History of US Military Firearms Development

[Snargfargle]

US Government (Civil War):

Cavalry, here's a bunch of money, buy yourself some rifles.

US Cavalry:

Me likey!

Post Civil War.

US Government: We have decided to standardize our rifles, here use this one now. Besides, you are using up too much ammunition.

Indian Agency:

Here, use these to hunt rabbits with, the day of the buffalo are coming to an end (and they can't shoot as far as our military rifle either).

Indians:

Also Indians:

Hey, look what I found!

Some time later...

US Government:

We need a modern rifle. This one will do nicely.

Spanish:

We like this rifle instead, it's based on a fine German design.

US Government, Well, we still beat you!

Spanish: Your Navy beat us, true, but our army mostly just died from disease.

American:

        369 soldiers killed
        10 sailors killed
        6 Marines killed
        
Spanish:

        200 soldiers killed
        500–600 sailors killed
        15,000 dead from disease

US Government:

Hey, everyone, look at our new battle rifle, it's based on a fine German design.

 

Edited March 9 by Snargfargle

[Snargfargle]

Much, much later...

US Army medic:

Why did they issue me a ten-pound battle rifle?

\

 

 

[Admiral_Karasu]

Quote

Indian Agency:

Here, use these to hunt rabbits with, the day of the buffalo are coming to an end (and they can't shoot as far as our military rifle either).

Thank you. Just something that was left pondering, which ones were trying to shoot back, the rabbits or the buffaloes?

[Snargfargle]

20 minutes ago, Admiral_Karasu said:

Thank you. Just something that was left pondering, which ones were trying to shoot back, the rabbits or the buffaloes?

The 1866 Winchester was chambered for the .44 Henry cartridge, which was a rim-fire cartridge just a little bit more powerful in a carbine than an the .44 pistols used during the Civil War. A lot of these were sold to Indians because they had become obsolete as soon as the 1873 Winchester came out in 44-40, which was a better cartridge that you could have your pistol chambered for too. The 1873 Springfield was chambered in the much more powerful and longer-range .45-70. The only problem where Custer was at the Little Bighorn Battle was that there were a lot of hiding places where the Indians could sneak up close and a shorter-range, more rapid-firing rifle was a better than a long-range, single-shot one. Captain Benteen realized this and organized a defense in an open area where the longer-range Springfields could be put to better use. His command, which included the fairly useless Reno and his decimated troops, survived the battle.

.45 Colt 1860 Army -- 220 gr conical bullet at 700 fps, 239 ft/lbs

.44 Henry -- 200 gr lead bullet 1,125 ft/s (343 m/s) 568 ft⋅lbf (770 J)

.44-40 -- 200 gr lead bullet 1,245 ft/s (379 m/s) 688 ft⋅lbf (933 J)

.45-70 -- 405 gr lead bullet 1,394 ft/s (425 m/s) 1,748 ft⋅lbf (2,370 J)

[Ensign Cthulhu]

6 hours ago, Snargfargle said:

Hey, everyone, look at our new battle rifle, it's based on a fine German design.

And then in World War 1 they didn't have enough, and they were frantically manufacturing the British P14 (as the Enfield P17), a rifle that had originally been designed to replace the. 303 Lee Enfield, firing something that amounted to a 7mm magnum cartridge. 

[Admiral_Karasu]

16 minutes ago, Ensign Cthulhu said:

And then in World War 1 they didn't have enough, and they were frantically manufacturing the British P14 (as the Enfield P17), a rifle that had originally been designed to replace the. 303 Lee Enfield, firing something that amounted to a 7mm magnum cartridge. 

Conventional wisdom would suggest you want to limit the number of different calibers your army is firing. I had a look, and interestingly, the British .303 is the oldest military caliber still in service, with the Russian 7.62x54mmR being second oldest. Probably the most famous Russian rifle is the Mosin 3-line M1891. Wikipedia mentions something I have never known before. Have you ever come across the American 'variant', "U.S. Rifle, 7.62mm, Model of 1916"?

[Wolfswetpaws]

6 hours ago, Snargfargle said:

Much, much later...

