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

[Kevin Renner]

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.

When your neighbor lives there miles away

 

[Deleted member 1487]

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.

Not even that, just something as simple as the Gerät 03, roller locked with a short stroke gas piston; the Germans had already perfected the mechanism in their G44, which they didn't adopt due to the focus on the Sturmgewehr. Instead the British opted to reinvent the wheel with a Rube Goldberg mechanism.

 

[HistoryGunsFreedom1776]

Just in case anyone would like to read earlier threads regarding a related topic.

https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/wi-u-s-military-retains-m-14-rifle.223337/

https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/no-vietnam-m14-as-standard-rifle.143144/

And yeash, .458 does pack a hell of a elephant kick (pun intended) but it’s such a shame that the modified M1s were discontinued.

 

[stephen the barbarian]

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.

that's kind of what the french did with the mas 50,
you can also think of it as the bastard love child of the high power and the 1911


anyway's i feel the need to bring this up, both france and britain (and thus the entire commonwealth) had adopted 9mm, there's no way they'll pitch it for .45

 

[Deleted member 1487]

I wonder if the direct impingement system the MAS-49 used might have helped with the recoil and accuracy due to the lower reciprocating mass due to no gas piston. It would certainly make it simpler to make and maintain.

Also considering that the SALVO project I wonder if with the M-14 the Duplex and Triplex bullet project would be formally adopted; IOTL something like 2 million were made and used for combat trials:

 

[Somedevil]

What about instead of the M14 the us offers up the AR-10 as lets say M15?

 

[Deleted member 1487]

What about instead of the M14 the us offers up the AR-10 as lets say M15?

The problem was as the M14 was supposed to be a fully matured system the AR-10 was only a prototype, one that had a catastrophic barrel failure during testing when they tried to use an aluminum barrel. The AR-10 needed time to teeth and develop, which would be several more years; at the the point the M14 was ready everyone had already been waiting years for the M14.

 

[Blue cat]

Hey guys, first of all I would like to say hello and it's a pleasure being on this site. History has always been a passion of mine and over the millennia there's has been events that could have possibly changed if a certain action was partaken, hence the unique field of alternate history. Oh, and also, since this is my first scenario, I would ask for your forgiveness if the question is ill thought out here. I will be perfectly willing to go more in depth with this topic but anyway, here it is:

The all American sweetheart, the M14, a weapon arguably obsolete before it even came off the drawing board, the shortest standard issue rifle ever issued to U.S troops yet revived as a Designated Marksman Rifle for usage in the Global War on Terror.

However, due to a compromise, the American military promised to accept the FN MAG Machine Gun from Fabrique Nationale if the Belguim arms manufacturer would cease to campaign for the FN FAL, and the U.S Ordnance Department sweetens the deal with a contract for producing the proposed rifle as well.

I think it could have been possible for the M14 to be adopted since Italy and West Germany, not to mention France and Greece, were given M1 Garands, thus a switch to a familiar platform just like one of the American reasoning for adopting the M14 in the actual timeline.

In fact, Italy decided to convert their M1s to the BM-59 and West Germany developed the G3 as a result of unable to gain a license to produce FALs domestically.

And to spice the scenario up a notch, Uncle Sam is also suggesting that the M1911A1 in .45 Caliber as the standard handgun in order to stop the charging Red horde in their tracks Again, possible due to the Browning Hipower being in service with some nations and the similarities in design, but I wouldn't be surprised if the European nations would do a case of "Since we adopted the 7.62 instead of .280, are you willing to accept the 9mm?"

Any thoughts so far?

I've been pondering the 1911A1 question a bit...

I'm thinking the likelihood of other nations adopting the 1911A1 in .45 ACP as a service pistol is rather low. To this day many nations seem happy with 9mm as a military handgun round. Post ww2 the browning hi power was probably a more modern single action design with a double stack magazine and the double action concept as shown in the P38 may also have been appealing to some nations.

All that being said I do enjoy shooting 1911's as a civilian but I don't see a lot of non US post ww2 military users going down that road unless they more or less get the pistols and ammo for nothing.

 

[Somedevil]

The problem was as the M14 was supposed to be a fully matured system the AR-10 was only a prototype, one that had a catastrophic barrel failure during testing when they tried to use an aluminum barrel. The AR-10 needed time to teeth and develop, which would be several more years; at the the point the M14 was ready everyone had already been waiting years for the M14.

right they use a steel barrel and some adjustments. I don't see the other Nato nations accepting the M14 but something a bit more modern would be more appealing to other nations. Be like okay you don't want this well we have something in the works that is a more future design

 

[Crowbar Six]

Out of the ones you listed? The 1911, hands down. With .45 and 9mm, the thing to remember is, the military is using ball ammo, not hollow points. Personally, because of that, I prefer the .45.

However, I'm an above average shot with a handgun, so the reduced ammo load isn't much of an issue for me. Besides, if you're down to just sidearms, something has gone seriously wrong and having a handful more rounds probably isn't going to matter.

But. If I'm buying a handgun for regular issue, I'm buying 9mm. Why? Not everyone is a good shot. So I want to give them the most ammo I can. Plus, Infantry is already pretty heavily loaded down. So if I can shave off some weight for them, and still give them a decent last resort weapon in their sidearm, that's what I'm gonna do.

