Gewehr 33/40, 98/40 & Gew 43
This design was already in production in Czechoslovakia at the Ceskoslovenska Zbrojovka Akciova Spolecnost works when war broke out and after the German invasion, this factory was renamed Waffenfabrik Brunn. One of the rifle designs that was produced there was redesignated in 1940 as the Gewehr 33/40 and produced for the German Army in this factory.
This weapon had a short barrel of only 490mm making it an unpleasant weapon to fire. The short barrel ensured that the propellant did not burn out properly in the barrel, resulting in a large muzzle blast and flame omitting from the gun. It was mainly issued to Gebirgsjäger troops who sometimes used it as an aid for climbing in rocky terrain and a metal plate was fitted to the stock to protect it from rocks etc.
Another order for a rifle design was placed as a commercial arrangement with the Hungarian government with supervision for the production provided by the Germans. The factory for production (which was renamed by the Germans) for this weapon was known as Metallwaren Waffen und Maschinenfabrik. Basically a Hungarian design, the Germans made some changes to the specification. The most significant changes were replacement of the Mannlicher type 35mm clip loading to house the Mauser type and the changing of the calibre from 8mm x 56, to 7.92mm.
The Gewehr Gew. 41 made by Walther differed from other models with its muzzle type-gas trap system with an annular piston, with the piston rod being on top of the barrel. The locking system used hinged flaps that locked into the sides of the main body. The magazine was fixed and loaded by clips from the top and this was just one of the disadvantages of the weapon with the other being the muzzle cap gas system which was eventually replaced by a different system, as well as a the adoption of a removable magazine. This new weapon was designated the Gewehr 43 (G43) and was often fitted with a sniper scope.
Production began in 1943 but on the whole did not really prove itself in battlefield conditions. Mauser also produced a model of this weapon known as the Kar. 43 which also featured a muzzle trap gas system with an annular piston but with the piston rod below the barrel. The bolt had a two-lug rotating head that locked into the barrel extension. The weapon was striker fired and had a bolt action type cocking handle. The magazine was fixed and was clip loaded by standard Mauser clips.
Originally posted by SunTracker
These are the WW2 battle rifles of the U.S., England, and Germany, respectively.
I see the Garand clearly as being superior. 8 round clip, semi-automatic, quick reloading. It had some minor faults, but nothing serious.
So why did England and Germany stay with antiquated designs?
Guns
The was that the battle where the French had pulled back and told the Marines to pull back as well and they refused, and then the germans started coming and the Marines started shooting at 700 and 800 yards and the french told them "you can not hit at those ranges"
The Marines broke the attack before 500 yards?
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Yeah, the germans made the G43. But it was one of the worst excuses for a rifle ever. It's predecessory, the G41 would often break from the force of the bullets.
No contest, garand wins.
The french? I don't believe the french were ever in the pacific.
Originally posted by GtoRA2
Laser
You are wrong on both counts. I was asking gunslinger about the battle of below woods in WW1 though the engagement I am thinking of was right before that I think
The french where in french indochina durring WW2, the basicaly surrendered to the japanese. They where also know to turn in US and allies personal to the Japanese to help them. So they where there, but not really on our side... hehe
Kind like the Vichy french bastards in North Africa, who killed over 5000 US and British, when we invaded, but not a single german in the same time frame.
Originally posted by GtoRA2
I may be wrong on the French in the pacific straffo, I have not read much about it other then US service men who escaped from the Philipines were turned into the japanese by the french in french info china.
But I am not wrong about the Vichy in north africa, go look it up. I read a very interesting book on it not to long ago. It suprised me they fought as hard as they did in some of the places.
The United Kingdom viewed the Vichy government with suspicion after severing diplomatic relations. In the armistice terms with Germany, the Vichy regime had been allowed to keep control of the French Navy, the Marine Nationale and it was pledged that it would never fall into the hands of Germany. However, this was not enough for the Churchill government. French ships in British ports were seized by the Royal Navy. The French squadron at Alexandria under Admiral Godfroy was effectively interned after an agreement was reached with Admiral Cunningham, commander of the Mediterranean Fleet.
