Owen and F1

[PFC Luu [29ID]]

What is the point of the F1 when the Owen is statistically better? Also a bayonet on an SMG seems goofy.

[Frenchy56]

Because it's a relatively unknown weapon that was still commonly used by a relatively unknown army.

[Rei]

Well now let's not get into the fact that the Japanese put bayonets on their machine guns...

[Frenchy56]

Originally posted by Rootin Tootin Putin:

Well now let's not get into the fact that the Japanese put bayonets on their machine guns...

You could put a bayonet on the Sten Mk. V , the Lanchester and the Sterling.

[Rei]

Originally posted by Frenchy56:

Originally posted by Rootin Tootin Putin:

Well now let's not get into the fact that the Japanese put bayonets on their machine guns...

You could put a bayonet on the Sten Mk. V , the Lanchester and the Sterling.

As well as on the Type 100.

[PFC Luu [29ID]]

I know a lot of non rifles had bayonets (FG-42 for an example), but I don't see the point in one.

[AccelExhilar]

I'm curious about this question too, what is the realistic purpose of the F1 over the Owens. Why was it replaced?

[CeSium]

The F1 has slightly better iron sights than the Owen, at least for me. That's really all I can see, and even then the Owen is still a great gun.

As for the bayonets, they were WW2 era SMG's, plus, they did not feature retractable stocks.

[Spaghetti Western]

The Australian army's Owens had had 20-25 years of hard use all through SE Asia by the time of South Vietnam. The verenable old Owen was replaced because they were worn, considered heavy, & was thought the concept could be compacted, improved/updated for further simplified mass production, parts interchangeability, Nato interoberability etc

It was a phased replacement, so both designs were in service simaltaneously.
The new F1 design could use both Sterling & Owen type mags, the SLR bayo or its own proprietary bayo reversed & hiddden inside the barrel shroud.

As for bayonets on SMG's? If you personally can't see the point, just dont fit one! or alternately raise this issue further, with someone who cares.

[petiatil]

Originally posted by Pvt. Luu 29ID:

I know a lot of non rifles had bayonets (FG-42 for an example), but I don't see the point in one.

Tradition.
To stab stuff.
Looks intimidating if they are guarding POWs.
The discipline and mindset instilled when training with it. <-- main reason

[Zhargov, Thot Destroyer]

Originally posted by Pvt. Luu 29ID:

I know a lot of non rifles had bayonets (FG-42 for an example), but I don't see the point in one.

FG-42 is a rifle. An automatic rifle.

[PFC Luu [29ID]]

Originally posted by Zhargov, Thot Destroyer:

Originally posted by Pvt. Luu 29ID:

I know a lot of non rifles had bayonets (FG-42 for an example), but I don't see the point in one.

FG-42 is a rifle. An automatic rifle.

It fires from the open bolt. So no.

[Frenchy56]

Originally posted by Pvt. Luu 29ID:

Originally posted by Zhargov, Thot Destroyer:

FG-42 is a rifle. An automatic rifle.

It fires from the open bolt. So no.

The hell does that have to do with the fact that it's a rifle?

Yes, most SMGs used to be open bolt, however automatic rifles are still rifles.
You could call it a battle rifle if you stretch it.

[Frenchy56]

Originally posted by Maki:

ATF

no dogs were harmed in this thread

[Maki Nishikino]

Originally posted by Frenchy56:

Originally posted by Maki:

ATF

no dogs were harmed in this thread

Yeah, got rid of my post for that reason. I knew it's only going to cause trouble. :s

[Frenchy56]

Originally posted by Maki:

Originally posted by Frenchy56:

no dogs were harmed in this thread

Yeah, got rid of my post for that reason. I knew it's only going to cause trouble. :s

Man, it's cool. No one's gonna argue about the ATF in this place. At least I ain't ever seen it.