Cosmoline
Member
This will certainly get me lynched, but inspired by the Garand thread, I thought I'd give a little historical rundown of US service rifles.
Krag-Jorgensen Rifle--This is a neat, fast little rifle. I like the Krag. I've always wanted one. But compared with the other rifles available in the 1890's, it was second rate and should never have been issued to our troops. The 1891 Mauser, 1891 Mosin-Nagant, 1893 Mauser, and arguably even the horrible old Commisssion Mauser and Lebel were better rifles. Certainly the '91, '93 and later Mausers, along with the Mosin, have shown themselves far superior with the test of time. The Krag's lack of safety features prevented the design from making the critical leap to high-pressure spitzer rounds after 1905.
Springfield 1903--Ah, the legendary Springfield. The Springfield that Sgt. York won his Medal of Honor with. Or not, as it turns out. Actually, I'm talking about the Springfield that was a second-rate Mauser knockoff. The one that landed us in court and forced us to pay royalties to Mauser. That one. The sad thing is, there were podunk South American republics that had Mausers orders of magnitude better than our Springfields. But to prevent the indignity of buying foreign rifles, we stuck the troops with second best.
Enfield 1917--This is the single exception to the rule. The Eddystone Enfield was an extremely strong rifle with good sights and a solid design. But it wasn't made here so there was no chance of it ousting the Springfield. As a result it was relegated to rear guard use or sold off as surplus.
M-1 Garand--The Garand wasn't the worst rifle we could have given our troops, but it was far from the "The greatest battle implement ever devised". Very far. As a tactical matter its adoption reinforced the old pattern of using troops for massed rifle fire instead of as support for a quality machine gun or other heavy weapon. Zee Germans had long since figured out that the machine gun should be the centerpiece of every unit, and this novel idea was a key element to their success both on the offensive and defending positions. The Garand's clip system was archaic and, as I've pointed out elsewhere, it's overlong .30'06 was underloaded. It could have been shrunk down to take a more appropriate cartridge, and to his credit IIRC Mr. Garand wanted this to happen but his idea was rejected.
M-14--The criticisms and problems here are well known. The M-14 in full auto was said to be impossible to control, and it overwhelmed the soldiers trying to use it. But frankly I think it was sold short. If it had been altered to semiauto and if less had been expected of it, I think the M-14 could have served well. Indeed it still is serving well in the role of a semiauto sniper.
M-16--A plastic rifle firing a gopher cartridge. What's not to like? The mascinations and showmanship that went on to get it adopted are well known and pretty disgusting. The rifle is expensive, touchy about ammo and not nearly powerful enough. Its minimal recoil may be easy on the shoulders of recruits, but this only invites "spray and pray" shooting. The round's only saving grace is the fact that its bullets tend to fail massively on impact, thus skirting the Hague Convention.
Krag-Jorgensen Rifle--This is a neat, fast little rifle. I like the Krag. I've always wanted one. But compared with the other rifles available in the 1890's, it was second rate and should never have been issued to our troops. The 1891 Mauser, 1891 Mosin-Nagant, 1893 Mauser, and arguably even the horrible old Commisssion Mauser and Lebel were better rifles. Certainly the '91, '93 and later Mausers, along with the Mosin, have shown themselves far superior with the test of time. The Krag's lack of safety features prevented the design from making the critical leap to high-pressure spitzer rounds after 1905.
Springfield 1903--Ah, the legendary Springfield. The Springfield that Sgt. York won his Medal of Honor with. Or not, as it turns out. Actually, I'm talking about the Springfield that was a second-rate Mauser knockoff. The one that landed us in court and forced us to pay royalties to Mauser. That one. The sad thing is, there were podunk South American republics that had Mausers orders of magnitude better than our Springfields. But to prevent the indignity of buying foreign rifles, we stuck the troops with second best.
Enfield 1917--This is the single exception to the rule. The Eddystone Enfield was an extremely strong rifle with good sights and a solid design. But it wasn't made here so there was no chance of it ousting the Springfield. As a result it was relegated to rear guard use or sold off as surplus.
M-1 Garand--The Garand wasn't the worst rifle we could have given our troops, but it was far from the "The greatest battle implement ever devised". Very far. As a tactical matter its adoption reinforced the old pattern of using troops for massed rifle fire instead of as support for a quality machine gun or other heavy weapon. Zee Germans had long since figured out that the machine gun should be the centerpiece of every unit, and this novel idea was a key element to their success both on the offensive and defending positions. The Garand's clip system was archaic and, as I've pointed out elsewhere, it's overlong .30'06 was underloaded. It could have been shrunk down to take a more appropriate cartridge, and to his credit IIRC Mr. Garand wanted this to happen but his idea was rejected.
M-14--The criticisms and problems here are well known. The M-14 in full auto was said to be impossible to control, and it overwhelmed the soldiers trying to use it. But frankly I think it was sold short. If it had been altered to semiauto and if less had been expected of it, I think the M-14 could have served well. Indeed it still is serving well in the role of a semiauto sniper.
M-16--A plastic rifle firing a gopher cartridge. What's not to like? The mascinations and showmanship that went on to get it adopted are well known and pretty disgusting. The rifle is expensive, touchy about ammo and not nearly powerful enough. Its minimal recoil may be easy on the shoulders of recruits, but this only invites "spray and pray" shooting. The round's only saving grace is the fact that its bullets tend to fail massively on impact, thus skirting the Hague Convention.
But you already probably knew that. 