US Army medic:

Why did they issue me a ten-pound battle rifle?

\

 

Because the 7.62NATO cartridge it chambers can "reach out and touch someone" at a greater distance, and with more of a punch, than the 5.56NATO cartridge the one-pound-lighter rifle can shoot.  😉 
The engagement ranges in the operational zone depicted in the image you provided were longer than the US Military had planned for.  So the US Military indroduced the "designated marksman" rifle concept.

And Snipers got new rifles and cartridges, as I recollect.
I didn't hear much about the .338 Lapua, until the Gulf War and similar desert-warfare situations became a topic of interest during the 1990's, the early 2000's and continuing to today.
There are other cartridges which saw service, too,  https://ammo.com/best/best-sniper-caliber
 

[Ensign Cthulhu]

25 minutes ago, Admiral_Karasu said:

Conventional wisdom would suggest you want to limit the number of different calibers your army is firing.

The British were halfway through deciding to change over when WW1 broke out, but there were issues still being sorted out. Among other things, the 7mm Mk1 round was so hot it would cook off in the chamber after a few shots. However, they were still making Lee-Enfields and millions of rounds of .303, so they could keep rolling with what they had. When the Americans manufactured the P14 rifle as the P17, it had already been designed with a Mauser-style bolt and modifying it to take .30-06 wasn't hard. I remember reading that it, and not the Springfield, was Alvin York's rifle.

I'm not sure who is still using the .303 British as service issue. British Lee-Enfield sniper rifles are descendants of the No.4 design, which is strong enough to take - and is chambered in - 7.62 NATO. AFAIK, even India long since switched over to a beefed-up SMLE (Ishapore series) with better metallurgy that can take the 7.62 NATO round (which the SMLE was found not to be reliably tough enough for).

The .303 service cartridge in the Lee-Enfield rifle has a bizarre twist. Because of the way the barrel resonates, there is a particular node at which ammunition which is under-spec for muzzle velocity will send the bullet out the rifle on the 'up-whip' and conversely slightly faster ammo will exit on the 'down-whip', thus naturally compensating for variations in muzzle velocity. For Mark VII service ammunition (as used in both World Wars), the magic range at which this effect is maximal is somewhere around 800 yards; for the previous Mark VI, it's around 1500. 

[Snargfargle]

13 minutes ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

Because the 7.62NATO cartridge it chambers can "reach out and touch someone" at a greater distance, and with more of a punch, than the 5.56NATO cartridge the one-pound-lighter rifle can shoot.  😉 
The engagement ranges in the operational zone depicted in the image you provided were longer than the US Military had planned for.  So the US Military indroduced the "designated marksman" rifle concept.

And Snipers got new rifles and cartridges, as I recollect.
I didn't hear much about the .338 Lapua, until the Gulf War and similar desert-warfare situations became a topic of interest during the 1990's, the early 2000's and continuing to today.
There are other cartridges which saw service, too,  https://ammo.com/best/best-sniper-caliber
 

The new M-7 chambers a high-velocity .277 round. The rifle weighs about ten pounds loaded, the same an an M1 Garand. Unless you are special forces, medics are technically supposed to be non-combatants. Your weapon is for the defense of yourself and of your patients, not for offensive use. I'm not sure a battle rifle is needed by a medic. 

However, the US has pretty much thrown out the Geneva Conventions as nobody we've fought has ever adhered to them, and who is going to try out soldiers in international court anyway? I think medics nowadays just shoot at the enemy with everyone else and only act as medics if someone on their side gets injured.

By the way, this is a joke thread if nobody has caught on yet.

 

 

 

[Admiral_Karasu]

5 minutes ago, Snargfargle said:

The new M-7 chambers a high-velocity .277 round. The rifle weighs about ten pounds loaded, the same an an M1 Garand. Unless you are special forces, medics are technically supposed to be non-combatants. Your weapon is for the defense of yourself and of your patients, not for offensive use. I'm not sure a battle rifle is needed by a medic. 

However, the US has pretty much thrown out the Geneva Conventions as nobody we've fought has ever adhered to them, and who is going to try out soldiers in international court anyway? I think medics nowadays just shoot at the enemy with everyone else and only act as medics if someone on their side gets injured.

