Gun and Game Forum banner

1 - 20 of 56 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,697 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Given the stinginess of the US army (due to congress) in the early 20th century I am surprised they opted for new ammo to go with their new rifle. While the 30-40 doesn't have quite the power of the 30-06 I believe it compares quite well to the first cartridge used in the 1903 the 30-03. Why switch to a new round with stockpiles of the 30-40 given the shortage of money and the " just about" performance of the 30-40.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
24,835 Posts
....... Why switch to a new round with stockpiles of the 30-40 given the shortage of money and the " just about" performance of the 30-40.
Someone probably got bought. Military procurement has always been, and always will be rife with corruption.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,288 Posts
Technology improvements in design, projectiles, powders, ballistics. In the gov't, you gather the requirements, establish specs, get a bid, then award a contract. I'll bet our warrior leadership wanted the best possible ammo and firearm for their troops. Good thing, it was a great firearm and cartridge...
upload_2018-1-24_16-49-22.jpeg
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,781 Posts
Given the stinginess of the US army (due to congress) in the early 20th century I am surprised they opted for new ammo to go with their new rifle. While the 30-40 doesn't have quite the power of the 30-06 I believe it compares quite well to the first cartridge used in the 1903 the 30-03. Why switch to a new round with stockpiles of the 30-40 given the shortage of money and the " just about" performance of the 30-40.
WHY; because of this round !..............
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7.92×57mm_Mauser
 

·
Resident Curmudgeon
Joined
·
34,493 Posts
The .30-06 was an evolution of the .30-03 cartridge. The change was going from a roundnose bullet to a spitzer bullet; the -03 and -06 mark the year each cartridge was adopted.

As to why the US Army went to a round in that size and power range, it has to do with President Theodore Roosevelt. He went up San Juan and Kettle Hills during the Spanish-American War under withering fire from the Spanish 7x57 Mausers, while his Rough Riders were armed with the Model 1896 Krag-Jorgensen carbines that took longer to reload and were not as powerful as the Model 1893 Mausers used by the Spanish. The Rough Riders took 20% casualties in the course of the battle. When TR succeeded to the Presidency, one of his first orders was to equip the US Army with a Mauser-type rifle shooting a cartridge with much more power than the .30-40 Krag.

The result of Teddy's orders was the classic Model 1903 Springfield Rifle, held by some to be the best, most accurate military bolt action rifle ever made by any nation. There are those who disagree. The British had a saying in World War I: "The Germans went to war with a hunting rifle. The Americans went to war with a target rifle. We went to war with a battle rifle." Their claim to the best bolt action is principally based on the fact the .303 British SMLE has a 10 round magazine and can be cycled faster than the Springfield. But as against that, I recall the United States Marine Corps war story of the day before the Battle of Belleau Wood.

The Fifth Marines had positions on a hill that looked down into the rear area of the Germans opposing them, 800 yards away. The Marines took the prone position, ignored by the Germans who thought they were out of reach of rifle fire. The Marines disabused them of this illusion by opening up with slow, aimed fire that killed quite a number of German rear echelon types like cooks, staff officers, orderlies, messengers and the like. The colonel commanding the Germans allegedly sent a flag of truce forward to deliver a message to the Yanks protesting this unsporting behavior.

I think we, and not the Tommies or the Heinies, had the best rifle of World War I, and the best bullet to shoot out of it.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
24,814 Posts
They were still quite cognizant of how well the venerable 7MM Mauser round performed against them in the Spanish American war too. But small arms procurement was at that time and still is a miniscule budget item in the grand scheme of things, no matter how big of a deal they try to make of it when selling it to the taxpayers...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,895 Posts
Technology improvements in design, projectiles, powders, ballistics. In the gov't, you gather the requirements, establish specs, get a bid, then award a contract. I'll bet our warrior leadership wanted the best possible ammo and firearm for their troops. Good thing, it was a great firearm and cartridge...
View attachment 88983
Something our leaders today do not want...effective weapons.
Well, maybe Trump might fix that, but anyway...

The .30-06 is an AMAZING cartridge, and it kills bad guys dead.
Also Bears, Lions, Tigers, Elephants, Rhino, Hippopotamus, and everything
else that walks, flies or crawls on Earth. It'd probably also give
a T-Rex a bad day.

