Military Firearms: What Should Have Been

Status
Not open for further replies.
"I'm still scratching my head as to why the US Army never formally adopted Winchester & or Marlin lever guns."

Official reason was always "prone shooting."

Henrys served mainly as personal firearms. I believe that the only lever action actually officially issued in any numbers by the Army was the Spencer.

As for lever-action use by military arms...

The Russians bought a couple hundred thousand Winchester 95s, but I don't think they used many, if any, in WW I.

I believe the only large-scale and telling usage of lever-action rifles was by the Turks against the Russians (Henrys, or possibly 1873s), at the Battle of Plevna.
 
I agree with the (M)G-11 and the Stoner system. Both were weapons ahead of their times.

Since heavier weapons have already been mentioned, I'd like to add one. One firm designed and built something called the ASP-30. It was an autocannon firing 30mm DEFA rounds (like the Apache does) from a belt. It was light enough to partially replace the M2HB and could be mounted on the same mounts and tripods.

Cheers,
ErikM :evil:
 
The G11 was a neat concept, but suffered greatly, in my opinion, due to the tiny four point something millimeter bullet it fired. Come ON. We're already using .22s.

Caseless ammunition is, by nature, lighter and more compact than standard rounds.

Thus, a caseless rifle would allow for major-caliber ballistics with less weight and bulk. Caseless .30 caliber rounds would possibly weigh the same as standard 5.56mm ammo does.

So, they need to take the G11 and scale it up to a caseless 7mm or larger round.

THEN they'll have something. :)
 
IIRC while the G11 caseless ammo was only 4.73mm, it was a very long bullet and was actually somewhere in the 50-68 grain range, which puts it back in the .223 category as far as actual bullet weight and foot pounds delivered. It had good sectional density because of it's profile, and I think had good terminal effects because long bullets tend to be very unstable in impact medium. (i.e. the enemy's body)

So while the 4.73mm caliber made the G11 ammo sound puny, it wasn't the whole story.
 
The biggest military firearms goof-up I can think of was the failure to adopt repeating rifles sooner in the Civil War. They were delayed substantially simply because the head of Army Ordinance was an imbecille.

The Thompson and BAR could have been given higher priority and been made available in wider numbers to U.S. troops in 1918. Instead of seeing them as good weapons in World War II, we would have had them as cutting-edge weapons in World War I.
 
Mike Irwin,

Henrys served mainly as personal firearms. I believe that the only lever action actually officially issued in any numbers by the Army was the Spencer.
Click to expand...

Wasn't there a small order of '94s that went to signal corps units in the Pacific Northwest during one of the great unpleasantnesses of the last century?

I seem to recall reading an article a year or two ago on the elusive Signal Corps Winchester '94s. You're a veritable fount of trivia, man, help me out here.
 
Tams,

Uh.... Hum.... Uh...

Wow. I simply don't know.

I'm not sure what the unpleasantness would have been. By 1894, when the rifle was first introduced, the Indian wars were pretty much completely over.

I can't think of any situation in which a Winchester Model 94 would have been more appropriate than say a Krag cavalry carbine for Signal Corps use...



"The biggest military firearms goof-up I can think of was the failure to adopt repeating rifles sooner in the Civil War. They were delayed substantially simply because the head of Army Ordinance was an imbecille."

That's been claimed a lot over the years since the Civil War, but I don't believe it to be the case at all.

When you consider the needs of the Army, the logistical problems it was facing, and the technology, you get a better understanding for what General Ripley was facing.

First, no matter what, there simply weren't enough firearms to go around in the early days of the war. That would seem to make the issue of lever actions a no brainer, but WHAT lever action was available in 1862 in the numbers needed by an army that's growing expodentially? The short answer is none of them.

Christopher Spencer's rifle was the only one to come close, but even if it had been adopted in 1861, at the outbreak of the war, it would have taken about as long as it did to get any meaningful production out of his plant. Spencer did expand his manufacturing capabilities of his own volition, while attempting to get the Army interested, and it was only this fact that allowed the rifles that were made to get into service.

As for the Government making them, a nice idea, but WHERE? As it was the Government was contracting with every supplier it could in the United States to piece make 1861 and 1863 rifled muskets.

Still, that wasn't enough, so the United States sent agents overseas to purchase as many firearms as possible. Austrian, Belgian, French, British, Prussian, and possibly even Russian, firearms were purchased, and used, by US forces during the war.

That leads us to the next problem...

Ammunition compatibility.

By 1864, the Quartermaster's Corps was supplying nearly TWO HUNDRED different types of ammunition to troops! That's right, 200. It was a logistical nightmare, and it's really surprising that it worked as well as it did. Just tracking what units were where must have been horrific.