By the way, this is a joke thread if nobody has caught on yet.

 

 

 

This is a joke thread?

On the medics, I suppose the US term is a 'corpsman', I don't know if there's any technical difference between those terms. However, don't the Geneva conventions specifically rule out medics being armed and required to wear the Red Cross insignia same as any ambulances, patient transports or hospital ships and thus having protected status in war? Other than that, I assume all soldiers carry some sort of emergency medical kit.

I was trying to figure out why the switch from 5.56 to 7.62 in NATO, but... this thread gives some interesting background but doesn't actually provide any immediate answers.

https://www.quora.com/Why-did-most-NATO-countries-switch-to-5-56-from-7-62-in-their-standard-service-rifles

[Wolfswetpaws]

2 minutes ago, Snargfargle said:

The new M-7 chambers a high-velocity .277 round. The rifle weighs about ten pounds loaded, the same an an M1 Garand. Unless you are special forces, medics are technically supposed to be non-combatants. Your weapon is for the defense of yourself and of your patients, not for offensive use. I'm not sure a battle rifle is needed by a medic. 

However, the US has pretty much thrown out the Geneva Conventions as nobody we've fought has ever adhered to them, and who is going to try out soldiers in international court anyway? I think medics nowadays just shoot at the enemy with everyone else and only act as medics if someone on their side gets injured.

By the way, this is a joke thread if nobody has caught on yet.

 

Yeah, the .276 Pederson continues to laugh at how many cartridges have been created afterwards with similar performance (even if the size & shape of the case has varied and the bullet diameter varied by a few hundredths of an inch here or there).  🙂 

Both the US and the British were looking at the .276 Pederson and the prototype M-1 Garands were chambered for it.
Yet, the decision to utilize the existing stocks of .30-06 and .303 British cartridges was made, instead.

Getting back to the heavy rifle?
In the picture the person is wearing a holstered pistol.
If defending the patients with the pistol in a landscape dominated by rifles, artillery, mortars and aerial threats seems like the best solution to you, then you're welcome to do so.
Personally, I won't mind being able to contribute to the unit's firepower and creating patients for the opposition before they get close enough for a pistol to be a viable option.
Maybe that's just me, though.  🙂 

2 minutes ago, Snargfargle said:

By the way, this is a joke thread if nobody has caught on yet.

I didn't "catch on" and this topic seemed like a legitimate foray into a discussion, from the start.

[Snargfargle]

6 minutes ago, Ensign Cthulhu said:

When the Americans manufactured the P14 rifle as the P17, it had already been designed with a Mauser-style bolt and modifying it to take .30-06 wasn't hard. I remember reading that it, and not the Springfield, was Alvin York's rifle.

WWI movies like to use 1903s because they have that "classical" look. However, the US produced over two million M1917 Enfields and three quarters of the US soldiers fighting in WWI carried them. Canada also issues US M1917 Enfields in .30-06 to it's training bases and reserve troops early in WWII because they didn't have enough SMLEs to go around.

I wish I had a M1917 as it's one of the strongest bolt-action rifles ever made. I don't shoot my SMLE or my Arisaka anymore because .303 and 7.7 mm ammo is too scarce and expensive. However, you can find .30-06 ammo anywhere for a reasonable price.

[Wolfswetpaws]

3 minutes ago, Snargfargle said:

WWI movies like to use 1903s because they have that "classical" look. However, the US produced over two million M1917 Enfields and three quarters of the US soldiers fighting in WWI carried them. Canada also issues US M1917 Enfields in .30-06 to it's training bases and reserve troops early in WWII because they didn't have enough SMLEs to go around.

I wish I had a M1917 as it's one of the strongest bolt-action rifles ever made. I don't shoot my SMLE or my Arisaka anymore because .303 and 7.7 mm ammo is too scarce and expensive. However, you can find .30-06 ammo anywhere for a reasonable price.

Visit me personally and you can have the few hundred cartridges of .303 British I still have.
I sold the rifles.  I wouldn't mind the ammo finding a good home. 
I'd offer it to @Ensign Cthulhu, as well, but I'm not certain of the import problems he might face when crossing the border back into Canada.

