which WWII USA weapon would you choose ?
DeserTBob's futile efforts
often pondered myself.
if you had to go into battle using WWII vintage American firearms,
which one would you choose ? by this I mean, longarms- the 1911
pistol would be the obvious sidearm of choice
most of use all know the guns in question. I for one would not want
to lug around a heavy M-1 Garand. The same goes for the BAR, which is
even heavier. The grease gun also would lack sufficient range with
it's short barrel.
so that boiled it down to the Thompson submachine gun vs. M-2 carbine,
both with select-fire
and being the 30 carbine round is so dimunitive and under-powered
compared to the 45 ACP, the winner in my mind, was the Tommy gun
any opinions ?
there is one gun I left out, but I have no experience with, the Johnson
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Learn about rec.guns at http://www.recguns.net
Win a Fulton Armory Tactical Titan .308 while defending liberty. The
MPFO summer rifle raffle is now under way at http://www.myguns.net
--------------------------------------------------------------------
oldpink
# someone asked me a good question this week, and it's a question I've
# often pondered myself.
#
# if you had to go into battle using WWII vintage American firearms,
# which one would you choose ? by this I mean, longarms- the 1911
# pistol would be the obvious sidearm of choice
#
# most of use all know the guns in question. I for one would not want
# to lug around a heavy M-1 Garand. The same goes for the BAR, which is
Ummm...I would.
General George Patton was right.
# even heavier. The grease gun also would lack sufficient range with
# it's short barrel.
#
# so that boiled it down to the Thompson submachine gun vs. M-2 carbine,
# both with select-fire
#
# and being the 30 carbine round is so dimunitive and under-powered
# compared to the 45 ACP, the winner in my mind, was the Tommy gun
Why do you believe that the 1927 Thompson would outclass the Grease Gun
for long range work?
# any opinions ?
Springfield 1903A3 with top of the line scope.
# there is one gun I left out, but I have no experience with, the Johnson
My personal pick would be the M2 Browning, though.
;-)
--
And what exactly is a joke?
.
ToddP
<midwaysearai...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> ...
I'd opt for the M-1 - "the gun that won the war"
Del
# often pondered myself.
#
What type of battle? Very important when choosing a weapon.
Long range?, jungle?, desert, hand to hand, "house cleaning"?,.....
Del
Trenton G. Twining
# often pondered myself.
#
# which one would you choose ? by this I mean, longarms- the 1911
# pistol would be the obvious sidearm of choice
#
# most of use all know the guns in question. I for one would not want
# to lug around a heavy M-1 Garand.
>
It ain't heavy, it's my Garand. No contest; make it any weapon used by
any major power in WWII and it's the "Rifle, Caliber .30, M1", Garand.
In 2nd place it would be too close to call between the "Rifle, Caliber
.30, M1903" and the Mosin-Nagant. But I'd _much_ rather reload a Garand
while under pressure.
<SNIP>
--
"Marriage is the only adventure open to the cowardly."
- Voltaire, philosopher (1694-1778)
Trenton G. Twining
Hank
'the greatest battle implement ever devised'
I'd rather be able to reach out and touch someone than be limited to
the .45, and semi auto is good enough for me. If I have to jump out
of a boat and carry it through the surf I might revise my choice.
Bill Poole
# which one would you choose ? .....I for one would not want
# to lug around a heavy M-1 Garand.
# so that boiled it down to the Thompson submachine gun vs. M-2 carbine,
# both with select-fire
M1 Garand Rifle!!!!!
the Thompson is about as heavy as an M1 garand Rifle, and much much shorter
range capability
select fire in the M2 allows you to MISS a LOT
here, try this.... get an M1 Garand, go shoot CMP National Match competition
at 200, 300 adn 600 yards, do that for a year or two, get good at it....
YOU WILL LOVE THE GARAND!!!!!
there is no way you'd choose anything other than an M1 for your hypothetical
question!
(but if you stick with High power competition you will convert to the AR-15)
Poole
http://arizona.rifleshooting.com/
z...@flub.net
no contest.
Z
On Sat, 8 Sep 2007 01:05:07 +0000 (UTC), "DeserTBob's futile efforts"
<midways...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> ...
R.M.R.
infantry in a WW ll scenario I'd have to say an 03. It got my dad
through the european theater with the 179th inf. 45th div. As the
story goes, when they took his 03 away in the field for an M1 Garand
he stole his 03 back, so the story goes but knowing my dad like I do I
think it was more like ignoring a direct order...
Ray,
(Si vis pacem
para bellum) U.S.A.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
> ...
Ron Bloom
"DeserTBob's futile efforts" <midways...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fbssg3$crv$1...@grapevine.wam.umd.edu...
# someone asked me a good question this week, and it's a question I've
# often pondered myself.
#
# which one would you choose ? by this I mean, longarms- the 1911
# pistol would be the obvious sidearm of choice
#
# most of use all know the guns in question. I for one would not want
# to lug around a heavy M-1 Garand. The same goes for the BAR, which is
# even heavier. The grease gun also would lack sufficient range with
# it's short barrel.
#
# so that boiled it down to the Thompson submachine gun vs. M-2 carbine,
# both with select-fire
#
# compared to the 45 ACP, the winner in my mind, was the Tommy gun
#
# any opinions ?
#
# there is one gun I left out, but I have no experience with, the Johnson
You forgot the M1903A3. It all depends on the terrain. If I were in the
desert I would take a Garand, and eat anyone with a Thompson or M2 for
lunch. If I were fighting house to house, I would take the Thompson.
--
Ron Bloom
Sic Semper Tyrannis - Thus Always to Tyrants
Collector of Military Curio & Relic Firearms
200...@gmail.com
legal ramifications a ww2 small arms weapon I would pick one that was
most valuable so i could buy a few modern firearms and ammo
i guess either a BAR or one of them belt fed 1919s they seem to
command a price that could pay for a half a dozen ar-15s
nick hull
"DeserTBob's futile efforts" <midways...@yahoo.com> wrote:
# most of use all know the guns in question. I for one would not want
# to lug around a heavy M-1 Garand.
Those who used the Garand never complained about it's weight, it did the
job better than anything else.
Free men own guns - www(dot)geocities(dot)com/CapitolHill/5357/
.
pheasant
# often pondered myself.
#
# which one would you choose ?
The M1 Garand.
--
The world's least questioned excuse for missing work....
"the voices in my head told me to stay home and clean guns today".
Oooookay...
BudE
Bud
"DeserTBob's futile efforts" <midways...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fbssg3$crv$1...@grapevine.wam.umd.edu...
> ...
Louis Boyd
# DeserTBob's futile efforts wrote:
# someone asked me a good question this week, and it's a question I've
# often pondered myself.
#
# if you had to go into battle using WWII vintage American firearms,
# which one would you choose ?
P-51 Mustang with four 50 BMGs. I hate slogging though mud.
Don Bruder
oldpink <old...@nltc.net> wrote:
# My personal pick would be the M2 Browning, though.
# ;-)
When all else fails, call in Ma Deuce :)
--
Don Bruder - dak...@sonic.net - If your "From:" address isn't on my whitelist,
or the subject of the message doesn't contain the exact text "PopperAndShadow"
somewhere, any message sent to this address will go in the garbage without my
ever knowing it arrived. Sorry... <http://www.sonic.net/~dakidd> for more info
Mark Crispin
# if you had to go into battle using WWII vintage American firearms,
# which one would you choose ? by this I mean, longarms- the 1911
# pistol would be the obvious sidearm of choice
If the fit should ever hit the shan, I'd choose my M1 Garand. No ifs,
ands, or buts about it.
I'd also like to have some friends with me who mostly also have M1
Garands, the exception being the BAR man and possibly a sniper with a
scoped M1903. And I'd like our officer to have a Thompson or grease gun.
Just two calibers: .30-06 and .45 ACP.
The only compelling non-US firearms of the time are the Soviet SMGs, which
arguably were better than our SMGs. However, adding yet another caliber
would not be a good idea.
Although the Arisaka, Mauser, and SMLE were fine bolt action rifles (I
definitely would not want a Mosin-Nagant -- the Russian grunts hated them
with good reason), I see nothing about any of these that is particularly
compelling over an M1903 for our sniper. [Note that I own multiple
examples of all of these bolt rifles.]
The German burp gun would be useful, but IMHO its mechanism is much too
complex and of course another caliber would be hard to justify. As good
an idea as the assault rifle is, it needed Kalashnikov to perfect it with
the AK-47 which of course is post-WWII.
Turning again to fit hitting the shan, if I could pick any firearm without
regard to time period or availability, then I would choose an AK-47 (a
real one, not a semi-auto imitiation) over the M1 Garand. That's because
at my age, I would be better served by the AK's ability to "spray and
pray" at medium range than the longer distance accuracy and firepower of
the M1 Garand.
Note, though, that I'm talking here about a select-fire assault rifle and
*not* an SMG. If the fight was close enough that an SMG would be useful,
my 51-year-old ass would be dead meat. Similarly, without select-fire,
I'd need the added oomph of .30-06 to compensate.
-- Mark --
http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
Ol Shy & Bashful
<midwaysearai...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> ...
Need to define the battle? Part of a unit, solo, long range, house
clearing, woodland, mountain, desert, etc.
I love the M-1 and won my share of match trophies and medals with one.
Did some competition with the M16 but didn't do well (not enough time/
experience with one). If I had to pick one, I'd go with the 1903A3 and
a decent scope. It doesn't require the enbloc clip like the M-1, nor
does it require magazines like the M-14 or the M-16. The lack of clips
or magazines makes them into reletively inefficient single shot
rifles!
Automatic fire is a more specialized kind of shooting and not very
practical except for house cleaning or crowd control. Even then, the
same applies as far as magazines and efficiency. It is great as a
squad automatic weapon but like I said, specialized.
