Best military caliber/rifle idea with a twist

[dfaugh]

Think I'd have to go with the SMLE (the Russian guns are just too ugly, and have that bizarre safety)... Handles well, and is more compact than most other rifles of that time.

.303 british would be acceptable....but something like 7x57 would be better...maybe a 7mm-303? or 6.5-303?

Edited to add: 10 round capacity. with stripper clips---gotta count for something right?

 

[Tony Williams]

I agree over the Lee Enfield - but I'd adopt the 6.5x50SR Japanese Arisaka round, modified to be fully rimless and with a larger extractor groove (with future use in automatic weapons in mind) and loaded with a spitzer bullet of 120-125 grains (at 2,600-2,650 fps) designed like the British .303 Mk VII; i.e. with a light-alloy tip filler to encourage rapid tumbling, to maximise the wounding potential. You could probably get 12 rounds in the same space as the .303's 10-round mag.

The next step would be a competition for an LMG chambered for the 6.5mm round, which could be lighter and handier than ones in .30 calibre.

The final step would be a selective-fire assault rifle, in time for US involvement in WW1. Note that the Russian Federov Avtomat of 1916 was a selective-fire rifle chambered in 6.5mm Arisaka. The cartridge has the huge advantage over the full-power .30 cals (and the 6.5x55) of having a light enough recoil to be controllable in auto fire.

If they'd done that, the round could still be in service today. It would be more effective than the 5.56mm, and very similar to the 6.5mm Grendel in performance.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

 

[MachIVshooter]

I'd go with a Model 98 Mauser in 8X57. But I'd stretch the case a quarter of an inch and neck it down to .30 caliber.

Or the M93 Spanish Mauser chambered for the same stretched and re-necked cartridge, with the bolt bent and everything beefed a bit..........
wait a minute.........That kinda sounds like an M1903, doesn't it?

It's almost like the '03 Springfield was based on the Mauser .....

Though, honestly, in the trenches of WWI a fast-handling levergun likely would have better served the average infantryman. Save the '03's for marksmen.

 

[Crosshair]

Well, my choice would be the 6.5x55 Mauser in a SMLE. The 6.5x50SR would be a little more compact and a possibility as well.

I don't think there is any pratical difference on the battlefield with any of the cartridges mentioned above. I mean, can anyone name one battle that was won or lost based on what high powered rifle round was being used?

Battles have been lost because of insufficient rate of fire and from running out of ammo. Lower recoiling weapons and faster cycling weapons mean more lead going down range. Lower recoil means troops can become more effective. A slightly less powerfull round means it is easier to develop a sem-auto/full auto weapon that doesn't bash itself apart. Not to mention that smore effective rounds cost less to make, meaning there are resources available for other weapons.

 

[rbernie]

Everyone seems to be favoring the 6.5mm family, yet both Japan and Italy decided, in the midst of a real live shootin' war in the early 1940s, to move from a 6.5 to a larger 30-cal caliber chambering. Dunno why for sure, but I doubt that they'd move based solely on what was fashionable with their allies and enemies, not given all of the logistics issues it introduced in the middle of a war and all.....

The benefit of hindsight shows that the day of the full power rifle round was just about past almost as soon as it began, since we know what they didn't - that the light MG was about to give real range and firepower to the squad and that as a result the indivudual rifleman doesn't need all that much BANG but needs more of it.

While the 6.5mm seems a step in the right direction, recall that the 6.5mm bullets of the day didn't have the wounding capability (fragmentation) of our morern small-bore chamberings. Given the technology of the time, I'm going to suggest that a LARGER caliber would be more effective than a smaller one, albeit in a lower power chambering.

I choose the Mauser chambering of 7.65x53 loaded with a 150gr spitzer in a 22" barreled K98 as the best all-around choice. I'd actually prefer it in an Enfield 1917, but that's a few years away yet....

 

[Tony Williams]

Everyone seems to be favoring the 6.5mm family, yet both Japan and Italy decided, in the midst of a real live shootin' war in the early 1940s, to move from a 6.5 to a larger 30-cal caliber chambering. Dunno why for sure, but I doubt that they'd move based solely on what was fashionable with their allies and enemies, not given all of the logistics issues it introduced in the middle of a war and all.....

