tark
Member
Trivia time. When did the cartridge known as the 308 first appear, what was its designation and what rifle fired it?
308 history
- Thread starter tark
- Start date
- Status
Not a 308 aficionado.....but going from memory and supposition commercial release was 1952, 308 winchester, winchester model 70
Im pretty sure the m-14 and the 7.62x51 came later after continued development....i dont know if the garand was adapted to it first either.....only .308 garand type rifles ive seen are built after market, or BM59s.
Thr earlier experimental development, i know exactly nothing about besides its parent case.
Im pretty sure the m-14 and the 7.62x51 came later after continued development....i dont know if the garand was adapted to it first either.....only .308 garand type rifles ive seen are built after market, or BM59s.
Thr earlier experimental development, i know exactly nothing about besides its parent case.
Nature Boy
Member
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2015
- Messages
- 8,277
I don't know what rifle first fired the .308, but it was first designated as the T65, was based on the .300 Savage and I believed the 7.62 NATO preceded Winchester's commercialization of the .308 Winchester
Risky buisness
Member
I happen to have a 55 dated Navy Match rifle in 7.62 so these guys were getting to the party fairly early.
lightman
Member
I'm too lazy to X out of here and look at Google but this is what I remember.
I believe the above posters are mostly correct. Winchester introduced it in 1952 as the 308 Winchester and it was chambered in the Model 70. It was also offered in the Models 88 and 100. The Military experimented with a cartridge known then as the T65 and adopted it in 1954 and it was known as the 7.62 X 51. If it was adopted in 1954 it stands to reason that they experimented and tested it before 1954. It was based off of the 300 Savage and some experiments were done using shortened 30-06 cases.
I believe the above posters are mostly correct. Winchester introduced it in 1952 as the 308 Winchester and it was chambered in the Model 70. It was also offered in the Models 88 and 100. The Military experimented with a cartridge known then as the T65 and adopted it in 1954 and it was known as the 7.62 X 51. If it was adopted in 1954 it stands to reason that they experimented and tested it before 1954. It was based off of the 300 Savage and some experiments were done using shortened 30-06 cases.
kBob
Member
I thought the first rifle designed around the T65 cartridge was the T25 test rifle. No doubt others were chambered for it but I think the first rifle designed for that cartridge and so sized specifically for it was the T25 test rifle. Soon followed by the EM1remodeled across the pond.
Do I get a free behind the glass tour of the museum if I am right ?
-kBob
Do I get a free behind the glass tour of the museum if I am right ?
-kBob
CapnMac
Member
From memory, EM-1 started as .280enfield (7x43) which was actually standardized as the .280nato before the 7.62x51nato was adopted. EM-2 was in the 7.62nato. After using the 7.62nato is when Enfield did its foray into 4.8mm before 5.56nato was adopted.
OP
OP
tark
Member
I AM IMPRESSED! kBob you know your 308 history!! Here are the four T-25s in the museum. These are all Remington's and have the select fire capability. Tag # 6869 is missing the rear sight and #6865 is missing the pistol grip. The 20 round mags are in storage. They were designed by Earle Harvey a little known and quite prolific weapons designer. Obviously, they were experimenting with different stock designs and sights. Those folding sights look to be direct copies of those found on the German FG42. The Bennel Machine Co. in Brooklyn made the first four prototypes. The rifle itself was quite remarkable. It only weighed seven pounds!! (Must have been fun in full auto) and it fired from the closed bolt in semi and from the open bolt in auto. It had some rather bizarre features....the bolt release was the TRIGGER! 
With the bolt locked open after the last round, one inserted a fresh mag and pulled the trigger!! This chambered the round. A second pull fired the gun. If the gun was set on full auto, the first pull merely started the firing cycle. At first, this sounds insane but after more consideration, it actually is rather brilliant. When the soldier runs out of ammo he just changes mags and keeps right on pulling the trigger. The breech bolt was a tilting block design that locked into the upper receiver, much like a Bren. It was enormously strong. Early tests confirmed it could withstand a 125,000 PSI proof round without any increase in headspace and 150,000 PSI without parts breakage!
The Army ordered 50 more from Remington. Testing began in Sept. 1948 and results were good. There were small glitches but nothing that wasn't correctable. The bias in favor of the modified M-1 designs finally killed the project and I'm pretty sure that bolt release feature had something to do with it. It wasn't long before we were in another war in Korea and the Army wasn't about to switch rifles in the middle of a war. The project just kind of died out after Korea and the army's obvious bias in favor of an M-1 looking Springfield Armory design....Well, we all know what happened after THAT!
