Military Firearms.

M

manta49

New member
Should governments buy the best small arms for their soldiers or buy home made even if they are not the best available.

Example the British movement put into service probably one of the worst service rifles available at the time the SA 80.

The fact that the government was trying to sell of the company that was making them at the time could have had something to do with it.

The American government put into service the M 60 when the FN MAG was clearly superior.
I am sure there are lots of examples.
 
Maybe--maybe not. Different people have different ideas about what's best. It would be hard to find an ex-British serviceman who has a bad word to say about the Bren, but it was based on a Czech design. The Lee-Enfield had its roots elsewhere and the American 1903 Springfield was pure Mauser. All of these had some modifications upon adoption and all continued to be modified. Only the Germans seem to escape this tendency to import good designs. As often as not, domestic designers have been forced to leave their country to find a market for their products elsewhere and not just in small arms. Hotchkiss is a good example.

Maybe I'm wrong and I often am but I was under the impression the SA-80 was based on the AR-18, not a native design. But either way, it may not have seemed like such a bad thing when first adopted. Some problems will not show up right away, even during troop trials. The FN-MAG may or may not have been available at the time the M60 was adopted but you have to realize that military development projects sometimes take on a life of their own, sometimes even when the original project becomes essentially obsolete or after apparently better designs become available. But these are all things that are easy to say more than 50 years after the fact.

Remember also that many may praise something without having any hands on experience whatsoever.
 
Yes the action in the SA80 was based on the AR18 and some rifles need mods after being in service.
But the SA80 had to be more or less to be re built by h-k at a cost of £90 million to turn it into a half decent rifle.

After various attempts at denial, and years of applying minor fixes that eased some problems but failed to solve the big ones, the Ministry of Defence bowed to the inevitable in 1997. They considered buying the M16 and M4 "off the shelf", but in the end commissioned HK to undertake a thorough revamp of the SA80 (HK was by this time owned by Royal Ordnance, so was in effect a British company - it has since been returned to German control). The changes were expensive (£92m - about 145 million dollars/euros) and comprehensive, as follows:



1. Breech block,

2. Breech bolt,

3. Cartridge extractor,

4. Cartridge ejector,

5. Recoil springs,

6. Extractor spring,

7. Firing pin,

8. Cocking handle,

9. Magazine (the whole magazine has been replaced),

10. Gas plug and cylinder,

11. Hammer,

12. Barrel extension
 
The problem with these post is they are based on opinions.

For example you gave, The M-60 Vs FN. I don't believe the FN was that much better of a weapon. I've fired the M-60 a lot, in combat, in training, and I've put on several Machine Gun schools. There isn't a damn thing wrong with the M-60.

Its the same thing with any other weapon. Regardless of what the military issues, some one is going to come up and say its a piece of crap. X is always better the Y.

Don't care if you're talking about Machine guns, rifles, or pistols. They are all crap, they are all the best available, etc etc.

Some opinions are based on experience, some are based on what one reads on the internet, and some are based on what Uncle Joe's second cousin, three times removed heard a guy say.

I rave about different firearms, I also have extensive experience with that firearm. Some I don't like because of bad experience. Not with one, but several of them. When you're teaching a class, and all are armed with X rifle, and no one can qualify, no one can make them shoot, then I tend to not like that gun.

If I'm attending a sniper school, and everyone there using the same rifle, and the students are hitting targets they didnt think posible, and the guns don't malfucntion throughout the course, then I'm gonna like that gun.

But then again, some one is going to take the same rifle, have a malfuction for some wierd reason and swear to the high heavens that that rifle is a piece of junk and the military is trying to get all the soldiers killed.
 
Military firearms...

...procurement is limited in two areas:

  • Faster, better, cheaper. Choose two.
  • Project management - Triple constraints - Time, money, scope.

The M60, as kraigwy points out, is a fine weapon. The designers based things on the MG42, which is the direction modern weaponry was taking.

The M1, while on the cutting edge of 1930's technology, could have been much better. It could have been chambered in .276 Petersen (D. MacArthur nixed the caliber), and it could have been built with a removable magazine instead of an en bloc clip. However, it was still superiior to everything out there at the time.

The M1 Garand was also a peace time development. There was no war on the horizon, so its development was was not pressured by combat needs. World War II ramp-up of production caused it to be outsourced to Winchester and International Harvester.

The British Bren was a licensed copy of a Czech design. Probably one of the superior designs of the era; much superior to the Browning BAR.

While the M14 was, by extension, a modernized M1, it was probably somewhat inferior to the FN/FAL. The M14 was superior as far as long range use, but the world of combat had moved from long-range engagement, to that of close-in combat. The FN/FAL is a great rifle. However, its procurement couldn't be guaranteed if the USSR overran Europe. There was also tremendous pressure to stay with Springfield Armory. Homegrown and bred.

