Gun question: other assault rifles?

[Adm.Lee]

I've talked a bit in other threads about the AK-47 and M2 carbine. I'm fuzzy on timelines, when did other countries (I'm presuming NATO) find out about the AK-47 When did they realize that was more than another SMG, and when did they start developing their own

I remember vaguely there was a fight within NATO about standardizing on the 7.62x51mm round, was there a later push for something smaller

[Tegyrius]

I remember vaguely there was a fight within NATO about standardizing on the 7.62x51mm round, was there a later push for something smaller

The Brits wanted to go with a 7mm or .280 round (139 grains at 2,550 fps) and developed the Enfield EM-2 around it. The U.S. had to be obstinate about it and refused to standardize on anything smaller than .30, thanks to Garand-induced caliber bigotry. Damn shame; the EM-2 was a couple of decades ahead of its time and I don't think wasn't anything fundamentally wrong with the .280's ballistics.

I'm wildly speculating here, but if that 7mm round had been adopted, we might never have seen 5.56 and 5.45 become military standards.

- C.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

I think the West became fully aware of the AK in 1956 when it was seen in public during the Soviet invasion of Hungary but it was probably considered to be nothing more than a more powerful sub-machinegun.
I think the West was aware of the 7.62x39mm ammunition because they knew of the SKS but probably didn't know specifics about the round or Soviet intentions for it. They did know that the Soviets had captured plenty of StG44 rifles and its 7.92x33mm ammo and probably figured that the Sovs were as interested in the 'short' rounds as they were.

The West seemed to completely misunderstand the employment concept for the StG44 and they appear to have carried that over to the AK as well, assuming that they were to be used as SMGs. It wasn't until the 1960s that the West (specifically the USA) started to invest in 'assault' rifles (after the West dropped the ball <cough-pressure from someone to adopt 7.62x51mm-cough> with the British EM-2 and the CETME Modelo 1 and Modelo 2 and even the French CEAM 1950 Carbine in .30Carbine)

It's been assumed for a number of years that the Soviets simply made their own version of the 7.92x33mm round but I've read other reports that state the Soviets were already investigating mid-range ammunition and so the German 7.92mm Kurz ammo simply confirmed some of their findings.
Incidentally, I have a vague notion that the British 7mm was influenced directly by the 7.92x33mm but I can't recall where I read/heard that so take that with a grain of salt.

The M2 Carbine was "almost" an assault rifle and I think the only thing holding it back from being classified as one is that the ammo was no more powerful than the .357Mag - so to be harsh, it uses a high powered pistol round rather than a rifle round but it pretty much hits all the right marks in other regards. To be fair to the M1/M2 carbine though, it was not intended as an infantryman's rifle so it was never designed as a replacement for the battle rifles then in use.

In something of a slap on their own back, the Soviets produced the AK which influenced the thinking that produced the M16 which then went on to influence Soviet thinking on micro-calibre rounds which thus produced the 5.45x39mm and the AK74 - an AK in an M16 calibre (not quite but you know what I mean!)

[StainlessSteelCynic]

As an aside, the Spanish produced a derivative of the StG-44 rifle but chambered for 7.62x51mm NATO, the Calzada Bayo model CB-57. It was a competitor for the spot won by the CETME Modelo A which itself was influenced by a series of French designs that themselves were derivatives of the StG-45(M) which was an easier to manufacture refinement of the StG-44 concept.

The key figure behind all this was Ludwig Vorgrimmler who was small arms engineer in wartime Germany and was assigned to the French zone of control after the war. He went on to design the CEAM Model 1950, basically an StG-45 in .30Carbine. He then went to Spain and helped CETME design the Modelo A based on his experience in German and French small arms design. The CETME rifle then went on to Heckler & Koch where it formed the basis for the G3 design.

So while the AK is not simply a copy of the StG-44 or Stg-45, it (and most of the competitors for the new Soviet army rifle at the time) where heavily influenced by the German rifle concepts and the G3 was directly influenced by the wartime German rifles... so it could be said that they are related, perhaps even cousins

[copeab]

I'm wildly speculating here, but if that 7mm round had been adopted, we might never have seen 5.56 and 5.45 become military standards.

Heck, go back 20 more years to MacArthur killing the .276 Pedersen version of the Garand.

[Tegyrius]

The M2 Carbine was "almost" an assault rifle and I think the only thing holding it back from being classified as one is that the ammo was no more powerful than the .357Mag - so to be harsh, it uses a high powered pistol round rather than a rifle round but it pretty much hits all the right marks in other regards. To be fair to the M1/M2 carbine though, it was not intended as an infantryman's rifle so it was never designed as a replacement for the battle rifles then in use.

Yep. I love the M1 carbine but I do acknowledge its ballistic limitations. The cartridge doesn't have the legs to be effective within an appropriate infantry combat envelope and it's too slow for FMJ rounds to reliably produce a decent temporary wound cavity.

Really, to swipe a point from the recent Glock 18 thread, I'd classify the M1 Carbine as an early PDW.

Heck, go back 20 more years to MacArthur killing the .276 Pedersen version of the Garand.

Sometimes I'm amazed we didn't send troops to Vietnam with something chambered for .45-70...

- C.

