WI: 7.62x51mm never becomes NATO standard

the cost of converting the m 1919 mg's in is going to be as great as procuring a new blank sheet design, and that's money ordinance is not going to pay for a minimal increase in effectiveness, coming at the possible* cost of a higher chamber pressure, redesign of the belts themselves, new tracer, ap, incendiary rounds, new tooling for the bore ,rifling, and chamber**
many of these costs where admittedly applied to the rifles, but that was offset by the advantages of switching over to semi-auto, and the fact that many in ordnance were convinced that a 30.06 semi-auto would be impractical at the time**

i'm going to ask if Hatcher's data that you're using is for the original pedersen round or the later t2 round, which increased the rim to .473 and straightened out case taper

*apparently the difference in British and us testing means that a straight comparison is misleading,
**proving that ordinance was willing to ignore a number of earlier designs
 
the cost of converting the m 1919 mg's in is going to be as great as procuring a new blank sheet design, and that's money ordinance is not going to pay for a minimal increase in effectiveness, coming at the possible* cost of a higher chamber pressure, redesign of the belts themselves, new tracer, ap, incendiary rounds, new tooling for the bore ,rifling, and chamber**

I've not come across any documentation that the .276 was ever considered for use in MGs, just rifles
 
Sorry, but I only had access to semi-automatic FG42-1 replica. The muzzle brake helps reduce recoil, the the secret is in the way to receiver recoils into the butt stock. It only travels an inch or two, but halves recoil compared with an FN FAL.
I am fascinated by that rare rifle!
When the zombie apocalypse arrives, I want to arm myself with a .308”/7.62 NATO FG42-2 replica made by Smith Machine Group in Texas. Oh! .... and crate or three of ammo.
 

Deleted member 1487

the cost of converting the m 1919 mg's in is going to be as great as procuring a new blank sheet design, and that's money ordinance is not going to pay for a minimal increase in effectiveness, coming at the possible* cost of a higher chamber pressure, redesign of the belts themselves, new tracer, ap, incendiary rounds, new tooling for the bore ,rifling, and chamber**
many of these costs where admittedly applied to the rifles, but that was offset by the advantages of switching over to semi-auto, and the fact that many in ordnance were convinced that a 30.06 semi-auto would be impractical at the time**

i'm going to ask if Hatcher's data that you're using is for the original pedersen round or the later t2 round, which increased the rim to .473 and straightened out case taper

*apparently the difference in British and us testing means that a straight comparison is misleading,
**proving that ordinance was willing to ignore a number of earlier designs
The M1919s are going to more likely than not stay in .30-06, while the BARs and Garands would be in .276 Pedersen. Post-war the .276 MMG designs would come fresh; given the success adapting the BAR into all sorts of designs and calibers, once they had it working with the .276 BAR they could without much trouble design a heavier duty belt fed version as a MMG (IOTL the FN MAG was basically turned into an MMG from the BAR design, just beefed up to handle the heavier duty work and given the MG42 belt feed mechanism).

Hatcher's Notebook mentions it was fired from the Pedersen rifle rather than the Garand; the Pedersen rifle was knocked out of competition earlier on in the process, so I'm going to guess the T2 came about for the Garand caliber decision, as your link notes it was only for the Garand version that the round was altered.
 

Deleted member 1487

Sorry, but I only had access to semi-automatic FG42-1 replica. The muzzle brake helps reduce recoil, the the secret is in the way to receiver recoils into the butt stock. It only travels an inch or two, but halves recoil compared with an FN FAL.
I am fascinated by that rare rifle!
When the zombie apocalypse arrives, I want to arm myself with a .308”/7.62 NATO FG42-2 replica made by Smith Machine Group in Texas. Oh! .... and crate or three of ammo.
5.56 ammo is lighter and more plentiful, plus you need headshots on the zombies, which is probably easier with the light round. But to each their own
 

Deleted member 1487

But I don't see a US FG-42 preventing the M16 necessarily, but if it gets light enough it is possible that we could see a version of it adapted to the 5.56 round.
I can't believe I forgot:
http://www.forgottenweapons.com/rifles/trw-low-maintenance-rifle/
As everyone is aware, the M16 suffered from maintenance and reliability problems early in its deployment to Vietnam. While working to resolve these issues, the US government wanted to find a replacement weapon that would be more suitable to guerrilla type use to supply to insurgent forces. A contract for to this end was awarded to the TRW corporation in 1971, and the result was the TRW Low Maintenance Rifle. The rifle is operated by a long-stroke gas piston, a system know for reliability (the piston and gas tube are on the right side of the weapon). The bolt uses a roller locking system similar to the German MG42, with the rollers located on the top and bottom of the bolt so as to not interfere with the magazine feeding in from the left. Roller locking systems like this are well suited to cheap and easy production, with reduced machining and heat treating requirements. The rifle does use the standard M16 magazine and M193 5.56mm cartridge.
TRW-LMR_zpsorrqenzv.png

lmrphoto5a.jpg
 
5.56 ammo is lighter and more plentiful, plus you need headshots on the zombies, which is probably easier with the light round. But to each their own
Yes and zombies are obviously not covered under The Hague conventions or the Geneva conventions so you don’t have to use FMJ on them ie use ‘softer rounds’ that are more likely to tumble, mushroom and fragment rather than pass right through. Very important to appreciate that in the event of a Zombie Apoc.
 

