Why Did America Win the Race for a Semi-Automatic Infantry Rifle?

[Timthinker]

I have always wondered what factors helped the United States adopt the first semi-automatic rifle as standard issue for its armed forces. Obviously, Americans did not invent nor did they field the first semi-automatic rifle in combat. The French fielded a semi-auto rifle in World War One, and the Germans probably invented the first version of such a rifle before that conflict. So why did America, an emerging actor on the international playing field, "win" the race for a reliable semi-automatic infantry rifle? Thoughtful answers will be appreciated.


Timthinker

 

[R.W.Dale]

The answer is rather simple really. We (the USA) simply had a vastly superior industrial capacity to produce such a rifle. The europeans had some great semiauto firearm designs but no meaningful way to produce the numbers to equip their armies with them at the time.

 

[dirtyjim]

the mexican mondragon m1908 was the first semi auto military rifle. it was built at sig in switzerland because mexico didn't have the ability to build them at that time

 

[Iacabo]

because America is the best

didn't they teach you that in school?

P.S I don't know... maybe somethingto do with european powers not seeing a need for switching over from boltguns. or b/c the garand was reliable as our first attempt and the other french/german etc. rifles needed improvement which the war torn european governments did not see as practical reasearch?

-just random thoughts i have. nosubstanceI know of to back it up. but I think the Illustrated Book of Guns said something to that effect allthough I don'treally remember.

 

[HorseSoldier]

+1 what Krochus said -- lots of industrial capacity.

To that add the facts that America's entry into the war was relatively delayed and somewhat less haphazard than some of the other powers (Pearl Harbor was a surprise, but we'd been re-arming prior to that pretty briskly); we never had to contend with our industrial capacity being bombed or overrun (gave us an edge over both the Russians and the Germans); and finally American troops came from a gadgety, mechanically minded society which may have given us an edge over, say, Russian peasantry whose SVT-38 was not much later appearing than the Garand.

And, probably part of it was just the luck of the draw. Garand's design was a good one, and a lot of other factors lined up just right for fielding it. Things did not line up so well for the SVT-38/40, Gew.43 and StG.44, etc.

 

[Timthinker]

Dirtyjim, I believe the Germans built experimental semi-auto rifles before the Mondragon, but they were too fragile for combat. In 1900, an Italian army officer also constructed such a design, but it failed to gain military acceptance also.


Timthinker

 

[Timthinker]

When the Garand was first adopted, the United States was in the midst of the Great Depression, a fact that I would have considered more of a hindrance to such a military venture. Obviously, I am not an expert on military procurement procedures, but I would have thought the 1930s was an inauspicious time for U.S. Army to request funding for such a project. This is why I am puzzled that America "won" that race.

I had considered Nazi Germany a prime candidate to emerge the winner here, but Hitler, a decorated veteran of World War One, believed the Mauser was "good enough" from his combat experience. This probably put a damper on German rifle procurement plans until World War Two was well underway.


Timthinker

 

[dispatch55126]

Military Doctrine-

We relied on the infantry. It was out doctrine of fire and maneuver that the foot soldier, on his own, could lay down enough fire for the rest or maneuver. This doctrine works fine in open country but we had to learn the hard way in the hedgerows.

The Germans relied on the MG 42. Their doctrine was for the MG42 to supply the fire and support. The rifleman was there to protect the gunners and supply ammo. They didn't need a semi-auto for that purpose and it would also use more ammo than the bolt action.

The Brits didn't have the manufacturing to field a reliable semi on their own and I'm sure it stung enough having to use our 1911's

 

[dirtyjim]

the mondragon was the first semi-auto to get military aceptance & was used in combat durring WWI, mostly by the germans. the first rifles had a enbloc clip like the garand but they were later changed to 8 & 20 round mags, 30 round drums were also made for them.

 

[Limeyfellow]

or b/c the garand was reliable as our first attempt

The Garand actually took along time to develop. The development began in 1919 on a design that John Garand drew up before then. This was the M1922 and then had to be redesigned after it performed so badly in testing into the M1924 in 30-06 which was dropped from investigation. Next came some work to redesign the rifle to fire a .276 round. It was only in 1932, a decade later, that the Garand beat the Pederson in trials to be chosen, after a mere 23 years in development. There were problems with the early ones and a redesign was done to the final design in 1936 when it was finally accepted in it's final form, with production beginning in July 1937, so it was no quick reliable first attempt.

One thing that did result the introduction is many European armies used a different model of fireteams and platoons to the US. European models were based around protecting a machinegun, where a bolt action was deemed more than enough for support personal.

 

[Timthinker]

Dispatch, you raised a good point about military doctrine. But would not the BAR have enabled U.S. troops to conduct this doctrine without the Garand? These are outstanding points that are being raised here. Hopefully, we will get at the truth.


Timthinker

 

[Bigfoot]

We had experience at getting out gunned in Cuba. Maybe we didn't want to make the same mistake twice and got ahead of the game.

During the Spainish-American war the brass still thought that our soldiers would 'spray and pray' to use current vernacular if they were issued a faster firing rifles so our troops got obsolete Springfield trap-door 45/70s and the slow loading Kraig rifles. I've read that the Kraig was chosen precisely because it was slow to load.

During WW1 all the powers were issued rifles that were pretty much equal, and everybody at the time knew that the next war would have to be about movement to avoid a similar mess.

