WI: US has not adopted a semi-auto rifle by its entry to WWII

[Thoresby]

By inches and degrees. And you also have to define what the criteria are for 'good' or 'best' to actually compare all the factors to draw an overall conclusion.

Overall battle effectiveness in the hands of the average soldier. As others have said the Springfield is a Mauser, the distinguishing characteristics between it and a Kar98 are sights and the round and while the round is only a bit hotter every joule of extra energy is a mark against.

Also I didn't say the Springfield was the worst rifle of the war. It wasn't, as I said it had one of the best actions of any rifle, all I'm saying is it is worse than the German original because it had a hotter round and worse sights. It was a good rifle with a bad round.

In 1939 you had the Enfield, great action let down by it's rimmed cartridget. The Kar98k let down by having the second hottest round. The Carcano's aka the reverse Springfield a great round let down by everything else. The Mosin let down by it's sights. The MAS-36 let down by not having enough and the best of the bunch/least worst the Arisaka.

As for the 1917 Enfield it had great sights for the era but it had the wrong round and it's sister the P14 had too small a magazine. I'd have preferred a SMLE.

 

[Cryhavoc101]

Overall battle effectiveness in the hands of the average soldier. As others have said the Springfield is a Mauser, the distinguishing characteristics between it and a Kar98 are sights and the round and while the round is only a bit hotter every joule of extra energy is a mark against.

Also I didn't say the Springfield was the worst rifle of the war. It wasn't, as I said it had one of the best actions of any rifle, all I'm saying is it is worse than the German original because it had a hotter round and worse sights. It was a good rifle with a bad round.

In 1939 you had the Enfield, great action let down by it's rimmed cartridget. The Kar98k let down by having the second hottest round. The Carcano's aka the reverse Springfield a great round let down by everything else. The Mosin let down by it's sights. The MAS-36 let down by not having enough and the best of the bunch/least worst the Arisaka.

As for the 1917 Enfield it had great sights for the era but it had the wrong round and it's sister the P14 had too small a magazine. I'd have preferred a SMLE.

"Oh no I wish the .303 was rimless" Said no commonwealth soldier ever

Seriously when did this .303 Enfield nonsense start because it wasn't a thing when it was in service?

 

[tomo pauk]

It's a longer, higher pressure cartridge than 7.92 Mauser never mind .303 British or the best (and lightest) battle rifle cartridge of the second war the 6.5 Carcano but .30-06 doesn't kill you any deader than any of the other battle rifle rounds. The advantages of a lighter cartridge for follow up shots, training, logistically everything are numerous and conclusive and as the most powerful of major nation cartridge the .30-06 was by definition the worst.

What deity decided that 6.5 Carcano was the best battle rifle cartridge of ww2? Was .30-06 not killing Axis soldiers?

Overall battle effectiveness in the hands of the average soldier. As others have said the Springfield is a Mauser, the distinguishing characteristics between it and a Kar98 are sights and the round and while the round is only a bit hotter every joule of extra energy is a mark against.

Also I didn't say the Springfield was the worst rifle of the war. It wasn't, as I said it had one of the best actions of any rifle, all I'm saying is it is worse than the German original because it had a hotter round and worse sights. It was a good rifle with a bad round.

In 1939 you had the Enfield, great action let down by it's rimmed cartridget. The Kar98k let down by having the second hottest round. The Carcano's aka the reverse Springfield a great round let down by everything else. The Mosin let down by it's sights. The MAS-36 let down by not having enough and the best of the bunch/least worst the Arisaka.

As for the 1917 Enfield it had great sights for the era but it had the wrong round and it's sister the P14 had too small a magazine. I'd have preferred a SMLE.

Since when a rim on a cartridge meant it is a bad cartridge? Kar 98 let down by it's round? 6.5 Carcano was so good that Italians were burning the midnight oil to get the 7.35 in service, despite being bashed around by the British and whatnot?

 

[SealTheRealDeal]

It's a longer, higher pressure cartridge than 7.92 Mauser never mind .303 British or the best (and lightest) battle rifle cartridge of the second war the 6.5 Carcano but .30-06 doesn't kill you any deader than any of the other battle rifle rounds. The advantages of a lighter cartridge for follow up shots, training, logistically everything are numerous and conclusive and as the most powerful of major nation cartridge the .30-06 was by definition the worst.

On what planet was 6.5 Carcano and its needle wounds the best gun on the planet?

"Oh no I wish the .303 was rimless" Said no commonwealth soldier ever

Seriously when did this .303 Enfield nonsense start because it wasn't a thing when it was in service?

The problem rim lock presented tends to be a bit over exaggerated now (mostly due to recreational shooters not knowing the proper technique for loading the rifle they just pulled out of the bargain bin), but it was a real issue and the UK did look into replacing .303 in most of their abortive interwar rifle replacement efforts. However, with proper training, the cost of replacing every rifle and gun outweighed the benefits.

6.5 Carcano was so good that Italians were burning the midnight oil to get the 7.35 in service, despite being bashed around by the British and whatnot?

Opposite actually, 7.35 was an interwar effort which was dumpstered at the outbreak of WWII as not enough new rifles and LMGs had been made to equip the Italian army.

 

[marathag]

This would be a more conservative US military so if WWI firepower is good enough for riflemen then pistols are good enough for machine gunners, drivers, radio operators (if any), signallers ect.

And given the low proficiency of arms of those troops, that's why they got the M1 Carbine, easy to use and be accurate with, without all the practice that handguns require.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

Overall battle effectiveness in the hands of the average soldier. As others have said the Springfield is a Mauser, the distinguishing characteristics between it and a Kar98 are sights and the round and while the round is only a bit hotter every joule of extra energy is a mark against.

Also I didn't say the Springfield was the worst rifle of the war. It wasn't, as I said it had one of the best actions of any rifle, all I'm saying is it is worse than the German original because it had a hotter round and worse sights. It was a good rifle with a bad round.

In 1939 you had the Enfield, great action let down by it's rimmed cartridget. The Kar98k let down by having the second hottest round. The Carcano's aka the reverse Springfield a great round let down by everything else. The Mosin let down by it's sights. The MAS-36 let down by not having enough and the best of the bunch/least worst the Arisaka.

As for the 1917 Enfield it had great sights for the era but it had the wrong round and it's sister the P14 had too small a magazine. I'd have preferred a SMLE.

K98k sights are pretty crappy and it has pretty bone rattling recoil, not to mention it heats up real quick.
Otherwise I do agree that the .30-06 cartridge is generally too hot for a rifle round, but it was ironically ideal for the 7.92 bullet for an HMG setup (the Swedes did adopt the 8mm-06 round for that purpose, as you can get heavier rounds for longer range and anti-material use, while in the original 57mm mauser case it is too weak to really exploit the potential of the caliber), while the 57mm mauser case would have been better for the 7.62 caliber, especially in 150 grain flat based form.

Isn't the MAS-36 the best bolt action battle rifle of WW2? The Enfield in either the Carcano (with a lighter spitzer bullet) or 6.5 Arisaka (again with a spitzer bullet) would be something to see. The Mannlicher-Schonauer might well be a nice balance overall given the caliber, energy, and action.

 

[Johnrankins]

Let's be honest here, the big killer of the war was artillery not small arms and all of them were deadly enough. The differences between all of them were pretty marginal. The rifles of all the armies did their job the vast majority of the time.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

6.5 Carcano was so good that Italians were burning the midnight oil to get the 7.35 in service, despite being bashed around by the British and whatnot?

The Italians were apparently converted to the school of 'bigger bullet, bigger hole' rather than improving the rather crappy bullet design they used for the 6.5mm version. With a more aerodynamic bullet that was lighter and designed to tumble (the Brits for instance tipped their round with aluminum to shift the wait to the rear and get it to tumble more easily) it would be more than fine.

Let's be honest here, the big killer of the war was artillery not small arms and all of them were deadly enough. The differences between all of them were pretty marginal. The rifles of all the armies did their job the vast majority of the time.

There was a lot of room for improvement to get a small arm able to achieve fire superiority and then maneuver or call in say artillery. If small arms really didn't matter then we'd still be using bolt actions rifles instead of highly researched and optimized infantry hand weapons that are still being perfected with every technology available.

 

[James Ricker]

The M-1 made up for the deficiencies of the BAR. No semi-automatic rifle and American infantry formations have a serious reduction in firepower.

 

[Cryhavoc101]

And given the low proficiency of arms of those troops, that's why they got the M1 Carbine, easy to use and be accurate with, without all the practice that handguns require.

One of the best guns of WW2 IMO - apparently the Magazines were gash but guess what the US Army had so many off that GIs could simply replace them every week?

 

[Deleted member 1487]

One of the best guns of WW2 IMO - apparently the Magazines were gash but guess what the US Army had so many off that GIs could simply replace them every week?

I guess that was all magazines produced in WW2, quality control was different back then, plus of course they were built with bulk manufacturing and loss in mind.

 

[Johnrankins]

There was a lot of room for improvement to get a small arm able to achieve fire superiority and then maneuver or call in say artillery. If small arms really didn't matter then we'd still be using bolt actions rifles instead of highly researched and optimized infantry hand weapons that are still being perfected with every technology available.

