Why are magazines loaded from the bottom so common?

[lysanderxiii]

It doesn't buy you anything in the prone position, it interferes with the weapons balance, & you can see just as much of the mag well on a bottom-fed rifle if you cant it ~90 degrees (which is what you'll do during a proper mag change).

For a right-handed person, changing magazines on a left magazine sidewinder does not require tilting the rifle.

With an FG-42 you can change magazines quicker than with an M16.

Get the new magazine in your left hand, hit the mag-release with the heel hand holding the new mag, hit the back of the magazine and it flips out forward, insert new magazine....

 

[entropy]

Actually, he's the OP and mentioned sporting arms in the first post. He did not specify high capacity, and referenced the Garand for one type of top loader.

Oops, you're right, he is the OP.

However, as he phrased the question....

I have been studying the designs of WWI and WWII small arm weapons which has provoked a thought to me.

Why are modern long guns (both military and sporting) made with magazines that are loaded from the bottom of the receiver so common?

.....you could see why the discussion veered towards military-type weapons, and the attendant disadvantages of the various alternate feed methods.

Caseless ammunition would mitigate action size, though an ejection port would still be needed for FTFs. This was explored and found wanting with the HK G11, more for logitical reasons than mechanical. (though overheating and cook-off were issues.)

Until we have a rifle in the "40 watt range", the position of detachable magazines will be a factor in weapons design.

 

[azrocks]

For a right-handed person, changing magazines on a left magazine sidewinder does not require tilting the rifle.

With an FG-42 you can change magazines quicker than with an M16.

Get the new magazine in your left hand, hit the mag-release with the heel hand holding the new mag, hit the back of the magazine and it flips out forward, insert new magazine....

Nothing requires you to tilt an AR to change mags... it's just good practice while reloading. If you want to keep the mag-well vertical while you reload that's all you. But the act of canting a rifle in your hand as you bring it up into your 'work area' to reload (assuming standing positions) doesn't take any additional time whatsoever.

No need to knock the magazine out or any such maneuvers with a stoner rifle... it's already dropped free with a press of your index finger.

I'll admit I've never handled an FG-42, but I've handled M16s/ARs plenty, and I see absolutely nothing in the FG-42 design that would make magazine changes faster for a right hander, and for left-handers, I imagine it would be a nightmare. As a lefty with long guns, reloading an AR is almost as easy left-hand as it is right hand, and for anyone who can't get the hang of it, ambi controls are available.

Are you saying that you've put mass rounds downrange with both weapons from all positions (sitting, standing, prone) and you (personally) can reload the FG-42 faster? Or are you saying that you think you can. Because I don't want to diss on your experience, but frankly, I'm just not seeing it.

Then there's the issue of carry, which, almost ironically, would seem to favor a left-hand shooter. From where I sit, it looks like the choices are either 'easy to carry and hard to reload', or 'hard to reload & easy to carry'.

 

[BSA1]

As I said in my first Post the discussion is about different feeding systems of long guns from magazines of both military and sporting (civilian) arms.

There has been more experimentation with military small arms. We have covered a lot of ground in this thread.

 

[stonecutter2]

For a gas operated* semi-automatic or full auto weapon you have constraints about where you can put the operating rod to cycle the action. Running the op rod on the side either requires a contorted piece of steel like the Garand, M1 Carbine, or M14, or leads to a wider rifle, like the AUG.

...

*Recoil operation brings its own advantages and disadvantages, chief among which is that no successful recoil operated personal weapon has ever been mass issued that I'm aware of.

The CZ52 pistol has a short recoil operated system, firing 7.62x25 Tokarev. It was in military service for the Czech military for about 30 years. Not sure if that fits "mass issued" but they're still operating all these years later...provided the roller locks are in good shape.

 

[briansmithwins]

The CZ52 pistol has a short recoil operated system, firing 7.62x25 Tokarev. It was in military service for the Czech military for about 30 years. Not sure if that fits "mass issued" but they're still operating all these years later...provided the roller locks are in good shape.

Yep, I completely over looked pistols when I said that.

BSW

 

[lysanderxiii]

Nothing requires you to tilt an AR to change mags... it's just good practice while reloading. If you want to keep the mag-well vertical while you reload that's all you. But the act of canting a rifle in your hand as you bring it up into your 'work area' to reload (assuming standing positions) doesn't take any additional time whatsoever.

