Discussion: Why were 20th C. Infantry rifles so darn long?

[Army GI]

I like both rifles and carbines but for different reasons. From personal experience as a medic, having an M4 slung underneath my arm when carrying a litter patient doesn't get in the way NEARLY as bad as an M16A2.

Also, I can't deny the "badass" factor that the shorter AR15 rifles have compared to the old 20" models. Long rifle barrels just look dorky.

On the other hand, I prefer the "rifle" versions for shooting "long range" (300 yards or more with iron sights) at the comfort of my local rifle range. This is especially true for Service Rifle competitions, carbines are allowed just not competitive.

However as a historian, I am highly intrigued as to why turn of the century infantry rifles were so long. Some rifles, like the 1892 American Krag, had barrels 30 inches long! I wanted to find out why, unfortunately there exist very little textual evidence as to why these rifle lengths were chosen. Therefore, I submit the following explanations based on military doctrine at the time. I have arranged them from what I think is the most likely to least likely. I have also posted a poll to see what everyone else thinks, please vote! BTW this is a multiple choice poll:

1. "Volley Fire" - Rifle designers were used to the notion of Napoleonic Warfare. Large infantry formations met on the field of battle and opened fire at each other from the longest possible distance in volleys. Squeezing every last fps from a round necessitated a long barrel and decreased bullet drop at extended ranges.
   
2. The "Infantry Phalanx" - because of the aforementioned mass formation tactics, melee combat was still an integral part of infantry tactics. Long barrels (and long bayonets) were not so much to increase muzzle velocity, but rather to enable the soldier to utilize his rifle as a spear/pike. The longer the barrel, the more of an advantage the soldier had.
   
3. Arbitrary: Rifle designers have always been used to long rifles because black powder technology required a long barrel for burn of the inefficient powder. When smokeless powder was developed, there was not scientific study done to determine the most efficient length for a smokeless powder rifle barrel (The velocity difference between a Mosin rifle and a Mosin Carbine is 150fps at best).
   
4. Limitation of sighting technology - barrel mounted rear sight instead of a receiver mounted one limited sight radius thus barrels had to be longer to have a decent sight radius (I think this is the least likely).

I think that the reason Mosins, SMLE, Krags, and early Mausers had such long barrels had to do with the tactics of the time this I think the "volley fire" theory is the most applicable (although I wouldn't be surprised if it was a combination of 1, 2, and 3). Armies battled in block formations for thousands of years up until the American Civil War - when rifled barrels caused immense casualties. Then, when smokeless powder, machine guns, tanks, and rapid fire indirect artillery became predominant, infantry tactics failed to adapt. During WWI, industrial weapons and pre-industrial infantry tactics clashed and carnage ensued.

No-man's-land tactics were now irrelevant. This explains why armies issued shorter (though not by our standards) length rifles as standard. For example, the Germans issued the K98K in the 1930s which was basically a Mauser 98 but much reduced in length.

I encourage questions, comments, critiques, or suggestions. I understand my grammar is atrocious but I wrote this as I was eating lunch and watching Ghostbusters. I would love to see any new information or even factual evidence to support or refute my claims. I have been thinking about this subject for a while (ever since I got into C&Rs, especially the Mosin) so I welcome a friendly and educational discussion .

[Super Chicken]

I say volley fire, with an added helping of "that's they way we have always done it" too boot

[C.W.M.V.]

I know powder technology has advanced somewhat since then, as has the adoption of smaller lighter bullets.
Perhaps a combination of early modern bullets with inefficient powder (by modern standards) necessitated a longer barrel to achieve the velocity required to perform the tasks required for service adoption?

[Fjold]

Inertia,

It's the same reason that when the Army went to breech loading guns they had the stocks designed with the same amount of drop as the old open ignition systems. So we wound up with guns that had short lengths of pull and that you couldn't get a proper cheek weld on and see the open sights. In the old days of flintlocks, matchlocks etc. you shot with your neck straight up and your face pulled back from the flashpan to protect your eyes. Your chin was actually on the stock instead of your cheek. Even after the open ignition was done away with the military still specified stock dimensions that no human being could fit correctly.

[Mutant]

The generals that ordered them were not comfortable with their sexuality.

[1-M-42]

The generals that ordered them were not comfortable with their sexuality.

+1^ thanks for the chuckle!

[SKSer45]

I vote other. Reason being is due to the 2nd wave of Imperialism and the success the Western European powers were having. In India the British Raj was established for almost a 100 years and towards the end the long rifles were successful in suppressing the Resistance in the late 1800's

Boxer War, Opium Wars, Boers War were perfect example of how this long rifles truly changed the field of battle back in those days which gave Europe there overwhelming success during Imperialism. So common sense had it if its not broke don't fix it. It wasn't till world war 1 that the rifle needed to be changed due to trench warfare, tanks, and the birth of SMGs and to add to that, this was European against European so this got the ball rolling on improvements on rifles like the 98ks, SMLES, and so on.

That's just my two cents.

[Cloudy]

There were probably a number of reasons that were important at the time. Since you specifically mentioned the Krag, it was the first U.S. service rifle that used smokeless powder and while there may have been some carry over of tradition, I would assume that the length was chosen as the best compromise between velocity/accuracy/handling. One thing that is noticeable since the 19th century is the decrease in caliber and the increase in muzzle velocity with smokeless powder. Since it appears that with the adoption of more efficient propellants that trajectories became flatter, the sighting radius could then be decreased by shortening the barrel to a more handy length so that eventually there would be no need to issue a carbine that fired the service cartridge and that the rifle would be the "universal" weapon to arm the military. Obviously history has a tendency to repeat itself with the proliferation of carbines since...P.S. I don't regard a 20" barrel as being particularly long :-)

[redcliff]

I think it may have something to do with the cavalry being one of the most dominant and feared forces on the battlefield at that time. By having long rifles with long bayonets you were albe to use them as pikes to counter cavalry charges.

[Anubis Laughed]

Mainly a combination of #2 & #3.

The creation of self-contained cartridges and later, smokless powder, meant that rifles were evolving incredibly fast by the late 19th century, especially when compared to the fairly glacial rate of firearms development for the previous 400 years or so. People didn't have the advanatge of experience to look back on (as we do today). Then as now, Armies and Generals tend to be very conserative in their thinking, and so it took a long time for them to realise they could have a shorter barrel yet still achieve high velocities and penetration.

The Americans and the British were about the only major militaries to go to a mid-length barrel in the pre-WW1 decade, with the adpotion of the M1903 Springfield and the No 1 MKIII Lee- Enfield rifles. Partly due to their recent experiences in the Span-Am War and the Boer War. Most other countries, Germany, France, Russia, etc, simply kept to what they were used to and continued to build long rifles for their infantry units, and short carbines for everyone else. It wasn't until after the experiences of WW1 that things really started to change all over.

Also, we can't underestimate how important the use of the bayonet was to military thinking back then. All armies still fielded horse calvary units prior to WW1, and they expected their ground-pounders to have to be able to hold off a horse charge with their bayonets. It was also assumed that much of the field fighting would be done with the bayonet, so a long barrel was seen as an aid to the epee and sword style bayonets of the era. Those rifles can basically be used as pikes against mounted horsemen and other soilders, which was the intent.

[gunboat]

1. -In black powder days barrel length was related to velocity = range and horse power.
2. - A long rifle gave length to the thrust with a bayonett -- a pike if you will. When rifles were muzzle loaded and/or single shot that was rather important.
3. "That's the way it has always been" -- note the length of time it took to adapt lower power rounds (7.62x39 and 5.56 ). Took time for the realization a 800yd rifle was not needed in 200yd battles.
my tuppence

[Garandimal]

Rifles used to be designed by the Engineering dept.

The M1 Garand had a 24" Bbl because engineers had already determined that 24" was about right for the 30-06 as a compromise b/t velocity/handling/recoil/muzzle flash for a rifle in that caliber and Marksmanship requirement.

The M14 got a 22" Bbl because the larger powder column and newer powders, along w/ the restriction of bullet weight, allowed it w/o sacrificing the rifle's long range marksmanship requirement.


After that, all US service rifles since have been, instead, designed by a "match made in Hell" coupling of the complaint department in conjunction w/ the advanced materials department.

Wouldn't give you a plug nickel for any of'em save the recent Lewis Machine 7.62mm variety... and they are a little pricey and no lightweight either.

[Nodda Duma]

Here's something for you to consider:

For black powder loads, and depending on the specific powder charge, there is an optimal barrel length which maximizes muzzle velocity. Shorter than that and you don't extract the most performance out of the powder. Longer and there's no gain.

[23 Blast]

Lots of good responses in this thread, but I really think that the rifles were stand-in phalli for the generals.

Seriously, though - I do think that almost all of the reasons listed by the OP have merit. Yes, volley fire at long range was an accepted tactic of infantry, which typically meant heavy, long-barreled rifles with cartridges capable of flinging lead in excess of a mile. Yes, a long rifle with a long bayonet was essentially a vestige of the pikemen formation that was considered the infantry's best defense against a cavalry charge in the pre-machine gun era.

And yes - I also think a certain amount of the design of rifles in those days had to do with traditionalism and inertia. Imagine a rifle competition where several weapons manufacturers are vying to be the winner of a new government contract for a new infantry rifle. Now let's say your design is clearly superior - lets even say its semi-automatic or has a bolt design that facilitates a much more rapid rate of fire than its competition. Also, your rifle is shorter and lighter and more comfortable for soldiers to carry, without much degradation in ballistic performance.

You think you'll win that competition? My guess is probably not because your rifle is too radical for hidebound generals.

[dangerranger]

I think it may have something to do with the cavalry being one of the most dominant and feared forces on the battlefield at that time. By having long rifles with long bayonets you were albe to use them as pikes to counter cavalry charges.

I voted other but Redcliff said it first, look at the length of the rifles and the length of bayonets. In hand to hand fighting that length was an advantage. DR