What if the U.S. had adopted the .280 FAL?

[Slamfire]

I believe it was because those nations were still pretending they could use the same cartridge in both infantry and mounted machine guns. Lot of rather weak Italian and Japanese LMGs that simply were not very authoritative from an armored vehicle or aircraft.

Those are good reasons.

From what I have read that is the reason the Italians and the Japanese went from 6.5 to 7.35 and 7.7, to make a more effective long range cartridges base on combat experiences in wide-open largely vegetation-free regions, the Italians the desert, the Japanese in Manchuria. But, for various reasons the Japanese wound up making it in rimless and semi-rimmed versions.

As the US has found in Afghanistan the 223 round simply does not have the range. The book "Shots Fired in Anger", the author was a NRA Highpower competitor prior to shipping out in WW2 to fight the Japanese. The author made statements about long range accuracy not being relevant in 99.99% of combat situations, he carried a 30 caliber Carbine. A full powered round is great for shooting through trees, be they pine trees or palm trees, but in dense foliage, you can't see very far, and thus, you are not going to be shooting at anyone beyond your line of sight. I have been told by Combat veterans they did a lot of tree line shooting, but they had an idea someone was in the tree line.

Our last WW2 Combat Veteran died this year, he was at Iwo Jima and Okinawa, he said the Japanese snipers were making head shots. That statement choked him up when he said it because his buddies who were hit in the head, died instantly. I am only aware of Japanese sniper rifles in 6.5 caliber. I never read about any lack of lethality for the Japanese rounds, the author of Shots fired in Anger wrote about Americans being hit with blasts from Nambu's. He said the Japanese Nambu gunners aimed low, rounds would hit Americans in the legs, knock them down into the rest of the burst, bullets going into the torso would would bleed out the man very quickly.

The long barrel Japanese Arisaka rifles did not give off a muzzle blast which made it very difficult for American's to find the guys. I have seen the fireballs given off by US 30-06 , older stuff is impressive, a guy shooting from a cave entrance is going to give himself away with 30-06. This was a pressing issue and American troops complained that the Japanese had developed a powder that was flashless, whereas when the American's fired, they gave away their position.


This is a Japanese Nambu light machine gun. It used the 6.5 cartridge on stripper clips. They were dropped in the hopper. This gun cannot exist according to the dictates of Hatcherites. It uses an oiler to oil cartridges as they go into the chamber. According to classic Hatcherism, oil and grease "dangerously" raise combustion pressures and "greatly" increase bolt thrust. They claim cartridges must "grip" the chamber walls and lessen the load on the bolt. This is all nonsense, and while these historical firearms confound Hatcherism, nothing confounds Hatcherites.









This Italian machine gun, M30 Breda, also used an oiler.

 

[Jim Watson]

But, for various reasons the Japanese wound up making it in rimless and semi-rimmed versions.

As I understand it, the semirimmed 7.7 machine gun and its ammo considerably predated the adoption of the rimless 7.7mm rifle. I presume they would like to have obsoleted the semirimmed 7.7 and the 6.5, using the rimless 7.7 for all rifles and machine guns.


As I recall from Roy Dunlap, the machine gun that pulled ammo out of rifle clips was a kewl gadget but a less effective mg.

Maybe it was him that pointed out that the Hotchkiss machine guns that many Japanese weapons were based on did not need oilers.
Ah, so, Nambu sama, we don't need no stinkin primary extraction like the poofty French.

 

[Slamfire]

Maybe it was him that pointed out that the Hotchkiss machine guns that many Japanese weapons were based on did not need oilers.
Ah, so, Nambu sama, we don't need no stinkin primary extraction like the poofty French.

I wish I had the money to afford a couple of these machine guns so I could go through the mechanisms and see if there are clues why the Italians and Japanese went the route they did. Their mechanisms have to be delayed blowback or blowback if they required case lubrication. It is as Col Chinn said:




Hatcherites don't read Chinn, or if they read Chinn they are too stupid to understand the principles involved or their mind redacts any text involving case lubrication. But, there are advantages to eliminating the primary extraction period: it increases cyclic rate. It probably also increases extraction reliability because you can unlock the bolt at a little higher residual pressure point, and that would accelerate the ejection of the case. Breaking the friction between case and chamber improves extraction regardless of the operating principle of the firearm. Hatcherites don't understand that either, they want difficult extraction, they want to break extractors, rip cases in half, and use a ram rod to knock cases out of the chamber.

We do know that that the HK 91 uses chamber flutes to accomplish what oilers did prior to the invention of chamber flutes. And from what I have read the HK91 takes the lowest amount of money and labor to build of all the post WW2 308 service rifles. A big reason why I see HK91's still in front line service while all the contemporary rifles are out of inventory. So, maybe the Japanese and Italians found a manufacturing and cost offset by using delayed blowbacks.

