How did detachable rifle magazines become standard issue and stay affordable?

[CodeWarrior1241]

I'm putting this in the C&R subforum because I've read posts from people here that have an outstanding knowledge of firearms history, and I wasn't sure if there was a better place on this in the forum... Here's what I want to understand better:

I've often seen the opinion repeated that while self loading battle rifles with detachable magazines were technically possible decades before they became common, brass in many armies rejected them. The arguments presented seemed to boil down to unsustainable ammunition usage in combat, and the undue expense of detachable magazine fabrication once magazine replacements per soldier were factored in.

Seems that by the 1930s mechanization of supply vehicles, etc. made it possible to sustain much larger ammo expenditure in the field than in previous decades, so armies the world over started adopting squad-level LMGs and often self loading rifles as well. We got the Garand going, for instance. However, many designs were pushed to have either a secondary clip loading abilit - German G41 designs, etc., or an en-bloc loading capability, like the Garand. Specifically for that rifle I've seen it said that the clips were engineered by John Garand because mags were considered to be too expensive to equip the entire infantry force with.

Then, during the war, all this changes. M1 carbines are issued with mags. Soviets, in a terrible crisis, losing men, industrial base, and relocating entire production lines under fire broadly adopt SMGs that are exclusively mag fed. Immediately post war no clip loaders are seriously entertained anywhere anymore. Again, the post war USSR standardizes on the Kalashnikov system at least by the early 1950s, and I doubt the production techniques available then were seriously further advanced than what existed in the late 1930s. We adopt the M14, same story.

Were people in the 1930s simply wrong about the costs involved? Was there a breakthrough that led to mag production becoming so much cheaper by 1943 or thereabouts? How could postwar USSR and postwar China, both tremendously war weary countries, able to re-equip the overwhelming majority of front line troops with mag fed riddles by the late 1950s if this was thought to be so difficult to do prior to WW2?

If someone could explain some of this that would be most excellent.

 

[somd_mustangs]

Not sure if this addresses the question directly...

True, WW2 saw the adoption of semi-automatic and full automatic rifles and LMG's on a wide scale, and phasing out bolt-action (ok, the Japanese pretty much stuck with bolts).
This phasing may have been recognizing the bolt action simply wasn't as effective on the contemporary battlefield, especially when facing an opponent with semi and full-auto rifles (for example, the Garand).

This higher rate of fire of an SA/FA required more capacity and faster reload capability than clips I would think, and expense be damned when on a war footing.
For the Russkies, the operating environment may also have made an impact as a pre-loaded magazine might be a more practical solution than fumbling around with strippers when fingers were cold & numb (clips I mean!).

At the end of the war, the Germans at least were implementing short-cuts to pistol mag manufacturing, like not heat-treating, phosphate vice bluing, crimps instead of pinned bases (Radom P.35(p) for example).
Not sure about rifle mags (G-41/G-43, MP-40 etc).
This was more for expediency than cost though.

Lots of technology advanced during WW2 (wars are good for that)....

Anyway, increased usage of detachable magazines may simply be more a function of requirements changing to meet or exceed the opponent's capabilities in an advancing technological environment than cost/manufacturing methods (or... it's really late and I could just be full of poo)

SKS isn't a true detachable mag system and it was pretty popular in post-war Russia & China

 

[tallen702]

There is a lot of speculation out there as to why detachable mags for rifles didn't become standard until during/after WWII, but the main underlying cause was simple. Arthur Savage patented the basic design which virtually every rifle now uses back in 1908. The protected features were that it was made from stamped metal, contained integrated shoulders (what we call "lips") to prevent cartridges from exiting the mag when removed, and integrated the bolt-hold-open mechanism which locked the action to the rear when the magazine was empty. That patent series didn't expire until..... wait for it..... 1942! One of the reasons the Johnson design used a rotary magazine was that the patent on that mechanism (also from the Savage Model 99) expired much earlier than the box-mag patent. While patent laws are flouted regularly and with impunity today by countries like China, in the inter-war period, they were heavily policed and violators were prosecuted to the fullest extent. That's the main reason I've seen that battle rifles didn't incorporate detachable box mags (with the exception of a few examples) until the war and post war periods.

