Design an automatic rifle for WW2 in 1938

[McPherson]

n/a =not applicable, in other words it doesn't matter in this thread

Actually since that is what happened to the FN mlle D after WWII, it is "applicable". The BAR has never left us. It just morphed into the M240.

 

[stephen the barbarian]

Actually since that is what happened to the FN mlle D after WWII, it is "applicable". The BAR has never left us. It just morphed into the M240.

the fn mag is a gpmg, and beyond the scope of this thread

 

[marathag]

Kind of hard to design a bullet cutoff IN THE MAG without it being a single stack.

If the catch can stop one row of bullets from jumping out, a better designed hook can be done, or have hooks on both sides

 

[McPherson]

If the catch can stop one row of bullets from jumping out, a better designed hook can be done, or have hooks on both sides

Hmm. Would you prefer (trust your life to) simple or complex? Cause what you just described is an oscillator cutoff and latch system.

 

[McPherson]

the fn mag is a gpmg, and beyond the scope of this thread

I keep reading that a lot, so I will refer you to...

No.

Automatic rifles are a stupid idea.

Really really stupid.

Because they have a very small magazine, they don't put enough rounds downrange to get the enemy too keep their heads down for long enough.

Because they are heavy, friendly troops can't carry spare belts of ammunition for the machinegun, anti-tank weapons, a radio or anything that is useful.

So.

It's a stupid idea.

No.

US infantry tacticians wanted to establish a base of cover fire in one section while the other section bounded forward. Sort of like what the British could actually do with the BREN.

The BAR with a bipod was not good enough. The Ruger could have been good enough but it matured too late and the war was on. The M1919A6 was an attempt to meet the same criteria as the MG34/42 in the base of fire portable machine gun role. It, the Browning M1919A6 sucked.

So... pfui on the automatic rifle unless it is a SAW.