M1/Enemy Opinion of the M1 Rifle

[jefnvk]

Hell, the Germans were already crapping their pants, thinking that all Americans had MG's when the bullets started flying. What if they all DID

The decision sounds about as bright as Hitler not allowing work on the STG-44, which as we all know set the stage for the modern day Assualt Rifle.

 

[Langenator]

Cosmo, didn't the SAFN eventually become the FN-49?

Given that the initial design to the FN-49 dates to before the war, I was wondering why the Germans didn't build them for their own use. Having the designer run off with the plans would explain it.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

the sharps at gettysburg and the spencers in the tullahoma campaign and again at snodgrass hill at chickamagua must have had some influence in the American civil war.

I recommend reading Coddington's "The Gettysburg Campaign." He also cites other uses of breechloaders -- such as the Henrys used by Banks' men at Milroy -- and then compares the impact of those units to that of units on the same side armed with inferior weapons (such as the Iron Brigade of the West) in the same battle.

By that standard, direct comparison, there is no case where superior weapons won a battle.

 

[noonanda]

The Garand was limited to archaic clips and could only fire underpowered ball ammunition.

Well that underpowered ammo was pretty good at making bad guys dead.

I will never say the garand is the "best Rifle from WW2" (Im a Mosin addict myself ) but archaic clips, 8 round clip before having to reload is better than the 5 round internal mags of our enemies, and wasnt M-2 ball orginally designed for the 1903 so that the existing rifle ranges would not have to be modiifed??

Also how many inches of steel will regular M-2 ball penetrate?? Anyone know??

 

[slowworm]

Cosmoline,

At the start of the War Britain was in no position at all to develop any small arms, particularly anything that need complex machining.

Between the losses of Bren guns at Dundirk, factory losses all over the country during the battle of Britain and the constant need to supply raw materials through the Wolf packs prowling the North Atlantic meant that there was no spare capacity for anything new regardless of foresight or anything else.

It is worth pointing out here that Hitler's endless attempts to build a better mousetraps and rivalries between factions of theGerman Army (FG-42 and STG-43 is but a single example of a great many) sapped a lot of the German capacity to support its war effort. Britian by and large stuck with improvements to what it already had or filling in huge holes in capability.

I also seriously doubt that anyone can get off more rapid accurate fire with a garand then with a lee-enfield. Ever hear about the mad minute?

If you want to lay down supressive fire then use a machine gun. And that can be turned back on the US to show lack of US foresight.

Why did the US fail to develop a decent LMG during the war like the MG-42 or the Bren? The BAR, although used in a similar capacity lacked important features like a changable barrel for instance. Did the lack of a "real" LMG hamper the US efforts in the war?

 

[Vern Humphrey]

wasnt M-2 ball orginally designed for the 1903 so that the existing rifle ranges would not have to be modiifed??

That's correct -- primarily National Guard ranges. The M1 was originally intended to fire the hotter ammo and was "detuned" for M2 ball.

 

[Tankcommander]

The US and Germans used different infantry tactics that nullified the difference in rates of fire for rifles. The German squad was organized to support the machine gun not the other way around. Who has more firepower 10 men with a BAR and 9 M1s or 10 men with an MG-42 at 1500 rounds per minute and 9 Mausers. The American GI was terrified of the German MGs. Who had the better tactic massed firepower (GER.) or aimed rifle fire. I think history has showen that its overwhelming firepower that wins battles. If the rifleman is pinned by MG fire he isn't taking those aimed shots.

Remember the SLA Marshal studies that most men did'nteven fire their weapons in battle. Mostly men with automatic weapons fired. I don't mean to detract from the bravery of our infantry in WW2 but their job was made much easier with our artillery, armor and air power.

TC

 

[Dave R]

The Garand was limited to archaic clips and could only fire underpowered ball ammunition.

Historical day. This is the very first time I have ever heard of .30-06 being referred to as "underpowered ball ammunition."

