5.56 NATO Showing Insufficient Lethality in Iraq

[Ma Deuce]

Looks like I missed this:

It really is a pity, for had we succeeded, and adopted a version of the MG42, we would have had a much better GMPG than the M60, which we got about a generation later. The M60 had some good points, but had several bad ones too, and the MG42 was a much better gun over all.

The M60 wasn't strictly an attempt to copy the MG42: The M60 is basically a hybrid of the MG42 action and that of the FG42 automatic rifle (to which the M60 bears a striking resemblance), which IIRC was what led to many of the M60's problems. The reason for this peculiar decision was the Army wanted it to be possible to fire the M60 from the standing position (like the BAR). On the other hand they also wanted a belt-fed weapon that could lay down sustained supression fire rom the supported position.

The cartridge used by the M60 wasn't a problem either: the M60 was never chambered for .30-06, it was chambered for 7.62mm NATO (.308), which was a shorter cartridge than the 7.92mm Mauser...

[Perinquus]

Looks like I missed this:

It really is a pity, for had we succeeded, and adopted a version of the MG42, we would have had a much better GMPG than the M60, which we got about a generation later. The M60 had some good points, but had several bad ones too, and the MG42 was a much better gun over all.

The M60 wasn't strictly an attempt to copy the MG42: The M60 is basically a hybrid of the MG42 action and that of the FG42 automatic rifle (to which the M60 bears a striking resemblance), which IIRC was what led to many of the M60's problems. The reason for this peculiar decision was the Army wanted it to be possible to fire the M60 from the standing position (like the BAR). On the other hand they also wanted a belt-fed weapon that could lay down sustained supression fire rom the supported position.

The cartridge used by the M60 wasn't a problem either: the M60 was never chambered for .30-06, it was chambered for 7.62mm NATO (.308), which was a shorter cartridge than the 7.92mm Mauser...

No shit! Dude, I was an infantry sergeant in the U.S. Army. I fucking know the M60 was chambered for the 7.62mm NATO, not the .30-06. That's not what I'm talking about!

And for god's sake, credit me with enough intelligence to recognize the difference between this:



And this:



Simple obsercation will tell you the M60 is not a direct copy of the MG42. Do you think I'm fucking blind? What you apparently don't know is that we did attempt to copy the MG42 back during WWII. We weren't trying to make a derivative weapon, we attempted to make a direct, dimensionally exact, completely identical copy, except for firring the American .30-06 Springfield cartridge, rather than the German 7.92mm Mauser. And as I said, because someone forgot to take into account the slightly greater length of the .30-06 cartridge, it didn'ty work, so the project was abandoned.

Here's a site that mentions it:

The WSG2000


And here's the relevant passage:

Many will recall the attempts by the U.S. Ordnance Corps to reverse engineer the excellent German WWII MG42 machine gun to fire the U.S. .30-06 caliber cartridge. Had errors in the conversion from metric to English measurements not occurred during prototype design, American GI’s might well have been carrying an Americanized MG42 well into the present day as they had done one World War earlier with the fine M1903 "Springfield" rifle — for all intents and purposes a close copy of the Mauser 98 rifle.

[Perinquus]

Looks like I missed this:

It really is a pity, for had we succeeded, and adopted a version of the MG42, we would have had a much better GMPG than the M60, which we got about a generation later. The M60 had some good points, but had several bad ones too, and the MG42 was a much better gun over all.

The M60 wasn't strictly an attempt to copy the MG42: The M60 is basically a hybrid of the MG42 action and that of the FG42 automatic rifle (to which the M60 bears a striking resemblance), which IIRC was what led to many of the M60's problems. The reason for this peculiar decision was the Army wanted it to be possible to fire the M60 from the standing position (like the BAR). On the other hand they also wanted a belt-fed weapon that could lay down sustained supression fire rom the supported position.

The cartridge used by the M60 wasn't a problem either: the M60 was never chambered for .30-06, it was chambered for 7.62mm NATO (.308), which was a shorter cartridge than the 7.92mm Mauser...

Didn't you catch it where I said, "had we succeeded, and adopted a version of the MG42, we would have had a much better GMPG than the M60"? Now how would that sentence make any sense if the M60 were a copy of the MG42. I would then be saying It's a pity we didn't successfully copy the MG42, for then we would have had a better machine gun than our copy of the MG42.

