In the second half of the 19th century. A lot of breech-loading percussion guns appeared (Fig. 1).
The bolt designs of various rifle models were fundamentally no different from each other. The gunsmith designers were faced with the task of ensuring reliable sealing, that is, the tightness of the charging chamber. Capsule breech-loading rifles did not justify themselves, so needle systems with a unitary paper cartridge were rightfully considered more promising at that time, among which Prussian needle guns made by S. Pauli’s student Johann Nikolai Dreyse were especially popular. The first example of such a gun was released in 1827.
Fig.1. Perry breech-loading rifle
The sample, made by the master already in 1836, was a needle gun with a sliding bolt, which used a unitary cartridge, the paper sleeve of which flew out when fired. At first they used an egg-shaped bullet, which was later replaced by a Minié system bullet. The percussion compound cake, replacing the primer, was located in a folder tray under the bullet. The striker needle pierced the powder charge and ignited the capsule with impact. Obturation in the treasury was achieved by tightly compressing the combat cylinder with a deep cup onto the conical edge of the barrel hemp, so that the powder gases did not get into the shooter’s face. I. Dreyze offered his rifle to the French government, but his development was rejected there. Only after comprehensive tests that took place in 1841 in Prussia, the Dreyse gun was adopted by the Prussian troops. The Model 1862 gun underwent minor design changes and was named the Model 1841–1862 gun.
The gun had an iron barrel, caliber 15.43 mm, length 905 mm, as well as four grooves (6 mm wide, 0.76 mm deep). The rifling stroke length (cutting pitch) is 732 mm, or 47.5 calibers. The sight was plate-type with 4 slots for shooting at a distance of up to 600 m. The weight of the gun without a bayonet was 4.65 kg, with a bayonet - 5.3 kg. Length without bayonet - 1424 mm, with bayonet - 1925 mm. The initial bullet speed is 295 m/s.
The cartridge case is paper (1.5 turns), with a glued cardboard bottom - a circle; the mass of the powder charge was 4.8 g - the relative charge was 1: 6.4. In front of the charge there was a folder spigel (bullet tray) with a cake of impact composition behind and a socket for an egg-shaped bullet in front.
" class="centertable" >
Rice. 2. Dreyse needle rifle model 1841. A schematic section of the breech of the rifle shows the moment of impaling the flammable composition
The bullet had a caliber of 13.51 mm, i.e. smaller than the caliber of the barrel itself. It was inserted into a deep socket of a folder tray, which cut into the rifling, compressed the bullet and gave it rotation. Bullet weight - 30.42 g. Cartridge weight - 40 g.
The Dreyse gun was the first breech-loading military gun, firing a unitary cartridge. At that time, the Prussian army, armed with breech-loading guns, was ahead of the armies of other states, equipped with cap and flintlock guns, which were loaded from the muzzle.
The Prussian needle gun Dreyse received its first baptism of fire during the campaign in Denmark in 1846. In the victorious battle of Almine, in which two companies of the 12th Prussian regiment, armed with needle guns, took part, experts noted their excellent fighting qualities.
However for a long time there were doubts about the quality of the combat of needle guns, dispelled and finally refuted only 25 years later, after the campaigns of 1864–1866. during which the “new” rifle proved itself (especially in the Battle of Sadovo) from the best side. After this, all states hastened to arm their armies with breech-loading rifles. To do this, specialists from some countries, following the example of Prussia, began to convert muzzle-loading rifles to breech-loading ones, while others immediately switched to new breech-loading rifles.
Fig.3. Minie bullet for Veltishchev cartridge
The disadvantages of the Draize system compared to the new French Chassepot needle guns (model 1866) became apparent during the Franco-Prussian War of 1870–1871. Even before the war, the German inventor Beck proposed an improved Dreyse rifle using a conical bullet built on the “plug and needle” principle*. Such a bullet increased the range from 600 to 1200 steps, qualitatively changing the trajectory and enhancing the penetrating effect of the bullet. Back's proposal was not accepted, but it was remembered during the war of 1870–1871, when the advantages of the Chassepot gun were discovered.
But time was lost and this interesting development was never brought to life. The Dreyse system lasted in Prussia for 30 years - a fairly long period for a time when new weapon systems became obsolete within 10 years.
As we remember, Dreyse offered his rifle to the French government, but was refused. And we must pay tribute to the French, they justified their refusal, albeit with a delay of 30 years. In 1866, the foreman of the arms factory A.A. Chassepot (1833–1905) offered the French government his 11 mm rifle, which was more advanced than Dreyze's gun. All the parts in the Chasspo system were well designed, using the latest developments in gun mechanisms. The bolt of the gun was sliding, the barrel was locked by turning the handle to the right, the bolt rotated 90° and its ridge entered into the cutout of the receiver. The trigger was not cocked automatically, but required a separate technique to cock it. There was a roller under the trigger to facilitate sliding of the shutter. Obturation was achieved using rubber circles placed on the front part of the bolt, which fits into the breech of the barrel.
These guns were made for a paper cartridge, the primer was placed in the breech of the cartridge, which was located behind the powder charge in the cartridge's cardboard tray. Thanks to this design of the cartridge, the firing pin needle was much shorter than in the Dreyse rifle, and therefore stronger. When fired, the cartridge case partially burned out and partially flew out of the barrel. If the cardboard tray remained in the chamber, then during the next loading it was pushed forward (in general, an ejector was not needed in needle guns).
The mass of the bullet was 23 g, the powder charge was 5.5 g. The maximum flight range of the bullet was 1800 m. The initial speed of the bullet was 430 m/s. The sight had divisions up to 1200 m, the length of the aiming line was 690 mm. The highest rate of fire is 19 rounds per minute without aiming, with aiming - 8–10 shots. The Dreyse rifle fired 5–9 rounds per minute, but had better combat accuracy. The barrel length of the Chasspo shotgun is 825 mm; rifle length without bayonet - 1313 mm; with a bayonet - 1890 mm, gun weight - 4100 g. The Chasspo gun showed excellent performance during the Franco-Prussian War (1870–71).
It must be said that losses from needle rifle fire in battles where one of the sides was armed with percussion muzzle-loading guns was 1:9! That is why interest in the needle system has continuously increased. In Russia, perhaps the first needle weapon was a pistol made in 1835 in Reval (now Tallinn) by G.F. Bartner. In 1856, in Riga, Andrei Gunst made the first needle gun, which had a very complex and unreliable bolt.
In the 60s of the 19th century. The weapons commission examined and tested a number of needle systems proposed by Russian gunsmiths: Adjutant General Totleben (1866), gunsmith Lebedev (1860), engineer-captain Vyatkin (1867), mechanical engineer from Riga Ludwig Andre (1867), Captain Kletochnikov (1868), Captain Galindo (1868), gunsmith Trummer, Staff Captain Terentyev (1860), Colonel Chagin (1865), Lieutenant Tishcheninsky (1865). ), Andreev (1867, with a sliding shutter), Averyanov (1868), Norman (1868), Konchevsky (1868).
For one reason or another, some systems were rejected, while tests of others were constantly postponed. In 1866, the Englishman I. Karle proposed his needle system. Comprehensive tests were carried out under the leadership of a prominent gunsmith, Colonel N.I. Chagina. During the tests, many shortcomings were identified. The Karle rifle needed a radical overhaul. I. Karle did not bother remaking his own rifle; a group of Russian gunsmiths led by the above-mentioned N.I. took on this work. Chagin. The masters of the Tula and Izhevsk arms factories worked on its improvement. Significant changes to the needle rifle were made by Taile, Zwickert and Fedor Nagel. Under Chagin's leadership, the shape of the charging chamber was changed, seven different samples of paper cartridges were tested, until finally they accepted the cartridge with the Minier bullet proposed by the chairman admissions committee Sestroretsk plant by Colonel Veltishchev.
The pace of testing the rifle was amazing. Having barely fired 2000 shots from it, on March 28, 1867, the needle rifle was put into service.
The great contribution of Russian gunsmiths to the creation of the needle rifle was also mentioned in the order of the GAU (Main Artillery Directorate): “... due to many inconveniences indicated by experiments in the original Karl model, significant changes were made to it, so that the real sample of the needle rifles adopted by us is no longer can be considered identical to the original Karl model. As a result of this... rifles converted and manufactured using the needle system are given the name “quick-firing needle rifles.”
V. Buyanovsky and P. Belderling, who took part in the creation of the needle rifle, noted the originality of its design, and D.A. Milyutin (Minister of War 1861–1882), comparing it with the then considered the most advanced French Chassepot rifle, wrote on January 6, 1869 in his report to the Tsar that the Chassepot rifles “in all respects should be recognized as inferior to our needle ones.” The 1867 model needle rifle had a caliber of 15.24 mm, a weight of 4.5 kg, and a length of 1340 mm.
