dittybopper_05H t1_j13mwib wrote on December 21, 2022 at 12:52 PM

Reply to comment by aught4naught in Why didn't the US adopt the STG-44 after WW2? by TurboTortois3

Ironically, though, the StG-44 is about 1 or 2 lbs heavier than an M-1 Garand. It doesn't *LOOK* like it, you'd think the Garand is heavier just looking at it, but it's not.

The other thing to consider is that the StG-44 is, essentially, a disposable gun. It's made largely of stampings, and they will wear out much quicker than a Garand. You can put tens of thousands of rounds through an M-1 with no difficulty, but a Sturmgewehr will wear out long before that. Plus, it's more prone to being damaged than an M-1.

But I think perhaps the biggest reason why is because the M-1 was a battle-proven platform which the US literally had millions of them in stock. Completely switching over from that to a new gun with new ammo (.30'06 Kurz?) would have been seen as an unnecessary waste of money.

ArkyBeagle t1_j15oh4v wrote on December 21, 2022 at 9:16 PM

I think the new weapon adopted , the Next Generation Squad Weapon or XM5 they use "practice" rounds at lower velocity and only switch to "combat" rounds when it's For Real. The barrel seems to wear out with the fairly extreme round chosen for that. That's a sea change from prior doctrine.

dittybopper_05H t1_j18hu2s wrote on December 22, 2022 at 1:19 PM

I'm still aghast at that decision. Fully loaded with the suppressor, that's an 11.24 lb rifle. That's actually the heaviest infantry rifle ever adopted by the US military.

And the cartridge is another matter. The practice rounds are still zippy enough to be used in combat, and I'm willing to bet that cost considerations are going to ensure that the reduced version gets used in combat. Which is still nothing to sneeze at: It's essentially a 7mm-08.

I mean, I'm one of those weirdos who likes the concept of a battle rifle, but they shouldn't be significantly heavier than an M-1 Garand or an M-14.

ArkyBeagle t1_j1953zj wrote on December 22, 2022 at 4:13 PM

> That's actually the heaviest infantry rifle ever adopted by the US military.

True.

> I'm willing to bet that cost considerations are going to ensure that the reduced version gets used in combat.

Huh. What I've read says the gain of function looked for was piercing body armor. So maybe you're right.

> but they shouldn't be significantly heavier than an M-1 Garand or an M-14.

Most likely. I imagine the M16 will still be in use.

dittybopper_05H t1_j198kku wrote on December 22, 2022 at 4:36 PM

From what I hear the M-4 is going to still be issued to non-infantry troops, while the actual trigger pullers are going to get the XM5.