Priorities were different then. The emphasis was on long-range MG fire requiring powerful cartridges, so the PBI had to put up with this cartridge in the rifle. The 6.5x52 Carcano round (and early 6.5x50SR Arisakas) used round bullets which did not tumble but zipped straight through: unless they hit something vital, they did little damage.

While the 6.5mm seems a step in the right direction, recall that the 6.5mm bullets of the day didn't have the wounding capability (fragmentation) of our morern small-bore chamberings. Given the technology of the time, I'm going to suggest that a LARGER caliber would be more effective than a smaller one, albeit in a lower power chambering.

The technology of the time was perfectly adequate to develop bullets with far better wounding potential, as demonstrated by the British with the .303 Mk VII ball, which came out at about that time. There is no reason why the same technology (pointed bullet, with lightweight tip filler) couldn't also have been applied to 6.5mm ammunition.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

 

[Lone_Gunman]

Battles have been lost because of insufficient rate of fire and from running out of ammo. Lower recoiling weapons and faster cycling weapons mean more lead going down range.

I agree, but look at the cartridges and rifles people are talking about here. There is no huge disparity in the rate of fire or recoil of any of them. Most of what we are talking about in this thread are bolt action, high powered rifles.

I would say you are correct if you are comparing Trapdoor Springfields to the M1 Garand, but the practical difference in terms of rate of fire and recoil between the Springfield 03A3, Mauser K98, Enfield, and K-31 is much less compelling. And I would also contend there is no practical difference in external ballistics between 30-06, 8mm, 7.5, and 6.5. Yes, there are differences, but to Joe Grunt on the battlefield, I dont think it will matter much.

 

[JesseL]

There is no huge disparity in the rate of fire or recoil of any of them.

I'll give you rate of fire (except maybe as applied to the Enfield), but recoil? Have you ever fired and compared a 6.5x55 to a 7.92x57 or 7.62x54R? Especially from their original steel buttplated rifles? There is a HUGE difference! Maybe not, as you said, between the 30'06, .303, 7.92x57, and 7.5x55; but the sub-.30 caliber rounds can be a whole different story.

I could shoot my swede all day, but 20 rounds from my m44 is enough to satisfy my masochistic shoulder for a week.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

The 6.5x52 Carcano round (and early 6.5x50SR Arisakas) used round bullets which did not tumble but zipped straight through: unless they hit something vital, they did little damage.

Bullets don't tumble, they yaw. The 6.5x52 Carcano round and early 6.5x50SR Arisakas yawed just like the .30-06 and other rounds -- in fact the "Magic Bullet" that hit Kennedy high in the back and then went through to hit Connoly made a classic keyhole in Connoly's jacket -- 180 degrees of yaw. That was a Carcano round.

 

[SigfanUSAF]

What about the .280 Ross Rimless? The original factory loads included a 180 grain FMJ spitzer bullet at a claimed muzzle velocity of 2800 fps, and a 146 grain spitzer hunting bullet at a claimed MV of 3100 fps. The Mk II (1907) and III (1910) were very accurate, and, aside from a few misassembled bolts, were very much in line with other rifles of the day. It worked for the Canadians. This smiley isn't winking, but infact didn't know how to reassemble his Ross' bolt.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

The British did adopt the .280 Ross (in a slightly modified version) with a Mauser-based rifle to go with it. This was the P-13. With the outbreak of WWI, they decided to stick with the Enfield and .303, rather than try to switch rifles and cartridges in the midst of a war.

The P-13 was modified by American engineers to take the ,303 cartridge and adopted as a supplemental rifle called the P-14, and manufactured by Remington, Eddystone and Winchester. Just as the contracts were winding down, the US entered the war, and the same companies offered a slightly modified version in .30-06, which was adoped as the M1917 "Enfield."

We used more M1917s in WWI than Springfields and for some time after the war there was a move to adopt it as our primary rifle and retire the Sprinfield.

 

[Tony Williams]

Vern Humphrey said:

Bullets don't tumble, they yaw. The 6.5x52 Carcano round and early 6.5x50SR Arisakas yawed just like the .30-06 and other rounds -- in fact the "Magic Bullet" that hit Kennedy high in the back and then went through to hit Connoly made a classic keyhole in Connoly's jacket -- 180 degrees of yaw. That was a Carcano round.

