Me: If this is news to them they should really read some of the books out there that go through the prototype variants of the M1 Garand and M1 Carbine, they're quite interesting.
@@Jon-jn5os A full auto garand is a bar's special cousin lmao. Less than half the ammo capacity of a Bar so the tactics are going to be much different, no walking assault or bunker clearing for this one.
My dad was drafted for 'Nam in the late 60's(ended up stationed in the Signal Corps in W.Germany though) and said the only time he shot a M14 on full auto was for weapon familiarization, basically to show new guys how useless FA was for that system.
Funny you mention that - my uncle was just talking about this exact thing a few days ago. He was drafted himself and mentioned his one experience seeing a full auto M14 and how pointless it is to fire it like that.
@@Stribog1337 it has an integrated bipod which would dramatically improve control, at least while shooting prone, although I doubt you'd be able to properly "load" the bipod based on how it folds.
It wouldn't be useless if you had a few enemy soldiers bunched up right in front you and they just locked eyes on you. Some more experienced shooters could handle the recoil to the point it could be used effectively in certain situations. Better to have it and not need it, then need it and not have it.
@UCqVrr6vJNVG2KGXTzhk75Lg Most of the people they were issuing M14s to in Vietnam weren't experienced soldiers and if you waste ammo from full auto fire then you may not have rounds when you actually need it. Also, even people who have experience shooting guns on full auto have trouble with the M14 due to the high bore axis of the gun. Furthermore, at close ranges semi-auto is more effective than full-auto due to better accuracy, muzzle control and shot placement. The benefits of full-auto rifle-caliber weapons are only seen in shooting for long range suppressive fire or shooting fast moving targets like vehicles. There's a reason that special forces units almost always have their rifles set to semi, even in close quarters battle.
My brother in law was a Vietnam era Marine. He was his squads designate light machine gunner and was issued a full automatic M14 variant with a forward assist grip and butt modification. He was selected because he kept 3 shots out of 20 on a refrigerator sized target. A feat he had no idea how he accomplished and was unable to ever duplicate.
It's just "forward grip." "Forward assist" refers specifically to a modification made to the M16 to aid in properly seating a round in the chamber in the event that it jammed while cycling.
Please stop spreading the rumor that you could hear the ping on a battlefield, you more than likely can't after any firing starts. A video has been made to prove the point.
Not all.that significantly more frequently - merely faster. The time it takes to empty a Garand in semi, missing as fast as you can, is a rounding error in the total time to empty the rifle and reload from an issue cartridge belt or bandolier. 🤣 I can only imagine what an 8 round "Hose Beast" burst from that is like. "The world went grey, and suddenly.i was pointing an empty rifle at the clouds." 😝
William Atwater talked about the fully automatic M14. Words to the effect of "The first round was on target, the second was over its head, and after that it was an anti- aircraft gun." Would probably have been even worse in .30"-06.
The ballistic performance of 7.62x51mm NATO is roughly the same as the .30-06 military load. That was kind of the point of the 7.62x51mm round, really - the same performance from a smaller cartridge.
The potency of the 30-06 (or the later .308/7.62 NATO) is precisely the reason weight is your friend when control is the issue. The Browning Automatic Rifle or BAR was heavy, but controllable -thanks to its two-speed rate selector, but also its mass. Reduce the mass too much as in the M-14, the weapon becomes much less effective as an automatic fire weapon. The British experienced the same issue with the SLR/FAL, and so did the Germans with the G3. Perhaps the sole Cold War battle rifle to solve this dilemma was the Italian BM-59, whose superb muzzle device tamed much of the muzzle rise inherent in the cartridge when used in cyclic-fire weapons. These weapons could be fired in full-auto, but one needed a bipod and perhaps a pistol grip and fore-grip for control. They were not designed for base-of-fire sustained full-auto operations, though, only for occasional use in that manner - as they lacked a QD barrel, ability to feed from belted or linked ammo, and other features found on true GPMGs and LMGs. The trick to firing one of these battle rifles in full-auto is to take a page from the BAR book, and sling it waist-high where it can be locked against the hip and fired in short bursts. Of course, one is more-exposed standing up which isn't always a good idea on a battlefield, but that's another matter. To me, the difficulty turning battle rifles into select-fire weapons goes back to the failed idea of the "universal firearm" or "universal service rifle" and cartridge. It perhaps reached its lunatic peak with the idea that the M-14 would replace half a dozen different weapons ranging from the M-1/2 Carbine to the M3 Grease Gun to the BAR. What I'd like to know is what those guys writing that requirement were drinking and smoking at the time! Completely foolish and unrealistic design requirement! Maybe I'm old-school and a dinosaur, but I don't see where the system of small arms TO&E followed up until WWII & Korea was that bad. Namely, the line--up of weapons and functionalities/roles for them. Garand as the infantryman's primary service rifle, some SMG - whether the Thompson or the M3 or something like it firing a pistol cartridge, with a capable GMPG or light machine gun, which in those days in the U.S. would have been a M1919 Browning MG. Carbines for the support troops, NCOs, officers, etc. and M1911 pistols for those who needed/wanted them. Pistol & SMG range - pistol for CQB/close-range, SMG out to 100-150 yards. M-1/M-2 Carbine about the same, give or take, the sights only graduated to 300 yards, but it is at its best inside of 150-200. Battle rifle, machine guns for ranges out past that. I suppose the point I am making is that the assault rifle was in certain ways a solution in search of a problem. It did certain things very well, that could not be done by existing weapons, but it also forced armies to compromise their capabilities when "everyone" got issued an M-16 by the latter half of the Vietnam War. Like Kenneth Royce, the firearms trainer and author, I am happy (for the soldiers, that is) that this class of weapon, the assault rifle, was invented, but just as someone who only has a hammer begins to see everything as a nail, the prevalence of these weapons has gone too far and now the pendulum needs to swing back the other way somewhat. Of course, there are those that argue small-arms are approaching irrelevancy on modern battle fields anyway, what with all of the 21st century technology around these days. But someone forgot to tell those fierce Afghan tribesmen that, I guess.
@@GeorgiaBoy1961 The British did not, in fact, experience it with their L1A1 SLR. As the name suggests, the Self-Loading Rifle was semi-automatic only, maybe thanks to these experiments.
There are companies that have made muzzle brakes for the M1 and M14. I haven't seen the M1 brake used on a full-auto Garand, but the M14 brakes seem very effective on short bursts. Maybe with the rumors of new M1s from H&R, someone can convince them to convert one to be fully-automatic and add one of those muzzle brakes to it. For science.
I'm honestly surprised that early automatic rifle development didn't IMMEDIATELY reach for porting/venting/recoil-controlling muzzle/barrel designs considering how some contemporary SMGs had such a naturally high ROF that they also needed similar features to be even remotely controllable. Maybe they quickly figured that, even if you *could* get full-auto fire or even long bursts to be roughly accurate, it's kind of redundant to hit a man with more than ONE full-power cartridge. Sort of a waste of ammo really, and keeping soldiers properly stocked with enough bullets for even autoloaders was becoming a logistical concern.
one could also put a the rifle on a shooting sled and tighten it down too, just to see it's function and rate of fire while being safe. I'm betting they could also get a very experienced military member to come and do a shoot as well just to re create the trial so to say, practice a bit on a FAL or another full powered rifle that has automatic fire and then give that thing a whorl.
Being that John Garand was a Canadian who happened to work at the Springfield armory in Massachusetts for the Americans, its not much of a stretch to say that in a way it has UK Commonwealth roots.
Considering there was a time The Sun did not set on The British Empire, there would be few things without "UK Commonwealth roots" following that train of thought
@@TheSundayShooter agreed, i live not far from Springfield, theres still a large statue of the puritan William Pinchon who founded the settlement. Our area was founded by that protestant sect about the time of the English civil war. The names of the surrounding towns? Westfield, southwick, holyoke, northampton, hartford,ludlow, enfield, etc etc....so , yes, i see exactly what you mean. Lol😊
As Astrid points out Garand (as you might guess from his name) was Quebecois. Also the M1 has some striking resemblances to the French WW1 RSC 1917 rifle (long stroke gas operated revolving bolt rifle fed from en-block clips).
I just got my first M1 garand, and I am excited to clean it, and take it out to the range. It’s receiver, or body as you put it, is a 1943 receiver, a 1948 barrel, a 1957 trigger group, and a 1957 operating rod. All of the components are Springfield armory make.
They are a blast to shoot, and I guarantee that when the clip comes out and you hear the ping, you will have a huge smile. Mine is a 1940 Springfield that I got from CMP.
Good luck cleaning it, I don't recommend fully stripping it down at first. Spent 2 hours getting my grandpas M1 working after it was shoved in a closet for a few decades.
@@LostShipMate I followed brownell’s 4 part guide to disassembly and cleaning yesterday afternoon, and tore the gun down completely. I had a little bit of a hard time putting the small magazine parts back together, but I was able to. I cleaned the hell out of that rifle, and put new oil and grease in it. I’m going to the range with it this afternoon for the first time.
When I first saw the title I said to myself, “self, here we go on some crazy limey modification of our finest battle rifle.” Who but a Brit would make a full power battle rifle fully automatic with an 8 round magazine? But then my mind drifts back to the battlefield modified Garands. Selected units, mostly moble AA units wanted, needed an automatic burst of fire if about to be over run. Given M1’s when they asked for BAR or Thompson’s they did the next best thing. Filed the disconnecter down to create a fully automatic Garand. Much to the displeasure of the command structure and QM corps.
@@AntonGully Well Anton my uncle told me about that process. He was assigned to an M16 armoured quad 50 anti aircraft unit in 1943. This consisted of four half tracks, two with quad guns and two as ammo carriers. The unit had about thirty men total. In England they were used to cover supply dumps and troop depots against possible air attack. After Normandy they were attached to armoured divisions for air cover. Being soft targets the wee bit used near the front, thus had little or no infantry support. But by late 1944 that changed. The air threat was diminished and the quad AA units were used to secure sections of roads and intersections from general enemy advance. Again without infantry support. These M45 quad guns, mounted in a half track became the M16 AA half track. The quad gun was limited on its depression. I don’t recall the specific angle. I was about 8 years old when my uncle told us about this. Hes now long gone. But the bottom line was that they could engage ground targets at half mile or so, but could not depress the guns to fire into advancing ground troops at a couple hundred yards. They also could not acquire fully automatic arms. So the did the next best thing. Filed the disconnect it’s off about half the Garands to make 8 round burst rifles. Not selective. Just to buy enough time to fire up and drive away before being over run. Which my uncles unit almost was during the battle of the bulge. The army command took a dim view of damaging government property. Several in his unit were put on report and some talk of courts martial was discussed. My cousin says there was also some modifications to the depression stop on the quad gun. Another serious infraction. In the end my uncle was punished by not being released from service, but rather assigned to guard POWs in Nuremberg during the war crime trials. In the end he made a career and served 26 years. He was an interesting guy. So if he says the hacked those M1s then they did. I’ve heard other similar stories, not many, but detailed enough to be believable. Enjoy your fantasy.
