Let me rephrase the first comment. Too powerful to fire accurately offhand in full auto.
Automatic rifle used as infantry rifle ?
- Thread starter Undeadmuffin
- Start date
Couldn't they have simplified the BAR into a semi-auto, get rid of some of the weight and offered it as the main weapon for american in WW1 ?
The 13.5 pound version WAS simplified. Most of the bits that made it usable under field conditions (dust covers, flash suppressor, full forestock, etc.) were removed.
I'm not sure what is the problem then.
If a country wants an automatic rifle that fires an off-the-shelf round, between the wars, the various 6.5mm are a good choice, and it was actually done. The 7.5-8 mm are bad choice, being the 'full power' rounds. Neither of the listed countries went with an automatic rifle with the bigger rounds, but they wanted a more powerful repeating rifle and/or MG. So, thier step when adopting a 'full power' round was in the backward direction, not forward. What some minor army did does not mean they were wrong, the big armies were doing mistakes too.
BTW - nobody necked the rounds down in order to keep the ME, it was done to increase muzzle velocity, as eg. the Soviets did with 76,2 mm to produce 57mm AT gun, or British when using 5.4in to produce high speed 3.7 AA round.
Obergruppenführer Smith
Banned
Is there actual proof of such a belief? I have seen that statement for years, but that just doesn't seem right.
Stenz said: ↑
There was a general feeling that issuing full auto weapons to rank and file would result in ammo wastage, the belief that firing off everything would be too great a possibility in the early stages of any action. I don't know if it was so much a cowards weapon thing (if he has no ammo, a soldier can retreat) or a belief the common man wouldn't be unable to resist the temptation.
Indeed, the ammunition cannard has been disproved with every increase in RoF for some four centuries.
The US Marines did increase the numbers of BAR in the rifle company until they became a defacto assault weapon. Sixteen in a rifle company at the start and 27 by mid 1944.
There was a general feeling that issuing full auto weapons to rank and file would result in ammo wastage, the belief that firing off everything would be too great a possibility in the early stages of any action. I don't know if it was so much a cowards weapon thing (if he has no ammo, a soldier can retreat) or a belief the common man wouldn't be unable to resist the temptation.
Indeed, the ammunition cannard has been disproved with every increase in RoF for some four centuries.
The US Marines did increase the numbers of BAR in the rifle company until they became a defacto assault weapon. Sixteen in a rifle company at the start and 27 by mid 1944.
I don't know how much of it is a canard as a failure of imagination regarding advances in logistics.
Troops throw ammo downrange like its free, call it grazing fire, enfilading fire, suppressive fire, or plain old rock & roll, troops will burn through ammo like there is no tomorrow. The only time that changes is when you have actual professionals. One of the best ways to tell who is who on the modern battlefield is to listen to which side it firing 2-3 round bursts and who is burning off mags.
The U.S. military never had a problem with supply, except when troops were cut off for some reason. The Garand didn't even provide for topping off the mag, when troops were told to lock and clear a partial clip would be ejected. Sometimes someone gather up the rounds, most of the time they didn't.
Warfare at the infantry level, since the introduction of the magazine rifle (and arguably since the rolling/drop block) has been a steady increase defeating the enemy through sheer weight of fire sent down range. The side that does that can better maneuver, produces more shock, and generally walk away a winner.
marathag
Banned
Here's that Colt Monitor
Could have given that the Clyde Barrow treatment and saw off the barrel by the gas port and some of the stock
The Chauchat was an unreliable, easily broken piece of crap.
The Browning was too heavy.
The Huot started off as a bolt action rifle, the Canadian Ross, converted into a light machine gun and never really saw much production despite some potential.
The FG-42 is a weird one. The Germans could probably have made a semi auto version but whoever was in charge of paratrooper armaments wanted a gun that could do double duty as a rifle and LMG and by the time it was in service the MP-42 was on the horizon and the day of the full power SLR was coming to an end.
