WesWorld

RA,

What's the point in changing the rifle's cartridge? Given that you have TONS of 6.5x52mm laying around, why change to a 6.5x49mm cartridge, when the rifle you're changing to was designed for the 6.5x52mm? Germany's changing cartridges in order to go to a lighter, shorter-ranged cartridge, but there's not going to be much difference between a 6.5x52 and a 6.5x49 (unless you've changed case head size).

49mm and 52mm rifle cartridges? Infantry rounds? Or is this for something else? Because that's about a 2 inch round, and I'm sorry I'm not firing anything that big that's not a grenade or mortar.

The bore size is 6.5mm, the case length is 52 or 49mm.

I see that now. The only reason to do that would be to reduce weight and thus allow more ammunition to be carried. Essentially that would cut the cartridge down by an eighth of an inch.

Which is really too little to have much of an effect, and it will definitely increase the cost of the conversion (since the ammunition won't be reused).

They are (I believe) historical weapons, so there must have been a reason for it. The old ammo is 1891 design and the new stuff is designed for rapid fire.

Now if one was trying to make the new rifles unusable for foreigners that have longer cartridges that's on one thing, but that means that the older guns could use the new ammo. (unlike the M-16/AK-47 deal with slightly different bullet diameter).

Tend to agree with Hrolf here. The change is minimal and is easier to use the available ammo than retool factories to build the new ammo. Use as an example OTL US than went from the Springfield 1903 to the Garand.

IOTL the reduction in size of the rifles was a reaction to tests during WW2 that demonstrated the combat ranges in the majority of the cases were less than 400 yards and a smaller caliber could be used. With no WW2 yet IMO makes no sense to change the caliber with no studies that demonstrate a reason for this change.

The self-loading rifle makes sense, but many nations IOTL were worried about fire discipline and in many cases these weapons caused a larger expenditure of ammo.

Just read the stats of the rifle and the caliber seems to be a direct copy of OTL rifle designed in 1900. One of the reasons it wasn't accepted IOTL was the case length of the rounds were of a different length to the main round in production and could have created supply problems. IMO changing the casing to 52mm should be the norm.

And in an unrelated matter. Do you take orders for export versions? LOL

Quoted

IOTL the reduction in size of the rifles was a reaction to tests during WW2 that demonstrated the combat ranges in the majority of the cases were less than 400 yards and a smaller caliber could be used. With no WW2 yet IMO makes no sense to change the caliber with no studies that demonstrate a reason for this change.

Actually, there were studies (in at least Germany, Great Britain, and the US) that showed similar data to the WWII studies, and intermediate cartridges were examined in all three countries (the US probably came closest to switching, to the 7.62x51mm Pedersen). But inertia and "political" meddling prevented change before the war.

Hmmmm, I note a higher velocity on the "new" cartridge, achieved I suppose via a combination of a lighter bullet and a higher-pressure cartridge. That might be problematic for the Cei-Rigotti action, but it would probably be possible to improve that (and I note the Breda name being inserted). But man is that an ugly little rifle, yeesh! Still not sure what the point of the change in cartridge is, though: I'd think it would make more sense to use a stronger loading of the old cartridge in the new weapon, that way the new weapon could use up the stocks of the old rounds in training then switch to the new rounds once they're expended.

6.5x52 Carcano round on left. Needed a change of bullet to a smaller, more aerodynamic shape. Moving the CoG back by ogiving the bullet helps with damage as well. The round is less stable and tumbles upon impact causing a larger wound. I don't think its possible to have new bullet in old cartridge - it may be but I don't know. Would help with supply issues.

140g bullet at 760m/s

Quoted

With no WW2 yet IMO makes no sense to change the caliber with no studies that demonstrate a reason for this change.

Just that the older rifle cartridges were massively overpowered. Can get similar performance with a smaller round. Look at the .276 British that would have replaced the .303 in 1914 if it hadn't been for the war. War in the Alpine environment definitely showed the need for short ranged weaponry, which is why the Italians started fielding sub machine guns. For those short range firefights, the Beretta OVP, 38A etc. are more useful and will be introduced alongside the Breda-Rigotti.

Ugly? I prefer bullpups myself.

[QUOTE

Quoted

With no WW2 yet IMO makes no sense to change the caliber with no studies that demonstrate a reason for this change.

