WI: 7.62x51mm never becomes NATO standard

Perhaps propellants weren't up to modern standards in the 1950s?
]

Powders from the pistol H110/W296, and rifle IMR 4198 and 4227 are popular now for reloading that were also around back then, popular then for reloading the 30 Carbine
 

Deleted member 1487

Powders from the pistol H110/W296, and rifle IMR 4198 and 4227 are popular now for reloading that were also around back then, popular then for reloading the 30 Carbine
So what if any modern powders are out there that have been developed post-1950s and what are their benefits?
 
So what if any modern powders are out there that have been developed post-1950s and what are their benefits?

There are a lot of new powders out there, typically cleaner and cooler burning for the same pressure, with more consistency in burning. Some are more energy dense to do the same pressure with fewer powder grains.

There are other powders that have less flash and smoke, but otherwise not all that different than the surplus WWII powders that became, and stayed popular for 70 years now.
 

Deleted member 1487

There are a lot of new powders out there, typically cleaner and cooler burning for the same pressure, with more consistency in burning. Some are more energy dense to do the same pressure with fewer powder grains.

There are other powders that have less flash and smoke, but otherwise not all that different than the surplus WWII powders that became, and stayed popular for 70 years now.
So why have the .300 blackout use WW2 powders?
 
Is that true though? – the US army at the platoon level had in 1945 - .45 for Pistol and SMG, .30 Carbine and .30 cal for the M1 Garand

In addition it might also have had .30 cal in belt if MMGs had been pushed down to Platoon

So 3 possibly effectively 4 calibres (if we are treating belted ammo seperately) that have to be supplied – being replaced with 2 - lets say .270 Enfield for the Rifles and LMG/SAW in stripper clips and then a .30 cal MMG round for the MMGs (and sniper rifles but probably out of scope much below Battalion level) as well as pistol ammo which will be minute relative to the rest of the stores

For the British it is slightly less at Platoon Generally 9mm or .45 for SMG (possibly both), maybe some .455 for revolvers and .303 for LMGs MMG and rifles but more at Division + as you have to include 7.92 mauser for the BESA on British AFVs, .30 cal and .50 cal for US vehicles - not to mention other ammo types from 2" Mortar to 25 pounder

So the logistics burden has hardly been impacted and we already have at least 3 different weapon types in a given platoon not including side arms.

So for the USA you are replacing the SMG, Carbine and Rifle with a single weapon - surely thats an improvement?

And if a heavier calibre bullet is used for the LMG/MMG and Belts are used then thats not going to be an increase and if anythign a decrease in the ammo logistical burden. No?

The US used cloth belts so it was relatively easy to either strip rounds from preloaded belts for infantry weapons or add individual rounds into belts if needed. The Brits also issued some Browning pistols to officers.
 
So why have the .300 blackout use WW2 powders?

people are used to them, readily available, and the newer powders just don't have that great of an advantage over the old powders.

That said, the powder companies have improved some of the old powders, like Unique, that DuPont made before WWI.

Old, it's still with us, but cleaner burning, so less grey soot over everything after firing, but very close in burn rate and pressure curve characteristics.

It's one of the oldest continuously made smokeless powders, along with Bullseye, made just after the Spanish-American war.

Sometimes they guessed right back then, in getting a chemical mix that was stable in storage, didn't burn too hot, or have weird pressure spikes depending on the ambient temperature
 
@wiking I just discovered while looking back over my ATL materials that I had selected 8mm-06 (a .30-06 cartridge necked up for a .324" bullet) and not .338-06 as the standard infantry cartridge sometime around 1915. (After some research, I did conclude that .338-06's proper role is in 300 yard big game hunting.) That decision was inspired primarily by the fact that the .30-06 cartridge in the 1906 timeframe was used with 150 grain bullets while the German sS Patrone cartridge of 1914 used a 197 grain boattail bullet; the M1 Ball was a post-WWI development with a 175 grain boattail while the M2 Ball was a reversion back to the M1906 loading. Increasing the weight of the bullet would give you better ballistic performance (at the same diameter) while the increased bore would increase the volume of the barrel, the expansion ratio of the system, and the thermodynamic work done by the expanding gases and result in more energy.

I don't know about the viability of a 200 grain .308" bullet in 1910-1920, but they certainly do exist now. I looked at a selection of Nosler AccuBond bullets (all boattails) to get a sense of what's available.
Diameter Weight SD BC OAL
.308" 150 gr 0.226 0.435 1.230"
.284" (7mm) 160 gr 0.283 0.531 1.410"
.308" 180 gr 0.271 0.507 1.380"
.308" 200 gr 0.301 0.588 1.490"
.324" (8mm) 200 gr 0.274 0.450 1.390"

It's pretty clear that any advantage 8mm-06 has over a .30 or smaller bullet is gone after full-size rifle cartridges disappear from infantry rifles after WWII, as the focus moves from 300-600 yard ballistics in infantry rifles to 800+ yard ballistics in machine guns and marksman rifles. Although a heavy .284" bullet of ~175 grains or a .308" bullet of ~190 grains could have a BC greater than 0.6 (or even 0.65) depending on design, superior to the BC of 0.54 that Crist specified for 6mm Optimum, these types of range-oriented full-size rifle cartridges would be overkill if we are looking for something to replace the 7.62 x 51mm NATO, which is pretty floaty at extreme ranges. A large cartridge would have certain advantages in terms of payload (for possible AP or incendiary components) and energy, and therefore things like barrier penetration, at extreme range compared to a smaller, high-BC cartridge (even 7.62 NATO would retain more energy at 1200 meters than 6mm Optimum), but we still have to ask if that is worth the extra size, weight, and recoil.
 