Deleted member 1487

Yes and zombies are obviously not covered under The Hague conventions or the Geneva conventions so you don’t have to use FMJ on them ie use ‘softer rounds’ that are more likely to tumble, mushroom and fragment rather than pass right through. Very important to appreciate that in the event of a Zombie Apoc.
There wasn't a nazi zombie apocalypse provision in the Geneva Convention?
 
I don't think the Italians had any to spare before they dropped out of the war; they got caught trying to caliber convert right before the war and then had to switch back to 6.5. The thing is that the Germans overran a bunch of nations that used 6.5mm rounds, so it shouldn't have been that hard to adopt one of them for the FG42, but I guess the Luftwaffe was highly concerned about ammo compatibility for their paratroopers, so didn't want a different caliber or even specially modified 7.92mm cartridge potentially disrupting resupply.

...

Germand didn't overran a bunch of nations that used 6.5mm.
As for the availability of Italian 6.5mm - FG 42 was a limited issue weapon, it is not like they attampted to replace guns of the Heer with it. Meaning it would not require three or five new factories to keep them supplied with new ammo type. Thus IMO the FG 42 in Italian ammo woud've been a good proposal, bringing about an automatic rifle that can fire controlably and not requiring a really new ammo type.

...

But I don't see the FG-42 preventing the M16 necessarily, but if it gets light enough it is possible that we could see a version of it adapted to the 5.56 round. Or even better IMHO a 6mm variant like the 6x45mm SAW

FG-42 with non-full-power ammo will probably not prevent the M16, rather than preventing the 7.62 NATO taking hold as it did historically, ditto with 5.56 and M-16.
 

Deleted member 1487

Germand didn't overran a bunch of nations that used 6.5mm.
Greece, Norway, the Netherlands. Later Italy.

As for the availability of Italian 6.5mm - FG 42 was a limited issue weapon, it is not like they attampted to replace guns of the Heer with it. Meaning it would not require three or five new factories to keep them supplied with new ammo type. Thus IMO the FG 42 in Italian ammo woud've been a good proposal, bringing about an automatic rifle that can fire controlably and not requiring a really new ammo type.
Sure, the issue I think they were more concerned about was dropping the right ammo to the right units, as the FG42 would not be issued to every man and the majority would still used the MG34/42 or K98k. So having two different ammo types like that could be problematic in a paradrop situation. Same with supply/resupply when operating with army units.

The issue with the Italian caliber was getting the Italians to give them any, as they had issues with supply themselves. Especially as the Italian 6.5mm was not the same was all other 6.5mm calibers, it was slightly bigger and standard 6.5mm ammo wouldn't work with Italian gun barrels or vice versa.

The better bet is to probably use something like a modernized 6.5mm Mannlicher-Schönauer round with a spitzer bullet if you're going down that path.
Greece used that caliber in 1941 and I'm sure left over machinery for it existed in Germany or Austria.

FG-42 with non-full-power ammo will probably not prevent the M16, rather than preventing the 7.62 NATO taking hold as it did historically, ditto with 5.56 and M-16.
Perhaps. Assuming the Germans used a 6.5mm round I wonder if the US would also use that caliber for an Americanized version of the rifle. In that case maintaining the .30-06 cartridge and adopting the 7.92 bullet for it (8mm-06) would be great for long range sniper rounds and MMG/HMGs that need longer range performance and special loadings (tracer/explosive/AP rounds), especially as they'd have a lot of 7.92 bullets to harvest, plus ability to confiscate and use all the barrel machinery the Germans had, while maintaining existing production of the casing in the US or adapting exist .30-06 stocks.
Alternatively I suppose the US could adopt a .30 version of the FG-42 by rebarrelling it and even using M2 ball rounds on top of German 7.92 cases of which there would be huge stockpiles (over 10 billion 7.92 rounds were made during WW2).

If the US decided to make them in time for Korea it would have been a superb replacement for the M1 Rifle, M1 Carbine, any SMG with a front line unit, and BAR.
 