[Ma Deuce]

Err... Seems I completely misread your post. Sorry about that.

[Jade Falcon]

I wonder how the round for the EM-2 Assault Rifle would do in the performance stakes.

http://world.guns.ru/assault/as59-e.htm


There's comparison tables there comparing the 7mm x 43mm round for the EM-2 to 5.56 NATO, 7.62 NATO and 5.54 WARPAC rounds. The British 7mm seems a hefty round at 140 grains.

[Sea Skimmer]

I wonder how the round for the EM-2 Assault Rifle would do in the performance stakes.

http://world.guns.ru/assault/as59-e.htm


There's comparison tables there comparing the 7mm x 43mm round for the EM-2 to 5.56 NATO, 7.62 NATO and 5.54 WARPAC rounds. The British 7mm seems a hefty round at 140 grains.

7mm/.276 has been repeatedly shown to be the optimal caliber for an infantry rifle, bolt action or automatic. Unfortunately despite several different nations having considered it (Apparently the British came close to doing so more then once) something else political or financially related always has gotten in the way and resulted in a different caliber being adapted (Ian V. Hogg has some great quotes on this matter). The EM-2 its self as I understand it needed some further refinement, but it certainly would have led to an excellent service weapon, and once the US and everyone else not Soviet noticed that 7.62x51mm sucks for an automatic rifle is probably that there next rifles would have been around 7mm as well. The M16 and 5.56mm might still have been adapted, but only for its originally designed role as a light carbine to arm rear area troops.

[Perinquus]

I wonder how the round for the EM-2 Assault Rifle would do in the performance stakes.

http://world.guns.ru/assault/as59-e.htm


There's comparison tables there comparing the 7mm x 43mm round for the EM-2 to 5.56 NATO, 7.62 NATO and 5.54 WARPAC rounds. The British 7mm seems a hefty round at 140 grains.

7mm/.276 has been repeatedly shown to be the optimal caliber for an infantry rifle, bolt action or automatic. Unfortunately despite several different nations having considered it (Apparently the British came close to doing so more then once) something else political or financially related always has gotten in the way and resulted in a different caliber being adapted (Ian V. Hogg has some great quotes on this matter). The EM-2 its self as I understand it needed some further refinement, but it certainly would have led to an excellent service weapon, and once the US and everyone else not Soviet noticed that 7.62x51mm sucks for an automatic rifle is probably that there next rifles would have been around 7mm as well. The M16 and 5.56mm might still have been adapted, but only for its originally designed role as a light carbine to arm rear area troops.

The U.S. also came fairly close to adopting a similar cartridge on at least two occasions. The M1 Garand was originally intended to chamber a smaller caliber cartridge - .276 I believe - but the then Army Chief of Staff General Douglas MacArthur overrode that plan because he didn't want to make the existing stocks of millions of .30-06 rounds obsolete. I wish he hadn't taken that step, but as the Great Depression was in full swing, and the pre-WWII U.S. Army budget was not all that large, he may honestly have had little choice. Then sometime after the war, the Navy tested an experimental squad automatic weapon that featured an intermediate cartridge in something like 6.5mm, I forget the exact caliber, and that round performed well, but again it was not adopted in the end.

[Perinquus]

I hate double posts.

What double post? --Beowulf

[Sea Skimmer]

The U.S. also came fairly close to adopting a similar cartridge on at least two occasions. The M1 Garand was originally intended to chamber a smaller caliber cartridge - .276 I believe - but the then Army Chief of Staff General Douglas MacArthur overrode that plan because he didn't want to make the existing stocks of millions of .30-06 rounds obsolete. I wish he hadn't taken that step, but as the Great Depression was in full swing, and the pre-WWII U.S. Army budget was not all that large, he may honestly have had little choice.

That was the case; Congress was not going to throw out the money to build a completely new ammunition plant. As it was just getting the rifle funded was troublesome, and low funding of it was why even units of the small prewar army had to wait until 1942 to be fully equipped with it.