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Remember the SLA Marshal studies that most men did'nteven fire their weapons in battle. Mostly men with automatic weapons fired. I don't mean to detract from the bravery of our infantry in WW2 but their job was made much easier with our artillery, armor and air power.

Marshall's so-called studies have been thoroughly debunked. He never did the studies he claimed to have done. It is possible to construct a questionnaire containing all the data he claims to have collected from "complete reconstructions" of actions fought by "600 infantry companies" and show that he never shipped such a mass of paper nor carried it with him.

Modern studies and experience go completely against Marshall's findings.

You have to remember, Marshall is the man who falsely claimed he was the "youngest 2nd Lieutenant in WWI" and that the Battle of the Little Bighorn was an "L-shaped ambush."

 

[Cosmoline]

Historical day. This is the very first time I have ever heard of .30-06 being referred to as "underpowered ball ammunition."

The ball ammo used by the Garand was very much underpowered. It was, in fact, on par with the standard 7.62 NATO loadings that were designed to replicate it. 8x57JS as it was loaded during the war was substantially more potent.

Why does this matter? Because when you chamber a battle rifle for big, long cartridges then only fill them part way with powder, you're wasting a lot of vital action space. This is what led to the 7.62/.308 in fact. It was a real shortcoming of the M-1 Garand.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

The ball ammo used by the Garand was very much underpowered. It was, in fact, on par with the standard 7.62 NATO loadings that were designed to replicate it. 8x57JS as it was loaded during the war was substantially more potent.

Why does this matter? Because when you chamber a battle rifle for big, long cartridges then only fill them part way with powder, you're wasting a lot of vital action space. This is what led to the 7.62/.308 in fact. It was a real shortcoming of the M-1 Garand.

The "shortcoming" in question is not the fault of the M1 Garand. The ammo was loaded down before the M1 was adopted, and the M1 "detuned" for it.

The issue of it being a shortcoming is moot -- no one in the American service asked for more powerful rifle ammo. None of our enemies claimed to be able to beat us because their rifle ammo was loaded hotter.

 

[Poodleshooter]

Why does this matter? Because when you chamber a battle rifle for big, long cartridges then only fill them part way with powder, you're wasting a lot of vital action space. This is what led to the 7.62/.308 in fact. It was a real shortcoming of the M-1 Garand.

The standard 50gr charge of 4895 stick powder fills a 30/06 case pretty darn well. The advent of suitable volumetrically compact ball powders after the war allowed the development of the shorter .308/7.62x51 using 44-48grs of much smaller volume ball powder but yielding pressures similar to the .30/06. The 30/06 simply did what could be done with adequate pressure and the bulky powders available to the US Army at the time. Though ball powder was invented in the 30's, I don't know of a propellant that could have enabled a .308 cartridge in the pre-war period.

 

[Cosmoline]

Well how was it that the shorter 8x57JS rounds using heavier bullets were a notch hotter than the longer .30'06?

 

[jefnvk]

The ball ammo used by the Garand was very much underpowered.

You know, I hear a lot being said about 5.56 being underpowered, but this is the first time that I have heard that the '06 is underpowered

I'm guessing you want to go back to the .45-70? (Just think about THAT in an assualt rifle )

 

[noonanda]

Well how was it that the shorter 8x57JS rounds using heavier bullets were a notch hotter than the longer .30'06?

short answer, they weren't.

According to "Guns of the Third Reich" the muzzle velocity of the 7.9 Patrone s. S using a 198 gr FMJ BT was appromimately 765 MPS so that converts to 2509.8425 FPS.

The Garand on the other hand fired a 152 Gr FMJ flat based bullet at a muzzle velocity of 2805 FPS, and when firing the 168 gr AP round it had a MV of 2775.

Didn't the Germans had problems with their service ammo being too hot for their gas operated guns anyway?? I have heard that G/K-41's and 43's got beat to crap/broke from sustained firing didnt they? This would tell me that the ammo was too hot for anything other than their K-98's.