 

[barnbwt]

According to classic Hatcherism, oil and grease "dangerously" raise combustion pressures and "greatly" increase bolt thrust. They claim cartridges must "grip" the chamber walls and lessen the load on the bolt. This is all nonsense, and while these historical firearms confound Hatcherism, nothing confounds Hatcherites.

I've heard and understand the bolt thrust claims, how on Earth is oil supposed to raise chamber pressures, though? Do they claim it's Dieseling, or something?

We all know for a fact a pressurized cartridge carries load, after all it's enough to stretch & tear a case head off. But you'd be a damn fool to design a machine that operates anywhere near oil lubrication, to include fingerprints, that relies on the precise friction coefficient of clean brass on steel. Same as it's stupid to design a machine that relies on a precise friction coefficient of oiled brass on steel to function properly (looking at you, Breda M37). Simply far too variable to count on. The waxed Pedersen bullets were even pushing it, though they at least bothered to use a lube substance that was quite stable and dirt resistant, unlike the Breda which IIRC used pre-lubed ammo strips that had to be opened & inserted exposed during blowing Saharan sandstorms --brilliant. Oiler systems were flat ubiquitous, especially in gas-operated guns, until ammo/propellant quality and engineering advances got gas-operation timing and extraction mechanics perfected.

But, there are advantages to eliminating the primary extraction period: it increases cyclic rate.

It's also really expensive, generally. It's also proven to be unnecessary (none of the many open-bolt MG's I've learned about utilize it, nor do hardly any even semi-modern battle or assault rifles, be they BREN or M16). I think it's much like controlled-round-feed, in that it is a desirable feature for the unreliability of human manual operated machines, but not needed for a highly-repeatable automatic system that can be appropriately designed. We forget a lot of the early designers were flying blind, but for the manual actions that incorporated these measures.

I wish I had the money to afford a couple of these machine guns so I could go through the mechanisms and see if there are clues why the Italians and Japanese went the route they did. Their mechanisms have to be delayed blowback or blowback if they required case lubrication. It is as Col Chinn said:

I have a Hotchkiss Portative kit I'm slowly acquiring missing pieces for to do a semi-auto build (somehow); there is no logic to the thing at all. It is a mess of poor design choices that were never, ever repeated, even by Hotchkiss. The thing is like a C96 Mauser had a baby with the Antikythera Mechanism in it's complexity, without a single dual-purpose part that I've been able to identify (there's a separate moving part if not two, to perform every single function in the cycle). But it worked, and that was a hell of a lot more than any competitors' gas guns could offer. Not bad for an entirely new field of technology (light-ish gas operated infantry machine guns) without any useful precedent. Considering that highly reliable recoil-operated Maxims and Madsens were available, I've always found it astonishing that wonky half-jammomatic-half-kaboominator gas operated guns ever became dominate. I guess it must be the reduced rate of fire they have to offer.

The Portative did indeed have primary extraction though (I think). It uses interrupted "buttress" threads to lock up, so both locking and unlocking the breechlock collar causes the bolt to be drawn forward and back a short ways (buttress threads really only work in one direction though, which is why I'm unsure about how effective they were in assisting primary extraction). More to the point, the gun has insanely massive operating parts, an insanely huge 1" diameter piston head, and an infinitely-adjustable gas regulator --small wonder that it could reliably dump enough energy into the ejection/loading cycle to operate reliably in all conditions. But God help you if you had to take anything apart to fix a breakage or jam.

As far as the need for oilers, it had a lot more to do with timing science than mechanisms, I think. Even recoil operated guns like the Maxim often had oilers (or literal oil cans used to continuously douse the entire action), since due to either machine design or ammunition variability, it seems to have been very difficult to thread the needle between reliable extraction and unsafe extraction/case failure, across a wide range of platforms (my theory is early powders were either inconsistent or had an undesirable pressure curve). Mauser lost an eye playing this game, and the much-wiser Browning stuck to long-recoil actions early on, which have the safest approach to uncorking the breech. All primary extraction offered was the ability to delay extraction until long, long after pressure could possibly still be present, while still having sufficient muscle to rip the spent case free. Once reliable timing was perfected, it was safe to crack the breech loose while there was actually still pressure in there, that would actually assist in the extraction process.

TCB

 

[lysanderxiii]

According to classic Hatcherism, oil and grease "dangerously" raise combustion pressures and "greatly" increase bolt thrust. They claim cartridges must "grip" the chamber walls and lessen the load on the bolt. This is all nonsense, and while these historical firearms confound Hatcherism, nothing confounds Hatcherites.