The Minie bullet, weighing 34.64 g, developed an initial speed of 305 m/s. The sighting range of an infantry rifle was 600 steps (427 m), a rifle rifle - 1200 steps (853 m), and the rate of fire was 9–10 rounds per minute.
The haste with which the army was rearmed with needle rifles (the reasons are clear - the results of the Crimean War) led to the fact that those proposed in 1867–1868. The Armory Commission rejected the samples of needle rifles of Russian gunsmiths, despite the fact that they were recognized as “superior” in comparison with the “quick-fire needle rifle” of the 1867 model adopted for service.
Many Russian gunsmiths proposed their development of needle rifles, and among them were Captain Terentyev (1867), engineer-captain Vyatkin (four-line rifle chambered for Potte with pyroxylin (smokeless) gunpowder (1867), and gunsmith Vasily Lebedev.
Needle rifles were the fastest-firing rifles chambered for paper cartridges. Their rate of fire was 9–10 rounds per minute. They passed military tests, during which all noted shortcomings were identified and then eliminated. After extensive testing, the production of Veltishchev cartridges was established in Russia, and 215,500 of the rapid-fire rifles themselves were produced.
They entered service with the troops of the Caucasus, Turkestan, Orenburg, West Siberian, and East Siberian military districts. The rearmament of these districts ended in 1874. Russian soldiers fought with these rifles on the Caucasus Front during the Russian-Turkish War in 1877–1878. and they took Kare and Ardagan, Erzurum and Bayazet.
In the late 60s - early 70s of the 19th century. the armies of some states were armed with repeating rifles chambered for a metal cartridge (Spencer, Henry-Winchester in the USA, Vetterli in Switzerland), and the needle rifle with its unitary paper cartridge had already become an anachronism. YES. Milyutin wrote on this occasion that such a rifle could only be adopted “pending the introduction of another, more advanced weapon.”
The unitary paper cartridge used in the needle rifle was replaced by a unitary metal cartridge, which opened a new page in history small arms.
Some peoples have what might be called a "cult of precision" when it comes to the design of their rifles. And this applies primarily to the Swedes. Other nations simply wanted their rifles to do the job they were designed to do - quickly and easily hit a man at about 100 yards. Of course, all the sights on the rifles were calibrated for shooting at greater distances, but in reality it was simply impossible to hit a distance of one kilometer in battle. And everyone understood this.
German Mauser M1892 chambered for 8x58R (Army Museum, Stockholm)
They also understood that a soldier in battle must... work! Otherwise, he will simply go crazy from the horror happening around him. The easiest way is to give him the opportunity to shoot. Not too often - it’s very expensive for the country, but not just one cartridge at a time. It's too slow. Five rounds per magazine load turned out to be quite enough.
Nevertheless, for some reason, some countries have developed a real “cult of precision”. This is primarily Switzerland (which we already talked about at VO) and Sweden (about whose rifles we also talked about, but now much more information will be given!), who tried to put in the hands of almost every soldier in their army a rifle for sniper shooting. And if for rifles from other countries at the beginning of the twentieth century the optimal distance for an accurate shot was a distance of 100 yards, then for rifles from these two countries it was 300 yards! Even the USA, Germany and Great Britain, which produced extremely accurate rifles (especially in their sniper variations), did not achieve such results for rifles issued to ordinary infantrymen.
Swedish Mauser M1896, produced by Carl Gustafs Stads Gevärsfaktori. Caliber 6.5x55 mm. (Army Museum, Stockholm)
So what made Sweden and Switzerland come to this? Perhaps this was a consequence of their culture. In fact, the topic of the relationship between culture and war is very interesting within the framework of the cultural tradition and it will be necessary to study it. In the meantime, the answer to this question perhaps lies in the great attention to mechanical precision and metalworking for which they were famous? But it could well also be a matter of choosing tactical priorities. These peoples had small armies that faced potential invaders who had a huge supply of manpower, and therefore “cannon fodder.” They were at a disadvantage, but they benefited from "playing defense" in difficult terrain. The troops of these countries will not be able to outmatch their opponents in the jungle. But they will outnumber it in snowy fields or high mountains.
Imagine yourself as a Swiss soldier facing a German occupier. You are in a hidden position on a snowy slope and your enemy is crossing the valley. If you don't have artillery, wouldn't it be nice if you had a rifle that lets you hit him as far away as possible? And isn’t it a wonderful idea that every person in your country, even the smallest non-mobilized reservist, would have such a rifle at hand? And, most likely, the military specialists of these countries decided that their armies needed just such accurate and long-range rifles.
Carbine m/1894/96 for the Swedish engineering corps. Caliber 6.5x55 mm (Army Museum, Stockholm)
This was true for mountainous and neutral Switzerland, but it also appeared to be accepted in northern, mountainous and neutral Sweden. It is not without reason that Swedish rifles are real treasures for today's collectors... beautiful, accurate and very accurate. And these are all Mausers, although this does not mean that the Swedes did not test the rifle and other systems. We tested it! But they thought it was the Mauser itself the best rifle among all those they have tested. Swedish Mausers are very similar to the Spanish Mauser Model 1893, except for differences in some small details and... an amazing level of accuracy!
The Mauser rifles were originally purchased from Oberndorf, but the Swedes insisted that superior Swedish steel be used in their production. Later, the production of rifles was launched at two Swedish enterprises: Karl Gustaf and Husqvarna. By this time, the Swedish infantry's cock-action Remington rifles had already been chambered for small caliber (8x58R) cartridges, but cavalry carbines still used the old 12.17x42R ammunition. So it was decided that the cavalry would receive the first new Mausers, and the infantry would wait a little!
Clip with cartridges for “Swedish Mausers”, manufactured in 1976.
And so the famous "Swedish Mauser" was born - a family of rifles based on an improved version of the early Mauser model of 1893, but using the 6.5 × 55 mm cartridge and incorporating a number of unique elements at the request of Sweden. These are the m/4 carbine (model 1894), the m/96 long rifle (model 1896), the m/38 short rifle (model 1938) and the m/41 sniper rifle (model 1941). In 1898, their production began at the Carl Gustav arms factory in Eskilstuna.
Bolt of the Carl Gustav rifle
All Swedish Mausers were chambered for the 6.5×55mm cartridge, all delivering 455 MPa (65.992 psi) (55,000 CUP). The sight was also graduated for the 6.5 × 55 mm cartridge and was designed to fire from 300 to 2000 m in 100 m increments. Swedish Mausers were manufactured by Waffenfabrik Mauser AG in Oberndorf in Germany, where 12,000 rifles were already produced at the end of 1896. In Sweden, rifle production began in 1898 at the Carl Gustav and Huskvarna factory at Vapenfabriks Aktiebolag. Until 1918, the Karl Gustov factory produced 113,000 carbines, which had a characteristic boss in the lower part of the stock at the muzzle for attaching a bayonet. All Swedish Mausers made in Germany or Sweden were made using high quality tool steel alloyed with nickel, copper and vanadium for high strength and corrosion resistance.
Carbine m/1894 with bayonet lug. (Army Museum, Stockholm)
In total, the following types of Mauser rifles were produced in Sweden:
1. m/1892 Rifle and carbine
2. m/1894 Carbine
3. m/1894/14 Carbine
4. m/1896 “Long rifle”
5. m/1938 “Short shooting”
6. m/1941 and m/1941B “Sniper rifle”
Let us note that the sample of the M1892 rifle and the carbine based on it presented to the Swedes was a motley mixture of elements from German (M1890), Turkish and Argentine (M1891) Mauser rifles.
Short bayonet for m/94 carbine. ((Army Museum, Stockholm)
In 1914, the carbines were modernized according to the model of the English rifle No.1 Mk3 "Lee-Enfield" and received a mount suitable for two bayonets at once. The most common was the m/1914 long bayonet. The second secondary bayonet was an even longer bayonet and was intended for naval use (m/1915). The m/1894-67 modification was a carbine made in 1894, adapted for the m/1867 “Yatagan” bayonet-saber.
A device screwed onto the barrel of a Swedish Mauser for firing blank cartridges.
The Skolskjutningskarbin (literally "school carbine") was also known for military training in Swedish civilian schools. This model differs from the standard m/1894 carbine, firstly, in its markings, and secondly, in its straight bolt handle and the absence of a bayonet mount.
Rifle production at the Karl Gustov factories continued until 1925, but approximately 18,000 m/96s were produced at the Haskvarna factory during World War II for civilian military training. Mauser produced 40,000 m/96 "long rifles" between 1899 and 1900 and supplied them to Sweden, Carl Gustav - 475,000 m/96 between 1896 and 1932 and Husqvarna 20,000 m/96 between 1942 and 1944. A total of 535,000 m/96 “long rifles” were produced. The short rifle rifle 6.5 mm Gevär m/38 caliber 6.5 mm was adopted in 1938 based on the experience of the First World War, which showed that in new conditions it was preferable to have a short rifle.