[Admiral_Karasu]

Here's some background reading on the .303 (which probably comes as no news to you guys), apparently these could be rather nasty depending on which variation we are talking about. Curiously, with complaints varying from not being lethal enough to being too lethal. These issues were also addressed by the Hague Convention.

https://jmvh.org/article/over-a-century-of-service-the-303-projectile-and-its-wounding-capabilities-an-historical-profile/

[Tpaktop2_1 NA]

1 hour ago, Snargfargle said:

The 1866 Winchester was chambered for the .44 Henry cartridge, which was a rim-fire cartridge just a little bit more powerful in a carbine than an the .44 pistols used during the Civil War. A lot of these were sold to Indians because they had become obsolete as soon as the 1873 Winchester came out in 44-40, which was a better cartridge that you could have your pistol chambered for too. The 1873 Springfield was chambered in the much more powerful and longer-range .45-70. The only problem where Custer was at the Little Bighorn Battle was that there were a lot of hiding places where the Indians could sneak up close and a shorter-range, more rapid-firing rifle was a better than a long-range, single-shot one. Captain Benteen realized this and organized a defense in an open area where the longer-range Springfields could be put to better use. His command, which included the fairly useless Reno and his decimated troops, survived the battle.

.45 Colt 1860 Army -- 220 gr conical bullet at 700 fps, 239 ft/lbs

.44 Henry -- 200 gr lead bullet 1,125 ft/s (343 m/s) 568 ft⋅lbf (770 J)

.44-40 -- 200 gr lead bullet 1,245 ft/s (379 m/s) 688 ft⋅lbf (933 J)

.45-70 -- 405 gr lead bullet 1,394 ft/s (425 m/s) 1,748 ft⋅lbf (2,370 J)

You should read up on the Martini-Henry rifle (English) from the Zulu Wars. That was a POS in many ways from the heat expansion (jamming) in firing many rounds, to short range, to logistics in supplying ammo for reloading. 

BTW, I remember seeing an ad in the past (1930's?) where the Browning BAR was sold in hardware stores in Texas. It was to handle the problems that came across the border.

IMO, the best utility rifle is the M-1 Garand. Simple in design, in use, and maintenance. The bad part is that clip "ping" sound when done shooting.

I remember learning the lesson of firing my Mossberg shotgun where the barrel was red. I did not have a shoulder pad and had a bruise the size of a football.

[Wolfswetpaws]

4 minutes ago, Tpaktop2_1 NA said:

You should read up on the Martini-Henry rifle (English) from the Zulu Wars. That was a POS in many ways from the heat expansion (jamming) in firing many rounds, to short range, to logistics in supplying ammo for reloading. 

From what I remember, part of the problem was that the case wall of the ammunition was too thin.
This led to the cases being torn during extraction, with part of the cartridge case remaining inside the chamber of the rifle.

[Wolfswetpaws]

1 hour ago, Admiral_Karasu said:

Have you ever come across the American 'variant', "U.S. Rifle, 7.62mm, Model of 1916"?

No, not me personally.  But I seem to recall reading an "American Rifleman" magazine article about them.

[Admiral_Karasu]

5 minutes ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

From what I remember, part of the problem was that the case wall of the ammunition was too thin.
This led to the cases being torn during extraction, with part of the cartridge case remaining inside the chamber of the rifle.

Sounds like something that could land you in a bit of a sticky wicket.

[Snargfargle]

12 minutes ago, Admiral_Karasu said:

On the medics, I suppose the US term is a 'corpsman', I don't know if there's any technical difference between those terms. However, don't the Geneva conventions specifically rule out medics being armed and required to wear the Red Cross insignia same as any ambulances, patient transports or hospital ships and thus having protected status in war? Other than that, I assume all soldiers carry some sort of emergency medical kit.

Corpsmen are Navy medics assigned to the Navy or Marines, Air force and Army medics are called medics.

I was issued a red cross armband. I was told to put it in my foot locker and never wear it because almost everyone the US Army has fought since WWI has specifically targeted medics. Maybe not always the Germans but most of the others did.