The M16 came with its own problems. Most of which were caused by the "gee whiz" factor of the U.S. Department of Defense procurement. Juicing up the powder to decrease cycle time, lack of education for the end user, and poor maintenance, all nearly spelled disaster in Vietnam. However, the M16 uses the same basic design. Forty-odd years is an eternity in firearms life. So, that speaks to the strength of the design.

Now, with the need for longer-range engagement, the M14 has come back into favor. Nothing says hello like a M80 ball cartridge at 800 yards.

For over 160 years, the Springfield Armory produced the military's firearms, contracting out during times of war. By the 1960's, Robert McNamara decided to outsource small arms, and eliminate the government-owned monopoly on military firearms. Armalite, then Colt, got the business. Were troops better off? From strictly a technology basis, yes. The M16 platform was light years away from the M14. Was it properly handled? Unfortunately, no.

There's an outstanding book available which discusses what won World War II. "Why The Allies Won", by Richard Overy, is a great analysis of how the war was won.
 
I agree with the last post but you need to bear in mind that many times the military "chooses" a weapon they gotta sell it to a bunch of politicians who unfortunately choose whatever will make money for them and their constituents back home or will only approve the lowest bidder. (or whoever they're in bed with at the moment). The M 16 was foisted upon us by people who had no idea what a soldier needs in the field. The Air Farce chose the M 16 to guard air bases (McNamara liked it cause it was "high tech") and picked the M 9 over two separate trials which the other branches screamed "FOUL" over. Why the Air Farce gets to choose a weapon for the Army and Marines makes absolutely no sense to me. McNamara insisted that we should all wear the same boots and use the same rifle. I don't miss him at all.
 
Last edited:
The problem with these post is they are based on opinions.

For example you gave, The M-60 Vs FN. I don't believe the FN was that much better of a weapon. I've fired the M-60 a lot, in combat, in training, and I've put on several Machine Gun schools. There isn't a damn thing wrong with the M-60.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

I read all of Peter Kokalis' stuff in Shotgun News, he apparently spent a lot of time with various military units in South America, and he has nothing good to say about the M60.
 
Sometimes there are external pressures involved in weapons selection, sometimes involving money, sometimes not. I'd also say that the controversaries connected with new weapons are inversely related to the cost and complexity of the weapons. There was more controversy over the pistol than the rifle, more over the rifle than the machine gun, more over the machine gun than the mortar and so on. Other than sometimes mentioning the cost, there are generally nothing like those controversies involving larger and more complex weapons and weapon systems, many of which never get used. And by the way, you've misspelled Air Force.
 
kraigwy


For example you gave, The M-60 Vs FN. I don't believe the FN was that much better of a weapon. I've fired the M-60 a lot, in combat, in training, and I've put on several Machine Gun schools. There isn't a damn thing wrong with the M-60.

I could be wrong is the American army not using the FN MAG if the M60 is so good why are they using the MAG.

As for the SA80 its not just opinion. Its a well known fact that is was a crap rifle. The British army didn't spend £90 million trying to fix it just for the fun of it . It was that bad rather than fix it that they where going to scrap it and buy M16-S.
 
Last edited:
manta49: The M-60 was replaced with the M-249, for many of the same reasons that the M-14 was replaced by the M-16.

It's lighter, as is the ammo. It is easier for one soldier to fire on full automatic.

The M-60 still sees service as a vehicle mounted weapon.
 
Define "Best" ? I've often thought Patton's description of the M-1 Garand as the "greatest battle implement ever devised" a bit hyperbolic, the strength of the US ground forces in WWII and Korea were tactical and strategic doctrines that emphasized firepower over manpower, the logistics to support them, emphasis on individual and small unit initiative, a much stronger NCO corps and a command system that emphasized flexibility and was not fanatically commited to holding terrain.
Getting back to the original idea, the US has been pretty good about adopting "foreign" designs-the Krag, the M1903, the M1917, e.g. IIRC we paid Mauser $200,000 for the rights to use the stripper clip, I do not know what if anything we paid Ole Hermann Krag and Erik Jorgensen or if we paid anything to adopt the P-14. There are often serious problems in obtaining manufacturing rights for someone else's designs-Canada adopted the Ross because he offered to build the factory and they couldn't get rights to manufacture the SMLE. And often weapons are adopted-the Krag, e.g., on the basis of peacetime tactical doctrines that fail in combat. And outside of reloading where exceeding safe loads can be hazardous to your health 90% of everything regarding guns and shooting is opinion.
 
The American government put into service the M 60 when the FN MAG was clearly superior.
Click to expand...

Clearly better? It was clearly heavier, that much is true. They were developed in the same time period, not sure the US government even knew the FN MAG was in development, and there wouldn't be much of a track record for anyone to judge which was better. The M60 was derived from the German MG42, was a pretty good design and served our country well for a long time

I could be wrong is the American army not using the FN MAG if the M60 is so good why are they using the MAG.
Click to expand...

