Designing my 1930 semi auto rifle

[Shortround6]

Trouble is that in the Empire the actual "colonies" the weapons were provided by the Crown and in the commonwealth nations (the ones with any real money, Like Australia, Canada, South Africa and India) military expenditures were voted on by local Parliaments or local equivalents. Britain could not demand that Australia buy XXX number of rifles at price YYY in any given year for example. Britain could strongly suggest they do so, or ask for other contributions to the empire's defense. Not to mention that the members of the empire that had money often already had rifle factories of their own.

 

[The Basket]

Wars are 10 a penny.
Just because there is no war now don't mean you can't plan for 10 years time. If you look at the gestation period of the Garand it was many years in the making so even if you had a fully working prototype it could be ages before it's even trialled.
I would happily licence my rifle to be manufactured by my Aussie comrades.

Remember Pedersen came to Vickers in this exact time frame to get his rifle produced in the UK so this ain't all froth and vinegar.

 

[parsifal]

a rapid fire self loader was also seen as unnecessary, contrary to the standard fighting principals of the british and empire forces and for a lot of the traditionalists in the british army, damned unsoldierly.

It would have been difficult under these circumstances alone, but the forces we are talking about were miniscule in reality. in case of Australia, after demobilisation there was no regular army until November 1938, and no more than 3000 part timers until 1937. in November 1938, the first interwar regular army unit, the Darwin military Force was formed, with no more than 250 soldiers. by September 1939 this force had grown to about 600 soldiers, with about 6000 reserves.

The regular army in Australia was until September 1939 prevented by law from having any Infantry attached to the force, though men designated as artillery were often issued with rifles and given infantry jobs. still justifying expenditure on a rifle when we were not supposed to have rifles might pose a few difficulties...

I don't know the situation of the pre-war Canadians, New Zealanders, Sth Africans or others, but it will be a very small effort indeed. As nations, the dominions had all suffered the highest casualty rates of al the belligerents in WWI, and the desire for anything military aftr the war was very limited. we put great faith in the protection of the league and were slow to move away from that. in 1930 we had the added issue of finance as the depression bit deep into defence spending.

 

[The Basket]

There were plenty of these guns about and the British army did a test in 1932. Which went nowhere. The Japanese also did trials same time which went nowhere.
Semi autos were too expensive and too new and peace is bad for business. Also the doctrine of warfare is based on accuracy of the single rifleman and that is not improved by a semi.

 

[Shortround6]

The expense was certainly there but only a few armies believed in the accuracy of single riflemen. Most believed in mass fire power even if that meant hundreds of men with with rifles standing almost shoulder to shoulder (or laying down).
Semi-automatics improved the rate of fire for aimed shots for all but a few individuals. A decent semi-auto is not less accurate than a bolt action rifle, at least in military terms.
Many Conservative officers believed their troops would fire too fast and waste ammo with a semi auto. 1930 was less than 20 years from some rifles (the British No 1 MK III and Springfield included) having magazine cut-offs so the rifle was a single shot with the magazine in reserve in an effort to limit the rate of fire in deliberate shooting. In fact the 1903 Springfield kept the cut-off to the end of it's days. This "wasting of ammo" was often brought up during these trials/deliberations. Somehow better training or discipline was not brought up.
Tactics was in a state of flux and many countries were doing good to provide a LMG or machine rifle per squad instead of one or two per platoon. (Or a few per company at times).
A number of armies formed their doctrine of warfare around the LMG with the riflemen in support.

 

[The Basket]

Indeed
As mentioned before you don't need semi if the enemy is 500 yards away in static position. The Boer war taught the British the importance of the P13 and ww1 didn't . Perhaps they thought a rifle is a rifle and rapid fire is a SMG. Or LMG. The Semis of the 1920s and 1930s are not quite there yet and Garand was hardly perfect. So maybe the immature designs didn't help none either

 

[Shortround6]

Some nations held "trials" of semi-auto rifles more to judge where the 'state of the art' was rather than with any real expectation of adopting one of the rifles presented. Sometimes in part to shut up critics who were claiming the generals in charge were not open to progress. However in some cases the requirements were so stringent that no weapon could actually "pass" or fulfill all the requirements.
In some cases one or more of the requirements either showed no faith in the concept or imposed extra complication. Like the British had a requirement in several trials that the semi-auto "action" could be locked out or disabled so the gun would function as a manual repeater, Perhaps in case of parts breakage or some undefined tactical reason? Unrealistic weight limits or other goals were often thrown in.

An Army's stated policy/doctrine was often contradicted by actual training policy/training time or was often thrown out the window with rapid expansion. And desires of some Generals was often thwarted by budgets, especially during the 30s. New rifles or new artillery? Or new rifles or new light machine guns? A few thousand rifles is one thing, rifles by the hundred thousand is another. A small professional or cadre army could often attain very high skill levels with certain types of weapons that was impossible to maintain with short training cycles and large expansion.

 

[Shortround6]

Indeed
As mentioned before you don't need semi if the enemy is 500 yards away in static position. The Boer war taught the British the importance of the P13 and ww1 didn't . Perhaps they thought a rifle is a rifle and rapid fire is a SMG. Or LMG. The Semis of the 1920s and 1930s are not quite there yet and Garand was hardly perfect. So maybe the immature designs didn't help none either

A good semi, like the Garand is just as capable of 500-800 yd accuracy as a bolt action rifle. WW I taught the British that guns that work in the mud are more important than guns that don't. It also taught them that bipod mounted LMGs were effective at 600yds and beyond. A type of gun that did not exist in the Boer war. The British were not completely satisfied with the No 1 MK III however or they would not have been building 20,000 or so No 1 MK Vs in 1922-25. New back sight.

