What if NATO decided to adopt the M14 and the M1911A1 in order to standardize weaponry?

Discussion in 'Alternate History Discussion: After 1900' started by HistoryGunsFreedom1776, Mar 15, 2019 at 2:25 PM.

?

Is this even possible?

  1. Possible, despite how unlikely this scenario was due to backroom politics. Also 45= knock down!

    10.8%
  2. Hell no! Bill Clinton was correct in destroying M14s and the FN FAL will reign in the free world!

    36.5%
  3. Hell yes, America, Patriotism, Apple Pie, FREEDOM!!!

    8.1%
  4. Thanks, but no thanks Uncle Sam, I like to keep my 9mm Hipower.

    16.2%
  5. America should have adopted the FN FAL and perhaps they would have kept Saigon from falling

    37.8%
  6. M14 yes, M1911A1 no (We don't need a Forty Five Caliber cartridge with the Wild West in mind)

    2.7%
  7. M14 no, M1911A1 yes (FN FAL would have won out)

    28.4%
  8. I want no teenage drama queen, I want my M14!

    1.4%
Multiple votes are allowed.
  1. SsgtC Ready to Call it a Day

    Joined:
    May 14, 2017
    It also helped lessen the shock to American industry from the number of war orders being cancelled.
     
    Shadow Master likes this.
  2. fastmongrel Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2008
    Location:
    Lancashire UK
    I dont think pistols have ever been relevant on a battlefield. They have throughout history been more about badges of rank or something to grab if your Cavalry Sabre or Lance broke.

    The British Army issued me a Hi Power I did the qual course cleaned it, put it away and forgot about it.
     
    Shadow Master likes this.
  3. wiking Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2006
    It was a lot more than just the Korean War. You have to remember that WW2 experience and infantry panels determined the Garand and 7.62mm full powered round were ideal for infantry combat. Korea was looked at as an outlier and it took a heap of testing to finally convince some people that the SCHV round was the way to go. It also didn't hurt that the M16 was thought to be ready to replace the clearly crappy M14 in Vietnam. Even then McNamara had to force it on the US Army because of the entrenched view that the higher powered round was necessary for wounding power, range, and penetration.

    Sort of. By the time the MP was even a factor the war had been over for years.
     
  4. HistoryGunsFreedom1776 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2019
    Location:
    United States of America
    Really? I’ve read something regarding Moros. Don’t get me wrong, the 9mm is an excellent round and one of the most popular cartridges of all time yet due to The Hague Conventions regarding expanding rounds, I would go with a 45.
     
  5. SsgtC Ready to Call it a Day

    Joined:
    May 14, 2017
    Partly. That and literally all our allies used 9mm. At some point, even the US military has to bow to the inevitable and admit that using a common round is just easier for everyone involved.
     
    jsb and Blue cat like this.
  6. wiking Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2006
    The Moro Rebellion was going on before the 9mm Parabellum was even introduced. The US drew different conclusions from their experience there than the Euros and in WW2 apparently the medical examiners who studied wound results determined the 9mm parabellum did more damage due to speed than the slower, heavier .45.

    I'm sure that didn't hurt.
     
    Onslow123 likes this.
  7. SsgtC Ready to Call it a Day

    Joined:
    May 14, 2017
    Probably because the 9mm had better penetration than 45ACP. So a deeper wound channel probably. Otherwise the .45 should cause more damage. It makes a bigger hole. And seeing as pistol rounds only use the permanent wound cavity to cause damage to the human body, the .45 would "win" that. But if you're having to punch through web gear, heavy clothing, an arm, etc, then 9mm would have the better performance.
     
  8. HistoryGunsFreedom1776 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2019
    Location:
    United States of America
    Well, I knew that 9mm came out after the .45 ACP, but the two rounds have different philosophies in mind.

    And that may be the case regarding the report. Stopping power vs penetration.
     
  9. SsgtC Ready to Call it a Day

    Joined:
    May 14, 2017
    Stopping power doesn't exist in a pistol round. It's honestly a myth. You know how you stop a dude with a pistol round? Put the bullet through his heart or break a major bone like the thigh. Otherwise you're not stopping then until they bleed out
     
    TDM likes this.
  10. Blue cat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2010
    If the U.S. offered the Canadians enough brand new small arms at no charge to equip their entire NATO contingent (along with likely re enforcements from Canada and weapons for training use in Canada etc..) I suspect the Canadians might have considered the offer. I seem to recall reading an account of some deliberations in the 1950's about the Canadians needing to decide between issuing US or UK pattern equipment to their European based forces so perhaps accepting an offer of free brand new U.S. pattern small arms might have been seriously considered, although I suspect the Canadians would have also wanted machine guns chambered in 7.62 x 51 as well to go along with the rifles.

