Could it have beaten the M1 if it was made early enough

File: 1473552947642.png (81KB, 533x290px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 533x290px

>>32381877
maybe

Meh. The whole bayonet problem in the 1940s was probably its death. Folks kept trying these itty-bitty spike bayonets like the M1903 Springfield and the War Department kept laughing 'em out of their trials. That, coupled with the fact that with a fixed bayonet of sufficient weight, durability and sturdiness made the M1941 Johnson rifle into a straight-pull bolt action, yeah, that probably sank it.

>>32381890
>a fixed bayonet of sufficient weight, durability and sturdiness made the M1941 Johnson rifle into a straight-pull bolt action

huh

File: expensive_garand.jpg (1MB, 3189x641px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3189x641px

>>32381877
remove the springfield armory politics from it and yes. 100%

Only advantage M1 had over it was the reload speed (not counting loose rounds) and larger bayonet.

If the M41 had been funded/developed as the garand was, then it would have accelerated US small arms development.

dont forget, the M41 was the basis of the AR-10 and Melvin Johnson helped design the AR-15.

He had also originally intended for a detachable magazine, but the US Army criteria was an impregnated stock mag because they thought detachable mags would get damaged in combat. (which is retarded because we already had the BAR)

File: IMG_1466.jpg (22KB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 320x240px

>>32381902
Pic related

>>32381910

damn, that's interesting, I see how easily you get an AR bolt carrier out of that

>>32381902
>the M41 was the basis of the AR-10
The bolt head was derived from it but the Johnson is recoil-operated, not gas-operated.

>>32381917
>>32381920
its not an insinuation. it is documented that Eugene Stoner used the patents from the Johnson when designing the AR-10 and he hired Melvin Johnson to help refine what became the AR-15

File: IMG_1467.jpg (11KB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 320x240px

>>32381910
thx, heres the other angle to that pic

>>32381900
The Johnson uses a reciprocating barrel. when you stuck a heavy-ass bayonet on the barrel, that slowed the barrel down too much for the semiautomatic function to actually work, causing malfunctions.

>>32381877
>rotary mag that is prone to damage
> reprociating barrel that will unlock the action if you ever have to stick a jap with your bayonet
>which will probably happen because your damaged magazine jammed
>said bayonet will add so much inertia to the barrel that the action won't cycle
>complexity of parts
>parts not being interchangeable between rifles
>heat shield that's just asking for mud and shit to work its way inside
>other heinous shit
the only saving grace of the rifle is the bolt and bolt carrier directly inspired (read was copied by) Eugene Stoner for his AR-10 rifle and its derivatives

>>32381877
Not with the mind set of the Generals sitting on the Ordnance board at the time. Only wartime realities could blast through their hazy nostalgia for killing indians with robust single shots.

>>32382102
Neatly over looking the fact that everybody who used it loved it.

>>32381877
Yes. The johnson was better in many ways and worse in none. Too bad the cost of retooling for them wasnt feasible at the time.

>>32383016
>durr

I love Lugers, that doesn't mean they're good service handguns.

>>32383050
You as a random user liking or not liking them has no bearing on how good they are. The rifle saw service with a half dozen different militaries.

>>32382102
>wrong
>and? are you shooting him at the same time? prob not since youre using bayonet - retarded
>once again, you're making shit up
>not true, thats why it has its own special bayonet
>[citation needed]
>the carpet is made of lava! oh wait, that too is made up
>and do what exactly? the amount of mud to jam a johnson is the same as would jam a garand
>waste of text whining

dude, I get that you're either a jelly poorfag or an autist, but seriously, go read some books or memoirs or something and dont just make huffington tier retard posts.

>>32382102
Do you have a source for any of those claims?

>>32383050
But Lugers were great service handguns during the time of their introduction.

>>32381956
>Stab someone
>Cycles the action

Why not just extend the heat shield or the fore grip so the bayonet didn't have to be on the barrel? Yes, increasing the wood length would make it heavier and possibly be imbalanced, but thats how most rifles of the era looked, even the Garand. I don't see why elongating the heat shield wouldn't work either, may be not as sturdy, but much more dependable than directly on the reciprocating barrel.

>>32381950
Oh wow never realized this before bretty interesting

>>32385114
The wood could be weak and risk breaking when you stabbed with the bayonet.
The barrel would also be floating over this heat shield and that would create a space where gunk could get in and impede the barrel's travel.

>>32381877

The Johnson WAS tested against the M1 Garand, and the army rejected it in favor of the M1.

>>32385242
The M1941 was made as a potential replacement to the M1. Even if it could be argued to be the better rifle (Minus the issue with the bayonet), it was not better enough to justify a complete retooling to make it the standard issue weapon.

Although I agree with what was said earlier in the thread: not being able to fit a bayonet in the 1940s was pretty much an automatic disqualifier.
A shame the Johnson LMG didn't catch on.

>>32385009
>be no funz
>don't understand how delayed recoil works

>>32385242
>>32385282
Actually thats not 100% accurate.

it was tested using the M1 as the benchmark (which it performed equally as well, minus the bayonet) but it was not intended to replace the M1, just to be a substitute standard like the M1917 or be adopted by the Marines, which had not adopted the M1 yet.