If we didn't have so many dang pansies in the military today, nobody
would be complaining about "We can carry more 5.56!"
Well, yeah, but you gotta shoot 'em 5 more times to kill 'em!!
when-machine-gunners-pick-up-a-m16-~patriot-4307546.png


And that was bull anyway 'cause I carried 2K rounds of 7.62 in my ruck,
with everyone else getting 500 rounds of 5.56 and complaining it was
heavy & displacing their MRE's...gah...that's why you take out the sleeping bag
and use 3 poncho liners!! So you can carry more ammo!!
when-somebody-complains-theyreexhausted-valhalla-wear-mvalhallawear-and-youre-the-19573567.png


What's gonna hurt more, throwing a handfull of BB's (5.56) at someone??
Or throwing a handful of MARBLES (7.62)??
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,512 Posts
I have a copy of A&E Story of the Gun, (1996) Cliff Robertson narrates went into to Spanish Mauser compared to the 30-40 Krag, Spanish American War, calling the round too weak, reason going to the 30-06. Roosevelt demanded a new rifle and designers came up with the Springfield. Problem encountered they were identical to Mauser actions. Krags found out to difficult to load too.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,512 Posts
The Supermarine Spitfire sure shot down a lot of Germans with a .303 !.............
And to boot, they did it with Brownings. I can't figure out how they got them to feed and chamber with a rim cartridge. I know 1919A4s like the back of my hand inside and out. My favorite machine gun. Correction I can see how they would chamber, but feed paws would have a heck of a time, not with a heck of a modification.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,697 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 · (Edited)
I've heard for decades about the Americans thinking the 7MM Mauser round was superior to the 30-40 but ballistics don't seem prove it. In fact - I was surprised how well the 30-40 compared to the .308 round.

The quoted ballistics of the standard cartridge in the standard rifle in 1898 are used, the .30-40 looks to be marginally more powerful and provides superior ballistics than does the 7mm. The list below assumes a 173-grain jacketed round nose bullet for the 7mm and a 220-grain jacketed round nose for the .30-40. Velocity figures come from Barnes Cartridges of the World.


7mm w/173 grain bullet: 2093 fps 1673 ft./lbs.

.30-40 w/220 grain bullet: 2000 fps 2364 ft./lbs

Some other service cartridges in their 1890s configuration.

British .303 w/215 grain bullet: 1970 fps 1850 ft./lbs.
French 8mm Lebel w/232 grain bullet: 1885 fps 1831 ft./lbs.
German 7.9X57 w/226 grain bullet: 2095 fps 2200 ft./lbs.
Austrian 8X50 w/244 grain bullet: 2030 fps 2240 ft./lbs.
Russian 7.62X54 w/210 grain bullet: 2115 fps 2086 ft./lbs
Belgian 7.65X53 w/211 grain bullet: 2130 fps 2150 ft./lbs.
Danish 8X58 w/237 grain bullet: 1968 fps 2041 ft./lbs.
Japanese 8X53 w/238 grain bullet: 1850 fps 1810 ft/lbs.


As adopted in 1894 the .30-40 holds its own if not superior against the other cartridges of the day. I agree the Krag rifle was inferior as a battle field weapon -specifically due to the magazine, but the round appears to be as good or better than the rest of the world's service rounds. The other issue is the Krag is a difficult rifle to manufacture. Just look at it, there is a lot of machined surfaces and the single lug didn't do it any favors.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,781 Posts
And to boot, they did it with Brownings. I can't figure out how they got them to feed and chamber with a rim cartridge. I know 1919A4s like the back of my hand inside and out. My favorite machine gun. Correction I can see how they would chamber, but feed paws would have a heck of a time, not with a heck of a modification.
It was chambered in another rimmed cartridge too !...........Here is a list of what the 1919 was chambered in.
.30-06 Springfield
7.62x51
.303 British
7.92x57 Mauser
6.5x55
7.62x54R
8x63
7.65x53
7.5 French
Even .22 LR
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,781 Posts
I've heard for decades about the Americans thinking the 7MM Mauser round was superior to the 30-40 but ballistics don't seem prove it. In fact - I was surprised how well the 30-40 compared to the .308 round.

The quoted ballistics of the standard cartridge in the standard rifle in 1898 are used, the .30-40 looks to be marginally more powerful and provides superior ballistics than does the 7mm. The list below assumes a 173-grain jacketed round nose bullet for the 7mm and a 220-grain jacketed round nose for the .30-40. Velocity figures come from Barnes Cartridges of the World.


7mm w/173 grain bullet: 2093 fps 1673 ft./lbs.

.30-40 w/220 grain bullet: 2000 fps 2364 ft./lbs

Some other service cartridges in their 1890s configuration.