Dramatically improved practical accuracy.

Armies, despite budget problems, were searching for ways to make the battalion more effective. A mix of of rifles and LMGs was more effective than just improving rifles and eased the training problem. Select 50 machine gunners out of 500 men and train them or try to train all 500 men to be expert shots? A bit of an exaggeration but gets to the point. LMGs are also easier for the officers and Noncoms to over see/direct. A platoon commander (LT?) may have 1-4 LMGs depending on army and date. Directing them (or the LMG team leaders) is a much easier task than directing 30-40 individual rifle men, even with the aid of squad leaders.
The maximum span of control for a leader is 5 units, 3-4 is better. Which is one reason that most military units are arranged from 3-4 smaller units.
The Boer war was fought under conditions that were far from typical for the rest of the World. In WW II the closest equivalents would be North Africa and the Russian steppes. And the Russian steppes only in summer. It was possible to observe bullet impacts at quite long ranges (especially with telescopes or binoculars) and correct fire accordingly. Something that is impossible in wetter climates or with more foliage.
Since the rifleman can rarely see his own bullet impact it falls to his mate or to his section/squad leader to try to observe and correct fire. Unless the riflemen are firing slowly (very slowly) one observer can only deal with 2-3 shooters at once.
The whole notion of long range, precision rifle fire falls apart very quickly in actual practice whatever the target shooters of the time may have thought. It is one thing to fire small groups on a target at a known range and with flags at different distances indicating wind speed and direction. In the Field at unknown distances and more guess work for wind, chances for hits plummet drastically almost regardless of cartridge and type of rifle.
An NCO with a pair of binoculars (or even the LMG assistant without binoculars) observing a MG firing in short bursts has a much better chance of observing where the burst went and correcting the gunner onto the target.

Submachine guns were not short rifles and most people knew it. Range was limited to 150-200yds even in good circumstances. Very handy in cities, jungle and forest but rather limited even in large meadows or plowed fields at least in daylight.

The British barely got the Bren gun into service in time for WW II. While a semi-auto rifle to go with it (and suitable training) would have been ideal it was quite a ways from being practical or even the most important thing on the desired weapons list. ( More/better 3in/81 mortars, more/better AT weapons, more/better AA weapons, etc)

 

[The Basket]

Knowing British procurement procedures it lucky to get a Brown Bess never mind a Mk IV.
But I wonder was the SMLE ever converted to semi auto with introduction of a gas piston?
That woud be awesome

 

[tyrodtom]

New Zealand thought they might be isolated in early WW2, they came up with the Charlton conversion on a No1, Mk III SMLE . not a semi , but full automatic. But at 17 lbs., unloaded, it was a LMG.

 

[Shortround6]

It was actually converted to a light machinegun. Or several
Although it was intended more for semi-automatic fire with full auto in "emergencies".

there were 3 other conversions but built in much fewer numbers. The Howell, the Elkins and the Rieder. Adding gas pistons and operating rods to the side of already existing rifles made for somewhat cumbersome weapons with rather exposed mechanisms. Better than no weapons but not weapons that would have been adopted except for the emergency of the times,
The South African Rieder for example was full auto only with single shots "achieved" by rapid release of the trigger. Granted a MK II Or III might have fixed that.

 

[The Basket]

Great work.
Those rifles look stunning.i love it.
I wish for to know if they ever passed Any kind of formal military acceptance? Did any of these rifle or any other adaptions get anywhere?
I am of the opinion no.
I am assuming that so kind of camming action is required to lift the bolt

 

[tyrodtom]

1500 made in New Zealand, and also built in Australia.
Formal military acceptance tests probably aren't so difficult to pass when they think that's the only weapon they're going to get.

 

[The Basket]

I can guess shoftrounds response to that! Don't buy poor weapons just because they are there.

 

[Shortround6]

Desperate times call for desperate measures or weapons of desperation.
see.
The Smith Gun.
The Northover Projector.
The Blacker Bombard.
No 76 Grenade.
No 74 Grenade.

For weapons that actually made it into production and service although not combat in most cases.
What you build for home defense when short of real weapons and invasion may be imminent and what build during peacetime are very different things.

 

[tyrodtom]

From what little information that's out there, it seems the Charlton conversion worked very well .
I do wonder how it would have held up under battlefield conditions, dirt and all.

But the fact that they continued building it during the entire war period, though slowly,, sort of indicates they didn't see it as useless.

 

[The Basket]

Problem with last ditch weapons is that they can be as dangerous to their user as the enemy.
Considering the ease of conversion from bolt to semi the fact that these types of rifles went no where speaks volumes.
1500 rifles is no big deal. Especially for an infantry weapon. The Johnson rifle was made to about 70000 units and that is basically unknown outside of us lot.

 

[Shortround6]

Look at the Charlton again, It went 16-17lbs and had a bipod. It was more of a BAR/LMG than a Garand/Johnson semi auto rifle.
Substitute Bren gun if you will. The New Zealand Army was nowhere near the size of the US Army or even the US Marines.

 

[The Basket]

Hello shortround.
What am I looking at with the Charlton? It's military service? How long it took to make 1500 guns!
Not one was fired in anger and nearly all were destroyed in a fire.
So apart from its engineering which is fascinating it doesn't do much.
It was designed at the time as a 'desperate' but by the time it was ready the threat of a Japanese invasion had gone.

 

[tyrodtom]

The 1500 was made in a converted bodyshop by a small staff, with some parts made by outside suppliers.
The fact that the contract was left open, and not cancelled should tell you something. If it was a pig, production would have been halted, would it not ?

I've seen numbers of 4000 made in Australia.

It's easy to find fault, but to these people it wasn't just a mental exercise.
They set down and designed something, then got their hands dirty and built it.