In general, the reader Alexander sent several questions at once. The questions are interesting, I had to strain myself.
I'll start with the question of how much our cartridge 7, 62x54 differed from the German 7, 92x57, and why we didn't switch to a cartridge without a rim.
Russian cartridge 7, 62x54. Was he that old by the time of the Great Patriotic War, and why did they not develop a replacement for him, but preferred to design weapons for this cartridge?
Yes, by the beginning of World War II, the Russian cartridge of the 1891 model was not young. However, after almost 130 years, it is still relevant, oddly enough. That is, it is used for its intended purpose. And not only is it sold in stores, it is also bought.
In 1908, the cartridge acquired a whole set of pointed bullets in accordance with the trends of design fashion, and in 1930 the bottom of the spherical case became flat for ease of use in automatic weapons. Over time, the materials of the sleeve, shell and bullet core have changed somewhat, but in general it remained practically unchanged.
Today, one can often read the opinions of "super experts" on the topic that it was necessary to rip off his rim in the thirtieth year, and as an ideal, a Mauser-free 7, 92x57 is presented.
Arguments?
The edge complicates the production, as well as the use of the cartridge in machine guns and self-loading rifles. On the first part it is somewhat doubtful, and I will explain why, on the second - I agree.
Having rummaged through the Internet, I easily found a mountain of "experts", the essence of their statements boiled down to a total condemnation of the USSR leadership, who did not dare to accept such a promising and progressive innovation. Well, greed, and unwillingness to sacrifice the accumulated stocks of ammunition for the sake of Tokarev, Simonov, Degtyarev and our other designers did not suffer, developing new weapon systems for the "outdated cartridge".
There is nothing to do: remove the welt from the sleeve, make a groove for the extractor, and, importantly, increase the taper of the sleeve. The result is a modern cartridge for automatic and semi-automatic weapons. Like German, for example.
But is it really so?
The wound cartridge is positioned in the chamber due to this very notorious rim. It is she who prevents the failure of the cartridge and misfire when fired.
The weldless cartridge is positioned due to the taper of the sleeve, and therefore requires high manufacturing accuracy, both of the sleeve and the chamber. This means that production will require at least a more advanced machine park and tools.
Germany could afford a more demanding weapon in the manufacture of a weldless cartridge. But whether such a process could have been painlessly carried out by the Soviet Union in the 1930s is another question.
Replacing the machine tool park in the defense industry was not just a problem. Especially considering that no one lined up to sell us technologies and machine tools. And they had to buy abroad what the "partners" did not fit for anything, such as the Carden-Lloyd tankette, the Christie and Vickers tanks, the outdated Hispano-Suiza and BMW aircraft engines. And then try to portray something based on them.
In terms of creating small arms, everything was not so sad. We had a galaxy of smartest heads. From Fedorov to Sudaev. Nevertheless, everyone developed projects under the existing patron.
We can say, of course, that it was Stalin, not understanding anything in the military industry, who forced the designers to torment the old patron. You can say. But I will refer to the book by Vasily Alekseevich Degtyarev "My Life". I am sure that what Degtyarev understood was understood by the rest of our designers.
And the designers were well aware that it was simply unrealistic to give birth to several factories for the production of cartridges at the turn of 1935, when large-scale work began on the creation of new weapons by order of the government. Caliber 7, 62 was not used by all countries of the world, moreover, who were the main manufacturers of cartridges of this caliber? That's right, Britain and the United States. In Europe, the calibers were different.
How realistic was the probability of receiving from these countries a machine park for the production of weldless cartridges? I think at the level of statistical error.
Germany, in the light of treaties with the USSR, could sell us such machines. The Germans were selling a lot of equipment that was really important to us. But this would mean either the prospect of changing the main caliber, or work "on order." That is, the time, which, as it turned out, we did not have.
That is why they developed new weapons for the old cartridge.
In addition, the welted chuck was actually cheaper to manufacture from an economic point of view. There were already factories that made it possible to produce cartridges in the millions and hundreds of millions. Using even outdated equipment, albeit with greater tolerances than, for example, the Germans.
So, on one side of the scale there is an old welted cartridge and weapons for it, on the other - a welted cartridge and weapons that require more advanced production technology.
The advantages of the cartridge 7, 62x54 over their counterparts are most clearly manifested not in local conflicts, not in police actions, but in the course of wars of attrition, which were the First and Second World Wars. And our designers were well aware of all the advantages and disadvantages of switching from one type of cartridge to another. Wealthy and industrialized countries such as the United States, Great Britain, and Germany (conventionally wealthy but industrialized) were able to make this transition. We refused for technical and economic reasons.
At one time, gentlemen Maxim and Mosin, comrades Degtyarev, Simonov, Goryunov, Tokarev, Dragunov and Kalashnikov successfully solved the problem of feeding a cartridge with a rim from a tape, box or disk magazine. They managed to create reliable designs of automatic and self-loading weapons.
You might think that with a cartridge-free cartridge, they would come out easier and easier. Can. The question is which is more important: saving in the weight of the weapon or the ability to use cheap wartime cartridges made with increased tolerances without any problems.
By the way, during the Great Patriotic War, we were armed with Tokarev and Simonov self-loading rifles chambered for a rimmed cartridge, and Germany, with its reedless cartridge for mass production of a similar rifle, was never able to establish.
And G43 from "Walter", and "FG-42" further small parties did not advance.
And so it happened that the impossibility of transferring the industry to a new type of cartridge played into the hands of 1941-22-06. And one can only give praise to those who decided not to make a revolution in the production of cartridges. It paid off as it were.
With regards to the application, I will also say a few words.
Of course, for manufacturers of weapons and ammunition, a weldless cartridge is more profitable. First, based on the above, these products are more expensive, which means that the profit is higher. Secondly, it is easier for designers to live and work with a rimless chuck. It is more convenient when developing weapons, since when fed into the chamber, the rim strives to catch on everything that comes across it, including the rims of other cartridges.
But there is also the opposite nuance.
It is worth mentioning the fact that under wartime conditions, the quality of products decreases, as there is a replacement of workers in factories. It was? It was. It's unavoidable. How inevitable is the wear of the breech in the combat conditions of a war of attrition. And here the edge gives an undeniable advantage, since the weapon will give less misfires and delays when firing. Including automatic: after all, the ejector will cling to the wide rim, and not to the groove in the sleeve.
So, summing up, I will say that the use of the 1891 model cartridge, albeit a modified one, played in the good of our army in that war.
