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

[marathag]

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.

I've been able to shoot a Thompson accurately enough to hit man sized targets at 200 yards,but really, still are just hosing lead.

None of those you listed were around during they heyday of the SMG, and the ones that were well made enough for accuracy, like the Thompson, Bergmann, Lanchester or Soumi, were just too expensive for what they did

 

[Cryhavoc101]

Gods own bangstick

M14s for Arlington - FALs for everything else

9mm pistols generally give you more goes at the shooting thing than the 11.43mm

 

[L4a1]

I've been able to shoot a Thompson accurately enough to hit man sized targets at 200 yards,but really, still are just hosing lead.

None of those you listed were around during they heyday of the SMG, and the ones that were well made enough for accuracy, like the Thompson, Bergman, Lanchester or Soumi, were just too expensive for what they did

Not sure what you mean by the heyday of the SMG but since we are talking about NATO standardizing I presume we are talking about the 1950's, where as you seem to be talking about some time earlier. The Sterling was in service in 1944, Uzi was 1954.
The 180m (200 yards) that you were shooting the Thompson at is really outside it's effective range which is about 150m, this is because of the ballistics of it's .45 cartridge this is better than the M3 Grease Gun which is effective out to 100m. But the Sterling, and UZI are effective out to 200m.
You started out saying that shooting SMG's beyond 100m was a waste, then you changed you mind and said that the ones that were accurate were too expensive for what they did. But you seem to be talking about WW2 which was before NATO was formed. So I'm unsure as to what point you are arguing unless it is .45 good, 9mm bad.

 

[SsgtC]

Not sure what you mean by the heyday of the SMG but since we are talking about NATO standardizing I presume we are talking about the 1950's, where as you seem to be talking about some time earlier. The Sterling was in service in 1944, Uzi was 1954.
The 180m (200 yards) that you were shooting the Thompson at is really outside it's effective range which is about 150m, this is because of the ballistics of it's .45 cartridge this is better than the M3 Grease Gun which is effective out to 100m. But the Sterling, and UZI are effective out to 200m.
You started out saying that shooting SMG's beyond 100m was a waste, then you changed you mind and said that the ones that were accurate were too expensive for what they did. But you seem to be talking about WW2 which was before NATO was formed. So I'm unsure as to what point you are arguing unless it is .45 good, 9mm bad.

No, what he's saying is that it's "possible" to hit targets at 200m with a Thompson. If you're an expert marksman. Most shooters aren't. Same with the Uzi. Yes, technically it's maximum effective range is 200m. On a shooting range. In combat, on automatic, the IDF reported that the Uzi has an actual effective range of about 50m. Adrenaline, recoil and muzzle walk account for the reduced range. Which kinda proves his point. Beyond 100m, it's really pointless to use a SMG. Hell, I rarely fired my rifle beyond 200m in combat.

 

[Not James Stockdale]

Both of these guns are complete garbage. The 1911 is only good compared to the revolvers it replaced. Fo-fi is a meme round and should never have persisted after the introduction of smokeless powder. Compared to its foreign rivals, the M14 was a worse service rifle than the Krag. We should have adopted the BM-59 instead of giving Italians M14s. FALs are great but the AR is the best automatic rifle in human history.

 

[SsgtC]

Both of these guns are complete garbage. The 1911 is only good compared to the revolvers it replaced. Fo-fi is a meme round and should never have persisted after the introduction of smokeless powder. Compared to its foreign rivals, the M14 was a worse service rifle than the Krag. We should have adopted the BM-59 instead of giving Italians M14s. FALs are great but the AR is the best automatic rifle in human history.

Disagree strongly on the 1911. I've owned several and and can count the number of malfunctions I've had with each one on both hands. Less than 10 malfunctions in over 1,000 rounds through each gun. And most of those came right after I purchased the gun and was conducting a performance check on it (basically trying to make it fail). And even then, the gun didn't fail to fire. It failed to extract the spent casing (with no magazine in the gun btw). So no, the 1911 is most definitely not garbage. Would I buy it for a military force today? No. But only because there are better options for the military.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

No, what he's saying is that it's "possible" to hit targets at 200m with a Thompson. If you're an expert marksman. Most shooters aren't. Same with the Uzi. Yes, technically it's maximum effective range is 200m. On a shooting range. In combat, on automatic, the IDF reported that the Uzi has an actual effective range of about 50m. Adrenaline, recoil and muzzle walk account for the reduced range. Which kinda proves his point. Beyond 100m, it's really pointless to use a SMG. Hell, I rarely fired my rifle beyond 200m in combat.

