What if CETME competed at US Army Trials 1953?

R

riggerrob

I really should change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
11 March 2012
Messages
3,016
Reaction score
2,693
What if the Spanish firm CETME sent Model 58C rifles to the US Army Trials in 1953?

During the early 1950s, the US Army was looking to replace their M1 Garand rifles with a more modern rifle chambered in 7.62 X 51mm NATO. The US Army considered: T44, T47, T48, EM2, FN FAL, and some sources suggest CETME.
The T44 was the updated M1 Garand which eventually became the issue M14 rifle.
T47 was a bullpup prototype built be John Garand that was dropped early during trials.
T48 was the Fabrique Nationale Fusil Automatique Leger widely adopted by many NATO Nations.
EM2 was a short-lived British bullpup that saw only limited service.
CETME Model 58C evolved into the popular Hecker & Koch G3 rifle.

For the sake of simplifying debate, let's pretend that all rifles were chambered for 7.62 X 51mm NATO ammo and let's also pretend that all submissions were almost ready for production with all major "bugs" corrected.
 
riggerrob said:
What if the Spanish firm CETME sent Model 58C rifles to the US Army Trials in 1953?

During the early 1950s, the US Army was looking to replace their M1 Garand rifles with a more modern rifle chambered in 7.62 X 51mm NATO. The US Army considered: T44, T47, T48, EM2, FN FAL, and some sources suggest CETME.
The T44 was the updated M1 Garand which eventually became the issue M14 rifle.
T47 was a bullpup prototype built be John Garand that was dropped early during trials.
T48 was the Fabrique Nationale Fusil Automatique Leger widely adopted by many NATO Nations.
EM2 was a short-lived British bullpup that saw only limited service.
CETME Model 58C evolved into the popular Hecker & Koch G3 rifle.

For the sake of simplifying debate, let's pretend that all rifles were chambered for 7.62 X 51mm NATO ammo and let's also pretend that all submissions were almost ready for production with all major "bugs" corrected.
Click to expand...
On a purely theoretical level, the G3/CETME based rifle is cheaper than the others.
 
Given the mindset of the US Army in the 1950s were they likely to adopt a Foreign design from whatever source?
Perhaps if one of the big US companies had bought the licence and entered it as a US weapon. But they didnt with the FN or EM so probably not.
 
Someone has been reading Roy E. Rayle's book "Random Shots, episodes in the life of a Weapons Developer." He was a U.S. Army armaments engineer who worked on trials that led to adoption of M14, M16, M79, etc..
 
uk 75 said:
Given the mindset of the US Army in the 1950s were they likely to adopt a Foreign design from whatever source?
Perhaps if one of the big US companies had bought the licence and entered it as a US weapon. But they didnt with the FN or EM so probably not.
Click to expand...
This sums it up nicely. The US were hell bent on 7.62 NATO and a US steel and wood weapon. What became the M14 was exactly the rifle they were looking for which would keep Springfield armouries running with "little" changes from the Garand tooling (which wasn't the case).

The M14 gets adopted whatever manufacturer is part of those trials (fictional world or not) as thats what the brass and those with connections up high wanted. In many ways that blunder set us up for the M16 and its later variants so things even out in the long run I guess!
 
One thing that might make this interesting is if the Spanish 7.9mm by 41mm aluminium round was included as an alternative to the 7.62mm by 51mm. As this apparently met both recoil and effective range requirements.
 
Back
Top Bottom