If you could arm the Indian Army...

[Grumpy]

Here`s another :
What`s this :
http://www.armoryblog.com/wp-content/up ... i-1911.jpg

[Grumpy]

Brens are nice - there`s a sort of functional elegance about them ...... and they`re much heavier than they look.

[Vikram]

Here`s another :
What`s this :
http://www.armoryblog.com/wp-content/up ... i-1911.jpg

Kongsberg Norwegian 1914, copy of 1911.

I honestly cannot take any credit for that. Just googled the calibre 11.25mm. Learnt a new thing. Never knew the Nazis also had them made in Occupied Norway.Thanks.


Best-
Vikram

[Vikram]

Here`s another :
What`s this :
http://www.armoryblog.com/wp-content/up ... i-1911.jpg

Kongsberg Norwegian 1914, copy of 1911.

I honestly cannot take any credit for that. Just googled the calibre 11.25mm. Learnt a new thing. Never knew the Nazis also had them made in Occupied Norway.Thanks.


Best-
Vikram

[Grumpy]

Yep, the Kongsberg was actually a licenced copy of the 1911- not the 1911A1 - but the ones with German waffenamt stamps are rare - only 920 were so marked. Look just to the left of the Caliber stamp. I can`t remember how many were produced whilst Norway was under Nazi occupation - eight thousand odd I think. Very few considering how long the factory was under Nazi control.. The rarest Kongsbergs are the lunchbox pistols which have no markings at all and were produced illicitly and then smuggled out of the factory in lunchboxes before being passed-on to the resistance.
Somehow 11.25mm seems a totally different calibre than .45 acp.

[timmy]

The British switched to a rimless round in the P14 ? That`s an interesting statement - the British didn`t switch to a rimless round ...... they didn`t switch to a rimless round until the 1950s. You`re thinking of the .276 ( ANOTHER .280/7mm !!! ) in the P13. Rejected because of bad timing ( ie, WWI ) The P14 was the same rifle chambered for the .303 .....and the P17 the same but chambered for the 30-06.

Yes, you are right, the P14 was chambered for the 303, but the design was intended to shoot the round you mentioned in the P13. And, that whole business was quite sensibly rejected, because the British didn't see the need to do what the Italians and the Japanese did, in having two service cartridges in service at the same time.

The British didn`t `make do` with the .303 - they actively decided to retain it and the SMLE after the combination proved so successful and reliable in WWII.

We are jumping ahead here. The British clearly recognized the benefits that would accrue from a rimless cartridge and a more modern bolt action design -- thus, the creation of the Enfield to begin with. While I will freely admit that the SMLE and the No.4 Mk 1 derivative was the best bolt action battle rifle, I rather think that the decision to retain the Lee system after both wars had a lot more to do with the idea that there was a large inventory on hand after each war, that there probably wouldn't be a large conflict after each war for a period of time (after WW1, there was the infamous "!0 Year Rule" in place) and the fact that after each war, the UK did not have a lot of spending money to blow on acquiring large numbers of rifles of a new type.

My understanding is that the metallurgical problems - ie the locking lug cracking - only became a problem after the introduction of the higher pressure/ higher velocity ( 2200 fps instead of 2000 fps ) cartridge developed to try and compete with the Mauser 7x57. Interestingly the Danish and Norwegian Krag Jorgensens had two lugs ... and the Norwegian was chambered for the rimless 6.5x55.
The Krag Jorgensen was an interesting rifle ..... and very accurate in 6.5x55.
There was nothing wrong with the Krag Jorgensen rifle .... as long as the Norwegians built them. There was nothing wrong with the 30-40 cartridge ...... apart from, possibly, the rim.

The US Krag was no slouch in the accuracy department, nor was the .30-40 cartridge. Granted, the 6.5x55 is an accurate round . It still gives sterling performance today in C&R competition when fired from M96 Swedish Mausers -- a very accurate rifle, as well.

The Norwegian and Danish versions of the Krag didn't have a second locking lug as such: the bolt was lapped into the receiver sufficiently to allow the guide rib to bear on the rear part of the receiver, adding extra support. So semantically there was only one locking lug, but the rib did the same job as a second one. However, the US design was and is sufficient for the .30-40 cartridge,, if the rifle is made correctly. As I said, this was a problem, not only with the Krag, but also with the Low number Single Heat Treatment 1903 Springfields from both the Rock Island and Springfield arsenals. It was also a problem with the P17 Enfields made by Eddystone in the USA.