Yes, all soldiers carry a tourniquet and a field dressing. That's what we medics are trained to use first because if we didn't we'd quickly run short on medical supplies and we can only carry so much, though we usually have additional supplies on a vehicle somewhere.

Here's what I took to the field with me.

I had two of these on my web gear.

I was a medic so what did I need these M-16 ammo pouches for? I filled them with medical supplies.

I carried a .45, so these were my ammo pouches.

I had one of these on me at all times.

And I carried one of these larger backpack ones too.

Back with a vehicle I had additional supplies and splints.

And that was not including my duffel bag full of patient blankets, and my two stretchers.

Then, there was my own gear.

Medics now carry pretty much the same gear, even though the containers for it look a bit different. 

 

[Admiral_Karasu]

There's a story from the early days of WW1, I don't know if it's just anecdotal or a true story. You would have expected the Germans of all people to be sticklers for rules, but that turned out not to be the case. There's supposedly this one German officers who was captured wounded by the Russians. While he was being carried on stretchers, he took out his sidearm and promptly shot both his stretcher bearers dead on the spot....

[Snargfargle]

1 hour ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

Visit me personally and you can have the few hundred cartridges of .303 British I still have.

It would probably cost more in gas to get to you and back than the ammo was worth. Thanks for the offer though. My "jungle carbine" kicks like a mule so I'd likely not shoot it much now anyway. I used to go coyote hunting with it when I was in high school but the pelts were worth $100 back then, and that was in 1970s money. The reason was that the Air Force cold-weather parka hoods were being lined with coyote fur at the time. When they went over to synthetic "fur" the bottom dropped out of the coyote fur market.

This is the same model as my SMLE. It's actually a 1918 Mk III* converted to a "jungle carbine." I got it out just now and could barely make out the sights. I'd have to figure out how to mount a Red Dot on it to even hit anything with it anymore.  Mine's still got a good bore but is a lot more beat up looking than this one after being my great uncle's "throw in the truck" rifle for twenty years before he gave it to me and my "throw in the truck rifle" after that.

 

 

[Snargfargle]

I actually did carry an M16A1 for several months because there weren't enough .45s to go around until my unit got some more of them. It was a hassle so I thought I'd start carrying an M3A1 instead. Hey, a submachinegun should be lighter than a rifle, right? The joke was on me. Those things are all steel and weigh almost as much as an M1 Garand when they are fully loaded. I then realized why only the "tankers" had them.

[Admiral_Karasu]

4 minutes ago, Snargfargle said:

I actually did carry an M16A1 for several months because there weren't enough .45s to go around until my unit got some more of them. It was a hassle so I thought I'd start carrying an M3A1 instead. Hey, a submachinegun should be lighter than a rifle, right? The joke was on me. Those things are all steel and weigh almost as much as an M1 Garand when they are fully loaded. I then realized why only the "tankers" had them.

I seem to remember my father telling me something similar, when he got his corporal's stripes, they were issued with submachineguns  and those were heavy and clunky. IIRC, also when you were dissembling it you had to be extra careful. I don't remember the details, it's a long time ago father mentioned these things to me.

[Snargfargle]

Just now, Admiral_Karasu said:

I seem to remember my father telling me something similar, when he got his corporal's stripes, they were issued with submachineguns  and those were heavy and clunky. IIRC, also when you were dissembling it you had to be extra careful. I don't remember the details, it's a long time ago father mentioned these things to me.

I have a Browning target pistol and semiautomatic shotgun. They are great firearms but neither is built to withstand military use. They are too difficult to strip down and clean and there are far too many small parts that can be lost. That was the problem with the Thompson submachinegun, although it saw a lot of use in WWII.

Here is a Thompson field stripped:

Here is a M3A1 field stripped.

[Admiral_Karasu]

Springs are fun. I was issued an assault rifle, older model, pretty much the only firearm I've actually got to know a little better. Once when I was taking apart a newer model, I lost the spring. Kept looking for it and starting to panic (wasn't my issued rifle you see which made it worse) until I had to confess having lost the bloody spring... which is when I learned the newer models didn't have that spring...