Best cost effective rifle

Note that both the USA and the UK were designing their rounds for the same basic criteria: One round for everything from carbines to MMGs. It wouldn't be until separate rounds for MMGs and smaller weapons were accepted that you could see substantial decreases in size and especially cartridge weight vs. the usual cartridges of the day. Neither .276 nor .280/30, for example, are significantly lighter than some of the lighter weight "full power" rounds.
 
Note that both the USA and the UK were designing their rounds for the same basic criteria: One round for everything from carbines to MMGs. It wouldn't be until separate rounds for MMGs and smaller weapons were accepted that you could see substantial decreases in size and especially cartridge weight vs. the usual cartridges of the day. Neither .276 nor .280/30, for example, are significantly lighter than some of the lighter weight "full power" rounds.

And since quoting yourself and quadruple posting is the Sport of Kings, I figured I'd also tack on that having two rounds wouldn't become accepted in the West until the forcefeeding of the M16 to the US Army by the McNamara Defense Dept. So basically, by necessity. What's revealing is how, once 5.56mm was in the field, virtually all resistance to having two rounds in service melted away.
 
Moving away from what is the best weapon, ....What would be the best balance between expensive cool rifles or cheap shoddy junk rifles that you can give them? ...
Where might be the best compromise?
...
You could get a simpler bolt-action than a Mauser, sure, but who would want a gun that was so simple it was 20% the cost of a Mauser? It would be a miserable rifle to shoot, and it's not at all easy to see how the M1 could give your troops 5x the combat effectiveness versus that gun. Arguably, Garands already give troops several times the combat effectiveness of a Mauser or Springfield!

Maybe it's postwar and the bolt-actions are surplus - but wouldn't the Garands be surplus then, too?

It seems like you wanted to make the cost of the M1 proportional to its increase in effectiveness, but it didn't really work that way historically - and that's key to this discussion about cost effectiveness.

If it's M1 vs. bolt action, the M1 simply kicks the bolt gun's teeth in. ........

So if it's just rifles, my list looks like (excluding experimentals and leaving out some guns that weren't produced in large enough numbers to make an accurate assessment):

1. M1 Garand

2. MP.44 (could be number 1 depending on doctrine)

......
If we include submachine guns though, slots 3-7 or so could be taken up by various types (PPSh-41 probably up top, PPS-43, Sten, M3, etc.).
I would question if you are limited in budget would it not be more sensible to just use what ever old thing you have in stores?

I agree building a new bolt gun isn't sensible once you can buy M1s or MP44s but that's realistically only mid to late WWII, old bolt guns could be from almost any time period even from the decade before WWI so they could effectively be almost free in cost if you only need to get them out of a warehouse and clean them?

I would add that if you are budget limited there are lots of things that you should spend your late 30s and 40s army budget on compared to any rifles, radios and tanks to name just two.

I would far rather have 1903s or 1917s refurbished out of a warehouse and a few working modern tanks or artillery radios than M1s and no support?
 

Deleted member 1487

Citation on the 2,000 yards (whoops, not meters) figure for .280:

Page 19, UK and Commonwealth FALs, by Stevens.

It seems likely that this decision resulted in the rejection of the .270 in favor of the .280, as the latter fired a significantly heavier projectile that was expected to give better performance at those great distances.

We should also remember that the .280 underwent some development, and is really a family of different loads more than it is a single round.

2000 yards for a medium machine gun, not a rifle round. Also it was hoped; this seems to be a layout of priorities for a future design, not statement of what the current design is capable of. And yes it is likely the factor that led to the .270 being discarded. Any idea if the Taden Gun bullet was designed for longer ranges? The flat based S-12 bullet is clearly inappropriate for 1000 yards, let alone 2000.
I get the impression that the end result (at 1950 when the NATO tests started) is not something that matched what is laid out in the above page. Not having the book it's from to get an idea of the context of the quote, it's hard to actually discuss the document. Do you by any chance have the original British documents around the .280 development?

Edit:
The British Army and the Politics of Rifle Development,
1880 to 1986
by
Matthew Charles Ford

PP. 149-150
The explicit objective of the Panel was to, '... facilitate the

design of the most efficient weapons and ammunition compatible with the lightest

weight... ' and their starting place was derived from the work of the Standing

Committee on Infantry Weapon Development which had defined a list of

requirements for SAA in 1944 at the behest of Major-General Wilson. " These

stated that the ammunition should be capable of firing out to a maximum of 800

yards with an accuracy grouping for 5 rounds of 3 inches at 200 yards and have a

trajectory that was as flat as possible, especially at 600 yards. The rounds were to be

smoke and flash free and come in a variety of types to include, standard ball,

incendiary, observing and armour piercing. Finally, the SAA was to have the

potential to be used in a self-loading rifle, a sniper's rifle and a light automatic gun.