IIRC the research done into effective combat range generally shows that automatic fire from an infantry hand weapon (i.e. not a crew served MG or even an LMG on bipod) is only effective out to 50m max and even on single shot rifles or carbines without scopes are not generally effective beyond 100-150m due to aiming error which is due to stress response and difficulty seeing the enemy in combat conditions. That's not to say it cannot be done of course, but for the average infantryman that tends to be the case.
Though we should note the Uzi isn't really well laid out to be particularly accurate at any significant distance. Other SMGs of the era were much better designed out for longer range accuracy even with automatic fire, like the MP40 and Danuvia 39M.

 

[SsgtC]

IIRC the research done into effective combat range generally shows that automatic fire from an infantry hand weapon (i.e. not a crew served MG or even an LMG on bipod) is only effective out to 50m max and even on single shot rifles or carbines without scopes are not generally effective beyond 100-150m due to aiming error which is due to stress response and difficulty seeing the enemy in combat conditions. That's not to say it cannot be done of course, but for the average infantryman that tends to be the case.
Though we should note the Uzi isn't really well laid out to be particularly accurate at any significant distance. Other SMGs of the era were much better designed out for longer range accuracy even with automatic fire, like the MP40 and Danuvia 39M.

Oh I agree! That's why I hardly ever fired my rifle at a target beyond 200m. And that was with an ACOG.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

Oh I agree! That's why I hardly ever fired my rifle at a target beyond 200m. And that was with an ACOG.

Really? Mind if I ask where you were deployed?

 

[marathag]

Disagree strongly on the 1911. I've owned several and and can count the number of malfunctions I've had with each one on both hands. Less than 10 malfunctions in over 1,000 rounds through each gun. And most of those came right after I purchased the gun and was conducting a performance check on it (basically trying to make it fail). And even then, the gun didn't fail to fire. It failed to extract the spent casing (with no magazine in the gun btw). So no, the 1911 is most definitely not garbage. Would I buy it for a military force today? No. But only because there are better options for the military.

By the '80s, the Army 45s that were WWII issue were pretty worn out, and the slides were loose enough on the frame, they would rattle like a maraca. So accuracy was nowhere close to the Gold Cup I owned, but they functioned well, and would hit man sized targets at the ranges expected.

But as was seen in WWII, M1 Carbines or Grease Guns were issued to those who would have had just pistols before, but would actually be likely to use that weapon in combat.

IMO, the Army would have been better served issuing an M1 style Carbine in a more powerful 45, like the earlier 45 Thompson or postwar 45 Magnum( nearly identical) in a folding stock, select fire weapon with a shorter barrel, as a PDW

 

[SsgtC]

Really? Mind if I ask where you were deployed?

Iraq. Three tours. Marine Recon.

By the '80s, the Army 45s that were WWII issue were pretty worn out, and the slides were loose enough on the frame, they would rattle like a maraca. So accuracy was nowhere close to the Gold Cup I owned, but they functioned well, and would hit man sized targets at the ranges expected.

But as was seen in WWII, M1 Carbines or Grease Guns were issued to those who would have had just pistols before, but would actually be likely to use that weapon in combat.

IMO, the Army would have been better served issuing an M1 style Carbine in a more powerful 45, like the earlier 45 Thompson or postwar 45 Magnum( nearly identical) in a folding stock, select fire weapon with a shorter barrel, as a PDW

I've said it before, but if you're down to using your sidearm, something has gone seriously wrong in your fight.

 

[fastmongrel]

I've said it before, but if you're down to using your sidearm, something has gone seriously wrong in your fight.

For me as Tank crew if my Chieftain or Centurion had been disabled by shell, rocket or mine and if I had been able to get out I would have been in no particular order, concussed, coughing due to smoke inhalation, half blind due to smoke and quite possibly bleeding. If I had been wearing the issued Browning (the last thing as a loader/driver/gunner you want round your waist is a gun in a holster) I would have unbuckled it and got rid of it as soon as possible. What am I going to do with it its not Hollywood you cant fight the Warsaw Pact with a pistol.

 

[marathag]

I've said it before, but if you're down to using your sidearm, something has gone seriously wrong in your fight.

If you are down to the pistol as being the last tool at your disposal, you have been going down the road of bad choices for a bit too long

 

[SsgtC]

If you are down to the pistol as being the last tool at your disposal, you have been going down the road of bad choices for a bit too long

That, or the Good Idea Fairy has visited your CO one too many times

 

[Mike D]

For me as Tank crew if my Chieftain or Centurion had been disabled by shell, rocket or mine and if I had been able to get out I would have been in no particular order, concussed, coughing due to smoke inhalation, half blind due to smoke and quite possibly bleeding. If I had been wearing the issued Browning (the last thing as a loader/driver/gunner you want round your waist is a gun in a holster) I would have unbuckled it and got rid of it as soon as possible. What am I going to do with it its not Hollywood you cant fight the Warsaw Pact with a pistol.

I remember being 19 and driving around Belfast in civvies with a Browning 9mm that was older than me under my leg, wondering what the fuck anyone thought I was going to do with a rattly pistol that was almost as old as my dad and ten rounds of ammo if some Paddy opened up on me with an AK and whether firing it on the ranges twice was really the same as being trained to use the thing...

