Comments by "" (@neutronalchemist3241) on "Ask Ian - What Was the Best WW2 Rifle Cartridge?" video.

  1. After WWI the old 6.5mm cartridge had always been on the verge of being replaced. First with the 7.35×32mm of the Terni 1921 (a true intermediate cartridge) and then the 7.35X51mm, so there was no point in doing a modification that would have forced to modify all the sights of the existing rifles.
    22
  2. I always said that the .30 Remington would have been the ideal choice. Same energy than the 7.35 Carcano, but in a smaller package than both the 7.35 Carcano and .276 Pedersen (base diameter 10.7 mm vs. 11.4mm, OAL 64.1mm vs. 72.5mm), so shorter action, less weight for the rifle, more rounds in a M1 clip and more rounds carried by the grunts.
    18
  3. Even better, but not in competition because none used it, despite having been widely available for more than 30 years, the .30 Remington. Rimless, same energy than the 7.35 Carcano in a smaller package than both the Carcano and .276 Pedersen, (base diameter 10.7 mm vs. 11.4mm, OAL 64.1mm vs. 72.5mm), so shorter action, less weight for the rifle, more rounds in a M1 clip and more rounds carried by the grunts.
    18
  4.  @treyriver5676  Infact even then the 6.5 Carcano cartridges for precision shooting were spitzers and didn't give any problem. The only "problem" is that spitzers and round nose, for the same lenght, have different weight (spitzers are lighter) so different point of impact, so the sights of the old rifles should have been modified. After WWI the old 6.5mm cartridge had always been on the verge of being replaced. First with the 7.35×32mm of the Terni 1921 (a true intermediate cartridge) and then the 7.35X51mm, so there was no point in doing a modification that would have forced to modify all the sights of the existing rifles.
    13
  5.  @nullanonsonemmenoiocosascr6676  No. The 6.5 Carcano cartridges for precision shooting were spitzers and didn't give any problem. Modern PPU 6.5 Carcano cartridges are spitzers. Same as above.
    10
  6. Let's see. The MG34-42 was not loaded with spare infantry cartridges. Only with already loaded belts, that had to reach first line as already loaded belts. So the advantage of having the same cartridge for stripper-clip-fed infantry rifles and belt-fed MGs, especially considered that, using a lighter cartridge for the rifle, the grunts could have carreid MORE ammos for the MG, was pretty immaterial. Infact, in the end, the Germans recognised the advantages of the 7.92mm Kurtz.
    6
  7.  @CtrlAltRetreat  The Italians wanted to adopt the 7.35X32 (not the 7.35X51, that came later) because they wanted to adopt a semiauto rifle (the Terni 1921) and correctly recognised that, for semiauto fire, an intermediate cartridge was better, hence the 7.35X32. The conservatorism of the high brass prevented the adoption of the Terni semiauto, bu they still wanted a semiauto, in a full blown cartridge, so a new rifle, and tested many, In 1938, still testing semiauto rifles, they recognised the convertion to a semiauto would have likely required a long time, but they didn't want to fight the next war with long worn-out, WWI Carcano rifles, so they adopted the M38 short rifle, that was a new rifle anyway. BUT there is a trick. You can take an old, worn-out, 6.5 long rifle barrel, and turn it in a brand new, 7.35 short rifle barrel, only cutting and reboring it. You can't turn an old worn-out 6.5 long rifle barrel in a brand new 6.5 short rifle barrel. Even cutting it, it will remain worn out. So, since they had to manufacture new rifles and new ammos anyway, to adopt the 7.35x51, was economically convenient in respect to adopt a 6.5 spitzer.
    4
  8.  @hendriktonisson2915  The Germans didn't want to change ammunitions. They wanted to use the same ammo with a spitzer bullet. So did the Swedes. As already said, instead, after WWI the old 6.5mm Carcano cartridge had always been on the verge of being replaced. First with the 7.35×32mm of the Terni 1921 (a true intermediate cartridge) and then the 7.35X51mm, so there was no point in doing a modification that would have forced to modify all the sights of the existing rifles, when new cartridges in new rifles were about to be adopted.
    4
  9. It occurred pretty often back then, IE for aerial torpedoes.
    3
  10. You can walk around it being rimmed and too much tapered, but why chose it over ammos that have the same power whithout being rimmed or too tapered?
    3
  11.  @justindunlap1235  The spitzer 6.5X55 had been adopted by the Swedes only in 1941. Had they been invaded like the Norwegians, they would have used round nose bullets in WWII exactly like the italians and the Norwegians.