However, there were still French naval ships under French control. A large squadron was in port at Mers El Kébir harbour near Oran. Vice Admiral Sommerville with Force H under his command was instructed to deal with the situation in July 1940. Various terms were offered to the French squadron, but all were rejected. Consequently, Force H opened fire on the French ships. Over 1,000 French sailors died when an old French battleship blew up in the attack. The incident provoked a great deal of resentment and hatred within the Marine Nationale towards the UK. Further action was taken against French naval forces at Dakar in Senegal. These attacks were beaten off and the British forces had to retreat.
The next flashpoint between Britain and Vichy came in June 1941. A revolt in Iraq had just been put down by British forces. Luftwaffe aircraft intervened in the fighting in small numbers, and they staged through the French colony of Syria. That put Syria on the radar as a threat to British interests in the Middle East. Consequently the Australian Army and allied forces invaded Syria and Lebanon, capturing Damascus on June 17.
One other major operation against Vichy French territory took place using British forces. It was feared that Japanese forces might use Madagascar as a base, and thus cripple British trade and communications in the Indian Ocean. As a result, Madagascar was invaded by British forces in 1942. It fell relatively quickly, but the operation is often viewed as an unnecessary diversion of British naval resources away from more vital theatres of operation.
It just seemed odd that to me the french fought as hard as they did in some places, because we where working towards a goal they had as well....
Originally posted by Batz
Brit attacks on Vichy weren't to "free" them. Second maybe you should read the Armistice agreement made between Germany and Vichy.
They were free.
Originally posted by Dune
Couple of things:
The US's main rifle at the start of the war was the 1903A3 Springfield, a bolt-action rifle. Semi-auto's were new to the scene.
The UK couldn't afford to try and build a new rifle. They needed all the Lee's they could get.
The antiquated Lee was used by the British Army as a sniper weapon until the 80's.
The Mauser action is still state-of-the-art for bolt action weapons.
A fast rifleman with a Lee could shot almost as fast as a Garand.
I think, in all, compared to the Garand you dismiss the effectveness and quality of the Lee and Mauser without reason.
Originally posted by MJHerman
I don't know if a Lee could match the ROF of a Garand, but I do know that when the Germans first encountered the BEF in 1914 at Mons (I think), the British infantry were keeping up a sufficiently fast rate of fire from their Enfields that the Germans thought they were under machine gun fire.
Originally posted by Batz
[BBorroda from what I have read the SVT rifles weren't liked at all. I wasn't aware the Naval Infantry preferred it. Do you know if any Naval Infantry units were involved in liberating the Baltic Islands? If so could you list them? [/B]
Originally posted by Batz
So? All the British attacks Vichy did was kill good men (1000 killed on 1 ship).
Originally posted by cpxxx
I seem remember that the Lee we used was sighted out to 1400 yards. When I saw that a man was covered by the foresight at 300 yards. I wondered just how you could hit anyone 1400 yards out with ironsights.
Guns
The was that the battle where the French had pulled back and told the Marines to pull back as well and they refused, and then the germans started coming and the Marines started shooting at 700 and 800 yards and the french told them "you can not hit at those ranges"
The Marines broke the attack before 500 yards?
Originally posted by GScholz
Nevertheless this was the finest infantry weapon of WWII:
Originally posted by lazs2
the johnsons weren't liked because of the thin barrel that would actually bend fairly easily... It was a pretty decent rifle tho. I believe the marines used em and the bayonet mounting was kinda odd.
the .303 and the russian round were rimmed.. I have a perfect SMLE and nice naggant and neither are even close to the clean bore Garrand I have.. Garrands are very accurate and dependable and fire a full power load.
I have jammed a SMLE but the bolt is very fast but..
You can't beat the Garrand for comfort, accuracy and ruggedness... I believe also that we got very lucky on the design of this gun and it was a real marvel for the time.
Garrands still win matches... It was kind of a sad day at camp perry when marines started to notice that the Garrand was actually outsxhooting their beloved 1903.
Mostly tho... the Garrand is just plain fun to shoot. shooting the others from a bench with the stock steel butplates will give you a sore shoulder in not many rounds...
