Why did the 7.62x51 cartridge come out of the WW2 era?

[lysanderxiii]

2) The 03 -> 06 line of cartridge development was a disaster from day one. The bore diameter was too big. The case capacity was too big, and became ridiculously so as powders improved. The fact that the 03 was incompatible with boat tail spire points was pure incompetence since the Lebel was well known when it was designed. Yet army supply couldn't bring themselves to give up the .30 bore diameter despite seeing the superiority of the .276 Pedersen during the Garand trials. The case and sholder tapers were too high - supposedly for machine gun feeding when in reality the way to improve that was a shorter round. You'd be hard pressed to find anything right about the 03/06 really.

Really? So much of this is just wrong.

The Caliber .30, M1906 case is too big? No, it is the correct size for most of its life. When loaded with typical propellants of the day it had 90% to 95% case fill. The partial fill you get from IMR 4895 is a late development, IMR 4895 only comes about in the early to mid-1940s. And, the mid 1940's is when they started to look at a shorter cartridge case, 1944 to be exact.

Also, the case volume of the .30-06 is about the same as the British .276 Enfield. The Enfield is slightly shorter because it had a larger rim diameter. The two cartridges had similar performance.

The Caliber .30, M1906 was incompatible with "tall spire points"? Well, first off, the bullet for the M1906 cartridge was shorter than the one for the M1903. And the M1906 bullet is anything but "tall". The M1903 case was longer in the neck to support the longer 220 grain bullet. They could have left the case the same length with the long neck, but it was not required, so they shortened it.

The British .303, Mk VII was not introduced until 1910. The Spanish Mauser used a round nosed bullet, it did not change until 1913. The 6.5mm Carcano and the 8mm Mannlicher used a round nosed bullet throughout their entire service life, which ended in the 1930s. The German 7.9mm Spitzgeschoß was fielded in 1904-05. All of these were after the introduction of the French Balle D in 1898. So, I guess according to you, everybody except the French were incompetent.

Anytime an army studies bullet diameter, they figure 7mm is about right. The British in 1910-13 with the .276 Enfield, the Germans in the late 1930s when they were designing what would become the 7.92 Kurtz, the US in the late 1920s with .276 Pedersen, the British again in the late 1940 with the .280/30. However, military development is tied to strategic reality. Would it have been smart for the British to switch to .276 in 1913? Why did the Germans adopt 7.9mm instead of 7mm for the MKb project? So, why does everyone say the US not going to .276 on the eve of a major war was a bad decision?

And, last the shoulder angle was what it was because they copied the 7.92mm Mauser, so I guess the Germans weren't all that bright either.

And Wikipedia cited "problems" of erosion in the .30-03 due to the "heavy bullet" are incorrect. You can shoot 220 grain bullets out of a .30-06 or .308 without erosion problems. The bullet weight is not the cause of erosion. Erosion is the result of high temperature propellants, high pressures, and their relationship to the surface area. The early double based propellants used were very erosive. The later DuPont MR single based propellants introduced around 1903 were adopted due to their better erosion qualities.

 

[Llama Bob]

Keep trying. Everything I stated is factually correct. For example. eventually you might learn the difference between a long bullets and long bullet noses. Or you might not - your repeated errors indicate there are many other things you've failed to learn, so you may fail to learn that too

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Let's try a new tack. Suppose the Army had chosen a .22 centerfire for the M1 carbine?

The carbine could be scaled up a bit and take something like the 5.56X45 -- and where would we be today?

 

[Llama Bob]

Still using the round, but having replaced the gun.

 

[lysanderxiii]

Keep trying. Everything I stated is factually correct. For example. eventually you might learn the difference between a long bullets and long bullet noses. Or you might not - your repeated errors indicate there are many other things you've failed to learn, so you may fail to learn that too

Sorry, but you're still wrong.

The M1903 case is a very good design for the long 220 grain bullet, but it is longer than necessary for a short 150 gr flat base bullet. The M1906 is very similar to the German 7.9mm Patrone Spitzgeschoss. However, if the original bullet chosen for the M1906 was a boat-tailed bullet of, say 175 grains, the original case neck would be better, as the boat-tail would not intrude in the case as it does with the later M1 cartridge; giving more usable case volume.