Sure, the issue I think they were more concerned about was dropping the right ammo to the right units, as the FG42 would not be issued to every man and the majority would still used the MG34/42 or K98k. So having two different ammo types like that could be problematic in a paradrop situation. Same with supply/resupply when operating with army units.

The issue with the Italian caliber was getting the Italians to give them any, as they had issues with supply themselves. Especially as the Italian 6.5mm was not the same was all other 6.5mm calibers, it was slightly bigger and standard 6.5mm ammo wouldn't work with Italian gun barrels or vice versa.

The better bet is to probably use something like a modernized 6.5mm Mannlicher-Schönauer round with a spitzer bullet if you're going down that path.
Greece used that caliber in 1941 and I'm sure left over machinery for it existed in Germany or Austria.

Hopefully the logisticans of Luftwaffe have more between the ears than their boss, so they will allocate apropriate ammo the the units.
The Italians will happilly trade 6.5 ammo for, I don't know, another batch of DB 601 engines, MG 151/20s, or indeed whole Bf-109s or/and Ju-87s, plus they are already trying to switch to the full-power ammo.
But I agree that 6.5mm M-S cartridge would've been a good starting point, too.

Perhaps. Assuming the Germans used a 6.5mm round I wonder if the US would also use that caliber for an Americanized version of the rifle. In that case maintaining the .30-06 cartridge and adopting the 7.92 bullet for it (8mm-06) would be great for long range sniper rounds and MMG/HMGs that need longer range performance and special loadings (tracer/explosive/AP rounds), especially as they'd have a lot of 7.92 bullets to harvest, plus ability to confiscate and use all the barrel machinery the Germans had, while maintaining existing production of the casing in the US or adapting exist .30-06 stocks.
Alternatively I suppose the US could adopt a .30 version of the FG-42 by rebarrelling it and even using M2 ball rounds on top of German 7.92 cases of which there would be huge stockpiles (over 10 billion 7.92 rounds were made during WW2).

If the US decided to make them in time for Korea it would have been a superb replacement for the M1 Rifle, M1 Carbine, any SMG with a front line unit, and BAR.

I'd hope that UK and/or USA would've copied the whole thing - both FG 42 and the ammo. Removes the need to develop the whole new .270 and .280 ammo for the British, so the introduction is as smooth as possible, and hopefully before the war ends. So the tooling and stockpiles are around when US (Army) is pushing for introduction of the 7.62 NATO.
 

Deleted member 1487

Hopefully the logisticans of Luftwaffe have more between the ears than their boss, so they will allocate apropriate ammo the the units.
The Italians will happilly trade 6.5 ammo for, I don't know, another batch of DB 601 engines, MG 151/20s, or indeed whole Bf-109s or/and Ju-87s, plus they are already trying to switch to the full-power ammo.
But I agree that 6.5mm M-S cartridge would've been a good starting point, too.
As the WW2 airborne operations of all powers demonstrated no plan survives contact with the enemy and there are endless things that could go wrong. It helps to minimize how many things can go wrong if possible.
The Italians were in a tough spot; they tried to switch their infantry rifles over to a 7.35mm bullet in their existing 6.5mm case and then had to switch back to 6.5mm due to the war coming and production not being ramped up. They were stuck with their 6.5mm round and needed all they could make given their huge losses on all fronts. Maybe they could trade, maybe not.
For the Germans they were probably better off minimizing whatever they were asking of the Italians materially, especially given the amount of captured equipment they had already from across Europe.


I'd hope that UK and/or USA would've copied the whole thing - both FG 42 and the ammo. Removes the need to develop the whole new .270 and .280 ammo for the British, so the introduction is as smooth as possible, and hopefully before the war ends. So the tooling and stockpiles are around when US (Army) is pushing for introduction of the 7.62 NATO.
It would be unlikely for a variety of reasons, but we can theorize. Still though the US/NATO push for ball powder instead of flake or tube powder and non-corrosive primers will probably mean a redesign of whatever round for a NATO infantry cartridge. Though FN did look at a 6.5mm cartridge based on the 7.62 NATO case:
http://municion.org/6_5x55Krag/6_5x51Xpl.htm

Edit:
Depending on how powerful the above cartridge would have been, it could have been a candidate for an 'optimum' general purpose cartridge
http://quarryhs.co.uk/TNG.pdf
 
Last edited by a moderator:
As the WW2 airborne operations of all powers demonstrated no plan survives contact with the enemy and there are endless things that could go wrong. It helps to minimize how many things can go wrong if possible.
The Italians were in a tough spot; they tried to switch their infantry rifles over to a 7.35mm bullet in their existing 6.5mm case and then had to switch back to 6.5mm due to the war coming and production not being ramped up. They were stuck with their 6.5mm round and needed all they could make given their huge losses on all fronts. Maybe they could trade, maybe not.
For the Germans they were probably better off minimizing whatever they were asking of the Italians materially, especially given the amount of captured equipment they had already from across Europe.

