Why did the Nazi's or whoever switch from the 7x57 to 7.9x57

[Don357]

After the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor, they decided they needed a larger caliber round than the American .30-06 they were going to face.

 

[Cosmoline]

And thus, with huge stocks of ammo and just re-equipped for the second time in a decade, there was ZERO economic or logistical reason to re-equip with a commercial cartridge like 7x57.

But a lot of nations were playing musical cartridges at that time, and I don't think the German military forces were fiscally wedded to an 8mm round by 98. There was an explosion of new rounds available. They could have adopted a new cartridge for the new rifle at that time, or had a new one custom made. Look at the many ammo changes made by the Turks and others around that time. Mauser was more than willing to accommodate those demands and help retrofit as needed. They had fantastic customer service.

Knowing the Germans, I'll bet there's a paper around there in the archives considering this very issue from the mid 1890's and deciding for some reason that 8mm is better.

Maybe the field weakness of the 6.5mm round in the Russo-Japanese war had some bearing on this choice.

 

[Vaarok]

The Turks started with 7.65 and kept with 7.65 straight through from 1890 to 1915, barring the war aid in 8x57 from the Germans. I can't think of any nation save the Austrians who changed their blackpowder-to-smokeless rifle or round between 1888 and WW1. And the Commissiongewehr was a German Army Commission invention. Mauser had no influence or government contract work between 1888 and 1898, they were VERY busy making guns for Spain, South America, and Turkey.

 

[30.06]

Yeah ,that danged French writing can confuse anyone .

Well actually , there are two reasons not yet mentioned , basically the same reasons that the US and Britain didn't go to 7mm as well .

All three had actually considered a smaller caliber , 7mm for the US and Brits , and the Germans were seriously looking at 6.5 .

But alas this was in the aftermath of "The Great War" , and therefore there was no great rush by the US or the Brits , and the Germans , at that time , couldn't hardly afford , enough Cabbage and Turnips , to keep themselves from Starving .

Then later the Depression hit the US and the British .

That was one factor , economic wherewithall .

The other factor was the idea , supposedly to help logistics , that the Infantrymen would carry the same round as the Machineguns .

And the Machineguns were expected to be able to kill the engine blocks on enemy trucks out to 1200 yds .

As someone has already stated , Militaries Hate change , that was also a big factor .

 

[.45Guy]

As stated, 7.9x57 was adopted with the Gew 88. As to why there was no shift to 7mm aside from not fixing what isn't broken, I'm sure the reports from the Spanish American war weren't falling on deaf ears. If nothing else, the links posted make for some interesting reading.


http://history.amedd.army.mil/booksdocs/spanam/ARSG1898/index.htm

http://history.amedd.army.mil/booksdocs/spanam/ARSG1898/ARSG1898ReportsLaGarde.html

When we contrast the ravages inflicted by leaden bullets of large caliber with the humane effects of the projectile of reduced caliber noted in this battle, it is not extravagant to say that the portable hand weapons of to-day have largely reduced the subject of military surgery to first-aid work.

The character of wounds-The wounds inflicted by the improved Mauser did not differ from the wounds of the reduced caliber weapons generally. They correspond to the wounds inflicted with the new arm by experimenters on the cadaver, dead and living animals, as well as those heretofore noted on man by accident and in war. The explosive effects so often noted in wounds at close range were not seen, for the reason that none of the wounds were received within the zone of explosive effects, which, under some conditions, though rarely, may extend to 500 yards. Those organs containing tissues rich in fluids, incased in cavities with bony walls, are more apt to show these highly destructive effects. The absence of these ugly wounds was often commented upon by surgeons. It is safe to say that examination of the dead on the field could have shown evidences of explosive effects in the wounds of the head, the heart, liver, spleen, intestines, etc. In reckoning upon explosive effects one should always remember the factors upon which they depend. To be brief, destructive effects are commensurate with velocity and sectional area of the projectile on the one hand, and with resistance in the body on the other. High velocity, greater sectional area, and greater resistance exhibit explosive effects, and vice versa.