Shooting 15 rounds is not a "mad minute" with the Garrand... shooting accurate at twice that many is childs play with a little practice. As others have said here... we got lucky.
The M1 Carbine was a pretty lucky semi auto too... it was perhaps the first "assault" weapon even tho it was intended as a replacement for a pistol or an intermediate between pistol and Rifle.... It came in M2 version which was full auto capable with standard 15 round bottom fed magazine.
In my opinion... the firearms that the U.S. had in WWII that outclassed other weapons they oppossed were...
50 cal Browning
BAR
Garrand
M1 carbine
Thompson sub machine gun
Colt 1911 45 acp pistol.
lazs
Originally posted by polka
I've actually won a 100 yard open sight competition with a Lee Enfield #1 mkIII.
Originally posted by Gunslinger
A good read is about the battle of belleau woods during WWI. The Marines first chance to fight gave the germans a real bloody nose and earned them a nickname still used today.
Originally posted by lasersailor184
That was the trick Lazs. Most americans grew up in the back woods shooting .22's at squirrels.
Ww2 rolled around and they said here's a gun, go for the germans / japs.
Most germans or Japanese hadn't ever fired or fired a lot of guns before. Thus they were at a disadvantage from the start.
Wasnt the Springfield based on the mauser action? Did we pay license fees for some time for the design?
Originally posted by Batz
But they weren't under direct control of the Nazis either. (well not until Torch when the Nazis occupied all of France.)
Vichy was allowed to keep its Navy and its territories. Vichy may have and did it collaborate with the Nazis but thats not the same thing. Poland, the Baltic States etc were examples of nations directly under control of the Nazis.
Originally posted by GtoRA2
Batz
All their resistance did was kill of good men, their own and Brit and US, the nazis still ocupied. They new it was going to take place, that to me make them fighting back seem so sensless, either way the nazi ended up taking over the rest of france.
Originally posted by Batz
So? All the British attacks Vichy did was kill good men (1000 killed on 1 ship). War is ugly. The Nazis occupied Southern France to be in postion for a possible invasion of Southerrn France from North Africa. Torch forced the Nazis hand. Had it failed Southern France may not have been occupied.
Originally posted by _Schadenfreude_
lol guess dugout Doug MacArthur and his boys didn't get their quota of squirrels before surrendering to the Japanese......
I doubt it wouldn't have happen (but I've nothing to back my thought) IMO the german wanted to get ride of the sanctuary south of France was.
Originally posted by Batz
But it seems some are just looking for an excuse to bash the French. I will leave you to it.
As to the Brit attacks on the Vichy fleet. The Commander in Chief of the French Navy, Admiral Darlan, had promised the British that the Vichy fleet would be scuttled if there was any chance of it falling into German hands. The Brits attacked the fleet at Oran regardless, killing many Frenchmen.
Originally posted by United
Isnt there a movie out about that battle? I believe I watched it a while back.
Originally posted by MJHerman
I don't know if a Lee could match the ROF of a Garand, but I do know that when the Germans first encountered the BEF in 1914 at Mons (I think), the British infantry were keeping up a sufficiently fast rate of fire from their Enfields that the Germans thought they were under machine gun fire.
Originally posted by Rino
Nice glass mansion you're living in there Schadenfreude...
do the words Malayasia and Singapore ring any bells? In fact,
I believe it wasn't until 1944 that the English inflected a serious
defeat on the Japanese.
I also don't recall MacArthur surrendering, must be getting old.
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Umm, the STG was not the greatest gun of WW2. Not even close.
While it was the first Assault Rifle, it by no means was the greatest assault rifle ever.
Heck, even the M1 carbine was better then it.
Originally posted by Virage
why does the garand make thumbs bloody?
I'd rather have a squad of garand's than a squad of bolt action rifles.
In fact I've been wanting to pick up a new M-14 from Springfield for the past couple of years. Very pricey though, when the base models start at $1,500 and go UP from there.
The action has a tendancy to slam closed on your thumb immediately following a reload.
Originally posted by -tronski-
I think it's Lost Battalion with Rick Schroder
IMDB (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0287535/)
Tronsky
Originally posted by _Schadenfreude_
Anyway the killers at section level are the crew served weapons, both the Bristish and the Germans had excellent mg's in the Bren and MG34/42.