Gevär m/38 rifle. Short rifle m/96 (modification 1938-1940). (Army Museum, Stockholm)
The original m/38 (Type I) rifles were derived from m/96 rifles by cutting their barrels to 139mm. Most of the specially manufactured M/38 (Type II) rifles had a downward grip and were completed in 1944. The Huskvarna arms factory produced 88,150 new m/38 “short rifles” between 1942 and 1944. A total of 143,230 copies were produced. The m/41 and m/41B sniper rifles are m/96 rifles equipped with a telescopic sight, supplied from Germany. When, due to the worsening military situation, Germany stopped selling them to Sweden, the Swedes began producing their own sights and converted 5,300 specially selected rifles in 1941-1943 into sniper rifles.
Sniper rifle Gevär m/41. Caliber 6.5x55mm. (Army Museum, Stockholm)
In 1939, the Finnish Army was given an unknown, but apparently quite large number of m/96 rifles, which were used during the "Winter War" against Soviet Union and, most likely, also during the war of 1941-1944. Actually, Swedish rifles were withdrawn from service starting in the 1950s, although variants of sniper rifles continued to serve until the early 1980s. However, some logistics units were equipped with m/96 even in 1983. The last unit to use sniper rifles m/41B, became the Royal Guard.
Rifle "Husqvarna".
Interestingly, for their “medium” and “heavy” machine guns the Swedes developed a special cartridge measuring 8 × 63 mm m/32. It was used from 1932 until the transition to 7.62×51mm NATO caliber was completed in 1975.
Cartridge 8×63 mm.
The fact is that the 6.5 × 55 mm m/94 cartridge was not considered effective enough for firing at aircraft and armored vehicles, and the army needed something more powerful, but not too heavy. Bofors offered the m/32 cartridge of the same length as the .30-06 cartridge, which allowed it to fit into a standard Browning machine gun receiver, but had a larger diameter case than the standard 6.5 × 55 mm. The bullet weighed 14.2 g, had a high muzzle energy and had an effective range of about 3600 m (3937 m), at which the impact energy was 196 J. Maximum range was equal to 5500 m (6.015 m). The cartridge was equipped with armor-piercing bullets, which had quite decent performance against armor.
Experimental m/40 rifle with a muzzle brake chambered for 8x63 mm cartridge. (Army Museum, Stockholm)
To be continued…
Ctrl Enter
Noticed osh Y bku Select text and click Ctrl+Enter
The wars of the first two decades of the 19th century made the importance of aimed shooting obvious, but in order to make rifled weapons widespread, it was necessary to combine the accuracy of a rifled weapon and the rate of fire of a smoothbore weapon in one muzzle-loading weapon. When loading, the bullet had to pass freely along the barrel, and when fired, it had to fill the rifling. The search was carried out empirically, but the industrial revolution accelerated the implementation of new products.
The French rifle school in Vincennes played a major role here. In 1826, officer A. Delvigne made a screw-in barrel chamber with a smaller internal diameter than the bore: resting against the edges of the chamber, the bullet was distributed to the sides due to the blows of the ramrod. But with such “dispatching” it became too deformed, and Delvigne was unable to achieve stable combat from his fitting. Its fittings, adopted by the armies of Austria and Sardinia, did not last long. However, in the course of his work, Delvigne created a cylindrical-conical oblong bullet and was the first to practically prove its benefits, which Professor I. Leitman had theoretically substantiated a century earlier.
The oblong bullet provided a number of advantages in internal and external ballistics. It followed the grooves more correctly, filling them better, a larger lateral load (ratio of mass to area cross section) and favorable shape in terms of aerodynamics reduced speed losses in the air; its flight trajectory became flatter, the target range and the direct shot distance increased.
An officer of the Vincennes school, Colonel L. Thouvenin, placed a rod on the tail rotor of the barrel - the bullet, sitting on the rod, expanded with the blow of a ramrod. This solution was ingenious, but the rod was bent, and it was impossible to clean the chamber without completely disassembling the weapon. Nevertheless, the Thouvenin rifle of 1842 with a caliber of 17.78 mm hit up to 1,400 steps, and at 1,200 steps its bullet pierced two boards 3 cm thick.
It was much more tempting to expand the bullet not by the efforts of the shooter when loading, but by the pressure of the powder gases when fired - fortunately, lead is quite plastic. A whole series of expanding bullets appeared: Minier, Neuendorff, Plennis, Podeville. The Peters bullet, modified by Timmergans (called “Belgian” in Russia), had a cylindrical-conical shape and a large depression in the lower part - such a “cap” expanded well with powder gases, but was not strong enough. An oblong lead bullet, created in 1848 at the same Vincennes school by Captain C. Minier, had a conical recess at the back into which an iron cup fit; powder gases pressed the cup into the recess, and it expanded the bullet. The Minier bullet also had grooves on the cylindrical part proposed by Professor Tamizier, which improved the obturation (ensuring the tightness of the barrel bore when fired) of gases and the ballistics of the bullet.
The Minie bullet was considered the most successful and became so popular that the muzzle-loading rifles to which it was used, regardless of the system, were called Minie rifles. It was even used in cartridges for breech-loading rifles, where the “expansion” design was already superfluous.
But you can also make a bullet so that it easily slides along the rifling, fitting tightly to them. The Englishman Whitworth proposed a whole system - from a rifle to a rifled cannon with a barrel bore in the form of a twisted 6-sided prism and a corresponding bullet shape. The system turned out to be too expensive (although much later polygonal rifling would find its way into small arms), so Whitworth went down in history more as a weapons production technologist. American Green's rifle with an oval bore bore had even less prospects.
Finally, compression (shrinking) bullets appeared - Wilkinson, Lorenz. Transverse grooves on the bullet contributed to its compression under gas pressure along its length and a corresponding expansion to the sides. This scheme, which required precise manufacturing of bullets and barrels, was adopted in Austria-Hungary, Switzerland and Saxony.
CRIMEA DISASTER
Well, what about Russia? If in early XIX century, Russian military weapons were on par with the best foreign ones, then by the middle of the century there was a strong lag, which was clearly revealed by the Crimean War of 1853-1856. In general, during the Crimean campaign in the Russian army, almost everything - from equipment to weapons - turned out to be of little use, except for people who showed miracles of courage, perseverance and ingenuity.
While in Europe they were looking for the best option for using a capsule lock, in Russia they did not want to part with the flint lock. Various objections were given to capsules: that the rough fingers of soldiers would not be able to handle small “caps” and clean the fire tube, that “caps” were easily lost, that a flintlock was more reliable and cheaper. And behind this was the awareness of a simple fact: it is necessary to spend a lot of money on organizing capsule production, expanding chemical industries, and copper mining. Russian craftsmen used the primer only in handmade weapons. The interchangeability of weapon parts, achieved by 1826 at Tula, and from 1839 at other arms factories, was, of course, an important step, but it still did not improve the weapon system, which had been frozen for many years. In 1839, it was necessary to organize a Committee for the Improvement of Fittings and Guns, which, after many years, decided to convert flintlock weapons into percussion weapons according to the French model. Since 1844, they began to remake 7-line, 17.78 mm (a line is a unit of length equal to 2.54 mm, used in Russia until 1918), infantry, Cossack, dragoon rifles, carbines and parts of pistols: they replaced the lock trigger , removed the flint, cut off the shelf, installing a fire pipe in its place. Conversion of an infantry rifle cost 63 kopecks. And in 1845-1849, new capsule guns were adopted. Accordingly, mass production of capsules was established.
We also had to deal with rifled weapons with caution - purchase them cheaper and in small quantities. Among other systems, I was interested in a fitting with two riflings, proposed in 1832 by the Brunswick officer Berners, into which the bullet was inserted with two protrusions. The bullet did not completely fill the rifling, gas breakthrough was significant, and loading was not easy - in a combat situation, the protrusions or rim of the bullet did not immediately fall into the grooves on the muzzle of the barrel. Nevertheless, in Belgium such a fitting was adopted, and the Russian Committee for the Improvement of Fittings and Guns also ordered 5 thousand pieces. They were called "Littich" or "Luttich" (from Lüttich, the old name of the Belgian Liege). Littykh rifles were officially adopted into service in 1843 and issued to skirmishers. The sight shields were replaced with a lifting “Hessian” sight according to the system of the master of the Izhevsk plant, Jung, and the fittings were equipped with cleaver bayonets and a special cleaning rod. Back in 1839, a breech-loading capsule fitting of the French Fallis system ("Rampard") of 8.33 line caliber was adopted for fortresses, although it was not very successful. It is noteworthy that the first samples of percussion weapons adopted in Russia were rifled ones, but they were then sorely lacking.