It should also he borne in mind that only two things offer resistance in the body, viz, (a) compact bony tissue and (b) water. The fractures of the long bones were attended with but little comminution, and in quite a number of instances with guttering and perforation unattended with fracture. More than a score of gunshot wounds of the kneejoint were treated by immobilization and simple dressings alone with the happiest of results. Injuries of the joint ends of bones were invariably marked by clean-cut perforations. The injuries of the soft parts were comparatively trivial. Wounds of the head involving injury to the brain matter had to be opened up on several occasions on account of sepsis. The skullcap invariably showed fissures radiating between the wounds of entrance and exit, and islands of bone, sometimes free from dura and periosteum, but more often attached. All wounds of the lungs were recovering rapidly without apparent complications when received in hospital. The wounds that astounded us all were those of the abdomen. Four were noted of such wounds which, from the anatomical regions traversed, must have involved the caliber of the intestines numbers of times, and yet recovery had taken place with no apparent sequelae or ill effects of any kind. These cases were very wisely kept at the field hospitals, well to the front, until recovery was assured. Capital operations, such as amputations and opening of the larger joints, were done but seldom, and then only for

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

216

sepsis, which, in the nature of things, would seem to be unavoidable in war in a certain proportion of cases.

Another circumstance which rather puzzled us was the frequency with which lodged balls were seen. This was variously attributed to (1) defective ammunition, (2) ricochet shots, and (3) long range. By testing the penetration of the two ammunitions in blocks of yellow pine, Capt. Charles A. Worden, United States Army, was able to demonstrate for me the fallacy of the first of these theories. The Spanish ammunition penetrated as much as 9 inches farther in the wood than ours, a fact which is not surprising, since the muzzle velocity of the Mauser is greater than that of the Krag-Jorgensen, and since, also, the sectional area of its projectile is slightly less. The lodged balls were evidently due, therefore to ricochet shots through the thick underbrush and to long range. Acting Asst Surg. W. E. Parker visited Santiago late in July to confer with the Spanish surgeons upon their observations concerning the character of the wounds from our guns. He informs me that their conclusions tallied with ours in every respect. They remarked especially on the number of lodged balls, which they attributed to long range, and the number of recoveries from gunshot wounds of the abdomen with undoubted intestinal perforations.

http://history.amedd.army.mil/booksdocs/spanam/ARSG1898/ARSG1898ReportsJohnson.html

The wounds inflicted upon our men by the small caliber Mauser bullets were much less severe than I had expected from the literature read on the subject. I certainly consider it a humane bullet in every sense of the term. There were a number of gunshot wounds of the skull where the bullet simply perforated the bones without any comminution or apparent splintering. In the case of Sergeant C- a bullet entered the right parietal bone near its junction with the frontal and emerged at the posterior border of that bone, lacerating the brain substance. The first two days after admission to this hospital he was partially unconscious, but on the third day became rational and began to improve. When transferred to Siboney a few days later his condition was better, and beyond some blunting of the mental faculties, with peevishness and irritability of temper, gave fair prospects of ultimate recovery.

Private B- received a perforating gunshot wound of the neck, the ball entering the right sterno-mastoid muscle at its middle, passing through the pharynx in its course, and emerging at the anterior border of the left sterno-mastoid at the same level. This patient was scarcely confined to bed, and up to the time of his transfer to Siboney, experienced very little difficulty from the injury. Perforating wounds of the chest, abdomen, and every other portion of the body healed kindly by first intention when not previously infected. Occasionally a ball seemed to pass directly through a bone without producing a fracture, but in the majority of cases-noticeably of the femur-a solution of continuity resulted. From what I have seen of the injuries inflicted by the Krag-Jorgensen rifle upon Spanish prisoners falling into our hands after the receipt of wounds, I have come to the conclusion that it is a munch more effective weapon and produces wounds of far greater gravity than the Mauser.

 

[Art Eatman]

Dredging some remembrance from reading, a half-century back, wasn't the WW I cartridge the 8x60? And then as part of the Versailles Treaty, that cartridge was outlawed--which led then to the change to 8x57. Just set the barrel back by three millimeters.

Wasn't the first wartime use of the 7mm in the Spanish-American war? Mauser made rifles for Spain, but Germany wasn't involved in the shooting.