WW1 was the "War To End All Wars". All nations after WW1 reduced thier forces and spending. Mosins, Enfields and Mausers are darned good rifles, why replace em?

Everybody was broke during the pre-war period. The Great Depression got us as during the pre-war period. Britain was broke following WW1 so they kept the SMLE. Germany also was broke not only from WW1 but because of the Treaty of Versailles, they issued a short version of their Mauser 98. Communist countries are always broke.

 

[Timthinker]

Dirtyjim, the Mondragon was also used by German pilots before aerial warfare "got serious".

Limeyfellow, your emphasis on military doctrine raises a good point, much like that of Dispatch. I wonder if the Roosevelt Administration may have thought, in its second term, that military spending might "prime" the economic pump of the American economy. Just a late thought on my part.


Timthinker

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Obviously, I am not an expert on military procurement procedures, but I would have thought the 1930s was an inauspicious time for U.S. Army to request funding for such a project. This is why I am puzzled that America "won" that race.

Hopefully, we will get at the truth.

The truth is, America was not the first, as already noted. Mexico first adopted the Mondragon, but only in limited numbers because of political issues. At the start of WWI, the Germans bought up all the rifles Mexico didn't import and used the Mondragon in WWI. It was a reliable rifle. It was not Germany's only infantry rifle, but one of many, just like the Garand was not the only infantry rifle used by the US.

 

[elmerfudd]

Communist countries are always broke.

They may always be broke, but they always have money for the military.

 

[GaryGGR]

Hitler vetoed a Germen Semi-Automatic rifle at lest once. They could have produced one in quantity before or early in the war, before 1943. They did produce some late in the war.

The European military was every resistive to change through most of the 20th century. A lot of Europeans still swore allegiance to kings until almost 1920.

The Mauser rifle was not a bad infantry weapon, but I sure would have preferred the M1 Garand.

 

[Bigfoot]

Communist countries are always broke.

They may always be broke, but they always have money for the military.

Of course you're correct I was just making a joke at Russia's expense. You should have seen the explanation that I had typed up for why France didn't want to spend much on their rifles.

 

[rcmodel]

Ours worked in combat.
Theirs didn't.

"Almost" as simple as that!


rcmodel

 

[HorseSoldier]

Dispatch, you raised a good point about military doctrine. But would not the BAR have enabled U.S. troops to conduct this doctrine without the Garand? These are outstanding points that are being raised here. Hopefully, we will get at the truth.

The BAR wasn't really an adequate base of fire weapon, due to limited magazine capacity and limited ability to engage in any kind of sustained fire. It did allow more mobility than an MG34 or MG42 crew had, being an individual weapon and tipping the scales quite a bit less, but it was not sufficient to be the core of a squad's fire power the way the Germans viewed their light role machine guns.

 

[Groucho_]

Not only did we have great industrial capacity, I believe we perfected the design in that era, and continued to perfect it. The French and German semi-automatic rifles we look back on now were near-blunders. Certainly revolutionary in their time, but far from perfected. Still abstract, with many rough areas that needed fine tuning. The first French semi-autos, as I recall reading in a recent SGN article, didn't see too much service and the ones that did were wrought with problems. The German designs for semi-auto weaponry in WWII with the G43 were far from perfect either; they have been described as overly complex. In short, no one was able to make the Garand.

I do consider the Garand to be quite a miraculous design though. I don't owe its invention to any sort of illusion that we are this powerful entity in the field of firearms who can do no wrong. I think it was a strike of luck for us to be in the industrial position we were at the time, with plenty of ingenious firearms designers competing through capitalistic means to create something worthwhile. Of course it was a success, but it seemed as if it could have been the success that never was; the cards just fell into place.

 

[Groucho_]

The subject of Hitler is also a great point!

Hitler was a complete sociopath with a lot of strange, self righteous idealisms. In fact the Stg. 44 which was the world's first assault rifle and probably the most revolutionary firearm of all time, almost never was. As I recall seeing in a documentary type film on the History channel I believe it was, the Stg. 44 was first put into service without Hitler's permission and against his will, in secret.

 

[Eightball]

Mondragon's rifle was 1900, initially. Not as the final form, obviously, but it was there, and 1908 saw them cranked out for Mexico.

We weren't first--we were just the first successful design.

Plus, we had John C. Garand, and JMB. Take your pick, either way, we win.

 

[chemist308]

I'm not sure if the answer to that is better industrial capability, later entry into the war, or some combination of those. But either way, I'm real glad the primary German rifles were not the Sturmgewehr 44 firing the shorter cartidge and the Gewehr 41. That might have change the outcome of the war a bit...

 

[rcmodel]

That might have change the outcome of the war a bit...

As would have the Atomic Bombs, should we have used one of them in Europe instead of Japan.

Now, that would have really changed not only the outcome of the war, but the world we live in today!


rcmodel

 

[Timthinker]

HorseSoldier, I brought up the BAR as an example of a weapon that could have helped American infantry achieve the fire and maneuver doctrine without the Garand. You are correct that it is not in the same category as a true machine gun. But, it was not conceived for that purpose either.

Returning to the original issue, I wonder if 1936, the year the Garand was adopt by the U.S. Army, may help us with this mystery. That year, Roosevelt was using Keynesian economic policies, which stressed governmental spending, to promote higher employment levels. Perhaps the Garand benefited from being at the right place at the right time.


Timthinker