Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Log In

A valid email is required.
Password is required.
Site Notices
3/20/2017 5:03:23 PM
Posted: 11/5/2001 1:08:23 PM EDT
I was watching Band of Brothers on HBO last night (episode 10) and during the Normandy invasion flashback, I thought I saw a soldier with an M14 (or M1A, whichever you prefer) I thought those were available in Korea and later. Was this just a movie mixup or were there variants out there during the 40's?
Link Posted: 11/5/2001 1:12:24 PM EDT
You sure that you didn't see a BAR (Browning Automatic Rifle) - ?
Link Posted: 11/5/2001 1:13:12 PM EDT
The M-14 was adopted in 1957 and didn't enter service until 1958. WWII 1941-1945(U.S. involvement) Korean War 1950-1953. Watch again, you may have seen an M1918 BAR (Browning Automatic Rilfe).
Link Posted: 11/5/2001 1:13:15 PM EDT
Link Posted: 11/5/2001 1:14:15 PM EDT
Link Posted: 11/5/2001 1:20:15 PM EDT
I was watching the show last night and it WAS a Browning BAR. Easy to mistake considering how fast the scene when by.

The M1A/M14 was in service during the late 50's through the end of Vietnam. I don't believe any were in service during Korea. However, most troops in Nam had them at first and they were replaced during the mid to late 60 as the M 16 was taking hold and production increased. If memory serves, the Marines were the last to change to the M-16 in 1968. (Please correct me if I am wrong.) SOG units used them past this time. Also many sniper/spotter teams used these rifles with special optics mounted on them for night work.
Link Posted: 11/5/2001 1:28:15 PM EDT


Er uh .. Oh yes!

That was actually the Mini 14
which was developed during the war
for use by the OSS.
In 1958 they just learned how to make
them bigger so everyone would want one.
Link Posted: 11/5/2001 2:10:48 PM EDT
A little known tid bit.

During the Cuban missle crisis the Garand was re-issued and replaced the M-14 for Army troops. Seems they had a lot more 30.06 than .308 in stock.
Link Posted: 11/5/2001 2:11:13 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/5/2001 2:05:38 PM EDT by ArmdLbrl]

Originally Posted By gardenWeasel:


Er uh .. Oh yes!

That was actually the Mini 14
which was developed during the war
for use by the OSS.
In 1958 they just learned how to make
them bigger so everyone would want one.



Rofl

Now for a bit of trivia.:) Drawings were accepted, and contracts issued in August 1945 for a box magazine fed version of the Garand and a Americanized .30/06 version of the MG42. Both contracts were cancelled in September.

The drawings were later used as starting points for the M14 and M60 respectively. More directly, the original "long" version of the Beretta BM59 came out looking exactly like the cancelled "M2" Garand of 1945 (coincidence? I think not). And the drawings for the US version of the MG42 were sent back to Germany in 1955 to enable them to start building the MG1/2/3 series GPMG's- as amazingly no patterns or drawings in German survived WWII!

Had we invaded Japan in 1946, at least some of the troops would have been equipped with detachable box magazine, select fire Garands that would have replaced both the Thompson and the M1, while the BAR and the hashed togeather 1919A6 would have been replaced by the "Machine Gun, General Purpose, M1"- the Americanized MG42.

Would have been very interesting to have seen such weapons in Korea, cancelling those contracts was a big mistake.
Link Posted: 11/5/2001 2:14:36 PM EDT
ArmdLbrl, i have been in that belief that the U.S Army was unable to convert the MG42 for the more longer .30-06 cartridge, so even though the invasion into Japan would have taken place, U.S troops would not have had a American MG42.
Link Posted: 11/5/2001 2:25:49 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Tuukka:
ArmdLbrl, i have been in that belief that the U.S Army was unable to convert the MG42 for the more longer .30-06 cartridge, so even though the invasion into Japan would have taken place, U.S troops would not have had a American MG42.



