Military Firearms.

while the hard recoiling bolt tore the head off the casing
Click to expand...
Regarding the M16 (or any weapon), recoil will not tear the head off the casing. What tears the head off is timing, or rather, bad timing. When the action unlocks and tries to extract the case before the pressure in the chamber has dropped enough, then you get extractors tearing through rims or heads torn off. Or badly rusted/corroded chambers, causing the case to stick after the pressure drops can give the same result. Yes, it did happen to M16s in Vietnam. But it wasn't recoil that did it.


The M60 is similar in general appearance to the MG42, because its a very efficient shape for a LMG. The M60 feed mechanism (those parts inside the feed cover) are very close copies of the MG42. However, other than the use of stampings, thats where the similarities end.

The M60 is gas operated. The MG42 is not. The M60 bolt and op rod are nothing like the MG42.

According to what I have heard, US attempts to produce copies of the MG42 for our own use (during or just after WWII) failed, because of a simple, small oversight. We made barrels for the .30-06, but didn't change anything else of the gun, so the .30-06 MG42 coipies didn't work well. The '06 case is 6mm longer than the 8mm Mauser.
 
Consider the risk of procuring arms from an overseas manufacturer who may not have an adequate supply or may not want to furnish an adequate supply when needed. Irregardless of manufacturer origin they should be built in the US otherwise it presents a risk. What if Indonesia produced the "best" arms in a given field? What if they did everything the US guns did but at lower cost to produce? That would indeed be the best, but wouldn't make a lot of sense if you take a step back and consider what the guns are to be used for.
 
Why the Air Farce gets to choose a weapon for the Army and Marines makes absolutely no sense to me
Click to expand...

When the big American push into the War in 'Nam started, US Troops carried M14s, a heavy gun. The South Vietnamese could barely carry the gun and enough ammo to make a patrol. The US Air Force had adopted the AR15, it was called that and was select fire, to guard Air Bases in the US. As the AF took over security for their own bases in 'Nam, they carried the same AR15 that they were using in the US. The South Vietnamese loved'm because them could actually carry them. The South Vietnamese Army began to order them by the thousands. US Military planners wanted our guys to carry what our ally carried. Thus the US Military began issuing the, now renamed, M16.
 
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.
Click to expand...

McNamara was one of the "whiz kids", a group of Air Force systems analysts hired by Henry Ford, II, to keep Ford Motor Company from going bankrupt in the late 1940's.

Each of them, Tex Thornton, Arjay Miller, Robert McNamara, J. Edward Lundy, and six others, all brought specific skills to the game, and those men literally "wrote the book" for Ford.

McNamara, in late 1960, was named the President of Ford Motor Company. Within months, President Kennedy persuaded him to leave Ford and bring those skill sets to the Department of Defense.

Some of the things he changed probably needed changing, and I won't try to defend him. His record stands on its own, good or bad.

Did we need the M16? Combat had taken a turn for the close-in engagement, negating the need for an 800 yard battle rifle. It was proven in the 1950's, that infantry engagements had moved to within 350 yards. So, why lug around a rifle that's powered for distances over twice 350 yards?

Had they wanted to retain the NATO 7.62mm cartridge, why not go for the AR10-type rifle, an M16 on steroids? There were already prototypes available.

McNamara's problem was that he was a systemic thinker, and not that of a leader. Men of his ilk are not trained, nor bred, to be leaders. They get caught up in their own systems thinking.

However, there were huge internecene wars going on in the D.O.D. This had been true since the late 1940's. The Air Force wanted to be the only air arm, and they very nearly got their way. The Army couldn't abide the Marine doctrine of less artillery, and using Navy/Marine air to substitute. One only needs to look at the South Pacific in WWII when Marine General H.M. (Howlin' Mad) Smith fired an Army general, Ralph Smith (Cdr 27th Infantry Div). Those sores still hadn't healed.

The politics aren't limited to the halls of Congress. They're practiced every day at the Pentagon.
 
The AR-10 was beyond the prototype stage and had been manufactured in some quantity, though not in this country. Maybe that was the problem.

I'm still not sure about this, seeing as how little details of dates are always a problem, but I think the British may have actually used AR-15s in combat before the Americans. Theirs did not have the forward assist device and of course they didn't go through the problem with the cartridges, I believe. As far as I know, they continued to use those very same rifles for the next 30 years, though not as general issue.
 
While Wikipedia can't always be trusted, they do state that the first AR15's were sold to Malaysia in 3rd quarter 1959. Delivery took place later on. This hasn't be refuted by other sources.

The AR10 evidently was past "prototype", since it had been submitted to the D.O.D had tested it against the M14.
 
Blue Train wrote:
Well, here's another question: were the FAL variations that the army tested (T-48?) made at Springfield or in Belgium?
Click to expand...

Harrington and Richardson was an authorized importer for the FN/FAL. I don't have another reference handy, but I believe the rifles used in the D.O.D. tests were made in Belgium. It lost out to the eventual M14.

I don't think it was ever produced at the Springfield, MA, facility.
 
I did know that FNs were very briefly imported and I even had a sporting goods store in my home town try to get one. Even put a deposit down on it. They couldn't get one. I think the T-48s were similiar in configuration to the variation used by Israel. I got to examine one of those in a heavy barrel version and heavy it was, about like a BAR.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top