tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15907727.post112765895132443440..comments2023-11-10T04:17:00.492-05:00Comments on View From The Porch: Ask The Gun Nut: World War One rifle sights...Tamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07285540310465422476noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15907727.post-1127970021943626952005-09-29T01:00:00.000-04:002005-09-29T01:00:00.000-04:00"Missions that we consider machine-gun jobs had to..."Missions that we consider machine-gun jobs had to be fired by rifles in volley."<BR/><BR/>That was the theory (company- and battalion-sized units volleying merrily away at 1500+ yards) but it almost never happened that way. MG's and indirect artillery fire made long-range volley fire from rifles obsolete before it was really born.<BR/><BR/>"Then, after a half-century or so, smaller rifle ammunition became standard."<BR/><BR/>One reason rifle calibers less than .3" never caught on is that they couldn't carry a useful payload of the period's tracer compound; the kiss of death in a military using a common caliber in their rifles and emmagees.<BR/><BR/>"It's worth noting that when the US WWII rifle, the M1 Garand, was being designed, consideration was given to chambering it for a smaller round similar to the M16 round. The War Department decided to stick with the .30-06 on the grounds that war could break out any day, and they didn't want to get caught in the middle of switching the Army to new ammunition."<BR/><BR/>The .276 Pedersen was a fair bit beefier than 5.56 (in fact, it was a close ballistic cousin of the currently-hyped 6.8 SPC), but was allegedly rejected mostly due to the massive stocks of .30 already on hand in a depression-era economy, as well as Dep't. Of The Army leeriness over the "stopping power" of a sub-.30" rifle round.Tamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07285540310465422476noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15907727.post-1127969527541404052005-09-29T00:52:00.000-04:002005-09-29T00:52:00.000-04:00"Can you recommend a good book on the subject?"Sca..."Can you recommend a good book on the subject?"<BR/><BR/>Scarlata's <I>Collecting Classic Bolt Action Military Rifles</I> is a good start if you want a broad overview book with just enough detail to be useful. It lacks the detail of many specialist works, but is handy for including many rifles not even mentioned anywhere else...Tamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07285540310465422476noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15907727.post-1127952499086916232005-09-28T20:08:00.000-04:002005-09-28T20:08:00.000-04:00You might also ask, why did WWI rifles use cartrid...You might also ask, why did WWI rifles use cartridges that were effective that far out? We don't do that today; were people then just stupider than us?<BR/><BR/> One way of looking at the answer is this: Prior to WWI, infantry units were only issued rifles, no machine guns. Missions that we consider machine-gun jobs had to be fired by rifles in volley. Therefore, the rifles had to fire what we would consider machine-gun ammunition.<BR/><BR/> It's not an accident that when machine-guns were adopted, they mostly used the then-standard rifle ammunition. Then, after a half-century or so, smaller rifle ammunition became standard. It's worth noting that when the US WWII rifle, the M1 Garand, was being designed, consideration was given to chambering it for a smaller round similar to the M16 round. The War Department decided to stick with the .30-06 on the grounds that war could break out any day, and they didn't want to get caught in the middle of switching the Army to new ammunition.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15907727.post-1127913904022370662005-09-28T09:25:00.000-04:002005-09-28T09:25:00.000-04:00Fascinating.Can you recommend a good book on the s...Fascinating.<BR/><BR/>Can you recommend a good book on the subject?Countertophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01059405469013648135noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15907727.post-1127660046733597312005-09-25T10:54:00.000-04:002005-09-25T10:54:00.000-04:00Tamara, like your site and your opinions and attit...Tamara, like your site and your opinions and attitudes. I am in GA. Go Vols.JDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06202277979321312394noreply@blogger.com