I was recently reading B. H. Liddell-Hart's "Lawrence of Arabia", and ran across something interesting. Apparently there's an SMLE that Lawrence used, and gave to King George for his museum. I wonder if it's still in the UK, it would make a fascinating subject of a video. From Liddell-Hart's book: "This rifle had a history: it was a normal British "Short Lee-Enfield" which had been captured by the Turks at the Dardanelles and then, with a gold-engraved inscription, had been presented by Enver to Feisal. Lawrence in turn had obtained it from Feisal. After the war he offered to restore it to the Essex Regiment, its original owner, but received no reply. Instead, King George took an opportunity of adding it to the collection in his private War Museum at Windsor. It has a sinister series of notches cut in it; they were made by Lawrence whenever he brought down a Turk -- until he lost zest in keeping such records."
@@JonathanFergusonRoyalArmouries It was loaned to the Imperial War Museum in 1936 where it remained on display until at least ten years or so ago when I last visited, inexplicably with the rear sight protectors on the wrong way round. It may have returned to the RCT since then.
Actually the Italian BM59 in 7,62x51 is actually also a conversion of the garand system to fully automatic. The transfer bar is very similar. Then a huge muzzle brake and a bipod made it more controlable.
@@JohnHughesChampigny exactly, the M14 should of been an improvement on the BM59 making it a truly outstanding rifle. But instead Ordanance and procurement officers had to get their fingers in things!
The M14 had a attachable bipod which was to be used for automatic fire. We were trained to fire in two to three round bursts if on automatic. Full discharge of the magazine on auto would result in the weapon climbing to the right and the rounds overshooting the target. Mainly we were trained to select semi auto fire which produced an accurate and repetitive trajectory. A very accurate rifle for its basic function. I was in the last cycle trained on the M14 in the US Army 1969. Retrained on the M16 when I arrived in Vietnam.
My father and brother were huge M14/ M1A fans so I have a good amount of 14 gear and manuals for it including the bipod. Its whole purpose for existing was to permit accurate burst fire. The old man was actually in the service when they transitioned from the M1 to the M14 and would almost tear up talking about how they lined his unit's M1s over a curb and ran a Pershing over them. He loved that M1 but raved about the 14.
As a Garand collector found your video very interesting and well done. The Garand rifle at the time represented a great advance in military arms development.
700 RPM on a 308 sounds like it would be both fun and dangerous to shoot. However it would be a blast to shoot at a large target like a car or bunch of hanging paint cans. I think RA could use another 1 or 2 overhead lights for the breakdowns. Table top down view could use more light please.
.30-06 for WWII era Garands. The M14 is basically a full auto Garand in .308 and that thing was usually an AA gun after the first few rounds. That was one of the main reasons for developing the 5.56 NATO cartridge and the AR-15/M16.
@@manictiger Well the military loads of that time were about the same power as 7.62x51, but later commercial 30-06 loads are the ones that are significantly more powerful
@@quentagonthornton49 Which the CMP specifically warns not to load into Garands. Ammo manufacturers now make loads specifically for the Garand which say "For M1 Garand" on the box.
@@marcgucciardo1942 Perhaps they should have adopted the FAL, but more importantly, they should have adopted an intermediate cartridge like the British .280 that the EM2 fired. Unfortunately, US army ordnance was too backward looking. After action reports from both WWI and WWII showed that the vast majority of infantry actions took place within 300 meters. So what was the point of giving soldiers a full power battle rifle designed to shoot accurately out to 1000m? To have that long range capability necessitated a powerful cartridge, that was too powerful for controllable full auto fire (as indicated in the video), and that needed a heavier rifle to fire such a powerful cartridge, _and_ it meant less ammo could be carried, since each individual round was bigger and heavier. An intermediate cartridge, designed to work out to 300m, could be smaller and lighter, enabling the rifle to be smaller and lighter as well, and enabling controllable full auto fire. The Germans proved this concept in combat during WWII with the StG44. The Russians and the British both took note of this, and produced proper assault rifles, firing intermediate cartridges (the AK47 and EM2 respectively). The U.S. army took note of this, and thought it was a good idea too, BUT... The U.S. army was unwilling to give up long range performance, never mind what the after action reports of two world wars showed. So they _slightly_ decreased the length of the .30-06 cartridge to make the .308/7.62mm NATO, thus _paying lip service_ to the idea of an intermediate cartridge -- but in reality the 7.62mm NATO was still a full power battle rifle round. They tried to eat their cake and have it too, and ran into the same problem the British did in this test: you simply can't make a full power battle rifle controllable on full auto. As a result, the M14, once adopted, had the selector switch disabled, turning it back into a semi-auto only rifle. The British, who for the sake of NATO standardization, unadopted the EM2 and adopted the FAL, rechambered for 7.62mm NATO, did the same thing, and deleted full auto capability from their rifles too. All in all, thanks to the stubbornness, and the backwardness of the U.S. army ordnance bureau, NATO was prevented from having a proper assault rifle for another couple of decades, until the 5.56mm came along (which is arguably _too_ small, and a less ideal cartridge than the .280 British round would have been). It's a good thing the Cold War never turned hot during this period, as NATO troops would have found themselves at a serious disadvantage in terms of their small arms.
@@Hibernicus1968 While most of your post is correct, I would dispute the claim that 5.56 is "too small" or that NATO would've been at a "serious disadvantage" due to 5.56. 5.56 is pretty great, especially when fired out of full-length rifle barrels, in fact its performance was so good the Soviets copied it with their own comparable cartridge: the 5.45x39. The problems with 5.56 was again due to US ordanance bureaucrats trying to save a few pennies during the transition from .308, as such they used the wrong powder which gummed up the more sensitive mechanism of the M16. Later, the carbine rifle lengths started to give issue when the USarmy moved away from full-length rifles to carbine rifles for ease of use in vehicles as well as urban combat. 5.56 loses a lot of its potency out of the M4 as was proven in Somalia and later Afghanistan.
@@Birdy890 Perhaps I need to clarify. By too small, I mean too small to be _ideal._ 5.56mm _is_ effective, and it's telling that after we adopted it, both the Soviets and the Chinese later switched to quite similar .22 caliber, high velocity rounds. Yet 5.56mm comes at a certain cost. Barrier penetration has always been somewhat wanting, as has tracer performance. When we got into Afghanistan, where longer ranges were more commonly encountered, we also sometimes found 5.56mm coming up a bit short -- literally -- in terms of performance. And when velocity falls off sufficiently, the bullets don't tumble on impact and terminal performance suffers. There's reason to believe that something in the 6-6.5mm caliber might have been a slightly better compromise (.280 British was slightly larger, at 7.2mm, but still closer to that size). 6.5 is in a particular sweet spot, where you can get an ideal combination of sectional density with a high ballistic coefficient, so that you end up with flat-shooting, but mild-recoiling cartridges with good terminal performance, good barrier penetration, and good tracer performance, quite controllable on full auto, and light enough in weight to allow plenty of ammo to be carried. Switching to a 6.5mm does not offer enough improvement over the 5.56mm to justify the _massive_ expense that changing calibers would entail at this point. But if we'd adopted a cartridge like that back when we made the switchover from full power battle rifle cartridges, we'd probably have a slightly better rifle and cartridge combo. Changing calibers is probably not justifiable from a cost perspective until we perfect caseless ammo or make a similar leap in firearms technology that renders _all_ our current ammo obsolete, not just 5.56mm.
I really appreciate your time spent on this video. Not aware the Uk. Was testing this concept so early. You mentioned the US eventually getting to the M14 which actually was time wasted. However nothing about the Italian's successfully building and using their series of BM-59 rifles. In service until 1980's. I was fortunate to find a civilian BM-59 4 years ago from James River Armory. Thanks again sir , Middle Tennessee
I dare say that in terms of stuff like naval small arms you could apply this with it's extremely high cyclitic rate as a very interesting way to get a few rounds very rapidly on target against approaching aircraft diving at the vessel, in that regard the muzzle climb might not be an issue if you already have to lead the target that way.
The Succesful conversion of a 30cal Garand Receiver to Full Auto in 7,62 NATO was achieved by Beretta, but the BM 59 series had a Bipod, so that Full Auto function could be managed in a controllable manner ( as a LMG, rather than a Full Auto Rifle.)
@@markfryer9880 you'd also have a problem with the barrel needing to be replaced more often. Fusing standard infantry weapons in purpose with squad support weapons was always a bad idea. The assault rifle is about as good as it gets, as Ian from forgotten weapons (and many notable figures in the firearms community also say) there aren't really any major developments left to be made in weapons development. Best we get is "iphoning" the better features of guns together to achieve better ergonomics, optics, materials and longevity in parts. Many people expect 6.8mm munitions to be the next step, but it doesnt offer a great enough leap in effectiveness over currently adopted rounds to achieve widespread adoption, a step necessary to actually be considered a pragmatic round.
When I was a kid I saw a full auto M1 shoot. It was fast, fun to look at and useless. All eight cartridges were fired in about a second. If my memory serves me correctly it used the rocker assembly from an M14 with some modifications.
Hi Jonathan, I'm very much enjoying this series, however I have a suggestion. I think it might improve the visibility of the weapons and parts (especially the ones in deep blue and wood furniture) if you shot on a lighter color backdrop, either grey or white. I often find the edges dropping away and tending to blend with the shadows in the overhead shots which I think would be remedied with a higher contrast table cover. Thanks for the entertaining and informative addition to my subscription feed.
I would like to add that this issue is particularly noticeable when viewing the overhead video shot. It gets very dark between the weapon and you. Constructive criticism only to help improve your videos. Mark from Melbourne Australia
The solution here would be to place a light behind Jonathan off to the right of the camera, pointed down at the table from a shallow angle; using a medium sized reflector dish. This would fill the shadows cast by the firearm and presenter and also add a rim light to the presenters silhouette which well help make them pop from the background. Additionally the focus in this specific video seems to be slightly behind Jonathan, it appears to be on the firearms rack behind which contains a lot of high frequency visual information; which makes the slight rear focusing more apparent. Setting the focus to be from the front of the table to behind the presenter this should also reduce the background business as the weapon rack will be out of focus. Aside from these very minor quibbles from a camera nerd, this piece is as usual- excellent. L from Melbourne Australia
It would also be helpful if, when you start talking about something specific, the camera didn't turn away or you didn't rotate the gun away from the camera. The overhead comparison shot of the modified and stock receivers was utterly useless as the view was so far away. You also need better lighting. One would think this was the first time presenting a rifle on camera.