It should be noted that the detachable magazines for things like Enfields and the Schmidt Rubin rifles and their progeny were not developed with the idea of soldiers carrying around magazines of ammo for quick reloads. In fact, it was common in early Enfields for the mags to be chained to the rifles as field commanders were afraid that the soldiers would lose their magazine. Instead, detachable mags in these instances were created for ease of production, ease of cleaning, and easy of clearing jams. It was really the self-loading pistol and the advent of SMGs that promoted the adoption of the quick reload and rapid fire capabilities of detachable mags in the military circles.

It should also be noted that detachable box mags were not (and still officially aren't) considered "disposable." Even now, dump bags are where you're supposed to sling your empty or partially empty mag. They're considered a high-loss commodity, but not truly disposable like stripper clips and en-blocs are.

As for en-bloc clips, other designs used them (Steyr and carcano both used them successfully) but many designers didn't like the added mechanics of ejecting a spent clip either via forced expulsion like the Garand, or gravity like the Steyr M95/34. It was just one more thing to go wrong in production and in the field. I can attest that heavy of a rifle can prevent the enbloc from dropping free of at M95 adding valuable time to the reloading process and even going so far as to create a potential jam situation.

 

[ken792]

I think it was definitely ammo wasting considerations more than the cost of mags. Some of the earlier Garand prototypes were box mag. The Pedersen Device also was to be issued with multiple detachable mags, and it was envisioned that every soldier with a Springfield 03 assaulting a trench in the 1919 spring offensive, which never ended up happening, would have a Pedersen Device. In that case, "wasting" ammo was the point, since they wanted to pour as much lead at the enemy as possible.

German doctrine for WWII had infantry squad firepower concentrated in a belt fed GPMG like the MG34 or MG42. Riflemen carried a lot of ammo, but it was belts for the GPMG. The officers creating that doctrine would not have placed too much weight into increasing rifleman firepower by giving them semi autos and detachable mags.

Another consideration might have been weight. Steel mags are heavy. TFB did an article on the StG44 and found once you factor magazine weight vs en bloc clip weight, carrying 7.92x33 ammo in a ready to load manner was essentially the same weight as carrying .30/06 en blocs. The steel mags negate the weight savings of the early intermediate cartridges, so it would have been much worse if the entire battle load of a full size cartridges was to be carried in steel box mags.

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2015/11/12/7-reasons-i-am-not-impressed-with-the-sturmgewehr/

 

[zoostation]

A number of reasons. I think a lot of it goes to the mindset of the time and magazines were just not thought of as cheap items. It takes time for paradigms like that to shift. As late as the beginning of WW2 people still largely thought of the primary infantryman's weapon being a 400-600 yard long rifle, usually fired deliberately one round at a time. So why would detachable magazines that would add cost and so often be lost after issuance even be needed. It wasn't until mid/late WW2 that most planners began to figure out that most of the fighting was going to be well within 200 yards and often well within 100.

Remember too that in WW2 we are talking about a time when manufacturing, while modern, wasn't as advanced. And metals were scarce enough that people were having scrap drives at home to support the war effort. I think one of the driving forces behind the Garand's selection was that the 8-round enbloc clip was so much cheaper and easier to produce than a detachable magazine. And it still gave you almost double the 5-round capacity everyone was used to in a battle rifle.

I've also read that the SKS was originally designed to be detachable magazine fed. But Stalin himself nixed the idea in favor of a fixed box mag as he thought the detachables would be lost too often by the average Russian soldier. And as Kruschev said, "when Stalin said 'dance', the wise man danced." So Simonov redesigned the carbine for the box mag.

 

[CodeWarrior1241]

Wow... A patent on the modern incarnation of a magazine! That's pretty remarkable.

The thing I wanted to establish, really, was that there wasn't a dramatic and stunning shift between something like a BAR mag and an AK mag. I've seen those videos the Croatians put up on YouTube about how they make AK mags, hard to call that a high tech process unavailable in the 1930s. I was always surprised the Garand wasn't originally provided a BAR compatible mag (although TFB had articles showing that was tested later, during the war), but I guess given how cash strapped the US army was in the 1930s that's not a huge surprise.

The SKS original concept I'm curious about, considering the pre war SVT and the multiple SMG types had detachable mags. Even the design contest Kalashnikov, Sudayev, and many others participated in from 1946 onwards for the first Soviet assault rifle called out for a detachable mag as a requirement. If there's a source to Simonov having to change the layout I'd like to see it, I'm fluent in Russian so a first-hand source isn't a problem.