Were I a guessing fella, I'd figure that the rationale for the 8x60 was for better penetration than with a 7mm and a flatter trajectory than the .30-40 Krag.

 

[.45Guy]

Wouldn't that be the other way around? I always thought that was the basis for various European laws barring civilian use of "military calibers." Sort of like the .416 Barret loophole.

 

[.45Guy]

Since someone mentioned the Russo Japanese war:

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA438108

have not regarded this as an authenticated statement.
From what I have been able to gather from conversation
with Russian surgeons, I think it probable that we will have
no occasion to modify our views regarding the effects of
high-powered bullets at different ranges. Doctor Wreden
writes:
The explosive effects of the Japanese bullet in spongy bone tissue is
observed only at close range (100 m.), beyond which the distinction
is slight, but in dense osseus tissue explosive effects are observed up
to 800 m. Within 200 m. wounds of the cranium are usually fatal,
the hydrodynamic effects being most marked, and within 100 m. the
calvarium is greatly comminuted. Beyond 200 m. tangental wounds
of the head are not usually fatal, but penetrating wounds are lethal
up to a 1,000 m.

Doctor Wreden regards wounds of the face and neck as
serious, and if th e tter are complicated by injuries to arteries,
trachea, or e nagus they are usually fatal. Colonel
Havard reports a wound of the cervical region in the case of
Prince Murat in which the bullet transversed the neck from
200 MILITARY OBSERVATIONS-RUSSO-JAPANESE WAR.
side to side, coming out close to the internal carotid artery,
and another case in which the missile entered at the point of
the chin and emerged close to the spine on the right side.
Both of these cases were convalescing.
So far as I could ascertain, there is a general consensus of
opinion that bullet wounds of the lungs are not serious.
The impression left on my mind is that celiotomy for any
purpose was a rare operation. This impression was gained
not from statistics, for such were not obtainable except from
a single hospital here and there, but from conversation with
many surgeons. The only really definite statement I have
on the subject is found in a report made by a chief surgeon,
of which I will submit a free translation:
Among the most serious wounds we have encountered are those
of the abdomen, in the treatment of which very little has been accomplished.
We can only say that the more rest the patient can have from
the very moment of the infliction of the wound the better the result.
The character of the missile-bullet, shrapnel, shell, or cold steel-is
of great importance in determining the result, and lesions caused by
each of these should be considered separately.
The severity of wounds of the abdominal region caused by the
modern bullet is directly proportionate to the range. As the result
of the experience gained in several operations done for penetrating
gunshot wounds of the abdomen at close range, I was deeply impressed
with the great explosive effect of the modern bullet. In some of the
cases in which the stomach was full it was burst into pieces and entirely
separated from the surrounding organs. A like result followed
with a full bladder, and great havoc was wrought in liver, spleen, and
kidneys. In such cases, as was to be expected, the symptoms of shock
were pronounced and resembled those of internal hemorrhage. The
wounded man almost invariably fell to the ground, complaining of
intense pain in the belly, but did not lose consciousness. If left
quiet, the pain subsided and the shock disappeared.
The report adds:
These cases never spoil the statistics of the rear hospitals, for they
die on the field or at the dressing station.
Beyond 400 meters the explosive effects were not observed, and the
patients did not at once fall. Soon, however, symptoms of shock supervened,
with vomiting, especially in alcoholics, and the wounded man
laid down. This condition usually continued for several days and has
led to early operative interference, which only resulted unfortunately.
The reporter estimated the mortality from rifle-bullet
wounds of the abdomen at 40 per cent of such cases. This
was based upon nine months' experience in the Far East.

 

[1911Tuner]

A point that I notice hasn't been made...

During the era that these rounds were being used, the troops still practiced long-range volleys...or area fire...to break up concentrations of enemy personnel. The rear tangent sights on the rifles were graduated to as much as 2,000 yards/meters. Heavier bullets perform better than light bullets at such distances...even with lower initial velocities....plunging into troop concentrations from high angles

This is reflected by the US M1 Ball round that consisted of a 175 grain bullet. The original German 8X57 was loaded with a 196-grain bullet.

