Comments by "" (@neutronalchemist3241) on "Denmark's m/75: A Lease-to-Own Rifle" video.

A pragmatic decision would have been to convert the M1 to BM59 standard in the early '60s. They would have had a serviceable battle rifle / grenade launcher / occasional LMG until the adoption of an intermediate cartridge.
6
Infact. The Germans gave away almost for free rifles that they would have not used anyway (except in very dire situations) because they were early iterations. A pragmatic approach.
2
@andersjjensen Did you have a blank-firing adapter (a device put on the muzzle of the barrel when blank firing, so to enhance the pressure generated by blank cartridges)? Without that, it's a miracle it cycled at all.
1
@jameshealy4594 Full auto 7.62 makes sense if it comes with a bipod and a muzzle-brake / compensator (a la BM59). That way the rifle can be used as an occasional LMG.
1
@DebatingWombat I said in the early '60. A that time, battle rifles were not on their way out. They had just been adopted. And the BM59 was no inferior to the FAL and the G3. It had some advantage actually. The use of the battle rifle as an occasional LMG is not due to the fact that you lack actual LMGs, but to the fact that the LMG gunner (or the SAW gunner) not always is in the best position to do its job, or can reach it. A battle rifle with a bipod and a muzzle brake / compensator can OCCASIONALLY replace it and spare some life. Knowing that you have such a possibility also gives to your squad more elasticity. The conversion job could have been done by Madsen. The pragmatic choice, if you don't have to fight a war, would be to not have an army, fact is that you don't know if you'll have to fight a war. Fact is that, until 1973, the Danish government run it's military on a VERY strict budget. That's why only then they started to look around for a new rifle.
1
@DebatingWombat Being a modification of existing rifles, the BM59 was the cheapest solution by far (in 1962 it costed $42 per rifle) and, if you didn't want even those limited money to exit from your country, it didn't require the domestic arms producer to retool to produce new rifles of whatever model.
1
@DebatingWombat The BM59 is not a new rifle. Is a modification of existing rifles. It doesn't need the tooling needed to manufacture new rifles. Prerequisite for the BM59 to be a cheap solution, is to have M1 Garands to modify. Denmark had them.
1
@DebatingWombat Again, I know what Ian said, that's why I specified "in the early '60s". I't pretty obvious Danish decided to do differently. US moved form the M1 Garand to the M14. Again, prerequisite for the BM59 to be a cheap solution, is to have M1 Garands to modify. Denmark had them. Denmark didn't adopt the solution of its "northern neighbours" also. It remained with a pattern that none was using any more. "Had Denmark bought into a Beretta solution", they would have had a serviceable battle rifle for all the time needed to adopt a serviceable assault rifle. The possibility to have spare part for them was EXACTLY the same than to have spare parts for the M1 Garand. Sticking with the Garand they would have had no upgrades at all, since the BM59 was THE upgrade for the M1 Garand. In mid to late '60 the BM59 was still not a worse battle rifle than the G3. It was still not a worse battle rifle than the G3 in mid to late '90s for that matter.
1
@DebatingWombat The choice of Denmark had been to stick with a rifle everyone else phased out. The choice of others had been to adopt a battle rifle. The BM59 was a battle rifle. Again, prerequisite for the BM59 to be a cheap solution, is to have M1 Garands to modify. Denmark had them. I never said they were searching for something. I said it would have been a pragmatic decision. The US didn't stick with the M1 Garand. Italy didn't take a different path. Italy adopted a battle rifle. Denmark took a different path not adopting one until 1977 (when they were already becoming outdated).
1
1 Danish Krone per year per rifle would have been practically a "symbolic" payment.
1