Silly WW2 .30 cal. question....
- Thread starter jaughtman
- Start date
bamaranger
New member
workhorse round
I had read where .30 A: was the "work horse round" of WWII.
James K's stats are interesting. Thanks
I had read where .30 A: was the "work horse round" of WWII.
James K's stats are interesting. Thanks
Mike Irwin
Staff
I can't find figures right now, but Ball M1 showed a dramatic increase in maximum range, something like a 30% increase.
Hi, Mike, that was my response to someone who suggested the "blowup" was the result of a "slam fire", the rifle firing unlocked because the firing pin moved forward of its own inertia before the bolt was locked. The video shows the shooter releasing the bolt and chambering a round, then pulling the trigger, obviously ruling out a slam fire, which would have occurred when she released the bolt.
The .30 caliber ammo story is confusing. When the M1903 was first adopted, the cartridge was the M1903 Ball, known as the .30-'03. It fired a 220 grain jacketed round nose bullet at 2300fps (reduced in 1905 to 2200 fps). When the advantages of the pointed bullet became obvious, the Model 1906 cartridge was adopted; it had a shorter neck (requiring that rifles be recalled and their barrels set back) and fired a 150 grain pointed bullet. The pointed bullet was clearly "inspired" by the German "S" bullet to the extent that U.S. Ordnance even informally called it the "S" bullet. (Later, the U.S. was forced to pay royalties to DWM for those bullets, many of which had been fired at the Germans during WWI.)
During that war, it was found that American rifles and machineguns were outranged by German guns, and after the war the U.S. adopted (10/24/25) a 173 grain boat tail bullet which was designated the M1 ball, the Army nomenclature system having been changed.
But the M1 Ball had a problem in that its range was too great for many military (especially National Guard) rifle ranges. So the decision was made to return to the old bullet, now renamed the M2 Ball, and with a jacket of gilding metal rather than cupro-nickel. It was adopted 1/12/40. The M1 Ball was still standard in the Navy for machinegun use.
The above is a very brief summary. There were experiments going on all the time, and I didn't even mention wartime alternatives or all the various special loads, from guard cartridges to Armor Piercing Incendiary.
Jim
The .30 caliber ammo story is confusing. When the M1903 was first adopted, the cartridge was the M1903 Ball, known as the .30-'03. It fired a 220 grain jacketed round nose bullet at 2300fps (reduced in 1905 to 2200 fps). When the advantages of the pointed bullet became obvious, the Model 1906 cartridge was adopted; it had a shorter neck (requiring that rifles be recalled and their barrels set back) and fired a 150 grain pointed bullet. The pointed bullet was clearly "inspired" by the German "S" bullet to the extent that U.S. Ordnance even informally called it the "S" bullet. (Later, the U.S. was forced to pay royalties to DWM for those bullets, many of which had been fired at the Germans during WWI.)
During that war, it was found that American rifles and machineguns were outranged by German guns, and after the war the U.S. adopted (10/24/25) a 173 grain boat tail bullet which was designated the M1 ball, the Army nomenclature system having been changed.
But the M1 Ball had a problem in that its range was too great for many military (especially National Guard) rifle ranges. So the decision was made to return to the old bullet, now renamed the M2 Ball, and with a jacket of gilding metal rather than cupro-nickel. It was adopted 1/12/40. The M1 Ball was still standard in the Navy for machinegun use.
The above is a very brief summary. There were experiments going on all the time, and I didn't even mention wartime alternatives or all the various special loads, from guard cartridges to Armor Piercing Incendiary.
Jim
Mike Irwin
Staff
" The pointed bullet was clearly "inspired" by the German "S" bullet to the extent that U.S. Ordnance even informally called it the "S" bullet."
Which is kind of odd, considering that the French were the first to adopt a spitzer boattail bullet...
The Balle D.
Which is kind of odd, considering that the French were the first to adopt a spitzer boattail bullet...
The Balle D.
tahunua001
New member
and considering that the german round of the time was a 225gr round nose bullet and at nearly the same time as the 30-06 changeover the germans switched to their S spitzers.