No need to knock the magazine out or any such maneuvers with a stoner rifle... it's already dropped free with a press of your index finger.

I'll admit I've never handled an FG-42, but I've handled M16s/ARs plenty, and I see absolutely nothing in the FG-42 design that would make magazine changes faster for a right hander, and for left-handers, I imagine it would be a nightmare. As a lefty with long guns, reloading an AR is almost as easy left-hand as it is right hand, and for anyone who can't get the hang of it, ambi controls are available.

Are you saying that you've put mass rounds downrange with both weapons from all positions (sitting, standing, prone) and you (personally) can reload the FG-42 faster? Or are you saying that you think you can. Because I don't want to diss on your experience, but frankly, I'm just not seeing it.

Then there's the issue of carry, which, almost ironically, would seem to favor a left-hand shooter. From where I sit, it looks like the choices are either 'easy to carry and hard to reload', or 'hard to reload & easy to carry'.

The above comparison is firing prone off a bipod or sand bag support.

From that position, M16 magazines generally don't have room to "drop free" and have to manually extracted. Yes, I have shot an FG, not what I would consider "massive amounts", but enough to have a feel for its good points and bad points.

In reality, the whole "drop free" magazine change thing a bit unrealistic. In combat, when is the platoon is going to walk back along their line of approach and police up their freely dropped magazines? Or, it that the job of the follow-on force?

Unless you are in a static defensive position, and under really heavy attack, you are probably going to want to be in control of the empty magazine at all times. Six empty magazines in the bottom of a fox-hole, being stepped on, kicked in the dirt and mud, etc are not going to be that reliable for the next reload, not to mention more difficult to retrieve, compared to magazines placed on the edge of the fighting position or back in a pouch...

In the case of controlled magazine extraction, most all magazine changes are accomplished at the same speed. The STEN magazine change if left handed, because the magazine release button in on top of the magazine housing, and fairly stiff, however, is particularly bothersome.

EDIT: As to carrying an FG, that depends on what you intend on doing. Are you on the march with it slung? Marching in a parade at high port? Carry with the intent of using it as quickly as possible? In the last case, its no worse than anything else, as you tend to carry in that condition with the muzzle forward and downward, so the side mounted magazine doesn't poke you in the chest.

 

[bearcreek]

Shooting prone with an M4/AR15 with 30 round mag is not hard at all. In many real world cases you have to get up a little higher anyway to see over cover or concealment plus the mag makes an excellent monopod to stabilize the rifle. A mag change can be done in well under a second with practice so speed is certainly not an issue. A magazine sticking out the side would be a huge hassle when trying to move through brush, it'd get banged up a lot worse when the gun gets slammed onto the ground and it'd tend to jam you in the face when you go prone. Those are just a few reasons I can think of that a bottom load system is superior. I like it.

 

[Jim Watson]

The Lebel used spitzer bullets, and held 3 more rounds than a Mauser....

The funny shape of the 8mm Lebel cartridge encouraged it to ride at an angle in the tube magazine, keeping the bullet nose away from the next primer. When they went to the Balle D spitzer, they added a groove around the primer pocket to catch the pointy nose of that solid bronze bullet.

Also, there was a patent for a tubular magazine that used a helical rib inside the tube to force the bullets to lay at an angle, keeping the points off the primers.

Pedersen design, Remington Model 14.

As to slow and complex... a vast majority of shotguns still use under barrel tube magazines, they are neither complex or slow to reload.

Watching three gun competitors in action, a hasty reload of the shotgun is a much practiced sleight of hand. I consider that complex and slow. I have not worked on it enough to get four shells in one hand, and two not very well. That is one reason the carbine has supplanted the shotgun in many patrol and defense uses.

 

[kBob]

On lost magazines and easy drop free AR mags:

It is true that you can adjust the magazine release on AR 15 of whatever stripe to make the magazine easy to drop free with a simple touch.

A lot of newbees did so.

Despite the A1 "fence" around the mag release button however, if one has the spring tension set low enough to ensure quick and easy drop free operation of the magazine, things other than the right index finger can push that button with enough force to have the magazine drop free when you do not want it to.

