I'm reading "The Great Rifle Controversy".

[AbitNutz]

Quite a book...only on page 99 so far but many revelations from the people who were there.

I didn't know that the initial FN FAL rifles submitted for trials to the US were chambered for the 8mm Kurz. I have an FN FAL. The rifle is an absolute beast. It seems to me to be totally over engineered for an intermediate cartridge. Never the less...

If the US army got its head out of its *%^$# and chosen the FAL in 8mm Kurz the lay of the small arms landscape over the last 60 years would look very, very different.

[Omega]

Quite a book...only on page 99 so far but many revelations from the people who were there.

I didn't know that the initial FN FAL rifles submitted for trials to the US were chambered for the 8mm Kurz. I have an FN FAL. The rifle is an absolute beast. It seems to me to be totally over engineered for an intermediate cartridge. Never the less...

If the US army got its head out of its *%^$# and chosen the FAL in 8mm Kurz the lay of the small arms landscape over the last 60 years would look very, very different.

I'm OK with how it turned out, but do you think they would actually use this, in the US?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7.92%C3%9733mm_Kurz

The 7.92×33mm Kurz (designated as the 7.92 x 33 kurz by the C.I.P.)[4][5][6][7][8] is a rimless bottlenecked intermediate rifle cartridge developed in Nazi Germany prior to and during World War II

[AbitNutz]

Clearly not, even though it was equivalent to the 7.62x39. They could have kept the 30-06 for heavy weapon, like the Russians kept the 7.62x54R and then adopted the 8mm Kurz or the US equal, for general use.

[Omega]

Clearly not, even though it was equivalent to the 7.62x39. They could have kept the 30-06 for heavy weapon, like the Russians kept the 7.62x54R and then adopted the 8mm Kurz or the US equal, for general use.

Well, there you go again, comparing it to a round which we would have no official part of. The .7.62×51mm NATO is a very good round, much better than the two you mentioned. Even the 5.56×45mm NATO has shown it is a very capable round, specially with the current ammo.

[Multigunner]

The early FN experimental rifles I've seen images of were chambered for a short 7mm cartridge. These looked to be more compact and probably much lighter in weight than the production 7.62 FAL rifles.

[Larry Gibson]

Lot's of good facts and information in that book on what really occurred. A little further into the book you read about the mind set on what the military (much dissention among themselves) and the politicians wanted. A lot of disinformation and propaganda was put out by Colt and others trying to sell the M16 concept. Like many still do today they thought it necessary to denigrate the opposition in order to sell their own product/idea's. That has led to much misunderstanding.....especially on the internet forums by those who take such as "fact" without properly researching the actual facts. Many today also think of the AR/M16/M4s of today and compare them to what was developing in the mid '50s instead of comparing the AR of then and how it really fared then.

[Earlwb]

I would bet that the 8mm Kurz was not accepted due to logistics problems. The military would have had to supply another different cartridge to the troops. That gets pretty ugly in wartime. You would hate to be the one that ran out of ammo and you can't borrow any from the other guys as they are using something different. Or you get your ammo resupply in but it didn't include your caliber. The US military tended to like everyone using the same cartridge.

[rondog]

Is that the round used in the Stg44 Sturmgewehr? I fired one of those once and saved one round out of the magazine, but it's buried in a box somewhere.

[Artful]

Yep that 8mm Kurz was the STG44 fodder.

We almost dumped the .30'06 for the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.276_Pedersen

The .276 Pedersen (7×51mm) round was an experimental 7 mm cartridge developed for the United States Army. It was used in the Pedersen rifle and early versions of what would become the M1 Garand. Comparable to the contemporary Italian 6.5×52mm (0.268 in) Carcano or the Japanese 6.5mm (0.264 in) Arisaka, it produced velocities of around 2,400 feet per second (730 m/s) with 140 or 150 grain (9.1 or 9.7 g) projectiles.