I can't comment on any specific instance like the Kennedy shooting (almost anything can happen in specific instances), but I have to disagree in general.

Bullets for use against heavy game like elephants and buffalo are made parallel-sided with round noses specifically because they will drive on in a straight line through considerable thicknesses of flesh and bone. Some of the early African hunters successfully used 6.5mm rifles (with long, round-nosed bullets) for this very reason. They also tried pointed bullets when they first came out but rapidly abandoned them because they wouldn't penetrate in this way, but travelled in unpredictable directions after impact.

It is also a fact that the British (who gained lots of experience at shooting people with the original round-nosed .303" bullet) found that its terminal performance was unsatisfactory becuase it drove straight through. That is why they adopted a deep, hollow-point bullet (following experiments at the Dum Dum arsenal) before that was banned by the Hague Convention. So they then turned to a pointed bullet, mainly to achieve better long-range performance but also because it was more effective.

The key fact is that, unlike round-nosed bullets, pointed bullets have their centre of mass well behind the mid-point of the bullet. As a result, their naturally stable attitude is to fly base-first. They are only kept going point-first by being spun by the rifling. At soon as they hit a dense medium like flesh they will turn over to travel base-first (which is slightly misleadingly but popularly known as "tumbling"). "Yaw" means that it is no longer travelling point first but not that it will necessarily turn over (APFSDS cannon rounds fired from rifled barrels tend to yaw for the first couple of hundred metres before settling down to fly point first, so they are less effective at short range).

Any pointed bullet will therefore turn over on impact, although the speed of this depends on the bullet design and construction. The .303" Mk VII had the centre of mass much further back than most, because of the lightweight tip filler, and therefore turned over quicker than most (the Germans were unhappy about this in WW1 and complained that it was against the spirit of the Hague Conventions).

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Bullets for use against heavy game like elephants and buffalo are made parallel-sided with round noses specifically because they will drive on in a straight line through considerable thicknesses of flesh and bone. Some of the early African hunters successfully used 6.5mm rifles (with long, round-nosed bullets) for this very reason. They also tried pointed bullets when they first came out but rapidly abandoned them because they wouldn't penetrate in this way, but travelled in unpredictable directions after impact.

Actually, there are probably more failures with such bullets than successes. Very few people used them -- and abandoned them when something better came along.

A good solid for heavy game is one thing, a military FMJ is another. There is a firm in South Africa, for example that produces a bullet that looks a lot like a long wadcutter -- because the flat nose is much better for penetration.

Be that as it may, Oswald's rifle was a Carcano, and many people investigating the Kennedy assassination have fired Carcanos into many kinds of test media. It acts like any other FMJ, yawing about 180 degrees and stabilizing base forward.

It is also a fact that the British (who gained lots of experience at shooting people with the original round-nosed .303" bullet) found that its terminal performance was unsatisfactory becuase it drove straight through.

The .303 didn't expand, and the yaw is fairly slow, so that compared to the .577-.450 which it replaced it was not such a stopper. However, after working with softnoses (at Dum Dum) and hollowpoints (at Woolwich), the British were only able to use such bullets for a short time before being stopped by the Hague Convention. From then on, they used FMJs.

 

[Tony Williams]

Actually, there are probably more failures with such bullets than successes. Very few people used them -- and abandoned them when something better came along.

You mean round-nosed bullets against heavy game? So why has almost every bullet designed for hunting elephant, buffalo etc been designed with a round nose? And most of them historically have not been "solids", but jacketed wth a lead core - stronger than the jacket of a military bullet, because the bone is much thicker, but that is irrelevant to whether they go straight or turn over.

The fact is that pointed bullets are very much more effective than round-nosed ones (calibre and full-jacket construction being equal) so it would have been possible to greatly improve the effectiveness of the 6.5mm rounds used in the early years of the last century.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

 

[Vern Humphrey]

So why has almost every bullet designed for hunting elephant, buffalo etc been designed with a round nose?

For the same reason that in an earlier era all bullets were round balls -- because that was the state of the art. However, the modern tendency is toward a flat meplat -- and in some cases something looking a bit like a long wadcutter.

 

[Tony Williams]

For the same reason that in an earlier era all bullets were round balls -- because that was the state of the art. However, the modern tendency is toward a flat meplat -- and in some cases something looking a bit like a long wadcutter.

