Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 24

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

  1. #11
    Norton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    The Old Dominion
    Posts
    6,345
    Rep Power
    566
    Excellent write up Perro, very interesting.
    We thought about it for a long time, "Endeavor to persevere." And when we had thought about it long enough, we declared war on the Union

  2. #12
    Administrator
    k98k792's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    On the edge of reason
    Posts
    4,678
    Rep Power
    442
    Sticky
    " Little by little the look of the country changes because of the men we admire. "


    HANG IN THERE
    WE'LL BE BACK!

  3. #13
    Senior Veteran r.erichsen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    The desert Southwest!
    Posts
    574
    Rep Power
    133
    a short and to the point timeline of how the CETME ended up chambered in 762x51mm - shortened to the point where i can post it in a couple of hours - anyone wanting more needs to invest there own time with reading books, magazines, weapon manuals etc and do your own research on this. I will try to post more about the calibers lower than 30 later.
    Thanks Perro, I realize this was time consuming, but nobody has info of the quality you have and this post is destined for sticky status!

    Summarized and paraphrased:
    * .30 Carbine (7.62x33 mm) - France made intentions known that they wanted to adopt the US 30 caliber Carbine cartridge also known as 7.62x33mm and several protoypes were made in 30 carbine <snip with paraphrase> included Vorgrimler's prototype in 30 carbine called the Vorgrimler I/2, and Loffler made a prototype known as the Loffler II/2 in 30 carbine with a third prototype (II/3, model 1950 carbine) merging the winning Loffler design with good ideas from Vorgrimler's I/2.

    * T65 study group (7.62x51 mm) - April 49 France joins NATO and begins to study US T65 cartridge which later became known as the 762x51mm NATO round

    * 7.92x40mm - First task of the design team was to select a cartridge with flat trajectory, good accuracy over long range but with no increase in recoil to affect full auto fire. Spain required a cartridge with a range of 1000 meters which was double what the 7.92x33 Kurz could handle. They were able to figure out how to achieve this by using a 105 grain bullet made of an aluminum core with a partial copper jacket which only gave a recoil impulse of .7KG/sec which barely exceeded the corresponding data for the kurz round.

    QUESTION: Were all of these experimental weapons designed with a fluted chamber, or was that introduced some time later?
    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?

    The 7.92x40mm CETME cartridge was developed by DR-ING Gunther Voss (a former Luftwaffe Ballistician) and it was the only bullet able to meet the demands of the Spanish government. The 7.92 bullet weighed just over 100 grains (less than a typical modern day 115 grain 9mm pistol projectile), it measured 44MM long in length, produced muzzle velocity of 2690 FPS but with a very very low recoil impulse, and was able to achieve 1000 meters.
    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.

    the CETME Modelo 1 looked very much like a MP44 Sturmgewehr and was designed by Harmut Menneking (ex rheinmettal engineer)
    and the CETME Modelo 2 by Vorgrimler (which later became the Modelo A1 CETME everyone is familiar with)

    they presented both models to the Alto Estado Mayor and Vorgrimler personally demonstrated the CETME Modelo 2 to Franco - all the officers and Franco was very impressed by the Modelo 2 - there were problems with the Modelo 1 and it was not demonstrated to Franco.

    the tests went so well that the A.E.M. ordered 30 of the Modelo 2 designated as the NULL SERIE (zero series), and 150,000 rounds of ammo to do better testing.

    The CETME goes to Aberdeen Proving Ground for testing in the summer of 1954

    Germany is slowly being allowed back into arms production and shows great interest in the CETME Null-SERIE. a deal is made where the German border guards (BGS) are allowed to try out, and test 2 Null Serie rifles but the Germans had told Spain that due to America's wishes, it would need to be in 7.62 caliber for infantry weapons.
    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?

    At this point, a well intentioned mistake was made which caused some delays. For some time after the 7.92 Voss cartridge, the Spanish had not been privvy to the details of the US T65 cartridge program. The BGS borderguards mentioned that the Americans were insisting on 7.62mm caliber but had not bothered to relay the fact that the US cartridge was 51mm in length. Voss, necked down the existing 7.9x40mm Voss to develop the 7.62x40mm Voss Model 53 cartridge which had a half jacketed aluminum bullet 46mm long weighing 108 grain.
    That explains why I've seen the x40 mm length cartridges with both 105 and 108 grain projectiles. The projectile was 46 mm in length? That would be some magazine with a round with an OAL that would have been as long or longer than the 7.92x57 mm.

    in 1955, the German border guards expressed interest in ordering 150 weapons for trials by its own troops if CETME could change the caliber to 7.62x51mm specs, so they made some in 7.62x51mm with a lighter core bullet, and some in 762x51 to T65 specs with rifles to match.
    Objections were made by Vorgrimler that such a strong recoil impulse (barely 10% less than German 8mm) with such a light weapon would not work well, and was understood by all, but Germany was the newest member of NATO and was not allowed any extra decisions and had to accept the NATO cartridge. There were problems with the T65 spec cartridge cracking sheet metal receivers, and Vorgrimler was able to work it out by changing the locking piece for the stronger ammo.
    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.