Once Training and Doc set by folks that were not actual Infantrymen reared its head this became a real issue. Some one decided that troops on the right side of a column must have their muzzles pointed right. That is to say folks on the right carried left handed. Never mind that there was no left handed marksmanship training, or that even with training test have shown that most troops can actually hit a target on their right more quickly when turning and shooting that way right handed. Time may not be everything in a gun fight, but it means a heck of a lot. Accuracy may not mean everything, but it is a lot. Time and accuracy? Pretty much covers it and forcing troops to shoot wrong handed effects both.

Consider for a moment where the magazine release is when carrying at low port left handed. Consider all the extra crap a typical Infantryman carries that can now push that magazine release.

Neebees were often identified by having a rifle with no magazine or by their pained barks when a full magazine bounced off a knee or toe.

More experienced troopers would give the actual magazine retention bit a few extra turns to increase the spring pressure so that a magazine would be in the rifle when they needed it. This meant more pressure was needed to press the release button and the button stuck out of the rifle a hair less. So frequently the actual mag catch dragged on the magazine and that drop free feature was gone.

Not quite the same as weekend range warriors, eh?

Don't get me started on "roll into a good prone firing position" summer of '77 when TRADOC put out its first training film showing troops actually rolling completely over like a circus act I got in trouble for laughing out loud in a nice airconditioned class room.

I am not just M-16 bashing but writing about how it was and in many places likely IS even with the M4 series.

-kBob

 

[azrocks]

In reality, the whole "drop free" magazine change thing a bit unrealistic. In combat, when is the platoon is going to walk back along their line of approach and police up their freely dropped magazines? Or, it that the job of the follow-on force?

Whatever you say

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Your life may depend on the speed of your magazine change. If you survive, you may come back and get your empty magazine

If you do not survive, you definitely will NOT come back to pick it up.

 

[BSA1]

The 1917 Burton Light Machine Rifle

Here is an interesting design that never made it into production. Especially when it is compared to the Browning BAR.

The Burton Light Machine Rifle was developed during World War One, with the firing model completed in 1917. It was intended as an aircraft observer's weapon for attacking balloons—a role which required incendiary ammunition.With this in mind, Winchester's Frank Burton adapted the .351 WSL cartridge from his 1905 and 1907 self-loading rifles into the .345 WSL, with a spitzer bullet. He designed an open-bolt, select-fire shoulder rifle to fire it, which became known as the Light Machine Rifle.

Burton's rifle was to be usable both in an aircraft where it could be fixed to a Scarff mount for a wide field of fire or used by an individual on the ground, fired from the shoulder. It weighed in at just about 10 pounds (4.5kg) and had a pistol grip and straight-line design to bring the recoil impulse directly into the shooter's shoulder and minimize rise during automatic fire. The barrel was finned for better cooling, and infantry barrels were equipped with bayonet lugs.

The most distinctive elements of the design, of course, are the dual top-mounted magazines. Each one holds 20 rounds, and each has a pair of locking catches. One position locks the magazine into a feeding position, and the other holds it up above the cycling of the bolt. The idea here was to keep a second loaded magazine easily accessible for an aerial observer—so they could reload without having to find another magazine somewhere in the aircraft. Contrary to some speculation, there is no automatic transition between magazines. When one is empty, the shooter must pull it back to the second locking position (or out of the gun entirely) and then push the second magazine down into feeding position.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a21631/forgotten-weapons-americas-first-assault-rifle/

 

[Tactical Lever]

Oops, you're right, he is the OP.

However, as he phrased the question....



.....you could see why the discussion veered towards military-type weapons, and the attendant disadvantages of the various alternate feed methods.

Caseless ammunition would mitigate action size, though an ejection port would still be needed for FTFs. This was explored and found wanting with the HK G11, more for logitical reasons than mechanical. (though overheating and cook-off were issues.)

Until we have a rifle in the "40 watt range", the position of detachable magazines will be a factor in weapons design.

Remington experimented with caseless tech also, back in the 80s IIRC. Sounded promising, but I prefer the "old fashioned" brass cases.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

The cartridge and the inconvenient magazine arrangement are probably why it failed. After all, the Lewis Gun was already in use, with more ammo on tap and a more powerful cartridge.

 

[barnbwt]

If you survive, you may come back and get your empty magazine

Sheesh, no wonder we should be using Garands --think of all the money on fuel we'd save only making one trip per combat mission

I also realize why the state of our magazines is so terrible, from what I've been told (universally worn out, bent, jamming up, dirty, etc) if we're throwing those flimsy things on the ground to be kicked & stepped on, then bothering to gather them up & toss them back into service for some poor SOB to rely upon.

