Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

aught4naught t1_j12bvkf wrote

Reply to comment by bangdazap in Why didn't the US adopt the STG-44 after WW2? by TurboTortois3

Plus bigger bullets weight more so consequently soldiers can carry fewer.

16

dittybopper_05H t1_j13mwib wrote

Ironically, though, the StG-44 is about 1 or 2 lbs heavier than an M-1 Garand. It doesn't *LOOK* like it, you'd think the Garand is heavier just looking at it, but it's not.

The other thing to consider is that the StG-44 is, essentially, a disposable gun. It's made largely of stampings, and they will wear out much quicker than a Garand. You can put tens of thousands of rounds through an M-1 with no difficulty, but a Sturmgewehr will wear out long before that. Plus, it's more prone to being damaged than an M-1.

But I think perhaps the biggest reason why is because the M-1 was a battle-proven platform which the US literally had millions of them in stock. Completely switching over from that to a new gun with new ammo (.30'06 Kurz?) would have been seen as an unnecessary waste of money.

6

ArkyBeagle t1_j15oh4v wrote

I think the new weapon adopted , the Next Generation Squad Weapon or XM5 they use "practice" rounds at lower velocity and only switch to "combat" rounds when it's For Real. The barrel seems to wear out with the fairly extreme round chosen for that. That's a sea change from prior doctrine.

1

dittybopper_05H t1_j18hu2s wrote

I'm still aghast at that decision. Fully loaded with the suppressor, that's an 11.24 lb rifle. That's actually the heaviest infantry rifle ever adopted by the US military.

And the cartridge is another matter. The practice rounds are still zippy enough to be used in combat, and I'm willing to bet that cost considerations are going to ensure that the reduced version gets used in combat. Which is still nothing to sneeze at: It's essentially a 7mm-08.

I mean, I'm one of those weirdos who likes the concept of a battle rifle, but they shouldn't be significantly heavier than an M-1 Garand or an M-14.

2

ArkyBeagle t1_j1953zj wrote

> That's actually the heaviest infantry rifle ever adopted by the US military.

True.

> I'm willing to bet that cost considerations are going to ensure that the reduced version gets used in combat.

Huh. What I've read says the gain of function looked for was piercing body armor. So maybe you're right.

> but they shouldn't be significantly heavier than an M-1 Garand or an M-14.

Most likely. I imagine the M16 will still be in use.

1

dittybopper_05H t1_j198kku wrote

From what I hear the M-4 is going to still be issued to non-infantry troops, while the actual trigger pullers are going to get the XM5.

2

Eokokok t1_j1327xm wrote

And yet we are back at big bullets with next gen rifle going into production.

3

fiendishrabbit t1_j134ygh wrote

Because the US have been fighting all their battles in the middle east where a bigger bullet has certain advantages, mainly that it has a better effect against heavy bodyarmor and that it can penetrate double-brick walls (which is a really common feature in the middle-east and afghanistan.

Neither of those two were a factor back in the days when the US decided to go for 7.62 instead of a more suitable mid-weight cartridge. The only good argument for the 7.62 back then was that it was also a suitable cartridge for general purpose machineguns, so using the same caliber in all small arms simplified logistics.

14

greennitit t1_j13upru wrote

Also terrain in the Middle East tends to be flat and tree-less leading to longer engagement distances.

4

akodo1 t1_j20jln4 wrote

And there countyside is different. Sparce vegetation on flat terrain or scrub brush on mountains means a lot more long shot possiblity (as well as long range machinegunnery) that was experienced in Vietnam or the conflicts in Latin America

1