@@Biber0315 While there is some truth in what you're saying, it comes across a little harsh, the Armory isn't a production studio- it's a Museum. While it is very easy to sit back and throw stones, it isn't very constructive. The Armory are obviously working with what they have and trying to get it right; it takes years of production experience to know how to get even seemingly simple things right- so we should cut them some slack.
I echo this. The close-up side views didn't show much, but were really close, while the interesting details were viewed from a far more distant camera above the action. It would have helped simply to tilt the key parts toward the close-up camera.
Yes - I did mean to reference that but failed to chase down the video before filming. It's this one; th-cam.com/video/_Y01YMVJrJI/w-d-xo.html Love the Cody Firearms Museum.
Bump firing compared to full auto is apples to oranges. There isn't a comparison to be made because one is a gimmick and the other uses the internal workings of the firearm to fire multiple rounds with the same trigger pull. Bump firing is just using physics to reset the trigger and pull it again faster then normal.
Great presentation. The U.S. government did some funding of work by Springfield Armory and others, during the latter half of WWII and in the early post-war Cold War years before Korea, into making the M-1 Garand fully-cyclic. John Garand and his team got as far as one modified to accept BAR magazines and capable of fully-automatic fire, but the war ended before it could be completed and put into service.
Something else of great interest is in the cited report. At 6:10 the report on functioning states that ammunition used for the test of the ZH-29 was incorrect for the rifle. This is the first I have encountered a suggestion that the ZH-29 is ammunition-sensitive. (For those few unacquainted with this weapon, the ZH-29 is an early example of a production semi-auto battle rifle, not a conversion or prototype, developed in Czechoslovakia and shopped around the world to governments interested in updating to self-loading military firearms, but without much success. The ZH-29 was regarded as an excellent shooter with outstanding manufacturing standards by most who tested it, but it was a disconcerting oddball with a "crooked" barrel and cockeyed sights thanks to its horizontal tilting-bolt action, a case of "wow but weird".) As I understand it, the ZH-29 was designed to use standard 8mm Mauser, perhaps the most widely used military cartridge in the world in 1930. As the Czechs hoped to make a big pile of bucks selling their gun worldwide, it seems odd that they would offer a rifle with special ammo requirements.
"As I understand it, the ZH-29 was designed to use standard 8mm Mauser, perhaps the most widely used military cartridge in the world in 1930." -- But 8mm Mauser was maybe less standard than you think -- look at Iain from FW's video about shooting surplus turkish 8mm and the people who blew up their FG42 replicas using 8mm Mauser made for bolt action rifles that was significantly hotter than stuff you would want in a self-loaded.
@@JohnHughesChampigny To quote myself, "...in 1930". There was much less variety in 7.92x57 Mauser ammo before WWII than during and after. Why would ammo made for bolt-action rifles be hotter than ammo made for MGs? Was that Turkish ammo loaded hotter or had its propellant become unstable after decades of storage in questionable circumstances? BA rifles don't rely on gas pressure to operate the gun, whereas in a gas-operated weapon the ammunition must drive the bullet downrange and operate the mechanism, consequently, ammo intended for self-loader is often hotter than what is intended for BA sporting rifles. Prior to 1920, the 8mm Mauser was used primarily by the Gewehr 98 and its variants, the MG 08, and Bergmann MG 15. The last two were recoil-operated automatics using mostly the identical ammo fired by the G 98 together with a mix of AP and incendiary ammo. After WWI many smaller countries, Poland and Czechoslovakia in particular, designed a variety of weapons for 8mm for several reasons, but mostly because of its ubiquity and abundance. (A bankrupt Germany sold tons of war surplus 8mm to customers as far away as China.) The testing committee's report flatly states that their Besa MG ammo didn't work well in the ZH-29. This is highly mysterious because the Besa was a licensed copy of the Czech ZH-53 designed by the brother of the man who designed the ZH-29 and built by the same factory. There's no logical reason why these two guns should have different ammo requirements, both being gas-operated self-loaders. Furthermore, the experience of people shooting ammo stored for 80 years in replica firearms is mostly irrelevant. (The FG 42 may be a special case. To meet the Luftwaffe requirement the gun was somewhat fragile due to maximum weight restrictions. Consequently, it may have used specific ammo that was lightly loaded compared to what was commonly issued to the Heer, but I doubt it.)
The British were an outlier in NATO in that when they adopted the FN-FAL they eliminated the select-fire feature. I'd be interested to know if this study informed that decision.
Being not part of NATO, France kept a semi-auto main battle rifle till the early '80s with its MAS 49/56, and it was the best (and ugliest) Cold War Occidental rifle.
Bean counters more worried about ammo waste/cost than what the troops might find useful...plus an Army that had always been (too?) proud of its single shot marksmanship and conservative use of ammunition compared to others.
@@loyp4328 France was, of course, part of NATO. (They left the unified command, not the organisation). As part of NATO they investigated changing the MAS 49/56 to 7.62 but discovered that it didn't work very well and abandoned the project.
@@Dr.D00p Not bean counters. People who had some idea of what a rifle was and what 7.62mm could and couldn't do. They after all wanted to issue a fully automatic rifle (EM-2 in .280) but, correctly, realised that the idea of a light fully automatic rifle in 7.62 was bloody stupid.
The only improvement I have ever seen on am M-1 was the Beretta conversion from clip fed to magazine fed. When I entered the Marina Corps, I was issued an M-14. We fired it one time on full auto. It was uncontrollable. I cannot imagine how punishing it was to fire on full auto. On semi auto it was GREAT! Much MUCH better than the M-16.
My father was a prewar regular. He was lagging behind on the Friday when the company's M1s showed up. The first sergeant tagged him and his buddy to assemble the rifles sans manual. The good news was he knew how to field strip and reassemble an M1 blindfold by Monday morning.
When I was in Army ROTC (1970-74), Freshmen and Sophomores carried M14's, Juniors had our limited supply of M16A1's and Seniors normally went unarmed as instructors or evaluators for the underclassmen. Anyway, in the care and keeping of the Armorer - locked in his desk - was the one and only M14 selector switch I ever saw in 29 years as a cadet and officer. It came out to play once or twice a year when we went to the range. Everybody got to shoot one 20 round magazine using the chosen M14 - which by the end of the day had a truly impressive amount of carbon fouling . We had a pretty good museum of 20th Century US Martial Rifles, as the arms room was also home to M1903''s and M1''s
It's so strange to me that the Bang style of gas-trap system lingered for so long, even when many guns, like the Browning Automatic Rifle, Zb.26, and Lewis Gun, had all demonstrated how so very viable a gas piston with a ported bore was.
I found it quite interesting that this was experimented with, in 39. Post war, the U.S. Ordnance Corps forces a full power rifle cartridge on NATO. In turn, this ends the British EM2 project project and alters the intended design of the FAL. Most likely, as the British already discovered, they adopted their SLR in semi auto / repetition only. I imagine an apology for setting small arms development, behind the curve, would be in order
Here's the thing... .308 NATO is a magnificent MG round. 5.56 isn't satisfactory in a belt-fed SAW, and is frequently being replaced by M240. And now there's the possibility of going to .277 Fury. Just different needs for different times.
In some documentation during experiments in the US during WW2 to give the Garand a box magazine and full auto. Was found to have rate fire approaching 900 rounds a minute, this was not on purpose. But quirk of the Garand gas system.
In fairness to the Yanks, they were not actually trying to make M14 fully-automatic for its own sake; they were trying to make M14 Rifle and M15 Automatic Rifle as similar as possible to each other for logistical and training purposes. M15 would have the actual barrel and bipod to work in full-automatic, while M14 would have full-auto as an incidental bonus of sharing the same fire-control group. Why have two triggers that you have to keep spare parts for and train armorers to fix when you can use one for both weapons in a squad/section? As such, the riflemen with M14 were really not expected or trained much to shoot full-automatic. The propaganda films the US military made, of course, loved to show off the firepower, but that was for showing off.
@@genericpersonx333 They kind of were trying to make it full auto for its own sake, at least they were with the 'light rifle' programme that ultimately spawned it. Your take is what ended up happening, but it wasn't the intention when the EM2 and FN rifle were being trialled.
@@JonathanFergusonRoyalArmouries I believe you discussed this in a prior video: Part of the intention in the M14 was too have one weapon that could be both an infantry rifle and a submachine gun. If we had actually been talked into .280, or if we had gone all-in on the M2 carbine, that idea might have worked, but with 7.62 NATO? Not a chance
@@JonathanFergusonRoyalArmouries I see what you mean. In early days, I know there was a hope that M14 could replace all guns within the US Rifle Squad, but obviously they quickly saw that while M2 Carbine and M3 Submachinegun were reasonably replaced, BAR was not so, so they included the M15 variant to do that.
@@genericpersonx333 I just think it's amusing how the .280 was put down because it's .308 or nothing and then after we'd had that forced on NATO, it was realised not long after that it was nuts so then it was all .223 and now even today they are shifting towards calibres with similar performance as what we trialed back in the 50's 😃Ahead of it's time heh.
An interesting item that clearly had some influence on later decisions. We can happily produce a 3D CAD model of these parts for 3D printing. Will get in touch.
I wait with baited breath . I do hope this happens , if it happens or not , I would like too say Thanks for offering , I would have done the same if I had the capabilities . Wooo the anticipation !
@@JohnHughesChampigny Thanks for the spelling lesson , I only just noticed !, But when I was younger We used to put bought maggots in our mouths in winter whilst fishing , so the bait stayed warm and attracted the fish better .
Jonathan, the euphemism you mentioned (YSL) reminded me of the euphemism our Aussie troops ascribed to the M16 during the Vietnam war, namely LBPR - Little Black Plastic Rifle! Just recently I was reading a post that listed common army euphemisms and it was listed as LBPG. My military training made me wonder why they called it a gun, unless the writer was a civilian. Either that or they were ex-military who just wanted to ‘stick it to the man’!
Nice one Jonathan , I really loved the YSL comment , only a Brit will get the humour . Thanks for another really interesting history lesson on British firearms development . Catch You next time .
The British really do have a sly sense of humor, that dry wit. "Yankee Self-Loader" is just fun. These are the same guys in the British Army, mind you, who dismissed the Thompson Submachine Gun as a "gangster's weapon," and then begged for them after Dunkirk. Even Prime Minister Churchill got in on the act once he was in office, because he wanted the commandos to be armed with the American SMG. Thanks to his influence with FDR, he was able to get some for the commando units.
I love the whole concept.. I mean obviously there are more modern ways to bring the recoil under control, between muzzle brakes, an improved foregrip to increase forward hold, tweaking the sight height higher to bring the stock down better into your shoulder, and a slightly less bruising metal-plate butt.
Well, we did basicallly the same thing. We called it the M-14, which had a selector switch that could be installed. Except for the 20 round mag, the M-1 and the M-14 were very similar.
