AHC: US Army adopt HK G3
- Thread starter SgtRL-3
- Start date
Any 7.62mm NATO rifle is going to be uncontrollable on full-auto, the only reason for the USA to be picking the G3 over the M14 would be some relatively minor savings in weight and size (and I'm not sure if the original G3 models were actually noticeable lighter, they had wooden furniture). And if that's enough for them to be scrutinizing the M14 further in trials they might as well go with the AR-10 instead.
Instead of the Smith and Wesson M76 that was developed because the swedes refused to sell the Carl Gustav M45 for use by the marines in southeast Asia, HK could have developed and sold the MP 5 earlier and the MP 5 SD could have been used in Vietnam.
Perhaps the marines could have used the HK 21/23 in 5.56 and 7.62, it's uses the same platform as the G3 and was fed from magazines or belt.
Perhaps the marines could have used the HK 21/23 in 5.56 and 7.62, it's uses the same platform as the G3 and was fed from magazines or belt.
Considering that the standard ball for .308 Winchester featured 160 grains of bullet and 54 grains of propellent (down only10 and 6 from .30-06), it's obvious at its overall mass and weight distribution that the only way it could have been fired controllably at full rock and roll stock is prone from a stabilizer like a bipod or tripod. If they wanted to keep the rifle (reasonably) on point on full auto fire, there are three possible means:
A. Heavier, possibly longer barrel
B: Redesigned action, either inertia recoil (like was used in several Australian prototypes tested by Soldier of Fortune as well as most Franchi and Binelli semi-auto shotguns) or else a much longer piston stroke (as was used in the Chinese Type 81 in 7.62[.311]x54mm Mosin-Nagant, used in the China-Vietnam war and several border clashes with Thailand, Burma, and India, and a succession of Yugoslav weapons that were improved licensed copies, which were made for their special forces troops, and became prize loot during that country's violent breakup.)
C: Moving to a smaller cartridge with a bullet no heavier than 120 grains. .276 Pederson, or 6.5mm Arisaka would have been perfectly in the Goldilocks zone for a full-auto assault rifle, as the best compromise between penetration and lethality of each individual round and controllability at a useful average cyclic rate.
Frankly IMNSHO, if they absolutely had to have used the .308 Winchester/7.62x51mm NATO in a selective-fire frontline general issue infantry weapon, they should have used the BAR as its basis, but that's just me. YMMV.
I dont think you can realy get a full power battle rifle that is both controllable enough at true full-auto (short bursts might be doable) and light enough to be usable. Using the BAR as a basis (that thing weighs at least 7+ kilos even unloaded) or going with a newly designed heavy rifle will result in a weapon that is far to heavy as a general issue rifle.
The somewhat smaller catridges are a better direction, but I would argue that even they are still to powerfull for truly controlabe fully automatic fire from a resonably light shoulder rifle.
In reality all the cold war battle rifles are not realy designed to be actually used with select fire and doctrinal use nearly always saw them employed in a purely semi-automatic fashion (the british L1A1 version of the FAL even was semi-auto only from the factory).
Last edited:
Type 81 uses the same 7.62x39mm as the AK-47, not the longer rifle round.
I was an 18 year old ROTC cadet at a 'Senior Military College' and got a total of 10 minutes instruction on what to expect of the M-14 on full auto and had no trouble controlling it. Was easily able to put out 3-5 round bursts, all in the target. I had never fired anything larger than a bolt action .22 before that. Fired it standing, kneeling and prone (no bipod). The only cadets that had a problem firing it standing were some of the smaller guys who couldn't seem to brace against the recoil as well as some of us larger guys.
Alien space bats.
Simply put, there is no realistic scenario in which the US Army is buying guns from former Nazis less than 15 years after WWII.
Remember that a lot of those "conservative bureaucrats" on the ordnance board you so casually deride were probably carrying M1 Garands circa 1945 and thus might have been a little biased ;-). If the US Army was going to adopt a foreign design as primary arm it was going to be the FAL not only because the FAL was a superior product to the G3 but also because FN already had established ties within the US and Belgium was an ally.
The M1 Carbine does need replacing with something a bit more capable.
One of my relatives was part of the test group for the early FN FAL prototypes in the late 40s and he said it quickly became apparent to everyone involved that full auto was useless as only the first round would be vaguely on target.
The full auto feature was quickly removed from British SLRs and was absent when it was formally adopted
Full auto might be manageable for an experienced soldier or a 20 stone 'gravy seal' on a firing range but your average skinny 18 year old recruit is going to struggle.
As to the OP - I cannot see the G3 being adopted over the M14 where the FN FAL was not
Even an 18 year old draftee can be taught to control a M14 on full auto. Been there. Done that. Got the tee shirt!
I thought that the US like the UK with the L1A1 SLR modified most M14s to semi auto only?
Or that might have been after they were replaced as the principle rifle by the M16?
But anyway not a good full auto weapon
Most M14's had the select lock installed but an infantry squad had one automatic rifleman in the TO&E armed with an M14M that had the selector switch. Later it was replaced by the M14A1.
Yes, the M14/M14A1 was not the best option available at the time BUT IT WIIL GET THE JOB DONE!
I mean, even a bad weapon is better than no weapon. The M14 is the worst of that gen of rifles, but I'd still take it over a bolt-action.
I believe in M1/M2 Carbine supremacy over the M14. Especially the paratrooper carbine with the folding stock
I mean, I love the M2 as well, I was just making a generalized example, not a specific one.I believe in M1/M2 Carbine supremacy over the M14. Especially the paratrooper carbine with the folding stock