Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: w1n1

The summary fails to include several key points.

1. From the end of World War Two until well into the 1960s, the armed forces endured many disagreements about what direction ought to be taken, in developing small arms for individual issue. Various “centers of power & influence” inside the US Army itself mired themselves in squabbles over branch missions, doctrine, training, R&D, and logistics. That was before the never-ending competition between bureaucracies, and national politics, entered the mix.

In struggling to make sense out of data on small arms effectiveness from WW2, the Army found divergent schools of thought had come into existence within its own ranks.

The high count of fired rounds per enemy casualty drove some to believe that random shots were as important as aimed fire; thus, the Army redefined “firepower” as shots per minute. The change was supported by further analysis conducted by the Army’s Operations Research Office.

2. Various prominent people wanted to hold onto the power & long range embodied in the 30-06; they insisted that America (and thus NATO) had to adopt a rifle cartridge equally powerful. NATO was forced to follow the Alliance’s dominant partner (bad consequences for the UK government ensued).

Other Army entities wanted select-fire rifles in the hands of every infantry troop. It was already obvious that a rifle light enough for individual issue could not be controlled on full auto, if it chambered a full-power cartridge. The M14 had been set up to fail.

3. Ordnance technicians and supply managers pointed to the logistic headaches bedeviling US ground force units during WW2: three cartridges (45 ACP, 30 Carbine, 30-06) had to be supplied for six standard-issue small arms (M1911A1 pistol, M1/M2 Carbines, Thompson and M3 submachine guns, M1 Garand rifle), plus maintenance & repair support. Supply folks hate multiplicity of types (this does not count substitute-standard arms like M1917 revolvers, M1903/ M1903A3 rifles, M141 Johnson rifle etc. Then there were 38 Special revolvers for aircrew, and 38 Super Auto for some special-agent applications. Might be more.).

Out of all this hubbub, the M14 was officially selected to be the standard-issue rifle across all of DoD. It was sold to the armed services as a large simplification of supply and maintenance: it replaced the M1 Garand, all M1/M2 Carbines, all submachine guns, and the BAR M1918A2.

4. Some tactical-expert operator types pointed to the advent of the assault rifle and wanted equivalent guns for US troops; the M1/M2 Carbines had in the interim been performing in the reduced-power role, but serious doubts concerning the effectiveness of the 30 Carbine cartridge were already on record. The 222 Remington cartridge - a totally new development from outside the military - debuted in 1950, taking the sporting world by storm with its accuracy and range, and effectiveness all out of proportion to its size.

For reasons the memory won’t give up at this moment, in the mid-1950s Army Ordnance did start up the Small-Caliber High-Velocity program, to investigate the feasibility of developing very light rifles firing projectiles of about 22 caliber (5.56mm). Some researchers suspect that operators at CONARC (Continental Army Command) were behind the effort.

SCHV considered a number of designs, of cartridge and rifle - some quite innovative. Winchester submitted a candidate for field trials, but dropped out when it failed to meet minimum accuracy requirements. At some point in here, ArmaLite downsized its AR-10 to handle the 222 Remington. The resulting experimental model occasioned intense interest; the cartridge was modified at Ordnance’s to provide higher remaining velocity at range. Out of several configurations, what was to become the 223 Remington was chosen.

Some “pre-AR-15” rifles were sent to US advisory units in Southeast Asia, where they caused great excitement for their effectiveness. Official Army enthusiasm began to increase, just at the time the M14 experienced delivery delays. Since the ArmaLite firm had no production capabilities, they licensed production to Colt’s.

The M14 failed to deliver on the promise of controllable full-auto fire, but some hoped the new “pre-M16” might to the job.

5. US Air Force officials took note at the same time. They were being forced to give up their M2 Carbines for the M14, about which they were not pleased, as they did not need a full-power battle rifle for air base security and similar missions. Gen Curtis Lemay, then USAF Assistant Chief of Staff, a noted gun enthusiast, and the most respected flag officer in USAF, took steps to acquire some 20,000 of the new rifle from Colt’s.

US Army Ordnance complained, citing their authority as executive agent for military small arms (given them in 1903). The Air Force contract was put on hold, but interest within Army circles increased, and the opportunity to arm advisory troops in SEA as taken, leading to more and more use of the “pre-M16” in that theater.

USAF did get its rifles eventually. It still uses a version of the original.

6. Along about 1965, Colt’s introduced a semi-only version to the civilian market, billing it as “AR-15.” Early models were also marked SP-1. Sales were slow; serial number 35,xxx did not come off their line until 1974.


17 posted on 05/01/2018 12:58:17 PM PDT by schurmann
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: schurmann

That history was great. Thanks for that.


18 posted on 05/01/2018 8:41:59 PM PDT by MileHi (Liberalism is an ideology of parasites, hypocrites, grievance mongers, victims, and control freaks.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies ]

To: schurmann

“... M141 Johnson rifle ...” [sic, my post 17]

Typo. Egad.

“M141” should read “M1941” - military version of a short-recoil rifle designed by Melvin M Johnson, attorney, amateur gun designer, USMC Reserve officer. He touted it as superior to John C Garand’s gas-operated M1; parts of officialdom and some gun enthusiasts agreed, and limited comparison tests were undertaken. The Johnson likely would not have performed as well in action and over extended periods of field use as the M1 eventually did.

Short-recoil shoulder arms have rarely seen widespread military use. Johnson also developed two light machine guns on the same operating system. M1941 and M1944: highly innovative and may well have proved superior to anything the USA fielded during WW2.


22 posted on 05/04/2018 4:27:54 PM PDT by schurmann
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson