Dan,Joe, thanks for your review, and the opportunity to use this forum to share my observations moving along. Always learning.
A lot is going on in your chart, and I may need some coaching to understand what it is saying beyond the well taken point about how relatively hot 1960s .22 US ammo is.
I am guessing the indicated breech pressure figures apply only to the horizontal line in which they appear in your chart. YES So the German circa 1930s 39.3516 grain .22LR at 330 M/S (1083 FPS and subsonic) does that with 16,508 PSI breech pressure while the American .22LR StV standard velocity at 40 grains is 350 M/S muzzle velocity (1148 FPS and supersonic) but shows a much greater breech pressure of 24,000 PSI. Wanted to ask if you might be able to clarify this. The breech pressure comparison with 40 grain bullets, German to American, shows only 20 M/S greater velocity with a breech pressure 31.21% greater. And you did mention the 30% across the board velocity difference. Why isn't the speed differential far greater? Dan, I didn't perform the tests and quite frankly am not equipped to offer any explanation. Those are the figures I found and reported. With speed of sound at 1125 FPS, all three American 40 grain rounds in the chart are cited as at or above supersonic. I see the citations below those first three 40 grain US rounds are lighter 29 grain bullets of the L and Kurz rounds. One of the 40 grain citations (3rd from top in US) is noted as an HV 6 (High Velocity 6) just supersonic at 1125 FPS, where "HV 6" is defined as fired from a 6" barrel. Is that really possible in a 1960s .22LR from a 6"? I own a S&W Model 48-2 in 6" and it fires supersonic at that barrel length but it is a magnum rimfire and there is a huge muzzle flash. I noted you mentioned finding stats on both the pistols and rifles though.
Wanted also to ask how your chart might correlate with the Ballistic Data chart on page 5 of the 1936 Walther Model 1 and Model 2 brochure which shows the same subsonic muzzle velocity of 330 M/S. I for one don't quite understand the Walther chart. It was a reprint you mention, but for the US market or England? If for the US, why are the measurements in metric? I don't understand the different listings under Velocity. What does each V. mean with different numbers? Measurements at different distances? Walther's Model 2, a redesigned Model 1 meant to mimic more closely the K98k, Is that Walther's explanation or your interpretation of the thumb safety? Why would they attempt to mimic the K98k when they were producing trainers of their own design as well as the DSM134? has the longer barrel at 24 1/2". This brochure cites the Model 1 as a 20 1/2" barrel. Do we know what rifle barrel length your data is based on? The sources I used provided no information on weapon or barrel length. Maybe that is not relevant given the point you are well making though... and I am hardly in my depth.
I use the term "supersonic" as a High Velocity caution not to use that hot a round in the older guns, and admit doing that adds another term not in your chart. German Match .22LR, such as the case of GECO I recently bought, states 1080 FPS on the box. (Assume that is the old Gustav Genschow GECO, but seems a subsidiary of another company at this point.)
Here is the 1936 Walther brochure Ballistic Data chart. I am guessing these statistics are for the Model 2, with the longer 24 1/2" barrel. IMO, the Walther chart simply explains the physical properties of the .22 lr cartridge. The only information regarding the two Walther carbines is the dispersion at the bottom of the chart. Regardless, your chart seems to me to well demonstrate the point. That is all I was trying to do.
I was prompted to consider the chart, and more closely examine certain bolt area wear on my two Model 2's trying to figure out what is causing that and wanted to post about that next.
Great info, thanks!
Many of your questions I am unable to answer as I did not perform the tests. I only recorded the information available on the edition of Bock that I had as well as the info found in my old issue of Cartridges...the World. I made some comments above in your quote to make it easier for me to answer. But basically, I was trying to demonstrate the differences and dangers presented with using an 80 year old gun designed of ammo decidedly different from modern ammo IMHO.I might comment that the broken bolt handle appeared to me to be cast rather than machined and I viewed what appeared to be some foreign material (black) in the cast metal where the break occurred.