American small arms cartridges during WWII; why so little change?

[bojan]

10 hours ago, 17thfabn said:

It is ironic that the two countries that attempted a caliber change over both used 6.5 mm.  In many studies 6.5 mm is believed to be about the perfect caliber for infantry rifles.

....

From what I've read the Japanese 6.5 mm was considered to be an effective projectile. The Italian 6.5 mm on the other hand being a round nosed bullet could use improvement. Could the Italians 6.5 Carcano have been adapted to use a spitzer type bullet? Would this require modifications to the rifle to feed reliably? 

They tried to change for different reasons.

Japanese were driven by performance in MGs, their MGs started being produced in 7.7 since 1934 or so. Rifles followed later for ammo commonality, not for rifle performances.

Italians went different route, they already used 8mm Breda in MGs, but they wanted spitzer bullet for rifles and LMGs (primarily for LMGs) and were unable to make it work in 6.5 with progressive rifling in Carcanos. Hence they enlarged bullet diameter, but loading was light and 7.35 from carbine barrel had only slightly more performances as 7.62x39 from AK barrel. It was quite good rifle cartridge, just powerful enough as it should be, but ultimately pointless - it's form factor was still bad (51mm long case) and it's benefit would have only show if it was used in at least semi, or ideally fully automatic rifle. But Italy had nothing valid, hence it was doomed from start as a pointless exercise in optimizing ammo for niche use.

Quote

]6.5 mm is such a perfect caliber that as far as I know, no modern military uses it as a standard issue caliber.

Because sole performances do not decide what will become common caliber, political situations, availability of large quantities of surplus ammo and worldwide standardization do.

Serbia adopted 7x57 Mauser in 1899 when choosing among 3 available calibers (6.5mm Swedish, 7x57 and 7.65x53) because in a hurry to reequip rifles in that caliber could be delivered fastest, all 3 were considered adequate for use in rifles and MGs at that moment.

WW1 comes and ends, there no point in continuing with 7x57 since now weapons in that caliber are minor % of inventory compared to 8mm French and 8mm Austro-Hungarian. But those are rimmed rounds and something better is needed, so what is widely available, modern cartridge in Europe? 7.9x57 Mauser. So it gets adopted.

WW2 comes and ends, this time it was decided to keep 7.9x57 as a good cartridge. But in Europe, despite an abundance of 7.9x57 and weapons in that caliber it goes the way of dodo, because two major political block both pushed own caliber (first 30-06 then 7.62x51 in case of NATO and 7.62x54 and 7.62x39in case of WP) on their allies. Meanwhile intermediate rounds came, a lot of experiments were done with 6.5-7mm caliber, but while some were doing experiments AK and 7.62x39 conquered world markets. British 7mm, Czech 7.62x45 etc never stood a chance.

Then 5.56 comes, with NATO standardizing SS109 bullet in 1979 (or so). Why? Because all major European manufacturers already at least experimented with 5.56mm guns for a last decade or so. Why? Because 5.56 was first *intermediate round widely available and proven to work in the "west". Other potential calibers (British 4.something, French 6mm, Swedish experimental 6.something etc) never stood a chance.

*Well, not really, Germans experimented with 7.62x39, found it good performing, but there was no snowball's chance in hell that it would be adopted by a NATO nation.

Edit - @Markus Becker already wrote a lot of reasoning why.

Edited July 8 by bojan

[Markus Becker]

WRT the Thompson and US government agencies buying the overpriced thing when budgets were lean because of the Great Depression: I remembered one big factor that started the GD: trade barriers. 

Were the alternatives to the M1928 a fiscal non starter because of high import trarrifs? That would be a rational explanation for buying Thompsons. 

[Harold Jones]

I think it comes down to the fact that the Army and Navy didn't see the need to invest a lot of time or energy in procuring an SMG that they barely had an official use for.  The stocks of Thompson's were enough to  meet the pre-war needs so they bought them.  I'm sure no one would have wanted to explain to Congress why they were buying foreign guns when there was an acceptable US made one available.  

As an aside, there's a lot of interesting odds and ends in this about small arms and ammunition design in the US between the wars. https://ia801302.us.archive.org/3/items/Hatchers_Notebook/Hatchers_Notebook.pdf

[seahawk]

There were odds and ends in every country because technology was still moving forward.

And if one is honest the US entered WW2 with a fully adequate range of infantry weapons. And what they added during the war was also adequate. Especially the M1/M2 deserve praise.

[Stuart Galbraith]

On 7/8/2024 at 1:00 PM, bojan said:

They tried to change for different reasons.

Japanese were driven by performance in MGs, their MGs started being produced in 7.7 since 1934 or so. Rifles followed later for ammo commonality, not for rifle performances.

