okay I think I somehow imagined OP saying adopted as a service rifle and the image was meant to be the BAR in general. but no I'm just having a stupid moment, my bad
The army adopt hundreds of thousands of the pricey Thompson SMG so why not buy these R75 from Colt, they were producing those since 1920s.
In 1942 the Army sent to battlefield just 8 divisions and the USMC one and half and the production of new M1918A2 just catch up in 1943 so why not sent an order to Colt to produce some thousands of R75?
>Why didn't the US adopt this?
Because they had a hundred thousand M1918s the US had already paid for, and no money to buy anything more.
>The army adopt hundreds of thousands of the pricey Thompson SMG
Only in 1938, when War Were (Almost) Declared; before that they only had a handful. Actual war prospects open the dollar floodgates. >why not sent an order to Colt to produce some thousands of R75?
Because Colt's was terrible at ramping up production.
Colt was making a huge number of other products, and was at or near capacity.
Much as I like the gun, one has to question why the U.S. Gov insisted on Colt continuing to make huge numbers of the water cooled M1917A1, as well as continuing contracts for MG40's for countries that no longer existed.
Colt's commercial version of the ANM2 .30" Browning aircraft MG. Almost wholly useless by the time the U.S. entered WW2, being in .30 US.
Yet pre and early war, it was a very common primary armament, both fixed and flexible for aircraft. Colt had a number of ongoing export contracts, as they were one of the first to offer the gun in just about any chambering desired.
Sad, because the little things are almost works of art, they are made and finished so well.
Basically the army wanted any new BAR variants to be capable of retrofitting onto existing BARs. The FN designed pistol grip and rate reducer didn't meet that criteria. You can argue if it's stupid or not, but in WWII it was discovered that the BAR tooling from WWI was fucked and the only source of M1918A2s was converting M1918s.
You started off well, but completely omitted Colt's production of the Monitor.
Also, I have no idea where the tale about tooling comes from, as there were numerous manufacturers of the M1918, with Colt making variants for export (alongside the Monitor) up til the eve of WW2. I can only suspect it stems from one of the initial contractors having issues, and not representing the totality of production.
That aside, M1918A2's were made during WW2 on new receivers, this is easily discerned not only by the stamping atop the receiver, but the manufacturer and finish. Pre WW2 M1918's had a blued finish that was reblued to a matte, whereas WW2 production had a rougher external finish, and were Parkerized.
It was never designed to. It was intended to be a machine rifle. Basically an automatic rifle capable of higher sustained rates of fire, while being lighter than the "light" machine guns of the day.
U.S. Ordnance in it's "wisdom" somehow mutated it into a pseudo LMG.
It was essentially a battle rifle. Would you also call M14 an 'objectively stupid' weapon?
Actually I'll concede a little bit, the M14 isn't stupid in and of itself, more it's a product of ingrained stupidity, but that's starting to get a little too into the weeds. Sexy rifle though.
In the Korean War the Americans 'borrowed' some Boys AT Rifles from Canadian troops, strengthened the action and mounted them with scopes. They were used as long-range sniper rifles on an experimental basis, firing double charged .50 BMG ammunition. Reportedly had a range of 2000 yards (1830m roughly).
Also the L85A2/3/4 has a DMR and LMG variant doesn't it? People laugh at the gun but it is actually quite good. It has issues (ergonomics are fucked, it isn't ambidextrous and its cold as shit at night so you're hugging a cold fucking gun in your sleeping bag). Granted the A1 was a clusterfuck but it has been fixed now. I hope the Bongs don't go with German guns and they do another whacky replacement. I always wish the British .270 was adopted.
Ah no apparently they didn't have one. L86 LSW is apparently being withdrawn. Also just found out, that Heckler & Koch made a .22LR L85A2 rifle... That means it is legal in UK if it is semi-auto. That's pretty based. Think it's just a training rifle though.
Honestly wish the Bongs would revive their arms industry. They used to produce neat smallarms. Atm all they do is produce sniper rifles and DMR. The CZ75 clone that was ambidextrous was great (Spitfire). Alas.
If you ever get the chance to fire the M1918, take your time and try firing it semi-auto off the shoulder, or from a rest.
Outside of the long lock time caused by it's open bolt operation, the thing is very very accurate.
Sorry, I omitted that the issues were at the start of WWII but later resolved, by IBM funnily enough.
Again, I suspect it was more issues with one company than production as a whole. IBM may have been that company, as they were a contractor for A2 manufacturing.
I would have to dig some books out of storage to confirm.