If it was decided that it could also be used in an MMG, where the range requirement

was for greater distances, then that would be an advantage. This however, was

intended as a stretch target and not meant to compromise the ability of the engineers

to produce the most appropriate ammunition for the other weapons platforms. "

P.155-56
The fact that the infantry wanted to develop a system which in effect reduced the

number of weapons in the inventory was finally made explicit in a policy paper produced for consideration by the OWPC in April 1947.

This paper was put together by the DMT, General Keightley, in direct collaboration with members of

the Standing Committee on Infantry Weapon Development and for the first time

made explicit, to an audience beyond the EM2 advocates, the reasoning for the IPW.

The DMT stated that, 'The last war emphasised the need to reduce the weight [of the

rifle]... and to increase its rate of fire. Accuracy beyond 300 yards was not

required.
'49 Accordingly there was a preference for an automatic weapon that would

combine, '... the functions of the Rifle and the Machine Carbine.

This document stated explicitly that the requirement for scientifically accurate shooting

out to 600 yards was no longer necessary and that the new automatic rifle need only

be sighted to 500 yards.
Other firearms in the inventory would take care of targets at

longer distances. No rifle grenade was deemed necessary as a light mortar ought to

be developed to fulfil this role.

Also Forgotten Weapons has this tidbit:
https://www.forgottenweapons.com/prototype-280-fal/
The British counterpoint to this was to note that the declared maximum range of the round was 600 yards.

Also the development of the .280 also needs to be understood in the context of US demands for performance, which went from a round that improved on the 7.92 Kurz (the round tested in 1950 by the US) to one trying to compete with the performance of the 7.62x51. So yeah it was a family, but largely driven by US demands for increased long range performance, which was the opposite for the lower powered version intended for the EM-2.

To M1906 Ball? Sure. To M1 Ball? Hell no. Remember which was standard at the time.

Stockpiles were used as a justification, but they weren't a major reason to keep the .30. Read The Home Team Advantage, all is revealed there. The real selling point of the .276 caliber was the idea that it was the only way to get a reasonably sized semiauto; once the T1 proved that notion incorrect (God Bless J.C.G., A-MEN!) then the writing was on the wall for the .276.
The M1 Ball was invented after the testing in the link (says it was done in 1927) and relied on a redesigned bullet and improved military powder, which was effectively a different round that the stockpiles on hand by the 1930s.

Based on what you're saying the .276 was only considered because of the notion of only a 7mm or less round being viable for a self-loading rifle. As soon as it was proved otherwise they stuck with what they had instead. That doesn't necessarily speak to the advantage of the .30-06 cartridge, but again on production (easier to change the bullet and powder of a round already in production than totally overhaul the production system and have billions of unusable or less usable round in the midst of the Great Depression and budget cuts).

This is incorrect. The .280 was designed for performance out to 2,000 meters (why do you think the Taden was designed?), but the US had different ideas about what that meant. It underperformed in all respects during testing, including reliability and especially accuracy. The .30 T65 was just far more mature of a design. Of course, the US could have had Frankford Arsenal work on the .280 to move it along - but why would they when they already tried that with the .276, and the .30 T65 was, in their eyes, the perfected version of that round anyway? It would just be retreading ground they already went over. When multiple efforts to improve the performance of the .280 resulted in rounds extremely similar to the .30 T65, but for the caliber, I am sure Ordnance felt awfully smug.

Now we don't really see it that way today. But that's hindsight.
The page you posted seems to be a document laying out an idea for a round before it was developed, rather than the concepts evolving during the development of the round. Also the 2000 yards requirement was for a medium machine gun, not for a rifle. A flat based bullet used for the EM-2 and the 1950 NATO testing was clearly inappropriate for ranges up to 800 yards, especially with the powder loading they used; it is rather obvious that where the .280 ended up, with slightly more powder load than the 7.92 Kurz and a heavier flat based bullet, that it was optimized for ranges 500m or less. The US tests bore that out, assuming they weren't rigged, like they did when trying to prove the M16 inadequate. If you read the report they used Mann barrels for testing the accuracy that were adapted from existing .30 cal barrels. There's quite a bit in the set up they could have modified improperly. British testing did not support US results.

