Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
PSA
Member Login

Site Notices
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 1/26/2014 1:02:45 PM EDT
and go!!!

US Rifle Caliber .30 M1


SVT-40


G43


SAFN 49
Link Posted: 1/26/2014 1:03:45 PM EDT
I like the gewehr
Link Posted: 1/26/2014 1:04:18 PM EDT
Garand
/thread.
Link Posted: 1/26/2014 1:07:10 PM EDT
FN49, the last and greatest of it's kind.
Link Posted: 1/26/2014 1:07:19 PM EDT
SPNI
Link Posted: 1/26/2014 1:31:24 PM EDT
Garand.
Link Posted: 1/26/2014 1:32:13 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By 3Trip:
FN49, the last and greatest of it's kind.
View Quote


I love Garands, but this.
Link Posted: 1/26/2014 1:33:38 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By BallisticTip:
Garand.
View Quote


This. Others may have had aspects in which they were more advanced, more ergonomic, or better in a technical fashion.

But the M1 Rifle was the only one that was available, in general-issue quantities, for the largest armed conflict in human history. For that I'd give it the vote of "better service rifle," because it was the only one to actually be a widespread "service rifle" when it counted.


Having said that, I want both an SVT-40 and FN-49.
Link Posted: 1/26/2014 1:34:07 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By 3Trip:
FN49, the last and greatest of it's kind.
View Quote

FN49 in 7x57 is awesome beyond comprehension!
Link Posted: 1/26/2014 1:34:57 PM EDT
Link Posted: 1/26/2014 1:36:34 PM EDT
Its weird how much GD loves the FN49, my old boss had one, I put a couple boxes through it, was really unimpressed, and I like milsurps. He sold it to another coworker who put maybe 100 rounds through it before selling it off.

I don't get it.
Link Posted: 1/26/2014 1:38:30 PM EDT
Yup th FN-49 is the best of those listed.
Link Posted: 1/26/2014 1:39:08 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By ChrisLRS:
Its weird how much GD loves the FN49, my old boss had one, I put a couple boxes through it, was really unimpressed, and I like milsurps. He sold it to another coworker who put maybe 100 rounds through it before selling it off.

I don't get it.
View Quote

What about it were you not impressed by?
Link Posted: 1/26/2014 1:39:08 PM EDT
Link Posted: 1/26/2014 1:39:23 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By BallisticTip:
Garand.
View Quote


+1.  This.  Of the rifles listed it was by far the best.  

The ammo could be dropped in loaded in bandolieers in enblocs and ready to go.   The others had to have mags loaded through strippers.
Link Posted: 1/26/2014 1:40:08 PM EDT
Ljungman
Link Posted: 1/26/2014 1:42:18 PM EDT
I'm going with G43 for the best ergonomic layout and features, but the Garand wins because it actually worked.
Link Posted: 1/26/2014 1:42:31 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By swede1986:
Ljungman
View Quote


Swedes and others had some good shit.

Would have been a fun time to be a firearm designer.
Link Posted: 1/26/2014 1:42:32 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By DK-Prof:


On the other hand, if the Garand had not been the U.S. service rifle that won WW2, my guess is that nobody would like the rifle.  It's heavy, and the 8 round capacity, coupled with a complicated feed system and a weird clip - would make pretty much everyone hate it.  

View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By DK-Prof:
Originally Posted By ChrisLRS:
Its weird how much GD loves the FN49, my old boss had one, I put a couple boxes through it, was really unimpressed, and I like milsurps. He sold it to another coworker who put maybe 100 rounds through it before selling it off.

I don't get it.


On the other hand, if the Garand had not been the U.S. service rifle that won WW2, my guess is that nobody would like the rifle.  It's heavy, and the 8 round capacity, coupled with a complicated feed system and a weird clip - would make pretty much everyone hate it.  



