Why long range .30 calibers in WWI?

[Vern Humphrey]

I like the heck out of the Swede -- I have one that was sporterized by Kimber back in the day. I added a Bold trigger, a Weaver K2.5 scope and re-stocked it. It's a dandy little deer rifle.

But my favorite mil surp is an M1903A3 Springfield -- I have two, one Remington and one Smith-Corona.

 

[lysanderxiii]

The Swedes knew what they were doing all the way back in 1894 with their 6.5x55 cartridge. I still think it is one of the best infantry rounds that has ever been adopted by any country. It is soft shooting but still packs a heck of a punch... enough to bring down a Swedish moose from what I have been told. It is a pleasure to shoot in my Sweedish Mausers and Ljungman.

The 1903A3 and 1917 Enfield are heavy guns that took a bit of the sting out of the 30-06 when compared to a hunting rifle. But I agree I think the 30-06 is over powered for general infantry use. I have a Turkish Mauser and Hakim in 8x57 Mauser and to me they have considerably less perceived recoil than my 03A3 and 1917 but it is my understanding that current 8x57 commercial ammo is downloaded significantly due to the age of some of the old military rifles that chamber this round.

At the end of WWII the Germans started figuring things out with their 7.92x33 intermediate power round and the STG-44: https://nationalinterest.org/blog/b...s-assault-rifle-help-inspire-m4-carbine-32847 which is probably the first true assault rifle and the grand daddy of the genre.

View attachment 1097220

View attachment 1097221
9mm, 7.92x33 Kurz and 8x75 Mauser.

With some of the new 6.5 rounds gaining in popularity it is amazing at how little difference there is between them and the 130 year old Swedish 6.5x55.

Yeah . . . .

That's why the developed the 8mm x 63 M34 in the 1930s for the machine guns.

6.5 Swede is a little anemic for a support weapon.

 

[tmd16556]

Planning for what a war will require is hard. Today’s war in Ukraine and the 1980s Iran - Iraq wars both show what WWI would look like with intermediate cartridges in use. Sometimes air power just isn’t decisive.

The 1920-21 Soviet-Polish war is another good example (also being one of the most pointless wars in history, accomplishing nothing much beyond killing a lot of people). Just a few years after the Russians, Germans, and Austrians had fought in trenches in what is now Ukraine and Poland, the war comes off like everyone had expected 1914 to go, fast moving infantry and cavalry maneuvers on open terrain. I guess everyone was tired of digging and figured they’d take their chances with the machine guns.

You can plan all you want, but these wars take on a character of their own.

 

[Mosin77]

Simple answer: most of the general staff of the armies of the WWI combatant nations were 19th century military officers, who were originally raised with an ideal of combat that included strictly disciplined, regimented lines of soldiers exchanging volley fire before a bayonet charge decisively drove the enemy from the field. Although rifles had done much to render this method of warfare impossible, and smokeless powder and machine guns still more, there hadn’t been many wars between “equal” nations to really see how the new technologies applied in practice. Calibers were designed in the 1886-1903 timeframe, and they were all pretty stout, to allow soldiers to have excellent volley fire potential at, ideally, longer range than the other guys. They also needed, in the minds of military brass, to be stout enough to kill a charging cavalry horse.

Recent wars like the Boer war, with organized British fighting irregular Boer commandos across the plains of South Africa, just emphasized in military minds of the time the necessity for long range, accurate rifle fire, to pin down and destroy an enemy force thousands of yards away.

But the terrain of France (and most places in the world) isn’t the terrain of the veldt (or the American Great Plains, for that matter.)

 

[Jerry M]

The extra penetration sure helped shooting through foliage and Palm tree bunkers in the Pacific campaign. I'm sure there were instances of turning cover into concealment in Europe, especially when the BAR etc.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

The extra penetration sure helped shooting through foliage and Palm tree bunkers in the Pacific campaign. I'm sure there were instances of turning cover into concealment in Europe, especially when the BAR etc.