    3
  12. At some point in early '30s the Frankford Arsenal tested the Terni 1921 rifle, in 7.35X32.
    2
  13. Grendel is not really an intermediate cartridge. Originally the goal of the designers was to duplicate the 6.5 Swede ballistic, but ultimately, with those dimension constraint, they only managed to duplicate the 6.5 Carcano (IE, PPU 6.5 Carcano round, 123 grains, 2690 FPS).
    2
  14.  @Horseshoecrabwarrior  The first intermediate cartridge to be adopted didn't hit 1500 foot-pounds (neither the precursor 8mm Ribeyrolle and 7.35X32 Terni). The 7.62x39, and even the 6.8 Remington SPC are barely above. The .223 Remington is well below and the 5.45X39 doesn't even hit 1200 foot-pounds. And those are the only intermediate cartridges that had been used in any significative number. To me anything that had been designed for automatic fire from a not overly heavy rifle is below 1700 foot pounds.
    2
  15. Who had the best economy. That was the only thing that counted.
    2
  16.  @Armageddon2077  The Beretta 35 had been adopted by the Italian Navy and the Air Force. The Army went with the 34 in .380 ACP. Despite the Walther P38 nominally being the standard sidearm of the Wermacht, during the war, it fielded more Sauer 38H, Walther PP and Mauser HSc in .32 ACP. As said, the factories had better things to do that manufacturing complex breechlock pistols.
    2
  17. Italy used .380 ACP, Germany a mix of 9mm and .32 ACP (because factories had better to do than manufacturing complex pistols in 9mm). In the end, Italy's choice (to select form the start a round that, thus less powerful, spared manufacturing time during the war) was probably better. After the war the Soviets made the same choice with the 9mm Makarov.
    2
  18. @Jazzmaster Jay The original 6.5 Carcano used a 160gr bullet. Heavier than standard 7.62 NATO bullets.
    2
  19.  @hailexiao2770  But less projectile choices and probably more resistance to be adopted. Better sectional density is really significative only past 300m, and the US infantrymen didn't (like they sitll don't) train past 300m (then it was 300 yards, 274 meters). Infact, in the end, they adopted the .30 Carbine.
    2
  20.  @hendriktonisson2915  Also the spitzer 6.5X55 had been adopted by the Swedes only in 1941. Had they been invaded like the Norwegians, they would have used round nose bullets in WWII exactly like the italians and the Norwegians.
    2
  21. .276 Enfield was too powerful and too big and heavy.
    1
  22. Once your MG is belt fed, there is practically no advantage in having it the same caliber than the infantry rifle. Better to have lighter rifles and rifles' ammos, and more belts carried for the MG.
    1
  23.  @brydonphillips9060  Someone that tinks the Allies won WWII because they had the best rifle cartridge is better to keep it to himself, regardless if he's drinking or not. The importance of issuing a rifle cartiridge instead of another, in the general outcome of WWII, is negligible. But, if you belive the rifle cartrige decided the war, then the best ammo was the 7.62X54r.
    1
  24. Infact they had to adopt the M1 Carbine in .30 carbine.
    1
  25.  @Caseytify  How did they pay for the billions of new rounds they manufactured, that were even more expensive? They were adopting a new semiauto rifle (a pretty expensive item) for ALL the Army. ANY previous study concluded that semiautos enhanced the consumption of ammos, so regardless the quantity of ammos in the storage THEY WOULD HAVE ENDED. For much of their expected service life the NEW rifles would have used NEW ammos, and, since the new rifles would have mostly used new ammos, it would have been better if the new ammos were cheaper to manufacture. ALSO, by adopting a lighter service ammo, they would have avoided to adopt a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT action and ammo for the carbine. A problem that was immediately recognizable. They doubled it with the .30 Carbine. More M1 carbines were manufactured than M1 rifles during WW2. Yeah, and it would have been better to spend some money and test it BEFORE the war, instead than adopting it without having tested it, and spending some year IN the war with tropedoes that didnt' work. Sometimes, stupid decisions are not justified by the mindset of the time. They are simply stupid. Comparatively poor countries in respect to the US had working torpedoes. Japan started war also for the US announcement that it would have built a fleet bigger than the world's second and third ones combined. So they had some money to spend. Yeah, I explicitly stated it: "With the benefit of hindsight".