I think I remember reading in the end of Band of Brothers, I believe, that some of the paratrooper GIs modified their M1s, on their own, to fire full auto, though they only seemed to have done this after VE Day. It kind of makes sense that they would at that time, because they thought they were going to the Pacific to jump into Japan, and they were probably wanting to experiment with ideas to improve their gear, that they had been thinking about for the past three years, but hadn't actually done so because you don't actually want to experiment with your rifle, and mess it up, right before a major combat operation. I may be mistaken, I've read lots of books on the war, and I may be confusing Band of Brothers with some other historical account of a different military unit.
The M2 carbine was a full auto version of the M1 carbine and was introduced at the very end of the war and was issued in small number I think. You could be confusing the M1 Garand for the M1 carbine
One of his squad figured out how to tweak the trigger housing so that it turned automatic. But he suspiciously 'forgot' about it later of course! It was in the book that Winters helped write I believe
I remember reading that too, but also that it was a case of misinterpretation. Apparently it wasn't uncommon to mod M1 Carbines to be full auto, which does make practical sense given the pistol calibre round. I don't know for sure, though.
It is my experience that in firearms rounds per minute includes time spent reloading and the cyclic rate indicates rate of fire given only mechanical function.
That's not my experience at all I'm afraid. 'Rate of fire' almost always means cyclic rate. If 'time spent reloading' is included, that's "effective rate of fire".
Usually it's seperated. You have Practical Rate Of Fire which includes reloads, then Cyclical/Mechanical Rate Of Fire which is just how fast the gun would theoretically fire if it had an unlimited capacity magazine. But unless specifically stated otherwise, the Rate of fire of a gun is always measured in its mechanical/cyclical rate
By American automatic M1 Garands he probably refers to W.A.R rifles where they were tried to use BAR magazines, but they didn't quite fit together well.
Pretty sure they also did the same thing with what was called the T26 rifle, which was literally a select fire M1 that took BAR mags, but got cancelled due to budget cuts after the war ended and because the brass overseeing the project didn’t like that it proved unreliable on full-auto due to feeding issues.
What a beautiful tool! Glad it had chance to go cyclic and never had to try again. The "Yankees" near me call it a "giggle switch" for a reason. I'm not named Jerry and the best that I can put on target is around 200/minute.
The nature of a full rifle cartridge to make the muzzle climb when fired on full auto is why we had the Browning Automatic Rifle ; the B.A.R. The B.A.R. unloaded was over 20 pounds. The M-1 Garand was only 9 pounds. Still even with the extra weight we had severe control issues with the B.A.R. Early models had a selector for what was called 'Walking Fire'. The idea was to advance on an enemy position while putting fire on that position. That selector was removed from later B.A.R.s as it did not work very well.
Been trying to find actually footage of it being fired and I’m ending up with really nothing does anyone know where there is any archive footage of a actual full auto one?
I have never seen any and none would have been recorded for this British attempt, but the US national archives might have some for the later Winchester prototypes? The Cody Firearms Museum would know.
@@JonathanFergusonRoyalArmouries thank you for the reply Jonathan! Currently still looking and researching but so far all I found is a picture of one on Cody‘s website however the quality is not that great and articles leading to the T20. It’s sad to see there’s no footage for the public on TH-cam to show the educational usage of the weapon and rate of fire in it’s original state, I’m even more sad they disabled the gun for this particular one.
I doubt there is any footage of even the US BAR mag version but you never know what the archives could have that has survived and has been digitized. Closest you might come up with is an M1 malfunction of shearing the hammer hook and going full auto. Had it happen, but that was back before even camcorders. I would say it sounds about like an extremely short mg42 burst followed by a ping and people standing around going what the hell.
While I know the two of you have been working for different companies, at least when it comes to talking about video game guns, I'd love to see the Royal Armouries invite Ian McCollum over and have a series of collabs where the two of you just nerd out about your favorite guns in the collection.
Very enjoyable, however some better lighting and possibly close-ups would reveal the fine details so we could see exactly why our were referring to. Thanks 🙏👍🇬🇧👀
If you read band of brothers there is mention that one of the group with a bit of judicial filing they could make the garand full auto. But he has forgotten how to do it now.
5:24 when I joined the Marine Corps, I ended up romming with a kid from Georgia in the barracks during my MOS school. He unironically called me a yankee (derogatory slang for Northerner). I told him I was from a small town in New Hampshire, not some city rat, and that I lived pretty much in the woods (which I did). This kid said "wait... there's trees in New Hampshire? I thought it was all city" I love this kid bruh he was always a funny guy, Henson I hope you're doing alright buddy
The 30-06 cartridge was super hot with a bucketful of powder load, and this was never going to end well in full auto, even the full auto FN Fal was a handful with the 7.62x51 round
I saw the report about the rate of fire in the US converted Garands (not M14), and it was 900rpm, which is the reason why they needed to remade a lot of things in the M14, they tried with BAR magazines, which were a easy conversion, problem is that the rate of fire made it unreliable, the bolt and the gas system were also unreliable in sustain fire with that crazy rate, the Italians developed a tricky mechanism in their BM-59s (which are real Garand conversions) and funny enough, there was a Peruvian armorer in the US which developed a simple conversion to the Garand to work with FAL mags, yep, a guy made a better job than the entire US own state armory.
I watched a little bit of a video with Eugene Stoner, designer of the AR-15, and Mikhail Kalashnikov, inventor of the AK meet to talk about ARs and AKs. In it, Stoner said that the US government was basically the worst to work with. They wanted so much and wouldn't budge on any of it. He said that was the reason the gun was so complicated, and in the interview, you can kind of tell he wasn't too happy about it. But it was interesting to watch Stoner and Kalashnikov talk about their guns with each other. Just two craftsmen talking about their work.
@@acestillwell98 his best work was the AR-18 and the 63, the AR-15 itself... Not as good, since it was designed to be a light range weapon which they thought it would be a outstanding military service rifle, problem is... to turn it into it Stoner needed to do a lot of compromises to work in every branch of their armed forces, funny enough he has a better concept and he offered, but they rejected.
I have seen in 20th century military firearms that the M-14 frame has a small disc, that can be replaced with a selector switch, which can to The M-15 Squad Automatic Rifle. This was supposed to replaced the 1918 BAR.
Jonathan: “There was an experimental variant of the Garand capable of automatic fire.”
Video game developers: “WRITE THAT DOWN! Write that down!”
Me: If this is news to them they should really read some of the books out there that go through the prototype variants of the M1 Garand and M1 Carbine, they're quite interesting.
@@Jon-jn5os A full auto garand is a bar's special cousin lmao. Less than half the ammo capacity of a Bar so the tactics are going to be much different, no walking assault or bunker clearing for this one.
@@leggo0116 IIRC BAR also has a bit more chonk to keep the barrel down
@@DrRussian do they use the same ammunition?
@@roosterbooster6238 Yes, both fire the .30-06. The BAR (M1918A2) weighs 19 lb, the M1 weighs around 10 lb.
My dad was drafted for 'Nam in the late 60's(ended up stationed in the Signal Corps in W.Germany though) and said the only time he shot a M14 on full auto was for weapon familiarization, basically to show new guys how useless FA was for that system.
The BM-59 is a Italian full auto m1 garand, with all the characteristics of an assault rifle. I wonder how it compares to the m14 in full auto
Funny you mention that - my uncle was just talking about this exact thing a few days ago. He was drafted himself and mentioned his one experience seeing a full auto M14 and how pointless it is to fire it like that.
@@Stribog1337 it has an integrated bipod which would dramatically improve control, at least while shooting prone, although I doubt you'd be able to properly "load" the bipod based on how it folds.
It wouldn't be useless if you had a few enemy soldiers bunched up right in front you and they just locked eyes on you. Some more experienced shooters could handle the recoil to the point it could be used effectively in certain situations. Better to have it and not need it, then need it and not have it.
@UCqVrr6vJNVG2KGXTzhk75Lg Most of the people they were issuing M14s to in Vietnam weren't experienced soldiers and if you waste ammo from full auto fire then you may not have rounds when you actually need it. Also, even people who have experience shooting guns on full auto have trouble with the M14 due to the high bore axis of the gun. Furthermore, at close ranges semi-auto is more effective than full-auto due to better accuracy, muzzle control and shot placement. The benefits of full-auto rifle-caliber weapons are only seen in shooting for long range suppressive fire or shooting fast moving targets like vehicles. There's a reason that special forces units almost always have their rifles set to semi, even in close quarters battle.
My brother in law was a Vietnam era Marine. He was his squads designate light machine gunner and was issued a full automatic M14 variant with a forward assist grip and butt modification. He was selected because he kept 3 shots out of 20 on a refrigerator sized target. A feat he had no idea how he accomplished and was unable to ever duplicate.
It's just "forward grip." "Forward assist" refers specifically to a modification made to the M16 to aid in properly seating a round in the chamber in the event that it jammed while cycling.
@@RamadaArtist they rode bikes while firing a gun? seems dangerous...
@@CorvusCorone68 not called cavalry for nothing
@@MichaelTheophilus906 He said it was 100 meters and he only ever did once but after that no one seemed to care he couldn't repeat it.
@@CorvusCorone68 th-cam.com/video/19IhGt5HLhI/w-d-xo.html
They made a fully auto M1 Garand!? You're telling me I could have heard that *PING* even more frequently!? Absolutely fantastic.
Please stop spreading the rumor that you could hear the ping on a battlefield, you more than likely can't after any firing starts. A video has been made to prove the point.
@@AsukaLangleyS02 Dont care+didnt ask+ratio
Longer magazine for mote n-blocks for even more frequent ping
Not all.that significantly more frequently - merely faster. The time it takes to empty a Garand in semi, missing as fast as you can, is a rounding error in the total time to empty the rifle and reload from an issue cartridge belt or bandolier. 🤣
I can only imagine what an 8 round "Hose Beast" burst from that is like. "The world went grey, and suddenly.i was pointing an empty rifle at the clouds." 😝
@@Tomotop amogus pfp+twitter bs
In another universe, Americans experimenting with a semi-auto Enfield call it the "LSL" -- Limey Self-Loader
Perfect. 👍
They did - the Turner SMLE was made in Boston
@@stevemc6010 Then I'm hoping their design documents say "LSL"
Probably a good hit!
RSL - Redcoat Self Loader
William Atwater talked about the fully automatic M14. Words to the effect of "The first round was on target, the second was over its head, and after that it was an anti- aircraft gun." Would probably have been even worse in .30"-06.
The ballistic performance of 7.62x51mm NATO is roughly the same as the .30-06 military load. That was kind of the point of the 7.62x51mm round, really - the same performance from a smaller cartridge.
