Author Topic: New 45ACP handgun for the US military. (Read 1459 times)

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #30 on:** April 16, 2006, 11:48:27 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by GlacierGirl
hate to burst your bubble guys but the military already has a 45 its called Socom .45 or MkII its the pistol of the navy seals.

http://www.hkpro.com/socomcan.jpg

Oh yes and they are already looking at a new rifle too, the G36 by HK as well

http://www.airsoftguns.cz/img/article/g36c_m/12.jpg

Despite its history, the MK23 is not very popoular with the Seals. Its way too big and heavy. In fact when socom issued this new request for a new 45 the size specifications were explicity written to exclude the mk23.

lasersailor184 · « **Reply #31 on:** April 17, 2006, 12:06:35 AM »

Last time I checked, the G36 is a 5.56 rifle.

lazs2 · « **Reply #32 on:** April 17, 2006, 08:25:15 AM »

dago.. shorter op rod also means that the gas port is too close to the chamber... the reason a good garand will outshoot the (also very accurate) m14 is because the gas port on the 14 affects the bullet. on the garand.... the bullet is gone before the gas port can work.

If the only consideration is spraying a lot of bullets to keep heads down then the 14 is the superior gun. if you want to have a battle rifle that handles well and is accurate and than you can carry a lot more ammo for the same weight... the garand is superior. I would take either one but I like the garand. I don't like mags hanging down except for looks.. they just get in the way.

most of us won't ever get into a "mad moment" like a SEAL team so for us... a garand and a revolver or single stack 45 are perfect and a better choice.

lazs

Hangtime · « **Reply #33 on:** April 17, 2006, 12:12:06 PM »

Laz is correct.. the gas system is the key to all critical aspects of semi-auto accuracy in a rifle. By playing with the SVT40 (another '1st generation semi-auto') gas system pressure adjustments I was able to 'tune' the gas system to the rounds selected... improving the accuracy. With the FAL, same thing.. adjustable gas pressure and I was quickly able to set feed pressure appropriate for the ammo in play. Having had some experience with gas system design/cause/effect with those two rifles lead to a revelation when I started work of the Garand.. and it's one of the reasons I'm so impressed with John Garand's superb design.

Garand's final version of the rifle was designed around the 30.06 and never needs to be touched when shooting that caliber. With the .308 barrel and shooting 168g Lake City Match I can 'feel' the op rod at the end of the cycle.. and there's a noticeable harmonic in rapid fire. Not Mr. Garands fault. The Garand's gas port is quickly and cheaply upgradeable to adjust gas pressure; and when I use 168g HPBT .308 it needs to be restricted a bit to stop the 'slamming' of the op rod.. Restricting it two turns got the brass back where it should fall and the 'harmonic' dissapeared. When I switched back to standard mil surp 150g nato ball FMJ the system wouldn't cycle.. just opened the gas port adjustment screw up two turns again.. perfect!

The M-14 does it's best work on the 168g bullet... but some of my old bolties are dangerously overtaxed by the 168g loads.. split the stock on one of my isophore enfields; and my 1916 Spanish small ring Mauser in .308 is rumored to shuck bolt ears with that load. I needed to standardize the ammo across the array of rifles in inventory.. so 148g to 155g is what I run in everything now. And for match shooting I load speer 150gHPBT match on remington cases.. every rifle I have loves it.

I LIKE the M-14.. but honestly, I like the FAL better, in a 1 to 1 comparison, my FAL with upgraded sights and forward assit can shoot equally as well as any match m-14 and it's the better weapon as far as reliability & serviceability IMHO. And yet, even against those two excellent and very competent battle rifles the Garand became my favorite the first day at the range.. the thing fits my eye, my hands, my style of shooting better than any pistol-grip rifle I've ever held.

Kudos to John Garand.. whotta mind.. whotta rifle!

indy007 · « **Reply #34 on:** April 17, 2006, 02:26:07 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Hangtime
I have a *ahem* 'passing' familiarity with the M-14. ...and absolutely; your correct, it has a distinct ROF advantage. However.. I have a passion and prejudice for old military bolt rifles; and a garand is a bolt lovers wet dream come true. Since I rarely need more than one shot on what I want to shoot at, I'm willing to sacrafice ROF for the balance, ease of slinging; low profile, uncannily accurate garand.

Ohhh rah! *squirt*

German testing in WW2 showed the average engagement range of infantry to be 400 yards. The US ran the same tests after the war and got the same conclusion. Volume of fire was deemed more important to small unit tactics. Well, that's why we have assault rifles now anyways. I don't know if Kalashnikov did any testing, but he was definately ahead of his time.

Question though... didn't Chesty Puller himself have disdain for the Garand and claim the Springfield '03 to be the greatest battle rifle of them all?

GtoRA2 · « **Reply #35 on:** April 17, 2006, 02:42:31 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by indy007
Question though... didn't Chesty Puller himself have disdain for the Garand and claim the Springfield '03 to be the greatest battle rifle of them all?

My understanding is just about everyone in the Marine Corp, thought the Garrand was a mickey mouse buck rogers pile of ****.