Then sometime after the war, the Navy tested an experimental squad automatic weapon that featured an intermediate cartridge in something like 6.5mm, I forget the exact caliber, and that round performed well, but again it was not adopted in the end.

The US had two alternative machine guns of interest, one was the Colt CMG-2 which was 5.56mm, but was purpose designed to fire a 5.56mm round with a 68-grain bullet and a twist of 1 turn in 8.5 inches. At the same the US Army was still using a 1 in 12 twist and the 55-grain M193 ammo. The gun could fire the M193 ammo as well, but it died because to be worthwhile it could need to use its special ammunition. I would expect that the 68-grain bullet would be pretty effective despite its higher stability and velocity (espically since unlike current 5.56mm ammo is wasn't designed to be semi-AP) but it would probably still be unsatisfactory.

The Frankford Arsenal then went and developed a 6x45mm cartridge with a 105-grain bullet; muzzle velocity was 2445 f/s and muzzle energy 1394 ft/lbs. This compares with M193 muzzle energy of 1252 ft/lbs and velocity of 3299 ft/s. I believe the former and latter figures are both for a 20-inch M16 barrel. Colt then took the new round and combined it with a modified heavy barrel M16 to create a new machine gun. I don't know what it was designated though. The fact that it was magazine fed basically killed it out of hand; Colt had previously tied to get simply a heavy barrel M16 called the CMG-1 adapted as well.

[Ma Deuce]

The U.S. also came fairly close to adopting a similar cartridge on at least two occasions. The M1 Garand was originally intended to chamber a smaller caliber cartridge - .276 I believe - but the then Army Chief of Staff General Douglas MacArthur overrode that plan because he didn't want to make the existing stocks of millions of .30-06 rounds obsolete. I wish he hadn't taken that step, but as the Great Depression was in full swing, and the pre-WWII U.S. Army budget was not all that large, he may honestly have had little choice

I have one question concerning this: When the US finally did get around to replacing the .30-06 in the '50s, why did they select another full-length cartridge rather than an intermediate one like the .280 that was used by the EM-2, or even the .276 originally intended for the M1? (which granted was still a full-length cartridge, but not nearly as over-powered as 7.62mm NATO or .30-06).

[Sea Skimmer]

I have one question concerning this: When the US finally did get around to replacing the .30-06 in the '50s, why did they select another full-length cartridge rather than an intermediate one like the .280 that was used by the EM-2, or even the .276 originally intended for the M1? (which granted was still a full-length cartridge, but not nearly as over-powered as 7.62mm NATO or .30-06).

The US Army had committed to 7.62x51mm, which was a direct replacement of the .30-06 made possibul by improvements in propellants well before it began to look at assault rifles. Once that changeover took place, funding yet another new cartridge wasn't going to happen for some time, the US army was on a very lean budget at the time because it had little role in the projected nuclear was with the Soviets. So it devoloped its new rifle, which became the M13, to use that caliber. The idea of standardized ammunition was also popular.

[Perinquus]

The U.S. also came fairly close to adopting a similar cartridge on at least two occasions. The M1 Garand was originally intended to chamber a smaller caliber cartridge - .276 I believe - but the then Army Chief of Staff General Douglas MacArthur overrode that plan because he didn't want to make the existing stocks of millions of .30-06 rounds obsolete. I wish he hadn't taken that step, but as the Great Depression was in full swing, and the pre-WWII U.S. Army budget was not all that large, he may honestly have had little choice

I have one question concerning this: When the US finally did get around to replacing the .30-06 in the '50s, why did they select another full-length cartridge rather than an intermediate one like the .280 that was used by the EM-2, or even the .276 originally intended for the M1? (which granted was still a full-length cartridge, but not nearly as over-powered as 7.62mm NATO or .30-06).

The U.S. Army was frankly backward in its thinking at the time. WWII, and the deployment of the German MP44/StG44, with its 7.92mm kurz patrone, had shown that the concept of the intermediate catridge/assault rifle combo was an effective one. (Interestingly, the Germans wanted a smaller caliber as well, but wartime logistical and production exigencies forced them to keep the 7.92mm caliber, but with a shorter cartridge case and lighter projectile.) The Russians got it, and ultimately produced the AK47, with an intermediate cartridge. The British got it, and produced the EM-2 prototype, with an even better intermediate cartridge. The U.S. Army didn't get it. They criticized the intermediate cartridge as lacking long range performance. Nevermind the fact that the cartridge had been designed around the fact that the vast majority of infantry combat takes place at intermediate ranges, and giving soldiers a rifle cartridge designed to be lethal a mile away was wasted potential, for which the soldier paid a considerable penalty in weight of ammo, of rifle to handle it, and increased recooil and uncontrollable full auto fire.

