Ask Ian - What Was the Best WW2 Rifle Cartridge?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 3 сер 2022
- utreon.com/c/forgottenweapons/
/ forgottenweapons
www.floatplane.com/channel/For...
Cool Forgotten Weapons merch! shop.forgottenweapons.com
The shirt is from Otte Gear, since so many people asked last time:
ottegear.com/collections/life...
From crablegs21 on Utreon:
"In your opinion and in hindsight, which country had the most optimized cartridge for the their primary infantry rifle for WWII? Additionally, which country would have benefited most by switching to that cartridge prior to WWII?"
In my opinion - and I think post-war development supports this - the best rifle cartridge was 8mm Kurz (7.92x33mm). The StG-44 was never actually Germany's primary infantry rifle, but they wanted it to be. The 8mm Kurz offers much reduced recoil ideal for semiauto and select-fire rifles, allowing fast followup shots while remaining powerful enough to be quite deadly.
However, this doesn't address the logistical issue of machine gun cartridges. Basically everyone in WW2 used a single cartridge for both rifles and support machine guns, and the cartridge choice was largely dictated by what was most effective in a machine gun intended to shoot out to 1000+ yards and to engage vehicles and aircraft. Larger cartridges were much better suited for this than today's intermediate cartridges. Interestingly, both the Italians (6.5mm Carcano) and the Swedes (6.5mm Swedish) developed supplemental big machine gun cartridges because they considered their standard rounds insufficient (these were 8x59mm for the Italians and 8x63mm for the Swedes)
If I had to pick a larger cartridge to allow both rifle and MG use, I would pick 7.35mm Carcano. This is about the lightest "rifle" round of the war that used a spitzer bullet and a rimless case. Its larger bullet diameter compared to 6.5mm rounds would allow better tracer and AP bullets, which are relevant in a military context.
As for which nation could benefit the most from adopting this cartridge before the war, I will go out on a limb and say the US, at least form a rifleman's perspective. The M1 Garand chambered for 7.35mm Carcano would be a fantastic rifle, probably at least a pound lighter than normal and faster shooting. The BAR could be lightened much more, and might have been able to be a more truly effective automatic rifle.
Contact:
Forgotten Weapons
6281 N. Oracle 36270
Tucson, AZ 85740
"We gave everyone [thing], unless they were in the Marine Corps" seems to be a re-occurring theme within the US military.
And the Marines still kicked butt..!
@@CritterCamSoCal more like marines helped a little in a 4vs1 battle. Name me a war/armed event where the US won alone against another country/faction
@@Seb-Storm the confederate states of American duh
@@Seb-Storm "Helped a little"? You are in need of some very basic education on the Pacific War. Wars won solely by the US: the Mexican-American War, the Spanish-American War, the Philippine-American War, dozens of wars against native Americans, and numerous smaller interventions in Latin America. Since then the US has fought mostly as part of coalitions.
@@Seb-Storm "helped a little"
Yeah no
Your wrong
A good number of the "overpowered," WWII infantry rounds you discussed had their designs rooted in the late 19th / early 20th century with the design philosophies and doctrine going back to the dawn of the smokeless powder era. At that time, infantry soldiers faced a threat not only from enemy infantry, but also horse-mounted cavalry. I do not recall where I read it, but it was some time ago, that one of the considerations in the design and adoption of the .30-03 and later .30-06 was ensuring the round would also be capable of defeating horse-mounted threats. Following the adoption of these rounds, mechanized warfare made rapid advances, and by the time WWII kicked off, horse cavalry was a fading memory, thus while the rounds can easily be perceived as excessively powerful in terms of their use in infantry rifles strictly against human targets, the doctrine at the time of their adoption demanded the rounds have capabilities above and beyond the mere infantry vs. infantry role.
If you like the idea of a BAR using a lighter round you might want to try to get a hold of one of the BARs that were made in Swedish 6.5.
that 6.5x55 is a sweetheart
It was the gun that needed to be lighter, not the round...
@@joshklaver47 It was both, the BAR in 30-06 is near uncontrollable at full auto, hard to control properly even with a bipod. In 6.5x55 you get both more rounds carried for a given weight, but larger magazines, and much more controllable on both rapid single fire, burst and full auto. It also shoots very, very flat.
@@TzunSu How many BARs have you fired? I trained on the M1918a2, which is full auto only with the selector shifting between high speed and low. In low it is perfectly controllable, especially when compared to an M14 on full auto, which is perfectly uncontrollable. All the BAR ammo was issued as armor piercing. I could chew right through a concrete wall with it. Its weight makes it controllable, but it is HEAVY. We ditched the bipods to save weight. We never used them anyway. I loved shooting it. The guys with M-1s who had to carry my extra mags in addition to their own ammo weren't nearly so fond of it.
@@mike03a3damn how old are you ?
I'm so glad forgotten weapons is one of the few channels that bother with closed captions, most big channels don't really bother but as someone who wants to pick up every bit of information in these videos, im really glad i can read along, i am very thankful
Definitely, helps to watch in a loud workplace as well
They know their audience, lots of guys not using ear protection.
Theres 100 reasons to have cc and agreed I'm happy this has them, my adhd addled brain could not follow effectively without it and i dont wanna go back 10 seconds every few minutes
@@Mark--ll4vu exactly thought I was alone on this
Me too.
Do you have a Playlist for just your "Ask Ian" series? Would be cool so we could just listen to those. Love how your channel breaks down everything so organized. Might look into grabbing a mug or shirt, love your channel.
Seconded.
@@emergingloki agreed
Thirded
Do you mean like the usual way he formats his q&a's?
Meanwhile search for "Ask Ian" in the video tab works.
Of all the bolt action rifles i fired, i have to say my most favorite was the 6.5x55mm fired from a swedish mauser Gevär 96. Recoil was pleasant, accuracy top notch.
Not sure I can trust the judgement of someone who has no soul
@@Embassy_of_Jupiter a fair accurate assumption. After all...what do i have to lose?
"You bastard i condemn your soul to hel.....dammit that wont work'
Came here to say this. My Swedish 6.5x55 is one of my favorite cartridges, and as a "human killer" it's perfectly adequate. The 30-06 is overkill.
As a balance between range, power weight etc. its a damned good cartridge. a semi auto in this cartridge would be damned good, and you could easily stuff it into LMGs etcs
I love my highly accurate and easy shooting Swedish Mauser
The US Army at the time would disagree with this. They were pretty enthusiastic about the ability of the 30-06 to penetrate trees and other forms of cover, and when you consider the amount of fighting that took place in the jungle, they may have had a point. Though the tendency of the actual soldiers to switch to carbines when they could would suggest that not everyone was convinced by Army dogma. I wonder if there are any statistics on the number of enemy casualties that resulted from fire through cover of the kind that only a rifle bullet could penetrate.
It is a pernicious myth that retained weight of fire and projectile momentum are trivial concerns in the jungle, and that fast-firing weapons using light, high-velocity bullets are always best. They are well-suited to some kinds of fighting in the jungle, but in other situations, weapons firing a heavier projectile are best. In WWII, the M-1 Carbine was popular with the troops because it was light and could throw a lot of fire downrange in a hurry.... but its performance in thick cover was often suspect in comparison to the .45 ACP and 30-06 cartridges used in heavier weapons such as the Thompson and M3 Grease Gun SMGs, and Garand rifle and BAR.
Concerning this sort of question, collecting accurate statistical data would be very difficult other than at the local, small-unit level.
I would tend to agree with Ian on this topic. The light or squad machine gun is the most casualty producing weapon. Close combat tactics of the time were that the other members of the squad protected the machine gun and carried the extra ammunition. Contact with the enemy was usually less than 100 meters so the full power ammunition and the rifle it fired were not necessary. Several military tacticians came to the same conclusions. The standard issue rifle should be light and capable of both semi and full auto firing a reduced power ammunition. It should be both detachable magazine and clip fed in case the solider had only one magazine.