Anti-Aircraft gun????,if you can prevent the Back Skull from breaking
The potency of the 30-06 (or the later .308/7.62 NATO) is precisely the reason weight is your friend when control is the issue. The Browning Automatic Rifle or BAR was heavy, but controllable -thanks to its two-speed rate selector, but also its mass. Reduce the mass too much as in the M-14, the weapon becomes much less effective as an automatic fire weapon. The British experienced the same issue with the SLR/FAL, and so did the Germans with the G3. Perhaps the sole Cold War battle rifle to solve this dilemma was the Italian BM-59, whose superb muzzle device tamed much of the muzzle rise inherent in the cartridge when used in cyclic-fire weapons.
These weapons could be fired in full-auto, but one needed a bipod and perhaps a pistol grip and fore-grip for control. They were not designed for base-of-fire sustained full-auto operations, though, only for occasional use in that manner - as they lacked a QD barrel, ability to feed from belted or linked ammo, and other features found on true GPMGs and LMGs. The trick to firing one of these battle rifles in full-auto is to take a page from the BAR book, and sling it waist-high where it can be locked against the hip and fired in short bursts. Of course, one is more-exposed standing up which isn't always a good idea on a battlefield, but that's another matter.
To me, the difficulty turning battle rifles into select-fire weapons goes back to the failed idea of the "universal firearm" or "universal service rifle" and cartridge. It perhaps reached its lunatic peak with the idea that the M-14 would replace half a dozen different weapons ranging from the M-1/2 Carbine to the M3 Grease Gun to the BAR. What I'd like to know is what those guys writing that requirement were drinking and smoking at the time! Completely foolish and unrealistic design requirement!
Maybe I'm old-school and a dinosaur, but I don't see where the system of small arms TO&E followed up until WWII & Korea was that bad. Namely, the line--up of weapons and functionalities/roles for them. Garand as the infantryman's primary service rifle, some SMG - whether the Thompson or the M3 or something like it firing a pistol cartridge, with a capable GMPG or light machine gun, which in those days in the U.S. would have been a M1919 Browning MG. Carbines for the support troops, NCOs, officers, etc. and M1911 pistols for those who needed/wanted them.
Pistol & SMG range - pistol for CQB/close-range, SMG out to 100-150 yards. M-1/M-2 Carbine about the same, give or take, the sights only graduated to 300 yards, but it is at its best inside of 150-200. Battle rifle, machine guns for ranges out past that. I suppose the point I am making is that the assault rifle was in certain ways a solution in search of a problem. It did certain things very well, that could not be done by existing weapons, but it also forced armies to compromise their capabilities when "everyone" got issued an M-16 by the latter half of the Vietnam War.
Like Kenneth Royce, the firearms trainer and author, I am happy (for the soldiers, that is) that this class of weapon, the assault rifle, was invented, but just as someone who only has a hammer begins to see everything as a nail, the prevalence of these weapons has gone too far and now the pendulum needs to swing back the other way somewhat.
Of course, there are those that argue small-arms are approaching irrelevancy on modern battle fields anyway, what with all of the 21st century technology around these days. But someone forgot to tell those fierce Afghan tribesmen that, I guess.
Hold the weapon sideways, aim to the left and hope it pans right if one needs to engage a few down range.
@@GeorgiaBoy1961 The British did not, in fact, experience it with their L1A1 SLR. As the name suggests, the Self-Loading Rifle was semi-automatic only, maybe thanks to these experiments.
There are companies that have made muzzle brakes for the M1 and M14. I haven't seen the M1 brake used on a full-auto Garand, but the M14 brakes seem very effective on short bursts. Maybe with the rumors of new M1s from H&R, someone can convince them to convert one to be fully-automatic and add one of those muzzle brakes to it. For science.
We could make full auto tank to ww2 body " For science ".
Can it do bacflip
I'm honestly surprised that early automatic rifle development didn't IMMEDIATELY reach for porting/venting/recoil-controlling muzzle/barrel designs considering how some contemporary SMGs had such a naturally high ROF that they also needed similar features to be even remotely controllable. Maybe they quickly figured that, even if you *could* get full-auto fire or even long bursts to be roughly accurate, it's kind of redundant to hit a man with more than ONE full-power cartridge. Sort of a waste of ammo really, and keeping soldiers properly stocked with enough bullets for even autoloaders was becoming a logistical concern.
FOR SCIENCE!!!
That sounds slightly less unsafe than terribly unsafe.
Do it.
one could also put a the rifle on a shooting sled and tighten it down too, just to see it's function and rate of fire while being safe. I'm betting they could also get a very experienced military member to come and do a shoot as well just to re create the trial so to say, practice a bit on a FAL or another full powered rifle that has automatic fire and then give that thing a whorl.
Being that John Garand was a Canadian who happened to work at the Springfield armory in Massachusetts for the Americans, its not much of a stretch to say that in a way it has UK Commonwealth roots.
Considering there was a time The Sun did not set on The British Empire, there would be few things without "UK Commonwealth roots" following that train of thought
@@TheSundayShooter agreed, i live not far from Springfield, theres still a large statue of the puritan William Pinchon who founded the settlement. Our area was founded by that protestant sect about the time of the English civil war. The names of the surrounding towns? Westfield, southwick, holyoke, northampton, hartford,ludlow, enfield, etc etc....so , yes, i see exactly what you mean. Lol😊
JEAN GARAND WAS OF FRENCH ORIGIN, NOT BRITISH, FROM QUEBEC.
@@astridvallati4762 hahaha you just had em right over
As Astrid points out Garand (as you might guess from his name) was Quebecois. Also the M1 has some striking resemblances to the French WW1 RSC 1917 rifle (long stroke gas operated revolving bolt rifle fed from en-block clips).
I just got my first M1 garand, and I am excited to clean it, and take it out to the range. It’s receiver, or body as you put it, is a 1943 receiver, a 1948 barrel, a 1957 trigger group, and a 1957 operating rod. All of the components are Springfield armory make.
They are a blast to shoot, and I guarantee that when the clip comes out and you hear the ping, you will have a huge smile. Mine is a 1940 Springfield that I got from CMP.
Good luck cleaning it, I don't recommend fully stripping it down at first. Spent 2 hours getting my grandpas M1 working after it was shoved in a closet for a few decades.
@@LostShipMate I followed brownell’s 4 part guide to disassembly and cleaning yesterday afternoon, and tore the gun down completely. I had a little bit of a hard time putting the small magazine parts back together, but I was able to. I cleaned the hell out of that rifle, and put new oil and grease in it. I’m going to the range with it this afternoon for the first time.
@@michaelm9211 Thats certainly the way to do it, watched the same guide myself. Definitely not a Mauser takedown.
Warning, they tend to reproduce in the safe.
Jonathan, do you ever sit there after hours loading and ejecting empty M1 clips so you can hear the “ping”?
Because I totally would
My museum training kicks in and stops me doing that. But otherwise, yes, I would :)
I just throw a couple clip together and get the same effect. It’s the clip ringing like a tuning fork that makes the sound, not the rifle itself.
@@509Gman but it doesn't feel the same without the rifle.
When I first saw the title I said to myself, “self, here we go on some crazy limey modification of our finest battle rifle.” Who but a Brit would make a full power battle rifle fully automatic with an 8 round magazine?
But then my mind drifts back to the battlefield modified Garands. Selected units, mostly moble AA units wanted, needed an automatic burst of fire if about to be over run. Given M1’s when they asked for BAR or Thompson’s they did the next best thing. Filed the disconnecter down to create a fully automatic Garand. Much to the displeasure of the command structure and QM corps.
and to think that they could have just used 14 inch shoestrings...
I've loved reading about the full auto, field-modified M1 but then I do enjoy fantasy stories.
@@AntonGully
Well Anton my uncle told me about that process. He was assigned to an M16 armoured quad 50 anti aircraft unit in 1943. This consisted of four half tracks, two with quad guns and two as ammo carriers. The unit had about thirty men total. In England they were used to cover supply dumps and troop depots against possible air attack. After Normandy they were attached to armoured divisions for air cover. Being soft targets the wee bit used near the front, thus had little or no infantry support. But by late 1944 that changed. The air threat was diminished and the quad AA units were used to secure sections of roads and intersections from general enemy advance. Again without infantry support. These M45 quad guns, mounted in a half track became the M16 AA half track. The quad gun was limited on its depression. I don’t recall the specific angle. I was about 8 years old when my uncle told us about this. Hes now long gone. But the bottom line was that they could engage ground targets at half mile or so, but could not depress the guns to fire into advancing ground troops at a couple hundred yards. They also could not acquire fully automatic arms. So the did the next best thing. Filed the disconnect it’s off about half the Garands to make 8 round burst rifles. Not selective. Just to buy enough time to fire up and drive away before being over run. Which my uncles unit almost was during the battle of the bulge.
The army command took a dim view of damaging government property. Several in his unit were put on report and some talk of courts martial was discussed. My cousin says there was also some modifications to the depression stop on the quad gun. Another serious infraction. In the end my uncle was punished by not being released from service, but rather assigned to guard POWs in Nuremberg during the war crime trials. In the end he made a career and served 26 years. He was an interesting guy.
So if he says the hacked those M1s then they did. I’ve heard other similar stories, not many, but detailed enough to be believable. Enjoy your fantasy.
@@MrJento necessity is the mother of invention
True you can file down that little price of mettal, the sear, in a few minutes on a bunch of different weapons to make them full on auto.
Italians adopted the BM59 post war. I love the YSL acronym and I’m American. Great episode.
So glad to see the collection made available like this! A very interesting rifle.
I was recently reading B. H. Liddell-Hart's "Lawrence of Arabia", and ran across something interesting. Apparently there's an SMLE that Lawrence used, and gave to King George for his museum. I wonder if it's still in the UK, it would make a fascinating subject of a video. From Liddell-Hart's book:
"This rifle had a history: it was a normal British "Short Lee-Enfield" which had been captured by the Turks at the Dardanelles and then, with a gold-engraved inscription, had been presented by Enver to Feisal. Lawrence in turn had obtained it from Feisal. After the war he offered to restore it to the Essex Regiment, its original owner, but received no reply. Instead, King George took an opportunity of adding it to the collection in his private War Museum at Windsor. It has a sinister series of notches cut in it; they were made by Lawrence whenever he brought down a Turk -- until he lost zest in keeping such records."
Yes! It's in the Royal Collection - I can't post a link unfortunately but you should be able to find it on their website. Wish we had it!
@@JonathanFergusonRoyalArmouries I'm so glad to hear that it survives still!
@@JonathanFergusonRoyalArmouries It was loaned to the Imperial War Museum in 1936 where it remained on display until at least ten years or so ago when I last visited, inexplicably with the rear sight protectors on the wrong way round. It may have returned to the RCT since then.
