Why did Britain not take up semi-auto rifles?

The British did develop a new rifle pre-WWII to deal w/ the deficiencies of the SMLE. The Rifle No. 4 was somewhat cheaper to manufacture, had a receiver mounted peep sight & a heavier barrel than the SMLE. The new rifle was close enough in operation to the old that there was no problem w/ troop training to use either type. Both the SMLE & the No. 4 were use into the mid 1950's when the FAL replaced both.
British infantry tactics had the riflemen of the squad being supported by the excellent BREN gun. In practice their infantry squads had firepower probably close to that of a US squad of soldiers armed w/ the M1 & BAR.

 

very true but in the end it was still practically the same exact rifle with almost no differences to the original weapon used in ww1 and not to mention the overall hit ratio of a bolt action was alot of times better than that of any semi automatic rifle at the time seeing as u.s. marines liked there springfields better because they thought it was far more accurate than the m1 garand so they didn't catch onto the garands full potential at the time which might have been what happened to britain

 

He probably meant P17.
M1917 Enfield - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

I think it was for a very short period of time that the average Marine rifleman preferred the 1903 to the M1. People will resist moving from a piece of equipment they know to one which seems more complicated regardless of any implied superiority of the new item. I see it every time a new software platform in introduced in my workplace.
After the M1 armed US Army units began to have an affect in the Guadalcanal campaign the Garand had proved that it's accuracy & reliablilty made it a superior rifleman's weapon to the Springfield. Lt. Col. John George noted in his book "Shots Fired in Anger" that Marines on Guadalcanal made no bones about the fact that if an M1 armed soldier were to be hit & drop his Garand they (the Marines) would not hesitate to pick & use the semi-auto rifle.

 

exactly

 

Why couldn't the British adopt (at least temporarily during the war) the Garand, and manufacture it domestically under license? They flew our planes, drove our tanks, trucks and jeeps, and floated in our boats etc, so what was the problem with shooting our rifles? If the Japanese didn't surrender when they did and Operation Downfall had to be put into motion, the Commonwealth Corps was going to equipped with US gear (kit) from head to toe, including the Garand to simplify the logistical concerns (and Mac's ego). Of course earlier in the war this factor was not in play, but there could have been some sort of consideration on the matter at least. And during the post war period, they could have developed their own semi-automatic rifle. Just an idea.

 

Simple-- domestic ammo production was of the .303 variety. We couldn't have afforded to ship over 30-06 ammo plants and still met our quotas. Same goes for the Garand.

As for post-war, the Brits did conduct small arms R&D on captured designs and applied that knowledge to the semi-auto rifle Vs. assault rifle debate. Ever hear of the EM-1 & EM-2 bullpup rifles? They became the foundation for today's L85. Initial tests were for rifles chambered for full-power rifle calibers. They then experimented with engineering the optimum assault rifle round, the 7x43mm. That round was soon dropped in favor of the 7.62x51mm Nato round.

 

the british high command also thought that the infantry would expend too much ammo with a semi-automatic and it would cause problems with supply, I bet the guys who come up with this statement were about 500 miles away in england somewhere and not facing lead being fired at them.

 

The actual debate about the service rifle and explanations stemmed from doctrine. The ammo expenditure would cause a massive log tail, hindering the mobile warfare that the British Army championed.

Oddly enough the same men deducted that firepower was needed to allow for manouvre, but argued that the trained infantry man could lay down just as much fire with the Lee Enfield than a semi automatic. (which utterly contradict their log tail arguement.)

The decision to go for the 25pdr gun also rested on the mobility of the gun, and versatility as a at platform.

In many ways the selection of kit for the British Army streamlined it for mobile warfare to such a degree that it robbed them of enough generic firepower to do set piece battles.

(this was remedied during the war with the AGRA)

A good primer for the interwar army is David French "Raising Churchills Army, The British Army and the War against Germany 1919-1945."

 

Here's a pic of the 40rd mag from Rock in a Hard Place.
View attachment 12476

 

The British were interested in adopting the Pedersen rifle if the US did. The US did not adopt it, so they did not. Given more years I'm sure they would have gotten around to developing and adopting a semi-auto rifle, but they had limited resources due to the depression, plenty of higher-priority R&D to do, and freaking Nazis swarming all over the Continent.

 

I can't say I've heard of the Brits looking at the Pedersen. Do you have a source for it? As for the Nazi problem... don't forget the Brits (and some in the US) were fawning all over Hitler and his great "accomplishments"-- until he invaded Poland.

 

That's hardly correct. Indeed look at the British defence spending in 38 and 39.

 

Owning both I think that they are both great rifles. I believe that one would have more of a tendancy to "spray and pray" in a combat situation with the M1 than the LE. This of course would create supply problems.

Another thing is reliabilty in harsh enviroments, again I believe that the LE was superior in this respect as it was a simpler design.

Now as to shooting, the mad imute has already been mentioned but Sgt. Snoxall has not I believe, so here is a quote.

"The current world record for aimed bolt-action fire was set in 1914 by a musketry instructor in the British Army—Sergeant Instructor Snoxall—who placed 38 rounds into a 12-inch-wide (300 mm) target at 300 yards (270 m) in one minute"

Not bad eh?

The M1 is my favourite as it is more fun to shoot. But I would suggest that the LE has has taken more big game than the M1, it would appear that hunters perfer the LE.

KTK

 

Check it out, they even made some of them:

Milsurps - The Vickers-Pedersen (Part One)

The good Mr. Williams also mentions it:

THE WHITE RIFLES

 

OMG. You just schooled sf_2. Welcome MR.

 

Maybe he was thinking of the Johnson Rifle. It was adopted by the 1st SSF, which of course partly Canadian in composition. I think the Marine Corps adopted it too.

 

Maybe refering to the Pederson Device?

Pedersen device - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

KTK

 

Check the links supplied above; I definitely meant that the British military was interested in adopting the Pedersen rifle; the one in .276 with hard wax lubricated cartridges with a Schwarzlose-style toggle-retarded blowback operating system, and have provided evidence that this was indeed the case.

 

Ok, that's good enough for me.