Georgia Boy you are correct. My Dad told me when he was fighting on Guadalcanal with the 182nd Infantry Regiment supporting the Marines everyone grabbed the Thompson Submachine Gun for the knock down power and the ease of wheeling them in the brush. The Garand was to big and cumbersome and the M-1 Cabine had no knock down power. But when he got to Belgium and Germany with the 310th Infantry Regiment at the Hergiten Forest and the Remagen Bridge everyone used the M-1 Garand with the 30-06 cartridge for the range and the knock down power.
@@dedowd9335 Well MY dad rejected the Thompson for jungle fighting as too heavy and for burning through ammo too quickly. As a weapon's platoon Sargent, he preferred the M-1 carbine.
@@dedowd9335 Your Dad was right. I've had the honor of knowing men who fought in both places who said the same things. The M1 Carbine was neither fish nor fowl, a poor substitute for a battle rifle or a submachine gun, and only much good for it's intended purpose; to replace a pistol for those who job precluded them from carrying a battle rifle.
My dad fought in Korea and Vietnam, he really liked the .30-06 over the later 7.62Nato/.308, in Korea they were standard issued AP ammo often instead of ball. He liked being able to shoot through things. He also liked having the API round. "Nothing says F you like throwing API at the enemy".
He was also a fan on the .30carbine as well.
My grandfather was in Korea, told me he loved the Carbine because of ammo capacity and how handy it is.
Ditto for my father as well.
@@gopnik9967 what did he not like about M1 eg. It wont shoot through much shelter to kill
The Carcano 6,5 being dismissed over the old round nose bullet begs the question of whether they could have simply given the existing Carcanos a new spitzer pointed bullet? Well argued Ian. Thank you.
Isnt that what 7.35 Carcano ended up being? Even with the bullet diameter slightly bigger, the bullet was still lighter and performed better.
They didn't do it because all their rifles were set up to feed the round nosed projectile
Saddly the issue with re engineering 6.5 with a Spitzer would have given problems with the operation of the Carcano rifle,the M1 shouldnt be hindered if you make a Spitzer 6.5 Carcano,the reason Italy still used the bottlenose then Is Just the matter of making the Carcano work right
@@nullanonsonemmenoiocosascr6676 Mine have shot Spitzer just fine, the issue is more often .264 vs .268 bullet which the Italian state production would not have. .264 (and even .263) Round nose have worked well in my carcanos as well though being "under sized" they have very long bearing surface which makes up for it a bit it seems.
After WWI the old 6.5mm cartridge had always been on the verge of being replaced. First with the 7.35×32mm of the Terni 1921 (a true intermediate cartridge) and then the 7.35X51mm, so there was no point in doing a modification that would have forced to modify all the sights of the existing rifles.
Always gotta love some cheeky 303 Brit. Every rifle I've fired chambered in 303 was really nice.
So did the Bren guns that I fired. They were the designated Section LMG for Infantry.
Magazines reloaded by hand because we were only Army Cadets... But we'll worth the effort.
@@sullathehutt7720 I find it a lot more pleasant to shoot than 8mm Mauser.
@@sullathehutt7720 I'd tend to agree,although I've never had the honour to give a machine gun a go. I've owned and fired few different lee's and I own a Martini enfield in 303. I completely understand what you mean by ideal machine gun cartridge. She's a bit spicy by nature.
Really liking the short-form Q&A a lot better! Feels like something that I can enjoy in little chunks.
For bolt action - the Lee Enfield is an incredible rifle. The 303 round sure could be tweaked etc, but the rifle and round overall is an accurate, hard hitter and super fast action. I have owned many SMLE's from 1918 to 1952 - both Canadian and Aussie, and I have taken more game with this rifle than any of my other many super accurate and super expensive rifles - Weatherby, HS Precision, Remington et al...
Agreed with you, I just love shooting with my two SMLE's I have a No1 Mk3* HT Sniper (DOM 1908 then Re-furbished/up-graded by Lithgow SAF in 1946) and a No4 Mk1* DOM 1942 Longbranch. Cheers mate.
I can't agree more
.303 was best in my opion
Why did Enfield go with a two piece stock?
The .303 British is a horrible cartridge. It is rimmed and the trims can jam in a box magazine. And in addition it was loaded with cordite which is a highly erosive propellant.
Training is another important factor supporting Ian's hypothesis. WIth mass mobilization nations would be eager to get conscripts and less-trained reservists into the line as soon as possible. I joined the Coast Guard in the last year the M-1 Garand was the service long arm (1970), so got a fleeting chance to qualify on that rifle in boot camp. (Small arms training got short shrift in the Coast Guard at that point. Things changed drastically over my 20 years and a bit.) Three rounds to sight in and then one qualification course, that was it. All I can say is that I was somewhat more lethal with the Garand than I was (at that point) with the Model 1911.
My next trip to the range, several years later, instruction was still uninspired but the M-16 was a whole different experience. When you get to the point where the MG cannot carry the whole squad, jungle/forest/urban etc., having a rifle that the average recruit can be taught to shoot effectively becomes much more important.
@ old guard 2431 - Re: "When you get to the point where the MG cannot carry the whole squad, jungle/forest/urban etc., having a rifle that the average recruit can be taught to shoot effectively becomes much more important."
That's an interesting observation, in light of how the various combatants in WW2, for example, solved that problem.
The development and widespread issue of the M-1 rifle in the U.S. armed forces, in particularly in the army and USMC, allowed firepower to be disbursed or spread out more within the fire-team, squad or platoon. These augmented the BAR and/or browning M1919 .30-Caliber MGs on hand.
The Germans took the approach that the rifleman (whether he carried a K98K or MP38/40 SMG) existed for the support of the machine gun, the MG34 or MG42.
The Russians - burdened with arming and training huge masses of conscripts, many with only a rudimentary education - took the approach of mass-issuing submachine guns to as many troops as possible. So much so that one of the indelible images of the Red Army in WW2 is a tank-rider kitted out in his winter gear, holding his PPSH-41 SMG.
The British approach was something of a blend of the U.S. and German, in that their troops used a bolt-action rifle as their standard service rifle during the war, the Lee-Enfield 303 series - just as the Germans used the K98K. But the Brits also placed great store by the BREN gun, and supported it greatly since it was the base-of-fire weapon. They used SMGs liberally, too, especially once they didn't have to rely on Uncle Sam for them and had production of the Sten Gun up and running.
The Japanese never really got their act together small-arms wise, during and before the Second World War. They fielded weapons but never a decent SMG in any serious numbers. They purchased some Bergman and other foreign makes in small numbers, and did not get their own SMG into production - the Type 100 - until 1944, which was too late to make much difference. So the Imperial Army was wedded bolt-action rifles, and their light, medium and heavy MGs. A mystery why they didn't do better, since their weapons designs were often so brilliant in other fields, i.e. the famous Mitsubishi A6M Zero-Sen fighter, the fabled "Long Lance" torpedo, etc.
The British and Americans, ironically, as the victors in WW2, were slow to adopt true assault rifles firing intermediate cartridges. Notwithstanding the now-infamous refusal of the U.S. Army Ordnance Dept. to consider the 270 British intermediate during the immediate post-war years, there was institutional bias in the British Army, too, against intermediate cartridges. After all, hadn't the 303 won the war?
I've seen accounts from the Aussies who fought in Vietnam at places like Long Tan in 1966, and their experience is interesting since they were equipped both with rifles in 7.62x51mm NATO - the SLR/FAL - as well as American M-16 assault rifles, too, in 5.56x45mm. The after-action reports cite the SLR/L1A1 as the "outstanding weapon" of the engagement. I don;t know if that is Aussie/British Commonwealth pride talking or not, but that's what some of the history books state.
