Re-barreling question: Why?

[Aragorn243]

I'm going to be giving a small presentation on early 20th century rifles in a couple of months and have one nagging question I don't have the answer for and I expect someone may ask.

Why is it that US rifles as a general rule have had their barrels replaced at least once in their service life? I know it's not all but in comparison to other nations, it seems to be a very high ratio.

I can think of several possibilities but I'd rather not guess, these being inferior metal, increased marksmanship training, hotter round in the 30-06, poor maintenance, longer service life, higher replacement standards, beneficial government contracts or a combination of any or all.

Or it could be something even simpler, that when other nations replaced their barrels, they didn't date them making an obvious contrast and thus not noticeable.

Information

Warning: This is a relatively older thread This discussion is older than 360 days. Some information contained in it may no longer be current.

[GUTS]

Maybe it had something to do with steel cleaning rods and over cleaning?

[oger]

Primers

[Aragorn243]

Primers in that they were "hot" and burning out the chamber end or corrosive and not cleaned properly afterwards? The over cleaning is a possibility but everyone else had to clean their rifles too and were using corrosive primers.

[browningautorifle]

Corrosive primers rusted the barrels out faster. The weapons were used for their intended purpose and not left to sit. When something like that happens the weapon's cosmetics come second to function. Sure, when possible the weapon would be examined and serviced but to an infantryman if your weapon works perfectly you don't mess with it. Therefore, the erosion and rusting in the barrels happened. They simply couldn't clean as often as needed to avoid rust. It only takes a few hours for corrosive primers to act. The effects are damning. Sometimes cleaning could not be affected for days. Plus hundreds of rounds at a time add up to barrel wear. This is secondary when the desruction of axis or communist powers is the goal.

[Aragorn243]

Jim,

Thanks for your response and I understand what you are saying but what made the US rifles different from those of other nations. They too were being used yet don't show the wear that cause the barrels to be replaced. Most that I've encountered anyway, still have their original barrels and as far as I know, their ammo was corrosive as well.

Japan chromed their barrels, some of them anyway so that explains theirs, but the Soviets didn't and after reading about what their soldiers went through and the lack of concern they had for the soldiers themselves, let alone the rifles, cleaning them just doesn't seem like it would have been a high priority. Maybe it was, maybe they held the rifles in higher esteem than the soldiers. The Germans I would expect were probably drilled pretty heavily in cleaning their rifles.

[browningautorifle]

EVERYONE teaches cleaning to the max degree. It's a religion. I think the US troops used far more ammo, at a greater frequency and had a perhaps harder push than others. They had more soldiers involved than most countries. The US kept most of the weapons at war's end, others may have destroyed the ones that were excess. I'd destroy the ones that were a bit worn. Yes, primers at the time were supposed to be corrosive but Canada changed over somewhere in there and the US continued for some time. I can't speak for Russia or Germany or Japan because their weapons are of minimum interest to me and I don't consume them with the same interest. I have seen weapons in shabby shape from ALL countries.

I know there's others here that are more informed on this ammo VS barrel steel question, and I'm waiting for them to wade in. I must assure you that inferior barrel steel isn't it though.

[Aragorn243]

The Garands would have punched out a lot more ammo with heavier loads that's for sure. Germany and Japan upgraded their rifles after WWI, Italy turned theirs into a shorter version so length of service for them vs the 03, 91-30 and the SMLE aren't very comparable. So length of use and number of rounds fired along with vigorous cleaning would be the most likely culprit?

[browningautorifle]

There's more. The weapons we now see are probably used by at least four other governments between Korea and now. They had less strict standards for ammo and cleaning I'll bet. Yes, the high concentration of ammo and use over cleaning and time tells on barrel material.

Now, where ARE those other people I was counting on in this discussion?

[jmoore]

It's not fair to compare the Springfields and Garands to the axis powers' rifles, nor the Soviet turnbolts. Mostly because they weren't used after their respective wars to any great degree. SMLEs are generally rebuilt and very often rebarreled much like their US counterparts. No.4 rifles as well, but to a somewhat lesser degree.