Fallschirmsjager Gwehr 42 Mark 2 is my favourite of the semi-auto rifles mentioned so far. FG42's greatest advantage is its short overall length (1 metre) which was great for house-clearing and travelling in vehicles.
FG42's second advantage was its low felt-recoil. The muzzle-brake combined with a recoil-absorbing butt-stock to reduce felt-recoil to half that of FN FAL irony 7.62 NATO ammo.
Granted, FG42 Mark 1 was flimsy and unreliable, but everyone's Mark 1 was crude.
No one expected FG42's light barrel to survive more than a few hundred rounds fired at full-auto, but full-auto was only incorporated to allow paratrooper's to fight thier way to canisters containing long guns: MG42, mortars, etc.).
When the zombie apocalypse arrives, I want an FG42 replica chambered in Winchester .308 (currently made in Texas).
FG42's second advantage was its low felt-recoil. The muzzle-brake combined with a recoil-absorbing butt-stock to reduce felt-recoil to half that of FN FAL irony 7.62 NATO ammo.
Granted, FG42 Mark 1 was flimsy and unreliable, but everyone's Mark 1 was crude.
No one expected FG42's light barrel to survive more than a few hundred rounds fired at full-auto, but full-auto was only incorporated to allow paratrooper's to fight thier way to canisters containing long guns: MG42, mortars, etc.).
When the zombie apocalypse arrives, I want an FG42 replica chambered in Winchester .308 (currently made in Texas).
I have to defend the Chauchat. The 30-06 US version was badly done and it had it's faults (e.g. the open magazine) but the 8mm worked adequately when well made and the Poles were happy to continue to use it for years. In normal (i.e. not USA) service it really only needed better quality control and a better magazine.
In the Anglophone world the justifiable complaints of the USA version have drowned out the French and Polish experiences with far more of them. The Lewis gun had open bottomed pan magazines a pointless cooling shroud and an impressive list of stoppage solutions for the gunner to learn but no one complains about that.
I'd say since the musket became a standard infantry weapon you can see the desire to increase volume of fire from the reduction in the ratio of pikes to muskets, the introduction of flintlocks, in the development of volley and platoon fire, the move to two rank lines...
About half of this sort of begs the question why introduce a weapon whose sole advantage is rate of fire if you don't intend to use more ammo.
Why you do not at various times differs in detail but really comes down to the fact that the weapon has marginal advantages in the hands of millions of conscript infantrymen trained years ago compared to say, building Dreadnoughts submarines, escorts, QF artillery, keeping any sort of ammo supply going, motorisation, tanks, An air force, etc. etc. etc. When HE doe 80% of the killing anyway
Pre WW1 is illustrative Introducing MG to the Austrian army doubles the size of the regimental supply column which is the single largest space hog on rail transport as well, plus the fodder requirement. This on top of the QF guns which have doubled the artillery chain at Division and Corps. THE A-H army next largest transport requirement btw was officers baggage so compared to other armies the % increase is higher. So new rifle but slower deployment, more of a logs train, less tactical flexibility.
The British Pre war ( School of Musketry) looked at and believed both the French and Germans were also looking at Automatic rifles but a) could not find a reliable one and b) really meant and lmg, which is one reason why the Brits and French adopted mobile lmg in WW1 and kept the concept into WW2.
However their rationale goes something like. It takes 300 rpm to suppress an enemy platoon sized position 600 yd away. A Lewis ( type) achieves that by having 2 men finding cover and a field of fire leaving 28 men as a movement element of the platoon vs 30 men firing 10 rpm steady fire all needing cover and leaving none for the movement part of a platoon fire and movement drill.
Adding Semi Auto or full auto from an infantryman's personal weapon may reduce the number of men exposing themselves (!) but it requires the same volume of fire and loses the advantage of a crew served weapon which the corporal can supervise and will reduce the size of the movement element.