Note that in the caliber .30, T65 equipment the weapon is securely clamped in a rest which recoils whereas the caliber .280 weapon recoils sliding in a vee which is stationary, Recoil of the caliber .280 weapon is restrained by a spring-loaded vee-shaped fixture at the rear of the barrel.
So there was some differences in the testing apparatus, which was all designed for use with the exact US rounds being tested, while the .280 equipment was modified, including some British parts mated to the US testing apparatus.


And since quoting yourself and quadruple posting is the Sport of Kings, I figured I'd also tack on that having two rounds wouldn't become accepted in the West until the forcefeeding of the M16 to the US Army by the McNamara Defense Dept. So basically, by necessity. What's revealing is how, once 5.56mm was in the field, virtually all resistance to having two rounds in service melted away.
Two different calibers, though that is only if you ignore the .45 caliber weapons used in WW2 and the fact that the .30 carbine round was different in every way than the .30-06 other than the caliber of the bullet. Effectively the US used 3 different basic cartridges in WW2. After WW2 was the standardizing on the 7.62 NATO, though .45 caliber weapons were still used in Vietnam. AFAIK they were using .30-06 BARs in Vietnam as well, plus M3 Grease Guns and M1/2/3 Carbines.
The US really had multiple calibers/cartridges throughout the 20th century wars.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
In terms of production pre-WW2 the .30-06 had the advantage due to existing production and stockpiles, but the Pedersen was the ballistically superior round:
http://wintersoldier2008.typepad.co...n-were-pipsqueak-cartridges-in-compariso.html

And not one round of the 30-06 M1 Ball that was stockpiled was every used in the Garand during WWII, it was all the new production M2 Ball, that had a different bullet and less MV.
M1 Ball caused many breakages, and was declared Substitute Standard, where the Navy used most of it in Machine Guns till was declared Obsolescent in 1944

But it made it easy to tell Congress that as an excuse, on all those old round would be used, but never were in the M1 Rifle, let alone the old WWI era surplus
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 1487

And not one round of the 30-06 M1 Ball that was stockpiled was every used in the Garand during WWII, it was all the new production M2 Ball, that had a different bullet and less MV.
M1 Ball caused many breakages, and was declared Substitute Standard, where the Navy used most of it in Machine Guns till was declared Obsolescent in 1944

But it made it easy to tell Congress that as an excuse, on all those old round would be used, but never were in the M1 Rifle, let alone the old WWI era surplus
34yelgh.jpg

Much more like the M1906.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.30-06_Springfield
An emergency order was made to manufacture quantities of ammunition that matched the external ballistics of the earlier M1906 cartridge as soon as possible. A new cartridge was developed in 1938 that was essentially a duplicate of the old M1906 round, but loaded with IMR 4895 propellant and a new flat-based bullet that had a gilding metal jacket and a different lead alloy, and weighed 152 grains (9.8 g) instead of 150 grains (9.7 g). This 1938 pattern cartridge, the Cartridge, Caliber .30, Ball, M2 achieved a muzzle velocity of 2,805 ft/s (855 m/s) and muzzle energy of 2,656 ft·lbf (3,601 J).[15] The round weighed 416 grains (27.0 g) and its maximum range was approximately 3,450 yd (3,150 m).[16][17]

For these reasons, the U.S. military developed a new, lighter, cartridge in 1906, the .30-06 Springfield, "Cartridge, Ball, Caliber .30, Model of 1906", or just M1906. The .30-03 case was modified to have a slightly shorter neck to fire a spitzer flat-based 150-grain (9.7 g) bullet that had a ballistic coefficient (G1 BC) of approximately 0.405, a muzzle velocity of 2,700 ft/s (820 m/s), and a muzzle energy of 2,429 ft·lbf (3,293 J).

So the WW2 round had a bit more muzzle velocity and energy due to improved military powders, but was ballistically the same.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jsb
What is the least expensive way to build a bolt-action rifle?
One way is to minimize the amount of precisely-milled steel. Since you really only need the best steel in the barrel and bolt face, use rotating lugs to lock the front of the bolt into the rear end of the barrel.
The rest of the receiver could be stamped, heavy-guage steel riveted or welded together.
The next variable is determined by the cost and availability of hardwoods. At a minimum, you need enough wood to insulate the parts that a soldier holds while laying in ambush all frosty night: butt stock comb, pistol grip and forearm. The most forested nations could carve full-length stocks out of single planks, while the least-forested nations would only use the minimum wood needed to prevent soldiers' hands from freezing to the rifle.
A 20-round, remove able magazine made of stamped steel (most durable), stamped aluminum (lightest) or moulded Bakelite.
Sights and trigger mechanism stamped out of sheet steel with only mating surfaces precisely milled.
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 1487