For America who didn't have a decent lmg the Garand was more important.
Originally posted by Dowding
According to the web a standard 1944-45 US Rifle platoon would not carry a .30 cal MG. That was placed in a separate LMG section. Whereas a British rifle squad of the same period would have an integrated Bren LMG within the squad.
I'm sure the Garand is a fine weapon, but I don't understand why a bolt action would expose a soldier's position more than the semi-auto. The hand only needs to move a few inches up from the trigger.
Originally posted by Rino
The Americans did have the M1919 series from Browning, air
cooled, belt fed 30-06 caliber. I'd take it over the Bren anyday
of the week.
Originally posted by GScholz
They made 425,977 MP-43's, MP-44's and StG-44's during the war (they were the same weapon). Had the war continued another year it would have replaced every rifle, submachinegun and light machinegun in the German army. After the war the StG44 resulted in the outright replacement of almost every infantry gun in the western world, serving as the direct inspiration for the AK-47, the most prolific gun in the world, and the indirect inspiration for practically everything else. ;)
They made 425,977 MP-43's, MP-44's and StG-44's during the war (they were the same weapon). Had the war continued another year it would have replaced every rifle, submachinegun and light machinegun in the German army. After the war the StG44 resulted in the outright replacement of almost every infantry gun in the western world, serving as the direct inspiration for the AK-47, the most prolific gun in the world, and the indirect inspiration for practically everything else.
In your wet dreams perhaps.
Originally posted by Boroda
I mean - just look how StG and M-16 disassemble :) But IIRC M-16 has a rotating bolt (lock? i am not familiar with English weapon terms) like Kalashnikov, while StG has a different locking mechanism.
Here in Russia it's a common legend that Kalashnikov simply copied the StG, they look similar to many people, while they are absolutely different inside.
The Mauser action is still state-of-the-art for bolt action weapons.i own 2 mauser action rifles,,one is a berretta 6.5 and a manlicher 8mm,,i tell you what,,very tuff made,,but not smooth at all,, and not fast at all,, i would take my 30.40 krieg action any day over a mauser,,tons smoother and very dependible too,,even had races against the 2 with my freinds,,the krieg could unload its 5 shots way faster,,there is no way in hell a mauser could keep up with a m1 grand in speed,,shot and own each of them,,besides a m1 grand<~~but i have shot one,,my cousin owns a m1 thumb,,ouch,lol,,and i own a m14 308
Originally posted by Dowding
Nope. The Fleet at Oran was making ready to set sail prior to the British fleet getting there, depite these assurances. That's why the attack was initiated. If that fleet had managed to get to sea before the task force got there the whole course of the war would have been different. British Naval domination in the Med would have been neutered and North Africa would have been lost.
Do you really think the Royal Navy blew them out of the water for the fun of it? A fleet about to scuttle does not make itself ready to sail when it knows a task force has been sent to deal with it. it was a terrible decision, but it needed to be taken.
Originally posted by storch
For smooth bolt actions I would guess that the Krag-Jorgenson wins hands down.
Originally posted by Virage
why does the garand make thumbs bloody?
