Comments by "Sar Jim" (@sarjim4381) on "The FAL for British Troop Trials in 1954: X8E1 & X8E2" video.

I've never understood why the US was (mostly) fully equipped with self loading rifle by Pearl Harbor, at the end of 1941, yet it took the British sixteen years to accomplish the same thing. Why this gap? There must be a reasonable explanation.
4
@johnfisk811 "Cocked it all up" is a term that makes it sound as if Churchill's decision was capricious. The British had just gone through a war with their major ally using ammunition that wasn't used by the British. That created massive logistical problems, since ammunition showing up at the front might be the wrong types for most of the guns in use at that front. Churchill was determined, and I think rightly so, not to repeat that mistake, since both countries were adopting new ammunition at about the same time. Churchill hope the US would adopt the .280 round and even the EM-2 rifle. The US was adamant the an intermediate round was not powerful enough for a battle rifle, and Canada had already committed to adopting whatever round the US chose. Australia wasn't far behind on that decision, so it was clear that the 7.62 NATO round was going to be the winner. We can argue id the round itself was really the right one but, for the first time in history, the armies of what would be major allies in war would be carrying, if not the same rifles, at least the same ammunition. It may be hard to realize looking back over seventy years what a big deal that really was. While interesting, none of this answering my original question. Why did it take so long for the British to adopt a self loading rifle? Even if we use the adoption date of the EM-2 as benchmark, that was still fourteen years after the M-1 was adopted in 1937.
3
@ScottKenny1978 I understand that, but the US had millions of 1903 Springfields and 1917 Enfields on hand as well. That didn't stop the Army from standardizing on the Grand in 1937. I also realize the Axis armies mostly had bolt actions in service most of the war. Again, that doesn't explain why the US took the jump and the other countries, but especially Britain, did not.
1
@ScottKenny1978 At least as many people were unemployed in Britain during the Depression as in the US, so I find that explanation hard to accept. As far as a walking fire rifle, that must have had appeal to every army, so why was the US the only one adopt the self loader as standard before WWII? I keep reading why the M-1 was invented, not why is was the only issued as standard to a large army. I'm still interest in particular why it took the British so long to come to the same conclusion, even as they started fighting guerilla wars against opponents armed with the likes of the AK-47 and surplus StG 44s.
1
@ScottKenny1978 Whoa, wait a minute. The RN didn't have fire resistant bulkheads on ships in 1982? I've been an amatuer naval historian for about fifty years and never heard of such a thing. And how exactly would a bulkhead be made fireproof? The nature of a steel bulkhead is such that it's already about as fireproof as it's ever going to get. Every RN warship in service in 1982 had steel bulkheads. The only aluminum in use was for some superstructure components, and there's no evidence the they contributed to the sinking or fires on any of those ships. I'm going to need a link before I buy into that. The uS Congress was famous for being the most penny pinching legislature on earth. They never wanted to spend money when there was any way to avoid it. The M-1 was also not a cheap gun to make, especially when compared t the 1903. To some extent, this was part of the many make work programs initiated during the Depression, but the Army was able to convince some of their powerful friends on the Armed Services Committee that a self loading rifle could save money if we had to enlist few men, with each man having the firepower of two riflemen carrying the 1903. Maybe the British never made that pitch to the government? The British saw war as closer in the horizon that the US since we expected to remain neutral even if war broke out, yet we had the better battle rifle in terms of firepower. I've still yet to see a cogent explanation for this.
1
@GeorgiaBoy1961 The US had studied the SMLE when they were looking at an SLR. The idea of a 10 round capacity was one of the goals, but having the entire 10 rounds loaded from a single enbloc clip. This worked with the original .276 round, but the 30.06 was just enough larger the designers couldn't find a way to make enough room in receiver for ten rounds without having to make the floor plate extend below the bottom of the rifle, something they wanted to avoid, since a smooth lower profile made it easier to shoulder and stack the rifle. Thus, the eight round clip was the compromise
1