty when they loaded him up, but was in surgery in less than 2 hours after being shot, I had buddies in the surgery unit, how I know he walked out the front gate of that camp 3 weeks later (well was helped)

point is, no matter the size PLACEMENT is vital, and I wouldn't call loosing an arm and kidney grazing (2 in the upper chest/shoulder missing the lungs, but still MASSIVE bleeding from the chest tube, and one through diaphragm)

Kachok
March 10, 2012, 04:37 PM
That would have to be one lucky Mofo, The result of the 50 BMG striking bone is horrific bone fragmentation, I won't comment on what I have seen it do to people, but I have seen a large mountain sheep get blown in half as the result of heavy bone being struck. If a 50 strikes anything hard expect dramatic results because nothing in the human body can even slow it down by any resonable amount.

Beak50
March 10, 2012, 05:54 PM
I know the Germans never used the 7x57,I should of just asked why they used the 8x57 instead.The question has been answered for me.I have and reload 8x57 myself,I was thinking speed and trajectory wise about buying a 7x57 but first on my list is a 6.5x55 Swede.

Art Eatman
March 10, 2012, 06:31 PM
OP answered. :)

If you enjoyed reading about "Why did the Nazi's or whoever switch from the 7x57 to 7.9x57" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!