The Krag was not a bad rifle (other than the bad heat treating), but it was not a good choice for the Army. The M93 Mausers of the Spanish were obviously superior. One might understand the Army's wrong choice, in that the Army was still a frontier constabulary from the West, not a serious instrument of national and global policy, like the armies of the European powers. Britain, like I said, learned the same lesson in the Boer War when facing M93 Mausers, but their design could be modified to correct the deficiency.

The Garand was a superior military rifle but it would have been even better if chambered for the .280........ a calibre that has been proven optimum several times over the last century but continually rejected by the US military.

Whether it would have been superior with the magical 7mm round (or maybe even more superior in the super-magical 6.8mm round that is supposed to even cure world hunger), I can't say, but for sure, as I wrote earlier, it was a wise decision by MacArthur as Army Chief of staff to stay away from magic bullets, keep the vast inventory of .30-'06 ammo the Army still had in stock, and spend the money by keeping the cadre personnel in the Army during the Depression. A prime example of the best being the enemy of the good.

And, even if the Garand was the best battle rifle of WW2, so what? In my mind, it was a foolish expenditure on a faulty battlefield doctrine. In this thread: http://indiansforguns.com/viewtopic.php ... 60#p167110 I outlined my thoughts on this matter when I said, in part:

The German K98 is often looked at as an inferior battle rifle to the M1 Garand, and so it was. The problem with using this viewpoint to illustrate superiority is that the effort of supplying US troops with such a rifle was solving a problem that was tactically the wrong direction for infantry units, given the timeframe and level of military firearms development.

The Germans used their K98s to support their machine guns at the squad level. The Wehrmacht provided TWO of the excellent MG34 or MG42 machine guns PER SQUAD as opposed to a US infantry squad maybe being supported by one BAR. You can clearly see from this that the BAR was a stopgap, used to give some semblance of automatic weapon support in recognition that infantry superiority on the squad level was NOT based on the rate of fire and accuracy of individual riflemen. It was based on the widespread disposition in quantity of true machine gun level automatic weapon support.

So note: The Germans used their K98s to support two excellent machine guns, while the US maybe used a single BAR at the same level to support individual riflemen with semi-auto M1 Garands. It is easy to see the disparity here.

In fact, all of the major combatants still based their squad-level infantry tactics on the individual rifleman: The USA, the UK, the USSR, and Japan, for instance.

It is also interesting to note: The German reliance on massed machine gun support even down to the squad level was a lesson they had learned well from WW1 battlefield experience. However, in the overall timeline of infantry tactics, the individual rifleman still turns out to be key, another tactical development the Germans identified, developing the StG 44.

Essentially, I view the Garand as the superior rifle and a poor choice. That money would have been much better spent on squad level fully automatic weapons, and I'm not talking about a BAR, which was a very poor sister for automatic squad fire support to even one MG42, much less a pair of them.

Just because an individual arm is superior does not mean that it is the best choice for deployment.

The US eventually rejected the M1A in favour of the M16 ..........which has proven to be a major mistake. Because what the US selects determines what the rest of NATO has to use so the UK not only has the piece of crap 5.56x45 calibre...

Replacing the M1A (in military terms, the M14) was hardly a mistake! The thing was based on a worship of the almighty Garand, its time had passed (much superior designs, like the FN were available at the time), and the experiences of WW2 had shown that full power battle rifle cartridges were not the way forward anyway, which is why the Germans developed assault rifles and the Soviets followed them. The M14 was practically uncontrollable in full auto (unlike the correctly designed FN in the same cartridge) and when the Army saw what the Air Force had in the M1 Carbine replacement, the M16, they eagerly wanted it for themselves.

I will admit right here, I take a dim view of automatic weapons based on direct impingement. My gut feeling is that a gas piston is better. Nor do I like rotary bolts: as an admirer of Browning, I prefer planar designs like the FN or SKS with a tipping bolt, not rotary. The gas impingement system didn't pan out with the propellant used, and I take a dim view of any mechanism that has a kludge built in: that button on the right of the receiver to clear a jammed bolt.

None the less, the M16 evolved into the current M4 and it is a highly accurate and capable weapon. Like the British who, having selected the Lee design that was already getting a bit long in the tooth, but who kept developing and developing the SMLE, refining shortcomings and making it work superbly over a period of 60 years, the M16/M4 has also undergone the same kind of development and works quite well after 50 years in the field all around the world, just like the good old SMLE.

Sure, the British wanted their Magic 6.8mm round and their bullpup rifle -- was that the best choice? In the end, they decided that their bread was better buttered by going along with the USA on the issue. Given the demands of the day, which included hordes of Warsaw Pact armies pouring into Western Europe, is it so surprising that standardization was seen as a value?