For smooth bolt actions I would guess that the Krag-Jorgenson wins hands down.yup,,,30.40 krieg is proubly the smoothest bolt action i have ever used,,,and i used alot of them,,i never seen any be even close,,just open the bolt and it practically falls back and loads its self,,hehe,,very good gun,,and very tuff too,,and a very good hunting rifle,,and you got to love the trash box loader,,,so nice to just pop it open and slide in a few shells,..and a magazine cutt of switch!!<~~never seen those on many guns lol,,so you can load the krieg like a single shot,,flip the switch then you can use your 5 shells in the mag:)
The SVT-38 (Samozaryadnaya Vintovka Tokareva - Tokarev Self-loading rifle) was originally adopted in the 1938 after more than 20 years of the research and development, done by famous Russian arms designer Fedor Tokarev. It was not a first Soviet semi-automatic rifle - there were the select-fire 'Avtomat' of 1916 by Fedorov and also select-fire AVS-36 of 1936 by Simonov. 'Avtomat' was chambered for Japanese 6.5mm Arisaka round and was declared obsolete, and the AVS-36 showed some design deficiencies, so new rifle was adopted. After initial trials, it was updated and re-adopted in 1940 as a SVT-40. This rifle was made in relatively large numbers (more than 1 million made prior to 1945), and was originally issued as a standard infantry rifle, replacing the obsolete Mosin-Nagant M1891/30 bolt action rifles. Few SVT-40 were also manufactured in the sniper variant, equipped with scope mounts and telescopic sights, but accuracy was not sufficient, so only about 50 000 sniper SVT-40 were manufactured, and these were supplemented by the Mosin-Nagant sniper rifles. The SVT-40 had a somewhat controversial reputation. It was highly regarded by the enemies (Finns and Germans) and it was a very sought-after war trophy, re-issued to both German and Finnish troops. On the other hand, it was often considered unreliable and over-complicated by the Soviet troops (when comparing with old Mosin-Nagant rifles), but it was more to the poor training and maintenance, than to the rifle itself. Some better trained and educated Soviet troops, such as Sea Infantry (Marines, which always were some kind of elite in the Soviet army) used the SVT-40 with great deal of success. After the end of the World War 2, most SVT-40 were quickly withdrawn from service and put into reserve stocks. Some rifles were later sold on domestic civilian market for hunters as a military surplus. Other than basic versions, there also were developed a shorter carbine SKT-40, and a select-fire AVT-40, but both seen very little service. Overall, the SVT-40 was in general no worse than American M1 Garand (and have some advantages over it, especially in the reloading procedures), and obviously better than earlier German Gew.41 semi-automatic rifles. It was the matter of training and education, and quality of the service of in the Soviet troops, that lead to the low popularity (in general) of this basically good rifle.
SVT-40 is a gas operated, magazine fed self-loading rifle. It uses a short piston stroke gas action, located above the barrel. The interesting feature of the SVT is that the gas block, along with front sight base and a muzzle brake, were produced as a single barrel extension unit. This greatly simplified the manufacture of the barrel, but the barrel extension itself unit was quite complicated to make. Gas chamber has 5 positions gas regulator to ajust the system for any conditions. The gas piston has its own return string and moved back for about 36 mm (1.5 inch) when gun was fired. It gave a quick and powerful stroke to the bolt carrier, which carried the bolt under it. Barrel locking was achieved by the rear part of the bolt, that tilted down to lock into the reinforced steel insert in the floor of the receiver. Charging handle was permanently attached to the right side of the bolt carrier. Detachable box magazine was made from sheet steel and hold 10 cartridges. SVT could be reloaded either by replacing the magazine or by using 5-round stripper clips of the Mosin-Nagant. Stripper clip guides were machined into the receiver top cover. Bolt system incorporated a bolt catch, that held the bolt group back when magazine was empty, to facilitate faster reloading, especially when using stripper clips.
Both SVT-38 and SVT-40 were hammer-fired, with safety switch located behind the trigger. When engaged, safety locked the trigger. On the rare AVT-40 select-fire rifles, safety had an additional setting for full-auto fire mode.
The SVT-38 featured a two-piece wooden stock with separate upper handguard with small steel insert at the forward end. SVT-40 had an one-piece wooden stock with shorter forend and separate upper handguard. Front part of the stock was replaced by the sheet steel cover with cooling ports. Cleaning rod, originally stored in the groove at the right side of the stock at the SVT-38, was relocated under the barrel on the SVT-40.
Sights of the SVT consisted of the post type front sight, mounted on the sight base with circular front sight guard, and a tangent type open rear sights, mounted on the rear part of the barrel. Sniper versions were equipped with special detachable, see-through scope mounts at the rear of the receiver, so the scope was offset to the rear, allowing to use a clip-charging facility.
SVT-38 was equipped with detachable, knife-bayonet. SVT-40 was issued with similar bayonet, but with blade shortened to save weight. Unlike the Mosin-Nagant, the bayonets were routinely carried in sheaths, and attached to the rifle only when required.
Originally posted by straffo
My god how do you learn history in the US ????