Of course, Long Tan was fought in the driving rain of the monsoon and on a rubber tree plantation, so maybe the heavier hard-hitting .308-caliber cartridge was ideal for those conditions.
To add to the "what if" category, what if the m1 carbine had been chambered in .30 Remington? Small light rifle chambered in what essentially is a rimless .30-30 Winchester. Which the
.30-30 is close to .762x39 in ballistics. When upscaled to the cartridge it would've been basically a Ruger mini-14 sized. We would have had essentially a Ruger mini-30 in the 1940s.
30 remington is a cartridge that should have been adopted by the military rather than falling into its present obscurity
@@ragnarragnarsson3128 Remington's life story, eh?
@@ragnarragnarsson3128 That's for sure,as an intermediate cartridge it had allot going for it already. With further refinements it could have been great. I mean plenty of people tout the virtues of. 300 blackout,on paper from the same platform and loaded for modern rifles the .30 Rem should have an advantage.
I always said that the .30 Remington would have been the ideal choice.
Same energy than the 7.35 Carcano, but in a smaller package than both the 7.35 Carcano and .276 Pedersen (base diameter 10.7 mm vs. 11.4mm, OAL 64.1mm vs. 72.5mm), so shorter action, less weight for the rifle, more rounds in a M1 clip and more rounds carried by the grunts.
.25 Remington would have been better--6.5 Grendel or 6mm ARC ballistics rather than 7.62x39
The most finesse feeling gun I've ever shot was a 6.5 swedish Mauser my buddy's father bought for white tail hunting that was all original but every single component was refurbished and coated and it was a silly expensive process that he did specifically out of love for the gun and history of the cartridge but it is now ungodly smooth and just a joy to shoot
Ian, I love, love, love the new Q&A format. While it was fun just putting on an hour and a half Q&A video, the new Ask Ian series is so interesting and accessible. Please make a channel playlist where you stick all them in so we can still binge them if we want!
It's interesting we've gone back to bullets in the ~6.5-7mm range in a big way. It seems like every time a balance between accuracy and power is needed, that's about where you end up.
Might be the sweet spot.
@@shawnr771 It basically is for ballistic performance in the 100-150 grain bullet weights.
History may not always repeat but it sure does rhyme and often we underestimate our ancestors ability and understanding of the fine art of making the person on the other side of a war very very dead with as effective a tool for their chosen tactics as they can get most of the pistols of ww1 and ww2 aren't awkward when used in the correct stance they are awkward when you try use them using modern techniques
Only recently did armor become a consideration, along with standardized better optics to extend the range. Combine both of these and you may reasonably a) need to kill at extended range and b) penetrate body armor at range.
That's the main rationale behind the current decisions as I understand them, and it includes better technology to deal with greater pressure etc.
Up until relatively recently, optimum for iron sights and no armor may indeed have been ~5.56mm with the recent bullets... more rounds per unit weight, and cheaper rounds.
It's basically a 30 cal...which we've had over 100 yrs..optimal is .280 cal
Really liking these Ask Ian videos lately. Keep it up!!
Gun Jesus is awesome praise to thee
You haven’t mentioned the .303” cartridge at all
It entered service before WWI was used in machine guns, aircraft, and rifles.
It was used throughout WW2 in most British Aircraft, Heavy and Light Machine Guns, and Rifles
It was still standard issue until the late 1950s
It was loaded with 180 grain bullets, and had a compensation range of 500 yards
Supplied in Tracer, Incendiary and Ball
Highly accurate in skilled hands, easy to feed from clips, and unlikely to jam
.303 wasn't that different from every other full powered rifle cartridge. literally everything you just said could apply to .30-06 or 7.92x57mm.
@@justacanadianguy07 The .303 predates both the 7.92x57, and the .30-06, and was originally designed for black powder, before being upgraded to smokeless in the form of cordite. It is also a rimmed cartridge - unlike the other two, and is not mentioned once in the above video - despite its length of service in conflicts around the world.
@@cjgdevizes age and service life doesn't mean everything. in many ways, .303 is outperformed by .30-06 and 7.92x57 in velocity and muzzle energy. the reason why he probably didn't mention .303 is because, in terms of performance, it isn't an outlier. also, i own a lee enfield, and while i love my enfield, it isn't the best. there are better rifles.
Ian made it very clear that any rimmed or semi-rimmed cartridge is automatically disregarded...
Rim lock with rimmed cartridges is a factor to consider.
This made me look into how 8mm Kurz preformed and honestly I can’t find anything about it on UA-cam other than people shooting it and talking about it’s history and how cool it is. But I wanna see a comparison video of let’s say 8mm kurz, 7.62x39, and .300 blk supersonic.
Then there's the one that got away... .276 Penderson! The cartridge that the M1 Garand was originally developed for, the 7mm bullet has been chosen once again now for the new, more powerful .277 Fury.....
Even better, but not in competition because none used it, despite having been widely available for more than 30 years, the .30 Remington.
Rimless, same energy than the 7.35 Carcano in a smaller package than both the Carcano and .276 Pedersen, (base diameter 10.7 mm vs. 11.4mm, OAL 64.1mm vs. 72.5mm), so shorter action, less weight for the rifle, more rounds in a M1 clip and more rounds carried by the grunts.
@@neutronalchemist3241.25 Remington is probably better because of higher velocity and sectional density. .30 is a bit wide for a cartridge with those dimensions.
@@hailexiao2770 .25 Remington is basically intermediate by muzzle energy.
That's only because of the pressure demands for defeating now, and later, body armor.
It still doesn't excuse the SIG Spear for being regressive on weight. It weighs as much as WWII/Korean War rifles do.
@@hailexiao2770 But less projectile choices and probably more resistance to be adopted. Better sectional density is really significative only past 300m, and the US infantrymen didn't (like they sitll don't) train past 300m (then it was 300 yards, 274 meters). Infact, in the end, they adopted the .30 Carbine.
It's interesting how that carousel keeps going around: The M855 is essentially a machine gun cartridge in 5.56x45, and the new .277 Fury seems to be biased toward machine gun use, penetration criteria notwithstanding.
In 50 years we might flip back again lol. 6.5 Grendel or 6mm ARC in 50 years anyone?
@@gingergorilla695 Stop, just STOP IT!!! My 6.5 Grendel fanboi phallus can only get but SO turgid!
@@leftistsarenotpeople I mean the Serbians agree with that boner my guy lol.
@@leftistsarenotpeople I do plan on getting a Howa mini action in 6.5 Grendel sometimes ngl
6.5grendel is the best option for a do all cartridge. There is nothing u can't do with it. Within 1000yds.
Being a former Marine and therefore thinking in terms of long range accuracy, I think the 6.5x55 Swedish round would be a strong contender for being the best rifle cartridge of WWII. I have a M-96 Swedish Mauser and it has far less felt recoil than the 30-06, 7.62x54, 7.92x57 or 7.62x51 cartridges yet has a longer effective range than the .308 NATO. I was watching another gun show and they said the .308 NATO dropped below supersonic velocity at about 800 yds where the 6.5x55 Swedish stayed supersonic beyond a 1,000 yds do to it's higher ballistic coefficient. I would love to have a Swedish Jungman rifle. I bet if you added a muzzle break it would be far more controllable in full auto than a M-14 is firing the .308 in full auto. I think the M-1 and the M-14 would have been much more effective in 6.5x55 in semi-automatic or full auto. Maybe you could have even got 10 rds in the M-1 Garande in that chambering. I don't know that much about the Jungman rifle. I remember seeing a video, I think you did, and know it's a direct impengment gas system and has multiple locking lugs like a M-16, but don't remember if it was selective fire or not. It would be interesting to fire it in full auto if it was, especially if you added a muzzle break to it. I'm sure it would be far more controllable than the M- 14 I saw you fire in full auto. Also, I see in my Cartridges of the world book, that Norma has a factory 139 gr load that goes 2790fps and has a muzzle energy of 2395fp. That's 50fps faster and only 105fp less energy than the 30-06 M2 ball round. It probably wouldn't be quite so soft shooting loaded like that though! It's still a longer ranging cartridge than the .308 or 30-06 even in it military load. That's my thoughts on it.
