Thread: 9mm vs.45
View Single Post
Old March 29th, 2005, 11:45 AM
johnlee johnlee is online now
John Lee
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Torrance, CA
Posts: 16,144
Originally Posted by JSQ
well that was a lengthy history lesson.
unfortunately it's the same one I've been reading since I was 12 so it's not any kind of news to me.

Yeah, I'm sure you already knew all of this. I'm sure you already knew that the StG44 was originally designated a "machine carbine" and then "machine pistol" and then "assault rifle". I'm sure that you knew the "assault rifle" tag was used for political reasons and not for technical accuracy. That's why you cling to the argument that because the Germans classified the StG44 as a rifle, then it must truly be a rifle.

Originally Posted by JSQ
I have to say it seems you contradict yourself when you insist that

"Sturmgewehr" obviously means "assault rifle", but just because the word "rifle" is in the name does not means that a sturmgewehr is a true rifle."

and then later say

"The designers knew that the FG was a true rifle and designated it "Fallschirmjaer Gewehr" or "paratrooper rifle". ("Fallschirmjager" means, literally, "hunter from the sky" but it translates to "paratrooper".) Its name was not changed to hide its development or make it more appealing to a governing body. Its classification as a "rifle" is correct in every way."

Contradiction? Where's the contradiction. I have said that the designers originally classified the StG44 as "MKb" but the Germans later re-classified it the StG44 for political reasons, to get the weapon more readily accepted by those who make adoption decisions. Then I said that the designers of the FG42 classified it as a rifle because it was a rifle.

Where's the contradiction? I can see the contradiction in your mind, because your understanding of these weapons doesn't go beyond their names, just as your understanding of cartridge power doesn't go beyond the bore diameter or ostensible size of the cartridge (more on this below). The StG designation was motivated by artifice and political reasons and not for technical reasons. The FG designation was for technical reasons and is technically correct. There is no contradiction.

Originally Posted by JSQ
the fact remains that in it's ultimate form the Germans identified the Stg44 as some kind of rifle. Just as they did the FG42. It's not a Sturmkarabiner44. Neither carbine nor machine pistol. Rifle. Clearly the Germans paid no heed to the guidelines for nomenclature that you have laid out.

Again, you're back to the "they call it a rifle so it must be a rifle" argument. This is absurd. They called it a rifle because they wanted to overcome the hesitancy on the part of those who opposed the adoption of a reduced-power weapon. This nomenclature was used for subterfuge and misinformation. It wasn't used for technical accuracy. This is the very same reason the M16 is classified as a rifle and not a carbine. Just as Hitler vetoed the MKb project, there were those in the American military who vehemently opposed the adoption of any weapon of reduced power. That's why they blocked the NATO adoption of the British .280 round. That's why they did everything they could to block the adoption of the M16.

The M16 and StG44 are not true rifles. They lack the power of a true, full-power rifle. Just because they are commonly referred to as rifles does not make them rifles.

Originally Posted by JSQ
You also say that the 7.92 Kurz is between 8mm Mauser and 9mm parabellum. I'd say it's a hell of a lot closer to 8mm Mauser. You're the one who loves ballistics technicana so I trust you to dig up the numbers to do the math. What's the story there? Don't the 7.92 Kurz and the 8mm Mauser actually share the same bullet?

What? Don't you know all of this already? I'm sure you do, but because you ask and merely for the edification of others who may be interested in small arms esoterica, I'll go into it.

The German military 9mm Parabellum round throws a 124-grain projectile at 1300 f/s. That's from pistols. When fired from machine pistols the velocity is closer to 1450 f/s. The 7.92 kurz round throws a 124-grain projectile at 2100 f/s. The 7.92 Mauser rifle round throws a 150-grain projectile at 2750 f/s. I'd say that puts the 7.92 kurz round between the 9mm and the 7.92 Mauser rounds. The 7.92 kurz round almost splits the difference between the pistol and rifle rounds. It's a true intermediate cartridge.

No, the 7.92 kurz and Mauser rounds do not share the same projectile. The bore diameter is the same, and so I suppose the two projectiles are therefore the same to you. But they're not. The two rounds share the same bore diameter for production reasons, i.e., to simply large-scale production of barrels and such.

The 7.92 kurz's projectile is very stubby and suffers from a very poor sectional density and ballistic coefficient. Thus, it sheds velocity very quickly and is unsuitable for at long range. Furthermore, its penetration against hard targets is necessarily limited because the cartridge is overbored for its power level. The 2100 f/s velocity is very low and has a looping trajectory. Even if this 124-grain projectile were launched at the 7.92 Mauser's 2750 f/s velocity, it would very quickly shed velocity and have poor long-range trajectory and power.

But, I'm sure you already knew all of this already.