Lots of reasons? Such as why we are using the Beretta instead of some much better pistols? Maybe dwindling sources of manufacturing for the M60 vs FN MAG still in production....maybe a better deal from FN. Not sure; I didn't participate in the study. I think the M1911A1 was replaced by the Beretta in part because they were all beginning to wear out, and there either was no current contract in place to produce more or Colt just wasn't making them. Just because a piece of equipment is replaced, doesn't necessarily mean the replacement is better. Haven't you ever had to replace a car you liked with something you didn't like as much?


The M-60 was replaced with the M-249, for many of the same reasons that the M-14 was replaced by the M-16
Click to expand...

Yes and no. The M-60 was replaced by the M240B (FN MAG, 7.62mm). It had already been supplemented by the M249 (5.56mm) as a "Squad Automatic Weapon" (SAW), or "Automatic Rifle".
 
The m60/m240 are crew served machine guns designed to be employed by a gunner and an ammo/tripod carrier. The m249 saw is an automatic rifle employed by an individual soldier. And in my opinion its a bad design. 5.56 does not have enough oomph to be a belt fed round. Belts of ammo get dragged across the ground, and pick up all sorts of debri and mud. Once the affected rounds go into the feed tray, the gun stops.
 
There isn't a damn thing wrong with the M-60.
Click to expand...

I guarantee you there was plenty wrong with the M60s that I repaired during the 1970s.

I won't go so far as to say its a completely bad design, but its not a very good one.

And before someone argues about how it was based on the MG 42, which is a pretty good design, only part of the M60 is based on the MG 42. And those parts usually didn't give us much trouble!


As to the "best" design, vs "home grown", the basic difference is the odds of your military being isolated from its supply base. Issue your troops a rifle (or other weapon) made in a foreign country and if your transport from that country is stopped, your guys are stuck with what they have on hand.

The BREN gun is a good example. It is a Czech design, made by BRNO. The British adopted it with only slight variances (caliber, etc.) and made them in England, at Enfield. Thats where the name comes from, BR (BRNO) + EN (Enfield)= BREN.

The US 1903 Springfield is another example. We could have bought Mausers, but national pride (and the realization that supply from Germany might not always be available) led us to build a Mauser copy (again, with slight variances).

The best solution would be to decide what is the best arm for your troops, and then build it in your own country. But, that can be expensive. And cost is a very important factor, especially when you are not actively in combat.
 
As to the "best" design, vs "home grown", the basic difference is the odds of your military being isolated from its supply base. Issue your troops a rifle (or other weapon) made in a foreign country and if your transport from that country is stopped, your guys are stuck with what they have on hand.
Click to expand...

Just what I was about to post. Sure, you might be able to find a better rifle from Germany. But what happens if we end up at war with Germany again?

A similar question arose when GM, and other US auto companies, were going under. Where was our military supposed to get its Humvees?
 
A similar question arose when GM, and other US auto companies, were going under. Where was our military supposed to get its Humvees?
Click to expand...

the funny thing about that is they Humvee and Hummer brand names were sold to a foreign company who has since filed for bankruptcy....

back on topic though, IMHO any country that relies on another foreign power to procure its main infantry weapon, or tank or even ammunition is logistically stabbing themselves in the leg.
 
Robert S. McNamara, as Secretary of Defense, had his underlings make a very thorough review of the D.O.D. procurement processes and policies. One of the things that came of the studies was the decision to close the Springfield Arsenal. He believed, as did others, that the relationship between the Arsenal and D.O.D. procurement was such, that the military was not getting the best weapons possible. Therefore, he would outsource procurement of small arms, and eventually close the Springfield Arsenal.

As things happened the AR15 from Armalite came along, very much impressing General Curtis LeMay. The stars and heavens had an amazing convergence, and D.O.D. accomplished both tasks.

Guarding Air Force bases was not the same as slogging around in the wet and heat of Southeast Asia. While the M16 was tested in Vietnam, inveterate tinkerers decided to speed up the cyclic rate by replacing the stick powder with dirtier ball powder. Coupled with the lack of cleaning, the chambers developed corrosion, and the higher pressure round sometimes jambed in the chamber, while the hard recoiling bolt tore the head off the casing. Voila! Instant jam and disabling the weapon, turning it into an aluminum and plastic club.

There are well documented stories out there of the M16's early problems and failures. Just ask any Marine who was in Vietnam in the mid-60's.

Here's a link to articles detailing the initial problems.

http://www.jouster.com/saga_of_M16/saga_of_the_m16_part_1.pdf
http://www.jouster.com/saga_of_M16/saga_of_the_m16_part_2.pdf
 
Last edited:
My impression was that design of the M-60 machine gun was based more on both the FG-42 rifle and the MG-42 machine gun but clearly it was inspired by the MG-42, as have most machine guns since. Even during the war, there was an attempt to use the Browning light machine gun in the same role with the addition of bipod and shoulder stock. But I suppose experiments with adopting a US version of the MG-42 came to nothing. The best they did was to adopt a German designed shovel. Glock started out making shovels, you know.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top