Plus wasn't the powder used a flake powder?? I have pulled down greek 1940 ammo as well as turk and it is flake, from what I have been told that is also what the Germans used in their ammo.

If I had hatchers notebook handy I might be able to look it up and get the "Almighty" answer but there is what I have right now.

 

[Cosmoline]

The 198 grainer from the 8x57JS hits with 2,767 ft. lbs. The lighter spitzer bullet of 155 grain moved at about 2956 fps and hit with 2,972 ft. lbs.

The garand's smaller bullet hits with 2,654 ft. lbs. at the muzzle, yet uses a longer and therefore more inefficient cartridge to do it.

 

[jefnvk]

But, there is a difference between being less powerful, and underpowered.

 

[Cosmoline]

I should have said "inefficient" rather than "underpowered." My point was the Garand couldn't deal with hot .30'06 loadings, so therefore the design was inefficient. That's not Garand's fault, of course, but the military's. Garand wanted a different cartridge to be used.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

If sheer power is such an advantage, how come so many nations with recent battle experience use cartridges less powerful than the old M2 ball?

 

[PinnedAndRecessed]

The decision sounds about as bright as Hitler not allowing work on the STG-44

Plus the fact that he had jet fighters but insisted upon jet bombers. He was fanatical about wanting to bomb England. Had they used jet fighters they could have established air superiority which could have turned the tide.

But, that would only have prolonged the war against Germany which would have necessitated us dropping atomic bombs on Berlin. The Germans should be thankful the war ended as early as it did.

 

[noonanda]

The 198 grainer from the 8x57JS hits with 2,767 ft. lbs. The lighter spitzer bullet of 155 grain moved at about 2956 fps and hit with 2,972 ft. lbs.

The garand's smaller bullet hits with 2,654 ft. lbs. at the muzzle, yet uses a longer and therefore more inefficient cartridge to do it.

Ineffecient, ...yes. But I doubt the German soldier could tell that the bullet that hit him was moving 113 FPS slower than his ammo and that the allied soldier could feel that 113 FPS difference when hit. if you got hit by either one you were in a hurt locker.

From what I have been able to find,(I could be wrong) the Germans did not use the 150/154 gr 7.92X57 ammo during WW2. It was the round used during WW1 or prior, but WW2 was 198 gr pills.

Does anyone have any info on 150/154 gr German ammo from WW2??

 

[Ivy Mike]

I'm guessing you want to go back to the .45-70? (Just think about THAT in an assualt rifle

I don't want to! My shoulder hurts just thinking about it!

wasn't the .30-06 one of the more powerful cartridges of the war?
I know it bests the 7.62x54R and Jap 7.7

 

[jefnvk]

Yeah, but think of the kids fooling around on full auto, and all the ammo it would save

I don't think any cartridge in WWII was an advantage. I think they were all close enough that it probably didn't matter. Probably the 6.5 Swede and Carcano and Jap were the most obvious 'one of these is not the same', but I don't think any of those really had any effect on the war.

 

[grendelbane]

Muzzle velocity and bullet weight don't tell the whole story. Boat tailed bullets shoot much flatter and retain velocity velocity much better at long range. This is a concern with machine guns, but not so much with rifles.

The British got by just fine with the .303. I never heard any complaints about that round being underpowered, yet it is inferior ballistically to both the .30/06 and the 8mm.

Powders were improved over time. The IMR powders were introduced in the 1920s. Then ball powders were introduced. At no time was the .30/06 ever "underpowered". Advances in powder technology enabled improved ballistics, even though these rounds could not be used in Garands because higher pressures at the gas port would damage operating rods.

The 7.62 Nato cartridge basically reproduces the ballistics of the .30/06 cartridge that Teddy Roosevelt used to such good effect in his African safari. Yes, it is more efficient, which means much on the theater level, but almost nothing on the individual level.

 

[M99M12]

This thread didn't drift much