 

[zoostation]

I obviously wasn't saying they couldn't have made AK magazines in the 1930's, especially since they already were making detachable mags for decades. I was saying they were not viewed as expendable as they are today as they were neither as easy nor cheap to manufacture. I have just a teeny bit of experience on the firearms manufacturing side of the industry so I tend to think of things in these terms.

This was a time when people did not think in terms of buying a lot of extra things like we do today. I had two parents who grew up in the Great Depression. What we might call "minimalist" today they would call survival. If you were very lucky the money was just barely there for what you needed to scrape by. Nothing more. The government was in no better of a position. It's not like today where people buy an AR or an AK and go shopping for all kinds of aftermarket magazines. The magazine or two that came with a new weapon were viewed as part of that weapon. Not as an accessory.

I'll look for the source on the SKS. Been a while. However it seems perfectly logical that the idea of detachable mags would be more acceptable to special units and positions than to a mainline battle rifle most soldiers would be issued. Stalin was known to take a great personal interest in small arms development and given the problems with both the SVT's and the AVS-36 he may have very well thought that a simple and reliable box magazine was the way to go. Not to mention Stalin could have been both inconsistent and also irrational, especially as he got older. It wouldn't be surprising to see him changing positions on many things over the course of a few years.

 

[Doco Overboard]

A detachable box mag is the weakest link in a self loading rifle. the LE box mag was charged with strippers that were specifically stacked with rimmed ammo. Even the M 14/16 used stripper clips SKS etc to make sure rounds are being loaded correctly. One good miss when slamming one home can cause a stoppage.

 

[WatTyler]

The answer is probably "All of the above." Infantry tactics evolved from static lines and 2000 meter volley firing to penetration and close engagement between 1914 and 1945 (no doubt aided by the advent of armor, full-scale use of LMGs and air support). Aimed firing with a 5-round internal and full-sized ammunition gave way to suppression firing with kurz-style ammunition and rapid movement. More lead in the air called for larger-capacity, detachable magazines. Remember that thought Simo Hayha is remembered for killing more that 500 of the enemy with his 28-30, he killed an additional 200 with his 9 mm Suomi submachine gun. And in considerably less time and at a closer range.
The SKS would be a counter-argument but I think it is an outlier. The relentless emphasis there was on simplification. Eventually even the firing pin spring was eliminated. The simplest steel detachable magazine I can think of involves a minimum of 5 parts, 4 of which easily be lost in the mud, so the SKS got the 10-round internal. The AK-47, with its detachable magazine, went into the field a mere 3 years later, and soon became the standard issue. All a matter of timing and conditions.

 

[LargemouthAss]

There is a lot of speculation out there as to why detachable mags for rifles didn't become standard until during/after WWII, but the main underlying cause was simple. Arthur Savage patented the basic design which virtually every rifle now uses back in 1908. The protected features were that it was made from stamped metal, contained integrated shoulders (what we call "lips") to prevent cartridges from exiting the mag when removed, and integrated the bolt-hold-open mechanism which locked the action to the rear when the magazine was empty. That patent series didn't expire until..... wait for it..... 1942! One of the reasons the Johnson design used a rotary magazine was that the patent on that mechanism (also from the Savage Model 99) expired much earlier than the box-mag patent. While patent laws are flouted regularly and with impunity today by countries like China, in the inter-war period, they were heavily policed and violators were prosecuted to the fullest extent. That's the main reason I've seen that battle rifles didn't incorporate detachable box mags (with the exception of a few examples) until the war and post war periods.

The Savage patent definitely played a role in all of this but I always wondered how the BAR and Thompson were able to use detachable box mags which operated in the same manner as the Savage well before 1942. Perhaps the necessity of WW1 and later WW2 caused the government to just say "aww screw it, cut Savage a check!"

 

[tallen702]

The Savage patent definitely played a role in all of this but I always wondered how the BAR and Thompson were able to use detachable box mags which operated in the same manner as the Savage well before 1942. Perhaps the necessity of WW1 and later WW2 caused the government to just say "aww screw it, cut Savage a check!"

That's entirely a possibility. Especially given that BARs weren't going to be manufactured in such large quantities vs the standard infantry rifle of the day. Also, JMB might have had some sort of licensing agreement with Savage. They get to use some of his features, he gets to use some of theirs, etc. That kind of trade happens today all of the time. Porsche supposedly traded Subaru some of their tech on how to squeeze more performance out of the boxer engine in exchange for help with their AWD systems back in the early 2000s.