That's how it was in Viet Nam. I bummed an M1 rifle off the ARVN unit I advised. With its superb penetration, it was the ideal jungle rifle.

 

[BLACKHAWKNJ]

I note that the British and the Russians/Soviets stayed with rimmed cartridges long after the superiority of rimless rounds was proven. The Krag was found wanting not because of the inadequacy of the 30-40-an equivalent of the .303 British and later .308 Winchester but because it could not be readily adapted to a stripper clip-that was what we paid Mauser the rights for.
In the opening campaigns of 1914 the cavalry of both sides failed miserably at reconnaissance and screening the infantry.
A phenomenon the British encountered fighting the Boers was "the emptiness of the battlefield." As one wounded Rough Rider told the 71st New York advancing to their support at Las Guasimas "You can't see 'em !"

 

[buck460XVR]

I think the increase in effective range and the accuracy of the "new" ought-six cartridge after the turn of the century, compared to other calibers of the era, made for it to be the preferred caliber. Five score and twenty years later, it's still accepted as one of the most versatile cartridges available. While many other calibers can tout how great they are for specific scenarios, the 30-06 is still no slouch when it comes to accuracy and terminal performance, in most any scenario. This is why it took so long for the military to move away from it.

The extra penetration sure helped shooting through foliage and Palm tree bunkers in the Pacific campaign. I'm sure there were instances of turning cover into concealment in Europe, especially when the BAR etc.

I've probably told this story before, but my dad was in the 4th Marine Division in the South Pacific campaign.. He landed on the beaches of Iwo Jima, Tinian and Saipan. Because he was a Radioman carrying a 90# pack on his back, He was originally issued a 1911 and later on a M1-Carbine. He always claimed that after hitting the beach, the first thing he did was look forward fallen comrade with a Garand. The reason? Nuttin' stopped a war crazed suicidal Japanese soldier, coming at your Foxhole with a land mine strapped to his chest, like an ought-six, especially at close range.

 

[Jim Watson]

I note that the British and the Russians/Soviets stayed with rimmed cartridges long after the superiority of rimless rounds was proven.

I maintain that the rimmed cartridge is superior and that the rimless is just sucking up to Peter Paul Mauser and his successors.
A rimmed cartridge will chamber clear up to the rim. Positive head spacing, no unsupported case web.

 

[lysanderxiii]

I maintain that the rimmed cartridge is superior and that the rimless is just sucking up to Peter Paul Mauser and his successors.
A rimmed cartridge will chamber clear up to the rim. Positive head spacing, no unsupported case web.

And the fact that Maxim, Browning, Goryunov, Kalashikov, and the unnamed geniuses at Brno made some of the most reliable machine guns in the world that used rimmed cartridges puts the kibosh on the myth about rims and machine guns . . . .

 

[Vern Humphrey]

And the fact that Maxim, Browning, Goryunov, Kalashikov, and the unnamed geniuses at Brno made some of the most reliable machine guns in the world that used rimmed cartridges puts the kibosh on the myth about rims and machine guns . . . .

So how come Browning developed semi-rim cartridges (like the .38 ACP) and designed the .45 ACP to headspace on the mouth?

How come the nations that used to use rimmed cartridges (Brits, Russians, etc.) now use rimless?

 

[Mosin77]

Rimmed vs rimless doesn’t matter much in 2022. I’ve never had an issue shooting either. In practice, at the time, rimmed rounds were probably a safer choice due to less precision in cartridge manufacture and higher likelihood of failures. In practice today, rimmed rounds tend to jam more in infantry rifles, because our manufacturers aren’t as proficient at making them as in the old days, and the guns that shoot them are a century old. I suspect the main reason the Krag was replaced was because it was a convenient excuse to explain poor performance by US troops in Cuba. The US chose a magnificent rifle to replace the Trapdoor, and do pretty much what the trapdoor did, but faster. After being on the receiving end of modern Mausers, they could see clearly that a stripper-clip fed gun would perform better in the heat of battle compared to single-loaded cartridges. The fact that, come the move to Spitzers and even flatter trajectories (which begged for a hotter load) at the turn of the century, there was no possibility of safely increasing the Krag’s pressure level, just made it seem more obvious that the time was right to move to a Mauser clone -and while we’re at it, let’s make it rimless.