One thing about side-mags, especially for sub guns, that may not have been mentioned is how they were used in trench warfare. Often, the shooter would lay them over the top & shoot from a very low perspective, in many cases using the thing like an ultra-light machine gun against an advancing charge (Suomi and ZK383 were used this way, but the ZK had a bipod and slightly above-horizontal magazine placement) and fed by magazines topped up by a helper as they were consumed.

Recoil operation brings its own advantages and disadvantages, chief among which is that no successful recoil operated personal weapon has ever been mass issued that I'm aware of.

This deserves, and has had IIRC, its own thread. My view is that recoil operation is highly dependent upon the power of the cartridges being used, and at the time recoil operation was invented (before gas operation), cartridges were quite powerful, so the machines design to fire them automatically tended to be large and cumbersome (Maxim, Vickers, Lewis, Madsen). This also made them expensive, along with their being cutting-edge technology (it would be a good thirty years before gas operated systems could be fielded by large numbers of men, ironically at the exact same time as the most practical recoil-operated service rifle, the Johnson). The expense and size kept the early recoil guns from being mass-issued, but they did see wide service as basically the only good heavy machinegun designs prior to WWII.

In WWII, it could be argued the MG42 saw wide enough service to be considered "mass issued," though it was again not quite as common as an infantry rifle, at least in number. They were far more critical to German infantry advantage than the rifles, however. With the Garand, technology had finally advanced to the point that a man-portable gas operated rifle was possible, and world governments loved how the system allowed them to handle very powerful rifle and machine gun cartridges, like 8mm and 30-06, even to some degree on full automatic. Rounds far too powerful for similarly lightweight recoil operated designs due to the cyclic velocity constraints (even if a recoil design is strong, it will be over-driven before a gas operated version to failure, and cannot be re-adjusted nearly as easy as a gas-port).

What's funny, is that we've since discovered that these high power battle rifle cartridges are largely unnecessary for typical infantry engagements, and prefer lighter intermediate rounds, which are arguably much better candidates for the simplicity & reliability of a lightweight recoil operated action. Especially when you consider our growing love affair with short barreled systems that bring out the worst in gas operation, but whose lighter barrel would be most reliable for a recoil operated system.

TCB

 

[briansmithwins]

My view is that recoil operation is highly dependent upon the power of the cartridges being used, and at the time recoil operation was invented (before gas operation), cartridges were quite powerful, so the machines design to fire them automatically tended to be large and cumbersome (Maxim, Vickers, Lewis, Madsen). This also made them expensive, along with their being cutting-edge technology (it would be a good thirty years before gas operated systems could be fielded by large numbers of men, ironically at the exact same time as the most practical recoil-operated service rifle, the Johnson). The expense and size kept the early recoil guns from being mass-issued, but they did see wide service as basically the only good heavy machinegun designs prior to WWII.

1) The Lewis gun is gas operated.
2) I think a lot of the early MGs were very overbuilt. The armies of the time liked lots of brass and steel and wanted weapons that would last a long time. They got that in spades with the Vickers and Maxim guns.
3) A lot of the weight of the Maxim era MGs comes from the water jacket.

In WWII, it could be argued the MG42 saw wide enough service to be considered "mass issued," though it was again not quite as common as an infantry rifle, at least in number. They were far more critical to German infantry advantage than the rifles, however.

1) No argument that the MG34 and MG42 were mass issued, and the Germans would have issued more if they had had the capacity to make more of them.
2) No way am I buying that either the MG34 or MG42 can be considered a personal weapon.
3) The Garand was a very good transitional design, which was a stroke of good fortune because Army Ordnance had dropped the ball when it came to providing the GI with firepower. The Brits based their firepower on the Bren gun and their lightweight mortar, and the Germans based theirs on the MG34/42. The BAR and late WWI design MGs the GI was stuck with weren't really up to the task.

BSW

 

[Vern Humphrey]

3) The Garand was a very good transitional design, which was a stroke of good fortune because Army Ordnance had dropped the ball when it came to providing the GI with firepower. The Brits based their firepower on the Bren gun and their lightweight mortar, and the Germans based theirs on the MG34/42. The BAR and late WWI design MGs the GI was stuck with weren't really up to the task.