    1
  26. With the benefit of hindsight since: - they had to manufacture billions of brand new rounds during the war, and it would have been easier and less expensive to manufacture rounds requiring less materials. - the millions of 30-06 would have been shot anyway, in existing machineguns, even only in the ones placed on vehicles. A different infantry round, one that would not have forced to adopt the .30 carbine to have something lighter, would have been better.
    1
  27. That would have not been wasted anyway, since there were enough MGs to use all of them, and much more.
    1
  28. There were not those huge stockpiles of .30-06. Traditionally the US had a small army and historically the adoption of a new rifle was the moment to adopt a new cartridge. The old rifles didn't disappear anyway, so there were ways to use the old cartridges.
    1
  29. Making it able to shoot .30 Remington. Still small, still lightweight, still not too powerful to require an heavy weapon, but more effective than .30 Carbine. .30 Remington is practically the same energy than 7.35 Carcano in a smaller package.
    1
  30. During WWII more M1 carbines than M1 rifles had been manufactured. Maybe there was something wrong with the greatest battle implement.
    1
  31. Same for the 6.5 Carcano and 6.5 Grendel for that matter. They have exactly the same ballistic. What differentiates a first gen smokeless powder cartridge and a modern one is exactly the fact that, working at a higher pressure and with some more knowledge about how the internal shape of the case works, modern ammos have the same performances in a smaller package.
    1
  32.  @agentcrm  The spitzer had been introduced in 1898, and any possible patent expired after 15 years, so no. As already said, the Swede too adopted ed the 6.5X55 spitzer only in 1941.
    1
  33. The 7.35 Carcano has practically the same dimensions than the .276 Pedersen (same base diameter, 11.4 mm; same case lenght 51.4mm-51.5mm; and only one mm more OAL 72.5mm-73.5mm), so ten rounds can likely enter in a M1 clip. To me, even better than the 7.35 Carcano, but not in competition because none used it, despite having been widely available for more than 30 years, would have been the .30 Remington. Rimless, same energy than the 7.35 Carcano in a smaller package. (base diameter 10.7 mm, OAL 64.1mm).
    1
  34.  @agentcrm  The first spitzer to be adopted had been the French Balle D in 1898. The Carcano had been adopted seven years before. Yet, as already said, after the first spitzer had been adopted, not everyone rushed to adopt it. At the start of WWII the Swedes, Norwegians, Dutch and Greeks used round nose ammos. And do not forget dozen millions round-nose .30 Carbine rounds used by the US:
    1
  35.  @P_RO_  First of all, the answer was to Jazzmaster Jay, that said the 6.5 "had less mass" than 7.62x51. it hadn't. As already said, the Swedes came to that determination only in 1941. The Italians introduced the lighter 7.35mm bullet three years before. They introduced a lighter bullet three years before the Swedes exactly to have a flatter trajectory, and a projectile more easily tumbling in the body, the rationale of the decision had been even announced in newsreels of the time. So, after all, they had been able to get enough velocity increase to make difference, and didn't left it as-is. The " weaker action" of the Carcano had been converted to shoot 7.92mm Mauser. It wouldn't have problem in firing a marginally more powerful round like the 6.5 Swede. Simply the Italians didn't see any real advantage in increasing the power of the cartridge. Finally, 140 grains is simply what you tend to obtain if you replace a 160grains round-nose 6.5mm bullet with a spitzer without changing the OAL. The japanese did exactly the same with the 6.5 Arisaka, that had comparable power than the 6.5 Carcano, in 1905, 31 years before the Swedes.
    1
  36.  @johanmetreus1268  For that matter the Italians not only noticed that a lighter spitzer bullet was faster and flatter shooting (like there had always been any doubt. You obtain it even in weaker cartridges than the 6.5 Carcano obviously. See the different balls used in .223 Remington, or in pistol cartridges for that matter), but manufactured 6.5 AP spitzer bullets at least since 1916 and for precision shooting at least since 1924. They too had more pressing concerns that adopting them for general use. The concerns had already been explained above. The rationale behind the general initial adoption of 160 grains bullets in 6.5 calibers was volley fire. An higher sectional density bullet has a more stable trajectory on beyond 1km shooting. After WWI it was clear for anyone that a flatter trajectory in the first 300m of flight was more important (and you obtain a flatter initial trajectory with a lighter bullet with ANY level of power). Those that didn't adopt a lighter bullet before WWII (Swedes, Norwegians, Dutch, Greeks...) had obviously "more pressing concerns".