[dragoon500ly]

Sometimes I'm amazed we didn't send troops to Vietnam with something chambered for .45-70...

Well, the RVN was equipped with Korean-War issue M-1 rifles, M-2 Carbines, BARs, M-1919A4s, M-1917A1s and 3.5-inch bazookas. These were used right up to the fall of South Vietnam.

On the VC/NVA side, MAT-49s, MAS-36s, other hardware captured from the French, not to mention battlefield captures...from the Japanese at the end of WWII.

Captured weapons also included a variety of civilian bolt-action, lever action and even rolling block rifles.

So .45-70 would not amaze me at all!

[pmulcahy11b]

The Brits wanted to go with a 7mm or .280 round (139 grains at 2,550 fps) and developed the Enfield EM-2 around it. The U.S. had to be obstinate about it and refused to standardize on anything smaller than .30, thanks to Garand-induced caliber bigotry. Damn shame; the EM-2 was a couple of decades ahead of its time and I don't think wasn't anything fundamentally wrong with the .280's ballistics.

I'm wildly speculating here, but if that 7mm round had been adopted, we might never have seen 5.56 and 5.45 become military standards.

- C.

The reason the 7mm round (and anything else NATO came up with) wasn't adopted was pure bullying by a now-superpower US. "We're not asking you what opinions you guys have -- we're telling you what your opinions are, and if you want to join in the Marshall Plan party, you'll agree!"

The EM-2 was so far ahead of its time that most people couldn't get ahead of its looks. Most of NATO liked the 7mm round -- the FAL and CETME-58 were originally chambered for it -- but they just thought the EM-2 looked too "sci-fi" to be taken seriously. Makes you wonder what they would think of the L85 and FAMAS.

[Targan]

The EM-2 rifle seems like such a terrific weapon. Waaaay ahead of it's time. So sad that most of the other members of NATO had the right idea and got bullied into a less optimal option by the US. I never realised that Winston Churchill could be such a soft-c*ck. He should have told the US where to shove it. If the UK and Canada (and in all likelihood Australia and New Zealand too) had gone ahead and fielded the EM-2 anyway the US may have eventually seen reason and gone with their own similar weapon in .280. A lesson here for all of us. Just because you are a superpower and have more money than everyone else doesn't always mean you are right!

[Rockwolf66]

Yep. I love the M1 carbine but I do acknowledge its ballistic limitations. The cartridge doesn't have the legs to be effective within an appropriate infantry combat envelope and it's too slow for FMJ rounds to reliably produce a decent temporary wound cavity.

Really, to swipe a point from the recent Glock 18 thread, I'd classify the M1 Carbine as an early PDW.



Sometimes I'm amazed we didn't send troops to Vietnam with something chambered for .45-70...

- C.

Well there was a guy in SOG who had a .444 Marlin imported to Vietnam for the purpose of busting log bunkers.

[copeab]

To be fair about dictating rifle ammo, the US provided large amounts of ammo in exportsin WWI and WWII and imorted much less. I'm not saying this is a sufficient reason by itself, but it's not inconsequential.

FWIW, in my Weird WWII campaign, the Atlanteans dumped 10,000 assault rifles similar to the E.M.1 (in. 276 Pedersen) on the US Army, after the flop of them offering an assault rifle similar to the AK 47 (chambered for the. 30-30 round). The PCs actually prefered the "Atlantesn AK" -- if they wanted a more powerful automatic weapon, they broke out the BARs ...

[StainlessSteelCynic]

<snip> Really, to swipe a point from the recent Glock 18 thread, I'd classify the M1 Carbine as an early PDW. <snip>

- C.

Absolutely agree with you on that.
I'll make a massive assumption here and say that you'd probably agree with me that that's exactly what they were making even if they didn't have our "modern" concept of a PDW.

[Tegyrius]

Absolutely agree with you on that.
I'll make a massive assumption here and say that you'd probably agree with me that that's exactly what they were making even if they didn't have our "modern" concept of a PDW.

I agree completely. If you look at the original design intent, it's a near-perfect match for the PDW concept of the 1990s... and, quite frankly, I think the .30 Carbine is a more effective round than the 5.7mm FN or 4.6mm HK if you look at the terminal ballistics (absent soft armor).

- C.

[bobcat]

well the adoption of 7.62x51 was a matter of priorities. NATO was recognizing who was providing most of the ammo for the past few wars and figured that the US was already prepared to manufacture the caliber they were supporting in large numbers. as such they picked the round that would be most readily available the soonest.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

While I don't dispute the basics of what you've said, it misses the point that many in European NATO countries wanted and were developing a smaller and/or lower powered calibre but felt obligated to do as the USA did, (read that as it should be, they were given 'friendly encouragement' by the USA).

For example some nations were interested in the German 7.92x33mm round, they did not want a full powered battle rifle round. Most of Western Europe understood that, hence the R&D into weapons firing the .30Carbine round, the 7.92x33mm round, the Brit 7mm and so on. The first FN FAL was chambered for the 7.92x33mm and then the Brit 7mm. The French and Spanish both researched lower powered rounds with the Spanish initially adopting a lower power version of the 7.62x51mm.

They didn't throw all that away just because the USA could produce a lot of 7.62x51, they threw it all away because they were given various incentives/threats by the US government.