Gaucho Gringo
New member
My step grandfather had been involved in Springfield's experiments with 30-06 ammo before and during WWI. He told me they had 30-06 experimental loads at speeds over 36-3700 fps. I didn't think to ask him at the time what the bullet weight was, all I thought that that was fast. Both him and my grandfather had been friends forever and were both in the Army before US involvement in WWI. When my grandfather died and his wife died, he married my grandmother.
The idea of a pointed bullet, with or without boat-tail, had been "in the air" for years before 1906. The French Balle D, as Mike says, was adopted in 1898 but seems not to have been widely known or adopted, possibly because of French secrecy surrounding any military developments. For whatever reason, it seems to have made little impact in the U.S.; maybe the U.S. did not consider France as a potential enemy.
Even so, leaks are not something invented last week, so other nations were conducting experiments along those lines. The Germans experimented with pointed bullets as early as 1902, but the Spitzegeschoss (S-bullet) was not adopted until 1905. By early 1906, it was widely known and the military journals had articles on its design and performance; the U.S. military Attache in Berlin would have been asleep at the switch if he hadn't reported it, and probably sent some samples to Washington.
Jim
Even so, leaks are not something invented last week, so other nations were conducting experiments along those lines. The Germans experimented with pointed bullets as early as 1902, but the Spitzegeschoss (S-bullet) was not adopted until 1905. By early 1906, it was widely known and the military journals had articles on its design and performance; the U.S. military Attache in Berlin would have been asleep at the switch if he hadn't reported it, and probably sent some samples to Washington.
Jim
Gaucho Gringo, did your step grandfather work at Frankford Arsenal in the small arms division?
The .30-06 cartridge is a collection all by itself when you look at all the different types issued as well as the experimental one.
If anybody wants to take the time to read about the .30-06 check www.cartridgecollectors.org and search "An introduction to collecting .30-06 cartridges"
The .30-06 cartridge is a collection all by itself when you look at all the different types issued as well as the experimental one.
If anybody wants to take the time to read about the .30-06 check www.cartridgecollectors.org and search "An introduction to collecting .30-06 cartridges"
Gaucho Gringo
New member
To be honest I don't really know, I just assumed(you know what happens when we do) it was Springfield. All I know that at the time I was 19-20 years old(which was almost 45 years ago) and was impressed about what he said about the loads they were developing. I really wish now I had paid better attention then but how many other people say the same thing today. I wish I had more info to give you. And I wish i would have known at the time they were both involved in the Mexican Border Indecent chasing Poncho Villa. Only found out about this after they both had passed,
Last edited:
Mike Irwin
Staff
Most military cartridge development at this time was done at Frankford in Philadelphia, but Springfield also had a small development and research arm. Apparently they were the "big theory" guys, while in Philly they were the engineers and "make it happen" guys.
"The pointed bullet was clearly "inspired" by the German "S" bullet to the extent that U.S. Ordnance even informally called it the "S" bullet. (Later, the U.S. was forced to pay royalties to DWM for those bullets, many of which had been fired at the Germans during WWI.)"
Jim, I don't think that's correct.
The patent for spitzer bullets was held by Arthur Gleinich, an independent ballistician whose work was examined by the German small arms commission working to iron out some of the problems with the early versions of the 7.92x57 round.
Here's his patent application: http://www.google.com/patents/USRE12927
And some narrative background on his work to secure the patent:
https://books.google.com/books?id=6...FAQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=Arthur Gleinich&f=false
The United States procured a production license from Gleinich in 1905 or so, giving us the right to manufacture the bullet for the .30-06 round (https://historicfirearms.wordpress.com/tag/arthur-gleinich/)
I'm not finding anything definite, but Gleinich also apparently either licensed or assigned his patent to the German state for production at DWM.
I can't find any indication that DWM ever brought a royalties suit against the United States over production of the bullet type.
"The pointed bullet was clearly "inspired" by the German "S" bullet to the extent that U.S. Ordnance even informally called it the "S" bullet. (Later, the U.S. was forced to pay royalties to DWM for those bullets, many of which had been fired at the Germans during WWI.)"
