I’ll name two:
Did the Continental Army use more Brown Bess or Charleville muskets?
What weapon did Alvin York use during his MoH action? More M1917 Enfields were issued than M1903 Springfields to U.S. troops, yet popular culture leads one to believe it was an M1903 (?).
Can you think of any others?
Yeah, I believe he had one of those, but the majority of his killin’ Heinies was with a long gun.
The adoption of the M-16
The adoption of the M14, an .308 as the official Nato caliber at the time.
The M16 was us coming back around to something closer to what everyone else in Nato wanted instead of .308.
Sorta, kinda and not really. There was quite a bit of push back on the M16, the M14 is its own animal and it just speaks to the nature of change within the US military complex
The adoption of the US Krag–Jørgensen and.30-40 Krag cartridge
The deployment of the M16…
I had a book that covered the history of infantry rifles from Revolution to M4. I can’t find it right now, but the crux was a ‘matrix’ of individual marksmanship vs group fire and Govt designed vs commercial design. With those four boxes we weaved our way through rifles. It covered the ‘why’ of the controversies and puts them in historical perspective. Can’t find it right now. Found my accounting text book from 1994, but not that book…
ETA: Found it. “American Rifle: A Biography” by Alexander Rose
Pretty sure he used the 1917.
Anything SIG (post M11)
Sent from my BE2028 using Tapatalk
I never understood why that weapon was supposedly so unpopular for it’s time. I mean it was a bolt action, and those were the “latest and greatest” in that era. Maybe because it was a side-loader? The round itself was kind of anemic, so there’s that.
I think when it came up against the German Mauser in the Spanish American War they realized its shortcomings. The 1893 Mauser had far more power and range….loaded via a stripper clip. Just outclassed the Krag.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
York movie vs real here
The Sherman Tank, we knew it was undergunned and rather than produce an upgunned version early in the war, we just kept producing undergunned Sherman’s and filling them with young Men who had little chance against German Armor.
So, so many.
The 7th Cavalry being armed with trapdoor Springfield’s
USMC entering WWII armed with 03’s
M14 instead of FAL
XM7
The US Navy’s torpedo scandal in early WW2. Factory: “You’re just using them wrong”. Sub skippers: “No, we’re not”.
Not building enough F-22’s which leads to a pet peeve of mine, ending a production run on a aircraft and then destroying the tooling/jigs so more can never be built.
York had a M1917. I’ll stick to that to my death bed. We know he was issued a “British” rifle, and disliked it. We know the 82nd Division was issued M1917s, and retained them throughout the war. We also have no record at all that he used or acquired a M1903. So, if you’re going with documented evidence vs emotionally based conjecture, there’s really only one logical conclusion.
That bit of lore just won’t die, and it’s not really accurate. The Brits were firmly in the “intermediate cartridge” camp, but nobody else was. The French played around with intermediate cartridge designs, but ultimately stuck with 7.5 French for several decades. Most of the rest of NATO likely didn’t care either way, but were still buying full power rifles right up through the adoption of 7.62 NATO. It really isn’t like everyone else really wanted an intermediate cartridge and the US alone was too stupid to realize it.
Really, the 7.62 NATO vs .280 British/5.56 NATO arguments are more interesting when you view them as part of the continuing debate on rifle cartridges vs carbine cartridges, and the military’s desire for a one size fits all solution. Another hill I will die on is that as nice logistically as it would be to achieve that OSFA solution, it’ll never happen, and a mix between both (along the lines of WWII’s Garand/Carbine mix) is likely the best bet.
The bottle nose 7mm Mauser round did not in any way have more “power” than the .30-40 Krag. Original sources tend to down play its terminal effectiveness. It’s higher velocity, rate of fire, and accuracy were praised, however. There’s a reason why the original .30-03 loading was essentially a rimless .30-40 Krag.
Good thread topic. It is interesting to see how many of these “controversies” tend to arise from an overly simplistic narrative. Rarely it is “X was bad, and Y was the greatest thing ever!” but more frequently shades of gray.
One I’ve not seen mentioned is the the M1 Carbine’s stopping power/effectiveness.
The M1 Carbine’s functionality in Korea
Revolver vs Semi-Auto (USMC actually tested it, the results are in DTIC somewhere)
The legality of OTM
The M320 grenade launcher (was it really an improvement over the 203)
The intermediate rifle (Miley’s big bore)
The M9 pistol and its issues
The British Lewis, US Browning, and German Maxim machineguns used during WWI were all designed by Americans.
Lewis tried to get the US to adopt the design, and when they didn’t turned to England.
Maxim was basically told, if you want to make money, find a way for Europeans to more effectively kill each other.
The US was a late adopter of machine guns, and we ended up going to war with the French Hotchkiss, ironically manufactured by a French arms company started by an American.