Author Topic: Garand vs Enfield vs Kar 98 (Read 4152 times)

Dune · « **Reply #135 on:** March 15, 2004, 05:22:41 PM »

PS: Here is a good explaination

Quote

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".

So what you're talking about is a 308 bullet in a.303 case, in a.303 rifle. The.303 bullet, wich the rifle's bore is made for, has .312" diameter.

Boroda · « **Reply #136 on:** March 16, 2004, 08:01:55 AM »

Quote

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?

Edit: and the Mauser round is 7.92 mm not 8mm.

As we were told in college - NATO calibers are measured by the bottoms of the grooves in rifling, and Russian/Soviet calibers are measured by the fields between grooves. That's why 155mm NATO howitzer is same caliber as Soviet 152mm. Maybe it's the reason?...

BTW, Russian "three-line rifle" is 7.62, one "line" (liniya) is 0.1 inch.

I wonder how they measure caliber of Arisaka rifles - they have a funny groove shape.

Dune · « **Reply #137 on:** March 16, 2004, 12:32:04 PM »

Quote

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?

Or why does a .357 Mag work in a .38 Spl?

I believe in a way Boroda is right, the diameter is being measured on the lands or the grooves. However, in speaking to my dad, even he's not sure why. Some of it may have to do with blackpowder nomenclature.

A 7.62x54R (Russian) is a .311 bullet.

There is no rule of thumb that I can figure. You just kind of have to know what is what

Boroda · « **Reply #138 on:** March 16, 2004, 12:43:56 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by GScholz
Boroda, you were told about NATO calibers in college? Sounds like a fun childhood.

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

newtype · « **Reply #139 on:** March 16, 2004, 06:57:48 PM »

This is the gun to own. A gold AK from Iraq. Imagine how much you could sell it for on ebay.

Hooligan · « **Reply #140 on:** March 19, 2004, 11:36:32 PM »

From Army Ammunition data sheets, small caliber ammunition: FS1305

.30 Cal carbine Ball, M1 111 grain, 1900 ft/sec 53 ft from the muzzle.

.30 Cal Ball, M2 150 grain, 2740 ft/sec 78 ft from the muzzle.
(835m/sec 9.72 grams)

From FN Mauser Model 98 Rifle and Carbine operators manual (Fabrique National)

12.8g 760m/sec at muzzle, 740m/sec 25 meters from muzzle.
Light bullet 10g 855m/sec, 835m/sec 25 meters from muzzle.

Hooligan

Hooligan · « **Reply #141 on:** March 21, 2004, 10:01:57 AM »

I don't know exactly what ammo that is, and I could not find any original US army or German source so I posted what I had.

The manual this is from is available online here:

http://www.biggerhammer.net/manuals/fnmauser/FN98.PDF

The data does seem fairly close to what I have seen in some other places such as:

http://www.gebirgsjaeger.4mg.com/Gebirgs3.htm

http://www.reenactor.net/units/gjr98/5a_gew-weps.html

http://www.wwiitechpubs.info/barrack/inf-deutschland/inf-de-rfl-98k/inf-de-rfl-98k-br.html

http://www.dpage.dial.pipex.com/fg_weapons.htm

http://users2.ev1.net/~lertsman/Ammo.html

Hooligan

Arlo · « **Reply #142 on:** March 21, 2004, 10:06:43 AM »

Quote

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

Well that pretty much accounts for the bitterness. I mean ... if I worked hard to graduate from the school of blowing up thangs and I ended up having to sell TVs ... well ...

straffo · « **Reply #143 on:** March 21, 2004, 11:30:12 AM »

Quote

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?

I don't know if it will help or not but Fabrique Nationnale localised at Herstall in Belgium is the builder of FN-FAL .

Perhaps have the FN made ammo for the German during WWII ?