The 220 grain M1903 bullet was 1.279 inches long with 0.690 inches exposed, the exposed portion is the ogive and nose radius. That gives 0.589" inside the case neck. The M1906 bullet is 1.123 inches long with 0.806 inch exposed, the exposed portion is the ogive. That gives 0.317 inside the case neck. The length of the neck of the M1903 case was 0.450 inch. The length of the neck of the M1906 case is 0.382 inch. The 174 grain M1 bullet is 1.312 inches long with 0.506 inch inside the case. If the longer M1903 case were used with the long boat-tailed M1 bullet the grip on the cylindrical portion of the bullet would be similar to the M1903, but the bullet would not intrude pasted the neck...

 

[lysanderxiii]

Let's try a new tack. Suppose the Army had chosen a .22 centerfire for the M1 carbine?

The carbine could be scaled up a bit and take something like the 5.56X45 -- and where would we be today?

Well, they did try and make an M2 carbine shoot something in .22 . . .

 

[Llama Bob]

Lysanderxiii, try to put an M2 bullet in an 03 case, try to get it under OAL, and then understand why you're wrong and aren't qualified to argue about this. They didn't re-work thousands of rifles because the case was "longer than necessary" - they did it because the case was too long to work. In other words, there had been a bureaucratic goat rodeo and the taxpayer was on the hook to fix it like always.

The 03 was a disaster. The 06 was an only slightly more mitigated disaster.

 

[swagbrdr]

30.06 in a short action. Done.

 

[fpgt72]

Here’s a video that will give you some info on how the 7.62x51 became the NATO round.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=video&cd=10&ved=0ahUKEwjc17T_2s_oAhVDS6wKHaJVDI4QtwIIXTAJ&url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jexf8A462jM&usg=AOvVaw1dcxPmqxS2FV3Vuv3IQdIp

So much wrong with that video....the stg44 semi automatic....I think it was a bit more then that. Soviet union was quick to see box fed semi automatic rifles.......Yup in 1920's with the SVT program.....they did not see the box part of the svt system like we do today however it had the box mag, and history has proven the box is a much better way to go over that stupid clip the grand had.....I cut the video off after that. I will add that guy to the source of future internet comments like the stg was semi automatic....and the soviets started the box magazine with the AK47.

Short and simple the 51 was american, the US held the purse strings, was the only "nato" country that was hole after the war, and what we said was going to be the way it went. That is the why.

Now if you want to dive into the deeper end of the pool.....get ready for some fun stuff.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Well, they did try and make an M2 carbine shoot something in .22 . . .

Yep -- and Melvin Johnson developed the cartridge. But they were constrained by the dimensions of the gun -- what they got was basically a .30 Carbine case necked down to .224. Had they designed the cartridge at the outset, the carbine could have been dimensioned for it. We could have had a .22 battle rifle in WWII.

 

[lysanderxiii]

Lysanderxiii, try to put an M2 bullet in an 03 case, try to get it under OAL, and then understand why you're wrong and aren't qualified to argue about this. They didn't re-work thousands of rifles because the case was "longer than necessary" - they did it because the case was too long to work. In other words, there had been a bureaucratic goat rodeo and the taxpayer was on the hook to fix it like always.

The 03 was a disaster. The 06 was an only slightly more mitigated disaster.

You can't?



The reason for the re-cutting of the chambers was because the origin of the rifling is further away than desirable with the spire point bullet.

(You might want to do a little research before you start telling people they aren't qualified to discuss something)

 

[CapnMac]

Lots of different issues all at play at the same time, both "back then" and "right here."

The .276pedersen was an interesting cartridge--most 7mm are.
What it wasn't was a very good 1936 MG round, where the expectation was for creating beaten zones out to 3200 & 3500m.
Also, as a rifle round, it shot into a much larger range fan than virtually every War Department rifle range had in 1936.

The Brits had another interesting 7mm, an intermediate round, in the .280enfield. The brits pitched it in the bin because it was not a very good MG round.