@@FenellaBeach I.can see the Royal corps transport doing that to a rifle
They do have the FAL FN gave Churchill though
Actually the Italian BM59 in 7,62x51 is actually also a conversion of the garand system to fully automatic. The transfer bar is very similar. Then a huge muzzle brake and a bipod made it more controlable.
I expect automatic fire from the shoulder would still be terrible but it makes much more sense from a bipod.
The BM59 is the M14 done right. And done in a couple of years, not over a decade.
@@JohnHughesChampigny exactly, the M14 should of been an improvement on the BM59 making it a truly outstanding rifle. But instead Ordanance and procurement officers had to get their fingers in things!
Your videos keep getting better. I really appreciate your research & knowledge.
The M14 had a attachable bipod which was to be used for automatic fire. We were trained to fire in two to three round bursts if on automatic. Full discharge of the magazine on auto would result in the weapon climbing to the right and the rounds overshooting the target.
Mainly we were trained to select semi auto fire which produced an accurate and repetitive trajectory.
A very accurate rifle for its basic function.
I was in the last cycle trained on the M14 in the US Army 1969.
Retrained on the M16 when I arrived in Vietnam.
My father and brother were huge M14/ M1A fans so I have a good amount of 14 gear and manuals for it including the bipod. Its whole purpose for existing was to permit accurate burst fire.
The old man was actually in the service when they transitioned from the M1 to the M14 and would almost tear up talking about how they lined his unit's M1s over a curb and ran a Pershing over them. He loved that M1 but raved about the 14.
Really interesting story and concept imho. Also I love the name, that's some vintage textbook British banter.
As a Garand collector found your video very interesting and well done. The Garand rifle at the time represented a great advance in military arms development.
Yankee Self Loader, as an American I friggin love it. From now on I’m calling the M1 Garand the Yankee Self Loader.
Haha, I am hoping it will catch on...
This little tidbit is the best thing I've learned today. I absolutely love it as well.
I was chuckling so hard at the "Yves Saint Laurent" full auto Garand version. This is too good 🤣
Glad to see mr. Ferguson not only on web camera. Wide, close-up and even upward cameras, royal armory, you make a great quality product
Just found this channel, subscribed at once. You do need to increase the lighting a bit.
Who said that? Sorry, terrible joke. We are still tweaking the setup - thanks for the constructive feedback. :)
700 RPM on a 308 sounds like it would be both fun and dangerous to shoot. However it would be a blast to shoot at a large target like a car or bunch of hanging paint cans. I think RA could use another 1 or 2 overhead lights for the breakdowns. Table top down view could use more light please.
.30-06 for WWII era Garands. The M14 is basically a full auto Garand in .308 and that thing was usually an AA gun after the first few rounds. That was one of the main reasons for developing the 5.56 NATO cartridge and the AR-15/M16.
Refer to Ian's October 2018 M-14 full auto video.
@@benn454
Was going to say this. It's even more powerful than the 308.
@@manictiger Well the military loads of that time were about the same power as 7.62x51, but later commercial 30-06 loads are the ones that are significantly more powerful
@@quentagonthornton49 Which the CMP specifically warns not to load into Garands. Ammo manufacturers now make loads specifically for the Garand which say "For M1 Garand" on the box.
Basically, the Brits discovered the m14 and its flaws 15 or so years before the US? Fascinating
The adoption of the M14 wasn't about what was effective, though. It was purely political.
Should they have adopted the FAL?
@@marcgucciardo1942 Perhaps they should have adopted the FAL, but more importantly, they should have adopted an intermediate cartridge like the British .280 that the EM2 fired. Unfortunately, US army ordnance was too backward looking. After action reports from both WWI and WWII showed that the vast majority of infantry actions took place within 300 meters. So what was the point of giving soldiers a full power battle rifle designed to shoot accurately out to 1000m? To have that long range capability necessitated a powerful cartridge, that was too powerful for controllable full auto fire (as indicated in the video), and that needed a heavier rifle to fire such a powerful cartridge, _and_ it meant less ammo could be carried, since each individual round was bigger and heavier. An intermediate cartridge, designed to work out to 300m, could be smaller and lighter, enabling the rifle to be smaller and lighter as well, and enabling controllable full auto fire. The Germans proved this concept in combat during WWII with the StG44. The Russians and the British both took note of this, and produced proper assault rifles, firing intermediate cartridges (the AK47 and EM2 respectively). The U.S. army took note of this, and thought it was a good idea too, BUT... The U.S. army was unwilling to give up long range performance, never mind what the after action reports of two world wars showed. So they _slightly_ decreased the length of the .30-06 cartridge to make the .308/7.62mm NATO, thus _paying lip service_ to the idea of an intermediate cartridge -- but in reality the 7.62mm NATO was still a full power battle rifle round. They tried to eat their cake and have it too, and ran into the same problem the British did in this test: you simply can't make a full power battle rifle controllable on full auto. As a result, the M14, once adopted, had the selector switch disabled, turning it back into a semi-auto only rifle. The British, who for the sake of NATO standardization, unadopted the EM2 and adopted the FAL, rechambered for 7.62mm NATO, did the same thing, and deleted full auto capability from their rifles too.
All in all, thanks to the stubbornness, and the backwardness of the U.S. army ordnance bureau, NATO was prevented from having a proper assault rifle for another couple of decades, until the 5.56mm came along (which is arguably _too_ small, and a less ideal cartridge than the .280 British round would have been). It's a good thing the Cold War never turned hot during this period, as NATO troops would have found themselves at a serious disadvantage in terms of their small arms.
@@Hibernicus1968 While most of your post is correct, I would dispute the claim that 5.56 is "too small" or that NATO would've been at a "serious disadvantage" due to 5.56. 5.56 is pretty great, especially when fired out of full-length rifle barrels, in fact its performance was so good the Soviets copied it with their own comparable cartridge: the 5.45x39. The problems with 5.56 was again due to US ordanance bureaucrats trying to save a few pennies during the transition from .308, as such they used the wrong powder which gummed up the more sensitive mechanism of the M16. Later, the carbine rifle lengths started to give issue when the USarmy moved away from full-length rifles to carbine rifles for ease of use in vehicles as well as urban combat. 5.56 loses a lot of its potency out of the M4 as was proven in Somalia and later Afghanistan.
@@Birdy890 Perhaps I need to clarify. By too small, I mean too small to be _ideal._ 5.56mm _is_ effective, and it's telling that after we adopted it, both the Soviets and the Chinese later switched to quite similar .22 caliber, high velocity rounds. Yet 5.56mm comes at a certain cost. Barrier penetration has always been somewhat wanting, as has tracer performance. When we got into Afghanistan, where longer ranges were more commonly encountered, we also sometimes found 5.56mm coming up a bit short -- literally -- in terms of performance. And when velocity falls off sufficiently, the bullets don't tumble on impact and terminal performance suffers.
There's reason to believe that something in the 6-6.5mm caliber might have been a slightly better compromise (.280 British was slightly larger, at 7.2mm, but still closer to that size). 6.5 is in a particular sweet spot, where you can get an ideal combination of sectional density with a high ballistic coefficient, so that you end up with flat-shooting, but mild-recoiling cartridges with good terminal performance, good barrier penetration, and good tracer performance, quite controllable on full auto, and light enough in weight to allow plenty of ammo to be carried. Switching to a 6.5mm does not offer enough improvement over the 5.56mm to justify the _massive_ expense that changing calibers would entail at this point. But if we'd adopted a cartridge like that back when we made the switchover from full power battle rifle cartridges, we'd probably have a slightly better rifle and cartridge combo. Changing calibers is probably not justifiable from a cost perspective until we perfect caseless ammo or make a similar leap in firearms technology that renders _all_ our current ammo obsolete, not just 5.56mm.
I really appreciate your time spent on this video. Not aware the Uk. Was testing this concept so early. You mentioned the US eventually getting to the M14 which actually was time wasted. However nothing about the Italian's successfully building and using their series of BM-59 rifles. In service until 1980's. I was fortunate to find a civilian BM-59 4 years ago from James River Armory. Thanks again sir , Middle Tennessee
I dare say that in terms of stuff like naval small arms you could apply this with it's extremely high cyclitic rate as a very interesting way to get a few rounds very rapidly on target against approaching aircraft diving at the vessel, in that regard the muzzle climb might not be an issue if you already have to lead the target that way.
The Succesful conversion of a 30cal Garand Receiver to Full Auto in 7,62 NATO was achieved by Beretta, but the BM 59 series had a Bipod, so that Full Auto function could be managed in a controllable manner ( as a LMG, rather than a Full Auto Rifle.)
That could then lead to weapon overheating issues without having the option of a heavier barrel like on the L1A2 SLR Section Support Weapon.
@@markfryer9880 you'd also have a problem with the barrel needing to be replaced more often.
Fusing standard infantry weapons in purpose with squad support weapons was always a bad idea. The assault rifle is about as good as it gets, as Ian from forgotten weapons (and many notable figures in the firearms community also say) there aren't really any major developments left to be made in weapons development. Best we get is "iphoning" the better features of guns together to achieve better ergonomics, optics, materials and longevity in parts.
Many people expect 6.8mm munitions to be the next step, but it doesnt offer a great enough leap in effectiveness over currently adopted rounds to achieve widespread adoption, a step necessary to actually be considered a pragmatic round.
One off that went down the rabbit hole. Interesting.
I learn something new everyday! Didn’t think I’d learn my favorite rifle had a fully auto variant lmao
When I was a kid I saw a full auto M1 shoot. It was fast, fun to look at and useless. All eight cartridges were fired in about a second. If my memory serves me correctly it used the rocker assembly from an M14 with some modifications.
Hi Jonathan, I'm very much enjoying this series, however I have a suggestion. I think it might improve the visibility of the weapons and parts (especially the ones in deep blue and wood furniture) if you shot on a lighter color backdrop, either grey or white. I often find the edges dropping away and tending to blend with the shadows in the overhead shots which I think would be remedied with a higher contrast table cover. Thanks for the entertaining and informative addition to my subscription feed.
I would like to add that this issue is particularly noticeable when viewing the overhead video shot. It gets very dark between the weapon and you. Constructive criticism only to help improve your videos.
Mark from Melbourne Australia
The solution here would be to place a light behind Jonathan off to the right of the camera, pointed down at the table from a shallow angle; using a medium sized reflector dish. This would fill the shadows cast by the firearm and presenter and also add a rim light to the presenters silhouette which well help make them pop from the background.
Additionally the focus in this specific video seems to be slightly behind Jonathan, it appears to be on the firearms rack behind which contains a lot of high frequency visual information; which makes the slight rear focusing more apparent. Setting the focus to be from the front of the table to behind the presenter this should also reduce the background business as the weapon rack will be out of focus.
Aside from these very minor quibbles from a camera nerd, this piece is as usual- excellent.
L from Melbourne Australia
This of course all depends on the space available!