Why didn't the US adopted the WAR or the Charlton Automatic Rifle?
Why not the Lewis "Shock Action" rifle, while we are at it?
>Why not the Lewis "Shock Action" rifle, while we are at it?
Because I think the WAR and Charlton Automatic Rifle were worthy options. The Lewis Rifle, not so much. There is also the
Krieghoff Paratrooper Rifle that got rejected over the FG42 (which had Type I, Type II, Type III variants iirc). There is also the Tokarev AKT-40 which I think should have been used. The AS-44 (though this is an assault rifle) as well. Think the Turner SMLE was a decent idea as well. M1941 Johnson machine gun replaced the BAR anyway.
The Charlton was a monstrous contrivance though.
To be kind, it should be remembered as a "weapon that worked, when designed and manufactured under very stressful conditions". I would suspect however, that the Kiwis are happy they never had to use it in anger.
The WAR, I will grant you, being interesting in it using the gas system of the .30 Carbine. It would have been nice to see how well it would have fared under extended use.
>If you ever get the chance to fire the M1918, take your time and try firing it semi-auto off the shoulder, or from a rest. >tfw the Colt/Ohio Ordnance Commemorative M1918s are $10K+ now
Never gonna experience a closed-bolt M1918.
weight and cost
>weight
My dude the M1918A2 is significantly heavier than this
okay I think I somehow imagined OP saying adopted as a service rifle and the image was meant to be the BAR in general. but no I'm just having a stupid moment, my bad
Because .276 Pedersen wasn't adopted for the Garand.
The army adopt hundreds of thousands of the pricey Thompson SMG so why not buy these R75 from Colt, they were producing those since 1920s.
In 1942 the Army sent to battlefield just 8 divisions and the USMC one and half and the production of new M1918A2 just catch up in 1943 so why not sent an order to Colt to produce some thousands of R75?
>Why didn't the US adopt this?
Because they had a hundred thousand M1918s the US had already paid for, and no money to buy anything more.
>The army adopt hundreds of thousands of the pricey Thompson SMG
Only in 1938, when War Were (Almost) Declared; before that they only had a handful. Actual war prospects open the dollar floodgates.
>why not sent an order to Colt to produce some thousands of R75?
Because Colt's was terrible at ramping up production.
Colt was making a huge number of other products, and was at or near capacity.
Much as I like the gun, one has to question why the U.S. Gov insisted on Colt continuing to make huge numbers of the water cooled M1917A1, as well as continuing contracts for MG40's for countries that no longer existed.
The fuck is MG40?
Colt's commercial version of the ANM2 .30" Browning aircraft MG. Almost wholly useless by the time the U.S. entered WW2, being in .30 US.
Yet pre and early war, it was a very common primary armament, both fixed and flexible for aircraft. Colt had a number of ongoing export contracts, as they were one of the first to offer the gun in just about any chambering desired.
Sad, because the little things are almost works of art, they are made and finished so well.
Soldiers don't need scary babby killer assault grips
Basically the army wanted any new BAR variants to be capable of retrofitting onto existing BARs. The FN designed pistol grip and rate reducer didn't meet that criteria. You can argue if it's stupid or not, but in WWII it was discovered that the BAR tooling from WWI was fucked and the only source of M1918A2s was converting M1918s.
You started off well, but completely omitted Colt's production of the Monitor.
Also, I have no idea where the tale about tooling comes from, as there were numerous manufacturers of the M1918, with Colt making variants for export (alongside the Monitor) up til the eve of WW2. I can only suspect it stems from one of the initial contractors having issues, and not representing the totality of production.
That aside, M1918A2's were made during WW2 on new receivers, this is easily discerned not only by the stamping atop the receiver, but the manufacturer and finish. Pre WW2 M1918's had a blued finish that was reblued to a matte, whereas WW2 production had a rougher external finish, and were Parkerized.
Sorry, I omitted that the issues were at the start of WWII but later resolved, by IBM funnily enough.
An objectively stupid weapon. Magazines cannot compete with belt feds
It was never designed to. It was intended to be a machine rifle. Basically an automatic rifle capable of higher sustained rates of fire, while being lighter than the "light" machine guns of the day.
U.S. Ordnance in it's "wisdom" somehow mutated it into a pseudo LMG.
>FG42: HUUUR DUUUR A TRUE WORK OF ART, GERMUNH TECHNOLOGY IS THE BEST
>Colt monitor: An objectively stupid weapon. Magazines cannot compete with belt feds
Reminds me of that ''thing'', ''Japanese thing'' sojak meme.