The target shooting teacher of the Guards Corps, Hartung, converted the dragoon rifle into a rifle using the same two-rifle system. It turned out no worse than foreign ones, and even three times cheaper. In 1848, skirmishers of the Guards regiments received the Hartung rifle. At the same time, Colonel Kulikovsky created a pointed bullet with two “ears” for the Littikh and Hartung fittings. In 1851, Kulikovsky’s fortress fitting with Thouvenin’s rod was adopted, but Ernroth’s rod fitting of the same year did not take root - it was too expensive. There were so few fittings in general that the troops did not even take them to maneuvers - they were afraid to wear them out.
The situation at arms factories gradually worsened: in addition to the lack of “well-designed machines”, the dependence of machine tools on water wheels (steam engines were introduced slowly) and wear and tear of equipment were hampered; There was no way to increase weapons production. In 1853, the Russian army lacked 532,313 rifles, 48,032 carbines and 31,120 fittings. Three domestic factories produced 362,992 guns in 1853-1856. Of the 55,000 guns urgently ordered in Belgium and Prussia, only 9,184 were received, and attempts to buy fittings in the USA ran into difficulties with delivery.
In 1852, the last model of a smooth-bore infantry rifle was adopted, which by that time was clearly outdated. Its only advantage was the stock, which was more convenient for aiming. But the soldiers were taught more to march than to shoot. Until 1853, 10 rounds of ammunition per person per year were issued for training infantry and dragoons; officers were not taught fire control at all. The experience of the Caucasus produced many excellent marksmen and rifle chain tactics, but the bulk of the army simply did not know this.
The Crimean War was a clash between rifled and smooth-bore infantry weapons, which were muzzle-loading, mostly capsule-fired, approximately equal in rate of fire, the difference was in the effective range. The urgent adoption of rifled samples, converted from smooth-bore ones, with a “Belgian” expansion bullet did little to improve the situation. At the beginning of the war, the share of rifled guns in the small arms of the Russian army in Crimea did not exceed 4-5%, by the end of the war - 13.4%. In the French, rifled guns made up about a third of small arms, and in the English - more than half. The French had a Thouvenin rod fitting with an aiming range of 1100 m, the British had an Enfield Patent rifle of 1851 and 1853 with a Minie bullet and an aiming range of up to 1000 yards (914 m). Their aimed fire covered the range of Russian rifles (four times) and smooth-bore guns, causing heavy losses. In the battle on Alma in September 1854, the advancing enemy’s riflemen killed the officers and artillery personnel of the Russian units. The experience of Balaklava, Inkerman and the Chernaya River was also sad. Russian troops inevitably began to develop new tactics: lie down under fire, make more active use of earthen shelters, act in a chain. And the dashing Russian bayonet attacks that amazed the Anglo-French were the result of the weakness of the fire of Russian rifles.
Some ideas were suggested by the enemy. Near Sevastopol, a pack of cartridges with “secret” bullets from the system of the head of the Vincennes rifle school, Colonel Neissler, was taken from a French soldier. The “hemispherical” bullet had a prismatic bottom recess, entered the barrel bore with a gap, and expanded when fired, this increased gas obturation. Such bullets were tested in Sevastopol and St. Petersburg. In 1855, the Neissler bullet was adopted by the Russian army. The firing range of the 1852 model gun increased from 300 to 600 steps. This was the latest improvement in the soldier's smoothbore rifle. Then the era of the rifle began.
TREACH CHARGES
While most armies were looking for ways to turn muzzle-loading rifles into mass-produced weapons, Prussia, which was rapidly developing its military industry, we decided to also adopt a breech-loading rifle, and one chambered for a unitary cartridge. Its creator was the outstanding gunsmith I.N. Dreyse. He found a way to make a unitary cartridge and a weapon for it based on existing technologies. The bullet in the pan, gunpowder and primer were combined with a paper (folder) sleeve, and the primer was located in the bullet pan. The cartridge was inserted into the chamber, which was locked with a longitudinally sliding bolt. During the descent, a long firing pin, mounted in the bolt together with a screw mainspring, cocked during reloading, pierced the paper and gunpowder and broke the primer. The drummer was nicknamed the “needle”, and the rifle itself was called the needle-shaped one. There were also disadvantages to this scheme. The “needle” rusted and broke, the bolt became clogged with powder deposits, and to prevent gases from escaping through the bolt, a special seal had to be installed. But the rate of fire increased to 5 aimed shots per minute both in defense and attack, the danger of putting 2-3 charges in a row or not sending the bullet to the gunpowder disappeared, it was possible to load and shoot from any position, the bolt could be disassembled without tools, maintenance was easier.
The Prussian War Department bought the patent in 1841, adopted the 15.44 mm Dreyse rifle for service and made it one of its best-kept secrets. This secret was revealed during the revolutionary events of 1848, when a crowd broke into the Berlin Arsenal. And since 1858 needle rifles and carbines became the main ones in the Prussian army, eliminating the Thouvenin and Minié systems. New weapons, as well as military discipline and the initiative of commanders, ensured success in the Prussian-Danish (1864) and Prussian-Austrian Wars. By that time, a similar reduction in caliber had taken place in Great Britain and Spain. Members of the Russian Artillery Committee A.V. Lyadin, L.G. Rezvyy, K.I. Konstantinov and others developed a corresponding design for a muzzle-loading rifled rifle with 4 grooves, which was adopted in 1856 under the name “6-line rifle.” Since that time, the term “rifle” has become firmly rooted in the Russian military lexicon. At first, rifle battalions and companies, as well as infantry non-commissioned officers, received a rifle with a scope of up to 1,200 steps. But soon, on its basis, they created an infantry rifle (sight up to 600 steps), then a dragoon and Cossack rifle (the latter was developed by master A.E. Chernolikhov). The rifle also found its way into the navy. The crosshairs showed that the military leadership had not yet realized the power and importance of targeted infantry fire and sought to divide the infantry into “line” and “riflemen”. In the production of 6-line rifles, they switched from manual to machine-hand manufacturing using imported machines. The issue of transition from iron to steel trunks could not be resolved. Having excellent metallurgists, Russia at that time was much inferior in terms of steel production to Great Britain, France, and Prussia, and only a small part of the rifles received steel barrels - on a trial basis.
Rearmament required a change in the entire shooting practice in the army, and at the end of 1857, at the suggestion of the General Feldzeichmeister of the Grand Duke Mikhail Pavlovich, an Officer Rifle School was organized in Tsarskoe Selo to train instructors in shooting for army and guards units. Over time, this school became a research and development school. The development of the theoretical basis of small arms was carried out by such outstanding specialists as V.L. Chebyshev. In general, this time gave Russia a number of brilliant theorists and practitioners of artillery and weapons technology. Sestroretsky, who was located near St. Petersburg, became the experimental base for work on small arms. Armory.
The 1856 rifle turned out to be much more successful than the available foreign models, but these models themselves soon turned out to be outdated, like Russian rifles.
The question arose about breech-loading weapons. It was necessary to look for a way to convert rifles of the 1856 and 1858 models into breech-loading ones, but it was not clear what cartridge they would use. Minister of War D.A. Milyutin admitted: “... technology moved forward with such rapid steps that, before the proposed orders were tested, new requirements appeared and new orders were made.” He also called the rearmament of the 1860s “an unfortunate gun drama.”
Since 1859, the Armory Commission (formerly the Committee for the Improvement of Fittings and Guns) has tested over 130 foreign and at least 20 domestic systems. Gunsmith F.F. In 1861, Trummer proposed the Belgian Gillet's two-bullet system, improved by him, with bullets in front and behind the powder charge: one bullet flew through the barrel, the second, shrinking with gas pressure, locked the breech, the next cartridge pushed the second bullet with the remains of paper forward, and now it became a projectile . Neither stable combat nor reliable obturation was possible, and the Gillet-Trummer rifle was rejected. In 1866, at the insistence of the Duke of Mecklenburg, who headed the Armory Commission, they settled on the system of the Englishman Terry, improved by the rejector of the Tula arms factory I.G. Norman and the same Trummer. Everything was done simply: a receiver with a longitudinally sliding rotary bolt was screwed into the breech of the barrel, the old capsule lock remained. Terry-Norman's "quick-firing percussion rifle" was put into service only to be... removed a few months later as obsolete.
Tests of needle rifles of different systems revealed many of their shortcomings. A group of gunsmiths led by Colonel N.I. Chagin took up the needle system of another Englishman, Karle, which was a development of the Chassepot system. The capsule was placed in the reinforced cardboard bottom of a paper unitary cartridge equipped with a Minie bullet, the needle could be made shorter and stronger, and the breakthrough of gases was prevented by a seal made of leather circles. The bolt is rotary, with two lugs. The conversion was inexpensive. True, the remains of the cartridge case had to be pushed through the barrel with the next bullet, as a result, up to 20% of the bullets went far from the target. Nevertheless, in 1867 they approved the Karle rifle, a cartridge for it with a Veltishchev bullet and a charge of black gunpowder, adopted as a single one for all small arms. It is characteristic that in the same year a system of breech-loading rifled artillery was adopted. In addition to the state-owned ones, the private factories of Nobel, Vinogradov, Meingard, and Standerskjöld were involved in the conversion of 6-l "frost rifles into needle rifles; new rifles were made only by the state-owned Tula, Sestroretsk and Izhevsk factories. The troops were re-equipped with a needle rifle by 1874, during which time a drawing of it and The cartridge was changed several times. During the Russian-Turkish War of 1877-1878, the troops of the Caucasian Front took Kars, Ardahan, Erzurum, Bayazet with this rifle in their hands.