It would also be helpful if, when you start talking about something specific, the camera didn't turn away or you didn't rotate the gun away from the camera. The overhead comparison shot of the modified and stock receivers was utterly useless as the view was so far away. You also need better lighting. One would think this was the first time presenting a rifle on camera.
@@Biber0315 While there is some truth in what you're saying, it comes across a little harsh, the Armory isn't a production studio- it's a Museum. While it is very easy to sit back and throw stones, it isn't very constructive.
The Armory are obviously working with what they have and trying to get it right; it takes years of production experience to know how to get even seemingly simple things right- so we should cut them some slack.
This would benefit from good close ups under good lighting conditions.
I would love to visit these rooms! My childhood dreams would come true, I say childhood as weapons became a bit of a pain after 24 years in the Army.
Excellent and fascinating subject and presentation, but this video would've benefitted greatly from much tighter shots of the parts being described.
Agreed Brian. We will work on that.
I echo this. The close-up side views didn't show much, but were really close, while the interesting details were viewed from a far more distant camera above the action. It would have helped simply to tilt the key parts toward the close-up camera.
We all want to see you and Ian from Forgotten Weapons have a good chin wag about these historic weapons!
I believe Forgotten Weapons made a video about a US version of this using a BAR magazine a few years ago.
Yes - I did mean to reference that but failed to chase down the video before filming. It's this one; th-cam.com/video/_Y01YMVJrJI/w-d-xo.html Love the Cody Firearms Museum.
Entertaining and informative as always, Mr. Ferguson. And I dig the Parks and Rec shirt! Lil Sebastian approves.
Another winning present from the wife :)
Interesting video as always. But may I suggest that you have some extra lighting for the overhead shots please.
Noted! Thanks for the feedback
Can't wait to visit you guys in April! 🙌🙌
I've fired a BAR and the weight helps with recoil but I wouldn't want to carry it. I'm 6' 1 190, it's a lot.
As long as it was built by a bloke in his shed you can trust it with your life.
Springfield Armory was experimenting with select-fire and even 20rd mags back during WWII, perhaps before. Pics are in several books on the M1.
As far as rate of fire, there are videos available of people bump-firing these, and the rate of fire does seem to be quite fast.
Bump firing compared to full auto is apples to oranges. There isn't a comparison to be made because one is a gimmick and the other uses the internal workings of the firearm to fire multiple rounds with the same trigger pull. Bump firing is just using physics to reset the trigger and pull it again faster then normal.
Bumping rate of fire is completely user dependent
The last thing you want is a fully automatic 30-06 rifle 😂
@@samholdsworth420 T20 Garand: *sweats nervously*
@@m2hmghb I've seen a semi auto AK being bump fired at a rate that seemed much higher than a typical full auto AK..
Superb presentation. 👍
Thanks Jeff!
Great presentation. The U.S. government did some funding of work by Springfield Armory and others, during the latter half of WWII and in the early post-war Cold War years before Korea, into making the M-1 Garand fully-cyclic. John Garand and his team got as far as one modified to accept BAR magazines and capable of fully-automatic fire, but the war ended before it could be completed and put into service.
Something else of great interest is in the cited report. At 6:10 the report on functioning states that ammunition used for the test of the ZH-29 was incorrect for the rifle. This is the first I have encountered a suggestion that the ZH-29 is ammunition-sensitive. (For those few unacquainted with this weapon, the ZH-29 is an early example of a production semi-auto battle rifle, not a conversion or prototype, developed in Czechoslovakia and shopped around the world to governments interested in updating to self-loading military firearms, but without much success. The ZH-29 was regarded as an excellent shooter with outstanding manufacturing standards by most who tested it, but it was a disconcerting oddball with a "crooked" barrel and cockeyed sights thanks to its horizontal tilting-bolt action, a case of "wow but weird".) As I understand it, the ZH-29 was designed to use standard 8mm Mauser, perhaps the most widely used military cartridge in the world in 1930. As the Czechs hoped to make a big pile of bucks selling their gun worldwide, it seems odd that they would offer a rifle with special ammo requirements.
"As I understand it, the ZH-29 was designed to use standard 8mm Mauser, perhaps the most widely used military cartridge in the world in 1930." -- But 8mm Mauser was maybe less standard than you think -- look at Iain from FW's video about shooting surplus turkish 8mm and the people who blew up their FG42 replicas using 8mm Mauser made for bolt action rifles that was significantly hotter than stuff you would want in a self-loaded.
@@JohnHughesChampigny To quote myself, "...in 1930". There was much less variety in 7.92x57 Mauser ammo before WWII than during and after. Why would ammo made for bolt-action rifles be hotter than ammo made for MGs? Was that Turkish ammo loaded hotter or had its propellant become unstable after decades of storage in questionable circumstances? BA rifles don't rely on gas pressure to operate the gun, whereas in a gas-operated weapon the ammunition must drive the bullet downrange and operate the mechanism, consequently, ammo intended for self-loader is often hotter than what is intended for BA sporting rifles. Prior to 1920, the 8mm Mauser was used primarily by the Gewehr 98 and its variants, the MG 08, and Bergmann MG 15. The last two were recoil-operated automatics using mostly the identical ammo fired by the G 98 together with a mix of AP and incendiary ammo. After WWI many smaller countries, Poland and Czechoslovakia in particular, designed a variety of weapons for 8mm for several reasons, but mostly because of its ubiquity and abundance. (A bankrupt Germany sold tons of war surplus 8mm to customers as far away as China.) The testing committee's report flatly states that their Besa MG ammo didn't work well in the ZH-29. This is highly mysterious because the Besa was a licensed copy of the Czech ZH-53 designed by the brother of the man who designed the ZH-29 and built by the same factory. There's no logical reason why these two guns should have different ammo requirements, both being gas-operated self-loaders. Furthermore, the experience of people shooting ammo stored for 80 years in replica firearms is mostly irrelevant. (The FG 42 may be a special case. To meet the Luftwaffe requirement the gun was somewhat fragile due to maximum weight restrictions. Consequently, it may have used specific ammo that was lightly loaded compared to what was commonly issued to the Heer, but I doubt it.)
The British were an outlier in NATO in that when they adopted the FN-FAL they eliminated the select-fire feature. I'd be interested to know if this study informed that decision.
Being not part of NATO, France kept a semi-auto main battle rifle till the early '80s with its MAS 49/56, and it was the best (and ugliest) Cold War Occidental rifle.
Bean counters more worried about ammo waste/cost than what the troops might find useful...plus an Army that had always been (too?) proud of its single shot marksmanship and conservative use of ammunition compared to others.
@@Dr.D00p well it clearly worked out considering they kicked the shit out of the Argentinians using the full auto version
@@loyp4328 France was, of course, part of NATO. (They left the unified command, not the organisation). As part of NATO they investigated changing the MAS 49/56 to 7.62 but discovered that it didn't work very well and abandoned the project.
@@Dr.D00p Not bean counters. People who had some idea of what a rifle was and what 7.62mm could and couldn't do. They after all wanted to issue a fully automatic rifle (EM-2 in .280) but, correctly, realised that the idea of a light fully automatic rifle in 7.62 was bloody stupid.
Great info. Can we have the overhead shot closer to the mechanism.
Yes, good call. I realised this when they showed me the edit. It's still a learning curve here :)
I learned something new about my favorite rifle. Well Done !!!
The only improvement I have ever seen on am M-1 was the Beretta conversion from clip fed to magazine fed.
When I entered the Marina Corps, I was issued an M-14. We fired it one time on full auto. It was uncontrollable. I cannot imagine how punishing it was to fire on full auto. On semi auto it was GREAT! Much MUCH better than the M-16.
"Something major was going on in 1939" definitely one way to put it, ha!
My father was a prewar regular. He was lagging behind on the Friday when the company's M1s showed up. The first sergeant tagged him and his buddy to assemble the rifles sans manual. The good news was he knew how to field strip and reassemble an M1 blindfold by Monday morning.
When I was in Army ROTC (1970-74), Freshmen and Sophomores carried M14's, Juniors had our limited supply of M16A1's and Seniors normally went unarmed as instructors or evaluators for the underclassmen. Anyway, in the care and keeping of the Armorer - locked in his desk - was the one and only M14 selector switch I ever saw in 29 years as a cadet and officer. It came out to play once or twice a year when we went to the range. Everybody got to shoot one 20 round magazine using the chosen M14 - which by the end of the day had a truly impressive amount of carbon fouling . We had a pretty good museum of 20th Century US Martial Rifles, as the arms room was also home to M1903''s and M1''s
It's so strange to me that the Bang style of gas-trap system lingered for so long, even when many guns, like the Browning Automatic Rifle, Zb.26, and Lewis Gun, had all demonstrated how so very viable a gas piston with a ported bore was.
I was half right. I thought it was a Garand converted to fully fun mode, but I didnt notice the gas trap!
I did not know any of the GT Garands were issued. Were all the rest updated at some point?
I found it quite interesting that this was experimented with, in 39. Post war, the U.S. Ordnance Corps forces a full power rifle cartridge on NATO. In turn, this ends the British EM2 project project and alters the intended design of the FAL. Most likely, as the British already discovered, they adopted their SLR in semi auto / repetition only. I imagine an apology for setting small arms development, behind the curve, would be in order
Here's the thing... .308 NATO is a magnificent MG round. 5.56 isn't satisfactory in a belt-fed SAW, and is frequently being replaced by M240. And now there's the possibility of going to .277 Fury. Just different needs for different times.
M1 Garand: Ping
British M1 Garand:
Pingue
Those overhead shots are beautiful. Errol Morris-ish.
Thoughts on the FG-42? That fires a full power rifle cartridge and I’ve heard that they can be somewhat controllable in full auto
In some documentation during experiments in the US during WW2 to give the Garand a box magazine and full auto. Was found to have rate fire approaching 900 rounds a minute, this was not on purpose. But quirk of the Garand gas system.
I love the way we tested them and concluded that it's too much while the "yanks" are like: M14... 😀
In fairness to the Yanks, they were not actually trying to make M14 fully-automatic for its own sake; they were trying to make M14 Rifle and M15 Automatic Rifle as similar as possible to each other for logistical and training purposes. M15 would have the actual barrel and bipod to work in full-automatic, while M14 would have full-auto as an incidental bonus of sharing the same fire-control group. Why have two triggers that you have to keep spare parts for and train armorers to fix when you can use one for both weapons in a squad/section? As such, the riflemen with M14 were really not expected or trained much to shoot full-automatic. The propaganda films the US military made, of course, loved to show off the firepower, but that was for showing off.
@@genericpersonx333 They kind of were trying to make it full auto for its own sake, at least they were with the 'light rifle' programme that ultimately spawned it. Your take is what ended up happening, but it wasn't the intention when the EM2 and FN rifle were being trialled.