Service history
In service 1923–1932 (experimental)
Used by United States
Production history
Designer John Pedersen
Designed 1923
Specifications
Case type Rimless, bottleneck
Bullet diameter .2842 in (7.22 mm)
Neck diameter .313 in (8.0 mm)
Shoulder diameter .385 in (9.8 mm)
Base diameter .450 in (11.4 mm)
Rim diameter .450 in (11.4 mm)
Case length 2.023 in (51.4 mm)
Overall length 2.855 in (72.5 mm)
Primer type Large rifle

6.5 Carcano - .276 Pedersen - 6.5 Grendel - 7.62x39mm - 7.62x45 czech m52

A more fun picture - #10 is 8mm Kurz

#31 is the .276 Pedersen

#25 is the .280 British that the FN SLR was going to designed around for the UK
but US insisted on .30 and almost same ballistics's as .30'06 and our after war
economic power let us bully the NATO partners into 7.62x51

[AbitNutz]

If we had adopted the 8mm Kurz it would have likely been Americanized. I envision that being the same as the 8mm but in 308, so it would be a 7.62x33. If we had done that in the late 40's, early 50's, all we would have had to do when the small bore revolution hit was to neck it down to 5.56. That would have made things quite a bit less expensive than changing to an entirely new cartridge. We could have kept the 30-06 as the heavy gun cartridge, like the Russians do with the 7.62x54R.

The capacity of a 7.62x33 (8mm Kurz) and the 7.62x39 are both about 35gr of water, while the case capacity of the 5.56 is about 29.

I wonder why the Russians didn't do the same thing? Why didn't they just neck down the 7.62x39 to make the 5.45x39 instead of making an entirely new cartridge? I'm obviously missing something. At 27gr, It actually has less case capacity than the 5.56. Maybe staying at the slightly larger case would easly let you go to 6.5mm or 6.8mm....

Just a lot of thinking out loud here.

[Omega]

There are many variables to consider when choosing a new rifle, logistics, effectiveness, ease of use being some of them. While the current 5.56x45 may have some issues, it has done it's job for the most part. There has to be something to this reasoning of going to a lighter projectile, the soviets have gone to the 5.45×39mm, the Chinese to the 5.8×42mm, the Brits 5.56×45mm as many NATO Armies have. Early on there were issues with our choice of the 5.56, but mostly due to getting it out too soon, things were overlooked and not tested enough, and unfortunately we found out too late that there were issues. But they were addressed as well as they could be, as fast as they could be.

The current weapon system, rifle and bullet, is quite effective. Are there instances where you need too many rounds to bring your opponent down?, most certainly, but I have seen the same with 7.62x39, 7.62x51, 7.62.54, hell even 44 Mag , sometimes your opponent refused to go down, it's the nature of the beast.

[vzerone]

There are many variables to consider when choosing a new rifle, logistics, effectiveness, ease of use being some of them. While the current 5.56x45 may have some issues, it has done it's job for the most part. There has to be something to this reasoning of going to a lighter projectile, the soviets have gone to the 5.45×39mm, the Chinese to the 5.8×42mm, the Brits 5.56×45mm as many NATO Armies have. Early on there were issues with our choice of the 5.56, but mostly due to getting it out too soon, things were overlooked and not tested enough, and unfortunately we found out too late that there were issues. But they were addressed as well as they could be, as fast as they could be.

The current weapon system, rifle and bullet, is quite effective. Are there instances where you need too many rounds to bring your opponent down?, most certainly, but I have seen the same with 7.62x39, 7.62x51, 7.62.54, hell even 44 Mag , sometimes your opponent refused to go down, it's the nature of the beast.

This is in reply to what your last paragrah said. This is from a Marine that was in the sandbox. I've posted this else where. This is what he said about their equipment, rifles, and ammo.

As far as weapons, ammo and gear goes....we have top notch stuff, almost too much. We aren't hurting for much. It's all here in theater....it's just getting it from point A to point B and into the right hands (is the difficult part) due to the IED threat. "They" own the roads in AO South (Helmand Province) for sure. We can't freely drive on them without the constant threat of IEDs. The men are happy with the M4/A4 series of weapons. Our Bn is equipped about 1/2 and 1/2 of both M4a3/a4 rifles. Our Snipers are shooting the M40A5 (7.62) and we also have the KAC Mk11/12. We use the MK262 round in the Mk12 exclusively. Of course the .50cal SASR is here too. 99% of the ammo we are issued is M855 and the guys are happy with it and it's capabilities or just don't know the difference. I have not heard of, or seen any bad guys getting up off the ground after taking a round of M855...but I will keep my ears open. The round is doing it's job contrary to what you hear around the internet. Most Marines can shoot their ***** off....but don't really understand "what" they are shooting out the end of their muzzles. They don't need to. They just need to be able to put steel on steel so to speak. Most Marines are not "Gun Guys".....so don't take interest in this stuff like we here on the ammo forum do. The Marines are carrying a combat load of 180-210 rnds on their body...with extra ammo in the vehicles if needed. All of our rifles have RCO's mounted and most are running the Matech BUIS as issued. The PEQ16A's and the issued GRIP POD are also mounted on almost every rifle in the Bn. As far as PPE....we wear the MTV or Scalable Plate Carrier...depending on mission of the day.