I dunno, the plus to the weird clip is the instant reload, and no magazines to lose/dent/break/wear out. Granted, it would have been even better as the concept version that had a 20-round mag in .276 Pedersen (or even .30, I'm not picky) and an ammo belt to match. Heck, BAR mags were already in the system...
Link Posted: 1/26/2014 1:43:26 PM EDT
Garand
Link Posted: 1/26/2014 1:44:52 PM EDT
FN49s make me feel funny down there.
Link Posted: 1/26/2014 1:46:08 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By 3Trip:
FN49, the last and greatest of it's kind.
View Quote


Yup
Link Posted: 1/26/2014 1:46:19 PM EDT

Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By RifleCal30m1n00b:
I dunno, the plus to the weird clip is the instant reload, and no magazines to lose/dent/break/wear out. Granted, it would have been even better as the concept version that had a 20-round mag in .276 Pedersen (or even .30, I'm not picky) and an ammo belt to match. Heck, BAR mags were already in the system...
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By RifleCal30m1n00b:



Originally Posted By DK-Prof:


Originally Posted By ChrisLRS:

Its weird how much GD loves the FN49, my old boss had one, I put a couple boxes through it, was really unimpressed, and I like milsurps. He sold it to another coworker who put maybe 100 rounds through it before selling it off.



I don't get it.




On the other hand, if the Garand had not been the U.S. service rifle that won WW2, my guess is that nobody would like the rifle.  It's heavy, and the 8 round capacity, coupled with a complicated feed system and a weird clip - would make pretty much everyone hate it.  







I dunno, the plus to the weird clip is the instant reload, and no magazines to lose/dent/break/wear out. Granted, it would have been even better as the concept version that had a 20-round mag in .276 Pedersen (or even .30, I'm not picky) and an ammo belt to match. Heck, BAR mags were already in the system...


Basically if the War Dept would have let Garand do his thing, we would have had the M-14 several years earlier.



 
Link Posted: 1/26/2014 1:46:26 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By swede1986:
Ljungman
View Quote


Dat round.
Link Posted: 1/26/2014 1:46:43 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By ChrisLRS:
Its weird how much GD loves the FN49, my old boss had one, I put a couple boxes through it, was really unimpressed, and I like milsurps. He sold it to another coworker who put maybe 100 rounds through it before selling it off.

I don't get it.
View Quote


The SA49 is a great rifle. I've shot every one of the listed rifles (except for the G43) and the FN49 (for me) comes out on top.
Link Posted: 1/26/2014 1:47:29 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By beardog30:

What about it were you not impressed by?
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By beardog30:
Originally Posted By ChrisLRS:
Its weird how much GD loves the FN49, my old boss had one, I put a couple boxes through it, was really unimpressed, and I like milsurps. He sold it to another coworker who put maybe 100 rounds through it before selling it off.

I don't get it.

What about it were you not impressed by?


Garand handled better for me.

I've never messed with an SVT and only put a few rounds through a g43 before it had some sort of malfunction that required it to be put away.

FN49 felt like an unbalanced, and clunky, and the whole time the only thing I could think of was that I would rather be shooting a garand.
Link Posted: 1/26/2014 1:48:15 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By DK-Prof:


On the other hand, if the Garand had not been the U.S. service rifle that won WW2, my guess is that nobody would like the rifle.  It's heavy, and the 8 round capacity, coupled with a complicated feed system and a weird clip - would make pretty much everyone hate it.  

View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By DK-Prof:
Originally Posted By ChrisLRS:
Its weird how much GD loves the FN49, my old boss had one, I put a couple boxes through it, was really unimpressed, and I like milsurps. He sold it to another coworker who put maybe 100 rounds through it before selling it off.

I don't get it.


On the other hand, if the Garand had not been the U.S. service rifle that won WW2, my guess is that nobody would like the rifle.  It's heavy, and the 8 round capacity, coupled with a complicated feed system and a weird clip - would make pretty much everyone hate it.  



Never underestimate the nostalgia boner ARFCOM has for the Garand
Link Posted: 1/26/2014 1:49:38 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Rob762:

Never underestimate the nostalgia boner ARFCOM has for the Garand
View Quote


Or the 1911.  
Link Posted: 1/26/2014 1:50:48 PM EDT
For the guy who clicked "Other", what was your choice?
Link Posted: 1/26/2014 1:51:38 PM EDT
Link Posted: 1/26/2014 1:52:42 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By burkeva:
For the guy who clicked "Other", what was your choice?
View Quote


Hakim!

Link Posted: 1/26/2014 1:53:10 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By burkeva:
For the guy who clicked "Other", what was your choice?
View Quote


I already posted.
Link Posted: 1/26/2014 1:53:43 PM EDT
Link Posted: 1/26/2014 1:54:26 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By retgarr:


Hakim!