Then they saw how well it worked for the Army and National Gaurd units that showed up on the Canal and everyone changed their mind.

Dago · « **Reply #36 on:** April 17, 2006, 04:54:19 PM »

Noting personal guys, but you are all pretty much beginning amateurs compared to Elmer Balance, and he says without equivocation that the M14 is a better rifle and more accurate than the Garand. I'll take his word for it. Sorry. He shot thousands upon thousands of rounds through both during his years on the US Army shooting team. I believe he worked as their armorer also. He is the one who designed the Semi-Auto M14, secured BATF authorization to build and sell it, and it was his work upon which all subsequent semi-auto M14s were built. He is the most authoritative expert on Garands and M14s you will ever meet or hear of today.

Hangtime · « **Reply #37 on:** April 17, 2006, 06:08:45 PM »

You may worship whom yah pleeze, Dago.

I kinda like Scott Duff's evaluations of the Garand myself, and my opinion is no importance to anybody but me. I absolutely agree the m-14 can kill more zombies than a garand.. but i don't anticipate a zombie attack any time soon...

..but should one come to pass I have a coupla SKS's and a few thousand rounds of 7.62x39 for that kinda work...

Just in case.

As for accuracy, I'm not in Elmers leauge... if i was I'd probably have an M-14 too.

Dago · « **Reply #38 on:** April 17, 2006, 07:26:36 PM »

Heck, I am not even close to Elmers league for accuracy, he is getting old now so I doubt he is anywhere close to where he was, but the man knows military rifles. He is a freaking walking encyclopedia regarding the Garand and the M14.

If Zombies attack, I am hoping the same stuff that kills vampires will stop them. Pass the wooden stakes, the wolfbane, the garlic, the cross, the silver bullets, whatever!

I stocked up on some of the good surplus ammo, am covered for a while, but it is drying up so fast for the .308 it is sad.

Hoping to get into a DCM shoot this summer sometime so I can order a Garand from Uncle Sam.

dagp

eagl · « **Reply #39 on:** April 18, 2006, 05:16:10 AM »

I know 2 things about semi-auto accuracy...

My mini-14 looks a bit like an M-1 Garand.
My mini-14 shoots like crap.

If I want to actually hit anything, I gotta use either my 10-22 or my A-bolt.

Of course, the 30 round mag on the mini-14 means that I'll eventually hit something, but with a 4 inch dispersion at 100 yards from a bench rest I'm not counting on anything resembling precision out of the mini. I know the garand is a different rifle and the timing is totally different, but the basic mechanism is similar so...

Plus my brother's olympic arms AR (M-16 in sheep's clothing) is a total tack-driver. 1.5" groups at 100 yards is pretty darn good for any .223 that is completely stock...

lazs2 · « **Reply #40 on:** April 18, 2006, 09:13:47 AM »

eagle.. the mini 14 (I have one) is more of a copy of the M14 than the garand... it has the same gas system as the m14 and mag and reciever.

Thne mini 14 can be made accurate to less than 1 moa for about 300-500 bucks... it could have been done at the factory for probably $75 but... that would have meant less sold.

The garand was built with pride for the military.

dago.... if your hero says that the m14 is more accurate than the M1 then he is a lone voice. it is not possible.

Why does he say this is true? what could possibly make a worse system more accurate unless you were using out of tune or worn out garands to compare?

lazs

eagl · « **Reply #41 on:** April 18, 2006, 09:15:20 AM »

Ok then.

It still looks a bit like a garand

GtoRA2 · « **Reply #42 on:** April 18, 2006, 09:42:48 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by eagl
Ok then.

It still looks a bit like a garand

It does, but even my old warn out M1 will outshoot a Mini-14.

The ones I have shot are about as acurate as a chinese AK.

Hangtime · « **Reply #43 on:** April 18, 2006, 10:04:31 AM »

Somewhere I have a picture of the Garand assembly line.. big sign over the benches read 'Every each and every one... like it was for YOUR son'.

I've played witha Mini-14.. not even close to the workmanship of a Garand.

What is so incedible is that the Garand.. history's first mass produced issue semi automatic battle rife, a 1920's design.. a 'first generation semi-auto'; was without question the very best of it's era, one of the finest weapons ever built and the equal or superior of all the second generation weapons that followed it. It remains to this day one of the top ranked weapons for accuracy and reliability in it's caliber class even when compared to the third generation semi-auto rifles in issue service around the world.

It will without question outreach and outpunch any issue carbine in service today.

Besides the fact that it's a freakin work of art, the Garand and the BAR were instrumental in preserving American lives in combat and in providing America with the one advantage it enjoyed over all other Armies at the outbreak of WWII.. we had a fer crap airforce, a sunk navy, the worst tank in history... but our troops went into battle with the finest rifles and squad auto weapons in the world.

Thanks be to John Browning and John Garand.

Maverick · « **Reply #44 on:** April 18, 2006, 11:59:18 AM »

Hang,

Don't forget the best artillery in the western side of that conflict as well. The russians had more of it later on but ours was more accurate and flexible.

PSSSST Guys, there's a reason it's called the mini14 and not the mini M1. That could explain the differences to the Garand........