1800's .44's

[James K]

Just to really stir the pot. The U.S. Chief of Ordnance at the beginning of the Civil War was a man named Ripley, who has taken a lot of heat (then and now) for not adopting every cockamamie repeating rifle that came along. Most of that criticism is based, of course, on 20-20 hindsight. In fact, guns like the Henry were fragile and difficult to maintain in the field; the Spencer was better, but both required proprietary cartridges that would turn out to be difficult to supply. Not to mention the dozen or so other special cartridges used in the hodgepodge of carbines and rifles thrown into combat without a proper supply system.

Ripley was not against new ideas; but his view was that muskets of the standard caliber, for which cartridges could be provided, were better than "super guns" with no ammunition. And one point is often overlooked; Ripley, and other U.S. officers, knew the capabilities of southern industry and knew well that the C.S. would have nothng better. And they were right; the South had an adequate supply of rifles, mainly of the Enfield which was their standard rifle, but they never had anything better. They never were able to produce fixed ammunition; captured Spencers and Henrys were discarded when captured ammunition was used up. Other carbines were closed or welded up and used as muzzle loaders.

Once the war was over, and a new rifle was in the works, the view was that a powerful rifle, capable of use at long range, would be superior to short range carbines. It is basically the same argument heard in WWII and today. Which would be better in combat - an M1/M14 or a Thompson SMG?

Jim

 

[tipoc]

Very good points.

Yep and early in WWII the Marine Corps refused the Garand and held onto the bolt action Springfield, arguing that the Garand degraded accurate, disciplined fire at distance and encouraged a "spray and pray" mentality.

tipoc

 

[BlueTrain]

Mr. James K makes a good point about the large number of different weapons, mostly carbines, using proprietary cartridges during the Civil War. One thing is that none of those different cartridges were considered standard in any sense of the word. But if any of them had been used in large enough numbers (that is, because there were large numbers of weapons that used them), it may have been different. As it was, virtually all small arms used in the Civil War had a useful life of little more than twenty years. They were produced in huge numbers but quickly became obsolete as breechloaders using metallic cartridge came along, just as they themselves had made flintlocks a thing of the past.

There were lots of new cartridges introduced after the Civil War, some still with us, if not exactly in wide use, others almost forgotten. The same is true of a lot of other cartridges, which in spite of being used a great deal around the world, are on the road to obscurity, though it will take a long time for some just because of the sheer numbers. But when no new firearms are made for them, that will happen. But who can tell what Ruger will make next year? How about a No. 1 in 6.5 Japanese? An SP-101 in .38 S&W. You laugh! I've seen a Security Six in .38 S&W and Ruger made something in .303 British, which by the way is the same as a certain 7.7 Japanese.

The day of the proprierty cartridge is not over, either. Apparently gun makers felt no reason to make their new guns to chamber someone else's cartridge, even for military use. So the only gun, I think, to chamber a .30 Luger was a Luger, except of course, for Ruger.

You know, now and then my wife will ask me some gun related question and one she asked was about Ruger and Luger.

 

[Mike Irwin]

At some points during the war it's said that the Quartermaster's Corps had close to 200 separate types of ammunition to supply to the troops.

I'm not sure if that is just small arms ammunition, or if it is small arms and artillery.

But, anyway you look at it, it's a ton of stuff to get out.

That said, and I've said this several times over the past few weeks, is that the Union armies did a phenomonal job of getting the correct ammo to the troops in sufficient quantities, and when they needed it.

The Quartermaster's Corps, the military railroads, and the military telegraph authorities all quickly put into place some amazingly novel and innovative logistical processes to streamline supply and to make sure that those troops who had non-standard weapons got the ammunition they needed.

Sometimes it was simply by brute force -- Ok, you've got 20,000 Springfield .58-cal rifled muskets. Here's ammo for those. And just in case, here's ammo for the .69 caliber smoothbore, some Burnsides ammo, and what the hell, take some Smith carbine ammo, too.

Other times calvary units would telegraph that they would be at a certain rail head in X days, and that they needed X, X, and X, and their supplies would be waiting for them when they got there.

Yes, the Civil War weapons and ammunition situation was an interesting one. But it wasn't quite as catastrophic as it would appear that it should have been.

 

[BlueTrain]

All of those experiences were eventually forgotten but they basically did the same thing all over again in 1917, although there was none of that incredible variety of small arms ammunition to deal with. But they virtually created a huge army overnight and sent it overseas. There was a lot of enthusiasm for the war effort, rather more so than in 1941, I'm led to believe.