    1
  37.  @treyriver5676  They are obviously different bullets, one is spitzer and one is round nose. But they had been made to be used in the same barrels. The Spitzer has actually the diameter of the grooves of the barrel of the Gew 88 post 1894 (and the Mauser Gew 98). The diameter of the lands of the barrel of the Gew 88, in 1894, had been enlarged from the original .319 (the diameter of the bullet) to .323 because the long, round nose, bullet had a long bearing surface and a lot of material to displace to sit into the rifling, so it caused pressure spikes that "bulged" the barrel. The spitzer, due to the reduced bearing surface, didn't need the difference, but the barrels had been enlarged, for the round nose bullet, ten years before, so it had been made of the diameter of the lands of the "new" barrels. .323. The larger bullet needed a larger neck of the case, and so a larger cut in the chamber. But it was far easier to rebore the neck of the chambers than to replace the barrels. From the shoulder on the case is the same. Infact the Germans didnt' want to change ammo, they wanted a spitzer.
    1
  38.  @notsureyou  If you use a full blown round for standard infantry, then you are going to need another round for SMGs, and if you want to use semiauto carbines, lighter than the main infantry rifle, you are going to need another round as well. That way the US had to provide 30-06, .30 Carbine and .45 ACP. That's why, right after the war, the Soviets came up with ONE round for infantrymen (7.62X39 in SKS and AK, to replace the Mosins and PPSh) and ONE round for MGs (7.62X54r).
    1
  39. The 6.5X54 MS is a 6.5 Carcano, only different enough to not violate the patent.
    1
  40. A straight copy of the 6.5 Carcano.
    1
  41. The army "works on marksmanship" only up to 300m (then 300 yards, 274 meters). You can work to handle recoil as well as you want. The 30-06 remains heavier, so heavier rifle and less rounds carried. Were the Marines not men enough? Yet they had to use the .30 Carbine.
    1
  42. It served well, but it was already quite outdated the moment it had been adopted.
    1
  43. Power comes with weight, that's not hilarious.
    1
  44.  @chuckschillingvideos  A 8mm Kurz weights 17.05 grams. A 7.92 Mauser patrone 98 weights 27 Grams. I would not call 37% less "negligible".
    1
  45.  @justnotg00d  Those are miths. If someone think the lighter ammos don't work, he'll find only confirmation to his bias. Anectodes are not statistic Studies are for that.
    1
  46. To know how a BAR in 7.35 Carcano could have been, it's enough to look at the Breda PG. Same setup (automatic rifle fed by a 20 rounds box magazine, shooting from an open bolt), same barrel lenght than the Colt Monitor, but weighting 2kg less.
    1
  47. The base diametre of the 7.35 is the same of the .276 Pedersen, so it means 10 rounds instead of 8 in a M1 clip, so 25% more rounds in the same space.
    1
  48. Not really. 7.35 Carcano, from a 17" barrel (carbine TS) launches a 128 grain bullet at 2410 fps for 1650 foot/pounds of energy. .300 BLK, from a 16" barrel, 125 grain bullet, 2157-2200 fps, 1313-1343 foot/pounds. 7.35 Carcano is in the same ballpark of .30-30, or .30 Remington, or 6.8 SPC.
    1
  49. If your MG is belt fed, to have the same cartridge for the MG and infantry rifle has practically no advantages. It's not like you can feed the MG with spare infantry ammos. Instead, using a lighter ammo for infantry rifle, your soldiers can carry MORE ammos for the MG. Think of the AKM (7.62X39) PKM (762x54R) combo.
    1
  50. Norwegians did, and they used the same cartridge.
    1
  51. But not the M1 carbine, that had been pretty important. It had been the only case where the carbine had to be made in a different caliber, because the main one was too powerful and a carbine version would have been too heavy anyway.
    1
  52. The infantry rifle was designated to be the SKS, in the same cartridge.
    1
  53.  @DarkestVampire92  True actually. Both the SKS and the AK had been formally adopted in 1949. The intention of the Red Army was for the SKS to be the infantry rifle, and the AK to replace the PPSh-PPS. Only later they realized the duplication was useless, and the AK could cover both roles, so the SKS begun to be gradually phased out.
    1
  54. And why not keep flintlocks? Nato can take it or leave it
    1
  55. Think of the AKM (7.62X39) PKM (7.62x54R) combo.
    1
  56.  @raphaelhanna8345  The 7.62X54R cartridge has a long history, but militarily is today manufactured practically only for the PKM machinegun
    1
  57. Italy didn't have the money to field a semiauto rifle before the start of WWII anyway. To have the best cartridge for bolt action rifles in WWII was as important as to have the best shoelaces.
