07-11-2019, 08:56 AM
stanc Wrote:1. Placing priority on one concept only means that particular concept is preferred. It does not mean that another concept is unproven.
We can agree to disagree. Today the gas port is proven and the gas trap would not even be considered. Back in the 30's, the gas port was not proven or the gas trap wouldn't have even been considered.
stanc Wrote:1.2. If the gas port concept had been unproven, the Lewis Gun would not have seen such widespread use. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_gun#Users
The Lewis gun was rejected by the US military and was not universally excepted in the US. New ideas and concepts we take for granted today were not so easily excepted by bureaucracies of their time. The Maxim, M-16, STG44 were all originally rejected by their parent nation.
stanc Wrote:1.If that were true, US soldiers would've been slaughtered en masse as they attempted to clear the massive numbers of magazine-caused stoppages.
The Reising was detested by every one, the M-3 Grease gun used the single feed magazine when double feed magazines had been available for years. The Germans, English and Russians also used the less desirable single feed magazine. Single feed mags were hard to load and were prone to malfunction compared to double feed magazines. Today we never see single feed magazines for SMG's, just like gas trap systems for small arms. The M-1 carbines magazine was not exactly bullet proof like modern rifle mags used in the AK or M-4. The throw away M-16 magazine was another failed idea which cost lives. Proven concepts we all understand and except today were not so understood or excepted back in the 30's,40's 50's and even 60's.
stanc Wrote:That never happened, because most of those supposedly "dismal at best" magazines actually worked quite well.
This is the exact same argument the supporters of the M-14 used to stifle the M-16.