@@JonathanFergusonRoyalArmouries I believe you discussed this in a prior video: Part of the intention in the M14 was too have one weapon that could be both an infantry rifle and a submachine gun. If we had actually been talked into .280, or if we had gone all-in on the M2 carbine, that idea might have worked, but with 7.62 NATO? Not a chance
@@JonathanFergusonRoyalArmouries I see what you mean. In early days, I know there was a hope that M14 could replace all guns within the US Rifle Squad, but obviously they quickly saw that while M2 Carbine and M3 Submachinegun were reasonably replaced, BAR was not so, so they included the M15 variant to do that.
@@genericpersonx333 I just think it's amusing how the .280 was put down because it's .308 or nothing and then after we'd had that forced on NATO, it was realised not long after that it was nuts so then it was all .223 and now even today they are shifting towards calibres with similar performance as what we trialed back in the 50's 😃Ahead of it's time heh.
I seem to recall that in the early 1950s there were M1s that had been modified to use the BAR magazine. Good Luck, Rick
The thing is soo ridiculous that even jonathan couldn't control his laugh
An interesting item that clearly had some influence on later decisions. We can happily produce a 3D CAD model of these parts for 3D printing. Will get in touch.
I wait with baited breath . I do hope this happens , if it happens or not , I would like too say Thanks for offering , I would have done the same if I had the capabilities . Wooo the anticipation !
@@richarddixon7276 bated. Unless you hope to catch fish by breathing on them.
@@JohnHughesChampigny , We have to live in hope , but expect sod all !
@@JohnHughesChampigny What's the best bait , do they prefer , hearsay or bluster or banter ?.
@@JohnHughesChampigny Thanks for the spelling lesson , I only just noticed !, But when I was younger We used to put bought maggots in our mouths in winter whilst fishing , so the bait stayed warm and attracted the fish better .
Jonathan, the euphemism you mentioned (YSL) reminded me of the euphemism our Aussie troops ascribed to the M16 during the Vietnam war, namely LBPR - Little Black Plastic Rifle!
Just recently I was reading a post that listed common army euphemisms and it was listed as LBPG.
My military training made me wonder why they called it a gun, unless the writer was a civilian. Either that or they were ex-military who just wanted to ‘stick it to the man’!
Very fine video, thank you Sir.
Nice one Jonathan , I really loved the YSL comment , only a Brit will get the humour . Thanks for another really interesting history lesson on British firearms development . Catch You next time .
The British really do have a sly sense of humor, that dry wit. "Yankee Self-Loader" is just fun. These are the same guys in the British Army, mind you, who dismissed the Thompson Submachine Gun as a "gangster's weapon," and then begged for them after Dunkirk. Even Prime Minister Churchill got in on the act once he was in office, because he wanted the commandos to be armed with the American SMG. Thanks to his influence with FDR, he was able to get some for the commando units.
I love the whole concept.. I mean obviously there are more modern ways to bring the recoil under control, between muzzle brakes, an improved foregrip to increase forward hold, tweaking the sight height higher to bring the stock down better into your shoulder, and a slightly less bruising metal-plate butt.
Well, we did basicallly the same thing. We called it the M-14, which had a selector switch that could be installed. Except for the 20 round mag, the M-1 and the M-14 were very similar.
The documentation there refers to "bents". I think that was the term they used for sears.
>clear blueprint shot
maybe brandon herrera can build one for us.
I think I remember reading in the end of Band of Brothers, I believe, that some of the paratrooper GIs modified their M1s, on their own, to fire full auto, though they only seemed to have done this after VE Day. It kind of makes sense that they would at that time, because they thought they were going to the Pacific to jump into Japan, and they were probably wanting to experiment with ideas to improve their gear, that they had been thinking about for the past three years, but hadn't actually done so because you don't actually want to experiment with your rifle, and mess it up, right before a major combat operation. I may be mistaken, I've read lots of books on the war, and I may be confusing Band of Brothers with some other historical account of a different military unit.
The M2 carbine was a full auto version of the M1 carbine and was introduced at the very end of the war and was issued in small number I think. You could be confusing the M1 Garand for the M1 carbine
Thanks for the knowledge, I did not know this.
Didnt Major Dick Winters have a fully automatic M1 during WW2? I vaguely remember reading on one the books that he had someone modify his M1
One of his squad figured out how to tweak the trigger housing so that it turned automatic. But he suspiciously 'forgot' about it later of course! It was in the book that Winters helped write I believe
I remember reading that too, but also that it was a case of misinterpretation.
Apparently it wasn't uncommon to mod M1 Carbines to be full auto, which does make practical sense given the pistol calibre round.
I don't know for sure, though.
@@peterclarke7240 basically they turned m1 carbines to m2 carbines
@@peterclarke7240 There was a M2 Carbine package that was made to turn it into a select-fire weapon.
That is beautiful name.
excellent Video... I had no idea they made one of those.
It is my experience that in firearms rounds per minute includes time spent reloading and the cyclic rate indicates rate of fire given only mechanical function.
That's not my experience at all I'm afraid. 'Rate of fire' almost always means cyclic rate. If 'time spent reloading' is included, that's "effective rate of fire".
Usually it's seperated. You have Practical Rate Of Fire which includes reloads, then Cyclical/Mechanical Rate Of Fire which is just how fast the gun would theoretically fire if it had an unlimited capacity magazine. But unless specifically stated otherwise, the Rate of fire of a gun is always measured in its mechanical/cyclical rate
By American automatic M1 Garands he probably refers to W.A.R rifles where they were tried to use BAR magazines, but they didn't quite fit together well.
Pretty sure they also did the same thing with what was called the T26 rifle, which was literally a select fire M1 that took BAR mags, but got cancelled due to budget cuts after the war ended and because the brass overseeing the project didn’t like that it proved unreliable on full-auto due to feeding issues.
I love that the technical drawings for the select-fire system actually specify "Cheese head screws"
A close up of the gas trap at the barrel would have been nice.
The black table cloth cover makes things a little dark for me, any chance you can replace it with a dull green/brown/blue one ?
What a beautiful tool! Glad it had chance to go cyclic and never had to try again. The "Yankees" near me call it a "giggle switch" for a reason. I'm not named Jerry and the best that I can put on target is around 200/minute.
The nature of a full rifle cartridge to make the muzzle climb when fired on full auto is why we had the Browning Automatic Rifle ; the B.A.R. The B.A.R. unloaded was over 20 pounds. The M-1 Garand was only 9 pounds. Still even with the extra weight we had severe control issues with the B.A.R. Early models had a selector for what was called 'Walking Fire'. The idea was to advance on an enemy position while putting fire on that position. That selector was removed from later B.A.R.s as it did not work very well.
I saw this and imagined the ejection ping as loud as Big Ben, blasting the clip straight through the ceiling.
Worth watching just to hear "YSL" - Yankee Self Loader!
5:18 Southern American friend here, no offense taken. Excellent video.
Been trying to find actually footage of it being fired and I’m ending up with really nothing does anyone know where there is any archive footage of a actual full auto one?
I have never seen any and none would have been recorded for this British attempt, but the US national archives might have some for the later Winchester prototypes? The Cody Firearms Museum would know.
@@JonathanFergusonRoyalArmouries thank you for the reply Jonathan! Currently still looking and researching but so far all I found is a picture of one on Cody‘s website however the quality is not that great and articles leading to the T20. It’s sad to see there’s no footage for the public on TH-cam to show the educational usage of the weapon and rate of fire in it’s original state, I’m even more sad they disabled the gun for this particular one.
I doubt there is any footage of even the US BAR mag version but you never know what the archives could have that has survived and has been digitized. Closest you might come up with is an M1 malfunction of shearing the hammer hook and going full auto. Had it happen, but that was back before even camcorders. I would say it sounds about like an extremely short mg42 burst followed by a ping and people standing around going what the hell.
While I know the two of you have been working for different companies, at least when it comes to talking about video game guns, I'd love to see the Royal Armouries invite Ian McCollum over and have a series of collabs where the two of you just nerd out about your favorite guns in the collection.
Very enjoyable, however some better lighting and possibly close-ups would reveal the fine details so we could see exactly why our were referring to. Thanks 🙏👍🇬🇧👀
Same action is used in the m14, you can buy m1 upgrade kits to do so.
Even a bullpup system.
If you read band of brothers there is mention that one of the group with a bit of judicial filing they could make the garand full auto. But he has forgotten how to do it now.
I think the BM59 deserve a mention in this context. it was a fully automatic garand in 308 that was standard issue.
Any chance to see a video about the VSS Vintores and/or AS VAL?
5:24 when I joined the Marine Corps, I ended up romming with a kid from Georgia in the barracks during my MOS school. He unironically called me a yankee (derogatory slang for Northerner). I told him I was from a small town in New Hampshire, not some city rat, and that I lived pretty much in the woods (which I did). This kid said "wait... there's trees in New Hampshire? I thought it was all city"
I love this kid bruh he was always a funny guy, Henson I hope you're doing alright buddy
The firing selector on the M14 is in the same place. Makes sense.
The 30-06 cartridge was super hot with a bucketful of powder load, and this was never going to end well in full auto, even the full auto FN Fal was a handful with the 7.62x51 round
I saw the report about the rate of fire in the US converted Garands (not M14), and it was 900rpm, which is the reason why they needed to remade a lot of things in the M14, they tried with BAR magazines, which were a easy conversion, problem is that the rate of fire made it unreliable, the bolt and the gas system were also unreliable in sustain fire with that crazy rate, the Italians developed a tricky mechanism in their BM-59s (which are real Garand conversions) and funny enough, there was a Peruvian armorer in the US which developed a simple conversion to the Garand to work with FAL mags, yep, a guy made a better job than the entire US own state armory.
I watched a little bit of a video with Eugene Stoner, designer of the AR-15, and Mikhail Kalashnikov, inventor of the AK meet to talk about ARs and AKs. In it, Stoner said that the US government was basically the worst to work with. They wanted so much and wouldn't budge on any of it. He said that was the reason the gun was so complicated, and in the interview, you can kind of tell he wasn't too happy about it.
But it was interesting to watch Stoner and Kalashnikov talk about their guns with each other. Just two craftsmen talking about their work.
@@acestillwell98 his best work was the AR-18 and the 63, the AR-15 itself... Not as good, since it was designed to be a light range weapon which they thought it would be a outstanding military service rifle, problem is... to turn it into it Stoner needed to do a lot of compromises to work in every branch of their armed forces, funny enough he has a better concept and he offered, but they rejected.
I have seen in 20th century military firearms that the M-14 frame has a small disc, that can be replaced with a selector switch, which can to The M-15 Squad Automatic Rifle. This was supposed to replaced the 1918 BAR.
Speaking as a Yankee from New York, I approve of this monstrosity in all facets.
Those are 5 words I never thought I'd see together