Italians went different route, they already used 8mm Breda in MGs, but they wanted spitzer bullet for rifles and LMGs (primarily for LMGs) and were unable to make it work in 6.5 with progressive rifling in Carcanos. Hence they enlarged bullet diameter, but loading was light and 7.35 from carbine barrel had only slightly more performances as 7.62x39 from AK barrel. It was quite good rifle cartridge, just powerful enough as it should be, but ultimately pointless - it's form factor was still bad (51mm long case) and it's benefit would have only show if it was used in at least semi, or ideally fully automatic rifle. But Italy had nothing valid, hence it was doomed from start as a pointless exercise in optimizing ammo for niche use.

Because sole performances do not decide what will become common caliber, political situations, availability of large quantities of surplus ammo and worldwide standardization do.

Serbia adopted 7x57 Mauser in 1899 when choosing among 3 available calibers (6.5mm Swedish, 7x57 and 7.65x53) because in a hurry to reequip rifles in that caliber could be delivered fastest, all 3 were considered adequate for use in rifles and MGs at that moment.

WW1 comes and ends, there no point in continuing with 7x57 since now weapons in that caliber are minor % of inventory compared to 8mm French and 8mm Austro-Hungarian. But those are rimmed rounds and something better is needed, so what is widely available, modern cartridge in Europe? 7.9x57 Mauser. So it gets adopted.

WW2 comes and ends, this time it was decided to keep 7.9x57 as a good cartridge. But in Europe, despite an abundance of 7.9x57 and weapons in that caliber it goes the way of dodo, because two major political block both pushed own caliber (first 30-06 then 7.62x51 in case of NATO and 7.62x54 and 7.62x39in case of WP) on their allies. Meanwhile intermediate rounds came, a lot of experiments were done with 6.5-7mm caliber, but while some were doing experiments AK and 7.62x39 conquered world markets. British 7mm, Czech 7.62x45 etc never stood a chance.

Then 5.56 comes, with NATO standardizing SS109 bullet in 1979 (or so). Why? Because all major European manufacturers already at least experimented with 5.56mm guns for a last decade or so. Why? Because 5.56 was first *intermediate round widely available and proven to work in the "west". Other potential calibers (British 4.something, French 6mm, Swedish experimental 6.something etc) never stood a chance.

*Well, not really, Germans experimented with 7.62x39, found it good performing, but there was no snowball's chance in hell that it would be adopted by a NATO nation.

Edit - @Markus Becker already wrote a lot of reasoning why.

4.85x49.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4.85×49mm

[Markus Becker]

14 hours ago, Harold Jones said:

I think it comes down to the fact that the Army and Navy didn't see the need to invest a lot of time or energy in procuring an SMG that they barely had an official use for.  The stocks of Thompson's were enough to  meet the pre-war needs so they bought them.  I'm sure no one would have wanted to explain to Congress why they were buying foreign guns when there was an acceptable US made one available. 

Is paying 200-225 hard earned taxpayer dollars per gun for guns that cost sub 50$ to make acceptable? In a depression.

To me this looks like they could not get anything else. Or they were under orders to only buy American regardless of the price. And no one in congress being aware of the vast difference in price and the huge profit margin of AO.

[seahawk]

200-225$ that went to American firms and American workers. In a depression that makes a lot of sense.

[Markus Becker]

1 hour ago, seahawk said:

200-225$ that went to American firms and American workers. In a depression that makes a lot of sense.

Not really. It went into the pocktes of AO's investors. Remember the guns had all been made by Colt in the early 1920s. AO just stored and sold them with a ~300% profit margin.

[R011]

9 hours ago, Markus Becker said:

Is paying 200-225 hard earned taxpayer dollars per gun for guns that cost sub 50$ to make acceptable? In a depression.

To me this looks like they could not get anything else. Or they were under orders to only buy American regardless of the price. And no one in congress being aware of the vast difference in price and the huge profit margin of AO.

How much to retool a US factory to make an inch-pattern MP28 in .45 ACP, assuming one could get a licence, and then produce a thousand or less?

Edited July 22 by R011

[seahawk]

15 hours ago, Markus Becker said:

Not really. It went into the pocktes of AO's investors. Remember the guns had all been made by Colt in the early 1920s. AO just stored and sold them with a ~300% profit margin.

And much of the profit was down to the inflation. What is the alternative? Waste money on a new tender, add a new gun type to the logistical system?

[R011]

On 7/21/2024 at 3:37 PM, Markus Becker said:

WRT the Thompson and US government agencies buying the overpriced thing when budgets were lean because of the Great Depression: I remembered one big factor that started the GD: trade barriers. 

Were the alternatives to the M1928 a fiscal non starter because of high import trarrifs? That would be a rational explanation for buying Thompsons. 

Did anyone bother to import and try to sell European SMGs in America pre war?  If no one was selling, then no one would be buying.  And was there enough market?

[Markus Becker]

5 hours ago, seahawk said:

And much of the profit was down to the inflation. What is the alternative? Waste money on a new tender, add a new gun type to the logistical system?