Why you do not at various times differs in detail but really comes down to the fact that the weapon has marginal advantages in the hands of millions of conscript infantrymen trained years ago compared to say, building Dreadnoughts submarines, escorts, QF artillery, keeping any sort of ammo supply going, motorisation, tanks, An air force, etc. etc. etc. When HE doe 80% of the killing anyway
Pre WW1 is illustrative Introducing MG to the Austrian army doubles the size of the regimental supply column which is the single largest space hog on rail transport as well, plus the fodder requirement. This on top of the QF guns which have doubled the artillery chain at Division and Corps. THE A-H army next largest transport requirement btw was officers baggage so compared to other armies the % increase is higher. So new rifle but slower deployment, more of a logs train, less tactical flexibility.
The British Pre war ( School of Musketry) looked at and believed both the French and Germans were also looking at Automatic rifles but a) could not find a reliable one and b) really meant and lmg, which is one reason why the Brits and French adopted mobile lmg in WW1 and kept the concept into WW2.
However their rationale goes something like. It takes 300 rpm to suppress an enemy platoon sized position 600 yd away. A Lewis ( type) achieves that by having 2 men finding cover and a field of fire leaving 28 men as a movement element of the platoon vs 30 men firing 10 rpm steady fire all needing cover and leaving none for the movement part of a platoon fire and movement drill.
Adding Semi Auto or full auto from an infantryman's personal weapon may reduce the number of men exposing themselves (!) but it requires the same volume of fire and loses the advantage of a crew served weapon which the corporal can supervise and will reduce the size of the movement element.
Magazine cutoffs on WWI era Springfields and Enfields
Magazine Cut offs existed for one main reason
Cavalry
Most magazine fed bolt action infantry rifles had 5 rounds (lee enfield famously had 10!)
The usual way for units to engage an enemy (pre 20C/WW1) was to volley fire by platoons
This was deliberate long range 'musketry' with a ROF of 1 or 2 rounds a minute per rifleman and breech loading each bullet did not detract from this.
If cavalry was lurking nearby out of site of a given infantry unit and had the infantry men exhausted their magazines during volley fire then it might make the difference between the cavalry being driven off or the cavalry annihilating the Infantry before they could reload - hence the 'perceived' need for the magazine bullets to be kept back for rapid fire
Obviously barbed wire and portable machine guns largely negated this threat and magazine cutoffs stopped appearing on rifles
In some ways similar debates are still going on today. Ie there have been debates about how many magazines soldiers should carry for their assault rifles, how many rounds individual weapons should be expected to be able to fire in rapid succession before malfunctioning etc.
One reason for the forming of the Machine Gun Corps was to ensure that they had their own organic logistics train in belted form and with all the bits to keep them going for hours if necessary.
As an aside on firepower and logistics. Pre 17th century arquebusiers carried their own supplies, often buying their own ammunition. They relied upon accurate (for the period) slow fire at greater ranges than later on when armies got their act together on resupply and could allow their musketeers to fire as fast as possible at closer opponents. To be fair the old system had far less smoke to cope with. Later on the vast increase in powder fired by artillery and muskets prevented seeing to fire at any great distance en masse. But this is quite OT.
As an aside on firepower and logistics. Pre 17th century arquebusiers carried their own supplies, often buying their own ammunition. They relied upon accurate (for the period) slow fire at greater ranges than later on when armies got their act together on resupply and could allow their musketeers to fire as fast as possible at closer opponents. To be fair the old system had far less smoke to cope with. Later on the vast increase in powder fired by artillery and muskets prevented seeing to fire at any great distance en masse. But this is quite OT.
The main reason for this thread was that if someone could take a bolt-action and reengineer it into a LMG (the Ross into the Huot), I figured that someone could take an automatic gun and lighten it into a semi-auto rifle (especially since it could give an advantage).
I understand that weight seem to be the main obstacle, this seem to be the case for the BAR, but could another gun work better ?
I understand that weight seem to be the main obstacle, this seem to be the case for the BAR, but could another gun work better ?
The Royal Navy used them too. The japanese used the same round in their bolt action rifles.
This italian rifles also automatic.
Last edited: