Indians For Guns

timmy wrote: ↑

Sat May 22, 2021 11:27 pm

For one thing, it must be recognized that handguns actually caused very few battlefield casualties in the WW2 era. Now, one might make other arguments, as asymmetrical warfare has come so much to the forefront. But after WW2, the handgun was seen by the Soviet bloc as somewhat of an officer's badge of rank. Perhaps for this reason, they went to the 9mm Makarov cartridge and pistol, which took the Walther PP blowback design to it's power limits, being more powerful than 380 Automatic, but much less power comparatively, than the 9mm Parabellum/Luger.

Consider too, that the Warsaw Pact countries didn't have too much of a handgun tradition in their militaries after being subject to so much destruction in WW2. Perhaps the most notable military sidearm was the Polish Radom in 9mm, but the Poles still had somewhat of an influence from cavalry needs, and the Radom was a big, 1911 sized pistol -- somewhat like a horse pistol.

Most of the Warsaw Pact nations used the 7.62 x 25 Tokarev round because they didn't have much choice. Recall that after WW2, much of the industrial establishment of Central Europe was destroyed, and most of what wasn't was carted off by the Soviets after the War. This was marked down as "war reparations" in Germany's case, but the Soviets were not picky in what they grabbed. Warsaw Pact nations didn't have much choice but to accept Soviet "help" in manufacture -- consider that all Warsaw Pact arms, not just handguns, were addressed the same way: the SKS, AK, and even the Mosin Nagant in the M44 variation are examples here. No doubt, the Soviets extended their beneficence on advantageous terms of exchange rates, but that's getting into another subject. The only notable "straying" from Soviet arms technology after WW2 was by the Czechoslovaks, who came out with the CZ-52 handgun (it still used the 7.62 x25 cartridge) and the Vzor 52 semiautomatic rifle in 7.62 x 45. But then again, the Czechoslovaks always have gone their own way in most engineering fields, being somewhat like the French in this regard. That's why their designs have a similar delightfully innovative approach.

The choice for NATO was, perhaps, much easier. Germany and the UK were both 9mm users, and the other nations went along. The USA used 45 Automatic, of course, and stuck with that for many years after the war before going to 9mm as well.

timmy wrote: ↑

Tue May 25, 2021 1:37 am

One reason the Russians and Soviets stuck with 30 caliber weapons had to do with machining. Remember that, back in the Tsarist days, Russia was not as advanced as Western Europe, and the first Mosin Nagant rifles were made by Chatellerault in France, along with Sestroryetsk in Russia in order to speed production. The rifle itself was designed by Sergei Mosin and used the magazine design by Leon Nagant of Belgium.

The Russian M95 Nagant was also designed by Leon Nagant in Belgium, and the first revolvers were made there before production was shifted to Russia. You'll note that even though the cartridges of the Mosin Nagant rifle and Nagant revolver are different, both use the same 30 caliber bore, or a groove to groove diameter of about 0.311"

When the Soviets decided to develop a semi-automatic pistol, they borrowed the short recoil locked breech principle developed by Browning and used in a number of his pistols, including the well-known 1911. The integral feed lips were borrowed from an earlier Browning/Colt pistol, but the integrated firing assembly was a Soviet design. The design of the 7.62 x 25 cartridge was lifted from the earlier 7.63×25mm Mauser, which can be fired in a TT "Star" pistol (if you can even find it). Note that, here again, a 30 caliber bore was still used.

Despite the ammunition nomenclature, 7.62 x 54r, 7.62 x 38, and 7.62 x 25 all use the same bore diameter. This simplified manufacturing processes, a big issue in Russia and the later Soviet Union, as the industrializing nation needed to arm many more soldiers than Western armies did.

The 7.62 x 38 M95 Nagant cartridge was, by itself, not especially powerful for such a cartridge of its time, but it gained performance by the M95 revolver using its famous "gas seal" design, which eliminated gas leakage from the gap between the cylinder and the barrel.

The 7.62 x 25 Tokarev cartridge is a full powered round, and its loadings are comparable to the 9mm Luger. Cartridges made by various Warsaw Pact nations could be "hotter" for use in sub-machine guns, like the famous Soviet PPSh.

The semi-automatic TT pistols were fairly easy to make, as they had been designed for mass production, and had less little bits to fit and adjust, like the M95 revolver. The Soviets liberally distributed the TT design to their Warsaw Pact allies, and also later to China. The TT design is strong and has been modified to use the 38 Super, which is more powerful than 9mm Luger. They are an ideal handgun design for a developing country.

When the Soviets went to the 9mm Makarov pistol and cartridge in the 50s, remember that sidearms were not seen as so essential in the combat role as they were earlier. A less powerful cartridge was acceptable, and a smaller, simpler pistol was also welcomed, as the Makarov is a blow back design and avoids the fitting of the locking breech used in the TT pistol.

The use of 7.62 NATO was a different matter. The USA used the 30-06 cartridge through two world wars and the Korean War. The power of 30-06 was comparable to 8mm Mauser, but the shorter Mauser round worked better in machine guns. The USA sought to take advantage in gun powder advancements (specifically, Winchester Ball Powder) and obtain the same performance as 30-06 in a shorter case. The result was 7.62 NATO. The smaller case capacity of this round prevents it from achieving the same ballistics as 30-06 when heavier bullets are used, but the USA envisioned bullets ~ 150 grains.

The British sought to adapt a "bullpup" rifle design in a smaller caliber, but the USA was interested in machine gun performance, not just shoulder arm performance, and prevailed upon NATO to go with 7.62 x 51.

British sidearms had moved from the large Enfield (Webley type) to the 380/200 Mk 2, but they were also using the 9mm Browning Hi Power, so going with 9mm was not a stretch for them at all. Germany had a tradition of 9mm use. The USA, for the time, was staying with 45 Automatics and 1911s, so European NATO went with 9mm.

5.56 NATO was another matter. The full power battle rifles in 30-06 and 7.62 x 51 were not always appreciated by soldiers, and the M1 Carbine was introduced for those requiring a shoulder arm but not wanting a full power rifle. The Air Force had selected the M16 for guarding bases, etc., but the experience with the select fire M14 in 7.62 x 51 was not good. They were heavy and not very easy to control in full auto fire. The Army began looking at the Air Force's M16, and that's the road that was traveled. Naturally, a soldier can carry a full pack of 5.56 much easier than 7.62 x 51.

This is only a quick response to you. Please don't be afraid to ask questions or discuss these things. That's what we are all here for! A nice discussion about guns is fun, not a burden!

sumbriavikramaditya wrote: ↑

Wed May 26, 2021 7:51 pm

So in nutshell, the Russians have always gone for designs that are simple and easy to manufacture in large numbers. And the US has always gone for more powerful weapons and enforced its will over the rest of NATO.

I really loved the idea that from handguns to assault rifles to sniper rifles all were 7.62mm caliber. Commonality.