I don't see how cartridge length would have affected the the function of the basic design, of course they would have had to lengthen the reciever to accomidate the 6mm longer cartridge. .30/06 opperated at a higher pressure than 8X57, that could have caused the rate of fire to go higher than even the 8mm's 1200 rpm. THAT could have caused problems. But dont current production MG3's use a weighted bolt now to slow down the rate of fire to something more reasonable? No reason why we couldnt have done the same thing.

The MG42 was a very simple design, it would be difficult to muck it up.
Link Posted: 11/5/2001 2:54:25 PM EDT
I thought that the gas system for the M60
was designed from the FG42.
Link Posted: 11/5/2001 5:32:12 PM EDT
GardenWeasel is right about the M60. The M60 uses a modified version of the FG42's operating system and a modified MG42 feed system.
Link Posted: 11/6/2001 2:34:18 PM EDT
The MG-42 was extensively tested by the Army in it's original 7.92mm(8mm) chambering. It was produced as a prototype by Saginaw Steering Gear of GM in late 1943 in .30-06. It was tested as the T-24 in 1944 and didn't work. Seems the developers did indeed actually forget about that quarter inch or so difference in case length. Pretty stupid, but it's the honest truth. They then tried to modify it to work, but it's not just the receiver length but all the rest of the parts hung on it as well that need to be the right size. It wasn't a high priority program anyway, so the Army just let it die right there, rather than have Saginaw build one the right legnth.

The T-20E2 version of the Garand was select fire with a 20rd detatchable mag that could be used in the BAR, but the BAR mag couldn't be used in the T-20E2. It also had a roller on the bolt, like the M-14, and a muzzle break and bipod. It had a bolt hold-open. Prototypes were tested in Jan of 1945 and 100,000 were recomended for purchase in May 1945. The war ended and no further action was taken.

Ross
Link Posted: 11/6/2001 10:25:57 PM EDT
Thanks Ross!

I had forgotten what the T numbers were. The book I read this from neglected to mention that the .30cal MG42 was such a low priority item. Made it sound like the only think keeping it from production was the end of the war and the vast surplus of 1919's
Link Posted: 11/6/2001 11:57:32 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/6/2001 11:52:44 PM EDT by prk]

Originally Posted By gardenWeasel:


Er uh .. Oh yes!

That was actually the Mini 14
which was developed during the war
for use by the OSS.
In 1958 they just learned how to make
them bigger so everyone would want one.



Kicking myself in the butt with both feet!!!

At a gun show in 1999, one table had the only Mini-14, and it DID look like it HAD seen action, probably in a war or two. I was assured by the seller that all those blemishes and a glue job here and there on the furniture only INCREASED its worth, because it added authenticity and historical value.

Same with what seemed to be hints of rifling in the barrel, though the guy was cussing about how the previous owner had removed any fouling (but not the pits) accumulated in numerous covert operations, and thus knocked the condition down from 95% to 90%.

Also, I had heard of such a thing as rust bluing, but this gentleman told me how the OSS had uncovered a Nazi variant of this process (and applied it to certain parts for select few of their OWN weapons), so secret that it is hardly known in the trade.

This specimen had, as he said, obviously been one of the few to have the barrel done this way. I had some doubts about what seemed to be flaking, but he assured me that it was necessary to avoid light reflections that might compromise behind-the-lines missions.

He had this WWII Mini-14 marked down from $1,875 to $1,500 but for some reason he was not taking credit cards - said the machine was down. I would have gone to the bank, but something held me back. Later I went by there again and he put a "sale pending" tag on it just as I arrived. "What a bummer", I thought as I turned around. He sure was a friendly fella, waving madly as I left. Too bad, imagine what it would have been worth today.



Link Posted: 11/7/2001 12:07:40 AM EDT
Remember that the US miltary wasn't totally convinced of the "new production" methods of the Third Riech. While many saw stampings as the way of the future, most of the people in charge were more set in their ways. They saw stamped guns (like the MG-42, STG-44, MP-40, FG-42, etc) as a sign that Germany was running out of natural resources and was producing cheap crap. That's one of the reasons that the STG-44 was all but completely ignored by the west after the war.

My father sitll doesn't like stamped trigger guards on a Springfield:)

Ross
Top Top