During WW2, and the highly moblie "Lightning War" tactics...using rifles in volleys for area fire was pretty much abandoned in favor of armor and accurate artillery...so the bullet weights were reduced to 152 and 154 grains respectively with attendant higher velocities and flat trajectories that allowed a "Battlesight" zero to be effective at the engagement ranges most often encountered...which proved to be a maximum of about 300 yards...without the need to adjust the sights.

 

[303tom]

After the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor, they decided they needed a larger caliber round than the American .30-06 they were going to face.

A better question would be why DID the Japanese switch from the 6.5x50mm to the 7.7x58mm, and the Italians from the 6.5x52mm to the 7.35x51mm?

I think he was being sarcastic, because everyone knows that the 7x57 that the Spanish used was nether Faster nor harder hitting than the German 7.92x57. The fact is the 8mm Mauser was some 3 to 500 fps faster & had over a 1000 ft-lbs more energy. (case design) & no just because one is 7x57 & the other is 7.92x57 the case IS NOT the same...........

 

[Sam1911]

Heavier bullets perform better than light bullets at such distances...even with lower initial velocities....plunging into troop concentrations from high angles.

I think modern ballistics understanding would say that bullets with better ballistic coefficients perform better at long range -- because they retain their velocity better.

Much of the time a longer, heavier bullet will have a better B.C. -- in the same caliber.

But it is clearly true that a smaller caliber bullet in a heavy-for-caliber form could have a better B.C. and better long-range performance than a larger caliber bullet with a low B.C.

But these things were not well understood when 8x57 and other such cartridges were being developed.

 

[1911Tuner]

I think modern ballistics understanding would say that bullets with better ballistic coefficients perform better at long range -- because they retain their velocity better.

I think they understood it back then, just as we do today...but bullet mass plays a more important role in long-range plunging fire than velocity.

I remember some years ago of a penetration test performed with a .45-70 Sharps rifle in which the testers set up some wooden baffles at an angle some 1500 yards distant. The plunging 405 grain bullets did well, defeating all but one of the 7 baffles. All rounds were loaded with the spec black powder charges for each respective cartridge. The 500-grain bullets went through all 7 baffles and 10 inches into the dirt.

 

[Sam1911]

...but bullet mass plays a more important role in long-range plunging fire than velocity.

...The plunging 405 grain bullets did well, defeating all but one of the 7 baffles. ... The 500-grain bullets went through all baffles and 10 inches into the dirt.

Can you explain why that might be? I'm thinking it might have something to do with terminal velocity of plunging bullets with very similar (extremely low) ballistic coefficients. In other words, both bullets were probably going about the same speed when they hit the target, so the heavy bullet performed better.

If a lighter bullet with a much higher b.c. was to hit that target with far greater retained velocity, I'd expect much better performance due to the squared value of velocity in the energy calculation.

But that's just my theory...

 

[.45Guy]

Can you explain why that might be? I'm thinking it might have something to do with terminal velocity of plunging bullets with very similar (extremely low) ballistic coefficients. In other words, both bullets were probably going about the same speed when they hit the target, so the heavy bullet performed better.

If a lighter bullet with a much higher b.c. was to hit that target with far greater retained velocity, I'd expect much better performance due to the squared value of velocity in the energy calculation.

Terminal velocity wouldn't be the proper term to apply to the tests mentioned. At 1,500 the .45-70 405 and 500 are both still decelerating, and far from dropping like a rock. From the Springfield Armory Longmeadow tests, the following elevation was required to achieve hits at 1,000 and 1,500 with the 405 and its .214 BC: .45-70-405 Springfield Service 3d 6' 37" 5d 20' 4". Of course maximum range of the 405 at 30 degree elevation is ~3,333, far behind the 7x57 175 @~4,500. However, at such ranges you will either end up with a .284 or .458 diameter hole. For the simple purpose of killing things, bigger is better. As to penetration at range, peruse the reports in post 30.

 

[Kachok]

For the simple purpose of killing things, bigger is better.