What is the least expensive way to build a bolt-action rifle?
One way is to minimize the amount of precisely-milled steel. Since you really only need the best steel in the barrel and bolt face, use rotating lugs to lock the front of the bolt into the rear end of the barrel.
The rest of the receiver could be stamped, heavy-guage steel riveted or welded together.
The next variable is determined by the cost and availability of hardwoods. At a minimum, you need enough wood to insulate the parts that a soldier holds while laying in ambush all frosty night: butt stock comb, pistol grip and forearm. The most forested nations could carve full-length stocks out of single planks, while the least-forested nations would only use the minimum wood needed to prevent soldiers' hands from freezing to the rifle.
A 20-round, remove able magazine made of stamped steel (most durable), stapled aluminum (lightest) or moulded Bakelite.
Sights and trigger mechanism stamped out of sheet steel with only mating surfaces precisely milled.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remington_Nylon_66
Not a bolt action, but the idea is easily translatable. Though due to the weight reduction you'd probably want to use an intermediate cartridge.
 
The cheapest way to make a rifle is not the design per se but to setup a large 'modern' factory where all jigs and machine tools are setup for a single role and all the processes (as far as is possible) are under one roof or certainly site - ie a Kahn style factory (see Detroit and Russian tractor factories)

This means that relatively unskilled workers can rapidly produce large numbers of a single component and this process is expanded across the entire production range of that given weapon with a robust QC process.

This cuts down on time per unit, cost per unit and wages etc as fewer higher skilled workers are required - and those only to troubleshoot and ensure the given machine tool or jig is set up within tolerance.

Also over time as the skills of the workers increase through experience improvements to the process improves both the time and cost per unit.

So it does not matter if you are building the worlds most complicated rifle if every stage of its production is made simple through use of dedicated machine tools and jigs making the given component capable of being made by a relatively unskilled worker.
 

Deleted member 1487

The cheapest way to make a rifle is not the design per se but to setup a large 'modern' factory where all jigs and machine tools are setup for a single role and all the processes (as far as is possible) are under one roof or certainly site - ie a Kahn style factory (see Detroit and Russian tractor factories)

This means that relatively unskilled workers can rapidly produce large numbers of a single component and this process is expanded across the entire production range of that given weapon with a robust QC process.

This cuts down on time per unit, cost per unit and wages etc as fewer higher skilled workers are required - and those only to troubleshoot and ensure the given machine tool or jig is set up within tolerance.

Also over time as the skills of the workers increase through experience improvements to the process improves both the time and cost per unit.

So it does not matter if you are building the worlds most complicated rifle if every stage of its production is made simple through use of dedicated machine tools and jigs making the given component capable of being made by a relatively unskilled worker.
Sorry to keep kicking a dead horse, but that was the philosophy behind the StG44. It was made all metal stampings and required no milling or special metals unlike most rifles (including the AK-47). As noted the development cycle was abbreviated, so it was still rough around the edges, but with time could have been what the AK-47 eventually became. As it was the StG45 took the concept even further to reduce number of parts and make it absurdly quick and cheap to make. It was in effect the MP40 of rifles.
 
2000 yards for a medium machine gun, not a rifle round. Also it was hoped; this seems to be a layout of priorities for a future design, not statement of what the current design is capable of. And yes it is likely the factor that led to the .270 being discarded. Any idea if the Taden Gun bullet was designed for longer ranges? The flat based S-12 bullet is clearly inappropriate for 1000 yards, let alone 2000.

Lots of unsupported statements here. The document referenced is an appendix to the Ideal Calibre Panel, which resulted in the development of the .270 (not the .280). Note that in the document it says that a 2,000 yard maximum range for the MMG will, they hope, allow a unified round. It is very likely, judging from context, that this led to the selection of Brig. Dixon's .280 over the .270. The .280 had a much heavier boattailed bullet (the S-12 load came later) in the 130-140 gr range (they tried multiple types).

I get the impression that the end result (at 1950 when the NATO tests started) is not something that matched what is laid out in the above page. Not having the book it's from to get an idea of the context of the quote, it's hard to actually discuss the document. Do you by any chance have the original British documents around the .280 development?

Hmmm, yes, it's tricky to have all the context without the relevant literature. Might be best to hold off your conclusions until you've read it. ;)

I have many of the original documents, but not all in whole. I have the entire Ideal Calibre Panel report, which basically sketches out the .270.

Also the development of the .280 also needs to be understood in the context of US demands for performance, which went from a round that improved on the 7.92 Kurz (the round tested in 1950 by the US) to one trying to compete with the performance of the 7.62x51. So yeah it was a family, but largely driven by US demands for increased long range performance, which was the opposite for the lower powered version intended for the EM-2.