[Jade Falcon]

Intermediate was definitely the way to go for main infantry rifles when you consider that rifles like the M1 Garand, the .303 Leee Enflield and the Mauser Kar-98k had effective ranges well beyond a mile.

Such high power wasn't really needed except perhaps in sniper rifles. I really wish the EM-2 had been adopted, it was fairly groundbreaking at the time and it's possible it would have been a hell of a lot less problematic than the troubled SA-80.

[Ma Deuce]

rifles like the M1 Garand, the .303 Leee Enflield and the Mauser Kar-98k had effective ranges well beyond a mile.

Only if fitted with a scope in "sniper rifle" configuration: given the limitations of human sight and fine moter skills, it simply isn't possible to hit a man-sized target a mile away with any degree of accuracy using open sights, no matter what ammo you are using. At best, effective range with open sights would be 800-1,000 meters.

[Sea Skimmer]

rifles like the M1 Garand, the .303 Leee Enflield and the Mauser Kar-98k had effective ranges well beyond a mile.

Only if fitted with a scope in "sniper rifle" configuration: given the limitations of human sight and fine moter skills, it simply isn't possible to hit a man-sized target a mile away with any degree of accuracy using open sights, no matter what ammo you are using. At best, effective range with open sights would be 800-1,000 meters.

That's why you have an entire regiment open fire at the same time using the same range setting. Most of the rifles that preceded those listed above had sights calibrated out to 2000 meters or 2000 yards for just that purpose. When thousands of rifle bullets are being fired in long-range volleys, it can be quite effective. Course at the same time machine guns where rare to non-existence and artillery still fired time fused shrapnel over open sights so things where a bit different.

[Perinquus]

rifles like the M1 Garand, the .303 Leee Enflield and the Mauser Kar-98k had effective ranges well beyond a mile.

Only if fitted with a scope in "sniper rifle" configuration: given the limitations of human sight and fine moter skills, it simply isn't possible to hit a man-sized target a mile away with any degree of accuracy using open sights, no matter what ammo you are using. At best, effective range with open sights would be 800-1,000 meters.

That's why you have an entire regiment open fire at the same time using the same range setting. Most of the rifles that preceded those listed above had sights calibrated out to 2000 meters or 2000 yards for just that purpose. When thousands of rifle bullets are being fired in long-range volleys, it can be quite effective. Course at the same time machine guns where rare to non-existence and artillery still fired time fused shrapnel over open sights so things where a bit different.

And at the same time, that long range capability was used when armies were still wearing bright red and blue uniforms. They retained that long range capability when armies abandoned those bright colors, and faded into the background in khaki or field grey, but once that happened it was a hawk eyed soldier who could even see an enemy trooper past four or five hundred meters, let alone hit him, even in volley fire. It took the brass hats a while to cop on to this reality.

[Stuart Mackey]

And at the same time, that long range capability was used when armies were still wearing bright red and blue uniforms. They retained that long range capability when armies abandoned those bright colors, and faded into the background in khaki or field grey, but once that happened it was a hawk eyed soldier who could even see an enemy trooper past four or five hundred meters, let alone hit him, even in volley fire. It took the brass hats a while to cop on to this reality.

err..the Brits/Empire were in Khaki from when? 1890's?..besides..I have a fondness for the SMLE .303 ..but more fondness for the belt fed Bren gun

[Elheru Aran]

And at the same time, that long range capability was used when armies were still wearing bright red and blue uniforms. They retained that long range capability when armies abandoned those bright colors, and faded into the background in khaki or field grey, but once that happened it was a hawk eyed soldier who could even see an enemy trooper past four or five hundred meters, let alone hit him, even in volley fire. It took the brass hats a while to cop on to this reality.

err..the Brits/Empire were in Khaki from when? 1890's?..besides..I have a fondness for the SMLE .303 ..but more fondness for the belt fed Bren gun

IIRC, even though the Brits used khaki after that point, there were still quite a few parts of their military still in colors-- they didn't completely change till around the turn of the century.

