I wonder if part of the problem is due to the way the weapon is used. I know my AR-14 is a fine, well functioning rifle, but, OTOH, my rate of fire is no where NEAR the rate of fire the battefield version is subjected to.
I shoot one round, maybe two, in 30 seconds. It sounds as if problems develop when soldiers are shooting/returning fire in an automatic mode, high rates of fire, several hundreds of rounds at a time.
Each M-14 magazine contains what? 30 rounds? In a firefight, I would imagine a soldier could go through several magazines in a very short time.
I wonder what the venerable M1A's rate of fire was?
Did the soldiers of WWII fire such high rates of fire with the M1A Garand? Wasn't the M1 the "standard military issue" battle rifle of the WWII GI? How did we win the war (on both fronts, BTW) with such a heavy, cumbersome, slow-rate-of-fire weapon? Could it POSSIBLY be the operator or technique, and how the weapon was used, and NOT the weapon itself?
I have seen many old WWII teaching films, and they spent lots and lots of time on some basics of shooting stances, aiming, trigger control, etc. How much is taught now-a-days? It seems, from a civilian point of view, that these automatic weapons are used to throw a lot of lead down range in a major hurry, and I don't know of many weapons who could stand up to such high rates of fire, consistently, in ANY AO, much less over in the conditions they are in now.
I guess, in summary, what I am wondering is it the weapons' fault, or is there other areas we should be looking at before we blame the weapon.
The AK-47 can do it because of the loose tolerances. They aren't the most accurate weapon, but they're reliable. There aren't a lot of times when you can take deliberate aim before firing in a gun fight without exposing your cranium to enemy fire. In addition, the bad guys just refuse to stand out in the open and not move. They're usually hiding behind something or moving, so you end up shooting in the direction where you think they're firing from. As long as you keep firing, they can't maneuver or take careful aim either. That means the guy with the reliable rifle is usually going to prevail.
Soldiers in WWII actually had to be RETRAINED from the standard “basic rifle marksmanship” they received in the pre-war Army.
Upon arriving at the battlefield, they found that maneuver was critical and that large volumes of suppressive fire were required. New soldiers were practicing what they were taught in the states, taking their time to aim and place single shots.
While the M-1 garand (M1A is the civvy M-14 nomenclature) only had an eight-round en bloc clip, it was much better than the German bolt-action mausers. Once the American soldiers learned the art of maneuver and the accompanying suppressive fire, the Germans were at an even worse disadvantage.
And, really, it wasn’t a rifle that won the European war.
It was the artillery.