No, the .280 predated the joint US-UK effort. It was intended to improve on the 7.92 Kurz, yes - and one of the primary ways it would do that is by giving passable MMG performance. It's quite obvious that this was in the minds of those surrounding its development, as Brig Barlowe apparently thought the .280 would be a superior MMG round to the T65 as early as 1947!

73joymd.jpg


The M1 Ball was invented after the testing in the link (says it was done in 1927) and relied on a redesigned bullet and improved military powder, which was effectively a different round that the stockpiles on hand by the 1930s.

Again, you're picture lacks a tremendous amount of context. .30-06 heavy ball loads were in development from 1919 on. .30 M1 Ball was standardized on October 24, 1925. So the real comparison was always between the .276 and M1 Ball.

Based on what you're saying the .276 was only considered because of the notion of only a 7mm or less round being viable for a self-loading rifle. As soon as it was proved otherwise they stuck with what they had instead. That doesn't necessarily speak to the advantage of the .30-06 cartridge, but again on production (easier to change the bullet and powder of a round already in production than totally overhaul the production system and have billions of unusable or less usable round in the midst of the Great Depression and budget cuts).

Production is everything. It is extremely difficult to change streams with ammunition. Nobody wanted to get rid of the .30 cal if they could help it; the .276 just wasn't considered enough of an advantage. MacArthur gets blamed for torching the .276, but he was just formalizing a decision that the Infantry Board had already made.

The page you posted seems to be a document laying out an idea for a round before it was developed, rather than the concepts evolving during the development of the round. Also the 2000 yards requirement was for a medium machine gun, not for a rifle.

Read it. It says it would be good for the MMG and all other small arms to use the same round. And yes, it's a part of the document that resulted in the creation of the .270. It seems it was felt that the .280 would provide better performance for the MMG so the (IMO technically superior) .270 was stillborn.

A flat based bullet used for the EM-2 and the 1950 NATO testing was clearly inappropriate for ranges up to 800 yards, especially with the powder loading they used; it is rather obvious that where the .280 ended up, with slightly more powder load than the 7.92 Kurz and a heavier flat based bullet, that it was optimized for ranges 500m or less.

Hey, do you realize that all early .30 T65 projectiles were flat-based too? And they could be as light as 113gr!

The US tests bore that out, assuming they weren't rigged, like they did when trying to prove the M16 inadequate. If you read the report they used Mann barrels for testing the accuracy that were adapted from existing .30 cal barrels. There's quite a bit in the set up they could have modified improperly. British testing did not support US results.

I doubt the US tests were rigged. Studler, for his faults, was actually a class act (albeit also a thorn in the side of the British). I don't think he'd stand for that kind of corruption if he was aware of it, and he tended to be very detail oriented.

Once Studler left, you started seeing evidence of test rigging.

Frankly, even British and Belgian tests show the British .280 loads were of substandard quality. It was primarily the FN-made loads that performed well, and the S-12 bullet - though sleek - was not really suitable for the military requirements of the time.

The primary problem appears to have been issues with the concentricity of the steel-cored projectiles. Even the US had this problem with their .30 T65. The FAL, too, appeared to exhibit some kind of differential influence on the rounds in the magazine, causing groups to walk. Aberdeen testers apparently got good accuracy results by single-loading the rifles.

Two different calibers, though that is only if you ignore the .45 caliber weapons used in WW2 and the fact that the .30 carbine round was different in every way than the .30-06 other than the caliber of the bullet.

The goal was always one caliber. Three was considered suboptimal.
 
I would question if you are limited in budget would it not be more sensible to just use what ever old thing you have in stores?

I agree building a new bolt gun isn't sensible once you can buy M1s or MP44s but that's realistically only mid to late WWII, old bolt guns could be from almost any time period even from the decade before WWI so they could effectively be almost free in cost if you only need to get them out of a warehouse and clean them?

I would add that if you are budget limited there are lots of things that you should spend your late 30s and 40s army budget on compared to any rifles, radios and tanks to name just two.

I would far rather have 1903s or 1917s refurbished out of a warehouse and a few working modern tanks or artillery radios than M1s and no support?

I was indulging the OP. Hey, maybe all you have in stockpiles are Berdan rifles, or something! ;)
 
What is the least expensive way to build a bolt-action rifle?
One way is to minimize the amount of precisely-milled steel. Since you really only need the best steel in the barrel and bolt face, use rotating lugs to lock the front of the bolt into the rear end of the barrel.
The rest of the receiver could be stamped, heavy-guage steel riveted or welded together.