    During this time period, Voss tried to install his long lightweight projectile made of aluminum and jacketed by copper into the 762x51mm nato case and it did not work out well and was scrapped.
    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?

    After this, the CETME CSP-003 cartridge was born.This is what MOST people on the internet call the "CETME" bullet. It was a lead projectile which had a plastic core bullet which weighed in at 112.6 grains but shared the same dimensions as the t65 NATO cartridge. The Modelo A CETME was changed to the CSP-003 after this testing was done.
    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 German border guards (BGS) cancel there order of the CETME and ended up ordering the G1 FAL because of it being to t65 specs, where the CETME was using CSP-003 spec ammo.
    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?

    German border guards unhappy with the FN FAL G1 and they approach CETME and tell them that if they can change the CETME rifle to shoot 762 NATO ammo it will order 400 for troop trials. HK is contracted to manufacture these and they are known as the STG CETME rifle.
    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.

    CETME changes to 7.62x51mm NATO cartridge in Modelo B 58, HK produces the G3 in 762x51 NATO.
    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?

    A fine point on NATO standardization appears to be that while the 7.62x51 mm case and OAL length became standard, the case wall thickness, interior dimensions, bullet weight, shape, jacket type and thickness, propellent charge and type do not appear to have been particularly well defined. How closely did the early "NATO compliant" ammunition actually resemble the US M80 ball round? In later years a shamrock/four leaf clover could be used on the package, or the ammunition itself next to the cross-hair within a circle NATO symbol to denote "interchangeable" not just "NATO compliant". Some of the best and worst 7.62 NATO do not carry the shamrock "interchangeable" symbol.

    Interesting stuff Perro, thanks for much for posting.

    R
    Last edited by r.erichsen; 01-11-2012 at 09:12 AM.
    Mangler of loose parts and perfectly good parts kits

  4. #14
    Senior Veteran r.erichsen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    The desert Southwest!
    Posts
    574
    Rep Power
    133
    Quote Originally Posted by Perro Del Diablo View Post
    heres the data sheets for both 762 NATO and CSP-003 - i suggest one of the free translators like babelfish to help
    you will see that they are both VERY similar

    i had a BUNCH of the CSP-003 and shot a BUNCH of it - it worked GREAT and definitely controlled recoil. I sold all of it on this forum many many years ago.
    Perro,

    Even without translating some of the details, would I be correct in understanding there to be two versions of the CSP-003? Mod 57 (I presume this was defined in 1957) and Mod 63 (1963 modification?) with a NATO round from the same year (63-1?). Most of the 7.62 NATO info suggests it is a close match to the M80 ball, at least in the projectile. I also assume 63-1 had "thick" brass while CSP-003 (57) and CSP-003 (63) had the "thin" brass that if reloaded to NATO pressures would at the very least tear but might also rupture?

    Many thanks Perro, this needs to be stickied as well.

    R
    Mangler of loose parts and perfectly good parts kits

  5. #15
    Senior Veteran
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    174
    Rep Power
    141
    Quote Originally Posted by Perro Del Diablo View Post
    ...
    Germany is slowly being allowed back into arms production and shows great interest in the CETME Null-SERIE. a deal is made where the German border guards (BGS) are allowed to try out, and test 2 Null Serie rifles but the Germans had told Spain that due to America's wishes, it would need to be in 7.62 caliber for infantry weapons.

    ...

    in 1955, the German border guards expressed interest in ordering 150 weapons for trials by its own troops if CETME could change the caliber to 7.62x51mm specs, so they made some in 7.62x51mm with a lighter core bullet, and some in 762x51 to T65 specs with rifles to match.
    ...

    The German border guards (BGS) cancel there order of the CETME and ended up ordering the G1 FAL because of it being to t65 specs, where the CETME was using CSP-003 spec ammo.

    ...

    German border guards unhappy with the FN FAL G1 [?] and they approach CETME and tell them that if they can change the CETME rifle to shoot 762 NATO ammo it will order 400 for troop trials. HK is contracted to manufacture these and they are known as the STG CETME rifle.

    STG works well - everyone happy

    ...

    Unhappy? But why they carry the G1 for some decades? AFAIK they never changed to the G3. The latest officially photos I got are from a 1984 police service regulation (I scan and add them later).

    http://www.bgs-erinnerung.de/Walsrodesingend.htm

  6. #16
    Imperial Marine Stormtrooper Perro Del Diablo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Bespin
    Posts
    3,372
    Rep Power
    465
    Quote Originally Posted by Veto11 View Post
    Unhappy? But why they carry the G1 for some decades? AFAIK they never changed to the G3. The latest officially photos I got are from a 1984 police service regulation (I scan and add them later).

    http://www.bgs-erinnerung.de/Walsrodesingend.htm
    what it should say is the Germany Ministry of Defense / German Army was unhappy with it, not the BGS - sorry

    several schools of thought on why the Ministry of Defense and Army were unhappy with it, and it depends on whether the book was about the FAL, or the CETME/HK
    it has been written about extensively in all of the HK books, and the FN FAL books

    here are a few different reasons i have read about describing why Germany adopted the CETME rifle over the FAL - im certain the real reason was a mixture of several of these.

    performance related problems with the FAL.