If Italians are not to be relied on, apart from several thousand rounds they might ship for testing, Germans are more than capable to make a production line for 6.5mm themselves. Use of captured wepons was liability as much it was a blessing.
As for the logistics of airborne operation - supplying two types of guns' ammo was nothing new for Germans historically. Americans were shipping three types.


It would be unlikely for a variety of reasons, but we can theorize.

Wow.

Still though the US/NATO push for ball powder instead of flake or tube powder and non-corrosive primers will probably mean a redesign of whatever round for a NATO infantry cartridge. Though FN did look at a 6.5mm cartridge based on the 7.62 NATO case:
http://municion.org/6_5x55Krag/6_5x51Xpl.htm

Edit:
Depending on how powerful the above cartridge would have been, it could have been a candidate for an 'optimum' general purpose cartridge
http://quarryhs.co.uk/TNG.pdf

It would've been a major boon for the countries adopting it, from monetary standpoint, as well as from military standpoint.
 

Deleted member 1487

If Italians are not to be relied on, apart from several thousand rounds they might ship for testing, Germans are more than capable to make a production line for 6.5mm themselves. Use of captured wepons was liability as much it was a blessing.
Well the Germans did use a ton of captured equipment IOTL and produced new ammo for it. The issue isn't so much the problem of making 6.5mm ammo (I'm sure they probably had a fair bit of civilian production ammo/production equipment lying around as it was) but the expense of scaling it to military levels, especially if the existing equipment wasn't enough for demand. IOTL they had significant issues producing enough 7.92 Kurz ammo and that was already just using existing 7.92 production equipment.

As for the logistics of airborne operation - supplying two types of guns' ammo was nothing new for Germans historically. Americans were shipping three types.
As I said before, the history of all nation's airborne operations in WW2 is filled with all sorts of cockups. For example the logistics of the airborne part of Market Garden.

Pardon?

It would've been a major boon for the countries adopting it, from monetary standpoint, as well as from military standpoint.
In terms of expense stand point they already had huge stockpiles of WW2 stuff that would be far less expensive to use for a while, which they did IOTL.
 
Well the Germans did use a ton of captured equipment IOTL and produced new ammo for it. The issue isn't so much the problem of making 6.5mm ammo (I'm sure they probably had a fair bit of civilian production ammo/production equipment lying around as it was) but the expense of scaling it to military levels, especially if the existing equipment wasn't enough for demand. IOTL they had significant issues producing enough 7.92 Kurz ammo and that was already just using existing 7.92 production equipment.

7.92mm Kurz was about year later (= harder for Germany to manufacture it as Allies tightened their grip), and the guns that were to use it were slated to be used on much wider scale than what it was true for the FG 42.

As I said before, the history of all nation's airborne operations in WW2 is filled with all sorts of cockups. For example the logistics of the airborne part of Market Garden.

Logistic could've been much better, still will not cure the faults in planing that doomed the operation.


We are discussing a alternative scenario. My claim that 6.5mm FG 42 would've be been a good idea, and copied in other countries, is at least equally valuable as yours that it would not.

In terms of expense stand point they already had huge stockpiles of WW2 stuff that would be far less expensive to use for a while, which they did IOTL.

UK, USA and SU/Warsaw pact were adopting new cartridge type(s) both during and imediately post ww2 anyway.
 

Deleted member 1487

We are discussing a alternative scenario. My claim that 6.5mm FG 42 would've be been a good idea, and copied in other countries, is at least equally valuable as yours that it would not.
From the technical side I think you're absolutely right and proposed pretty much that idea earlier in the thread. Though if we're going down that route a 6mm very long round pushed pretty fast was the ideal route to go. Plus looking into the history of the developments they had going for the G43, a short stroke gas piston, rolled locked (not roller delayed blowback) version like the TRW Low Maintenance Rifle I posted earlier would have been much lighter and frankly utterly amazing rifle.

UK, USA and SU/Warsaw pact were adopting new cartridge type(s) both during and imediately post ww2 anyway.
Yes, but the US really took their time and didn't adopt the 7.62 NATO until 1954; the civilian version came out 2 years before the military decided to adopt it.
 
Yes, but the US really took their time and didn't adopt the 7.62 NATO until 1954; the civilian version came out 2 years before the military decided to adopt it.

Its parent case, the 300 Savage, debuted in 1920 for their Model 99 lever action to get as close as possible to 30-06 power, 2600fps with 150 gr. while staying with a 48mm case length
 
Top