Something else I would like to mention is why I never see anyone use the rifle sling to help stabilize the rifles when they're shooting them. The Marine Corps stresses using what is called "The hasty sling" when shooting. If you have the sling adjusted to the proper length, it will be just right for carrying the rifle on your shoulder and just right for using it as a hasty sling. I can't even imagine shooting a rifle without using the sling in this way. It makes the rifle a lot more stable. The sling is not just a carry strap! There's a video on UA-cam done by a guy who, I'm sure had been in the Marine Corps, showing how to do it. If you do it, you won't want to shoot a rifle without doing again! I'm sure it will increase your accuracy if you have it adjusted right. And you can use it in any shooting position. Just search "Hasty sling" on UA-cam to see how to do it. There's quite a few videos on slings, but only one that was showing how to do it like I was taught in the Marine Corps. If you find it, you can learn how to shoot like a Marine. You might even be able to shoot better than your "In Range" buddy! Keep up the good work! Semper fi!
6.5x55 does shoot a lot easier than .30-06 making it practically more accurate, but without optics it might as well be the same in practical terms - supersonic out to 1000 yards or not.
6.5 would not get you more magazine capacity, since it has roughly the same base diameter as .30-06.
Even if a Ljungman with a muzzle brake would be better, it still wouldn't be controllable in full auto.
Ian has already shown the hasty sling position in some videos, so he knows what it is: a tool for known distance range shooting, not always practical. Doesn't help with controlling a full auto battle rifle and it hinders mobility during practical shooting, that's why you only see it on one-way ranges.
Very interesting, Arthur. You sure know your stuff!
@@4991Ares Well, I didn't say you couldn't use optics.
@ Art Robinson - Thanks for writing. If I had it to do over, I'd want to be a Marine. Regarding your comments about the 6.5x55 (Swedish Mauser), it is a great cartridge, and the Norwegians and Swedes (who designed it jointly) have been using it successfully for 125 years. Military, hunting, competition, target, you name it. Did you know that for a time, Sweden used BAR (Browning Automatic Rifles) chambered for it? How cool is that?
Shooting with a sling is a lost art. I learned it at Appleseed, which are those marksmanship workshops put on around the country, which teach traditional American riflemanship skills - i.e., shooting accurately from field positions - and also teach some of the history of our founding as well. Many of the most-proficient pro hunters use slings to stabilize themselves, some even the "Ching Sling," which is a specialized variant of the standard two-point sling. Shooting sticks and folding tripods and bipods are popular now in the field, but you'll still run into old-school sling users too.
Interesting question whether or not the 6.5 Swede would be significantly softer-shooting than 30-06. It is a full-sized long-action cartridge, and loaded to its full potential, it is not as mild as you'd think. Whereas those old 139-grain military-surplus loads for the old Swedish Mauser rifles are significantly less-hard on your shoulder, because they are loader to substantially lower pressures.
It's all well and good that 6.5 Creedmoor is here and turning heads, but the Swedes and Norwegians must be sitting there laughing and saying in their languages, "What took you guys so long??" They figured this stuff out more than a century ago.
The Boers used a lot of 6.5x55mm Mauser in their Krag-Jorgenssen rifles to great effect against British troops armed with the bigger .303 as far back as 1899*. A study of the best calibre for the British Army, based on the experience of the Boer War in 1907 examined it and liked it. If we had adopted that one then I think we might still be using (a version) of it today.
But by 1913 we were trending towards the bigger Mauser calibre's, despite our best sharpshooters being unable to reproduce the same accuracy due to recoil and flash. In the end with war looming we kicked it into touch for a generation and continued with .303. Did the same in 1936 when we examined smaller calibre's again but faced a new war any day and kept on with .303.
*They used lots of different calibre's including .303 - but the big 8mm P88 rounds and 7x57xmm for the Mauser M1895 came much later than the Krags. So they favoured the lighter end of the market in their most effective part of the war.
The bigger rounds seemed to have grabbed the attention of those on the receiving end, especially when it morphed into the 7.92x57mm after the war. But the sharpshooting that so shocked British units in the early war were largely 6.5x55mm.
7.92x33 was absolutely groundbreaking as the first assault rifle intermediate cartridge.
The full size 7.92x57 198gn was also a very good, potent cartridge.
It slightly outperformed the '06 , in a case 6mm shorter.
Not really. The Italian 7.35x32 Terni was developed in 1921 for an assault rifle. It was the first intermediate round, long before the Kurz.
8mm Mauser is really a great cartridge. Severely underrated in the states.
@@davidlindsey6111 Severely underloaded in the US
@@NeuKroftamaybe so but the Kurtz was the first widespread one that was fielded in more significant numbers
In the modern load 30-06 slightly otperformed 8x57, even european hunting 8mm loads..30-06 had a bigger catridge, but in ww2 era it was true,8mm was slightly more powerful but im not sure about trajectory,i tihnk that 30-06 have had flatter trajectory even than.I love both, but 30-06 is slightly better catridge.Both are legends.
The best: 6,5X55. And the US would benefit the most from using it. The Garand i 6,5X55 would be sweet.
Criterion barrels makes a Garand barrel in 6.5x55 now. Don't know that they have any left in stock from the first production batch or if they are going to make it a regular item though.
After the war, the Danes had some M1's in .308. That's kind of close.
I quite like the 7.65x53mm Mauser, or the 7.5x55 Swiss, both fairly powerful, without being overkill. If adopted early enough, eg by the US or UK pre-WW1, they could actually have remained in constant service even now (instead of changing to 7.62). The other candidate for the UK would have been the 7mm Mauser, after the experience in the Boer War. Instead, they improved the .303, but it meant we went into the machine gun era with a rimmed round.
7.5x55 Swiss is the only round I've seen that regularly destroys steel targets.
Like they go flying into the grass. Its wild.
Ask Ian has to be my new favorite section on your channel, always excited to listen!
I remember C&Rsenal addressed the semirimmed nature of 6.5 Arisaka: the consensus was the slight rim essentially had no rimlock issues, the rim essentially being the bare minimum needed to set headspace. I think it's a better contender for "best full sized rifle round" of WW2 than Ian thinks.
Ian has a lot of experience with the Japanese WWII cartridges. His father literally wrote the book on the subject. I thought that the 6.5 Arisaka would be his choice, but he must have a good reason it is not.
@@jfess1911 Yeah, I wish he had expounded a bit more on that.
The 7.92x33 "Kurz" was a major development brought about by the German experiences in house to house combat in Russia. The first "intermediate cartridge" was designed to be shorter, with a lighter bullet at velocities around 2200 fps. So, you could carry more rounds into battle, the cartridge produced less recoil in the STG 43/44 making it possible for accurate, full auto fire.
The round was designed to operate at a maximum range of 400 m which was more than adequate for the modern battlefield.
The 7.92 kurz was very influential regarding firearms developement post WW 2.
A neat bit of trivia is that FN had originally designed the FAL to fire the 7.92x33 but the US insisted that Nato adopt the 7.62x51. Afew years later, much to the consternation of the other Nato members, the US adopted an intermediate cartridge itself, the 5.56 Nato .