Actually, the BAR is every bit as good as the Bren gun -- I've shot both extensively, including one incident where I used a BAR in combat. The American 60mm mortar was much better than the British 2-inch mortar, particularly since the American method of handling indirect fire was so much better than anything anyone else had.

 

[lysanderxiii]

This deserves, and has had IIRC, its own thread. My view is that recoil operation is highly dependent upon the power of the cartridges being used, and at the time recoil operation was invented (before gas operation), cartridges were quite powerful, so the machines design to fire them automatically tended to be large and cumbersome (Maxim, Vickers, Lewis, Madsen). This also made them expensive, along with their being cutting-edge technology (it would be a good thirty years before gas operated systems could be fielded by large numbers of men, ironically at the exact same time as the most practical recoil-operated service rifle, the Johnson). The expense and size kept the early recoil guns from being mass-issued, but they did see wide service as basically the only good heavy machinegun designs prior to WWII.

In WWII, it could be argued the MG42 saw wide enough service to be considered "mass issued," though it was again not quite as common as an infantry rifle, at least in number. They were far more critical to German infantry advantage than the rifles, however. With the Garand, technology had finally advanced to the point that a man-portable gas operated rifle was possible, and world governments loved how the system allowed them to handle very powerful rifle and machine gun cartridges, like 8mm and 30-06, even to some degree on full automatic. Rounds far too powerful for similarly lightweight recoil operated designs due to the cyclic velocity constraints (even if a recoil design is strong, it will be over-driven before a gas operated version to failure, and cannot be re-adjusted nearly as easy as a gas-port).

What's funny, is that we've since discovered that these high power battle rifle cartridges are largely unnecessary for typical infantry engagements, and prefer lighter intermediate rounds, which are arguably much better candidates for the simplicity & reliability of a lightweight recoil operated action. Especially when you consider our growing love affair with short barreled systems that bring out the worst in gas operation, but whose lighter barrel would be most reliable for a recoil operated system.

TCB

Two major obstacles to infantry rifles with recoil operation:

1)The barrel has to move in order for the thing to work. With the infantryman living in dirt and mud, the clearance between the barrel and its support have to be generous so as to still work when dirty. This means they aren't as accurate as gas or delayed blow-back with the rigidly fixed barrel.

2) Because the reliability of operation is dependent on the barrel's recoiling speed they have to be made to have sufficient barrel recoil velocity when dirty and/or full of mud. This means when clean and freshly lubricated, the barrel velocity is excessive, so the recoiling parts have to be made large and over-strength to absorb this extra energy, largely offsetting the advantage in weight of not having the gas system parts.

A fully loaded Johnson M1941 weighs the same as a fully loaded M1 Garand, even though it did not have the extra 3/4 of a pound gas cylinder and operating rod, while gaining only two extra rounds.

There is a third, less important thing, but has to be taken into consideration, felt recoil. Because a large mass (the barrel) is allowed to accelerate to a fairly high speed, then stopped abruptly, the firer gets a sharp jolt (in the physics sense) to the shoulder. This make the felt recoil seem more unpleasant. Machine guns avoid this to some degree by buffering the barrel with spring, as they are less weight and volume sensitive.

For the civilian user of the recoil operated rifle, there is the problem of sensitivity to bullet weight and velocity. Anyone that owns a recoil operated pistol knows that some light loads don't cycle reliably, and heavy loads require heavier springs or buffered spring guides to keep from the pistol from beating itself to death. While this is often cited as a reason why the military never widely used recoil operated infantry rifles, it is not a major obstacle to military use, as the military tends to used just a few types of ammunition and they all have generally the same basic characteristics.

 

[lysanderxiii]

3) The Garand was a very good transitional design, which was a stroke of good fortune because Army Ordnance had dropped the ball when it came to providing the GI with firepower. The Brits based their firepower on the Bren gun and their lightweight mortar, and the Germans based theirs on the MG34/42. The BAR and late WWI design MGs the GI was stuck with weren't really up to the task.

BSW

Difference in doctrine.

The US viewed the firepower of the squad derived from the riflemen in the squad and the automatic rifle was used to support the rifleman.

The British, and to a larger extent the Germans, viewed the firepower of the squad derived from the squad light machine gun, and the rifleman was used to support the LMG as well.

Note that the difference in nomenclature highlights the difference in doctrine. Also, note that the individual web equipment, most evident with the British, highlights this.

