Mauser Carbines - why didn't they catch on?

[browncoat]

So I've been reading about the early mausers recently, and I'm a bit confused as to why the cavalry carbines weren't more successful. In particular, the 1894 Swedish Mauser and the 1895 Spanish Mauser were both really neat little guns. They were light, short guns with small bore high-velocity ammunition and turned down bolts. When I look at my 96 Swedish mauser (which is a cool gun) I feel like it is somewhat a step back. I'd much rather lug something shorter and lighter around a battlefield. Through WWI and WWII though, much longer heavier 8mm mausers were dominant - anyone have ideas as to why?

 

[Boris]

Probably the same reason for mosins, full length vs carbines. Also keep in mind that powder was not as it is today, so longer barrels with slower twist were used, plus even during wwii there was cavalry and some oldtimers were adamant about bayonets.

 

[browncoat]

Probably the same reason for mosins, full length vs carbines. Also keep in mind that powder was not as it is today, so longer barrels with slower twist were used, plus even during wwii there was cavalry and some oldtimers were adamant about bayonets.

That's a good point, I hadn't thought about the powder issue. I was just thinking "modern smokeless" but of course the "modern smokeless" of the 1890s is a far cry from the smokeless of today. For the Mosin at least though, wasn't the trend over its manufacture to get shorter and shorter? You got the original 91, cut down to Dragoon, cut down to 91/30, cut down to M38.

 

[Boris]

People who got carabines were in artillery or cavalry or support, but infantry was all equipped with longer rifles and having long stick with bayo was an advantage. People who were clearing houses used subguns.

Another reason is factory tooling, both Soviets and Germans cranked out rifles like mad, because they new how. Mousse was by far the most common weapon for an infantry. Compare mousers made vs other guns and you'll see.

 

[browncoat]

People who got carabines were in artillery or cavalry or support, but infantry was all equipped with longer rifles and having long stick with bayo was an advantage. People who were clearing houses used subguns.

Another reason is factory tooling, both Soviets and Germans cranked out rifles like mad, because they new how. Mousse was by far the most common weapon for an infantry. Compare mousers made vs other guns and you'll see.

For WWI, I can see how bayonets would be a big part of the military doctrine, since infantry tactics hadn't been updated (too much) since the days of muzzleloaders, which got a lot of use as pikes. However, given the introduction of machine guns in WWI, it doesn't seem to make sense that more people didn't do more to have shorter rifles ready for WWII. I mean, apart from the US and the M1 Garand, nobody else even brought a new rifle to (widespread use in) WWII.

 

[Boris]

May be it has to do with leadership as well, shit doesn't change fast in armies. Blitzcrieg, machinegun armed raiding parties, assault rifles were invented well before wwii, yet they started to come into common use. Also compare the evolution of arms in just 25 years, going from biplanes to stukas from tractors to tigers

 

[Boris]

Also keep in mind that even in 1920s there were lancer units, I.e. cavalry with lances. Shit did not evolve fast enough and mgs were very expensive.

 

[Boris]

Here is a movie from the Russian civil war years, probably around 1920s. This shows German lancers (with lances/pikes) charging Mahno (who was a very colorful character, creating first stable anarchist republic)

[video]https://youtu.be/qrl88IWYhFk?t=50s[/video]

Here are Maxim mgs are used on a light weight carriage (tachanka), this was pure Russian invention, very suitable for mobile operations. Maxims are notoriously heavy and you needed people who know to run them.

Well, the point is that you had pure light cavalry used into 1920s, post WWI and well after Maxims were invented. Again, as effective as they were, many governments considered them wasteful. They have not changed the balance on the front, simply made defending a position easier.

 

[JuergenG]

I love my Mauser Carbines!

Swede m/94


Swede m/94 converted to 7x57


There are some more shorties downstairs, i.e. Kar.88, FN M1935 Peru, Oviedo M1895, M1900, MAT M1886 R.35

 

[mark056]

The WW2 K98 was more carbine length. It was also standard issue.

 

[JuergenG]

The K98k measures 4"+ longer than the ones mentioned. Same with the Kar.98AZ.

 

[mark056]

The K98k measures 4"+ longer than the ones mentioned. Same with the Kar.98AZ.

Still shorter than the previous WW1 service rifle and 98b and designated Karabiner or short rifle. How short does a rifle have to be to be a carbine? Let's start a new thread?

 

[browncoat]

Still shorter than the previous WW1 service rifle and 98b and designated Karabiner or short rifle. How short does a rifle have to be to be a carbine? Let's start a new thread?

Taking this one off topic is fine by me. I guess the modern equivalent of a carbine, the m4, is pretty short.