The process was slowed down by the weakness of the technical base and the attempt to “privatize” weapons production. Wanting to relieve itself of the costs of its transformation - the transition from "assigned workers" to free hiring, as well as updating equipment - the government decided to transfer the factories to rental-commercial management. The country was undergoing reforms, which meant there was a constant shortage of funds. As a result, the War Department received a constant headache. And after all, the factories fell into the hands of qualified specialists, experts in weapons and production: Tula was given control by Major General K.K. Standersheld, Sestroretsky - Colonel O.G. Lilienfeld, Izhevsky - Colonel A.A. Frolov with Captain Standersheld (brother of the Tula tenant), and later Captain P.A. Bilderling. And there was a “state order”. But the tenants needed a quick profit, without having the means to update production. One-piece samples of Russian weapons received prizes at international exhibitions, while inside the country the Military Department was groaning from increased defects, the failure of rental and commercial factories and unnecessary costs. The artisans almost asked to go back “to the fortress”: before, at least they had a regular income. It was possible to end the “unhappy gun drama” only with the return of the factories to state management.
And just around the corner was a new rearmament with rifles chambered for a metal cartridge and with steel barrels. In significance this can be compared with the rearmament of the entire modern army high-precision complexes of a new generation. In 1866, the Okhtinsky Capsule Establishment began experimental production of metal cartridges.
CRNKA OR RAMS
Among various proposals for converting 6-line rifles for a metal cartridge of central ignition, one of the best was the system of the head of the Maritime Museum in St. Petersburg, Lieutenant N.M. Baranova. His rifle had an Albini-type folding bolt, so the system was often called "Albini-Baranov", although Baranov significantly improved and simplified the system. In the breech of the barrel, the chamber was cut, the receiver was screwed on, and a bolt folding up and forward was attached to it on a hinge. A rod was attached to the trigger head with a pin, which entered the receiver and played the role of both the trigger itself (it hit the firing pin in the bolt) and the locking wedge. The advantages of the Baranov system were the following - strength, preservation of the barrel, stock, lock when altering, disadvantages - the difficulty of loading at a large elevation angle (the bolt fell under the force of its gravity), inspection and cleaning of the barrel bore.
A competitor to the Baranov system was the rifle of the outstanding Austrian gunsmith, Czech by nationality, S. Krnka Baron Hohenbrück. Although the Krnka rifle was not accepted in Austria-Hungary, it was of interest to the Russian Military Department. The rifle had a bolt that folded to the left and a horizontally located firing pin; the trigger also remained external, but was bent inward, simpler than in the Baranov rifle. In both systems, the spent cartridge case was not ejected - the shooter removed it by hand. Preliminary tests of the Krnka “carbine” were successful in July 1867, but did not resolve the issue of adoption. It was not a matter of the “inertness” of military officials: they saw the advantages of a metal cartridge, but also understood what efforts and costs would be required to “install our gross fabrication” of cartridges with the required accuracy. Therefore, voices were again heard that, they say, paper cartridges can be made in the army (although military laboratories and workshops could not make primers), that a metal sleeve is expensive, the cartridge is heavy, that accelerating loading will cause unnecessary consumption of cartridges. But Russian military agents abroad increasingly reported official experiments with rifles chambered for metal cartridges. And the regular complications of the international situation forced us to hurry.
The Main Artillery Directorate of the War Ministry leaned towards the Krnka rifle, while the Naval Department leaned towards Baranov. The fleet's interest in more accurate and faster-firing weapons was determined not only by the experience of seamen's ground operations in the Crimea, but also by the general rejection of "boarding" tactics and the increased role of landing forces. The financial independence of the Naval Ministry and the smaller need for small arms than the army allowed the navy to adopt new weapon systems that were different from the army and, moreover, a little earlier.
In March 1869, two commissions were created to remake rifles - the main administrative one, chaired by Milyutin, and the executive one, headed by Lieutenant General Rezvoy. The rifles were considered equivalent. Managers of state-owned and private factories calculated that alterations according to the Krnka system would cost 6 rubles, and according to the Baranov system - 7 rubles 50 kopecks (later, however, these prices could not be maintained). As a result, the systems were divided into departments: the army was rearmed with Krnka rifles, the navy - Baranov. At first the sight was old - at 600 steps, but then they adopted a “high” one - at 1,200. Krnka rifles were produced both as new and as alterations, Baranov - only as alterations. State institutions of the military and naval departments and private factories were involved in the work. The weapons commission demanded cartridge unity, but this was not easy to achieve. Two types of cartridges were adopted for the Krnka rifle - with a composite sleeve made of brass and zinc and with a solid-drawn brass case with a Berdan-type capsule, both with a Minie-type bullet. The Baranov rifle was equipped with a Fusno cartridge with a Veltishchev bullet, which better filled the rifling of the barrel. Hopes of making cartridges in military workshops were finally abandoned. And cartridge factories became a vital part of the military industry.
The rearmament of the army and navy with 6-line breech-loading rifles was completed by 1872, supplying them in parallel with needle rifles chambered for a unitary paper cartridge. IN Russian-Turkish War 1877-1878 most mass weapons The Russian infantry had Krnka rifles (the troops called them “krynki” or “krymki”). The 6-line metal cartridge was heavier than the paper one. This increased the weight of the ammunition carried by the soldier, so a new reduction in caliber was not far off, and was already being worked on.
Note that the British Army at this time was concerned with converting its Patent 1853 rifles into breech-loading rifles - from 1866 they were equipped with a Snyder bolt that hinged to the right and were loaded with a cartridge with a composite paper-metal sleeve. And since 1867, they installed steel barrels with 5 rifling (instead of the previous 3) and began testing metal cartridges. Russia, as we see, was quickly catching up with yesterday's winners.
TIE ON COLT
At the same time, the production of personal weapons also developed. In the 1840-1850s, capsule revolvers loudly declared themselves abroad. In 1837, Samuel Colt began producing revolvers. In the USA, there is a popular legend about how Colt came up with a design for a drum mechanism with a stopper, looking either at the ship’s wheel or at the winch. In fact, both the drum pattern and the stopper were known long before Colt. Colt himself did not shine with design talents, but he turned out to be a talented entrepreneur who grasped the possibilities of machine production of weapons, and a great master of advertising. Having patented the scheme developed by J. Pearson, Colt began producing it in the city of Paterson in 1836. The revolver, known as the “Paterson Model”, or “Colt-Paterson”, had a removable drum with five chambers, from the breech of which fire tubes protruded for the capsule, the trigger and part of the percussion mechanisms were hidden in a metal frame. In 1839, the drum became permanent, and a special articulated ramrod lever appeared for loading its chambers. And although Colt's first enterprise went bankrupt, the initial step towards success was taken. And in 1848, his new plant in Hartford began producing the Dragon No. 1 model in .44 caliber for the US cavalry, which was fighting in Mexico at that time - this time Colt used the services of designer E. Root. A year later, the Colt Pocket of .31 caliber (7.87 mm) appeared for couriers and postal guards (very dangerous professions in the USA at that time). “Colt” revolvers had not yet become “chances equalizers”; they were inferior in sighting range to cheaper pistols, were bulky, took a long time to load, but made up for all this with their rate of fire.
MARIETTA WITH PEPPER BOXES
They did not lag behind on the other side of the ocean: in 1839 in Belgium the production of multi-barreled G. Mariette revolvers began, in 1851 in England - R. Adams revolvers with a solid frame and a self-cocking mechanism. The latter became such a serious competitor to Colt that he had to close the branch in London. More and more companies and craftsmen mastered the production of revolvers. Heavy multi-barreled "Mariettas" and "pepperboxes" ("pepperboxes") spread on the market because they were safer than drum ones: there was no need to think about the alignment of the chamber and the barrel; when igniting several charges with a primer at once, the shooter did not risk being injured by a ricocheting bullet or a fragment of the frame.
In the Russian army, it was decided to replace the flintlock pistol with a capsule pistol, and in 1848 they adopted smooth-bore capsule pistols - soldier and officer. The last muzzle-loading pistols - smooth-bore capsule pistols for soldiers and rifled bore pistols for officers with 7-line caliber - were approved in 1854, which was clearly too late. The Crimean War showed not only the superiority of rifled guns over smooth-bore guns, but also of multi-shot melee weapons over single-shot ones - the British in Crimea were already using Beaumont-Adams and Colt Navy revolvers.
