|
Post by DDK_6459 on Jan 29, 2013 19:48:17 GMT -5
What weapons would be suitable for a Marine Gunner?
|
|
HornetWSO
Private 1st Class
"We may not have a history, but we have a rendezvous with destiny!"
Posts: 551
|
Post by HornetWSO on Jan 29, 2013 20:45:40 GMT -5
. . . they used 03's, Garands, Carbines, Reisings, Johnsons, Thompsons, 1918 BAR, and .45's.
If you mean "0331" Machine Gunner as opposed to Warrant Officer "Gunner", then the 1917 was the crew served weapon early in the war and later replaced by the 1919A4. Side arms would be carbines and .45's.
|
|
|
Post by volkssturm on Jan 29, 2013 21:02:32 GMT -5
I've long thought an airsoft Riesing would be a neat weapon. The catch is it would have to be designed to jam frequently. ;D From what I've read, users who weren't dragging them through swamps were reasonably happy with them. Lighter than a Thompson and relatively accurate. Just not muck proof.
|
|
HornetWSO
Private 1st Class
"We may not have a history, but we have a rendezvous with destiny!"
Posts: 551
|
Post by HornetWSO on Jan 29, 2013 21:38:48 GMT -5
. . . along with the muck was the rust, it almost rusted before their eyes in the Pacific.
|
|
|
Post by DDK_6459 on Jan 29, 2013 22:36:44 GMT -5
Honestly, just curious, could you make a M1941 Johnson rifle for airsoft?
|
|
|
Post by brownien on Jan 29, 2013 22:57:54 GMT -5
Why not? I've been toying with the idea of making one with an internal magazine, topped off by a speed loader. And if you can manage to make the barrel removeable like the real one then I have a cookie for you! ;D
|
|
|
Post by volkssturm on Jan 29, 2013 22:58:50 GMT -5
In theory yes. In practice, like most things, it would probably be a lot harder than it looks. I've looked at trying to modify an M14 to look something like the Johnson Rifle, but never got past looking at pictures.
|
|
|
Post by brownien on Jan 29, 2013 23:07:47 GMT -5
On the Johnson, the reciever is verry different from the M14, and the magazine is a bit further forward. It looks like alot of it would be cosmetic, with a bit of structural work needed around the barrel mount and around the upper reciever area. But this is just speculation from photos.
|
|
2nd Bat
Master sergeant
Posts: 11,813
|
Post by 2nd Bat on Jan 30, 2013 0:06:27 GMT -5
like a lot of things a pseudo replica IVAR Johnson is certainly possible but in order for one to be produced with a reasonable materials cost and expenditure of time one would have to be willing to accept a fairly high level of incongruency and infidelities of shape. Even if one is willing to accept the flaws and put in the time it would be a lot to take on. Obviously the M14 would be a logic choice as a base.
|
|
|
Post by DDK_6459 on Jan 30, 2013 10:54:12 GMT -5
But see, I bet a Airsoft company could make a lot of money on an Airsoft M1941, because people aren't looking for everyday guns, they are looking for unique weapons.
|
|
|
Post by brownien on Jan 30, 2013 12:50:02 GMT -5
Possibly, and with the amount of ww2 guns coming out of the woodwork nowadays, a company would be safe in trying to market other types of ww2 airsoft guns. The only problem is, the masses may not want to shell out the money for an airsoft weapon that is not all that famous. I do believe that all the ww2 airsoft guns that have been produced thus far have been because they are very famous weapons. The Thompson, STG44, MP40, MG42, M3 Grease Gun, and as of late, M1 Garand, all are very famous and have a sort of "uber" quality to them. If you carry one into a game, people look at you like "wow! look at that guys gun!" Its not that its unique, like a custom FG42, or Bren gun, or M1903, but that it makes the player look a bit more Bada55. Just like 2ndBat has experienced, it was many years of offering his custom M1 Garand work before a commercial offering was available. I think the same will happen for a Bar10 based K98. Even though these are the weapons we need the majority of ww2 airsoft players to be using to be authentic, there aren't many people who can buy a $400-$500 custom/commercial M1 or K98. From a companies aspect, making the less known, or less usefull in modern gaming guns for us 200-300 strong ww2 airsofters isnt a good decision. Its when the guns that were rarer in ww2, that get produced, such as the Thompson, or Mp40, is when alot of people will buy them and clones become available, and everyone and their mother has one. I wish companies would focus more on the M1's or M1903's or Kar98 springers, rather than obscure creations. then the rarer guns will be the ones that are rarer to see in game! Its all about affordability. As much as I would love to buy a M1941 johnson, I would rather make one myself. I find homemade guns, even with their innaccuracies, are much more rewarding to make and to game with. IMO
Sorry about the wall of text! Once I start I just can't stop! ;D
|
|
|
Post by volkssturm on Jan 30, 2013 13:17:39 GMT -5
On the Johnson, the reciever is verry different from the M14, and the magazine is a bit further forward. It looks like alot of it would be cosmetic, with a bit of structural work needed around the barrel mount and around the upper reciever area. But this is just speculation from photos. My thinking is to do a lot of cosmetic work. Trim down the M14 receiver and then build it up to approximate the shape of the Johnson receiver. Build up the stock to match the Johnson magazine bulge. I was thinking you'd have to leave a slot in the bottom to insert a mag, but the geometry gets difficult because it's further forward. Basically, you'd have a gun that looks OK from 20 feet away.