Jim, I don't think that's correct.
The patent for spitzer bullets was held by Arthur Gleinich, an independent ballistician whose work was examined by the German small arms commission working to iron out some of the problems with the early versions of the 7.92x57 round.
Here's his patent application: http://www.google.com/patents/USRE12927
And some narrative background on his work to secure the patent:
https://books.google.com/books?id=6...FAQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=Arthur Gleinich&f=false
The United States procured a production license from Gleinich in 1905 or so, giving us the right to manufacture the bullet for the .30-06 round (https://historicfirearms.wordpress.com/tag/arthur-gleinich/)
I'm not finding anything definite, but Gleinich also apparently either licensed or assigned his patent to the German state for production at DWM.
I can't find any indication that DWM ever brought a royalties suit against the United States over production of the bullet type.
Mike Irwin
Staff
Most people know about the .30-06 round. Probably fewer know about the .30-03 round.
Very few know that there was a production round before that one, the .30-01. It was the first production round to take the shape of the .30-03 cartridge, but had a MUCH thicker rim than the round adopted in 1903.
Unfortunately, it's a fairly rare and valuable cartridge.
You can see two .30-01 cartridges near the bottom of the page here:
http://www.oldammo.com/february05.htm
Very few know that there was a production round before that one, the .30-01. It was the first production round to take the shape of the .30-03 cartridge, but had a MUCH thicker rim than the round adopted in 1903.
Unfortunately, it's a fairly rare and valuable cartridge.
You can see two .30-01 cartridges near the bottom of the page here:
http://www.oldammo.com/february05.htm
Gunplummer
New member
Mentioning the Frankford Arsenal brings to mind the old NRA Handloader Guide. There is a lot of information in the book obtained from Frankford Arsenal about cartridge loads, bullets, barrel wear, and just useful general information. I believe it to be out of print for years and that is a shame.
30/06 ammo M 1&M 2
At the close of WW2 the Garand was returned to the M2 Ball loading. main reason recoil complaints from new troops. Rumored reason was the War Dept. did not want to spend money on ammo because they had so much in stock even after Korea when the T-65 round was in development. They were working the .308 round for Nato usage. The U.S. navy had some M1 rifle converted to.308 via a pressed in adapter (which can still be found on the open market)These were, I am told were mostly used on Mine sweepers.
How many of you know what the last battle fought in the Pacific using the 1903 Springfield was, as a main battle rifle, and also what year the 1903A3 made its appearance in was and which battles they were fought in? (Try 1943 and none).
At the close of WW2 the Garand was returned to the M2 Ball loading. main reason recoil complaints from new troops. Rumored reason was the War Dept. did not want to spend money on ammo because they had so much in stock even after Korea when the T-65 round was in development. They were working the .308 round for Nato usage. The U.S. navy had some M1 rifle converted to.308 via a pressed in adapter (which can still be found on the open market)These were, I am told were mostly used on Mine sweepers.
How many of you know what the last battle fought in the Pacific using the 1903 Springfield was, as a main battle rifle, and also what year the 1903A3 made its appearance in was and which battles they were fought in? (Try 1943 and none).
Mike, the Ordnance Department itself raised the issue of Mauser patents that might have been infringed by the M1903 rifle and its clip, and voluntarily paid royalties to Mauser, but I can find nothing to indicate that they obtained a license in advance for production of the pointed bullet.
In fact, it doesn't appear that Gleinich had obtained a U.S. patent on the pointed bullet prior to its adoption by the U.S. Army, or that the Army at that point had ever heard of Gleinich, though they certainly knew of the "S" bullet. When DWM first raised the issue in November 1909, Ordnance countered with a claim that one LTC Farley had patented a pointed bullet in 1896. The issue was delayed, then deferred until after WWI, when a court rejected the Farley claim and ordered that royalty payments be made to DWM.*
Here is the story as usually given, though I have seen basically the same thing in a number of other sources, some of them official.
http://www.asymco.com/2010/03/11/the-tale-of-the-spitzer-bullet-patent-lawsuit/
*The Farley bullet is both pointed and boat-tailed. If it was made per the drawing, it might have presented a problem that was encountered later - that a very sharply pointed bullet tends to be inaccurate, a more blunt nose being better. Oddly, the same problem was found in early rocket and missile tests, and Army bullet experts provided the answer.