It was not the first intermediate cartridge or even the first German intermediate cartridge, it wasn't even the first nazi-period German intermediate cartridge, the first German intermediary cartridge is the 7.9x42.5, and the first nazi-era cartridge goes to the GECO M35 7.75x40 round.)
It was simply the intermediate cartridge in the right place and the right time where a government was willing to invest in the army's intermediate cartridge dreams.
The german army wanted an intermediate cartridge since atleast 1918, but lacked the funding to get one in service untill things looked bad enough on the front.
@@matthiuskoenig3378 But, none of those other rounds were ever adopted.
The question was : "What was the best WW2 cartridge".
@@smithwesson7765 I am not contesting whether it was the best cartridge of ww2, i am contesting that it was the first intermediate cartridge.
I agree and I’ve always had this opinion. The 8mm kurz was lighter, smaller, used less material and was a good cartridge that bridged the gap between the full size cartridge and 9mm. I think its development was the realization of true engagement ranges in WW2 and allowed for effective, practical firepower in an assault.
@@lostalone9320 go back to German combat trials and it proved effective in combat on eastern front where platoon size groups had so much added firepower and don't forget german platoon tactics and equipped with panzerfausts etc
@@lostalone9320 Hitler ordered the German army to abandon the StG but the hierarchy of the German army was so impressed by the StG's impact on the eastern front that they ignored Hitler's order and kept using it. Hitler didn't tolerate his orders being ignored unless there was a ton of evidence it was the right call.
@@Morbacounet Hitler didn't want to develop the StG, but once it was deployed he came to see what all the hype was about. He never told the army to get rid of them, he's the one who changed it's designation from MP to StG.
@@vvr881 it may have been impressing soldiers but think about it, if you've been lugging around a long, slow firing, low mag capacity Kar98k you'd be happy to have it, as far as its potential impact in battles, even if they had been fielded in any large number would've been likely minimal especially late in the war against the vast amount of Russian SMGs which were far more controllable on full auto. That also fails to consider all logistic issues with this idea. It was also less reliable and more fragile than other contemporary weapons. The TL:DR is too little, too poorly executed and too late.
@@isbee56 you
Great question and certainly a more educated answer than I can give. Essentially you are taking later concepts of cartridges and applying them to WW2 weapons. But the M1 Garand and the BAR were a fantastic combo partly because of, not in spite of, the 30-06. So if we are considering both rifles and machine guns my answer would be the 30-06. Which is still one of the best all around cartridges in the world.
Really enjoying these q&a videos
One first times ever went out shooting on a friends farm, and he had a .303 lee enfield.
I had some practice with fire arms before this but never with anything larger than .223 and never shooting things beyond like 30-80 yards (gopher control and going after pop bottles etc on back 40)
But that lee enfield, was a very well maintained rifle, sighting in well by one of my friends before handed it off that day, and I hit every round thing had loaded on target, iron sights, at about 200 yards.
Now know by now in my life not that crazy, but it’s consistency, ease of use and my ability so quickly pick it up and just hit targets: I’d say .303, imho that’s an amazing round.
I just sold a mk1 Enfield. I liked it though not much recoil and easy to work the bolt. Finding ammo was what made me decide to sale it. Once the surplus ammo ran dry it started getting really expensive to shoot it.
#4 in .303 Brit is amazing. I love both of mine.
303 is good, Lees are fast and accurate enough. Ammo availability is a non event really, at least here down under, ppu is easy to come by. I just load and its cheap as chips, pretty light on the brass compared to a lot of other stuff in my experience.
Great round in a great rifle but I think being rimmed counts against it slightly in terms of practicality
I completely agree!
6.5 x 55 is my pick,good all round -er- round for all scenarios.The 8mm kurtz is also very suitable for general CQB.
This is applicable for rifles to answer the question,I think extending the conversation into machine guns and anti aircraft takes the discussion beyond the specific question.🙃
6,5 x 55mm Swedish has the better balance between weight, accuracy and terminal performance.
I've done research on this topic and don't find a lot of good sources comparing the rifle cartridges of WW2. Thanks for the video!!
If we expand this to cartridges available in WWII without requiring it to have really been used in that war, then the clear answer is 7x57 Mauser since it is just one of the best cartridges, period (in my opinion, which is objectively correct because I said so).
"I have spoken."
Or the 7 mm as the new calibre for the new gun?
The FN-MAG (KSP-58) was chambered for 6,5x55 Swedish Mauser initially..
And probably never have been manufactured if it was not for Sweden, as we had issues making a beltfed BAR... funny story really..
The 7.62 x 25 was the revolutionary intermediate cartridge based on the .30 Mauser, and used widely by the Soviets. The 7.62x25 gave their sub guns more range compared to the 9 mm and 45 ACP sub guns used by the US, UK, Germany, etc. The US 30 Carbine is in the same category, but even better. Both of these rounds showed that intermediate power cartridges are sufficient in infantry rifles because most engagements were under 200 yards.
The 7.62x25 was replaced by the Russian 9x18 as it was deemed superior in 1946. The TT-33, the WW2 handgun for Russia, had a tendency to drop its 7.62 mag during operation. They just had the knowledge of it from WW1, so they used it instead of developing the 9x19.
@@uni4rm That is just because the Tokarev had the Browning style mag release instead of the more European heel catch. It’s not a flaw of the gun, but I can see if adrenaline gets pumping and you grab the gun wrong it could be an issue.
They dropped the 7,62x25 because they wanted a simpler blowback gun (the PM) and they were adopting the 7,62x39 AK which rendered wartime blowback sub guns obsolete.
The 7,62x25 was a good subgun/pistol round for its time. It did give Soviet subguns better range than their German counterparts.
7.92x33 still was the true intermediate round of the war and was the one to lead the way forward
@@uni4rm they may have thought makarov was superior, but is it objectively? probably not, even +p mak. it has a heel mag release cus they kept dropping mags, but is that the fault of the tt or their doctrine? maybe the fixed barrel of the mak makes the gun more accurate, but is that the ROUND that's more accurate? im a huge tok fan, i carry a type 54 a lot of the time, my home defense gun is unironically a pps43c. i think it's a hugely, hugely versatile cartridge and the fact that 357 sig exists and is so good shows the idea were ahead of their time.
Ian
If my memory serves me right, the swedish machine gun for which the 8x63 was developed was the KSP36. ( we had 2 of them per platoon in the swedish air base anti sabotage defence units as em-placed weapons or pre-prepped ambush sites to generate some general uncomfort to spetznas infiltration units.)
had in its setup 3 sets of barrels ( 6,5x55 7,62x51 and 8x63).
last I saw the 36 was when entering the stores and armory at the airbase F16 to pull some equipment to run a training exercise and am met by the sight of crates of all the barrels from the guns that had been pulled from the mobilization storage's and around the corner an entire wall was covered from floor to ceiling by the crates containing the guns themselves.
they were collected to be shipped for the dumbest reason in the world, sent to be chewed up in a scrapper.
the memory still eats away in my heart.
soas for the idea of 6.5x55 not being used for MGs isnt fully correct
That was great Ian! I learned a lot. Thanks for sharing your expertise with all of us.
My initial "gut reaction" to the title card was 6.5x55* or 6.5 Carcano. But yes, you are right. The carcano was a close runner up, with x55* being the best "rifle" cartridge and 30 Carbine being an honerable mention..
*edited for carelessness
7.5x55mm Swiss? I'm not familiar with the Swiss having a 6.5mm cartridge during WWII but I'm not an historian just a guy with some Swiss rifles LOL.
@@rickfinsta2951 I think they wrote swiss instead of swedish.
My bad. Meant swede. x55.
Does anyone why Swedes developed a spitzer version of their 6.5 cartridge but Italians didn't?
Really enjoying the new 1 shot Q&A format
Excellent breakdown of a complex topic, much appreciated.