Furthermore, both the M4 and the 5.56mm have worked out well in the long run, given the different kinds of wars that had to be fought. It has held its own quite well, especially after copying the Soviet 5.45's heavy unstable bullet, a trick that the Soviets copied from the British when they copied the small caliber cartridge from the Americans.

I have an AK (well, a Chinese copy, really) because I wanted one and could afford to buy and shoot it. But were I out on the battlefield, I'd much rather have an M4 than an AK, either in the 47 or 74 flavor.

The question at hand here is not what the "best" is: that may be an interesting discussion, as well, but the answer does not get us to the same place as the answer to the question, "What's the best weapon for equipping an Army?" The first question is more akin to what we'd ask Santa Claus for. The second recognizes that somebody has to pay for all the stuff. After all, few soldiers go into battle wearing Armani suits!

Also, I would point out that some mythical 7mm or 6.8mm cartridge may have been able to slay St. George's dragons almost as effortlessly as Rajinikanth dispenses with goons, back in the WW2 or Cold War days, but asymmetric fighting has different problems and needs. That is a good segue into another topic for discussion around the old stove, the handgun and its magic cartridge.

Yes, the Thompson Lagard commission shot a lot of cadavers and beeves, all in the search to prove what they already knew: when it came to putting down Moros who were hopped up on drugs and who had applied tourniquets to their arms and legs so wounds, while ultimately fatal, might not prevent them from bolo chopping off some American boy's head during a crazed charge, the puny Colt 38s were inferior to the old Single Action Army in 45 Colt. That's a big surprise!

So the Army ended up with something that fairly well duplicated their old percussion 44s and the 45 Colts. Such a round did do a better job stopping a man. It did a fairly passable job clearing trenches in the hand to hand encounters in WW1, and impressed the Germans enough that, when confronted by one Alvin York, it caused a bunch of them to surrender.

However, by WW2, was there an overwhelming need for such a sidearm? I don't think so, although with what was still in inventory, perhaps it made little sense to change. Still, some aircrews were issued snubbies in 38 Special, and there was a reason for that, as well. Were the British really at a loss with their 38-200s and assorted Hi Powers? I don't think so.

Anyway, just a few more observations: the Soviet and Bulgarian Makarovs I've seen here are all nicely made and finished. Perhaps some have been produced that were not so nice, but the ones I've seen all have been.

The question is asked about the 7.62 Tokarev. In handguns, compared to the 9x19, I think it's inferior. It requires a larger gun, because it is a longer round and needs a longer action. However, for the Soviets, I think it turned out to be superior to the 9x19 the Germans used. The much vaunted MP40 the Germans used, made of fine German steel (from neutral Swedish ore) and crafted with German precision, didn't do so well in the cold, snow, and mud on the Eastern front. There, the PPSh worked better. The smaller Tokarev bullet would give a little more range than the 9x19, and the extra length in a shoulder arm (as opposed to a handgun) would be inconsequential.

if wars continue to be asymmetrical and in city settings, where handguns have more importance, or if soft body armor is worn by more combatants, I wonder if we will see new rounds like the 7.62x25 introduced. That kind of penetration might again become necessary.

[Skyman]

Grumpy, i would never have gotten than.I do know FN's Factories in Belgium were captured and used by the Germans for production of small arms and some optics.

if wars continue to be asymmetrical and in city settings, where handguns have more importance, or if soft body armor is worn by more combatants, I wonder if we will see new rounds like the 7.62x25 introduced. That kind of penetration might again become necessary.

Timmy, what about FN's 5.7X28mm round that sets out to replace the 9x19? It is reportedly a good penetrator.Will we see high velocity necked down bullets become the norm?

[Grumpy]

