Synopsis of T44 Testing from 1951 through 1953 - Page 2 - M14 Forum
M14 Forum Keeping the M14 tradition alive!  

Synopsis of T44 Testing from 1951 through 1953

This is a discussion on Synopsis of T44 Testing from 1951 through 1953 within the The M14 forums, part of the M14 M1A Forum category; Originally Posted by Random Guy Its too bad about the innovative T25 rifle, which I think had a much more ergonomic design of the stock ...

Go Back   M14 Forum > M14 M1A Forum > The M14

LinkBack Moderator Tools Display Modes

Old May 13th, 2020, 09:07 AM   #16
lysander's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 4,187

Awards Showcase

Originally Posted by Random Guy View Post
Its too bad about the innovative T25 rifle, which I think had a much more ergonomic design of the stock would lend itself to be more controllable in full-auto fire than the traditional T44 stocks. Apparently the action of the T25 was also incredible strong...

...This debate will never be settled, but the T25 was a neat design that apparently didn't get a fair evaluation. It's too bad that the 'rate reducer' was abandoned on the T44 program, as I think John Garand was right about it being needed in a fully auto using the full-power cartridge. Anyhow, thanks for all the historical info.
It got a fair shake, in fact, it got two fair shakes.

The T25 wasn't all that good a rifle. In 1949-50, it was the front runner for the lightweight rifle program. In 1950, the T25 was tested along with the British EM-2 and the FN FAL (the later two in .280 British).

The T25 had better semi-automatic accuracy, did well enough in the rain, sea water immersion, and grenade tests, but was the worst performer in mud, dust and dry tests. It ejected almost straight up, so spent brass had a tendency to rain on your head during full auto fire, or if firing from the hip, fly straight into your face, it was difficult to field strip, the magazine was described as "leaves much to be desired", and broke a lot of parts.

The report ranked it third of the three, however it did qualify that in stating is was the only one of the three the shoot a full power cartridge.

After that test the T25 went back to the drawing board and was largely redesigned from muzzle to butt plate and re-designated the T47. Mainly simplifying it by removing the "open-bolt full auto" feature, and attempting to correct some of the faults, with varying degrees of success.

I didn't mention it, but at the last two tests done by the Army Field Forces, the temperate and arctic tests of 1953 - 54, the T47 was present and tested alongside the T44 and the FN. It did not fair very well again. Its performance was sufficiently below both the T44 and FN they didn't even bother suggesting changes.

Oh, and just in case you think I am just parroting biased reports, I'll allow you to decide for yourselves on where the the T25/T47 was really worth pursuing as a replacement for the M1 Garand: Here are the tools listed in the "Operator's Manual" for field stripping the T47:

- Drift, Brass, Large
- Drift, Brass, Small
- Hammer, Small, Brass
- Screwdriver
- Tool, Trigger Guard Release
- Wrench, Allen Head
- Wrench, Gas Cylinder Plug

Last edited by lysander; May 13th, 2020 at 11:03 AM.
lysander is offline  
Remove Ads

  M14 Forum > M14 M1A Forum > The M14

Moderator Tools
Display Modes

Top Gun Sites Top Sites List