That is kind of like caveman terminal ballistics, "ug bigger bullet make bigger hole" If you are talking penatration then yes for sure the larger the caliber, the higher the SD, the faster the bullet the more penatration you will get with a given bullet construction. But the kicker is that at rifle speeds bullets behave very differently then we would imagine seeing them in a static state.
Take two bullets of similar energy, a 308 loaded with 175gr Matchkings and a 45-70 loaded with 405gr RN (modern pressures) Both legal for use in the military. Now fire them at human sized/depth targets at a variety of ranges the 175gr SMK will provide much greater soft tissue damage across the board because of it's nasty habit of heavy fragmentation while the 45-70 will make a cleaner hole in and out albeit a nice sized hole for a RN.
OK reset the experment, now shoot cape buffalo with both, and the 45-70 makes the 308 look silly, 4 feet+ of penatration means you can easly reach and pass through the vitals of the anamals, with the 175 SMK you are hardly getting through their hide/fat and I hope you can climb a tree really fast.
OK one more now compare an expanding 405gr SP to a 180gr 308 SP. The make similar sized wound tracts for the first 8-12" but past that the 45-70 romps all over it, the 308 is out of steam at about 16-22" and the 45 cal will pass through a 30" DP block still making a nice sized wound canal.
What do we learn from this? Terminal ballistics are a very three-dimensional equation and blanket statements are almost never correct in all cases. You can say that with bullet construction designed for the same level of penatration, and the same energy larger caliber/heavier bullets will do more damage then smaller and lighter bullets. That would be true, but working under the assumption that a bullet does more damage just because of it's larger caliber is like assuming one car is faster then another because it has a larger exaust tip

 

[.45Guy]

Kachok, again refer to the primary source documents of post 30. At range the terminal ballistics are more dependant upon diameter rather than velocity. Caveman or not, evidence points to the fact at ranges exceeding 300-400 yards all you will have is a neat .284 hole. Combine that with the anomalous penetration reports and one can see that real world terminal ballistics are not so cut and dry.

 

[Kachok]

Again 175 SMKs are well known to yaw/fragment making massive tissue damage at ranges in excess of 600yd, just ask any sniper. Caliber helps, but it is only one piece of the terminal ballistics equation. Though with turn of the century bullets I tend to agree with you, a bigger bullet would have a tendency to produce a larger wound canal.

 

[.45Guy]

but working under the assumption that a bullet does more damage just because of it's larger caliber is like assuming one car is faster then another because it has a larger exaust tip

The discussion at hand was in regard to very specific loads. The 175 grain .284 fmj is an entirely different animal from a .308 SMK. If we are to open it up to such comparisons, might as well put a 305 leverlution at Ruger #1 velocities into gel...

Terminal velocity wouldn't be the proper term to apply to the tests mentioned. At 1,500 the .45-70 405 and 500 are both still decelerating, and far from dropping like a rock. From the Springfield Armory Longmeadow tests, the following elevation was required to achieve hits at 1,000 and 1,500 with the 405 and its .214 BC: .45-70-405 Springfield Service 3d 6' 37" 5d 20' 4". Of course maximum range of the 405 at 30 degree elevation is ~3,333, far behind the 7x57 175 @~4,500. However, at such ranges you will either end up with a .284 or .458 diameter hole. For the simple purpose of killing things, bigger is better.

A comparison of two specific loads does not a blanket statement make.

 

[Kachok]

Just correcting a blanket statement, not trying to jump headlong into that firefight. BTW the original 7x57 load was a 173gr bullet @2300fps.

 

[.45Guy]

Again, the thread pertains to why 7x57 was or was not adopted. Modern, lightly constructed, fragmenting projectiles are not part of the equation.

 

[Kachok]

Ok I know it is not 7x57 or 7.92x57, but lets just for a second look at the extream end of the spectrum, if caliber was the primamry factor of bullet terminal performance why on earth were the old 54 and 58cal muskets not instant killers? They were very poor performers at range because of their near lack of energy. Now that I have made the point for the opposing side let me say again that my bet would be on the 8mm Mauser given the bullets avalible at the time. Weather or not that extra damage made up for it's 200fps slower speeds and hence reduced range that is another story, but put them both on target and the 8mm would do the trick for sure.

 

[1911Tuner]

If a lighter bullet with a much higher b.c. was to hit that target with far greater retained velocity, I'd expect much better performance due to the squared value of velocity in the energy calculation.

