Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 24 of 24

Thread: Information Request on CETME Ammunition/Chamberings and Evolution Towards 7.62 NATO

  1. #21
    Senior Veteran bladeworks123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Colorado - Out West
    Rep Power
    Quote Originally Posted by Perro Del Diablo View Post

    see attached - i can provide other book references too and a copy of the official TM for the rifle
    Thanks Mike, I hadn't heard that DM-1 designation before. The model chart I have only shows a "Fabrica Militaria de Armas Portatiles - Domingo Matheu or FMAP DM " I would be interested in a little bibliography info on the book you copied that page from to add to my library. Then I'll see if I can find a copy of it somewhere.

  2. #22
    Imperial Marine Stormtrooper Perro Del Diablo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Rep Power
    Quote Originally Posted by r.erichsen View Post
    Now this I've not heard before. 1000 meters? That explains a lot, in particular why .30 Carbine, 7.92x33 Kurtz and just about any other intermediate round already in existence were rejected. The German studies indicated a 400-500 meter range was all that was necessary due to after action reports of actual combat. I wonder why Spain believed 1000 meters (sounds like the US with this thinking) was still necessary for a typical infantry rifle? Talk about having your cake and eating it too: Recoil like the 7.92x33 mm to support controllable full automatic, but range like the 7.92mm Mauser?
    Yes - EFFECTIVE range of 1000 M, NOT max range.
    you have to understand that one of the few remaining areas of Spanish influence during this time frame was the Spanish Sahara in Northwest Africa, and it was deemed necessary because desert warfare in the Sahara required it. I've got a TON of pictures from the Spanish Sahara - someday maybe i will post them all again. They used to be posted on my old forum.

    The Spanish Govt. approached the director of the old Gustloff-Werke Dipl-ing Werner Heynen (who was president of the board of directors for automatic weapons) to put together a group of German specialists to work together in Spain to develop the CETME rifle. Part of the conditions of development consisted of these requirement

    1. automatic carbine
    2. chambered for a 7.92 short cartridge (the 7.92x33mm Kurz)
    3. Folding stock
    4. Effective range from 800-1000 meters
    5. max weight 6.6 pounds
    6. ability to attach a bayonet
    7. ability to launch grenades

    after lots of testing, they found out that it was impossible with a 792mm kurz cartridge - the 1000 meter requirement was double what the 8 short could accomplish

    They were able to accomplish this with there 7.92x41mm CETME cartridge, and they performed several tests by shooting holes in helmets at 1000 meters.

    see attached scans of the Modelo A manual

    Quote Originally Posted by r.erichsen
    Talk about a low low drag bullet profile - 44mm in length, yet only 105 grains in weight? This alone was novel research and doesn't appear to have been duplicated by any other country.
    it was actually quite amazing considering that nearly every instrument needed for measurement in such a difficult development task did not exist in Spain. They sorta "winged it" and made it work - them dang Gerrys sure are good at that technical stuff!

    Ah, so this is when the 7.62x40 mm was introduced and only because the US asked for 7.62 without actually specifying the case length or presumably OAL length?

    Were all chambers fluted at this point? I assume this is when the 50 degree locking piece angle was being tested for the 7.62 NATO round? What did the lighter recoiling 7.62x40 and 7.92x40 mm round call for in terms of locking piece angle? How long were the barrels on these early weapons? Most appear to be in the 16-17" range.
    all chambers were fluted even on the Null-Serie CETME
    locking piece was swapped to 50 when The German ministry director rejected the 7.62x41mm cartridge and insisted on 762 NATO. They were cracking receivers at first, and there was quite an objection to using the strong 762 nato cartridge with the CETME rifle, but Vorgrimmler found that by changing the angle on the locker to 50, and by adding a buffer to the buttstock (not previously needed on the 7.92 and 7.62x41mm cartridge guns) they were able to accomplish what they wanted to do.