Erm, making the thing out of mild steel really only helps if you've got a shortage of good alloy steels (as Germany did in WWII). Otherwise, it's better to make it out of alloy steel. If we look at the highly production optimized hunting rifle designs of today, we see a lot of sophisticated casting, etc. So casting could arguably be the right way to go. As long as it was front locking and you had good tolerances in the locking region, you'd be good to go.

The next variable is determined by the cost and availability of hardwoods. At a minimum, you need enough wood to insulate the parts that a soldier holds while laying in ambush all frosty night: butt stock comb, pistol grip and forearm. The most forested nations could carve full-length stocks out of single planks, while the least-forested nations would only use the minimum wood needed to prevent soldiers' hands from freezing to the rifle.
A 20-round, remove able magazine made of stamped steel (most durable), stapled aluminum (lightest) or moulded Bakelite.

If you're trying to make the cheapest possible bolt action, why are you indulging in frivolities like hi cap detachable mags? Those are expensive, and they get lost! Much better to use a stripper clip or en bloc system (and for technical reasons, it's not a good idea to make those hold more than about 10). Hi cap mags really only pay off with a semiautomatic or automatic weapon, anyway.
 
If you're trying to make the cheapest possible bolt action, why are you indulging in frivolities like hi cap detachable mags? Those are expensive, and they get lost! Much better to use a stripper clip or en bloc system (and for technical reasons, it's not a good idea to make those hold more than about 10). Hi cap mags really only pay off with a semiautomatic or automatic weapon, anyway.

For the same amount of machining for a bolt action, you can do a straight pull action, and thats not far away from a tilt locking SKS, and then full semiautomatic when you add the gas unlocking and a couple more springs.
 

Deleted member 1487

Lots of unsupported statements here. The document referenced is an appendix to the Ideal Calibre Panel, which resulted in the development of the .270 (not the .280). Note that in the document it says that a 2,000 yard maximum range for the MMG will, they hope, allow a unified round. It is very likely, judging from context, that this led to the selection of Brig. Dixon's .280 over the .270. The .280 had a much heavier boattailed bullet (the S-12 load came later) in the 130-140 gr range (they tried multiple types).
I edited my post above with additional info; the 2000 yard goal was a stretch goal for a MMG originally on the hope of having a universal round. According to the thesis I found the .270 was dropped to try and produce a round capable of filling something like what the Americans wanted, but the British rifle ideal caliber was cited as something between .250-270. Of course that was one faction's idea, there were multiple factions fighting within the British arms development administration about whether to go with something longer range or not. By the time they got to the American caliber tests they had settled on a 500 yard round.

Hmmm, yes, it's tricky to have all the context without the relevant literature. Might be best to hold off your conclusions until you've read it. ;)

I have many of the original documents, but not all in whole. I have the entire Ideal Calibre Panel report, which basically sketches out the .270.
Depends on what you consider relevant; I edited my post while you were posting this with a doctoral thesis about the history of British rifle developments that is mostly about the EM-2 and by association the .270/.280 development:
https://kclpure.kcl.ac.uk/portal/en...86(5d9a29fb-ced6-4d8e-bf3f-987f3db7b5b9).html


No, the .280 predated the joint US-UK effort. It was intended to improve on the 7.92 Kurz, yes - and one of the primary ways it would do that is by giving passable MMG performance. It's quite obvious that this was in the minds of those surrounding its development, as Brig Barlowe apparently thought the .280 would be a superior MMG round to the T65 as early as 1947!
The .280 predates the US-UK testing, but it was developed partially in anticipation of that test as well as to appease a faction within British arms development. By the time the test rolled around the round they developed had abandoned the 2000 yard delusion. Again it was a stretch goal that was ultimately dropped.

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/896859.pdf
If you look at the 1950 testing document (p.20) the the average velocities at 78 feet from the muzzle for the .280 round average around that of the 7.92 Kurz. The muzzle velocity was probably close to that of the 7.62x39 of the AK-47. So whatever was laid out in 1947 or before was discarded by 1950, as the round actually tested was optimized for 500 yards or less. By the 600 yard mark it was dropping off substantially, though (without checking ballistics) probably less so than the 7.92 Kurz was at 400m.