To me it sounds like they are okay with what they have and are using. I don't hear any "we want a new rifle platform" "we want a new cartridge" at from him and who was deployed with.

Things have evolved since the black powder smoothbore muskets. Unfortunately many aren't happy with our firearm evolution.

[AbitNutz]

I think that's surely true in the open desert terrain. Do you think that would hold true as the latitude changes? What if we were back in the jungle? Would the same hold true or would we then want something different?

[MT Chambers]

The FN that I carried in the army was a heavy clumsy rifle and not at all accurate (prolly worn out), as our gov. were real cheapskates when it came to the armed forces.

[vzerone]

The FN that I carried in the army was a heavy clumsy rifle and not at all accurate (prolly worn out), as our gov. were real cheapskates when it came to the armed forces.

The FN FAL sure is found widely throughout the world. So is the G3. I agree the full length rifle is heavy and clumsy but the paratrooper models I found much better. Didn't care for the long flash hiders on the rifle model. Much to long adding to the length of the rifle.

The bore being worn out, well that's common to military rifles that weren't re-arsenaled.

[Omega]

I think that's surely true in the open desert terrain. Do you think that would hold true as the latitude changes? What if we were back in the jungle? Would the same hold true or would we then want something different?

While in the jungles of Latin America, my M-16A1 did just fine. Some of our counterparts had the FN, not bad actually but it was almost like carrying the pig, without the belt.

[Bigslug]

I doubt the 8x33 would have been a serious player in that climate simply because it was a Nazi cartridge. Nationalism is at least as much a factor as physics. Look at all the bolt action battle rifle rounds from both world wars - there really isn't much to choose between the performance of any of them, but all the major players had to have their "own" thing".

One of the problems with the U.S. selecting an intermediate cartridge in the 1950's was that they were trying to come up with one weapon that would replace the Garand, the Springfield, the M1 Carbine, the BAR, and a couple of .45ACP subguns. AND there was the contingent that was trying to keep the Legend of American Marksmanship alive. The M14 was supposed to be able to snipe and storm trenches with equal ability, but ended up being marginal at the former and abysmal at the latter. The .308 was the answer that really made nobody happy, but it was pretty much destined to be - more down to politics than any kind of common sense.

[john.k]

There was also a round developed by FN they called 7mm Belgian NATO, a 7x51 with a case very similar to the 7.62,and apparently was the donor case for the 7.62x51.Recently reinvented under some name or other by Remlin.

[vzerone]

There was also a round developed by FN they called 7mm Belgian NATO, a 7x51 with a case very similar to the 7.62,and apparently was the donor case for the 7.62x51.Recently reinvented under some name or other by Remlin.

I mentioned that in this thread
http://castboolits.gunloads.com/show...hould-do/page5

post #88 I believe.

Nobody wanted to hear even though the current 7mm-08 blows the doors of the 7.62x51.

[Bulldogger]

If we had adopted the 8mm Kurz it would have likely been Americanized. I envision that being the same as the 8mm but in 308, so it would be a 7.62x33. If we had done that in the late 40's, early 50's, all we would have had to do when the small bore revolution hit was to neck it down to 5.56. That would have made things quite a bit less expensive than changing to an entirely new cartridge. We could have kept the 30-06 as the heavy gun cartridge, like the Russians do with the 7.62x54R.

The capacity of a 7.62x33 (8mm Kurz) and the 7.62x39 are both about 35gr of water, while the case capacity of the 5.56 is about 29.

I wonder why the Russians didn't do the same thing? Why didn't they just neck down the 7.62x39 to make the 5.45x39 instead of making an entirely new cartridge? I'm obviously missing something. At 27gr, It actually has less case capacity than the 5.56. Maybe staying at the slightly larger case would easly let you go to 6.5mm or 6.8mm....

Just a lot of thinking out loud here.

I have read, but not verified, that one of the reasons for the USSR's ammo choices was to have cases a tiny bit larger than US/NATO rounds, so that in a pinch the Soviet weapons could fire (poorly) US ammunition, but our weapons could not do so with captured Soviet ammo. This may be a myth, but the logic is solid.

Bulldogger