Springfield Armory was the only factory making M1s (single point of failure/sabotage risk), and it was too complex and expensive for small companies to make. SA also could not build them fast enough to outfit the entire Army/Marines.


"Johnson had his rifle evaluated by manufacturing firms with no little or no arms-making experience to determine how quickly they could go into production on it. The VP of a manufacturer of brakes, wheels, and rims stated they could produced 200 to 300 Johnson rifles per hour. The president of an automobile horn manufacturing company said they could get into production within six months at the rate of 1,000 per day. A representative of the High Standard firearms company said they could be in production within 120 days of signing a contract and be making 500 per day within six months.
Supposedly, this was one area the Ordnance Department had never even considered, which is surprising to me since Johnson had pushed as a rifle to save us if the Garand failed to meet expectations.
It also flies in the face of gun shop experts who say the Johnson was passed over because it was too difficult or expensive to manufacture."

excerpt from a good article/summary of a book on the Johnson

http://www.practicallyshooting.com/m1941-johnson-semiauto-rifle-part-1-history/

>>32387134
Winchester was also making Garands for the entirety of the US involvment.

>>32387205
>Winchester Garand #1 jan 10th 1941
>M1 Garand adopted into service 1936

read some books anon

>>32387232
Winchester started production in late 1940. The US entered WW2 in 1941.
The Johnson saw only limited issue 1942 and later.

What I'd like to know is why did it take them until the 50s to make a Garand with a detachable box magazine

>>32387635
look at the other countries. Britain's SMLE had a detachable magazine. the SVT and G43 also did. so why did the UK, USSR, and Germany all issue stripper clips instead of mags? because mags are a huge drain on production and resources. by WWII most developed countries had the technology to make rifles with reliable detachable mags, but simply couldn't afford to mass-produce them.

>>32381877
Given a basic accelerator system to get around the bayonet problem I do believe it would have had a fair shot at it...

File: gdp-allies-and-axis.png (8KB, 588x251px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 588x251px

>>32387710

Would it have been that much of a stretch for America considering they were far stronger industrially than even the other Western nations, and they were already issuing the BAR

>>32387134
>And people have to read it to know it. Until then, people keep repeating the same things whether they are right or not.
>The first time I took mine to the range after getting it in the shape I wanted, the club know-it-all was present. A couple of shooters were looking it over when he came over, looked at it, and asked:
>“What is that thing?”
>I answered: “An M1941 Johnson”.
>He replied: “Oh. They had a lot of trouble with those.”
>Fascinating. Ten seconds ago he didn’t know what it was. Now he knows all about it, and all it’s faults.

Now THAT's what I call /k/!

>>32387858
fuckin' A right

>>32381877
I think it was decent enough as a substitute standard, but the Garand was more practical.

>>32383016
People loved their flintlocks too for being better than matchlocks.

>>32383050
Actually, the Luger is pretty functional.
It's expensive and mechanically complex, but if the springs and magazines haven't been used for 60 years without replacement, it runs like a top.

Also for being derived from the Borchardt abortion, the shape and battery of arms are surprisingly reasonable, and overall the pistol was incredibly good for being such an early automatic.

>>32387710
>but simply couldn't afford to mass-produce them
then make them use BAR magazines

>>32385298
Prove it wrong then

>>32387742
>>32389688
Yes. Detachable magazines were considered the best option decades before WWII. They were simply considered too expensive for a standard rifle.

Consider that the M1911, M1 carbine, the M1 and M3 submachine guns, and the M1918 BAR all used detachable magazines. Only the M1 rifle used clips - they were expected to be the most common battlefield weapon (true, almost as many carbines were made, but nowhere near as many magazines were needed as they were second-line weapons), so clips it'd have to be. Consider also that the what was probably most revolutionary of the StG 44 after its cartridge was that it used stamped construction, and then consider how much trouble everyone had getting stamped rifles to work post-WWII.

Metal stamping was new technology. It was finicky. It was not all that cheap yet. Magazines, therefore, would be expensive. Even post-war, the M14 and some variants of the FAL kept stripper-clip guides (notably the C1A1).

>>32389771
the T48 also had a stripper clip guide

>>32389771
they had been making pistol magazines since 1911 and bar magazines since 1918, how was magazine construction not a mature field after ~20 years

>>32389889
pistol mags are singlestack for a relatively straightwalled round. way more simple than a doublestack for a tapered round.

>>32389945
30-06 is tapered?
also see: chauchat, madsen, bren/ zb26, type 99 etc

>>32381877
The more interesting Johnson design was the Auto-Carbine.

>>32389688
Ian just made a video a few days ago explaining why this turned out to be shit idea.

>>32390031
BM59?

>>32381877
Imagine the average farm boy taking this apart and cleaning it on a mass scale, it would have been a nightmare.

>>32389985
Light machine gun numbers are nowhere near the numbers for standard rifles. Consider that, at best, they had one per squad.

>>32381939
At the very least the mag fed lmg variant went on to be very successful with special forces in WWII

>>32391810
>I've never touched a Johnson the post