View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By retgarr:
Originally Posted By burkeva:
For the guy who clicked "Other", what was your choice?


Hakim!



The Hakim is chambered for an inferior round.
Link Posted: 1/26/2014 1:57:27 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By DK-Prof:


I gotta disagree.  The clip has the exact same disadvantage as a magazine, in the sense that if you do not have a clip, you cannot use the gun.

Also, if you were out of ammo (and found some loose rounds), it's easy to load new loose rounds into an empty magazine and shoot some more.  But if you still have a clip, that can be difficult.  For instance, try loading four rounds into an empty clip, and shooting a Garand.  

So the Garand was basically completely dependent on pre-packaged ammo on disposable clips - unlike previous rifles (like bolt actions) where the clip AIDED in fast reloading, but was not required for the gun to work.  



Exactly.  The concept of a detachable mag was already around - so it seems that the internal mag, with the complex feed system and clip was just a weird and unnecessary design choice.  

View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By DK-Prof:
Originally Posted By RifleCal30m1n00b:
Originally Posted By DK-Prof:
Originally Posted By ChrisLRS:
Its weird how much GD loves the FN49, my old boss had one, I put a couple boxes through it, was really unimpressed, and I like milsurps. He sold it to another coworker who put maybe 100 rounds through it before selling it off.

I don't get it.


On the other hand, if the Garand had not been the U.S. service rifle that won WW2, my guess is that nobody would like the rifle.  It's heavy, and the 8 round capacity, coupled with a complicated feed system and a weird clip - would make pretty much everyone hate it.  



I dunno, the plus to the weird clip is the instant reload, and no magazines to lose/dent/break/wear out.


I gotta disagree.  The clip has the exact same disadvantage as a magazine, in the sense that if you do not have a clip, you cannot use the gun.

Also, if you were out of ammo (and found some loose rounds), it's easy to load new loose rounds into an empty magazine and shoot some more.  But if you still have a clip, that can be difficult.  For instance, try loading four rounds into an empty clip, and shooting a Garand.  

So the Garand was basically completely dependent on pre-packaged ammo on disposable clips - unlike previous rifles (like bolt actions) where the clip AIDED in fast reloading, but was not required for the gun to work.  


Granted, it would have been even better as the concept version that had a 20-round mag in .276 Pedersen (or even .30, I'm not picky) and an ammo belt to match. Heck, BAR mags were already in the system...


Exactly.  The concept of a detachable mag was already around - so it seems that the internal mag, with the complex feed system and clip was just a weird and unnecessary design choice.  




But the way clips were used in the Garand was important. I'm not sure I've ever found a stripper clip that was easier than a enbloc. The K31 is close, but still has issues. It was still rare ate the time to treat box mags as semi disposable.

I suppose that's more a failure of doctrine than it is a plus for the function of the Garand, but all the same, the Garand managed to round that mental road bloc.
Link Posted: 1/26/2014 1:57:51 PM EDT
I have owned all but the G43 and shot them a great deal, it may seem like blasphemy but I prefer the FN-49 over the rest.
Link Posted: 1/26/2014 1:58:43 PM EDT
The FN49 is arguably the better-designed rifle thanks to adjustable gas, a simpler design, and slightly easier disassembly.  On the other hand, the Garand loads faster and easier, has better sights, and the safety is easier to use.  But then the FN49 has lighter recoil and can be topped off, plus the gas can be turned off for rifle grenades.  If I were forced to attend a firefight and had to choose between two known-good examples, I'd probably pick the FN49--but it'd be a tough choice.
Link Posted: 1/26/2014 2:01:08 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By swede1986:
Ljungman
View Quote

Sorry. Didn't see that. Interesting.
Link Posted: 1/26/2014 2:01:12 PM EDT
Link Posted: 1/26/2014 2:02:03 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/26/2014 2:02:43 PM EDT by retgarr]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By swede1986:


The Hakim is chambered for an inferior round.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By swede1986:
Originally Posted By retgarr:
Originally Posted By burkeva:
For the guy who clicked "Other", what was your choice?


Hakim!



The Hakim is chambered for an inferior round.


True, but the real failure of the Hakim was that is was most often chambered with rancid goat urine containing sand for texture and manufactured by people who considered the same mixture and good alternative to soap and water.

