Perhaps propellants weren't up to modern standards in the 1950s?
]
So what if any modern powders are out there that have been developed post-1950s and what are their benefits?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 why have the .300 blackout use WW2 powders?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.
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?
So why have the .300 blackout use WW2 powders?
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.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.
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.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]
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.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 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.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.
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).30-40 Krag
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.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.
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,I don't know about the viability of a 200 grain .308" bullet in 1910-1920, but they certainly do exist now.
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 1911Were there spitzer bullets that heavy in that caliber at the time?
https://forum.cartridgecollectors.org/t/u-s-national-match-bullets/12901@marathag @stephen the barbarian Were there spitzer bullets that heavy in that caliber at the time?
@marathag @stephen the barbarian Were there spitzer bullets that heavy in that caliber at the time?
You can download the manual for the MG here: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