 

[CapnMac]

made some of the most reliable machine guns in the world that used rimmed cartridges puts the kibosh on the myth about rims and machine guns

But, those weapons were all limited (in the engineering sense) in having to pull rounds out of belts and links.

And, let's face it, rimmed cartridges do not make efficient box magazines. The 308 conversion Bren guns had a magazine 5/8 the size of the 303 version, and it fed better. The ammo makers also are not under an onus to design the rim geometry to prevent rimlock (which is what makes the UK Mk VII ammo so superior).

The US commitment to military logistics has obviated many of the arguments about "one caliber to rule them all." SAW ammo s handled separately from rifleman ammo; supporting arms get another packaging for their MG ammo; the stuff that supplies Armor and Aviation is under different supply chains altogether. This only gets dicey when we presuppose "light" units and airborne units, where the log availability is equally light.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

The .30-03 and the .30-06 are based on the 7X57 Mauser cartridge, with the case lengthened 1/4" and the caliber increased to 7.62mm

 

[MikeInOr]

I like your looking at current 6.5 with the sweede, you can see they got it right there. The 7 gives you just a tick more reach without much more kick. I really enjoy my old Mauser rifles in 7. They are quite fun.

I made out pretty well on C&R's in the 90's but one caliber I never picked up was the 7mm Mauser... which I regret. I will take your word on the virtues of the cartridge.

I still remember the first time I took my first 96 Swede out and the first shot I took with it. I hit a Gatorade bottle filled with water at 100 yards off hand with my buddies being quite impressed. (That was ~25 years ago so it was probably more like 25 yards but time makes the distance grow longer). I immediately fell in love with the 6.5x55.

If I ever came across a FN-49 in 7mm (or any caliber) for a reasonable price I will probably have to pick it up. The biggest reason I have shied away from the 7mm is simply... "yet another reloading head for my Dillon press".

 

[MikeInOr]

6.5 Swede is a little anemic for a support weapon.

As opposed to the 5.56 rounds for the M249 SAW????

 

[lysanderxiii]

As opposed to the 5.56 rounds for the M249 SAW????

5.56 is also anemic for that role.

While is why we still have 7.62mm NATO . . .

 

[Jim Watson]

And why we are going to .270 (equivalent).

 

[12Bravo20]

And why we are going to .270 (equivalent).

It will be a long time before the new 6.8x51 will totally replace the 5.56 Army wide. It will only be issued to front line combat troops at first. So we will be back to the same basic concept as WWII for a while. Front line units will have the new weapons in 6.8 while support troops will keep the weapons in 5.56. No different than the M1 Garand and M1 Carbine during WWII.

 

[kBob]

If WWI had not ended for a few more months a lower powered round that recognized assaults were at closer ranges would have seen use

.30 Pedersen

-kBob

 

[CapnMac]

And why we are going to .270 (equivalent).

Which is still a "maybe."

And, it's a blend of a .270, a 280, and a 308. Caliber, velocity, and weight/volume.

. It will only be issued to front line combat troops at first.

That's not even certain at this point. Procurement is for only a handful, and a 60/30 split of XM250/XM5. Likely it will wind up as an SOC-only bit of kit. SF troopies have a need for a SAW-sized arm with the capabilities of a 240. And, will not be much encumbered by a 13# carbine with a near 2# scope.

 

[Remington1911]

Planning for what a war will require is hard. Today’s war in Ukraine and the 1980s Iran - Iraq wars both show what WWI would look like with intermediate cartridges in use. Sometimes air power just isn’t decisive.