    I've heard there were problems with the long streamlined bullet, but what were they? Was the issue that the bullet was just too long to conform to NATO's max OAL length? Was it that the projectile was somehow too fragile for the higher pressures? Was the issue terminal ballistics compared to a more conventional lead cored bullet?
    the problem was that the US was slowly allowing Germany to rearm after the war, but since Germany was a NATO member, they were made to adopt the 762 NATO cartridge by the USA, and the Voss bullet was not a NATO 147 grain projectile

    So, the 112 grain CSP-003 ammo, with case and OAL length identical to that of 7.62 NATO, but much lower recoil (or was that the problem, it was not "identical" in length to 7.62 NATO?). Imagine that, a "managed recoil" 7.62x51 mm round decades before the concept really took hold. This was a good compromise in my opinion and certainly backed the weapon into a round more like the intermediate cartridges, while still having the longer range. Had the Spanish government conceded the 1000 meters was probably not critical at this point, or was the ammo still capable of producing the desired effects at these distances?
    the CSP-003 is identical to the NATO cartridge except that it has a plastic core bullet instead of a lead core bullet. I had a couple thousand rounds of it, and have shot a bunch of it, and it certainly did not kick nearly as much as the NATO equivalent. I sold a bunch of it on this forum several times over the years.

    Was it that the rifles were not supplied with the correct ammo, or that they could not reasonably use 7.62 NATO ammo due to strength issues, or more likely just the locking piece angle?
    once again, the US was only allowing Germany to start to re arm with firearms chambered for the new T65 NATO cartridge

    I heard the issue was more about licensing than dissatisfaction with the weapon itself. The Belgian government went out of their way to block the granting of a license and even management within FN were not enthusiastic about granting a manufacturing license to Germany for the production of the FAL domestically (though had done so for the Austrians interestingly enough). This early after WWII resentment was still very deep on the part of Belgium and many other countries invaded by German forces.
    I have several books explaining that they were unhappy with the performance of the G1 - it depends on which book you read. I wasn't there - only know what i have read.

    Belgium DID grant Germany the license to make the gun for a fee - there is lots of evidence in all the books to prove it including official correspondence documents between FN, and the German Ministry

    So, the CETME model 58 is the breakpoint between early and late Modelo B, with 60 degree LPs on the earlier and 50 degree LPs on later, correct?
    The Modelo 58 is the same thing as the Modelo B
    the Modelo B armorers manual states that by simply swapping the locking pieces out in the Model B to the new 50 that you can shoot NATO spec ammo, and after supplies exhaust themselves, a retrofit of lockers in Modelo 58s would take place.
    Attached Images Attached Images

  3. #23
    Imperial Marine Stormtrooper Perro Del Diablo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Rep Power
    and while it took me a very long time to gather all of this information, and alot of money over the years, in the interest of sharing, here are scans of the modelo a "ammo" manual

    translate it - it will explain most everything on the transition of the cartridges

    enjoy - the Modelo A books are RARE - even in Spain
    Attached Images Attached Images
    • File Type: jpg 1.jpg (15.3 KB, 136 views)
    • File Type: jpg 2.jpg (31.1 KB, 137 views)
    • File Type: jpg 3.jpg (31.3 KB, 137 views)
    • File Type: jpg 4.jpg (14.0 KB, 137 views)
    • File Type: jpg 5.jpg (55.4 KB, 137 views)
    • File Type: jpg 6.jpg (84.1 KB, 135 views)
    • File Type: jpg 7.jpg (95.3 KB, 134 views)
    • File Type: jpg 8.jpg (51.7 KB, 138 views)
    • File Type: jpg 9.jpg (66.2 KB, 136 views)
    • File Type: jpg 10.jpg (58.8 KB, 133 views)
    • File Type: jpg 11.jpg (63.7 KB, 134 views)
    • File Type: jpg 12.jpg (53.0 KB, 133 views)
    • File Type: jpg 13.jpg (29.9 KB, 135 views)
    Last edited by Perro Del Diablo; 03-24-2012 at 12:45 AM.

  4. #24
    Senior Veteran r.erichsen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    The desert Southwest!
    Rep Power
    Thank you Perro, a very comprehensive response!
    Mangler of loose parts and perfectly good parts kits

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 10-08-2010, 07:14 PM
  2. Info Request - Fajen CETME Stock
    By Enigma Nostra in forum Cetme/HK
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 07-19-2008, 05:02 PM
  3. WTS/WTT 7.62 NATO and 8mm Ammunition
    By They Hate Me in forum For Sale
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 03-13-2008, 03:04 PM
  4. SOLD collectors CETME ammunition
    By Perro in forum For Sale
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 04-23-2007, 05:58 PM
  5. Request for information and help
    By Enigma Nostra in forum Current Events/RKBA
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 04-23-2007, 10:07 AM


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts