Posted on 12/23/2016 2:52:27 AM PST by ThinkingBuddha
....Winchester based its design for the proposed new rifle on guns the company had already developed during World War II....the short-stroke gas piston that was used on the famous M1 carbine...
....Winchester utilized the same basic gas system design........the new Lightweight Rifle was to be designed on the basis of well-proven earlier guns.......
......Armalite design contained 113 parts while the Winchester gun had only 70 parts....
.......Winchester had a tough decision to make regarding continued development of the .224 WLWMR. Winchester would have to bear all subsequent development costs, and there were serious doubts within the company whether or not any government orders would be forthcoming.......A further concern was that the Armalite rifle was, at the time, backed by the Fairchild Engine & Airplane Corp., were prepared to go to any lengths to promote their rifle without consideration of the cost.
.....Another consideration was that many, if not most, of the U.S. Army people who were, or would be, associated with the new rifle were not the old school of fully trained, experienced ordnance engineers. Many of them were not even engineers, or trained ordnance officers, but officers from the combat arms. This was of great concern to Winchester......the new generation of U.S. Army people were mostly the type that became enthralled with what old timers and ordnance people called ‘the Buck Rogers Armalite rifle.’......
.....One wonders what the current American military rifle would look like today if Winchester had decided to pursue continued development of its .224 caliber Lightweight Military Rifle. It is probable that the M16 would still have been adopted, and Winchester would have wound up with a costly prototype on its hands....Like the old adage goes, sometimes you have to “know when to hold ’em and know when to fold ’em......
(Excerpt) Read more at americanrifleman.org ...
No Buck Rogers rifle that!
Looks a lot like the mini-14.
"It was determined that volume of fire was more important than aimed shots and that our military would be better served by infantry weapons with low recoil, firing smaller-caliber, higher-velocity projectiles. "
A cardinal mistake: high volumes of fire don't kill the enemy in close combat. Aiming does.
What did the cartridge for it look like? The .30 cal. M1 Carbine was seriously underpowered, not a real infantry weapon.
The Carbine was designed and intended for rear echelon troops, clerks, cooks, and truck drivers. The Garand was deemed too large and heavy for that purpose.
L
Well excerpted post. Thank you for your effort.
It seems that you are claiming that the m16 is inaccurate. I’ve heard a lot of people make some pretty absurd claims about the m16 before but I’ve never heard that.
Just about everything you said is mistaken.
The Army's Chiefs of Infantry and Artillery recommended development of a light rifle in June 1940. The SecWar accepted this recommendation.
The 1 October 1940 T/O for an infantry battalion (the last version before adoption of the carbine) called for 601 Garands and 313 pistols. The next edition, 1 April 1942, had only 60 pistols and 469 Garands - but 290 carbines. So, actually, the carbine replaced about 80% of the pistols and 20% of the Garands - not in rear echelon units, but in the very core of combat units. In WWII combat and combat support unit T/Os, it is very hard to find any cook or clerk authorized anything other than a Garand until you get to units like field artillery or chemical mortar that were 95%+ carbines.
Even higher up the chain, the infantry regiment service company - the closest administrative formation to the front - had over twice as many Garands as carbines (including Garands for all 14 clerks plus all 3 cooks and 25 truck drivers).
Excellent point. Here you have nearly 1000 soldiers that are supposed to be the very point of the pointy end of the spear, yet only 500-600 (depending on T/O) actually have the rifle caliber long range weapon. Of course, a lot of those pistols/carbines were issued to crew served weapons soldiers who were down at the company level (and lower) supporting the infantrymen (I can still say that, can’t I?) directly.
By the way, are the historic T/Os you analyzed available in a public on-line database?
The dang things were designed for torrents of "to whom it may concern" rounds in consonance with army doctrine of the time.
On the other hand, I kept my M-14 long after everyone else was stuck with Matty Mattel through different forms of junior enlisted chicanery. My M-14 always fired and when it was properly aimed, nailed what it was aimed at. It could punch through cover, walls, gravestones, and pretty much else and dumped who it hit with the first round.
When I was eventually hit myself, my lieutenant crawled up to me and said "Sorry you're hurt Chainmail, but can I have your rifle?".
bump for later.
Thanks for sharing!
Thanks for your service.
Thank you MileHi.
Yeah, I know. Qualifued X-spurt with it in 1957. MOS was ammo truck driver for Service Battery of 105 SP’s.
“It could punch through cover, walls, gravestones...”
Hue ?
The '14 was long and heavier but, ooh could it shoot!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.