Viability of "universal" firearms?

[Oleg Volk]

The current though is to make several variants of M16 the standard, with MP5, M3 submachine guns to fill in the gaps. Most countries in WW2 had rifles and submachine guns. The US had SMGs, carbines, rifles and BAR, which I'd have to classify as a SAW, rather than as an LMG. The result was having to stock 30 carbine, 45acp, 30-06 in clips, belts and mags.

What do you think would have happened if, sometime in 1936 or so, the entire US Army got BARs (which are not much harder to make than old-style Thompsons or Garands) in a lighter caliber. Let's say that lighter caliber was 30 carbine (miraculously developed a few years earlier than in real life) and that the BAR was scaled down proportionally. It would end up as an open bolt gun weighing roughly as much as a Garand and feeding off 30-round magazines. Would improvements in the supply system and the close range effectiveness be worth the loss of long range capability and penetration?

Alternatively, and more realistically, what if the Garand was re-done in 6.5 Arisaka (as Fedorov's 1916 Avtomat was). No commonality of ammo with machine guns but a lightly recoiling autoloader of reduced size compared to 30-06 Garand and higher magazine capacity (12 instead of 8 rounds)...not saying that either scenatio was likely, but would it have improved matters to base all infantry small arms on a single round? 6.5 Arisaka was 125gr at 2500fps, basically AK47 round +5%.

Or, as yet another option: M1 carbine issued from the start with spitzer bulleted ammunition and slightly stronger load (110gr at 2500fps vs. the original round-nose 110gr at 1950fps) for flatter trajectory. That would have made the gun fractionally heavier but also more useful?

 

[Art Eatman]

Looking just at supply for a moment: What we seem to be good at, whether society at large or in our military, is moving the proper supplies to the proper place. I submit that the reason for griping at any sort of supply problem is that we're very much used to not having a supply problem. (There are times when being spoiled is Good.)

The BAR in '06 is right at the minimum weight for good controllability in full auto. You could reduce the weight with your other cartridge suggestions, but it would still be a load to hump.

Your Carbine variant would probably be workable and useful, particularly in today's US military concept. Ammo weight might be a deciding factor against it.

I guess...

, Art

 

[Badger Arms]

Never had to Hump a BAR. My father doesn't complain, but then again, he just had both of his knee's replaced at 69 years old. From a rifleman's point of view, I'd think that a shouler arm's weight should definitely be kept under 10 lbs fully loaded. For a support weapon, I'll go to about 20 pounds. I'd rather have a 7 pound rifle and a 15 pound support weapon though.

While the BAR isn't that heavy for support, it has limited firepower. I would want to be able to fire a continual burst while myself and my squad were either charging or retreating from an engagement. From cover, the BAR shines for its low profile and controlability. The need to change magazines every 20 rounds is a bit annoying, but not a hinderance to effectiveness.

I don't think the 30 carbine is effective enough for general use. Any prolonged engagement will expose limitations in range to the enemy who, armed with high-velocity ammo, can stand back and pick us off at their leisure. While close-in engagements will favor the 30 carbine, a retreating enemy can pick their battles.

You'll recall that NO enemy had anything close to standardization. The Germans were far from standardized with multiple changes along the way. They had perhaps the best Machinegun concept in my opinion and should have fielded their assault rifles at the beginning of the war.

Hindsight is 20/20. Had we known, we would have likely adopted a lighter caliber like the 276 or 250-3000 than stick with an overpowered cartridge. Wait WE DID KNOW it was the brass that stuck us in the rear. Lucky for us, Hitler thought the same way as our leaders in terms of the effectiveness of these overpowered calibers and both of us were stuck with cannons.

I think that both the .223 and the 30 carbine are underpowered. I would not have wanted to carry any into battle with an enemy that had 8mm Mausers!