EDIT: It should also be noted that that current USMC thinking is still that the automatic rifle/LMG is to be used to support rifle fire. Which is why they prefer the M27 over the M249 in the role of automatic rifle.

EDIT 2: The WW2 German TO&E of a rifle company had the mortar section op-conned to the rifle platoons at one per platoon. While this gave the platoon leader an awful lot of firepower, it also diluted the available indirect firepower of the company.

 

[barnbwt]

1) The Lewis gun is gas operated.

Oh, derp. What am I thinking of, then? Probably the various MG13/15 German guns that had similar aircraft roles, and were recoil operated. Like I said, at that time, there were about as many recoil as gas guns around, but the latter really didn't have the same level of reliability (lot of it due to design, lot of it due to cartridge design, lot of it due to cartridge chemistry)

2) I think a lot of the early MGs were very overbuilt. The armies of the time liked lots of brass and steel and wanted weapons that would last a long time. They got that in spades with the Vickers and Maxim guns.

That's only part of it. The guns were designed for extended trench/defensive use, which meant they were to be fired nearly continuously...for the duration of the conflict . The 1914 Hotchkiss, for example (a gas gun of the vintage when they started becoming decent) had a very large bronze barrel jacket designed such that at a cyclic rate of fire, it would heat until glowing dull red, at which point its ribbed surface area was sufficient to radiate additional heat away as it was generated. These guns were designed to be engines, as much as machine guns (surprised they didn't have Maxim cranks hooked up to radio dynamos).

The real reason these guns were huge & heavy, goes back to what I said about cartridge power and cyclic velocity. When you make a recoil gun in 8mm fairly lightweight --like the MG42-- the result is a nearly comical cyclic speed that devours so much ammunition, that you lose your mobility advantage trying to carry enough ammo the keep the damn thing fed (common complaint among German infantry). There's also no possible way beyond frequent barrel changes to keep up sustained fire from such a system, so unless the high ROF is itself advantageous (and it is, for anti-aircraft and area-denial applications, but not so much for infantry advances), you end up carrying heavy extra barrels, and the gun is down for their replacement far more often. Lastly, you have controllability issues when a lightweight gun like the MG42 is laying out large numbers of hard-kicking 8mm, unless the gun is mounted, or the gunner is firmly braced (and therefore somewhat immobile for the duration).

A lot of the earlier designs for both gas and recoil operation also had rear-locking systems that necessitated strong, heavy receivers, as well as to handle the reciprocating mass of large barrels that often incorporated muzzle boosters to add even more energy to the cycle (gas guns of the era tended to have very large pistons, which has a similar effect in delivering far more operating energy to the parts than is seen today)

The BAR and late WWI design MGs the GI was stuck with weren't really up to the task.

No kidding. I actually acquired an FN-DA1 kit in 308 (basically a much-improved BAR) and I'm actually hesitant to build the thing, because I can tell shooting it is going to be a let down. Super cool, though. Big (giant, really), heavy, terrible ergonomics, terrible balance, and literally the same firepower as an FAL (uses the same mags), though I think these used 30's instead of the typical 20's. I can't even imagine how bad they must've been with the original straight stock, fixed barrel, and bipod. Old timers seem to have very fond memories, but I think it may be a sort of "cars were built to last back in '65, unlike today" type mentality. At least we had the wisdom to salvage the one redeemable aspect of the thing, it's very clever bolt locking system (which I suspect is the part Browning had the most design freedom on)

TCB

 

[barnbwt]

1)The barrel has to move in order for the thing to work. With the infantryman living in dirt and mud, the clearance between the barrel and its support have to be generous so as to still work when dirty. This means they aren't as accurate as gas or delayed blow-back with the rigidly fixed barrel.

Recoil operated machine guns showed this to be largely a non-issue; I'm not aware of the Johnson rifle having any particular jam-affinity in excess of the Garand, even during its tenure in the Pacific. Jams, as always, are typically due to breech-area infiltration and binding (seems like most commonly when gunk finally gets shoved into the chamber alongside the case, which no action can really tolerate well)

This means they aren't as accurate as gas or delayed blow-back with the rigidly fixed barrel.