Gen. Ripley was understandably nervous about putting more stress on the supply corps, especially for firearms that would be entering in relatively small numbers.

Then, also, there's the concept of the lever action being new and unproven technology. Not to mention that the cartridge it used was also new and unproven technology.

Given the pressures of war time, which is more preferable? Arm your troops with firearms you KNOW to be workable and effective, or arm them with new and relatively unproven and untested technology that could very well show up with fatal flaws in the heat of battle?

In retrospect, given the pressures that were being faced by the Ordnance Department and the Quartermaster's Corps, I've taken a MUCH softer stance on General Ripley's foot dragging on the issue of repeating firearms.
 
mortar1.jpg


mrls1.jpg


:D

Uhh...I dunno, an M-16A4 in .243 with the G36 gas system? :confused:
 
Mike Irwin,

I'm pretty sure it was during WWI, when stocks of Springfields and M1917's were in high demand for fighting units.

If'n I bemember rightly, the Ordnance Dep't bought a bunch of '94s in .30-30 to issue to scattered Signal Corps troops guarding telegraph installations and suchlike in the Pacific Northwet. My Standard Catalog Of Military Firearms only makes passing reference to a government purchase of "Winchester 1894 carbines" during WWI, and I'll be danged if I can even remember what magazine the article was in (American Rifleman? Guns 'N' Blammo?) much less where to find it in my house... :uhoh:
 
Yeah, the G11 was great alright. My favorite aspect was the AK like simplicity displayed in its internal components:

g11open.jpg


I'm sure it had previsions for routing sand, mud and other debris from this incredibly simple and robust mechanism. :D

Tim
 
full-auto,

You could ask member Marko Kloos, as his unit actually participated in some of the limited field trials the weapon underwent.

One upside to the G11 was that there really weren't all that many places for stuff to get into the rifle.

But, yeah, their internals were hardly a paean to the glories of simplicity...
 
full-auto, as a wannabe gun inventor myself, I dream about that picture and wake up screaming. :D

I'm going to have to second the SAFN in the hands of the British.

Also the US should have adopted the Lewis gun during WWI.

.276 BAR and Garand would have been impressive as well.

One thing I'm glad didn't happen, what if the Germans had had been able to field enough STG 44s or FG 42s to replace their Mausers at the front? Not a pleasant thought.
 
IIRC while the G11 caseless ammo was only 4.73mm, it was a very long bullet and was actually somewhere in the 50-68 grain range, which puts it back in the .223 category as far as actual bullet weight and foot pounds delivered. It had good sectional density because of it's profile, and I think had good terminal effects because long bullets tend to be very unstable in impact medium. (i.e. the enemy's body)
Click to expand...

There's a reason the US Military switched to SS109, which doesn't have the fragmentation that supposedly makes 5.56mm so lethal. It's a detriment on the battlefield.

Instability in impact media translates to an inability of the round to penetrate light cover, such as trees, sandbags, and modern body armors.

5.56mm is adequate for anti-personnel use at short to medium ranges. The reasons it's favored over the 7.62mm round is because it's lighter and smaller and the troops can carry more of it. This is it's ONLY real advantage over a larger caliber, as it's ballistically inferior for everything but groundhog hunting.

However, with caseless ammunition, the weight advantage is theoretically gone, so there's no reason to continue to use a small bore projectile. Ballistically, a heavy bullet will have better penetration of cover and armor than a light one will, and this is very important on the battlefield; so much that it outweighs any benefits one might get from fragmentation or tumbling bullets. You NEED penetration; fragmentation is of no benefit if it happens in the badguy's armor vest instead of his chest cavity. (Of course, it's a benefit to HIM...)

If the 1200 foot-pounds .223 delivers is good, then the 2400 that .308 delivers is better.

Keep in mind, a major caliber caseless rifle round needn't replicate the ballistics of .308 exactly, just as long as it's in the same performance class. I'd actually like to play with an 8mm caseless round, using 170-250 grain bullets at various velocities...

(On the other hand, nobody asked me, either, and I don't get to decide these things.)
 
The innards of the G11 are just scary... I had no idea. :eek:

Mike, sorry but I don't buy your point of view about Ripley. He was not merely a military conservative, but an actively obstructionist ???. Your points are good as far as they go, but most of them would apply just as well in 1865, when the repeaters had already demonstrated their battlefield superiority. You are basically arguing that the Ordinance Department's incompetence in procurement and supply excuses their technological backwardness, too. One wrong doesn't make the other wrong right, it merely shows that the Ordinance Department circa 1862 was bad at alot of things. :D
 
As I noted, Sean, Ripley was obstructionist for a PURPOSE, not simply to be obstructionist (his successor was more of an obstructionst based on traditionalist values than was Ripley).