 

[Vladimir_Berkov]

In terms of supply, I think the Russians were the best off. Not because they had the best supply system, but because they really only had two types of ammo if you don't count the 7.62 Nagant which was being phased out anyway.

7.62x25 (subguns, pistols)
7.62x54 (rifles, carbines, machineguns, sniper rifles)

You could deliver these two types of ammo and be certain that 98% of the troops would have ammo.

 

[DUDE]

Oleg Volk, i was thinking about the same thing about a two months back. Now what came into my head was a Biger M2-Carbine, or a smaller M14 in some thing like a 7.62x40mm round, how do's that sound?

 

[Badger Arms]

Sounds alot like a 7.62x39 or did you realize what you were typing? You're on the right track, in fact the same track taken by the Czechs in the 7.62x45 both on the model of the Germans with the 7.92x33.

 

[STEVE M]

I thought the reason we kept the 30-06 was due to economic

problems in this contry at the time the M1 was accepted. That

and the fact that we had millions of rounds of 06' in storage at

that time?

 

[DUDE]

Badger Arms, Yes i did realize what i you were typing. Call it the U.S. 7.62-Short (7.62x40mm) just one 1mm biger then the Russians 762x39mm Can't you see it, some Russian during the Cold War with an AK finds a box of U.S. 7.62-Short, and next thing he knows, is he has a jammd rifle

 

[Badger Arms]

Didn't Frank Barnes already do this? I seem to recall a .308x1.5" round or something like that.

 

[Senior_rifleman]

I can see how a shorter 7.62 cartridge with a lighter bullet might reduce the resupply situation for the infantry. Has anyone calculated the decrease in range and effectiveness of such a cartridge when compared to the 308NATO round?
If you were the infantryman in question, what specs would you want in a cartridge? Why?
For my part I would like the cartridge to hit hard at long range.

 

[Badger Arms]

The Germans calculated this and this reasoning has been played out again and again in small arms development. It turns out, the 7.62x51 Nato is LETHAL out to around 1000 yards give or take alot given the multitude of factors. In combat, a soldier is only effective out to about 200 or 300 yards depending on his skill. The reasoning is that you should give the bullet the energy that the 7.62 Nato has at 1000 yards to your new optimum bullet at 300 yards. That puts it squarely in 7.92x33, 7.62x45 and 7.62x39 range. All that additional energy is wasted and results in a heavier combat load, more recoil, etc.

There are also other factors at play here. A heavier bullet is naturally heavier to carry. To give you the energy you desire, you want a lighter bullet travelling faster. Preferably, it should be smaller diameter also that way it doesn't lose its velocity quickly. It is also really "Cool" if that bullet tumbles or fragments in soft tissue. This is a product of bullet design, velocity, and twist rate. This leads us to the 5.56x45 and 5.45x39. Confused? I'll make it more confusing. The logical next step WAS to have been flechettes. Flechettes still have promise in terms of weight, velocity, and terminal performance but lack the accuracy desired and present a safety hazard when firing adjacent to or over the heads of friendies due to sabots. If we could get an accurate flechette, we'd go there, I'm sure. We're practically there with the needle-like SS-190 and H&K PDW ammo we're seeing now.

 

[DUDE]

Frist a question, what is 30-06 in millimeters, i know this at one time but now i can't think of it.
Now thinking in the WWII time-line i would say for the U.S. Military a M2-Carbine firing a U.S. 7.62-Short (7.62x40mm) with a weight from 6.50lb to 7.50lb firing from 15 and 30 round mags, would have been the best bett to go head to head with the Germans 7.92x33 mm (7.92mm Kurz) MP43/MP44 Assault rifles.

 

[Vladimir_Berkov]

Why not just go with the 7.62x39 and be done with it?