That the concept of the assault rifle suits modern warfare better than a rifle - of any nature - I don`t deny. Nor do I believe the AR15/M16/M4 to be a poor weapon because it certainly isn`t - it has, by sustained improvement, developed into a fine weapon. It`s failing is in the calibre selection because the 5.6x45 is lacks knock down power. It`s continuing development into the 77gr M262 - as used by some US special forces - has been forced by sheer necessity however it is still an underpowered ....or, rather, a cartridge of too small a calibre and too little bullet weight. These problems have been exacerbated with the adoption of the M4 with it`s short barrel which has lost just about all the advantages gained by the ( absolutely necessary ) development of the bullets used due to considerable lower velocity from the 14" barrel. The adoption of the 5.6x45 was a poor choice in the first place and the phenomenal amount of money spent on it`s improvement would have been better spent on developing a larger, more effective cartridge years ago - using the same platform if so desired. That the US military has persisted with the 5.6x45 is a matter of sheer pigheaded stubbornness ( IMO. ) I`ve heard all the arguments pertaining to the matter of considerably lighter weight per magazine/increased firepower and they frankly don`t add up - when it takes many bullets to do the job of one the weight argument is defeated hands down. There`s no doubt that the M16 and the 5.6x45 cartridge were developed into a far better combination than the AK47/7.62x39 ....... but those advantages have been lost with the adoption of the M4 which is classified as a 60 yard weapon rather than the 200 yards of the M16.
Your point that an inferior weapon/calibre can be more effective in the overall scheme of warfare is well made and accepted. That the Garrand/M14/30-06/7.62 is not suited to the modern warfare is also accepted. The Garrand/M14 is heavy and certainly a waste of time in full auto ( something the British sensibly - for a change - acknowledged when specifying the FN rifle to have the full auto capability removed ) It also has heavy recoil ( compared to a M16 anyway ) and was far too accurate and had far too great a range..................... If a good deal of the reasoning behind the adoption of the M16 is accepted anyway. As has been pointed-out by several authorities, the average GI in WWII was shorter and lighter in weight than his modern counterpart yet still managed to cope with the Garrands weight and recoil ......
I owned an M1A National Match ( yeah, once upon a time we were allowed centrefire semi-auto rifles as well as handguns ) and can state categorically that the combination of the 7.62x51 and a 9.2lb gas-operated semi-auto rifle exhibited what can only be described as `moderate` recoil.
It should be remembered that when the .223 AR15 was first presented for adoption by the US military it was rejected out-of-hand. It should also be remembered that the US GI adopted the AR15 unofficially in Vietnam when they decided that the M14 was far too big heavy to lug around the Asian jungle and threw away their M14s preferring the piddly little A15 which they acquired from their S.Vietnamese allies - the South Vietnamese had adopted the AR15 specifically because Vietnamese troops were considerably smaller in stature than their Western counterparts. It could be argued that the AR15/M16s eventual official adoption was a pragmatic response to a fait accompli.......
It has also been suggested that had the AR10 been submitted to the 1956 Aberdeen trials at the same time as the other contestants instead of right at the very end, the US might well have adopted it ...... and as it was almost two pounds lighter than the M44/M14 they might well have stuck with it instead of having to look for a more suitable alternative to the overweight M14 comparitively soon afterwards.
Skyman, the use of smallbore pistol calibres has been a European eccentricity and the 7.62x25 Mauser ( which is what the Tok calibre really is ) was one of the most eccentric of all. Yes, the bullet whizzes off in rocket fashion and the bullet does have exceptional penetration ...... but penetration does not mean good stopping power. Whilst a military sidearm is, at best, a secondary armament, providing troops with a sidearm that is ineffective at stopping enemy combatants when it`s use becomes necessary is a pointless exercise. The 9x19 doesn`t do the job and the 7.62x25, whilst having even greater penetration, has an even lighter bullet so is even more ineffective. Apart from all that, the Tok has a very poor grip angle and is awkward ( extremely cumbersome ) to shoot.
If military body armour can be made effective against calibres such as the 5.56x45 the penetration of the 7.62x25 is of no account whatsoever as it`s penetration is feeble in comparison. Providing body armour effective against the 7.62x51 - and other `proper` rifle calibres is another matter entirely.
On the matter of the .45 ACP being released from stores to provide an effective sidearm in Iraq and Afghanistan - those numbering several thousands - Navy Seals use an H&K USP variant chambered in .45 ACP and the US Marines bought a hefty quantity of Kimber built 1911A1 variants in .45 acp as it met their calibre and accuracy specification `off the shelf`.

[Grumpy]

Skyman, here`s another `poser` for you: What semi-automatic pistol was chambered for the British .455 calibre ? ( And yes Vikram, you can answer if doing so prevents you from bursting a blood vessel )

[timmy]

the Tok has a very poor grip angle and is awkward ( extremely cumbersome ) to shoot.

It does have a very poor grip angle. The way I would describe shooting it is that one has to constantly remember that it will shoot low and is not a natural pointer -- one must always concentrate on this and, in that sense, I would agree that it is quite awkward.

Also, it has no safety and cannot safely be carried with a round in the chamber.

If military body armour can be made effective against calibres such as the 5.56x45 the penetration of the 7.62x25 is of no account whatsoever as it`s penetration is feeble in comparison.