Deleted member 1487

If we really wanted to get nuts with caliber what ifs...we could get into an adapted Tround...
http://guns.wikia.com/wiki/5.6×57mm_Triple-Bore_Tround
Instead of just being used for the SPIW flechette round perhaps the it is adapted to a different caliber (IOTL it was later tested successfully with a .50 caliber MG at 2000rpm, the testing video is on youtube) and used as the basis for a 6.5-7mm round in the 1950s. The flechette tround was made in 1951, so if someone is willing to get experimental they could have a pretty interesting infantry rifle with exceptionally cheap and light ammo.
 

Deleted member 1487

A large cartridge would have certain advantages in terms of payload (for possible AP or incendiary components) and energy, and therefore things like barrier penetration, at extreme range compared to a smaller, high-BC cartridge (even 7.62 NATO would retain more energy at 1200 meters than 6mm Optimum), but we still have to ask if that is worth the extra size, weight, and recoil.
Sure, which would be the point of something like a Swedish 8x63mm or 9x66mm round which saves from having to use a 12.7mm (.50 caliber) round.
Or just use the 7.92x57mm modernized with ball powder and a heavier, longer bullet; post-WW2 they had all the captured German machine tools to use, plus tons of experiments the Germans did themselves on that caliber to exploit it to the fullest. It was already about the same size as the Swedish 8mm bullet.
Actually now that I look at the wikipedia article on the Swedish 8mm I noticed this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8×63mm_patron_m/32
The patron m/32 round had the same overall length as the .30-06 Springfield cartridge, which allowed it to fit in the standard Browning receiver, but used a larger diameter case and like the 6.5×55 mm had an uncommon 12.2 mm (0.48 in) diameter bolt face. Compared to the 1928 pattern .30-06 Springfield M1 Ball the 8×63mm patron m/32 was loaded with 8 mm S bore 14.2 g (219 gr) bullets and had more muzzle energy.[2]
Basically it was a US .30-06 case with a 7.92mm bullet and combining the Mauser bullet in a necked up .30-06 case with perhaps a modernized powder and you'd have exactly the performance of the Swedish 8mm round.

As a replacement for the .50 cal in ground role for long range direct or indirect fire and even anti-material work with a tungsten core in a lighter package while potentially being able to make use of the leftover .30-06 cases from WW2, it might be viable for a 'light' HMG for vehicles and for battalion MG companies. That and long range sniping weapons. I suppose if they went that route then they might have been more open to a smaller caliber for 1000m work.

Edit:
I just discovered while looking back over my ATL materials that I had selected 8mm-06 (a .30-06 cartridge necked up for a .324" bullet) and not .338-06 as the standard infantry cartridge sometime around 1915. (After some research, I did conclude that .338-06's proper role is in 300 yard big game hunting.) That decision was inspired primarily by the fact that the .30-06 cartridge in the 1906 timeframe was used with 150 grain bullets while the German sS Patrone cartridge of 1914 used a 197 grain boattail bullet; the M1 Ball was a post-WWI development with a 175 grain boattail while the M2 Ball was a reversion back to the M1906 loading. Increasing the weight of the bullet would give you better ballistic performance (at the same diameter) while the increased bore would increase the volume of the barrel, the expansion ratio of the system, and the thermodynamic work done by the expanding gases and result in more energy.
Well I apparently totally glossed over this with my post above. The sS Patrone was also invented during WW1 and wasn't available in 1914 and made standard in the 1930s, so wasn't around when the 8mm-06 was first development. Also pre-WW2 it seems that the 8mm-06 was mostly used by Germans and it was only after WW2 that it got much interest in the US due to the glut of 7.92 weapons being brought back.
But yes it does seem that the 8mm-06 had better potential to exploit that caliber of bullet than the Mauser 57mm case. The longer German bullets developed during WW2 would have been interesting in an 8mm-06 case, ones like the SmE Lang, but an all lead core rather than steel. At 5 caliber lengths it would have been around 220 grains and more aerodynamic than even the 198 grain bullet. Not really useful for a rifle due to the likely very heavy recoil unless it is a long range sniper weapon with some sort of compensating equipment, but it would be pretty effective as a long range machine gun bullet
 
Last edited by a moderator:
but there was a LOT of WW2 stuff left over that could be harvested still by maintaining the 7.62 caliber standard; they were able to continue using WW2 stuff even into Vietnam after all.
But all of that WW2 .30-06 stock was as un-usable for the 7.62x51mm NATO as it would be for any proposed replacement. The only commonality the 7.62 NATO and .30-06 really shared was the diameter of the bullet. Most of the WW2 stock would be M2 ball (152gr) while the early adoption of the .308 used the M59 (150.2gr) so even the bullets themselves were different and wouldn't be re-used. ITTL it would play out as IOTL with the US Military just burning through the stock during the 50's as they transition to the new weapon systems, eventually passing whatever remained down to National Guard and Reserve units before selling excess on the Civilian market as Military surplus.