The Soviets tried for many years to field an acceptable LMG in 7.62x39; they built the arms in the thousands, but, they just could not reach out farther than the regular infantry rifles to have a useful role in either defense or offense.

This same conclusion is why DeptArmy keeps looking at a SAW in 6-point-something. Even with all of the logistical headaches of carrying one more ammo type into the field.

7.62nato was a giant compromise, a compromise reached grudgingly by almost every party involved. Note, the US did not stop fielding .30-06 Garands until about 1964 (Replacement on regimental basis began about 1961). It took 13 years to get the M-14 adopted, and was in the field for only about 2 years.

Was the 7.62nato actually needed? There's no way to actually answer that. The history of it is what it is. It's a reasonable MG cartridge, with a number of advantages over the previous rounds all closer to 8mm and longer by about 10mm or so. Which is why it soldiers on today. (As does the 7.62x54, for--slightly--similar reasons.)

 

[CapnMac]

I feel compelled to mention that the Match 30-06 ammo used a 172gr FMJBT well enough to used for about five decades of 1000 yard shooting.
The flat-base 150gr M2 ball was a concession to wartime factory production standards, and not necessarily the "ideal" round for either ballistic or military purposes. It sufficed, and that was enough.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

This same conclusion is why DeptArmy keeps looking at a SAW in 6-point-something. Even with all of the logistical headaches of carrying one more ammo type into the field.

After years of study, I have come to the conclusion that the SAW is the solution to the problem of having too much ammo left over when the fight ends.

 

[lysanderxiii]

Yep -- and Melvin Johnson developed the cartridge. But they were constrained by the dimensions of the gun -- what they got was basically a .30 Carbine case necked down to .224. Had they designed the cartridge at the outset, the carbine could have been dimensioned for it. We could have had a .22 battle rifle in WWII.

Johnson did not develop the cartridge, Aberdeen did for the test rifles I noted. Aberdeen's cartridge was based on the .222 Remington

Johnson developed .22 Spitfire, which is based on the Carbine cartridge.

Same idea, but there are slight dimensional differences between the two. And they are not interchangeable.

 

[lysanderxiii]

Lots of different issues all at play at the same time, both "back then" and "right here."

The .276pedersen was an interesting cartridge--most 7mm are.
What it wasn't was a very good 1936 MG round, where the expectation was for creating beaten zones out to 3200 & 3500m.
Also, as a rifle round, it shot into a much larger range fan than virtually every War Department rifle range had in 1936.

The Brits had another interesting 7mm, an intermediate round, in the .280enfield. The brits pitched it in the bin because it was not a very good MG round.

The Soviets tried for many years to field an acceptable LMG in 7.62x39; they built the arms in the thousands, but, they just could not reach out farther than the regular infantry rifles to have a useful role in either defense or offense.

This same conclusion is why DeptArmy keeps looking at a SAW in 6-point-something. Even with all of the logistical headaches of carrying one more ammo type into the field.

7.62nato was a giant compromise, a compromise reached grudgingly by almost every party involved. Note, the US did not stop fielding .30-06 Garands until about 1964 (Replacement on regimental basis began about 1961). It took 13 years to get the M-14 adopted, and was in the field for only about 2 years.

Was the 7.62nato actually needed? There's no way to actually answer that. The history of it is what it is. It's a reasonable MG cartridge, with a number of advantages over the previous rounds all closer to 8mm and longer by about 10mm or so. Which is why it soldiers on today. (As does the 7.62x54, for--slightly--similar reasons.)

A few things.

1) There are two very different British 7mm cartridges - .276 Enfield, and .280/30.
276 Enfield was a full power cartridge, with a case 60 mm long, shooting a 165 gr bullet at 2700 fps. .276 Enfield would be a very good MG cartridge.

.280/30 was the post-war intermediate cartridge, shooting a 139 gr bullet at 2200 fps (actual). It was akin to the M43 and the 7.9 Kurtz.

2) .276 Pedersen did not exceed the safety fan of any range. That was the Cartridge, Caliber .30, Ball, M1. Which was one reason they returned to the M1906 round in the M2 Ball.