 

[tipoc]

The Quartermaster's Corps, the military railroads, and the military telegraph authorities all quickly put into place some amazingly novel and innovative logistical processes to streamline supply and to make sure that those troops who had non-standard weapons got the ammunition they needed.

True, the methods employed, the experience of widespread standardized production and rapid distribution, also played a critical role in revolutionizing industrial production and distribution in a country not yet a century old. The effect of which lasted long after the war. The slavocracy could not come close to matching the industrial output of the U.S. nor was it able to wage the fight for standardization that the Ordnance Dept. did.

tipoc

 

[BlueTrain]

Standardized parts that (supposedly) required little or no hand fitting and very good machine manufacturing was in place well before the Civil War. Even Hall rifles and carbines were made that way. It was only a question of scale brought on by wartime requirements. In fact, if you examine a Civil War era weapon that is still in good shape, you would be impressed by the level of workmanship evident, all done with machines. The equipment used to manufacture rifles at the Harper's Ferry government factory in Harper's Ferry, Virginia (which it was at the time), was from Pratt & Whitney Machine Tool Company.

 

[Mike Irwin]

By the time the Civil War rolled around the United States was in, or just barely past, its infancy as an industrial powerhouse.

Much of the industrial techniques that we consider to be part and parcel to the industrial revolution, including standardized, interchangeable parts, were far more unique than they were commonplace in 1861.

One of the major issues that the US government had when it began letting contracts to private businesses for war supplies was standardization, both of parts for the machinery to make items, and for the items themselves.

It was not an easy conversion, and in many instances manufacturer's simply failed to meet those standards.

 

[Bart Noir]

.303 British, which by the way is the same as a certain 7.7 Japanese

That is partially correct. They used the same caliber bullets.

But the British round is very rimmed and the Japanese round is rimless.

Bart Noir

 

[Bart Noir]

So the only gun, I think, to chamber a .30 Luger was a Luger

I know of another handgun that was available in .30 Luger. That was the Browning Hi-Power. I found a magazine for one in a gunshop "junk box" and bought it for $5. Gave it to a friend so he could sell it on Gun Broker and keep the profit. I'll have to ask him if he did....

http://www.gunsamerica.com/964218322/Guns/Pistols/Browning-Pistols/Hi-Power/Browning_HP_Pistol_in_30_Luger.htm

Bart Noir
Who sees he is about to hit 4-digits in number of posts.

 

[Mike Irwin]

"That is partially correct. They used the same caliber bullets."

Bart, actually, that is completely correct.

The Japanese adopted THREE separate 7.7mm service cartridges.

One was rimless, and used in certain machine guns and the Type 99 rifle.

Another was semi-rimmed. Not 100% sure what it was used it.

And then there was the 7.7 Japanese rimmed, essentially a carbon copy of the .303 British in all of its rimmed glory.

It was used in the Japanese copies and variations of the Lewis and Vickers machine guns.

 

[BlueTrain]

You are correct, Mr. Bart Noir. The Browning Hi-Power was made in that caliber as well as the Sig P-210 in Switzerland. The .30 Luger was the Swiss service cartridge. According to Wikipedia, other handguns were also chambered for it, more so than I realized, but I recall seeing advertisements for the Ruger P-something that came with two barrels, one in .30 Luger, the other 9mm.

I was also aware the Japanese used more than one cartridge in 7.7mm, the different designations of which I did not look up. That's why I said "a certain Japanese." I knew about the Lewis gun copy, didn't know about the Vickers. The semi-rimmed version may have been used in their copy of the Hotchkiss but I don't have any reference material at hand.

 

[Mike Irwin]

The Japanese Navy's Type 97 E class machine gun was a direct copy of the Vickers ACMG Mk. II.

The Japanese Army had the Type 89, which was also a copy of the E class Vickers.

Both of the above were used as fixed armament on aircraft.

The Japanese Army also had a flexible mount machine gun called the Type 89, which I believe fired the rimmed version. I don't know if this was a copy of the Lewis or not, but I don't think that it was.

 

[Bart Noir]

I simply do not mind being corrected by you guys. That's how I learn.

And what a logistics nightmare the Japanese had in WW2 . We Americans had a few different versions of the .30-06 cartridge, IIRC, but at least any .30-06 could be fired in any .30-06 weapon.

I believe that a year or so back I saw a few boxes of .30-06 at a gunshow, made in Great Britain during the war, marked as being for aircraft use only. Do you guys have an explanation of this? I know we sent many aircraft to GB with machine guns mounted, so those would have been .30-06 not .303 (until they all were .50 BMG), but why the instructions about aircraft use?

