The genius of John Moses Browning.

Here we are, more than a century later, and some are still decrying the claim of design genius because this or that in a 1911 "could have been done better".

It is easy to see what might have been done better, when you have decades, or a CENTURY of seeing what was done and how it worked, THEN design something "better".

Even if you only look at his military designs, the genius of Browning is clear. And the military designs were only a small part of what Browning did.

The 1911 pistol, the BAR, and the .30 and .50 cal machineguns, all Browning. These designs work, work well, and break seldom. Compared to everything else in the world of the same era, Browning designs were are good as any, and better than most.

While the 1911 design is tremendous, I don't think it was his best work, in terms of historical impact. I give that honor to Ma Duce. Followed by the .30 cal in its variations.

It was Browning machineguns that gave our WWII fighter planes their teeth. It was the M2 that made the Flying Fortress a fortress. Browning machineguns on or in all our tanks, and just about every other military vehicle that had a gun mounted on it. Jeeps, trucks, halftracks, all mounted Brownings.

The .303 guns in RAF planes were Brownings. Hell, even our submarines had Browning machineguns, for surface actions. I'm not certain, but I think the M2 is the single longest serving machinegun in history. It is still in service!

I think using the "flaws" you can find in the 1911 as basis for criticizing Browning's genius is like saying Michelanglo wasn't a genius because the Sistine Chapel ceiling is a painting and not a hologram!
 
We could all wish him a Happy Birthday today, too!!!
Click to expand...

He and my little sister share a birthday. That fact makes me inordinately happy.

I can't think of any weapon system that has been in service for as long as the M-2 and the numerous variants.

The 7.62x54R cartridge has seen longer service, but it started out in the Mosin.
 
One more time,with feeling,
The Turks,Filipinos,Brazilians,Mexicans,Argentinians,Poles,Chinese,Canadians,
Italians,Vietnamese,Pakistanis and a number of unmentionables right here stateside,crank out M1911's using for the most part their own standards.
The M1911 Army trials consisted of firing thousands of rounds non stop without
a single stoppage,that was in March 1911.Today some engineer wannabe buys
some obscure 1911 that don't work and issues a blanket verdict complete with
necessary improvements and rules the M1911 to be design defective.
 
Virtually any one of Browning's designs that went into production, would be the crowning achievement of any other gun designer's career.
The Mausers had a decent design or two. Garand had one. Colt did a good job with his early revolvers. Johnson. Pedersen. Saive. Stoner. Kalashnikov.
But, come on!?!?
 
Pedersen and Saive had a number of good designs. Both were "house" designers for major arms makers, Pedersen for Remington and Saive for FN.

But still, when it comes to the wide variety of his designs, and the length of his active career, Browning stands out in any company.

Jim
 
The military worked a bit differently than today in procurement. Today, the government will submit a detailed specification, then determine if the product submitted meets the spec. At that time, a company submitted a gun, then the military board critiqued it and added their own ideas, even as to how something should look. So I feel that the military did play a larger role in the adoption of the 1911 than a simple "take it or leave it." Also, at that time, field maintenance was very important. There were no ordnance trucks following the troops with full shop facilities; the troops were expected to do much of their own cleaning, and "first echelon" maintenance got deeper into the gun than is the norm today. Hence the requirement for ease of dis-assembly in areas that would be "off limits" to a GI today.

Jim
 
The military also did a lot of field testing, in surprisingly large quantities, of guns that were never adopted.
I was reading about some rifle, that I'd never heard of, with 1000 purchased by the Navy and 1000 by the Army, for testing.
Compared to the size of the inter-war military, 2000 rifles was . . . a lot of rifles! Can you imagine the Army ordering 5000 Tavors, just to see if they liked it? More likely, they'd spend three times that much on a few guys in a lab, trying to replicate the info that they'd get from issuing the 5000 guns!
 
The military was different then and John Browning was a man of his time.
He played by the rules and met the challenges and demands and when it came
to the money he accepted what Uncle Sam offered without dickering or regret.
Love for his country.
 
