Johnson semi-auto rifle reliablility

Status
Not open for further replies.
I would disagree with your assessment of the M14/M16 situation.

My take would be that after killing any chance of adopting a intermediate class rifle cartridge and ramming the M14 through the selection process by any means, fair or foul, the end users in Viet-Nam weren't happy with the end result. They felt they were outgunned by the VC using AK47s capable of useful short range full auto fire while they were stuck with semi auto rifles that, while equipped with excellent target sights for slow fire at bullseyes at 600 yards, left them at a disadvantage. Since Colt had managed to bypass Army Ordnance by selling the M16s to the USAF to replace their M1 carbines, the M16 was in the system and they started getting sent to Viet-Nam as military assistance instead or the M1 rifles, carbines, and BARs that were going over previously.

Once in country, US troops started demanding the lightness, handiness, mild recoil, and full auto capabilities that the M16 offered.

Army Ordnance attempted to sabotage the larger adoption of the M16, and the rifle did not have the necessary development done before it was fielded as a replacement for the M14. US troops died as a result, but I would assign the blame to Army Ordnance and their Not Invented Here revulsion for anything that wasn't made of forged steel and wood, firing a full power rifle cartridge.

BSW

This may seem to be drifting away from the Johnson Rifle saga, but I think it is a branch of the same extended narrative.

I've found the early M16 story fascinating ever since reading Edward Ezell's "The Great Rifle Controversy" in college. One of the most accurate video summaries of the issues surrounding the M16's early problems can be viewed here:



This is a relatively long video and Chris Bartocci's narration style is far from polished, but he knows his stuff when it comes to this rifle platform. He authored one of the better books about the later versions of the M16:

https://www.amazon.com/Black-Rifle-...qid=1561990466&rnid=2941120011&s=books&sr=1-3
 
Another interesting aside: last night I came across this archive footage showing Melvin Johnson demonstrating his LMG. Watch the end of the barrel closely when he fires in full auto, prone from a rest -- this looks almost as wild as a CSRG in full auto, and Johnson was far from a novice gunner:

 
Full auto rifles (not necessarily LMGs) in .30-06 are going to flip around like a landed fish. Physics and the human limits make that combo not work out very well at all.

BSW
 
Almost all of those are MGs, and "heavy" ones at that. Precious few mounted the front sight on the recoiling barrel. Almost none are infantry riles, and even in modern usage, use as infantry rifles is rare.

Now, in pistols, there was more use, but military pistol production is a fraction of rifle (or MG) production.

Finding a way to supporrt 45-60cm of barrel firing rifle caliber (especially non-intermediate) rounds is complicated. You need a frame to hold the trunion of some length, or accept another point of bearing, which can complicate accuracy.

In a 10-12 kg MG (or 20kg), those are solvable problems. Not so much in a 3-4kg rifle.

Now, the Johnson LMG was a marvel for its time. Vastly superior to the BAR in many ways--other than being in production and in inventory with established TO&E). Would it have improved things? No way to know. Smart people have suggested it might not have done so well in Korea. But, maybe not, after near a decade of product improvements. No way to know.
You stated:
..the Johnson rifle was recoil operated, and recoil operated military arms have never fared very well in service...
There are many "military arms" that a) are recoil operated and b) work well.
 
Full auto rifles (not necessarily LMGs) in .30-06 are going to flip around like a landed fish. Physics and the human limits make that combo not work out very well at all.

BSW

Point taken and accepted. The commies figured that one out after they stuck a fun switch on the 7.62x54R AVS-36 rifle, while US Ordnance was still trying to make the M14/M15 work in full auto two decades later. There's several interesting slow-motion videos at Forgotten Weapons showing post-WWII 7.62 NATO battle rifles (AR-10, FAL, G3, M14) in full auto, and while some perform better than others, none are truly controllable.

Compare what Johnson's LMG design was trying to achieve with Reed Knight's new Light Assault Machine Gun in 7.62 NATO (about 8:36 minutes into the following video, after the 5.56 version). It combines a multi-lug bolt similar to Johnson's with a AK-ish gas piston/bolt carrier and the Sullivan constant recoil principle. It is certainly not a rifle, but is actually a bit lighter than Johnson's LMG (Ian says 14 lbs. unloaded) and doesn't flop around much at all.



Stoner collaborated with Knight on the prototypes of this gun; Stoner also had considerable contact with Johnson years earlier when the latter was a consultant for Armalite.
 
Last edited:
Interesting article and comments. History is a amazing topic. I have read that the Johnson was not popular with the Marines and many of them went overboard prior to them entering combat.

I tend to be somewhat dubious about troops dropping weapons overboard or swapping with enemy weapons. Armies are bureaucracies and one of things bureaucracies do is keep track of things, especially things that dishonest troops could sell for money. Any rifle is going to be assigned to a specific trooper and he’s going to have to account for it. It’s going to be hard to combat loss a rifle while you’re on a boat.

Plus if you did lose your rifle there wouldn’t be any guarantee that anything else would be available to replace it. Would you rather fave the enemy with. Johnson or a bayonet tied to a stick?

BSW
 
I tend to be somewhat dubious about troops dropping weapons overboard or swapping with enemy weapons. Armies are bureaucracies and one of things bureaucracies do is keep track of things, especially things that dishonest troops could sell for money. Any rifle is going to be assigned to a specific trooper and he’s going to have to account for it. It’s going to be hard to combat loss a rifle while you’re on a boat.

Plus if you did lose your rifle there wouldn’t be any guarantee that anything else would be available to replace it. Would you rather fave the enemy with. Johnson or a bayonet tied to a stick?

BSW
My father was issued a Reising sub machine gun during WW II. He could not hit anything with it. Getting another gun was never a problem as there were plenty to be had on the beach heads which the guys they were issued to no longer had any need for. He grabbed an M1 Carbine which he liked. Nobody ever asked for the Reising back. I was issued an M16 in DaNang RVN which was just handed to me and I had trained with the M14. Nobody paid any attention to who was issued which rifle and when I left country I just turned it back in. There was rifles and ordinance everywhere to be had.

As to the Marines and the Johnson believe me if you wanted another rifle the beaches were littered with whatever you wanted. I have never heard anything as foolish as troops pitching weapons overboard nor have I ever seen a weapons shortage in combat. I did while in Vietnam see a few guys grab AK 47s just to see what they were all about but that was about the extent of it. Nobody was keeping track of rifles by serial number or who had what.

Ron
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top