The ubiquitous 1911A1 has a permanent place in my arsenal and I can
regularly hit my targets at 200 yards with mine much to the chagrin of
many of my shooting buddies who struggle with their long guns. Lots of
competition shooting in my background though.
Semper Fi - Distinguished Pistol, Master High Power, Pistol, Small
Bore, International and Airgun
browningh...@yahoo.com
<midwaysearai...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> ...
I grew up with WWII veteran's, so I already know what most of them
preferred, and here is what they actually used in actual combat in
WWII. This came from "real combat veteran's, not rear echelon toilet
cleaners.
Rifle: M1 Garand was not only wanted, it was demanded by actual
combat soldiers. Early in the war it was the "1st weapon of choice,
bar none. Late in the war the German assault rifle the STG 44
resulted in a lot of M1 Garands being thrown into the nearest ditch
as soon as the G.I.'s got their hands on these full auto assault
rifles. The M1 was now relegated to the scrap heap of history, pronto
quick.
Pistol: The most coveted pistol of WWII desired by both Americans
and Germans was the Browning High Capacity, 9mm High Power Pistol.
High Capacity, very accurate and reliable, and please be very
attentive, very deadly in combat, again quite contrary to "mentally
challenged gun writers and all of their flag waving bull-crap".
Contrary to popular "urban Legend" for every G.I. that told me he
liked the 1911 .45 , 3 of them told me they hated it and preferred the
9mm caliber, and the High Power was the most preferred 9mm because of
its high capacity and accuracy, something the 1911 lacked woefully.
Sub-machine gun: Contrary to "urban legend" G.I.'s I spoke with down
through the years did not like the Thompson at all. The main reason
was its tremendous weight and uncontrollable recoil. Many G.I.'s
actually preferred the German MP 38. (often nicked named the
Schmeisser although Herr Schmeisser had nothing to do with the gun)
If you have shot both guns, as I have, you would instantly see the
better weapon was the German MP38 not the Thompson. The 9mm was also
the much better sub-gun cartridge as it has way more range, higher
velocity and way more penetration and the average Soldier could carry
way more ammo.
So there you have it, testimony by "real combat veterans" not hype
from "gun rags" or "wannabe arm chair commando's" or ex-G.I. rear
echelon toilet cleaners, being interviewed decades later on flag
waving memorial day TV programs, bragging about their imagined heroic
exploits and how many toilets they could clean in a day.
browningh...@yahoo.com
I forgot to mention the BAR was another inferior grade weapon to boot.
It was noted for jamming and recent video on cable TV proved that
beyond any doubt whatsoever. It was so heavy the average G.I. could
hit nothing with it unless he went down into the prone position or
rested the gun over a fence or wall. The BAR also did not have a quick
change barrel like the British Bren Gun did and the Bar fed from
underneath making very low profile shooting impossible as opposed the
Bren Gun that fed from the top.
In "real combat" the Bar's barrel was burnt out quite quickly,
rendering it quite useless, this is why the quick change barrel of the
Bren and the German MG34 and MG42 were so superior in design.
1903a3 Springfield was another real joke and one of the first, el-
cheapo mass produced rifles, as it was very crudely made with many
stamped sheet metal parts, and it had undersized bolt to facilitate
mass production, which resulted in an often roughly working bolt.
The 03a3 also had an inferior grade barrel which was produced without
proper hand lapping (as opposed to the German K98) and many 03a3
barrels were only two groove to boot, another el-cheapo cost saving
and time saving manufacturing short cut.
The gas escape provision of the 03 and also the 03a3 was also a
joke, having the gas escape hole actually drilled on the "wrong side"
of the receiver, obviously the designer must have been dead drunk when
he drew up the blueprints.
The breaching system of the 03 was also inferior to the German k98
as it did not support enough of the rear end of the cartridge as it
had a coned breach rather than the none tapered breach of the German
K98 which resulted in a much safer gun to use in case of a burst
case.
The Springfield's two piece firing pin also was prone to breakage.
Result: the British Enfield .303 with its high capacity magazine or
the German K98 with its superior design and workmanship and accuracy
were the two better battle rifles by far.
I fully realize of course to evaluate a weapon based solely on its
mechanical merits is almost a total impossibility when viewing the
weapon form a "patriotic point of view" as this totally clouds all
reason and judgment. I often equate such "blinded behavior" as
"falling in love with a women", as when you are "in love" you do not
notice that she may be "overweight", greedy, selfish, grasping, and
dumber than a rock.
browningh...@yahoo.com
The Garand weighed in at 9 1/2 lbs. The Thompson with the 50 round
drum weighed 15 lbs. and with the 20 round mag 11 lbs. now a couple of
pounds heavier with the 20 round mag does not seem like much until you
actually try to carry one as compared to the lighter weight Garand.
The Garand had a much greater range. "REAL COMBAT VETERANS' I spoke
with down through the years said that when they were in training they
loved to shoot the "Stub Thompson" (as it was nicked named) but when
they got into "real combat" they actually THEW THEIR TOMPSONS INTO THE
NEAREST DITCH and the got their hands on a "rifle",preferredly the M1
Garand to keep from being shot and killed at from German soldiers that
were shooting at them from "out of range" of the Thompson. Those who
could "not get" a Garand often used captured German rifles which
included the FG42,MP 44 , German 98K and the G43.
Ron Bloom
"Mark Crispin" <M...@cac.washington.edu> wrote in message
news:fbvdd9$7nl$1...@grapevine.wam.umd.edu...
# On Sat, 8 Sep 2007, DeserTBob's futile efforts wrote:
# # if you had to go into battle using WWII vintage American firearms,
# # which one would you choose ? by this I mean, longarms- the 1911
# # pistol would be the obvious sidearm of choice
#
# If the fit should ever hit the shan, I'd choose my M1 Garand. No ifs,
# ands, or buts about it.
#
# I'd also like to have some friends with me who mostly also have M1
# Garands, the exception being the BAR man and possibly a sniper with a
# scoped M1903. And I'd like our officer to have a Thompson or grease gun.
# Just two calibers: .30-06 and .45 ACP.
#
# The only compelling non-US firearms of the time are the Soviet SMGs, which
# arguably were better than our SMGs. However, adding yet another caliber
# would not be a good idea.
#
# Although the Arisaka, Mauser, and SMLE were fine bolt action rifles (I
# definitely would not want a Mosin-Nagant -- the Russian grunts hated them
# with good reason),
My Finn Mosin Nagants are some of the best shooting bolt action rifles ever
made.
Ron Bloom
<browningh...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fbvddg$7o0$1...@grapevine.wam.umd.edu...
# On Sep 7, 9:05 pm, "DeserTBob's futile efforts"
# <midwaysearai...@yahoo.com> wrote:
# > ...
#
# I grew up with WWII veteran's, so I already know what most of them
# preferred, and here is what they actually used in actual combat in
# WWII. This came from "real combat veteran's, not rear echelon toilet
# cleaners.
#
# Rifle: M1 Garand was not only wanted, it was demanded by actual
# combat soldiers. Early in the war it was the "1st weapon of choice,
# bar none. Late in the war the German assault rifle the STG 44
# resulted in a lot of M1 Garands being thrown into the nearest ditch
# as soon as the G.I.'s got their hands on these full auto assault
# rifles. The M1 was now relegated to the scrap heap of history, pronto
# quick.
#
# Pistol: The most coveted pistol of WWII desired by both Americans
# and Germans was the Browning High Capacity, 9mm High Power Pistol.
# High Capacity, very accurate and reliable, and please be very
# attentive, very deadly in combat, again quite contrary to "mentally
# challenged gun writers and all of their flag waving bull-crap".
I have a Nazi proofed Browning, nice gun. Way ahead of its time. A gun I
would not have any problems carrying for self protection today.
#
# Contrary to popular "urban Legend" for every G.I. that told me he
# liked the 1911 .45 , 3 of them told me they hated it and preferred the
# 9mm caliber, and the High Power was the most preferred 9mm because of
# its high capacity and accuracy, something the 1911 lacked woefully.
I have won bowling pin shoots with my stock 1944 Remington Rand M1911A1.
Shoots at point of aim at 25 yards everytime. I have heard stories about
the M1911A1's on Vietnam being warn out.
Ron Bloom
<browningh...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fbvddi$7o4$1...@grapevine.wam.umd.edu...# I forgot to mention the BAR was another inferior grade weapon to boot.
# It was noted for jamming and recent video on cable TV proved that
# beyond any doubt whatsoever. It was so heavy the average G.I. could
# hit nothing with it unless he went down into the prone position or
# rested the gun over a fence or wall. The BAR also did not have a quick
# change barrel like the British Bren Gun did and the Bar fed from
# underneath making very low profile shooting impossible as opposed the
# Bren Gun that fed from the top.
#
# In "real combat" the Bar's barrel was burnt out quite quickly,
# rendering it quite useless, this is why the quick change barrel of the
# Bren and the German MG34 and MG42 were so superior in design.
#
# 1903a3 Springfield was another real joke and one of the first, el-
# cheapo mass produced rifles, as it was very crudely made with many
# stamped sheet metal parts, and it had undersized bolt to facilitate
# mass production, which resulted in an often roughly working bolt.
The sights on the M1903A3 were superior to that of the No 1 and No 4 enfield
as well as the Mauser. The No4 is a battle rifle, and had two groove
barrels also.
#
# The 03a3 also had an inferior grade barrel which was produced without
# proper hand lapping (as opposed to the German K98) and many 03a3
# barrels were only two groove to boot, another el-cheapo cost saving
# and time saving manufacturing short cut.
Although this has nothing to do with combat. These two groove barrels shoot
lead bullets nicely. I will take my mint Smith Corona out tomorrow and see
if I can hit the gong at 400 yards better than my Finn Mosin Nagants.