The 1920-21 Soviet-Polish war is another good example (also being one of the most pointless wars in history, accomplishing nothing much beyond killing a lot of people). Just a few years after the Russians, Germans, and Austrians had fought in trenches in what is now Ukraine and Poland, the war comes off like everyone had expected 1914 to go, fast moving infantry and cavalry maneuvers on open terrain. I guess everyone was tired of digging and figured they’d take their chances with the machine guns.

You can plan all you want, but these wars take on a character of their own.

All the wars the soviets fought after WWI are nothing but a land grab. Wanting what they once had back again. I don't think you can really call it pointless they did get the bread basket of europe back again for over 100 years. Why do you think they are there now. Also you can say that after you learn just how well ole Joe' did against the Poland and Ukraine you get a inside look on what he did after he had them under his thumb.

 

[Remington1911]

Rimmed vs rimless doesn’t matter much in 2022. I’ve never had an issue shooting either. In practice, at the time, rimmed rounds were probably a safer choice due to less precision in cartridge manufacture and higher likelihood of failures. In practice today, rimmed rounds tend to jam more in infantry rifles, because our manufacturers aren’t as proficient at making them as in the old days, and the guns that shoot them are a century old. I suspect the main reason the Krag was replaced was because it was a convenient excuse to explain poor performance by US troops in Cuba. The US chose a magnificent rifle to replace the Trapdoor, and do pretty much what the trapdoor did, but faster. After being on the receiving end of modern Mausers, they could see clearly that a stripper-clip fed gun would perform better in the heat of battle compared to single-loaded cartridges. The fact that, come the move to Spitzers and even flatter trajectories (which begged for a hotter load) at the turn of the century, there was no possibility of safely increasing the Krag’s pressure level, just made it seem more obvious that the time was right to move to a Mauser clone -and while we’re at it, let’s make it rimless.

I could not agree with this more, the 30-40 is not a bad cartridge, the Krag is not a bad rifle, and "speed loaders" did exist for them, not as small and trip as a clip, but they did exist....not really practical, but again first go I bet it could have been better.

I really think that the English army had a "come to jesus" moment in south africa, and learned a lot of lessons there that would really help them about a decade later. The American army had its moment just a few years before that against spain, they learned that they are WAY behind the 8 ball in terms of both training and equipment.

The people running things don't like to admit that what they are doing got people killed, no it had to be the equipment. Shooting straight had nothing to do with it.....yea right.

 

[Remington1911]

But, those weapons were all limited (in the engineering sense) in having to pull rounds out of belts and links.

And, let's face it, rimmed cartridges do not make efficient box magazines. The 308 conversion Bren guns had a magazine 5/8 the size of the 303 version, and it fed better. The ammo makers also are not under an onus to design the rim geometry to prevent rimlock (which is what makes the UK Mk VII ammo so superior).

The US commitment to military logistics has obviated many of the arguments about "one caliber to rule them all." SAW ammo s handled separately from rifleman ammo; supporting arms get another packaging for their MG ammo; the stuff that supplies Armor and Aviation is under different supply chains altogether. This only gets dicey when we presuppose "light" units and airborne units, where the log availability is equally light.

This is why the the chauchat had a "U" shaped mag, the rim on the cartridge.

Also, if what I watch on the internet is true from some famous long hair guy with funny facial hair, the switch back from the french 8mm to the american 3006 had so many issues.....one was losing the rim....other yea sure, according to him, and I think he knows what he is talking about, but the missing rim had something to do with it, the gun was not designed for rimless and it had issues.

 

[12Bravo20]

That's not even certain at this point. Procurement is for only a handful, and a 60/30 split of XM250/XM5. Likely it will wind up as an SOC-only bit of kit. SF troopies have a need for a SAW-sized arm with the capabilities of a 240. And, will not be much encumbered by a 13# carbine with a near 2# scope.

While this is not certain, it is the plan put forth by the Army according to all of the articles and public statements put out that I have read.