    Edit to add:
    I suspect a number of other nations would likely want Machine guns to go along with the free M14's. I suspect Large quantities of ammunition would also have made the offers more palatable.
     
  11. wiking Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2006
    Doesn't Fackler's model say that you need a minimum of 12 inches penetration to guarantee serious damage?
     
  12. HistoryGunsFreedom1776 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2019
    Location:
    United States of America
    Hmm... The neighbor up north is logistically closer to the States than Europe so I’m sure if they’re persuaded (such as what you stated:handing out new out of the box arms at no charge), they’ll be onboard with the proposal.
     
  13. SsgtC Ready to Call it a Day

    Joined:
    May 14, 2017
    I believe so. I know the FBI standard is 12-18" of penetration in calibrated ballistic gel. Most ammo from reputable manufacturers will be somewhere between 14 and 16 inches. Generally on the lower side for 45ACP and on the higher end for 9mm.
     
  14. Blue cat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2010
    Also historically the Canadians issued a heavy barrelled full auto FAL for use at section level so they might be inclined to use a full auto M14 in a similar role. I seem to recall they also converted browning M1919's to 7.62 x 51 so the 7.62 x 51 "machine gun" issue might be easier for the Canadians to solve than it might be for some other nations.

    Edit to add:
    I suspect the Canadians might still want their own national made in Canada small arms solution for non NATO forces.
     
    Last edited: Mar 15, 2019 at 6:02 PM
  15. HistoryGunsFreedom1776 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2019
    Location:
    United States of America
    Well there is the M14E2/M14A1 variant.

    [​IMG]

    And per “Small Arms of the World”, 1985 edition during the 59s/60s/70s the Canucks did have the converted M1919s as their MGs.
     
  16. HistoryGunsFreedom1776 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2019
    Location:
    United States of America
    A Canuck domestically designed Machine Gun would be interesting, although I’m unsure what they would come up with that would rival the FN MAG.

    Anyway, back on topic, it seems as if the main issues are the manufacturing process, again most likely due to the post-war economy in the States and the market.
     
  17. marathag Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2013
    Was a valid weapon from the Dutch and German Reiters from the 16th Century to the 19thC Dragoons, having multiple pistols, easier to fire(and reload) when in the saddle.

    But as soon as repeating carbines were available, little need for them
     
  18. marathag Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2013
    Fighting Moros was a real thing, where lower powered .38 revolvers were far less effective than the old SAA with the 45 Colt.

    From the wiki
    A typical instance occurred in 1905 and was later recounted by Col. Louis A. LaGarde:

    Antonio Caspi, a prisoner on the island of Samar, P.I. attempted escape on Oct. 26, 1905. He was shot four times at close range in a hand-to-hand encounter by a .38 Colt's revolver loaded with U.S. Army regulation ammunition. He was finally stunned by a blow on the forehead from the butt end of a Springfield carbine.[7]


    Col. LaGarde noted Caspi's wounds were fairly well-placed: three bullets entered the chest, perforating the lungs. One passed through the body, one lodged near the back and the other lodged in subcutaneous tissue. The fourth round went through the right hand and exited through the forearm.[8]


    125 gr. lead round nose, 770 ft/s 165 ft-lbs. Not very impressive, Terrible, even, compared to the 9mm short. So that soured the US Army on '.38' small bores for almost the next 90 years

    2nd, the real problem with 9mm Para or Largo or all the rest was with the limitations on lead bullets after 1907, and early autoloaders with FMJ ball for reliable loading

    Punch a hole, and then wait for blood loss, unless you get lucky. 45s made slightly larger holes, and would transfer a bit more of the bullets KE to the flesh, but similar problem
    Bullets couldn't expand, so little energy would be passed on into the flesh
     
    SsgtC likes this.
  19. L4a1 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2017
    Location:
    New Zealand
    I'm going to have to disagree with you on that one. Well built 9mm SMG's such as the MP5 (closed bolt), the Sterling, and the Uzi all have an effective range of 200m but then I wouldn't classify them as burp guns, and they are capable of firing semi as well as auto.
    The H&K UMP has a claimed effective range of 100m in 9mm, and 65m in .45.
     
  20. jsb Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2013
    Can I add to the vote,

    Why would NATO have adopted anything other than the M1A1 (T20E3) considering the cost of new v simple conversions of the massive WWII stockpile?
     
    SsgtC likes this.