Jim
In fact, it doesn't appear that Gleinich had obtained a U.S. patent on the pointed bullet prior to its adoption by the U.S. Army, or that the Army at that point had ever heard of Gleinich, though they certainly knew of the "S" bullet. When DWM first raised the issue in November 1909, Ordnance countered with a claim that one LTC Farley had patented a pointed bullet in 1896. The issue was delayed, then deferred until after WWI, when a court rejected the Farley claim and ordered that royalty payments be made to DWM.*
Here is the story as usually given, though I have seen basically the same thing in a number of other sources, some of them official.
http://www.asymco.com/2010/03/11/the-tale-of-the-spitzer-bullet-patent-lawsuit/
*The Farley bullet is both pointed and boat-tailed. If it was made per the drawing, it might have presented a problem that was encountered later - that a very sharply pointed bullet tends to be inaccurate, a more blunt nose being better. Oddly, the same problem was found in early rocket and missile tests, and Army bullet experts provided the answer.
Jim
Mike Irwin
Staff
Jim,
That's certainly interesting, and certainly not how I've heard it over the years.
Gleinich never applied for a US patent on his bullet design, then again, while DWM apparently applied for US patents, there doesn't seem to be any indication that one was ever awarded.
Hummm.... OK, it looks as if a patent was awarded in 1907.
That's certainly interesting, and certainly not how I've heard it over the years.
Gleinich never applied for a US patent on his bullet design, then again, while DWM apparently applied for US patents, there doesn't seem to be any indication that one was ever awarded.
Hummm.... OK, it looks as if a patent was awarded in 1907.
bedbugbilly
New member
jaughtman - see . . . your question wasn't "silly" at all . . and I've wondered that as well but never asked . . . you created an interesting and educational thread!
BoogieMan - a little "off topic" (on my part) but very interesting what you say about the tear down of Frankfort Arsenal . . . it's too bad that some of it at least is not preserved and a museum created on the roll it played in WWII. I'm from Michigan . . . and winter in AZ. I just talked with a friend of mine who flies now for a freight airlines that is based right next to the Willow Run Bomber plant. That is currently being torn down as well and will at some point, be only a memory. I knew fellows who helped build that plant during the war as well as several who worked there. I never knew that that plant was constructed so that it could survive a direct bomb blast . . . which fortunately never happened. As a result of the design, the company who is tearing it down and doing the salvage work is evidently having some problems because of the way it was constructed and running into problems they hadn't planned on.
These plants and places that were such an important part of this country's history during WWII are being lost and fading away just as the men and women of that generation. Today's kids know very little of the history of this time and it's unfortunate as I truly believe there will never be another "greatest generation".
To those that posted on this thread . . . I for one, greatly appreciate all the fine information as I have often wondered about such things. My father-in-law was in the 34th (Red Bull) Division and saw action in North Africa and up through Italy . . and had a very rough time of it along the way. He was a "BAR man" but I could never get him to talk about any of his experiences very much.
To the OP . . thanks for posting this . . it's interesting stuff and I'm sure a lot of folks have learned things they didn't know!
BoogieMan - a little "off topic" (on my part) but very interesting what you say about the tear down of Frankfort Arsenal . . . it's too bad that some of it at least is not preserved and a museum created on the roll it played in WWII. I'm from Michigan . . . and winter in AZ. I just talked with a friend of mine who flies now for a freight airlines that is based right next to the Willow Run Bomber plant. That is currently being torn down as well and will at some point, be only a memory. I knew fellows who helped build that plant during the war as well as several who worked there. I never knew that that plant was constructed so that it could survive a direct bomb blast . . . which fortunately never happened. As a result of the design, the company who is tearing it down and doing the salvage work is evidently having some problems because of the way it was constructed and running into problems they hadn't planned on.