#
# The gas escape provision of the 03 and also the 03a3 was also a
# joke, having the gas escape hole actually drilled on the "wrong side"
# of the receiver, obviously the designer must have been dead drunk when
# he drew up the blueprints.
#
# The breaching system of the 03 was also inferior to the German k98
# as it did not support enough of the rear end of the cartridge as it
# had a coned breach rather than the none tapered breach of the German
# K98 which resulted in a much safer gun to use in case of a burst
# case.
#
# The Springfield's two piece firing pin also was prone to breakage.
How often does this happen?
# Result: the British Enfield .303 with its high capacity magazine or
# the German K98 with its superior design and workmanship and accuracy
# were the two better battle rifles by far.
The sights were the killer on the 98k.
FRANK
wrote:
#On Sep 7, 9:05 pm, "DeserTBob's futile efforts"
#<midwaysearai...@yahoo.com> wrote:
# > ...
#
#I grew up with WWII veteran's, so I already know what most of them
#preferred, and here is what they actually used in actual combat in
#WWII. This came from "real combat veteran's, not rear echelon toilet
#cleaners.
#
#Rifle: M1 Garand was not only wanted, it was demanded by actual
#combat soldiers. Early in the war it was the "1st weapon of choice,
#bar none. Late in the war the German assault rifle the STG 44
#resulted in a lot of M1 Garands being thrown into the nearest ditch
#as soon as the G.I.'s got their hands on these full auto assault
#rifles. The M1 was now relegated to the scrap heap of history, pronto
#quick.
#
#Pistol: The most coveted pistol of WWII desired by both Americans
#and Germans was the Browning High Capacity, 9mm High Power Pistol.
#High Capacity, very accurate and reliable, and please be very
#attentive, very deadly in combat, again quite contrary to "mentally
#challenged gun writers and all of their flag waving bull-crap".
#
# Contrary to popular "urban Legend" for every G.I. that told me he
#liked the 1911 .45 , 3 of them told me they hated it and preferred the
#9mm caliber, and the High Power was the most preferred 9mm because of
#its high capacity and accuracy, something the 1911 lacked woefully.
#
#Sub-machine gun: Contrary to "urban legend" G.I.'s I spoke with down
#through the years did not like the Thompson at all. The main reason
#was its tremendous weight and uncontrollable recoil. Many G.I.'s
#actually preferred the German MP 38. (often nicked named the
#Schmeisser although Herr Schmeisser had nothing to do with the gun)
#If you have shot both guns, as I have, you would instantly see the
#better weapon was the German MP38 not the Thompson. The 9mm was also
#the much better sub-gun cartridge as it has way more range, higher
#velocity and way more penetration and the average Soldier could carry
#way more ammo.
#
I served with a LOT of WW2 combat vets during the Korean war- one
thing that was emphasized was that using an enemy weapon was a great
way to draw friendly fire, especially at night. Ammo supply would be
an issue also. As for the .45, most infantrymen had no training with
the weapon, and most issue 1911s were pretty tired. People who knew
how to use it loved the 1911, mainly because enemy shot with one
tended to stay down, something that does not seem to be true of the
9mm in Iraq according to a lot of combat reports. As to the Thompson,
you obviously have never trained with one. Yes, it is heavy, but you
learn to fire short bursts, and there is no meaningful recoil. . The
single shot setting is also useful, especially for making certain that
dead enemy stayed that way (politically incorrect today). Thompsons
were not issued in Korea, but were available from the Chinese
quartermaster, price 1 30-06 round in the right place. The Chinese had
a lot of them. The grease gun is a bit crude, but it is an effective
short range weapon as long as you fire short bursts.
FRANK
FRANK
wrote:
#On Sep 7, 9:05 pm, "DeserTBob's futile efforts"
#<midwaysearai...@yahoo.com> wrote:
# > ...
#
#
#I forgot to mention the BAR was another inferior grade weapon to boot.
#It was noted for jamming and recent video on cable TV proved that
#beyond any doubt whatsoever. It was so heavy the average G.I. could
#hit nothing with it unless he went down into the prone position or
#rested the gun over a fence or wall. The BAR also did not have a quick
#change barrel like the British Bren Gun did and the Bar fed from
#underneath making very low profile shooting impossible as opposed the
#Bren Gun that fed from the top.
#
#In "real combat" the Bar's barrel was burnt out quite quickly,
#rendering it quite useless, this is why the quick change barrel of the
#Bren and the German MG34 and MG42 were so superior in design.
#
#
Now I KNOW you were never in combat- (You actually believe cable TV?)
The BAR was a lifesaver in combat primarily because it could be moved
to face an assault fast, they were deadly accurate, and very reliable
if properly maintained. Every infantry squad had one, and the BAR man
was chosen from the best men in the squad. By the way, everyone shot
from prone or from behind something if he could, regardless of weapon.
The Bren was a good weapon with an offset sight which hampered
accuracy, and sometimes had problems with loading of the rimmed
cartridge. A lot of the Brit ammo was loaded with cordite, which was
rough on barrels, which is probably why they made it interchangable.
You really do not want to be changing barrels when you are being shot
at.
FRANK
oldpink
# In article <fbu500$a4e$1...@grapevine.wam.umd.edu>,
# oldpink <old...@nltc.net> wrote:
#
#
# # My personal pick would be the M2 Browning, though.
# # ;-)
#
# When all else fails, call in Ma Deuce :)
Amen to that.
One hundred years and counting.
Thank goodness the Defense Department hasn't gotten a wild hair up its
ass by suddenly deciding that John Moses Browning's invention needs to
be replaced.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
--
And what exactly is a joke?
.
Trenton G. Twining
# pheasant wrote:
# # DeserTBob's futile efforts wrote:
# # someone asked me a good question this week, and it's a question I've
# # often pondered myself.
# #
# # if you had to go into battle using WWII vintage American firearms,
#
# P-51 Mustang with four 50 BMGs. I hate slogging though mud.
#
ROTFL ... I fly/stand corrected.
--
"On every question of construction carry ourselves back to
the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the
spirit manifested in the debates and instead of trying what
meaning may be squeezed out of the text or invented against
it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
- Thos. Jefferson, 3rd US president (1743-1826)
Trenton G. Twining
Trenton G. Twining
# "Mark Crispin" <M...@cac.washington.edu> wrote in message
# news:fbvdd9$7nl$1...@grapevine.wam.umd.edu...
# #
# # Although the Arisaka, Mauser, and SMLE were fine bolt action rifles (I
# # with good reason),
#
# My Finn Mosin Nagants are some of the best shooting bolt action rifles ever
# made.
#
The way I heard it if the Finns captured an M-N and it grouped bigger
than 1MOA, they used it for a parts kit. My M44 would have made the
cut. But it's a killer at both ends :-)
--
"Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle?
What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life
so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of
chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what
course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty
or give me death!"
- Patrick Henry, March 23, 1775.
Trenton G. Twining
oldpink
# On Sep 7, 9:05 pm, "DeserTBob's futile efforts"# The Garand weighed in at 9 1/2 lbs. The Thompson with the 50 round
# drum weighed 15 lbs. and with the 20 round mag 11 lbs. now a couple of
# pounds heavier with the 20 round mag does not seem like much until you
# actually try to carry one as compared to the lighter weight Garand.
#
# The Garand had a much greater range. "REAL COMBAT VETERANS' I spoke
# with down through the years said that when they were in training they
# loved to shoot the "Stub Thompson" (as it was nicked named) but when
# they got into "real combat" they actually THEW THEIR TOMPSONS INTO THE
# NEAREST DITCH and the got their hands on a "rifle",preferredly the M1
# Garand to keep from being shot and killed at from German soldiers that
....whereupon they immediately tossed their newly acquired Garands in the
nearest ditch when they found a German STG44, right?
[...]
--
And what exactly is a joke?
.
nitram578
magnum.
"DeserTBob's futile efforts" <midways...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fbssg3$crv$1...@grapevine.wam.umd.edu...
> ...
J Buck
Louis Boyd wrote: <P-51 Mustang with four 50 BMGs. I hate slogging
though mud.>
Perhaps you should rethink your definition of longarms.
Dave Vick
(in article <fbssg3$crv$1...@grapevine.wam.umd.edu>):
# . . .
Winchester 12ga. trench gun.
(I was about to say "Fatman & Littleboy," but then you specified long
arms...)
--
Dave Vick
NRA Life, MCRGO, MRPA
Camp Perry Volunteer
Guns Don't Kill People, People Yapping on Cellphones While Driving Do
oldpink
# "Mark Crispin" <M...@cac.washington.edu> wrote in message
# news:fbvdd9$7nl$1...@grapevine.wam.umd.edu...
# # On Sat, 8 Sep 2007, DeserTBob's futile efforts wrote:
# # # if you had to go into battle using WWII vintage American firearms,
# # # which one would you choose ? by this I mean, longarms- the 1911
# # # pistol would be the obvious sidearm of choice
# #
# # If the fit should ever hit the shan, I'd choose my M1 Garand. No ifs,
# #
# # I'd also like to have some friends with me who mostly also have M1
# # scoped M1903. And I'd like our officer to have a Thompson or grease gun.
# # Just two calibers: .30-06 and .45 ACP.
# #
# # The only compelling non-US firearms of the time are the Soviet SMGs, which
# # would not be a good idea.
# #
# # Although the Arisaka, Mauser, and SMLE were fine bolt action rifles (I
# # with good reason),
#
# made.
That may well be, but I don't believe you had to use one on the battlefield.
--
And what exactly is a joke?
.
oldpink
[...]