KBob, I would love to give you a behind the glass tour......except for two things.
You would have to talk Patrick Allie, the museum's director into the Idea....and I will be the fall of 2022 before the museum re-opens. We will be undergoing a major renovation. I can't say any more that that.
With the bolt locked open after the last round, one inserted a fresh mag and pulled the trigger!! This chambered the round. A second pull fired the gun. If the gun was set on full auto, the first pull merely started the firing cycle. At first, this sounds insane but after more consideration, it actually is rather brilliant. When the soldier runs out of ammo he just changes mags and keeps right on pulling the trigger. The breech bolt was a tilting block design that locked into the upper receiver, much like a Bren. It was enormously strong. Early tests confirmed it could withstand a 125,000 PSI proof round without any increase in headspace and 150,000 PSI without parts breakage!The Army ordered 50 more from Remington. Testing began in Sept. 1948 and results were good. There were small glitches but nothing that wasn't correctable. The bias in favor of the modified M-1 designs finally killed the project and I'm pretty sure that bolt release feature had something to do with it. It wasn't long before we were in another war in Korea and the Army wasn't about to switch rifles in the middle of a war. The project just kind of died out after Korea and the army's obvious bias in favor of an M-1 looking Springfield Armory design....Well, we all know what happened after THAT!
KBob, I would love to give you a behind the glass tour......except for two things.
You would have to talk Patrick Allie, the museum's director into the Idea....and I will be the fall of 2022 before the museum re-opens. We will be undergoing a major renovation. I can't say any more that that.Attachments
![IMG_4514[1].JPG](/data/attachments/925/925180-4a5d75f095349c53d1020ce1692df6c2.jpg)
Last edited:
lysanderxiii
Member
Technically, the first rifle that shot T65 ammunition was a rebarrelled Winchester Model 70 . . . .
Then a coupla' Mann accuracy and velocity actions . . . .
All this would have been in the middle of 1944.
And, I would argue that FA T1 case (Frankford Arsenal, Test 1) case, is a long way from the FA T1E3 case we know as .308 Winchester.
It is shorter, has a completely different rim design, the body taper is less, the shoulder is more square, the neck is shorter. In fact the two only share the rim and the neck diameter.
7.62mm CETME came after 7.62mm NATO. You might be thinking of the 7.92mm CETME, and no, it also postdates the lightweight rifle cartridge program...
EDIT:
The first military rifle to shoot the T65 ammunition was probably the T35. Although the "T" number is higher, the T35 started life in June 1944, over a year before the T25 (September 1945), and was a simple conversion of an M1 to fire the T65 cartridge.
Other early T65 users:
T27 - conversion of the M1 to T65 and full-auto. (April 1946)
T28 - New design (October 1946)
T-31 - John Garand's bullpup (March 1947)
Cook Rifle (circa 1947)
Clark Rifle (c 1947)
T36 - development of the T20E2 to use T65 ammunition (November 1949)
T37 - development of the T36 (c 1950)
T44 - development of the T37 (c 1951)
Last edited:
lysanderxiii
Member
M1 bias myth alert!
Sorry, if you read the report on the three-way test between the EM-2, the T25 and the proto-FAL, the T25 was in solid last place, even considering they found the EM-2 extremely complicated and difficult to strip. AND making allowances for the fact the T25 was using a more powerful cartridge. The only area it showed superiority was in accuracy, and was only marginally better. The T25 went back to the drawing boards and returned a year or two later as the T47 and in another test, four-way this time, with all entrants using the same ammunition based on the new FA T1E3 cartridge case, it again placed last.
The fourth entrant was a little considered back-up from Springfield, a T37 modified with the one feature Springfield fell in love with about the T25, the White gas cut-off tacked on, this was designated the T44.
lonniemike
Member
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2004
- Messages
- 206
The earliest high power shooting a 308 is the Swiss M1911 rifle shooting a 174 grain projectile in 7.5X55 around 1911 at 26650fps. The US, NATO, and Winchester are later comers and maybe improvers of more pressure and a shorter case in 308. With ammo that was designed in 1908 and brought into service in 1911-1913, a Swiss model 1911 rifle pushed a 174 grainer(a bullet the US copied in the 1920's) at 2650fps. Long range and accuracy were lagging in the old US 30'06. The more modern model K1931 with it's 26" tube matches nato specs @ 2550fps. 7.62X51 and 7.5X55 are about equal ballisticaly BestAll
lonniemike
Member
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2004
- Messages
- 206
Win 308 in 1952. Nato 7.62 in 1953-4
lysanderxiii
Member
I don't know what you are trying to say, but . . .
