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

[fastmongrel]

By WWII, the 9mm was as hot as the original loads, either, excepting those marked for SMG use only, that were even hotter.

The Commonwealth Eley and Kynoch loadings were not in that class, however.

9mm Ball Mk1z was a 7.5g (115gr) bullet with a velocity at 20 yards of 370m/s (1200 fps) in production 1941 to 1944

9mm Ball MkIIz was a 7.5g bullet with a velocity at 20 yards of 400m/s (1300 fps) in production 1943 to 1988

The MkIIz was no slouch and is not far off modern +P rounds.

 

[yulzari]

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.

It is curious that these distances for effective fire match those of a good musket with good ammunition used by a trained professional soldier. 50m for a usual hit, 100 for a frequent hit and 150 for harassing fire. The HEIC muskets were sighted thus.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

It is curious that these distances for effective fire match those of a good musket with good ammunition used by a trained professional soldier. 50m for a usual hit, 100 for a frequent hit and 150 for harassing fire. The HEIC muskets were sighted thus.

It is a function of human limitations in combat; stress, taking cover, ability to see enemy in camo or dull colors, etc. all limit accuracy. Modern technologies can actually compensate through improved optics and laser range finding, which makes it much easier to use the accuracy of weapons to the potential, but back in the days of iron sights only a limited number of men can use their weapons effectively beyond a quite limited range. Which is why explosives are more casualty inflicting usually, because you don't need to be precise and can fire indirectly as well to get over cover. Hence the modern grenade launchers being pretty abundant at the squad level. Apparently the new infantry rifle might be a modern SPIW with every one having a grenade launcher:
https://www.militarytimes.com/news/...cs-will-make-soldiers-marines-a-lot-deadlier/

In recent years, the Marine Corps has been experimenting with a variety of changes to its squads. One of those was switching to the M27 Infantry Automatic Rifle over the M4.
In one experimental squad, the Corps also armed all members with a grenade launcher, giving each of them the firepower of both a grenadier and light machine gunner.

 

[wtw]

Honestly the FAL and later the G3 were far, far and away better than the M14, and everyone outside US ordance dept knew this. I can see a deal being worked out we take the rifle they the pistol, because honestly pistols are symbols of rank and not really used that much in combat.

 

[fastmongrel]

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.

NATO might be more likely to adopt a 9mm Parabellum Spanish 1911 clone like the Star model B or Llama model VII.

 

[Kevin Renner]

Just my opinion but if the US wanted a select fire battle rifle just re-engineer the FG-42. The Forgotten Weapons video where Ian is shooting one from both prone and standing positions where impressive. From the prone the spent shell casings where winding up in a circle to the front and right. All of them. When ejected the case would hit the cargin handle and bounce forward. Plus part of the reason the case's wound up where they did was it's controllability. And this is with the 7.92 x 57 cartridge.



https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...BMBV6BAgJEEk&usg=AOvVaw3BIvPdjJM2E32JD-sLQ-xj

 

[Deleted member 1487]

Just my opinion but if the US wanted a select fire battle rifle just re-engineer the FG-42. The Forgotten Weapons video where Ian is shooting one from both prone and standing positions where impressive. From the prone the spent shell casings where winding up in a circle to the front and right. All of them. When ejected the case would hit the cargin handle and bounce forward. Plus part of the reason the case's wound up where they did was it's controllability. And this is with the 7.92 x 57 cartridge.

The FG-42 was more than a battle rifle. Since it also switched to an open bolt in full auto it was a combo auto-rifle/battle rifle. Consequently it was quite a bit more expensive than a battle rifle and not exactly all that viable as a battle rifle due to the huge muzzle fireball and noise it generated with the massive muzzle brake. Plus it was quite heavy, about 5kg, which is about 11lbs (not sure if that was with or without magazine and bipod). A FG-42 recalibered to say 6.5mm in a necked down 7.62x51 NATO case would probably be viable, but then that would probably also make the M14, properly built, viable as well.

 

[jsb]

Just my opinion but if the US wanted a select fire battle rifle just re-engineer the FG-42.

If they are willing to go for NIH then they can accept a Kurz round even if its not 8mm but actually a newly developed one in a developed StG 45(H)?