These plants and places that were such an important part of this country's history during WWII are being lost and fading away just as the men and women of that generation. Today's kids know very little of the history of this time and it's unfortunate as I truly believe there will never be another "greatest generation".
To those that posted on this thread . . . I for one, greatly appreciate all the fine information as I have often wondered about such things. My father-in-law was in the 34th (Red Bull) Division and saw action in North Africa and up through Italy . . and had a very rough time of it along the way. He was a "BAR man" but I could never get him to talk about any of his experiences very much.
To the OP . . thanks for posting this . . it's interesting stuff and I'm sure a lot of folks have learned things they didn't know!
Dragonflydf
New member
While they are tearing down the Willow Run plant, a portion of it is being saved and will be the home of the air museum which is all ready on the field.
Just for info, here is an excerpt from something I prepared on the Mauser rifle patents; not relevant to the bullet issue, but maybe of interest. It is sure to bother those folks who believe that the M1903 is a copy of the Mauser 1898.
"In any discussion of the Model 1903's origins, it is almost certain to be stated that it was copied from the Model 1898 Mauser. This is supposedly proven by the fact that the U.S. paid Mauser royalties on six patents which allegedly covered the Model 1898 Mauser. That is not true. The Model 1903 did copy some features of the Mauser, but it was the Model 1893, and all but one patent covered features that were used in that or earlier Mauser rifles. (Large quantities of Model 1893 Mausers had been captured from the Spanish and had naturally been examined at Springfield.) The one remaining patent covered a variation of the bolt sleeve lock, which was later used in the Model 1898 Mauser, but which Springfield did not use in the same way.
The patents, dates, and area of coverage are as follows:
No. 467,180 01/19/1892 Extractor
No. 477,671 06/28/1892 Extractor collar
No. 482,376 09/13/1892 Ammunition clip
No. 527,869 10/23/1894 Internal box magazine
No. 547,933 11/15/1895 Safety catch
No. 590,271 11/21/1897 Bolt sleeve lock
With the possible exception of the last, NONE of those patents covered features of the Model 1898 Mauser and there is no evidence in any of the archival records I have seen that the Springfield designers ever saw a Model 1898 Mauser or the 1896-97 U.S. patents covering its features. (References to the "Model 1898" in the ordnance records of the time invariably refer to the U.S. service rifle, the Model 1898 Krag, not to the Mauser.)"
That last point was added because of the claim by one writer that he has seen records proving that not only did the U.S. copy the 1898 Mauser, Springfield actually made many thousands of them!
Jim
"In any discussion of the Model 1903's origins, it is almost certain to be stated that it was copied from the Model 1898 Mauser. This is supposedly proven by the fact that the U.S. paid Mauser royalties on six patents which allegedly covered the Model 1898 Mauser. That is not true. The Model 1903 did copy some features of the Mauser, but it was the Model 1893, and all but one patent covered features that were used in that or earlier Mauser rifles. (Large quantities of Model 1893 Mausers had been captured from the Spanish and had naturally been examined at Springfield.) The one remaining patent covered a variation of the bolt sleeve lock, which was later used in the Model 1898 Mauser, but which Springfield did not use in the same way.
The patents, dates, and area of coverage are as follows:
No. 467,180 01/19/1892 Extractor
No. 477,671 06/28/1892 Extractor collar
No. 482,376 09/13/1892 Ammunition clip
No. 527,869 10/23/1894 Internal box magazine
No. 547,933 11/15/1895 Safety catch
No. 590,271 11/21/1897 Bolt sleeve lock
With the possible exception of the last, NONE of those patents covered features of the Model 1898 Mauser and there is no evidence in any of the archival records I have seen that the Springfield designers ever saw a Model 1898 Mauser or the 1896-97 U.S. patents covering its features. (References to the "Model 1898" in the ordnance records of the time invariably refer to the U.S. service rifle, the Model 1898 Krag, not to the Mauser.)"
That last point was added because of the claim by one writer that he has seen records proving that not only did the U.S. copy the 1898 Mauser, Springfield actually made many thousands of them!
Jim