I was just thinking hypothetically about how if you came from such a different time period and suddenly saw all the modern-day weapons that today has to offer, which aspect of modern weapons would you favor most? I guess we have to focus on the AR, but do you think that would really be their first pick if they suddenly time-traveled forward? Would a different platform altogether be favored?
I think for me the coolest part of the AR would would be the ergonomics and reload speed.
High capacity and selective fire.
The weight.
This may not be the best choice of words for genuinely practical reasons. Also it’s fine to ask questions but if you think about it aren’t the answers apparent? Are the benefits of a lighter, easier to handle M4 with 30 rounds in a detachable magazine compared to those of an M1 Garand or a even a BAR not easy to discern?
Not looking to make you feel stupid but rather to help you ask better questions. It will happen here after time. 
30 rounds and 6 pounds.
I think the AR would be the last pick. Think about it. An M1 Grand with a Bayonet and a wooden stock is still a formidable weapon in hand to hand close in fighting with or with-out ammo. Also wasn’t as finicky about ammo,weather and being dirty. You shooting something with a 30 cal. is a lot different than a zippy 22 cal. I don’t think they’d like the lighter bullets either. Ever been in hand to hand combat ? Break the buffer tube on an AR and all you have is a short stick with a short frog stabber on the end.
Tried to be nice about it but sometimes nice guys finish last.
This thread is good as done.
Dont worry about it. Your question has been on my mind once in a while.
I think the weight and magazine fed would be what charms them. I had two uncles who loved their garands but were sold on the M-1 Carbine once they got their mitts on them.
All they could talk sbout was the weight and handiness of the little M-1
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2
Buffer tube is not likely to break if you are doing a butt-stroke properly (hand on the stock). I never saw any bent tubes or broken stocks on the numerous bayonet assault courses I’ve run and those targets are less forgiving than a human since they don’t move or fall over (the tire portion that is the “head”). It’s a sample size of 1, but my former 1SG butt-stroked a dude in Iraq and didn’t hurt his M4.
The best modern carbine for hand to hand IMHO is the AK47/74. Stock unlikely to break and it wouldn’t stop functioning. Large curved steel magazine locked in 2 places that can be used for striking and trapping. Near 90 deg angle front sight, good for striking and tearing. Slant muzzle for muzzle punches. Oh, and still has a bayonet.
30 low-recoiling rounds in a lighter weapon with an IR laser working in conjunction with night vision would have been a great benefit when jumping into Narmandy.
Many vets of WWII and Korea preferred the M1 carbine over the Garand.
Considering the advantages the M16 & M4 have over the Garand, it would have been popular choice among the troops. However, they would have had to learn new tactics. GIs loved the ability of the 30-06 to shoot through stuff. I don’t know how often GIs went out & buttstroked their enemies and the bayonet charge was all but extinct with the end of the Great War. Most vets I knew preferred to shoot their foes. The AR may not be a good weapon for buttstroking but that doesn’t mean you can’t poke’m good and hard with the barrel end when needed.
All in all, I think the AR FOW would have given our GIs a much appreciated boost in firepower by replacing the Thompson sub-machine gun, the carbine and possibly the BAR but it would not have completely supplanted the Garand until new tactics were learned and adopted
Modern NODs alone would have allowed our Paratroopers to dominate the battlefield
It’s probably been on everyone’s mind at one time or another, but then they realized that designs have been adjusted and reformed into far more ideal configurations. And no one loves a Garand more than I but for myself and most the ideal firearm isn’t the one that makes the best heavy spear when it runs out of ammunition in a needlessly premature fashion.
Look if you want to talk WWII weaponry it’s a topic I also love but this sub-forum isn’t the place, that’s all. Plus the discussion likely comes off as a bit elementary to some being that they recognize weaponry has evolved for the better in general.
Being as this is obviously a hypothetical, I don’t feel the need point out anything “stupid” with the question.
I think weight would be the most apparent difference. Soldiers from that era had “high capacity” and full auto, but it was all steel and wood…heavy as a brick.
They also encountered the first assault rifles, the German STG-44. So they saw “the future” as well.
The M4 is newer materials and far more modular, but other than that it’s not that different than what was already available. I also doubt that GI’s from WW2 would care for the 5.56 over the 06.
essayons
Bet you never saw people in black pajams throwing ladders over the wire,watching RPG’s screaming by not to mention the incoming while trying to over run your bayonet assault courses either.:help:
No, but that doesn’t change the physics involved. I’m not defending the buffer tube per se, it is a weak point in the system…
I love my Garand, but I would take an M4 over it any day in combat (and have). The M4 can be used to great effect in H2H w/o ever needing to butt-stroke or break any portion of it.
The weight and magazine capacity.
The weight, the magazine capacity, select fire, ease of take down, and the variety of optics.
Imagine what these guys would think using an ACOG or an Aimpoint.
I found a classified video where it happened. 1:40 seconds to see the reaction by the NCO.
The weight of an M1 Carbine, the MPBR of an M1 Garand, the accuracy of an M1903 Springfield, and the firepower of an M1 Thompson. With a scope more powerful and more useful than that adorning the M1903A4.
My guess is that the Infantry soldier of that time would have been impressed with an M16A2/A4 for many reasons. Ergonomics of the weapon, the overall weight and the magazine capacity. Imagine Normandy or some other battle where you had battalions of personnel armed with an M16 rather than 8 shot Garands or M1 carbines.
On the same note we can also wonder what would have happened had the Germans actually fielded and used the StG44 earlier on without Hitler’s bumbling antics.
An M16A4 w/ optic would be a state of the art sniper weapon, at the weight of a personal defense carbine, with the capacity of a machine gun if loaded with a Surefire magazine.
Crap… Fjall beat me to it.