30-40 Krag
I love the Krag. My Krag is the smoothest bolt I have ever used and I love it to death for sporting use. It's only weakness is the single lug design which prevents high-pressure cartridges and can make the action a little dirt and moisture sensitive. It failed as a military rifle primarily because of the inability to easily load it from a stripper (although a kit was developed to allow this, it never really worked well). As a sporting rifle, I prefer the side-gate magazine to the internal vertical stack of the Mauser (and clones) as it allows me to top off or empty the magazine from a closed bolt (yes, many Mauser clones have a lower gate to empty the mag from the bottom but it does not allow topping off). I also really like the (not unique but hard to find) feed block which allows me to unload the round in the chamber without then cycling a fresh found in--a great safety feature when hunting for crossing fences, climbing stands, etc. without a live round chambered. You can still do this with a Mauser, but it normally involves holding the next round down with your thumb as you start to close the bolt so it doesn't get picked up while with the Krag I just flip the switch and work the action like normal, worry free. My dream deer rifle would be a Krag-Jorgensen system modified with a two-locking lug Mauser style bolt in 6.5x55mm which I would hand load to different specs depending on my game (light and fast for varmint or antelope, medium 140gr for most deer, heavier for Elk and the like--I have my .45-70 for anything bigger).

Anyway, sorry to derail the discussion. Carry on.
 

Deleted member 1487

But all of that WW2 .30-06 stock was as un-usable for the 7.62x51mm NATO as it would be for any proposed replacement. The only commonality the 7.62 NATO and .30-06 really shared was the diameter of the bullet. Most of the WW2 stock would be M2 ball (152gr) while the early adoption of the .308 used the M59 (150.2gr) so even the bullets themselves were different and wouldn't be re-used. ITTL it would play out as IOTL with the US Military just burning through the stock during the 50's as they transition to the new weapon systems, eventually passing whatever remained down to National Guard and Reserve units before selling excess on the Civilian market as Military surplus.
With a rechambering of weapons the older weapons could fire a 7.62 NATO round, while as you say they'd burn through stocks in whatever way possible and sell off the rest.
 
I don't know about the viability of a 200 grain .308" bullet in 1910-1920, but they certainly do exist now.
as @marathag mentioned the krag was loaded with a 220 gr round nose bullet, and when the us switched to the new .30-03 round they retained it, and it was not the best round for the caliber,
it had issues with long range performance, including a trajectory that was nearly identical to the .30-40, and poor terminal effect
the issues with the 220 gr round nose was one of the reason why the us reconfigured the .30-03 into the .30-06, by shaving down the neck so that it would work better with the 150gr spitzer bullet they selected to replace the old one
 
Were there spitzer bullets that heavy in that caliber at the time?
there was the german 8mm Mauser s.S. Patrone with a 197.5 gr round introduced in 1933, the us.30 cal Ball, M1 173 gr introduced in 1925, and the swiss 7.5 GP 11 174 gr introduced in 1911
edit:
and then the Swedish 8×63mm patron m/32 with a 219 gr round in 1932
 
Last edited:
@marathag @stephen the barbarian Were there spitzer bullets that heavy in that caliber at the time?

the Ideal Company(later Lyman) in 1929 list cast spitzers of 185 and 194 grains with gas checks, noting they were very good at long range shooting, that the round nose entries did not have.

It seems that mold was designed long before 1929, earliest I seen notice of it was 1915, it may have been made before that. Now jacketed? I'm not sure when, but typically if Ideal had a successful design, a jacketed version was often made
 

Ramontxo

Donor
Sorry but I haven't been able to find in the Internet the weight of a 100 metallic belt of the Swedish 8*63 Bofors round. Would it be notoriously supperio to the German 7'92 Mauser in anti-aircraft use? (Not really approaching 12'5 performance I suppose). Thanks a lot in advance
 
Sorry but I haven't been able to find in the Internet the weight of a 100 metallic belt of the Swedish 8*63 Bofors round. Would it be notoriously supperio to the German 7'92 Mauser in anti-aircraft use? (Not really approaching 12'5 performance I suppose). Thanks a lot in advance
You can download the manual for the MG here:

https://www.forgottenweapons.com/medium-machine-guns/swedish-kulspruta-m36/

Haven't read it, but if it's not there, I dont know were else you will find it...
 
Top