# # The Springfield's two piece firing pin also was prone to breakage.
# How often does this happen?
Also, correct me if I am mistaken, but wasn't one of the main
differences between the 1903 and the 1903A3 that the latter had a one
piece firing pin?
[...]
--
And what exactly is a joke?
.
Jim
had to pound the ground into combat with a WW2 rifle. Hands down it
would be the German Sturmgewehr 44. Bear in mind in this fantasy I
would be a US soldier of considerable rank, the Sturmgewehr 44 would
be manufactured by Winchester, the enemy would always miss and the
spoils would always include a female harem of beautiful submissive
horny bisexual blue-eyed blondes and green-eyed redheads that couldn't
resist me.
browningh...@yahoo.com
Quote: # The Springfield's two piece firing pin also was prone to
breakage.
How often does this happen?
Try and tell that one to someone who is stuck with an inoperable rifle
while being shot at.
Quote:The sights on the M1903A3 were superior to that of the No 1 and
No 4 enfield as well as the Mauser. The No4 is a battle rifle, and
had two groove
barrels also.
Nope they were inferior and here is why. Although peep sights are
fine for target shooting they are inferior for quick shooting under
combat conditions and totally useless in poor light as opposed to the
quick acquistion open sights. As a matter of fact Sgt. York in WWI
hated the 1917 Enfield because of its peep sights, preferring the open
sights of the earlier made 1903 rifle even though they were vastly
inferior to the open sights on Mauser rifles.
On Sep 8, 11:20 pm, "Ron Bloom" <rcblo...@cox.net> wrote:
> ...
John Kepler
# One hundred years and counting.
The M2 was introduced in 1929, this is 2007......Mrs. Abke's 1st Grade
arithmatic class says that results in a number significantly less than 100!
Maybe it's different in "New Math"!
John
Dave Hinz
# Who said the .30 carbine is underpowered? it equates to about a .357
# magnum.
I don't know of a whole lot of people who don't feel the .30 carbine is
adequately powered for combat.
Louis Boyd
# <by this I mean, longarms>
#
# Louis Boyd wrote: <P-51 Mustang with four 50 BMGs. I hate slogging
# though mud.>
#
# Perhaps you should rethink your definition of longarms.
I've spent more of my time in the US Army carrying an M1 Grand than most
of the people who are posting here saying it would be their choice. I
wouldn't want to do it again even though it was arguably the best battle
rifle ever fielded. It's not suitable for modern warfare.
Ok, I've rethought the definition. I should have said B29 and two mass
Uranium gun. If you're going to be in a war you should do your best to
decisively end it in your favor, not play tag with pea shooters. So
what if it doesn't fit your definition of "longarm". Playing by rules
in warfare is asking for defeat. I doubt the Geneva or Hague
conventions would have allowed nuclear weapons if they had been thought
of at the time. Getting into a war is stupid. Failure to end a war as
quickly as possible is stupider still.
oldpink
# Who said the .30 carbine is underpowered? it equates to about a .357
# magnum.
Well, yes, but when compared to the .30-06, that makes it not even 1/5
as powerful.
Also, good luck to you being able to even hit - let alone have enough
remaining energy - a hostile target beyond 200 yards with the .30 Carbine.
Ask any WWII G.I. which one HE would have preferred.
--
And what exactly is a joke?
.
Diogenes
wrote:
> ...
Correction, Jim, I think you did top the P-51 post. But along with the
harem, don't forget Hermann Goering's personal wine cellar.
> ...
----
Diogenes (cdh...@hotmail.com)
The wars are long, the peace is frail
The madmen come again . . . .
FRANK
wrote:
#Ron Bloom wrote:
#[...]
## # The Springfield's two piece firing pin also was prone to breakage.
##
## How often does this happen?
#
#Also, correct me if I am mistaken, but wasn't one of the main
#differences between the 1903 and the 1903A3 that the latter had a one
#piece firing pin?
No- the 2 piece firing pin, which was apparently used in an
unsucessful attempt to avoid the Mauser 98 patent, was used on all
Springfield 03 models. Breakage is uncommon, but if it happens, there
have been reports that the forward part of the pin can protrude from
the bolt and ignite the primer before the bolt is locked. If this is
true, I would think that given the number of 03s in use that there
would have been more events. Certainly I have no personal knowledge
as to whether there have been injury accidents, but when I loaded one
of the two rifles I had, I always looked at the bolt face before
chambering a round, having no interest in becoming even a small
statistic
FRANK
nick hull
oldpink <old...@nltc.net> wrote:
# Ron Bloom wrote:
# [...]
# # # The Springfield's two piece firing pin also was prone to breakage.
# #
# # How often does this happen?
#
# Also, correct me if I am mistaken, but wasn't one of the main
# differences between the 1903 and the 1903A3 that the latter had a one
# piece firing pin?
# [...]
The 1903a3 has a 2-piece firing pin, I broke one ;(
Free men own guns - www(dot)geocities(dot)com/CapitolHill/5357/
The Wolf With the Red Roses
#Although I can't top the clever post of a P-51 wtih quad 50's. If I
#had to pound the ground into combat with a WW2 rifle. Hands down it
#would be the German Sturmgewehr 44. Bear in mind in this fantasy I
#would be a US soldier of considerable rank, the Sturmgewehr 44 would
#be manufactured by Winchester, the enemy would always miss and the
#spoils would always include a female harem of beautiful submissive
#horny bisexual blue-eyed blondes and green-eyed redheads that couldn't
#resist me.
#
While the Sturmgewehr 44 was historically quite significant, by most
accounts it's development really wasn't finished. It was also quite
heavy for what it was supposed to be, and prone to breakage in the
field.
Now on the other hand, it's son, the StG45 is what provided mechanism
which was later the basis of much better & enduring weapons such as
the CETME, the SIG 510, the H&K G3 and the MP5.
Nothing like fine German Engineering when it comes to weapons &
automobiles.
--
"Some try to tell me, thoughts they cannot defend,
Just what you want to be, you will be in the end." -- Moody Blues
David R. Birch
# Quote:The sights on the M1903A3 were superior to that of the No 1
# and No 4 enfield as well as the Mauser. The No4 is a battle rifle,
# and had two groove barrels also.
#
# Nope they were inferior and here is why. Although peep sights are
# fine for target shooting they are inferior for quick shooting under
# combat conditions and totally useless in poor light as opposed to
# the quick acquistion open sights.
This is why the M1 Garand had open sights. Oops, no, it didn't. I've
always found peep sights better in low light and quicker to get a good
sight picture under any conditions.
# As a matter of fact Sgt. York in WWI hated the 1917 Enfield because
# of its peep sights, preferring the open sights of the earlier made
# 1903 rifle even though they were vastly inferior to the open sights
# on Mauser rifles.
This is the first time I've ever read this, and since it's from you,
it's probably wrong and you made it up.
David
Asa
# Nope they were inferior and here is why. Although peep sights are
# fine for target shooting they are inferior for quick shooting under
# combat conditions and totally useless in poor light as opposed to the
# quick acquistion open sights. As a matter of fact Sgt. York in WWI
# hated the 1917 Enfield because of its peep sights, preferring the open
# sights of the earlier made 1903 rifle even though they were vastly
# inferior to the open sights on Mauser rifles.
If they are so inferior, answer me this: Why has every US service
rifle and carbine since 1937 been equipped with such sights? Could it
be because they work much better under most combat conditions?
If the light is so low as to prevent acquisition of the rear aperture
of a combat rifle, odds are you can't see the rear "leaf" of "open"
sights either.
Ron Bloom
"oldpink" <old...@nltc.net> wrote in message
news:fc0nmt$79j$1...@grapevine.wam.umd.edu...
# Ron Bloom wrote:
# [...]
# #
# # How often does this happen?
# Also, correct me if I am mistaken, but wasn't one of the main
# differences between the 1903 and the 1903A3 that the latter had a one
# piece firing pin?
My M1903A3 has a two-piece firing pin.
Ron Bloom
# Ron Bloom wrote:
# # "Mark Crispin" <M...@cac.washington.edu> wrote in message
# # news:fbvdd9$7nl$1...@grapevine.wam.umd.edu...
# # # On Sat, 8 Sep 2007, DeserTBob's futile efforts wrote:
# # # # if you had to go into battle using WWII vintage American firearms,
# # # # which one would you choose ? by this I mean, longarms- the 1911
# # # # pistol would be the obvious sidearm of choice
# # #
# # # If the fit should ever hit the shan, I'd choose my M1 Garand. No ifs,
# # # ands, or buts about it.
# # #
# # # I'd also like to have some friends with me who mostly also have M1
# # # Garands, the exception being the BAR man and possibly a sniper with a
# # # scoped M1903. And I'd like our officer to have a Thompson or grease
# gun.
# # # Just two calibers: .30-06 and .45 ACP.
# # #
# # # The only compelling non-US firearms of the time are the Soviet SMGs,
# which
# # # arguably were better than our SMGs. However, adding yet another
# caliber
# # # would not be a good idea.
# # #
# # # Although the Arisaka, Mauser, and SMLE were fine bolt action rifles (I
# # # definitely would not want a Mosin-Nagant -- the Russian grunts hated
# them
# # # with good reason),
# #
# # My Finn Mosin Nagants are some of the best shooting bolt action rifles
# # made.
#
# That may well be, but I don't believe you had to use one on the
# battlefield.
No, I didn't have to use one on the battle field. What are its drawbacks on
the battlefield? Why wouldn't you use one? but I would not be afraid to
take one and use it against soldiers carrying k98's, Enfields, M1903's. My
M28 whacks a 2/2 steel gong every shot. Shoots better than my Winchester
M1917 and 98k.
Ron Bloom
"nitram578" <nitr...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:fc0nmk$793$1...@grapevine.wam.umd.edu...