Lightweight Cartridge Case, FA T1E3 case in 1949. (Compare this case to .308 Winchester, it is exactly the same.)
And, 7.5 Swiss is not 7.62mm NATO, the case volume is larger. It is both longer and larger in diameter. Yes, the service round has similar performance to M118 Match/Special Ball, but it is also similar to Caliber .30 Ball, M1.
lysanderxiii
Member
OP
OP
tark
Member
I'm still learning, Lysanderxiii, and you just helped further my education! Thank you! I have not held one of the T-25s in my hands, and I was shocked to learn it only weighs seven pounds. I see in the test results you sent that is is said that it was controllable in automatic fire. I'm still going through the report. Maybe it had a low cyclic rate, something that should have been engineered into the T-44.
OP
OP
tark
Member
Uhhhh....No.
lysanderxiii
Member
The main reason is in these two sentences:
"The rifle is fitted with a combination recoil-check and compensator. This, together with the straight line stock give excellent stability to the weapon during automatic firing."
The T25 had a rate of fire typical for these automatic rifles 650 to 700 rpm, but the recoil check, aka muzzle-brake was apparent fairly good as a brake but poor as a flash hider.
Another objectionable characteristics, either the T25 or T47, was the tendency to eject the cases straight up and forward. In one test, after a fairly longish burst, a bullet struck one of the ejected cases, mid-flight, sending off to the side injuring one of the observers.
Other fun facts:
Time necessary to field strip the rifle:
EM-2 - 13 sec with 1 tools
FN - 11 sec with 0 tools
T25 - 39 sec with 2 tools
Time necessary to assemble after field stripping the rifle:
EM-2 - 29 sec with 0 tools
FN - 24 sec with 0 tools
T25 - 1 min 15 sec with 2 tools
Time necessary to completely disassemble the rifle:
EM-2 - 9 min 27 sec with 5 tools
FN - 5 min 55 sec with 4 tools
T25 - 4 min 30 sec with 7 tools
Time necessary to assemble after complete disassembly of the rifle:
EM-2 - 21 min 31 sec with 5 tools
FN - 10 min 35 sec with 4 tools
T25 - 10 min 10 sec with 7 tools
Last edited:
lysanderxiii
Member
"Report of the Joint Test of US and UK Lightweight Rifles an Ammunition (Vol II) (1950) {snip}
Test No. 33:
1. Purpose: To determine the comparative effect of firing test rifles on using personnel.
2. Method:
3. Results:
(2) FN: Heavy vibration of the butt on the cheekbone affected some firers.
(3) EM-2:
(4) With all rifles in both semi-automatic and automatic fire at normal rates the forearm grip became too hot to hold after approximately 180 rounds.
b. Comfort of Firing Positions: Firing positions could be adopted equally well with all rifles except that the short stock of the FN handicapped tall men.
c. Effect of Shape of Stock:
(1) T25:
(a) The comparatively sharp edges of the butt plate combined with its limited bearing surface made the recoil much more apparent to the firer, and during sustained firing, caused bruising.
4. Analysis:
Test No. 33:
1. Purpose: To determine the comparative effect of firing test rifles on using personnel.
2. Method:
a. During the firing of all tests the degree of fatigue of firers was noted.
b. Firers were interviewed periodically on the effects of firing.
b. Firers were interviewed periodically on the effects of firing.
3. Results:
a. Effect of recoil and other functional operations on the firers: The kick of the test rifles has been compared in Test No. 32. No effect of the kick of the rifles was normally visible on firers until several hundred rounds had been fired. During an average day's firing, each firer used each type rifle to the same extent. Characteristics of the test rifles were as follows:
(1) T25:
(a) Undesirably heavy kick. This resulted in bruised shoulders after firing.
(b) In automatic fire the rifle operates from either an open or a closed bolt, with the open bolt there were two undesirable effects:
(c) By holding the rifle with. the left hand too far to the rear and curling the fingers too far round the hand guard, the tips of the fingers could be pinched by the operating rod handle during its forward movement.
(d) The shape of the pistol grip and the stock behind the trigger guard caused soreness and abrasions to the skin over the lower knuckle of the right thumb after an appreciable number of rounds had been fired.
(b) In automatic fire the rifle operates from either an open or a closed bolt, with the open bolt there were two undesirable effects:
1) A pressure of approximately 20 lbs. was required to operate the trigger. This called for an undesirable effort from the firer.
2) It required a greater effort to maintain a steady aim while the working parts were moving forward to fire the first round.