This is a great question and follow-up. As always, great content.
I'd say 6.5/7.35 Carcano would be one of the better standard rifle cartridge choices.
The Dutch used the 6.5×53mmR as standard cartridge and found it lacking in stopping power iirc
@@remko2 "stopping power" is a meaningless marketing term. Both Japan and Dutch upgraded to 7+mm designs because it was weak COMPARED to other nations, not that the round itself was insufficient in some way.
@@uni4rm the Dutch only switched to a different caliber after the war, as they were rearmed with surplus US and British arms
They researched a larger caliber in 1910 based on experiences in the East-Indies, where it was found in combat that the bullet tended to pass right through the target at short range, not incapacitating the opponent.
Hence, 'stopping power'
That switch was however never implemented
Grew up shooting the .303 in Cadets... it's nice to shoot.
as a cadet now, I wish that I could shoot .303 but I guess if I join the shooting team they have 7.62x51 target rifles.
@@humblenoob7631 yeah, it's been almost 30 years since I was a cadet... but we used to go shooting at least once a month... every weekend if you wanted to shoot a .22
@@zoiders 30 years ago I was 15 and my cadet corps was shooting no4 mk2 enfilds... although we did get to shoot the C1-A1 (FN), I'd say that most of the (not .22 cal) shooting I did was with the No4.
One of my favorite "What if?" is 'What of the US adopted the 7x57mm Mauser after the Spanish American War like some people in the military wanted.
An M1 Garand chambered in 7x57? Yes.
My favourite cartridge great for pig & deer out of an old chilan
Paul Mauser preferred the 7.65mm, but the German military wanted the 8mm. Belgium and Argentina (among others) trusted Mauser.
@@ronaldjohnson1474 imagine if Stg-44 was in 7.65mm kurz instead of 8mm
@@u.m.9931 That wouldn't be significant difference tbh. The stg-44 was used like a submachine gun so they didn't really care about making it shoot flatter at long range. The FG42 on the other hand would have really benefited from a lighter projectile because 8mm mauser has a LOT of recoil to the point of almost being impractical for a battle rifle.
So playing the historian here, the very conservative general staff of many of these Armies believed that the infantry would be engaging at very long ranges (going back to the Lebel 8mm). This was before the machinegun was even a consideration. I would argue for the 7.5mm Swiss...
Yeah, he really neglected arguing for the expectation of long range shooting that was in the early 1900. And that many of these rifle designs, were carried over from WWI.
ian might be the most individually (~commercially kinda) successful historian in modern history. glad to support him.
I've heard a Tale, which may or may not be true, that McArthur said the US was sticking with 30-06 when he was Chief of Staff in the 30s. His reasoning was that we had so much left over from WW1, and it would be easy to ramp up production in case of the next war because all of the Machinery and Tooling was available.
Whether or not that's true, think of all the firearms that used 30-06 in WW2. Springfield bolt actions, M1 Garands, Johnson rifles, BARs and 1919 Machine guns. That's a lot of Utility from one Cartridge!
It did have some advantages, such as the improved range and power of such ammo. Granted, not as useful in the eyes of an individual rifleman, but have a whole squad light up a strongpoint and it's a lot scarier. It also allowed soldiers to replenish their rifles by pulling rounds from machine gun links, which they most certainly did on many occasions. Perhaps more importantly, it certainly helped centralize production, given that the service rifle and light/medium machine guns used the same ammo, streamlining production especially since it could be pre-loaded in the factory and all the soldier had to do was pick it up and either stuff it in their pockets or load it into their weapon.
Of course the modern system has its merits, and even in WWII, the US infantry company had an intermediate cartridge in the form of the .30 Carbine in addition to the .45, and the US had no issue supplying the ammunition for the 1919, BAR, Garand, Carbine, Thompson or Grease Gun, and Colt, so supplying three types of ammo isn't out of the question, and is still done today with the M240, M249, M4, and M17.
But not the M1 carbine, that had been pretty important. It had been the only case where the carbine had to be made in a different caliber, because the main one was too powerful and a carbine version would have been too heavy anyway.
General MacArthur was Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army at the time, the senior-most soldier in the army in other words. Retrospectively, it is perhaps easy to be critical of his decision as being too safe and predictable in choosing the known quantity over the promising newcomer. However, if you try and look at it from the perspective of 1930s America, it is pretty clear that he made the responsible and right choice.
First, the 30-06 was by that time, more than twenty-five years old and had proven itself in combat, in the field hunting, and in competition as one of the finest center-fire rifle cartridges in the world, and arguably the finest ever produced by the U.S. up to that time for military use. It had performed superbly in combat during WWI and in countless other smaller wars and incidents.
Second, during the Great Depression, funding was extremely tight and Congress wasn't in the mood to appropriate more to the services. This is hard to imagine in today's world, where the Pentagon has a budget larger than many large nations, but things were very different in those days.
MacArthur's decision was the fiscally-responsible one to make, in particular since there was already so much 30-06 on hand in U.S. government warehouses and military armories. Adopting a new service rifle and medium machine gun cartridge would have required not only the enormous expense of retooling the ammo plants, but of rebarreling existing weapons or perhaps even replacing them. As well as new training in the new weapons, retooling the arms manufacturers to gear to make the new weapons, and so on. Lots of back-end costs and hidden costs. A tough sell anytime, but especially during the worst economic slump in the nation's history.
To repeat the old aphorism: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it!" in other words....
@@GeorgiaBoy1961 Spot on & historically accurate comment! The US, & other countries, where having to adapt to a world wide depression era defense budgets. "American Caesar", by William Manchester, mentions this episode about calibers specifically. Thanks!
@@Gronk79 - Manchester was a brilliant man. I was sorry when he passed away some years back. He was a combat Marine during WW2, served in the Pacific. I have always enjoyed his work.
Yeah, 7.92x33 kurz is best all around 1 cartridge for the 300 yard fighting range of WW2. Best ballistics for the job at that time.
No mention of the British .303. Used in the SMLE(Small Magazine Lee Enfield) In it’s different Marks(Models).
It is an Extremely Accurate Round and was used in the Bren Machine Gun.
The Bren was used many times as a Sniper Rifle as it simply so accurate.
You had to move the Bren around or all rounds went into the same hole.
Not a lightweight round to carry but it certainly did the job.
You are forgetting the Americans like to sideline non-American achievements !
As a proof of concept, would love to scale the M1 Carbine design up to 7.92x33 (or a 7.62×63 "Kurz") with a pistol grip stock.
Oh I think you're on to something there!
They shouldve made the chiappa repro of the m1 carbine in a better caliber
@@1nfamyX I have it in 22 and it’s absolute junk, had to send it back because the whole bolt carrier group just flew off when I was shooting it, I had to send it back and have it replaced.
@@AdventureswithaaronB it just does not belong with the ones they offer in, the .22 especially its like a worse ruger 10/22.
@@1nfamyX perhaps, I can only tell you the one I have in 22 long rifle is just garbage. I mean someone could’ve been hurt, the bolt flew across the range no joke
The factors for the U S , We had millions of 30.06 rds left in inventories. We had two bolt action rifles in inventories chambered in 30.06. Anew similar auto service rifle was developed and because of the supplies of 30.06, chambered for it .light machine guns were chambered in 30.06, including the squad automatic weapon (BAR). So no brainer - 30.06 ruled the battlefield for the US.
That is certainly not an insignificant factor. We were smart not to try to switch calibers before the war like the Italians and Japanese. I don’t have any source documents but the Italians stopped the 7,35 project because they knew it was going to be a problem, and it was. I would imagine the Japanese had even more problems with having 6,5 plus 7,7 for rifles plus the two other 7,7SR and 7,7R for different machine guns.