Browning M2's pretty darned accurate, despite a moving barrel. As are MG42s, and most of these other designs. They lock up consistently, and just as with pistols, that's what matters. Especially since ammo variations combined with barrel harmonics likely outweigh the arc-length error introduced by a moving barrel bushing. If we still put 1000yd sight ladders on our infantry guns, you might have a point, though

2) Because the reliability of operation is dependent on the barrel's recoiling speed they have to be made to have sufficient barrel recoil velocity when dirty and/or full of mud. This means when clean and freshly lubricated, the barrel velocity is excessive, so the recoiling parts have to be made large and over-strength to absorb this extra energy, largely offsetting the advantage in weight of not having the gas system parts.

Well it's not like the term "over-gassed" doesn't exist, either, and isn't the chief reason the AK has such famed reliability. This is a better criticism than the Army's that "the gun is unreliable with bayonet affixed" which could have been easily dealt with using a bayo design that functions as a muzzle booster. On a modern SBR-length gun with full-length free float tube, the barrel is just as shrouded as for a recoil operated gun, anyway, and a knife could be affixed onto that

A fully loaded Johnson M1941 weighs the same as a fully loaded M1 Garand, even though it did not have the extra 3/4 of a pound gas cylinder and operating rod, while gaining only two extra rounds.

The Johnson's magazine had a lot of fat & bulk that would be wholly unnecessary for a detachable-mag system. The M1 en-bloc system, despite it's complexity, was functionally quite similar to a short box magazine, and when upgraded to a BM59, really didn't change enormously.

Of course, there is also the fact that a certain measure of weight was required due to the cartridge selection. Gas guns have the advantage that they can play with gas ports rather than operating mass to tune the gun, and therefore can be lighter than recoil operation at certain power levels. I think if even 308 were used instead of 30-06, operating mass would be reduced significantly compared to something like an M1A which stayed about the same. Stepping down to 223 would be even more pronounced, though I honestly can't say if 5.56 NATO generates enough operating recoil to run such an action well at typical service barrel lengths --it really hasn't been tried that I'm aware of, the various delay-blowback systems being the primary alternative to gas operation (though they themselves are rather similar to short-recoil operation if you think about it)

For the civilian user of the recoil operated rifle, there is the problem of sensitivity to bullet weight and velocity.

Absolutely agree. That said, we all know there are pistols that can and do fire a wide range of loads, so there are definitely design regions where one can bake enough extra margin into the system to handle a range of ammunition without impacting the shooting experience negatively --who's to say if those are in the "rifle area" of the design space, though? I honestly can't say, personally. I do know that 223 is too powerful for any theoretical recoil-operated handgun since the bolt velocity would be destructive, but perhaps an extra 10" of braked-barrel would tame that, leaving a system much more like an auto loading pistol as far as felt recoil and cycle speed.

I also happen to believe that either/both muzzle brakes and hydraulic buffer systems could be used to create a somewhat self-regulating recoil action, along the lines of how the M1A has its little gas cutoff feature to help protect that funky dogleg op-rod from being over driven.

TCB

 

[briansmithwins]

Actually, the BAR is every bit as good as the Bren gun

Except for the 10 round less capacity.

And the inability to sustain fire because the barrel can't be swapped.

And you can't mount a BAR on a tripod to use it as a support weapon.

But besides those things the BAR is almost as good as a Bren.

The US viewed the firepower of the squad derived from the riflemen in the squad and the automatic rifle was used to support the rifleman.

I've wondered if the doctrine came first or the Army developed the doctrine because of the weapons they got from Ordnance.

BSW

 

[CapnMac]

I've wondered if the doctrine came first or the Army developed the doctrine because of the weapons they got from Ordnance.

Solve that riddle, and you'd be in line to take over TraDoc

The Germans were very serious about it, even adopting a 10 man maniple so that the 1 MG and 2 A-gunners could have 7 men (at full-up) to support them (and tote ammo). Four maniple to the platoon.
Who were saddled with the 5cm mortar, which was built by the same people making 50mm field guns, and to similar complexity (not drop fired, but trigger-fired).

The platoon flexibility rivals that of a USMC Platoon; but the Marines have a much better selection of weapons and assets handy. A good thing for we in the Navy Department

 

[CapnMac]

As a concurrent thought as we imagine all this--note that we have not considered how the putative weapon is held and shouldered.

We tend to presume that the firing hand is always vertical with respect to the arm. But, what if that were not the case?
Ok, vertical does lend itself better (if imperfectly) to our 17% minority. So, rotating the grip--rather than the magazine--probably would not be efficacious.

The FN 90 shows some inovative thinking in this regard.