2) It required a greater effort to maintain a steady aim while the working parts were moving forward to fire the first round.
(c) By holding the rifle with. the left hand too far to the rear and curling the fingers too far round the hand guard, the tips of the fingers could be pinched by the operating rod handle during its forward movement.
(d) The shape of the pistol grip and the stock behind the trigger guard caused soreness and abrasions to the skin over the lower knuckle of the right thumb after an appreciable number of rounds had been fired.
(2) FN: Heavy vibration of the butt on the cheekbone affected some firers.
(3) EM-2:
(a) The trigger pull was inconsistent requiring a greater degree of control and concentration from the firers than with the other test rifles.
(b) During rapid or sustained fire the trigger soon overheated and became too hot to be operated comfortably without some form of protection form the trigger finder.
(c) When they first fired the weapon several men thought the sight might recoil and hit them on the forehead. Only one minor case of this occurred, but the fear remained until confidence had been gained.
(b) During rapid or sustained fire the trigger soon overheated and became too hot to be operated comfortably without some form of protection form the trigger finder.
(c) When they first fired the weapon several men thought the sight might recoil and hit them on the forehead. Only one minor case of this occurred, but the fear remained until confidence had been gained.
(4) With all rifles in both semi-automatic and automatic fire at normal rates the forearm grip became too hot to hold after approximately 180 rounds.
b. Comfort of Firing Positions: Firing positions could be adopted equally well with all rifles except that the short stock of the FN handicapped tall men.
c. Effect of Shape of Stock:
(1) T25:
(a) The comparatively sharp edges of the butt plate combined with its limited bearing surface made the recoil much more apparent to the firer, and during sustained firing, caused bruising.
(2) FN:
(a) The cheek rest heated up enough during rapid and sustained fire to become uncomfortable to some firers.
(b) The enlarged portion of the front grip was situated too far to the rear for comfort for the average man.
(c) When the barrel became hot, the screw thru the front grip conducted excessive heat to the firers hand.
(a) The butt of this rifle was too short, forcing most firers to adopt unnatural and uncomfortable positions.
(b) The fore end was too small in diameter. By encircling the rifle with his fingers a firer could interfere with his line of sight and also burn his finders on the gas cylinder.
(3) EM-2:(b) The fore end was too small in diameter. By encircling the rifle with his fingers a firer could interfere with his line of sight and also burn his finders on the gas cylinder.
(a) The cheek rest heated up enough during rapid and sustained fire to become uncomfortable to some firers.
(b) The enlarged portion of the front grip was situated too far to the rear for comfort for the average man.
(c) When the barrel became hot, the screw thru the front grip conducted excessive heat to the firers hand.
d. Amount of Smoke Dust and Gases Blown into Face:
(1) Smoke
(a) T25: Smoke from the muzzle affected the maintenance of aim of some firers, during automatic fire.
(b) FN and EM-2: No adverse comments.
(2) Dust
(1) Smoke
(a) T25: Smoke from the muzzle affected the maintenance of aim of some firers, during automatic fire.
(b) FN and EM-2: No adverse comments.
(a) T25: Dust was occasionally blown back into face when launching grenades.
(3) Gases:
(a) T25: A strong blast of gases from the muzzle came back in the firers' faces when launching grenades.
(b) FN: No adverse comments.
(c) EM-2: On ejection, unburnt particles of powder periodically struck the firers on the face, producing a mild stinging effect. This sometimes irritates the eyes and nose.
e. Effect of Noise and Blast on Firer and the Effect of Rifles Adjacent to the Firer:
(1) T25:
(a) Effect on Firers: No blast of gases was apparent except when firing grenades. However, the sharp report from the muzzle was constant cause for complaint; and many firers reported partial deafness after firing.
(b) Effect on Adjacent Firers: The sharp report caused considerable discomfort to the ears.
(2) FN and EM-2:
(a) Effect on Firers: None.
(b) Effect on Adjacent Firers: he angle of ejection was such that empty cases frequently struck firers to the right of the rifle fired up to a distance of 15 feet. This fault was more apparent with the EM-2 than the FN.
(b) Effect on Adjacent Firers: he angle of ejection was such that empty cases frequently struck firers to the right of the rifle fired up to a distance of 15 feet. This fault was more apparent with the EM-2 than the FN.
f. Ease of Manual Operations:
(1) T25:
(a) With the working parts to the rear, firing semi-automatic, the firer has to operate the trigger twice before he can fire the gun - the first time to close the bolt and the second time to fire the rifle.
(b) he effort required to fire the rifle from the open bolt (20 lbs trigger pull) was excessive.