Somewhat of a circular argument aswel as ignoring the original question. The US had the 30-06 in rifles, BARs and machine guns so they used it. It didnt 'rule' anything because it was the best, it was just there. As Ian pointed out, ALL full power infantry rifle cartridges were too powerful for what was needed of a rifle. IMHO a 308, 7mm or 264 would have been better but nobody had a service rifle in that calibre.
@@csjrogerson2377 Nobody that was a major player, but the Spaniards still had their 7mm.
I think he just meant “ruled” in the sense of it was the US caliber besides the much more limited .30 carbine. The .30-06 was not just overkill like all the other full bore cartridges but it was also ridiculously long. Great for versatile sporting use but with M2 ball being pretty much just equivalent to the other ~.30 cartridges around the world it made actions too long etc. for no real gain.
@@csjrogerson2377 it is circular bc this type of response is incoherent, this is not about "what shouldve been adopted" its about what cartridge is best based on performance. If it was anything remotely related to adoption, he wouldve answered for each nation individually & he wouldve taken practical elements like that into account. This comment section is full of ppl spouting random blurbs of history like this as if it adds to the conversation 🤦
30 aught Six MUH TWO WORLD WARS USA 🇺🇸 USA 🇺🇸 USA 🇺🇸:). FROG🏳️🇫🇷 AND SPAGHETTI🏳️🇮🇹ROUNDS NEVER FIRED ONLY DROPED ONCE!
This is very well put together in your opinion. Pretty much on point.
.303 was used in standard issue Lee Enfield rifle, in Lewis and Bren LMg's, and in Spitfire and Hurricane fighter planes, this ticks all of the boxes but doesn't get a mention.
You can walk around it being rimmed and too much tapered, but why chose it over ammos that have the same power whithout being rimmed or too tapered?
I love and agree with your answer! I wish you hve a podcast I’d listen to each and everytime Ask Ian has a new update 😊
I agree with you, the Carcano 7.35 × 51 mm would have been excellent on the Garand, I used in my period of compulsory military draft (1982-1983) in Italy both the Garand and the BM59, in caliber 7.62 x 51mm Born and I have to say that the Garand was devisedly controllable, so I think it would have performed even better with the 7.35 × 51mm Carcano which is very similar.
Really loving this new format.
I always thought swiss GP11 rounds were well made. 7.5x55 good all around ammo.
The Swiss ammo is pretty awesome.
Not a simple question when you break it down.🤔 Personally, a .30 carbine and Swedish Mauser guy.
110gr .30 Carbine is one of the few bullets that has gone through Paul Harrel's MEAT Target and all 50 layers of the New and Improved High Tech Fleece Bullet Stop.
For closer ranges, weight and accuracy I like the M1 also.
Like that you do a single question instead of having to go through an hour of stuff I am not interested. And really liked the analysis Thank You.
Excellent video with great info and well-educated points.
Very interesting and a good explanation of the trade offs that are involved in military procurement.
Ian!!! I loved all your old content but I love how you adapted. Gun channels reference you all the time... the saying is “I’m not Ian from Forgotten Weapons”
The David Attenborough of guns.
That would have been Peter Kokalis..
7.62 54R is still with us
Doesn't make it the best. Just means that Soviet Union/Russia just weren't able to move on from it.
It's a rimmed cartridge which makes designing good magazines and belt-fed machine guns around it difficult. It has stayed in use by Russia and some other countries rather as a result of accident or lack of funding not because it's a particularly good cartridge.
@@hendriktonisson2915 I mean energy wise it's right there with 7.62x51, and the PK handles it fine. It may be a pain in rifles, but the MG issue seems to have been figured out at this point
Wow man ,never even heard if most of these rounds.
Outstanding. Thanx Ian!
Great question and well-reasoned response(s)!
I can't believe this video ended up this short!
Without watching : Whatever the main French full size rifle round was. Now, let's see
Italy. Colour me surprised
Hahaha I thought the exact same things.
Very interesting Ian! I think you explain the circomstanses and argue very well for your choise.
A lot of what you're telling was the same for the Swedes. The 6.5 hade a round nose bullet, was updatet with a modern bullet with pointed nose and boat tail at 1941. For machine guns we used both the 6.5 and the 8 mm. Standard for infantry use was the 6.5. For AA- and naval purposes, in aircrafts and in/at all armoured vehicles the 8 mm was used. We even had a small amount of Mauser rifles chambered in the Swedish 8 mm for troop using 8 mm machineguns.
It was mentioned on your channel before, but a video on the merits of basing the infantry rifle cartridge on machine gun use versus basing the infantry rifle cartridge (and squad automatic weapons and company-level machine guns) on what infantry do with their rifles would be interesting. You covered that here in this video.
I understand MaCArthurs decision tp make the m1 chambered for the multitudes of 30'06 we still had in stores, but that 276 would have been the bees knees in a Garrand.
I agree. Given the problems created and the additional time to work the bugs out when the switch was made to .30-06 it is likely there would have been far more rifles in .276 produced by the start of the war than they were able to produce in .30-06 in the same time frame.
I find it quite ironic that we always hear that the .276 wasn't an optimal machine gun round but no one ever said anything about having the machine guns be the same caliber as the rifles. Just that having the rifle and the machine gun in the same caliber would be easier logistically. Yet, there were probably few times that belted ammo was stripped from the belts to go into clips or clipped ammo was stripped out of clips and put into belts and certainly no battles that hinged on that happening. MacArthur dismissed the one thing which more than anything lead to the US prevailing in the War and that was our ability to produce weapons of all sorts in sufficient quantity to supply not only our own forces but the forces of our allies as well.
Hindsight is 20-20, historically and otherwise, but it is hard not to wonder why the army ordnance people didn't still work on the .276 Pedersen in secret, at least enough to keep the concept alive for the future. The money must not have been there, or a favorable bureaucratic climate. Case of a great idea, but one ahead of its time.
Wow, Ian chose my pick: 8mm Kurz! I am a fan of efficiency and have always wanted a bolt action rifle chambered in this cartridge. Intermediate and pistol caliber carbines are perfect for all but long distance work.
FN MAG in 6.5 swede is a very very nice setup against infantry
A little surprised .303 wasn't mentioned
I'd love to hear the exact same question, but for WW1 instead, although I guess many of the countries involved were using the same or similar cartridges in that first war as they did in the second, and nobody wanted to go with 2 ammo standards then just like they didn't later.
Not actually so. While R.D. continued between the wars a combination of reduced funding because the thinking of the time was there would be no more large scale fighting as in WW1. Also most ranking military officers and politicians didn't see the practical, tactical, financial need to replace the large amounts of both rifles on had. McArthur for example wanted the M1 but in .30-06. America had millions of 30-06 ammunition on hand. It was a proven cartridge. It wasn't the best choice to use, but it worked out m
As someone from England i have to say the .303, used for generations and shot a lot of people armed with sharpened mangos .
Agreed..
Those were very sharp mangoes… I had to stand in front of those sharpened mangoes myself… luckily 7,62 x 51 proved to be the optimal sharpened mango stopper
I , FOR ONE AM QUITE PARTIAL TO THE LEE ENFIELD IN .303......MODERATLY POWERFUL, BUT NOT OVERLY SO .
I think the rifle mattered more than the round. The Lee Enfield is definitely my pick for the best boltgun of the war. I have one, and it fires so smoothly and so fast even in my untrained hands...
Well, they didn’t cover mangoes in ‘how to defend yourself from fruit’ class, did they?
Interesting evaluation, well done.
An interesting question very clearly explained. Loooove this series.
So basically we should have adopted the Pederson rifle in .276, with the added boon of having massed produced a rifle with the coolest action type, the toggle locked
Imagine a world where all M1A's and Mini 14's are toggle lock, and there is a popular guntube channel called "Pedersen Thumb"
No, the Garand and Bren in .276 P., and .30-06 M2 for Browning and Vickers MGs. Although the Mk8 .303 worked fine for the Vickers.