If a weapon is designed from the outset with oiled or greased cartridges in mind then the increased bolt thrust is factored into the design.

Oiled or greased cartridges are only a potential problem if they are used in weapons designed with a dry chamber in mind.

(And lubricating the outside of the case does not change the burning characteristics of the propellant inside the case.)

 

[Slamfire]

If a weapon is designed from the outset with oiled or greased cartridges in mind then the increased bolt thrust is factored into the design.

Oiled or greased cartridges are only a potential problem if they are used in weapons designed with a dry chamber in mind.

(And lubricating the outside of the case does not change the burning characteristics of the propellant inside the case.)

How are actions are designed, particularly the locking mechanism. A good look at the methodology is what Lilja has on their web page.

A Look at Bolt Lug Strength

http://riflebarrels.com/a-look-at-bolt-lug-strength/

The shear load on a locking mechanism is calculated assuming no load is carried by the case. The only real argument is whether the load is based on ID or OD. Recent tests by the Army, where they measured the bolt thrust on lubricated 223 cases shows that OD is the proper way to do it as the measurements based on ID under estimated the load. I took their data and found actual bolt thrust of a lubricated case corresponded to a location right in the case sidewall, which meant that frictional losses in the system were eating up some of the bolt thrust.

This calculation is independent of whether the mechanism "was designed" to use lubricated cartridges or not. I would like those who say mechanisms were weakened, assuming dry cases and dry chambers, to put out there an intelligent argument about how much the locking structure is weakened assuming the case carries load. And incidentally, how that friction is maintained. The smallest rain drop, a bit of oily sweat on the case, and the friction between case and chamber changes. It would be catastrophic if anyone left the bore and chamber oily after cleaning. I guarantee any Professional Engineer who weakens their mechanism assuming the case carries load is going to loose everything in a lawsuit the first time one of his weapons blows up. Regardless of the circumstances, when it is revealed in court that the PE was relying on case friction, which cannot be controlled, that PE will have been showed to be so incompetent that he does not know that he is incompetent.

 

[Slamfire]

I've heard and understand the bolt thrust claims, how on Earth is oil supposed to raise chamber pressures, though? Do they claim it's Dieseling, or something?

We all know for a fact a pressurized cartridge carries load, after all it's enough to stretch & tear a case head off. But you'd be a damn fool to design a machine that operates anywhere near oil lubrication, to include fingerprints, that relies on the precise friction coefficient of clean brass on steel. Same as it's stupid to design a machine that relies on a precise friction coefficient of oiled brass on steel to function properly (looking at you, Breda M37). Simply far too variable to count on. The waxed Pedersen bullets were even pushing it, though they at least bothered to use a lube substance that was quite stable and dirt resistant, unlike the Breda which IIRC used pre-lubed ammo strips that had to be opened & inserted exposed during blowing Saharan sandstorms --brilliant. Oiler systems were flat ubiquitous, especially in gas-operated guns, until ammo/propellant quality and engineering advances got gas-operation timing and extraction mechanics perfected.

It is an Army coverup that has lasted over a century now. The reason these coverups work is no matter how incompetent the Army Ordnance Bureau may be, the general public is vastly more incompetent. The general public does not have the capacity to critically analyze the self serving mythologies put out by large organizations and accepts concepts that violate the physical laws of the universe, just because an authority figure said it was so.

One century ago the Army was producing its M1903 "single heat treat" receivers in factories where human eyeballs controlled the temperatures in the forging rooms and heat treat furnaces. The Army also did not have an incoming inspection of materials so given the combination of out of spec steels and poorly controlled temperatures, receivers came out of the factory randomly soft, and randomly burnt. Some of these rifles blew up in proof, but some blew up in service. At the time everyone was greasing their bullets because the cupro-nickel fouling was something awful without grease. It was common practice at the time to grease bullets because it positively prevented cupro-nickel fouling and was claimed to extend barrel life.



The Swiss continued to shoot greased bullets up to the 1980's.



Whenever a low number M1903 blew up, with service rifle ammunition, the Army blamed the accident on grease. This was easy to do. The Army pretended its ammunition was perfect, assumed its rifles were perfect, and therefore it had to be the grease. The American shooting community embraced this argument, and over a century has embellished this, evolved it. For example, Ackley claimed his case design reduced bolt thrust and therefore it was OK for his cartridges to run 10,000 to 20,000 psia over standard pressures.

All the arguments are pseudo science and based on pseudo science, but, it is what the general shooting public believes.

