semiautomatic rifles were not a particularly

Replies

A

Anon09/08/26, 22:25No.65493128

>Was the tyranny of 7.62 NATO standardisation to blame? Ultimately I think it was the tyranny of logisticians who wanted as few types of ammunition in circulation as possible. Even the soviets and the chinese have at different points tried to have their cake and eat it too with the early family of 7.62x39/5.8 chink weapons and realized that it just wasn't enough by itself to rely on in a machine gun.

0

A

Anon09/08/26, 22:40No.65493155

Che Guevera disagrees.

0

A

Anon09/08/26, 23:17No.65493235

7.62x39 and .280 British both have the problem that they're fat and slow intermediates, which I think deserve a different title compared to the likes of 5.56/5.45

5

A

Anon09/09/26, 00:09No.65493359

Reminder 7.62x39 was designed for an army of malnourished manlets who cannot handle a battle rifle

1

A

Anon09/09/26, 00:15No.65493371

>Semi-automatic rifles were not a particularly useful development for the military. They entered service in 1940 and were overtaken just 3 years later with the introduction of the assault rifle. hey shitass what happened in those 3 years? (also it was 7 years but whatever)

1

A

Anon09/09/26, 00:31No.65493420

>Semi-automatic rifles were not a particularly useful development ? What the fuck are you talking about Most of select fire rifle use since 1950, has been on the semiautomatic setting. Just because the infantry's rifle (irrespective of chambering) is select fire doesn't mean they're always or mostly spraying bullets on full auto>muh heckin intermediate cartridge videogamerderp See above, the select fire rifle's chambering doesn't matter

1

A

Anon09/09/26, 02:00No.65493668

>Why did it take major militaries so long Logistics. They wanted to use the same cartridge for both infantry rifles and machine guns. Same reason the SS109 was adopted over the M193, it had better penetration at the long ranges that machine guns operated, despite its markedly inferior performance against soft tissue at infantry rifle ranges.

0

A

Anon09/09/26, 02:02No.65493675

Except korean war is still fought with old stockpiles of smg, bolt action and machineguns and semi autos full power rifles are still rare for commies and all of those model year weapon you mentioned are missing in action for the most part, even older shit like sks. Small arm development gets no priority post war. Most industrial output is prioritized for industrial rebuild, and the remaining defense development budget concerns strategic weapons like nuke, radar, air force and fully mechanized army with tanks and artillery. Still most actually shipped to the war is ww2 crap like crosair prop plane and m24 light tank. Sitting on a pile of dirt cheap stockpile, the UN only ever bothered with updating infantry AT with half measures like Energa rifle grenade and superbazooka for a mountain country not suited for tanks. There is no possibility to fighting vietnam war with intermediate automatic rifle any time earlier. The ammunition simply won't supply and produce for the majority of the army.

1

A

Anon09/09/26, 02:31No.65493761

>They entered service in 1940

1

A

Anon09/09/26, 02:34No.65493768

>It took way until 1964 with the M16 for the first widely-adopted western assault rifle.

1

A

Anon09/09/26, 05:22No.65494227

Comes down to three things. 1.Cost. WW1 was absolutely DEVASTATING to most countries that fought it, and the populations of most countries had absolutely no stomach for basic or even slightly increased military spending, as that is a signal to the lay person that "war is coming" and that is nearly impossible for a politician to run on. The USSR and the US notably were outliers on this. 2.Tech. The "main" service rifles in common use were full power+ loads, which due to the metallurgy and manufacturing techniques was very difficult to make a 8-9lb rifle function reliably enough for mass issue. 3.Doctrine. Most "western" armies were extremely retrograde in thinking, and the ones that weren't had self inflicted problems, with the USSR's being political fuckery (the AVS-36 was the world's most advanced rifle) and the Third Reich being doctrine (the G41 was a absolute SHITSHOW).

2

A

Anon09/09/26, 05:32No.65494240

>and were overtaken just 3 years later with the introduction of the assault rifle. Historically illiterate. Kurtz patron wasn't adopted by NATO after WWII and Nazi worshipping Soviets ditched their Kurtz patron too. Kurtz patron was an obvious failure of the small arms design

3

A

Anon09/09/26, 08:09No.65494375

Mass adoption of SMGs should have occured after WWI, followed by mass adoption of assault rifles after WWII. There is no point in giving grunts weapons that are effective past 300m.The obsession with accurate individual marksmanship has led to retarded descisions for over 100 years now, the latest of which is the M7 and 6.8.

1

A

Anon09/10/26, 04:57No.65496988

If anyone's actually interested in the real answer to the question, intermediate cartridges took so long to catch on because nobody really recognized the versatility of the assault rifle until well after they entered production.Even though the russians actually *did* adopt an intermediate cartridge, the AK was originally intended to fill the doctrinal role of the smg, with the SKS filling the role of the rifle. Despite literally already having a mass-produced intermediate caliber assault rifle, it wasn't immediately obvious that the assault rifle could be a "do it all" rifle, and take over the role of both the battle rifle and smg. After all, when you step back and think about it, the term "assault rifle" sounds like a rifle used specifically for close-range assault (like an smg). Which tells you a lot about how it was originally conceptualized.So in the west, we kept making both battle rifles and smgs for decades after WW2, until a funny lightweight assault rifle called the M16 started showing a lot of promise in trials.

1

A

Anon09/10/26, 05:04No.65496996

In the end both the west and the soviets learned you can't just have 1 do it all round for infantry work. There's a damned good reason the RPD was sidelined for the PK and we didn't dump all our 240s for 249s. Same reason 6mm unified died a horrible and painful death. As it turns out you need a good round for the infantry and a good round for the MGs/DMRs and it's really fucking hard to make something that can do both well. I'd argue we were better off strangling 280 brit, could you imagine if we hadn't forced NATO into standardizing a full power cartridge post-war and we're stuck with a mix of 30-06, 303, 7.5 French, and 8mm mauser MGs? Or even worse, forced to use 280 brit MGs in lieu of something like a 1919 or a MG42? There was no common round to just keep standard after the war in the west like Russia had with 7.62 Mosin

0

A

Anon09/11/26, 10:16No.65499874

Everything was a pain in the dick to invent and produce back then. It's not like that now. Shit was hand made

0

A

Anon09/11/26, 10:38No.65499903

>Semiautomatics were not particularly useful. The majority of rounds fired in combat today by rifles are in semiautomatic. The M1 Garand in particular mogged so hard in WWII because the rest of the worlds standard issue were bolt actions.

1