True, although in very small quantities, revolvers were made in Russia. When in 1854 Colt presented Emperor Nicholas I with several of his revolvers, it did not make the expected impression - a little earlier, Tula gunsmiths presented the Tsar with “Colt system” revolvers. Orders were received in Tula for small quantities of such revolvers for the guards naval crew, for officers rifle regiment imperial family.
But capsule revolvers were replaced by a new type - chambered for a unitary cartridge. In 1857, in the USA, the company of H. Smith and D. Wesson began the production of revolvers with through chambers chambered for a metal cartridge. The success was so obvious that the “lagging” Colt company, in order not to violate the patent, created for its new revolvers a unitary cartridge of an unusual “nipple” shape, inserted into the chamber of the drum from the front.
In 1859, the Russian Minister of War raised the issue of replacing muzzle-loading pistols in the cavalry with rifled breech-loading revolvers. They tested revolvers from foreign and domestic gunsmiths, but made an intermediate decision: to recommend Colt and Lefoshe revolvers for officers to purchase at their own expense. The breech-loading pistol of the two-bullet Gillet-Trummer system was officially adopted for service, but its biography was limited to the production of only 100 pieces. The first in Russia to officially receive revolvers was the Separate Corps of Gendarmes: in 1860, Lefoshe hairpin revolvers were ordered for it in Belgium and France, and some of the revolvers were produced by the Sestroretsk plant. But a revolver with a metal frame and a drum chambered for a unitary cartridge was still difficult for mass production. It was clear that Russia would have to purchase revolvers and ammunition for them abroad for many years to come.
| STAGES OF DEVELOPMENT OF SMALL WEAPONS SYSTEMS IN RUSSIA IN THE 19TH CENTURY | |
| Year | Weapon |
| Flintlock rifles: hussar, horse-jaeger | |
| Silicon cavalry fitting | |
| Flintlock infantry rifle | |
| Silicon fitting of the Finnish Guards Rifle Battalion | |
| Flintlock cavalry pistol Flintlock rifles: infantry, dragoon (cuirassier), horse-jaeger, Cossack, hussar, sapper | |
| Flintlock Cossack gun | |
| Flintlock Cavalry Carbine | |
| Flintlock pistols: cavalry, Cossack, officer, soldier Flintlock rifles: infantry, dragoon, cuirassier, horse-pioneer Flintlock cavalry carbine Flintlock cavalry fitting Fallis fortress fitting | |
| Littyh capsule fitting | |
| Conversion capsule guns: infantry, dragoon, Cossack | |
| Capsule infantry rifle | |
| Conversion capsule officer and soldier pistols Capsule Cossack gun | |
| Capsule dragoon (sapper) gun | |
| Capsule officer and soldier pistols Hartung capsule fitting | |
| Capsule Cossack gun Capsule cavalry carbine Conversion cap cavalry fitting | |
| Ehrnroth fitting for the Finnish rifle battalion Kulikovsky fortress fitting | |
| Capsule infantry rifle | |
| Soldier's capsule pistol Conversion rifled guns: infantry, dragoon, imperial rifle regiment Officer's capsule rifled pistol | |
| Marksman 6-line rifle | |
| Infantry 6-line rifle | |
| Dragoon 6-line rifle | |
| Cossack 6-line rifle Revolver Lefoshe (for gendarmes) | |
| Gillet-Trummer rifled pistol | |
| Terry-Norman rifle | |
| Karle's needle rifle | |
| Krnka infantry rifle | |
| Baranov rifle | |
| Krnka Dragoon rifle |
Russian needle rifle "Karle system"
Needle weapons in Russia are one of the stages of the famous “gun drama” of the 1860s, one of the attempts to create modern weapons in the shortest possible time. The Russian Empire quickly overcame the path from a muzzle-loading capsule rifle to systems chambered for a metal unitary center-fire cartridge, but along this path it had to test many different weapon systems and even adopt some of them. One of the most important milestones along this path was the adoption of the needle rifle, known in domestic and foreign literature as the “Carle system”.
Needle weapons were known in Russia much earlier than the events described in the 1860s. Moreover, it was produced in small quantities by private craftsmen, as they would now say, for civilian circulation. And when the need arose to urgently change the rapidly outdated muzzle-loading rifle to something more modern, such a weapon did not stand aside. Along with a number of two-bullet and breech-loading capsule systems, many “needle varieties” were tested, both foreign and domestic inventors.
Really serious testing of needle guns began in 1865. This was the famous “Dreyse system.” In Berlin, 50 of these guns mod. 1862, which were transferred to the Guard for testing. The test results showed the rate of fire of German rifles was 2-3.5 times higher than domestic muzzle-loading rifles; other characteristics were considered mediocre.
The Weapons Commission of the Artillery Committee considered it inappropriate to introduce Prussian-style guns into Russia, but when designing new weapons, it recommended using Special attention to this system.
Next, another classic example of needle systems was tested - the French “Chassepot”. Its rate of fire was 2.5 times higher than the “muzzle-loading” one, and its operational and combat characteristics were recognized as satisfying the “requirements of military weapons,” but... the French cartridge made of thin tissue paper was considered brittle and unsuitable for the army. Cartridges made of thicker paper rendered the “French woman” inoperative. Sometimes, due to unburned remains of cartridges, it was impossible to fire the next cartridge.
Thus, the two most famous needle systems were declared unsuitable for arming the Russian army. And in the summer of 1866, an order was issued to Russian arms factories for the production of 115 thousand rapid-fire capsule rifles of the Terry-Norman system. These were breech-loading capsule rifles chambered for an ordinary paper cartridge, which did not have a capsule. The capsule, as in muzzle-loading systems, was put on a seed rod. But the needle systems have one unexpected ally. It was the summer war of 1866 between Prussia and Austria, which ended in a crushing victory for Prussia, which covered Prussian needle rifles with the glory of an invincible weapon, resistance to which is useless.
In August 1866, two residents of the city of Hamburg, the Englishman I. Carle and E. Sons, offered the Russian government an improved needle gun. The proposed system was very convenient for converting Russian 6-line rifles.
At that time, the captain of the guards artillery, N.I. Chagin, was abroad; he was instructed to urgently inspect the proposed system. The captain examined the gun and found it worthy of the closest attention. Karla and Zons were given a Russian muzzle-loading rifle with the requirement to convert it into a needle rifle according to their system. Having completed this work, the inventors arrive in St. Petersburg and... their rifle is considered not entirely satisfactory. The tests carried out confirm the unsuitability of the rifle as a military weapon.
A variant of the needle rifle proposed by I. Karle and E. Zons
Karle and Zons leave Russia, and Colonel Chagin is instructed to modify their rifle until it actually meets the requirements for weapons that can be armed with an army and which should be obtained by converting used muzzle-loading 6-line rifles. Chagin begins work at A. Brown's private mechanical plant, which is subsequently continued at factories in St. Petersburg and Tula. In the original system, almost everything was altered: the technical solution of the most important components was improved, the dimensions of the rifle parts were changed, and the cartridge was also modified.
In the process of designing a new rifle, problems arose due to the fact that the barrels of the old rifles submitted for conversion were worn out, their caliber could exceed the normal value (6 lines) by 0.1-0.2 lines. Get a universal system that will give good results when using barrels with different calibers, it was not possible. It was decided to consider the 6.1-line as the normal caliber and develop developments based on it.
The next problem was the movement of the cartridge forward in a loaded rifle. To avoid this, it was decided to make a conical chamber instead of a cylindrical one. The cartridge was also adjusted for it. Subsequently, when full production began, all the shortcomings of such chambers were revealed, associated with the complexity of their production.
After eliminating, at first glance, all the shortcomings, on March 28, 1867, the rifle was awarded the Highest approval and the Tula plant was instructed to produce exemplary copies. The need to adapt the rifle for factory production forced Chagin to continue working. In fact, he introduced a whole range of changes to the rifle related to the convenience of its machine production.
Experiments on the use of a cylindrical chamber were again begun. Was designed new cartridge, which was made as follows: a cardboard circle with a hole in the center sealed with lard was inserted into a cartridge case rolled into two layers of cartridge paper. A cloth circle was placed on it, and then a tray with a capsule made of cap paper. The cartridge case was filled with gunpowder, a cardboard wad with a diameter of 6.3 lines was placed on it, and the excess paper was taped over the ring. The resulting powder casing was inserted into the outer one and a bullet wrapped in writing paper was installed on it. The edges of the outer sleeve were bent and tightened with glass (special thread).
Tests of the already redesigned rifle-cartridge complex revealed another problem: the new cartridge gave good accuracy for rifles with fired barrels (6.1 and 6.2 lines), but the nominal 6-line barrel showed disgusting results. This was due to the fact that the paper covering the bullet flew with it. It was decided to freeze the barrels with a nominal diameter. Chagin found a more elegant way out of this situation by creating an artificial shot of the muzzle (a cylindrical ledge 10 lines long and 6.5 lines in diameter was made with a roller cutter). At this point, the powder gases overtook the bullet and tore off the remaining paper. After these measures, both nominal and worn barrels began to give satisfactory results.
Variants of tested cartridges for the Russian rapid-fire needle rifle
On September 20, 1867, the already seriously modernized rifle was again approved by the highest authorities. Work on it continued until November, and as a result, no serious comments were made. The new Russian needle rifle provided a practical rate of fire of 13 rounds/min (the Prussian needle rifle produced a maximum of 6, the French - 5).
What was this rifle? A barrel with a cut chamber from a muzzle-loading rifle, a receiver in the form of a cylindrical tube with a shank and a trigger spring installed on the bottom. The bolt also has the shape of a cylindrical tube with a handle. There are two combat protrusions on it, which, when it moves, move in the reciprocal grooves of the receiver, and when the bolt is closed, they enter an inclined annular groove and hold the bolt when fired.
A cone is screwed into the front part of the bolt, inside of which there is a movable head with a rod having a channel for the passage of the firing pin. Several leather circles are placed under the head, which, compressing when fired, serve as a seal. A firing pin, hollow inside, is placed in the cylindrical channel of the bolt stem; a mainspring with a button in contact with the end of the handle enters its tail; the front button of the mainspring and the firing pin needle are screwed into the front part of the firing pin.
On the middle part of the firing pin tube there is a circular belt that serves as a sear for the trigger spring bit. The lifting bolt handle plays an important role. It serves to control the bolt when pulling it out of the box and to compress the main coil spring.
Russian rapid-fire needle rifle mod. 1867 (final version by N.I. Chagin)
The Military Historical Museum of Artillery, Engineering Troops and Signal Corps stores samples with different designs sighting devices
Despite the completion of work on the rifle, experiments with cartridges continued. One of the main tasks was to solve the old problem of finding an optimal cartridge that would work well in the 6-6.2 line caliber range and would not require changes to the new 6 line barrels. At the same time, problems of increasing reliability were solved; for example, the issue related to lard in the cartridge mug protecting the primer was relevant. Its usefulness was determined to be less important than its potential for misfires.
So, the rifle has been accepted for service. The question arises: why is this rifle now called the “Karle system”? Why they forgot about Zons is understandable; he performed administrative roles under Karl and did not directly participate in the development of the system. But it would be much more fair to call the rifle the “Chagin system.”
In fact, everything was regulated by the GAU circular of October 13, 1867 No. 45, which states that the official name of the weapon is “rapid-firing needle rifle” and stipulates that this is no longer the Karle system, but a separate system that has significant differences from the original one. That is, officially there are simply no names in the name of the rifle.
The next stage has arrived - mass production of the new model. The production of rifles is entrusted to state arms factories and private enterprises: Nobel and Shuf in St. Petersburg, Shmaltser in Libau and the representative of Tula gunsmiths Vinogradov in Kyiv.
The most difficult fate fell on the Tula gunsmiths: they were forced to fulfill the contract not in Tula, but in Kyiv, quite distant from it. And this was due to pressure from the tenant of the Tula arms factory, Standerskjold, who tried in every possible way to get rid of competitors who offered cheaper re-production of rifles. Due to the obstacles that arose, Vinogradov transferred the contract to an American from Vienna, Bohlman, who violated the terms of delivery and gave the contract to the Hamburg merchant Menke. Further ups and downs brought adjustments to the number of supposed producers.
The actual conversion of rifles began only in 1868; on January 1, 1869, the report to the War Ministry contained the data reflected in the table.
The quality of the products was very low. For example, rifles from Nobel did not meet the acceptance requirements at all: only one out of six such rifles met the requirements for accuracy. Moreover, the main problem was not the inability to do it efficiently, but in extracting the maximum profit from the ongoing process. In fact, the production of needle rifles was delayed for longer periods.
The failure of state factories (which were leased at that time) to fulfill their obligations led to the creation of a special commission at the end of 1868, which identified shortcomings associated with the very principle of leasing factories.
To these problems, another one was added - the heir to the throne, Grand Duke Alexander Alexandrovich. He came under the influence of the manufacturer (and, in fact, adventurer) Putilov, who promoted the system of his friend, naval lieutenant Baranov. Moreover, they planned the organization of production of the Baranov system at Putilov’s enterprise, which demanded that all old muzzle-loading rifles be transferred to him for production. This whole epic lasted quite a long time; the production of needle rifles was slowed down, but did not stop.
In part, these events worked for the good; Putilov produced just under 10,000 rifles of the Baranov system, which was far from ideal, but already designed for a metal unitary center-fire cartridge. At this time, Guard Colonel Baron Gann brings a gun from Vienna Krnka systems, which turned out to be very successful. And in February 1869, a commission was created to resolve issues regarding the introduction of a metal cartridge and the choice new system for conversion of 6-line rifles. On March 15, 1869, two commissions were created that began to deal with the production of rifles using the Krnka system.
What is the fate of the Russian needle rifle? There were quite a few of them made. In fact, this is the most successful and perfect example of military needle weapons. On January 1, 1877, there were 150,868 needle rifles in service, with another 51,096 in reserve. They armed the troops of the Caucasus, Turkestan, Orenburg, West Siberian and East Siberian districts.
It is difficult to say exactly when needle rifles were removed from service, but circulars dating back to 1880 contained instructions on the rules for their maintenance.
In the design of the materials, images of the sample stored in the Military Historical Museum of Artillery, Engineering Troops and Signal Corps were used.
The development of small arms for several centuries proceeded at a snail's pace, for a long time limited to improvements in the lock and changes in design. However, the scientific and technological revolution in the 19th century turned this slow process into a rapid cascade of inventions following one after another. Russia, with its lagging industry, did not immediately manage to keep up with the leaders, which was clearly demonstrated by the Crimean War. But by the end of the century, the emerging technological gap was overcome.
Development of small arms: from evolution to revolution
For almost four centuries, handguns have remained virtually unchanged. It was a metal tube-barrel, sealed at one end (the blind end was called the “breech”) and attached to a wooden stock. A charge of gunpowder was poured into the tube, a ball-shaped bullet was placed, and to prevent all this from falling out of the barrel, a rag or paper plug (wad) was hammered on top using a ramrod rod.
When fired, a small amount of gunpowder was ignited - the so-called “primer”, which was located on a special shelf on the side of the barrel. Then, through a small hole in the barrel wall, called the seed hole, the fire was transferred to the main powder charge. The seed was ignited using a special mechanism - a lock. Actually, the progress of firearms was initially limited by the development of locks - from the primitive wick, in which the simplest lever brought the tip of the smoldering wick to the seed, to the flintlock, which in its later incarnation ensured reliable and practically guaranteed ignition of the charge, could be kept cocked for a long time and operated practically indefinitely. any weather, except for very heavy rain.
It was after the invention of the so-called “battery” type of flintlock (this happened in France in 1610) that the design of small arms was “mothballed” for two long centuries. The materials from which weapons were made became stronger and more durable, production technology was perfected, but between the musket with which d'Artagnan went on the attack near La Rochelle, and the gun of a French soldier dragging his feet to the Berezina, the difference is for the most part purely external, yes and it was small.
Changes to the established design were made only by the turbulent 19th century with its sharp leap in scientific and technical development. Almost simultaneously (by historical standards) two things happened that had the most direct impact on the appearance of small arms. First, “mercury fulminate” was discovered, a substance that explodes on impact. It turned out to be too strong and capricious for use as a propellant charge, but it was able to successfully replace the primer. To do this, it was placed in a small cap called a piston or capsule. Now the ignition of gunpowder in the barrel occurred reliably, was completely independent of the weather and, most importantly, was instantaneous - there was no pause of about half a second, characteristic of flintlocks, while the seed flared up from sparks knocked out of the flint, and the fire flowed through the seed hole. This, as well as the absence of a flash of burning primer occurring right in front of the shooter’s face, made it possible to significantly increase shooting accuracy, especially at a moving target.
The second factor that powerfully influenced the evolution of small arms was the development of metallurgy, sufficient for mass and relatively cheap production rifled barrels. The idea of improving the stability of a bullet's trajectory by rotating it was not new. Back in the 16th century (and according to some sources, even at the end of the 15th century), examples of hand-made firearms, in which the barrel bore had screw rifling that twisted the bullet when fired. A bullet rotating around its longitudinal axis flew more accurately and much further than a regular one. In addition, it could be given an elongated shape, more streamlined than a sphere - this further increased the firing range. The main problem was that if in a gun with a smooth barrel it was enough to roll the bullet into the barrel when loading, then in a rifled gun it had to be driven in with a ramrod, turning it in the rifling, which took a lot of effort and time.