When a Mormon with a 6th grade education has 128 patents for guns and has over 100 produced that includes rifles, shotguns, machine guns that were single shots, semi-automatic and fully automatic, he was a genius. His machine gun and handguns are probably the reason we don't speak German today. He averaged a new gun every three months for like 15 or 16 years.
 
Browning generally sold his designs for a lump sum. He did dicker, often. The famous exception is the BAR, where he didn't dicker, he accepted the Govt.'s first (lowball) offer, under the condition that the first rifles go to his son's unit in France. They did. There is a famous picture of Val Browning carrying the Automatic Rifle his father designed.

Browning sold the Auto 5 design (his last completed one, I think) not for a cash sum, but for royalties on production.

As noted, many other gun designers, before and after have produced excellent designs, some have even produced quite a few. I can't think of any who personally designed as many highly successful firearms as JM Browning.

Can you?

And here is another thing, Browning usually didn't completely work out his designs on paper to begin with. A few rough sketches usually, and then he would carve and built his test models from wood, switching over to steel after he was sure the basic concepts would work. it truly was a different era.
 
Then imagine trying to do them in the field real quick.
Not just a simple field strip, but a total disassembly.
And trying to not lose any parts.
Click to expand...

While I know nothing about "the field", I'm pretty sure I wouldn't want to be in the position of having to completely disassemble and reassemble either the Beretta 92 nor the 1911 quickly.

But I'm pretty darned sure the takedown for routine cleaning is easier and quicker on the 92 than on the 1911. Wanna race?
 
My first gun was a 20 gauge A5 (thus, my handle). HD duty has been shared between my BPH and one 1911 or another for over three decades. Last year I picked up an FN 1910/55, just because I've always wanted one. I guess you can include me in the JMB fan club.
 
But I'm pretty darned sure the takedown for routine cleaning is easier and quicker on the 92 than on the 1911. Wanna race?
Click to expand...

No thanks, I won't race you for field strip times. Not with a 1911A1. Now, with my Browning BDA.45, I would!

I would expect a gun designed 60 YEARS LATER (Beretta 92) than the 1911 to have at least SOME features that were superior. Amazing how few actually do, isn't it?

Want a real race? Lets start with both guns fully assembled. Race to see who can fully strip their pistol first, and then reassemble it. NO tools allowed. Who do you think will win that one? I'd bet on me, and my 1911A1!

Ok, to be "fair";) I'll allow one "tool" I get a single M2 ball .30-06 cartridge, you get a single 5.56mm round. (something a soldier on the battlefield would have, or easily find). Who do you think will win now? I still bet on the 1911!

Sometimes, people in combat do things that on later reflection even they themselves will ask "why?" I ran across one such in my reading, from Iwo Jima (IIRC). A BAR gunner, during a lull in the action removed the "firing group" from his BAR to clean it. (probably trying to get the sand out). Action heated up, shells came in, the parts were lost.

The gunner carried his (now useless) BAR for some time, until he found another BAR gunner, one who had been killed. He then took the needed parts out of the dead gunner's BAR, and put them in his, and returned to the fight.

Later he said he should have just taken the other BAR and dropped his, never could figure out why he did what he did, only that it seemed to make sense at the time.
 
I grew up around firearms, including the Government Model, and for whatever reason, taking down my M-9 is always an exercise in frustration.
 
Everyone youtube "Remington Model 8".

Oh man, imagine running around in a trench with a semi auto .35 Remington eight years after he invented it.
 
Supposedly, there were a couple of old Regular Army Sergeants, like guys who fought the Spainards, Moros, and Mexicans, who were assigned as bodyguards to General Pershing.
And they were armed with Remington Model 8 rifles
 
Yer On!
On your mark, get ready, go!
Oh wait, now I'll have to take a pause and go buy a 92.
Damn sneaky of you, that.
The 1911 has about 25 less parts than the 92.
The parts for the 1911 are mostly large and hard to misplace.
The ones for the 92 are a lot of little "fiddly bits."
P.S.
How come the military didn't choose the sturdy and proven S&W DA/SA auto, if they wanted a higher capacity 9mm big clunk to replace the 1911?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top