It was essentially a battle rifle. Would you also call M14 an 'objectively stupid' weapon?
I would
Because you are a tard.
the worst example you could bring up
FG42 is 10 pounds vs (lol)18 pounds(lmao) colt monitor.
Colt is 13.2 lb you moron. Not to mention a much more reliable, and overall better weapon. Weheraboos are a fucking cancer.
>Weheraboos
reddit
Yes but not because it's magazine-fed or a battle rifle.
Actually I'll concede a little bit, the M14 isn't stupid in and of itself, more it's a product of ingrained stupidity, but that's starting to get a little too into the weeds. Sexy rifle though.
>objectively stupid
yes, on almost every level. In this order Caliber, Weight, Cost, System, what else is there to a weapon?
>small annecdotes on using BARs in singleshot in korea to snipe on hill tops
>SA80 lmg being used as a DMR
i dunno why im so obsessed with weapons being used for other niches.
In the Korean War the Americans 'borrowed' some Boys AT Rifles from Canadian troops, strengthened the action and mounted them with scopes. They were used as long-range sniper rifles on an experimental basis, firing double charged .50 BMG ammunition. Reportedly had a range of 2000 yards (1830m roughly).
Also the L85A2/3/4 has a DMR and LMG variant doesn't it? People laugh at the gun but it is actually quite good. It has issues (ergonomics are fucked, it isn't ambidextrous and its cold as shit at night so you're hugging a cold fucking gun in your sleeping bag). Granted the A1 was a clusterfuck but it has been fixed now. I hope the Bongs don't go with German guns and they do another whacky replacement. I always wish the British .270 was adopted.
not sure about l85dmrs models but read some small reports of the lmg being used as a proto dmr.
Ah no apparently they didn't have one. L86 LSW is apparently being withdrawn. Also just found out, that Heckler & Koch made a .22LR L85A2 rifle... That means it is legal in UK if it is semi-auto. That's pretty based. Think it's just a training rifle though.
Honestly wish the Bongs would revive their arms industry. They used to produce neat smallarms. Atm all they do is produce sniper rifles and DMR. The CZ75 clone that was ambidextrous was great (Spitfire). Alas.
If you ever get the chance to fire the M1918, take your time and try firing it semi-auto off the shoulder, or from a rest.
Outside of the long lock time caused by it's open bolt operation, the thing is very very accurate.
Again, I suspect it was more issues with one company than production as a whole. IBM may have been that company, as they were a contractor for A2 manufacturing.
I would have to dig some books out of storage to confirm.
Why not the Lewis "Shock Action" rifle, while we are at it?
>Why not the Lewis "Shock Action" rifle, while we are at it?
Because I think the WAR and Charlton Automatic Rifle were worthy options. The Lewis Rifle, not so much. There is also the
Krieghoff Paratrooper Rifle that got rejected over the FG42 (which had Type I, Type II, Type III variants iirc). There is also the Tokarev AKT-40 which I think should have been used. The AS-44 (though this is an assault rifle) as well. Think the Turner SMLE was a decent idea as well. M1941 Johnson machine gun replaced the BAR anyway.
The Charlton was a monstrous contrivance though.
To be kind, it should be remembered as a "weapon that worked, when designed and manufactured under very stressful conditions". I would suspect however, that the Kiwis are happy they never had to use it in anger.
The WAR, I will grant you, being interesting in it using the gas system of the .30 Carbine. It would have been nice to see how well it would have fared under extended use.
The Charlton under a peace time design process would have been fine. The WAR was interesting, yeah. But, alas.
Oh, most assuredly, and it would be neat to see what a "refined" Charlton would look like.
That is true of every military. Economics frequently trumps Innovation.
>If you ever get the chance to fire the M1918, take your time and try firing it semi-auto off the shoulder, or from a rest.
>tfw the Colt/Ohio Ordnance Commemorative M1918s are $10K+ now
Never gonna experience a closed-bolt M1918.
I've actually never fired the M1918A3/ Ohio.
All the BAR's I've fired were either WW1 era M1918's or M1918A2's. (Of course, the A2's do not have semi, but you can still do good work on "slow".)
Why didn't the US adopted the WAR or the Charlton Automatic Rifle?
They had the bar already adopted and probably didn't want to bother setting up new contracts and tooling to mass produce it
For me it's the Rkm wz. 28 Browning in 7.92x57mm Mauser.
because the military loved the idea of shitty retrofits instead of actual improvement