Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: GRUNHERZ on April 14, 2006, 02:50:05 PM
-
The 45 is back, and this looks to be the gun that will win the new US Militray handgun contract.
Page 4 of the thread has soem great photos.
http://hkpro.websolv.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=345511&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1
-
It wouldn't be so bad if the handle wasn't cat-**** yellow colored.
-
WOOT! I love my USP45, the troops will as well. Beretta guns suck more than Monica!
-
That's good news, now if we can just get an even more critically needed replacement for the pathetic .223...
-
AWWwwww!!!!!!!
I'm glad to see they picked my baby.
H&K
-
Hmmm
Everyone trashes the beretta but it seems to work fine for me, both the 9mm I shoot at work and the .40 I have at home.
As much as I don't like the 9mm round, I've been impressed with the 9mm berettas at work because the guns used for the pistol courses are old, beat up, and not cleaned very well, yet they still shoot straight. Of the 5 courses I've taken, only once has a student's gun broken. Yea there are known failure points on the guns but that's something the unit armorer should take care of. Every weapon has a weak spot but if they're known, then you "fix" it with inspections and repair as needed until/unless a manufacturer fix is implemented.
The beretta I already have works just fine. I'm real happy that the troops in the field are having a say in the next service pistol, but it's funny how everyone jumps on beretta when ANY 9mm pistol would get the same crappy results in the field, not just the beretta.
I'm happy enough with my beretta .40 that I don't see myself buying an H&K .45 if the USAF makes the switch... I guess it depends on if I have to qual with and/or carry a new pistol very often.
-
Another plastic and gutless POS.... :rolleyes:
-
Bring back the 1911. Tried and true in combat and law enforcement.
-
the HK is a fine firearm. It is in some ways much better than the 1911.
I will stick with my Kimber tho. it is as accurate or more and... there is a certain pride of ownership that is hard to place value on..
That being said.... 30 years from now I might be holding an HK and thinking how much nicer it is than the latest "new fangled" gun.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
That being said.... 30 years from now I might be holding an HK and thinking how much nicer it is than the latest "new fangled" gun.
lazs
30 years??
aren't you like... 100 already or something?
-
yep.... so what is your point?
So long as I continue to eat babies and use parts from other people I should live pretty much forever.
lazs
-
:lol
-
Is it going to come in colors other than baby **** green?
-
Yes, a civilan market version will come in all black.
However the military specified this Flat Dark Earth color for the guns in the new rfp. Apparently recent exerience shows that black stands out like crazy with the latest night vision devices and it looks like future wepons will move away from that color where possible.
-
I think a new battle rifle is more critical myself. Preferably in a heavier caliber.
-
I agree mav.
lazs
-
yup.
Got my Garand finished.. done up as USN issue, 1968 in 7.62x51 NATO. (.308) I love it. If I can see it, I can hit it. Shoots as well on open sights as most of my scoped rifles. I like it more than my FAL.. which is a really sweet weapon. Only thing an M-14 has on it is a bottom feed mag.. and yah know what? I don't miss it a bit; I find the 8 round clips load really quick, and the lower profile of the rifle makes it easy to get behind it in a small spot. Certainly a heluva rifle... an amazing weapon.
But yeah.. a new battle rifle in .308 would save lives and fits much better a doctrine of marksmanship and out ranging the enemies 7.62x39 carbines. It'll also shoot through most battlefield cover. Range, punch, penetration. A .308 has it all over a .223 M-16
Might I suggest the AR-10?
(http://www.armalite.com/shared/images/ar-10_rich1.JPG)
-
hang.... told ya the garand was sweet.. I am not a fan of the whole AR series of rifles... great for at the range where they don't have to function well.. lousy in war. They crap where they eat and that is the problem.
The reason for the garand being so accurate for a semi auto is that it takes it's gas from a point so far forward..... the bullet is not affected. It also has a very stout reciever and bolt.
loading is as you say.... fast... you don't have to dump any mags... the clips eject themselves... just jam another one in.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
hang.... told ya the garand was sweet.. I am not a fan of the whole AR series of rifles... great for at the range where they don't have to function well.. lousy in war. They crap where they eat and that is the problem.
The reason for the garand being so accurate for a semi auto is that it takes it's gas from a point so far forward..... the bullet is not affected. It also has a very stout reciever and bolt.
loading is as you say.... fast... you don't have to dump any mags... the clips eject themselves... just jam another one in.
lazs
Loading a Garand may be fast, but if in a sustained firefight, two reloads of the M14 would probably be quicker than five reloads of the Garand, and the two versus five relaods would give 40 rounds to fire for each. Not to mention that the M14 would also have a far greater reduced time with an empty rifle during reload and leaving you defenseless.
The Garand is a great weapon. The M14 is just an improved version.
-
plus the m14 doesnt have the "Shoot me I am reloading feature"
-
Instead of all these new guns, can't we just negotiate to peace and understanding?
-
It'd just mean more free time to go shooting.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Instead of all these new guns, can't we just negotiate to peace and understanding?
Peace through superior firepower. :D
-
Might I suggest the AR-10?
No. I will tell you we'll use the M14. One of those tried and proven guns.
-
Originally posted by Dago
Loading a Garand may be fast, but if in a sustained firefight, two reloads of the M14 would probably be quicker than five reloads of the Garand, and the two versus five relaods would give 40 rounds to fire for each. Not to mention that the M14 would also have a far greater reduced time with an empty rifle during reload and leaving you defenseless.
The Garand is a great weapon. The M14 is just an improved version.
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*
-
plus the m14 doesnt have the "Shoot me I am reloading feature"
Fallacy. The sound it makes isn't as bad as some people would have you believe. It isn't much louder then changing any other magazine, plus reloading is much quicker.
It can also work to your advantage, it's easily replicated. Many soldiers in Korea would pinch the two halves together, and then pop it into the air. *PING* and you still have a full mag in your gun.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
hang.... told ya the garand was sweet.. I am not a fan of the whole AR series of rifles... great for at the range where they don't have to function well.. lousy in war. They crap where they eat and that is the problem.
The reason for the garand being so accurate for a semi auto is that it takes it's gas from a point so far forward..... the bullet is not affected. It also has a very stout reciever and bolt.
loading is as you say.... fast... you don't have to dump any mags... the clips eject themselves... just jam another one in.
lazs
oh, hell yes! john garand was a freakin genius.. plain and simple. The clip pops up and back, lands to the right of your feet... the brass 5 feet forward, two feet to the right. And, like you say, just snap the next clip down, the bolt flies into battery. No tugging on the carging handle. Lil details.. the rifle is a freaking amazing piece of engineering.
IMHO, in aimed fire shooting an m-14 has zero advantage on a garand. Shooting offhand, I'm much better with the garand than an m-14... better hold, balance, feels better in the pocket.. but that's just subjective cause I like bolties. ;)
-
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
-
the g-36 is a carbine. Big caliber.. but a carbine.
-
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*
While I have shot both Garand and I own an M1A, I don't consider myself an expert on either. But, that being said, I do consider Elmer Balance one of, if not thee, expert on both. I have had a few conversations with him, and during one he discussed the differance between Garand and M14. He explained that the M14/M1A was a more accurate rifle out of the box. His opinion was that the Garand needed some accurizing work to be equivalent to "out of the box" accuracy of the M14. He gave me reasons for this, one that stuck in my mind was op rod harmonics in the Garand not noticable in the M14. The Garand op rod is much longer than the M14.
If you haven't heard of Elmer Balance, do a google search, I am sure you will find him.
dago
-
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.
-
Last time I checked, the G36 is a 5.56 rifle.
-
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
-
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!
-
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? :)
-
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.
-
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.
-
You may worship whom yah pleeze, Dago. :aok
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.
;)
-
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
-
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...
-
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
-
Ok then.
It still looks a bit like a garand :)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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........ :p
-
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
The "New USP" is a "Defensive weapon". The SOCOM Mk.23 (NOT the Mk. II you proclaim) is an "Offensive weapon". Now go home and get yer shine box.
-
So if you look at this ad - which gun would you buy ?
(http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/kleins.jpg)
-
"It will without question outreach and outpunch any issue carbine in service today."
So should just about any other rifle.