A valid point and true enough. However, as I consider the asymmetrical situation that is prevalent in our conflicts today, I note that the combatants have changed somewhat from the "spray and pray" types who felt that aiming was unnecessary and that bullets would find their way to the intended victims by fate to a more sophisticated type who are at least more familiar with weapons and their requirements. The type of body armor they might obtain (other than what they can capture) may be another matter than what one would expect if facing troops of a national armed force.

[timmy]

FWIW, here is a quote from Hatcher's Notebook, pp 495 & 496, about the selection of the 7.62 NATO cartridge. I hope to post the following section of the book describing the comparison and trials of the M14 and the FN FAL, which is quite interesting, as well.

The 7.62 mm NATO Cartridge

After the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) was formed, it was decided that it would be important for all the allies forming that organization to have weapons and ammunition that would be interchangeable, thus greatly simplifying supply and logistics problems.

An early contender for the honor of NATO adoption was a cartridge of .280" caliber proposed in 1947 by a "Small Arms Ideal Caliber Panel" which had been convened in Great Britain in 1945. This small light cartridge had a 140 grain bullet with a muzzle velocity of 2300 f.s. The British offered it to the United States, but our authorities decided that it did not have as much power as was desirable for our service cartridge, and declined to adopt it.

In refusing to go along with the British in adopting the .280 cartridge, our authorities were thinking not simply of a cartridge for an infantry rifle, but rather of a cartridge to be used in an arm taking the place of all shoulder weapons -- rifle, carbine, sub machine gun, and automatic rifle -- and also to be used in all rifle-caliber machine guns as well. In other words, from the thinking of our authorities on the subject, there was beginning to emerge a broad new concept of an entirely new weapons system for the armed services, which was finally embodied in an announcement by the Secretary of the Army on May 1, 1957, and will be quoted later in connection with the story of rifle development.

Our officials admitted that for uses of the rifle in cases where only the carbine or submachine gun would now be employed, the light and comparatively low powered British .280 cartridge with its 140 grain bullet at 2300 f.s. muzzle velocity would be adequate, and would even be advantageous; but for the rifle proper and for the substitute BAR and the machine gun they considered that it would be entirely inadequate. But it was considered that our T65 cartridge would be adequate for machine gun use and not too burdensome for the lighter duties mentioned above.

The official U.S. view is further indicated in the following quotation from an official statement released in 1951:

"The Army is firmly opposed to the adoption of any less effective smaller caliber cartridge for use in either its present rifle or in the new weapons being developed. An new rifle cartridge must have wounding power, penetration performance, and ballistics at least equal to that in use today. Battle experience has proven beyond question the effectiveness of the present rifle and ammunition, and there have been no changes in combat tactics that would justify a reduction of rifle caliber and power."

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization had previously prepared a statement of the military characteristics desired in a rifle and machine gun cartridge, and as these seemed to be met by cartridges based on tour T65 case, such cartridges were adopted as a common standard by a NATO announcement on Dec. 15, 1953. The NATO powers agreed on detailed specifications in February, 1954, and in August, 1954, the Ordnance Committee formally standardized this cartridge for the U.S. service under the official name of Cartridge, NATO, Caliber 7.62 mm.

(In posting this, I am noting that there are some things contained in this that the Armed Services have had to change their views on, some parts which might be interpreted to both agree and disagree with my own points. I only post it for informational purposes, not to make a specific point.)

[Grumpy]

I absolutely agree mate - the US reasoning was contradicted by themselves within a few years.
140 gr @ 2300 fps = 1644 ft lbs ME - pretty well exactly the same as the 115 - 120 gr 6.8 SPC BUT with greater knock down ability.
Interestingly, when the AR15 was submitted for the 1956 trials the US army suggested that it should be rechambered for a .256" ( 6.5mm ) calibre....................
Vikram will tell you how I feel about the 6.5x55 ........

[Skyman]

Skyman, here`s another `poser` for you: What semi-automatic pistol was chambered for the British .455 calibre ? ( And yes Vikram, you can answer if doing so prevents you from bursting a blood vessel )

The .455 was a British revolver cartridge.I do not know which semi-auto was chambered.Maybe the 1911? Vikram might get this one as well.

[Grumpy]

Yup, the Colt 1911 was also chambered for the .455 - a special order for the British navy. Many of those .455 Colts were later transferred to RFC pilots.
Do you know of any other calibres that the 1911/1911A1 was chambered in ?
If I can find a picture online there`s a brilliant picture of a 1911A1 that was very much modified by somebody notorious .... in that other factory chambering.
( That`s not counting the .22 lr ACE conversion kit for the 1911A1 by the way. )

[Skyman]

Let us see....45 ACP, 38 Super, .22 LR, .455, and recently 40S&W is all i know of.