Also I think Ian said in one of his videos that the Fg42 (sorry cant remember what one, I think his long QAs) is too fragile for real full issue to none elite units and that's with it current weight.....

 

[Deleted member 1487]

If they are willing to go for NIH then they can accept a Kurz round even if its not 8mm but actually a newly developed one in a developed StG 45(H)?

At that point they're just as well off adopting the .270 British. Especially as the US military did just adopt the 6.8mm caliber for their next generation rifle as of the end of last year. Granted they are adopted a more powerful version of the round than the 6.8mm SPC, but the 6.8mm SPC was essentially the British .270 developed just after WW2, perhaps somewhat more powerful though.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.270_British
Definitely the superior round to the 7.92 Kurz. In fact even the Germans acknowledged the 7.92 caliber for what became the assault rifle was an inferior caliber, but since they were invested so heavily in the production equipment for 7.92 they had to find a way to make it work within the requirements of the weapon.

 

[Kevin Renner]

If they are willing to go for NIH then they can accept a Kurz round even if its not 8mm but actually a newly developed one in a developed StG 45(H)?

Also I think Ian said in one of his videos that the Fg42 (sorry cant remember what one, I think his long QAs) is too fragile for real full issue to none elite units and that's with it current weight.....

I wasn't implying that if they did adopt a FG-42ish service rifle it should be in 7.92 x 54. Plus doubt the US could of gotten it to work given the experience with the MG-34/42 . I know the UK looked at a FG-42 based design post war

 

[Deleted member 1487]

I wasn't implying that if they did adopt a FG-42ish service rifle it should be in 7.92 x 54. Plus doubt the US could of gotten it to work given the experience with the MG-34/42 . I know the UK looked at a FG-42 based design post war

Supposedly the one problem with the 'americanized' MG42 was they forgot to change the size of the ejection port, but everything else worked. The UK post-war had a Polish designer come up with a bullpup version of the FG-42, the EM-1. Of course they did get the FG-42, mixed with elements of the MG42, turned into the M60.

Why not go with the FAL in .270 or .280 British? Or EM-2 with development work done on it?

 

[Questerr]

All fair points as well. Yes, the M14 wasn’t produced in the quotas asked, one of the reasons being that it was claimed that machinery for the Garands could be reused, which turned out not to be the case.

However, the main firearm contractors (Winchester and Harrington & Richardson) were also focusing on the civilian market when the contracts came.

As for giving away M1911s and the surplus rounds? Again, it’s probable.

Which is really the only reason the US adopted it in the first place. It was claimed that it could be produced more cheaply than the FAL because the Garand tooling would be reused.

You eliminate that rather blatant lie from the equation and not even the US adopts the M-14. FAL’s really do become the universal NATO weapon.

 

[Gunnarnz]

FAL’s really do become the universal NATO weapon.

And there was much rejoicing.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

And there was much rejoicing.

.270 British FALs would indeed be a serious cause for rejoicing.

 

[SsgtC]

.270 British FALs would indeed be a serious cause for rejoicing.

Unless you're on the business end of the rifle...

 

[SsgtC]

Let's all just be grateful that this bastard was never issued:

"What is it," you ask? Just an M1 Garand chambered in .458 WinMag. You know, for you when you need to kill a dinosaur. That's hiding behind the fridge. At your neighbor's house.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

Let's all just be grateful that this bastard was never issued:

"What is it," you ask? Just an M1 Garand chambered in .458 WinMag. You know, for you when you need to kill a dinosaur. That's hiding behind the fridge. At your neighbor's house.

What is the recoil on that monstrosity?

 

[SsgtC]

What is the recoil on that monstrosity?

That depends. How much do you like having two functioning shoulders/arms?

 

[marathag]

What is the recoil on that monstrosity?

Wimps.

Only a mere 41ft-lbs to 62 ft-lbs , depending on load of 400.or 500 grain bullets in a 9 pound rifle, so around the same as a 416 Rigby Elephant Gun.

 

[Zen9]

What amazes me from the period is the EM-1 Thornbury rifle. Roller locked and about one of the most complex mechanisms I've seen.

However had the UK built a roller delayed bullpup of simpler mechanics like the later CETME and G3.....things might have been different.