# Who said the .30 carbine is underpowered? it equates to about a .357
# magnum.
The carbine was supposed to replace a pistol, and when used in a pistol
roles does fine. THe .30 carbine should only be used at .357 ranges then.
They ran into problems when they used in the Korea as "rifles" shooting
Chinese at 250 yards with heavy quilted clothing.
Ron Bloom
<browningh...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fc0nn3$7a1$1...@grapevine.wam.umd.edu...
> ...
I am not telling anyone anything, I am asking a question. You know the
answer?
> ...
So the M1 Garand's sights are inferior? So that is the reason why every
military except the AK series has gone to peep sights because they want to
put their soldiers at a disadvantage on the battle field? If open sights
were superior, the military would use them, their lack of use tells me
something, and it is not what you are saying.
As a matter of fact Sgt. York in WWI
> ...
OK, and this guy grew up shooting guns without peep sights. What do you
expect? I guess he would have to "adapt and overcome" the peep sights and
be successful in his mission? One drawback of the M1903/A3 sights are the
thin front sights. Easily bent, and too thin.
bruce...@gmail.com
<dbi...@wi.rr.com> wrote:
> ...
Does anyone remember the old Lyman sight that mounted on the tang of a
Winchester 94, and probably other guns as well, that sold like
hotcakes "because it was faster"? A peep sight.
Bruce in Bangkok
(brucepaigeATgmailDOTcom)
Don Bruder
Louis Boyd <bo...@apt0.sao.arizona.edu> wrote:
<snippety>
# Ok, I've rethought the definition. I should have said B29 and two mass
# Uranium gun. If you're going to be in a war you should do your best to
# decisively end it in your favor, not play tag with pea shooters. So
# what if it doesn't fit your definition of "longarm". Playing by rules
# in warfare is asking for defeat. I doubt the Geneva or Hague
# conventions would have allowed nuclear weapons if they had been thought
# of at the time. Getting into a war is stupid. Failure to end a war as
# quickly as possible is stupider still.
Oh...
My...
Gawd...
Someone else who grasps the ever-so-politically-incorrect reality of war.
I think I'm gonna fall over due to shock.
No, I really mean it! This (entirely correct) attitude is all too rare
today.
Don't go into a war unless you intend to win it, and you win it by
causing the enemy to stop fighting, using whatever methods work the
quickest to achieve that goal.
--
Don Bruder - dak...@sonic.net - If your "From:" address isn't on my whitelist,
or the subject of the message doesn't contain the exact text "PopperAndShadow"
somewhere, any message sent to this address will go in the garbage without my
ever knowing it arrived. Sorry... <http://www.sonic.net/~dakidd> for more info
David Steuber
# most of use all know the guns in question. I for one would not want
# to lug around a heavy M-1 Garand.
It's really not that bad. But you did leave out the 1903 Springfield
which also fired the same ammunition.
--
Ethics are so annoying
I avoid them on principle
David Steuber
# # Amen to that.
# # One hundred years and counting.
#
# The M2 was introduced in 1929, this is 2007......Mrs. Abke's 1st Grade
# arithmatic class says that results in a number significantly less than 100!
# Maybe it's different in "New Math"!
I think he was using the Aztec calender.
Mind you, I expect that today's technology could yield a superior belt
fed .50 BMG. Who wants to luck around a 90lb receiver anyway?
--
Ethics are so annoying
I avoid them on principle
oldpink
[...]
# # # # Although the Arisaka, Mauser, and SMLE were fine bolt action rifles (I
# # them
# # # # with good reason),
# # #
# # # My Finn Mosin Nagants are some of the best shooting bolt action rifles
# # ever
# # # made.
# #
# # That may well be, but I don't believe you had to use one on the
#
# No, I didn't have to use one on the battle field. What are its drawbacks on
# the battlefield? Why wouldn't you use one? but I would not be afraid to
# take one and use it against soldiers carrying k98's, Enfields, M1903's. My
# M28 whacks a 2/2 steel gong every shot. Shoots better than my Winchester
# M1917 and 98k.
Well, speaking again as someone who has not fielded the Mosin in battle,
only having made up some handloads and shot them out of my brother's own
(now sold for a Winchester manufactured Enfield, btw) model, I can say
that ergonomics were severely lacking, for one thing.
Likewise, the bolt having to rotate all the way up to the vertical was
less than conducive to smooth and rapid cycling of the action.
Further, while reasonably accurate, the action was somewhere between
sand and gravel for smoothness.
Lastly, the recoil was magnified by the starkly narrow buttstock, which
exacerbated the sting with the oddly shaped steel buttplate.
By comparison, the Springfield, Garand, and M-14 were like going from an
old truck with no power steering and non rack and pinion linkage to a
modern rack and pinion power steering vehicle.
Again, all this IMNSHO.
Yes, the MG is known for its accuracy potential, but not for its user
friendliness.
--
And what exactly is a joke?
.
oldpink
# In article <fc0nmt$79j$1...@grapevine.wam.umd.edu>,
# oldpink <old...@nltc.net> wrote:
#
# # Ron Bloom wrote:
# # [...]
# # # # The Springfield's two piece firing pin also was prone to breakage.
# # #
# # # How often does this happen?
# #
# # Also, correct me if I am mistaken, but wasn't one of the main
# # piece firing pin?
# # [...]
#
# The 1903a3 has a 2-piece firing pin, I broke one ;(
Okay, thanks for that.
I knew there were some subtle improvements, somewhere on the order of
those for the 1911A over the 1911, but my memory was clouded.
--
And what exactly is a joke?
R.M.R.
"real combat veterans" not hype from "gun rags" or "wannabe arm chair
commando's" or ex-G.I. rear echelon toilet cleaners, being interviewed
decades later on flag
waving memorial day TV programs, bragging about their imagined heroic
exploits and how many toilets they could clean in a day.
~~~~~
A couple of old boys sitting around a billiard table at the local VFW
leaves a lot to the imagination, and by the way other than hearsay
second hand information and conflicting book reading, your military
experience is?. Just for laughs try writing a response without ending
it with insults to people that can't defend themselves. It does get a
bit old and tells me something about a person, not that you care...
Ray,
(Si vis pacem
para bellum) U.S.A.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
> ...
oldpink
# browningLOWpowerTHEyahoo.com wrote:
#
# # Quote:The sights on the M1903A3 were superior to that of the No 1
# # and No 4 enfield as well as the Mauser. The No4 is a battle rifle,
# # and had two groove barrels also.
# #
# # Nope they were inferior and here is why. Although peep sights are
# # combat conditions and totally useless in poor light as opposed to
# # the quick acquistion open sights.
#
# This is why the M1 Garand had open sights. Oops, no, it didn't. I've
# always found peep sights better in low light and quicker to get a good
# sight picture under any conditions.
So did the late Colonel Jeff Cooper, who was a strong proponent of
"ghost ring" sights.
# # As a matter of fact Sgt. York in WWI hated the 1917 Enfield because
# # of its peep sights, preferring the open sights of the earlier made
# # 1903 rifle even though they were vastly inferior to the open sights
# # on Mauser rifles.
#
# This is the first time I've ever read this, and since it's from you,
# it's probably wrong and you made it up.
Are you saying that BHP li...er embellishes?
--
And what exactly is a joke?
.
Dave Hinz
# On Sun, 9 Sep 2007 12:07:48 +0000 (UTC), nitram578 <nitr...@charter.net> wrote:
# # Who said the .30 carbine is underpowered? it equates to about a .357
# # magnum.
#
# I don't know of a whole lot of people who don't feel the .30 carbine is
# adequately powered for combat.
Argh. I double-negatived myself by going back and trying to make it
more clear. Let's try again. I wouldn't want to rely on just a .30
carbine in any kind of combat situation. Give me the extra pounds and
let me use the M1.
J Buck
"longarm". Playing by rules in warfare is asking for defeat.>
Wow, serves me right for not putting a :) at the end of my post.
Mikko Nahkola
# # # The only compelling non-US firearms of the time are the Soviet SMGs, which
# # # arguably were better than our SMGs. However, adding yet another caliber
# # # would not be a good idea.
# # #
# # # Although the Arisaka, Mauser, and SMLE were fine bolt action rifles (I
# # # definitely would not want a Mosin-Nagant -- the Russian grunts hated them
# # # with good reason),
# #
# # My Finn Mosin Nagants are some of the best shooting bolt action rifles ever
# # made.
#
# That may well be, but I don't believe you had to use one on the battlefield.
I know people who did. And plenty more who trained with them after WWII.
If I had to choose a weapon from that era that I'd have to go to war
with - I'd just pick grandpa's old m/28-30 up from my gun safe. But
that's largely because I'm already rather familiar with it.
Oh, BTW, does the Winchester 1895 count here? It'd be an US-made
military rifle, used in WWII.
nick hull
# # and No 4 enfield as well as the Mauser. The No4 is a battle rifle,
# # and had two groove barrels also.
Actually the #4 had the best sights, both a fast ghost ring and an
adjustable peep for deliberate long range
Free men own guns - www(dot)geocities(dot)com/CapitolHill/5357/
.
Mikko Nahkola
# "oldpink" <old...@nltc.net> wrote in message
# # Ron Bloom wrote:
# # # My Finn Mosin Nagants are some of the best shooting bolt action rifles
# # ever
# # # made.
# #
# # That may well be, but I don't believe you had to use one on the
# # battlefield.
#
# No, I didn't have to use one on the battle field. What are its drawbacks on
# the battlefield? Why wouldn't you use one?
Because the Finnish refit bolt head was made to such tight tolerances
that it'd be unreliable if there was snow, sand or dirt in the action?