At that range, it's doubtful that there was a "far greater" retained velocity, given that neither one exactly set the world on fire speed-swise. The deciding factor was momentum...not energy.

Also consider that...at such ranges...the heavier bullet was likely carrying more velocity than the lighter one, even though the lighter one started at a higher velocity. Again...momentum is in play. The more massive it is, the harder it fights outside forces that are trying to decelerate it.

And finally...the faster the object is moving when it hits the air, the harder the air fights it. A 150-grain bullet at 2800 fps MV loses a greater percentage of that initial speed at 100 yards than a 165 at 2600 with all else assumed to be equal. Simple physics. In this case...the 3rd law of action and reaction. In layman's terms...the harder the bullet hits the target, the harder the target hits the bullet.

It's long been my belief...and this is supported by my own experience...that if you need more killing power, you need more bullet rather than more speed. Within reasonable, practical ranges, velocity serves mainly to flatten trajectory. Velocity, energy, and momentum are all variable, while mass is constant.

Another way to look at is is...

Two round balls dropped from a height of 2,000 feet. One weighs a pound and one weighs an ounce. Both strike at the same velocity, but which one do you least want to be struck by?

 

[MachIVshooter]

there was no way someone like (that rat bastard) MacArthur would allow progress in the military if a few pennies could be saved.

A few pennies? More like millions of dollars.

The fact is the 8mm Mauser was some 3 to 500 fps faster & had over a 1000 ft-lbs more energy. (case design) & no just because one is 7x57 & the other is 7.92x57 the case IS NOT the same...........

Other than the shoulder being a little further forward and 0.023" wider, they are, in fact, the same case. One can easily fire-form 7x57 in an 8x57 chamber, or resize 8x57 into 7x57. About the same as .270 Win. vs. .280 Rem.

And no, the 8x57 wasn't that much more potent. 7x57 loads ranged from under 2,000 ft/lbs (Mexican loading) to 2,600 ft/lbs (Brazilian loading); 8x57IS 154 gr. was 2,835 ft/lbs

A better question would be why DID the Japanese switch from the 6.5x50mm to the 7.7x58mm, and the Italians from the 6.5x52mm to the 7.35x51mm?

Well, the Italians never really did switch. They went back to 6.5 because they couldn't sufficiently supply 7.35mm ammunition.

The Japs simply decided they wanted something more on par with the 8x57 and .30-06. The 6.5 Jap was pretty anemic compard to most of it's contemporaries (.303, 7.5x54, 7.5x55, 7.62x54, .30-06, 8x57)

 

[.45Guy]

if caliber was the primamry factor of bullet terminal performance why on earth were the old 54 and 58cal muskets not instant killers? They were very poor performers at range because of their near lack of energy.

Again, please refer to the primary source documents, specifically the sections pertaining to long bone strikes. The wounds created by the .58's were actually quite horrific. Not a laser beam by any means, but far more likely to be debilitating or fatal. Here is a modern study, since shooting gelatin is apparently more trustworthy than actual vivisection. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19485111

 

[1911Tuner]

The test that I mentioned above was basically a reenactment of the old Sandy Hook test that was performed in 1879.

Some of my numbers were wrong, due to the fact that it's been about 25 years since I read it...so with all due apologies.

Too long to post, here's an exerpt that was at the end of the report.

While these tests may be considered mere oddities today, they proved extremely useful at the time. The fact that the 500-grain bullet penetrated through the three-plank target and eight inches into sand meant that it could kill or wound enemy troops at extreme distances, even if they were partially protected and that was significant military information in a period when it was quite usual for large masses of troops to form up within view of defenders.


Since the tests showed that the 405-grain service bullet failed to perform as well as the 500-grain, and that the 500-grain bullet showed relatively little difference when propelled by either 70 or 80 grains of black powder, the .45-70-500 load in the service 2.1-inch case was adopted as standard for rifles. Thus those little-remembered Sandy Hook tests of 1879 had a lasting impact on firearms history without them, the gun companies might have recently resurrected the .45-80.

Here's the link for those who are interested.

http://home.earthlink.net/~sharpsshtr/CritterPhotos/SandyHook/SandyHook.html