    1
  58. Yes, if least powerful means lighter (more ammos can be carried) and lower recoil (faster follow up shots). Post war studies shown that there were no significative differences in terminal ballistic due to the power of the rifle cartridge. Not by chance, during the war, more M1 Carbines (that fired a dignified pistol round) than M1 rifles had been manufactured.
    1
  59.  @Horseshoecrabwarrior  Yet is above, and infact, when they had to design a light semiauto/auto rifle, the Terni 1921, the italians designed a true intermediate cartridge for it, the 7.35X32, that developed around 1200 foot pounds. Also the 7.62 NATO is capable to operate in full auto. to keep it on target firing from the shoulder is another thing. "the other category" can be called as that of the "light" full blown cartridges, as the .30 Remington, the 30-30, or all the first gen 6.5 cartridges.
    1
  60. After WWI the old 6.5mm cartridge had always been on the verge of being replaced. First with the 7.35×32mm of the Terni 1921 (a true intermediate cartridge) and then the 7.35X51mm, so there was no point in doing a modification that would have forced to modify all the sights of the existing rifles.
    1
  61.  @hendriktonisson2915  As already said, The Swedes and the japanese didn't want to change service ammunitions. They wanted to use the same ammo with a spitzer bullet. Instead, after WWI the old 6.5mm Carcano cartridge had always been on the verge of being replaced. First with the 7.35×32mm of the Terni 1921 (a true intermediate cartridge) and then the 7.35X51mm, so there was no point in doing a modification that would have forced to modify all the sights of the existing rifles, when new cartridges in new rifles were about to be adopted. Also the Rumenians, didn't adopt a spitzer 6.5X53R, they changed ammo. The Dutch instead remained with the round nose, and so did the Greeks.
    1
  62.  @hendriktonisson2915  No. As said, first the Italians wanted to adopt the 7.35X32 (not the 7.35X51, that came later) because they wanted to adopt a semiauto rifle (the Terni 1921) and correctly recognised that, for semiauto fire, an intermediate cartridge was better, hence the 7.35X32. The conservatorism of the high brass prevented the adoption of the Terni semiauto, bu they still wanted a semiauto, in a full blown cartridge, so a new rifle, and tested many. In 1938, still testing semiauto rifles, they recognised the convertion to a semiauto would have likely required a long time, but they didn't want to fight the next war with long worn-out, WWI Carcano rifles, so they adopted the M38 short rifle, that was a new rifle anyway. BUT there is a trick. You can take an old, worn-out, 6.5 long rifle barrel, and turn it in a brand new, 7.35 short rifle barrel, only cutting and reboring it. You can't turn an old worn-out 6.5 long rifle barrel in a brand new 6.5 short rifle barrel. Even cutting it, it will remain worn out. So, since they had to manufacture new rifles and new ammos anyway, to adopt the 7.35x51, was economically convenient in respect to adopt a 6.5 spitzer.
    1
  63. You can work around the fact that's rimmed and a lot tapered, but why chose it over one of the several rounds that were in the same energy ballpark without being rimmed or so tapered?
    1
  64. Also to have a lighter ammo for the rifles (and consequently lighter rifles) allow the infantrymen to carry more ammos for the MG.
    1
  65. The Garand was not that accurate. 5MOA at 100yrd was the acceptance limit. Practically any bolt action could do better.
    1
  66. It was the .276 Pedersen. It was a pretty hot .276, and the M1 clip held 10 rounds instead of 8.
    1
  67.  @antoniomanuelrodrigues-sz7lb  The actions are not even remotely similar. As for the cases, 7.92x33mm is a shortened 8mm Mauser. 7.62X39 is a shortened 6.5mm Carcano.
    1
  68. MG42 couldn't use the double drum.
    1
  69. Infact they had to issue a different action with a different cartridge, the .30 Carbine.
    1
  70. The base diametre of the 7.35 is the same of the .276 Pedersen, so it means 10 rounds instead of 8 in a M1 clip, so 25% more rounds in the same space.
    1
  71. The .276 Pedersen. Dimensionally almost identical to the 7.35 Carcano, but hotter.
    1
  72. Who had he better economy. I'ts not an answer to who had the better rifle cartridge like it's not an answer to who had the better underwear.
    1