Again, you're picture lacks a tremendous amount of context. .30-06 heavy ball loads were in development from 1919 on. .30 M1 Ball was standardized on October 24, 1925. So the real comparison was always between the .276 and M1 Ball.
And as cited it never was used in war, ultimately being replaced 10 years later with the M2 ball that went right back to the 1906 design with a different metal alloy and improved propellants. Why compare with the M1 that was abandoned long before WW2 broke out?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.30-06_Springfield#History
. By 1936, it was discovered that the maximum range of the .30 M1 Ball ammunition with its boat-tailed spitzer bullets was beyond the safety limitations of many ranges. An emergency order was made to manufacture quantities of ammunition that matched the external ballistics of the earlier M1906 cartridge as soon as possible. A new cartridge was developed in 1938 that was essentially a duplicate of the old M1906 round, but loaded with IMR 4895 propellant and a new flat-based bullet that had a gilding metal jacket and a different lead alloy, and weighed 152 grains (9.8 g) instead of 150 grains (9.7 g). This 1938 pattern cartridge, the Cartridge, Caliber .30, Ball, M2 achieved a muzzle velocity of 2,805 ft/s (855 m/s) and muzzle energy of 2,656 ft·lbf (3,601 J).[15] The round weighed 416 grains (27.0 g) and its maximum range was approximately 3,450 yd (3,150 m).[16][17]

Production is everything. It is extremely difficult to change streams with ammunition. Nobody wanted to get rid of the .30 cal if they could help it; the .276 just wasn't considered enough of an advantage. MacArthur gets blamed for torching the .276, but he was just formalizing a decision that the Infantry Board had already made.
Fair enough. Still, doesn't mean for what it was with hindsight that the Pedersen round wasn't ultimately better than the M2 Ball that the US went to war with.

Read it. It says it would be good for the MMG and all other small arms to use the same round. And yes, it's a part of the document that resulted in the creation of the .270. It seems it was felt that the .280 would provide better performance for the MMG so the (IMO technically superior) .270 was stillborn.
Check out that thesis I posted, it gets into the full picture of the development of the .280. Yes the .270 was stillborn, but not necessarily over the MMG requirement.

Hey, do you realize that all early .30 T65 projectiles were flat-based too? And they could be as light as 113gr!
The round used in the tests was a T104, which was slightly lighter and had 35% more propellant behind it (not sure about any differences in powders used between the British and US). It could stay supersonic longer due to substantially higher muzzle energy, which helps it avoid for longer the transsonic issues flat based rounds run into as they slow down.

I doubt the US tests were rigged. Studler, for his faults, was actually a class act (albeit also a thorn in the side of the British). I don't think he'd stand for that kind of corruption if he was aware of it, and he tended to be very detail oriented.

Once Studler left, you started seeing evidence of test rigging.

Frankly, even British and Belgian tests show the British .280 loads were of substandard quality. It was primarily the FN-made loads that performed well, and the S-12 bullet - though sleek - was not really suitable for the military requirements of the time.

The primary problem appears to have been issues with the concentricity of the steel-cored projectiles. Even the US had this problem with their .30 T65. The FAL, too, appeared to exhibit some kind of differential influence on the rounds in the magazine, causing groups to walk. Aberdeen testers apparently got good accuracy results by single-loading the rifles.
Again, depending on what role you want it to fill. The round tested in 1950 was designed with an anticipated 500 yard normal max combat range with a 600 yard max effective range, courtesy of that thesis I linked earlier in this reply and excerpts I edited into my previous post.
Also on p.19 they cite using 130 and 140 grain lead cores for the .280 and 150 grain lead cores for the .30 as a control group; groups are significantly tighter, but not excessively so.
So the data on p.18 is using lead cores with a heavier US round and the lead cored .280 ones.
Which shows that the issue isn't simply the steel cores, its the ranges that the rounds are designed to be fired at. Using the info from the thesis I cited (check out my previous post that was edited) the Brits by 1950 produced a rifle round meant to be used at 500 yards or less and controllable on full auto at short ranges. This was NOT a 2000 yard round.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sorry to keep kicking a dead horse, but that was the philosophy behind the StG44. It was made all metal stampings and required no milling or special metals unlike most rifles (including the AK-47). As noted the development cycle was abbreviated, so it was still rough around the edges, but with time could have been what the AK-47 eventually became. As it was the StG45 took the concept even further to reduce number of parts and make it absurdly quick and cheap to make. It was in effect the MP40 of rifles.

Exactly - so its not the rifle its the process by which it is made and the efficiency of the factory and supporting industry.

Obviously then the simpler the construction process of the rifle then the more cost effective it becomes (although this is not as important as the factory) - as you say the StG44 / 45 - we could have had something as simple as a Sten gun!

Ideally as you say remove wood etc from the process and have as far as possible metal stamping etc.