Besides that-- since the 1890's, guns have been largely unchanged, metallurgically wise; the main improvements are in ammo and action (semi-auto, automatic). They had the Maxim MG starting in around late 1880's, IIRC, and after the-- what was it? falling-block action type rifle, I forgot the exact name but it was a breechloader (something starting with M) was replaced with the Enfield, rifle technology remained largely unchanged throughout the first half of the 20th century. Ergo, for that reason much of the rifles of that era-- even onwards through the Garand and the M-14-- were sighted for (to us) pretty long distances.

Question-- I seem to remember the Bren being a magazine-fed machine gun?

[Jade Falcon]

The Bren gun is a magazine fed, it used a distinctive curved top loading magazine.

http://www.britishsoldier.com/4-bren.gif

You may be thinking of the .303 Belt Fed Vickers gun instead.

http://www.diggerhistory.info/images/we ... ickers.jpg

[Perinquus]

And at the same time, that long range capability was used when armies were still wearing bright red and blue uniforms. They retained that long range capability when armies abandoned those bright colors, and faded into the background in khaki or field grey, but once that happened it was a hawk eyed soldier who could even see an enemy trooper past four or five hundred meters, let alone hit him, even in volley fire. It took the brass hats a while to cop on to this reality.

err..the Brits/Empire were in Khaki from when? 1890's?..besides..I have a fondness for the SMLE .303 ..but more fondness for the belt fed Bren gun

And the long Lee Enfield rifle was adopted in 1888. And the trials leading to its adoption went back to 1879. Besides, since when is the British army the only one on earth? The French didn't give up their bright red uniform trousers until WWI. Some units, notably in their cavalry arm, were still wearing red pants after the commencement of hostilities in 1914. And some of the more hidbound traditionalists in the French army vehemently opposed their withdrawal after it became obvious to the realists that bright red was suicidal to wear on the modern battlefield.

And I wonder just how much fondness for the Bren you can actually have, since you are apparently not that familiar with it. It was magazine fed, not belt fed.

[Perinquus]

Now why didn't that photo show up in that last post?

[Elheru Aran]

The Bren gun is a magazine fed, it used a distinctive curved top loading magazine.

http://www.britishsoldier.com/4-bren.gif

Yep, that's the Bren all right... for those to whom it doesn't show up, here tis:

[Sea Skimmer]

The Bren gun is a magazine fed, it used a distinctive curved top loading magazine.

http://www.britishsoldier.com/4-bren.gif

You may be thinking of the .303 Belt Fed Vickers gun instead.

http://www.diggerhistory.info/images/we ... ickers.jpg

No he's thinking of the very real belt fed variant of the Bren gun, which was developed post war, but not adapted.

[Ma Deuce]

Now why didn't that photo show up in that last post?

That always happens when you try to post images from Popenker's site (I'd guess this is intentional to prevent remote image linking from eating up his bandwidth). You could downloading the image and find some other webspace to host a copy...

[Stuart Mackey]

And at the same time, that long range capability was used when armies were still wearing bright red and blue uniforms. They retained that long range capability when armies abandoned those bright colors, and faded into the background in khaki or field grey, but once that happened it was a hawk eyed soldier who could even see an enemy trooper past four or five hundred meters, let alone hit him, even in volley fire. It took the brass hats a while to cop on to this reality.

err..the Brits/Empire were in Khaki from when? 1890's?..besides..I have a fondness for the SMLE .303 ..but more fondness for the belt fed Bren gun

And the long Lee Enfield rifle was adopted in 1888. And the trials leading to its adoption went back to 1879. Besides, since when is the British army the only one on earth?

British/Empire are the only ones that matter besides I was reffering to the point on red uniforms, assuming it was in reference to the British.

snip

And I wonder just how much fondness for the Bren you can actually have, since you are apparently not that familiar with it. It was magazine fed, not belt fed.

*shrugs* NZ had some modified for belt feed, saw that in the NZ Army Museum last time I was there.