3) Soviet doctrine, and Russian as far as I know, has always called for two types of cartridge. An intermediate cartridge, the 7.62 x 39 (or 5.45 x 39) for platoon and lower, and a full sized cartridge, 7.62 x 54R, for company level support. The AK-47/AK-74, and RPK types are platoon level, the PKM is company level support.

4) the first TheT44 was tested on 1952. M14 was standardized in 1957. So, not 13 years, but 5. The M14 production was slow, so it wasn't until 1960-61 that it was fielded, and officially replaced as the standard infantry rifle in 1966, although it remained standard in Europe for some time after that until sufficient M16 were available.

 

[GunnyUSMC]

So much wrong with that video....the stg44 semi automatic....I think it was a bit more then that. Soviet union was quick to see box fed semi automatic rifles.......Yup in 1920's with the SVT program.....they did not see the box part of the svt system like we do today however it had the box mag, and history has proven the box is a much better way to go over that stupid clip the grand had.....I cut the video off after that. I will add that guy to the source of future internet comments like the stg was semi automatic....and the soviets started the box magazine with the AK47.

Short and simple the 51 was american, the US held the purse strings, was the only "nato" country that was hole after the war, and what we said was going to be the way it went. That is the why.

Now if you want to dive into the deeper end of the pool.....get ready for some fun stuff.

I never said that everything the guy in the video said was correct, but I did watch the whole video. Maybe you should go back to the original topic that the OP started and watch the complete video.
I know that the Soviet Union had the STV program and was using box magazines, but they were chambered in 7.62x54r. But we are talking about the 308/7.62x51 which is a shorter cartridge and how it came about, which the STV and 7.62x54r had nothing to do with.
When you watch a video you have to do more then just look for minor mistakes like The STG 44 being semi auto. I think the guy knows that it was a select fire weapon, but made a mistake and missed it in editing..
One of the main reasons we have the 7.62x51 is due to Colonel Rene Studler. You may have missed that in the video.
But then like most topics that go over three pages on the forum, it gets to be like a bunch of good old boys sitting in a bar. As the conversation goes on and the drinks get drank, it gets harder and harder to stay on topic. Hell we have two arguing about the 30.06 which has nothing to do with the OP’s original topic.
I don’t understand why some members go back and forth with each other. I buy, shoot and post about firearms because, it’s something I enjoy. I have left a few forums because it always seemed like everyone was just there to bicker. Where is the fun in that?

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Johnson developed .22 Spitfire, which is based on the Carbine cartridge.

It was the .22 Spitfire I was referring to. Remember I said he developed it by necking down the .30 Carbine cartridge.

 

[lysanderxiii]

I was referring to the Aberdeen test carbines that were made and tested in 1953-54, Johnson's product is later - 1959-60.

 

[fpgt72]

I never said that everything the guy in the video said was correct, but I did watch the whole video. Maybe you should go back to the original topic that the OP started and watch the complete video.
I know that the Soviet Union had the STV program and was using box magazines, but they were chambered in 7.62x54r. But we are talking about the 308/7.62x51 which is a shorter cartridge and how it came about, which the STV and 7.62x54r had nothing to do with.
When you watch a video you have to do more then just look for minor mistakes like The STG 44 being semi auto. I think the guy knows that it was a select fire weapon, but made a mistake and missed it in editing..
One of the main reasons we have the 7.62x51 is due to Colonel Rene Studler. You may have missed that in the video.
But then like most topics that go over three pages on the forum, it gets to be like a bunch of good old boys sitting in a bar. As the conversation goes on and the drinks get drank, it gets harder and harder to stay on topic. Hell we have two arguing about the 30.06 which has nothing to do with the OP’s original topic.
I don’t understand why some members go back and forth with each other. I buy, shoot and post about firearms because, it’s something I enjoy. I have left a few forums because it always seemed like everyone was just there to bicker. Where is the fun in that?

He made the mistake several times, and several mistakes....like the soviet box magazine on the svt's. Yes perhaps I nit pick....I did finally just now watch it and he is mostly on base with the rest of his comments.