I didn't say there wasn't room for improvement merely that the effects were marginal. Swap German 1943 fighters with F15s with supplies on hand that were equal to whatever was available in 1943 as in enough fuel to fly the same number of miles as the German fighters did and say one antiaircraft missle for every 40 rounds they had and Germany sweeps the skies of fighters and go on the offensive. Swap every German rifle with an M16 and the war doesn't change much except maybe going for a few weeks or a couple of months longer. at most.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

I didn't say there wasn't room for improvement merely that the effects were marginal. Swap German 1943 fighters with F15s with supplies on hand that were equal to whatever was available in 1943 as in enough fuel to fly the same number of miles as the German fighters did and say one antiaircraft missle for every 40 rounds they had and Germany sweeps the skies of fighters and go on the offensive. Swap every German rifle with an M16 and the war doesn't change much except maybe going for a few weeks or a couple of months longer. at most.

I'm not so sure about that, the M16 was leaps and bounds ahead of anything that existed in WW2 and may well have a bigger impact than you think. US Army medical studies from WW2 said about 25% of casualties taken in Northwest Europe in 1944-45 were from small arms. The Eastern Front is a lot hard to diagnose in terms of weapon systems, but artillery famines were relatively common until later in the conflict, so small arms played and outsized role in many campaigns. While not likely to change the outcome of the war, it could extend it quite a bit, especially if the Soviets suffer millions more casualties as a result. Normandy too could get quite a bit more bloody for the Wallies assuming it happens on time due to the restricted terrain that favors something light and easy to shoot as the M16.

 

[stephen the barbarian]

Also a good point. I think both Winchester and Remington had civilian autoloaders as well (not of the BAR/monitor variety but actual rifles). If the same timeline evolves, they have some time and might have taken a hard run at all three.

the win 05/07/10 in .32SL and .35SL, .351 WSL, and.401 WSL respectively and the rem 08 in .25 Rem, .30 Rem, .32 Rem, and .35 Rem
nothing that can handle .30-06 until the end of the war

 

[James Ricker]

I didn't specify any exact POD, could be army conservatism, could be budgetary issues, could be that the contenders for the contest all happened to be crap like the Thomson Rifle, could be different R&D priorities, and could also be a combination of some/all of those.

A plausible POD would be to put the self-proclaimed greatest infantry officer the US military has ever produced General Douglas MacArthur in charge of the program, guaranteed he would screw it up.

 

[stephen the barbarian]

A plausible POD would be to put the self-proclaimed greatest infantry officer the US military has ever produced General Douglas MacArthur in charge of the program, guaranteed he would screw it up.

arguably he already did otl when he insisted on maintaining .30-06 for the m1

 

[marathag]

rem 08 in .25 Rem, .30 Rem, .32 Rem, and .35 Rem
nothing that can handle .30-06 until the end of the war

Though the Remington 81 (pretty much different stock) added the Savage 300, that is 98% of .308 NATO, so almost as powerful.

The Remington would have needed a lot of work for a combat weapon, they are a nightmare to completely tear down, but regular cleaning is a snap, and the barrel acts like a takedown gun.
Off with the handguard, and one screw, the barrel is out for cleaning or transport.
The Receiver, Brr.

Getting the bolt out is not for the fainthearted. Those interested can watch Youtube

 

[marathag]

arguably he already did otl when he insisted on maintaining .30-06 for the m1

That in the end, required all new production of an improved cartridge. Not a single round(besides blanks) of prewar 30-06 was issued during WWII for the Garand, M2 Ball was made for the M1 Garand. Most all the M1 Ball was sent off to the USN for use in Machine Guns, and the M1928 and earlier that didn't get used in the M1903 was sold surplus after the War

 

[Crowbar Six]

I'm not so sure about that, the M16 was leaps and bounds ahead of anything that existed in WW2 and may well have a bigger impact than you think. US Army medical studies from WW2 said about 25% of casualties taken in Northwest Europe in 1944-45 were from small arms. The Eastern Front is a lot hard to diagnose in terms of weapon systems, but artillery famines were relatively common until later in the conflict, so small arms played and outsized role in many campaigns. While not likely to change the outcome of the war, it could extend it quite a bit, especially if the Soviets suffer millions more casualties as a result. Normandy too could get quite a bit more bloody for the Wallies assuming it happens on time due to the restricted terrain that favors something light and easy to shoot as the M16.

I suspect a lot of those casualties were from being on the receiving end of MG34/42 or other automatic weapons in Heer service. German infantry carried more linked 7.92 than chargers for their rifles, just like British infantry carried mainly .303 for the Bren with only 50 rounds for the rifle.

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

arguably he already did otl when he insisted on maintaining .30-06 for the m1

No given the financial situation of the times he made the right choice. I doubt Congress would have paid for a new rifle that didn't use the mountains of ammunition they had in the warehouses due to the depression.