I don't disagree with any of the key points above. I do suspect "Rate of Fire" (ROF) has been a "perceived" benefit and even by those that fielded machine guns. In the eyes of many and on occasion to those who experienced the need volume suppressing fire - more is better (in certain circumstances) In WW2 there were accounts of field expedient lightening 1919 bolts by Machine gunners to increase ROF. Sometimes increased ROF is perceived as better even when it actually is not overall.
A heavier bolt or an extended receiver on the rear (like some of the early prototypes) would allow more bolt travel time to lower rate of fire. I am of the opinion there was a deliberate arrival for the high ROF on the MAC if only that it was amazing which made the appearance of being extra novelty. I can imagine the wow factor marketing of "As fast as an MG42, but quiet and portable" - "Appearing" impressive and investors often make decisions based on what sounds novel and impressive.
The near adoption of HK XM8 is an example of the enthusiastic stakeholders in the bureaucracy driving the decision ahead of the end users needs based on "perceived" benefits. The MAC thinking may have not been wrong conceptually.
The M11 and possibly M10 could have filled niche roles like pilot survival weapon, armor crews, and rear echelon PDWs. Around the same time Warsaw Pact troops were fielding Vz61s, PM63s, which were small smgs offered in anemic cartridges but effective in their own space. In these roles, most certainly a slower ROF would be desired as they run out of ammo too fast.
Sometimes a good idea suffers from bad connections and timing.
I worked on a project with Kodak to build an M16 combat optic.
Kodak being a large optics manufacturer fancied itself able to make an inexpensive scope for the M16 rifles. This was taken up only by those in management based upon perceived needs that the M16 could be enhanced by the addition of an inexpensive but valuable optics.
This wasn't out of a Broad Agency Announcement at all or DARPA which they had worked through before - just a think it up build it and see if the government likes it or if not the US government possibly the US allies (Israel) was one I recall them mentioning.
It was a robust injection molded optic where it's rigid construction made it indestructible. It was illuminated reticle with tritium, AND a quick detach night vision tube.
Ultimately Kodak suffered on two fronts - the lack of actual firearm experience by professional photographer optical engineers who designed the optic and bad timing and a poor Liaison. You can see an example in the first edition of "The Black Rifle"
Scope had it all except NO PROVISION FOR ADJUSTMENT ! Which was told to engineers would lead to failure every day for a year.
When they corrected it they added a huge cost because they parternered with ARMS/Swan to make the adjustable mount at $300 per mount and a $30 scope??!!! Cost was too high and military wasn't interested in wider use optics for rifles. Rather than retool and refine, the project was dumped and equipment destroyed written off. Kodak hired a retired General to advocate the scope , but he used his money to build alliances from top staffers down to not work within the existing process and he got nowhere besides promises that never connected. A few years later we see Flat top ARs and more optical use.
Timing for a good product means a lot, but having as many issues worked out so you don't lose momentum and proper understanding of a-typical military fulfillment.
A heavier bolt or an extended receiver on the rear (like some of the early prototypes) would allow more bolt travel time to lower rate of fire. I am of the opinion there was a deliberate arrival for the high ROF on the MAC if only that it was amazing which made the appearance of being extra novelty. I can imagine the wow factor marketing of "As fast as an MG42, but quiet and portable" - "Appearing" impressive and investors often make decisions based on what sounds novel and impressive.
The near adoption of HK XM8 is an example of the enthusiastic stakeholders in the bureaucracy driving the decision ahead of the end users needs based on "perceived" benefits. The MAC thinking may have not been wrong conceptually.
The M11 and possibly M10 could have filled niche roles like pilot survival weapon, armor crews, and rear echelon PDWs. Around the same time Warsaw Pact troops were fielding Vz61s, PM63s, which were small smgs offered in anemic cartridges but effective in their own space. In these roles, most certainly a slower ROF would be desired as they run out of ammo too fast.
Sometimes a good idea suffers from bad connections and timing.
I worked on a project with Kodak to build an M16 combat optic.
Kodak being a large optics manufacturer fancied itself able to make an inexpensive scope for the M16 rifles. This was taken up only by those in management based upon perceived needs that the M16 could be enhanced by the addition of an inexpensive but valuable optics.
This wasn't out of a Broad Agency Announcement at all or DARPA which they had worked through before - just a think it up build it and see if the government likes it or if not the US government possibly the US allies (Israel) was one I recall them mentioning.
It was a robust injection molded optic where it's rigid construction made it indestructible. It was illuminated reticle with tritium, AND a quick detach night vision tube.
Ultimately Kodak suffered on two fronts - the lack of actual firearm experience by professional photographer optical engineers who designed the optic and bad timing and a poor Liaison. You can see an example in the first edition of "The Black Rifle"
Scope had it all except NO PROVISION FOR ADJUSTMENT ! Which was told to engineers would lead to failure every day for a year.
When they corrected it they added a huge cost because they parternered with ARMS/Swan to make the adjustable mount at $300 per mount and a $30 scope??!!! Cost was too high and military wasn't interested in wider use optics for rifles. Rather than retool and refine, the project was dumped and equipment destroyed written off. Kodak hired a retired General to advocate the scope , but he used his money to build alliances from top staffers down to not work within the existing process and he got nowhere besides promises that never connected. A few years later we see Flat top ARs and more optical use.
Timing for a good product means a lot, but having as many issues worked out so you don't lose momentum and proper understanding of a-typical military fulfillment.