I believe that to be an incorrect and largely wrong-headed view that's come down through history, largely developed by the arm-chair warriors, tacticians, and quartermasters.

The situation in 1865 wasn't a lot different than it was in 1863, either, regarding procurement of military firearms. The United States was still bringing more men under arms than could be produced.

I'm not sure why you consider the Ordnance Department to have been incompetent in producrement and supply.

Remember, at the start of the Civil War, 2 of the 4 American arsenals making shoulder weapons were denied to the United States -- Harpers Ferry and Palmetto.

Immediately you start the war with LESS than half your pre-war firearms production capabilities, so if you're intending to field and army, you have to look elsewhere.

And because you're looking elsewhere, the chances are slim that the weapons that you acquire (remember, you need the NOW, not later), are going to be in calibers other than what you already use.

After those arms are issued, you have to make arrangements to make the ammunition, often setting up those production facilities from scratch, which is no mean feat.

Then, finally, you have to lay in place a system for disbursement of that ammunition.

Here's where your characterization of the Ordnance Dept. and the QM corps is DEAD wrong. The amazing fact of the matter is that even though they were faced with procuring and delivering nearly 200 types of ammunition, by and large that ammunition got to where it was needed WHEN it was needed.

There are very few accounts of troops in the Civil War being issued the wrong ammunition for the weapons they were carrying.

Also, once again, you don't answer the question of where these repeating rifles in great numbers were to come from. The government arsenals were busy producing 1861 and 1863 Springfield rifles.

Spencer, at his factory, produced about 100,000 of them for use in the Civil War.

Most went to cavalry units, where such a rifle is more logical and more effective.

Effectiveness is another reason why wholesale adoption of the repeating rifle wasn't undertaken during the Civil War.

The Spencer has, because of its heavy bullet and low power round, an effective range of about 150 meters, and an absolute effective range of about 500 meters.

The Springfield, on the other hand, had effective and absolute effective ranges of over double that.
 
Glocker,

As I recall, the ASP was a 9mm project gun based on the short stroke double action later revived for the Double Eagle, basically a refinement of the then factory custom Seecamp lowerthe ASP was to hold 12-15 rounds if memory serves.

The fact is Colt has never had great success with a DA/SA pistol, even when they bought a design outright from someone else (All American).

At the time Colt was developing the ASP for military trials, SW was already making huge inroads in the 9mm law enforcement market (this is pre Glock).

Colts next attempt was to buy a 40 cal CZ and stamp it with a Colt logo. Maybe internal development of new products just got too costly, even in the mid-70's.
 
5.56mm is adequate for anti-personnel use at short to medium ranges. The reasons it's favored over the 7.62mm round is because it's lighter and smaller and the troops can carry more of it. This is it's ONLY real advantage over a larger caliber, as it's ballistically inferior for everything but groundhog hunting.
Click to expand...
Well, that's only one advantage to using the smaller round in combat.

You forget that the entire purpose of an "assault rifle" is its ability to provide controllable full-auto fire to the soldier. A full-auto M14 or even FAL isn't nearly as useful as a full-auto M16 to its user.

The M14's over heated and were wildly uncontrollable by the average soldier. While the FALs design was superior to that of the M14 for full-auto fire, it too was for the most part uncontrollable to the average soldier and were therefore issued in semi-auto only by many nations.

The G11 had a progressive recoil system that allowed it to get off 3 shots in rapid succession before the recoil impulse would upset the aim of the shooter. The whole upper assembly moved rearward during firing (burst mode) allowing the portion being held by the shooter to remain rigid. Attempting to do this with a 7.62x51 chambered weapon would be nearly impossible as the size and weight of the rifle would be prohibitive.

To assist in controlled bursts, the G11 had several things going for it;

1) The 4.73mm bullet was small, light and fast. The smaller the bullet, the less recoil generated.
2) The 'bolt' (I use the term loosely) reciprocated in a circular motion thereby absorbing much of the recoil energy through simple mechanics.
3) A high cyclic rate, 3 round in about 60 milliseconds.
4) A unique recoil absorption system which allowed all 3 shots to be fired before the recoil impulse would be transferred to the shooter.

Here's a shot of the rotating chamber:
g11bolt.jpg


Again, not exactly a simple design. It's been compared (rightfully so I might add) to a 'Swiss watch' as it has countless tiny and intricate parts that need to be in exact alignment for it to properly function. It was going to be extremely expensive to mass produce, and this was one of the reasons the project was dropped.

It was a 1st generation attempt at a very good idea. Caseless ammo weapons make perfect sense for a number of reasons, but here are two primary reasons;

1) Caseless ammo reduces the cost of ownership and usage since brass (or steel) is no longer needed.
2) Since no brass (or steel) is ejected, the 'left hand' vs. 'right hand' shooter is no longer an issue - especially with a 'bull-pup' design.

