ww2 AHC: ideal automatic rifle...

Honestly get an M1 Garand slap a 20 round BAR mag on it and you are done. Hell convert the thing to 220 Swift and you are half way to an AR 15
 
The US army, which spent hundreds of millions of dollars on it and nearly 20 years of development:
https://modernfirearms.net/en/assault-rifles/u-s-a-assault-rifles/spiw-eng/
1433154852.jpg




Nylon furniture baby:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remington_Nylon_66
There is no reason why that should have gotten beyond an idea on paper.
 

Deleted member 1487

Ok on reading that article there are some good points. Still what the Italians did with BM59 should be of some note
Sure, but the fundamental issue with stability in full auto is a problem unless using Spanish or Japanese low powered rounds.
 
Sure, but the fundamental issue with stability in full auto is a problem unless using Spanish or Japanese low powered rounds.
True, still I think going heavier than what the M1 was is a terrible idea for so many reasons. Also I think if one could maybe convert it to say 25-06, still dealing with a 30-06 based weapons system, you might be able to get higher capacity and less recoil.
 

Glyndwr01

Banned
I'm sure there's a gif somewhere of Ian spilling bullets all over because of that terrible drum mag.

I'm surprised there's been little discussion over how meh drum mags are. Heavy, hard to carry and attrocious to load.

That's only because it was not developed enough! If coupled with the 20 round SMLE trench magazine it would be easier to load and would give Britain a semi automatic rifle ready for WW2.
 

FBKampfer

Banned

Deleted member 1487

He said drop it to 220 Swift, which I proposed way the hell back near the start of the the thread before everyone bandwagoned on bashing the BAR and BREN spamming.


And I'd expect an automatic M14 to be relatively controlable with 220 Swift. Especially with a down loaded round to help combat barrel burnout.
Why deal with the barrel burn when you can use the parent cartridge, the 6mm Lee Navy, but with modern powder and better range? Even then at 4kg it would be a bit tough to control on full auto.
 
  • Like
Reactions: wtw

FBKampfer

Banned
Why deal with the barrel burn when you can use the parent cartridge, the 6mm Lee Navy, but with modern powder and better range? Even then at 4kg it would be a bit tough to control on full auto.

Reduced recoil impulse and controlability on full auto.

And it would be borderline. Better than anything full auto and shoulder fired prior to it, but less than a Sturmgewer.

And you'd have to modify the Lee Navy for better ballistics, and I believe OP has specified we have to use an off the shelf cartridge.

If I could design the cartridge, I'd go with around 6.5x40mm or so.


Still maintain that the Mg42 would be the best for the LMG as well.
 
Why deal with the barrel burn when you can use the parent cartridge, the 6mm Lee Navy, but with modern powder and better range? Even then at 4kg it would be a bit tough to control on full auto.

As long as you don't use the original composition propellants. The Navy Lee was discarded, not because of the caliber or the bullet performance (It was intended for sniper work against torpedo boat crews at the ridiculous short torpedo engagement ranges of 1898 and was so used, so it was a hot fast accurate round.), but because the smokeless powder composition did horrible things to the rifle barrel: pitting, burning and hot-spotting the rifling to the point that the rifles were useless after as few as a 1000 rounds were put through.
 
Top