(c) The magazine catch was badly positioned and difficult to operate, causing delay in changing magazines.
(d) The safety lever was badly positioned and hard to locate at night, causing delay in operation.
(e) Sight adjustment was stiff and slow.
(f) The operating handle became too hot to work during sustained fire.
g)The majority of firers felt that this rifle was the least suitable of the test rifles in the ease of manual operations.
(b) he effort required to fire the rifle from the open bolt (20 lbs trigger pull) was excessive.
(c) The magazine catch was badly positioned and difficult to operate, causing delay in changing magazines.
(d) The safety lever was badly positioned and hard to locate at night, causing delay in operation.
(e) Sight adjustment was stiff and slow.
(f) The operating handle became too hot to work during sustained fire.
g)The majority of firers felt that this rifle was the least suitable of the test rifles in the ease of manual operations.
(2) FN:
(a) Of the three test rifles, this is the only one designed for manual operation with the left hand. This required practice by firers accustomed to right-handed operated guns, particularly in the prone position without bipod. With bipod, it appeared to be an advantage.
(b) The magazine release catch was hard to locate by touch. This causes delay in changing magazines.
(c) The ease of operation of the change lever was too variable.
(d) The majority of firers felt that this- rifle was the most suitable of the test rifles in the case of manual operations.
(a) Of the three test rifles, this is the only one designed for manual operation with the left hand. This required practice by firers accustomed to right-handed operated guns, particularly in the prone position without bipod. With bipod, it appeared to be an advantage.
(b) The magazine release catch was hard to locate by touch. This causes delay in changing magazines.
(c) The ease of operation of the change lever was too variable.
(d) The majority of firers felt that this- rifle was the most suitable of the test rifles in the case of manual operations.
(3) EM-2:
(a) The action of the trigger was inconsistent and lacks easily defined pressures.
(b) The trigger overheated after short periods of sustained fire.
(c) The cocking handle overheated in sustained fire.
(d) The initial unlocking, when the cocking handle was pulled to the rear was too stiff.
(e) The ease of changing magazines was noteworthy,
(f) The optical sight eliminated all manual operations required for sight adjustment.
(g) This rifle cannot be fired from the left shoulder.
(h) The majority of firers felt that this rifle was clearly inferior to the FN, but superior to the T25, in the ease of manual operations.
(b) The trigger overheated after short periods of sustained fire.
(c) The cocking handle overheated in sustained fire.
(d) The initial unlocking, when the cocking handle was pulled to the rear was too stiff.
(e) The ease of changing magazines was noteworthy,
(f) The optical sight eliminated all manual operations required for sight adjustment.
(g) This rifle cannot be fired from the left shoulder.
(h) The majority of firers felt that this rifle was clearly inferior to the FN, but superior to the T25, in the ease of manual operations.
4. Analysis:
a. In comparative effect on using personnel the order of merit of the rifles is FN, EM-2 and T25. The FN is clearly superior to the EM-2, and the EM-2 is clearly superior to the T25.
b. The overheating factor in all three rifles is excessive and especially so the EM-2, in which the trigger also overheats. The acceptability of all rifles is marginal in this respect.
c. The undesirably heavy kick and excessive blast of the T-25 make its acceptability even more marginal.
b. The overheating factor in all three rifles is excessive and especially so the EM-2, in which the trigger also overheats. The acceptability of all rifles is marginal in this respect.
c. The undesirably heavy kick and excessive blast of the T-25 make its acceptability even more marginal.
wbm
Member
Frankford Arsenal and Springfield Armory began tinkering with the idea in the 40's. Ended up being the T65. Winchester took the experiment to the next level and came with the .308.
.455_Hunter
Member
My Dad was at Gitmo in 1956 or 57 and picked-up a Win 88 in the hot new .308 Winchester. The PX was having a clearance/close-out on civilian rifle sales because some guy named Castro was causing problems on the island and they didn't want to be a source for stolen weapons.
It's still his elk rifle to this day.
It's still his elk rifle to this day.
lysanderxiii
Member
Yes and not quite.
Frankford contracted Winchester to develop various loadings (ball, tracer, AP, etc) using Frankford's FA T1E3 case. After the contract was completed, Winchester asked if Frankford had any objections to them producing the case for the commercial market. The Army in general didn't care one way or the other, so Winchester began commercial production of the ammunition and Model 70s chambered in it.
Winchester had very little to do with actually developing the case.
The same thing happened with Remington and .223, they were contracted to produce Armalite's ".222 Special" for extensive testing, and with approval from Armalite they introduced .223 Remington.
- Status