British .303 w/215 grain bullet: 1970 fps 1850 ft./lbs.
French 8mm Lebel w/232 grain bullet: 1885 fps 1831 ft./lbs.
German 7.9X57 w/226 grain bullet: 2095 fps 2200 ft./lbs.
Austrian 8X50 w/244 grain bullet: 2030 fps 2240 ft./lbs.
Russian 7.62X54 w/210 grain bullet: 2115 fps 2086 ft./lbs
Belgian 7.65X53 w/211 grain bullet: 2130 fps 2150 ft./lbs.
Danish 8X58 w/237 grain bullet: 1968 fps 2041 ft./lbs.
Japanese 8X53 w/238 grain bullet: 1850 fps 1810 ft/lbs.


As adopted in 1894 the .30-40 holds its own if not superior against the other cartridges of the day. I agree the Krag rifle was inferior as a battle field weapon -specifically due to the magazine, but the round appears to be as good or better than the rest of the world's service rounds. The other issue is the Krag is a difficult rifle to manufacture. Just look at it, there is a lot of machined surfaces and the single lug didn't do it any favors.
I think you got some #'s wrong, example being, by the time of the .30-40 Krag's inception the .303 British was already using a spitzer & lighter bullet !...........
 

·
Resident Curmudgeon
Joined
·
34,493 Posts
I have a copy of A&E Story of the Gun, (1996) Cliff Robertson narrates went into to Spanish Mauser compared to the 30-40 Krag, Spanish American War, calling the round too weak, reason going to the 30-06. Roosevelt demanded a new rifle and designers came up with the Springfield. Problem encountered they were identical to Mauser actions. Krags found out to difficult to load too.
Essentially, the M1903 Springfield uses a Mauser designed action. The similarities are so pronounced that the US government had to pay royalties to Mauser until we entered World War I!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,697 Posts
Discussion Starter · #17 ·
I think you got some #'s wrong, example being, by the time of the .30-40 Krag's inception the .303 British was already using a spitzer & lighter bullet !...........
From the earliest service round to the Mark VI (1889 to 1910) the .303 used round nose or hollow point/soft point rounds. It started out with a round nose, then went hollow point and soft point, back to round nose again. Through it all I believe it was a 215 grain bullet.


The 303 didn't get a spritzer slug (174 grains) until the Mark VII service round was introduced in 1910. It was done after the British faced the Mauser 7MM in the Boer wars and again its opponents thought the 7MM to be superior.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,312 Posts
that chart above is only showing the 7 Mauser with a 175 about 350 fps too slow.
it's also off with the 8mm lebel rounds.
the 8mm was initially an 11 mm, they
re-lined the barrels to 8mm, necked the case down, and upgraded the powder about 200%.
their speed was also in the 2400 fps area.

if the 30-40 had been as good a round as the 7mauser was it would have shown on the battlefield in Cuba.
it wasn't,,,, and when the 8mauser come around the writing was on the wall.
the 0-6 still has a hard time running with the 8mauser even with the modern powders we have today.
the bore volume is about 20% greater for the 32 cal over the 30 cal and the bullet weights are the same.
this means the 32 cal has more room for gas expansion [lower pressure] allowing more gas to be generated at the same pressure.
more gas volume means more speed for a given bullet weight.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,697 Posts
Discussion Starter · #19 ·
The oldest 1893 pattern military ball ammunition was loaded with a 11.2-gram (172.8 gr) long round-nosed bullet fired at a muzzle velocity of 670 m/s (2,198 ft/s) with 2,514 J (1,854 ft·lbf) muzzle energy from a 589 mm (23.2 in) long barrel. It had a maximum range of 3,250 m (3,554 yd).

So the it should be 2198 ft/s not 2093 and the muzzle energy is understated also.

https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmXoypizjW3WknFiJnKLwHCnL72vedxjQkDDP1mXWo6uco/wiki/7mm_Mauser.html

I believe the issue was more the rifle than the ammo on the battle fields of Cuba. Loading with stripper clips was a huge advantage over the box magazine of the Krag.



The 8MM Lebel Balle M was a flat nose bullet in use from 1886 to 1898 (used in tube fed rifles). Only when the round was redesigned (1898) as a spritzer (Balle D) did muzzle velocities reach the 2300 - 2400 ft/s.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
36,568 Posts
Why switch to a new round with stockpiles of the 30-40 given the shortage of money and the " just about" performance of the 30-40.
Because the 30-40 was rimmed, and did not work well with box magazines is my guess. You ever see how the cartridges were fed into a 30-40 Krag?
 
1 - 20 of 56 Posts
Top