Just that the older rifle cartridges were massively overpowered. Can get similar performance with a smaller round. Look at the .276 British that would have replaced the .303 in 1914 if it hadn't been for the war. War in the Alpine environment definitely showed the need for short ranged weaponry, which is why the Italians started fielding sub machine guns. For those short range firefights, the Beretta OVP, 38A etc. are more useful and will be introduced alongside the Breda-Rigotti.

Ugly? I prefer bullpups myself.
[/QUOTE]


My service rifle is a M4 and that little .22 can do some massive damage, hitting target up to 500 yards. I went from a M-16A1 service rifle in the 1980's to the current M-4 and I can't say nothing bad about them except they need to be clean to perform 100%.

I guess your Italy reached the conclusions the other nations reached IOTL, and with no Depresion to slow down government spending is a possibility to reduce the casing size. It will be problematic for the quartermasters for a while but if the MMG continue to use the 52mm casing it's not a big problem in the long run. You just need to stay away from war for a while.

Is your nation interested in taking orders? IOTL this rifle was sold to Costa Rica in 7x57mm. Peru will be happy to get some in the near future.

You could use the old case, just use a stronger action in the weapon to hold it. The case doesn't hold the pressure in, the action does that. Just mark the bullets so they're not used in the Carcano, because the new loading would be dangerous in them.

Use less powder in the old casings will give you less kick. Assuming the bullet isn't too weird, they should fit in the old cartridges. Now the length change might just be from the reshaping of the bullet, not the casing. In which case the old cartridges will work just as long as the magazines and the chamber can accomidate a 52mm cartridge. The kick of the older ones might be like an elephant gun in the new gun, but at least you'll be able to use both rounds (assuming the action is stong enough to contant the blast).

Other way around: the new round is more powerful than the old. The old 6.5x52mm is a pretty weak round by the standards of 1914, with a 160 grain bullet at 700 m/s. The new one, with a 140 grain bullet at 760 m/s is MORE powerful than the old. This is unlike the German situation where the new round is less powerful than the old (the new Italian round is probably on the edge of controllability in a rifle of reasonable weight, and with the short barrel shown the muzzle blast would probably be horrific at full auto).

Less powder, less kick. More powder, more kick, that's chemical reations and physics. Muzzel velocity change would be due to a lighter bullet, better rifling, but also possibly more powder. I was basing my comment off the older bullet being "overpowered" comment.

Yeah, well, the new cartridge isn't any less powerful: the bullet's not enough lighter than you're going to get 60 m/s more out of it at the muzzle with less than the same amount of powder.

Quoted

Less powder, less kick. More powder, more kick, that's chemical reations and physics.

For the same weight of bullet and the same type of powder, yes. Change either of those things, and the recoil may go up or down (or sideways, if the gun blows up).

http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/256brit.htm

Article on .256 British, which is similar to the 6.5x52 Mod.29 round. Muzzle energy considerably smaller than the high powered rifles, about 30% more than the x33 x 39 assault rifle rounds. Stick a muzzle brake on the end and the problem isn't that great.

Actually I just two more automatic rifles that are much more suitable than the Rigotti. 54-1 and 54-2 here, the Scotti and Beretta Mod.1931, and a Breda Mod.35

http://www.earmi.it/armi/atlas2/616.htm
http://www.earmi.it/armi/atlas2/617.htm

I've read the same article. Adding a muzzle brake will aid controllability, at the cost of further increasing the visibility of the muzzle blast and weight. And while the Ariska round was less powerful than many of the other contemporary rounds, it was a good deal more powerful than the 6.5mm Carcano.

Historically, the problem was never designing the select-fire weapon, it was designing one that was good enough, and reliable enough, and light enough, to survive service duty. After all, for example, of the rifles in the second picture, the only one that got much service time was the Hakim, and it was replaced with the AK. On the first picture, the G-43 was a success, and the FG-42 was produced in some numbers (a specialist weapon, so not really expected to be produced in vast numbers), the Scotti and the Berretta I can't find any reference to actually serving as opposed to be designed. Also, the Scotti is and the Berretta may well be a semi-auto, not a select-fire weapon. In fact, almost all the weapons on both these pages are semi-auto: the only one I'm sure is full-auto are the two version of the FG-42, though the Breda looks the part.