Exactly, that is something people forget, horses were a thing on most armies during the war, but after rare and fighting on one rarer still
US semi-auto rifle program in the 1920s yields intermediate or SCHV cartridge
SwampTiger
Banned
A US Marine/Army Great War veteran, operating against guerrillas in Nicaragua/Dominican Republic/or similar, remembers seeing a full-auto variant of a Model 1907 in the French trenches. He requests info from Winchester through channels. Winchester graciously offers a half dozen new Model 1907 automatics with extended magazines and bayonet lugs for testing. Reports up the pipeline praise the rifle. Several problems are noted. However, the round has greater range than the .45 ACP and is flatter shooting. The rifle is lighter. A panel is designated to adapt the gun and cartridge to meet military standards with development by Winchester. This panel quickly demands a simpler break down procedure, a .30 caliber variant of the cartridge using a 150 grain spire point, and a cocking handle on the bolt. In 1927, the US Army adopts the weapon as a submachine carbine to augment the Thompson. A program is started in 1935 to reduce the weight to less than six pounds to use as a pistol replacement for rear echelon troops.
At this point you have a gun/cartridge combo which has similar power to a .30-30 carbine.
At this point you have a gun/cartridge combo which has similar power to a .30-30 carbine.
Deleted member 1487
Only problem is the .22 Spitfire wasn't tested by Melvin Johnson until the 1960s as a result of the AR-15.
SwampTiger
Banned
In mid-20's, someone tries a rimless .22 Savage Hi-Power or .219 Zipper in a Remington Model 8. Savage uses a .227 70 grain bullet at 3100 fps. Zipper uses various .224 bullets, with a 55 grain at 3000 fps using 42000 psi pressure. Donaldson Wasp, derived from improving Zipper case, fires a 53 grain bullet at 3460 fps. A variant is the .219 Gibson Wasp using a short .25 Remington case.
I would still prefer the .25 Remington or a 6.5 derivative.
I would still prefer the .25 Remington or a 6.5 derivative.
Deleted member 1487
For a carbine? A .22 high velocity cartridge would be ideal for the 200m range set out for the M1 carbine spec. We know what the lethality of the round was at that range.
marathag
Banned
US Reloaders, and not Firearm companies, new hobby of doing 'Wildcats' dated to after WWI, with one early success with the .25 Newton being adopted by Savage to make the .250-3000.
You'll notice I wasn't talking about the OTL round, but TTL's equivalent, based on a modified .25 Rem.
Deleted member 1487
You did say 'a' .22 spitfire, which I can see what you mean when you point it out, but I hope you can see where the confusion might be. With that out of the way I agree with you, that would be fine round.
I do see how the format I used might've been unclear. I didn't mean to sound snippy, if I did.
Why all the hate for the 30-06? As a young service rifle shoter I shot at lest a hundred rounds a week through a springfield for 2 years and a m1 for 10 years.I never considered the recoil onerous even when firing 80 shots in a match. Another thing is the 30-06s ability to turn cover into conceealment in my opinion penetration is a major consideration. We also used ammo loaded with 168 grain bullets pretty close to m1 ball. If you have ever seen a person who knows what they are doing shoot a bolt gun the speed can be an eye opener. So for my part an 03 and 30-06 are about top of the heap ill take penetration and range every time! Sorry to engage in adisjointed rant but us old guys are prone to it.
Deleted member 1487
Match shooting and combat shooting is very different. Repeated military research has shown that for the 20th century small calibers at higher velocities are much more practical for combat accuracy and combat loads of ammo. For decades the match accuracy and range considerations were used to create combat rifles, but experience in the world wars yielded the realization that intermediate and later SCHV cartridge and light rifles were much more effective. In terms of cover penetration you'd think the M14 would have blown the AK47 out of the water, but the inverse was true in Vietnam.
I also noticed that the australians in vietnam gave signalers and point men m16s but kept l1a1s for the rest of the squad and they still did pretty well. Seeing as i seem to be taking this off topic ill do like dad said and listen and learn something.
Deleted member 1487
I'm not saying it can't be made to work, after all the Portugeuse used the AR-10 and many others the FAL. There are tradeoffs of course in any weapon system, it's just the that the military decided that the benefits of the SCHV concept were greater than any other option until recently (the US army is going to adopt a 6.8mm system based on new technologies that they are I guess close to bringing to fruition)
The Australians, and New Zealanders replaced their Sterling SMGs with M16's in Vietnam because the Americans didn't have 9mm in their supply system*. So most of the people who got M16s would have normally got a SMG not an L4A1. Since the Australian, and New Zealand Governments were paying for everything they got off the Americans (unlike some other countries) replacing L4A1s with M16s was not going to happen on cost grounds alone.
*This applies to the Infantry Battalions, the New Zealand Artillery Battery kept their Sterlings presumably due to their much lower ammo usage, and I am unsure about other Australian units apart from both the Australian, and New Zealand SAS who used silenced Sterlings.
The problem with the SLR is that its a heavy bastard, and so is the vietnam era patrol radio. The signals troops had an inherently heavier load than the average crunchie, issuing an M16 instead of the heavier 7.62 weapon is going to lighten their load. Every little bit counts, because you're not just carrying the radio, you're carrying a couple of spare lead acid batteries, and they weren't your standard commercial cells, they were big heavy awkward bastards about roughly the size of an SLR magazine.
I thought that the M16 replaced the F1 SMG as it was over 4KGs loaded and therefore not much lighter than an SLR?
Deleted member 1487
It looks like a pretty awkward weapon to use too:
https://armourersbench.com/2018/01/27/f1-submachine-gun/
It looks like a pretty awkward weapon to use too:
https://armourersbench.com/2018/01/27/f1-submachine-gun/
As SMGs go it was very good and reliable from what I understand
It was to the Owens SMG what the Sterling SMG was to the STEN - although many Australian WW2 veterans didn't think it was as good as the Owens but from an armorer's POV the F1 was better its parts built to a better standard and interchangeable unlike the Owens which had to be hand finished and were not - also like the Sterling the F1 was staggeringly easy to field strip and clean - the Owens not so much.
But at the end of the day it is a heavy SMG firing a hot 9mm PARA and a lighter M16 is always going to be better than any SMG and firing a better bullet
It did serve into the 90s but then so did the M3A1
Never really paid attention to what the official policy was, but we had F1's, SLR's and M16's in the armoury and trained on all three weapons.