Originally Posted by JSQ
Also in my mind .308 also represents an intermediary cartridge when listed next to the other rounds you mention. The other traditional .30 caliber rounds you name are so similar to each other that the .308 seems to stand out among them. Clearly the introduction and use of the .308 in select fire battle rifles was an attempt to mitigate the shortcomings of the use of 8mm mauser in the FG42 and G43 and .30-06 in the BAR and Garand. It represents a reduction from what you have identified as full size, full power rifle rounds.

LOFL. This is also hilarious. So the .308 is an intermediate round? I guess you've seen .30-06 cartridges and .308 cartridges and compared the size difference between the two cartridges and concluded that the .308 is weaker because of its smaller size? Well, this just shows how little you know about rifle ballistics.

The .308 is indeed a smaller cartridge than the .30-06. The .30-06's case is 63mm long. The .308's case is 51mm long. That's a 12mm difference and that's a significant difference. But that is not to say that the .308 is a weaker round. It's not.

In the 50-odd years between the development of the .30-06 and .308, propellant technology developed to the point that the .30-06's ballistics could be duplicated in the shorter .308 case. The military M2 .30-06 load propels a 150-grain FMJBT projectile to 2700 f/s. The military M80 .308 load propels the identical 150-grain FMJBT projectile to the identical 2700 f/s. The two rounds are identical in power. The 7.62mm NATO round is merely a more modern version of the .30-06 M2 round, and enables a full-power rifle cartridge to be fired from a shorter/lighter/handier weapon. The round also requires slightly less raw materials because of the shorter case. This makes a difference because these rounds are loaded in the bazillions to wage a war.

The .308 may be an "intermediary cartridge" in your mind because of its shorter OAL, but that doesn't make it an intermediate round. It's a full-power rifle round, every bit the equal of the .30-06, 7.92mm Mauser, 7.5 Swiss, 7x57 Mauser, etc. That's why military weapons chambered in .308 like the FAL and G3 are properly termed "battle rifles" and not "battle carbines" or "assault rifles". This is what happens when one has only a superficial knowledge of rifle ballistics and goes by the appearance or dimensions of a particular cartridge.

But I'm sure you already knew all of this.

Originally Posted by JSQ
To me "carbine" is always a tricky word. To some it's simply a shortened version of a larger rifle such as the Sharps, K98, Carcano, Jungle no. 5, Mosin M44, Krag-Jorgensen, Winchester 1895 or Arisaka type 38. Sometimes in these instances the the longer variant is identified as the "musket" to distinguish between the two other times not.

This is also hilarious. The G98 is a musket? LOL. A musket by its very nature does not have spiral grooves in its bore. This rifling is what separates a musket from a rifle. A G98 cannot be a musket because it does not have a smooth bore. Calling the G98 a musket is about as accurate as calling the Three Swordsmen the "Three Musketeers". Just because people commonly do it does not make it correct.

Originally Posted by JSQ
While I recognize that the StG44 utilize a round that is unique in its application, that round is all too similar to the 8mm Mauser in my mind. It doesn't represent a significant enough departure from pistol or rifle cartridge trends as .30 carbine does.

Again, also hilarious. I've said above why the 7.92 kurz and 7.92 share nothing in common except bore diameter. You also compare the 7.92 kurz to the .30 carbine round and say the two are different. Let's take a look at the two rounds and compare them.

7.92 kurz propels a .311" diameter, 124-grain projectile at 2100 f/s. The .30 carbine propels a .308" diameter, 110-grain projectile at 1970 f/s. Where is the difference in these two cartridges? In power? In trajectory? In hard target penetration? Anyone who knows anything about ballistics rates these two projectiles as all but identical in performance.

I find it hilarious that you think the 7.92 kurz round performs well but the .30 carbine round does not, when they're all but identical in performance. Perhaps it's the "carbine" label for the .30 carbine round and the "rifle" label for the 7.92 kurz round. This labeling actually worked on you. LOL. Perhaps if the US Army ordnance had dubbed the M1 carbine an "assault rifle", you would think the M1 carbine was a true rifle as well?

Originally Posted by JSQ
In one sense 7.92 Kurz is naturally more like 5.56. which is another smaller intermediary round based on rifle cartridge design principles.

This is not correct either. The 7.92 kurz and 5.56 are both intermediate cartridges. That is true. However, the 5.56 is a completely different approach to the intermediate cartridge problem. The 5.56 at least as a rifle-like trajectory. It lacks the power of a true rifle but at least the 5.56 has the rifle cartridge's trajectory. Rounds like the 7.92 kurz and .30 carbine do not. The 5.56 also has very good hard target penetration for a round of its power level. The 7.92 kurz and .30 carbine do not, as they fire very fat/stubby projectiles at a low velocity.

So I think you have it backward. The 7.92 kurz has a lot more in common with the .30 carbine than with the 5.56.
Reply With Quote