It's a part of YOUR history and you even had an CVL-24 named USS Belleau Wood during WWII and still have a Belleau wood ship (type unknown to me)
Originally posted by Rino
Just FYI, the Lost Battalion is not about BelleauWood, it's
another story altogether, a very good one.
Originally posted by Rino
The Americans did have the M1919 series from Browning, air
cooled, belt fed 30-06 caliber. I'd take it over the Bren anyday
of the week.
Originally posted by lazs2
dune... I agree.. The mg 34/42 were superior weapons.. we had nothing like them. From What I have heard the Bren is a fine gun too.
Verm... you know that because of the gas system and operating rods the Garrand is more accurate and rugged than the M14?
tronski... the SMLE that I have is an australian armory one that was, so far as I could tell... unfired. It is mint. I paid a whopping $100 for it.
lazs
Originally posted by GScholz
Yes, of course. The US won the war alone, and won because of the Garand, and Germany really lost because of the terrible performance of the StG44.
The US and western allies embraced the battle rifle concept, and didn't develop an assault rifle until after experience in the Vietnam War showed what a failure the battle rifle concept really was. The Russians developed one of the best assault rifles in existence two years after the end of WWII ... The AK47, the same weapon that proved its superiority over US weapons in the Vietnam War.
I'm going to have to call BS on this one.
Weapon Cartridge Nominal Case Bullet Muzzle Muzzle energy
Caliber Length weight velocity in joules
in mm in grams in m/sec
US M1 Carbine .30 US Carbine 7.62 33 7.1 549 1074
Haenel StG 44 7.92mm Intermediate 7.92 33 7.8 686 1829
AK47 7.62mm M1943 7.62 39 7.4 715 1892
(http://www.cruffler.com/7_92x33mm.JPG)
7.92mm Kurz
(http://www.marstar.ca/ammo/images/30-M1-Carbine.jpg)
.30 M1 carbine cartridge
It is pretty clear that the StG44 had 80% more muzzle energy than the US M1 Carbine, and that the StG44 is much more comparable to the AK-47 in power. Now, you can always argue that the AK47 isn't very accurate, but it is a very effective infantry weapon and the same goes for the StG44.
My father's service weapon back in the '60s was a US M1 Carbine. He says it was accurate the first couple of rounds, but after that accuracy was terrible. Because of the low quality steel used, the barrel would bend due to the heat of just a couple of rounds fired. [/B]
Originally posted by GScholz
I think that is pretty obvious MrCoffee. ;)
... and the Garand uses .30-06 not .308.
Originally posted by Fishu
Since when a semi-auto carbine has been an assault rifle?
M1 was semi-fire and far from assault rifle of any kind, it was to be an easier gun to handle than Garand and offer better firepower than M1911.
Preferably for troops operating behind the lines.
Selective fire came with the M2 Carbine.
the .308 is not a military caliber. The .308 is actually just the civilian version of the 7.62mm NATO round (they are not interchangeable, just like the .223 and 5.56mm N
Originally posted by GScholz
I'm going to have to call BS on this one.
Weapon Cartridge Nominal Case Bullet Muzzle Muzzle energy
Caliber Length weight velocity in joules
in mm in grams in m/sec
US M1 Carbine .30 US Carbine 7.62 33 7.1 549 1074
Haenel StG 44 7.92mm Intermediate 7.92 33 7.8 686 1829
AK47 7.62mm M1943 7.62 39 7.4 715 1892
It is pretty clear that the StG44 had 80% more muzzle energy than the US M1 Carbine, and that the StG44 is much more comparable to the AK-47 in power. Now, you can always argue that the AK47 isn't very accurate, but it is a very effective infantry weapon and the same goes for the StG44.