A line though does have to be drawn of course between making it as simple as possible and actually robust enough for the battlefield.

Ultimately I think we would end up with something like the L1A1/FN FAL in a 'Kutz' round.
 
Obviously then the simpler the construction process of the rifle then the more cost effective it becomes
If we are allowed late war weapons why not go all the way and pick the Gerät 06H, we will of course simply use the stats for the G3 series for what the production rife would work like. ;-)
 
Sorry to keep kicking a dead horse, but that was the philosophy behind the StG44. It was made all metal stampings and required no milling or special metals unlike most rifles (including the AK-47). As noted the development cycle was abbreviated, so it was still rough around the edges, but with time could have been what the AK-47 eventually became. As it was the StG45 took the concept even further to reduce number of parts and make it absurdly quick and cheap to make. It was in effect the MP40 of rifles.
Not to apply a defibrillator to a deceased equine (sorry) but one (and by far from the only one) reason for using stampings in the StG44 etc. was that the machining resources for a milled design were already overloaded with existing weapon production. Like the De Havilland Mosquito it drew upon resources that were not already in use. In effect it expanded small arms production and not just substituted another design. Of course it needed some machining and rifled barrels.

If we look at the British experience. They decided that the most cost effective rifle was to continue and expand the known Lee Enfield with minor cheapenings. When they went to a mass sub machine gun they did not try to rework the existing small arms resources but drew upon a multitude of small works and semi skilled labour to make the Sten using these extra resources.

Ultimately I think we would end up with something like the L1A1/FN FAL in a 'Kutz' round.
The FN FAL was originally designed to be just that. It was later beefed up for the 7.62 NATO.
 
Not to apply a defibrillator to a deceased equine (sorry) but one (and by far from the only one) reason for using stampings in the StG44 etc. was that the machining resources for a milled design were already overloaded with existing weapon production. Like the De Havilland Mosquito it drew upon resources that were not already in use. In effect it expanded small arms production and not just substituted another design. Of course it needed some machining and rifled barrels.

If we look at the British experience. They decided that the most cost effective rifle was to continue and expand the known Lee Enfield with minor cheapenings. When they went to a mass sub machine gun they did not try to rework the existing small arms resources but drew upon a multitude of small works and semi skilled labour to make the Sten using these extra resources.


The FN FAL was originally designed to be just that. It was later beefed up for the 7.62 NATO.

You say Beefed up I say degraded :p
 

Deleted member 1487

Exactly - so its not the rifle its the process by which it is made and the efficiency of the factory and supporting industry.

Obviously then the simpler the construction process of the rifle then the more cost effective it becomes (although this is not as important as the factory) - as you say the StG44 / 45 - we could have had something as simple as a Sten gun!

Ideally as you say remove wood etc from the process and have as far as possible metal stamping etc.

A line though does have to be drawn of course between making it as simple as possible and actually robust enough for the battlefield.

Ultimately I think we would end up with something like the L1A1/FN FAL in a 'Kutz' round.
Well not as simple as the Sten; it used delayed blowback with a heavy bolt/spring combo; the StG 45 used roller delayed blowback is more complex to properly manufacture.
BTW the original FN FAL was chambered in 7.92 Kurz...
http://www.forgottenweapons.com/8mm-kurz-fal-photos/

Not to apply a defibrillator to a deceased equine (sorry) but one (and by far from the only one) reason for using stampings in the StG44 etc. was that the machining resources for a milled design were already overloaded with existing weapon production. Like the De Havilland Mosquito it drew upon resources that were not already in use. In effect it expanded small arms production and not just substituted another design. Of course it needed some machining and rifled barrels.

If we look at the British experience. They decided that the most cost effective rifle was to continue and expand the known Lee Enfield with minor cheapenings. When they went to a mass sub machine gun they did not try to rework the existing small arms resources but drew upon a multitude of small works and semi skilled labour to make the Sten using these extra resources.
Its not quite that simple. The equipment to make stamped parts was special; it would have been easier to build the machinery for milling the weapon and in fact the Germans had a bunch of unused stockpiles of captured French general purpose machine tools, but lacked the skilled labor to make use of it. Stamping saved materials, didn't require skilled labor, and didn't use special alloys to make the parts, but it required complex single purpose machinery to do. That was part of the issue with getting the StG44 into mass production, especially by 1944 given the bombing.
They specifically chose to make it cheap and avoid milling. If they wanted to have a milled weapon in an intermediate caliber the Vollmer M35 was ready pre-war and production resources were not used up; later they did start having the milled FG42, but later moved it to a stamped metal version to save resources.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top