Bart Noir

 

[Hawg]

We Americans had a few different versions of the .30-06 cartridge, IIRC, but at least any .30-06 could be fired in any .30-06 weapon.

I might be wrong but I think the 30-06 machine gun ammo was too hot for the Garand.

 

[Bob Wright]

I might be wrong but I think the 30-06 machine gun ammo was too hot for the Garand.

I beg to differ. I have de-linked .30 cal. AP M2 cartridges and loaded it into M1 clips.

Aircraft issued ammunition was API, Armor Piercing Incendiary. This was not issued to infantry units, but was issue to AAA units.

Incidentally linked ammunition was all the same when issued, that is, the whole belt was API. If the gunner desired, he inserted the tracers as desired.

During my brief service career, .30 caliber ammunition was issued in three ways, all came in those nice olive drab steel boxes we cherished; (1) in 8 round clips (2) 250 rounds, linked (3) loose, boxed in 20 round boxes, buff colored cardboard.

.45 Ammunition was issued in 50 round boxes, with four half moon clips in each box.

.30 Carbine ammunition was issued either in fifteen round stripper clips or twenty round boxes, loose.

We had linking/de-linking machines, though I never used one. They looked like a three-hole paper punch, a little. Supposedly one loaded cartridges into the grooves and links into corresponding slots, then pushed then handle down and one suddenly had a very short belt of ammunition.

Bob Wright

 

[BlueTrain]

This is really getting off the topic but here goes anyway. The Browning .30-06 water cooled machine guns were still in use in basic training when I was going through in 1965. That might explain why there isn't much US made stuff still around.

Here's something else I've mentioned before, also. In theory, a British tank in WWII could have required as many as four different small arms ammo. There would have been .38/200 for the crew's revolvers, 9mm for the submachine gun they probably had (if it wasn't a Thompson, which was .45 ACP), 8mm for the Besa, and .303 for the Bren that was probably mounted on the roof. At least they didn't have to carry it around.

 

[Mike Irwin]

"I might be wrong but I think the 30-06 machine gun ammo was too hot for the Garand."

Sorry, Hawg, but you're wrong, but with a POSSIBLE grain of truth...

It's a somewhat complex story, and maybe true (it is disputed by some) or may be false.

Anyway...

In World War I, the standard .30-06 loading used a 150-gr. flat base bullet for both rifle and machine gun use, the Ball M1906 round.

One of the outcomes of the war-time experience was that the ammo simply didn't have enough range for long-distance harassing fire with machine guns.

There was also the issue of the jacket material (cupronickel) fouling barrels.

In the early 1920s a new bullet, a 172-gr. boattail, was adopted as the .30-06 Ball M1. It gave greatly increase range (nearly double!), but it also made just about every military firing range obsolete. Supposedly one of the first times the ammo was used for training a homeowner who previously had been well out of range had his house severely damaged by bullets overshooting the range.

Here's where the story is disputed...

At the same time the United States was developing the Garand rifle. Supposedly, once the order came down to stick wtih the .30-06 (as opposed to the .276 Pedersen), Garand had a lot of trouble adapting the M1 to the heavy bullet load, while it worked fine with the ligher bullet load (those WW I era rounds were still being used for training as stocks of the Ball M1 were built up).

In 1938 or 1939, the decision was made to switch back to what was essentially the Ball M1906 round, but with a guilding metal jacket.

This solved any issues there may have been with the Garand, but the military had to figure out what to do with nearly 2 billion rounds of Ball M1.

So, the decision was mark it for use in automatic weapons only.

It was issued primarily for use by infantry but also in aircraft machine guns where the better ballistics and heavier weight were a distinct advantage.

Once those stocks ran ough, though, they were replaced with Ball M2. By then, though, it really didn't matter because combat ranges were nothing like they had been in WWI, and aircraft had largely moved to the .50 BMG round.

 

[Hawg]

Thanks for the clarification Mike.

 

[Newton24b]

as to the original posting, why was the 44 caliber cartridges of the 1800s not used by the federal government.

well,


1. these 44 caliber cartridges did not meet the basic requirements of the government contract for the solid frame revolver.
-not the same bullet diameter, or powder charge as used by at minimum the colt 1860.

2. ease of use in the field. straight walled cartridges have a small ability to clean themselves when they get inserted into the chamber. its why most people use a once fired cartridge case to clean out chambers when a special is used in a magnum..

3. ease of manufacturing