I question whether logistics came into play with the decision to use the eight round end block clip. There had been a concern about repeating rifles back to the civil war in regards to ammunition consumption. Many times decisions are made by committee which results in compromises.
The M-16/M-4 hasn’t been replaced because it has been considered good enough. There may have been some people advocating for a detachable box magazine and intermediate caliber prior to adoption of the M-1 Garand but obviously their argument wasn’t persuasive.
Army ordinance made the decision to adopt the 30-40 caliber Krag-Jorgensen because they liked the side loading gate. In the Spanish American War the 30-40 Krag was completely out classed by the Mauser. The 30-40 Krag was adopted in the 1890’s a mere 45 years prior to the M-1 Garand. The 30-40 Krag replaced the 45-70 Trap Door Springfield so comparing the M-1 Garand to a 45-70 Trap Door, 30-40 Krag or 1903 Springfield the M-1 Garand looks pretty revolutionary to me.
Considering preceding small arms decisions by the US Army I’m not surprised by the adoption of the M-1 Garand. The main emphasis for adopting a semi auto pistol was for Calvary troops where it was difficult to reload a revolver on horse back. Standardization is prioritized and the reason the use of the top break S&W Schofield revolver was discontinued by the US Army was because it used a different 45 caliber pistol cartridge than the more plentiful Colt Single Action Army .
Hind sight indicates an intermediate cartridge in a detachable box magazine would have probably been a reasonable decision. I’m curious if a hundred years from now will firearms enthusiasts question why the US adopted and retained the M-16 pattern SCHV box fed rifle as long as they did. Much easier to question the past and a lot harder to predict the future.
The M-16/M-4 hasn’t been replaced because it has been considered good enough. There may have been some people advocating for a detachable box magazine and intermediate caliber prior to adoption of the M-1 Garand but obviously their argument wasn’t persuasive.
Army ordinance made the decision to adopt the 30-40 caliber Krag-Jorgensen because they liked the side loading gate. In the Spanish American War the 30-40 Krag was completely out classed by the Mauser. The 30-40 Krag was adopted in the 1890’s a mere 45 years prior to the M-1 Garand. The 30-40 Krag replaced the 45-70 Trap Door Springfield so comparing the M-1 Garand to a 45-70 Trap Door, 30-40 Krag or 1903 Springfield the M-1 Garand looks pretty revolutionary to me.
Considering preceding small arms decisions by the US Army I’m not surprised by the adoption of the M-1 Garand. The main emphasis for adopting a semi auto pistol was for Calvary troops where it was difficult to reload a revolver on horse back. Standardization is prioritized and the reason the use of the top break S&W Schofield revolver was discontinued by the US Army was because it used a different 45 caliber pistol cartridge than the more plentiful Colt Single Action Army .
Hind sight indicates an intermediate cartridge in a detachable box magazine would have probably been a reasonable decision. I’m curious if a hundred years from now will firearms enthusiasts question why the US adopted and retained the M-16 pattern SCHV box fed rifle as long as they did. Much easier to question the past and a lot harder to predict the future.