 

[DUDE]

Well Vladimir_Berkov for one the U.S. Military would not use a round made by the Russians, and two we are thinking in the time-line just before WWII, the 7.62x39mm did not come into being till late 1944, start of 1945, so by the time the Russians get their 7.62x39mm round, we would have been useing are new M2-Carbine with new U.S. 7.62-Short (7.62x40mm) for two or three years before them And three in the Cold-War would you like to be in combat, and be low on ammo, but the guy with the AK47 on the other side is out. would you like him to find some of your ammo and be able to use it in his AK47, or would you like him to still be out of ammo when you come over the side?

 

[Vladimir_Berkov]

Actually, I would much rather that my enemy used the same ammo as I. The Finns used this to great effect in the Winter war and Continuation war. When your enemy uses the same ammo that you do, your supply problems are greatly reduced. Plus, any captured weapons can be instantly put to use. If your forces are better trained than the enemy, whether or not THEY can get ammo from you is not as relevant, because your gain will be greater.

 

[Solitar]

If you were the infantryman in question, what specs would you want in a cartridge?

Short action, 70 to 110 grains, 3200+ fps at 100yards, 2200+ fps at 500yards. Wind drift (w/10mph crosswind) under 20 inches (with the heavier bullet). Caliber between 6mm and 7mm.
Why?
To keep the weight of both gun and ammo down.
To have enough velocity to make up for the light bullet.
To deliver both long range accuracy and terminal effectiveness.
To have easily controllable recoil during full auto suppression fire.
To be able to carry several hundred rounds (of the lighter bullets).
So I could use the cartridge for responsible and legal deer hunting too.
Long range sniping would be best met by the heavier bullet, This may not auto-feed if the OAL is too long but hand loading may be okay in this application (with thirty rounds of shorter/lighter ammo in the mag for backup in case the balloon goes up)
Too large a caliber and the ballistic coefficient suffers.
Too small a caliber and the range of bullet weights suffers.

 

[Art Eatman]

DUDE: One millimeter is 0.03937 inches. 30-caliber, three-tenths of an inch, when divided by .03937 in/mm gives you 7.62.

Art

 

[Badger Arms]

Dude: the NATO designation of the 30.06 is 7.62x63mm.

Solitar: "Special Weapons for Military and Police" 2001 issue has an article about a cartiridge they call the 6mm Optimum. This has been tried several times. This cartridge has the same energy and higher velocity than the 7.62 NATO at 1200 meters and it has the velocity and Ballistic Coefficient of the 180gr 300 Win Mag so he says. He's about 50 years too late, but it's an interesting concept. I'd buy one if I didn't already have a few of each of its competitors.

 

[Futo Inu]

Watched S.P.Ryan again couple nights again, and goodness knows I don't envy Ryban for having to hump that BAR. Did the other soldiers at least have to hump the BAR man's extra mags to relieve him a little?

Related question. Tom Hanks' char used the tommy gun most of the time - Would YOU rather have the tommy or M1 carbine for close in combat in those conditions? Wouldn't the M1 penetrate better and have a longer point blank range?

A BAR in .30 carbine would be cool. How much would it need to weigh, do you suppose, and what did the BAR weigh (25 lbs?) ?

For a Garand type rifle, I'd have wanted a 6 or 6.5 mm, 120 gr bullet, in a shorter case than the 6.5x55 - 6.5x (45-51) - would give at least 2400 fps at the muzzle. That 6mm Optimum sounds pretty close. Of course I'm no expert in military stuff.

Also, though .308 is 7.62mm, you'll often see the size referred to as 7. NINE 2, rather than 7. SIX 2. I believe, though not totally certain, that 7.92mm/.308 in refers to the groove diameter, whereas 7.62 is the land diameter. Anyone know for sure?

Good ideas, Oleg. (Psst, they sell de-caf coffee too, ya know? )

 

[Oleg Volk]

BAR is about 20 pounds.

Looking at 7.92 Kurtz vs. .30 carbine...10% more weight and 10% more velocity...and more efficient spitzer bullets. Why didn't the carbine use spitzers? Would tighter rifling been required for the longer projectile?