I think I detect signs of arm-waving here

I have drawers full of hunting ammo, with a large number of African game rounds from the the first nitro cartridges to current production ammo. ALL of the full-jacket, deep-penetration bullets have round noses, in contrast with lighter-game soft-point loadings of the same cartidges, which often have pointed noses. So some recent developments may have resulted in even flatter noses, but that doesn't invalidate the round nose v. pointed nose comparison.

Are you seriously arguing that generations of African hunters and ammo manufacturers were mistaken, and that full-jacket round nosed bullets don't normally drive straight through a target without turning over?

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

 

[Vern Humphrey]

I have drawers full of hunting ammo, with a large number of African game rounds from the the first nitro cartridges to current production ammo. ALL of the full-jacket, deep-penetration bullets have round noses, in contrast with lighter-game soft-point loadings of the same cartidges, which often have pointed noses. So some recent developments may have resulted in even flatter noses, but that doesn't invalidate the round nose v. pointed nose comparison.

Are you seriously arguing that generations of African hunters and ammo manufacturers were mistaken, and that full-jacket round nosed bullets don't normally drive straight through a target without turning over?

First of all, the 6.5 carcano ammunition was not made for big game hunting, and it definitely does yaw -- and dozens of investigators have fired 6.5s into all sorts of media.

Secondly, as I pointed out, in an earlier era you might have had drawers full of round balls -- but that doesn't mean a round ball is the best projectile.

Finally, while we have few people here with extensive experience hunting African game with solids, we have a lot of people with experinence hunting American game with solids -- notably cast bullets from revolvers or rifles.

How many of us use round-nose cast bullets for deer and larger animals? And how many use bullets with large flat meplats?

 

[MachIVshooter]

Are you seriously arguing that generations of African hunters and ammo manufacturers were mistaken, and that full-jacket round nosed bullets don't normally drive straight through a target without turning over?

Round nose FMJ and solid are two very different bullets designs. The RN/FMJ with lead cores will still deform, often becoming banana-shaped, if you will. Solids don't.

Also, the large bore solids designed for dangerous game tend to be mcuh shorter in relation to their length. Have you ever looked at RN/FMJ bullet from a military Carcano round? They account for a good portion of cartridge OAL. I should know; I have three Carcano's (though one is a 7.35, which use semi-spitzer FMJ's). Furthermore, the lighterweight and higher velocity of the 6.5mm's as compared with .458 WM/.500NE, etc. means that they have less momentum and are more unstable on impact.

Think of it this way: A full-size modern pick-up truck (lots of thin metal and plastic, plus "crumple zones") weighing 5,500 lbs. traveling 85 MPH hits a concrete barrier at 45 degrees ,what happens? Then think of a 26-ton Dump truck (obviously very solidly built) hitting that same barrier at the same angle at 40 MPH. You see what I'm getting at?

 

[JesseL]

:banghead:
There's enough anectdotal evidence from the dawn of the smokless age to suggest that there really is somthing to the idea that spitzers have significantly improved terminal ballistics over round nosed bullets. It does make sense that while round noses will yaw, they won't do it nearly as quickly as spitzers because their center of gravity is much farther forward and thus they are much more stable.

There is a very interesting writeup on the subject here.

 

[Tony Williams]

There's enough anectdotal evidence from the dawn of the smokless age to suggest that there really is somthing to the idea that spitzers have significantly improved terminal ballistics over round nosed bullets. It does make sense that while round noses will yaw, they won't do it nearly as quickly as spitzers because their center of gravity is much farther forward and thus they are much more stable.

Exactly so - that is the point which I have been trying to make all along.

To recap: the terminal effectiveness of the early 20th-century 6.5mm military cartridges could have been significantly improved by replacing the round-nosed full-jacket bullets with spitzers, and even more so by using a lightweight tip filler to shift the centre of mass further to the rear.

If that had been done before WW1, it would have resulted in an effective but light-recoiling cartridge well suited to future use in shoulder-fired automatic weapons.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

 

[JesseL]

So who's up for commissioning a batch of SMLE barrels bored to 6.5mm (to be chambered for swedish or japanese fodder) for a group buy? We could all play with what might have been.