Oh, and mind the chamber length, and check that you got a later model or
HV-fixed magazine body, and check that the spring is strong enough for
your primers or just squeeze two of the weaker kind in there, and then
the trigger...
Plenty of things that were fixed at some point in the Finnish models,
but not necessarily at all in the Russian models as shipped from the
factory.
# but I would not be afraid to
# take one and use it against soldiers carrying k98's, Enfields, M1903's. My
# M28 whacks a 2/2 steel gong every shot. Shoots better than my Winchester
# M1917 and 98k.
Oh, the M28 still has the old type rear sight too, doesn't it? From the
m/28-30 on, the Finnish rear sights got noticeably better...
emrlaw
the Battle of the Bulge. I posed this question to him, and he said,
without a doubt he'd go into battle with a Garand or a BAR. He was an
officer and the first thing he did when he got to the battlefield was
ditch his carbine, primarily because it gave him away as an officer,
but he also said it just couldn't compare to the Garand.
Just his two cents anyway....
browningh...@yahoo.com
> ...
See the book" The 1917 Enfield Rifle" available from the NRA.
browningh...@yahoo.com
> ...
Its a trade off. It is much easier to teach someone to shoot and hit
with a peep sight under good lighting conditions. Anyone who has
hunted under very bad lighting conditions knows the drawbacks of peep
sights in poor light. When I used peep sights to hunt deer with I had
to go with a special "twilight sight" that had a very, very, large
aperture which made shooting in good light much more problematical.
I might add that the "Master of the battle rifle inventors"
Kalashnikov used open sights on the AK47 while the inferior mechanical
M16 used the peep sights. What does that tell you about which
inventor knew what he was doing?
browningh...@yahoo.com
> ...
See the book "The 1917 Enfield Rifle" available from the NRA" as it
details the long sorry history of this rifle and what an inferior
battle rifle that it was.
David R. Birch
# On Sun, 9 Sep 2007 12:07:48 +0000 (UTC), nitram578 <nitr...@charter.net> wrote:
# # Who said the .30 carbine is underpowered? it equates to about a .357
# # magnum.
#
# I don't know of a whole lot of people who don't feel the .30 carbine is
# adequately powered for combat.
This is why the bayonet lug was added. While the intended target in
chuckling over the ineffectiveness of the round, you run up and stab him.
David
Ron Bloom
# Ron Bloom wrote:
# [...]
# # # # # Although the Arisaka, Mauser, and SMLE were fine bolt action
# rifles (I
# # # # # definitely would not want a Mosin-Nagant -- the Russian grunts
# hated
# # # them
# # # # # with good reason),
# # # #
# # # # My Finn Mosin Nagants are some of the best shooting bolt action
# rifles
# # # ever
# # # # made.
# # #
# # # That may well be, but I don't believe you had to use one on the
# # # battlefield.
# #
# # No, I didn't have to use one on the battle field. What are its
# # the battlefield? Why wouldn't you use one? but I would not be afraid
# to
# # take one and use it against soldiers carrying k98's, Enfields, M1903's.
# My
# # M28 whacks a 2/2 steel gong every shot. Shoots better than my
# Winchester
# # M1917 and 98k.
#
# Well, speaking again as someone who has not fielded the Mosin in battle,
# only having made up some handloads and shot them out of my brother's own
# (now sold for a Winchester manufactured Enfield, btw) model, I can say
# that ergonomics were severely lacking, for one thing.
# Likewise, the bolt having to rotate all the way up to the vertical was
# less than conducive to smooth and rapid cycling of the action.
# Further, while reasonably accurate, the action was somewhere between
# sand and gravel for smoothness.
# Lastly, the recoil was magnified by the starkly narrow buttstock, which
# exacerbated the sting with the oddly shaped steel buttplate.
# By comparison, the Springfield, Garand, and M-14 were like going from an
# old truck with no power steering and non rack and pinion linkage to a
# modern rack and pinion power steering vehicle.
# Again, all this IMNSHO.
# Yes, the MG is known for its accuracy potential, but not for its user
# friendliness.
Well for Soviet soldiers who did not know better, they would be used to it.
Know what I mean? Do you have any contemporary anecdotal reports from
Soviet soldiers to back this up? They had much more to worry about than
their rifles, and the action on my guns is very smooth.
Ron Bloom
<browningh...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fc4f7q$2h2$1...@grapevine.wam.umd.edu...
# On Sep 9, 8:19 pm, Asa <sdhighpo...@aol.com> wrote:
# > ...
#
# Its a trade off. It is much easier to teach someone to shoot and hit
# with a peep sight under good lighting conditions. Anyone who has
# hunted under very bad lighting conditions knows the drawbacks of peep
# sights in poor light. When I used peep sights to hunt deer with I had
# to go with a special "twilight sight" that had a very, very, large
# aperture which made shooting in good light much more problematical.
#
# I might add that the "Master of the battle rifle inventors"
# Kalashnikov used open sights on the AK47 while the inferior mechanical
# M16 used the peep sights. What does that tell you about which
# inventor knew what he was doing?
He used the same sights used on the M38, M44 and M91/30. Same sight
picture.
Rod Regier
1108783). Now on display at 3rd ID museum Fort Stewart, Ga
Ron Bloom
#
# rifles
# # # ever
# # # # made.
# # #
# # # That may well be, but I don't believe you had to use one on the
# # # battlefield.
# #
# # No, I didn't have to use one on the battle field. What are its
# # the battlefield? Why wouldn't you use one?
#
# Because the Finnish refit bolt head was made to such tight tolerances
# that it'd be unreliable if there was snow, sand or dirt in the action?
My Finns have Russian bolt heads. I have never heard of the Finns
complaining about a soldiers rifle.
#
# Oh, and mind the chamber length, and check that you got a later model or
# HV-fixed magazine body, and check that the spring is strong enough for
# your primers or just squeeze two of the weaker kind in there, and then
# the trigger...
I have never had a failure to fire a round due to a weak spring.
# Plenty of things that were fixed at some point in the Finnish models,
# but not necessarily at all in the Russian models as shipped from the
# factory.
The triggers the most notably.
#
# # but I would not be afraid to
# # take one and use it against soldiers carrying k98's, Enfields, M1903's.
# My
# # M28 whacks a 2/2 steel gong every shot. Shoots better than my
# Winchester
# # M1917 and 98k.
#
# Oh, the M28 still has the old type rear sight too, doesn't it?
Yes it does.
#From the
# m/28-30 on, the Finnish rear sights got noticeably better...
Sure, you have the windage adjustment option, without drifting the front
sight.
hot-ham-a...@hotmail.com
<midwaysearai...@yahoo.com> wrote:
# someone asked me a good question this week, and it's a question I've
# often pondered myself.
#
# if you had to go into battle using WWII vintage American firearms,
# which one would you choose ? by this I mean, longarms- the 1911
# pistol would be the obvious sidearm of choice
#
# most of use all know the guns in question. I for one would not want
# even heavier. The grease gun also would lack sufficient range with
# it's short barrel.
#
# so that boiled it down to the Thompson submachine gun vs. M-2 carbine,
# both with select-fire
#
# and being the 30 carbine round is so dimunitive and under-powered
# compared to the 45 ACP, the winner in my mind, was the Tommy gun
#
# any opinions ?
#
# there is one gun I left out, but I have no experience with, the Johnson
Since I don't have to choose from WWII stuff, I choose the M16.
haraoi...@yahoo.com
#
# I fully realize of course to evaluate a weapon based solely on its
# mechanical merits is almost a total impossibility when viewing the
# weapon form a "patriotic point of view" as this totally clouds all
# reason and judgment. I often equate such "blinded behavior" as
# "falling in love with a women", as when you are "in love" you do not
# notice that she may be "overweight", greedy, selfish, grasping, and
# dumber than a rock.
#
You say that like its a bad thing.
Mark Crispin
# # Well, speaking again as someone who has not fielded the Mosin in battle,
# # (now sold for a Winchester manufactured Enfield, btw) model, I can say
# # that ergonomics were severely lacking, for one thing.
# Well for Soviet soldiers who did not know better, they would be used to it.
# Know what I mean? Do you have any contemporary anecdotal reports from
# Soviet soldiers to back this up? They had much more to worry about than
# their rifles, and the action on my guns is very smooth.
Mikhail Kalashnikov's autobiography (MUST reading for any gun nut!)
includes a poem penned by Soviet soldiers about how the miseries of their
lot, due in part to the inadequacies of the Mosin-Nagant compared to
German arms. Any Red Army soldier who had the opportunity for a PPSh-41
chose it over the Mosin-Nagant.
This was part of the inspiration for his design of the AK-47; to build a
firearm of, by, and for infantrymen.
Even more telling, the USSR retired the Mosin-Nagant immediately after
WWII in favor of the SKS-45 and later the AK-47.
-- Mark --
http://panda.com/mrc
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for lunch.
Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote.
Tom Line
Depends on range. M1's are good in open field, while the Tommy gun would
be good in an urban area.
Diogenes
<r...@hfx.andara.com> wrote:
#I've read that Audie Murphy liked the M1 Carbine (his was S/N
#1108783). Now on display at 3rd ID museum Fort Stewart, Ga
As did Lt. Col. John George, the author of 'Shots Fired in Anger'.
This book is an excellent narrative of his combat experiences in the
Pacific and his unorthodox views on weaponry and tactics are well
worth reading. However Col. George was also an expert marksman and
resolved the carbine's 'stopping power' issue by usually shooting
enemy soldiers through the head.
----
Diogenes (cdh...@hotmail.com)
The wars are long, the peace is frail
The madmen come again . . . .