Edit to add: I forgot to mention cost. 9mm is cheaper. Both the gun itself and the ammo. So if cost is an issue at all, the only practical option is 9mm

Also a lot of European countries had already developed and deployed 9mm SMG's so either rebuying them in .45 or agreeing to the increased logistical overhead of having 3 personal weapon ammo calibres is a bit of a pain.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

right they use a steel barrel and some adjustments. I don't see the other Nato nations accepting the M14 but something a bit more modern would be more appealing to other nations. Be like okay you don't want this well we have something in the works that is a more future design

Agreed, but the issue is that the AR-10 wouldn't be ready until the 1960s and as it was still had manufacturing issues. IMHO the US Army should have waited for something better than the M14, but they'd been developing it since WW2 and it seems they were fed up waiting for something more modern than the M1 Garand as of 1957.

 

[Crowbar Six]

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.

The Italian BM59 was much better than the M14 and that was more of a direct descendent of the M1 Garand than the M14.

 

[jsb]

IMHO the US Army should have waited for something better than the M14, but they'd been developing it since WW2 and it seems they were fed up waiting for something more modern than the M1 Garand as of 1957.

IMO the US army should have simply order a batch for trails of the future M1A1 in 1946 and then once Korea started ask why its not ready by 1950 and contract out development to somebody competent.... Result would be a BM59 in service in early 50s and probably accepted by many Nato members if its cheap due to converting nearly 5 million old guns.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

IMO the US army should have simply order a batch for trails of the future M1A1 in 1946 and then once Korea started ask why its not ready by 1950 and contract out development to somebody competent.... Result would be a BM59 in service in early 50s and probably accepted by many Nato members if its cheap due to converting nearly 5 million old guns.

That's ignoring the fact that in 1946 the US army was starting to develop the 7.62 NATO, then spent a few years convincing NATO to accept it. Until it was adopted they couldn't really develop the next generation rifle based around the new cartridge and it made no sense to try and later adapt a rifle to the new cartridge when they could have one built around it.

 

[Blue cat]

It also occurs to me that the UK (and I believe Canada) had experience in ww2 with both .45 and 9mm hand gun / SMG ammo and decided to retain 9mm post ww2.

The Canadians aparently still issue ww2 manufactured browning high powers in 9mm although reportedly the supply of serviceable ones is starting to dry up.

 

[Orcbuster]

There is too much cheap surplus for NATO to adopt anything newly produced as standard right after the war. The M14 is a substandard rifle to what is being offered elsewhere and everyone knows this. .45 is also a substandard round compared to 9mm which everyone else is using (yes even in ball cartridge) which is standard everywhere and everyone knows this too. Adopting a standard rifle thus seems unfeasible.

 

[jsb]

That's ignoring the fact that in 1946 the US army was starting to develop the 7.62 NATO, then spent a few years convincing NATO to accept it. Until it was adopted they couldn't really develop the next generation rifle based around the new cartridge and it made no sense to try and later adapt a rifle to the new cartridge when they could have one built around it.

No its not its simply suggesting that 7.62 NATO is rather similar to 30-06 and simply building a working M1A1 in 30-06 would solve the problem early, if they really want to go to 7.62 NATO to save a few grams per round (26.1 grams v 25.4 grams) later that's relatively easy and could shorten the receivers of new made guns.

There is no reason apart from complacency and lack of priority/money that US could not have a working 20rd mag fed M1 (full auto is a questionable optional extra IMO) that was compatible with conversions of old rifles and using the same tooling, in low level use/large trials by 1950 when Korea would then make it into the default wepon as its ready.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

No its not its simply suggesting that 7.62 NATO is rather similar to 30-06 and simply building a working M1A1 in 30-06 would solve the problem early, if they really want to go to 7.62 NATO to save a few grams per round (26.1 grams v 25.4 grams) later that's relatively easy and could shorten the receivers of new made guns.

There is no reason apart from complacency and lack of priority/money that US could not have a working 20rd mag fed M1 (full auto is a questionable optional extra IMO) that was compatible with conversions of old rifles and using the same tooling, in low level use/large trials by 1950 when Korea would then make it into the default wepon as its ready.

They were. Its just that they wanted a new cartridge and the M14 was developed around it, so adapted their work on Garand derivatives to the new cartridge when it was ready:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Garand#T20E2
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M14_rifle#Early_development

 

[marathag]

There is no reason apart from complacency and lack of priority/money that US could not have a working 20rd mag fed M1 (full auto is a questionable optional extra IMO) that was compatible with conversions of old rifles and using the same tooling, in low level use/large trials by 1950 when Korea would then make it into the default wepon as its ready.

All they had to do, was to look in the Springfield Armory Pattern Room for Garand's early rifles, that used a BAR magazine, M1919,and the later T20 Garand derivative that also used one.

 

[jsb]

All they had to do, was to look in the Springfield Armory Pattern Room for Garand's early rifles, that used a BAR magazine, M1919,and the later T20 Garand derivative that also used one.

Isn't the BAR mag the main problem in that its attractive as its available but not actually very good and swapping it out (potentially for something backwards compatible to use in the BAR going forward) was the only way to get any of the later M1 Mag fed prototypes to work well?