The smart military doesn't use one weapon for all jobs. The advantage the US army had back in the '40's wasn't the Garand all by itself; it was the fact that it had a superb weapon for all roles--Garands, Thompsons, BAR's, M1 Carbines, and so on.
When the Army got cheap and tried to replace them with "one size fits all" weapons (starting with the M-14), that's when things began a downhill slide.
J_A_B
-
Originally posted by -aper-
So if you look at this ad - which gun would you buy ?
(http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/kleins.jpg)
At those prices.....all of them. Yeah I know it's a very old add but still I can dream.
-
Originally posted by -aper-
So if you look at this ad - which gun would you buy ?
(http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/kleins.jpg)
The third from the top in the left column is demonstrated to fire three bullets in 6 seconds and hit a moving target at 80 yards two out of three times.
-
Originally posted by -aper-
So if you look at this ad - which gun would you buy ?
(http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/kleins.jpg)
In case anyone missed the pic the first time.
-
Moot, did you get the point of that particular advert?
-
The third from the top in the left column is demonstrated to fire three bullets in 6 seconds and hit a moving target at 80 yards two out of three times.
I could make those shots if they gave me the same magic bullets.
-
most people could make 3 shots in 7 seconds on a target that was only 70-80 yards away with any of the rifles shown. probly eaisiest with the semi autos or the low rcoiling flat shooting carcano tho.
The best deals there are the first two battle rifles and the Colt 45 1917 revolver and the useless but fun M1 carbine.
my guess is that the add is from the early 60's when you could buy semi auto 20mm cannons for about $100
lazs
-
The carcano got a bad rap... from the consiparacy theory spinners.
It's actually very much like the Spanish small ring mauser I have... but with better sights. The action is fast and smooth.. were it not for the oddball ammo it requires I'd probably have one.
http://www.surplusrifle.com/shooting2005/carcano9141/index.asp
The shots Oswald allegedly made with one were not even in the high order of difficulty... for a skilled rifleman. Question remains.. was he a practised rifleman, used to shooting downhill at moving targets with icewater in his veins?
Or just lucky?
I tried 'shooting rest' shots with my Spanish Mauser.. after running back from the 100 yard target (ok, a fast old man shuffle) to get my heart rate up.. yup.. I could get the shots off that fast, but my accuracy did suffer.. 10" group instead of the usual 3" group that rifle shoots.
All this just brings up more questions.. not any answers beyond 'it's not impossible shooting' and the carcano is not the POS the spinners would have you to believe.
-
Oswald did not shoot Kennedy. He definately tried, but he didn't get the kill.
-
I'm on autopilot half the time when I post here, so it probably went over my head; I'll exchange the right answer to your question vs. the biochemstry query of your choice.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Oswald did not shoot Kennedy. He definately tried, but he didn't get the kill.
At the risk of opening the premier example of a conspiracy theorists wet dream, your proof of that is?
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
Question remains.. was he a practised rifleman, used to shooting downhill at moving targets with icewater in his veins?
If you look at the add (the add is from the magazine which was according to official version found in Oswalds place) you can see that Oswald could get a good deal by ordering a box of 6.5 ammo (130 rounds in the box) for only $7.88
The rifle was purchased without ammo (confirmed by a seller).
Though the official version says Oswald was practicing alot with his new toy.
-
I can't say that Oswald did the shooting that killed JFK or not.
I can only say that it was well within the range of possibilty for him to do so and no he did shoot and he did get caught and his rifle fired the bullets and there was nothing too unusual about the shooting.
lack of any other proof makes me happy with saying he most likely did it. I will be glad to change my opinion if any real evidence to the contrary is ever revealed.
lazs
-
I'm waiting for someone to say Bush shot JFK.
-
Hitler shot jfk. Stalin loaded the rifle, and Elvis drove the getaway car.
-
Originally posted by eagl
Hitler shot jfk. Stalin loaded the rifle, and Elvis drove the getaway car.
You forgot to mention the part about Bush planning it.
-
Bush didn't know about it. Remember, he hired a staff of really smart people to advise him, and he backs them 100%. Maybe one of them knows something about it. The military might even know something about it, but since civilian leaders don't take too kindly to military members who contradict or backtalk them, you won't hear a peep from the military members until after retirement.