Misifus
#
# so that boiled it down to the Thompson submachine gun vs. M-2 carbine,
# both with select-fire
#
# and being the 30 carbine round is so dimunitive and under-powered
# compared to the 45 ACP, the winner in my mind, was the Tommy gun
#
Go into battle? My choice would be the M1 Garand. However, accepting
your premise for the moment, I question your characterization of those
two choices. Granted, the .30 Carbine is anemic compared to the 30-06,
but the .45ACP is a pistol round. While the .45 is larger in diameter
than the .30Carbine, it's going a whole lot slower. My choice between
the two would have to be the carbine.
-Raf
--
Misifus-
Rafael Seibert
mailto:rafse...@suddenlink.net
blog: http://rafsrincon.blogspot.com/
Photos: http://www.flickr.com/photos/rafiii
home: http://www.rafandsioux.com
Misifus
# On Sun, 9 Sep 2007 00:06:08 +0000 (UTC), browningh...@yahoo.com
# wrote:
#
# #On Sep 7, 9:05 pm, "DeserTBob's futile efforts"
# #<midwaysearai...@yahoo.com> wrote:
# # > ...
# #
# #I grew up with WWII veteran's, so I already know what most of them
# #preferred, and here is what they actually used in actual combat in
# #WWII. This came from "real combat veteran's, not rear echelon toilet
# #cleaners.
# #
# #Rifle: M1 Garand was not only wanted, it was demanded by actual
# #combat soldiers. Early in the war it was the "1st weapon of choice,
# #bar none. Late in the war the German assault rifle the STG 44
# #resulted in a lot of M1 Garands being thrown into the nearest ditch
# #as soon as the G.I.'s got their hands on these full auto assault
# #rifles. The M1 was now relegated to the scrap heap of history, pronto
# #quick.
# #
# #Pistol: The most coveted pistol of WWII desired by both Americans
# #and Germans was the Browning High Capacity, 9mm High Power Pistol.
# #High Capacity, very accurate and reliable, and please be very
# #attentive, very deadly in combat, again quite contrary to "mentally
# #challenged gun writers and all of their flag waving bull-crap".
# #
# # Contrary to popular "urban Legend" for every G.I. that told me he
# #liked the 1911 .45 , 3 of them told me they hated it and preferred the
# #9mm caliber, and the High Power was the most preferred 9mm because of
# #its high capacity and accuracy, something the 1911 lacked woefully.
# #
# #Sub-machine gun: Contrary to "urban legend" G.I.'s I spoke with down
# #through the years did not like the Thompson at all. The main reason
# #was its tremendous weight and uncontrollable recoil. Many G.I.'s
# #actually preferred the German MP 38. (often nicked named the
# #Schmeisser although Herr Schmeisser had nothing to do with the gun)
# #If you have shot both guns, as I have, you would instantly see the
# #better weapon was the German MP38 not the Thompson. The 9mm was also
# #the much better sub-gun cartridge as it has way more range, higher
# #velocity and way more penetration and the average Soldier could carry
# #way more ammo.
# #
#
# I served with a LOT of WW2 combat vets during the Korean war- one
# thing that was emphasized was that using an enemy weapon was a great
# way to draw friendly fire, especially at night. Ammo supply would be
# an issue also. As for the .45, most infantrymen had no training with
# the weapon, and most issue 1911s were pretty tired. People who knew
# how to use it loved the 1911, mainly because enemy shot with one
# tended to stay down,
Korean War vets of my acquaintance say that they were never aware of
anyone in their outfits actually using a pistol against an enemy. One
of them has raised that question among WWII, Korea and Vietnam vets.
This guy who's so curious is an avid 1911 shooter, but he doesn't recall
ever hearing about one being used in battle in Korea. Only the Vietnam
vets could recall the pistol (M1911) being a factor in battle.
Obviously, Vietnam was a very different sort of conflict than Korea or WWII.
Sean Elkins
browningh...@yahoo.com wrote:
# Quote: # The Springfield's two piece firing pin also was prone to
# breakage.
#
# How often does this happen?
#
# Try and tell that one to someone who is stuck with an inoperable rifle
# while being shot at.
#
#
# Quote:The sights on the M1903A3 were superior to that of the No 1 and
# No 4 enfield as well as the Mauser. The No4 is a battle rifle, and
# had two groove
# barrels also.
#
# Nope they were inferior and here is why. Although peep sights are
# fine for target shooting they are inferior for quick shooting under
# combat conditions and totally useless in poor light as opposed to the
# quick acquistion open sights. As a matter of fact Sgt. York in WWI
# hated the 1917 Enfield because of its peep sights, preferring the open
# sights of the earlier made 1903 rifle even though they were vastly
# inferior to the open sights on Mauser rifles.
#
Does your supply of misinformation ever run low?
Sean Elkins
"nitram578" <nitr...@charter.net> wrote:
# Who said the .30 carbine is underpowered? it equates to about a .357
# magnum.
#
FMJ bullets make the difference here--the .357 is usually loaded with an
expanding bullet.
riverworld
preference to the Matty Mattell special M-16. I was in the Central
Highlands and needed intermediate range accuracy agains lightly
clothed targets.
M1 rifle ranges were not particularly relevant to me, but I notice
that the Garand has been brought out of storage for Afghanistan.
Simplicity of design, accuracy at range, and ruggedness are not to be
underestimated.
This thread could easilty resemble the ones on stopping power. There
is a range of right answers for each person.
Ward in Bellevue, WA
On Sep 9, 5:19 pm, "Ron Bloom" <rcblo...@cox.net> wrote:
# "nitram578" <nitram...@charter.net> wrote in message
#
# news:fc0nmk$793$1...@grapevine.wam.umd.edu...
# # Who said the .30 carbine is underpowered? it equates to about a .357
# # magnum.
#
# The carbine was supposed to replace a pistol, and when used in a pistol
# roles does fine. THe .30 carbine should only be used at .357 ranges then.
# They ran into problems when they used in the Korea as "rifles" shooting
# Chinese at 250 yards with heavy quilted clothing.
Asa
# I might add that the "Master of the battle rifle inventors"
# Kalashnikov used open sights on the AK47 while the inferior mechanical
# M16 used the peep sights. What does that tell you about which
# inventor knew what he was doing?
The rear sight of the AK47 is placed where it is, because the upper
receiver of the rifle is a sheetmetal part (or a milled cover) that is
somewhat loose and bounces around.
The newer Russian AN-94 rifle uses a PEEP SIGHT.
nord...@yahoo.com
# # # differences between the 1903 and the 1903A3 that the latter had a one
# # # piece firing pin?
# #
# # The 1903a3 has a 2-piece firing pin, I broke one ;(
#
# I knew there were some subtle improvements, somewhere on the order of
# those for the 1911A over the 1911
Except for the rear sight there were no improvements on the 1903A3,
only cost cutting measures; two-groove barrel, scant stock, stamped
parts, machining steps abandoned, rougher finish, etc. None of these
changes impaired its performance, they simply reduced the cost and the
time required to make it.
nord...@yahoo.com
# Kalashnikov used open sights on the AK47 while the inferior mechanical
# M16 used the peep sights. What does that tell you about which
# inventor knew what he was doing?
Perhaps Comrade Kalashnikov knew his avtomat was going to be used by
conscripts who wouldn't bother with the sights much at all. When the
Finns and Israelis fielded their improved AK-knockoffs they wore
aperture rear sights.
nord...@yahoo.com
# which one would you choose?
Pop served in Europe in the 50s and said the old war horses told him
that in WWII a fella wanted a Carbine while he was marching but wished
for a BAR when it came time for fighting. Me, I figure a Garand
splits the difference and doesn't attract undue attention like the
carbine.
Ron Bloom
"Mark Crispin" <m...@cac.washington.edu> wrote in message
news:fc4vsv$ddv$1...@grapevine.wam.umd.edu...
# On Tue, 11 Sep 2007, Ron Bloom wrote:
# # # Well, speaking again as someone who has not fielded the Mosin in
# battle,
# # # only having made up some handloads and shot them out of my brother's
# own
# # # (now sold for a Winchester manufactured Enfield, btw) model, I can say
# # # that ergonomics were severely lacking, for one thing.
# # Well for Soviet soldiers who did not know better, they would be used to
# it.
# # Know what I mean? Do you have any contemporary anecdotal reports from
# # Soviet soldiers to back this up? They had much more to worry about than
# # their rifles, and the action on my guns is very smooth.
#
# Mikhail Kalashnikov's autobiography (MUST reading for any gun nut!)
# includes a poem penned by Soviet soldiers about how the miseries of their
# lot, due in part to the inadequacies of the Mosin-Nagant compared to
# German arms.
Is this poem on-line?
#Any Red Army soldier who had the opportunity for a PPSh-41
# chose it over the Mosin-Nagant.
That must be why the Germans had a 13 to 1 kill ratio, on the plains of
Europe, a sub gun would get you killed in the same fashion as the M1 carbine
and Thompson, that is unless you were in an urban environment.
# This was part of the inspiration for his design of the AK-47; to build a
# firearm of, by, and for infantrymen.
Well it made everyone carry the same gun, the cross between the Mosin and
PPsh-41 in ability. Could be used in open terrain, up to 300 meters and
used in urban fighting. Up to then, the soldiers with the Mosins had the
advantage in open terrain, and the sub gun in cities and towns. The sks and
ak made everyone carry the same gun, no reason to have two carbines, sub
guns, and the Mosin and Tokarev, and the ammo problems.
# Even more telling, the USSR retired the Mosin-Nagant immediately after
# WWII in favor of the SKS-45 and later the AK-47.
So, what did the Soviets change to the semi sks and full auto AK because
they did not like bolt action guns? Weren't the german guns bolt action for
the most part?