|
|
2nd Bat
Master sergeant
Posts: 11,813
|
Post by 2nd Bat on Jan 30, 2013 13:59:54 GMT -5
Browniens sums the reality of our weapons challenge quite well. The last few years have brought a flood of new ww2 offerings into the marketplace and the up coming year appears to be very promising. Please understand that for us old time ww2 airsofters your fresh new outlook is almost comical. Until just a few years ago the only ww2 airsoft guns that actually worked well enough to skirmish with and were under $500.00 was a thompson sub machine gun. Everything else either failed to perform adequately enough or was a custom built gun, either at a custom shop with a price over $1200.00 or a home garage with a price around $350.00 to $500.00 and lots of infidelities.
That has been our lot until quite recently with the release of the assorted stg 44s, the sten, the assorted ppshs, the recently added grease gun offerings, the two more affordable BARs. We still dont have a skirmishable KAR98 at low cost. Imagine 15 years thinking like you do about the johnon that a Garand AEG should be built and that it would do well only to see the generally inoperable Marushin Gas Garand introduced and marketed and the AZR abomination kit (which thankfully got better but then went away. Im afraid if the companies took a decade and a half to see a market for the iconic Garand and still havent introduced an AEG carbine, your desires for a Johnson will go unanswered for some time. Companies for the most part dont walk away from profit opportunities but its much easier to reverse engineer someone elses work and undercut them with a clone than spend a hundred thousand in design, tool up, engineering and development and then hope you sell enough volume to recover that initial cost before a competitor jumps in with their cheaper to produce (cause you did all the r&d) offering.
Why arent more fresh offerings available? Frankly given the reality of the marketplace Im just thrilled were finlly getting something. Hopefully they will be successful or else I guarantee you we wont see anymore. If all these new WW2 models are a hit then maybe youll one day see a Johnson. But not in my lifetime probably.
|
|
|
Post by aj czarkowski on Jan 31, 2013 21:23:37 GMT -5
I've long thought an airsoft Riesing would be a neat weapon. The catch is it would have to be designed to jam frequently. ;D From what I've read, users who weren't dragging them through swamps were reasonably happy with them. Lighter than a Thompson and relatively accurate. Just not muck proof. I actually attempted to build an airsoft Reising once. I used the internals of a thompson (which made the trigger and magazine way too close together), and made the reciever out of pvc pipe, which is just what the real one looks like. For the barrel I was going to use the barrel of a 1928 thompson because they look similar. Unfortunately the stock was too thin, and I couldn't fit the internals inside I even tried to make the wire stock for the m55 model I hope that once this summer comes and I have more time to do things I might try to make a wider stock, it was a really fun project while it lasted. One of my favorite books is Battle Cry, so I've been wanting to build one for a while ;D
|
|
stuka
Sergeant
The one and only
Posts: 1,205
|
Post by stuka on Feb 3, 2013 17:04:31 GMT -5
What is so special about the Johnsons?How common were they, the reason i ask is because i have not heard of it until i came to this forum(Not this individual forum but ww2aa as a whole)
|
|
|
Post by DDK_6459 on Feb 3, 2013 18:56:33 GMT -5
Stuka, the M1941 Johnson was a rifle that was built to replace the M1 Garand, but failed. But during WW2, there was backorder of M1 Garands to the front lines. So with production on the Johnson followed through, there was a decent amount of Johnsons distributed, only really Carlson's Raiders (Marine Raiders) and the USMC Paramarines got them.
|
|
|
Post by volkssturm on Feb 3, 2013 19:01:34 GMT -5
The Johnson didn't see very wide use. The Marine wanted it but the Army insisted on standardizing on the M1. The exiled Dutch government placed an order for Johnson rifles and LMGs for the Netherlands East Indies Army, but they weren't delivered before the East Indies fell to the Japanese. The order was sitting on the west coast, so the Marines acquired part of it to arm the paramarines, who used them early in the Solomons campaign. They were replaced when M1s became available. The Army 1st Special Service Force acquired about 125 of the LMGs. The other major user was the OSS, who used them for their teams working with guerrillas in Burma. (Forgot about Carlsons Raiders.)