And I reiterate in regards to 6.5 Swede "dat round..."
Link Posted: 1/26/2014 2:03:23 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/26/2014 2:03:49 PM EDT by waterglass]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Bradders:


I thought the rifles that won WW2 were the Mosin Nagant and the Enfield
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Bradders:
Originally Posted By DK-Prof:
Originally Posted By ChrisLRS:
Its weird how much GD loves the FN49, my old boss had one, I put a couple boxes through it, was really unimpressed, and I like milsurps. He sold it to another coworker who put maybe 100 rounds through it before selling it off.

I don't get it.


On the other hand, if the Garand had not been the U.S. service rifle that won WW2, my guess is that nobody would like the rifle.  It's heavy, and the 8 round capacity, coupled with a complicated feed system and a weird clip - would make pretty much everyone hate it.  



I thought the rifles that won WW2 were the Mosin Nagant and the Enfield


I though it was the american lend lease program.
Link Posted: 1/26/2014 2:03:36 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By retgarr:


True, but the real failure of the Hakim was that is was most often chambered with rancid goat urine containing sand for texture and manufactured by people who considered the same mixture and good alternative to soap and water.

And I reiterate in regards to 6.5 Swede "dat round..."
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By retgarr:
Originally Posted By swede1986:
Originally Posted By retgarr:
Originally Posted By burkeva:
For the guy who clicked "Other", what was your choice?


Hakim!



The Hakim is chambered for an inferior round.


True, but the real failure of the Hakim was that is was most often chambered with rancid goat urine containing sand for texture and manufactured by people who considered the same mixture and good alternative to soap and water.

And I reiterate in regards to 6.5 Swede "dat round..."


The crappy ammo they produced also necessitated an adjustable gas plug.
Link Posted: 1/26/2014 2:03:58 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Bradders:


I thought the rifles that won WW2 were the Mosin Nagant and the Enfield
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Bradders:
Originally Posted By DK-Prof:
Originally Posted By ChrisLRS:
Its weird how much GD loves the FN49, my old boss had one, I put a couple boxes through it, was really unimpressed, and I like milsurps. He sold it to another coworker who put maybe 100 rounds through it before selling it off.

I don't get it.


On the other hand, if the Garand had not been the U.S. service rifle that won WW2, my guess is that nobody would like the rifle.  It's heavy, and the 8 round capacity, coupled with a complicated feed system and a weird clip - would make pretty much everyone hate it.  



I thought the rifles that won WW2 were the Mosin Nagant and the Enfield


Nah, they just kept the party jumping until it was cool enough to attend.
Link Posted: 1/26/2014 2:07:16 PM EDT
Other:



Its not chambered for a full power rifle cartridge like the others but it was available in the same timeline.  SKS.
Link Posted: 1/26/2014 2:07:34 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/26/2014 2:11:15 PM EDT by RifleCal30m1n00b]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By DK-Prof:


I gotta disagree.  The clip has the exact same disadvantage as a magazine, in the sense that if you do not have a clip, you cannot use the gun.

Also, if you were out of ammo (and found some loose rounds), it's easy to load new loose rounds into an empty magazine and shoot some more.  But if you still have a clip, that can be difficult.  For instance, try loading four rounds into an empty clip, and shooting a Garand.  

So the Garand was basically completely dependent on pre-packaged ammo on disposable clips - unlike previous rifles (like bolt actions) where the clip AIDED in fast reloading, but was not required for the gun to work.  



Exactly.  The concept of a detachable mag was already around - so it seems that the internal mag, with the complex feed system and clip was just a weird and unnecessary design choice.  

View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By DK-Prof:
Originally Posted By RifleCal30m1n00b:
Originally Posted By DK-Prof:
Originally Posted By ChrisLRS:
Its weird how much GD loves the FN49, my old boss had one, I put a couple boxes through it, was really unimpressed, and I like milsurps. He sold it to another coworker who put maybe 100 rounds through it before selling it off.

I don't get it.


On the other hand, if the Garand had not been the U.S. service rifle that won WW2, my guess is that nobody would like the rifle.  It's heavy, and the 8 round capacity, coupled with a complicated feed system and a weird clip - would make pretty much everyone hate it.  



I dunno, the plus to the weird clip is the instant reload, and no magazines to lose/dent/break/wear out.