    German troops didnt like the Belgian firearm because it was not made in Germany, and many of the professional German soldiers had a problem with that.

    Belgium being unhappy with Germany after the war raised the prices on the rifles being made for Germany a bunch compared to what FN charged the Belgium government for there rifles which did not sit well with Germany so they decided to move on to CETME who was eager for there business

    Belgium offered a licensing contract with Germany allowing them to produce the firearm for themselves at 5% per firearm, and it was limited in the number of rifles that they could produce. After the contract, the rate would climb.

    I am aware that the G1 is still in use by the police service to this very date. I have some internet friends i have corresponded with over the years who still have one of these in there departments armory, and it even has the scope on it. I have some great pictures on one of my backup disks and can share them if i can find the time to scan the disks.

    I had a G1 rifle at one point. I spent a great deal of time trying to find out stuff about it, but my interest has waned in the platform over the years. I have the very rare G1 Hensoldt Wetzlar scope and mount for it, as well as several other very rare accesories for the gun. I enjoyed shooting it for many many years.

    the Germany Army stopped using the G1 in the 70s and sold all of there guns off. About 10 years ago a very large amount of G1 parts kits hit our shores and were sold off to the collectors market here, It has been widely reported that these guns came from the G1s that Germany sold to Turkey. There has been a recent shipment of the early series A fals known as the DM1 before they were designated the G1. Ive still yet to hear where these were sourced from.
    Last edited by Perro Del Diablo; 03-13-2012 at 12:10 PM.

  7. #17
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    42
    Rep Power
    157
    Quote Originally Posted by r.erichsen View Post
    Perro,

    Even without translating some of the details, would I be correct in understanding there to be two versions of the CSP-003? Mod 57 (I presume this was defined in 1957) and Mod 63 (1963 modification?) with a NATO round from the same year (63-1?). Most of the 7.62 NATO info suggests it is a close match to the M80 ball, at least in the projectile. I also assume 63-1 had "thick" brass while CSP-003 (57) and CSP-003 (63) had the "thin" brass that if reloaded to NATO pressures would at the very least tear but might also rupture?

    Many thanks Perro, this needs to be stickied as well.

    R
    r.erichsen;

    Here goes translation about differences between both cartridges, hope it'd be of help:

    7,62x 51 CETME, mod 57

    Remarks: Cardboard boxes of 20 rounds, with a wheight of 0.4 kg (0.45 with clips). Wooden box of 1680 cartridges (41.6 kg) Designed by DR. Voss at CETME and made at Fabrica Nacional de Palencia. CSP-003 means “copper-synthetic-lead” number 3 and refers to the bullet composition. VC-012 means “copper case number 12”. At first it was improperly designed as CETME NATO and was packed in boxes of 2000 rounds. We say improperly because doesn’t fullfil Nato Specifications. The minimun strength of cripm is 15 KP. Not watertight..



    7,62x 51 CETME, mod 63

    Remarks: Same as number 3001, difference lies in the lead core (richer in antimony), crimp, accuracy in bullet diameter and watertightness; improvements achieved between 1959 an 1963 by cap Palacios at Pirotecnia de Sevilla, Mayor Dorda at Fabrica nacional de Toledo and the autor at Fabrica Nacional de Palencia. Notes for number 3001 are valids here too.

    Greetings

  8. #18
    holescreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Centerville, OH
    Posts
    4,972
    Rep Power
    477
    There has been a recent shipment of the early series A fals known as the DM1 before they were designated the G1. Ive still yet to hear where these were sourced from.

    I might be able to shed some light on the last shipment of early FAL's. Here's a model B kit I got from Apex:


    This was in the butt trap, I've been told they are the gas settings and it is written in Turkish:




  9. #19
    Senior Veteran bladeworks123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Colorado - Out West
    Posts
    6,569
    Rep Power
    332
    Quote Originally Posted by Perro Del Diablo View Post
    There has been a recent shipment of the early series A fals known as the DM1 before they were designated the G1. Ive still yet to hear where these were sourced from.
    The only DM model reference I find in my FAL info is the FMAP DM manufactured in Argentina.
    BATTLEMENT ARMS
    www.battlementarms.com

  10. #20
    Imperial Marine Stormtrooper Perro Del Diablo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Bespin
    Posts
    3,372
    Rep Power
    465
    Quote Originally Posted by holescreek View Post
    I might be able to shed some light
    I figured Turk, but havent heard anything official. all the previous imports of the G1s came from Turkey

    Quote Originally Posted by bladeworks123 View Post
    The only DM model reference I find in my FAL info is the FMAP DM manufactured in Argentina.
    see attached - i can provide other book references too and a copy of the official TM for the rifle


    R Erichsen - i will try to address your questions in a couple of days = sorry for the delay, very busy
    Attached Images Attached Images
    Last edited by Perro Del Diablo; 03-17-2012 at 12:46 AM.

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

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

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