I just have a problem with people putting out videos that are not dotting all the i's and crossing all the t's. Little things like this I think is where many pick up bad information.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

I was referring to the Aberdeen test carbines that were made and tested in 1953-54, Johnson's product is later - 1959-60.

And I was referring to Johnson's cartridge.

 

[lysanderxiii]

I think we have established that we were talking about two different things....

 

[d2wing]

Easy. Because we won and they didn’t. Our military industrial complex could sell our stuff to non-winners

You need to understand that much military hardware isn’t necessarily to best. It simply has to be adequate, and manufacturer be affiliated with the correct politician. The disaster of the F-35 proves that.

Vietnam wasn’t about winning anything. It was about wasting as many resources as possible. If you don’t understand that, watch Hamburger Hill. We had to take that ground at any and all cost. We left three days after taking it.

My neighbor was there. Horrible.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

My neighbor was there. Horrible.

So was I, in a manner of speaking. The 1st Brigade, 5th Infantry Division (under operational control of the 3rd Marine Division) was alerted to go. My company, A-1/61, a mechanized company, was closest to the scene of the action of the action, and I, the battalion commander and the brigade commander, flew a reconnaissance over Hamburger Hill -- it looked exactly as it looks in the movie. But the action was over before we could get there on the ground.

Pity -- we had three platoons, each with 4 APCs mounting M2 Browning machine guns.

 

[d2wing]

I see you've never been in or trained for ground combat. Air Force vet, perhaps?

Mr. LeMay's Little Mushroom Makers have not been not applicable in any war waged since WWII, or they would have been used. The time to have done that would have been about 1952-57, and it was not done. So proxy wars were waged instead, where those little peashooters you deride became much more important than air delivered W-80's.



Ever hear of covering fire? Beaten zones? Enfilade fire? Defilade fire? Supressive fire? Much of this fire was successful, and effective, but hits were not the measure of success, despite the part of the RIfleman's Prayer that says otherwise. Combat is not a First Person Shooter video game.



Perhaps your only possible conclusion. I can think of others. Small Arms are not only used in the precision marskmanship role on a battle field. Indeed even when they are, the physological factors of ground combat, (Adrenaline being the most obvious; others are night, smoke, noise, etc. ) reduce effectiveness at times. Individual rifles and MG's are often used for fire suppression in movement. They are also used to pin an enemy force down while other assets are brought online (Grenade Launchers, Mortars, Artillery, Air Assets, depending on what is available and/or needed) to destroy that enemy force. Your average soldier is not tasked with precision fire at high-value targets. There are people with specific training and hardware organic to the unit tasked with that . (DM's and Snipers) While a certain level of competency with their individual weapon is expected, and soldiers are trained and qualified to this level, not everybody can be trained to sniper-level, even if time and training dollars were available.

Shall we discuss small arms fire (to include 20 and 30 mm) from aircraft hit ratios? They are even more atrocious than individual rifle fire, yet they serve a very specific and deadly purpose, as some vets of the sandbox will tell you about the effect of Apaches, Warthogs, and Specters (among other aircraft types) effect on the enemy's will to stay engaged in combat.

I just have to respond. Poor marksmanship was never the issue. Everyone in combat zones had to qualify with the weapons they were issued and many were great shots. I was not only expert but was also trained with the quick kill. Our weapons and soldiers were far more accurate than our enemies. Some of you armchair experts are opinion that war movies are realistic. That John Wayne can shoot from the hip and mow down hundreds of enemy clearly visible. When I was there weren't many mass battles. Most of the time the enemy would shoot at you from the brush and take off or shoot rockets and mortars from concealed positions. You returned suppressive fire blind. The bullets weren't wasted but they made the enemy break contact and run. I can't speak for other wars or other experiences. Just my own. The high rate of fire for the full auto M-16 was more effective than the slow semi-auto fire of the more powerful M-14. I used both. Anyway. I liked the M-14 a lot. But I never got a chance to shoot at anything I could see at 600 yards. I did use an M-60 for suppressive fire and it was very good.