I gotta disagree.  The clip has the exact same disadvantage as a magazine, in the sense that if you do not have a clip, you cannot use the gun.

Also, if you were out of ammo (and found some loose rounds), it's easy to load new loose rounds into an empty magazine and shoot some more.  But if you still have a clip, that can be difficult.  For instance, try loading four rounds into an empty clip, and shooting a Garand.  

So the Garand was basically completely dependent on pre-packaged ammo on disposable clips - unlike previous rifles (like bolt actions) where the clip AIDED in fast reloading, but was not required for the gun to work.  


Granted, it would have been even better as the concept version that had a 20-round mag in .276 Pedersen (or even .30, I'm not picky) and an ammo belt to match. Heck, BAR mags were already in the system...


Exactly.  The concept of a detachable mag was already around - so it seems that the internal mag, with the complex feed system and clip was just a weird and unnecessary design choice.  



I've done the "cram fewer than 8 rounds into a spare clip and load" thing. Not quite as easy as just shoving in a full en-bloc, I'll grant you, and I'd hate to do it under stress. Kinda took some jimmying, rather than "shove in the clip, slap the op-rod, and shoot."
I think there were a couple combat incidents, IIRC around the Bulge, where Soldiers did indeed have to gather up empty clips and loose cartridges in order to keep fighting, and the take-away lesson was definitely in favor of a more easily retained feed system, like a magazine.

I do agree that a detachable mag would have been better. I'd blame US Army Ordnance branch, specifically its conservative element that was always opposed to more firepower in the hands of an ordinary Soldier (clear back to the 1820s and the Hall Rifle), for the deliberate retarding of the rifle design.
The T20 prototype is what the M1 should have been, IMO. And detachable mags with a device to allow stripper clips for quicker refilling should have been how it was done.

On the other hand, I don't really see much advantage to a stripper-clip-fed semiautomatic rifle. Sure, you can shoot at semi-auto speed (~1sec or so quicker shot-to-shot vs. a bolt action?) but you're reloading at the same speed as was state-of-the-art in the 1890s, and that's really going to handicap the number of rounds you can put downrange in a pinch.

Honestly, the T20 (or T44/M14) is my opinion of what the M1 should have been, especially if MacArthur's decision to order it in .30 only is going to be treated as a constant. (i.e. that decision would have happened no matter what other design elements were in consideration)

But I'd be really curious to see what the M1 would have been in .276 Pedersen with a 20-round detachable magazine, sort of a reduced BAR mag.


ETA: but this is why I mentioned in my first post that, despite technical pros and cons to all the rifles, the M1 was the only one that actually was produced in enough numbers to be really significant, at a time when it mattered. That's why I voted for it, even though other rifles on the list do indeed have points of technical superiority.
Link Posted: 1/26/2014 2:08:36 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By swede1986:


The crappy ammo they produced also necessitated an adjustable gas plug.
View Quote


No argument here. I can't think of a full power battle rifle that wouldn't have been better in 6.5 Swede.
Link Posted: 1/26/2014 2:10:34 PM EDT
Link Posted: 1/26/2014 2:15:18 PM EDT
The Garand had the most potential.

But of those listed, the G43 I liked the most.

Other than that? SKS.
Link Posted: 1/26/2014 2:19:06 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/26/2014 2:51:43 PM EDT by RifleCal30m1n00b]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By DK-Prof:


I particularly agree that a stripper-fed magazine would not be very fast or practical to reload.  What would have made the Garand absolutely AMAZING to my mind would have been a design with a detachable magazine, and the ammo supplied/packed in disposable magazines.  The U.S. certainly had the manufacturing capacity to do that.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By DK-Prof:
Originally Posted By RifleCal30m1n00b:

I've done the "cram fewer than 8 rounds into a spare clip and load" thing. Not quite as easy as just shoving in a full en-bloc, I'll grant you, and I'd hate to do it under stress. Kinda took some jimmying, rather than "shove in the clip, slap the op-rod, and shoot."
I think there were a couple combat incidents, IIRC around the Bulge, where Soldiers did indeed have to gather up empty clips and loose cartridges in order to keep fighting, and the take-away lesson was definitely in favor of a more easily retained feed system, like a magazine.