|
|
2nd Bat
Master sergeant
Posts: 11,813
|
Post by 2nd Bat on Feb 3, 2013 19:51:46 GMT -5
The johnson was a very capable weapon. It had a 10 round internal drum magazine which afforded two additional ready rounds than the garand. The stock went straight back from bolt in a far more modern configuration that reduces muzzle hop. The primary challenges were the upsides to standardization as mentioned above. Another issue was the moveable barrel which some consider a bit complex. It was both harder to field strip and far more likely to lose vital parts when taken down for cleaning. The light machine gun variant probably should have been pusued as a replacement for the BAR but standardizing to the garand was the right call in my opinion.
A cool gun
|
|
|
Post by volkssturm on Feb 4, 2013 14:49:47 GMT -5
In my perfect alternative world, the Johnson would have become the Rifle M2. ;D and the airborne divisions would have been equipped with both the Johnson rifle and the LMG. One of the selling points for airborne use was that the barrel was easily removable, making it easier to pack. I'd also like to get in my time machine and go back and suggest to Melvin Johnson that he replace the long horizontal side mounted magazine on the LMG with a drum like some German machine guns.
Historical trivia: The Israelis bought the manufacturing rights and machinery for the Johnson LMG and produced two versions as the Dror LMG, one with the original magazine design and the second with a bottom feed using modified BAR mags. They had reliability problems in the dusty conditions in the desert.
Oh, yeah. While in the past I'd also try to convince the British to adopt the Johnson for airborne and commando use. Johnson offered it to them. It was pretty easy to convert it to .303 British. But the Brits rejected it. Just think. British reenactors with a semiauto rifle.
|
|
2nd Bat
Master sergeant
Posts: 11,813
|
Post by 2nd Bat on Feb 4, 2013 19:52:12 GMT -5
The Brits did like their Enfields and took great pride in their impressive ability to generate a high rate of fire with them and remarkable accuracy. Their "mad minute" record being remarkable to the point of being hard to believe. Even their minimum standard for this performance measure was incredible to me although off hand I don't remember either. They had to hit a silhouette target a certain number of times in a minute which required several reloads.
|
|
gadge
Corporal
Posts: 1,199
|
Post by gadge on Feb 4, 2013 20:18:22 GMT -5
I think you're missing the point of the way the british army has always worked (and still does), as a former British soldier i can tell you its *all* about aimed shots that why we didnt have a fully automatic small arm until the mid 80s. Accuracy over range and carefully taken shots have always been preferred over 'volume of fire' and to be fair it worked pretty well. Obviously the changing nature of war meant that engagement ranges were rarely over 500 metres and urban engagements with a requirement for full auto were more common. even with the L85 we trained to take single aimed shots at a rate of one round every 6 seconds as standard (known as 'deliberate rate') and one round every 2 seconds (known as 'rapid rate') if you needed to 'win the firefight' and really put heads down. Full auto fire was only used (outside of FIBUA) for either clearing a trench or position after you've put a grenade in as part of the final assault *or* if 3rd shock were five metres away and about to 'visit' your position. A lot of this comes from the fact we dont have the extensive logistics train other armies have and we have to hump every round so you make every one count. ironically we would have put a groundbreaking personal weapon into the field in 1949 firing a 7mm/.280 round (now considered to be the perfect small arms round) but you chaps kept insisting on silly calibres with regards to rapid enfield fire, mad minute was approx 60 rounds a minute, most of them on target. The myth is that WWI germans thought they were under machine gun fire, the reality is that the enfields were fired 'indirectly' on the same sort of trajectory the MMGs were fired on leading the germans to believe that they were being attacked by machine guns *this* way. Mad minute fire isnt that hard with a bit of practice. The key is to use the thumb and forefinger to work the bolt and use your second finger to pull the trigger. Obviously you lose time in the reloads but you can fire off ten rounds in a *very* short time. The sad fact about making mass production airsoft guns is that unless a rifle/smg etc is used in a big hollywood film or a big computer game the big companies wont take the risk on it. The only exceptions are *very* iconic small arms.
|
|
|
Post by volkssturm on Feb 7, 2013 20:21:48 GMT -5
I ran across this article on the Johnson which has some more detail on its use by the Marines. Make spme allowance for the author being a Jhnson Rifle fan. ;D foxtrot666.hubpages.com/hub/The-Marine-Model-Johnson-M1941-Semi-Automatic-RifleOne thing I found interesting. He mentions at one point paramarines having three fire teams of three men each in a squad, and each fire team having one Johnson LMG and two johnson rifles. For WWII that was some serious fire power, considering Army squads initially had (if I recall correctly) one BAR.
|
|