I'm so proud of .30 carbine making the list. Well done lad.
Excellent analysis and video, ty FW!
Wow what a great answer.
Honest and well thought out
German infantry doctrine was based around the 'universal mg'. The rest of the infantry squad were there to protect the mg team and carry ammunition, given the MG34 and MG42 rate of fire. The British infantry squad doctrine was based around the Bren gun. The rest of the squad were all trained on the Bren, so would be expected to take over if the designated gunner was not able to continue. Don't know about any other countries infantry doctrine. So choosing a cartridge that made the mg less effective to improve the rifle seems a mistake, for those two countries at least. And, of course, they didn't. So 20 20 hindsight may be missing the point?
Interesting... Considering the US was the only country to start the war with a semi-automatic as standard issue, I wonder what the US doctrine was since they already have superior firepower due to the Garand being semi-auto...
Agree but (with hindsight) the ranges that the infantry fought over made the higher powered cartidges over kill, so a lighter weight cartridge with lesser power might reduce your MGs capability at 800m+ but below that range it makes no difference, the average engagement range in WW2 was 300m
The US doctrine was that the Rifleman where primary base of fire for the squad, with things like the BAR being there just in case. Also, usually high amount rifle grenades per squad I believe.
Except weren't the Germans trying to make the STg44 the standard infantry rifle by the end of the war? So it seems even the Germans at the time decided to improve the infantry rifle at the expense of the MG's.
Let's see.
The MG34-42 was not loaded with spare infantry cartridges. Only with already loaded belts, that had to reach first line as already loaded belts. So the advantage of having the same cartridge for stripper-clip-fed infantry rifles and belt-fed MGs, especially considered that, using a lighter cartridge for the rifle, the grunts could have carreid MORE ammos for the MG, was pretty immaterial.
Infact, in the end, the Germans recognised the advantages of the 7.92mm Kurtz.
The relationship between (particularly) the squad-level MG and the infantry rifle is one of those obvious points that never occurred to me. I believe the squad MG was considered the primary weapon, so the riflemen were there to protect the gunner and keep the (Bren/BAR/MG-42 etc.) running. To that end:
In addition to the "macro" logistics of two different cartridges (a solvable problem) there is also the "micro" logistics issue: at least for the Bren and the BAR the riflemen could reload magazines with their own ammunition to keep the gun running. I assume recharging the non-disintegrating links in the MG-42 belt would also be possible in the field, although a bit more awkward.
It depends on the country. For Germany, certainly tactics were built around the squad MG. That was not the case in the US, though, which preferred accurate rifle fire from the individual soldier as the “killing machine”.
6.5 Arisaka (which they were switching away from), and had great potential. At 6.5x50, the cartridge was relatively lightweight. With the right projectile and powders, it would be effective to 1000 yards (they never used those powders or projectiles). They used it in machine guns and semi-rimmed for belt fed is a non-issue.
Can you do more videos on optics, don’t know where to start but every video you’ve ever put out I’ve enjoyed
I'd have to go with the 30.06, don't forget the different environments they had to shoot through, ie: forests and jungles and hedgerows along with the vast distances of the artic and deserts, huge farm fields and beachheads. I believe it was a well rounded cartridge for the era. 😁
@@justforever96 an extra 300fps is a pretty good start.
It’s crazy how smart this man is. Truly a national treasure 🇺🇸
Yeah he sure is alot smarter than your average joe...
That’s Eugene Stoner
Thanks for posting
I have fired that Swedish 8 mm round and it's really powerful. We where given water cooled maxim type machine guns. At that time the 8 mm was obsolete so it was old stock
I honestly thought you’d say 7.5mm French… cuz… Ian…
In all seriousness though the 7.5 French is a good cartridge. Enough bullet mass for all machine gun purposes but has a quite soft recoil. That cartridge was not one of the reasons for the lack of success of the French in the war.
As an old Army cadet and an LMG fanboy, I' surprised you didn't mention the .303 Lee Enfield or Bren gun.
I had to wait to watch this. Dang work and my kids birthday is important, but so worth it!
I appreciate the look at not just cartridge power, but also cartridge logistics.
That's really neat, I think.
7.92 kurz and 7.62x39 were dead ends in cartridge design, though. The latter has stuck around because of the sheer number of weapons produced, but nobody would adopt it today for any reason other than the availability of massive numbers of cheap surplus rifles chambering it. Shortly after the war designers all began to realize that going to a significantly smaller caliber gave more weight reduction, more controllability, and a flatter trajectory (meaning better accuracy for average soldiers) than just shortening a heavy .30 round, and latter had no real advantages aside from maybe fewer changes in factory tooling being necessary.
Everyone was fully aware that smaller calibers created flat trajectory. The 6.5x50 used by Japan in wars leading up to WW2 was famous for it. Its just a matter of logistics.
you have to understand that both cartridges you mentioned where basically stop-gaps, to research the viability of an intermediate-powered cartridge, using whatever tooling they already had to cut costs and development time.
They certainly weren't a dead end, but rather instead a step towards the adoption of cartridges like 5.56. Their being obsolete today does not preclude them from being very influential by introducing the intermediate case length, which is part of the magic of modern cartridges like 5.56. A small caliber bullet in a full sized 57 or 63mm case may have some uses (hunting, target shooting), but without the reduced case length pioneered by 7.92 Kurz and 7.62x39, it would still have many of the disadvantages of other full power rifle rounds when adopted for a standard infantry rifle. Would armies have moved to something like 5.56 without first seeing the adoption of 7.62x39? Probably not, which makes them far from a dead end design.
7.62x39 is still used today.
Re: "7.92 kurz and 7.62x39 were dead ends in cartridge design, though."
Well, maybe in certain respects, but if you look at modern cartridge design, you'll see a surprising number of cartridges which have roots in that 7.62x39 case or something similar to it. Bench-rest shooters have gone to town with short, fat cases driving high-BC low-recoil projectiles which cheat the wind, provide stellar accuracy and perform consistently. The 6mm PPC has won more precision shooting matches than any other cartridge, if memory serves, and it is pretty similar to the old Russian 7.62x39 in appearance. And today, cartridges like 6.8 SPC, 6.5 Grendel and 6mm ARC continue the tradition on the practical-field side of the house.
People are sleeping on 6.5 Arisaka. More of a WWI round than a WWII round thanks to the machine gun requirements as you mentioned, but it's pretty much what the US army has come back to after a hundred years of experimentation.
I really feel very strongly that the short answer to this question is the 6.5 x 55 Swedish, however, I do like Ian's answer to really explain that most cartridges were selected for use in machine guns and then adapted to infantry rifles. While I have fired many rounds used in WWII, I have not fired the 8x33 and I appreciate Ian's insight. The second, follow-up question is much more difficult to answer, imo. I'm not sure changing cartridge types would have made a difference in outcome of the war but Japan's selection of the 7.7 to be able to also fire the 30-06 in a pinch was brilliant. I do like Ian's answer and explanation here, too. The US having lighter ammo and guns may result is less fatigue and less casualties. Thanks, Ian!
Of the calibers used in WW2, I've fired 9mm Luger from various handguns including a Walther P38, 30-06 from many weapons including a 1903 Springfield and M1 Garand(which I own), .303 Brit from a Lee Enfield No. 4 Mk. 1(which I own), 7.62x54r from a Dragoon Mosin and a Mosin M44, and 8mm Mauser from a K98 k(which I own a BRNO manufactured post-war assembled version of). They are all a joy to shoot at steel, plastic jugs full of water, and other targets. My favorite has to be .303 Brit because the Enfield is an absolute joy to shoot, followed closely by 30-06 because of the Garand.