What inflation?

https://www.in2013dollars.com/us/inflation/1920?endYear=1935&amount=1

https://www.minneapolisfed.org/about-us/monetary-policy/inflation-calculator/consumer-price-index-1913-

 

The retail price of the Thompson was greed and profiteering by Auto Ordnance.

[Markus Becker]

14 hours ago, R011 said:

How much to retool a US factory to make an inch-pattern MP28 in .45 ACP, assuming one could get a licence, and then produce a thousand or less?

Not necessary. The federal government could have just used the thread of buying imported guns to get a better price from AO.

Quote

Did anyone bother to import and try to sell European SMGs in America pre war?  If no one was selling, then no one would be buying.  And was there enough market?

That would have to happen before the 1934 NFA kills the commercial market. Speaking of, there was clearly no market for 200$ SMG when you could get a Remington Model 8 for under 60$ but SMG could have been sold with the usual profit margin for probably less than 50$.

Edited July 23 by Markus Becker

[R011]

5 hours ago, Markus Becker said:

Not necessary. The federal government could have just used the thread of buying imported guns to get a better price from AO.

 

An empty threat and AO would have known it.  Given the small numbers of weapons bought, the savings would have been trivial anyway.  And the first purchases were in the twenties when there weren't any other SMGs on the market.

Quote

That would have to happen before the 1934 NFA kills the commercial market. Speaking of, there was clearly no market for 200$ SMG when you could get a Remington Model 8 for under 60$ but SMG could have been sold with the usual profit margin for probably less than 50$.

Exactly.  Not worth the effort for European manufacturers to bother competing

[Markus Becker]

On 7/23/2024 at 7:15 PM, R011 said:

Exactly.  Not worth the effort for European manufacturers to bother competing

As of the late 20s SMG presumably in this price range were being manufactured and they did sell well. 

 

 

[R011]

Just now, Markus Becker said:

As of the late 20s SMG presumably in this price range were being manufactured and they did sell well. 

 

 

Were they made in the USA?  Sold in the USA?

[Markus Becker]

2 hours ago, R011 said:

Were they made in the USA?  Sold in the USA?

A lot of guns were sold in the US despite not being made there. 100 years ago as well as today. 

[17thfabn]

6 hours ago, R011 said:

Were they made in the USA?  Sold in the USA?

Probably as big an issue, where they in .45?

Any caliber would be fine with the U.S. military.... as long as it was .45

Edited August 13 by 17thfabn

[R011]

5 hours ago, Markus Becker said:

A lot of guns were sold in the US despite not being made there. 100 years ago as well as today. 

Not to the US government in peacetime and were SMG makers selling SMGs there?  That the US civilian and police market seems to have been monopolized by expensive Thompsons (and BAR variants) leads me to suspect they were not.

Edited August 14 by R011

[R011]

1 hour ago, 17thfabn said:

Probably as big an issue, where they in .45?

Any caliber would be fine with the U.S. military.... as long as it was .45

At least some export models of some Euro SMGs were made in .45 ACP.  Numbers bought by the USG before the war were pretty low, though, and may not have been enough to make a business case for building a US factory to compete for the small, occasional orders.

[Markus Becker]

4 hours ago, R011 said:

That the US civilian and police market seems to have been monopolized by expensive Thompsons (and BAR variants) leads me to suspect they were not.

What US market? Thompsons sold like yesterday's beer. Semi automatic carbines/rifles like the Remington Model 8 and Winchester 1907 did much, much better. 

My WAG is that this gave the industry the idea that there was no market potential for submachine guns in the USA. So nobody else bothered to design them or import them for their catalog. 

[seahawk]

Maybe there was no market for them?

[Markus Becker]

I'm going with the price killing the demand. 60$ was a lot of money at the time but judging by the sales it was still a sum even individuals could afford. 

[seahawk]

Not sure. Before the National Firearms Act of 1934 you could legally buy a BAR and that was cheaper than a Thompson due to military surplus becoming available. But most importantly you could get a pistol, revolver, rifle or shotgun for a few bucks. So for hunting, general use or self defence you could get a firearm for very little money.   A SMG is of no use for hunting or as a farm gun. It is also no use for carrying around all day and as "tactical cool" was not yet a thing, most will have preferred a shotgun for self defence, if a revolver or pistol did not seem enough. At the time the Thomson was a weapon liked by criminals and mobster, so the SMG was probably not a "cool" weapon to own.

[AETiglathPZ]

On 6/27/2024 at 12:57 PM, Harold Jones said:

There were 2 on every m60 series tank. When we got m1s they were replaced by an m16.  They were easy enough to store and carry, easy to clean and maintain, but I don't think anyone thought they'd be any use in combat.

Mechanics who crewed M88 recovery vehicles still had M3 SMG at Ft. Hood 92-93. When I saw a mechanic holding one it might as well have been the last unicorn.