I suspect caseless ammo isn't a dead concept. While there are some problems with current caseless cartridge designs (such as durability), I'm sure the technology will continue to improve over time. Eventually a system may emerge as a viable option for military usage. Unfortunately the G11 wasn't that solution although it was an incredible first step and exceptionally innovative design.

Tim
 
IMHO, caseless guns don't have an advantage in any way, shape or form over "cased" guns in that you still need an ejection port to clear the thing, and the lack of a case means the heat that would be carried out of the gun by the case goes into the internals, which leads to a hotter gun.
 
About Russian Winchesters ...

Mike Irwin said:
The Russians bought a couple hundred thousand Winchester 95s, but I don't think they used many, if any, in WW I
Click to expand...

I only have one book that references these. One B&W photo of one and this article:


Winchester Model 1895
Specification:
Calibre: 7.62 mm (0.3 in)
Length: overall 1.175 m (46.25 in); barrel 0.71 m (28 in)
Weight: 4.2 kg (9.26 lb)
Muzzle velocity: not known
Magazine: 5-round tubular

It may seem rather odd to have a rifle more usually regarded as being part of the plains warfare of the American West included in a study of the rifles of World War I, but the fact remains that the Winchester Model 1895 was for one nation an important part of it's World War I inventory. That nation was Russia, which entered the war with a will in 1914 only to suffer a series of catastrophic defeats of which the Battle of Tannenburg was but one. The basic problem for the Russian military planners was that although they had almost bottomless reserves of men they lacked the industrial base to equip them. The Russian economy before 1914 was indeed getting itself on an industrial footing, but it was as yet insufficient to sustain wartime production. Matters got to the point where soldiers were sent into battle without rifles but were expected to obtain them from among the fallen. Things clearly could not continue for long like that.

The easy way out was to purchase weapons from abroad. The Americans duly obliged and in particular the Winchester Repeating Arms Company of New Haven, Connecticut, took the opportunity to use the assembly line for its well-known range of manually-loaded rifles that used the loading lever beneath the trigger. This was operated by the fingers that gripped the stock; a rapid downwards movement loaded a new round from the tubular magzine under the barrel. By World War I this type of rifle was militarily obsolescent but it suited the Russian requirement and accordingly a 'militarized' version was churned out especially for the Russian army.

This was the Model 1895, which was chambered for the Russians 7.62-mm (0.3-in) cartridge and had sights calibrated in arshins, then the usual method of range measurement used in Russia (1 arshin = 0.71m = 27.95in) The resultant rifle could still be recognized as a descendant of the famous Winchester 75 of plains fame, but overall it was longer, heavier and more rugged. It needed to be, for all that made it to Russia (some were lost as a result of U-boat attacks) were sent straight to the front, and into the hands of rapidly-trained recruits who had little time for maintenance and cleaning. In all 293,816 were actually delivered to Russia and those that survived the rigours of the fighting against German and Austro-Hungarian armies later played their part in the revolutions of 1917 and in the civil war that followed. Moreover, some were captured by the Germans in World War II. It was noticed that some of these 'later' examples had their sights marked in metres, but when this was carried out is uncertain. By any standard the appearance of the Winchester Model 1895 on the Battlefields of World War I was odd, but it happened nevertheless. Few records actually survive of how the Model 1895 fared in action but no doubt it gave a good account of itself. It was almost certainly the only lever-action rifle to be used during World War I and on that score alone it is worth of mention.
 
IMHO, caseless guns don't have an advantage in any way, shape or form over "cased" guns in that you still need an ejection port to clear the thing, and the lack of a case means the heat that would be carried out of the gun by the case goes into the internals, which leads to a hotter gun.
Click to expand...
You're right Andrew, the G11 did suffer from this problem. It also suffered from premature erosion of the surface where the rotating chamber met the barrel. This area became super heated and during prolonged fire it would begin to erode quickly.

A tight, precise fit was required between the chamber and barrel or the propellant gasses would vent and the velocity would decrease substantially.

g11_bolt_erode.jpg


Tim
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

I
  • Locked
What should everybody have?
2
Replies
49
Views
3K
10-Ring
1
stchman
  • Locked
Should U.S. military firearms be 100% U.S.?
2 3
Replies
55
Views
3K
ozarkhillbilly
O
DMK
  • Locked
What country is the arsenal of today?
2 3
Replies
52
Views
2K
230RN
230RN
I
  • Locked
Your Issued Firearm (Military and LE)
2 3 4 5
Replies
118
Views
6K
CathyGo
C
B
  • Locked
Collecting the Significant Firearms / Calibers in US History?
Replies
24
Views
2K
BenW
B
Back
Top