I do agree that a detachable mag would have been better. I'd blame US Army Ordnance branch, specifically its conservative element that was always opposed to more firepower in the hands of an ordinary Soldier (clear back to the 1820s and the Hall Rifle), for the deliberate retarding of the rifle design.
The T20 prototype is what the M1 should have been, IMO. And detachable mags with a device to allow stripper clips for quicker refilling should have been how it was done.

On the other hand, I don't really see much advantage to a stripper-clip-fed semiautomatic rifle. Sure, you can shoot at semi-auto speed (~1sec or so quicker shot-to-shot vs. a bolt action?) but you're reloading at the same speed as was state-of-the-art in the 1890s, and that's really going to handicap the number of rounds you can put downrange in a pinch.

Honestly, the T20 (or T44/M14) is my opinion of what the M1 should have been, especially if MacArthur's decision to order it in .30 only is going to be treated as a constant. (i.e. that decision would have happened no matter what other design elements were in consideration)

But I'd be really curious to see what the M1 would have been in .276 Pedersen with a 20-round detachable magazine, sort of a reduced BAR mag.


I particularly agree that a stripper-fed magazine would not be very fast or practical to reload.  What would have made the Garand absolutely AMAZING to my mind would have been a design with a detachable magazine, and the ammo supplied/packed in disposable magazines.  The U.S. certainly had the manufacturing capacity to do that.


Absolutely! Though given the resistance Ordnance officials had to issuing a detachable-magazine rifle to the average Soldier already, they would have had aneurisms about designing, procuring, and issuing disposable magazines!
I think the BAR mag was probably the best that could have been hoped for, with resupply to replace magazines that had to be discarded or left behind due to combat exigencies, and training/procurement centered around the Soldier generally retaining his empty mags and refilling them with rounds from boxes, or from stripper clips (which could be issued in bandoliers, just as in WW1, and as was done for BAR teams already)

Also, while I'm at it, the BAR should have had a 25-round magazine and a quick-detach barrel with fixed headspace and a gas tube-mounted barrel bipod (), with the gas regulator mounted to the barrel assembly, and the A-gunner should have been not just the ammo bearer, but the spare barrel bearer. Issue AP and AP-T to BAR teams predominantly, as well.


Also, I think we're generally agreeing here, my original argument was that the technical drawbacks to the M1 are outweighed by the fact that the US was able to get it into mass production prior to US entry into WW2, and was able to issue nearly every infantryman (Marines and rifle grenadiers aside) an M1 from about mid-1942 onward. 5,000,000 or so wartime-produced rifles dwarfs pretty much all other semi-auto rifle production of the same time frame...possibly even combined.
That, in my mind, gives it a superiority beyond its technical drawbacks, which themselves flow from doctrinal and Army intellectual resistance.

ETA: bolded a bit of your post. That point is what I find most maddening about people who trumpet the 1941 Johnson rifle's superiority. "You can top it off, and it holds 10 rounds" pales, in my mind, next to "it takes 6-8 seconds to fully reload" whereas the M1 is loaded in about 3-4...including retrieving the clip from the cartridge belt pouch or bandolier pocket, and loading is a single stroke.
Link Posted: 1/26/2014 2:33:03 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/26/2014 2:36:31 PM EDT by ACDer]
having shot garands and FN49s quite a bit, garand by a nose due to better sights.  Having to,adjust windage on the 49 with a screw driver is a drag.

I will say that the argie FN49 in 7.62 nato with 20 round detachable box mags is a hell of a gun.
Link Posted: 1/26/2014 2:39:25 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Bradders:


I thought the rifles that won WW2 were the Mosin Nagant and the Enfield
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Bradders:
Originally Posted By DK-Prof:
Originally Posted By ChrisLRS:
Its weird how much GD loves the FN49, my old boss had one, I put a couple boxes through it, was really unimpressed, and I like milsurps. He sold it to another coworker who put maybe 100 rounds through it before selling it off.

I don't get it.


On the other hand, if the Garand had not been the U.S. service rifle that won WW2, my guess is that nobody would like the rifle.  It's heavy, and the 8 round capacity, coupled with a complicated feed system and a weird clip - would make pretty much everyone hate it.  



I thought the rifles that won WW2 were the Mosin Nagant and the Enfield


That and millions of Russians. The vast majority of the war was on the eastern front.


Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top