While rifled weapons remained an expensive toy of noble hunters, this was not a big hindrance: carefully load the gun, leisurely aim, shoot, admire the result, leisurely reload... But in battle everything is completely different, and the price of a second is incomparably higher. And when we started talking about the use of rifling in mass-produced army weapons, the question of increasing the rate of fire came to a head. Many designs have been developed to overcome the problem. The most viable of them turned out to be those based on bullet expansion - in them the bullet had a smaller diameter than usual and fell into the barrel freely, without entering the rifling, and then it expanded, due to which it increased the diameter and entered the rifling. In some systems, the bullet expanded when loaded with ramrod impacts, in some it expanded already during the shot, under the influence of powder gases pressing on it.
However, all these designs were, by and large, only half measures. To completely overcome the problem, it was necessary to switch to a fundamentally different loading system - from the breech, and not from the muzzle. This principle was also not something completely new - almost simultaneously with the first samples of firearms, the idea of loading from the treasury arose. They tried to implement it in practice, but the technologies and materials were too primitive for the full implementation of the idea. Only in the 19th century was it possible to achieve sufficient strength of the metal and precision of its processing to create reliable and mass-produced breech-loading samples. They were no longer charged separately (gunpowder separately, bullet separately and wad on top), but with a unitary cartridge - that is, combining both the propellant charge, what it threw, and the primer for igniting the charge. At first, such cartridges were made of paper; later cartridges with a metal sleeve appeared, the design of which has not changed significantly to this day.
This long introduction serves the sole purpose of showing as clearly as possible the complexity of the situation in which the leading powers found themselves in the first half of the 19th century. The gun - the main weapon of the infantryman and cavalryman - which had not changed at all for several generations, suddenly began to develop at a mad gallop, and those who did not want to find themselves in the position of catching up had to develop, adopt and launch with no less speed completely new designs are put into production.
Race for the leaders
It was especially difficult during this period Russian Empire. Undeveloped production made it catastrophically difficult to introduce any fundamental innovations. Ingenious designers, of whom the country never lacked, could offer ingenious solutions, but everything stalled at the implementation stage due to the fact that there was neither the technology nor the capacity to implement them. For example, relatively long compared to European states, there was a transition from a flintlock to a capsule lock. In public official documents it was said that, they say, the soldier with his rough fingers will not be able to adjust the capsule into place, he will lose it and in general it will be inconvenient for him, so let him fight with the good old flint. The real reason for the delay was that in order to produce mercury fulminate in the required quantity, Russia simply did not have chemical production at the appropriate level, and it had to be hastily developed from scratch.
British soldiers during the Crimean War - photograph by Roger Fenton
Crimean War 1853–56 clearly demonstrated to the Russian military that the departing train of progress must be quickly caught up. If the Russian army still managed to switch to capsule ignition by the time it began, then with rifled weapons the situation was much worse - only a few selected shooters had fittings (rifled carbines), the bulk of the soldiers were armed with smoothbore rifles. Accordingly, British and French soldiers, armed almost exclusively with rifled guns, had the opportunity to accurately fire from distances at which the Russians had no chance of hitting back. The sighting range of British Enfield rifles, for example, exceeded sighting range Russian gun model 1854 four times and was even larger than those of Russian cannons!
The military did not wait long and ordered a rifled gun with an expanding bullet. Since the elongated bullet weighed more than a round bullet of the same caliber, and pushing it along the rifling required a larger charge of gunpowder than its smooth-bore counterpart, recoil increased significantly, and it became clear that it was necessary to reduce the caliber of the weapon. Instead of the previously standard 7 lines (17.78 mm), they decided to make the standard caliber 4 lines (10.16 mm). However, it quickly became clear that for the production of such thin barrels, and even rifled ones, there were no tools of appropriate accuracy. After a series of discussions, we settled on a caliber of 6 lines (15.24 mm). The officer commission of the Artillery Committee developed the design of a new weapon, and in 1856 a “6-line rifled rifle” entered service. It was at this moment that the term “rifle” was used for the first time in official documents. It was considered clear and simply explained to the soldier the principle of the new weapon, and it really caught on instantly.
Private of the Sofia Infantry Regiment and clerk of the Divisional Headquarters. The private has a Model 1856 rifle.
army-news.ru
In the production of rifles of the 1856 model, they tried to switch from hand-made parts to machine manufacturing, as well as to the use of steel instead of iron in the barrel, but neither one nor the other was completely successful. Metalworking machines had to be purchased foreign, and they were very expensive, and Russia simply produced too little steel at that time, and there was not enough for rifles for the entire army.
The 1856 rifle turned out to be extremely successful and was noticeably superior to foreign analogues, including British ones, which were considered the most advanced. The evil irony of fate was that while it was being developed and put into production, progress made another leap - into service foreign countries Breech-loading rifles began to arrive en masse. Minister of War Dmitry Alekseevich Milyutin said bitterly:
“...technology advanced with such rapid steps that before the proposed orders were tested, new requirements appeared and new orders were made.”
And what began was what the same Milyutin called "our unfortunate gun drama". From 1859 to 1866, a specially organized commission tested more than one and a half hundred weapon systems - about 130 foreign and more than 20 domestic. As a result, we settled on the design of the English gunsmith William Terry, modified by the foreman of the Tula Arms Factory Ivan Norman. It was adopted in 1866 under the name "Terry-Norman rapid-fire percussion rifle."
The rifle was a modification of a rifle of the 1856 model - the breech of the barrel was cut off, and a sliding bolt was installed in its place. Having opened the bolt, the shooter inserted a paper cartridge into it and closed the bolt, after which he cocked the hammer and installed the primer. When fired, the capsule ignited the paper shell of the cartridge, and the gunpowder ignited from it. A simple ingenious system made it possible, instead of producing completely new weapons, to use huge stocks of old rifles, so that the problem seemed to be solved. But that was just the beginning of the gun drama. The train of progress accelerated again, and suddenly it turned out that ignition using a separate primer had already become obsolete. “Needle rifles” were already in service with geopolitical competitors - their primer was located in the cartridge itself, behind the bullet, and it was broken by a long needle piercing the cartridge. The Terry-Norman rifle did not remain in service for even a year, after which it was withdrawn with the wording “obsolete.”
It was replaced by the system of Johannes Friedrich Christian Karle, a German who lived in England. It was also a kit for converting an old Model 1856 rifle and was very advanced, superior to similar designs. The Karle rifle was adopted for service in 1867. Its production was launched at a large number of factories, both public and private. Several hundred rifles, manufactured first, passed military tests in Turkestan and earned positive reviews, but... Yes, yes, that’s right - progress managed to move forward again. Paper cartridges were no longer in favor; they were replaced by metal ones. The metal cartridge was waterproof, it could not be accidentally broken when loading the weapon in a hurry, and it did not clog the barrel with remnants of unburned paper. The production of the Karle rifle was suspended - they did not remove it from service and withdraw it from the troops, but they did not make new ones.
First Russian weapons A rifle designed by the American Hiram Berdan was chambered for a metal cartridge. It was adopted into service in 1868, but it did not become widespread. Around the same time, a rifle designed by the Italian Augusto Albini appeared, modified by naval officer Nikolai Baranov. It was considered as a candidate for adoption when the rifle of Sylvester Krnka, an Austrian citizen of Czech origin, appeared. The Albini-Baranov rifle was simpler, the Krnka rifle was cheaper.
As a result of comparative tests, the latter was chosen (according to a number of researchers, the commission was biased and deliberately “sinked” Baranov’s system, but there is no evidence of this). Both went into production - in 1869, the Krnka rifle became the main weapon of the army (receiving the expected nickname “krynka” from the soldiers), and the Albini-Baranov rifle was adopted by the navy (there were only a few of it produced - about 10,000 copies).
Model 1869 Krnka rifle
It would seem that the goal has been achieved - rifles of perfect design have been adopted for service, and you can exhale calmly. But, as in previous times, it was by no means over. The fact is that the metal cartridge was, for obvious reasons, noticeably heavier than the paper one. Accordingly, the ammunition carried by the soldier was reduced, difficulties arose with supplies, and others of the same kind. A solution was found - to reduce the caliber of the rifle again. Fortunately, over the past dozen years, technology in Russia has improved enough for mass production of small-bore barrels, so the same 4 lines that were not approved in 1856 were adopted as the standard caliber.
A rifle for the new caliber was proposed by Hiram Berdan, already familiar to us. Unlike the previous model, it had not a folding, but a longitudinally sliding shutter and a number of other improvements. It was adopted for service in 1870 under the name “Berdan rapid-fire small-caliber rifle No. 2” (and the previous model, accordingly, henceforth became known as the Berdan rifle No. 1). It was this successful model in all respects that finally ended the “unfortunate rifle drama” of the Russian army, becoming its main weapon for many two decades. It was replaced only by the legendary “three-line” Mosin, which was put into service in 1891. But even after its appearance, the Berdan rifle continued to remain in service until the beginning of the 20th century. She earned the nickname “Berdanka,” which probably even those who are not at all interested in the history of weapons have heard. A huge number of Berdans were produced, and they are still found in the hunting version.
