>>64222398
>BSA Autorifle
The fucking Thompson design with the Blish lock? That thing was a complete hunk of shit, why do you think they never saw mass production?

>>64222434
>despite the Johnson being objectively better
It's fucking not. The Johnson was a pretty good rifle, but it couldn't take a real bayonet, and it couldn't take a grenade launcher, both things which the M1 could.
The Johnson holds two more rounds, but you're loading that with a pair of 5rd stripper clips, whereas the M1 has you load a single 8rd en-bloc which it then spits out for you when finished, locking open to load the next one.

The Paramarines liked the Johnson because they couldn't get Garands like they wanted, and it was an ok substitute for that, but replacing the M1 with the Johnson would in ideal circumstances have been a colossal sidegrade. There's literally no good reason to do that.

>It's the same reason the MIC didn't adopt the EM-2 the Bongs developed (or more specifically, .270 British/.280 British)
The EM2 really isn't as good as you think that it is (and .270/.280 certainly isn't either). Churchill was right to pick the FAL instead.

>as Garand essentially bribed to keep them around and funded propaganda that you can't risk losing small arms monopoly to the Bongs.
What kind of delusional nonsense is this? The 7.62mm NATO autism was pretty much entirely René Studler's fault.

>Now, 50 years later, we're adopting Fury and Sneedmore is around.
.277 Fury is a retarded cartridge for a retarded weapon's program.