Jim
# On Sun, 9 Sep 2007 12:08:02 +0000 (UTC), Jim
#
# Correction, Jim, I think you did top the P-51 post. But along with the
# harem, don't forget Hermann Goering's personal wine cellar.
I don't know?? That many drunk chicks might be a little difficult to
handle even if it is a fantacy but there would be plenty of empty wine
bottles laying around in case I wore out.
Mikko Nahkola
# # # No, I didn't have to use one on the battle field. What are its
# # drawbacks on
# # # the battlefield? Why wouldn't you use one?
# #
# # Because the Finnish refit bolt head was made to such tight tolerances
# # that it'd be unreliable if there was snow, sand or dirt in the action?
#
# My Finns have Russian bolt heads. I have never heard of the Finns
# complaining about a soldiers rifle.
Well, I have. As recently as two days ago, in fact - on a Finnish Army
range. But we were quite sure there weren't any foreigners around ;-)
# # Oh, and mind the chamber length, and check that you got a later model or
# # HV-fixed magazine body, and check that the spring is strong enough for
# # your primers or just squeeze two of the weaker kind in there, and then
# # the trigger...
#
# I have never had a failure to fire a round due to a weak spring.
I could find you a couple of people who have. This was one of the
specific points discussed...
At least in some Russian issue rifles and Finnish m/39s, the springs
have occasionally been weaker than they should be. Certainly the
army-issue m/39 I used once in 1998 or so (they'd brought about 10 of
them out of the brigade armory) had a rather weak spring.
oldpink
# # # # Also, correct me if I am mistaken, but wasn't one of the main
# # # # differences between the 1903 and the 1903A3 that the latter had a one
# # # # piece firing pin?
# # #
# # # The 1903a3 has a 2-piece firing pin, I broke one ;(
# #
# # I knew there were some subtle improvements, somewhere on the order of
#
# Except for the rear sight there were no improvements on the 1903A3,
# only cost cutting measures; two-groove barrel, scant stock, stamped
# parts, machining steps abandoned, rougher finish, etc. None of these
# changes impaired its performance, they simply reduced the cost and the
# time required to make it.
Ah, thanks.
I suppose, were I interested in one of two rifles in identical
condition, a 1903 and a 1903A3, I would probably be better off with the
1903, from a workmanship viewpoint.
I DO wonder if a plain 1911 vis-a-vis a 1911A1 might just have more than
average collector value, though.
No arguments there about which one was mechanically superior, at least.
;-)
--
And what exactly is a joke?
SaPeIsMa
"Jim" <zivend...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fc0nn2$79v$1...@grapevine.wam.umd.edu...
# Although I can't top the clever post of a P-51 wtih quad 50's. If I
# had to pound the ground into combat with a WW2 rifle. Hands down it
# would be the German Sturmgewehr 44. Bear in mind in this fantasy I
# would be a US soldier of considerable rank, the Sturmgewehr 44 would
# be manufactured by Winchester, the enemy would always miss and the
# spoils would always include a female harem of beautiful submissive
# horny bisexual blue-eyed blondes and green-eyed redheads that couldn't
# resist me.
#
#
Yu've been reading too much John Ringo...
buc eye
> ...
it really depends upon the tactical situation, in an urban environs,
the subgun has advantages, and in a rural area the BAR certainly has
it's own advantages...still, with a 1911 as a sidearm, I'd go with the
BAR or the Garrand, as choice 1 and 2, thompson is an easy 3 and the
german 9mm mp42 tails in as #4....
Herb Leong
Misifus <rafse...@suddenlink.net> wrote:
#Korean War vets of my acquaintance say that they were never aware of
#anyone in their outfits actually using a pistol against an enemy. One
#of them has raised that question among WWII, Korea and Vietnam vets.
#This guy who's so curious is an avid 1911 shooter, but he doesn't recall
#ever hearing about one being used in battle in Korea. Only the Vietnam
#vets could recall the pistol (M1911) being a factor in battle.
#Obviously, Vietnam was a very different sort of conflict than Korea or WWII.
OK, well here is a account by someone who did use a .45 in Korea:
=======================================================================
November, 1951 ---- Lukes Castle, X Corps area, Eastern Korea.
Distance ~ 30 feet. Chinese Infantryman wearing padded coast. One
shot just at bottom of sternum using 230 gr issue hardball. Target
dropped his burp gun and folded forward. Bullet left rip in back of his
coat. AFIK he never twitched after hitting the ground. If he had I'd
have shot him again.
Bill Van Houten (USA Ret)
"No matter how hard you try, you can't throw a potato chip very far."
"Linus"
=======================================================================
The above was posted to rec.guns on 24 Jan 2003 by Bill Van Houten.
Hey Bill! Hope you are doing well! Let us know how your kid is
doing with the .357 Sig!
/herb
Mikko Nahkola
# "Mark Crispin" <m...@cac.washington.edu> wrote in message
# #Any Red Army soldier who had the opportunity for a PPSh-41
# # chose it over the Mosin-Nagant.
#
# That must be why the Germans had a 13 to 1 kill ratio, on the plains of
# Europe, a sub gun would get you killed in the same fashion as the M1 carbine
# and Thompson, that is unless you were in an urban environment.
....or in the woods. A SMG had long enough range for most engagements
there, with 150 m being longer than typical engagement distance.
Well, at least until the artillery had been at it for a while. Or you
ran into a farm.
Mikko Nahkola
# On Sep 10, 3:07 pm, browninghighpow...@yahoo.com wrote:
# # I might add that the "Master of the battle rifle inventors"
# # Kalashnikov used open sights on the AK47 while the inferior mechanical
# # M16 used the peep sights. What does that tell you about which
# # inventor knew what he was doing?
#
# The rear sight of the AK47 is placed where it is, because the upper
# receiver of the rifle is a sheetmetal part (or a milled cover) that is
# somewhat loose and bounces around.
#
# The newer Russian AN-94 rifle uses a PEEP SIGHT.
....as do the Finnish assault rifles, AK clones, from the m/62 on. Peep
sight mounted on the rear cover, right there.
There was also a batch of Saiga M3s (basic semi-auto AK) imported to
Finland that the importer welded peep sights on the sheetmetal cover of.
Works just fine but is somewhat more fragile than the original rear sight.
Oh, and a training requirement if the soldiers already were familiar
with the open sights but not peep sights. (Like, say, myself at boot
camp, heh...)
DeserTBob's futile efforts
# General George Patton was right.
at the time, he was right- the Germans, Brits, Japs, Russians,
Italians were all using manual bolt action rifles- an M1 semi auto
would surely outclass any bolt gun in combat
# Why do you believe that the 1927 Thompson would outclass the Grease Gun
# for long range work?
the longer barrel
# Springfield 1903A3 with top of the line scope.
totally outclassed in modern times- when the Russian and Chinese
hoards are coming in waves, armed with AK-47's
DeserTBob's futile efforts
#
# P-51 Mustang with four 50 BMGs. I hate slogging though mud.
(laughter...)
why not go the whole hog, and get the P-47 w/8-.50's ??
DeserTBob's futile efforts
# preferred, and here is what they actually used in actual combat in
# WWII. This came from "real combat veteran's, not rear echelon toilet
# cleaners.
I mean no offense here, but just a minute- what's more respectable ?
being behind the lines in support overseas, during the the actual war,
or "growing up" with combat vets during peacetime, back in the
states ? I'd say even the toilet cleaner, at least was there. Ike
was behind the lines too.
Late in the war the German assault rifle the STG 44
# resulted in a lot of M1 Garands being thrown into the nearest ditch
# as soon as the G.I.'s got their hands on these full auto assault
# rifles. The M1 was now relegated to the scrap heap of history, pronto
# quick.
you hit the nail there, and this is what I suspected. I fired 90
rounds through an M1 one afternoon, it weighs a ton- and I would not
want to be saddled walking cross country with one. Too heavy, limited
magazine capacity. But great for 250 yards and out. Problem- German
and USA studies showed, most battles occurred at 200 yards and
closer.
#
#
# Contrary to popular "urban Legend" for every G.I. that told me he
# liked the 1911 .45 , 3 of them told me they hated it and preferred the
# 9mm caliber, and the High Power was the most preferred 9mm because of
# its high capacity and accuracy, something the 1911 lacked woefully.
I have heard you could not hit a barn with a .45 1911 as issued, from
a former Air Force vet- who is a highly intelligent guy and not a
bullshitter. I fired a 1911 that was the personal sidearm of a local
vet during WWII European Theater- (he also had a red/black German Nazi
flag w/Swastika, removed from a knocked out German tank during the
Bulge, and still had it) Yes, the pistol was very inaccurate- even at
close range. But let's not undermine what an accurized 1911 can do-
they are fine guns, better than any 9mm IMHO.
Problem- the 9mm is a dimunitive, underpowered round, compared to a 45
ACP. Not a good substitute, IMHO.
#
# Sub-machine gun: Contrary to "urban legend" G.I.'s I spoke with down
# through the years did not like the Thompson at all. The main reason
# was its tremendous weight and uncontrollable recoil. > If you have shot both guns, as I have, you would instantly see the
# better weapon was the German MP38 not the Thompson. The 9mm was also
# the much better sub-gun cartridge as it has way more range, higher
# velocity and way more penetration and the average Soldier could carry
# way more ammo.
again, the 9mm lacks knockdown power of the 45 though. I'd rather
switch to an M-2 carbine or grease gun, than reduce caliber power that
much.
#
# So there you have it, testimony by "real combat veterans" not hype
# from "gun rags" or "wannabe arm chair commando's" or ex-G.I. rear
# echelon toilet cleaners, being interviewed decades later on flag
# waving memorial day TV programs, bragging about their imagined heroic
# exploits and how many toilets they could clean in a day.
you bring up good points- but here's another interesting note:
German soldiers picked up and kept and liked, our 30 M1 carbines and
M2 carbines, and thought they were a handy weapon.