My father's service weapon back in the '60s was a US M1 Carbine. He says it was accurate the first couple of rounds, but after that accuracy was terrible. Because of the low quality steel used, the barrel would bend due to the heat of just a couple of rounds fired. [/B]
Range Velocity Impact Drop ToF Energy
0 2880 -0.5 0 0 2836
50 2742 0.33 0.65 0.06 2571
100 2614 0 2.46 0.11 2337
150 2490 -1.6 5.54 0.17 2120
200 2371 -4.62 10.04 0.23 1922
250 2254 -9.19 16.09 0.3 1737
300 2141 -15.47 23.85 0.37 1568
350 2031 -23.66 33.52 0.44 1411
400 1924 -33.96 45.3 0.51 1266
450 1822 -46.61 59.43 0.59 1135
500 1723 -61.89 76.19 0.68 1015
550 1629 -80.09 95.87 0.77 907
600 1539 -101.58 118.84 0.86 810
Range Velocity Impact Drop ToF Energy
0 2640 -0.5 0 0 2321
50 2535 0.43 0.76 0.06 2140
100 2437 0 2.87 0.12 1978
150 2342 -1.9 6.46 0.18 1827
200 2249 -5.38 11.63 0.25 1685
250 2158 -10.6 18.54 0.32 1551
300 2069 -17.69 27.31 0.39 1426
350 1982 -26.81 38.12 0.46 1308
400 1898 -38.15 51.15 0.54 1200
450 1816 -51.92 66.6 0.62 1098
500 1736 -68.32 84.69 0.7 1004
550 1660 -87.6 105.66 0.79 918
600 1586 -110.04 129.79 0.89 838
Originally posted by GScholz
(This is a great program! :))
The most critical thing for all users of rifles chambered for .303 British to consider is the bore diameter of their individual rifle. Especially in the case of Lee-Enfields, bore diameters are all over the map, ranging literally from .308 up to something like .315 or .316. It has been said, however, that most are between .312 and .313.
Most American manufacturers (Sierra included) make bullets that measure .311. Hornady is the notable exception, and that superb company makes bullets that measure .312. The slightly fatter diameter of the Hornady bullets may be the reason why I've personally had the best accuracy results with Hornady bullets when reloading the .303 British. There must be something to the bore diameter issue because the most accurate .303 factory ammunition I've ever used in the various .303 rifles I've shot over the years has been surplus Belgian stuff made by FN in the 1980s. Perhaps it is no surprise, but I measured that Belgian bullet an found it to mic around .3125. This experience suggests that in .303s "fatter is generally better".
Originally posted by GScholz
Thanks :)
One thing though ... 1/100 inch is 0.254 mm. That's why I used the .30 since .3 inch is exactly 7.62 mm. The metric scale 7.62mm NATO round has the same bullet as the .308 Winchester, so I have always believed, and still do believe, that the .30-06 and .308 are .30 caliber rounds. .308 inch is 7.8232 mm, and if that were correct the NATO round would be a 7.82 mm rather than 7.62 mm. I always assumed that the "8" in .308 was used to distinguish the cartridge from other .30 cartridges like the .30-06. I have however in the last couple of years seen the .308 described as a 7.8 mm in some US gun magazines, and always laughed it off as a metric conversion error.
Am I wrong? :confused:
Edit: and the Mauser round is 7.92 mm not 8mm.
Originally posted by GScholz
Thanks Dune. Perhaps Boroda is right? .30 could be the unrifled bore of the barrel, while the bullet naturally need to be larger to "fill" the rifle grooves?
Originally posted by GScholz
Boroda, you were told about NATO calibers in college? Sounds like a fun childhood. ;)
Originally posted by Boroda
I call it a "college", it was renamed to Univercity when I was a freshman. Moscow High Technical College named after N.E. Bauman. Voice of America called it a "Rocket college on Yauza".
I studied at M4 department, "Physics and technology of explosion and impact". Had to quit after 4 years :( because only job opportunities I could imagine were well-paid but very short. :(
We had courses for all kinds of weapon systems, including artillery and tanks. And projectile design was a semester project on 4th year. But now I hardly remember anything but some weird facts and funny or strange stories.
Forgot to say that by military speciality (we had a course of military education) I was supposed to become a SAM technical division officer.
I went to college in 1989, at that time working for military was well-paid and interesting. Now the only person with whom I studied who works on his speciality is an explosives expert in Orenburg, others are in business or even selling TVs in the markets :(
Originally posted by GScholz
Thanks :)
"From FN Mauser Model 98 Rifle and Carbine operators manual (Fabrique National)"
This is not WWII German ammo is it?