 

[mark056]

Taking this one off topic is fine by me. I guess the modern equivalent of a carbine, the m4, is pretty short.

Well you raise an interesting point. I've always considered the standard M16 to be more of a carbine than a rifle. But we could quibble all day not get anywhere.

 

[noddaduma]

Your Swedes are chambered in what, 6.5mm? That is a light-shooting round compared to the .30 cal and 8mm rounds of the day.

The reason is easy to find: Find a carbine-length Berthier and shoot a full-charge 8mm Lebel round through it. It'll kick the shit out of your shoulder. Pretty soon you'll be flinching and/or too sore to shoot.

I would think that once the idea of full-length rifles fell by the wayside, the carbine lengths of WW2 rifles were dictated by the mass needed to keep the recoil to a manageable level for the conscripts that made up the majority of the infantry. Additionally, in the case of the Kar 98k, the length was same as that of the 98az it was derived from. I think the az was cut down by trial and error to a length which still --via barrel harmonics -- provided good accuracy with the standard military load of the (WW1) time frame without increasing recoil to unmanageable levels.

Along those lines, I don't know WTF the British were thinking with the No 5 Mk 1.

 

[Boris]

... the carbine lengths of WW2 rifles were dictated by the mass needed to keep the recoil to a manageable level for the conscripts that made up the majority of the infantry. ...

I'm not aware of any such research of trials. On Soviet side, they simply used the same old carabine configuration that cossaks/cavarly used and gave it to other units that would benefit from it, like artillery and axillary ... i.e. where you would not likely use the gun at all, but smaller was better.

I think that post WWI research on rifles was effectively curtailed as countries were looking into other types of arms or simply made shitload of whatever they made before. Not sure on Western side, but British Enfield was one of the most and longest serving rifle, wasn't it?

 

[fshalor]

I would love to have a carbine length 7.65 argintine in a scout configuration . But man that would kick.

 

[mark056]

I would love to have a carbine length 7.65 argintine in a scout configuration . But man that would kick.

There 1891 Argentine Mauser Carbines (cavalry) Models out there and I have seen them for sale.if you could find one, this might make an interesting custom project.

 

[noddaduma]

I'm not aware of any such research of trials. On Soviet side, they simply used the same old carabine configuration that cossaks/cavarly used and gave it to other units that would benefit from it, like artillery and axillary ... i.e. where you would not likely use the gun at all, but smaller was better.

I think that post WWI research on rifles was effectively curtailed as countries were looking into other types of arms or simply made shitload of whatever they made before. Not sure on Western side, but British Enfield was one of the most and longest serving rifle, wasn't it?

I don't think there was any scientific research, either. I think for most armies the initial short rifle "research" consisted of not much more than a day at the range, a crate of ammo, and a hacksaw. And then those "good enough" lengths were just stuck with because "they've always done it that way." The only exception might have been the US. See Hatcher's Notebook.

You need to come up to speed on your Enfields. Even the No I Mk III was controversially short for its day. The No 5 Mk 1 "Jungle Carbine" is brutally short.

 

[NavelOfficer]

I sure like the size of my FR-7. The m38 Swede and m1916 are a bit shorter than most, too. Often thought an m1904/39 Portuguese would be a great 8mm cast bullet shooter.

 

[tk421991]

I think the big push towards carbines happened after WW2 because of city and jungle fighting. A Vz. 24 has about a 23.5" barrel and K98k has about a 24" barrel - if you go to a gun store today, most rifles will have a 22" or 24" barrel. Savage sells their 114 American Classic with a 22" barrel in .30-06 and with a 24" barrel in .300 Win Mag. So the "short rifle" idea was actually a very long lasting change in terms of how long a barrel would be.

I think some of the battles on the Western Front in WW1 were fought in cities or larger towns, but I can't recall off the top of my head which ones (just remembered the 1916 Easter Rising). I can't think of any WW2 style city fighting on the Middle Eastern or Eastern fronts in WW1. The only big city battle from after WW1 but before WW2 that I can remember is the attack on the Customs House in Dublin. Our troops did fight in jungles during the Banana Wars.

So since they didn't do a lot of CQC back before WW2, I'd imagine they didn't have a lot of reason to emphasize a carbine for every soldier, rather than just for certain troops. Most countries also knew that the future wasn't going to be about the bolt action, but semi auto. Russia had the Avtomat and the AVS-36 and the SVT, we had the Garand, and I remember reading that the French and British were working towards a semi auto before WW2.

As for the Germans, their infantry squad tactics were based around the machine gun, with supporting troops with machine pistols and bolt actions. WW1 taught them the importance of having superior firepower. The Tales of the Gun, German Guns of WW2 episode covers this idea pretty good.