 

[HistoryGunsFreedom1776]

Okay guys, I know that this response is a bit late but I have conducted some additional reading and apparently first of all the U.S Army, despite adopting the rifle, delayed orders for eleven months! And there was a steel strike in 1959 that forced Harrington & Richardson to buy “substitute, lower quality steel”, leading to a batch of brittle relievers.

Sources: http://www.nramuseum.org/media/940585/m14.pdf

https://prism.ucalgary.ca/bitstream...ary_2016_zhou_yile.pdf?sequence=5&isAllowed=y

Let’s assume that the orders weren’t delayed and instead were placed immediately, and also negotiations by the government were conducted with the strikers, leading to a quick (week or two depending on the demands and willingness to compromise) resolution.

And second, the main reason why the Brits were gung ho on the L1A1 was the thought of taking advantage of the American and Canadian industries to manufacture rifles. The other, of course, was the thought that Uncle Sam would whole heartily adopt the FN designed rifle after the EM-2 project was sabotaged, to say lightly.

So if the manufacturering issues were resolved early on (not to mention having contracts with FN and CETME and a possible early adoption of the M240 by the Yanks), do you think it’s possible that we could see NATO as a whole issued with the weapon?

It ain’t looking good rifle wise for Uncle Sam here judging by the poll so far

Yet it also seems as if the majority is in agreement with a unlikely yet possible adoption of the M1911.


Let see if we can somehow resurrect the concept by getting back on topic, shall we?

 

[fastmongrel]

I remember being 19 and driving around Belfast in civvies with a Browning 9mm that was older than me under my leg, wondering what the fuck anyone thought I was going to do with a rattly pistol that was almost as old as my dad and ten rounds of ammo if some Paddy opened up on me with an AK and whether firing it on the ranges twice was really the same as being trained to use the thing...

You got to fire it twice on a range you were probably the best trained man in the entire British Army. The armoury probably had to open a new carton of ammo dated 1941.

 

[StevoJH]

Okay guys, I know that this response is a bit late but I have conducted some additional reading and apparently first of all the U.S Army, despite adopting the rifle, delayed orders for eleven months! And there was a steel strike in 1959 that forced Harrington & Richardson to buy “substitute, lower quality steel”, leading to a batch of brittle relievers.

Sources: http://www.nramuseum.org/media/940585/m14.pdf

https://prism.ucalgary.ca/bitstream...ary_2016_zhou_yile.pdf?sequence=5&isAllowed=y

Let’s assume that the orders weren’t delayed and instead were placed immediately, and also negotiations by the government were conducted with the strikers, leading to a quick (week or two depending on the demands and willingness to compromise) resolution.

And second, the main reason why the Brits were gung ho on the L1A1 was the thought of taking advantage of the American and Canadian industries to manufacture rifles. The other, of course, was the thought that Uncle Sam would whole heartily adopt the FN designed rifle after the EM-2 project was sabotaged, to say lightly.

So if the manufacturering issues were resolved early on (not to mention having contracts with FN and CETME and a possible early adoption of the M240 by the Yanks), do you think it’s possible that we could see NATO as a whole issued with the weapon?

It ain’t looking good rifle wise for Uncle Sam here judging by the poll so far

Yet it also seems as if the majority is in agreement with a unlikely yet possible adoption of the M1911.


Let see if we can somehow resurrect the concept by getting back on topic, shall we?

1) The UK is not going to outsource production of Rifles in this time period, they had whole government owned factories to produce guns (as did/does Australia). I honestly can't see any benefits to the M14 over the SLR (L1A1), and the most important downside is that it didn't enter service until 1959. The L1A1 had been in production for about 5 years by that point.

2) Even ignoring the very niche role for the pistol in military service, what advantages did the M1911 have over the Browning? The Browning used the same cartridge as the in service Submachine Guns (9mm) and held 13 rounds compared to the 7 rounds of the 1911.

I know you are just want to be patriotic, but I just don't see it.

 

[SsgtC]

2) Even ignoring the very niche role for the pistol in military service, what advantages did the M1911 have over the Browning? The Browning used the same cartridge as the in service Submachine Guns (9mm) and held 13 rounds compared to the 7 rounds of the 1911.

You can rechamber the 1911 to 9mm. A lot of competitive shooters use 9mm 1911s. That might be one way to get NATO to adopt the 1911. Plus, it does bump up your ammo capacity to 9 or 10 rounds.

 

[longsword14]

You can rechamber the 1911 to 9mm. A lot of competitive shooters use 9mm 1911s. That might be one way to get NATO to adopt the 1911. Plus, it does bump up your ammo capacity to 9 or 10 rounds.

Americans should be less touchy about the 1911. Hi-Power was after all Browning's, and Saive's, creation.