As far as the need for oilers, it had a lot more to do with timing science than mechanisms, I think. Even recoil operated guns like the Maxim often had oilers (or literal oil cans used to continuously douse the entire action), since due to either machine design or ammunition variability, it seems to have been very difficult to thread the needle between reliable extraction and unsafe extraction/case failure, across a wide range of platforms (my theory is early powders were either inconsistent or had an undesirable pressure curve). Mauser lost an eye playing this game, and the much-wiser Browning stuck to long-recoil actions early on, which have the safest approach to uncorking the breech. All primary extraction offered was the ability to delay extraction until long, long after pressure could possibly still be present, while still having sufficient muscle to rip the spent case free. Once reliable timing was perfected, it was safe to crack the breech loose while there was actually still pressure in there, that would actually assist in the extraction process.

That is a very interesting commentary. Even today machine gunners will oil their ammunition to increase the reliability of function. Paul Mauser's first semi automatic rifle used greased cartridges, something forgotten in the American shooting community. The trade off's of the various actions were greatly debated prior to WW2, the long recoil action has a lot of mass moving and it has a lower cyclic rate. By the time you get to WW2 planes are moving so fast that multiple service rifle based machine guns were not providing enough hits on target and enough damage. Prior to WW2 the Army was looking for a fast 20mm cannon, wanted one that fired a 1000 rounds per minute. The Oerlikon, which used greased ammunition, was the fastest single barrel and it fired around 700 to 800 rounds a minute. The 20mm provided the punch needed in the propeller age, but once in the jet age, even 700 rounds per minute was too slow, so the Vulcan machine guns were developed. Those things use external power sources and are Gatling based mechanisms. Those things got up to 6000 rounds a minute but even then, planes kept on moving faster and getting tougher. Now, missiles with big explosive warheads are what fighter aircraft use against each other.

 

[Tirod]

As usual a gun thread sinks into the morass of technicalia. That's a given.

To have adopted a smaller caliber main battle rifle cartridge and the associated weapon to go with it, .276 or .280, would require a command structure which deferred to subject matter experts on firearms designs instead of their omnipotent notions of how things worked.

And what they see at their level is entirely different that what few battle experts or gun designers see. Sure, it's been commonly referred to that we had vast stockpiles of .30-06 before the war, but it's not like we couldn't start making the new round. Those stockpiles were still valid for the full auto guns and didn't last long once WWII broke out. And fielding the M1 Carbine with yet another completely different round in the middle of the war - one that wasn't a cut down .30-06 and required it's own ammo components - we see that the argument doesn't stand. We could and did introduce a new round regardless.

Same for the mid 50's, using the .308. Could we have adopted a smaller one then, too? What did happen was that we simply delayed it ten years. It faced the same problems the Garand had - issues with functional dynamics and powder composition plagued both until resolved. The problem wasn't the guns as much as those making the decisions.

We are right back to the command structure - who first chose to ignore the new trend and who then botched the deal later with their ignorance and compromises. That they failed to adopt it early on goes to their competence, and what I see in the record is that by delaying their decision, it meant those how would manage the fielding later were more knowledgeable about the system and how to fix it. Their predecessors were out of the loop and certainly too rigid to delegate the implementation to those who knew the guns better.

It's just as well we waited. As for any tactical advantage on the battlefield, it's moot. The gun in the hand of the soldier is only one part of the orchestra of war. Crew served weapons are the DOMINANT firepower and extract more casualties and lives than infantry does. Any experienced Infantryman knows this to be a fact, their tactics are centered on surviving and defeating crew served weapons which rain down large munitions on them. And the Infantry has equal resources - they call the same kind of crew served weapons on their enemy.

What kind of gun and ammo they carry to do the job is important to them, and increasing their firepower isn't useless, but it's actually a small part of the noise of battle. Artillery, bombs, and rockets delivered from cannons, planes, and warships are the main firepower of war and they know it. It's only in a low intensity conflict that one soldier's rifle has as much influence, and even then he's limited by the ROE and his skills.

Take it from another perspective - what would the question be about adopting a smaller cartridge too soon? Well, we have debated that one too much already.

 

[Slamfire]

We are right back to the command structure - who first chose to ignore the new trend and who then botched the deal later with their ignorance and compromises. That they failed to adopt it early on goes to their competence, and what I see in the record is that by delaying their decision, it meant those how would manage the fielding later were more knowledgeable about the system and how to fix it. Their predecessors were out of the loop and certainly too rigid to delegate the implementation to those who knew the guns better.

Science advances one funeral at a time. Max Planck

Guess that is also true for the military. Too bad the Navy guys who botched the Mark 14 torpedo lived into WW2 and covered up their incompetence for as long as they were able to. The Mark 14 Torpedo Scandal http://www.defensemedianetwork.com/...kwood-the-mark-14-and-the-bureau-of-ordnance/ A lot of American Sailors died because of the coverups and misdirections of the Navy leadership.

 

[barnbwt]

"Science cannot progress without heaps [of dead animals]"